| Autor: |
Kay, D.1 dvk@aber.ac.uk, Aitken, M.2 mark.aitken@sepa.org.uk, Crowther, J.1 crowther@lamp.ac.uk, Dickson, I.2 ian.dickson@sac.co.uk, Edwards, A.C.3 t.edwards25@btinternet.com, Francis, C.4 carol@crehleeds.demon.co.uk, Hopkins, M.1 matt@crehhopkins.demon.co.uk, Jeffrey, W.2 bill.jeffrey@sac.co.uk, Kay, C.1 chris@crehkay.demon.co.uk, McDonald, A.T.5 a.t.mcdonald@leeds.ac.uk, McDonald, D.1 ferncliffe@aol.com, Stapleton, C.M.1 carl@creh.karoo.co.uk, Watkins, J.4 john@crehleeds.demon.co.uk, Wilkinson, J.6 wilk0151@flinders.edu.au, Wyer, M.D.1 mark@crehwyer.demon.co.uk |
| Abstrakt: |
The European Water Framework Directive requires the integrated management of point and diffuse pollution to achieve ‘good’ water quality in ‘protected areas’. These include bathing waters, which are regulated using faecal indicator organisms as compliance parameters. Thus, for the first time, European regulators are faced with the control of faecal indicator fluxes from agricultural sources where these impact on bathing water compliance locations. Concurrently, reforms to the European Union (EU) Common Agricultural Policy offer scope for supporting on-farm measures producing environmental benefits through the new ‘single farm payments’ and the concept of ‘cross-compliance’. This paper reports the first UK study involving remedial measures, principally stream bank fencing, designed to reduce faecal indicator fluxes at the catchment scale. Considerable reduction in faecal indicator flux was observed, but this was insufficient to ensure bathing water compliance with either Directive 76/160/EEC standards or new health-evidence-based criteria proposed by WHO and the European Commission. [Copyright &y& Elsevier] |
Full Text from ScienceDirect