LIFE+ Environment Policy and Governance TECHNICAL ... · contribution 450 688 eUniversity of Jyväskylä (UJ), Department of Biological and Environmental Science: EnvEurope: Environmental

TECHNICAL APPLICATION FORMS

Part A – administrative information

LIFE+ Environment Policy and Governance

Page 1 of 86

LIFE12 ENV/FI/000597

LIFE+ Environment Policy and Governance project application

Language of the proposal:

Reduction of waste water nitrogen load: demonstrations and modelling (N-SINK)

Project acronym:

LIFE+ 2012 N-SINK

The project will be implemented in the following Member State(s):Finland All regions

Expected start date: 01/08/2013 Expected end date: 31/07/2017

LIST OF BENEFICIARIES

Name of the coordinating beneficiary:

Name of the associated beneficiary: Fysiikan laitos, Helsingin yliopisto

Name of the associated beneficiary: MTT

Name of the associated beneficiary: Suomen ympäristökeskus

Name of the associated beneficiary: Jyväskylän yliopisto

Lammin biologinen asema, Helsingin yliopisto

LIST OF CO-FINANCIERSName of the co-financier: Hämeen liitto

Name of the co-financier: Hämeenlinnan seudun vesi

Name of the co-financier: Janakkalan Vesi

Name of the co-financier: Ministry of the Environment

Name of the co-financier: Valkeakoski

PROJECT BUDGET AND REQUESTED EU FUNDING

Total project budget:

Total eligible project budget:

EU financial contribution requested:

1,188,260 Euro

1,188,260 Euro

594,130 Euro (= 50.00% of total eligible budget)

FOR ADMINISTRATION USE ONLY


Project title:

English (en)

LIFE+ 2012

Page 2 of 86


PROJECT POLICY AREAWater

Page 3 of 86

LIFE12 ENV/FI/000597 - A2

Coordinating Beneficiary Profile Information

Legal Name

Short Name

VAT No

Legal Registration No

Registration Date

X

Legal Status

Public body

Private commercial

Private non- commercial

Legal address of the Coordinating Beneficiary Street Name and No

Post Code

Member State

PO Box

Town / City

Coordinating Beneficiary contact person information

Surname

E-mail address

Department / Service

Street Name and No

Post Code

Member State

Telephone No

Website

Function

First Name

PO Box

Town / City

Fax No

Brief description of the Coordinating Beneficiary's activities and experience in the area of the proposal

358919140746

Lammin biologinen asema, Helsingin yliopisto

LBS

FI03134717

0313471-7

04/12/1979

16900

Lammi

Pääjärventie 320

Finland

Lammi Biological Station (Lammin biologinen asema) of Universtity of Helsinki is the largest field station inFinland. It provides teaching and research facilities for biological sciences and related disciplines and hasalso developed a research profile of its own in aquatic sciences. The aquatic research at LBS consists ofseveral research projects led by senior scientists working at the station, other units of the University ofHelsinki, other universities in Finland or governmental research institutes. During 2002-2011 they havecarried out research in several international cooperation projects such as in the EU research projects CLIME,EVO-LIFE,EURO-LIMPACS and CARBO-NORTH, in two projects funded by the Council of Nordic Ministers andtwo EU Life (+) projects, Evo Life and VACCIA. The international network consists of tens of scientists fromEurope and elsewhere. The EC projects have been especially important in increasing international as wellas national collaboration and cooperation in a productive way. By applying automatic measurementstations in Lake Pääjärvi,Valkea-Kotinen, Ormajärvi and Vanajanselkä, the group has been also a partner inthe Global Lake Ecological Observation Network (GLEON) based on automatic water quality monitoringstations. The Lammi Biological Station is also taking the coordination responsibility on the Lammi LTERnetwork, one of the seven FinLTSER sites. The leader of the N Sink project initiative, prof. Lauri Arvola, hasbeen the director of the LBS and is nowadays a professor of environmental research. He has been involvedin limnological research for more than 30 years, and directed several national, Nordic and EU fundedresearch projects on climate/global change effects on boreal lake ecosystems. He has supervised four PhD,two PhL and 19 Master students. Presently he has three PhD students under supervision.

Mr prof.

www.helsinki.fi/lammi

358919140311

Lauri

Arvola

[email protected]

Lammi Biological Station

Finland

16900

Pääjärventie 320

Lammi

Website of the Coordinating Beneficiary

Title

Page 4 of 86


Page 5 of 86


Page 6 of 86


Page 7 of 86


Page 8 of 86


Page 9 of 86


Associated Beneficiary profile information

Legal Name

Short Name

VAT No


Registration Date

X

Legal Status

Public body

Private commercial



Post Code

Member State

PO Box

Town / City

Fysiikan laitos, Helsingin yliopisto

DPHYS

FI03134717

0313471-7

04/12/1979

64

00014

Finland

Gustaf Hällströmin katu 2a

Helsinki

ASSOCIATED BENEFICIARY PROFILE

Legal address of the Associated Beneficiary Website

Brief description of the Associated Beneficiary's activities and experience in the area of the proposal

www.helsinki.fi

Fysiikan laitos (Department of Physics) belongs to the Faculty of Science at the University of Helsinki. Themain field in geophysics (group led by professor Matti Leppäranta) has been sea ice geophysics, includingsea ice dynamics and thermodynamics, remote sensing, and climatology of the seasonal sea ice zone,based on field investigations and mathematical modelling. A long-term research programme is also ongoingon the physics of boreal lakes and the interaction between physics and ecology in these lakes. In the N-SINK project Department of Physics offers expertise in flow measurements and simulations.

Page 10 of 86



Legal Name

Short Name

VAT No


Registration Date

X

Legal Status

Public body

Private commercial



Post Code

Member State

PO Box

Town / City

MTT

MTT

FI02446241

0244624-1

null

null

31600

Finland

Maa- ja elintarviketalouden tutkimuskeskus O-talo

Jokioinen




www.mtt.fi

MTT Agrifood Research Finland is the leading Finnish research institute in the agriculture and food sectors.MTT has gathered extensive experience and competence in evaluating the effectiveness and costs ofvarious water protection measures. MTT has developed numerical optimization models that can be used fordetermining and studying cost-efficient combinations of nutrient abatement efforts.

Page 11 of 86



Legal Name

Short Name

VAT No


Registration Date

X

Legal Status

Public body

Private commercial



Post Code

Member State

PO Box

Town / City

Suomen ympäristökeskus

SYKE

FI 09961895

0996189-5

01/09/1995

140

00251

Finland

Mechelininkatu 34a

Helsinki




www.environment.fi

The Finnish Environment Institute (SYKE) is both a research institute, and a centre for environmentalexpertise. SYKE's research focuses on changes in the environment, and seeks ways to control thesechanges. SYKE's research programmes assess environmental problems from a multi-disciplinaryperspective, by integrating socio-economic considerations into scientific research. SYKE's expert servicescan provide vital expert assistance on a wide-range of environmental issues for administrators, localauthorities, industries, firms and other organizations. We can produce detailed environmental assessmentsdrawing on expertise from many fields. SYKE also closely monitors environmental trends and the state ofthe environment in Finland in co-operation with regional environmental administration. SYKE serves as thenational centre for environmental data in Finland. The data stored in our information systems is widely usedfor environmental monitoring, environmental modelling, forecasting and impact analysis. SYKE co-operatesclosely with other research institutes, universities, environmental experts and businesses, both in Finlandand internationally.

Page 12 of 86



Legal Name

Short Name

VAT No


Registration Date

X

Legal Status

Public body

Private commercial



Post Code

Member State

PO Box

Town / City

Jyväskylän yliopisto

UJ

VAT FI 02458947

DEFAULT_VALUE

null

35

40014

Finland

Seminaarimäki

Jyväskylä




www.jyu.fi

Department of Biological and Environmental Science is part of the University of Jyväskylä, in centralFinland. Aquatic Sciences is one of the four sections of the department with strong scientific profile, 3professors and over 15 senior and post doc researcher. The work team focusing on the N-SINK projectconsists of two Academy Researchers (Marja Tiirola and Hannu Nykänen), and 6 PhD students, two of whichare specialized on measuring denitrification processes in ecosystem and municipal treatment plants. Theteam has strong expertise in the N2 and N2O measuring techniques, which are much improved by the useof stable isotopes. Tiirola holds a lecturer position in Aquatic Sciences in Jyväskylä and adjunct professoshipin Environmental Microbiology in Tampere University of Technology, and leads the Scandinavian networkfor Stable Isotope Research (NordSIR). UJ team has strong partnership with UH/LBA with common research;N-SINK is a natural consequence of previous collaboration in the ecosystem-scale analysis of the nitrogencycle by using molecular microbiology tools and stable isotope analysis.

Page 13 of 86


Page 14 of 86


Page 15 of 86


Page 16 of 86


Page 17 of 86


Page 18 of 86


OTHER PROPOSALS SUBMITTED FOR EUROPEAN UNION FUNDING

Please answer each of the following questions:

Have you or any of your associated beneficiaries already benefited from previous LIFE cofinancing? (please citeLIFE project reference number, title, year, amount of the co-financing, duration, name(s) of coordinating beneficiaryand/or partners involved):

•

University of Helsinki (UH):LIFE09 ENV/FI/000572: Mitigation of Arctic warming by controlling Europeanblack carbon emissions, MACEB:1.1.2011-31.12.2013, UH total budget 322 397 e, EU contribution 159397 e* LIFE09 ENV/FI/000571: Climate change induced drought effects on forest growth andvulnerability, CLIMFORISK:2.1.2011-31.12.2014, UH total budget 121 915 e, EU contribution 60 102 e*LIFE09 ENV/FI/000569: Participatory monitoring, forecasting, control and socio-economic impacts ofeutrophication and algal blooms in river basins districts, GISBLOOM1.10.2010-30.9.2013, UH totalbudget 29 286 e, EU contribution 14 643 e* LIFE08 ENV/FIN/000609: Climate Change Adaptation Toolsfor Environmental Risk Mitigation of Acid Sulphate Soils, CATERMASS1.1.2010-31.12.2012, UH totalbudget 169 603 e, EU contribution 67 359 eLammi Biological Station (LBS), University of Helsinki:*LIFE07ENV/FIN/000141: Vulnerability assessment of ecosystem services for climate change impactsand adaptation, VACCIA1.1.2009-31.12.2011, UH total budget 901 373 e (LBS 99240 e), EUcontribution 450 688 eUniversity of Jyväskylä (UJ), Department of Biological and EnvironmentalScience: EnvEurope: Environmental Quality and pressures 1.1.2010-31.2013 (UJ budget 106200€)Vaccia: Vulnerability assesment of ecosystem services for Climate change impact and adaptation1.1.2009 – 31.12.2011 (UJ budget 155 000€)Boreal Peatland LIFE 1.1.2010-31.12.2015 (UJ budget 160000€)Finnish Environment Institute (SYKE): * LIFE03 NAT/FIN/000039: Management of wetlands alongthe Gulf of Finland migratory flyway. 2003-2007. SYKEs contribution 54391 e.* LIFE04 ENV/FI/000300"Risk assessment and risk management procedure for arsenic in the Tampere region".1.12.2004-30.11.2007. 78 693 e. *LIFE04 ENV/FI/000304 "Integration of spatial environmental information acrossdifferent themes,scales, resolutions and uses : added value of facilitating mechanisms" 1.1.2004-31.12.2006. 74 098.* LIFE06 NAT/FIN/000129 "From Ancient to the Present Estuary, KokemäenjokiWetland Chain. 2006-2011. *LIFE05/NAT/FIN/000105 "EU Life Nature project ""Conservation of Ansererythropus on European migration route". 1.7.2003-31.12.2008. 3 723 e.*LIFE07 ENV/FIN/000141"Vulnerability assessment of ecosystem services for climate change impacts and adaptation". 2009-2011. 396 100 e.*LIFE07 NAT/FIN 000151. "Inventories and planning for marine Natura 2000 network inFinland". 2009-2012. 438347 e.*LIFE 09 ENV/FI/000569 "Participatory monitoring, forecasting, controland socio-economic impacts of eutrophication and algal blooms in River Basin Districts " 2010-2013. 1252 997 e.*LIFE09 NAT/LV/00238 "Innovative approaches for marine biodiversity monitoring andassessment of nature values in the Baltic Sea" 2010-2015. 440 326 e.*LIFE07 ENV/FIN/000145"Mitigation of and Adaptation to the Climate Change in the Helsinki Metropolitan Area - From Strategyto Implementation" 2009-2011. 89 999 e.*LIFE07 INF/FIN/000152 "Climate Change CommunityResponse portal" 2009-2011. 307 465 e.*LIFE09 ENV/FI/000572 "Mitigation of Arctic warming bycontrolling European black carbon emissions" 2011-2013. 168 727 e.*LIFE 09 INF/UK/032 "Rivers:Engaging, supporting and transfering knowledge for river restoration in Europe" 2010-2013. 176 147e.*LIFE07 ENV/FIN/000133 "Monitoring and assessment of carbon balance related phenomena inFinland and northern Eurasia" 2009-2012. 379 857 e. *LIFE08 ENV/FIN/000609 "Climate ChangeAdaptation Tools for Environmental Risk Mitigation of Acid Sulphate Soils" 2010-2012. 313 696 e.MTT:1) "LCA Landscaping” Application of LCA for sustainable green cover management using wastederived materials (LIFE09 ENV/FIN/000570). 1.9.2010 – 30.11.2014. EU co-financing 280 500 €. 2)“PesticideLife” Reducing environmental risks in use of plant protection products in NorthernEurope.(LIFE+ 08ENV/). 01.01.2010 - 31.12.2013. EU co-financing 510 965 €.3 ) “SusAgri” Sustainabledevelopment in Agriculture: Indicators, administrative programmesand demonstrations(LIFE96GENV/FIN/77), Co-financing 1 629 946 €, 1997-1999,1.1.2009 – 31.12.2013 and EU co-fincing.274 539 €. 4)“Eco Learn” Integrated management of rural-based environmental education -relationsofenvironment, food chain and sustainable development (LIFE02 ENV/FIN/000322) 2002-2005, Co-financing 389.564€. 5) ”EquineLife” A performance model for an ecologically and ethically sustainableequinesports (LIFE04 ENV/FI/000299) ), 2004-2008, Co-financing 548.848€, 4) “RAMAS” Riskassessment and risk management procedure for arsenic in the Tampereregion (LIFE04 ENV/FI/000300),2004-2007, Co-financing 78693€.

Page 19 of 86


• Have you or any of the associated beneficiaries submitted any actions related directly or indirectly to this project toother European Union financial instruments? To whom? When and with what results?

No

•

not relevant

For those actions which fall within the eligibility criteria for financing through other European Union financialinstruments, please explain in full detail why you consider that those actions nevertheless do not fall within themain scope of the instrument(s) in question and are therefore included in the current project.

Page 20 of 86


Part B - technical summary and overallcontext of the project


Page 21 of 86

LIFE12 ENV/FI/000597 - B1

SUMMARY DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT (Max. 3 pages; to be completed in English)

Project title:

Reduction of waste water nitrogen load: demonstrations and modelling (N-SINK)

The main objectives are1) to develop and demonstrate new economically sustainable methods for nitrogen removal usingapplied ecosystem services2) to evaluate the environmental and socio-economical impacts of cost-efficient nitrogen removalThe project contributes to the realization of the objectives set in the Nitrogen Removal Directive and inthe Water Framework Directive (WFD) as well as in national and regional river basin managementplans. The project aims to find out the best ways for sustainable water management with minimalharmful effects on greenhouse gas emissions, water quality and aquatic ecosystem processes.The project demonstrates evaluates the benefits and disadvantages of present and new nitrogenremoval methods and improves the understanding of nitrogen fluxes in the watersheds.

Project objectives:

A1.Preparation of the study sites for the N-SINK demonstration actionIncludes technical planning, permit procedures and consultations.B1.N-SINK sediment filtration demonstrationsImplementation phase for the alternative nitrogen load reduction method, N-SINK sediment filtration. B2.Long term and model demonstrations of catchment scale N retentionDemonstration of long term changes in the water quality in heavily loaded river basins in southernFinland due to the protection actions. Development of scenarios of nutrient purification in waste watertreatment and in agricultural production to mitigate nutrient losses to waters and air.B3.Cost-effective allocation of nutrient abatement measures at watershed levelDevelopment of a spatial optimization framework to study cost-efficient combination of nutrientabatement measures and the economic potential of the new sediment filtration measure. The finalproduct, ecological-economic model framework, can used as a decision support and demonstration toolby the stakeholders and decision makers.C1-2. Monitoring the ecosystem effects of sediment filtering systemMonitoring of the demonstration sites (denitrification, emission of N2O, physico-chemical parameters).C3.Monitoring and verifying of catchment scale N retention modelsCatchment models will be verified in relation to the monitoring results. The catchment models providethe input information for cost-effective modeling.D1. Communication and disseminationThis action includes dissemination of the previous actions (workshops, meetings with experts andstakeholders, information events for public, reports and publications)E.Project management and monitoring of the project progressThis action ensures that the project is running successfully and all the activities including meetings,reports and time-tables promised will be achieved on time.

Actions and means involved:

Expected results (outputs and quantified achievements):

The results of the project include:

1) Description of water quality changes in recipient waters due to the application of water purificationtechniques (D. 1.2 Report. Demonstration of the effects of water protection on water quality in twoheavily loaded river basins in southern Finland, Lake Vanajanselkä and River Porvoonjoki)

2) Description of new alternative method for nitrogen removal exploiting a natural ecosystem service(sediment filtering) (D 3.2 Report. New alternative method for nitrogen removal exploiting a naturalecosystem service)

Page 22 of 86


3) Information on environmental effectiveness of nitrogen removal using the newest methods inmeasuring denitrification and N2O emissions (D 6.1-6.3 Report. Environmental effectiveness ofnitrogen removal using the newest methods. 2 related congress presentations and publications. 1 PhDthesis)

4) Description and scenarios of nitrogen fluxes in watersheds and the role of nitrogen removal atlandscape level (D. 4.4 Report. Implementation for N-removal scenarios for Finnish river basins andassociated conference presentations and publications)

5) Information on socio-economical effects of nitrogen removal at landcsape level (D. 5.5 Report.Spatially cost-effective allocation of nutrient abatement measures at watershed level and associatedseminar presentations)

These will be available in electronic form through the project www-pages.

6) Information for EU, stakeholders, authorities and public:www-pages, journal articles, press (D 8.1)Workshop reports (D 1.1, D 4.2, D 5.1, D 5.4)Seminars reports (D 8.2, D 8.3)Project reports (D 9.1-D 9.4)

Can the project be considered to be a climate change adaptation project? XYes No

Page 23 of 86


SUMMARY DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT (Max. 3 pages; to be completed in national language)

Project title:

Reduction of the waste water nitrogen load: demonstrations and modelling (N-SINK)

The main objectives are1) to develop and demonstrate new economically sustainable methods for nitrogen removal usingapplied ecosystem services2) to evaluate the environmental and socio-economical impacts of cost-efficient nitrogen removalThe project contributes to the realization of the objectives set in Nitrogen Removal Directive and inWater Framework Directive (WFD) as well as in national and regional river basin management plans.The project aims to find out the best ways for sustainable water management with minor harmfuleffects on greenhouse gas emissions, water quality and aquatic ecosystem processes.

Project objectives:

Actions and means involved:

Expected results (outputs and quantified achievements):

The baseline scenario is that the purified wastewater N load can be reduced by the sediment filtrationapproach at least by 30%. For Lake Vanajanselkä and River Porvoonjoki catchment areas modelcalculations for nutrient loading estimations and decision support systems will be run to find out themost cost-efficient strategies for those two areas with high loading from agriculture and point sourcesbut completely different type of a hydrological system.

The results of the project also include:1) Description of water quality changes in recipient waters due to the application of water purificationtechniques (D. 1.2 Report. Demonstration of the effects of water protection on water quality in twoheavily loaded river basins in southern Finland, Lake Vanajanselkä and River Porvoonjoki)

2) Description of new alternative method for nitrogen removal exploiting a natural ecosystem service(sediment filtering) (D 3.2 Report. New alternative method for nitrogen removal exploiting a naturalecosystem service)

3) Information on environmental effectiveness of nitrogen removal using the newest methods inmeasuring denitrification and N2O emissions (D 6.1-6.3 Report. Environmental effectiveness ofnitrogen removal using the newest methods. 2 related congress presentations and publications. 1 PhDthesis)

4) Description and scenarios of nitrogen fluxes in watersheds and the role of nitrogen removal atlandscape level (D. 4.4 Report. Implementation for N-removal scenarios for Finnish river basins andassociated conference presentations and publications)

5) Information on socio-economical effects of nitrogen removal at landcsape level (D. 5.5 Report.Spatially cost-effective allocation of nutrient abatement measures at watershed level and associatedseminar presentations)

These will be available in electronic form through the project www-pages.

6) Information for EU, stakeholders, authorities and public:www-pages, journal articles, press (D 8.1)Workshop reports (D 1.1, D 4.2, D 5.1, D 5.4)Seminars reports (D 8.2, D 8.3)Project reports (D 9.1-D 9.4)

Page 24 of 86


Can the project be considered to be a climate change adaptation project? XYes No

Page 25 of 86


The present day wastewater treatment plants can remove some 40-70% of nitrogen and 95-98% ofphosphorus. In case of Finland and other Baltic States there is an urgent need to reduce the nutrientloads to the Baltic Sea. Therefore, the European Commission has asked Finland to improve nitrogenremoval from wastewaters which will finally enter the sea. The rationale behind the proposal is thatthis claim is highly relevant in those wastewater treatment plants which convey their wastewaterdirectly to the sea while not necessarily in those plants which are situating far enough from the coastand which convey their purified wastewaters to the upper parts of the drainage basins. This is becausethe inland waters, i.e. rivers and lakes, can retain and remove a remarkable amount of nutrients due tonatural microbial processes and sedimentation. In lakes P retention is typically high but N retentionmay vary in a wide range. In the best case N retention can remove some 50-70% of the annual loadwhich suggests that in many lakes there is a high potential for N removal. Considering the abovementioned facts and costs which are needed for improving tens of wastewater plants with present daylow N removal capacity, the ecosystem services, such as denitrification potential of lakes, should betaken into account and enhanced, if possible. In many countries, agriculture is today mostlyresponsible for the N loading (in Finland ca 53%). It is very much a question of trade-off, i.e. how weuse our limited financial resources; whether we renovate our wastewater treatment plants and investtens of millions for the technical improvements each year and still spend additional costs for chemicaldemands or we allocate the money for reducing the releases of nutrients from agriculture. If we aresuccessful in reducing N loads from agriculture, we will cut off parallel with N load also P loading. Thisis something which really may have a great positive impact on the recipient lakes and rivers, becausethe inland waters are typically P limited, but not nitrogen. The same is true in the estuaries in theBaltic, the areas which are most eutrophic in the sea.Nitrogen is not a permanent component in the water, but its total amount can either increase (bynitrogen fixation) or decrease (by denitrification) from the water system. Effective nitrogen removal inwaste water treatments can increase the risk of enhanced N2O emissions and there are also otheraspects that may be worth of consideration; demand of more effective nitrogen removal may generatenew environmental problems: shortage of NO3-N may form higher risk for late-summer cyanobacterialblooms and diminish denitrification in natural ecosystems. On the other hand it is already very late forsaving the sensitive ecosystem of the Baltic Sea, so decisions for the new environmental regulationshave to be done quickly and focusing the economical efforts in most beneficial actions. Thereforestate-of-the-art ecological and economical analyses are needed to find out the most efficient ways toprotect the lakes and rivers within the Baltic Sea area. Without proper analyses, the resources can bewasted on inefficient measures and no substantial reduction in nutrient loading will be achieved. Insuch a case the costs for society and nature may become high.

This demonstration project will focus on this paradigm of the ecosystem balancing of nitrogen, as theneed of wastewater nitrogen removal is currently a hot topic in the environmental issues in all Balticcountries. This is related to water protection policy in general, and how to improve its cost-efficiency. The recent national survey (by SYKE; Pietiläinen et al. 2008, URN:ISBN: 978-952-11-3281-0) gives usthe most accurate statistics of the natural and anthropogenic nitrogen loadings of Finland and ascenario what happens if the minimum nutrient level (70%) required by the EU directive (91/271/ETY,EYVL L 135, 31.5.1991) would be taken as a standard in the Finnish WWTW:s. Compared to the Finnishtraditional water management policy, EU legislation focuses less on phosphorus reduction (EU 80%,Finland 95%) and more on nitrogen reduction (EU 70%, Finland 55%) than are the actual WWTWreductions today in Finland. Currently, the status of Finnish inland waters is good or very good due tothe national water management policy, but the river waters form a threat for the Baltic Sea.Wastewater discharge by municipal WWTW:s forms currently 15% of the anthropogenic nitrogen loadto the surface waters and the Baltic Sea in Finland, and anthropogenic load is the main part (63%) ofthe nitrogen loading. All the Finnish WWTW:s have currently combined a biological/chemical process,and the nitrogen reduction is on average (year 2005) 54-56%. By the scenario predicted by the Finnishwater authorities (Pietiläinen et al. 2008), enhanced nitrogen reduction from current level to 70%reduction in all bigger treatment units as planned (treating over 10 000 inhabitant’s wastes) wouldmean only a 5% decrease from the current anthropogenic load of Finland and only 0.4% reduction inthe Baltic Sea nitrogen budget. Still, this reduction through combined nitrification-denitrificationprocess would require an investment of hundreds of millions of euros, continuous use of methanol (30-100 tn/day) or other substrates, and finally enhanced N2O emissions. None of these factors have beencounted on by policy makers so far. As nitrification is already in the requirements of new WWTWpermissions, we seek an alternative for the artificial pool-based denitrification. In our prediction,sediment filtration would be a cost-efficient ecosystem service, with which the final nitrogen reductionof wastewaters would increase to 80% and which could been applied comprehensively in all the(nitrifying) WWTW units regardless of the size, due to the simple and economical infrastructure. In thisscenario, the increase of the current 55% to 80% nitrogen reduction would mean 10% reduction in the

ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEM TARGETED

Page 26 of 86


anthropogenic nitrogen load to the surface waters and the Baltic Sea, when nitrification would be partof the processes in all the treatment plants. The costs for spatial allocation of the sediment filtrationwould be at least 10 times less than the construction of the denitrification process on the treatmentplants. We therefore estimate that with 1/10 of the cost of building the new denitrification processeswe could double the nitrogen reduction in WWTW:s, but this has to be confirmed based on the costs(action B1) and results (action C1) of the pilot N-SINK demonstration sites.As the WWTW discharge is only a part of the problem, additional actions for load reductions should betaken into the cost-efficiency calculation (action B3), and one of the key issues is how to reduceagricultural loads more efficiently. However, different lake chains and river basins differ in terms oftheir hydrological conditions, land-use, nutrient retention capacity as well as nutrient loading.Therefore, we have chosen two contrasting drainage basins, one without lakes (River Porvoonjoki) andanother with several lake basins (Vanajavesi). The rationale behind our plan is that the financialresources should be allocated depending on the properties of the drainage basins and their loadingcharacteristics rather than by applying similar actions everywhere. For example, since the beginning ofthe implementation of the Finnish agri-environmental programme, nutrient fluxes from agriculturalcatchments have decreased only moderately, or in some areas the fluxes have even increased. Thisimplies that the actions have not been planned most efficiently. Our goal is to maximize the efficiencyof the protection actions, i.e. to achieve 50% reduction in the anthropogenic nitrogen load to the BalticSea. Therefore, in the catchment scale the effects of 1) wastewater treatment, 2) water protectionmeasures in agriculture, and 3) combination of both on water quality in Lake Vanajavesi and RiverPorvoonjoki will be analyzed in detail in the implementation action B2 and monitoring action C2. The models provide discharge and concentrations of total and soluble nitrogen and phosphorus as wellas nutrient fluxes as outputs. From these we can calculate different indicators, like N/P relationships,and combine them to empirical models of ecological indicators of WFD. In the modeling the main aim isto study if the political targets of nutrient reduction (HELCOM, National Water Protection PolicyOutlines) and good ecological and chemical status for all inland and coastal surface waters by the year2015 (WFD, 2000) can be achieved by the best combination of these actions.

In this project we will demonstrate the cost-benefit value of the current wastewater treatment andnitrogen removal processes, for the first time by integrating the hydrological and chemical data andmass-balance calculations with the measured values of denitrification - the missing nitrogen sink. Themost advanced stable isotope techniques will be used in the measurement allowing us to get accuratevalues of how much we can depend on the ecosystem services in the nitrogen removal in the currentsystems. Monitoring and modelling results will be used, for the first time, to evaluate the denitrificationin natural system and enhanced by the wastewater nitrate.

Sediment has a remarkable capacity to reduce nitrate load to nitrogen gas through denitrification.Denitrification is most importantly related to nitrogen concentration above the sediment and waterresidence time in the lake, as previous studies have consistently shown (Figure 1). Therefore we claimthat spatial optimization of the wastewater discharge would be an efficient way to reduce nitrate-basednutrient load in the environment now, when most new environmental permits for new or reconstructedtreatment plants have a nitrification sanction in Finland and many Baltic countries which care for thesensitive Baltic sea ecosystem. Currently the discharge of purified waste water has mostly beenimplemented using a one-point outlet system, either through a drain or a pipe, and many times thewater is further mixed to the productive water layers of the lake. A new sediment filtration approach issuggested in which the nitrified water will be in contact with the reducing microbes of the sediment forlonger period, which will result in the efficient denitrification of a portion of the nitrate load. Comparedto the point outlet method/practice, nitrate will be spread to the sediment-water interphase, instead ofmixing with the productive water layers. Nitrate is also expected to temporarily increase the redox-potential of the sediment layers, thus improving the quality of near-bottom layers and preventingphosphorus release. N2O emissions are predicted to be minor compared to the forced denitrification inwastewater treatment plants, where the N2O gas can be easily discharged to the atmosphere in thehigh water circulation speed and mixing.

In the implementation action we demonstrate this new technical innovation for nitrogen removal –N-SINK sediment filtration. This technique is based on the observed field results and small-scalelaboratory experiments, where we have shown the relationship between nitrogen concentration anddenitrification in the above-sediment layers. The set of demonstration actions will be the first full-scaletrial to test the sediment filtration technique, and it is unique both in its scale (will be tested inwastewater treatment utilities treating up to 20000 m3/day) and top-scientific monitoring techniques.This method would be a promising and minimum-cost way for the reduction of the nitrogen load by the

STATE OF THE ART AND INNOVATIVE ASPECTS OF THE PROJECT

Page 27 of 86


ecosystem services itself.

Page 28 of 86


Figure 1. Correlation between denitrification and residence time and nitrate concentrationName of the picture:

Page 29 of 86


Figure: Role of modelsName of the picture:

Page 30 of 86


Sediment filtration is a new innovation for the reduction of the nitrogen load when wastewater nitrogenis released in the form of nitrate. The primary goal of the project is to demonstrate this new approachto enhance nitrogen removal from waste water, benefitting the denitrification by natural ecosystemservice in sediment. The basis for the new innovation is that micro-organisms living in the sedimenthave an enormous capacity to reduce nitrate to nitrogen gas through denitrification. In thisdemonstration waste water released from sewage plants as a point-source will be directed to a widerarea near the sediment where denitrification takes place. We propose that with this new sedimentfiltering system we can reduce nitrogen load in an economically and environmentally sustainable way.We believe that the efficiency of nitrogen removal could be increased especially in small-medium sizesewage treatment plants.The demonstration can be divided in phases phases. The first phase is to plan and prepare the primarydemonstration (A.2). This preparation phase includes technical planning, permit procedures andconsultation. Two project sites will be selected for the demonstration and 2 sites are used as controlsites where the year-to-year variation in the denitrification activity will be measured. The most suitabletreatment plants will be selected based on a hydrological and technical survey and together with thesupport of the Finnish Water and Waste Water Works Association (FIWA). In summer 2011 weconducted preliminary-measurements outside four treatment plants, where the flow currents aroundthe outgoing sewage pipe were studied. However, more detailed analysis of the data should be done toselect the places and representative sampling points. One demonstration site is planned to be a small-scale treatment plant (300-600 m3/d) and one a medium-size plant (1000-2000 m3/d or partialdischarge volume). The locations of proposed sites are presented in Appendix 2.The N-SINK sediment filtration phase (B.1) demonstrates sediment filtering conducted in two treatmentplants. We claim that spatial optimization of the wastewater discharge would be an efficient way toreduce nitrate-based nutrient load in the environment, when most new environmental permits for newor reconstructed treatment plants in Finland and other Baltic countries have a nitrification sanction.Currently the discharge of purified waste water has mostly been implemented using a one-point outletsystem, either through a drain or a pipe, and usually the water is further mixed to the productive waterlayer in the lake. In the new sediment filtration approach the nitrified water will be in much longercontact with the reducing microbes of the sediment. Compared to the narrow point outlet in the newapproach, nitrate is spread close to the sediment and not mixed into the productive water layer. Thedemonstrations will last one full year each, starting in late-autumn 2014 and in 2015. Nitrate isexpected to increase the redox-potential of the upper sediment layer, and thus improve the quality ofnear-bottom layers and prevent phosphorus release. However, the benefits of the new approach canonly be analyzed in a proper comprehensive field demonstration.Monitoring is an essential part of the work and will be done both in the study sites during the action,and before and after the demonstration action as well as in the control sites in both years. Besidesdenitrification also the relative production of N2O, which is a greenhouse gas and released in thewastewater treatment processes (even 10%) as a by-product in both nitrification and denitrificationprocesses, has to be measured. In addition, common water quality parameters, like phosphorus, nitrateand nitrite, ammonium and redox conditions, are important monitoring parameters which will befollowed in the study sites.In the second phase, as a preparatory action (A.1) the project will demonstrate the changes andeffectiveness of nitrogen removal in recipient waters by collecting long-term data from several wastewater treatment plants and from the downstream rivers and lakes. The target areas include LakeVanajavesi and its drainage basin as well as River Porvoonjoki and its drainage basin. The first one, L.Vanajavesi, is among the third most eutrophicated lake area in Finland, and respectively R. Porvoonjokiis the most polluted river basin in Finland when the major nutrient (N, P) concentrations areconsidered. This demonstration will monitor the water quality and emissions of N2 and N2O before andafter remediation of nitrogen removal in waste water treatment plants. A new methodology will beused for the assessment. Monitoring data can be used for cost-benefit estimations. This provides thestake-holders a good basis for more realistic environmental policy decisions, for example, how long arethe time-lags between the investments and the first visible responses in water quality. Within theproject the information will be used in assessing ecologically and economically the most efficientmethods in reducing nitrogen (and phosphorus) loads from waste water treatment plants.In the third phase, the project provides demonstration tool for assessment of nitrogen fluxes in lakesand rivers receiving different nitrogen loadings. We are going to use the newest hydrological modelsand results, and we will demonstrate how various water protection actions directed to decreasenitrogen loading into lakes and rivers may affect the nitrogen fluxes in the entire water systems, suchas in the L. Vanajavesi water system as well as in the R. Porvoonjoki drainage basin (B.2). It must berealized that the hydrological models applied in this study are the same which are in operational use inthe Finnish Environmental Institute. This means that all improvements in estimating the loadings willbe automatically transferred into practice, a fact which clearly demonstrates the close interactionbetween the project partners and the stake-holders. In a wider context this also means that the results

DEMONSTRATION CHARACTER OF THE PROJECT

Page 31 of 86


of the project are almost immediately open for other end-users in Europe as well. This is confirmed bythe fact that the partners of the project are involved in several international research projects inEurope.Finally, the economical and environmental costs of various actions to decrease nitrogen loading intolakes and rivers are computed and demonstrated using a state-of-the-art spatial optimization modelframework (B.3). The optimization model is used for comparing the costs and effects of a number ofnutrient abatement measures that can be carried out at different parts of the watershed and fordetermining the spatially optimal, cost-efficient combination of measures. Such computation alsoreveals whether the new innovative sediment filtration measure has economic potential compared tothe other, already existing measures. Although in the project the framework will be built for the twotarget areas, L. Vanajavesi drainage basin and R. Porvoonjoki drainage basin, the model framework canbe extended to other watersheds in Finland as well. We assume the framework can be applied to inmany other EU countries, at least in the Baltic States and Sweden. This part of the project is a cleardemonstration component with high socio-economical value. We believe that in addition to the Finnishstake-holders the results of our spatial optimization tool will have high relevance to the EuropeanUnion. In the EU countries situating in the drainage basin of the Baltic Sea (Finland, Sweden, Estonia,Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Germany and Denmark), the implementation of the Water FrameworkDirective and Marine Strategy Framework Directive requires strong actions in water purification, andthus all economically and environmentally valuable tools have to be considered. In this respect thesedemonstrations can be extremely informative and may give new tools which can be applied not only intheory but also in practice.We see that the above mentioned demonstration actions form a perfect project entity, which takes allimportant physical and economical aspects into consideration and provides valuable tools for bothplanning and decision-making in the water resource management. If successful, the new sedimentfiltering system will highly improve the efficiency of nitrogen removal especially in small-medium sizesewage treatment plants with relatively low cost. In a country like Finland with many small settlementsand a great number (>300 units) of sewage plants, the new method may be especially important inreducing nutrient loading to the lakes and rivers when the local authorities nowadays have difficultiesin making new expensive investments to this sector. If the method proves to be successful it can beapplied in addition to the other EU member states also in other countries, such as in Africa, Asia andSouth-America where the water purification technologies are often poor or can be completely lacking.In countries further south, the environmental conditions can be even more favorable for a successfulapplication of the sediment filtration method because of higher water temperature during the entireyear.

This demonstration project will give tools and data about the fate of the wastewater nitrogen and willillustrate the potential for calculating nitrogen sources and sinks for an individual water system, whichis important for the environmental permit prodecures. The 91/271/EU directive on waste watertreatment requests enhanced nitrogen treatment of waste water for communities of more than 10.000inhabitant units, and denitrification has been the argument for the Court of Justice of the EuropeanCommunities to discard the lowsuit against Finland (proceeding C-335/07, decision 2009/C 282/04).Still, the grounds for the decision are weak and it is not really known or actually measured whether ornot this ecosystem balancing is efficient enough, and new proceedings are therefore on-going. Actionsthat focus on monitoring real sinks of nitrogen and the fate of nitrogen before it reaches the Baltic Seaare therefore important to form the basis for cases being handled by the Court of Justice of theEuropean Communities as well as national state administrative agencies and courts of justice.

The other aspect of this demonstration is the innovative design of the distribution system for thepurified wastewater. The full-scale demonstration in 3-4 treatment plants will test the newenvironmental-friendly technology and show the benefits and environmental consequences of theapproach. The method will be extremely cheap and internationally fascinating for all waste-watertreatment plants which have nitrifying steps in their process. Construction or reparation of thedischarge system is estimated to cost 10 000-50 000€, and if it helps to reduce more than 10% of thenitrogen load it would be very beneficial for wastewater treatment utilities to reach the reductiontargets internationally through the whole EU area. In addition, the project produces models that havehigh spatial resolution for cost-effective allocation of abatement measures. Without proper economicaland ecological analyses, there is a risk that resources can be wasted on inefficient measures and nosubstantial reduce in nutrient loading will be achieved.

Besides the EU Commission, in Finland there are several stake-holders such as the Ministry ofEnvironment and the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, The Finnish Environment Institute, Centres

EU ADDED VALUE OF THE PROJECT AND ITS ACTIONS

Page 32 of 86


SOCIO-ECONOMIC EFFECTS OF THE PROJECT

The assessment of the economic viability of the sediment filtering approach (technology) is anessential part of the cost-effective modeling, and therefore it has not mentioned separately in theproposal. The idea is that the costs and benefits of different abatement measures will be estimated interms of euros per kg of N which will be reduced. In a case of a medium size wastewater treatmentplant, such as the HS-Vesi plant in Paroinen, the improvement of N retention from 50% to 70% requiresnew investments for a methanol unit with a minimum cost of 0.3*106 euros and possible new wastetank systems with a minimum cost of 2-3*106 euros. In addition to the investments also the chemicaland other utilization costs have to be considered. Equally with above the costs of the sedimentfiltration approach can be estimated based on the investments, including the filtration textile, tubesystem and possible pumping devices, and the running costs including possible electricity andmaintenance. When the costs and the true retention capacities of the treatments are known in detail,the analysis will show the most cost-efficiency practice. This information will be compared with thealternative nutrient abatement measures in the agriculture. This is the way we are going to assess theeconomic viability of the technologies.Because nutrient loads to inland waters can be reduced by several alternative nutrient abatementmeasures, these measures are attributed to different economic sectors and polluters, such asagriculture, forestry and municipal waste, and they vary in cost and effect. The funds allocated in waterprotection are limited and thus all possible abatement measures cannot be implemented. Therefore,economical analysis is needed to find out the most efficient way to protect Finnish lakes and rivers andthe Baltic Sea. Without proper economic analysis, there is a risk that resources can be wasted oninefficient measures and no substantial reduction in nutrient loading will be achieved. In such a casethe costs for the society and damage to the nature will be high.

In Action B3 we will focus on cost-effective allocation of nutrient abatement measures at the watershedlevel and on development of a spatial optimization framework, first for two case study watersheds. Theframework will be built such that it can be easily extended to other watersheds generalized for largerregions. There are several optional end-users such as the European Union, Ministry of Environment,Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, Finnish Environment Institute, Centres for Economic Development,Transport and the Environment as well as local actors such as water companies and waste watertreatment plants, water protection associations, counselling organizations (e.g. Pro-Agria and ForestryCentres) and farmer´s own organizations (e.g. MTK), which can be responsible for the implementationof the results of the Action C3. The optimization framework can be also used as one tool in addressingand meeting the requirements of the Marine Strategy Framework directive (designing the programmeof measures in particular) in those EU member states and regional seas where eutrohication isconsidered as an environmental problem.

EFFORTS FOR REDUCING THE PROJECT'S "CARBON FOOTPRINT"

First of all we will invite the local enterprises to tender for purchasing goods and services when it ispossible. Secondly, we will check the life cycle information of the goods to ensure that the principles ofgreen procurement would be achieved. Finally, in all circumstances we try to use only environmentallyfriendly goods and/or services. This means that travelling will be used only when it is absolutelynecessary, and public transport will be supported when it is possible. In detail, below is a list of actionsand options which will be applied to ensure as low carbon footprint as possible:-- The demonstration sites are selected as close as possible for project personnel to reduce travelling.- Project workers are supported to use public transport as much as possible when going to meetings.For sampling trips this is, however, not possible.- Foreign overseas conference attendance is reduced to 1-2 per year per person, and the publicinterest will be more attained by publications and reports.- The project favors direct flights when flying is necessary

for Economic Development, Transport and the Environment as well as several local actors like watercompanies and waste water treatment plants, water protection associations, counselling organizations(e.g. Pro-Agria and Forestry Centres) and farmer´s own organizations (e.g. MTK), which can apply andimplement the results of the project.

Page 33 of 86


- Places of meetings will be arranged so that public transport is possible (or group transport).- Working meetings are kept by internet and/or telephone if possible.- For the accommodation of the project meetings, the university research field stations with low costsand green policy will be preferred.- We will promote the project staff members to use bicycles as much as possible. During the project atleast 6000 km of travelling will be done by bicycles.- Publications will be made available on the internet to reduce paper publishing.- All printing will be minimized and only computers with energy saving will be used.- The project will give quantitative measures of the N2O emissions from the natural denitrification andemissions from wastewater treatment plants. This will help in recognizing the problem and restrictingthe emissions, if drastic emissions are measured in the treatment plants. We will also estimate the CO2emissions of the project and the results will be described in the mid-term and final reports of theproject.- When possible a rowboawill be used for sampling and boats that are already on the sampling pointsinstead of transporting the boat to every point.- The project will reuse exetainer sampling tubes and by this minimize the amount of waste produced.We will use the idea of green procurement to all the project beneficiaries and apply it in thesubcontracting procedures as well.

Page 34 of 86


Figure 2. Actions of the projectName of the picture:

Page 35 of 86


Figure: Schematic structure of the projectName of the picture:

Page 36 of 86


To involve the main national stakeholders in the management of the project and the enhancement ofthe dissemination of the results 8 representatives of the following organizations will be invited to theProject steering and advisory board (SAB) by the Action leaders (see Action E1, Project management)before the inception meeting:1. Wastewater treatment plants commenced to participate in the pilot demonstrations. WWTWs of theplanned demonstration sites are located in Hämeenlinna/Paroinen, and Keuruu. Other optimal sites arePetäjävesi and Hankasalmi which may replace Keuruu in case of unexpected problems. The authoritiesof these sites have promised technical knowledge for preparing the sediment filtration systems.Hämenlinnan Seudun Vesi is also a co-financer of the project. The commitments of other WWTW’s(Keuruu, and in addition Petäjävesi and Hankasalmi) are attached, see letters of intend forcollaboration in Appendixes 1a-c.2. Finnish Water and Waste Water Works Association (FIWA). FIWA's membership includes over 300Finnish water utilities and 130 collaborating members which cover about 90 % of water services inFinland.3. Ministry of the Environment (MoE) and Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry (MAF). Ministries definethe national environmental policy and priorities, issues guidelines and prepares and issues nationalregulations.4. Finnish Environment institute (SYKE, other than project participants). SYKE's expert services providevital assistance on a wide-range of environmental issues for administrators, local authorities,industries, firms and other organizations.5. The Regional Centres for Economic Development, Transport and the Environment (ELYs) andRegional State Administrative Agencies (AVI). Environmental authorities (AVI) are responsible forissuing permits and obligations of nutrient remediation in sewage treatment plants. ELYs are theorganizations that controls and sets the scene for the obligations. For this purpose the project producesvaluable new information and frameworks for environmental decisions defined by authorities.6. Regional council of Häme. The objective of the Regional Council of Häme is to develop the region inorder for it to become a competitive region as a part of Southern Finland, the area of the Baltic Sea,and the entire Europe.7. Kokemäenjoen vesistön vesiensuojeluyhdistys (KVVY) – Water protection association of the riverKokemäenjoki water system. KVVY studies and monitors the environmental effects, makes drafts forthe environmental permits and gives education e.g. for wastewater treatment plant personnels. This isone of the many national associations, but the activity area covers the planned demonstration sites. 8. Aalto University, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering. Water and WastewaterEngineering Groups are the leading groups in the country focusing on new challenges in controllingwastewater processes. The biological removal of nitrogen is becoming more and more common.9. Other Life projects in EU. With regard to other Life+ projects in the EU, there are currently noclosely related projects. Therefore we have a great interest if any new starting project could havescientific value for our project. In Finland we already have had collaboration with the GIS-Bloom Life+project which started in 2010 and continues till 2013. Dr Bertil Vehviläinen belongs to team of theproject and Vanajavesi is among the few pilot areas of the project, and the Finnish EnvironmentInstitute is responsible for and conducted the project. These facts ascertain that our new project willhave a very close collaboration with the GIS-Bloom Life+ project during the next few years.10. EU Commission. The results of the project can be exploited by the WISE EU which is a partnershipbetween the European Commission (DG Environment, Joint Research Centre and Eurostat) and theEuropean Environment Agency.In addition, other Finnish researchers and experts involved in related environmental problems will beinformed in seminars, conferences and through written articles and publications. They will also beinvited to open project seminars and workshops. Municipalities and municipal waterworks are reachedby the Waste Water Works Association (FIWA) netpages and their monthly newsletter. Local waterprotection associations are informed in the annual “Vesipäivät” national conference. Internationalstakeholders are informed by giving presentations in international conferences and workshops, and bypublishing results of the project in scientific journals. In addition project members have co-operationwith various international projects, which have several research partners in other Baltic Sea countries,in Europe and other countries, e.g. in China.

STAKEHOLDERS INVOLVED AND TARGET AUDIENCES OF THE PROJECT OTHER THAN PROJECTPARTICIPANTS

Page 37 of 86


EXPECTED CONSTRAINTS AND RISKS RELATED TO THE PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION AND HOW THEY WILLBE DEALT WITH (CONTINGENCY PLANNING)

In Action A1 only minor constrains and risks are foreseen because the existing data sets are availablefor the project and the collaborating partners are experienced in doing complicated physical, chemicaland biological analyses, including phytoplankton and cyanobacteria.In Action A2 we already have an appropriate number of committed waste water utilities, but thehydrological conditions have to be checked because they may affect the criteria of the most suitabledemonstration places. Sediment filtration does not change the quantity or place of the wastewaterload, so it is not expected that environmental permit are needed in the smaller treatment plants inFinland, especially if the water is not stagnant but flowing. Although only positive effects aresuspected, a permit may be needed for larger water volumes and therefore in the work schedule thereare 1,5 years time allotted to the permit process. In the worst case we can conduct the demonstrationin Lammi utility (WWT) which has an own pond suitable for the sediment filtration. Applying for theenvironmental permit may also be important to make the N-SINK sediment filtering technology morefamiliar to the authorities and generate publicity as an example case.Action B1.- Construction plans of the extended perforated sewage outlet may include some points which aredifficult to predict. Water pressure in the outlet depths may influence the flow rate, so construction willbe made one by one, to gain experience of the tube performance to modify the prototype of the outlet.As the outlet is perforated, it is not expected that the tubing needs extra-weights, but to get the tubecloser or even inside the sediment, some weights have to be added. The effects will be continuouslymonitored and if harmful negative biogeochemical results will be recognized (like doubling of thephosphorus concentration) then the demonstration will be stopped within 3 months.Action B2- The major risk is that the diffuse leaching of nitrogen is rather challenging to model in northerntemperate zone with highly variable hydrological and weather conditions. Therefore, there is a risk thatwe may need more work to reach the goals than anticipated in the project plan. At the same time agood thing is, however, that our modeling team in SYKE has a great deal of experience in modeling,and especially the hydrological sub-model (WSFS) has already proven to successfully estimatehydrological patterns over large watersheds in Finland. Through our INCA and VEMALA models wehave gained valuable experience, and fortunately the INCA model has already been applied to onesmaller catchment area (Lake Pääjärvi) in the upper reaches of the Vanajanvesi drainage basin. In thatarea the model results fitted rather well with the calculated loading estimates based on measuredrunoff and chemistry results with intensive sampling.It is hard to foresee any other major risk in achieving the targets of the project, because in this contextall the basic requirements (e.g. the model structures and good verification data) for a successfulmodeling are available. Further, the INCA models have been used to similar questions already severalcountries in Europe e.g. INCA (EVK1-CT-1999-00011) and EUROLIMPACS (GOCE-CT-2003-505540)projects.Action B3:- We estimate that in Action B3 there is a low risk for failure. The reason is that the modeling teamalready has some experience in working with the issue, although in a much larger spatial scale in theBaltic. This means that the model structure and its demands are well known and therefore we assumethat the key question (and problem) might be the spatial resolution of the model. In the new modelversion, higher spatial resolution complicates the model, which can be a risk, but at the same time italso improves the model and as a consequence the model results can be better applied in resourceallocation at the case study areas.- Potentially there is a risk that the collaboration between the two modeling teams does not workproperly. This is a relevant aspect and has to be considered carefully because Action B2 providesessential information for Action B3. . The INCA-catchment model version calibrated in Action B2 andthe economic model (Action B3) will be used iteratively in determining cost-efficient programmes ofmeasures for the case study catchments. If the collaboration fails, the goals of Action B3 cannot beachieved. However, we strongly believe this is just a hypothetical risk while in reality the collaborationbetween the two teams will operate according to the plans. Both team members know each other well,and all indicators suggest that the collaboration will not be difficult between the two teams.- Spatial optimization is technically challenging. One important, but also critical step of the process isto identify or develop a non-linear optimization algorithm that is suitable in solving water managementproblems. Although there are many alternative candidate algorithms (Hof and Bevers 2002), theirefficiency in solving this particular optimization problem will not be known before the first versions ofthe simulation model become available for testing. If the problem turns out too complex to be solvedfor the entire watershed, there are ways to solve simpler problems for subregions separately and theniteratively for the entire region. Another possibility is to decrease the spatial resolution by aggregatingareas.- Building up an integrated model for water management will be iterative work between the two

Page 38 of 86


modeling teams (B2 and B3). Both an optimization tool and the simulation model will be developedsimultaneously and jointly and by exchanging information between the teams. This is the way tosafeguard that the work will advance smoothly.Action C1- The number of sampling and analyses may be too high for the budgeted personnel. However, weestimate that we can get 2-3 M.Sc. students during the project to help in the sampling and analysisprocess.- The machines used for stable isotope analysis are frequently booked and it may be difficult to findtime enough for analysis from the University of Jyväskylä. To prevent this, planning and booking will bemade well in advance, and collaboration with other groups will ensure that this constrain is not going tobe a problem. However, another solution is to buy the service from international laboratories likeCornell University. If that happens we have to ask, if permission is needed from the EU, to change ourcost allocation between salaries and external assistance costs for UJ. The same holds true for N2Omeasurements which also have limited availability in Finnish Universities.- Some of the machines necessary for research may break down during the project. However, the highamount of collaboration partners and a good network will ensure that the samples will be analyzed andalso custom services can be bought.In Action D the risk for a successful dissemination is minimal because all the active members of theproject have long experience in disseminating scientific results, and in fact many of the keystakeholders in Finland are somehow involved in the project. We are convinced that will ensure thedissemination. Due to information overload there is a risk that the information will not reach allexpected target groups. However, all possible actions will be done to minimize that risk. In this respecta very important thing is that so many key players in the field are somehow connected to the project.This is why we believe that in this particular project, if in any project, the dissemination goals can bereached. We are aware, however, that dissemination is a challenging issue and needs plenty of timeand energy from all partners, team leaders as well as the project coordinator, and it is not just a“simple” thing which can be left to the hired person. The management of the homepage, especiallyafter the project´s life-time, is also a challenging issue. We have a plan, that the homepage will bemaintained at the homepage of the Lammi Biological Station, University of Helsinki, at least threeyears after the project has ended. This allows other partners and collaborators to link the N-Sink pageto their own homepages.In Action E there are no major constrains and therefore it is hard to see any major risk in projectmanagement. The project leader as well as the action leaders are all experienced persons and thusfamiliar with project management issues. Many of them have earlier experience in LIFE projects aswell. Many of the SAB (Steering and Advisory Board) members also have a long experience in all kindof projects and thus they are capable to help and guide in the project management. This means thatthe key issue is to hire a suitable person for the project coordinator.

Page 39 of 86


CONTINUATION / VALORISATION OF THE PROJECT RESULTS AFTER THE END OF THE PROJECT

Since the timeframe of the project is limited, international dissemination of the results will also becontinued after the project. That will happen in a natural way by the university partners, MTT and SYKEthrough international conference talks and posters.If the demonstrated N-SINK nitrogen load reduction system proves to be feasible, further actions areneeded in order to elicit its wide use in practise. A follow-up project may therefore be necessary for thecommercialization of the method. The model applications calculating N retention at different spatial scales (INCA and WSFS-VEMALA) willbe developed and carried out at SYKE after the project. Also the cost-effective model will be furtherdeveloped and carried out after the project at MTT. This means that all the three models applied in theproject will be available after the project also for administrative purposes.

Which actions will have to be carried out or continued after the end of the project?

How will this be achieved, what resources will be necessary to carry out these actions?

If the proposed N-SINK method proves feasible, further development of the method could be facilitatedby the Finnish Technology Agency (TEKES), or the EU Eco-innovation funding system. The modelapplications will be developed partially by the resources of the responsible institutes (SYKE and MTT)and partially by the external funding. This means that for the further developments of the models newfunds are needed. The possible external funding might come from the EU funding systems althoughthe national resources can play a major role. At this stage we do not have any concrete plans beyondthe end of this project in 2016.For developing denitrification measuring techniques LBS and UJ willapply for further funding from the Academy of Finland (AKVA programme 2011) and we assume thatthe Finnish Academy project will continue after 2016.Also MTT, SYKE and University of Helsinki willapply for further financing from the Academy of Finland for the developing of models.

To what extent will the results and lessons of the project be actively disseminated after the end of the project tothose persons and/or organisations that could best make use of them (please identify thesepersons/organisations)?

Dissemination will be continued through the established network, which consists of organizationsrepresented in the Steering and advisory board (SAB), including two ministries, SYKE, MTT, universities,water protection associations, and FIWA. Also other contributors in water protection will be activelyinformed by the partners.

Page 40 of 86


Part C – detailed technical description of theproposed actions


Page 41 of 86

LIFE12 ENV/FI/000597 - C0

LIST OF ALL PROPOSED ACTIONS

A. Preparatory actions (if needed)

A1 Preparation of the study sites for the N-SINK demonstration action

B. Implementation actions

B1 N-SINK sediment filtration demonstrations

B2 Long-term and model demonstrations of catchment scale N retention

B3 Demonstration of spatially cost-effective allocation of nutrient abatement measures at watershedlevel

C. Monitoring of the impact of the project actions (obligatory)

C1 Monitoring the ecosystem effects of sediment filtering in Lake Keurusselkä

C2 Monitoring the ecosystem effects of sediment filtering in Lake Vanajavesi

C3 Verification of catchment scale N retention models

D. Communication and dissemination actions (obligatory)

D1 Communication and dissemination

D2 Development of after Life communication plan

E. Project management and monitoring of the project progress (obligatory)

E1 Project management and monitoring of the project progress

Page 42 of 86

LIFE12 ENV/FI/000597 - C1a

DETAILS OF PROPOSED ACTIONSA. Preparatory actionsACTION A.1: Preparation of the study sites for the N-SINK demonstration actionDescription and methods employed (what, how, where and when):This action is preparation phase for the N-SINK sediment filtration demonstration action, which includestechnical planning, permit procedures and consultations. Sediment filtration is a new undemonstratedinnovation for the reduction of the nitrogen load when wastewater nitrogen is released in the form of nitrate.The final and long-term benefits of the approach can only be analyzed in a proper field demonstration. In theN-SINK project we will select four places where the demonstration will be conducted and 1-3 places for controlsites. In the preliminary survey (see http://www.vvy.fi/?29_m=1814&s=20 ) conducted together with theFinnish Water and Waste Water Works Association (FIWA) we have gained several treatment plants, who havebeen interested and committed in taking part in the demonstration and monitoring, including smallcommunities and larger water companies: e.g., Lammi, HS-vesi (Hämeenlinna, Hattula), Keuruu, Hankasalmi,Petäjävesi, and Janakkala in the central and southern Finland. FIWA's membership includes over 300 Finnishwater utilities and 130 collaborating members which cover about 90 % of water services in Finland. Based onhydrological and technical survey and together with the support of FIWA the two-three most suitabletreatment plants (see below) will be selected for the N-SINK demonstration places. In addition one-two siteswill be selected for control sites where the year-to-year variation in the denitrification activity can bedetermined.Thus the implementation of filtering approach will carried out in some of the proposed sites:Hämeenlinna/Paroinen (Lake Vanajanselkä), Keuruu (Lake Keurusselkä), Petäjävesi (Jämsänvesi), orHankasalmi (Kuuhankavesi). In Hämeenlinna/Paroinen the technology is tested for part of the 20 000 m3/ddischarge, in other places for full outflow (300-800 m3/d). The site selection will be performed based on theresults of subproject A1. WWTW`s, their scales and locations are shown in Appendix 1. One reason forselecting these sites is to minimize travelling during the monitoring phase as Hämeenlinna/Paroinen is closeto LBS and other sites close to JyU.Modeling and cost-effective calculations are performed for larger catchment areas, i.e. catchments of LakeVanajanselkä and River Porvoonjoki, which contribute significantly to the nutrient load to the RiverKokemäenjoki and further down to the Bothnian Sea and respectively to the Gulf of Finland. This allows us toestimate the effectiveness of different abatement measures relative to their costs within two large catchmentareas, both with high relevance in relation to their loading and hydrological characteristics. See Appendix 1,Demonstration areas, Appendix 2, Demonstrations in river basins).Because of the relatively small volume of already purified waste waterwhich will be used in the sedimentfiltration approach, no environmental permits will be needed or in case they are needed the permits will beapplied. Therefore in the preparatory action the environmental permits will be applied, if necessary, and theapplication procedure will be described in detail to give an example of the procedure for water utilities. Thisaction completes the final choosing of the sites and planning the monitoring points, as well as drafting theapplication for the environmental permit from Regional State Administrative Agency (eg. In Vaasa). In FinlandRegional State Administrative Agencies harmonises the regional environmental and development activitiesand is responsible for the environmental protection through environmental permits.

The action A is divided to the sub-actions 1 and 2:

1. Choosing the study and monitoring sites based on the hydrological and technical survey (August 2013-May2014) - DPHYS responsible for the implementation-includes interviewing representative water utility staff and authorities-collection of maps and other documentation-flow measurements and wastewater discharge flow simulations in the selected sites-determination of the most representative monitoring points

2. Drafting the environmental permit for the N-SINK sediment filtration in the medium-size wastewatertreatment utility (2014)-planning the application for the environmental permit together with the local water protection associations

Constraints and assumptions:Only minor constrains are foreseen in the realization of Action A 2. We already have the appropriate numberof committed waste water utilities, but it is better to check the hydrological aspect which are importantchoosing criteria and may affect the criteria of the most suitable demonstration places.Sediment filtration does not change then quantity or place of the wastewater load, so it is not expected that

Page 43 of 86

LIFE12 ENV/FI/000597 - C1a

environmental permit are needed in the smaller treatment plants in Finland, especially if the water is notstagnant but flowing. Although only positive effects are suspected environmental permit may be needed forlarger water volumes and therefore in the work schedule there are 2 years time to get the permit, whichshould be enough for the procedure. If, for some reason the permit takes longer or the permit is too strictlydefined, we can conduct the fourth demonstration in Lammi utility which has an own pond suitable for thesediment filtration, although not the most optimum place. Applying the environmental permit may also beimportant to make the N-SINK sediment filtering technology more familiar for authorities and publicity and asan example case.

Beneficiary responsible for implementation:UJ

Expected results (quantitative information when possible):D 1.2. Report: Selection of the study sites and description of the flow directions and monitoring points ofthese sitesD 1.1. Environmental permit for the Regional State Administrative Agency

Indicators of progress:M 1.1 Demonstration sites and monitoring points described (31.1.2014)M 1.2 Environmental permit applied for at least for the medium-size N-SINK demonstration place

Responsibilities in case several beneficiaries are implicated:

Page 44 of 86

LIFE12 ENV/FI/000597 - C1b

B. Implementation actionsACTION B.1: N-SINK sediment filtration demonstrationsDescription and methods employed (what, how, where and when):Sediment has an enormous capacity to reduce nitrate load to nitrogen gas through denitrification.Denitrification is very strongly related to the nitrogen concentration above the sediment and water retentionin a lake, as previous studies have consistently shown (Figure). Therefore we claim that spatial optimization ofthe wastewater discharge would be an efficient way to reduce nitrate-based nutrient load in the environmentespecially now, when most new environmental permits for new or reconstructed treatment plants have anitrification sanction in Finland and other Baltic countries which care for the sensitive aquatic system.Currently the discharge of purified waste water has mostly been implemented using a one-point outletsystem, either through a drain or a pipe, and many times the water is further mixed to the productive waterlayer of the lake. A new sediment filtration approach is suggested in which the nitrified water will be in longerdirect contact with the reducing microbes of the sediment, which are very efficiently denitrifying a portion ofthe nitrate load. Compared to the point outlet, nitrate rich water is spread close to the sediment where nitrateis also expected to increase the redox-potential of the uppermost sediment layer, and improve the quality ofnear-bottom water layers and prevent phosphorus release.This action is implementation phase for the alternative nitrogen load reduction method N-SINK sedimentfiltration, and is the technical part of the project.One-two demonstration site(s) will be a small-scale treatment plant(s) (300-800 m3/d), and one medium-sizeplant (up to 20000 m3/d or partial discharge volume), and in addition another one or two site(s) will be usedfor demonstration. The discharge outlet width is increased by 100-300 times (from 30-60 cm to 50-100 m), byperforated sewer system with heavy weights to sink the tubing in to the bottom sediment allowing a slow flowinto the anareobic sediment. The site will be monitored during the action and one year before the action(C1.2; C2.2) or one year after the action (C1.1; C2.2). Life+ notice boards will be set in the demonstrationsites.The demonstrations will last one full year each; starting on summer 2014 and 2015.The action includes planning, construction and disassembly of the sediment filtering system and perforatedsewage outlet. Prototype construction includes 4 new perforated canals for wastewater allocation about 100m per place, 10-60 cm diameter plastic tubes and connection parts, work for special perforation and waterinstallation. Special purpose perforated wastewater canals have never been commercialized and/or iare notavailable as a serial product. The water pressure (~2bars) makes it challenging to get an even outflow fromthe tube, and therefore the perforation has to be done in a special way. Making the prototype needsmathematical calculations and simulations, which can be later used for new canals.-Permanent staff taking part time in the work will be specifically seconded to the project.Construction plans of the extended perforated sewage outlet may include some points which are difficult topredict. Water pressure in the outlet depths may influence the flow rate, so construction will be made one byone, to gain experience of the tube performance (first construction in June, next in August, then in June and inAugust) to modify the prototype of the outlet. As the outlet is perforated, it is not expected that the tubingneeds extra weights, but to get the tube more close or even inside the sediment, some weights have to beadded. A scuba diver will check the spatial construction of the outlet.The effects will be continuously monitored and if harmful negative effects are recognized (like doubling of thephosphorus concentration) then the demonstration will be stopped within 3 months.This action will produce 4 one-year long full-scale demonstrations of the N-SINK sediment filtration method.The new drain systems will be constructed and deconstructed.

Constraints and assumptions:Construction plans of the extended perforated sewage outlet may include some points which is difficult topredict. Water pressure in the outlet depths may influence the flow rate, so construction will be made oneafter one, to gain experience of the tube performance (first construction in June, next in August, then in Juneand in August) to modify the prototype of the outlet. As the outlet is perforated, it is not expected that thetubing needs extra weights, but to get the tube more close or even inside the sediment, some weights haveto be added. A scuba diver will check the spatial construction of the outlet.

The effects will be continuously monitored and if really negative biogeochemical results will be recognized(like doubling of the phosphorus concentration) then that demonstration will be stopped within 3 months.

Page 45 of 86



Expected results (quantitative information when possible):This action will produce 2 one-year long full-scale demonstrations of the N-SINK sediment filtration method.The new drain systems will be constructed and deconstructed.

D 2.1 Progress report

D 2.2 Final report: New alternative method for nitrogen removal exploiting natural ecosystem service

Indicators of progress:Milestones:M 2.1 Progress report 1 readyM 2.2 Final report ready


Page 46 of 86


Correlation between denitrification and residence time and nitrate concentrationName of the picture:

Page 47 of 86


New sediment fitration methodName of the picture:

Page 48 of 86


B. Implementation actionsACTION B.2: Long-term and model demonstrations of catchment scale N retentionDescription and methods employed (what, how, where and when):This action has two phases:Phase 1. The aim of this supporting action is to analyze and demonstrate how the major nutrient loadingsfrom point and non-point sources have changed the water quality in Lake Vanajanselkä and River Porvoonjokiin southern Finland, and how the water protection actions, like denitrification, have influenced water quality inthe long-term. The time span will be the last 50+ years and the analysis is based on the available long-termdata sets collected by the water authorities.The first target area includes Vanajavesi as a part of the Kokemäenjoki drainage basin with a total area of 27046 km2, i.e. the fourth largest river basin in Finland. Lake Vanajanselkä and its upstream drainage basinconsists of ca. 2700 km2, i.e. 10% of the entire water system. River Kokemäenjoki drains finally to theBothnian Sea through the city of Pori.The second study area is River Porvoonjoki with a total drainage basin of nearly 1300 km2. The river flowsthrough the city of Porvoo into the Gulf of Finland. The river is the most heavily loaded (per area) river inFinland. The length of the river is 143 km and there are only a few lakes on it (1.4% of the total drainagebasin area). The length of River Kokemäenjoki is about the same (150 km), but [due to the large drainagebasin] it has many upstream river and lake areas. One of them is the water system called Vanajanreitti. Fromthe upstream starting point to the mouth of the River Kokemäenjoki, the water has to flow >200 km.Nowadays both water systems receive purified effluents from municipalities and industry. However,Vanajavesi water system received untreated sewage waters for a long time before the first waste watertreatment plants were build in 1970´s. As a result of waste water treatment plants and new purificationtechniques, especially phosphorus retention is very high (>95%). However, nitrogen retention is usually muchlower and can achieve only about 50% of the load. In the area of Porvoonjoki the waste water treatmentplants have higher nitrogen retention capacity, and up to 80-90% of the load can be retained in normalconditions. Organic matter retention is typically >95% of the load as well. The amount of purified wastewaters can contribute, however, up to 30% of the discharge in River Porvoonjoki and <5% in case ofVanajavesi, although the mean values are much lower.The documented history of water purification will be used as a basis for the analysis and demonstration ofwater quality changes in both study areas. The data archives of Finnish Environment Institute (SYKE) will beused for the analysis. The whole set of chemistry results will be analyzed and compared with the technicalimprovements at the treatment plants. Besides the chemistry results also the phytoplankton data will beanalyzed.The methodology is based on the metadata analysis and on the causal relationships between water pollution,incl. ecosystem responses, and water treatment history in the two target areas. The key focus is(1) how water chemistry and phytoplankton, including cyanobacteria, have changed in the long-term and(2) how much, and(3) how quickly the technical improvements in water purification have been reflected in water chemistry andbiology of the recipient lake and river waters. This action provides valuable information for the other Actions of the project, and includes three tasks:1. Description of the pollution history of the target areas, as based on the documented information2. Metadata description of available water chemistry and biologal data from the target areas3. Demonstration of causal relationships between the water pollution and water treatment history and waterquality by the analysis of available long-term data set-Permanent staff partaking part time in the work will be specifically seconded to the project.No significant constrains are predicted, because this Action is based on already existing data sets that areavailable for the project and the partners are experienced in analyzing such long-term data sets from aquaticecosystems, including phytoplankton and cyanobacteria. Phase 2: Demonstration of catchment scale N retentionIn this task, the processes and causal relationships connected to N retention are studied in detail by statisticaldata analyses and catchment-scale N modeling of long term water quality data sets in lakes anddemonstration catchments.The river discharge and water quality datasets are analyzed by using statistical trend analysis and regressionanalysis techniques against pollution and loading history. The semi-distributed catchment scale INCA-N modelis used to analyze in detail the process rates. The model is a dynamic process-based model which can takeinto account in detail the variability of agricultural management practices, soil types and point sources (Wadeet al. 2002)). Further, the INCA model allows also running of agricultural and waste water treatment scenariosin connection to economical model (e.g. Rankinen et al. 2006). This is also essential for a cost-effectiveallocation of abatement measures (see B.3). For this purpose we have designed a two-step approachincluding model calibration and validation phases.The demonstration catchments are two catchments (Porvoonjoki and Vanajavesi). In the river Porvoonjoki,point source loading is high and it is therefore a representative catchment to demonstrate waste water

Page 49 of 86


treatment scenarios, while in Vanajavesi agricultural production is the most important source of nutrientleaching. As the lake percentage is low in the both demonstration catchments (1.3% for Porvoonjoki andabout 3% for Vanajavesi), these catchments are suitable for modeling nutrient cycling in networked riverecosystems.Scenarios for waste water treatment will include effective purification of both municipal waste waters andwaste waters from scattered settlements outside the municipal waste water treatment (WWT), as well as N-SINK sediment filtration. In general, the environmental permissions for inland WWT plants require 50-70%reduction in total nitrogen, as the current retention level is on average 54-56%. For ammonium reduction therequirements can be up to 75-90% (max concentration 8-4 mg/l), which means that effective nitrification isneeded in new and upgraded treatment plants.In the demonstration catchments, the agricultural water protection measures will be based on therecommended measures of the river basin management plans (WFD) and the measures listed in the Finnishagri-environmental programme. Agricultural scenarios include reduced N and P fertilization (mineral andorganic), catch crops and wintertime vegetation cover. As the Finnish agri-environmetal programme isvoluntary to farmers, we aim to find the correct combination and amplitude of implementation of themeasures for these different catchments to fulfill the target of 30% reduction in nutrient loads (National WaterProtection Policy Outlines). We will combine a set of scenario based on these measures, and study theinfluence on N retention in these catchments. We are aware of the fact that some measures may have neutralor even negative effect on retention (i.e. increase Nfluxes) and we try to map these risks as well.-Permanent staff partaking part time in the work will be specifically seconded to the project.

Constraints and assumptions:- No significant constrains are predicted. Phase 1 is based on already existing data sets that are available forthe project and the partners are experienced in analyzing physical, chemical and biological long-term datafrom aquatic ecosystems, including phytoplankton and cyanobacteria. The hydrological, water quality andphytoplankton data bases of SYKE consists majority of the data, and they are available for the project.In phase 2, the major risk is that diffuse leaching of nitrogen it is a rather challenging objective to model innorthern temperate zone with highly variable hydrological conditions and extreme weather. Therefore there isa risk that we may need more work to reach the goals than anticipated in the project plan. At the same time agood thing is, however, that our modeling team in SYKE has lots of previous experience in modeling, andespecially the hydrological sub-model (WSFS) has already proven to estimate successfully hydrologicalpatterns and total nitrogen load over large watersheds in Finland. In case of INCA and VEMALA models wealso have some experience, and fortunately INCA model has already been applied to one smaller catchmentarea (Lake Pääjärvi) in the upper reaches of the Vanajanvesi drainage basin. In that area the model resultsfitted rather well with the calculated loading estimates based on measured runoff and chemistry results withintensive sampling. - It is hard to see any other major risk in achieving the targets of the project, because inthis context all the basic requirements (e.g. the model structures and good verification data) for a successfulmodeling are available.

Beneficiary responsible for implementation:SYKE

Expected results (quantitative information when possible):We will provide estimates of efficiency of water protection measures applied to different areas in relation tonutrient loading to the Baltic Sea but also to lakes. The environmental impact of N retention processes inlandscapes and waterscapes is also evaluated with respect to greenhouse gas emissions (N2O) in differentland uses and measures, including wetlands. The results of action B2 are presented in several reports andintroduced in workshops with stakeholders and end-users. Workshop 2 is organized together with Action B3.

D 3.1 Report 1. Metadata description of available water chemistry and biology data from the target areasD 3.2 Report 2. Demonstration of the effects of water protection on water quality in two heavily loaded riverbasins in southern Finland, Lake Vanajanselkä and River Porvoonjoki.


Page 50 of 86


D 3.3. Report 3. Workshop:Description of the model applications

D. 3.4 Report 4 Final results of model demonstration (Implementation for N-removal scenarios for Finnish riverbasins)

Indicators of progress:M 3.1 Description of monitoring dataM 3.2 Workshop 1 organized and reportedM 3.3 Description of the models ready M 3.4 Workshop 2 organized and reportedM. 3.5 Final report ready

Page 51 of 86


B. Implementation actionsACTION B.3: Demonstration of spatially cost-effective allocation of nutrient abatement

measures at watershed levelDescription and methods employed (what, how, where and when):The assessment of the economic viability of the sediment filtering approach (technology) is an essential partof the cost-effective modeling, and therefore it has not mentioned separately in the proposal. The idea is thatthe costs and benefits of different abatement measures will be estimated in terms of euros per kg of N whichwill be reduced. In a case of a medium size wastewater treatment plant, such as the HS-Vesi plant inParoinen, the improvement of N retention from 50% to 70% requires new investments for a methanol unitwith a minimum cost of 0.3*106 euros and possible new waste tank systems with a minimum cost of 2-3*106 euros. In addition to the investments also the chemical and other utilization costs have to be considered.Equally with above the costs of the sediment filtration approach can be estimated based on the investments,including the filtration textile, tube system and possible pumping devices, and the running costs includingpossible electricity and maintenance. When the costs and the true retention capacities of the treatments areknown in detail, the analysis will show the most cost-efficiency practice. This information will be comparedwith the alternative nutrient abatement measures in the agriculture. This is the way we are going to assessthe economic viability of the technologies.Spatial optimization is a tool for finding an optimal set of abatement measures and their locations given thelimited area (watershed), finite resources (a given budget) and spatial inter-relationships in an ecosystem(movement of nutrients in water systems and removal through denitrification and burial). By using modelsthat have high spatial resolution it is possible to implement abatement measures in locations where they arethe most efficient. A cost-effective allocation of abatement measures means that some given water protectiontarget is achieved with the minimum overall cost, or that the water quality is maximized with given budget.

The steps needed when carrying out a comprehensive spatial cost-effectiveness analysis for nitrogenabatement at catchment level are as follows: (1) Develop or identify a simulation model that describes themovement of water and the nutrients in water system at a catchment level; (2) Identify the present loads(both scattered load and point sources) and divide the loads by different polluters and economic sectors; (3)Elaborate a set of feasible nutrient abatement measures, and describe the effectiveness and unit costs ofeach of these measures for different levels of application; (4) Combine the nutrient model and informationabout the costs and effects of selected measures to a economic-ecological model which can be used fordrawing scenarios for different combinations of abatement measures; (5) Link the simulation model to non-linear optimization in order to find optimal combination of abatement measures and their spatial allocation inthe case study areas.

These steps are done in cooperation with Action B2 using INCA and VEMALA models to estimate nutrientloading and retention in lakes and rivers. Furthermore, the same set of abatement measures is used than inAction B2. This set includes reduction in phosphorus and nitrogen fertilization, catch crops, stubblecultivation, controlling the amount of animals, wastewater treatment in cities and among scatteredpopulation, and the new measure introduced in Action B1.

The objective is to develop a spatial optimization framework for two case study watersheds (Vanajavesi andPorvoonjoki). The framework will be built such that it can be easily extended to other watersheds generalizedfor larger regions.

The research group has earlier developed a corresponding model with low spatial resolution for the entireBaltic Sea catchment (Ahlvik et al., 2011). The present challenge is to increase the spatial resolution of themodel and to integrate it with VEMALA and INCA –models of the Finnish Environment Institute.

Constraints and assumptions:The first version of the model is deterministic, and does not include annual variation of river loads andnutrient emissions. We assume that the decision making is risk-neutral, and only considers the expectedemissions. This work focuses on measures reducing nitrogen and phosphorus, and other pollutants, forexample carbon and silicon, are so far excluded. Also, inclusion of negative and positive side effects ofnutrient abatement measures on greenhouse gases or biodiversity will be left for further work.Capacity of computers and mathematical algorithms available presently set constraints for numerical solutionof spatial problems. Spatial optimization problems are computationally demanding as they are typically non-convex and involve large number of decision variables. Formulating such problem requires delicate balancing

Page 52 of 86


between the aims of obtaining spatially detailed results and retaining the problem technically solvable.

Beneficiary responsible for implementation:MTT

Expected results (quantitative information when possible):The results from the decision support tool (DST) can be used to determine spatially cost-effective combinationof nutrient abatement measures regionally. The results are suggestions and recommendations on spatialallocation of agricultural measures such as reduced application of inorganic nitrogen and phosphorusfertilization, reduced production animals (and organic fertilization), cultivation of catch crops, and restorationof wetlands and investments to improve wastewater treatment.The outcomes of DST will be disseminated to the organizations that are in charge of implementing theregional water protection plans. The seminar 2 (M3.4) will be the main occasion for communicating theoutcomes of a decision support tool to local decision makers and planners. In addition, iterative dialogue withthe stakeholders will be started already at the beginning of the project.The DSTl will be flexible for any further adjustments and extensions that can respond to stakeholders’ andclients’ further requests. Any computations can be repeated and the recommendations can be revised assoon as new, more accurate, information will be made available and can be added to the model.

The economic-ecological model can be used as a decision support tool by the end-users such as the decisionmakers, and by that it is possible to calculate costs and effects of tailored agro-environmental and municipalwaste related policies. We also evaluate under which conditions the novel measure introduced by the ActionB1 will become rational to implement (D 4.1 Report 2, D 4.2 report 3). As a result of action B3, we will find outwhether or not, and under what conditions, it is efficient to invest in wastewater treatment plants so that theyfulfill the urban waste water directive. Also, we will produce actual policy suggestions for spatial allocation ofagricultural abatement measures (D 4.3), Final Report, Spatially cost-effective allocation of nutrientabatement measures at watershed level)

Indicators of progress:M 4.1 Workshop 1 organized and reported (Report 1)M 4.2 Report 2 ready, Description of the modelM 4.3 Report 3 ready, First model resultsM 4.4 Workshop 2 organized and reported (report 4)M 4.5 Report 5 ready, Final results of Action B3


Page 53 of 86

LIFE12 ENV/FI/000597 - C1c

C. Monitoring of the impact of the project actionsACTION C.1: Monitoring the ecosystem effects of sediment filtering in Lake KeurusselkäDescription and methods employed (what, how, where and when):Action C1 Keurusselkä monitoringIn the demonstrations it is essential to gain statistically repeated data to judge whether sediment filtration isworking in WWTW scale and to calculate the cost-efficiency of the method in comparison to alternativeabatement measures. The pilot demonstrations will be performed to demonstrate and verify the efficiency ofthe innovation, and we have therefore invested a lot of N-SINK resources to C1 and C2. Monitoring will bedone both in the Keurusselkä study site plus optionally in another small WWTW during the action and controlyears, as well as in the 1-2 control sites in both years. It is not only important that denitrification is monitored,but also the relative production of N2O, which is a greenhouse gas and released in the wastewater treatmentutilities as a by-product in both nitrification and denitrification processes. In addition, common water qualityparameters, like phosphorus, nitrate and nitrite, ammonium and redox/oxygen, are important monitoringparameters and therefore followed in the study sites.The monitoring action C1 is divided into three sub-actions C.1.1-C.1.3:C.1.1: Monitoring denitrification and DNRA (unfavored reduction of NO3 to NH4) rates in the recipient lakes(June 2014-August 2016)-includes denitrification measurements using 15NO3 enrichment studies measuring of the evolved 15N2 gas-from the same measurement analysis of the possible 15NH4 byproduct (DNRA product)C.1.2: Monitoring N2O production rates in the recipient lakes and wastewater treatment plants (June 2014-August 2016) C.1.3: Monitoring other physical and biological parameters in the recipient lake and wastewater treatmentprocesses-oxygen/redox-potential, phosphorus, nitrate and ammonium concentrationThe effects will be monitored bimonthly in 6 places per site.Ecosystem effects will be monitored bimonthly in 6 places per site in 1-2 demonstration sites and in 1-2control sites for 2 years. The approximate number of analyses taken from the recipient lake ecosystems isindicated in the table:Action/Analyte/Sites x points per site/Sampling times/TotalC.1.1 15N2 7 x 6 12 504 x 3 triplicatesC.1.1 15NH4 7 x 2 4 48 x 3 triplicatesC.1.2 N2O 7 x 6 6 252 samplesC.1.2 N2O* 7 x 6 3 126 samplesC.1.3 Oxygen 4 x 6 12 284C.1.3 Redox potential 4 x 6 12 284C.1.3 Total P 4 x 6 12 284C.1.3 NH4 4 x 6 12 284C.1.3 NO3/NO2 4 x 6 12 284*treatment plants Total 3454 analyses-Permanent staff taking part time in the work will be specifically seconded to the project.- The sampling effort and amount of analyses may be too high for the budgeted personnel. However, weestimate that we can get 2-3 M.Sc. students during the project to help in the sampling and analysis process.- The machines used for stable isotope analysis are really booked and it may be problems to find enoughanalyzing time from the University of Jyväskylä.Efficient planning, booking well in advance and collaborationwith other groups will ensure that this constrain is not going to be a problem and other solution is to buy theservice from international laboratories like Cornell University. If this happens we will check if permission isneeded from the EU to change our cost allocation between salaries and external assistance costs for UJ. Thesame holds true for N2O measurements, as measurement equipment is in high demand at our Universities.- Some of the machines may break down during the project. However, the high amount of collaborativepartners and a good network will ensure that the samples will be analyzed and as a last resort it is possible tosend thesmaples for analysis abroad.Monitoring will give quantitative information on the following parameters:

•• seasonal denitrification activity of the recipient lake ecosystems in natural state and after wastewater loadin 5-7 wastewater treatment sites

•• enhancement of denitrification by sediment filtration in 4 demonstration sites

•• seasonal amount of the DNRA process (dissimilatory nitrate reduction) in 5-7 treatment sites

Page 54 of 86


•• seasonal amount of N2O production in 5-7 lake ecosystems and 5-7 treatment plants

•• quantitative analysis of changes in other ecosystem parameters after N-SINK sediment filtrationdemonstrations in 4 discharge sites

Constraints and assumptions:- The number of sampling and analyses may be too high for the budgeted personnel. However, we estimatethat we can get 2-3 M.Sc. students during the project to help in the sampling and analysis process.- The machines used for stable isotope analysis are really booked and it may be problems to find enoughanalyzing time from the University of Jyväskylä. To prevent this good planning and booking is made andcollaboration with other groups will ensure that this constrain is not going to be a problem and other solutionis to buy the service from international laboratories like Cornell University. If this happens we have to ask ifpermission is needed from EU to change our cost allocation between salaries and external assistance costs forUJ. Same holds for N2O measurements which facilities are crowded in our Universities.- Some of the used machines may break down during the project. The high amount of collaboration partnersand a good network will ensure that the samples will be analyzed and also custom services can be bought.


Expected results (quantitative information when possible):Monitoring will give quantitative information on the following parameters:•

• seasonal denitrification activity of the recipient lake ecosystems in natural state and after wastewater loadin wastewater treatment sites•

• enhancement of denitrification by sediment filtration in 1-2 demonstration sites•

• seasonal amount of the DNRA process (dissimilatory nitrate reduction) in treatment sites•

• seasonal amount of N2O production in lake ecosystems and treatment plants•

• quantitative analysis of changes in other ecosystem parameters after N-SINK sediment filtrationdemonstration(s) site(s)

Report of results (D 5.1 and D 5.3): Environmental effectiveness of nitrogen removal using the newestmethods2 congress presentations (D 5.2)2 scientific publications (D 5.4)


Page 55 of 86


Indicators of progress:M 5.1 Monitoring sites descibedM 5.2 Publications submitted M 5.3 Final report ready

Page 56 of 86


C. Monitoring of the impact of the project actionsACTION C.2: Monitoring the ecosystem effects of sediment filtering in Lake VanajavesiDescription and methods employed (what, how, where and when):Action C2Equally with Action C1 the pilot demonstration in Vanajavesi will be carried out to demonstrate and verify theefficiency of the innovation, and therefore a reasonable amount of resources will be invested to C2.Monitoring will be done in the study site during the action and control years, as well as in the control sites inboth years. Similarly as in C1 not only denitrification is monitored but also the relative production of N2O, andcommon water quality parameters, like phosphorus, nitrate and nitrite, ammonium and redox/oxygen.The monitoring action C2 is thus also divided into three sub-actions C.2.1-C.2.3:C.2.1: Monitoring denitrification and DNRA (unfavored reduction of NO3 to NH4) rates in the recipient lakes(June 2014-August 2016)-includes denitrification measurements using 15NO3 enrichment studies measuring of the evolved 15N2 gas-from the same measurement analysis of the possible 15NH4 byproduct (DNRA product)C.2.2: Monitoring N2O production rates in the recipient lakes and wastewater treatment plants (June 2014-August 2016) C.2.3: Monitoring other physical and biological parameters in the recipient lake and wastewater treatmentprocesses-oxygen/redox-potential, phosphorus, nitrate and ammonium concentrationThe effects will be monitored bimonthly in 6 places per site.Ecosystem effects will be monitored monthly in 6 places per site in the demonstration site and in the controlsite for 2 years. The approximate number of analyses taken from the recipient lake ecosystem will be thesame as in C1. The reason is that the waste water volume larger in Vanajavesi than in the other sites andtherefore more samples per site will be analyzed.The total number of analyses will be nearly 3500.-Permanent staff partaking part time in the work will be specifically seconded to the project.- All chemistry samples will be analyzed at the laboratory of Lammi Biological Station because of its expertisein doing the analyses and also because the analyses can be carried out almost immediately after returning tothe lab, which is important regarding the quality assurance of the analyses.- The stable-isotope analyses will be measured at the University of Jyväskylä (see Action C1).

Constraints and assumptions:- Please, have a look at C1 Constrains and assumptions

Beneficiary responsible for implementation:LBS

Expected results (quantitative information when possible):Monitoring will give quantitative information on the following parameters:•

• seasonal denitrification activity of the recipient lake ecosystems in natural state and after wastewater loadin wastewater treatment sites•

• enhancement of denitrification by sediment filtration in a demonstration site•

• seasonal amount of the DNRA process (dissimilatory nitrate reduction) in treatment sites


Page 57 of 86


•

• seasonal amount of N2O production in lake ecosystems and treatment plants•

• quantitative analysis of changes in other ecosystem parameters after N-SINK sediment filtrationdemonstration site

Report of results (D 5.1 and D 5.3): Environmental effectiveness of nitrogen removal using the newestmethods2 congress presentations (D 5.2)2 scientific publications (D 5.4)

Indicators of progress: M 6.1 Monitoring sites described31/12/2014 M 6.2 Publications submitted30/06/2016 M 6.3 Final Report ready30/06/2017

Page 58 of 86


C. Monitoring of the impact of the project actionsACTION C.3: Verification of catchment scale N retention modelsDescription and methods employed (what, how, where and when):Action C3 Implementation for N-removal scenario for a large rive basinThe next step is to upscale the INCA model scenario results to the larger Kokemäenjokiriver basin (27046km2, lake percentage 11%) by using the river basin scale model WSFS-VEMALA. The Kokemäenjoki riverdischarges to the Bothnian Sea, which is largely N limited. VEMALA is an especially useful model when largeriver systems are considered while INCA fits better to smaller areas and can be particularly useful when theprocesses are studied.The VEMALA model simulates hydrology and water quality on river basin and national level. The simulatedwater quality parameters include nitrogen and phosphorus. The model simulates daily nutrient load from landareas, incoming loads to each lake which is larger than 1 ha, nutrients transport in rivers and finally loadinginto the Baltic Sea. VEMALA includes field level simulation of arable land, each field plot is simulatedseparately taking into account slope, soil type, crop, fertilization and cultivation practices of the field.Simulation of natural background loading and loading from forestry, point sources, scattered settlements andatmospheric deposition is also included.In this task the VEMALA model will be developed further by improving nitrogen retention description byapplying modeling results from task INCA model. In the VEMALA model a large number of lakes is simulated,in Kokemäenjoki about 4000 lakes, and therefore it is uncertain if the 1-D lake model can be applied inVEMALA as it is or if a simplified process description need to be developed.. These both approaches will beevaluated and the more suitable one will be implemented. Further,Coherens 1D-lake nitrogen model ofTampereen Pyhjärvi in predicting in lake nitrogen fluxes and concentrations in different managementscenarios will be demonstrated The resulting VEMALA model with improved nitrogen retention description willbe applied for river basin level nutrient scenarios. Result from task C3.1 will be scenarios for farmingpractices, which will be used as input to VEMALA. The resulting river basin level scenarios will includenitrogen loading and concentrations in rivers and lakes, nitrogen retention and loading into the Baltic Sea.It is hard to see any other major risks in achieving the targets of this part of Action C3, because in this contextall the basic requirements for a successful modeling are already available (e.g Rankinen et al. 2009).In addition, the results of the catchment models (INCA and WSFS-VEMALA) will also be verified in relation tothe monitoring results collected by the Centres for Economic Development, Transport and the Environment,and by the local water protection associations, e.g. Kokemäenjoki Water Protection Association. Because theFinnish Environment Institute (SYKE) collects all such monitoring data to its data archives and organizes itsquality control (QC) as well as the QC of the authorized water laboratories in Finland, the model results can bereliable and cost-efficiently analyzed relative to the measured nutrient concentrations.When the present day loading has been reliably estimated by the models over longer time-periods, includingall different seasons (spring, summer, autumn and winter) and varying land-use practices, it forms the basisfor using the models and to produce scenarios. This is why the monitoring action C3 is an important part ofthe project. And what is more, the catchment models also provide the source information for cost-effectivemodeling, and therefore the reliability of the input data has such a key role. Finally N-SINK gathers all themain national environmental organizations and institutes to focus on the same issue, connecting WWTW’s,monitoring experts (universities), modelling experts (SYKE) as well as economists (MTT) in the same project,so it offers a fruitful platform to socio-economically relevant recommendations in the lake scenario and morewidely, suggestions for the future environmental and agricultural policies.The already available INCA and VEMALA models will be applied to simulate present nutrient loading to LakeVanajavesi and River Povoonjoki from different sources (different agricultural crop classes, forested areas,point sources), simulation of transport and denitrification of N in the streams and lakes will be improved andverified against intensive monitoring of denitrification during this project. Different scenarios of reduction ofpoint load and closed nutrient cycle agricultural practices will be developed and their effect simulated onnutrient loading reduction at catchment scale. Cost-effective allocation of nutrient mitigation measures at thecatchment level will be computed by integrating nutrient models with information about the effectiveness andcosts of measures and using the techniques of simulation-optimization model (Ahlvik et al. 2011). The endresult will be a coupled modelling tool for stakeholders and decision makers to design the placement of cost-effective nutrient mitigation measures within Lake Vanajavesi and River Porvoonjoki to improve the ecologicalconditions in these catchments. Also in the project Marisplan the WSFS-Vemala model has already beenapplied to agricultural scenarios, in the context of estimating the effect of climate change on crops andfertilization. WSFS-Vemala simulated agricultural practices, plant growth, nutrient cycle and nutrient leachingon the fields.The catchment models will also be evaluated by external experts in a workshop organized by the project andin particular by SYKE. The aim is that experts have a chance to get acquainted with the data and thuscritically evaluate the model results obtained from the demonstration sites. This means that the resultsrepresent real lake environments, although full-scale implementations cannot be carried out during theproject.-Permanent staff partaking part time in the work will be specifically seconded to the project.

Page 59 of 86


No major risks can be foreseen because water quality data is collected by the local authorities and waterprotection associations, and the information is fully available for SYKE. The risk for failure is also minimalbecause the study areas belong to the important national sampling programmes.

Constraints and assumptions:No major risks can be foreseen because water quality data is collected by the local authorities and waterprotection associations, and the information is fully available for SYKE. The risk for failure is also minimalbecause the study areas belong to the important national sampling programmes.

Beneficiary responsible for implementation:SYKE

Expected results (quantitative information when possible): D 7.1 Conceptual model of linking economical and ecological approach30/04/2014 D 7.2 First smodel results, up-scaling and sceanrio building30/11/2014 D 7.3 Final results31/05/2016 D 7.4 Final report

Indicators of progress: M 7.1 Description of the models ready30/04/2014 M 7.2 First scenarios ready30/11/2014 M 7.3 Workshop will be organized31/12/2015 M 7.4 Final results ready31/05/2016 M 7.5 Final report ready31/12/2016


Page 60 of 86


Figure: Role of modelsName of the picture:

Page 61 of 86

LIFE12 ENV/FI/000597 - C1d

D. Communication and dissemination actionsACTION D.1: Communication and disseminationDescription and methods employed (what, how, where and when):The methods employed include own www-pages, press releases for mass media (radio, TV and press), publicseminars and informative meetings for administration, consultative organizations and public. Layman´s reportand Life+ notice boards will be produced. According to our “After LIFE+ Communication Plan” the results willbe presented in international and national seminars. In addition, the results will be communicated to thegeneral public and policy makers through scientific papers, seminars and popular newspaper articles. ALayman´s report will be made in Finnish and English according to the instructions to the Life project databaseby the end date of the project.Creation and maintenance of the homepage for the project demands a skilled person, and thereforesuccessful recruiting is important. According to our plan the person responsible for the dissemination will alsohave a key role in the management of the homepage, and the whole project as a coordinator. This is why weare searching for a person who has previous experience but who also has expertise in the research field of theproject. At this phase of the project we have consulted preliminary with Mrs. Heidi Kontio, MSc, who isworking as a part-time project secretary at the Vanajavesikeskus. She is an expertise in the field of aquaticand environmental sciences, and already takes care on the homepages of the center and has a lot ofexperience in communication and dissemination with various end-users. The web-page will be kept for 5 yearsafter the end of the project.Dissemination is realized by organizing two meetings for experts and stakeholders, one at the beginning ofthe project (month 4) and the second one at the end of the meeting (month 46). The project and its resultswill be presented in various conferences and seminars (abroad and in Finland). Beside the reports also expertarticles and scientific papers will be published. These activities, together with separate workshops organizedin different actions, will assure that the project results will be disseminated properly and all possible partnersin cooperation also have a chance to influence the project actively.LBS is the partner responsible for the implementation but all other partners will also contribute actively. Theproject will have cooperation with the local environmental protection organization, Vanajavesikeskus,especially in the dissemination and communication activities for the general public (www-pages, publicmeetings etc).Action D.1 runs through the whole duration of the project. -Permanent staff working taking part time in theproject will be specifically seconded.The risk involved in preventiing the successful dissemmination of the project outcomes is minimal because allthe active members of the project have long experience in disseminating scientific results, and in fact manyof the key stakeholders in Finland are somehow involved in the project. Risk 1: Due to the information overload there is a risk that the dissemination means will not reach allexpected target groups. However, all possible actions will be done to minimize that risk. In this respect a veryimportant thing is that a great many key players in the field are somehow connected to the project. This iswhy we believe that in this particular project, if in any project, the dissemination goals can be reached. Weare aware, however, that dissemination is a challenging issue and needs plenty of time and energy from allpartners, team leaders as well as the project coordinator. Action D1 is not just a “simple” thing which can beleft to one person.Risk 2: The management of the homepage, especially after the project´s life-time, is also a challenging issue.We have a plan, that the homepage will be maintained at the homepage of the Lammi Biological Station,University of Helsinki, at least three years after the project has ended. This allows other partners andcollaborators to link the N-Sink page to their own homepages.In this action results will be demonstrated in the milestones related to public seminars, publications and www-pages produced in the project. This action is also engaged in all activities related to workshops and seminarsorganized within other actions.www-pages (D 8.1)Layman's report and Life+ notice boards (D 8.2)The project include two open seminars (for stakeholders, experts, authorities, organizations etc)Starting seminar 1 (kick-off meeting) Final seminar 2 is focused on1) Information on water quality changes in recipient waters due to the application of water purificationtechniques (Action A1)2) Description of a new alternative method for nitrogen removal exploiting natural ecosystem service(sediment filtering, Action B1)3) Information on environmental effectiveness of nitrogen removal using the newest methods in measuringdenitrification and N2O emissions (Action C1)4) Information on nitrogen fluxes in watersheds and the role of nitrogen removal at landscape level (ActionsB2, C2)5) Information on socio-economical effects of nitrogen removal at the landscape level (Action B3)

Page 62 of 86


The indicators of this dissemination action include workshops and other seminars with experts andstakeholders as well as information and events for public. Also reports and publications will be provided as apart of the communication and dissemination, and the Layman's report will be available after the project inprinted and electric form and Life+ notice boards installed (D6.4). As a whole dissemination andcommunication comprise a significant role in the project.Milestones indicating the progress:M 8.1 www-pages openedM 8.2 Starting seminar organizedM 8.3 Workshops organizedM 8.4 Seminar 2 organized

Constraints and assumptions:The risk for a successful dissemmination is minimal because all the active members of the project have longexperience in disseminating scientific results, and in fact many of the key stakeholders in Finland aresomehow involved in the project.

Risk 1: Due to the information overload there is a risk that the dissemination means will not reach allexpected target groups. However, all possible actions will be done to minimize that risk. In this respect a veryimportant thing is that so many key players in the field are somehow connected to the project. This is why webelieve that in this particular project, if in any project, the dissemination goals can be reached. We are aware,however, that dissemination is a challenging issue and needs plenty of time and energy from all partners,team leaders as well as the project coordinator, and it is not just a “simple” thing which can be left to thehired person.

Risk 2: The management of the homepage, especially after the project´s life-time, is also a challenging issue.We have a plan, that the homepage will be maintained at the homepage of the Lammi Biological Station,University of Helsinki, at least three years after the project has ended. This allows other partners andcollaborators to link the N-Sink page to their own homepages.


Expected results (quantitative information when possible):In action results are involved in the milestones related to public seminars, publications and www-pagesproduced in the project. This action is also engaged in all activities related to workshops and seminarsorganized within other actions.

www-pages (D 8.1)

The project include two open seminars (for stakeholders, experts, authorities, organizations etc)

Starting seminar 1 (D 8.2)

Final seminar 2 (D 8.3) is focused on1) Information on water quality changes in recipient waters due to the application of water purificationtechniques (Action B2)2) Description of new alternative method for nitrogen removal exploiting natural ecosystem service (sedimentfiltering, Action B1)3) Information on environmental effectiveness of nitrogen removal using the newest methods in measuringdenitrification and N2O emissions (Action C1)4) Information on nitrogen fluxes in watersheds and the role of nitrogen removal at landscape level (ActionsB2, C3)5) Information on socio-economical effects of nitrogen removal at landcsape level (Action B3)


Page 63 of 86


Indicators of progress:The indicators of this dissemination action include workshops and other seminars with experts andstakeholders as well as information and events for public. Also reports and publications will be provided as apart of the communication and dissemination. As a whole dissemination and communication comprise asignificant role in the project.

M 8.1 www-pages openedM 8.2 Starting seminar organizedM 8.3 Workshops organizedM 8.4 Final seminar organized

Page 64 of 86


Table 1. Communication in projectName of the picture:

Page 65 of 86


D. Communication and dissemination actionsACTION D.2: Development of after Life communication planDescription and methods employed (what, how, where and when):An after Life communication Plan will be produced in paper and electronic format at the end of the project,presented in English (D6.5). It sets out how the beneficiary plans to continue disseminating andcommunicating results after the end of the LIFE funding and indicates what external support could be helpful.According to our “After LIFE+ Communication Plan” the results will be presented in international and nationalseminars. In addition, the results will be communicated to general public and policy makers through scientificpapers, seminars and popular newspaper articles. This all is performed using the same resources as actionD.1.In Finland, WWTW has an important role in adapting the project results. An equally important role is held bythe Ministry of Environment and the Finnish Environment Institute, which prepare the legislation for the fieldand are also responsible for the supervision and monitoring.Financial support for after Life+ dissemination can be applied from FIWA.The project will be known by all FIWA members, and known by the internatinal scientific community. Thetechnology used will be taken into use for WWTW construction companies and recommended by the waterauthorities and will be further disseminated by these organizations.An after Life+ communication plan will be produced and published in the internet page (D 8.3)

Constraints and assumptions:No constraints.


Expected results (quantitative information when possible):The project will be known by all FIWA members, and known by the internatinal scientific community. Thetechnology used will be taken into use for WWTW construction companies and recommended by the waterauthorities and will be further disseminated by these organizations.

Indicators of progress:An after Life+ communication plan will be produced and published in the internet page (Action D1)


Page 66 of 86

LIFE12 ENV/FI/000597 - C1e

E. Project management and monitoring of the project progressACTION E.1: Project management and monitoring of the project progressDescription and methods employed (what, how, where and when):This action ensures that the project is running successfully and all the activities including meetings, reportsand time-tables promised will be achieved at time. The Lammi Biological Station, UHel, is the responsibleorganisation and prof. Lauri Arvola the project manager. The project coordinator will be selected at thebeginning of the project. An advisory board (consisting of team leaders, FIWA and WWTW representatives andco-financers plus one overseas member from Estonia), will give opinions and expertise for decision making.The project manager will make final decisions in the project. An organization chart of the N-Sink project ispresented in a separate file attachment 5 (N-Sink Project Management_Schematic Presentation). See also Fig.3 (Management of the project) in the project plan. The co-financers, Ministry of environment, HämeenlinnanSeudun Vesi, Hämeen liitto and two WWTWs, offer financial support. Two advisory organizations, namelyVanajavesikeskus and Kokemäenjoen vesiensuojeluyhdistys, will give us support in environmental questions,environmental permits and dissemination.A project manager (contribution of the coordinating beneficiary) will be responsible for the projectmanagement during the first 1-2 months until a project coordinator has been employed (date of milestone9.1, Selection of project coordinator and advisory board, 15-09-2013). Thereafter salary costs of projectcoordinator (full time for the whole duration of the project) will be shared with actions D1 and E1.The project will have a project coordinator for the whole period of time, and her/his responsibility is to ensuretogether with the project manager and action leaders that the coordination of the different action plans willbe optimally synchronized and thus that the goals of the action plans will be achieved. The coordinator servesas the link between Commission and action leaders and participating personel. In addition, for the project asteering and advisory board (SAB) will be nominated. Members will comprise invited experts andrepresentatives of several interest parties e.g from sewage treatment plants (e.g Finnish Water and WasteWater Works Association), farmer´s own organizations (e.g. MTK), regional environment authorities etc. TheSAB has an important role in supervising the project leaders and project manager and in controlling theprogress of the project. The SAB will also support the dissemination of the project results because the boardmembers represent key players in the field.Monitoring and evaluating the effectiveness and the environmental benefits of the main project actions will beconducted in several stakeholder and public workshops and in meetings with action leaders and advisoryboard members. Beneficiaries also participate in other national and international platforms and networksrelated to the project objectives, e.g. Life+ project GisBloom.Action E.1 runs through the whole duration of the project. Costs of financial audit (3000€) are stated as part ofaction E1, and if the costs are higher they are allocated from LBS’s own contribution.-Permanent staff partaking part time in the work will be specifically seconded to the project.It is hard to see any major risk in project management due to the facts already made clear in previoussections. The project manager as well as the action leaders are all experienced persons and thus familiar withproject management. Many of them have earlier experience of Life projects as well. The advisory boardmembers will also be selected of those who have a long experience in all kinds of projects and thus they arecapable of helping and guiding the project management.A public tendering procedure will be put into action by asking for offers from private and public providers(minimum 3) for all equipment over 5000€. For purchases over 30000€ an open national tender forum HILMAwill be used, but we will not likely have such large purchases in the project. In addition to price also otherimportant factors affecting the results such as the quality control and ability to analyse the samplesimmediately after the sampling will be taken into account in the selection, as well as logistical questions. Thusthe analytical services (here probably only N2O analysis) will be ordered from the lab, which has a verifiedexpertise for the water analyses asked and also possibility to analyse the samples immediately after thesampling. This is especially important for the reliability of the results, and in particularly in a case of nitrateand ammonium. The cost of analyses is an important selection criterion but definitely cannot be the only one.E.g. logistical issues have to be considered because they may influence actual costs, quality of results as wellas greenhouse gas emissions. The frequency of the steering and advisory board (SAB) meetings was increased. There will be projectmeetings with the SAB twice a year. New milestones and deadlines for the Action E.1 are listed here:M 9.1 Selection of project coordinator and advisory board (31.10.2013)M 9.2 First year meeting of the SAB (31.12.2013)M 9.3 Second half-year meeting of the SAB (30.06.2014)M 9.4 Second year meeting of SAB (31.12.2014)M 9.5 Third half-year meeting of the SAB (30.06.2015)M 9.6 Third annual meeting of the SAB (31.12.2015)M 9.7.Fourth half-year meeting of the SAB (30.06.2016)M 9.8.Fourth annual meeting of the SAB (31.12.2016)M 9.9 Final annual meeting of the project (31.05.2017)

Page 67 of 86

LIFE12 ENV/FI/000597 - C1e

Constraints and assumptions:It is hard to see any major risk in project management due to the facts already told in previous sections. Theproject leader as well as the action leaders are all experienced persons and thus familiar with projectmanagement. Many of them have earlier experience of Life projects as well. The advisory board members willalso be selected of those who have a long experience in all kind of projects and thus they are capable to helpand guide in the project management.


Expected results (quantitative information when possible):Activity reports:Inception reportMid-term reportProgress reportFinal Report

Indicators of progress:The indicators of progress in project management are as follows:M 9.1 Selection of project coordinator and advisory board (mo 3)M 9.2 First half-year meeting of the project (mo 5)M 9.3 First annual meeting of the advisory board (mo 8)M 9.4 Second half-year meeting of the project (mo 11)M 9.5 Annual meeting of the project (mo 20)M 9.6 Second annual meeting of the advisory board (mo 24)M 9.7 Annual meeting of the project (mo 30)M 9.8 Third annual meeting of the advisory board (mo 36)M 9.9 Annual meeting of the project (mo 40)M 9.10. Fourth annual meeting of the advisory board (mo 44)M 9.11. Final annual meeting of the project (mo 46)


Page 68 of 86


Figure: Project Structure and ManagementName of the picture:

Page 69 of 86


DELIVERABLE PRODUCTS OF THE PROJECT

Name of the DeliverableNumber of the

associated actionDeadline

D 8.1 www-pages D 1 30/09/2013

D 1.1 Environmental permit applicaton drafted A 1 28/02/2014

D 7.1 Conceptual model of linking economicaland ecological approach

C 3 30/04/2014

D 3.2 Final documentation of monitoring data B 2 30/06/2014

D 3.3 Description of the catchment models B 2 30/06/2014

D 3.4 Final results of model demonstrations B 2 31/05/2016

D 7.4 Final report C 3 31/12/2016

D 5.2 Congress presentations C 1 31/01/2017

D 6.2 Congress presentations C 2 31/01/2017

D 2.2 Final report of of new alternative method B 1 28/02/2017

D 4.3 Report 5 Final results B 3 30/04/2017

D 5.3 Report 2 C 1 30/06/2017

D 6.3 Report 2 C 2 30/06/2017

D 5.4 Publications in journals submitted C 1 31/07/2017

D 6.4 Publications in journals submitted C 2 31/07/2017

MILESTONES OF THE PROJECT

DeadlineName of the MilestoneNumber of the

associated action

M 8.1 www-pages opened D 1 30/09/2013

M 9.1 Selection of project coordinator andadvisor

E 1 31/10/2013

M 8.2 Starting seminar organized D 1 30/11/2013

M 9.2 First annual meeting of SAB E 1 30/12/2013

M 4.1 Workshop 1 organized and reported B 3 31/12/2013

Page 70 of 86


M 1.1 Sites and monitoring points described A 1 31/01/2014


M 1.2 Environmental permit applied darfted A 1 30/06/2014

M 9.3 Second half-year meeting of SAB E 1 30/06/2014

M 7.2 First scenarios ready C 3 30/11/2014

M 9.4 Second year meeting of SAB E 1 31/12/2014

M 2.1 Progress report 1 ready B 1 28/02/2015

M 9.3 Third half-year meeting of SAB E 1 30/06/2015


M 7.3 Workshop will be organized C 3 31/12/2015

M 9.6 Third annual meeting of SAB E 1 31/12/2015

M 3.5 Final report ready B 2 31/05/2016

M 5.2 Publications submitted C 1 30/06/2016

M 6.2 Publications submitted C 2 30/06/2016

M 9.7 Fourth half-year meeting of SAB E 1 30/06/2016


M 8.3 Workshops organized D 1 30/11/2016

M 7.5 Final report ready C 3 31/12/2016

M 9.8 Fourth annual meeting of SAB E 1 31/12/2016

M 2.2 Final report ready B 1 28/02/2017

M 4.5 Report 5 ready (D 4.3) B 3 30/04/2017

M 8.4 Final seminar organized D 1 31/05/2017

M 9.11. Final annual meeting of the project E 1 31/05/2017

M 5.3 Final Report ready C 1 30/06/2017

M 6.3 Final Report ready C 2 30/06/2017

Page 71 of 86


ACTIVITY REPORTS FORESEEN

• Inception Report (to be delivered within 9 months after the project start);

• Progress Reports n°1, n°2 etc. (if any; to ensure that the delay between consecutive reports does notexceed 18 months);

• Mid-term Report with payment request (only for project longer than 24 months)

• Final Report with payment request (to be delivered within 3 months after the end of theproject)

Please indicate the deadlines for the following reports:

Type of report Deadline

Inception report 31/01/2014

Midterm report 31/01/2015

Progress report 31/01/2016

Final report 30/09/2017

Page 72 of 86


TIMETABLE

Action

Actionnumbe Name of the action

2013

I II III IV

2014

I II III IV

2015

I II III IV

2016

I II III IV

2017

I II III IV

2018

I II III IV

A. Preparatory actions:A.1 Preparation of the study sites for the N-SINK demonstration action

B. Implementation actions:B.1 N-SINK sediment filtration demonstrationsB.2 Long-term and model demonstrations of catchment scale N retention

B.3 Demonstration of spatially cost-effective allocation of nutrient abatementmeasures at watershed level

C. Monitoring of the impact of the project actions:

C.1 Monitoring the ecosystem effects of sediment filtering in LakeKeurusselkä

C.2 Monitoring the ecosystem effects of sediment filtering in Lake VanajavesiC.3 Verification of catchment scale N retention models

D. Communication and dissemination actions:D.1 Communication and disseminationD.2 Development of after Life communication plan

E. Project management and monitoring of the project progress:E.1 Project management and monitoring of the project progress

Page 73 of 86

FINANCIAL APPLICATION FORMS

Part F – financial information


Page 74 of 86

LIFE12 ENV/FI/000597 R1 - Budget

Total cost in € % of total eligiblecosts

Eligible Cost in €

1. Personnel 1,053,941 88.70 %

25,0002. Travel and subsistence 2.10 %

21,0003. External assistance 1.77 %

4. Durable goods

0.00 %04.a Infrastructure 0

0 0.00 %04.b Equipment

Co-financiers contribution

In € % of total eligiblecosts

Contribution breakdown % of TOTAL

50 %Requested EU contribution 50 %594,130

8 %Coordinating Beneficiary's contribution 100,500

343,630 29 %Associated Beneficiaries' contribution

150,000 13 %

1,188,260TOTAL 100 %

Budget breakdown cost categories

6. Consumables 1.69 %

07. Other Costs 0.00 %

43,2188. Overheads 3.64 %

1,188,2601,188,260 100 %TOTAL

20,101

5. Land purchase / long-term lease /one-offcompensation payments

Not applicable

4.c Prototype 25,00025,000 2.10 %

Page 75 of 86

LIFE12 ENV/FI/000597 - R2 - Costs per Action

Cost category in Euro

Project action 1. Personnel 2. Travel3. Externalassistance

4.a Infra-structure

4.b Equipment 7. Other TOTAL4.c Prototype6.

Consumables

A1 Preparation of the study sites forthe N-SINK demonstration action

59,353 2,000 3,000 0 0 0 1,992 0 66,345

B1 N-SINK sediment filtrationdemonstrations

75,752 7,000 2,000 0 0 25,000 4,000 0 113,752

B2 Long-term and modeldemonstrations of catchment scale Nretention

177,660 2,000 3,000 0 0 0 1,423 0 184,083

B3 Demonstration of spatially cost-effective allocation of nutrientabatement measures at watershedlevel

139,462 2,000 4,000 0 0 0 938 0 146,400

C1 Monitoring the ecosystem effectsof sediment filtering in LakeKeurusselkä

108,326 8,000 4,000 0 0 0 4,000 0 124,326

C2 Monitoring the ecosystem effectsof sediment filtering in LakeVanajavesi

46,014 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 46,014

Page 76 of 86

LIFE12 ENV/FI/000597 - R2 - Costs per Action

C3 Verification of catchment scale Nretention models

180,665 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 180,665

D1 Communication and dissemination 61,857 1,000 2,000 0 0 0 2,348 0 67,205

D2 Development of after Lifecommunication plan

225 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 225

E1 Project management andmonitoring of the project progress

204,627 3,000 3,000 0 0 0 5,400 0 216,027

Overheads 43,218

TOTAL 1,053,941 25,000 21,000 0 0 25,000 20,101 0 1,188,260

Page 77 of 86

LIFE12 ENV/FI/000597 - FC

Coordinating Beneficiary's contributionCountry code Beneficiary short name Total costs of the

actions in €(includingoverheads)

Beneficiary's owncontribution in €

Amount of EUcontribution

requested in €

Associated Beneficiaries' contributionCountry code Beneficiary short name Total costs of the

actions in €(includingoverheads)

Associatedbeneficiary's owncontribution in €

Amount of EUcontribution

requested in €

FI UJ 72,630 100,970244,428

FI SYKE 171,000 171,148380,148

FI MTT 70,000 83,210152,360

FI DPHYS 30,000 23,31661,053

TOTAL Associated Beneficiaries

TOTAL All Beneficiaries

Co-financiers contributionAmount of co-financing in €Co-financier's name

HL 40,000

J-Vesi 10,000

VK 10,000

HSV 40,000

MinEnviron 50,000

TOTAL

FI LBS 100,500 215,486350,271

150,000

343,630 378,644

444,130 594,1301,188,260

837,989

Page 78 of 86

LIFE12 ENV/FI/000597 - F1

Direct Personnel costs

Calculation => A B A x B

Beneficiaryshort name

Actionnumber Type of contract Category/Role in the project

Daily rate(rounded to

the nearest €)Number of

person-daysDirect personnel

costs (€)LBS C 2 Temporary staff

specifically hiredfor this projectnull

environmental engineer/field sampling, laboratory analyses anddata compiling

161 174 28,014

LBS C 2 Permanent staff orcivil servantnull

senior assistance/data analysis/Ph.D administrative coordinatorTiina Tulonen

225 80 18,000

LBS D 1 Temporary staffspecifically hiredfor thisprojecttemporaryrecruitment/parttime

project communicator and coordinator/dissemination 228 219 49,932

LBS D 1 Permanent staff orcivilservantpermanentstaff/part time

senior assistant (Ph.D administrative coordinator Tiina Tulonen),office secretary/financial management (secretary Eija Riihiranta)

225 53 11,925

LBS D 2 Permanent staff orcivilservantpermanentstaff/part time(costs included inD1)

senior assistant (Tiina Tulonen), office secretary/financialmanagement (Eija Riihiranta)

225 1 225

LBS E 1 Temporary staffspecifically hiredfor thisprojecttemporaryrecruitment/fulltime

project coordinator/project management 228 634 144,552

LBS E 1 Permanent staff orcivilservantpermanentstaff/part time

scientific expert, project manager/project leadership (prof. LauriArvola)

225 267 60,075

SYKE B 2 Temporary staffspecifically hiredfor thisprojecttemporaryrecruitment/fulltime

project planner,scientific expert/data collection and management 257 390 100,230

Page 79 of 86









costs (€)SYKE B 2 Permanent staff or

civilservantpermanentstaff/part time

scientific experts Ph.D senior researchers Marko Järvinen, PetriEkholm, Kirsti Granlund, Irina Bergström/team leader seniorresearcher Katri Rankinen

290 267 77,430

SYKE C 3 Temporary staffspecifically hiredfor thisprojecttemporaryrecruitment/fulltime

project planner, scientific expert/data analysis, modelling 257 377 96,889

SYKE C 3 Permanent staff orcivil servantnull

scientif ic experts Phic.Lic. Markus Huttunen, M.Sc HarriMyllyniemi/data analysis, team leader adjunct prof. BertelVehviläinen

308 272 83,776

MTT B 3 Permanent staff orcivilservantpermanentrecruitment/parttime

scientific expert M.Sc. Lassi Ahlvik /team leader prof. KariHyytiäinen

206 292 60,152

MTT B 3 Temporary staffspecifically hiredfor thisprojecttemporarystaff/full time

project planner, scientific expert/data analysis 206 385 79,310

DPHYS A 1 Permanent staff orcivilservantpermanentstaff/part time

scientific expert/team leader (prof. Matti Leppäranta) 225 140 31,500

DPHYS A 1 Temporary staffspecifically hiredfor thisprojecttemporaryrecruitment/fulltime

technician/field measurements 161 173 27,853

UJ B 1 permanentstaff/part time

Office secretary/financial mangement and tender invitation 206 60 12,360

Page 80 of 86









costs (€)UJ B 1 Permanent staff or

civilservantpermanentstaff/part time

scientific expert/team leader, reporting 283 224 63,392

UJ C 1 Permanent staff orcivilservantpermanentstaff/part time

scientific expert/team leader, reporting (Ph.D, univ. lecturer MarjaTiirola)

206 60 12,360

UJ C 1 Temporary staffspecifically hiredfor thisprojecttemporarycontract/full time

environmental engineer/field sampling, laboratory analyses anddata compiling

283 169 47,827

UJ C 1 Temporary staffspecifically hiredfor thisprojecttemporaryrecruitment/fulltime

environmental engineer/field sampling and laboratory analyses 161 299 48,139

TOTAL => 4,536 1,053,941

Page 81 of 86


Travel and subsistence costs

Calculation => A B A + B


Act

ion

nu

mb

er

Destination (From / To) Ou

tsid

e E

U(Y

ES

/ N

O)

Purpose of travel/number of trips and persons travelling,duration of trip (in days)

Travel costs(€)

Subsistencecosts (€)

Total travel andsubsistence

costs (€)

LBS B 1 Granada, Spain No ASLO Aquatic Sciences conference 2015, 7-day trip, 2persons (Lauri Arvola and N.N)

2,100 900 3,000

LBS B 1 Project area, Jyväskylä,Helsinki,

No 10 national meetings and travels, total duration 10 days (3persons: Lauri Arvola, project coordinator, N.N.)

1,280 720 2,000

LBS C 1 Project area, Jyväskylä,Helsinki

No 10 1-day national meetings and travel (3 persons: LauriArvola, project coordinator, N.N.)

2,000 1,000 3,000

LBS C 1 Borneo , Malaysia Yes International conferences on Urban Drainage 2014, 7 days 1person (project coordinator)

1,600 400 2,000

LBS D 1 Lammi <> Jyväskylä,Helsinki, Jokioinen etc.

No 5 national 1-day meetings (2-3 persons: Lauri Arvola,project coordinator, N.N)

600 400 1,000

LBS D 2 No 0 0 0

LBS E 1 International andnational conferenceand meeting places,Bryssels

No National project meetings and international events with EUauthorities, 5 times 1-3 days trips (1-3 persons per trip:Lauri Arvola, project coordinator, N.N.)

2,300 700 3,000

SYKE B 2 Helsinki-Europecountries

No international conference inside EU, 2 persons, 5 days 1,600 400 2,000

MTT B 3 Helsinki-Europecountries

No international conference inside EU, 2 persons, 5 days 1,600 400 2,000

UJ A 1 Project area, Helsinki,Lammi

No 8 times 1-day project area visits and national meetings, 1-2persons (Marja Tiirola, N.N.)

1,400 600 2,000

UJ B 1 Project area, Helsinki,Lammi

No 8 times 1-day project area visits and national meetings, 1-2persons (Marja Tiirola, N.N.)

1,400 600 2,000

UJ C 1 Project area, Helsinki,Lammi

No 25 times 1-2 -day monitoring trips, 1-2 persons (JattaKarhunen, , N.N.)

2,000 1,000 3,000

TOTAL => 17,880 7,120 25,000

Page 82 of 86


External assistance costs


Actionnumber Procedure Description Costs (€)

LBS D 1 meeting services (prices atleast from three companieswill be asked)

assistance in stakeholder etc meetings, rents 2,000

LBS E 1 financial auditing of theproject (prices at least fromthree companies will beasked)

external auditing for accounts 3,000

SYKE B 2 computing services (pricesat least from threecompanies will be asked)

assistance for computer programmes 3,000

MTT B 3 computing services (pricesat least from threecompanies will be asked)

assistance for computer programmes 4,000

UJ A 1 environmental permits environmental permit charges for pipe constructions 3,000

UJ B 1 assistance in pipeconstructions (prices at leastfrom three companies willbe asked)

scuba divers and other technical assistance for pipe construction 2,000

UJ C 1 analysis services (prices atleast from three companieswill be asked)

sample analysis (e.g. N2O) bought from other universities 4,000

TOTAL => 21,000

Page 83 of 86

LIFE12 ENV/FI/000597 - F4c

Durable goods: Prototype costs


Actionnumbe Procedure Description Costs (€)

UJ B 1 Public tender Planning and construction of 3-4 new perforated canals for wastewater allocation about100 m per place, 30-60 cm diameter plastic tubes and connection parts, work forspecial perforation and water installation.

25,000

TOTAL => 25,000

Page 84 of 86


Consumables


Actionnumbe Procedure Description Costs (€)

LBS D 1 dissemination costs Catering, presentation, poster etc costs 2,348

LBS E 1 management costs memory sticks and other computer consumables, catering costs 1,000

SYKE B 2 model demonstration External memory capacities and other computer consumables 1,423

SYKE E 1 dissemination costs printing material of dissemination 4,400

MTT B 3 model demonstration External memory capacities and other computer consumables 938

UJ A 1 planning for action B.1 laboratory chemicals for analyses 1,992

UJ B 1 demonstration execution for water measurements, laboratory chemicals, plastic ware, consumable parts 4,000

UJ C 1 demonstration monitoring laboratory chemicals, plastic ware, consumable parts 4,000

TOTAL => 20,101

Page 85 of 86


Overheads

Beneficiary short name Total direct costs of the project in € Overhead amount (€)

11,000SYKE 369,148

5,960MTT 146,400

1,700DPHYS 59,353

9,358UJ 235,070

15,200LBS 335,071

43,2181,145,042

Page 86 of 86

Documents

LIFE+ Environment Policy and Governance TECHNICAL ... · contribution 450 688 eUniversity of Jyväskylä (UJ), Department of Biological and Environmental Science: EnvEurope: Environmental