prespa lake watershed management plan update

UNDP RFP 29/2015

FINAL REPORT UPDATE OF PRESPA LAKE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN

GTI - GEOTEHNICKIINZENERING Franklin Ruzvelt St. 67/1, 1000 Skopje

PRESPA LAKE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN UPDATE 2016 DRAFT FINAL REPORT

GTI – Geotehnicki Inzenering, "Franklin Ruzvelt" St. 67/1, Skopje, Macedonia

0

UNDP RFP 29/2015


March 2016

Project Team Teodor Conevski Dipl.Civ.Eng., Project Director Vladimir Stavric MSc, Dpt. Project Director, Water Management Expert Nenad Krango MSc, Project Finances & Management Prof.

Svetislav Krstic PhD, Team Leader, Water Quality Expert

Prof.

Ivan Blinkov PhD, Dpt. Team Leader, Land Use & GIS Expert

Prof.

Ordan Cukaliev PhD, Agricultural Expert

Prof.

Silvana Mojsovska PhD, Economy & Financial Expert

Prof.

Katerina Donevska PhD, Water & Environmental Expert

Ass. Prof.

Valentina Slavevska Stamenkovic PhD, Zoobenthos/ Water Quality Expert

Ass. Prof.

Ivan Mincev PhD, GIS Expert Mitko Dimov MSc, Hydrogeology Expert Slaven Conevski MSc, Water Balance Expert

Prepared by:

Geotehnicki Inzenering – GTI www.gti.com.mk Skopje, March 2016


1

UNDP RFP 29/2015


Foreword Clean water is one of the most important natural resources. Human activities have led to deterioration in water quality over many years. The EU Water Framework Directive (WFD), adopted in 2000, aims at reversing the decline in water quality. The Directive sets strict deadlines for meeting water quality objectives, especially in protected areas. Being an EU candidate country the Republic of Macedonia is currently in the process of aligning its National legislation and environmental resource governance with the EU standards. As regards country’s water resources this is reflected in recent changes of the national Law on Waters, which is fully aligned with the fundamental WFD requirements, as well as the main economic principles of the EU water acquis. Prespa WM Plan of 2010 is the first of its kind in Republic of Macedonia. Supported by SECO, a group of national experts have produced as comprehensive as was possible management plan fully based on WFD principles. Many of the obtained results have been detected for the first time in the watershed and the water quality status of delineated water bodies detected and documented. Detailed set of measures for improving the water quality status in the watershed has been elaborated as well as the analyses of different scenarios for their implementation. In preparing the plan all known pressures on basin’s waters have been identified and assessed at the level of individual water bodies. Measures to address the pressures have been identified and the likelihood of water quality recovery has been assessed. The plan objectives and targets are ambitious, yet they are fully aligned with the requirements of National legislation and the WFD. Needless to say, the plan is perceived as the initial step in the resource recovery process. The objectives stated herein need to be reviewed and may need to be amended during the lifetime of the plan, in particular as valuable new information on the water status and pressures become available as a result of water quality monitoring activities. Following adoption of this plan, local authorities within the Prespa watershed will need to develop implementation programmes and identify funding requirements. Furthermore, meeting the commitments contained in the plan will depend on successful cooperation among local authorities and various Government organizations and departments, and above all the Ministry of Environment and Physical Planning, in making provision for the required resources and funding. According to the WMP cycle, 2016 is the year for undertaking the activities of Updating the Prespa Lake MP. Principally in the focus is the level of implementation of adopted measures for the watershed, but also different aspects of relevant documents, activities and stakeholders has to be analyzed in order to detect the overall success of the plan. All measures have to be checked and evaluated, some of them omitted and several new proposed in order to achieve a realistic and applicable update of the MP. The results of these activities are presented in this volume.


2

UNDP RFP 29/2015


1 CONTENTS ABBREVIATIONS ............................................................................................................................................9 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY................................................................................................................................ 11 1.

INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................... 18 1.1

The Prespa Lake Water Management Plan ................................................................................ 18

1.2

Legal Basis .................................................................................................................................. 18

1.3

Responsible Institution ............................................................................................................... 19

1.3.1 2.

3.

4.

5.

Layout of the Updated Prespa Watershed Management Plan .............................................. 19

DESCRIPTION OF THE PRESPA LAKE WATERSHED .............................................................................. 22 2.1.

Natural Conditions...................................................................................................................... 22

2.2.

Climatological and Hydrological Monitoring System ................................................................. 26

2.3.

Land-Use ..................................................................................................................................... 31

2.4.

Socio-Economic Conditions ........................................................................................................ 32

TYPOLOGY AND IDENTIFICATION OF WATER BODIES IN THE PRESPA LAKE WATERSHED ................. 36 3.1.

General remarks ......................................................................................................................... 36

3.2.

Location, typology and delineation of water bodies .................................................................. 36

3.2.1

Surface waters ........................................................................................................................ 36

3.2.2

Groundwater .......................................................................................................................... 40

PROTECTED AREAS and ZONES ........................................................................................................... 43 4.1

Background................................................................................................................................. 43

4.2

Nature protection....................................................................................................................... 43

4.3

Water protection zones.............................................................................................................. 45

PRESSURES .......................................................................................................................................... 48 5.1

PRESSURES on WATER QUALITY................................................................................................. 48

5.1.1

POINT SOURCE POLLUTION .................................................................................................... 48

5.1.1.1

HOUSEHOLDS ..................................................................................................................... 48

5.1.1.2

INDUSTRY ........................................................................................................................... 50

5.1.1.3.

SUMMARY OF WASTEWATER LOADS ................................................................................. 53

5.1.2

Diffuse Pollution (Pressure from Agriculture Activities) ............................................................ 54

5.1.2.1

PRESSURE FROM CROP PRODUCTION.................................................................................... 54

5.1.2.2

SOLID BIODEGRADABLE AGRICULTURAL WASTE ................................................................... 57

5.1.2.3 5.2.

PRESSURE FROM ANIMAL HUSBANDRY ............................................................................. 57

Estimation of pressures on the quantitative status of water including abstraction .................. 57

5.2.1.

WATER SUPPLY ................................................................................................................... 58

5.2.2

IRRIGATION WATER DEMAND ................................................................................................ 59


3

UNDP RFP 29/2015


5.2.3

IRRIGATION WATER REQUIREMENT FOR PRESPA REGION .................................................... 61

5.3.

Analysis of other impact of human activity on the water status ............................................... 64

5.4

Harmful impact of water ............................................................................................................ 65

5.4.1

FLOODS ................................................................................................................................... 65

5.4.2

EROSION AND TORRENTS ....................................................................................................... 67

5.5

Water Balance ............................................................................................................................ 69

5.5.1 KEY ISSUES ABOUT WATER BALANCE AND THE IMPORTANCE IN WATER MANAGEMENT PLANS …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..69

6.

5.5.2

DATA, RESOURCES AND ASSUMPTIONS ................................................................................. 69

5.5.3

ANALYSIS OF THE AVAILABLE DATA (COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS) ........................................... 70

5.5.4

WATER BALANCE AND EFLOWS ............................................................................................. 72

5.5.5

COMMENTS, RECOMMENDATIONS AND SUGGESTED MEASURES........................................ 72

Monitoring System for Prespa Lake Sub-Basin ................................................................................... 74 6.1.

Available Data............................................................................................................................. 79

6.1.1.

CURRENT MONITORING ..................................................................................................... 79

6.1.2

DATA COLLECTED THROUGH RECENT AD-HOC STUDIES........................................................ 80

6.1.3 DATA GAPS ................................................................................................................................. 81 6.2. 6.2.1

Proposal for Future Monitoring of Surface Waters in PLW ....................................................... 82 SURVEILLANCE MONITORING OF PRESPA LAKE SUB-BASIN .................................................. 82

6.2.2 OPERATIONAL MONITORING OF PRESPA LAKE SUB-BASIN ....................................................... 83 6.3 6.3.1

MONITORING OF GROUNDWATER QUANTITATIVE STATUS (LEVEL REGIME) ....................... 85

6.3.2

MONITORING OF GROUNDWATER CHEMICAL STATUS ......................................................... 86

7.1

SURFACE WATER ECOLOGICAL STATUS (POTENTIAL) ............................................................ 90

7.1.2

SURFACE WATER CHEMICAL STATUS (POTENTIAL) ................................................................ 90

7.2

Ground Water Bodies ................................................................................................................. 91

7.3

Additional WFD monitoring practices ........................................................................................ 94 SHORELINE ZONE AND SHORELINE ZONE FUNCTIONALITY INDEX ........................................ 94

ENVIRONMENTAL OBJECTIVES OF THE PRESPA LAKE WATERSHED ................................................... 98 8.1

Regulatory Requirements........................................................................................................... 98

8.1.1

THE EU WATER FRAMEWORK DIRECTIVE............................................................................... 98

8.1.2

MACEDONIAN LAW ON WATERS ........................................................................................... 98

8.2. 9.

Surface Water Bodies ................................................................................................................. 90

7.1.1

7.3.1 8.

Proposal for Future Monitoring of Groundwater....................................................................... 84

Environmental objectives for the Prespa Lake watershed ....................................................... 100

PROGRAMME OF MEASURES ............................................................................................................ 103


4

UNDP RFP 29/2015


9.1.

Introduction.............................................................................................................................. 103

9.2.

Necessary preparatory measures............................................................................................. 103

9.3.

Legal requirements................................................................................................................... 106

9.4.

Institutional Conditions Related to Implementation of the Measures .................................... 106

9.5.

Status of Implementation of the Measures ............................................................................. 107

9.6.

Analyses Of Level Of Implementation Of Previous Programme Of Measures 2010 ................ 108

9.7.

Status Of Former Measures In The Pom Of 2010 .................................................................... 108

9.8.

Newly Established Measures .................................................................................................... 110

9.9.

WFD Classification of the Measures ......................................................................................... 110

10.1.

Purpose of the Economic Analysis ........................................................................................... 117

10.2.

Organizational Setup For Water Management In Prespa Lake Watershed ............................. 117

10.3.

Overview Of Financing Sources For Water Management ........................................................ 118

10.4.

Cost recovery analysis .............................................................................................................. 118

10.4.1.

COST-RECOVERY ANALYSIS OF WATER SUPPLY IN PRESPA LAKE WATERSHED ............... 119

10.4.2. BASIN

COST-RECOVERY ANALYSIS OF SEWAGE AND WASTE COLLECTION IN PRESPA WATER …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….123

10.4.3.

COST-RECOVERY ANALYSIS OF IRRIGATION SYSTEM IN PRESPA WATER BASIN .............. 126

10.5.

Cost Benefit Analysis ................................................................................................................ 127

10.5.1. ASSESSED INVESTMENT COSTS OF THE PROPOSED PROGRAMME OF MEASURES .............. 127 10.5.2

ASSESSMENT OF COSTS/BENEFITS OF PROGRAMME OF MEASURES .............................. 129

11.1. Relevant stakeholders involved in the developing and managing of the water sector in the basin on local/regional level ................................................................................................................. 134 12.

REFERENCES ....................................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.


5

UNDP RFP 29/2015


List of Tables Table 1 Prespa lake watershed characteristics .......................................................................................... 23 Table 2 Climatological parameters – MS “Pretor” (period 1991-2010) ..................................................... 27 Table 3 Precipitation in the Prespa region ................................................................................................. 27 Table 4 LAND COVER/USE CLASSES (YEAR 2000) ACCORDING TO THE CORINE DELINEATION (SEE ALSO FIGURE 11.)................................................................................................................................................. 31 Table 5 LAND USE PATTERN (CADASTRAL CLASSIFICATION)...................................................................... 32 Table 6 Apple growing in Prespa region in year 2013 ................................................................................ 32 Table 7 Typology of surface water bodies - watercourses ......................................................................... 39 Table 8 Typology of surface water bodies – Lakes - system A ................................................................... 40 Table 9 Delineated groundwater resources in the Prespa Lake Watershed .............................................. 41 Table 10 Calculations for 20.792 people (including tourists), based on average load per person ............ 50 Table 11 Calculation of various pollutants per source of pollution ........................................................... 51 Table 12 Practice of fertilization in private orchards in the Prespa region ................................................ 54 Table 13 Fertilizers and Pesticides use per water body and per sub-catchments [in kg] .......................... 55 Table 14 USE OF PESTICIDES IN PRESPA REGION ....................................................................................... 57 Table 15 Total number of livestock in Resen municipality and production of nutrients in animal excreta in t/year ...................................................................................................................................................... 55 Table 16 Number of sheep and goats and production of nutrients in Resen municipality by inhabited place in 2015 .............................................................................................................................................. 55 Table 17 Number of cows and production of the nutrients in Resen municipality by inhabited place in 2015 ............................................................................................................................................................ 56 Table 18 Water requirements of different crop cultures........................................................................... 62 Table 19 Differences in base situation and achieved ammount of water use ........................................... 63 Table 20 Available Data, HG Study, C. Popovska........................................................................................ 69 Table 21 Water balance summary results, HG study(2014)....................................................................... 70 Table 22 Summarised Results of Water Balance for the Prespa Lake, Period 1976 – 2008 , "the dry period"........................................................................................................................................................ 71 Table 23 Summarised Results of Water Balance for the Prespa Lake, Period 1951 – 1975, the "wet period”........................................................................................................................................................ 71 Table 24- Quality elements to be used for the assessment of ecological status based on the list in Annex V, 1.1, of the Directive ................................................................................................................................ 78 Table 25 Dynamics of surveillance monitoring for rivers in Prespa Lake sub-basin .................................. 82 Table 26 Dynamics of surveillance monitoring for Prespa Lake ................................................................ 83 Table 27 Dynamics of operational monitoring for rivers and the lake in Prespa Lake watershed ............ 84 Table 28 Ground water level measurements in 2016 compared to data obtained in 2014 ...................... 85 Table 29 Examples of parameters that may be used in monitoring programmes to indicate that a particular human activity may be affecting groundwater quality ............................................................. 88 Table 30 Groundwater balance summary results (HG Study, 2014) .......................................................... 92 Table 31 Objectives for delineated waterbodies in Prespa Region .......................................................... 100 Table 32 Key environmental objectives and indicators ........................................................................... 101 Table 33 MEASURES IN ORDER TO PROVIDE THE ENABLING ENVIRONMENT......................................... 103 Table 34 UPDATED PROGRAMME OF MEASURES ................................................................................... 111 Table 35 Drinking water consumption in Prespa Water Basin in 2015 .................................................... 119 Table 36 Revenues and costs of the water supply company “Proleter” in 2015 ..................................... 120 Table 37 Water price scenarios for public water supply system in Prespa watershed............................ 121 Table 38 Sewage and waste collection structure and prices in Prespa Water Basin in 2015 .................. 123 Table 39 Revenues and costs of JKP “Proleter” - sewage and waste collection services in 2015 ........... 123


6

UNDP RFP 29/2015


Table 40 Water price scenarios for public sewage system in Prespa basin ............................................. 124 List of Figures Figure 1 Location of the Prespa Lake watershed ....................................................................................... 22 Figure 2 Topography and slope of the area ............................................................................................... 23 Figure 3 Geology and soil maps............................................................................................................ 24 Figure 4 Drainage network and delineated subwatersheds ...................................................................... 25 Figure 5 Hydrogeological map .................................................................................................................... 25 Figure 6 Isohyetal map ............................................................................................................................... 28 Figure 7 MEAN MONTH SUM OF PRECIPITATIONS ON PRESPA BASIN LEVEL............................................ 29 Figure 8 Climatological and hydrological stations ...................................................................................... 29 Figure 9 WATER LEVEL OF THE MACRO PRESPA LAKE ............................................................................... 30 Figure 10 SUB-CATCHMENT DELINEATION PER RUNOFF ........................................................................... 31 Figure 11 Land cover/use (CORINE level III) and delineated apple stands ................................................ 32 Figure 12 Settlements and road network................................................................................................... 33 Figure 13 splitting of surface water categories into surface water bodies ................................................ 37 Figure 14 Delineated surface water bodies in the watershed ................................................................... 38 Figure 15 Delineated groundwater bodiees in the Prespa Lake Watershed ............................................. 40 Figure 16 Map of wetlands around the Prespa Lake.................................................................................. 44 Figure 17 Existing and newly proposed protection zones.......................................................................... 46 Figure 18 Sources of pollution in Prespa watershed.................................................................................. 49 Figure 19 Input of pesticides and fertilizers per water body ..................................................................... 56 Figure 20 Water objects in the Prespa Lake Watershed ............................................................................ 58 Figure 21 Flood prone areas in the whole watershed (COWi report) and areas flooded by Istocka and Golema Reka (Point Pro) ............................................................................................................................ 66 Figure 22 Soil erosion risk map of Prespa Lake Watershed ....................................................................... 67 Figure 23 Agricultural land and slope in Golema REka, Kranska Reka and Brajcinska Reka ...................... 68 Figure 24 Monthly averaged water balances trough the period 1951-2010, HG Study (2014) ................. 70 Figure 25 Calculated inflow in the Lake Prespa.......................................................................................... 71 Figure 26 Components of the status of surface water bodies ................................................................... 75 Figure 27 Combining parameters to indicate the status of a biological quality element and applying the “one out all out” principle to overall ecological classification ................................................................... 76 Figure 28 Indication of the relative roles of biological, hydromorphological and physic-chemical quality elements in ecological status classification according the normative definitions in Annex V:1.2............. 77 Figure 29 Basic principles for classification of ecological status based on Ecological Quality Ratios ........ 79 Figure 30 piezometric stations in the watershed ....................................................................................... 86 Figure 31 Map of the classification of the ecological status of the waterbodies in the Lake Prespa Watershed (Prespa Lake watershed management plan, 2011) ................................................................. 90 Figure 32 Concentration of total phosphorus in the water from the sampling points - rivers .................. 91 Figure 33 Concentration of total phosphorus in the water from the sampling points .............................. 91 Figure 34 Presentation of distribution of the static reserves in m3 for some typical zones at the Prespa REGION (HG study, 2014) ........................................................................................................................... 93 Figure 35 groundwater vulnerability and risk maps................................................................................... 93 Figure 36 Nitrogen and PhospHorus loses from the watershed (Borgvang et al 2006) and critical phosPHorus areas....................................................................................................................................... 94 Figure 37 Scheme of the different lake-shore-zones ................................................................................. 95


7

UNDP RFP 29/2015


Figure 38 INVESTMENT COSTS FOR PRESPA WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN 2016-2021 BY RANKED MEASURES ................................................................................................................................................ 128 FIGURE 39 RIVER BASIN MANAGEMENT SCHEDULE .............................................................................. 134 List of Annexes Annex 1 - Introduction Annex 2 - Description of the Prespa Lake Watershed Annex 3 - Typology and Indetification of Water Bodies Annex 4 - Protected Zones Annex 5 - Pressures Annex 6 - Monitoring System for PLW Annex 7 - Status of Water Bodies in the Prespa Lake Watershed Annex 7a - Water Bodies ID Card Annex 8 - Environmental Objectives in the Prespa Lake Watershed Annex 9 - Programme of Measures Annex 9a - Programme of Measures_Analasys Annex 9b - Programme of Measures_Tables Annex 10 - Economic Analasys


8

UNDP RFP 29/2015


2 ABBREVIATIONS AWB – Artificial water body CPE – Communal public enterprise CY – Crop yield CWR – Crop water requirements DTM – Digital terrain model EQR – Ecological Quality Ratio FRA – Flood risk assessment GAP – Good agricultural practices GDP – Gross domestic product GIS – Geographic information system ha – hectare HMD – Hydrometeorology Directorate HMWB – Heavily modified water body IPA – Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance IPPC – Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control IRBM – Integrated River Basin Management IRR – Internal rate of return IUCN – International Union for Conservation of Nature LPIS – Land Parcel Identification System masl – meters above sea level MAFWE – Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Water Economy MES – Ministry of Education and Science MKD – Macedonian Denar (Currency) MoE – Ministry of Economy MoEPP - Ministry of Environment and Physical Planning MoH – Ministry of Health MoTC – Ministry of Transport and Communications NPV – Net present value NVWI – Net virtual water import/input NWC – National Water Council OG – Official Gazette O&M – Operation and maintenance costs PE – Population equivalent PHI – Public Health Institute PFRA – Preliminary flood risk assessment RWMP – Prespa Watershed Management Plan RBD – River Basin District RBMC – River Basin Management Council RBMP – River basin management plan SDC – Swiss Development Cooperation

SME – Small and medium enterprises SRB – Strumica river basin SRBD – Strumica River Basin District SSO – State Statistical Office (of Macedonia) SWB – Surface water body SWD – Specific water demand SWM – Solid waste management UNDP – United Nations Development Programme VW – Virtual water WD – Water dependency WE – Water Economy WF – Water Footprint WFD – EU Water Framework Directive WHO – World Health Organization WS – Water supply WSC – Water scarcity WTA – Water-to-availability ratio WW – Wastewater WWTP – Wastewater treatment plant W&WW – Water supply and wastewater management


9

UNDP RFP 29/2015


GLOSSARY OF TERMS Artificial water body – A body of surface water created by human activity. Biodiversity – Word commonly used for biological diversity and defined as assemblage of living organisms from all habitats including terrestrial, marine and other aquatic ecosystems and the ecological complexes of which they are part. Body of groundwater – Distinct volume of groundwater within an aquifer or aquifers. Body of surface water – Discrete and significant element of surface water such as a lake, a reservoir, a stream, river or canal, part of a stream, river or canal, transitional water or a stretch of coastal water. Diffuse (source of) pollution – Non-point sources primarily associated with run-off and other discharges related to different land uses such as agriculture, from septic tanks associated with rural dwellings and from the land spreading of industrial, municipal and agricultural wastes. Ecological status – An expression of the structure and functioning of aquatic ecosystems associated with surface waters. Such waters are classified as being of good ecological status when they meet the requirements of the WFD. Ecology – The study of the relationships among organisms and between those organisms and their nonliving environment. Ecosystem – A community of interdependent organisms together with the environment they inhabit and with which they interact; community and environment being distinct from adjacent communities and environments. Good status – A collective term used to refer to the status achieved by a surface water body when both its ecological status and its chemical status are at least good or, for groundwater, when both its quantitative status and chemical status are at least good. Good ecological status – Status of a body of surface water, so classified in accordance with Annex V of the WFD. Good ecological potential – Status of a heavily modified or an artificial body of water, so classified in accordance with the relevant provisions of Annex V of the WFD. Good surface water status – Status achieved by a surface water body when both its Ecological Status and Chemical Status are at least ‘good’. Good groundwater status – Status achieved by a groundwater body when both its quantitative status and its chemical status are at least ‘good’. Groundwater – All water which is below the surface of the ground in the saturation zone and in direct contact with the ground or subsoil. Groundwater status – General expression of the status of a body of groundwater, determined by the poorer of its quantitative status and its chemical status. Heavily modified water body – A water body that has been changed substantially in character as a result of physical alterations by human activity. Hydromorphology – A study of the quantity and dynamics of water flow within a water body that has variations in its width, depth, structure and substrate of bed and riparian zone.


9

UNDP RFP 29/2015


Mitigation measures – Measures to avoid, prevent, minimize, reduce or, as fully as possible, offset or compensate for any significant adverse effects on the environment, as a result of implementing a plan or programme. Pollution – Any direct or indirect introduction, as a result of human activity, of substances or heat into terrestrial ecosystems directly depending on aquatic ecosystems, which result in damage to material property, or which impair or interfere with amenities and other legitimate uses of the environment. Programme of Measures – Those actions, defined in details, which are required to achieve the environmental objectives of the Directive within a river basin district. Protected area – Water protected by European legislation including drinking waters, bathing waters, urban wastewater, nutrient sensitive areas or sites designated as Special areas of Conservation or Special Protected Areas. River basin – The area of land from which all surface water run-off flows, through a sequence of streams, rivers and lakes into the sea at a single river mouth, estuary or delta. River Basin District – Administrative area for coordinated water management, composed of multiple river basins together with their associated groundwater. Surface water – Inland waters on the land surface (such as reservoirs, lakes, rivers, transitional waters, and coastal waters) within a river basin. Surface water status – General expression of the status of a surface water body, assessed by using two components: Ecological Status and Chemical Status. Virtual water – the water that is used in the production process of an agricultural or industrial product measured over the full supply chain is called the ‘virtual water’ contained in the product. The virtual water concept aims at measuring how water is embedded in the production and trade of food and other consumption products. Water Footprint – the total volume of freshwater used to produce the goods and services consumed by an individual, community or business. Water scarcity – is defined as the lack of sufficient available water resources to meet the demands of water usage within a region. Water services – All services which provide, for households, public institutions or any economic activity: (a) abstraction, impoundment, storage, treatment and distribution of surface water or groundwater; (b) waste-water collection and treatment facilities which subsequently discharge into surface water. Water use – Water services together with any other activity identified under Article 5 and Annex II of the WFD having a significant impact on the status of water.


10

UNDP RFP 29/2015


3 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY A watershed management plan (WMP) is a living document that will require periodic updates as land use and water quality change over time and best management practices (BMPs) are implemented. Typically every 5 years, as part of the evaluation process, a review the implementation activities is performed in regard of the work plan or action register, the monitoring results, and any other chosen indicators to determine the effectiveness of the implementation efforts and whether progress is being made toward achieving the WMP goals. According to the WMP cycle, 2016 is the year for undertaking the activities of Updating the Prespa Lake MP. Principally in the focus is the level of implementation of adopted measures for the watershed, but also different aspects of relevant documents, activities and stakeholders has to be analyzed in order to detect the overall success of the plan. All measures have to be checked and evaluated, some of them omitted and several new proposed in order to achieve a realistic and applicable update of the MP. The results of these activities are presented in this volume. The Republic of Macedonia, through the Ministry of Environment and Physical Planning, recognizing the unique and exceptional environmental and economic value of Prespa Lake has brought a decision to prepare and adopt update of the Prespa Lake Water Management Plan. Preparation of the Update of the Plan has been undertaken based on Point 8 of Annex VII of the WFD referring to specific management plans for sub-basins, and in order to harmonize to the WFD planning period to year 2021. The Objective is to: a) harmonize WMP with the planning cycle of EU WFD and the other national river basin management plans (to cover 2015 – 2021 period); b) review and report on the progress in the implementation of WMP; c) analyze monitoring data collected over the past years and incorporate them into the updated WMP d) adapt the plan in accordance with the requirements of the newly introduced national level Water Information System; e) review and update the economic analyses as per the requirements of EU WFD; d) revise/update the WMP in accordance with the lessons learnt from the preparation of other national river basin management plans. In regard to its natural conditions, Prespa sub-basin belongs to Crn Drim River watershed and is part of the Drim-Drini river basin. Ohrid and Prespa Lakes belong to a group of Desaret lakes that originated from a geotectonic depression 2 to 3 million years ago on the western Dinarides. Worldwide, there are only a few lakes with similarly remote origin. Because of the karstic underground a large amount of water of Prespa Lake seeps into the soil, drains away through a network of underground fissures, and supplies the springs located on the shore of Lake Ohrid. Water level of the Large Prespa Lake shows significant oscillations. It reached its last height during a flood event in 1963 with 853.4 m asl, a level that corresponds to a lake surface of approx. 280 km². Since then the water level has decreased to actually approx. 844.65 m asl with the sharpest decline between 1986 and 1991. The lowest recent water levels were observed in summer 2002 with approx. 844.5 m asl. With regard to land use, around 32% of the Macedonian part of the catchment area (including the lake area) is covered by forest, while agriculture comprises 27% of the area, of which 16% is cultivated. The remaining 41% consists of settlements, roads, and unused land (dominantly water area). Agriculture plays a significant role in terms of employment and economic sustainability. Currently, over 60% of the total population of the Municipality of Resen depends on agriculture, primarily on apple production. Cultivated land and pastures cover about 27% of total catchment of the Prespa Lake in Macedonia. The total area covered with apples is estimated to approximately 5,100 ha. The population of the Macedonian part of the watershed belongs to a single municipality, the Municipality of Resen, comprising a total area of 739 km2, of which 177 km2 are lake area. There are 44


11

UNDP RFP 29/2015


settlements, 43 rural and 1 urban (the town of Resen). Only 39 of these are settlements are currently populated. The total number of inhabitants is 16,825, living in 4,848 households. Over the last 10 to 15 years there has been a decline in demography mostly due to local migration from the area. The EU Water Framework Directive (WFD) covers all waters, including inland waters (surface water and groundwater) and transitional and coastal waters. The totality of waters is, for the purpose of the implementation of the directive, attributed to geographical or administrative units, in particular river basins, river basin districts, and the water bodies. The main purpose of identifying water bodies is to enable the status to be accurately described and compared to environmental objectives. The identification of water bodies is, first and foremost, based on geographical and hydrological determinants. However, the identification and subsequent classification of water bodies should provide for a sufficiently accurate description of this defined geographic area. In addition, the identification of water bodies should be an iterative process. The watercourses in Prespa sub-basin are subdivided according to WFD suggested typology. In total, 16 watercourses have been identified as water bodies, out of which, 13 water bodies – rivers; 1 heavily modified water body and 2 artificial water bodies. The large number of waterbodies in a relatively small catchment gives the possibility to better assess the status and specifically propose possible remedy/managerial actions, as well as varying conditions and state along the watercourses (tributaries, status, natural and protection status, etc. Delineation of the groundwater basins was developed using a conceptual model, based on geological and hydro geological conditions. Delineated GW bodies in Prespa area are situated in 3 layers. Observation and numbering was done by adopting the stratigraphic principle. Additional delineation of GW bodies was was made according to permeability i.e. yield. Six (6) groundwater bodies were identified in Prespa region. Ohrid-Prespa Transboundary Biosphere Reserve is a UNESCO Biosphere Reserve encompassing the area of Lake Ohrid and Lake Prespa on Republic of Macedonia and Albania. The reserve was declared on 11 June 2014 and comprises a combination of water bodies and surrounding mountain reliefs, covering an area of 446,244.52 ha. The Ohrid-Prespa Transboundary Reserve includes various ecosystems ranging from the mountainous areas around the lakes, to the temperate sub-tropical forests found at lower altitudes around the water basins. The Ohrid-Prespa lake system is one of the larges in Europe of its kind. Both lakes possess exceptional value on an national and international level because of their geological and biological uniqueness. Prespa Lake, from 2002, is the first designated Ramsar Site in the country. The pressures on the water bodies are both natural and anthropogenic in origin. The pressures are on quantity and quality of the water too. The pressures encompass input of pollutants, for example nutrients and hazardous substances, and physical pressures on the water bodies, for example agriculture in the river corridor, drainage, watercourse maintenance and abstraction. Input of pollutants takes place via both water and the soil from diffuse sources (e.g. nutrient leaching from farmland) and point sources (e.g. wastewater discharges from households and industry, emissions from industry and agriculture and leaching from disused landfills). There are no indications of any changes regarding pressures in Prespa Lake sub-basin watershed during the past period of six years. In regard to point source of pollution the wastewater pressure on the water bodies derives from wastewater treatment plant Ezerani, storm water outfalls from separate and combined sewerage systems and from sparsely built-up areas and industry. The pressure on the water bodies is primarily attributable to the wastewater content of organic matter (BOD5), nitrogen, phosphorus, hazardous substances, heavy metals and pathogenic bacteria and viruses. Total load estimation based on pressure from 20.792 people (without WWT):


12

UNDP RFP 29/2015


BOD5 around 455 tonnes/year; COD around 835 tonnes/year; Total suspended Solids around 531 tonnes/year; Nitrogen around 67 tonnes/year; Phosphorous around 14 tonnes/year. Only 55% of the villages and settlements are connected to a proper domestic wastewater disposal system. On the Macedonian side of Prespa Lake there are several SMEs (Small and Medium Scaled Enterprises). Impacts include ammonium, nitrates, phosphorus, aluminium, very high concentrations of Cl2, high BOD5 and COD concentrations, increased number of thermo-tolerant coli form bacteria, increase in heavy metals pollution (Fe, Zn, Cr, Cd), very high turbidity, phenols, benzene, halogenated organics, illegal pesticides in high quantities, brominated flame retardants, isocyanides used for lamination, oils and grease. Both “SwissLion Agroplod” and “CD Fruit Carev Dvor” are planning to have their small WWTP operational in the near future, but currently they are discharging effluents directly to the water bodies (no pre-treatment). Industrial wastewater in the town of Resen is estimated to 69,350 m 3/year. Total annual amount of wastewater from CD Fruit is around 9,000 m3. Prespa Lake watershed is and has been for considerable time under significant pollution pressure stemming from uncontrolled use of various pesticides, and components for industrial production. Even the uphill mountain rivers, which in principle should not be impacted, are also under obvious pressure. These results point out that the surface water bodies in Prespa Lake watershed have been and still are subjected to intensive pressure coming from agriculture and point source of pollution. Analyses of the pressures on the quantitative status of water including abstraction indicate that Lake Prespa has been used as a source of water for both irrigation and municipal water supply since late 1950s. Two pumping stations, one in Asamati and the other in Sirhan, have been used to supply irrigation systems on the eastern and western shores of Lake Prespa in the Macedonian territory. The designed average water extraction amount for Lake Prespa is calculated as 3.200 ha x 4.300 m³/ha, or 13.76 million m3 per year. Adding the requirement of 0.35 million m3 for water supply, the total extraction amounts to around 14 million m3 per year. Comparative analyses of flood by modeling within 2 projects lead to same conclusion: significant potential for floods exist in the Prespa Lake sub-basin. In the past period of several years since the finalization of the first PLWMP, efforts were made to implement WFD monitoring practices in the Prespa sub-basin. This was not fully achieved, in spite of the significant progress in both the quantity and quality of the monitoring. In the period following adoption of the Prespa Lake Water Management Plan 2010, the project funded by Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation (SDC) “Restoration of Prespa Lake ecosystem”, acting upon the adopted measures in PLWMP, has established and made active a Lake Monitoring Station located in village Stenje. This station is supposed to represent a milestone installment for the future protection of the lake and development of the region. The installment and the putting the monitoring station in village Stenje in operation, for the purpose of increasing the capacities of local and state monitoring system, can only be regarded as commendable and highly welcomed. The capacities of the station are yet to be fully utilized in the following period, in order to establish a monitoring practice in full compliance with the WFD. A measure in the Programme of Measures is foreseen in this direction.


13

UNDP RFP 29/2015


In order to fully comply with the WFD, and enable following of the status (ecological and chemical) of the surface and ground water bodies in the forthcoming period, the following improvements in the ongoing monitoring have to be implemented: full list of algae and macroinvertebrate species in both running and standing waters has to be produced, investigations of riparian zone, recording changes in macrophytes vegetation, fish species abundances within communities connected with the overall environmental quality, water chemistry analyses including priority substances and toxic chemicals has to be monitored in detail, all data have to be correlated to the reference conditions established in PLWMP 2010, quality control/assurance has to be introduced in the monitoring. With these improvements, the operational monitoring in the Prespa sub-basin would fully comply with the WFD requirements. This is one of the key measures for the forthcoming 6-year implementation cycle. There are no indications of any changes in the statuses of delineated water bodies in Prespa Lake watershed determined during the development of PLWMP. Even the monitoring performed during 2013-2015 period, which is not in full compliance with the WFD guidances, clearly shows the high impact of rivers regarding P and N compounds, which are also concentrating in the lake sampling points in excess. Thus, the surface water bodies statuses determined during the surveillance monitoring 20092010 are not changed after a six years period. Moreover, the upper parts of rivers Brajcinska and Kranska also show significant deterioration of water quality in the monitored period, and are actually changing the status towards poor. The operational monitoring system has to be harmonized fully to the WFD. The same recommendations as for the ecological status can be applied for the chemical status of the water bodies. Prespa Lake watershed was designated as a nitrate vulnerable region. For the lake itself, it may be stated that the pollution with P and N compounds seems to be intensified in recent years. Apart of the quite varying reports of performed monitoring during past several years about the lake’s water quality, it is quite clear that Prespa Lake still experiences intensive pressures from both P and N compounds which are both prolonged and with increased concentrations. This might lead to a decision that the Prespa Lake is turning towards poor chemical potential and water quality status. But again, for such conclusion much more detailed surveillance and operational monitoring are needed. From the results about groundwater vulnerability, it is obvious that there are zones that are very highly vulnerable (zone of Resen alluvial plane) as well as zones with high vulnerability. This can be key questions in environmental protection in order to develop appropriate methods of risk-based assessment of groundwater systems in Prespa Region. Given the transboundary character, environmental objectives identified with the TDA have been taken into account in the course of elaboration of the Prespa Watershed Management Plan. In this way, the Macedonian side makes an important step in compliance with transboundary priorities. TDA identified five priority trans-boundary environmental problems: poor water quality (nutrient, organic and hazardous substances pollution), declining lake level and sediment transportation as a result of inappropriate land management and non-sustainable fisheries management. For the surface water bodies: 

Environmental Objective 1: Improvement of environmental conditions ensuring good water and soil status for human health and ecosystem until 2025 (long-term)


14

UNDP RFP 29/2015


For the groundwater bodies: Environmental Objective 2: Improvement of environmental conditions ensuring good chemical status and reverse quality and quantity deterioration (long-term). For protected areas (PA): 

Environmental Objective 3: To conserve Prespa Lake Biodiversity and Habitats (short-term & continuous)

Environmental objectives 1 - 3, have been adopted as guidance for further elaboration Prespa WMP, and as basis for development of the Program of Measures and the 6-year implementation plan. Based on the previous assessments, especially of the not fully developed and consistent legal and regulatory framework, the organisational structure with not fully clarified roles and responsibilities, and the institutional capacity in need for improvement, the Prespa Lake Watershed Management Plan will be implemented based on a two-tier strategy: i.

ii.

First priority will be to implement measures, which addresses the enabling environment, the institutional roles and management instruments, which will be the foundation for and the preparatory measures in relation to the more technical measures as given in the previous chapters. Parallel with this, and as the legal and regulatory framework are put into place, and the organisational structures and the institutional capacity is developed, the more technical measures will be implemented in a structured “learning-by-doing” process.

The original program of measures developed for the Prespa Lake Watershed Management Plan was planned according to the comprehensive data collection and performed initial WFD based monitoring in the watershed. All foreseen measures were orientated to prevent and possibly improve the detected bad water quality status of selected water bodies in the catchment, as well as the lake itself. After six years only 3 (three) of the proposed measures, has been fully conducted and finalized. This measure generally considers feasibility studies or education activities for local farmers. A total of 7 (seven) measures have been detected as obsolete. Their implementation is either not predictable in the foreseen future or may be a cause of a major and hazardous deterioration of environmental quality. Some of the measures (5 of them) have been incorporated into other measures. Overall, the implementation of the Program of measures denoted in the basic MP seems to be quite limited, slow and very fragmented; only 7% of measures are in some way completed. Reasons for this situation are multiple, but basically they may be attributed to the financial circumstances. Since this was the first WMP in the country, much effort should have been devoted to proper education and instruction for the much more intensive Plan management and its implementation. Partial donations, in the form of projects like the ones by the SECO (State Secretariat for Economic Affairs, Switzerland) and similar, are very appreciated and necessary, but the overall implementation of the Plan should be planned and managed much more precisely. In that regards, the capacities of the Municipality of Resen have to be significantly increased in order the Plan to represent a fundamental development strategy of the region. In the PLWMP 2016-2021, the economic analysis has focused on two aspects: -

Cost-recovery analysis of the public communal enterprise “JKP Proleter”, providing waterrelated services in Prespa region; Cost-benefit analysis of the measures included in this Water Management Plan.


15

UNDP RFP 29/2015


The cost recovery analysis has been based on the state of affairs related to economics of water supply, sewage, waste collection and irrigation in the region. The main aim was to analyze the existing cost models of provision of water related services and to suggest full and optimal cost recovery price. The analysis have shown that the current price of the water supply and sewage services provided by the communal enterprise does not reflect the real costs of the operator - JKP Proleter. Implicitly, three scenarios were developed: 1) Estimated increase of the price of drinking water and sewage services by 30% , as stated by JKP Proleter; 2) Full cost-recovery price or increase of the price of drinking water by 100% and sewage services by 80% and 3) Optimal cost-recovery price or increase of the price of drinking water by 80% and sewage services by 45%. The first scenario would ensure coverage only of the costs of maintenance of the systems, but deterioration of the water supply and sewage system could be expected in mid-term. The second scenario is most suitable in terms of enabling maintenance and investment into both systems, but not in line with the socio-economic situation in the region. Over 80% of the drinking water and sewage services have been paid by the households, implying that increase of the water price will primarily represent a burden to the households’ budgets. In this context, the third scenario seems to be optimal, as enabling maintenance of the system, as well as certain investment. With regards to the waste collection services, the system covers almost the whole region and without any planned modernization of the system, the current price could enable normal functioning of the system. This price enables stability of the public communal enterprise with regards to this type of services, which is important precondition for focus on the investment into the water supply and sewage systems. With regards to the irrigation, the UNDP study “Feasibility analysis of Irrigation options for the Prespa lake watershed” elaborated by Point-pro in 2016 has served as a main source of information for cost-recovery analysis of irrigation system. The data presented in the study indicated that ensuring sustainable provision of the irrigation water in Prespa Watershed is related to significant investment. Apart of the water supply, sewage and waste collection systems where investment should be provided (managed) by JKP Proleter, Resen, the investment for irrigation system includes participation of the farmers, which is related to wider understanding of the benefits of the investment. The cost benefit analysis in PLWMP 2016-2021 includes cost assessment of the measures included in the Plan, while benefits are presented in terms of non-monetary terms. Investment costs in the period 2016 – 2021 for implementing the necessary measures specified in this Plan are projected to €17.6 million. The measures have been prioritized according to their necessity for implementation and expected benefits (in non-monetary terms), with priority rank from 1 to 3. According to the prioritization, about 27.2% of the total costs should be spent on the measures classified in the group 1 (highest importance), 33.6% for the measures under the group 2 (very high importance) and 39.2% for the measures in the group 3, which indicate high importance, but implementation in accordance to the available finances. The classification has been done in purpose of proper time management of the available budget(s) and anticipated effects for the beneficiaries. However, all three groups of measures are necessary for full implementation of the Plan.


16

UNDP RFP 29/2015


1. INTRODUCTION


17

UNDP RFP 29/2015


1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 THE PRESPA LAKE WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN The First Prespa Lake Water Management Plan was elaborated in 2010, within the UNDP Prespa Park Project as support to the Ministry of Environment and Physical Planning. The legal grounds for its elaboration are in the Law on Waters of 2008, which foresees preparation of management plans for parts of river basins, as part of the overall River Basin Management Plans, fully in accordance with the EU Water Framework Directive. The Prespa Lake Watershed Management Plan (WMP) has been the country’s pilot planning document prepared in accordance with the requirements of new national water legislation, harmonized with the requirements of the EU Water Framework Directive. The planning and implementation processes have produced a long list of lessons that are being used in the development of the management plans for other river basins across the country. It has also provided a basis for implementation of a number of initiatives and projects in multiple areas such as agriculture, water and land-use management, nature conservation, solid waste and wastewater management, ecological restoration, pollution prevention and control and monitoring. Thanks to the financing provided by the Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation (SDC), UNDP has been supporting stakeholders to address the lake degradation processes by channeling multiple, basin-scale investments in the key contributing/affected sectors, in accordance with the priorities identified in WMP and have helped to create significant local capacities for integrated watershed management.

1.2

LEGAL BASIS

The Republic of Macedonia, through the Ministry of Environment and Physical Planning, recognizing the unique and exceptional environmental and economic value of Prespa Lake has brought a decision to prepare and adopt update of the Prespa Lake Water Management Plan. Preparation of the Update of the Plan has been undertaken based on Point 8 of Annex VII of the WFD referring to specific management plans for sub-basins, and in order to harmonize to the WFD planning period to year 2021. The update of the Prespa Lake Water Management Plan is supported by Swiss SDC through UNDP Restoration of the Prespa Lake Ecosystem Project. The Objective is to: a) harmonize WMP with the planning cycle of EU WFD and the other national river basin management plans (to cover 2015 – 2021 period); b) review and report on the progress in the implementation of WMP; c) analyze monitoring data collected over the past years and incorporate them into the updated WMP d) adapt the plan in accordance with the requirements of the newly introduced national level Water Information System; e) review and update the economic analyses as per the requirements of EU WFD; d) revise/update the WMP in accordance with the lessons learnt from the preparation of other national river basin management plans (e.g., Bregalnica & Strumica River Basins); The Prespa Lake Water Management Plan has to comply with the provisions of the Law on Waters (OG 163/2013) and the pertinent by-laws, regulations and decrees. Specifically, it has to based on Art. 66 of Law on Waters and the Rulebook on the content and manner for preparation of RBMP (OG 148/09). The structure of the document and the contents also follows closely the recommendations of the WFD and the pertaining Guidelines for implementation.


18

UNDP RFP 29/2015


1.3

RESPONSIBLE INSTITUTION

Under the provisions of the new law on Water, the Ministry of Environment and Physical Planning (MEPP) is responsible for developing national policies and guidelines for the overall water management including river basins management, permitting system and supervises the monitoring of water quality and implementation of water related laws.

1.3.1 LAYOUT OF THE UPDATED PRESPA WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN Chapter 1 of this report (Introduction) gives an overview of national legislation relevant for development of River Basin Management Plans (RBMP) and Management Plans for sub-basins. It also describes the rationale and the process of development of the update of Prespa Lake Water Management Plan (PLWMP). In Chapter 2 (Description of Prespa Lake Watershed) the basic features of the area in focus are presented in form of Natural Conditions, Climatological and Hydrological Monitoring System, Land Use and Socio-Economic Conditions. Chapter 3 presents an overview of the performed Typology and Delineation of Water Bodies in Prespa Lake Watershed, where explanations on used methodology, data sources and list of delineated water bodies in the watershed are presented. Chapter 4 presents the designated Protected Areas and Zones in the Prespa Lake sub-basin with designated areas for protection of natural habitats, water protection zones, and also areas designated as nitrate sensitive and water bodies sensitive to urban waste waters. In Chapter 5 detected overall Pressures in the Prespa Lake watershed in relation to Water quality and Quantity are presented. Most of the data originate from the first PLWMP of 2010, but new insights and information are utilized and presented, especially in regard to Diffuse source of pollution from agriculture, Estimation of pressures on quantitative status, Harmful impact of water and Water Balance. Chapter 6 analyses the overall monitoring activities in the Prespa Lake sub-basin performed in the period of 6 years, in relation to WFD guidances and standards. Firstly, the basic principles of WFD monitoring system are given in order the following critical comments on performed monitoring activities to be linked to relevant guidelines and principles. Following are the Comments on results obtained by the monitoring of surface and ground waters. Finally, in order to achieve the WFD principles and guidelines, the Proposals for surveillance and operational monitoring are presented. Chapter 7 presents and analyses the possible changes of Status of delineated water bodies in Prespa Lake sub-basin, in correlation to their initial status from 2010. It also introduces the SFI as a novel method in detection the overall ecological status of lakes and rivers in the frame of the WFD approach. In Chapter 8 the full list of Environmental Objectives developed for the Prespa Lake Watershed is presented, in line with the basic goals for the water quality status and potential of the delineated water bodies in the catchment as well as the selected indicators for monitoring of the progress of adopted program of measures. Chapter 9 presents the full analyses of the original Program of measures, explains every measure in detail, presents the proposal for continuing the specific measure or its omitting from the updated program of measures, and also presents the newly introduced measures in the plan. This chapter also clearly represents the dynamic plan for the implementation of the new set of measures, the responsible stakeholders for their implementation, time table for the implementation in next planning period, as well as approximation of the funds needed for the proper implementation of all


19

UNDP RFP 29/2015


measures. In Chapter 10 various aspects of the Economic analyses are presented, in particular the Overview of Financial Sources for Water Management, Cost Recovery Analysis, Cost Benefit Analysis specially in regard to program of measures. Chapter 11 represents the involvement of stakeholders in the process of Update of the Prespa Lake WMP [To be elaborated in the Final Plan]. In Chapter 12 the relevant References are given.

4 5 6 7 8 9


20

UNDP RFP 29/2015


11.1 11.2 11.3 11.4 11.5 11.6 11.7 11.8 11.9 11.10 11.11

11.12

2. DESCRIPTION OF THE PRESPA LAKE WATERSHED


21

UNDP RFP 29/2015


2. DESCRIPTION OF THE PRESPA LAKE WATERSHED 2.1.

NATURAL CONDITIONS

11.12.1.1 LOCATION Prespa sub-basin belongs to Crn Drim River watershed and is part of the Drim-Drini river basin. Ohrid and Prespa Lakes belong to a group of Desaret lakes that originated from a geotectonic depression 2 to 3 million years ago on the western Dinarides. Worldwide, there are only a few lakes with similarly remote origin. Because of the karstic underground a large amount of water of Prespa Lake seeps into the soil, drains away through a network of underground fissures, and supplies the springs located on the shore of Lake Ohrid. Prespa Lake is a high-altitude lake at approximately 850 meters above sea level and vary from –843,55 (October 2003) – 851,77 (June 1963). The system consists of two inter-linked lakes: Micro Prespa and Macro Prespa. The catchment is shared between Macedonia, Albania and Greece. Lake Prespa forms an enclosed basin surrounded by high mountains. From west – Galicica (2,256 m), on north Plakenska Mt., (1,935 m), on northeast Bigla Mt.(1656 m), on east Baba Mt. (peak Veternica 2,420 m), on southeast Triclarion Mt. (1,749 m), on south Suva Gora (1,480 m) on southwest - Mali and Thate (2,288 m).

Figure 1 Location of the Prespa Lake watershed Macro and Micro Prespa lakes are separated by an isthmus. Between 1962 and 1975, the two Lakes were connected and water levels communicated. Total area of the Prespa region/catchment (depending on measuring – various scale, various defined boundary on the karst area) is between 1,368 – 1,386 km2 Because of fluctuation of a water level, lakes surface areas vary from 306-324 km2. Macro Prespa Lake area varies from 259.4 – 280.0 km2 (MKD – 68.1%, ALB – 17.9%, GRE – 14.0%) Micro Prespa Lake area varies from 44.4 – 47.4 km2 (MKD – 0%, ALB – 10%, GRE – 90%) Total surface drainage area is cca. 1052.41 km2 (MKD – 583.00, ALB –214.09, GRE – 255.32).


22

UNDP RFP 29/2015


TABLE 1 PRESPA LAKE WATERSHED CHARACTERISTICS

Total Area

Land area

Hmin

Hmax

Hav

Slope

Macro Lake 2

Micro Lake

(km )

(km2)

21.37

178.0

0.0

1207.41

26.23

42.7

4.4

1132.60

24.41

42.4

43.8

263.1

48.2

(km2)

(km2)

(m asl)

(m asl)

(m asl)

(%)

Macedonia

761.00

593.00

844

2420

1118.37

Albania

261.19

214.09

844

2275

Greece

341.52

255.32

844

2161

Total:

1363.71

1052.41

Source: Hydrogeological study for the Lake Prespa Watershed, 2015

The area covered by the PLWMP is the Macedonian part of the of Macro Prespa Lake sub-basin (760 km2). Most of the Macedonian part of the sub- basin is classified as hilly and hilly-mountainous. It can be divided into Prespa valley and the surrounding mountains of Baba, Ilinska and Galicica. The hilly and hilly-mountain part of the area is classified as being of a high rank of steepness (i.e. higher than 32%).

FIGURE 2 TOPOGRAPHY AND SLOPE OF THE AREA

The specific orographic conditions that have an impact on the dynamic factors of the climate, together with the impact of geographical and local factors, create three different types of climate throughout the watershed: a warm and cold sub-Mediterranean climatic area; a sub-mountainous and mountainous subMediterranean climatic area; and a sub-alpine and alpine climatic area. The annual average temperature is relatively low; however, it is very suitable for orchards—and for apple trees in particular. The specific local warm continental climate is created by the relief, the altitude, the fluctuation of the water body of the Prespa Lake and the weak influence of the Mediterranean climate.


23

UNDP RFP 29/2015


GEOLOGY AND SOILS The Prespa region is characterized by a fairly complex geological-tectonic structure, with rocks ranging in age from the oldest Paleozoic formations to the youngest Neogene and Quaternary sediment rocks. The mountains and the valley are mainly composed of rocks varying in age and composition. Prespa Valley is surrounded by the mountains of Petrinska Planina, Galicica, Suva Planina, Ivan Planina and Suva Gora. Both the mountains and the valley are composed mainly of rocks varying in age, mineralogical composition and origin. The calcareous rocks are dominant overall, and also, in lesser extent distributed between magmatic rocks and Grano-Diorites. Syenites are present in the higher elevation areas, but Triassic carbonate rock masses are present in many areas as well. Different types of Quaternary sediments, such as alluvial, fluvio-glacial, proluvial, organogenic-marsh and deluvial sediments, are dominant in the valley, especially on the riverbeds. Prespa valley, as part of the western Macedonian hydrogeological province, is characterized by the presence of rocks with different hydrogeological characteristics and types of porosity (fractured, confined, karst and karst-fractured types of aquifer), as well as the occurrence of mineral and thermo-mineral groundwater.

FIGURE 3 GEOLOGY AND SOIL MAPS

The dominant soils in the Prespa valley are alluvial soils located in the lowest region. A significant part of the valley area and the hills on the western side are mainly used for agriculture. Cambisoils are dominant in the mountain region and are covered with forest vegetation. The subalpine and alpine areas only contain grass vegetation. The Macedonian part has small deposits of marble, dolomite, limestone and peat. The major mineral resource is limestone and dolomite in the western part. Sand and gravel is exploited around the mouth of the Golema River into the Prespa Lake. 11.12.1.2

HYDROGRAPHY AND HYDROGEOLOGY

The dominant streams in the Macedonian part of the region are: Brajcinkska Reka, Kranska, Reka, Golema Reka, Istocka Reka and Kurbinska Reka. From hydrological point of view, there are several ephemeral watercourses flow but their torrential power is significant and several times during the history these caused damages after flash flooding. All these streams flow in Prespa lake and are mountain streams with high altitude difference from spring to the mouth (>1,000m).


24

UNDP RFP 29/2015


FIGURE 4 DRAINAGE NETWORK AND DELINEATED SUBWATERSHEDS

Prespa valley, as a part of Western - Macedonian hydro geological province is characterized with presence of rocks with different hydro geological characteristics and type of porosity (fractured, confined, karst and karst-fractured type of aquifer). No significant occurrences of mineral and thermomineral groundwater are noted.

FIGURE 5 HYDROGEOLOGICAL MAP

Fractured type of aquifer covers the highest mountain areas, where medium and low water-permeable terrains can be determined, with yield between 0.1 – 5.0 L/s. Confined type of aquifer: The tectonic depression is filled up with Pliocene and Quaternary sediments, where phreatic and artesian (subartesian) groundwater levels exist. The bedrock is composed of Paleozoic schist, granite and Mesozoic


25

UNDP RFP 29/2015


limestone. The phreatic aquifer is characterized by large dissemination and it is determined on several localities (Lavci, Bolno, G. Dupeni, Asamati, C. Dvor, etc.). Quaternary sediments have different origin, lithological composition and hydro geological functions (alluvial, proluvial, diluvial, elluvial, organogenic-marsh, etc.). Karst type of aquifer appears in Paleozoic, Mesozoic and Tertiary carbonate rocks appears on Galitsica Mouinatin. The largest karst source in Macedonia is “Sveti Naum”, with variable capacity (by J. Cvijic – 1911) from 2 – 40 m3/s. A small number of karst springs exist on the East (Prespa) side of Galichica. There are 2 contact karst springs on Bigla Mountain, at “Krushje” locality, with summary amplitude of capacity (35-160 L/s).

11.12.1.3 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Vegetation varies from submerged aquatic formations and reed-beds to shrub lands of junipers and oaks, to forests of oak, beech, from mixed broadleaves to alpine grassland. From a phytocoenological perspective, the presence of the endemic plant community Lemneto-Spirodeletum polyrrhize aldrovandetosum is the most important. In total, there are 1,326 plant species in Prespa; 23 freshwater fish species; 11 amphibian species; 21 reptile species; more than 42 mammal species, among which are the brown bear, the wolf, the otter and the chamois; and over 260 species of birds. As well as providing a shelter for over 90 species of migratory birds, the Prespa lakes are also home to tens of species that have been officially registered as critically endangered or vulnerable. Among these is the Dalmatian Pelican, one of the largest flying birds in the world, which seeks secluded wetlands to build nests and to hatch chicks in what is its largest breeding colony worldwide. The most important fauna is the fish fauna, 80% of which are endemic species.

2.2.

CLIMATOLOGICAL AND HYDROLOGICAL MONITORING SYSTEM

Hydrological and meteorological surveillance monitoring has been conducted in accordance with the Law on Hydro-meteorological Affairs, the Law on Waters, and the Programme for the Protection of Ohrid, Prespa and Dojran Lakes. Meteorological/climatological network consist of 1 climatological station (Resen), 1 meteorological station (Pretor) and 7 rainfall measuring stations. The Resen Climatologic station was established in 1947 as a rainfall-measuring station and was in operation between 1980 and 1993. The Pretor Meteorological station was established in 1980 as a polygon for preventing hail, employing professionals to monitor meteorological parameters. Seven rainfall measuring stations are situated as follows: 5 in the coastal parts of Prespa Lake: Stenje, Carev Dvor, Perovo, Asamati, Nakolec, and 2 on higher altitude (Izbista and Brajcino). These rainfall-measuring stations register the condition of the pluviograph regime on the coastal part of Prespa Lake watershed and on the lake surface itself. No information is available for the highest parts of the watershed. As a result of identified insufficiencies in data content and coverage by existing monitoring programmes to accurately determine the watershed water balance, further development and improvement of the regional monitoring programme for Lake Prespa has been discussed amongst the riparian countries. Data from stations in Albania and Greece are useful for meteorological or hydrological calculations, in spite of the different systems and methodologies used. In addition, data from outflow stations and data from stations in the vicinity of Lake Ohrid and Crni Drim are important due to the interconnection of these waterbodies.


26

UNDP RFP 29/2015


TABLE 2 CLIMATOLOGICAL PARAMETERS – MS “PRETOR” (PERIOD 1991-2010)

Month Temperature T [oC] Precipitation P [mm] Air humidity H [%] Insolation SI [hours] Wind [m/s] Drought index - DI

Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May

Jun

Jul

Aug

Sep

Oct

Nov

Dec

1.8

2.4

5.5

9.6

14.7

18.7

21.3

21.1

16.5

40.0

52.2

41.0

52.9

40.1

26.6

24.7

23.4

72

67

63

63

64

62

57

112.2

130.1

176.6

173.3

329.6

275.2

1.4

1.7

1.9

1.7

1.2

40.8

50.5

31.7

32.5

Year

12.3

7.4

3.1

11.2

57.1

69.0

67.8

75.5

570.4

56

63

69

70

73

65

321.4

309.5

221.9

174.2

118.2

85.5

2427.6

1.3

1.4

1.4

1.6

1.3

1.4

1.4

1.5

19.5

11.1

9.5

9.0

25.9

37.2

46.8

69.1

26.9

May 61.24 67.81 69.16 50.40 54.06 68.63 67.09 40.11 59.8

Jun 33.07 36.24 41.75 30.55 34.06 41.79 36.79 26.58 35.1

Jul 30.96 34.88 32.29 28.84 25.56 41.14 26.33 25.96 30.7

TABLE 3 PRECIPITATION IN THE PRESPA REGION

Asamati Stenje Izbishta C. Dvor Nakolec Brajcino Resem Pretor Total

Jan 57.14 89.45 83.63 61.03 51.77 59.23 71.54 39.99 64.2

Feb 60.91 88.02 91.14 54.53 57.83 67.06 73.52 52.18 68.1

Mar 51.36 79.86 69.46 49.97 44.95 51.68 55.57 41.04 55.5

Apr 47.60 75.97 63.38 44.09 42.00 57.30 50.83 52.94 54.3

Aug 28.99 33.59 33.23 27.79 34.45 34.67 25.69 24.66 30.4

Sep 41.08 58.74 52.00 45.05 44.13 51.81 47.33 57.14 49.7

Oct 67.38 102.85 88.89 65.05 60.10 71.03 72.96 72.60 75.1

Nov 91.62 126.64 112.55 85.87 73.34 84.19 104.61 67.84 93.3

Dec 63.74 113.41 95.91 73.80 60.02 71.94 75.57 75.52 78.7

Year 625.01 873.68 821.89 611.51 571.77 684.30 707.82 570.37 683.3

For more reliable assessment of the lake water balance, the meteorological and the hydrological network need to be significantly improved.


27

UNDP RFP 29/2015


FIGURE 6 ISOHYETAL MAP

The specific orographic conditions that have an impact on the dynamic factors of the climate, together with the impact of geographical and local factors, create three different types of climate throughout the watershed: a warm and cold sub-Mediterranean climatic area (850-1,100 m asl); a sub-mountainous and mountainous sub-Mediterranean climatic area (1,100-1,650 m asl) and a sub-alpine and alpine climatic area (1,650-2,420 m asl). The annual average temperature is relatively low (T = 9.6 0C; Tmax = 37.00C 06.07.1988; Tmin = -26.5 0C -14.01.1968). The specific local warm continental climate is created by the relief, the altitude, the fluctuation of the water body of the Prespa Lake and the weak influence of the Mediterranean climate. The Macro and Micro Prespa Lakes are equipped by a total of 13 rainfall, noting that most of them are operational to date. Monthly rainfalls usually peak in November, while their low occurs during the summer months between June and July. From September up until November rainfalls increase significantly, while they oscillate around an elevated level between January and May. In general, the eastern and southern stations show values between 600 and 700 mm/a. In the North and in the West rainfalls are found between 700 and 930 mm/a. Taking in consideration that there is no gauge in high-mountainous region, according to the isohyetal maps created by the AHMA, mean annual rainfalls in this region could reach up to 1,050 mm. Values in table 3 show precipitations only in the lower part of the watershed. Taking in consideration that the precipitations in the mountainous regions are higher, based on a isohyet maps are defined the follow values.


28

UNDP RFP 29/2015


Mean monthly sum of precipitations [mm] 150 100 50 0

91,26 108,2 92,42 76,1 86,16 66,4 73,62 88,17 66,57 53,69 52,86 44,55

FIGURE 7 MEAN MONTH SUM OF PRECIPITATIONS ON PRESPA BASIN LEVEL

FIGURE 8 CLIMATOLOGICAL AND HYDROLOGICAL STATIONS

The hydrological monitoring system comprises of lake and river hydrological stations. Lake stations to measure water levels and water temperature were established in 1935 (Stenje), 1948 (Asamati) and 1954 (Nakolec). All of them are equipped with water measuring laths. Freelance monitors are in charge of the water level and water temperature monitoring. A large number of cessations in the continuity of these measuring stations have occurred, especially during the Second World War. Hydrological station "ASAMATI“ ceased operating in the arid period after 1990. River stations are located on the Golema (2) and Brajcinska (1) rivers. Hydrological station "Resen” has been established in 1947, but it has been working with long intermediate periods of cessation due to the major alterations of its riverbed. Providing unusable hydrological information, this station has ceased working at the end of the 80’s. Hydrological station "Leva Reka“ has been established in 1986 on the Leva Reka (tributary in the upper course of the Golema Reka) as an alternative to hydrological station "Resen“. Simultaneous flow measurements are been conducted on both locations. The station is equipped with a measuring lath only and a freelance monitor for daily monitoring of the water level. Hydrological station "BRAJCINO“


29

UNDP RFP 29/2015


has been established in 1964 in the village of Brajcino and it has been operating continuously ever since. An allocation of the station has been done in 1986, moving it upstream and installing an automatic instrument for water level registration - limnygraph.

Water level of the Large Prespa Lake shows significant oscillations. It reached its last height during a flood event in 1963 with 853.4 m asl, a level that corresponds to a lake surface of approx. 280 km². Since then the water level has decreased to actually approx. 844.65 m asl with the sharpest decline between 1986 and 1991. The lowest recent water levels were observed in summer 2002 with approx. 844.5 m asl. Lake Ohrid has a surface outflow to the Crni Drim River, which eventually drains into the Adriatic Sea. Since 1962 the outflows of the Ohrid Lake have been controlled in the town of Struga by means of a weir. Operation of this structure is governed by the needs of downstream hydropower facilities and the need to maintain the lake’s water level within accepted levels. According to the long-term measurements (1982-2001), the average outflow of the lake is Q = 21 m³/s.

FIGURE 9 WATER LEVEL OF THE MACRO PRESPA LAKE

Results from the rainfall runoff model for the 54-year period from 1951 to 2004 are summarised in the following table for the four sub-catchment areas. The depicted specific discharges reflect the hydrographic features of the respective catchment areas. The results for the Greek southern catchment have been confirmed by comparison with Greek modelling. The specific discharge relationships between the catchment areas can be taken as confirmed by the “CORINE Land Use Classification” that was carried out for purposes of this Study at the University of Skopje . From this analysis it can be interpreted that increasing and denser forest cover reduces specific discharges, if other parameters are kept constant. This is conformed by the general experience. 1

1

(Popovska et al, 2004)


30

UNDP RFP 29/2015


Catchment

Area

Mean annual runoff

Mean ann. specific discharge [l/s/km²]

Eastern Northern

[km²] 270.9 320.0

3.6 4.6

13.4 14.2

Western Southern

247.6 218.9

2.4 2.5

9.7 11.4

[m³/s]

FIGURE 10 SUB-CATCHMENT DELINEATION PER RUNOFF

2.3.

LAND-USE

With regard to land use, around 32% of the Macedonian part of the catchment area (including the lake area) is covered by forest, while agriculture comprises 27% of the area, of which 16% is cultivated. The remaining 41% consists of settlements, roads, and unused land (dominantly water area). Agriculture plays a significant role in terms of employment and economic sustainability. Land-use figures from the Prespa-Ohrid Spatial Plan correspond with the CORINE data. TABLE 4 LAND COVER/USE CLASSES (YEAR 2000) ACCORDING TO THE CORINE DELINEATION (SEE ALSO FIGURE 11.)

Code

CORINE – Class

112

Discontinuous urban fabric

121

ha

%

361.34

0.47

Industrial or commercial units

23.09

0.03

131

Mineral extraction sites

22.88

0.03

142

Sport and leisure facilities

23.83

0.03

211

Non-irrigated arable land

910.61

1.20

221

Vineyards

222

Complex cultivation patterns

222

Fruit trees and berry plantations

231

Pastures

243

Land principally occupied by agriculture, with significant areas of natural vegetation

2027.16

2.66

311

Broad-leaved forest

24828.8

32.61

312

Coniferous forest

619.19

0.81

313

Mixed forest

1716.77

2.25

321

Natural grasslands

5033.95

6.61

324

Transitional woodland-shrub

8102.53

10.64

331

Beaches, dunes, sands

85.82

0.11

411

Inland marshes

2485.83

3.27

512

Waterbodies

18258.3

23.98

35.81

0.05

9653.27

12.68

251.44

0.33

1693.68

2.22


31

UNDP RFP 29/2015


TABLE 5 LAND USE PATTERN (CADASTRAL CLASSIFICATION)2

1

Total area ha 2

ha 3

% 4

ha 5

% 6

ha 7

% 8

ha 9

% 10

Resen

73884

23625

32

8195

11

11932

16

30123

41

Municipality

Forests

Pastures

Cultivated land

Non-productive land

FIGURE 11 LAND COVER/USE (CORINE LEVEL III) AND DELINEATED APPLE STANDS

2.4.

SOCIO-ECONOMIC CONDITIONS

11.12.2 ECONOMIC DRIVERS AND INCOME Agriculture plays a significant role in terms of employment and economic sustainability. Currently, over 60% of the total population of the Municipality of Resen depends on agriculture, primarily on apple production. Cultivated land and pastures cover about 27% of total catchment of the Prespa Lake in Macedonia. The total area covered with apples is estimated to approximately 5,100 ha. About 86% of them (4,300 ha) are classified as productive apples, while the rest of them (800 ha) are young i.e. nonproductive orchards. Different sources provide different data. As most accurate data we are going to assume data obtained from Local Unit of Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Water Economy, according to which apple growing in Prespa region is as follows: TABLE 6 APPLE GROWING IN PRESPA REGION IN YEAR 2013

Structure total Structure of young orchards Area Mature orchards ha Area Young orchards ha Total (ha) 1 class in t 2

Total

Idared

100% 100% 4281 800 5081 49000

Mutsu

60%

Golden Delicious 12%

Jonagold

10%

Red Delicious 10%

30%

5%

Other

3%

Granny Smith 3%

25%

20%

1%

5%

14%

2450 580 317 385 45 100 2835 625 417 Expected yield for 2013 36000 4100 4000

337 190 527

141 105 246

101 90 191

55 105 160

4500

12000

1000

1600

SOURCE – PRESPA-OHRID SPATIAL PLAN


32

2%

UNDP RFP 29/2015


2 class in t For processing in t Total in tones

25000 12150 106150

8000 8000 52000

2800 2500 8400

3750 1000 5750

2000 1000 6500

650 250 1900

800 200 1750

150 100 850

Industries—including food, textiles, metal, paper, chemical and construction, and represented mostly by medium-sized enterprises—are the biggest contributor to the local GDP. There is presently no significant tourism industry. 11.12.3 DEMOGRAPHY AND HOUSING The population of the Macedonian part of the watershed belongs to a single municipality, the Municipality of Resen, comprising a total area of 739 km2, of which 177 km2 are lake area. There are 44 settlements, 43 rural and 1 urban (the town of Resen). Rural settlements are listed as follow: Arvati, Asamati, Bolno, Brajcino, Volkoderi, Gorna Bela Crkva, Gorno Dupeni, Grncari, Dolna Bela Crkva, Dolno Dupeni, Drmeni, Evla, Ezereni, Zlatari, Izbiste, Ilino, Jankovec, Kozjak, Konsko, Krani, Kriveni, Krusje, Kurbinovo, Lavci, Leva Reka, Leskoec, Ljubojno, Nakolec, Otesevo, Perovo, Petrino, Podmocani, Pokrvenik, Prelubje, Pretor, Rajca, Slivnica, Sopotsko, Stenje, Stipona, Carev Dvor, Strbovo and Surlenci.

FIGURE 12 SETTLEMENTS AND ROAD NETWORK

Only 39 of these are settlements are currently populated. The total number of inhabitants is 16,825, living in 4,848 households. Over the last 10 to 15 years there has been a decline in demography mostly due to local migration from the area. More than 5% of the total population of the Municipality of Resen is illiterate, while the figure for the City of Resen is 3.9 percent. Of the total population aged over 15 in the rural areas of Resen, two thirds have completed at least primary schooling, while 8.9 % have a university degree. Household connections to the water supply and to wastewater collection are mainly the responsibility of the ‘Proleter’ Public Utility Enterprise. All houses are equipped with water meters, though bulk metering is common. Metering and billing is performed on a monthly basis. Illegal connections are not a problem in the area. Almost all communities within the Golema Reka watershed (10 out of 13) are part of the regional Krusje – Resen – Sirhan water supply system. Only Leva Reka,


33

UNDP RFP 29/2015


Podmocani and Grncari are not connected to the central system, being managed and operated by the Proleter Public Utility Company. The system is quite old but it does provide safe drinking water to users. During the summer period, some higher zones in the system lack regular water supply due to the reduced capacity of wells.


34

UNDP RFP 29/2015


12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3. TYPOLOGY AND IDENTIFICATION OF WATER BODIES IN THE PRESPA LAKE WATERSHED


35

UNDP RFP 29/2015


3. TYPOLOGY AND IDENTIFICATION OF WATER BODIES IN THE PRESPA LAKE WATERSHED 3.1. GENERAL REMARKS This section of the plan summarizes the location, typology and delineation of the water bodies. The aim of typology is to assign the water bodies to groups having relatively uniform natural reference conditions. Characterization of water bodies used is according to System A (WFD, Annex II). The EU Water Framework Directive (WFD) covers all waters, including inland waters (surface water and groundwater) and transitional and coastal waters. The totality of waters is, for the purpose of the implementation of the directive, attributed to geographical or administrative units, in particular river basins, river basin districts, and the water bodies. The main purpose of identifying water bodies is to enable the status to be accurately described and compared to environmental objectives. The identification of water bodies is, first and foremost, based on geographical and hydrological determinants. However, the identification and subsequent classification of water bodies should provide for a sufficiently accurate description of this defined geographic area. In addition, the identification of water bodies should be an iterative process. Two systems can be used for the identification of the surface water bodies. 



The system “A” has fixed typology based on the following characteristics: Ecoregion, altitude, size and geology for rivers and altitude, depth, size (surface area) and geology for lakes Such system is better for river basins where most of the hydrological and environmental parameters are missing; and The system “B” is more complex and beside the obligatory parameters there is a set of optional parameters which can be used for proper identification of the water bodies.

However, if system B is used at least the same degree of differentiation should be achieved as would be achieved using system A. In general it is assumed that System A is the most straightforward and simplest to implement, while the System B provides greater flexibility in defining water body typologies. Both systems have disadvantages:  

System A – the classes established may not adequately partition the variability of the quality elements used, resulting in poor detection of ecological change; and System B – lack of many data for optional descriptors.

Water body typology has been done using system “A”. Additionally in the annex of the plan is attached ID card of each water body where all parameters necessary for system B typology are presented.

3.2. LOCATION, TYPOLOGY AND DELINEATION OF WATER BODIES 3.2.1 SURFACE WATERS "Body of surface water" means a discrete and significant element of surface water such as a lake, a reservoir, a stream, river or canal, part of a stream, river or canal, transitional water or a stretch of coastal water.


36

UNDP RFP 29/2015


Surface water categories

Surface water bodies

Lakes

S u r

Part of a lake

Rivers, streams, canals

Part of a river, stream, canal

Transitional waters

Part of transitional water

Coastal waters

Stretch of coastal water

Artificial Water bodies Heavily modified water bodies

FIGURE 13 SPLITTING OF SURFACE WATER CATEGORIES INTO SURFACE WATER BODIES

Delineation is carried out according to the rules presented in the following EU documents: - Guidance document n.o 2 -Identification of Water Bodies and - Guidance document n.o 4 - Identification and Designation of Heavily Modified and Artificial Water Bodies. The dominant streams in the Macedonian part of the sub-basin are: Istočka Reka, Golema Reka, Brajčinska Reka, Kranska Reka, and Kurbinska Reka. The watercourses in Prespa sub-basin are subdivided according to WFD suggested typology. In total, 16 watercourses have been identified as water bodies, out of which, 13 water bodies – rivers; 1 heavily modified water body and 2 artificial water bodies. The large number of waterbodies in a relatively small catchment gives the possibility to better assess the status and specifically propose possible remedy/managerial actions, as well as varying conditions and state along the watercourses (tributaries, status, natural and protection status, etc Istočka Reka was delineated in 3 water bodies, and all of them are classified as natural rivers. -

Istočka 1 is delineated as river water body from the source to the village Carev Dvor.

-

Istočka 2 water body encompasses the section from the village Carev Dvor up to the border of the protected area “Ezerani”.

-

Istočka 3 is separated as water body because it belongs to the protected area “Ezerani”.


37

UNDP RFP 29/2015


FIGURE 14 DELINEATED SURFACE WATER BODIES IN THE WATERSHED

Golema Reka has been divided into eight water bodies (GR 1-8). Five (5) of them are rivers (GR1-GR5); 1 is heavily modified water body (GR6), 2 are artificial water bodies (GR7-GR8). -

Golema Reka 1 represents Leva Reka (left spring area of the Golema Reka watershed).

-

Golema Reka 2 represents Krušje (right spring area of the Golema Reka watershed).

-

Golema Reka 3 represents the part from mouth of Krušje to Leva Reka up to the mouth of Češinska Reka.

-

Golema Reka 4 represents the left tributary Češinska Reka.

-

Golema Reka 5 represents the section between the mouths of Češinska Reka up to the beginning of the City of Resen.

-

Golema Reka 6 is heavily modified water body. It represents section where there is a regulation: concrete canal and other hydraulic structures.

-

Golema Reka 7 and Golema Reka 8 are delineated as artificial water bodies.

-

Golema Reka 8 is a part of the river that belongs to the protected area Ezerani.

Kurbinska Reka is delineated as a one water body. Kranska Reka has been divided in a two (2) water bodies and both belong to category – rivers. -

Kranska 1 represents the upper section up to the village of Asamati.

-

Kranska 2 represents the downstream part of the river i.e. from Asamati up to the mouth to the Prespa Lake.

Brajčinska Reka has been divided in a two (2) water bodies, both rivers.


38

UNDP RFP 29/2015


- Brajčinska 1 represents part of a river that belongs to the protected area “NP Pelister”. - Brajčinska 2 represents downstream section up to the mouth in the lake. The whole region of the Prespa Lake watershed belongs to the Eco-region 6 – Hellenic Western Balkan. All water bodies are located above 800 m a.s.l., in the mountain region (M). Watershed area of all water bodies is lower than 100 km2 and they are characterized as small (S). According to the petrography structure of the watersheds of each water body separately, 11 out of 13 water bodies consist of silicate rocks. Only in two water body watersheds (“Istočka 1” and “Golema 2”) there is slight presence of carbonates in a dominantly silicate petrography structure. Taking in a consideration all above mentioned characteristics, all water bodies – rivers are categorized in a one type - 1. Heavily modified water body is characterized as type 1h, but artificial water bodies belong to the type 1a. Surface water body types in Prespa watershed are presented in the following Tables. TABLE 7 TYPOLOGY OF SURFACE WATER BODIES - WATERCOURSES

Ecoregion

Name

Altitude

Size

Geology

Pfafstetter code

Code

Type 1

D741

D7411

SURFACE Water Bodies - RIVERS Istočka Reka 1

6

M

S

S

*

Istočka Reka 2 Istočka Reka 3

6 6

M M

S S

S S

1 1

D741

D7412

D741

D7413

Golema Reka 1

6

M

S

S

1

D97

D97

Golema Reka 2

6

M

S

S

1

D961

D961

Golema Reka 3 Golema Reka 4

6 6

M M

S S

S S

1 1

D95

D95

D941

D941

Golema Reka 5

6

M

S

S

1

Kurbinska Reka 1

6

M

S

S

1

D93 D822

D93 D822

Kranska Reka 1 Kranska Reka 2

6 6

M M

S S

S S

1 1

D824

D8241

D824

D8242

Brajčinska Reka 1

6

M

S

S

1

Brajčinska Reka 2

6

M

S

S

1

D827 D827

D8271 D8272

1h

D93

D931

*

SURFACE WATER BODIES – HEAVILY MODIFIED WB Golema Reka 6

6

M

S

S

SURFACE WATER BODIES – ARTIFICIAL WB M

S

1a

D93

D932

Golema Reka 8 6 M M *presence of carbonates in the geological structure

S

1a

D93

D933

Golema Reka 7

6

M

Prespa watershed includes two inter-linked lakes, the Micro Prespa and Macro Prespa, which together constitute an inner-mountainous basin that has no natural surface outflow. Drainage happens only through underground karstic conduits wherefrom water of the Macro Prespa Lake (approx. 845 m a.s.l) drains towards the west to the approximately 150 m lower Ohrid Lake. On its northern shore, in the town of Struga, the Ohrid Lake has a natural outlet into the Crni Drim River. The Micro Prespa Lake is


39

UNDP RFP 29/2015


shared between Greece and Albania, while the Macro Prespa Lake is shared between Albania, Macedonia and Greece. Ohrid Lake again, belongs partly to Macedonia and partly to Albania. Micro and Macro Prespa Lakes are connected by a small natural channel here referred to as the Isthmus of Koula. Macro Prespa Lake is delineated as a single water body. It is also a trans-boundary water body. Micro Prespa is a separate water body. According to WFD suggested typology, System A, Lake Prespa in Macedonia delineated as one single water body. TABLE 8 TYPOLOGY OF SURFACE WATER BODIES – LAKES - SYSTEM A

Name Eco-region Altitude Size Geology Depth Type

Hellenic Western Balkan 844,3 – 853,4 259,4 [>100 km2] Silicate / Carbonate 55 m [>15 m]

Lake Prespa 6 M L S/C 1L

3.2.2 Groundwater 28.1.1 Delineation of the groundwater basins was developed using a conceptual model, based on geological and hydro geological conditions. Delineated GW bodies in Prespa area are situated in 3 layers. Observation and numbering was done by adopting the stratigraphic principle. Additional delineation of GW bodies was was made according to permeability i.e. yield. Six (6) groundwater bodies were identified in Prespa region:

FIGURE 15 DELINEATED GROUNDWATER BODIEES IN THE PRESPA LAKE WATERSHED


40

UNDP RFP 29/2015


TABLE 9 DELINEATED GROUNDWATER RESOURCES IN THE PRESPA LAKE WATERSHED

NO.

GWB

SURFACE (km2)

STRATIGRAPHIC ELEMENT

1

GWB01201

68.08

Q [al + pr + j]

2 3

GWB01202 GWB01301

15.45 13.20

Q [al] Q [al]

4

GWB02201

118.03

Pl3

5

GWB03201

11.80

T2

6

GWB03301

96.73

T2

1,2 1,2

GEOLOGIC LAYER Youngest Quaternary sediments Upper Pliocene sediments Middle and Upper Triassic carbonate rocks

porous porous

CLASS OF WATER PERMEABILITY poor & moderate moderate high

porous

moderate

karstic

moderate

karstic

high

TYPE OF AQUIFER porous

Youngest Quaternary sediments are delineated in 3 (three) classes of water permeability (POOR, MODERATE and HIGH); Three GWB (identified by internal notation GWB01201, GWB01202 and GWB01301) were delineated from Youngest Quaternary sediments; -

One GWB (GWB02201) was delineated from Upper Pliocene sediments;

-

Two GWB (GWB03201and GWB03301) were delineated from Middle and Upper Triassic carbonate rocks;


41

UNDP RFP 29/2015


29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 4. PROTECTED AREAS and ZONES 45 46


42

UNDP RFP 29/2015


4. PROTECTED AREAS AND ZONES 4.1

BACKGROUND

Protected areas presented in this chapter are based on Law on Nature and Law on Water. According to the Law on Nature, protected areas are categorized following IUCN categorization as follow: Ia — Strict Nature Reserve, Ib — Wilderness Area, II — National Park, III — Natural Monument or Feature, IV — Habitat/Species Management Area, V — Protected Landscape/Seascape, VI – Protected Area with sustainable use of natural resources. The system of protected areas according to the Law on Nature and IUCN categorization consists of protected areas and areas proposed for protection. It was established for the protection of biodiversity within natural habitats, abiotic and landscape diversity. Protected areas include natural habitats, ecosystems, and natural geological and geographical formations characteristic of the territory. In accordance with the requirements of the Water Framework Directive and the associated national regulations related to water, have compiled Registers of Protected Areas (Water Protection Zones in national legislation). Under this legislation, are further required to maintain and update the register as needed. The protected areas are identified as those requiring special protection under existing national or European legislation, either to protect their surface water or groundwater, or to conserve habitats or species that directly depend on those waters. The register consists of an inventory of protected area sites representing the protected area categories outlined below: -

Waters used for the abstraction of drinking water

-

Areas designated to protect economically significant aquatic species

-

Recreational Waters

-

Nutrient Vulnerable areas

-

Urban Wastrewater Sensitive Areas

-

Areas designated for the protection of habitats or species (Bird and Habitat Directives)

Additionally delineation of Riparian zone is obligatory according to the national legislation.

4.2 NATURE PROTECTION Ohrid-Prespa Transboundary Biosphere Reserve is a UNESCO Biosphere Reserve encompassing the area of Lake Ohrid and Lake Prespa on Republic of Macedonia and Albania. The reserve was declared on 11 June 2014 and comprises a combination of water bodies and surrounding mountain reliefs, covering an area of 446,244.52 ha. The Ohrid-Prespa Transboundary Reserve includes various ecosystems ranging from the mountainous areas around the lakes, to the temperate sub-tropical forests found at lower altitudes around the water basins. The Ohrid-Prespa lake system is one of the larges in Europe of its kind. Both lakes possess exceptional value on an national and international level because of their geological and biological uniqueness. Prespa Lake, from 2002, is the first designated Ramsar Site in the country. The entire Prespa Region hosts unique habitats that are important from both European and global conservation perspective. It is considered to be an ecosystem of global significance and has been identified as one of Europe’s major trans-boundary “ecological bricks”. Currently, the following areas in MK Prespa region are under protection according to the national Law on Nature protection: National Parks (IUCN II);


43

UNDP RFP 29/2015


o

NP Pelister; and

o

National Park Galicica;

IUCN IV – Habitat/Species Management Area - Wetland Ezerani Pelister National Park covers an area of around 15 thousands ha on the Baba massif at altitudes between 900 and 2.601 m. A part of this area (5 thousand ha) is located in the Prespa Lake watershed. The National Park “Galičica” is situated on Mount Galicica that is part of the mountain range of SharaPind. The Park covers an area of around 23 km2 between the lakes Ohrid and Prespa, and it stretches in a meridian direction. Almost half of this area belongs to the Prespa Lake Watershed. The new management plan for the National Park Galicica has been prepared. There are three significant wetlands in the Golema Reka catchment: Krusje spring, a karst source for Golema Reka, three former fish ponds, and Ezerani, a natural lacustrine fringe wetland already designated as a ‘Strictly Protected Natural Reserve’ according to national legislation (now IUCN – IV). Their location, significance for biodiversity, conservation status and economic/social status are completely different.

46.1 46.2 46.3 46.4 46.5 46.6 46.7 46.8 FIGURE 16 MAP OF WETLANDS AROUND THE PRESPA LAKE


44

UNDP RFP 29/2015


4.3 WATER PROTECTION ZONES Presently, there are no areas designated: - For abstraction of water intended for human consumption; Primarily, karstic Spring Krusje has been already elaborated in a specific Study made by GTI in 2012, but also Studies on local WS systems like Kurbinovo-Pretor-Asamati and other intakes for villages in the region are to be elaborated, as well. - For the protection of economically significant aquatic species; - As recreational waters, including areas designated as bathing waters; Number of tourist facilities and recreational areas exist in Prespa region, especially around the Lake. Designation of bathing water areas and consequently, the appropriate management and monitoring would support re-development of tourism in the region. - As nitrate vulnerable areas; Analyses show that Lake Prespa is suffering from accelerated eutrophication, which puts it in a category sensitive to Nitrates, as defined in the new LoW. Concentrations of Nitrates in watercourses seems within given guidelines, in spite of increased input in agriculture (more than set 210 kg/ha). However, the Lake is eutrophic and has to be protected. Sources of Nitrogen are from agriculture, the poultry farm, illegal dumps of organic matter and, seemingly, discharged treated wastewater from WWTP Ezerani without tertiary treatment. Preliminary Assessment suggests proclamation of the entire Prespa region as Nitrate-sensitive area. - As water bodies sensitive to urban waste waters. According to the present LoW and the preliminary monitoring results there are 8 waterbodies sensitive to discharge of urban wastewater are: Lake Prespa, Istocka 2 and 3, Golema Reka 6, 7 and 8, Brajcinska Reka 2 and finally, Kranska Reka 2 (in tourist season). These water bodies (except for Kranska 1 and Brajcinska 1) do experience deteriorated conditions and need action. - Areas of protected natural heritage Besides Lake Prespa (already under protection) due to important rare, relict and endemic species and habitats, and PA Ezerani, there are several smaller wetlands and habitats identified near Stenje, Ezerani, Krani and Nakolec. - Riparian zones In the LoW of 2008, as well as in previous water laws, the riparian protection zones for watercourses and lakes are clearly defined. However, it has never been implemented properly, leading to deterioration and misuse of protection buffer zones. Within the PLWMP – 2010, a proposal for proclamation of additional protection zones has been elaborated. The proposed (and existing) protection zones are presented in the figure below:


45

UNDP RFP 29/2015


FIGURE 17 EXISTING AND NEWLY PROPOSED PROTECTION ZONES


46

UNDP RFP 29/2015


47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59

5. PRESSURES


47

UNDP RFP 29/2015


5. PRESSURES 5.1 PRESSURES ON WATER QUALITY The pressures on the water bodies are both natural and anthropogenic in origin. The pressures are on quantity and quality of the water too. The pressures encompass input of pollutants, for example nutrients and hazardous substances, and physical pressures on the water bodies, for example agriculture in the river corridor, drainage, watercourse maintenance and abstraction. Input of pollutants takes place via both water and the soil from diffuse sources (e.g. nutrient leaching from farmland) and point sources (e.g. wastewater discharges from households and industry, emissions from industry and agriculture and leaching from disused landfills).

5.1.1

POINT SOURCE POLLUTION

Wastewater pressure on the water bodies derives from wastewater treatment plant Ezerani, storm water outfalls from separate and combined sewerage systems and from sparsely built-up areas and industry. The pressure on the water bodies is primarily attributable to the wastewater content of organic matter (BOD5), nitrogen, phosphorus, hazardous substances, heavy metals and pathogenic bacteria and viruses.

5.1.1.1 HOUSEHOLDS In accordance with the most recent census (2002) the Municipality of Resen includes 16,825 inhabitants living in 44 locations. In addition there are several tourist centers creating additional pressure on the sewage network and water bodies, especially in the summer period: Hotel Pretor, Pretor (around 254 guests in seasonal average); Hotel Kitka, Resen (around 40 guests in seasonal average); Auto camp Krani, Krani (around 3.298 guest in seasonal average); Private accommodation in villages (around 375 guests in seasonal average): Brajcino, D.Dupeni, Pretor, Slivnica, Ljubojno and Stenje.


48

UNDP RFP 29/2015


FIGURE 18 SOURCES OF POLLUTION IN PRESPA WATERSHED


49

UNDP RFP 29/2015


TABLE 10 CALCULATIONS FOR 20.792 PEOPLE (INCLUDING TOURISTS), BASED ON AVERAGE LOAD PER PERSON

Parameter Inhabitant

Unit Value person 20.792 l/d*People Qwater per capita Equivalent 150 BOD5 g/PE*d 60 COD g/PE*d 110 TSS g/PE*d 70 N (as TKN) g/PE*d 8,8 P g/PE*d 1,8 Calculation for Wastewater Quantity and Quality: Flow (Q)=(People*Qper 3 capita)/1000 m /d 3.118,8 3 m /year 1.138.362 BOD5 kg/d 1.247,5 kg/year 455.344,8 mg/l 400 COD kg/d 2.287,1 kg/year 834.798,8 mg/l 733,3 TSS kg/d 1.455,4 kg/year 531.235,6 mg/l 466,7 N kg/d 183 kg/year 66.783,9 mg/l 58,7

According to these calculations, current load from household sewage (without wastewater treatment) plays significant role in the pollution of water bodies. Wastewater collection system exists in Resen covering 95% of population/households and some of the surrounding villages (Jankovec 40%, Ezerani 95%, Carev Dvor 95%). The WW system in Resen is planned to be separate, however only 25% of stormwater network has been completed. Sewage network is burdened with high quantities of rainwater during rainfall. Number of SMEs in urban areas is also connected to the system.

Wastewater Treatment Plant “Ezerani” has been constructed near Ezerani village, 7 km south from Resen for treatment of sewage WW. The process at the WWTP in Ezerani is P kg/d 37,4 an activated sludge with a subsequent kg/year 13.660,3 aerobic sludge treatment. While the treated mg/l 12 effluent is being directed into two maturation ponds in series, the stabilized sludge is directly diverted into the sludge drying beds. Design capacity of the WWTP is 12000 PE. Inflow of large quantities of rainwater in wet periods hamper the operation of the plant. Apart from the existing WWTP in Resen a number of treatment facilities have been constructed in the Prespa watershed area. However, few of the existing facilities are operational and, the facilities had been in duty only for a short time after construction. An exception is the WWTP in the tourist area of Otesevo. There exists a small WWTP in the village of Nakolec (not covering upstream villages of Brajcino and Ljubojno).

5.1.1.2

INDUSTRY

Industrial installations in Macedonia are subject to Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control (IPPC system harmonized with EU Directive), adopted with the Law of Environment (Official gazette of R.M n. 53/05, 81/05 and 24/07) and specifically described in the chapter XII and XIV and the Decree for determining the activities of the installations for which the integrated environmental permission is issued. Adjustment permit with the operative plan and time schedule for submitting the application for adjustment permit with the operative plan (Official gazette of RM n. 89/05) are described in detail in the regulations. Macedonian IPPC system is characteristic for its two-level approach. UNDP has provided support to the municipal authorities, the industry installations, and other interested stakeholders in the Municipality of Resen to introduce and comply with the integrated pollution prevention and control requirements, through delivery of hands-on trainings and preparation of training materials.


50

UNDP RFP 29/2015


Major installations require a so-called IPPC A Permit issued by the MoEPP. In Prespa watershed there are three such installations which require an A Permit for adjustment with operating plan: 1. 2. 3.

A.D Algreta - Aluminium and zinc foundry (capacity 10t/day); CD Fruit Ltd., Carev Dvor village, Resen – production of juices and juice concentrates (capacity 70 t/day; Swisslion Agroplod Ltd. Resen – food industry (production 40.48 t/day).

Within the jurisdiction of the Municipality of Resen there are installations which require a so-called IPPC B Permit. Among those, Swisslion Agrar – poultry farm (over 40,000 egg-laying hens) and Hamzali, Resen – production of ceramics, production of 69 t/day can be mentioned as example. On the Macedonian side of Prespa Lake there are several mid-size enterprises from eight industrial branches: food processing, poultry farming, textile, metal processing, wood processing, civil construction, ceramics and chemical industry. These are: -

Food and Juices (DOO Swisslion Agroplod & CD Fruit – Carev Dvor, Vita Fruit Ltd.); Textile (DOO Hatex, DOO Krznoteks, DOO Tekstilprom); Chemical Industry (Ohis Prespa Plast AD & Delatask); Metal Processing (AD Algreta),- civil constructions (AD IGM Sloga); Poultry farm (Swisslion Agrar); Ceramics Tiles Production (Hamzali – Nova Sloga); and Wood Processing (DOO Interbrauk). Small scale installations are required to prepare an Elaborate for environmental protection. In the previous period, the Municipality of Resen has identified all installations within its jurisdiction, and has issued three B Permits already. Implementation of IPPC and EIA progresses on local level, with generous support of UNDP and other donor organizations/projects. This is expected to result in investments in phased pollution reduction. The plans for the forthcoming period are to complete the issuance of IPPC B Permits in the Municipality and then focus on compliance monitoring. Based on available data & documentation, as well as measurements conducted in this assignment, an overall point source pollution from major industrial plants can be estimated: TABLE 11 CALCULATION OF VARIOUS POLLUTANTS PER SOURCE OF POLLUTION

Indicator:

pH value Total suspended solids TSS (mg/L) BOD5 (mg/L) COD (mg/L) Nitrates NO3 (mg/L) Nitirites NO2 (mg/L) NH4 (mg/L)

SwissLion (Agroplod) doo (5.11.2008) 3rd point (biscuitsnapolitana) 6,5

SwissLion (Agroplod) doo (5.11.2008) 2nd point (resana cakes) 6,5

SwissLion (Agroplod) doo (5.11.2008) 1st point (coffee & peanuts) 8,7

CD Frut, Carev Dvor (28.11.2008) Recipient Bolsnica river

MDK ( II class waters)*

6,54

6,2

6,5- 6,3

25

30

25

29

53

10 – 30

162

4,5

6,6

7,3

7.7

5,3

2–4

31,4

341

372

341

18.4

9

2,5 – 5

1.081

3

50

3

0,4

1,3

15

57,7

0

0

0

0

0,3

0,5

0,3

0,4

0,150

0

0,19

0,1

0,02

0,84

Algreta AD Resen (14.10.2009) Recipient Golema River


51

Total:

UNDP RFP 29/2015

FINAL REPORT UPDATE OF PRESPA LAKE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN SwissLion (Agroplod) doo (5.11.2008) 3rd point (biscuitsnapolitana)

SwissLion (Agroplod) doo (5.11.2008) 2nd point (resana cakes)

SwissLion (Agroplod) doo (5.11.2008) 1st point (coffee & peanuts)

Algreta AD Resen (14.10.2009) Recipient Golema River

CD Frut, Carev Dvor (28.11.2008) Recipient Bolsnica river

MDK ( II class waters)*

Fe (mg/L)

/

/

/

>1

0,25

0,3

1,25

Mn (mg/L)

/

/

/

0,315

0,3

0,05

0,615

Al (mg/L)

/

/

/

0,009

/

1-1,5

0,009

Cd (mg/L) Cl2 (mg/L)

/

/

/

/

0,0005

0,0001

0,0005

14,9

17,7

82,2

/

0,0025

0,002

114,8

Cr total (mg/L) Cu (mg/L)

/

/

/

/

0,038

0,05

0,038

/

/

/

/

0,012

0,01

0,012

Ni (mg/L)

/

/

/

/

0,035

0,05

0,035

Zn (mg/L)

/

/

/

/

0,075

0,1

0,075

20 /

10 /

20 /

393 /

/ /

0,5-1 0,2 -0,32

443

385

290

580

/

146

500

1.401

/

/

/

/

/

10 – 25

240.000

240.000

240.000

/

/

5 – 50

Indicator:

Turbidity (NTU) Total N (mg/L) TDS (mg/L) in: surface waters, ground waters Total P (mg/L) Eutrophication Indicators – Most probable number of thermo-tolerant coli form bacteria No/100 ml

Total:

240.000

Note: According to Regulation for Classification of Water (Official Gazette of the Republic of Macedonia No. 18-99)

In order to estimate the overall loads, in addition to values above, estimations of loads for poultry farming, ceramics, textile and wood industries have been taken into consideration. In absence of measurements, the discharge emissions/loads of these other industries have been estimated from literature and guidelines. Poultry farm typical emissions to wastewater include: ammonia, uric acid, magnesium, sulphates, total nitrogen (N) and total phosphorus (P), as well as small concentrations of heavy metals (Cu, Cr, Fe, Mn, Ni, Zn, Cd, Hg and Pb). Using this emission factors, total releases of NH3 from manure in “SwissLion Agrar” poultry farm are: 13,600 kg/year. Some 720 mg/L of the total nitrogen and total phosphorus concentrations of 100 mg/L are released on average per year. The BOD levels are reported to be 1,000 – 5,000 mg/l. Process wastewater is a major source of pollutants from textile industries. It is typically alkaline and has high BOD, from 700 to 2,000 milligrams per litre, and high chemical oxygen demand (COD), at approximately 2 to 5 times the BOD level. The wastewater also contains chromium, solids, oil, and possibly toxic organics, including phenols from dyeing and finishing and halogenated organics from processes such as bleaching. Dye wastewaters are frequently highly colour and may contain heavy metals such as copper and chromium. Wool processing may release bacteria and other pathogens as well. Pesticides are sometimes used for the preservation of natural fibres, and these are transferred to


52

UNDP RFP 29/2015


wastewaters during washing and scouring operations. Pesticides are used for mothproofing, brominated flame retardants are used for synthetic fabrics, and isocyanides are used for lamination.

5.1.1.3.

SUMMARY OF WASTEWATER LOADS

59.1.1.1 F ROM D OMESTIC WASTEWATER ( HOUSEHOLD SEWAGE ) Total load estimation based on pressure from 20.792 people (without WWT): BOD5 around 455 tonnes/year; COD around 835 tonnes/year; Total suspended Solids around 531 tonnes/year; Nitrogen around 67 tonnes/year; Phosphorous around 14 tonnes/year. Only 55% of the villages and settlements are connected to a proper domestic wastewater disposal system.

59.1.2 59.1.3 INDUSTRIAL POLLUTION On the Macedonian side of Prespa Lake there are several SMEs (Small and Medium Scaled Enterprises). Impacts include ammonium, nitrates, phosphorus, aluminium, very high concentrations of Cl2, high BOD5 and COD concentrations, increased number of thermo-tolerant coli form bacteria, increase in heavy metals pollution (Fe, Zn, Cr, Cd), very high turbidity, phenols, benzene, halogenated organics, illegal pesticides in high quantities, brominated flame retardants, isocyanides used for lamination, oils and grease. Both “SwissLion Agroplod” and “CD Fruit Carev Dvor” are planning to have their small WWTP operational in the near future, but currently they are discharging effluents directly to the water bodies (no pre-treatment). Industrial wastewater in the town of Resen is estimated to 69,350 m3/year. Total annual amount of wastewater from CD Fruit is around 9,000 m3. There is also a pressure from agriculture activities, and from sparsely build-up areas and storm water outflows that do not have their own infrastructure.

59.1.4 IDENTIFICATION OF PRIORITY SUBSTANCES Out of the proposed priority substances for the surveillance and operational monitoring purposes (Directive 2008/105/EC), the comprehensive analyses performed so far in Prespa Lake watershed cover: Chlorinated aromatic hydrocarbons; Poly-aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs); Poly-chlorinated biphenyls (PCBs); Organophosphate pesticides; Phenols; Phthalates; and Organochlorine pesticides. A total of 18 priority substances were detected for the first time in rivers in the area:


53

UNDP RFP 29/2015


-

Bis (2-Ethylhexyl) phthalate was present in almost all samples. The highest values recorded in Golema and Brajcinska Rivers;

-

Dibutilphthalate was also found in all river water bodies, except Kurbinska River, but in slightly lower concentrations;

-

Organ chlorine pesticides were recorded in different concentrations and dominance;

-

Gama-HCH (Lindale), Alpha HCH, and Alpha Endosulfan were the most commonly present; but with very high values for Heptachlor in Golema Reka 6 and especially in Kranska Reka.

5.1.2

DIFFUSE POLLUTION (PRESSURE FROM AGRICULTURE ACTIVITIES)

.1.2.1

PRESSURE FROM CROP PRODUCTION

Agricultural production affects terrestrial natural habitats and the aquatic environment in several ways. Crop cultivation results in the loss of nitrogen, phosphorus, etc. The use and handling of fertilizers and pesticides can cause environmental problems. Agricultural activities enhanced physical pressure on the water bodies, especially on the watercourses and wetlands, as well as enhanced nutrient loading of Prespa lakes due to reduced natural turnover of the nutrients that leach from the fields. Types and quantity of fertilizers used is based on information from the Union of Agricultural Associations and the local AES office. In general fertilization of apples/ fruits is performed in 3 phases: Phase I: Autumn Basic Fertilization with complex NPK (4:7:28) fertilizer in amount of 500 to 700 kg per hectare (kg/ha); Phase II: Early Spring Fertilizing with complex NPK (15:15:15) in amount 400 to 600 kg/ha; and Phase III: Late Spring Fertilization with usage of nitrate fertilizer such as ammonium nitrate in amount of 300 to 400 kg/ha. Some farmers apply fertilizers only twice a year. Use of organic fertilizers is very rare. Based on these data, the total annual quantity of fertilizers used for apple production in the Golema Reka river basin (for 1.200 ha) equals roughly 1.900 tons. There is no information on fertilizer used for other crop types. However, other crop types are insignificant in relation to apple growing and this trend is expected to continue. TABLE 12 PRACTICE OF FERTILIZATION IN PRIVATE ORCHARDS IN THE PRESPA REGION

System of Fertilization and Period Basic autumn fertilization Early spring fertilization Late spring fertilization Total

Fertilizer Type

Quantity (kg/ha)

NPK 4:7:28 NPK 15:15:15 NH4NO3 34 %

700 500 400 1600

Active substances (kg/ha) N 28 75 136 239

P2O5 49 75 0,0 124

K2O 196 75 0,0 271

The spatial distribution of fertilizers and pesticides load varies in the catchment, depending on the agricultural land (orchards) available. In Table 13, the load per identified waterbody (watercourse stretch) and river, as well as overall for Lake Prespa is presented.


54

UNDP RFP 29/2015


TABLE 13 FERTILIZERS AND PESTICIDES USE PER WATER BODY AND PER SUB-CATCHMENTS [IN KG] Water body or Subcatchment

Apple area

Input of N

Input of P2O5

Input of K2O [kg]

Total input of fertilizers

Input of fungicide

Input of herbicide

Input of insecticide and acaricides

Total input of pesticide

[ha]

[kg]

[kg]

[kg]

[kg]

[kg]

[kg]

[kg]

[kg]

Istočka Reka 1 Istočka Reka 2

309,5

73970,1

38377,8

83874

196221,9

402,5

96197,7

49910,1

109077,7

Istočka Reka 3 Golema Reka 1

45,1

10773,3

5589,5

12215,7

22

5267,3

2732,8

5972,5

Golema Reka 2 Golema Reka 3 Golema Reka 4 Golema Reka 5

3095

257,2

1808,8

5161

255185,5

4025

334,5

2352,3

6711,8

28578,5

450,8

37,5

263,4

751,7

13972,6

220,4

18,3

128,8

367,5

14,1

3360,1

1743,3

3810

8913,4

140,6

11,7

82,2

234,4

135,1

32288,9

16752,4

36612,1

85653,4

1351

112,3

789,5

2252,8

45,6

10909,9

5660,4

12370,7

28941

456,5

37,9

266,8

761,2

260,4

62244

32294

70577,9

165115,9

2604,4

216,5

1522

4342,8

Golema Reka 6 Golema Reka 7

116,8

27911

14481

31648,1

74040,1

1167,8

97,1

682,5

1947,4

935,6

223597,1

116008,5

253534,8

593140,4

9355,5

777,6

5467,5

15600,6

Golema Reka 8 Kurbinska Reka

49,9

11936,9

6193,2

13535,1

31665,2

499,5

41,5

291,9

832,9

16,8

4007,1

2079

4543,6

10629,7

167,7

13,9

98

279,6

Kranska Reka 1 Kranska Reka 2 Brajčinska Reka 1 Brajčinska Reka 2 Galičica with Prespa Lake Istočka RekaGolema Reka Golema - Kurbinska Kurbinska - Kranska Kranska - Brajčinska Brajčinska – Markova noga Total

4

952,8

494,3

1080,3

2527,4

39,9

3,3

23,3

66,5

110,5

26412,8

13703,7

29949,3

70065,8

1105,1

91,9

645,9

1842,9

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

83,2

19883,5

10316,1

22545,8

52745,4

831,9

69,1

486,2

1387,3

757,6

181067,9

93943,2

205311,3

480322,4

7576,1

629,7

4427,6

12633,3

9,3

2233,2

1158,7

2532,3

5924,2

93,4

7,8

54,6

155,8

194,5

46488,5

24119,5

52712,9

123320,9

1945,1

161,7

1136,8

3243,6

166,7

39837,9

20669

45171,9

105678,8

1666,9

138,5

974,1

2779,5

72,5

17330,5

8991,6

19651

45973,1

725,1

60,3

423,8

1209,2

98,2

23479,5

12181,8

26623,2

62284,5

982,4

81,7

574,1

1638,2

3850

920150

477400

1043350

2440900

38500

3200

22500

64200

In total around 920 tonnes of nitrogen is applied each season. It is practically impossible to determine to what extent farmers in the region overuse fertilizers. Based on information found in publications, some of the more important general characteristics for the soil types found in the region are that mechanical content of all types with high percentage is sandy and with dominance of grit fractions, which means that the soil types are permeable for water and dissolved mineral matters. Therefore, water from precipitation and/or irrigation can exert a strong impact on the dilution of nitrogen forms from the fertilizers and other materials, which can finally by underground leaching or surface runoff and reach the river basin. Nitrogen is especially a big problem for water pollution because it is in water soluble form and readily moves with water. Leaching of nitrogen from soil is a consequence of (a) the presence of nitrogen dissolved in the soil water and (b) downward movement of soil water after excess of precipitation. In total around 477 tons of phosphorous is used/applied. As a result of widely accepted perception for low fertility of the soil with available phosphorous, a lot of P-fertilizers are used. Examples have been reported that farmers who have analysed soil samples in various soil-testing laboratories in the country


55

UNDP RFP 29/2015


have been advised not to apply certain nutrients – in particular P and K – for a period of 3 to 4 years in order to reach the required balance. Yet again, this cannot be taken as a general rule for the entire region, since there are farmers who due to limited finances do not use high quantities of fertilizers. Even though there are significant proofs of overuse of phosphorous and it should be assumed as one of the major risks for pollution and eutrophication of the water from agricultural sources. More than 1.000 tons of potassium oxide is applied. The project on promoting of environmental friendly agricultural practices promoted the fertilization based on soil testing and most of the farmers in Prespa region use the services of soil testing laboratories. Moreover the project promoted fertigation. These techniques adjust application of fertilizers based on crop requirement. Using fertigation farmers split fertilizer application in quite a few applications of small amounts in the root zone. Only part of the area is fertilized, less fertilizer are used and the most important there is not application of significant amount of fertilizer that crop cannot use in due time and can be leached/eroded and transported to the water body. According the survey on adaptation of the environmentally friendly practices we can say that almost 10% of the farmers use some form of fertigation. We can estimate that due to activities in promoting fertigation about 10% lower amount of fertilizers is transported from agricultural areas into the water bodies in Prespa Lake catchment.

FIGURE 19 INPUT OF PESTICIDES AND FERTILIZERS PER WATER BODY

There are no exact data available regarding the amount of pesticides used. As in the case with fertilizers, individual producers either purchase pesticides from private agriculture stores or import them from the neighbouring countries – Albania, Greece and Bulgaria. The branch office of MAFWE, which is the institution responsible for control of agricultural stores, does not have information on quantities of pesticides sold by the stores. The table below represents rough data on the use of


56

UNDP RFP 29/2015


pesticides, calculated based on average quantities of pesticides used for one hectare of apple orchards and wheat production fields. TABLE 14 USE OF PESTICIDES IN PRESPA REGION

Pesticide type Fungicides Herbicides Insecticides Total

.1.2.2

Quantity (tons) 38,5 3,2 22,5 64,2

% of total

In total it is estimated that around 64 tonnes of pesticides are used each year. It is obvious that much lower amount of pesticides is used in comparison with fertilizer use.

60 % 5% 35 % 100 %

SOLID BIODEGRADABLE AGRICULTURAL WASTE

Due to the inappropriate current solid waste management system in the Municipality of Resen, including Golema Reka, as well as the low public awareness, significant quantities of mainly organic (waste apples and yard waste), and partly hazardous (pesticide packaging) solid waste generated by the agricultural activity is being disposed of in the environment. This inappropriately disposed waste has considerable negative impact on the surface and ground waters and soil, and especially on the Golema Reka water eco-system, hence influencing the Prespa Lake ecosystem. UNDP in the last period conducted several activities to decrease the pressure of the agriculture on soil and particularly aquatic ecosystems. The system for predicting risk of the crop diseases is operational and about 60% of the farmers are aware of this system. About 83% of the farmers aware of the existence of this system use it and follow recommendations delivered by the system. In average about 50% of the farmers use the system for spraying recommendations and reduced their number of spraying by half. Our assumption is that by using this system farmers reduced use of the pesticides in Prespa area by 25%, what significantly decreased the pressure of pollution of the waters with pesticides as well as decreased the risk of having the pesticide residues of the apples produced in the region.

.1.2.3 PRESSURE FROM ANIMAL HUSBANDRY 59.1.5 The number of livestock in Resen area was collected from Livestock Register (System for registration of domestic animals) for municipality of Resen. The data was provided from the Local Unit of The Ministry for Agriculture, Forestry and Water Economy. The other source was data from the Agricultural Census (2007). The data from Agricultural census in 2007 are available only on municipality level and used for calculation of production of nutrients for livestock. The numbers for Livestock register are considered as official numbers on number of livestock in the country and should be quite close to the reality because this register is used for subsidies. The common practice of breeding of Sheep’s and Goats is that during the winter animals are kept in the protected area (shelter) close to the village. During the late spring to early autumn (May-September) animals are transported to the pasture site (Pelister and Galicica mountains). It is known as “nomadic system” in the country. Due to small number of heads it is predicted that heard are small and that big part of the animals are kept close to the village during the summer and some meadows and abounded land is used as pasture during the summer months. (It is not feasible to transport animals and to pay shepherd cost for small heard).


57

UNDP RFP 29/2015


The common system for breeding cows is that each cow is connected with its calf (known as cow-calf system in the country). The calf is later used for meat and cow is regularly milked for milk production. The usual way is that cows are kept in the protected areas (barns) during the winter. During the summer, each day the cows are feed on the local pastures (meadows or abounded land). Early evening cows are back in the barns. The care about cows during the day time while on the pasture usually is provided by children or elderly persons that are not considered as labor force for other farm activities. In some cases people from one village organize themselves and each day different cow-owner is taking care about cows on the pasture site. 1. Sheep and goats estimated to about 7000 heads (registered in the system for registration of domestic animals) (table xx) 2. There are registered 450 heads (registered in the system for registration of domestic animals) (table xx) 3. The number of pigs is 9l4 (Agricultural census, 2007) 4. The number of horses is 30 (Agriculturl census 2007) 5. The number of chicken is 10411 (Agricultural census)

TABLE 15 TOTAL NUMBER OF LIVESTOCK IN RESEN MUNICIPALITY AND PRODUCTION OF NUTRIENTS IN ANIMAL EXCRETA IN T/YEAR3

N (t/year) P (t/year) K (t/year) Total

Cow 26.5 4.9 29.6 449

Sheep 73.2 16.8 84.9 6480

Goat 6.6 1.5 8.3 490

Pig 10.2 1.8 4.6 924

Horse 2.0 0.4 1.5 30

Chicken 7.3 1.9 1.6 10411

Total 125.8 27.4 130.5

The contribution of the nutrients from animal excreta to the total nutrient load from agricultural production (crop and livestock production) is 12% of the nitrogen, 5.5 % of the phosphorous and 11.5% of the potassium. The highest portion of the nutrient load from livestock is coming from sheep production (58% of the nitrogen, 61% of the phosphorous and 65% of the potassium). Even though livestock production at municipality level seems as very important, it is variably distributed in space; following tables present the number of livestock and nutrient production by inhabited place (village). TABLE 16 NUMBER OF SHEEP AND GOATS AND PRODUCTION OF NUTRIENTS IN RESEN MUNICIPALITY BY INHABITED PLACE IN 2015

Place Krani Arvati Shtrbovo D. Dupeni Podmochani Grnchari 3

Number of sheep

N t/year

P t/year

K t/year

Number of Goats

N t/year

P t/year

K t/year

2000

22.60

5.20

26.20

150.00

2.03

0.47

2.54

900

10.17

2.34

11.79

60.00

0.81

0.19

1.01

600

6.78

1.56

7.86

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

200 300

2.26 3.39

0.52 0.78

2.62 3.93

0.00 50.00

0.00 0.68

0.00 0.16

0.00 0.85

450

5.09

1.17

5.90

80.00

1.08

0.25

1.35

The calculation of the production of nutrients by animal excreta was according the recommendation of the OECD Secretariat (1997) and

presented by Sheldrick at all (2003) in the paper Contribution of livestock excreta to nutrient balances, published in the Journal Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems, vol 66, no.2.


55

UNDP RFP 29/2015


Kozjak Drmeni Lavci Oteshevo Resen Jankovec Krushje Total

300

3.39

0.78

3.93

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

250

2.83

0.65

3.28

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

400

4.52

1.04

5.24

50.00

0.68

0.16

0.85

300

3.39

0.78

3.93

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

200

2.26

0.52

2.62

100.00

1.35

0.31

1.69

280

3.16

0.73

3.67

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

300

3.39

0.78

3.93

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

6480

73.22

16.85

84.89

490.00

6.62

1.52

8.28

Source: Livestock Register, 2015

TABLE 17 NUMBER OF COWS AND PRODUCTION OF THE NUTRIENTS IN RESEN MUNICIPALITY BY INHABITED PLACE IN 2015

Krani Arvati Shtrbovo Resen Sopotsko

50 15 8 35 35

N t/year 2.95 0.89 0.47 2.07 2.07

Gorno Dupeni

55

3.25

0.61

3.63

Stenje Ljubojno

60 40

3.54 2.36

0.66 0.44

3.96 2.64

Podmochani

11

0.65

0.12

0.73

Grnchari

29

1.71

0.32

1.91

Dolno Dupeni

5

0.30

0.06

0.33

Nakolec Evla

3 8

0.18 0.47

0.03 0.09

0.20 0.53

Gorna Bela Crkva

12

0.71

0.13

0.79

Carev Dvor

11

0.65

0.12

0.73

Dolna Bela Crkva

4

0.24

0.04

0.26

9 8 14 8 9 6 14 449

0.53 0.47 0.83 0.47 0.53 0.35 0.83 26.49

0.10 0.09 0.15 0.09 0.10 0.07 0.15 4.94

0.59 0.53 0.92 0.53 0.59 0.40 0.92 29.63

Place

Number of Heads

Asamati Kriveni Zlatari Krushje Jankovec Bolno Leskoec Total Source: Livestock Register, 2015

P t/year 0.55 0.17 0.09 0.39 0.39

K t/year 3.30 0.99 0.53 2.31 2.31


56

UNDP RFP 29/2015


According data presented in these tables it is clear that livestock is dispersed all over the territory of the catchment and do not present serious risk for pollution of the waters, with one exemption. Almost half of the sheep are located in two neighboring villages (Krani and Arvati) and there is certain risk of pollution if animals are kept in big bulk located close to any water body. The additional investigation of the situation is required. The additional risk of the water pollution from livestock production is big chicken hen farm that operate in the region (Agroplod). The farm is bigger than 20,000 hens and by positive legislation it is under the process of Integrated Licenses for environment protection, stressing that it must not pollute the environment with its operation. Anyhow, this is not a diffuse source of pollution.

.1.2.4

SUMMARY OF DIFFUSE POLLUTION

In summary, Prespa Lake watershed is and has been for considerable time under significant pollution pressure stemming from uncontrolled use of various pesticides, and components for industrial production. Even the uphill mountain rivers, which in principle should not be impacted, are also under obvious pressure. These results point out that the surface water bodies in Prespa Lake watershed have been and still are subjected to intensive pressure coming from agriculture and point source of pollution. By comparing the obtained results on priority substances for the river water bodies and Prespa Lake sampling sites interesting correlations could be formulated. Substances detected in high concentrations in the rivers, like Bis (2-Ethylhexyl) phthalate or gamma-HCH (Lindane) remain high in the lake’s waters as well. Others though, that were not recorded in very high concentrations in rivers like Dibutilphthalate or Heptachlor, show much higher concentrations in the lake, while PCB’s tend to disappear from the lake’s waters. These findings enlighten the very complicated and unpredictable pathways the detected priority substances have in the Prespa Lake ecosystem and point to the fundamental necessity to monitor and reveal their final destiny and impact they pose to ecosystem, biota and human health.

5.2. ESTIMATION OF PRESSURES ON THE QUANTITATIVE STATUS OF WATER INCLUDING ABSTRACTION The analysis of the water balance shows that the Prespa Lake has experienced a significant drop in water level over the sixty years. The water balance simulations (see Annex 2 TR2) show that wet years led to a rapid increase in the water level, while a series of dry years caused the opposite. These facts have to be taken into account, where certain activities have to be restricted in those shoreline zones, to minimise the effects in the shallow shoreline zones. Lake Prespa has been used as a source of water for both irrigation and municipal water supply since late 1950s. Two pumping stations, one in Asamati and the other in Sirhan, have been used to supply irrigation systems on the eastern and western shores of Lake Prespa in the Macedonian territory. The designed average water extraction amount for Lake Prespa is calculated as 3.200 ha x 4.300 m³/ha, or 13.76 million m3 per year. Adding the requirement of 0.35 million m3 for water supply, the total extraction amounts to around 14 million m3 per year . 4

4

According to Sherdenkovski (2000).


57

UNDP RFP 29/2015


FIGURE 20 WATER OBJECTS IN THE PRESPA LAKE WATERSHED

59.1.6 5.2.1. WATER SUPPLY The town of Resen and some of the villages on the northern shore of Lake Prespa are connected to a central potable water supply system. Their populations add up to about 13,600, out of approximately 16,800 total inhabitants within the entire Macedonian part of the catchment area (2004 census). The water distribution network is gravity fed via water from springs located near Krusje village. Additionally, groundwater from two wells near Carev Dvor can be used to supplement the capacity of the distribution network depending on potable water demand and the availability of sufficient spring water. The second one is the local system Kurbinovo - Pretor - Asamati, supplying three villages with 500 inhabitants. The rest of 16 villages inhabited with about 4,000 residents are equipped with their own separate WS systems. The water supply system covering the above mentioned villages and the town is managed by the communal enterprise “Proleter”. Villages Leva Reka, Podmočani and Grnčari are not connected to the central system i.e. supplied by their own systems, but also managed and operated by the PE “Proleter”. Concurrent investigations estimated industrial demand of 700 m³/day and domestic consumption of 110 L/day/capita. Experience with unfavorable hydrological conditions of the last few summers shows deficiency of about 30 L/sec. The main pipeline is if 11 km long, and the secondary lines are 15 km long. Although built at the beginning of 1980s they still stay in good condition, but the inner-city water supply network happens to be old and obsolete, yet providing a safe drinking water to the users. It has been built through the 1960s when the city was much smaller. All houses are equipped with water meters, but bulk metering is common practice. Metering and billing is performed on a monthly basis. Illegal connections are not a


58

UNDP RFP 29/2015


problem in the area, but wanton damaging of water meters causes difficulties. About 10% of the water meters do not work. Applying these estimated figures, the total net consumption was 0.9 million m3 in 2009. Therefore, it appears that 53% of the gross production was lost to deficiencies within the distribution system, so must be considered as uncounted consumption.

5.2.2

IRRIGATION WATER DEMAND

Due to local unfavourable economic conditions since the beginning of the 1990s, by 2004, the irrigated agricultural surface in Macedonian Prespa has decreased to approximately 700 ha. Nevertheless, annual irrigation water demand remains high (about 7 to 10 million m3). In addition, there are an increasing number of water wells being drilled especially in the catchments of Golema and Istočka Reka. The quantity of water they abstract cannot be accurately estimated due to a lack of data. Currently, newly constructed wells/irrigation systems are primarily being utilized by individuals for drip irrigation (especially in apple orchards). In Micro Prespa watershed irrigation systems are used on approximately 1.100 ha of agricultural surface around Agios Germanos. The quantities pumped are in an order of approximately 7 million m3 per year. In addition, until 2001, Albania also used to extract water from Micro Prespa. Presumably, these abstractions were balanced by comparable inflows from the Devoli River. According to Sherdenkovski (2000), up to 35 million m3 per year were withdrawn from Micro Prespa during operation of the pumping system. Over the years the capacity of the system steadily decreased due to sedimentation and other technical problems. Ultimately, only 4 million m 3 could have been extracted in 2000, the last year the system was operational. Continuous readings of the amount of water abstracted from the lakes are not available. An examination of available data concerning quantity extracted compared to the total annual water balance shows that water losses during the critical years are two to six times higher than suggested by the conservative abstraction values presented above. Within the Macedonian Part of Lake Prespa, the “Prespansko Pole” Irrigation System was constructed in the late 1950s. At the present time, Lake Prespa, its tributaries, and the groundwater reserves are all used as water resources for irrigation purposes. Although the area of relatively intensive agriculture accounts for only about 4.5% of the total catchment area, it should be noted that many fields are located next to the lakeshore or in areas with a high groundwater table; this favours seepage of nutrients into both the lake and the groundwater. The Prespansko Irrigation System is divided into three sub-systems. All three sub-systems urgently need rehabilitation / reconstruction in order to reduce conveyance losses and increase overall irrigation efficiency (PROWA 2002). The irrigation system in Macedonian Prespa operated seasonally (from June 15-September 15), with a design capacity of 1.8 m3/s or 15,552,000 m3/year, now significantly decreased due to severe deterioration. The irrigation systems in Greece and Albania use water from the catchment of Micro Prespa Lake. Together, the water quantity used for irrigation by all three countries has been estimated in late 1990s in a rank of or 88.98% of total water use. Of this amount, estimates indicated the following breakdown: lake water (83.22%), groundwater (10.9%), river water (4.98%), and spring water (1.71%). Currently, wells combined with drip irrigation systems have become the predominant method of irrigation in the region due to the unreliability of the channel irrigation systems. Some 8.000 to 10.000 wells have been drilled covering area estimated at least 3.000 ha. Hence, the share of groundwater used in the region has significantly increased in the last few decades. Besides wells, a number of irrigation water intakes exist in rivers in the watershed. Some use the remnants of the old irrigation scheme, but a significant number is completely new, unregulated and out of control of water authorities, with low efficiency and high water losses.


59

UNDP RFP 29/2015


These new developments in irrigation seriously jeopardize lake and groundwater quality. The reason is use of water in the dry summer period of low recharge of both surface and groundwater and low water level in the lake. Depletion of the lake water in critical summer period, in conjunction with high temperatures promote algal and cyanobacterial growth.

59.1.7 IRRIGATION The major irrigated crop in Prespa area is apple. Source of irrigation water is: 1. Water from the rivers (13% of the farmers use river water) 2. Ground water / boreholes and wells (86% of farmers use groundwater) 3. Lake water and other sources (1% of the farmers use lake water and other sources) There is different data of actually irrigated area in the region. According meeting with water communities (in 2011) total irrigated area in Prespa is 2500 ha (300 from irrigation scheme and 2200 from rivers and wells). According meeting with local unit of MAFWE the assumption is that almost all apple orchards are irrigated. There is about 5100 ha of apple orchards. According this about 4500 ha is irrigated. This data seem to be closer to the reality, because non irrigated apples are with lower quality and their market value is lower, so farmers are doing their best to supply irrigation water on their fields.

59.1.7.1.1

IRRIGATION TECHNIQUES

Irrigation techniques that are in use are drip irrigation and furrow irrigation. About 96% of irrigated apple is under drip irrigation.

59.1.7.1.2

COMMON IRRIGATION PRACTICE

Common irrigation practice is over-irrigation. In case of drip irrigation farmers use 2 drippers of 6-8 L/h per tree. The orchards are set up with density of 1,000 tress/hectare (semi vigorous rootstock M106), so discharge is 12,000 – 16,000 L/h/ha. Duration of irrigation is 4 – 7 days (96-168 hours). During that period minimum of water application per hectare is 1,152 – 2,688 m3/ha). This amount of water applied in limited soil volume creates deep percolation of the irrigation water into the ground water, having in mind that most of the soils are with light texture and low water holding capacity. Number of applications is 4-8. According this minimum use of the water per irrigation of one hectare of apple orchard is 4,600 m3/ha and maximum is 21,404 m3/ha. We try to derive average of these numbers in order to make assumption of irrigation amount used per one season. Consideration is that drippers will drip not more than 6 L/h (bad design, clogging, etc.) and in average there will be 6 applications with 5 days duration. In these condition farmers apply about 8,649 m3/ha. This number is far above irrigation water requirement for apples in Resen of average 3,500-4,000 m3/ha calculated by FAO CROPWAT software. This is serious potential for polluting of ground waters with agrochemicals, especially nitrates. 59.1.7.1.3 I RRIGATION SCHEME P RESPANSKO P OLE There is existing irrigation scheme in Resen area is out of operation for a longer period and no farmers use it.

59.1.7.1.4

WATER COMMUNITIES

By positive legislation the water communities are abolished and responsibility for irrigation in Prespa Region is transferred to the Joint Stock Company Vodostopanstvo, Branch Office “Crn Drim”.


60

UNDP RFP 29/2015


59.1.7.1.5

IRRIGATION FROM GROUND WATER

Major source of irrigation water is ground water by wells with various depths. There is not information on the number of the wells and extraction of ground water for irrigation purposes, so the rough assumption was done during the interview with Local Unit of Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Water Economy. The assumption was done based on area under apples and data that almost all apples are irrigated. Out of 5,100 ha about 4386 ha (86%) are irrigated by ground water and 1,118 ha (13%) are irrigated from rivers). Each plot is equipped with well. The average size of the plot is assumed on 0.5 ha (2 plots per hectare). For 4,300 ha number of wells can be as high as 8,000 wells. We can make assumption that majority of farmers have more than 1 plot (and probably use same well for 2 plots). So the estimation is that about 5,000 wells are operational in Prespa area. Even though this is very rough estimation it may be close to reality. Additional survey should be done in order to justify this approximation. The wells are equipped with pumps. Most of the farmers use electricity for running their pumps (86%) and 14% are using fuel pump. About 57% of the farmers locate their pump on the surface and 43% use submergible pump. Most common discharge of the pumps is 60-90 L/min, with electrical motors of 1-1.5 kW. One pump of 90 L/min can supply water for 900 drippers (0.45 ha or 450 trees with 2 drippers per tree) with discharge of 6 L/hour, so there will be hardly enough water for 0.5 ha of apple orchard, even though with no losses calculated. If electricity is not supplied, farmers are using petrol powered pumps with discharge of 600 L/min. Supplied pressure is 2.6 bars. The Honda or Chinese copy of same Honda model are most popular, due to low fuel consumption. The other choice is Tomos pump with 300 L/min. These pumps can supply enough water and enough pressure for average plot size of 0.3 ha.

IRRIGATION FROM RIVERS There is no way how to make assumption of area irrigated trough intake of water from the rivers in the region. This practice is common for all rivers in the region. The real approximation can be done after development of land use of the region and assuming next to the river orchards as irrigated by river water. This is serious problem and correct estimation should be done, not only for water balancing, but also for further work on ground water directive and nitrate directive. The only one small irrigation scheme use regulated river intake from the Kranska River. This is the Small Irrigation System “Krani” operated by the former Water community “A2-Dolna Prespa” that cover about villages Krani and Arvati with potentially irrigated area of 200 ha and about 110 water users.

5.2.3 IRRIGATION WATER REQUIREMENT FOR PRESPA REGION 59.1.8 OBJECTIVES AND APPLIED METHODS The main purpose of this part is to determinate the irrigation water requirements for the current structure of crops in Prespa region. The calculation of the irrigation water requirement, for a period of 20 years, according to data available to the Department for Water Management and Erosion from the Faculty of Agricultural Sciences and Food at the University "Ss. Cyril and Methodius", Skopje and climate data provided by National Hydro-meteorological Service of the Republic of Macedonia. The meteorological station for Pretor is used as a base for determining the crop water requirements for Prespa region in this study; because the closer stations (Resen meteorological station) have


61

UNDP RFP 29/2015


extremely large cuts in measurements that can’t provide the opportunity to complete the time series, especially in last two decades. Therefore, the results for crop and irrigation water requirements from Pretor meteorological station will be compared with results reported by Cukaliev (2002) from Agricultural Part of Draft Technical Report for Rehabilitation of Prespansko Pole Irrigation System, Component 1. The main source data for calculation of crop and irrigation water requirements are:    

Average temperature or maximal and minimal temperature Air humidity Sunshine hours Wind speed.

The irrigation water requirement was determined using FAO 56 methodology. The crop water requirement was determined through the referent evapotranspiration, calculated by the Penman Monteith method, using FAO software CROPWAT 8.0 for Windows, with crop coefficient (kc) and stage length adjusted for local condition, prepared by the Department for Water Management and Erosion within the Faculty of Agricultural Sciences and Food at the University "Ss. Cyril and Methodius", Skopje. Also, effective rainfalls were used in the calculation of Irrigation water requirements (IWR).

59.1.9 IRRIGATION WATER REQUIREMENT (IWR) FOR CURRENT CROP SITUATION IN PRESPA REGION The current cropping pattern for estimation of the irrigation water requirement was derived from the statistical data presented in State Statistical Office. The crop coefficients, stage duration for each crop and other parameters used in crop water requirement calculation were adjusted to the local conditions and according to the experimental data for crop water requirement obtained from the Department for water management and erosion at the Faculty of Agricultural Sciences and Food in Skopje. In following table we present results for irrigation water requirements for Pretor meteorological station. The calculation in our investigation was done by FAO software CROPWAT 8.0 for Windows. The total irrigation water requirement is almost 25 million m3. About 76% of this water or about 19 million m3 are required to irrigate major crop in the area, apple orchards. There is obvious discrepancy between amounts of water used for irrigation of apple in common practice and recommended irrigation amount calculated by FAO 56 methodology. The apple orchard needs about 3,650 m3/ha of water in average year while farmers apply minimum of 4,600 m3/ha and go as high as 20 thousands m3/ha TABLE 18 WATER REQUIREMENTS OF DIFFERENT CROP CULTURES

Net IWR in mm / season Winter Wheat Barley Ray Alfalfa + Clover Fruits (apples) Cabbage

194.2 120.7 120.7 426.1 365 244

Harvested area Net IWR in m3 in in ha season for whole area 757.2 203.8 30.8 174.6 5160.5 60.2

% of the total water requirement

1470482.4 245986.6 37175.6 743970.6 18835825 146888


62

5.9 1.0 0.2 3.0 76.1 0.6

UNDP RFP 29/2015


Maize Grape Tobacco Pepper Tomato Cucumber Potatoes Beans Pea Onion Garlic Total

349 328.4 274.8 442.5 406.5 441.4 353.2 291.4 171.4 235.4 212.3

125.8 145.2 7 130.8 65 1 237.6 136.2 14.8 73.4 18.6 7,342.5

439042 476836.8 19236 578790 264225 4414 839203.2 396886.8 25367.2 172783.6 39487.8 24,736,601

1.8 1.9 0.1 2.3 1.1 0.0 3.4 1.6 0.1 0.7 0.2 100.0

It was well known that farmers usually over-irrigate their fields and due to this the UNDP for a longer period undertake activities to promote irrigation scheduling based on the crop water requirement and soil moisture monitoring in Prespa area. These activities resulted with important achievements in saving of irrigation water. So, using of proper irrigation scheduling can result with significant saving of water and reducing the pressure on ground water bodies and reducing transport of agro-pollutants with the excess of irrigation water. The results of saving the water for irrigation achieved in the UNDP activities in the region are presented below. TABLE 19 DIFFERENCES IN BASE SITUATION AND ACHIEVED AMMOUNT OF WATER USE

Reference situation New situation water for irrigation water for mm irrigation mm Avg. Max. Min.

865 2140 864

New situation in % of reference situation

357 690 209

41.3 32.3 24.2

Even though we find slightly increased application rate and irrigation depth during the transferring of know how in irrigation scheduling to the farmers in Prespa area, we can be very proud of achievements in comparison with base case. In average we reduced seasonal use of water for irrigation for almost 60%. The maximal application of the water is reduced for almost 70%. If we consider this reduction we achieved in water saving, we can say that for irrigation of 3800 ha of apple orchards in Prespa area farmers used in average 32.9 million m3 of water for base case. More than 80% of this amount is extracted from ground water. The new situation hypothetically will require only 13.5 million m3, so there is potential to save almost 20 million m3 of water if all apple growers will adapt this technology for irrigation scheduling. The summary of the achievement in the irrigation scheduling activities is: 

Most of the farmers expressed their opinion that finally they understand behavior of the water in the soil and were interested in more advanced technology for irrigation scheduling.


63

UNDP RFP 29/2015




The farmers tend to apply higher application rate and they probably have a feeling that any amount of water is not enough.



Big number of applications is difficult for management and farmers do not achieved required number of applications.



The participating farmers achieved reduction in irrigation water saving of about 60% in average.



The potential for water saving is significant and about 20 million m3 of water per year can be saved in the region if all apple growers starts with using the proposed technology for irrigation scheduling.



It was obvious that farmers can not easily follow recommendation on scientific based irrigation scheduling and further improvement of the system is required with development of the cheaper system that will be affordable for most of the farmers in the region and development of automation that will autonomously start and stop irrigation.

Finally we can recommend using the irrigation scheduling system in the region and achieve significant water saving.

5.3.

ANALYSIS OF OTHER IMPACT OF HUMAN ACTIVITY ON THE WATER STATUS

Due to the vicinity to the Prespa Lake, one of the three great natural lakes in Macedonia protected by law, the Municipality of Resen has basic infrastructure for wastewater collection and treatment. However, the wastewater system does not fully cover all wastewater generated along the Golema Reka basin. Only 80% of the city is connected to sewers, with the industrial part being left out. Only the upper part of the Jankovec (40 to 50 %) is connected by gravity to the Resen sewer network, while the lower part closer to the river remains to be connected in the future. Due to lack of resources and incentives, many communities in the close vicinity to the main sewer were not connected to it (Gorna and Dolna Bela Crkva, Kozjak, Podmočani and Grnčari). In the late eighties the municipality of Resen has launched a program to improve the wastewater situation in the town. This program consists of a wastewater collection network and construction of a wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) in Ezerani. A feasibility study conducted in 1988 has first introduced the idea of extending the collection network into the western and eastern direction providing a central treatment plant in Ezerani whereto the wastewater is being transported presently. It underwent several rehabilitations, which were intended to replace the obsolete technical units and improve its treatment efficiency, thus reducing the operational costs and positively influencing the effluent quality. The process at the WWTP in Ezerani is an activated sludge with a subsequent aerobic sludge treatment. While the treated effluent is being directed into two maturation ponds in series, the stabilized sludge is directly diverted into the sludge drying beds. Apart from the existing WWTP in Resen (Ezerani) a number of treatment facilities have been constructed in the Prespa watershed area reflecting a particular interest for the requirements for the sensitive environment in the region. However, few of the existing facilities are operational and, the facilities had been in duty only for a short time after construction. This situation exacerbates the possibility of point-source pollution.


64

UNDP RFP 29/2015


An exception is the WWTP near the Institute for prevention, treatment and rehabilitation of nonspecific, chronic, respiratory and allergic diseases in the tourist area of Otesevo. A small WWTP exists in the village of Nakolec (not covering upstream villages of Brajcino and Ljubojno). However, this WWTP is still not in operation. Just as like the public WSS, JKP Proleter is responsible for operation and maintenance of sewage collection and treatment. It invoices annually around 300.000 m3 for waste water collection and treatment being (by JKP Proleter authorities) three times less than the real annual quantity. Their analysis show that the price should be increased three times in order to be able to reach its realization to break even point with included depreciation. Sand and gravel is exploited around the mouth of the Golema River into the Prespa Lake. It is considered as illegal activity due to the fact that it takes place within the protected Ezerani Natural Reserve (ENR). Sand and gravel are exploited in other parts of the catchment. Permitting for these activities seems to be a problem, as well as monitoring and inspection. Agricultural activities in the in the vicinity of all watercourses in the region take place within the natural river corridor, preventing thereby establishment of necessary buffer zone as proscribed by the positive regulations.

5.4

HARMFUL IMPACT OF WATER 5.4.1 FLOODS

Several types of floods have been recorded in the area.  The most frequent is snow melting in combination with high river water level, which appears in the lower parts of the major watercourses. They are recorded as snow from Baba and Plakenska mountains melts. The most affected areas are the Brajčinska and Golema Rivers in Macedonia. High underground water level is customary for the spring period, particularly for Resen field when interaction of surface and underground water creating ponds in above areas is noticeable. Flows of the Brajčinska and Golema Rivers bigger than 15 m3/s contribute to this condition.  Floods of bigger rivers appear when river flows are larger than 40 m3/s. Three floods of this type have been recorded over the past century, the most noticeable ones being in 1942, 1962 and 1979. The watershed of the Golema Reka River produced the largest flooded area; downstream of Resen, all the way to it’s mouth into the lake. The Brajcinska River has a bigger destructive power, rolling massive blocks from Baba Mountain, and unlike the Golema River, which brings more eroded material. The maximum water flows of the Brajcinska River (Qmax = 45.7 m3/s), and the Golema River (36.7 m3/s) were recorded in November 1962 flood.  Lake water entering inhabited places and agricultural land floods took place in the past century, in 1942/43 and 1963, flooding the villages of Nakolec, Asamati, Ezerani, Perovo and large areas of agricultural land. The lake level reached its highest value of 851.93 m a.s.l. (Macedonian levels).The most important recorded floods happened on: November 1962, November 1963, and November 1979.


65

UNDP RFP 29/2015


 Flooding of micro-locations was prevalent in the past periods when there were more hills that were bare. The high-intensity short-term rains used to activate dry ravines very fast, bringing huge quantities of eroded material and effusing in the villages and agricultural land. The best-known torrent watercourses are situated on the eastern coast (the Dolno Dupenska River, the Podmočanska/Avatska River, etc.). There is no any flood management plan in the country. Comparative analyses of flood by modeling within 2 projects (COWi on national scale, PointPro on a level of 2 river basins) lead to same conclusion: significant potential for floods exist in the Prespa sub-basin.

FIGURE 21 FLOOD PRONE AREAS IN THE WHOLE WATERSHED (COWI REPORT) AND AREAS FLOODED BY ISTOCKA AND GOLEMA REKA (POINT PRO)


66

UNDP RFP 29/2015


5.4.2

EROSION AND TORRENTS

Documentation related to erosion and torrents, shows that hazards of torrent and erosion damages have been happening and causing problems even before the 1960’s, thus making the authorities in the late 50’s and early 60’s to undertake preparation of appropriate documentation (final designs and studies), and further to implement some related construction works on torrents. Considering Prespa Lake, the average annual erosion coefficient of the watershed is in total of Z = 0.33. The following Figure 10 presents erosion risk distribution per categories (where category I is the highest risk and category; V is the lowest risk). Large part of the watershed (69%) is classified as low erosion risk (III, IV and V), but almost 13% of the watershed belong to the highest I and II risk categories and erosion control actions are to be set as a priority in these parts of the watershed. The most erosive catchmnets are: Ajdra Bair, Kopac, Kutliste , Metok, Istočka Reka, Brajčinska Reka, Zlatarska Reka etc. Torrent and erosion control structures (barrages, cascades, retention ditches, contour trenches, forestation etc.) are multifunctional. Apart from their main role - erosion control, they control the direction and rate of flow and contribute to reducing of the pick of discharge and flash flood hazards. These erosion and torrent control measures and structures have been implemented in the following catchments: Brajčinska Reka, Suica, Slivnička Reka, Metok, Kopac, Podmočanska Reka, Gorica, Zadgorica, Strasen Dol, Dlaboko Doliste, Dunica, Kozjak, Golema Reka, Bolnska Reka, Istočka Reka and Evlanska Reka.

FIGURE 22 SOIL EROSION RISK MAP OF PRESPA LAKE WATERSHED

Additional analyse was done on agricultural land. According to the Law on agricultural land, ploughing of land on slope over 15% is prohibited.


67

UNDP RFP 29/2015


Agricultural land and slope

Irregular placement of orchards regarding the slope

FIGURE 23 AGRICULTURAL LAND AND SLOPE IN GOLEMA REKA, KRANSKA REKA AND BRAJCINSKA REKA

Part of agricultural land is located on slopes over 15% even over 30%. Irregular ploughing and irregular setup of orchards (downstream instead of contour) can be noticed everywhere. These parcels are significantly prone to erosion and washing up of chemicals used in agriculture. It is a source of diffuse pollution. Reason for this is shape and placement of the parcels.


68

UNDP RFP 29/2015


5.5 WATER BALANCE 5.5.1 KEY ISSUES ABOUT WATER BALANCE AND THE IMPORTANCE IN WATER MANAGEMENT PLANS The water balance evaluation gives an overall picture of the influence of the pressures towards the water quantity in the area of interest. In the previous period neither systematic data collecting, nor new hydrological modeling was carried out in the in order to really update the inputs or the existing models. Hence, the data will be extracted from the most relevant resources, the first Prespa Lake Watershed Management Pla of 2010, based on the KfW Feasibility Study (2004) and the “Hydrogeological Study for the Lake Prespa Watershed (2014)” developed by the Civil Engineering Faculty, Skopje.

5.5.2

DATA, RESOURCES AND ASSUMPTIONS

The data in both studies study are relatively up-to-date, regarding the availability of the monitored data, or delivering information from 1950’s until 2010. TABLE 20 AVAILABLE DATA, HG STUDY, C. POPOVSKA

Topographic Digital elevation model, DEM (30x30 m) Land use CORINE Land cover Climatic-meteorological Data Precipitation

Temperature Wind speed Relative humidity Sunshine duration

Water levels

Station

Period

Asamati Stenje Izbishta Carev Dvor

1951-1991 1951-2004 1951-2004 1951-2004

Nakolec

1951-2004

Brajchino Resen Pretor Resen Pretor Resen Pretor Resen Pretor Resen Pretor Hydrological Stenje

1951-2004 1952-1993 1991-2010 1952-1993 1991-2010 1952-1990 1991-2010 1952-1988 1991-2010 1952-1988 1991-2010

Missing periods

1991-1995 1991-1993 1997-2002

1951-2010


69

UNDP RFP 29/2015


5.5.3

ANALYSIS OF THE AVAILABLE DATA (COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS)

Data from the both models is presented. The difference in results stems from the slightly different approach in the RAINFALL –RUNOFF data modeling, the estimation of the drainage into the Ohrid Lake and the selection of dry-wet periods in the analyses. TABLE 21 WATER BALANCE SUMMARY RESULTS, HG STUDY(2014)

WB Component

MCM

Inflow water from precipitation

1245.60

Outflow water due to evaporation from free water surface Outflow water due to evapotranspiration in the watershed

247.38 612.87

Outflow water through karstic underground

97.41

Used water for water supply

2.5

Used water for irrigation

35.37 204.72

Water storage change (inflow-outflow)

FIGURE 24 MONTHLY AVERAGED WATER BALANCES TROUGH THE PERIOD 1951-2010, HG STUDY (2014)


70

UNDP RFP 29/2015


FIGURE 25 CALCULATED INFLOW IN THE LAKE PRESPA

TABLE 22 SUMMARISED RESULTS OF WATER BALANCE FOR THE PRESPA LAKE, PERIOD 1976 – 2008 , "THE DRY PERIOD"

TABLE 23 SUMMARISED RESULTS OF WATER BALANCE FOR THE PRESPA LAKE, PERIOD 1951 – 1975, THE "WET PERIOD”

The results and conclusions of the two studies difer: Hg Study suggests that there is enough water in the region, whereas the Prespa Lake Water Management Plan of 2010 suggests shortage of water. The results from the both studies can be used to facilitate water bodies status analyses and hence, identify measures in the PoM.

59.1.10


71

UNDP RFP 29/2015


5.5.4

WATER BALANCE AND EFLOWS

In most cases the use of water resources are restricted to the available water in the basin, therefore the Eflows defined in the EC guidance 31 can be directly supported with the water balance modeling or with some of its deliverable parameters. The Eflows should meet the ecological, economic and social requirements and accordingly different parameters have to be extracted from the water balance modeling.

5.5.5

COMMENTS, RECOMMENDATIONS AND SUGGESTED MEASURES

There are several conclusions that can be drawn from the results water balkance exercises of the two Studies:  New more comprehensive study for calculating the total outflow volume to Ohrid Lake and its impact to the overall water balance of the sub-catchment is needed.  Improvement of meteorological and hydrological monitoring is needed on natural watercourses, as well as improvement of the assessment and control of water withdrawals and abstractions in the sub-basin.  Better collaboration and data and information exchange is needed among the countries sharing the lakes, in order to improve thedata inputs into the existing water balance models.  New comprehensive study of the sub-basin water balance is needed, including improved rainfallrunoff model, data from the three riparian countries, and study of the environmental flows, with development of climate change and developmental scenarios.


72

UNDP RFP 29/2015


6.

MONITORING SYSTEM FOR PRESPA LAKE SUB-BASIN

60


73

UNDP RFP 29/2015


6.

MONITORING SYSTEM FOR PRESPA LAKE SUB-BASIN

Monitoring is essential and crucial activity for the implementation of river basin management plans. It is important for water quality detection, classification of a water body status, detection of pressures and their significance in the watershed, development of system of measures, implementation success of the measures and the overall water quality improvement It is therefore obvious that implementation of a proper monitoring system based on WFD principles (standards) is an ultimate basis for every activity proposed and executed in the frame of plans. As this chapter is dedicated to monitoring of surface and ground waters under WFD, or the performance of the activities related to following measures from the Programme of Measures in the Prespa Lake Water Management Plan 2010 in the past six years’ period: Measure 12. Implementation of WFD monitoring for Lake Prespa Measure 19. Designate and monitor recreational areas Measure 31. Introduce effective eutrophication strategies Measure 33. Establish trans-boundary monitoring program The basic principles of the WFD monitoring system are briefly discussed in Annex yy. There also the results of the overall monitoring of the PLWMP in the past six years are analysed. The final conclusions and recommendations are included as measeures in the final updated program of measures. Monitoring requirements for the Directive5 Article 8 of the Directive establishes the requirements for the monitoring of surface water status, groundwater status and protected areas. Monitoring programs are required to establish a coherent and comprehensive overview of water status within each river basin district. Annex V indicates that monitoring information from surface waters is required. The objective of monitoring is to establish a coherent and comprehensive overview of water status within each River Basin District and must permit the classification of all surface water bodies into one of five classes and groundwater into one of two classes. Reporting according to WFD is clearly determined with a goal to follow the changes in the status of water bodies. In order to achieve the comprehensive overall ecological status and potential of the surface water bodies, Annex V of the Directive introduces three types of monitoring6 for surface waters: surveillance, operational and investigative monitoring. The Directive also specifies quality elements for the classification of ecological status that include hydromorphological elements supporting the biological elements and chemical and physicochemical elements supporting the biological elements (Figure 29). .

5

o

CIS for the WFD – Guidance document N 7 - Monitoring under the Water Framework Directive, 2003. In the context of the Directive monitoring means the gathering of data and information on the status of water, and does not include the direct measurement of emissions and discharges to water. 6


74

UNDP RFP 29/2015


FIGURE 26 COMPONENTS OF THE STATUS OF SURFACE WATER BODIES

Supporting means that the values of the physic-chemical and hydromorphological quality elements are such as to support a biological community of a certain ecological status, as this recognizes the fact that biological communities are products of their physical and chemical environment. The latter 2 aspects fundamentally determine the type of water body and habitat, and hence the type-specific biological community. It is not intended that these supporting elements can be used as surrogates for the biological elements in surveillance and operational monitoring. The monitoring or assessment of the physical and physicochemical quality elements will support the interpretation assessment and classification of the results arising from the monitoring of the biological quality elements. In the classification of the ecological status/potential for surface waters, the Directive requires that the lowest status assigned to the biological quality element, general components (physic-chemical), and hydromorphological elements or failure to achieve the standards set for the specific relevant pollutant will determine the ecological status that can be assigned to the water body. Thus, the status of a water body is determined by the condition of the quality element most impacted by the pressure to which the waterbody is subject. For chemical status failure to achieve any of the standards set for each of the substances will result in that waterbody failing the test for chemical status. In order to achieve the objectives of the WFD a waterbody must achieve good ecological and chemical status. Failure to achieve good status for the ecological status test, or failure to achieve the EQS for any of the chemical substances results in failure to achieve the objective of the directive. The failure of all water bodies will be reported to the EU Commission. Waters failing their WFD objectives will have a program of measures specified in the river basin management plan to restore these waters to good status.


75

UNDP RFP 29/2015


FIGURE 27 COMBINING PARAMETERS TO INDICATE THE STATUS OF A BIOLOGICAL QUALITY ELEMENT AND APPLYING THE “ONE OUT ALL OUT” PRINCIPLE TO OVERALL ECOLOGICAL CLASSIFICATION

Other requirements for surface water monitoring Reference conditions7 According to the Directive reference conditions need to be established for water body types and quality elements which in turn are represented by parameters indicative of the status of the quality elements. Quality elements may however be excluded from the assessment procedure, and hence establishment of reference conditions is not necessary, if they display high degrees of natural variability (see Section 3.7). Classification of ecological status The Directive requires surface water classification through the assessment of ecological status. Annex V, Table 1.1, explicitly defines the quality elements that must be used for the assessment of ecological status (see Table 2 below). Biological as well as supporting hydromorphological and physic-chemical quality elements are to be used by Member States in the assessment of ecological status. Annex V, Table 1.2, in the Directive provides a general definition of ecological quality in each of the five status classes. These relative roles of biological, hydromorphological and physic-chemical quality elements in status classification are presented in Figure 31.

7

CIS Guidance Document No. 10. Rivers and Lakes – Typology, Reference Conditions and Classification Systems, 2003.


76

UNDP RFP 29/2015


FIGURE 28 INDICATION OF THE RELATIVE ROLES OF BIOLOGICAL, HYDRO- MORPHOLOGICAL AND PHYSIC-CHEMICAL QUALITY ELEMENTS IN ECOLOGICAL STATUS CLASSIFICATION ACCORDING THE NORMATIVE DEFINITIONS IN ANNEX V:1.2.


77

UNDP RFP 29/2015


TABLE 24- QUALITY ELEMENTS TO BE USED FOR THE ASSESSMENT OF ECOLOGICAL STATUS BASED ON THE LIST IN ANNEX V, 1.1, OF THE DIRECTIVE8

The establishment of reference conditions and the establishment of ecological quality class boundaries are closely interconnected. To establish the boundary between high and good ecological status it is necessary to identify conditions representing very minor anthropogenic disturbances. To establish the boundary between good and moderate ecological status it is necessary to identify conditions corresponding to slight anthropogenic disturbances.

8

Phytoplankton is not listed as a quality element in rivers in Annex V, 1.1.1., but is included as a quality element in Annex V, 1.2.1. It should therefore be possible to use phytoplankton as a separate quality element, if needed and appropriate especially in low land large rivers where phytoplankton may be important.


78

UNDP RFP 29/2015


FIGURE 29 BASIC PRINCIPLES FOR CLASSIFICATION OF ECOLOGICAL STATUS BASED ON ECOLOGICAL QUALITY RATIOS

As noted earlier, the WFD requires that the status of the four biological quality elements - phytoplankton, macrophytes, invertebrates and fish - is assessed in estimating the ecological status or potential of a waterbody. In the assessment of water bodies designated as surveillance monitoring sites in the monitoring programme, all of the four biological elements have to be examined. For water bodies in the operational monitoring programme only the biological element most sensitive to the pressure causing the waterbody to be at risk of or actually failing to meet good ecological status needs to be examined. The status of each of the biological elements is determined by measuring the extent of the deviation, if any, of the sample taken of that element from the condition established for that element in the absence of pollution or disturbance, known as the reference condition. For example, a sample of the plant community taken in a river or lake will be judged against the plant community that would be present in that river or lake in the absence of any pollution or morphological disturbance. The extent of the change between the actual sample and what should be there will used to classify that waterbody into one of the five status categories, high, good, moderate, poor or bad, and expressed numerically as Ecological Quality Ratios (EQR) for each biological element in the range between 1 (high status) and 0 (bad status) according to the procedures outlined above. A requirement of the WFD is that all monitoring shall conform to the relevant standards on the national, European or international scale to ensure the provision of data of an equivalent scientific quality and comparability. Therefore, all biological and physic-chemical assessment systems must comply with the relevant international and national standards where they exist . In order to assure comparability across Europe, laboratories must document a program of quality assurance/quality control (EN ISO 17025) and participate regularly in proficiency testing programs. 9

6.1. 6.1.1.

AVAILABLE DATA CURRENT MONITORING

There is very limited current monitoring system based on WFD principles applied in Prespa Lake watershed by the state authorities in Macedonia. 9

CIS Guidance document No7 – Monitoring under the WFD, 2003.


79

UNDP RFP 29/2015


In the period following adoption of the Prespa Lake Water Management Plan 2010, the project funded by Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation (SDC) “Restoration of Prespa Lake ecosystem”, acting upon the adopted measures in PLWMP, has established and made active a Lake Monitoring Station located in village Stenje. This station is supposed to represent a milestone installment for the future protection of the lake and development of the region . 10

This monitoring station started its operation in 2013 and has produced, in apparent cooperation with the Hydro-biological Institute from Ohrid, several reports of analyses performed on the basic biological quality elements and physic-chemical parameters on lake Prespa and Golema Reka river. These reports will be briefly commented in the following section in regard to their applicability, scientific background and reliance to the comprehensive WFD based monitoring system proposed in PLWMP. i. ii. iii.

iv.

Phytoplankton – Conclusion: the performed phytoplankton analyses should be much improved in order to meet the WFD standards. Macrophytes – the sampling campaigns have confirmed the previous investigations. Macrozoobenthos - the macrozoobenthos, together with algae, are the most frequently used biological elements in monitoring studies. The presented results for the Prespa Lake are not in line with the WFD principles. The WFD requires classification, in terms of ecological status, for all European surface waters. The classification should be based on reference conditions, which are intended to represent minimal anthropogenic impact, and observed deviation from these conditions. Although in the Prespa Lake Water Management Plan reference conditions for ecological status assessment of rivers and lake were established, it’s obvious that monitoring recommendations were not closely followed. Fish – presented reports on fish analyses of Prespa Lake (separated in 5 sampling sub-basins) are not sufficiently informative as to the methods used and their relevance to the proposed WFD guidance and standards . Presented results are generally in the frame of observed findings by fisherman, previous studies and reports. Physical-chemical measurements –the general physic-chemical quality elements, priority substances and other specific pollutants (Fig.1), are supportive elements to biological analyses. It has to be noted that the monitoring of nutrients loads carried to the lake, of priority substances and specific pollutants which were already detected in the sub-basin has to be improved to comply fully with the WFD requirements and the Programme of Measures in the PLWMP of 2010. 11

v.

Conclusions – the installment and the putting the monitoring station in village Stenje in operation, for the purpose of increasing the capacities of local and state monitoring system, can only be regarded as commendable and highly welcomed. The capacities of the station are yet to be fully utilized in the following period, in ordrer to establish a monitoring practice in full compliance with the WFD. A measure in the Programme of Measures is foreseen in this direction. The operational monitoring to be put in place is recommended in the following subchapters.

6.1.2

DATA COLLECTED THROUGH RECENT AD-HOC STUDIES

Regarding the water quality in Prespa Lake watershed, in the period after the adoption of the PLWMP, there were several studies which might have important effects on the detected water bodies’ status and the status of the lake itself. These activities include the following studies which will be commented in line with their applicability and feasibility towards program of measures: 10

UNDP Project Progress Report January – June 2015.

11

EN 14962:2006


80

UNDP RFP 29/2015


a) Feasibility Study and Conceptual Design for Wetland Restoration within the ‘Ezerani’ Nature Park (Prespa Lake Basin) (Ambisat) b) Comprehensive Eutrophication Model Development and Management Scenario Evaluation for Prespa Lake (Stone Environmental, Inc. and LimnoTech.) c) Hydrogeological study for the Lake Prespa watershed (Faculty of Civil Engineering) a) Feasibility Study and Conceptual Design for Wetland Restoration within the ‘Ezerani’ Nature Park (Prespa Lake Basin) (Ambisat) – This study has been conducted in line with the PLWMP mesure No11 (Implementation of management plans for the protected areas: Ezerani, Galicica and Pelister) and its main goal was “to formulate a feasibility study which assesses the relevance and viability of a wetland restoration initiative for the Ezerani NP area by generating an ecological system highly diverse and more similar in composition and structure to the original one. It should be self-sustaining not only in ecological terms, but also in social terms, so as to become an economic resource for surrounding communities and to be exploited by them in a rational manner, thus ensuring its preservation”. The study explores different alternatives and elaborates the single most feasible restoration alternative to an applicable conceptual design. This comprehensive study is developed according to all fundamental principles and thus represents an important contribution to overall achievements of the PLWMP 2010. Although many obstacles, risks and mitigation measures have been considered and the overall performance of the renewed NP Ezerani estimated as positive in all important issues (environmental, economic and social benefits), there are several points that should be kept in focus if such important reconstruction is to be applied: i. Introducing the waste waters from the waste water treatment plant into the NP Ezerani wetland; ii. Improvement of the monitoring system; and iii. Maintenance of the wetland within the Ezerani NP. The study considers many aspects of the maintenance of the installment, and it has potential to be a very efficient system for final purification of communal or industrial waste waters, if operated professionally and according to precise management requirements. If not, these systems can be hazardous both to the environment and human health. b) Comprehensive Eutrophication Model Development and Management Scenario Evaluation for Prespa Lake (Stone Environmental, Inc. and LimnoTech.) - This study explores different models of eutrophication for both tributaries and the Prespa Lake itself. Based on the obtained results, two models SWAT and BATH-TUB models have been proven the most applicable. Both of these models are probably applicable in the Prespa Lake watershed as well, since proven quite beneficial for other watersheds. But again, in order to increase their accuracy and applicability there is a need (as the study clearly points out) of filling the monitoring gaps on diffuse and point sources of pollution. Any model is as good as its input; eutrophication model is definitely based on the input parameters developed by a comprehensive monitoring system which is still not in place in Prespa Lake watershed. c) Hydrogeological study for the Lake Prespa watershed (Faculty of Civil Engineering) – in this study many water quality parameters are shown for ground waters as well as for surface waters. It is obvious that the ground water aquifers are also under severe pollution pressure. The study fundamentally relies on the analyses performed by HBI in Ohrid. Water quantity for ground water sources is evidently important factor, but their chemical status is also quite important for present and future generations.

60.1.1 6.1.3 DATA GAPS In the past period of several years since the finalization of the first PLWMP, efforts were made to implement WFD monitoring practices in the Prespa sub-basin. This was not fully achieved, in spite of the significant progress in both the quantity and quality of the monitoring.


81

UNDP RFP 29/2015


In order to fully comply with the WFD, and enable following of the status (ecological and chemical) of the surface and ground water bodies in the forthcoming period, the following improvements in the ongoing monitoring have to be implemented: full list of algae and macroinvertebrate species in both running and standing waters, investigations of riparian zone, recording changes in macrophytes vegetation, fish species abundances within communities connected with the overall environmental quality, water chemistry analyses including priority substances and toxic chemicals must be monitored in detail, all data have to be correlated to the reference conditions established in PLWMP 2010, quality control/assurance has to be introduced in the monitoring. With these improvements, the operational monitoring in the Prespa sub-basin would fully comply with the WFD requirements. This is one of the key measures for the forthcoming 6-year implementation cycle.

6.2.

PROPOSAL FOR FUTURE MONITORING OF SURFACE WATERS IN PLW

6.2.1 SURVEILLANCE MONITORING OF PRESPA LAKE SUB-BASIN The surveillance monitoring in Prespa Lake watershed was performed during the preparation of the WMP. Investigations are always needed and scientifically important, but also time consuming and expensive. Nevertheless, the WFD states: “surveillance monitoring must be undertaken during each planning cycle, and operational monitoring must be carried out during periods not covered by surveillance monitoring. No minimum duration or frequency is specified for the surveillance program. Operational monitoring must be carried out at least once a year during periods between surveillance monitoring. Sufficient surveillance monitoring activities should be performed during each plan period to allow adequate validation of the Annex II risk assessments and obtain information for use in trend assessment, and sufficient operational monitoring to establish the status of bodies at risk and the presence of significant and sustained upward trend in pollutant concentrations”. Hence, a full scale surveillance monitoring has to be performed again in Prespa Lake sub-basin. A proposal of such monitoring is laid out below. TABLE 25 DYNAMICS OF SURVEILLANCE MONITORING FOR RIVERS IN PRESPA LAKE SUB-BASIN

RIVERS – SURVELLIANCE MONITORING Biological quality elements Chemical and physicchemical quality elements Hydro-morphological quality elements

Phytobenthos

Phytoplankton

Macrophytes

Benthic invertebrates

Fish

4 times/year

no

1 time/year

4 times/year

2 times/year

Basic chemistry

Nutrients

Priority substances

Other specific pollutants

12 times/year Quantity and dynamics of water flow

12 times/year Connection to groundwater bodies

2 times/year

2 times/year Structure of the riparian zone

Structure and substrate of the river bed

12 times/year

1 times/year

1 times/year

2 times/year

1 times/year

River Continuity

Surveillance monitoring must be carried out for each monitoring site for a period of one year during the period covered by a RBMP for parameters indicative of all biological quality elements, all hydromorphological quality elements and all general physic-chemical quality elements. Annex V provides tabulated guidelines in terms of the minimum monitoring frequencies for all the quality elements. The suggested minimum frequencies are generally lower than currently applied in some countries. More frequent samples will be necessary to obtain sufficient precision in supplementing and validating Annex II


82

UNDP RFP 29/2015


assessments in many cases, for example phytoplankton and nutrients in lakes. Less frequent samples for the general physic-chemical quality elements are permissible if technically justified and based on expert judgement. In addition not all quality elements need to be monitored during the same year there can be phased monitoring from year to year as long as all are monitored at least once over a year during the lifetime of the RBMP. An objective of surveillance monitoring is to assess the long term changes in natural conditions and long term changes resulting from widespread anthropogenic activity. The minimum frequencies given in the Directive may not be adequate to achieve an acceptable level of confidence and precision in this assessment. It may therefore be necessary to increase the frequencies of at least some surveillance monitoring parameters and monitor more than once every sixth year at those surveillance sites designed to detect long-term changes. TABLE 26 DYNAMICS OF SURVEILLANCE MONITORING FOR PRESPA LAKE

PRESPA LAKE – SURVELLIANCE MONITORING Biological quality elements Chemical and physicchemical quality elements Hydro-morphological quality elements

Bacteriological quality elements*

Phytobenthos

Phytoplankton

Macrophytes


Fish

2 times/year

12 times/year

1 time/year

2 times/year

2 times/year

Basic chemistry

Nutrients

Priority substances


Cyanotoxins*



2 times/year

2 times/year

8 times/year

Residence time

Lake depth variation

Structure of lake shore

12 times/year

1 times/year

1 times/year

2 times/year

1 times/year

Total coliforms

Faecal coliforms

Salmonella

Entero viruses

2 times/month during bathing season




Faecal streptococci 2 times/month during bathing season

60.1.2 * ACCORDING TO BATHING WATER DIRECTIVE (76/160/EEC) 60.1.3 60.1.4 6.2.2 OPERATIONAL MONITORING OF PRESPA LAKE SUB-BASIN The Directive refers to the identification of water bodies at risk of failing environmental quality objectives as defined in Article 4. This identification will be partially based on existing monitoring data (initially) and then on data arising from surveillance monitoring for subsequent periods of RBMPs. Those water bodies identified as being at risk will then be subject to operational monitoring which will confirm or reject their status in terms of failure to meet the relevant objectives. By implication this means that operational monitoring may need to provide a more precise assessment of the status of those water bodies identified at risk than that originally obtained from surveillance monitoring. As almost all water bodies in Prespa Lake watershed are found to be in the status that does not meet high or good quality criteria (Figure 34), all of these water bodies have to be the part of the regular operational monitoring system. In terms of operational monitoring, the determination of monitoring frequencies that will provide a reliable assessment of the status of the relevant quality element is required. The same guidance given on minimum monitoring frequencies for surveillance monitoring is also used for operational monitoring. Again more frequent monitoring will mostly likely be necessary in many cases, but also less frequent monitoring is justified when based on technical knowledge and expert judgement.


83

UNDP RFP 29/2015


TABLE 27 DYNAMICS OF OPERATIONAL MONITORING FOR RIVERS AND THE LAKE IN PRESPA LAKE WATERSHED

RIVERS – OPERATIONAL MONITORING Biological quality elements Chemical and physicchemical quality elements Hydro-morphological quality elements


Fish

1 time/year

4 times/year

2 times/year

Priority substances



2 times/year

2 times/year Structure of the riparian zone

Structure and substrate of the river bed

1 times/year

1 times/year

2 times/year

1 times/year

Phytobenthos

Phytoplankton

Macrophytes

4 times/year

no

Basic chemistry

Nutrients

12 times/year Quantity and dynamics of water flow 12 times/year

River Continuity

PRESPA LAKE – OPERATIONAL MONITORING Biological quality elements Chemical and physicchemical quality elements Hydro-morphological quality elements

Bacteriological quality elements*


Fish

1 time/year

2 times/year

2 times/year

Priority substances


Cyanotoxins*

2 times/year

2 times/year

8 times/year

Residence time

Lake depth variation

Structure of lake shore

1 times/year

2 times/year

1 times/year

Salmonella

Entero viruses



Phytobenthos

Phytoplankton

Macrophytes

2 times/year

12 times/year

Basic chemistry

Nutrients



12 times/year

1 times/year

Total coliforms

Faecal coliforms



Faecal streptococci 2 times/month during bathing season

Additional monitoring is required for drinking water abstraction points and habitat and species protection areas. However, the register or registers of protected areas also includes areas designated as bathing waters under Directive 76/160/EEC, as vulnerable zones under Directive 91/676/EEC and areas as sensitive under Directive 91/271/EEC. These latter Directives also have monitoring and reporting requirements. The EAF on Reporting is considering not only the reporting required under the WFD but also existing reporting requirements with the aim of ‘streamlining’ the reporting process.

6.3

PROPOSAL FOR FUTURE MONITORING OF GROUNDWATER

The first PLWMP of 2010, taking into consideration the particularities and problems with groundwater in this catchment area, gave special emphasis to the need for monitoring groundwater. In meantime HG Sector Study was performed, which supplemented and confirmed the previous findings, and gave directions for solving the current problems. In the assembly of the Study in order to collect proper data for the geological materials, define the granulometric content, specific weight and permeability, 15 boreholes were drilled. After taking of samples for geological laboratory testing all boreholes were transformed to piezometers. The piezometers enable continuous measuring of the groundwater level during the preparation of the HG Study (Avgust 2013-Noemvri 2014) and also taking of water samples for chemical and other analyses. The results of this newly established monitoring have been very usefull in the process of analysis and drafting of the updated PLWMP.

60.1.5 60.1.6


84

UNDP RFP 29/2015


6.3.1 MONITORING OF GROUNDWATER QUANTITATIVE STATUS (LEVEL REGIME) The monitoring of groundwater in Prespa region is not yet fully according to recommendations for continuous monitoring, as in the PLWMP 2010 and the sectoral HG Study. Hydrometeorological Administration of RM has yet to activate and monitor in the future the existing piezometers, and yet to include them in the State monitoring network. In an attempt to perform correlation with previous data, within the preparation of the Updated Prespa WMP, a one-off measure of GWL, on March 3, 2016 was performed. The following table presents the measured values of GW level, and for correlation only, the measured values in 2014 for the nearest monitoring period are presented.

TABLE 28 GROUND WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENTS IN 2016 COMPARED TO DATA OBTAINED IN 2014

Piezometer P -1 P -2 P -3 P -4 P -5 P -6 P -7 P -8 P -9 P -10 P -11 P -12 P -13 P -14 P -15

Coordinates X (m) 4541226 4541405 4538692 4537802 4543911 4542983 4544085 4544765 4545210 4547238 4551422 4531578 4530880 4527860 4525776

Y (m) 7499102 7502764 7504247 7505044 7499934 7502445 7503835 7500977 7502722 7500892 7501611 7507652 7508136 7509542 7510212

Ztop (m) 863 861 858 879 866 864 872 871 872 882 898 865 861 862 871

GWL rell. GWL abs. GWL abs. (03.03.2016.) (03.03.2016.) (22.02.2014.) 1,81 2,55 1,84 2,22 1,69 1,86 0,65 3,27 4,91 3,76 3,85 4,63 5,95 2,80 5,60

861,19 858,45 856,16 876,78 864,31 862,14 871,35 867,73 867,09 878,24 894,15 860,37 855,05 859,20 865,40


85

861.73 858.68 853.75 866.90 864.61 862.08 871.14 867.12 867.20 878.06 893.24 860.86 854.85 858.49 864.35

UNDP RFP 29/2015


FIGURE 30 PIEZOMETRIC STATIONS IN THE WATERSHED

Upon any single measure NPV (03.03.2016.), compared to measurements from 22.02.2014, detailed analysis can not be carry out, except the conclusion that the piezometers are preserved, usable and without the presence of sediment (sludge), and measured levels of water correspond with hydrogeological condition of the groundwater level in full for this time of the year. Regarding themselves, only remark is a presence of corrosion in the threads of the covers, that without proper and timely maintenance can result in technical problems in future monitoring.

60.1.7 6.3.2 MONITORING OF GROUNDWATER CHEMICAL STATUS Groundwater is a valuable natural resource and as such should be protected from deterioration and chemical pollution. This is particularly important for groundwater dependent ecosystems and for the use of groundwater in water supply for human consumption12. Groundwater is the most sensitive and the largest body of freshwater in the European Union and, in particular, also a main source of public drinking water supplies in many regions. 12

Directive EC/118/2006.


86

UNDP RFP 29/2015


In order to protect the environment as a whole, and human health in particular, detrimental concentrations of harmful pollutants in groundwater must be avoided, prevented or reduced. Directive 2000/60/EC sets out general provisions for the protection and conservation of groundwater. As provided for in Article 17 of that Directive, measures to prevent and control groundwater pollution should be adopted, including criteria for assessing good groundwater chemical status and criteria for the identification of significant and sustained upward trends and for the definition of starting points for trend reversals. Having regard to the need to achieve consistent levels of protection for groundwater, quality standards and threshold values should be established, and methodologies based on a common approach developed, in order to provide criteria for the assessment of the chemical status of bodies of groundwater. Quality standards for nitrates, plant protection products and biocides should be set as Community criteria for the assessment of the chemical status of bodies of groundwater, and consistency should be ensured with Council Directive 91/676/EEC of 12 December 1991 concerning the protection of waters against pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural sources. Groundwater quality monitoring carried out in accordance with the WFD should be designed to answer specific questions and support the achievement of the environmental objectives. The principal purposes of groundwater quality monitoring are to: 13

(a) Provide information for use in classifying the chemical status of groundwater bodies or groups of bodies; (b) Establish the presence of any significant upward trend in pollutant concentrations in groundwater bodies and the reversal of such trends. The requirements of good groundwater chemical status are threefold: 1. The concentrations of pollutants should not exhibit the effects of saline or other intrusions as measured by changes in conductivity; 2. The concentration of pollutants should not exceed the quality standards applicable under other relevant Community legislation in accordance with Article 17. The daughter directive will clarify this criterion; and 3. The concentration of pollutants should not be such as would result in failure to achieve the environmental objectives specified under Article 4 for associated surface waters nor any significant diminution of the ecological or chemical quality of such bodies nor in any significant damage to terrestrial ecosystems which depend directly on the groundwater body. All three criteria must be satisfied for a body to achieve ‘good’ groundwater chemical status. If not, the body should be classified as ‘poor’ groundwater chemical status. The classification of groundwater chemical status is only concerned with the concentrations of substances introduced into groundwater as a result of human activities. The concentration of substances in an undisturbed body of groundwater (e.g. naturally high concentrations of arsenic) will not affect the body’s status. However, naturally occurring substances released by human activities, such as mining, will be relevant to the assessment of status. Where surveillance monitoring is required, the Directive requires that a core set of parameters be monitored. These parameters are oxygen content, pH value, conductivity, nitrate and ammonium. Other monitored parameters for both surveillance and operational monitoring must be selected on the basis of (a) the purpose of the monitoring programmes, (b) the identified pressures and (c) the risk assessments made using a suitable conceptual model/understanding of the groundwater system and the fate and behavior of pollutants in it. 13

WFD, Guidance document No.7, 2003.


87

UNDP RFP 29/2015


TABLE 29 EXAMPLES OF PARAMETERS THAT MAY BE USED IN MONITORING PROGRAMMES TO INDICATE THAT A PARTICULAR HUMAN ACTIVITY MAY BE AFFECTING GROUNDWATER QUALITY

Definition of the objectives of groundwater monitoring is an essential prerequisite before identifying monitoring strategies and methods. Monitoring design includes: selection and design of monitoring sites, frequency and duration of monitoring, monitoring procedures, treatment of samples and analytical requirements. ISO 5667-1 and EN 25667-1 give the principles on the design of sampling programmes in aquatic environments.


88

UNDP RFP 29/2015


61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75

76 7. STATUS OF WATER BODIES IN THE PRESPA WATERSHED 76.1


89

UNDP RFP 29/2015


7. STATUS OF WATER BODIES IN THE PRESPA WATERSHED 7.1

SURFACE WATER BODIES

7.1.1 SURFACE WATER ECOLOGICAL STATUS (POTENTIAL) There are no indications of any significant changes in the statuses of delineated water bodies in Prespa Lake watershed determined during the development of PLWMP. Even the monitoring performed during 2013-2015 period clearly shows the high impact of rivers regarding P and N compounds, which are also concentrating in the lake sampling points in excess. Thus, the surface water bodies statuses determined during the surveillance monitoring 2009-2010 are not changed after a six years period. Moreover, the upper parts of rivers Brajcinska and Kranska also show significant deterioration of water quality in the monitored period, and are actually changing the status towards poor. The operational monitoring system has to be harmonized fully to the WFD.

FIGURE 31 MAP OF THE CLASSIFICATION OF THE ECOLOGICAL STATUS OF THE WATERBODIES IN THE LAKE PRESPA WATERSHED (PRESPA LAKE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN, 2011)

7.1.2 SURFACE WATER CHEMICAL STATUS (POTENTIAL) The same recommendations as for the ecological status can be applied for the chemical status of the water bodies. Prespa Lake watershed was designated as a nitrate vulnerable region. For the lake itself, it may be stated that the pollution with P and N compounds seems to be intensified in recent years. Apart of the quite varying reports of performed monitoring during past several years about the lake’s water quality, it is


90

UNDP RFP 29/2015


quite clear that Prespa Lake still experiences intensive pressures from both P and N compounds which are both prolonged and with increased concentrations. This might lead to a decision that the Prespa Lake is turning towards poor chemical potential and water quality status. But again, for such conclusion much more detailed surveillance and operational monitoring nare neaded. Examples of the obtained results from one of the reports (last quarter in 2014) of total P content in the main tributaries and in the Prespa Lake sampling sites are presented below . 14

Total phosphorus mg l-1 TP

140,0

164 .0

213 .4

>35 mg l-1 TP eutrophic

120,0

10-35 mg l-1 TP mesotrophic

100,0 80,0

35 mg l-1 TP Eutrophic poor

Total phosphorus mg l-1 TP

80,00 70,00

10-35 mg l-1 TP Mesootrophic moderate

60,00 50,00 40,00