Ex-ante Report

101 Pages·2016·7.01 MB·English

by  Anda Ruskule

.
c
o
d

g
n
“The Initial Status of the Environment in
i
the Areas where Project Activities will be
k
implemented”
r
o
W Ex-ante Report

(Action C1 Monitoring of environmental impacts of project activities)

Editor: K.Veidemane & D. Prižavoite Baltic Environmentla Forum

October, 2015

The project “Integrated planning tool to ensure viability of grasslands” (LIFE Viva Grass) No LIFE13 ENV/LT/000189 is co-financed by the EU LIFE+ Programme, Ministry
of Environment of the Republic of Lithuania, Latvian Environmental Protection Fund, Estonian Environmental Investment Centre and the project partners.
1
Contents

Introduction ..............................................................................................................................................3
1. Overview of project activities with potential environmental impacts .............................................4
2. Selected environmental indicators ..................................................................................................6
2.1. Assessment of short-term impacts ......................................................................................... 6
2.2. Assessment of long-term impacts ........................................................................................... 6
3. Initial status in the project areas expecting short term impact .................................................... 12
3.1. Farm “Kurese”, Estonia ......................................................................................................... 12
3.2. Farm “Šovītes”, Latvia ........................................................................................................... 20
.
3.3. Cēsis municipality, Latvia....................................................................................................... 37
c
3.4. Pavilniai Regional Park, Lithuania .......................................................................................... 50
o
3.5. State Pašešuvis Landscape Reserve, Lithuania ...................................................................... 54
3.6. State Šušvė Landscape Reserve, Lithuania ............................................................................ 57
d
3.7. Dubysa Regional Park, Lithuania ........................................................................................... 69

4. The initial status in the project areas expecting to have the long-term impact ........................... 71
g
4.1. Lääne county, Estonia............................................................................................................ 73
4.2. Lümanda municipality, Estonia ..............n............................................................................... 74
4.3. Madliena parish, Latvia ......................................................................................................... 74
i
4.4. Cēsis municipality, Latvia....................................................................................................... 75
k
4.5. Šilutė municipality, Lithuania ................................................................................................ 76
r
Summary ............................................................................................................................................... 77
o
Annexes ................................................................................................................................................. 78
Annex 1.a. Field monWitoring results on vegetation in the farm “Kurese. .......................................... 78
Annex 1.a. Field monitoring results on vegetation in the farm “Kurese”. ........................................ 78
Annex 2.a. Field monitoring results on vegetation in the farm “Šovītes”. ........................................ 79
Annex 2.b. Field monitoring results on vegetation in Vecpiebalga municipality. ............................. 79
Annex 2.c. Field monitoring results on soil in the farm “Šovītes”. .................................................... 79
Annex 2.d. Field monitoring results on soil in Vecpiebalga municipality. ......................................... 79
Annex 2.e. Maps of soil subtypes and soil physical and chemical properties on glacigenic deposits
in the farm “Šovītes” ......................................................................................................................... 79
Annex 3.a. Field monitoring results on vegetation in Cēsis municipality. ........................................ 84
Annex 3.b. Field monitoring results on soil in Cēsis municipality. .................................................... 84
Annex 4. Field monitoring results in the Pavilniai Regional Park. ..................................................... 85
Annex 5. Field monitoring results in the Pašešuvis Landscape Reserve. .......................................... 88
Annex 6. Field monitoring results in the State Šušvė Landscape Reserve. ....................................... 93

2
Introduction

During the implementation of the LIFE Viva Grass project several activities are targeted to improve
environmental situation in abundant grassland areas in the Baltic States. Therefore, one of the
project tasks is to systematically monitor and assess environmental impacts of the project activities
on grasslands from the perspective of ecosystem and land cover. In order to ensure a coherent
approach in monitoring and assessing impact across the project sites in the three countries the
project team has developed a common methodology in 2014.
The methodology is based on the use of indicators as a tool for the assessment of different
environmental aspects. The aim is to select few key indicators which can show short and long term as
well as direct and indirect impacts caused by the LIFE Viva Grass project. According to the developed
methodology the initial environmental situation was benchmarked.
The Ex-ante Report present data and information reflecting the existing si.tuation right before
implementation of the project demo activities. The Ex-ante Report describces the project areas to
illustrate the natural characteristics and existing land cover and land uses in the area. Furthermore,
o
the Ex-ante report gives an overview on implemented sampling and analysis activities and the results
obtained.
d
In addition to the field work results, the data and information from other publicly available sources
have been compiled and presented in this report.
g
The compiled information shall create a basis against which a change in environment will be assessed
by the end of the project.
n

i

k

r

o

W

3
1. Overview of project activities with potential environmental
impacts

The project activities can be classified having short and long-term impacts on environment. Short-
term impacts are caused by direct grassland management activities implemented during the project
duration. These are grassland restoration and management activities carried out in the selected
locations of the project areas. These activities are having direct impacts on the grassland ecosystem.
The long- term impacts are related to the application of the Tool in planning and managing
grasslands in the selected demonstration areas and cases.
The project activities having the short-term and direct impacts shall take place in the following
locations:
 Kurese, Estonia - a farm where extra cattle shall be obtained fo.r grazing to ensure
maintenance of the alvar habitats and traditional landscape in addictional 10ha. Currently a
lack of drinking water does not allow an increase in a number of animal units in the farm.
o
During the project a water supply shall be installed.
 Šovītes, Latvia - a farm where 80 ha of grassland shall bde restored by removing shrubs and
their root system, preparation of soil (milling, levelling) to enable its further management

with grass cutting machinery and introduction of the seed material form semi-natural
g
grasslands.
 Cēsis, Latvia - a municipality where abount 30 ha of semi-natural grassland shall be restored
and conditions for further long-term management shall be established.
i
 Pavilniai Regional Park, Lithuania - two grassland plots of 8 ha of semi-natural grassland shall
k
restored. These grasslands plots shall be cleaned from shrubs to create availability for visitors
and business developers to have access to these plots, evaluate its values and develop
r
proposals for their long-term maintenance options. During the inception phase, 11 ha for the
o
restoration activities were identified and them implemented in Spring 2015.
 In the territoryW administered by Dubysa Regional Park Directorate, Lithuania – initially 20ha
where shrubs shall be removed as habitat restoration work were identified in the Susve
landscape reserve. However, the local stakeholders were not committed for long-term
maintenance. Therefore, new areas – in Pasesuvis landscape reserve (7,66 ha) and Dubysa
regional park (18,82 ha) were identified. The restoration activities will take place in Autumn
2016. Meanwhile some of the selected areas in Susve landscape reserve has been restored
by own land owners/managers’ resources.
The project activities having a long term impact related to application of the Tool shall take place in
the following locations:
 Lääne county, Estonia – the Tool shall provide different development scenarios for the
selected region to be considered in regional planning.
 Lümanda municipality, Estonia - the Tool shall provide solutions for sustainable grassland
management in an area with emerging interest for intensive use of cattle breeding.
 Madliena Parish, Latvia - proposals of local community and business actors on economically
viable solutions for grassland management to be elaborated during series of round table
discussions.
4
 Cēsis municipality, Latvia - solutions for landscape restoration and maintenance, based on
economically viable models for long-term grassland management, to be integrated in the
landscape development plan to be adopted by the local authority and lay the basis for the
new territorial plan.
 Šilutė municipality, Lithuania - proposals on nature tourism development, where grassland
management shall be essential precondition for developing the areas as an attractive tourism
destination.

.
c
o
d

g
n
i
k
r
o
W

Figure 1. The overview map of the project areas (1 - Šilutė municipality; 2- Dubysa regional park
directorate; 3- Pavilniai Regional Park; 4 - Cēsis municipality; 5- Madliena Parish; 6- Šovītes farm; 7-
Lääne county; 8- Lümanda municipality; 9- Kurese farm).
5
2. Selected environmental indicators
2.1. Assessment of short-term impacts
Considering two types of environmental impacts (short term and long term) different indicator
groups were proposed to provide relevant assessments. In general, the environmental issues for
which indicator groups have to be identified and selected are as follows:
 Species composition and abundance (different species groups depending on the site)
 Habitat composition/diversity
 Organic Matter/Vegetation litter/Carbon Sequestration
 Fragmentation and Connectivity of Habitats and Landscapes (descriptive parameter)
 Soil Nutrients (N, P, CEC) and pH Reaction .
 Nutrients in water bodies. c
The list of indicators to be applied for monitoring of short-term direct iompacts in the relevant project
areas is presented in the Table 2.1. The difference in selection of the indicators between areas is also
partially due to the competences of the project partners. Neverthdeless, key impacts are addressed.
2.2. Assessment of long-term impact s
g
As the Tool and related planning initiatives might cause only long-term environmental impacts which
would be recognised after the project end, the relevant long term indicator is “change in area” or as
n
“land cover” or “land-use” category, and particularly change in area covered by grasslands and share
of grasslands in total land cover.
i

k
European Environment Agency (EEA) coordinates Copernicus programme which is a European system
for monitoring the Earth1. The land theme is divided into four main components: Global Land Service;
r
the pan-European component; the local component focusing on different hotspots; access to in-situ
data. For the needs of the LIFoE Viva Grass project, the data sets of pan-European component is used.
All Baltic States are participating in this project therefore comparable data will be available to
W
benchmarking the situation in the project areas, in particular on municipality or country level.
The CORINE Land Cover is provided for 1990, 2000, 2006, and 2012. This vector-based dataset
includes 44 land cover and land use classes organised hierarchically in three levels. The time-series
also includes a land-change layer, highlighting changes in land cover and land-use. Out of 44 land
cover classes, grasslands as habitats could belong to 2 classes of 1st level – i) agricultural areas and
ii)forests and semi-natural areas.
Table 2.2. Land cover types associated with grasslands (defined by the CORINE Land Cover)
Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Definition
2. Agricultural 2.3 Pastures 2.3.1 Pastures Dense grass cover, of floral composition,
areas dominated by graminaceae, not under a
rotation system. Mainly for grazing, but
the folder may be harvested mechanically
3. Forest and 3.2 Scrub and/or 3.2.1 Natural grasslands Natural grasslands are areas, where
semi natural herbaceous vegetation herbaceous vegetation (maximum height
Areas

1 http://land.copernicus.eu/pan-european
6
associations is 150 cm and gramineous species are
prevailing) which cover at least 75 % of
the surface covered by vegetation.

According to the Typology for Mapping and Assessment of Ecosystems and their Services (MAES),
grassland covers areas dominated by grassy vegetation (including tall forbs, mosses and lichens) of
two kinds – managed pastures and (semi-)natural (extensively managed) grasslands.2 The MAES
typology covers 2 types of land cover according to the CORINE Land Cover classification – 2.3.1 and
3.2.1. (see table 2.2.).
Member States, together with DG-ENV, the JRC and the EEA, agreed on a list of Europe-wide
ecosystem types feasible for the aggregation of national and local data and the dis-aggregation of
European data — also reflecting main policy areas and environmental reporting. For the practical
purposes of policy-relevant ecosystem mapping and assessment at European level, and in view of the
available information, ecosystems are considered at the scale of land-cover-rela.ted units, e.g. urban,
cropland, grassland, forests, rivers and lakes. These units represent the kcey elements for human
management, e.g. in agriculture, forestry, fisheries and water management, to make the best use of
o
their services. At the same time, this spatial scale also reflects the existing definitions of European
environmental directives, namely the Habitats Directive (HD), Birds Directive (BD), Water Framework
d
Directive (WFD), and the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD). 3

g

n
i
k
r
o
W

2 Maes J, Teller A, Erhard M, Liquete C, Braat L, Berry P, Egoh B, Puydarrieux P, Fiorina C, Santos F, Paracchini ML,
Keune H, Wittmer H, Hauck J, Fiala I, Verburg PH, Condé S, Schägner JP, San Miguel J, Estreguil C, Ostermann O,
Barredo JI, Pereira HM, Stott A, Laporte V, Meiner A, Olah B, Royo Gelabert E, Spyropoulou R, Petersen JE, Maguire
C, Zal N, Achilleos E, Rubin A, Ledoux L, Brown C, Raes C, Jacobs S, Vandewalle M, Connor D, Bidoglio G., 2013.
Mapping and Assessment of Ecosystems and their Services. An analytical framework for ecosystem assessments
under action 5 of the EU biodiversity strategy to 2020. Publications office of the European Union, Luxembourg.
3 EEA, 2015. European ecosystem assessment: Concept, data, and implementation, EEA Technical report No 6/2015,
European Environment Agency (http://www. eea.europa.eu/publications/european-ecosystem-assessment) accessed 12
December 2015.
7
TABLE 2.1. Selected indicators to monitor short term impacts caused by grassland restoration activities at local level (Kuresee, EE; Šovītes, LV; Cēsis, LV; State Susve and
landscape reserve and Pavilniai Regional Park)
Indicators/Parameter Definition Methods Kuresee, EE Šovītes, LV Cēsis, LV Susve landscape Pavilniai
rezerve Regional Park
.
1. Identification and mapping of grassland habitats
c
Changes in habitat area EUNIS Habitat Mapping is performed on the basis of × x x × ×
Classification orthophothograps (M 1:10 000)
o
Habitat quality Each habitat should be described as × x x × ×
thoroughly as possible, including
characteristics of stage, usage, d
management, management history if
possible injuries, invasions, composition an d
abundance of type species and
g
characteristic species
2. Identification and mapping of grassland communities
n
Vascular plants Mapping is performed on the basis of X X × ×
Mosses orthophothograps (M 1:10 000). All plant X X × ×
communities should be diescribed applying
Lichens X X × ×
Braun-Blanquet appkroach in standard
Scrub sampling plots (approximately 10 m2) and x X × ×
identified according to national manuals for
r
grassland communities
3. Species diversity, abundance and coverage o
Vascular plants Number of species Sampling plots of 1m2 or 10m2 size, in × x X × ×
per plot average 3-5 plots per a habitat
W
Mosses Species list is taken from habitat mapping × x X × ×
activities in the countries. Direction of
Lichens × x X × ×
transect should be selected aiming to
Shrubs × x X × ×
exclude impact of changes of hydrological
Trees conditions (e.g., along slope versus from the × x X × ×
top bottom of the slope)
Bumblebees Bumblebees will be counted using the ×
standard transect method. A transect o up
to 1000x2 meters will be selected and
divided into plots of 20x2 meters. Walking
8
at a slow and even pace along the transect
mid-line, an observer will be recorded the
species and number of all foraging
bumblebees and the plant species they are
visiting within the 1m strip each side of the
.
mid-line. Observations will be made only on
c
sunny days with temperature above 16 ◦C
and when rain, fog and strong wind are
o
absent.
Flower cover will be estimated on a scale of
0–3 during each count per each transect d
section: 0 – no suitable flowers for
bumblebees; 1 – up to 1/3, 2 – up to 2/3 ,
and 3 – up to 3/3 is covered with flowers
g
suitable for bumblebees. Bumblebees and
plants will be identified to species level.
n
Those that could not be identified in field,
will be identified later in the laboratory.
i
All counts will be made during the relatively
k
short period between 20 July and 10
August, when there is large brood in the
r
nests, and the number of bumblebee
workers iso at the peak.
Spiders
Earthworms x X
W
Carabidae (beetles)
Collembola (insects)
Butterflies
4. Landscape
Fragmentation × x X × ×
Connectivity × x X × ×
Relief (topography) × x X × ×
History of the land use × x X × ×
Sources of Seeds and x X × ×
9
Use of Adjacent
Territories
5. Soil properties
Vegetation litter Thickness of the litter × x X × ×
layer in cm
.

c
Litter layer (0 horizon) x x x
Soil Nutrients in Mineral N, P, Cation exchange Mineral top soil or deeper layer x x X
o
Ap Soil Horizon (0-20 capacity (Ca2+, Mg2+,
cm) K+, Na+) + (H+, Al3+)
d
Soil pH (KCl BaCl , etc) in x x X
2
mineral Ap Soil Horizon
(0-20 cm)
Organic carbon content % g x x x
in mineral soils (Ap
horizon 0-20 cm)
n
Bulk density in mineral x x X
soils (Ap horizon 0-20
i
cm)
Soil moisture k x x X
Soil texture in mineral Sand/silt/ clay x x X
soil (Ap horizon 0-20 content r
cm) and in soil parent
o
material (C horizon)
Soil texture groups in Sand/loamy sand, x x X × ×
mineral soil (Ap horizon silt, silty loam, clay, W
0-20 cm) and in soil etc.
parent material (C
horizon)
Occurrence of CaCO3 x x
(depth, cm)
6. Water quality
Nutrient concentrations Nitrates, Nitrite, Water samples are taken from 2 sites x X
Phosphorous, BOD, upstream and downstream, to reflect on
O2 (mg/l) impact on grassland management on the
water runoff.
10