Odense Fjord, Water Management Plan Provisional Management Plan Pursuant to the EU Water Framework Directive

"%2.%4#!4#(

Network on the implementation of EU Water Framework Directive in the Baltic Sea Catchment

BERNET CATCH Regional Report: Odense Fjord, Water Management Plan Provisional Management Plan pursuant to the EU Water Framework Directive

January 2006

Project part-ﬁ nanced This project has received European by the European Union Regional Development Funding through the INTERREG III B &YN#OUNTY Community Initiative Title: BERNET: Odense Fjord, Water Management Plan, Provisional Management Plan pursuant to the Water Framework Directive.

Publisher: Fyn County Nature Management and Water Environment Division Environmental and Land Use Management Division DK - Ørbækvej 100 5220 Odense SØ

Telephone: +45 6556 1000 +45 6556 1505

Email: [email protected] Website: www.Bernet.org

Editors: Stig Eggert Pedersen, Nanna Rask, Rikke Clausen, Morten Sørensen, Jørgen Windolf, Peter Wiberg-Larsen, Mikael Hjorth Jensen.

Layout: Inge Møllegaard Kari Bach Nielsen Birte Vindt

Maps: Copyright KMS National Survey and Cadastre 1992/KC.86.1023

Year of publication: January 2006

Printed by: Fyns Amt

ISBN: 87-7343-635-6

BERNET - Odense Fjord, Water Management Plan Table of contents

Introduction ...... 4

1. Description of the geographical area ...... 6 1.1 Odense Fjord ...... 6 1.2 Running waters and lakes ...... 7 1.3 Groundwater ...... 7 1.4 The catchment ...... 8

2. Pressures and risk analysis ...... 12 2.1 Pressures ...... 12 2.2 Risk analysis, the fjord ...... 16 2.3 Risk analysis, running waters and lakes ...... 18 2.4 Risk analysis, groundwater ...... 19

3. Protected areas ...... 20 3.1 Surface waters and wetlands ...... 20 3.2 Groundwater ...... 21

4. Provisional environmental objectives ...... 22 4.1 The fjord ...... 22 4.2 Running waters and lakes ...... 23 4.3 Groundwater ...... 23

5. Programme of measures ...... 24 5.1 Introduction ...... 24 5.2 Coastal waters ...... 26 5.3 Running waters (In preparation) ...... 32 5.4 Groundwater (In preparation) ...... 32 5.5 Lakes (In preparation) ...... 32 5.6 Wetlands (In preparation) ...... 32

6. Monitoring programme ...... 34 6.1 Coastal waters ...... 34 6.2 Running waters ...... 34 6.3 Lakes ...... 35 6.4 Pressures on surface waters ...... 36 6.5 Groundwater ...... 36

7. Public Participation ...... 38 7.1 Who was involved and when? ...... 38 7.2 What comments have the Water Authority received? ...... 38

8. References ...... 42

9. Appendices ...... 44 9.1 Basis for the selection of the EU habitat sites in Odense River Basin (habitats and species) ...... 44 9.2 EC Bird Protection sites in the Odense River Basin ...... 46

BERNET - Odense Fjord, Water Management Plan 3 Introduction

Introduction

This Water Management Plan “Odense Fjord, details including all waters and all relevant pres- Water Management Plan, Provisional Management sures within the pilot river basin. Plan pursuant to the Water Framework Directive”, A fully management plan of “Odense Pilot is a part of the BERNET CATCH project. River Basin” will be elaborated in connection BERNET is a network co-operation between with the LIFE-founded project “Odense PRB- seven regions from seven countries around the AgriPom-Agricultural Programme of Measures”, Baltic Sea. BERNET CATCH focuses on the which ends summer 2007. integrated management of catchments and the The program of measures is a central part of a regional implementation of the EU Water Frame- management plan. Such programs tell what to do work Directive (WFD). Through the activities to assure “good ecological quality” in every part in BERNET CATCH, the partners wish to pre- of the aquatic environment in the river basin by pare the regional implementation of the WFD, 2015. I.e. how to reduce outlets of nutrients from and evaluate the different regional solutions to point sources and diffuse sources. the implementation of the WFD. In BERNET The aim of the Water Framework Directive is CATCH every partner has to make a provisional to assure good ecological quality in all parts of Water Management Plan for a pilot river basin. the aquatic environment by 2015. This aim has to The basis of this management plan is a result of be fulfi lled through the making and implementa- the following activities/products: tion of Water Management Plans. The program of measures presented in this • Article 5 reporting (Odense Pilot River Basin management plan is only focusing on the manage- - Provisional Article 5 Report pursuant to ment of eutrophication problems related Odense the water framework directive, Fyn County Fjord, and includes thus programs of measures November 2003) regarding outlets of sewage from households and • Reporting on program of measures (coastal industries, and outlets from agricultural activi- waters, lakes, watercourses, groundwater’s, ties. Specifi c measures related lakes, groundwa- and nature (wetlands)) including economy of ters, rivers and wetlands are not included yet. measures The making of programmes of measures is an • Monitoring program according to WFD iterative process illustrated in fi gure 1.1, involv- • Involvement of public stakeholders ing stakeholders and political decisions. The programme of measures related Odense This management plan is mainly focuss- Fjord is one of many programmes of measures ing Odense Fjord, and do not fully present an for all the waters within Odense Pilot River integrated Water Management Plan including basin. These waters enter all together the Odense all waters (watercourses, coastal waters, lakes, Pilot River Basin Water Management Plan. Pro- ground waters and wetlands) in the pilot river grammes of measures regarding rivers, lakes basin. The BERNET resources and timetables do and groundwater within Odense Pilot River not fi t the making of a fully management plan in Basin are also included in this reporting. These programs of measures are at the moment made individually for each type of water, and the pro- Figure 1.1 Programme of Measures grams are not balanced against each other. Some Making programmes of the measures targeted Odense Fjord, will also of measures – Decision Decision Diagram diagram. enhance the protection of groundwater’s, lakes Reference and rivers. Vice versa there will be measures tar- Environmental Objectives Conditions Economy ok? geted the protection off rivers, lakes and ground- Environmental water’s, which affect the protection of Odense State Max. acceptable Fjord. Therefore the fi nal Odense Pilot River loading/pressure Basin Water Management Plan has to harmonize Measures the different programmes of measures targeted Households Physical the different waters to ensure that you get value Agriculture and Industri Conditions for money.

4 BERNET - Odense Fjord, Water Management Plan Introduction

Watercourse Lake Great Belt Woodland Northern Belt Sea Urban area Odense River Basin

OTTERUP Gabet

Odense Fjord Lunde Stream

SØNDERSØ Lindø Terminal Lindø Shipyard MUNKEBO Seden KERTEMINDE Odense North Landfill Strand Stige Ø Landfill Geels Stream Stavis Fynsværket CHP plant Lake Langesø Stavis Stream Stream

Odense Harbour

Ryds Stream ODENSE River Odense

Vejrup Stream

Lindved Stream

Holmehave Brook

River Odense

Ulvebækken Brook

Vittinge Stream

RINGE Sallinge Stream

River Odense

Hågerup Stream

Lake Arreskov

Rislebæk Brook Lake Nørresø

Silke Stream Lake Brændegård

FAABORG 0 5 10 km

BERNET - Odense Fjord, Water Management Plan 5 1. Description of the geographical area

1. Description of the geographical area 1.1. Odense Fjord Odense Fjord is a shallow (mean depth 2.25 m), No. of water bodies mesohaline estuary located in the northern part Fjord types Natura 2000 Not 2 Total of Funen. The area under water is 65 km . The protected protected fjord can be subdivided into a small inner fjord Inner fjord 1 0 1 called Seden Strand with a mean depth of 0.8 m, (SS) Outer fjord and an outer fjord with a mean depth of 2.7 m 1 1 2 (ODF) (ﬁ gure 1.1a). Heavily modified 17 water bodies Figure 1.1a Northern Belt Sea Total no. of 20 Map of Odense Fjord ODF22B water bodies indicating the bounda- ries of the inner fjord Table 1.1a (Seden Strand) and Total No. of water bodies in Odense Fjord. outer fjord. The three monitoring stations, SS8 in Seden Strand, Heavily modified water bodies in Odense Fjord ODF17 in the outer part of the fjord and Harbours 2 ODF22B in the bound- Navigation routes, fairways and channels 2 E g ary zone outside the e n s G Dykes, dams and boardwalks/bridges 1 OTTERUP e a fjord are indicated. D b e Odense e e t p Fjord Drained former fjord areas 12 30-40 m Outer fjord Total 17 20-30 m ODF17 Table 1.1b 10-20 m Heavily modiﬁ ed water bodies in Odense Fjord.

6-10 m MUNKEBO Seden KERTEMINDE 4-6 m Strand 2-4 m SS8 By far the largest source of freshwater input to 0-2 m the fjord is the river Odense, which feeds into the inner part of Seden Strand. Water exchange between the fjord and the open marine water 0 5 km ODENSE (Northern Belt Sea) takes place via the mouth of the fjord called Gabet. Using a hydrodynamic model (MIKE 3) it has been calculated that the

g residence time for river Odense water in the fjord i t

S al is low, around 17 days (annual mean) for the fjord an e C ns as a whole and nine days for Seden Strand (DHI, e al R d n i O a v C e ld r 2000). O O d e n s Odense Harbour e Ecoregions, typology and water body designation Figure 1.1b Odense Fjord belongs to ecoregion 4, the North Water bodies in Odense Fjord, num- Draging disposal Sea, pursuant to the Water Framework Directive bered according to the but to the Baltic Sea (Baltic bioregion) pursuant Stone fishing Article 5- analysis of to the Habitats Directive. Water District 42, Fyn Northern Belt Sea At the national level Odense Fjord is subdi- County (Fyns Amt DK.42.42.K10 Odense Fjord vided into two types and thus water bodies – the 2004) . outer part W DK 42.42.K11 inner fjord called Seden Strand and the outer fjord called Odense Fjord, outer part. Odense Fjord Odense Fjord Sea navigation channel outer part E DK.42.42.K9 Urban area DK.42.42.K16 A water body must consist of a single type of Fyn water body, and can only be designated to a single Odense River Basin Lindøterminalen/ Lindø Shipyard Landredametion Dam DK.42.42.K15 ecological status class. According to the EU Guid- Physical installations Seden Strand Draging disposal DK 42.32.K7 ance Document “Identiﬁ cation of water bodies”, Stone fishing Dam protected areas have also to be taken into account, Navigation channel Odense Channel and in cases where only parts of a water body are Odense Channel DK.42.42.K8

Odense Fjord outer part East Odense Harbour designated as protected areas, subdivision into sev- Odense Fjord outer part West DK.42.42.K14 Seden Strand eral water bodies can be considered. Heavily mod- Northern Belt Sea iﬁ ed water bodies, including drained areas, are also

6 BERNET - Odense Fjord, Water Management Plan 1. Description of the geographical area

delineated as separate water bodies. According to Figure 1.2a these criteria, Odense Fjord is subdivided into Stream water bodies in three major water bodies and 17 heavily modiﬁ ed the OPRB. water bodies, in total 20 water bodies (table 1.1a-b Water Bodies and ﬁ gure 1.1a).

1.2 Running waters and lakes There are 316 stream water bodies totalling 1,115 km in length within the Odense Pilot River Basin (OPRB) (ﬁ g.1.2a). Three stream types are recognized on the basis of size-related parameters (catchment size, length from source, stream width, and stream order). Their catchment size, total length and the number of designated water bodies are as follows:

Stream Catchment Total stream Number of types size (km2) length (km) Water bodies Type 1 <10 661.6 225

Type 2 10-100 216.4 45 N Type 3 >100 52.7 11

0 5 10 km There are 2,620 lakes and ponds larger than 0.01 ha within the OPRB. With one exception, only those larger than 5 ha are considered here. Former, now drained lakes are also considered as Figure 1.2b Lake water bodies in water bodies (ﬁ g. 1.2b). the OPRB. Among 11 national lake types (deﬁ ned only Lake for lakes >5 ha), only three occur with certainty Former lake within the OPRB. Their characteristics and the (drained land) number of designated water bodies (i.e. lakes) are Watercourse as follows: Urban area

Lake type characteristics No. of Lake lakes/water types Alkalinity Colour Salinity Depth bodies

9 High Low Low Low 11

10 High Low Low Deep 1

11 High Low High Low 1?

6 Low High Low Deep 1

1.3 Groundwater 36 ground water bodies are designated in the Odense Fjord Pilot River Basin covering an area N of 722 km2 which is 61 % of the total area (ﬁ g. 1.3). Almost all ground water bodies are located in 0 5 10 km aquifers consisting of sand. 29 ground water bodies are in contact with surface waters – typically streams and lakes. tact all year round while 3 ground water bodies This could inﬂ uence on the environmental status only have contact to the surface water during the of the surface water. 26 water bodies have con- winter.

BERNET - Odense Fjord, Water Management Plan 7 1. Description of the geographical area

Figure 1.3 Agriculture Designation of groundwater bodies in the The dominant crops grown in Odense River OPRB. Basin are winter- and spring cereals accounting for around 2/3 of the total area with crop production, (table 1.4a). Live stock density (LU/ha) is around 1 LU/ha for the total catchment with pigs accounting for around 60% of the total LU’s, (ﬁ gure 1.4d). Application of nitrogen and phosphorus to the grown ﬁ eld in the catchment is about 11.400 tonnes of nitrogen and 1.900 tonnes of phospho- Legend

Main Basindistrict rus, (table 1.4a). Thus, the mean annual area spe- Groundwater Bodies ininin catchmentcatchmentcatchment tototo ciﬁ c application rates for the farmed land only Odense Fjord (69.000 ha) have been around 165 kg N/ha and 28 kg P/ha. Manure accounts for around 73% of the applied phosphorus and around 40% of the applied nitrogen. The live stock production (meat, milk and eggs) has increased by around 40% in the periode 1985-2003.

1.4 The catchment Table 1.4 Odense River Basin encompasses an area of Key characteristics Key characteristica for the catchment 2 for the catchment to approx. 1060 km . Key fi gures characterising the Catchment area km2 Odense Fjord. catchment are listed in Table 1.4a. 1058 Population Total (thousands) 240 Topography, landscape and soil types Density (inh./km2) 226 The topography of the catchment (fi gure 1.4a) Landuse (%) Urban areas 13 shows almost no points reaching heights above Cultivated land 64 100m’s, (compared to Danish zero). This low- Woodland 11 Inland waters and natural 11 land catchment - in this respect - being very much countryside (mires, meadows etc.) alike the general topographic characteristics of Crop distribution, % of farmed area *** Winter cereals 45 eastern Denmark. The most common landscape Seed crops 8 feature is moraine plains covered by moraine Pulses 2 Grass/green fodder 10 clay. Clay soil types are slightly dominant and Permanent grass 4 encompass approx. 51% of the total are, while the Root crops 5 Market gardens 3 sandy soil types cover approx. 49%. Spring cereals 23 Nitrogen application (tonnes N) (agriculture*) Land use, population and waste water Manure 5000 Just as elsewhere in Denmark, land use in Odense Art. fertiliser 6400 River Basin is dominated by agricultural exploi- Total 11400 Phosphorus application (tonnes P) tation, (table 1.4a and fi gure 1.4.b). Thus, farm- (agriculture*) land accounts for around 64% of the land use in Manure 1370 Art. fertiliser 530 the catchment. Of the remainder, approx. 13% is Total 1900 accounted for by urban areas and around 11% is Sewage outlets ** Total Nitrogen (tonnes N) 244 woodland. Finally, inland fresh waters and natu- Total Phosporus (tonnes P) 22 ral countryside covers around 11%. Climate **** Precipitation, mm 825 The population of Odense River Basin num- Discharge, mm 305 bers around 240.000 inhabitants corresponding Temperature, oC 8.4 to 226 inh./km2. 90% of the sewage produced by * Mean for 1999-2002. ** Mean 1999/2000-2003/04. the inhabitants is discharged to municipal sewage *** Mean 2003. treatment plants, the remaining part (10%) being **** Mean 1990-2000 produced outside the town areas. As an overall mean for the catchment around 244 tonnes of nitrogen and 22 tonnes of total phosphorus is discharged with sewage water, (table 1.4a).

8 BERNET - Odense Fjord, Water Management Plan 1. Description of the geographical area

Topography Land Use Figure 1.4a (left) Topography of Odense River Basin. Height above Danish Zero Level

0-10 m

10-20 m

20-30 m

30-40 m

40-50 m

50-60 m

60-70 m

70-80 m

80-90 m

90-100 m

100-110 m

Over 110 m

Watercourse

Figure 1.4b (right) Land Use in Odense River Basin.

0 5 10 km 0 5 10 km Urban areas Cultivated land Woodland Inland waters (lakes, watercourses) Natural contryside (mires, meadows, etc.)

Population density Livestock density Figure 1.4c (left) Population density. Odense River Basin is indicated. 0OPULATIONDENSITY INHABITANTSKM£ TIL TIL TIL TIL

5RBANAREA

Figure 1.4d (right) Livestock density in Odense River Basin 2002 in relation to the area of farmed land in the sub-catchments. 1.4 and above 1.2-1.4 0 5 10KM 1-1.2 0.8-1 0 5 10 km 0.6-0.8 0.4-0.6 0-0.4 no information

BERNET - Odense Fjord, Water Management Plan 9 1. Description of the geographical area

Figure 1.4e Average annual pre- N cipitation (1961-1990). Odense River Basin is indicated.

0 5 10 km

550 - 600 mm 600 - 650 mm 650 - 700 mm

700 - 750 mm 750 - 800 mm 800 - 850 mm

Precipitation, fresh water discharge, temperature Precipitation over the Odense River Basin is at its highest in the southern part of the catchment, (ﬁ gure 1.4e) and signiﬁ cantly lesser over the northern, near coastal land areas. For the period 1990-2000 mean precipitation was around 825 mm/y leading to the discharge of 305 mm/ y freshwater from the catchment as an overall annual mean for the same period. Mean annual air temperature is around 8oC.

10 BERNET - Odense Fjord, Water Management Plan 1. Description of the geographical area

Photo: Jan Kofod Winther

BERNET - Odense Fjord, Water Management Plan 11 2. Pressures and risk analysis

2. Pressures and risk analysis 2.1 Pressures The water bodies in the catchment area draining the most important of these pressures are illus- to Odense Fjord and the fjord itself are impacted trated and commented below. in different ways by natural (background) and antropogenic pressures. Some of the most impor- Eutrophication of surface waters tant antropogenic pressures are illustrated in In general almost all the surface waters in the fi gure 2.1a. catchment are eutropic due to the pollution with Nutrients as phosphorus and nitrogen are dis- nutrients (nitrogen, phosphorus) discharged with charged to surface waters and towards the ground sewage or lost from the farmed land. The degree waters with sewage from different sewage water of eutrophication will vary between the different sources and from farmed land. Hence, nutrient specifi c water bodies. As an – typically – example loading of most surface water bodies (streams, the eutrophication is illustrated for the Odense ponds, lakes, fjord) in the catchment are well fjord, (fi gure 2.1b). As a mean for the period above the natural ‘background’ loadings caus- 1999/2000-2003/2004 around 44 % of the total ing eutrophication of these water bodies. Haz- phosporus loading to the fjord was due to sewage ardous substances (pesticides, heavy metals etc.) outlets, 25 % was due to loss from farmed land, are discharged from point sources and/or diffuse thus leaving 31% to the natural reference (“back- sources. Emissions to atmosphere from farms, ground”) loading. Reference loading is estimated industry and the transport sector are either assuming a ‘reference’ concentration of 0.05 mg deposited in the catchment or exported. Some of P/l in the total discharge to the fjord. The cor- the total deposition (i.e. of ammonia) is imported responding fi gures for the total Nitrogen loading from sources outside the catchment. The hydro- to the Odense Fjord are: Sewage (13 %), agri- logical cycle itself is impacted by water abstrac- culture (69 %) and reference loading (18%). The tion, drainage of farmed land, canalisations of latter fi gure estimated by assuming a ‘reference’ streams, stream maintenance (i.e. weed cutting). concentration of 1 mg N/l in the total land based The pressures and the effect of these on discharge. The diffuse nitrogen pollution in the environmental quality will vary across the catch- sub-catchments varies according to variations in ment area and depend on the character and vul- farming intensity and application of artifi cial fer- nerability of the different water bodies (streams. tiliser and manure to the fi elds. Some of the vari- lakes, fjord etc.). The major pressures in the ation in the diffuse nitrogen load is illustrated in catchment have been quantifi ed and to a wide fi gure 2.1e. Figure 2.1a degree geographically distributed, (GIS). Some of Draft of important pressures of the environment.

$EPOSITION

#OMBUSTION !MMONIA EVAPORATION &ISHFARMING 3LUDGE

#OMBUSTION

)NDUSTRY

4OWN #OMBUSTION

&ERTILIZERAND MANURE &ODDER 0AVEDAREAS 3URFACE hOVERFLOWv DISCHARGE )RRIGATION 3CATTEREDSETTLEMENTS ,EACHING 4ILEDRAINS 0LANTS 0HYTOPLANKTON 3TORAGE #ONTAMINATED ,EAKYSEWAGESYSTEM SPOTS

2ETENTION 'ROUND7ATER 7ATERABSTRACTION 7ATERABSTRACTION DRINKINGWATER

12 BERNET - Odense Fjord, Water Management Plan 2. Pressures and risk analysis

Source apportionment Figure 2.1b Agriculture Pressure Land-based Nitrogen and Phosphorus loading Source apporti- Nitrogen Odense Fjord 1999/00-2003/04 onment of the land- based Nitrogen and Signiﬁ cant key-indicators Phoshorus loading 1. Fertilizer use Nitrogen Phosphorus to Odense Fjord. • High fertilizer use in catchments imply risk 1905 tonnes N/yr 53.5 tonnes P/yr Mean for 1999/2000- of high leaching 69.6% 2003/04. Mean an- 2. Animal density 24.4% 31.2% nual discharge for • High animal density implies risk of low nutrient utilization and therefore high the same period: 312 mm/year. leaching and high ammonia evaporation 1.7 % 3. Retention capacity Agricultural load 9.1 % • A high retention capacity in catchments can 16.2% Reference loading help to remove nitrogen when it is leached 2.0 % from the soil to the water bodies Sparsely built-up areas 17.6% 16.2% 12.0% WWTPs and industry

The impact of the land based loading on the Paved areas (stormwater) nutrient concentrations in the fjord is clearly seen in fi gure 2.2 showing for the period 1985- 2004 the co-variation in the nutrient loading N input and N in the and the nitrogen and phosphorus content of the root zone and watercourses 25 surface waters in the fjord. Phosphorus loading Root zone (modelled) Figure 2.1c has been hugely reduced by around 75% during Watercourses (measured) Nitrogen concentration the last 20 years due to improved sewage treat- 20 in water courses and ment. A lesser reduction (around 35%) is seen in root zone water (1m b.g.s.) on Fyn as a func- the nitrogen loading. This latter reduction caused 15 tion of nitrogen input by a combined effect of improved sewage treat- to the individual catchment (around 10-15%-points) and a reduction in 10 ments (mean values: diffuse pollution from farmed land, (around 20- 1990-2000). 25%-points). N/l) (mg Nitrogen The root zone concen- 5 trations are modelled Some overall indicators of the pressure from using a simple leach- agriculture are listed in the Box. Further more ing model. The water 0 the relations between nitrogen concentrations course concentrations 0 50 100 150 200 250 in root zone (modelled) and streams (measured) are measured. in 27 catchments in Fyn County and the total Nitrogen input to the catchment (kg N/ha) amount of nitrogen applied with manure and artifi cial fertiliser in these catchments are shown N retention from in fi gure 2.1c. Although this relation is rather root zone to watercourses signifi cant the impact of agriculture on water % y=-0.99x + 105 Figure 2.1d quality in streams (nitrogen) also depends on r 2 =0.61 n=27 Nitrogen retention catchment specifi c hydrological characteristics. 80 during transport from If the degree of surface run off (tile drains etc.) the root zone to water is relatively low, a signifi cant higher proportion courses as a function 60 of the relative share of leached nitrogen from the root zone of the of rapid runoff to the grown fi elds is retained in such catchment com- 40 water courses. pared to the lower retention in catchments where Retention discharge in streams primarily consists of surface 20 near run off, (fi gure 2.1d).

0 Nitrogen deposition from the atmosphere 020406080100% Atmospheric nitrogen deposition is signifi cantly increased compared to ‘pristine’ deposition due Surface runoff to the emissions and subsequently deposition of nitrogen (NHx, NOx) from antropogenic sources. 2.1.f). The nitrogen deposition shows the highest Actual mean fi gure for the deposition over land fi gures in areas with high farming intensity due areas is around 20 kg N/ha (wet- and dry depo- to deposition of locally emitted ammonia from sition). For the near coastal marine waters the the farms in these areas. However, for the total annual deposition is around 12 kg N/ha (Figure catchment a signifi cant part (60-70%) of the depo-

BERNET - Odense Fjord, Water Management Plan 13 2. Pressures and risk analysis

Figure 2.1e Diffuse N-loading in streams (kg N/ha) and type of farming activity. However, for most Diffuse area specifi c aquifers high capacities of denitrifi cation in the load of nitrogen (kg N/ soils overlaying these aquifers effectively reduce ha) from diffuse sources in the catchment area most of the leached nitrate. The assessment of the of Odense Fjord. pressures actually or potentially threatening the Stream monitoring sites quality of the ground waters has been an ongoing Watercourses Areas without measurements activity for many years. As an example the distri- Kg N/ha bution of specifi c contaminated sites is shown in 20 til 25 (1) 15 til 20 (7) fi gure 2.1.g. 10 til 15 (7) 0 til 10 (3) Physical impact The fjord The most important physical impacts on the Odense Fjord are caused by harbours, navigation channels and land reclamation (see fi gure 1.2). Odense Harbour, Lindø Shipyard and Lindø Terminal are installations of considerable size that have entailed major physical changes to the fjord’s natural coastline. In addition, a number of minor harbours and quays are situated in the fjord. Navigation channels have been excavated N in connection with the harbours, and these have to be dredged every few years. This dredging work periodically places marked physical pres- 0 5 10 km sure on the fjord, especially in the form of large amounts of resuspended sediment that reduces the transparency of the water column and causes Atm. deposition of total N (kg N/ha) sedimentation on the seabed. Figur 2.1f Deposition of total The catchment nitrogen. The catch- During the years a signifi cantly number of water- ment area of Odense Fjord is indicated. courses, lakes, ponds and wetlands within the catchment has experienced signifi cant physical 0 - 5 kg N/ha changes. In the Odense Fjord, approximately 5 - 10 kg N/ha 20% of the former water covered area has disap- 10 - 15 kg N/ha peared due to land reclamation (fi g. 1.2 and 2.1h). 15 - 20 kg N/ha The development in the number and quality of 20 - 25 kg N/ha the wetlands illustrates the general trend. Thus, 25 - 30 kg N/ha 72% of meadows, fens and mires have disap- Ingen data peared since 1890 (Fig. 2.1h), whereas 34%, 22% and 12% of the remaining wetlands are impacted by drainage, fi lling-up and excavation, respectively. About 66% of the present-day watercourses are signifi cantly modifi ed due to piping, straightening and deepening. Additionally, there N are numerous obstructions that prevent spawning migration of trout, and physical management

0 5 10KM (including weed cutting) still signiﬁ cantly reduce the biological diversity of macrophytes in most sition is imported from emission sources outside streams. Although probably 75% of small shal- the catchment. This deposition contributes to the low lakes and ponds have disappeared during general eutrophication of the environment. the last 100 years, the remaining larger lakes are only slightly physically impacted. Furthermore, Impact on groundwaters besides the obvious signiﬁ cance of these changes The pressures on ground water quantity and qual- for the quality and quantity of the aquatic envi- ity is due to water abstraction and the actual or ronment an important effect of these changes potentially future leaching of water enriched in has been considerably reduced the capacity of the hazardous matters (i.e. pesticides) or nutrients as fjord and catchment to retain nitrogen and phos- nitrate. Leachings of nitrates is related to intensity phorus.

14 BERNET - Odense Fjord, Water Management Plan 2. Pressures and risk analysis

Sea lettuce (Ulva lactuca) dominated the vegetation of the inner fjord (Seden Strand) in the 1980-90’ies.

Photo: Søren Larsen

Contaminated sites Meadows and bogs, 1890 and 1992 Figure 2.1.g (left) Distribution of contaminated sites. Contaminated sites Urban area

Figure 2.1.h (right) Distribution of meadows and bogs in the catchment area, 1890 and 1990. Distribution in 1890 1992

0 5 10 km 0 5 10 km

BERNET - Odense Fjord, Water Management Plan 15 2. Pressures and risk analysis

Widgeon grass (Ruppia maritima) has returned to the inner fjord in the late 1990’ies, but is still affected by ﬁ lamentous algae.

Photo: Nanna Rask

2.2 Risk analysis, the fjord The present status of Odense Fjord The risk analysis for coastal waters, is fi rst of The present ecological status of the Odense Fjord all based on the aims stipulated in the Regional is described by nutrient levels and by eutrophica- Plan for Fyn County. It must be stressed that this tion effects as well as impact of hazardous sub- procedure, that do not follow the guidelines of stances on animals and plants. The Water Framework Directive, is decided by Due to the reduction in nutrient inputs, the the national authorities. However, in case of the nitrogen concentration in the water in the inner Regional Plan for Fyn County, the aims largely part of Odense Fjord (Seden Strand, station SS8) conform with “good ecological quality” accord- has decreased from approx. 2.5 mg N/l to approx. ing to the Water Framework Directive. The 1.8 mg N/l), while the phosphorus concentration quality objective for most of the fjord is “fi sh has decreased from approx. 0.6 mg P/l to approx. waters for angling and/or spawning and nursery 0.1 mg P/l ( fi gure 2.2.). grounds for fi sh”(general/basic quality objec- Trend in source-apportioned annual nitrogen tives), which corresponds to the WFD “good eco- and phosphorus loading from land-based sources logical quality”. The remainder of the Odense together with the annual mean concentration in Fjord has been designated as “a reference area for the surface water at station ODF17 in the outer scientifi c studies” (stringent quality objectives). It part of Odense Fjord. is at present a matter of discussion in Denmark, The nitrogen concentration in the fjord is whether this stringent objective will be fulfi lled closely related to nitrogen input. In years when by WFD “good ecological quality”. No part of freshwater runoff is high, the nitrogen concen- the fjord has been designated with “eased” aims tration in the fjord water is thus greater than in that may be equivalent to moderate or even years when freshwater runoff is low, as for exam- poorer ecological quality. The fi rst step of the ple in 1996–97 (fi gure 2.2). risk analysis is to estimate the present status of As a result of the reduction in nutrient loading the water bodies. Secondly, the status is extrapo- of the fjord, the former mass occurrences of sea lated to the 2015 situation taking into account (a) lettuce (Ulav lactuca) have diminished, and the expected developments in all relevant pressures, rooted macrophyte vegetation has gained ground and (b) already planned and decided programmes in the inner fjord. Widgeon grass (Ruppia mar- of measures (related to these pressures) that are itima) and eelgrass (Zostera marina) have thus not directly associated with the WFD. recolonized different parts of the inner fjord,

16 BERNET - Odense Fjord, Water Management Plan 2. Pressures and risk analysis

5500 5.5 500 1.0 Figure 2.2 Total-N in Odense Fjord st. 8 (mg N/l) Total-P in Odense Fjord st. 8 (mg P/l) 5000 5.0 Trend in source-appor- Wastewater (tonnes N/yr) 450 Wastewater (tonnes P/yr) 0.9 4500 4.5 tioned annual nitrogen * Diffuse loading (tonnes N/yr) 400 * Diffuse loading (tonnes P/yr) 0.8 and phosphorus load- 4000 4.0 350 0.7 ing from land-based 3500 3.5 300 0.6 sources together with 3000 3.0 the annual mean 250 0.5 2500 2.5 concentration in the 2000 2.0 200 0.4 surface water at station 1500 1.5 150 0.3 SS8 in the inner part N-load (tonnes N/yr) of Odense Fjord (Seden 1000 1.0 P loading (tonnes P/yr) 100 0.2 Strand). 500 0.5 50 0.1 Total N in surface waters (mg N/l) waters surface in N Total Total P in surface waters (mg P/l) waters surface P in Total 0 lllllllllllllllllllllllllll0.0 0 lllllllllllllllllllllllllll0.0 86 89 92 95 98 01 04 86 89 92 95 98 01 04 *inclusive wastewater from sparsely built-up areas *inclusive wastewater from sparsely built-up areas

and a more diverse macroalgal community has altered and in common mussels, Mytilus edulis, established in the outer fjord, including a large the cell organelles were affected. Although TBT proportion of the slowly growing brown algae has the potential to induce such effects, atten- bladder wrack (Fucus vesiculosus) and serrated tion has also been paid to other substances like wrack (Fucus serratus). Nutrient loading is still organochlorines, pesticides, PAHs and heavy so high, however, that for long periods of the metals. growth season the inner fjord is still dominated In general, the fjord still exhibits a high level by rapidly growing ephemeral macroalgae, espe- of eutrophication and considerable effects of haz- cially sea lettuce and fi lamentous algae, e.g. Ecto- ardous substances, although some improvement carpus siliculosus and Cladophora sp. have been obtained in the fjord after reduction The benthic invertebrate fauna of the fjord of the external load. The existing environmen- is diverse, but is dominated by eutrophication- tal objectives are thus not fulfi lled in any part of dependent fi lter-feeding species of polychaetes the fjord, and have not been fulfi lled since the and molluscs. The benthic fi lterfeeders are exert- 1970ies, where monitoring and water quality ing pronounced control over the phytoplankton assessment was started. biomass, which is normally quite low despite of the high nutrient level in the fjord. Mass occur- Risk analysis rences of phytoplankton are however occasion- When assessing the risk of not fulfi lling the envi- ally observed. ronmental objectives by 2015, the expected future The fjord is also impacted by hazardous sub- impact of nutrients is a main subject. Analyses stances. The TBT, PAHs and PCB concentrations show an expected reduction to Odense Fjord of in sediments in parts of the fjord exceed the inter- nitrogen run off by ca. 20% (400 tonnes), and national criteria for ecotoxicological effects. The of phosphorus by 5% in 2015, compared to the fauna is severely affected, and effects on the veg- 1999-2003 mean. To the coastal waters around etation cannot be excluded. The content of TBT Fyn, the reduction will be approx. 17% for nitro- and certain PAHs and PCBs (polychlorinated gen and 5% for phosphorus. biphenyls) in common mussels is so high that the Due to low precipitation in 1996-97 and again limit values recommended in international con- in 2003, nutrient run-off was considerably lower ventions are exceeded. The Danish Veterinary during these years than it is expected to be in and Foods Administration advices against con- 2015. In none of these years, the environmental suming mussels from Odense Fjord and has pro- objectives were fulfi lled, neither in the Odense hibited commercial mussel fi shery in the fjord. Fjord, nor in the coastal waters in general. Fur- The TBT content in the fjord sediment is also so thermore, combined dynamic and empirical high as to cause sexual and reproductive changes modelling conducted in Odense Fjord points at in the common periwinkle (Littorina littorea). a needed minimum reduction of nitrogen load of Contaminant-induced biological effects have at least 50% (1000 tonnes or more) to the fjord in also been observed in eelpout, Zoarces viviparous. order to obtain “good ecological quality”, paral- Thus, specimens with elevated levels of deformed lel to the Region Plan general objective. larvae and an increased production of detoxica- The impact of hazardous substances is also tion enzymes in the liver were found. In clams, expected to be too high in 2015 to allow compli- Mya arenaria, the sex ratio were signifi cantly ance with the general objective.

BERNET - Odense Fjord, Water Management Plan 17 2. Pressures and risk analysis

Figure 2.3. Risk analysis - Waterbodies in Odense Fjord river basin Summary of the ”Baseline 2015” risk Rivers Lakes Coastal waters assessment for surface waters in Odense Not at risk Fjord river basin. The 15% At risk due to lack of data expected situation in 14% 4% 100% 2015 for rivers, lakes 96% At risk and coastal waters is 71% shown together with 15% 14% 96% 4% 100% the present ecological 71% 2015 status for comparison. Present- Areas with no data day are also at risk, acc. to the defi nitions in the WFD. Thus, the whole Odense Fjord is at risk of not at risk. Further, the regional aims are not met fulfi lling the environmental objectives in 2015. if physical obstacles prevent “free” migration of In parallel, the coastal waters around Fyn are macroinvertebrates and fi sh within the running all judged to be at risk of not fulfi lling the objec- water systems. The quality is also not satisfac- tives by 2015, due to impact of nutrients, haz- tory if hazardous substances have negative effect ardous substances, and in case of some smaller on the organisms. Only pressures like sewage coves, also due to physical regulation of the water discharges from scattered homes are expected to exchange with the surrounding open waters. be reduced due to already planned programmes The quality and status of some small coastal of measures. water bodies is not known due to lack of recent The quality and status of a great number monitoring data. These water bodies are auto- of running water bodies (about 29 % based on matically regarded as being at risk. stream length) is not known due to lack of avail- The result of the risk analysis is that all of the able monitoring data. The water bodies are auto- water bodies in the coastal waters are at risk by matically regarded as being at risk. 2015. The result of the risk analysis is that 96 % of the water bodies in running waters (calculated based 2.3 Risk analysis, running waters and on stream length) are at risk by 2015. The reasons lakes are primarily poor physical properties and in The risk analysis for running waters and lakes, some cases poor water quality. The poor physical like that for the coastal waters, is fi rst of all based condition is primarily due to the intensive culti- on the aims stipulated in the Regional Plan for vation of river valleys, where rivers have often Fyn County. It must be stressed that this pro- been regulated by straightening and canalisation. cedure, that do not follow the guidelines of The Moreover, the river valleys are frequently drained Water Framework Directive, is decided by the and the rivers maintained in an environmentally national authorities. However in case of the unsound manner (weed clearance, dredging, Regional Plan for Fyn County, the aims largely etc.). These actions and activities severely affect conform with “good ecological quality” accord- the hydromorphological conditions in the rivers. ing to the Water Framework Directive, although The poor water quality is mostly caused by the Regional Plan for some water bodies operates sewage outlets from scattered houses and storm with “eased” aims that may be equivalent to mod- water outlets, but also discharges of hazardous erate or even poorer ecological quality. The fi rst substances are sometimes signifi cant. step of the risk analysis is to estimate the present The ecological quality of lakes is described status of the water bodies. Secondly, the status using water quality criteria like summer-mean is extrapolated to the 2015 situation taking into concentration of total phosphorus, total nitro- account (a) expected developments in all relevant gen, chlorophyll-a, and mean Secchi depth. Also pressures, and (b) already planned and decided the presence and abundance of submerse aquatic programmes of measures (related to these pres- plants and the fi sh community structure is taken sures) that are not directly associated with the into consideration. WFD. The risk analysis shows that 12 out of 14 Regarding the running waters the ecological larger lakes are at risk of not complying with the quality is described using macroinvertebrates regional aims by 2015. The main reason is too (Danish Stream Fauna Index) and physical crite- high discharges of nutrients from farmed areas, ria (Danish Physical Index). If certain values of although poorly treated sewage from scattered these indices are not fulfi lled, then the regional homes may be a problem is some cases. Further, aims are not met and the water bodies may be some lakes may suffer form internal nutrient

18 BERNET - Odense Fjord, Water Management Plan 2. Pressures and risk analysis

loads. Although the risk analysis was not carried Figure 2.4 out for a large number of small lakes, available Status of the ground- data indicate that these are as much at risk as the water bodies in Odense River Basin. larger lakes, and that they suffer mainly from the same pressures (feeding introduced ducks for hunting purposes may, however, also be a serious problem in small lakes).

2.4 Risk analysis, groundwater There are 31 groundwater bodies in Odense River Basin for which data are available for assessing their status. Legend Main Basindistrict Eighteen of the groundwater bodies are Groundwater Bodies Good Status affected by one or more hazardous substances, 16 Poor Status of them to such an extent that their status much be considered to be poor. In addition, one of the groundwater bodies with poor status is also so contaminated by nitrate as to preclude compliance with both the 25 mg/l and 50 mg/l environmental objectives for nitrate. Five of the 18 affected groundwater bodies are affected by nitrate, but as mentioned above the environmental objective is only exceeded in 1 case. Thirteen groundwater bodies are unaffected. The status of 16 groundwater bodies is poor and that of 15 groundwater bodies is good (see the ﬁ gure). Application of the EU criterion for nitrate (50 mg/l) will not change the number of groundwater bodies having good status. Nitrate contamination derives from diffuse sources – in this case agriculture, while contamination with hazardous substances is presumed to derive predominantly from point sources. To some extent this also applies to contamination with pesticides.

BERNET - Odense Fjord, Water Management Plan 19 3. Protected areas

3. Protected areas

Article 6 and Annex IV of the Water Framework 3.1 Surface waters and wetlands Directive stipulate that the register of protected Natura 2000 areas shall include: Due to the natural qualities of Odense Fjord, the western and southern parts of the fjord have • Areas designated for the abstraction of water been designated as international protected areas intended for human consumption under Arti- (Natura 2000) pursuant to the Habitats Direc- cle 7. tive and the Birds Directive. The main parts of • Areas designated for the protection of eco- the river Odense Å, the Arreskov lake and the nomically signifi cant aquatic species (Direc- Nørresø and Brændegaard lakes and the associ- tives 78/659/EEC and 79/923/EEC). ated wetlands are also designated as Natura 2000 • Bodies of water designated as recreational areas (fi gure 3.1). waters, including areas designated as bathing waters under the Bathing Water Directive Shellfi sh waters (76/160/EEC). The Shellfi sh Waters Directive will be fully imple- • Nutrient-sensitive areas, including areas desig- mented through the Environmental Objectives nated as vulnerable zones under the Nitrates Act, and designation of protected areas will be ful- Directive (91/676/EEC) and areas designated fi lled in the coming years. The Danish Veterinary as sensitive areas under the Urban Waste Wa- and Foods Administration, however, advices ter Directive (91/271/EEC). against consuming mussels from Odense Fjord • Areas designated for the protection of habitats and has prohibited commercial mussel fi shery or species where the maintenance or improve- in the fjord because of high levels of hazardous ment of the status of water is an important substances. factor in their protection, including relevant Natura 2000 sites designated under the Habi- Bathing areas tats Directive (92/43/EEC) and the Birds Di- No bathing areas have been designated in Odense rective (79/409/EEC). Fjord.

Figure 3.1 Nutrient-sensitive areas Natura 2000-areas The Nitrates Directive and the Urban Waste Water in the OPRB. Directive have been implemented in Denmark. The See appendix 3.1 and whole of the country, and thus the whole OPRB- 3.2 for name of the area, including the fjord, rivers, lakes and wet- areas and for species 9494 7575 and habitat types lands, has been designated as a nutrient-sensitive designated for each area, and hence are also encompassed by the meas- area. ures generally implemented in Denmark pursuant to Action Plans on the Aquatic Environment I, II 9797 and III to meet the requirements of the directives, cf. also Danish Environmental Protection Agency Statutory Order No. 501 of 21 June 1999.

International conventions One of the purposes of the Water Framework 103103 Directive is to contribute to “achieving the objectives of relevant international agreements”. The coastal waters of Fyn are encompassed by the Helsinki Convention (HELCOM). The OSPAR 9898 Convention covers the northeast Atlantic and 9898 N 105105 7878 the inner Danish marine waters up to and includ- 104104 7474 ing the southern Kattegat, and thus encompasses 106106 104104 0 5 10 km areas very close to the coastal waters of Fyn.

Natura 2000 Site 7575 EC-Bird Protection Site 94 EC-Habitat Site

20 BERNET - Odense Fjord, Water Management Plan 3. Protected areas

3.2 Groundwater Figure 3.2 33 aquifers/groundwater bodies of the total of 34 Location of protect- WBs in the OPRB have been designated as pro- ed aquifers/ground- tected areas acc. to the WFD-criteria: aquifers/ water bodies in and groundwater bodies from which more than 3.650 near the OPRB. m2 is abstracted per year (27 WBs), and those Protected area bodies intended for such use (6 WBs), (ﬁ gure Odense Fjord 3.2) catchment

BERNET - Odense Fjord, Water Management Plan 21 4. Provisional environmental objectives

4. Provisional environmental objectives

According to the Water Framework Directive, ity objective set for the remainder of the fjord classifi cation of ecological status has to be based is “fi sh waters for angling and/or fi shery” and, on type-specifi c reference conditions and nor- where the natural conditions permit, “spawning mative defi nitions of status. Status is described and/or nursery grounds for fi sh”. As outlined in using the biological quality elements macro- fi gure 3.1, two-thirds of the fjord is internation- phytes, phytoplankton and benthic invertebrate ally protected as a Natura 2000 site, due to the fauna together with supporting physico-chemical Habitats and Bird Protection Directives. quality elements such as Secchi depth, nutrient In order to ensure adequate protection of concentrations, oxygen content, concentration the natural worth of the Natura 2000 sites, i.e. of hazardous substances, etc. For freshwater sys- attainment of favourable conservation status for tems, fi sh fauna is also included. In the reference species and habitat types for which the site was conditions the biological quality elements have designated, these areas have at minimum to fulfi l to exhibit the same values as “high ecological “good ecological quality”. It is not yet known status”, where no, or only very minor, anthropo- whether attainment of favourable conservation genic deviation from the natural conditions can status will entail other requirements than those be tolerated. The status classes “high” and “good” that otherwise have to be met in order to attain ecological status are established relative to the “good ecological quality”. reference condition. As a rule, all surface water Based on modelling and historical data, a set bodies must exhibit “good ecological status” and of reference values for important biological and all groundwater bodies “good quality” no later chemical quality elements have been developed than 2015. In the WFD Article 5, it is prescribed for the fjord. In this case, reference values are site- that a risk analysis must be carried out in 2004, specifi c (not type-specifi c). In order to comply in order to judge whether the surface and ground with at least good ecological quality, provisional waters will fulfi l the objectives in 2015 or not. operational objectives for ‘good’ and ‘high’ eco- This risk analysis should be based on the refer- logical status of the fjord are suggested (Table ence conditions and subsequent classifi cations 4.1). Thus, criteria for good and high ecological mentioned above. and chemical quality are set at a permitted 15% Table 4.1 In Denmark, however, the national authorities and 25% deviation from reference conditions, Threshold values describing reference decided, in August 2005, that the risk analysis respectively. conditions and ‘good’ should be based on the existing objectives stipu- For both macroalgal biomass and eelgrass and ‘moderate’ ecologi- lated in the Regional Planning, cf. ch. 2. These depth distribution, a correlation can be estab- cal and chemical status existing objectives are largely comparable to the lished between biological state of the fjord and in the two water bodies operational, quantitative objectives developed nitrogen loading of the fjord (Fig. 4.1). Accord- in Odense Fjord. The threshold values for below in chapters 4.1-4-3. ing to these relations, the nitrogen input to the good ecological and fjord must not exceed appr. 1000 tN/yr, if ”good high ecological status 4.1 The fjord ecological status” shall be obtained. are defi ned as 25% and The quality objectives in the Regional Plan serve If higher status is required, due to e.g. Nature 15% deviation, respec- as the basis for establishing environmental objec- 2000 protection, further reductions are needed. tively, from reference conditions except for tives pursuant to the Water Framework Direc- Due to the effects of the sediment phosphorus macroalgal (sea lettuce) tive and Environmental Objectives Act. The pool in the fjord and the present conditions for biomass (see note). The quality objectives in Fyn County’s Regional Plan limitation of algal growth in which nitrogen is threshold values for TN for 2001–2013 stipulate that the northwestern still the primary limiting nutrient for most of and Secchi depth are part of the fjord should fulfi l the high objective the year, no clear relationship can be established calculated from 15% and 25% deviations of “reference area for scientifi c studies”. The qual- from the model between phosphorus concentra- historical (reference) tion and macroalgal growth. Experimental stud- eelgrass depths and Treshold values for good and high ecological status ies of sea lettuce (Ulva lactuca) growth in Seden used in the empiri- Strand, however, underscore that both nitrogen cal eelgrass depth-TN Eelgrass Sea Secchi TN TP and phosphorus input to the fjord continue to be (logarithmic) and depth lettuce depth (µg/l) (µg/l) 2 eelgrass depth-Secchi limit gC/m (m) important for algal growth, and that limitation (m) depth (linear) relations of algal growth is least pronounced closest to the of Nielsen et al. (2002). SS ODF SS SS ODF SS ODF SS ODF mouth of the river Odense Å, which comprises Reference Values for TP are based >4 >6 <10 - >7,3 <666 >374 <30<10 values the main source of nutrient input to the fjord. on 15% and 25% devia- The reduction in nutrient loading of the fjord High 1) tions from reference >3,4 >5,1 12,5 - 6,1 794 464 34,511,5 conditions in the ‘Nat- status required to ensure the fjord’s ecological and Good 1) ural state scenario’- >3 >4,5 15 - 5,3 976 548 37,512,5 chemical status will thus entail at least a halving status runs of the dynamic 1) High and good ecological status defined as 25% and 50% of the present nitrogen load and a considerable MIKE 3-model. deviation, respectively, from reference condition. reduction in the phosphorus load under normal

22 BERNET - Odense Fjord, Water Management Plan 4. Provisional environmental objectives

Deﬁ ning relations between operational objectives and nitrogen loading Figure 4.1 Relations between Macroalgae in Odense Fjord. Scenarios: Maximum depth - Eelgrass. Scenarios: nitrogen loading and Climate 2000. Inner part: Seden Strand, st. 8 Climate 2000 Odense Fjord outer part st. 17 biological variables, g C/m**2 meters based on empirical and dynamic modelling.

50 1980'ies 10 The reference load is estimated from Actual dynamic and empirical 40 8 modelling and historical data. 30 6 Reference

Provisional objective Provisional objective 20 4 Reference Actual 10 2

0 0 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000

N-loading (tonnes/year) N-loading (tonnes/year) Max. loading 700-1050 tonnes N/year

Stream Lake type Lake type • Pesticides – nothing in groundwater bodies Quality criteria types 1-3 9 (and 6) 10 used for abstraction of drinking water* and Danish 0.60 (25) <0.1µg/l for other groundwater bodies Physical Index • Hazardous substances* – nothing present (be- Danish Stream 5 Fauna Index low the limit of detection) • Conductivity – <100 mS/m*. Total-P (µg/l) 50 25 * These objectives are set by Fyn County and are to some extent specifi ed in the Regional Plan. climatic conditions. It will not be possible to attain these reduction targets with the current As regards nitrate and pesticides, the Water and already planned measures under the Action Framework Directive and forthcoming Ground- Plans on the Aquatic environment I, II and III water Directive stipulate quality standards of 50 and the planned measures to reduce discharges mg/l and 0.1 µg/l, respectively. These standards from sparsely built-up areas. have not been fi nally implemented in Denmark. In addition, the chemical composition of the 4.2 Running waters and lakes groundwater body must not be such that the con- In order to comply with at least good ecologi- centration of contaminants results in: cal quality the following provisional operational objectives for running waters and lakes are pro- • Failure of associated surface water bodies to posed: achieve their environmental objective • Diminution in the status of such water bodies 4.3 Groundwater • Signifi cant damage to terrestrial ecosystems The environmental objectives specifi ed below which depend directly on the groundwater apply to groundwater bodies, i.e. the objectives body. have to be fulfi lled by the distinct volume of groundwater within an aquifer and hence do not Good quantitative status apply to all groundwater. • Groundwater abstraction must not exceed the Objectives are set for both “good chemical long-term groundwater recharge status” and “good quantitative status”. If status is • The level of groundwater must not be so af- not good, it is considered poor. fected by anthropogenic activity as to result in: Good chemical status • The failure of associated surface water bodies In order for the status to be considered good, the to achieve their environmental objectives groundwater must fulfi l the following standards: • Diminution in the status of such water bodies • Signifi cant damage to terrestrial ecosystems • Nitrate – 25 mg/l for groundwater bodies used which depend directly on the groundwater for abstraction of drinking water * and 50 mg/ body. l for other groundwater bodies

BERNET - Odense Fjord, Water Management Plan 23 5. Programme of measures

5. Programme of measures 5.1 Introduction The program of measures is made on the basis of from agriculture including waterborne as well as the objectives presented in the previous chapter. airborne pollutants. Also measures to minimize There is so far only elaborated a program of meas- impacts from physical pressures are important, ures for Odense Fjord. The detailed program of including measures to re-meandering the regu- measures related every water body within the lated watercourses, measures to regain free pas- Odense Pilot River Basin is in preparation. sage for migrating fi sh through the watercourses The different measures can mainly be related and measures to regain the retention capacity the following pressure types: (nutrients etc.) in river beds (reconstruction of wetlands). • Diffuse pressures (water- and airborne) In the fi nal water management plan, the dif- • Point source pressures (i.e. sewage outlets) ferent program of measures related each of the • Physical pressures (i.e. drainage and river water types should be optimised against each maintenance) other to ensure that you get value for money. That means it should be taken into account that The measures identifi ed related to each type a specifi c measure can affect the quality of more of waters is presented in table 5.1. A plus indi- than one type of water body. Par example some cates that this measures is identifi ed as priority of the measures targeted Odense Fjord will also measure related that specifi c type of water body. enhance the protection of lakes, groundwater The measures includes measures on sewage out- and watercourses (This optimization has not lets from households and industry and measures been fully implemented yet!). reducing diffuse loads of pollutant substances

24 BERNET - Odense Fjord, Water Management Plan 5. Programme of measures

Potential measures to fulfil the WFD objectives in Odense Fjord river basin Pressures and measures Target pressure Affected water bodies/habitats to reduce them or aim of measure Coasta Lakes Rivers Ground Terrestrial l -water natural waters habitats Diffuse pressures – agriculture Improved utilization of nutrients in manure o Improved utilization of animal fodder o Storage requirements (min. 12 months capacity) N and P loads + + + (+) o Requirements as to manure application systems and max. amount of manure applied. Improved utilization of nutrients in manure o Reduced ammonia volatilization (livestock housing, manure storage and N load (airborne) (+) + (+) + application) Enclosed storage facilities for manure and silage, including facilities to N, P and BOD loads + + + + + eliminate ammonia volatilization and odour pollution Reduced livestock production/density N and P loads + + + +

Catch crops: Optimized and increased use N load + + +

Spring ploughing instead of autumn ploughing N load + + + N and P loads + + + Set-aside for: Sediment load + + + o Wetlands, natural habitats and permanent grassland in river valleys Improved/natural hydromorph. + + o New natural habitats, forests and permanent grassland structure + Restore natural habitats Fertilization requirements (N, P): N and P loads + + + o Reduced N and P fertilization quotas Fertilization demands (P): o Phosphorus balance at field level P load + + o Reduced P fertilization quota in soils with high P content Cultivation restrictions on potentially erosive areas P and sediment loads + + +

Buffer zones (uncultivated) alongside surface waters (rivers, lakes, etc.) P and sediment loads + + +

Reduced or regulated drainage Hydrology, N and P loads + + +

Diffuse pressures – forestry o Leaving vegetation in the felling area o Planting as soon as possible o Leaving buffer strips alongside rivers Sediment, N and P loads, + + + + o Increasing the amount of deciduous trees

Point-source pressures Wastewater treatment facilities o Sparsely built-up areas – improved wastewater treatment N, P and BOD loads + + + o Municipal treatment plants – improved wastewater treatment Hazardous substance load + + + o Stormwater outfalls – basins Pathogenic bacteria and virus load + + ++ o Renewal/renovation of sewerage systems N, P and BOD loads + + ++ ++ o Former waste disposal sites – measures to reduce leaching Hazardous substance load + + ++ ++ Reducing physical pressures Reintroducing and protecting migratory fish Improved/natural hydromorphological o Removal of obstructions for fish migration structure + + + o Restrictions on angling and fishery and at potential spawning grounds, Reintroduction of migratory fish etc. Re-establishment of natural rivers and river valleys Improved/natural hydromorphological o Re-meandering of regulated rivers and reopening of culverted streams structure o Restoration of gravel and stones in river beds + + ++ ++ N and P loads o Cessation or minimization of river maintenance Sediment load o Extensification of cultivation Improved/natural hydromorphological Cessation/reduction of groundwater and surface water abstraction + + + structure Others Increased water transparency and Biomanipulation of lakes + greater plant and animal diversity Removal of contaminated sediments and soils P load, hazardous substance load + + (+) +

Reducing emissions to the atmosphere from traffic, industries and livestock N load, + + +

Table 5.1 Identiﬁ ed measures related the different water types within the Odense Pilot River Basin. The main effect of the measure is indicated.

BERNET - Odense Fjord, Water Management Plan 25 5. Programme of measures

5.2 Coastal waters The input of nutrients to the fjord needs to be A program of measures to reduce the annual reduced considerably if good ecological status is riverine runoff of nutrients to Odense Fjord by to be attained (see previous chapter). There is thus up to 1,000–1,200 tonnes of nitrogen and 6–? a need for measures to at least halve the nitrogen tonnes of phosphorus are presented below. The input to the fjord. Phosphorus input also has to program is chosen among different alternatives be reduced considerably compared with present as the most cost effective of measures encom- inputs. Such a reduction in nutrient inputs to pass both measures directed at point sources and Odense Fjord primarily necessitates reducing measures directed at diffuse sources (primarily loading from agriculture (nitrogen and phospho- agriculture). rus), but loading from point sources (especially The dimensioning of this program is taken into phosphorus) also needs to be reduced. Moreover, account that some already planned/decided activ- measures need to be taken to reduce inputs of ities will have an effect on nutrient runoff to the hazardous substances to the fjord. fjord. Thus the program of measures imply a cal- Riverine inputs of nitrogen and phosphorus to culated effect of the most recently implemented/ the fjord from the catchment currently amount adopted programmes of measures within the to 2,100–2.400 tonnes nitrogen and 60 tonnes river basin and the effect of expected increased phosphorus. A further approx. 100 tonnes nitro- activities (agriculture etc) until 2015 (table 5.3). gen and 0.7 tonnes phosphorus are input to the fjord annually via the atmosphere. As is also Preconditions - “Baseline 2015” apparent from the above, inputs of nutrients to When determining the need for further measures the fjord from towns, industry and agriculture and their costs, it is necessary to base this on the have decreased over the past 20 years as a result pressure to which the fjord will be subject once of measures pursuant to wastewater and regional all the adopted/planned activities have taken planning in the county and the Action Plans on effect – the so-called “baseline 2015”. The present the Aquatic Environment (table 5.2). pressure on the fjord thus has to be corrected for the effect of such measures/activities (see table 5.3 tonnes Riverine nitrogen loading Odense Fjord and fi gure 5.1). The fi nancial costs of the measures Figure 5.1 N/year can also be affected by changed future activities, Landbased Nitrogen for example, if livestock production is allowed to loading 1980-2003 increase, thereby “commandeering” part of the of Odense Fjord 3000 and forecasts for the cheapest means of reducing the environmental Baseline 2015 development in this Diffuse loading impact of the expanded agricultural production loading for the coming 2000 and thereby indirectly increasing the costs of years, using differ- reducing the environmental pressure from exist- ent scenarios for the ing agricultural production. If supplementary forecast, (table 4.2 and 1000 table 4.3). Preliminary Provisional environmental measures are not implemented target load ensuring Sewage target in connection with expansion of livestock pro- good ecological quality duction, nutrient loss (waterborne and airborne) 0 llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll of the fjord by 2016 1983 1988 1993 1998 2003 2008 2013 to the surroundings will be enhanced. Without has been estimated supplementary environmental measures the total to around 700-1000 tonnes N/year (climate nitrogen loss to the surroundings will thus typi- 2000). cally be increased by 25–45 kg N for each addi- Livestock production tional livestock unit produced. Just under half 1000 Fyn County 1980-2015 of the increased loss takes place via leaching, of Figure 5.2 tonnes N Total production which approx. 40% reaches the fjord. In com- Development of the Pigs livestock production Cattle parison, just less than 1 kg nitrogen is discharged 12 in Fyn County (1000 Prognosis with wastewater per year for each person in the tonnes N) estimated fjord catchment. as produced products 9 The effect of the most recently implemented/ (milk, meat, eggs and hides). Source: Danedi adopted programmes of measures (the Regional 6 2004. The prognosis Plan, Action Plan on the Aquatic Environment is based on (Dansk III: 2005–2015) will fi rst become detectable in Landbrug (2004) and 3 the watercourses during the coming decade. (Kyllingsbæk (2004)). Thus Action Plan on the Aquatic Environ- 0 lllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll ment III is expected to reduce nitrogen input 85 88 91 94 97 00 03 06 09 12 15 to the fjord by a further 400 tonnes N/yr, and

26 BERNET - Odense Fjord, Water Management Plan 5. Programme of measures

Table 5.2 Riverine inputs of nitrogen and phosphorus to Odense Fjord Riverine inputs of nitrogen and phospho- Nitrogen Phosphorus rus to the fjord All data Year are normalized climat Tonnes N/yr Kg N/ha/yr mg N/l Tonnes P/yr Kg P/ha/yr mg P/l in 2000, corresponding 1980’s 3500 33 9,6 295 2,8 0,82 a freshwater loading to the fjord on 360 . 106 Actual loading *1 2100-2400 17-20 5,8-6,7 64 0,6 0,18 m3/yr. “Baseline 2015” means the loading “Baseline 2015” - prognosis 1700-2000 16-19 4,7-5,6 60 0,5 0,16 once all the adopted/ ”Target load” 2015 700-1050 6,6-10,0 1,9-2,9 ? planned activities have taken effect. ”Target Required load reduction compared to 650-1300 ? load” means the maxi- “Baseline 2015” mum loading of the *1: loading 1999-2004. fjord commensurate with “good ecological status.

Table 5.3 improved wastewater treatment in the catchment The effect of the most recently implemented/adopted will reduce loading by a further 30 tonnes N/yr. programmes of measures The table shows the Based on the measurements made in the water- and effect of the most The effect of expected increased activities (agriculture etc) recently implemented/ courses over the past fi ve years there seems to Prognosis 2005-2015 adopted programmes of be no great residual effect of Action Plan on the Expected effect on loading measures and the effect Aquatic Environment II, as was also concluded to Odense Fjord of expected increased 2005-2015 in connection with its fi nal evaluation and the Measure/activity activities (agriculture Tonnes Tonnes preparatory work on Action Plan on the Aquatic etc) in the period 2005- nitrogen/yr phosphorus/yr 2015. Environment III. NAPAE II, resilience 0? - NAPAE: National The authorizations to expand livestock pro- Action Plan for the duction issued in recent years in the fjord catch- NAPAE III - 400 ? Aquatic Environment. Reduced sewage outlets ment can in themselves entail an increase in - 30 - 4 loading of the fjord as it has been accepted that (planned) Increased animal production the expansion can increase the total nitrogen up to +20% + (0-100) +? *2 input to the fjord by up to 100 tonnes N/yr. The (approved 2000-2004) calculations take into account the environmental Further increase in animal production 2005-2015 0 *1 +? *1 effect of current changes in production systems, Prognosis: +26% *3 etc. In the period 2000–2004, the authorities *1: Presuming that authorisations of increased production is thus authorized a 20% increase in livestock pro- given on condition that measures are taken to prevent increased loading. duction in the catchment of Odense Fjord. The *2 A continued excess application of phosphorus to fields will actual increase in production resulting from the slowly enhance the loss of phosphorus from fields, but it is very uncertain to calculate the exact values. issuance of these authorizations will not become *3: Based on Dansk Landbrug (2004) and Kyllingsbæk (2004). apparent until after a few years. Data from Statis- tics Denmark show that livestock production on Funen has been steadily increasing since the mid poultry production are expected to increase, and 1980s corresponding to a 40% increase in produc- the dairy cattle and breeding cattle stocks are tion (milk, meat, eggs and hides) in the period expected to decrease. Overall, this corresponds 1985–2003 or an average of 2% per year. Over the to a further 26% increase in livestock produc- period 2000–2003, production in the county has tion (milk, meat, eggs and hides) in the county increased by 1.7% annually (fi gure 5.2). The sta- (Kyllingsbæk, 2004) or a growth rate for the next tistical evidence thus indicates that the issuance decade that is slightly greater (15%) than seen in of authorizations to expand production actually the preceding decades. leads to an increase in livestock production in the It can thus be concluded that the present load- county. ing of the fjord can be expected to be reduced by Looking to the future, Danish Agriculture the net fi gure of an additional 300–400 tonnes estimates that livestock production in the county N/yr as a result of the initiated and planned will increase further up to 2015 (Danish Agricul- activities that can be expected to affect the input ture, 2004). Thus production of slaughter pigs is of nitrogen to the fjord during the period 2005– expected to increase by 39%, the sow stock and 2015 (table 5.2, 5.3 and fi gure 5.1).

BERNET - Odense Fjord, Water Management Plan 27 5. Programme of measures

Agriculture - measures When dosing the various measures in the vari- In connection with the preparation of Action ous scenarios, it was taken into account that not Plan on the Aquatic Environment III the Min- all the measures can be applied to an equally great istry of the Environment and the Ministry of area. For example, there is an upper limit for how Foods, Agriculture and Fisheries have thor- much farmland can be converted to denitrifying oughly elucidated the possibilities for regulating wetlands. the total loss of nutrients from agriculture, both The most cost effective scenario that reduce airborne (ammonia) and waterborne (nitrogen the annual nitrogen input to the fjord by 1,000– and phosphorus). A broad array of measures to 1,200 tonnes N/yr is shown in table 5.4 This agri- reduce the loss has been analysed, including the cultural program of measures corresponding to effect and economics of the use of the individual a load reduction of the order needed to reduce measures. With the participation of Fyn County nitrogen loading of the fjord to a target load com- and others, the Odense Fjord River Basin has mensurate with “good ecological status”. been included as an example. Thus scenarios have The analyses show that it is possible to imple- been drawn up for measures in the agricultural ment environmental measures in agriculture that area that reduce nutrient loading of Odense Fjord will reduce nitrogen loading of Odense Fjord by – including both effect calculations and cost cal- 1,000–1,200 tonnes N/yr. It is possible to reduce culations (www.vmp3.dk). This comprehensive loading of the fjord by this amount without material serves as the background for the present reducing livestock production in the catchment, presentation of cost effective easures to reduce but crop production will have to be reduced, the nutrient losses from agricultural production because the cultivated area might be reduced by in the Odense Fjord River Basin. at least 7,5% depending on which combination of measures is selected. Categories and types of measure In general, establishment of wetlands and The various types of measure are summarized in reduced fertilization norms are the most effective ﬁ ve categories in Fact Box 2. How these various measures if large reductions in loading are to be measures other than the economic instruments achieved. Catch crops are also effective and have can be cost effectively applied in the Odense a substantial effect. River Basin is brieﬂ y described below. The total budgeted costs for the three analysed scenarios range from DKK 30 million to 84 Nitrogen – measures million per year. If account is taken of the pro- A number of scenarios have been established for grammes of measures for the other water bodies Odense Fjord that each describe how various and ecosystems in Odense Pilot River Basin doses of measures can be used to achieve a given (watercourses, lakes, groundwater, and terres- nitrogen reduction target. trial ecosystems) it could transpire that another

Table 5.4 Agricultural measures - Nitrogen The most cost-effective Effect and economy measures reducing the Measure Area involved Cost Reduced Reduced Nitrogen loading load to the fjord by Nitrogen leaching Odense Fjord 1100 tonnes per year. Hectare 1.000.000 (50% retention) Based on MEM, 2003a (percent of DKK/yr Cost Cost agricultural area) (extract). effectiveness effectiveness tonnes N DKK/kg N tonnes N DKK/kg N

Better utilization of animal fodder 70.000 (100%) 0 45 0 23 0

10% higher utilization of animal manure 70.000 (100%) 2,4 142 17 71 34

Catch-crops: Optimized utilization of 3.200(4,6 %) 0 38 0 19 0 existing catch-crops on areas with manure

Catch-crops: Increased use 5.000(7,1%) 1,3 185 7 93 14

Wetlands in river valleys –Set aside for wet- 5.400(7,7%) 15,7 540 29 540 29 lands

Reduced N-fertilizer quota (20%) 70.000 (100%) 9,0 603 15 301 30

28,9 Total cost (3,8 mio € /yr)

Total reduction - leaching, loading 1553 1099 Cost effectiveness - average 26 (DKK/kg N removed) (3,5 € /kg N)

28 BERNET - Odense Fjord, Water Management Plan 5. Programme of measures

combination of measures could be the most cost- effective. In comparison the present cost sewage Box 2 treatment within the Odense Fjord river basin is Measures reducing agricultural about 380 million DKK per year and the cost of losses of nutrients organised in categories/types existing measures related agriculture is about 7 million DKK per year. Technological types Generally speaking, the analysed agricultural • Improvement of manure and slurry measures can be divided into two categories as – biogas – separation techniques far as concerns cost-effectiveness determined • Limitation of ammonia evaporation from an overall assessment of their reduction in – application of acid to slurry nitrogen loading of Odense Fjord. Two measures – improvement of stables – targeting of the current catch crops to those Fertiliser related types ﬁ elds that receive manure and improved fodder • Standards for utilization and maximum utilization – are assessed as being cost-neutral. use of manure and slurry Thereafter the set-aside of arable land in river • Reduced fertilizer quota valleys is considered to be the most cost-effec- Land use related types tive measure followed by a further reduction in • Demand of utilization of catch crops the nitrogen norm. Afforestation, subsidies for • Set a side areas agri-environmental measures (voluntary meas- – reduced application of fertilizer ures, EU subsidized), reduced livestock herds – catch crops – selection of agricultural areas for wet and conversion to organic farming are the least lands, forests and riparian areas free of cost-effective measures regarding reduced Nitro- cultivation gen load. Authorizations for increasing livestock • Cultivation without ploughing production can therefore prove to be expensive Measures effecting both the water environment for society if it subsequently proves necessary as well as the terrestrial environment to buy back all or part of the production rights • Stop rotation cultivation along river in order to ensure compliance with the environ- valleys mental objectives. Organic farming can be an • Stop cultivation along riparian areas • Reduction of ammonia emission alternative if prevention of pesticide losses is a • Organic farming priority i.e. areas where groundwater tables are poor protected by the soils. Economical measures Moreover, if authorizations for increased live- • Fees on fertilizers, quotas • Subsidies to environmental stock production in Odense River Basin con- improvements – CAP (voluntarily) tinue to be issued, the above-mentioned costs will – reduced application of fertilizer increase due to the “commandeering” of part of catch crops the cheapest means of reducing the environmen- selection of agricultural ar-eas for wet lands, forests and riparian areas free of tal impact of the expanded agricultural produc- cultivation tion and thereby indirectly increasing the costs of reducing the environmental pressure from existing agricultural production.

Photo: Bjarne Andresen

BERNET - Odense Fjord, Water Management Plan 29 5. Programme of measures

Phosphorus – measures The nessesary specifi c measures to limit the agri- Box 3 cultural phosphorus losses and ensuring good Measures to limit phosphorus loss ecological status of Odense Fjord and the lakes in Odense Pilot River Basin: within the catchment of Odense Fjord are listed in Box 3.The measures are specifi cally directed at 1. Requirement for phosphorus balance at meeting the following four sub-objectives related fi eld level (all fi elds in catchment) • To be achieved through such means as a reduction of agricultural phosphorus loads,: improved distribution of manure (Phosphorus balance: Phosphorus 1. The excess application of phosphorus to applied as manure and artifi cial fi elds should cease in order to prevent future fertilizer = phosphorus removed in the enhanced loss of phosphorus from cultivated crop as an average over fi ve years) land. 2. Requirement for reduced phosphorus 2. The amount of phosphorus applied to fi elds fertilization on land with a high plant with high phosphorus content in soils should available phosphorus content in soil • If Olsen-P >4: P input is max 75% of that be reduced in order to reduce phosphorus loss removed in the crop from these areas. (Olsen-P: Plant available phosphorus in 3. The input of phosphorus to surface waters via soil) erosion should be reduced and minimized. 3. Identifi cation/charting of potentially erosive 4. Reestablishment of wetlands in river valleys areas to retain both nitrogen and phosphorus that leaches from cultivated land. 4. Cultivation restrictions on potentially erosive areas • Permanent grass The Danish Action Plan on the Aquatic Envi- • Reduced soil preparation, etc. ronment III may make a considerable contribution to attainment of sub-objective 3 (erosion-limiting 5. Establishment of wetlands in river valleys measures), although this is uncertain as the agree- to retain nutrients (see also the proposed ment has not yet been fi nally implemented. Sub- measures for nitrogen). objectives 1 and 2 will not be fulfi lled, however. Action Plan on the Aquatic Environment III aims be enhanced. Neither does the Action Plan focus to halve the excess application of phosphorus to on cultivated land with high phosphorus content fi elds compared with inputs in 2001 (see fi gure in soils (and potentially high phosphorus loss) as 5.3). Thus the Action Plan does not eliminate a result of many years of massive over fertiliza- excess application of phosphorus to fi elds, and tion with phosphorus. in the long term, phosphorus loss from fi elds in Effects and cost of the phosphorus measures is which excessive phosphorus is applied will thus seen in table 5.5 (Calculations have not yet been performed of the effects and costs of all the measures for reducing phosphorus loss). Table 5.5 Agriculture – The requirement for phosphorus balance at Measures to limit phos- Measures to limit phosphorus loss fi eld level will entail increased transport costs for phorus losses – effects Effects and costs manure to ensure better distribution of the phos- and costs. Effect – Total Costs phorus content of manure. These increased costs reduced loading Measures to Odense Fjord will be counterbalanced by cost savings for the

Tonnes P/yr Mio. DKK purchase of commercial phosphorus fertilizer, Phosphorus balance at No increased however. The preparatory work for Action Plan 0 field level (all fields) P-loss on the Aquatic Environment III thus concluded Reduced phosphorus that as regards Fyn County/Odense River Basin, ferlilization on soils with high plant avai- ? ? the “additional costs associated with improved lable phosphorus con- distribution of manure will be limited”. How- tent ever, the costs will increase if livestock produc- Identification/charting of potentially erosive - ? tion is increased, not least in a situation where areas the amount of phosphorus in manure is pres- Cultivation restrictions on potentially erosive -? ? ently close to corresponding to the phosphorus areas requirement for crop production. The authoriza- Establishment of wet- tion of further increases in livestock production lands in river valleys - 5 See table 5.4 (N –measure cf. table will therefore increase the costs of solving the 5.4) phosphorus problems associated with the exist- ?: Calculation of the costs or effect has not been done yet. ing livestock production.

30 BERNET - Odense Fjord, Water Management Plan 5. Programme of measures

Figure 5.3 The excess application of phosphorus to 10 10 5 ﬁ elds ( kg P/hectare) 13 5 on annual basis (2001) 10 8 7 calculated as average 9 7 values representing 6 7 11 3 the agricultural area 5 12 9 within sub-catchments 13 9 to Odense Fjord. MEM, 11 10 8 2003a. 18 20 12 13 11 5 10 6 9 8

5 8 5 4 N 8 10 8

0 5 10KM

BERNET - Odense Fjord, Water Management Plan 31 5. Programme of measures

Point source measures Box1 Wastewater containing nitrogen and phosphorus Scattered settlements is discharged to Odense Fjord from wastewater Types of measures treatment plants, from stormwater outfalls from separate and combined sewerage systems, from sparsely built-up areas and from enterprises. Since the late 1980s, the total wastewater discharges of nitrogen and phosphorus to the fjord from these four types of point source have decreased by 84% (Nitrogen) and 98% (Phosphorus). The decrease is largely attributable to improved treatment at the wastewater treatment plants. Further measures are planned/approved, especially regarding outlets from scattered settlements, storm water outlets and outlets from enterprises and waste disposal sites. These measures are targeted as well improvement of the ecological status of watercourses, lakes and Odense Fjord. The high standards of existing municipal wastewater treatment plants within the catchment of Odense Pilot River Basin make it generally difﬁ cult and expensive to make further improvements, but improvements are necessary especially regarding outlets of hazardous substances, phosphorus, and pathogenic bacteria and viruses. Tables 4.3 show the nutrient discharges and costs associated with the implementation of the programme of measures directed at point sources for the current situation (2005), upon implementation of the measures already planned (“Baseline 2015”), and measures upon implementation of WFD (Measures upon implementation of WFD are still under preparation!).

5.3 Running waters (In preparation)

5.4 Groundwater (In preparation)

5.5 Lakes (In preparation)

5.6 Wetlands (In preparation)

Photo: Stig Eggert Pedersen Costs of improved sewage treatment: Typically 60.000 DKK or 8.000 € per household/settlement

32 BERNET - Odense Fjord, Water Management Plan 5. Programme of measures

Point source measures Table 5.6 Effect and economy Point source measures. Effect and economy. Status 2005 – Loading 2000-2005 TOTAL COST Already implemented measures (% reduction compared 1980’s) mio. DKK N P operational costs tonnes/yr tonnes/yr construction costs Treatment Enhanced phosphorus and nitrogen re- 167 6,2 375/yr (oper.+ const.) *1 plants moval (84%) (98%) Storm water Basins 27 ? (operational) 7,6 outlets ? (construction) Scattered Improved treatment (organic matter + 0,66/yr (operational) 37 8,4 settlements phosphorus) on aprox. 300 settlements 18 (construction) Enterprises + Power plant enterprise pay for compen- waste disposal sate enhanced municipal sewage treat- 92 (construction) 164 1,5 site ment 3,5-5/yr (operational) Percolate collecting system > 380 mio DKK/yr Total – ”Status 2005 - Already implemented measures” (operational + construction) 395 24 > 110 mio DKK (construction) Measures already planned – Baseline loading 2015 / TOTAL COST ”Baseline 2015” Reduction of loading compared 2000-2005 mio. DKK N P operational costs tonnes/yr tonnes/yr construction costs Treatment Renovation of treatment facilities ? (operational) 165 / 2 5,8 / 0,4 plants Close outdated smaller treatment plants ? (construction) Basins – combined sewer systems Storm water 0 Mechanical and chemical treatment faci- 25 / 0 5,1 / 0 outlets lities Improved treatment (org. matter + P) on Scattered 270 (construction) further aprox. 4000 settlements. 29 / 8 6,4 / 2 settlements 10/yr (operational) Phosphorus removal on half of it. Enterprises + Reshaping of rivermouth (Odense river) 15 (construction) waste disposal because of outlet of cooling water from 32/20 0,25/0,15 site power plant >285 mio DKK (construction) Total – “Measures already planned - Baseline 2015” 255 / 30 18 / 3 >10 mio DKK/yr (operational) Loading 2015/ TOTAL COST Reduction of loading compared Measures WFD (Scenario) baseline 2015 mio. DKK N P operational costs tonnes/yr tonnes/yr construction costs reatment UV+Ozon treatment facilities 85-100 (construction) <165 / ? <5,8 / ? plants Enhanced phosphorus removal 14/yr (operation) Storm water Basins – combined sewer systems 500 (construction) outlets Mechanical and chem. treatment facili- <25 / ? <5,1 / ? ? (operation) ties Scattered Improved treatment (org. matter + P) on 100 (construction) 25 / 9 3,6 / 2,8 settlements further approximately 1275 settlements. 3,7/yr (operation) Enterprises + No further measures waste disp. 32 / 0 0,25 / 0 - site 685-700 mio DKK (constr.) Total – ”Measures WFD” <247 / >9 <14 / >2,8 >17,7?mio DKK (operation)

?: It is for the time being not possible to calculate the costs or the loading.

BERNET - Odense Fjord, Water Management Plan 33 6. Monitoring programme

6. Monitoring programme

Monitoring is an essential part of a Water Man- 6.1 Coastal waters agement Plan, and has the primary purpose to In the coastal part of the OPRB, Odense Fjord, 3 evaluate the effect of the measures taken to major water bodies and 17 heavily modifi ed water improve the ecological quality in those water bodies (see ch. 1, fi gure 1.2) have been defi ned. bodies, that do not comply with good ecological As good ecological status (GES) has not been quality. A secondary purpose is to adjust these attained for any parts of Odense Fjord (see ch. measures or to put new ones into force. This 4), only the operational and investigative moni- kind of monitoring is termed operational monitoring are relevant. So far it is considered that toring in the Water Framework Directive. Inves- only the operational monitoring is needed for the tigative monitoring may be used as a supplement moment, as the reasons for not fulfi lling GES are if the reasons for insuffi cient ecological quality well known. are not known. Surveillance monitoring is car- Due to its high status in NOVANA as a nation- ried out in those water bodies that have good ally representative, intensively studied fjord with ecological quality according to provisional or high-frequency measurements of many variables, current quality criteria. Within the OPRB, some parts of the monitoring program in Odense or all water bodies in coastal waters, streams and Fjord, especially the eutrophication-related mon- lakes as well as groundwater are already included itoring, is somewhat above what is recommended in the National Monitoring Programme for the in the WFD. Generally, the frequencies recom- Aquatic Environment and the Terrestrial Nature mended in the WFD are considered to be too low (NOVANA). for e.g. an improvement of ecological status to be The elements in a proposed programme for well-documented. The program shown in tab. operational monitoring within the OPRB, 6.1 is aimed at maintaining the fjord as an inten- including coastal water, watercourses, lakes, and sively studied area, e.g. due to the importance groundwater, and also including the most impor- of continuity and maintaining a high quality in tant pressures, are presented briefl y in Tab. 6.1. the existing, invaluable long time series, develop- In order to integrate the results of the monitor- ment of modelling tools etc. In terms of monitoring of pressures and the ecological status in the ing of hazardous substances, current NOVANA water bodies, modelling tools are under devel- monitoring is generally less intensive than the opment for lakes in general, and for the Odense WFD recommendations, and should accordingly Fjord in particular. be upgraded; this is especially true for Odense Modelling tools will also be important when Fjord, where the pressure from certain hazard- dealing with the huge amount of small water ous substances on biota is severe (see chap. 2). bodies, which will have to be treated in a repre- The transposition of the Shellfi sh Waters sentative way, as it is not possible to monitor all Directive is not yet fully completed in Denmark, the individual water bodies. and the monitoring required according to this directive therefore cannot be described in detail, but will probably need some more focus on hygi- Monitoring types according to WFD enic monitoring. For Natura 2000 sites, specifi c monitoring programmes to follow the achieve- Operational monitoring ment of good preservation status for species as well as habitats selected according to these direc- • Where ”Good Ecological Status” is not achieved but the reasons of insuffi cient tives will be necessary. Such programmes are still ecological quality are known under development on a national level.

Investigative monitoring 6.2 Running waters

• Where reasons of insufﬁ cient ecological Due to resource constraints it is unrealistic to quality are not known monitor all 316 stream water bodies within the • Supporting the operational monitoring OPRB. Thus, it is necessary – and permissible – to monitor a representative subset of water Surveillance monitoring bodies. • Where ”Good Ecological Status” is achieved Surveillance monitoring is performed at all • Check if the Water Bodies maintain ”Good 15 stream water bodies having good ecological ecological status” quality, however. The choice of parameters and frequencies are in accordance with WFD recom-

34 BERNET - Odense Fjord, Water Management Plan 6. Monitoring programme

Table 6.1 Odense Pilot River Basin – Operational Monitoring Program Overview of a proposed programme Biology Hydromorphology Physico-chemical Monitoring Aquatic for operational Frequency Quality Frequency Frequency/ Pressures media Quality elements Quality elements monitoring in coastal /interval elements /interval interval waters, watercourses, Hydrological Organic matter River maintenance Macrophytes 1 / 2 Continuously 4 / 2 lakes/ponds, and regime nutrients Erosion of banks & Water- groundwater within River riparian zones courses Macrozoobenthos 1 / 2 1 / 1 Other pollutants 4 / on demand continuity Wastewater, the OPRB. Fre-quency Nutrient loss describes the number FIsh 1 / 2 Morphology 1 / 2 Priority pollutants 4 / on demand from agriculture of sampling during Temperature, a monitoring year, oxygen, Phytoplankton 7 / 2 Hydrology 12 / 2 7 or 12 / 2 interval describes the salinity, Wastewater, number of years that Lakes alkalinity Nutrient loss monitoring is carried 1 / on from agriculture (large) Macrophytes 1 / 2 Morphology Nutrients 12 / 2 demand hunting and fishery out within a 6-years Macrozoobenthos 1 / 2 - - Other pollutants 6 / on demand pe-riod. “Monitoring Fish 1 / 1 - - Priority pollutants 6 / on demand Pressures” describes pressures needed to be Temperature, regularly monitored, oxygen, Wastewater, nutrient Phytoplankton 6 (1) / 1 - - 6 (1) / 1 Ponds salinity, loss from agriculture because of their linkage alkalinity hunting and fishery to the implementation Macrophytes 1 / 1 - - Nutrients 6 (1) / 1 of the WFD objectives. Temperature, Wastewater, Phytoplankton 26-52/ 6 - - oxygen, 26-52 / 6 Nutrient loss Costal salinity from agriculture Industrial emissions waters Macrophytes 2 / 3 - - Nutrients 26-52 / 6 Navigation and up- Macrozoobenthos 1 / 3 - - Other pollutants 2-4 /3 keeping of shipping - - - - Priority pollutants 3-7 /3 lanes

Nutrient loss Nutrients Ground- from agriculture, - Inorganic substances 90 / 6 water Use of pesticides, Other pollutants Industrial emissions

mendations except that phytoplankton and phy- 6.3 Lakes tobenthos are not included. Two water bodies Surveillance monitoring is only performed at are already included in the National Monitoring two of the 14 lakes larger than 5 ha within the and Assessment Programme for the Aquatic and OPRB (one of which is included in NOVANA). Terrestrial Environments (NOVANA), although The proposed programme is generally in agree- only one of them fulfi ls the demands of the ment with WFD recommendations except that (1) present programme. phytobenthos is not included and (2) the lakes are Operational monitoring is optional for 301 monitored at longer intervals (every third year stream water bodies with either insuffi cient or instead of every year) but far more frequently unknown ecological status. Only 72 of these during each monitoring year. water bodies will be included in the future moni- Operational monitoring is optional for at toring programme, however, of which 40 are least 12 “large” lakes with inadequate ecologi- stream type 1, 22 are stream type 2 and 10 are cal status, but should also include a representa- stream type 3. Due to the relatively large size of tive subset of the 2,600 smaller lakes and ponds the water bodies, at least 108 monitoring sites for which the ecological status is practically are required to ensure proper representation of unknown. Six “large” lakes and 25 small lakes/ ecological quality. Twenty of these are included ponds are included in NOVANA. The pro- in NOVANA. The number of parameters will gramme for “large” lakes resembles that for sur- be somewhat reduced compared to the WFD veillance monitoring except that the sampling recommendations (excluding phytoplankton, frequency is increased signifi cantly for nutrients phytobenthos, temperature, oxygen, salinity and and phytoplankton (tab. 6.2). For smaller lakes alkalinity). and ponds, a reduced programme (in accordance No investigative monitoring is planned. with NOVANA) is suggested.

BERNET - Odense Fjord, Water Management Plan 35 6. Monitoring programme

In addition to the monitoring of ecological from the present monitoring programme. With status, nutrient inputs from the various sources an input of knowledge of point sources (includ- must also be monitored. This will only be car- ing wastewater discharges from scattered homes, ried out at a subset of representative lakes (includ- stormwater systems) and land use, these models ing “near-reference” lakes) in order to establish may be used to predict the nutrient load in the empirical models linking catchment land use and rest of the coastal water bodies and lakes, and nutrient load, supplemented by similar empirical additionally to assess the quality of those water models linking nutrient load and in-lake nutrient bodies that are not monitored at all. concentrations derived from the present moni- Whereas the current, well-functioning monitoring programme. By inputting knowledge of toring program concerning the pressures aris- land use these models can be used to predict the ing from nutrient loads should be continued and nutrient load in the remaining lakes and to assess further improved, as outlined above, it will be the quality of the non-monitored lakes. a challenge to generate a monitoring programme No investigative monitoring is planned. for input quantities and sources of hazardous substances, for which knowledge are relatively 6.4 Pressures on surface waters scarce. Once established, such a programme Although the WFD predominantly focuses on may replace some of the concentration monitor- monitoring quality elements in the water bodies ing of hazardous substances in the water phases that may be indicative for specifi c pressures, and sediments of the water bodies, whereas it is monitoring of the pressures themselves (nutri- important to maintain the monitoring of biota, ent loads, hazardous substance levels and loads, both in the form of concentrations in biota (due physical factors) is certainly important in order to the accumulation effect) and harmful effects to link between pressures and impact. This is on biota. especially important in operational monitoring. Finally, various physical pressures may need In the absence of pressure monitoring, it may be specifi c monitoring programs. This may hold for impossible to link pressures properly with their factors like e.g. river maintenance and erosion effects in the associated water bodies, and thus of banks and riparian zones in watercourses and to be able to adjust plans for obtaining good eco- the upkeeping of shipping routes and extent of logical quality. But monitoring possible pressures navigation in coastal zones; this type of monitor- - or at least “background” levels of these pres- ing may also be important in order to assess the sures (e.g. run-off of nitrogen from catchments) heavily modifi ed water bodies. - is even important in surveillance monitoring. Thus, such monitoring may be able to detect the 6.5 Groundwater reasons for future negative changes in the water For evaluation of the chemical status, surveil- bodies that at present have good ecological qual- lance and operational monitoring could be car- ity because these negative changes would other- ried out in 31 out of 36 water bodies by using the wise be unexplained. And monitoring the “back existing monitoring system on the water wells in ground” levels of pressures at water bodies with the area (table 6.1). There are 616 water wells in good or even high ecological quality is important the Odense Fjord area all suited for the purpose in comparison with monitoring levels of pres- (table 6.1). Additionally, it could be relevant to sures that induce moderate and worse ecological establish a few new boreholes for monitoring and quality in other water bodies. to adjust the existing monitoring programme. For simple resource reasons the monitoring Investigative monitoring is carried out in con- of pressures may be limited to a representative nection with investigation, remediation and sur- subset of water bodies. In the case of nutrient veillance of polluted sites. loads, the data obtained may then be used to estab- Surveillance of the quantitative status prima- lish empiric models linking catchment land use rily is carried through monitoring of the water and nutrient load. For lakes (and certain coastal table and extraction of water on the waterworks. water bodies) these models may be supplemented Additionally there is a surveillance of the ground- by similar empiric models linking nutrient load water table in selected areas included in a regional and water body nutrient concentrations, derived monitoring programme.

36 BERNET - Odense Fjord, Water Management Plan 6. Monitoring programme

BERNET - Odense Fjord, Water Management Plan 37 7. Public Participation

7. Public Participation

Introduction to Public Participation Programme of Measures. Both groups consisted Public Participation is an important part of the of members from stakeholders’ organizations implementation of the Water Framework Direc- To facilitate the comprehensive work a Techni- tive. The Directive is, however, loosely defi ned cal Advisory Board was created in spring 2004 to regarding specifi c demands on public participa- ensure that details of the work (the reports) were tion. thoroughly discussed in a forum of profession- In order to implement a Water Plan success- als. Also this group consisted of members from fully it is highly necessary to get acceptance of stakeholders’ organizations. the plan, the suggested environmental objectives, As seen above the preparations of the Water and the measures needed to reach the objectives Plan was made a special theme in the legally in order to achieve good ecological status in the obligatory Regional Plan 2005. Ad hoc meetings region in question. and creation of an Information folder as part of This calls for identifi cation of all stakeholders, the public participation plan was not fulfi lled, and their participation early on in the process. whilst Press coverage and a Homepage was covered www.odenseprb.fyns-amt.dk as well as a 7.1 Who was involved and when? stakeholder analysis. The purpos of the analysis As described in the previous chapters of the was to ensure participation of all relevant stake- present Water Management Plan the major steps holders, and not forget anyone. in creating this plan have been the preparation of Except from the missing folder and ad hoc two reports, the Basic Description and the Pro- meetings the plan was followed although with gramme of Measures. some delay time wise. These reports have been elaborated by the administration of the Water Authority, and they 7.2 What comments have the Water have been thoroughly discussed with stakehold- Authority received? ers present in the catchment of Odense Fjord. An The public participation process in OPR has overview of stakeholders can be seen in table 7.1. benefi ted from the effort of the three advisory The stakeholders’ organizations were invited boards. The Technical Advisory Board espe- to a series of meetings prepared by the Water cially has delivered substantial comments to the Authority. These meetings were part of a larger reports. This work group has offered time and plan for involving the public in the different steps resources in giving a series of comments to the of creating a Water Plan. The participation plan two main reports (Basic Description and Pro- can be seen in table 7.2. gramme of Measures). The plan for public participation holds the fol- The comments from all three advisory boards lowing elements: can be divided into the following categories:

• Involvement of stakeholder groups through: 1 Technical comments • National Scientifi c Board 2 Comments in relation to defi nition of envi- • Regional Political Board ronmental goals and reference condition • Technica Advisory Board 3 Political comments • Special theme in Regional Plan 2005* 4 Comments to the process as such • Creation of homepage • Ad hoc meetings The contents of the different categories can be • Press coverage summarized into the following: • Information folder * The Regional Plan is a comprehensive plan in Denmark Technical comments describing a 12 year period. The plan is revised every four • Clarifi cation of facts years, and it is binding to the municipalities involved. • Concrete suggestions to improve characterisa- tion In spring 2003 two advisory boards were • Identifi cation of lacking tools in carrying out created: the National Scientifi c Board and the the Basic Description Regional Political Board. The two groups were • Suggestions concerning: how to defi ne modi- created to ensure both a high professional quality fi ed water bodies of the reports and to ensure that local/regional • Demands for economic calculations regarding political level was in agreement with the decisions Programme of Measures taken on basis of the Basic Description and the

38 BERNET - Odense Fjord, Water Management Plan 7. Public Participation

Comments in relation to defi nition of environ- assessment of defi nition of environmental goals mental goals and reference condition and reference conditions have been or will be • Input to defi nition of goals considered. Data basis and announcements from • Tools for assessment of present condition, and the national level will also infl uence these ele- defi nition of goals ments. Finally, comments on coordination to • Scientifi c support to defi nition of goals other EU-directives have led to internal discus- • Support to: how far back should we assess ref- sions in the county administration and within erence conditions other authorities. • Suggestions to defi nitions to reference condi- Some of the more political comments have tions and further application caused the county council politicians to respond • Necessary coordination to different EU direc- directly to these comments. tives In relation to comments to the process as such, these comments have drawn attention to the Political comments work process and the way cooperation is per- • Strong criticism of environmental goals; some formed between stakeholders and between stake- wanted them stronger, some weaker holders and the authority. During the discussions • Demand of immediate economical assess- of the Basic Description it became obvious that ments the process as such needed a great deal of mutual • Demand of non-publication of the Basic De- information and time for the necessary dialogue scription between stakeholders. During the discussions • Views on costs of implementation of a future of the Programme of Measures the stakehold- Water Plan ers’ groups obtained a higher information level • Backing possibilities to technological solutions about each other, and the process was smoother regarding agricultural emissions although still time consuming. Presently (August 2005) comments from all Comments to the process as such relevant stakeholders regarding Programme • Attention to level of ambition of Measures have been presented to the Water • Attention to the necessary teamwork between Authority, and especially the positive comments involved parties on the latest meetings should be emphasized. It • Criticism of the work form in the fi rst period was remarked that the Water Authority had done of collaboration a serious and well managed job in collecting all • Praise of the work form in the later period of the many different comments and opinions, and collaboration treated these comment with the greatest respect • Demand of suggestions on how to make meas- although fundamental disagreements continue to ures/goals operational exist between stakeholders. The Water Authority would have wished that What type of action has been taken regarding some stakeholders’ groups had been more active the comments? during the meetings. This wish goes for more The Water Authority has managed the comments than one group. Municipalities that will have a in different ways. In relation to technical com- key role to play when the implementation of the ments, actual necessary alterations have been Water Plan is carried out have contributed less incorporated in the Basic Description and Pro- than hoped for. On the other hand other groups, gramme of Measures. An overview of all com- for example Farmers’ Organizations, have con- ments can be seen in minutes from the meetings. tributed very much to discussions of the two reports. Comments to defi nition of reference condition The Water Authority sees these different levels and environmental goals have been managed in of participation as an expression of different level three different ways. Concrete answers have been of means and resources to put into such a work. given to questions on methods. Furthermore, It refl ects the economical and political strength suggestions to which elements should enter the of these stakeholder groups.

BERNET - Odense Fjord, Water Management Plan 39 7. Public Participation

Table 7.1 Stakeholders

Level of repre- Core Actors Other Authorities Business interests, research, etc. NGOs, associations sentatives Local & Fyn County Municipalities Local industries, agro-industrial Anglers Association regional companies Representatives of private consultants Association of Hunters

3 associations of Farmers called: Association of Family Farmers Fyn Associations of Farmers Fyn Association of big landowners

Fyn Tourist Board

Odense & Fyn Waterworks

National Danish Forest & Confederation of Danish Danish Ornithologists' Nature Agency Industries Association Danish EPA Danish Waterworks Danish Society for Conservation of Nature Ministry of Danish Regions Danish Professional Gardeners Danish Forestry Environment (Counties’ Assoc.) Extension Ministry of Food, Ag- Danish Food Econom- Universities & Research institutes Danish Outdoor riculture & Fisheries ics Research Institute Council

Table 7.2 Public participation plan Completed 2003 2004 2005 Planned 1. National scientific board Continued maintenance 2. Regional political board 3. Involvement of OPRB in Regional Planning 4. Homepage

5. Stakeholder analysis 6. Technical advisory board 7. Ad hoc meetings

8. Coverage

9. Information folder

40 BERNET - Odense Fjord, Water Management Plan 7. Public Participation

BERNET - Odense Fjord, Water Management Plan 41 8. References

References – in Danish

Analyse af VMP lll senarier for Odense Fjord, Danmarks JordbrugsForskning, Uffe Jørgensen, Kyllingsbæk 2004: Beregninger af Danmarks Jørgen F. Hansen og Inge T. Kristensen, 9. decem- Jordbrugsforskning for Fyns Amt af udviklin- ber 2003. gen i husdyrproduktionen frem til 2015, baseret på Dansk landbrugs prognose (Dansk Landbrug Dahl, K., M.M. Larsen, M.B. Rasmussen, J.H. (2004)). Andersen, J.K. Petersen, A.B. Josefson, S. Lunds- teen, I. Dahllöf, & T. Christiansen (2003). Kvalitet- MEM, 2003a: Rapport for arbejdsgruppen til svurderingssystem for Habitatdirektivets marine gennemgang af virkemidler i en regionalt baseret naturtyper. Fase 1. Identiﬁ kation af potentielle beskyttelse af vandmiljøet mod kvælstof og indikatorer og tilgængelige data. Faglig rapport fosfor. Del III, Miljøministeriet og Ministeriet fra DMU nr. 446. Danmarks Miljøundersøgelser, for Fødevarer, Landbrug og Fiskeri, December 92 pp. http//faglige-rapporter.dmu.dk. 2003.

Danedi (2004): N- og P-regnskaber for landbruget Nielsen et al., (2004) Afrapportering fra Miljø- i Fyns Amt og i Danmark 1984/85 – 2001/02. modelgruppen - fase II. Odense Fjord, Scenarier Udkast til rapport (april 2004) til Fyns Amt. for reduktion af næringsstoffer, Faglig rapport Danedi v./ Hans Schrøder. fra DMU, nr. 485.

Dansk Landbrug (2004): Statistik Nyt fra Dansk Nielsen et al., (2003) Kvantiﬁ cering af næringsst- Landbrug nr. 7, august 2004. offers transport fra kilde til recipient samt effekt i vandmiljøet (Modeltyper og deres anvendelse DHI (2000). Scenarieanalyse for Fynsværkets illustreret ved eksempler), Faglig rapport fra kølevandsudledning. Fynsværket, Fase 3: Model- DMU, nr. 455. lering af effekter på Odense Fjord. DHI/Fyns- værket. Nielsen, S.L., Sand-Jensen, K., Borum, J. & Geertz-Hansen, O. (2002): Depth colonization Fyns Amt (2003): Odense Pilot River Basin, of eelgrass (Zostera marina) and macroalgae as Foreløbig Basisanalyse. Vandrammedirektivets determined by water transparency in Danish artikel 5. Fyns Amt, natur- og Vandmiljøafdelin- coastal waters. Estuaries 25:1025-1032. gen og Miljø- og Arealafdelingen. Omkostninger ved reduktion af næringsstofta- Fyns Amt (2004a): Vandløb 2003. Vand- bet til vandmiljøet – Forarbejde til Vandmiljø- miljøovervågning. Natur- og Vandmiljøafdelin- plan III, Fødevareøkonomisk institute, Rapport gen. nr. 167, 2004.

Fyns Amt (2004b): Kystvande 2003. Vand- Ostenfeld, C.H. (1908). Ålegræssets (Zostera miljøovervågning. Natur- og Vandmiljøafdelin- marina’s) vækstforhold og udbredelse i vore gen. farvande. Beretning fra den danske biologiske station XVI. Centraltrykkeriet, Kjøbenhavn Fyns Amt (2004c): Vanddistrikt Fyn – Basisana- lyse 2004, del 1. GIS-indberetning. Rasmussen et al (in prep): Effekter af TBT og PAH på vækst af ålegræs og havgræs. DMU. Hedeselskabet (2002): Vandfugles græsning på undervandsvegetation – en litteraturgennem- Søgaard, B., F. Skov, R. Ejrnæs, K.E. Nielsen, gang. Rapport udarbejdet til Fyns Amt. S. Pihl, P. Clausen, K. Laursen, T. Bregnballe, J. Madsen, A. Baatrup-Pedersen, M. Søndergaard, Jensen HF, Holmer M, I Dahllöf (2004): Effect of T.L. Lauridsen, P.F. Møller, T. Riis-Nielsen, R.M. tributyltin (TBT) on Seagrass (Ruppia maritima). Butterschøn, J. Fredshavn, E. Aude & B. Nyg- Mar Poll Bull 49:564-573. aard (2003). Kriterier for gunstig bevaringsstatus. Naturtyper og arter omfattet af EF-habitatdirek- Krause-Jensen D, Jensen C, Nielsen K, Petersen tivet & fugle omfattet af EF-fuglebeskyttelses- MF, Hansen DF, Laursen M, Platz EM, Madsen direktivet, 2. udgave. Faglig rapport fra DMU PB, Bruntse G, Rask N, Larsen S, Hvas E (2002) nr. 457. Danmarks Miljøundersøgelser, 462 pp. Næringssaltbegrænsning af makroalger i danske http//faglige-rapporter.dmu.dk. kystområder. Faglig rapport fra DMU nr. 392. Danmarks Miljøundersøgelser.114 pp.

42 BERNET - Odense Fjord, Water Management Plan 8. References

Ærtebjerg et al. (2004): Marine områder 2003 – Miljøtilstand og udvikling. NOVA -2003. 97 s. Faglig rapport fra DMU nr. 513. http://faglige- rapporter.dmu.dk.

BERNET - Odense Fjord, Water Management Plan 43 9. Appendices

Annex 9.1

Basis for the selection of the EU habitat sites in Odense River Basin (habitats and species)

* indicates priority habitat types

No. 94 Odense Fjord 1110 Sandbanks which are slightly covered by sea water all the time 1140 Mudfl ats and sandfl ats not covered by seawater at low tide 1160 Large shallow inlets and bays 1310 Salicornia and other annuals colonizing mud and sand 1330 Atlantic salt meadows (Glauco-Puccinellietalia maritimae) 3130 Oligotrophic to mesotrophic standing waters with vegetation of the Littorelletea unifl orae and/or of the Isoëto-Nanojuncetea 3260 Water courses of plain to montane levels with the Ranunculion fl uitantis and Callitricho- Batrachion vegetation 4010 Northern Atlantic wet heaths with Erica tetralix 6430 Hydrophilous tall herb fringe communities of plains and of the montane to alpine levels 7220 *Petrifying springs with tufa formation (Cratoneurion) 7230 Alkaline fens

No. 97 The mires Urup Dam, Brabæk Mose, Birkende Mose and Illemose 1903 Fen orchid Liparis loeselii 3140 Hard oligo-mesotrophic waters with benthic vegetation of Chara spp. 6410 Molinia meadows on calcareous, peaty or clayey-silt-laden soils (Molinion caeruleae) 7210 *Calcareous fens with Cladium mariscus and species of the Caricion davallianae 7230 Alkaline fens 91E0 *Alluvial forests with Alnus glutinosa and Fraxinus excelsior (Alno-Padion, Alnion incanae, Salicion albae)

No. 98 River Odense with River Hågerup, River Sallinge and River Lindved 1016 Desmoulin’s whorl snail Vertigo moulinsiana 1032 Common river mussel Unio crassus 1096 Brook lamprey Lampetra planeri 1149 Spined loach Cobitis taenia 3260 Watercourses of plain to montane levels with the Ranunculion ﬂ uitantis and Callitricho- Batrachion vegetation 6430 Hydrophilous tall herb fringe communities of plains and of the montane to alpine levels 7220 *Petrifying springs with tufa formation (Cratoneurion) 7230 Alkaline fens 91E0 *Alluvial forests with Alnus glutinosa and Fraxinus excelsior (Alno-Padion, Alnion incanae, Salicion albae)

44 BERNET - Odense Fjord, Water Management Plan 9. Appendices

No. 103 Storelung 7120 Degraded raised bogs still capable of natural regeneration 91D0 *Bog woodland

No. 104 Forests and lakes south of Brahetrolleborg 1016 Desmoulin’s whorl snail Vertigo moulinsiana 1166 Great crested newt Triturus cristatus 3150 Natural eutrophic lakes with Magnopotamion or Hydrocharition - type vegetation 3260 Water courses of plain to montane levels with the Ranunculion ﬂ uitantis and Callitricho- Batrachion vegetation 6430 Hydrophilous tall herb fringe communities of plains and of the montane to alpine levels 7110 *Active raised bogs 7230 Alkaline fens 91D0 *Bog woodland 91E0 *Alluvial forests with Alnus glutinosa and Fraxinus excelsior (Alno-Padion, Alnion incanae, Salicion albae)

No. 105 Lake Arreskov 1016 Desmoulin’s whorl snail Vertigo moulinsiana 3150 Natural eutrophic lakes with Magnopotamion or Hydrocharition – type vegetation 3260 Water courses of plain to montane levels with the Ranunculion ﬂ uitantis and Callitricho- Batrachion vegetation 6410 Molinia meadows on calcareous, peaty or clayey-silt-laden soils (Molinion caeruleae) 6430 Hydrophilous tall herb fringe communities of plains and of the montane to alpine levels 7230 Alkaline fens 91D0 *Bog woodland 91E0 *Alluvial forests with Alnus glutinosa and Fraxinus excelsior (Alno-Padion, Alnion incanae, Salicion albae)

No. 106 Lake Store Øresø, Lake Sortesø and Lake Iglesø 3150 Natural eutrophic lakes with Magnopotamion or Hydrocharition – type vegetation 3260 Watercourses of plain to montane levels with the Ranunculion ﬂ uitantis and Callitricho- Batrachion vegetation 7140 Transition mires and quaking bogs 7150 Depressions on peat substrates of the Rhynchosporion 7230 Alkaline fens

BERNET - Odense Fjord, Water Management Plan 45 9. Appendices

Annex 9.2

EC Bird Protection sites in the Odense River Basin

No. 74 Lake Brændegård, Lake Nørresø and forests around Brahetrolleborg Cormorant Phalacrocorax carbo Grey lag goose Anser anser Common pochard Aythya ferina Tufted duck Aythya fuligula

No. 75 Odense Fjord Arctic tern Sterna paradisea Sandwich tern Sterna sandvicensis Marsh harrier Circus aeruginosis Avocet Recurvirostra avosetta Mute swan Cygnus olor Whooper swan Cygnus Cygnus Red-breasted merganser Mergus serrator Goosander Mergus merganser Coot Fulica atra

No. 78 Lake Arreskov Marsh harrier Circus aeruginosis Common tern Sterna hirundo Grey lag goose Anser anser Common pochard Aythya ferina

46 BERNET - Odense Fjord, Water Management Plan