Vastavalt nimekirjale 05.12.2024 nr 6-3/24/5766-2
Läti „Valmiera-Valka" tuulepargi projekti piiriülene
keskkonnamõju hindamine
Läti on piiriülese keskkonnamõju konventsiooni (Espoo konventsiooni) alusel teavitanud Eestit
„Valmiera-Valka“ tuulepargi projekti keskkonnamõju hindamise (edaspidi KMH) aruande
valmimisest1.
Arendaja SIA Latvijas vēja parki kavandab rajada kuni 38 tuulikuga tuulepargi, mille asukohaks
on Plāni vald Valmiera haldusüksuses ning Vijciema ja Valka vallad Valka haldusüksuses. Ühe
tuuliku planeeritav maksimaalne võimsus on 8 MW ning maksimaalne kõrgus 300 m. Tuulepargi
planeeritav kogupindala on 5387 ha. Kavandatav tuulepark jääb Eesti piirist ligikaudu 4,7 km
kaugusele. Kirjale on lisatud „Valmiera-Valka“ tuulepargi projekti KMH aruande eesti- ja
ingliskeelsed kokkuvõtted ning ingliskeelne KMH aruanne.
Arvestades Läti määratud vastamistähtaega, ootame hiljemalt 03.01.2025 ettepanekuid „Valmiera-
Valka“ tuulepargi KMH aruande kohta ning põhjendatud arvamusi selle kohta, milline oluline
kahjulik piiriülene keskkonnamõju võib planeeritava tegevusega Eestile kaasneda.
Lugupidamisega
(allkirjastatud digitaalselt)
Antti Tooming
elurikkuse ja keskkonnakaitse asekantsler
Lisa: KMH aruanne koos eesti- ja inglisekeelsete kokkuvõtetega
Lilli Tamm, 6269133
[email protected]
1
Kliimaministeerium on Teid Valmiera-Valka tuulepargi projektist Läti saadetud teatest eelnevalt teavitanud
19.10.2023 kirjaga nr 6-3/23/4775-2. Eesti avaldas soovi antud menetluses osaleda 23.11.2023 kirjaga nr 6-3/23/4775-
14.
Suur-Ameerika 1 / Tallinn 10122 / 626 2802/
[email protected] / www.kliimaministeerium.ee/
Registrikood 70001231
EIA of the WPP park
“Valmiera-Valka”
Environmental Impact Assessment for the
implementation of the wind power plant park
“Valmiera-Valka” and its related infrastructure
project in Valmiera and Valka municipalities
Enviroprojekts
16.10.2024
Public Consultation version of the EIA Report
1
Contents
Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 7
1. Reasoned justification for the choice of the proposed site of operation ............................ 13
2. Legislative overview ............................................................................................................. 20
3. Description of the site of the proposed operation .................................................................. 31
3.1. Compatibility of the proposed activity with the spatial plan and the existing use of the
site ........................................................................................................................................... 31
3.2. Description of the site and surroundings of the proposed operation .............................. 36
3.3. Characteristics of wind conditions .................................................................................... 41
3.4. Characteristics of adverse meteorological conditions ...................................................... 43
4. Description of the proposed action and alternatives .......................................................... 45
4.1. Location of the WPP park, study areas and WPP site alternatives ................................... 45
4.1.1. Location of the WPP study area ................................................................................. 45
4.1.2. Study area alternatives .............................................................................................. 47
4.1.3. Alternatives to the location of the proposed activity assessed in the EIA report ...... 48
4.2. Characteristics of WPP technologies and alternative solutions ........................................ 51
4.3. Construction process ................................................................................................... 55
4.3.1. Description of the construction works and components of the WPP project ..... 55
4.3.2. Planned site preparation works ........................................................................... 57
4.3.3. Construction solutions for roads and squares ..................................................... 60
4.3.4. Solution for WPP foundation structures .............................................................. 62
4.3.5. Installation of temporary service area, mast structure and WPP .............................. 63
4.3.6. Construction of utilities ............................................................................................. 65
4.3.7. Transport of WPP components .................................................................................. 67
4.3.8. Installation of additional security, lighting and monitoring equipment for WPP ....... 70
4.3.9. Inspection, testing and acceptance of equipment ..................................................... 70
4.3.10. Reclamation of construction sites and WPPs................................................... 71
4.4. Description of BESS technologies and related infrastructure ...................................... 72
4.5. Operational characteristics of the WPP ....................................................................... 75
5. Expected by-products, emissions, risks ............................................................................... 76
5.1. Waste management ......................................................................................................... 76
5.2. Possible effects of WPPs on human health, assessment of electromagnetic radiation
and permissible levels.............................................................................................................. 77
5.3. Forecasting accident risks and emergency situations ....................................................... 80
2
5.3.1. Natural disasters ........................................................................................................ 80
5.3.2. Risk assessment of mechanical damage to WPP ....................................................... 90
5.3.3. Impact of the WPP on air traffic, navigation equipment ......................................... 104
5.3.4. BESS container accident risk .................................................................................... 109
5.4. Information on climate change impacts .................................................................... 110
5.5. Information on the climate resilience of the Proposed Activity and the potential
impacts of climate change on the Proposed Activity ............................................................. 113
6. Assessment of the existing environmental status of the site ............................................ 114
6.1. Hydrogeological conditions ....................................................................................... 114
6.2. Hydrological conditions ............................................................................................. 119
6.2.1. Surface water bodies ............................................................................................... 119
6.2.2. Drainage systems ..................................................................................................... 121
6.2.3. Protection zones for watercourses, existing drainage and drainage facilities ......... 123
6.3. Geological structure and engineering geological conditions ..................................... 125
6.3.1. Pre-quaternary sediments ................................................................................. 125
6.3.2. Quaternary sediments ....................................................................................... 128
6.3.3. Engineering geological conditions and modern exodynamic processes ............ 130
6.4. Characteristics of the natural values of the surroundings ......................................... 131
6.4.1. Special areas of conservation and Natura 2000 sites ........................................ 131
6.4.2. Protected habitats and species of special conservation concern ...................... 142
6.4.3. Bird species in the area...................................................................................... 147
6.4.4. Bat species in the area ....................................................................................... 151
6.4.5. Invertebrate species in the area ......................................................................... 155
6.4.6. Mammals................................................................................................................. 163
6.5. Scenic and cultural heritage significance ................................................................... 168
6.5.1. Landscape characteristics ........................................................................................ 168
6.5.2. Characteristics of cultural heritage .................................................................... 175
6.5.3. Tourism and recreation opportunities in the area............................................. 179
6.6. Residential houses and residential areas ................................................................... 183
6.7. Noise assessment ...................................................................................................... 185
6.8. Air quality assessment in the WPP area .................................................................... 190
6.9. Information on nearby industrial activities ................................................................ 195
6.10. Consistency with Valmiera and Valka District planning documents ...................... 195
6.11. Information on nearby airports and aerodromes and the impact on communication
systems…. .............................................................................................................................. 198
3
6.12. Nearest water abstraction and mineral extraction sites ........................................ 202
7. Assessment of the significant environmental effects of the proposed action and possible
alternatives ................................................................................................................................ 207
7.1. Total deforested area ................................................................................................ 207
7.2. Changes in noise and vibration levels ........................................................................ 214
7.2.1. Assessment and significance of changes in noise levels .......................................... 214
7.2.2. Assessment and significance of low-frequency noise .............................................. 226
7.2.3. Assessment and significance of changes in vibration levels .................................... 229
7.3. Effects of the flicker effect......................................................................................... 231
7.4. Impact on air quality .................................................................................................. 240
7.5. Protection zones and their impact ............................................................................ 245
7.6. Impacts on natural values and mitigation measures ................................................. 247
7.6.1. Habitats and vascular plant species ................................................................... 247
7.6.2. Effects on birds .................................................................................................. 313
7.6.3. Measures to mitigate impacts on birds ............................................................. 327
7.6.4. Effects on bats ................................................................................................... 333
7.6.5. Measures to mitigate impacts on bats .............................................................. 333
7.6.6. Invertebrates ..................................................................................................... 334
7.6.7. Effects on mammals .......................................................................................... 335
7.6.8. Measures to mitigate impacts on mammals...................................................... 335
7.7. Landscape and heritage impact assessment ............................................................. 336
7.7.1. Impact on the landscape ................................................................................... 336
7.7.2. Impact on cultural heritage ............................................................................... 342
7.8. Impact on tourism and recreation ............................................................................. 354
7.9. Impacts on Natura 2000 sites in the vicinity of the WPP Park ................................... 361
7.10. Summary of mitigation measures .......................................................................... 394
8. Justification of the chosen alternative in the light of a comparison of environmental
impacts ...................................................................................................................................... 395
9. Cross-border assessment .................................................................................................. 412
9.1. Transboundary impact assessment for landscape, tourism and recreation ................... 412
9.2. Impact assessment on birds ........................................................................................... 412
9.3. Overview of transboundary impacts of the Ministry of Climate of the Republic of Estonia
............................................................................................................................................... 414
10. Information on the predictive methods or evidence used by the proponent to identify
and assess the significant environmental effects of the proposed activity ............................... 418
4
11. Types of solutions and measures to avoid significant adverse effects on the
environment. ............................................................................................................................. 420
12. Measures to monitor environmental quality and assess greenhouse gas emissions, if
necessary (e.g. preparation of a post-project analysis) ............................................................. 422
13. Public opinion and opinion polls .................................................................................... 425
13.1. Initial public consultation....................................................................................... 425
13. 2. Results of citizens' surveys ........................................................................................... 425
14. Socio-economic assessment of the proposed action..................................................... 430
14.1. Impact of climate policy on socio-economic benefits................................................... 430
14.2. Current situation and assumptions............................................................................... 434
14.2.1. Socio-economic benefits for society as a whole .................................................... 434
14.2.2. Socio-economic impact of the Valmiera-Valka WPP Park ...................................... 437
14.2.3. Socio-economic benefits - Community levy........................................................... 438
14.2.4. Conclusions on socio-economic benefits ............................................................... 439
15. Summary of the environmental impact assessment of the proposed action ................ 441
16. Authors of the Environmental Impact Assessment ....................................................... 442
17. List of sources of information and literature consulted in the preparation of the EIA
report......................................................................................................................................... 443
ATTACHMENTS
Annex 1
EIA Programme No 5-03/9/2023 with amendments
Annex 2
Letters from institutions:
- Letter from the Nature Conservation Agency 17.04.2024. No 4.9/2372/2024-N
- Letter from the Nature Conservation Agency 23.05.2024. No 1.6.1/3200/2024-N
- Valka Municipality, Letter No 3.9/23/780 of 5 September 2023
- Valmiera Municipality, letter No 4.1.8.3/23/9582 of 29 October 2023
- Letter No 4-6/1385 of 20 September 2024 from the Latvian Centre for Environment, Geology
and Meteorology on pollutant concentrations in the potential impact area of the polluting
activity
Annex 3
Overview of the initial public consultation
Annex 4
Overview of how the proposals submitted during the initial public consultation have been
taken into account
Annex 5
CO2 and GHG emissions
5
Annex 6
Nature expert opinions
6.1. Expert opinion on species and habitats
6.2. Opinions of ornithologists
6.3. Invertebrate expert opinion
6.4. Mammal expert opinion
Annex 7
Noise assessment
8. Attached
Assessment of the flicker effect
9. Attached
Landscape assessment
10. Attached
Assessment by hydrologist/hydrogeologist
Annex 11
Calculation of costs and benefits
Annex 12
Mitigation measures
Annex 13
SKDS survey
14. Attached
Summary of the EIA Report
15. Attached
Polish expert's assessment of the WPP
16. Attached
Cartographic material (*.shp or *.gdb format):
- planned infrastructure facilities, access roads,
- deforested areas
- natural values: biotopes, habitats of rare species, nests of large birds and risk zones
around them, beech trees, micro-reserves, Natura 2000 sites, planned Special
Protection Areas, protected areas of JSC “Latvia's State Forest”, protection zones and
other natural values identified during the preparation of the EIA report.
6
Introduction
The Environmental Impact Assessment (hereinafter - EIA) has been prepared for the proposed
activity - implementation of the wind power plant (hereinafter - WPP) park “Valmiera-Valka”
and its related infrastructure project in the Plani municipality of Valmiera county and the
Vijciema and Valka municipalities of Valka county.
During the initial feasibility phase of the project, 93 potential WPP sites were investigated. In
consultation with certified experts and the Nature Conservation Agency, the number of WPPs
was reduced - eliminating those that would cause significant adverse changes to the
environment - to 84 WPPs, which were examined in more detail as part of the EIA procedure.
Sequentially, from 84 WPP sites up to 38 WPPs were recommended for construction of the
proposed action. The EIA report provides an explanation of the analysis of all the WPP
locations that determine the feasibility of these WPP parks. Each potential WPP could have a
rated capacity of up to 8 MW. The proponent of the proposed activity is Latvijas vēja parki Ltd,
registration No 40203415150, registered office: Pulkveža Brieža iela 12, Rīga, LV-1010.
According to the decision of the Cabinet of Ministers, JSC Latvenergo has become the owner of
100% of shares in Latvijas vēja parki Ltd. Latvian Wind Parks Ltd. is a national company whose
goal is energy independence, long-term renewable energy and value growth for the benefit of
all Latvian citizens and businesses.
Decision No 5-03/9/2023 of the Environment State Bureau (hereinafter - ESB) on the
application of EIA procedure for the proposed activity of Latvijas vēja parki Ltd -
implementation of the Valmiera-Valka WPP park and its related infrastructure project in the
Plani municipality of Valmiera county and the Vijciems and Valka municipalities of Valka county
was adopted on 15 August 2023. EIA Programme No 5-03/9/2023 (as amended on 10 January
2024, No 5-02-1/4/2024) was issued on 12 September 2023 (Annex 1). An initial public
consultation on the proposed action was held on 10-30 November 2023.
During the preparation of the EIA, consultative working group meetings on the Valmiera-Valka
wind park were held in February 2024 in Valka and Seda on the following topics: landscape,
biodiversity, physical impacts of the wind park and socio-economic feasibility and climate
change impacts of the wind park. The meetings provided information on the EIA procedure;
the methods used to prepare the EIA, and answered citizens' questions about the planned
project.
The implementation of the Valmiera-Valka WPP Park and its related infrastructure project in
the Plani municipality of Valmiera county and the Vijciems and Valka municipalities of Valka
county (hereinafter - the Proposed Action) includes and is being assessed in the framework of
the EIA procedure also infrastructure related to the functioning of the WPP Park - construction
and operation of electricity transmission cable lines, transformer substations, electricity
storage solutions and access roads.
Of the 84 WPPs initially assessed, 41 WPPs were identified as having significant environmental
impacts on bird species, habitats or landscapes, following assessments by natural experts
received in early 2024. The potential WPPs to be built were grouped into two alternative WPP
park locations:
Alternative A consists of 29 WPPs in a compact area in the SW between Sedas and Puksi
swamp and Gauja river;
7
Alternative B consists of 43 WPPs: 14 WPPs in a compact area to the NE of the Puksi bog,
added to the 29 WPPs planned 7 km away in the SW part of the Operational Area (identified as
Alternative A) (see Figure 4.1.4).
For these WPP Park alternatives, which consist of 29 and 43 WPPs respectively, an assessment
of physical impacts (noise, flicker, landscape impact assessment) was carried out and a further
assessment by natural experts comparing WPP Park location alternatives A and B was
requested again in summer 2024. Following the additions to the expert opinions, the
assessment of the WPPs to be implemented was adjusted in September 2024, as significant
impacts on natural values were identified - impacts on bird species for 3 WPPs, one VES (VV62)
was moved to the previous location of VES VV61, and for a further four WPPs it was
recommended to choose two out of four, the choice to be made at the design stage, assessing
the engineering conditions.
As a result, of the 84 WPPs assessed within the EIA, the experts recommend 46 WPP sites be
rejected for various reasons. For all other WPP locations, a number of operational
restrictions are recommended, including the installation of WPP containment chamber
systems, limits on the maximum height of WPP turbines, etc.
In addition to the result of the assessment, the alternative locations of the WPP Park, the
alternatives with the following number of WPPs are: Alternative A (above 29) has 27 WPPs (of
which 25 would be built) and Alternative B (above 43) has 40 WPPs: of which 38 would be
built, see Table 1 and Figure 1.
The chronology of the research of the territory of WPP park “Valmiera-Valka” is given in Table
1.
Table 1. Chronology of the research of the territory of WPP park “Valmiera-Valka”
Chronology of WPP site WPP park configuration
investigations
Initial feasibility phase 93 potential WPP sites have been investigated. 9 WPP were
excluded from further investigation and 11 WPP were refined (93 -
9 = 84 WPP)
84 WPP were studied in more detail in the framework of the EIA
procedure - 41 WPP were identified as having significant
environmental impacts and, due to the identified constraints, were
excluded from the detailed study.
(84 - 41 = 43 WPP). 43 WPP are being promoted for potential
development
The 43 selected WPP were grouped into two alternatives (A and B):
Situation at the start of 2024 the WPP park location options
Alternative A: 29 WPP compact area in the SW part between Sedu,
Gauja and Puksi swamp
Alternative B: 43 WPP - 43 WPP: consisting of the compact area in
the SW part (29 WPP of Alternative A) and 14 WPP in the compact
area to the NE of the Puksi swamp, added to the 29 WPP planned 7
km away in the SW part of the site (identified as Alternative A). 29
+ 14 = 43 WPP
8
Chronology of WPP site WPP park configuration
investigations
Nuisance effects on bird species have been identified for 3 WPP
(VV92, VV44, VV45), these 3 WPP have been excluded from the
implementation plan.
1 WPP (VV62) was moved to the previous location of WPP VV61
(moving this WPP does not change the WPP total in any of the
alternatives).
Additional clarification on the total number of WPP: one (VV92)
excluded from the 14 WPP in the compact area to the N of
Alternative B (13 NPPs remain); two (VV44 and VV45) excluded
from the WPP in Alternative A).
Hence - 2 WPP are removed from Alternative A: 29 - 2 = 27 WPP,
In September 2024, adjustments while all 3 WPP are removed from Alternative B (because the total
were made number of WPP in Alternative B also includes WPP in Alternative
A), i.e. 43 - 3 = 40 WPP
For the other 4 WPP (VV36, VV40, VV1, VV82), it is recommended
that the choice for construction be made in favor of only two, the
choice to be made at the design stage, after assessing the
engineering conditions (thus - 2 more WPP are excluded from each
alternative, i.e.
Alternative A 27 - 2 = 25 WPP,
Alternative B 40 - 2 = 38 WPP
Result (see Figure 1) Alternative A with 27 WPP, of which 25 WPP would be built
9
Figure 1. Planned location of the Valmiera-Valka WPP Park
The assessment of several areas in the public consultation version of the EIA report is on the
potential WPPs to be constructed, corresponding to the Valmiera-Valka park location
alternative A with 29 WPPs and location alternative B with 43 WPPs. For the public
consultation version of the EIA report, an assessment of physical impacts (flicker, landscape
impact), a calculation of climate change impacts and a calculation of socio-economic benefits
were carried out for these alternatives for the location of the WPP park. It is envisaged that
during the public consultation of the EIA report, the WPPs that are currently recommended for
construction may be refined, taking into account the proposals submitted by the public and
other institutions and the results of the public consultation. In the updated version of the EIA
report, which will be submitted to the NPVB for its opinion, the assessments will be refined
according to the number of recommended WPPs, but it can already be said that the refined
results in areas such as flicker, landscape, deforested areas, etc. will have a lower potential
environmental impact.
Despite the fact that the opinions of the experts in the relevant fields invited to prepare the
EIA report have been drawn up with the necessary caution. The EIA did not identify any
circumstances that would prevent the implementation of any of the alternatives to location A
and B. By avoiding the siting of WPPs in locations with significant environmental impacts, both
recommended alternatives for the location of the WPP park are feasible.
In the case of the implementation of the proposed activity, if the recommended alternative for
the location of WPP Park A is implemented, deforestation will not exceed 90 ha, while if the
recommended alternative for the location of WPP Park B is implemented, the deforested area
will not exceed 145 ha.
10
The noise modelling has selected the WPP model (Nordex 175-6.8), which has a high noise
power level, and no potential problems with exceedances of noise limits are expected as a
result of the noise calculations (see Chapter 7.2.1).
For low-frequency noise, the limit values and procedures in Denmark are the basis, as there
are no limit values in Latvia. The low frequency outdoor noise modelled in the EIA does not
reach the lowest indoor level in any nearby development: 15 dB(A) (see Chapter 7.2.2).
The assessment of the flicker effect of WPPs in other countries and also the latest Latvian
“Guidelines for Environmental Impact Assessment of Wind Power Plants and
Recommendations on Requirements for Construction of Wind Power Plants” (2023) set
desirable targets for the flicker effect. The shadow duration target of 10 hours per year is not
exceeded in any of the houses (see Chapter 7.3).
The air quality has been assessed using the letter No 4-6/1385 of the Latvian Environment,
Geology and Meteorology Centre (hereinafter – LEGMC) dated 20 September 2024 on the
concentration of pollutants in the potential impact area of the polluting activity. Construction
equipment and transport for the construction of the WPP will cause insignificant, local,
temporary and episodic air pollution, which will be localised to the construction area. Given
the limited construction period and the absence of residential development in the vicinity, no
additional measures or restrictions are required during the construction period of the WPP.
In the context of the assessment of impacts on bat species, if automatic shutdown or non-
start-up of wind turbines is ensured; monitoring of bats is ensured in the first and second year
after the start of operation of the wind turbines, and if the limits on turbine operation are
respected during operation of the WPP based on the results of the monitoring, the
establishment of the WPP park is allowed under both siting alternatives.
In the context of the assessment of impacts on bird species, a detailed analysis of 55 bird
species has been carried out to assess whether or not the construction of the WPP is
proposed. For bird species for which fixed size areas around the species' breeding site are to
be defined and the construction of a VES is not recommended, “exclusion species” (e.g. Lesser
Spotted Eagle, Black Stork, etc.) are identified and VES-free zones around the breeding sites of
these species and additional, outside this zone, necessary mitigation measures are identified.
For bird species for which the construction of a WPP is likely in the vicinity of their habitats, the
recommendation not to construct a WPP is made in areas of concentration for several bird
species. Of the 84 WPPs originally planned and assessed in the EIA, the bird expert
recommends that 38 should be abandoned for various reasons. For all other WPP sites, a
number of operational restrictions are recommended, including. The installation of camera
systems to stop the WPP. In terms of potential risks to ornithofauna, both proposed siting
alternatives can be implemented with appropriate mitigation.
The assessment of the impact on landscape, cultural heritage, tourism and recreation
concludes that the location of Alternative A has a lower impact compared to the location of
Alternative B, which has a much higher impact due to the addition of 10 turbines in the
northern part of the wind farm and three in the central part, which is an objective increase of
the Proposed Activity with direct consequences on landscape changes.
Of the 84 WPPs originally planned and assessed in the EIA, the Vascular Plants and Habitats
Expert recommends that 8 WPP sites be rejected for various reasons. For a number of WPP
sites, a number of conditions have been recommended that need to be taken into account
during design and construction. Both alternatives can be implemented with appropriate
solutions, also from the point of view of the species and habitat expert.
11
It is assessed that the construction process of the WPP parks will not have a negative impact
on the functioning of drainage systems in or around the area of the Proposed Action. Potential
impacts on plant species and habitats in the SPAs and SACs that are dependent on the
moisture regime can be considered to be insignificant, as the changes will be insignificant and
little perceptible against the background of natural seasonal fluctuations in groundwater
levels.
The EIA report has been prepared by Enviroprojekts Ltd, involving experts from various fields.
A list of the experts involved in the preparation of the EIA is provided in the chapter “Authors
of the Environmental Impact Assessment”. The report provides detailed information on the
proposed activity itself, the existing state of the environment, the impact on natural values in
the area of the proposed activity and its surroundings, as well as alternatives to the proposed
activity. Under the terms of the programme issued by the ESB, the report also provides
information on monitoring requirements, assessment methods, etc.
The Environmental Impact Assessment Report, including all its annexes, has been prepared in
accordance with the terms of Contract No 610000/23-15. Therefore, all the conclusions and
findings made during the preparation of the Environmental Impact Assessment correspond to
the situation (actual, physical, climatic, etc.) at the time of its preparation, as well as to the
information provided by the client - Latvijas vēja parki Ltd. However, it should be noted that the
overall environmental parameters of the site and the observations of natural values may
change over time, so it is not acceptable to use data without updating if the reference data
used in the environmental impact assessment are time-barred. Similarly, no interpretation or
optimisation of the results of the environmental impact assessment that is not in line with the
terms of reference of Contract No 610000/23-15 is allowed.
12
1. Reasoned justification for the choice of the proposed site of
operation
The intended action is the implementation of the WPP Park and related infrastructure project
in the Plani municipality of Valmiera and the Vijciems and Valka municipalities of Valka. Up to
38 WPPs are planned to be built in the WPP Park, each with a rated capacity of up to 8 MW.
In the initial feasibility phase of the project, 93 potential WPP turbines were investigated - but
in consultation with certified experts and the Nature Conservation Agency, the number of
turbines was reduced to 84 turbines, which were investigated in more detail as part of the EIA
procedure, and those with significant adverse environmental impacts were discarded. The
total area of the WPP construction and study area is 5387 ha.
The proposed activity also includes and the EIA assessed the infrastructure related to the
functioning of the WPP park - construction and operation of transmission lines, transformer
substations, BESS, assembly and maintenance yards and access roads.
The wind park is planned to be built in the south-western part of the territory of the Valka
district and in the south-eastern part of the Valmiera district, ~1 km from Seda, ~2 km from
Strenči and ~5 km from Valka. Other nearby settlements (villages) are Vijciems, Sēļi and
Jērcēni. There are also a number of farmsteads in the immediate vicinity of the proposed wind
farm, see Figure 3.2.
The WPP and the assembly and maintenance sites will be located in the forest areas of JSC
“Latvijas valsts meži”. JSC “Latvia's State Forests”, as the manager of Latvia's strategic asset -
land, is actively involved in achieving the goals set out in the Latvian National Energy and
Climate Plan 2021-2030 to strengthen energy independence and economic development. In
addition to the requirements for protected forest areas, JSC “Latvijas valsts meži” has
identified land units under its management where it is justified to carry out a study for wind
farms1.
JSC “Latvijas valsts meži” has determined that wind parks will not be established on the lands
of JSC “Latvijas valsts meži”2:
• in and within 800 m of towns and villages, and within 800 m of residential and public
buildings;
• in nature conservation areas where the construction of wind farms is incompatible
with the laws and regulations of the Republic of Latvia;
• in areas where the purpose of forest land management is nature conservation and JSC
“Latvia's State Forests” has additionally established protection for preserved
environmental values, as well as in forest areas important for recreation of the
population, etc;
• where cultural monuments are located.
1
https://www.lvmgeo.lv/dati
2
https://www.lvm.lv/biznesa-partneriem/zemes-pirksana-un-noma/veja-parki
13
The location of the WPP study area and the 84 WPP assessed in detail in Valmiera and Valka
districts are presented below (Figure 1.1).
Figure 1.1. Valmiera-Valka Wind Park JSC LVM wind park exploration lands3 Location of the area
and 84 WPPs studied in more detail in Valmiera and Valka districts
Based on the information of the State Land Service, the type of use of the land units included
in the territory of the Proposed Action is forest. Given that the construction of the WPP Park is
planned in a forest area, in accordance with Article 4 of the Law on the Procedure for the
Construction of Facilitated Energy Supply Structures to Promote Energy Security and
Independence, the construction of the WPP Park infrastructure will be subject to deforestation
and land transformation to the extent necessary in accordance with Article 9(1) of the same
Law. Information on the area and volume of land to be transformed (deforestation) is provided
in Chapter 7.1. Under the current regulations, such activities are not allowed on agricultural
land. According to the Law on the Procedure for the Construction of Facilitated Energy Supply
Structures for the Promotion of Energy Security and Independence, if wind power plants are
constructed on forest land, the negative effects of deforestation shall be compensated by
afforestation in accordance with the opinion of the State Environmental Oversight Office on
the report. The costs of the compensatory measures shall be borne by the Proponent of the
Proposed Action.
3
Under the conditions set out at https://www.lvmgeo.lv/dati
14
The location of the existing 110 kV and 330 kV power lines and substations of JSC
“Augstsprieguma tīkls” (Latvian electricity transmission system operator) is shown in Figure
1.2.
Figure 1.2. Augstsprieguma tīkls AS power line and substation in relation to the location of the
Valmiera-Valka Wind Park JSC LVM wind park study land
In terms of environmental impact assessment, the proposed activity is planned on 31 land
plots, summarised in Table 1.2.
Table 1.2. Land units included in the recommended area of the Valmiera-Valka WPP Park
No. Name of the real estate Cadastral number Cadastral designation of the
land unit
1. State Forest 94760020021 94760020021 94760040033
2. State Forest 94880120008 94880120008 94880130056
3. State Forest 94760030020 94760030020 94760030020
4. State Forest 94760020020 94760020020 94760020020
5. State Forest 94760020020 94760020020 94760010054
6. State Forest 94760040031 94760040031 94760040031
7. State Forest 94760020021 94760020021 94760040032
8. State Forest 94880120008 94880120008 94880130012
9. State Forest 94880120008 94880120008 94880130009
10. State Forest 94880120008 94880120008 94880120008
11. State Forest 94760020021 94760020021 94760020021
12. State Forest 94760040031 94760040031 94760020022
13. Without subject (high 94760010017 94760010017
voltage line)
14. State Ltd “Latvijas Valsts 94760010057 94760010057
ceļi” 94760010057
15
15. “Zāģeri”, Plāņu par., 94760010010 94760010010
Valmieras nov.
16 “Vītola Pļava”, Plāņu par., 94760010015 94760010015
Valmieras nov.
17. “Egļi”, Plāņu par., Valmieras 94760010004 94760010004
nov.
18. Reserve land fund 94760030017 94760030017
19. Untitled 94760030010 94760030010
20. “Kaķi”, Plāņu par., Valmieras 94760030012 94760030012
nov.
21. State Forest 94760040033 94760040033 94760040033
22. State Ltd “Latvijas Valsts 94760040039 94760040039
ceļi” 94760040039
23. State Ltd “Latvijas Valsts 94880130026 94880130026
ceļi” 94880130026
24. State Forest 94880130016 94880130016 94880130016
25. Without subject (high 94880130017 94880130017
voltage line)
26. Untitled 94880130032 94880130032
27. State Ltd “Latvijas Valsts 94880120015 94880120015
ceļi” 94880120015
28. “Medņi”, Valkas par., Valkas 94880120022 94880120022
nov.
29. State Ltd “Latvijas Valsts 94760020027 94760020027
ceļi” 94760020027
30. State Ltd “Latvijas Valsts 94760020024 94760020024
ceļi” 94760020024
31. State Ltd “Latvijas Valsts 94880100152 94880100152
ceļi” 94880100152
A very important advantage of this project is the location of the WPP in predominantly
forested areas, thus minimising flicker, noise and landscape change impacts for farmsteads and
residents.4 However, there are 25 farmsteads in the study area of the proposed wind farm5
(see Figure 3.2). According to the Cabinet of Ministers Regulation No.240 of 30.04.2013
“General Regulations on Spatial Planning, Use and Construction”, for wind power plants with
capacity greater than 2 MW, the distance from the nearest planned wind power plant and
wind park boundary to residential and public buildings shall not be less than 800 m. This EIA
process has identified that the closest residential house to the boundary of the WPP park, at a
distance of 816 m (from the closest/marginal WPP), is “Residential house 145 km”.
Based on the data from the Nature Data Management System (hereinafter - NDMS) “Ozols”,
there are no specially protected nature areas and micro-reserves included in the Natura 2000
network6 in the study areas of the wind park “Valmiera-Valka” JSC LVM. For more detailed
information on protected areas and natural monuments, as well as biodiversity in the study
area, see Section 3.2 below). The nearest NATURA 2000 site is the protected landscape area
4 https://www.zalabriviba.lv/wp-content/uploads/veja_izmantosanas_analize_skersli_iespejas-1.pdf
5
According to www.kadastrs.lv (29.09.2024)
6
Natura 2000 teritorijas Latvijā | Dabas aizsardzības pārvalde
16
“Ziemeļgauja”, which borders and lies to the south, east and north-east of the study area. The
site of the proposed activity is completely surrounded by the micro-reserve “Bulvāra riests”
(NATURA 2000 site).
The mineral resources required for construction are available in the vicinity of the proposed
activity (see Section 6.12.2 below).
There are no contaminated or potentially contaminated sites in the site and vicinity of the
proposed activity (see Section 3.2 below).
There are no protected cultural monuments in the areas where the WPP are planned (see
subsection 6.5.2 below).
There are no objects included in the Cabinet of Ministers Regulation No 46 of 21.01.2021 “List
of objects of increased danger” at the site and in the vicinity of the proposed activity.
The site has a well-developed road infrastructure: the main national road A3, the regional road
P24, local roads V261 and V260, an extensive road network of JSC Latvijas Valsts Meži, in the
wider vicinity - roads P23, P25, V240 and V237, as well as municipal roads.
High-voltage 330 kV and 110 kV transmission lines run directly through the area of the
Proposed Action, which economically justifies the construction of the WPP park close to the
electricity connection, also reducing the area to be deforested, as the new connection line is
shorter.
In the vicinity of the Valmiera-Valka WPP Park there are, and in the future there are plans to
develop, companies that are large consumers of electricity, such as in the Valmiera region - the
glass fibre manufacturer Valmiera glass; Valmieras piens, Rūjiena ice cream, Valmiermuiža
brewery, Valpro metal fuel can manufacturing plant, etc, in Valka region, the manufacturer of
polyethylene foam products and bubble wrap is PEPI RER Ltd, the metalworking company
Akords-3 Ltd, the woodworking company Vārpas-1 Ltd, etc.
The JSC LVM wind farm study area, which includes 17 land units, is adjacent to 237 land units7.
The territory of the proposed action is located in the Gauja river basin district. The largest
watercourses are the Gauja, Seda and Vija rivers. For more information on the hydrological
conditions of the study area, see Chapter 6.2.
In 2022, the Law on the Procedure for the Construction of Facilitated Energy Supply Structures
to Promote Energy Security and Independence was adopted, the aim of which is to promote
the production of renewable energy, promote the energy security and independence of the
Republic of Latvia, and mitigate the processes of negative climate and environmental change.
In order to fulfil the objectives set out in the Law, as well as in the context of the European
Green Deal and other factors and aspects affecting energy supply, on 28 November 2023 the
Cabinet of Ministers approved Order No 831 “On Approval of the Lump Sum Amount in
Connection with the Right to Conclude a Development Right Agreement for the Siting of
Strategically Important Wind Parks on State Forest Land”, which allows the Ministry of
Agriculture to grant exploration and development rights to “Latvijas vēja parki” Ltd for
7
Number of land units, according to the State Land Service on 27 September 2024
17
strategically important wind parks on state forest land. The development right agreement with
Latvijas vēja parki Ltd has been signed by the state forest land manager - JSC “Latvijas valsts
meži”. The contract is for 30 years, with the right to extend it if permitted by law.
The rationale for the location of the proposed Valmiera-Valka WPP Park was determined, inter
alia, by the following factors:
• the possibility to transfer the generated electricity to the transmission infrastructure of
JSC Augstsprieguma tīkls (hereafter - AST) (high voltage power lines in the vicinity of
the study area are shown in Figure 1.2);
• restrictions, requirements and minimum distances set out in legislation and sectoral
guidelines:
o For WPPs with a capacity greater than 2 MW, the distance from the nearest
planned wind power plant and wind park boundary to residential and public
buildings shall be at least 800 m (in accordance with the Cabinet of Ministers'
notice of 30.04.2013. 240 “General Regulations on Planning, Use and
Development of the Territory”, p. 163.2), see Figure 3.2.2;
o The construction of wind turbines is allowed outside towns and villages in the
industrial building area, technical building area, agricultural area, forest land,
as defined in the spatial plan of the local municipality, provided that the
distance from residential and public buildings to the nearest boundary of the
planned wind turbine and wind park is at least 800 metres (cf. the Law on the
Procedure for the Construction of Facilitated Energy Supply Structures to
Promote Energy Security and Independence (2022)). Article 4), see Figure
3.2.2;
o Deployment of WPPs is prohibited in Specially Protected Nature Areas -
NATURA 2000 territories (in accordance with Cabinet of Ministers Regulation
No. 264 of 16.03.2010 “General Regulations on Protection and Use of Specially
Protected Nature Territories”) and micro-reserves (in accordance with Cabinet
of Ministers Regulation No. 940 of 18.12.2012 No 940 “Regulations on the
establishment and management of micro-reserves, their protection, as well as
the designation of micro-reserves and their buffer zones”, p. 37);
o In order to protect bird species or nature values from the impact of wind
power plants and wind farms, the conditions and minimum permissible
distance for the siting of wind power plants shall be determined in accordance
with the environmental impact assessment (see Cabinet of Ministers' decision
of 30.04.2013 No. No 240 “General Regulations on Planning, Use and
Construction of the Territory”, p. 163.3);
o in the zone of visual perception of state protected cultural monuments, the
impact of WPPs and wind farms on the landscape must be assessed, taking
into account the specific situation and the specificity of the cultural monument
(cf. Cabinet decision of 30.04.2013. 240 “General Regulations on Planning, Use
and Construction of the Territory”, p. 163.4) (see Fig. 6.14 for a map with
cultural and historical sites located in the area adjacent to the Proposed
Action);
18
o WPP are not allowed in the protection zones around land-based navigational
aids for national defence and military maritime surveillance aids. The
maximum width of the protection zone around navigational aids for national
defence on land is 15 kilometres from the centre of the object (according to
the Protection Zones Act (1997)). 50.p. 3) );
o If the wind turbines of the wind farm will be located up to 16 km from the
navigation aid or the outermost zone of influence of the beacon, then an in-
depth analysis and assessment of the impact of the wind farm on the
operation of the beacon is required (In accordance with the European
Organisation for Safety in Air Navigation Guidelines for Assessing the Potential
Impact of Wind Turbines on Surveillance Sensors (EUROCONTROL-GUID-0130;
Ed.No.1.2; Ed.Date 09/09/2014));
o In addition, restrictions in operational, sanitary and safety protection zones
along linear and associated objects - gas pipelines, gas supply installations and
structures, gas warehouses and storage facilities, electronic communications
networks and radio monitoring points, electricity networks, heat networks,
optical telescopes and radio telescopes, national and public use railway lines;
other public use roads, etc. must be taken into account.
• an assessment of the climatic conditions and wind parameters in the area to assess the
efficiency of the turbines in the wind farm.
The planned activity is a direct result of the overall strategic objectives of Latvenergo AS and
the Cabinet of Ministers' Order No 464 of 27 June 2022 establishing “Latvijas vēja parki” Ltd.
to implement strategically important wind park projects. The choice of the Valmiera-Valka
Wind Park site is based on the possibility of concluding a development agreement, the
proximity of the transmission line and other factors listed above.
19
2. Legislative overview
Table 2.1 provides an assessment of the proposed activity's compliance with environmental,
nature protection and other regulatory enactments that contain requirements for the
proposed activity.
Table 2.1. Overview of regulatory enactments and compliance of the Proposed Action with their
requirements
No. Statutory instrument and its requirements How it has been taken into account in the
EIA report
1 European Landscape Convention (Florence, 20 This has been taken into account in the
October 2000) landscape impact assessment (Chapter 6.5).
2 Directive (EU) 2023/2413 of the European Under DIRECTIVE 2023/2413, the EU has set a
Parliament and of the Council of 18 October target of becoming climate neutral by 2050
2023 amending Directive (EU) 2018/2001, and an interim target of reducing net GHG
Regulation (EU) 2018/1999 and Directive emissions by at least 55% below 1990 levels
98/70/EC and repealing Council Directive (EU) by 2030 (Chapter 7).
2015/652 with regard to the promotion of the
use of energy from renewable sources
3 Directive 2006/42/EC of the European This Directive requires that the conformity
Parliament and of the Council of 17 May 2006 assessment process under the EU Directives
on machinery and amending Directive 95/16/EC requires the manufacturer to carry out a risk
(recast) (Text with EEA relevance) analysis and assessment of its product and its
intended use, covering design, manufacture,
production and use as well as performance
(Chapter 5.3).
4 Directive 2000/60/EC of the European The Gauja River Basin District (hereinafter
Parliament and of the Council of 23 October GRBD) Management Plan assesses the
2000 establishing a framework for Community existing water quality in water bodies in
action in the field of water policy relation to the requirements of the EU Water
Framework Directive (Chapter 6).
5 Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 The Directive was taken into account in the
on the conservation of natural habitats and of SEA assessment. Species of Annex II of the
wild fauna and flora Habitats Directive (BD II) found and recorded
in the site (Chapter 4.1).
6 Regulation (EU) 2024/1991 of the European NATURA 2000 has been taken into account in
Parliament and of the Council of 24 June 2024 the assessment process (Chapter 7.9).
on nature restoration and amending
Regulation (EU) 2022/869 (Text with EEA
relevance)
7 Council Directive of 2 April 1979 on the Identify the bird species and groups of bird
conservation of wild birds species to be assessed for the effects of the
Proposed Action (Chapters 6 and 7).
8 Directive 2014/30/EU of the European The Directive is taken into account with
Parliament and of the Council of 26 February regard to the protection of citizens (chapter
2014 on the harmonisation of the laws of the 5.3).
Member States relating to electromagnetic
20
No. Statutory instrument and its requirements How it has been taken into account in the
EIA report
compatibility (recast) Text with EEA relevance
9 Directive b8/EU of the European Parliament The conclusions of the Environmental Impact
and of the Council of 4 July 2012 on the Assessment (Chapter 5) were taken into
management of major-accident hazards account.
involving dangerous substances and amending
and subsequently repealing Council Directive
96/82/EC Text with EEA relevance
10 Directive (EU) 2018/2001 of the European This has been taken into account in the
Parliament and of the Council of 11 December preparation of the Environmental Impact
2018 on the promotion of the use of energy Assessment (Chapter 7).
from renewable sources (recast) (Text with
EEA relevance)
11 European Commission Regulation No The Regulation is taken into account in the
601/2012 of 21 June 2012 concerning climate change impact assessment (chapters
monitoring and reporting of greenhouse gas 5.4 and 12).
emissions pursuant to Directive 2003/87/EC of
the European Parliament and of the Council;
12 Regulation (EU) 2021/1119 of the European Specifies that Member States should support
Parliament and of the Council of 30 June 2021 the accelerated development of renewable
establishing a framework for climate neutrality energy projects, in cooperation with local and
and amending Regulations (EC) No 401/2009 regional authorities, by identifying and
and (EU) 2018/1999 (“the European Climate defining land, surface, underground and
Act”) marine or inland water areas required for the
installation of renewable energy plants for
the production of energy from renewable
sources and related infrastructure to meet
the 2030 renewable energy target. This will
also support the achievement of the 2030
renewable energy target and support the
achievement of the 2050 climate neutrality
target under Regulation (EU) 2021/1119
(Chapter 7).
13 Communication from the Commission to the This has been taken into account in the
European Parliament, the European Council, preparation of the Environmental Impact
the Council, the European Economic and Social Assessment (Chapter 6.10).
Committee and the Committee of the Regions
- A European Green Deal
14 EC report on the Council conclusions of Taken into account for the protection of the
12.07.1999. (1999/519/EC) Recommendation population (chapter 5.3).
on limiting exposure to electromagnetic fields
(0 Hz to 300 GHz).
15 Waste Management Law, 18.11.2010, Waste management during construction is
amended 11.04.2023. taken into account. During the construction
phase, there is a low risk of contamination of
the ground and groundwater. During
construction and operation, the requirements
for the organisation of construction works
21
No. Statutory instrument and its requirements How it has been taken into account in the
EIA report
and the requirements for the technical
condition of the equipment (Chapter 5.1) will
be complied with.
16 Law on Specially Protected Nature Areas, in The statutory list has been taken into account
force since 07.04.1993, with amendments in in the characterisation of the natural values of
force since 13.04.2022. the area surrounding the Proposed
Development (Chapters 3.1, 6.4, 7.6 and 7.9).
The aim of the Law is to establish the basic
principles of the system of specially protected
nature territories, the procedure for
There are 4 Natura 2000 sites in the vicinity of
establishing and ensuring the existence of
the proposed activity area, these are:
specially protected nature territories, the
procedure for managing specially protected • The Protected Landscape Area
nature territories, monitoring and accounting “Ziemelgauja” borders the area of
for their status, as well as to combine national, the Proposed Action;
international, regional and private interests in • The site of the proposed activity is
the establishment, conservation, maintenance completely surrounded by the micro-
and protection of specially protected nature reserve “Bulvara riests”;
territories. The annex to the law contains • The nature reserve "Purgailes upes
Latvia's Natura 2000 list of protected areas of mezi" is located ~450 m from the
European importance. nearest VES;
• Nature reserve “Sedas purvs” is 0.9
km from the WPP park.
17 Energy Law, in force since 06.10.1998, Article The EIA report takes into account and
24, the energy utility shall indemnify the owner assesses the buffer zones (Chapters 3 and 4).
of the immovable property for losses directly
related to the installation of new facilities of
the energy utility or to the operation and repair The procedure for the installation and
of existing facilities. The energy supply approval of energy supply facilities will be
undertaking shall compensate the owner of the followed.
immovable property for the restriction of the
right to use the land if:
1) the property is used for a new
energy utility site
2) the redevelopment of the site
increases the area of land occupied by
the energy supplier's facility or the
buffer zone along or around the
facility.
Article 19 stipulates that the energy supply
undertaking shall be obliged to coordinate with
the land owner the conditions for the
installation of new energy supply facilities, as
well as the right to replace the coordination
procedure with informing the land owner if the
land is used for the installation of new energy
supply undertaking facilities - equipment,
devices, installations, networks, lines and their
accessories, if at least one of the conditions
22
No. Statutory instrument and its requirements How it has been taken into account in the
EIA report
mentioned in the Article has occurred,
including the installation of the energy supply
undertaking facility is provided for in the spatial
planning or detailed planning of the local self-
government
Article 191 of the Energy Law stipulates that for
the installation, reconstruction, renovation and
operation of facilities of energy supply utilities
(except buildings), restrictions on the right of
use of immovable property shall be established,
and the scope and procedure for the use of
restrictions on the right of use of immovable
property owners shall be determined in this
Law and in the Law on Protection Zones.
These restrictions shall apply to new facilities of
energy supply undertakings from the date of
their installation in accordance with the
procedure laid down in Article 19 of this Law. If
the landowner does not consent to the
establishment of a new energy utility facility,
the restrictions shall be determined by a court
judgment in accordance with the procedure
laid down in the regulatory enactments.
18 Law on the Procedure for the Construction of Taken into account in the context of the initial
Facilitated Energy Supply Structures to consultation foreseen in the assessment.
Promote Energy Security and Independence, Programme No 5-03/9/2023
effective 05.10.2022. Environmental Impact Assessment for the
implementation of the wind farm “Valmiera-
Valka” and its related infrastructure project in
Article 7. Environmental impact assessment the Plani municipality of Valmiera and the
and timelines for wind farm construction Vijciems and Valka municipalities of Valka was
received prior to the Initial Public
Consultation (Initial Consultation) of the
(1) The environmental impact assessment of Proposed Action - on 12 September 2023.
the construction of wind power plants shall be
carried out in accordance with the Law “On The law does not provide that there should be
Environmental Impact Assessment”, unless no Initial Consultation at all. Consequently,
otherwise provided for in this Law. Programme No 5-03/9/2023
(4) The State Environmental Bureau shall issue The proponent of the proposed activity, in
an environmental impact assessment accordance with Article 15 of the
programme within 15 days from the date of Environmental Impact Assessment Law, must
receipt of the decision referred to in the third ensure the Initial Consultation on the impacts
paragraph of this Article or the decision of the of the proposed activity, which took place
State Environmental Service on the application from 10 to 30 November (3., 4. And Chapter
of the environmental impact assessment 8).
procedure for the construction of wind power
plants.
19 Construction Law, in force since 01.10.2014. To be taken into account when determining
23
No. Statutory instrument and its requirements How it has been taken into account in the
EIA report
the construction order (Chapter 4).
20 Water Management Act, in force since Taken into account in determining the
15.10.2002. ownership of the area of the Proposed Action.
According to this law, the area of the
Proposed Action falls within the GRBD
(Chapter 6).
21 Environmental Impact Assessment Act, in Taken into account in the EIA process
force since 13.11.1998. (throughout the document - all chapters).
22 Protection Zones Act, the restrictions set out in Taken into account for any works/activities in
the protection zones, the requirements of the buffer zones that require protection of
Articles 35 and 45, and others. the sites. These works will be carried out in
agreement with the owner of the site
concerned (Chapters 3.6 and 7).
23 Species and Habitats Conservation Act, in force Taken into account for the assessment of
since 19.04.2000. measures needed to protect protected plant,
fungi, lichen, animal species, their habitats
and habitats (Chapters 6.4, 7.6 and 7.9).
24 Law on Land Reclamation, in force since The law is taken into account in the
25.01.2010. assessment of drainage systems in the study
area (Chapters 4, 6 and 8).
25 Amendments to the Electricity Market Law, This has been taken into account in the
effective from 05.01.2024. preparation of the Environmental Impact
Assessment (Chapter 14).
26 Annex 1 to the Cabinet of Ministers Regulation They are taken into account when
No 500of 19.08.2014 “General Building determining the category of the substation
Regulations” structure and the measures required for its
construction. For the purposes of these
Regulations, a substation (high voltage) is a
Category 3 structure and its design requires
expert examination, which may take up to 6
months in addition to the design work
(Chapter 4).
27 Para 8 of the Cabinet of Ministers Regulation They are taken into account in the planning of
No 982 of 05.12.2006 “Methodology for works during construction and in the design
Determination of Protective Zones of Energy of the relevant buffer zones (Chapter 3.1).
Infrastructure Objects” stipulates that if, while
carrying out earthworks, legal or natural
persons find a cable that is not specified in the
technical documentation for the works, they
shall stop the earthworks and ensure the
preservation of the cable, as well as
immediately notify the owner or possessor of
the electrical network and the local
municipality.
28 Cabinet of Ministers Regulation No 635 of Taken into account when planning the
07.11.2023 “Regulations on Electricity Trade connection of electricity installations to the
24
No. Statutory instrument and its requirements How it has been taken into account in the
EIA report
and Use” establishes the procedure for electricity system.
electricity supply to electricity users, the rights
The connection of the electricity installations
and obligations of the electricity trader and the
to the electricity system will take place after
electricity system operator and the user in the
the decision of the Council of the Public
supply and use of electricity. According to
Utilities Regulatory Commission on the terms
Paragraph 3 of the said Regulation, the
of system connection for the electricity
connection of the user's electrical installations
system participants (Chapters 4 and 14).
to the electricity system or the increase of the
permitted loads shall be carried out in
accordance with the system connection rules
for electricity system participants approved by
the Public Utilities Regulatory Commission.
29 Cabinet of Ministers Regulation No 253 of The design and construction of the electricity
09.05.2017 “Construction Regulations for supply will be carried out in accordance with
Certain Engineering Structures” these Regulations (Chapter 4).
30 Cabinet of Ministers Regulation No.574 of Determine the location of utilities planned in
30.09.2014 “Regulations on Latvian Building the area of the Proposed Operation. The
Code LBN 008-14” Location of Engineering location of utilities planned in the planning
Networks” area complies with the provisions of the
Regulations. Easy access to the existing and
planned power supply facilities will be
ensured for the personnel of JSC “Sadales
tīkls”, their vehicles and other equipment.
Certain areas will be used for the
implementation of the proposed action:
• for the construction of wind power plants,
including sites for their installation
• for the construction of access roads;
• for the construction of step-up transformer
substations;
• for the construction of temporary storage
areas for materials and equipment.
The development will be located on land with
the owners of which the applicant for the
Proposed Action has entered into
development right agreements (Chapter 4).
31 Cabinet of Ministers Regulation No 303 of These have been taken into account in the
19.03.2011 “Individual Rules for the Protection preparation of the Environmental Impact
and Use of the North Vidzeme Biosphere Assessment. The proposed activity is not
Reserve”. located within the Northern Vidzeme
Biosphere Reserve. These have been taken
into account in the preparation of the
Environmental Impact Assessment (Chapters
3 and 6).
32 Cabinet of Ministers Regulation No. 240 of Will be taken into account in the siting of
25
No. Statutory instrument and its requirements How it has been taken into account in the
EIA report
30.04.2013 “General Regulations on Spatial WPPs - planned WPPs will be sited within the
Planning, Use and Construction” minimum distances set for the construction of
According to the requirements of the WPPs.
regulations, WPPs with a capacity of more than According to the spatial plans of Valmiera and
20 kW are allowed to be located in the Strenči municipalities, the construction area
industrial area (R), technical area (TA), of the WPP park includes land units or their
agricultural area (L) and forest area (M), in parts, the planned (permitted) use of which is
accordance with the conditions of the spatial basically defined as a forest area. Relatively
plan. small areas of the WPP construction area are
covered by water.
163. The following conditions shall apply to the Where necessary, changes or additions to the
siting of wind turbines and wind farms: spatial planning documents will be initiated
(Chapters 1, 3, 5, 6 and 7).
163.1. for wind turbines with a capacity of 20
kW to 2 MW, the distance from the nearest
planned boundary of the wind turbine and wind
farm to residential and public buildings shall be
at least 500 m;
163.2. for wind turbines with a capacity greater
than 2 MW, the distance from the nearest
boundary of the proposed wind turbine and
wind park to residential and public buildings
shall be at least 800 m;
163.3. in order to protect bird species or nature
values from the impact of wind power plants
and wind farms, the conditions and minimum
permissible distance for the siting of wind
power plants shall be determined in
accordance with the environmental impact
assessment;
163.4. in the zone of visual perceptibility of
state protected cultural monuments, the
impact of wind power plants and wind farms on
the landscape shall be assessed, taking into
account the specific situation and the specificity
of the cultural monument;
163.5. the boundary of the wind park shall be
defined from the outermost tower of the wind
turbine.
(MK 13.10.2020. Regulation No 630)
163.1 These Regulations 163. The conditions
referred to in Paragraph 163 shall also be
complied with in cases where new residential
or public buildings are planned in the vicinity of
existing wind power stations and wind farms.
33 Cabinet of Ministers Regulation No 163 of They are taken into account in the buffer
23.04.2002. “On noise emission from zone. The boundary of the wind park is
26
No. Statutory instrument and its requirements How it has been taken into account in the
EIA report
equipment for use outdoors”, point 5 defined from the edge generator, so the
decision not to install individual generators
may affect the potential buffer zone, resulting
in a change in the potential total population
in each area (Chapter 7).
34 Cabinet of Ministers Regulation No.208 of Taken into account when assessing the
12.04.2016 “Regulations on Electromagnetic cooperation of communication equipment
Compatibility of Equipment” with WPPs. The Regulations require that
electrical and electronic equipment must, on
the one hand, not cause electromagnetic
interference to other equipment and, on the
other hand, be capable of functioning to the
required quality for its intended purpose,
even in the presence of electric and magnetic
fields likely to be present in a normal
environment. Therefore, modern
communications equipment manufactured in
accordance with EU and Latvian requirements
should not be subject to interference from
WPPs, even in close proximity (Chapter 6).
35 Cabinet of Ministers Regulation No.16 of The assessment of noise from the operation
07.01.2014 “Noise assessment and of WPPs was carried out using the calculation
management procedure” specifies permissible methods specified in these Regulations, noise
noise levels for various equipment, noise from the operation of industrial noise
assessment, calculation methods, etc. sources: the calculation methods specified in
Annex 5 to the Regulations.
The equipment to be used during installation
and operation shall comply with the
requirements of this Regulation (Chapters 6, 7
and 10).
36 Cabinet of Ministers Regulation No 432 of They are applied in the determination of
17.09.2017 Regulations on Latvian Building climatological parameters applicable to the
Code LBN 003-19 “Building Climatology” construction of buildings and their elements
(Chapter 4).
37 Cabinet of Ministers Regulation No 306 of They are applied in the methodology for
02.05.2012 determining the operational protection zone
around drainage structures and devices
“Regulations on the Methodology for
(hereinafter - the protection zone) on
Determining the Operational Protection Zone
agricultural land and forest land (Chapters 6
around Drainage Structures and Devices on
and 7).
Agricultural Land and Forest Land”
38 Cabinet of Ministers Regulation No 1055 of The list referred to in the Regulations has
19.09.2009 “Regulations on the List of Species been taken into account in the description of
of Fauna and Flora of European Community the natural values of the area surrounding the
Importance in Need of Protection and the List Proposed Development (Chapters 4, 6 and 7).
of Individuals of Fauna and Flora of European
Community Importance whose Harvest in the
27
No. Statutory instrument and its requirements How it has been taken into account in the
EIA report
Wild may be Subject to Conditions of Restricted
Use” establishes the list of species of fauna and
flora of European Community importance in
need of protection (Annex 1) and the list of
individuals of fauna and flora of European
Community importance whose harvest in the
wild may be subject to conditions of restricted
use (Annex 2).
39 Cabinet of Ministers Regulation No 925 of The species and habitat expert opinions
30.09.2010 “Content of the expert opinion in annexed to the report have been prepared in
the field of species and habitat conservation accordance with the Regulations (Chapters 6
and minimum requirements contained to 9).
therein”.
40 Cabinet of Ministers Regulation No 511 of Determine damage assessment and
07.07.2008 “Procedure for assessing damage to remediation measures for natural
natural monuments and calculating the costs of monuments designated by the Cabinet of
remediation measures” Ministers and the municipality (Chapters 6
and 7).
41 Cabinet of Ministers Regulation No 213 of Establishes the criteria used to assess the
31.03.2007 “Regulations on the Criteria to be significance of the effects of damage to
Used for Assessing the Significance of the specially protected species or specially
Impact of Damage to Specially Protected protected habitats compared to the baseline
Species or Specially Protected Habitats” condition. The Regulations require that
significant adverse changes from baseline are
determined using numerical data for species
and measurable data for habitats (Chapters 6
to 9).
42 Cabinet of Ministers Regulation No 153 of The list contained in the Regulations has been
25.02.2006 “Regulations on the List of taken into account in the characterisation of
European Union Priority Species and Habitats the natural values of the area surrounding the
Occurring in Latvia” provides a list of European Proposed Development (Chapters 6 to 9).
Union priority species and habitats occurring in
Latvia.
43 Cabinet of Ministers Regulation No 350 of The list contained in the Regulations has been
28.06.2017 “Regulations on the List of Specially taken into account in the characterisation of
Protected Habitat Types” defines the list of the natural values of the area surrounding the
specially protected habitat types. Proposed Development (Chapters 6 to 9).
44 Cabinet of Ministers Regulation No 264 of The compliance of the Proposed Activity with
31.03.2010 “General Regulations on the the general procedure for the protection and
Protection and Use of Specially Protected use of specially protected nature territories,
Nature Territories”. including the permitted and prohibited types
of activities in protected areas, as well as the
model of the special information sign to be
used in nature to mark protected areas and
the procedure for its use and establishment
(Chapters 1 and 7) was taken into account.
28
No. Statutory instrument and its requirements How it has been taken into account in the
EIA report
45 Cabinet Regulations 01.07.2015. No 329 The area of the proposed action is largely
Regulations on Latvian Building Standard LBN forested.
224-15 “Melioration systems and
hydrotechnical structures”
Paragraph 116 of the Regulation states that
the regulation of woodland moisture is
provided by a regulating network of drainage
ditches, swales and road ditches (Chapters 4
and 6).
46 Cabinet of Ministers Regulation No 720 of According to these rules, natural or legal
26.10.2021 “Regulations for the Recording, persons who, in the course of construction or
Protection, Use and Restoration of Cultural other works, discover an object of cultural
Monuments” heritage value, shall notify the Administration
and shall cease the works until notified by the
Administration. Within one month, the
Administration shall organise the
identification of the open object, the
ascertainment of its cultural and historical
value and the establishment of measures for
its conservation (Chapters 6 and 7).
47 Cabinet of Ministers Regulation No 46 of These have been taken into account in the
21.01.2021 “List of objects of increased danger” identification of the sensitive receptors in the
area of the Proposed Action. The sites listed
(Chapters 1 and 3) are not located within the
site.
48 Cabinet of Ministers Regulation No 570 of In accordance with these provisions, each VPP
21.07.2008 “Regulations on marking and within the area of the Proposed Operation
equipping objects with protective lights” will be equipped with two security lights so
that their position in the horizontal plane
provides the pilot of the aircraft with a view
of at least one security light from any
direction and a 360° range of the security
light (Chapter 4).
49 Cabinet of Ministers Regulation No 131 of Potential accident risks to be assessed in
01.03.2016 “Procedure for risk assessment of accordance with these Regulations (Chapter
industrial accidents and risk reduction 5).
measures”
50 Cabinet of Ministers Regulation No 397 of According to these rules, the area of the
03.07.2018 “Regulations on the Classification of Proposed Action is located in two large basin
Water Management Districts” areas: The Gauja (large catchment area code
52) and the Gauja-Salaca (large catchment
area code 54) are divided into several
catchment areas (Chapter 6).
51 Cabinet of Ministers Regulation No 396 of The status of protected species and habitats
14.11.2000 “Regulations on the List of Specially has been determined in accordance with
Protected Species and Specially Protected these Regulations (Chapters 6 and 7).
Species of Restricted Use”
29
No. Statutory instrument and its requirements How it has been taken into account in the
EIA report
52 Cabinet of Ministers Regulation No 940 of The bird species and groups thereof on which
18.12.2012 "Regulations on the establishment the impact of the Proposed Action has been
and management of microreserves, their assessed are those bird species included in
protection, as well as the designation of the list of Annex I to the Cabinet of Ministers
microreserves and their buffer zones" Regulation No. 396 of 14 November 2000
"Regulations on the List of Specially Protected
Species and Specially Protected Species of
Restricted Use", species included in the list of
Annex I to the Cabinet of Ministers'
Regulation No. 940 of 18 December 2012
"Regulations Regarding the Establishment and
Management of Micro-reserves, Their
Conservation, as well as Determination of
Micro-reserves and Their Buffer Zones", and
species included in Annex I or II to the
Directive 2009/147/EC of the European
Parliament and of the Council on the
conservation of wild birds (Chapters 1, 6 and
7).
53 Cabinet of Ministers Regulation No 957 of This has been taken into account in the
20.11.2008 "Protected Landscape Areas development of the Environmental Impact
Assessment (Chapters 6 and 7).
"Individual Rules for the Protection and Use of
the "Ziemeļgauja"
54 Cabinet of Ministers Regulation No 113 of This has been taken into account in the
18.02.2021 "Procedure for accounting of waste preparation of the Environmental Impact
and its transportation" Assessment (Chapter 5).
55 Cabinet of Ministers Regulations No 317 of This has been taken into account in the
02.05.2012 Individual Regulations for the preparation of the Environmental Impact
Protection and Use of the Gauja National Park Assessment (Chapter 6).
56 Cabinet of Ministers Regulation No 674 of These have been taken into account in the
21.11.2023 "Regulations on Nature Reserves" development of the Environmental Impact
Assessment (Chapters 1, 3, 6 and 7).
57 Latvia's sustainable development strategy Taken into account in the preparation of the
"Latvia 2030" Environmental Impact Assessment (all
chapters).
58 Latvian National Development Plan 2021-2027 Taken into account in the preparation of the
(NAP2027) Environmental Impact Assessment (all
chapters).
59 National Energy and Climate Plan 2021-2030 Taken into account in the preparation of the
Environmental Impact Assessment (all
chapters).
60 Landscape Policy Implementation Plan 2024- This has been taken into account in the
2027 development of the Environmental Impact
Assessment (Chapters 6 and 7).
61 Latvia's climate change adaptation plan for the Taken into account in the preparation of the
Environmental Impact Assessment (all
30
No. Statutory instrument and its requirements How it has been taken into account in the
EIA report
period to 2030; chapters).
62 Latvia's strategy to achieve climate neutrality Taken into account in the preparation of the
by 2050 Environmental Impact Assessment (all
chapters).
63 Environmental Policy Guidelines 2021-2027 Taken into account in the preparation of the
Environmental Impact Assessment (all
chapters).
64 Vidzeme Planning Region Sustainable This has been taken into account in the
Development Strategy 2030 preparation of the Environmental Impact
Assessment (chapters 6 and 7).
65 Amendments to the spatial plan of Valka Assessment of the Proposed Development's
municipality (from 2017) compatibility with the spatial plan and
existing land use (all chapters).
66 Spatial plan of Strenči municipality 2012-2023 The compatibility of the Proposed
Development with the spatial plan and the
existing use of the site has been assessed.
67 Valka Municipality Sustainable Development Taken into account in the preparation of the
Strategy 2013-2037 Environmental Impact Assessment (all
chapters).
68 Valka Municipality Development Programme Taken into account in the preparation of the
2022-2028 Environmental Impact Assessment (all
chapters).
69 Development Programme of the newly Taken into account in the preparation of the
established Valmiera Municipality 2022-2028 Environmental Impact Assessment (all
chapters).
70 Sustainable Development Strategy 2022-2038 Taken into account in the preparation of the
for Valmiera Municipality Environmental Impact Assessment (all
chapters).
3. Description of the site of the proposed operation
3.1. Compatibility of the proposed activity with the spatial plan and the existing
use of the site
In accordance with Article 161 of the Cabinet of Ministers Regulation No 240 of 30 April 2013
"General Regulations on Spatial Planning, Use and Construction", wind power plants with a
capacity of more than 20 kW are allowed to be located in the industrial construction area (R),
technical construction area (TA), agricultural area (L) and forest area (M) in accordance with
31
the conditions of the spatial plan. Article 163 states that the following conditions must be met
when planning the location of wind power plants and wind farms:
• for wind power plants with a capacity of between 20 kW and 2 MW, a distance of at
least 500 m between the nearest planned wind power plant and the boundary of the
wind farm and residential and public buildings;
• for wind farms with a capacity greater than 2 MW, the distance between the nearest
planned wind farm and the boundary of the wind farm and residential and public
buildings shall be at least 800 m;
• to protect bird species or nature values from the impact of wind farms and wind farms,
the conditions and minimum permissible distances for the siting of wind farms shall be
determined in accordance with the environmental impact assessment;
• in the visual perception zone of the national protected cultural monuments, the
impact of wind power plants and wind farms on the landscape shall be assessed, taking
into account the specific situation and the specificities of the cultural monument;
• the boundary of the wind park is defined by the outermost tower of the wind farm.
These conditions shall also be complied with where new residential or public development is
planned in the vicinity of existing wind farms and wind farms.
Administratively, the territory of the Proposed Action falls within the municipality of Plani,
Valmiera County, and the municipalities of Valka and Vijciems, Valmiera County, but the EIA
study area also includes the municipalities of Brenguli, Evele, Jercēnu and Trikata, Valmiera
County, Seda and Strenči, Ergeme and Zvārtava municipalities of Valka county and Valka town,
Bilska municipality of Smiltene county (small part), and Valga municipality of Valga county
(Valga vald), which also includes the town of Valga in the assessment of transboundary
impacts.
Taking into account that after the administrative-territorial reform implemented on 1 July
2021, Valmiera region unites several administrative territories (former Valmiera city, former
Beverīna, Burtnieku, Kocēnu, Mazsalaca, Naukšēnu, Rūjiena and Strenči municipalities
(includes Plani municipality)), then until the date of the new Spatial Plan coming into force, the
binding regulations on spatial plans of the former municipalities constituting Valmiera region
are valid.
According to the Valka and Valmiera municipality territory (in the currently valid Strenči
municipality territory plan 2012-2023, the plan for Plani municipality) planning - rules of
territory use and construction (hereinafter - TIAN), the construction area of the WPP park
includes land units or their parts, the planned (permitted) use of which is basically defined as
forest area. Relatively small areas of water or other land uses occupy the VPP construction site.
TIAN states that the construction of WPPs is not allowed:
− The territory of the Protected Landscape Area "North Gauja" in the municipality,
− In the protection zones of cultural monuments,
− In the territory of the North Vidzeme Biosphere Reserve (hereinafter - NVBR) in
accordance with the Cabinet of Ministers (hereinafter - CM) Regulation No 303 of 19
April 2011 "Individual Rules for the Protection and Use of the North Vidzeme
Biosphere Reserve":
32
It is prohibited to install WPP in the Reserve, except:
−
WPP whose highest point does not exceed 30,0 m;
−
WPP without height limitation in the areas specified in Annex 2 to this Regulation,
subject to the following conditions:
− WPP shall be sited after obtaining written permission from the Nature Conservation
Agency;
− WPPs shall be located in groups of no more than 20 WPPs, minimising the distance
between adjacent WPPs. The distance between the groups shall not be less than two
kilometres.
WPP without height limitation in the areas defined by Cabinet Regulation No 303 of 19 April
2011.
The rest of the former territory of Strenči municipality in accordance with the laws and
regulations:
1. WPP with a maximum capacity of more than 20 kW are allowed to be located in industrial
territories, technical building territories and agricultural territories, but not less than 200 m
away from any residential building, except for a residential building on the property on which
the wind generator is located.
2. WPP with a maximum capacity of 20 kW may be located in residential areas of detached
houses, subject to the following conditions:
a. The height of the WPP mast (to the rotor axis) shall not exceed 12 m;
b. it is possible to provide a WPP protection zone (height x 1.5, but such protection
zones have been abolished by the amendments to the Law on Protection Zones of 20
October 2022) within the same land plot where the wind generator is located, or an
agreement has been reached with the owner of the adjacent real estate on the
encumbrance - protection zone by registering it in the Land Register in accordance
with the CM Regulation No 982 of 5 December 2006 "Methodology for Determining
Protection Zones for Energy Infrastructure Facilities".
c. WPP with a maximum capacity exceeding 20 kW may be located in industrial areas,
technical building areas and agricultural areas, but not less than 50,0 m from any
residential or public building, except a residential building on the property on which
the WPP is located.
TIAN of Valka municipality8 states that forest territory (M) is a functional zone defined to
ensure conditions for sustainable development of forests and implementation of their main
functions - economic, ecological and social functions.
Main uses of the area:
− Forestry use (21001).
− Forest in specially protected areas (21002).
− Landscaped outdoor space (24001).
8
https://geolatvija.lv/geo/tapis#document_22074
33
− Outdoor space without landscaping (24002).
− Additional uses of the site
− Farmstead development (11004).
− Commercial or service buildings (12002).
− Tourist and recreational facilities (12003).
− Sports facilities (12005).
− Defence and security buildings (12006).
− Mining (13004).
− Engineering infrastructure (14001).
− Buildings for energy supply installations (14006).
− Agricultural use (22001).
Building height up to 12 m, except for towers and WPP.
Deforestation of forest land shall be carried out in accordance with the requirements of the
applicable laws and regulations.
According to the TIAN of Valka Municipality, WPPs with power up to 6kW are allowed to be
located in all building areas, provided that the written consent of the owners of adjacent land
units is obtained.
A single power plant with a maximum capacity of up to 20 kW for individual use shall be
permitted on a parcel of land in a rural area, provided that the mast height (to the rotor axis)
does not exceed 12 m and it is designed no closer than the height of the WPP to the
boundaries of adjacent parcels or closer if agreed to in writing by the owner of the affected
parcel, as well as in compliance with the requirements of the applicable laws and regulations.
New WPPs with a maximum capacity of more than 20 kW are allowed to be located in the
"Industrial area" (R), "Technical area" (TA) and "Agricultural area" (L), "Forest area" (M), their
construction is allowed not closer than 500 m from residential and public buildings (for power
plant capacity of 20 kW to 2 MW), and not closer than 800 m (for power plant capacity greater
than 2 MW). Distance is determined from the WPP tower.
The requirements of the applicable regulatory enactments must be complied with when
planning a WPP.
The relevance of the Valmiera Municipality Sustainable Development Strategy 2022-2038 and
the Development Programme 2022-2028 to the proposed action is presented in Chapter 6.10
and Chapter 6.6.1.
The relevance of the Valka Regional Sustainable Development Strategy 2013-2037 to the
proposed action is presented in Chapter 6.10.
As part of the EIA procedure, the Proponent consulted the municipalities of Valmiera and Valka
on the proposed activity.
Valka Municipality, prior to the initial public consultation meeting, in its letter No 3.9/23/780
received on 5 September 2023 (attached as Annex 2), has indicated that as Latvijas vēja parki
Ltd intends to carry out studies and obtain expert opinions on noise, vibration,
34
electromagnetic radiation, etc. on the impact on inhabited places, specially protected nature
territories, objects for which protection zones have been established, as well as, if necessary,
to propose changes to the spatial plan, the Valka Municipality does not impose additional
conditions on the amount and detail of the information. It also points out that the
requirements and conditions of the Nature Conservation Agency, the State Forest Service and
the State Environmental Service must be taken into account in the EIA.
After the initial public consultation of the wind park "Valmiera-Valka", which took place from
10 to 30 November 2023 (SSA report attached as Annex 4), the municipality of Valka County
supplemented the previously expressed opinion with the following information - according to
the spatial plan of Valka County, the territory of the wind park is planned to be located in the
functional zone Forest territory (M), as well as part of these territories are located protected
landscape area "Ziemeļgauja" and microreserves. According to Paragraph 53.5 of Cabinet
Regulation No.240 "General Regulations on Spatial Planning, Use and Construction", wind park
sites can be located in indexed subzones. There are no indexed sub-zones of Forest areas in
the existing spatial plan of Valka municipality. Therefore, in order to start the development of
a wind park in Valka Municipality, a Local Plan for the planned wind park area must first be
developed to amend the existing spatial plan.
Valmiera Municipality, prior to the initial public consultation meeting, in its letter No
4.1.8.3/23/9582 received on 29 October 2023 (attached as Annex 2), indicated that the
Valmiera Municipality Sustainable Development Strategy 2022-2038 sets "Attractive living
environment and space" as one of the long-term priorities and the Valmiera Municipality
Development Programme 2022-2028 sets "Attractive living environment and space" as one of
the long-term priorities. In order to achieve the long-term priority "Attractive living
environment and space", the action line "Engineering and technical infrastructure" has been
set, with the task "Promote the transition to renewable energy and circular economy" with the
sub-task - to promote RES production and use in the public services sector, as well as to create
a supportive environment for RES production and use for enterprises and citizens. The
strategic objective "Entrepreneurship Development", when implemented in the long term,
aims to attract investment to Valmiera, high productivity, careful and sustainable approaches
to the use of natural resources, as well as the reuse of resources. The municipality's economic
specialisation identifies energy production, among other priority sectors. Valmiera municipality
also points out that since the Strenči municipality spatial plan does not indicate the location of
wind power plants in forest areas as a permitted use and the location of the planned activity is
not included in SN No.17/2011, Volume 2, Annex 12.1, in order to implement the proposed
activity in Valmiera Municipality, it is necessary to carry out a local plan for the land units
where it is planned to install wind power plants or to submit an application with a request to
indicate the construction of wind power plants as a permitted use in the area of the planned
activity when drawing up the new Valmiera Municipality spatial plan. Among other things,
Valmiera Municipality confirms that the proposed activity is in line with the Valmiera
Municipality Sustainable Development Strategy and should be supported.
All of the conditions set out in the spatial planning documents listed above are relevant to the
Proposed Action and must be taken into account in the implementation of the Proposed
Action. The conditions of the spatial plans impose a number of conditions, but the Proposed
Action does not conflict with them. According to the currently valid conditions in Valmiera
35
Municipality, the planned area of the wind park will have to be subject to local planning, while
in order to implement the planned activity in Valmiera Municipality, it is necessary to carry out
local planning for the land units where it is planned to install wind power plants or to submit
an application with a request to provide for the construction of the WPP park "Valmiera-Valka"
when developing the new Valmiera Municipality spatial plan.
An overview of how the Proposed Development complies with the buffer zones identified in
the spatial plans that could potentially restrict the implementation of the Proposed
Development is provided in Chapter 7.5. The site of the proposed development is not affected
by the following protection zones.
3.2. Description of the site and surroundings of the proposed operation
The wind park is planned to be built in the south-western part of the territory of the Valka
district and in the south-eastern part of the Valmiera district, ~1 km from Seda, ~2 km from
Strenči and ~5 km from the town of Valka. Other nearby settlements (villages) are Vijciems,
Sēļi and Jērcēni (Figure 1.1). There are also a number of farmsteads in the immediate vicinity of
the proposed wind farm (see Figures 3.2.1 and 3.2.2 for population densities and farmstead
locations with buffer zones (800 m) around turbines). 800 m buffer zone around the
recomended turbines presented in Figure 3.2.2.
36
Figure 3.2.1. Population density in the vicinity of the planned Valmiera-Valka Wind Park
The land units included in the area of the proposed action are currently used for forestry
activities. It is located in the catchment area of the River Gauja. The nearest watercourses are
the Gauja, Daudzupīte, Vija and Vīksnes rivers. The largest bodies of water are Lakes Leiši, Zāli,
Dziļais and Diben. Part of the Wind Park area is crossed by national and forest drainage
systems. The distribution of land by land use is shown in Figure 3.2.3.
According to the nature protection network maintained by the Nature Conservation Agency,
the closest protected nature areas are the NVBR (landscape protection zone) and NATURA
2000 sites of European importance: the nature reserve "Sedas purvs", the nature reserve
"Burgas pļavas" and the protected landscape area "Ziemeļgauja", as well as the microreserves
"Bulvāra riests" and "Igaunijas riests". 62 microreserves have been identified within a 10 km
zone of the area of the proposed action. More detailed information on the natural values of
the area is provided in Chapter 6.4.
37
Figure 3.2.2. 800 m buffer zone around the 84 turbines assessed and the location of houses in the
vicinity of the Valmiera-Valka Wind Park, JSC LVM wind farm study area
Figure 3.2.3. Land cover in the vicinity of the 40 WPPs recommended for the Valmiera-Valka wind
park (source: EEA Land monitoring service)
As the Estonian territory is located within 4.2 km of the nearest wind turbine included in the
assessment, the impacts are described for those aspects affecting these areas - potential
impacts on landscape and ornithofauna.
According to the publicly available information of the LEGMC9, mineral resources such as sand,
sand-gravel and peat are present in the vicinity of the Proposed Action. Sand and sand-gravel
are extracted for construction, road building, maintenance and repair. Peat is used for export,
agriculture and peat substrate production. There are 7 sand, sand-gravel and 6 sapropel
projected resource areas in the planned Wind Park area, there are no deposits with mineral
reserves accepted by the LEGMC. Information on mineral deposits is provided in Chapter
6.12.2.
From 1 May 2024, the new contaminated sites management website created by the State
Environmental Service (hereinafter – SES) and LEGMC will be available: pvps.vvd.gov.lv.
However, given that this website has only recently been opened to the public, it does not yet
9
https://videscentrs.lvgmc.lv/iebuvets/zemes-dzilu-informacijas-sistema
38
contain the full list of contaminated and potentially contaminated sites that was available in
the previous register of the LEGMC until 1 May this year. Therefore, the EIA report used the
information obtained in February 2024 from the previous LEGMC register of contaminated and
potentially contaminated sites. The information obtained indicates that no contaminated or
potentially contaminated sites are located in the area of the Proposed Action10.
The nearest potentially contaminated sites in Valmiera municipality are Rūķi, Plani
municipality. Municipal waste landfill reg. No 94768/3370 (473 m away), Lathol Ltd, wood
processing plant reg. No 94337/4464 (2,2 km away) in the SW direction from the planned Wind
Park and 2,2 km away from the territory of the Proposed Activity is Strenči Forest Industry
Farm reg. no. 94628/4542. The nearest contaminated site in Valka municipality is located in
Valka town – Tīne Ltd petrol filling station reg. No 4015/3392 (2.9 km away) (Figure 3.2.4).
Figure 3.2.4. Contaminated and potentially contaminated sites in the vicinity of the Valmiera-Valka
wind park, JSC LVM wind park study lands and the 84 WPP sites assessed
According to the Cabinet of Ministers Regulation No 46 of 21 January 2021 "List of Objects of
Increased Danger", none of the sites mentioned in the list are located in the territory of the JSC
LVM wind farm exploration lands.
There are a number of residential or public buildings in the area of the proposed wind farm.
According to Cabinet Regulation No 240, for wind power plants with a capacity greater than 2
10
http://parissrv.lvgmc.lv/#viewType=pppvMapListView&incrementCounter=1 – skatīts. February 2024.
39
MW, the distance from the nearest planned wind power plant and wind park boundary to
residential and public buildings shall be at least 800 m. The closest to the WPP (VV30) is
"Residential house at km 145": 816 m.
The location of the proposed activity in relation to other wind farms in the immediate vicinity
in the northern part of Latvia for which environmental impact assessments have been carried
out or are in various stages of preparation is presented in Figure 3.2.5. The assessment of the
cumulative environmental impacts of wind farms is based on publicly available information on
these wind farms. The closest wind park is the Valka Wind Park, which borders the area of the
Figure 3.2.5. Location of the proposed activity in relation to other wind farms in the vicinity
Proposed Action to the north, between the Valmiera-Valka Wind Park and the town of Valka.
The cumulative impacts of the parks are not assessed in the EIA report for this project, as the
cumulative impacts would be assessed in the environmental impact assessment of the Valka
WPP.
According to the information available on the website of the Environment State Bureau11, the
decision on the necessity of an EIA for the wind park was adopted on 14 June 2024 and the EIA
Programme was issued on 1 July 2024.
The other wind farms in northern Latvia and southern Estonia are located at distances where
no cumulative environmental effects are expected to occur. The study area of the nearest wind
park in the municipality of Valga is more than 15 km away from the area of the Proposed
11
https://www.vpvb.gov.lv/lv
40
Action and, in addition, between these two parks is the Valka wind park, for which the EIA is at
an early stage and the initial public consultation has been completed. The cumulative impact
of this wind park with Valmiera-Valka will have to be assessed in its Environmental Impact
Assessment, as there is no information on this in this EIA, whereas full information on this EIA
will be available in its EIA.
3.3. Characteristics of wind conditions
Wind conditions in the area of the Proposed Action are an important aspect to be taken into
account when selecting the site for the WPP farm and the location of the wind turbines within
it, as well as when assessing their environmental impact. Information on wind conditions in the
area of the Proposed Action is based on long-term observation data at the nearest stations of
the national meteorological network.
The EIA uses data from the ERA5 5th generation ECMWF Global Climate Atmosphere
Reanalysis12 for the period 2013-2023: a total of 95304 wind measurement records with 200 m
height conversion (WindPRO Meteo Data Export version 7, Geographical coordinates (WGS84):
longitude 26,000000, latitude 57,750000, Local coordinates: (LKS92) Y: 619030,26 X:
402634,28).
The wind data used in this EIA describes the wind at a point in the vicinity of the Proposed
Action near Valka (Figure 3.3.1.).
Figure 3.3.1. WPP park with a point characterised by the wind data used
12
https://climate.copernicus.eu/copernicus-regional-reanalysis-europe-cerra
41
Based on this data, a wind rose with the distribution of wind speeds and directions at 200 m
height has been created (Figure 3.3.2.).
Figure 3.3.2. Wind rose with wind speed and direction distribution at 200 m (ERA5 data)
The distribution of the number of entries based on the wind rose is given in Table 3.3.1
(absolute numbers) and Table 3.3.2. (percentages).
Table 3.3.1. Distribution of wind measurements by speed and direction in absolute numbers
Z ZA A DA D DR R ZR Total
Up to 3,00 m/s 1029 899 952 976 922 1015 1014 1129 7936
3,01-8,00 m/s 4678 4459 4590 5365 5796 7720 8427 6217 47252
8,01-13,00 m/s 1740 2174 2360 3672 5836 8876 6975 3433 35066
13,01-18,00 m/s 153 157 132 362 636 1830 1245 337 4852
18,01-23,00 m/2 2 2 0 0 22 90 66 10 192
23,01-infinity 0 0 0 0 0 2 4 0 6
Total 7602 7691 8034 10375 13212 19533 17731 11126 95304
Table 3.3.2. Percentage distribution of wind measurements by speed and direction
Z ZA A DA D DR R ZR Total
Up to 3,00 m/s 1080 0943 0999 1024 0967 1065 1064 1185 8327
3,01-8,00 m/s 4909 4679 4816 5629 6082 8100 8842 6523 49,58
8,01-13,00 m/s 1826 2281 2476 3853 6124 9313 7319 3602 36794
13,01-18,00 m/s 0161 0165 0139 0380 0667 1920 1306 0354 5092
18,01-23,00 m/2 0002 0002 0 0 0023 0094 0069 0010 0,2
23,01-infinity 0 0 0 0 0 0002 0 004 0 0 006
Total 7 978 8,07 8,43 10 886 13 863 20 494 18 604 11 674 100
42
Based on the results of the wind condition characterisation, the area of the Proposed Action is
suitable for the siting of WPPs designed for areas with low wind speeds (average speed at mast
height of at least around 7.5 m/s). According to the international standard IEC 61400-1 "Wind
turbines. Part 1: Design Requirements", these are Class III turbines, as assessed in detail in the
noise and shadow flicker impact assessment (Table 4.2.1)13.
For the noise modelling (subsection 7.2.1) and the flickering shadow modelling (section 7.3)
these wind data are used for the speed range 3-23 m/s, which is 91.7% of the time. The WPP
does not operate in no wind (below 3 m/s) and automatically stops in excessive wind (above
23 m/s) (assuming that a WPP model will be installed in the area of the Proposed Action that
automatically stops at wind speeds above 23 m/s).
3.4. Characteristics of adverse meteorological conditions
The meteorological conditions in the area of the proposed operation are appropriate for the
siting of the WPPs, which comply with the international standard IEC 61400-1 "Wind turbines.
Part 1: Design Requirements" as defined in Class III and S (designed for areas with low wind
speeds). Class III and S WPP are suitable for installation in areas where the average wind speed
at mast height is at least 6 m/s.
Modern WPPs operate mainly in the wind speed range 3 to 23-24 m/s: at ~3 m/s the rotor
starts to rotate slowly, by ~10 m/s the rotation speed is close to the rated speed and continues
until wind speeds of ~23-24 m/s, with the rotation speed no longer increasing in proportion to
the wind speed for safety reasons: excessive rotation speed can damage and even break the
generator or the wings. The rotation speed is technologically limited in two ways:
1) as wind speed increases, the orientation of the wingplane becomes more and more
inclined to the wind direction, letting some of the wind energy pass by,
2) Modern WPP with gearboxes combine the above adaptation of the wing orientation
with an increase of the gear ratio, bringing more energy to the generator and
consequently braking the rotor more strongly, i.e. extracting more energy from the
same rotational speed.
At wind speeds of ~23-24 m/s, the rotor wings turn parallel to the wind direction, thus letting
the wind pass by and not turning again: this is a safety measure to prevent excessive wind
energy from breaking the wings. As the wind speed drops to 22-23 m/s, the wings start to
catch the wind again and the rotor starts to turn again.
Thus, the conditions that are unfavourable for the operation of WPPs are:
1) windless (< 3 m/s),
2) winds too strong (>24 m/s).
The distribution of wind speeds at the proposed site is described in Section 3.3., including
Table 3.3.2: adverse wind conditions are expected ~8,3% of the time throughout the year.
Other adverse meteorological conditions include icing on the wings, which can lead to the risk
of ice chips detaching and being swept away: this is discussed in Section 5.3.
13
https://i-windenergy.com/content/popularity-class-iii-wind-turbines
43
In terms of the environmental impact of WPPs, sunny weather is also considered to be a
somewhat unfavourable meteorological condition: in bright sunshine, WPPs can cause a
disturbance to the flickering shadow of surrounding houses that does not exist on cloudy days.
The characteristics of sunniness are presented in Chapter 7.3, including Table 7.3.1.
44
4. Description of the proposed action and alternatives
4.1. Location of the WPP park, study areas and WPP site alternatives
4.1.1. Location of the WPP study area
The total area of the wind park construction study areas of Valmiera-Valka, which have been
identified by JSC Latvia's State Forests as areas where it is justified to carry out wind park
construction studies, or the total area of the JSC LVM wind park study areas is 5387 ha (Figure
4.1.1). Of this area, the construction of WPPs and related facilities will require up to 300 ha.
Figure 4.1.1. The boundaries of the surveyed areas in relation to the JSC LVM survey area and the 84
WPP assessed
During the EIA preparation, the boundaries of the investigated and surveyed areas in relation
to the area of the JSC LVM study lands were different, which was determined by the assessed
environmental area, such as:
• in assessing the impact of the Proposed Action on protected habitats, the site was
surveyed by visiting and/or assessing the site of the Proposed Action and the areas of
potential impact - the proposed location of the WPP and the area within 350 m around
it; potential access roads and the area up to 150 m along them, as well as potential
electricity cable routes and the area up to 20 m along them;
• The ornithofauna study area covers an area of approximately 26 500 ha, covering a 3
km zone around all the turbines assessed, and a 10 km zone for migratory birds;
45
• The Landscape Assessment Study Area is a 10-kilometre zone around the maximum
possible outer boundary of the wind farm (from the outermost wind turbine);
• noise and flicker, assessed to the extent that the likely effects of the Proposed Action
are calculated.
In the vicinity of the WPP Park site, the absolute elevation of the terrain on the site and in the
immediate vicinity varies between 45-60 m asl. The area is characterised by inland dune
masses - the most compact dune area with the largest absolute height range (at least 20
metres) is around the Birch House in Plani parish, between the A3 motorway and the Riga-
Valga railway. The other such area is in the vicinity of Silezers, to the east of the lake, see
Figures 4.1.2 and 4.1.3.
Figure 4.1.2. Inland dune masses in the Valmiera-Valka wind park study area near the "Bērzi"
houses
46
Figure 4.1.3. Inland dune massifs in the study area of the Valmiera-Valka wind park in the vicinity of
Silezers
4.1.2. Study area alternatives
The EIA assessment included an assessment of the natural values and an impact assessment of
the Proposed Action over a wide study area in the Valka and Valmiera districts before the EIA
programme was received, including a chemical feasibility study of the area, as well as an
expert assessment of species and habitats. Species and habitat experts started surveying the
potential WPP area in spring 2022, which resulted in a reduction of the potential WPP area and
the maximum number of turbines, from 93 WPPs to 84 WPPs (see Figure 4.1.4).
After consultation with Nature Conservation Agancy (hereinafter – NCA) - as far as possible,
WPP and infrastructure are planned in accordance with the information in the DDPS OZOLS -
outside microreserves and their buffer zones, species sites, SSSIs, habitats of EU importance
and protection zones around them (NCA recommendation 40 m around wet habitats of EU
importance). In 2022, information on potential new or expanding SPAs and NPSs was received
from the NCA and its infrastructure is planned outside these areas where possible.
Also, the NCA recommended in early 2022 that WPPs and their infrastructure should be
located as far as possible in clearings and young forests.
• Preliminary alternative for the location of the WPP turbine study area. The
assessment of nature values (bird species, bat species and species and forest habitats)
was launched in 2022. Initially, 93 WPP turbine locations were assessed, see Figure 1
(in the introduction to the EIA report).
47
• A basic alternative for the location of the WPP turbine study area. Following initial
fieldwork by experts in nature conservation, expert interviews, recommendations and
conclusions, the design of the WPP turbines was refined. The baseline alternative for
the location of the study area, for which EIA Programme No 5-03/9/2023 was issued
on 12 September 2023 (as amended on 10 January 2024 by No 5-02-1/4/2024),
includes a total of 17 land units, where 84 potential WPP sites have been identified. In
contrast to the location of the study area in the original alternative, 9 WPP were
excluded from further study and 11 WPP were refined in location, see Figure 4.4.
4.1.3. Alternatives to the location of the proposed activity assessed in the EIA report
Following the EIA programme, 84 potential WPP sites have been assessed in detail for their
environmental impacts. Of the 84 WPPs assessed, 41 WPPs were identified as having
significant environmental effects on bird species, habitats or landscape, see the relevant
subsections in Chapter 7 of the EIA Report "Assessment of the significant environmental
effects of the proposed activity and its possible alternatives" and the summary in Chapter 8,
Tables 8.1 and 8.4.
Overall, taking into account the recommendations of an ornithologist, a species and habitat
expert, a landscape expert, a bat expert and a hydrologist for the location and operational
conditions of the WPPs, it was concluded in June 2024 that up to 43 WPPs could be
constructed. Enviroprojekts Ltd together with certified nature experts recommend to abandon
part of the originally planned turbines in order to mitigate the impact not only on the species
(including plants, birds and bats) present in the area of the Proposed Action, but also to
mitigate the impact on migratory birds and the surrounding Natura 2000 sites (see Chapter 7),
as a result the feasible VPP turbines were grouped into two alternative locations. The
assessment of the final alternatives also takes into account the guidance of the Publications
Office of the European Union on the provisions of Article 6(3) and (4) of the Habitats Directive
92/43/EEC: 1) site screening (to exclude significant impacts on Natura 2000 to the maximum
extent possible) and 2) assessment (to exclude negative impacts on Natura 2000, their
integrity and connectivity)14.
The assessment of alternatives and the siting of the final turbines also assess cumulative
impacts from certified expert opinions and EIA expert assessments, as well as mitigation and
exclusion of cumulative impacts on Natura 2000 sites.
For the alternatives for the location of the WPP turbines, see Figures 4.1.5 and Table 4.2.3 in
Chapter 4.2:
Alternative A - 29 WPP: compact area in the SW between Seda and Puksi swamps and the
Gauja river (Figure 4.1.4)
Alternative B - 43 WPPs: 14 WPPs in a compact area to the N of the Pukši swamp added to the
29 WPPs planned in the SW part of the site (identified as Alternative A) (Figure 4.1.4).
For these WPPs, 29 and 43 respectively, a physical impact assessment was carried out in July
2024 and at the same time an additional assessment by natural experts comparing
14
Assessment of plans and projects significantly affecting Natura 2000 sites - Publications Office of the
EU (europa.eu)
48
Alternatives A and B was requested. In August 2024, following the supplementary expert
opinions, the assessment of the WPP to be implemented was revised, as significant
environmental impact factors - impact on bird species - were identified for 3 more WPP (VV44,
VV45 and VV92) and for 4 more WPP (VV1 and VV82 or VV36 and VV40) it was recommended
to choose two out of four, the choice to be made at the design stage, after assessing the
engineering conditions. After further assessment, the alternative locations for the WPP Park,
as defined above, are 27 for Alternative A (of which 25 WPPs could be built) and 40 for
Alternative B: of which 38 WPPs could be built (see Figure 4.1.4).
49
Figure 4.1.4. Alternative A and B for the location of the Valmiera-Valka wind park, after additional assessment by nature experts
50
As a complement to the information on recommended WPP, we would like to inform that the
Promoter of the Proposed Action contacted an environmental impact assessment expert from
Poland, who provided an assessment based on her experience on WPP stations that were not
recommended by the bird expert involved in the preparation of this EIA report. The Polish
expert concluded that 10 of the non-recommended WPPs could be constructed if the
mitigation measure "Installation of a WPP containment chamber" is implemented, the expert's
assessment is attached as Annex 15.
4.2. Characteristics of WPP technologies and alternative solutions
A CHP generator generates electricity by turning its rotor wings in the wind, which is fed
through underground cables to a transformer substation. A WPP converts wind energy into
turbine rotational energy, which is further converted into electricity by magnets. The rotor of
the WPP turns automatically against the wind, so its orientation changes. In no-wind
conditions, the rotor does not rotate as the wind speed increases, while in too strong winds
the rotor wings rotate parallel to the wind flow for safety and the rotor stops. This technology
has been validated in world practice and is fundamentally safe.
As technology advances, the height of the WPP mast and the rotor diameter (wingspan)
increase: the higher above the ground, the stronger and more stable the wind, the larger the
rotor diameter (wingspan), the more energy can be extracted from the wind15.
The model and technical characteristics of the WPP to be installed have not yet been
determined and selected, and a number of possible models are being considered, assessing
their differences, advantages, including height, wing diameter, capacity and other relevant
parameters. Currently available WPP models with a high rated generation capacity, i.e. above
6.0 MW (see Table 4.2.1), were evaluated for comparison, but the final decision on the choice
of model will be based on the conditions set out in this EIA, assuming that the WPP model
from the comparison below or another model with equivalent characteristics is likely to be
installed, given the rapid technological development in this sector. The maximum height of the
WPP is expected to reach 300 m, with rotor diameters of up to 200 m.
Table 4.2.1. Technical characteristics of commercially available WPP models
Manufactu Model Rotor MW Mast Wing tip Starting, End of run,
rer diameter, height, height, m/s m/s
m max, m max, m
Nordex16 N175/6.X 175 6,0– 179 266,5 3,0 20
6,9
Vestas17 V172 172 7,2 199 285,0 3,0 25
Enercon18 E175 175 6,0 162 249,5 2,019 2520
15 https://www.windpowerengineering.com/calculate-wind-power-output/
16
Information: N175/6.X - Nordex SE (nordex-online.com)
17
Information: V172-7.2 MW™ (vestas.com)
18
Information: ENERCON wind turbines | New top model E-175 EP5 | Further models: E-160 EP5, E-138
EP3, E-82 EP2
19
https://en.wind-turbine-models.com/turbines/2472-enercon-e-175-ep5
20
https://en.wind-turbine-models.com/turbines/2472-enercon-e-175-ep5
51
Manufactu Model Rotor MW Mast Wing tip Starting, End of run,
rer diameter, height, height, m/s m/s
m max, m max, m
Siemens SG170 170 7,0 185 270,0 322 2523
Gamesa
Renewable
Energy21
General Cypress 164 6,1 167 249,0 325 2526
Electric24
According to the technical information provided by the manufacturers, the mast height can be
adapted to the customer and location requirements according to current technological
possibilities up to 200 m, rotor diameters range from 160 m to 175 m.
With regard to noise, their frequency level and maximum noise are equivalent and the
differences are negligible (106.0 dB(A)-107.0 dB(A)), all the models considered have
aerodynamically improved latest generation wings to reduce noise and a change of operating
modes to optimise noise.
There are various solutions for de-icing wings, such as automatic icing detection systems,
automatic wing heating systems and additional warnings.
Several models have built-in bat protection systems, such as turbine shutdown if there is a
higher risk of collision in the vicinity.
The lifetime of the WPP models considered is ~25 years (25-30 years depending on the
manufacturer and turbine lifetime). The latest technologies can have a working life of up to 35
years.
According to the information provided by the leading manufacturers of WPPs, the wind speed
at which the plant starts operating is 3 m/s, while it stops at 23-24 m/s (however, this may vary
from model to model).
The WPP will be delivered disassembled and consist of several modules, a rotor and wings. The
WPP is assembled at the installation site. After the installation of the WPP, the wiring work is
carried out and the cables are connected.
Similarly, the masts of the comparable WPP models are mostly made of steel sections, the
rotor consists of three fibreglass composite wings with adjustable wing sweep, and the nacelle
incorporates a generator, transformer, brakes, gear unit, equipment and mechanisms for
monitoring and controlling the operation of the station. When steel mast sections cannot be
transported to the WPP installation site due to their large diameter, they are split into several
21
Information: Onshore Wind Turbine SG 7.0-170 - NEW TURBINE | Siemens Gamesa
22
https://en.wind-turbine-models.com/turbines/2346-siemens-gamesa-sg-6.6-170
23
https://en.wind-turbine-models.com/turbines/2346-siemens-gamesa-sg-6.6-170
24
Information: Cypress Onshore Wind Turbine Platform | GE Renewable Energy
25
https://en.wind-turbine-models.com/turbines/2307-ge-vernova-ge-6.0-164-cypress
26
https://en.wind-turbine-models.com/turbines/2307-ge-vernova-ge-6.0-164-cypress
52
individual mast segments, which are assembled together at the WPP installation site (Figure
4.2.1).
Figure 4.2.1. Multi-segment WPP mast section (Vestas LDST27)
Figure 4.2.2. WPP design parameters
This EIA assesses alternatives for the location of the WPP park and the height of the WPP
tower(see Table 4.2.2). The height alternatives for the WPP tower are defined for the two
27
http://terralwind.com
53
location alternatives defined above: the different height constraints of the WPP as defined in
the landscape expert's opinion are assessed in a comparative way. Technological alternatives
for WPP models are not evaluated, but the maximum precautionary principle is used to select
the WPP model with the highest noise output.
For each of the areas assessed during the EIA process, the alternative options for the
implementation of the Proposed Action are summarised in Table 4.2.3.
Table 4.2.2. WPP location alternatives A and B and additional tower height alternatives A' and B' -
compared WPP height limits in metres
Name of the Alternative Alternative Alternative Alternative
No. p. k.
WPP site A A’ B B‘
1 VV1 250 275 250 275
2 VV7 300 300
3 VV9 300 300
4 VV16 300 300 300 300
5 VV20 300 300 300 300
6 VV21 300 300 300 300
7 VV22 300 300 300 300
8 VV24 250 275 275 300
9 VV26 300 300 300 300
10 VV28 300 300 300 300
11 VV30 250 275 250 275
12 VV31 300 300 300 300
13 VV32 300 300 300 300
14 VV33 300 300 300 300
15 VV36 250 275 250 275
16 VV37 300 300 300 300
17 VV38 300 300 300 300
18 VV39 300 300 300 300
19 VV40 300 300 300 300
20 VV41 300 300 300 300
21 VV42 300 300 300 300
22 VV46 300 300 300 300
23 VV47 250 275 250 275
24 VV49 250 275
25 VV50 300 300
26 VV51 300 300
27 VV62 300 300
28 VV64 300 300
29 VV65 250 275
30 VV66 250 275
31 VV67 250 275
32 VV68 250 275
54
Name of the Alternative Alternative Alternative Alternative
No. p. k.
WPP site A A’ B B‘
33 VV70 250 275
34 VV81 250 275 250 275
35 VV82 300 300 300 300
36 VV84 300 300 300 300
37 VV85 300 300 300 300
38 VV86 300 300 300 300
39 VV88 250 275 250 275
40 VV91 300 300
Total 27 27 40 40
Table 4.2.3. Areas assessed and corresponding alternatives assessed - location and/or
technological
Area assessed EIA Units Location Technological
alternative alternative
Species and habitats 6.4.1, 6.4.2, 7,6. X
Bats 6.4.4., 7.6.4., 7.6.5. X
Birds 6.4.3., 7.6.2., 7.6.3. X
Invertebrates 6.4.5., 7.6.6. X
Landscape 6.5., 7.7. X X
Cultural history 6.5., 7.7. X X
Tourism and recreation 6.5., 7.8. X
Natura 2000 7,9. X
Noise 6.7., 7.2.1. X X
Low frequencies 7.2.2. X
Flicker 7,3. X X
Air 7,4. X
Hydrology 6.1., 6.2. X
Environmental risks and 5,3. X
accidents
Vibration 7.3.2. X
Climate 5.4., 5.5. X
4.3. Construction process
4.3.1. Description of the construction works and components of the WPP project
The total time required for the construction of the WPP park is expected to be approximately
two years and the construction works will be carried out in accordance with the organisation
of works and in compliance with the requirements of the regulatory enactments (Figure 4.3.1).
During construction, the recommendations of experts, including ornithologists, bat experts,
etc., will be taken into account with regard to construction activities and their prohibition
during certain periods of time, and the activities will be carried out without endangering
protected natural values. In case of changes in the construction works, the changes are to be
55
agreed separately with the expert in the relevant field. Meteorological conditions such as
strong winds, snow, etc. that may affect the construction process will also be taken into
account.
Figure 4.3.1. Preliminary timetable for the phases of WPP construction
Access roads
Assessing the existing road network and making improvements to improve the carrying
capacity or dimensions of the road. The project is planned to use the existing road network as
much as possible, reinforcing or widening the roads of JSC Latvijas Valsts meži and/or
municipalities, if necessary.
Construction of road connections between the existing JSC Latvijas Valsts meži and/or
municipal road and the prospective WPP station. Each WPP will be assessed individually.
Construction work service area
Creation of a common service area for the project - to create a temporary area for the
temporary storage of bulk materials and earth-moving machinery. The optimal location of the
site will be determined during the design process, taking into account the constraints
identified and adapting its location for more efficient use of vehicles and construction
materials. The site is to be rehabilitated after the construction work is completed.
Electricity connection
The construction of the 35 kV medium voltage electricity cable network in the project area will
be carried out in open or closed trenches in the road right-of-way, where possible, minimising
the impact on adjacent properties.
VPP service (assembly) area
The service area for each WPP can be up to 2.6 hectares, according to the conditions of the
WPP manufacturers and designers. After construction, some of these sites are partially
56
reclaimed and can be reused for forestry in parallel with the operation of the WPP, as a smaller
site than for construction is usually sufficient for maintenance, depending on the specific
location of each individual WPP. However, in this park it will be assessed whether these sites
should be reclaimed after construction and returned to forestry, as periodic maintenance of
the equipment would be required, which would imply re-deforestation of the area.
WPP
A WPP with a capacity of up to 8 MW and a total height of up to 300 m is currently under
development. The model and technical characteristics of the WPPs to be installed are currently
still to be determined and selected, and a number of possible models are being considered,
inter alia in the light of the results of the EIA report. In the Valmiera-Valka Wind Park project
area, the location of the VPPs is planned in a compact south-western part of the study area (25
WPPs of Alternative A), as well as the feasible WPPs north of the Pukši swamp (13 WPPs),
which together with Alternative A form Alternative B - 38 WPPs.
High-voltage substation
The construction of the high-voltage substation is being carried out in accordance with the
technical conditions of JSC AST. For the substation, a high load capacity road will be
constructed to ensure the load capacity of the equipment delivery by specialised transport. A
standardised solution for the substation is envisaged with a total required substation area of
up to 0.5-1 ha. An essential element of a high-voltage substation and the high-voltage network
(110/330 kV) is the construction of overhead transmission lines between the substation and
the high-voltage network. The length of the overhead line is an important cost element, which
is why the substation is located close to the overhead lines of the high-voltage network. The
proposed length of the overhead line is less than 300 m, given that the substation is to be
located on land crossed by a high-voltage line. The transmission line can also be implemented
as a cable. The exact technical solution will be worked out in the construction project.
BESS
The BESS will be located on a site of up to 1 ha, adjacent to the high voltage substation site. A
more detailed description of the BESS technology is given in chapter 4.4. For site preparation,
hard surfaced areas will be constructed with a suitable surface for the chosen technological
solution, comprising a crushed stone or hard surfaced area on which energy storage
equipment delivered in standardised transport equipment (container type) will be placed. The
water drainage and technological solutions will be adapted to the chosen technology.
4.3.2. Planned site preparation works
The EIA procedure assesses the worst-case scenario, which in this case includes a maximum
possible height of 300 m and a maximum possible turbine diameter of 200 m. The choice of
the specific WPP model to be built will depend on many conditions outside the EIA procedure
for the supply of equipment, such as the availability of manufacturers' models on the market,
delivery times, price, etc.
The WPP is planned to be constructed on a monolithic reinforced concrete foundation,
following the technical specifications prepared by the WPP manufacturers, and taking into
57
account the soil bearing capacity in the area of the Proposed Operation. As part of the
technical design, a geotechnical investigation should be carried out to assess the soil bearing
capacity at each WPP site. If the geotechnical investigation reveals insufficient soil bearing
capacity for the installation of the selected WPPs, the foundation will be based on piles at the
appropriate locations. The need for piles and the technological solution for their construction
will be determined in the construction project. The bearing capacity of the soil at each WPP
site will be determined as part of the geotechnical investigation.
The construction of the WPP will start with site preparation works, which will include the
establishment of storage areas for equipment, construction machinery and materials, the
removal of topsoil and subsoil in areas where new roads and the WPP are to be built, and the
preparation of construction pits for the construction of the WPP foundations.
One area could be created on the site of the proposed activity for temporary storage of
machinery, equipment and materials during construction. The site will accommodate
construction materials, excluding loose materials for road and site construction, WPP
components, construction machinery and waste collection containers. The pitch will be up to
2,6 ha in area and will be constructed of gravel and crushed stone, ensuring a minimum load-
bearing capacity of 250 kN/m².
The temporary storage area will also house a construction management centre. This control
centre will have a stand-alone electricity and water supply, as well as a mobile wastewater
collection solution if needed.
In areas where new roads and sites are planned for the installation of WPPs, as well as where
WPP foundations are to be built, deforestation will be carried out before construction work
starts.
According to the letter No 4.9/2372/2024-N of the Nature Conservation Agency of 17.04.2024,
the construction of the planned WPP park is also planned in historical forest massifs, which are
now partially fragmented due to the increasing logging in the country, but still contain an
important gene pool of rare forest species. Old-growth forests will be significantly more
affected by the construction of WPPs and associated infrastructure than if WPP parks were
planned on agricultural land, in quarries, etc. Therefore, taking into account the request of the
NCA, in the area of the Proposed Action, which affects old, historical forest massifs, experts
have been engaged not only for forest or swamp habitats, but also for mosses, lichens and
vascular plants.
Estimates of the total deforested area are given in Chapter 7.1.
After deforestation, topsoil will be removed. The removed topsoil will be temporarily placed
along the boundary of the construction site. The areas where the new roads and WPPs are to
be constructed are not located in waterlogged areas where significant quantities of poor
bearing soils would need to be removed prior to construction. It is expected that part of the
removed topsoil will be used for reclamation during the final phase of the construction
process, while the remainder will be used for the improvement of nearby agricultural land. It is
expected that soil not required for the reclamation of the construction area will be removed
from the temporary spoil heaps once the access roads and plazas are completed.
58
During site preparation works, construction pits will be dug in the areas where the foundations
of the WPP will be constructed. Indicatively, each construction pit will have an area of up to
1000 m² and a maximum depth of up to 5 m (final solution after geotechnical investigation at
the design stage). The spoil removed from the pit will be temporarily placed along its
perimeter. Part of the excavated spoil will be used for post-construction reclamation; while the
rest will be removed from the temporary spoil heaps once the access roads and plazas are
completed (Figure 4.3.2).
Figure 4.3.2. WPP construction (illustrative image)28
An assembly area must be created at each WPP to be built. Its size and configuration depend
on the model of the WPP to be built, the machinery used in the assembly process, the location
of the site, changes in ground surface elevation, logistical solutions and rotor assembly
solutions. The configuration of each assembly area will be designed in cooperation with the
selected WPP manufacturer or its authorised construction company. The elements of the
assembly site - access roads, the main crane working area and the hard surfaced areas (hard
surfacing - compacted gravel material meeting specified load bearing capacity) and the WPP
foundation area - will be created during the construction process and maintained during the
lifetime of the WPP within the boundaries of the land unit allocated to each WPP, using only
part of its 2.6 ha area. The elements of the assembly area - assembly area, wing stowage area,
crane assembly area, equipment/ballast stowage area, auxiliary crane working area outside
the access road - will be created during the construction process and dismantled after the
construction of the WPP. The elements of the assembly site - hard surfaced areas, assembly
area, equipment/ballast staging area, auxiliary crane working areas, hard surfaced areas in the
WPP wing staging area and crane assembly area - shall be constructed of gravel and crushed
stone material and shall have a minimum load bearing capacity of 250 kN/m².
28 https://www.peikko.ae/reference/simo-wind-park/
59
Figure 4.3.3. Installation area of the WPP (example - VESTAS 5,6 MW)
4.3.3. Construction solutions for roads and squares
The delivery of the WPP equipment and components will be carried out on the road network
identified in the EIA, and the same roads will be used for construction transport. The road
network will also be used for maintenance of the WPP after the end of the construction works
- no heavy traffic is planned on the road network after the end of the construction works.
The sequence of works shall include the construction of access roads in accordance with the
designers' instructions (Figure 4.3.4). Depending on the solutions envisaged in the construction
design and the results of the geotechnical investigations, the topsoil will be removed and
placed at the edge of the construction area with the aim of returning it after the completion of
the construction works (Figure 4.3.2). The necessary engineering structures and drainage will
be realigned according to the construction design solutions to be agreed with the respective
road owner (for the existing road network) or according to the Latvian State Forest road
construction solutions and equipment manufacturers' conditions (for new roads).
According to the manufacturers, the minimum required road width for moving equipment and
wings is 4,5 m in straight sections and 6,5 m in small curved sections (depending on the
assessment and specification of each individual turbine manufacturer after thorough site
investigation and survey). It is not planned to construct new road infrastructure and carry out
deforestation workson the existing road sections, the construction of which was carried out in
accordance with the requirements of JSC Latvijas Valsts meži "Technical Regulations for Design
of Forest Infrastructure Objects, 2015".
60
Figure 4.3.4. Access characteristics (example)
Outside Latvia, in countries where equipment and extra-long turbine wings are transported
over mountainous roads with difficult terrain, specialised transport units are also used that can
lift a given wing to a certain height above the ground, thus reducing the required in-plane
turning radius. The specific solution will be evaluated during the design of the works, once the
specific turbine model and its parameters are known, taking into account cost conditions and
the availability of specialised vehicles.
Road carrying capacity and width issues for the substation access road and the BESS site need
to be addressed separately. The substation transformer (unfilled with oil) weighs
approximately 40 tonnes and has non-standard transport dimensions, which place increased
demands on it. It is recommended that separate supply designs be developed for the supply of
the transformer and other substation process equipment if their dimensions exceed standard
transport dimensions (Figure 4.3.5). The BESS site is up to 1 ha and requires the removal and
replacement of the fertile soil with a layer of high load bearing, non-confined pavement to
allow vehicular and crane access in the event that the BESS equipment package (container)
needs to be replaced.
The turbine service areas for the WPP will consist of a permanent use area and temporary use
areas (Figure 4.3.6).
The construction period is significantly constrained by the climatic conditions in Latvia and,
consequently, by the load capacity of the access roads and their limitations during the period
in question. In parallel, these periods need to be aligned with an appropriate timeframe for
securing supplies from the equipment manufacturer, as well as the availability of the necessary
heavy-duty equipment. Given the current high demand for WPP equipment on the world
market and especially in the EU - it is necessary to plan the construction period based on the
possible availability of supply and the availability of the relevant technical supplier's personnel,
as well as to take into account the weather conditions - it is not possible to assemble the wind
farm components in strong winds.
61
Figure 4.3.5. Road construction solution for the WPP park (photo: Enviroprojekts)
Figure 4.3.6. The WPP site base under preparation (photo: Enviroprojekts)
4.3.4. Solution for WPP foundation structures
According to the information provided by the manufacturers, the WPP mounting areas are
known to have a load capacity of at least 250 kN/m2.
As an indication, the foundations of a single WPP will require up to 1000m3 of concrete and 125
t of steel on average. Thus, up to 38 000m3 of concrete and 4750 t of steel reinforcement are
needed to construct the foundations for 38 WPPs (for each turbine and each soil condition, the
solution may vary according to the results of the geological investigation) (Figures 4.3.7 and
4.3.8).
62
Figure 4.3.7. Part of the WPP foundation steelwork under construction (photo: Enviroprojekts)
Figure 4.3.8. Part of the WPP foundation steelwork under construction (photo: Enviroprojekts)
4.3.5. Installation of temporary service area, mast structure and WPP
The installation area for the WPP should not exceed 100 x 260 m. The longest edge of the
installation area shall be up to 100 m long. Before installation, the WPP is brought
disassembled, with the longest wing component being 100 m. At the EIA stage, a rectangular
area was assessed on a best-caution basis (in reality this area is smaller) to accommodate the
assembly areas of the manufacturers of all major WPPs (Table 4.2.1) - the approximate
configuration of the construction area is shown in Figure 4.3.9.
63
The installation of the WPP at the site of the Proposed Operation will be carried out by the
WPP manufacturer or its authorised construction company. A detailed plan for the installation
of the WPP will be developed in the construction project. The time needed to install a single
WPP is usually within one week, but weather conditions play an important role in the process.
The installation of a WPP may be delayed if there are high wind speeds at the time scheduled
for installation, limiting the ability to safely install the WPP.
Figure 4.3.9. VESTAS 5.6 MW model site configuration
The 5.6 MW area of the VESTA model (Figure 4.3.9) is indicative. WPP technology for 300 m
high onshore wind turbine models has not yet been developed, so information on similar
turbines with appropriate site margin (plus 20%) for larger component dimensions is used
(Figure 4.3.10).
Figure 4.3.10. Installation process of a WPP turbine in Latvia - Tārgale project, 2022 (photo:
Enviroprojekts)
64
4.3.6. Construction of utilities
In the WPP area, electricity utilities are usually constructed using two solutions - overhead
transmission lines or cable lines. In this project, cable lines are planned to connect the WPP
turbines to the common electricity grid, as this solution has less impact on the future use of
the forest land. The cable connection of the WPP turbines is implemented in a 20-40 kV cable
line with a connection to the AST substation, which in turn is connected to the AST overhead
line, which will be connected to the common power grid in accordance with the technical
regulations issued by AST.
Prior to the start of construction, a detailed engineering study will be carried out to determine
the optimal final route of the cable routes, taking into account the geological conditions and
the environmental protection requirements set out in the EIA opinion on the planned activity,
in accordance with the cable routes defined in the EIA report and which have been
investigated in the field.
For optimal power supply solutions, the planned layout of the WPP turbines is taken into
account, as cables must be run from each turbine to transformers or collection points. The
cables shall be placed at the optimum excavation depth according to the engineering survey
data to protect them from environmental influences (mechanical damage, e.g. movement of
logging machinery). Special cable conduits or protective structures are laid in the trenches
where the cable ducts are installed to protect the cables from water, soil pressure and other
environmental factors. Medium-voltage cables (10-30 kV) are commonly used to transport
electricity from turbines to collection points, as well as high-voltage cables (110 kV and above)
between collection points and power grids. After the cables are installed, they are tested to
check their integrity, durability and safety. Tests include both power flow testing and safety
tests against surges or other possible malfunctions.
As part of the construction of the WPP Park project, a new substation is to be built, which will
be connected to the 330 kV network of AST (Figure 4.3.11).
The LVP foresees a substation on the 330 kV high voltage line Valmiera-Tsirguliina. The EIA
assessed five options for substation locations. An agreement will be concluded with AST for
the construction of the substation. A 20-35 kV network will be constructed to interconnect the
WPP stations with the substation to be built, the technical parameters of which will be detailed
in the electricity network design.
During the construction process, communication networks will also be built for the
management and monitoring of the WPP projects. It is expected that the networks to be built
(fibre optic and low-current cable lines) will be laid parallel to the electricity transmission
networks and that the data networks will be built in parallel to the access roads.
65
Figure 4.3.11. High-voltage substation under construction - Tārgale project, 2022 (photo:
Enviroprojekts)
In accordance with the technical regulations of AST, which will be received after the conclusion
of the EIA procedure, the process of connection and substation construction will also be
implemented. It is expected that the Substation construction project will be implemented
together with the construction of the full set of equipment required for the construction of the
AST equipment and LVP equipment. The substation area will house the main equipment
groups in two small-scale technical application buildings, one of which is intended for the
needs of AST technical staff, and the other - on the medium voltage side - for the needs of
Latvian wind farms. The building on the medium voltage side can also be designed to provide a
safe minimum amount of storage space for the safe storage of unscheduled maintenance
materials for the operation of the WPP.
A BESS system will be constructed on the land immediately adjacent to the substation site (up
to 1 ha), according to the technical design of the proposed operation, making optimal use of
the road and cable infrastructure. The site will be surfaced with a non-load bearing material of
adequate strength for the maintenance of the BESS system and for the replacement of process
equipment. The technological equipment will be delivered and installed in standardised
transport solutions (sea containers) ready for operation, without any additional construction
work.
66
4.3.7. Transport of WPP components
The delivery of the components of the WPP to the site of the proposed activities will be carried
out by the manufacturer of the WPP or its authorised transport company. A detailed transport
plan for the WPP will be developed in the construction project in cooperation with the WPP
manufacturer or authorised distributor. The transport plan will take into account the size,
mass, road width and load capacity of the components of the WPP to be transported and other
constraints (bridges, viaducts, overhead power lines, etc.).
The components of the WPP will be delivered from their place of manufacture to the port
(options: Salacgrīvas, Skultes, Rīgas). They will be transported from the port by road: some
parts will be transported by road on public roads without special permits, and some parts, such
as the bulky mast sections, nacelle and wings, will be transported by specially built and
equipped or adapted bulky goods vehicles, each of which requires a special permit. Of these,
the undivided wings up to 100 m long will be the real traffic bottleneck, which may require
temporary stoppages of other traffic in places during manoeuvring. However, according to
traffic needs and possibilities, on the route from the port to the installation site of each WPP,
the projection of the wing length on roads and access roads is reduced by special transports
that carry the wing half-raised at greater or lesser angles, while the length of the transport
itself is only ~30 m. The mast sections are ~30 m long, so they may also require additional
manoeuvring measures, but to a much lesser extent. The other loads requiring permits will be
heavy goods only, not bulky goods, and the traffic complications they cause are negligible,
mostly just slow speeds.
Every overweight freight journey on public roads has the potential to cause inconvenience to
other road users, but it is the necessary permits that ensure that the journey is planned to
minimise this inconvenience. Transport of bulky parts could be planned for weekends, when
traffic is significantly less. It is even lower at night, while it is more dangerous to correctly
perceive and safely overtake a slow-moving bulky goods carrier in the dark of the day, and it is
more difficult to notice and understand in time a temporary traffic stop for a bulky goods
manoeuvre that has been organised ahead.
The delivered components of the WPP will be placed either at the WPP assembly site or at one
of the sites constructed for the temporary storage of machinery, equipment and materials.
The approximate mass and number of components of the planned analogue WPPs are as
follows (indicative, may vary slightly from the chosen WPP model):
− basic ring: 20 t (divisible),
− mast: 500 t (each section 40-70 t, number ~8),
− gondola: 50 t (indivisible)
− generator: 100 t (consisting of 4-5 parts of 15-50 t each),
− wings: 3 x 20 t (indivisible),
− Total: up to 750 t (including ~13 indivisible bulky and/or heavy loads).
In addition to these details, the literature gives a maximum for the largest WPP with a safety
margin: the amount of concrete for the foundations shall not exceed 2500 t (including
reinforcement, which is negligible in this mass).
Existing dirt roads will be used as far as possible for access to the WPP, and new roads are
planned to allow for construction and operation of the WPP. It is expected that access to the
67
planned WPP park during construction and operation will be provided by the national trunk
road A3 (Inčukalns-Valmiera-Valka), regional roads P24 (Smiltene-Valka) and P26 (Seda feeder
road), national local road V260 (Egli-Olinas-Berzs), municipal roads, forest roads maintained by
the State Forests of Latvia, as well as newly built or adapted existing feeder roads.
Site access is planned on the basis of the transport conditions required for construction and
delivery of equipment. The projected vehicle volumes during the construction of the WPP in
the vicinity of the Proposed Action are presented in Figure 4.3.12.
Estimated number of transport units for each phase of the project works (see Table 4.3.1 for a
summary):
- Substation construction and construction of new access roads and increasing the load
capacity of existing roads for delivery of heavy equipment (Substation area up to 1 ha,
access road with load capacity >250 kN)
- (up to 350 lorries per substation and up to 25 lorries for every 100 linear metres of
road to be built/reconstructed);
- 330 kV grid connection (overhead line) (Planned length of the overhead line (before
obtaining technical regulations from AST) - 400 m (up to 50 trucks/m);
- BESS - technology construction and equipment supply. Required area up to 1 ha,
[unpaved area to be provided] (up to 370 lorries/m in total);
- Construction of access roads to each WPP (up to 25 lorries/m for every 100 linear
metres of road to be constructed/reconstructed);
- Construction of service bays for each WPP (300 lorries/m for each service bay to be
built);
- WPP foundation and footing construction (average 1100m3 of reinforced concrete per
footing construction - 50 lorries/m per WPP);
- Delivery of WPP equipment (mast, generator and wings) to the sites (up to 20 lorries
per WPP);
- Installation of WPP equipment (up to 7 lorries per WPP).
Table 4.3.1. Number of transport units for each phase of the project works
Project phase Number of lorries/m
Substation construction Up to 350 plus up to 25 for every 100 consecutive
metres of road
Connection to high voltage line Up to 50
Installation of a battery energy storage system Up to 370
Construction of new feeder roads for each WPP Up to 25 for every 100 metres of road
Construction of service (assembly) areas Up to 300 x 38 WPP
WPP foundation construction Up to 50 x 38 WPP
Supply of WPP equipment Up to 20 x 38 WPP
Installation of WPP equipment Up to 7 x 38 WPP
68
Figure 4.3.12. Projected vehicle volumes during the construction of the WPP
Figure 4.3.13. Special equipment for transporting WPP wings
69
Figure 4.3.14. Transport of WPP turbine parts in Latvia - Tārgale project, 2022 (photo:
Enviroprojekts)
4.3.8. Installation of additional security, lighting and monitoring equipment for WPP
Various auxiliary equipment will be installed to help control, regulate and manage the turbine
and grid parameters of the WPP. Equipment manufacturers can offer different solutions
depending on the customer's requirements and project conditions. These systems are
integrated into the Industrial Process Control and Visualisation System (SCADA).
In line with the requirements of nature experts and the NCA, the WPP turbines will be
equipped with the necessary digital bird and bat monitoring systems, allowing them to be shut
down at short notice when certain conditions are present. The most appropriate solution for
the site of the proposed activity will be determined during the pre-construction monitoring.
There are currently several such systems on the market, such as IdentiFligt, Bioseco, etc., but
the market is evolving rapidly and the most appropriate solution will be selected in the light of
the results of the post-construction monitoring when installing wind turbines in the area of the
Proposed Action.
All potential turbine suppliers also offer tailored retrofit packages for climate (winter) risks
such as de-icing and others as part of their technology specification. To prevent aviation safety
risks, WPP will be equipped with lighting equipment in accordance with the requirements of
aviation legislation.
4.3.9. Inspection, testing and acceptance of equipment
After the construction and installation of the wind park and the facilities and equipment
related to its functioning in accordance with the technical regulations - for the WPP, the BESS
and also for the high voltage substation, a multi-stage commissioning phase will be carried out
to ensure the stable operation of both the WPP as an electricity generator and the BESS, as
well as the connection and the stability of the high voltage line.
In line with previous practice in similar projects in Latvia - the commissioning programme for a
substation can take more than six months.
70
Experience from similar projects shows that a major benefit of the substation test programme
is the temporary connection to the medium voltage electricity grid.
4.3.10. Reclamation of construction sites and WPPs
After the construction of the WPP park, the project area will be reclaimed. At the end of the
construction works, the temporary storage areas for machinery and construction materials, as
well as all materials used in the delivery and installation of the WPP, will be dismantled. If the
material used for the site is to be returned to another location, contamination analyses of the
material will be carried out. Depending on their results, a decision will be taken on their
possible re-use as road or square surfacing material or for the restoration of fertile soils.
The possibility of reclaiming the site and returning parts of the site to forestry will also be
assessed during the construction phase. However, this possibility should be assessed under the
conditions of the equipment supplier for the future servicing of the WPP turbine. The study
areas of the WPP Park project are forest land, so no agricultural use is planned after
completion of the construction works.
The lifetime of a WPP is typically 25-30 years. Turbine manufacturers are now also prepared to
offer service contracts for a 35-year life cycle. A well-maintained plant can be operated for
longer if the benefits of realising the energy generated by the plant outweigh the costs of
maintenance and upgrading. Experience from other countries shows that the actual lifetime of
a WPP can also be affected by technological developments and industry policies. At the end of
its lifetime, the WPP is dismantled orrepowered. In dismantling, the WPP is completely
demolished with all foundations, while in rebuilding, old stations are mostly replaced by new
ones on the same or new foundations. Metal structures and equipment from dismantling can
be recycled and reused, e.g. as REF (waste-derived fuel), or concrete can be recycled as
construction waste29.
In 2021, the wind industry called for a Europe-wide ban on landfilling of WPP wings30 and
committed to reuse, recycle or recover 100% of used wings. WPP manufacturers have set
targets for fully recyclable wings and have developed wing recycling solutions31. For example,
Siemens Gamesa Renewable energy, a manufacturer of WPP turbines, has announced the
commercial availability of wind turbines with fully recyclable blades32. Also, turbine
manufacturer VESTAS has announced that, in collaboration with Aarhus University and the
Danish Institute of Technology, it has discovered a new method for breaking down epoxy resin
(which has been a major barrier to recycling turbine blades) to facilitate the recycling of
existing and future turbine blades33. Other wind turbine manufacturers are also developing this
line of research.
29
https://windeurope.org/newsroom/press-releases/repowering-wind-farms-a-major-opportunity-for-
europe/#:~:text=In%202021%20the%20wind%20industry,and%20developed%20blade%20recycling%20
solutions.
30
https://windeurope.org/newsroom/press-releases/wind-industry-calls-for-europe-wide-ban-on-
landfilling-turbine-blades/
31
https://windeurope.org/eolis2023/programme/sessions/blade-recycling-projects-i/
32
https://www.siemensgamesa.com/global/en/home/explore/journal/recyclable-blade.html
33
Vestas unveils circularity solution to end landfill for turbine blades
71
Reclamation of the project at the end of the project life cycle (25-30 years) involves several
possible options:
1) Complete site reclamation, dismantling all elements of the WPP, including reinforced
concrete structures. Such dismantling work has previously been carried out in Latvia at
former missile sites such as Zvaigznīte, which are technologically more complex
structures. The contractors have also published video and photo footage from the
projects at34.
2) Re-use of equipment foundations with newer and more efficient equipment (so-called
Repowering). Such refurbishment is highly likely earlier than at the end of the project
life cycle. The German Wind Energy Project Development Report states that 25% of
new installations in Germany in the first half of 2023 were replacements of existing
WPPs with more efficient ones (repowering)35.
4.4. Description of BESS technologies and related infrastructure
BESS is one of the fastest growing technologies for storing electricity. Stationary battery EV
energy storage systems are applicable to a wide range of power system applications, such as
peak load smoothing, balancing of intermittent power (solar panels, WPP), voltage stability,
inertia, black start and arbitrage (market benefits from electricity price differentials). Thanks to
their fast response times, their power is increasingly used in the ancillary services market for
frequency regulation. In addition, in line with electricity market price fluctuations, the arrival of
large-scale renewable energy sources (RES) and the synchronisation of the Baltic and
continental European power systems, fast response electricity storage systems will become an
integral part of the power system from 2025 onwards. On a broader scale, Latvijas vejja parki
will not only be able to improve its ability to sell electricity on the market at the highest
possible prices and reduce costs for RES balancing, but also to provide services to the
Transmission System Operator (hereinafter - TSO) for balancing needs. Primarily, TSOs will
need frequency holding reserves (FCR) and frequency restoration reserves (FRR).
Electricity can be stored using several different technologies: mechanical, thermal, chemical,
electrochemical and electrical. In total, more than 50 storage technologies are represented
worldwide, including various battery technologies, compressed air energy storage, flywheels,
hydrogen energy storage, hydro storage, superconducting magnetic energy storage and
thermal energy storage.
Batteries are a group of electrochemical storage solutions. Batteries are generally suitable for
relatively short storage times and in most cases have a very fast response time. The most
important characteristics of functional battery technology are the combination of power and
discharge duration and the energy density per unit mass or volume, as this affects the required
battery sizes.
Batteries can be divided into three main categories according to their technology:
1) conventional cell batteries containing two electrodes (e.g. lead acid, lithium ion,
nickel cadmium),
34
https://www.demontaza.lv/
35
https://www.wind-energie.de/english/statistics/statistics-germany/
72
2. high temperature batteries that store electricity in molten salt (e.g. sodium sulphur
NaS), and
3) flow batteries using electrolyte liquids in tanks (e.g. Zn/Br reduction, Fe/Cr
reduction).
Lithium-ion batteries are one of the fastest growing battery technologies and are likely to
remain the most approved battery technology over the next 20 years. The advantages of this
technology include:
1) high energy density,
2) relatively low running costs,
3) fast charging capability (response time),
4) low self-discharge and long shelf life,
5) sufficient working life.
Shortcomings may include:
1) relatively high capital investment,
2) poor performance at high and low temperatures,
(3) specific requirements for protection schemes and climate control, including in
relation to fire hazard and performance.
Stationary electric battery energy storage systems are built on the principle of modulation. A
key factor for a modular system is said to be reliable, cost-effective systems that are easy to
configure with the latest storage component technologies and allow storage systems from 1
MW to more than 500 MW.
Individualcells orblocks are contained in a single battery module, which in turn formspacks
orarrays. The battery cabinets are fully equipped with a battery management system (BMS)
and the necessary safety systems - temperature maintenance and air ventilation, as well as a
fire alarm and extinguishing system. In addition to batteries, energy management systems
(EMS) and storage management systems (SMS), converters (inverters/rectifiers) and
transformers for power conversion, low and medium voltage distribution, air handling
solutions (HVAC) systems are installed. All equipment, except the transformer, is usually in sea
containers at a safe distance from each other. A single container can hold batteries with a total
capacity of up to 2.8 MWh, while inverters could have a capacity of 1-2 MW.
The battery configuration is selected depending on the application. Frequency regulation
requires a high converter power, but not a high energy capacity (1 MW / 0.5-1 MWh). On the
other hand, for arbitrage and balancing of a WPP/Solar Power Plant (hereafter SES), a large
energy capacity (1 MW / 2-4 MWh) is important. In the Valmiera-Valka WPP park, the main
function of BESS will be balancing.
The efficiency of the batteries is typically around 96% (4% losses), but the efficiency of the
BESS must take into account the process electricity consumption and losses in other
equipment (transformer, cables, converters and auxiliary systems). This could result in an
overall round trip efficiency (RTE) of 88%-90%.
Lithium-ion modules have an average lifetime of 10 years or 5,000 charge/discharge cycles,
which means an average of 500 cycles per year and 1.5 cycles per day. However, BESS
operators intend to use them for longer by reducing the number of cycles per day and by
73
reducing the depth of charge/discharge of the batteries, i.e. only charging the batteries to 90%
and not discharging them below 10% of the total BESS capacity, thus extending the normal
working life. In the later stages of BESS use, faster battery degradation (i.e. reduction in battery
capacity) or replacement of individual battery modules should be planned. Therefore, the total
working lifetime of BESS is usually calculated at 20 years. Battery degradation is characterised
by the so-called State of Battery Performance (SOH) and depends on the frequency of use and
the depth of charge/discharge. Partial replacement of the battery modules should be carried
out when the SOH drops to 70%-80%. The more a battery is charged/discharged, the faster it
degrades.
Starting from maximum power:
38 WPP x 8 MW = 304 MW, which is the maximum capacity that the Valmiera-Valka
WPP park can develop in one hour, generating 304 MWh.
One container can hold a BESS equivalent to ~2.8 MWh. 160 / 2.8 = 57 containers maximum. 1
ha of land is sufficient to accommodate them. The WPP fleet is expected to operate on
average 1.5 cycles per day.
1 cycle of BESS is 2-4 h; 1.5 cycles x 4 h = 6 h per day of BESS.
Figure 4.4.1. Close-up of BESS containers (illustration by: Kristīne Eglīte)
Figure 4.4.2. BESS layout on the site (illustrative image, author: Kristīne Eglīte)
74
4.5. Operational characteristics of the WPP
After commissioning, the daily operation, monitoring and control of the WPPs is managed
remotely via a SCADA system, ensuring continuous monitoring of operational parameters and
electricity production.
Maintenance or fault rectification of the WPP will be carried out by specialised service
personnel under contract with the WPP manufacturer. Information signs will be installed at the
WPP and the area around the WPP will not be physically cordoned off.
Information signs about the wind park and the preferred safety measures will be installed on
the roads passing through the area.
During the operation of the WPP, economic activities outside the WPP site will not be
restricted, and it is expected that property holders will continue to use the adjacent areas for
their existing uses after construction of the WPP.
The WPP fleet is managed and monitored throughout its lifetime to ensure its sustainability.
The following elements of the monitoring system can be identified:
• Monitoring of operating parameters and electricity production;
• Monitoring of ornithology and natural values and an active prevention system that
stops the wind turbine during specific conditions (radar or camera and machine vision
technological solutions);
• Technological (shadow monitoring of equipment parameters) with a sensor system to
detect risks of wear or failure of equipment well before the risk of failure occurs;
• Accounting for potential losses of nature values according to the monitoring scope
defined by the EIA ornithology and bat experts;
• Field surveys to assess the spatial impact on specific species, in line with guidance from
species and habitat experts.
Specific proposals will be developed for each group of monitoring systems, based on guidance
from the EIA's environmental and nature experts or solutions proposed by the technology
manufacturer.
In accordance with the requirements of Cabinet of Ministers Regulation No 570 of 21 July 2008
"Regulations on marking and equipping objects with protective lights", each WPP in the area of
the Proposed Operation shall be equipped with two protective lights (mounted on the WPP
nacelle) so that their position in the horizontal plane provides the pilot of the aircraft with a
view of at least one protective light from any direction and the area of the protective light is
360°. As the height of the constructed WPPs will be more than 150 m, they will be equipped
with Type A safety lights.
75
5. Expected by-products, emissions, risks
5.1. Waste management
The EIA takes into account the requirements of the regulatory enactments listed in Chapter 2
when assessing waste management.
Both municipal and construction waste will be generated during the construction of the WPP.
Household waste will be collected and temporarily stored in containers, in an area for
temporary storage of machinery and materials. The collected municipal waste will be handed
over to waste managers who have obtained waste management permits for that type of
waste.
No maintenance or repair of technical equipment will be carried out in the construction area,
except in the event of an accident, hazardous waste such as oil, products, oils, etc. may be
generated. Hazardous waste (used containers of chemicals/mixtures, spills from
equipment/filling, machinery, etc.) will be collected, separated and stored in accordance with
the requirements for the storage of hazardous waste. Hazardous waste will be transferred to a
licensed hazardous waste contractor for further management.
Construction waste will be managed in accordance with the applicable national and municipal
legislation. Construction waste will be collected using suitable bins, containers and vehicles.
Construction waste will be accounted for in accordance with the procedures set out in Cabinet
Regulation No 113 of 18 February 2021 "Procedure for Accounting for Waste and its
Shipment".
Some of the assembly areas constructed during the construction of the WPP (part of each
area) will be dismantled during the final phase of construction. Although all necessary
precautions will be taken during the construction process to avoid contamination of the
ground, the machinery used may cause contamination of the site with petroleum products.
Prior to dismantling the assembly site, soil contamination will be assessed and, if found, will
not be used for its intended purpose without remediation: contaminated soil will be
transferred to waste managers who have obtained permits for the type of waste concerned.
The above information confirms that during the construction works, the surrounding
environment (site, ground, etc.) will be protected from pollution by construction waste,
petroleum products and other chemicals, and spills from machinery will be prevented.
No waste is expected to be generated during the operation of the WPP, except for waste
generated during maintenance (WPP equipment that has reached the end of its useful life and
needs to be replaced). Waste collection and disposal during operation of the WPP will be
carried out by waste management operators that have obtained waste management permits
for the relevant waste types.
Waste management in the post-operational phase of the WPP: Solutions already exist for the
re-use of metal materials used in the construction of WPPs, and the concrete used for the
foundations can be re-used in the event of dismantling. WPP wings made of composite
materials are considered to be a material group with limited recyclability. Both WPP
manufacturers and organisations involved in the wind energy industry are now actively seeking
76
solutions for the re-use of polymer materials related to the wind energy industry. For example,
a publication prepared by Wind Europe, the Europena Composites Industry Association and the
European Chemical Industy Council in 202036 analyses a range of technologies available for the
recycling of WPP wings, looking for the best solutions to promote the reuse of composite
materials used in the construction of VPPs. As mentioned in chapter 4.3.9, in 2021 the wind
industry called for a Europe-wide ban on landfilling of WPP wings and committed to reuse,
recycle or recover 100% of used wings by 202537. WPP manufacturers have set the goal of fully
recyclable wings and have developed solutions for wing recycling. For example, Siemens
Gamesa Renewable energy has already announced that they can produce turbine wings for
commercial use that are 100% recyclable38. Other major European and US turbine
manufacturers are also working to bring this solution to their turbines.
5.2. Possible effects of WPPs on human health, assessment of electromagnetic
radiation and permissible levels
Potential impacts from the operation of the WPP are related to localised physical effects:
sound levels, including in the infrasonic and low frequency range, vibration, flicker effects and
electromagnetic radiation. Transient environmental impacts are also expected during the
construction of the WPP (noise, air pollution), but these are not specific to the construction of
the WPP and are similar to any other construction activity. The EIA takes into account the
requirements of the regulatory enactments listed in Chapter 2.
Chapter 7.2 of the EIA report provides a detailed assessment of the acoustic pollution from the
proposed WPPs at different frequencies, and Chapter 7.3 of the EIA report further discusses
the impact of the flicker effect.
As regards electromagnetic radiation, studies have shown39 that the electromagnetic fields
generated by WPPs are negligible and are unlikely to cause adverse effects on public health,
unless a person is in close proximity to the WPP (up to 10 m from the mast of the WPP) at all
times. In 2010, within the framework of the EIA for the planned WPP park in Ventspils, the
Institute of Physical Energy of the Academy of Sciences of the Republic of Lithuania,
commissioned by TCK Ltd, carried out calculations of the electromagnetic field generated by
the WPP, and found that the magnetic field generated by the power plant at a distance of 150
m from the WPP is 0.70 A/m or 80 times lower than the Earth's magnetic field (55.7 A/m), so
even at a short distance it does not affect human health40.
36
https://windeurope.org/newsroom/press-releases/repowering-wind-farms-a-major-opportunity-for-
europe/#:~:text=In%202021%20the%20wind%20industry,and%20developed%20blade%20recycling%20
solutions
37
https://windeurope.org/newsroom/press-releases/repowering-wind-farms-a-major-opportunity-for-
europe/#:~:text=In%202021%20the%20wind%20industry,and%20developed%20blade%20recycling%20
solutions
38
RecyclableBlade (https://www.siemensgamesa.com/global/en/home.html)
39
https://ast.lv/sites/default/files/editor/att-projekti/IVN_Zinojums_22_aprilis.pdf
40
https://www.vpvb.gov.lv/lv/media/2779/download?attachment
77
Similar studies have been carried out for high-voltage power lines41. According to the widely
used classification of electromagnetic waves, the 50 Hz frequency is part of the so-called very
low frequencies (ELF) and is characteristic of Latvia's electricity supply, including both the
power generated by WPPs and the power carried by high-voltage networks.
Wherever electricity is used, electric and magnetic fields are generated which, at low
frequencies, can only exist in close association with the source of the electric or magnetic field,
and decrease rapidly with distance from that source. Frequencies of the order of ~30 kHz can
already produce an electromagnetic wave, which can separate from its source and propagate
over long distances. These frequencies are 600 times higher than 50 Hz42.
Cabinet Regulation No 637 of 16.10.2018 "Regulations on the assessment and limitation of
exposure of the general public to electromagnetic fields" sets the limits for electromagnetic
field radiation shown in Table 5.3.1 (0 Hz to 300 GHz), which correspond to the values
recommended in EU Recommendation 1999/519/EC.
Table 5.2.1. Electromagnetic field radiation limits (0 Hz to 300 GHz)
Frequencies [Induced] current SAR whole SAR local to SAR local to power
density in torso, body, W/kg head, torso, hands, feet, density,
head, mA*m-2, W/kg W/kg W/m2
rms
Up to 1 Hz 8 - - -
1-4 Hz 8/ƒ - - -
4 Hz-1 kHz 2 - - -
1-100 kHz ƒ/500 - - -
100 kHz-10 MHz ƒ/500 0,08 2 4
10 MHz–10 GHZ - 0,08 2 4
10 GHz–300 GHZ - - - - 10
At 50 Hz, the reference value for the electric field is 5000 V/m and for the magnetic field 100
μT. These values are not threshold values that must not be exceeded, but they are levels that
indicate the need to check that the basic limits (threshold levels) are being met. Calculations
using the method according to the standard LVS NE 50499 "Procedure for assessing the
exposure of workers to electromagnetic fields" have shown that the actual values of exposure
to external fields must be significantly higher for the induced body currents to reach the value
specified in the basic limit. A summary of the results for the reference limit at 50 Hz, the
reference levels and the field values corresponding to the reference limit is given in Table
5.3.2. 43
41
https://ast.lv/sites/default/files/editor/att-projekti/IVN_Zinojums_22_aprilis.pdf
42
Estonia-Latvia third electricity interconnection from Sindi (Kilingi-Nõmme) in Estonia to Salaspils
Environmental Impact Assessment, SIA Eiroprojekts, 2019
43
Environmental impact assessment: Estonia-Latvia third power grid interconnection from Sindi (Kilingi -
Nõmme) in Estonia to Salaspils (or Riga CHP-2) substations in Latvia, "Eiroprojekts" Ltd, 2016
78
Table 5.2.2. Calculated values of the electric and magnetic fields corresponding to the reference
limit, as well as the reference limit and reference levels at 50 Hz
Basic restriction: 2mA m-2 in the central nervous system
Magnetic field Electric field
Reference level: 100 µT Reference level: 5 kV/m
The external field required to achieve this field The external field required to achieve this current
strength in a human: 360 µT density in a human: 9,2 kV/m
On a 50 Hz power line, even with a voltage of 330 kV and a current of 2000 A, the magnetic
field at a height of 1 m above the ground directly below the power line is 4-5 orders of
magnitude lower than the reference values in the Council of Europe Recommendation and the
values given in Table 5.3.1. In Latvia, measurements made by JSC Latvenergo under existing
330 kV lines show that at a distance of 30 m from the edge of the line, the value is 0.02 µT,
while directly under the lowest point of the transmission line (hereinafter - EPL), the value is
0.23 µT, which is practically zero (Figure 5.3.1).
Figure 5.2.1. Results of magnetic field measurements of PPAs in Latvia
Magnetic field measurements were carried out in 2014 on the newly built PPA in Kurzeme by
the laboratory44, which provides services in the field of diagnostics and expert assessment of
the technical condition and characteristics of electrical safety equipment, electrical systems
and equipment, and in the field of environmental parameter testing. The laboratory is
accredited by the Latvian National Accreditation Bureau LATAK in accordance with LVS EN ISO
17020 as a Type C inspection body (LATAK-I-248) and LVS EN ISO/IEC 17025 as a testing
44
Environmental impact assessment: Estonia-Latvia third power grid interconnection from Sindi (Kilingi -
Nõmme) in Estonia to Salaspils (or Riga CHP-2) substations in Latvia, "Eiroprojekts" Ltd, 2016
79
laboratory (LATAK-T-166), which confirms compliance with international standards and the
quality of the services provided. Measurements of electric field strengths under 330/110 kV
lines show that they are below the value of 5 kV/m set in EU Recommendation 1999/519/EC.
As measured in other European countries such as Germany and the UK45, electric fields under
110 kV and 400 kV overhead PPAs can range from 2000 V/m to 5000 V/m, while magnetic
fields can reach 40 µT. The electromagnetic fields ("EMF") are much lower under medium- and
low-voltage PPAs: electric fields can range from 100 V/m to 400 V/m and magnetic fields from
0.5 µT to 3 µT, respectively. As the distance from the centreline of the high-voltage PPA
increases, the EMF exposure levels decrease accordingly. All these conclusions apply to
voltages of 100 times or more the output voltage of a WPP, up to 1 kV.
The magnetic field density directly above the electric cable lines is significant, but decreases
rapidly as you move away from the cable line. Electric fields are completely eliminated by cable
insulation. Table 5.3.3 summarises the UK calculated magnetic field values at various distances
from the cable centreline46.
Table 5.2.3. Magnetic fields, µT, off-centre
Transmission lines, kV Distance from centre line
0m 5m 10 m 20 m
132 kV 5,01 1,78 0,94 0,47
33 kV 1,00 0,29 0,15 0,07
11 kV 0,75 0,22 0,11 0,06
400 V 0,50 0,14 0,07 0,04
All these data on high voltage transmission lines allow extrapolating that both the WPP
generators themselves with voltage < 1 kV and their 20 kV substations and cables from the
WPP to the substations and from the substations to the transmission line will not cause
significant electromagnetic fields in the nearest built-up areas.
5.3. Forecasting accident risks and emergency situations
5.3.1. Natural disasters
According to the Cabinet of Ministers Regulation No 563 of 19 September 2017 "Procedures
for Identification and Determination of Objects of Increased Danger, as well as for Planning
and Implementation of Civil Protection and Disaster Management", power generation facilities
with an installed capacity exceeding 100 MW are classified as Category C objects of increased
danger and require a Civil Protection Plan.
Both technogenic and natural disasters can threaten the operation of WPPs.
45
Environmental impact assessment: Estonia-Latvia third power grid interconnection from Sindi (Kilingi-
Nõmme) in Estonia to Salaspils (or Riga CHP-2) substations in Latvia, "Eiroprojekts" Ltd, 2016
46
Environmental impact assessment: Estonia-Latvia third power grid interconnection from Sindi (Kilingi -
Nõmme) in Estonia to Salaspils (or Riga CHP-2) substations in Latvia, "Eiroprojekts" Ltd, 2016
80
Among the natural disasters that could potentially affect the operation of the Valmiera-Valka
wind farm, the most significant are: storms, lightning, forest fires and icing.47
The operation of the Valmiera-Valka Wind Farm is located entirely in the forest land area,
therefore there are no other objects of increased hazard, objects of public importance or
residential houses in its vicinity that may affect the implementation of the Proposed Action in
the selected alternatives A, A` and B, B`.
The accumulated statistics summarise several decades of operation of plants of different
capacities and sizes. The main potential threats are48:
• falling ice chunks from icy WPP rotor wings in the surrounding area,
• Mechanical damage or collapse of the WPP, which may cause the spread of debris in
the surrounding area,
• WPP rollover.
Increased wind speed
According to the international insurance company FM Global (USA), increased wind speeds and
loads can contribute to WPP malfunctions. Wind speed combined with erroneous wind
measurements (e.g. wind speed or direction) or malfunctions in the wind turbine control or
safety system (e.g. blade pitch, yaw or rotor brake) can cause the rotor to exceed its technical
parameters, which can lead to damage. Excessive wind speed can cause damage to the rotor
blades or overturn the turbine, causing the support tower to buckle or damaging the tower
foundation.49
Risk mitigation measures
Equipping the WPP with a safety system that safely stops the operation of the WPP during high
winds.
Icing
Ice build-up on the rotor blades can unbalance the rotor and cause vibrations and dynamic
loads that can damage the blades as well as other mechanical components.
There is also a risk of ice on the rotor blades melting and being thrown off while the rotor is
spinning, or of ice falling off if the rotor is stopped.
Ice build-up on anemometers can cause erroneous wind speed or wind direction readings,
which can result in the turbine remaining in operation or restarting when the wind speed
exceeds the cut-off speed or with a significant yaw error, which can damage the WPP.50
Potential for human exposure to falling ice chunks51:
47
https://fireprotectionsupport.nl/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/FMDS1310-2022-07-Wind-
Turbines.pdf
48
In the EU, many countries do not have clear rules on reducing the risk of turbine icing
49
https://fireprotectionsupport.nl/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/FMDS1310-2022-07-Wind-
Turbines.pdf
50
https://fireprotectionsupport.nl/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/FMDS1310-2022-07-Wind-
Turbines.pdf
81
• 40-60 J can cause serious injuries by hitting the head;
• >80 J serious injury to the body is possible.
The impact energy depends on the density, mass and velocity of the ice. By comparison, an
effect of 40 J can be applied to a 200 g piece of ice falling from a height of 30-50 m, or 500 g of
ice falling from a height of 5-6 m.
When a chunk of ice hits a vehicle, 10% of the time the windscreen can be damaged: it takes
140 J to break and puncture it.
Latvian legislation does not specify a methodology for assessing the risk of WPP icing, but
other countries do.
In Canada, the probability of ice fall as a function of distance from the WPP up to 140 m is
shown in Figure 5.3.1 of52: 10-4 (one ten-thousandth) to 10-6 (one millionth) per 1m2.
Figure 5.3.1. Probability of an ice chunk falling 1 m2 based on fieldwork calculations 53
By contrast, the probability of an ice chunk falling further than 220 m from the WPP is less than
10-8
(one hundred millionth) per 1m2, the average fall distance is 100 m and the mass of ice
51
https://windren.se/WW2015/WW2015_39_521_Refsum_Lloyd_Ice_throw_evaluating_risk.pdf
52
Recommendations for risk assessment of ice throw and blade failure in Ontario - Canadian Wind
Energy Association, 2007
53
https://iea-wind.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/Lehtomaki-et-al.-2018-Available-Technologies-for-
Wind-Energy-in-Cold-Climates-report-2-nd-edition-2018.pdf
82
chunks is less than 1 kg, but much less on average (tiny splinters that still break up in flight).
The Canadian study54 investigates WPPs with 80 m mast height and 80 m rotor diameter: both
2.5 times smaller than in this EIA. To extrapolate these findings to a 200 m mast height and 200
m rotor diameter, we first need to consider that from the largest WPP, ice chunks can fly on
average from 2.5 times the height and at 2.5 times the speed, so will fly ~2,5 times farther or
~550 m, which can be rounded up to the 600 m calculated above (as a maximum precaution,
since in reality the air resistance will act longer in the longest flight and will not allow the
distance to be so large). A square metre at 2.5 times the distance is 2.5² or 6.25 times more,
while the area of a wing 2.5 times longer (if both wings are proportional) is also 2.5² or 6.25
times more, so the one hundred millionth probability from the Canadian study can be
maximised for this EIA at 600 m (although in reality air resistance will stop it earlier). This
probability increases at shorter distances, there is no methodology to calculate it precisely for
this EIA, but it is clear in which range of numbers this probability remains: it reaches about the
values shown in Figure 5.3.1, only at longer distances, up to ~140 x 2.5 = 350 m. However, it
should be stressed that this is the probability of being hit by flying ice chunks/splinters in
situations where the wings are iced. The overall probability of risk is obtained by multiplying
this tiny probability by the rather small probability, or small fraction of the total time of the
year, when there is any risk at all of wing icing: such rather specific weather conditions could
be on the order of 1% of the total time of the year, so the resulting probabilities are still
divisible by 100.
The minimum distance between a wind turbine and people or objects proposed in Germany is
set out in the recommendation of the European Commission report55: 1.5 * (mast height +
rotor diameter)56. This criterion is in the list of technical provisions of the German Building
Regulations, so if a wind turbine does not meet this minimum distance and is located in a
region with a high risk of icing, additional measures must be taken: a site-specific risk
assessment report, mainly based on regional icing frequency, complemented by an assessment
report on the detection of ice on the wind turbine.
The minimum distance recommended in Sweden is also 1.5* (mast height + rotor diameter),
taken from the European Commission report reviewed by the Swedish Energy Agency through
the ICETHROWER project57, but with the additional conclusion that the minimum distance can
be reduced to 1.0* (mast height + rotor diameter), as an impact beyond this distance is
significantly less likely to cause injury than other societal injury risks. Although this report has
no formal regulatory framework, it is used as a guide for wind energy project developers and
permitting authorities in Sweden.
54
Recommendations for risk assessment of ice throw and blade failure in Ontario - Canadian Wind
Energy Association, 2007
55 https://op.europa.eu/lv/publication-detail/-/publication/9cde4269-9b53-4fd7-b064-5b3caf85aabf
56 https://windeurope.org/summit2016/conference/allposters/PO337.pdf
57https://winterwind.se/wp-
content/uploads/2015/08/3_2_13_Lunden_ICETHROWER_%E2%80%93_mapping_and_tool_for_risk_an
alysis_Pub_v1-1.pdf
83
Another regulation affecting the use of wind turbines in icy climatic conditions is Directive
2006/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council58, which aims to ensure a uniform
level of safety for all machinery placed on the market or put into service in all Member States.
This Directive requires a manufacturer to carry out a risk analysis and assessment of its
product and its intended use, covering design, manufacture, production and use, as part of the
conformity assessment process under the EU Directives.
Several regulatory authorities require manufacturers and operators to take specific measures
to reduce the risk of harm or injury to people, property and the environment. Specific
recommendations for manufacturers for cold climates include a range of features including
heating systems, as well as special materials and lubricants for low temperatures. Operators
should plan a risk mitigation strategy that includes control options such as capacity
optimisation, preventive shutdowns, load reduction, anti-icing systems and ice ejection risk
reduction59.
In this context, in some countries, such as Austria and Germany, wind farm licensing
authorities may require wind turbines to be systematically shut down during icing to reduce
the risk in the vicinity of WPPs. For this purpose, several icing detection methods have been
developed that can automatically stop the WPP and restart it when the icing has stopped.
Icing is more likely to occur on stationary rotors than on rotating rotors60, while ice chunks can
only be expected to break off the blades or mast of a stationary rotor in very high winds and at
short range.
The distance over which ice chunks can fly from a stationary rotor shall not exceed 50 m more
than the wing length61. A wider area of risk is expected in the event of icing of the blades of an
operational WPP, when the high-speed wings sweep ice chunks much further away. Icing also
degrades the aerodynamic properties of the wing and increases vibration, reducing the
efficiency of the WPP, which in turn is the basis for safety systems: today, WPPs are equipped
with automatic vibration sensors that shut down the plant at a certain vibration level caused
by icing on the rotor blades. However, such equipment cannot completely eliminate the risk of
falling ice chunks.
A study at Uppsala University in Sweden62 has found a correlation between wind speed and the
flying distance of ice debris.
58 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dir/2006/42/oj/?locale=LV
59 https://iea-wind.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/Lehtomaki-et-al.-2018-Available-Technologies-for-Wind-
Energy-in-Cold-Climates-report-2-nd-edition-2018.pdf
60
Garrad Hassan for Canadian Wind Energy Association, "Recommendations for risk assessment of
ice throw and blade failure in Ontario", 2007
61
Recommendations for risk assessment of ice throw and blade failure in Ontario - Canadian Wind
Energy Association, 2007
62
Joakim Renström, Modelling of Ice Throws from Wind Turbines Modellering av iskast från
vindkraftverk, Uppsala University 2015
84
Figure 5.3.2. Ice debris flying distance (modelling data) vs. wind strength (WPP rotor height 125
m, wing height 180 m)63
In order to assess the potential range and impact on the surrounding area of ice chunks caused
by icing of the rotor blades, calculations for different rotor operating positions have been
carried out in the recommendations published by the International Energy Agency Cooperation
Project "Wind Energy in Cold Climates"64.
As already pointed out, ice forms on the WPP blades when the WPP is not running, but
detaches and falls off when the WPP starts moving again. The following equations are used to
estimate the ice debris fall distance:
• operating WPPs
• at the time the WPP starts operation:
Where
dd,u - maximum distance of ice chunks falling from the station during operation or
when the rotor starts moving (m),
63
Joakim Renström, Modelling of Ice Throws from Wind Turbines Modellering av iskast från
vindkraftverk, Uppsala University 2015
64
https://iea-wind.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/Lehtomaki-et-al.-2018-Available-Technologies-for-
Wind-Energy-in-Cold-Climates-report-2-nd-edition-2018.pdf
85
D– rotor diameter (m),
H– mast height (m),
v- wind speed at mast height (m/s).
As can be seen, the falling distance of ice debris is influenced by the height of the WPP, the
rotor diameter and the wind speed: as these increase, the area of influence increases. The
maximum ice debris fall distance for the WPP assessed in this EIA according to the formula is as
follows:
• dd = 600 m (WPP h = 300 m)
• du = V x 20 m, maximum 23 x 20 = 460 m (WPP h = 300 m)
Probability of an event
The probability of icing may vary with climatic conditions, as well as with annual weather
variability, and vertically with the absolute and relative height of the WPP.
There are no studies on the frequency of WPP icing in Latvia. Several important studies on
WPP icing have been carried out in Norway and Sweden, see Figure 5.3.3. Latvia's terrain is
generally lower in elevation than Sweden or Norway, and Latvia is further south with a warmer
climate, so the average number of hours of icing is likely to be significantly lower.
86
Figure 5.3.3. Average number of hours of icing per year in Sweden and Norway65
Risk mitigation measures
In the EU, many countries do not have clear rules on reducing the risk of WPP icing. In Norway,
for example, the operation of WPPs during the winter months is dealt with under general
rules, with no specific legal framework. Wind farm operators can also be fined and criminally
liable for the damage caused.
65
https://iea-wind.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/Task-19-Technical-Report-on-International-
Recommendations-for-Ice-Fall-and-Ice-Throw-Risk-Assessments.pdf
87
A survey conducted by the International Energy Agency in 2019 concluded that, in most
countries, restrictions related to mitigating the risk of ice fall are implemented at the
permitting stage and are governed by general laws and regulations on infrastructure safety.
In Germany and Austria, WPP ice detection systems are required if public roads or buildings
are located in the calculated ice debris zone. These countries have a production cap: WPP must
stop when icing conditions are present. If ice detection systems are reliable and sensitive
enough, the potential danger is more likely to be from falling ice than from smaller chunks
being thrown over a greater distance.66
The risk of icing and ice fall is usually concentrated on short periods during the year. Predicting
and controlling icing67:
• based on meteorological forecasts;
• installing WPP ice sensors.
Risk mitigation measures to prevent icing hazards to third parties:
• posting clearly visible warning signs in the potentially affected area;
• fencing off the area, blocking access with gates, barriers;
• restrict social activities
• rerouting of footpaths, location of ski slopes, etc.
Risk reduction measures for service staff:
• protective grilles, roofs or tunnels
• personal protective equipment.
Lightning discharge
Damage to a WPP caused by lightning is a common cause of property damage in wind farms.
Lightning damage can occur to WPP s and important parts of the wind farm's electrical system.
Direct lightning strikes can cause damage to the WPP blades (most common) and the nacelle,
and sometimes ignition. Direct or indirect lightning strikes can also cause damage to electrical
systems. Transients or surges caused by nearby lightning strikes can cause gradual damage to
the entire electrical system.68
Risk mitigation measures
Equipping a WPP park with lightning protection equipment.
Forest and grassland fires (types of fires, conditions contributing to their origin and spread,
techniques for assessing and predicting the development of fires)
Fires can cause thermal radiation damage in onshore WPP parks, especially collector
substations, and can also damage rotor blades, which are usually made of fibre-reinforced
66
https://iea-wind.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/Task-19-Technical-Report-on-International-
Recommendations-for-Ice-Fall-and-Ice-Throw-Risk-Assessments.pdf
67
https://windren.se/WW2015/WW2015_39_521_Refsum_Lloyd_Ice_throw_evaluating_risk.pdf
68
https://fireprotectionsupport.nl/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/FMDS1310-2022-07-Wind-
Turbines.pdf
88
plastic. There are no known cases of structural damage to the turbine support towers, which
are usually made of steel or sometimes concrete.
Forest areas are characterised by planting, maintaining and harvesting of forest stands when
they reach the age of the main cut. The forest has the necessary infrastructure for forest
management: roads, natural tracks, stiles, etc.
In forest areas, there is a risk of fire, which increases during the warm season of the year. The
degree of danger (forest fire danger) of forest fires originating from a potential ignition source
and spreading depends on:
• the conditions characterising the forest and peat area, or the type of growing
conditions (natural fire risk);
• meteorological conditions (fire risk as determined by meteorological conditions).
The number of recorded forest fires and their main causes are reflected in the statistics (see
Figure 5.3.4). The main causes of forest fires in Latvia are not natural disasters, but careless
handling of fire, arson and economic activity, and to a much lesser extent, fires of natural
origin caused by lightning.
The risk of fire exists both in forest areas and in WPP parks, so these risk factors should be
taken into account when planning WPP parks and measures should be taken to mitigate the
risk of fire that may arise from the interaction of the two types of economic activity.
Figure 5.3.4. Number of forest fires by cause Latvia total69
The total area of forests in Latvia is 3.305 million ha (2023). Based on forest fire statistics over
the last 10 years, the average size of a forest fire is up to 1.09 ha.
Table 5.3.1. Number of forest fires and total area of fires in Latvia in the last 10 years70
2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
69
https://stat.gov.lv/lv/statistikas-temas/noz/mezsaimnieciba/8673-meza-ugunsgreki
70
https://stat.gov.lv/lv/statistikas-temas/noz/mezsaimnieciba/8673-meza-ugunsgreki
89
Number of
698 704 641 423 972 1110 581 466 391 653
fires
Fire area, ha 591 540 467 265 2864 822 309 505 221 637
Based on the above data, the probability of a forest fire occurring in the vicinity of the WPP can
be estimated at 2.18 x 10-4/ha/year, or 1 ha of the 4577.24 ha forest area per year.
Risk mitigation measures
External sources of fire are relatively more dangerous for small WPPs, whose rotor and blades
are closer to combustible sources. The lower the WPP, the greater the fire safety distances. In
comparison, the US insurance company FM Global, which assesses and summarises the various
risks around WPPs, recommends a 150 m tree-free zone, or 60 m if the area is scrub or grass.71
It should be noted that the length of some tree species in the USA can reach about 100 m,
while in Latvia the length of the largest trees is about 40 m. Consequently, the required tree-
free zone in Latvia, if the recommendations of the insurance company are taken into account,
should be proportionally smaller: about 60 m, which is recommended to be specified and
agreed with forest owners and fire-fighting organisations (SFRS, State Forest Service, etc.).
Another international organisation, The Confederation of Fire Protection Associations Europe,
recommends that, in order to prevent the risk of a forest fire from the consequences of a WPP
fire, the area around the WPP tower should be cleared of brush and grass within 25 m of the
tower site, which could contribute to the spread of fire in the ROW.72
5.3.2. Risk assessment of mechanical damage to WPP
The quantitative risk assessment method has been selected for the risk assessment of
accidents at the Valmiera-Valka WPP Park, which provides a more detailed assessment of the
consequences and probabilities of an event.
There are no methodological guidelines or a uniform approach to risk assessment in Latvia, so
the experience of other countries has been used: the risk assessment is based on the
experience of other countries (the Netherlands, Belgium) that have already developed
methodologies for risk assessment of wind farms.
The most severe possible accident with a very low probability of a WPP overturning. A partial
collapse of a WPP, with debris falling or flying, is also considered an extreme event. In the
Netherlands, the statistical average probability of mechanical failure of a WPP has been
calculated by analysing accident statistics from the Netherlands, Germany and Denmark, and a
methodology for risk assessment of wind turbines has been developed. In accordance with this
risk assessment methodology, the risk scenarios listed in Table 5.3.2 are considered for the
assessment of mechanical damage. 73
71
https://fireprotectionsupport.nl/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/FMDS1310-2022-07-Wind-
Turbines.pdf
72
https://cfpa-e.eu/app/uploads/2022/05/CFPA_E_Guideline_No_21_2021_F.pdf
73
https://omgeving.vlaanderen.be/sites/default/files/2022-12/2022%2012%2001%20-%20IWT%20-
%20handboek.pdf
90
Table 5.3.2. Risk probabilities of mechanical damage to WPP
Type of damage Probability (per year) Single probability
-4
Breaking off the entire rotor blade 8,4 × 10 1200 years
-4
Rotor blade part breaking off 8,4 × 10 1200 years
-4
Wind station collapses due to mast failure 1,3 × 10 7700 years
-5
Rotor and/or nacelle breakage 4,0 × 10 25000 years
The guidelines define the maximum possible radius of the zone of influence within which the
effects of the risks listed in Table 5.3.2 should be assessed, according to the class and type of
WPP. The radius of the zone is equal to the maximum height of the WPP.
The Danish study Risk assessment of wind turbines close to highways (2012)74 assesses the
probability of a car travelling on a highway with a WPP every 500 m along its entire length (60
m away) directly adjacent to it having a fatal collision with parts of a fully or partially collapsed
WPP. The resulting probability per kilometre of road was 5 x 10-12, or one part in two hundred
billion. By comparison, the overall probability of a car suffering a fatal collision on a Danish
motorway per kilometre of road was (2009) 2 x 10-9, or one five hundred millionth, or 400 times
higher.
The risk assessment methodology develops mathematical equations for accident scenarios to
determine the maximum exposure distance and the level of risk, which includes the probability
and consequences of an event. The assessment assumes that the effects of an accident are
equally likely in all directions around the WPP.
The calculated individual risk distances are defined and visualised with isolines around each
WPP.
The most important parameters that, according to the risk assessment methodology, influence
the consequences of accidents in determining the overall level of risk posed by a WPP are:
- Total height of WPP (m),
- rotor diameter (m),
- gondola dimensions - length, height and width (m),
- the diameter of the mast at its top and bottom (m),
- mass of the equipment (t),
- rotor speed (rpm, nominal);
A specific model has not yet been selected for the proposed operation, so the risk assessment
uses data and assumptions that are representative of the largest possible installation that
could be built in the NPPF (Table 5.3.3). Figure 5.3.5 shows that the productivity and size of
WPPs in Europe and elsewhere in the world are continuously increasing with technological
advances and accumulated operating experience.
https://backend.orbit.dtu.dk/ws/portalfiles/portal/7903618/Risk_assessment_of_wind_turbines.p
74
df
91
Table 5.3.3. Input data (assumed in calculations)
VES height, m 250 275 300
Mast height, m 150 175 200
Rotor diameter, m 200 200 200
Gondola dimensions
Length, m 15 15 15
Width 7 8 9
Height, m 5 6 7
Total weight of equipment, t 800 840 880
Upper diameter of mast, m 6 6 6
Lower diameter of mast, m 9 10 11
Rotor speed (max), times min. 8–12 8–12 8–12
Figure 5.3.5. WPP development in recent decades and outlook75
To assess the potential impact of the WPP in the event of an accident, baseline data for
accident consequence assessment have been compiled. The assumptions of the calculation
output data are based on the world's largest built WPPs (e.g. Vestas V164-8.0 Haliade-X
(General Electric), V236-15.0 (Vestas), SG 14-236 DD (Siemens Gamesa), MySE 16.0-242
(MingYang Smart Energy)), interpreting the data on WPPs envisaged in the EIA and their
planned technical parameters (capacity, WPP height, rotor diameter).
The EIA uses calculation sheets developed in Belgium, resulting in individual risk distances
around the stations, as well as safety distances to be determined for the location of the WPP in
relation to other facilities. The results of the calculations for all station modifications are
summarised in Table 5.3.4 above. See Figure 5.3.6 for a plot of the worst case scenario for a
WPP with a height of h=300 m.
75
Input of advanced geotechnical modelling to the design of offshore wind turbine foundations,
Federico Pisanò, Norwegian Geotechnical Institute
92
Table 5.3.4. Calculated individual risk and zone distance in metres for different types of WPPs for
alternatives A, A` and B, B` of the Valmiera-Valka wind farm
Individual risk level Individual risk zone size for different WPP modifications (distance in
metres from the WPP)
WPP WPP WPP
h=250m h=275 h=300
1x10-5/year
37 35 34
1x10-6/year
246 260 272
1x10-7/year
251 276 301
Notes.
PR individual risk curve (the two 'spikes' in the PR curve are related to the rotor blade flying distance at
nominal operating mode and at operating conditions where the rotor speed is 2× the nominal rotational
speed).
PR` smoothed individual risk curve According to the Belgian NPS risk assessment manual, these curve
jumps can be smoothed to read the determined risk distances.
Figure 5.3.6. Individual risk curve for the worst case scenario of a WPP accident (WPP height
h=300m)
Calculated according to the Belgian methodology HANDLEIDING REKENBLAD WINDTURBINES
Handleiding voor en verduidelijking bij het gebruik van het rekenblad Versie 2.0 dd.
01/10/201976 for the effects of WPP accidents, depending on the technological parameters of
the installation, not only the individual risk level but also the safety distances between the
WPP and other objects in the vicinity of the WPP parks (sensitive objects, critical infrastructure
76
https://omgeving.vlaanderen.be/sites/default/files/2021-10/2019%2010%2001%20-%20WT%20-
%20handleiding%20rekenblad_0.pdf
93
objects, public and individual buildings, etc.) applicable in the above-mentioned EU Member
State have been defined (Table 5.3.5.).
Table 5.3.5. Restrictions on the use of the site
Individual risk level Restrictions on the use of the site Notes
1x10-5/year
Work area with more than five permanent -
outdoor workplaces
1x10-6/year
Minimum distance to residential area Minimum 800 m in Latvia
1x10-7/year
Minimum distance to sensitive, vulnerable -
objects
In Latvia, the level of risk around industrial facilities and the resulting measures to mitigate the
risk in the surrounding area are not specified in the regulatory enactments.
If any of the restrictive parameters for the use of the surrounding area in Belgium are different
from those applicable in Latvian legislation, the national legislation shall prevail and the
restrictions applicable in other countries shall be of a recommedative nature.
The calculated individual risk level for the worst case scenario comprising alternatives A` and B`
is visualised in Figure 5.3.7. As the result shows, the increased individual risk is concentrated in
the immediate vicinity of the WPP, where there is currently an area of forest land with
adequate infrastructure, and does not directly affect other economic activities.
To ensure that the surrounding area of a WPP is used according to the risk level, which
includes the probability and consequences of an event, the safety distances used in Belgium
for the design and construction of new WPP parks have been calculated.
In addition, calculations have been made for the flying distance of ice debris, taking into
account the technical parameters of the WPP. The data are summarised in Table 5.3.6 and
visualised in the cartographic material in order to assess their spatial impact on the
surroundings of the WPP under different alternatives for the implementation of the proposed
action.
In addition to the mechanical risks from flying debris, oil leakage is also a possibility in the
event of a WPP accident, given that a turbine can contain between 600-1500 l of oil. Without
appropriate secondary containment measures, leakages from WPPs can be released into the
environment. Against this, secondary containment liner systems have been developed with a
geomembrane around the perimeter of the containment area around the WPP to reliably
contain leakages. The geomembrane allows water from rain or snowmelt to flow through
unhindered, but hardens in the event of an oil leak. The membrane has a non-woven
geotextile construction that uses an oil curing compound to instantly prevent oil from leaking
through (see example77).
77
https://www.basicconcepts.com/news/secondary-containment-solutions-for-the-green-energy-
industry/
94
Figure 5.3.7. Individual risk zoning for Alternative B of the Valmiera-Valka Wind Farm
95
Table 5.3.6. Calculated safety distance in metres for different types of WPPs for Alternatives A, A` and B, B` of the Valmiera-Valka Wind Farm
Object Calculated safety distance in metres for Locating another site in the potential area
different types of WPP of influence
WPP WPP WPP (h=300
(h=250 m) (h=275 m) m)
Sites covered by the SEVESO Directive 747 767 786 Not detectable
Liquefied natural gas (LNG) filling station, Compressed natural gas (CNG) filling not detectable
747 767 786
station, Liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) filling station, LNG bunkering stations
Hydrogen filling stations 747 767 786 Not detectable
Aboveground transport pipelines (hazardous chemicals) 747 767 786 Not detectable
Natural gas supply infrastructure facilities (gas regulation stations) 747 767 786 Not detectable
Underground transport pipelines (hazardous chemicals) 179 204 229 Not detectable
Underground pressure vessels 202 233 263 Not detectable
Public outdoor space where more than 10 people can gather and be endangered Not detectable
676 696 715
at the same time
Public area facilities where people stay indoors 179 204 229 Not detectable
Main national roads 250 275 300 Not detectable
High-voltage transmission infrastructure objects (lines) 700 700 700 VES - VV39, VV41, VV1, VV68, VV70
Nuclear objects 2000 2000 2000 Not detectable
Flying distance of ice debris High-voltage transmission facilities,
525 562,5 600 woodland, local road V260, regional road
P24, main road A3, forest roads
96
Figure 5.3.8. WPP recommended safety distances and calculated ice debris fall distance zone for Alternative B
97
Fire
Other possible incidents of technogenic origin associated with the operation of WPPs include
ignition of WPPs.
In Denmark, for example, a total of 67 incidents involving the ignition of WPP were recorded
between 2010 and 2014. Of these 67 incidents, only 10 involved WPPs with a capacity of more
than 1 MW, while two thirds involved WPPs installed in households.78
The risk of fire in a WPP can be caused by external factors such as weather, equipment or
human error. Maintenance is crucial for fire prevention, as many fires are caused by the failure
of worn devices that should be replaced or repaired in time to avoid the risk of accidents
leading to ignition (Figure 5.3.9).
Looking at the statistics compiled, there were around 200 000 WPPs in operation worldwide in
2011. According to a report by the International Association for Fire Safety Science , one in
every 1,710 turbines caught fire in 2011. According to statistics, the probability of a wind
turbine catching fire is 5.85 x 10-4/year. 79
Another internationally accredited company, DNV GL, estimates that the occurrence of a WPP
fire is 1 in 2000 per year. DNV GL analysis examines WPP fires regardless of whether the fire
results in a total loss of the WPP. Probability of ignition of WPP 5 x 10-4/year: quite similar to the
previous figure.
A 2020 article in Wind Power Engineering Magazine also estimates that 1 in 2,000 WPPs catch
fire every year.
Gondola fires cause total loss or significant damage in 90% of cases.
If a fire breaks out, you usually have to wait for it to burn out. Without fire suppression,
significant structural damage and total loss of the WPP occurs in almost all cases (90%), see
Figure 5.3.9.
There are no data on WPP ignition incidents in Latvia.
78 http://www.vindmoellegodkendelse.dk/media/1097/egv-%C3%A5rsrapport-2014-jnr-64036-0025.pdf
79
Fei You a, Sujan Shaik a, Md. Rokonuzzaman b, Kazi Sajedur Rahman c, Wen-Shan Tan Fire risk
assessments and fire protection measures for wind turbines: A review, Heliyon 9 (2023) 19664
98
Figure 5.3.9. Damage to WPP caused by fire80
Causes of fire
Possible sources of ignition of WPP are:
• lightning discharge;
• flying sparks during the application of the mechanical brakes;
• short circuit;
• hot surfaces such as bearings, brake discs;
• spontaneous ignition from dirty cleaning cloths (e.g. oil, solvents).
In order to avoid the above potential sources of ignition, components of a WPP shall be
designed and operated in such a way that no combustible material is ignited in the event of
normal operation or malfunction. To ensure this, demising slabs must be installed: sheets of
non-combustible material. Electrical equipment must be insulated. Staff must pick up dirty
cleaning rags when leaving the WPP gondola.81
Today, WPPs are equipped with lightning detectors and special temperature sensors that
automatically stop the equipment when it reaches a certain temperature. This equipment
significantly reduces the risks of ignition of WPP82. However, if a fire does start, the damage
caused is usually relatively small, as the station is in close proximity to access roads and
80
https://www.windsystemsmag.com/wind-turbine-fire-risk-the-time-to-act-is-now/
81
https://cfpa-e.eu/app/uploads/2022/05/CFPA_E_Guideline_No_21_2021_F.pdf
82
https://www.wa.gov.au/system/files/2022-04/PB-67-%20Guidelines-for-wind-farm-development-
2004.pdf
99
squares, which not only slows the spread of the fire, but also allows the fire brigade to start
extinguishing work quickly.
Safety distances, Infrastructure, other objects in the vicinity of the proposed activity
Residential buildings
In accordance with the requirements of the Cabinet of Ministers Regulation No.240 of
30.04.2013 "General Regulations on Spatial Planning, Use and Construction", the distance from
the nearest planned WPP and wind park boundary to residential and public buildings, which in
case of planned capacity is more than 2 MW, is at least 800 m, measured from the wind park's
outermost WPP tower.
Roads, railways
Major infrastructure facilities in the vicinity of the planned WPPs and distances to them:
• Riga-Valka railway line-0.69 km (to the nearest planned WPP);
• main road A3 Inčukalns-Valmiera-Estonia border (Valka) -0.375 km (to the nearest
planned WPP);
• regional road P24 Smiltene-Valka - 0.43 km (to the nearest planned WPP);
• local road V260 Egļi-Oliņas-Bērzs - 0.145 km (to the nearest planned WPP);
• JSC Latvijas Valsts Meži roads are built in forest areas.
The Danish guidelines83 state that WPPs can be sited at a distance of 1-1.7 times the maximum
height of the WPP in relation to major roads and railways. Given the maximum height of the
VPP of 300 m, the maximum safety distance to roads under the Danish approach is 510 m.
Based on the Belgian method, the safety distance to national roads is 300 m.
The Guidelines for the Preliminary Environmental Impact Assessment of Wind Power Plants in
Latvia84 state that the minimum recommended distance from a WPP to the State (main roads
(A), regional roads (P), local roads (V)) and public railway lines is 300 m.
Based on the level of individual risk of a technogenic catastrophe, the national main road A3
(E264) is within the acceptable individual risk zone of 1 x 10-7/year; for comparison, a road user is
killed (includes all road users: pedestrians, cyclists and drivers) In Latvia, the risk of injury is 7 x
10-5/year
, or 100 times higher than from the operation of a WPP.
Some local and forest roads are in the individual risk zone of 1x10-5 to 1x10-6/year, but the traffic
volume on these sections is low, so the risk of injury to a road user is significantly lower and
acceptable according to the Latvian Risk Management Association guidelines (2017) .85
83
https://www.retsinformation.dk/api/pdf/229524
84
https://www.vvd.gov.lv/lv/jaunums/izstradatas-vadlinijas-veja-parku-ietekmes-uz-vidi-sakotnejo-
izvertejumu-veiksanai
85
https://lvafa.vraa.gov.lv/faili/materiali/petijumi/2016/LVPA_133/Vadlinijas_LVPA_F240217.pdf
100
Figure 5.3.10. Acceptable social risk curve86
Impacts on electricity transmission facilities (lines, etc.)
In Latvia, there are no criteria or restrictions for assessing the impact of NPSs on transmission
lines. Some other countries have requirements for the location of WPPs on transmission lines.
Belgian electricity grid operator Elia points out that wind turbines can have an impact (e.g.
vibration) within a radius of 500 metres. WPPs can also pose a risk to high-voltage power lines,
pylons and substations: for example, a WPP may tip over, a wing of a WPP may break, or ice
debris may be thrown. The operator has developed criteria for assessing the risk of new build
WPPs to the electricity transmission infrastructure.87
If any of the criteria set out in the methodology are met, the proponent must seek the opinion
of the transmission infrastructure owner before installing the wind turbine, and must seek
approval or refusal if the risk to critical infrastructure is unacceptably high. The operator shall
determine the actual risk that a new WPP may pose using an approved methodology that
includes risk matrices.
86
https://lvafa.vraa.gov.lv/faili/materiali/petijumi/2016/LVPA_133/Vadlinijas_LVPA_F240217.pdf
87
https://www.elia.be/en/infrastructure-and-projects/safety-around-our-infrastructure/working-near-
high-voltage-facilities
101
GA = recommendation limit = 3,5 DR = minimum distance value (L) for which no consultation with the
Transmission Infrastructure Company is required
Hv = Gv = Downside risk limit = HW + 0,5 DR
GD = "air movement" limit = 1,5 DR = minimum distance according to international studies below which
wind turbine induced air movement can cause undesired movement of high voltage line conductors
with risk of damage (including breakage) in the long term.
Zone of Influence (ZOG) = a cylindrical area behind wind turbines where turbulence can occur in the air
layers and cause vibrations on high voltage line conductors
HL = height of the upper high voltage conductor/guard cable(s)/rail(s) in the area of influence.
H- = HW-0,5 x DR lower limit of the wind turbine rotor influence zone
Hw = height of the wind turbine rotor axis relative to the ground
Figure 5.3.11. Criteria used for assessing the impact of WPP and for coordination with the TSO,
Belgium 88
The Swedish Transport Agency's recommendations89 state that wind turbines and masts with
attachments with a total height of less than 50 metres should be placed at least 100 metres
away from power lines. Wind turbines and masts with supports having a total height of more
than 50 metres shall be located not less than 200 metres from the power line. The distance is
calculated from the periphery of the WPP rotor. If the rotor diameter is 100 metres or more,
the distance between the tower and the line must be greater than 250 metres.
As can be seen from the above, the approaches are different. Belgium uses a risk-based
approach, taking into account the risk of both high-voltage infrastructure and WPP. In Sweden,
there are safety distances depending on the mast height.
Taking into account the fact that several WPP (VV39, VV41, VV1, VV68, VV70) are located
within the safety distance zone (700 m) of a high voltage infrastructure object (one 110 kV and
two 330 kV lines), as calculated by the methodology above, it is recommended that the
Proponent of the Proposed Action consult with JSC Sadales tīkls on the assessment of potential
88
https://www.elia.be/-/media/project/elia/elia-site/infra-and-
projects/safety_around_our_infrastructure/working-near-high-voltage-facilities/fr/procdure-elia---avis-
eoliennes-fr-v20240201.pdf
89
https://www.svk.se/en/stakeholders-portal/community-planning/when-wind-power-is-planned/
102
impacts at a specific critical infrastructure section to assess the significance of the impacts, if
necessary, providing for compensatory measures.
Measures to reduce the risk of accidents at WPPs
In general, industrial accident risks are associated with areas located in woodland.
Consequently, no other economic activity or residential and public housing sites are affected.
Given that, according to Forest Law, natural persons are allowed in the forest area without
technical measures to reduce the risk, public information, installation of warning signs,
restrictive barriers or fencing, where necessary, play an important role.
The causes of accidents in WPPs are studied by designers, manufacturers, insurers and users of
WPP equipment, so that the equipment is continuously improved and its safety level is
progressively increased.
Risk reduction measures include:
• maintenance and repairs to prevent equipment failure;
• installation of automated safety systems (e.g. switching off the equipment
automatically if the maximum permissible wind strength is reached, or if vibration has
occurred);
• equipping WPPs with automatic fire detection and alarm systems
• fire-fighting systems and equipment
• continuous monitoring of the plant, etc.
The presence of roads in the area of potential ice debris fall requires comprehensive risk
mitigation measures at WPP:
• the A3 national trunk road: VV81, VV33, VV31, VV20, VV86, VV21, VV85, VV44, VV45
and VV46,
• regional road P24: VV70, VV68,
• local road V260: VV47, VV38, VV22, VV85,
This includes equipping WPPs with sensors to detect icing, shutting down equipment when
there is a risk of icing and equipping stations with anti-icing systems.
According to Article 2 of the Law on Roads, "the use of roads may be temporarily prohibited or
restricted due to adverse road or weather conditions, or in other cases where driving on roads
becomes dangerous". Such rights could be used to reduce risk where there is a risk of falling
ice chunks, for example temporarily on sections of forest roads.
There are also organisational measures to be taken: an international group of experts has
issued a technical report90, which identifies possible measures to reduce the risk of falling ice,
taking into account the actual risk (Table 5.3.6).
90
https://iea-wind.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/Task-19-Technical-Report-on-International-
Recommendations-for-Ice-Fall-and-Ice-Throw-Risk-Assessments.pdf
103
Table 5.3.7. Measures to reduce the risk of falling ice and their effectiveness91
Security measures Degree of risk reduction Suitable for
Warning signs for ice-fall 1 to 10 Local roads and paths
conditions
Warning by light equipment 10 to 100 Local roads and paths
connected to WPP ice detection
system in combination with
warning signs
Rerouting, diversion, detouring, 10 to 100 Local roads and paths
security-monitored diversion to
protect against high-risk events
Physical barriers (regional road 10 to 100 Roads and official and
closures) and signs
frequently used tourist hiking routes
5.3.3. Impact of the WPP on air traffic, navigation equipment
Wind turbines are signal reflectors that are larger than the radars they transmit to, so their
presence can hide weaker signals from smaller targets. In addition, rotating wings create a
shift in the echo frequency compared to stationary objects. As current radars are not designed
to identify and filter wind turbine signals, they can cause interference to radar information in
the vicinity of the wind farm.92
The Ministry of Defence (MoD) said in a statement that the construction of new wind turbines
in the vicinity of National Armed Forces (NAF) radars could adversely affect air and maritime
surveillance capabilities. In order to facilitate the approval process for the construction of wind
farms and to show where in Latvia the construction of wind farms is allowed, assessed or not
allowed, the Ministry of Defence is developing a map of the territory of Latvia, divided into
three sectors, marked with different colours. In the green zone, construction of WPP parks is
allowed and supported, subject only to the approval of the Ministry of Defence. In the yellow
zone, the construction of WPP parks is under consideration, but the operator will have to take
into account compensatory solutions, such as the purchase of new radars. In the red zone,
construction of WPP parks will be prohibited, as it would significantly interfere with national
defence tasks.
The Valmiera-Valka WPP is located in the green area of the map (see Figure 5.3.12), therefore
the impact on air navigation capabilities is negligible and permissible, requiring only the
approval of the Ministry of Defence.
91
https://iea-wind.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/Task-19-Technical-Report-on-International-
Recommendations-for-Ice-Fall-and-Ice-Throw-Risk-Assessments.pdf
92
Impact analysis of wind farms on telecommunication services, Angulo, D. de la Vega, I. Cascón, J.
Cañizo, Y. Wu D. Guerra, P. Angueira "Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews", Volume 32, April
2014, Pages 84-99
104
Figure 5.3.12. Location of military navigation facilities and their possible influence on each other in
relation to wind farm location
Civil air navigation services in the Republic of Latvia are provided using ground-based
communication, navigation and surveillance equipment, as well as global navigation satellite
systems.
105
The nearest civil aviation aerodrome to the Valmiera-Valka VPP Park is Cēsis Aerodrome,
address: Forest Owners Consultative Centre Ltd, "Lidlauks", Priekuļu municipality, Cesis region,
LV-4126. The airport is located 43 km from the Valmiera-Valka wind farm. This aerodrome is
home to the DME (Distance Measuring Equipment) radionavigation instrument - DME
Raiskums.
106
Figure 5.3.13. Location of Cēsis aerodrome in relation to the Valmiera-Valka wind farm
The second nearest airfield is Vidrižu Atvari Ltd: 66 km from the Proposed Action, (address
"Atvari", Vidrižu pagasts, Limbažu novads, LV-4013). According to Latvijas gaisa satiksme93,
there is no radio navigation equipment at the aerodrome.
See Figure 5.3.13 for the location of radionavigation equipment in Latvia according to Latvian
air traffic data.
To assess the potential impact of the wind farm on the radio-navigation shown on the map,
the guidelines of the professional organisation EUROCONTROL were used. EUROCONTROL is a
European civil-military organisation dedicated to supporting European aviation.
According to the criteria specified in the Methodology, 4 zones and impact assessment
requirements have been defined for the relation of the location of the WPP to the radio
navigation aids, see Table 5.3.7. The Valmiera-Valka WPP is located three times further than 15
km from the PSR (Primary Surveillance Radar) radionavigation sites, so its impact does not
need to be assessed.
Table 5.3.8. Assessment requirements depending on the position of the wind farm in relation to the
PSR and SSR (Secondary surveillance radar) radar94
Zone Zone 1 Zone 2 Zone 3 Zone 4
Description 0-500 m 500 m-15 km Beyond 15 km, Outside the
including radar radar's field of
(PSR and SSR (PSR and SSR
visibility and view and range
system radars) system radars)
range (PSR (PSR and SSR
radars only) system radars)
Assessment To be protected Detailed Simple Not to be judged
requirements assessment assessment
Risk mitigation measures
The Valmiera-Valka WPP is not expected to pose any risk to the operation of the radio
navigation equipment, and it is therefore recommended to obtain the official approval of JSC
Latvijas gaisa satiksme confirming this fact (Figure 5.3.14). In accordance with consultations
with JSC Latvijas gaisa satiksme letter No VI-AD/JPN-03/2024/676 (attached as Annex 2), there
is no objection to the further progress of the WPP Park project. In addition, a map of JSC
Latvijas gaisa satiksme is attached, confirming that there are no air traffic radionavigation
facilities closer to Latvia than those already assessed.
93
https://www.airspace.lv/lgs
94
https://www.pagerpower.com/news/eurocontrol-radar-wind-turbine-guidelines-v1-2/
107
Figure 5.3.14. Location of radio navigation aids in Latvia and their position in relation to the Valmiera-Valka wind farm95
95
https://www.airspace.lv/lgs
108
5.3.4. BESS container accident risk
BESS (battery energy storage system) battery cells are usually arranged in modules on racks
and can be interconnected to increase energy capacity and meet a specific electricity demand
at a given time. Modular arrays are usually housed in a room or external container that can
vary in length, typically between 6 and 18 m. There are several types of batteries:
• lithium ion,
• lead-acids,
• nickel-cadmium,
• sodium-sulphur,
• flows (Vanadium Redox).
The most common batteries in the BESS market are lithium-ion, followed by lead-acid and flow
batteries.
Fire hazards
The primary hazards of BESS are related to their operation and include electrical failures,
electrocutions, flammable gas emissions, explosions, etc., usually associated with battery
charging systems. Battery failure also affects the operation of battery-powered equipment.
If lithium-ion batteries are used in the BESS, there is a potential hazard caused by thermal
leakage under certain conditions (damage, etc.) resulting in ignition. Such a chemical reaction
can occur during charging or recharging of batteries as current flows through the cell, raising
the cell temperature, which in turn increases the current with a subsequent rise in
temperature.
Causes of fire that can lead to lithium-ion battery fires:
• mechanical abuse/damage caused during transportation, assembly or operation,
• manufacturing defect - can cause conditions that may lead to short-circuiting of
specific battery packs during use,
• Overcharging: lithium-ion batteries are prone to overheating, which can occur when
batteries are left in their chargers for too long a period of time during which the
charger exceeds its protection limit or fails,
• short circuits, which can occur for a number of reasons, including poor installation,
product defect, and physical damage.
Risk mitigation measures
The safety precautions to be observed when operating BESS equipment are provided by the
equipment manufacturer in the operating instructions.
Additional information on fire safety requirements for BESS is also provided in the US
Professional Firefighters' Organization document NFPA 855 "Standard for the Installation of
Stationary Energy Storage Systems"96. The above document covers systems that can reduce
the fire risk associated with battery energy storage and provides industry best practices that all
new BESS installations in the USA should follow. The document summarises information on
safety systems for BESS construction, safety distances between BESS containers, fire
compartments, ventilation systems, detectors, fire extinguishing systems, etc.
96
https://www.nfpa.org/codes-and-standards/nfpa-855-standard-development/855
109
5.4. Information on climate change impacts
This chapter presents the impacts of installing and operating a WPP over its entire life cycle,
including both negative impacts (increased GHG emissions and reduced removals) and positive
impacts (reduced GHG emissions and increased removals). A detailed calculation is attached in
Annex 5.
The calculations in this chapter are for the potential WPPs to be built, which correspond to the
Valmiera-Valka park location alternative A with 27 WPPs and location alternative B with 40
WPPs. For the public consultation version of the EIA report, an assessment of physical impacts
(flicker, landscape impact), a calculation of climate change impacts and a calculation of socio-
economic benefits were carried out for these alternatives for the location of the WPP park. It is
envisaged that during the public consultation of the EIA report, the WPPs that are currently
recommended for construction may be refined, taking into account the proposals submitted
by the public and other institutions and the results of the public consultation. In the updated
version of the EIA report, which will be submitted to the NEB for its opinion, the calculation of
climate change impacts will be updated according to the number of recommended WPPs.
CO2 emissions from deforestation
The forest ecosystem is an important factor in climate, especially in terms of greenhouse gas
emissions. The mechanism of climate forcing in this context is based on the ability of trees to
sequester atmospheric carbon dioxide through photosynthesis and to storeCO2 in the trunks,
branches and root system of the tree. The carbon sequestered in photosynthesis by a growing
tree is "taken out of circulation" and no longer contributes to the production of greenhouse
gases that are harmful to the climate.
The necessary deforestation and land transformation will be carried out for the construction of
the WPP infrastructure. Deforestation will release theCO2 associated with the trees in these
areas.
The total impact of the project is calculated (see Annex 5) over a 50-year period, taking into
account GHG emissions andCO2 sequestration from deforestation and afforestation. After the
project, GHG emissions will continue to increase for the next 15-17 years and then decrease
due toCO2 sequestration in woody biomass and other carbon sinks in the afforested areas. The
differences between the calculations with and without the biofuel substitution effect appear
after the first coppicing 20-25 years after establishment.
Total GHG emissions generated in the deforested area in 50 years within Alternative A amount
to 37.2 Gg CO2 eq. (see Annex 5). The offsetting effect of afforestation with substitution effect
will reduce GHG emissions from deforestation by 19.1 GgCO2 eq., while the calculation without
substitution effect will reduce GHG emissions by 17.8 GgCO2 eq. The residual GHG emissions
from deforestation in the 50th year after the start of the project in the substitution scenario
are 18.1 GgCO2 eq. (51% reduction in emissions from deforestation) and 19.4 GgCO2 eq. (48%
reduction in emissions from deforestation).
Table 5.4.1. Increase in GHG emissions over 50 years as a result of the project under Alternative A
Indicator Unit With substitution Excluding
effect substitution effect
GHG emissions from deforestation tonnesCO2 eq. 37225
GHG emissions from afforestation tonnesCO2 eq. -19148 -17810
Increase in GHG emissions from the project tonnesCO2 eq. 18077 19416
110
Total GHG emissions generated in the deforested area in 50 years within Alternative B amount
to 66.4 Gg CO2 eq. (see Annex 5). The offsetting effect of afforestation with substitution effect
will reduce GHG emissions from deforestation by 32.3 GgCO2 eq., while the calculation without
substitution effect will reduce GHG emissions by 30.1 GgCO2 eq. The residual GHG emissions
from deforestation in the 50th year after the start of the project in the substitution scenario
are 34.1 GgCO2 eq. (48% reduction in emissions from deforestation) and 45.2 GgCO2 eq. (45%
reduction in emissions from deforestation) (see Annex 5).
Table 5.4.2. Increase in GHG emissions over 50 years as a result of the project under Alternative B
Indicator Unit With substitution Excluding
effect substitution
effect
GHG emissions from deforestation tonnesCO2 eq . 66429
GHG emissions from afforestation tonnesCO2 eq. -32381 -30050
Increase in GHG emissions from the project tonnesCO2 eq. 34047 36379
The cumulative value of GHG emissions of Alternative A and Alternative B 50 years after the
start of the project differs on average by 88%. Scenario B is associated with higher emissions,
which is natural as more WPPs require more deforestation. In both alternatives, existing forest
roads and drainage systems will also be affected, so the actual area to be deforested and
afforested will be smaller than in this calculation, so this should be considered a conservative
estimate.
CO2 emissions as a result of the operation of the WPP
The operation of a WPP, including the production of the necessary equipment and
components and the construction of the WPP, is linked toCO2 emissions. According to the
website of the international consultancy ICF, the life cycleCO2 emissions of a WPP are broken
down as follows97:
• CO2 emissions from the production phase of WPP: 89,00%;
• CO2 emissions during the installation phase of a WPP: 4,00%;
• CO2 emissions from the operational phase of a WPP: 7,00% .
98
The following assumptions have been used to calculate the life cycleCO2 emissions of a WPP:
• Total electricity produced by the WPP:
o For alternative "A": 18 125 GWh;
o For alternative "B": 26 875 GWh.
• AverageCO2 emissions from operation of a WPP, 20 gCO2 eq./ KWh99.
For alternative "A", the total increase inCO2 emissions from the operation of the WPP, including
production and construction, is calculated to be 362 500tCO2eq. , which can be broken down as
follows:
97
https://www.icf.com/insights/energy/recycling-initiatives-carbon-considerations-wind-energy
98
https://www.icf.com/insights/energy/recycling-initiatives-carbon-considerations-wind-energy
99
https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/03/Chapter-7-Wind-Energy-1.pdf
111
• TotalCO2 emissions during the production phase of WPP: 322 625 tCO2 eq ;
• TotalCO2 emissions during the installation phase of the WPP: 14 500 tCO2 eq ;
• TotalCO2 emissions during the operational phase of the WPP: 25 375 tCO2 eq .
According to the authors' calculations, the total increase inCO2 emissions from the operation of
the WPP, including production and construction, under alternative "B" would be 537 500 tCO2 eq
., broken down as follows:
• TotalCO2 emissions during the production phase of WPP: 478 375 tCO2 eq ;
• TotalCO2 emissions during the installation phase of the WPP: 21 500 tCO2 eq ;
• TotalCO2 emissions during the operational phase of the WPP: 37 625 tCO2 eq .
GHG emission reductions from substitution
The development of WPPs is planned to replace fossil-fuel-based electricity with energy
produced by WPPs, which is characterised by lower GHG emissions from electricity generation.
As a result, the substitution of electricity used for consumption will avoid the GHG emissions
that would have been produced if fossil fuels were used for energy generation.
The calculation of GHG emission reductions as a result of the substitution was carried out in
accordance with the methodology set out in Annex 1 to Cabinet of Ministers Regulation No 42
of 23 January 2018 "Methodology for Calculation of Greenhouse Gas Emissions", using the
following assumptions:
• Amount of electricity produced by renewable energy technologies for grid feed-in,
MWh/year for grid feed-in:
o For alternative "A": 725 000 MWh/year;
o For alternative "B": 1 075 000 MWh/year.
• CO2 emission factor for electricity in accordance with paragraph 1 of Annex 1 to
Cabinet of Ministers Regulation No.42 of 23 January 2018 "Methodology for
Calculation of Greenhouse Gas Emissions" (average for the period 2016-2023,
calculated according to the methodology of the above mentioned Cabinet of Ministers
Regulation100): 0.0735 t CO2 eq./MWh;
• CO2 emission factor for the transmission of electricity in the electricity grid in
accordance with paragraph 1 of Annex 1 to Cabinet of Ministers Regulation No 42 of
23 January 2018 "Methodology for Calculation of Greenhouse Gas Emissions": 0.0070 t
CO2 eq./MWh.
The total amount of substitution of GHG emission reductions resulting from the operation of
the WPP is calculated as follows:
• For alternative "A": 1 205 313 tCO2 eq ;
• For alternative "B": 1 787 188 tCO2 eq .
GHG emission reductions from successive afforestation of deforested areas
100
https://www.kem.gov.lv/lv/siltumnicefekta-gazu-emisiju-aprekina-metodika
112
At the end of the WPP development (preparation and construction) phase, a partial
afforestation of the area required for the WPP development is planned, which will result in
additionalCO2 emissions101.
According to the calculations (Annex 5), the totalCO2 emission reductions from successive
afforestation of the deforested area required for the WPP development will be as follows:
• For alternative "A": 7 223 tCO2 eq ;
• For alternative "B": 12 278 tCO2 eq .
See Table 5.4.3 for a summary of the GHG savings impact of the WPP.
Table 5.4.3. Summary of the GHG savings impact of the WPP park
Alternative A: GHG Alternative B: GHG
CO2 emission savings emission reductions, tonnes emission reductions, tonnes
CO2 eq. CO2 eq.
Deforestation of the WPP -36 760 -65 180
development area
Partial afforestation of the WPP 7 223 12 278
development area
CO2 emissions during the WPP
-322 625 -478 375
production phase
CO2 emissions during the installation
-14 500 -21 500
phase of a WPP
CO2 emissions during the operational
-25 375 -37 625
phase of a WPP
Electricity substitution 1 205 313 1 787 188
CO2 emissions 813 275 1 196 785
Overall, each alternative delivers significant GHG savings, with the largest savings in
Alternative B with a higher number of WPPs, which overall is a testament to WPPs as a green
energy source with GHG emission reductions as one of its main objectives.
The projected GHG emission reductions of the Valmiera-Valka wind farm represent
approximately 0.5% (for Alternative A) or 0.7% (for Alternative B) of the GHG emission savings
in the energy sector projected in the National Energy and Climate Plan 2021-2030 for 2030 102.
5.5. Information on the climate resilience of the Proposed Activity and
the potential impacts of climate change on the Proposed Activity
WPPs are designed to withstand both extreme weather conditions and to be resilient in the
long term. Choosing a suitable wind class ensures that the WPP can withstand extreme wind
speeds (extreme heat and torrential rain/hail are also predicted as major climate extremes in
101
Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from the implementation of the Valmiera-Valka wind farm and
related infrastructure project in the Plani municipality of the Valmiera region and the Vijciems and Valka
municipalities of the Valka region and changes in GHG emissions from the construction and operation of
the wind farm, Dr. silv. Andis Lazdiņš, 20.07.2024
102
Updated National Energy and Climate Plan 2021-2030, approved by Cabinet Order No 573 of 12 July
2024, available at: https://likumi.lv/ta/id/353615-aktualizetais-nacionalais-energetikas-un-klimata-
plans-20212030gadam
113
Latvia, but it is wind that could threaten the WPP). No significant potential effects of climate
change on the WPP in the area of the proposed activity have been identified.
Based on the results of the wind condition characterisation, the area of the Proposed Action is
suitable for the siting of WPPs designed for areas with low wind speeds (average speed at mast
height of at least around 7.5 m/s). According to the standard, they are Class III turbines103.
6. Assessment of the existing environmental status of the site
6.1. Hydrogeological conditions
The proposed activities and the surrounding area are located in the eastern part of the Baltic
artesian basin. According to the intensity and chemical composition of water exchange, the
artesian basin is divided into: active (free) water exchange or freshwater, slow water exchange
or saltwater and passive or slow water exchange (saltwater) hydro-geochemical zones, which
are isolated by two regional caged layers throughout Latvia and the study area - the Middle
Devonian Narva Suite (D2nr) and the Silurian-Ordovician aquifer (S-O). Both aquifers are
composed of water-impermeable, dense sedimentary rocks, which makes interaction between
the two aquifers very difficult, although small amounts of water transfer are possible in
tectonic fracture zones.
The active water exchange (freshwater) zone includes Quaternary and pre-Quaternary water
complexes up to the impermeable rocks of the Narva Suite (D2nr). The waters of the
freshwater zone can be divided into two groups - groundwater and pressurised water. The
active water exchange (freshwater) zone is 160-200 m thick.
The zone of slowed water exchange lies between the interbeds of the Narva Suite and the
Silurian-Ordovician aquifers and includes the Kemeri-Pärnu aquifers (D1km-D2pr), which
contain fresh waters. Saline waters unsuitable for water supply occur in most of Latvia's
territory in the distribution area of the Ķemeri and Pērnava aquifers.
The mineral waters are mined at depths of 350-550 m in the stagnant (very difficult) water
exchange zone - the sandstones of the Cambrian system. According to the groundwater
classification criteria, the mineral waters of the Cambrian aquifer are considered to be saline,
as their degree of mineralisation in the territory of the municipality probably does not exceed
20-30 g/l. These waters are stably separated from higher-lying fresh waters by the Ordovician-
Silurian regional aquifer.
According to the LEGMC database "Boreholes" and cartographic information, groundwater
aquifers associated with Quaternary sediments and rocks of the Upper Devonian, Middle
Devonian and Lower Devonian sedimentary complex are distributed in and around the area of
the proposed WPP (Table 6.1.1).
Table 6.1.1. Stratification of the hydrogeological section in and around the area of the proposed
activity
Hydrogeological Water aquifer Water-bearing
Water aquifer
zone complex sediments
Active water Quaternary Swamp (bQ4) sediment aquifer turf
103
https://i-windenergy.com/content/popularity-class-iii-wind-turbines
114
Hydrogeological Water aquifer Water-bearing
Water aquifer
zone complex sediments
exchange sediment complex Undivided aquifer of alluvial (aQ4- sand, gravel, pebbles,
(freshwater) zone (Q) aQ3ltv), eolian (vQ3ltv), glaciolluvial aleurite, loamy sand
(glQ3ltv) and glaciofluvial (gfQ3ltv)
sediments
moraine sandy loam
Sporadically irrigated aquifer of with interbeds of
intermontane sediments (gfQ3ltv) sand-gravel-clay
sediments
Sandstone with
Upper Devonian
Gauja (D3gj) aquifer interbeds of clay and
horizon
aleurolite
Sandstone with
Middle Devonian Arukila-Burtnieku (D2ar+br),
interbeds of clay and
horizon complex aquifer
aleurolite
Middle Devonian Sandstone with
Slow water exchange Ķemeri-Pērnavas (D1km-D2pr)
and sub-Devonian interbeds of clay and
zone aquifer
horizon complex aleurolite
In general, the area is well supplied with underground freshwater, with the right amount of
water available at different depths and in different places.
The majority of the area of the proposed activity is located in the artesian water transit zone,
which defines zones of medium pollution risk, or in areas of upward flow of pressurised water,
i.e. zones of low pollution risk. Small areas in Plani municipality are at high risk of pollution
(pressure water recharge areas). Groundwater used for individual water supply in rural areas,
on farms, is relatively protected or moderately protected against surface pollution in most of
the county. A small area around Strenči, as well as the Seda river, is poorly protected against
surface pollution. The chemical status of all groundwater aquifers (Arukil-Gauja and Ķemeri-
Pērnavas) in the area is good.
The groundwater aquifer in most of the area of the proposed activity is associated with the
sandy sediments of the Baltic Ice Lake (glQ3ltvb). Its thickness varies. The thickness of the
aquifer and groundwater flow are locally influenced by the presence of poorly permeable clay
and aleuritic layers and lenses. At most of the WPP turbine sites, the water table is 0-2 m
below the ground surface. Only in places does the water table reach depths of 5-25 m (Figure
6.1.1).
115
Figure 6.1.1. Extract from a schematic map of the depths of the first aquifer water table from the
surface104
Groundwater flow in the study area is quite complex. The direction of groundwater flow is
influenced by the Gauja River, which is a regional groundwater recharge area. Drainage is also
influenced by the Seda and Seda Moors, which are considered to be localised groundwater
recharge areas.
The groundwater map (Figure 6.1.2) is derived from the Latvian Regional Hydrogeological
Model (LAMO) of the Riga Technical University (RTU) Environmental Modelling Centre (EMC).
Available geological and hydrogeological information has been used to develop this
groundwater level and flow direction model. Unfortunately, lack of data makes it impossible to
assess more accurately the impact of rivers and drainage systems on groundwater levels and
flow direction. The groundwater depth pattern in the WPP study area is shown in Figure 6.1.3.
104
Tracevski G., Jushkevich V., Poļivko J. et al.Report on 1:200 000 scale complex geological and
hydrogeological mapping in the southern part of sheet O-35-XXI (Northern Latvia mapping group), 1962-
1964 (Valka/Valga). LVGMC ĢF Nr.4154; Tracevski G., Jushkevich V., Poļivko J.Report on 1:200 000 scale
complex geological and hydrogeological mapping in the territory of sheet O-35-XX (North-Latvian
mapping group), 1962-1964. (Valmiera-Strenči) LVGMC ĢF Nr.5870).
116
Figure 6.1.2. Groundwater level hydro-isohips map105
During the operation of the WPP park, potential impacts on hydrogeological and hydrological
conditions are related to the possible drainage effect of the side ditches.
The drainage effect of side ditches depends on the type of side ditch and its depth. Shallow
(not exceeding the thickness of the aeration zone) non-runoff ditches (swales), which provide
for the collection of the surface runoff part of the rainfall, do not affect the hydrogeological
and hydrological conditions of the site. Ditches that reach the water table can affect the
hydrology of the adjacent area and the wet habitats adjacent to the site. In order to accurately
determine the area of influence of the ditches, the interactions between the various
influencing factors must be assessed and detailed engineering studies must be carried out,
which will be carried out at the design stage.
105
Riga Technical University (RTU) Environmental Modelling Centre (EMC) LAMO hydrogeological model
117
Figure 6.1.3. Groundwater model in the WPP study area, map for areas dominated by sandy sediments
118
Analysis of the groundwater model data developed for the Depth-to-water project 106 in the
area of the proposed activity shows that the groundwater table in the potential turbine
locations is on average 2-5 m. Up to 2 m deep in some places.
No significant adverse effects on the water quality of groundwater, surface water,
groundwater and water abstraction points are expected from the proposed operation.
Because there are no contaminated or potentially contaminated sites in the area of the
Proposed Action, and construction works are being monitored during construction.
6.2. Hydrological conditions
6.2.1. Surface water bodies
In accordance with the Water Management Act The area of the Proposed Action falls within
the Gauja river basin district. The Gauja catchment covers 8900 km2 and has a higher proportion
of forests than other large river basins (47%).
According to the information from the drainage cadastre of the State Enterprise "Real Estate of
the Ministry of Agriculture" and the Cabinet Regulation No 397 of 3 July 2018 "Regulations on
the Classification of Water Management Districts", the territory of the Proposed Action is
located in two large basin areas: The Gauja (large catchment area code 52) and the Gauja-
Salaca (large catchment area code 54), which are divided into several catchment areas. The
catchment areas are shown in Figure 6.2.1.
According to the Gauja River Basin District Management Plan (GRBD) for 2022-2027, the area
of the Proposed Action falls within 4 surface water bodies (SWBs) - SWB Gauja_8 (SWB code
G274), SWB Gauja_9 (SWB code G275), SWB Seda (SWB code G316) and SWB Vija_1 (SWB
code G228), see Figure 6.4.
Under GUBA, the existing water quality of water bodies is assessed in relation to the
requirements of the EU Water Framework Directive (EU Water Framework Directive, 2000).
Water quality in water bodies is assessed mainly on the basis of three criteria - chemical,
biological and hydrological water quality. The chemical quality of water bodies is assessed by
whether the annual average concentrations of hazardous and particularly hazardous
substances exceed the limit values laid down in laws and regulations.
Water body Gauja_8 (water body code G274) from the mouth of Mustjegi to the mouth of Vija
(G274). Transboundary water body (with Estonia). Natural bed with many old rivers. The water
body has a surface area of 241.96 km2 and a catchment area of 4 791.58 km2. The catchment
area is rich in drained forests (78%) and raised bogs. There is little agricultural land, the
population is very small and anthropogenic pressures are minimal. There is a monitoring
station "Gauja, downstream of Kāršupīte". The ecological quality of the water is good. The SPA
is located in the Ziemeļgauja Special Protection Area. The waters of the Gauja_8 MPA are
priority carp waters.
Water body Gauja_9 (water body code G275) from the mouth of the Vija to the mouth of the
Strenčupīte (G275). The water body has a surface area of 195.40 km2 and a catchment area of
5415.59 km2. In general, the catchment area is dominated by forests (75%) and high marshes
(9%), with more agricultural land and livestock farming in the catchment area of the left-bank
tributary of the Wadzhupīte. There may be a negligible impact from the Seda NAI. The
preliminary ecological quality of the water is medium. The SPA is located in the Ziemeļgauja
Special Protection Area. The waters of the Gauja_9 MPA are priority waters for carpids.
106
Depth-to-water maps for the Baltics: modelling of distribution of organic soils and wet areas. (lbtu.lv)
119
Seda (Water Code G316). The water body has a surface area of 424.23 km2 and a catchment
area of 575 km2. The river has been straightened for almost its entire length. A typical slow river
of the plains. In the upper and lower reaches of the catchment area, the predominant land
cover is agricultural, in the middle reaches very large areas are occupied by marshes, including
developed ones, and forests (75% of the catchment area). There are several small settlements
in the catchment area, such as Daksti and Seli, whose impacts are not considered significant,
but the precautionary principle is retained. The Ošupīte tributary was once the site of a
hydroelectric power plant, which is no longer in operation. There is a monitoring station "Seda,
estuary". The ecological quality of the water is good. Part of the SPA is located in the North
Vidzeme Biosphere Reserve. The Seda waters of the MPA are priority waters for carpids.
Water body Vija_1 (water body code G228) from the source to the mouth of the Kamaldas
(G229). The water body has a surface area of 193.48 km2 and a catchment area of 222.16 km2.
The river is straightened along most of the length of the OO, except for a small upstream
section. The catchment area is heavily forested (55%), with agricultural land downstream. And
the monitoring station "Vija, upstream of Kamaldas". The ecological quality of the water is
medium. The waters of Vija_1 are priority waters for carpids.
6.2.1. Image. Catchment basins in the area of the Valmiera-Valka Wind Park
Under Directive 2007/60/EC101 of the European Parliament and of the Council, flood risk
areas have been identified for each river basin. According to the "Flood risk and flood hazard
maps" prepared by the LEGMC, the territory of the proposed activity is not located in flood risk
areas of national importance. The nearest flood risk area is located 1.5 km to the west of the
proposed activity area - Gauja floodplain near Strenči107 (see Figure 6.2.2).
107
Flood risk and flood hazard maps (lvgmc.lv)
120
Figure 6.2.2. Location of the flood risk area of national importance "Gauja floodplain near Strenči"
in relation to the location of the Proposed Action.
6.2.2. Drainage systems
The WPP Park study area is largely located in an area used for forestry purposes, with a dense
network of shared watercourses and drains108, which provide groundwater recharge and
enable economic activities to take place in these areas. The lifetime of the drainage system
network and structures is expected to be up to 50 years. During this period, the drainage
network and structures must be regularly maintained, renovated and reconstructed.
There are 2 peat deposits in the vicinity of the area of the proposed action: "Sedas purvs" and
"Taures purvs", where peat extraction takes place. To enable mining, a network of drainage
ditches and mapping ditches has been constructed in these areas, as well as fire basins.
The location of drainage and ditches and watercourse systems in the area surrounding the
WPP can be seen in Figure 6.2.3., Figure 6.2.4.
108
https://www.melioracija.lv
121
Figure 6.2.3. River catchment areas and reclaimed land in the vicinity of WPP109
According to the publicly available information of JSC LVM, in the near future (3 or 5 years) in
the area of the Proposed Action it is/is not planned to carry out the rehabilitation of drainage
systems (look at the publicly available data in LVM geo, there they publish 3 or 5 year plans for
roads and drainage.
109
https://www.melioracija.lv
122
Figure 6.2.4. Forest drainage system areas to be restored and forest roads to be developed
6.2.3. Protection zones for watercourses, existing drainage and drainage facilities
The protection zones for surface water bodies in the vicinity of the proposed development are
summarised in Table 6.2.1.
6.2 1. Table Watercourse protection zones in the vicinity of the area of the proposed activity
Name of the watercourse* Protection zone in the village** m Rural buffer zone** m
IN THE MUNICIPALITY OF JĒRCENI AND THE TOWN OF SEDA
Gauja Not less than 30 m (from the top 500 m or variable, up to the A3
edge of the embankment to the road protection zone measured
right-of-way) from the top of the embankment
Strenčupīte 20 50 m
Seda - 100 m
Purgaile - 50 m
IN THE TOWN OF STRENČI
Gauja from the reinforced 15 m (the nearest building plot to -
concrete bridge (Trikātas the River Gauja is ~ 15 m) or the
Street) to the railway full width of the floodplain,
bridge, taking into account determined from the upper edge of
the existing density of the bank
development
Gauja from the reinforced 300 m or the full width of the -
concrete bridge to the floodplain
eastern administrative
123
Name of the watercourse* Protection zone in the village** m Rural buffer zone** m
boundary of the city - forest
land
Gauja tributary 20 m -
Strenčupīte 20 m -
Stakļupīte 10 m to existing buildings 50 m in -
the rest of the territory
IN PLANES PARISH
Gauja At least 500 m including tributaries -
and old rivers with their protective
zones, determined from the upper
edge of the channel
Vija 100 m -
Vadžipīte (upstream of 10 m -
Vadžupīte)
Protective zones around bogs are established to preserve biodiversity and stabilise the
moisture regime in the interface (transition) zone between forests and bogs.
In the territory of the proposed activity and its surroundings, the minimum widths of the
protection zones around the marshes are determined by the TIAN of Valmiera and Valka
municipalities110:
1. For areas of 10 to 100 hectares, a 20.0 metre strip;
2. For areas larger than 100 hectares, a 50.0 metre strip in forest vegetation types on dry,
drained, wet mineral soils and drained peat soils - at least a 100.0 metre strip in forest
vegetation types on wet peat soils.
There are three swamps in and around the area of the proposed action: Seda swamp, Taures
swamp and Puksi swamp. Information on the buffer zones of these swamps is given in Table
6.2.2.
Table 6.2.2. Marshes around which protection zones have been established in accordance with
Article 7.1 of the Law on Protection Zones
Name of swamp (in
Location -
brackets other names of Area, ha Protection zone m
municipality
the site)*
Taures swamp * Municipality of 861 100
Plani
Sedas swamp* Jerceni 7582 (total) not determinable**
municipality
Pukši swamp* Municipality of 464 not determinable**
110
Strenči Municipality Spatial Plan 2012-2023. Land use and building regulations. Strenči, Strenči
region, 2011; Spatial plan of Valka region 2016-2027. Land use and building regulations. Valkas novada
dome. https://geolatvija.lv/geo/tapis
124
Plani
Notes: * Information taken from the website of the State Agency "Latvian Geospatial Information
Agency"111, Place Names Database.
** according to consultations with the Nature Conservation Agency, no protection zone should be
established, as protection is guaranteed by the individual protection regulations of the Northern Gauja
SPA and the ZVBR and these are nature reserve areas.
6.3. Geological structure and engineering geological conditions
6.3.1. Pre-quaternary sediments
The geology of the area is relatively well known. Complex geological and hydrological 1: 200
000 scale mapping within which extensive drilling, hydrological, geological and mineral
prospecting work was carried out112.
According to regional tectonic zonation schemes, the territory is included in the Valmiera-
Lokno outcrop, which sharply separates the southern slope of the Baltic Shield from the
Latvian saddle. On its southern edge, the Valmiera-Lokno outcrop is adjacent to the Liepāja-
Saldus-Riga-Apes-Pleskava fracture zone. The Baltic Shield escarpment is characterised by an
incomplete vertical geological section of the sedimentary cover and a relatively low thickness
compared to other regions of Latvia. However, the age, composition, folding conditions and
physical properties of the rocks in the vertical section also show three distinctly different
complexes: the lower - the crystalline basement, the middle - the pre-Quaternary sedimentary
cover and the upper - the Quaternary formations.
The surface of the crystalline basement rock is around 500-550 m below sea level. absolute
altitude marks. The total thickness of the sedimentary cover varies from 380 to 400 m.
The middle complex, the pre-Quaternary sedimentary cover, is mainly composed of chemical
deposition and classic (clastic) rocks. The sedimentary cover consists of Cambrian, Ordovician,
Silurian, Devonian and Quaternary rocks.
Cambrian sediments were deposited in the coastal zone of a shallow sea basin by strong wave
and current action more than 500 million years ago. The sediments, white fine-grained, weakly
cemented quartz and quartz-glauconitic sandstones with interbeds of aleurolite and aleuric
clays, vary in thickness from 13 to 30 m, reaching their surface at 315-320 m a.s.l. absolute
altitude. Both the minimum and maximum thicknesses were found in the area near Strenči.
The overall thickness of Ordovician rocks is highly variable and, in the Northern Vidzeme
region, is closely linked to the partial denudation (washing away) of sediments of this age. For
example. In Jērceni, the thickness of sediments in the southern part of the parish is about 40
m, while at the northern boundary of the parish it could reach 50-80 m. Only sub-Ordovician
sediments (marls, clays, limestones, sandstones, siltstones, siltstones, gravelites) are found in
Plani municipality.
Silurian sediments are not widespread in the area, as they have been washed away.
111
http://map.lgia.gov.lv/
112
Yushkevich V, Polivko I, Tracevski G. Report on 1:200 000 scale complex geological and
hydrogeological mapping in the southern part of sheet O-35-XXI (North-Latvian mapping group), 1962-
1964. Geological Survey, Riga, 1964. Yushkevich V, Polivko I, Tracevski G. Report on 1:200 000 scale
complex geological and hydrogeological mapping in the territory of sheet O-35-XX (North-Latvian
mapping group), 1962-1964. Geological Survey, Riga, 1965.
125
Devonian sediments extend over the entire area of the proposed operation and its
surroundings.
The Devonian strata are the most extensive sedimentary cover, with a total thickness of 250-
340 m. The oldest sediments forming the Devonian system correspond to the sub-Devonian
Gargždai series (D1gr) and the Kemeri suite (D1km). The Middle Devonian Pärnu Suite (D2pr), Narva
Suite (D2nr), Arukil Suite (D2ar), Burtnieki Suite (D2br) and Upper Devonian Gauja Suite (D3gj)
deposits are higher.
The newest Devonian strata in the region, the Burtnieki (D2br), Arukil (D2ar) and Gauja (D3gj)
suites, are already exposed just below the Quaternary sedimentary cover (Figure 1.3).
The sediments of the Gargždi series (D1gr) and the Ķemeri suite (D1km) are predominantly
sandstones with interbeds of aleurolite and clay. The total thickness of the sediments of the
sub-dune reaches 50-70 m.
Pärnu Suite (D2pr) - light grey, yellow grey sandstones, aleurolites and aleuric clays up to 40 m
thick.
The Narva Suite (D2nr) sediments are the regional confining layer that separates the freshwater
aquifers from the underlying mineral waters. The total thickness of these can vary between
120-150 m.
The total thickness of the Arukil Suite (D2ar) sediments - light red-brown fine-grained
sandstones, mottled red-brown aleuriferous clays - is about 50-93 m. The thickness of red-
brown or yellow-brown micaceous sandstones, red-brown and mottled aleirolites and clays of
the Burtnieki Suite (D2br) varies from a few metres to 70-87 m, depending on the intensity of
denudation processes. The sandstones of both suites yield abundant underground water
supplies, which are considered to be a stable source of water for the entire territory of the
municipality.
To the south and south-east of the Gauja valley, the bedrock relief surface is formed by Upper
Devonian Gauja Suite (D3gj) sediments. In the rest of the area, the sediments of the Gauja Suite
are completely eroded. The Gauja Suite (D3gj) consists of weakly cemented sandstones with
rare interbeds of multicoloured siltstones and clays. The lower limit is sharply defined. It
consists of a thick layer of light grey sandstones in contact with the Burtnieki (D2br) clayey
aleurolite sediments. The thickness of the Gauja Suite (D3gj) in the vicinity of the area of the
proposed operation shall not exceed 52 m.
The geological structure of the area is best characterised by boreholes with LEGMC DB No
12645, 18867, 20541, 24103, 18934 and 6740, located in the vicinity of the proposed WPP
park. The geological sections of the boreholes can be seen in Figure 6.3.1.
126
DB-12645 geological section DB-18867 geological section
DB-20541 geological section DB-24103 geological section
DB-18934 geological section DB-6740 geological section
Figure 6.3.1. Geological sections of boreholes in the LEGMC DB "Boreholes"
127
Figure 6.3.2. Map of pre-quaternary sediments of the area of the proposed activity (based on the
map of pre-quaternary sediments published by the LEGMC, scale 1:200 000 and tectonic map,
scale 1:500 000)
6.3.2. Quaternary sediments
The moraine is covered by the Baltic Ice Lake sediments (glQ3ltvb) - fine-grained sand,
aleurotic sand, clays and aleurites. They cover almost the entire area of the proposed action.
The sediment thickness of the Baltic Ice Lake (glQ3ltvb) ranges from 3-4 to 10 m. The Seda clay
deposit is associated with these sediments. The sediments of the Baltic Ice Lake form the
mineral deposits of the Oliņi, Pūku sand deposits.
Fluvioglacial sediments (gfQ3ltv) are found only in the construction of some drumlins and
possibly also in subquaternary surface depressions, forming mostly small deposits. The
sediments are composed of sand of varying coarseness, including sandy-gravelly material with
pebbles. Thickness typically varies from 2-5 to 10 m. There are some sand-gravel deposits
associated with these sediments, which are almost completely exploited in places.
Upper Pleistocene aeolian sediments (vQ3ltv) - fine dusty sand - occur in the WPP area. The
Upper Pleistocene aeolian sediments of the Latvian suite (vQ3ltv) were deposited in relics on
the shores of lakes. Sediments vary in thickness, and can be up to 10 m thick in the dunes.
Alluvial deposits (aQ3ltv) form the second and third overbank terrace of the Gauja. The
alluvium of the two terraces does not differ significantly and reaches a thickness of 2-5 m. It
consists mainly of sand of varying coarseness. These sediments form the overburden in parts
of the Seda II gravel deposits. In places where boulders and pebbles have accumulated, there
are rapids known as the Strenči rapids.
Sediments formed during the Holocene, covering the last 10,000 years of Earth's geological
history. The Earth's rocks, dating back over the last 10 years, are composed of formations of
different genesis.
128
Alluvial deposits (aQ4) occur in river floodplains. They overlie Upper Pleistocene alluvial
(aQ3ltv), moraine (gQ3ltv) and Baltic glacial lake (glQ3ltvb) sediments and are generally
represented by variously granular to medium-grained sands, rare gravels and interbeds of
aleuric sand.
Marsh sediments (bQ4) are widespread in and around the WPP. The sediments of the marshes
consist of high and low deposits, as well as transitional deposits. In general, the surroundings
of the proposed WPP site are heavily waterlogged. The Seda swamp is located in the NW of
the planned WPP park. Marsh sediments occur directly in the area of the Proposed Action in
the Pukši Marsh area and in other small isolated areas (Figure 6.3.3). The thickness of the peat
deposits varies greatly.
The Sėda bog is the fourth largest bog in Latvia (7582 ha). The average thickness of the peat
layer in the Sėda bog was about 3 m, with the thickest peat layer reaching about 8 m in areas
where peat of the raised bog type has accumulated. Total peat reserves are 97.6 millionm3 (
industrial reserves are 96.2 millionm3), most of which has already been exploited. “Sedas
purvs” is a nature reserve.
Pukši bog covers an area of 84 ha, with a maximum peat thickness of 5 m and an average
thickness of 2.7 m. The territory of the bog is a nature reserve, part of the protected landscape
area "Ziemeļgauja", under state protection since 1977, established to protect the biotopes of
transitional bog, swamp forests and boreal forests.
Lacustrine sediments (lQ4) occur in lake depressions and terraces and underlie the peat of
some large bogs. While the terraces are made up of sand of varying coarseness, muddy sand
and aleurite appear in the deeper areas. The thickness of the sediment is usually 1-2 m.
Figure 6.3.3. Quaternary sediment map of the area of the proposed activity (based on the
quaternary sediment map published by the LEGMC, scale 1:200 000)
129
6.3.3. Engineering geological conditions and modern exodynamic processes
The engineering geological conditions of the area of the proposed operation will be assessed
as a result of the engineering geological investigations to be carried out during the
construction phase of the WPP. The following description of the engineering geological
conditions is based on the available general geological information available at113.
The upper part of the geological section of the WPP Park is basically characterised as a
complex of Quaternary soils. The surface of the ground is made up of easily compressible soils
- soil, and deeper down - sand, gravel, aleurite, loamy sand, sandy clay, which is mostly water-
saturated, peat found in bogs.
According to the geotechnical classification (LVS 437:2002 "Civil Engineering. Gruntis.
Classification'), Quaternary soils belong to non-clayey soils without strong structural links or
crumbles (sandy), non-clayey cohesive soils or clays (sandy loam and moraine loam) and weak
biogenic soils (peat). The thickness of the Quaternary sediments is highly variable and,
according to the literature, can reach 50 m.
The assessment of potential hazards from hazardous geological processes indicates that no
hazardous modern exodynamic processes, such as karst or sufosion, landslides, slumping, gully
formation or active aeolian processes, are present in the area of the Proposed Development.
The WPP area and its surroundings are subject to swamping processes and swamps are
widespread. Over-watering occurs in low-lying areas, where poorly permeable sediments are
exposed at the surface. As a result, these areas have little or no water runoff. The process
mainly affects interfluves, depressions of uneven accumulation and landform depressions in
river floodplains.
The Puksi swamp is located in the central part of the WPP Park, covering an area of about 84
ha. Seda swamp, the fourth largest swamp in Latvia (7582 ha), adjoins the north-western
boundary of the park. Taures swamp (975 ha) is located approximately 3.5 km south of the
WPP site.
Several peat and sapropel deposits are located in the vicinity of the WPP site.
Potential swamping processes developed spatially, are limited and do not develop during the
construction and operation of the NPPF.
Erosive or accumulative activity of the river in the area of the Proposed Action is not well
pronounced and mainly affects the banks of the River Gauja, which is located beyond the
territory of the WPP Park and does not pose geological risks to the WPP Park.
The Gauja's sharp bends and wide shores cause ice jams near Strenče in the spring, but the
relatively high banks prevent excessive inflow of water into the town's land area. On the banks
of the River Gauja, it is not desirable to cut down trees along erosion-prone banks or to
remove them from the water after they have fallen into the river.
Small rivers tend to have poorly formed floodplain-type valleys, straightened and deepened
channels. The rivers are slow-moving, as they belong to the plain rivers. The average relative
drop is 0.1-0.7 m/km.
113
Yushkevich V, Polivko I, Tracevski G. Report on 1:200 000 scale complex geological and
hydrogeological mapping in the southern part of sheet O-35-XXI (North-Latvian mapping group), 1962-
1964. Geological Survey, Riga, 1964.
Yushkevich V, Polivko I, Tracevski G. Report on 1:200 000 scale complex geological and hydrogeological
mapping in the territory of sheet O-35-XX (North-Latvian mapping group), 1962-1964. Geological Survey,
Riga, 1965.
130
According to the latest seismic zoning of Latvia (Figure 6.3.4), the WPP Park study area is not
located in a seismogenic zone where earthquakes with an epicentre intensity of 6 magnitude
(MSK-64 scale) have occurred or may occur in the future (Figure 6.3.4). Earthquake origins are
usually associated with active tectonic faults, such as the Liepaja-Riga-Pskov tectonic zone,
which crosses Latvia from SE to NE from Liepaja to Valmiera and continues eastwards towards
Pskov. However, this tectonic zone is located to the south of the WPP Park. The earthquake
hazard is therefore assessed as having a very low probability.
Designations: 1 - limit of influence of the ZCR zone; 2 - limit of influence of potential ZCR zones; 3 - limit of
potential seismotectonic zones; 4 - seismic intensity 7 (MSK-64 scale); 5 - seismic intensity 6 (MSK-64 scale); 6 -
seismic intensity 5 (MSK-64 scale).
Figure 6.3.4. General seismic zoning map of Latvia (LVSR-98) (the area of intended operation is
marked in red)114
6.4. Characteristics of the natural values of the surroundings
6.4.1. Special areas of conservation and Natura 2000 sites
There are eight Specially Protected Areas (SPAs) in and around the study area, and the
Proposed Development site is adjacent to the boundary of three SPAs (Figure 6.4.1).
There are differences in the total number of SPNAs in the expert reports and impact
assessments of the experts involved in the EIA, who have provided opinions and assessments
114
Ņikuļins, V. 2007. Seismotectonic conditions and seismic hazard of Latvia. University of Latvia, Riga,
2007.
131
on different topics - landscape, hydrology, habitats, etc.; the experts have not made any
mistakes, as the experts have assessed the SPNAs according to the specificities of their field.
The North Vidzeme Biosphere Reserve is adjacent to and located to the north-west of the
Proposed Action site; the Northern Gauja Protected Landscape Area (Natura 2000 site) is
adjacent to and located to the south, east and north-east. The site of the proposed activity is
completely surrounded by the micro-reserve "Bulvāra riests" (Natura 2000 site).
The nature reserve "Purgaile River Forests" is located to the west of the site of the Proposed
Action. The nearest assessed VPP turbine, VV5, is located approximately 450 m from the
boundary of the nature reserve.
The protected landscape area "Ziemeļgauja" crosses the study area.
In addition to the above, the study area contains SSSIs at distant locations from the proposed
NPPF site:
• The nature reserve "Sedas purvs" (Natura 2000 site) is located to the north-west of the
WPP park area, 0.9 km away;
• The nature reserve "Burgas plavas" (Natura 2000 site), located to the NW of the WPP
Park site, has a boundary 3 km from the nearest assessed turbine (VV2);
• The micro-reserve “Igaunijas riests” (Natura 2000 site), located to the E of the WPP
site, with a boundary 8 km from the nearest turbine under assessment (VV68);
• The Natural Monument “Ramnieku smilsakmens atsegumi” is located to the S of the
potential WPP site, less than 1 km from the nearest planned VPP turbine VV20.
The boundary of the Vadainu purvs Nature Reserve (Natura 2000 site) is located 8.4 km from
the nearest planned turbine (VV53), to the SE of the planned WPP site.
The potential WPP site is adjacent to 8 micro-reserve (MR) sites.
A total of 84 micro-reserves (MR) are located within the study area, which includes the area of
the Proposed Action together with areas likely to be affected, of which 53 MR are closer than 5
km to the nearest proposed wind turbine site and 9 MR are closer than 1 km away (Table
6.4.1). The closest MLs to the potential turbine sites assessed are MLs coded 3149 and 444,
which are designed to protect birds, at 205 m (WPP code VV2, which is not recommended for
construction) and 290 m from the nearest WPP turbine (VV43, which is not recommended for
construction), respectively.
Despite the fact that there are several Special Protection Areas, micro-reserves and areas
designated by JSC Latvia's State Forests for bird protection in the vicinity of the study area, the
area is considered poorly studied from an ornithological point of view. For the 2022 and 2023
breeding seasons, as a result of intensified research of the territory by Latvijas vēja parks LTD,
the creation of 7 microreserves for Specially Protected Bird Species has been proposed (some
of them have already been created). Taking into account the number of observations of
species for which micro-reserves are to be established in the study area and the fact that
micro-reserves have not been established in several areas designated by JSC Latvian state
forest for bird protection, it is expected that the area of protected areas in the study area will
further increase over time.
Table 6.4.1. Microreserves in the study area up to 5 km from the nearest WPP115
115
Data corresponds to DDPS "Ozols" (20.09.2024.)
132
ML code ML tips nearest WPP WPP construction116 distance, m
3149 birds VV2 Not recommended 205
444 birds VV43 Not recommended 290
769 birds VV51 390
308 birds VV3 Not recommended 440
442 birds VV5 Not recommended 451
430 birds VV54 Not recommended 581
1488 Biotopes VV33 688
vascular plants and
551 VV47 771
ferns
441 birds VV5 Not recommended 783
1368 Biotopes VV88 1041
1538 birds VV60 Not recommended 1109
1366 Biotopes VV82 1138
428 birds VV60 Not recommended 1172
1490 Biotopes VV81 1186
2983 Biotopes VV1 1290
1491 Biotopes VV81 1312
427 birds VV60 Not recommended 1333
422 birds VV53 Not recommended 1346
425 birds VV60 Not recommended 1564
426 birds VV60 Not recommended 1594
3148 birds VV25 Not recommended 1597
1489 Biotopes VV81 1643
1492 Biotopes VV81 1643
1510 Biotopes VV59 Not recommended 1664
1509 Biotopes VV11 Not recommended 1667
1511 Biotopes VV58 Not recommended 1687
vascular plants and Not recommended
550 VV18 1736
ferns
1493 Biotopes VV82 1739
423 Invertebrates VV59 Not recommended 1750
1496 Biotopes VV82 1800
1494 Biotopes VV82 1828
1495 Biotopes VV82 1852
1512 Biotopes VV58 Not recommended 1859
1497 Biotopes VV82 1870
461 birds VV68 2027
1508 Biotopes VV82 2079
1529 Biotopes VV59 Not recommended 2161
1516 Biotopes VV71 Not recommended 2169
1517 Biotopes VV70 2293
440 birds VV60 Not recommended 2593
116
Additional information on the conclusions of the EIA is attached - significant environmental effects
have been identified and construction of the WPP is not recommended
133
ML code ML tips nearest WPP WPP construction116 distance, m
1367 Biotopes VV82 2604
414 birds VV18 Not recommended 2792
vascular plants and
552 VV82 2839
ferns
1826 birds VV5 Not recommended 2870
2116 Biotopes VV60 Not recommended 3232
436 birds VV60 Not recommended 3255
1539 Biotopes VV70 3383
429 birds VV60 Not recommended 3706
439 birds VV2 Not recommended 3806
419 birds VV60 Not recommended 4062
1522 Invertebrates VV68 4401
1521 Biotopes VV70 4434
1520 Biotopes VV70 4606
134
Figure 6.4.1. Protected areas in the vicinity of a potential WPP site
135
Characteristics of Natura 2000 sites
According to the Nature Conservation Agency's "Ozols" SWBS, the following Natura 2000 sites
are located in the vicinity of the planned WPP park area:
• Protected landscape area "Ziemelgauja" (territory code: LV0600700), a Latvian Natura
2000 site - a type C site established for the protection of specially protected species
and specially protected biotopes;
• The nature reserve "Sedas purvs" (area code: LV0526800), a Latvian Natura 2000 site -
type C site established for the protection of specially protected species and specially
protected biotopes.
• "Bulvara riests" (area code: LV0830800). Natura 2000 site - a type B site established
for the conservation of specially protected species (except birds) and habitats. The
area almost completely overlaps with a micro-reserve created to protect a rookery.
• "Igaunijas riests" (area code: LV0843500). Natura 2000 site - a type B site established
for the conservation of specially protected species (except birds) and habitats. The site
overlaps with a micro-reserve established for the protection of a rookery.
• Nature reserve "Purgailes upes mezi" (territory code: LV0542000). The site was
established in 2023.
• Nature reserve "Burgas plavas" (area code: LV0532600). Category C site, designated
for the protection of specially protected species and habitats.
A summary of the objectives for the establishment and protection of the Natura 2000 sites
adjacent to the study area of the Proposed Action, the patterns and interactions that
determine the existence of natural values in these Natura 2000 sites, and the factors that are
already adversely affecting them prior to implementation of the Proposed Action is provided in
Table 6.4.2. The location of Natura 2000 sites in relation to the location of the Proposed Action
is shown in Figure 6.4.2.
136
02
Figure 6.4.2. Location of Natura 2000 sites in relation to the proposed WPP sites
An assessment of the impact of the planned construction of the WPP, access roads,
transmission lines and transformer substations on the protected natural values in the nearby
Natura 2000 sites is presented in Chapter 7.9.
Table 6.4.2. Assessment of Natura 2000 sites in Latvia adjacent to the area of the proposed activity
PLA “Ziemelgauja”
Objectives for The site has been designated to protect the following habitats of EU importance:
creation and freshwater, scrub, grassland, marsh, rock outcrop and woodland118
protection
3140, 3150, 3260, 3270, 5130, 6120*, 6210, 6230*, 6270*, 6410, 6430, 6450, 6510,
(habitats)117
6530*, 7110*, 7120, 7140, 7160, 8210, 8220, 9010*, 9020*, 9050, 9080*, 9160,
9180*, 91D0*, 91E0*, 91F0, 91T0
Objectives for Stone rodent, hawfinch, white stork, white-backed stork, thick-backed pearl-
establishment bordered fritillary, brown wagtail, four-toed budworm, two-banded rowing beetle,
and conservation pond noctule, yellow wagtail, crane, cuckoo, corncrake, White-tailed Eagle, Snipe,
(species)119 Lapwing, Lapwing, Salmon, Great Scaup, Great Newt, Lesser Eagle, Lesser
Flycatcher, Woodcock, Black Stork, Black Woodpecker, Wood Pigeon, Wood
Sandpiper, Wood Shrike, Reed Bunting, Osprey, Quail, Grey Woodpecker, Pintail,
Broad-headed Beetle, Broad-headed Flycatcher, Barn Owl, Barn Owl, Marsh Harrier,
Ruby Tit, Salchat, Silla Chickadee, Slippery Budgerigar, Sparrowhawk, Bright
Swallow, Bright-eyed Junco, Stream Lamprey, Striped Warbler, Schneider's Warbler,
117
https://biodiversity.europa.eu/sites/natura2000/LV0600700
118
Here are the EU Habitat Codes, for detailed habitat descriptions see
https://www.varam.gov.lv/sites/varam/files/es_biotopi_latvija_rokasgramata_lv_2_izdevums.pdf
119
https://biodiversity.europa.eu/sites/natura2000/LV0600700
137
Three-toed Woodpecker, Dark-eyed Owl, River Lamprey, Ursula Owl, Otter, Osprey,
Osprey, Common Tern, Eurasian Wigeon, Chicken Hawk, Green Plover, Osprey, Fish
Shrike
The patterns and The protected area was established in 2004 to preserve the meandering middle
interactions that reaches of the Gauja River with its valley and banks, the complexes of specially
determine the protected meadow, forest and water habitats and the habitats of specially
existence of protected species. The protected landscape area also includes the Cirgali Massif -
natural values in the largest inland dune massif in Latvia - and the Pukši Bog, which contains large
these areas120 areas of transitional bog habitats. The stability, high ecological capacity and
microclimatic characteristics of the ecosystems of the Gauja and its valley are
largely determined by historically established complexes of forests, oxbow lakes
and meadows.
The main natural values of the territory are the great variety of rare Latvian and
EU-wide specially protected habitats, which are home to many very rare species of
lichens, vascular plants, invertebrates and birds.
Factors affecting - Loss of grassland, mainly due to overgrowth, less often due to ploughing or
nature values fertilisation, and development;
prior to - over-exploitation of forests after the weakening of the protection regime along
implementation the Gauja River, privatisation of forest land and the introduction of the market
of the Proposed economy, leading to a decline in the area of biologically old forest stands;
Action121 - forestry activities during the bird breeding season;
- Lack of information for citizens about the area's natural assets, how to conserve
them and how to attract funding for this purpose;
- unorganised and uncontrolled tourism, which, on the one hand, threatens nature
values, and, on the other, prevents the use of nature tourism potential for the
development of the territory.
NR "Sedas purvs"
Objectives for The site has been designated to protect the following habitats of EU importance:
creation and freshwater, grasslands, marshes and forests123 3260, 6450, 7110*, 7120, 7140,
protection 9010*, 9050, 9080*, 91D0*, 91E0*, 91T0
(habitats)122
Objectives for White Stork, White-backed Stork, White-fronted Goose, White-fronted Goose,
establishment White-fronted Goose, White-bellied Goose, White-tailed Godwit, Brown Wagtail,
and conservation Crane, Corncrake, Common Eagle, Golden Eagle, Golden Eagle, Snipe, Lapwing,
(species)124 Great Snipe, Little Eagle, Little Swan, Little Gull, Little Osprey, Little Osprey, Little
Eider, Black Stork, Black Tern, Black Woodpecker, Woodlark, Reed Bunting, Osprey,
Marsh Harrier, Robin, Brent Goose, Snowy Goose, Snowy Plover, Bright Swan,
Three-toed Woodpecker, River Tern, Otter, Osprey, Lapwing, Northern Swan,
Osprey, Fish Eagle, Osprey
The patterns and The main value of the Nature Reserve “Sedas purvs”, which led to its establishment,
interactions that was its suitability as a nesting, feeding and resting area for wild bird species. The
determine the landscape, habitats, bird nesting and resting sites have been artificially altered by
120
https://www.daba.gov.lv/lv/ziemelgauja
121
https://www.daba.gov.lv/lv/ziemelgauja
122
https://biodiversity.europa.eu/sites/natura2000/LV0526800
123
Here are the EU Habitat Codes, for detailed habitat descriptions see
https://www.varam.gov.lv/sites/varam/files/es_biotopi_latvija_rokasgramata_lv_2_izdevums.pdf
124
https://biodiversity.europa.eu/sites/natura2000/LV0526800
138
existence of the industrial development of the marsh. The changes have taken place in a
natural values in relatively short period of time, and most of the "new" ecosystems, which cover
these areas125 almost the entire area of the “Sedas purvs”, are in a dynamic state of development.
On the one hand, there has been a gradual flooding of the developed part of the
marsh, which has attracted waterbirds both during breeding and travelling. Both
the areas covered by water increased after the development of the marsh ceased
and, on the other hand, the flooded areas are overgrown.
Water clumps are gradually becoming overgrown and less useful for birds.
“Sedas purvs” is a Site of Importance for Birds of EU Importance - IBA (site code -
LV039).
Factors affecting - Water bodies created by peat extraction attract birds. But over time, these water
nature values bodies become overgrown and unsuitable for birds.
prior to - Changes in the hydrological regime caused by peat extraction weaken stands that
implementation temporarily attract woodpeckers, but the bird fauna is mostly poor in such stands.
of the Proposed - Species diversity is reduced by grassland overgrowth.
Action126 - Peat extraction has led to the disappearance of a number of invertebrate species
typical of raised bogs.
- Beavers have disrupted the full functioning of drains.
- The biological values of grassland habitats are threatened by overgrowth, as much
of the grassland is unmanaged.
Micro-reserve "Bulvara riests"
Objectives for The site has been designated to protect the following EU Important Habitats:128
creation and
7110, 9010*, 91D0, 91T0
protection
(habitats)127
Objectives for Mednis
establishment
and conservation
(species)129
The patterns and The stands are extreme and suitable for Tetrao urogallus. The site's conservation
interactions that regime additionally provides for forest habitats of EU importance. The micro-
determine the reserve is located in a large forest massif. The area consists of old pine stands, wet
existence of areas interspersed with marshes and woodlands on dry soils.
natural values in
these areas
Factors affecting Reclamation, drainage of forest land
nature values
prior to
implementation
of the Proposed
Action130
125
https://www.daba.gov.lv/lv/sedas-purvs
126
https://www.daba.gov.lv/lv/sedas-purvs
127
https://biodiversity.europa.eu/sites/natura2000/LV0830800_
128
Here are the EU Habitat Codes, for detailed habitat descriptions see
https://www.varam.gov.lv/sites/varam/files/es_biotopi_latvija_rokasgramata_lv_2_izdevums.pdf
129
https://biodiversity.europa.eu/sites/natura2000/LV0830800_
130
https://biodiversity.europa.eu/sites/natura2000/LV0830800_
139
Estonian Swarm Micro-reserve
Objectives for The site has been designated to protect the following forest habitats of EU
creation and importance131
protection 9010*, 91D0*
(habitats)
Objectives for Barn Owl, Barn Owl, Common
establishment
and conservation
(species)
Factors affecting Litter, drainage, drainage, off-road motor traffic, changes in species composition
nature values (succession)
prior to
implementation
of the Proposed
Action132
Nature reserve "Purgaile river forests"
Objectives for The site has been designated to protect the following forest habitats of EU
creation and importance133
protection
91E0*, 9080*, 9010*, 9050
(habitats)
Objectives for Three-toed Woodpecker, White-backed Woodpecker, Barn Owl
establishment
and conservation
(species)
The patterns and The nature area was created to ensure the conservation and protection of
interactions that protected forest habitats of European importance. The area contains suitable
determine the habitats for owls, woodpeckers and other specially protected bird species,
existence of including micro-reserves established to protect the three-toed woodpecker and the
natural values in white-backed woodpecker. Other important bird species include the woodlark and
these areas134 the barn owl.
Burgas Meadows Nature Reserve
Objectives for The site has been designated to protect the following grassland habitats of EU
creation and importance136:
protection
6410, 6430, 6450, 6510
(habitats)135
Objectives for White Stork, Brown Wagtail, Crane, Corncrake, Snipe, Lapwing, Little Eagle, Lesser
establishment Spotted Eagle, Reed Bunting, Osprey, Barn Owl, Marsh Harrier, Robin, Lapwing,
131
Here are the EU Habitat Codes, for detailed habitat descriptions see
https://www.varam.gov.lv/sites/varam/files/es_biotopi_latvija_rokasgramata_lv_2_izdevums.pdf
132
https://biodiversity.europa.eu/sites/natura2000/LV0843500
133
Here are the EU Habitat Codes, for detailed habitat descriptions see
https://www.varam.gov.lv/sites/varam/files/es_biotopi_latvija_rokasgramata_lv_2_izdevums.pdf
134
https://www.daba.gov.lv/lv/purgailes-upes-mezi
135
https://biodiversity.europa.eu/sites/natura2000/LV0532600
136
Here are the EU Habitat Codes, for detailed habitat descriptions see
https://www.varam.gov.lv/sites/varam/files/es_biotopi_latvija_rokasgramata_lv_2_izdevums.pdf
140
and conservation Tern
(species)137
The patterns and The nature reserve has the largest known breeding population of scaup in Valka
interactions that county, as well as a very high density of Corncrakes.
determine the The protected area is part of the ecosystem complex of the Seda river valley, which
existence of consists of the river and its floodplain. The area is remarkable for its open
natural values in landscape and floodplain meadows suitable for the Latvian and EU protected bird
these areas138 species, the lapwing and the corncrake.
Factors affecting - The area has been adversely affected by past land reclamation and the dredging
nature values and dredging of the Seda river, which has reduced flooding and flood duration in
prior to the floodplain and contributed to the formation of shrub belts along ditches and
implementation overgrowing of grasslands.
of the Proposed - The area has been negatively affected by the cessation of grassland management.
Action139
The northern end of the planned wind farm area is 4 km from the border of the Republic of
Estonia. For a long stretch to the E of the national border of the planned wind farm area, the
Natura 2000 site, the Protected Landscape Area "Ziemeļgauja" (hereafter - "Ziemeļgauja"), is
adjacent to the border on the Latvian side. For a large part of this stretch, the Estonian side of
the border also adjoins the Natura 2000 site Koiva-Mustjõe (EE0080471). This is a Natura 2000
Type A site, established for the protection of specially protected bird species. It lists 4 bird
species - the kingfisher, the long-billed curlew, the corn bunting and the snipe. The site
completely covers the slightly smaller Natura 2000 site Koiva-Mustjõe luha (EE0080421),
which is a type B site - established for the conservation of specially protected species other
than birds and specially protected habitats. It lists a number of species and habitats as
occurring there. Together, the Natura 2000 sites of the two countries form a single complex of
areas, the protection of which is aimed at the natural values of the Gauja and its tributary
valleys. The nearest Estonian Natura 2000 sites - the R part - are located 8-9 km away from the
nearest WPP of the planned wind farm.
About 20 km away is the Natura 2000 site "Aheru" (EE0080422), which is a type B site -
established for the protection of habitat 3130 Lakes with oligotrophic to mesotrophic plant
communities. Lake Aheru covers the entire Aheru Nature Reserve. Lake Aheri covers an area of
232.5 ha. The lake has an average depth of 3.7 m and a maximum depth of 4.5 m. The lake is
2600 m long, 1850 m wide and has a shoreline of 10128 m. Lake Aheru is surrounded by
wooded marshes.
A summary of the establishment and protection objectives of the Natura 2000 sites of the
Republic of Estonia adjacent to the study area of the Proposed Action, the patterns and
interactions that determine the existence of natural values in these Natura 2000 sites, the
factors that have already adversely affected them prior to implementation of the Proposed
Action is provided in Table 6.4.3 and Figure 6.4.2 shows the location of these Natura 2000 sites
of the Republic of Estonia in relation to the location of the Proposed Action.
Table 6.4.3. Assessment of Natura 2000 sites adjacent to the study area of the proposed activity in
Estonia
137
https://biodiversity.europa.eu/sites/natura2000/LV0532600
138
https://www.daba.gov.lv/lv/burgas-plavas
139
https://www.daba.gov.lv/lv/burgas-plavas
141
Koiva-Mustjõe
Objectives for The site was created for the protection of specially protected bird species:
establishment and Grebes, Corncrake, Scaup, Fish Geese
conservation
(species)
Factors affecting - stopping grassland management
nature values prior - erosion,
to implementation - forestry - clear-cutting
of the Proposed - Removing dead wood from forests,
Action140 - Recreation.
Koiva-Mustjõe luha
Objectives for The site has been designated to protect the following habitats of EU importance:
creation and freshwater, heathland, grassland and woodland141: 3260, 4030, 6210, 6270*,
protection 6430, 6450, 6530*, 9010*, 9050, 9070, 9080*, 91D0*, 91F0
(habitats)
Objectives for Salad, Stonechat, Broadhead, River Lamprey, Salmon, Schneider's Mussel, Two-
establishment and banded Rowing Beetle, Bright Swamp Dragonfly, Green Plover, Leaf Beetle,
conservation Thick-billed Pearl-bordered Fritillary, Dark-eyed Owl
(species)
Factors affecting - forestry - clear-cutting
nature values prior - Removing dead wood from forests,
to implementation - forestry,
of the Proposed - pollution,
Action - trails, anthropogenic pressures,
- groundwater use.
Aheru
Objectives for The site has been designated for the protection of the EU freshwater habitat 3130
creation and Lakes with oligotrophic to mesotrophic plant communities.
protection
(habitats)142
Objectives for -
establishment and
conservation
(species)
Factors affecting -
nature values prior
to implementation
of the Proposed
Action
6.4.2. Protected habitats and species of special conservation concern
In order to assess the impact of the Proposed Action on protected habitats, the site was
surveyed by visiting and/or assessing the Proposed Action area and potential impact areas -
the proposed location of the WPP and the area within 350 m around it; potential access roads
140
https://biodiversity.europa.eu/sites/natura2000/EE0080471
141
Here are the EU Habitat Codes, for detailed habitat descriptions see
https://www.varam.gov.lv/sites/varam/files/es_biotopi_latvija_rokasgramata_lv_2_izdevums.pdf
142
https://biodiversity.europa.eu/sites/natura2000/EE0080422
142
and the area up to 150 m along them, as well as potential electricity cable routes and the area
up to 20 m along them. Information on the habitat study area was collected in the field during
the 2022, 2023 and 2024 seasons. To collect additional information in the field, the site survey
used data from DDPS "Ozols", as well as data provided by JSC Latvijas valsts meži and the
Nature Conservation Agency.
The site survey has been prepared in the form of an "Opinion of certified experts in the field of
species and habitat conservation on the impact of the planned activity - construction of the
Valmiera-Valka WPP park in the Plani municipality of Valmiera county and the Vijciems and
Valka municipalities of Valka county on protected biotopes of flowing and standing freshwater,
swamps, forests and heaths and vascular plant species", attached as Annex 6.
Consultations with the NCA as part of the assessment process (26.03.2024. No
1.6.1/1811/2024-N), it was concluded that the specially protected species of mosses and
lichens are mainly small in size and therefore require special attention. The NCA has reason to
believe that the knowledge of the expert on identification of specially protected moss and
lichen species in nature is sufficient, but at the same time there is no certainty that the
surveyed areas have been sufficiently surveyed for the presence of specially protected moss
and lichen species. Therefore, at the request of the NCA, the expert re-surveyed the most
critical areas of the Valmiera-Valka WPP Park, carrying out a study specifically targeting moss
and lichen species.
Habitat assessment and survey was carried out according to the methodology of the project
"Creation of preconditions for better biodiversity conservation and ecosystem protection in
Latvia" or "Nature census" - "Methodology for the identification of distribution and quality of
habitats of EU importance and organisation of works" approved by the Ministry of
Environmental Protection and Regional Development and coordinated by the Ministry of
Agriculture. The status of protected species and habitats has been determined in accordance
with Cabinet of Ministers Regulation No 350 of 20 June 2017 "Regulations on the List of
Specially Protected Habitat Types" and Cabinet of Ministers Regulation No 396 of 14
November 2000 "Regulations on the List of Specially Protected Species and Specially Protected
Species of Restricted Use". Guidelines for certified experts in species and habitat conservation
on the assessment of the Proposed Action for the construction of forest roads and the
establishment, rehabilitation and reconstruction of forest drainage systems.143
For the location of the habitat polygons of EU protected habitats affected by the Habitats
Study Area see the maps in Annex 6, and for detailed information on the expected effects of
the Proposed Action on individual protected habitat areas see Chapter 7.6.1 of the EIA Report.
For information on the protected habitats of EU importance identified during the site surveys,
see Table 6.4.4 and for information on areas likely to be affected by the proposed action, see
Chapter 7.6.1.
Table 6.4.4. EU protected habitats recorded in the study area
Habitat code, name Accessibility in the area Comments on the potential impacts of the
Proposed Action (more detail in Chapter
7.6),
3150 Eutrophic lakes with Gauja rivers, Kokši lakes The proposed action will not affect the
submerged aquatic vegetation habitat, the opinion does not go into further
and wet vegetation detail
3260 River courses and natural Gauja, some Habitat will not be affected by the
watercourses under recommended locations of Alternatives A
143
Latvian Environmental Protection Fund funded project No 1-08/29/2023.
143
Habitat code, name Accessibility in the area Comments on the potential impacts of the
Proposed Action (more detail in Chapter
7.6),
river channels existing roads and B
6120* Sand grassland Near the "Ielīcu" home The proposed action will not affect the
habitat, the opinion does not go into further
detail
6210 Dry grassland on calcareous Near "Ielīcu" and "Kokšu" The proposed action will not affect the
soils houses habitat, the opinion does not go into further
detail
6270* Species-rich pastures and South-east of Pukši The proposed activity could affect a grass
grazed meadows swamp on the roadside, landfill site on the roadside near Pukši Bog
other locations outside
the potential impact area
6510 Temperate wet grassland "Oliņi" Habitat will not be affected by the
recommended locations of Alternatives A
and B
7110* Active raised bogs Small polygons around No effects on habitat expected as it is >150
the VV86 site m from new development and at a low
elevation relative to the development, not
assessed in detail in the opinion
7120 Degraded raised bogs Near Ķauķīšu road and No impact on habitat expected as it is >180
where natural regeneration is east of VV86 m from new construction, not assessed in
possible or ongoing detail in the opinion
7140 Transitional marshes and In the northern part of Potential impacts assessed for the
sloughs the study area, in the construction of C_VV77
forest massif, also in the
Pukši swamp, near the
road C_VV77
7160 Mineral-rich springs and By the Oliņi road The proposed action will not affect the
spring marshes habitat, the opinion does not go into further
detail
9010* Old-growth or natural Frequent throughout the Potential fragmentation effects as well as
boreal forests forest, including in the destruction of habitat areas
vicinity of planned
infrastructure. Most
common are variants 1
(typical) and 3 (on
dehumidified soils).
9020* Large mixed broadleaved At the bridge over the The proposed action will not affect the
forests Gauja habitat, the opinion does not go into further
detail
9050 Deciduous spruce forests In some places in the area Potential impacts from the construction of
the cable route
9080* Coniferous forests In some parts of the site, Possible effects of dehumidification
mainly on the western
edge of the potential
WPP park
9160 Oak forests (oak, lime and In some places along the The proposed action will not affect the
144
Habitat code, name Accessibility in the area Comments on the potential impacts of the
Proposed Action (more detail in Chapter
7.6),
hornbeam) Gauja habitat, the opinion does not go into further
detail
91D0* Swamp forests Quite common Potential impacts from cable route
throughout the study construction and dehumidification
area, all habitat variants
occur
91E0* Alluvial forests (alluvial In some places in the Potential impacts from the construction of
riparian and floodplain forests) study area, mostly Option the cable route
3 (susin)
91T0 Lichen-rich pine forests Common throughout the Potential impacts from construction of WPP
area where dune sites, roads and cable routes
landforms are found.
Both Option 1 and Option
2 (clearings and coppice)
As the study area is located in a large, long-term forest massif, historically in a sparsely
populated area, the forest habitats are often of good and excellent quality, with species typical
of natural forest habitats, including species protected in Latvia. The quality of the dry pine
forests in the study area is enhanced by the rare and protected species associated with these
specific growing conditions, as well as by the mossy topography of the inland dune massif.
Habitats associated with wet growing conditions in the study area are often affected by
deforestation, but there are also areas of good and excellent quality swamp forest habitats,
particularly in the northern part of the forest massif.
The most significant threats to forest habitats of EU importance in the region and Latvia as a
whole are the potential destruction of forest stands through clearing or deforestation for the
construction of infrastructure such as forest roads or drainage systems.
Indirect negative impacts on habitat quality and the provision of full ecological functions may
result from fragmentation of habitat areas, both through clearing and infrastructure
construction, and from drainage caused by the construction of road-related ditches and the
construction and reconstruction of drainage systems.
These threats are significantly lower for habitat areas that are also habitats for SPA species.
This is due to the restriction in Article 12 of the Species and Habitats Protection Law, which
prohibits the destruction of habitats of specially protected species of plants, fungi and lichens,
but often also habitats of protected species that do not have micro-reserve status are felled.
The survey recorded both vascular plant species, fungi, lichens, mosses and invertebrate
species associated with the protected habitat types within the experts' competence as
characteristic species or indicator species of natural forest habitats and specialist species. The
site also supports specially protected species of vascular plants, mosses and lichens.
Specially protected species of vascular plants, mosses and lichens found in the area (SPA I, II -
according to the number of the Annex to the Cabinet Regulations), and species for which a
microreserve (MIK) is to be established, are noted in 6.4.5. Table 6.5.6, grouped alphabetically
145
by Latin name144, provides information on their status as forest habitat indicator species (DMB
IS) and specialist species (DMB SS), for species listed in the Latvian Red Data Book145 the SG
category is indicated, species of Annex II to the Habitats Directive (BD II) are noted. The
locations and areas of the species occurrences are shown on the maps (Annex 1 to the species
and habitats expert opinion, attached as Annex 6 to the EIA). The map and the table show the
species localities only in the study area. The spatial dataset of rare and specially protected
species found during the surveys has been submitted to the Nature Conservation Agency.
The identified specially protected species (vascular plants, as well as mosses, lichens, fungi,
invertebrates associated with the assessed biotopes), the localities of which fall within the
potential area of influence of the Proposed Action (see Chapter 7.5 and the Species and
Habitats Expert Opinion 1. A more detailed description has been prepared (Species and
Habitats Expert Opinion, attached as Annex 6 to the EIA) in order to characterise their
ecological requirements and, consequently, to assess the potential impacts of the proposed
activity.
Table 6.4.5. Protected and rare species found in the study area
No Number of
Species group, conservation on registered
Species group Latin name
category, IUCN assessment the deposits in the
map study area
Anastrophyllum hellerianum
Moss IAS I, MIK, DMB SS, LC 3 72
(Crossocalyx hellerianus)
Lichens Arthonia leucopellea IAS I, DMB IS, NT 4 4
Lichens Arthonia spadicea ĪAS I, DMB IS, LC 5 7
Lichens Arthonia vinosa IAS I, DMB IS, NT 6 7
ĪAS I, MIK, BD II, SG I, DMB SS,
Moss Buxbaumia viridis 8 5
VU
Lichens Cladonia parasitica IAS I, MIK, DMB SS, NT 11 12
Vascular plants Dactylorhiza baltica IAS I, SG IV, LC 14 39
Vascular plants Dactylorhiza fuchsii IAS I, SG IV, LC 15 2
Vascular plants Dianthus arenarius SHORT I, VU 19 26
Vascular plants Diphasiastrum complanatum IAS I, MIK, SG IV, VU 20 3
Mushrooms Fomitopsis rosea IAS I, MIK, DMB SS, VU 24 15
Moss Geocalyx graveolens IAS I, MIK, SG IV, DMB SS, LC 26 2
Vascular plants Gypsophila fastigiata IAS I, MIK, SG III, VU 29 13
Vascular plants Huperzia selago IAS II, SG IV, LC 31 3
Jungermannia leiantha
Moss I, NT 32 2
(Liochlaena lanceolata)
Lichens Lobaria pulmonaria IAS I, SG II, DMB SS, NT 37 2
Vascular plants Lycopodium annotinum IAS II, SG IV, LC 39 114
Vascular plants Lycopodium clavatum IAS II, SG IV, LC 40 36
Moss Odontoschisma denudatum ĪAS I, DMB IS, LC 42 15
Vascular plants Onobrychis arenaria ĪAS I, MIK, SG II, EN 44 2
Phellinus ferrugineofuscus
Mushrooms (Phellinidium IAS I, DMB SS, NT 48 4
ferrugineofuscum)
144
Species names are used primarily according to the lists in the legislation; where the scientific name of
a species has been changed, it is given in brackets.
145
Red Data book. The LSG uses the following categories of endangered species: I - endangered species;
II - declining species; III - rare species; IV - little-known species (LSG contains scientific information on
the occurrence of species, does not define protection at the level of legislation)
146
No Number of
Species group, conservation on registered
Species group Latin name
category, IUCN assessment the deposits in the
map study area
Phellinus (Phellopilus)
Mushrooms IAS I, DMB SS, VU 49 1
nigrolimitatus
Vascular plants Platanthera bifolia IAS I, SG IV, LC 51 6
Vascular plants Platanthera chlorantha IAS I, SG IV, NT 52 1
Vascular plants Poa remota IAS I, MIK, SG III, VU 53 1
Vascular plants Pulsatilla patens IAS I, MIK, BD II, SG IV, VU 56 10
Vascular plants Pulsatilla pratensis IAS I, SG IV, LC 57 30
Mushrooms Sarcosoma globosum SHORT I, VU 58 1
Moss Schistostega pennata IAS I, SG III, NT 59 6
Vascular plants Silene chlorantha IAS I, SG III, EN 60 8
For the identified specially protected species (vascular plants as well as mosses, lichens, fungi
associated with the assessed habitats), whose localities fall within the potential area of
influence of the Proposed Action and on which impacts could actually occur, a more detailed
description has been prepared in order to characterise their ecological requirements and,
accordingly, to assess the potential impacts of the Proposed Action. A detailed description of
the ecological requirements of specially protected species can be found in the report " Report
of certified experts in the field of species and habitat protection on the impact of the planned
activity - construction of the wind park "Valmiera-Valka" in the Plani parish of the Valmiera
municipality and the Vijciems and Valka parishes of the Valka municipality on protected
habitats of flowing and stagnant freshwater, marsh, forest and heath, vascular plant and moss
species" attached as Annex 6 to the EIA Report.
6.4.3. Bird species in the area
The workflow and methodology of the bird surveys are described in detail in the expert
opinion on bird species attached to the EIA report, see Annex 6.
The following bird species and species groups have been assessed as part of the EIA:
• Sea eagle
• Golden Eagle
• Lesser Spotted Eagle
• Mednis
• Black Stork
• Hen hawk
• Osprey
• Apodziņš
• Suspended apogee
• Upis
• Whiteback
• Mezirbe
• Grouse
• Migratory bird species
The study of the area of the proposed activity is based on the observations of the bird expert
involved in the EIA report and other observers for the period from 1 January 2022; the
ornithofauna study area covers an area of 26 565 ha. A total of 5982 observations (excluding
147
observations recorded in the hunting monitoring programme of JSC "Latvijas Valsts meži")
were collected and analysed by a bird expert and other observers in a 3 km area around the
turbines under assessment. 154 bird species have been recorded at least once since 1 January
2022 in the 3 km zone around the assessed WPP turbines and, by comparison, 107 species
(including crossbills and geese not identified to species) have been recorded at least once since
1 January 2020 in the 500 m zone around the assessed WPP turbines. The ornithofauna of the
area was characterised using the expert's, Nature Conservation Agency's, JSC "Latvijas Valsts
meži", portal www.dabasdati.lv, DDPS "Ozols" and unpublished data of colleagues. Detailed
information on the surveys carried out in the territory of the planned WPP park and the list of
bird species recorded is summarised in Annex 6.
All species listed in Annex 1 of Directive 2009/147/EEC of the European Parliament and of the
Council on the conservation of wild birds have been assessed by a certified bird expert during
the preparation of the opinion. Other bird species have also been recorded during the site
survey and during the preparation of the opinion.
Field work has been carried out in 2022, 2023 and 2024 in the study area of the Proposed
Action to assess the impact of the Proposed Action on nesting and passage ornithofauna.
During the 2022 and 2023 breeding seasons, as a result of the intensified study of the area, the
bird expert involved in the EIA report proposed the creation of 7 microreserves for specially
protected bird species (some of which have already been created).
The site investigation has been carried out using the "Methodology for Wind Farm
Investigation and Expert Opinion"146.
Despite the fact that from the anthropogenic point of view in the Latvian context the area of
the Proposed Action is assessed as highly sparsely populated, the anthropogenic pressure is
assessed as quite significant. The A3 and P24 motorways and the railway line form a constant
noise background that can be heard almost throughout the area. The relatively easy
accessibility of the site encourages recreational pressure on the site in the form of mushroom
and berry picking. However, off-road vehicle use in forests outside carriageways, often even on
tracks, is seen as a particularly negative anthropogenic impact on the study area from the
point of view of impacts on birds. Trackways of two-wheel vehicles can be found in much of
the study area, and in places there are also tracks of quadricycles. It is difficult to assess the
intensity of this disturbance, but given that the most extensive network of tracks is found in
the dry, scrubby pine forest types, where it is objectively easier to drive, while the scrubby
forest types have a particularly far noise distribution, this type of disturbance should be
assessed as Critically Negative. In the critically sensitive early breeding season, even a single
off-roader on the tracks can have irreversible consequences for the breeding success of bird
species particularly sensitive to disturbance nesting in the vicinity of the track.
The bird species and groups of bird species on which the impact of the Proposed Action has
been assessed are those bird species included in the list of Annex I to the Cabinet of Ministers'
Regulation No 396 of 14 November 2000 "Regulations on the List of Specially Protected
Species and Species of Special Concern of Restricted Use", species included in the list of Annex
I to the Cabinet of Ministers' Regulation No 396 of 14 November 2000 "Regulations on the List
of Specially Protected Species and Species of Special Concern of Restricted Use", 2012. Species
listed in Annex I or II of Directive 2009/147/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council
on the conservation of wild birds. Information on the protected bird species found in the area
and the bird species assessed in the context of the EIA report is provided in Table 6.4.6, while
146
Ūlands, D., Millers, K. 2022. Methodology for the Wind Farm Study and the Expert Report.
148
the impact assessment and recommended mitigation recommendations are provided in
Chapters 7.6.2 and 7.6.3.
In February and March 2024, additional searches for the bustard were carried out in the
planned area of the Valmiera-Valka Wind Park, as according to a local resident, in November
2023, while hunting in the hunting tower in the evening, the bustard Bubo bubo was
apparently spotted on a hunting thermal camera. The expert opinion on this additional survey
is attached in the expert opinion, see Annex 6.
The bird was searched both in its historically known breeding area and in the vicinity of the
potential sighting site, as well as in the nearest relatively suitable area according to habitat
suitability calculations. No signs of the presence of the moth were found at any of the sites
visited.
Table 6.4.6. Bird species with conservation features found in the 3 km zone around the assessed
WPP, and an estimate of their number or distribution
No. Species in Latvian Species in Latin Estimate of abundance or distribution in a 3 km
zone around the WPP assessed
1 apodziņš Glaucidium At least 15% of 500x500 m squares nest
passerinum
2 Great Egret Ardea alba Non-flying, low-volume transit flights
3 White Stork Ciconia ciconia Non-flying, low-volume transit flights
4 whiteback Dendrocopos The species does not breed in priority protected
leucotos areas, 1 breeding pair confirmed
5 Bighorn Aegolius funereus The species does not breed in priority protected
areas, breeding in the area has not been confirmed
6 brown wagtail Lanius collurio Not rated*
7 Yellow Plover Pluvialis apricaria Not rated
8 Crane Grus grus Breeding - not assessed, migratory - small,
unspecified number of migratory birds foraging in
the New Forest
9 gaigala Bucephala clangula Not rated
10 cut Crex crex Not rated
11 Sea eagle Haliaeetus albicilla Occasional, but not breeding, wandering
individuals, concentration area identified at the D
boundary of the site
12 cormorant Phalacrocorax carbo Non-flying, low-volume transit flights
13 The Wedge Pernis apivorus at least 1 breeding pair
14 golden eagle Aquila chrysaetos Inhabited nest in Pukšu swamp, near the outer
Limited
boundary of theaccess information
3 km zone
15 kuitala Numenius arquata Some pairs nest in Pukši marsh
16 welcome to Perdix perdix Possible nesting of a few pairs in the agricultural
land to the S of Valka
17 rural drizzle Circus cyaneus Some pairs may nest in open landscapes on the
periphery of the planned wind farm
149
No. Species in Latvian Species in Latin Estimate of abundance or distribution in a 3 km
zone around the WPP assessed
18 Country Falcon Falco tinnunculus Possible breeding of one pair in the agricultural land
to the S of Valka
19 the big chakste Lanius excubitor Not rated
20 the great auk Mergus merganser Not rated
21 the great rebellion Botaurus stellaris Uncertain number of nesting pairs in Seda swamp
22 the great gull Larus ridibundus Non-flying, low-volume transit flights
23 Lesser Spotted Clanga pomarina 1 successful nest in agricultural land to the S of
Eagle Valka
24 Little Flycatcher Ficedula parva Not rated
25 tree Tetrao urogallus 8 confirmed and 3 probable breeding, up to 30
breeding roosters in total
26 black woodpecker Dryocopus martius Not rated
27 black kite Milvus migrans Non-flying, low-volume transit flights
28 Black Stork Ciconia nigra 2-3 pairs in the vicinity of the planned wind farm
29 Wood Pigeon Columba oenas Not rated
30 logging Bonasa bonasia At least 20% of 500x500 m squares nest
31 the cane Circus aeruginosus Some pairs may nest in open landscapes on the
periphery of the planned wind farm
32 ormanitis Porzana porzana Not rated
33 Greater Scaup Cygnus olor Non-flying, low-volume transit flights
34 Grey Woodpecker Picus canus Not rated
35 Meadow Tern Tringa totanus One to a few pairs nest in Pukši marsh
36 bean Upupa epops Not rated
37 barn owl Asio flammeus Casual observation in Pukšu swamp
38 Marsh Tern Tringa glareola An unspecified number of pairs breed in Seda and
Puksu swamps
39 grouse Lyrurus tetrix Main nest in Puksi swamp and 6-7 satellite nests.
Total number of roosters not assessed
40 Seivi warbler Locustella Not rated
luscinioides
41 Sila Chirulis Lullula arborea Not rated
42 Somzilite Remiz pendulinus Not rated
43 steppe chips Anthus campestris Not rated
44 Striped Warbler Sylvia nisoria Not rated
45 tītiņš Jynx torquilla Not rated
46 three-toed Picoides tridactylus Breeds in at least 0.4% of 500x500 m squares,
150
No. Species in Latvian Species in Latin Estimate of abundance or distribution in a 3 km
zone around the WPP assessed
woodpecker micro-reserve established outside priority protected
areas
47 river tern Sterna hirundo Non-flying, possible low transit flights
48 The Barn Owl Strix uralensis At least 34% of 500x500 m squares nest
49 party Caprimulgus Found in virtually the entire area of the planned
europaeus wind farm, but numbers and distribution have not
been assessed
50 Middle Spotted Leiopicus medius Found in the vicinity of the old rivers of the Gauja
Woodpecker and in settlements on the periphery of the planned
wind park
51 hen hawk Accipiter gentilis 3 known nests
52 Northern swan Cygnus cygnus Breeds in unspecified numbers in Seda, and possibly
in Puksi swamp
53 Osprey Pandion haliaetus 3 known nests
54 fish propeller Alcedo atthis Not rated
55 goose Anser sp. Low flyway with up to 2000 flying individuals
between Seda swamp and Jaunklidza fields
*Specially Protected Bird Species (SPA) found in the study area that are not considered to be particularly
endangered in the literature and in the current practice in Latvia have not been assessed in the context of the
proposed activity in the framework of the preparation of the EIA report. These include Specially Protected
Passerines, Wood Pigeon, Evening Grosbeak, etc. The presence of these species is not considered to be a sufficient
reason to change the configuration of the wind farm or to recommend additional operational restrictions. The
protection of these species is ensured by following the recommendations for the protection of more threatened
species.
6.4.4. Bat species in the area
Bat species in the study area were surveyed following the EUROBATS guidelines "On
compliance with bat conservation requirements in wind farm projects"147 and the Latvian
adapted "Guidelines for assessing the impact of wind power plants on bats"148. Bat species
were surveyed using the following approach:
• Seven times a season, with three (May, June, July) or six (August, September) nights
counted each month.
• The timing of the surveys was chosen according to the bats' biological cycle (breeding,
migration/mating).
• Bat activity was recorded at 12 fixed observation stations D1-D12 and three routes
(M1-M3) (Figure 6.4.2).
• The monitoring stations and routes were selected to survey bat activity in habitats
similar to those in which the WPP is planned to be located.
• All ultrasonic detectors at the stations were placed in open woodland (mainly
clearings).
147
https://tethys.pnnl.gov/sites/default/files/publications/EUROBATS-2015.pdf
148
https://lvafa.vraa.gov.lv/faili/materiali/petijumi/2020/171/Vadlinijas_VES_siksparni_fin.pdf
151
A total of 1710 bat sound files were recorded at 12 monitoring stations in the planned area of
the WPP Park over 84 detector nights (21 monitoring nights, with four fixed detectors per
night), with 1978 bat passes recorded (Table 6.4.7). Route records - seven 90-minute records
on each of the three routes - recorded 505 bat overflights per season (Table 6.4.7).
152
Figure 6.4.3. Locations of stationary bat observation stations D1-D12 (red dots) and diagrams of
survey routes (black lines) in the planned area of the Valmiera-Valka wind park. The black circles
indicate the planned WPP locations. Maps from "Baltic maps" website149.
Table 6.4.7. Bat species or species groups detected by D-500x automatic detectors at 12
observation stations in the planned area of the Valmiera-Valka WPP in May-September 2022, their
affiliation to the migratory or hibernating bat group and the number of recorded overflights
Bat species in Bat species in Latin Migratory or wintering Number of
Latvian species overflights
Northern bat Eptesicus nilssonii Wintery 1847
Rusty Evening Bat Nyctalus noctula Migratory 32
Two-coloured bat Vespertilio murinus Wintering/migratory 9
Nobody Nyctalus/Vespertilio/Eptesicus ģinšu Migratory or semi- 4
grupa migratory
Natuz bat Pipistrellus nathusii Migratory 48
Pygmy Bat Pipistrellus pygmaeus Migratory 1
Genus Noctuidae Myotis spp. All species wintering 34
Bat of Chiroptera 3
undetermined
species
Total 1978
149
https://balticmaps.eu/lv/c___56.951558-24.113432-11/bl___cl/q___
153
Table 6.4.8. Bat species or species groups detected, their migratory or hibernating status and the
number of recorded overflights in the planned area of the Valmiera-Valka WPP in May-September
2022 at 27 points along three routes during 10-minute sessions with the D-500x automatic detector
Bat species in Latvian Bat species in Latin Migratory or wintering Number of overflights
species
Northern bat Eptesicus nilssonii Wintery 491
Rusty Evening Bat Nyctalus noctula Migratory 3
Natuz bat Pipistrellus nathusii Migratory 6
Genus Noctuidae Myotis spp. All species wintering 5
Total 505
The most frequently encountered roost species in the area of the proposed activity, the Natuz
bat and the northern bat, are the species at highest risk from wind farms. According to
EUROBATS statistics on bat fatalities at wind farms in Europe in 2003-2014, the Natuz bat
ranked third, while the northern bat is the most frequent victim of wind turbines in
Scandinavian countries. In Latvia, the Natuz's bat is the first and the northern bat the second
most important among the recorded victims of wind farms150. Noctule bats are generally not
considered a high risk species, as they usually fly and hunt close to landscape structures and
are rarely seen at higher altitudes, but the pond noctule bat is a species that is more likely to
fly higher and in more open areas than other noctule bat species found in Latvia.
The average bat activity at all stations combined in the planned wind park area is 2.96 flights
per hour. The results can be compared with other bat species surveys carried out in 14 other
potential WPP using identical methodology. The overall bat activity detected in this study is
relatively high (above the 3rd quartile threshold (Table 6.4.9.)). This is due to the fact that
forests are suitable habitats for bats, and the surveys carried out so far have mostly taken
place in landscapes less suitable for bats, where forests covered only part of the area. The
close proximity of several important feeding sites should also be taken into account in this
area.
Table 6.4.9. Total bat activity thresholds in three activity classes - low, medium or high (based on 14
different sites in Latvia)
Activity class Kvartile Average number of flights per hour
Zema below 1st quartile ≤1,29
Medium 2nd-3rd quartile >1,29 – 2,35
Growing above 3rd quartile >2,35
At least five reliably identified bat species have been recorded in the area of the proposed
activity: the northern bat Eptesicus nilssonii, the rusty long-eared bat Nyctalus noctula, the
bicoloured bat Vespertilio murinus, the Nathus bat Pipistrellus nathusii and the pygmy bat
Pipistrellus pygmaeus, as well as at least one species of the noctule Myotis genus. The
northern bat, the Natuz bat, the rusty bat, the double-coloured bat and the pygmy bat are
species at high risk of mortality in the context of wind farms.
150
https://tethys.pnnl.gov/sites/default/files/publications/EUROBATS-2015.pdf
154
6.4.5. Invertebrate species in the area
Assessment of the presence of protected invertebrate species in July 2024 at potential WPP and
substation construction sites - in case of construction of alternatives A or B, implemented in
accordance with the letter of the Nature Conservation Agency to Latvijas vēja parki Ltd
(23.05.2024. No 1.6.1/3200/2024-N) (Annex 2), which states, inter alia, that "... not only species
scores should be indicated, but also the forest stands should be assessed as suitable habitats for
different invertebrate species and the potential loss of habitat for each of the SPA invertebrate
species should be indicated and how this will affect the conservation status assessments for
these species at a national scale".
For the assessment of the presence of invertebrate species in June/July 2024 at the potential
construction sites of the WPP and substations - in the case of construction of alternatives A or B,
an "Opinion of certified experts in the field of species and habitat conservation on insects in the
planned WPP park Valmiera-Valka" has been prepared, which is attached as Annex 6.
The area of the proposed activity has been intensively managed for a long time, the habitats
suitable for SPA invertebrate species in the case of the construction of alternatives A or B, in the
area of the planned WPP and the new roads to be constructed, have been assessed only
according to their suitability for SPA invertebrate species, see Table 6.4.10 and Figure 6.4.3.
Table 6.4.10. Description of the WPP, species found, habitat suitability and notes on factors affecting
the species.
WPP WPP Biotopes Suitable Species found Notes
construction151 habitats,
habitats
VV1 Pine coppice in semi- Not suitable None found
mature stand
VV3 Not Young and middle- Not suitable None found Shading by birch
recommended aged spruce-birch
stands
VV7 In various pine Semi-suitable Old runs of the Shading
plantations, Great Spotted
ecological trees Beetle
VV9 Pine coppice, middle- Not suitable None found Shading with
aged pine stand birch and spruce
VV16 Pine coppice, Semi-suitable Old runs of the Dead wood is
ecological trees, pine great crested scarce
plantations newt, yellow
stump fly
VV19 Not Pine coppice, Semi-suitable Humped stump Traces of burns,
recommended ecological trees, pine fly burns cleared,
stand pine trees
planted. There
are no pines
suitable for the
striped hooded
pine. Pine grove
shaded by
spruce
VV20 Pine coppice, Suitable for Great Spotted
151
Additional information on the conclusions of the EIA is attached - significant environmental effects
have been identified and construction of the WPP is not recommended
155
WPP WPP Biotopes Suitable Species found Notes
construction151 habitats,
habitats
ecological trees, Beetle
includes pine coppice
VV21 Pine coppice, pine Not suitable None found No ecological
forest trees
VV22 Pine stands with Semi-suitable Old runs of the
spruce, part coppice Great Spotted
Beetle
VV23 Not Pine coppice, Suitable for Old runs of the Shading and
recommended ecological trees, part great crested small shrubs
pine coppice newt, yellow have a negative
stump fly impact on
species
VV24 Pine coppice, Not suitable None found Shading has a
ecological trees, pine negative impact
forest, spruce trees
VV26 Pine and spruce Not suitable None found
coppice, ecological
trees, middle-aged
pine stand
VV27 Not Pine and birch Semi-suitable Old runs of the Shading has a
recommended coppice. Ecological Great Spotted negative impact
trees Beetle
VV28 Birch coppice, Not suitable None found Shading has a
ecological trees, pine negative impact
coppice with spruce
VV30 Pine coppice, Not suitable None found
ecological trees
VV31 Pine coppice, Suitable for Great crested Abundant
ecological trees, pine newt and populations of
stand imago, both species.
humpbacked The population
newt has existed for a
long time, at
different ages.
Main habitat is
fallen ecological
trees
VV32 Pine coppice, Semi-suitable Old runs of the
ecological trees - Great Spotted
trunks, pine coppice Beetle
around the turning
area
VV33 Young stands, Not suitable None found No large
ecological tree dimension dead
groups, small part of wood
pine plantations
VV34 Not Young pine forest, Suitable for Great stink Abundant
recommended small part under pine bug, yellow populations of
stink bug, both species
yellow stump
fly
VV35 Not Pine coppice, some Not suitable None found Pine forest
recommended pine coppice, shaded, no
156
WPP WPP Biotopes Suitable Species found Notes
construction151 habitats,
habitats
ecological trees fallen trees in
young stand
VV36 Pine stands of Semi-suitable Old runs of the Pine stand
different ages, Great Spotted potentially
ecological trees, pine Beetle suitable for
plantations Schneider's
Mistletoe
VV37 Pine stands of Not suitable None found
different ages
VV38 Young stands of Semi-suitable Old runs of the Shading is
different ages, Great Spotted caused by ferns
ecological trees, pine Beetle and other
plantations plants. Pine
stand
potentially
suitable for
Schneider's
Mistletoe
VV42 Young stands of Not suitable None found
different ages
VV43 Not Pine plantations, Semi-suitable Old runs of the Pine stand
recommended ecological trees and Great Spotted potentially
stems, pine groves Beetle suitable for
Schneider's
Mistletoe
VV44 Not New pine plantations Not suitable None found
recommended
VV45 Not Pine plantations, Suitable for Great Spotted Little dead
recommended ecological tree Beetle wood
groups, pine stands
VV46 Pine stands of Suitable for Great crested
different ages new and old
hatchlings,
humpback
stump fly
VV47 Pine stands of Not suitable None found Shaded, with fir
different ages tree
VV48 Not Pine coppice, Semi-suitable Old runs of the Shady pine
recommended ecological trees, pine Great Spotted forest
stand Beetle
VV49 Pine stands with Not suitable None found Shading
birch and spruce
VV50 Various pine stands, Not suitable None found Shading
much of it recently
felled, spruce mixed
in
VV51 Pine coppice, Not suitable None found Little dead
ecological trees, pine wood
stand
VV64 Pine coppice, Not suitable None found Shading
ecological trees, pine
stand
VV65 Pine stands with Not suitable None found Shading
157
WPP WPP Biotopes Suitable Species found Notes
construction151 habitats,
habitats
birch and spruce
VV68 Pine plantations, Not suitable None found Shading
ecological trees
VV70 Pine plantations, Semi-suitable Yellow stump Partial shading
ecological trees fly, old runs of
the great
crested newt
VV81 Young pine stand, Not suitable None found Shading has a
ecological trees, old negative impact
pine stand felled
VV82 Two-aged pine Suitable for Great crested
coppice, ecological new and old
trees and trunks flushes, yellow
stump fly
VV84 In pine stands of Not suitable Myotis found in Pine stand
different ages adjacent stands potentially
suitable for
Schneider's
Mistletoe
VV85 Pine coppice and Semi-suitable Old runs of the Shading has a
young stand, Great Spotted negative impact
ecological trees Beetle
VV86 Pine plantation, Semi-suitable None found Very little dead
fragment of a stand wood in pine
stands
VV88 Pine coppice, Suitable for New passages Young growth
ecological trees and of the Great relatively
trunks, spruce forest Spotted Beetle shaded
VV89 Not Pine plantation, Not suitable None found Little dead
recommended ecological trees, pine wood
coppice
VV91 Pine stands of Suitable for Great crested
different ages, newt and
ecological trees, imago,
felled pine stands humpbacked
newt
VV92 Not Pine stands, with Not suitable None found Little dead
recommended spruce wood
VV92 Not Various pine stands, Not suitable None found
recommended spruce mixed in
VV93 Not Pine coppice, Suitable for Great crested
recommended ecological tree newt and
groups, pine imago,
plantations humpback and
yellow stump
flies
Adult imagoes and fresh hatchlings of the Great Crested Beetle were found in 12 plots, old
hatchlings in 18 plots, 30 plots in total (see Table 6.4.10). This indicates that the species has a
stable population in the study area. In the farm forests, there is a mosaic of forest patches - both
mature stands and young stands of different ages. The main factor positively affecting the
population is dead ecological trees. Suitable habitat for the species is young pine stands up to 10-
158
15 years of age, when the pine crowns close. Conditions favourable for the population were
found at VV31 and VV34 (WPP construction is not recommended), and in large numbers at VV46,
VV91 and VV93. From the point of view of the conservation of the species, no loss of natural
habitats has been observed in Latvia. In Latvia, the Great Spotted Beetle is found in about 150
localities152, which are more densely distributed in pine forests, including Valmiera-Valka (about
20 localities and 30 new localities). The establishment of the WPP Park will have no impact on
the population at national level.
For several WPP (VV7, VV11153, VV81, VV92) the designed access roads are located in young
stands with ecological trees suitable for saproxylic species.
Humped stump was found in six of the surveyed planned WPP maintenance sites and yellow
stump in seven. Humped Stitchwort is common throughout Latvia.
Many of the planned locations for the WPP maintenance sites are in stands of medium-aged and
old pine trees. The probability of finding Schneider's mycelium has been assessed in several of
them. If the pine is inhabited by the aspen fungus Aurobasidion sp. and is reliably detected, these
sites are marked as potentially suitable for the fungus (VV36, VV38, VV43154, VV84). The fungus is
necessary for the development of the beetle larva. There are some pines that would be suitable,
but they have already been stripped of their bark and are no longer suitable for the species. The
Mismolus is also found in managed pine forests155.
Potential substation sites were also surveyed and Table 6.4.10 and Figure 6.4.3 summarise the
data on the occurrence of SPA species at the substation sites.
Table 6.4.11. Data on specially protected species found at substation sites
Substation Biotopes Suitable habitats Species found Notes
location
option
ST1 Cable line location: Semi-suitable Old runs of the Little dead wood
small coppice, Great Spotted
ecological trees, young Beetle
pine stand
ST1 Location of the Suitable for Great Spotted Could be a rich
transformer: mainly in Beetles new and beetle population
a clearing, ecological old
trees, overgrown with
birch, small fragment in
a pine grove
ST1 BESS location: partly in Semi-suitable Old runs of the
clearings, ecological Great Spotted
trees, partly in young Beetle
and mature pine stands
ST2 Cable line location: Semi-suitable Old runs of the Little dead wood,
mainly pine Great Spotted stands relatively
plantations, small Beetle shaded with
fragment of clearing, spruce. Traces of
ecological trees an ancient burn
ST2 Location of the Not suitable None found
152
https://dabasdati.lv/lv
153
WPP construction not recommended
154
WPP construction not recommended
155
https://dabasdati.lv/lv
159
Substation Biotopes Suitable habitats Species found Notes
location
option
transformer: mostly
middle-aged pine
stands, spruce mixed
in, small fragment of
young forest
ST2 Location of BESS: Not suitable None found Little dead wood
medium old pine
stands, clearing
fragment, ecological
trees
ST3 Cable line location: old Semi-suitable Old runs of the Shading with birch,
pine stand, spruce Great Spotted spruce and
admixture, part stand Beetle broadleaf plants
part stand on dry hill,
ecological trees
ST3 Transformer location: Not suitable None found
medium-aged pine
stands with spruce and
birch
ST3 Location of BESS: Not suitable None found A clearing
mainly recent clearing, overgrown with
trunks, part of pine leafy plants
forest
ST4 Cable line location: Semi-suitable Great Spotted Only on a single
shaded middle-aged Beetles of fall. Overall
pine stand, shaded different ages shading
young forest, small
recent clearing
ST4 Transformer location: Not suitable None found Shaded, no large
young and middle-aged dimension of the
pine stands falls
ST4 BESS location: part Semi-suitable Old runs of the Few high-
middle-aged pine Great Spotted dimensional falls
stand, part young Beetle
stand, ecological trees
The purpose of the proposed action in the study area is to assess the suitability of the habitats
for SPA invertebrate species. As the area is dominated by intensively managed pine forests, the
suitability of the forests for saproxylic species was assessed. The main criteria are the stand's
edge, trees directly exposed to the sun, dry trees, stems and fallen trees. Shaded forest is
unsuitable for saproxylic species.
The main negative factor identified is shading. If a pine stand contains spruce or birch, it is a
priori unsuitable for protected species. Pine stands with ecological tree litter or pine stumps are
favourable for the species for about 10-15 years. The pine crowns then close and shade out the
dead wood. The same negative effect on saproxyls is caused by overgrowth of the young stand
with herbaceous plants and small shrubs, especially in stands with wetter soil conditions.
Minor traces of forest burns were observed at one WPP and one AST site (VV19, ST2).
Schneider's Mistletoe and Striped Hooded Fritillary were found in a burn at substation ST2 in
160
2018. The burnt trees were felled and the site destroyed. Although six years after the species
was found, they no longer inhabit the trees.
At a landscape scale, intensive silviculture contributes significantly to the maintenance of
populations of saproxylic species (especially the great crested beetle and the hump-backed
stump fly). If there is a clearing, a young stand and fallen ecological trees in the same place,
habitat is provided for these and for common saproxylic species. The key is to have the right
microclimatic conditions - dead wood that has been exposed to the sun. These favourable sites
change during logging. It should be noted that saproxylic species have good dispersal abilities.
Potential records include the large beech beetle Ergates faber and the pine beetle Prionus
coriaceus (both not recorded in the Northern Vidzeme area), the conifer beetle Tragosoma
depsarium (recorded in the Northern Vidzeme area but not in the area of the proposed activity).
None of these species has been recorded either as beetle-specific wood-boring or as adults. The
species is found mainly in protected areas and requires biologically old pine forests. The pine
resin beetle Nothorhina muricata can also potentially be detected by its specific stem lesions,
although the species is mainly distributed in maritime forests.
161
Figure 6.4.4. Invertebrate species in the surveyed area of the proposed activity.
162
6.4.6. Mammals
Within the framework of the EIA, an expert on the species group "mammals" (LVMI "Silava" lead
researcher J. Ozoliņš, NCA certificate No 160) prepared an opinion on the assessment of the
impact of the WPP on terrestrial non-flying mammals (the opinion is attached as Annex 6). Both
the Limbaži and Valmiera-Valka WPPs were assessed as part of the opinion.
The information provided in the opinion is based on data obtained within the framework of the
monitoring of the status and damage caused to large wild mammal populations (ungulates,
carnivores), which the Latvian State Forest Research Institute (LVRI) "Silava" has been carrying
out for some species for 20 years, visiting the area in different seasons and meteorological
conditions. The study area and its surroundings have been visited and the occurrence of
mammals has been recorded on numerous occasions in the framework of several projects, as
listed in the expert's report (report attached as Annex 6).
With regard to the Valmiera-Valka WPP, it is concluded that the land transport arteries - the
Valmiera-Valka railway and the A3 motorway, which do not have and are not planned to have
animal crossing points, as well as the dune-like elevations in the area, which face NE-SW (see
Figures 4.3 and 4.4), may direct animal movements in this direction, similar to the transport
infrastructure mentioned above.
Almost all species of terrestrial non-flying mammals found in Latvia occur in the area, with the
exception of the marmots, whose distribution is restricted to some known localities outside the
study areas. An overview of the species, together with their relative importance scores, is given
in Table 6.4.11. Observations in the vicinity of the two WPP parks studied show that up to 10% of
the Latvian brown bear population has visited the areas of the WPP Limbaži and WPP Valmiera-
Valka so far156.
Brown bears are also a species for which little or no scientific research in Europe has examined
the impact of wind farms. Their dispersal in Latvia has been N-S, and currently the highest
population densities and most successful breeding occur in northern Vidzeme. The proportion of
the population of other mammals, both protected and commercially exploited, in the area where
the wind farms are planned shall not exceed 1% of the total population and range of Latvia.
Extensive literature studies on the impacts of wind farms on terrestrial wild mammal and
domestic animal species have been carried out in Sweden157. The source also provides basic
requirements for monitoring impacts and evaluating the results. It is believed that results should
not be extrapolated from one area to another. The construction and maintenance of additional
access roads for wind turbines may cause additional disturbance to large mammals if these
access roads are used for increased traffic and forest visits. The existence of roads as such does
not threaten large mammals. For more specific information on canids and carnivores, see158.
Correspondingly, the impact of wind turbines has been linked to the interest in killed birds in the
vicinity of the installations as food or avoidance of background noise that interferes with hearing
156
https://www.silava.lv/images/Petijumi/2023-Lacu-monitorings/2023-Lacu-monitorings-Parskats.pdf
157
Helldin J.O., et.al. 2012. The impacts of wind power on terrestrial mammals. A synthesis - SWEDISH
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REPORT 6510, 52 pp.
158
Scholl E.M. & Nopp-Mayr U. 2021. Impact of wind power plants on mammalian and avian wildlife
species in shrub- and woodlands. - Biological Conservation 256
163
predators approaching159. Separate studies have been devoted to the impact of wind farms on
wolves160161. These studies identify impacts and propose ways to refine and mitigate them. Wolf
breeding middens and meeting places in and around wind farms are expected to change.
A frequency comparison between the sounds produced by a wind turbine and those perceived
by wild mammals and humans shows that animals perceive turbine noise in a similar way to
humans162. There is no evidence of adverse effects of electromagnetic fields on the body. Studies
in Poland do not confirm the effects of wind turbine operation (sound, vibration, lighting
changes) on small rodents and insectivores163. Some studies have also produced contradictory
results. The density and activity of roe deer and hare tracks is reduced in the vicinity of wind
turbines, and there is less fox activity164. Field voles living near wind turbines have markedly
higher levels of the stress hormone corticosterone, but this was not observed in the field mouse.
The question of what exactly causes the increase in corticosterone levels and whether it also
occurs in animal species living in other countries has not been answered165. Wind turbines cause
increased stress levels in badgers, as evidenced by blood cortisol levels several times higher in
badgers living near wind farms. Chronic stress can cause many health and psychological
problems166. In Scandinavia, there is a negative correlation between the construction of wind
farms and the number of moose hunted. The construction of wind farms and the creation of
additional gravel roads should also be taken into account as negative factors 167.
In essence, the impact of wind turbines on mammal behaviour will depend on the interaction of
two processes: reactions to a new object in the environment and habituation to that object.
There are no micro-reserves in the WPP Park to protect mammals or their habitats.
159
Tolvanen A., et.al. 2023. How far are birds, bats, and terrestrial mammals displaced from onshore
wind power development? - A systematic review. Biological Conservation, 288, 110382.
160
Ferrão da Costa, G., et.al. 2018. The Indirect Impacts of Wind Farms on Terrestrial Mammals: Insights
from the Disturbance and Exclusion Effects on Wolves (Canis lupus). In: Mascarenhas, M., Marques, A.,
Ramalho, R., Santos, D., Bernardino, J., Fonseca, C. (eds) Biodiversity and Wind Farms in Portugal.
Springer, Cham.
161
Miltz C., et.al. 2024. Will future wind power development in Scandinavia have an impact on wolves? -
WILDLIFE BIOLOGY
162
Helldin J.O., et.al. 2012. The impacts of wind power on terrestrial mammals. A synthesis - SWEDISH
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REPORT 6510, 52 pp.
163
Łopucki R. & Mróz I. 2016. An assessment of non-volant terrestrial vertebrates response to wind
farms-a study of small mammals. - Environ Monit Assess 188: 122
164
Łopucki, R., Klich, D. & Gielarek, S. 2017. Do terrestrial animals avoid areas close to turbines in
functioning wind farms in agricultural landscapes? - Environ Monit Assess 189: 343
165
Łopucki R., et.al. 2018. Living in habitats affected by wind turbines may result in an increase in
corticosterone levels in ground dwelling animals - Ecological Indicators,Volume 84, pp. 165-171
166
Agnew R.C.N., Smith V.J., Fowkes R.C. 2016. WIND TURBINES CAUSE CHRONIC STRESS IN BADGERS
(MELES MELES) IN GREAT BRITAIN. J Wildl Dis, 52 (3), pp. 459–467
167
Berg E. 2024. Wind of change. Wind power establishments correlate with changes in moose harvests
in central Sweden and Norway. Master thesis at Uppsala University
164
Table 6.4.11. Mammal species and species groups in the study area
Species value: points 0-4 Status in Latvia and the
% of LV EU (Annex to the
Species recreational
population* Scientific Species and Habitats
economic** ecological *** and aesthetic Directive)
**** *****
Small mammals <1 0 3 1 3 To be saved
(insectivores,
rodents,
carnivores)
Forest sicista <1 0 1 1 3 Special Protection Area
Sicista betulina (BD V)
Beaver Castor <1 3 4 3 4 Game, specially
fiber protected, restricted,
(BD V)
Squirrel Sciurus <1 0 3 4 3 To be saved
vulgaris
White Hare <1 1 3 3 3 Game, specially
Lepus timidus protected, restricted,
(BD V)
Grey hare <1 1 3 3 2 Prey
Lepus europaeus
Brown bear 1-10 0 3 3 4 Special Protection Area
Ursus arctos (BD II,IV)
Grey wolf Canis <1 2 4 3 4 Game, specially
lupus protected, restricted,
(BD V)
Fox Vulpes <1 1 3 3 2 Hunt
vulpes
Raccoon dog <1 1 2 1 2 Prey
Nyctereutes
procyonoides
Lūsis Lynx lynx <1 0 4 4 4 Special Protection Area
(BD IV)
Ūdrs Lutra lutra <1 0 4 4 4 Special Protection Area
(BD II,IV)
American mink <1 1 2 1 2 Prey,
Neovison vison
to be restricted as an
invasive species
Badger Meles <1 1 3 3 2 Prey
meles
Forest marten <1 1 2 2 2 Game, specially
protected, restricted
Martes martes
use, (BD V)
Rock marten <1 1 2 2 2 Hunt
Martes foina
Ferret Mustela <1 1 2 2 3 Game, specially
putorius protected, restricted
use, (BD V)
Elk Alces alces <1 4 3 4 4 Prey
Red deer Cervus <1 4 3 4 3 Prey
elaphus
165
Species value: points 0-4 Status in Latvia and the
% of LV EU (Annex to the
Species recreational
population* Scientific Species and Habitats
economic** ecological *** and aesthetic Directive)
**** *****
Roe deer <1 4 3 4 3 Hunt
Capreolus
capreolus
Wild boar Sus <1 3 3 2 4 Prey,
scrofa
to be restricted due to
ASF
*the proportion is based on the approximate proportion of the area covered by wind farms (WPP "Limbaži" and WPP "Valmiera-
Valka") (i.e. 136 km²) in relation to the area occupied by the species in the whole country;
**based on importance for the game farm;
***based on impacts on other species, habitats, ability to affect forestry, agriculture, fish farming;
****based on the possibility of being observed during visits to forests related to tourism or other non-management activities;
*****based on research, monitoring or education-related demonstration
166
Figure 6.4.5. Natural values in and around the WPP Valmiera-Valka
167
6.5. Scenic and cultural heritage significance
6.5.1. Landscape characteristics
According to the landscape division, the territory of the WPP Park falls within Gaujaszeme
(Figure 6.5.1).
Figure 6.5.1. Location of the proposed activity site according to the landscape168
Physiogeographically, the territory of the WPP Park is part of the Sedas Plain of the North
Central Lowlands, while the south-western part of the study area is located in the Trikata
Upland of the North Central Lowlands, the northern part - in the Ergeme Hills of the Sakala
Upland, the north-eastern part - in the Karula Upland of Estonia, and a small part of the
eastern part - in the Aumeistari Upland of the North Central Lowlands.
The study area is crossed by several national, regional and local roads. The national road A3
separates the western part of the planned WPP site from the rest of the site, the regional road
P24 separates the eastern part of the site, and the rest of the proposed development area is
located between the A3 and P24 roads. The operational area is also bordered by the V261 and
V260 roads, but the operational area itself has an extensive road network built by JSC Latvijas
Valsts Meži, which means that the existing road network is very dense and fewer new roads
will need to be built for the construction of the WPP, see Figure 6.5.2. The study area also
includes the P23, P25, V240 and V237 motorways, as well as several municipal roads.
168
https://experience.arcgis.com/experience/32051c63871a47f1a6446a04f8ade1c2/page/Ainavas-
kart%C4%93s/
168
Figure 6.5.2. National, regional, local and LVM roads in the vicinity of the proposed area of
operation
The visibility of WPP is affected by distance, colour, weather conditions (overcast or sunny),
the angle at which the sun's rays fall on them and the angle from which they are viewed. On
clearer days, the sky will be more visible because of the colour contrast, but on cloudy days,
the WPP will blend into the sky and be less visible, thus having less of an impact on the
surrounding landscape. To reduce their visual impact on the surrounding area, it is preferable
to choose light colours for the rotors and earth tones (green) for the supports, thus blending
them into their surroundings and further reducing their volumetric impact on the landscape.
Landscapes change objectively as a result of the interaction between man and nature, and the
appearance of new elements in the landscape is the result of modern human activity and the
exploitation of natural opportunities. WPP are not a new element in the Latvian landscape,
they are gradually becoming familiar and recognisable, especially in Kurzeme. The WPPs
assessed in this EIA are larger than the ones that have so far been installed in Latvia. The
perception of landscape is subjective, so there is no reason to argue that WPP will reduce the
overall value of the landscape: they will also exploit the potential of the landscape, creating a
new dominant feature and place marker in the existing landscape. The inhabitants of the
surrounding farmsteads and villages will experience a significant change in the landscape, as
their everyday landscape will acquire new landscape elements that are unprecedented in this
particular location, although already familiar elsewhere. Every new element in the landscape
may seem out of place at first, but as time passes and the landscape changes, it takes on a life
of its own and becomes an element of the local landscape, characterising the view and making
the place recognisable.
The planned WPPs will be visible from various locations in the surrounding area, regardless of
the chosen alternative, and will attract people's attention, as WPPs of this size are a relatively
new element in the Latvian landscape.
169
The landscape that will be affected is important for the local population, whose opinions,
arguments and preferences can influence the development of the site, but as technology
develops, environmental policies change and overall priorities for electricity generation
change, the construction of a WPP is both welcome and necessary to increase the use of wind
energy in Latvia. As identified in the Strategic Environmental Assessment Environmental
Report of the Latvian National Energy and Climate Plan 2021-2030, 2024 update (September
2024 version):
"The perception of a landscape is subjective: there are no objective criteria for whether a WPP
as a landscape element has a positive or negative impact. However, as evidenced by decades of
practice in the world, where WPPs are already a common element of the landscape, and by
recent practice in Latvia, where very few WPPs still exist in nature, but there have been quite a
few public consultations on the possible installation of WPPs, public attitudes towards the
impact of WPPs on the landscape range from strongly negative to neutral, while positive
attitudes (a desire to see WPPs as an enriching element in the landscape) are considered
virtually unheard of. Overall, the public's subjective perception of the landscape impacts of the
WPSs is negative.
In the developed countries of the world, where WPPs have been a common feature of the
landscape for decades, society has accepted them both as an element of the industrial
landscape and as a compromise element of the natural and resort landscape, which is
inevitable due to both the far-reaching landscape impact of WPPs and the presence of wind
more suitable for energy production on elevated terrain (which extends the landscape impact
of WPPs) and in open areas, especially along the coast (a widely used environment for
recreation).
The Latvian public is also expected to accept this subjective inconvenience as a trade-off for the
sake of necessary energy sustainability, but for the time being, the planned rapid development
of wind energy in Latvia can be assessed as having a negative impact on the landscape, and
this impact can reasonably be assessed as significant. For these significant adverse impacts to
be acceptable, the WPP parks should be built in locations where they do not significantly affect
the SSSI with the landscape as the profiling protected asset, each project should be subject to
an EIA and the project should only be implemented if no significant adverse impacts are
identified."
The wind turbines are an example of modern architecture, differing from many other elements
in the landscape in shape and scale of height. Given their size and rotor movements, they can
become visually dominant elements in the landscape. It is important to recognise that the use
of wind energy will expand and have an increasing impact on the landscape, but it is vital to be
aware that these changes must be deliberate, taking into account the unique landscape, its
values and its importance. Some landscapes may be particularly sensitive to wind energy,
while wind turbines can add new values to other landscapes. The design and siting of features
of this scale requires great care and respect for the site and its value, both in the creation of
large parks and in the siting of individual turbines.
WPP are controversial elements of the visual landscape, which have different impacts on the
visual values of the landscape at different angles and distances. Landscapes are very important
in people's daily lives, forming the identity of places, so it is important to pay attention to how
they change and what they mean. Public involvement in the creation of such sites and in
landscape change is essential, as new uses and new landscape elements are often difficult to
get into people's consciousness.
Within the framework of the European Landscape Convention (ELC), a landscape is an area as
perceived by people and as a result of natural and/or human activity and interaction. So too,
the "new landscapes" in which wind farms appear are part of the landscape for which
170
"landscape management", "landscape protection" are essential and whose creation cannot
take place without "landscape planning" - forward-looking actions to improve, restore or
create new landscapes.
On-site surveys of the study area and its surroundings have been carried out of the most
significant landscape features (within a 10 km radius around the outer WPPs) whose
viewsheds may be affected. 10 km assessment area is defined in accordance with the
Guidelines for the Preliminary Environmental Impact Assessment of the Construction of Wind
Power Plants 169 from the outermost tower of the wind farm (such a boundary of the wind
farm is defined by the Cabinet of Ministers Regulation No 240 "General Regulations on
Planning, Use and Construction of the Territory", paragraph 163.5). As the WPPs are planned
in a forested area and at the same time the sites to be assessed do not allow the construction
of wind turbines in their immediate vicinity, the surroundings outside the potential WPP area
have been assessed.
Although wind turbines will be visible at distances of more than 20 km in clear weather
conditions,170 their impact on the landscape at such distances has not been assessed, as the
surface area of the viewshed covered by them would be proportionally small. However, it is
taken into account that in this case - the wind farm - the wind turbines will have a cumulative
impact.
Landscape assessment follows the guidelines for local landscape planning approved by the
MoEPRD.171
Most of the WPP study area is considered to be part of the Latvian forest landscape included in
the Latvian landscape canon. According to the Landscape Canon, "forests are Latvia's most
important natural treasure. Not only do they have great economic value, but forests also
provide habitat for many [...] species and an important social function, providing recreational
and leisure opportunities for people." Forests are defined as one of the main contributors to
the Latvian landscape. In the context of the WPP study area, it is the forest massifs that "form
the characteristic forest landscape of Latvia", but the description of the canonical landscape
does not forget that the landscape has been and continues to be shaped by anthropogenic
processes, in this case the construction of the wind farm.
In his description of the canonical forest landscape, O. Nikodemus implicitly identifies the
Strenči forest massif as a reference area for one of the most highly valued types of boreal
coniferous forest - white silts (inland dunes covered with white lichens).172
The plan is to locate the turbines primarily in clearings and copses, which is the right thing to
do from a landscape point of view. Non-associated deforestation in the area of the proposed
activity or in the area immediately adjacent to it should be proportionally reduced, thereby
compensating for the reduction in forests.
According to the EAC, landscape planning is the consistent, forward-looking action to improve,
restore or create new landscapes.
Landscape planning at national level
In Latvia, the landscape is defined by national planning documents: Latvia's National
Development Plan 2021-2027 (NDP2027) and Latvia's Sustainable Development Strategy 2030
169
https://www.vvd.gov.lv/lv/media/9969/download?attachment
170
https://www.vvd.gov.lv/lv/media/9969/download?attachment
171
https://www.varam.gov.lv/sites/varam/files/content/files/vadlinijas_viet_limenim_2019.pdf
172
https://kulturaskanons.lv/archive/latvijas-mezu-ainava/
171
"Latvia2030" (hereinafter - Latvia2030). In 2024, the Landscape Policy Implementation Plan
2024-2027 (LIPP) was adopted with the aim to create conditions for the development of
diverse, accessible landscapes that improve the quality of life of people throughout Latvia by
ensuring good environmental status, including biodiversity, preserving and developing the
common cultural and natural heritage, promoting economic activity, as well as strengthening
the sense of place, patriotism and place identity of people.
The following is also mentioned in the APIP: in line with the objectives of the European Green
Deal and Latvia's energy independence, landscape assessments at regional and local scales
should take into account that energy independence and security are as important and should
be taken into account as tourism and environmental protection. The Latvian cultural canon on
seascapes also stresses that "climate change is predicted to lead to sea level rise and increased
storms, which could potentially have a major impact on coastal landscapes. The development
of wind farms, both offshore and onshore, as part of climate policy will also change the
seascape. But this is the nature of this dynamic landscape, at once strong and fragile, which
will always be and remain the interplay of sea and land."
The Latvian Landscape Atlas associated with the AAP identifies proposals for areas of national
scenic value. They do not include the proposed activities and the study area. The nearest such
area is the Gauja Valley, which is just over 10 kilometres from the nearest assessed location of
the WPP turbine, and therefore can be considered to be unaffected or a minor background
feature.
According to Latvia2030, the largest part of the area of the proposed activity and the study
area is defined as one of the spaces of national interest: the space of concentration of nature,
landscape and cultural heritage areas (see Figure 6.5.3).
The Latvian National Development Plan 2021-2027 (NDP2027) sets out the following directions
for the development prospects of these territories until 2027:
• support for measures to preserve biodiversity and the unique natural and cultural
landscapes typical of Latvia, and to create a multifunctional and productive rural area,
while providing reasonable compensation mechanisms for restrictions on economic
activity;
• studying, defining and planning landscapes, cleaning up and regenerating degraded
landscapes. Establishing conditions of use for areas of nature, culture and recreation of
public importance, ensuring their public accessibility and providing for the protection
of areas of scenic importance;
• Public involvement and education on the management and conservation of protected
natural areas and cultural landscapes in cooperation with landowners (embedding the
principle of "natural and cultural heritage as an asset for the territorial community");
• sustainable and sustainable use of natural and cultural resources for economic
development and business-friendly environment
172
Figure 6.5.3. Latvian national interest areas.
Landscape planning at regional level
According to the Vidzeme Planning Region (VPR) Sustainable Development Strategy, the
attractiveness of places is mentioned among the most important directions for action. It is
pointed out that Vidzeme's identity is closely linked to the region's cultural and natural
heritage, including its intangible cultural heritage, a creative environment that nurtures
cultural diversity while preserving cultural heritage, directly and indirectly supports the
creation of new products, and creates a fertile ground for the development of territories. An
important aspect is the exploitation of the region's landscape potential through improved
spatial identification and development planning, and the preservation and use of the region's
cultural and natural capital.
The study area falls within the Vidzeme Special Border Area, defined as an area of natural,
cultural, historical and scenic value (see Figure 6.5.4). It is a concentration of natural and
cultural heritage sites of international, national and regional importance, characterised by high
scenic quality and biodiversity. The Strategy sets out the directions in which such areas should
be developed (only those relevant to the site and the planned activity are mentioned):
1. identification, conservation, wise management and use of natural, landscape and
cultural heritage sites
2. Developing ecological networks, maintaining green corridors for species migration;
3. Establishing conditions of use for areas of nature, culture and recreation of public
importance, ensuring public access to waterfronts, natural and cultural monuments
and providing for the protection of places of scenic importance;
4. Protecting, maintaining and developing landscape areas, which are essential for
recreational uses associated with the landscape, so as to create the conditions for
leisure opportunities in nature and the landscape, while also meeting the
requirements for the protection of species and habitats;
173
5. Supporting environmentally friendly economic activity;
6. development of eco-tourism sites and tourism infrastructure
7. Development of business and tourism services infrastructure in the context of
enhancing the quality of the cultural landscape;
8. Maintaining and nurturing the cultural landscape by preserving the topography and
developing its individual elements.
It is also noted that the diversity and aesthetic quality of the landscape in areas of scenic value
must not be compromised, with no loss of panoramic views or obscuring of sites of cultural
and historical importance.
Figure 6.5.4. Natural, cultural, historical and scenic valuable territories of Vidzeme planning region.
The site also falls within a forested area. The following guidelines are related to sustainable
landscape protection:
• the possibility of forestry activities in ecologically and scenically valuable areas, in
accordance with environmental and nature protection requirements;
• wood processing and manufacturing facilities should be located without detracting
from the value of the surrounding landscape and close to existing regional
infrastructure;
• when planning new industrial sites, the primary use should be for areas where no
change of use from forest land to built-up area is required.
NPSs are seen as new industrial space and are also comparable to the impact of the
construction of manufacturing plants.
Due to the Gauja valley, which effectively divides the study area into two parts, the territory
also falls within the area of river valleys defined as important for tourism and recreation
development.
Landscape planning at local level
Landscape planning is regulated by the current planning documents of Valmiera (including
Brenguļi, Ēvele, Jērceni, Plani, Trikata parishes, Seda and Strenči towns) and Valka (Ergeme,
Valka, Vijciems, Zvārtava parishes, Valka town) municipalities, as well as the historical Strenči
174
and Beverīna municipalities. As the former Beverīna municipality is far away from the area of
operation and Smiltene municipality includes only a small part of Bilska municipality, the
planning documents of these municipalities have not been analysed.
The Valmiera District Sustainable Development Strategy mentions that attractive and green
living, natural values and the landscapes of the Northern Vidzeme region are among the
district's roles at national level. At the county level, the areas of landscape value and cultural
and historic interest are identified, based on the SSSI framework, in this case: The landscape
protection areas of the NVBR and the Northern Gauja AAP.
The Strenči Municipality Spatial Plan (hereafter - SNTP) was developed in 2011 (although
originally intended for 2023, it is valid until the adoption of the new Valmiera Municipality
Spatial Plan), before the development of national level documents and guidelines regulating
landscape planning. The landscape section of this planning document is not very detailed and
structured. However, one of its objectives is to preserve natural and cultural heritage,
landscape and biodiversity. The plan does not define any specific high-quality viewpoints; the
oak alleys in Jērceni parish and the birch alleys in Plani parish are indicated as scenic road
sections. Important landscapes, including landscapes of conservation concern, are identified
(see next subsection).
The tasks of the Valka Municipality Spatial Plan (hereinafter – VMSP) include: to ensure the
quality of the environment and opportunities for rational use of the territory; to preserve
natural and cultural heritage, landscape and biodiversity, as well as to improve the quality of
the cultural landscape and settlements. The plan's environmental report states that "before
changing land use, the environmental and landscape impacts of such activities in the
immediate and more distant vicinity should be carefully assessed". This is being done as part of
the EIA process.
It is important that the VMSP defines one of the four priority development directions of Valka
County as "valued natural capital and preserved cultural and historical heritage".
6.5.2. Characteristics of cultural heritage
According to the cartographic information of the information system "Heritage"173, there are
19 monuments of cultural heritage in the study area. 13 of them are archaeological
monuments, three architectural monuments, one industrial monument, one artistic
monument and one historical monument, the art monument "Altar" is located indoors, in the
Vijciems Church. In terms of status, 6 monuments are of national importance, 9 monuments
are of regional importance and 4 monuments are of local importance, see Table 6.5.2 and
Figure 6.5.5.
Table 6.5.1. State-protected cultural monuments in the WPP study area
Distance to the WPP
Meaning
No.174 Name Typology nearest WPP, Name of construction
of 175
km the WPP
of Not
"Ielīcas" national recommende
6884 architecture 1,23 VV59
(Farmstead) importan d
ce
173
https://karte.mantojums.lv/
174
State protection number of the cultural monument.
175
Additional information on the conclusions of the EIA is attached - significant environmental effects
have been identified and construction of the WPP is not recommended
175
Distance to the WPP
Meaning
No.174 Name Typology nearest WPP, Name of construction
of 175
km the WPP
of
Pauklis
regional
2400 medieval archaeology 3,29 VV82
importan
cemetery
ce
Strenči
Psychoneurol of
ogical regional
9198 architecture 3,85 VV24
Hospital importan
(Director's ce
House)
of
Silbitari national
2401 archaeology 4,17 VV82
Antiquities importan
ce
of Not
Lugazi
regional recommende
2395 Medieval archaeology 4,38 VV2
importan d
Castle
ce
of
Vidzeme place/history
regional
97 teachers' of a historic 4,52 VV92
importan
seminar event
ce
of local
2394 Planči hillfort archaeology 4,55 VV66
interest
of Not
national recommende
9280 Vijciema cone Industrial 4,96 VV53
importan d
ce
of
Vijciems national
2398 archaeology 4,96 VV82
Mound importan
ce
of
Lugazi
national
6883 Lutheran architecture 5,56 VV67
importan
Church
ce
Altar (in of
Vijciems national
4483 Art 5,73 VV82
Lutheran importan
Church) ce
of Not
Lejasmuižnieki
regional recommende
2396 Ancient archaeology 7,04 VV2
importan d
Monuments
ce
of
Victims' Oak regional
2388 archaeology 7,7 VV81
of Atpili importan
ce
of
Elvanci regional
2384 archaeology 8,06 VV1
Antiquities importan
ce
176
Distance to the WPP
Meaning
No.174 Name Typology nearest WPP, Name of construction
of 175
km the WPP
Medieval
of local
2391 cemetery of archaeology 8,64 VV81
interest
Lus
Libirtu of local
2390 archaeology 8,84 VV81
Senkapi interest
of
Cannabis Holy regional
2372 archaeology 9,11 VV30
Sol importan
ce
of
Mascatu regional
2385 archaeology 9,17 VV1
Antiquities importan
ce
Mādzīnas bog of local
2397 archaeology 9,55 VV82
stone interest
Figure 6.5.5. Cultural heritage and potential WPP visibility zones in the study area
26 other sites or objects of cultural or historical importance have also been identified within
the study area (see Table 6.5.3). They include six monuments, nine architectural objects, six
industrial heritage sites, two military heritage sites, an urban heritage site and a park. 16 of
these sites have been recognised as cultural and historical sites of local cultural significance in
Strenči Municipality (now part of Valmiera Municipality). These sites are covered by Section
9.2 of the SNTP Land Use and Development Regulations "Requirements for heritage sites of
regional importance". It states that "Cultural and historical sites of regional importance are
177
determined by the Strenči Municipality Council and their destruction is prohibited. The
condition and preservation of heritage sites is the responsibility of the owner. Demolition of
cultural heritage sites and historic buildings is only permitted if it is technically impossible to
preserve them. Closer sites, the existence of which has led to recommendations or which
would be directly or indirectly affected by the proposed action, have been assessed in depth.
Table 6.5.2. Other significant cultural and historical sites in the study area. Ranked by distance to
the nearest WPP turbine
Cultural
heritage site of
municipal Distance to the
Name Typology importance176 nearest WPP, km Name of the WPP
Stone obelisk Monument Yes 0,19 VV21
Monument to
the Crown
Monument 0,23 VV38
Prince of
Prussia
Monument to
Monument 0,34 VV21
Rihards Veide
Oliņi half-
architecture 1,06 VV47
manor
VV53
Hunting Castle architecture 1,16 (not
recommended)
Seda buildings urban planning Yes 1,31 VV30
Irva
Monument 1,35 VV24
monument
Tar and
turpentine Industrial Yes 0,98 VV88
factory
Freedom
fighting Military Yes 2,26 VV24
trenches
Charcoal
archaeology Yes 2,32 VV82
burning site
Graves of
Holocaust Monument 2,64 VV24
victims
Sand dam Industrial Yes 3,8 VV24
Enclosures
and
fortifications. Military Yes 3,97 VV81
In the vortex
of love
Strenči Bridge Industrial Yes 4,03 VV24
Strenči
architecture Yes 4,43 VV24
Lutheran
176
Strenči Municipality 2011. Strenči Municipality Spatial Plan 2012-2023. Part 1. Paskaidrojuma raksts.
https://geolatvija.lv/geo/tapis#
178
Cultural
heritage site of
municipal Distance to the
Name Typology importance176 nearest WPP, km Name of the WPP
Church
Reinforcement
of the right
Industrial Yes 4,48 VV24
bank of the
Gauja
"Rafter of the
Monument 4,48 VV24
Gauja"
VV2
Lugazi Manor architecture 4,53 (not
recommended)
Strenči fire
Architecture/industrial Yes 4,63 VV24
station
Verstu stabs Industrial Yes 4,83 VV30
Horse Post
Office architecture Yes 5,03 VV24
building
Vijciems
manor architecture 5,57 VV82
buildings
Jaani kirik (St
John's Church architecture 5,68 VV67
in Valga)
Jērcēnmuiža architecture Yes 8,79 VV30
New Järcenai
park Yes 8,83 VV30
Park
General Karl
Goppers
place of a historical
Memorial Yes 8,84 VV1
event
Room in his
birthplace
6.5.3. Tourism and recreation opportunities in the area
The area of the proposed action and the landscape study area has a fairly wide and varied
offer of educational (non-commercial) and nature tourism. There are many point tourist
attractions, but at the same time an unusually large number of tourist routes of different
significance. (see Figure 6.5.6).
179
Figure 6.5.6. Tourist attractions, cycle routes, hiking and water routes and orienteering areas in
the study area
Number of tourists
There is no specific data on the number of tourists in the landscape study area. The CSO
tourism data on accommodation177in Valka county can be used (it would be difficult to
correctly apply the Valmiera county data to the territory of the former Strenči county),
although it should be assumed that they are not complete, if only because not all tourism
operators register all their guests. In 2022 and 2023, Valka District accommodation will cater
for 1598 and 1890 guests respectively. So the number has increased significantly. However,
the reliability is undermined by the statistics that only 29 and 2 foreign guests were served
respectively.
For most of the attractions in the study area, there is no specific data on the number of
tourists. It is known that the Cirgali lookout tower is visited by around 3000 people a year.178
The owner of Ielīcu tells us that the ethnographic farm is visited by a few thousand people.
Attractions
The nearest areas where tourist attractions are concentrated in groups are the surroundings of
Strenci - Seda (buildings of both towns, Strenci environmental objects and the nature territory
of Milestibas veri; Seda swamp), around Vijciems (church, buildings, Kankarisu rock, Celitkalns,
Bitarinkalns) and Olini Lielais les (Olini spring, Olini half-manor, Cat pine, Stone obelisks,
etc.etc.), the more distant areas are around Lugazi and Valka, and around Jērceni. The
177
https://data.stat.gov.lv/pxweb/lv/OSP_PUB/START__NOZ__TU__TUV/TUV050m/table/tableViewLayo
ut1/
178
https://www.daba.gov.lv/lv/jaunums/drosibas-apsverumu-del-slegts-cirgalu-skatu-tornis
180
ethnographic farm "Ielicas" and the Vijciems Hunting Lodge, where there is also an active
tourism business (the guest house "Bergervilla"), are important sites of their own. For impacts
on these sites, see Chapter 7.7.2 "Impacts on cultural heritage".
Recreational opportunities in the area of operation
The territory of the proposed activity falls entirely within state forest land managed by JSC
Latvia's State Forests (LST). In its medium-term strategy 2022-2027179, the company states that
one of its objectives is to "provide natural diversity, recreational opportunities and other
ecosystem services essential to society from forests and related ecosystems."
Recreational opportunities include mushroom picking and other natural resource gathering,
fishing, physical activity (jogging, Nordic walking, cycling, etc.), walking, sunbathing, relaxing by
the water, etc.180
LST commissioned the Latvian State Forest Research Institute "Silava" to carry out a study on
recreation in forests in Latvia (to be published in 2021). The results show that, depending on
the season, 35-53% of respondents visit the forest for recreation on weekdays. Most people go
to the forest in summer: 69% of respondents have been to the forest at least once on
weekends, while the average Latvian visits the forest 7 times a season. It also asked how far
respondents travel and how they get to the forest. On weekdays, people go to the forest up to
9 km away from their place of residence on average, and around 50% of holidaymakers go
within 2 km. On weekends, it is further - 15 km away from the place of permanent residence,
while 50% go no further than 5 km. On weekends and during holidays, people most often go to
the forest by car (40-50%), while on weekdays they walk (37-67%) and drive (26-43%).181
Equally important is the type of forest that holidaymakers prefer. "The most suitable place for
recreation for the Latvian population is a forest, which has been slightly landscaped, preserving
its relative naturalness. The second most suitable alternative is a forest that has been
improved and turned into a park, and the third most suitable forest landscape for recreation is
a forest that has not been affected by economic activity. Forests with active forestry are last in
terms of suitability."182
As the area of the proposed activity is adjacent to several SSSIs, it would be important to
understand how visitors to these SSSIs might view the proposal. In 2022, the results of the
monitoring of visitors to Specially Protected Nature Areas (carried out by Vidzeme University
of Applied Sciences in cooperation with NCA) were published.183 The study uses both visitor
counter data and a survey of 11 visitors (both locals and travellers) to the SSSIs (not located in
the study area). Factors that determine attraction to a place are important: 'attractive
landscapes' (79.5%) and 'unspoilt wilderness' (59.3%) are the most frequently mentioned as
very important. The most common descriptors used by residents to describe the benefits of
179
https://www.lvm.lv/images/lvm/demo/lvm_videja_termina_darbibas_strategijas_kopsavilkums.pdf
180
Institute for Social, Economic and Humanitarian Studies (VIA HESPI) 2022. Monitoring of visitors to
specially protected areas. Report on the survey results.
181
https://www.lvm.lv/jaunumi/5517-petijums-latvijas-iedzivotaju-paradumi-atputai-meza
182
https://www.lvm.lv/jaunumi/5517-petijums-latvijas-iedzivotaju-paradumi-atputai-meza
183
Institute for Social, Economic and Humanitarian Studies (VIA HESPI) 2022. Monitoring of visitors to
specially protected areas. Report on the survey results.
181
living in a SSSI are "nature", "quiet", "close" and "beautiful". The most common reason for
visiting a SAC is to "enjoy nature". The proposed activity would result in a reduction in
attractive landscapes and intact wildlife (for the activity to take place outside the SPA, but still
be perceived as being within it).
According to the LVM Forest Management Plan (FMP), LVM identifies individually planned
areas (IPAs), i.e. forest areas that "require individual planning for the provision of forest values
(ecosystem services - mainly regulating, supporting and cultural activities) of importance to the
local community within the framework of the goals and objectives set by the LVM Strategy and
Tactical Plan". The MDP states that such areas should be created in places of concentration of
natural and/or recreational assets. 184 Other LVM materials, such as the LVMGEO spatial data
browser, indicate that these areas should also be designated for the conservation and
enhancement of landscape values. According to these data, there are 79 different sizes of ISPs
in the country.185
Although the area of the Proposed Action has been identified as an area of significant scenic
value, nature and cultural heritage at the national and Vidzeme planning region level186, no
IBAs have been established here. There are also no separate recreational forests (there are
only two in the whole East Vidzeme region, near Smiltene and the High Mountains (near
Velena, Gulbene municipality)). The closest IPT is "Strenči" near Strenči (in Mīlestības vērī, near
the Strenči Bridge, between the core of Strenči and Šalki, up to Kauči), covering an area of
almost 258 ha. A large part of it is located in the Northern Gauja AAP. This is the only IPT in the
entire study area. Moreover, not all of the area is practical for recreation due to natural
conditions (old rivers, alluvial forests). Thus, of the LVM forest land of various statuses in the
landscape study area (47 029 ha in total, including SSSIs), only 0.55% is defined as IPT. Thus,
the IPT "Strenči" is the only LVM-provided outdoor recreation area accessible to the 9113
inhabitants of the study area, not to mention visitors to the area, for example, from Valmiera.
Based on the LVM study on forest recreation, it can be calculated that about 4000 of these
people would use the forest for recreation on weekdays, and about 6290 people would go to
the forest at least once a year.
LVM also provides relatively point-based recreational facilities. The MAP states that
"recreational opportunities have been identified and evaluated, and more than 300 tourist
sites have been developed187: rest areas, nature trails, sightseeing attractions, including 10
lookout towers". LVM points out that forests are diverse, so "recreational opportunities are
also diverse - berry picking, mushroom picking, walks, especially near towns, active
recreation". Hunting has been identified as another important form of recreation.188
There are no recreation sites managed by LVM in the area of the proposed activity, such sites
are located in the territory of the Northern Gauja AAC near the Gauja River. According to
184
JSC "Latvia's State Forests" 2023. Forest Management Plan of JSC "Latvia's State Forests" for 2022-
2026. Public part.
185
https://www.lvmgeo.lv/dati
186
Vidzeme Planning Region 2015.
187
According to LVMGEO, there are 346 LVM fully or partially maintained recreation sites in the country
188
JSC "Latvia's State Forests" 2023. Forest Management Plan of JSC "Latvia's State Forests" for 2022-
2026. Public part.
182
LVMGEO data and the map of LVM tourism portal "mammadaba"189(March 2024), there are 8
LVM-maintained recreation sites in the stretch from Aņņu Bridge to Ūdriņi190, one of which is
closed:
• Resting place by the Gauja "Bekas",
• Resting place by the Gauja River "Raft Walling Place",
• Resting place at the Gauja Spit Bridge,
• Resting place by the Gauja "Low Island",
• Resting place by the Gauja "Iežuleja",
• Resting place by the Gauja "Aiz Oliņām",
• Resting place by the Gauja "Kauči" (closed),
• Resting place by the Gauja "Ūdriņas".
As the location and the existence and condition of the access roads show, they are mainly
intended for water tourists. 3 rest areas are easily accessible for motorists (at the Gauja Spicu
Bridge, at the Gauja "behind Oliņi", "Kauči" (now closed).
Another 3 LVM-managed sites are located further away: at Vijciems Čiekurkalte, at Lake
Cepurīte and at Lake Valdis.
Geographically analysing the territory, it can be considered that recreation is least "supported"
in the Strenči massif (from Strenči to Valka), where a large area outside the Special Protection
Area does not have conditions more suitable for tourism and recreation. In general, LVM has
not attempted to develop favourable recreational infrastructure and conditions outside the
Special Protection Areas (SPAs) or in areas of economic forests in the study area.
Although there are no specific studies on recreation and tourism in the area of the proposed
activity, it should be assumed that the area, especially closer to the settlements and
farmsteads, is used for recreation and not only for orienteering (described below).
More detailed information on tourism and recreation opportunities and the impacts of the
proposed action on them is provided in Chapter 7.8 "Impacts on tourism and recreation".
6.6. Residential houses and residential areas
The planned WPP area is divided into several separate parcels separated by roads and
marshland, all parcels planned for WPP development are located in forest areas. The WPP site
is surrounded by large areas of woodland and marshland, which has also influenced the
intensity of settlement. Farmsteads in the immediate area around the WPP are sparse and
rare, with no farmsteads within 800 m of potential WPP sites, however the study area includes
a number of densely populated settlements (Table 6.6.1). The densest population density is
found in the direction to the R from the potential WPP area, in Seda (1197 inhabitants) and
Strenče (1042 inhabitants) (Figure 3.2). The largest settlement in the study area is Valka (4,935
inhabitants), which is located ~5.1 km from the nearest proposed WPP turbine. In the direction
to the S the most densely populated places are Vijciems (277 inhabitants) and Jaunklidzis (80
inhabitants). The areas to the NW and E of the planned WPP areas are less populated,
189
https://www.mammadaba.lv/karte
190
There is also one recreation site maintained by the Valmiera Municipality near Strenči.
183
occupied by the Seda Moor and large woodlands respectively, and are therefore uninhabited
or sparsely populated. A population density map in the vicinity of the WPP site can be found in
Figure 6.6.1.
Figure 6.6.1. Population density in the area around the WPP study area
Figure 6.6.2. Location of planned WPP turbines closest to the centre of Seda
184
Table 6.6.1. Major settlements within 10 km around the potential WPP site
Settlement See. Population (2022, Distance from roundabout from the centre of the site to the
PMLP) nearest potential WPP, km
Zile 32*191 0,9
Seda 1197 1,2
Saule 32* 1,6
Seli 245 2,4
Schalk 50* 2,5
Strenči 1042 4,3
Luggage 230 4,6
Valka 4935 5,1
New 80 5,4
Vijciems 277 5,5
Tomatoes 33* 5,7
Jērceni 140 8,7
Trikata 313 9,8
Approximately 1 596 residences have been registered in the 3 km area around the WPP site,
and 9 113 residences have been registered in the 10 km area around the Latvian territory.
It should be stressed that these figures are approximate, as information on the true population
at specific addresses is not publicly available. It should also be mentioned that according to
sub-paragraph 163.5 of Cabinet Regulation No 240 of 30 April 2013 "General Regulations on
Spatial Planning, Use and Construction", the boundary of the wind park is defined from the
outermost tower of the wind farm, therefore the decision not to install individual generators
may affect the potential buffer zone, resulting in a significant change in the potential total
population in each area.
6.7. Noise assessment
The planned location of the WPP Park is based on marshlands: the Laiviņi marsh in the north,
the Pukši marsh in the middle and the Gauja marsh in the south. The WPP Park is located in an
area bounded to the west-east by the national main road A3 and the regional road P24, and by
rivers: the Gauja to the south and the Seda to the north (and also the P24). There are no
settlements in the WPP area, only a few isolated farmsteads (see Appendix 2 for permitted
development in the area). There are a few small settlements around the perimeter of the WPP
park: on the south side - Oliņas, on the east side - Zīle, on the west side - Saule. The nearest
farmsteads (see Figure 6.7.1). are located approximately 800 m from the WPP. All noise-
regulated areas are single detached dwellings surrounded by woodland. Virtually all individual
WPPs are located in forest areas. The situation is louder near the A3 and P24, where traffic
volumes are significantly higher than on the V260. However, as in the countryside, most of the
farmsteads in the WPP Park are close to roads, the traffic noise from which already creates a
noise nuisance for these houses. There are no noise-generating activities in the planned area
191
*(in this table) 2007 data from local parish councils. More recent data are not available.
185
of the WPP. Other industrial sites can be found in the larger settlements in the area, such as
Seda. However, these settlements are all located outside the proposed NPPF and do not affect
the noise levels of the NPPF at the nearest residential areas affected. The A3, P24 and V260
roads in the vicinity are mostly further away from the proposed WPP sites, however in some
locations, as already mentioned, residential farmsteads are located close to these roads and
road traffic noise has an impact on the noise levels of the farmsteads. The overall noise in the
area is mainly natural, such as the rustling of tree leaves and grasses, birdsong; the A3 and P24
are the loudest of the surrounding roads.
Figure 6.7.1. Overall location of the WPPs for Alternatives A and B.
To assess the existing noise situation in the vicinity of the WPP, road traffic noise has been
modelled as a single source (noise propagation map in Annex 7) and compared with the traffic
noise limit values set out in Cabinet Regulation No 16 of 7 January 2014 "Procedures for Noise
Assessment and Management": the results are summarised in Table 6.7.1.
186
Table 6.7.1. Traffic noise levels in farmsteads
Designation Designations of Height of Long- Long- Long- Limit value for Difference of the Long-term Difference in the Limit value of Difference of
of calculation the term term term the long-term level of the environmental evening level of the long-term the ambient
calculation points calculation ambient ambient ambient environmental environmental noise limit value the environmental noise
points on characterising point above noise noise noise noise indicator noise indicator L of the noise environmental noise indicator indicator
the map built-up areas the site, m indicator indicator indicator of the Building day compared to limit value of noise indicator L of the Building Lnight level
(according level, Lday level, level, Regulation 016, the limit values the building compared to the Regulation 016, with respect
to Building dBA Lvakar dBA Lnight dBA Lday of the LR MC regulation 016 noise limit values Lnight to the noise
Regulation noise standard, of the Cabinet of the Building limit values
016, Annex dB - below the of Ministers of Regulation of the of the
1, limit value + the Republic of Council of Building
paragraph above the limit Latvia, Lvakars Ministers, dB - Regulation of
1.4.2) value below the limit the Council
value + above of Ministers,
the limit value dB - below
the limit
value +
above the
limit value
1 Bērzi, Plani 1,5 46,2 43,6 38,9 65 -19 60 -16 55 -16
par.
2 Dreimani, Plani 1,5 23,8 31,2 16,5 65 -41 60 -39 55 -39
par.
3 Kalngulbji, 1,5 23,3 25,7 21,0 65 -37 60 -34 55 -34
Valkas pag.
4 Kūminas, Plani 1,5 28,6 26,0 21,1 65 -36 60 -34 55 -34
par.
5 Madaras 1, 1,5 19,4 16,8 12,1 65 -46 60 -43 55 -43
Valkas pag.
6 Melderi, Plani 1,5 28,3 25,6 20,7 65 -37 60 -34 55 -34
par.
187
Designation Designations of Height of Long- Long- Long- Limit value for Difference of the Long-term Difference in the Limit value of Difference of
of calculation the term term term the long-term level of the environmental evening level of the long-term the ambient
calculation points calculation ambient ambient ambient environmental environmental noise limit value the environmental noise
points on characterising point above noise noise noise noise indicator noise indicator L of the noise environmental noise indicator indicator
the map built-up areas the site, m indicator indicator indicator of the Building day compared to limit value of noise indicator L of the Building Lnight level
(according level, Lday level, level, Regulation 016, the limit values the building compared to the Regulation 016, with respect
to Building dBA Lvakar dBA Lnight dBA Lday of the LR MC regulation 016 noise limit values Lnight to the noise
Regulation noise standard, of the Cabinet of the Building limit values
016, Annex dB - below the of Ministers of Regulation of the of the
1, limit value + the Republic of Council of Building
paragraph above the limit Latvia, Lvakars Ministers, dB - Regulation of
1.4.2) value below the limit the Council
value + above of Ministers,
the limit value dB - below
the limit
value +
above the
limit value
7 Mieriņi, 1,5 42,2 39,6 34,7 65 -23 60 -20 55 -20
Vilciema pag.
8 Oliņas, Plani 1,5 17,9 15,3 10,5 65 -47 60 -45 55 -45
par.
9 Ozoli, Vijciema 1,5 21,7 19,1 14,2 65 -43 60 -41 55 -41
pag.
10 Parka street 1,5 18,8 16,2 11,5 65 -46 60 -44 55 -43
23, Seda
11 Saule 4, Valkas 1,5 53,9 51,3 46,6 65 -11 60 -9 55 -8
pag.
12 Skujas, Valkas 1,5 20,3 17,7 13,0 65 -45 60 -42 55 -42
pag.
13 Veverzemnieki 1,5 47,5 44,9 40,0 65 -18 60 -15 55 -15
188
Designation Designations of Height of Long- Long- Long- Limit value for Difference of the Long-term Difference in the Limit value of Difference of
of calculation the term term term the long-term level of the environmental evening level of the long-term the ambient
calculation points calculation ambient ambient ambient environmental environmental noise limit value the environmental noise
points on characterising point above noise noise noise noise indicator noise indicator L of the noise environmental noise indicator indicator
the map built-up areas the site, m indicator indicator indicator of the Building day compared to limit value of noise indicator L of the Building Lnight level
(according level, Lday level, level, Regulation 016, the limit values the building compared to the Regulation 016, with respect
to Building dBA Lvakar dBA Lnight dBA Lday of the LR MC regulation 016 noise limit values Lnight to the noise
Regulation noise standard, of the Cabinet of the Building limit values
016, Annex dB - below the of Ministers of Regulation of the of the
1, limit value + the Republic of Council of Building
paragraph above the limit Latvia, Lvakars Ministers, dB - Regulation of
1.4.2) value below the limit the Council
value + above of Ministers,
the limit value dB - below
the limit
value +
above the
limit value
14 Vīksnupes, 1,5 34,4 31,9 27,1 65 -31 60 -28 55 -28
Plani
municipality
15 Zīle 4, Valkas 1,5 23,8 21,2 16,3 65 -41 60 -39 55 -39
pag.
189
As can be seen, the noise levels are very low, being relatively highest at night in the Saule 4
home: 8 dB(A) below the night-time noise limit. The site is very quiet as it stands, with no
existing noise sources which could significantly limit the creation of new noise sources.
6.8. Air quality assessment in the WPP area
Wind is a clean, renewable natural resource. The operation of WPPs does not result in
emissions of pollutants into the air, which is one of the main arguments for the development
of WPPs in Latvia as a "green" energy solution.
Construction equipment and transport for the construction of the WPP will cause insignificant,
local, temporary and episodic air pollution, which will be localised in the construction zone,
which is not located in the immediate vicinity of a residential area. During construction work,
such as the use of machinery and access roads, including gravel roads, there is a risk of air
pollution from dust particles PM10 and PM2.5, as well as nitrogen dioxide, and the
concentration limit values for these substances are set by Cabinet Regulation No 1290 of 3
November 2009 "Regulations on Air Quality".
Table 6.8.1. Air quality standards
Pollutant Determination period Threshold
Carbon monoxide 8 hours 10 mg/m³
1 hour (19th highest value) 200 µg/m³
Nitrogen dioxide
Calendar year 40 µg/m³
24 hours (36th highest value) 50 µg/m³
PM10
Calendar year 40 µg/m³
PM2.5 Calendar year 20 µg/m³
Cabinet of Ministers Regulation No 1082 of 30.11.2010 "Procedure for applying for and issuing
permits for polluting activities of categories A, B and C" does not provide for a permit for wind
power plants to carry out polluting activities. Annex 2 to the Cabinet of Ministers Regulation
No 1082 of 30.11.2010 lists "wind power plants or power plant parks with a total capacity
greater than 125 kilowatts" as category C polluting activities (equipment) that require
registration, but the types of pollution they may cause (e.g. spills of lubricants during
maintenance) do not include air pollution and do not require the preparation of emission limit
projects in accordance with Cabinet of Ministers Regulation No 182 of 02.04.2013 "On
Preparing Emission Limit Projects for Stationary Sources of Pollution".
The latest five-year Air Quality Assessment in Latvia 2014-2018 report prepared by the
LEGMC192 concludes that air quality problems in relation to human health are mainly
concentrated in large cities, regardless of their location:
• In the observation period from 2014 to 2018, exceedances of the hourly lower
pollution assessment threshold of 100µg/m3 for nitrogen dioxide have only
192https://videscentrs.lvgmc.lv/files/Gaiss/Gaisa_kvalitate/Gaisa_kvalitates_novertejums_2014_2018.pdf
190
occurred in a few years. The most frequent cases were recorded at the
observation station "Liepāja".
• The annual mean lower pollution assessment threshold value for PM10 for the
protection of human health was exceeded at the Liepaja and Rezekne
monitoring stations (impact stations for road traffic sources) from 2014 to 2018,
as was the World Health Organisation' s recommended level (20 µg/m3).
• At the Liepaja and Rezekne monitoring stations, exceedances of the daily PM10
upper (35 µg/m3) pollution assessment threshold for human health protection were
also recorded.
• Exceedances of the lower daily PM10 (25 µg/m3) assessment threshold for human
health protection were also recorded at all monitoring stations .
• The annual mean upper (17 µg/m3) and lower (12 µg/m3) pollution assessment
thresholds for PM2.5 for the protection of human health were exceeded at the
observation station Rezekne . The World Health Organisation' s recommended
level of 10 µg/m3 was also exceeded at all monitoring stations "Liepāja", "Rezekne"
and "Ventspils" .
The latest LEGMC report on air quality in 2023193 concludes similarly:
• In 2023, the daily average upper pollution assessment threshold value for PM10
(35 µg/m3) for the protection of human health was exceeded at the monitoring
station Rezekne - Atbrīvošanas 115A.
• The annual limit value for PM10 recommended by the World Health
Organisation (15 µg/m3) was exceeded at all stations except the field background
monitoring station "Rucava".
• In 2023, the limit value for PM2.5 recommended by the World Health
Organisation guidelines of 5 µg/m3 was exceeded at all monitoring stations.
The air quality in the study area of the WPP Park has been assessed taking into account the
requirements of Para 40 of the Cabinet of Ministers Regulation No 182 of 2 April 2013
"Regulations on the development of emission limit projects for stationary sources of
pollution", which requires an official certificate from the LEGMC on the existing pollution level
(background concentrations of air pollutants) for the potential impact area of the polluting
activity, for which air quality standards are in force.
The existing pollution levels are described in the letter No 4-6/1385 of the LEGMC of 20
September 2024 (Annex 2) on the concentrations of air pollutants in the potential area of
influence of the activity, excluding the contribution of the polluting activity. The area of
potential effect for the determination of background concentrations is the area around the
location of the polluting activity at a distance equivalent to the 20 highest emission source
heights, but not less than 2000 m.
According to the information provided by the LEGMC, the annual average concentrations in
the non-operator impact area (background concentrations) were modelled in EnviMan
(perpetual licence No 0479-7349-8007, version 3.0) using a Gaussian mathematical model. The
193 https://videscentrs.lvgmc.lv/files/Gaiss/Gaisa_kvalitate/Gaisa_kvalitates_novertejums_2014_2018.pdf
191
software is developed by OPSIS AB (Sweden). The calculations take into account the local
topography and built-up area characteristics. For the meteorological characterisation, long-
term observation data from the Rūjiena observation station for the period 2019-2023 were
used.
Table 6.8.2. Annual mean background concentrations (μg/m3) in the study area of the proposed
activity
Viela Annual mean concentration (μg/m3)
PM10 13,55
PM2.5 7,00
Carbon monoxide (CO) 305,53
Nitrogen dioxide (NO2) 4,33
As can be seen in the figures below (Figures 6.8.1 to 6.8.3), the concentrations of pollutants in
the vicinity of the proposed activity are low and do not even approach the limit values for
pollutants specified in the Cabinet of Ministers' Regulations. The annual mean concentrations
for nitrogen dioxide, PM10 and PM2.5 are below even the lower pollution assessment thresholds
(65% of the limit value for nitrogen oxides or 26 μg/m3, 50% of the annual limit value for PM10
and PM2.5 or 20 μg/m3 and 10 μg/m3, respectively). In conclusion, the existing air quality in the area
of the proposed operation is good and no measures are required to improve air quality. As the
pollutant plots show, the highest concentrations of air pollutants are in the vicinity of the
largest settlements (Strenči, Valka) and roads.
192
Figure 6.8.1. CO (carbon monoxide) background concentrations in the WPP Park study area
Figure 6.8.2. PM10 background concentrations in the WPP Park study area
193
Figure 6.8.3. NO2 (nitrogen dioxide) background concentrations in the WPP Park study area
194
6.9. Information on nearby industrial activities
In order to ensure sufficient infrastructure for the energy independence of the Baltic States
from the combined power system of Russia and for the successful synchronisation of the Baltic
States' power systems with the continental European grids by 2025, the project
"Reconstruction of 330 kV power transmission lines Valmiera-Tartu and Valmiera-Tsirgulina in
the territory of Latvia", which has been assigned the status of an object of national interest by
the Cabinet of Ministers, is being implemented in the area of the proposed operation.
The electricity generated by the Valmiera-Valka WPP will be fed into the transmission grid by
connecting to the reconstructed 330 kV transmission line.
In order to take care of the cranes, fish eagles and kittiwakes nesting in the Pukši marsh, AST
has installed bird diversion signs on the rebuilt 330 kV power line from Valmiera to Tsirgulina
(Estonia). According to the results of the ornithologists' research, the special signs have been
installed along a 5.1-kilometre stretch of the marsh in Valmiera County. 194
There are 2 sand, sand-gravel deposits within 1 km of the proposed activity area: JSC "Latvia's
State Forests" sand, sand-ranch deposit "Seda II "527. kvartals"" and deposit "Ziles (Dores)",
these quarries are used for economic activity - extraction of natural resources.
The peat deposits "Sedas (Tirela) bog", approximately 4 km from the area of the proposed
activity, and "Taures bog" (approximately 3 km away) are used for economic activities -
extraction of natural resources.
For further information on mineral sites in the vicinity of the proposed activity, see Chapter
6.12.2.
There are no contaminated or potentially contaminated sites in the area of the proposed
activity. For further information on contaminated or potentially contaminated sites in the
vicinity of the proposed activity, see Chapter 3.2.
The air quality assessment and the impact of the proposed operation on air quality are
described and assessed in Chapter 7.4 of the EIA Report.
6.10. Consistency with Valmiera and Valka District planning documents
The implementation of the proposed action is planned in the Plani municipality of Valmiera
county and the Vijciems and Valka municipalities of Valka county.
Valmiera Municipality has developed the Valmiera Municipality Sustainable Energy and
Climate Action Plan 2030195, which foresees achieving climate neutrality by 2050. The plan
states that the terms of reference for the development of the spatial plan of Valmiera
Municipality, approved by the decision of the municipal council No 713 of 24.11.2022 (Minutes
No 22, item 25) "On initiating the development of the spatial plan of Valmiera Municipality",
include the task 2.8.14 - to develop and prepare at least the following thematic study/thematic
plan for the spatial plan: spatial development of wind and solar power plants (hereinafter -
SES) parks. The spatial plan also has the following tasks: 2.36 "to define the areas where the
construction of wind power plants is prohibited" and 2.37 "to develop conditions for the siting
194
https://www.ast.lv/lv/events/jaunaja-330-kv-elektroparvades-linija-valmiera-tsirgulina-uzstaditi-
putnu-novirzitaji-puksu
195
https://www.valmierasnovads.lv/content/uploads/2023/03/81_lem_pielikums.pdf
195
of solar power parks (establishing the distances to residential buildings), as well as to define
the requirements for the siting of solar power plants."
However, in order to ensure the protection of the landscape of the municipality, the
development of solar and wind farms is not allowed in the landscape protection zones of the
Valmiera Municipality Special Landscape Protection Area, as well as in the territories
designated as cultural landscape zones, including the territories of national importance for
landscape value. In other locations, the sensitivity of the landscape should be respected in
order to minimise conflict situations that degrade the quality of the landscape in close
proximity to settlements.
Objective of the Action Plan document: 2. Include the whole territory of Valmiera municipality
in the energy management system of the IEKRP and the municipality to achieve climate
neutrality of the municipality by 2050; included in Task 2.8: Promote the generation and use of
energy from renewable sources in the public services sector, including transport, and foster an
enabling environment for the production and use of RES by businesses and citizens that is
harmoniously integrated with the other SDGs. It includes 2 actions: 2.8.1. "Promoting RES
production in the private sector, including households" and 2.8.2. "Exploring the potential of
wind energy production sites, identifying suitable areas". Expected results The TIAN of
Valmiera Municipality sets requirements for the installation of solar and wind facilities,
respectively , respecting the landscape sensitivity and in relation to the Cabinet of Ministers
Regulation No 303 of 19 April 2011 "Individual Rules for the Protection and Use of the North
Vidzeme Biosphere Reserve" and other normative acts, the locations where it is allowed to
place WPP are assessed, the requirements for the development of new wind farms are
incorporated into the spatial plan, respecting landscapes of national importance, landscape
sensitivity.
The objective: 4. Reducing energy poverty by strengthening energy independence - Target 4.1:
Support for the creation of renewable energy communities is foreseen in Action 4.1.1:
Promotion of RES production in Valmiera Municipality with expected results Concept for RES
use in Valmiera Municipality developed; RES included in construction projects of municipal
public facilities (solar cells, wind generators, heat pumps, etc.); municipal participation in RES
production in cooperation with the private sector, promoting the formation of energy
communities.
The Environmental Report of the Valmiera District Sustainable Development Strategy 2022-
2038 and the Development Programme 2022-2028 states that the availability of energy
resources is an important precondition for the development of the territory. Given its
geographical location, the main renewable energy sources in Valmiera are solar, wind,
geothermal, fuel wood, biomass and water. When planning the siting of WPPs in the NWBR, it
should be taken into account that for high altitude WPPs it has designated special areas where
the siting of WPPs is allowed without a height limit196.
The development of VPPs in the municipality is also possible outside the territory of the NVBR,
except in the protected landscape area "Ziemeļgauja", where the installation of WPPs with a
diameter of the impeller greater than five metres or a highest point exceeding 30 metres is
"prohibited throughout"197, and in the Gauja National Park, where it is prohibited: "9.8. to
install wind power plants whose highest point exceeds 30 metres, except for wind power
196 Cabinet of Ministers Regulation No 303 of 19 April 2011 "Individual Rules for the Protection and Use of the North
Vidzeme Biosphere Reserve"
197 Cabinet of Ministers Regulation No 957 of 20 November 2008 "Protected Landscape Area
"Individual Rules for the Protection and Use of the "Ziemeļgauja"
196
plants in the neutral zone, where the permissible height of wind power plants shall be
determined by the municipality's spatial plan.198".
For target U2-2 Promote the production and use of renewable energy in the public services
sector, including transport, and create an enabling environment for the production and use of
RES by businesses and citizens: P1 Promotion of RES production in municipally managed real
estate; P2 Promotion of RES production in the private sector, including households up to 11
kW; P3 Investigation of the potential of wind energy production sites, identification of suitable
sites.
In order to minimise potential negative impacts, the selection of sites for wind farms should
take into account the wind energy resources and nature conservation requirements of the
county's IADT.
The planning documents include development directions in relation to the hierarchically higher
long-term development planning documents, i.e. the "Latvian Sustainable Development
Strategy 2030", the National Development Plan 2021-2027 and the Vidzeme Planning Region
Sustainable Development Strategy 2014-2030, as well as European-level planning documents,
such as the European Union's "Green Deal", which is defined as the new European Union
growth strategy. According to the requirements of the Cabinet of Ministers Regulation No 240
of 30 April 2013 "General Regulations on Spatial Planning, Use and Construction", WPP with a
capacity greater than 20 kW are allowed to be located in the industrial construction area (R),
technical construction area (TA), agricultural area (L) and forest area (M) in accordance with
the conditions of the spatial plan.
The Valka Regional Sustainable Development Strategy 2013-2037 mentions the use of
renewable energy as a long-term priority.
Valka Municipality Development Programme 2022-2028199 has been prepared taking into
account: Latvia's Sustainable Development Strategy 2030 and the UN Sustainable
Development Goals; priorities set out in the Latvian National Development Plan 2021-2027 and
the strategic objectives of the European Green Deal; regional planning documents - Vidzeme
Planning Region's Sustainable Development Strategy 2030, Vidzeme Planning Region's
Development Programme 2021.-2027; Valka Municipality Sustainable Development Strategy
2013-2037, analysis of the current situation in the municipality, statistical information,
opinions of municipality specialists, opinions expressed by citizens; planning documents of
neighbouring municipalities and common interests; legislation.
Medium-term priority (MTP) 1 Human resources development Action 12: Energy
infrastructure, Action 12: The energy infrastructure target is U3: Increase the share of
renewable energy sources, while MTP 3: Entrepreneurship development in the municipality
Action 15: The development of manufacturing and services is Objective U8: Exploring and
promoting potential sites for solar and wind power generation.
The document mentions that one of the priority areas for smart specialisation in the Vidzeme
region is the production of renewable energy resources, supplying the region and exporting
where possible.
The compatibility of the proposed action with the spatial plans is presented in Chapter 3.1.
198 Cabinet of Ministers Regulation No 317 of 2 May 2012 "Individual Rules for the Protection and Use of the Gauja
National Park"
199
https://www.valka.lv/lv/media/2907/download?attachment
197
According to the existing spatial plans of Valmiera and Valka municipalities200, the construction
area of the WPP park includes land units or parts thereof, the planned (permitted) use of
which is basically defined as a forest area. Relatively small areas of the WPP construction zone
are covered by water.
The conditions of the spatial plans impose a number of preconditions, but the proposed
activity does not conflict with them. According to the currently valid conditions in Valka
Municipality, the planned area of the wind park will have to be subject to local planning, while
in order to implement the planned activity in Valmiera Municipality, it is necessary to carry out
local planning for the land units where it is planned to install wind power plants or to submit
an application with a request to provide for the construction of the WPP park "Valmiera-Valka"
when developing the new Valmiera Municipality spatial plan.
6.11. Information on nearby airports and aerodromes and the impact on
communication systems
The closest airport to the NPPF is the private general aviation certified Cēsis Aerodrome (EVCA)
43 km away, and the closest international commercial airport is Riga International Airport
(EVRA) in Marupe Municipality 130 km away (see Figure 6.11.1): Valmiera-Valka WPP Park is
located 70 km from the nearest airspace of Riga Airport.
200
https://geolatvija.lv/geo/tapis#
198
Figure 6.11.1. Location of the planned Latvian Wind Parks "Limbaži" and "Valmiera-Valka" in
relation to the airfields and airspace of Riga Airport (source: LGS).
The EU has an EMC Directive, the requirements of which were implemented in Latvia by
Cabinet Regulation No 483 of 20 June 2006 "Regulations on Electromagnetic Compatibility of
Equipment" and continue to be maintained by Cabinet Regulation No 208 of 12 April 2016
"Regulations on Electromagnetic Compatibility of Equipment", which is currently in force.
These documents require that electrical and electronic equipment must, on the one hand, not
cause electromagnetic interference to other equipment and, on the other hand, be capable of
operating to the required quality for its intended purpose, even in normal environments where
electric and magnetic fields are likely to be present. Therefore, modern communication
equipment manufactured in compliance with EU and Latvian requirements should not be
subject to interference from WPPs, even in close proximity.
The second factor that determines the ability of modern communication systems to operate
normally, without interference, in the vicinity of a WPP is that modern public communication
systems use digital technology, while digital signals cannot be destroyed by electromagnetic
fields (only interrupted at high field strengths). In addition, it should be recalled that the
electromagnetic fields generated by WPPs are still many times smaller than the magnetic fields
of the high-voltage transmission lines to which these conclusions apply. It follows that WPPs
will not affect communication systems in their immediate vicinity as such, but there are no
communication systems in their immediate vicinity either (except, for example, mobile phones
of maintenance staff during working hours directly in front of WPPs).
Studies on the impact of WPP show that WPP can still affect the quality of TV broadcasting and
mobile communications201: although the digital signal cannot be destroyed, it can block
(obscure), fragment and reflect the signals transmitted by these communications equipment
by simply interrupting the transmission temporarily. Studies by the International
Telecommunication Union (ITU) on the impact of WPPs on the quality of TV broadcasting,
including digital terrestrial television, have found that interference may occur in the vicinity of
WPPs, but that it is negligible: it may only occur in areas with low broadcast signal quality (very
weak signals).
201
https://www.vpvb.gov.lv/lv/jaunums/pazinojums-par-sia-pienava-wind-un-sia-dobele-wind-
ietekmes-uz-vidi-novertejuma-zinojuma-iesniegsanu-vides-parraudzibas-valsts-biroja-atzinuma-
sanemsanai
199
Also, the quality of mobile communications, including mobile internet traffic, is likely to be
affected by NECs only in areas with very poor communications quality. Looking at the
information provided by the largest Latvian mobile operators - LMT, Tele2 and Bite - on the
quality of communications in the vicinity of the Proposed Development, it can be seen that
both 3G and 4G mobile internet are provided in high quality, with a sufficiently dense network
of base stations across a wide area of the Proposed Development. The height of transmitters
and receivers is an important aspect to be taken into account when assessing the potential
impact of the proposed activity on the quality of mobile orradiolink communications. The
towers on which mobile transmission equipment is located in the vicinity of the proposed
activity are much lower than the WPP: up to 50 m. The lowest downward position of the WPP
wing tip will be 100 m or 50 m higher than the mobile transmission towers constructed in the
vicinity of the proposed activity. The moving parts of the WPP, which can fragment the
communication signal, will therefore be higher than the line connecting the communication
tower to the service receiver.
Studies around the world have shown that WPP can affect the performance of
telecommunications transmitters and receivers, causing signal interference in air traffic control
radars, weather radars, maritime navigation radars, aeronautical systems such as very high
frequency circular radars (VOR) and instrument landing systems (ILS), fixed radio networks and
analogue TV broadcasting202.
Aviation security, meteorological and maritime navigation radars are electromagnetic systems
used to identify specific objects by transmitting an electromagnetic signal and receiving a
reflected signal from the target object. The received signal is used to characterise the size and
position of the object. Radar equipment that also uses the Doppler effect to observe an object
identifies not only the size and position of the object, but also its speed of movement. WPP in
the vicinity of radar systems function both as blocking devices and as large reflective objects
whose strong reflected signals can be misinterpreted and mask weaker reflected signals. The
same effect can be produced by any other high-rise structure located within radar "line of
sight". The radar systems currently in widespread use are not able to recognise the signals
reflected by WPP.
Land-based WPP are not considered a potential threat to the operation of maritime navigation
systems, but their impact on aviation safety and meteorological radars has been
demonstrated. For example, the Spanish National Meteorological Agency (Agencia Estatal de
Meteorología) has recorded reflections of the weather radar signal from WPP parks, which are
identified as precipitation zones on a day when no precipitation is observed in the radar area.
Although the potential impacts of WPPs have been identified, there is currently no common
methodology for assessing these impacts, which is hampered by the variety of radar systems
used and the fact that the method of assessment may depend on the nature of the area where
the WPP park is to be built.
The World Meteorological Organisation (WMO) and the European Meteorological Services
Network (EUMETNET) recommend certain distances from the weather radar where it is
preferable not to build NPS (up to 5 km for C-band and 10 km for S-band radars), or where the
NPS construction should be agreed with the weather radar owner (up to 20 km for C-band and
30 km for S-band radars)203. More recent studies suggest that the upper limit for C-band radars
202
I. Anguloa et al., Impact analysis of wind farms on telecommunication services, Renewable and
Sustainable Energy Reviews, Volume 32, April 2014
203
Finnish Meteorological Institute, EUMETNET OPERA PROGRAMME (2004-2006) - Operational
programme for the exchange of weather radar information, Final report, 2007
200
- 20 km - should be increased, as impacts can be observed at greater distances204. An
important factor that can affect the performance of a radar is the position of the WPP within
the radar's field of view.
The European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation (EUROCONTROL), taking into
account the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) guidance on the regulation of
construction in restricted areas around air navigation facilities205, has developed guidance for
air navigation service providers on the need and procedures for assessing the impact of WPP
on navigation facilities206. The guidelines define 4 zones in the vicinity of a primary surveillance
radar (PSR) and a secondary surveillance radar (SSR) where the impact of a WPP should be
assessed: as shown in Table 6.11.1, also for air traffic surveillance radars, the location of the
WPP within the radar's line of sight is an important aspect.
Table 6.11.1. Assessment areas for WPP impacts on primary and secondary surveillance radars
Zone Description Impact assessment conditions
Zone 1 0-500 m from radar Safety zone for PSR and SSR installations, where
construction of WPPs would not be allowed
Zone 2 500 m - 15 km radar visibility Detailed assessment area for PSR and SSR radars in
which air navigation service providers should object
to the construction of WPPs unless a detailed impact
assessment is carried out, the results of which are
acceptable to the air navigation service provider
Zone 3 Beyond 15 km but within the radar's Indicative assessment area for PSR radars
maximum range and radar visibility
Zone 4 In the radar's maximum range Acceptance zone for PSR and SSR radars where no
outside its visibility zone or outside assessment is required
the radar's maximum range
The closest meteorological radar to the territory of the proposed activity is the radar installed
at the territory of Riga Airport and operated by the LEGMC. The distance from the radar to the
nearest WPP in the area of the proposed operation is 130 km. According to the information
published by the LEGMC, the radar installed is a C-band device with a range of up to 250 km
and a lowest scan angle of 0.3°.
The nearest PSR and SSR radars to the area of the proposed activity are installed at Riga
Airport: STAR 2000 PSR radar with a maximum range of 80 NM (148 km), RSM970S SSR radar
with a maximum range of 240 NM (445 km). Both have a lowest sounding angle of 0.25°. The
distance from the radar to the nearest WPP in the proposed wind farm is 130 km.
Simple trigonometric calculations are sufficient to ensure that WPPs up to 300 m high will not
be in the line of sight of meteorological and air traffic surveillance radars. At a distance of 130
km, at the lowest scan angle of 0.25°, the beam height on a flat Earth would not fall below 570
m, almost twice the maximum height of the wingtip of the nearest WPP. With this margin,
there would be no need to further refine the calculation with more details: the height of the
204
VINDRAD. Project report v1.0, A tool for calculation of interference from wind power stations to
weather radars, 2011
205
European guidance material on managing building restricted areas: 3rd eddition, International civil
aviation organisation, 2015
206
EUROCONTROL Guidelines for Assessing the Potential Impact of Wind Turbines on Surveillance
Sensors, EUROCONTROL, 2014
201
radar's emitting point above the ground (only increasing the beam height by a few metres) and
the difference in absolute height between the terrain of the wind farm and Riga Airport (the
WPP site is a maximum of 60 metres higher). But the curvature of the Earth's surface makes all
these calculations unnecessary: At a distance of 130 km, the point at sea level is 2.65 km below
the horizon. Consequently, there is no likelihood of negative impacts of the planned WPPs on
the operation of the radar installations.
According to ICAO guidelines, the impact of WPP planned to be constructed closer than 15 km
to radio navigation and landing aids such as VOR, Instrument Landing Systems (ILS) on these air
navigation systems shall be assessed by identifying the significance of the impact and the
interference to the system. Distant WPP S should not have an impact on radio navigation and
landing aids. Radio navigation and landing facilities are located at Riga Airport and possibly
(now or in the future) at Cēsis Aerodrome, but both are much more than 15 km away.
To avoid any potential negative impacts, all electrical equipment in the WPP will be certified
and CE-marked, guaranteeing that the WPP itself cannot cause any adverse effects over such a
long distance. The project has received approval from the Ministry of Defence and other
authorities.
6.12. Nearest water abstraction and mineral extraction sites
6.12.1. Characteristics and use of nearby water abstraction points and groundwater deposits
Based on the data from the LEGMC Unified Environmental Information System207, where
information on water supply boreholes is maintained and updated, no water supply boreholes
are registered in the planned WPP area, but within a 1 km radius around the study area there
are 12 boreholes that are or have been used for water supply (Figure 6.12.1 and Table 6.12.1).
Table 6.12.1. Known water supply boreholes in the vicinity of the proposed activity
Borehole Address Year of Borehole Water Urbum
No. drilling depth aquifer status
18824 Zile Forestry 1975 90 D2br unknown
18934 Railway station "Saule" 1978 56 D2br unknown
6342 Seda, Parka iela 19 (land plot with 1972 125 D2ar Operation
cadastral designation 9413 001 al
0302). Centralised Seda underground
water deposits (UWD)
12645 Seda, Parka iela 19 (land plot with 2014 125 D2ar Operation
cadastral designation 9413 001 al
0302). Centralised Seda UWD
17276 Land alone. "Peat pressing shop" 1959 121 D2ar unknown
cad. No 9433 001 0012 JSC "Seda",
peat farm)
6285 Land alone. "Peat pressing shop" 1974 102 D2ar unknown
cad. No 9433 001 0012 (A/S "Seda",
peat farm)
18594 Land alone. "Apses" or that. No 9433 1970 100 D2ar unknown
001 0015 (former bitumen base)
6740 Land alone. "Šalku boiler house" with 1969 90 D2ar unknown
cad. No 9476 001 0025 (former road
repair point No 2)
207
https://17276www.meteo.lv
202
Borehole Address Year of Borehole Water Urbum
No. drilling depth aquifer status
18867 Recreation base "Vecmājas" 1977 95 D2ar+br unknown
13689 "Dravnieki", land plot no. Cad. No 1981 100 D2ar unknown
9492 002 0039 (ex. VEF recreation
base)
20541 "Vijmeži 4", land plot no. Cad. No 1989 100 D2ar+br unknown
9492 003 0012 (former recreation
base "Hunting Castle")
24103 The houses "Gaujmaļi" (ex. CRCP No 1982 91 D2ar unknown
7)
According to the data of the Unified Environmental Information System of the LEGMC, 3
underground water deposits (hereinafter - UWD) have been registered in the vicinity of the
envisaged area of operation: one deposit in Seda - UWD "Seda centralized" and two deposits
in Valka - UWD "Valka" and "Valkas cogeneration station". Information on the deposits and
their location can be found in Figure 6.12.1 and Table 6.12.2 respectively. The planned area of
the WPP Park is not located within the protection zones of the WFD.
Figure 6.12.1. Location of water supply and groundwater deposits in the area of the proposed
activity and its surroundings (based on the LGIA topographic map M:10 000, location of deposits
and boreholes208)
208
10LGMC Deep Earth Information System - https://videscentrs.lvgmc.lv/iebuvets/zemes-dzilu-
informacijas-sistema
203
Table 6.12.2. Underground water deposits in the vicinity of the area of the proposed activity
Site and Location Type of Water Use of the site Accepte Water Status
its LEGMC ground aquifer d stocks protection
DB water zones
number
Seda Valmiera Freshwat D2ar For centralised Category Strict regime Operation
centralised region, Seda, er water supply in A- - 10 m, al
No 610816 real estates Seda 500m3/day bacteriologic
"Sporta iela 1D" al - not
(cadastre No required,
9413 001 0308) chemical
and "Sporta iela (area) - 152
1C" (cadastre ha
No 9413 001
0303).
Valka Valka, Valka Freshwat D2ar Valka Category Strict - 10 m, Operation
No 610900 region er centralised A- bacteriologic al
water supply 1074m3/da al - not
y
required,
chemical -
141 ha.
Valka CHP Valkas region, Freshwat D2ar Enefit Power & Category Strict regime Operation
plant Valka, Rūjienas er Heat Valka Ltd A- - 10 m al
No 610905 street 5c (land for water supply 600m3/day around each
cadastre No borehole,
9401 008 0399) bacteriologic
al - not
required,
chemical -
289 ha (301
ha taking
into account
the
interaction
of boreholes
from the
adjacent
Salacgrīva
field)
6.12.2. Mining sites
According to publicly available information at209, hard minerals such as sand, sand-gravel and
peat are present in the vicinity of the proposed activity. Sand and sand-gravel are extracted for
construction, road building, maintenance and repair. Peat is used for export, agriculture and
peat substrate production.
There are 7 sand, sand-gravel and 6 sapropel projected resource areas in the territory of the
planned WPP park, no deposits with mineral reserves approved by the LEGMC. Information on
the predicted resource plots is summarised in Table 6.12.3 and their location is shown in
Figure 6.12.2.
209
https://izraktenis.lvgmc.lv/atradnes
204
Table 6.12.3. Prospective resource areas in the vicinity of the area of operation
Name Minerals
Kauchi (B2261) Sand
Rame (B1141) Sand
Seda (B1160) Sand-gravel
Olives (B1135) Sand
Birches (B1708) Sand
Skewed bar (B1730) Sand
Kokshi II (B1117) Sand-gravel
Silezers lake (S6071) Sapropel
Leiši lake basin (S5981) Sapropel
Herb Lake (S6098) Sapropel
Deep Lake (S16980) Sapropel
Lake Diben (S5946) Sapropel
There are 2 sand, sand-gravel deposits with reserves and minerals approved by the LEGMC
within 1 km from the WPP area: JSC Latvijas valsts meži sand, sand-gravel deposits "Seda II
"Block 527"" and deposit "Zīles (Dores)".
There are 2 peat deposits in the vicinity of the planned WPP ("Sedas (Tīreļa) bog" and "Taures
bog") and several forecast sand resource areas. The Sedas (Tīreļa) bog peat deposit is located
approximately 4 km to the E of the study area and the Taures bog peat deposit is located
approximately 3 km to the S of the study area. The nearest predicted sand resource area is
Saule (B1132), located approximately 2.7 km to the NW of the study area.
Information on the deposits is summarised in Table 6.12.4, the location of the deposits can be
seen in Figure 6.21.
Table 6.12.4. Existing deposits in the vicinity of the area of the proposed activity
In the Remaining stocks on 1 Extraction volume, thous.
Year of start of tonnes
Name source Minerals Category January 2023, thous.
development
part tonnes 2020 2021 2022
Sand - A 598,7 - - -
Precinct I
Sand-gravel - A 146,6 - - -
Seda II Sand 2011. A 678,29* 11,65 - -
(B1792) Sand-gravel 2011. A 130,67* 1,4 - -
Block 527
Sand 2021. N 626 284 - 21,51 9 206
Sand-gravel 2021. N 12 005 - 0,1 0 395
Sand 2000. A 133,14 3,5 0,55 -
Sand-gravel 2000. A 106,36 0,72 0,01 -
Dores (B1729) -
Sand 2022. N 164,58 - - 3,62
Sand-gravel 2022. N 106,36 - - 4,84
205
In the Remaining stocks on 1 Extraction volume, thous.
Year of start of tonnes
Name source Minerals Category January 2023, thous.
development
part tonnes 2020 2021 2022
Seda (Tyrelis)
Swamp - Peat 2005. A 923 315 7,77 18,05 21 555
(K16815)
Taures swamp
- Peat 2005. A 1832,469 16,15 17,76 26 381
(K16816)
Figure 6.12.2. Sites in the vicinity of the proposed area of operation (based on Open Street
Map210)
210
LEGMC Subsoil Information System - https://videscentrs.lvgmc.lv/iebuvets/zemes-dzilu-informacijas-
sistema
206
7. Assessment of the significant environmental effects of the proposed
action and possible alternatives
DIRECTIVE (EU) 2023/2413 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL sets the EU
the target of becoming climate neutral by 2050 at the latest and an interim target of reducing
net GHG emissions by at least 55% below 1990 levels by 2030. Achieving climate neutrality
requires a transformation of the energy sector, increasing energy efficiency and significantly
increasing the share of renewable energy in an integrated energy system.
Renewable energy, including wind energy, has an important role to play in achieving these
goals. The transition to a renewable energy economy will contribute to achieving the
objectives of Decision (EU) 2022/591 of the European Parliament and of the Council to protect,
restore and enhance the environment, inter alia by halting biodiversity loss and achieving
biodiversity gain. Renewable energy has a lower risk of price volatility compared to fossil fuels
and can be an important tool in the fight against energy poverty. In addition, renewable
energy can generate significant socio-economic benefits, contributing to job creation and the
development of local industries, while taking into account the growing demand for renewable
energy technologies both in Europe and globally. The EU aims to have at least 32% of gross
final energy consumption from renewable energy sources by 2030.
The general situation, influenced by the Russian invasion of Ukraine and the effects of the
Covid-19 pandemic, has led to an increase in energy prices across the EU. To achieve the long-
term goal of an energy system independent from third countries, it is essential to accelerate
the green transformation and develop an energy policy that reduces dependence on imported
fossil fuels and promotes affordable prices for EU citizens and businesses in all sectors of the
economy.
Directive (EU) 2018/2001 of 11 December 2018 on the promotion of the use of energy from
renewable sources streamlines requirements to facilitate administrative procedures for
renewable energy installations by introducing rules on the organisation and maximum
duration of the administrative phase of the authorisation procedure for renewable energy
projects, covering all relevant authorisations for the construction, capacity renewal and
operation of renewable energy installations and for the connection of such installations to the
grid. Some of the most common problems faced by renewable energy project developers are
related to complex and lengthy administrative, permitting and grid connection procedures. It is
therefore desirable to streamline certain environmental aspects of the authorisation
procedure.
Member States should support the accelerated development of renewable energy projects in
cooperation with local and regional authorities by identifying and designating land, surface,
underground and marine or inland water areas required for the installation of renewable
energy plants and related infrastructure to ensure the achievement of the 2030 renewable
energy target and support the achievement of the climate neutrality target by 2050 at the
latest in accordance with Regulation (EU) 2021/1119.
7.1. Total deforested area
The exact size of the total deforested area will be determined during the construction design
phase, and the maximum possible area estimates have been assessed during the EIA.
207
The calculations in this chapter are for the potential WPPs to be built, corresponding to the
Valmiera-Valka park location alternative A with 27 WPPs and location alternative B with 40
WPPs.
The approximate area to be deforested if the recommended alternative A is implemented will
be 86 ha. Of these, approximately 58% will be young stands, 18% middle-aged stands and
17.5% mature stands; see calculations in Table 7.1.1. 2.4% of the deforested area is currently
clear-cut.
However, if the recommended alternative B is implemented, the deforested area will be 128
ha. Of which approximately 57% are young stands, 18% middle-aged stands and 14% mature
stands; see calculations in Table 7.1.2. 3% of deforested land is currently clear-cut.
The exact areas to be deforested will be known after design.
Table 7.1.1. Total deforested area under Alternative A
TOTAL
Alternative A
(ha)
Middle-
New yield aged Briestaudze Growing Overgrown Deforestation
(ha) stand (ha) stand (ha) stand (ha) (ha)
(ha)
Kopā 50,19 15,05 11,12 7,19 0,54 2,04 86,13
% 58,27 17,47 12,91 8,35 0,63 2,37
Table 7.1.2. Total deforested area under Alternative B
TOTAL
Alternative B
(ha)
Middle-
New yield aged Briestaudze Growing Overgrown Deforestation
(ha) stand (ha) stand (ha) stand (ha) (ha)
(ha)
Kopā 73,17 23,31 18,20 8,89 0,6 3,78 127,95
% 57,19 18,22 14,22 6,95 0,47 2,95
According to the Central Statistical Office, in 2024 there will be 3 607 thousand ha of forest
land in Latvia211, so the area deforested by Latvijas vēja parki Ltd for the construction of the
Valmiera-Valka WPP in Alternative A will be approximately 0.0025%, while in Alternative B it
will be approximately 0.004% of the total forest area in Latvia. The impact is assessed as not
significant.
More detailed information on the deforestation areas required for the construction of
maintenance yards per WPP and for the recommended construction of Alternatives A and B,
based on possible calculations that would be required for the construction of the WPP, is
summarised in Tables 7.1.3 and 7.1.4.
211
https://data.stat.gov.lv/pxweb/lv/OSP_PUB/START__NOZ__ME__MEP/MEM010/table/tableViewLay
out1/
208
The required deforested areas for the construction of new roads for one WPP and for the
recommended alternatives A and B, based on the probabilistic calculations that would be
required for the construction of the WPP, are summarised in Tables 7.1.5 and 7.1.6. Tables
7.1.7 and 7.1.8. Comparative information on deforested areas for turning extensions to
existing roads.
Table 7.1.3. Area to be set aside for the construction of WPP maintenance yards under Alternative A
WPP Forest land use and age groups in the area of the assembly site to be Area to be
No. transformed (including access roads, turns in the assembly site), ha (Alternative deforested,
A) ha
Excerpt Age group
Young Middle- Briestaudze A mature Overgrown
people aged grove stand
stand
VV1 0 1,41046 1,1908 0 0 0 2,60126
VV16 0 1,9948 0 0,01388 0,59262 0 2,6013
VV20 0 2,2376 0 0,15233 0 0,2114 2,60133
VV21 0 0,93144 0,25287 1,41701 0 0 2,60132
VV22 0 1,80653 0,72035 0,07441 0 0 2,60129
VV24 0 1,12881 0 1,47257 0 0 2,60138
VV26 0 1,85922 0,37525 0,30825 0,05863 0 2,60135
VV28 0 0,85684 1,19726 0,54655 0,00068 0 2,60133
VV30 0 2,60137 0 0 0 0 2,60137
VV31 0,30696 2,22918 0,0652 0 0 0 2,60134
VV32 0 0,74324 0 0 1,85812 0 2,60136
VV33 0 2,30725 0 0,00645 0,28766 0 2,60136
VV36 0 1,90422 0,69367 0,00337 0 0 2,60126
VV37 0 2,56284 0 0 0,03844 0 2,60128
VV38 0 0,35308 0,81189 0,63845 0,72162 0 2,52504
VV39 0 1,69665 0,38252 0,52209 0 0 2,60126
VV40 0 2,57453 0,01391 0 0,01283 0 2,60127
VV41 0,04767 0,53128 2,02102 0,0013 0 0 2,60127
VV42 0 1,99439 0,36225 0 0,24464 0 2,60128
VV46 0 2,30637 0 0,29492 0 0 2,60129
VV47 0 0 2,19893 0,27228 0 0 2,47121
VV81 0 1,69207 0 0 0,90931 0 2,60138
VV82 0 2,56197 0 0,03927 0 0 2,60124
VV84 0 0 2,15979 0,44149 0 0 2,60128
VV85 0 1,24621 1,14442 0,0203 0 0 2,41093
209
WPP Forest land use and age groups in the area of the assembly site to be Area to be
No. transformed (including access roads, turns in the assembly site), ha (Alternative deforested,
A) ha
Excerpt Age group
Young Middle- Briestaudze A mature Overgrown
people aged grove stand
stand
VV86 0 0,76925 0,00165 1,83042 0 0 2,60132
VV88 0,284 2,25358 0,00054 0 0,06319 0 2,60131
Kopā 0,63863 42,55318 13,59232 8,05534 4,78774 0,2114 69,83861
Table 7.1.4. Area to be set aside for the construction of WPP maintenance yards under Alternative B
WPP Forest land use and age groups in the area of the assembly site to be Area to be
No. transformed (including access roads, turns in the assembly site), ha (Alternative deforested, ha
B)
Excerpt Age group
Young Middle- Briestaudze A mature Overgrown
people aged grove stand
stand
VV1 0 1,41046 1,1908 0 0 0 2,60126
VV7 0 2,45882 0 0 0,14239 0 2,60121
VV9 0 2,20775 0,32354 0,06992 0 0 2,60121
VV16 0 1,9948 0 0,01388 0,59262 0 2,6013
VV20 0 2,2376 0 0,15233 0 0,2114 2,60133
VV21 0 0,93144 0,25287 1,41701 0 0 2,60132
VV22 0 1,80653 0,72035 0,07441 0 0 2,60129
VV24 0 1,12881 0 1,47257 0 0 2,60138
VV26 0 1,85922 0,37525 0,30825 0,05863 0 2,60135
VV28 0 0,85684 1,19726 0,54655 0,00068 0 2,60133
VV30 0 2,60137 0 0 0 0 2,60137
VV31 0,30696 2,22918 0,0652 0 0 0 2,60134
VV32 0 0,74324 0 0 1,85812 0 2,60136
VV33 0 2,30725 0 0,00645 0,28766 0 2,60136
VV36 0 1,90422 0,69367 0,00337 0 0 2,60126
VV37 0 2,56284 0 0 0,03844 0 2,60128
VV38 0 0,35308 0,81189 0,63845 0,72162 0 2,52504
VV39 0 1,69665 0,38252 0,52209 0 0 2,60126
VV40 0 2,57453 0,01391 0 0,01283 0 2,60127
VV41 0,04767 0,53128 2,02102 0,0013 0 0 2,60127
VV42 0 1,99439 0,36225 0 0,24464 0 2,60128
VV46 0 2,30637 0 0,29492 0 0 2,60129
VV47 0 0 2,19893 0,27228 0 0 2,47121
VV49 0 0,84511 1,41911 0,33693 0 0 2,60115
210
WPP Forest land use and age groups in the area of the assembly site to be Area to be
No. transformed (including access roads, turns in the assembly site), ha (Alternative deforested, ha
B)
Excerpt Age group
Young Middle- Briestaudze A mature Overgrown
people aged grove stand
stand
VV50 1,01641 0 0,12148 1,4633 0 0 2,60119
VV51 0 2,07978 0,18561 0 0,3358 0 2,60119
VV61 0 2,53616 0 0 0,0650 0 2,60118
VV64 0 1,18315 0 1,41802 0 0 2,60117
VV65 0,14211 1,44209 0,32928 0,17315 0,51453 0 2,60116
VV66 0 0 1,96241 0,63873 0 0 2,60114
VV67 0 1,01221 1,58896 0 0 0 2,60117
VV68 0 2,28521 0,19049 0 0,12543 0 2,60113
VV70 0 2,42574 0,1587 0,01671 0 0 2,60115
VV81 0 1,69207 0 0 0,90931 0 2,60138
VV82 0 2,56197 0 0,03927 0 0 2,60124
VV84 0 0 2,15979 0,44149 0 0 2,60128
VV85 0 1,24621 1,14442 0,0203 0 0 2,41093
VV86 0 0,76925 0,00165 1,83042 0 0 2,60132
VV88 0,284 2,25358 0,06373 0 0 0 2,60131
VV91 0,56761 0,5676 0 1,32319 0,14277 0 2,60117
Kopā 2,36476 61,5968003 19,93509 13,49529 6,0504974 0,2114 103,6538
Table 7.1.5. Area to be deforested for the construction of new access roads under Alternative A
WPP New Forest land use and age group of new roads to be built area of land to Area to be
No. access be transformed, ha (alternative A) deforested
roads to Excerpt Age group , ha
be built, Young Middle- Briestaudz A mature Overgrow
m people aged e grove n stand
stand
VV1 32,534 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
VV16 82,09 0 0,04323 0 0 0 0 0,04323
VV20 163,927 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
VV21 77,351 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
VV22 371,171 0 0,05427 0,04874 0,24417 0 0 0,34718
VV24 22,477 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
VV26 196,603 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
VV28 46,19 0 0,00005 0 0 0 0 0,00005
VV30 57,336 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
VV31 427,906 0 0,64081 0 0 0 0,0762 0,71701
VV32 89,775 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
VV33 75,33 0 0,01513 0 0,03602 0 0 0,05115
VV36 160,882 0 0,43573 0 0 0 0 0,43573
VV37 222,707 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
VV38 199,921 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
211
WPP New Forest land use and age group of new roads to be built area of land to Area to be
No. access be transformed, ha (alternative A) deforested
roads to Excerpt Age group , ha
be built, Young Middle- Briestaudz A mature Overgrow
m people aged e grove n stand
stand
VV39 69,487 0 0,21809 0 0 0 0 0,21809
VV40 1283,36 0 2,22417 0,00095 0,12403 0,35374 0 2,70289
6
VV41 93,607 0,0028 0,07006 0,01045 0 0 0 0,08339
8
VV42 142,605 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
VV44 56,87 0 0 0,00014 0 0 0 0,00014
VV47 336,74 0 0 0,41163 0,10342 0 0 0,51505
VV81 912,901 0 0,79736 0,00718 0 0,69577 0 1,50031
VV82 655,516 0 0,55054 0 0 0,56503 0 1,11557
VV84 164,761 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
VV85 112,374 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
VV86 94,906 0 0,00322 0,00007 0 0 0 0,00329
VV88 140,454 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Kopā 0,0028
6598,464 6,12824 1,31757 0,00322 0,44673 0,51907 8,41771
8
Table 7.1.6. Area to be deforested for the construction of new access roads under Alternative B
WPP New Forest land use and age group of new roads to be built area of land to be Area to be
No. access transformed, ha (alternative B) deforested, ha
roads to
Excerpt Age group
be built,
m Young Middle- Briestaudze A mature Overgrown
people aged grove stand
stand
VV1 32,534 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
VV7 2996,039 0,53317 2,6497 1,79866 0,58117 0,28434 0 5,84704
VV9 260,134 0 0,05584 0 0,00022 0 0 0,05606
VV16 82,09 0 0,04323 0 0 0 0 0,04323
VV20 163,927 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
VV21 77,351 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
VV22 371,171 0 0,05427 0,04874 0,24417 0 0 0,34718
VV24 22,477 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
VV26 196,603 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
VV28 46,19 0 0,00005 0 0 0 0 0,00005
VV30 57,336 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
VV31 427,906 0 0,64081 0 0 0 0,0762 0,71701
VV32 89,775 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
212
WPP New Forest land use and age group of new roads to be built area of land to be Area to be
No. access transformed, ha (alternative B) deforested, ha
roads to
Excerpt Age group
be built,
m Young Middle- Briestaudze A mature Overgrown
people aged grove stand
stand
VV33 75,33 0 0,01513 0 0,03602 0 0 0,05115
VV36 160,882 0 0,43573 0 0 0 0 0,43573
VV37 222,707 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
VV38 199,921 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
VV39 69,487 0 0,21809 0 0 0 0 0,21809
VV40 1283,366 0 2,22417 0,00095 0,12403 0,35374 0 2,70289
VV41 93,607 0,00288 0,07006 0,01045 0 0 0 0,08339
VV42 142,605 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
VV46 365,547 0 0,68477 0 0 0 0 0,68477
VV47 336,74 0 0 0,41163 0,10342 0 0 0,51505
VV49 72,375 0 0 0,00593 0 0 0 0,00593
VV50 196,247 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
VV51 41,462 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
VV61 637,533 0 0,52894 0 0 0,01210 0 0,54104
VV64 80,504 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
VV65 101,69 0 0,00002 0 0,0001 0 0 0,00012
VV66 316,082 0 0 0,06772 0,11757 0,00518 0 0,19047
VV67 358,893 0 0,18562 0,0732 0 0 0,00135 0,26017
VV68 332,88 0 0,70697 0 0 0 0 0,70697
VV70 169,341 0 0,00623 0 0 0 0 0,00623
VV81 912,901 0 0,79736 0,00718 0 0,69577 0 1,50031
VV82 655,516 0 0,55054 0 0 0,56503 0 1,11557
VV84 164,761 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
VV85 112,374 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
VV86 94,906 0 0,00322 0,00007 0 0 0 0,00329
VV88 140,454 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
VV91 44,098 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Kopā 12205,742 0,00288 9,62365 2,09199 0,00322 0,93789 0,69307 13,3527
Table 7.1.7. Area to be deforested for turning extensions under Alternative A
213
Forest land use and age groups within the turning radius area to be transformed Area to be
(including access roads within the turning radius area), ha (Alternative A) deforested,
ha
Excerpt Young Middle- Briestaudze A mature Overgrown
people aged grove stand
stand
0,047686 1,579049 0,648272 1,090669 0,788923 0,253374 4,407973
Table 7.1.8. Area to be deforested for turn extensions under Alternative B
Forest land use and age groups within the turning radius area to be transformed Area to be
(including access roads within the turning radius area), ha (Alternative B) deforested,
ha
Excerpt Young Middle- Briestaudze A mature Overgrown
people aged grove stand
stand
0,06747 2,25368 1,64085 2,09305 1,18185 0,24405 7,48095
7.2. Changes in noise and vibration levels
7.2.1. Assessment and significance of changes in noise levels
The planned area of the WPP is large (approximately 100 km² for Alternative B and 60 km² for
Alternative A) and covers the municipalities of Valka and Plani. There are about 15 farmsteads
in the area of the WPP Park.
An overview of the noise propagation forecast is attached in Annex 7 of the EIA Report. The
Nordex 175-6.8 WPP model was selected to model the noise variations, as it has a high noise
power level and very low dependence on wind speed (compared to other high noise WPP
models which are more dependent on wind speed) (see Table 7.2.1). Given that, on average, a
statistical wind speed of 3-8 m/s (when this pattern is loudest and noise levels increase
significantly) is expected in 50% of cases, while higher wind speeds (when other patterns
become louder, and not significantly so) are expected in only 42% of cases (see Section 3.3).
The WPP as a noise source is modelled as a point source at the gondola height (hub height)
according to the sound pressure specified in the WPP Noise Technical Specification: the
technical specification takes into account that the WPP generates noise not only in the nacelle
but also in the entire wing sweep, which is much lower than the nacelle in the lower position
(less noise reaching the ground) and much higher than the nacelle in the upper position (less
noise reaching the ground), and is therefore averaged at the nacelle height.
Table 7.2.1. Comparison of noise levels of three WPP models as a function of wind speed
Wind speed, m/s 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 >10
WPP model
Vestas V172-7.2 dB 97,8 97,8 98,4 101,8 105,4 108,8 110,1 110,1
Nordex 175-6.8 dB 98,2 102,4 107,3 108,9 108,9 108,9 108,9 108,9
Nordex 163-6.8 dB 97,5 97,5 97,5 100,8 100,8 105,7 109,2 109,2
214
The noise levels from the WPPs have been modelled for the whole calendar year, for both
planned WPP siting alternatives. The modelling was carried out taking into account the
prevailing wind direction, speed and associated noise power of the WPP, with daily average
wind speeds with no statistically significant differences between day, evening and night,
resulting in noise maps showing the constant noise level during all periods of the day, and
applying the nighttime thresholds, which are the lowest, to the assessment.
Noise propagation has been modelled for both alternatives A and B, where B fully
encompasses A. For sub-alternatives A' and B', where the only difference is an increased mast
height for part of the WPP, noise propagation has not been modelled separately, as a higher
mast reduces the noise level from the WPP operation in the built-up area near the ground by
about 1 dB. An increase in wind speed of about 0.2 m/s for every 25 m of altitude does not
practically increase the noise level. The main alternatives are therefore slightly louder than the
sub-alternatives, but this difference is less than 1 dB (see Annex 7) and is considered to be
insignificant and only noise-reducing compared to the modelled alternatives.
In addition to the planned wind turbines in the south-eastern part of the WPP Park, a BESS is
planned to be installed on the site, as described in Chapter 4.4 of the EIA Report, and the noise
from these installations has also been included in the noise modelling. The batteries
themselves do not make noise, but the ancillary HVAC equipment associated with the BESS
does.
Noise propagation has been modelled separately for WPP without background noise, and the
results have then been summed with background or traffic noise (Section 6.7) and analysed (at
the end of this chapter). Since the last amendment of 3 November 2023 to Cabinet Regulation
No 16 of 7 January 2014 "Procedures for the assessment and management of noise", which
increased the threshold values for traffic noise, there has been no methodology for comparing
the cumulative noise from different noise sources with different threshold values, such as the
WPP + motorways in the case of this project, and therefore no threshold values for the
cumulative noise.
Separately, infrasound is not considered in this prediction because according to the standard
LVS ISO 389-7:2007 "On thresholds for assistive listening", hearing sensitivity in this range
(below 20 Hz) is more than 60 dB lower than in the basic hearing range (160-14000 Hz). In
addition, according to LVS ISO 1996-2:2018 "Acoustics. Ambient noise characterisation,
measurement and assessment. Part 2: For the purposes of paragraph 10.4 of the
'Determination of sound pressure level', if the difference between two noise sources is greater
than 10 dB, the noise contributing to the cumulative noise shall be the greater of the two and
the contribution of the lesser shall be negligible. In this case, when the difference between a
person's hearing sensitivity (sound perception level) in the infrasound range and in the basic
hearing range is about 60 dB, this part of the noise (infrasound) cannot be perceived. The noise
spectrum of the WPP model also includes most of the infrasound: 6.3-20 Hz.
Figure 7.2.1 provides a noise propagation map for Alternative B with 40 WPP, which also
includes Alternative A with 25 WPP in its entirety.
The results of the noise calculations indicate that no potential problems with exceedances of
the noise limit values are expected:
1. In the existing situation, the noise level (traffic noise only) fully complies with Cabinet
Regulation No 16 of 7 January 2014 "Noise Assessment and Management Procedures":
the traffic noise limit values are not exceeded (and the low traffic noise does not
exceed the noise limit values for industrial sites);
215
2. In the existing situation (traffic noise), in one homestead area, measuring point 1, the
WHO guideline212 for road traffic noise recommends a dailyLDV value < 53 dBA (see
Table 7.2.2.);
3. Calculation of the noise level at night during operation of the 27 WPPs (Option A): the
permissible noise level in the homestead areas at all times of the day (see Table 7.2.3)
is complied with in accordance with the Cabinet of Ministers of the Republic of Latvia
Regulation No 16 of 07.01.2014 "Noise assessment and management procedure";
4. Calculation of the noise level at night when operating 40 WPP (Option B): the
permissible noise level in the homestead areas at all times of the day (see Table 7.2.4.)
is ensured, in accordance with the Regulation No 16 of the Cabinet of Ministers of the
Republic of Latvia of 07.01.2014 "Noise assessment and management procedure";
5. In some homestead areas (Option A, measuring points 1, 4, 6, 8, Option B, measuring
points 1, 4, 6, 8, 13) the WHO guidelines213 for wind turbine noise do not meet the
recommended dailyLDV value < 45 dBA;
To comply with the dailyADI values recommended in the WHO guidelines:
Option A for VPPs VV88, VV85, VV84, VV47, VV46, VV37, VV21, VV16: when selecting WPPs,
the project promoter should select WPPs whose noise emissions comply with WHO
recommendations, install WPPs with the lowest possible noise emissions or aerodynamically
improved wings;
Option B for WPP VV88, VV85, VV84, VV66, VV47, VV46, VV37, VV21, VV16: when selecting
WPP, the project promoter should select WPP with noise emissions that comply with WHO
recommendations, install WPP with the lowest possible noise emissions or aerodynamically
improved wings;
6. As it stands, the night-time traffic noise (43.2 dB(A)) at the "Bērzi" development is
considered to be zero according to acoustics laws compared to the night-time traffic
noise limit value (55 dB(A)) and does not reach the limit value for industrial sites (45
dB(A)). The nearest WPP (mostly WPP No VV85: The noise level (43,7 dB(A)) from the
same development at a distance of 892 m in both alternatives also constitutes its own
noise level, that of the industrial site, which also does not reach the limit value. In
order to determine the cumulative noise level in this area, a logarithmic summation of
these two noise levels has to be carried out: cumulative night noise Lnight = 46.4 dBA,
which is very slightly (1.4 dBA) above the limit value for noise from industrial sites,
although it is much (8.6 dBA) below the limit value for traffic noise. However, no
overall limit value has been set for this cumulative noise level in accordance with
Regulation No 16 of the Cabinet of Ministers of the Republic of Latvia. For the
purposes of an EIA, therefore, it is logical to deduce at least roughly what this should
be.
The limit value for the aggregate noise should be a variable value depending on the
contribution of traffic noise (which individually has a higher limit value) and industrial
noise (which individually has a lower limit value): the aggregate limit value should be
closer to one or other of the individual limit values the greater the contribution of one
or other of the individual noise sources to the aggregate. In a situation where the two
noise sources are equivalent, the limit value for the total noise should be midway
between the two individual limit values: Lnight = 50 dBA. The situation under assessment
is close to this average case: the noise from the two sources is practically the same (0,5
dBA difference), so the limit value should be 50 dBA (or 49,75 dBA by including the 0,5
212
Compendium of WHO and other UN guidance on health and environment, 2022 update
213
Compendium of WHO and other UN guidance on health and environment, 2022 update
216
dBA higher intensity of the industrial noise and consequently shifting the combined
limit value of the two different sources by 0,25 dBA closer to the limit value of the
noise which is 0,5 dBA higher) and in this case the combined noise of 46,4 dBA does
not approach this limit value convincingly.
The exceptional situation described in the previous paragraph is not relevant for the
other development areas of the WPP park, as the cumulative noise level in each case
does not even reach the lowest noise limit value for industrial sites.
217
Figure 7.2.1. Long-term noise indicator Lday, Levening, Lnight Alternative B with 40 WPP.
218
Table 7.2.2. Current ambient sound
Designation Designations of Height of Long- Long- Long- Limit value for Difference in Long-term Difference of Limit value of Difference Ambient
of calculation calculation term term term the long-term level of environmental the level of the long-term of noise
calculation points point ambient ambient ambient environmental environmental noise limit the environmental ambient indicator
points on characterising above site, noise noise noise noise indicator noise indicator value of the environmental noise indicator noise L avg level
the map built-up areas m indicator indicator indicator of the Building Ldien compared noise limit noise indicator of the Building indicator compared
level, Lday level, level, Regulation to the value of the Lvakars with Regulation Lnight level to the
dBA Lvakar dBA Lnight dBA 016, Lday normative building respect to the 016, Lnight compared WHO
limit values of regulation 016 normative to the guidelines
the Cabinet of of the Cabinet limit values of normative
Ministers of of Ministers of the Cabinet of limit
the Republic the Republic Ministers of values of
of Latvia, dB of Latvia, Lvakars the Republic the
of Latvia, dB Cabinet of
Ministers
of the
Republic
of Latvia,
dB
1 Bērzi, Plāņu 4 51 49 44 65 -14 60 -11 55 -11 53
pag.
2 Dreimaņi, 4 26 23 19 65 -39 60 -37 55 -36 27
Plāņu
3 Kalngulbji, 4 30 28 23 65 -35 60 -32 55 -32 32
Valkas pag.
4 Kūmiņas, 4 30 17 22 65 -35 60 -33 55 -33 31
Plāņu
5 Madaras 1, 4 21 19 14 65 -44 60 -41 55 -41 23
Valkas pag.
6 Melderi, Plāņu 4 31 28 23 65 -34 60 -32 55 -32 32
pag.
219
Designation Designations of Height of Long- Long- Long- Limit value for Difference in Long-term Difference of Limit value of Difference Ambient
of calculation calculation term term term the long-term level of environmental the level of the long-term of noise
calculation points point ambient ambient ambient environmental environmental noise limit the environmental ambient indicator
points on characterising above site, noise noise noise noise indicator noise indicator value of the environmental noise indicator noise L avg level
the map built-up areas m indicator indicator indicator of the Building Ldien compared noise limit noise indicator of the Building indicator compared
level, Lday level, level, Regulation to the value of the Lvakars with Regulation Lnight level to the
dBA Lvakar dBA Lnight dBA 016, Lday normative building respect to the 016, Lnight compared WHO
limit values of regulation 016 normative to the guidelines
the Cabinet of of the Cabinet limit values of normative
Ministers of of Ministers of the Cabinet of limit
the Republic the Republic Ministers of values of
of Latvia, dB of Latvia, Lvakars the Republic the
of Latvia, dB Cabinet of
Ministers
of the
Republic
of Latvia,
dB
7 Mieriņi, Vij- 4 44 41 36 65 -21 60 -19 55 -19 45
ciema pag.
8 Oliņas, Plāņu 4 20 18 13 65 -45 60 -42 55 -42 22
pag.
9 Ozoli, Vijciema 4 27 25 20 65 -38 60 -35 55 -35 29
10 Parka iela 23, 4 20 17 13 65 -45 60 -43 55 -43 21
Seda
11 Saule 4, Valkas 4 57 54 50 65 -8 60 -6 55 -5 59
12 Skujas, Valka 4 24 21 17 65 -41 60 -39 55 -38 25
13 Vēverzemnieki 4 49 47 42 65 -16 60 -13 55 -13 51
14 Vīksnupes, 4 36 34 29 65 -29 60 -26 55 -26 38
Plāņu pag.
15 Zīle 4, Valkas p 4 28 25 21 65 -37 60 -35 55 -34 29
220
Table 7.2.3. Long-term night-time noise performance of WPPs Lnight in homestead areas: Alternative A
Designation Designations of Height of Long- Long- Long- Limit value for Difference in Long-term Difference of Limit value of Difference Ambient
of calculation calculation term term term the long-term level of environmental the level of the long-term of noise
calculation points point ambient ambient ambient environmental environmental noise limit the environmental ambient indicator
points on characterising above site, noise noise noise noise indicator noise indicator value of the environmental noise indicator noise L avg level
the map built-up areas m indicator indicator indicator of the Building Ldien compared noise limit noise indicator of the Building indicator compared
level, Lday level, level, Regulation to the value of the Lvakars with Regulation Lnight level to the
dBA Lvakar dBA Lnight dBA 016, Lday normative building respect to the 016, Lnight compared WHO
limit values of regulation 016 normative to the guidelines
the Cabinet of of the Cabinet limit values of normative
Ministers of of Ministers of the Cabinet of limit
the Republic the Republic Ministers of values of
of Latvia, dB of Latvia, Lvakars the Republic the
of Latvia, dB Cabinet of
Ministers
of the
Republic
of Latvia,
dB
1 Bērzi, Plāņu 4 43 43 43 55 -12 50 -7 45 -2 50
pag.
2 Dreimaņi, 4 38 38 38 55 -17 50 -12 45 -7 45
Plāņu
3 Kalngulbji, 4 0 0 0 55 -55 50 -50 45 -45 6
Valkas pag.
4 Kūmiņas, 4 41 41 41 55 -14 50 -8 45 -4 47
Plāņu
5 Madaras 1, 4 19 19 19 55 -36 50 -31 45 -26 25
Valkas pag.
221
Designation Designations of Height of Long- Long- Long- Limit value for Difference in Long-term Difference of Limit value of Difference Ambient
of calculation calculation term term term the long-term level of environmental the level of the long-term of noise
calculation points point ambient ambient ambient environmental environmental noise limit the environmental ambient indicator
points on characterising above site, noise noise noise noise indicator noise indicator value of the environmental noise indicator noise L avg level
the map built-up areas m indicator indicator indicator of the Building Ldien compared noise limit noise indicator of the Building indicator compared
level, Lday level, level, Regulation to the value of the Lvakars with Regulation Lnight level to the
dBA Lvakar dBA Lnight dBA 016, Lday normative building respect to the 016, Lnight compared WHO
limit values of regulation 016 normative to the guidelines
the Cabinet of of the Cabinet limit values of normative
Ministers of of Ministers of the Cabinet of limit
the Republic the Republic Ministers of values of
of Latvia, dB of Latvia, Lvakars the Republic the
of Latvia, dB Cabinet of
Ministers
of the
Republic
of Latvia,
dB
6 Melderi, Plāņu 4 42 42 42 55 -13 50 -8 45 -3 49
pag.
7 Mieriņi, Vij- 4 17 17 17 55 -38 50 -33 45 -28 23
ciema pag.
8 Oliņas, Plāņu 4 39 39 39 55 -16 50 -11 45 -6 46
pag.
9 Ozoli, Vijciema 4 0 0 0 55 -55 50 -50 45 -45 6
10 Parka iela 23, 4 37 37 37 55 -18 50 -13 45 -8 43
Seda
11 Saule 4, Valkas 4 14 14 14 55 -41 50 -36 45 -31 20
12 Skujas, Valka 4 18 18 18 55 -37 50 -32 45 -27 24
13 Vēverzemnieki 4 0 0 0 55 -55 50 -50 45 -45 6
14 Vīksnupes, 4 26 26 26 55 -29 50 -24 45 -19 33
222
Designation Designations of Height of Long- Long- Long- Limit value for Difference in Long-term Difference of Limit value of Difference Ambient
of calculation calculation term term term the long-term level of environmental the level of the long-term of noise
calculation points point ambient ambient ambient environmental environmental noise limit the environmental ambient indicator
points on characterising above site, noise noise noise noise indicator noise indicator value of the environmental noise indicator noise L avg level
the map built-up areas m indicator indicator indicator of the Building Ldien compared noise limit noise indicator of the Building indicator compared
level, Lday level, level, Regulation to the value of the Lvakars with Regulation Lnight level to the
dBA Lvakar dBA Lnight dBA 016, Lday normative building respect to the 016, Lnight compared WHO
limit values of regulation 016 normative to the guidelines
the Cabinet of of the Cabinet limit values of normative
Ministers of of Ministers of the Cabinet of limit
the Republic the Republic Ministers of values of
of Latvia, dB of Latvia, Lvakars the Republic the
of Latvia, dB Cabinet of
Ministers
of the
Republic
of Latvia,
dB
Plāņu pag.
15 Zīle 4, Valkas p 4 0 0 0 55 -55 50 -50 45 -45 6
223
Table 7.2.4. Long-term indicator of noise from WPPs at night Lnight in homestead areas: Alternative B
Designation Designations of Height of Long- Long- Long- Limit value for Difference in Long-term Difference of Limit value of Difference Ambient
of calculation the term term term the long-term level of environmental the level of the long-term of noise
calculation points calculation ambient ambient ambient environmental environmental noise limit the environmental ambient indicator
points on characterising point noise noise noise noise indicator noise indicator value of the environmental noise indicator noise L avg level
the map built-up areas above the indicator indicator indicator of the Building Ldien compared noise limit noise indicator of the Building indicator compared
site, m level, Lday level, level, Regulation to the value of the Lvakars with Regulation Lnight level to the
(according dBA Lvakar dBA Lnight dBA 016, Lday normative building respect to the 016, Lnight compared WHO
to Building limit values of regulation 016 normative to the guidelines
Regulation the Cabinet of of the Cabinet limit values of normative
016, Ministers of of Ministers of the Cabinet of limit
Annex 1, the Republic the Republic Ministers of values of
paragraph of Latvia, dB of Latvia, Lvakars the Republic the
1.4.1) of Latvia, dB Cabinet of
Ministers
of the
Republic
of Latvia,
dB
1 Bērzi, Plāņu 4 43 43 43 55 -12 50 -7 45 -2 50
pag.
2 Dreimaņi, 4 38 38 38 55 -17 50 -12 45 -7 45
Plāņu
3 Kalngulbji, 4 0 0 0 55 -55 50 -50 45 -45 6
Valkas pag.
4 Kūmiņas, 4 41 41 41 55 -14 50 -8 45 -4 47
Plāņu
5 Madaras 1, 4 19 19 19 55 -36 50 -31 45 -26 25
Valkas pag.
6 Melderi, Plāņu 4 42 42 42 55 -13 50 -8 45 -3 49
pag.
7 Mieriņi, Vij- 4 17 17 17 55 -38 50 -33 45 -28 23
224
Designation Designations of Height of Long- Long- Long- Limit value for Difference in Long-term Difference of Limit value of Difference Ambient
of calculation the term term term the long-term level of environmental the level of the long-term of noise
calculation points calculation ambient ambient ambient environmental environmental noise limit the environmental ambient indicator
points on characterising point noise noise noise noise indicator noise indicator value of the environmental noise indicator noise L avg level
the map built-up areas above the indicator indicator indicator of the Building Ldien compared noise limit noise indicator of the Building indicator compared
site, m level, Lday level, level, Regulation to the value of the Lvakars with Regulation Lnight level to the
(according dBA Lvakar dBA Lnight dBA 016, Lday normative building respect to the 016, Lnight compared WHO
to Building limit values of regulation 016 normative to the guidelines
Regulation the Cabinet of of the Cabinet limit values of normative
016, Ministers of of Ministers of the Cabinet of limit
Annex 1, the Republic the Republic Ministers of values of
paragraph of Latvia, dB of Latvia, Lvakars the Republic the
1.4.1) of Latvia, dB Cabinet of
Ministers
of the
Republic
of Latvia,
dB
ciema pag.
8 Oliņas, Plāņu 4 39 39 39 55 -16 50 -11 45 -6 46
pag.
9 Ozoli, Vijciema 4 0 0 0 55 -55 50 -50 45 -45 6
10 Parka iela 23, 4 37 37 37 55 -18 50 -13 45 -8 43
Seda
11 Saule 4, Valkas 4 14 14 14 55 -41 50 -36 45 -31 20
12 Skujas, Valka 4 18 18 18 55 -37 50 -32 45 -27 24
13 Vēverzemnieki 4 0 0 0 55 -55 50 -50 45 -45 6
14 Vīksnupes, 4 26 26 26 55 -29 50 -24 45 -19 33
Plāņu pag.
15 Zīle 4, Valkas 4 0 0 0 55 -55 50 -50 45 -45 6
pag.
225
7.2.2. Assessment and significance of low-frequency noise
There are no laws and regulations in Latvia that set limit values for low-frequency noise. For
the assessment of low-frequency noise in this EIA, the Danish limit values and the procedure
for setting them for WPP development projects have been used as a basis. The cumulative
low-frequency (10-160 Hz) noise level from WPP in residential buildings must not exceed 20 dB
at wind speeds of 6 m/s and 8 m/s. The predicted low-frequency noise of the WPPs has been
calculated for all 84 WPPs initially evaluated at the same time, fully covering the two
alternatives evaluated in more detail, using the WindPro software with up-to-date data from
WPP manufacturers on the latest models for which low-frequency noise measurements have
been carried out214: see Annex 7. The results do not exceed the Danish limit values (see Figure
7.2.2). However, these results would have no real use even if the Danish (not Latvian)
thresholds were exceeded.
As discussed in the previous section, hearing sensitivity in the infrasound range (below 20 Hz)
is more than 60 dB lower than in the basic hearing range (160-14000 Hz). And in accordance
with LVS ISO 1996-2:2018 "Acoustics. Ambient noise characterisation, measurement and
assessment. Part 2: In the case of the "Determination of sound pressure level", in relation 10.4,
if the difference between two noise sources is greater than 10 dB, the noise contributing to the
total noise is the greater and the lesser contribution is negligible or zero, so in this case, when
the difference between the ear's perception in the infrasound range and the basic hearing
range is ~60 dB instead of 10 dB, there is no possibility of perceiving this part of the noise
(infrasound). However, the WPP noise spectrum modelled in the previous section also includes
most of the infrasound, 6.3-20 Hz, and therefore even more of the low-frequency sound: 6.3-
160 Hz (only the very bottom is missing: 0-6.3 Hz), except that it is not assessed separately, but
only as a minor component of the overall sound emission.
214
WindPRO 3.6.366 by EMD International A/S, SIA "Environment" licence (client) No 8797.
226
Figure 7.2.2. Long-term value of low-frequency night-time noise from WPPs at wind speeds of 8 m/s according to the Danish methodology: 84 WPP.
227
It is believed that WPP produce strong low-frequency sounds in the range inaudible to humans
(infrasound), which travel long distances and do not harm health. However, "EU and global
studies show that noise from wind farms generally causes disturbance to people living near
them, but there is no scientific evidence of harmful effects on human health"215. Other sources
(Guidelines for the Environmental Impact Assessment of Wind Power Plants and
Recommendations on Requirements for the Construction of Wind Power Plants) confirm this:
"Several studies have shown that even lower sound pressure levels from wind farms disturb
people more than higher sound pressure levels from road traffic. The pulsed nature of sound
from wind turbines has been cited as a key reason for this exacerbated noise perception"216.
Ibid, "Guidelines for the Environmental Impact Assessment of Wind Power Plants and
Recommendations on Requirements for the Construction of Wind Power Plants",217, states
that "sound pressure levels in the frequency range below 10 Hz can exceed 60 dB(A) even at a
distance of 750 m from a wind power plant", quoting G.P. Van Den Berg (2004)218, however,
this study does not find any direct effects on people (neither health nor comfort) from this
inaudible sound, but deals with a completely different issue: infrared sound, while inaudible
itself, can cause vibration of building elements (e.g. open windows), transforming this sound
into an already higher frequency audible sound, whose pressure level is negligible, although it
may be slightly audible.
There is some information in the literature on health symptoms attributed by some people to
wind turbines, particularly in relation to audible noise, low frequency noise, infrasound and
electromagnetic fields, but several studies link this to the nocebo effect, which can lead to
expectations of undesirable effects or symptoms coming true, as well as misattribution of
existing or new symptoms to a new technology.219.
A study220 by Finnish scientists looking at the potential impact of wind turbines on human
health found that the infrasound they produce does not affect human health and does not
cause any symptoms. The project consisted of three sub-projects: a long-term measurement
campaign, surveys and listening tests. The study focused on locations where local residents
reported symptoms that they themselves associated with infrasound emitted by nearby wind
turbines. In the infrasound measurement campaign, the researchers aimed to investigate the
levels and variations of infrasound inside dwellings adjacent to wind farms. On the other hand,
according to the survey results, symptoms associated with infrasound from wind turbines were
common: ~15% of respondents living near wind turbines.
Measurements in the two regions continued for 308 days. The continuous infrasound pressure
levels in the residential homes were found to be 67-75 dB(A). The worst-case scenarios were
then selected and used in listening tests, which divided participants into two groups based on
their reports of symptoms caused by infrasound from wind turbines: people who suffered
215
https://pubs.aip.org/asa/jasa/article-abstract/116/6/3460/545245/Perception-and-annoyance-due-
to-wind-turbine-noise?redirectedFrom=fulltext
216
https://www.vpvb.gov.lv/lv/media/827/download
217
https://www.vpvb.gov.lv/lv/media/827/download
218
https://eolmernormandie.debatpublic.fr/images/documents/bibliotheque-debat/22.do-wind-
turbines-produce-significant-low-frequency-sound-levels.pdf
219
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6121031/
220
https://julkaisut.valtioneuvosto.fi/bitstream/handle/10024/162329/VNTEAS_2020_34.pdf?sequence
=1&isAllowed=y
228
from them and people who did not. None of the participants were able to distinguish the
frequencies of the infrasound in the wind turbine noise, nor did the presence of infrasound
make any difference to how disturbing they found the wind turbine noise. The participants'
autonomic nervous system also did not react to the infrared sound. No evidence was found on
the health effects of infrasound from wind turbines.
Extensive national epidemiological studies on the public health effects of low-frequency noise
from WPP have been carried out in Denmark, analysing the effects of WPP noise on
cardiovascular disease, pregnancy and diabetes. The results of the studies have been published
in 2018 at221,222,223,224. During these studies, which analysed public health related aspects in the
vicinity of all the WPPs deployed in Denmark (height of distance of up to 40 WPPs) where
~615,000 residents lived during the reporting period, during the period from 1982 to 2013, the
initial hypotheses that the noises generated by WPPs, including that of low frequency, would
have a negative impact on public health were not confirmed. The authors note that some
observations suggest that potentially higher relative risk factors could be observed in areas
where the ambient noise level from the WPP is above 42 dB(A) and the indoor low-frequency
noise level is above 15 dB(A).
The low-frequency outdoor noise modelled in this EIA does not reach even the lowest indoor
levels in any of the nearby developments mentioned in all these studies: 15 dB(A).
7.2.3. Assessment and significance of changes in vibration levels
During operation, the imbalance and friction of the rotating parts cause vibrations that are
undesirable not only from an environmental point of view, but above all for the operation of
the WPP itself, which is why they are minimised in the design of the WPP. The main sources of
vibration in a WPP are the generator, gearbox and bearing systems. The vibration of these
rotating parts can also cause the nacelle and tower to vibrate. At high wind speeds, the level of
vibration can be increased by imbalances in the WPP parts due to wind pressure and turbulent
flows.
No significant effects related to vibrations from WPPs have been observed in studies to date.
Studies in Canada225 226 indicate that vibration levels are no higher than 0.01 m/s2 at a distance
of about 300 m from the WPP. Vibrations from WPPs have not been studied in Latvia, and
relatively few studies have been carried out in other countries. Most of these studies analyse
solutions to mitigate vibration from the mechanical parts of the WPP to prevent damage to the
WPP due to vibration, and only a few studies analyse the impact of vibration on areas close to
the WPP. The nearest country where vibration studies have been carried out is Germany.
221
A. H. Poulsen et al., Long-term exposure to wind turbine noise and redemption of
antihypertensive medication: A nationalwide cohort study. Environment International 121 (Pt.1),
September 2018
222
A. H. Poulsen et al., Pregnancy exposure to wind turbine noise and adverse birth outcomes : A
nationalwide cohort study, Environment International 167, September 2018
223
A. H. Poulsen et al., Long-term exposure to wind turbine noise at night and risk for diabetes: A
nationwide cohort study, Environmental Research 165, April 2018
224
A. H. Poulsen et al., Short-term nighttime wind turbine noise and cardiovascular events: A nationwide
casecrossover study from Denmark, Environment international 114, March 2018
225
J. G. Hurtado et al., Field monitoring and analysis of an onshore wind turbine shallow foundation
system, Geo Otawa 2017
226
W.N. Edwards, Analysis of Measured Wind Turbine Seismic Noise Generated from the Summerside
Wind Farm, Prince Edward Island; Geological Survey of Canada, 2015
229
In 2009, the first guidelines in the world227 were approved in Germany, setting vibration limit
values for the mechanical parts of WPPs. In 2015, these guidelines were updated to extend the
thresholds to WPPs with a rated capacity of more than 3 MW. These guidelines and the limit
values they set are taken into account by all major WPP manufacturers when developing new
WPP models and by users when operating WPPs. The permissible limits for vibration velocity
(velocity) and acceleration(acceleration) set by VDI 3834 are not met.
Short-term effects may arise from vibrations caused by construction machinery during
construction.
WPPs do not directly cause mechanical vibrations (unlike, for example, the operation of a
pneumatic hammer, or a vehicle travelling on a rough road, which directly causes vibrations).
However, slight vibrations may occur due to imbalance and friction of the rotating parts. The
main sources of potential vibration in a WPP are the generator, gearbox and bearing systems.
Vibration velocities (mm/s) and accelerations (m/s)2) at different frequencies are determined
for the WPP components that generate the vibrations: bearing system, gearbox, generator and
nacelle.
A study on low-frequency noise and vibration was carried out in Germany in 2013-
2015228which, similar to the Canadian studies, found that vibration levels were slightly higher
than 0.01 m/s at 285 m from the WPP2. The vibration level on the foundations of the WPP was
relatively high at 1 m/s2However, the vibration level decreased rapidly as the WPP was moved
away.
There are no laws and regulations in Latvia that regulate the level of vibration in the
environment. Until 2010, Cabinet Regulation No 341 of 25 June 2003 "Regulations on
permissible values of vibration in residential and public buildings" (hereinafter - Cabinet
Regulation No 341) was in force. 341), which laid down the permissible vibration values in the
following areas of residential and public buildings: living rooms, rooms in hotels, guest houses
(three-star category and above) and motels (category III and above), rooms in hotels and guest
houses (two-star category and below), rooms in motels (category II and below), patient wards
in medical and rehabilitation institutions, operating theatres, patient examination rooms,
classrooms and library reading rooms, administrative and office premises, sales halls of
commercial, catering and domestic service establishments, public event rooms, except sports
halls, and sports halls and swimming pools. Comparing the permissible limits of Cabinet
Regulation No 341 with the vibration values determined in Canadian and German studies, the
vibrations from WPPs already at a distance of about 300 m from WPPs do not exceed the limits
established until 2010, even in operating theatres of medical institutions, where the lowest
permissible vibration level is 0.028 m/s2 (at night).
Of course, operating theatres in medical institutions, which have very strict limits because of
the significant effects of vibration, are not comparable to residential buildings. However,
comparing the results of studies on vibration from WPP with the vibration limit values that
were set in Latvia until 2010, it can be concluded that the vibration from WPP at a distance of
300 m is already lower than the lowest limit value set, i.e. in operating theatres at night. As the
vibration level of the technical components of the WPP (bearings, gearbox, etc.) does not
depend on the capacity of the WPP, and the major WPP manufacturers follow the guidelines of
227
VDI 3834 "Messung und Beurteilung der mechanischen Schwingungen von Windenergieanlagen und
deren Komponenten - OnshoreWindenergieanlagen mit Getrieben, March 2009
228
Ministerium für Umwelt, Klima und Energiewirtschaft Baden-Württemberg, 2016. Low-frequency
noise incl. infrasound from wind turbines and other sources. Report on results of the measurement
project 2013–2015
230
VDI 3834 when manufacturing VPPs, there is no reason to believe that the implementation of
the proposed activity of Latvijas vēja parki Ltd will result in a higher vibration level than that
specified in Cabinet Regulation No 341 or in the aforementioned studies where the vibration
level was obtained by measurements. Therefore, the impact of vibration on the population is
assessed as negligible.
The level of vibration caused by WPPs and their impact on nearby areas in Latvia are not
limited by regulatory limits. Until 30 June 2010, vibration limit values were laid down in
Cabinet Regulation No 341. No new legislation setting vibration limit values has been adopted
since 30 June 2010, when these provisions expired. These regulations set lower vibration limits
for operating theatres and wards in medical and rehabilitation facilities (night period), where
the weighted vibration acceleration could not exceed 0.028 m/s2. In living areas, the weighted
vibration acceleration must not have exceeded 0.04 m/s2 at night and 0.07 m/s2 during the day.
A comparison of the results of vibration measurements from WPPs with the vibration limits in
force in Latvia until 30 June 2010 shows that vibration levels in the immediate vicinity of WPPs
are higher than the former limits, while vibration levels as close as 300 m from WPPs are
significantly lower than the lower limit for operating theatres and wards in medical and
rehabilitation facilities (at night). Although no studies have been carried out on the vibration
levels of the WPPs assessed in this EIA, given that the limit values for the mechanical parts of
the WPPs are set independently of the capacity of the WPP, there is no reason to believe that
the vibration levels of the proposed WPPs will approach the limit values that were in force in
Latvia at the time and will cause any perceptible discomfort outside the former protection
zones of the WPPs. Therefore, the proposed operation, which does not foresee any WPP closer
than 800 m to any human dwelling, cannot by a large margin cause vibrations that would
disturb people.
7.3. Effects of the flicker effect
One of the impacts that is considered important and always analysed when assessing the
impact of WPSs on social welfare is the flicker effect of WPSs. The flickering effect (also known
as "disco effect" or "shadow flickering") is caused by the movement of the rotor wings as they
periodically block out the sun and create moving shadows on the ground and on the surface of
objects, and can cause subjective discomfort for humans. However, the only objective adverse
effect on human health found in the literature is that for epileptics, lighting changes of 3-60 Hz
can trigger epileptic seizures. Modern high-power wind rotors produce much slower flicker:
typically in the range of 0.2-1 Hz.
There are no laws and regulations in Latvia that set out how the flicker effect should be
assessed and limited. Similarly, in other EU countries, where flicker exposure limits are set in
guidelines rather than in legislation, the reason is that flicker is known and defined as a
nuisance, but there is no scientific evidence of its effects on public health.
The environmental impact assessment of WPP in other countries and also in the latest Latvian
"Guidelines for Environmental Impact Assessment of Wind Power Plants and Recommendations
on Requirements for Construction of Wind Power Plants" (2023) set the following flicker impact
targets (preferred, as they are not mandatory thresholds):
• 30 flicker hours per year if calculated using the worst-case scenario method;
• 10 flicker hours/year if calculated under a realistic scenario (Germany, Belgium and
Sweden recommend a limit of 8 h/year);
231
• 30 minutes per day for both assessment scenarios (clearly an unreasonable figure, as
in the real scenario modelling this figure decreases by about the same factor as the
number of hours per year).
These targets are very strict: 10 hours per year means ~1 min. 40 s per day. Such a disturbance
is difficult for the exposed person to notice even if a sharply contoured shadow of a nearby
WPP flickers over his house for ~1.5 minutes a day (and he stays in the room or outdoor space
where the shadow falls every day during that time): it is incomparably smaller than, for
example, a disturbance of air pollution or noise levels (factors with proven health risks) that is
recognised by law as acceptable. However, if the flickering shadow is only present for a minor
part of the days of the year, e.g. 1 month, and the duration of the shadow is on average 20
minutes during that month, approaching half an hour for part of the month, it may already be
(if the WPP is close and the shadow is sharp) a significant disturbance during this limited
period of the year, the undesirability of which is understandable.
However, no objective harm has been proven from the flickering effect, only that the shadow
can be subjectively annoying and make reading and other concentration-related activities
more difficult. Even epilepsy patients are no longer harmed by the slow flickering of modern
large WPP. This is apparently why no country has statutory limits for the flicker effect, because
there is no scientific basis for them (unlike, for example, air pollution or noise, which have
objective grounds). At the same time, there are guideline targets that are being pursued as a
precautionary measure without a firm scientific or legal basis. Moreover, this minute and a
half tends to be applied to a distance of ten WPP rotor diameters (see analysis below), at
which point the shadow is actually no longer visible at all. These recommendations, unchanged
for decades and untouched by the development of WPPs, must have been made in the early
days of NPS impact assessment, when there was no methodology for realistic scenarios, and
the shadows of small, rapidly rotating NPSs were assessed only by the worst-case scenario
method and recommended not to exceed 30 hours per year (5 minutes per day), virtually
always citing the risk of seizures in epileptics as the only justification. (For comparison: the
law's objectively determined noise standards in Latvia have been changed in 2004, 2014 and
2023, so 3 times in the history of these VPP's flickering shadow law's vague subjective
recommendations, even though noise as an environmental factor whose harm has been
proven has existed unchanged for millions of years, while the nature and rotor diameter of
VPP shadows have changed significantly over decades).
For a person to be exposed to such a harmless but potentially unpleasant shadow flicker, the
following factors must coincide:
1) bright sun casting contrasting shadows,
2) the distance to the WPP is small enough for the shadow to reach a person and still
have a perceptible contrast,
3) The rotor of a WPP is angled so that the shadows it produces oscillate: if the rotor
plane is perpendicular to the direction of human vision, the flickering effect is visible
over the entire area of rotor rotation, whereas if the rotor plane is parallel to the
direction of human vision, the flickering shadow is virtually absent, except at the very
tips of the wings, whose narrowness means that the shadow can be felt only at very
short distances,
4) the rotor turns (but part of the year it doesn't: in no wind and too strong winds).
The flicker effect may only be potentially significant in places where a person is obliged to stay
and cannot avoid it, i.e. in a place of residence, workplace or other place of permanent
232
residence: the flicker effect is irrelevant if a person is occasionally exposed to the rotor shadow
area and briefly disturbed by it.
So, for a person to experience the inconvenience of the flicker effect at their place of residence
or work, that place must be close enough to the WPP and the flickering shadow must hit that
place for enough of the year.
In order to assess this situation, it is first necessary to define the shadow itself, as there is no
specificity and no consensus as to how far the shadow of a WPP spot can be considered
contrasting enough to meet the meaning of an uncomfortable flickering shadow. Different
sources define this distance very differently.
In the British Isles, for the second decade there has been a conservative tendency to
recommend that flickering shadows should be judged as a nuisance up to a distance of 10
rotor diameters229 230 231 232 . It is one of those recommendations without legal and, in fact,
scientific basis, which is obvious from the lack of a direct correlation between rotor diameter
and shadow intensity at a distance from the rotor. These recommendations were made 20
years ago, when WPPs were much smaller and the 10 rotor diameters were consequently a
much smaller distance than, for example, the WPPs evaluated in this EIA, which are 2 km
apart. It is understood that a larger rotor diameter does not in any way increase the contrast
of the shadow at greater distances from it (only indirectly may there be a correlation, as a
larger rotor diameter is usually associated with a larger wingspan).
Other international guidelines take a different approach: to be based on a fixed distance. The
Danish Wind Industry Association (2010) recommends that at distances of 500-1000 m from a
WPP, the rotor is no longer perceived simply as an object with the sun behind it, so there is no
point in assessing shadow flicker at longer distances; The South Australian Planning Bulletin
(2002) notes that flickering shadow is not an object of assessment at distances beyond 500 m -
but WPPs were much smaller at that time. It should be noted that these recommendations are
well in line with the minimum distance of a WPP from an individual residential building as set
out in Cabinet Regulation No 240 of 30 April 2013 "General Regulations on Spatial Planning,
Use and Development" (16.10.2020 version): "163.1. for wind power plants with a capacity of
between 20 kW and 2 MW, the distance from the nearest planned boundary of the wind power
plant and wind park to residential and public buildings shall be at least 500 m; 163.2. for wind
power plants with a capacity greater than 2 MW, the distance from the nearest planned
boundary of the wind power plant and wind farm to residential and public buildings shall be at
least 800 m;" i.e. 500 m for small WPPs (as they were in 2002), 800 m for larger ones (as they
are from ~2010).
It is remarkable that there was no contradiction between these different historical
recommendations: their dating indicates that the rotor diameters of the WPPs common at the
time of their creation were ~50 m, 80-100 m were still prospective models that did not exist in
nature or were rare exceptions, and ten rotor diameters were broadly in line with the
proposed fixed distances.
229
https://cumbria.gov.uk/elibrary/Content/Internet/538/755/1929/17716/17720/17723/42130145839.
PDF
230
https://www.infrastructure-
ni.gov.uk/sites/default/files/publications/infrastructure/Best%20Practice%20Guidance%20to%20PPS%2
018%20-%20Renewable%20Energy_0.pdf
231
https://www.gov.scot/collections/planning-advice-notes-pans/
232
https://www.gov.ie/en/collection/85b83-planning-guidelines-standards/
233
In New Zealand, an assessment of specific WPPs with a maximum wingspan of 4.2 m by
Energy3 Services Ltd, New Zealand (Kaimai Wind Farm Shadow Flicker Analysis, 2018)233 finds:
"International guidelines state that a practically meaningful distance to judge a flickering
shadow is up to the largest 265 wingspan, or about 1.1 km". This reference is to much more
up-to-date guidelines,234 obviously much more scientific, since the intensity of the shadow is
independent of the diameter of the rotor, but depends on the size of the object casting the
shadow, and of course the shadow cast by a wider wing spreads perceptibly over a greater
distance than that cast by a narrower wing. The coefficient "265" describes the distance over
which a longitudinal obstacle of constant width on its way over the solar disk (angular
diameter 0.533° on average) obscures half the disk area at maximum phase, and is considered
to be the threshold beyond which the shadow is practically no longer perceptible/noticeable
due to light scattering (wrapping around the obstacle) in the atmosphere. By analogy: a partial
solar eclipse, in which the Moon covers no more than half of the Sun's disk, is virtually
imperceptible. The validity of this conclusion is also visually illustrated by an independent
experiment carried out in Latvia already in 2010 (see below).
There is just one important nuance to note: the wing width, which varies continuously
throughout its length, is close to the maximum (although on average less than it) until about
one third of the wing length from the rotor axis, after which it narrows rapidly. For example,
for the power turbines evaluated in this EIA, the wing has a maximum width of ~5.5 m, and the
first third of its length can be considered to be about this wide (rounded up). The wing width
then decreases rapidly and reaches only ~1.3 m at 10% of the wing tip. Consequently, the
factor of 265 recommended in the Australian Guidelines (2018) as the criterion for the
distance to be judged, by which the maximum wing width is to be multiplied, is the maximum
precautionary factor, since shadows cast by a wing with a much smaller width over the same
distance will also be judged significant at the same distance. In addition, all these widths are
only valid in situations where the wing plane is exactly perpendicular to the observer's gaze
and the wing casts a shadow from its full width: in reality, such situations are rare, the wing is
mostly at an angle to the observer's gaze and is therefore narrower as a shadow-casting
object. The wing projects on average a statistical 45° angle relative to each individual location,
or √2 times narrower, so that the widest part of a 5.5 m wide wing projects on average 3.9 m
wide, with a corresponding assessment distance of 3.5 x 265 = 1033 m.
However, the unscientific nature of all the guidelines listed above (including the most recent
one) in relation to flickering shadow duration modelling programmes is further illustrated by
the following observation. It is clear that at a distance of 10 rotor diameters (some guidelines
recommend even further) or at a distance of 265 maximum wing widths, the shadow intensity
will be much weaker and therefore less intrusive than at a much shorter distance near the
WPP itself. However, the guidelines only specify specific hours to a specific distance: from zero
to 10 rotor diameters (or 265 wingspan) distance - 100%, from 10.01 rotor diameters (or 265.1
wingspan) distance - 0%. Of course, guidelines that claim to be scientific should establish a
relationship between shadow intensity and duration: the closer to the WPP, the more
contrasty the shadows and the fewer hours allowed; the further from the WPP, the weaker
the shadows and the more hours allowed, up to some threshold after which there is no point
in counting (but even before that, the shadow has become almost imperceptible and the
number of hours allowed must be very high). Analogy - noise modelling: The long-term
radiated noise level is calculated from the duration of noise exposure in relation to its intensity
233
https://www.hauraki-dc.govt.nz/assets/services_documents/WindFarm/B-Technical-reports/B16-
Shadow-Flicker.pdf
234
https://assets.cleanenergycouncil.org.au/documents/advocacy-initiatives/community-
engagement/wind-best-practice-implementation-guidelines.pdf
234
(determined by the distance from the noise source and the intensity of the source), while for a
flickering shadow only the duration is calculated, ignoring the intensity of the shadow
determined by the width of the object casting the shadow (which is only considered in the
most up-to-date Australian guidelines) and the much different distance from the shadow
source (which is not considered in any guidelines). For example, if the maximum judging
distance is determined to be the distance at which the shadow casting object covers half the
solar disk at maximum phase, or 265 times the width of the object, the next logical limiting
point would be, is the last distance at which the shadow would momentarily become 100%
sharply contoured, at least in vacuum (light scattering in the atmosphere makes it illuminated
anyway), which is 107.5 times the width of the object, which in this case would be only 591.25
m.
In the following we present the conclusions of one of the EIA report authors' (V. Felsbergs)
observations from a field study carried out in Latvia. The study sought to answer the question:
what is a "shadow", the distance of which is debated in international sources, without
describing what it is, i.e. how intense is it from a distant object compared to the shadow of a
close object.
A "shadow" means that less light from a light source falls on a location due to an obstruction
than on surrounding locations that are unobstructed from the light source, and there is a clear
boundary between the shadow and the non-shadow, i.e. the shadow has a definable
geometric shape or at least an obvious (literally, since a shadow only makes sense if you can
see it with your eyes) drop in light intensity compared to the non-shadow. From a scientific
point of view, there should be a quantitative description of the difference that distinguishes a
shadow from the adjacent non-shadow. In 2018, this is implicit in the current Australian
guidelines - the shadow starts from covering half of the entire solar disc - but in 2010, it was
sought visually experimentally in Latvia.
The shadow is characterised by the Latvian Radio and Television Tower in Zaķusala, which casts
a shadow on Lucavsala in the morning hours. The experiment was carried out on 23 May 2010
at ~8am on Lucavsala Street ~630 m from the axis of the TV tower (Figure 7.3.1)
Figure 7.3.2 shows which part of the TV tower antenna casts the shadow used for the
experiment. Total height of the cylindrical antenna (source: www.lvrtc.lv) is 146 m, the sun
shading point is 310 m, the antenna diameter at the sun shading point is approximately equal
to the average wing width (⅓-½ maximum width) of the WPPs assessed in this EIA. According
to the Pythagorean theorem, the distance of a shadow from the object casting it is ~700 m. In
addition, the TV tower antenna casts its shadow from one and a half times the height of the
shadow of the average VES, which makes the shadow more sharply contoured than in more
oblique light. The shadow of this TV tower antenna is shown in Figure 7.3.3. Knowing in
advance what to look for, the image shows a barely perceptible blurred strip of low-intensity
light across the road, in the middle of which the cyclist stands and casts her own sharply
contoured shadow onto this shadow, which is the virtually unshaded surface of the road and
grass.
The distance to which the effect of the flickering shadow must be judged, calculated from the
maximum wing width of 5.5 m, is 5 x 265 = ~1460 m, and the shadow that could reach it is
already very faint, close to invisible: even more invisible than the shadow of the nearest TV
tower, more than twice as visible in Figure 7.3.4, which is just visible.
235
Figure 7.3.1. Diagram of the situation with the Riga TV tower in Zaķusala and Lucavsala Street: with
a cross at the indicated point on 23 May 2010 at 23:00 8 the shadow of the TV tower falls over
Lucavsala Street (this situation is illustrated in nature in the next two pictures)
The current Latvian "Guidelines for Environmental Impact Assessment of Wind Power Plants
and Recommendations on Requirements for Construction of Wind Power Plants" (2023) state:
"To minimise the human impact of flicker, the distance from the wind turbine to the dwelling
should not be less than 500 m or 5 times the maximum height of the wind turbine."
Figure 7.3.2. The solar disc behind the Figure 7.3.3. Shadow on Lucavsala Street of the TV
TV tower antenna, which casts the tower antenna
shadow shown in the next image (the
disc is much smaller than the blurry
patch of light in the image).
236
Figure 7.3.4. The photo shows the shadow area on Lucavsalas Street from the part of the TV
tower antenna seen in the previous picture
Obviously, the 500 m minimum applies to WPPs with a maximum height of less than 100 m. On
the other hand, larger WPPs, such as the ones evaluated in this EIA, are subject to the distance
"5 times the maximum height of the wind turbine". In this case, it is 300 m x 5 = 1500 m. This is
perfectly in line with the 1460 m mentioned above as a result of the previous considerations.
To further illustrate what the shadow of a WPP at 500 m means (but the smallest distance
assessed in this EIA is 816 m, see below), Annex 8 is attached: a video showing the shadow of
the WPP of the Targale wind farm on the road and the forest wall at 500 m. As can be seen,
the shadow is similarly faint and blurred as in Figure 7.4: when the video is paused, it is just as
imperceptible; in motion, of course, the shadow is more eye-catching. As can be easily
understood, at a distance of 1 km twice as great, such a shadow will be invisible even in
motion, while at a distance of 1.46 km three times as great, there is no doubt that it will
disappear altogether: this assessment distance is certainly consistent with the principle of
maximum precaution.
A total of 95 rural farmsteads are located within a radius of 1460 m from at least one WPP, the
closest of which ('Residential house 145 km') is located at a distance of 816 m (from WPP No
VV30). A simple coefficient system has been developed for the evaluation of the shadow
intensity: it assigns a coefficient of "1" or 100% to the shadow intensity on the nearest house
at a distance of 816 m, i.e. all hours from the WPP to this house are counted as 100% shadow
duration in the modelling. The intensity of the shadow at the limit of its complete
disappearance at a distance of 1460 m has been assigned a factor of "0". Accordingly, all other
shadow durations from a given WPP to a given house are given decreasing coefficients in an
inverse linear relationship with increasing distance: for example, if the distance between the
WPP and the house is 1138 m (halfway between 816 m and 1460 m), the coefficient is 0.5 or
50% and 1 hour of shadow from the modelling is calculated as half an hour in the
interpretation of the results in Annex 8.
This method uses the following relative assumption as a precautionary principle, which makes
the result significantly worse (longer shadow durations) than would be scientifically justified:
the sharpest shadow in a given situation with a given minimum distance to the house of 816 m
237
is considered to be 100%. If the distance to the nearest house was different (smaller), 100%
would be different. In fact, the blurriness of a shadow at this distance is vividly illustrated by
the experiment already mentioned: it can in no way be considered 100% shadow. A more
correct definition of a 100% shadow would be at least that falling from the widest point of the
wing at the minimum possible height, so ~200 m (rotor axis height) minus ~33 (one third of the
wing length) = ~167 m, at the smallest possible distance from the WPP, which in Latvia is ~92
m (in the middle of the summer solstice day), and consequently at a distance of 816 m its
intensity would not be 100% but only 47%, which is significantly less and certainly more
scientifically representative of the true effect of the shadow as a function of distance.
Assumptions so unfavourable to the deterioration of the situation for computational
convenience are justified further on: the results obtained with them are also so "innocuous"
for the operation of the WPP park and for the population that a higher complexity would not
be a useful result.
There are two ways to get the duration of the shadow: the worst-case scenario and the real
scenario. The worst-case scenario method (preferably no more than 30 hours per year)
assumes that the sun shines continuously during daylight hours and is always perpendicular to
the rotor, which rotates continuously.
However, in a realistic scenario (preferably no more than 10 hours per year), all the factors
that affect shadow duration at any given point are taken into account:
1) hours of sunshine,
2) wind direction (which determines the orientation of the entire rotor),
3) wind speed (which determines how much of the year the rotor will not turn),
4) the overall relationship between wind direction and speed (which determines the
orientation of the wing planes themselves),
5) natural obstacles (buildings, trees, etc.)
Shadow durations on all houses within a radius of 1460 m around each WPP have been
modelled with WindPro (results of the modelling in Annex 8) and the analysis of the results is
summarised in detail in Annex 8.
The flicker impact calculations are for the potential WPPs to be constructed, corresponding to
the Valmiera-Valka park location alternative A with 29 WPPs and location alternative B with 43
WPPs. For the public consultation version of the EIA report, an assessment of physical impacts
(flicker, landscape impact), a calculation of climate change impacts and a calculation of socio-
economic benefits were carried out for these alternatives for the location of the WPP park. It is
envisaged that during the public consultation of the EIA report, the NPSs that are currently
recommended for construction may be refined, taking into account the proposals submitted
by the public and other institutions and the results of the public consultation. In the updated
version of the EIA report, which will be submitted to the NEB for its opinion, the assessment of
the impact of flicker will be updated according to the number of recommended WPPs, but it
can already be said that the updated results will have a lower potential impact.
This chapter summarises the main findings, conclusions and recommendations of the flicker
modelling. The modelling on which the calculations are based is based on a scenario that is
closer to the worst case than the real one: of all the factors that reduce shadow duration in
the real scenario, only the proportion of sunny weather (Table 7.3.1) and the windless period
(see Annex 8) are taken into account.
The direction of the wind, which determines the orientation of the rotor, is not taken into
account, but it is calculated that the rotor casts the shadow in a full circle perpendicular to the
direction of the shadow fall, as if its orientation follows the path of the sun in the sky all the
238
time, in order to shade a house for as long as possible, which is completely impossible,
especially in relation to several houses at the same time. The variable orientation of the wing
planes oblique to the wind, as determined by the correlation between wind direction and
speed, is not taken into account, but it is assumed that they are always oriented perpendicular
to the direction of view at their maximum width, which is impossible in principle in relation to
the orientation of the whole rotor, also perpendicular to the direction of view, because the
wing planes can never be parallel to the plane of the rotating rotor, they are always at an angle
to it. No account is taken of natural obstructions, which in particular block the sun much of the
time when it is low on the horizon, as is the case when shadows reach buildings only in low
slanting sunlight (which in the morning/evening and/or winter months is exactly the case).
Table 7.3.1. Average number of hours of sunshine per day by month at the Skulte observation
station over the whole observation period: 1988.–2004235
Month Average number of hours of sunshine per day
January 0,96
February 2,07
March 4,32
April 6,59
May 9,64
June 9,55
July 9,82
August 8,35
September 5,52
October 3,17
November 1,24
December 0,85
Of all these factors, only one can be quantified without complex calculations: assuming that
the rotor plane is, on average, facing the observer at an angle of 45°, the area and therefore
the shadow duration are reduced by a factor of √2 or 1.414. All others are not analysed further
in order not to further complicate the already complex calculations (and even more: not to
complicate the verification of the calculations by the competent authorities).
Effect of the Flashing Shadow
Overall, the shadow duration target of 10 hours per year is not exceeded in any of the houses
(see worksheets "Shadowing times with distance attenuation" in Annex 8). The maximum
annual shadow duration for all alternatives is 2 h 16 min, or less than a quarter of the target:
the house "Birches" from WPP VV85. There is no difference between alternatives A and B
because the source of the shadow in both cases is the same WPP VV85, nor between A' and B'
because the heights of these WPPs do not differ (and even if they differed by 25 m, the
shadow duration would differ by a few minutes, which would make no difference).
In addition, it should be noted that the methodology with a shadow intensity factor depending
on the distance of the house to the shading WPP was applied in this EIA from the very
beginning, when a fleet of 84 WPPs was provisionally assessed, which also led to some minor
shadow duration overruns that would have to be addressed by mitigation measures (shutting
235
LEĢMC dati – https://videscentrs.lvgmc.lv/
239
down some WPPs during sunny periods). At the current stage, when there are two alternatives
with significantly fewer WPP and among the selected ones are exactly those that cast the
longest shadows from closer distances, no shadow duration approaches the threshold even
without such a factor (see 8. The longest shadow is 4 h 46 min in alternative B' on the house
"Liepkalni" at a distance of 1246 m from WPP VV92 - a very weak shadow, close to the
invisibility limit.
7.4. Impact on air quality
During the construction of the WPP, construction equipment and vehicles will cause
insignificant, local, temporary and episodic air pollution, which will be localised in the
construction zone, which is not located in the immediate vicinity of a residential area.
The air quality impacts of the construction process have been assessed on the basis of the
guidelines below and information available on the public web:
• Guidance on the assessment of dust from demolition and construction. January 2024
(Version 2.2) - IAQM Guidelines236;
• Discover The Vital Role of Air Quality In Construction Sites Worldwide. From
Understanding Pollution Sources to Implementing237;
• Local Government Air Quality Toolkit. Air quality guidance note. Construction sites238 ;
• Sustainability & Environment Appraisal. LA 105 Air Quality. Design Manual for Roads
and Bridges - (hereinafter - DMRB). Published June 2024239.
The guidance applies to the assessment of air pollution from demolition and construction. At
the construction sites, the works can be divided into four phases, which reflect:
• Dismantling;
• Earthworks;
• Construction;
• Spreading mud and dust on roads.
The three groups of potential impacts that may be affected by the construction process are:
1) disturbance from dust pollution (property impact)
2) damage to the ecosystem
3) impact on human health.
When assessing the impact of dust on the area of the proposed activity, the presence of
receivers in the vicinity of the proposed activity is an important consideration. The IAQM
distinguishes between three levels of sensitivity: high, medium and low. Examples of high-
sensitivity receivers include residential buildings, heritage sites where dust has a direct impact
on property values. Users expect high quality amenities. Examples of medium sensitivity
receivers are parks and workplaces, where users expect a reasonable level of comfort, but
lower than in their own homes. Indicative examples for low-sensitivity receivers are
agricultural land, footpaths, car parks and roads.
236
https://iaqm.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/Construction-Dust-Guidance-Jan-2024.pdf
237
https://neuroject.com/air-quality-in-construction/
238
https://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/resources/air/mod3p3construc07268.pdf
239
https://www.standardsforhighways.co.uk/search/af7f4cda-08f7-4f16-a89f-e30da703f3f4
240
When assessing the impact of dust, including PM10 and PM2.5, on human health, there are
three levels of sensitivity - high, medium and low - similar to the impact on property. High-
sensitivity receivers are places where people stay for long periods of 8 hours or more, such as
residential areas, hospitals, schools, care homes. Medium sensitivity receivers are places
where people stay for up to 8 hours. These are usually workplaces. Indicative examples for
low-sensitivity receivers are places where people are occasionally present - walking trails,
playgrounds, parks.
There are also three levels of receptors for assessing damage to ecosystems: high, medium and
low. High sensitivity receptors are habitats or species of international or national importance
that are of special conservation concern, where dust deposition directly affects these plant
habitats. These plants may be listed in the Red Data Book, such as vascular plants or lichens in
the immediate vicinity of the construction site. Medium-sensitivity receptors are ecosystems
where the effects of dust have not been clearly studied. Nature parks are an indicative
example of low-sensitivity receivers.
Additional factors to be taken into account in determining the sensitivity of a site are the
existing or background level of contamination, the season in which the works will be carried
out, the local topography (topography), the duration of the potential impact.
During the construction process, the following have been identified as temporary air
pollutants:
• Dust. These pollutants are produced by construction activities such as excavation,
drilling and the movement of machinery. These activities can produce dust particles of
different sizes, from coarse to fine.
• Diesel exhaust gases from heavy machinery and equipment powered by diesel
engines. The main pollutants emitted by diesel-powered machinery are nitrogen
oxides, PM particulates, including PM10 and PM2.5.
The criteria according to the receptor used to assess the impact of the construction process on
air quality are given in Table 7.4.1.
Table 7.4.1. Evaluation criteria
Sensitive receiver/receptor Criterion
"Human" receivers/receptors (places where people 250 m from the boundary of the construction site
spend time and dust can affect real estate)
50 m from a road used by vehicles involved in the
construction process up to 250 m from an
entrance to the construction site
Ecological receptors (habitats of protected plants 50 m from the boundary of the construction site
or species, protected habitats)
50 m from a road used by vehicles involved in the
construction process up to 250 m from an
entrance to the construction site
The assessment of the sensitivity of a site is based on information on the distance to sensitive
receptors, their number and the background concentrations of pollutants present. Both the
harm caused by the dust itself (deposition, impact on real estate) and the impact of PM 10 fine
particles on the health of the population as well as the impact on the ecosystem are assessed.
The criteria are summarised in Tables 7.4.2 to 7.4.4 below. The limit values for PM 10 used in
241
the IAQM guidelines are consistent with the limit values of 40 µg/m3 of the Cabinet of Ministers
Regulation No 1290 of 3 November 2009 "Regulations on Air Quality"240. The concentration
ranges used for the sensitivity assessment are 80%, 70% and 60% of the limit value,
respectively.
Table 7.4.2. Site sensitivity criteria for dust effects on humans and real estate depending on the
number of receivers/receptors and the distance to the construction site according to the IAQM
Guidelines241 Table 2.
Receiver/ Number of Distance from the emission source (construction site), m
Sensitivity receivers <20 <50 <100 <250
>100 High High Medium Low
High 10–100 High Medium Low Low
1–10 Medium Low Low Low
Medium >1 Medium Low Low Low
Low >1 Low Low Low Low
Table 7.4.3. Site sensitivity criteria for the effects of dust on human health depending on the
number of receivers/receptors and the distance to the construction site according to the IAQM
Guidelines242 Table 3
Annual average PM10 Distance from the emission source
Receiver/ Number of
concentrations (construction site), m
Sensitivity receivers
<20 <50 <100 <250
>100 High High High Medium
>32 µg/m3 10–100 High High Medium Low
1–10 High Medium Low Low
>100 High High Medium Low
28-32 µg/m3 10–100 High Medium Low Low
1–10 High Medium Low Low
High
>100 High Medium Low Low
24-28 µg/m3 10–100 High Medium Low Low
1–10 Medium Low Low Low
>100 Medium Low Low Low
<24 µg/m3 10–100 Low Low Low Low
1–10 Low Low Low Low
>10 High Medium Low Low
Medium >32 µg/m3
1–10 Medium Low Low Low
240
https://likumi.lv/ta/id/200712-noteikumi-par-gaisa-kvalitati
241
https://iaqm.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/Construction-Dust-Guidance-Jan-2024.pdf
242
https://iaqm.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/Construction-Dust-Guidance-Jan-2024.pdf
242
Annual average PM10 Distance from the emission source
Receiver/ Number of
concentrations (construction site), m
Sensitivity receivers
<20 <50 <100 <250
>10 Medium Low Low Low
28-32 µg/m3
1–10 Low Low Low Low
>10 Low Low Low Low
24-28 µg/m3
1–10 Low Low Low Low
>10 Low Low Low Low
<24 µg/m3
1–10 Low Low Low Low
Low - ≥1 Low Low Low Low
Table 7.4.4. Sensitivity criteria for impacts on ecosystems according to the IAQM Guidelines243 Table
4
Distance from the emission source (construction site), m
Sensitivity of the receiver
<20 <50
High High Medium
Medium Medium Low
Low Low Low
Taking into account the available information on existing background levels of pollutants, the
size of the built-up area, the condition of access roads (asphalt or gravel), the location of the
nearest receivers/receptors (Table 7.4.5 summarises the amount of dust generated by
construction activities per construction site), Table 7.4.6 summarises the potential impacts
from the construction of the WPP.
Table 7.4.5. Assessment of the impact of construction dust per construction site
Significance of
Activities the issue Criterion Background
volume
Low: built-up area <18000m2 The construction area of
the WPP per construction
Medium: Building area 18000-
Earthworks Low site is planned at 2600m2
110000m2
High: built-up area > 110 000m2
Low: building volume <12000m3 ~1100m3 of reinforced
concrete will be used in
Medium: building volume 12000-
Construction Low the construction of one
75000m3
foundation foot of the
High: building volume >75000m3 WPP
Spreading High Zems: Length of roads without hard Unpaved roads are more
mud and
243
https://iaqm.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/Construction-Dust-Guidance-Jan-2024.pdf
243
Significance of
Activities the issue Criterion Background
volume
dust on surface < 50 m than 100 m long.
roads
Medium: Length of roads without hard
surface 50-100 m
High: Length of unpaved roads > 100
m
Table 7.4.6. Sensitivity assessment of surrounding areas
Sensitivity of surrounding areas
Potential
impact Kneeling
Earthworks Background Construction Background Background
material
The nearest Only a few
The nearest
receivers/receptors receivers/receptors
receivers/receptors
Dust are at least 800 m (farmsteads) are
Low are at least 800 m Low Medium
pollution from the construction located in the
from the
site immediate vicinity
construction site
of dirt roads
The nearest The nearest The annual mean
receivers/receptors receivers/receptors background
are at least 800 m are at least 800 m concentration of
from the from the construction dust shall not
Impact on
construction site; the site; the annual mean exceed 13,55 μg/m3
human Low Low Low
annual mean background
health
background concentration of dust
concentration of shall not exceed 13,55
μg/m3
dust shall not exceed
13,55 μg/m3
The nearest ecological The nearest
The nearest
receptors (protected ecological receptors
ecological receptors
plant or species (protected plant
(protected plant or
habitat, protected sites or species
Damage to species habitat,
biotopes) are more habitats, protected
the Low protected biotopes) Low Low
than 50 m from the habitats) are
ecosystem are more than 50 m
construction site located more than
from the
boundary 50 m from
construction site
construction vehicle
boundary
traffic routes
The overall level of risk of impacts is low according to the IAQM guidelines used244. The
construction process of the WPP, including the movement of vehicles involved in the
construction process, will have a negligible impact on the health, property and ecosystem of
the population. Localised dust abatement measures (e.g. road dusting for nearby farmsteads)
should be considered during the construction process.
244
https://iaqm.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/Construction-Dust-Guidance-Jan-2024.pdf
244
Criteria for assessing the impact of road traffic are defined in the DMRB guidelines245.
Paragraph 2.60 of the guidance states that the impact on air quality from the movement of
construction vehicles on roads should be assessed if the duration of the works exceeds 2 years.
The total time needed to build the WPP park is expected to be no more than 2 years. Similarly,
the criterion is set out in point 2.1 of the guidelines: if the annual average daily traffic volume
is less than 1 000 vehicle units or if the truck traffic volume does not exceed 200 vehicle units
per day, the impact on air quality should be assessed as negligible. Based on the information
provided in Section 4.3.1, none of the criteria for an air quality assessment for vehicles
involved in the construction of the WPP are met. Note that Table 4.3.1 provides information on
the number of transport units for each phase of the project. All these stages do not add up at
the same time (see Figure 4.3.1 of the EIA Report).
Overall, the air pollution from the construction process is assessed as insignificant, with
negligible environmental damage and a more significant co-benefit from the constructed
renewable energy facility, which will not cause air pollution in future operation.
7.5. Protection zones and their impact
In accordance with the Law on Protection Zones, four protection zones have been established
in the spatial plan of Strenči municipality (2012-2023) and in the spatial plan of Valka
municipality (from 2017):
1. Environmental and natural resource protection zones;
2. Operational protection zones;
3. Sanitary protection zones;
4. Safety buffer zones.
Environmental and natural resource protection zones are established around objects and
territories that are important from the point of view of the protection and rational use of the
environment and natural resources. Their main purpose is to reduce or eliminate the adverse
anthropogenic effects on the features for which protection zones have been established,
including the protection zones for surface water bodies.
Environmental and natural resource protection zones:
− Surface water protection zones are established for water bodies, watercourses and
artificial water bodies to reduce the negative impact of pollution on aquatic
ecosystems, prevent the development of erosion processes, restrict economic
activities in flooded areas, and preserve the characteristic landscape of the area.
− Protection zones around water abstraction points are established to ensure the
conservation and replenishment of water resources and to minimise the negative
impact of pollution on the quality of the water resources to be abstracted during the
lifetime of the water abstraction point (not within the area of the proposed activity).
− The buffer zones around the marshes are established to preserve biodiversity and
stabilise the moisture regime in the forest-marsh interface (transition) zone (not in the
area of the proposed activity).
245
https://www.standardsforhighways.co.uk/search/af7f4cda-08f7-4f16-a89f-e30da703f3f4
245
− Protection zones around cultural monuments are established to ensure the protection
and preservation of cultural monuments, as well as to reduce various types of negative
impacts on immovable cultural monuments (not within the area of the proposed
activity).
Operational protection zones are established along transport lines, along electronic
communications networks and other communication lines, and around facilities that support
the operation of various public services. The main purpose of operational protection zones is
to ensure the efficient and safe operation and development of these communications and
facilities.
Operational protection zones:
− Protection zones along streets, roads and railways are established to reduce the
negative impact of streets, roads and railways on the environment, to ensure the
operation and safety of transport arteries, as well as to create a construction-free zone
necessary for the reconstruction of streets and roads (not within the territory of the
proposed activity).
− Protection zones along telecommunication lines and their facilities of all types and
affiliations are established to ensure their maximum protection from unwanted
influence of man, nature or other factors, which may result in disruption of normal
operation of telecommunication lines, damage to the national economy and the state
(not within the territory of the proposed activity).
− Protection zones along electrical networks, their equipment and structures of all types
and belonging to any jurisdiction are established to ensure the operation and safety of
electrical networks, their equipment and structures.
− The operational protection zones along the heat networks, their equipment and
structures are established to ensure the operation and safety of the heat networks,
their equipment and structures (not within the territory of the proposed activity).
− Protection zones around geodetic network points are established around points of the
national geodetic network and local geodetic network for which a permanent geodetic
point centre has been established in the locality to ensure access to and geodetic work
on the geodetic network points, long-term preservation, stability and structural
stability of the geodetic network points (not within the area of the proposed activity).
− Protection zones around drainage structures and installations are established to
ensure the operation and safety of drainage structures and installations.
− Protection zones along heat, water and sewerage networks are established to ensure
the operation and safety of their equipment and structures (not in the area of the
proposed activity).
− Operational protection zones around gas pipelines, gas supply facilities and structures,
gas warehouses and storage facilities are established to ensure the operation of gas
pipelines, gas supply facilities and structures, gas warehouses and storage facilities
(not within the territory of the proposed activity).
Sanitary buffer zones are established around facilities that have higher sanitary requirements.
Their main task is to ensure sanitary requirements.
Sanitary protection zones:
246
- Protection zones around cemeteries are established to prevent the deterioration of
the sanitary conditions of adjacent areas.
- Protection zones around landfills, dumps and wastewater treatment plants are
established to ensure the protection of adjacent areas from potential or existing
negative impacts (not within the area of the proposed activity).
The main purpose of the safety buffer zones is to ensure the safety of the environment and
people during the operation of the facilities and in the event of potential accidents, as well as
the safety of the facilities themselves and those in their vicinity (not within the area of the
proposed activity).
7.6. Impacts on natural values and mitigation measures
7.6.1. Habitats and vascular plant species
The factors identified as threatening nature values in relation to protected plant species,
protected freshwater, grassland, marsh and forest habitats include direct destruction of
protected habitats as a result of construction of the WPP and associated infrastructure,
fragmentation of habitat areas by power plant assembly/operation sites and access roads, and
potential drainage impacts from ditching around assembly sites and access roads where
necessary for drainage.
The proposed action includes the construction of assembly/operation sites and access roads
for the WPPs and for their construction and operation, or the reconstruction of existing road
turns and connections, as well as the creation of ditches around assembly sites and along
access roads where necessary for drainage of the areas. An assembly/construction site
typically covers a rectangular area up to 260 m long and 100 m wide, the exact configuration
and position of which in relation to the WPPs located at one end of the site depends on the
location of the access road and the WPP model chosen (it may be smaller, but as a
precautionary principle, this EIA calculates such an area of up to 2.6 ha to accommodate the
assembly sites of all major WPP manufacturers after design). The approximate configuration of
the WPP mounting area is shown in Figure 4.3.9. The proposed action also includes the
construction of electricity cables along the roads (the possible construction on both sides of
the roads has been assessed in order to select the optimal option).
In assessing the potential impacts on the identified natural values, the area of the proposed
infrastructure (building sites, roads and their junctions, power transmission cable routes,
potential substation and energy storage system sites) and the area around them has been
assessed as an area of potential direct impact, 5 m around medium voltage cable routes along
roads (the width of the cable route itself is 6 m in the cartographic material), storage and
substation sites, depending on the technical solution. In the area of direct impact associated
with the cable routes, excavation works are planned, after which understorey vegetation will
be temporarily destroyed, and the cable routes are to be maintained free of tree cover in
accordance with the regulatory enactments. The cable routes in the assessed material are
marked on both sides of the road to allow the selection of the most appropriate route, so that
the area actually affected will be smaller.
The potential development sites (turbine sites, storage and substation sites) have been
assessed according to the cartographic material (see Annex 1 of the species and habitats
expert opinion, available in Annex 6), as their exact configuration is unknown, but the total
area required for the development site must fall within the delineated area. The data analysis
uses approximate configurations of the building plots, assuming that they will be sited in such
247
a way as to cause the least possible disturbance to natural assets. The turning radii and
alignments of the new roads have been assessed assuming corridors up to 30 m wide.
The potential impact on the hydrological regime of protected forest habitats and habitats of
protected species has been assessed according to the impact distances for a 1.5 m deep ditch
given in the "Guidelines for certified experts in the field of species and habitat conservation on
the assessment of proposed activities for the construction of forest roads and the
establishment, rehabilitation and reconstruction of forest drainage systems" (unpublished
material, prepared for the Nature Conservation Agency). Impacts have also been assessed for
existing gravel roads, assuming that some of them may need to be rebuilt to increase their
carrying capacity (only for roads that will be used to transport turbine components and
construction materials). The maximum impact distance can be up to 180 m under certain
conditions, but the assessment selects those habitats and species habitats where such impacts
are likely to occur, and for each habitat polygon or species habitat, assesses whether impacts
are likely to occur under the given terrain conditions and vegetation type.
The habitat expert has tentatively identified potential impacts on some SPNA habitats related
to hydrology and the hydrologist provided an assessment in synergy with the information in
the habitat expert's opinion, later the habitat expert revised the hydrologist's comments and
provided an assessment in the report.
Specific effects of dewatering can only be modelled at the design stage and mitigation
measures planned accordingly, taking into account the natural values identified in the opinion,
avoidable and unavoidable effects of dewatering have been identified in the opinion as
approximate, based on the experts' knowledge of possible engineering solutions (unavoidable
effects are mainly identified as the construction of new infrastructure in conditions where it is
not possible to build the facilities on higher terrain). No permanent impacts on the
hydrological regime are expected from the construction of the electricity transmission cable,
as no dehumidification of the site is required after burial. Potential impacts on the
microclimate of the forest stand in habitats and protected species of EU importance have been
assessed up to 50 m from the edge of the new development, in line with the distance specified
in the above guidelines.
It should be emphasised that measures to avoid and minimise potential impacts on natural
values have already been taken during the preparation of this EIA by assessing the initial
location of the WPP and infrastructure and providing planners with information on the
identified natural values, possible alternative locations for the WPP and associated
infrastructure, as well as explaining the basic principles for planning the location of the WPP to
avoid impacts on natural values. Compared to the original layout, the length of access roads to
be newly constructed has been significantly reduced, the number of WPP sites has been
reduced and at least some WPP sites have been planned as far away as possible from habitats
that need to be kept undisturbed. In the case of the recommended WPP locations for
Alternatives A and B, the number of sites has been further reduced by removing the Gauja Left
Bank group of sites, as well as specifying the location of infrastructure facilities in relation to
habitats and species habitats. The assessment identifies the impacts that are still identifiable
as adverse to nature values and makes recommendations for mitigation, see Table 7.6.1.
248
Table 7.6.1. Characteristics of the potential impacts of the surveyed VPP sites and associated infrastructure
Grey indicates non-recommended WPP sites
Protected habitats, SPA species Potential impacts on protected
WPP site no. on WPP Roads (existing247,to
246 Characteristics of the area and natural values identified habitats, SPA species and natural
map, (map no.) construction be built)
values, mitigation measures
VV1 (5) Alternative C_VV1_48 The WPP site and access road are Along the western side of the The potential cable route area would
location A,B. planned in pine plantations on dry access road habitat 9010*_1 destroy habitat 9010*_1 and the
mineral soils. (also habitat of Heller's habitat of Heller's pipistrelle (polygon
The western end of the site is hellebore Anastrophyllum 18LM156_1158) in an area of
planned to be partially within an hellerianum ). approximately 0.2 ha.
old woodland stand where a To reduce the impact, the cable
protected forest habitat has been route should be located on the north
identified. side of the road.
VV2 (8) Not C_VV2 WPP site and construction site in Along the access road C_VV2 Construction of a turn-off from
recommended C_VV2_3 dry pine coppice. Access road - habitat 91T0_1. The access road CVV2_3 would destroy habitat
existing woodland road, without passes along and through the 91T0_1 (polygon 18LM156_1250) in
side ditches, should be rebuilt. area of the wood grouse micro- an area of 0.2 ha, construction of a
Road VV2_3 is an existing dolomite reserve No 769 and its buffer cable route and widening of road
crushed stone road, interspersed zone. No occurrences of SPA C_VV2 in an area of 0.7 ha
with dry and dried wet pine stands species. (18LM156_1254). Along the road
of various ages on uplands and Along the road C_VV2_3 C_VV2_3 (from the turn to VV4) on
downlands. habitats 91T0_1, 9010*_1, the west side the cable route impact
affecting the Natura 2000 site zone up to 0.4 ha 91T0_1 and 0.02 ha
"Boulevard's groove" (to the 9010*_1, as well as the annual and
east of the road), the sites of the creeping bent and on the east side
yearling Lycopodium annotinum 0.5 ha 91T0_1 and 0.5 ha 9010*_1
246
Additional information on the conclusions of the EIA is attached - significant environmental effects have been identified and construction of the WPP is not
recommended
247
The material provided by the client for the proposed action only includes information on the road bends to be straightened at the junctions, but it can be assumed that
other existing forest roads may also need to have their sharpest bends straightened and/or deforested for the transport of turbine components.
249
Protected habitats, SPA species Potential impacts on protected
WPP site no. on WPP Roads (existing247,to
246 Characteristics of the area and natural values identified habitats, SPA species and natural
map, (map no.) construction be built)
values, mitigation measures
and the caterpillar Lycopodium and 9010*_3.
clavatum To mitigate the impact, it is possible
to design the road C_VV2 in such a
way as to leave the habitat 91T0_1
intact, as well as the cable route
along the western edge of the road
C_VV2_3, leaving the protected
habitat areas intact or using
trenchless technology.
VV3 (7) Not C_VV2_3 WPP site and construction area in No protected habitats found. No impact on protected habitats. The
recommended dry wet young and middle-aged Several occurrences of the construction of the development site
spruce-birch stands. Access road - annual fritillary Lycopodium will destroy the annual pipistrelle.
existing dolomite crushed stone annotinum have been recorded The construction of cable routes
road, with wet mature pine and on the proposed WPP site. along the access road will have a
birch stands along it. Along the access road, the Baltic short-term negative impact on the
cuckoo Dactylorhiza baltica. Baltic Cuckoo Salamander.
VV4 (7) Not C_VV4 WPP site and construction area in Along the access road habitat The development site does not affect
recommended C_VV2_3 dry pine coppice and adult dry 91T0_2, habitat of the Baltic the location of protected habitats or
pine stand. Access road - existing cuckoo Dactylorhiza baltica. species. The road connection to
forest land road, with pine C_VV2_3 affects 91T0_2 (landfill
plantations and middle-aged 18LM156_1107) with an area of
stands along it, both on flat areas about 01.1 ha. The habitat is a young
and on elevations. Road CVV2_3 is stand, there will be minor negative
an existing dolomite crushed stone effects on its future development.
road, along which mainly young The construction of cable routes
and middle-aged dry wet spruce- along the access road will have a
birch-pine forests interspersed short-term negative impact on the
with dry pine forests of different Baltic Cuckoo Salamander.
ages on inland dunes.
250
Protected habitats, SPA species Potential impacts on protected
WPP site no. on WPP Roads (existing247,to
246 Characteristics of the area and natural values identified habitats, SPA species and natural
map, (map no.) construction be built)
values, mitigation measures
VV5 (6) Not C_VV5_VV8 Siting and construction site of the The development site does not The construction of the cable route
recommended WPP in spruce coppice and middle- affect protected habitats or SPA will have a short-term negative
aged spruce-birch coppice, partly species. Along the access road, impact on the Baltic cuckoo salmon.
also on the existing dolomite the Baltic cuckoo Dactylorhiza If a turn to the south of the Valmiera-
chippings access road. Along the baltica site, the turn-off at the Valka road connection is to be
road from VV5 to the junction with Valmiera-Valka road affects constructed, habitat 9010*_1 (landfill
the Valmiera-Valka motorway, dry biotope 9010*_1. 18LM156_972) will be destroyed in
and dried wet pine stands and an area of approximately 0.3 ha.
young stands are interspersed. To reduce the impact, assess possible
supply routes and construct the
turning north of the access road.
VV6 (7) Not C_VV5_VV8 Siting and construction site of the No protected habitats found. A There will be no impact on areas of
recommended WPP in wet, dried spruce-birch- locality of a protected lichen protected habitats. The development
alder coppice and middle-aged species, the common lungwort of the site would destroy the
stands, partly also on an existing Lobaria pulmonaria, has been common fritillary. The construction
dolomite crushed stone access found on a large ash tree. Along of cable routes along the access road
road. Interspersed along the VV8- the access road, the Baltic will have a short-term negative
VV6 road are middle-aged and cuckoo Dactylorhiza baltica. impact on the Baltic Cuckoo
mature stands of pine and spruce- Salamander. To minimise impacts, it
fir, as well as young stands. is necessary to preserve the
columnar wasp found on the WPP
construction site with the species of
SPA lichen found on it. The western
end of the WPP site could be shifted
to the south of road C_VV5_8 into
the existing coppice, maintaining the
existing WPP site position.
VV7 (7) Alternative C_VV7 WPP site and construction area in Habitat 9010*_3 in the vicinity The dehumidification effect of the
location A,B. dry and dried wet pine coppice. of the development site, which development site could affect habitat
Approximately 3 km of access is also the habitat of Heller's 9010*_3 polygons 18LM156_1215,
road. The section from the Warbler and parasitic Cladonia. 23AP116_400, 24TC182_6,
251
Protected habitats, SPA species Potential impacts on protected
WPP site no. on WPP Roads (existing247,to
246 Characteristics of the area and natural values identified habitats, SPA species and natural
map, (map no.) construction be built)
values, mitigation measures
dolomite crushed stone road to The access road runs along the 24TC182_7 up to 2.9 ha. The
the farmstead "Medņi" follows an nature reserve "Purgaile river dehumidification caused by the
existing dirt road mainly along forests", at the "Medņu" house construction of the access road
young and middle-aged dry wet there is a common ash tree on would affect habitats 91E0*_3 in the
spruce and spruce-birch stands, the roadside; the road nature reserve (polygon
closer to the farmstead - a birch reconstruction may affect 18LM156_970) up to 1.5 ha and
coppice on former agricultural biotopes 7140_2, 9010*_1 9080*_3 (18LM156_969) 0.3 ha, but
land. The section of the road from (which is also a habitat of the this impact can be avoided as the
Medņi farmstead to the WPP site cave sparrow Schistostega habitats are located along the stream
passes through mainly dry wet pennata ), 91E0*_3 and downstream of the road. The
spruce-pine-birch stands of middle 9080*_3 (which are also dewatering could also affect habitat
age and young stands. The existing habitats of the chestnut-brown 7140_2 (18JS178_870) by 0.1 ha,
road is narrow, would need to be Arthonia Arthonia spadicea, destroy habitat 91D0*_1
rebuilt and straightened, and a wine-coloured Arthonia (18LM156_1216) by 0.15 ha and
new road would need to be built A.vinosa and the habitat of the affect around 0.5 ha of this habitat.
behind "Medni". extreme-flowered scarlet Poa The reconstruction of the access road
remota ) and 91D0*_1. would affect the territory of a
Several annual milfoil sites have protected natural monument - a
been found along the access beech tree - near the Medņu houses.
road and on the planned WPP Mitigation is only possible in terms of
site. the size of the area affected by
dewatering through the choice of site
and road options without side
ditches, but is unlikely to be entirely
avoidable. In view of the impact on
the SSSI, the Beechwood site,
habitats and species habitats, the site
should be refused. If the site is
implemented, residual impacts are
expected on the beech tree area,
destruction of habitat 91D0*_1 of
252
Protected habitats, SPA species Potential impacts on protected
WPP site no. on WPP Roads (existing247,to
246 Characteristics of the area and natural values identified habitats, SPA species and natural
map, (map no.) construction be built)
values, mitigation measures
0.15 ha, dewatering impacts on 7140
of 0.1 ha, 9010* of 2.9 ha, 91D0* of
0.5 ha.
VV8 (7) Not C_VV5_VV8 Siting and construction of the WPP No protected habitats have There will be no impact on areas of
recommended in both dry and wet dried middle- been identified, no SPA species protected habitats. The construction
aged spruce and birch forests, have been found on the of cable routes along the access road
partly on an existing dolomitic development site. Along the will have a short-term negative
crushed stone access road. Access access road, the Baltic cuckoo impact on the Baltic Cuckoo
road - existing dolomite crushed Dactylorhiza baltica. Salamander.
stone road, along it (from the
junction to the west) stands and
clearings of middle-aged pine,
spruce and spruce-birch of varying
moisture conditions.
VV9 (10) Alternative B C_VV61 The location and construction site The biotopes 91T0_1 and The site as currently configured
of the WPP is in an area with 91T0_2, site of the annual would destroy 0.2 ha of habitat
variable topography in both dry pipistrelle, a species of SPA. 91T0_1 (polygon 18EO128_993) and
pine and wet birch coppice. The Baltic Cuckoo Fritillary site along 0.6 ha of habitat 91T0_2 (polygon
construction site is partly located the access road. 18EO128_997) and the annual
in an adult dry pine stand. Access pipistrelle site. Both habitats are of
road - existing dolomite crushed low quality, in 91T0_2 clearing.
stone road, with a mosaic of pine The construction of cable routes
and birch stands of different ages along the access road will have a
and growing conditions, including short-term impact on the Baltic
clearings, along it from the VV62 cuckoo salmon. To reduce the
to the junction. impact, it is desirable to reconfigure
the development area to avoid
disturbance to habitat 91T0_1.
253
Protected habitats, SPA species Potential impacts on protected
WPP site no. on WPP Roads (existing247,to
246 Characteristics of the area and natural values identified habitats, SPA species and natural
map, (map no.) construction be built)
values, mitigation measures
VV10 (7) Not C_VV10 Siting and construction site of a Protected forest habitats found The construction of the development
recommended WPP in wet, dry pine coppice and along access roads -9010*_1 site will not affect protected species
middle-aged pine-fir stands. The 91D0*_1, 91D0*_2, 91D0*_3. or habitats. The construction of the
access road follows a track through Along the road there are road C_VV10 will destroy the habitat
mature and overgrown pine stands localities of the SPA species 91D0*_3 (landfill 18JS178_877) in an
and coppice under varying Lycopodium clavatum and area of 0.5 ha and could also affect
moisture conditions. Lycopodium annotinum. the following habitats (91D0*_3
18JS178_877, 91D0*_31
18JS178_876, 91D0*_2 18JS178_875,
18JS178_874) in an area of 1.5 ha.
The construction of this road would
destroy several sites of the annual
and caterpillar quail.
To reduce the impact, the access
road to VV10 should not be built
along the straight forest track as it
crosses protected species sites and
habitats, but along the existing forest
track from VV90, continuing along
the track as planned.
VV11 (7) Not C_VV11_VV90 Siting and construction site of the Small habitat in the northern The habitat affected by the
recommended WPP in an adult dry pine stand, in part of the planned WPP site development site is of low quality
a semi-dry and dehumidified wet 91T0_2 area. Along the road and a small area is affected, the
pine stand and on a dolomitic C_VV11_VV90 Baltic Cuckoo development will not have an
crushed stone access road. Along Dactylorhiza baltica. adverse effect on 91T0_2 polygon
the access road between VV13- 18EO128_704. The construction of
VV11, dry and dehumidified wet cable routes along the access road
pine stands alternate. will have a short-term negative
impact on the Baltic Cuckoo
Salamander.
254
Protected habitats, SPA species Potential impacts on protected
WPP site no. on WPP Roads (existing247,to
246 Characteristics of the area and natural values identified habitats, SPA species and natural
map, (map no.) construction be built)
values, mitigation measures
VV12 (7) Not C_VV11_13 Siting and construction site of the No protected habitats found. There will be no impact on areas of
recommended WPP in a dry pine coppice, an The SPA species Baltic Cuckoo protected habitats. The construction
adult dry and wet dry pine Dactylorhiza baltica has been of cable routes along the access road
coppice, a middle-aged spruce- recorded in the development will have a short-term negative
pine coppice, partly on an existing site and several sites along impact on the Baltic Cuckoo
dolomite crushed stone access access roads (see also VV11 and Salamander.
road. Dry and mossy wet pine VV13).
stands have grown along the
access road from the junction to
the site.
VV13 (7) Not C_VV11_VV90 WPP site and construction area in No protected habitats found. There will be no impact on areas of
recommended C_VV11_13 mature dry wet pine-fir-birch Along the access road, the Baltic protected habitats. The construction
stands, partly also on existing cuckoo Dactylorhiza baltica. of cable routes along the access road
dolomite crushed stone access will have a short-term negative
road. Along the access road impact on the Baltic Cuckoo
between VV12-VV13, mature dry Salamander.
pine stands, middle-aged dried
wet spruce and pine stands and
young stands are interspersed.
VV14 (2) Not C_VV14_87 WPP site on a slight elevation Habitat 91T0_1 in the site and The site is planned in biotope 91T0_1
recommended (inland dune), 65-70 g. in a pine along the access road. (polygon 18LS674_840,
stand in the mint type of growing Cauliflower Lycopodium 18LS674_841); medium quality
conditions. The access road needs clavatum biotope with uniform forest cover
to be significantly widened and but suitable topography and
straightened (currently a natural vegetation. Cowslip sites along the
carriageway). access track. The construction of the
site will destroy part of the habitat
area (approximately 1 ha) and the
identified caterpillar habitat.
Widening and straightening of the
access road will affect habitat 91T0_1
255
Protected habitats, SPA species Potential impacts on protected
WPP site no. on WPP Roads (existing247,to
246 Characteristics of the area and natural values identified habitats, SPA species and natural
map, (map no.) construction be built)
values, mitigation measures
(polygon 18LS674_841 and LVM map
2017 without No.),
91T0_2 (landfill 22JS178_104), the
extent of the impact depends on the
specific technical solutions, but the
habitat 91T0_1 could be destroyed
up to 2.1 ha. Minimal mitigation is
possible without completely
changing the location of the site.
VV15 (4) Not C_VV15_16 The site is located in inland dune Habitat 91T0_1 at the site and Site in biotope 91T0_1 (polygon
recommended terrain on a slight elevation, forest along the access road. 18NK634_599). Habitat quality is
stand - 71 g. pine forest. Part of Along the access road on the medium - suitable topography and
the development site could be south side there are no vegetation, but the stand is young
located in an adjacent clearing. protected species, on the north and lacks structures characteristic of
side on both sides of the road a natural forest. If the site is built, at
there are abundant sandwort least one third of the habitat polygon
DIanthus arenarius and (approximately 0.6 ha) will be
Gypsophila fastigiata, and in destroyed. The road from the turning
some places also Lycopodium to VV16 to the site is relatively
clavatum. narrow and the conversion could
result in the destruction of habitat
91T0_1 in landfills 18NK634_599 and
18NK634_598 and in habitat without
landfill No (approximately 0.4 ha in
total). If the cable routes are
constructed from the north, the
potentially affected area is up to 3 ha
in habitat 91T0_1 and 0.3 ha in
9010*_1.
To reduce the impact, the cable
route from the south side to the
256
Protected habitats, SPA species Potential impacts on protected
WPP site no. on WPP Roads (existing247,to
246 Characteristics of the area and natural values identified habitats, SPA species and natural
map, (map no.) construction be built)
values, mitigation measures
turning point is planned without
felling trees in the 91T0_1 habitat.
No access road or cable routes on
the north side to avoid impacts on
habitats and protected species.
Habitat destruction in the
development site and turning area
cannot be prevented if the
construction of the site is
implemented.
VV16 (2,4) Alternative A, B C_VV16_93 The site is located in a coppice, on Along the access road habitat Up to 2.8 ha of habitat 91T0_1 may
relatively flat terrain with an 91T0, in one place habitat be destroyed by the cable routes and
artificial earth bank. The 91D0*_1, which is also a habitat possible access road reconstruction;
construction site crosses an of Heller's Warbler. The road if the side ditches are dredged as
existing road and includes both a track and the parking area may part of the reconstruction, up to 1.6
young forest and a 70-100 year old contain sand espargot ha of habitat 91D0* and the habitat
dry pine forest stand. The Onobrychis arenaria (taxonomic of the Heller's pipit (22JS178_105)
driveway is of sufficient width and affiliation of the species is not may be affected by dewatering. To
bearing capacity, but will most clear, it may also be O.viciifolia). minimise the impact, choose only
likely need to be straightened on one side of the road for the cable and
the turn to the site. locate it in the existing road route,
reconstruct as little as necessary, do
not deepen the road side ditches in
the section along habitat 91D0*.
Before starting work, check the
location of the esparsetta and carry
out a thorough taxonomic check of
the species; in the case of the sand
esparsetta, plan to replant
individuals of the species (given that
the phytocenosis of the existing
257
Protected habitats, SPA species Potential impacts on protected
WPP site no. on WPP Roads (existing247,to
246 Characteristics of the area and natural values identified habitats, SPA species and natural
map, (map no.) construction be built)
values, mitigation measures
location is not stable and will
overgrow over time, a site with
permanent moderate disturbance
should be selected). Estimated
residual impact on habitat 91T0
approximately 1.5 ha.
VV17 (4) Not C_VV17 The site is gently undulating inland Habitat 91T0_1, 91T0_2 along The construction site area
recommended C_VV15_16 dune terrain, in young forest. the access road. corresponds to biotope 91T0_2, as
Locations of protected species lichen cover exceeds 25%. In case of
Gypsophila fastigiata and Silene construction, part of the habitat will
chlorantha on the road C_VV17 be destroyed, but during operation
connecting with the road most of the area can be maintained
Valmiera-Valka to the south of as habitat 91T0. The construction site
the site. C_VV15_16 at the slightly affects habitat 91T0_1
junction with the Valmiera- (polygon 18LS674_674). The
Valka road - a site of the construction of the access road turns
meadow grass Pulsatilla may affect the same habitat polygon
pratensis. in the northern part, as well as
habitat polygons 18NK634_567 and
18NK634_566 at the connection with
the Valmiera-Valka road from the
southern side and other habitat
areas on the roadside if the road is
widened and a cable route is
constructed (total affected area up to
1 ha).
The connections to the Valmiera-
Valka road will destroy protected
species sites, the southern
connection for green-flowered
sundews and the northern
258
Protected habitats, SPA species Potential impacts on protected
WPP site no. on WPP Roads (existing247,to
246 Characteristics of the area and natural values identified habitats, SPA species and natural
map, (map no.) construction be built)
values, mitigation measures
connection for meadow bluebells. As
the Green-flowered Fritillary is a very
rare species, the construction of the
southern connection is not
acceptable to reduce impacts.
Replanting of meadow pipit
individuals in suitable locations and
maintenance of habitat favourable to
them (open sandy areas on
roadsides) should be carried out
during the construction of the
northern connection. Cable routes
should be constructed on one side of
the road only, avoiding tree felling as
much as possible.
VV18 (4) Not C_VV18 The location and construction site The access road crosses the Construction of the access road in its
recommended C_VV18_19 of the WPP are planned in pine biotope 91D0*_1, the SPA current configuration will destroy
stands, partly also affecting species Lycopodium clavatum habitat 91D0*_1 in an area of 0.12
mature stands. The access road is has been found on the edge of ha, dewatering impact up to 0.2 ha.
planned through middle-aged, the stile/forest carriageway on The caterpillar will be destroyed, but
mature pine stands and young the planned construction site. the population status of the species
stands. Habitat 91T0_1 along the edge will not be affected. The construction
of the access road. of the cable route may affect
habitats 91T0_1 (polygons
22JS178_134, 22JS178_135,
18LS674_887) up to 1.2 ha (see the
relevant column in the table for the
impact on the section of road up to
the VV19 site). To minimise impacts,
cable routes should be planned
without felling trees. Change the
259
Protected habitats, SPA species Potential impacts on protected
WPP site no. on WPP Roads (existing247,to
246 Characteristics of the area and natural values identified habitats, SPA species and natural
map, (map no.) construction be built)
values, mitigation measures
configuration of the site access road,
avoiding impact on habitat 91D0*_1.
It is recommended that ecological
trees from the development site be
relocated to an adjacent stand after
felling.
VV19 (6) Not C_VV18_19 The WPP site and access road are Habitat 91T0 on the The development site affects habitat
recommended planned in a pine stand. The development site and along the 91T0_1 of approximately 0.1 ha and
construction site is planned in access road, protected species - a caterpillar site. Along the access
young and mature pine woodland. the creeping bent Lycopodium road and in the area of the cable
clavatum on the development route, biotopes 91T0_1 (south of the
site, the meadow buttercup road), 91T0_2 (north of the road,
Pulsatilla pratensis and the landfill 22JS178_133) may be
sandwort Dianthus arenarius affected by the construction of the
along the access road. cable route. If a turning radius is
constructed to the north of the
connection with the Valmiera-Valka
motorway, the sandwort and
meadow sedge deposits will be
destroyed.
To reduce the impact, shift the
development area slightly to the
north of the road to avoid
disturbance to the 91T0_1 habitat
and the cowslip site, do not construct
a turn to the north of the road
connection, thus preserving the SPA
species site, locate the cable route to
the north of the road.
VV20 (2) Alternative A, B C_VV20_89 The site, construction area and No protected habitats have To reduce the impact, large fallen
access road are planned for wet been identified on the site, but a trees from the development site
260
Protected habitats, SPA species Potential impacts on protected
WPP site no. on WPP Roads (existing247,to
246 Characteristics of the area and natural values identified habitats, SPA species and natural
map, (map no.) construction be built)
values, mitigation measures
mineral soils (Mrs), maintained site of the protected species should be moved to the adjacent
pine stands. The access road is Calcophora mariana has been woodland, the road should not be
planned to be a recently identified. widened and a cable route should
reconstructed forest road (LVM old On the northern side of the not be constructed on its northern
highway). access road, extensive and side; subject to conditions, there will
abundant stands of the SPA be no negative impact on the
species Dianthus arenarius and protected species sites.
Pulsatilla pratensis were found
VV21 (2) Alternative A, B C_VV21_88 The WPP is planned to be located The cable routes affect habitat The cable route area affects about
in a young stand, the construction 9010*_1. 0.4 ha of biotope 9010*_1 *polygons
site partly in a young stand, partly 18SU869_354, 18LS674_670). To
in middle-aged to mature stands. minimise impacts, the cable route
The access road is planned to should be constructed without felling
follow an existing LVM road, which trees in the habitat area (either by
leads through a forested area choosing the opposite side of the
dominated by intensively managed road or by locating the cables in the
woodlands, with mature forest existing route).
stands interspersed with clearings
and copses.
VV22 (3) Alternative A, B C_V22_85 The WPP is planned to be located Habitat 91T0_1 near the No effects are expected on habitat
in a young stand, the construction planned WPP construction site. 91T0_1 (polygon 18LS674_693).
site partly in a young stand, partly Several large diameter pine It would be advisable to specify the
in middle-aged to mature stands. trees, dry trees, eco-wood were WPP site to minimise the destruction
The access road is planned in a found in the planned of the large (04-0.5 m circumference)
wooded area dominated by construction area. On one of the Juniperus communis (Juniperus
intensively managed woodlands fallen trees, we found the communis ) within the site. Large
with young, middle-aged and skeletons of a species of IBA - diameter fallen trees >25 cm should
mature stands. the Great Painted Beetle. be moved to nearby stands during
Annual quail on the driveway the work. The construction will
track. destroy up to 25m2 of annual
pipistrelle individuals, but will not
261
Protected habitats, SPA species Potential impacts on protected
WPP site no. on WPP Roads (existing247,to
246 Characteristics of the area and natural values identified habitats, SPA species and natural
map, (map no.) construction be built)
values, mitigation measures
have a negative impact on the
population of the species. For the
access road, see VV_85.
VV23 (2) Not C_VV23 The site and most of the Biotope 91T0_1, annual milfoil The construction of the nursery will
recommended construction area is located in a Lycopodium annotinum destroy the individuals of the annual
relatively flat area, in a pine stand, pipistrelle. It is likely that part of the
the construction area affects a habitat 91T0_1 (LVM mapping
mature pine stand in the wet mint 08.09.2017, no landfill No.) will be
type of growing conditions. The destroyed. The road connection may
access road is already sufficiently affect the biotope 91T0_1 (LVM
wide, the connection to the A3 mapping 08/09/2017), biotope
may need to be rebuilt quality - low.
To reduce the impact, the
construction site and the cable
routes are planned outside the
habitat 91T0_1, and the trees felled
at the turning are to be left in the
habitat. Area where it is not possible
to avoid impacts on habitat 91T0_1
~0.01 ha
262
Protected habitats, SPA species Potential impacts on protected
WPP site no. on WPP Roads (existing247,to
246 Characteristics of the area and natural values identified habitats, SPA species and natural
map, (map no.) construction be built)
values, mitigation measures
VV24 (1) Alternative A, B C_VV24_30 (Captain The site is located in a pine Habitat 9010*_1 along the No protected habitats or species
Anton's Way) coppice, the construction site access road. have been identified on the site; to
affects several mature, the east of the site habitat 9010*_1
economically managed pine and (LVM mapping 12.08.2016.) will not
spruce coppices. Driveway of be affected by the proposed activity.
sufficient width and bearing Along the access road, biotope
capacity, but likely to need 9010*_1 (polygon 18VB850_174), if
straightening. the road needs to be straightened,
part of the biotope polygon may be
destroyed, as well as if a cable route
is created along this side of the road.
To reduce the impact, do not
straighten the road in the habitat
area, build the cable route on the
other side of the road.
VV25 (1) Alternative A, B C_VV25_27 Site on level ground, 70 g. in a pine 9010*_1 along access road No impacts on protected habitats
stand of narrow-leaved hemlock and species are expected from the
type; the site also includes pine construction of the site. No impact is
coppice. Driveway with sufficient expected from road straightening. If
width and bearing capacity, but the cable route is planned along the
may need straightening. eastern side of the road, impacts on
habitat 9010_1 (polygons
18NK634_745, 18NK634_743) are
expected. The habitat in these areas
is of good to excellent quality, with a
stable microclimate, abundant dead
wood, and habitat specialist species
(rose-sedge Fomitopsis rosea,
Heller's sedge) occur deeper in the
slope.
263
Protected habitats, SPA species Potential impacts on protected
WPP site no. on WPP Roads (existing247,to
246 Characteristics of the area and natural values identified habitats, SPA species and natural
map, (map no.) construction be built)
values, mitigation measures
To reduce the impact, the cable
route should be planned on the
opposite side of the road to the
biotope.
VV26 (1) Alternative A, B C_VV24_30 Site and construction area in Habitats 9010*_3 (on the Habitat 9050 (polygon 22JS178_63),
C_VV25_27 young (20-22 yr) spruce and pine section of road required for this approximately 70 m south of the site,
stands in dry growth types. site), 9010*_1, 91D0*_1 (on the no adverse effects on microclimate
Driveway with sufficient width and section shared with other sites), are expected as the site is sufficiently
bearing capacity, but may need night violet Platanthera spp., distant that the habitat would not be
straightening. year-ling Lycopodium annotinum affected by the clearing of the
development site. The construction
will destroy individuals of nightjar
and annual pipistrelle, but will not
have a negative impact on the
populations of the species. The
construction of the access road and
the construction of the parking area
may have an impact on the
hydrological regime in biotopes
9010*, 9050 and 91E0* if the depth
of the side ditches is below the
surface mark of the biotopes. The
straightening of the access road and
the construction of the cable route in
the previous sections may have
negative impacts on habitats
264
Protected habitats, SPA species Potential impacts on protected
WPP site no. on WPP Roads (existing247,to
246 Characteristics of the area and natural values identified habitats, SPA species and natural
map, (map no.) construction be built)
values, mitigation measures
9010*_1 and 91D0*_1, see tables
VV24 and VV25, as well as habitat
9010*_3 (polygon 22JS178_61) if the
cable route is constructed along the
southern side of the access road.
To reduce the impact , the cable
route should be built on the opposite
side of the road to the biotope, and
the layout of the parking area and
the road should be designed to avoid
any dewatering effects on the
biotope.
VV27 (1) Not C_VV24_30 Site and construction area in pine Habitats 9010*_3 (on the Along the access road habitat
(rejected) recommended C_VV25_27 coppice in mint and narrow-leaved section of road required for this 9010*_3 (polygon 22JS178_64),
hemlock vegetation types, site), 9010*_1, 91D0*_1 (on the there may be an impact if the cable
practically flat terrain. Driveway section shared with other sites) route is constructed on the southern
with sufficient width and bearing side of the road. In sections shared
capacity, but may need with other sites, impacts on habitats
straightening. 9010*_1, 9010*_3, 91D0*_1 (see
sites VV24, VV25, VV26, VV30) are
possible.
To reduce the impact, the cable
route should be built on the opposite
side of the road to the biotope.
VV28 (2) Alternative A, B C_VV28 The site and the construction area Habitat 9010*_1 (which is also Reconstruction of the access road
are planned in a dry growing type the habitat of Heller's Warbler and construction of the site may
(As), in a managed birch coppice. and Pink-footed Skipper) south have a dewatering effect on habitat
The access road (LVM Brūkleņu of the access road, in a built-up 9010* (23GE079_52 and LVM2020)
Road) has recently been area, the site of the annual and the habitat of the Heller's
reconstructed with a chipped Lycopodium annotinum . pipistrelle. The site of the annual
surface and drainage ditches. pipistrelle will be destroyed.
265
Protected habitats, SPA species Potential impacts on protected
WPP site no. on WPP Roads (existing247,to
246 Characteristics of the area and natural values identified habitats, SPA species and natural
map, (map no.) construction be built)
values, mitigation measures
For the impact of the driveway, see
VV86.
To minimise impacts , do not deepen
side ditches below the current
elevation mark during site
construction and road
reconstruction.
VV29 (2) Not C_VV29 Site and construction area on Biotope 91T0_1, annual The construction of the site will
recommended C_VV14_87 slightly undulating terrain - site in quillwort Lycopodium result in the destruction of
a pine coppice under wet damson annotinum, cuckoo quillwort individuals of the annual pipistrelle
growth conditions, construction Lycopodium clavatum and will have no negative impact on
area also includes 80 g. pine and the population of the species. The
spruce stand in the damson construction of the access road will
growth type. Deep drainage ditch affect the habitat 91T0_1 (see VV14)
along the edge of the proposed and the habitat of the cowslip.
development site. The access road
in the last section needs to be
practically rebuilt (currently a
rarely used natural carriageway),
and the section shared with other
sites also needs to be significantly
widened and straightened.
VV30 (1) Alternative A, B C_VV24_30 The site is on slightly undulating Habitat 91D0*_1 near the site, Habitat 91D0*_1 (polygon
terrain, in pine coppice. Driveway 9010*_1 along the access road. 22JS178_56), which is also the
with sufficient width and bearing habitat of the Heller's helleborine
capacity, but may need Anastrophyllum hellerianum, is
straightening. located approximately 30 m from the
site; no significant effects on the
habitat are expected as the site is
located in a young stand at an
elevation; there may be an impact if
266
Protected habitats, SPA species Potential impacts on protected
WPP site no. on WPP Roads (existing247,to
246 Characteristics of the area and natural values identified habitats, SPA species and natural
map, (map no.) construction be built)
values, mitigation measures
the assembly site is ditched and a
section of road around the habitat
has to be straightened (hydrological
regime already affected from the
construction of the existing road,
ditch dug from the habitat to the
road side ditch). The construction of
an access road to this site may have a
negative impact on habitat 9010*_1
up to site VV24 (see relevant column
in the table). To minimise impacts , in
the event of road realignment and
the construction of a parking area, do
not deepen the side ditch below the
existing high water mark.
VV31 (2) Alternative A, B C_VV31 The site is planned on a dune Specimens and scat of the SPA The road realignment may adversely
slope, in a pine grove. The WPP species Chalcophora mariana affect habitat 9010*_1 (LVM2020
site is planned partly on dune have been found on pine litter mapping without landfill No.), an
terrain and partly on flat terrain in at the planned WPP area of about 0.1 ha, which is also
a recent clearing. The access road construction site and on the the habitat of the parasitic cladonia.
is planned to be an unpaved forest edges of the access road. The construction of the turnings will
carriageway. have a minor negative impact on the
The access road is planned biotope 91T0_2, changing the
through biotopes 91T0_2 and topography and undergrowth (up to
9010*_1. 0.7 ha), but the biotope is a young
stand, so no old trees will be felled.
To reduce the impact it is
recommended to plan the road
through the area of habitat type
91T0_2, avoiding 9010*_1. Large-
sized fallen trees should be moved to
267
Protected habitats, SPA species Potential impacts on protected
WPP site no. on WPP Roads (existing247,to
246 Characteristics of the area and natural values identified habitats, SPA species and natural
map, (map no.) construction be built)
values, mitigation measures
lighted parts of the residual stands,
so that the habitat of the Great
Crested Beetle will not be affected.
Overall, a 0.7 ha road in the area of
habitat 91T0_2 (habitat in the
formative stage) will have a lasting
effect.
VV32 (1) Alternative A, B C_VV32_33 Site in a pine coppice under wet No protected habitats have There may be a dehumidification
damsack type of growing been identified within the site effect on the habitat of parasitic
conditions. The construction site area. cladonia. To minimise impacts, the
also affects a mature, recently On the edge of the access road site and road realignment should be
maintained pine woodland in the (behind the road ditch on the designed so as not to alter the
lane. forest side), on the P fallow, a hydrological regime of the species'
The access road is planned to locality of the parasitic lichen habitat.
follow an existing, recently Cladonia parasitica was found. For the impact of the driveway, see
constructed LVM road, which leads Along the access road habitats VV33.
through a wooded area dominated 9010*_1 and 9010*_3.
by intensively managed forest
areas with mature stands
interspersed with young stands.
VV33 (1) Alternative A, B C_VV32_33 The WPP site and construction No protected habitats or species No effects are expected on habitat
area is planned in a young stand, found in the site area, habitat 91T0_1 (polygon 18VB850_191).
with a small corner of the site 91T0_1 near the site. Along the Construction of driveway
extending into the mature stand. access road habitats 9010*_1 turnarounds and cable routes may
The access road is planned to and 9010*_3. affect biotopes 9010*_1
follow an existing LVM road, which (22JS178_76, 0.06 ha), 9010*_3
leads through a forested area (22JS178_75, 0.15 ha), construction
dominated by intensively managed of cable routes - biotope 9010*_1
woodlands, with mature stands (22JS178_77, <0.01 ha). The
268
Protected habitats, SPA species Potential impacts on protected
WPP site no. on WPP Roads (existing247,to
246 Characteristics of the area and natural values identified habitats, SPA species and natural
map, (map no.) construction be built)
values, mitigation measures
interspersed with young stands. construction of the site may have a
dewatering effect on habitat 9010*,
which is also the habitat of the
Heller's and Pink-footed Lapwing.
To minimise impacts, cable routes
should be planned without cutting
trees in habitat areas (along the
road), the location should be planned
in such a way as to avoid the need
for a side ditch, which may affect the
hydrological regime in habitat
9010*). The construction of the
turning will not be able to avoid
impacts on habitat 9010* (landfills
22JS178_75 and 22JS178_76),
totalling approximately 0.15 ha.
VV34 (2) Not C_VV34 The WPP is planned to be located The construction site affects No impacts on known SPA species
recommended in a young stand, the construction areas 91T0_1 and 91T0_2 of are expected, however areas of
site partly in a young stand, partly habitat 91T0_1 and 91T0_2: habitat 9010*_1 Old-growth or
in a middle-aged stand in a habitat 91T0_2 Lichen-rich pine natural boreal forest are considered
pronounced dune topography, in forests, polygon No. No to be valuable habitats for SPA
an area that has recently been occurrences of SPA species. species.
clear-cut. The 91T0_2 habitat area (landfill
22JS178_109) has recently been
The access road is planned to be clear-cut, implementation of the
an unpaved forest carriageway proposed action would destroy the
through very old (> 164 years) pine recovery potential of the habitat,
stands (protected biotopes). however the negative impact would
be assessed as insignificant at
present. Habitat 91T0_1 (landfill
18LS674_673) would be destroyed in
269
Protected habitats, SPA species Potential impacts on protected
WPP site no. on WPP Roads (existing247,to
246 Characteristics of the area and natural values identified habitats, SPA species and natural
map, (map no.) construction be built)
values, mitigation measures
an area of 0.3 ha, or most of its
landfill. The access road would
destroy the good quality habitat
9010*_1 (polygons 18LS674_668 and
18LS674_669) in an area of 0.4 ha
and create an edge effect and
fragmentation in the remaining part.
Mitigation is practically impossible
without abandoning the site.
VV35 (2) Not C_VV35 Site in an adult (100 g.) pine stand Biotopes 91D0*_3, 91T0_2 The pine plantation where the
recommended in the Narrow-leaved Peatgrass construction site is planned
type. The construction site corresponds to biotope 91T0_2
includes, in addition to this plot, (polygon 22JS178_104); the
pine coppice in the mint growth construction will destroy part of the
type (configuration of the biotope (up to 1.3 ha), but the
construction site to be clarified remaining area will allow the biotope
due to a change of location). A 91T0 and its characteristic vegetation
deep drainage ditch about 40 m to persist and develop. The
south of the site. The access road development area also includes 0.26
needs to be widened and rebuilt, ha of habitat 91D0*_3 (polygon
currently a fairly wide natural 22JS178_105). If the connection to
carriageway, possibly a connection the road section C_VV16_93 is to be
to road C_VV16_93 made, the impact could be on the
91D0_3 habitat polygon
22JS178_105, both by destroying
part of its area and by deteriorating
the hydrological regime if the existing
ditch is dredged, with a total
potential dewatering impact of up to
0.9 ha. The section of access road
C_VV16_93 to the A3 is unlikely to
270
Protected habitats, SPA species Potential impacts on protected
WPP site no. on WPP Roads (existing247,to
246 Characteristics of the area and natural values identified habitats, SPA species and natural
map, (map no.) construction be built)
values, mitigation measures
have an impact on habitats as the
existing road is wide and without
sharp bends. Impact zone of cable
routes in biotope 91T0_1 up to 0.4
ha.
To minimise the impact, the cable
routes should be planned on one side
of the road and without affecting the
habitat areas, the site should be
planned outside the 91D0* habitat
area and in such a way that the
hydrological regime of the habitat is
not altered (by constructing the site
on an elevation).
VV36 (5) Alternative A, B C_VV37_43 The site is on flat terrain, in pine Cable route along the access On the northern side of the access
coppice in the Mint growth type road habitat 9010*_1, which is road, the cable route affects habitat
(the site plot is actually wet Mint). also the habitat of the Great 9010*_1 (landfill 22JS178_122) in an
Access road of sufficient width and Crested Beetle and the area of 0.1 ha.
bearing capacity, may need to be Schneider's Mantis. To minimise impacts, the cable route
rebuilt to connect to other roads. should not be located in habitat
9010*_1.
VV37 (3) Alternative A, B C_VV37_43 The WPP site, construction area No SPA species have been The development of the site is
and access road are planned in found, habitat 91T0_2 has been expected to result in the loss of
pine coppice in the dune flat. found in the area of the planned further development of habitat
construction site. Along the 91T0_2 (landfill 22JS178_121) in this
access road habitat 91T0_1. area of up to 1.3 ha. Habitat variant
91T0_2 is a successional habitat, with
minor adverse effects expected from
habitat destruction. The construction
of the turn-off at the junction of
271
Protected habitats, SPA species Potential impacts on protected
WPP site no. on WPP Roads (existing247,to
246 Characteristics of the area and natural values identified habitats, SPA species and natural
map, (map no.) construction be built)
values, mitigation measures
roads C_VV37_43 and C_VV22_85
will destroy up to 0.2 ha of habitat
91T0_1. The cable route may affect
habitat polygon 18NK634_676 up to
0.1 ha. To minimise impacts, the
cable route should be planned
without felling trees in the habitat.
VV38 (3) Alternative A, B C_V22_85 The WPP is planned to be located No protected habitats found. No adverse effects on protected
in a young stand in a dry forest The SPA species Lycopodium habitat areas are expected.
type. The construction site and clavatum and the annual
access road are planned in pine clapper rail have been recorded The construction of the site is
stands and mature stands on dry in the area of the proposed expected to result in the destruction
mineral soils (Mr) and in stands of development site. of 20m2 of the annual pipistrelle site
susinata forest types (As). and 2m2 of the cuckoo pipistrelle site,
but will not have a negative impact
on the populations of these species.
VV39 (5) Alternative A, B C_VV39_40 The site is located in a practically Habitat 9010*_4 in the The site is not located in an area of
flat area, in a pine coppice of the construction site, habitats protected habitats or species
lhane type. The construction site 9010*_1, 91D0*_1, 91T0*_1 habitats. For the access road, see
also affects mature pine and pine- along the access road (see description of VV40, and additional
birch stands and a 35 year old pine VV40) annual milfoil Lycpodium dewatering impacts may affect
coppice. The access road needs to annotinum, crab milfoil habitat 91D0*_1 (18LM156_1150) up
be widened and rebuilt, currently a Lycopodium clavatum. to 0.3 ha and cable route 9010*_4 up
rarely used gravel road. to 0.01 ha.
To reduce impacts, the access road
should be designed with an
embankment, without dewatering of
adjacent areas, but overall the access
road cannot be constructed without
impacting 91D0*_1 and the parasitic
cladonia habitat (see description of
272
Protected habitats, SPA species Potential impacts on protected
WPP site no. on WPP Roads (existing247,to
246 Characteristics of the area and natural values identified habitats, SPA species and natural
map, (map no.) construction be built)
values, mitigation measures
ER 40).
VV40 (5) Alternative A, B C_VV39_40 The WPP site, construction area To the west of the boundary of The development site may affect
C_VV40 and access road are planned in the proposed development site habitat 91D0*_1 (polygons
young stands in dry and dry forest is habitat 91D0*_1, along the 18LM156_1148, 18LM156_1150,
types. access road are habitats 91T0_1 18LM156_1153) if it results in
A drainage ditch has recently been and 9010*_1, habitats of the dewatering (up to 1.3 ha). The
restored along the planned route annual and caterpillar construction of the access road will
of the C_VV40 access road. caterpillar, habitat of the have a direct impact on habitat
parasitic cladonia. 91T0_1 (23AP116_72, 23GE079_54)
0.3 ha and 91D0*_1 (23AP116_70)
0.1 ha. Road construction and
realignment will have a dewatering
impact on 91D0*_ 1 (23AP116_70
(low quality), 18LM156_1149
(habitat of excellent quality,
including habitat of parasitic
cladonia)) of up to 2.8 ha. Negative
impact on microclimate 91D0*_1
over an area of 0.2 ha. The road
realignment will destroy up to 0.04
ha of caterpillar habitat.
To minimise impacts, cable routes
should be planned on one side of the
273
Protected habitats, SPA species Potential impacts on protected
WPP site no. on WPP Roads (existing247,to
246 Characteristics of the area and natural values identified habitats, SPA species and natural
map, (map no.) construction be built)
values, mitigation measures
road only; drainage of waterlogged
habitat areas should be avoided as
part of road reconstruction;
construction and operation of the
VPP site without drainage systems
(with embankment). Given that the
site is located immediately adjacent
to habitats and the existing road is to
be substantially rebuilt, it is likely
that even with mitigation measures,
there could be residual impacts on
the hydrological regime of habitats of
up to 2 ha and direct impacts on
91T0_1 of 0.3 ha and 91D0*_1 of 0.1
ha.
VV41 (3) Alternative A, B C_VV41_84 The WPP is planned to be located No protected habitats The construction of the site is
in a coppice. The construction site identified. The planned WPP site expected to result in the destruction
is planned in middle-aged forest supports the SPA species annual of the Baltic cuckoo (20 individuals),
stands and partly in young forest pipistrelle, cuckoo pipistrelle the annual pipistrelle (5m2) and the
on the dune terrain. and Baltic cuckoo Dactylorhiza cuckoo pipistrelle (5.5m2) but will not
The access road is planned to baltica . Adjacent to the site is have a negative impact on the
follow an existing LVM road, which habitat 9010*_1, which is also populations of these species. The
leads through a forested area the habitat of the Heller's Gull. construction of the site will have an
dominated by intensively managed adverse effect on the microclimate of
forest areas with mature forest habitat 9010*_1 and the habitat of
stands interspersed with clearings Heller's Warbler over an area of 0.3
and young stands. ha. Some large stones have been
found in the planned area, which
would be preferably moved to the
adjacent woodland during
construction, preserving the original
274
Protected habitats, SPA species Potential impacts on protected
WPP site no. on WPP Roads (existing247,to
246 Characteristics of the area and natural values identified habitats, SPA species and natural
map, (map no.) construction be built)
values, mitigation measures
orientation of the stones towards the
skyline.
VV42 (3) Alternative A, B C_VV41_84 The WPP site, construction area No protected habitats or SPA No adverse effects on protected
and access road are planned in species have been recorded natural values are expected, if the
stands of different ages. within the development site. cable route passes through habitat
The access road affects the 91T0_1 (polygon
91T0_1 biotope. 22JS178_119) is planned without
felling trees or on the south-west
side of the road.
VV43 (5) Not C_VV37_43 The WPP site, construction area No protected habitats No adverse effects on habitats
recommended and access road are planned in identified. Baltic cuckoo expected. The construction of the
pine stands and mature stands in Dactylorhiza baltica along the cable route will have a short-term
dry forest types. access road. negative impact on the Baltic cuckoo
salmon.
VV44 (4) Not C_VV44 Location and possible construction Biotops 91T0_1 Site and construction area in biotope
recommended area (configuration to be specified) 91T0_1 (polygon 18LM156_1203,
in young pine forest stands in mint possibly also 18LS674_894), total
vegetation type, terrain area of the construction area about
moderately sloping (inland dune 1.4 ha. Habitats of low quality, with
massif). Driveway recently young forest cover and no structures,
constructed with sufficient width but distinct topography. The
and bearing capacity proposed action would result in the
destruction of part of the habitat, but
275
Protected habitats, SPA species Potential impacts on protected
WPP site no. on WPP Roads (existing247,to
246 Characteristics of the area and natural values identified habitats, SPA species and natural
map, (map no.) construction be built)
values, mitigation measures
the remaining area would allow the
continuation of the 91T0 habitat and
its characteristic vegetation.
Mitigation is not possible if the
location of the site is not changed.
VV45 (4) Not C_VV45 The site is on flat to gently Habitat 9010*_1, caterpillar, The access road crosses habitat
recommended undulating terrain, in a pine great crested beetle. 9010*_1 (landfill 18LS674_708),
coppice of the mint type. The where a road corridor is already
construction area includes young established, but would require
and some mature pine plantations. widening. The construction of the
The driveway is recently turn and the cable routes may
constructed with sufficient width destroy up to 0.2 ha of habitat, as
and bearing capacity, possibly well as a site for the cowbird. The
requiring straightening of one existing habitat 91T0_1 at the A3
bend. connection has already been affected
by the road construction and is
unlikely to be further affected. The
impact on 9010*_1 cannot be
reduced if the road turn is rebuilt.
VV46 (4) Alternative A, B C_VV46 Site in gently undulating terrain in Habitats 91T0_1, 91T0_2, great The topography and vegetation at
a pine coppice in the mint growth crested newt the site at the time of the survey
type. The configuration of the corresponds to biotope 91T0_2 (it is
construction area is not specified, unknown how the vegetation will
and it is possible that mature pine develop as the young pines grow).
trees may also be affected. The
access road has to be rebuilt,
connecting to the A3 motorway.
276
Protected habitats, SPA species Potential impacts on protected
WPP site no. on WPP Roads (existing247,to
246 Characteristics of the area and natural values identified habitats, SPA species and natural
map, (map no.) construction be built)
values, mitigation measures
VV47 (3) Alternative A, B C_V22_85 The location and construction site No protected habitats In the case of the construction of the
of the WPP is planned in middle- identified. The stands of the SPA site and the access road, up to 165m2
aged forest stands. species, the annual pipistrelle, of annual hen harrier habitat is
The access road is planned in a are widely distributed in the expected to be destroyed and 0.5m2
forested area, dominated by planned WPP site. A locality of of annual hen harrier habitat is
intensively managed woodlands, the SPA species Huperzia selago expected to be lost, but no negative
with middle-aged and mature has also been recorded. At the impacts on species populations are
stands. edge of the access road is a expected. The installation of a cable
species of SSSI - Sand Carnation route along the access road would
Dianthus arenarius. affect a 4m2 sandy marl deposit. To
reduce the impact, install the cable
route on one side of the road only
(east side of the access road); the
residual impact will be the
destruction of approximately 80m2 of
individuals per year per stalk and
0.5m2 per girth.
VV48 (5) Not C_VV1_48 The WPP site, construction area No protected habitats or SPA The development site is not expected
recommended and access road are planned in species have been recorded to have any adverse effects on
pine stands of different ages on within the development site. protected natural values. The cable
dry mineral soils. Along the access road habitat route may affect the biotope 91T0_1
91T0_1. (landfill 22GE079_51) on the
northern side of the road in an area
of 0.2 ha, and on the southern side
(landfills 22GE079_51,
18LM156_1167, 22GE079_50) in an
area of 0.2 ha. To minimise impacts,
avoid cutting down trees in the
habitat, install the cable route on one
side of the road.
277
Protected habitats, SPA species Potential impacts on protected
WPP site no. on WPP Roads (existing247,to
246 Characteristics of the area and natural values identified habitats, SPA species and natural
map, (map no.) construction be built)
values, mitigation measures
VV49 (9) Not C_VV49_68 WPP location and construction site No protected habitats found. A The existing pink-ringed pondweed
recommended in a drying wet birch-fir stand, locality of pink-edged pondweed site will be destroyed. To reduce the
young and middle-aged pine-fir has been identified, but it is impact , the protected species can be
stands. The centre axis of the located in a clearing, so the transferred to the adjacent forest
development site is along the locality will disappear in the stand.
existing dirt road. C_VV49_68 future due to the lack of suitable
Narrow dirt road already under substrate.
reconstruction, with young and
middle-aged pine stands, coppice,
clearings along it.
VV50 (8) Not C_VV51_70 Siting and construction site and No protected habitats have The construction of the site would
recommended access road in an area with been identified on the destroy approximately 15m2 of the
relatively variable topography, in development site. Several annual habitat, but would not have a
mature stands of dry-aged and species of SPA, the annual negative impact on the population of
dry-wet pine, partly on an existing pipistrelle, have been recorded the species.
access road. The WPP site crosses at the proposed WPP site. Along The cable route and road widening
a valley depression of a small the access road habitat 91T0_1. may affect habitat 91T0_1
watercourse. (18EO128_1022) up to 0.1 ha, to
reduce the impact the cable route is
planned along the northern side of
the road.
VV51 (8) Not C_VV51_70 The WPP site and construction In the area of the WPP The development site in its current
recommended area is located in a dry pine stand, construction site, habitat configuration would destroy 0.4 ha of
a dry-growing mature pine stand, a 91T0_2, north of the site and habitat 91T0_2 (habitat in the
dry-wet-growing mature pine along the road CVV51_70 formative stage) on medium-high
stand. Access via a recently habitat 9010*_3, also habitat of dune terrain. The construction of the
reconstructed dolomite crushed the Heller's Warbler. site may adversely affect the
stone road. microclimate in habitat 9010*_3,
which is also the habitat of the
Heller's pipit (18LM156_1258) up to
0.3 ha, with potential dewatering
278
Protected habitats, SPA species Potential impacts on protected
WPP site no. on WPP Roads (existing247,to
246 Characteristics of the area and natural values identified habitats, SPA species and natural
map, (map no.) construction be built)
values, mitigation measures
effects up to 2.9 ha of the habitat.
To minimise the impact, specify the
configuration of the development
area to minimise contact with
biotope 9010*_3, and do not deepen
side ditches below the top mark of
the biotope during road
reconstruction and construction of
the site.
VV52 (9) Not C_VV52 Siting and construction site of a A protected forest habitat has The proposed activity will destroy the
recommended C_VV51_70 WPP in a semi-dry wet birch been identified at the beginning habitats of protected species (annual
coppice, semi-wet and fertile pine- of the access road to the WPP pipistrelle, spotted cuckoo, Fuchs'
spruce stands of middle and VV91 site. Several SPA species cuckoo) and alter the hydrological
mature age. The site access road is have been recorded, including regime, thus negatively affecting the
along a track through stands of the annual cuckoo Lycopodium habitats of these species up to 50 m
mainly fertile wet and dry wet annotinum, the spotted cuckoo away from the newly constructed
pine, pine-fir coppice, young and Dactylorhiza maculata and the road. The construction of the turn-off
middle-aged stands. Along the fuchsia cuckoo Dactylorhiza at the road connection will destroy
VV64-VV91 road, there are stands fuchsii. the habitat 91T0_1 (landfill
of both dry and dried wet pine of 18LM156_1268) in an area of 0.2 ha.
middle and mature age, as well as To reduce the impact, the connection
young stands. should be planned from the east,
preferably on an embankment,
minimising dehumidification of the
surrounding area.
279
Protected habitats, SPA species Potential impacts on protected
WPP site no. on WPP Roads (existing247,to
246 Characteristics of the area and natural values identified habitats, SPA species and natural
map, (map no.) construction be built)
values, mitigation measures
VV53 (14, 17) Not C_VV53 Site in a young spruce-birch stand Heller's knapweed The construction of the road and
recommended C_VV53_59 in a narrow-leaved peatland type; Anastrophyllum hellerianum, cable route in its current
spruce trees are dead and already annual knapweed Lycopodium configuration will destroy the habitat
partially felled due to bark beetle. annotinum, creeping knapweed of the annual and cuckoo pipits.
The configuration of the Lycopodium clavatum Heller's wedge-leaved fritillary found
construction site is yet to be on the fall of an ecological tree on
clarified, possibly affecting mature the Quaternary Stygia is not
pine-fir stands. Access road considered to be a significant and
through stile, along existing long-term site.
drainage ditch.
VV54 (15) Not C_VV54 The WPP is planned to be located The access road is planned to The development site would destroy
recommended in a middle-aged forest stand. The pass through the Tetrao 0.5 ha of habitat 91T0_1 (polygons
construction site is planned in urogallus micro-reserve No 1202 18JS178_792, 18JS178_793). The
young to middle-aged stands. and extensive polygons of construction of the access road
The access road is planned to be a continuous habitat 91T0. Along would affect biotope 91T0_1 up to
rebuildable forest road through a the road, several SPA species 6.9 ha (polygons 18EO128_882,
wooded area dominated by Scots and habitat specialists have 18EO128_881, 18LM156_1136,
pine forests with middle-aged and been recorded in the forest 18JS178_792, 18JS178_793,
mature stands. habitats, including the 18EO128_883, 18EO128_880,
caterpillar Lycopodium 18LM156_1160).
clavatum, the parasitic cladonia The road realignment would
Cladonia parasitica, Boros adversely affect habitats and SPA
schneideri , and the variable species by fragmenting and
mollusc, Postia leucomallella destroying them in the area of the
localities. road to be realigned. Mitigation can
only be achieved by abandoning the
access road (a southern access can
be planned) and by adjusting the
location of the site.
280
Protected habitats, SPA species Potential impacts on protected
WPP site no. on WPP Roads (existing247,to
246 Characteristics of the area and natural values identified habitats, SPA species and natural
map, (map no.) construction be built)
values, mitigation measures
VV55 (14) Not C_VV55_59 The site is located in undulating 91T0_1, 91T0_2, 9010_1, crab- The site is planned in biotope 91T0_2
recommended C_VV55 terrain in a pine coppice, mint grass Lycopodium clavatum. (landfill 18JS178_798), lichen
type. The construction area abundance is medium. Part of the
includes young and mature pine habitat would be destroyed (1.1 ha),
plantations on inland dune the rest would continue to develop
elevations. The access road needs naturally. Rest of the construction
to be completely rebuilt, currently area in biotope 91T0_1 (0,96 ha,
a natural carriageway. polygon 18JS178_797) The access
road crosses the polygons of biotope
91T0_1, during the construction of
the road and cable route a part of
the biotope polygons 18JS178_797,
18LM156_1039 would be affected.
18JS178_799, 18LM156_1038, the
extent depends on the technical
solutions, as the natural carriageways
and the power line already fragment
them, but up to 0.62 ha in total. The
access road also affects biotope
9010_1 (landfill 18LM156_1041) in
an area of 0.1 ha, the extent of the
impact depends on the width of the
road to be constructed. The
construction of the road would also
destroy some of the identified
caterpillar habitats, but this would
not have a negative impact on the
population of the species. Mitigation
is not possible with this site as the
access road crosses protected
habitats for long stretches.
281
Protected habitats, SPA species Potential impacts on protected
WPP site no. on WPP Roads (existing247,to
246 Characteristics of the area and natural values identified habitats, SPA species and natural
map, (map no.) construction be built)
values, mitigation measures
VV56 (15) Not The way of the lane The WPP site, construction area No protected habitats Temporary adverse effects on the
recommended and access road are planned in identified. The habitat of the habitat of the Baltic cuckoo and the
coppice and coppice in dry forest SPA species Chalcophora great crested newt are expected.
types. mariana (feces) has been Mitigation measures - large standing
The access road connects to the identified on the proposed trees and fallen trees to be relocated
LVM road (Ielīcu ceļš). development site. to lighted parts of the residual
A locality of the SPA species stands.
Fuchs's cuckoo Dactylorhiza
fuchsii has been found in the
area of the planned access
roads.
VV57 (15) Not C_VV58 The WPP site and access road are The SPA species Heller's The current layout of the
recommended planned in coppice and clearings in knapweed Anastrophyllum development site is expected to
dry forest types. hellerianum and the annual result in the destruction of 0.5 ha of
The construction site is planned milfoil Lycopodium annotinum, habitat 9010*_3 (landfill
partly in young stands and as well as biotopes 9010*_3 and 18LM156_1138), 0.5 ha of habitat
clearings, and partly in mature 91T0_2, have been recorded in 91T0_2 (landfill 18EO128_873) and
forest stands where a protected the area of the planned habitats of protected species. To
forest habitat has been identified. development site. reduce the impact , it is necessary to
reconfigure the development site (to
the west, parallel to the Ielīcu road,
without affecting the habitat area.
VV58 (15) Not C_VV58 The WPP site, construction area No protected habitats or SPA The development site will not affect
recommended and access road are planned in species have been identified protected habitats or species, but the
young and middle-aged intensively within the development site. construction of the access road will
managed forest stands Along the access road habitat destroy up to 0.4 ha of habitat
significantly affected by 9010*_3, also habitat of Heller's 9010*_3 (polygon 18LM156_1138)
deforestation. hellebore Anastrophyllum and may cause up to 1 ha of
The access road is planned to be hellerianum. dewatering impacts. Mitigation is not
an un-surfaced carriageway along possible if the road is designed as it
the block corner between Q192 is.
282
Protected habitats, SPA species Potential impacts on protected
WPP site no. on WPP Roads (existing247,to
246 Characteristics of the area and natural values identified habitats, SPA species and natural
map, (map no.) construction be built)
values, mitigation measures
and Q192. and 193 sq.
VV59 (14) Not C_VV56_59 Site and construction area in a flat Along driveways habitats The access road from the south
recommended C_VV53_59 pine coppice under mint growing 91T0_1, 9010*_3, crab-grass would affect habitat 91T0_1 (landfills
conditions. The access road along Lycopodium clavatum 18LM156_1039, 18LM156_1038) up
the existing stigmas and the power to 0.43 ha, the road from the north
line must be rebuilt. would affect habitat 9010*_3 (landfill
18JS178_796) about 0.1 ha and
91T0_1 0.1 ha (landfill
18LM156_1140). In both cases, the
road would destroy several sites of
the clapper rail. To minimise the
impact , it is recommended to plan
the road from the north only.
283
Protected habitats, SPA species Potential impacts on protected
WPP site no. on WPP Roads (existing247,to
246 Characteristics of the area and natural values identified habitats, SPA species and natural
map, (map no.) construction be built)
values, mitigation measures
VV60 (15) Not The way of the lane The WPP site and access road are Habitat 91T0_2, no occurrences The planned area of the
recommended planned in a young stand in dry of SPA species. development site affects 1.2 ha of
forest types. The planned area of the the 91T0_2 habitat polygon
development site affects a 18EO128_872 and 0.4 ha of the
The site is planned in young and protected habitat - 91T0_2 91T0_1 (polygon 18EO128_867). The
middle-aged stands in dry forest Lichen-rich pine forests, polygon cable routes along the road may
types on low dune terrain. No. affect up to 0.4 ha of habitat 91T0_1
18EO128_867 and and 0.1 ha of habitat 9010*_3
18EO128_872. (landfill 18EO128_869). It is expected
that further development of the
protected habitat in this area will be
lost due to the creation of the
construction site. Habitat variant
91T0_2 is a successional habitat, with
minor adverse effects expected from
habitat destruction. To reduce the
impact, the configuration of the
construction area should be planned
without affecting the biotope
91T0_1, as well as the cable routes -
without cutting down trees in the
biotope area.
VV61 (10) Alternative B C_VV61 The location and construction site Habitat 91T0_2 in the area of The construction of the site would
of the WPP in an area with a the development site. No destroy habitat 91T0_2 (landfill
dramatically changing topography occurrences of SPA species. 18EO128_997), covering an area of
in pine plantations of different about 1.8 ha, or most of the landfill,
ages. Access road - existing including the topsoiled dune terrain.
woodland road, dry pine coppice Mitigation is not possible without
alongside. relocating the site.
On the C_VV61 section of the road to
the east of the site, up to 2.5 ha of
284
Protected habitats, SPA species Potential impacts on protected
WPP site no. on WPP Roads (existing247,to
246 Characteristics of the area and natural values identified habitats, SPA species and natural
map, (map no.) construction be built)
values, mitigation measures
potential impact area on habitat
91T0_1 on the north side of the road,
2.15 ha on the south side, and 0.2 ha
on habitat 9010*_1 (cable routes). To
minimise impacts, cable routes
should be located without cutting
down trees in habitats.
VV62 (10) Not C_VV62 WPP site and construction site in Along the access road, habitat The construction of the access road
recommended C_VV61 dry pine coppice. Access road 91T0_1, no SPA species found. would destroy the habitat 91T0_1
along existing forest land road, (landfill 18EO128_987) in an area of
with pine coppice and middle-aged 0.9 ha. To reduce the impact, the
pine plantations in dry growing access road needs to be planned on a
conditions. different trajectory.
VV63 (10) Not C_VV63 Siting and construction of the WPP Within the construction site The development site and access
recommended C_VV63_71 on a site with moderate area and along habitats 91T0_1 road are located in biotope 91T0_2
topography in a dry pine coppice and 91T0_2. No occurrences of (landfill 18EO128_944, 22GE079_40,
as well as an adult dry pine SPA species. 18EO128_1052) with an area of 2.8
coppice of 0.3 ha. Access road - ha, the construction of the site and
stiga and natural carriageway. the access road would also destroy
Along it, pine coppice and middle- up to 1 ha of biotope 91T0_1
aged stands under different (landfills 18EO128_938,
moisture conditions. 18EO128_942, 18EO128_943,
18EO128_950, 18EO128_951,
18EO128_948, 18EO128_947,
18EO128_946). Mitigation is not
possible if a site is implemented in
this area.
285
Protected habitats, SPA species Potential impacts on protected
WPP site no. on WPP Roads (existing247,to
246 Characteristics of the area and natural values identified habitats, SPA species and natural
map, (map no.) construction be built)
values, mitigation measures
VV64 (9) Not C_VV64 Site and access road in clearing No protected habitats or species No impacts on specially protected
recommended C_VV51_70 and coppice; the section of road within the development site, habitats and species are expected.
C_VV51_70 on either side of the along the east side of the road
connection is a recently C_VV51_70, one Baltic Cuckoo
constructed dolomite crushed Fritillary site.
stone road, with mature stands of
wet pine, pine-fir, pine and birch
coppice along it.
VV65 (9) Alternative B C_VV65 Siting and construction of the WPP No protected habitats found. The development site does not affect
C_VV51_70 in mature birch-fir coppice and The site of the planned WPP is aprotected species and habitats, but is
young stands under wet growing site of the SPA species, the crossed by a larger drainage ditch. In
conditions, with a small area of annual pipistrelle. Along the order to avoid the impact of the
mature pine coppice. Access road - access road from the west, redevelopment of the drainage
dolomite crushed stone road, habitat 9010*_1. system in the wider area, it would be
mainly wet woodland - pine necessary to relocate the planned
coppice, middle-aged and mature WPP site ~ 80 m to the south. Install
pine-fir stands. a cable route along the southern side
of the access road.
VV66 (9) Alternative B C_VV66 WPP site and construction area in At the beginning of the access The construction of the access road
C_VV49_68 middle-aged pine-fir stands, young road to the site, one site of the turn-off will destroy one site of the
stands and clearings. WPP site - in Annual Swift. Along the access annual pipistrelle. Reconstruction of
a wet birch coppice at low road, habitat 9010*_1, which is the access road, if necessary, may
elevation. The access road follows also the habitat of the chestnut- cause dewatering effects in habitat
a forest track through middle-aged brown Arthonia, the cat's foot 9010*_1 (18JS178_995). To reduce
wet pine-fir forests. Arthonia Arthonia leucopellea impacts, do not deepen the side
C_VV49_68 Narrow dirt road and the scented groundsel ditch along the habitat.
already under reconstruction, with Geocalyx graveolens.
young and middle-aged pine
stands, coppice, clearings along it.
286
Protected habitats, SPA species Potential impacts on protected
WPP site no. on WPP Roads (existing247,to
246 Characteristics of the area and natural values identified habitats, SPA species and natural
map, (map no.) construction be built)
values, mitigation measures
VV67 (9) Alternative B C_VV67 Siting and construction of a WPP in No protected habitats found in The construction of the site and road
C_VV49_68 a pine stand and young pine the construction site, along the would destroy the habitats of the
plantations with fertile and access road habitat 9010*_1. Annual Cuckoo, the Scented Night
relatively moist growing Several species of SPAs have Violet and the Fuchs' Cuckoo, but
conditions. C_VV49_68 Narrow been recorded in the vicinity of would not adversely affect the
dirt road already under the proposed WPP development populations of these species. The
reconstruction, with young and site and access road, including construction of the cable route
middle-aged pine stands, coppice, the annual cuckoo, fragrant would affect habitat 9010*_1 up to
clearings along it. Road C_VV67 night violet and Fuchs' 0.1 ha. Negative effects on the
shall be constructed. cuckooDactylorhiza fuchsii . microclimate of the habitat are
expected in an area of 0.3 ha and up
to 1m6 ha of dewatering. To reduce
the impact, the cable route should be
installed along the eastern side of the
road, on an embankment, without
altering the hydrological regime of
the biotope, but dewatering impacts
of up to 0.5 ha are most likely.
VV68 (9) Alternative B C_VV68 The WPP site and the construction No protected habitats, no SPA The development site in its current
C_VV49_68 area were maintained in both dry species or suitable habitats have configuration would have a negative
and wet pine forest stands. been identified. A pine tree of impact on the future microclimate of
The access road is a dirt track, with large dimensions in the centre habitat 9010*_1 (18JS178_997), as
medium-aged mixed tree stands of the site. Along the eastern the opening in the stand <15 m from
(pine, spruce, birch, aspen) and edge of the development site the habitat (0.4 ha) would remain.
clearings along it. for a distance of approximately The construction could have a
15 m, protected woodland dewatering impact on the habitat
habitats 91D0*_2 and 9010*_1. 91D0*_2 (18JS178_998) of
approximately 1.9 ha. No mitigation
is possible if the site is not moved
>50 m from habitat 91D0*.
287
Protected habitats, SPA species Potential impacts on protected
WPP site no. on WPP Roads (existing247,to
246 Characteristics of the area and natural values identified habitats, SPA species and natural
map, (map no.) construction be built)
values, mitigation measures
VV69 (9) Not C_VV69 The WPP site, the construction The development site affects The development site would destroy
recommended C_VV51_70 area and the access road are biotope 91D0_2, the access road habitat 91D0*_2 (22AP116_407) by
planned to be located in forest - biotope 9010*_1, which is also 0.3 ha, with a potential dewatering
stands on wet mineral soils (forest the habitat of the Heller's impact of at least 0.7 ha. The
type Mrs). The area is dominated helleborine Anastrophyllum construction of the access road
by young, artificially regenerated hellerianum. would destroy habitat 9010*_1*
forest stands, although some (landfill 22AP116_405) and the 0.6 ha
patches of mature and overgrown habitat of the Heller's wedge.
stands remain. Mitigation is not possible without
The area has a poorly functioning significant changes to the location of
network of drainage ditches and the WPP and the access road.
drains, and waterlogged conditions
persist.
VV70 (9) Not C_VV51_70 WPP location and construction site Adjacent to the planned WPP The development site will destroy
recommended in wet-growing managed pine construction site, there is the annual pipistrelle site, may have
plantations. Access road - dolomite habitat 9010*_1, which is also a negative impact on the
crushed stone road, pine coppice the habitat of the Heller's microclimate of habitat 9010*_1
and middle-aged stands along it, Warbler and the Cave Sparrow, (18JS178_976) of approximately 0.3
high-voltage power line. and habitat 91D0*_2, which is ha and a dewatering impact on this
the habitat of the Chestnut- habitat of up to 1 ha and habitat
brown Dartford Warbler and the 91D0*_1 (24TC182_10) of 0.4 ha.
Vine-coloured Dartford Warbler, The cable route along the access
the site has been found to road may affect habitat 9010*_1 up
harbour the SPA species, the to 0.3 ha. To minimise impacts, the
Annual Warbler. Along the road reconstruction should not
access road habitat 9010*_1. deepen the side ditches below the
existing mark and the site should be
designed without side ditches, but it
is still possible that the hydrological
regime in the habitats will not be
maintained, at least in part of the
288
Protected habitats, SPA species Potential impacts on protected
WPP site no. on WPP Roads (existing247,to
246 Characteristics of the area and natural values identified habitats, SPA species and natural
map, (map no.) construction be built)
values, mitigation measures
potentially affected area. The
residual area affected is likely to be
around 0.5 ha of habitat 9010*_1,
which is also the habitat of the
Heller's pipistrelle and the cave
spurge. Cable route to be installed
without felling trees in habitat areas.
VV71 (9) Not C_VV71 The WPP site and construction There are no protected habitats The construction of the access road
recommended C_VV63_71 (10) area is mainly in dry pine coppice, or species within the would destroy part of the 91T0_1
some middle-aged wet alder-pine- development site, along the habitat (polygons 18EO128_943,
birch coppice and young dry pine access road C_VV63_71 habitat 18EO128_946, 18EO128_947,
coppice. Access road - an existing 91T0_1. 18EO128_948, 18EO128_950,
dolomite crushed stone road No occurrences of SPA species. 18EO128_951), habitat of medium to
branching off the regional road good quality, on medium-high inland
Smiltene-Valka, with pine dunes. Total area to be destroyed 1
plantations growing along both ha. To reduce the impact , the road
sides towards the inland dunes. may be shifted slightly to the west,
The shared access road to VV71 reducing the affected area,
and VV63 follows a forest track depending on the technical solutions
through dry pine coppice, as well available.
as young and mature pine coppice,
to inland dunes.
VV72 (13) Not C_VV72_80 The WPP site and access road are Habitat 9010*_3 and the The current configuration of the
recommended planned in young stands in dry and habitats of the SPA species development site and access road
dry forest vegetation types, with a Lycopodium annotinum, will destroy habitat 9010*_3
mature stand at the southern end Anastrophyllum hellerianum and (polygon 19EO128_242) and the
of the site. Fomitopsis rosea have been habitat of approximately 0.4 ha of
recorded on the planned WPP protected species. The access road
development site. Along the from VV73 affects habitats 9010*_1
access road habitats 9010*_1 0.1 ha and 91T0_1 0.5 ha.
and 91T0_1. Significant adverse effects on a
289
Protected habitats, SPA species Potential impacts on protected
WPP site no. on WPP Roads (existing247,to
246 Characteristics of the area and natural values identified habitats, SPA species and natural
map, (map no.) construction be built)
values, mitigation measures
protected habitat are expected from
maintaining the current location of
the development site. To reduce the
impact, it is recommended that the
location of the development site
should be clarified by designing it
outside areas of protected habitats.
It is not possible to avoid the impact
of widening the access road.
VV73 (18) Not C_VV73 The WPP site, construction area A locality of the SPA species The proposed action may avoid
recommended and access road are mainly Chalcophora mariana (large negative impacts on the habitat of
planned in young stands of dry carpet beetle) has been the IBA species by moving large-sized
forest growth types, the identified on the proposed WPP fallen trees to lighted parts of the
construction area affects a middle- development site. residual forest stands.
aged artificial spruce stand in a dry It is recommended that the location
forest type and a small area of The proposed development site of the construction site be clarified to
mature stand in a dry forest type. affects a small area of protected prevent the destruction of an area of
habitat 91T0_1 Lichen-rich pine protected habitat.
forests, polygon No
19EO128_235.
VV74 (13) Not C_VV73_74 The WPP development area is Habitat 91T0_1 on the The construction of the development
recommended mainly planned in young stands in development site, 91T0_1 and site would destroy the habitat
dry forest types. The access road is 9010*_1 along the access road. 91T0_1 in an area of 0.3 ha (polygons
an existing dirt road and should be No occurrences of SPA species. 19EO128_251 and LVM2022
rebuilt and widened. mapping without No.). The access
road eastwards to the turn-off to the
VV72 affects habitats 91T0_1 (up to 1
ha potentially affected) and 9010*_1
(0.1 ha).
The configuration of the site can be
refined to minimise impacts, but
290
Protected habitats, SPA species Potential impacts on protected
WPP site no. on WPP Roads (existing247,to
246 Characteristics of the area and natural values identified habitats, SPA species and natural
map, (map no.) construction be built)
values, mitigation measures
impacts on habitats around the
access road cannot be avoided as it
will need to be widened.
VV75 (17) Not C_VV75 Site and construction area in a No identified natural values. The construction of the site will not
recommended C_VV75_79 secondary spruce-birch stand in a affect any protected natural values.
broadleaved peatland vegetation For the access road see VV79.
type. The access road is straight, of
sufficient width and bearing
capacity, partly to be newly
constructed in an area of coppiced
woodland.
VV76 (17) Not C_VV76 The WPP is planned to be located Habitat 9050 is located adjacent No significant adverse effects on
recommended in a coppice. The construction site to the proposed WPP site, along habitat 9050 are expected (minor
is planned in a young and middle- the access roads 91T0_1 and fragmentation effects in the long
aged forest stand. 9010*_1. No occurrences of SPA term due to the retention of the
The access road is planned to species. opening in the development site).
follow an existing stile in a wooded The access road may destroy up to
area dominated by intensively 0.1 ha of habitat 91T0_1 (landfill
managed woodland, with middle- 23GE079_28) and up to 0.2 ha of
aged and mature stands habitat 9010*_1 (18IP658_10). To
interspersed with clearings and minimise impacts, plan the route of
copses. the road without affecting habitats.
VV77 (17) Not C_VV77 The WPP is planned to be located No protected habitats In the event of the construction of
recommended C_VV77_76 in a coppice. The construction site identified. A single occurrence the construction site, it is expected
is planned in young, middle-aged of the SPA species Lycopodium that the species' habitats will be
and mature stands. annotinum has been recorded destroyed.
The access road is planned to on and in the immediate vicinity
follow an existing forest road in a of the proposed WPP site.
wooded area dominated by
intensively managed woodlands,
291
Protected habitats, SPA species Potential impacts on protected
WPP site no. on WPP Roads (existing247,to
246 Characteristics of the area and natural values identified habitats, SPA species and natural
map, (map no.) construction be built)
values, mitigation measures
with middle-aged and mature
stands interspersed with clearings
and copses.
VV78 (17) Not C_VV78 The access road is planned in areas No protected habitats The current layout of the access road
recommended C_VV75_79 of thinned and intensively identified. The planned route of is expected to result in the
managed forest stands, in a long the access road affects a small destruction of the SPA.
stretch parallel to the thinning site of the SPA species
ditch, in some sections along the Lycopodium annotinum .
ditch backfill.
The WPP site and construction
area are planned in a young stand
in a dry forest type.
VV79 (17) Not C_VV75_79 The location, access road and No protected habitats The construction of the site will not
recommended construction site of the WPP are identified. Along the driveway - affect any protected natural values.
planned in young and intensively Baltic Cuckoo Dactylorhiza Cable route may affect the Baltic
managed middle-aged stands in baltica. Cuckoo's nesting site along the road,
dry forest growth types. destruction of individuals will have
no impact on the population of the
species.
VV80 (13) Not C_VV80 The location, site and access road No protected habitats or SPA No negative impacts on protected
recommended C_VV72_80 of the WPP are mainly planned in species found on the nature values are expected. The
young stands in dry forest types. development site, access road access road from VV72 would affect
through habitat 91T0_1. habitat 91T0_1 (19EO128_241) in an
area of about 0.7 ha, for previous
sections see VV72.
To mitigate the impact, consider
reconfiguring the C_VV80 access
road to avoid disturbance to
protected habitats.
292
Protected habitats, SPA species Potential impacts on protected
WPP site no. on WPP Roads (existing247,to
246 Characteristics of the area and natural values identified habitats, SPA species and natural
map, (map no.) construction be built)
values, mitigation measures
VV81 (1) Alternatives A C_VV81 Site in a pine coppice in the lhane The site affects a small area of The construction of the assembly
and B type. The development site also habitat 91T0. area may affect biotope 91T0
affects mature, old pine forest. The (polygon 22JS178_72). To minimise
access road needs to be the impact, the site configuration
completely rebuilt (currently a should be planned without affecting
rarely used natural carriageway) the habitat.
VV82 (5) Not C_VV82 C_VV1_48 The WPP site, construction area The site of the proposed WPP is In the event of the development site
recommended and access road are planned in known to contain the SPA being built, it is anticipated that the
pine plantations. species, the caterpillar. Habitat caterpillar will be destroyed (6m2).
The access road from LVM Road 9010*_1, which is also the The planned construction of the
(Wolf Road) to the construction habitat of Heller's and Pink- access road will destroy the habitat
site is planned to follow the headed Fritillary, is located 9010*_1 with an area of 0.64 ha
natural carriageway along the along the planned access road. (landfills 23GE079_55,
quarter-way between 286 sq. and To the east of the site habitat 18EO128_915) is expected to have a
296 sq., through mature forest 91D0*_2. negative impact on the microclimate
stands with protected habitats. of the habitat and species habitats in
an area of up to 2.5 ha. Potential
impact of dewatering on habitat
91D0*_2 (18EO128_916) up to 2.1
ha)
To mitigate the impact, redesign the
access road from the north-west
without affecting the protected
habitats, and either redirect the
building footprint to the north-west
or design the site so as not to affect
the hydrological regime of habitat
91D0*_2.
VV83 (5) Not C_VV83 The WPP site, construction area No protected habitats or SPA No negative impacts on protected
recommended C_VV37_43 and access road are planned in species found, see VV43 for nature values are expected.
293
Protected habitats, SPA species Potential impacts on protected
WPP site no. on WPP Roads (existing247,to
246 Characteristics of the area and natural values identified habitats, SPA species and natural
map, (map no.) construction be built)
values, mitigation measures
pine plantations in dry forest types access road.
on flat terrain (possibly dune flats).
VV84 (3) Alternatives A C_VV41_84 The WPP is planned to be located No protected habitats If the construction site is
and B in a middle-aged forest stand. The identified. The site of the constructed, it is anticipated that the
construction site is planned in planned WPP is a site of the SPA5m2 caterpillar site will be destroyed,
middle-aged stands, partly also in species caterpillar. Roadside site but this will not have a negative
mature stands. of Schneider's Boros schneiderii.
impact on the population of the
The access road is planned to species. To reduce the impact on the
follow the existing LVM road. Schneiderian Miskill site on the south
side of the road, the cable route
should be installed on the north side
of the road.
VV85 (3) Alternatives A C_V22_85 The WPP is planned to be located No protected habitats found on The installation of the cable route
and B in a coppice. The construction site the construction site, habitat may affect habitat 91T0_1 in an area
is planned in young and middle- 91T0_1 along the access road at of 0.17 ha along the access road.
aged stands. The access road is "Bērziem". A large fallen fallen To mitigate the impact, install the
planned to follow the existing LVM tree was found on the site of the cable route on the western side of
road and further through a planned WPP, where the IBA the access road.
wooded area dominated by species Chalcophora mariana During the construction of the site,
woodlands with young trees. was found. fallen trees >25 cm in diameter
would need to be retained and
relocated to adjacent stands.
VV86 (2) Alternatives A C_VV86 The WPP site and access road are The planned WPP site partially In the case of the construction of the
and B planned in a coppice. The covers the area of the habitat site, 0,05 ha of the area of habitat
construction site is planned in 'Lichen-rich pine forests' 91T0_1 91T0_1 (landfill 22JS178_102) would
middle-aged to mature forest (habitat polygon). Access road be destroyed. Up to 0.46 ha of
stands, partly also in young forest. and cable routes through habitat 91T0_1 (polygon
biotope 91T0_1. 18VB50_209) may be affected by the
At the access road to the A3 construction of the turnpikes and
motorway, a site of the green- cable routes. The reconstruction of
294
Protected habitats, SPA species Potential impacts on protected
WPP site no. on WPP Roads (existing247,to
246 Characteristics of the area and natural values identified habitats, SPA species and natural
map, (map no.) construction be built)
values, mitigation measures
flowered Silene chlorantha. the access road may destroy the
Green-flowered Fritillary site (55
individuals), which would have a
significant negative impact on the
species population.
Select one cable route to reduce the
impact and plan it along the existing
route of the road. No disturbance of
the undergrowth in the Green-
flowered Hellebores site, only
removal of vegetation within the
turning radius; if it is necessary to
lower the terrain, this should be
done on the south side of the access
road. 91T0_1 The area that cannot
be undisturbed by the construction
of the turnings could be around 0.25
ha.
VV87 (2) Not C_VV87, C_VV14_87 Site and construction area in low Habitats 9080*_1 (near the About 80 m south of the turbine site
recommended relief, site in a clearing in a narrow- shed), 91T0_1, 91T0_2 is habitat 9080*_1 (polygon
leaved peatland type, construction (driveway), Annual Cuckoo 18LS674_839, actually more like
area could also affect mature pine- Lycopodium annotinum, Cowslip 9080*_3, only part of the habitat
fir woodland in a damselfallow Lycopodium clavatum, Fuchsia with adequate hydrological regime,
type. The access road in the last Cuckoo Dactylorhiza fuchsii. corresponding to a medium quality
section needs to be practically potential natural forest habitat). 80
rebuilt (currently a rarely used m to the north-east also habitat
natural carriageway), and the 9080*_1 (polygon 18LS674_838,
section shared with other sites rather 9080*_3, good quality
also needs to be significantly potential natural forest habitat). The
widened and straightened. site will require dewatering and the
site infrastructure will be even closer
295
Protected habitats, SPA species Potential impacts on protected
WPP site no. on WPP Roads (existing247,to
246 Characteristics of the area and natural values identified habitats, SPA species and natural
map, (map no.) construction be built)
values, mitigation measures
to the habitats, so there is likely to be
a negative impact on the 9080*
habitat polygons (at least 0.5 ha,
possibly more). The construction of
the access road will destroy
individuals of the cuckoo warbler,
annual warbler and Fuchs' cuckoo
warbler, but there will be no adverse
effects on the populations of these
species. The upstream access road
will have a negative impact on
habitat 91T0 and the cowslip site
(see VV14). Mitigation measures are
possible by moving the site away
from habitats 9080* and locating it
on an elevated site, but impacts from
the access road remain.
VV88 (2) Alternatives A C_VV88 The WPP site, construction area In the area of the site, the SPA The access road cable route affects
and B and access road are planned in a species Chalcophora mariana about 0.2 ha of habitat 9010*_1
coppice and a clearing, with a and the annual beetle were (landfill 22JS178_111), which is also a
small part in a mature stand. found on the pine litter. The habitat for SPA species.
cable route along the access To reduce the impact, the cable
road affects habitat 9010*_1, route should be planned along the
which is also the habitat of eastern edge of the road, with large-
Heller's warbler, pink-cheeked sized fallen trees to be moved to the
fritillary and green box elder lighted parts of the residual forest
Buxbaumia viridis. stands.
VV89 (2) Not C_VV89 The WPP is planned to be located The planned WPP construction In case of construction of the site and
recommended in a coppice. The construction site site and access road affect the the access road, a part of the habitat
is planned to be located mainly in area of biotope 91T0_1 (biotope 91T0_1 (polygons 22JS178_86,
mature forest stands, partly also in polygon 22JS178_86). 22JS178_85) would be destroyed
296
Protected habitats, SPA species Potential impacts on protected
WPP site no. on WPP Roads (existing247,to
246 Characteristics of the area and natural values identified habitats, SPA species and natural
map, (map no.) construction be built)
values, mitigation measures
young forest stands. (about 1 ha in total). In its current
The access road is planned to The planned WPP construction location, the development site
follow an existing stile in a wooded site has been found to support touches two dune ramparts.
area dominated by woodland with SPA species such as the large On the northern side of the road,
predominantly mature stands. scarlet beetle Chalcophora biotope 91T0_1 (polygons
mariana on pine litter, the 22JS178_88, 18VB850_211), biotope
sandwort Dianthus arenarius 91T0_2 (22JS178_87). To minimise
and the meadow grass Pulsatilla the impact , the road widening and
pratensis on the northern side cable routes are not planned to the
of the access road , and the north of the existing road (which
annual milfoil Lycopodium would not affect the protected
annotinum on the southern side species site and part of the 91T0_1
of the road. habitat), however it is not possible to
construct the site without affecting
areas of the 91T0_1 habitat and
without significantly altering the
dune topography.
VV90 (7) Not C_VV90_Saule Siting and construction site of the No protected habitats or The construction of cable routes
recommended C_VV10_90 WPP on an elevated terrain in dry protected species have been along the access road will have a
C_VV90 pine-fir-birch coppice, dry pine identified on the development short-term negative impact on the
coppice and dry adult pine site. Along the road Baltic Cuckoo Salamander.
coppice. Access road - existing C_VV90_Saule Baltic Cuckoo
woodland road, interspersed with Dactylorhiza baltica.
mature dry pine plantations and
coppice.
297
Protected habitats, SPA species Potential impacts on protected
WPP site no. on WPP Roads (existing247,to
246 Characteristics of the area and natural values identified habitats, SPA species and natural
map, (map no.) construction be built)
values, mitigation measures
VV91 (9) Alternative B C_VV51_70 Siting and construction of the VPP Along the access road habitat No impacts on specially protected
in an area with relatively variable 91T0_1. No occurrences of SPA habitats and species are expected.
topography, in dry wet-grown pine species.
coppice, mature dry wet-grown
pine coppice, dry mature pine
coppice and on an existing access
road. Access road through mature
pine forest.
VV92 (8) Not C_VV92 WPP site and construction area No protected habitats found. A The construction may result in the
recommended C_VV2_3 mainly in mature dry pine stands, site of the SPA species Cuckoo destruction of the annual and
some also in mature wet dry pine- Caterpillar was found on the caterpillar habitats (approximately
fir stands. The site has a varying roadside, and Annual Caterpillar 10m2) but will not have a negative
topography with a slope towards was found in the construction impact on the populations of the
the site. The access road runs site. species. It is desirable to specify the
along forest stigmas through dry access road to be located outside the
mature pine stands, middle-aged floodplain of the Seda River (where
dried pine-fir stands, dried wet the road turns east).
birch coppice. The access road in
the middle is impassable due to
high humidity (floodplain of the
river Seda).
VV93 (2) Not C_VV16_93 The site is located in a pine 91T0_1 in the parking area and The construction site and the access
recommended C_VV93 coppice in a silo type of growing along the access road road would destroy part of the
conditions, the construction area habitat 91T0_1 (landfills
also affects mature pine stands. 18NK634_561 and 2017. LVM
The access road to the site should mapping without No), up to 1.7 ha.
be rebuilt, with sufficient width Mitigation measures can be kept to a
and bearing capacity to the A3, but minimum without abandoning the
may need to be straightened. site.
298
Protected habitats, SPA species Potential impacts on protected
WPP site no. on WPP Roads (existing247,to
246 Characteristics of the area and natural values identified habitats, SPA species and natural
map, (map no.) construction be built)
values, mitigation measures
Transformer The substation's connection to the The connection crosses the The construction of the substation
substation 1 (3) high-voltage power line runs habitat 91T0_1, the substation would destroy the 91T0_1
across a small dune, the substation area in the habitat 9010*_1, (18LM156_1164) habitat on 0.7 ha
site is partly in a clearing, partly in which is also the habitat of the and the 9010*_1 (24AP116_11)
an overgrown coniferous forest Heller's pipit. habitat on 0.7 ha and would have a
stand. negative impact on the microclimate
of the 9010*_ and Heller's pipistrelle
habitats on 1.8 ha. To reduce the
impact, choose substation option 3.
Transformer Connection site and location in dry To the south of the substation is Construction would have a negative
substation 2 (3) pine-fir stands, mostly middle- habitat 9010*_1, which is also impact on the microclimate of
aged and mature stands, some the habitat of Heller's Warbler. habitat 9010*_1 and the habitat of
mature stands. Partially overlaps At the connection point to the the Heller's pipistrelle of
with site VV41. high voltage line, the SPA approximately 0.5 ha (0.2 ha more
invertebrate species Schneider's than for site VV_41 only). At the
minnow and Stephanopachys connection to the high voltage power
linearis striped hooded warbler line, the habitat of the Schneider's
were recorded. Wort and the Striped Hooded Cherry
will be adversely affected by felling
part of the trees in the habitat. To
reduce the impact, choose substation
option 3.
Transformer The substation site is partly in a Adjacent to the substation area, The construction of the substation
substation 3 (3, 5) clearing, partly in coniferous habitat 91T0_1. Site of the will not adversely affect areas of
stands and mature stands. annual pipistrelle, a species of protected habitats. A 1m2 site of the
SPA, at the connection to the annual pipistrelle will be destroyed,
high-voltage power line. which will not adversely affect the
population of the species.
Transformer The transformer substation and The habitat of the SPA species The proposed activity, if connected
substation 4 energy storage area is planned at Chalcophora mariana (large to the 330 kV power line, could
299
Protected habitats, SPA species Potential impacts on protected
WPP site no. on WPP Roads (existing247,to
246 Characteristics of the area and natural values identified habitats, SPA species and natural
map, (map no.) construction be built)
values, mitigation measures
(original location) 262 sq. Leg 2. The site is subject to carpet beetle) has been destroy up to 1.6 ha of habitat
clear-cutting in 2023. identified on the planned 91T0_1 (landfills 18JS178_780 and
substation site. 18EO128_910).
The substation is planned to be The proposed action may avoid
connected to the high-voltage The location of the planned negative impacts on the habitat of
overhead power line via overhead transmission lines crosses the the SPA species - large-sized fallen
or cable transmission lines through habitat 91T0_1. and standing trees should be
young and middle-aged forest relocated to the lighted parts of the
stands in dry forest growth types. residual forest stands.
Information on possible connections
to roads and other WPP
infrastructure is currently unknown.
VES Not C_VV72_80 The access road is planned to The planned access road is The cable route is to be located on
recommended, follow a natural carriageway at adjacent to habitat 9010*_1 Old the western side of the road (Q377).
no construction natural elevations. The road passes or natural boreal forest polygon
works required through young and mature forest No 19EO128_242, the road The possibility of re-routing the road
stands where protected habitats crosses habitat 91T0_1 Lichen- alignment outside the area of
have been identified. rich pine forest polygon No protected habitat 91T0_1 - 377 sq.
19EO128_241. Leg 10, 353 sq. 13 and 14 nog.
Cable route north of An existing dolomite crushed stone Protected biotopes 91T0_1 have No road realignment is foreseen and
Gailisi road (7,11) road passes through pine and been identified along the road, therefore no impacts on habitats
(only the cable spruce stands of different ages and 18EO128_696, 91T0_2, Lichen- from road widening or dewatering
route, no road growing conditions, perennial rich pine forests. are foreseen. A cable route is
reconstruction) grasslands and a high voltage line. 18LM156_1092, 91D0*_2, planned along one side of the road,
Swamp forests. which may affect habitats and
17AP116_982, 6270*_3, species habitats.
Species-rich grassland and To minimise impacts on habitats and
grazed meadows. species habitats, cable routes should
18EO128_682, 7410_1, be installed in areas where no
Transitional marshes and slopes, habitats exist, especially in the area
300
Protected habitats, SPA species Potential impacts on protected
WPP site no. on WPP Roads (existing247,to
246 Characteristics of the area and natural values identified habitats, SPA species and natural
map, (map no.) construction be built)
values, mitigation measures
~40 m from the road track. of the Northern Gauja AAP. It is not
18JS178_608, 91D0*_1, possible to avoid the impact by
18JS178_609, 91D0*_2, Swamp crossing the biotope 91T0_1
forests, ~10-30 m from the (18EO128_696, 18EO128_702 or
track. 18EO128_703, 18EO128_827), which
18JS178_606, 91T0_1, Lichen- is outside the Northern Gauja AAP,
rich pine forests. the western side of the road should
be selected, the affected area 0.8 ha.
Boulevard (8) An existing dolomite crushed stone On both sides of the road Road widening and ditch deepening
road crosses the massif in a south- habitats 9010* (including would affect protected habitat areas
north direction, including the dune habitats of baldcypress and and the hydrological regime, but
topography, which has been Heller's chat), 91D0*, 91T0 road widening is unlikely given the
altered by the road construction. dimensions of the road. The
installation of the cable route may
affect areas of protected habitats as
they are located on both sides of the
road. The installation of the cable
route on the western side of the road
will adversely affect 0.6 ha of habitat
91T0_1 and 0.05 ha of habitat 9010*.
E-line (6,7,10) An existing dolomite crushed stone Along the roadside ditches there If the road needs to be widened,
road with side ditches crosses the are many Baltic Cuckoo Fritillary there is the potential for negative
forest massif in a west-east sites. At the eastern end, the impacts on habitat 91T0_1 by
direction, including the dune road crosses the biotope reducing its area, but widening is
terrain which has been altered by 91T0_1, and along the roadside unlikely given the size of the road.
the road construction. also biotope 9010*_1. The installation of the cable route
will reduce the area of the habitat to
2.8 ha by choosing to install the cable
on the northern side of the road.
Disturbance of the Baltic Cuckoo is
expected, but the species recovers
301
Protected habitats, SPA species Potential impacts on protected
WPP site no. on WPP Roads (existing247,to
246 Characteristics of the area and natural values identified habitats, SPA species and natural
map, (map no.) construction be built)
values, mitigation measures
well in areas where earthworks have
been carried out, if areas are left free
of black earth.
A3 Valmiera-Valka The road crosses inland dune Baltic cuckoo flower The road is not to be rebuilt, but
(1, 2, 3, 4, 6) massifs, flat terrain and several Dactylorhiza baltica, sandwort cable routes are planned along its
depressions with small Dianthus arenarius, long-leaved edge. During their excavation, the
watercourses. A strip has been cut gypsophila Gypsophila habitats of protected plant species
along the roadside and is kept fastigiata, wood-grass Pulsatilla will be affected, destroying some
clear of vegetation. patens, meadow-grass Pulsatilla individuals. As most species are
pratensis, green-eyed Susan disturbance-dependent and require
Silene chlorantha open ground in the habitat for seed
germination, disturbance of the
understorey will have a positive
effect in the long term by delaying
succession, but may have a
significant negative effect on the
habitats of species with few
individuals (green fritillary,
woodlark). To minimise impacts, no
disturbance of understorey
vegetation should be allowed in the
Green-flowered Helleborine and
Wood-rush sites; trenchless
technology should be used in the
larger Sand Carnation and Long-
302
Protected habitats, SPA species Potential impacts on protected
WPP site no. on WPP Roads (existing247,to
246 Characteristics of the area and natural values identified habitats, SPA species and natural
map, (map no.) construction be built)
values, mitigation measures
necked Gypsum sites.
No construction Oliņi road An existing dolomite crushed stone In the areas adjacent to the No road realignment or cable routes
work will be road passes through mainly road, biotopes 9010 and 91T0, along the road edges are foreseen, so
required mature dry pine plantations on micro-reserves have also been potential impacts are not assessed
variable topography. established to protect forest further; no road widening or
habitats. Natura 2000 area, AAA deforestation along the road edges is
"Ziemeļgauja" allowed.
VES Not The Old House Existing dolomite crushed stone Along the road habitats 91D0* No road widening or cable routes are
recommended, road, crossing inland dune massifs and 91T0. foreseen, so impacts are not
no construction and stands of wet vegetation assessed further. As there are long
works required types. stretches of protected habitats along
the road, it is not allowed to rebuild
or deforest the roadsides.
WPP not C_VV11_Spic frame An existing dolomite crushed stone Protected biotopes Medium quality, on low inland
recommended, road passes through mainly 18EO128_828, 18EO128_830, dunes. In habitat 18EO128_828,
no construction mature dry pine plantations on 91T0_1, lichen-rich pine forests along the road, protected species.
work required variable topography. are found along the road . Road widening would reduce habitat
18EO128_829, 18EO128_825, cover and increase fragmentation.
18EO128_823, 18LM156_1081,
18JS178_684, 91T0_1, Lichen-
rich pine forests.
18EO128_824, 91D0*_2, Swamp Good quality, on low and medium
forests, inland dunes. Road widening would
~20 m from the planned route. reduce habitat cover and increase
18JS178_680, 18JS178_685, fragmentation.
91T0_1, Lichen-rich pine forests. Medium quality. Additional
18JS178_686, 18JS178_682, dehumidification during road
18JS178_690, 91T0_1, Lichen- construction would not be desirable.
rich pine forests.
303
Protected habitats, SPA species Potential impacts on protected
WPP site no. on WPP Roads (existing247,to
246 Characteristics of the area and natural values identified habitats, SPA species and natural
map, (map no.) construction be built)
values, mitigation measures
Medium quality. The road widening
Along the road, several species will affect strips along the road
of SPA have been found - the where the vegetation and dune
cowslip Lycopodium clavatum, topography characteristic of the
the meadowbuttercup Pulsatilla biotope are absent.
pratensis.
Medium quality, on low, medium and
high inland dunes, is a protected
species site very close to the
boundary of the road to be widened.
Road widening would reduce habitat
cover and increase fragmentation.
The road section is located in the
Natura 2000 area "Ziemeļgauja". It is
recommended that this section of
road is used only for cable route of
minimum width and with trenchless
technology in habitats and species
sites, straightening and widening the
road would have a negative impact
on the Natura 2000 site.
Road P-24 Smiltene- The national regional road P24 Along the roadside habitats A fairly wide strip along the roadside
Valka (9, 10, 11,) Smiltene-Valka passes through 9018*, 9020*, 9050, 91T0. To without vegetation; if a wider strip is
(from E-line to stands of pine and spruce trees of the north of the Gauja Bridge, needed for cable routes, trenchless
C_VV49_68) different ages and growing several SPA species have been technology should be chosen in
conditions. found along the road - long- sections with habitats and protected
necked gypsum, sandwort, species to avoid increasing
Fuchs' cuckoo-flower. fragmentation impacts and reducing
the area of protected habitats.
304
Protected habitats, SPA species Potential impacts on protected
WPP site no. on WPP Roads (existing247,to
246 Characteristics of the area and natural values identified habitats, SPA species and natural
map, (map no.) construction be built)
values, mitigation measures
WPP not C_VV59_P24 (14) Existing dolomite crushed stone Along the road habitats 9010* No road realignment or cable ducting
recommended, road through dry pine woodland. and 91T0, roadside European is foreseen, so no further detailed
no construction larch. assessment is required. No road
work required reconstruction and deforestation on
the sides of the road, which would
affect the areas of beech trees and
protected habitats.
WPP not The Medibus Road, Dolomite crushed stone road with Roadside Baltic Cuckoo The construction of the cable route
recommended, sufficient width and bearing Dactylorhiza baltica, Fuchsia will affect the Cuckoo Thrush habitat;
no construction capacity, but may need to Cuckoo Dactylorhiza fuchsii as the species grows in the roadside
work required straighten curves. ditch and has adapted to the
disturbance, the habitat is expected
to recover after completion of the
works.
WPP not Bajarini road Existing dolomite crushed stone Habitat 91E0* (one polygon), No road realignment or cable ducting
recommended, road, crossing stands of different caterpillar Lycopodium is foreseen, so no further detailed
no construction vegetation types in relatively flat clavatum. assessment is required. No road
work required terrain. reconstruction and deforestation on
the sides of the road, which would
affect the areas of protected
habitats, is allowed.
WPP not The way of the lane There is an existing dolomite In the section from Ķauķīšu road If it is necessary to straighten the
recommended, crushed stone road, but the to the turn to VV59 the road turn at the junction of Ielīcu Road
no construction section from Ķauķīšu Road to Ielīcu crosses the Natura 2000 site and Ķauķīšu Road, as well as to install
work required houses is not wide enough to AAA "Ziemeļgauja", biotopes cable routes along the road,
accommodate cable routes and 9010*, 91T0, 6210 along its protected biotopes 9010*, 91T0,
WPP components. edge. 6210, located in the Natura 2000
area, will be affected. To avoid such
impacts on the Natura 2000 site, it is
possible to plan the cable connection
305
Protected habitats, SPA species Potential impacts on protected
WPP site no. on WPP Roads (existing247,to
246 Characteristics of the area and natural values identified habitats, SPA species and natural
map, (map no.) construction be built)
values, mitigation measures
to the Smiltene-Valka road as a
continuation of the C_VV56_59 road
through the forest stigma (the annual
and creeping bentgrass sites will be
affected), and the access of the WPP
components and construction
materials through the C_VV74_P24
road and further along other roads in
the WPP area.
WPP not Chickadee Road An existing dolomite crushed stone On the northern and eastern No road realignment or cable routes
recommended, road crosses a wooded inland sides of the road Natura 2000 are foreseen, the road may be used
no construction dune massif interspersed with flat, area AAA "Ziemeļgauja", on the for transport, so it is not assessed in
work required wet woodland. sides of the road microreserves detail. No road widening or
established for bird protection, deforestation on the sides of the
as well as biotopes 3150, 9010*, road that would affect protected
91D0*, 91E0*, 91T0 and habitats or micro-reserve areas, as
habitats of protected species. well as Natura 2000 sites.
306
According to 7.6.1. Table 6.6.6 shows that the greatest impact on protected species habitats is
not expected from the siting of WPPs, but from the construction of associated infrastructure,
mainly cable routes, although it should be noted that the calculations are for cable routes on
both sides of roads; infrastructure design is likely to be limited to one side of the road and the
area of direct impact on at least some roads will be smaller than estimated in the assessment
(assuming that the number of cables to be laid is small on road sections serving one or two
turbines and that a narrower trench can be designed accordingly). It is natural that the species
that will be most affected by activities along the road route are those that, due to the inherent
disturbance of roadsides and ditches, have a common habitat, such as Baltic cuckoo, meadow
pipit, sandwort and long-necked gypsum. All types of infrastructure, including building sites,
affect the sites of the annual and cuckoo quail. The area of influence of the proposed
development contains habitats of some protected species that depend on the hydrological
regime and microclimate of the forest stand, but it should be noted that habitats of these
species are or may be present in other areas of forest habitats affected by the proposed
development, Therefore, habitats 9080*, 91D0* and 91E0*, as well as the wet and dry variants
of habitat 9050 and 9010*, as well as habitats 9010* and 9050 in wetland vegetation types,
should also be considered as potential habitat for protected species that could be affected by
dehumidification.
Table 7.6.2 summarises the potential impacts on habitats; as with the species sites, the
impacts of the cable routes have been calculated for both sides of the road, although it is likely
that only one side of the road will be selected for the cable route. The largest areas directly
affected are 91T0 "Lichen-rich pine forests", including areas affected by the planned WPP
development sites planned within the habitat. The direct impact is greater for cable routes,
which, as mentioned above, can be reduced by choosing only one side of the road for the
cable. Habitat 9010* also has large areas of predicted direct effects, mostly in the areas of
planned cable routes. Of the habitats potentially affected by dewatering, the largest areas are
9010* boreal forests (Option 3) and wetland forests (Option 3). Option 2 has been flagged for
potential dehumidification impacts because, although the biotope was formed on
dehumidified soils and it is not desirable to return its hydrology to its original state, often in
these biotopes the microclimate with increased humidity is formed by ancient ditches where
water migration is slow and stagnant water lagoons form in the ditches), as well as 91D0*
swamp forests. The largest areas of this habitat affected are due to the construction of
substations, which can be reduced by selecting only one of the substation sites.
307
d action, sites included in Alternatives A and B
308
A summary of the protected species sites and habitats likely to be affected by the proposed
action if all 84 WPPs are constructed is given in Table 7.6.3. According to 7.6.2. Table 6.6.6
shows that the greatest impact on protected species habitats is not expected from the siting of
WPPs, but from the construction of associated infrastructure, mainly cable routes, although it
should be noted that the calculations are for cable routes on both sides of roads; infrastructure
design is likely to be limited to one side of the road and the area of direct impact on at least
some roads will be smaller than estimated in the assessment (assuming that the number of
cables to be laid is small on road sections serving one or two turbines and that a narrower
trench can be designed accordingly).
Species that are most likely to be affected by activities along roads will be those that have a
common habitat along roadsides and ditches due to the inherent disturbance of these areas,
such as Baltic cuckoo, meadow pipit, sandwort and long-necked gypsum. All types of
infrastructure, including building sites, affect the sites of the annual and cuckoo quail. The
dewatering impact zone contains habitats of some protected species that depend on the
hydrological regime and microclimate of the forest stand, however it should be noted that
habitats of these species are or may be present in other forest habitat areas affected by the
proposed activity, therefore the dewatered habitats 9080*, 91D0* and 91E0* as well as the
dewatered version of habitat 9050 wet and 9010* should be considered as potential habitats
of protected species that could be affected by the dewatering impact.
309
Table 7.6.3
310
The potential direct impacts on Natura 2000 areas will be limited to Alternative B and the
following protected habitats of EU importance may be affected (see Chapter 7.9 for further
information with images showing the location of the affected habitats):
- 6270* Fennoscandian lowland species-rich dry to mesic grasslands, 0.12 ha (LPA
"Ziemeļgauja", cable route along “Pukšu purvs”);
- 91D0* Bog woodland , 0,1 ha (LPA "Ziemeļgauja", cable route along the section of “Pukšu
purvs”);
- 9010* Western taiga, 0,046 ha, (LPA "Ziemeļgauja", cable route along “Pukšu purvs”;
- 91TO Central European lichen scots pine forests, 0,03 ha (LPA "Ziemeļgauja", cable route
along “Pukšu purvs”;
- 9010* Western taiga, 0,12 ha (“Bulvāra riests” gar Bulvāra roud).
Impacts on protected habitats in Natura 2000 sites are entirely avoidable, as the maximum
impact was assessed during the EIA, with cable routes on both sides of the road and
considering the possibility of a cable route along Gailīši Road crossing the LPA “Ziemeļgauja”.
To exclude impacts, it is possible to locate the cable routes on the opposite side of the road
from the habitats and species sites, along the side of the road where no habitats of EU
importance are affected, and the cable connection to the substation can be located along the
A6 road, connecting to the substation via the connection that would be made if the Group A
alternative WPP connection were to be constructed (see Chapter 11, Figure 11.2).
Potential effects of dewatering in the SPNA include:
- 9080* Coniferous forests 0,3 ha ("Purgaile River forests");
- 91E0*Alluvial forests 1.5 ha ("Purgaile River forests").
Impacts on protected habitats and species sites in the SPNA can be fully avoided by choosing
to lay the cables on the road side, on the other side of the SPNA NR "Purgailes upes meži "
during the design phase of the roads and cable routes, see Table 7.6.3.
The unavoidable impacts of the Proposed Action are on three protected habitats of EU
importance under Alternative A and on five protected habitats of EU importance outside
SPNAs under Alternative B, see Table 7.6.4. As indicated above, the calculations of habitats
likely to be affected by the construction of the cable routes have been made for the cable
routes on both sides of the roads. If the infrastructure is constructed, it will only be on one side
of the road and the area of direct impact, at least on part of the roads, will be smaller than
estimated in the assessment.
Table 7.6.4. Affected habitats of EU importance outside SPNAs.
Habitat Affected habitats under Affected habitats under
Alternative A (ha) Alternative B248 (ha)
9010* Western taiga 1,75 2,65
248
Affected habitats under Alternative B also include habitats affected under Alternative A
311
Habitat Affected habitats under Affected habitats under
Alternative A (ha) Alternative B248 (ha)
91TO Central European lichen 3,35 7,25
scots pine forests
91D0* Bog woodland 0,05 0,1
9050 Fennoscandian herb- - 0,01
rich forests with Picea abies
91E0* Alluvial forests with - 0,005
Alnus glutinosa and Fraxinus
excelsior (Alno-Padion, Alnion
incanae, Salicion albae)
KOPĀ 5,15 10,005
The proposed action affects the following protected species outside the SPNA:
- The most affected species by the Proposed Action will be the protected species
Lycopodium annotinum and Lycopodium clavatum; individuals of these species will
be destroyed during implementation of the Proposed Action. In Latvia, the
populations of these species are stable and widely distributed, therefore the
complete or partial destruction of local localities in the area of the Proposed
Action will not have a significant negative impact on the population of the species.
The information contained in the report to the European Commission on the
conservation status of habitats and species of EU importance in Latvia249, assessed
for the period 2013-2018, confirms that the population status of the species is
considered to be stable. The report indicates that species of the Lycopodium spp.
class occur in at least 7120 localities in Latvia (currently there are data on a much
larger number of localities). The status of the populations of the species of the
quail class is assessed as stable and the future conservation outlook (conservation
status) is assessed as favourable.
- In places, the Proposed Action will affect the habitat of the cuckoo Dactylorhiza
sp., especially the Baltic cuckoo. The species often grows in roadsides and ditches,
as it successfully colonises open ground in such areas, and the impact of
disturbance on the species is expected to be short-lived and to recover, especially
if other individuals of the species remain in the vicinity. The proposed activity will
result in the destruction of approximately 2 Platanthera bifolia sites; this will not
have a negative impact on the population of the species, as it is relatively common
in suitable habitats, which is also the case in the areas adjacent to the area of
influence of the proposed activity.
- The proposed activity could have a negative impact on the habitats of species
associated with protected habitat 9010* Western Taiga and will be destroyed or
fragmented (see above for the area of habitat 9010* potentially affected). The
proposed activity may adversely affect the hydrological regime in habitats of
species associated with habitat 91D0* Bog Woodland (see above on 91D0*).
- Throughout the WPP Park, dryland habitats support associated vascular plant
species (sandwort Dianthus arenarius, long-leaved gypsophila Gypsophila
fastigiata, meadow and woodland sedge Pulsatilla pratensis and P. patens, green-
flowered sundew Silene chlorantha). The installation of cable routes may affect the
249
https://cdr.eionet.europa.eu/Converters/lv/eu/art17/
312
vegetation of these species, but in the long term the impact of disturbance to the
understorey is positive, whereas the destruction of individuals of very rare species
may have a negative impact and completely destroy the micropopulation, hence
the significant conditions set out in Table 7.6.3.
In order to mitigate potential impacts on habitats and vascular plant species, the species and
habitat expert has made recommendations that can be taken into account, where possible, in
the construction of the proposed wind farm. The habitat expert's opinion assessed the worst
case scenario of cable routes on both sides of the road, but based on the expert opinion, the
impacts can be almost completely avoided during the design of the WPP, as the cable routes
will only be built on one side of the road and in some cases it is possible to place the cables
under the road surface, thus further reducing the impacts on species, habitats and reducing
the deforested areas.
7.6.2. Effects on birds
A detailed analysis of 55 bird species was carried out to assess whether or not the construction
of a WPP is recommended. The analysis was carried out for those bird species which, according
to the conservation status assessment of the Nature Conservation Agency250, have one of the
conservation features - the species is included in Annex 1 of the Birds Directive (Directive
2009/147/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 November 2009 on the
conservation of wild birds), the species is a "SPA trigger" species251 (migratory bird species
occurring in Latvia, for which special habitat protection measures should be provided), the
species is included in the Latvian Specially Protected Species List - 2000. 14 November, Cabinet
of Ministers Regulation No 396 "Regulations on the List of Specially Protected Species and
Specially Protected Species of Restricted Use", Annex 1 or 2 (hereinafter - Annex 1 or 2 of
Cabinet of Ministers Regulation No 396), or microreserves are to be established for a species -
Cabinet of Ministers Regulation No 940 of 18 December 2012 "Regulations on the
Establishment and Management of Microreserves, their Protection, as well as the
Establishment of Microreserves and their Buffer Zones" (hereinafter - Cabinet of Ministers
Regulation No 940).
To improve transparency, the list of species analysed in detail is divided into two groups -
Excluded species and Species to be assessed. Excluding species are those whose presence
means an area of generally fixed size around the species' site, where the recommendation not
to deploy WPP is valid. For some species, there are even two areas - areas where the no WPP
recommendation is valid and areas where the need for and feasibility of mitigation measures
should be assessed but the no WPP recommendation is not valid in principle. Species to be
assessed252 are species for which the construction of a NPS in the vicinity of a site, mostly in a
fixed size area around the site, should be assessed in combination with mitigation measures,
but the recommendation not to construct a NPS only applies in certain cases, for example in
areas with concentrations of multiple sites of species to be assessed. The analysis for each
species indicates the reasons for including the species in one group or the other.
250
https://www.daba.gov.lv/lv/media/12253/download
251
https://cdr.eionet.europa.eu/Converters/run_conversion?file=lv/eu/art12/envxh2nkq/LV_birds_chec
klist.xml&conv=611&source=remote
252
Common Pochard Glaucidium passerinum, Shoveler Aegolius funereus, Buzzard Bubo bubo, Barn Owl
Strix uralensis, White-backed Woodpecker Dendrocopos leucotos and Three-toed Woodpecker Picoides
tridactylus
313
Exclusion
White-tailed eagle Haliaeetus albicilla
The sea eagle is a large soaring bird with a particularly high risk of mortality in collisions with
WPP253, and is therefore considered to be a WPP-excluding species for the purposes of this
Opinion. The results of the sea eagle observations are described in the expert opinion.
Overall, based on long-term, methodology-based observations, the occurrence of the White-
tailed Eagle in the study area is assessed as occasional. There are no distinct concentrations of
observations that would warrant the designation of areas where it is recommended that NPSs
should not be located. In the expert's opinion, the threat to the population of sea eagles from
the proposed wind farm is low.
Golden Eagle Aquila chrysaetos
The golden eagle is a large soaring bird with a particularly high risk of mortality in collisions
with WPP254, and is therefore considered to be a WPP-excluding species for the purposes of
this Opinion.
An artificial nest platform has been installed in Limited
the Z access
part ofinformation
Pukši Marsh. In 2016, an artificial
nest platform was installed in the Z part
Limited accessof Pukši Marsh. In 2022, there were indications that
information
the nest may have been visited without specifying the species. However, the suite of features
was not considered sufficient and there were no clear indications of the species, so the
platform was not designated as a conservation area in 2022 as practised by LVM. On 26 May
2023, the nest was surveyed and signs that the platform was inhabited by golden eagles were
observed and "appropriate protection" was established.
According to additional information provided by U. Bergmanis (attached in Annex 4). from
published information sources on golden eagle nesting biology it can be concluded that in
Latvia one pair of golden eagles alternately nests in several nests255, the distance between
nests of one pair can reach up to ~18 km (unpublished information by U. Bergmanis). In Latvia,
golden eagles nest in the vicinity of medium to large raised bogs - on forest islands in bogs or
in the forest belt adjacent to the bog, in all cases the bog adjacent to the golden eagle nests is
clearly visible256. Therefore, it can be assumed that the entire forest belt adjacent to Pukši Bog
(see Figure 7.6.1) is suitable for golden eagle nesting and the 3 km protection zone would
Limited access information
apply not only to the known nest but to the perimeter of Pukši Bog as a nesting habitat for
golden eagles as a whole.
253
Langston, Pullan 2003, Smallwood, Thelander 2008, Rydell et.al. 2017, LAG VSW 2014, Morkūnė et.
al. 2020
254
Langston, Pullan 2003, Smallwood, Thelander 2008, Rydell et.al. 2017, LAG VSW 2014, Morkūnė et.
al. 2020
255
BERGMANIS, U. 2000: Return of the golden eagle Aquila chrysaetos to Teiči Marsh. Birds in nature
10.4: 6-11
256
BERGMANIS, U., ĶUZE, J. 2023. Distribution, Population Dynamics, Ecology, and Protection of the
Golden Eagle in Latvia. THE GOLDEN EAGLE AROUND THE WORLD (submitted and accepted for
publication)
314
Figure contains limited access
information
Figure 7.6.1. Golden Eagle nesting area of 3 km around Pukši Bog
In the literature discussing the impact of WPP on golden eagles and the recommended
minimum distances of WPP from golden eagle nests257), a radius of 3 km is considered to be a
compromise between the threat to the species and the operation of the WPP. However, these
sources are based on data that is at least 5-10 years old, when turbines were lower and WPP
containment chamber systems had not yet been developed. In testing the effectiveness of
camera systems (e.g. McClure et. al. 2021), they have been found to significantly reduce actual
collisions of golden eagles with WPP, a conclusion based on the number of birds found dead,
which is an indirect indicator of the number of collisions. At the same time, in 2005 (in wind
farms with 660 kW turbines), researchers found golden eagles avoiding wind farms258
It is recommended not to install WPPs within a 3 km radius around the platform (Figure 7.6.2,
red circle).
257
Rydell J., et.al. 2017. The effects of wind power on birds and bats. Swedish Environmental Protection
Agency, Sweden.
258
Walker et. el. 2005 Resident Golden Eagle ranging behaviour before and after construction of a
windfarm in Argyll. Scottish Birds. 25. 24-40.
315
Figure contains limited access
information
Figure 7.6.2. Observations of golden eagles in the study area
Lesser Spotted Eagle Clanga pomarina
The Lesser Spotted Eagle is a large soaring bird with a particularly high risk of mortality in
collisions with WPP259, and is therefore considered to be a WPP-excluding species for the
purposes of this Opinion.
Since 1 January 2020, 23 records of Lesser Spotted Eagles have been recorded in the study
area, 18 of them in the open landscape zone between the N part of the study area and Valka
town (Figure 7.6.3). However, there are examples from Estonia where the WPP and the Lesser
Spotted Eagle coexist well and successfully260.
259
Bergmanis U. 2019. Lesser Spotted Eagle Clanga pomarina conservation plan in Latvia. Latvian Fund
for Nature, Riga.
260
https://www.utilitas.ee/en/together-with-nature-a-lesser-spotted-eagle-whose-habitat-is-near-
saarde-wind-farm-got-into-trouble-in-ukraine/
316
Figure contains limited access
information
Figure 7.6.3. Lesser Spotted Eagle sightings in the study area WPP classified according to the
recommendations for the conservation of the Golden Eagle
The bird expert concludes that the proposed wind farm only threatens the population of
Lesser Spotted Eagles in the N part of the study area. In the rest of the study area, due to the
considerable amount of surveys, there are few records of Lesser Spotted Eagles and it can be
assumed that the threat here is already comparable to that of any other anthropogenic factor.
In order to reduce the threat of the wind park to the nesting pair of Lesser Spotted Eagles
found by the author, the author recommends to abandon the three WPPs closer to the forest
edge - 92, 67, and 66. 49.
Mednis Tetrao urogallus
The woodcock is a species of passerine bird considered to be critically sensitive to disturbance
from WPP and is considered to be excluded from the installation of WPP for the purposes of
this opinion. The 2004 Species Conservation Plan261 does not mention this factor, and there are
no subsequent national publications on the impact of WPP on capercaillie in Latvia.
Given the ecology and breeding system of the capercaillie, rookeries are considered to be the
core of the population and their conservation should be the main focus of conservation
efforts262. If the protection of the rookeries is assured, the population can tolerate even
relatively intense anthropogenic disturbance outside the rookeries263. This has even been
demonstrated in the study area, where both relatively intensive logging and at least 8
rookeries can coexist.
261
Hofmanis H., Strazds M., 2004. Conservation plan for the capercaillie Tetrao urogallus L. in Latvia.
262
Hofmanis H., Strazds M., 2004. Conservation plan for the capercaillie Tetrao urogallus L. in Latvia.
263
Rydell J., et.al. 2017. The effects of wind power on birds and bats. Swedish Environmental Protection
Agency, Sweden.
317
All breeding sites in the study area were known already in 2022, except for breeding site 1,
which was found by the bird expert at the beginning of 2023. At the beginning of 2023, the
location of the WPP was adjusted in accordance with the bird expert's recommendations to
relocate the WPP outside of the honeybee micro-reserves and the 1 km protection zones
around the known LVM rookeries. The final expert opinion recommends further adjustments
to the location of the WPP by creating a WPP-free zone to protect Sink 1 (Figure 7.6.4), which
was found in 2023, and recommending the suspension of the 62. planning of the WPP until the
potential sink identified in the vicinity of the WPP is located.
Figure contains limited access
information
Figure 7.6.4. LVM's observations of black grouse collected during the monitoring of black grouse
In Estonia264, telemetry data show that roosters move within 1-3 kilometres around the roost
during the year, while hens move within 1.5-7 kilometres. Latvia265 Two roosters equipped
with satellite transmitters moved as far as 4-5 kilometres in a forest massif during a 9-month
experimental study. These studies actually explain the dispersal of all other recorded signs of
the presence of hounds in the study area, beyond the rut. As the network of known and
potential breeding sites in the study area is so dense, the bird expert believes that it is possible
to observe the woodcock anywhere within the study area. It should be stressed that not every
sighting of a hart, even far from a rut, immediately means a rut, but at the same time, the
possibility that there is another, unknown rut in the array, in addition to the indicated possible
roosts, cannot be completely ruled out. However, at the current survey intensity, this
possibility is already rather remote.
264
Kalamees A., Ojaste I., Pass E., Oja R., Sellis U. 2017. Tetrao urogallus in Estonia. Estonian
Ornithological Society, University of Tartu.
265
Ozoliņš J. (leader) 2019. Investigation of environmental factors important for the conservation of the
capercaillie. Final report. Latvian State Forest Research Institute "Silava", Salaspils.
318
As researchers in Sweden point out266, in the case of the capercaillie, in addition to maintaining
a WPP-free zone around the roost, it is also important to ensure that the roost and the
surrounding woodland habitat are managed appropriately. In the case of the study area, the
forest stands are managed by JSC Latvijas Valsts meži. The company manages and monitors the
rookeries. Due to the increased risk of anthropogenic disturbance when a wind farm is
developed in a forest massif, the author recommends that, in cooperation with the forest
manager, increased attention should be paid to the management of nesting sites. It should be
carried out regularly, as a matter of priority, in accordance with guidelines developed by the
operator and possibly financed as a mitigation measure from the wind farm construction and
lifetime monitoring budget.
In communication with LVM game specialists, there was also an opinion about the inflexibility
of the current legislation regulating the protection and management of game nests. The
bureaucratic process is identified as being disproportionately complex in order to allow
conservation and management measures to flexibly follow the actual situation on the ground.
As described in the last description of a possible rut, this and possibly other rutting centres,
contrary to the prevailing stereotype, actually tend to move much shorter distances and times
in nature than the default assumption. One of the main reasons for this situation is probably
intensive logging, but it would be objectively more rational to react at the legislative level to
the actual situation, appreciating LVM's efforts to protect the species and simplifying the
regulation of nest protection and management, rather than to oppose intensive logging on its
merits in a situation where it is already taking place and the nest centres have actually already
moved.
As identified during the site investigation, the study area is subject to significant disturbance
from motorcyclists riding on off-road tracks, mostly on light, dry, easy to pass. Unfortunately,
these forests mostly coincide with forests that are very suitable for hunting. The bird expert
considers that a solution to limit this disturbance should be found in order to reduce the
cumulative anthropogenic pressure on the population in the study area.
Black Stork Ciconia nigra
The Black Stork is a large passerine bird assessed as being at high risk of mortality in collisions
with WPP 267 or medium risk (a voluntary Europe-wide data collection on bird collisions with
WPP, regularly updated, lists only 10 known cases of Black Stork mortality268. In the Bird Expert
Opinion, the Black Stork was considered to be a species that would be excluded from the
installation of WPP due to its avoidance behaviour.
8 records of Black Storks have been recorded in the study area since 1 January 2020 (Figure
7.6.5).
In accordance with current practice in Latvia and guidance in the literature, a WPP -free zone
should be planned within a radius of 3 kilometres around the nest. The 3 kilometre zone also
represents a compromise between the 2 kilometres used in Lithuania269 and the 4.8 kilometres
used in Estonia, with the Estonian authors criticising their Lithuanian counterparts for using a
distance that is not based on data and that is too small for the expected NPS impact. Some
266
Rydell J., et.al. 2017. The effects of wind power on birds and bats. Swedish Environmental Protection
Agency, Sweden
267
Morkūnė R., Marčiukaitis, M., Jurkin, V., Gecevičius, G., Morkūnas, J., Raudonikis, L., et al. 2020. Wind
energy development and wildlife conservation in Lithuania: A mapping tool for conflict assessment.
268
Dürr T.2023. Bird fatalities at windturbines in Europe. 09.August 2023.
269
Morkūnė R., Marčiukaitis, M., Jurkin, V., Gecevičius, G., Morkūnas, J., Raudonikis, L., et al. 2020. Wind
energy development and wildlife conservation in Lithuania: A mapping tool for conflict assessment.
319
literature sources and expert opinions allow even smaller WPP-free zones around nests, but
the bird expert recommends the most conservative distance used so far in Latvia.
According to an additional assessment and cumulative assessment by M. Strazda (attached as
Annex 6), black storks are potentially much less at risk of being injured at the generator than
other soaring large birds - white storks (which are much heavier, poorer fliers) and birds of
prey, in particular vultures, sea eagles, kites and coots, to a lesser extent kittiwakes and other
eagles. The reason is that storks only fly in the air, not move around, looking down for prey
and not seeing/watching what is in front of them. Most of the stork's flights take place during
the day, when the wind turbines are clearly visible.
Figure contains limited access
information
Figure 7.6.5. Observations of Black Storks in the study area
Overall, taking into account the observations, their nature and historical information on nests
in the study area, bird expert E. Dzenis estimates that 2-3 pairs of Black Storks nest in the study
area in the long term. All currently proposed WPP are located outside the 3 km zones around
known recently occupied nests, and outside the 1 km zones around the most likely Black Stork
feeding sites in the SW and SE parts of the study area.
According to M. Strazds' opinion on Black Storks, 3-4 pairs of Black Storks have nested in the
territory of WPP Park in the study area of the Proposed Action. Knowing that the stork
population in Latvia has been declining, 1-2 pairs could live here at present, of which one
permanently occupied nest is known for certain (Saules bogs). The most likely habitat for the
"missing" pair is the SW end of the area between theLimited access information
Seda Moor and the Gauja River, in the
vicinity of the former Luksti Meadows nest. If a nest can be found in this area, then this nesting
site qualifies as a long-term area of conservation importance, where wind turbines should be
avoided (~3 km) in the area between the nest and the main feeding grounds. As in undisturbed
320
nesting areas the displacements between nests do not exceed 100 m270, the location of the
Luksti Meadow nest can be used as a guide
Limited forinformation
access establishing such a zone.
A 100 m wide zone should be maintained along the tributaries of the Sedas and the Gauja
rivers Purgaili, Stakļupīte and Kokšu. When planning the location of turbines, a clear corridor as
wide as possible should also be left from Limited
the nest of the
access Saules bog directly eastwards
information
(towards the old rivers of the Gauja), but a turbine-free zone of at least 500 m should
definitely be maintained along the old rivers of the Gauja271.
Small forest streams can also be considered as likely feeding sites for Black Stork, and a 1 km
buffer zone has been constructed around these streams, where the author recommends
against the installation of WPP (Figure 7.6.6).
Figure contains limited access information
Figure 7.6.6. Constructed proposed 1 km WPP-free zone in the vicinity of Purgaile - Stakļupīte
Hen hawk Accipiter gentilis
The hen hawk is a large nesting bird of prey in forests, for which micro-reserves are established
to protect nesting sites (Cabinet Regulation No 940). For this reason, the chicken hawk is
considered to be a species that would be excluded from the installation of WPP for the
purposes of this opinion.
270
Strazds, M. 2011a. Conservation Ecology of the Black Stork in Latvia. Dissertation. Faculty of Biology,
University of Latvia, Riga.
271
According to the current location of the landfills, all the old rivers of the Gauja are located further
than 500 m from them. The width of this required buffer zone is only mentioned in case of a change of
layout.
321
The literature on the effects of WPP on the goshawk is scarce272. It is widely believed that the
ferruginous hawk is rarely the victim of collisions with WPP. 18 known mortalities273, but on a
much smaller scale than for other raptor and passerine species.
Figure contains limited access information
Figure 7.6.7. Hen Hawk nests and observations in the study area
WPP - 52, 69 and 71. The bird expert recommends not installing WPP as a precaution.
Osprey Pandion haliaetus
The osprey is a specially protected species of birds of prey that breeds in large nests in forests
(Annex 1 or 2 to Cabinet Regulation No 396), and micro-reserves are established to protect its
breeding sites (Cabinet Regulation No 940). For these reasons, the osprey is considered to be
an excluded species for the purposes of this opinion.
The literature274 recommends a WPP -free zone of 1 km around osprey nests. It is also noted
that the species does not exhibit obvious avoidance behaviour of WPP, while within a 5 km
radius around the nest it is recommended to maintain 1 km wide WPP -free corridors between
the nest and the main feeding areas.
The bird expert recommends 54. WPP installation in connection with a plausible but so far
undiscovered nest.
272
Wang et. al. 2015, Rydell et.al. 2017, LAG VSW 2014, Morkūnė et. al. 2020, u.c.
273
Dürr T.2023. Bird fatalities at windturbines in Europe. 09.August 2023.
274
Rydell et.al. 2017, LAG VSW 2014, Morkūnė et. al. 2020
322
Figure contains limited access information
Figure 7.6.8. Osprey nests and observations in the study area
Risk of collisions
The risk of collisions is mainly a threat to the soaring bird species group. The essence of the
threat is the failure of these birds to avoid the rotor blades of the WPP as they turn - for
reasons the birds cannot understand, they are unable to predict and avoid them. Although the
blades seem to turn slowly (depending on the manufacturer and design), a single blade,
operating at the rated power of the WPP, makes a full revolution in a widely variable time
interval (depending on the model and wind speed), but these are seconds, so the tip linear
speed of a 100 m long wing can be as high as 300 km/h. The sweptarea of the 200 m diameter
rotor is 3.14 ha. Birds crossing this broad plane of rotation may be unaware that it is a space
periodically crossed at high speed by the now distant wing, so they mostly do not actively try
to avoid it, nor can they do so when the wing is already in imminent collision distance. This
often results in a fatal collision.
A number of the originally planned WPPs are located in very high collision risk areas close to
the nests of large species of specially protected soaring birds. A species-by-species analysis
recommends phasing them out. Some WPP have been recommended to be abandoned in
order to reduce the impact of other impact components, but this has undoubtedly also
reduced the risk of collisions of raptor species with WPP in the proposed wind farm.
Noise pollution
Priority protected areas for a range of protected owl species have been modelled within the
planned wind farm area275. Some of the Priority Areas identified in the Conservation Plan for
the Barn Owl Glaucidium passerinum, the Short-eared Owl Aegolius funereus, the Barn Owl
275
Avotiņš jun. A. 2019. Conservation plan for the Barn Owl Glaucidium passerinum, the Short-eared
Owl Aegolius funereus, the Barn Owl Strix aluco, the Barn Owl Strix uralensis, the Long-eared Owl Asio
otus and the Barn Owl Bubo bubo. Latvijas Ornitoloģijas biedrība, Rīga.
323
Strix aluco, the Barn Owl Strix uralensis, the Long-eared Owl Asio otus and the Barn Owl Bubo
bubo also contain these owl species and the plan for these areas recommends that the
additional noise pollution from the WPP be limited.
Given that scientific studies on the effects of noise from WPP on barn owls (Strix uralensis) are
controversial, in many countries (Finland, Poland, etc. ) have no restrictions on noise impact
and the approved Owl Conservation Plan states that "...noise pollution levels should be below
35 dB anywhere within the micro-reserve (including the boundary) for the frequency range 0.1
to 20 kHz", pre-construction monitoring of this species should be undertaken to assess the
potential noise disturbance from WPPs. This includes studying the behaviour of the birds and
adjusting the operation of the WPP according to the observed data.
The published study Anthropogenic Noise Effects on the Hunting Ability of Owls276 provides
information on the ability of owls to identify prey in the presence of increased noise pollution
(Figure 7.6.9).
Figure 7.6.9. The graph shows the owl's ability to detect, attack and successfully capture a mouse at
different noise levels (dB(A)). The graph shows three different factors influencing owl hunting:
detection (blue curve), attack (red curve) and successful capture (grey curve).
35-40 dB range:
• Detection (blue curve): At noise levels between 35 and 40 dB, the owl's ability to
detect prey is quite high, around 0.7 to 0.8. This suggests that this level of noise, which
is similar to natural forest noises such as wind, does not significantly interfere with the
owl's ability to hear its prey.
• Attack (red curve): The owl's ability to launch an attack at a noise level of 35-40 dB is
slightly lower, around 0.5 to 0.7. This means that, although prey is identified, launching
an attack in noise is somewhat more difficult.
• Success (grey curve): The probability of successfully capturing prey at this noise level is
approximately 0.3 to 0.4, indicating that a noise level of 35-40 dB has a moderate
effect on the overall hunting efficiency of the owl.
So, from the results of this study, it can be concluded that when noise levels reach 35-40 dB,
which is typical for natural forest noises such as wind, the owl's ability to detect prey and
launch an attack is still high, although overall hunting success is slightly reduced due to noise.
276
Mason, J. T., McClure, C. J. W., & Barber, J. R. (2016). Anthropogenic noise impairs owl hunting
behavior. Biological Conservation, 199, 29-38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2016.04.009
324
This level of noise therefore creates some obstacles, but does not significantly prevent owls
from hunting effectively.
Taking into account the Latvian Owl Conservation Plan, where the noise threshold is set at 35
dB, and based on various studies on natural noise in forest environments, where 30-40 dB is
considered typical background noise, it can be concluded that a level of 40 dB, which
corresponds to natural conditions, is unlikely to be harmful to owls. It can therefore be
assumed that noise levels up to 40 dB will not have a significant impact on the owls' lifestyle
and hunting efficiency. If it is possible to operate WPP in this range at night, this does not
affect the ability of owls to hunt.
There are other studies277,278 which show that owls are highly adaptable predators that have
survived and hunted even in noisy environments. Although noise levels above 40-50 dB can
affect their hunting efficiency, natural background noises such as wind, rain and tree whistling
do not usually exceed this threshold very often, so owls have learned to cope with short-term
noises that can make hunting difficult.
Visual disturbance
The negative effects of visual disturbance from WPP are the most difficult to assess
objectively. For the bird expert, the problem is the "fact" of the WPP itself, and whether its
rotor blades are turning or not is of secondary importance. It is not possible to objectively and
directly ascertain the birds' "opinion" on the visual changes in the landscape when structures
comparable to the height of a television tower appear. This can only be analysed indirectly by
looking at changes in bird presence. In addition, the risk of physical collisions and the
additional noise pollution generated make it impossible to separate the visual change
component from the overall impact of the WPP. In recommending adjustments to the location
of WPP, the author took into account the available recommendations of other researchers,
which are mostly based on judgements about the overall effect of WPP location on bird
distribution. The barrier effect of a continuous "wall" of installed WPPs is analysed in the
section above. The result of the considerations is a recommendation to abandon a number of
WPP, creating broad corridors within the previously visually continuous "walls" of the WPP,
which cross both the usual spring and autumn bird migration routes towards the NE-SW, as
well as the low flyway in the vicinity of Luksti meadows. Maintain a fairly dense group of WPP
in Part D of the planned wind farm, an area where large areas of habitat are concentrated with
little suitable nesting habitat for specially protected bird species. This solution was chosen as a
compromise to avoid installing WPPs in other, ornithologically more valuable areas of the
territory. To reduce this nuisance component even further, the alternative would be not to
install the WPP, as there is no other way to reduce its visual impact.
277
Rheindt, F. E. (2003) – "The impact of roads on birds: Does song frequency play a role in determining
susceptibility to noise pollution?"
This study looks at background noise levels in forests and how different environmental noises, including
wind, can affect the audibility and behaviour of birds. It states that winds of 3-5 m/s can produce noise
levels of 30-50 dB, which interfere with communication.
Source: Journal of Applied Ecology, 40(5), 744-753. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2664.2003.00856.x
278
Deichmann, J. L., et al. (2017) – "Sensitivity of tropical bats to anthropogenic noise"
This study looks at natural background noise levels in forests and explains how wind can generate noise
levels of 30-50 dB by interacting with plants and habitat elements.
Source: Biological Conservation, 207, 9-15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2017.05.012
325
Barrier effect
Most of the descriptive literature on the effects of WPPs on birds279 refers to the "barrier
effect" of a row of adjacent WPPs perpendicular to the direction of flight of birds in the case of
wind farms. This gives birds the impression of a "wall", which they mostly fly around rather
than over. As this manoeuvre inevitably increases energy consumption and can even change
migration routes, this consideration must be taken into account when planning the location of
wind farms.
In the study area, during both spring and autumn migration periods, the main direction of
migration across the territory, as elsewhere in Latvia, is NE-SW. This is the main direction
perpendicular to which continuous rows of WPPs should be avoided, creating a "barrier
effect". Looking at the remaining WPP configuration, a dense group of WPP can be seen in the
NE-SW direction in its SW part, with the widest part at 16-82. on the WPP line, forming a 5 km
wide "barrier". Consequently, 2 NW-SE direction lines are formed in the N part of the park -
between 7. and 63. WPP (3 km), and between 51 and 70. WPP (3,2 km).
Further assessment of EIA location alternatives
In assessing the impact of the Proposed Action on bird species, the updated WPP layout has
been analysed, based on discussions between the bird expert, the Proposed Action proponent
and other stakeholders.
The additional assessment adds to the expert opinion, see Annex 6, only those NPSs that were
not recommended in the original version of the opinion are analysed in detail. A summary of
the assessment of the individual WPPs is given in Table 7.6.4. The location of the wind farm is
analysed, focusing on the differences in its location, comparing the initial version of the
location of the wind farm, and comparing the two location alternatives "A" and "B".
Table 7.6.4. Additional assessments by the bird expert on individual WPP
Name of the
Addenda to the opinion of the bird expert (E. Dzeņa)
WPP site
One of the two scenarios VV1, VV82/VV42 , VV36 should be chosen, the expert
recommends to abandon VV1 and VV82, unless there are some technological
VV1
reasons that it would be better to abandon VV42 and VV36. Monitoring should be
carried out before construction and then a decision made
Location to be clarified later as it is too close to the planned micro-reserve for the
VV28
apodice, currently the location is maintained
VV36 choose one of the two scenarios VV1, VV82/VV42 , VV36
VV42 choose one of the two scenarios VV1, VV82/VV42 , VV36
VV44 Potential impact on golden eagle - not recommended
VV45 Potential impact on golden eagle - not recommended
Further information should be awaited following investigations in adjacent areas.
VV49 Implementation of WPP may be affected by the establishment of a micro-reserve
for the Lesser Spotted Eagle
Further information should be awaited following investigations in adjacent areas.
VV50 Implementation of WPP may be affected by the establishment of a micro-reserve
for the Lesser Spotted Eagle
279
Rydell et.al. 2017, LAG VSW 2014, Morkūnė et. al. 2020
326
Further information should be awaited following investigations in adjacent areas.
VV51 Implementation of WPP may be affected by the establishment of a micro-reserve
for the Lesser Spotted Eagle
VV61 This turbine is recommended instead of the VV62
VV62 Effects on the grouse nest - not recommended
Further information should be awaited following investigations in adjacent areas.
VV64 Implementation of WPP may be affected by the establishment of a micro-reserve
for the Lesser Spotted Eagle
Further information should be awaited following investigations in adjacent areas.
VV66 Implementation of WPP may be affected by the establishment of a micro-reserve
for the Lesser Spotted Eagle
Further information should be awaited following investigations in adjacent areas.
VV67 Implementation of WPP may be affected by the establishment of a micro-reserve
for the Lesser Spotted Eagle
VV82 choose one of the two scenarios VV1, VV82/VV42 , VV36
Located in the Black Stork Conservation Area - 300 m of the River Seda - not
VV92
recommended
When assessing the impact of location alternatives A and B on ornithological values in the area
of the proposed wind farm, the two alternatives do not differ significantly.
The part of Alternative B ZA, which is the divergent part between Alternatives A and B, is
located in poor habitats, in a region that is not crossed by regular local migratory flights of
migratory species, and is located in the sequentially dominant direction of spring and autumn
migrations of birds, the difference between the predicted impacts on ornithofauna of the two
proposed alternatives is expected to be similar - the WPP group of Alternative B ZA does not
pose significant additional risks. From the point of view of the potential threat to ornithofauna,
the two proposed siting alternatives are similar.
7.6.3. Measures to mitigate impacts on birds
Of the 84 WPP originally planned and assessed in the EIA, the bird expert recommends 38 WPP
sites be rejected for various reasons. For all other WPP sites, a number of operational
restrictions are recommended, including. A number of restrictions, including the installation of
camera systems to stop the WPPs, stopping the WPPs around sunrise and sunset, and
adjusting the operation of the WPPs for the additional noise pollution they cause.
Proposed restrictions on the operation of WPP
It is recommended that all WPPs install shutdown camera systems, and from 1 April to 1
October, it is recommended that all WPPs shut down one hour before to one hour after local
sunrise and sunset. The recommendation to suspend WPP for both soaring birds (1 April to 1
October) and flocking migrants (15 February to 15 May and 1 September to 15 November) is
valid unless the effectiveness of the suspension systems can be demonstrated to be unabated
during these periods.
WPP suspension chamber systems
Creating WPP-free zones around the nests of soaring birds eliminates the highest collision
risks. The use of WPP stop camera systems is recommended to address collision risks outside
the highest risk areas, which in the expert's view are already so low that there is no need to
abandon the installation of WPP altogether. Given the distribution of soaring birds in and
327
around the planned wind farm, it is recommended that systems are installed for all WPP to be
installed.
Stopping WPP around sunrise and sunset
All WPP stop camera systems, without exception, are likely to be less effective in low visibility
conditions. As visibility deteriorates, the amount of light contrast available to camera systems
decreases, making it impossible to analyse visual information as well as in good light. As Black
Storks, and other large soaring birds, tend to fly to their feeding grounds before sunrise and
return to their nests after sunset during the breeding season - mostly in low visibility
conditions - it is necessary to address the threat posed by WPP to these birds at a time when
the effectiveness of WPP camera systems is reduced. If a solution cannot be found in
cooperation with the system manufacturer to eliminate the threat to raptors from the reduced
camera efficiency before sunrise and after sunset, the WPP should be shut down completely
during periods of reduced system efficiency. The expert recommends that all planned WPPs
should be completely shut down one hour before to one hour after local sunrise and sunset
during the entire Black Stork season, from 1 April to 1 October. The hour after sunrise and the
hour before sunset also include the more frequent periods of fog, low clouds and similar
meteorological conditions causing reduced visibility. This period also includes a time when the
Sun is low on the horizon and the shadows cast by the WPP will be particularly long, and their
motion as the WPP rotates may have a markedly disturbing effect over long distances. The
disruptive effect will be significantly less if the WPP does not turn. However, if the
manufacturers of the WPP suspension camera systems can offer a solution to compensate for
the reduced efficiency of the system before sunrise and after sunset, or if there are definable
weather parameters (amount of ambient light, meteorological visibility, etc.), for example, at
which the efficiency of the system is not reduced, these solutions can be evaluated and the
operation of the WPP is possible if the above risks are eliminated. The definition of
meteorological threshold parameters would allow the definition of parameters at which the
operation of the WPP is also possible during the critical period before sunrise and after sunset,
assuming that the efficiency of the shutdown system is not reduced. To our knowledge, the
use of infrared and/or thermosensitive technologies, which have not been used so far, is also
seen as a possible future solution to compensate for the reduced efficiency of camera systems
in conditions of reduced visibility.
Deforestation
Restrictions on deforestation necessary for the siting of WPP infrastructure. By default, WPPs
and the infrastructure they require at local level are concentrated in areas with the lowest
possible ornithological value, both initially and - increasingly - with each adjustment of the
WPP location. As already indicated, clearings and young stands are the least ornithologically
valuable, with the value of stands increasing with their age. The area of the planned wind park
is home to several specially protected bird species for which clearings and young stands are
important for breeding, but these are considered to be temporary habitats in intensively
managed forest stands, and there is no reason to make special efforts to protect the species
that inhabit these habitats. Even taking into account the presence of protected species,
clearings and coppices, as temporary, highly dynamic and at the same time widespread
habitats, are the best places to install WPP in the forest massif, of course taking into account a
range of other, more global, factors.
328
Table 7.6.5. Bird species found in the 3 km zone around the assessed WPP and proposed mitigation
measures
No. Species in Suggested mitigation measures applicable to the species
Latvian/ Species
in Latin
1 the octopus Adjustments to the siting of WPPs, restrictions on additional noise
Glaucidium pollution, restrictions on logging and disturbance, creation of micro-
passerinum reserves, restrictions on the design and construction of WPP
infrastructure
2 Great Egret Ardea WPP position adjustments, WPP suspension camera systems and WPP
alba suspension around sunrise/sunset
3 White Stork VES position adjustments, WPP suspension camera systems and WPP
Ciconia ciconia suspension around sunrise/sunset
4 White-backed Adjustments to WPP siting, restrictions on logging and design and
Dendrocopos construction of infrastructure, restrictions on disturbance
leucotos
5 Bare-tailed hawk Adjustments to the siting of WPPs, restrictions on additional noise
Aegolius funereus pollution, restrictions on logging and disturbance, restrictions on the
design and construction of WPP infrastructure
6 Brown Chiffchaff restrictions on logging and disturbance, restrictions on the design and
Lanius collurio construction of WPP infrastructure
7 Yellow Plover Adjustments to the siting of WPPs, restrictions on additional noise
Pluvialis apricaria pollution, restrictions on logging and disturbance, restrictions on the
design and construction of WPP infrastructure
8 Crane WPP siting adjustments, WPP suspension camera systems and WPP
Grus grus suspension around sunrise/sunset, logging and disturbance restrictions,
WPP infrastructure design and construction restrictions
9 gaigala Bucephala Adjustments to the siting of WPPs, limiting additional noise pollution
clangula
10 cut Adjustments to the siting of WPPs, limiting additional noise pollution
Crex crex
11 Sea eagle WPP siting adjustments, WPP suspension camera systems and WPP
Haliaeetus suspension around sunrise/sunset, logging and disturbance restrictions,
albicilla WPP infrastructure design and construction restrictions
12 Cormorant WPP position adjustments, WPP suspension camera systems and WPP
Phalacrocorax suspension around sunrise/sunset
carbo
13 The Wedge WPP siting adjustments, WPP suspension camera systems and WPP
Pernis apivorus suspension around sunrise/sunset, logging and disturbance restrictions,
WPP infrastructure design and construction restrictions
14 golden eagle WPP siting adjustments, WPP suspension camera systems and WPP
Aquila chrysaetos suspension around sunrise/sunset, logging and disturbance restrictions,
WPP infrastructure design and construction restrictions
15 kuitala Adjustments to WPP siting, WPP suspension camera systems and WPP
Numenius shutdown around sunrise/sunset, limiting additional noise pollution,
arquata logging and disturbance restrictions, WPP infrastructure design and
construction restrictions
16 welcome to Adjustments to the siting of WPPs, limiting additional noise pollution
Perdix perdix
17 rural drizzle WPP position adjustments, WPP suspension camera systems and WPP
Circus cyaneus suspension around sunrise/sunset
18 Peregrine Falcon WPP position adjustments, WPP shutdown around sunrise/sunset
Falco tinnunculus
19 Great Crested Adjustments to the siting of WPPs, limiting additional noise pollution
Grebe Lanius
329
No. Species in Suggested mitigation measures applicable to the species
Latvian/ Species
in Latin
excubitor
20 Great Eider WPP position adjustments, WPP shutdown around sunrise/sunset
Mergus
merganser
21 Great Bumblebee Adjustments to the siting of WPPs, limiting additional noise pollution
Botaurus stellaris
22 the great gull WPP position adjustments, WPP shutdown around sunrise/sunset
Larus ridibundus
23 Lesser Spotted Adjustments to WPP siting, WPP suspension camera systems and WPP
Eagle Clanga suspension around sunrise/sunset, logging and disturbance restrictions,
pomarina microreserve creation, WPP infrastructure design and construction
restrictions
24 Lesser Spotted Adjustments to WPP siting, WPP shutdown around sunrise/sunset,
Flycatcher limitation of additional noise pollution, restrictions on logging and
Ficedula parva disturbance, restrictions on design and construction of WPP
infrastructure
25 tree Adjustments to WPP siting, stopping WPP around sunrise/sunset,
Tetrao urogallus limiting additional noise pollution, limiting logging and disturbance,
promoting roost management, limiting design and construction of WPP
infrastructure
26 Black Adjustments to WPP siting, WPP shutdown around sunrise/sunset,
Woodpecker limitation of additional noise pollution, restrictions on logging and
Dryocopus disturbance, restrictions on design and construction of WPP
martius infrastructure
27 Black Kite Milvus WPP position adjustments, WPP suspension camera systems and WPP
migrans suspension around sunrise/sunset
28 Black Stork Adjustments to WPP siting, WPP suspension camera systems and WPP
Ciconia nigra suspension around sunrise/sunset, logging and disturbance restrictions,
microreserve creation, WPP infrastructure design and construction
restrictions
29 Wood pigeon Adjustments to WPP siting, WPP shutdown around sunrise/sunset,
Columba oenas limitation of additional noise pollution, restrictions on logging and
disturbance, restrictions on design and construction of WPP
infrastructure
30 logging Adjustments to WPP siting, WPP shutdown around sunrise/sunset,
Bonasa bonasia limitation of additional noise pollution, restrictions on logging and
disturbance, restrictions on design and construction of WPP
infrastructure
31 the cane WPP position adjustments, WPP suspension camera systems and WPP
Circus suspension around sunrise/sunset
aeruginosus
32 Osprey Porzana Adjustments to WPP siting, stopping WPPs around sunrise/sunset,
porzana limiting additional noise pollution
33 Humpback swan WPP position adjustments, WPP suspension camera systems and WPP
Cygnus olor suspension around sunrise/sunset
34 Grey Woodpecker Adjustments to WPP siting, WPP shutdown around sunrise/sunset,
Picus canus limitation of additional noise pollution, restrictions on logging and
disturbance, restrictions on design and construction of WPP
infrastructure
330
No. Species in Suggested mitigation measures applicable to the species
Latvian/ Species
in Latin
35 Meadow Pipit Adjustments to WPP siting, stopping WPPs around sunrise/sunset,
Tringa totanus limiting additional noise pollution
36 bean Adjustments to WPP siting, stopping WPPs around sunrise/sunset,
Upupa epops limiting additional noise pollution, limiting logging and disturbance
37 barn owl WPP siting adjustments, WPP suspension camera systems, WPP
Asio flammeus suspension around sunrise/sunset, additional noise pollution
limitations, logging and disturbance limitations
38 Marsh Tern Adjustments to WPP siting, stopping WPPs around sunrise/sunset,
Tringa glareola limiting additional noise pollution, restrictions on design and
construction of WPP infrastructure
39 grouse Adjustments to WPP siting, WPP shutdown around sunrise/sunset,
Lyrurus tetrix limitation of additional noise pollution, restrictions on logging and
disturbance, restrictions on design and construction of WPP
infrastructure
40 Seivi ķauķis No impact from WPPs expected
Locustella
luscinioides
41 Sila Chirulis restrictions on logging and disturbance, restrictions on the design and
Lullula arborea construction of WPP infrastructure
42 Somzilite No impact from WPPs expected
Remiz pendulinus
43 stepes čipste restrictions on logging and disturbance, restrictions on the design and
Anthus construction of WPP infrastructure
campestris
44 Striped Warbler restrictions on logging and disturbance, restrictions on the design and
Sylvia nisoria construction of WPP infrastructure
45 tītiņš Adjustments to WPP siting, WPP shutdown around sunrise/sunset,
Jynx torquilla limitation of additional noise pollution, restrictions on logging and
disturbance, restrictions on design and construction of WPP
infrastructure
46 Three-toed Adjustments to WPP siting, stopping WPP around sunrise/sunset,
Woodpecker limiting additional noise pollution, creating micro-reserves, restrictions
Picoides on logging and disturbance, restrictions on design and construction of
tridactylus WPP infrastructure
47 River tern Sterna WPP position adjustments, WPP shutdown around sunrise/sunset
hirundo
48 The Barn Owl Adjustments to WPP siting, WPP shutdown around sunrise/sunset,
Strix uralensis limitation of additional noise pollution, restrictions on logging and
disturbance, restrictions on design and construction of WPP
infrastructure
49 European nightjar Stopping WPPs around sunrise/sunset, limiting additional noise
Caprimulgus pollution, restrictions on logging and disturbance, restrictions on design
europaeus and construction of WPP infrastructure
50 Middle spotted Adjustments to WPP siting, WPP shutdown around sunrise/sunset,
woodpecker limitation of additional noise pollution, restrictions on logging and
Leiopicus medius disturbance, restrictions on design and construction of WPP
infrastructure
51 hen hawk Adjustments to WPP siting, WPP suspension camera systems and WPP
Accipiter gentilis suspension around sunrise/sunset, logging and disturbance restrictions,
microreserve creation, WPP infrastructure design and construction
restrictions
331
No. Species in Suggested mitigation measures applicable to the species
Latvian/ Species
in Latin
52 Northern swan VPP siting adjustments, VPP suspension chamber systems and VPP
Cygnus cygnus suspension around sunrise/sunset, VPP infrastructure design and
construction constraints
53 Osprey WPP siting adjustments, WPP suspension camera systems and WPP
Pandion haliaetus suspension around sunrise/sunset, logging and disturbance restrictions,
WPP infrastructure design and construction restrictions
54 Fish Stingray No impact from WPPs expected
Alcedo atthis
55 goose WPP position adjustments, WPP suspension camera systems and WPP
Anser sp. suspension around sunrise/sunset
Summary of proposed mitigation measures
• VV2, VV3, VV4, VV5, VV6, VV8, VV10, VV11, VV12, VV13, VV14, VV15 are
recommended to be dropped from a number of originally planned WPP, VV18, VV19,
VV23, VV25, VV27, VV29, VV35, VV43, VV44, VV45, VV52, VV54, VV62, VV69, VV71,
VV83, VV87, VV90, VV92, VV93;
• for all remaining WPPs, it is recommended to install WPP stop camera systems;
• it is recommended that all remaining WPP during the Black Stork breeding season be
stopped around sunrise and sunset if the effectiveness of the WPP camera systems is
reduced at dusk;
• VV26, VV30, VV31, VV33, VV81, VV86 un VV89. It is also recommended to stop WPP
around sunrise in spring and autumn if the effectiveness of WPP camera systems is
reduced at dusk;
• it is recommended to limit additional noise pollution from the WPP throughout the
lifetime of the wind farm in accordance with the results of the pre-construction
monitoring (regarding the impact of noise from the WPP on owls);
• deforestation for the wind farm is recommended outside the bird breeding season;
• It is recommended that infrastructure is planned as far as possible outside habitats of
importance for birds and constructed outside the bird breeding season;
• It is recommended that wind farm construction processes, which are associated with
increased noise and light pollution emissions, should be planned outside the bird
nesting season, preferably in the middle of the day;
• it is recommended to limit the intensity of logging in the study area;
• it is recommended to prevent off-road driving in the study area;
• it is recommended to improve the protection regime of the SPAs adjacent to the study
area;
• In the context of the planned wind farm, it is recommended to monitor nesting birds
and the remains of birds killed by collisions with WPP, based on the methodology used
in the original study;
• the need for Natura 2000 monitoring in the adjacent SPAs - "Sedas purva" and
"Ziemeļgauja" - has been updated;
• It is recommended to keep the feedback to the mitigation measures of the wind farm,
with the possibility to adjust them based on the results of the monitoring.
332
7.6.4. Effects on bats
The overall bat activity in the study area is considered high compared to 14 other wind farm
sites where similar surveys were carried out. The highest bat activity is recorded in July and
August - the time when young bats gain flight capacity and start feeding independently, as well
as during migration. The Pygmy Bat has only been recorded during migration. Bats have been
recorded almost throughout the night, with high activity from the first to the ninth hour after
sunset.
The highest risk of bat mortality in the planned wind park area is observed in July-August. In
May 2022 and especially in September, the area does not show high bat activity, but it should
be noted that during these months migration takes place and activity is strongly influenced by
the weather conditions, especially temperature, on certain nights. This means that nights with
high bat activity are also possible in May and September.
Bat activity in the study area is high almost throughout the night, so it is not possible to
distinguish night-time hours when bat mortality risks are lower, except for the last 2-3 morning
hours in late autumn (from 10 pm after sunset in the second half of September, October and
November).
Overall, the site is not considered to be exceptionally suitable for bats, but there is significant
activity of at least one species, the northern long-eared bat. In the context of wind energy
extraction, this species is one of the species at particularly high risk of extinction in our region.
There are a number of important bat foraging sites near water in the vicinity of the proposed
wind farm, so it would not be desirable to install turbines where they would block potential
bat commuting routes from colonies to foraging sites. In this context, the proposed location of
the turbines does not constitute a significant obstacle, as the turbines are more likely to affect
the bat roost habitats themselves (for forest-dwelling species) rather than obstructing transit
routes.
A growing number of studies and publications280 suggest that bat activity in wind farms may
increase significantly after turbines are built, and that bats may appear en masse in places
where they were not found during the feasibility study, including in theoretically unsuitable or
poorly suitable open agricultural landscapes. Bats are strongly attracted to wind turbines,
although the reasons for this have not yet been established281. It is therefore imperative to
carry out at least two years of monitoring after the turbines are built and the wind farm is
operational, see Chapter 12 for bat monitoring.
7.6.5. Measures to mitigate impacts on bats
The establishment of a wind park in the area "Valmiera-Valka" is allowed only under the
following restrictions and conditions:
1. During the period from 1 May to 30 September, automatic shutdown or non-start-
up of wind turbines shall be provided during the night from sunset to sunrise if:
(1) wind speed at turbine rotor height is 6 m/s or less,
2) rainfall does not exceed 1 mm/h,
3) air temperature above6°C.
280
Solick D., Pham D., Nasman K. & Bay K. 2020. Bat activity rates do not predict bat fatality rates at
wind energy facilities. Acta Chiropterologica, 22(1): 135–146.
281
Rodrigues et al. 2015. Guidelines for Consideration of Bats in Wind Farm Projects - Revision 2014.
EUROBATS Publication Series No. 6. Bonn, Germany.
333
2. Bat monitoring is provided in the first and second years after the wind turbines are
operational. The monitoring methodology is developed and implemented by a bat
expert certified by the Nature Conservation Agency with experience in processing
ultrasound recordings. A description of the monitoring is given in Chapter 12.
Depending on the results of the monitoring, which may or may not confirm increased bat
activity and/or mortality at the constructed turbines, the restrictions on wind turbine
operation after the first and second years of post-construction monitoring could be revised or
lifted altogether, relaxed or tightened, in particular: the period of restriction on turbine
operation could be extended or reduced or the wind speed threshold at which turbine
operation is allowed could be changed.
7.6.6. Invertebrates
In order to conserve specially protected species and other important species, the Proposed
Action will:
1. WPP (VV7, VV16, VV20, VV22,VV27, VV31, VV32, VV34, VV36, VV38, VV43, VV45,
VV46, VV48, VV70, VV82, VV85, VV88, VV91, VV93) and substation (ST1, ST2, ST3, ST4)
locations, where adult or new emergence of large stink beetles is detected, all fallen
trees, snags, stems should be removed from the development site and relocated to
the nearest coppice or woodland, preferably to the nearest coppice or woodland. The
insect larvae in the dead wood can then complete their development. They may also
be able to continue breeding. Dead wood that does not decompose when moved
should be removed.
2. No measures are needed to protect the Humped and Yellow Stump Fly. They will fly to
a place that is favourable to them.
3. In the event that the new access road to be constructed passes through a stand of
fallen or standing ecological trees, these trees shall be relocated outside the
development area.
4. Recommendation throughout the study area, if there has been a forest fire, pine trees
that have been burnt but are still alive should be preserved.
5. Recommendation throughout the study area, if the stand to be felled contains pine
saplings with black trunks (presence of the fungus Aurobasidion sp.), the trees should
be moved out of the managed stand.
The main protection measures for SPA species are the removal of dead wood (fallen trees,
stumps, snags) from the development area. This gives the larvae in the wood a chance to
complete their development. The population sizes of the species found in the area of the
proposed activity, the Great Humped Beetle and the Humped Stump-fly, have not been
assessed in Latvia. Given the relatively wide distribution of species in the area of the Proposed
Action and in Latvia as a whole, the establishment of the WPP Park will not affect the
populations of the species.
Preserving burnt forest stands without clearing them is important. Schneider's and striped
hooded warbler have not been recorded in the WPP area. It is not possible to judge the impact
of the Proposed Action on these species in Latvia as a whole.
334
7.6.7. Effects on mammals
The construction of the WPP parks (both "Limbaži" and "Valmiera-Valka") will not significantly
change the status of specially protected species at national level. Local and wider indirect and
cumulative impacts on wild mammals (up to 10 km away from the study area of the Proposed
Action) are expected, the consequences and spatial limits of which are currently unknown and
unpredictable.
Continuity of green corridors in a transboundary context will not be affected - the construction
of the WPP is not planned in the Gauja valley, which is an important corridor for the
movement of game, including large carnivores.
The available information suggests that, in terms of spatial and temporal dimensions, it is wild
large mammals that will have the most widespread and, from a human perspective, the most
difficult to manage impacts. Large mammals have relatively high intelligence and good
mobility. Their response and speed of adaptation to a new disturbance is completely
unpredictable, as are the resulting impacts on areas outside wind farms and the myriad other
species affected. Their future behaviour will be determined by the new element in their
environment, and they will actively seek places and times to make up for lost resources, or
exploit new resources created by the wind turbines. It should also be borne in mind that today,
there is already a high level of conflict of interests, opinions and values in society regarding
large mammals. This includes conflict areas such as ungulate damage to forestry and
agriculture, predator attacks on domestic animals, otter and mink damage in aquaculture,
animal-caused traffic accidents, synanthropisation in cities and human settlements, human
fear and safety, epizootics, hunting, food safety and health, so-called animal rights issues, etc.
Many of these aspects are also poorly regulated and lack a well-established legal platform for
conflict resolution.
7.6.8. Measures to mitigate impacts on mammals
The installation and operation of the WPP is likely to have an impact on wild species in the
vicinity, including specially protected species, but it is currently not possible to assess the
magnitude and significance of the impact in terms of maintaining a favourable conservation
status for these species, and in the case of economically exploited species, changes in the
overall population value and the impact on the national economy. The interactions between
species in the ecosystem must also be taken into account, as wind turbines can affect one
species and indirectly affect others. Moreover, in this context, it is not about the direct
destruction of species or habitats, but about the impact on the behaviour of highly organised
living organisms - mammals - which determine other biological parameters at the level of
individuals and populations282 and which are very limited to manage and manipulate in the
wild.
In order to clarify the potential impacts of the WPP parks on wild non-flying mammal
communities, the consequences and spatial limits of which are currently unknown and
unpredictable, the following measures should be implemented:
• To leave unchanged (and under no circumstances increase) the intensity and seasonal
cycle of other existing economic activities in the area of the wind turbine parks and
282
Zorenko T. 2001. Animal behaviour: foundations of ethology, zoopsychology and comparative
psychology. Riga, SIA ''STRIG'', 286 pp.
335
their immediate surroundings, this applies to the following activities: logging (if not
directly related to the installation of turbines), reforestation, all types of stand
maintenance, restoration of drainage systems, hunting pressure, game feeding, nature
tourism pressure and agriculture on agricultural land adjacent to the forest. This does
not apply to fighting forest fires, wind storms and damage caused by forest pests.
Actions are needed to avoid cumulative disturbance effects and to separate the
potential impacts of wind turbines from the background effects of other economic
activities.
• Given that there are no assessments of the impact of wind turbines on non-flying
mammals in Latvia based on wildlife studies or monitoring data to date, the expert
does not propose mandatory monitoring requirements for a specific wind park. The
expert recommends that the controlling national authorities should require the
developers of the North Latvian and Estonian border wind farms (Figure 3.2.5) to
jointly initiate specialised monitoring of wild mammals in cooperation with the
controlling national authorities and scientific institutions. This need is emphasised by
all authors of the scientific publications used in the report. The monitoring is carried
out in accordance with a monitoring programme developed and agreed with a
certified expert.
• In case of negative impacts, provide mitigation measures to protect mammals.
In addition to the measures listed above, it is desirable to preserve the beaver forests, which
serve as an important refuge and feeding ground for all mammal species, when constructing
the wind farm.
7.7. Landscape and heritage impact assessment
7.7.1. Impact on the landscape
In terms of landscape, the entire study area of the Proposed Action falls within the
Gaujaszeme landscape area, which is described in the Latvian Landscape Atlas as woodland
and plain, while the landscape impact study area (10 km zone around the maximum possible
outer boundary of the wind farm) is also located in the Gaujaszeme part, which is defined as
open country and upland, and to some extent in the Northern Vidzeme (woodland/upland)283.
According to the Landscape Atlas, the entire area of the Proposed Action and most of the
landscape study area fall within two areas of undulating forest landscape: Seda forest
landscape and Pūpolu - Mežmuiža forest landscape. The forest landscape of Seda is described
as "woodland, marshes, dunes, undulations", while the key elements of the Pūpolu-Mežmuiža
forest landscape are woodland, dunes, lakes, undulations and marshes. The landscape study
area also includes the Seda landscape area and the Strenči landscape area, which belong to the
urban landscape, the Seda marsh landscape, the Trikata agrarian mosaic landscape (lowland
agrarian mosaic landscape), Erģeme mosaic landscape (hill forest mosaic landscape), Rencēni
mosaic landscape (undulating relief agrarian mosaic landscape), Valka landscape and Gauja
river landscape from Strenči to the Estonian border.
283
https://experience.arcgis.com/experience/32051c63871a47f1a6446a04f8ade1c2/page/Ainavas-
kart%C4%93s/?views=Ainavapvidi
336
The earlier landscape ecological plan of the NWBR (2007)284, which covers the area adjacent to
the foreseeable development area in the north, has a different landscape mapping in the
north-west. The Sėda Marsh and the forest (the landscape of the Sėda biocentre) around it is
defined as a forest and marsh biocentre space of international importance. Its nuclear area is
adjacent to the area of the Proposed Action. This status is defined as the forest massif to the
NW of Valka, or Valka Biocentre, which is located further from the study area of the Proposed
Action. Both of these biocentres are connected to the Valka-Seda forest and wetland corridor
of international importance. Between these areas lies the Valka undulating plain landscape,
described as a landscape space with a predominant landscape type with no special land use
requirements. To the E of the Proposed Development study area is the Ēvele Cultural
Landscape, which consists of a landscape of cultural, historical and aesthetic value.
The Landscape Impact Assessment is for the potential WPPs to be built, corresponding to the
Valmiera-Valka Park site Alternative A with 29 WPPs and site Alternative B with 43 WPPs. For
these alternatives for the location of the WPP, an assessment of physical impacts (flicker,
landscape impact), a calculation of climate change impacts and a calculation of socio-economic
benefits were carried out for the public consultation version of the EIA report. It is envisaged
that the EIA report may be updated during the public consultation process for the WPPs that
are currently recommended for construction, taking into account the proposals submitted by
the public and other institutions and the results of the public consultation. In the updated
version of the EIA report, which will be submitted to the NEB for its opinion, the landscape
impact assessment will be updated according to the number of proposed WPPs, but it can
already be said that the updated results will have a lower potential impact.
Landscape values
The "Treasures of Landscapes" project285 mentions two landscapes in the landscape study
area: Seda town and marsh landscape (no closer than 1 km from the nearest WPP) and Gauja
landscape near Strenči (no closer than 3.95 km from the nearest WPP; the boundary of this
treasure is not precisely defined in the Landscape Atlas). The impact on the landscape of the
town of Seda is described in more detail in the subsections "Landscape of the town of Seda"
and "Other cultural heritage" below, and the Seda marsh in the subsection "Landscape of the
Seda marsh". The impacts on the Gauja landscape and the Strenči landscape are described
below.
The existing municipal plans identify the following as the most significant landscapes or
landscape elements within the study area and/or landscape study area of the Proposed Action:
• The North Gauja valley with its mosaic landscape, with a remarkable diversity of
habitats and species, and the entire North Gauja AAP; flood landscapes in the Gauja
valley with its old rivers;
• The River Seda and its floodplain meadows;
• Seda Bog (moor);
• Jērcēņi parish cultural landscape: around the national road V232 in the direction of
Kaņepju oak and Zaļmeži house;
284
https://www.daba.gov.lv/en/media/6869/download
285
https://ainavudargumi.lv/
337
• Plantations (groups of trees) around farmsteads, ancient avenues, rubble stone
buildings, winding country roads adjacent to the terrain, manor houses in Vijciems
parish;
• Seda-Ergeme and Seda landscape protection zones of the North Vidzeme Biosphere
Reserve;
• park-like meadows in Valka and Zvārtava parishes (part of the AAA "Ziemeļgauja");
• inland dune massif in the vicinity of Cirgali (partly included in the Northern Gauja AAC);
• Gauja coastal outcrops (part of the Northern Gauja AAC);
• Landscape of Seda town centre;
• Landscape of Strenči town centre;
• Pukšu swamp (part of the AAC "Ziemeļgauja").
There is no very prominent topography in the study area that would affect the visibility of the
turbines. The dominant landscape is woodland, with only a few relatively large areas of open
countryside: Lukstu meadows, Laiviņi bog, Lauži bog. Wind turbines will be visible from these
open areas, but the presence of cleared areas (clearings, roads, stiges, overhead power lines)
will be the most important factor for visibility. The rest of the Landscape Study Area,
meanwhile, is much more diverse. The study area for the proposed action covers the Gauja
River, the Pukši Swamp, but beyond this there are agricultural landscapes at the edges of the
site, the large Seda Swamp, and a settlement landscape (see subsection on settlement
intensity).
Forest landscape
Inland dune masses are a characteristic and important element of the landscape in this area:
Strenči Massif on the right bank of the Gauja and Cirgali Massif on the left bank. A small part of
the Cirgali dunes, the largest inland dune massif in Latvia, which are characterised as being of
high scenic value, fall within the study area of the Proposed Action, while the majority fall
within the landscape study area. The dunes of the Strenči massif are scattered over a much
wider area. A large part of them fall within the study area of the Proposed Action. The most
compact dune area with the largest absolute height range (at least 20 metres) is around the
Birch House in Plani parish, between the A3 road and the Riga-Valga railway. In order to avoid
the loss of value of the dune massifs, including in accordance with the NRDP IAS, the dune
relief should be preserved:
• do not place turbines on (behind) dune ridges;
• construction of access roads, cable excavation; installation and construction of
turbines; no significant alteration of dune topography, including ensuring continuity of
dune ridges;
• make the turbine access roads parallel to the dunes, not perpendicular.
These aspects are most relevant for turbines VV17, VV20, VV31, VV34, VV37, VV44, VV61,
VV89, VV93 (all in the Strenči massif), which are located in close proximity to the dune ridges,
but the dunes could also be affected by the construction of other turbines.
According to the NRP strategy, in ecologically and landscape-valuable areas of forest land,
forestry activities can be located in accordance with environmental and nature protection
requirements, and wood processing and production enterprises should be located without
reducing the value of the surrounding landscape and close to existing regional infrastructure.
338
As deforestation for the purposes of the Proposed Action can certainly be considered as
forestry and turbines as production facilities, the landscape value of these forest areas (Strenči
and Cirgali) can be considered to be diminished.
Gauja landscape
As such, outside the forested areas, the most significant landscape element is the Gauja River
and its relatively forested valley with alluvial forests, floodplain (including parkland) grasslands
and oxbow lakes that cross the landscape study area. The proposed activity will not directly
affect the Northern Gauja AAP and will not cause visual impacts for the most part, but it will in
some areas. Wind turbines could be seen in the floodplain grasslands at Rūte-Raudai, Ieviņi,
between Mežvidi and Gaujaskalni, between Zīli and Vekši in Valka municipality, near Bebrini
and Jauntropiņi in Vijciems municipality, as well as certain sections of the River Gauja, in
particular from Ieviņi to Zīle Plantation, the bend before Spicu Bridge to the bend after
Jauntropiņi in Vijciems parish, and from Kalna Starki in Vijciems parish to Pulki in Plani parish.
The grassland area around Veksiai is particularly valuable, where a nature trail has been
created and 16 hectares of park-like meadows have been restored within the Latvian Fund for
Nature project GrassLIFE286, as well as other habitat maintenance measures. Therefore,
turbines VV71, VV69, VV65, VV49 and VV68 should have a height limit of 250 metres.
Bridges are important viewpoints of the Gauja Valley: Anņu Bridge, Spicrāmja Bridge and
Strenči Bridge. The location of turbine VV11 is planned to the west (2.4 km) of the Spitscrum
Bridge and will be clearly visible. In order to preserve the scenic view, the VV11 turbine is not
proposed.
Other high-quality viewpoints are along the steep banks of the Gauja River. The best view is
provided by the opening at Canary Rock. It has two viewpoints (see Annex 9). (see Annex 8 to
the Landscape Expert's Report), to the NNW towards Kankarišiai houses with views of the River
Vijas and its new estuary into the Gauja, as well as the Gauja before the meander, from which
the turbines would not be visible; however, at the highest vantage point above the mouth of
the River Vijas, to the NNW, several turbines would be visible. The turbines VV39 and VV1,
which are not recommended, would be very visible. A height limit of 250 metres should be
imposed on the partially visible turbines VV48, VV82, VV83, VV36. The viewpoints at the
Rāmnieku outcrop and at the Klauči recreation site are not oriented in the direction of the
Proposed Action.
There is only one lookout tower in the area - Cirgali Lookout Tower, located in Zvārtava
municipality, near the P23 road (near Estonia). The nearest turbine would be VV60, which
would be located westwards at a distance of 8.89 km. Unlike the lookout towers of the Seda
marsh (see below), this lookout tower provides a full panoramic view: although it is primarily
intended to view the landscapes of the Middle (North) Curonian Spit, it also offers a view of
the forests of the Cirgali dune massif, which would be located between the nearest turbine
and the tower (see Annex 9). See Annex 10 to the Landscape Expert's Opinion). However, the
turbines will be more of a background feature and will not affect views towards the Gauja
valley (NW, N, A, SE, S).
The Gauja landscape also has cultural and historical significance, and is world-renowned: On 1
December 2022, the craft skills of the Gauja rafters were included in the UNESCO
Representative List of the Intangible Cultural Heritage of Humanity. In 2018, these skills were
286
https://grasslife.lv/
339
included in the Latvian National List of Intangible Cultural Heritage. Strenči is traditionally
known as the rafting capital of Latvia, and the town hosts the Gauja rafting parade and
welcome ceremony. Although the Proposed Action could have a visual impact on the
landscape of the River Gauja (depending on the location of the turbine terminals), it cannot be
considered to have any impact on the status and appreciation of this ancient practice.
However, it should be stressed that tradition plays an important role in shaping the cultural
landscape of the landscape study area.
Seda townscape
Among the valuable urban landscapes in the immediate vicinity of the activity is the landscape
of the town centre of Seda, which is described in the Strenči municipality plan as follows:
"Seda's Central Square with its interconnected street layout, wide avenues of birch and lime
trees and yellow Stalinist houses in such a clean and concentrated form are found nowhere
else in Latvia and have a special cultural, historical and town-planning value." The mature and
relatively undisturbed (at least in the planning process) forest to the south and east of the
town has been identified as an important backdrop. The proposed development would include
four turbines, however the attractiveness of the existing landscape would not be adversely
affected; turbines VV25, VV24, VV30 are not proposed, turbine VV80 is proposed to be
reduced to a maximum overall design height of 250 metres. Retain uncut tree belt (in state
forest with cadastral designation: 94760010055) at least 100 m around the city in the direction
of the Proposed Action.
Strenči town centre landscape
The landscape of Strenči town centre, defined as valuable by the SNTP, consists of the historic
buildings around Rīgas Street (approximately from the 27th house) and between Rīgas Street
and the railway (including the Lutheran church and the fire station buildings). This boundary is
not documented. The visibility model indicates that the highest visibility would be along the
railway, in the Strenči Centre Park area, in the courtyards between Rīgas, Pulkveža Brieža and
Gaujas streets. The turbines will also be visible from the central buffer zone near the market
square, which is the closest point to the turbines. The nearest turbine (VV24) would be 4.4 km
away but would not be visible. The top of turbine VV81 and the wings above (4.5 km) and the
wings of turbine VV33 (directly behind VV81; 5.6 km) would be visible. The impact on this view
from the market area can be considered to be medium. However, this view is not valuable in
itself.
The Strenči townscape is also formed by the Strenči Psychoneurological Hospital complex, the
impact of which is described separately in the section "Impact on cultural heritage".
Oliņi Big Forest
Oliņi Lielais mežs is a cultural and historical forest area, connected with the history and
traditions of hunting, recreation, approximately between Strenče to the east, the Gauja River
to the south, at least the Pukši Bog to the west and the A3 motorway or the Riga-Valga railway
to the north. In the 19th century, it was considered to be the area with the richest variety of
wild game in the whole of the Baltics. The specific nature of the forest is also reflected in the
corresponding place names given: Mežkaķis, Veckaķis, Ūdenskaķis, Vārnu vēris, Ķēves sils,
Dzērvju meadow, Medņu riesta sils, Gaiļu gārša, Lāčasprākle sils and many others. 19th
century. In the 2nd half of the year, hunting was organised here by the owner of Valmiermuiža,
340
von Leuvenstern, who hosted noble guests. After staying for several days, the guests were also
keen to go on a further excursion to the Oliņi Great Forest. Overnight in Oliņi half-manor.
Within a few years, the fame of the Olini forests has spread beyond the Baltic and Russian
borders. Crown Prince Frederick Charles of Prussia participated in two hunting seasons (1875
and 1876), and Grand Duke Vladimir, son of Tsar Alexander II of Russia, visited in 1882, when
monuments were erected to commemorate their visit.
The site has not been fully explored from a cultural history perspective, but a number of
monuments have been identified, as well as other types of cultural heritage (such as ancient
farming practices, tar production) (see subsection "Other cultural heritage"). The area is
crossed by the Mežtaka, the Gauja Cultural and Historical Trail and the Mushroom Route.
The cultural heritage values identified and theoretically to be rediscovered in this area should
be preserved, and the routes should not be altered to the maximum extent possible. For
example, do not turn a natural carriageway into a wide "typical LVM road" with gravel and
ditches along it.
Landscape of the Seda marsh
The Seda Bog is a scenically valuable open area, as well as a nature reserve. Two birdwatching
towers have been created to revise it - one is closer to the town of Seda, the other is closer to
Jērceni. The nearest turbines would be located 4.7 to 5.2 km (VV87, VV29, VV14, VV15) from
the nearest lookout tower to Seda, but would not be visible as the view from the tower is only
to the west and north. The nearest turbines to the nearest lookout tower from Jērceni would
be located between 7.98 and 8.6 km away (VV25, VV30, VV26, VV87). Again, the view from the
SE is blocked by a row of trees, so the turbines from both towers have virtually no effect on
the view.
However, the view will be from the causeways in the marsh area. For example, at least 21
turbines will be clearly visible from the road to the observation tower nearest Seda (see Annex
9. See Annex 10 to the Landscape Expert's Opinion).
Open farmland (arable) landscapes
Although no outdoor landscapes are actually present in the immediate vicinity of the Proposed
Action, the proposed wind turbines will be directly visible from these relatively distant areas.
On the NE side of the Ergem hills, a distant vista could potentially overlook dozens of turbines.
Although the VMSP does not define scenic road sections and the most valuable viewpoints, a
high scenic value articulated relief landscape with the Strenči-Cirgaliai forest massif in the
background is visible from several locations (see Annex 9). Annex 12 of the Landscape Expert's
Report), including:
• from the P24 between the P23 and the houses "Vēverzemnieki";
• from the P23 road between Seleni and the Rugāji house;
• from Valka Raina Street between Tīruma Street and Indrānu Street;
• from the A3 between the houses "Vēžukrogs" and "Kalnstaldoti".
It should be noted that this area (the villages of Sēļi and Lugažai, the outskirts of the town of
Valka) is densely populated compared to the rest of the territory.
The closest turbines to these road sections are VV92, VV67, VV66, which are located up to 820
metres away and right on the edge of the forest (up to 80 m from the edge of the forest). If we
341
assume an average forest height of 25 m, the entire wind farm will exert a strong and
dominant influence on these views. Turbines VV92, VV67 and VV66 are not recommended.
To the R of the study area of the Proposed Action is the Ēvele cultural landscape, which
consists of culturally and aesthetically valuable landscape. The turbines will be at least 4.9 km
from the DA, but will be visible. One of the most important cultural sites is the Cannabis Oak -
both the view of it and the view from the oak will be affected by the turbines in the distance.
However, NPSs will be characterised as subdominant objects.
On the other side of the Proposed Action study area is the Vijciems open landscape space,
from which the turbines would be clearly visible. The Vijciems-Cirgali forest massif is
particularly well viewed from the P24 motorway near the Vijciems bus stop, as well as from
the V240 motorway between Vijciems and the Vijciems Cone Hill (Mežmuiža). From it, several
turbines will be visible in the N direction (see Annex 9. (see Annex 13 of the Landscape Expert's
Report), however the nearest visible turbine (VV53) would be 6.5 km away.
7.7.2. Impact on cultural heritage
The state protected cultural monuments in the area of the Proposed Action and in the
landscape study area are listed in Chapter 6.6.2, and a summary of the expected impacts of the
Proposed Action is provided below, assessing the impact of all the assessed WPP turbines on
each of the cultural monuments.
The cultural heritage impact assessment is for the potential WPPs to be built, which
correspond to the Valmiera-Valka park location alternative A with 29 WPPs and location
alternative B with 43 WPPs. For these alternatives for the location of the WPP, an assessment
of physical impacts (flicker, landscape impact), a calculation of climate change impacts and a
calculation of socio-economic benefits were carried out for the public consultation version of
the EIA report. It is envisaged that the EIA report may be updated during the public
consultation process for the WPPs that are currently recommended for construction, taking
into account the proposals submitted by the public and other institutions and the results of the
public consultation. In the updated version of the EIA report that will be submitted to the NEB
for its opinion, the assessment of impacts on cultural heritage will be updated according to the
number of proposed WPPs, but it can already be said that the updated results will have a
lower potential impact.
7.7.1 Group of tables. Information on cultural monuments, impacts and mitigation
recommendations
Ethnographic farm "Ielīcas"
Short description The Vidzeme farmstead "Ielīcas" represents the buildings of the second half of the
18th-19th centuries and reflects traditional architecture. A unique farmstead,
which includes a complex of buildings characteristic of the Northern Vidzeme
region: a dwelling house, a bathhouse with a whaling room, 3 barns, a pigsty, a
stable with fodder rooms, a stable, a coach house, a cellar. The buildings are
arranged in a courtyard system typical of northern Vidzeme. In addition to its
architectural significance, the farm is also a place in Latvian film history, as the film
"Pūt, vējiņi" (1973) was shot here.
Since 2006, the farm has been restored.
Location Vijciema parish, Ielīcas, Valka municipality. ~9,1 km from Vijciems, ~15,4 km from
Valka.
342
Coordinates in the WGS-84 coordinate system: 57.657815, 26.001540.
Status • Cultural monument of national importance (group: architecture)
Farmstead (aiz aizs. No 6884). It was included in the List of Cultural
Monuments when it was adopted in 1998. An individual protection zone
has been designated.287
• Appears in AAA "Ziemeļgauja"
Landscape Located between the national road P24 and LVM "Ielīcu cesta". On the edge of the
characteristics main bank of the Gauja (which cannot be felt in nature) and on the left bank of the
tributary Ielīca. The homestead area is like an island in a spruce forest. In addition
to the ancient buildings, there is also a boat (possibly related to the film). There
are several deciduous trees in the yard.
The people of Vijciems consider it one of the most important elements of the
landscape.
Availability Growing. Next to a national road, signposted ("brown sign"), theoretically also
accessible by bus as it is next to a bus stop. (At the time of the survey, it was not
accessible by car on a cleared road - you had to drive 200 metres).
Ownership Property of a natural person.
Tourism An important tourist attraction. It can be viewed from the outside all year round.
Included in Latvian (including foreign) and Valka municipality tourism material, etc.
The venue for ethnographic, but also other types of events (e.g., Ielīce
celebrations, summer solstice celebrations, etc.), which bring together several
hundred people. Also a wedding venue.
Included in Latvian tour operators' itineraries, international German cycling route,
school excursions. It is also visited by specific interest groups (e.g. employees of
the Ethnographic Open-Air Museum of Latvia) The owner estimates that a few
thousand (up to 8,000) tourists visit the museum annually.
Nearest VES 1,41 km (from residential building), 1,23 km from the boundary of the cultural
monument to the SE (VV59)
Expected impact Medium. As the site is complex and there are not only a few viewpoints, the
farmstead was viewed from different positions. It has been established that the
wings of turbine VV56 will be visible from the edge of 'Ielīcu' in the DRR direction
and the upper part of the tower and wings of turbine VV59 in the D direction.
Physical impacts on building structures may also result from the movement of
machinery on a nearby road or from the reconstruction of this road to
accommodate the movement of WPP structures.
Recommendations WPP turbine VV59 is not recommended, set turbine VV56 to a maximum height of
250 metres.
Preserve the forest (no logging) in the existing state forest (cad. designations:
94920010035, 94920010038) in a strip at least 70 m wide around the farm (land
287
https://mantojums.lv/cultural-objects/6884
343
unit with the cad. 94920010025), which according to the forest transparency
model (developed by Estonian researchers 288) should limit the view of other
turbines.
When installing turbines and related works, assess the impact of machinery
movement on building structures, do not plan its movement along the LVM road
"Road of the road".
Notes Included in the terms of reference from the NCMP. Surveyed in the field.
The WPP that could potentially affect the ethnographic homestead "Ielīcas" are
not included in any of the recommended alternatives, so there will be no impacts
described as "foreseeable impacts".
Pauklis medieval cemetery
Short description Medieval cemetery289 at the back of the dune.
Location Vijciema parish, Valka municipality, near Paukulite on the old Smiltene-Valka
highway. ~4,7 km from Vijciems, ~19,9 km from Valka.
Coordinates in the WGS-84 coordinate system: 57,61663, 25,967386.
Status • Cultural monument of regional importance (group: archaeology) Pauklīši
medieval cemetery (Miklāva, Baznīcas kalns) (aiz aizs. No 2400). It was
included in the List of Cultural Monuments when it was adopted in 1998.
A standard protection zone of 500 m in rural settlements.290
• Located in the protected landscape area "Ziemeļgauja"
Landscape It is located in the forest, at the back of a dune, right next to the old Smiltene-
characteristics Valka highway.
Availability Medium. 300 m from the national road P24, in close proximity to a natural
carriageway.
Ownership State property.
Tourism Not a tourist attraction. No potential as a tourist site.
Nearest WPP 3,29 km NW (VV82)
Expected impact None. Wind turbines will not be visible.
Recommendations —
Notes Not included in the terms of reference from the NCMP. Not surveyed in the field.
Strenči Psychoneurological Hospital Complex
Short description The hospital complex forms an authentic ensemble of typologically rare buildings
of high scenic, architectural and cultural-historical value. The complex is a well-
preserved, important testimony to the development of the Vidzeme region of the
Latvian state, reflecting a very progressive approach to the development of
288
Lang, M., Kuusk, A., Vennik, K., Liibusk, A., Türk, K., Sims, A. 2021. Horizontal Visibility in Forests.
Remote Sens. 13, 4455
289
https://mantojums.lv/cultural-objects/2400
290
https://mantojums.lv/cultural-objects/2400
344
hospital areas of this type at the time. The Director's House of Strenči Hospital
(1904-1906), which is on the list of cultural monuments, has fully preserved its
original building volume, architectural and artistic composition of the facades,
decorative decoration and other details; it is considered to be an original work of a
prominent architect of its time, a high-quality example of architecture of the era in
the characteristic so-called "brick eclecticism" style.291
The buildings are still used for hospital purposes.
Location Valmiera Municipality Strenči, Valkas iela 11A.
Coordinates in the WGS-84 coordinate system: 57,629135, 25,696858.
Status One of the buildings: cultural monument of regional importance (group:
architecture) The Headmaster's House (no. No 9198). Listed as a cultural
monument in 2020. A standard protection zone of 100 m in urban areas.292
The whole complex and the water tower separately are designated as cultural and
historical objects of municipal significance (according to the Strenči municipality
spatial plan).
Landscape A high quality, typologically unique landscape of care architecture, consisting of a
characteristics peculiar ensemble of early 20th century buildings with a park and woodland. The
ensemble has an important landmark - the architecturally interesting water tower,
which provides an important perspective from the hospital entrance and from
other places in the hospital complex.
Availability Growing. Located on the A2 national motorway, several parking spaces. Open to
the public, regardless of hospital status.
Ownership State property.
Tourism Tourist attraction.
Nearest WPP 4,38 km to the S (VV2)
Expected impact None. The wind turbines will not be visible from the director's house, the hospital
complex or from looking at the complex.
Recommendations To preserve the cadastral units of the forest hospital (cad. app. 94170010085) on
the eastern side or in the adjacent Latvian State Forest (Cad. app. 94170013127)
within a 100 metre strip to the west of the site, adjacent to the hospital complex.
Notes Not included in the terms of reference from the NCMP. Surveyed in the field.
Silbitari Antiquities
Short description Monuments dating back to the Late Iron Age - the Middle Ages.293 Also known as
Bitarin Hill, it is known as an ancient Latvian cult observatory. 294 The site has been
291
https://mantojums.lv/cultural-objects/9191
292https://mantojums.lv/cultural-objects/9191
293 https://mantojums.lv/cultural-objects/9191
294 http://visit.valka.lv/lv/iepazisti-mus/apskates-vietas-valkas-apkartne/bitarinkalns
345
compared to the Pokaini Forest, discussed in fiction and historical literature, but
has not gained the same popularity.295
Location In the forest near Silbitari, Vijciema parish, Valka municipality. ~2 km from
Vijciems.
Coordinates in the WGS-84 coordinate system: 57,597692, 25,945712.
Status • Cultural monument of national importance (group: archaeology) Silbitaru
Ancient Monuments (aiz aizs. No 2401). It was included in the List of
Cultural Monuments when it was adopted in 1998. A standard protection
zone of 500 m in rural settlements.296
• Located in the protected landscape area "Ziemeļgauja"
Landscape It is located on a forested hill between a municipal road and farmland. There are
characteristics several stones on the hill. Natural carriageway in the northern part.
Availability Medium. Next to a municipal road. There is no infrastructure.
Ownership In two properties (properties owned by two legal entities).
Tourism Tourist attraction. Included in local tourism material, hiking routes. A tourist sign
leads from Vijciems to it.
Nearest WPP 4.17 km to the N (VV82)
Expected impact Unlikely. If the forest in the area of the ancient burial site is preserved, the
turbines will not be visible.
Recommendations Preserve the forest in the area of the ancient burial site.
Notes Not included in the terms of reference from the NCMP. Not surveyed in the field.
Lugazi Medieval Castle
Short description Former fortification of the Livonian Order (14th-15th centuries). Only the earth
rampart on the eastern side of the former castle has survived. 297
Location Valkas municipality, Lugaži, Rogas. ~4,1 km from Valka.
Coordinates in the WGS-84 coordinate system: 57,763265, 25,954230.
Status Cultural monument of regional importance (group: archaeology) Lugazi medieval
castle (aiz aizs. No 2395). It was included in the List of Cultural Monuments when it
was adopted in 1998. A standard protection zone of 500 m in rural settlements. 298
Landscape It is part of the Lugazi Manor Park complex. Pedestrian walkways. To the west is a
characteristics pond. A gravel carriageway crosses the site in the NE-SW direction. On the eastern
side is a tree-covered rampart. The site contains buildings or ruins of the manor
complex.
Availability Growing. Parking lot in front of the manor (parish) building, 100 m from the
295 Misāne, A. 2012. Latvian heterotopia - the newly created sanctuary in Pokaiņi: Bela, B., Zepa, B. (zin.
ed.). Identities, communities, discourses. Collection of articles. Rīga, LU Akadēmiskais apgāds, 77.—90.
296https://mantojums.lv/cultural-objects/2401
297 https://lv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luga%C5%BEu_pils
298
https://mantojums.lv/cultural-objects/2395
346
manor.
Ownership Municipal and private property.
Tourism The site is not a tourist attraction in itself, but as it is part of the Lugazi Manor
Park, it can attract visitors.
Nearest WPP 4,38 km to the S (VV2)
Expected impact None. The wind turbines will not be visible from the site or from the monument.
Recommendations Not proposed.
Notes Not included in the terms of reference from the NCMP. Not surveyed in the field.
Planči hillfort
Short description A hillfort dating back to the Iron Age.
Location In the town of Vijciems, Planči, Valka district. ~2,75 m from the centre of Valka.
Coordinates in the WGS-84 coordinate system: 57,766000, 26,037765.
Status Cultural monument of local importance (group: archaeology) Vijciema Celītkalns -
castle mound (aiz aizs. No 2394). It was included in the List of Cultural Monuments
when it was adopted in 1998. A standard protection zone of 100 m in the city. 299
Landscape A hill covered with deciduous trees, north of Planči homestead. There is a difficult
characteristics dirt road leading from the house to it. There is forest (clusters of trees) to the
north and south-west, marshy grassland to the east and farmland to the south-
west and east. From the southern foot of the hillfort, as well as from the slope in
more prominent places, there is a wide view to the south-south-west.
Availability Growing.
Ownership It falls into two ownerships: natural persons and municipalities.
Tourism Tourist attraction. Included in local tourism material. No signposts from the road.
Nearest WPP 4,55 km to the S (VV66)
Expected impact Medium. Dozens of turbines will be visible nearer or further away (see Annex 9),
creating a cumulative effect on the panoramic view to the south. The closest ones
- VV66 and VV92 - are the best (almost full height), depending on the vantage
point also VV67.
Recommendations The nearest turbines VV66, VV92 and VV67 are not recommended.
Notes Not included in the terms of reference from the NCMP. Not surveyed in the field.
Vijciema cone
Short description Built in 1895. A unique object in the world - the oldest cone forge in Latvia and the
only cone forge of its kind in the world. It was listed as a site of interest in the
European Heritage Days (2002) and the Extraordinary European Heritage Days
(2008). 300
299
https://mantojums.lv/cultural-objects/2394
300
https://www.mammadaba.lv/galamerki/lvm-vijciema-ciekurkalte
347
Location Mežmuiža, Čiekuru forge, Vijciema parish, Valka municipality.
~5,5 km from Vijciems.
Coordinates in the WGS-84 coordinate system: 57,592407, 26,039865.
Status Cultural monument of national importance (group: industrial) Vijciems
(Mežmuižas) Cone Mine (aiz aizs. No 9280). Listed as a cultural monument in 2020.
Individual protection zone301 (along the territory of the land unit).
Landscape Located on the V240, after a scenic stretch of road with an oak avenue. The red-
characteristics brown brick building, whose shapes suggest an industrial role, is architecturally
interesting and unusual. Mežmuiža or Vijmeži - a small (unofficial) village - is
located in a small open space among the forest. Behind the drying kiln is an open
lawn, bordered by a row of spruce trees and crossed by a ditch.
Availability Growing. Next to the V240 national road. Parking, seating.
Ownership Property of a legal entity (LVM).
Tourism A tourist attraction of national importance. Defined as one of the most important
attractions of the Valka region. A tourist sign leads from Vijciems to it.
Nearest WPP 4,96 km to the NW (VV53)
Expected impact None. The wind turbines will not be visible from the site or from the monument.
Recommendations Not proposed.
Notes Not included in the terms of reference from the NCMP. Surveyed in the field.
Vijciems Mound
Short description Vijciems Celītkalns is a former castle hill, more precisely a temporary fortification
in case of enemy attacks.
Location Vijciema parish, Celīši, Valka municipality. ~650 m from Vijciems.
Coordinates in the WGS-84 coordinate system: 57,592125, 25,956176.
Status • Cultural monument of national importance (group: archaeology) Vijciema
Celītkalns - castle mound (aiz aizs. No 2398). It was included in the List of
Cultural Monuments when it was adopted in 1998. A standard protection
zone of 500 m in rural settlements.302
• Located in the protected landscape area "Ziemeļgauja".
Landscape A mound on the left bank of the River Vija, covered with mixed forests. To the
characteristics north-west of it is the farmstead Celīši. There are many trails on the hill.
Unfortunately, even though the potential for views is high, there are hardly any
good vantage points due to overgrowth. A small stile provides a view to the NW.
Availability Growing.
Ownership State property.
Tourism Tourist attraction. Included in local tourism material. Extensive network of paths,
indicating that it is used for walking. Regular clean-ups of the mound
301
https://mantojums.lv/cultural-objects/9264
302
https://mantojums.lv/cultural-objects/2398
348
infrastructure.
Nearest WPP 4,96 km to the S (VV53)
Expected impact None. If the existing vegetation is retained, the wind turbines will not be visible
from the site or from the view of the monument.
Recommendations Preserve the existing forest on the north-west-north slope of the mound.
Notes Not included in the terms of reference from the NCMP. Surveyed in the field.
Stone obelisk
Short description In December 1882, a stone obelisk was erected with the text: 'His Imperial
Highness Grand Duke Vladimir Alexandrovich had the pleasure of hunting here on
16 and 17 December 1882'. Describes the significance of the Oliņi Lielā Forest as a
cultural and historical site, including hunting-related sites. Located on the LVM
"Monument Road".
Location Valmiera municipality, Plani parish. LVM "Monuments Road", ~ 11,1 km from
Strenči.
Coordinates in the WGS-84 coordinate system: 57,635434, 25,840290.
Status Cultural and historical object of municipal significance (according to the Strenči
municipality spatial plan).
Landscape Located directly on the LVM road, on the other side of a small ditch, just before a
characteristics pine forest with fir trees on the second floor. On the other side of the road is a
clearing, with individual pines or groups of pines.
Availability Growing. LVM on the side of the "Monument Road", accessible from the road.
Parking is possible.
Ownership State property.
Tourism Tourist attraction. Included in various local tourism materials. One of the Gauja
Cultural and Historical Trail sights. Also included in the Mežtakas attractions. Near
the R. Veide monument. The two sites share a stand (on the other side of the
ditch).
Nearest WPP 0,19 km to the NW (VV21)
Expected impact Growing. Wind turbines will be highly dominant if the original intention is realised.
The nearest turbine, VV21, will be visible at full height from the monument and
from the Monument Road. Half of turbine VV86 will be visible (see Annex). The
route of the Gauja Cultural and Historical Trail runs along the monument. The
monument may be endangered during construction works and during the
movement of machinery.
Recommendations As it is not possible to ensure that turbine VV21 is not visible, it should be moved
further away from Monument Road (possible location coordinates: 57.635288,
25.837657 or 57.635615, 25.837217).
Preserve the semi-circular forest around the obelisk within a radius of 100 m on
the obelisk side of Monument Road. On the other side of the road, plant Norway
spruce covering the base of the turbine, preferably in two parallel rows. When
planting rows, use planting material at least 1.5 metres high.
To protect the monument during construction works and machinery movements,
349
and to maintain or renew the information board about it.
Notes Included in the terms of reference from the NCMP. Surveyed in the field.
Monument to the Crown Prince of Prussia
Short description Monument (sometimes thought to be just the base) to Crown Prince Frederick Carl
of Prussia, who hunted here in 1875. The site was buried in the 20th century. in
the 1960s, during the construction of what is now the V260. It is not known
whether it survives or in what condition.
Location Plani municipality, Valmiera region, on the side of the V260 road.
~13,7 km from Strenči.
Coordinates in the WGS-84 coordinate system: 57.635542, 25.860731
Status —
Landscape Located in a forest, close to the V260 national road. There is no evidence of its
characteristics existence in nature
Availability Medium (on the side of a public road, but no possibility to stop).
Ownership State property.
Tourism Not a tourist attraction in itself. Theoretically, the information that the object was
located here could be used.
Nearest WPP 0,23 km to the A (VV38)
Expected impact Medium (if the site exists)
Located on the roadside, virtually no visual impact, however the site may be
threatened by machinery movements and the creation of an access road to
turbine VV38.
Recommendations Clarify the actual location in nature. With this in mind, try to uncover and protect
the site during construction work and machinery movements. Inform museum
professionals.
Notes Information about the object has been provided by the Valka Museum and Iveta
Ence. Not included in the terms of reference from the NCMP. Not surveyed in the
field.
Monument to Rihards Veide
Short description Monument to Latvian opera singer Rihards Veide, who died here in February 1964
while hunting.
Location Valmiera municipality, Plani parish. LVM road "Monument Road", ~11,3 km from
Strenči.
Coordinates in the WGS-84 coordinate system: 57,634823, 25,842647.
Status —
Landscape Located in a pine-fir forest, on the edge of a natural carriageway, 70 metres from
characteristics Monument Road.
Availability Medium. Not far (100 m) from the LVM road "Monument Road", an obscure sign
leads to the site, located on the other side of the ditch. Also included in the
350
Mežtakas attractions.
Ownership State property.
Tourism A little-known tourist attraction. One of the Gauja Cultural and Historical Trail
sights. Also included in the Mežtakas attractions. Near the Stone Obelisk. The two
sites share a stand (on the other side of the ditch).
Nearest WPP 0,34 km to the NW (VV21)
Expected impact Medium. As the site is located in the middle of a forest, the activity would have no
visual impact on the monument, preserving the forest. However, in theory, the
monument could be damaged or destroyed, so its location during construction
and machinery movements must be taken into account.
Recommendations To protect the monument during construction works and machinery movements,
and to maintain or renew the information board about it. Preserve the forest in a
100 m zone around it.
Notes Included in the terms of reference from the NCMP. Surveyed in the field.
Chimney of the former Saules sawmill
Short description The chimney of the former Saules sawmill was not found in the field and,
according to local residents, was demolished in spring 2023.
Location Saule 3, Valkas pag., Valkas novads.
12,9 km from Valka.
Coordinates in the WGS-84 coordinate system: 57,692887, 25,896454.
Notes Included in the terms of reference from the NCMP. Surveyed in the field.
Oliņi half-manor house (Mežmuiža)
Short description Built at the end of the 19th century. It belonged to the owners of Valmiermuiža,
the von Loewensterns. Culturally and historically significant as a sleeping place of
the noble hunters who hunted in the Oliņi Lielais Forest.303
Location Oliņas, Plani municipality, Valmiera region.
~10.1 km from Strenči.
Coordinates in the WGS-84 coordinate system: 57.623319, 25.852390
Status Located in the protected landscape area "Ziemeļgauja"
Landscape Enclosed courtyard farmstead on the right bank of the Gauja between the road
characteristics and the river. Inhabited. The semi-detached house is a relatively large log building.
The outbuildings have also been preserved. On the other side of the road is a new
deciduous forest (overgrown farmland).
Availability Medium (public roadside, but no tourist information, no possibility to stop).
Ownership Property of a natural person.
Tourism A little-known tourist attraction. Visible from the outside (road). One of the Gauja
303
http://valmiera.zurbu.net/document/1081
351
Cultural and Historical Trail sights.
Nearest WPP 1,09 km to the S (VV47)
Expected impact Unlikely. Most of the VV47 turbine wing will be visible from the courtyard of the
building. They will not be visible from the building, even when viewed from the
road.
Recommendations Plan a maximum height of 250 metres for turbine VV47. Maintain the existing
forest strip of at least 70 m on the other side of the road.
Notes Implicit in the terms of reference from the NCMP. Part of the Gauja Cultural and
Historical Trail. Surveyed in the field.
Monument to Captain Anton Irv
Short description Monument to the fallen Estonian army captain Anton Irv, who was a participant of
the Latvian (and Estonian) War of Independence and fell in battle with the
Bolsheviks on 27 April 1919 near Strenči near Egle pub. The foundation stone of
the monument was laid in 1939, but due to the Soviet occupation, the monument
was not erected until after independence and was unveiled in 1994. 304 The
monument is made in classical regular forms, as a granite memorial stone with an
inscription.
Location Plani municipality, Valmiera county, near the A3 motorway, ~3.5 km from Strenči.
Coordinates in the WGS-84 coordinate system: 57,626484, 25,74396.
Status Cultural and historical object of municipal significance (according to the Strenči
municipality spatial plan).
Located in the protected landscape area "Ziemeļgauja"
Landscape Located on the side of the A3 national road, in a coniferous forest. A special gravel
characteristics path, not directly connected to the A3 motorway, leads about 50 m from the road
towards the monument. Located 150 m from the Gauja River (connected by a
trail), 160 m from an asphalted parking area on the side of the highway. On the
other side of the highway is a large clearing.
Availability Medium. Although it is on the motorway, it is not safely accessible from the
motorway. Reachable from the car park either by forest roads or by following the
motorway.
Ownership State property.
Tourism A little-known tourist attraction. There is no indication of this.
Nearest WPP 1,35 km to the NE (VV24).
Expected impact Unlikely. The view of the monument is not compromised, however, as there is a
clearing on the other side of the road towards the turbines, turbine VV24 will be
clearly visible from the monument and the wings of turbine VV30 will also be
visible.
Recommendations Although turbine VV24 will be clearly visible from the monument site, given the
site's role and primary vantage point, the relocation or non-provision of VV24
would only be a suggestion, but it would be preferable not to provide for it higher
304
https://latvijaspieminekli.lv/piemineklis-kritusajam-igaunijas-armijas-kapteinim-antonam-irvam/
352
than 250 metres. Although the forest has already been cleared on the other side
of the road, preserve the uncut forest strip along it opposite the monument.
Notes Included in the terms of reference from the NCMP. Surveyed in the field.
Vijciems hunting castle
Short description Originally built in 1899 for the hunting of local lords and barons. After the burning
in 1907, the present stone building was built in the National Romantic style
(assumed to be the work of the architect Eugen Laube). After 1918 it was at the
disposal of the forestry, later the VEF company established a hunters' recreation
base. It has stood unused for some time
The Bergervilla guest house is now open.
Location Vijmeži 4, Vijciema municipality, Valkas region.
~8,5 km from Vijciems, 22 km from Valka.
Coordinates in the WGS-84 coordinate system: 57,628886, 26,033338.
Status Located in the protected landscape area "Ziemeļgauja"
Landscape Located in the middle of a forest massif - at the crossroads of former forest stigs,
characteristics now LVM roads. Coming from the P24 motorway, a major axial object at the end
of the road. Planting of large Western avenues in front of the building. A striking
building, an important element of the local landscape, which enhances the
monotonous landscape of the forest massif. To the north of the castle is a large
clearing.
Availability Growing. LVM road "Medībmājas ceļš", parking lot.
Ownership Property of a natural person.
Tourism Tourist and recreational facility (accommodation).
Nearest WPP 1,16 km to the NW (VV53)
Expected impact Growing. From the castle car park you will be able to see about 2/5 of the height
of wind turbine VV53, so it will dominate the landscape. From the north of the
castle, you will also be able to see the top and wings of turbine VV54 (see Annex).
Recommendations No turbine VV53 is proposed, reduce the maximum overall design height of
turbine VV54 to 250 metres. Retain the currently unlogged forest strip (Block 290,
Section 5) to the N of the Hunting Lodge, 70 metres wide.
Notes Not included in the terms of reference from the NCMP. Surveyed in the field.
Seda buildings
Short description In fact, the entire town of Seda is a 20th century... A monument of 1950s town-
building - an ensemble of historical buildings. Key assets: public and residential
buildings, layout of buildings and streets, layout of residential courtyards, greenery
- avenues of street and courtyard trees.
Location Valmiera region, Seda.
Coordinates in the WGS-84 coordinate system: 57,650323, 25,751009.
Status Cultural and historical object of municipal significance (according to the Strenči
353
municipality spatial plan).
Landscape The core of the city - the most valuable part (between Meža, Dārza, Sporta and
characteristics Parka Streets) - is formed by almost symmetrical residential and public buildings of
the Stalin era (mostly 2-storey buildings). The main anchor points are the School
Square with the school building, Uzvaras Street with its dominant building, the
House of Culture. The central access road (Miera iela) also offers a scenic view.
Availability Growing. Accessible via the national regional road P26.
Ownership Part of several estates; mostly municipal.
Tourism The buildings of Seda are a tourist attraction of national importance (although
mostly a complex of permanently inhabited buildings). The brown information sign
leads to the House of Culture. Also included in the Mežtakas attractions.
Nearest WPP 1 km from the Stalin-era built-up area boundary to the SE (VV30)
Expected impact Growing. From the open areas of the city, the nearest turbines VV24, VV25, VV30
and turbine VV80 will be very visible at street level (at least 2/3 of the structure)
(see Annex 5). Many more turbines will be visible from the second-floor windows
facing east and south-east.
Recommendations No turbine VV25, VV24, VV30 recommended, reduce maximum overall design
height of turbine VV80 to 250 metres.
Retain uncut tree belt (in state forest with cadastral designation: 94760010055) at
least 100 m around the city in the direction of the proposed development.
Notes Not included in the terms of reference from the NCMP. Surveyed in the field.
7.8. Impact on tourism and recreation
Attitudes towards WPP parks, in the context of their impact on tourism and recreation, vary
from negative to positive.
Worldwide studies indicate305 that wind energy development has a negative impact on the
aesthetic values of landscapes, thus reducing the tourism industry. Tourism in this assessment
refers to trips away from the permanent place of residence for various purposes (e.g. business
trips, excursions, attending or participating in sports and cultural events, etc.), while recreation
refers to various (primarily) outdoor activities close to the place of residence (e.g. walking,
playing sports, mushroom picking, fishing, sunbathing, etc.). Sometimes, however, these lines
can be blurred.
Tourists (visitors) often look for less modified and artificial landscapes306. Wind farms, as
opposed to stand-alone (isolated) wind turbines, have a particularly negative impact on
landscape attractiveness307. Although there are tourists who would prefer to see wind farms
directly, a study in the Czech Republic, for example, suggests that tourists would be most
attracted to these sites if special tourist (visitor) centres were set up308 309 or even if special
305
Broekel, T. & Alfken, C. 2015. Gone with the wind? The impact of wind turbines on tourism demand.
Energy Policy. 86, 506—519.
306
Hoppe-Klipper, M., Steinhäuser, U., 2002. Wind Landscapes in the German milieu. In: Windpower in
View: Energy Landscapes in a Crowded World. Academic Press, New York, 83—99.
307
Ladenburg, J., Dahlgaard, J.-O. 2012. Attitudes, threshold levels and cumulative effects of the daily
wind-turbine encounters. Applied Energy, 98, 40—46.
308
Broekel, T. & Alfken, C. 2015.
354
viewing platforms were created that were accessible to tourists (these have been set up in
countries around the world, e.g. UK, Austria, Germany, the Netherlands).
A Czech study found that siting wind turbines in suitable locations has little or no negative
impact on tourists' perception of the landscape and their choice of destination. They also
found that turbine development, combined with good marketing, can develop new forms of
tourism. In general, tourists have a more negative view of other industrial or infrastructure
sites such as factories, quarries (mines), telecommunication towers or electricity pylons. While
the vast majority of tourists consider the attractiveness of nature and landscape as the most
important consideration when choosing destinations and recognise the sensitivity to
unwanted intrusions into the landscape, only 6% said they would not go on a trip because of
wind turbines310.
While tourism could be described as having a less negative impact overall, studies shows that
the more negative impact is on the recreation of local people. This is particularly important in
areas where there is less wilderness or limited access to it. A study in Norway on the impact of
wind turbines near recreational areas concluded that the impact of wind turbines is negative.
The study uses therevealed preference-travel cost method (RP-TCM) and the stated
preference-contingent behaviour method (SP-CB) to estimate potential demand under
conditions that are outside the range of variation in observed cost or resource characteristics
and to predict what study subjects would do in a hypothetical situation. The study was carried
out in three recreational areas popular with local people: a mountainous region (assessing the
impact of an inland wind farm) with an extensive network of trails and two popular beaches (a
backcountry wind farm) with good tourism infrastructure, located up to 35 km from major
cities. It concluded that the presence of wind turbines would significantly reduce the number
of recreational trips, both inland and coastal, and affect the well-being of holidaymakers. The
negative impact of wind turbines on an area with 200 000 visitors per year is estimated at
€10.5 million or 20% loss of indirect value, without taking into account downstream impacts
(e.g. on neighbouring areas).311
The assessment of impacts on tourism and recreation is for the potential WPPs to be built,
corresponding to the Valmiera-Valka park location alternative A with 29 WPPs and location
alternative B with 43 WPPs. For these alternatives for the location of the WPP-Park, the public
consultation version of the EIA report was subject to a physical impact assessment (flicker,
landscape impact assessment (including impacts on tourism and recreation)), a climate change
impact assessment and a socio-economic benefits assessment. It is envisaged that the EIA
report may be updated during the public consultation process for the WPPs that are currently
recommended for construction, taking into account the proposals submitted by the public and
other institutions and the results of the public consultation. In the updated version of the EIA
report, which will be submitted to the NEB for its opinion, the assessment of impacts on
tourism and recreation will be updated according to the number of proposed WPPs, but it can
already be said that the updated results will have a lower potential impact.
309
Frantál, B., Kunc, J. 2011. Wind turbines in tourism landscapes. Annals of Tourism Research. 38 (2),
499—519.
310
Frantál, B., Kunc, J. 2011. Wind turbines in tourism landscapes. Annals of Tourism Research. 38 (2),
499—519.
311
Gorm et.al. The impact of wind turbines on local recreation: Evidence from two travel cost method -
contingent behaviour studies, Journal of Outdoor Recreation and Tourism, Volume 25, 2019, Pages 66-
75.
355
Nature trail
Several nature trails have been created in the area: Kokši Lakes Nature Trail maintained by
DAP, Zīle Biotope Trail maintained by LVM (currently closed), Seda Nature Trail, Strenči Nature
Trail maintained by LVM together with Valmiera County Municipality, and Vekši Nature Trail
maintained by private individuals. Trails for both recreation and information on the protection
of specific natural values. The planned activity will have a visual impact or the turbines will be
visible in the Vekši nature trail and the end of the Seda nature trail. As the Vekši nature trail is
closer to the planned turbines (2.1 km to VV70), we recommend reducing the distance around
the turbine (see Landscape Characterisation subsection). The turbines will not be visible from
the Kokši Lakes Nature Trail and the Strenči Nature Trail, and tourists or recreationists will not
be affected by the Proposed Action.
Water tourism
The most important - nationwide - water tourism route within the Study Area is along the
entire length of the Gauja River. The Valka Regional Spatial Plan names it as one of the "special
places for tourism development" of Valka Region, while the VPR IAS - as a niche product of the
region. LVM maintains several recreation areas on the banks of the Gauja River. The landscape
of the Gauja River and the impact of the Proposed Action on it is described in the section
"Landscape brief and recommendations", where sections from which the turbines would be
clearly visible are mentioned. New elements in the landscape could be expected to reduce the
quality of the view, so a maximum height (250 m) should be set for some turbines or not at all.
The Vija and Seda are also used for water tourism, but their importance and popularity are
much lower. Although the Seda River flows close to the nearest turbines in the northern part
of the wind park, this section is not used for water tourism (the most suitable section of the
Seda for boating (from Dakstie to Burtnieks) is outside the Study Area). The Vija is boated from
Raudiņu Bridge (near P24) to the mouth of the Gauja. According to the visibility model, the
turbines would not be visible at any point while boating on the Vija.
Hiking and cycling routes
International, national and local tourist routes cross the area. The most important of these is
the Mežtaka section of the European Long Distance Hiking Route E11, which crosses a large
part of the territory, 57.8 kilometres long, from the Dedums River in Brenguli parish to Būdai in
Zvārtava parish. Most of the trail route leads close to the Gauja Valley, but at Kokši Lakes it
turns further - deeper into the Cirgali dune massif. The Study Area partly includes the
Valmiera-Strenči section, where the Proposed Action will have no impact. The situation is
different for the next section "Strenči-Spicu tilts", whose route literally adjoins the territory of
the OP. The nearest turbine would be VV33, which would be approximately 490 metres away,
but would hardly be visible in its vicinity (except for a short stretch at the junction of the A3
and V260) and the audibility of the turbines (around 40-45 dB) would compete with the noise
from the A3. There will be visibility splays along the straight stretch of the clearings between
the Regiment Road and up to the A3 turn-off. Here we recommend spruce plantations along
the route to screen the view towards the turbines if they are built. The second section, where
the turbines will be highly visible, is along the V260 just before Cekuliai to the Oliņi Finnish
bath. Here a maximum height (250 m) should be set for turbines VV88 and VV47. It should be
noted that the description of the Mežtakas route also includes sites that are not in the
immediate vicinity of the trail, but whose visit would be affected by the Proposed Action (e.g.
the Stone Obelisk). The last stage of this section of the trail with turbine visibility would be
356
where the trail enters the LVM road "Black Road". Here we recommend spruce plantations
along the Black Road in the direction of the high voltage power line to screen the view towards
turbines VV62 and VV13 (if these turbines are built). Other potential impacts could be related
to noise, which would have the greatest impact on the section of the path between the high
voltage line Valka-Vireši and Vecmājām. This could reach 40-45 dB, affecting the perception of
wilderness. The closest turbines would be VV82 (565 m) and VV1 (695 m). Due to the view
from the Kankariši Rock, it is already proposed not to plan turbine VV1 and to set a maximum
height (250 m) for VV82. Given that the section between Vecmāji Road and Vecmāji houses
follows a natural carriageway, the construction of the access roads required for the turbines
should not lead to the reconstruction of this section, preserving the authentic appearance of
the 'trail'. In the next section "Spicu tilts-Zaķi" the route moves further away from the Gauja
River, but crossing it on the Spicrāmja Bridge, it gets closer to the left bank of the Gauja River.
However, the only place where the turbines would be clearly visible is the Spitscrae Bridge,
from which turbine VV11 would be visible, which has already been asked not to be planned.
Another route of international importance is the Camino de Santiago, which overlaps with the
Mežtakas route for a short stretch between Ūdriņi and Strenči Bridge, and then leads to Valka
via Seda Bog, Jērceni and Turna. The turbines will be most visible in the Seda marsh, walking
towards Seda (see details in the Seda marsh landscape description). The second area on the
route affected by the proposal would be around Lugazi, where the nearest turbine (VV92)
would be 4.98 km away. Not recommended for VV92 (see description of open farmland
landscapes).
The Green Railways are a network of hiking and cycling routes of national significance, mostly
along former railway embankments and in some places along dykes. So is the Valka/Valga-Ape
green railway. The main route from Valka follows the P24 and P23 roads, and the turbines
would be clearly visible in many places (see description of open farmland landscapes). The
nearest turbine would be VV66 2.4 km away, which is also discouraged, as are VV67 and VV92.
The Gauja Cultural and Historical Trail, which starts in the village of Oliņi near Cekuliai and
ends in Tsirgumäe (Estonia), is a route of regional importance. The first part of the route up to
the Spitzmuseum Bridge overlaps with Meztaku (this section is not analysed again), but it has a
branch to the Stone Obelisk and the Rihards Weide Monument. Taking into account this route
and the impact of turbine VV21 on these sites already described, it is recommended that the
turbine be orientated away from Monument Road and that planting of Norway spruce
covering the base of the turbine, preferably in two parallel rows, be established across
Monument Road" (opposite the Stone Obelisk). When planting rows, use planting material at
least 1.5 metres high. Information boards along the route, at the attractions, must not be
destroyed. One of the attractions included is the "pits with stone edges" (coordinates:
57.629561, 25.929861): an ancient cultural monument of economic character, which has not
been preserved elsewhere in Latvia. The site must not be destroyed during construction works,
including the construction of access roads. From the Spitscraum Bridge, the turbines would
only be visible for a short distance in the village of Zīle. The nearest turbine would be VV70
(668 m away but visible from 1 km). This turbine has already been recommended for reduction
due to its impact on the landscape of the North Gauja.
A new route is the Mushroom Path between Oliņi and Vecmājām, which forms a loop, partly
coinciding with the Mežtaku and Gauja Cultural and Historical Trail. It was created with the aim
of "creating an international network of business initiatives for the "Mushroom Route", a
network of collected NTFPs and products made from them, aimed at diversifying activities,
creating favourable conditions for the creation of new businesses and jobs in rural areas, the
357
development of new products and services; developing thematic tourism on mushrooms and
other NTFPs in rural areas as an innovative and attractive niche for the tourism market and as
a tool for diversifying the local economy". One of the sights included is the Cat's Den Pine
(57.627762, 25.887085), which is an ancient dore tree, although it has been lying in the ground
for several years. It must not be destroyed during construction and/or operation. This tree will
not be affected by the Proposed Action as access to the VES recommended for construction is
not planned via the "Vecmāju Road", see Figure 4.1.3 for information on planned vehicle
access routes and Figure 6.5.2 for a road map of the Proposed Action area.
Impact on recreation in state forest lands managed by JSC Latvia's State Forests
It should be noted that the Norwegian study described above cannot be fully applied to the
area of the Proposed Action and the study area, as the existing recreation areas are mostly
forested, thus not offering wide panoramic views (in the future: also of wind turbines), i.e,
Such views are not the most likely reason for recreation in these forests, but it cannot be
denied that also in these recreation areas of Strenči-Vijciems there could be a potential
decrease in people's willingness to use them for various recreational purposes, which, among
other negative side-effects, could increase recreational expenditure (e.g. transport costs). In
addition to the impact on views and noise, the Proposed Action will also physically reduce
forest areas (taking into account that an average of 2.3 ha per turbine requires preparation
(deforestation, clearing)) and fragment them, including through the construction of forest
roads or cable routes. At the same time, on the positive side, the new road network created
for the wind farm could theoretically increase accessibility to natural areas. However, the
overall effect on recreation will be negative.
Bearing in mind that in the Study Area there are also municipal recreation areas and other
areas managed by LVM and other landowners suitable for various types of recreation, it should
be considered that in this area LVM does not provide enough forest area in the state forests
specifically for recreation, e.g. reducing logging volumes, selective logging, walking trails,
landscaping. Taking into account that the Planned Action would reduce the areas available for
recreation and deteriorate the quality of the landscape, its impact should be compensated for
by creating a new individual planned area for local residents in cooperation with the
municipalities of Valmiera and Valka, where logging would be reduced, recreation areas and
well-maintained routes would be created. According to the authors, a suitable site could be
the area near the homestead "Bērzi" in Plani parish (state road A3 and LVM roads "Melleņu
ceļš" and "Armijas ceļš"), where the orthophoto shows a relatively uncut forest, a remarkable
dune massif with a protected habitat of EU importance "Lichen-rich pine forests" (91T0).
As the planned activity is located in the vicinity of the Northern Gauja Protected Landscape
Area, we recommend to consider the possibility of creating an observation deck for one of the
wind turbines overlooking the Middle Gauja and the surrounding landscape or building a
separate observation tower, developing the site as a region-wide nature tourist visitor centre,
providing information on both wind energy and nature conservation.
Due to the inland dune massifs (where the EU biotope "Lichen-rich forests" is located),
mushroom picking is an important form of recreation in this area, which is included in the list
of intangible cultural heritage of Latvia in 2023.
A special route "Mushroom Route" has even been created for this activity, and the entire
Strenči massif between Strenči and Spicu Bridge has been named "the beautiful mushroom
358
and berry forest of Vidzeme". The planned activity, which also involves deforestation, is likely
to have a short-term impact on the collection of traditional mushroom species characteristic of
this biotope, reducing the mushroom assemblage.
Impact on other activities
In the context of recreation, we should also definitely talk about outdoor grassroots sport. One
of the most popular modern folk sports is orienteering.312 One of the criteria for selecting a site
for orientation is complex and challenging terrain (including topography), diverse landforms,
uninhabited and natural areas.313 The BritishOrienteering Federation's guide to orienteering
also states that the best terrain is woodland or woodland with varied topography, moorland
and other open areas, but the availability of such areas is increasingly under threat, both for
recreation and for economic development. Such schemes threaten the best and often most
beautiful places for orienteering, which is why the protection of natural and cultural heritage is
a priority when organising orienteering competitions.314 Orienteering takes place outdoors, so
the creation of wind turbines in orienteering areas would reduce the areas available and
undermine their attractiveness. At the International Orienteering Coaches Conference in
Austria (August 2023), a French report identifies the installation of wind turbines (as well as
solar panels) as one of the future challenges for the sport, reducing access to orienteering
terrain.315
The Valmiera Orienteering Club "Valmiera-ZVOC" organises its own competition in the Study
and Action Area - the "Valmiera Magnēts" series. The area of the Action is the area of the
single-phase ("Bērzs") development - around the house "Bērzi", Plani municipality (between
the national road A3 and the LVM roads "Melleņu ceļš" and "Armijas ceļš"), see Figure 7.8.1.
Figure 7.8.1. Strava users' running routes in the "Birch" orienteering area
In 2023, for example, 101 participants took part.316
312
https://enciklopedija.lv/skirklis/5170-tautas-sports-Latvijā
313
Tutić, D., Štanfel, M., Horvat, M,T. 2018. Multi-Criteria Land Evaluation of Suitability for the Sport of
Foot Orienteering: A Case Study of Croatia and Slovenia. ISPRS Int. J. Geo-Inf. 7, 227.
314
https://www.britishorienteering.org.uk/images/uploaded/downloads/officials_handbook_landaccess
_environmental_goodpractice.pdf
315
https://www.oefol.at/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/CC_Report_FRA.pdf
316
https://lof.lv/seriali_rez/valmieras_magnets
359
The area is located in a distinct dune massif with several successive dune ridges, in a pine
forest, making it possible to train in such an area. Three wind turbines are planned to be
located here, with another turbine (VV15) on the other side of Blueberry Road. In order to
preserve this area for orienteering, we recommend that VV93, VV16 and VV17 are not planned
to be installed in this area, see Figure 7.8.2.
Figure 7.8.2. Relief model and location of turbines in the Birch orienteering area
Other orienteering areas are located on the other side of the Gauja River in Trikata
municipality: Slāži (near Tower Hill), Dūkas (to the R from Ūdrīņi), Pūpoli A (to the E from the
garden village "Pūpoli"). These areas will not be affected directly or indirectly (visually) by the
Proposed Action. The layering area is within 4 kilometres of the nearest WPP, the others
further away.
During the preparation of the Opinion, information was received from Armands Broks of
Valmiera-ZVOC that new maps are currently being drawn for the area of the Proposed Action
and the area immediately adjacent to it (on the other side of the railway; see Figure 7.8.3).
360
Figure 7.8.3. Developed "Valmiera-ZVOC" orienteering areas
Thus, 12 turbines (VV14, VV15, VV16, VV17, VV18, VV19, VV35, VV37, VV40, VV46, VV84,
VV93) would be located in the orientation areas. Of these, six are not recommended for
construction - VV14, VV15, VV17, VV19, VV35, VV93 (see Figure 1 in the introduction to the EIA
report).
If preservation of the site or not planning for turbines is not possible, it would be desirable to
compensate for their loss by supporting the orienteering club in updating the orienteering map
or offering another area for competitions/training series.
Rogaining competitions have also taken place in the study area (e.g. the Hare Rogaining on 18
March 2023), but they cannot be considered as regular activities, and the specific nature of the
sport and the size of the terrain (several times larger than an orienteering race) make certain
changes in nature less important.
7.9. Impacts on Natura 2000 sites in the vicinity of the WPP Park
The opinions of the habitat expert and the bird expert assess the impact of the proposed wind
farms, access roads, transmission lines and transformer substations on protected natural
values within or adjacent to Natura 2000 sites (see Table 7.9.1).
A summary of the objectives for the establishment and protection of Natura 2000 sites
adjacent to the area of the Proposed Action and the factors that adversely affect them prior to
implementation of the Proposed Action is provided in Table 6.4.2 in Chapter 6.4.1.
Table 7.9.1. Special Protection Areas (SPAs) within or adjacent to the assessment area
Location in relation to the
Name Status Establishment criteria
study area
Protection of high and
DL "Sedas Nature reserve, NW of the study area, beyond transitional marshes, boreal
purvs" Natura 2000 the Riga-Valga railway line and swamp forests, river flood
meadows and old rivers
DL "Burgas Nature reserve, NW of the study area, beyond For the protection of river
361
Location in relation to the
Name Status Establishment criteria
study area
meadows" Natura 2000 the A3 Inčukalns-Valmiera- flood meadows and birds
Valka motorway, 3 km from the
nearest turbine VV2
Landscape For the protection of river
AAZ Conservation Partially overlapping with the floodplain meadows, forests
"Ziemeļgauja" Area, Natura study area and aquatic habitats and
2000 species
For the protection of specially
ML "Boulevard Microreserve,
In the Z part of the study area protected species and forest
barking" Natura 2000
habitats
In the NE part of the study area, For the protection of specially
ML "Estonian Microreserve,
8 km from the nearest turbine protected species and forest
bark" Natura 2000
VV68 habitats
To the NW of the study area,
upstream of the Riga-Valga
DL "Purgaile For the protection of birds
Nature reserve railway line, the nearest turbine
River forests" and alluvial forests
to be assessed is VV5, located
approximately 450 m away
Article 4.1 (3) of the Law on Environmental Impact Assessment (13 November 1998) states
that "...if an impact assessment is carried out for a proposed activity and the implementation of
this activity may significantly affect a protected nature area of European importance (Natura
2000), an assessment of the impact on the protected nature area of European importance
(Natura 2000) shall be carried out and the assessment report shall be included in the
environmental impact assessment report in accordance with the procedure established by the
normative acts on impact assessment".
As mentioned in Section 6.4.1 of the EIA Report and summarised in Table 7.9.1, there are 5
SSSIs in the vicinity of the proposed wind farm that are included in the single European
network of SSSIs Natura 2000 (see Figure 6.4.2 of the EIA Report):
• Sedas purvs Nature Reserve. The nearest WPPs are planned within 0.9 km of the
nature reserve boundary.
• Burgas Meadows Nature Reserve. The nearest WPPs are planned within 4 km of
the nature reserve boundary.
• Northern Gauja Protected Landscape Area. The nearest WPPs are planned within
0.3 km of the protected landscape area boundary.
• Micro-reserve "Bulvāra riests". The nearest WPPs are planned within 0.8 km of the
micro-reserve boundary.
• Estonian Sage Grouse Micro-reserve. The nearest WPPs are planned within 8 km of
the micro-reserve boundary.
On 21 November 2023, the Cabinet of Ministers approved the "Regulations on Nature
Reserves", and a new nature reserve was established - the Purgaile River Forests. The nearest
WPP turbine, VV7, is planned 1.3 km to the east of the nature reserve.
362
This assessment includes an assessment of the impacts of the five Natura 2000 sites as
identified in the Programme No 5-03/9/2023 issued by the NRWB on 12 September 2023.
The objectives for the establishment and protection of the Natura 2000 sites listed above
(habitats and species); the patterns and interactions that determine the existence of natural
values in these sites; and the factors affecting natural values prior to implementation of the
Proposed Action are summarised and presented in Table 6.4.2 of Chapter 6.4.1.
The following is an assessment of the opinions of the experts involved in the EIA on the
impacts on habitats and plant species in the nearby Natura 2000 sites and on bird species in
the nearby Natura 2000 sites.
Impact on habitats and plant species in nearby Natura 2000 sites
In case of construction of all 84 assessed VPP sites, part of the Proposed Action (construction
of cable lines along roads, road reconstruction) would affect Natura 2000 sites - protected
landscape area "Ziemeļgauja" and microreserve "Bulvāra riests", as well as nature reserve
"Purgailes rives meži", which is not a Natura 2000 site.
The impact on the SPA has been significantly reduced by avoiding the sites on the left bank of
the Gauja and the possible reconstruction of several road sections on the right bank.
By building a WPP park, Alternative A or A' locations Natura 2000 sites would not be directly
affected.
The potential area of direct effects in Natura 2000 sites B and B' at the locations of the
alternatives in the two Natura 2000 sites may affect the following types of protected habitats
of EU importance:
- 6270* Species-rich pastures and grazed meadows, 0.12 ha (AAA "Ziemeļgauja",
cable route along Pukšu swamp);
- 9010* Old or natural boreal forest, 0,12 ha ("Boulevard's grove" along Boulevard
Road);
- 91D0* Swamp forests, 0.1 ha (AAA "Ziemeļgauja", cable route along Pukšu
swamp).
Potential effects of dewatering in the SSSI include:
- 9080* Coniferous forests 0,3 ha ("Purgaile River forests");
- 91E0*Alluvial forests 1.5 ha ("Purgaile River forests").
The remaining impacts on protected habitats and species sites in the SSSI can be fully avoided
by choosing to locate the cable routes on the opposite side of the road from the habitats and
species sites, and by avoiding dewatering impacts on habitats in the DL "Purgaile river forests".
The implementation of the Proposed Action does not pose a threat to the conservation
objectives of protected areas in terms of ensuring a favourable level of protection for
protected habitats of EU importance or to the integrity of protected areas at either a local or
regional level.
The proposed action is not planned and is not expected to have any direct or indirect adverse
effects on micro-reserves established for the protection of freshwater, grassland, forest or
wetland habitats.
The proposed activity is not planned in any potential Special Protection Areas, and the
implementation of the proposed activity will not have any foreseeable adverse effects on
363
these areas, either directly or indirectly, as far as the protection of the habitats and associated
plant species included in the areas is concerned.
Impact on bird species in nearby Natura 2000 sites
No Natura 2000 site within 3 km around the proposed WPP study area is evenly populated by
birds. From this point of view, the concept of Natura 2000 site becomes essentially secondary
in the case of off-site impacts. In the case of bird species, the impact of the WPP-Park as a
relatively large, multi-source element affecting a relatively large area is, in the opinion of the
bird expert, only relevant for the smallest logical units of the populations of the species
concerned, but in any case not for formally established areas of any kind. For dispersing
species, the smallest logical population unit is a breeding pair, for colonial breeding birds - a
colony, and for species with polygamous breeding systems - in the case of Latvia - a nest. In all
three cases, the territories occupied by these population units will never, even in the case of
micro-reserves, coincide with the boundaries of the SPA. Conservation measures should be
taken for the species and pairs concerned, irrespective of the protected area boundaries,
especially in the vicinity of the planned wind farm, where the established SSSIs fit organically
into the landscape and are ecologically inseparable from it. From this perspective, the
potential impacts of the proposed WPP are discussed in the relevant species profiles, see
Chapter 7.6.2.
Two groups of bird species may be affected in relation to impacts on bird species in nearby
Natura 2000 sites, both of which are characterised by long-distance flights: the soaring bird
group, which is characterised by long-distance foraging flights, and the flocking migratory
waterbird group, which is characterised by long-distance flights between feeding and roosting
sites.
For both groups of species, there is reason to speak of a barrier effect created by the wind
farm, which may alter flight routes, hypothetically making regions of the site "inaccessible" to
the species in extreme cases, without even physically threatening the birds themselves. In the
case of soaring birds, there is also a risk of physical danger to birds, which is assessed as high
for some species, while the risk of physical collisions is assessed as low for the flocking
migratory waterbird group, mainly due to their avoidance behaviour.
Monitoring of bird species to identify indirect impacts on Natura 2000 sites, see Chapter 12.
Tables 7.9.2 to 7.9.5 summarise the assessment of impacts on ornithofauna in accordance
with Cabinet Regulation No 300 "Procedures for assessing impacts on Specially Protected
Nature Areas of European Importance (Natura 2000)", taking into account the list of birds
included in the Natura 2000 sites "Sedas bog", "Burgas meadows", "Northern Gauja",
"Boulevard's Roost" and "Estonian Roost" data forms.
364
Table 7.9.2. Impact assessment on ornithofauna in accordance with Cabinet Regulation No 300 "Procedure for assessing the impact on specially protected nature
areas of European importance (Natura 2000)" AAA "Ziemeļgauja"
Isolation
Disturbance to Changes in
Habitat Population Fragmentation (separation) of a Changes in the patterns and interactions
specially habitat
Bird species area of the density of of the species' species' habitat that determine the structure and function
protected quality of the
species the species habitat from other species of an area
species species
of the same kind
theoretically insignificant deterioration of
Lesser Spotted feeding and social conditions in the
increases
Hawk Accipiter no change no change increasing increasing getting worse adjacent area, insignificant risk of
insignificantly
gentilis collisions, given the absolute inefficiency
of camera systems
Suspension bird theoretically insignificant deterioration of
increases
Aegolius decreasing no change increasing increasing getting worse feeding and social conditions in the
insignificantly
funereus adjacent area
Common tern
no change no change no change no change no change no change no change
Alcedo atthis
theoretically insignificant deterioration of
Lesser Spotted not feeding and social conditions in the
increases
Eagle Aquila no change no change no change no change significantly adjacent area, insignificant risk of
insignificantly
pomarina worsening collisions, given the absolute inefficiency
of camera systems
Barn Owl Asio
no change no change no change no change no change no change no change
flammeus
theoretically insignificant deterioration of
increases increases increases
Eel Bubo bubo decreasing no change getting worse feeding and social conditions in the
insignificantly insignificantly insignificantly
adjacent area
Gaigala
increases theoretical risk of collisions with WPP
Bucephala decreasing no change no change increasing no change
insignificantly during off-site flights
clangula
365
Isolation
Disturbance to Changes in
Habitat Population Fragmentation (separation) of a Changes in the patterns and interactions
specially habitat
Bird species area of the density of of the species' species' habitat that determine the structure and function
protected quality of the
species the species habitat from other species of an area
species species
of the same kind
European
theoretical risk of collisions with WPP
nightjar
no change no change no change increasing no change getting worse during off-site flights, altered feeding
Caprimulgus
conditions around WPP
europaeus
not theoretically negligible impact on off-site
White Stork increases
no change no change no change increasing significantly flights, negligible risk of collisions given the
Ciconia ciconia insignificantly
worsening absolute inefficiency of camera systems
theoretically impaired access to feeding
Black Stork increases points due to avoidance, negligible risk of
no change no change increasing increasing getting worse
Ciconia nigra insignificantly collisions given the absolute inefficiency of
camera systems
Reed Bunting
increases negligible risk of collisions, given the
Circus no change no change no change no change no change
insignificantly absolute inefficiency of camera systems
aeruginosus
not
Wood pigeon increases theoretical risk of collisions with WPP
decreasing no change increasing no change significantly
Columba oenas insignificantly during off-site flights
worsening
Common quail
Coturnix no change no change no change no change no change no change no change
coturnix
Grieze Crex crex no change no change no change no change no change no change no change
White-backed
Dendrocopos decreasing no change increasing no change no change no change no change
leucotos
Common
Woodpecker decreasing no change no change no change no change no change no change
Dendrocoptes
366
Isolation
Disturbance to Changes in
Habitat Population Fragmentation (separation) of a Changes in the patterns and interactions
specially habitat
Bird species area of the density of of the species' species' habitat that determine the structure and function
protected quality of the
species the species habitat from other species of an area
species species
of the same kind
medius
Black
not nesting territories of some pairs close to
Woodpecker
decreasing no change increasing no change no change significantly the site boundary will inevitably also be
Dryocopus
worsening submitted in the vicinity of the WPP
martius
Peregrine not theoretically, the presence of WPP will not
increases increases
Falcon Falco decreasing no change increasing significantly significantly alter foraging areas in
insignificantly insignificantly
columbarius worsening adjacent areas
Little Flycatcher
decreasing no change increasing no change no change no change no change
Ficedula parva
Common
decreasing no change no change no change no change no change no change
Gallinago media
The underwing not theoretically insignificant deterioration of
increases increases
net Glaucidium decreasing no change increasing significantly feeding and social conditions in the
insignificantly insignificantly
passerinum worsening adjacent area
theoretically insignificant deterioration of
not feeding and social conditions in the
increases increases
Crane Grus grus decreasing no change increasing significantly adjacent area, insignificant risk of
insignificantly insignificantly
worsening collisions, given the absolute inefficiency
of camera systems
theoretically impaired access to feeding
Sea eagle
points due to avoidance, negligible risk of
Haliaeetus decreasing no change increasing increasing increasing getting worse
collisions given the absolute inefficiency of
albicilla
camera systems
Brown
Chiffchaff Lanius no change no change no change no change no change no change no change
collurio
367
Isolation
Disturbance to Changes in
Habitat Population Fragmentation (separation) of a Changes in the patterns and interactions
specially habitat
Bird species area of the density of of the species' species' habitat that determine the structure and function
protected quality of the
species the species habitat from other species of an area
species species
of the same kind
Sila chickadee possible possible risk of ecological trapping, as the WPP sites
decreasing increasing decreasing getting worse
Lullula arborea increase increase are highly likely to attract this species
The WPP construction sites are potentially
attractive landscapes, as the species
inhabits forest clumps. Due to the
Black grouse infrequent and high flights, the risk of
possible possible
Lyrurus tetrix decreasing no change decreasing improving collisions with wings is assessed as low, but
increase increase
tetrix there are concerns about collisions with
towers. The effect of disturbance on the
location of roosts has not been
demonstrated.
foraging flights in the vicinity of the WPP
Osprey Pandion increases most likely to be affected, negligible risk of
decreasing no change increasing increasing getting worse
haliaetus insignificantly collisions given the absolute inefficiency of
the camera systems
theoretically insignificant deterioration of
feeding and social conditions in the
Gull Pernis increases
decreasing no change increasing increasing getting worse adjacent area, insignificant risk of
apivorus insignificantly
collisions, given the absolute inefficiency
of camera systems
Three-toed
woodpecker increases
decreasing no change increasing no change no change no change
Picoides insignificantly
tridactylus
Grey
Woodpecker decreasing no change increasing no change no change getting worse no change
Picus canus
368
Isolation
Disturbance to Changes in
Habitat Population Fragmentation (separation) of a Changes in the patterns and interactions
specially habitat
Bird species area of the density of of the species' species' habitat that determine the structure and function
protected quality of the
species the species habitat from other species of an area
species species
of the same kind
Yellow Plover
Pluvialis no change no change no change no change no change no change no change
apricaria
Osprey Porzana
no change no change no change no change no change no change no change
porzana
theoretically insignificant deterioration of
Barn Owl Strix increases
decreasing no change increasing increasing getting worse feeding and social conditions in the
uralensis insignificantly
adjacent area
Striped Warbler
no change no change no change no change no change no change no change
Sylvia nisoria
Black grouse
Tetrao tetrix no change no change no change no change no change no change no change
tetrix
theoretically insignificant deterioration of
Woodcock increases
decreasing no change increasing increasing getting worse feeding and social conditions in the
Tetrao urogallus insignificantly
adjacent area
Blackcap
Tetrastes no change no change no change no change no change no change no change
bonasia
Marsh Harrier
no change no change no change no change no change no change no change
Tringa glareola
Ķikuts Gallinago
no change no change no change no change no change no change no change
media
369
Table 7.9.3. Impact assessment on ornithofauna in accordance with Cabinet Regulation No 300 "Procedures for assessing impacts on specially protected nature
areas of European importance (Natura 2000)" DL Sedas bog
Bird species Habitat Population Fragmentation Disturbance to Isolation Changes in Changes in the patterns and interactions
area of the density of of the species' specially (separation) of a habitat that determine the structure and function
species the species habitat protected species' habitat quality of the of an area
species from other species species
of the same kind
Suspension bird decreasing no change increasing increasing increases getting worse theoretically insignificant deterioration of
Aegolius insignificantly feeding and social conditions in the
funereus adjacent area
Common tern no change no change no change no change no change no change no change
Alcedo atthis
Eurasian White- no change no change no change no change no change no change Theoretical, negligible risk of collisions
bellied Anas during migration to Seda. The species is
penelope not characterised by local overflights, but
collisions are possible during long-distance
migrations, given that Seda is an attractive
area
White-fronted no change no change no change increasing increases getting worse local overflight tracks affected in sector D,
goose Anser insignificantly negligible risk of collisions given the non-
albifrons absolute efficiency of the camera systems
White-fronted no change no change no change increasing increases getting worse local overflight tracks affected in sector D,
goose Anser insignificantly negligible risk of collisions given the
fabalis absolute inefficiency of the camera
systems
Golden eagle decreasing no change increasing increasing increases getting worse theoretically insignificant deterioration of
Aquila insignificantly feeding and social conditions in the
chrysaetos adjacent area. It should be stressed that
the golden eagle in Seda is listed in very old
370
Bird species Habitat Population Fragmentation Disturbance to Isolation Changes in Changes in the patterns and interactions
area of the density of of the species' specially (separation) of a habitat that determine the structure and function
species the species habitat protected species' habitat quality of the of an area
species from other species species
of the same kind
sources, unlike the Northern Goshawk
which is not listed, there is a negligible risk
of collisions given the absolute inefficiency
of camera systems
Lesser Spotted no change no change no change no change no change no change negligible risk of collisions, given the
Eagle Aquila absolute inefficiency of camera systems
pomarina
Least Tern decreasing no change increasing increasing increases getting worse theoretically, feeding and social conditions
Bonasa bonasia insignificantly in the adjacent area are not significantly
impaired
Lielais dumpis no change no change no change increases no change not theoretically worsened social conditions
Botaurus insignificantly significantly due to noise pollution. Species migrates at
stellaris worsening night at WPP blade height, theoretical risk
of collisions.
White-fronted no change no change no change increasing increases getting worse local overflight tracks affected in sector D,
goose Branta insignificantly negligible risk of collisions given the
leucopsis absolute inefficiency of the camera
systems
Eel Bubo bubo decreasing no change increases increases increases getting worse theoretically, feeding and social conditions
insignificantly insignificantly insignificantly in the adjacent area are not significantly
impaired
European no change no change no change increasing no change getting worse theoretical risk of collisions with WPP
nightjar during off-site flights, altered feeding
Caprimulgus
371
Bird species Habitat Population Fragmentation Disturbance to Isolation Changes in Changes in the patterns and interactions
area of the density of of the species' specially (separation) of a habitat that determine the structure and function
species the species habitat protected species' habitat quality of the of an area
species from other species species
of the same kind
europaeus conditions around WPP
Black tern no change no change no change no change no change no change theoretical risk of collisions with WPP
Chlidonias niger during off-site flights
White Stork no change no change no change increasing increases not theoretically negligible impact on off-site
Ciconia ciconia insignificantly significantly flights, negligible risk of collisions given the
worsening absolute inefficiency of camera systems
Black Stork no change no change increases increasing increasing getting worse theoretically impaired access to feeding
Ciconia nigra insignificantly points due to avoidance, negligible risk of
collisions given the absolute inefficiency of
camera systems
Reed Bunting no change no change no change increases no change not theoretically insignificant deterioration of
Circus insignificantly significantly feeding and social conditions in the
aeruginosus worsening adjacent area, insignificant risk of
collisions, given the absolute inefficiency of
camera systems
Corncrake Crex no change no change no change no change no change no change no change
crex
Mazais gulbis no change no change no change increasing increases getting worse local overflight tracks affected in sector D,
Cyngus insignificantly negligible risk of collisions given the
columbianus absolute inefficiency of the camera
bewickii systems
372
Bird species Habitat Population Fragmentation Disturbance to Isolation Changes in Changes in the patterns and interactions
area of the density of of the species' specially (separation) of a habitat that determine the structure and function
species the species habitat protected species' habitat quality of the of an area
species from other species species
of the same kind
Northern swan no change no change no change increasing increases getting worse local overflight tracks affected in sector D,
Cygnus cygnus insignificantly negligible risk of collisions given the
absolute inefficiency of the camera
systems
White-backed decreasing no change increasing no change no change no change no change
Dendrocopos
leucotos
Black decreasing no change increasing no change no change not nesting territories of some pairs close to
Woodpecker significantly the site boundary will inevitably also be
Dryocopus worsening submitted in the vicinity of the VES
martius
Common decreasing no change no change no change no change no change no change
Gallinago
media
Crane Grus grus decreasing no change increasing increasing increasing getting worse theoretically insignificant deterioration of
feeding and social conditions in the
adjacent area during breeding, local
flyways in sector D will be affected during
migration, insignificant risk of collisions
given the absolute inefficiency of camera
systems
Sea eagle decreasing no change increasing increasing increases getting worse theoretically insignificant deterioration of
Haliaeetus insignificantly feeding and social conditions in the
albicilla adjacent area, insignificant risk of
373
Bird species Habitat Population Fragmentation Disturbance to Isolation Changes in Changes in the patterns and interactions
area of the density of of the species' specially (separation) of a habitat that determine the structure and function
species the species habitat protected species' habitat quality of the of an area
species from other species species
of the same kind
collisions, given the absolute inefficiency of
camera systems
Little gull no change no change no change no change no change no change theoretical risk of collisions with WPP
Hydrocoloeus during off-site flights
minutus
Brown no change no change no change no change no change no change no change
Chiffchaff
Lanius collurio
Sila chickadee possible possible decreasing increasing decreasing getting worse risk of ecological trapping, as the WPP sites
Lullula arborea increase increase are highly likely to attract this species
Black grouse possible possible decreasing no change decreasing improving The WPP construction sites are potentially
Lyrurus tetrix increase increase attractive landscapes, as the species
tetrix inhabits forest clumps. Due to the
infrequent and high flights, the risk of
collisions with wings is assessed as low, but
there are concerns about collisions with
towers. The effect of disturbance on the
location of roosts has not been
demonstrated.
374
Bird species Habitat Population Fragmentation Disturbance to Isolation Changes in Changes in the patterns and interactions
area of the density of of the species' specially (separation) of a habitat that determine the structure and function
species the species habitat protected species' habitat quality of the of an area
species from other species species
of the same kind
Lesser Black- no change no change no change no change no change no change theoretical, negligible risk of collisions
backed Gull during migration to Seda. The species is
Mergellus not characterised by local overflights, but
albellus collisions are possible during long-distance
migrations, given that Seda is an attractive
area
Osprey Pandion decreasing no change increasing increasing increases getting worse foraging flights in the vicinity of the WPP
haliaetus insignificantly most likely to be affected, negligible risk of
collisions given the absolute inefficiency of
the camera systems
Gull Pernis decreasing no change increasing increasing increases getting worse theoretically insignificant deterioration of
apivorus insignificantly feeding and social conditions in the
adjacent area, insignificant risk of
collisions, given the absolute inefficiency of
camera systems
Gugatnis no change no change no change no change no change no change theoretical, negligible risk of collisions
Philomachus during migration to Seda. The species is
pugnax not characterised by local overflights, but
collisions are possible during long-distance
migrations, given that Seda is an attractive
area
Three-toed no change no change no change no change no change no change no change
woodpecker
Picoides
375
Bird species Habitat Population Fragmentation Disturbance to Isolation Changes in Changes in the patterns and interactions
area of the density of of the species' specially (separation) of a habitat that determine the structure and function
species the species habitat protected species' habitat quality of the of an area
species from other species species
of the same kind
tridactylus
Lesser Spotted no change no change no change no change no change no change no change
Owl Porzana
parva
Osprey Porzana no change no change no change no change no change no change no change
porzana
River tern no change no change no change no change no change no change theoretical risk of collisions with WPP
Sterna hirundo during off-site flights
Black grouse no change no change no change no change no change no change no change
Tetrao tetrix
tetrix
Blackcap no change no change no change no change no change no change no change
Tetrastes
bonasia
Marsh Harrier no change no change no change no change no change no change no change
Tringa glareola
376
Table 7.9.4. Impact assessment on ornithofauna in accordance with Cabinet Regulation No 300 "Procedure for assessing the impact on specially protected nature
sites of European importance (Natura 2000)" DL Burgas meadows
Bird species Habitat Population Fragmentation Disturbance to Isolation Changes in Changes in the patterns and interactions that
area of density of of the species' specially (separation) of a habitat determine the structure and function of an
the the species habitat protected species' habitat quality of the area
species species from other species
species of the
same kind
Common tern Alcedo no no change no change no change no change no change no change
atthis change
Lesser Spotted Eagle no no change no change increases no change not theoretically insignificant deterioration of
Aquila pomarina change insignificantly significantly feeding and social conditions in the adjacent
worsening area, insignificant risk of collisions, given the
absolute inefficiency of camera systems
Barn Owl Asio no no change no change no change no change no change no change
flammeus change
European nightjar no no change no change no change no change no change no change
Caprimulgus change
europaeus
White Stork Ciconia no no change no change no change no change no change Theoretical negligible risk of collisions during
ciconia change migrations due to the absolute inefficiency of
camera systems
Reed Bunting Circus no no change no change no change no change no change no change
aeruginosus change
Corncrake Crex crex no no change no change no change no change no change no change
change
Great snipe no no change no change no change no change no change no change
Gallinago media change
377
Bird species Habitat Population Fragmentation Disturbance to Isolation Changes in Changes in the patterns and interactions that
area of density of of the species' specially (separation) of a habitat determine the structure and function of an
the the species habitat protected species' habitat quality of the area
species species from other species
species of the
same kind
Crane Grus grus no no change no change no change no change no change Theoretically, local overflight routes between
change feeding and roosting sites during migration are
affected, but so far these routes have not
been found to pass through the area of the
planned wind farm
Brown Chiffchaff no no change no change no change no change no change no change
Lanius collurio change
Gull Pernis apivorus no no change no change increases no change not theoretically insignificant deterioration of
change insignificantly significantly feeding and social conditions in the adjacent
worsening area, insignificant risk of collisions, given the
absolute inefficiency of camera systems
Osprey Porzana no no change no change no change no change no change no change
porzana change
Black grouse Tetrao no no change no change no change no change no change no change
tetrix tetrix change
Marsh Harrier Tringa no no change no change no change no change no change no change
glareola change
378
Table 7.9.5. Impact assessment on ornithofauna in accordance with Cabinet Regulation No 300 "Procedures for assessing the impact on specially protected nature
areas of European importance (Natura 2000)" DL Bulvaras riests
Bird species Habitat area Population Fragmentation of Disturbance to Isolation (separation) of a Changes in Changes in the patterns and
of the species density of the the species' specially species' habitat from habitat quality interactions that determine
species habitat protected species other species of the same of the species the structure and function of
kind an area
theoretically, feeding and
Woodcock
social conditions in the
Tetrao decreasing no change increasing increasing increases insignificantly getting worse
adjacent area are not
urogallus
significantly impaired
379
Summary of the assessment of impacts on Natura 2000 sites
Tables 7.9.6 to 7.9.8 provide a summary assessment of the impacts on species (excluding birds)
and habitats in Natura 2000 sites in accordance with Cabinet Regulation No 300 "Procedures
for assessing the impact on Specially Protected Nature Areas of European Importance (Natura
2000)".
Separate assessments are provided for the Special Protection Areas "Ziemeļgauja" (Table
7.8.6) and "Bulvāra riests" (Table 7.8.7), while the assessments for the DL "Sedas purvs", DL
"Burgas pļavas" and ML "Eston riests" are summarised in a single table, as the proposed action
does not directly affect any of the three Special Protection Areas (Table 7.8.8).
Table 7.9.6. Impact assessment of the Northern Gauja SPA according to the Natura 2000 impact
assessment criteria for species and protected habitats in the area
No. Planned trend of the project
Criteria Indicator
p.k.
1. Habitat area of Change in habitat area (as a result of the The areas of habitats and species
the specially Proposed Action) (ha) and ratio (%) vs: habitats remain unchanged if the cable
protected routes are selected in the case of
habitat or Alternatives B or B', the AAA
species "Ziemeļgauja" along Gailīšu Road is
planned on the side of the road where
no habitats have been identified317 -
6270* Species-rich grassland and
grazed meadows and 91D0* Swamp
forests and habitats of the SPA species
Baltic Cuckoo Dactylorhiza baltica.
In the case of alternatives A or A', the
North Curonian Spit is not affected.
1. the habitat area of the habitat or Plant species and habitats remain
species in the Natura 2000 site unchanged under all alternatives as
they are not directly affected.
For bird species, see Table 7.8.2 for
changes in habitat area
2) habitat areas of the habitat or species Plant species and habitats remain
in Natura 2000 sites in Latvia as a whole unchanged under all alternatives as
they are not directly affected.
For bird species, see Table 7.8.2 for
changes in habitat area
3) the total area of habitat of the habitat Plant species and habitats remain
or species in the country unchanged under all alternatives as
they are not directly affected.
For bird species, see Table 7.8.2 for
317
According to the conclusions of the habitat expert (see species and habitat expert opinion in Annex
4), the construction of the cable route in the area of the Northern Gauja SPA is feasible without
destroying the habitats and the site of the SPA species: "impacts on protected habitats and species sites
in the SPA can be fully avoided by choosing to locate the cable route on the opposite side of the road
from the habitats and species sites".
380
No. Planned trend of the project
Criteria Indicator
p.k.
changes in habitat area
(4) the area of habitat of the habitat or Plant species and habitats remain
species in the Natura 2000 network of unchanged under all alternatives as
sites in the European Union as a whole they are not directly affected.
For bird species, see Table 7.8.2 for
changes in habitat area
2. Population Changes in population density No change, as plant species and
density of the habitats would not be affected under
specially all alternatives.
protected
For bird species, see Table 7.8.2.
species
3. Fragmentation Fragmentation relative to the initial The degree, continuity or permanence
of habitats of state. of habitat fragmentation relative to the
specially baseline would remain unchanged
protected under all alternatives, as no direct or
habitats or indirect effects are expected as a result
species of the Proposed Action. The proposed
action will not affect SPA habitat
polygons in Natura 2000 sites, so no
habitat fragmentation effects are
expected.
An assessment of habitat
fragmentation for bird species is given
in Table 7.8.2.
4. Disturbance to Vascular plant species No change. The proposed action will
specially not affect the vascular plant species of
protected the SPA in Natura 2000 sites under all
species alternatives.
The disturbance to SPA bird species is
assessed in Table 7.8.2.
5. Isolation The isolation of the most important No change.
(separation) of habitats protected by Natura 2000 sites
The location of the ecosystems will not
the habitat or from other habitats of the same type is
be affected by the implementation of
habitat of the determined by the location of the
the proposed action under all
specially corresponding ecosystems
alternatives.
protected
The isolation (remoteness) of habitats
species from An assessment of the habitat isolation
will not change as the isolation of the
other habitats or (separation) of the bird species from
most important protected habitats of the
habitats of the other species of the same type is given
Natura 2000 site from other habitats of
same kind in Table 7.8.2.
the same type is determined by the
location of appropriate ecosystems (e.g.
active areas of raised bogs) which will
not be affected by the implementation
of the Proposed Action.
6. Changes in the No changes in the quality of specially No change.
habitat quality protected habitats are expected as a
Under all alternatives, no changes in
(structures and result of the implementation of the
the quality of specially protected
381
No. Planned trend of the project
Criteria Indicator
p.k.
functions) of the Proposed Action, as the Proposed Action habitats are expected as a result of the
specially is not expected to affect the quality of implementation of the Proposed
protected habitats in Natura 2000 sites. Action, as no impacts on the quality of
habitat or habitats in nearby Natura 2000 sites
species are expected. In Natura 2000 sites in
the vicinity of the Proposed Action,
significant effects are due to localised
conditions and factors within the SPA,
such as historical use and management
of the site or changes to the
hydrological regime within these
Natura 2000 sites.
7. Changes in the Degree of fragmentation, continuity or No change.
patterns and permanence relative to the initial state.
Under all alternatives, no changes in
interactions that
the patterns and interactions that
determine the
determine the structure and function
structure and
of the sites are expected, as the effects
function of an
of the Proposed Action are not
area
expected to alter the hydrological,
geological or other conditions that
characterise the site, nor are they
expected to have a significant effect on
potential migration corridors
orstepping stones for species.
An assessment of changes in the
patterns and interactions that
determine the structure and function
of the site in the context of bird species
is given in Table 7.8.2.
Table 7.9.7. Impact assessment on ML "Bulvāra riests" according to the criteria for Natura 2000
impact assessment on species and protected habitats in the area
No. Planned trend of the project
Criteria Indicator
p.k.
1. Habitat area of Change in habitat area (as a result of the No change in habitats and species
the specially Proposed Action) (ha) and ratio (%) vs: habitat areas if under Alternatives B or
protected B' the cable route along ML
habitat or "Boulevard bundle" is selected, plan
species on the side of the Boulevard road
where no habitat is found318 - 9010*
Old or natural boreal forests.
In the case of alternatives A or A', ML
318
According to the conclusions of the habitat expert (see species and habitat expert opinion in Annex
4), the construction of the cable route along the territory of ML "Bulvāra riests" is possible without
destroying the habitat: "the impact on the protected habitats in the SPA can be fully avoided by
choosing to locate the cable route on the opposite side of the road from the habitats".
382
No. Planned trend of the project
Criteria Indicator
p.k.
"Boulevard bay" is not affected.
1. the habitat area of the habitat or Plant species and habitats remain
species in the Natura 2000 site unchanged under all alternatives as
they are not directly affected.
For bird species, see Table 7.8.5 for
changes in habitat area
2) habitat areas of the habitat or species Plant species and habitats remain
in Natura 2000 sites in Latvia as a whole unchanged under all alternatives as
they are not directly affected.
For bird species, see Table 7.8.5 for
changes in habitat area
3) the total area of habitat of the habitat Plant species and habitats remain
or species in the country unchanged under all alternatives as
they are not directly affected.
For bird species, see Table 7.8.5 for
changes in habitat area
(4) the area of habitat of the habitat or Plant species and habitats remain
species in the Natura 2000 network of unchanged under all alternatives as
sites in the European Union as a whole they are not directly affected.
For bird species, see Table 7.8.5 for
changes in habitat area
2. Population Changes in population density No change, as plant species and
density of the habitats would not be affected under
specially all alternatives.
protected
For bird species, see Table 7.8.5 for
species
changes in population density.
3. Fragmentation Fragmentation relative to the initial The degree, continuity or permanence
of habitats of state. of habitat fragmentation relative to the
specially baseline would remain unchanged
protected under all alternatives, as no direct or
habitats or indirect effects are expected as a result
species of the Proposed Action. The proposed
action will not affect SPA habitat
polygons in Natura 2000 sites, so no
habitat fragmentation effects are
expected.
An assessment of habitat
fragmentation for bird species is given
in Table 7.8.5.
4. Disturbance to Vascular plant species No change. Under all alternatives, the
specially proposed action will not affect vascular
protected plant species of SPAs in Natura 2000
species sites.
Disturbance to SPA bird species is
383
No. Planned trend of the project
Criteria Indicator
p.k.
assessed in Table 7.8.5.
5. Isolation The isolation of the most important No change.
(separation) of habitats protected by Natura 2000 sites
The location of the ecosystems will not
the habitat or from other habitats of the same type is
be affected by the implementation of
habitat of the determined by the location of the
the proposed action under all
specially corresponding ecosystems
alternatives.
protected
The isolation (remoteness) of habitats
species from An assessment of the habitat isolation
will not change as the isolation of the
other habitats or (separation) of the bird species from
most important protected habitats of the
habitats of the other species of the same type is given
Natura 2000 site from other habitats of
same kind in Table 7.8.5.
the same type is determined by the
location of appropriate ecosystems (e.g.
active areas of raised bogs) which will
not be affected by the implementation
of the Proposed Action.
6. Changes in the No changes in the quality of specially No change.
habitat quality protected habitats are expected as a
Under all alternatives, no changes in
(structures and result of the implementation of the
the quality of specially protected
functions) of the Proposed Action, as the Proposed Action
habitats are expected as a result of the
specially is not expected to affect the quality of
implementation of the Proposed
protected habitats in Natura 2000 sites.
Action, as no impacts on the quality of
habitat or
habitats in nearby Natura 2000 sites
species
are expected. In Natura 2000 sites in
the vicinity of the Proposed Action,
significant effects are due to localised
conditions and factors within the SPA,
such as historical use and management
of the site or changes to the
hydrological regime within these
Natura 2000 sites.
7. Changes in the Degree of fragmentation, continuity or No change.
patterns and permanence relative to the initial state.
Under all alternatives, no changes in
interactions that
the patterns and interactions that
determine the
determine the structure and function
structure and
of the sites are expected, as the effects
function of an
of the Proposed Action are not
area
expected to alter the hydrological,
geological or other conditions that
characterise the site, nor are they
expected to have a significant effect on
potential migration corridors
orstepping stones for species.
An assessment of changes in the
patterns and interactions that
determine the structure and function
of the site in the context of bird species
is given in Table 7.8.5.
384
Table 7.9.8. Impact assessment of the DL Sedas bogs, DL Burgas meadows and the micro-reserve
Estonian grouse, according to the criteria for Natura 2000 impact assessment on species and
protected biotopes in the area
No. Criteria Indicator Planned trend of the project
1. Habitat area of Change in habitat area (as a result of the The areas of habitats and species
the specially Proposed Action) (ha) and ratio (%) vs: habitats in the nature reserves "Sedas
protected purvs" and "Burgas pļavas" and the
habitat or micro-reserve "Estonian riests" remain
species unchanged, as the proposed action
does not directly affect any of the three
SSSIs.
1. the habitat area of the habitat or Plant species and habitats remain
species in the Natura 2000 site unchanged under all alternatives as
they are not directly affected.
For bird species, see Tables 7.8.3 and
7.8.4 for changes in habitat area
2) habitat areas of the habitat or species Plant species and habitats remain
in Natura 2000 sites in Latvia as a whole unchanged under all alternatives as
they are not directly affected.
For bird species, see Tables 7.8.3 and
7.8.4 for changes in habitat area
3) the total area of habitat of the habitat Plant species and habitats remain
or species in the country unchanged under all alternatives as
they are not directly affected.
For bird species, see Tables 7.8.3 and
7.8.4 for changes in habitat area
(4) the area of habitat of the habitat or Plant species and habitats remain
species in the Natura 2000 network of unchanged under all alternatives as
sites in the European Union as a whole they are not directly affected.
For bird species, see Tables 7.8.3 and
7.8.4 for changes in habitat area
2. Population Changes in population density No change, as plant species and
density of the habitats would not be affected under
specially all alternatives.
protected For bird species, see Tables 7.8.3 and
species 7.8.4 for changes in population density.
3. Fragmentation Fragmentation relative to the initial The degree, continuity or permanence
of habitats of state. of habitat fragmentation relative to the
specially baseline would remain unchanged
protected under all alternatives, as no direct or
habitats or indirect effects are expected as a result
species of the Proposed Action. The proposed
action will not affect SPA habitat
polygons in Natura 2000 sites, so no
habitat fragmentation effects are
expected.
An assessment of habitat
fragmentation for bird species is given
in Tables 7.8.3 and 7.8.4.
4. Disturbance to Vascular plant species No change. Under all alternatives, the
specially proposed action will not affect vascular
protected plant species of SPAs in Natura 2000
species sites.
Disturbance to SPA bird species is
385
No. Criteria Indicator Planned trend of the project
assessed in Tables 7.8.3 and 7.8.4.
5. Isolation The isolation of the most important No change.
(separation) of habitats protected by Natura 2000 sites The location of the ecosystems will not
the habitat or from other habitats of the same type is be affected by the implementation of
habitat of the determined by the location of the the proposed action under all
specially corresponding ecosystems alternatives.
protected The isolation (remoteness) of habitats An assessment of the habitat isolation
species from will not change as the isolation of the (separation) of bird species from other
other habitats or most important protected habitats of the species of the same type is given in
habitats of the Natura 2000 site from other habitats of Tables 7.8.3 and 7.8.4.
same kind the same type is determined by the
location of appropriate ecosystems (e.g.
active areas of raised bogs) which will
not be affected by the implementation
of the Proposed Action.
6. Changes in the No changes in the quality of specially No change.
habitat quality protected habitats are expected as a Under all alternatives, no changes in
(structures and result of the implementation of the the quality of specially protected
functions) of the Proposed Action, as the Proposed Action habitats are expected as a result of the
specially is not expected to affect the quality of implementation of the Proposed
protected habitats in Natura 2000 sites. Action, as no impacts on the quality of
habitat or habitats in nearby Natura 2000 sites
species are expected. In Natura 2000 sites in
the vicinity of the Proposed Action,
significant effects are likely to arise
from localised conditions and factors
within the SPA, such as historical use
and management of the site or changes
to the hydrological regime within these
Natura 2000 sites.
7. Changes in the Degree of fragmentation, continuity or No change.
patterns and permanence relative to the initial state. Under all alternatives, no changes in
interactions that the patterns and interactions that
determine the determine the structure and function
structure and of the sites are expected, as the effects
function of an of the Proposed Action are not
area expected to alter the hydrological,
geological or other conditions that
characterise the site, nor are they
expected to have a significant effect on
potential migration corridors
orstepping stones for species.
An assessment of changes in the
patterns and interactions that
determine the structure and function
of the site in the context of bird species
is given in Tables 7.8.3 and 7.8.4.
Taking into account that the planned construction of the wind farm does not directly affect any
Natura 2000 sites and that the planned construction of the WPP will not cause additional
drainage effect, it can be concluded that the implementation of the action will not have direct
or indirect negative impacts on adjacent areas, including on Latvian or EU specially protected
habitats in specially protected nature areas - Natura 2000 sites. The implementation of the
386
proposed action is not expected to exacerbate the negative impacts identified for the Natura
2000 site, namely drainage and changes in species composition due to vegetation succession.
However, it can be concluded that several bird species are likely to decrease their habitat area
(outside Natura 2000 sites), the population density of bird species in the assessed Natura 2000
sites will remain generally unchanged, and some species are likely to increase, e.g. Ruben and
Sanderling. Habitat fragmentation will remain unchanged for most SPA bird species, but is
expected to change for a number of species, with a marginal increase in fragmentation, e.g. for
the Black Stork. In relation to changes in the patterns and interactions that determine the
structure and function of the site, it is concluded that for several species, such as the Lesser
Spotted Eagle, the Osprey, the theoretical deterioration of feeding and social conditions in the
adjacent area is insignificant and, given the absolute inefficiency of the camera system, the risk
of collisions is negligible. Species such as damselflies and shrews will experience a slight
deterioration in feeding and social conditions in the adjacent area. Disturbance to bird species
flying from the Northern Gauja AAP to the Seda Marsh Nature Reserve will increase, but this
cannot be predicted at this time.
Overall, it can be concluded that, as no significant adverse effects are expected on the habitats
and species protected by Natura 2000 sites, no significant effects are expected:
• to the objectives of establishing and protecting the Natura 2000 sites referred
to above;
• factors that have already affected these areas prior to the implementation of
the Proposed Action;
• the role of sites in the coherence of the Natura 2000 network nationally and in
the biogeographical region.
There is a possibility that the proposed activity will cause disturbance to bird species in the
"Ziemeļgauja" SPA, "Sedas purvs" DL and "Bulvāra riests" ML Ornithofauna. All three of these
sites are designated for the protection of rare habitats and species, including birds, and
therefore.
The current nature management plans available for the Natura 2000 sites adjacent to the area
of the Proposed Action at319320 do not assess the conservation objectives for the bird species of
these sites. Conservation targets can be set at the existing level, but it should be noted that
the bird species data for the Natura 2000 sites adjacent to the area of the Proposed Action are
from 2005-2006, when the nature management plans currently in force were drawn up.
Identification and description of cumulative impacts
In terms of cumulative impacts, the following factors have been assessed:
1) Location of the proposed activity and expected cumulative impact
with other wind farms in Latvia and the immediate surroundings in
northern Latvia
The types of impacts that could overlap with other WPP parks could be related to noise,
changes in the hydrological regime, landscape impacts, impacts on bird species.
In Latvia, there are 82 WPP parks with environmental impact assessments (EIAs) applied
for/underway/ongoing/completed at various stages of development (see Figure 14.1, Chapter
14) with a total onshore capacity of ~12 GW (excluding those that have been discontinued).
There are no wind farms built in the northern part of Latvia, but there are wind farms for
319
https://www.daba.gov.lv/lv/sedas-purvs
320
https://www.daba.gov.lv/lv/ziemelgauja
387
which environmental impact assessments have been carried out or are in various stages of
preparation; information on their location in relation to the Valmiera-Valka wind park is given
in Figure 3.5 in Chapter 3.2. The assessment of the cumulative environmental impacts of wind
farms is based on publicly available information on these wind farms. The closest wind park is
the Valka Wind Park, which borders the area of the Proposed Action to the north, between the
Valmiera-Valka Wind Park and the town of Valka. In June 2024, an EIA procedure was launched
for the Valka WPP Park321, where up to 15 WPPs are to be built, but it is currently not possible
to predict how this project will develop.
In the context of bird protection, cumulative impacts may arise, especially if the Valka wind
park is built. However, in the view of the EIA report's authors, it is not currently possible to
carry out a full assessment of cumulative impacts on bird conservation, as it is not possible to
establish unequivocally that such impacts will occur or that all or all of the construction plans
will be implemented.
In the context of the implementation of the proposed activity and the planned surveys,
according to anecdotal information, a certified expert is assessing the situation of the Lesser
Spotted Eagle in the Valka Wind Park in the forest area near VV92 and VV67 during the 2024
breeding season as part of the micro-reserve application. An expert opinion on the proposed
Lesser Spotted Eagle micro-reserve should be awaited in order to be able to judge the further
recommended development of this part of the wind park from an ornithological point of view.
2) Location of the proposed activity and expected cumulative impact
with solar parks in the immediate vicinity in the northern part of
Latvia.
The types of impacts that could overlap with solar parks could be related to impacts on
landscape and bird species.
At Valka, about 4 km from the nearest WPPs - VV51 and VV67 - Evecon Ltd has purchased land
and plans to install a solar park with a capacity of up to 3 MW, which in terms of area could be
about 5 ha with solar panels322. The Lugazi fields, located in the immediate vicinity of the
future solar park, are a permanent site for cranes and a relatively permanent site for
geese/swans in spring/fall. The Sun Park reduces the area of this bird feeding site. Reed
bunting, lapwing, fieldfare, peregrine falcon - all species that use open areas as
feeding/nesting sites will be affected, but this will depend on the specific location and whether
the project is implemented.
In the assessment of the EIA report preparers, there is currently no information available to
carry out a full assessment of cumulative impacts in the context of impacts on landscape and
bird populations, as it is not possible to state unequivocally that such impacts will occur or that
all construction proposals will be implemented or fully implemented.
3) Location of the proposed activity and expected cumulative impacts
with forestry activities.
Types of impacts that could overlap with forestry activities include site fragmentation (outside
Natura 2000 sites), deforestation (reducing foraging areas).
321
https://www.vpvb.gov.lv/lv/ietekmes-uz-vidi-novertejumu-projekti/veja-parka-valka-un-ta-saistitas-
infrastrukturas-buvnieciba-valkas-novada-valkas-pagasta-sia-ewe-neue-energien-1
322
https://www.valka.lv/lv/jaunums/saules-panelu-parks-bus-ari-valkas-
novada?utm_source=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2F and
https://ziemellatvija.lv/elektribas-ieguve-ar-saules-paneliem-nakotne-ari-latvija-tostarp-valka/
388
A comparison of data published on Globalforestwatch323 the land cover of the Valmiera-Valka
WPP is divided into natural forests (7.14 thousand ha), planted forests (7.68 thousand ha) and
other land uses (1.46 thousand ha) (Figure 7.9.1).
Figure 7.9.1. WPP “Valmiera-Valka" land cover according to Global forest watch data.
Comparing the data published on the portal, it can be concluded that in the period from 2001
to 2023, the LVM area of the Valmiera-Valka WPP decreased forest cover by 4190 ha or 28% of
the total area (Figure 7.9.2).
Figure 7.9.2. Reduction of forest cover in the area of LVM lands of the Valmiera-Valka WPP in
the period 2001-2023
Figure 7.9.3 provides a visual representation of the changes in forest land in the Valmiera-Valka
WPP in 2001, 2010, 2020 and 2023. The area of forest stands in the LVM area of VPP Valmiera-
Valka increased by 5.8% or 949 ha between 2000 and 2020, the increase is shown in the map
fragment for 2023.
323
https://www.globalforestwatch.org/ an online platform that provides data on forest use around the
world using modern remote sensing and analysis technologies, the portal allows anyone to get
information on where and how forest cover is changing around the world
389
Figure 7.9.3. Changes in forest land in the Valmiera-Valka WPP (2001, 2010, 2020 and 2023)324
Mitigation measures for Natura 2000 sites
Overall, based on the expert assessment of habitats, vascular plant species, invertebrates, the
Proposed Action does not pose a threat to the conservation objectives of protected areas in
terms of ensuring a favourable level of protection for protected habitats of EU importance or
to the integrity of protected areas at either local or regional level.
In relation to the assessment of impacts on bird species, it should be noted that although the
Proposed Action is planned outside the boundaries of Natura 2000 sites, it is surrounded by
several Natura 2000 sites that are also sites of importance for birds, DL "Sedas purvs" and AAP
"Ziemeļgauja".
For some species, the potential impacts of the proposed WPP cannot be separated into Natura
2000 sites and non Natura 2000 sites due to the ecology of these bird species and the
ecological integrity of the sites with adjacent areas, while for the remaining species, no
significant impacts of the proposed WPP on the breeding populations of these species in the
two large Natura 2000 sites - Seda Marsh and North Gauja - can be identified for any of the
species. The already minor impacts will be reduced by the proposed mitigation measures for
the NPPF (see Chapter 7.6.3 and summary in Table 7.9.9.).
Table 7.9.9. Impact on Natura 2000 sites mitigation measures325
Event Conditions to be taken into account
Project conception dossier
1. Infrastructure design The cable route connection from the Alternative B
location to the substation is planned along the A6 road,
324
https://www.globalforestwatch.org/
325
The actions are defined using recommendations from the Guidelines for wind energy projects and EU
nature legislation, Commission Communication C (2020) 7730 final, Brussels, 18.11.2020.
390
Event Conditions to be taken into account
Project conception dossier
connecting to the substation using the connection that
would be made in the case of the Alternative A group
WPP connection.
If in the case of WPP park alternatives B or B' it is
chosen to construct the cable routes in the NATURA
2000 area AAA "Ziemeļgauja" along the Gailīšu road,
then they should be planned on the side of the road
where no biotopes have been found - 6270* Species-
rich pastures and grazed meadows and 91D0* Bog
forests and habitats of the SPA species Dactylorhiza
baltica (Baltic cuckoo fritillary).
2. WPP siting planning - The location of WPP VV28 needs to be clarified at the
design stage, as it is currently too close to the planned
micro-reserve for the apodice.
- Further information is awaited following
investigations carried out in adjacent areas. WPP VV49,
VV50, VV51, VV64, VV66, VV67 may be affected by the
establishment of a micro-reserve for the lesser spotted
eagle
Pre-construction phase
1. Pre-construction For the monitoring of nesting birds, the "Methodology
monitoring of nesting birds for the study of the Wind Farm and the preparation of
an Expert Opinion" used in the initial study of the site
shall be used as a basis 326
2. Pre-construction Monitoring must be agreed with the competent
monitoring of soaring birds authority.
3. Pre-construction Monitoring must be agreed with the competent
monitoring of migratory authority.
bird species
4. Ambient noise It is also recommended that at least one year of
measurements ambient noise measurements be carried out before the
wind farm is put into operation, so that they can be
compared with measurements during the lifetime of
the wind farm.
As studies on the effects of noise from VES on Ural
Owls (Strix uralensis) are controversial (see Chapter
7.6.2), pre-construction monitoring of this species
should be carried out to assess the potential noise
disturbance from WPP. This includes studying bird
behaviour and adapting the operation of the WPP to
326
Ūlands, D., Millers, K. 2022. Methodology for the Wind Farm Study and the Expert Report
391
Event Conditions to be taken into account
Project conception dossier
the observed data.
5. Natura 2000 bird species The need for Natura 2000 monitoring of bird species in
monitoring the two Natura 2000 sites adjacent to the site to enable
a qualitative assessment of the potential impact of the
proposed wind farm on them.
6. Choosing the best available - When selecting WPP turbines, project
alternative promoters should choose WPP turbines that comply
with the noise limits.
- Taking into account the results of the pre-
construction monitoring of bird species, one of the two
scenarios VV1, VV82/VV42, VV36 should be chosen;
the expert recommends to abandon VV1 and VV82,
unless there are some technological reasons why it
would be better to abandon VV42 and VV36.
Conditions/restrictions during the construction period
1. Restrictions on the Harvesting is to be carried out from 1 September to 1
construction of a WPP and February, and it is recommended that no work
an assembly and service involving increased noise and artificial light emissions is
yard planned between 1 February and 1 July;
Falls >25 cm diameter need to be retained and moved
to adjacent stands.
2. Restrictions on Cable routes to be built without felling trees in habitat
construction of access road, areas
electricity cable route
Operating period restrictions/conditions
1. For bird conservation FOR ALL
Install WPP suspension camera systems;
In line with the results of the pre-construction
monitoring, assess the current proposals -
(1) For the protection of soaring birds, during the
period from 1 April to 1 October, the operation of
WPPs shall be suspended from one hour before to one
hour after local sunrise and sunset,
(2) To protect migratory birds in flocks, suspend the
operation of the WPP from 15 February to 15 May and
from 1 September to 15 November,
(3) comply with owl protection measures (noise
restrictions),
(4) to prevent the 'flicker' effect from WPP VV16 un
VV46 on the rookeries between 1 April and 15 May
between sunrise and 4 hours after sunrise
ALL VV20, 21, 24, 26,28, 30, 31, 32, 33, 81, 88 :
392
Event Conditions to be taken into account
Project conception dossier
If a potential Black Stork nest is found, the WPP is
located in an area where the breeding site qualifies as a
site of long-term importance for the conservation of
the population, the WPP cannot be operated.
2. For the protection of bats FOR ALL
Install WPP suspension camera systems;
Suspension or non-activity from 1 May to 30
September during the night from sunset to sunrise if:
1) wind speed at turbine rotor height is 6 m/s or less,
2) air temperature above6°C,
3) rainfall does not exceed 1 mm/h, Depending on the
results of the monitoring, the restrictions could be
revised - lifted altogether, relaxed or strengthened
3. Monitoring of bird species The results of the monitoring shall be submitted to the
competent authority. Based on the results of the bird
monitoring, additional conditions may be imposed to
mitigate the impacts of the proposed operation during
the operation of the wind farm. If monitoring measures
show that mitigation measures are ineffective, the
competent authorities may also decide that
compensatory measures are necessary.
4. Inventory of birds killed in The results of the inventory shall be submitted to the
collisions competent authority.
5. Bat monitoring Acoustic monitoring with ultrasonic detectors. Based
on the results of bat species monitoring, additional
conditions may be imposed to mitigate the impacts of
the proposed operation during the operation of the
wind farm. Where monitoring measures demonstrate
an impact the ineffectiveness of mitigation measures,
the competent authorities may also decide on the need
to implement compensatory measures.
6. Inventory of dead bats The results of the inventory shall be submitted to the
competent authority.
Summarising the assessment of impacts on Natura 2000 sites, it can be concluded that no
specific mitigation measures are currently identified as necessary in accordance with the
Cabinet of Ministers Regulation of 19 April 2011 No 300 "Procedure for assessing impacts on a
Specially Protected Nature Area of European Importance (Natura 2000)".
393
7.10. Summary of mitigation measures
A summary of the mitigation measures for the WPP included in the recommended alternative
EIAs at the design, construction, operation stages is attached as Annex 12 (electronic excel file
due to its size ).
Table excel in Annex 12 describes all identified impacts (non-significant and adverse) for each
WPP turbine separately, e.g. for WPP No VV81, adverse impacts were identified for the WPP
and crew area on birds - black stork feeding area, owls, as well as on landscape - impact on the
cultural landscape of Seda from the town centre and impact from the Captain Irv monument.
The table also indicates the mitigation measures identified by the experts for each turbine, e.g.
the landscape expert indicates that the maximum height (including wings) of WPP turbine No
VV81 is 250 metres. The ornithologist recommends that this WPP should be relocated with the
prior agreement of the habitat expert.
It also gives the expert constraints for each WPP, the installation and maintenance area, as
well as the access roads and power cable routes, both during construction and operation.
During the construction period of the WPP and the assembly service area, for example, the
ornithologist has set a condition for the protection of birds in the context of the negative
impact of turbine VV1: logging should be carried out between 1 September and 1 February,
and it is recommended that no work involving increased noise and artificial light emissions
should be planned between 1 February and 1 July. However, the same turbine (VV1) has been
restricted by an ornithologist during operation: Install WPP stop camera systems - assess
current proposals in line with pre-construction monitoring results: (1) stopping WPP around
sunrise/sunset to protect soaring birds (from 1 April to 1 October), (2) observing owl
protection measures (noise restrictions).
Regarding compliance with the dailyADI values recommended in the WHO guidelines:
− For VPPs VV88, VV85, VV84, VV47, VV46, VV37, VV21, VV16 under Alternative A,
mitigation measures to be implemented include: when selecting VPPs, the project
promoter should select WPPs with noise emissions that comply with WHO
recommendations, install WPPs with the lowest possible noise emissions and
aerodynamically improved wings;
− In the case of Alternative B for WPPs VV88, VV85, VV84, VV66, VV47, VV46, VV37,
VV21, VV16, mitigation measures should be implemented: when selecting WPPs, the
project promoter should select WPPs with noise emissions in line with WHO
recommendations, install WPPs with the lowest possible noise emissions and
aerodynamically improved wings.
394
8. Justification of the chosen alternative in the light of a comparison of
environmental impacts
The purpose of the Law on Facilitated Procedure for Construction of Energy Supply Structures
to Promote Energy Security and Independence is to promote the production of renewable
energy, to promote energy security and independence of the Republic of Latvia, as well as to
mitigate the processes of negative climate and environmental change. The law provides for a
simplified procedure, inter alia, for the construction of WPPs and the infrastructure needed for
them. The construction of WPPs is allowed on agricultural and forest land as defined in the
municipality's spatial plan.
If the Cabinet of Ministers grants the status of an object of national interest to the proposed
WPP park, no municipal approval is required for its construction: once the EIA has been carried
out and the opinion of the State Environmental Monitoring Office has been received, the
Cabinet of Ministers decides on the approval of the Proposed Action.
The EIA for the proposed action assesses alternatives for the location of the WPP park and
evaluates technological alternatives - height alternatives, three different WPP heights.
All the alternatives evaluated would achieve the objective of the Proposed Action to install
new WPPs with a rated capacity of up to 8 MW each.
A summary, taking into account the assessments of an ornithologist, a species and habitat
expert, a landscape expert, a bat expert and a hydrologist, and the physical impact assessment
for all 84 WPP sites assessed in the EIA, is presented in Table 8.1. The red colour is used for
WPPs and environmental impact areas where significant negative impacts have been
identified, the yellow colour for WPPs and environmental impact areas where adverse impacts
have been identified and the green colour for environmental impact areas where no adverse
or significant impacts have been identified. For all WPPs, undesirable effects have been
identified that can be avoided or reduced by conditions or constraints in the design
documentation, during the construction phase or during operation (see Annex 12 for
conditions and constraints for recommended WPPs).
Based on this assessment, recommended alternatives for the location of the WPP park have
been defined:
Alternative A - 29 WPP: compact area in the SW between the Seda, the Gauja and the Pukši
swamp (see Figure 4.1.5 in Chapter 4)
Alternative B - 43 WPPs: the compact area in the SW (29 WPPs of Alternative A) and the
feasible WPPs to the N of the Pukši swamp (see Figure 4.1.6 in Chapter 4)
395
Table 8.1. Summary of expert assessments for all 84 WPPs assessed
Designation:
No adverse or Adverse effects Significant negative
significant effects detected impacts
Habitat
Name of the Landscap
No. Birds Bats s/speci Noise Flicker Hydrology
WPP site es
es
1 VV1 ✓327 250/ 275
2 VV2
3 VV3
4 VV4
5 VV5
6 VV6
7 VV7
8 VV8
9 VV9
10 VV10
11 VV11
12 VV12
13 VV13
14 VV14
15 VV15
16 VV16
17 VV17
18 VV18
19 VV19
20 VV20
21 VV21
22 VV22
23 VV23
24 VV24 275
25 VV25 275
26 VV26
27 VV27
28 VV28
29 VV29
30 VV30 275
31 VV31
32 VV32
33 VV33
34 VV34
327
šajā tabulā atzīmētas VES attiecībā uz kurām, saskaņā ar putnu eksperta nosacījumiem, jāizvēlas viens
no abiem VV1, VV82/VV42 ,VV36 scenārijiem
396
Habitat
Name of the Landscap
No. Birds Bats s/speci Noise Flicker Hydrology
WPP site es
es
35 VV35
36 VV36 ✓ 250/ 275
37 VV37
38 VV38
39 VV39
40 VV40
VV41 (at the
41
bottom)
42 VV42 ✓
43 VV43
44 VV44
45 VV45
46 VV46
47 VV47 250/ 275
48 VV48 250
49 VV49 250/ 275
50 VV50
51 VV51
52 VV52
VV53 (Gauja
53
ridge)
VV54 (Gauja
54
ridge)
VV55 (Gauja
55
kr.k.)
VV56 (Gauja
56
ridge)
VV57 (Gauja
57
ridge)
VV58 (Gauja
58
kr.k.)
VV59 (Gauja
59
ridge)
VV60 (Gauja
60
ridge)
61 VV61
62 VV62
63 VV63
64 VV64
65 VV65 250/ 275
66 VV66 250/ 275
67 VV67 250/ 275
68 VV68 250/ 275
69 VV69 250
70 VV70 250/ 275
71 VV71 250
72 VV81 275
397
Habitat
Name of the Landscap
No. Birds Bats s/speci Noise Flicker Hydrology
WPP site es
es
73 VV82 ✓ 250
74 VV83 250
75 VV84
76 VV85
77 VV86
78 VV87
79 VV88 250/ 275
80 VV89
81 VV90
82 VV91
83 VV92 250
84 VV93
Comparison of location alternatives A and B in terms of ornithofauna values
In terms of impacts on ornithological values in the area of the proposed wind farm, the two
alternatives do not differ significantly. The NE part of the WPP park location Alternative B,
which is the divergent part between Alternatives A and B, is generally located in very poor
habitats. It accounts for a relatively small part of the total impact of the wind farm. The most
ornithologically valuable part of the Proposed Action study area is the forest edge along the
VV92 - VV68 line, however, even in the presence of the lesser spotted eagle in the N part of
the study area, the Luksti meadow area in the R part of the study area is significantly more
ornithologically valuable.
The wood stork, black stork and golden eagle are the three "exclusion" bird species expected
to be most affected by the proposed wind park. The closest WPP group to Valka in Alternative
B is likely to have an additional impact on one to two roe deer rookeries and a relatively small
sector of golden eagle nesting territory compared to Alternative A. It should be stressed that
the WPP group does not fully include any of the potentially additionally affected rookeries. The
theoretical connectivity between the rookeries and the feeding areas of the golden eagle will
be maintained in the case of the construction of the nearest WPP group to Valka, subject to
the conditions set by the ornithologist in the WPP.
The isolated impact of the WPP group closest to Valka on the Black Stork population in the
vicinity of the wind park is assessed as marginal. Although a micro-reserve has been
established to protect the breeding site of the Black Stork to the E of this group, and another
breeding area is known in the direction of Mežmuiža (S-SE) from this group, the WPP group
area itself is considered to be not very suitable for the Black Stork, as there are few potentially
suitable feeding sites for the species - small forest streams and ditches. The Gauja and the
Seda with their tributaries are much more suitable. As the foraging conditions of the Black
Stork in this WPP group area are suboptimal, the absence of a WPP group would not
contribute significantly to the conservation of the species. The nearest known nests of Black
Storks are at considerable distances, so habitat loss due to avoidance is not an issue for this
WPP group. Similarly to other soaring bird species, the most interesting for the Black Stork in
the context of this WPP group is the woodland and the adjacent open landscape with the Seda
River and its floodplain along the VV92 - VV68 line, but according to the currently known
398
information and M. Strazds' recommendations, no additional adjustments to the WPP location
are necessary.
Cumulative effects are not expected for two groups of WPP located so far apart (Alternative B),
even though they are located in sequence in the predominant direction of autumn and spring
migrations. As a naturally separating, significantly different landscape within the forest massif,
Pukši bog is a sufficiently distinct feature that the impact of one VEC group on bird species
does not sum to the impact of another VEC group on birds. From the point of view of autumn
and spring bird migration flows, the proposed alternative placement of the two groups is even
considered to be somewhat successful, as the potentially affected migration flows would be
significantly higher if the two groups were placed in the NW-SE direction (perpendicular to the
current placement).
Comparison of location alternatives A and B in terms of impacts on habitats and plant
species
Overall, if the Proposed Action were to be implemented at a scale of 93 turbines without
mitigation measures, it would result in significant adverse impacts on protected habitats,
protected species and their habitats at local and regional level, and significant adverse impacts
at national level. The areas of habitats and species destroyed and adversely affected, in
relation to the number of habitats and species found in Latvia, are mostly percentages, but it
should be taken into account that the implementation of the Proposed Action affects a large
forest area, which is characterised by high biodiversity and large areas of protected habitats
and species habitats; the fragmentation of such an area by WPP development sites and
associated infrastructure has adverse impacts that extend beyond the areas of natural value
specifically affected, such as species sites and protected habitat habitats. Reducing the number
of potential WPP turbine sites by recommending alternative A or B for the location of the WPP
park also reduces the length of road sections to be newly constructed or reconstructed, thus
reducing the fragmentation impact on the forest massif.
The mitigation measures would significantly reduce the number and extent of habitats and
species destroyed, but would still result in the destruction of significant areas of habitat 91T0
Lichen-rich pine forests and relatively small areas of habitat 9010* Old-growth or natural
boreal forests, resulting in minor adverse effects at local and regional scales and minor
adverse effects at national scales. It is recommended that Alternative A is selected and that
the possibility of refining the locations and access roads for VV37, VV39, VV40, VV44 without
affecting areas of protected habitats is assessed. For planned WPP sites that cannot be
developed without destroying the 91T0 habitat area, restoration or enhancement measures
for the relevant habitat type shall also be planned over at least an equivalent area. If
Alternative B is implemented, it is recommended that the construction of Sites VV7 and VV70
be completely abandoned, but if these WPPs are to be implemented, mitigation
recommendations should be implemented and taken into account.
Adjustments following additional expert assessment of the proposed alternatives
According to the opinions of natural experts, the assessment of the WPP to be implemented
was revised and significant environmental impact factors - impact on bird species - were
identified for 3 more WPP, and for 4 more WPP it was recommended to choose two out of
four, with the choice to be made at the design stage, assessing the engineering conditions.
After further assessment of the alternative locations of the WPP Park as defined above,
Alternative A has 27 WPPs (of which 25 could be built), Alternative B has 40 WPPs: of which 38
could be built, see Table 8.2.
399
Table 8.2. Additional expert assessments of the proposed WPPs under the siting alternatives
Before adding to the findings Following additions to the opinions
Addenda to the opinion of
Alternative Alternative Alternative Alternative Addenda to the opinion of Alternative Alternative Alternative Alternative
No. WPP the habitat expert (A. VES
A A' B B' the bird expert (E. Dzeņa) A A' B B'
Pošiva)
one of the two scenarios VV1,
VV82/VV42 , VV36 should be
chosen, the expert
recommends to abandon VV1
and VV82, unless there are
1 VV1 250328 275 250 275 some technological reasons VV1 250 275 250 275
that it would be better to
abandon VV42 and VV36. Pre-
construction monitoring
should be carried out and
then a decision made.
In the existing layout and
access option, the impact
on the SSSI - beech tree
area, wetland habitats and
species habitats, access to
2 VV7 300 300 VV7 300 300
be re-planned from A side.
Additional assessment for a
new site on the site of a
previously planned WPP at
the design stage
3 VV9 300 300 VV9 300 300
4 VV16 300 300 300 300 VV16 300 300 300 300
5 VV20 300 300 300 300 VV20 300 300 300 300
6 VV21 300 300 300 300 VV21 300 300 300 300
7 VV22 300 300 300 300 VV22 300 300 300 300
328
Šeit (un turpmāk tabulas šūnās ar zilu fonu) norādīts VES torņa augstums metros, kas atbilst VES torņa augstuma alternatīvai (skat. 4.2.2. tabulu).
400
Before adding to the findings Following additions to the opinions
Addenda to the opinion of
Alternative Alternative Alternative Alternative Addenda to the opinion of Alternative Alternative Alternative Alternative
No. WPP the habitat expert (A. VES
A A' B B' the bird expert (E. Dzeņa) A A' B B'
Pošiva)
8 VV24 250 275 275 300 VV24 250 275 275 300
9 VV26 300 300 300 300 VV26 300 300 300 300
Location to be clarified later
as it is too close to the
10 VV28 300 300 300 300 planned micro-reserve for the VV28 300 300 300 300
apodice, currently the
location is maintained
11 VV30 250 275 250 275 VV30 250 275 250 275
12 VV31 300 300 300 300 VV31 300 300 300 300
13 VV32 300 300 300 300 VV32 300 300 300 300
14 VV33 300 300 300 300 VV33 300 300 300 300
choose one of the two
15 VV36 250 275 250 275 scenarios VV1, VV82/VV42 , VV36 250 275 250 275
VV36
16 VV37 300 300 300 300 VV37 300 300 300 300
17 VV38 300 300 300 300 VV38 300 300 300 300
18 VV39 300 300 300 300 VV39 300 300 300 300
19 VV40 300 300 300 300 VV40 300 300 300 300
20 VV41 300 300 300 300 VV41 300 300 300 300
choose one of the two
21 VV42 300 300 300 300 scenarios VV1, VV82/VV42 , VV42 300 300 300 300
VV36
potential impacts on golden
22 VV44 300 300 300 300 VV44
eagle
potential impacts on golden
23 VV45 300 300 300 300 VV45
eagle
24 VV46 300 300 300 300 VV46 300 300 300 300
25 VV47 250 275 250 275 VV47 250 275 250 275
401
Before adding to the findings Following additions to the opinions
Addenda to the opinion of
Alternative Alternative Alternative Alternative Addenda to the opinion of Alternative Alternative Alternative Alternative
No. WPP the habitat expert (A. VES
A A' B B' the bird expert (E. Dzeņa) A A' B B'
Pošiva)
Further information should be
awaited following
investigations in adjacent
areas. Implementation of
26 VV49 250 275 VV49 250 275
WPP may be affected by the
establishment of a micro-
reserve for the Lesser Spotted
Eagle
Further information should be
awaited following
investigations in adjacent
areas. Implementation of
27 VV50 300 300 VV50 300 300
WPP may be affected by the
establishment of a micro-
reserve for the Lesser Spotted
Eagle
Further information should be
awaited following
investigations in adjacent
areas. Implementation of
28 VV51 300 300 VV51 300 300
WPP may be affected by the
establishment of a micro-
reserve for the Lesser Spotted
Eagle
Habitat 91T0 is destroyed
on site - 1.8 ha, access road
affects 91T0 approx. 2.1-2.5 VV61 300 300
This turbine is recommended ha, dune terrain is
instead of the VV62 disturbed
29 VV62 300 300 Effects on the rut VV62
Further information should be
30 VV64 300 300 awaited following VV64 300 300
investigations in adjacent
402
Before adding to the findings Following additions to the opinions
Addenda to the opinion of
Alternative Alternative Alternative Alternative Addenda to the opinion of Alternative Alternative Alternative Alternative
No. WPP the habitat expert (A. VES
A A' B B' the bird expert (E. Dzeņa) A A' B B'
Pošiva)
areas. Implementation of
WPP may be affected by the
establishment of a micro-
reserve for the Lesser Spotted
Eagle
31 VV65 250 275 VV65 250 275
Further information should be
awaited following
investigations in adjacent
areas. Implementation of
32 VV66 250 275 VV66 250 275
WPP may be affected by the
establishment of a micro-
reserve for the Lesser Spotted
Eagle
Further information should be
awaited following
investigations in adjacent
areas. Implementation of
33 VV67 250 275 VV67 250 275
WPP may be affected by the
establishment of a micro-
reserve for the Lesser Spotted
Eagle
34 VV68 250 275 VV68 250 275
35 VV70 250 275 VV70 250 275
36 VV81 250 275 250 275 VV81 250 275 250 275
choose one of the two
37 VV82 300 300 300 300 scenarios VV1, VV82/VV42 , VV82 300 300 300 300
VV36
38 VV84 300 300 300 300 VV84 300 300 300 300
39 VV85 300 300 300 300 VV85 300 300 300 300
40 VV86 300 300 300 300 VV86 300 300 300 300
403
Before adding to the findings Following additions to the opinions
Addenda to the opinion of
Alternative Alternative Alternative Alternative Addenda to the opinion of Alternative Alternative Alternative Alternative
No. WPP the habitat expert (A. VES
A A' B B' the bird expert (E. Dzeņa) A A' B B'
Pošiva)
41 VV88 250 275 250 275 VV88 250 275 250 275
42 VV91 300 300 VV91 300 300
Located in the Black Stork
Conservation Area - 300 m of
43 VV92 250 275 VV92
the River Seda - not
recommended
29 29 43 43 27* 27* 40* 40*
25* in fact, because 2 WPP 38* in fact, because 2 WPP
(VV1, VV82 or VV42, VV36) (VV1, VV82 or VV42, VV36)
will not be implemented will not be implemented
404
Summary of the comparison of the impacts of the proposed alternatives to the proposed action
Impacts assessing the existing situation in the area of the proposed activity and the situation
expected under the alternative to be implemented:
1. Species and habitats
2. Bats
3. Birds
4. Invertebrates
5. Mammals
6. Landscape
7. Cultural history
8. Tourism and recreation
9. Natura 2000
10. Noise
11. Low frequencies
12. Flicker
13. Air
14. Hydrology
15. Environmental risks and accidents
16. Vibration
17. Climate
18. Communication systems
The assessment of the impact scenario has been given a conditional numerical
characterisation, summarised in Table 8.3.
Table 8.3. Impact rating scale
Rating Explanation
-3 Significant adverse changes are expected: Violation of environmental quality threshold
values or environmental regulatory requirements laid down in regulatory enactments;
such effects shall be assessed as an exclusion factor. Where significant adverse effects are
identified and the proposed activity is of significant public interest, compensatory
measures are required by law.
-2 Slight adverse changes are expected: The proposed activity may result in non-attainment
of the target values for environmental quality set out in the legislation and guidelines or
significant qualitatively or quantitatively measurable adverse changes in natural resources
or the state of the environment compared to the baseline condition.
-1 Minor adverse effects: There may be minimal impacts on natural resources, which do not
generally preclude the achievement of the target or threshold values for environmental
quality set out in the regulatory enactments, but there are qualitatively or quantitatively
measurable adverse changes in natural resources or environmental status compared to
the baseline condition.
0 no impact, ambiguous impact or no detectable impact: No qualitative or quantifiable
changes in the functions of natural resources and impacts on public environmental rights
are foreseeable.
+1 Slight favourable changes are expected: Possible positive impacts on natural resources,
405
Rating Explanation
but relatively minor and/or temporary.
+2 Significant positive changes are expected: The magnitude, likelihood and/or duration of
the beneficial effects are significant. The proposed action will result in significant
quantitative or qualitative measurable improvements in the quality of the environment
compared to the baseline condition.
+3 Significant favourable changes are expected: The proposed action will result in significant
quantitative or qualitative measurable improvements in the quality of the environment;
the environmental quality objectives set out in the legislation and guidelines will be
achieved.
406
Table 8.4. Comparison of alternatives to the proposed action
Object or type of impact Alternative for Alternative for Notes
location A location B
A' Technological
B' Technological
Technological
Technological
alternative A
alternative B
alternative
alternative
1. Species and habitats -1 -1 -2 -2 Minor adverse effects at local and regional level and not significant adverse effects
at national level. It is recommended that Alternative A is selected and that the
possibility of refining the sites and access roads VV37, VV39, VV40, VV44 without
affecting the protected habitat areas and without destroying the 91T0 habitat area
is assessed.
If Alternative B is implemented, it is recommended that the access to VV7 be
planned from A. Under Alternative B, the cable route is planned without crossing
the Northern Gauja AAP.
No significant adverse effects have been identified that would result in any of the
alternatives not being implemented.
2. Birds -1 -1 -1 -1 If the recommended restrictions on the operation of the WPP are complied with,
the WPP suspension camera systems are installed and used during operation in
accordance with the results of the pre-construction monitoring, the conditions on
the deforestation period of the sites are complied with, and other
recommendations of the bird expert, including monitoring measures for bird
species, minor adverse effects are expected - the two alternatives are not
significantly different.
No significant negative impacts have been identified that would prevent any of the
alternatives for the location of the NPPF from being implemented.
3. Bats 0 0 0 0 If WPP shutdown camera systems are installed, automatic shutdown or non-startup
of wind turbines is ensured in accordance with WPP operational recommendations,
bat monitoring is ensured in the first and second year after wind turbine start-up,
and turbine operating restrictions are respected during WPP operation based on
monitoring results, the establishment of a WPP park is allowed under both siting
alternatives. The expert concluded that the establishment of a WPP park, subject to
certain conditions, is permissible at all 84 WPP sites assessed, although currently no
more than 40 WPP sites are recommended for WPP construction.
The impact on bat species is assessed as "0", as bat activity in the area of the WPP
parks may increase significantly after the construction of the turbines and bats may
407
Object or type of impact Alternative for Alternative for Notes
location A location B
A' Technological
B' Technological
Technological
Technological
alternative A
alternative B
alternative
alternative
appear in large numbers in areas where they were not detected during the
feasibility study. Bats are strongly attracted to wind turbines, although the reasons
for this are not yet clear.
4. Invertebrates 0 0 0 0 The main protection measures for specially protected invertebrate species are the
removal of dead wood (fallen trees, stumps, snags) from the built-up area
(construction of new access roads and VPP maintenance areas); if this condition is
met, the populations of invertebrate species will not be affected.
No significant negative impacts have been identified that would prevent the
implementation of any of the alternatives for the location of the WPP.
5. Mammals -1 -1 -1 -1 The construction of the WPP parks will not significantly change the status of
specially protected species at national level. Local and wider indirect and cumulative
impacts on wild mammals (up to 10 km away from the study area of the Proposed
Action) are expected, the consequences and spatial limits of which are currently
unknown and unpredictable.
6. Landscape -1 -1 -2 -2 Scenario A with 25 turbines has the least impact on the landscape. In some places,
the impact remains high, despite a significant reduction in impact compared to the
maximum model.
Scenario 'A' has only a slightly higher impact on the landscape at a regional level.
The differences between scenario A and scenario A' are local.
Scenario B has a much greater impact on the landscape, with 13 turbines added to
Scenario A in the northern part of the wind farm. Scenario B' has the greatest
impact on the landscape. The differences between scenario B and scenario B' are
local.
No significant adverse landscape impacts have been identified that would prevent
any of the alternatives for the location of the NPPF from being implemented.
7. Cultural history -1 -1 -2 -2 Scenario A with 25 turbines has the lowest impact on cultural heritage. In some
places, the impact remains high, despite a significant reduction in impact compared
to the maximum model.
Scenario 'A' has only a slightly higher impact on cultural heritage at the regional
level. The differences between scenario A and scenario A' are local.
408
Object or type of impact Alternative for Alternative for Notes
location A location B
A' Technological
B' Technological
Technological
Technological
alternative A
alternative B
alternative
alternative
Scenario B has a much greater impact on cultural heritage, as Scenario A adds 13
turbines to the northern part of the wind farm. Scenario B' has the greatest impact
on cultural heritage. The differences between scenario B and scenario B' are local.
No significant adverse impacts on cultural heritage have been identified that would
prevent any of the alternatives for the location of the WPP from being realised.
8. Tourism and recreation -1 -1 -2 -2 Scenario A with 25 turbines has the lowest impact on tourism and recreation. In
some places, the impact remains high, despite a significant reduction in impact
compared to the maximum model.
Scenario 'A' has only a slightly higher impact on tourism and recreation at regional
level. The differences between scenario A and scenario A' are local.
Scenario B has a much higher impact on tourism and recreation, as 13 turbines have
been added to Scenario A in the northern part of the wind farm. Scenario 'B' has the
greatest impact on tourism and recreation. The differences between scenario B and
scenario B' are local.
No significant negative impacts on tourism and recreation have been identified that
would prevent any of the alternatives for the location of the NPPF from being
implemented.
9. Natura 2000 -1 -1 -2 -2 Scenario A with 25 turbines has less impact on adjacent Natura 2000 sites.
No significant adverse impacts on Natura 2000 sites have been identified that would
prevent any of the alternatives for the location of the WPP from being
implemented.
10. Noise 0 0 0 0 No exceedances of the noise limit values are not expected as a result of the noise
calculations.
11. Low frequencies 0 0 0 0 For low-frequency noise, the limits and procedures in Denmark are used as a basis,
as there are no limits in Latvia. The low frequency outdoor noise modelled in the EIA
does not reach the lowest indoor level in any nearby development: 15 dB(A) (see
Chapter 7.2.2)
12. Flicker 0 0 0 0 The shadow duration target of 10 hours per year is not exceeded in any house (see
Chapter 7.3)
13. Air 0 0 0 0 No impacts on air quality are expected such that conditions precluding the
409
Object or type of impact Alternative for Alternative for Notes
location A location B
A' Technological
B' Technological
Technological
Technological
alternative A
alternative B
alternative
alternative
implementation of the action can be identified.
14. Hydrology 0 0 0 0 Taking into account that the construction works will be carried out in compliance
with the requirements of the Law on Land Reclamation and Cabinet Regulation No
329 "Regulations on Latvian Building Standard LBN 224-15 "Land Reclamation
Systems and Hydrotechnical Structures"" and Territorial Use and Building
Regulations of Strenči and Valka Municipalities, it is not expected that the
construction process of the WPP parks could negatively affect the functioning of
land reclamation systems in the territory of the planned WPP parks or their
surroundings. Potential impacts on plant species and habitats in the SPAs and SACs
can be considered to be insignificant, as the changes would be insignificant and not
very noticeable against the background of natural seasonal fluctuations in
groundwater levels.
15. Environmental risks 0 0 0 0 The proposed activity is located entirely within forest land, with no other sensitive
and accidents receptors, public facilities or residential dwellings in the vicinity.
The calculations are based on the risks of natural disasters, mechanical damage, air
traffic impact of the WPP fleet and BESS container accident. For each of the
predicted risks and emergencies, the EIA defines risk mitigation measures that, if
followed and implemented, are not expected to lead to increased risks or
emergencies (see Chapter 5.3)
16. Vibration 0 0 0 0 There are no laws and regulations in Latvia that regulate the level of vibration in the
environment. No WPP is planned within 800 m of a human dwelling in the proposed
action. The vibration magnitude of the WPP at a distance of 300 m was assessed to
be lower than the lowest limit value for operating theatres at night set in the now
obsolete Cabinet Regulations, i.e. the vibration acceleration should not have
exceeded 0.028 m/s2 (see Chapter 7.2.3).
410
Object or type of impact Alternative for Alternative for Notes
location A location B
A' Technological
B' Technological
Technological
Technological
alternative A
alternative B
alternative
alternative
17. Climate +1 +1 +1 +1 The biggest savings will come from replacing fossil-fuelled electricity with power
generated by WPPs, which have lower GHG emissions from electricity generation.
TheCO2 emission reductions for Alternative A would be: 813 275, and for alternative
B: 1 196 785 tonnesCO2 eq. (see Chapter 5.4).
Summary -6 -6 -10 -10 When comparing Alternatives A and B for the location of the WPPF, Alternative A
scores more favourably, but Alternative B is also feasible, as no significant negative
impacts have been identified that would make Alternative B infeasible.
Overall, the comparison and analysis of the alternatives for the location and heights of the WPPs presented in Table 8.4 did not reveal any circumstances that
would prevent the location or technical realisation of Alternatives A or B of the proposed wind farm. The location and technical feasibility of all alternatives is
possible.
Alternative B is primarily recommended because of the advantage of this WPP park in its proximity to the 330 kV high voltage line (less deforested area for the
construction of new AST lines) and its proximity to large electricity consumers. As the construction of new substations near high-voltage lines has its own
technological limitations, it is most efficient, economically feasible and safe to build generating capacity (WPP).
411
9. Cross-border assessment
In the context of transboundary impacts, the Republic of Estonia has been identified as the country
likely to be affected by the proposed action.
9.1. Transboundary impact assessment for landscape, tourism and recreation
As part of the Estonian territory (part of Valga County, Valga Municipality and the whole of Valga
City) falls within the landscape study area, the transboundary impacts of the Proposed Action on the
landscapes, tourism and recreation of this part of Estonia have been assessed. Estonian territory is
located within 4.2 km of the nearest assessed WPP turbine.
The Estonian Ministry of Climate (Kliimaministeerium) has summarised the views of various
stakeholders in a letter to the State Environmental Monitoring Office. It asks for an assessment of the
impact on Karula National Park (Karula rahvuspark), half of which lies within 20 km of the nearest
turbine, Karula-Pikkjärve Protected Landscape Area (Karula Pikkjärve maastikukaitseala), Koiva-
Mustjõe Protected Landscape Area (Koiva-Mustjõe maastikukaitseala).
In terms of turbine locations, the closest turbines to the area of the Proposed Action are the Koiva-
Mustjegi Karula AEP turbines 9.1 km away on the right bank of the Gauja River (VV70)). The Karulas-
Pikjerva AEP is located 15.7 km from the nearest turbine (VV68). The Karul National Park boundary is
20 km from the nearest turbine (VV68).
In the closest Estonian open areas to the proposed operation, e.g. between Londi and Lepa in Valga
municipality, wind turbines would be visible at a distance of 5.5 km.
Lookout towers are important viewpoints. The closest one to the proposed operation is at
Tsirgumäe, the Tellingumäe vaatetorn, which is 25 km away from turbine VV68. It offers a wide
panoramic view of the Mustjegi River, as well as the territory of Latvia (towards the Cirgali dune
massif). If this and other turbines are also visible in clear weather, they should be considered as
background objects.
Taking into account the distance of the Proposed Action from the territory of Estonia, the
transboundary impact in the context of the aspects to be assessed is assessed as negligible,
corresponding to a rating of "0", or "no impact, uncertain impact or undeterminable impact"
according to the impact rating scale (see Table 8.3): no qualitatively or quantitatively measurable
changes in the functions of natural resources and impacts on public environmental rights are
foreseeable.
9.2. Impact assessment on birds
Impacts on the Republic of Estonia have been assessed in a similar level of detail as for adjacent
areas in Latvia. The impacts in Latvia are considered in two zones - 3 and 10 km around the proposed
final wind farm configuration. The 3 km zone around the wind farm does not affect the territory of
the Republic of Estonia, while the 10 km zone affects 5355 ha (6.2% of the entire 10 km zone) of the
territory of the Republic of Estonia (Figure 9.1).
412
Figure 9.1. The planned 10 km area of the Valka-Valmiera wind farm affects the territory of the
Republic of Estonia
The transboundary impact analysis uses bird observation data publicly available in the free databases
elurikkus.ee and plutof.ut.ee. Combining the observation data available from both sources, 7,927
bird observations have been recorded in the Estonian part of the 10 km area of influence of the
planned wind farm since 1 January 2020.
In a 10 km zone, including the territory of the Republic of Estonia, the expected impact of the
planned wind farm on migratory flocks of waterbirds - cranes, swans and geese - was assessed. These
species are characterised by regular movements between feeding and roosting sites, and it is
therefore recommended to avoid the installation of dense WPP groups along flyways.
The planned configuration of the WPP Park is recommended to avoid dense groups of WPP in the
local flyways of cranes, swans and geese. Concentrations of these species groups have been
observed in open landscapes near the N part of the planned wind farm, but their local flyways do not
cross the territory of the planned wind farm.
Transboundary effects on the crane/swan/goose species group within the territory of the Republic of
Estonia are assessed as negligible. In all likelihood, there will be no direct impact at all if the WPP is
built.
Other groups of flocking migratory bird species - e.g. waders, plovers, passerines - do not regularly fly
locally between roosting and feeding sites. The potential impact of wind farms on these species
should be considered at the level of global migration routes and so-called "bottle necks", rather than
at the level of local low-flying flyways, as is the case for cranes, swans and geese.
413
Migration of ducks, herons, sparrows, storks, day and night birds of prey, and other migratory
species in Latvia mostly follows a SW direction in autumn and a NE direction in spring, following the
so called "flyway". The East Atlantic Flyway329, more specifically its White-Baltic Sea branch.
Outside areas of concentrations of migratory bird flows caused by natural barriers, migratory bird
species fly over land in a broad front, evenly covering the entire land area. The planned national-
scale WPP park is located at Latvia's western border. Thus, in spring, the wind farm will have minimal
impact on migratory birds nesting in Latvia, but a greater impact on birds migrating through Latvia to
the Republic of Estonia and areas to the NNE of Estonia. Some species, especially those that are
visually sensitive to the "barrier effect" created by the wind park, will avoid it, others will ignore it or
- in the dark part of the day - not see it. The shape of the planned WPP park is longitudinally
elongated in the NE-SW direction, which coincides with the main direction of bird migration in the
territory of Latvia. Thus, from the perspective of the bird migration route, they are largely spaced
behind each other and do not form a wide barrier perpendicular to the migration route, blocking it.
In autumn, a similar picture is expected - the planned wind farm in the SW direction will meet
migratory birds right at the Latvian border, affect the populations of migratory bird species in the
Republic of Estonia and the area to the NNE of it, with minimal impact on the populations of
migratory birds nesting in the territory of Latvia.
Of the range of bird species theoretically migrating through the planned wind farm area to the
territory of the Republic of Estonia and beyond, the most endangered, in the bird expert's view, are
nocturnal migrants and small-medium sized birds. Thanks to the promising results of WPP camera
systems, the most critical group of species - large passerines - is under significantly reduced threat.
The fact that these birds may have to slightly change their migration route due to the "barrier effect"
of the wind farm is not considered to be a significant negative factor. However, the main point is that
the risk of collisions to this group of species has been significantly reduced, so no significant negative
impacts on migratory large soaring bird species breeding in the Republic of Estonia and areas to the
NE of Estonia are expected. A WPP-free zone of at least 1 km around the most likely feeding sites of
Black Storks is also maintained, further reducing the threat to migrating Black Storks.
Taking into account the literature available on the impact of wind farms on migratory species, and
mainly emphasising the fact that the proposed wind farm is located outside the concentration of bird
migration flows, the so-called "bottle neck" sites, in the opinion of the bird expert, no migratory bird
species passing through the area of the proposed wind farm is expected to be significantly negatively
affected by the wind farm on the population of the species concerned.
9.3. Overview of transboundary impacts of the Ministry of Climate of the Republic of
Estonia
An overview of the transboundary impacts of the Ministry of Climate of the Republic of Estonia and
how they have been taken into account in the preparation of the EIA for the Valmiera-Valka HPP is
presented in Table 9.1.
Table 9.1. Overview of transboundary impacts of the Ministry of Climate of the Republic of Estonia
No. Aspects of transboundary impacts to Posted by Notes
be taken into account in the EIA by
the Ministry of Climate of the
Republic of Estonia
1. A WPP park is planned for Estonia. Ministry of Regional The landscape assessment takes
329
BirdLife International 2010, Busse 2001, Busse et.al. 2014
414
No. Aspects of transboundary impacts to Posted by Notes
be taken into account in the EIA by
the Ministry of Climate of the
Republic of Estonia
The cumulative visual impact of wind Affairs and into account information on
farms should be assessed. Agriculture planned WPP parks in Estonia.
Cumulative visual effects across
Planning documents related to
the border are assessed as
planned WPP parks in Estonia should
negligible.
be taken into account.
2. The proposed action may affect: Ministry of Economic Large mammals have relatively
Affairs and high intelligence and good
- movement of game,
Communications of mobility. Their response and speed
- noise pollution, the Republic of of adaptation to the WPP parks is
- the local population, Estonia currently unpredictable. Studies on
the impact of WPP parks on
- power grid stability terrestrial wild mammal and
domestic animal species have
concluded that the results of
studies on these species should not
be extrapolated from one site to
another.
The expert recommends that the
controlling national authorities
should require the developers of
the North Latvian and Estonian
border wind parks (Figure 3.2.5 of
the EIA report) to jointly undertake
specialised monitoring of wild
mammals in cooperation with the
controlling national authorities and
scientific institutions.
Indirect and cumulative impacts of
wind turbines on wild mammals
are expected up to a distance of
approximately 10 km from the
study area of the Proposed Action.
A mammal expert opinion on the
assessment of the impact of the
WPP on terrestrial non-flying
mammals has been received as
part of the EIA (attached as Annex
4).
The noise assessment is presented
in Chapter 7.2. No transboundary
effects have been identified.
In the Republic of Estonia, the local
population is not expected to be
affected.
The stability of the electricity grid
in the Republic of Estonia is not
415
No. Aspects of transboundary impacts to Posted by Notes
be taken into account in the EIA by
the Ministry of Climate of the
Republic of Estonia
expected to be affected.
3. The WPP park is located 1.5 km from Estonian An assessment of the impacts on
the Natura 2000 Important Bird Area Environmental Natura 2000 sites and birds in the
KOIVA-Mustjoe. The site is also Administration Republic of Estonia is presented in
designated as a landscape Chapter 10.2.
conservation area. Black Stork
The assessment of bats is
breeding in the area is also possible.
presented in Section 7.6.3.
Attention should also be paid to
goose migration and the nesting sites The Gauja valley will not be
of black grouse. crossed if the proposed Action
(Alternative A or B) is
Bats are also present in the area and
implemented.
impacts on bat species are also
assessable. Continuity of green corridors in a
transboundary context will not be
Attention should also be paid to the
affected - the construction of the
continuity of green corridors, as the
WPP is not planned in the Gauja
Gauja River is an important corridor
valley, which is an important
for the movement of game. Including
corridor for the movement of
large predators.
game, including large carnivores.
Given that significant drainage works
A mammal expert opinion on the
are planned, the impact of these
assessment of the impact of the
works on water quality and fish
WPP on terrestrial non-flying
populations in the Gauja needs to be
mammals has been received as
assessed.
part of the EIA (attached as Annex
Cumulative impacts to be assessed 4).
and, if necessary, mitigation
Water quality and fish populations
measures and monitoring to be
in the Gauja will not be affected.
planned.
Mitigation measures and
If it is found that the impact goes
monitoring are foreseen.
beyond what was originally planned,
the environmental impact in Estonia
should be further assessed.
The environmental impacts in
There are several protected areas Estonia are not expected to exceed
within a 20 km radius - Karula those described in Chapters 10.1
National Park, Karula Important Bird and 10.2.
Area and Karula Nature Area.
Nature experts have assessed that
no impacts are expected on the
Karula National Park, the Karula
Important Bird Area and the Karula
Natural Area.
4. It has been observed that the noise Estonian Health For noise, the lowest limit values
generated by WPPs is more Board we assess are 45 dB at night, 50 dB
disturbing than the same level of in the evening and 55 dB during
noise generated by roads and the day, as required by the MC
airports. Regulations.
416
No. Aspects of transboundary impacts to Posted by Notes
be taken into account in the EIA by
the Ministry of Climate of the
Republic of Estonia
According to the Estonian noise level The noise assessment is presented
limits, noise should preferably not in Chapter 7.2. No transboundary
exceed 50 dB per day (from 10.00 to effects have been identified.
30.00). 7.00 to 23.00) and 40 dB at
night (from 7.00 to 23.00). 23.00 to
7.00), as for residential areas.
5. It is noted that the Koiva-Mustjoe Estonian Fund for The maps have been updated to
N2000 site is marked on the map, but Nature https://natura2000.eea.europa.eu/
that most of it is also the Koiva-
Mustjoe Grassland Natural Area.
6. An assessment of the impact on Municipality of Valga The impact on N2000 has been
N2000 sites should be included. assessed in chapter 7.9.
The continuity of the Gauja River Information on the Valga WPP Park
migration corridor must be ensured. has been obtained and taken into
This needs to be assessed during the account in the EIA assessment.
EIA. At the same time, the Estonian
The Gauja valley will not be
side informs that another WPP park
crossed if the proposed Action
is planned about 4 km from the town
(Alternative A or B) is
of Valka and 9 km from the planned
implemented.
WPP park. Estonia will inform Latvia
by another letter.
7. The transboundary assessment must Ministry of Climate Impacts on Natura 2000 have been
include protected areas within a 10 assessed, if any.
km buffer zone around the location
The 3 km, 10 km and 20 km zones
of the proposed activity.
of influence were initially
Impacts on the N2000 sites Koiva- delineated within the study and
Mustjoe and Aheru need to be survey areas, which were refined
assessed. during the EIA according to the
area assessed.
At the same time, clarification is
requested on the meaning of the 3
km, 10 km and 20 km zones of
influence included in the attached
map.
In addition, the "Convention on the Transboundary Effects of Industrial Accidents" has been in force
since 27.09.2004 and provides for transnational cooperation in the field of industrial accidents. The
quantity and hazardousness of chemical substances at the site of the Proposed Operation do not
reach the threshold values specified in this Convention, therefore the provisions of this Regulation
are not applicable to the construction of the Valmiera - Valka WPP Park and its related infrastructure.
417
10. Information on the predictive methods or evidence used by the proponent
to identify and assess the significant environmental effects of the proposed
activity
The following research methods were applied in the preparation of the EIA report:
− analysis of the literature on the impacts of similar facilities,
− field studies
− Experiments,
− calculations and modelling
In preparing the Environmental Impact Assessment Report, a literature review was carried out,
summarising the results of studies carried out so far on the positive and negative impacts of the NPS
on the environment and society. Although more than 20 years have passed since the first WPPs were
installed in Latvia, there have been practically no studies on the environmental and social impacts of
WPPs in Latvia so far, therefore the EIA has mainly analysed the experience of other countries with
wind energy development and its impacts.
The encyclopaedia "Plants of Latvia"330 was used for identification and nomenclature of vascular
plant species, mosses and lichens (for identification and nomenclature of other species -
methodological materials on indicator species of natural forest habitats331. The assessment of the
species' occurrence in the country, typical habitats and ecological requirements has been carried out
using information from DDPS "Ozols", portal "Dabasdati"332, unpublished materials from species
assessments according to IUCN categories in the project "LIFE for Species" and other materials
available to experts.
Habitat assessment and survey was carried out according to the methodology of the project
"Creation of preconditions for better biodiversity conservation and ecosystem protection in Latvia"
or " Dabas skaitīšana" - "Methodology for the identification of distribution and quality of habitats of
EU importance and organisation of works" approved by the Ministry of Environmental Protection and
Regional Development and coordinated by the Ministry of Agriculture. The status of protected
species and habitats is determined in accordance with Cabinet of Ministers' Regulation No 350 of 20
June 2017 "Regulations on the List of Specially Protected Habitat Types" and Cabinet of Ministers'
Regulation No 396 of 14 November 2000 "Regulations on the List of Specially Protected Species and
Specially Protected Species of Restricted Use". Guidelines for certified experts in the field of species
and habitat conservation on the assessment of the Proposed Action with regard to the construction
of forest roads and the establishment, rehabilitation and reconstruction of forest drainage
systems333.
Field surveys for the assessment have been carried out in and around the area of the Proposed
Action by experts on birds, bats, plant species, habitats and landscapes. In the preparation of the EIA
report, the Proposed Development area was also surveyed to record the technical condition of the
roads and to assess the drainage systems.
In preparing the EIA report and predicting potential impacts, calculation or modelling techniques
were widely used to quantify certain impacts. The environmental noise modelling has been carried
330
Priedītis, 2014. Encyclopaedia of Latvian plants
331
Liepiņa, 2018; Meiere, 2018; Moisejevs, 2018; Valainis, 2018
332
https://dabasdati.lv/lv
333
Latvijas Vides aizsardzības fonda finansēts projekts Nr. 1-08/29/2023.
418
out by an accredited noise assessment laboratory using the current version of Sound Plan, which
complies with the methods set out in Cabinet of Ministers Regulation No 16 of 7 January 2014
"Procedures for the assessment and management of noise" and standard LVS ISO 9613-2:2004
"Acoustics - Sound attenuation by sound propagation in the external environment - Part 2: General
method of calculation".
The Australian "National Wind Farm Development Guidelines ", 2018, an experiment conducted in
Latvia in 2010 (see description in Chapter 7.3), and EMD International A/S software WindPRO
3.6.366, Enviroprojekts Ltd licence (client) No 8797 were used to assess the flicker effect.
The assessment of landscape impacts has taken into account the Guidelines for the Initial
Environmental Impact Assessment of the Construction of Wind Power Plants 334, the Guidelines for
Local Landscape Planning approved by the Ministry of Environmental Protection335, and the
landscape impact assessment methodology of the Lithuanian and Latvian researchers Abroms,
Kamičkaitė and Ziemeļniece wind farms336.
A 3D model has been prepared for modelling and visualisation of the landscape changes, using the
basic data of the digital elevation model obtained by aerial laser scanning. Aerial laser scanning is an
accurate and efficient method of acquiring data from the Earth's surface using LIDAR (Light Detection
And Ranging ) technology. The main data source for the digital elevation model is the 2016 LAS files
of the Latvian Geospatial Information Agency, which are available under an open data licence. A
digital surface model is an elevation model of the Earth's surface that includes vegetation, the tops of
economic features and other objects.
In order to assess the impact of the Proposed Development on cultural heritage assets, an analysis of
archival material was undertaken, identifying existing and potential cultural heritage assets, including
archaeological assets, located or potentially located within the Proposed Development area.
5.1 "Description of physical characteristics, land use requirements during construction and
operation" and 5.3.1. Chapter 5.5.5 on the assessment of the effects of electromagnetic radiation
and the operation of the WPP on the operation of communication systems (radio, TV, special
communication equipment) in the context of the proposed operation and other chapters also use
material from the Environmental Impact Assessment of the construction of four VPPs in Pope Parish,
Ventspils District (4 WIND Ltd.)337, which in turn is the source of the Environmental Impact
Assessment of the construction of wind farms Dobele and Pienava in Dobele and Tukums Districts338
334
https://www.vvd.gov.lv/lv/media/9969/download?attachment
335
https://www.varam.gov.lv/sites/varam/files/content/files/vadlinijas_viet_limenim_2019.pdf
336
Abromas, J. & Kamičaitytė, J. & Ziemeļniece, A. 2014. Visual impact assessment of wind turbines and their
farms on landscape of Kretinga region (Lithuania) and Grobina townscape (Latvia). Journal of Environmental
Engineering and Landscape Management. 23. 1-11. 10.3846/16486897.2014.919921.
337
https://www.vpvb.gov.lv/lv/ietekmes-uz-vidi-novertejumu-projekti/cetru-veja-elektrostaciju-izbuve-popes-
pagasta-ventspils-novada-sia-4-wind
338
https://www.vpvb.gov.lv/lv/jaunums/pazinojums-par-sia-pienava-wind-un-sia-dobele-wind-ietekmes-uz-
vidi-novertejuma-zinojuma-iesniegsanu-vides-parraudzibas-valsts-biroja-atzinuma-sanemsanai
419
11. Types of solutions and measures to avoid significant adverse effects on the
environment
This chapter summarises how the EIA assesses situations where significant adverse changes are
expected (see Table 8.3): environmental quality thresholds or environmental regulatory
requirements are breached; such impacts are assessed as an exclusion factor. If significant adverse
effects are identified and the proposed activity is an object of significant public interest,
compensatory measures must be implemented in accordance with the legislation.
A summary of mitigation measures for the WPPs included in the recommended alternatives, WPP
design, construction, operation phases, such as e.g. WPP containment camera systems,
recommendations for cable route location, recommendations for logging restrictions, etc., is
provided in Annex 12.
Significant adverse environmental effects may be predicted if, in the case of Alternative B, a cable
line is constructed parallel to the LVM road Gailīšu ceļš and crosses the Natura 2000 site AAA
"Ziemeļgauja" in a strip approximately 1.6 km long and 3 m wide to connect to the substation, see
Figure 11.1. The figure shows the area required for the electricity cables.
Figure 11.1. Power line route width for cable lines - 3 metres339
The solution to mitigate the adverse impacts would be to route the cable connection to the
substation along the A6 road, connecting to the substation using the connection that would be made
in the case of the Group A alternative WPP connection.
339
https://www.ast.lv/lv/content/aizsargjoslu-platumi
420
Figure 11.2. Cable location options for connection to a substation
421
12. Measures to monitor environmental quality and assess greenhouse gas
emissions, if necessary (e.g. preparation of a post-project analysis)
The EIA assesses the potential impacts of the proposed WPPs. Impacts such as flicker effects from
the WPP, noise pollution, safety risks, impacts on habitats and specially protected plant species, the
hydrological regime of the site can be predicted with a high degree of accuracy by assessing the
extent of the Proposed Action and using calculation methods. Unfortunately, it is not practicable to
assess the precise impacts of the proposed NPS on ornithofauna and bat populations, so the impacts
of the proposed NPS on these animal groups should continue to be assessed through monitoring and,
if necessary, the introduction of additional mitigation measures not identified in this report.
The scope of the monitoring and the methods to be used have been determined on the basis of
advice from experts certified by the Nature Conservation Agency.
Bird monitoring
In order to be able to judge the effectiveness of the proposed mitigation measures and, if necessary,
to adjust them, the bird expert recommends monitoring of nesting birds before and during the
operation and construction of the wind farm. It is also recommended to search for the remains of
birds killed in collisions in the vicinity of the WPPs once they are operational. It is also recommended
that at least one year of ambient noise measurements be carried out before the wind farm is put
into operation, so that they can be compared with measurements during the lifetime of the wind
farm.
Due to the lack of studies on the impact of noise from WPP on barn owls (Strix uralensis), pre-
construction monitoring of this species should be carried out to assess the potential noise
disturbance from WPP. This includes studying bird behaviour and adapting the operation of the WPP
to the observed data.
For the monitoring of nesting birds, the "Methodology for the study of the Wind Farm and the
preparation of an Expert Opinion"340 shall be used as a basis for the initial study of the site. The
spring and autumn migratory bird surveys required by the Methodology (retaining surveys of
surrounding farmland and low-flying track observations) may be abandoned, as they are already
established in the study area, but their variability and the low WPP threat to the species covered by
these surveys make this type of survey unlikely to be useful. At the same time, the need for Natura
2000 monitoring of bird species in both Natura 2000 sites adjacent to the site is important in order to
be able to qualitatively assess the potential impact of the proposed wind farm on them.
Other records are to be kept in accordance with the methodology. The data obtained will be
comparable with each other, including with those already obtained during the initial site
investigation. The surveys regularly identify areas for increased attention - currently concentrations
of huns, sea eagles and ospreys. In case of new ornithological values identified, possible wind farm
construction and, if necessary, operational changes shall be assessed.
Breeding bird monitoring should be carried out annually until the planned wind farm is operational
and for the first five years of operation. Then in the 7th, 9th and 11th year of operation, and every
third year thereafter. The actual amount of survey work shows that it is optimal to plan for one man-
day per WPP to be surveyed per season - so for the 40 remaining WPPs, 40 man-days per season
would be needed to carry out quality monitoring. Over time, as knowledge of the area accumulates,
the amount of time required per season for monitoring will decrease, but it is not possible to predict
to what extent. Optimally, plan one man-day per VES season to be surveyed.
340
Ūlands, D., Millers, K. 2022. Methodology for the Wind Farm Study and the Expert Report.
422
It is recommended that the search for the remains of birds killed in the collisions should be organised
using the methodology used by Lithuanian colleagues341. The search for dead bird remains shall be
carried out once every 5 days within a radius around the base of the WPP mast corresponding to the
height of the WPP mast. The search must be repeated 3 times at 5-day intervals, covering a 10-day
period in which the condition before 5 days is known twice in a row. These 3 search cycles must be
carried out within each calendar month, except January and November. In each search cycle of 3
times, the surroundings of at least 16 randomly selected WPPs (40% of the planned WPPs) must be
searched without changing them during the cycle. The cycles should be repeated year after year on
as similar dates as possible. This amounts to 30 searches in total or 10 search cycles per year. This
search schedule will provide sufficient data to assess the dynamics of changes in WPP mortality.
Twice a census year, an assessment of the effectiveness of scavengers and residue finders should be
carried out, calibrating the monitoring results with the results of the assessments. This schedule shall
be followed for the first two calendar years of operation of the WPP. After the second full year of
counts, the results of the two years of counts are compared. Video recordings from cameras on the
suspension systems installed on the WPP are also used as an additional source of data for this
assessment. If the results are not significantly different, the search for the remains of dead birds
should be repeated once every 3 years throughout the year. Although the searches in Lithuania are
carried out by the researchers themselves, dogs have also been used with good results.
Ambient noise should be measured at the planned site of the WPP at least one year before the WPP
is installed according to the considerations outlined above, first choosing whether to measure at the
WPP as a source of noise pollution, or in an area populated by owls threatened by additional noise
pollution. Environmental acoustics are not the responsibility of the author. The author recommends
consulting certified acoustic specialists to find the best way to implement the solution. One solution
for measuring ambient noise is identified in the Owl Conservation Plan342, which identifies ISO9613-
2:1996 as an appropriate method for calculating ambient noise levels in the context of owl species
conservation. The aim of the measurements is to develop a correlation matrix between wind speed
at the height of the WPP capsule and ambient noise at treetop height. After installation, the WPP
should be validated within one year according to the actual level of additional noise generated by the
WPP. Every five years thereafter, the matrix developed should be calibrated to the evolution of the
vegetation around the WPP, repeating the measurements according to a methodology developed in
collaboration with acousticians.
Bat monitoring
The bat monitoring methodology includes:
1) acoustic monitoring with ultrasonic detectors,
2) counting bat fatalities under selected wind turbines.
Recommendations for acoustic monitoring: monitoring should be carried out by installing automatic
ultrasonic detectors in the 15 WPP nacelles to record bat activity from at least 1 May to 30
September. Automatic detectors should aim to cover the entire wind farm area as evenly as possible.
In addition to acoustic monitoring, monitoring of bat fatalities should be developed and carried out
by selecting for bat fatality counts WPPs at which acoustic monitoring would also be carried out
and/or turbines suspected during the work to be causing increased bat fatalities.
During the design of the WPP, in agreement with a certified bat expert, other solutions can be used
to mitigate the impact on bats, such as smart monitoring systems equipped with ultrasonic sensors
341
Morkūnas J. 2023. Best Practices for Bird Monitoring in Wind Farm Development in Lithuania: Guidelines.
342
https://www.daba.gov.lv/lv/sugu-un-biotopu-aizsardzibas-plani
423
and artificial intelligence technologies that detect the presence of bats in real time before shutting
down the turbines.
To facilitate the search for dead bats, a vegetation-free ground surface should be established around
the bases of wind turbines, if possible within a radius of at least 50 m, or grass should be cut regularly
during the monitoring period. In forests, no special clearing is required to create such a strip.
Monitoring of mammals
Considering that there are no assessments of the impact of wind turbines on non-flying mammals in
Latvia based on wildlife studies or monitoring data, the expert does not propose mandatory
monitoring requirements for a specific wind park. The expert recommends that the national
regulatory authorities should require the developers of the wind parks along the border between
North Latvia and Estonia (Figure 3.2.5) to jointly undertake specialised monitoring of wild mammals
in cooperation with the national regulatory and scientific authorities. This need is emphasised by all
authors of the scientific publications used in the report. Monitoring is carried out in accordance with
a monitoring programme developed and agreed with a certified expert.
Take into account the basic requirements for monitoring the impact of wild mammals and evaluating
the results of monitoring, as set out in the study "A synthesis - SWEDISH ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY REPORT"343.
343
Helldin J.O., Jung J., Neumann W., Olsson M., Skarin A., Widemo F. 2012. The impacts of wind power on
terrestrial mammals. A synthesis - SWEDISH ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REPORT 6510, 52 pp.
424
13. Public opinion and opinion polls
13.1. Initial public consultation
The initial public consultation on the Valmiera-Valka WPP Park and related infrastructure project was
held from 10 to 30 November 2023. The report on the initial public consultation, submitted to the
State Environmental Monitoring Office on 14 December 2023, is attached as Annex 3. The report on
the initial public consultation includes the following information: notices on the public consultation
in the newspapers "Liesma" No 130 (15299) and "Ziemeļlatvija" No 86 (4382) of 10.11.2023; a report
on the notices sent to the residents and the minutes of the initial public consultation meeting held on
23 November 2023.
After the initial public consultation meeting, the State Environmental Bureau sent to the operator of
the Proposed Action Latvijas vēja parki Ltd the opinions of the National Heritage Office and the public
on the Proposed Action and proposals for the environmental impact assessment received during the
initial public consultation, to be assessed and included in the EIA report of the Proposed Action,
indicating how the proposals submitted by the public have been taken into account. An overview of
how the proposals have been taken into account is attached in Annex 4.
During the preparation of the Environmental Impact Assessment, consultative working group
meetings on the Valmiera-Valka wind park were held in February 2024 in Valka and Seda on the
following topics: landscape, biodiversity, physical impacts of the wind park and socio-economic
feasibility of the wind park and impacts on climate change. Citizens and other interested parties were
given the opportunity to participate in informative working group meetings where experts discussed
various topics related to the impacts of WPP parks, such as socio-economic aspects, biodiversity,
landscape impacts and physical impacts. For several weeks, landscape expert Dāvis Valters Immurs,
ornithologist Edgars Dzenis, certified species and habitat expert Anete Pošiva - Bunkovska,
environmental experts Līga Blanka and Ieva Anna Arāja, as well as experts from SIA Latvijas vēja parki
met with residents and presented the results of their research within the environmental impact
assessment and explained the methodology and approach to the aspect under study. In turn, citizens
actively asked questions and expressed their additions, proposals and comments.
13. 2. Results of citizens' surveys
In January 2024, the research centre SKDS conducted a survey of Latvian citizens on their views on
the environment, climate and energy (see Annex 13).
According to the survey results, the majority of respondents (77%) believe that new renewable
electricity generation plants should be built in Latvia (52% would rather, 25% would definitely). 14%
of respondents are of the opposite opinion (9% would rather not, 5% would definitely not). In
general, men, Latvian speakers in the family and those concerned about climate change in general
are more positive about the issue.
According to the respondents, the main reason why Latvia should build new renewable electricity
generation plants is to gain energy independence from other countries (52%). The following reasons
are also considered important enough: it would contribute to Latvia's economic development by
providing a much better electricity supply (43%) and to achieve full energy independence from Russia
(37%). Other reasons given are: to reduce the amount of imported electricity and thus improve
Latvia's import-export balance (29%), to increase GDP (26%) and to give Latvia the opportunity to
become an electricity exporter (24%).
According to the respondents, both wind and solar power plants cause environmental damage. The
majority (71%) of respondents feel this way about wind farms (42% rather low harm, 21% rather high
425
harm, 8 very high harm). More than ½ of the respondents (58%) believe that solar power plants also
cause environmental damage (rather small - 47%, rather large - 7%, very large - 4%).
Almost ½ of respondents (47%) would object if there were plans to build a wind farm near where
they live. Just over ⅓ of respondents (39%) would have no objection. It is noticeable that older
respondents and Kurzeme residents would be more likely to object.
In terms of publicly expressed concerns about the negative impact of wind farms on the lives of
nearby residents, more than ½ of respondents generally agree that wind turbines kill birds (56%),
that wind turbines negatively affect the value of nearby property (56%) and that wind turbines
produce a disturbing sound (54%).
When it comes to the best and most suitable locations for new power plants, the best location for
offshore wind is the sea (51%).
426
427
428
429
14. Socio-economic assessment of the proposed action
The construction and operation of the planned WPPs may have both positive and negative socio-
economic consequences, both within the area of the Proposed Action and in the national context.
Positive effects include investment in the economy, directly and indirectly related job growth,
financial benefits from land leases to the property owner on whose land the WPPs are built,
increased energy supply on the market, reduced carbon dioxide emissions, contribution to national
energy policy objectives. There may be negative impacts on tourism and recreational resources and
on the value of real estate for some residents. As the socio-economic consequences of WPP have not
been widely studied in Latvia, the information in this report is largely based on the results of studies
in other countries.
LIAA has granted the project the status of Priority Investment Project344
14.1. Impact of climate policy on socio-economic benefits
Directive 2018/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2018 on the
promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources (recast) (Text with EEA relevance), designed
to create a common framework for the use of RES in the Member States of the European Union by
setting mandatory targets for the overall share of renewable energy in final energy consumption and
transport fuel consumption in the European Union. According to the "Latvian Long-Term Energy
Strategy 2030 - Competitive Energy for Society", the share of energy produced from renewable
sources in gross final energy consumption is to be increased to 50%. According to the "Latvian Long-
Term Energy Strategy 2030 - Competitive Energy for Society", the share of energy produced from
renewable sources in gross final energy consumption is to be increased to 50%. The same objective is
enshrined in the Latvian National Energy and Climate Plan 2021-2030, which does not set specific,
precise targets for onshore WPPs, but postulates support in principle for their construction in
unlimited amounts; the following are the main quotes from the document:
"Desired situation in 2030: 1) sufficient generation capacity is available and the country's energy
dependence on imports and fossil resources is reduced; 2) the potential for wind power generation is
largely exploited within the capacity of the available infrastructure and, consequently, the share of
RES is increased in a cost-effective, market-based manner."
“(..) At the same time, in order to ensure Latvia's energy security and to provide the society with
cheap and competitive energy, Latvia should ensure an increase in the share of RES, which should
naturally be provided by the most cost-effective technologies. The cost of generating electricity from
onshore wind farms has fallen significantly and recent studies show that they are the cheapest of all
newly installed technologies, including fossil fuel technologies, for generating electricity."
"It would also be useful to ensure the use of nationally important farmland and forest land for the
development of wind farms."
Overall, the Republic of Latvia expresses its unequivocal support for the production of wind energy in
free market competition without subsidies, noting that wind energy in Latvia has so far been very
little developed and that there are too many unnecessary obstacles to promoting its development.
Latvia's National Energy and Climate Plan 2021-2030, updated in 2024, foresees the installation of
onshore WPP parks with a total capacity of up to 1.5 GW by 2030. Currently, there are 82 WPP parks
(see Figure 14.1) with a total onshore capacity of ~12 GW (excluding those that have been
344
https://www.liaa.gov.lv/lv/programmas/zalais-
koridors/atbilstiba?utm_source=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2F
430
discontinued) with Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs) pending/ongoing/ongoing/completed
in various stages of development in Latvia.
431
432
Figure 14.1. Environmental Impact Assessments submitted/ongoing/continued/completed for 82 WPP parks in Latvia at different stages of development345
345
https://www.vpvb.gov.lv/lv/ietekmes-uz-vidi-novertejumu-projekti), situation as of 23.09.2024
433
14.2. Current situation and assumptions
Attracting investment is an important factor influencing the development of the economy, and the
construction of a WPP should be evaluated in the same way as any other investment that
contributes to economic growth in terms of attracting investment. It is expected that several dozens
(the exact number to be implemented is not known before and after the completion of this EIA) The
total cost of the construction of the WPPs could reach, respectively, tens of millions of EUR, which is
a significant investment project.
Socio-economic returns can be divided into the following impact areas:
− Local impacts, which directly affect the location of the project (locality, municipality);
− local impacts, which affect the neighbourhood where the project is located (municipality);
− national impact, which affects the economy of the country where the project is
implemented;
− international impact, which affects the economies of other countries (e.g. EU and EEA area).
An important aspect to be taken into account when assessing the impact of the Proposed Action on
the economy is not only the total amount of investment, but also the increase in jobs associated
with this investment. In the context of employment, the WPP construction proposal is linked to the
creation of jobs both during the construction process and during operation. Demand for additional
labour will be related to the construction and operation of the WPP itself, as well as to indirectly
related activities such as mining for road construction, cement and concrete production, and
transport. Referring to the statistics published by the International Renewable Energy Agency
(hereinafter referred to as IRENA)346 on the increase of jobs in the construction of WPP parks, as well
as the estimates of the proponents of the Proposed Action, it is expected that several hundred
persons (depending on the number of WPPs) could be temporarily employed in the construction
process of WPPs, The number of persons permanently employed during the operation of such WPPs
could be up to 10 (as WPPs are a highly automated technology where the main human resource
input is mainly in monitoring and maintenance).
14.2.1. Socio-economic benefits for society as a whole
Increasing the amount of energy produced in Latvia can also be seen as a potential benefit for
society, which can affect the price of electricity for consumers. Latvia's economy consumes more
than 7 TWh of electricity, some of which is imported every year. The availability of electricity on the
market is one of the factors that have a significant impact on its price. Installing additional capacity,
as well as increasing the diversity of electricity generation options, can reduce the impact of adverse
weather conditions (droughts, when hydroelectric power plants (HPPs) produce little energy and
have to import it) on the price of the electricity produced. Several dozen WPPs will not, however,
rapidly reduce electricity prices for consumers, as Latvia's electricity transmission system is
integrated into the broader Baltic Sea region system, so the generation capacity of these WPPs will
be significant at the Latvian level (exceeding 10% of Latvia's electricity generation to date), but
relatively small in terms of the overall market size.
Potentially negative impacts are considered to be those on tourism and recreational resources and
property values. It is difficult to predict the economic impact of the planned WPP on the recreational
346
https://www.irena.org/Publications
434
facilities in the area, as there is a lack of studies of this kind in Latvia, but studies in other European
countries show that:
− When visitors to recreational facilities were surveyed before the construction of the planned
WPPs, some indicated that they would no longer visit these recreational facilities after
construction;
− analysing the dynamics of recreational users after the construction of the WPP, no
significant drop in turnover can be detected347,348,349.
These studies reflect the situation for large wind farms close to recreational facilities rather than for
a few remote WPPs.
Studies in other countries have shown that the construction of WPPs does not have a negative
impact on the value of the usable land, due to the fact that WPPs and associated facilities occupy a
negligible amount of usable land, while all other land remains undisturbed. Forestry land is a
productive resource whose price is determined by the amount of income that can be earned from its
use.
The construction of a WPP has the potential to affect the value of properties that are primarily used
for residential development. Foreign studies350,351,352 have found a correlation between the
proximity of WPP parks and property prices, indicating that WPP parks can potentially reduce
property sales prices, while other studies353,354,355,356,357,358 have not found such an effect. In studies
where negative impacts have been found, a correlation is observed between the distances from the
property to the WPP. The results of the studies suggest that impacts are likely to be occasional,
affecting only specific properties that are primarily used for recreation. Studies have also found that
the impact of WPP parks on real estate values is more likely to be a deterrent to property
appreciation than a direct depreciator. For example, a study in Australia also analysed re-sales and
concluded that property values are highly dependent on overall demand in the region and other
market fluctuations that are not directly related to the NPS. Factors such as access to services and
347 https://www.nhsec.nh.gov/projects/2013-02/documents/131212appendix_31.pdf
348 C. Aitchison, Tuorism impact of wind farms, The University of Edinburgh, 2012
349 V. Braunova, Impact study of wind power on tourism on Gotland, Uppsala University
350 Y. Sunak, R. Madlener, The Impact of wind farms on property values: a geographically weighted
hedonic pricing model, Aachen, Germany, 2013
351 S. Sims, P. Dent, Property stigma: wind farms are just the latest fashion. Journal of Property Investment
and Finance, 2007
352 M.D. Heintzelman, C.M. Tuttle, Values in the wind: A hedonic analysis of wind power facilities, Land
Economics, 2011
353 S. Sims et al., Modelling the impact of wind farms on house prices in the UK. International Journal of
Strategic Property Management, 2008
354 S.P. Laposa, A. Mueller,. Wind farm announcements and rural home prices: Maxwell ranch and rural
Northern Colorado. The Journal of Sustainable Real Estate, 2010
355 B. Hoen et al., The impact of wind energy projects on residential property values in the United States: A
multi-site hedonic analysis. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. LBNL Paper, 2009
356 B. Hoen et al., Wind energy facilities and residential properties: The effect of proximity and view on
sales prices. Journal of Real Estate Research, 2011
357 G. Canning, L. J. Simmons, Wind energy study - Effect on real estate values in the municipality of
ChathamKent, Ontario. Consulting Report prepared for the Canadian Wind Energy Association, Ontario,
Canada, 2010
358 Urbis Pty Ltd, Review of impact of wind farms on property values, 2016
435
transport, economic growth and employment in the region, as well as changes in legislation, have a
more significant impact on property values. For example, also in Latvia, information on changes in
housing market prices collected by the State Land Service shows that after 2015, when the
conditions under which persons can obtain fixed-term residence permits in Latvia were changed,
real estate values decreased more significantly than in the foreign studies on the impact of WPP
parks on real estate values.
According to the methodology developed by the European Commission "Guide to Cost-Benefit
Analysis of Investment Projects, Economic appraisal tool for Cohesion Policy 2014-2020"359, where a
quantitative economic impact assessment is not possible, a qualitative description of the wider
impact on secondary markets, public funds, employment, gross domestic product, etc. is
recommended to better explain the contribution of the development project to the achievement of
regional policy objectives.
According to the authors' assessment, the main socio-economic impact of the WPP development,
which is not quantified, is the impact on the value of real estate in the area of the WPP
development. Taking into account that no studies have been carried out in Latvia on the impact of
the development of WPPs on the value of real estate, the authors have carried out an assessment of
international experience. A number of studies have been carried out abroad, including in European
countries with more experience with WPP development, to assess the impact of WPP development
on property values in areas adjacent to WPPs. However, the largest study to date has been carried
out in the United States, which assesses the impact of NPS development on the value of 500 000
properties in 34 states over a 15-year period (2005-2020). The dataset for this study covers the
period from four years before the start of WPP development activities (the WPP development
announcement period) in the project area to more than six years after the start of WPP operations.
Overall, the main findings of the study are:
• Residential sales prices that are affected after the WPP development announcement period
are limited to properties within a 2-mile (~3.2 km) radius of the VPP development site, and
even then the impact on properties within a 1-2 mile (~1.6-3.2 km) radius is much smaller
than on those in the immediate vicinity of the VPP;
• Residential properties located within 1 mile (~1.6 km) of the WPP would experience a
decrease in value of approximately 11% following the announcement of a new WPP
development compared to hypothetical properties located 3-5 miles (~4.8-9.0 km) away;
However, those properties that have been devalued by the WPP development quickly recover any
losses, returning to the inflation-adjusted level before the announcement of the WPP development
within three to five years of the WPP becoming operational360.
The literature provides mixed data on the number of jobs created by WPP development. The Hillard
G. Huntington study "Creating Jobs With 'Green' Power Sources" found that the wind energy sector
creates between 0.71 and 2.79 jobs per year for every MW of installed capacity.361 Luigi Aldieri Jonas
Grafström, Kristoffer Sundström and Concetto Paolo Vinci "Wind Power and Job Creation", analysing
17 scientific articles and 10 reports, conclude that the average number of jobs created is 5.38 per
MW in the scientific articles and 5.80 per MW in the other reports. The maximum number of staff
359
https://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/studies/cba_guide.pdf
360
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421523004226?via%3Dihub
361
Hillard G. Huntington, Creating Jobs With 'Green' Power Sources, Reprinted from USAEE Dialogue 17(1),
2009.
436
required for operation and maintenance is given as 3.44 per MW in scientific papers and 0.29 per
MW in other reports. Statistics from the International Renewable Energy Agency show that an
average of 50-100 workers are employed during the construction of a WPP of up to 200 MW, and
10-15 people are permanently employed during the operation of the WPP.362 Therefore, the number
of jobs created by the Proposed Action could be 50-75 during construction and 5-10 during
operation.
14.2.2. Socio-economic impact of the Valmiera-Valka WPP Park
The proposed activity is planned in the administrative territories of Valka and Vijciems parishes of
Valka municipality and Plani parish of Valmiera municipality. Detailed socio-economic impact
calculations have been prepared for the two alternatives for the WPP Park in question and are
attached in Annex 11. Socio-economic impacts have been carried out for the Valmiera-Valka WPP
Park Alternative A - 25 WPPs and Alternative B - 38 WPPs; if the number of WPP turbines is reduced
by 2-3 units during the EIA, the socio-economic benefits will decrease accordingly.
The administrative areas of the WPP development - Valka, Vijciems and Plani municipalities - are
characterised by negative dynamics of the declared population. However, with the exception of
Vijciems municipality, where there has been a slight increase, there has been a simultaneous
decrease in the share of jobseekers/unemployed among the economically active population aged
15-74.
The overall demographic situation of the administrative areas of the WPP development indicates the
potential of the WPP development areas to accommodate new jobs related to the development and
operation of the WPP, which would employ the population declared in these areas, as well as, if
necessary, new population whose migration would be directly or indirectly related to the
development and operation of the WPP.
In the context of the business sector, enterprises providing agricultural, forestry and fishery activities
dominate (38% of the total number of enterprises in Valka county and 41% of the total number of
enterprises in Valmiera county) in the administrative territories of the WPP development, however
in both counties enterprises providing other types of economic activities included in NACE
classification are also relatively well represented.
In general, the WPP development administrative areas are characterised by a dynamic and
diversified business environment, which, taking into account the demographic situation, indicates a
readiness to accept the socio-economic challenges associated with the development of WPPs,
including the provision of the workforce needed to create jobs during the development and
operation phase, servicing the non-local workforce and other services essential and necessary for
the development and operation of WPPs.
It should be noted that data on impacts on recreational resources, ecosystem services (mushroom
picking, berry picking, etc.) are not quantified in the socio-economic impact assessment due to the
quality of available data, but are assessed in other impact assessments, such as recreation in the
landscape assessment, ecosystem services in the habitat assessment.
The assessment of the socio-economic factors to be assessed qualitatively shows that, based on
international experience, short-term negative impacts on properties in the vicinity of the WPP
362
https://www.irena.org//media/Files/IRENA/Agency/Publication/2017/Jun/IRENA_Leveraging_for_Onshore_
Wind_Executive_Summary_2017.pdf
437
development areas are likely to be of medium-term (three to five years from the start of operation
of the WPP) nature and do not lead to significant negative impacts in the long term.
The benefit-cost analysis of the socio-economic assessment uses a socio-economic discount rate of
5%, which discounts future income and losses, to determine the value of the project at today's
prices.
The quantifiable socio-economic factors for all alternatives show a very significant overall net
present value and an internal rate of return well above the socio-economic discount rate of 5% used
in the calculations, which means that the long-term socio-economic benefits offset the potential
short-term losses, including in terms of GHG emissions. In terms of socio-economic returns to the
development of the WPP, the best performing alternative is alternative "A", with a total net present
value of 183 045 458 EUR and an internal rate of return of 18.71% (see Table 14.1 below).
Calculating the socio-economic return per WPP individually, the net present value of alternative "A"
is 7 321 818 EUR.
14.2.3. Socio-economic benefits - Community levy
When planning the WPP projects, Latvian Wind Parks Ltd. initially envisaged and supported a
compensatory mechanism for local communities or a "community payment" aimed at improving the
well-being of the local community in whose territory the VPP development takes place, as a result of
which community payments can be attributed to the socio-economic benefits of the WPP
development project.
On 5 January 2024, the Amendment to the Electricity Market Act entered into force, Article 22 .1
"Payments for wind power plants for local community development" of which provides as follows:
1. An electricity producer whose wind power installation is located on the territory of the
Republic of Latvia, in the internal maritime waters, in the territorial sea or in the exclusive
economic zone and whose installed capacity is equal to or greater than one megawatt shall
pay wind power installation payments for local community development for the total
installed capacity of each installation;
2. The Cabinet of Ministers shall determine the amount of the payments provided for in
paragraph 1 of this Article, the procedure for their payment and monitoring, the deadlines,
as well as the purposes for which the payments are used.
The following assumptions are used to calculate the size of the community charge:
• Charge per MW of WPP capacity: EUR 2 500/year;
• Total installed nameplate capacity of the WPP according to the indicative capacity
parameters of the NPP provided by Latvijas vēja parki Ltd - 6,8 MW:
o For alternative "A" (25 WPP): 170 MW;
o For alternative "B" (38 WPP): 258,4 MW.
According to the authors' calculations, the annual monetary amount of socio-economic benefits for
the community in which the WPP development takes place will be as follows:
- For alternative "A": 170 MW x 2500 € = 425 000 €/year;
- For alternative "B": 258.4 MW x 2500 EUR = 646 000 EUR/year.
The total community payment benefits in discounted monetary socio-economic benefits over the
project lifetime of 25 years will be:
438
- In case of alternative "A": EUR 4 693 264;
- For alternative "B": EUR 7 133 761.
14.2.4. Conclusions on socio-economic benefits
In assessing the socio-economic damages to be assessed qualitatively, it can be concluded that,
based on international experience, the negative impacts on real estate in the vicinity of the WPP
development areas are likely to be medium-term (within three to five years from the start of
operation of the WPP) and do not lead to significant negative impacts in the long term.
On the other hand, the quantifiable socio-economic benefits and losses for all alternatives show a
very significant overall net present value and an internal rate of return well above the socio-
economic discount rate of 5% used for the calculations, which means that the long-term socio-
economic benefits compensate for the short-term losses, including in terms of GHG emissions. In
terms of socio-economic returns to the development of the WPP, the best performing alternative is
alternative "A", with a total net present value of 185 033 941 EUR and an internal rate of return of
18.44% (see Annex 11). However, it is important to note that not all projects, even after the
completion of the environmental impact assessment, are implemented to the extent of their
proposed capacities.
Table 14.1. Monetary results of the Valmiera-Valka NPP Park alternatives discounted over the
lifetime of the WPP (EUR)
Alternative/ Indicator A (25 WPP) B (38 WPP)
Net present GHG emission Net present GHG emission
value, EUR reductions, value, EUR reductions,
tonnes CO2 eq. tonnes CO2 eq.
CO2 emissions
Deforestation of the WPP -7 065 992 -41 960 -12 138 593 -71 720
development area
Partial afforestation of the WPP 1 510 428 7 010 2 534 373 11 757
development site
CO2 emissions during the -41 383 184 -284 800 -62 902 439 -432 896
production phase of the WPP
CO2 emissions during the -2 091 426 -12 800 -3 178 967 -19 456
installation phase of the WPP
CO2 emissions during the -4 767 013 -22 400 -7 245 860 -34 048
operational phase of the WPP
Substitution of electricity 226 433 136 1 064 000 344 178 366 1 617 280
Total CO2 emissions 172 635 949 709 050 261 246 879 1 070917
Increase in employment
Additional wage income 7 704 728 11 711 186
Community payments
Community payment 4 693 264 7 133 761
439
Alternative/ Indicator A (25 WPP) B (38 WPP)
Net present GHG emission Net present GHG emission
value, EUR reductions, value, EUR reductions,
tonnes CO2 eq. tonnes CO2 eq.
Total 185 033 941 280 091 827
Internal rate of return, % 18,4405% 18,3174%
Table 14.2. Monetary results of the Valmiera-Valka WPP park alternatives discounted over the
lifetime of the WPP (EUR) relative to 1 WPP in each alternative
Alternative/ Indicator A (1 WPP) B (1 WPP)
Net present GHG emission Net present GHG emission
value, EUR reductions, value, EUR reductions,
tonnes CO2 eq. tonnes CO2 eq.
CO2 emissions
Deforestation of the WPP -282 640 -1 678 -319 437 -1 887
development area
Partial afforestation of the WPP 60 417 280 66 694 309
development site
CO2 emissions during the -1 655 327 -11 392 -1 655 327 -11 392
production phase of the WPP
CO2 emissions during the -83 657 -512 -83 657 -512
installation phase of the WPP
CO2 emissions during the -190 681 -896 -190 681 -896
operational phase of the WPP
Substitution of electricity 9 057 325 42 560 9 057 325 42 560
Total CO2 emissions 6 905 438 28 362 6 874 918 28 182
Increase in employment
Additional wage income 308 189 308 189
Community payments
Community payment 187 731 187 731
Total 7 401 358 7 370 838
Annex 11 also includes a table summarising the socio-economic impacts of WPP development by
their indicative impact types - international, national, local and indigenous.
440
15. Summary of the environmental impact assessment of the proposed action
A SUMMARY will be prepared on xx October as a separate Annex.
441
16. Authors of the Environmental Impact Assessment
Līga Blanka, Master of Environmental Sciences, Project Manager
Valdis Felsbergs, Master of Environmental Sciences, Physical Impacts Expert
Pēteris Blumats, Master of Social Sciences
Ieva Anna Arāja, Master of Environmental Sciences
Laine Roziņa, Master of Environmental Sciences
Tatjana Sorokina, Certified Hydrogeologist
Juris Saprovskis, Acoustic Engineer
Krišjānis Ralfs Veinbergs, Master of Environmental Sciences, GIS expert
Atis Cirpons, Physical Influences and Computer Modelling Expert
Dāvis Immurs, Landscape Expert
Haralds Punculis, Landscape Expert
Andis Lazdiņš, Doctor of Forestry
Viesturs Vintulis, certified expert, certificate No 070
Jānis Ozoliņš, certified expert, certificate No 160
Voldemārs Spuņģis, certified expert, certificate No 046
Plant species and habitat experts:
Anete Pošiva-Bunkovska, certified expert, certificate No 116
Gatis Eriņš, certified expert, certificate No 079
Toms Daniels Čakars, Certified Expert/Assistant Expert, Certificate No 182
Linda Strode, certified expert, certificate No 174
Jānis Saulītis, certified expert, certificate No 178
Field surveys were also carried out and information on the areas surveyed was provided by:
Ilze Kukāre, certified expert, certificate No 115
Santa Grandovska, eksperta asistente
Maija Fonteina-Kazeka, Assistant Expert
Bird experts:
Edgars Dzenis, Certified Expert, Certificate No 081
Māris Strazds, Laboratory of Ornithology, Institute of Biology, University of Latvia
Consultation with Uģis Bergmanis, certified expert, certificate No 014
442
17. List of sources of information and literature consulted in the preparation of
the EIA report
Abromas, J., Kamičaitytė, J., Ziemeļniece, A. 2014. Visual impact assessment of wind turbines
and their farms on landscape of Kretinga region (Lithuania) and Grobina townscape (Latvia). Journal
of Environmental Engineering and Landscape Management. 23. 1-11.
10.3846/16486897.2014.919921.
Alerstam, T. 1972. Nocturnal Bird Migration in Skane, Sweden, as Recorded by Radar in
Autumn 1971. Ornis Scandinavica, 3(2), 141. doi:10.2307/3676221.
Alerstam, T., & Ulfstrand S. 1972. Radar and Field Observations of Diurnal Bird Migration in
South Sweden, Autumn 1971. Ornis Scandinavica, 3(2), 99. doi:10.2307/3676220
Angulo, I. & de la Vega, D. & Cascón, I. & Cañizo, J. & Wu, Y. & Guerra, D. & Angueira, P. 2014.
Impact analysis of wind farms on telecommunication services. Renewable and Sustainable Energy
Reviews, Volume 32.
JSC "Latvia's State Forests". 2023. Forest Management Plan of JSC "Latvia's State Forests" for
2022-2026. Public part.
Avotiņš jun. A. 2019. Conservation plan for the Barn Owl Glaucidium passerinum, the Short-
eared Owl Aegolius funereus, the Barn Owl Strix aluco, the Barn Owl Strix uralensis, the Long-eared
Owl Asio otus and the Barn Owl Bubo bubo. Latvijas Ornitoloģijas biedrība, Rīga.
Balotari-Chiebao, F., Valkama, J., Byholm, P. 2021. Assessing the vulnerability of breeding bird
populations to onshore wind-energy developments in Finland, Ornis Fennica , vol. 98 , no. 2.
Bergmanis U. 2019. Lesser Spotted Eagle Clanga pomarina conservation plan in Latvia. Latvian
Fund for Nature, Riga.
Bergmanis, M., Priednieks, J., Avotiņš, A. jun., Priedniece, I. 2020. Conservation plan for the
Lesser Spotted Woodpecker Dryobates minor, the Medium Woodpecker Leiopicus medius, the White-
backed Woodpecker Dendrocopos leucotos, the Great-crested Woodpecker Dendrocopos major, the
Three-toed Woodpecker Picoides tridactylus, the Black Woodpecker Dryocopus martius and the Grey
Woodpecker Picus canus. Latvijas Ornitoloģijas biedrība, Rīga.
BERGMANIS, U. 2000. Return of the golden eagle Aquila chrysaetos to Teiči Marsh. Birds in
nature 10.4: 6-11.
Bergmanis, U. 2019. Lesser Spotted Eagle Clanga pomarina conservation plan in Latvia.
Latvian Fund for Nature, Riga.
BERGMANIS, U., ĶUZE, J. 2023. Distribution, Population Dynamics, Ecology, and Protection of
the Golden Eagle in Latvia. THE GOLDEN EAGLE AROUND THE WORLD (submitted and accepted for
publication).
443
Bevanger, K., Flagstad, Ø., Follestad, A., Gjershaug, J., Halley, D., Hanssen, F., May, R., Nygård,
T., Pedersen, H., Reitan, O., Vang, R., Johnsen, L. 2009. Pre- and post-Construction Studies of Conflicts
between Birds and Wind Turbines in Coastal Norway. Report on findings 2007-2010, NINA Report
620.
Blakey, R., Siegel, R., Webb, E., Dillingham, C., Johnson, M., Kesler, D. 2020. Northern
Goshawk (Accipiter gentilis) Home Ranges, Movements, and Forays Revealed by GPS-Tracking.
Journal of Raptor Research. 54. 10.3356/0892-1016-54.4.388.
Broekel, T., Alfken, C. 2015. Gone with the wind? The impact of wind turbines on tourism
demand. Energy Policy. 86, 506—519.
Busse, P. 2001. European passerine migration system what is known and what is lacking. Ring
23, 1-2: 3- 36
C. Aitchison, Tuorism impact of wind farms, The University of Edinburgh, 2012.
Canning, G., Simmons, L, J. 2010. Wind energy study – Effect on real estate values inthe
municipality of ChathamKent, Ontario. Consulting Report prepared for the Canadian Wind Energy
Association, Ontario, Canada.
Edwards, W,N. 2015. Analysis of Measured Wind Turbine Seismic Noise Generated from the
Summerside Wind Farm, Prince Edward Island. Geological Survey of Canada.
EUROCONTROL. 2014. Guidelines for Assessing the Potential Impact of Wind Turbines on
Surveillance Sensors.
Fei You a, Sujan Shaik a, Md. Rokonuzzaman b, Kazi Sajedur Rahman c, Wen-Shan Tan Fire risk
assessments and fire protection measures for wind turbines: A review, Heliyon 9 (2023) 19664
Finnish Meteorological Institute. 2007. EUMETNET OPERA PROGRAMME (2004-2006) -
Operational programme for the exchange of weather radar information. Final report.
Frantál, B., Kunc, J. 2011. Wind turbines in tourism landscapes. Annals of Tourism Research.
38 (2), 499—519.
González-Hurtado, J., He, P., Newson, T., Hong, H., Postman, M., Molnar, S. 2017. Field
monitoring and analysis of an onshore wind turbine shallow foundation system. Geo Otawa.
Gorm Kipperberg, Yuko Onozaka, Linh Thi Bui, Marthe Lohaugen, Greta Refsdal, Sandra
Sæland,
Hassan, G. 2007. Recommendations for risk assessment of ice throw and blade failure in
Ontario. Canadian Wind Energy Association.
Heintzelman, M.D., Tuttle, C.M. 2011. Values in the wind: A hedonic analysis of wind power
facilities, Land Economics.
444
Helldin J.O., Jung J., Neumann W., Olsson M., Skarin A., Widemo F. 2012. The impacts of wind
power on terrestrial mammals. A synthesis - SWEDISH ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REPORT 6510, 52 pp.
Hillard G. Huntington, 2009. Creating Jobs With ‘Green’ Power Sources. Reprinted from USAEE
Dialogue 17(1).
Hjernquist, M.B. 2014. Effekter på fågellivet vid ett generationsskifte av vindkraftverk -
kontrollprogram, Näsudden, Gotland 2009-2013. Karl Mårten Hjernquist Konsult, Havdhem.
Hoen, B., Wiser, R, H., Cappers, P., Thayer, M, A., Sethi, G. 2009. The impact of wind energy
projects on residential property values in the United States: A multi-site hedonic analysis. Lawrence
Berkeley National Laboratory. LBNL Paper.
Hoen, B., Wiser, R, H., Cappers, P., Thayer, M, A., Sethi, G. 2011. Wind energy facilities and
residential properties: The effect of proximity and view on sales prices. Journal of Real Estate
Research.
Hoppe-Klipper, M., Steinhäuser, U., 2002. Wind Landscapes in the German milieu. In:
Windpower in View: Energy Landscapes in a Crowded World. Academic Press, New York, 83—99.
Hovick, T.H., Elmore, R., Dahlgren, D., Fuhlendorf S., Engle D. 2014. REVIEW: Evidence of
negative effects of anthropogenic structures on wildlife: a review of grouse survival and behaviour.
Journal of Applied Ecology. 51. 10.1111/1365-2664.12331.
International civil aviation organisation. 2015. European guidance material on managing
building restricted areas: 3rd eddition.
Joakim Renström, Modelling of Ice Throws from Wind Turbines Modellering av iskast från
vindkraftverk, Uppsala University 2015
Juškevičs V., Polivko I., Tracevskis G. 1964. Report on 1:200 000 scale complex geological and
hydrogeological mapping in the southern part of sheet O-35-XXI (North Latvia mapping group), 1962-
1964. Riga, Geological Survey.
Juškevičs V., Polivko I., Tracevskis G. 1965. Report on 1:200 000 scale complex geological and
hydrogeological mapping in the southern part of sheet O-35-XXI (North Latvia mapping group), 1962-
1964. Riga, Geological Survey.
Kerlinger, P. 2002. An assessment of the impacts of Green Mountain Power Corporation's
wind power facility on breeding and migrating birds in Searsburg. Report prepared for the Vermont
Department of Public Service, Montpelier, VT
Ķerus, V., Dekants A., Auniņš, A., Mārdega, I. 2021. Breeding bird atlases of Latvia 1980 -
2017. Riga, Latvian Ornithological Society.
445
Ladenburg, J., Dahlgaard, J.-O. 2012. Attitudes, threshold levels and cumulative effects of the
daily wind-turbine encounters. Applied Energy, 98, 40—46.
Langston, R.H.W., Pullan, J.D. 2003. Windfarms and birds: an analysis of the effects of wind
farms on birds, and guidance on environmental assessment criteria and site selection issues. Report
T-PVS/Inf (2003) 12, by BirdLife International to the Council of Europe, Bern Convention on the
Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats. RSPB/BirdLife in the UK.
Laposa, S,P., Mueller, A. 2010. Wind farm announcements and rural home prices: Maxwell
ranch and rural Northern Colorado. The Journal of Sustainable Real Estate.
Lazdiņš, A. 2024. The existing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from the Valmiera-Valka wind
farm and associated infrastructure project in the Plani municipality of Valmiera county and the
Vijciems and Valka municipalities of Valka county and the changes in GHG emissions from the
construction and operation of the wind farm.
Łopucki R. & Mróz I. 2016. An assessment of non-volant terrestrial vertebrates response to
wind farms-a study of small mammals. - Environ Monit Assess 188: 122 DOI 10.1007/s10661-016-
5095-8.
Methodology, and Practices. Presentation at the conference "Birds and WPP Development.
How to find the best solution?", Riga, 27 March 2023. September.
Miltz C., Eriksen A., Wikenros C., Wabakken P., Sand H., Zimmermann B. 2024. Will future
wind power development in Scandinavia have an impact on wolves? - WILDLIFE BIOLOGY
doi:10.1002/wlb3.01250 00 1-12 2024: e01250.
Ministerium für Umwelt, Klima und Energiewirtschaft Baden-Württemberg. 2016. Low-
frequency noise incl. infrasound from wind turbines and other sources. Report on results of the
measurement project 2013-2015.
Misāne, A. 2012. Latvian heterotopia - the newly created sanctuary in Pokaiņi: Bela, B., Zepa,
B. (zin. ed.). Identities, communities, discourses. Collection of articles. Rīga, LU Akadēmiskais apgāds,
77.—90.
Morkūnas J. 2023. Best Practices for Bird Monitoring in Wind Farm Development in Lithuania:
Guidelines.
Newton, I. 2023. The migration ecology of birds. Elsevier.
Noskov, G,A., Rymkevich, T,A., Gaginskaya, A,R. (Eds.). 2016. Migration of Birds of Northwest
Russia: Non-passerines. St. Petersburg: ANO LA "Professional".
Ņikuļins, V. 2007. Seismotectonic conditions and seismic hazard of Latvia. University of Latvia,
Riga.
446
Ozoliņš J. (leader) 2019. Investigation of environmental factors important for the
conservation of the capercaillie. Final report. Latvian State Forest Research Institute "Silava",
Salaspils.
Pisano, F. 2019. Input of advanced geotechnical modelling to the design of offshore wind
turbine foundations. Norwegian Geotechnical Institute
Poulsen, A,H., Raaschou-Nielsen, O., Peña, A., Hahmann, A,N., Nordsborg, R,B., Ketzel, M.,
Brandt, J., Sørensen, M. 2018. Long-term exposure to wind turbine noise and redemption of
antihypertensive medication: A nationwide cohort study. Environ Int. 121(Pt 1):207-215. doi:
10.1016/j.envint.2018.08.054. Epub 2018 Sep 11. PMID: 2019.
Poulsen, A,H., Raaschou-Nielsen, O., Peña, A., Hahmann, A,N., Nordsborg, R,B., Ketzel, M.,
Brandt, J., Sørensen, M. 2018. Pregnancy exposure to wind turbine noise and adverse birth
outcomes: a nationwide cohort study. Environ Res.167:770-775. doi: 10.1016/j.envres.2018.09.011.
Epub 2018 Sep 10. PMID: 2019.
Poulsen, A,H., Raaschou-Nielsen, O., Peña, A., Hahmann, A,N., Nordsborg, R,B., Ketzel, M.,
Brandt, J., Sørensen, M. 2018. Long-term exposure to wind turbine noise at night and risk for
diabetes: A nationwide cohort study. Environ Res.165:40-45. doi: 10.1016/j.envres.2018.03.040.
Epub 2018 Apr 14. PMID: 29665463.
Poulsen, A,H., Raaschou-Nielsen, O., Peña, A., Hahmann, A,N., Nordsborg, R,B., Ketzel, M.,
Brandt, J., Sørensen, M. 2018. Short-term nighttime wind turbine noise and cardiovascular events: A
nationwide case-crossover study from Denmark. Environ Int. 114:160-166. doi:
10.1016/j.envint.2018.02.030. Epub 2018 Mar 2. PMID: 29505969.
Priedītis,N. 2014. Latvijas augi. Encyclopedia.
Rydell, J., Ottvall, R., Pettersson, S., Green, M. 2017. The effects of wind power on birds and
bats. Swedish Environmental Protection Agency, Sweden.
Scholl E.M. & Nopp-Mayr U. 2021. Impact of wind power plants on mammalian and avian
wildlife species in shrub- and woodlands - Biological Conservation 256
doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2021.109037
Europrojekts Ltd. 2019. The third Estonia-Latvia electricity grid interconnection from Sindi
(Kilingi - Nõmme) in Estonia to Salaspils. Environmental impact assessment.
Sims, S., Dent, P. 2007. Property stigma: wind farms are just the latest fashion. Journal of
Property Investment and Finance.
Sims, S., Dent, P., Oskrochiet, G, R. 2008. Modelling the impact of wind farms on house prices
in the UK. International Journal of Strategic Property Management.
447
Institute for Social, Economic and Humanitarian Studies (VIA HESPI). 2022. Monitoring of
visitors to specially protected areas. Report on the survey results.
Solick D., Pham D., Nasman K. & Bay K. 2020. Bat activity rates do not predict bat fatality rates
at wind energy facilities. Acta Chiropterologica, 22(1): 135–146.
Strazds, M. (red.). 1996. Latvian forest birds. Latvijas Ornitoloģijas biedrība, Rīga.
Strazds, M. 2011a. Conservation Ecology of the Black Stork in Latvia. Dissertation. Faculty of
Biology, University of Latvia, Riga.
Strazds, M. 2011b. Large Nest Locator. Latvian Ornithological Society, Riga
Strazds, M. un Ķerus, V. 2017. Conservation plan for the woodlark (Bonasa bonasia) 2017-
2026. Latvijas Ornitoloģijas biedrība, Rīga.
Strazds, M., Hofmanis, H., Reihmanis, J. 2010. Proposals for the management of capercaillie
rookeries in Latvia. Riga, Latvian Ornithological Society.
Sunak,Y., Madlener, R. 2013. The Impact of wind farms on property values: a geographically
weighted hedonic pricing model, Aachen, Germany
Svensons, L. 2021. Bird Locator. Latvian edition, trans. E. Gulbe. Jāņa Sēta, Rīga.
Taubmann, J., Coppes, J., Andrén, H. 2021. Capercaillie and Wind Energy. An international
research project. Swedish Environmental Protection Agency, Report 6977.
The impact of wind turbines on local recreation: Evidence from two travel cost method - contingent
behaviour studies, Journal of Outdoor Recreation and Tourism, Volume 25, 2019, Pages 66-75
Tjernberg, M. 1981. Diet of the golden eagle Aquila chrysaetus during Ihc breeding season in
Sweden. Holarctic Ecology 4: 12-19, Copenhagen.
Urbis Pty Ltd, Review of impact of wind farms on property values, 2016
Ūlands, D., Millers, K. 2022. Methodology for the study of the wind farm and preparation of
the Expert Report. Agreed by the Nature Conservation Agency in October 2022.
Ūlands, D., Millers, K. 2022. Methodology for the Wind Farm Study and the Expert Report.
V. Braunova, Impact study of wind power on tourism on Gotland, Uppsala University
VDI 3834. 2009. "Messung und Beurteilung der mechanischen Schwingungen von
Windenergieanlagen und deren Komponenten - OnshoreWindenergieanlagen mit Getrieben.
Vilka, I. (development manager). 2007. Nature Management Plan of the Protected Landscape
Area "Ziemeļgauja" (from 2007 to 2017). Latvian Fund for Nature, Riga
Vilks, K. 1986. Memories of birds. Zinātne, Rīga.
VINDRAD. 2011. Project report v1.0. A tool for calculation of interference from wind power
stations to weather radars.
448
Walker, D., Mcgrady, M., McCluskie, A., Madders, M., McLeod, D,R,A. 2005. Resident Golden
Eagle ranging behaviour before and after construction of a windfarm in Argyll. Scottish Birds. 25. 24-
40.
Zorenko, T. 2001. Animal behaviour: foundations of ethology, zoopsychology and comparative
psychology. Riga, SIA ''STRIG'', 286 pp.
Electronic resources
Abarenkov, K., Tedersoo, L., Nilsson, R, H., Vellak, K., Saar, I., Veldre, V., Parmasto, E., Prous,
M., Aan, A., Ots, M., Kurina, O., Ostonen, I., Jõgeva, J., Halapuu, S., Põldmaa, K., Toots, M., Truu, J.,
Larsson, K.H., Kõljalg, U. 2010. PlutoF - a Web Based Workbench for Ecological and Taxonomic
Research, with an Online Implementation for Fungal ITS Sequences. Evolutionary Bioinformatics, 6,
189 - 196. Available: https://doi.org/10.4137/EBO.S6271
Agnew R.C.N., Smith V.J., Fowkes R.C. 2016. WIND TURBINES CAUSE CHRONIC STRESS IN
BADGERS (MELES MELES) IN GREAT BRITAIN. J Wildl Dis, 52 (3), pp. 459–467. Available:
https://doi.org/10.7589/2015-09-231
Landscape Treasures, Project. Available: www.Ainavudargumi.lv
Anonymous. 2023. Guidelines for population assessment and habitat management of
capercaillie. Available:
https://www.lvm.lv/images/lvm/sabiedribai/meza_apsaimniekosana/MAP/KOPEJIE/vadlinijas_medn
a_ai zsardzibai.pdf
ArcGIS Experience Builder. Land cover breakdown data. Available:
https://experience.arcgis.com/experience/32051c63871a47f1a6446a04f8ade1c2/page/Ainavas-
kart%C4%93s/
JSC "Latvijas valsts meži" S.a. Individually plannable sites. Dati. Available:
https://www.lvmgeo.lv/dati
JSC "Latvia's State Forests" 2024. Karte. mammadaba. Available:
https://www.mammadaba.lv/karte
JSC "Latvia's State Forests" 2024. Vijciems Cone Hill of the State Forests of Latvia.
mammadaba. Available: https://www.mammadaba.lv/galamerki/lvm-vijciema-ciekurkalte
JSC "Latvia's State Forests". 2015. TECHNICAL RULES FOR THE DESIGN OF FOREST
INFRASTRUCTURE FACILITIES Available:
https://www.lvm.lv/images/lvm/Profesionaliem/Infrastrukt%C5%ABra/MIO_TN/MIO_TP_noteikumi
_2015.pdf
449
JSC "Latvia's State Forests". 2021. Study: Latvian people's forest recreation habits. Available:
https://www.lvm.lv/jaunumi/5517-petijums-latvijas-iedzivotaju-paradumi-atputai-meza
JSC "Latvia's State Forests". 2022. Medium-term operational strategy of joint stock company
"State Forests of Latvia" for 2023-2027. Kopsavilkums. Approved by the Decision of the Supervisory
Board of JSC "Latvia's State Forests" No 73 of 13.10.2022. Available:
https://www.lvm.lv/images/lvm/demo/lvm_videja_termina_darbibas_strategijas_kopsavilkums.pdf
AST. 2024. Bird diverters are installed in the new 330 kV power transmission line Valmiera-
Tsirgulina to protect the birds nesting in the Pukši marsh. Available:
https://www.ast.lv/lv/events/jaunaja-330-kv-elektroparvades-linija-valmiera-tsirgulina-uzstaditi-
putnu-novirzitaji-puksu
AST. Protection zone widths. Available: https://www.ast.lv/lv/content/aizsargjoslu-platumi
Auniņa, A. red. 2013. European Union protected biotopes in Latvia. Noteikšanas
rokasgrāmata. 2nd updated edition. Latvian Fund for Nature, Ministry of Environmental Protection
and Regional Development, Riga. Available:
https://www.varam.gov.lv/sites/varam/files/es_biotopi_latvija_rokasgramata_lv_2_izdevums.pdf
Australian “National Wind Farm Development Guidelines”, 2018. Available:
https://assets.cleanenergycouncil.org.au/documents/advocacy-initiatives/community-
engagement/wind-best-practice-implementation-guidelines.pdf
Australian Wind Energy Association (2004). Wind farm safety in Australia
Avis d'Elia concernant la construc-tion d'éoliennes à proximité de nos installations à haute
tension
Avotiņš. 2019. Owl conservation plan. Available: https://www.daba.gov.lv/lv/sugu-un-
biotopu-aizsardzibas-plani
Āboltiņš, R. 2019. Analysis of the factors influencing the use of wind energy and possible
solutions. Available:
https://www.zalabriviba.lv/wpcontent/uploads/veja_izmantosanas_analize_skersli_iespejas-1.pdf
Baltic Maps website. Available: https://balticmaps.eu/lv/c___56.951558-24.113432-
11/bl___cl/q___
Basic concept Inc. Secondary Containment Solutions for the Green Energy Industry. Available:
https://www.basicconcepts.com/news/secondary-containment-solutions-for-the-green-energy-
industry/
Berg E. 2024. Wind of change. Wind power establishments correlate with changes in moose
harvests in central Sweden and Norway. Master thesis at Uppsala University. Available:
https://www.diva-portal.org/smash/record.jsf?pid=diva2%3A1887676&dswid=1545
450
Biedrība Wind Europe. 2021. Wind industry calls for Europe-wide ban on landfilling turbine
blades. Available: https://windeurope.org/newsroom/press-releases/wind-industry-calls-for-
europe-wide-ban-on-landfilling-turbine-blades/
Biedrība Wind Europe. 2023. Blade recycling projects. Available:
https://windeurope.org/eolis2023/programme/sessions/blade-recycling-projects-i/
Biedrība Wind Europe. 2023. Repowering wind farms: a major opportunity for Europe.
Available: https://windeurope.org/newsroom/press-releases/repowering-wind-farms-a-major-
opportunity-for-
europe/#:~:text=In%202021%20the%20wind%20industry,and%20developed%20blade%20recycling
%20solutions.
Blog. 2022. Together with nature: A lesser spotted eagle, whose habitat is near Saarde wind
farm got into trouble in Ukraine. Available at https://www.utilitas.ee/en/together-with-nature-a-
lesser-spotted-eagle-whose-habitat-is-near-saarde-wind-farm-got-into-trouble-in-ukraine/
British Orienteering Event Handbook .2011. Environmental good practice. Available at:
https://www.britishorienteering.org.uk/images/uploaded/downloads/officials_handbook_landacces
s_environmental_goodpractice.pdf
Brunner, E, J., Hoen, B., Rand, J., Schwegman, D.2024. Commercial wind turbines and
residential home values: New evidence from the universe of land-based wind projects in the United
States, Energy Policy, Volume 185, 113837, ISSN 0301-4215, Available:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421523004226?via%3Dihub
Bundesverband WindEnergie .2024. Status of Onshore Wind Energy Development in Germany
– First Half of 2023. Available: https://www.wind-energie.de/english/statistics/statistics-germany/
Central Statistical Office. 2024. Latvian forest land by land category (thous. ha) 1994-2024
Official statistics portal. Database. Available:
https://data.stat.gov.lv/pxweb/lv/OSP_PUB/START__NOZ__ME__MEP/MEM010/table/tableViewLa
yout1/
Central Statistical Office. 2024. Hotels and other tourist accommodation in regions, cities and
municipalities - Indicators, Territorial unit and Time period. Official statistics portal. Database.
Available:
https://data.stat.gov.lv/pxweb/lv/OSP_PUB/START__NOZ__TU__TUV/TUV050m/table/tableViewLay
out1/
Check lists for Birds Directive Article 12 reporting. Bird species for the Member State Latvia.
Available:
451
https://cdr.eionet.europa.eu/Converters/run_conversion?file=lv/eu/art12/envxh2nkq/LV_birds_che
cklist.xml&conv=611&source=remote
Clean energy council. 2018. Best practice guidelines for implementation of wind energy
projects in Australia. Available at: https://assets.cleanenergycouncil.org.au/documents/advocacy-
initiatives/community-engagement/wind-best-practice-implementation-guidelines.pdf
Coaches Conference. 2023. Report FRANCE. Available: https://www.oefol.at/wp-
content/uploads/2023/08/CC_Report_FRA.pdf
Copernicus Regional Reanalysis for Europe (CERRA). Copernicus Climate Change Service. ERA5
5th generation ECMWF global climate atmospheric reanalysis data. Available at
https://climate.copernicus.eu/copernicus-regional-reanalysis-europe-cerra
Nature Conservation Agency. Burgas pļavas. Pieejams https://www.daba.gov.lv/lv/burgas-
plavas
Nature Conservation Agency. Purgaile river forests. Available:
https://www.daba.gov.lv/lv/purgailes-upes-mezi
Nature Conservation Agency. Sedas marsh. Available: https://www.daba.gov.lv/lv/sedas-
purvs
Nature Conservation Agency. Assessment of the conservation status of bird species. Available:
https://www.daba.gov.lv/lv/media/12253/download
Nature Conservation Agency. North Gauja Protected Landscape Area. Available:
https://www.daba.gov.lv/lv/ziemelgauja
Ozols - a nature data management system. Available at: https://ozols.gov.lv/
Nature observation portal "Nature Data". Available: https://dabasdati.lv/lv
Department of the environment. 2009. Northern Ireland’s Best Practice Guidance to PPS18.
Available: https://www.infrastructure-
ni.gov.uk/sites/default/files/publications/infrastructure/Best%20Practice%20Guidance%20to%20PP
S%2018%20-%20Renewable%20Energy_0.pdf
The Cirgali observation tower is closed for safety reasons. 2024. Nature Conservation Agency.
Available: https://www.daba.gov.lv/lv/jaunums/drosibas-apsverumu-del-slegts-cirgalu-skatu-tornis
Dürr. T. 2023. Bird fatalities at windturbines in Europe.09. August 2023. Available:
https://lfu.brandenburg.de/sixcms/media.php/9/Voegel-Uebersicht-Europa.xlsx
European Biodiversity Information System. Sedas purvs. Available:
https://biodiversity.europa.eu/sites/natura2000/LV0526800
European Biodiversity Information System. Aheru. Available:
https://biodiversity.europa.eu/sites/natura2000/EE0080422
452
European Biodiversity Information System. Protected habitats and species. Available at
https://biodiversity.europa.eu/sites/natura2000/LV0830800_
European Biodiversity Information System. Burgas plavas. Available:
https://biodiversity.europa.eu/sites/natura2000/LV0532600
European Biodiversity Information System. Estonian Swarm. Available:
https://biodiversity.europa.eu/sites/natura2000/LV0843500
European Biodiversity Information System. Koiva-Mustjõe. Available:
https://biodiversity.europa.eu/sites/natura2000/EE0080471
European Biodiversity Information System. Ziemeļgauja. Available:
https://biodiversity.europa.eu/sites/natura2000/LV0600700
Elia, Working near high-voltage facilities. Available: https://www.elia.be/en/infrastructure-
and-projects/safety-around-our-infrastructure/working-near-high-voltage-facilities
Eltiti, S., Wallace, D., Russo, R., Fox, E. 2018. Symptom presentation in idiopathic
environmental intolerance with attribution to electromagnetic fields: Evidence for a nocebo effect
based on data re-analyzed from two previous provocation studies. Frontiers in psychology, 9:1563,
2018. Available: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6121031/
Eurocontrol Guidelines "How to Assess the Potential Impact of Wind Turbines Surveillance",
Sensors, Edition.: 1.2, September 2014, EUROCONTROL-GUID-130. Available:
https://www.pagerpower.com/news/eurocontrol-radar-wind-turbine-guidelines-v1-2/
European environment agancy, Eionet Central Data Repository. Available:
https://cdr.eionet.europa.eu/Converters/lv/eu/art17/
Ferrão da Costa, G., Paula, J., Petrucci-Fonseca, F., Álvares, F. 2018. The Indirect Impacts of
Wind Farms on Terrestrial Mammals: Insights from the Disturbance and Exclusion Effects on Wolves
(Canis lupus). In: Mascarenhas, M., Marques, A., Ramalho, R., Santos, D., Bernardino, J., Fonseca, C.
(eds) Biodiversity and Wind Farms in Portugal. Springer, Cham. Available:
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-60351-3_5
Fielding A.H., Anderson D., Benn S., Taylor J., Tingay R., Weston E.D., Whitfield D.P. 2023.
Responses of GPS-tagged territorial golden eagles Aquila chrysaetos to wind turbines in Scotland.
Diversity, 15(8), 917. Available: https://doi.org/10.3390/d15080917
G.P. van den Berg. 2004. 11th International Meeting on Low Frequency Noise and Vibration
and its Control Maastricht The Netherlands. University of Groningen – Science Shop for Physics
Nijenborgh 4, 9747AG Groningen, the Netherlands. Available:
https://eolmernormandie.debatpublic.fr/images/documents/bibliotheque-debat/22.do-wind-
turbines-produce-significant-low-frequency-sound-levels.pdf
453
Guideline No 22:2012 F -Wind turbines – Fire protection guideline. Available: https://cfpa-
e.eu/app/uploads/2022/05/CFPA_E_Guideline_No_21_2021_F.pdf
HANDBOEK WINDTURBINES Richtlijnen voor de risicoberekeningen van windturbines, 2022.
Available: https://omgeving.vlaanderen.be/sites/default/files/2022-12/2022%2012%2001%20-
%20IWT%20-%20handboek.pdf
HANDLEIDING REKENBLAD WINDTURBINES, 2019. Available:
https://omgeving.vlaanderen.be/sites/default/files/2021-10/2019%2010%2001%20-%20WT%20-
%20handleiding%20rekenblad_0.pdf
Hofmanis, H., Strazds, M. 2004. Conservation plan for the capercaillie Tetrao urogallus L. in
Latvia. Available at: http://www.putni.lv/pdf/Hofmanis_Strazds_2004.pdf
IEA Wind TCP Task 19 Technical Report International Recommendations for Ice Fall and Ice
Throw Risk Assessments (2022). Available: https://iea-wind.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/Task-
19-Technical-Report-on-International-Recommendations-for-Ice-Fall-and-Ice-Throw-Risk-
Assessments.pdf
IEA Wind. 2018. Available Technologies for Wind Energy in Cold Climates – report 2 nd edition.
Available: https://iea-wind.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/Lehtomaki-et-al.-2018-Available-
Technologies-for-Wind-Energy-in-Cold-Climates-report-2-nd-edition-2018.pdf
Heritage Information System. Cultural monument of national importance Farmstead (aiz aizs.
No 6884). Available: https://mantojums.lv/cultural-objects/6884
Heritage Information System. Cultural monument of national importance Pauklīši medieval
cemetery (aiz aizs. No 2400). Available: https://mantojums.lv/cultural-objects/2400
Heritage Information System. Monument of national cultural significance The Headmaster's
House (aiz aizs. No 9198). Available: https://mantojums.lv/cultural-objects/9191
Heritage Information System. Cultural monument of national importance Silbitaru Ancient
Monuments (aiz aizs. No 2401). Available: https://mantojums.lv/cultural-objects/2401
Heritage Information System. Cultural monument of national importance Silbitaru Ancient
Monuments (aiz aizs. No 2401). Available: https://mantojums.lv/cultural-objects/2395
Heritage Information System. Cultural monument of national importance Silbitaru Ancient
Monuments (aiz aizs. No 2401). Available: https://mantojums.lv/cultural-objects/2394
Heritage Information System. Cultural monument of national importance Silbitaru Ancient
Monuments (aiz aizs. No 2401). Available: https://mantojums.lv/cultural-objects/9264
Heritage Information System. Cultural monument of national importance Silbitaru Ancient
Monuments (aiz aizs. No 2401). Available: https://mantojums.lv/cultural-objects/2398
454
IPCC Working Group III. 2014. Mitigation of Climate Change, Annex III: Technology - specific
cost and performance parameters. Available:
https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/ipcc_wg3_ar5_annex-iii.pdf
Irish Planning Guidelines (undated), Available: https://www.gov.ie/en/collection/85b83-
planning-guidelines-standards/
Kalamees A., Ojaste I., Pass E., Oja R., Sellis U. 2017. Tetrao urogallus in Estonia. Estonian
Ornithological Society, University of Tartu. Poster available: https://soo.elfond.ee/wp-
content/uploads/2017/11/Poster-Poola-USellis.pdf
Klich D., Łopucki R., Ścibior A., Gołębiowska D., Wojciechowska M. 2020. Roe deer stress
response to a wind farms: Methodological and practical implications, Ecological Indicators, Volume
117, 2020, Available: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2020.106658.
Ministry of Climate and Energy. Methodology for calculating greenhouse gas emissions.
Available: https://www.kem.gov.lv/lv/siltumnicefekta-gazu-emisiju-aprekina-metodika
Lang, M., Kuusk, A., Vennik, K., Liibusk, A., Türk, K., Sims, A. 2021. Horizontal Visibility in
Forests. Remote Sens.13, 4455. Available: https://doi.org/10.3390/rs13214455
Langston, R,H,W., Pullan, J,D. 2003. Windfarms and Birds : An analysis of the effects of
windfarms on birds, and guidance on environmental assessment criteria and site selection issues.
Available at:
https://tethys.pnnl.gov/sites/default/files/publications/Langston%20and%20Pullan%202003.pdf
Latvijas Vides, ģeoloģijas un meteoroloģijas centrs. Register of contaminated and potentially
contaminated sites. Pieejams
http://parissrv.lvgmc.lv/#viewType=pppvMapListView&incrementCounter=1
Latvijas Vides, ģeoloģijas un meteoroloģijas centrs. Subsoil Information System. Pieejams
https://videscentrs.lvgmc.lv/iebuvets/zemes-dzilu-informacijas-sistema
Latvian air traffic. Available: https://www.airspace.lv/lgs
Latvia's official stastics portal. Forest fires. Available: https://stat.gov.lv/lv/statistikas-
temas/noz/mezsaimnieciba/8673-meza-ugunsgreki
Latvian monuments. Available: https://latvijaspieminekli.lv/piemineklis-kritusajam-igaunijas-
armijas-kapteinim-antonam-irvam/
Latvian Bat Research Society in cooperation with the Latvian Nature Conservation Agency.
2022. LVAF funded project Nr. 1-08/171/2020 "Development of guidelines for assessing the impact
of wind farm sites on bats". Jelgava. Available:
https://lvafa.vraa.gov.lv/faili/materiali/petijumi/2020/171/Vadlinijas_VES_siksparni_fin.pdf
455
Latvijas Vides, ģeoloģijas un meteoroloģijas centrs. 2024. Latvian Air Quality Review 2023.
Riga. Available:
https://videscentrs.lvgmc.lv/files/Gaiss/Gaisa_kvalitate/parskats%20par%20gaisa%20kvalitati%20Lat
vija%202023.pdf
Latvijas Vides, ģeoloģijas un meteoroloģijas centrs. 2019. Report, Air quality assessment in
Latvia 2014-2018. Riga. Available:
https://videscentrs.lvgmc.lv/files/Gaiss/Gaisa_kvalitate/Gaisa_kvalitates_novertejums_2014_2018.p
df
Łopucki R., Klich D., Ścibior A., Gołębiowska D., Perzanowski K. 2018. Living in habitats affected
by wind turbines may result in an increase in corticosterone levels in ground dwelling animals -
Ecological Indicators,Volume 84, pp. 165-171. Available:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2017.08.052.
Łopucki, R., Klich, D. & Gielarek, S. 2017. Do terrestrial animals avoid areas close to turbines in
functioning wind farms in agricultural landscapes? - Environ Monit Assess 189: 343 Available
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-017-6018-z
Lundén, J. 2017. Mapping and tool for risk analysis. Pöyry Sweden Winterwind. Available:
https://winterwind.se/wp-
content/uploads/2015/08/3_2_13_Lunden_ICETHROWER_%E2%80%93_mapping_and_tool_for_risk
_analysis_Pub_v1-1.pdf
LVMI Silava, Bear Monitoring 2023-2025 Report for 2023. Available:
https://www.silava.lv/images/Petijumi/2023-Lacu-monitorings/2023-Lacu-monitorings-Parskats.pdf
Maijala, P., Turunen, A., Kurki, I., Vainio, L., Pakarinen, S., Kaukinen, C., Lukander, K., Tiittanen,
P., Yli-Tuomi, T., Taimisto, P., Lanki, T., Tiippana, K., Virkkala, J., Stickler, E., Sainio, M. 2020.
Infrasound Does Not Explain Symptoms Related to Wind Turbines. Prime Minister’s Office, Helsinki.
Available:
https://julkaisut.valtioneuvosto.fi/bitstream/handle/10024/162329/VNTEAS_2020_34.pdf?sequenc
e=1&isAllowed=y
Hunting traditions in Valmiera region in the 18th/19th centuries Available:
http://valmiera.zurbu.net/document/1081
Methods for evaluating risk caused by ice throw from wind turbines Helge Ausland Refsum,
Lloyd's Register Consulting, Rolv Erlend Bredesen, Kjeller Vindteknikk Winterwind 2015, Piteå,
Sweden. Available:
https://windren.se/WW2015/WW2015_39_521_Refsum_Lloyd_Ice_throw_evaluating_risk.pdf
456
Morkūnė R., Marčiukaitis, M., Jurkin, V., Gecevičius, G., Morkūnas, J., Raudonikis, L., et al.
2020. Wind energy development and wildlife conservation in Lithuania: A mapping tool for conflict
assessment. Available: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0227735f
National Encyclopedia. Tautas sports Latvijā. Available: https://enciklopedija.lv/skirklis/5170-
tautas-sports-Latvijā.
National Heritage Board S.a. Heritage. Available: https://karte.mantojums.lv/
Nikodemus, O. S.a. Latvian forest landscape. Latvijas Kultūras kanons. National Library of
Latvia. Available: https://kulturaskanons.lv/archive/latvijas-mezu-ainava/
Office of the deputy prime ministre. 2004. England’s Companion Guide to PPS22. Pieejams:
https://cumbria.gov.uk/elibrary/Content/Internet/538/755/1929/17716/17720/17723/4213014583
9.PDF
Orienteering competition: Valmiera MAGNET - 2024. Available:
https://lof.lv/seriali_rez/valmieras_magnets
P. Friis, P. Daub; Årsrapport for Energistyrelsens Godkendelsessekretariat for vind møller
2014. DTU Wind Energy Nr. 0079. Available:
http://www.vindmoellegodkendelse.dk/media/1097/egv-%C3%A5rsrapport-2014-jnr-64036-
0025.pdf
Food and Veterinary Service. Other registers. Available:
https://registri.pvd.gov.lv/cr/dati?q=biolo%C4%A3isk%C4%81s+agriculture%C4%ABbas
Pedersen, E., Persson, K, W. 2004. Perception and annoyance due to wind turbine noise—a
dose–response relationship. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America. Available:
https://pubs.aip.org/asa/jasa/article-abstract/116/6/3460/545245/Perception-and-annoyance-due-
to-wind-turbine-noise?redirectedFrom=fulltext
Available: https://www.wa.gov.au/system/files/2022-04/PB-67-%20Guidelines-for-wind-farm-
development-2004.pdf
Planning Bulletin. 2004. Australian Wind Energy Association. Guidelines for wind farm
development. Available: https://www.wa.gov.au/system/files/2022-04/PB-67-%20Guidelines-for-
wind-farm-development-2004.pdf
Projekts GrassLIFE2: Restoration and enhancement of priority grassland habitats of European
Union importance 101073829 LIFE21-NAT-LV-GrassLIFE2. Available: https://grasslife.lv/
Rodrigues L., Bach, L., Dubourg-Savage, M., Karapandza, B., Kovac, D., Kervyn, T., Dekker, J.,
Kepel, A., Bach, P., Collins, J., Harbusch, C., Park, K., Micevski, B., Minderman J. 2015. Guidelines for
Consideration of Bats in Wind Farm Projects - Revision 2014. EUROBATS Publication Series No. 6.
457
Bonn, Germany. Available at: https://tethys.pnnl.gov/sites/default/files/publications/EUROBATS-
2015.pdf
Romshek, T. 2021. Recycling initiatives and carbon considerations that propel wind energy
past other renewable sources. ICF. Available: https://www.icf.com/insights/energy/recycling-
initiatives-carbon-considerations-wind-energy
Ross Paznokas, 2023, Wind-Turbine Fire Risk: The Time to Act is Now. Available:
https://www.windsystemsmag.com/wind-turbine-fire-risk-the-time-to-act-is-now/
Scotland’s PAN 45 (2002). Available: https://www.gov.scot/collections/planning-advice-notes-
pans/
Bioseco Ltd website. Available: https://bioseco.com/
SIA "Demontāža" website. Available: https://www.demontaza.lv/
SIA "Enviroprojekts" Environmental Impact Assessment, Construction of Four Wind Power
Plants in Pope Parish, Ventspils Municipality (SIA "4 WIND"). Available:
https://www.vpvb.gov.lv/lv/ietekmes-uz-vidi-novertejumu-projekti/cetru-veja-elektrostaciju-izbuve-
popes-pagasta-ventspils-novada-sia-4-wind
SIA “Estonian, Latvian & Lithuanian Environment”. 2023. Guidelines (methodology) for the
preliminary environmental impact assessment (EIA) for the assessment of the environmental impacts
of the construction of wind power plants. National Environment Service. Available:
https://www.vvd.gov.lv/lv/media/9969/download?attachment
SIA “Estonian, Latvian & Lithuanian Environment”. 2019. Construction of the Dobele and
Pienava wind farms in Dobele and Tukums regions Environmental Impact Assessment. Available:
https://www.vpvb.gov.lv/lv/jaunums/pazinojums-par-sia-pienava-wind-un-sia-dobele-wind-
ietekmes-uz-vidi-novertejuma-zinojuma-iesniegsanu-vides-parraudzibas-valsts-biroja-atzinuma-
sanemsanai
SIA “Estonian, Latvian & Lithuanian Environment”. State Environmental Bureau. Guidelines for
the environmental impact assessment of wind power plants and recommendations on requirements
for the construction of wind power plants. Available:
https://www.vpvb.gov.lv/lv/media/827/download
IdentiFlight Ltd website. Available. https://www.identiflight.com/#gsc.tab=0
SIA "Latvijas Vēja parki". 2023. Stages of WPP construction - general. Available:
https://vejaparki.lv/lv#par-lvp
Terral Wind Ltd website. Available: http://terralwind.com
Simo Wind Park, Simo, Finland. Available: https://www.peikko.ae/reference/simo-wind-park/
458
Smallwood, K, S., Thelander, C. 2008. Bird Mortality in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area,
California. Available at https://wildlife.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.2193/2007-032
Svenska Kraftnat. When wind power is planned. Available:
https://www.svk.se/en/stakeholders-portal/community-planning/when-wind-power-is-planned/
Tammelin, B., Cavaliere, FMI, M., Holttinen, ENEL, H., Morgan, VTT, C., Seifert, GH, H., Dewi, K.
Santti, FMI. 2000. Wind energy productionin cold climates (WECO). Finnish Meteorological Institute.
Available: https://op.europa.eu/lv/publication-detail/-/publication/9cde4269-9b53-4fd7-b064-
5b3caf85aabf
Thaxter, C, B., Buchanan, G, M., Carr, J., Butchart, S, H, M., Newbold, T., Green, R, E., Tobias, J,
A., Foden, W, B., O'Brien, S., Pearce-Higgins, J, W. 2017. Bird and bat species' global vulnerability to
collision mortality at wind farms revealed through a trait-based assessment. Proceedings of the
Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, Volume 284, Issue 1862. Pieejams:
http://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2017.0829
The Impact of Wind Farms on Tourism in New Hampshire, December 2013. Available:
https://www.nhsec.nh.gov/projects/2013-02/documents/131212appendix_31.pdf
Thomas Hahm, Nicole Stoffels. Ice Throw Hazard Experiences and Recent Developments in
Germany. Available: https://windeurope.org/summit2016/conference/allposters/PO337.pdf
Tolvanen A., Routavaara, H., Jokikokko, M., & Rana, P. 2023. How far are birds, bats, and
terrestrial mammals displaced from onshore wind power development? - A systematic review.
Biological Conservation, 288, 110382. Available: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2023.110382
Tutić, D., Štanfel, M., Horvat, M,T. 2018. Multi-Criteria Land Evaluation of Suitability for the
Sport of Foot Orienteering: A Case Study of Croatia and Slovenia. ISPRS Int. J. Geo-Inf. 7, 227.
Available: https://doi.org/10.3390/ijgi7060227
Guidelines for the establishment of minimum safety distances for the siting of industrial
accident risk objects in land use and building restrictions in spatial planning documents, LRVA, 2017
Available:
https://lvafa.vraa.gov.lv/faili/materiali/petijumi/2016/LVPA_133/Vadlinijas_LVPA_F240217.pdf
Valka information portal. Bitarin Hill. Available: http://visit.valka.lv/lv/iepazisti-mus/apskates-
vietas-valkas-apkartne/bitarinkalns
National Digital Development Agency. 2024. Information system for development planning
documents. Available: https://geolatvija.lv/geo/tapis#
State Ltd "Ministry of Agriculture Real Estate". Reclamation Cadastre Information System.
Available: https://www.melioracija.lv
State Land Service. Data publishing and e-services portal. Available: Kadastrs.lv
459
Van den Berg, G, P. 2003. Effects of the Wind Profile at Night on Wind Turbine Sound. Journal
of Sound and Vibration, 227, 955-970. Available: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsv.2003.09.05
Vejledning om planlægning for og tilladelse til opstilling af vindmøller. Naturstyrelsen,
Miljøministeriet 2015. ISBN: 978-87-7279-173-9. Available:
https://www.retsinformation.dk/api/pdf/229524
Version 1 février 2024. Available: https://www.elia.be/-/media/project/elia/elia-site/infra-
and-projects/safety_around_our_infrastructure/working-near-high-voltage-facilities/fr/procdure-
elia---avis-eoliennes-fr-v20240201.pdf
Homepage of the State Environmental Monitoring Office. Available at
https://www.vpvb.gov.lv/lv
State Environmental Bureau. Opinion No 3 on the Environmental Impact Assessment Report
for the establishment of the wind farm "Ziemeļvējš" in Tārgale municipality, Ventspils county, by SIA
"TCK". Available: https://www.vpvb.gov.lv/lv/media/2779/download?attachment
Wikipedia_free encyclopaedias. Lugazi Castle. Available:
https://lv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luga%C5%BEu_pils
Wang, S., Wang, S., Smith P. 2015. Ecological impacts of wind farms on birds: Questions,
hypotheses, and research needs. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 44, 599-607. Available:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.01.031
Wind Turbines and Farms FMGlobal Property Loss Prevention Data Sheets 13-10, 2022.
Available: https://fireprotectionsupport.nl/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/FMDS1310-2022-07-Wind-
Turbines.pdf
Windpower engineering and development. 2010. How to calculate power output of wind.
Available: https://www.windpowerengineering.com/calculate-wind-power-output/
Wiser, R., Z. Yang, M. Hand, O. Hohmeyer, D. Infi eld, P. H. Jensen, V. Nikolaev, M. O’Malley, G.
Sinden,A. Zervos, 2011: Wind Energy. In IPCC Special Report on Renewable Energy Sources and
Climate Change Mitigation [O. Edenhofer, R. Pichs-Madruga, Y. Sokona, K. Seyboth, P. Matschoss, S.
Kadner, T. Zwickel, P. Eickemeier, G. Hansen, S. Schlömer, C. von Stechow (eds). 2018. Wind Energy.
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA. Available:
https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/03/Chapter-7-Wind-Energy-1.pdf
Zariņa, A.,Vološina, M., Vinogradovs, I. 2019. Guidelines for local landscape planning. Delta
Company Ltd. Available:
https://www.varam.gov.lv/sites/varam/files/content/files/vadlinijas_viet_limenim_2019.pdf
Landscape ecological plan of the Northern Vidzeme Biosphere Reserve (ZVBR). SIA “Estonian,
Latvian & Lithuanian Environment”. Available: https://www.daba.gov.lv/en/media/6869/download
460
Summary of the Environmental Impact
Assessment for the implementation of
the wind power plant park “Valmiera-
Valka” and its related infrastructure
project in Valmiera and Valka
municipalities
October 2024
1
Contents
Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 3
1. Description of the proposed site and justification for the choice (Chapters 1 and 3 of the
EIA Report) .................................................................................................................................... 4
2. Siting of the WPP park and alternatives for the location of the WPP (Chapter 4 of the EIA
report) ........................................................................................................................................... 8
3. Assessment of the existing environmental status of the site (Chapter 6 of the EIA
Report…).................................................................................................................................. ….13
3.1. Hydrogeological, hydrological and engineering geological conditions and geological
structure .................................................................................................................................. 13
3.2. Natural values ............................................................................................................. 15
3.3. Landscape and heritage assessment ........................................................................... 22
3.4. Noise assessment ........................................................................................................ 25
3.5. Air quality assessment in the WPP park area.............................................................. 26
4. Significant environmental effects of the proposed activity and its possible alternatives
(Chapter 7 of the EIA Report) ...................................................................................................... 27
4.1. Deforested areas ......................................................................................................... 27
4.2. Noise and vibration levels ........................................................................................... 28
4.3. Flicker .......................................................................................................................... 30
4.4. Impact on air quality ................................................................................................... 31
4.5. Impact on natural values ............................................................................................. 31
4.6. Impact on the landscape ............................................................................................. 39
4.7. Impacts on Natura 2000 sites in the vicinity of the WPP Park .................................... 42
5. Transboundary assessment (Chapter 9 of the EIA report).................................................. 44
5.1. Transboundary impact assessment for landscape, tourism and recreation ............... 44
5.2. Impact assessment on birds ........................................................................................ 44
5.3. Overview of transboundary impacts of the Ministry of Climate of the Republic of
Estonia. .................................................................................................................................... 46
6. Socio-economic benefits (Chapter 14 of the EIA report) .................................................... 50
7. Comparison of the alternatives envisaged and justification of the chosen alternative ..... 51
8. Further conditions for environmental monitoring of the proposed action ........................ 52
2
Introduction
The Environmental Impact Assessment (hereinafter - EIA) has been prepared for the proposed
activity - implementation of the wind power plant (hereinafter - WPP) park “Valmiera-Valka”
and its related infrastructure project in Plani parish, Valmiera municipality and Vijciema and
Valka parishes, Valka municipality, initiated by Latvijas vēja parki Ltd, registration No.
40203415150, legal address: Pulkveža Brieža iela 12, Rīga, LV-1010 (JSC Latvenergo is 100%
shareholder).
During the initial project feasibility phase, 93 potential WPP sites were screened. In
consultation with certified experts and the Nature Conservation Agency, the number of WPP
has been reduced - eliminating those with significant negative environmental impacts. This
brings us to 84 WPP, which were examined in more detail as part of the EIA procedure.
Sequentially, out of 84 WPP sites, up to 38 WPP have been recommended for implementation
of the proposed action - WPP construction. The EIA report provides an explanation of the
analysis of all the WPP locations that determine the potential for the development of this WPP
park. Each potential WPP could have a rated capacity of up to 8 MW.
Decision No 5-03/9/2023 of the Environment State Bureau (hereinafter - ESB) on the
application of the EIA procedure to the proposed activity of Latvijas vēja parki Ltd was adopted
on 15 August 2023. The EIA Programme No 5-03/9/2023 (as amended on 10 January 2024 by
No 5-02-1/4/2024) was issued on 12 September 2023.
According to EU Directive 2023/2413, the planning, construction and operation of renewable
energy installations, including WPPs, their connection to the grid and the associated network
and storage assets themselves are of overriding public interest and serve public health and
safety, in order to promote the use of renewable energy (RE). The implementation of RE
projects is a prerequisite for achieving the EU and Latvian climate goals.
According to the amendments to the Cabinet of Ministers Regulation No 350 of 19 June 2018
“Regulations on the Lease and Development Right of Public Land”, Latvian Wind Parks Ltd has
been established to implement the Ordinance and its overall strategic objective is “to
implement strategically important wind park projects to achieve the objectives included in the
Latvian National Energy and Climate Plan 2021-2030 and further progress towards climate
neutrality by contributing to energy independence”.
The EIA report has been prepared by Enviroprojekts Ltd, involving experts from various fields.
The report provides detailed information on the proposed activity itself, the existing state of
the environment, the impact on natural values in and around the proposed activity, and
alternatives. In accordance with the terms of the programme issued by the ESB, the report also
provides information on monitoring requirements, assessment methods, etc.
3
1. Description of the proposed site and justification for the
choice (Chapters 1 and 3 of the EIA Report)
The intended action is the implementation of the WPP and related infrastructure project in the
Plani municipality of Valmiera and the Vijciems and Valka municipalities of Valka municipality.
Up to 38 WPPs are planned to be built in the WPP Park, each with a rated capacity of up to 8
MW. The total area of the study area for the construction of the WPP Park is 5387 ha.
The proposed action also includes and the EIA assessed the infrastructure related to the
functioning of the WPP: construction and operation of power transmission lines, transformer
substations, BESS, assembly and maintenance yards and access roads.
The installation and maintenance sites will be located in the forest areas of JSC Latvia's State
Forests (hereinafter - LVM). LVM, as the manager of Latvia's strategic asset - land - is actively
involved in achieving the goals set out in the Latvian National Energy and Climate Plan 2021-
2030 to strengthen energy independence and economic development. In addition to the
requirements for protected forest areas, LVM has identified land units under its management
where it is justified to carry out WPP park surveys1.
Based on the data of the Nature Data Management System (hereinafter - NDMS) “Ozols”,
there are no Natura 2000 sites and microreserves in the LVM wind park “Valmiera-Valka”
study areas. The closest Sites of European Importance (Natura 2000) are the North Vidzeme
Biosphere Reserve (hereinafter - NVBR) (its landscape protection zone), the nature reserve
“Sedas purvs”, the nature reserve “Burgas plavas” and the protected landscape area
“Ziemelgauja”, as well as micro-reserves: “Bulvara riests” and “Igaunijas riests”. More detailed
information on the natural values of the area is provided in subsection 6.4.1 of the EIA Report.
The site has a well-developed road infrastructure: the national main road A3, the regional road
P24, the local roads V261 and V260, the extensive LVM road network, the roads P23, P25,
V240 and V237 in the wider vicinity, as well as municipal roads.
High voltage 330 kV and 110 kV transmission lines run directly through the area of the
Proposed Action, which economically justifies the construction of the WPP in close proximity
to the electricity connection, also reducing the area to be deforested by shortening the new
connection line.
Locating WPPs in predominantly forested areas reduces the impact of flicker, noise and
landscape changes on farmsteads and inhabitants. There are 25 homesteads in the study area
of the proposed wind farm.
LVM has determined that no WPP parks will be established on LVM land2:
• in towns and villages and up to 800 m around them and residential and public
buildings;
• in nature conservation areas where the construction of WPP park is incompatible with
the laws and regulations of the Republic of Latvia;
1 https://www. lvmgeo. lv/data
2 https://www. lvm. lv/business-partners/land-purchase-and-lease/facility-parks
4
• in areas where the purpose of forest land management is nature conservation and
LVM has additionally established protection for preserved environmental values, as
well as in forest areas important for recreation of the population, etc;
• where cultural monuments are located.
The location of the WPP study area and the 84 WPPs assessed in detail in Valmiera and Valka
municipalities are presented below (Figure 1. (EIA Report 1. 1. figure)).
Figure 1. (EIA Report Figure 1. 1.) The territory of the LVM wind park “Valmiera-Valka”"3 and the
location of the 84 WPPs studied in more detail in Valmiera and Valka
The rationale for the location of the proposed Valmiera-Valka WPP Park was determined, inter
alia, by the following factors:
• the possibility to transfer the generated electricity to the transmission infrastructure of
JSC Augstsprieguma tīkls (hereinafter referred to as AST);
• restrictions, requirements and minimum distances set out in legislation and sectoral
guidelines:
o For WPPs with a capacity greater than 2 MW, the distance from the nearest
planned wind power plant and wind park boundary to residential and public
buildings shall be at least 800 m (FC 30. 04. 2013. not. 240), see EIA Report
Figure 3.2.2;
o The construction of WPPs is allowed outside towns and villages in the
industrial area, technical area, agricultural area and forest land as defined in
the spatial plans of the two municipalities concerned, provided that the
distance from residential and public buildings to the nearest planned boundary
of the WPP and WPP park is at least 800 metres (Law on the Procedure for the
3 Under the conditions set out at https://www. lvmgeo. lv/data
5
Construction of Facilitated Energy Supply Structures to Promote Energy
Security and Independence), see EIA Report Figure 3.2.2;
o Siting of WPP is prohibited in specially protected nature territories - NATURA
2000 territories (CM 16. 03. 2010. not. No 264) and micro-reserves (Cabinet of
Ministers 18. 12. 2012. not. No 940);
o to protect bird species and other natural values from the impact of WPP, the
conditions and minimum permissible distance for the siting of WPP shall be
determined in accordance with the results of the EIA (MC 30. 2013. not. No
240);
o in the visual perception zone of national protected cultural monuments, the
landscape impact of WPPs and WPP park should be assessed, taking into
account the specific situation and the specificity of the cultural monument (FC
30. 04. 2013. not. 240) (for a map of the cultural heritage sites in the area
adjacent to the Proposed Action, see EIA Report Figure 6.5.5.);
o WPP are not allowed in the protection zones around land-based navigational
aids for national defence and military maritime surveillance aids. The
maximum width of the protection zone around navigational aids for national
defence on land is 15 km from the centre of the object (Law on Protection
Zones);
o if the WPP park WPP will be located up to 16 km from the navigation aid, or
the beacon's outermost zone of influence, an in-depth analysis and
assessment of the impact of the WPP on the operation of the beacon
(Guidelines for Assessing the Potential Impact of Wind Turbines on
Surveillance Sensors) is required;
o additionally, restrictions in operational, sanitary and safety protection zones
along linear and associated objects - gas pipelines, gas supply installations and
structures, gas warehouses and storage facilities, electronic communications
networks and radio monitoring points, electricity networks, heat networks,
optical telescopes and radio telescopes, state and public use railway lines,
public use roads, etc. must be taken into account.
• an assessment of the climatic conditions and wind parameters in the area to assess the
efficiency of the WPP.
The planned activity is a direct result of the overall strategic objectives of Latvenergo AS and
the Cabinet of Ministers' Order No 464 of 27 June 2022 establishing “Latvijas vēja parki” Ltd.
to implement strategically important wind park projects. The choice of the Valmiera-Valka
Wind Park site is based on the possibility of concluding a development agreement, the
proximity of the transmission line and other factors listed above.
As the Estonian territory is located within 4.2 km of the nearest WPP included in the
assessment, the impacts are described in terms of the aspects affecting these areas: impacts
on landscape and ornithofauna.
The location of the proposed activity in relation to other WPP park’s in the immediate vicinity
in the north of Latvia for which EIAs have been carried out or are in various stages of
preparation is presented in Figure 2 (EIA Report Figure 3.2.5). The assessment of the
cumulative environmental impacts of WPP parks is based on publicly available information on
these WPP parks. The closest is the Valka Wind Park, which borders the area of the Proposed
Action to the north: between the Valmiera-Valka Wind Park and Valka. The other WPP park’s
6
in northern Latvia and southern Estonia are located at distances where no cumulative
environmental impacts are expected to occur. The nearest wind park in the municipality of
Valga has a study area more than 15 km away from the area of the proposed activity, and
between these two parks is the Valka wind park, for which the EIA is at an early stage and the
initial public consultation has been completed.
Figure 2. (EIA Report Figure 3.2.5) Location of the proposed activity in relation to other WPP parks
in the vicinity
7
2. Siting of the WPP park and alternatives for the location of
the WPP (Chapter 4 of the EIA report)
The construction of the WPP and related facilities will require up to 300 ha.
During the EIA, the boundaries of the areas investigated and surveyed in relation to the area of
LVM study lands were different, determined by the environmental area assessed, e.g:
• in assessing the impact of the Proposed Action on protected habitats, the site was
surveyed by visiting and/or assessing the site of the Proposed Action and the areas of
potential impact: the proposed location of the WPP and the area within 350 m around
it, potential access roads and the area up to 150 m along them, and potential
electricity cable routes and the area up to 20 m along them;
• the ornithofauna study area covers an area of approximately 26 500 ha, covering a 3
km zone around all assessed WPP, while a 10 km zone was assessed for migratory
birds;
• the landscape assessment study area is a 10 km zone around the outer boundary of
the WPP park (from the edge of the WPP);
• noise and flicker have been assessed as far as the potential effects of the Proposed
Action extend.
8
Figure 3. (EIA Report Figure 4. 1. 1.) The boundaries of the surveyed areas in relation to the area of the JSC LVM study lands and the 84 WPP assessed
9
Alternatives to the location of the proposed activity assessed in the EIA report
Of the 84 WPPs assessed, 46 were identified as having significant environmental effects (see
relevant subsections in Chapter 7 of the EIA Report and summary in Chapter 8).
Overall, taking into account the recommendations of nature experts for the location and
operational conditions of the WPPs, it was concluded that up to 38 WPPs could be built.
Enviroprojekts Ltd together with certified nature experts recommend to abandon part of the
originally planned WPP in order to mitigate the impact not only on the species occurring in the
area of the Proposed Action, but also to mitigate the impact on migratory birds and the
surrounding Natura 2000 sites (see Chapter 7 of the EIA Report). As a result, the feasible WPPs
were grouped into two alternative locations. The assessment of alternatives and the final
location of the WPPs also assesses cumulative impacts from certified expert opinions and EIA
expert assessments, as well as the mitigation and exclusion of cumulative impacts on Natura
2000 sites.
For the location alternatives for the WPP, see Figure 4 (Figure 1 of the EIA Report)
Table 1 Chronology of the Valmiera-Valka WPP Park Site Investigation
Chronology of WPP site WPP park configuration
investigations
Initial feasibility phase 93 potential WPP sites have been investigated. 9 WPP were
excluded from further investigation and 11 WPP were refined (93 -
9 = 84 WPP)
84 WPP were studied in more detail in the framework of the EIA
procedure - 41 WPP were identified as having significant
environmental impacts and, due to the identified constraints, were
excluded from the detailed study.
(84 - 41 = 43 WPP). 43 WPP are being promoted for potential
development
The 43 selected WPP were grouped into two alternatives (A and B):
Situation at the start of 2024 the WPP park location options
Alternative A: 29 WPP compact area in the SW part between Sedu,
Gauja and Puksi swamp
Alternative B: 43 WPP - 43 WPP: consisting of the compact area in
the SW part (29 WPP of Alternative A) and 14 WPP in the compact
area to the NE of the Puksi swamp, added to the 29 WPP planned 7
km away in the SW part of the site (identified as Alternative A). 29
+ 14 = 43 WPP
10
Chronology of WPP site WPP park configuration
investigations
Nuisance effects on bird species have been identified for 3 WPP
(VV92, VV44, VV45), these 3 WPP have been excluded from the
implementation plan.
1 WPP (VV62) was moved to the previous location of WPP VV61
(moving this WPP does not change the WPP total in any of the
alternatives).
Additional clarification on the total number of WPP: one (VV92)
excluded from the 14 WPP in the compact area to the N of
Alternative B (13 NPPs remain); two (VV44 and VV45) excluded
from the WPP in Alternative A).
In September 2024, adjustments Hence - 2 WPP are removed from Alternative A: 29 - 2 = 27 WPP,
were made while all 3 WPP are removed from Alternative B (because the total
number of WPP in Alternative B also includes WPP in Alternative
A), i.e. 43 - 3 = 40 WPP
For the other 4 WPP (VV36, VV40, VV1, VV82), it is recommended
that the choice for construction be made in favor of only two, the
choice to be made at the design stage, after assessing the
engineering conditions (thus - 2 more WPP are excluded from each
alternative, i.e.
Alternative A 27 - 2 = 25 WPP,
Alternative B 40 - 2 = 38 WPP
Result (see Figure 1) Alternative A with 27 WPP, of which 25 WPP would be built
11
Figure 4 (Figure 1 of the EIA report). Alternative A and B for the location of the Valmiera-Valka wind park
12
3. Assessment of the existing environmental status of the site
(Chapter 6 of the EIA Report)
3.1. Hydrogeological, hydrological and engineering geological conditions and
geological structure
The area of the proposed activity is located in the eastern part of the Baltic artesian basin.
According to the LVGMC database “Boreholes” and cartographic information, groundwater
aquifers associated with Quaternary sediments and rocks of the Upper Devonian, Middle
Devonian and Lower Devonian sedimentary complex are distributed in and around the area of
the proposed WPP (Table 6.1.1 of the EIA Report).
In general, the area has abundant underground freshwater supplies, with the right amount of
water available anywhere, at different depths. The majority of the area of the proposed
activity is located in the artesian water transit zone, which defines zones of medium pollution
risk, and in the areas of upward flow of pressurised water, i.e. zones of low pollution risk. Small
areas in Plani municipality are at high risk of pollution (pressure water recharge areas).
Groundwater used for individual water supply in rural areas - homesteads - is relatively
protected or moderately protected against surface pollution in most parts of the county. A
small area around Strenči and the Seda river are poorly protected against surface pollution.
The chemical status of all groundwater aquifers (Arukil-Gauja and Ķemeri-Pērnavas) in the area
is good.
The groundwater aquifer in most of the area of the proposed activity is associated with the
sandy sediments of the Baltic Ice Lake (glQ3ltvb). At most WPP sites, the water table is 0-2 m
below the ground surface, with only a few sites having a water table depth of 5-25 m (Figure
6.1.1 of the EIA Report).
During the operation of the WPP park, potential impacts on hydrogeological and hydrological
conditions are related to the possible drainage effect of the side ditches. No significant adverse
effects on the water quality of groundwater, surface water, groundwater and water
abstraction points are expected from the implementation of the Proposed Action, as there are
no contaminated or potentially contaminated sites in the Proposed Action area and
construction activities will be monitored during construction.
According to the Water Management Act, the territory of the Proposed Action falls within the
Gauja river basin district. According to the information from the drainage cadastre of the
Ministry of Agriculture and the Cabinet Regulation No 397 of 3 July 2018, the area of the
Proposed Action is located in two large basin areas: The Gauja (large catchment area code 52)
and the Gauja-Salaca (large catchment area code 54), which are divided into several catchment
areas.
According to the "Flood risk and flood hazard maps" prepared by the LVGMC, the territory of
the proposed activity is not located in flood risk areas of national importance. The nearest
13
flood risk area is located 1.5 km to the west of the proposed development area: Gauja
floodplain near Strenči.4
Drainage systems
The WPP park study area is largely located in an area used for forestry, with a dense network
of shared watercourses and drains5, providing groundwater recharge and allowing economic
activities to take place in these areas. The lifetime of the drainage system network and
structures is expected to be up to 50 years. During this period, the drainage network and
structures must be regularly maintained, renovated and reconstructed.
Protection zones for watercourses, existing drainage and drainage facilities
The buffer zones around bogs are established to preserve biodiversity and stabilise the
moisture regime in the interface (transition) zone between forests and bogs.
In the territory of the proposed activity and its surroundings, the minimum widths of the
protection zones around swamps are defined in the TIANs of Valmiera and Valka
municipalities6:
1. for areas of 10 to 100 ha, a 20.0 m strip;
2. For areas larger than 100 ha, a 50,0 m strip in forest vegetation types on dry, drained,
wet mineral soils and drained peat soils, and a minimum 100,0 m strip in forest
vegetation types on wet peat soils.
There are 3 swamps in and around the area of the proposed action: Seda, Taure and Puksi
swamps. Information on the buffer zones of these marshes is provided in Table 6.2.2 of the EIA
Report. The protection zones for surface water bodies in the vicinity of the proposed activity
are summarised in Table 6.2.1 of the EIA Report.
Geological structure and engineering geological conditions
The area is well known in terms of geological exploration. A comprehensive geological and
hydrological 1:200 000 scale mapping, involving extensive drilling, hydrological, geological and
mineral prospecting work7.
According to regional tectonic zoning schemes, the territory is situated on the southern slope
of the Baltic Shield in the Valmiera-Lokno salient, which sharply demarcates Southern slope of
the Baltic Shield from The Latvian saddle. The Valmiera-Lokno outcrop is adjacent to the
southern side Liepāja-Saldus-Riga-Apes-Pleskava fracture zone. The Baltic Shield escarpment is
characterised by an incomplete vertical geological section of the sedimentary cover and a
relatively low thickness compared to other regions of Latvia. However, the age, composition,
folding conditions and physical properties of the rocks in the vertical section also show three
4 Flood risk and flood hazard maps (lvgmc. lv)
5 https://www. melioracija. lv
6 Strenči Municipality Spatial Plan 2012-2023. Land use and building regulations. Strenci, Strenci region. 2011. 2016;
Spatial plan of Valka municipality 2016. -2027. Land use and building regulations. Valka County Council.
https://geolatvija. en/geo/tapis
7 Yushkevich V. , Polivko I. , Tracevski G. Report on 1:200 000 scale complex geological and hydrogeological mapping
in the southern part of sheet O-35-XXI (North-Latvian mapping group), 1962. -1964. g. Geological Board, Riga, 1964.
Yushkevich V. , Polivko I. , Tracevski G. Report on 1:200 000 scale complex geological and hydrogeological mapping
in the area of sheet O-35-XX (North-Latvian mapping group), 1962. -1964. g. Geological Board, Riga, 1965.
14
distinctly different complexes: the lower one is crystalline bedrock, the middle one is
preQuaternary sedimentary cover, and the upper one is Quaternary formations.
Engineering geological conditions and modern exodynamic processes
The engineering geological conditions of the area of the proposed operation will be assessed
as a result of the engineering geological investigations to be carried out during the
construction phase of the WPP. Consequently, the following description of the engineering
geological conditions is based on the available general geological information at8 9.
In assessing the potential hazard from hazardous geological processes, it is concluded that no
hazardous modern exodynamic processes, such as karst or sufosion, landslides, slumping, gully
formation, or active aeolian processes are present in the area of the Proposed Development.
Erosive or accumulative activity of the river in the area of the Proposed Action is not
pronounced and mainly affects the banks of the Gauja River, which are located beyond the
territory of the WPP park and do not pose geological risks to the WPP park. On the banks of
the Gauja River, cutting down trees along erosion-prone banks is not desirable.
The WPP study area is not located in a seismogenic zone where earthquakes with an epicentre
intensity of 6 magnitude (MSK-64 scale) have occurred or may occur in the future (Figure 7.
(Figure 6.4.5 of the EIA report)).
3.2. Natural values
Special areas of conservation
There are eight Specially Protected Nature Areas (SPAs) in and around the study area, and the
proposed development site is adjacent to three SPAs (see Figure 5 (Figure 6.4.1 of the EIA
Report)).
The ZVBR is adjacent to and located to the north-west of the Proposed Action area; the
Northern Gauja Protected Landscape Area (Natura 2000 site) is adjacent to and located to the
south, east and north-east. The site of the proposed activity is completely surrounded by the
micro-reserve "Bulvara riests" (Natura 2000 site).
The nature reserve "Purgailes upes mezi" is located to the west of the site of the Proposed
Action: the nearest assessed WPP VV5 is ~450 m from the nature reserve boundary.
The protected landscape area "Ziemelgauja" crosses the study area.
The potential WPP site is adjacent to 8 micro-reserve (MR) sites.
8 Yushkevich V. , Polivko I. , Tracevski G. Report on 1:200 000 scale complex geological and hydrogeological mapping
in the southern part of sheet O-35-XXI (North-Latvian mapping group), 1962. -1964. g. Geological Board, Riga, 1964.
9 Yushkevich V. , Polivko I. , Tracevski G. Report on 1:200 000 scale complex geological and hydrogeological mapping
in the area of sheet O-35-XX (North-Latvian mapping group), 1962. -1964. g. Geological Board, Riga, 1965.
15
Figure 5 (EIA Report figure 6. 4. 1.). Protected natural areas in the vicinity of a potential WPP site
16
Characteristics of Natura 2000 sites
According to the Nature Conservation Agency (hereinafter - NCA), the following Natura 2000
sites are located in the vicinity of the planned WPP park area:
• Protected landscape area "Ziemelgauja" (territory code: LV0600700), a Latvian Natura
2000 site: Type C site, established for the protection of specially protected species and
habitats;
• The nature reserve "Sedas purvs" (area code: LV0526800), a Latvian Natura 2000 site:
Type C site, established for the protection of specially protected species and habitats;
• "Bulvara riests" (area code: LV0830800). Natura 2000 site: Type B site, established for
the protection of specially protected species (except birds) and habitats. The area
almost completely overlaps with a micro-reserve established to protect a rookery;
• "Igaunijas riests" (area code: LV0843500). Natura 2000 site: Type B site, established
for the protection of specially protected species (except birds) and habitats. The site
overlaps with a micro-reserve established for the protection of a rookery;
• Nature reserve "Purgailes upes mezi" (territory code: LV0542000). The site was
established in 2023.
• Nature reserve "Burgas plavas" (area code: LV0532600). Type C site, established for
the protection of specially protected species and habitats.
The location of the Natura 2000 sites in relation to the location of the Proposed Action is
presented in Figure 6 (Figure 6.4.2 of the EIA Report).
Figure 6. (Figure 6.4.2 of the EIA report) Location of Natura 2000 sites in relation to the
recommended WPP sites
17
An assessment of the impact of the planned construction of the WPP, access roads,
transmission lines and transformer substations on the protected natural values in the nearby
Natura 2000 sites is presented in Chapter 7.9 of the EIA Report.
The northern end of the planned WPP park area is 4 km from the border of the Republic of
Estonia. For a long stretch to the E of the planned WPP park area, the state border on the
Latvian side is adjacent to a Natura 2000 site: the Protected Landscape Area "Ziemelgauja"
(hereafter - the "Ziemelgauja" PLA). The border is also bordered by a Natura 2000 site on the
Estonian side for a large part of this stretch: "Koiva-Mustjõe" (EE0080471). This is a Natura
2000 Type A site, established for the protection of specially protected bird species. It lists 4
bird species: the Common kingfisher, Northern pintail, Corn crake and Great snipe. The site
completely covers the slightly smaller Natura 2000 site Koiva-Mustjõe luha (EE0080421),
which is a type B site: established for the conservation of specially protected species other
than birds and specially protected habitats. Together, the Natura 2000 sites of the two
countries form a single complex of areas, the protection of which is aimed at the natural values
of the Gauja and its tributary valleys. The nearest Estonian Natura 2000 sites - the R part - are
located 8-9 km from the nearest WPP of the planned WPP park.
Protected habitats and species of special conservation concern
In order to assess the impact of the Proposed Action on protected habitats, the site has been
surveyed and investigated by visiting and/or assessing the potential impacts of the Proposed
Action.
The site supports 2 EU protected freshwater habitat types, 4 EU protected grassland habitat
types, 4 EU protected bog habitat types and 8 EU protected forest habitat types (EIA Report,
Chapter 6.4.2, Table 6.4.4).
The most significant threats to protected forest habitats of EU importance in the region and
Latvia as a whole are the potential destruction of forest stands by clear felling or deforestation
for the construction of infrastructure such as forest roads or drainage systems. Indirect
negative impacts on habitat quality and the provision of full ecological functions may result
from fragmentation of habitat areas, both through clearing and infrastructure construction,
and from drainage caused by the construction of road-related ditches and the construction
and reconstruction of drainage systems.
The 15 vascular plant, 7 moss and 5 lichen species of special conservation concern found in the
area are noted in Table 6.4.5 of the EIA Report.10 The locations and areas of the species
occurrences are shown on the maps (Annex 1 of the species and habitats expert report,
attached as Annex 6 to the EIA report). The map and the table show the species localities only
in the study area.
For the identified specially protected species (vascular plants, as well as mosses, lichens, fungi,
invertebrates associated with the assessed biotopes), whose localities fall within the potential
area of influence of the Proposed Action (see EIA Report 7.5. a more detailed description has
been prepared (Species and Habitats Expert report, attached as Annex 6 to the EIA) in order to
characterise their ecological requirements and, consequently, to assess the potential impacts
of the Proposed Action.
10 Species names are used primarily according to the lists in the legislation; where the scientific name of a species
has been changed, it is given in brackets.
18
Figure 7 (Figure 6.4.5 of the EIA Report). Natural values in and around the Valmiera-Valka wind park
19
Bird species in the area
The process and methodology of the bird surveys are described in detail in the expert opinion on bird
species attached to the EIA report, see Annex 6 of the EIA report.
The following bird species and species groups have been assessed within the EIA: White-tailed Eagle,
Golden Eagle, Lesser Spotted Eagle, Western capercaillie, Black Stork, Eurasian goshawk, Osprey,
Eurasian pygmy owl, Boreal owl, Eurasian eagle-owl, White-backed woodpecker, Hazel grouse, Black
grouse, and migratory bird species.
The study of the area of the proposed activity is based on the observations of the bird expert involved in
the EIA report and other observers for the period from 1 January 2022; the ornithofauna study area
covers an area of 26 565 ha. in the 3 km zone around the assessed WPP, a total of 5982 observations
(excluding observations recorded in the hunting monitoring programme of JSC “Latvijas Valsts mezi”) by
a bird expert and other observers were selected and used in the analysis. in the 3 km zone around the
assessed WPP, 154 bird species have been recorded at least once since 1 January 2022, of which 36 with
conservation features were assessed in more detail (Table 6.4.6 of the EIA Report). The ornithofauna of
the area was characterised using the expert's opinion, the opinion of NCA, LVM, the portal www.
dabasdati. lv, NDMS "Ozols" and unpublished data. Detailed information on the surveys carried out in
the area of the proposed WPP park and a list of bird species recorded is summarised in Annex 6 of the
EIA report.
All species listed in Annex 1 of Directive 2009/147/EEC of the European Parliament and of the Council on
the conservation of wild birds have been assessed by a certified bird expert during the preparation of the
opinion. Other bird species have also been recorded during the site survey and during the preparation of
the opinion.
2022.field work has been carried out in the study area of the Proposed Action in 2007, 2023 and 2024 to
assess the impact of the Proposed Action on nesting and passage ornithofauna. 2022. during the
breeding seasons of 2023 and 2023, as a result of the intensified survey of the area, the bird expert
involved in the EIA proposed the establishment of 7 microreserves for specially protected bird species
(some of which have already been established).
Information on the protected bird species found in the area and the bird species assessed in the context
of the EIA is provided in Table 6.4.6 of the EIA Report, while the impact assessment and recommended
mitigation recommendations are provided in Chapters 7.6.2 and 7.6.3 of the EIA Report.
Bat species in the area
Bat species in the study area were surveyed following the EUROBATS guidelines "On compliance with bat
conservation requirements in WPP park projects"11 and the Latvian adapted "Guidelines for assessing the
impact of wind power plants on bats"12. Bat species have been surveyed using the following approach:
• seven times a season, with three (May, June, July) or six (August, September) nights counted
each month;
11 https://tethys. pnnl. gov/sites/default/files/publications/EUROBATS-2015. pdf
12 https://lvafa. vraa. gov. lv/files/materials/applications/2020/171/Vadlinijas_VES_xsparni_fin. pdf
20
• the timing of the surveys was chosen according to the bats' biological cycle (reproduction,
migration, mating);
• bat activity was recorded at 12 fixed observation stations D1-D12 and three routes (M1-M3);
• the monitoring stations and routes have been selected to survey bat activity in habitats similar
to those in which the WPP is planned to be located;
• all ultrasound detectors at the stations are located in clearings in forests (e.g. clearings).
A total of 1710 bat sound files were recorded at 12 monitoring stations in the planned area of the WPP
park over 84 detector nights (21 monitoring nights, with four fixed detectors per night), with 1978 bat
passes recorded (Table 6.4.7 of the EIA Report). Route records - seven 90-minute records on each of the
three routes - recorded 505 bat passes per season (Table 6.4.7 of the EIA Report).
At least five reliably identified bat species have been recorded in the area of the proposed activity: the
northern bat Eptesicus nilssonii, the rusty long-eared bat Nyctalus noctula, the bicoloured bat Vespertilio
murinus, the Nathus bat Pipistrellus nathusiiand the pygmy bat Pipistrellus pygmaeus, as well as at least
one species of the noctule Myotis genus. The northern bat, the Natuz bat, the rusty bat, the double-
coloured bat and the pygmy bat are species at high risk of mortality in the context of the WPP.
The results can be compared with other bat species surveys carried out in 14 other potential WPP using
identical methodology. The overall bat activity recorded in this study is relatively high. This is due to the
fact that forests are suitable habitats for bats, and the surveys carried out so far have mostly taken place
in landscapes less suitable for bats, where forests covered only part of the area. The close proximity of
several important feeding grounds should also be taken into account in this area.
Invertebrate species in the area
The assessment of the presence of protected invertebrate species in July 2024 at the potential WPP and
substation construction sites in alternative A or B was carried out in accordance with the letter from NCA
to Latvijas vēja parki Ltd (23.05.2024. No 1.6.1/3200/2024-N) (Annex 2 to the EIA Report).
For the assessment of the presence of invertebrate species in June/July 2024 at the potential WPP and
substation construction sites under Alternative A or B, an "Opinion of certified experts in the field of
species and habitat conservation - Opinion on insects in the planned WPP park Valmiera-Valka" has been
prepared, which is attached as Annex 6 to the EIA Report.
The area of the proposed activity has been intensively managed for a long time, the habitats suitable for
SPA invertebrate species in Alternative A or B in the area of the planned WPP and new roads were
assessed only according to their suitability for the 4 identified SPA invertebrate species (great crested
newt, yellow stump fly, humped newt, Schneider's minnow (Table 6.4.10 and Figure 6.4.4 of the EIA
Report).
21
Mammals
Within the framework of the EIA, an expert on the species group "mammals" (LVMI Silava lead
researcher Dr.biol. J. Ozoliņš, NCA certificate No 160) prepared an assessment of the impact of the WPP
on terrestrial non-flying mammals (the opinion is attached as Annex 6 to the EIA). The opinion is based
on data obtained within the framework of the monitoring of the status and damage caused to large wild
mammal populations (ungulates, carnivores), which the Latvian State Forest Research Institute (LVRI)
Silava has been carrying out for some species for 20 years, visiting the area in different seasons and
meteorological conditions. The study area and its surroundings have been visited and mammal
occurrences recorded on numerous occasions in the framework of several projects, which are listed in
the expert opinion (attached as Annex 6).
With regard to the Valmiera-Valka WPP park, it is concluded that the land transport arteries - the
Valmiera-Valka railway and the A3 motorway, which do not have and are not planned to have animal
crossing points - as well as the dune-like elevations in the area, which are oriented NE-SW (see Figures
4.1.2. and 4.1.3. of the EIA Report) may direct animal movements in this direction.
Almost all of Latvia's terrestrial non-flying mammal species, 9 of which are specially protected, are found
in the area. An overview of the species, together with their relative importance, is given in Table 6.4.11
of the EIA Report. Observations in the vicinity of the WPP park indicate that up to 10% of the Latvian
brown bear population has visited the WPP ''Valmiera-Valka'' area and its surroundings so far13.
Brown bears are also a species for which little or no scientific research in Europe has looked at the
impact of WPP park. Their dispersal in Latvia has been N-S, and currently the highest population
densities and most successful breeding occur in northern Vidzeme. The proportion of the population of
other mammals, both specially protected and economically exploited, in the area where the WPP parks
are planned to be established does not exceed 1% of the total population and range of Latvia.
3.3. Landscape and heritage assessment
Landscape characteristics
The study area falls within the Vidzeme Special Border Area, defined as an area of natural, cultural,
historical and scenic value (Figure 6.5.4 of the EIA Report). It is a concentration of natural and cultural
heritage sites of international, national and regional importance, characterised by high scenic quality and
biodiversity.
It is also noted that the diversity and aesthetic quality of the landscape in areas of scenic value must not
be compromised, with no loss of panoramic views or obscuring of sites of cultural and historical
importance.
The site also falls within a forested area. The following guidelines are related to sustainable landscape
protection:
13 https://www. silava. lv/images/Petijumi/2023-Lacu-monitoring/2023-Lacu-monitoring-Report. pdf
22
• the possibility of forestry activities in ecologically and scenically valuable areas, in accordance
with environmental and nature protection requirements;
• wood processing and manufacturing facilities should be located without detracting from the
value of the surrounding landscape and close to existing regional infrastructure;
• when planning new industrial sites, the primary use should be for areas where no change of use
from forest land to built-up area is required.
As the Gauja valley divides the study area into two parts, the territory also falls within the area of river
valleysdefined as important for tourism and recreation development.
Characteristics of cultural heritage
According to the cartographic information of the information system "Heritage",14 there are 19
monuments of cultural heritage in the study area: 13 archaeological, three architectural, one industrial,
one artistic and one historical (site of a historical event) monuments; the art monument "Altar" is
located indoors in the Vijciems Church. In terms of status, 6 monuments are of national importance, 9 of
regional importance and 4 of local importance, see Table 6.5.2 and Figure 8 of the EIA Report. (Figure
6.5.5 of the EIA report).
Figure 8. (Figure 6.5.5 of the EIA report) Cultural heritage and potential WPP visibility zones in the study area
14 https://karte. heritage. lv/
23
26 other sites or objects of cultural or historical importance have also been identified within the study
area (see Table 6.5.3 of the EIA Report). Among them are 6 monuments, 9 architectural objects, 6
objects of industrial heritage, 2 objects of military heritage and an urban heritage park. 16 of these sites
have been recognised as cultural and historical sites of Strenči Municipality (now part of Valmiera
Municipality). The EIA includes an in-depth assessment of the objects closest to the area of the proposed
activity, the existence of which has led to recommendations or which would be directly or indirectly
affected by the proposed activity.
Tourism and recreation opportunities in the area
The area of the proposed action and the landscape study area has a fairly wide and varied offer of
educational (non-commercial) and nature tourism. There are many point tourist attractions, and at the
same time an atypical number of tourist routes of different importance (see Figure 9 (Figure 6.5.6 of the
EIA Report)).
Figure 9. (EIA Report figure 6. 5. 6.) Tourist attractions, cycle routes, hiking and water routes and
orienteering areas in the study area
24
Number of tourists
For most of the attractions in the Study Area, there is no specific data on the number of tourists. It is
known that the Cirgali lookout tower is visited by around 3000 visitors a year15. The owner of Ielīcu tells
us that the ethnographic farm is visited by a few thousand people.
Attractions
The nearest areas where tourist attractions are concentrated in groups are the surroundings of Strenči-
Seda (the buildings of both towns, Strenči environmental objects and the nature territory of Mīlestības
vērī, Seda swamp), around Vijciems (church, buildings, Kankarīšu rock, Celītkalns, Bitarīnkalns) and Oliņi
Lielais les (Olini spring, Olini half-manor, Cat pine, Stone obelisks, etc.). Further ranges are around Lugazi
and Valka and around Jarcenai. The ethnographic farm "Ielicas" and the Vijciems Hunting Lodge, where
there is also an active tourism business (the guest house "Bergervilla"), are important sites of their own.
For impacts on these sites, see Chapter 7.7.2 "Impacts on Cultural Heritage" of the EIA Report.
Recreational opportunities in the area of operation
Recreational opportunities include mushroom picking and other natural resource gathering, fishing,
physical activity (jogging, Nordic walking, cycling, etc.), walking, sunbathing, relaxing by the water, etc. 16
There are no recreation sites managed by LVM in the area of the proposed activity: these are located in
the territory of the North Gauja AAC near the Gauja River. In general, LVM has not attempted to develop
favourable recreational infrastructure and conditions outside the Special Protection Areas (SPAs) or in
areas of economic forests in the study area.
Although there are no specific studies on recreation and tourism in the area of the Proposed Action, it
should be assumed that the area, especially closer to the settlements and farmsteads, is used for
recreation and not only for orienteering (described below). More detailed information on tourism and
recreation opportunities and the impacts of the Proposed Action on them is provided in Chapter 7.8
"Impacts on Tourism and Recreation" of the EIA Report.
3.4. Noise assessment
There are no settlements in the WPP park area, only isolated farmsteads (for permitted development in
the area, see EIA Report 2. See Annex). The nearest rural farmsteads are >800 m from the WPP. All
noise-regulated areas are single detached dwellings surrounded by woodland. The situation is louder
near the A3 and P24, where traffic volumes are significantly higher than on the V260. Most of the
farmsteads in the WPP park are close to roads, where traffic noise causes discomfort for these houses.
The overall noise in the area is mainly from natural sources, with the A3 and P24 being the loudest.
To assess the existing noise situation in the vicinity of the WPP, road traffic noise has been modelled as a
single source (noise propagation map in Annex 7 of the EIA report) and compared with the noise levels in
MK 07. 01. 2014. the limit values for traffic noise laid down in Regulation No 16: obtained from the EIA
report 6. 7. 1. the results summarised in Table 1.
15 https://www. daba. gov. lv/en/news/requests-for-consideration-del-slegts-cirgal-view-tower
16 Institute for Social, Economic and Humanitarian Studies (VIA HESPI) 2022. Monitoring of visitors to specially protected areas.
Report on the survey results.
25
Noise levels are very low, being relatively highest at night in Saule 4: 8 dB(A) below the night noise limit.
The site is very quiet as it stands, with no existing noise sources which could significantly limit the
creation of new noise sources.
3.5. Air quality assessment in the WPP park area
The construction equipment and vehicles required for the construction of the WPP park will cause
insignificant, local, temporary and episodic air pollution, which will be localised in the construction zone,
which is not located in the immediate vicinity of a residential area. The use of machinery during
construction, access roads, including gravel roads, can cause air pollution from PM10 and PM2.5dust
particles, as well as nitrogen dioxide. The concentration limit values for these substances are laid down
in FC 03. 11. 2009. regulation No 1290. Air quality in the study area of the WPP park has been assessed in
the light of Cabinet Decision 02. 04. 2013. 182, which requires an official statement from the LVGMC on
the existing pollution levels (background concentrations of air pollutants) for the area of potential impact
of the polluting activity for which air quality standards are in force.
The existing pollution levels are characterised using information provided by the LVGMC on 20
September 2024 on the concentrations of air pollutants in the potential area of influence of the activity,
excluding the contribution of the polluting activity. The area of potential effect for the determination of
background concentrations is the area around the location of the polluting activity at a distance
equivalent to the 20 highest emission source heights, but not less than 2000 m.
Table 2 (EIA Report Table 6. 8. 2. ) Annual mean background concentrations (μg/m3) in the study area
of the proposed activity
Viela Annual mean concentration (μg/m3)
PM10 13. 55
PM2.5 7. 00
Carbon monoxide (CO) 305. 53
Nitrogen dioxide (NO2) 4. 33
The concentrations of pollutants in the vicinity of the proposed activity area are low and do not even
approach the limit values for pollutants specified in the Cabinet of Ministers Regulations, as shown in the
figures included in the EIA Report (EIA Report Figures no. 6.8.1.-6.8.4). The annual mean concentrations
for nitrogen dioxide, PM10 and PM2.5 are below even the lower pollution assessment threshold (65% of
the limit value or 26 μg/m3 for nitrogen oxides, 50% of the annual limit value or 20 μg/m3 and 10 μg/m3
for PM10 and PM2.5, respectively). The existing air quality in the area of the Proposed Action is good and
there is no need to develop measures to improve air quality, with the highest concentrations of air
pollutants in the vicinity of major settlements (Strenči, Valka) and roads.
26
4. Significant environmental effects of the proposed activity and its
possible alternatives (Chapter 7 of the EIA Report)
The accelerated development of renewable energy projects should be supported by EU Member States,
in cooperation with local and regional authorities, in identifying and defining land, surface, underground
and marine or inland water areas required for the installation of renewable energy plants and related
infrastructure to ensure the achievement of the 2030 renewable energy target and to support the
achievement of the climate neutrality target by 2050 at the latest under Regulation (EU) 2021/1119.
4.1. Deforested areas
The exact size of the total deforested area will be determined during the construction phase. The EIA has
assessed the maximum possible area estimates.
The approximate area to be deforested if the recommended alternative A is implemented will be 91.5
ha, of which approximately 60% will be young stands, 18% middle-aged stands and 12% mature stands
(see calculations in Table 3 (EIA Report Table 7. 1. 1). 0.75% of deforested area is currently clear-cut.
However, if the recommended alternative B is implemented, the deforested area will be 144.96 ha, of
which approximately 55% will be young stands, 21% middle-aged stands and 14% mature stands (see
calculations in Table 4 (Table 7.1.2 of the EIA Report)). 2% of deforested area is currently clear-cut.
Table 3 (Table 7.1.1 of the EIA Report) Total deforested area under Alternative A
TOTAL
Alternative A
(ha)
Middle-
New yield aged Briestaudze Adult Overgrown Deforestation
(ha) stand (ha) stand (ha) stand (ha) (ha)
(ha)
Total 50,19 15,05 11,12 7,19 0,54 2,04 86,13
% 58,27 17,47 12,91 8,35 0,63 2,37
Table 4 (Table 7.1.2 of the EIA Report) Total deforested area under alternative B
TOTAL
Alternative B
(ha)
Middle-
New yield aged Briestaudze Adult Overgrown Deforestation
(ha) stand (ha) stand (ha) stand (ha) (ha)
(ha)
Total 73,17 23,31 18,20 8,89 0,6 3,78 127,95
% 57,19 18,22 14,22 6,95 0,47 2,95
27
According to the Central Statistical Office, in 2024 there will be 3607 thousand ha of forest land in
Latvia,17 , so the area deforested by Latvijas vēja parki Ltd for the WPP park "Valmiera-Valka" during the
construction of the WPP park in alternative A will be approximately 0.0025%, while in alternative B
approximately 0.004% of the total forest area in Latvia. The impact is assessed as not significant.
4.2. Noise and vibration levels
Assessment and significance of changes in noise levels
The planned area of the WPP park is large (approximately 100 km² for Alternative B and 60 km² for
Alternative A) and covers the municipalities of Valka and Plani. There are approximately 15 farmsteads in
the WPP park area.
An overview of the noise propagation forecast is attached in Annex 7 of the EIA Report.
The results of the noise calculations indicate that no potential problems with exceedances of the noise
limit values are expected:
1. As it stands, the noise level (traffic noise only) is fully compliant with FC 07. 01. 2014. regulation
No 16: traffic noise limit values are not exceeded (and low traffic noise does not even reach the
noise limit values for industrial sites).
2. The existing situation (traffic noise), in one homestead area, measuring point 1, does not meet
the WHO guideline18 for road traffic noise of a dailyLDV value < 53 dBA (see Table 7.2.2 of the EIA
report).
3. Calculation of the noise level at night with 27 WPPs (Option A): compliance with the permissible
noise level in the homestead areas at all times of the day (see Table 7.2.3 of the EIA report) in
accordance with the provisions of the Cabinet of Ministers of the Republic of Latvia 7.2.2. 01.
2014 Regulation No 16.
4. Calculation of night-time noise levels from 40 WPPs (Option B): the permissible noise levels in
the homestead areas are met at all times of the day (see Table 7.2.4 of the EIA report) in
accordance with Cabinet of Ministers 7. 01. 2014 Regulation No 16.
5. In some homestead areas (Option A, measuring points 1, 4, 6, 8, Option B, measuring points 1, 4,
6, 8, 13) the WHO guidelines19 for WPP noise recommend a dailyLDV value < 45 dBA.
To comply with the dailyADI values recommended in the WHO guidelines:
Option A for VPPs VV88, VV85, VV84, VV47, VV46, VV37, VV21, VV16, mitigation measures to be
implemented: select WPP models whose noise emissions comply with WHO recommendations, install
WPPs with the lowest possible noise emissions or aerodynamically improved wings.
Option B for VV88, VV85, VV84, VV66, VV47, VV46, VV37, VV21, VV16 VPPs, mitigation measures to be
implemented: select WPP models whose noise emissions comply with WHO recommendations, install
WPPs with the lowest possible noise emissions or aerodynamically improved wings.
17https://data. stat. gov. lv/pxweb/lv/OSP_PUB/START__NOZ__MEMEP/MEM010/table/tableViewLayout1/
18 Compendium of WHO and other UN guidance on health and environment, 2022 update
19 Compendium of WHO and other UN guidance on health and environment, 2022 update
28
Assessment and significance of low-frequency noise
There are no laws and regulations in Latvia that set limit values for low-frequency noise. For the
assessment of low-frequency noise in this EIA, the Danish limit values and the procedure for setting
them for WPP development projects have been used as a basis. The cumulative low-frequency (0-160
Hz) noise level from WPP in residential buildings must not exceed 20 dB at wind speeds of 6 m/s and 8
m/s. The predicted low-frequency noise of the WPPs has been calculated for all 84 WPPs initially
evaluated at the same time, fully covering the two alternatives evaluated in more detail, using the
WindPro software with up-to-date data from WPP manufacturers on the latest models for which low-
frequency noise measurements have been made20: see Annex 7 of the EIA Report. The results obtained
do not exceed the Danish limit values (see Figure 7.2.2 of the EIA report).
Extensive national epidemiological studies on the public health effects of low-frequency noise from WPP
have been carried out in Denmark, analysing the effects of WPP noise on cardiovascular disease,
pregnancy and diabetes. The results of the studies have been published in 2018at21,22,23,24. These studies,
which analysed public health aspects in the vicinity of all Danish WPPs (up to 40 WPP heights) where
~615 000 people lived during the reporting period, were carried out in a total area of ~650 000. The
original hypotheses that noise from WPPs, including low frequencies, would have a negative impact on
public health have not been confirmed. The authors note that some observations suggest that
potentially higher relative risk factors could be observed in areas where the ambient noise level from the
WPP is above 42 dB(A) and the indoor low-frequency noise level is above 15 dB(A).
The low-frequency outdoor noise modelled in this EIA does not reach even the lowest indoor level in any
of the nearby developments mentioned in all these studies: 15 dB(A).
Assessment and significance of changes in vibration levels
During operation, the imbalance and friction of the rotating parts cause vibrations that are undesirable
not only from an environmental point of view, but above all for the operation of the WPP itself, so they
are kept to a minimum in the design of the WPP. The main sources of vibration in a WPP are the
generator, gearbox and bearing systems. The vibration of these rotating parts can also cause the nacelle
and tower to vibrate. At high wind speeds, the level of vibration can be increased by imbalances in the
WPP parts due to wind pressure and turbulent flows.
Short-term effects may arise from vibrations caused by construction machinery during construction.
The level of vibration caused by WPPs and their impact on nearby areas in Latvia are not limited by
regulatory limits. Until 30 June 2010, vibration limit values were laid down in Cabinet Regulation No 341.
After 30 June 2010, when the Regulation expired, no new laws and regulations laying down vibration
limit values have been issued. These regulations set lower vibration limits for operating theatres and
wards in medical and rehabilitation facilities (night period), where the weighted vibration acceleration
20 WindPRO 3. 6. 366 by EMD International A/S, Enviroprojekts Ltd licence (client) No 8797.
21 A. H. Poulsen et al., Long-term exposure to wind turbine noise and redemption of antihypertensive medication: A
nationwide cohort study. Environment International 121 (Pt. 1), September 2018
22 A. H. Poulsen et al. , Pregnancy exposure to wind turbine noise and adverse birth outcomes : A nationwide cohort study,
Environment International 167, September 2018
23 A. H. Poulsen et al. , Long-term exposure to wind turbine noise at night and risk for diabetes: A nationwide cohort study,
Environmental Research 165, April 2018
24 A. H. Poulsen et al. , Short-term nighttime wind turbine noise and cardiovascular events: A nationwide casecrossover study
from Denmark, Environment international 114, March 2018
29
could not exceed 0.028m/s2. In living areas, the weighted vibration acceleration must not have exceeded
0.04m/s2 at night and 0.07m/s2 during the day.
A comparison of the results of the measurements of vibration from WPPs with the vibration limits in
force in Latvia until 30 June 2010 shows that the vibration levels in the immediate vicinity of WPPs are
higher than the former limits, but at a distance of 300 m from the WPP, the vibration levels are
significantly lower than the lower limit value for operating theatres and wards in medical and
rehabilitation institutions (at night). Although no studies have been carried out on the vibration levels of
the WPPs assessed in this EIA, given that the limit values for the mechanical parts of the WPPs are set
independently of the capacity of the WPP, there is no reason to believe that the vibration levels of the
proposed WPPs will approach the limit values that were in force in Latvia at the time and will cause any
perceptible discomfort outside the former WPP protection zones. Therefore, the proposed operation,
which does not foresee any WPP within 800 m of any human dwelling, cannot by a large margin cause
vibration that would disturb people.
4.3. Flicker
Effects of the flicker effect
The flickering effect is caused by the movement of the rotor wings as they periodically block out the sun
and create moving shadows on the ground, on the surface of objects and on the person, who may
experience subjective discomfort from this rhythmic alternation of sun and shadow. However, the only
objective adverse effect on human health found in the literature is that for epileptics, lighting changes of
3-60 Hz can cause seizures. Modern high-power wind rotors, however, produce much slower flicker:
typically in the range of 0.2-1 Hz.
There are no laws and regulations in Latvia that set out how the flicker effect should be assessed and
limited. Similarly, in other EU countries, flicker exposure targets are set in guidelines rather than in
legislation, due to the fact that flicker is recognised and defined as a nuisance, but there is no scientific
evidence of its effects on public health.
Effects of the Flashing Shadow
In the Valmiera-Valka WPP project, the overall shadow duration target of 10 hours per year is not
exceeded in any of the houses (see worksheets "Shadow times with distance attenuation" in Annex 8 of
the EIA report). The maximum annual shadow duration for all alternatives is 2 h 16 min, or less than a
quarter of the target: the house "Birches" from WPP VV85. There is no difference between alternatives A
and B because the source of the shadow in both cases is the same WPP VV85, nor between A' and B'
because the heights of these WPPs do not differ (and even if they differed by 25 m, the shadow duration
would differ by a few minutes, which would make no difference).
In addition, it should be noted that the methodology with a shadow intensity factor depending on the
distance of the house to the shadow casting WPP was applied in this EIA from the very beginning, when
a fleet of 84 WPPs was provisionally assessed, which also resulted in small shadow duration overruns
that would require mitigation measures (stopping some WPPs during sunny periods) to be applied. At
the current stage, when there are two alternatives with significantly fewer WPP and the ones that cast
the longest shadows from closer distances are among those screened out, no shadow duration
approaches the target value even without such a factor (see Fig. The longest shadow is 4 h 46 min in
30
alternative B' on the house "Liepkalni" at a distance of 1246 m from WPP VV92 - a very weak shadow
close to the invisibility limit.
4.4. Impact on air quality
During the construction of the WPP, construction equipment and vehicles will cause insignificant local,
temporary and episodic air pollution, which will be localised in the construction zone, which is not
located in the immediate vicinity of a residential area.
During the construction process, the following have been identified as temporary air pollutants:
• Dust. This pollutant is caused by construction activities such as excavation, drilling and the
movement of machinery. These activities can produce dust particles of different sizes, from
coarse to fine.
• Diesel exhaust gases from heavy machinery and equipment powered by diesel engines. The main
pollutants emitted by diesel-powered machinery are nitrogen oxides, PM, including PM10 and
PM2.5.
The overall level of risk of impacts is low according to the IAQM guidelines used25 . The construction
process of the WPP, including the movement of vehicles involved in the construction process, will have a
negligible impact on the health, property and ecosystem of the population. Localised dust abatement
measures (e.g. road dusting for nearby farmsteads) should be considered during the construction
process.
Overall, the air pollution from the construction process is assessed as insignificant, with negligible
environmental damage and a more significant consequential benefit from the constructed renewable
energy facility, which will not cause air pollution in future operation.
4.5. Impact on natural values
Habitats and vascular plant species
The factors identified as threatening nature values in relation to protected plant species, protected
freshwater, grassland, marsh and forest habitats are the direct destruction of protected habitats as a
result of the construction of the WPP and associated infrastructure, the fragmentation of habitat areas
by power plant assembly/operation sites and access roads, and the potential drainage impacts that may
arise from ditching around assembly sites and access roads where necessary for drainage.
Measures to avoid and minimise potential impacts on nature values have already been identified in this
EIA by assessing the initial location of the WPP and infrastructure and providing planners with
information on the identified nature values, possible alternative locations for the WPP and associated
infrastructure, as well as explaining the basic principles for planning the location of the WPP to avoid
impacts on nature values. Compared to the original layout, the length of access roads to be newly
constructed has been significantly reduced, the number of NPSs has been reduced and at least some
WPPs are planned as far away as possible from habitats that need to be kept undisturbed. In the case of
the recommended WPP locations for Alternatives A and B, the number of WPP has been further reduced
by removing the left bank of the Gauja and by specifying the location of infrastructure facilities in
relation to habitats and species habitats. The assessment identifies the impacts that are still identifiable
25 https://iaqm. co. uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/Construction-Dust-Guidance-Jan-2024. pdf
31
as adverse to nature values and makes recommendations for mitigation, see Table 7.6.3 of the EIA
Report.
Potential direct impacts on protected habitats and species assemblages in the SPA are fully avoidable,
see Table 7.6.3 of the EIA Report.
The potential direct impacts on Natura 2000 sites will be limited to Alternative B and the following
protected habitats of EU importance may be affected (additional information with pictures showing the
location of the affected habitats is provided in Chapter 7.9 of the EIA Report):
- 6270* Fennoscandian lowland species-rich dry to mesic grasslands, 0.12 ha (LPA "Ziemeļgauja", cable
route along “Pukšu purvs”);
- 91D0* Bog woodland , 0,1 ha (LPA "Ziemeļgauja", cable route along the section of “Pukšu purvs”);
- 9010* Western taiga, 0,046 ha, (LPA "Ziemeļgauja", cable route along “Pukšu purvs”;
- 91T0 Central European lichen scots pine forests, 0,03 ha (LPA "Ziemeļgauja", cable route along “Pukšu
purvs”;
- 9010* Western taiga, 0,12 ha (“Bulvāra riests” gar Bulvāra roud).
Impacts on protected habitats in Natura 2000 sites are entirely avoidable, as the maximum impact was
assessed during the EIA, with cable routes on both sides of the road and considering the possibility of a
cable route along Gailīši Road crossing the LPA “Ziemeļgauja”. To exclude impacts, it is possible to locate
the cable routes on the opposite side of the road from the habitats and species sites, along the side of
the road where no habitats of EU importance are affected, and the cable connection to the substation
can be located along the A6 road, connecting to the substation via the connection that would be made if
the Group A alternative WPP connection were to be constructed (see Chapter 11, Figure 11.2).
Potential effects of dewatering in the SPNA include:
- 9080* Coniferous forests 0,3 ha ("Purgaile River forests");
- 91E0*Alluvial forests 1.5 ha ("Purgaile River forests").
Impacts on protected habitats and species sites in the SPNA can be fully avoided by choosing to lay the
cables on the road side, on the other side of the SPNA NR "Purgailes upes meži " during the design phase
of the roads and cable routes, see Table 7.6.1.
Impacts on habitats of EU importance outside SPNAs that cannot be avoided by the Proposed Action if
27 WPPs are constructed under Alternative A affect three protected habitats of EU importance and
under Alternative B (if 40 WPPs are constructed) five protected habitats of EU importance outside
SPNAs, see Table 7.6.2. The largest areas of habitat directly affected are 91T0 Central European lichen
scots pine forests, including the areas Calculations of habitats likely to be affected by the cable routes
have been made for the cable routes on both sides of the roads. The construction of the infrastructure
will only be on one side of the road and the area of direct impact, at least on part of the roads, will be
smaller than estimated in the assessment.
The proposed action affects the following protected species outside the SPNA:
32
- The most affected species will be the Lycopodium annotinum and Lycopodium clavatum:
During the implementation of the proposed action, individuals of the species will be
destroyed. The populations of these species are stable and widely distributed in Latvia,
therefore the complete or partial destruction of local localities in the area of the Proposed
Action will not have a significant negative impact on the population of the species in Latvia.
The information contained in the report to the European Commission on the conservation
status of habitats and species of EU importance in Latvia26 for the period 2013-2018 confirms
that the population status of the species is considered to be stable. The report indicates that
Lycopodium spp. species occur in at least 7120 localities in Latvia (currently there are data on
a much larger number of localities). The status of the populations of the species of the quail
class is assessed as stable and the future conservation outlook (conservation status) is
assessed as favourable.
- In places, the proposed action will affect the habitat of the Dactylorhiza spp., especially the
Dactylorhiza baltica. The species is often found along roadsides and ditches as it successfully
colonises open ground in these areas; the impact of disturbance to the understorey is
expected to be short-lived and the population will recover, particularly if other individuals of
the species remain in the vicinity. The proposed activity will result in the destruction of
approximately 2 Platanthera bifolia sites: this will not have a negative impact on the
population of the species, as it is relatively common in suitable habitats, such as those
adjacent to the area of influence of the proposed activity.
- The proposed activity could have a negative impact on the habitats of species associated
with protected habitat 9010* Western Taiga and will be destroyed or fragmented (see above
for the area of habitat 9010* potentially affected). The proposed activity may adversely
affect the hydrological regime in habitats of species associated with habitat 91D0* Bog
Woodland (see above on 91D0*).
- Throughout the WPP park, dryland habitats support associated vascular plant species (Sand
pink Dianthus arenarius, fastigiate gypsophila Gypsophila fastigiata, Eastern and
pasqueflower meadow pasqueflower P. patens and Pulsatilla pratensis, Silene chlorantha).
The installation of the cable routes may affect the vegetation of these species, but in the
long term the impact of disturbance to the understorey is positive, whereas the destruction
of individuals of very rare species may have a negative impact and completely destroy the
micropopulation, hence the significant conditions in Table 7.6.3 of the EIA report.
In order to mitigate potential impacts on habitats and vascular plant species, the species and habitat
expert has made recommendations that can be taken into account, where possible, in the construction
of the proposed wind farm. The habitat expert's opinion assessed the worst case scenario of cable routes
on both sides of the road, but based on the expert opinion, the impacts can be almost completely
avoided during the design of the WPP, as the cable routes will only be built on one side of the road and
in some cases it is possible to place the cables under the road surface, thus further reducing the impacts
on species, habitats and reducing the deforested areas.
Effects on birds
26 https://cdr. eionet. europa. eu/Converters/en/eu/art17/
33
To improve transparency, the list of species analysed in detail has been divided into two groups: Species
to beexcluded and Species to be assessed. Exclusionary species are those whose presence means an
area of generally fixed size around the species' location, where the recommendation not to deploy WPP
is valid. For some species, there are even two areas: where the recommendation not to build WPPs is
valid (this was taken into account in the earlier stages of the project when most of the originally planned
93 turbines were excluded), and where the need for and feasibility of mitigation measures should be
assessed but WPPs can be built (current alternatives A and B, assessed in detail and reflected in the EIA
report).Speciesto be assessed are27, for which the construction of a WPP in the vicinity of a site (mostly
in a fixed size area around the site) should be assessed in combination with mitigation measures, but the
recommendation not to build a WPP only applies in certain cases, e.g. in areas with concentrations of
multiple sites of species to be assessed . The analysis for each species indicates the reasons for including
the species in one group or the other.
Exclusion
White-tailed eagle Haliaeetus albicilla
There are no distinct concentrations of observations that would warrant the designation of areas where
it is recommended that WPP should not be installed. The expert assesses the threat to the population of
sea eagles from the proposed WPP park as low.
Golden eagle Aquila chrysaetos
In May 2023, the known nest was surveyed and signs that the platform was occupied by golden eagles
were observed and "adequate protection" was established. A 3 km protection zone should be applied to
the Puksi bog along the perimeter. It is recommended that no WPP be installed within a 3 km radius
around the platform.
Lesser Spotted Eagle Clanga pomarina
In the study area, 23 records of Lesser Spotted Eagles have been recorded since 1 January 2022, 18 of them in
the open landscape zone between the N part of the study area and the town of Valka (Figure 7.6.3 of the EIA
Report), where there are no plans to locate a WPP park. Therefore, the bird expert concludes that the
planned wind park potentially threatens the population of Lesser Spotted Eagles only in the N part of the
study area (outside the boundaries of the Valmiera-Valka WPP Park). In order to reduce the threat of the wind
park to the nesting pair of Lesser Spotted Eagles found by the expert, the expert recommends to abandon the
WPP located closer to the forest edge, which is partially taken into account.
Western capercaillie Tetrao urogallus
8 rookeries were found in the study area. During the site investigation, several times the location of the
WPP was adjusted according to the bird expert's recommendations by relocating the WPP outside
Western capercaillie microreserves and 1 km protection zones around the known LVM rookeries. The
final expert opinion recommended additional adjustments to the location of the WPP, creating a WPP-
free zone to protect Sink 1 (Figure 7.6.4 of the EIA Report), which was found in 2023, as well as
recommending the suspension of the 62. planning of the WPP until the potential sink identified in the
vicinity of the WPP is located.
27 Common Pochard Glaucidium passerinum, Shoveler Aegolius funereus, Buzzard Bubo bubo, Barn Owl Strix uralensis, White-
backed Woodpecker Dendrocopos leucotos and Three-toed Woodpecker Picoides tridactylus
34
Due to the increased risk of anthropogenic disturbance when a wind farm is developed in a forest massif,
the expert recommends that, in cooperation with the forest manager (LVM), increased attention should
be paid to the management of nesting sites.
Black Stork Ciconia nigra
In the bird expert opinion, the Black Stork was considered to be a species that would be excluded from
the WPP due to its avoidance behaviour. There have been 8 records of black storks in the study area
since 1 January 2022 (Figure 7.6.5 of the EIA Report). In accordance with current practice in Latvia and
guidance in the literature, a WPP-free zone of 3 km radius around the nest should be planned. Overall,
the bird expert estimates that 2-3 pairs of black storks nest in the vicinity of the study area in the long
term. All currently recommended WPP are located outside the 3 km zones around known recently
occupied nests and outside the 1 km zones around the most likely feeding sites of the Black Stork.
According to M. Strazda's opinion on black storks in the area of the WPP, 3-4 pairs of black storks have
nested in the study area of the Proposed Action. Knowing that the stork population in Latvia has been
declining in general, 1-2 pairs could be living here at present, of which one permanently occupied nest is
known for certain. If a nest can be found in this area, this nesting site qualifies as a long-term site of
importance for the conservation of the population, where the construction of WPP (~3 km) in the area
between the nest and the main feeding grounds should be avoided. In undisturbed nesting areas,
movements between nests do not exceed 100 m.
A 100 m wide zone should be maintained along the tributaries of the Seda and the Gauja rivers Purgaili,
Stakļupīte and Kokšu. When planning the location of WPP along the old rivers of the Gauja, a WPP-free
zone of at least 500 m shall be maintained. A 1 km buffer zone should also be left around small forest
streams, where it is recommended that the installation of WPP should be avoided (Figure 7.6.6 of the EIA
report).
Eurasian goshawk Accipiter gentilis
3 Eurasian goshawk nests were recorded in the study area (Figure 7.6.7 of the EIA Report). The bird
Expert recommends that WPP 52, 69 and 71 should not be installed as a precaution.
Osprey Pandion haliaetus
4 osprey nests were found in the study area (Figure 7.6.8 of the EIA Report). The bird expert
recommends refusing WPP 54 installation in connection with a plausible but so far undiscovered nest.
Risk of collisions
A number of the originally planned WPPs was located in very high collision risk areas close to the nests of
large, specially protected species of soaring birds. In a species-by-species analysis, it is recommended to
phase them out. Some WPP have been recommended to be abandoned in order to reduce the impact of
other impact components, but this has undoubtedly also reduced the risk of collisions of raptor species
with WPP in the proposed wind park. The final siting of the WPP with Alternatives A and B has also
undoubtedly reduced the risk of collisions of raptor species with the WPP in the planned wind farm.
According to the expert's recommendations, cameras should be installed on the wind turbines that can
stop the operation of the WPP to almost completely eliminate the possibility of collisions with birds,
including soaring birds.
35
Noise pollution
Priority Areas of Conservation Concern for owl species have been modelled in the area of the proposed
wind park.28 Some of the Priority Areas identified in the Conservation Plan for Eurasian pygmy owl
Glaucidium passerinum, Boreal owl Aegolius funereus, Tawny owl Strix aluco, Ural owl Strix uralensis,
Long-eared owl Asio otus and Eurasian eagle-owl Bubo bubo also contain these owl species, and the Plan
recommends limiting additional noise pollution from the WPP in these areas choosing the quietest
possible wind turbine model. Due to the lack of studies on the effects of noise from WPPs on Ural owl
Strix uralensis, pre-construction monitoring.
Taking into account the Latvian Owl Conservation Plan, where the noise threshold is set at 35 dB, and
based on various studies on natural noise in forest environments, where 30-40 dB is considered typical
background noise, it can be concluded that a level of 40 dB, consistent with natural conditions, is unlikely
to be harmful to owls. It can therefore be assumed that noise levels up to 40 dB will not have a
significant impact on the owls' lifestyle and hunting efficiency. If it is possible to keep the WPP operating
in this range at night, this does not affect the owls' ability to hunt.
Visual disturbance
Recommendations from other researchers, mostly based on judgements about the overall effect of WPP
siting on bird distribution, have been taken into account when recommending adjustments to WPP
siting. It is recommended to abandon a number of WPPs, creating broad corridors within the previously
visually continuous "walls" of WPPs, which cross both the spring and autumn migration direction of
common birds in the NE-SW direction, and the low flyway in the vicinity of Luksti meadows. Maintain a
fairly dense group of WPP in Part D of the planned wind park, an area where large areas of habitat are
concentrated with little suitable nesting habitat for specially protected bird species. This solution was
chosen as a compromise to avoid installing WPPs elsewhere: in ornithologically more valuable areas of
the territory. To reduce this nuisance component even further, the alternative would be not to install the
WPP, as there is no other way to reduce its visual impact.
Barrier effect
In the study area, during both spring and autumn migration periods, the main direction of migration
across the territory is NE-SW, similar to other parts of Latvia. This is the main direction perpendicular to
which continuous rows of WPPs should be avoided, creating a barrier effect. Looking at the remaining
WPP configuration, it can be seen that there is a dense group of WPP in the NE-SW direction with the
widest part along 16-82. The WPP line, forming a 5 km wide "barrier". Consequently, 2 NW-SE direction
lines are formed in the N part of the park: between 7. and 60. WPP (3 km), and between 51 and 70. WPP
(3,2 km).
Additional assessment of EIA location alternatives
When assessing the impact of location alternatives A and B on ornithological values in the area of the
proposed wind park, the two alternatives do not differ significantly.
28 Avotiņš jun. A. 2019. Conservation plan for the Barn Owl Glaucidium passerinum, the Short-eared Owl Aegolius funereus, the
Barn Owl Strix aluco, the Barn Owl Strix uralensis, the Long-eared Owl Asio otus and the Barn Owl Bubo bubo. Latvian
Ornithological Society, Riga.
36
The ZA part of Alternative B, which is the divergent part between Alternatives A and B, is located in poor
habitats: a region that is not crossed by regular local overflights of migratory species, and is located in
the sequentially dominant direction of spring and autumn migrations of birds. The difference between
the predicted impacts on ornithofauna of the two proposed alternatives is expected to be similar: The
WPP group of Alternative B ZA does not pose a significant additional risk. In terms of the potential threat
to ornithofauna, the two proposed siting alternatives are similar.
Summary of recommended mitigation measures
• it is recommended to abandon WPP: VV2, VV3, VV4, VV5, VV6, VV8, VV10, VV11, VV12, VV13,
VV14, VV15, VV18, VV19, VV23, VV25, VV27, VV29, VV35, VV43, VV44, VV45, VV52, VV54, VV62,
VV69, VV71, VV83, VV87, VV90, VV92, VV93*29;
• it is recommended to install WPP shutdown camera systems for all WPP;
• assess the current proposals in line with the results of the pre-construction monitoring:
o Stop WPP around sunrise and sunset during the Black Stork breeding season if the
effectiveness of WPP camera systems is reduced at dusk;
o WPP: VV26, VV30, VV31, VV33, VV81, VV86 and VV89 are also recommended to be
stopped around sunrise in spring and autumn if the effectiveness of WPP camera
systems is reduced at dusk;
o it is recommended to limit additional noise pollution from the WPP during the entire
lifetime of the wind park, in accordance with the results of pre-construction monitoring
(regarding the impact of noise from the WPP on owls);
• deforestation for the wind park is recommended outside the bird breeding season;
• it is recommended that infrastructure is planned as far as possible outside habitats of
importance for birds and as far as posssible constructed outside the bird breeding season;
• it is recommended to plan wind park construction processes, which are associated with
increased noise and light pollution emissions, outside the bird nesting season and, if possible,
during the daytime;
• it is recommended to maintain feedback to the mitigation measures of the wind farm, with the
possibility to adjust them based on the results of the monitoring;
• it is recommended to monitor nesting birds and the remains of birds killed by collisions with
WPP in the context of the proposed wind park, based on the methodology used in the original
study;
• etc. recommendations, the implementation of which is beyond the influence of the proponent of
the proposed activity - are reflected in Chapter 7.6.3 of the EIA Report.
Effects on bats
The overall bat activity in the study area is considered high compared to 14 other wind park sites where
similar surveys were carried out. The highest bat activity is recorded in July and August. Bats have been
recorded almost throughout the night, with high activity from the first to the ninth hour after sunset.
The highest risk of bat mortality in the planned wind park area is observed in July-August. Bat activity in
the study area is high almost throughout the night, so it is not possible to distinguish night-time hours
29 * The recommendation has already been taken into account during the EIA process.
37
when bat mortality risks are lower, except for the last 2-3 morning hours in late autumn (from 10 pm
after sunset in the second half of September, October and November).
The establishment of a wind park in the area "Valmiera-Valka" is allowed subject to the following
restrictions and conditions:
• automatic shutdown or non-operation of the WPP from 1 May to 30 September during
the night period from sunset to sunrise, if:
1. the wind speed at the rotor height of the WPP is 6 m/s or less,
2) rainfall does not exceed 1 mm/h,
3) air temperature above 6 °C.
• Monitoring of bats is ensured in the first and second year after the start of operation of
the WPP. The monitoring methodology is designed according to the site specifics and
carried out by a NCA-certified bat expert with experience in processing ultrasound
recordings. A description of the monitoring is given in Chapter 12 of the EIA report.
Depending on the results of the monitoring, which would or would not confirm increased bat activity
and/or mortality at the constructed WPPs, the WPP operating restrictions could be reviewed after the
first and second years of post-construction monitoring - lifted, relaxed or tightened, in particular: the
period when WPP operating restrictions are required could be extended or reduced, or the wind speed
threshold at which WPP operation is allowed could be changed.
Invertebrates
In order to conserve specially protected species and other important species, the proposed action will:
1. WPP (VV7, VV16, VV20, VV22,VV27, VV31, VV32, VV34, VV36, VV38, VV43, VV45, VV46, VV48,
VV70, VV82, VV85, VV88, VV91, VV93) and substation (ST1, ST2, ST3, ST4) locations, where adult
or new emergences of Flatheaded pine borer are found, it is necessary to remove all fallen trees,
snags, stems from the construction site and relocate them to the nearest coppice or woodland,
preferably. The insect larvae in the dead wood can then complete their development. They may
also be able to continue breeding. Dead wood that does not decompose when moved should be
removed.
2. Where the new access road to be constructed passes through a stand of fallen or standing
ecological trees, these trees shall be relocated outside the development area.
3. Recommendation throughout the study area, if there has been a forest fire, pine trees that have
been burnt but are still alive should be preserved.
4. Recommendation throughout the study area that if the stand to be felled contains pine saplings
with black trunks (presence of the fungus Aurobasidion sp.), the trees should be moved outside
the managed stand.
The main protection measures for SPA species are the removal of dead wood (fallen trees, stumps,
snags) from the development area. This allows the larvae in the wood to complete their development.
The population sizes of the species found in the area of the proposed activity, the Flatheaded pine borer
38
and the Laphria gibbosa, have not been assessed in Latvia. Given the relatively wide distribution of
species in the area of the Proposed Action and in Latvia as a whole, the establishment of the WPP Park
will not affect the populations of the species.
Preserving burnt forest stands without clearing them is important. Boros schneideri and Stephanopachys
linearis have not been recorded in the WPP area. It is not possible to judge the impact of the Proposed
Action on these species in Latvia as a whole.
Effects on mammals
The construction of the WPP will not significantly alter the status of nationally protected species. Local and
wider indirect and cumulative impacts on wild mammals are expected (up to 10 km away from the study
area of the Proposed Action), the consequences and spatial limits of which are currently unknown and
unpredictable.
Continuity of green corridors in a transboundary context will not be affected: the construction of the WPP
is not planned in the Gauja valley, which is an important corridor for the movement of game, including
large carnivores.
Additional expert recommendations that are beyond the influence of the proponent, including measures to
mitigate impacts on mammals, are presented in Chapter 7.6.8 of the EIA Report.
4.6. Impact on the landscape
Impact on the landscape
There is no prominent topography in the study area that would affect the visibility of the WPP. The
dominant landscape is woodland, with only a few relatively large areas of open countryside. The WPP
will be visible from these open areas, but the presence of cleared areas (clearings, roads, stiges,
overhead power lines) will be the most important factor for visibility. The rest of the Landscape Study
Area, meanwhile, is much more diverse.
Forest landscape
Inland dune masses are a characteristic and important element of the landscape in this area. To avoid
the loss of value of the dune massifs, the dune topography must be preserved:
• do not place WPP on (behind) dune ridges;
• not to significantly alter the dune topography, including by ensuring the continuity of dune
ridges, in the construction of access roads, cable trenching, installation and construction of
WPPs;
• make access roads to WPP parallel to the dunes, not perpendicular.
These aspects are most relevant for WPP VV20, VV31, VV37, VV61, which are located in close proximity
to dune ridges, but other dunes could also be affected by construction.
Gauja landscape
39
The proposed activity will not directly affect the Northern Gauja AAP and will not result in visual impacts
in most areas, although there will be visual impacts in some areas. Therefore, a height limit of 250 m
should be set for WPP VV71, VV69, VV65, VV49 and VV68.
Bridges are important viewpoints of the Gauja Valley: Anņu, Spicrāmja and Strenči Bridge. From the
Spitscrae Bridge, the location of WPP VV11 is planned to the west (2.4 km) and will be clearly visible.
VV11 is not recommended to preserve the scenic view.
At the highest vantage point above the mouth of the Vija River in the Gauja River, several WPP would be
visible towards the NW. VV39 and VV1, which are not recommended, would be very visible. The partially
visible VV48, VV82, VV83, VV36 should have a height limit of 250 m.
Seda townscape
The proposed development will accommodate four WPPs, however, in order not to adversely affect the
attractiveness of the existing landscape, VV25, VV24, VV30 are not recommended and the maximum
overall structure height of VV80 should be reduced to 250 m. Retain uncut tree belt (in state forest with
cadastral designation: 94760010055) at least 100 m around the city in the direction of the Proposed
Action.
Strenči town centre landscape
The visibility model indicates that the highest visibility would be along the railway, in the Strenči Centre
Park area, in the courtyards between Rīgas, Pulkveža Brieža and Gaujas streets. The WPP will also be
visible from the central buffer zone near the market square, which is the closest point. The nearest WPP
(VV24) would be 4.4 km away but would not be visible. The upper part of VV81 and the wings above (4.5
km) and the wings of VV33 (just behind VV81, 5.6 km away) would be visible. The impact on this view
from the market area can be considered to be medium. However, this view is not valuable in itself.
Oliņi Big Forest
The cultural and historical values identified and theoretically to be rediscovered in the area should be
preserved, and the routes should not be altered to the maximum extent possible. For example, do not
turn a natural carriageway into a wide "typical LVM road" with gravel and ditches along it.
Landscape of the Seda swamp
Two viewing (birdwatching) towers have been created to review it, but the WPP would not be visible
from the towers. However, the view will be from the causeways in the marsh area. For example, at least
21 WPP will be clearly visible from the road to the lookout tower closest to Seda (see Annex 9. See Annex
10 to the Landscape Expert's Report).
Open farmland (arable) landscapes
Although no open countryside is actually present in the immediate vicinity of the Proposed Action, the
proposed WPP will be most directly visible from these relatively distant areas. On the NE side, the distant
vistas of the Ergeme hills would potentially offer views of several dozen WPP. Although the Spatial plan
of Valka municipality does not define scenic road sections and the most valuable viewpoints, a high
40
scenic value articulated relief landscape with the Strenči-Cirgaliai forest massif in the background is
visible from several locations (see Annex 9): See Annex 12 to the Landscape Expert's Report).
The closest to these road sections are VV92, VV67, VV66, which are located up to 820 m away, and on
the very edge of the forest (up to 80 m away from the forest edge). If it is assumed that the height of the
forest is on average 25 m, the entire wind park will have a strong and dominant effect on these views.
VV92, VV67 and VV66 are not recommended.
To the R of the study area of the Proposed Action is the Ēvele Cultural Landscape, which consists of a
landscape of cultural, historical and aesthetic value. The WPP will be at least 4.9 km to the SE of it, but
will be visible. One of the most important cultural sites is the Cannabis Oak: both views of and from the
oak will be affected by distant WPP. However, WPPs will be characterised as subdominant objects.
On the other side of the area of the Proposed Action is the Vijciems open landscape space, from which
the WPP would be clearly visible (see Annex 9: See Annex 13 to the Landscape Expert's Opinion).
Impact on cultural heritage
Overall, the expected impact on cultural monuments in the study area is assessed as medium. The expert
has recommended that WPPs VV59, VV66, VV92, VV67, VV53, VV25, VV24 and VV30 be abandoned and
that WPPs VV56, VV47, VV24, VV54 and VV80 be set at a maximum height of 250 m. The expert also
recommends:
• Preserve the forest (no logging) in the existing state forest (cad. designations: 94920010035,
94920010038) in a strip at least 70 m wide around the farmstead (land unit with the cad.
number 94920010025), which according to the forest transparency model (developed by
Estonian researchers) should limit the view to other WPP. During the installation of WPP and
related works, assess the impact of machinery movement on the building structures, do not
provide for its movement along the LVM road “Road of the Inlets”.
• To preserve the cadastral units of the forest hospital (cad. app. 94170010085) on the eastern
side or in the adjacent Latvian State Forest (Cad. app. 94170013127) in a 100 m strip to the west
of the site, adjacent to the hospital complex.
• Preserve the forest in the area of the ancient burial site.
• Preserve the existing forest on the north-west-north slope of the mound.
• As it is not possible to ensure the invisibility of VV21, it should be moved further away from
Monument Road (possible location coordinates: 57.635288, 25.837657 or 57.635615,
25.837217). Preserve the semi-circular forest around the obelisk within a radius of 100 m on the
obelisk side of Monument Road. On the other side of the road, plant Norway spruce covering the
base of the WPP, preferably in two parallel rows. When planting rows, use planting material at
least 1.5 metres high. To protect the monument during construction works and machinery
movements, and to maintain or renew the information board about it.
• To clarify the actual location of the monument to the Crown Prince of Prussia in nature. With this
in mind, try to uncover and protect the site during construction work and machinery movement.
Inform museum professionals.
41
• To preserve the monument to Rihards Veide during construction works and during the
movement of machinery, and to maintain or renew the information board about it. Preserve the
forest in a 100 m zone around it.
• Preserve the existing forest strip of at least 70 m on the other side of the road from Oliņi semi
manor house (Mežmuižas).
• Although the forest has already been cleared on the other side of the road, preserve the uncut
forest strip along it opposite the Captain Anton Irv Monument.
• Retain the currently unlogged forest strip (Block 290, Section 5) to the N of the Hunting Lodge,
70 m wide.
• Retain uncut tree belt (in state forest with cadastral designation: 94760010055) at least 100 m
around the town of Seda in the direction of the proposed development.
4.7. Impacts on Natura 2000 sites in the vicinity of the WPP Park
As mentioned in Chapter 6.4.1 of the EIA Report and summarised in Table 7.9.1, there are 5 SPNAs in the
vicinity of the proposed wind park that are included in the single European network of SPNAs Natura
2000 (see EIA Report Figure 6. 4. 2.):
• Nature Reserve “Sedas purvs”. The nearest WPPs are planned within 0.9 km of the nature
reserve boundary.
• Nature Reserve “Burgas plavas”. The nearest WPPs are planned within 4 km of the nature
reserve boundary.
• Protected Landscape Area “Ziemelgauja”. The nearest WPPs are planned within 0.3 km of the
protected landscape area boundary.
• Micro-reserve "Bulvara riests". The nearest WPPs are planned within 0.8 km of the micro-reserve
boundary.
• Micro-reserve “Igaunijas riests”. The nearest WPPs are planned within 8 km of the micro-reserve
boundary.
2023 on 21 November 2007, the Cabinet of Ministers approved the “Regulations on Nature Reserves”
and established a new nature reserve: “Purgailes upes mezi”. The nearest WPP VV7 is planned 1.3 km to
the east of the nature reserve. This assessment includes an assessment of the impacts of the five Natura
2000 sites as identified in the Programme No 5-03/9/2023 issued by the NRWB on 12 September 2023.
Overall, based on the expert assessment of habitats, vascular plant species, invertebrates, the proposed
activity does not pose a threat to the conservation objectives of the protected areas in terms of ensuring
a favourable level of protection for protected habitats of EU importance or to the integrity of the
protected areas, either locally or regionally.
No significant adverse impacts on Natura 2000 sites have been identified that would result in any of the
alternatives for the location of the WPP-Park not being realisable.
In relation to the assessment of impacts on bird species, it should be noted that although the proposed
activity is planned outside Natura 2000 sites, it is surrounded by Natura 2000 sites, which are also sites
of importance for birds: nature reserve “Sedas purvs” and PLA “Ziemelgauja”.
42
For some species, the potential impacts of the proposed WPP cannot be separated into Natura 2000
sites and non Natura 2000 sites due to the ecology of these bird species and the ecological integrity of
the sites with adjacent areas, while for the remaining species, no significant impacts of the proposed
WPP on breeding populations of these species in the two large Natura 2000 sites – “Sedas purvs” and
“Ziemelgauja” - can be identified for any of the species. The already minor impacts will be reduced by
the recommended mitigation measures for the WPP park (see Chapter 7.6.3 of the EIA Report and
summary in Annex 12 of the EIA Report).
Summarising the assessment of impacts on Natura 2000 sites, the EIA assessment concludes that 46 of
the 84 WPP assessed are not recommended. Measures to mitigate the impact of WPP have been taken
during the construction of the WPP park, e.g. corridors to reduce the “barrier effect” have been created
to allow migratory species to fly, camera systems have been designed for WPP to identify birds and
periodically stop turbines to reduce the risk of collisions, etc. c. no specific mitigation measures have
been identified as necessary at this stage in accordance with the Cabinet of Ministers Regulation No 300
of 19 April 2011 “Procedure for assessing the impact on a specially protected nature area of European
importance (Natura 2000)”. A summary of the mitigation measures for the WPP included in the
recommended alternative EIAs for the design, construction and operation phases of the WPP is attached
as Annex 12 to the EIA Report (due to its size, electronic: MsExcel file).
43
5. Transboundary assessment (Chapter 9 of the EIA report)
In the context of transboundary impacts, the Republic of Estonia has been identified as the country likely
to be affected by the proposed action.
5.1. Transboundary impact assessment for landscape, tourism and recreation
As part of the Estonian territory (part of Valga county and the whole of Valga city) falls within the
landscape study area, the transboundary impacts of the proposed activity on the landscapes, tourism
and recreation of this part of Estonia have been assessed. Estonian territory is located within 4.2 km of
the nearest assessed WPP.
When assessing the locations of the WPPs, the closest WPPs to the area of the Proposed Action are
located in the Koiva-Mustjegi Karulas AEP 9.1 km away on the right bank of the Gauja River (VV70)). The
Karulas-Pikjerva AEP is located 15.7 km from the nearest WPP (VV68). The boundary of Karula National
Park is 20 km from the nearest WPP (VV68).
For the planned operation in the nearest Estonian open areas, e.g. between Londi and Lepa in Valga
municipality, the WPP would be visible at a distance of 5.5 km at most.
Lookout towers are important viewpoints. The closest one to the proposed operation is at Tsirgumäe:
Tellingumäe vaatetorn (Tellingumäe lookout tower), 25 km from VV68. It offers a wide panoramic view
of the Mustjegi River and the territory of Latvia (towards the Cirgali dune massif). If this and other WPPs
are also visible in clear weather, they should be considered as background objects.
Taking into account the distance of the Proposed Action from the territory of Estonia, the transboundary
impact is assessed as negligible in the context of the aspects to be assessed.
5.2. Impact assessment on birds
Impacts on the Republic of Estonia have been assessed in a similar level of detail as for adjacent areas in
Latvia. The impacts in Latvia are considered in two zones - 3 and 10 km around the recommended final
wind park configuration. The 3 km zone around the wind park does not affect the territory of the
Republic of Estonia, whereas the 10 km zone affects 5355 ha (6.2% of the entire 10 km zone) of the
territory of the Republic of Estonia (see Figure 12 (Figure 9.1 of the EIA Report)).
44
Figure 12 (Figure 9.1 of the EIA Report) The planned 10 km area of the Valka-Valmiera WPP park covers the
territory of the Republic of Estonia
The transboundary impact analysis uses bird observation data publicly available in the open access
databases elurikkus.ee and plutof.ut.ee. Combining the observation data available from both sources,
7,927 bird observations have been recorded in the Estonian part of the 10 km area of influence of the
planned WPP park since 1 January 2022.
In a 10 km zone, including the territory of the Republic of Estonia, the expected impact of the planned
WPP park on migratory waterbird species in flocks: cranes, swans and geese has been assessed. These
species are characterised by regular movements between feeding and roosting sites, and it is therefore
recommended to avoid the installation of dense WPP groups along flyways. The planned configuration of
the WPP park is recommended to avoid dense groups of WPP in the local flyways of cranes, swans and
geese. Concentrations of these species groups have been observed in open landscapes near the N part of
the planned WPP park, but their local flyways do not cross the territory of the planned WPP park.
Transboundary effects on the crane/swan/goose species group within the territory of the Republic of
Estonia are assessed as negligible. It is likely that there will be no direct impacts at all if the WPP is built.
Migration of ducks, herons, sparrows, storks, birds of prey, day and night birds of prey and other
migratory species in the territory of Latvia mostly follows the SW direction in autumn and the NE
45
direction in spring, following the socalled. The East Atlantic Flyway30, more specifically its White-Baltic
Sea branch.
Outside areas of concentrations of migratory bird flows caused by natural barriers, migratory bird
species fly over land in a broad front, evenly covering the entire land area. The planned WPP park is
located at the border of Latvia's NE. Thus, in spring, the WPP park will have minimal impact on migratory
birds nesting in Latvia, but a greater impact on birds migrating through Latvia to the Republic of Estonia
and areas to the NNE of it. Some species, especially those that are visually sensitive to the “barrier
effect” created by the wind park, will avoid it, others will ignore it or not see it during daylight hours. The
shape of the planned WPP park is longitudinally elongated in the NE-SW direction, which coincides with
the main direction of bird migration in the territory of Latvia. From the perspective of the bird migration
route, they are therefore largely spaced behind each other and do not form a wide barrier perpendicular
to the migration route, blocking it.
In autumn, a similar picture is expected: the planned WPP park in the SW direction will meet migratory
birds at the very border of Latvia, will affect the populations of N-S migratory bird species in the Republic
of Estonia, with minimal impact on the populations of migratory birds breeding in the territory of Latvia.
Of the range of birds migrating through the planned WPP to Estonia and beyond, the most threatening in
the expert's view are nocturnal migrants and small-medium sized birds. Thanks to the promising results
of WPP camera systems, the threat to the most critical group of species - large soaring birds - has been
significantly reduced. The fact that these birds may have to slightly change their migration route due to
the “barrier effect” of the WPP park is not considered to be a significant negative factor. Most
importantly, however, the risk of collisions for this group of species has been significantly reduced, so no
significant negative impacts on migratory large soaring bird species breeding in the Republic of Estonia
and areas to the NE of Estonia are expected. A VES-free zone of at least 1 km around the most likely
feeding sites of Black Storks is also maintained, further reducing the threat to migrating Black Storks.
Taking into account the literature available on the impact of WPP park’s on migratory species and mainly
emphasising the fact that the proposed WPP park is located outside the concentration of bird migratory
flows, i.e. “bottle neck” sites, the expert does not expect any migratory bird species passing through the
area of the proposed wind park to be significantly adversely affected by the wind park.
5.3. Overview of transboundary impacts of the Ministry of Climate of the Republic of Estonia
An overview of the transboundary impacts of the Ministry of Climate of the Republic of Estonia and how
they have been taken into account in the preparation of the EIA for the Valmiera-Valka WPP is presented
in Table 5 (Table 9.1 of the EIA Report).
30 BirdLife International 2010, Busse 2001, Busse et. busse 2001. 2014
46
Table 5 (Table 9.1 of the EIA Report) Overview of transboundary impacts of the Ministry of Climate of
the Republic of Estonia
No. Aspects of transboundary impacts to be Posted by Notes
taken into account in the EIA by the
Ministry of Climate of the Republic of
Estonia
1. A WPP park is planned for Estonia. The Ministry of Regional The landscape assessment takes
cumulative visual impact of WPP parks Affairs and Agriculture into account information on
should be assessed. planned WPP parks in Estonia.
Planning documents related to planned Cumulative visual impacts across
WPP parks in Estonia should be taken borders are assessed as negligible.
into account.
2. The proposed action may affect: Ministry of Economic Large mammals have high
- movement of game, Affairs and intelligence and good mobility.
- noise pollution, Communications of Their response and speed of
- the local population, the Republic of adaptation to the WPP parks is
- grid stability. Estonia currently unpredictable. Studies on
the impact of WPP parks on
terrestrial wild mammal and
domestic animal species have
concluded that the results of
studies on these species should not
be extrapolated from one site to
another.
The expert recommends that the
controlling national authorities
should require the developers of
the North Latvian and Estonian
border wind parks (Figure 3.2.5 of
the EIA report) to jointly undertake
specialised monitoring of wild
mammals in cooperation with the
controlling national authorities and
scientific institutions.
The indirect and cumulative
impacts of the WPP on wild
mammals are expected to occur up
to a distance of approximately 10
km from the study area of the
Proposed Action.
A mammal expert opinion on the
assessment of the impact of the
WPP on terrestrial non-flying
mammals has been received as
part of the EIA (attached as Annex
6).
The noise assessment is presented
in Chapter 7.2. No transboundary
47
No. Aspects of transboundary impacts to be Posted by Notes
taken into account in the EIA by the
Ministry of Climate of the Republic of
Estonia
effects have been identified.
The local population in the
Republic of Estonia is not expected
to be affected.
The stability of the electricity grid
in the Republic of Estonia is not
expected to be affected.
3. The WPP park is 1.5 km from the Natura Estonian An assessment of the impacts on
2000 Important Bird Area KOIVA- Environmental Natura 2000 sites and birds in the
Mustjoe. The site is also designated as a Administration Republic of Estonia is presented in
landscape conservation area. Black Chapter 9. The nearest WPP from
Stork breeding in the area is also KOIVA-Mustjoe is located 9.1 km
possible. Attention should also be paid away on the right bank of the
to goose migration and the nesting sites Gauja River (VV70).
of black grouse.
Bats are also present in the area and The assessment of bats is
impacts on bat species are also presented in Section 7.6.3.
assessable. The Gauja valley will not be
Attention should also be paid to the crossed under the recommended
continuity of green corridors, as the alternatives (A or B) for the
Gauja River is an important corridor for Proposed Action.
the movement of game. Including large The continuity of green corridors in
predators. a cross-border context will not be
Given that significant drainage works affected: The construction of the
are planned, the impact of these works WPP is not planned in the Gauja
on water quality and fish populations in Valley, which is an important
the Gauja needs to be assessed. movement corridor for game,
Cumulative impacts to be assessed and including large carnivores.
mitigation measures and monitoring to A mammal expert opinion on the
be planned if necessary. assessment of the impact of the
If it is found that the impact goes WPP on terrestrial non-flying
beyond what was originally planned, the mammals has been received as
environmental impact in Estonia must part of the EIA (attached as Annex
be assessed further. 4).
there are several protected areas within Water quality and fish populations
a 20 km radius: Karula National Park, in the Gauja will not be affected.
Karula Bird Sanctuary and Karula Mitigation measures and
Natural Area. monitoring are foreseen.
The environmental impacts in
Estonia are not expected to exceed
those described in Chapters 10.1
and 10.2.
Nature experts have assessed that
no impacts are expected on the
Karula National Park, the Karula
Important Bird Area and the Karula
48
No. Aspects of transboundary impacts to be Posted by Notes
taken into account in the EIA by the
Ministry of Climate of the Republic of
Estonia
Natural Area.
4. It has been observed that the noise Estonian Health Board The lowest noise limit values
generated by WPP is more disturbing assessed are 45 dB at night, 50 dB
than the same level of noise generated in the evening and 55 dB during
by road noise and airport noise. the day, in accordance with the
According to Estonian noise limits, noise requirements of the Cabinet
should preferably not exceed 50 dB Regulations.
during the day (7:00-23:00) and 40 dB at The noise assessment is presented
night (23:00-7:00), which cannot be in Chapter 7.2. No transboundary
exceeded in residential areas. effects have been identified.
5. It is noted that the Koiva-Mustjoe Estonian Fund for The maps have been updated to
N2000 site is marked on the map, but Nature https://natura2000.eea.europa.eu/
that most of it is also the Koiva-Mustjoe
Grassland Natural Area.
6. Impact assessment on N2000 sites must Municipality of Valga The impact on N2000 is assessed in
be included. Chapter 7.9.
The continuity of the Gauja River Information on the Valga WPP Park
migration corridor must be ensured. The has been obtained and taken into
EIA should assess this. At the same time, account in the EIA.
the Estonian side informs that another The Gauja valley will not be
WPP park is planned about 4 km from crossed under the recommended
the town of Valka and 9 km from the alternatives (A or B) for the
planned WPP park. Estonia will inform Proposed Action.
Latvia by another letter.
7. The transboundary assessment must Ministry of Climate The impact on Natura 2000 has
include protected areas within a 10km been assessed.
buffer zone around the proposed the 3 km, 10 km and 20 km zones
activity. of influence were initially drawn as
Impacts on the N2000 sites Koiva- the boundaries of the study and
Mustjoe and Aheru need to be assessed. survey areas, which were refined
At the same time, please explain the during the EIA process according to
meaning of the 3 km, 10 km and 20 km the area assessed.
zones of influence included in the
attached map.
In addition, the "Convention on the Transboundary Effects of Industrial Accidents" has been in force
since 27.09.2004 and provides for transnational cooperation in the field of industrial accidents. The
quantity and hazardousness of chemical substances at the site of the Proposed Operation do not reach
the threshold values specified in this Convention, therefore the provisions of this Regulation are not
applicable to the construction of the Valmiera - Valka WPP Park and its related infrastructure.
49
6. Socio-economic benefits (Chapter 14 of the EIA report)
The construction and operation of the proposed WPPs may have both positive and negative socio-
economic impacts in the area of the Proposed Action and in the national context. Positive impacts
include investment in the economy, an increase in directly related and indirectly related jobs, financial
benefits from land leases to property owners on whose land the WPP will be built, increased energy
supply on the market, reduced carbon dioxide emissions, contribution to national energy policy
objectives. There may be negative impacts on tourism and recreational resources and property values
for some residents. As the socio-economic impacts of WPPs have not been widely studied in Latvia, the
information in this report is largely based on the results of studies in other countries.
Attracting investment is an important factor influencing the development of the economy, and the
construction of a WPP should be evaluated in the same way as any other investment that contributes to
economic growth in terms of attracting investment. It is expected that several dozens (the exact number
to be implemented is not known before and after the completion of this EIA) The total cost of
constructing the WPPs could be in the order of several tens of millions of EUR, which is a significant
investment project.
In the context of employment, the WPP construction proposal is linked to the creation of jobs during
both construction and operation. Demand for additional labour will be related to the construction and
operation of the WPP itself, as well as to indirectly related activities such as mining for road construction,
cement and concrete production, and transport.
In terms of qualitative socio-economic damages, the negative impacts on properties in the vicinity of the
WPP development areas are likely to be medium-term (three to five years after the WPP starts
operation) and not significant in the long term.
On the other hand, the quantifiable socio-economic benefits and losses for all alternatives show a
significant overall net present value and an internal rate of return well above the socio-economic
discount rate of 5% used in the calculations, which means that the long-term socio-economic benefits
offset the short-term negative impacts (losses), including the short-term negative impacts of the project.
In terms of GHG emissions. In terms of socio-economic returns to the development of the WPP, both
alternatives show positive results: Alternative B has a higher net present value (NPV) than Alternative A
by a factor of 1.5, while the internal rate of return is slightly higher for Alternative A (see Annex 11).
50
7. Comparison of the alternatives envisaged and justification of the
chosen alternative
As part of the EIA for the proposed action, the alternatives for the location of the WPP park have been
assessed and the technological alternatives have been evaluated: height alternatives, three different
heights of the WPP.
All the alternatives evaluated would achieve the objective of the Proposed Action: to install new WPPs
with a nominal capacity of 8 MW each.
A summary, taking into account the assessments of the ornithologist, species and habitat expert,
landscape expert, bat expert and hydrologist, and the physical impact assessment for all 84 WPP sites
assessed in the EIA is provided in Table 8.1 of the EIA Report. For all WPPs, undesirable effects have been
identified which can be avoided or reduced by conditions or constraints in the design documentation,
during the construction phase or during operation (for conditions and constraints for recommended
WPPs, see Annex 12 of the EIA Report).
Impacts assessing the existing situation in the area of the proposed action and the situation expected
under the alternative to be implemented: Species and habitats, Bats, Birds, Invertebrates, Mammals,
Landscape, Cultural history, Tourism and recreation, Natura 2000, Noise, Low frequencies, Flicker, Air,
Hydrology, Environmental hazards and emergencies, Vibration, Climate, Communication systems.
The impacts of the development scenarios have been given a conditional numerical characterisation,
summarised in Table 8.3 of the EIA Report.
Overall, the assessment of the EIA Report 8.4. the comparison and analysis of the WPP location and
height alternatives presented in Table 2.1 does not reveal any circumstances that would prevent the
implementation of the planned WPP park location A or B or the technical alternative. The location and
technical implementation of all alternatives is feasible.
Alternative B is primarily recommended because of the advantage of this WPP park in its proximity to
the 330 kV high voltage line (less deforested area for the construction of new AST lines) and its proximity
to large electricity consumers. As the construction of new substations near high-voltage lines has its own
technological limitations, it is most efficient, economically feasible and safe to build generating capacity
(WPP).
51
8. Further conditions for environmental monitoring of the proposed
action
The EIA assesses the potential impacts of the proposed WPPs. Impacts such as flicker effects, noise
pollution, safety risks, impacts on habitats and specially protected plant species and the hydrological
regime of the site can be predicted with a high degree of accuracy by assessing the scale of the Proposed
Action and using calculation methods. Unfortunately, it is not practicable to assess the precise impacts of
the proposed WPP on ornithofauna and bat populations, so the impacts of the proposed WPP on these
animal groups should continue to be assessed through monitoring and, if necessary, the introduction of
additional mitigation measures not identified in this report.
Bird monitoring
In order to be able to judge the effectiveness of the recommended mitigation measures for the planned
wind park and to be able to adjust them if necessary, the bird expert recommends monitoring of nesting
birds before and during the operation and construction of the wind park.
Pre-construction monitoring shouldresult in a choice between the two scenarios VV1, VV82/VV42,
VV36: the expert recommends to abandon VV1 and VV82, unless there are some technological reasons
that it would be better to abandon VV42 and VV36.
It is also recommended that at least one year of ambient noise measurements be carried out before the
WPP park is put into operation, so that they can be compared with measurements during the lifetime of
the WPP park.
Install WPP suspension cameras in accordance with the results of the pre-construction monitoring,
assessing the current proposals:
(1) Suspension of WPP around sunrise/sunset to protect soaring birds (1 April to 1 October),
(2) Suspension of the WPP for the protection of migratory birds in flocks (from 15 February to 15
May and from 1 September to 15 November),
(3) If the pre-construction monitoring confirms that WPPs VV16 and VV46 have a “flickering” effect
on the Western capercaillie rookeries, the turbine operation should be adjusted between 1 April
and 15 May between sunrise and 4 hours after sunrise to prevent this,
(4) For WPP VV20, 21, 24, 26,28, 30, 31, 32, 33, 81, 88: if a Black Stork nest is found during the pre-
construction period, solutions for WPPs construction will be sought and agreed with a certified
expert and the NCA,
(5) Comply with owl protection measures (noise restrictions) by choosing the quietest possible WPP
model and solution, to be refined during pre-construction monitoring.
It is recommended to search for the remains of birds killed in collisions in the vicinity of WPPs after they
have been commissioned.
52
For the monitoring of nesting birds, the “Methodology for the investigation of the Wind Park and the
preparation of an Expert Report” used in the initial study of the site shall be used as a basis.31
It is important to carry out Natura 2000 monitoring of bird species in the two Natura 2000 sites adjacent
to the site to enable a qualitative assessment of the potential impact of the proposed WPP park on
them.
Other records are to be kept in accordance with the methodology. The data obtained will be comparable
with each other, including with those already obtained during the initial site investigation. The surveys
regularly identify neighbourhoods that need increased attention. In case of new ornithological values
identified, possible WPP park construction and, if necessary, operational changes shall be assessed.
Breeding bird monitoring should be carried out annually until the planned WPP park is operational and
for the first five years of operation. 7. in the 9th and 11th year of operation, and every third year
thereafter. However, this may be refined according to the results of the monitoring.
It is recommended that the search for the remains of birds killed in the collisions should be organised
using the methodology used by Lithuanian colleagues.32
Given that scientific studies33,34,35,36 on the effects of noise from WPP on Ural owls (Strix uralensis) are
controversial, in many countries (Finland, Poland, etc. ) have no restrictions on noise impact and the
approved Owl Conservation Plan states that”...noise pollution levels should be below 35 dB anywhere in
the micro-reserve area (including the boundary) for the frequency range 0.1 to 20 kHz”, pre-construction
monitoring of this species should be undertaken.
Bat monitoring
The bat monitoring methodology includes:
1) acoustic monitoring with ultrasonic detectors,
2) listing of dead bats under selected WPP.
Acoustic monitoring, recommendations: monitoring to be carried out by installing automatic ultrasonic
detectors in the 15 WPP nacelles to record bat activity from at least 1 May to 30 September. Automatic
detectors should aim to cover the entire WPP park area as evenly as possible. In addition to acoustic
monitoring, monitoring of dead bats should be developed and carried out by selecting for dead bat
counts WPP at which acoustic monitoring would also be carried out and/or WPP that are suspected
during the work to cause increased bat mortality.
31 Ueland, D. , Miller, K. 2022. Methodology for the Wind Farm Study and the Expert Report.
32 Morkūnas J. 2023. Best Practices for Bird Monitoring in Wind Farm Development in Lithuania: Guidelines.
33 Pijanowski, B.C., et al. (2011) - Soundscape ecology: The science of sound in the landscape. BioScience, 61(3), 203-216.
https://doi.org/10.1525/bio.2011.61.3.6.
34 Rheindt, F.E. (2003) - The impact of roads on birds: Does song frequency play a role in determining susceptibility to noise
pollution? Journal of Applied Ecology, 40(5), 744-753. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2664.2003.00856.x.
35 Deichmann, J. L., et al. (2017) - Sensitivity of tropical bats to anthropogenic noise. Biological Conservation, 207, 9-15.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2017.05.012.
36 Foote, A. D., et al. (2004) - Noise pollution and marine mammal populations: Conservation biology implications for large
cetaceans. Conservation Biology, 18(2), 373-375.https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2004.00573.x.
53
During the design of the WPP, in agreement with a certified bat expert, other solutions can be used to
mitigate the impact on bats, such as smart monitoring systems equipped with ultrasonic sensors and
artificial intelligence technologies that detect the presence of bats in real time before shutting down the
turbines.
To facilitate the search for dead bats, a vegetation-free ground surface should be established around the
base of the WPP, where possible, or grass should be cut regularly during the monitoring period, within a
radius of at least 50 m. In forests, no special clearing is required to create such a strip.
54
Valmiera-Valka tuulepargi ja sellega
seotud infrastruktuuriprojekti
keskkonnamõju hindamise kokkuvõte
Valmiera ja Valka vallas
November 2024
Sisu
Sissejuhatus ................................................................................................................................... 3
1. Kavandatava tegevuse asukoha kirjeldus ja valiku alus (keskkonnamõju hindamise
aruande 1. ja 3. peatükk) .............................................................................................................. 4
2. WPP-farmi asukoht ja WPP asukoha alternatiivid (keskkonnamõju hindamise aruande 4.
peatükk) ........................................................................................................................................ 8
3. Keskkonna praeguse seisundi hindamine tegevuskohas (keskkonnamõju hindamise
aruande 6. peatükk) .................................................................................................................... 13
3.1. Hüdrogeoloogilised, hüdroloogilised ja geotehnilised tingimused ning geoloogiline
struktuur.................................................................................................................................. 13
3.2. Loodusvarad ................................................................................................................ 15
3.3. Maastiku ja kultuurilooline hindamine ....................................................................... 22
3.4. Mürataseme hindamine .............................................................................................. 25
3.5. WPP piirkonna õhukvaliteedi hindamine .................................................................... 25
4. Kavandatava tegevuse ja selle võimalike variantide oluline keskkonnamõju (KMH aruande
7. peatükk)................................................................................................................................... 27
4.1. Raadatavad alad .......................................................................................................... 27
4.2. Müra- ja vibratsioonitase ............................................................................................ 28
4.3. Värin ............................................................................................................................ 30
4.4. Mõju õhu kvaliteedile.................................................................................................. 30
4.5. Mõju loodusvaradele .................................................................................................. 31
4.6. Mõju maastikule.......................................................................................................... 38
4.7. Mõju Natura 2000 aladele WPP-farmi lähedal ........................................................... 41
5. Piiriülene hindamine (keskkonnamõju hindamise aruande 9. peatükk)............................. 43
5.1. Piiriülese mõju hindamine maastikule, turismile ja puhkamisele ............................... 43
5.2. Mõju hindamine lindudele .......................................................................................... 43
5.3. Eesti Vabariigi Kliimaministeeriumi ülevaade piiriülese mõju aspektidest ................. 45
6. Sotsiaalmajanduslik kasu (keskkonnamõju hindamise aruande 14. peatükk) .................... 49
7. Kavandatud variantide võrdlus ja valitud variandi põhjendus ............................................ 50
8. Kavandatava tegevuse keskkonnaseire täiendavad tingimused ......................................... 51
2
Sissejuhatus
Käesolev keskkonnamõju hindamine (edaspidi „KMH“) on koostatud kavandatava tegevuse
kohta: Valmiera-Valka tuuleelektrijaama (edaspidi „WPP“) ja sellega seotud infrastruktuuri
projekti ehitamine Valmiera vallas Plāņi vallas ning Valka vallas Vijciema ja Valka valdades, mille
algatas SIA „Latvijas vēja parki“, registreerimisnumber 40203415150, registrijärgne aadress:
Pulkveža Brieža iela 12, Riia, LV-1010 (AS Latvenergo on selle 100%-line aktsionär).
Projekti esialgses uurimisfaasis uuriti 93 potentsiaalset WPP-kohta. Sertifitseeritud ekspertide
ja looduskaitseametiga konsulteerides vähendati WPP-de arvu, jättes välja need, mis
põhjustaksid olulisi negatiivseid muutusi keskkonnale, ning nende arv vähenes 84 WPP-ni, mida
uuriti üksikasjalikumalt keskkonnamõju hindamise menetluse raames. Järjestikku soovitati 84
WPP-kohast kuni 38 WPP-d kavandatava tegevuse rakendamiseks, WPP-de ehitamiseks.
Käesolevas keskkonnamõju hindamise aruandes on esitatud selgitus kõikide WPP asukohtade
analüüsi kohta, millega määratakse kindlaks selle WPP-farmi rajamise teostatavus. Iga
potentsiaalse elektrijaama projekteeritud võimsus võib olla kuni 8 MW.
Riigi Keskkonnajärelevalveamet (edaspidi "SEMB") võttis 15. augustil 2023 vastu otsuse nr 5-
03/9/2023 keskkonnamõju hindamise menetluse kasutamise kohta SIA "Latvijas vēja parki"
kavandatava tegevuse osas. KMH programm nr 5-03/9/2023 (koos muudatustega nr 5-02-
1/4/2024, 10. jaanuar 2024) anti välja 12. septembril 2023. aastal.
ELi direktiivi 2023/2413 kohaselt peetakse taastuvenergia (RES) kasutamise edendamiseks
taastuvenergia rajatiste, sealhulgas elektrijaamade planeerimist, ehitamist ja käitamist, nende
võrku ühendamist ning nendega seotud võrgu- ja salvestusvahendeid erilise avaliku huvi ja rahva
tervise ning ohutuse huvides olevaks. Taastuvenergiaprojektide rakendamine on ELi ja Läti
kliimaeesmärkide saavutamise eeltingimus.
Vastavalt kabineti 19. juuni 2018. aasta määruse 350 „Avaliku sektori maa rendi- ja
arendusõiguse määrused“ muudatustele loodi korralduse rakendamiseks SIA „Latvijas vēja
parki“, mille üldine strateegiline eesmärk on „rakendada strateegiliselt olulisi tuuleparkide
projekte, et saavutada Läti riikliku energia- ja kliimakava 2021-2030. aasta eesmärgid ja liikuda
edasi kliimaneutraalsuse suunas energiasõltumatuse kaudu“.
Keskkonnamõju hindamise aruande koostas SIA "Enviroprojekts", kaasates eri valdkondade
eksperte. Aruandes esitatakse üksikasjad kavandatava tegevuse enda, keskkonna praeguse
seisundi, kavandatava tegevuse mõju loodusväärtustele ja selle ümbruses ning pakutakse välja
alternatiive. Vastavalt SEMBi poolt välja antud programmile sisaldab aruanne ka teavet
järelevalvenõuete, hindamismeetodite jne kohta.
3
1. Kavandatava tegevuse asukoha kirjeldus ja valiku alus
(keskkonnamõju hindamise aruande 1. ja 3. peatükk)
Kavandatav tegevus on WPP-farmi ja sellega seotud infrastruktuuriprojekti ehitamine Plāņi
vallas, Valmiera vallas, ning Vijciema ja Valka vallas, Valka vallas, Vijciema ja Valka vallas. WPP-
farmi osana on kavas ehitada kuni 38 WPP-d, millest igaühe projekteeritud võimsus on kuni 8
MW. WPP-farmi ehitamiseks tehtava uuringu kogupindala on 5387 ha.
Kavandatav tegevus hõlmab ka WPP-farmi toimimisega seotud infrastruktuuri, mis oli kaasatud
keskkonnamõju hindamisse: elektriülekandeliinide, trafoalajaamade, aku
energiasalvestussüsteemide (BESS), montaaži- ja hooldusjaamade ning juurdepääsuteede
ehitamine ja käitamine.
Paigaldus- ja hooldusjaamad asuvad AS "Latvijas valsts meži" ("LVM") metsaaladel. Läti
strateegilise vara - maa - hooldajana osaleb LVM aktiivselt Läti riikliku energia- ja kliimakava
2021-2030 eesmärkide saavutamises, et tugevdada energiasõltumatust ja majandusarengut.
Lisaks kaitstavatele metsaaladele esitatavatele nõuetele on LVM määratlenud oma haldusalas
olevad maaüksused, kus on põhjendatud tuulepargi uuringu läbiviimine1.
Ozolsi loodusandmete haldussüsteemi (NDMS) andmete kohaselt ei ole LVM "Valmiera-Valka"
tuulepargi uuringualadel Natura 2000 alasid ega mikroreservaate. Lähimad Euroopa SNPA
(Natura 2000) on Ziemeļvidzeme biosfääri kaitseala (ZVBR) (selle maastikukaitseala), "Sedas
purvs" looduskaitseala, "Burgas pļavas" looduskaitseala, "Ziemeļgauja" maastikukaitseala ja
mikroreservaadid: "Bulvāra riests" ja "Igaunijas riests". Täpsem teave piirkonna loodusvarade
kohta on esitatud keskkonnamõju hindamise aruande punktis 6.4.1. Kavandatavas tegevuskohas
on hästi arenenud maanteede infrastruktuur, kus on A3 riiklik põhimaantee, A24 piirkondlik
maantee, V261 ja V260 kohalikud teed, ulatuslik LVM teedevõrk, P23, P25, V240 ja V237 teed
laiemas lähipiirkonnas, samuti munitsipaalteedid.
330 kV ja 110 kV kõrgepinge ülekandeliinid kulgevad otse üle kavandatud tegevuskoha, mis
annab majandusliku aluse WPP-farmi ehitamiseks elektriühenduse lähedusse, vähendades
ühtlasi metsade raadamist vajavat ala, kuna see lühendab uut ühendusliini.
Valides WPP asukoha valdavalt metsaga kaetud aladele, vähendatakse väreluse, müra ja
maastikumuutuste mõju kohalikele taludele ja nende elanikele. Kavandatava tuulepargi jaoks
uuritud piirkonnas on 25 talu.
LVM on otsustanud, et LVM-i maale ei rajata WPP-farme2:
• linnades ja külades ning kuni 800 m ulatuses nende ning nende elamute ja avalike
hoonete ümbruses;
• looduskaitsealadel, kus tuuleparkide rajamine on vastuolus Läti Vabariigi seaduste ja
määrustega;
• piirkondades, kus metsamaa majandamise eesmärk on looduskaitse ja kus LVM näeb
ette säilitatavate keskkonnaväärtuste täiendavat kaitset, kohalike elanike puhkamiseks
olulistel metsaaladel jne;
• kultuuripärandi objektide asukohtades.
1
https://www.lvmgeo.lv/dati
2
https://www.lvm.lv/biznesa-partneriem/zemes-pirksana-un-noma/veja-parki
4
Järgnevalt on esitatud Valmiera ja Valka vallas üksikasjalikult hinnatud 84 WPP uuringuala
asukohad (joonis 1). (keskkonnamõju hindamise aruande joonis 1.1).
Joonis 1. (KMH aruande joonis1.1) "Valmiera-Valka" LVM tuulepargi territooriumi uuritud3 alad ja
84 põhjalikult uuritud WPP asukoht Valmiera ja Valka vallas
Kavandatava Valmiera-Valka hüdroelektrijaama asukoha valikul lähtuti muu hulgas järgmistest
teguritest:
• võimalus anda toodetud elektrienergia üle AS "Augstsprieguma tīkls" ("AST")
ülekandeinfrastruktuurile;
• seadustes, määrustes ja valdkonnaspetsiifilistes suunistes sätestatud piirangud, nõuded
ja miinimumkaugused:
o üle 2 MW võimsusega tuuleelektrijaamade puhul peab lähima kavandatava
tuuleelektrijaama ja tuulepargi piiri ning elamute ja ühiskondlike hoonete
vaheline kaugus olema vähemalt 800 m (30. aprilli 2013. aasta kabineti määrus
240), vt KMH aruande joonis 3.2.2;
o Tuuleelektrijaamade ehitamine on lubatud väljaspool linnu ja külasid
tööstusarenduspiirkondade, tehniliste arenduspiirkondade,
põllumajanduspiirkondade ja metsamaade piires, nagu on määratletud kahe
kõnealuse omavalitsuse ruumilise planeeringuga, tingimusel, et elamute ja
ühiskondlike hoonete ning tuuleelektrijaama ja tuulepargi lähima planeeritud
piiri vaheline kaugus on vähemalt 800 meetrit (energiajulgeoleku ja autonoomia
edendamiseks vajalike energiavarustuse ehitiste ehitamise lihtsustatud
menetluste seadus), vt KMH aruande joonis 3.2.2;
3
Veebilehel https://www.lvmgeo.lv/dati sätestatud tingimustel
5
o Keelatud on kasutada WPP asukohtadena kaitstavaid loodusterritooriume:
NATURA 2000 alad (16. märtsi 2010. aasta kabineti määrus264) ja
mikroreservaadid (18. detsembri 2012. aasta kabineti määrus 940);
o linnuliikide ja muude loodusväärtuste kaitsmiseks WPP-de mõju eest tuleb WPP-
de asukoha tingimused ja minimaalsed lubatud kaugused kindlaks määrata
vastavalt keskkonnamõju hindamise tulemustele (30. aprilli 2013. aasta kabineti
määrus nr 240);
o WPP ja tuuleparkide mõju tuleb hinnata riiklike kultuuripärandi objektide
visuaalse tajumise vööndis, võttes arvesse kultuuripärandi konkreetse olukorra
ja eripära (30. aprilli 2013. aasta kabineti määrus 240) (piirkonnas asuvate ja
kavandatava tegevusega piirnevate kultuuripärandi objektide kaart on esitatud
keskkonnamõju hindamise aruandes, joonis 6. 5.5);
o Keelatud on rajada WPP-d kaitsevööndisse riigikaitseks mõeldud
navigatsiooniseadmete ning maismaa- ja mereväe sõjalise seire rajatiste ümber.
Kaitsevööndi maksimaalne laius riigikaitseks ettenähtud navigatsioonirajatiste
ümber maismaal on 15 km keskpunktist (kaitsevööndi seadus);
o kui tuulepargi tuuleelektrijaamad asuvad kuni 16 km kaugusel
navigatsiooniseadme/raadiomajaka kõige välimisest mõjutsoonist, tuleb
põhjalikult analüüsida ja hinnata tuuleelektrijaamade mõju majaka toimimisele
(suunised tuulegeneraatorite võimaliku mõju hindamiseks seireanduritele);
o lisaks tuleb arvestada piiranguid, mis on seotud töö-, sanitaar- ja
turvakaitsevöönditega lineaarsete ja nendega seotud objektide ääres:
gaasitorustikud, gaasivarustusrajatised ja -rajatised, gaasilaod ja -hoidlad,
telekommunikatsiooniliinid ja raadioseirejaamad, elektriliinid, kütteliinid,
optilised teleskoobid ja raadioteleskoobid, riiklikud ja avaliku kasutusega
raudteeliinid, avaliku kasutusega maanteed jne.
• piirkonna kliimatingimuste ja tuuleparameetrite hindamine, et hinnata WPP
potentsiaalset tõhusust.
Kavandatav tegevus tuleneb otseselt Latvenergo ASi üldistest strateegilistest eesmärkidest ja
ministrite kabineti 27. juuni 2022. aasta määrusest nr 464, millega asutatakse SIA „Latvijas
vēja parki“ strateegiliselt oluliste tuuleparkide projektide elluviimiseks. Valmiera-Valka
tuulepargi asukoha valik põhineb arenduslepingu sõlmimise võimalusel, ülekandeliini
lähedusel ja muudel eespool loetletud teguritel.
Kuna Eesti territoorium asub 4,2 km kaugusel lähimast hindamisse kaasatud WPP-st,
kirjeldatakse selle mõju seda territooriumi mõjutavate aspektide osas: mõju maastikule ja
linnustikule.
Kavandatava tegevuse asukoht võrreldes teiste Läti põhjaosas asuvate tuuleparkidega, mille
keskkonnamõju hindamine on teostatud või on erinevates etappides, on esitatud joonisel 2
(keskkonnamõju hindamise aruande joonis 3.2.5). Tuuleparkide kumulatiivse keskkonnamõju
hindamine põhineb nende tuuleparkide kohta avalikult kättesaadaval teabel. Kõige lähemal on
Valka tuulepark, mis jagab piiri kavandatava tegevuskohaga põhjas, Valmiera-Valka tuulepargi
ja Valka vahel. Ülejäänud tuulepargid Põhja-Lätis ja Lõuna-Eestis asuvad sellistel kaugustel, kus
kumulatiivset keskkonnamõju ei ole oodata. Valga vallas asuva lähima tuulepargi uuringuala on
kavandatava tegevuse asukohast rohkem kui 15 km kaugusel ning nende kahe tuulepargi vahel
asub Valka tuulepark, mille keskkonnamõju hindamine on algstaadiumis ja esialgne avalik
arutelu on lõpetatud.
6
2. Joonis (keskkonnamõju hindamise aruande joonis 3.2.5 ) Kavandatava tegevuse asukoht
võrreldes teiste lähiümbruses asuvate tuuleparkidega
7
2. WPP-farmi asukoht ja WPP asukoha alternatiivid
(keskkonnamõju hindamise aruande 4. peatükk)
Hüdroelektrijaama ja sellega seotud rajatiste ehitamine hõlmab kuni 300 hektarit.
KMH koostamise käigus kontrollitud ja uuritud alade piirid võrreldes LVMi uuringualadega olid
erinevad, olles määratud hinnatava keskkonnavööndi järgi, nt.
• kavandatava tegevuse mõju hindamisel kaitstavatele elupaikadele uuriti ala, külastades
ja/või hinnates kavandatava tegevuse asukohta ja võimalikku mõju avaldavaid alasid:
kavandatava elektrijaama asukoht ja ala 350 m ulatuses nende ümber, võimalikud
juurdepääsuteed ja kuni 150 m ulatuses nende ääres, samuti võimalikud
elektrikaabelliinid ja kuni 20 m ulatuses nende ääres;
• linnustiku uuringuala hõlmab ligikaudu 26 500 ha suurust ala, kusjuures kõigi hinnatud
WPP-de ümber on 3 km pikkune vöönd ja rändlindude puhul hinnati 10 km pikkust
vööndit;
• maastiku hindamise uuringuala on 10 km pikkune vöönd ümber tuulepargi välispiiri
(alates kõige välimisest WPP-st);
• müra ja värinat on hinnatud niivõrd, kuivõrd kavandatava tegevuse võimalik mõju
ulatus.
8
Joonis 3. (EIA aruanne Joonis 4.1.1. ) Kontrollitud ja uuritud alade piirid seoses AS LVMi uuringualade maa-aladegaja 84 hinnatud WPP
9
KMH aruandes hinnatud kavandatava tegevuse asukoha alternatiivid
Hinnatud 84 WPPst leiti, et 41-l on olulised keskkonnamõjufaktorid (vt vastavad lõigud
keskkonnamõju hindamise aruande 7. peatükis ja kokkuvõte 8. peatükis).
Arvestades loodusekspertide soovitusi WPP asukoha ja käitamistingimuste kohta, jõuti
järeldusele, et ehitada võiks kuni 43 WPP-d. SIA "Enviroprojekts" soovitab koos sertifitseeritud
loodusekspertidega loobuda osast algselt kavandatud WPP-st, et leevendada mõju mitte ainult
kavandatava tegevuse asukohas esinevatele liikidele, vaid ka mõju rändlindudele ja naabruses
asuvatele Natura 2000 aladele (vt keskkonnamõju hindamise aruande 7. peatükk). Selle
tulemusena rühmitati teostatavad WPP-d kahte alternatiivsesse asukohavariandisse.
Alternatiivide ja WPP lõpliku asukoha hindamine hõlmas ka kumulatiivse mõju hindamist, mis
põhines sertifitseeritud eksperdiaruannetel ja keskkonnamõju hindamise eksperthinnangutel
ning Natura 2000 aladele avaldatava kumulatiivse mõju leevendamisel ja vältimisel.
Vt joonis 4 (keskkonnamõju hindamise aruande joonis 1) tuumaelektrijaama asukoha
alternatiivide kohta.
Tabel 1. Valmiera-Valka WPP-farmi asukoha uuringu ajakava
WPP kohapealse uuringu ajakava WPP-farmi konfiguratsioon
Esialgse projekti eeluuringute etapp uuriti 93 potentsiaalset WPP kohta. 9 WPP jäeti edasistest
uuringutest välja ja 11 WPP asukohta ajakohastati (93 – 9 = 84 WPP)
84 WPP-d uuriti üksikasjalikumalt keskkonnamõju hindamise
menetluse raames: 41 WPP puhul tuvastati, et neil on
märkimisväärne keskkonnamõju ning need jäeti leitud piirangute
tõttu üksikasjalikust uuringust välja.
(84 – 41 = 43 WPP). võimalikuks ehitamiseks pakuti välja 43 WPP-d
43 valitud WPP-d otsustati rühmitada kahte (A ja B) varianti: WPP-
Olukord 2024. aasta alguses farmi asukohavariandid
Variant A: 29 WPP kompaktsel alal edelaosas, Sedu, Gauju ja Pukšu
soode vahel
Variant B: 43 WPP, sealhulgas kompaktne ala SW-osas (29 WPP
variandis A) ja 14 WPP kompaktne ala Pukšu soostikust NE pool, mis
lisatakse kavandatud 29 WPP-le kavandatud tegevuspaiga SW-osas
(määratletud kui variant A), 7 km kaugusel sellest. 29 + 14 = 43 WPP
Linnuliikidele avaldasid häirivat mõju 3 WPP (VV92, VV44, VV45).
Need 3 WPP-d jä eti rakenduskavast välja.
1 WPP (VV62) viidi üle VV61 varasemasse asukohta (selle WPP
teisaldamine ei muuda WPP-de koguarvu üheski variandis).
Septembris 2024 tehtud
kohandused Täiendav märkus WPP-de koguarvu kohta: üks (VV92) eemaldati 14
WPP-st variandi B N kompaktses piirkonnas (13 WPP-d jäid alles);
kaks (VV44 ja VV45) eemaldati variandi A WPP-de nimekirjast).
Seega on variandist A kõrvaldatud 2 WPP-d. Seega on variandist A
kõrvaldatud 2 WPP-d: 29 – 2 = 27 WPP, samas kui variandist B
10
WPP kohapealse uuringu ajakava WPP-farmi konfiguratsioon
eemaldatakse 3 WPP (kuna variandi B WPP-de koguarv sisaldab ka
variandi A WPP-d), st. 43 – 3 = 40 WPP
Ülejäänud 4 WPP (VV36, VV40, VV1, VV82) puhul soovitatakse
ehitada ainult kaks, kusjuures valik tehakse projekteerimise etapis
pärast tehniliste tingimuste hindamist (seega jäetakse igast
alternatiivist välja veel 2 WPP-d, st.
Variant A 27 – 2 = 25 WPP,
Variant B 40 – 2 = 38 WPP
Variant A 27 WPP-ga, millest 25WPP-d tuleb ehitada
Täiendav märkus WPP-de arvu kohta:
kaks neljast WPP-st tuleb valida projekteerimise etapis
Tulemus (vt joonis 1) Variant B 40 WPP-ga, millest 38 WPP tuleb ehitada
Täiendav märkus WPP-de arvu kohta:
selle variandi puhul tuleb projekteerimise käigus valida ka kaks
neljast WPP-st
11
Joonis 4. (keskkonnamõju hindamise aruande joonis 1). Valmiera-Valka tuulepargi asukohavariandid A ja B
12
3. Keskkonna praeguse seisundi hindamine tegevuskohas
(keskkonnamõju hindamise aruande 6. peatükk)
3.1. Hüdrogeoloogilised, hüdroloogilised ja geotehnilised tingimused ning
geoloogiline struktuur
Kavandatav tegevuskoht asub Läänemere arteesia basseini idaosas. Vastavalt LEGMC
andmebaasile "Puuraugud" ja kartograafilistele andmetele on kavandatava hüdroelektrijaama
piirkonnas ja selle ümbruses jaotunud põhjaveetasemed, mis on seotud kvaternaarsete setetega
ning ülemdevoni, keskdevoni ja aladevoni settekompleksi kivimitega (keskkonnamõju hindamise
aruande tabel 6.1.1).
Üldiselt on selles piirkonnas rikkalikult magevett, vajalikul hulgal vett on igal pool ja erineval
sügavusel. Suurem osa kavandatava tegevuse asukohast asub arteesiavete transiitvööndis, mis
on keskmise reostusohuga tsoonid, ja survestatud vee ülesvoolu piirkondades, st madala
reostusohuga tsoonides. Plāņi valla väikesed alad on seotud suure reostusohuga (survetatud vee
laienemise alad). Maapiirkondades (talumajapidamistes) isiklikuks veevarustuseks kasutatav
põhjavesi on enamikus valla osades suhteliselt kaitstud või mõõdukalt kaitstud pinnasereostuse
eest. Väike ala Strenči ja Seda jõe ümbruses on halvasti kaitstud pinnasereostuse eest. Kõigi
piirkonna põhjaveekogumite (Arukila-Koiva ja Ķemeri-Pärnu) keemiline seisund on hea.
Põhjavee põhjaveekiht on enamikus kavandatava tegevuse asukohas seotud Läänemere jääjärve
liivaste setetega (glQ3ltvb). Enamikus WPP-piirkondades on põhjavee tase 0-2 m allpool
maapinda, vaid mõnel üksikul alal on põhjavee tase 5-25 m sügavusel (keskkonnamõju
hindamise aruande joonis 6.1.1).
Võimalik mõju hüdrogeoloogilistele ja hüdroloogilistele tingimustele WPP-farmi käitamise ajal
on seotud võimaliku kõrvalkraavide kuivamise mõjuga. Kavandatava tegevuse elluviimise
tulemusena ei ole oodata olulist kahjulikku mõju põhjavee, pinnavee ja veevõtukohtade
veekvaliteedile, kuna kavandatava tegevuse asukohas ei ole saastunud või potentsiaalselt
saastunud alasid ning ehitustööd toimuvad järelevalve all.
Vastavalt veemajandusseadusele jääb kavandatava tegevuse piirkond Koiva jõe vesikonna
piirkonda. Vastavalt VSIA "Zemkopības ministrijas nekustamie īpašumi" maaparanduskatastrile
ja 3. juuli 2018. aasta kabineti määrusele nr 397 asub kavandatava tegevuse asukoht kahe suure
vesikonna piires: Koiva (suure vesikonna kood 52) ja Gauja-Salaca (suure vesikonna kood 54),
mis jagunevad mitmeks valgalapiirkonnaks.
Vastavalt LEGMC poolt koostatud üleujutusriski ja üleujutusohu kaartidele ei asu kavandatava
tegevuse piirkond riiklikes üleujutusohtlikes piirkondades. Lähim üleujutusohtlik ala asub
kavandatavast tegevuskohast 1,5 km lääne pool: Koiva üleujutusala Strenči lähedal. 4
4
Üleujutusriski ja üleujutusohu kaardid (lvgmc.lv)
13
Maaparandussüsteemid
WPP-farmide uuringuala asub suures osas metsamajanduseks kasutataval territooriumil, kus on
tihe ühiskasutuses olevate väljavoolude ja kanalisatsioonitorustike võrgustik5, mis võimaldab
alandada põhjavee taset ja võimaldada majandustegevust nendel aladel. Maaparandussüsteemi
võrgu ja rajatiste kasutusiga on eeldatavasti kuni 50 aastat. Selle aja jooksul tuleb
maaparandussüsteemi võrgustikku ja rajatisi korrapäraselt hooldada, renoveerida ja
rekonstrueerida.
Veekogude kaitsevööndid, olemasolevad maaparandus- ja kuivendusrajatised
Kaitsealad soode ümber on loodud bioloogilise mitmekesisuse säilitamiseks ja niiskustingimuste
stabiliseerimiseks metsade ja soode vahelises kontaktvööndis (üleminekuvööndis).
Kavandatavas tegevuskohas ja selle ümbruses on soode ümber asuvate kaitsevööndite
minimaalsed laiused määratletud Valmiera ja Valka valla maakorralduse ning maakasutuse
eeskirjades6:
1. 10-100 ha suuruste alade puhul 20,0 m vöönd;
2. Üle 100 ha suurustel aladel 50,0 m vöönd kuivade, kuivendatud ja niiskete
mineraalmuldade ning kuivendatud turbamuldade metsakasvukohatüüpidel ning
vähemalt 100,0 m vöönd niiskete turbamuldade metsakasvukohatüüpidel.
Kavandatavas tegevuskohas ja selle ümbruses on 3 soostikku: Sedas, Taures ja Pukšu soo. Teave
nende soode kaitsevööndite kohta on esitatud keskkonnamõju hindamise aruande tabelis 6.2.2.
Kavandatava tegevuse asukohaga piirnevate pinnaveekogude kaitsevööndid on kokkuvõtlikult
esitatud keskkonnamõju hindamise aruande tabelis 6.2.1.
Geoloogiline struktuur ja geotehnilised tingimused
Piirkond on geoloogiliselt hästi uuritud. Põhjalik geoloogiline ja hüdroloogiline kaardistamine
1: 200,000 skaala on läbi viidud, mis hõlmab ulatuslikke puurimisi, hüdroloogilisi, geoloogilisi ja
maavarade otsinguid7.
Piirkondlike tektooniliste tsoneerimisdiagrammide kohaselt asub see piirkond Läänemere šelfi
lõunakaldal Valmiera-Lokno kaarel, mis selgelt eraldab balti šelfi lõunakalda veebilehelt läti
antikliinist. Valmiera-Lokno kaar asub lõunapoolse külje kõrval Liepāja-Saldus-Riga-Ape-Pskovi
murranguvöönd. Läänemere rannikukaldale on iseloomulik settekivimite ebatäielik vertikaalne
geoloogiline läbilõige ja suhteliselt väike paksus võrreldes teiste Läti piirkondadega. Kuid ka
vertikaalsel lõigul olevate kivimite vanus, koostis, settimistingimused ja füüsikalised omadused
näitavad kolme teravalt erinevat kompleksi: alumine on kristalne aluspõhjakivi, keskmine on
eelkvaternaarsed settekivimid ja ülemine on kvaternaarsed moodustised.
Geotehnilised tingimused ja kaasaegsed eksodünaamilised protsessid
5
https://www.melioracija.lv
6
Valka valla ruumiline planeerimine aastateks 2012-2023. Maakasutuse ja arengu eeskirjad. Strenči,
Strenči vald. 2011; Valka valla ruumiline planeerimine aastateks 2016-2027. Maakasutuse ja arengu
eeskirjad. Valka vallavolikogu. https://geolatvija.lv/geo/tapis
7
Juškevičs V. , Polivko I. , Tracevskis G. Pārskats par 1:200 000 mēroga komplekso ģeoloģisko un
hidroģeoloģisko kartēšanu lapas O-35-XXI dienvidu daļā (Ziemeļlatvijas kartēšanas grupa), 1962. -1964.
g. Ģeoloģijas pārvalde, Rīga, 1964. Juškevičs V. , Polivko I. , Tracevskis G. Pārskats par 1:200 000 mēroga
komplekso ģeoloģisko un hidroģeoloģisko kartēšanu lapas O-35-XX teritorijā (Ziemeļlatvijas kartēšanas
grupa), 1962. -1964. g. Ģeoloģijas pārvalde, Rīga, 1965.
14
Kavandatava tegevuse asukoha geotehnilisi tingimusi hinnatakse WPP ehitusprojekti
koostamise käigus läbiviidava geotehnilise uuringu tulemusena. Seega põhineb järgmine
geotehniliste tingimuste kirjeldus olemasolevatel üldistel geoloogilistel andmetel89.
Ohtlikest geoloogilistest protsessidest põhjustatud võimaliku ohu hindamine näitab, et
kavandatava tegevuse asukohas ei esine ohtlikke kaasaegseid eksodünaamilisi protsesse, nagu
karstid või suffusioonid, maalihked, varingud, kuristike teke või aktiivsed tuuleprotsessid.
Jõe erosioon või akumuleerumine kavandatava tegevuse asukohas ei ole väljendunud ja
mõjutab peamiselt Koivajõe kallast, mis asub väljaspool WPP-farmi territooriumi ja ei kujuta
endast geoloogilist ohtu WPP-farmile. Koiva jõe erosiooniohtlikel kallastel ei ole soovitav puid
maha raiuda.
WPP uuringuala ei asu seismogeenses piirkonnas, kus on toimunud või võivad tulevikus toimuda
maavärinad epitsentrimagnituudiga 6 (MSK-64 skaala järgi) (joonis 7). (keskkonnamõju
hindamise aruande joonis 6.4.5)).
3.2. Loodusvarad
Erilised looduskaitsealad
Uuritud territooriumil ja selle ümbruses on kaheksa erilist looduskaitseala (SNPA) ning
kavandatava tegevuse asukoht piirneb kolme SNPAga (vt joonis 5 (KMH aruande joonis 6.4.1)).
Põhja-Vidzeme biosfääri kaitseala piirneb kavandatavast tegevuskohast loodes ja asub sellest
loodes; Ziemeļgauja maastikukaitseala (Natura 2000 ala) piirneb sellega ja asub sellest lõunas,
idas ja kirdes. Kavandatav tegevuskoht on täielikult ümbritsetud Bulvāra riestsi
mikroreservaadiga (Natura 2000 ala).
Purgailes upes meži looduskaitseala asub kavandatavast tegevuskohast lääne pool: lähim
hinnatud WPP VV5 on looduskaitseala piirist ~450 m kaugusel.
Ziemeļgauja maastikukaitseala lõikub uuringualaga.
Potentsiaalne WPP tegevuskoht piirneb 8 mikroreservaadi (MR) alaga.
8
Juškevičs V. , Polivko I. , Tracevskis G. Pārskats par 1:200 000 mēroga komplekso ģeoloģisko un
hidroģeoloģisko kartēšanu lapas O-35-XXI dienvidu daļā (Ziemeļlatvijas kartēšanas grupa), 1962. -1964.
g. Ģeoloģijas pārvalde, Rīga, 1964.
9
Juškevičs V. , Polivko I. , Tracevskis G. Pārskats par 1:200 000 mēroga komplekso ģeoloģisko un
hidroģeoloģisko kartēšanu lapas O-35-XX teritorijā (Ziemeļlatvijas kartēšanas grupa), 1962. -1964. g.
Ģeoloģijas pārvalde, Rīga, 1965.
15
Joonis 5.(KMH aruande joonis 6.4.1).Kaitstud alad potentsiaalse WPP asukoha läheduse
16
Natura 2000 ala kirjeldus
Looduskaitseameti (edaspidi "NCA") Ozols NDMSi kohaselt asuvad kavandatava WPP-farmi
piirkonna ümbruses järgmised Natura 2000 alad:
• "Ziemeļgauja" maastikukaitseala SNPA (piirkonnakood: LV0600700), Läti Natura 2000
ala: C-tüüpi territoorium, mis on määratud erikaitsealuste liikide ja elupaikade kaitseks;
• "Sedas purvs" looduskaitseala (piirkonnakood: LV0526800), Läti Natura 2000 ala: C-
tüüpi territoorium, mis on määratud erikaitsealuste liikide ja elupaikade kaitseks;
• "Bulvāra riests" (piirkonnakood: LV0830800). Natura 2000 ala: B-tüüpi territoorium, mis
on määratud erikaitsealuste liikide (v.a linnud) ja erikaitsealuste elupaikade kaitseks.
Piirkond kattub peaaegu täielikult metskitse paaritumispaiga kaitseks rajatud
mikroreservaadiga;
• "Igaunijas riests" (piirkonnakood: LV0843500). Natura 2000 ala: B-tüüpi territoorium,
mis on määratud erikaitsealuste liikide (v.a linnud) ja erikaitsealuste elupaikade kaitseks.
Piirkond kattub metskitse paaritumispaiga kaitseks rajatud mikroreservaadiga;
• "Purgailes upes meži" looduskaitseala (piirkonnakood: LV0542000). Ala loodi 2023.
aastal.
• "Burgas pļavas" looduskaitseala (piirkonnakood: LV0532600). C-tüüpi territoorium, mis
on määratud erikaitsealuste liikide ja elupaikade kaitseks.
Natura 2000 alade asukoht kavandatava tegevuse asukoha suhtes on esitatud joonisel 6 (KMH
aruande joonis 6.4.2).
Joonis 6. (KMH aruande joonis 6.4.2). Natura 2000 alade paiknemine võrreldes soovitatud WPP
ehitusplatsidega
17
Hinnang elektrijaama, juurdepääsuteede, ülekandeliinide ja trafoalajaamade kavandatava
ehitamise mõju kohta lähedalasuvate Natura 2000 alade kaitstavatele loodusväärtustele on
esitatud keskkonnamõju hindamise aruande peatükis 7.9.
Kavandatava tuulepargi ala põhjapoolne ots on 4 km kaugusel Eesti Vabariigi piirist. Kavandatava
tuulepargi piirkonnast ida poole jääva pika lõigu ulatuses piirneb Läti poolne riigipiir Natura 2000
alaga: Ziemeļgauja maastikukaitsealaga ("Ziemeļgauja" PLA). Eesti poolel piirneb suur osa sellest
lõigust ka Natura 2000 alaga: "Koiva-Mustjõe" (EE0080471). Tegemist on Natura 2000 A-tüüpi
alaga, mis on loodud erikaitsealuste linnuliikide kaitseks. Selles on loetletud 4 linnuliiki: harilik
jäälind, põhja soopart, rukkirääk ja rohunepp. Ala kattub täielikult veidi väiksema Natura 2000
alaga "Koiva-Mustjõe luha" (EE0080421), mis on B-tüüpi ala: see on loodud erikaitsealuste
liikide (v.a linnud) ja erikaitsealuste elupaikade kaitseks. Kahe riigi Natura 2000 alad
moodustavad koos ühtse alade kombinatsiooni, mille kaitse eesmärk on Koiva ja selle lisajõgede
orgude loodusväärtuste säilitamine. Eesti lähima Natura 2000 ala läänepoolne osa asub 8-9 km
kaugusel kavandatava tuulepargi lähimast WPP-st.
Kaitstud elupaigad ja eriti kaitstud liigid
Selleks, et määrata kindlaks kavandatava tegevuse mõju kaitstavatele elupaikadele, uuriti ala ja
külastati seda ja/või hinnati kavandatava tegevuse võimalikku mõju.
Piirkonnas leiti: 2 ELi kaitsealust mageveekogude elupaigatüüpi, 4 ELi kaitsealust rohumaade
elupaigatüüpi, 4 ELi kaitsealust soode elupaigatüüpi ja 8 ELi kaitsealust metsa elupaigatüüpi
(keskkonnamõju hindamise aruande peatükk 6.4.2, tabel 6.4.4).
Kõige suuremad ohud ELi kaitsealustele metsaelupaikadele selles piirkonnas ja Lätis tervikuna
on metsade võimalik hävitamine raiete ja raadamise teel infrastruktuuri, näiteks metsateede ja
maaparandussüsteemide ehitamiseks. Kaudset negatiivset mõju elupaikade kvaliteedile ja
täieliku ökoloogilise funktsiooni tagamisele võib põhjustada elupaikade killustumine, mis
tuleneb nii mõnede metsade raadamisest ja infrastruktuuri rajamisest kui ka vee äravoolust, mis
tuleneb teede ehitamisega seotud kraavide rajamisest ning maaparandussüsteemide rajamisest
ja rekonstrueerimisest.
Piirkonnas leitud 15 erikaitsealust taimeliiki, 7 samblaliiki ja 5 samblikuliiki on märgitud
keskkonnamõju hindamise aruande tabelis 6.4.5.10 Leitud liikide asukohad ja piirkonnad on
esitatud kaartidel (liikide ja elupaikade ekspertiisiaruande 1. lisa, mis on lisatud keskkonnamõju
hindamise aruandele selle 6. lisana). Kaardil ja tabelis on näidatud liikide piirkonnad ainult
uuringuala piires.
Kindlaksmääratud erikaitsealuste liikide (soontaimed, samblad, samblikud, seened, hinnatud
elupaikadega seotud selgrootud) kohta, kelle alad jäävad kavandatava tegevuse
potentsiaalsesse mõjupiirkonda (vt KMH aruande punkt 7.5 ja KMH aruande lisas 6 esitatud
liikide ja elupaikade ekspertiisi aruanne), koostati nende ökoloogiliste vajaduste kirjeldamiseks
ja seega kavandatava tegevuse võimaliku mõju hindamiseks üksikasjalikum kirjeldus (KMH
aruande lisas 6 esitatud liikide ja elupaikade ekspertiisi aruanne).
10
Kasutatud liiginimetused on peamiselt kooskõlas seadustes ja määrustes esitatud nimekirjadega; kui
liigi teaduslikku nime on muudetud, on see esitatud sulgudes.
18
Joonis 7. (keskkonnamõju hindamise aruande joonis 6.4.5). Loodusväärtused Valmiera-Valka tuulepargis ja selle ümbruses
19
Piirkonna linnuliigid
Linnustiku seire protsessi ja metoodikat on üksikasjalikult kirjeldatud keskkonnamõju hindamise
aruandele lisatud linnuliikide ekspertaruandes, vt keskkonnamõju hindamise aruande 6. lisa.
Keskkonnamõju hindamise raames hinnati järgmisi linnuliike ja -rühmi: merikotkas, kaljukotkas,
merikotkas, väike konnakotkas, metsis, must-toonekurg, kanakull, kalakotkas, värbkakk, karvasjalg-
kakk, kassikakk, valgeselg-kirjurähn, laanepüü, teder, rändlinnuliigid.
Kavandatava tegevuse asukoha uurimisel kasutati keskkonnamõju hindamise aruandes kaasatud
linnueksperdi ja teiste vaatlejate vaatlusi ajavahemikul alates 1. jaanuarist 2022; linnustiku vaatlusala
hõlmas 26 565 ha suurust ala. Hinnatud hüdroelektrijaama 3 km pikkuses tsoonis valiti välja ja kasutati
analüüsis kokku 5982 linnueksperdi ja teiste vaatlejate poolt tehtud vaatlusi (välja arvatud AS "Latvijas
Valsts meži" jahiprogrammi raames registreeritud vaatlused). Hinnatava WPP ümbruse 3 km pikkuses
vööndis on alates 1. jaanuarist 2022 vähemalt üks kord registreeritud 154 linnuliiki, millest 36
kaitsekategooriat hinnati üksikasjalikumalt (KMH aruande tabel 6.4.6). Piirkonna linnustiku
kirjeldamisel kasutati ekspertide andmeid, samuti NCA, LVM andmeid, www.dabasdati.lv, Ozols
NDMSi ja avaldamata andmeid. üksikasjalik teave WPP farmi piirkonnas läbiviidud kontrollide kohta ja
registreeritud linnuliikide loetelu on esitatud KMH aruande lisas 6.
Kõiki Euroopa Parlamendi ja nõukogu 30. novembri 2009. aasta direktiivi 2009/147/EÜ (loodusliku
linnustiku kaitse kohta) 1. lisas loetletud liike hindas ekspertaruande koostamise käigus sertifitseeritud
linnuekspert. Koha vaatluse ja aruande koostamise käigus registreeriti ka teisi linnuliike.
Kavandatava tegevuse uuritud asukohas viidi aastatel 2022, 2023 ja 2024 läbi välitööd, et hinnata
kavandatava tegevuse mõju seal pesitsevale ja läbirändavale linnustikule. 2022. ja 2023. aasta
pesitsusperioodil tegi keskkonnamõju hindamise jaoks palgatud linnuekspert piirkonna üksikasjaliku
uuringu põhjal ettepaneku luua 7 mikroreservaati erikaitseliste linnuliikide jaoks (mõned neist on juba
rajatud)
Teave piirkonnas esinevate kaitsealuste linnuliikide ja keskkonnamõju hindamise raames hinnatud
linnuliikide kohta on esitatud keskkonnamõju hindamise aruande tabelis 6.4.6, mõju hindamine ja
soovituslikud leevendussoovitused on esitatud keskkonnamõju hindamise aruande peatükkides 7.6.2
ja 7.6.3.
Piirkonna nahkhiireliigid
Uuringuala nahkhiireliike uuriti vastavalt EUROBATSi "Nahkhiirte tuuleparkide projektides
arvessevõtmise suunistele"11 ja Läti oludele kohandatud "Nahkhiirtele tuuleelektrijaamade mõju
hindamise suunistele"12. Nahkhiireliike uuriti järgmise meetodi abil:
• seitse korda hooajal, kusjuures salvestusi tehakse iga kuu kolmel (mais, juunis, juulis) või
kuuel (augustis, septembris) õhtul;
• salvestuste ajastus valiti vastavalt nahkhiirte bioloogilisele tsüklile (paljunemine, ränne,
paaritumine);
• nahkhiirte aktiivsust registreeriti 12 fikseeritud vaatluspunktis, mis olid tähistatud D1-D12, ja
kolmel marsruudil (M1-M3)
• vaatlusjaamad ja marsruudid valiti nii, et uurida nahkhiirte aktiivsust sarnastes elupaikades,
kuhu on kavas ehitada WPP
• kõik jaamade ultraheliandurid paiknesid metsaraiesmikel (peamiselt raiealadel).
11
https://tethys.pnnl.gov/sites/default/files/publications/EUROBATS-2015.pdf
12
https://lvafa.vraa.gov.lv/faili/materiali/petijumi/2020/171/Vadlinijas_VES_siksparni_fin.pdf
20
WPP-farmi planeeritaval alal asuvatel 12 seirejaamas registreeriti kokku 1710 nahkhiirte helifaili 84
detekteerimisöö jooksul (21 registreerimisööd, kusjuures iga öö kohta paigaldati neli fikseeritud
detektorit), kusjuures 1978 korral registreeriti nahkhiirte möödumine (KMH aruande tabel 6.4.7).
Marsruutide registreerimine: seitse 90-minutilist registreerimist kõigil kolmel marsruudil, mille käigus
registreeriti 505 korral nahkhiirte möödumine sesooni jooksul (KMH aruande tabel 6.4.7).
Kavandatavas tegevuskohas registreeriti vähemalt viis usaldusväärselt tuvastatud nahkhiireliiki:
põhja-nahkhiir Eptesicus nilssonii, suurvidevlane Nyctalus noctula, hõbe-nahkhiir Vespertilio murinus,
pargi-nahkhiir Pipistrellus nathusii ja pügemee-nahkhiir Pipistrellus pygmaeus, samuti vähemalt üks
Myotis hiirkõrv-nahkhiire sugukonda kuuluv liik. Põhja-nahkhiir, pargi-nahkhiir, suurvidevlane, hõbe-
nahkhiir ja pügemee-nahkhiir on liigid, mille suremuse oht on WPP kontekstis suur.
Tulemusi saab võrrelda teiste nahkhiireliikide uuringutega, mis viidi läbi 14 teises potentsiaalses WPP
asukohas, kus kasutati identseid metoodikaid. Selles uuringus registreeritud üldine nahkhiirte
aktiivsus on suhteliselt kõrge. Selle põhjuseks on asjaolu, et metsad on nahkhiirte jaoks sobivad
elupaigad ning seni tehtud uuringud on toimunud enamasti nahkhiirtele vähem sobivatel maastikel,
kus metsad on katnud vaid osa alast. Selles piirkonnas tuleb arvesse võtta ka mitme olulise
toitumispaiga lähedust.
Selgrootute liigid piirkonnas
Kaitstavate selgrootute liikide esinemise hindamine 2024. aasta juulis potentsiaalsete elektrijaamade
ja alajaamade ehitusplatsidel variantide A või B puhul viidi läbi vastavalt riikliku keskkonnakaitseameti
kirjale SIA-le "Latvijas vēja parki" (23.05.2024, nr 1.6.1/3200/2024-N) (KMH aruande 2. lisa).
Juunis/juulis 2024 koostati seoses selgrootute liikide esinemise hindamisega potentsiaalsete
elektrijaamade ja alajaamade ehitusplatsidel variantide A või B puhul "Sertifitseeritud liikide ja
elupaikade kaitse ekspertiis/aruanne putukate kohta kavandatavas Valmiera-Valka elektrifaemis", mis
on lisatud keskkonnamõju hindamise aruandele selle 6. lisana.
Kavandatavas tegevuskohas on pikka aega toimunud intensiivne kasutus ning erikaitseliste
selgrootute liikide jaoks sobivaid elupaiku kavandatava WPP variandi A või B ja uute teede piirkonnas
hinnati ainult 4 tuvastatud erikaitseliste selgrootute liigi (hiidhundlane, ruuge küttkärbes, triibuline
küttkärbes, männisinelane) sobivuse osas (tabel 6.4.10, KMH aruande joonis 6.4.4.4).
Imetajad
Keskkonnamõju hindamise ettevalmistamise raames on ekspert "imetajate" liigirühma (LVMI Silava
juhtivteadur dr.biol. J. Ozoliņš, NCA sertifikaat nr 160) koostas hinnangu WPP mõju kohta maismaal
elavatele mittelendavatele imetajatele (aruanne on lisatud keskkonnamõju hindamise aruandele 6.
lisana). Aruanne põhineb andmetel, mis on saadud suurte looduslike imetajate (kabiloomad,
lihasööjad) populatsioonide seisundi ja kahjustuste seire käigus, mida Läti Riiklik Metsandusuuringute
Instituut (LSFRI) "Silava" on teostanud mõnede liikide puhul juba 20 aastat, külastades piirkonda
erinevatel aastaaegadel ja ilmastikutingimustel. Uuringuala ja selle ümbrust külastati ja imetajate
esinemist registreeriti mitmel korral mitme ekspertiisiaruandes (lisa 6) loetletud projekti raames.
Valmiera-Valka WPP-farmi puhul jõuti järeldusele, et peamised maismaatransporditeed, st Valmiera-
Valka raudtee ja A3 kiirtee, millele ei ole rajatud loomade ülekäigukohti ja seda ei ole ka kavandatud,
ning piirkonna düünikujulised kõrgendikud, mis on joondatud NE-SW suunas (vt keskkonnamõju
hindamise aruande joonised 4.1.2 ja 4.1.3), võivad suunata loomade liikumist selles suunas.
Piirkonnas leidub peaaegu kõiki Läti maismaal elavaid mitte-lendavaid imetajaliike, millest 9 on
erikaitse all. Ülevaade liikidest ja nende suhtelisest tähtsusest on esitatud keskkonnamõju hindamise
21
aruande tabelis 6.4.12. Vaatlused WPP-farmi ümbruses näitavad, et Valmiera-Valka WPP piirkonnas
ja selle ümbruses on seni käinud kuni 10% Läti pruunkaru populatsioonist13.
Pruunkarud on samuti liik, mille puhul tuuleparkide mõju on Euroopas vähe või üldse mitte uuritud.
Nende levik Lätis on toimunud P-L suunas ning praegu on nende asustustihedus ja pesitsemine kõige
suurem just Põhja-Vidzeme piirkonnas. Muude imetajate, nii erikaitsealuste kui ka majanduslikult
kasutuskõlblike loomade populatsiooni osakaal piirkonnas, kuhu tuulepargid on kavas rajada, ei ületa
1% nende populatsiooni ja esinemise kogupindalast Lätis.
3.3. Maastiku ja kultuurilooline hindamine
Maastiku kirjeldus
Uuritav ala asub Vidzeme eripiirkonnas, mis on määratletud loodusliku, kultuuriloolise ja maastikulise
väärtusega piirkonnana (KMH aruande joonis 6.5.4). See on rahvusvaheliste, riiklike ja piirkondlike
loodus- ja kultuuripärandi objektide kontsentratsioon, millel on suur maastikuline väärtus ning
bioloogiline mitmekesisus.
Eraldi on märgitud, et maastiku mitmekesisuse ja esteetilise kvaliteedi vähenemine maastikulise
väärtusega aladel ei ole vastuvõetav, samuti ei ole lubatud panoraamvaadete kadumine ega
kultuuriliselt ja ajalooliselt oluliste paikade varjamine.
Samuti asub ala metsaga kaetud alal. Järgmised suunised on seotud maastike jätkusuutliku kaitsega:
• metsamajandamise võimalus ökoloogiliselt ja maastikuliselt väärtuslikel aladel kooskõlas
keskkonna- ja looduskaitse nõuetega;
• puidutöötlemis- ja tootmisrajatised peavad paiknema nii, et need ei vähendaks ümbritseva
maastiku väärtust, ning need peavad asuma olemasoleva piirkondliku infrastruktuuri lähedal;
• uute tööstuspiirkondade planeerimisel tuleb esmajärjekorras kasutada alasid, kus ei ole vaja
muuta metsamaad arendusmaaks.
Kuna Koiva org jagab uuringuala kaheks osaks, asub ala ka turismi ja puhkuse arendamise seisukohalt
oluliseks määratletud jõeorgude piirkonnas.
Kultuuripärandi kirjeldus
Mantojumi infosüsteemi kartograafilise teabe14 kohaselt on uuritud piirkonnas 19 kultuuripärandi
objekti: 13 arheoloogilist, kolm arhitektuurilist, üks tööstuslik, üks kunstiline ja üks ajalooline
(ajaloolise sündmuse) paik; "Altāris" kunstipaik asub Vijciemsi kiriku sisemuses. Seoses nende
staatusega on 6 objekti riikliku, 9 piirkondliku ja 4 kohaliku, vt tabel 6.5.2 ja joonis 8, keskkonnamõju
hindamise aruandes. (keskkonnamõju hindamise aruande joonis 6.5.5).
13
https://www.silava.lv/images/Petijumi/2023-Lacu-monitorings/2023-Lacu-monitorings-Parskats.pdf
14
https://karte.mantojums.lv/
22
Joonis 8. (KMH aruande joonis 6.5.5). Kultuuripärand ja potentsiaalsed WPP nähtavusvööndid uuritud
piirkonnas
Uuringualal tuvastati ka 26 muud kultuuriliselt või ajalooliselt olulist kohta või objekti (vt KMH aruande
tabel 6.5.3). Nende hulgas on 6 mälestist, 9 arhitektuuriobjekti, 6 tööstuspärandi objekti, 2 sõjalise
pärandi objekti ja üks park kui linnaarengu pärandi objekt. neist 16 objekti tunnistati Strenči valla
tasandil (praegu Valmiera valla osa) kultuuriloolisteks objektideks. Keskkonnamõju hindamise raames
hinnati põhjalikult kavandatava tegevuse asukohale kõige lähemal asuvaid alasid, mille olemasolu
põhjal anti soovitusi selle kohta, milliseid neist aladest kavandatav tegevus otseselt või kaudselt
mõjutaks.
Turism ja puhkevõimalused piirkonnas
Kavandatav tegevuspaik ja maastikuuringu piirkond pakuvad üsna ulatuslikke ja mitmekesiseid
võimalusi hariduslikuks (mitteäriliseks) ning loodusturismiks. Turistide jaoks on palju huvipunkte, kus
on ebatüüpiliselt palju erineva tähtsusega turismimarsruute (vt joonis 9 (KMH aruande joonis 6.5.6)).
23
Joonis 9. (KMH aruande joonis 6.5.6) Turismiobjektid, jalgrattateed, matka- ja veeturismi
marsruudid, orienteerumisalad uuritud piirkonnas
Turistide arv
Enamiku uuritud piirkonna vaatamisväärsuste kohta puuduvad konkreetsed andmed turistide arvu
osas. On teada, et Cirgaļi vaatetorni külastab aastas umbes 3000 inimest.15 Ielīca etnograafilise talu
omanik teatas, et seda paika külastas paar tuhat inimest.
Vaatamisväärsused
Lähimad piirkonnad, kus turismiobjektid on koondunud gruppidena, on Strenči-Seda ümbrus (kahe
linna hooned, Strenči välisobjektid ja Mīlestībasi metsa loodusterritoorium, Sedase soo), Vijciemsi
ümbrus (kirik, hooned, Kankarīšu kalju, Celītkalnsi ja Bitarīnkalnsi mäed) ja Oliņu Lielaisi mets (Oliņu
allikas, Oliņu väike mõis, Kaķu mänd, kiviobelisk jne.). Rohkem piirkondi on Lugaži ja Valka ümbruses
ning Jērceni ümbruses. Ielīcase etnograafiline talu ja Vijciemsi jahimaja, mis tegelevad aktiivselt
turismiga ("Bergervilla" külalistemaja), on olulised üksikud objektid. Mõju kohta nendele objektidele
vt keskkonnamõju hindamise aruande peatükki 7.7.2 "Mõju kultuuripärandile".
Puhkemajanduslik osa tegevuspiirkonnas
Puhkemajanduse hulka kuuluvad seenekorjamine ja muu korjandus, kalapüük, kehaline aktiivsus
(jooksmine, jalgrattasõit, jalgrattasõit jne), matkamine, päevitamine, veepuhkus jne.16
15
https://www.daba.gov.lv/lv/jaunums/drosibas-apsverumu-del-slegts-cirgalu-skatu-tornis
16
Sotsiaal-, majandus- ja humanitaaruuringute instituut (ViA HESPI) 2022. Erikaitsealade külastajate seire.
Küsimustiku tulemuste aruanne.
24
Kavandatavas tegevuskohas ei ole LVMi hallatavaid puhkealasid: need asuvad Koiva jõe ääres
Ziemeļgauja maastikukaitsealal. Üldiselt ei ole LVM uuritud piirkonnas püüdnud tegeleda atraktiivse
puhkemajanduse infrastruktuuri ja tingimuste loomisega väljaspool erilisi looduskaitsealasid (SNPA),
st majanduslikult majandatavatel metsaaladel.
Kuigi puuduvad konkreetsed uuringud puhkuse ja turismi kohta kavandatud tegevuskohas, tuleb
eeldada, et piirkonda, eriti asulatele ja talumajapidamistele lähemal asuvat ala, kasutatakse
puhkamiseks üldiselt, mitte ainult orienteerumiseks (mida kirjeldatakse allpool). Üksikasjalik teave
turismi- ja puhkevõimaluste ning kavandatava tegevuse mõju kohta neile on esitatud keskkonnamõju
hindamise aruande peatükis 7.8 "Turismi ja puhkuse mõju".
3.4. Mürataseme hindamine
WPP piirkonnas ei ole asulaid, vaid ainult üksikud talumajapidamised (piirkonna lubatud
arendustegevuse kohta vt keskkonnamõju hindamise aruande 2. lisa ). Lähimad talumajapidamised on
WPP-st >800 m kaugusel. Kõik piirkonnad, mille suhtes kohaldatakse müraga seotud eeskirju, on
üksikud metsaga ümbritsetud üksikelamurajoonid. Müra on valjem A3 ja P24 maanteede lähedal, kus
liikluskoormus on oluliselt suurem kui V260 maanteel. Enamik WPP-farmi talumajapidamisi asub
teede lähedal, kus liiklusmüra tekitab neis majades ebamugavust. Üldine müratase piirkonnas on
peamiselt põhjustatud looduslikest allikatest; kõige valjemad teed on A3 ja P24.
Praeguse müraolukorra hindamisel WPP läheduses modelleeriti maanteeliikluse müra kui üksikut
allikat (müra levikukaart KMH aruande lisas 7) ja võrreldi 7. jaanuari 2014. aasta kabineti määruses nr
16 sätestatud müra piirväärtustega: saadi tulemused, mis on esitatud KMH aruande tabelis 6.7.1.
Müratasemed on väga madalad, kusjuures kõrgeim suhteline öine väärtus oli talumajapidamises
"Saule 4", mis oli 8 dB(A) alla öise müra künnisväärtuse. Praegune olukord piirkonnas on väga vaikne,
puuduvad olemasolevad müraallikad, mis võiksid uute müraallikate tekkimist oluliselt piirata.
3.5. WPP piirkonna õhukvaliteedi hindamine
Ehitusmasinad ja transpordivahendid, mis on vajalikud elektrijaama ehitamiseks, põhjustavad
ebaolulist kohalikku, mööduvat ja juhuslikku õhusaastet, mis on lokaliseeritud ehituspiirkonnas, mis
ei asu elamupiirkonna vahetus läheduses. Masinate kasutamine ehitamise ajal, juurdepääsuteede
liiklus, sealhulgas kruusateede kasutamine, võib põhjustada õhusaastet PM10 ja PM2.5
tolmuosakestega ning lämmastikdioksiidiga. Nende ainete kontsentratsiooni künnisväärtused on
sätestatud 3. novembri 2009. aasta kabineti määruses nr 1290. Õhukvaliteedi hindamisel WPP
põllumajandusettevõtte uuringualal võeti arvesse 2. aprilli 2013. aasta kabineti määrust nr 182, mille
kohaselt tuleb saada LEGMC-lt ametlik kinnitus olemasoleva saastetaseme (õhusaasteainete
taustkontsentratsioon) kohta selles saastava tegevuse potentsiaalse mõju piirkonnas, mille suhtes
kohaldatakse õhukvaliteedi standardeid.
Praeguse saastetaseme kirjeldamisel kasutatakse teavet õhusaasteainete kontsentratsioonide kohta
tegevuse potentsiaalses mõjupiirkonnas, mille LEGMC esitas 20. septembril 2024, ilma et see sisaldaks
saastava tegevuse panust. Potentsiaalne mõjuala taustakontsentratsiooni määramiseks on saastava
tegevuse asukoha ümbruses asuv ala, mille kaugus on võrdne 20 suurima heiteallika kõrgusega, kuid
mitte vähem kui 2000 meetrit.
2. tabel (keskkonnamõju hindamise aruande tabel 6.8.2) Keskmine aastane
taustkontsentratsioon (μg/m3) uuritud kavandatava tegevuse asukohas
25
Aine Keskmine aastane kontsentratsioon (μg/m 3)
PM10 osakesed 13. 55
PM2,5 osakesed 7. 00
Süsinikmonooksiid (CO) 305. 53
Lämmastikdioksiid (NO2) 4. 33
Saasteainete kontsentratsioonid kavandatava tegevuse asukoha ümbruses on madalad ega lähene
isegi mitte kabineti määruses sätestatud saasteainete künnisväärtustele, nagu on näidatud
keskkonnamõju hindamise aruandes esitatud joonistel (keskkonnamõju hindamise aruande joonised
6.8.1-6.8.4). Lämmastikdioksiidi, PM10, ja PM2.5 aastakeskmised kontsentratsioonid on isegi
madalamast saaste hindamise künnisest madalamad (65% künnisväärtusest ehk 26μg/m3
lämmastikoksiidide puhul, 50% aastasest künnisväärtusest ehk 20μg/m3 ja 10μg/m3vastavalt PM10 ja
PM2,5puhul). Praegune õhukvaliteet kavandatava tegevuse asukohas on hea, kusjuures suurimad
õhusaasteainete kontsentratsioonid on suuremate asulate (Strenči, Valka) ja teede läheduses ning
õhukvaliteedi parandamiseks ei ole vaja meetmeid välja töötada.
26
4. Kavandatava tegevuse ja selle võimalike variantide oluline
keskkonnamõju (KMH aruande 7. peatükk)
ELi liikmesriigid peavad koostöös kohalike ja piirkondlike omavalitsustega toetama
taastuvenergiaprojektide kiiremat arendamist, määrates kindlaks ja määratledes taastuvenergia
taastuvatest energiaallikatest energia tootmiseks vajalike taastuvenergiajaamade ning nendega
seotud infrastruktuuri paigaldamiseks vajalikud maa-, pinna- ja maaalused alad ning mere- või
siseveekogud, et tagada taastuvenergia eesmärgi saavutamine aastaks 2030 ja toetada
kliimaneutraalsuse eesmärgi saavutamist hiljemalt 2050. aastaks, nagu on sätestatud määruses (EL)
2021/1119.
4.1. Raadatavad alad
Kogu raiutava ala täpne suurus määratakse kindlaks ehitusprojekti väljatöötamise etapis.
Keskkonnamõju hindamise koostamisel võeti arvesse maksimaalseid võimalikke ala hinnanguid.
Soovitatud variandi A rakendamise korral raiutakse ligikaudu 91,5 ha, millest ligikaudu 60% on
noorendikud, 18% keskmised puistud ja 12% küpsed puistud (vt arvutused tabelis 3 (KMH aruande
tabel 7.1.1)). 0,75% raadatavast alast on praegu raiutud ala.
Kui aga rakendatakse soovitatud variant B, on raiutatav pindala 144,96 ha, mis koosneb ligikaudu 55%
noortest puistutest, 21% keskmistest puistutest ja 14% valmimisjärgus puistutest (vt arvutused tabelis
4 (KMH aruande tabel 7.1.2)). 2% raadatavast alast on praegu raiutud ala.
3. tabel. (KMH aruande tabel 7.1.1. ) Variandi A raames raiutava metsa kogupindala
KOKKU
Variant A
(ha)
Noor Keskmine Raadatud
Küps puistu Küpsuskoormus Ülekasvanud
puistu puistu pindala
(ha) (ha) puistu (ha)
(ha) (ha) (ha)
Kokku 50,19 15,05 11,12 7,19 0,54 2,04 86,13
% 58,27 17,47 12,91 8,35 0,63 2,37
4. tabel. (KMH aruande tabel 7.1.2. ) Metsade raadamise kogupindala kui osa variandist B
KOKKU
Variant B:
(ha)
Noor Keskmine Raadatud
Küps puistu Küpsuskoormus Ülekasvanud
puistu puistu pindala
(ha) (ha) puistu (ha)
(ha) (ha) (ha)
Kokku 73,17 23,31 18,20 8,89 0,6 3,78 127,95
% 57,19 18,22 14,22 6,95 0,47 2,95
27
Statistikaameti andmetel on Läti metsamaa pindala 2024. aastal 3607 tuhat hektarit,17 mis tähendab,
et SIA "Latvijas vēja parki" poolt Valmiera-Valka elektrijaama rajamise käigus raadatav pindala on
ligikaudu 0,0025% kogu Läti metsamaa pindalast variandi A puhul ja ligikaudu 0,004% variandi B puhul.
Mõju hinnatakse väheoluliseks.
4.2. Müra- ja vibratsioonitase
Mürataseme muutuste hindamine ja olulisus
Planeeritav ala, kuhu WPP paigutatakse, on suur (umbes 100 km² variandi B puhul ja 60 km² variandi
A puhul) ja asub Valka ja Plāņi vallas. WPP-farmi ümbruses on umbes 15 talumajapidamist.
Aruanne eeldatava müra leviku kohta on esitatud keskkonnamõju hindamise aruande 7. lisas.
Müraarvutuste tulemused näitavad, et müra künnisväärtuste ületamisega seotud võimalikke
probleeme ei ole oodata:
1. Praeguse olukorra puhul vastab müratase (ainult liiklusmüra) täielikult kabineti 7. jaanuari
2014. aasta määrusele nr 16: liiklusmüra piirmäärasid ei ületata (ja madal liiklusmüra ei ulatu
isegi tööstuspiirkondade müra piirmääradeni).
2. Praeguse olukorra (liiklusmüra) puhul ei ole ühes talu piirkonnas asuvas mõõtmispunktis 1
täidetud WHO suunistes18 soovitatud 24-tunnine LDVN väärtus < 53 dBA (vt KMH aruande tabel
7.2.2 ).
3. Mürataseme arvutamine öösel, kui 27 WPP on töös (variant A): talumajapidamiste aladel on
lubatud mürataseme nõue 24 tunni jooksul igal ajal täidetud (vt KMH aruande tabel 7.2.3),
vastavalt kabineti 7. jaanuari 2016. aasta määrusele nr 16.
4. Mürataseme arvutamine öösel, kui 40 WPP on töös (variant A): talumajapidamiste aladel on
lubatud mürataseme nõue 24 tunni jooksul igal ajal täidetud (vt KMH aruande tabel 7.2.4),
vastavalt kabineti 7. jaanuari 2016. aasta määrusele nr 16.
5. Mõnes talumajapidamises (variant A - mõõtepunktid 1, 4, 6, 8; variant B - mõõtepunktid 1, 4,
6, 8, 13) ei ole täidetud WHO suunistes19 soovitatud 24-tunnine LDVN väärtus < 45 dBA.
WHO suunistes esitatud 24-tunnise LDVN väärtuse soovituse järgimiseks:
Variandi A puhul tuleb VV88, VV85, VV84, VV47, VV46, VV37, VV21, VV16 WPP puhul rakendada
järgmisi mõju leevendavaid meetmeid: valida WPP mudelid, mille mürasaaste vastab WHO
soovitustele, paigaldada võimalikult madala mürasaastega WPP või aerodünaamiliselt täiustatud
labadega WPP.
Variandi B puhul tuleb VV88, VV85, VV84 VV66, VV47, VV46, VV37, VV21, VV16 WPP-de puhul
rakendada järgmisi mõju leevendavaid meetmeid: valida WPP-mudelid, mille mürasaaste vastab WHO
soovitustele, paigaldada võimalikult madala mürasaastega WPP-d või aerodünaamiliselt täiustatud
labadega WPP-d.
Madalsagedusliku müra hindamine ja tähtsus
Lätis puuduvad seadused või määrused, mis kehtestaksid madalsagedusliku müra piirmäärad.
Madalsagedusliku müra hindamisel käesolevas keskkonnamõju hindamises võeti aluseks Taanis
vastuvõetud läviväärtused ja nende kehtestamise menetlus WPP arendusprojektide puhul.
Madalsagedusliku (0-160 Hz) müra kumulatiivne tase, mida WPP tekitab eluhoonetes, ei tohi ületada
20 dB tuule kiiruse 6 m/s ja 8 m/s juures. WPP prognoositav madalsageduslik müra arvutati kõigi 84
17
https://data.stat.gov.lv/pxweb/lv/OSP_PUB/START__NOZ__ME__MEP/MEM010/table/tableViewLayout1/
18
Compendium of WHO and other UN guidance on health and environment, 2022 update
19
Compendium of WHO and other UN guidance on health and environment, 2022 update
28
algselt hinnatud WPP jaoks samal ajal, hõlmates täielikult mõlemad üksikasjalikult hinnatud variandid,
kasutades WindPro tarkvara ja WPP tootjate ajakohastatud andmeid viimaste mudelite kohta, mille
puhul on tehtud madalsagedusliku müra20 mõõtmised: vt KMH aruande 7. lisa. Tulemused ei ületa
Taani künnisväärtusi (vt keskkonnamõju hindamise aruande joonis 7.2.2).
Taanis viidi läbi ulatuslikud riiklikud epidemioloogilised uuringud WPP madalsagedusliku müra mõju
kohta rahvatervisele, analüüsides WPP müra mõju südame-veresoonkonna haigustele, rasedusele ja
diabeedile. Uuringute tulemused avaldati 2018. aastal21,22,23,24,,,. Nendes uuringutes analüüsiti
rahvatervise aspekte kõigi Taani elektrijaamade läheduses asuvate piirkondade (kuni 40 elektrijaama
kõrguse piires), kus aruandeperioodil elas ~615 000 inimest, ning need viidi läbi aastatel 1982-2013,
ning esialgsed hüpoteesid, et elektrijaamade müra, sealhulgas madalsageduslik müra, avaldab
negatiivset mõju rahvatervisele, ei leidnud kinnitust. Autorid märgivad, et üksikud tähelepanekud
viitavad sellele, et potentsiaalselt suuremad suhtelised riskifaktorid võivad esineda piirkondades, kus
WPP tekitatud keskkonnamüra tase on üle 42 dB(A) ja siseruumide madalsagedusliku müra tase on
üle 15 dB(A).
Käesolevas keskkonnamõju hindamises modelleeritud madalsageduslik välismüra ei saavuta isegi
kõige madalamat siseruumide müra künnist, mida on mainitud kõikides nimetatud uuringutes: 15
dB(A).
Vibratsioonitaseme muutuste hindamine ja olulisus
Hüdroelektrijaama töötamise ajal tekitavad selle pöörlevate osade tasakaalustamatus ja hõõrdumine
vibratsiooni, mis ei ole soovimatu mitte ainult keskkonnamõju seisukohast, vaid eelkõige
hüdroelektrijaama enda töö seisukohast, mistõttu hüdroelektrijaama konstruktsioon on selline, et
selline vibratsioon oleks võimalikult väike. Peamised vibratsiooni allikad WPPs on generaator,
käigukast ja laagrisüsteemid. Nende pöörlevate osade vibratsioon võib põhjustada ka masina ja torni
vibratsiooni. Suure tuule kiiruse korral võib vibratsioonitase suureneda, kuna tuulesurve ja
turbulentsed voolud põhjustavad tasakaalustamatust WPP osades.
Lühiajaline mõju võib tuleneda ehitusmasinate poolt ehituse ajal tekitatud vibratsioonist.
Lätis ei ole elektrijaamade tekitatud vibratsioonitase ja selle mõju lähipiirkondadele piiratud
regulatiivsete künnisväärtustega. Enne 30. juunit 2010 olid vibratsiooni künnisväärtused sätestatud
valitsuskabineti määruses 341. Alates 30. juunist 2010, mil see määrus kaotas kehtivuse, ei ole välja
antud uusi seadusi ja määrusi, millega määratakse kindlaks vibratsiooni künnisväärtused. Selles
määruses sätestatud madalaimad vibratsiooni künnisväärtused olid operatsioonisaalid ja palatid
meditsiinilise ravi ning taastusravi asutustes (öösel), mille puhul kaalutud vibratsioonikiirendus ei tohi
ületada 0,028 m/s2. Eluruumides ei tohtinud kaalutud vibratsioonikiirendus ületada 0,04m/s2 öösel ja
0,07 m/s2 päeval.
Lätis enne 30. juunit 2010 kehtinud vibratsiooni künnisväärtuste abil tehtud vibratsioonimõõtmiste
tulemuste võrdlus näitab, et vibratsioonitasemed on Lätis enne 30. juunit 2010 kehtinud vibratsiooni
20
WindPRO 3. 6. 366 by EMD International A/S, SIA “Environment” licences (klient) Nr. 8797.
21
A. H. Poulsen et al. , Long-term exposure to wind turbine noise and redemption of antihypertensive
medication: A nationalwide cohort study. Environment International 121 (Pt. 1), September 2018
22
A. H. Poulsen et al. , Pregnancy exposure to wind turbine noise and adverse birth outcomes : A nationalwide
cohort study, Environment International 167, September 2018
23
A. H. Poulsen et al. , Long-term exposure to wind turbine noise at night and risk for diabetes: A nationwide
cohort study, Environmental Research 165, April 2018
24
A. H. Poulsen et al. , Short-term nighttime wind turbine noise and cardiovascular events: A nationwide
casecrossover study from Denmark, Environment international 114, March 2018
29
künnisväärtustest kõrgemad kui varem kehtinud künnisväärtused. Kuid 300 m kaugusel WPP-st on
vibratsioonitasemed oluliselt madalamad kui operatsioonisaalide ja palatite alumine künnisväärtus
meditsiinilise ravi ja taastusravi asutustes (öösel). Kuigi käesolevas keskkonnamõju hindamises
hinnatud hüdroelektrijaama vibratsioonitasemete kohta ei ole seni uuringuid tehtud, on
hüdroelektrijaama mehaaniliste osade künnisväärtused kehtestatud sõltumata hüdroelektrijaama
võimsusest, seega ei ole põhjust arvata, et kavandatava hüdroelektrijaama vibratsioonitasemed
lähenevad varem Lätis kehtinud künnisväärtustele ja põhjustavad väljaspool varem kasutatud
hüdroelektrijaama kaitsevööndit tajutavat ebamugavust. Seega ei saa kavandatav tegevus, mis ei
hõlma ühegi hüdroelektrijaama ehitamist 800 meetri raadiuses inimeste eluruumidest, põhjustada
vibratsiooni, mis häiriks inimesi.
4.3. Värin
Värinate mõju
Värinatefekti põhjustab rootori labade liikumine, kuna need blokeerivad aeg-ajalt päikest ja tekitavad
liikuvaid varje maapinnal, esemete pinnal ja inimestel, kes võivad tunda subjektiivset ebamugavust
päikese ning varjude rütmilise vaheldumise tõttu. Ainus kirjanduses leitud objektiivne kahjulik mõju
inimese tervisele on siiski epileptikute puhul, kus valguse muutused sagedusega 3-60 Hz võivad
põhjustada krampe. Kaasaegsed suure võimsusega tuulegeneraatorid värisevad aga palju
aeglasemalt: tavaliselt vahemikus 0,2-1 Hz.
Lätis puuduvad seadused ja määrused, mis kehtestaksid eeskirjad värina hindamiseks ja piiramiseks.
Sarnaselt on teistes ELi riikides värinaga kokkupuute sihtväärtused kehtestatud pigem suunistes kui
seadustes või määrustes, sest kuigi värelus on tunnustatud ja määratletud häirivaks teguriks,
puuduvad teaduslikud tõendid selle mõju kohta rahvatervisele.
Varju mõju
Valmiera-Valka elektrijaama projekti raames ei ületata ühegi maja puhul üldist varju kestuse
sihtväärtust 10 tundi aastas (vt KMH aruande 8. lisas esitatud töölehed "Varju kestus koos kauguse
summutamisega"). Maksimaalne aastane varju kestus on kõigi variantide puhul 2 h 16 min, mis on
vähem kui veerand sihtväärtusest; see väärtus registreeriti Bērzi talus, kus varju tekitas VV85 WPP. Ei
ole erinevust variantide A ja B vahel, sest varju allikas on mõlemal juhul sama WPP VV85, ega ka
variantide A' ja B' vahel, sest nende WPP-de kõrgused on samad (ja isegi kui need erineksid 25 m võrra,
oleks varju kestuse muutus vaid tühine paar minutit).
Samuti tuleb märkida, et metoodikat, mille puhul varjutuse intensiivsuse tegur sõltub maja kaugusest
varju tekitavast WPP-st, kasutati käesolevas keskkonnamõju hindamises algusest peale, kui 84 WPP-
st koosneva farmi ehitamist hinnati esialgu, mis näitas, et varjutuse kestuse väärtused ületatakse
vähesel määral ja see nõuab leevendusmeetmeid (mõne WPP peatamine päikesepaistelise ilmaga).
Praeguses etapis, kus on kaks alternatiivi, kus on oluliselt vähem WPP-sid, ja valitud WPPde puhul ei
ole pikimad varjud lähemalt kauguselt, mida nad tekitavad, enam ligilähedased varju kestuse
sihtväärtusele isegi ilma selle tegurita (vt "Varju kestus koos kauguse vähendamisega" KMH aruande
8. lisas): pikim variandi B puhul on 4 h 46 min varju "Liepkalni" talu juures 1246 m kaugusel WPP VV92-
st, kusjuures varjud on väga nõrgad, mis on lähedal nähtamatuse künnisele.
4.4. Mõju õhu kvaliteedile
Ehitusmasinate ja transpordivahendite töö käigus tekitavad ehitusmasinad ning transpordivahendid
ebaolulist kohalikku, mööduvat ja juhuslikku õhusaastet, mis on lokaliseeritud ehituspiirkonnas, mis
ei asu elamupiirkonna vahetus läheduses.
30
Järgmised saasteained on kindlaks tehtud kui need, mis tekivad ajutiselt ehitustööde käigus:
• Tolm. Seda saasteainet põhjustavad sellised ehitustegevused nagu pinnase ja mulla
väljakaevamine, puurimine ja masinate liikumine. Need tegevused võivad tekitada erineva
suurusega tolmuosakesi, alates jämedast kuni peeneni.
• Diislikütuse heitgaasid, mida tekitavad diiselmootoriga raskeveokid ja -seadmed. Peamised
diiselmootoriga masinate tekitatud saasteained on lämmastikoksiidid, tahked tahked
osakesed, sealhulgas PM10 ja PM2.5.
Üldine mõjuriski tase on madal, vastavalt IAQMi suunistele25, mida kasutatakse. WPP ehitamine,
sealhulgas ehitusprotsessis osalevate maanteesõidukite liikumine, avaldab rahvatervisele, varale ja
ökosüsteemile ebaolulist mõju. Ehitusprotsessis tuleb kaaluda kohalikke tolmutõrjemeetmeid (nt
tolmu eemaldamine lähedalasuvate talude teedel).
Üldiselt peetakse ehitusprotsessist põhjustatud õhusaastet ebaoluliseks, keskkonnakahju on tühine ja
ehitatavast taastuvenergia rajatisest, mis ei põhjusta õhusaastet oma edasise tegevuse käigus, saadav
kasu on märkimisväärsem.
4.5. Mõju loodusvaradele
Elupaigad ja soonaimeliigid
Loodusväärtusi ohustavateks teguriteks, mis on eelkõige seotud kaitstavate taimeliikide, kaitstud
mageveekogude, rohumaade, soode ja metsade elupaikadega, on kaitsealuste elupaikade otsene
hävitamine elektrijaama ning sellega seotud infrastruktuuri ehitamise tagajärjel, elupaikade
killustamine elektrijaama paigaldus-/töökohtade ja juurdepääsuteede tõttu ning võimalik mõju vee
äravoolule, mis võib tuleneda kraavide kaevamisest paigalduskohtade ja juurdepääsuteede ümber, kui
see on vajalik nende alade kuivendamiseks.
Käesoleva keskkonnamõju hindamise käigus määrati kindlaks meetmed loodusväärtustele avaldatava
võimaliku mõju vältimiseks ja minimeerimiseks, hinnates elektrijaama ja infrastruktuuri esialgset
asukohta ning andes planeerijatele teavet tuvastatud loodusväärtuste, elektrijaama ja sellega seotud
infrastruktuuri võimalike alternatiivsete asukohtade kohta ning selgitades põhimõtteid, kuidas
kavandada elektrijaama asukoht nii, et vältida mõju loodusväärtustele. Võrreldes esialgse
planeeringuga on oluliselt vähendatud rajatavate juurdepääsuteede pikkust, WPP-de arvu ning
vähemalt mõned WPP-d on paigutatud võimalikult kaugele elupaikadest, kus hüdroloogilised
tingimused tuleb säilitada häirimatuna. Variantide A ja B jaoks soovitatud WPP-de asukohtade puhul
vähendati WPP-de arvu veelgi, eemaldades Koiva vasakul kaldal asuva rühma ning ajakohastades
infrastruktuurirajatiste paigutust biotoopide ja liikide elupaikade suhtes. Hinnangus märgitud mõju on
endiselt klassifitseeritud loodusväärtustele kahjulikuks ning on esitatud soovitused selle
leevendamiseks, vt KMH aruande tabel 7.6.3.
Otsene mõju Natura 2000 aladele võib avalduda ainult planeeringu variandis B ning see võib mõjutada
järgmisi ELi kaitsealuseid elupaiku (vt peatükki 7.9, kus on esitatud lisateave ja joonised mõjutatud
elupaikade asukoha kohta):
- 6270* Liigirikkad karjamaad ja rohumaad, 0,12 ha (Ziemeļgauja PLA, Pukšu soostikus kulgev
kaabelliin);
- 91D0* Soomets, 0,1 ha (Ziemeļgauja PLA, Pukšu soos paiknev kaabelliin);
- 9010* Vana või looduslik boreaalne mets, 0,046 ha, (Ziemeļgauja PLA, Pukšu soos paiknev
kaabelliin;
25
https://iaqm.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/Construction-Dust-Guidance-Jan-2024.pdf
31
- 91T0 Samblik-mändimets, 0,03 ha (Ziemeļgauja PLA, kaabelliin piki Pukšu soo;
- 9010* Vana või looduslik boreaalne mets, 0,12 ha, ("Bulvāra riests", kaabelliin piki Bulvāra
teed.
Mõju Natura 2000 aladel asuvatele kaitstavatele elupaikadele saab täielikult vältida, sest
keskkonnamõju hindamisel võeti arvesse mõlemale poole teed paigaldatud kaabelliinide
maksimaalset mõju ning vaadeldi võimalust, et kaabelliin kulgeb mööda Gailīšu teed ja ületab
Ziemeļgauja PLA. Mõju välistamiseks on võimalik paigutada kaabelliinid elupaikadest ja liikide
leiukohtadest teisel pool teed; see pool teed ei mõjuta ELi kaitsealuseid elupaiku ning kaabliühenduse
alajaamaga saab korraldada nii, et see kulgeb mööda maanteed A6, kusjuures alajaama ühendus tuleb
ehitada, kui valitakse WPP A-variantide rühm (vt peatükk 11, joonis 11.2).
Drenaaži võimalik mõju SNPA-le mõjutab järgmisi valdkondi:
- 9080* Soometsad, 0,3 ha ("Purgaile upes meži");
- 91E0* Alluviaalmetsad 1,5 ha ("Purgaile upes meži").
Mõju SNPA kaitsealustele elupaikadele ja liikidele saab täielikult vältida, kui kaabelliinid
paigutatakse teede ja kaabelliinide projekteerimise käigus Purgaile upes meži looduskaitseala SNPA
vastasele teepoolsele küljele, vt tabel 7.6.1.
Mis puudutab mõju ELi kaitstavatele elupaikadele SNPA, mida ei saa vältida kavandatava tegevuse
elluviimisel, siis 27 WPP ehitamise korral variandi A raames on kolm ELi kaitstavat elupaika ja variandi
B puhul (kui ehitatakse 40 WPP) viis ELi kaitstavat elupaika SNPA, vt tabel 7.6.2. Suurimad otseselt
mõjutatud elupaiga alad on 91T0 "samblikumännikud", sealhulgas alad Hinnangud elupaikade kohta,
mida kaabelliinide rajamine võib mõjutada, tehti kaabelliinide jaoks mõlemal pool teed. infrastruktuur
rajatakse ainult ühele poole teed ja otsese mõju tsoon, vähemalt mõnel teel, on väiksem, kui
hindamisel hinnati.
Kavandatav tegevus mõjutab järgmisi kaitsealuseid liike väljaspool SNPAd:
- Kavandatav tegevus mõjutab kõige enam Lycopodium annotinum i ja Lycopodium
clavatumi liike: Kavandatava tegevuse rakendamise käigus hävitatakse nende liikide
isendeid. Nende liikide populatsioonid on Lätis stabiilsed ja laialt levinud, seega ei avalda
nende liikide kohalike levikualade täielik või osaline hävitamine kavandatava tegevuse
asukohas olulist negatiivset mõju nende liikide populatsioonidele Lätis. Euroopa
Komisjonile esitatud aruandes ELi kaitsealuste elupaikade ja liikide kaitsestaatuse kohta
Lätis26 2013-2018 esitatud teave kinnitab, et nende liikide populatsioonide seisundit
peetakse stabiilseks. Aruandes märgitakse, et Lycopodium spp. kolla klassi kuuluvaid liike
leidub Lätis vähemalt 7120 leiukohas (praegu on andmeid palju suurema arvu leiukohtade
kohta). Kollade klassi populatsiooni seisundit peetakse stabiilseks ja selle edasise säilimise
potentsiaali (kaitsestaatus) peetakse soodsaks.
- Mõnel alal mõjutab kavandatav tegevus sõrmkäpa Dactylorhiza spp.asupaiku, eriti balti
sõrmkäppa. Liiki leidub sageli teede ääres ja kraavides, kuna ta koloniseerib edukalt
avatud pinnase nendes piirkondades; maapinnalähedase taimestiku häirimise mõju on
eeldatavasti lühiajaline ja populatsioon taastub eeldatavasti, eriti kui teised liigi isendid
jäävad läheduses ellu. Kavandatava tegevuse tulemusel hävitatakse umbes 2 hariliku
liblikõielise orhidea Platanthera bifolia levikuala: see ei avalda negatiivset mõju liigi
26
https://cdr.eionet.europa.eu/Converters/lv/eu/art17/
32
populatsioonile, kuna see on suhteliselt levinud sobivatel kasvukohtadel, näiteks
kavandatava tegevuse mõjutsooniga piirnevatel aladel.
- Kavandatav tegevus võib kahjustada kaitsealuse elupaigaga 9010* "Vana või looduslik
boreaalne mets" seotud liikide elupaiku, mis hävitatakse või killustatakse (vt eespool
potentsiaalselt mõjutatud elupaiga 9010* pindala). Kavandatav tegevus võib negatiivselt
mõjutada elupaigaga 91D0* Soometsad seotud liikide elupaikade hüdroloogilisi tingimusi
(vt eespool 91D0* kohta).
- Kogu WPP-farmi alal leidub kuivade orgude elupaiku, millega on seotud soontaimeliigid
(nõmmnelk Dianthus arenarius, kännas-kipslill Gypsophila fastigiata, väike- ja aaskarukell
Pulsatilla pratensis ja P. patens, palu-põisrohi Silene chlorantha). Kaabelliinide
paigaldamine võib mõjutada nende liikide kasvualasid, kuid pikemas perspektiivis on
maapinnalähedase taimestiku häirimise mõju positiivne, kuigi väga haruldaste liikide
isendite hävitamine võib avaldada negatiivset mõju ja hävitada mikropopulatsiooni
täielikult, mistõttu tuleb järgida keskkonnamõju hindamise aruande tabelis 7.6.3 esitatud
tingimusi
Selleks et leevendada võimalikku mõju elupaikadele ja soontaimeliikidele, andis liikide ja elupaikade
ekspert soovitusi, mida tuleb kavandatava tuulepargi ehitamisel võimaluse korral arvesse võtta.
Elupaigaeksperdi aruandes on käsitletud halvimat stsenaariumi, kus kaabelliinid on ehitatud mõlemale
poole teed. Kuid WPP kavandamisel on ekspertide aruannete põhjal võimalik mõju peaaegu täielikult
vältida, kuna kaabelliinid rajatakse ainult ühele poole teed ja mõnel juhul on võimalik kaablid
paigaldada teepinna alla, mis vähendab veelgi mõju liikidele ja elupaikadele ning vähendab metsade
raadamist vajavaid alasid.
Mõju lindudele
Selguse huvides jagati üksikasjalikult analüüsitud liikide loetelu kahte rühma: välja arvatud liigid ja
hindamisliigid. Välja arvatud liigid on need, mille esinemine on tavaliselt püsiva suurusega alal ümber
liigi levikuala, mille puhul on tõhus soovitus mitte rajada WPP-d. Üksikute liikide puhul määrati isegi
kaks ala: need, kus kehtib soovitus mitte ehitada WPP-d (seda võeti arvesse projekti varasemates
etappides, kui enamik algselt kavandatud 93 turbiinist kõrvaldati), ja need, kus tuleb kaaluda
leevendusmeetmete vajadust ja võimalust, kuid WPP-d võib ehitada (praegused variandid A ja B, mida
hinnati üksikasjalikult ja kajastati keskkonnamõju hindamise aruandes). Hindamisliigid on need27,
mille puhul tuleb hinnata WPP ehitamist nende levila läheduses (enamasti kindla suurusega piirkonnas
levila ümber) koos leevendusmeetmetega, kuid soovitus WPP ehitamata jätmiseks kehtib ainult
teatud juhtudel, nt piirkondades, kus on koondunud mitu hindamisliigi leiukohta. Iga liigi analüüs
sisaldab põhjendusi, miks liik kuulub ühte või teise rühma.
Välja arvatud liigid
Merikotkas Haliaeetus albicilla
Puuduvad kindlad vaatluste kontsentratsioonikohad, mis õigustaksid selliste piirkondade määramist,
kus on soovitatav, et WPP-d ei ehitataks. Eksperdi hinnangul on kavandatava tuulepargi oht
merikotkaste populatsioonile väike.
Kaljukotkas Aquila chrysaetos
2023. aasta mais kontrolliti teadaolevat pesa ja leiti märke, et platvormil elab kaljukotkas, ning
kehtestati "asjakohane kaitse".
27
Värbkakk Glaucidium passerinum, karvasjalg-kakk Aegolius funereus, kassikakk Bubo bubo, händkakk Strix
uralensis, valgeselg-kirjurähn Dendrocopos leucotos ja laanerähn Picoides tridactylus
33
Väike-konnakotkas Clanga pomarina
Uuritud piirkonnas on alates 1. jaanuarist 2020 registreeritud 23 konnakotka täheldust; neist 18 oli
avatud maastikuvööndis, mis jääb uuritava ala N-osa ja Valka linna vahele (KMH aruande joonis 7.6.3),
kuhu ei ole kavas rajada WPP-farmi. Seega järeldab linnuekspert , et kavandatav tuulepark ohustab
potentsiaalselt väike-konnakotkaste populatsiooni ainult uuritud ala N-osas (väljaspool Valmiera-
Valka tuulepargi piire). Selleks, et vähendada ohtu, mida tuulepark tekitab eksperdi poolt leitud pesas
pesitsevale väike-konnakotkale, soovitas ekspert eemaldada metsaservale lähemal olevad WPP-
d,mida osaliselt ka arvestati.
MetsisTetrao urogallus
Uuritud alal leiti 8 metsise paarituspaika. Piirkonna uurimise käigus tehti vastavalt linnueksperdi
soovitustelemitmeid kohandusi WPP asukohas, viies WPP väljaspool metsise mikroreservaate ja 1 km
kaitsevööndit LVM-le teadaolevate paaritumiskohtade ümber. Lõplikus ekspertiisiaruandes soovitati
täiendavalt korrigeerida WPP asukohti, luues 2023. aastal leitud paarituspaiga nr 1 (KMH aruande
joonis 7.6.4) kaitseks ilma WPP-ta tsooni ning peatada WPP nr 62 planeerimine kuni WPP läheduses
avastatud võimaliku paarituspaiga asukoha leidmiseni.
Tuulikupargi rajamisest tuleneva inimtekkelise häirimise riski suurenemise tõttu metsas soovitab
ekspert koostöös metsamajandajaga (LVM) pöörata suuremat tähelepanu paarituspaikade
hooldamisele. Seda tuleb teha regulaarselt, esmajärjekorras, vastavalt haldaja poolt välja töötatud
suunistele ja võimalusel rahastada tuulepargi ehitamise mõju leevendamise meetmete eelarvest ja
selle kasutusaja jälgimisest.
Must toonekurg Ciconia nigra
Linnuekspertiisi aruandes on must toonekurg nimetatud WPP ehitamisel välistatud liigina, kuna ta
väldib WPP-d. Alates 1. jaanuarist 2020 on uuringualal täheldatud 8 musta toonekure vaatlust (KMH
aruande joonis 7.6.5). Vastavalt Lätis kehtivatele tavadele ja kirjanduses esitatud juhistele tuleb pesa
ümber kavandada 3 km raadiusega WPP keeluvöönd. Üldiselt on linnueksperdi hinnangul 2-3 paari
must toonekurgesid, kes pesitsevad pikaajaliselt uuritud ala lähedal. Kõik praegu soovitatavad WPP
asuvad väljaspool 3-kilomeetriseid vööndeid teadaolevalt hiljuti asustatud pesade ümber ja väljaspool
1-kilomeetriseid vööndeid kõige tõenäolisemate musta toonekure toitumispaikade ümber.
M. Strazdsi arvamuse kohaselt on WPP-farmi piirkonnas pesitses kavandatud tegevuskohas 3-4 paari
must toonekurgesid, keda uuriti. Arvestades, et toonekurgede populatsioon Lätis on vähenenud, võib
siin praegu elada 1-2 paari, kellest üks pesa on teadaolevalt püsivalt hõivatud. Kui selles piirkonnas
leidub pesa, loetakse see pesitsuspiirkond populatsiooni säilimise seisukohast oluliseks pikaajaliseks
piirkonnaks, mille puhul tuleb vältida WPP-de ehitamist pesa ja peamiste toitumisalade vahelisse (~3
km) vööndisse. Häirimata pesitsusaladel ei ületa liikumine pesade vahel 100 m.28
Piki Seda jõge ja Koiva lisajõgesid tuleb hoida 100 m laiune vöönd: Purgaile, Stakļupīte ja Kokšu upīte.
Koiva vanade jõgede ääres asuvate WPP-de asukoha kavandamisel tuleb säilitada vähemalt 500 m
laiune WPP-vaba tsoon29. Väikeste metsajõgede ümber tuleb samuti ette näha 1 km kaitsevöönd, kus
on soovitatav hoiduda WPP-de ehitamisest (KMH aruande joonis 7.6.6).
Kanakull Accipiter gentilis
Uuringualal registreeriti 3 kanakulli pesa (keskkonnamõju hindamise aruande joonis 7.6.7).
Linnuekspert soovitab ettevaatusabinõuna mitte ehitada WPP nr 52, 69 ja 71.
28
Strazds, M. 2011a. Conservation Ecology of the Black Stork in Latvia. Dissertation. Faculty of Biology,
University of Latvia, Riga.
29
Vastavalt maaüksuste praegusele asukohale on kõik Koiva vanad jõeorgud rohkem kui 500 m kaugusel. Selle
nõutava kaitsevööndi laius on märgitud ainult siis, kui paigutus muutub.
34
Kalakotkas Pandion haliaetus
Uuringualal registreeriti 4 kalakotkaste pesa (keskkonnamõju hindamise aruande joonis 7.6.8).
Linnuekspert soovitab hoiduda WPP nr 54 ehitamisest tõenäolise, kuid seni avastamata pesa tõttu.
Kokkupõrke oht
Mitmed algselt kavandatud WPP-d paiknesid väga suure kokkupõrkeõhuga piirkondades, suurte,
kaitsealuste lendavate linnuliikide pesade läheduses. Iga liigi analüüsi põhjal soovitati need WPP-d
järk-järgult tagasi lükata. Mõned WPP-d soovitati tagasi lükata, et vähendada teiste mõjude
komponentide mõju. Tuuleelektrijaama lõplik paigutus koos variantidega A ja B on kahtlemata
vähendanud ka lendavate linnuliikide kokkupõrke ohtu kavandatava tuulepargi
tuuleelektrijaamadega. Eksperdi soovituste kohaselt tuleb tuulegeneraatoritele paigaldada kaamerad,
mis suudavad peatada tuuleelektrijaama töö, et peaaegu täielikult välistada kokkupõrked lindudega,
sealhulgas lendavate lindudega.
Mürasaaste
Kavandatava tuulepargi piirkonnas modelleeriti kakuliikide esmatähtsad kaitsealad30. Ka mõnel
kaitsekavas määratletud eelisalal, kus elavad värbkakk Glaucidium passerinum, karvasjalg-kakk
Aegolius funereus, kodukakk Strix aluco, händkakk Strix uralensis, kõrvukräts Asio otus ja kassikakk
Bubo bubo, on ka need kakuliigid ning käesolevas piirkonnaplaneeringus soovitatakse piirata WPP-st
tulenevat täiendavat mürasaastet, valides võimalikult vaikse tuulegeneraatorite mudeli. Kuna
puuduvad uuringud WPP müra mõju kohta händkakule (Strix uralensis), tuleb enne ehitustöid
teostada selle liigi seiret, et hinnata WPP mürast põhjustatud võimalikke häirimisi. See hõlmab lindude
käitumise uurimist ja WPP toimimise kohandamist vaadeldud andmete põhjal.
Võttes arvesse kakkude kaitsekava, milles on müra piirmääraks kehtestatud 35 dB, ja võttes arvesse
erinevaid uuringuid metsakeskkonna loodusliku müra kohta, kus 30-40 dB peetakse tüüpiliseks
taustamüra tasemeks, võib järeldada, et 40 dB tase, mis vastab looduslikele tingimustele, ei ole
tõenäoliselt kakkudele kahjulik. Seega võib eeldada, et kuni 40 dB müratase ei mõjuta oluliselt kakkude
elutsüklit ja küttimise tõhusust. Kui WPP on võimalik hoida öösel selles vahemikus, ei mõjuta see
öökullide jahivõimet.
Visuaalne häire
WPP asukoha kohandamise soovitamisel võeti arvesse teiste uurijate soovitusi, mis põhinesid
peamiselt hinnangutel WPP asukoha üldise mõju kohta lindude levikule. Soovitatav on lükata tagasi
mitu WPP-d, luues laiad koridorid varem visuaalselt katkematute WPP-de "müüride" sees, mis läbivad
tavaliste lindude kevad- ja sügisrände suunda kirde-edela suunas ning madala ülelennujoone ümber
Lukstu heinamaade. Kavandatava tuulepargi D-osas hoitakse väga tihedat WPP-rühma, mis asub
territooriumil, kus on suured elupaigad, mis sobivad kaitsealuste linnuliikide pesitsemiseks halvasti.
See lahendus valiti kompromissina, et vältida WPP paigaldamist mujale, ornitoloogiliselt
väärtuslikumatele aladele. Et seda häirivat komponenti veelgi vähendada, oleks üks alternatiivne
lahendus jätta WPP ehitamata, sest muul viisil ei ole võimalik selle visuaalset mõju vähendada.
Barjääriefekt
Vaatlusaluses piirkonnas on nii kevadisel kui ka sügisesel rändeperioodil peamine rändesuund kogu
piirkonnas kirde-edelasuunaline, sarnaselt Läti teiste piirkondadega. See on peamine suund, mida ei
tohiks ristata pidevad risti asetsevad WPP read, mis tekitavad barjääriefekti. Vaadates allesjäänud
WPP-de konfiguratsiooni, on näha, et WPP-de tihe rühm on paigutatud kirde-edelesuunas, kusjuures
30
Avotiņš jun. A. 2019. Owl Glaucidium passerinum, Tengmalm’s owl Aegolius funereus, Barn Owls Strix aluco,
Ural owl Strix uralensis, kõrvukräts Asio otus un eagle-owl Bubo bubo kaitseplaan. Läti Ornitoloogiaühing, Riia.
35
kõige laiem osa on piki WPP 16-82 joont, moodustades 5 km laiuse "barjääri". Seega luuakse talu
põhjaosas 2 kirde-edela suunas kulgevat liini: WPP 7 ja 60 vahel (3 km) ning WPP 51 ja 70 vahel (3,2
km).
Täiendavad kaalutlused keskkonnamõju hindamise asukohavariantide kohta
Asukohavariantide A ja B mõju kavandatava tuulepargi piirkonnas asuvatele ornitoloogilistele varadele
ei erine oluliselt.
Variandi B loodeosa, mis eristab seda variandist A, asub viljatutes elupaikades: piirkonnas, mis ei ristu
rändliikide regulaarsete kohalike ülelendudega ja asub lindude kevad- ja sügisrände järjestikuselt
domineerivas suunas. Erinevus kahe kavandatud variandi prognoositava mõju vahel linnustikule on
eeldatavasti tühine: variandi B NE WPP rühm ei kujuta endast olulist lisaohtu. Linnustikule tekkida
võiva ohu osas hinnatakse kahte kavandatavat asukohaalternatiivi sarnaseks.
Linnuliikidele avaldatava mõju leevendamiseks soovitatud meetmete kokkuvõte
• on soovitatav lükata tagasi VV2, VV3, VV4, VV5, VV6, VV8, VV10, VV11, VV12, VV13, VV14,
VV15, VV18, VV19, VV23, VV25, VV27, VV29, VV35, VV43, VV44, VV45, VV52, VV54, VV62,
VV69, VV71, VV83, VV87, VV90, VV92, VV93*31;
• on soovitatav paigaldada WPP väljalülitamise kaamerasüsteemid kõigile WPP-dele;
• hinnata praeguseid ettepanekuid ehitamiseelse järelevalve tulemuste põhjal:
o sulgeda WPP päikesetõusu ja päikeseloojangu ajal mustade haigaste
pesitsusperioodil, kui WPP kaamerasüsteemide tõhusus langeb hämaruse ajal;
o VV26, VV30, VV31, VV33, VV81, VV86 ja VV89 on soovitatav peatada ka kevadel ja
sügisel päikesetõusu ajal, kui WPP kaamerasüsteemide tõhusus hämaruses langeb;
o soovitatakse piirata tuulepargi kogu eluea jooksul täiendavat mürasaastet vastavalt
ehitusele eelneva seire tulemustele (seoses tuulepargi müra mõjuga kakkudele);
• metsa raadamist tuulepargi tarbeks soovitatakse teha väljaspool lindude pesitsusperioodi;
• on soovitatav, et infrastruktuur planeeritaks võimalikult palju väljaspool lindude jaoks olulisi
elupaiku ja seda ei ehitataks lindude pesitsusperioodi ajal;
• on soovitatav planeerida tuuleparkide ehitusprotsessid, mis tekitavad kõrgendatud müra- ja
valgusreostust, nii, et need toimuksid väljaspool lindude pesitsusperioodi ja võimaluse korral
päevasel ajal;
• on soovitatav jälgida kavandatava tuulepargi raames pesitsevaid linde ja WPP-ga kokkupõrke
tagajärjel hukkunud lindude jäänuseid, lähtudes esialgses uuringus kasutatud metoodikast;
• on soovitatav säilitada tagasiside tuulepargi mõju leevendamise meetmete kohta, mis
võimaldab neid kohandada vastavalt seire tulemustele;
• on ka teisi soovitusi, mille rakendamine ei ole tegevuse elluviija mõju all ja on esitatud
keskkonnamõju hindamise aruande peatükis 7.6.3.
Mõju nahkhiirtele
Võrreldes 14 teise tuulepargi alaga, kus viidi läbi sarnase lähenemisviisi alusel uuringuid, peetakse
nahkhiirte üldist aktiivsust uuritud piirkonnas kõrgeks. Suurimat nahkhiirte aktiivsust täheldati juulis
ja augustis. Uuringute käigus registreeriti nahkhiirte tegevust peaaegu kogu öö jooksul, kusjuures
aktiivsus oli kõrge esimese ja üheksanda tunni vahel pärast päikeseloojangut.
Saadud andmete põhjal on kavandatud tuulepargi piirkonnas suurim nahkhiirte suremuse oht juulis ja
augustis. Nahkhiirte aktiivsus uuritud piirkonnas on kõrge peaaegu kogu öö jooksul, mistõttu ei ole
võimalik eristada üksikuid öötunde, mil nahkhiirte suremusrisk on madalam, välja arvatud hilissügisel
31
* Seda soovitust võeti juba arvesse keskkonnamõju hindamise käigus.
36
2-3 viimast hommikutundi (alates 10. tunnist pärast päikeseloojangut septembri teisel poolel ning
oktoobris ja novembris).
Tuulepargi ehitamine Valmiera-Valka piirkonnas on lubatud järgmiste WPP käitamispiirangute ja -
tingimustega:
• WPP automaatne väljalülitamine või käivitamisest hoidumine öösel,
päikeseloojangust päikesetõusuni, ajavahemikul 1. maist kuni 30. septembrini, kui:
1) tuule kiirus WPP rootori kõrgusel on 6 m/s või vähem,
2) sademete hulk ei ületa 1 mm/h,
3) ümbritsev temperatuur on üle 6 0C.
• Nahkhiirte seire peab toimuma esimesel ja teisel aastal pärast WPP tegevuse algust.
Seiremetoodika peab olema kavandatud vastavalt ala eripärale ja seda peab teostama
NCA sertifitseeritud nahkhiirte ekspert, kellel on kogemusi ultraheliuuringutega
töötamisel. Seire kirjeldus on esitatud keskkonnamõju hindamise aruande 12.
peatükis.
Sõltuvalt seire tulemustest, st kas nahkhiirte aktiivsuse ja/või suremuse suurenemine ehitatud WPP-
s leiab kinnitust või mitte, võib pärast esimest ja teist ehitusjärgset seireaastat jäätmejaama
käitamispiirangud üle vaadata: tühistada, leevendada või karmistada. Eelkõige võiks pikendada või
lühendada ajavahemikku, mil WPP-de käitamispiirangud on vajalikud, või muuta tuule kiiruse künnist,
mille puhul WPP-de käitamine on lubatud.
Selgrootud
Erikaitsealuste ja muude oluliste liikide säilitamiseks on kavandatava tegevuse elluviimisel vaja
järgida järgmist:
1. elektrijaamade (VV7, VV16, VV20, VV22, VV27, VV31, VV32, VV34, VV36, VV38, VV43, VV45,
VV46, VV48, VV70, VV82, VV85, VV88, VV91, VV93) ja alajaamade (ST1, ST2, ST3, ST4)
asukohtades, kus leitakse täiskasvanud Buprestidae või uusi pesakondi, tuleb kõik langenud
surnud puud, kännud, seisev surnud puit ehitusplatsilt eelistatavalt lähimasse noorendikuga
metsa või metsaserva viia. Sel juhul saavad surnud puidus olevad putukate vastsed oma
arengu lõpule viia. Samuti võivad nad jätkata sigimist. Surnud puit, mis liigutamisel ei lagune,
tuleb eemaldada.
2. Kui uus juurdepääsutee läheb läbi noortest langenud või seisvatest üksikutest ökoloogilistest
puudest, tuleb need puud ümber paigutada väljapoole ehitusala.
3. Kogu uuritud alal on soovitatav, et kui toimus metsatulekahju, siis säilitatakse põlenud, kuid
veel elusad männid.
4. Kogu uuritaval alal on soovitatav, et kui raiutav metsakooslus sisaldab mustade tüvedega (mis
viitavad Aurobasidion sp. seene esinemisele) männiokste, tuleb need puud viia väljapoole
majandatavat puistut.
Peamine kaitsemeede erikaitsealuste liikide jaoks on surnud puidu (langenud ja seisev surnud puit,
võsud) ehitusalast välja viimine. See võimaldab vastsetel puidus lõpuni areneda. Kavandatavas
tegevuskohas esinevate liikide,hiidhundlase ja laphria gibbosa, populatsioonide suurust Lätis ei ole
hinnatud. Arvestades liikide suhteliselt laialdast levikut kavandatava tegevuse asukohas ja Lätis
tervikuna, ei mõjuta WPP-farmi ehitamine nende liikide populatsioone.
37
Oluline on põlenud metsade säilitamine ilma neid raiumata. Boros schneideri ja Stephanopachys
linearis ei ole WPP piirkonnas registreeritud. Ei ole võimalik teha järeldusi kavandatava tegevuse mõju
kohta nendele liikidele Lätis tervikuna.
Mõju imetajatele
WPP-farmi ehitamine ei muuda oluliselt kaitsealuste liikide seisundit riiklikul tasandil. Eeldatakse
kohalikku ja laiemat kaudset ja kumulatiivset mõju metsloomadele (kuni 10 km kaugusel kavandatava
tegevuse uuritud asukohast), kusjuures selle tagajärjed ja territoriaalsed piirid on praegu teadmata ja
neid ei saa ette näha.
Rohekoridoride järjepidevust piiriüleses kontekstis ei mõjutata: WPP ehitamist ei kavandata Koiva jõe
orus, mis on oluline koridor ulukite, sealhulgas suurte kiskjaliste liikumiseks.
Täiendavad eksperdi soovitused, mille rakendamine ei ole tegevuse elluviijast sõltuv, sealhulgas
meetmed imetajatele avaldatava mõju leevendamiseks, on esitatud keskkonnamõju hindamise
aruande peatükis 7.6.8.
4.6. Mõju maastikule
Mõju maastikule
Uuritud piirkonnas ei ole silmatorkavat topograafiat, mis mõjutaks WPP nähtavust. Piirkonnas
domineerib katkematu metsamaastik, ainult mõned suhteliselt suured avatud maastikud. WPP on
nähtav nendelt avatud aladelt, kuid metsaraiete (raied, teed, tee- ja trassivõrgud, elektriõhuliinid)
olemasolu on nähtavuse seisukohast olulisem tegur. Ülejäänud maastikuuringu ala on palju
mitmekesisem.
Metsamaastik
Sisemaal asuvad luiteahelikud on selle piirkonna maastikule iseloomulik ja oluline element. Vältimaks
luidete väärtuse vähenemist, tuleb luidetega maastik säilitada:
• hoiduda WPP paigaldamisest luidate harjadele;
• ei tohi oluliselt muuta luidete topograafiat, sealhulgas tagada luideharjade järjepidevus
juurdepääsuteede ehitamisel, kaablikraavide kaevamisel, WPP-de paigaldamisel ja ehitamisel;
• WPP juurdepääsuteede rajamine nii, et need kulgeksid paralleelselt luidetega, mitte üle
nende.
Need aspektid on kõige olulisemad luiteharjade vahetus läheduses asuvate WPP VV20, VV31, VV37 ja
VV61 puhul, kuid ka teiste WPP-de ehitamine võib mõjutada düünide.
Koiva maastik
Kavandatav tegevus ei mõjuta otseselt Ziemeļgauja PLA-d ja ei avalda suures osas visuaalset mõju,
kuigi mõnes piirkonnas visuaalne mõju esineb. Seetõttu tuleb kehtestada 250 m32 kõrguspiirang WPP
VV71, VV69, VV65, VV49 ja VV68 jaoks.
32
250 meetri tingimust võiks suurendada 275 meetrile, et võimaldada kõikide või samaväärsete käesolevas
KMHs hinnatud tuumaelektrijaamade mudelite ehitamist, vt põhjendused KMH aruande punktis 7.7.1.
38
Koiva jõe orus on olulised vaatepunktid: Anņu, Spicrāmja ja Strenču sillad. Spicrāmja sillast lääne poole
(2,4 km) kavandatud WPP VV11 on sellest hästi nähtav. Seega ei ole VV11 ehitamine maastikuvaate
säilitamiseks soovitatav.
Vija jõe ja Koiva jõe ühinemiskoha kohal asuvast kõrgeimast vaatepunktist oleks näha mitu WPP-d
NNW suunas. VV39 ja VV1, mida ei soovitata, oleksid väga nähtavad. Osaliselt nähtavate VV48, VV82,
VV83, VV36 puhul peab kõrguse piirang olema 250 m33.
Seda linna maastik
Kavandatav tegevus hõlmab nelja WPP paigaldamist, kuid selleks, et mitte negatiivselt mõjutada
olemasoleva maastiku atraktiivsust, ei ole soovitatav rajada VV25, VV24, VV30 ning vähendada VV80
maksimaalset üldist ehituskõrgust 250 m34. Üks puude rida tuleb säilitada raiumata (asub
katastrimärgiga riigimetsas: 94760010055) vähemalt 100 m ulatuses ümber linna kavandatava
tegevuse suunas.
Strenči kesklinna maastik
Nähtavuse mudel näitab, et suurim nähtavus oleks raudtee ääres, Strenči Centra pargi piirkonnas,
Rīgase, Pulkveža Brieža ja Gaujase tänavate vahelistes hoovides. WPP on nähtav ka turuplatsi lähedal
asuvast keskmisest kaitsevööndist, mis on lähim asukoht. Lähim WPP (VV24) oleks 4,4 km kaugusel,
kuid ei oleks nähtav. VV81 ülemine osa ja selle kohal olevad labad (4,5 km) ning VV33 labad (kohe
VV81 taga, 5,6 km kaugusel) oleksid nähtavad. Selle mõju turupiirkonnast avanevale vaatepildile võib
pidada mõõdukaks. Siiski ei peeta seda seisukohta iseenesest väärtuslikuks.
Oliņi suur mets
Teadaolevad ja teoreetiliselt avastatavad kultuuri- ja ajaloolised väärtused piirkonnas tuleb säilitada,
tehes nii palju kui võimalik, et mitte muuta marsruutidena kasutatavaid teid. Näiteks ei muudeta
looduslikku sõiduteed laiaks "standardklassi LVM-teeks", millel on kruusakate ja selle ääres kraavid.
Seda soomaastik
Selle kohal on kaks vaatetorni (linnuvaatlustornid), kuid WPP ei oleks neist tornidest nähtav. Kuid nad
on nähtavad on põhjateedelt soode piirkonnas. Näiteks on vähemalt 21 WPP-d selgelt nähtavad teelt
kuni Sedale kõige lähemal asuva vaatetornini (vt lisa 9: Maastikuekspertiisi aruande 10. lisa).
Avatud põllumajandusmaastikud
Kuigi kavandatava tegevuse vahetus läheduses ei asu tegelikult ühtegi avatud põllumaastikku, on
kavandatav WPP kõige paremini nähtav nendest suhteliselt kaugetest piirkondadest. Kirdeosas on
kümned WPP-d potentsiaalselt nähtavad mõnest vaatepunktist Ērģeme mägedes. Kuigi Valmiera valla
turismivalitsus ei määratle maastikulisi teelõike ja kõige väärtuslikumaid vaatepunkte, on mitmest
kohast nähtav kõrge maastikulise väärtusega liigendatud maastik koos Strenči-Cirgaļi metsaga taustal
(vt lisa 9.): Maastikuekspertiisi aruande 12. lisa).
Nendele teelõikudele kõige lähemal olevad WPP on VV92, VV67, VV66, mis asuvad kuni 820 m
kaugusel ja metsaservas (kuni 80 m kaugusel metsaservast). Kui eeldada, et metsa kõrgus on
33
250 meetri tingimust võiks suurendada 275 meetrile, et võimaldada kõikide või samaväärsete käesolevas
KMHs hinnatud tuumaelektrijaamade mudelite ehitamist, vt põhjendused KMH aruande punktis 7.7.1.
34
250 meetri tingimust võiks suurendada 275 meetrile, et võimaldada kõikide või samaväärsete käesolevas
KMHs hinnatud tuumaelektrijaamade mudelite ehitamist, vt põhjendused KMH aruande punktis 7.7.1.
39
keskmiselt 25 m, siis on kogu tuulepargi mõju nendele vaadetele tugev ja domineeriv. VV92, VV67 ja
VV66 ei ole soovitatav.
Kavandatavast tegevuskohast lääne pool asub Ēvele kultuurmaastik, mis on kultuurilise, ajaloolise ja
esteetilise väärtusega maastik. WPP asub sellest vähemalt 4,9 km kagus, kuid on siiski nähtav. Üks
olulisemaid kultuurikeskkonna objekte on Kaņepju suur tamm: vaade kui ja vaade sellest mõjutab WPP
kauguses. Sellisel juhul võiks aga WPP-d kirjeldada kui alldomineerivaid objekte.
Teisel pool kavandatava tegevuse asukohta asub Vijciemsi avatud maastikuala, kust WPP oleks selgelt
nähtav (vt lisa 9): Maastikuekspertiisi aruande 13. lisa).
Mõju kultuuripärandile
Üldiselt peetakse eeldatavat mõju uuritud piirkonna kultuuripärandi objektidele mõõdukaks. Ekspert
soovitab, et WPP VV59, VV66, VV92, VV67, VV53, VV25, VV24 ja VV30 tuleks tagasi lükata ning et WPP
VV56, VV47, VV24, VV54 ja VV80 maksimaalne kõrgus oleks 250 m. Ekspert soovitab samuti:
• Olemasoleva riigimetsa (katastritunnused 94920010035, 94920010038) metsaosa säilitamine
(raiet ei kavandata) vähemalt 70 m laiuses vööndis ümber talukoha (katastritunnusega
maaüksus 94920010025), mis vastavalt metsa läbipaistvuse mudelile (Eesti teadlaste poolt
välja töötatud) peaks piirama teiste WPP-de vaadet. WPP ehitamise ja sellega seotud tööde
ajal sõidukite mõju hindamine ehituskonstruktsioonidele ning Ielīcu ceļši LVM metsatee
kasutamise vältimine sõidukite poolt.
• Metsa säilitamine haiglakompleksi idakülje katastriüksustel (katastritunnus 94170010085) või
sellega piirnevas Läti riigimetsas (katastritunnus 94170013127) 100 meetri ulatuses
maaüksusest lääne pool, haiglakompleksi maaga piirneval ribal.
• Metsade säilitamine iidse matmispaiga piirkonnas.
• Olemasoleva metsa säilitamine linnuse loode-põhjakaldal.
• Kuna VV21 nähtavust ei ole võimalik takistada, tuleks see viia Monumendi teest ("Pieminekļu
ceļš") kaugemale (võimalikud asukohakoordinaadid: 57.635288, 25.837657 või 57.635615,
25.837217). Obeliski ümbritseva poolringikujulise metsa säilitamine 100 m raadiuses obeliski
poolel mälestusmärgi tee ääres. Teisel pool teed, kuuseke, mis katab WPP aluse, eelistatavalt
kahes paralleelses reas istutamine. Ridade istutamisel kasutage istutusmaterjali, mis on
vähemalt 1,5 meetri kõrgune. Mälestusmärgi kaitsmine ehitustööde ja sõidukite liikumise ajal
ning mälestusmärgi infotahvli säilitamine või uuendamine.
• Preisi kroonprintsi mälestusmärgi tegeliku asukoha selgitamine. Seda silmas pidades püütakse
ehitusplatsil katta ja kaitsta seda ehitustööde ning sõidukite liikumise ajal.
Muuseumispetsialistide teavitamine.
• Rihards Veide mälestusmärgi kaitsmine ehitustööde ja sõidukite liikumise ajal ning
mälestusmärgi infotahvli säilitamine või uuendamine. Ümberringi 100 m ulatuses metsa
säilitamine.
• Olemasoleva vähemalt 70 m pikkuse metsavööndi säilitamine Oliņi mõisahoone (Mežmuižas)
vastas asuva tee ääres.
• Kuigi teisel pool teed on mets juba raiutud, on säilinud raiumata metsariba selle ääres, kapten
Antons Irvise mälestusmärgi vastas.
• Jahimajast põhjapool asuva 70 m laiuse raiumata metsariba (kvartal 290, lõik 5) säilitamine.
40
• Hooldamata puistuvööndi säilitamine (riigimetsas katastrimärgiga: 94760010055) vähemalt
100 m laiune ala ümber Seda linna kavandatava tegevuse suunas.
4.7. Mõju Natura 2000 aladele WPP-farmi lähedal
Nagu on mainitud keskkonnamõju hindamise aruande peatükis 6.4.1 ja kokku võetud tabelis 7.9.1, on
kavandatava tuulepargi läheduses 5 SNPAd, mis kuuluvad Natura 2000 ühtsesse Euroopa SNPAde
võrgustikku (vt keskkonnamõju hindamise aruande joonis 6.4.2).
• "Sedas purvs" looduskaitseala. Lähim WPP on planeeritud 0,9 km kaugusele looduskaitseala
piirist.
• "Burgas pļavas" looduskaitseala. Lähim WPP on planeeritud 4 km kaugusele looduskaitseala
piirist.
• Ziemeļgauja maastikukaitseala Lähim WPP on kavandatud 0,3 km kaugusele maastikukaitseala
piirist.
• "Bulvāra riests" mikroreservaat. Lähim WPP on kavandatud 0,8 km kaugusele mikroreservaadi
piirist.
• "Igaunijas riests" mikroreservaat. Lähim WPP on kavandatud 8 km kaugusele mikroreservaadi
piirist.
21. novembril 2023 kiitis ministrite kabinet heaks "Looduskaitsealade määrused" ja asutas uue
looduskaitseala: "Purgailes upes meži". Lähim WPP (VV7) on planeeritud looduskaitseala piirist 1,3 km
ida pool. Käesolev hindamine hõlmab mõju hindamist viiele Natura 2000 alale, mis on määratletud
SEMBi 12. septembril 2023 välja antud programmis nr 5-03/9/2023.
Üldiselt ei ohusta kavandatav tegevus elupaikade, veresooneliste taimeliikide ja selgrootute
ekspertide hinnangu põhjal kaitstavate looduslike alade kaitse-eesmärke seoses ELi kaitsealuste
elupaikade soodsa kaitsetaseme tagamisega ega kaitsealade terviklikkust ei kohalikul ega piirkondlikul
tasandil.
Ei tuvastatud olulist negatiivset mõju Natura 2000 aladele, mis takistaks ühegi WPP talu
asukohavariandi rakendamist.
Seoses linnuliikidele avaldatava mõju hindamisega tuleb märkida, et kuigi kavandatav tegevus on
kavandatud väljaspool Natura 2000 alasid, on see ümbritsetud Natura 2000 aladega, mis on samuti
linnustiku jaoks olulised alad: "Sedas purvs" looduskaitseala ja "Ziemeļgauja" maastikukaitseala.
Mõnede liikide puhul ei saa kavandatava WPP-farmi võimalikku mõju eristada Natura 2000 alade ja
väljaspool neid asuvate alade vahel, kuna nende linnuliikide ökoloogia ja alade ökoloogiline ühtsus on
seotud naaberaladega, samas kui ülejäänud liikide puhul ei ole võimalik tuvastada kavandatava WPP
märkimisväärset mõju ühegi liigi pesitsuspopulatsioonidele kahel suurel Natura 2000 alal ("Sefas
purvs" ja "Ziemeļgauja"). Juba niigi väikest mõju vähendavad WPP talu mõju leevendamiseks
soovitatud meetmed (vt keskkonnamõju hindamise aruande peatükk 7.6.3 ja kokkuvõte
keskkonnamõju hindamise aruande 12. lisas).
Võttes arvesse üldist hinnangut Natura 2000 aladele avaldatava mõju kohta, jõuti järeldusele, et 84-
st keskkonnamõju hindamise raames hinnatud hüdroelektrijaamast soovitati 46 hüdroelektrijaama,
mille mõju leevendamiseks kavandatakse meetmeid hüdroelektrijaama rajamise ajal. Näiteks on
loodud koridorid "barjääriefekti" vähendamiseks, et võimaldada rändliikidel lennata, WPP-le tuleb
luua kaamerasüsteemid lindude tuvastamiseks ja turbiinid tuleb regulaarselt peatada, et vähendada
kokkupõrkeohtu. Siiani ei ole leitud, et konkreetsed leevendusmeetmed on vajalikud vastavalt 19.
41
aprilli 2011. aasta kabineti määrusele 300 "Euroopa erikaitsealadele (Natura 2000) avaldatava mõju
hindamise menetlus". Kokkuvõte hüdroelektrijaama leevendusmeetmetest, mis sisalduvad
keskkonnamõju hindamises soovitatud variantides hüdroelektrijaama projekteerimis-, ehitus- ja
kasutusetappide jaoks, on esitatud keskkonnamõju hindamise aruande 12. lisas (suure mahu tõttu
digitaalses formaadis: MS Exceli failina).
42
5. Piiriülene hindamine (keskkonnamõju hindamise aruande 9.
peatükk)
Seoses piiriülese mõjuga tuvastati Eesti Vabariik riigina, mida kavandatav tegevus võib mõjutada.
5.1. Piiriülese mõju hindamine maastikule, turismile ja puhkamisele
Kuna osa Eesti territooriumist (osa Valga vallast Valga vald ja kogu Valga linn) jääb uuritavasse
maastikualasse, hinnati kavandatava tegevuse piiriülest mõju Eesti selle osa maastikule, turismile ja
rekreatsioonile. Ükski Eesti territoorium ei asu lähemal kui 4,2 km lähimast hindamisse kaasatud
elektrijaamast.
WPP asukohtade osas on Koiva-Mustjegi Karulas PLA kavandatavale tegevuskohale kõige lähemal, 9,1
km kaugusel lähimast WPP-st Koiva jõe paremal kaldal (VV70)). Karulas-Pikjerva PLA asub 15,7 km
kaugusel lähimast WPP (VV68). Karula rahvuspargi piir on 20 km kaugusel lähimast WPP-st (VV68).
Eesti avatud aladel, mis asuvad kavandatavale tegevusele kõige lähemal, nt Londi ja Lepu vahel Valga
vallas, oleks WPP nähtav mitte kaugemalt kui 5,5 km kauguselt.
Vaatetornid on olulised vaatepunktid. Kavandatavale tegevusele kõige lähemal on Tsirgumäe:
Tellingumäe vaatetorn, mis asub 25 km kaugusel VV68-st. Sealt avaneb avar panoraamvaade Mustjegi
jõele ja Läti territooriumile (vaatega Cirgaļi düünide piirkonda). Isegi kui see ja muud WPP-d võivad
selge ilmaga olla nähtavad, tuleb neid pidada taustobjektideks.
Arvestades kavandatava tegevuse ja Eesti territooriumi vahelist kaugust, peetakse piiriülest mõju
hinnatud aspektide kontekstis väheoluliseks.
5.2. Mõju hindamine lindudele
Mõju Eesti Vabariigile hinnati samasuguse detailsusega nagu naaberpiirkondade puhul Lätis. Mõju
Lätis vaadeldi kahes tsoonis: 3 ja 10 km ümber tuulepargi soovitatud lõpliku konfiguratsiooni.
Tuuleparki ümbritsev 3 km tsoon ei mõjuta Eesti Vabariigi territooriumi, samas kui 10 km tsoon
mõjutab 5355 ha (6,2% kogu 10 km tsoonist) Eesti Vabariigi territooriumi (vt joonis 12 (KMH aruande
joonis 9.1).
43
Joonis 12. (KMH aruande joonis 9.1) Valka-Valmiera tuulepargi kavandatav 10 km pikkune ala hõlmab
Eesti Vabariigi territooriumi
Piiriülese mõjuanalüüsi läbiviimiseks kasutati linnuvaatlusandmeid, mis on avalikult kättesaadavad
andmebaasides elurikkus.ee ja plutof.ut.ee. Kombineerides kahest allikast kättesaadavaid
vaatlusandmeid, on alates 1. jaanuarist 2020 planeeritava tuulepargi 10 km pikkuse mõjupiirkonna
Eesti osas registreeritud 7927 linnuhoiatust.
10 km ulatuses, mis hõlmab Eesti Vabariigi territooriumi, hinnati kavandatava tuulepargi eeldatavat
mõju rändveelindudele: kraanale, luigele ja hanelinnustikule. Neile liikidele on iseloomulikud
regulaarsed lennud toitumis- ja pesitsuspaikade vahel, mistõttu on soovitatav vältida tihedate WPP-
rühmade paigaldamist nende lendude marsruutide äärde. Kavandatava WPP-farmi soovitatav
konfiguratsioon väldib tihedaid WPP-rühmi kraana-, luige- ja hanelinnustiku liikide kohalikel
lennuteedel. Nende liikide isendite kontsentratsioone täheldati avatud maastikel kavandatava
tuulepargi põhjaosa lähedal, kuid nende kohalikud lennuteed ei ristu kavandatava WPP-pargi
territooriumiga. Piiriülest mõju Eesti Vabariigi territooriumil asuvatele kurgede/vareste/hane liikide
rühmale peetakse väheoluliseks. Tõenäoliselt ei avalda WPP ehitamine üldse otsest mõju.
Partide, rannikulindude, varblaste, kurgede, päevaste ja öiste röövlindude ning muude rändel olevate
liikide ränne toimub Läti territooriumil sügisel enamasti edela suunas ja kevadel kirdesuunas, järgides
nn Ida-Atlandi lennuteed35, täpsemalt selle Valge mere ja Läänemere vahelist haru.
Väljaspool looduslikest maismaa takistustest põhjustatud rändlinnuvoogude kitsaskohti lendavad
linnud laia rindejoone ulatuses, kasutades ühtlaselt kogu maa-ala. Kavandatav WPP-farm asub Läti
loodepiiril. Seega mõjutab tuulepark kevadel minimaalselt Lätis pesitsevaid rändlinde; suuremat mõju
avaldab see aga lindudele, kes rändavad läbi Läti Eesti Vabariiki ja sellest loode pool asuvatele aladele.
35
BirdLife International 2010, Busse 2001, Busse et. al. 2014
44
Mõned liigid, eriti need, mis on visuaalselt tundlikud tuulepargi tekitatud "barjääriefekti" suhtes,
väldivad seda, teised ei pane seda tähele või ei näe seda öösel. Planeeritava WPP-farmi kuju on
venitatud loode-läänesuunas, mis vastab lindude rände põhisuunale Lätis. Lindude rände lennuteede
seisukohalt on WPP-d suures osas paigutatud üksteise järele ja ei moodusta rände marsruudiga risti
asetsevat laia takistust, mis seda blokeeriks.
Sügisel on oodata sarnast pilti: kavandatav tuulepark SW-suunal kohtub rändlindudega Läti piiril, see
mõjutab Eesti Vabariigi põhja- kirdesuunal rändavate linnuliikide populatsioone, minimaalne mõju Läti
territooriumil pesitsevate rändlindude populatsioonidele.
Linnueksperdi arvates on kavandatava WPP kaudu Eestisse ja kaugemale rändavatest linnuliikidest
kõige enam ohustatud need, mis rändavad öösel, ning väikesed ja keskmise suurusega liigid. Tänu
paljutõotavatele tulemustele WPP väljalülitamise kaamerasüsteemidega on oht kõige kriitilisemale
liigirühmale (suured lendavad linnud) oluliselt vähenenud. Asjaolu, et need linnud võivad tuulepargi
"barjääriefekti" tõttu oma rändeteed veidi muuta, ei peeta oluliseks negatiivseks teguriks. Kõige
olulisem on aga see, et kokkupõrkeoht on selle liigirühma puhul oluliselt vähenenud, mistõttu ei ole
oodata olulist negatiivset mõju Eesti Vabariigis ja sellest põhja-kirde pool asuvatel aladel pesitsevatele
suurtele rändlinnuliikidele. Must-toonekure kõige tõenäolisemate toitumispaikade ümber on säilinud
vähemalt 1 km laiune WPP-taimestiketa vöönd, mis vähendab veelgi ohtu rändavatele must-
toonekurgedele.
Võttes arvesse kirjanduses esitatud kaalutlusi tuuleparkide mõju kohta rändlinnuliikidele ja rõhutades
eelkõige asjaolu, et kavandatav WPP-park asub väljaspool kontsentratsiooni, lindude rändevoogude
kitsaskohti, eeldab ekspert, et ühegi kavandatava tuulepargi piirkonda läbiva rändlinnuliigi
populatsioonile ei avalda tuulepark märkimisväärset negatiivset mõju.
5.3. Eesti Vabariigi Kliimaministeeriumi ülevaade piiriülese mõju aspektidest
Ülevaade Eesti Vabariigi Kliimaministeeriumi poolt esitatud piiriüleste mõjude aspektidest ja nende
arvestamisest Valmiera-Valka EIA keskkonnamõju hindamise koostamisel on esitatud tabelis 5 (KMH
aruande tabel 9.1).
5. tabel. (KMH aruande tabel 9.1) Eesti Vabariigi Kliimaministeeriumi ülevaade piiriüleste
mõjude aspektide kohta
Nr Eesti Vabariigi Esitanud Märkused
Kliimaministeeriumi piiriülese
mõju aspektid, mida tuleb
arvestada keskkonnamõju
hindamise väljatöötamisel
1. Eestis on kavas arendada WPP- Regionaal- ja Maastiku hindamisel võeti arvesse
farmi. Tuleb hinnata põllumajandusministeerium teavet Eestis kavandatavate WPP-
tuuleparkide kumulatiivset farmide kohta. Piiriülest
visuaalset mõju. kumulatiivset visuaalset mõju
peetakse ebaoluliseks.
Arvesse tuleb võtta Eestis
kavandatavate WPP-farmidega
seotud planeeringudokumente.
2. Kavandatav tegevus võib Eesti Vabariigi Majandus- ja Suurtel imetajatel on kõrge
mõjutada: Kommunikatsiooniministeer intelligentsus ja hea liikumisvõime.
ium . Puuduvad teaduslikud uuringud
- ulukite liikumist,
nende reaktsioonide ja harjumuse
45
Nr Eesti Vabariigi Esitanud Märkused
Kliimaministeeriumi piiriülese
mõju aspektid, mida tuleb
arvestada keskkonnamõju
hindamise väljatöötamisel
- mürasaastet, määra kohta WPP-farmides.
Uuringutes, mis käsitlevad WPP-
- kohalikke elanikke,
farmide mõju maismaa
- elektrivõrgu stabiilsusr. metsloomadele ja koduloomadele,
jõutakse järeldusele, et nende
liikide uuringute tulemusi ei tohi
ekstrapoleerida ühelt piirkonnalt
teisele. Seetõttu on soovitatav
korraldada imetajate seire enne
WPP ehitamist ja sellega seotud
ehitustööde ajal.
Ekspert soovitab, et kontrollivad
riigiasutused peaksid nõudma, et
Põhja-Läti-Eesti piiriäärsete
tuuleparkide arendajad (KMH
aruande joonis 3.2.5) algataksid
koostöös kontrollivate riigiasutuste
ja teadusasutustega ühiselt
looduslike imetajate
spetsialiseeritud seire.
WPP kaudne ja kumulatiivne mõju
metsloomadele on eeldatavasti
ligikaudu 10 km kaugusel uuritud
kavandatavast tegevuskohast.
Keskkonnamõju hindamise osana
saadi imetajate eksperdiaruanne,
milles hinnatakse WPP mõju
maismaa- ja muudele kui
lendavatele imetajatele (aruanne
on lisatud 6. lisana).
Müra hindamine on esitatud
peatükis 7.2. Piiriülest mõju ei
tuvastatud.
Mõju Eesti Vabariigi kohalikele
elanikele ei eeldata.
Eesti Vabariigi elektrivõrgu
stabiilsust see eeldatavasti ei
mõjuta.
3. WPP-farm asub 1,5 km kaugusel Eesti Keskkonnaagentuur Hinnang mõju kohta Natura 2000
linnustiku jaoks olulisest Koiva- aladele ja lindudele Eesti Vabariigis
Mustjõe Natura 2000 alast . on esitatud 9. peatükis.
Samuti on see ala määratud
46
Nr Eesti Vabariigi Esitanud Märkused
Kliimaministeeriumi piiriülese
mõju aspektid, mida tuleb
arvestada keskkonnamõju
hindamise väljatöötamisel
maastikukaitsealaks. Piirkonnas Jagu 7.6.4. sisaldab hinnangut
on võimalik ka musta toonekure nahkhiirte kohta.
pesitsemine. Tähelepanu tuleb
pöörata ka hanede rändele ja Koiva jõe orgu ei läbita
metsiste paarituspaikadele. kavandatava tegevuse soovitatud
variantide (A või B) raames.
Piirkonnas leidub ka nahkhiiri,
mõju nahkhiireliikidele tuleb Rohekoridoride järjepidevust
samuti hinnata. piiriüleses kontekstis ei mõjutata:
WPP ehitamist ei kavandata Koiva
Tähelepanu tuleb pöörata ka jõe orus, mis on oluline koridor
rohekoridoride järjepidevusele, ulukite, sealhulgas suurte
sest Koiva jõgi on oluline kiskjaliste liikumiseks.
koridor ulukite liikumiseks.
Sealhulgas suured kiskjate. Keskkonnamõju hindamise osana
saadi imetajate eksperdiaruanne,
Arvestades, et kavandatakse milles hinnatakse WPP mõju
märkimisväärseid maismaa- ja muudele kui
kuivendustöid, tuleb hinnata lendavatele imetajatele (aruanne
nende tööde mõju Koiva vee on lisatud 6. lisana).
kvaliteedile ja
kalapopulatsioonile. Koiva veekvaliteeti ja
kalapopulatsioone see ei mõjuta.
Tuleb hinnata kumulatiivset
mõju ning vajaduse korral Kavandatud on keskkonnamõju
kavandada leevendusmeetmed leevendamise meetmed ja
ja seire. järelevalve.
Kui selgub, et mõju ületab
algselt kavandatut, tuleb
Keskkonnamõju Eestis ei ületa
täiendavalt hinnata mõju Eesti
eeldatavasti 9. peatükis kirjeldatud
keskkonnale.
mõju.
20 km raadiuses on mitu
kaitseala: Karula rahvuspark,
Karula linnukaitseala ja Karula
Looduseksperdid ei oota mingit
loodusala.
mõju Karula rahvuspargile, Karula
linnukaitsealale ja Karula
loodusalale.
4. On täheldatud, et WPP poolt Eesti Terviseamet Vastavalt kabinetimääruste
tekitatud müra on häirivam kui nõuetele on hinnatud madalaimad
samale tasemele vastav müra künnisväärtused 45 dB öösel,
maantee- ja lennujaamamüra. 50 dB õhtul ja 55 dB päeval.
Vastavalt Eesti mürataseme Müra hindamine on esitatud
piirangutele on soovitav, et peatükis 7.2. Piiriülest mõju ei
müra ei ületaks päeval (7:00- tuvastatud.
23:00) 50 dB ja öösel (23:00-
7:00) 40 dB ning neid väärtusi ei
47
Nr Eesti Vabariigi Esitanud Märkused
Kliimaministeeriumi piiriülese
mõju aspektid, mida tuleb
arvestada keskkonnamõju
hindamise väljatöötamisel
tohi ületada asustatud
piirkondades.
5. Märgitakse, et kaardile on Eesti Looduse Fond Kaarte ajakohastati vastavalt
märgitud Koiva-Mustjõgi N2000 https://natura2000.eea.europa.eu/
ala, kuid suurem osa sellest on
ka Koiva-Mustjõgi rohumaade
loodusalal.
6. Hinnata tuleb ka mõju N2000 Valga vald Mõju N2000-le on hinnatud.
aladele.
Valga WPP-farmi kohta saadi
Tuleb tagada Koiva jõe teavet ja seda võeti arvesse
rändekoridori järjepidevus. keskkonnamõju hindamisel.
Seda tuleb hinnata
keskkonnamõju hindamise Koiva jõe orgu ei läbita
käigus. Samal ajal teatab Eesti, kavandatava tegevuse soovitatud
variantide (A või B) raames.
et Valka linnast umbes 4 km ja
kavandatavast WPP-farmist 9
km kaugusel on kavas rajada
veel üks WPP-farm. Eesti
teavitab Lätit sellest teise
kirjaga.
7. Piiriülene hindamine peab Kliimaministeerium Mõju Natura 2000-le on hinnatud.
hõlmama kaitsealasid
kavandatava tegevuse ümber 3 km, 10 km ja 20 km mõjutsoonid
10 km pikkuse kaitsevööndi joonistati algselt uuritavate ja
piires. uuritavate alade piiridena; neid
vööndeid ajakohastati
Tuleb hinnata mõju Koiva- keskkonnamõju hindamise
Mustjõgi ja Aheru N2000 protsessi käigus vastavalt
aladele. hinnatavale alale.
Samal ajal selgitage lisatud
kaardil näidatud 3 km, 10 km ja
20 km mõjutsoonide tähendust.
48
6. Sotsiaalmajanduslik kasu (keskkonnamõju hindamise aruande
14. peatükk)
Kavandatava elektrijaama ehitamisel ja käitamisel võib olla nii positiivne kui ka negatiivne
sotsiaalmajanduslik mõju kavandatava tegevuse asukohas ja riiklikus kontekstis. Positiivne mõju
hõlmab investeeringuid majandusse, otseselt ja kaudselt seotud töökohtade loomist, rahalist kasu
maa rentimisest kinnisvaraomanikele, kelle maale elektrijaam ehitatakse, suuremat energiavarustust
turul, süsinikdioksiidi heitkoguste vähenemist, panust riikliku energiapoliitika eesmärkide
saavutamisse. See võib avaldada negatiivset mõju turismi ja vaba aja veetmise ressurssidele ning
mõnede elanike kinnisvara väärtusele. Kuna Lätis ei ole WPP sotsiaalmajanduslikku mõju laialdaselt
uuritud, põhineb käesolevas aruandes esitatud teave suures osas teistes riikides läbi viidud uuringute
tulemustel.
Investeeringute suurendamine on oluline tegur, mis mõjutab majanduse arengut, ja WPP ehitamist
tuleb hinnata samamoodi nagu iga muud investeeringut, mis aitab kaasa majanduskasvule
investeeringute ligimeelitamise seisukohast. Eeldatakse, et mitmekümnekonna WPP ehitamise
kogumaksumus (täpne arv ei ole enne ja pärast käesoleva keskkonnamõju hindamise lõpetamist
teada) võib olla kümnete miljonite eurode suurusjärgus, mis on märkimisväärne investeerimisprojekt.
Seoses tööhõivega on WPP ehitusettepanek seotud töökohtade loomisega nii ehitamise kui ka
käitamise ajal. Nõudlus täiendava tööjõu järele on seotud nii hüdroelektrijaamade ehitamise ja
käitamisega kui ka kaudselt sellega seotud tegevustega, nagu maavarade kaevandamine teede
ehitamiseks, tsemendi ja betooni tootmine ning transport.
Kvalitatiivse sotsiaalmajandusliku kahju osas on negatiivne mõju elektrijaama arenduspiirkondade
läheduses asuvatele kinnistutele tõenäoliselt keskmise pikkusega (kolm kuni viis aastat pärast
elektrijaama käivitamist) ja pikas perspektiivis ei ole see märkimisväärne.
Samal ajal näitab kõigi variantide kvantitatiivse sotsiaalmajandusliku kasu ja kahjude hindamine, et
kogu nüüdispuhasväärtus on märkimisväärne ja sisemine tasuvusmäär ületab tunduvalt arvutustes
kasutatud sotsiaalmajandusliku diskontomäära 5%, mis tähendab, et pikaajaline sotsiaalmajanduslik
kasu tasakaalustab lühiajalisi kahjusid, sealhulgas projekti negatiivset lühiajalist mõju.
Kasvuhoonegaaside heitkogused. WPP arendamise sotsiaalmajandusliku tasuvuse osas näitavad
mõlemad variandid positiivseid tulemusi: Variandi B nüüdispuhasväärtus on 1,5 korda suurem kui
variandi A puhul, samas kui sisemine tasuvusmäär on variandi A puhul veidi kõrgem (vt lisa 11).
49
7. Kavandatud variantide võrdlus ja valitud variandi põhjendus
Kavandatava tegevuse keskkonnamõju hindamise raames hinnati hüdroelektrijaama asukoha
alternatiive ja kaaluti tehnoloogilisi alternatiive, kusjuures hüdroelektrijaama jaoks pakuti välja kolm
erinevat kõrgusvarianti.
Kõik hinnatud variandid, kui neid rakendatakse, saavutaksid kavandatava tegevuse eesmärgi: uute
elektrijaamade rajamine, mille projekteeritud võimsus on 8 MW.
Kokkuvõte kõigist 84-st keskkonnamõju hindamisel arvesse võetud WPP alast, võttes arvesse
linnustiku ekspertiisi, liikide ja elupaikade ekspertiisi, maastikuekspertiisi, nahkhiirte ekspertiisi ja
hüdroloogi hinnangut ning füüsilise mõju hindamist, on esitatud keskkonnamõju hindamise aruande
tabelis 8.1. Ebasoovitavaid mõjusid tuvastati kõigi WPP-de puhul, mida tuleb vältida või leevendada,
võttes arvesse WPP-de projektdokumentatsioonis esitatud tingimusi või piiranguid ehitus- või
kasutusetapis (soovitatud WPP-de tingimused ja piirangud on esitatud keskkonnamõju hindamise
aruande 12. lisas).
Kavandatava tegevuse asukoha praeguse olukorra ja rakendatava variandi eeldatava olukorra
hindamiseks kasutatud mõjud on järgmised: liigid ja elupaigad, nahkhiired, linnud, selgrootud,
imetajad, maastik, kultuurilugu, turism ja puhkamine, Natura 2000, müra, madalad sagedused,
värelus, õhk, hüdroloogia, keskkonnariskid ja hädaolukorrad, vibratsioon, kliima,
telekommunikatsioonisüsteemid.
Arengustsenaariumide mõjudele anti kvalifitseeriv kvantitatiivne kirjeldus, mis on kokkuvõtlikult
esitatud keskkonnamõju hindamise aruande tabelis 8.3.
Üldiselt ei ilmne keskkonnamõju hindamise aruande tabelis 8.4 esitatud WPP asukoha ja kõrguse
variantide võrdlusest ja analüüsist ühtegi asjaolu, mis takistaks kavandatud tuulepargi rakendamist
asukohas A või B või tehnilist alternatiivi. Kõigi alternatiivide asukoht ja tehniline rakendamine on
võimalik.
50
8. Kavandatava tegevuse keskkonnaseire täiendavad tingimused
Osana keskkonnamõju hindamisest hinnati kavandatava WPP võimalikku mõju. Mõju nagu WPP poolt
loodud
Osana keskkonnamõju hindamisest hinnati kavandatava WPP võimalikku mõju. Mõju, nagu WPP
tekitatud värelus, mürasaaste ja ohutusriskid, mõju elupaikadele ja kaitstavatele taimeliikidele ning
ala hüdroloogilistele tingimustele, saab kavandatava tegevuse ulatust hinnates ja arvutusmeetodeid
kasutades prognoosida suure täpsusega. Kohapealse kontrolli käigus hinnati WPP mõju metslindude
ja nahkhiirte populatsioonidele, määrates kindlaks mõju olulisuse Arvestades teaduslike uuringute
tulemuste ebakindlust, on praktiliselt võimatu hinnata kavandatava WPP täpseid mõjusid linnustiku ja
nahkhiirte üksikutele populatsioonidele; seega tuleb kavandatava WPP mõju nendele
loomarühmadele täiendavalt hinnata seire abil ja vajaduse korral rakendada täiendavaid, käesolevas
aruandes täpsustamata leevendusmeetmeid.
Lindude seire
Selleks, et hinnata kavandatava tuulepargi jaoks soovitatud leevendusmeetmete tõhusust ja
võimaldada vajadusel nende kohandamist, soovitab linnuekspert jälgida pesitsevaid linde enne
tuulepargi käitamist ja ehitamist ning tuulepargi käitamise ajal.
Ehituseelse järelevalve tulemusenatuleb valida üks kahest stsenaariumist VV1, VV82/VV42 ja VV36:
ekspert soovitab jätta kõrvale VV1 ja VV82, välja arvatud juhul, kui on olemas tehnoloogilised
põhjused, mis räägivad VV42 ja VV36 kõrvalejätmise kasuks.
Paigaldada WPP väljalülitamiskaamerad ehitamiseelse järelevalve tulemuste põhjal, võttes arvesse
praeguseid ettepanekuid:
(1) Lülitada WPP välja 1. aprillist kuni 1. oktoobrini kuni üks tund enne ja pärast kohalikku
päikesetõusu ja -loojangut lendavate lindude kaitseks, kui seda ei ole võimalik saavutada
kaameraga, mis tuleb kindlaks teha ehitusele eelneva seire käigus,
(2) WPP tuleb lülitada välja rändlindude kaitseks (15. veebruarist kuni 15. maini ja 1. septembrist
kuni 15. novembrini), kui seda ei ole võimalik saavutada kaameraga, mis määratakse kindlaks
ehitusele eelneva seire käigus,
(3) kui ehitusele eelnev seire kinnitab väreluse mõju metsise paarituspaikadele, tuleb turbiinide
tööd kohandada 1. aprillist kuni 15. maini ajavahemikus päikesetõusu ja 4 tundi pärast
päikesetõusu, et mõju kõrvaldada;
(4) VV20, 21, 24, 26, 28, 30, 31, 32, 33, 81, 88 puhul: kui ehitamiseelse perioodi jooksul leitakse
must-toonekure pesa, tuleb WPP ehitamise lahendused kooskõlastada sertifitseeritud
eksperdiga ja NCA-ga;
(5) Rakendada kakkude kaitsemeetmed (mürapiirangud), valida võimalikult vaikne WPP mudel ja
lahendus, mida ajakohastatakse ehitusele eelneva seire käigus.
Soovitatav on viia läbi kokkupõrgetes hukkunud lindude jäänuste otsingud WPP piirkonnas pärast WPP
tegevuse algust.
Pesitsevate lindude seire aluseks tuleb võtta "Tuuleelektrijaama pargi uurimise ja ekspertiisiaruande
koostamise metoodika", mida kasutati ala esialgses uuringus.36
Oluline on teostada Natura 2000 seire linnuliikide üle kahel Natura 2000 alal, mis asuvad kõnealuse
ala kõrval, et võimaldada kavandatava tuulepargi võimaliku mõju kvaliteetset hindamist.
Muud uuringud tuleb läbi viia vastavalt metoodikale. Saadud andmed on vastastikku võrreldavad,
sealhulgas need, mis saadi ala esialgse uuringu käigus. Uuringute käigus tuleb regulaarselt kindlaks
36
Ūlands, D. , Millers, K. 2022. Tuuleelektrijaama pargi uurimise metoodika ja ekspertiisiaruande koostamine.
51
teha valdkonnad, mis vajavad rohkem tähelepanu. Uute ornitoloogiliste varade leidmisel tuleb hinnata
võimalikke muudatusi tuulepargi ehituses ja vajaduse korral selle töös.
Võrktiibulindude seire peab toimuma igal aastal kuni kavandatud tuulepargi tegevuse alguseni ja selle
esimese viie aasta jooksul. Seejärel 7., 9. ja 11. tegevusaastal ning seejärel iga kolmas aasta.
Soovitatav on korraldada kokkupõrgetes hukkunud lindude jäänuste otsimine Leedu kolleegide poolt
kasutatud metoodika alusel.37
Arvestades, et teaduslikud uuringud38,39,40,41 ,,, WPP müra mõju kohta händkakk(Strix uralensis) on
vastuolulised, paljudes riikides (Soome, Poola jne) ei ole müra mõju suhtes piiranguid kehtestatud ja
heakskiidetud kakkude kaitsekavas on sätestatud, et "...müra saastetase peab olema alla 35 dB
sagedusvahemikus 0,1-20 kHz kõikjal mikroreservaadis (sealhulgas selle piiril)", tuleb ehitusele
eelneva tegevuse raames teostada selle liigi seiret, et hinnata WPP poolt põhjustatud võimalikku müra
häirimist. See hõlmab lindude käitumise uurimist ja WPP toimimise kohandamist vaadeldud andmete
põhjal.
Nahkhiirte seire
Nahkhiirte seire metoodika hõlmab järgmist:
1) akustiline seire ultraheliandurite abil,
2) valitud WPP alt leitud surnud nahkhiirte registreerimine.
Akustiline seire, soovitused: seire teostamiseks paigaldatakse 15 elektrijaama masina kambritesse
automaatsed ultraheliandurid, et registreerida nahkhiirte aktiivsust vähemalt 1. maist kuni 30.
septembrini. Automaatsete detektorite puhul tuleb püüda, et need kataksid kogu tuulepargi ala
võimalikult ühtlaselt. Lisaks akustilisele seirele tuleb ette valmistada ja läbi viia surnud nahkhiirte seire,
valides surnud nahkhiirte registreerimiseks samad WPP-d, kus toimub ka akustiline seire ja/või WPP-
d, mille puhul tekib tööde käigus kahtlus, et need võivad põhjustada nahkhiirte suurenenud suremust.
Tuumaelektrijaama projekteerimisel võib sertifitseeritud nahkhiirte eksperdiga konsulteerides
kasutada ka muid lahendusi nahkhiirte mõju leevendamiseks, näiteks ultrahelianduritega varustatud
arukaid seiresüsteeme ja tehisintellekti tehnoloogiaid, mis tuvastavad nahkhiirte kohaloleku reaalajas
enne turbiinide seiskamist.
Surnud nahkhiirte otsimise hõlbustamiseks tuleb võimaluse korral rajada WPP aluse ümber
taimestikust vaba maapind või niita regulaarselt muru seireperioodi jooksul vähemalt 50 m raadiuses.
Metsades ei ole sellise tsooni loomiseks vaja teha erilisi raietöid.
37
Morkūnas J. 2023. Best Practices for Bird Monitoring in Wind Farm Development in Lithuania: Guidelines.
38
Pijanowski, B.C., et al. (2011) - Soundscape ecology: The science of sound in the landscape. BioScience,
61(3), 203-216. https://doi.org/10.1525/bio.2011.61.3.6.
39
Rheindt, F.E. (2003) - The impact of roads on birds: Does song frequency play a role in determining
susceptibility to noise pollution? Journal of Applied Ecology, 40(5), 744-753. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-
2664.2003.00856.x.
40
Deichmann, J. L., et al. (2017) - Sensitivity of tropical bats to anthropogenic noise. Biological Conservation,
207, 9-15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2017.05.012.
41
4.Foote, A. D., et al. (2004) - Noise pollution and marine mammal populations: Conservation biology
implications for large cetaceans. Conservation Biology, 18(2), 373-375.https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-
1739.2004.00573.x.
52