Keskkonnamõju hindamine

Vastavalt nimekirjale 16.12.2024 nr 6-3/24/5771-2 Läti „Limbaži" tuulepargi projekti piiriülene keskkonnamõju hindamine Läti on piiriülese keskkonnamõju konventsiooni (Espoo konventsiooni) alusel teavitanud Eestit „Limbaži“ tuulepargi projekti keskkonnamõju hindamise (edaspidi KMH) aruande valmimisest1. Arendaja SIA Latvijas vēja parki kavandab rajada kuni 20 tuulikuga tuulepargi, mille asukohaks on Salacgrīva ja Viļķene vallad Limbaži haldusüksuses. Ühe tuuliku planeeritav maksimaalne võimsus on 8 MW ning maksimaalne kõrgus 300 m. Tuulepargi planeeritav kogupindala on 1894 ha. Lähim kavandatav tuulik jääb Eesti piirist ligikaudu 13,2 km kaugusele. Kirjale on lisatud „Limbaži“ tuulepargi projekti KMH aruande eesti- ja ingliskeelsed kokkuvõtted ning ingliskeelne KMH aruanne. Arvestades Läti määratud vastamistähtaega, ootame hiljemalt 17.01.2025 ettepanekuid „Limbaži“ 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 ingliskeelsete kokkuvõtetega Lilli Tamm, 6269133 [email protected] 1 Kliimaministeerium on Teid „Limbaži“ tuulepargi projektist ja Läti saadetud teatest eelnevalt teavitanud 19.10.2023 kirjaga nr 6-3/23/4774-2. Eesti avaldas soovi antud menetluses osaleda 23.11.2023 kirjaga nr 6-3/23/4774-7. Suur-Ameerika 1 / Tallinn 10122 / 626 2802/ [email protected] / www.kliimaministeerium.ee/ Registrikood 70001231  Limbaži tuulepargi ja sellega seotud infrastruktuuriprojekti keskkonnamõju hindamise kokkuvõte Limbaži vallas KOKKUVÕTE 28. 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) ..................................................................................................................................................... 11 3.1. Hüdrogeoloogilised, hüdroloogilised ja geotehnilised tingimused ning geoloogiline struktuur . 11 3.2. Loodusvarad............................................................................................................................... 13 3.3. Maastiku ja kultuurilooline hindamine ....................................................................................... 18 3.4. Mürataseme hindamine............................................................................................................. 20 3.5. WPP piirkonna õhukvaliteedi hindamine.................................................................................... 21 4. Kavandatava tegevuse ja selle võimalike variantide oluline keskkonnamõju (KMH aruande 7. peatükk) 22 4.1. Raadatavad alad ........................................................................................................................ 22 4.2. Müra- ja vibratsioonitase ........................................................................................................... 23 4.3. Värin .......................................................................................................................................... 25 4.4. Mõju õhu kvaliteedile ................................................................................................................. 25 4.5. Mõju loodusvaradele ................................................................................................................. 26 4.6. Mõju maastikule ja kultuuripärandile ........................................................................................ 34 4.7. Mõju Natura 2000 aladele WPP pargi lähedal ........................................................................... 36 5. Piiriülene hindamine (keskkonnamõju hindamise aruande 9. Peatükk) ................................................ 38 6. Sotsiaal-majanduslik kasu (keskkonnamõju hindamise aruande 14. Peatükk) ................................... 39 7. Kavandatud variantide võrdlus ja valitud variandi põhjendus (keskkonnamõju hindamise aruande 8. peatükk) ..................................................................................................................................................... 40 8. Kavandatava tegevuse keskkonnaseire täiendavad tingimused (keskkonnamõju hindamise aruande 12. Peatükk) ............................................................................................................................................... 42 2 Sissejuhatus Käesolev keskkonnamõju hindamine (edaspidi „KMH“) on koostatud kavandatava tegevuse kohta: Limbaži tuuleelektrijaama (edaspidi „WPP“) ja sellega seotud infrastruktuuri projekti ehitamine Salacgrīva ja Viļķene valdades, Limbaži omavalitsuses, mille algatas SIA „Latvijas vēja parki“, registreerimisnumber 40203415150, registrijärgne aadress: Pulkveža Brieža iela 12, Riia, LV-1010 (AS Latvenergo on selle 100%-line aktsionär). Keskkonnamõju hindamise raames uuriti kokku 37 WPP-ala. Käesolevas keskkonnamõju hindamise aruandes on esitatud selgitus kõikide WPP asukohtade analüüsi kohta, millega määratakse kindlaks selle WPP-farmi rajamise teostatavus. Riigi Keskkonnajärelevalveamet (edaspidi "SEMB") võttis 15. augustil 2023 vastu otsuse nr 5-03/7/2023 keskkonnamõju hindamise menetluse kasutamise kohta SIA "Latvijas vēja parki" kavandatava tegevuse osas. KMH programm nr 5-03/7/2023 (koos muudatustega nr 5-02-1/3/2024, 10. jaanuar 2024 ja nr 5- 02-1/61/202, 20.november 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 ja nende hindamisi. 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) WPP-farmi osana on kavas ehitada kuni 20 WPP-d kavandatavas tegevuse kohas, millest igaühe projekteeritud võimsus on kuni 8 MW. WPP-farmi ehitamiseks tehtava uuringu kogupindala on 1894 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. Ozols'i loodusandmete haldamise süsteemi („NDMS“) andmete kohaselt ei toimu kavandatav tegevus Natura 2000 aladel ega mikroreservaatides. Lähim NATURA 2000 ala on „Vitrupes ieleja“ looduskaitseala, mis asub 0,8 km kaugusel maaüksuste piirist ja lähimast WPP-st 0,9 km kaugusel. „Salaca ieleja“ looduspark asub maaüksuste piirist 1,6 km kaugusel, kaugus lähimast WPP-st on 1,8 km. Kavandatav tegevus asub Põhja-Vidzeme biosfääri kaitsealal (selle neutraalses vööndis) (osa uuritud alast asub ka maastikukaitsevööndis, kuid sinna ei ole kavas rajada WPP-d). Täpsem teave piirkonna loodusvarade kohta on esitatud keskkonnamõju hindamise aruande punktis 6.4. Kavandatavas tegevuskohas on hästi arenenud maanteede infrastruktuur, kus on piirkondlikud teed P12, kohalikud teed V143, V142 ja V138, ulatuslik AS „Latvijas valsts meži“ teedevõrk ja läheduses riigi põhimaantee A1. 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 42 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. Järgnevalt on esitatud Limbaži vallas üksikasjalikult hinnatud 37 WPP uuringuala asukohad (joonis 1. (keskkonnamõju hindamise aruande joonis 1.1). 1 Https://www.lvmgeo.lv/dati 2 https://www.lvm.lv/biznesa-partneriem/zemes-pirksana-un-noma/veja-parki 4  Joonis 1. (KMH aruande joonis 1.1) LVM WPP Limbaži tuulepargi uuritud alad ja 37 hinnatud WPP asukohad Limbaži vallas Kavandatava Limbaži WPP tuulepargi 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: 5  • 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; • 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; • 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); • 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); • 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 6.5.3.; • 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); • 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); • 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 üldistest strateegilistest eesmärkidest, mis on seatud ministrite kabineti poolt SIA „Latvijas vēja parki“ loomise raames 2022. aastal, ning Limbaži piirkonna valik põhineb arenduslepingu sõlmimise võimalusel, ülekandeliini lähedusel ja muudel eespool loetletud teguritel. Kuna Eesti territoorium asub 13,2 km kaugusel lähimast hindamisse kaasatud WPP-st, kirjeldatakse selle mõju seda territooriumi mõjutavate aspektide osas: 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 3.2.4). Tuuleparkide kumulatiivse keskkonnamõju hindamine põhineb nende tuuleparkide kohta avalikult kättesaadaval teabel. Lähim tuulepark on Aloja, mis asub kavandatavast tegevuskohast umbes 25 km kaugusel. Riikliku keskkonnajärelevalveameti veebilehel oleva teabe kohaselt tehti otsus Aloja tuulepargi keskkonnamõju hindamise vajalikkuse kohta 28. augustil 6 2023. aastal ning keskkonnamõju hindamise programm väljastati 14. septembril 2023. aastal. Tuuleparki on kavas paigaldada kuni 31 uusima põlvkonna WPP-d. Eeldatavasti ei avalda kaks tuuleparki kumulatiivset keskkonnamõju keskkonnale. Ülejäänud tuulepargid Põhja-Lätis ja Lõuna-Eestis asuvad enam kui 50 km kaugusel, kus kumulatiivset keskkonnamõju ei ole oodata. Lähim tuulepark Eestis asub Valga vallas, mis asub kavandatavast tegevuskohast umbes 70 km kaugusel. Joonis 2. (keskkonnamõju hindamise aruande joonis 3.2.4 ) Kavandatava tegevuse asukoht võrreldes teiste lähiümbruses asuvate tuuleparkidega 7  2. WPP-farmi asukoht ja WPP asukoha alternatiivid (keskkonnamõju hindamise aruande 4. peatükk) 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 150 m ulatuses nende ümber, võimalikud juurdepääsuteed ja kuni 150 m ulatuses nende ääres, samuti võimalikud elektrikaabelliinid nende ääres; − uuritud linnustiku ala hõlmab 3 km pikkust vööndit kõigi hinnatud WPP-de ümber; − maastiku hindamise uuringuala on 10 km pikkune vöönd ümber tuulepargi maksimaalse välispiiri (alates kõige välimisest WPP-st); − müra ja värinat on hinnatud niivõrd, kuivõrd kavandatava tegevuse võimalik mõju ulatus. Joonis 3. (KMH raport Joonis 4.1.2)Kontrollitud ja uuritud alade piirid seoses AS LVMi uuringualade maa-aladega ja 37 hinnatud WPP-d 8 KMH aruandes hinnatud kavandatava tegevuse asukoha alternatiivid Pärast keskkonnamõju hindamise programmi saamist hinnati 37 potentsiaalset WPP-ala, võttes arvesse nende keskkonnamõju. Hinnatud tegevuste puhul jõuti järeldusele, et kavandatava tegevuse elluviimise tulemusena on oodata olulisi negatiivseid muutusi seoses 17 WPP ehitamisega, millel on mõju linnuliikidele, elupaikadele või maastikule (vt vastavad lõigud keskkonnamõju hindamise aruande 7. peatükis „Kavandatava tegevuse ja selle võimalike variantide olulise keskkonnamõju hindamine“ ja kokkuvõte keskkonnamõju hindamise raporti 8. peatükis, tabelid 8.1 ja 8.4.). Võttes arvesse ornitoloogi, liigi- ja elupaigaeksperdi, nahkhiirte eksperdi ja hüdroloogi soovitusi WPP asukoha ja töötingimuste kohta, jõuti 2024. aasta juunis järeldusele, et rajada võib kuni 22 WPP-d. SIA „Enviroprojekts“ soovitab koos sertifitseeritud loodusekspertidega loobuda osast algselt kavandatud WPP-st, et leevendada mõju mitte ainult kavandatava tegevuse asukohas esinevatele liikidele (sh taimed, linnud ja nahkhiired), vaid ka mõju maastikule kultuuriloolise vaatamisväärsuse asukohast vaadatuna (vt keskkonnamõju hindamise aruande 7. peatükk). Lõplike variantide hindamisel võeti arvesse ka Euroopa Liidu Väljaannete Talituse metoodilisi juhiseid seoses loodusdirektiivi 92/43/EMÜ artikli 6 lõigete 3 ja 4 sätetega, hinnates kahte osa: (1) alade uurimine (et vältida olulist mõju Natura 2000 aladele) ja 2) hindamine (et vältida negatiivset mõju Natura 2000 aladele, nende terviklikkusele ja ühenduvusele).3 Alternatiivide ja WPP lõpliku asukoha hindamine hõlmas ka kumulatiivse mõju hindamist tõendatud ekspertaruannete ja keskkonnamõju hindamise eksperthinnangute põhjal. Pärast 2024. aasta oktoobris saadud ekspertide aruannete täiendusi vaadati läbi rakendatava WPP hindamine ja määrati kolme täiendava WPP puhul kindlaks olulised keskkonnamõjude tegurid, mis mõjutavad loodusvarasid, kui kavandatav tegevus kavandatavas asukohas ellu viiakse: Z6, Z8 ja Z11. WPP Z6 jäeti alles, kuna see viidi ekspertide pakutud asukohta, kus viidi läbi täiendav kontroll. Pärast täiendavat hindamist on eelnevalt määratletud alternatiivsetel asukohtadel 12 WPP variandis A ja 20 WPP variandis B. WPP asukoha variandid (keskkonnamõju hindamise aruande joonis 4.1.7 ning tabelid 4.2.2 ja 4.2.3): Variant A: Vaatlusaluse WPP pargi ala põhjaosas (12 WWP-d); Variant B: WPP ilma piiranguteta kogu uuritaval alal (20 WPP-d). Tabel 1. (Keskkonnamõjude hindamise raporti tabel 4.1.1) Limbaži WPP pargi asukoha uuringu ajakava WPP kohapealse WPP-pargi konfiguratsioon uuringu ajakava Esialgse projekti Uuriti 45 potentsiaalset WPP asukohta. Pärast konsulteerimist sertifitseeritud eeluuringute ekspertide ja riiklike konkurentsikomisjonidega jäeti pärast esimest eelhindamist etapp edasistest kaalutlustest välja 8 WPP-d. 37 WPP-d uuriti üksikasjalikumalt keskkonnamõju hindamise menetluse raames: 15 WPP puhul tuvastati, et neil on märkimisväärne keskkonnamõju ning need jäeti leitud piirangute tõttu üksikasjalikust uuringust välja. (37 – 15 = 22 WPP). võimalikuks ehitamiseks pakuti välja 22 WPP-d. Olukord 2024. 22 valitud WPP-d otsustati rühmitada kahte (A ja B) varianti: Variant A uuritava aasta alguses piirkonna põhjaosas ja variant B nii WPP piirkonna põhja- kui ka lõunaosas* * Põhja- ja lõunaosa on eraldatud, eeldades, et Svētupe jõgi on looduslikuks piiriks: WPP ja Svētupe'ist põhja pool asuv ala on eeldatavasti põhjaosa ja lõuna pool asuv ala lõunaosa. Variant A 14 WPP, uuritava piirkonna N-osas 3 https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/2b6c4b16-e867-42da-b604-f67ee6fe60c3 9  Variant B 22 WPP: 14 WPP uuritud ala N-osas + 8 WPP uuritud ala S-osas. Variantide A ja B, mille puhul kõigi WPPde algselt hinnatud kõrgus oli 300 m, maastiku-alase mõju tõttu vähendati mõnede WPPde kõrgust 250 või 275 m-ni Suvi 2024 kahel erineval viisil, mille tulemuseks olid kohandatud variandid A ja B ning nende lisavariandid A' ja B'. Elupaikade, soontaimede ning sambla- ja samblikuliikide täiendav hindamine ala September 2024 põhjaosas (variant A), samuti uue AST- ja elektriühenduse liini hindamine. Mõju elupaikadele kindlaks tehtud; ekspertide soovitus: lükata tagasi veel 2 Oktoober 2024 WPP-d N-osas (ja liigutada WPP Z6). 37 WPP-d hinnati üksikasjalikult: 17 WPP-e suhtes kohaldati väljaarvamispiiranguid (20 jäi alles). Variant A 12 WPP, piirkonna N-osas Vahepealne Variant B 20: nii N- kui ka S*-osas tulemus * Kriitiliste eelduste täitmise vajadus leiti 8 WPP puhul S-osas, mille kohta saab otsuse teha pärast soontaimede, sambla- ja samblikuliikide täiendavat hindamist ja AST-ühenduse lahenduse väljatöötamist ning täiendavat mageveemõju uuringut Svētupe jõge ületava elektriliini kohta. Variandi A soovitatav ehitus - 12: N Kokku soovitatakse pargi N-osas ehitada 12 WPP-d, kusjuures WPP-de kõrgus on väiksem (võrreldes variandiga A). Keskkonnamõju hindamise aruandes käsitletakse soovitust sellise suurusega WPP-pargi rajamiseks kavandatud tegevuse variandi B hindamise osana, kuna uuritud piirkonna põhja- ja Tulemus lõunaosas on tuvastatud kokku 20 potentsiaalset WPP-ala. 20-st tuvastatud potentsiaalsest WPP-asukohast 8-le S-osas asuvale kohale on seatud kriitilised eeltingimused: tuleb läbi viia täiendav hinnang soontaimede, sammalde ja samblike liikide kohta, töötada välja lahendus AST-ühenduse jaoks ning täiendav mageveemõju uuring Svētupe jõge ületava elektriliini kohta. 10  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). Sageli on põhjaveega seotud liivakihtide paksus vaid mõni meeter. Põhjavesi tagab üksikute elamute veevarustuse ja seda kasutatakse laialdaselt talumajapidamistes (puurkaevud). Põhjavesi asub 0,35 kuni ~10 m sügavusel maapinnast (mida kaugemal merest, seda suurem on sügavus). Põhjavee taset mõjutab sademete hulk. Vee kvaliteeti mõjutab kõige sagedamini inimtegevus. Põhjavesi on peamiselt seotud liivaste ülempleistotseeni Balti jääjärve setetega (lgQ3ltv). Alluviaalsete ladestumistega seotud põhjaveekihid (aQ4ltv) koosnevad peamiselt erineva osakeste suurusega liivadest, mis on jaotunud vooluveekogude (Salaca, Vitrupe jne) orgudes. Küngastevahelistes orgudes ja nõgudes on ka soosetteid (bQ4), mis sisaldavad vett. 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 Gauja 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: Gauja ja Salaca (suure vesikonna kood 53) ja 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 umbes 60 km lõuna pool: Ādaži vallas, Gauja jõe suudmes Riia lahes.4 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 Vastavalt Salacgrīva valla Salacgrīva linna- ja maapiirkonna kasutus- ja arengueeskirjadele ja Limbaži omavalitsuse TUDR-le on kavandatud tegevuse asukoha lähedal kehtestatud järgmised pinnavee kaitsevööndid: − Salaca kaitsevöönd: maapiirkondades — 100 m laiune vöönd mõlemal kaldal, Salacgrīvas - 10 m laiune vöönd mõlemal kaldal ja Vecsalacas — 100 m laiune vöönd mõlemal kaldal; − Vitrupe kaitsevöönd — 100 m laiune vöönd mõlemal kaldal; 4 Üleujutusriski ja üleujutusohu kaardid (lvgmc.lv) 5 https://www.melioracija.lv 11  − Svētupe kaitsevöönd: maapiirkondades - 100 m laiune vöönd mõlemal kaldal, Svētciems - 10 m laiune vöönd mõlemal kaldal; − Korģe kaitsevöönd — 50 m laiune vöönd mõlemal kaldal; − Vedamurga kaitsevöönd — 50 m laiune vöönd mõlemal kaldal; − Unģēnurga kaitsevöönd — 50 m laiune vöönd mõlemal kaldal; Ülejäänud vooluveekogud ja veekogud Salacgrīva linna- ja maapiirkonnas - 10 m laiune vöönd mõlemal kaldal. Kavandatava tegevusega seotud infrastruktuuri (juurdepääsuteed, paigaldusalad, kaablitrassid) ehitamine võib mõjutada Korģe, Vedamurga ja teiste väikeste vooluveekogude ümbruse kaitsevööndeid, kuhu infrastruktuuri paigad rajatakse. Geoloogiline struktuur ja geotehnilised tingimused Kavandatav tegevuskoht asub osaliselt Kesk-Läti madaliku Metsapole tasandikul ja Vidzeme rannikutasandikul. Limbaži WPP farmi ümbritsev ala on suhteliselt tasane. Selle absoluutne kõrgus maatüki piires ja selle vahetus läheduses varieerub 25-40 m üle merepinna. Vidzeme lõunaosa on osa vanast Ida-Euroopa platvormist. Geoloogiline profiil koosneb kahest vanadele platvormidele iseloomulikust elemendist: kristalliline aluspõhjakivi ja settekate. Kristallilise aluskorra kivimi pind on 700-800 m allpool merepinda.6Vastavalt tektoonilisele tsoneeringule7vastab kristalliline aluskorra kivimi Eesti-Läti monokliinile Balti sünkliinis. Salacgrīva tektooniline murrang lõhestab Tūja ja Ainaži vahel põhjakivimit põhjast lõunasse. Kvaternaarsed setted moodustavad peaaegu pideva, ebaühtlase paksusega katte, mis koosneb erineva vanuse, päritolu ja koostisega kihtidest. Setted katavad kvaternaari eelse kivimi erodeeritud pinda. Kvaternaarsete setete paksus on 6-35 m (lääne suunas väheneb). Kuid jõeorgude sisselõikudes võivad kvaternaarsed setted olla kuni 90-100 m paksused. Geotehnilised tingimused ja kaasaegsed eksodünaamilised protsessid Kavandatava tegevuse asukoha geotehnilisi tingimusi hinnatakse WPP ehitusprojekti koostamise käigus läbiviidava geotehnilise uuringu tulemusena. Seega põhineb keskkonnahindamise raporti geotehniliste tingimuste kirjeldus olemasolevatel üldistel geoloogilistel andmetel 8. 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. Kavandatava tegevuse läheduses asuvatel väikestel aladel on võimalik soostumine ja jõgede erosiooniprotsessid. Jõe erosioon või akumuleerumine kavandatava tegevuse asukohas ei ole väljendunud ja mõjutab peamiselt Salaca, Svētupe ja Vitrupe jõgede kallast, mis asub väljaspool WPP-pargi territooriumi ja ei kujuta endast geoloogilist ohtu WPP-pargile. Võimalikud üleujutusprotsessid piirduvad üksikute kohtadega ning ei arvatavasti ei arene WPP-pargi ehitamise ja käitamise ajal. 6 Ivanova O. un Nulle I., 2003. Pamatklintāja virsmas struktūrkarte mērogā 1 : 500 00 7 Brangulis, A. J., Kuršs, V., Misāns, J. & Stinkulis Ģ. 1998. Läti geoloogia. 1:500 000 geoloogiline kaart ja kvaternaari- eelsete setete kirjeldus. 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, Geoloogia osakond, Riia, 1964. 12 Vastavalt V. Ņikuliņsi Läti seismilisele tsoneeringule9 asub kavandatava tegevuse asukoht Svētupe seismogeensest tsoonist (ST) põhja pool, kus tulevikus võivad toimuda maavärinad epitsentrimagnituudiga 6 (MSK-64 skaala järgi) (keskkonnamõju hindamise aruande joonis 6.3.5). 3.2. Loodusvarad Erilised looduskaitsealad Uuritud ala ja selle ümbrus hõlmab mitmeid erilisi looduskaitsealasid ja mikroreservaate, liikide leiukohti ja nende alasid, Euroopa Liidu biotoope ning erikaitsealasid. Kavandatav tegevus asub Põhja-Vidzeme biosfääri kaitsealal (selle neutraalses vööndis) (osa kavandatava tegevuse asukohast, mida uuriti, asub ka maastikukaitsevööndis, kuid seal ei ole kavas rajada WPP-d). Ülevaade loodusvaradest on esitatud keskkonnamõju hindamise raporti joonisel 6.4.1 ning SNPA kaart on esitatud joonisel 6.4.2. Joonis 4.(KMH aruande joonis 6.4.2). Kaitstud alad potentsiaalse WPP asukoha läheduses 9 Ņikuļins, V. 2007. Latvijas seismotektoniskie apstākļi un seismiskā bīstamība. Latvijas Universitāte, Rīga. 13 3 km raadiuses LVM tuulepargi maaüksuste piirist on 9 mikroreservaati ja 3 Natura 2000 ala. 3 Natura 2000 ala, mis asuvad LVMi tuulepargi ala lähedal, mida uuriti: − Vitrupes ieleja (piirkonnakood: LV0530500) 0,8 km maaüksuse piirist, kaugus lähimast WPP-st: 0,9 km; − Salacas ieleja (piirkonnakood: LV0302200) 1,6 km maaüksuse piirist, kaugus lähimast WPP-st: 1,8 km; − Niedrāju-Polkas purvs (piirkonnakood: LV0509800) 1,2 km maaüksuse piirist, kaugus lähimast WPP-st: 5,3 km. Natura 2000 ala kirjeldus „Vitrupes ieleja“ („Vitrupe jõe org“) on oluline ala künkametsade ja ELi loodusdirektiivi 2. lisas nimetatud haruldase liigi, ümarkaelustigu (Vertigo genesii) kaitseks, kuna see on üks neljast teadaolevast selle liigi leiukohast Lätis. Piirkonnas on registreeritud kaks kaitsealust taimeliiki (metsküüslauk (Allium ursinum) ja mets-kuukress (Lunaria rediviva)) ja 9 kaitsealust selgrootute liiki. Vitrupe oru künkametsad on üks kolmest Helicigona lapicida leiukohast riigis. Paljud metsakooslused vastavad metsa põhiliste elupaikade kriteeriumidele. „Salacas ieleja“ („Salaca jõe org“) on oluline ala, kus kaitstakse mitmeid ELi elupaikade direktiivis loetletud elupaiku: liivakivipaljandid, puutumata koopad, mäenõlvad, allikad, kosed, kuivad niidud lubjarikkal mullal jne. Paljudes jõe lõikudes, eriti Skaņākalnsi piirkonnas Mazsalaca lähedal, Staicele alamjooksul, Mērnieku koskedel ja Sarkana kaljudel, on jõe maastikuline väärtus silmapaistev. Piirkond on oluline ka geoloogilisest seisukohast: Pietraga Sarkanās kaljud, Dauģēnu kaljud ja koopad, Neļķu kaljud ja koopad, Silmaču kaljud ja koopad, Bezdelīgu kaljud ja koopad, Dzelveskalna kaljud ja koopad jne. „Niedrāju-Pilkas purvs“ („Niedrāji-Pilkas soo“) on oluline ala ELi loodusdirektiivi 1. lisas nimetatud prioriteetsete elupaikade - kõrgrohustute ja soometsade - kaitseks. Seal võib kohata suurt hulka kaitsealuseid linnuliike: must-toonekurg, sookurg, valgepõsk-lagle, euroopa mesikäpp, väike- konnakotkas, must-toonekurg, harilik kährikkoer, euroopa kuldking, kajakas, laululuik jt. Hinnang elektrijaama, juurdepääsuteede, ülekandeliinide ja trafoalajaamade kavandatava ehitamise mõju kohta lähedalasuvate Natura 2000 alade kaitstavatele loodusväärtustele on esitatud keskkonnamõju hindamise aruande peatükis 7.9. 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. Kogu uuritud elupaikade alal hõlmavad erikaitselised elupaigad ligikaudu 7% kogu alast, mis asuvad hajutatult kogu uuritud LVM tuulepargi alal (KMH raporti joonis 6.4.1), kusjuures suuremad kontsentratsioonid on väikeste jõgede (Vedamurga, Kulaurga, Urģenurga jne) ääres, mis kohati vastavad elupaikade jõejooksudele ja looduslikele jõelõikudele 3260. Nende ääres on peamiselt alluviaalsed kalda- ja laanemetsad 91E0*, mis katavad uuritava ala suurimaid alasid, nimelt 106,5 ha. Samuti on mõned vanad laialehised segametsad 9020* (17,6 ha) piki ojasid ja ala loodeosas. Teiseks suurimaks elupaigarühmaks, mis esineb kõige sagedamini hajusalt kogu alal, on vana või looduslik boreaalne mets 9010* (66 ha). Tüüpiliselt on niiskustingimustest väga sõltuvad elupaigad(soometsad 91D0* ja rabametsad 9080* ) rohkem koondunud uuritava ala kirdeosas, kusjuures ka naaberalad on ümbritsetud soiste elupaikadega. Raba- ja soometsade elupaigad on säilinud väikestes laikudes ka ala teistes osades. Piirkonnas esineb aeg-ajalt ka rohunditerikkaid kuusemetsi 9050 (13,6 ha). Svētupe jõe ääres, mis vastab elupaigale Jõekaldad ja looduslikud jõelõigud 3260, asub ka elupaik Kalda ja rabametsad 9180*, mille pindala on 7,2 ha. Väikesel alal (4,3 ha) uuritava ala kaguosas, karjääride kõrval, asub elupaik Metsastunud rannikuluited 2180 . 14  Elupaik, ha 120 106.5 100 80 66.2 60 37.2 40 32.0 17.6 13.6 20 7.2 4.3 0 Purvaini meži Veci vai dabiski Lakstaugiem bagāti (aluviāli krastmalu Staignāju meži Veci jaukti platlapju Nogāžu un gravu Mežainas piejūras un palieņu meži) boreāli meži Aluviāli meži egļu meži meži kāpas meži 91E0* 9010* 9080* 91D0* 9020* 9050 9180* 2180 Joonis 5 (KMH aruande joonis 6.4.3).LVM WPP Limbaži tuulepargi piirkonnas uuritud elupaikade pindala Uuritud alal (WPP pargi põhjaosas, kus hinnati kavandatava tegevuse mõju metsa- ja soode elupaikadele ning soontaime-, sambla- ja samblikuliikidele) on leitud erikaitsealuseid liike (BD II - nõukogu direktiivi 92/43/EMÜ looduslike elupaikade ning loodusliku loomastiku ja taimestiku kaitse kohta II lisas loetletud liigid); SPS I, II - vastavalt kaitsealuste liikide loetelu käsitleva kabinetimääruse lisas sätestatud arvule), liigid, mille jaoks tuleb luua mikroreservaat (MIC), mis leiti ja on esitatud tabelis 6.4.3, rühmitatuna tähestikulises järjekorras vastavalt nende lätikeelsele nimele ja märkides nende esinemise uuritud alal, samuti lisana 6 lisatud 7. novembri 2024. a ekspertiisiakti joonisel 3). Kui teaduskirjanduses kasutatud liigi nimi erineb liigikaitseseadustes kasutatud nimest, on see märgitud sulgudes. Tabelis on esitatud ainult erikaitsealused liigid ja muud haruldased liigid (nt. looduslike metsaelupaikade eriliigid), kelle elupaigad asuvad WPP pargi põhjaosa potentsiaalses mõjupiirkonnas. Piirkonnas leitud 6 soontaime, 9 sambla, 1 selgrootu, 4 sambliku ja 3 erikaitse all olevat seeneliiki on toodud KMH aruande tabelis 6.4.3. 10 Asukohauuringu tulemusel leiti ka uusi erikaitsealuseid taimeliike: nende vaatluste üksikasjad on toodud liikide elupaigaekspertiisi aktides (lisa 6). Iga tuvastatud leiukoht on kaardistatud ELi tähtsusega elupaik või erikaitsealuse liigi elupaigaks määratud elupaik. 10 Kasutatud liiginimetused on peamiselt kooskõlas seadustes ja määrustes esitatud nimekirjadega; kui liigi teaduslikku nime on muudetud, on see esitatud sulgudes. 15  Joonis 6 (keskkonnamõju hindamise aruande joonis 6.4.1). Loodusväärtused Limbaži tuulepargis ja selle ümbruses Piirkonna linnuliigid Linnustiku seire protsessi ja metoodikat on üksikasjalikult kirjeldatud keskkonnamõju hindamise aruandele lisatud linnuliikide ekspertaruandes, vt keskkonnamõju hindamise aruande 6. lisa. 16 Linnuliikide uurimisel kasutatud metoodika on lisatud DU/2024/01 sertifitseeritud loodusekspertiisi aruandele (lisa 6 „Uuringu metoodika“). Looduskaitseamet kiitis metoodika heaks 30. septembril 2022. Kontrolliti kavandatava tegevuse asukohta, uuritud LVM tuulepargi ala ja seda hõlmavat uuringuala, 2022. aastal registreeriti vaatlusi 19 korral 13 kuupäeval ja 2023. aastal 62 korral 46 kuupäeval. Seda tehti aeg-ajalt ka 2024. aastal, kusjuures erilist tähelepanu pöörati 2023. aastal (Korģene lähedal) täheldatud haudelinnustiku ümbruse uuringule ja passiivsete akustiliste seirevahendite paigaldamisele. Kokku registreeriti sertifitseeritud looduseksperdi poolt läbiviidud kohapealsete kontrollide käigus 54 liiki, millest 38 olid kaitsealused liigid (KMH aruande tabel 6.4.4). 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. Kavandatava tegevuse uuritud asukohas viidi aastatel 2022, 2023 ja 2024 läbi välitööd, et hinnata kavandatava tegevuse mõju seal pesitsevale ja läbirändavale linnustikule. Teave piirkonnas esinevate kaitsealuste linnuliikide ja keskkonnamõju hindamise raames hinnatud linnuliikide kohta on esitatud keskkonnamõju hindamise aruande tabelis 6.4.4, mõju hindamine ja soovituslikud leevendussoovitused on esitatud keskkonnamõju hindamise aruande peatükis 7.6.2. 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 8 fikseeritud vaatluspunktis, mis olid tähistatud D1-D8, ja kolmel marsruudil (M1-M2) − vaatlusjaamad ja marsruudid valiti nii, et uurida nahkhiirte aktiivsust sarnastes elupaikades, kuhu on kavas ehitada WPP − kõik jaamade ultraheliandurid paiknesid metsaraiesmikel (peamiselt raiealadel). Kokku saadi WPP-farmi planeeritaval alal asuvatest 8 salvestusjaamast 5619 salvestusfaili, millest 2824 faili sisaldab nahkhiirte helisalvestusi, mille käigus on salvestatud kokku 3242 üksikut nahkhiirte lendu (KMH tabel 6.4.6). Kõik kirjed sisaldavad kokku 248 nahkhiire häälitsuse faili 309 registreeritud nahkhiirelennuga (KMH aruande tabel 6.4.7). Registreeriti neli usaldusväärselt tuvastatud nahkhiireliiki (samuti hiireviu perekonna nahkhiirte häälitsust). Kokku leiti nahkhiirte häälitsuste analüüsimisel seitse liiki nahkhiiri. Mõnes kirjes ei õnnestu liiki kindlalt kindlaks teha, kuid seda võib liigitada kas Myotise liigirühma (ökoloogiliselt enamasti „võsarühm“) või perekondade Nyctalus, Vespertilio ja Eptesicus liigirühma (kõik „lageraie“ liigid). 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 17 Kogu keskmine nahkhiirte aktiivsus kõigi 8 registreerimisjaama ja seitsme registreerimissessiooni jooksul kavandatud tuulepargi piirkonnas oli 6,73 lendu tunnis. Tulemusi saab võrrelda teiste nahkhiireliikide uuringutega, mis viidi läbi 14 teises potentsiaalses WPP asukohas, kus kasutati identseid metoodikaid. Limbaži WPP tuulepargis registreeritud üldine nahkhiirte aktiivsus on hinnatud kõrgeks, kuna see jääb üldiste vaatluste taustaga võrreldes selgelt ülemisse, neljandasse kvartiili (keskkonnamõju hindamise aruande tabel 6.4.7). See tulemus oli ka ootuspärane, sest seni kavandatud tuuleparkide puhul tehtud eksperthinnangud olid tehtud rohkem avatud aladel, mis olid nahkhiirte jaoks vähem sobivad. 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 maismaa mittelendavatele imetajatele. Peaaegu kõik Läti maismaaloomade mitte-lendavad imetajaliigid, välja arvatud unilane, kelle levik piirdub üksikute teadaolevate piirkondadega väljaspool uuritud territooriume. Ülevaade liikidest ja nende suhtelisest tähtsusest on esitatud keskkonnamõju hindamise aruande tabelis 6.4.9. Aruandes esitatud teave 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 (KMH raporti lisa 6) loetletud projekti raames. Peaaegu kõik Läti maismaaloomade mitte-lendavad imetajaliigid, välja arvatud unilane, kelle levik piirdub üksikute teadaolevate piirkondadega väljaspool uuritud territooriume. Ülevaade liikidest ja nende suhtelisest tähtsusest on esitatud tabelis 6.4.8. Vaatlused eksperdi uuritud WPP-farmide ümbruses (Limbaži ja Valmiera-Valka) näitavad, et seni on tuuleparkide alasid ja nende ümbrust külastanud kuni 10% Läti pruunkarude populatsioonist.13. 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 Maastikuliselt asub kavandatava tegevuse kavandatav asukoht Põhja-Vidzeme ja Läänemere rannikul. Geomorfoloogilise tsoneeringu poolest asub kavandatav tegevuspaik Kesk-Läti madaliku Metsepole tasandikul ja Piejūra madaliku Vidzeme rannikul. Need tingimused määravad tasase (keskmine kõrgus umbes 25 m) pinnamoe, mille peamised eraldajad on jõgede Salaca, Korģe ja Svētupe orud, mis jagavad WPP-vööndid ida-läänesuunas; samuti Jaunupe ja Vitrupe jõgede orud. 13 https://www.silava.lv/images/Petijumi/2023-Lacu-monitorings/2023-Lacu-monitorings-Parskats.pdf 18 Joonis 7.(KMH aruande joonis 6.5.3) Turismi- ja puhkerajatised ning marsruudid ja maksimaalne WPP paigutusmudel uuritaval alal.BaseSIA „Jāņa sēta“ Kultuuripärandi kirjeldus „Mantojumi“ infosüsteemi14kartograafilise teabe kohaselt on uuritud piirkonnas 16 kultuuripärandi objekti: Neist 11 on arheoloogilised mälestised ja 5 kunstipärandi mälestised. Kuna muinsuskaitsealad asuvad siseruumides (kolmes kartograafilises materjalis märgitud kirikus). Seoses nende staatusega on 4 objekti riikliku, 8 piirkondliku ja 4 kohaliku, vt tabel 6.5.1 keskkonnamõju hindamise aruandes. Uuringualal tuvastati ka muud kultuuriliselt või ajalooliselt olulist kohta või objekti (vt KMH aruande tabel 6.5.2). Nende hulka kuuluvad neli kirikut või nende varemed, kolm mõisakompleksi, üks tööstuspärandi objekt ja üks arheoloogiline (religioosne) objekt. Lähedal asuvaid alasid hinnati põhjalikult. Turism ja puhkevõimalused piirkonnas Uuritud piirkonnas on mitmeid turismiatraktsioone, seda läbivad Euroopa ja piirkondlikud matkarajad, seal on mitu veeturismiks kasutatavat jõge (Salaca, Svētupe, Jaunupe, Vitrupe) ning mitu muud tüüpi puhkepaika ja -ala (joonis 10 (KMH aruande joonis 6.5.3)). 14 https://karte.mantojums.lv/ 19 Vaatamisväärsused ja vaba aja veetmise võimalused tegevuskohas Kaks loodusrada, mida hooldab „Latvijas Valsts meži“, asuvad uuritud piirkonnas, suhteliselt lähedal kavandatavale WPP-le: Ķirbiži metsa avastamisrada ja Niedrāji-Pilka sooteki jalutuskäik. Kaugemal asuvad sellised paigad nagu Muižuļi kivi ja Sarkanāsi kaljud. Puhkemajanduse hulka kuuluvad seenekorjamine ja muu korjandus, kalapüük, kehaline aktiivsus (jooksmine, jalgrattasõit, jalgrattasõit jne), matkamine, päevitamine, veepuhkus jne. 15 Veeturism Läti veeturismi marsruudi veebisait Upesoga näitab uuritud piirkonnas nelja vooluveekogu: Jaunupe, Salaca, Svētupe, Vitrupe.16 Salacgrīva paadilaenutusettevõtte „Lāču laivas“ poole pöördudes selgus, et peale Salaca jõe sõltub paadisõit teistel jõgedel suuresti veetasemest ja takistuste olemasolust jões, seega need ei ole nii populaarsed. Korģel pakutakse ka paadisõitu, kuid see on suunatud väga väikesele huviliste rühmale ja vaid vähesed kasutavad seda võimalust. Matkarajad/jalgrattamarsruudid Läänemere ranniku matkarada: See on Euroopa kaugmaatee E9 lõik Balti riikides. Lätis ulatub see piki kogu riigi rannikut. Kuna uuritav ala hõlmab ka Liivi lahe kallast, on osa marsruudist ka selles. See ulatub uuritud alal 29 km ulatuses. Tuulepargile lähim asukoht on Salacgrīvas, Salaca silla lähedal: tee on 5,3 kilomeetri kaugusel kavandatavast WPP-st (Z2). Ainaži-Valmiera roheline raudtee. Rohelised raudteed on jalgratta- ja matkarajad piki mahajäetud raudteeliine Lätis ja Eestis. Uuritav ala hõlmab 20,8 km pikkust Ainaži-Valmiera rohelise raudtee lõiku, mille kogupikkus on 84 km. Sellel lõigul asub WPP kuni 9,9 km kaugusel. EuroVelo13 jalgrattatee: EuroVelo13 ehk raudse eesriide jalgrattatee asub uuritavas piirkonnas. EuroVelo13 on osa Euroopa jalgrattateede võrgustikust EuroVelo. Lätis järgib see enamasti rannajoont ning uuritud piirkonnas kulgeb see 28,7 km ulatuses ka mööda Riia lahele kõige lähemal asuvaid teid. 3.4. Mürataseme hindamine Üksikute WPP-de kavandatud asukohad on peamiselt metsakooslused või viimaste aastate raied. Lähimad talumajapidamised on WPP-st >800 m kaugusel (vt. joonis 6.7.1). Müra osas reguleeritud alad on üksikelamute läheduses olevad alad ning Kuiķule, Ķirbiži ja Korģene asustatud piirkondades üksikelamute reguleeritud alad. Kuiķule asustatud piirkond on ~1,5 km kaugusel lähimast WPP-st, Ķirbiži on ~1,2 km kaugusel lähimast WPP-st ja Korģene on ~2 km kaugusel lähimast WPP-st. Kogu kavandatud WPP-piirkonnas, mis on üsna suur, on üksikuid väikesi, ilmselt eraomandis olevaid karjääre. Piirkonnas on kolm vähekasutatavat kohalikku teed: V143 - 111/11, V142 - <100/27, V138 - <100/17, kaugemal: linnatee P12 - 770/6 (sõidukite koguarv 24 tunni kohta/kaubavedu %). A1 maantee ja raudtee on ~4,5 km kaugemal ja ei mõjuta seda WPP parki. Kõik teed, mis asuvad WPP piirkonnas või selle ümbruses, on madala liiklustasemega kohalikud teed ja nende liiklusmüra ei mõjuta WPP-le avatud talude mürasaastet. WPP kavandatavas piirkonnas ei ole ühtegi ettevõtet, mille tegevus tekitaks müra, mis lisanduks WPP poolt üksikutele talumajapidamistele tekitatud mürale. Teised tööstusalad asuvad ümbritsevates asustatud piirkondades, kuid kõik need asuvad väljaspool kavandatava WPP-pargi piirkonda. 15 Sotsiaal-, Majandus- ja Humanitaaruuringute Instituut (ViA HESPI) 2022. Erikaitsealade külastajate seire. Küsimustiku tulemuste aruanne. 16 https://upesoga.lv/lv/marsruti/ 20 Kavandatava WPP piirkonna olemasolev müratase määratakse kindlaks liiklusmüra alusel lähedalasuvatel teedel, mida modelleeritakse, et hinnata praegust müraolukorda kavandatava WPP piirkonnas. Kavandatav Rail Baltica raudteetrass on 3,5 km kaugusel lähimast soovitatud WPP-st. Vastavalt Rail Baltica trassi17müramodelleerimise kaartidele on hinnanguline piir, kus raudtee müratase ilma müratõrjemeetmeteta ületab 45 dB (A) Löö indikaatori puhul soovitatud raudtee asukohavariandis, mitte lähemal kui 2,8 km lähimast soovitatud WPP-st. See vahemaa on ligikaudu 3,4 km, võttes arvesse mürasummutusmeetmeid. 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 ehituse ajal, juurdepääsutee liiklus, sh kruusateede kasutamine võib põhjustada õhusaastet PM 10 ja PM2.5 tolmuosakestega, aga ka lämmastikdioksiidiga ning nende väärtuste kontsentratsiooni piirmäärad on sätestatud valitsuse 3. novembri 2009 määruses 1290 „Õhukvaliteedi eeskirjad“. 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 on kasutatud teavet õhusaasteainete kontsentratsioonide kohta tegevuse võimalikul mõjualal LEGMC kirjast nr 4-6/1433 26.09.2024, arvestamata 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. Tabel 2 (keskkonnamõju hindamise aruande tabel 6.8.2) Aasta keskmised taustkontsentratsioonid(μg/m3) uuritud kavandatava tegevuse asukohas Aine Keskmine aastane kontsentratsioon (μg/m3) PM10 osakesed 13,90 PM2,5 osakesed 7,78 Süsinikmonooksiid (CO) 307,45 Lämmastikdioksiid (NO2) 5,83 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). Praegune õhukvaliteet kavandatava tegevuse asukohas on hea, kusjuures suurimad õhusaasteainete kontsentratsioonid on suuremate asulate ja teede läheduses ning õhukvaliteedi parandamiseks ei ole vaja meetmeid välja töötada. 17 https://edzl.lv/projekta-norise/izpete 21  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 Raadatava ala täpne suurus selgub ehitusprojekti väljatöötamise etapis, arvestades KMH koostamise käigus määratud maksimaalseid võimalikke pindalasid. Soovitatud variandi A rakendamise korral raiutakse ligikaudu 46,64 ha, millest ligikaudu 25,30% on noorendikud, 35,08% keskmised puistud ja 31,65% küpsed puistud (vt arvutused tabelis 3 (KMH aruande tabel 7.1.1)); 5,90% raadatavast alast on praegu raieala. Samas, kui rakendatakse variant B, on raiutud pindala kuni 69,05 ha. Sellest umbes 30% moodustavad noorendikud, 34% keskmised puistud ja 25% küpsed puistud (vt arvutused tabelis 4 (KMH aruande tabel 7.1.2)) 4% raiutud alast on praegu raiutud. Tabel 3. (Keskkonnamõju hindamise aruande tabel 7.1.1.) Variandi A raames raiutava metsa kogupindala Variant A KOKKU (ha) Noor Küps Keskmine Küpsuskoormus Ülekasvanud Raadatud puistu puistu puistu (ha) (ha) puistu (ha) pindala (ha) (ha) (ha) Kokku 11,80 16,36 14,76 0,73 0,24 2,75 46,64 % 25,30 35,08 31,65 1,57 0,50 5,90 Tabel 4. (Keskkonnamõju hindamise aruande tabel 7.1.2) Variandi A raames raiutava metsa kogupindala Variant B: KOKKU (ha) Noor Küps Keskmine Küpsuskoormus Ülekasvanud Raadatud puistu puistu puistu (ha) (ha) puistu (ha) pindala (ha) (ha) (ha) Kokku 20,41 23,42 16,98 2,75 2,45 3,04 69,05 % 29,56 33,91 24,60 3,98 3,55 4,40 Statistikaameti andmetel on Läti metsamaa pindala 2024. aastal 3607 tuhat hektarit18, mis tähendab, et SIA „Latvijas vēja parki“ poolt Limbaži elektrijaama rajamise käigus raadatav pindala on ligikaudu 0,0013% kogu Läti metsamaa pindalast variandi A puhul ja ligikaudu 0,0019% variandi B puhul. Mõju hinnatakse väheoluliseks. 18 https://data.stat.gov.lv/pxweb/lv/OSP_PUB/START__NOZ__ME__MEP/MEM010/table/tableViewLayout1/ 22  4.2. Müra- ja vibratsioonitase Mürataseme muutuste hindamine ja olulisus WPP kavandatav asukoht on suur ala (umbes 45 km²) Salacgrīva ja Vilķene vallas; WPP tuulepargi läheduses on umbes 20 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: allpool on toodud viis järeldust. 1. Talukoha piirkonna praeguse mürataseme olukorra arvutamine (liiklusmüra): talukoha piirkondades on täidetud lubatud mürataseme nõue kogu 24-tunnise ajavahemiku jooksul vastavalt kabineti 7. jaanuari 2016. aasta määrusele 16 „Müra hindamise ja haldamise kord“. 2. Praeguses olukorras (liiklusmüra) on WHO suunistes soovitatud 24-tunnine LDVN väärtus < 53 dBA täidetud. (WHO ja teiste ÜRO suuniste kogumik tervise ja keskkonna kohta, 2022. aasta ajakohastatud versioon.) 3. Mürataseme olukorra arvutamine öösel, kui töötab 12 WPP-d koos 2 BES- ja AST-üksusega (variant A): talumajapidamiste aladel on lubatud mürataseme nõue 24 tunni jooksul igal ajal täidetud, vastavalt kabineti 7. jaanuari 2016. aasta määrusele 16 „Müra hindamise ja haldamise kord“. 4. Mürataseme olukorra arvutamine öösel, kui töötab 20 WPP-d koos 2 BES- ja AST-üksusega (variant A): talumajapidamiste aladel on lubatud mürataseme nõue 24 tunni jooksul igal ajal täidetud, vastavalt kabineti 7. jaanuari 2016. aasta määrusele 16 „Müra hindamise ja haldamise kord“. 5. Mõnes talumajapidamises (variant B) ei ole täidetud Maailma Terviseorganisatsiooni (WHO) WPP-müra suunis, mille 24-tunnine LDVN-väärtus on <45 dBA. (WHO ja teiste ÜRO suuniste kogumik tervise ja keskkonna kohta, 2022. aasta ajakohastatud versioon.) WHO suunistes soovitatud 24-tunnisteLDVN-väärtuste järgimiseks peab variant B WPP D8 puhul hõlmama leevendusmeetmeid: Tuleb valida WPP mudelid, mille müratase vastab WHO soovitustele, paigaldades võimalikult madala müratasemega WPP-d või aerodünaamiliselt täiustatud labad. 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 (10-160 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 37 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 müra mõõtmised19: vt Lisa 7. 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 19 WindPRO 3.6.366, EMD International A/S, SIA Environment litsentsid (klient) nr 8797. 23 diabeedile. Uuringute tulemused avaldati 2018. aastal20,21,22,23. 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. Kuni 30. juunini 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 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 20 A. H. Poulsen et al., Pikaajaline kokkupuude tuuleturbiinide müraga ja hüpertensioonivastaste ravimite lunastamine: Üleriigiline kohordiuuring. Environment International 121 (Pt.1), September 2018 21 A. H. Poulsen et al., Raseduse kokkupuude tuuleturbiinide müraga ja kahjulikud sünnitustulemused: Üleriigiline kohortuuring, Environment International 167, september 2018 22 A. H. Poulsen et al.,Pikaajaline kokkupuude tuulegeneraatorite müraga öösel ja diabeedi risk: Üleriigiline kohortuuring, Environmental Research 165, aprill 2018 23 Lühiajaline öine tuulegeneraatorite müra ja südame-veresoonkonna sündmused: Üleriigiline juhtumikontrolluuring Taanist, Environment international 114, märts 2018 24 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 Kokku ületatakse varju kestuse eesmärk 10 tundi aastas (11-33 tundi) 12 majas: Vt keskkonnamõju hindamise lisa 8 „Varjud koos kaugusevähendusega“ töölehed (märgitud punasega) ja kokkuvõtet tabelis 7.3.2, kus on märgitud ka WPP, mis heidab peamise varju igale majale, mis põhjustab neid ületamisi, ning aasta- ja päevaaeg, mil WPP tuleb päikesepaistelise ilmaga sulgeda, et vältida neid ületamisi. Kogu varju kestuse ületamine (keskkonnamõju hindamise tabelid 7.3.2 ja 7.3.3) on ainult 124,3 tundi variandi A puhul ja 192,4 tundi variandi B puhul, mis vastab 1,4 % aastase 1 WPP seiskumisele variandi A puhul või 0,1 % aastase seiskumisele kogu WPP-pargi puhul ja 2,2 % aastase 1 WPP seiskumisele variandi B puhul või samamoodi 0,1 % aastase seiskumisele kogu WPP-pargi puhul. WPP tuleb aga sulgeda umbes kolm korda lühemaks ajaks, sest (KMH tabel 7.3.2) Z2 sulgemine vähendab samaaegselt 4 maja, D8 3 ning Z9 ja Z16 varju kestust iga jaoks 2, seega vähendab nõutav WPP seiskumine WPP pargi üldist aastast tööaega tühise summa võrra. 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. Ehituse käigus tekkivatena on kindlaks tehtud järgmised õhusaasteained: − 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 osakesed, sealhulgas PM10 ja PM2.5. Üldine mõjuriski tase on madal, vastavalt IAQMi suunistele, mida kasutatakse24. WPP ehitamine, sealhulgas ehitusprotsessis osalevate maanteesõidukite liikumine, avaldab rahvatervisele, varale ja 24 https://iaqm.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/Construction-Dust-Guidance-Jan-2024.pdf 25 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 eriti kaitstud liigid 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. WPP-pargi ehitusvariant B, mis hõlmab WPP-farmi lõunapoolse osa WPP-d, ei ole praegu soovitatav, sest selle jaoks ei ole teostatud soontaimede, samblaliikide ja samblike hindamist, AST- ühenduse lahenduse väljatöötamist, samuti täiendavat mageveemõju uuringut Svētupe jõge ületava elektriliini kohta. Kavandatava tegevuse jääkmõju hindamiseks vajalik teave on puudulik. WPP pargi variandi A ehitamise jääkmõju kaitstavatele loodusväärtustele pärast leevendusmeetmete rakendamist on esitatud keskkonnamõju hindamise aruande tabelis 7.6.3. Mõned suurimad mõjutatud elupaigad ja liikide alad on seotud 1A A ja 1A R ühendustee ehitamisega, millega rajatakse tee alajaama juurde. Isegi väiksema mõjuga variandi 1A A puhul on mõju kohalikul tasandil mõõdukalt negatiivne ja piirkondlikul tasandil väheoluline, kuna see tekitab metsa uue sirgjoonelise avause, mis avaldab mõju elupaikade ja liikide alade mikrokliimale ja hüdroloogilistele tingimustele. Ühendusevariandi 2A rakendamise korral on kavandataval tegevuselüldiselt väike negatiivne mõju kohalikul ja piirkondlikul tasandil: hävitatakse mõned liikide isendid ja väikesed liikide alad ning kaitstavad elupaigad, kuid negatiivset mõju liikide populatsioonidele ja elupaikade kaitsestaatusele ei avalda. Täiendavad meetmed, mida soovitatakse muude loodusvarade kaitsmiseks ehitamise ajal: − Teede ja ehitusplatside ääres olev suur (>25 cm) surnud puit tuleks viia lähimasse metsakooslusse. − Kui ehitustööde käigus raiutakse raiesmikel ökoloogilisi puid, tuleb need võimaluse korral viia lähimasse metsakooslusesse. − Tuleks vältida imporditud musta mulla kasutamist, et vältida invasiivsete liikide seemnete sissetoomist. Mõju lindudele WPP-farmi piirkonnas on peamised mõjud kokkupõrked, elupaikade hävitamine, elupaikade kasutamise piiramine (müra ja väreluse tõttu) ja tõkkeefekt. 26 Kokkupõrked Kirjanduse andmetel on WPP-parkide rajamise kõige silmapaistvam mõju lindude hukkumine kokkupõrgete tõttu. Samuti juhitakse tähelepanu sellele, et ei ole kohta, kus linnud ei võiks kannatada traumaatilist või surmaga lõppevat kokkupõrget WPP konstruktsiooniga (rootor või mast), ning ei ole ühtegi linnuliiki (vähemalt Euroopas), mis ei saaks sellises kokkupõrkes kannatada.25 Enamikus kirjandusallikates mainitakse kokkupõrgetele kõige enam altimatena lendavaid linnuliike: ööpäevaseid röövlinde, eriti merikotkaid ja toonekurgi, aga ka rändlinde peetakse oluliseks kokkupõrgete ohvriks.26 Teiseks liigirühmaks, mida hinnatakse kokkupõrkeohtlikuna, on kanalised, täpsemalt metsised, kuigi see rühm on tõenäolisemalt seotud kokkupõrgetega staatiliste infrastruktuuriobjektidega, sealhulgas elektrijaamade mastidega.2728 Mõned uuritud alal leitud kaitsealused liigid viibivad vähemalt pesitsusperioodil peamiselt puu kõrgusel või veidi kõrgemal: peamiselt rähnid, aga ka õgijalased ning vähemal määral tuvid ja öösorrid. Seda võib üsna usutavalt pidada nende suhteliselt madalate WPP rootorite kokkupõrkemäärade üheks peamiseks põhjuseks. Samal ajal tuleb märkida, et ELis ei ole enamik hüdroelektrijaamadest rajatud suurematele metsaaladele. Uuringutes käsitletakse palju vähem WPP tehnilisi parameetreid, sealhulgas teavet WPP kõrguse, rootori läbimõõdu, tuulepargi pindala ja WPP paigutustiheduse kohta. Mõjutuleb käsitleda eelkõige eriti olulistes piirkondades (suured kohalikud populatsioonid, pesitsuspaigad või nende läheduses), hoidudes konkreetsete WPP-de ehitamisest. Teisene lähenemisviis onkokkupõrkeid vältivate leevendustehnoloogiate kasutamine, mis aitavad vältida kokkupõrkeid. Elupaikade hävitamine Infrastruktuurirajatiste (juurdepääsuteed, kaabelliinid ja paigalduskohad) ehitamine suurendab WPP pargi piirkonna killustatust, mis võib avaldada ulatuslikku mõju pesitsevatele liikidele ja nende elupaikade kvaliteedile, nii otseselt hävitades või muutes elupaiku, mis kattuvad kavandatavate rajatistega, kui ka muutes ümbritsevate elupaikade kvaliteeti. Inimtekkeliste häiringute esinemine piirkonnas võib potentsiaalselt suureneda WPP tehniliste tööde ajal. Võttes arvesse WPP pargi asukoha, ei saa välistada külastajate arvu suurenemist, mis ei ole seotud WPP farmi hooldusega. Uuringu käigus hinnati piirkonda suhteliselt populaarseks puhke- ja toitumispaigaks, kus on suhteliselt hästi arenenud jahindusinfrastruktuur. Otseste häirete mõju leevendamiseks tuleb metsaraiet ja ehitustöid korraldada väljaspool pesitsusperioodi. Ehitustööd 1000 meetri raadiuses metse paarituspaikadest on rangelt keelatud paaritusperioodil 1. aprillist kuni 15. maini. Võimaluse korral tuleks seda reeglit järgida ka 1500 meetri raadiuses paaritumiskohast. Piirangut kohaldatakse WPP D8, D9, D10, D11, D12, D13, D14, D15, D16 ja nendega seotud infrastruktuuri suhtes. Barjääriefekt Rändlinnud, kelle lennuteel on takistuseks WPP, otsustavad sageli seda vältida, lennates sellest üle või ümber, kulutades rohkem energiat kui nad tavaliselt WPP puudumisel kulutaksid. Barjääriefekt on 25 Rydell, J., Ottvall, R., Pettersson, S., Green, M. 2017. Tuuleenergia mõju lindudele ja nahkhiirtele.Rootsi Keskkonnakaitseamet, Rootsi. 26 Ibid. 27 https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.6307 28 González, M. A. 2018. Kantaabria metsis surnud kokkupõrke tõttu tuuleturbiiniga. Grouse News, 55 27 tugevam nende liikide puhul, kes kipuvad parki vältima, milleks on peamiselt haned, luiged ja kured. Sarnast käitumist on täheldatud ka öösel rändavate haudelindude puhul.29 30 WPPde üldist asukohta võib iseloomustada kui suhteliselt kitsast, kuid pikka rühma, mis on orienteeritud põhjast lõunasse (eriti kui nõustuda soovitusega lükata tagasi kolm WPPd loodeosas), mis kattub vähemalt mõnevõrra üldise rändesuunaga põhja-kirdest lääne-lõunasse või vastupidi, sõltuvalt rändesuunast. Tuulepark on jagatud kaheks ka vooluveekoguga ning VEJ gruppide vahel on vähemalt 2 km laiune tsoon, mida saaks potentsiaalselt kasutada lennukoridorina. Eespool öeldut arvesse võttes on tõkke mõju eeldatavasti väike ning rände lennutrajektoorid, mis aeg-ajalt uuritava alaga ristuvad, ei põhjusta rändlinnu liikidele ebaproportsionaalseid energiakadusid. Mürasaaste Kavandatava tuulepargi piirkonnas modelleeriti mitme öökulliliigi jaoks esmatähtsad kaitsealad.31 Öökulli kaitsekavas määratletud prioriteetsete kaitsealade puhul on soovitatav piirata WPP poolt tekitatud täiendavat mürasaastet, valides võimalikult vaikse WPP mudeli. Kavandatava tuulepargi piirkonnas modelleeriti öökulliliigi esmatähtsad kaitsealad.32 Ka mõnel kaitsekavas määratletud eelisalal, kus elavad värbkakk Glaucidium passerinum, karvasjalg-kakk Aegolius funereus, kodukakk Strix aluco, händkakk Strix uralensis, kõrvukräts Asio otusja kassikakk Bubo bubo , on ka need öökulliliigid 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 häireid. See hõlmab lindude käitumise uurimist ja WPP toimimise kohandamist vaadeldud andmete põhjal. Võttes arvesse Läti öökullide 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 öökullidele kahjulik. Seega võib eeldada, et kuni 40 dB müratase ei mõjuta oluliselt öökullide elutsüklit ja küttimise tõhusust. Kui WPP on võimalik hoida öösel selles vahemikus, ei mõjuta see öökullide jahivõimet. Hinnang kavandatava tegevuse mõju ohu kohta linnuliikidele Mõju kirjeldamiseks kasutati öökullide ja rähnide liigikaitseplaanides 500 x 500 m ruudustiklahtri kaarti. Arvestades, et linnud on liikuvad olendid ja nende pesitsuskohad varieeruvad aasta-aastalt, võimaldab see tõhusamalt ja selgemalt kirjeldada uuritud WPP-pargi ala. Riskianalüüsi teostanud ekspert märkis, et lahtrite piire ei tohi pidada absoluutseks: arvesse tuleb võtta kohalikku olukorda. Samal ajal annab hindamine üldise arusaama linnustiku jaoks kõige olulisematest kohtadest kavandatava tegevuse asukohas. 29 Rydell, J., Ottvall, R., Pettersson, S., Green, M. 2017. Tuuleenergia mõju lindudele ja nahkhiirtele. Rootsi Keskkonnakaitseamet, Rootsi. 30 Pearse, Aaron & Metzger, Kristine & Brandt, David & Shaffer, Jill & Bidwell, Mark & Harrell, Wade. 2021. Rändavad kurgid väldivad tuuleenergia infrastruktuuri, kui nad valivad peatumispaiku. Ökoloogilised rakendused. 31. 10.1002/eap.2324. 31 Avotiņš jun. A. 2019. Apodziņa Glaucidium passerinum, bikšainā apoga Aegolius funereus, meža pūces Strix aluco, urālpūces Strix uralensis, ausainās pūces Asio otus un ūpja Bubo bubo aizsardzības plāns. Latvijas Ornitoloģijas biedrība, Rīga. 32 Avotiņš jun. A. 2019. Apodziņa Glaucidium passerinum, bikšainā apoga Aegolius funereus, meža pūces Strix aluco, urālpūces Strix uralensis, ausainās pūces Asio otus un ūpja Bubo bubo aizsardzības plāns. Latvijas Ornitoloģijas biedrība, Rīga. 28 Hindamisel kasutatud kriteeriumid on kirjeldatud linnuekspertiisi aruandes (KMH aruande 6. lisa). Kavandatava tegevuse variant A (mis on ühtlasi osa variandist B) loetakse madala kokkupõrkeriskiga variandiks, tingimusel et kõik WPP-d on varustatud tehniliste lahendustega, mis vähendavad juhusliku kokkupõrke ohtu (WPP-de sulgemise kaamerasüsteemid). Variandi B lõunaosa peetakse suhteliselt madala kokkupõrkeohuga piirkonnaks lendavate lindude jaoks. Variandi B lõunaosa tekitab riske kavandatava tegevuse perifeeriasse jäävatele praegustele ja potentsiaalsetele metsise paaritumiskohtadele. Teadaolev paaritumiskoht (LVMi poolt esitatud teabe kohaselt, 2023. aasta välitööde andmed) asub suhteliselt ohutul (kirjanduse põhjal) kaugusel, potentsiaalne paaritumiskoht LVMi Ķulaurga karjäärist lõuna pool asuvas piirkonnas asub minimaalse soovitatava kauguse piires: 1 km. Vastavalt maksimaalse ettevaatuse põhimõttele võib WPP D11 ja D13 paigaldada alles pärast täiendavat kohapealset kontrolli ehitamiseelse seire raames, kuna keskkonnamõju hindamise kontroll ja uuringud ei tuvastanud paarituskoha täpset asukohta, kuid leidsid viiteid selle olemasolule. WPP D11 ja D13 tööpiiranguid, mis kehtivad metsise paaritumisperioodil (WPP töö peatamine 1. aprillist 15. maini hommikuti üks tund enne ja neli tundi pärast kohalikku päikesetõusu ning õhtuti üks tund enne ja tund pärast kohalikku päikeseloojangut), tuleks kohandada, kuid neid tuleks ajakohastada vastavalt ehitusele eelneva perioodi jooksul läbiviidavate täiendavate uuringute tulemustele. Negatiivne mõju händkaku pesitsevale populatsioonile on potentsiaalselt oodatav kogu tuulepargi territooriumil (variantide A ja B puhul). Vastavalt ehitusele eelneva seire tulemustele tuleb kaaluda öökulli kaitsemeetmete kasutamist (mürapiirangud): valida võimalikult vaikne WPP konstruktsioon ja lahendus. Meetmed linnuliikidele avaldatava mõju leevendamiseks WPP ehitusprojekti arendamise ajal Soovitatakse lükata tagasi WPPZ19, Z20 ja Z21 ehitamine WPP pargi loodeosas. See on seletatav pesitsevate kanakullide esinemisega vähem kui 1000 m kaugusel nende WPP-de vahel, samuti ühe teadaoleva metsise paarituspaiga ja teise potentsiaalse paarituspaiga olemasoluga selle WPP-rühma S- ja SE-osas, mis on samuti vähem kui 1 km kaugusel. Seda soovitust on arvesse võetud. WPP Z1 ja Z2: kuigi need WPP-d asuvad kaitsealuste lindude jaoks suhteliselt väheväärtuslikes elupaikades, on nende vahel veekogu, mis võib meelitada ligi selliseid kaitsealuseid liike nagu roo- loorkull, kalakotkas ja must-toonekurg. Kui WPP ehitatakse, tuleb rakendada mõju leevendavaid meetmeid: VEJ seiskamiskaamera süsteemid, ehituseelse seire tulemustele vastavad kasutuspiirangud, lendlevate lindudega kokkupõrkeohu vältimine. Tingimust Z1 ja Z2 on arvesse võetud (keskkonnamõju hindamise 12. lisa). WPP D11, D12, D13, D14.33 Need WPP asuvad juba rajatud tee ääres, kus on suhteliselt suur liiklus ja aktiivne karjäär, mida peetakse nende WPP-de kõrval asuva metsise paaritumispaiga jaoks juba olemasolevateks negatiivseteks teguriteks. Kui paaritumishooajal WPP tööd piirata WPP peatamisega, on potentsiaalne mõju suhteliselt väike. Ideaalis, kui kavandatav areng võimaldab mitte ehitada neid WPP-sid, on see parem lahendus, kuid see ei leevenda olemasolevate metsateede ja kruusakarjääri negatiivset mõju. Tingimust D11, D13 ja D14 on arvesse võetud (keskkonnamõju hindamise lisa 12). D12 ehitamine ei ole soovitatav. 33 Need WPP-d (D11, D12, D13, D14) on planeeritud pargi lõunaossa, WPP pargi variant B, mis hõlmab WPP ehitamist pargi lõunaosas, ei ole praegu soovitatav rajada 29 Ehituse ja käitamise ajal Kavandatava tegevuse rakendamise käigus kasutuselevõetavad mõju leevendavad meetmed on peamiselt suunatud kokkupõrgete vältimisele tundlikumate liikide rühmadega. Liuglevad linnud - ööpäevased röövlinnud ja must-toonekured Selleks, et oluliselt vähendada võimalike kokkupõrgete ohtu ööpäevaste röövlindudega, kes on hõivanud pesitsuskohti kavandatava tegevuskoha äärealal (peamiselt väikekotkad) ja võivad seetõttu läbida WPP pargi ala või viibida vähese intensiivsusega WPP äärealal, on soovitatav varustada WPP- park arukate kaamerasüsteemidega, mis võivadvähendada või peatada WPP-de pöörlemist (shutdown-on-demand (SOD) tüüpi lahendus, mis kasutab kaameraid ja lindude tuvastamise tarkvara), WPP-de rühmade või vajaduse korral kogu pargi suhtes (sõltuvalt lahenduse eriomadustest). Kirjanduses leiduvate andmete põhjal välditakse selle lahendusega märkimisväärselt võimalikke kokkupõrkeid, kuigi erinevates kirjandusallikates on olemas erinevad hinnangud. 34 65%- line kokkupõrkeohu vähenemine kõigi ööpäevaste röövlinnuliikide puhul, kui kasutatakse lahendusi, mis lülitavad WPP-d välja, on usaldusväärne näitaja.35 On olemas ka lahendusi, mille puhul need süsteemid on varustatud spetsiaalsete hoiatuslahendustega (heli- või visuaalsed), mis vähendavad kokkupõrkeohtu ka olukordades, kus lind on juba sisenenud WPP rootori kokkupõrkeohtlikku tsooni. Need süsteemid arenevad ja täiustuvad pidevalt ning nende tõhusus suureneb. Mis puudutab liuglevate lindude võimalikku esinemist ja seega ka kokkupõrkeohtu, siis asuvad asjaomased WPP-d tuvastatud pesapaikade piirkonnas. Pesapaikade ajalise varieeruvuse tõttu on siiski soovitatav, et kõik WPP-d oleksid varustatud kaamerapõhiste sulgemissüsteemidega. Kui ehitusele eelneva seire käigus välja töötatava WPP kaamerapõhise sulgemissüsteemi lahendus ei võimalda tuvastada lendlevaid linde, soovitatakse kõikide WPP-depuhul kasutada järgmist lendlevate lindude kaitselahendust: kui seda ei ole võimalik saavutada kaameralahendusega, mis tuleb kindlaks määrata ehitusele eelneva seire käigus, siis lülitada WPP 1. aprillist kuni 1. oktoobrini kuni üheks tunniks välja enne ja pärast kohalikku päikesetõusu ja -loojangut, et kaitsta lendlevaid linde. Seda tingimust võetakse osaliselt arvesse, kuna on juba olemas kaameralahendused, mis on tõhusad hämarates tingimustes, ja ehitusele eelneva seire käigus saab kaameralahenduse välja töötada, nii et WPP-d ei ole vaja sulgeda, nt dtbird-lahendus36 (KMH Lisa 12.). Kanalised - Metsised Üks leevendusmeetmetest, millega vähendatakse metsise ja rootori labade kokkupõrke ohtu ning potentsiaalselt ka teiste metsas pesitsevate liikide kokkupõrke ohtu, on WPP rootori laba madalaima punkti kõrgus: madalaim punkt peab olema vähemalt kahe ümbritseva metsa küpse puu kõrgusel. Seda tingimust peetakse juba esialgse planeerimise käigus täidetuks: kui WPP maksimaalne kõrgus on 300 m ja rootori läbimõõt 200 m, siis on rootori madalaim punkt umbes 100 m kõrgusel. Võttes arvesse, et ehitatud WPP tegevuse üldine mõju metsise paaritumise edukusele on potentsiaalselt suur, tulebpaaritumiskohtadest (D8, D10, D11, D12, D13, D14, D15, D16) umbes 1 km kaugusel asuv WPP paaritumisperioodi ajaks sulgeda: WPP töö soovitatakse peatada1. aprillist kuni 15. maini: hommikuti üks tund enne kohalikku päikesetõusu kuni neli tundi pärast kohalikku päikesetõusu ja õhtuti üks tund enne kuni üks tund pärast kohalikku päikeseloojangut. D8, D10, D11, D12, D13, D14 puhul on tingimus osaliselt täidetud (vt lisa 12), sest ornitoloog lähtus WPP piirangute 34 Rydell, J., Ottvall, R., Pettersson, S., Green, M. 2017. Tuuleenergia mõju lindudele ja nahkhiirtele. Rootsi Keskkonnakaitseamet, Rootsi. 35 Garcia-Rosa, P. B., & Tande, J. O. G. 2023. Lindude kokkupõrke vältimise meetmed tuulegeneraatoritega. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 2626(1), 012072. 36 https://www.dtbird.com/ 30 puhul eeldustest, nii et nende vajalikkust saab täpsustada ehitusele eelneva seire käigus ja seiskamisaega vastavalt vähendada. D12, D15, D16 ehitamine ei ole üldse soovitatav ning tuleb märkida, et WPP lõunaosa ei ole praegu üldiselt soovitatav. Öised linnud - öökullid Kaitstavad öökulliliigid esinevad kogu kavandatava WPP pargi alal või nende prioriteetsete piirkondade lahtrid asuvad 500 meetri raadiuses kavandatavatest WPP asukohtadest. Linnuekspert juhtis tähelepanu sellele, et WPP tegevust tuleks piirata aastaringselt (öökullid on püsilinnud), nii, et ei ületataks mürasaastetaset. Kuna puuduvad uuringud tuuleparkide müra mõju kohta lindudele, tuleb olla ettevaatlik ja teostada täiendavat lindude ehitamiseelset ja -järgset seiret, et hinnata tuuleparkide müra ja selle mõju. See hõlmab lindude käitumise uurimist ja vajaduse korral WPP tegevuse kohandamist vastavalt täheldatud andmetele, kui tuvastatakse WPP põhjustatud negatiivne mõju. Et vähendada müra võimalikku mõju piirkonnas esinevatele ja potentsiaalselt pesitsevatele öökulli liikidele, on soovitatav valida tehnilised lahendused, mis võimaldavad WPP-süsteemi võimalikult vaikset tööd. Tingimus on täidetud (keskkonnamõju hindamise 12. lisa). Rändlinnud Selleks, et oluliselt vähendada kokkupõrkeohtu suurte rändlindudega (peamiselt Anser sp.ja Branta sp. haned, samuti luiged), kes võivad rändeperioodil läbida WPP pargi ala või viibida vähese intensiivsusega WPP ümbruses, on soovitatav varustada WPP park kaamerasüsteemi(dega), mis vajadusel (sõltuvalt lahenduse eripärast) võivad WPP, nende rühma või kogu pargi pöörlemist aeglustada või peatada. Kuigi uuringuandmete kohaselt ei peeta kavandatavat WPP-parki silmapaistval rändlindude lennuteel või lindude koondumisalal asuvaks, on tõenäoline, et rändlindude arvukus on ajutiselt suur. Võimalike kokkupõrgete vähendamiseks rändeperioodidel on soovitatav kasutada kaamerapõhiseid WPP sulgemislahendusi kõigis WPP-des tuulepargi piirkonnas. See lahendus võib vähendada lindude kokkupõrkeid WPP-ga päevavalguses, halva nähtavuse korral ja öösel. Soovitatav lahendus rändlindude kaitseks kõigis WPP-des on järgmine: WPP-d tuleb sulgeda kuni tund aega enne ja pärast kohalikku päikeseloojangut ja päikesetõusu, et kaitsta rändlinde (15. veebruarist 15. maini ja 1. septembrist 15. novembrini), kui seda ei ole võimalik saavutada kaameraga, mis tuleb kindlaks määrata ehitusele eelneva seire käigus. Tingimus on täidetud (keskkonnamõju hindamise 12. lisa). Ükski soovitatud lahendustest ei välista kokkupõrkeid värvuliste puhul. Erandjuhtudel võivad need kokkupõrked erinevate infrastruktuuride või ehitistega ulatuda väga kõrge suremuse tasemeni, kuid neid tuleks käsitleda erandjuhtumitena.37 38 Samas tuleb märkida, et isegi olemasolevad hinnangud, mis põhinevad peamiselt WPP raames loendatud surnud lindudel, leiavad usaldusväärselt vaid väikese arvu surnud linde.39 Siiani registreeritud haudelindudest hukkunute arv ulatub 100-st kuni paarisaja isendini.40 Vahepeal peetakse nende kokkupõrgete mõju haudelinnupopulatsioonidele tühiseks, 37 Newton, I. 2023. Lindude rändeökoloogia. Elsevier. 38 Rydell, J., Ottvall, R., Pettersson, S., Green, M. 2017. Tuuleenergia mõju lindudele ja nahkhiirtele. Rootsi Keskkonnakaitseamet, Rootsi. 39 Nilsson, A. L. K., Molværsmyr, S., Breistøl, A., & Systad, G. H. R. 2023. Tuuleturbiinidega kokku põrkuvate väikelindude suremuse hindamine. Sci Rep, 13(1), 21365. 40 https://lfu.brandenburg.de/sixcms/media.php/9/Voegel-Uebersicht-Europa.xlsx 31 arvestades nende kiiret taastumist pesitsusperioodil (üks või mitu pesitsejat, palju noori, suur asustustihedus suuremal või vähemal määral). Mõju nahkhiirtele Kavandatavas tegevuskohas registreeritud nahkhiirte aktiivsus on oluliselt suurem kui teistes sarnastes piirkondades, mida uuriti identse metoodika alusel, mis on tingitud asjaolust, et teistes piirkondades hõlmasid metsad suhteliselt väikese osa uuritud alast, kusjuures metsi peetakse üheks nahkhiirte jaoks kõige sobivamaks elupaigaks. Võimalikud nahkhiirte spontaansed kontsentratsioonid metsade eri kohtades võivad suurendada muidu madalat kokkupõrgete ohtu kavandatud rootoritega. See on eriti oluline rände ajal, kui üldine nahkhiirte aktiivsus ja liikide arv piirkonnas suureneb. Nahkhiirte suremuse oht on WPP-pargi planeeritaval alal kõige suurem juulis-septembris, st nahkhiirte leviku ja rände ajal. Suurenenud risk mais-juunis on seotud peamiselt ühe liigiga: põhja-nahkhiirega. Maikuus täheldatud nahkhiirte aktiivsus on üldiselt madal, välja arvatud üks jaam, mille lähedal võib olla põhja-nahkhiirte koloonia. Nahkhiirte aktiivsus ei võimalda eristada öiseid tunde, mil nahkhiirte suremusrisk oleks väiksem, välja arvatud sügisel (septembris ja oktoobris) hommikuti, mil aktiivsus/migratsioon on nullilähedane. Suurim nahkhiirte suremuse oht onWPP-s 2-8 tunni jooksul pärast päikeseloojangut. Tuulepargi arendamine on vastuvõetav, arvestades järgmisi WPP käitamispiiranguid ja -tingimusi: 1. Stienūži IV ja Stienūži V karjääride lähedusse ei ehitata WPP-d. Minimaalne kaugus veest: 200 m kaugusel WPP tera projektsioonist, kuid võimaluse korral rohkem. ➢ Praegu on lähim kavandatud WPP (Z2) vähemalt 400 m kaugusel, seega on see tingimus täidetud. 2. Nahkhiirte seire peab toimuma esimesel ja teisel aastal pärast WPP tegevuse algust. Seiremetoodika kavandatakse lähtuvalt ala eripärast ja 2022. aasta tuuleelektrijaama nahkhiirtele avaldatava mõju hindamise juhendist. Selle peab läbi viima ja standardiseerima NCA sertifitseeritud nahkhiireekspert. ➢ Nahkhiirte seire esimesel ja teisel aastal pärast WPP tegevuse algust on kohustuslik meede, mida tuleb rakendada pärast WPP tegevuse algust (vt 12. peatükk). 3. WPP põhjaosas (Z1-Z21) tuleb ajavahemikul 1. juulist kuni 30. septembrini planeerida WPP automaatne väljalülitamine või mitte-käivitamine vähemalt kaheksaks esimeseks tunniks pärast päikeseloojangut või suvel kuni päikesetõusuni, kui öö pikkus on alla 7 tunni, kui: 1) tuule kiirus WPP pülooni (gondli) kõrgusel ei ületa 6 m/s, 2) sademete hulk ei ületa 1 mm/h, 3) ümbritsev temperatuur on üle +6 0C. Kirde-Lätis muutuvad ööd varem külmemaks, eriti septembris, kuid seal jätkub nahkhiirte aktiivsus. Selles uuringus täheldati nahkhiirte aktiivsust ka öösel septembris, kui õhutemperatuur oli vaid +6 kuni +80C. 4. WPP lõunaosas (D1-D16) tuleb ajavahemikul 1. maist kuni 30. septembrini kavandada WPP automaatne väljalülitamine või mitte-käivitamine vähemalt kaheksaks esimeseks tunniks pärast päikeseloojangut või suvel kuni päikesetõusuni, kui öö pikkus on vähem kui 7 tundi, kui: 1) tuule kiirus WPP pülooni (gondli) kõrgusel ei ületa 7 m/s, 2) sademete hulk ei ületa 1 mm/h, 3) ümbritsev temperatuur on üle +6 0C. 32 Sõltuvalt seire tulemustest, st kas nahkhiirte aktiivsuse ja/või suremuse suurenemine rajatavas WPP- s leiab kinnitust või mitte, võidakse WPP käitamispiirangud pärast esimest ja teist ehitusjärgset seireaastat üle vaadata: tühistada, leevendada või pingutatud. Eelkõige võiks pikendada või lühendada ajavahemikku, mil WPP-de käitamispiirangud on vajalikud, või muuta tuule kiiruse künnist, mille puhul WPP-de käitamine on lubatud. WPP D12 ei ole soovitatav, kunasee tuleb paigaldada kohta, kus täheldati äärmiselt suurt nahkhiirte aktiivsust, mis viitab väga tõenäoliselt koloonia lähedusele. Oleks soovitav seda WPP-d üldse mitte paigaldada ja samuti oleks soovitav mitte ehitada WPP D11, kus on samuti täheldatud suurt nahkhiirte aktiivsust. Kui WPP D11 paigaldatakse, on paigaldusjärgne järelevalve kohustuslik.41 Sertifitseeritud nahkhiirte eksperdi heakskiidul võib WPP projekteerimisel kasutada ka muid lahendusi mõju leevendamiseks nahkhiirtele: näiteks arukad seiresüsteemid, mis on varustatud ultrahelianduritega ja tehisintellekti tehnoloogiatega, mis tuvastavad nahkhiirte kohaloleku reaalajas ja lülitavad WPP välja. Mujal Euroopas kasutatakse nutikaid tehnoloogiaid, nagu Fleximaus, mis võimaldavad nahkhiirte tõhusat kaitset ja suuremat elektrienergia tootmist.42 Mõju imetajatele WPP tuuleparkide (nii Limbaži kui ka Valmiera-Valka) 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. Kuna tuuleparkide ehitamine ja käitamine võib mõjutada metsloomade populatsioone, kes ei ole lendavad imetajad, kusjuures sellise mõju tagajärjed ja territoriaalsed piirid on tundmatud ja ettearvamatud, soovitab ekspert järgmisi meetmeid: − Muude olemasolevate majandustegevuste intensiivsuse ja hooajalise tsükli muutmata jätmine WPP-parkide piirkonnas ja nende vahetus ümbruses. See kehtib metsaraie kohta (kui see ei ole otseselt seotud WPP paigaldamisega), metsade uuendamise, igat liiki metsakoosluste majandamise, kuivendussüsteemide taastamise, jahikoormuse, ulukite söötmise, loodusturismi koormuse ja põllumajanduse kohta metsaga külgnevatel põllumaadel. See muidugi ei kehti metsatulekahjude, tuuletormide ja metsakahjurite kahjude likvideerimise kohta. Kasutusele on vaja võtta meetmeid, et vältida kumulatiivseid häireid ja olla võimeline eraldama WPP võimalikku mõju muude majandustegevuste taustast. − Arvestades, et Lätis ei ole looduslikke liike käsitlevatel uuringutel või seireandmetel põhinevaid hinnanguid WPP-de mõju kohta muudele kui lendavatele imetajatele, ei tee ekspert ettepanekut kehtestada tuulepargi suhtes kohustuslikke seirenõudeid. Ekspert soovitab, et järelevalvet teostavad valitsusasutused nõuaksid Põhja-Läti ja Eesti piiril asuvate tuuleparkide (joonis 3.2.4) arendajatelt, et nad algataksid koos järelevalvet teostavate valitsusasutuste ja teadusasutustega ühiselt metsloomade eriseire. Seda vajadust rõhutavad kõik aruandes kasutatud teaduspublikatsioonide autorid. Seiret tuleb teostada vastavalt sertifitseeritud eksperdi poolt välja töötatud ja heakskiidetud seireprogrammile. − Negatiivse mõju korral tuleb kavandada imetajate kaitseks leevendusmeetmed. 41 D11 asub tuulepargi lõunaosas, seetõttu ei ole praegu soovitatav ehitada WPP pargi varianti B, mis hõlmab WPP ehitamist tuulepargi lõunaosas 42 https://www.fleximaus.de/?lang=ne 33 Täiendavad eksperdi soovitused, mille rakendamine ei ole tegevuse elluviijast sõltuv, sealhulgas meetmed imetajatele avaldatava mõju leevendamiseks, on esitatud keskkonnamõju hindamise aruande peatükis 7.6.7. 4.6. Mõju maastikule ja kultuuripärandile Mõju maastikule Osa maastikuuuringu piirkonnast asub „Piejūra un Lībiešu krasts“ riiklikul maastikuväärtuslikul alal43 (NALV). Maastikuuringu piirkonnas on see kitsas riba Liivi lahe kalda ja riigimaantee A1 vahel. Kavandatava tegevuse lähim asukoht on Salacgrīva lõunaosas (aadressil Vidzemes iela 70): 4,6 km. Kõige olulisemat osa piirkonnast (rannikuvöönd) see ei mõjutaks, välja arvatud Meleki ümbruses, kus WPP oleks nähtav 7,2 km kaugusele ja mida käsitataks taustaelementidena. Salacgrīvas Šķīsterciema tänava ja Krūmiņu tänava vahelisel lõigul (vt keskkonnamõju hindamise joonised 7.7.1 ja 7.7.2) on variantide B ja B' puhul oodata visuaalset mõju rannikumetsa ja maantee A1 vahelisel põllumajandusmaastikul. Kõige suurema maastikulise väärtusega kohad on siin Lāņu muižase aleviku ja Svētciemsist põhja pool asuva metsa vaheline ala, kus põllumaad on tähistatud üksikute tammedega (mõju on kaudselt näha keskkonnamõju hindamise joonisel 7.7.3, mis asub väljaspool NALVi). WPP-d võiks siin kirjeldada kui maastiku silmapaistvaid aktsente. Kõige olulisemad maastikud või maastikuelemendid kavandatava tegevuse asukohas ja/või maastiku- uuringu piirkonnas on järgmised: − jõgede (Salaca, Svētupe, Vitrupe, Jaunupe) maastikud, sealhulgas: o Lībiešu upuralase koopad ja Kuiķule ümbrus, o Sarkani kaljud, o meriahvena paisud Salacas; − rannikumaastik; − väikeste jõgede (Vedamurga, Ķulaurga, Ārupīte jne) maastikud − Primmase ja Kliķu järved; − Niedrāju-Pilkase soo; − Randu niidud. Piirkonna uuringus olevad väärtuslikud vaatepunktid ja kaugused lähima WPP-ni ning nende nähtavus on toodud KMH aruande tabelis 7.2. Vastavalt nähtavuse mudelile (keskkonnamõju hindamise joonis 7.7.4-7.7.7) oleksid 300 m kõrgused WPP-d (kui kõik 37 WPP-d rajatakse) nähtavad 26,3%-l kogu maastikuülevaatealast ehk 143,6 km2 selle 544,9km2-st. Tuleb märkida, et need oleksid vähem nähtavad variantide A/A' või B/B' puhul, eriti kavandatud tegevuskohtadest kaugemal asuvates kohtades, ja üldiselt ainult vähesel määral. Maastikupoliitika plaani alusel: arvestades ELi kliimaneutraalsuse eesmärke, on kava prioriteediks tegevused, mis aitavad kaasa kliimaneutraalsuse suunas liikumisele, näiteks rohelise infrastruktuuri võrgustike kavandamine ja arendamine eri ruumilistes mõõtkavades, eelkõige linnapiirkondades. Maastiku hindamine piirkondlikul ja kohalikul tasandil on maastikuhalduse jaoks oluline ülesanne, mida tehakse selleks, et määrata kindlaks maastikulise väärtusega alad ja tingimused nende kasutamiseks ruumilise planeerimise dokumentides eri mõõtkavadel, mida tuleb arvesse võtta energiavarustuse ja muude suurte tööstusrajatiste planeerimisel ja ehitamisel. Kooskõlas Euroopa rohelise kokkuleppe ja Läti energiasõltumatuse eesmärkidega tuleb maastiku hindamisel 43 Lakovskis, P. 2023. Latvijas ainavu atlants. Ainavas kartēs. Nacionālās ainavas. Agroresursu un ekonomikas institūts. 34 piirkondlikul ja kohalikul tasandil võtta arvesse asjaolu, et energiasõltumatus ja - usaldusväärsus on võrdselt olulised ning neid tuleb arvestada koos turismi ja keskkonnakaitsega. Mõju kultuuripärandile Uuringualal on mitmeid kultuuriloolisi kultuuriväärtusi (peatükk 6.5.2 ja joonis 6.5.3). Kavandatava tegevuse mõju kultuuripärandi objektidele hinnati kavandatava tegevuse asukohale kõige lähemal asuvate kultuuripärandi objektide ning muude kultuurilooliselt ja ajalooliselt oluliste objektide puhul individuaalsete hinnangute kaudu ning eelkõige kavandatava tegevuse olulisust võimalike maastikumuutuste puhul. Infosüsteemi „Mantojums“ kartograafilise teabe kohaselt on uuritaval alal 16 kultuuripärandi objekti, millest 11 on arheoloogilised ja 5 kunstimälestised. Muinsuskaitsealad asuvad siseruumides (kolmes kaardimaterjalis märgitud kirikus). Saitide kokkuvõte: Ahju koht. Oodatav mõju on visuaalselt suur, kuid kohaliku mõjuga. Seda kohta ei peeta kõrge väärtusega vaatamisväärsuseks. Ahjuala („Cepļa vieta“) ulatusliku taimestiku tõttu ei ole WPP sealt nähtav, ning lähim WPP Z1 mõjutab sellest kagusuunas asuvat vaadet. Soovitus: mitte eemaldada metsa kultuuripärandi alal. Kilzumi vana kalmistu (Rootsi kalmistu). Eeldatav mõju on tühine. Seda kohta ei peeta kõrge väärtusega vaatamisväärsuseks.. Vaade muinsuskaitsealale ja sealt välja ei ole ohustatud. See võib olla ohus, kui pärandkultuuriobjektis ja selle ümbruses olev mets maha raiutakse. WPP Z5 ülemine osa (labad) oleks nähtav Svētupe jõe järsult kaldalt muinsuskaitseala kaitsevööndis. Olemasoleva metsa säilitamine muinsuskaitsealal ja vastavalt metsa nähtavuse mudelile (Eesti teadlaste poolt välja töötatud) metsa säilitamine 70 m ulatuses ümber muinsuskaitseala piiri. Lībiešu Upuralase koopad. Oodatav mõju on suur. Samuti on see koht määratletud Limbaži valla kõrge väärtusega vaatamisväärsusena. WPP Z7 terad kahjustavad peamist vaadet (kvaliteetset maastikku) üleujutusalalt. WPP D16 kahjustab vaadet lõunapoolsele väljavoolule üleujutusest: nähtavale jääb pülooni ülemine osa. Võttes arvesse maastikuekspertide soovitusi ja konsultatsioone Limbaži linnavalitsusega, muudeti WPP algselt kavandatud asukohta/kõrgust. 1) Ärge kavandage WPP Z7 ehitamist. 2) Ärge kavandage WPP D1, D2, D15, D16 ehitamist. 3) Vähendage D8, D9, Z8, Z9, Z11 kõrgust. Hoidke puude kasv üle koopa enda. Lõunapaljandi kohal (Kuiķuļu Svētozolu kasemetsa asukoha lähedal) arendada välja vaatepunkt, puhastades liigse taimestiku. Z7, Z8, D1, D2, D15, D16 - ehitus ei ole soovitatav. Z9, D8, D9 - soovitatav kõrguse vähendamine. Ükski lõunaosa WPP ei ole praegu soovituslik, kui ei toimu täiendavaid uuringuid samblate, samblike ja vaskulaartaimede kohta. Kuiķuļu Svētozolu kasemets. Eeldatav mõju on mõõdukas. WPP ei ole muinsuskaitsealalt nähtav, kuid märkimisväärne osa mastist ja labast on nähtav mõne meetri kaugusel asuvast vaatepunktist. Piirangute ja kavandatud WPP kohta vt eespool teavet Lībiešu Upuralase kohta. Priecumi iidne hauakoht. Eeldatav mõju on tühine. WPP ei ole nähtav muinsuskaitsealalt, kuid on nähtav selle kaitsevööndist. Soovitusi ei ole esitatud. Krogkalnu Baznīckalns mägi. Seda kohta ei peeta kõrge väärtusega vaatamisväärsuseks. WPP ei ole nähtaval kohapeal, kuid on nähtav selle kaitsevööndist. Näiteks avalikult ligipääsetaval vaatealal lääne suunas Zeltiņi-Untese linnateelt on näha seitsme WPP mastid ja veel ühe WPPlabad. Soovitusi ei ole esitatud. Zviedru ceļši tee kohas. Eeldatav mõju on tühine. Seda kohta ei peeta kõrge väärtusega vaatamisväärsuseks. Muinsuskaitseala asukohta see ei mõjuta. Kuigi WPP on kaitsevööndist nähtav, 35 ei tekitata kultuuripärandi iseloomu arvestades kahju ümbritsevale maastikule. Soovitusi ei ole esitatud. Salaca linnus. Eeldatav mõju on tühine. Salacale kõige lähemal asuva mägilinnuse servast on näha mitme WPP ülemised osad ja mõne täiendava WPP labad. Nähtavus suureneb ilma lehtedeta perioodil. WPP Z1 ja D1 on kõige nähtavamad. Samuti Z4, Z9, Z5, lehtedeta perioodil. WPP D2, D4, D10 labad või labade osad on nähtavad. Arvestades ala tähtsust, tuleks võimalusel kohandada WPP Z1 kavandatud asukohta; WPP D1 kõrgust tuleks vähendada või selle ehitamisest tuleks hoiduda (koos: D1 ei ole soovitatav). Brīdaga kirik. Eeldatav mõju on mõõdukas. Kuigi WPP ei mõjuta vaateid kirikule, on WPP D6 kirikust loode pool nähtav, mõjutades oluliselt maastikku. Kiriku lähedal on osaliselt näha ka WPP D9. D6 tuleks ümber paigutada või üldse mitte ehitada. Praegu ei soovitata pargi lõunapoolses osas asuvaid WPP-sid. Ķirbiži mõis ja selle hooned. Eeldatav mõju on tühine. Kõige väärtuslikum vaade (mõisavaade) jääb puutumata. See mõjutab aga vaateid mõisa territooriumilt. Mõisahoone esiplaanilt on WPP D9 gondel ja labad ning D8 labad läbi puude näha. Lehtedeta perioodil on mitme WPP (D11, D12, D14, D15) labad nähtavad. Praegu leevendavad seda visuaalset häiringut mõisa ümber istutatud puud (Vitrupe'i ääres). Vähendada WPP D9 kõrgust. Praegu ei soovitata pargi lõunapoolses osas asuvaid WPP-sid. Vecsalaca mõisahooned. Eeldatav mõju on tühine. Kuna hooned asuvad pargis, ei ole WPP tänu puudele tegelikult nähtav. Soovitusi ei ole esitatud. Annasmuižase sild. Eeldatav mõju on mõõdukas. Mitmete WPP-de ülemised osad on vaatepunktist nähtavad. WPP Z4 on kõige nähtavam. Lehtedeta perioodil on läbi puude nähtav umbes 2/5 WPP Z2, Z3 gondlist ja labadest ning Z1 labadest. WPP Z12 ja Z13 labad on väga vähesel määral nähtavad. Arvestades potentsiaalse vaatepunkti tähtsust, esitas Limbaži linnavolikogu LVP taotlusel oma arvamuse kavandatava WPP mõju kohta sellele vaatamisväärsusele. Linnavalitsus ei seadnud mingeid tingimusi, et leevendada kavandatava WPP mõju sellele vaatamisväärsusele. 4.7. Mõju Natura 2000 aladele WPP pargi lähedal Nagu on mainitud keskkonnamõju hindamise raporti peatükis 6.4.1 ja kokku võetud tabelis 7.9.1, on kavandatava tuulepargi läheduses 3 SNPAd, mis kuuluvad Natura 2000 ühtsesse Euroopa SNPAde võrgustikku (vt keskkonnamõju hindamise raporti joonis 6.4.2). − Vitrupes ieleja (piirkonnakood: LV0530500) 0,8 km maaüksuse piirist, kaugus lähimast WPP-st: 0,9 km; − Salacas ieleja (piirkonnakood: LV0302200) 1,6 km maaüksuse piirist, kaugus lähimast WPP-st: 1,8 km; − Niedrāju-Pilkas purvs (piirkonnakood: LV0509800) 1,2 km maaüksuse piirist, kaugus lähimast WPP-st: 5,3 km; Kuna tuulepargi kavandatav ehitus ei mõjuta otseselt ühtegi Natura 2000 ala, võib järeldada, et soovitatud variandi A rakendamine ei avalda otsest ega kaudset negatiivset mõju naaberaladele, sealhulgas Läti või ELi erikaitseliste Natura 2000 alade erikaitselistele elupaikadele. Kavandatava tegevuse rakendamine ei süvendaks eeldatavasti Natura 2000 aladel esinevaid negatiivseid mõjusid, st kuivendamist ja taimestiku suktsessioonist tingitud liigilise koosseisu muutusi. 36 Tehtud mõjuhinnangute ja arvutuste põhjal võib järeldada, et kuna ei ole oodata olulist negatiivset mõju Natura 2000 elupaikadele ja liikidele, mille kaitseks need alad on määratud, siis ei ole oodata ka olulist mõju − nende Natura 2000 alade loomise ja kaitsmise eesmärk; Nende alade loomise ja kaitsmise eesmärgid on esitatud tabelis 6.4.2 ning need ei mõjuta nende loomise eesmärkidena loetletud elupaiku ega liike. − tegurid, mis on neid alasid juba enne kavandatava tegevuse rakendamist mõjutanud; Enne kavandatava tegevuse elluviimist mõjutavad loodusväärtusi järgmised tegurid: niitude kinnikasvamine, suktsessioon, põllumajanduslik tegevus, pinnavee hajureostus põllumajandus- ja metsamajanduslikust tegevusest, erosioon, metsamajanduslik tegevus, teistest piirkondadest pärit invasiivsed liigid jne. Need on esitatud tabelis 6.4.2. Kavandatav tegevus ei suurenda nende tegurite mõju Natura 2000 alade loodusväärtustele. − piirkonna tähtsus riigi Natura 2000 alade võrgustiku terviklikkuse seisukohalt biogeograafilises piirkonnas. Võttes arvesse üldist hinnangut Natura 2000 aladele avaldatava mõju kohta, ei ole seni leitud, et vastavalt 19. aprilli 2011. aasta kabineti määrusele 300 „Euroopa erikaitsealadele (Natura 2000) avaldatava mõju hindamise kord“ on vaja kasutusele võtta konkreetseid leevendusmeetmeid. Pärast mõju hindamist Natura 2000 aladele jõudsid eksperdid üldiselt järeldusele, et: 1) kavandatav tegevus ei avalda eeldatavasti otsest mõju Natura 2000 alade taimeliikidele ja elupaikadele; see ei põhjusta liikide ja elupaikade killustumist ega muutusi nende iseloomulikes struktuurides ja funktsioonides; 2) kavandatava tegevuse tulemusel ei ole oodata olulist negatiivset mõju Natura 2000 alade ökoloogilistele funktsioonidele, terviklikkusele, kaitsele ja eesmärkidele. 37 5. Piiriülene hindamine (keskkonnamõju hindamise aruande 9. Peatükk) Seoses piiriülese mõjuga tuvastati Eesti Vabariik riigina, mida kavandatav tegevus võib mõjutada. Ükski Eesti territoorium ei asu lähemal kui 13,2 km lähimast hindamisse kaasatud WPP-st. Eesti Vabariigi Kliimaministeeriumi ülevaade piiriülese mõju aspektidest Ülevaade Eesti Vabariigi Kliimaministeeriumi poolt esitatud piiriüleste mõjude aspektidest ja sellest, kuidas neid Limbaži WPP-farmi keskkonnamõju hindamise koostamisel arvesse võeti, on esitatud tabelis 5 (KMH aruande tabel 9.1). Tabel 5.(KMH tabel 9.1) Eesti Vabariigi Kliimaministeeriumi ülevaade piiriüleste mõjude aspektidest Nr. Eesti Vabariigi Kliimaministeeriumi Esitanud Selgitus selle kohta, kuidas seda hinnati piiriülese mõju aspektid, mida tuleb keskkonnamõju hindamise aruandes arvestada keskkonnamõju hindamise väljatöötamisel 1. Kavandatav tegevus võib mõjutada: Eesti Vabariigi Esitati imetajate ekspertiis ulukite kohta. - ulukite liikumist, Majandus- ja Müra hindamine on esitatud peatükis 7.2. - mürasaastet, Kommunikatsio Piiriülest mõju ei tuvastatud. - kohalikke elanikke, oniministeerium Eesti Vabariigi kohalikke elanikke see - elektrivõrgu stabiilsust eeldatavasti ei mõjuta. Eesti Vabariigi elektrivõrgu stabiilsust see eeldatavasti ei mõjuta. 2. Lähimad WPP-d asuvad tõenäoliselt Eesti Lähim WPP on umbes 6 km kaugusel Riia vähem kui 5 km kaugusel Liivi lahe Keskkonnaagent lahest. Vastavalt praegu väljatöötamisel kaldast. Kuni 5 km kaugusele ulatuv uur olevale metoodikale lindude ja rannaala on oluline lindude tuuleparkidega seotud rändekoridor nii pesitsevate kui ka hindamiseks44peetakse rände jaoks kõige rändlindude jaoks. olulisemaks 500-1000 m kaugusele jäävat KMH aruandes tuleb hinnata piirkonda, mis asub kaldale kõige lähemal. kavandatava tegevuse mõju WPP-pargi projekteerimine vastab lindudele, nahkhiirtele ja rohelistele peamistele tingimustele: WPP mastid ei asu koridoridele (roheline võrgustik), vähem kui 500-1000 meetri kaugusel Liivi looduskaitseväärtustele, sealhulgas lahe kaldast, WPP mastid ei ole kavandatud hinnata kumulatiivset mõju. piirkondadesse, kus on leitud või on teada Kavandada mõju hindamine rändlindude pikaajalisi toitumis- või (järelevalve) ja vajaduse korral näha pesitsuspaiku. ette mõju leevendamise meetmed Mõju loodusvarade erinevatele aspektidele hinnatakse üldiselt keskkonnamõju hindamise peatükis 7.6. Mõju nahkhiirtele hinnatakse keskkonnamõju hindamise peatükis 7.6.4. Alates 27. septembrist 2004 kehtib tööstusõnnetuste piiriülese mõju konventsioon, millega luuakse riikidevaheline koostöö tööstusõnnetuste vallas. Kemikaalide kogus ja ohutase kavandatud tegevuskohas ei ületa kõnealuses konventsioonis sätestatud piirmäärasid, seega ei kohaldata kõnealuse dokumendi sätteid Limbaži hüdroelektrijaama ja sellega seotud infrastruktuuri ehitamise suhtes. 44 https://lvafa.vraa.gov.lv/projects/1-08_74_2022 38  6. Sotsiaal-majanduslik kasu (keskkonnamõju hindamise aruande 14. Peatükk) Kavandatava elektrijaama ehitamisel ja käitamisel võivad olla positiivsed ja negatiivsed sotsiaal- majanduslikud tagajärjed nii kavandatava tegevuse asukohas kui ka riiklikus kontekstis. Positiivsete tagajärgede hulka kuuluvad investeeringud majandusse, otseselt ja kaudselt seotud töökohtade loomine, maa rentimisest saadav rahaline kasu kinnisvaraomanikele, kelle maale WPP-d ehitatakse, suurem energiavarustus turul, süsinikdioksiidi heitkoguste vähenemine, panus riikliku energiapoliitika eesmärkide saavutamisse. See võib avaldada negatiivset mõju turismi ja vaba aja veetmise ressurssidele ning mõnede kohalike elanike kinnisvara väärtusele. Kuna Lätis ei ole WPP sotsiaal- majanduslikku mõju laialdaselt uuritud, põhineb käesolevas raportis 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. Eeldatavasti võib mitmekümne WPP rajamise kogumaksumus (täpne arv ei ole teada enne ega pärast käesoleva KMH valmimist) ulatuda kümnete miljonite eurodeni, 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 WPP-de ehitamise ja käitamisega kui ka kaudselt sellega seotud tegevustega, nagu maavarade kaevandamine teede ehitamiseks, tsemendi ja betooni tootmine ning transport. Kvalitatiivse sotsiaal-majandusliku kahju osas on negatiivne mõju WPP 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 nüüdis-puhasväärtus 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 sotsiaal-majandusliku tasuvuse osas lubab variant A veidi paremaid tulemusi, mille rakendamise korral on kogu nüüdis-puhasväärtus 89 398 054 eurot ja sisemine tasuvusmäär 18,66%. (keskkonnamõju hindamise 11. lisa). 39  7. Kavandatud variantide võrdlus ja valitud variandi põhjendus (keskkonnamõju hindamise aruande 8. peatükk) Kavandatava tegevuse keskkonnamõju hindamise raames hinnati WPP asukoha alternatiive ja kaaluti tehnoloogilisi alternatiive, kusjuures WPP jaoks pakuti välja kolm erinevat kõrguse varianti. Kõik hinnatud variandid, kui neid rakendatakse, saavutaksid kavandatava tegevuse eesmärgi: uute WPP-de rajamine maksimaalse projekteeritud võimsusega 8 MW. Kokkuvõte kõigi 37 WPP-ala asukohast, võttes arvesse linnueksperdi, liikide ja elupaikade eksperdi, maastikueksperdi, nahkhiirte eksperdi ja hüdroloogi hinnangut ning füüsilise mõju hinnangut, on esitatud keskkonnamõju hindamise aruande tabelis 8.1. Punase värviga on tähistatud WPP ja keskkonnamõjuga piirkonnad, kus leiti märkimisväärset negatiivset mõju. Kollase värviga on tähistatud WPP ja keskkonnamõju piirkonnad, kus leiti negatiivset mõju, ning rohelise värviga on tähistatud keskkonnamõju piirkonnad, kus ei leitud negatiivset või olulist mõju ( vt keskkonnamõju hindamise aruande 12. lisa, kus on esitatud soovitatud WPP-de suhtes kohaldatavad tingimused ja piirangud). Kavandatava tegevuse asukoha praeguse olukorra ja rakendatava variandi eeldatava olukorra hindamiseks kasutatud mõjud on järgmised: elupaigad ja liigid, nahkhiired, linnud, maastik, kultuurilugu, turism ja puhkamine, Natura 2000, müra, madalad sagedused, värelus, hüdroloogia, keskkonnariskid ja hädaolukorrad, vibratsioon ja kliima. Arengustsenaariumide mõjudele anti kvalifitseeriv kvantitatiivne kirjeldus, mis on kokkuvõtlikult esitatud keskkonnamõju hindamise aruande tabelis 8.3. Kokkuvõttes näitab tabelis 8.4 esitatud WPP asukoha- ja kõrgusvariantide võrdlus ja analüüs, et ehitamiseks võib soovitada varianti A:12 WPP-d uuritud ehitusplaani põhjaosas, vt joonis 8. Variandi B kaheksa WPP lõunapoolse osa puhul tuleb täita kriitilisi eeltingimusi: täiendavalt tuleb hinnata soontaimede, sambla- ja samblikuliikide olemasolu, töötada välja lahendus AST-ühenduse jaoks ning teha täiendav mageveemõju uuring Svētupe jõge ületava elektriliini kohta. Kavandatava tegevuse jääkmõju hindamiseks vajalik teave on variandi B puhul ebatäielik. 40 Joonis 8. (keskkonnamõju hindamise aruande joonis 8.1) Kavandatava tegevuse soovitatav asukoht (Limbaži tuulepark) 41  8. Kavandatava tegevuse keskkonnaseire täiendavad tingimused (keskkonnamõju hindamise aruande 12. Peatükk) 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 Populatsioonide seire tuleb kavandada ja alustada enne WPP-pargi ehitamist, et anda hinnang lindude algseisundi kohta piirkonnas. Kaitsealuste liikide populatsiooni seire Seiret on vaja selleks, et tuvastada kõik muutused praeguses populatsioonis ja hinnata võimalikku mõju WPP pargi territooriumil. Selleks, et nõuetekohaselt hinnata liikide populatsioone, nende muutusi ja võimalikke põhjusi ning muuta need andmed erinevate WPP-paikade vahel võrreldavaks, peaks kogu seire toimuma ühtse süsteemi alusel. Selleks, et tulemused oleksid kasulikud WPP-pargi mõju hindamiseks, mitte ainult võimalike muutuste kirjeldamiseks jälgitavate liikide populatsioonides, on vaja ka võrreldavat kontrollala ilma WPP mõjuta. Töötades selle tingimuse täitmise suunas, vähemalt praeguses olukorras, tuleb ala seire kavandada vastavalt lõplikule tehnilisele projektile (sarnaselt planeeringu koostamiseks tehtavatele uuringutele, järgides uuringumetoodikas märgitud vahemaid kavandatavate tegevuskohtade või kruntide ümber, kus liikumine on tõenäoline). See annaks enne ehitustegevuse alustamist objektiivse „nullhinnangu“ selle ala seisundi kohta, mida edaspidi peetaks kavandatavast tegevusest mõjutatavaks alaks ja mis mõjutaks seal asuvat linnupopulatsiooni. Kuna see ala erineb tõenäoliselt aruande koostamiseks kasutatud uuringualast, ei ole võimalik objektiivselt hinnata, mil määral need krundid erinevad, enne kui lõplik tehniline projekt on kättesaadav. Fikseeritud seirepiirkond, mis on määratletud kahest kaugusvööndist koosneva seirealana, on oluline, et arvukuse arvutamiseks selles piirkonnas (või vähemalt arvukushinnangute tegemiseks) ja seirejaamade tõhusaks paigutamiseks, et saada objektiivseid tulemusi planeerimislõike jaoks. Sarnaselt uuringule on seire kavandatud uuringualal potentsiaalselt mõjutatavate kaitsealuste liikide peamiste rühmade puhul vastavalt uuringus kasutatud metoodikale. Kui aga järelevalveasutused leiavad, et mingit liigirühma ei ole vaja seirata või vastupidi, tuleb seirata liike, mida varem ei ole uuritud (nt teabe põhjal, mis võib olla esitatud oodatavates WPP uuringusuunistes), võivad eksperdid seda arvesse võtta ja jätta need liigid või liigirühmad seiramata või vastupidi, seirata, tingimusel, et see töö on pikemas perspektiivis võrreldav, sealhulgas muude seire aspektide ja esialgse uuringuga. Järelevalvet tuleb teostada ehitusele eelneval, ehitus- ja kasutusperioodil. Seiret tuleb teostada igal aastal ehitus-eelsel ja ehitusperioodil ning igal teisel aastal tööperioodil, hõlmates vähemalt viit pesitsusperioodi. Võimaluse korral on soovitatav teostada järelevalvet kogu tööperioodi jooksul. 42 Konsultant on siiski seisukohal, et seireprogramm peab saama riikliku järelevalveasutuse heakskiidu ning selle vajalikkust ja kestust tuleb hinnata. Ehitus-eelsel ja ehitusperioodil soovitatud iga-aastase seire läbiviimise põhjuseks on see, et on võimalik arvesse võtta kohalikku väljasuremist ja taasasustamist. Seireperioodi jooksul on erinevus Läti senises praktikas kõige tavalisemast lähenemisviisist, mille kohaselt tegevusperioodi seiret viiakse läbi viie järjestikuse aasta jooksul, seletatav põlvkondade vahetuseks vajaliku ajaga, kusjuures näiteks ööpäevaste röövlindude puhul võiks selle aja ümardada umbes kümne aastani põlvkonna kohta. Samas tuleb märkida, et populatsioonitasandi mõju hindamine eeldab vähemalt kolme põlvkonna muutuste seireandmeid. Surnud lindude seire Kuna otsese mõju hindamisel on väga oluline aspekt kokkupõrgetes hukkunud lindude arvu (sealhulgas ka kaitsealuste liikide) ja potentsiaalselt surma põhjuse (füüsiline kokkupõrge, barotrauma, lindude surm, mis ei ole seotud WPP käitamisega) määramine, siis kirjanduse45 46 kohaselt on soovitatav kasutada selle seirekoha puhul automaatset kaamerasüsteemi või sarnaseid lahendusi, mis tuvastavad vigastatud või surnud linnud, kuna vaatluse teel tehtud loendused on ebatäpsed, lindude leidmise võime on piiratud erinevates olukordades ja raipesööjate poolt kaasa võetud jäänused, siis on soovitatav kasutada selle seirekoha puhul automaatseid kaamerasüsteeme või sarnaseid lahendusi, mis tuvastavad vigastatud või hukkunud linnud.47 48 Nahkhiirte seire Nahkhiirte seire peab toimuma esimesel ja teisel aastal pärast WPP tegevuse algust. Seiremetoodika kavandatakse lähtuvalt ala eripärast ja 2022. aasta tuuleelektrijaama nahkhiirtele avaldatava mõju hindamise juhendist. Selle peab läbi viima ja standardiseerima NCA sertifitseeritud nahkhiireekspert. Järelevalvemetoodika hõlmab järgmist: 1) akustiline seire, paigaldades automaatsed ultraheliandurid 5 WPP masina kambritesse või laba serva kõrgusele, et registreerida nahkhiirte aktiivsust vähemalt ajavahemikul 1. maist kuni 30. septembrini. WPP salvestusseadmete asukoht valitakse juhuslikult. Seiresse kaasatavate WPP-de ja detektorite arvu/asukohta kinnitab sertifitseeritud nahkhiireekspert enne paigaldamist; 2) surnud nahkhiirte loendamine vähemalt neis WPP-des, kus toimub akustiline seire (võimaluse korral võib uurida rohkem WPP-sid). Surnud nahkhiirte otsinguid peavad teostama koolitatud otsijad koos järelevalvega otsingute tõhususe ja nahkhiirte korjuste kadumise aja üle. Seiret tuleb teostada 2 või 3 aastat pärast WPP ehitamist, sõltuvalt piirkonna taimestiku kasvamise astmest. Surnud nahkhiirte otsimise hõlbustamiseks tuleks võimalusel rajada WPP aluse ümber eelistatavalt taimestikuvaba maapind või niita seireperioodi jooksul regulaarselt muru vähemalt 50 m raadiuses (kui metsa ei ole kavas piirkonnas taastada). Kui see nõuab täiendavat metsaraiet, ei ole vaja luua 50 m pikkust puhvertsooni metsadesse paigaldatava WPP ümber. 45 Rydell, J., Ottvall, R., Pettersson, S., Green, M. 2017. Tuuleenergia mõju lindudele ja nahkhiirtele. Rootsi Keskkonnakaitseamet, Rootsi. 46 Perrow, M. R. 2017. Metsloomad ja tuulepargid, konfliktid ja lahendused: Võimalikud mõjud. Maismaal. 47 Ibid. 48 https://doi.org/10.3390/jimaging7120272 43  EIA for the Wind Power Plant Park “Limbaži” Environmental Impact Assessment for the implementation of the WPP park “Limbaži” and associated infrastructure project in Limbaži municipality Ltd Enviroprojekts 28.11.2024 Public Consultation version of the EIA Report 1 CONTENTS Introduction ....................................................................................................................................................8 1. Reasoned justification for the choice of the proposed activity and the place of operation..................9 2. Assessment of the compliance of the proposed activity with environmental, nature protection and other regulatory enactments containing requirements for the proposed activity..................................... 16 3. Description of the site of the proposed activity and assessment of its environmental status ........... 27 3.1. Compatibility of the proposed activity with the spatial plan and existing use of the site ............... 27 3.2. Characteristics of the surroundings of the proposed activity .......................................................... 28 3.3. Characteristics of wind conditions ................................................................................................... 33 3.4. Characteristics of adverse meteorological conditions ..................................................................... 36 4. Description of the proposed action and alternatives .......................................................................... 37 4.1. Siting of WPPs, study areas and WPP site alternatives .................................................................... 37 4.1.1. Location of the WPP study area ................................................................................................ 37 4.1.2. Study area alternatives ........................................................................................................ 41 4.1.3. Location alternatives for the Proposed Activity assessed in the EIA Report....................... 43 4.2. Characteristics of WPP technologies and alternative solutions ....................................................... 47 4.3. The process of building a WPP ......................................................................................................... 51 4.3.1. Description of the construction works and components of the WPP project .................... 51 4.3.2. Planned site preparation works .......................................................................................... 53 4.3.3. Construction solutions for roads and squares..................................................................... 56 4.3.4. Solution for WPP foundation structures ............................................................................. 58 4.3.5. Installation of temporary service area, mast structure and WPP ....................................... 59 4.3.6. Construction of utilities ....................................................................................................... 60 4.3.7. Transport of WPP components ........................................................................................... 62 4.3.8. Installation of additional security, lighting and monitoring equipment for WPP ............... 65 4.3.9. Inspection, testing and acceptance of equipment .............................................................. 66 4.3.10. Reclamation of construction sites and WPPs ...................................................................... 66 4.4. Description of BESS technologies and related infrastructure ..................................................... 67 4.5. Operational characteristics of the WPP ........................................................................................... 70 5. Expected by-products, emissions, risks ............................................................................................... 72 5.1. Waste management ......................................................................................................................... 72 5.2. Possible effects of WPPs on human health, assessment of electromagnetic radiation and permissible levels ........................................................................................................................................................ 73 5.3. Environmental risk and emergency forecast .................................................................................... 76 2  5.3.1. Natural disasters........................................................................................................................ 76 5.3.2. Risk assessment of mechanical damage to WPP ....................................................................... 84 5.3.3. Impact of the WPP on air traffic, navigation equipment .......................................................... 98 5.3.4. BESS container accident risk.................................................................................................... 103 5.4. Information on climate change impacts......................................................................................... 103 5.5. Information on the climate resilience of the Proposed Activity and the potential impacts of climate change on the Proposed Activity........................................................................................................... 107 6. Assessment of the existing state of the environment....................................................................... 108 6.1. Hydrogeological conditions ....................................................................................................... 108 6.2. Hydrological conditions ............................................................................................................. 112 6.2.1. Surface water bodies and ecological quality of water in the area of the proposed activity…….. ........................................................................................................................................ 112 6.2.2. Drainage facilities in the area of the proposed activity .................................................... 115 6.3. Geological structure and engineering geological conditions .................................................... 118 6.3.1. Pre-quaternary sediments ................................................................................................. 118 6.3.2. Quaternary sediments ....................................................................................................... 120 6.3.3. Engineering geological conditions and modern exodynamic processes ........................... 122 6.4. Characteristics of the natural values of the surroundings ........................................................ 124 6.4.1. Special areas of conservation and Natura 2000 sites........................................................ 124 6.4.2. Protected habitats ............................................................................................................. 129 6.4.3. Special-status species or groups of species and their distribution features ..................... 131 6.4.4. Bird species in the area ..................................................................................................... 133 6.4.5. Bat species in the area....................................................................................................... 144 6.4.6. Mammals ........................................................................................................................... 147 6.5. Scenic and cultural heritage significance .................................................................................. 150 6.5.1. Landscape characteristics .................................................................................................. 150 6.5.2. Characteristics of cultural heritage ................................................................................... 157 6.5.3. Tourism and recreation opportunities in the area ............................................................ 159 6.6. Residential houses and residential areas .................................................................................. 161 6.7. Noise assessment ...................................................................................................................... 163 6.8. Air quality assessment ............................................................................................................... 164 6.9. Information on forthcoming economic activities ...................................................................... 169 6.10. Consistency with Limbaži municipality planning documents ................................................ 170 6.11. Information on nearby airports and aerodromes and the impact on communication systems…… ............................................................................................................................................ 171 3  6.12. Nearest water abstraction and mineral extraction sites ....................................................... 175 6.12.1. Characteristics and use of nearby water abstraction points and groundwater deposits . 175 6.12.2. Mining sites ....................................................................................................................... 178 7. Assessment of the significant environmental effects of the proposed action and possible alternatives…… ........................................................................................................................................ ..179 7.1. Total deforested area ................................................................................................................ 181 7.2. Changes in noise and vibration levels ....................................................................................... 185 7.2.1. Assessment and significance of changes in noise levels ......................................................... 185 7.2.2. Assessment and significance of low-frequency noise ............................................................. 195 7.2.3. Assessment and significance of changes in vibration levels ................................................... 198 7.3. Effects of the flicker effect ........................................................................................................ 199 7.4. Impact on air quality.................................................................................................................. 211 7.5. Protection zones and their impact ............................................................................................ 215 7.6. Impacts on natural values and mitigation measures ................................................................ 218 7.6.1. Habitats and vascular plant species - impacts and mitigation measures.......................... 218 7.6.2. Effects on birds .................................................................................................................. 238 7.6.3. Measures to mitigate impacts on bird species .................................................................. 245 7.6.4. Effects on bats ................................................................................................................... 247 7.6.5. Measures to mitigate impacts on bats .............................................................................. 248 7.6.6. Effects on mammals .......................................................................................................... 249 7.6.7. Measures to mitigate impacts on mammals ..................................................................... 250 7.7. Landscape and heritage impact assessment ............................................................................. 250 7.7.1. Impact on the landscape ................................................................................................... 250 7.7.2. Impact on cultural heritage ............................................................................................... 258 7.8. Impact on tourism and recreation ............................................................................................ 272 7.9. Impacts on Natura 2000 sites in the vicinity of the WPP Park .................................................. 275 7.10. Potential impacts on changes to hydrological and hydrogeological regimes ....................... 283 7.11. Summary of mitigation measures ......................................................................................... 284 8. Justification of the chosen alternative in the light of a comparison of environmental impacts ...... 285 9. Cross-border assessment .................................................................................................................. 295 10. Information on the forecasting methods used in the EIA Report ................................................. 297 11. Types of solutions and measures to avoid significant adverse effects on the environment ........ 301 12. Measures to monitor environmental quality ................................................................................ 302 13. Public opinion and opinion polls ................................................................................................... 305 13.1. Initial public consultation ...................................................................................................... 305 4  13.2. Results of citizens' surveys .................................................................................................... 305 14. Socio-economic assessment of the proposed action .................................................................... 311 14.1. Impact of climate policy on socio-economic benefits .................................................................. 311 14.2. Current situation and assumptions .............................................................................................. 313 14.2.1. Socio-economic benefits for society as a whole ................................................................... 313 14.2.2. Socio-economic impacts of the Limbaži WPP Park ............................................................... 316 14.2.3. Socio-economic benefits - Community levy .......................................................................... 316 14.2.4. Conclusions on socio-economic benefits .............................................................................. 317 15. Summary of the environmental impact assessment of the proposed action ............................... 319 16. Authors of the Environmental Impact Assessment ....................................................................... 320 17. List of sources of information and literature consulted in the preparation of the EIA report ..... 321 ATTACHMENTS 1. annex EIA Programme No 5-03/7/2023 as amended. 2. annex − Letter from the Nature Conservation Agency 17.04.2024. No 4.9/2372/2024-N − Letter from the Nature Conservation Agency 26.03.2024. No 1.6.1/1811/2024-N − Letter from the Nature Conservation Agency 23.10.2023. No 4.9/6588/2023-N − Letter from the Nature Conservation Agency 06.09.2023. No 4.9/5504/2023/N − Letter from the Nature Conservation Agency 23.08.2024. No 4.9/5192/2024-N − Order of the Nature Conservation Agency 27.12.2023. No 1.1/249/2023 − Letter from Limbaži Municipality 13.06.2024. No 8.2/24/736 − Letter from Limbaži Municipality 01.07.2024. No 8.2/24/789 − Letter from Limbaži Municipality 29.04.2024. No 8.2/24/581 − Letter from Limbaži Municipality 17.11.2023. No 8.2/23/1443 − Letter from Vidzeme Livic Centre 25.04.2024. No MA24-V11 − Letter from AST 15.01.2024. No 2.5/2024/188 − Letter from the Latvian Centre for Environment, Geology and Meteorology 30.09.2024. No 4- 6/1433 − Letter No DT-6.4.1/203-2024 from SJSC Latvijas dzelzceļš 13.03.2024 − Letter from SJSC "Latvijas gaisa satiksme" 29.02.2024. No VI-AD/JPN-03/2024/118 − Letter 02.02.2024 from the State Agency "Civil Aviation Agency" No 01-8/198 − Letter from SJSC "Latvijas valsts ceļi" 23.02.2024 No.4.8/3379 − Letter from SJSC "Latvijas valsts ceļi" 03.10.2024 Nr.4.8/18231 − Letter from SJSC "Latvian State Radio and Television Centre" 13.03.2024. Nr.40TD.05-02/01/22/BA- 16694 − Letter from SJSC "Elektroniskie sakari" 05.08.2024. No 2.1-2/586 − Letter 09.072024 from the State Forest Service. No VMD1-10/1184 − Letter from the State Environmental Service 05.09.2023. No.2.3/AP/9752/2023 − Letter from the Health Inspectorate 06.09.2023. No 2.4.1.-2./7112 5  − Correspondence with the Estonian Environment Agency regarding C-band radars in the Republic of Estonia − Letter from the National Heritage Board 06.09.2023. No 06-05/6867 3. annex Overview of the initial public consultation 4. annex Overview of how the proposals submitted during the initial public consultation have been considered 5. annex CO2 and GHG emissions 6. annex Nature expert opinions 6.1. Expert opinion on species and habitats 6.2. Opinion of an ornithologist 6.3. Mammal expert opinion 7. annex Noise assessment 8. Attached Assessment of the flicker effect 9. Attached Landscape assessment 10. Attached Assessment by a hydrologist/hydrogeologist 11. annex Calculation of costs and benefits 12. annex Mitigation measures 13. annex SKDS survey 14. Attached Summary of the EIA Report 15.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 6 of JSC "Latvia's State Forest", protection zones and other natural values identified during the preparation of the EIA report. 7 INTRODUCTION The Environmental Impact Assessment (hereinafter - EIA) has been prepared for the proposed activity: implementation of the wind power plant (hereinafter - WPP) park Limbaži and its related infrastructure project in Salacgrīva and Viļķenes parishes of Limbaži municipality. The Environmental Impact Assessment assesses a total of 37 WPP sites. The EIA report provides an explanation of the analysis of all the WPP locations that determine the feasibility of this WPP park. Each potential WPP could have a maximum rated capacity of 8 MW. The proponent of the proposed activity is Ltd Latvijas vēja parki (hereinafter - LVP), registration No 40203415150, registered office: Pulkveža Brieža iela 12, Rīga, LV-1010. Pursuant to the decision of the Cabinet of Ministers, LSC Latvenergo has become the owner of 100 % of LVP shares. LVP 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 5-03/7/2023 of the State Environmental Monitoring Bureau (hereinafter - SEB) on the application of the EIA procedure to the proposed activity of Ltd Latvijas vēja parki - implementation of the WPP park Limbaži and its related infrastructure project in Salacgrīva and Vilķene parishes of Limbaži municipality was adopted on 15 August 2023. EIA Programme No 5-03/7/2023 was issued on 12 September 2023 (as amended on 10 January 2024 by No 5-02-1/3/2024 and No 5-02-1/61/2024. 2024. of. 20. november) (Annex 1). The initial public consultation on the proposed action took place from 10 to 30 November 2023. During the EIA preparation process, the following consultative working group meetings on the Limbaži Wind Park were held in Salacgrīva in February 2024: "Landscape", "Socio-economic aspects. Climate", "Biodiversity" and "Physical impacts. The implementation of the Limbaži WPP Park and its related infrastructure project in the Salacgrīva and Vilķene municipalities of Limbaži County (hereinafter - the Proposed Action) includes and the EIA also assesses the infrastructure related to the functioning of the WPP Park: construction and operation of transmission cable lines, transformer substations, a generated electricity storage solution (BESS), turbine assembly and maintenance yards, and access roads. The EIA report has been prepared by Ltd Enviroprojekts, involving experts from various fields. A list of the experts involved in the preparation 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 and their assessment. In accordance with the terms of the programme issued by the NWFD, 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 610000/23-16. Therefore, all the conclusions and findings of the Environmental Impact Assessment correspond to the situation (actual, physical, climatic, etc.) at the time of its preparation and to the information provided by the client of the work, Ltd Latvijas vēja parki. However, environmental parameters and 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 610000/23-16 is allowed. 8  1. REASONED JUSTIFICATION FOR THE CHOICE OF THE PROPOSED ACTIVITY AND THE PLACE OF OPERATION Up to 20 WPPs are planned to be installed in the area of the proposed operation, with a maximum rated capacity of 8 MW per WPP. In the initial feasibility phase of the project, 45 potential WPP sites were investigated, but in consultation with certified experts and the Nature Conservation Agency (NCA), the number of WPPs was reduced to 37 WPPs, which were investigated in more detail in the EIA procedure, and those whose environmental impacts would cause significant adverse changes were eliminated. The study area of the proposed activity is the territory of JSC Latvia's State Forests lands (hereinafter - LVM)1 , and its total area is 1894 ha. The LVM wind farm study areas and the locations of the evaluated WPPs in Limbaži municipality are shown in Figure 1.1. The proposed action also includes, and the EIA also assesses 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 WPP park is planned to be built in Limbaži municipality, about 5-13 km south-east of Salacgrīva. Other nearby settlements (villages) are Korģene, Svētciems and Vecsalaca. There are also a number of farmsteads in the immediate vicinity of the proposed wind farm, see Figure 3.2.2 (Chapter 3). 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 wind farm surveys.2 LVM has determined that no wind farms will be built on LVM land3: − 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 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 37 WPP assessed in detail in Limbaži municipality are presented below (Figure 1.1). 1 https://www.lvmgeo.lv/dati 2 Ibid, 3 https://www.lvm.lv/biznesa-partneriem/zemes-pirksana-un-noma/veja-parki 9  Figure 1.1. Location of the WPP Limbaži study area and the 37 WPPs evaluated in Limbaži municipality Based on the data of the State Land Service information system kadastrs.lv, 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 10 is planned in a forest area, in accordance with Article 4 of the Law on Procedures for the Construction of Facilitated Energy Supply Structures to Promote Energy Security and Independence (hereinafter - the Law on Energy Security), 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 Energy Security Act, if wind power plants are built on forest land, the negative effects of deforestation shall be compensated by afforestation in accordance with the opinion of the NRWB on the EIA report. The costs of the compensatory measures shall be borne by the Proponent of the Proposed Action. In terms of environmental impacts, the proposed activity is planned on 28 land parcels, summarised in Table 1.1. Table 1.1. Land units included in the recommended area of the Limbaži WPP Park Administrative territory of Cadastral Cadastral designation of No. Name of the real estate the land unit number the land unit 1 Silupītes Salacgrīva parish, Limbaži 66720040090 66720040090 2 Arkādijas Salacgrīva parish, Limbaži 66720040017 66720040015 3 Aušas Salacgrīva parish, Limbaži 66720040174 66720040175 4 Arkādijas Salacgrīva parish, Limbaži 66720040017 66720040019 5 Upeslīči 1 Salacgrīva parish, Limbaži 66720040078 66720040079 6 Viļi Salacgrīva parish, Limbaži 66720100070 66720040247 7 Jaunbirzuļi Salacgrīva parish, Limbaži 66720040244 66720040244 8 Leinieki Salacgrīva parish, Limbaži 66720040192 66720040193 9 Toskana Salacgrīva parish, Limbaži 66720040011 66720040013 10 Tuiskas-II Salacgrīva parish, Limbaži 66720040045 66720040045 11 Senlejas Salacgrīva parish, Limbaži 66720040449 66720040450 12 Stienuži 1 Salacgrīva parish, Limbaži 66720040272 66720040272 13 Fotmeži-Noriņas Salacgrīva parish, Limbaži 66720040288 66720040288 14 Jaunkrusteici Salacgrīva parish, Limbaži 66720040191 66720040191 15 Ziedugravas Salacgrīva parish, Limbaži 66720040250 66720040250 16 Vecmelderi Salacgrīva parish, Limbaži 66720040099 66720040100 17 Jaunjeceni Salacgrīva parish, Limbaži 66720040109 66720040110 Salacgrivas valsts mežs Salacgrīva parish, Limbaži 66720010129 18 Nr.6672 66720040295 19 Smilgas-Toskana Salacgrīva parish, Limbaži 66720040283 66720040283 20 Kirbižu mežs, Vilķenes pag. Limbaži 66880010040 66880010034 21 Jaunvējiņi Salacgrīva parish, Limbaži 66720080006 66720080006 Salacgrīvas valsts mežs Salacgrīva parish, Limbaži 66720010129 22 Nr.6672 66720080070 23 Lielkuikuļi Salacgrīva parish, Limbaži 66720080033 66720080034 24 Varkalni Salacgrīva parish, Limbaži 66720080005 66720080005 Salacgrīvas valsts mežs Salacgrīva parish, Limbaži 66720010129 25 Nr.6672 66720080112 26 V143 Salacgrīva parish, Limbaži 66720040292 66720080068 Salacgrīvas valsts mežs Salacgrīva parish, Limbaži 66720010129 27 Nr.6672 66720080069 11  Administrative territory of Cadastral Cadastral designation of No. Name of the real estate the land unit number the land unit 28 Salacgrīvas valsts mežs Salacgrīva parish, Limbaži 66720010129 Nr.6672 66720050195 This project has the significant advantage of locating the WPPs in predominantly forested areas, thus minimising flicker, noise and landscape change impacts for farmsteads and residents.4 However, there are 42 farmsteads in the study area of the proposed wind farm5 (Figure 3.4, Chapter 3). 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 a capacity greater than 2 MW, the distance from the nearest planned wind power plant and wind park boundary to residential and public buildings must not be less than 800 m. This EIA has established that the closest to the boundary of the WPP park (from the closest located/smallest WPP) is the homestead "Tamisāri": 824 m. Based on the data of the Nature Data Management System (hereinafter - NDMS) "Ozols", there are no Specially Protected Nature Areas (hereinafter - SPAs) and micro-reserves included in the Natura 2000 network in the study areas of the LVM wind park Limbaži6. For more detailed information on protected nature areas and natural monuments, as well as biodiversity in the study area, see Chapters 6.4 and 6.5 below. The nearest Natura 2000 site is the nature reserve "Vitrupes ieleja" 0.8 km from the boundary of the land units and the distance to the nearest WPP is 0.9 km. The Nature Park "Salaca ieleja" is located 1.6 km from the boundary of the land units, the distance to the nearest WPP - 1.8 km. The proposed activity is located in the NWBR (Neutral Zone) area (part of the study area is also located in the Landscape Protection Zone, but no WPPs or infrastructure are proposed). The territory of the proposed action is located in the Gauja river basin district. Major watercourses: Korģe, Vedamurga, Ķulaurga and Ūgenurga. For more information on the hydrological conditions of the study area, see Chapter 6.2. 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 (Chapter 3.2). There are no protected cultural monuments in the area of the proposed development (Chapter 6.5.2). 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 of the proposed activity has a well-developed infrastructure: the P12 regional motorway, V143, V142 and V138 local motorways, the existing LVM road network and, in the wider vicinity, the main national A1 motorway. A high voltage 110 kV transmission line runs along the area of the Proposed Action, which economically justifies the construction of the WPP in close proximity to the electricity connection, reducing the area to be deforested and shortening the new connection line. 4 https://www.zalabriviba.lv/wp-content/uploads/veja_izmantosanas_analize_skersli_iespejas-1.pdf 5 https://www.kadastrs.lv/ 6 Natura 2000 sites in Latvia | Nature Conservation Agency 12 The existing 110 kV power line of JSC Augstsprieguma tīkls (Latvian electricity transmission system operator, hereinafter - AST) and the location of possible 110 kV substations are shown in Figure 1.2. In the vicinity of the Limbaži WPP park there are and in the future, there are plans to develop companies that are large consumers of electricity, such as Aldar Latvia Ltd, Aloja-Starkelsen, a producer of starch and starch products, BS-Holzs, a wood processing company, and Limbažu WOOD, etc. In 2022 the Energy Security Law was adopted, with the aim of promoting renewable energy production, energy security and independence of the Republic of Latvia, as well as mitigating 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 Ltd Latvijas vēja parki for strategically important wind parks on state forest land. The development right agreement with Ltd Latvijas vēja parki has been signed by the state forest land manager LVM. The contract is for 30 years, with the right to extend it if permitted by law. The rationale for the location of the proposed Limbaži WPP Park was determined, inter alia, by the following factors: − the possibility to transfer the generated electricity to the AST transmission infrastructure (the 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: • 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 is at least 800 m (in accordance with the Cabinet of Ministers Regulation No.240 of 30 April 2013 "General Regulations on Planning, Use and Construction of Territory", p. 163.2, see Figure 3.2.2); • The construction of wind turbines is allowed outside towns and villages in the industrial area, technical area, agricultural area, forest land as defined in the local municipality's spatial plan, 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 (according to the Energy Security Law (2022)) 4. article 3.2.2), see Figure 3.2.2; • The siting of WPP is prohibited in Special Protection Areas: Natura 2000 territories (in accordance with Cabinet of Ministers Regulation No.264 of 16.03.2010 "General Regulations on the Protection and Use of Specially Protected Nature Areas") and microreserves (in accordance with Cabinet of Ministers Regulation No.940 of 18.12.2012 "Regulations on the Establishment and Management of Microreserves, their Protection, as well as the Establishment of Microreserves and their Buffer Zones", p. 37); • 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 location of wind power plants shall be determined in accordance with the environmental impact assessment (in accordance with Cabinet of Ministers Regulation No.240 "General Regulations on Planning, Use and Construction of Territory", 30.04.2013, p. 163.3); • in the zone of visual perception of state-protected cultural monuments, the impact of WPPs and wind farms on the landscape should be assessed, taking into account the specific situation and the specifics of the cultural monument (in accordance with Cabinet of Ministers Regulation No.240 of 30.04.2013 "General Regulations on Planning, Use and 13  Construction of the Territory", p. 163.4) (see Figure 6.5.5 for a map of the cultural heritage sites in the area adjacent to the Proposed Action); • 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 purposes on land is 15 kilometres from the centre of the object (according to the Protection Zones Act (1997)) 50.article 4(3)); • if the wind farm's 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 WPP's impact on the beacon's operation is required (in accordance with the European Organisation for Safety in Air Navigation's Guidelines for Assessing the Potential Impact of Wind Turbines on Surveillance Sensors (EUROCONTROL-GUID-0130; Ed.No.1.2; Ed.Date 09/09/2014)); • in addition, restrictions in the 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 considered. − an assessment of the climatic conditions and wind parameters in the area to assess the efficiency of the WPP. The envisaged activity directly follows from the overall strategic objectives of JSC Latvenergo and the Cabinet of Ministers' Order No 464 of 27 June 2022, establishing Ltd Latvijas vēja parki to implement strategically important wind park projects. The choice of the Limbaži WPP site is based on the possibility of concluding a development agreement, the proximity of the power transmission line and other factors listed above. 14 Figure 1.2. AST power line and substation in relation to the Limbaži wind park study land area in Limbaži municipality 15  2. ASSESSMENT OF THE COMPLIANCE OF THE PROPOSED ACTIVITY WITH ENVIRONMENTAL, NATURE PROTECTION AND OTHER REGULATORY ENACTMENTS CONTAINING REQUIREMENTS FOR THE PROPOSED ACTIVITY Areas of legislation assessed: protection zones, drainage systems, waste management, air protection, noise, SACs, species and habitats protection, spatial planning, energy, environmental risks, aviation safety, etc. Table 2.1 below summarises the assessment of the compatibility of the proposed activity with the environmental, nature protection and other regulatory enactments that contain requirements for the proposed activity. Table 2.1. Overview of regulatory requirements and how they have been taken into account in the EIA report No. Statutory instrument and its requirements How it has been taken into account in the EIA report European Landscape Convention (Florence, 20 Taken into account in the assessment of 1. October 2000). landscape impacts (Chapter 6.5). Directive (EU) 2023/2413 of the European Directive 2023/2413 sets the EU the target Parliament and of the Council of 18 October of becoming climate neutral by 2050 at the 2023 amending Directive (EU) 2018/2001, latest, with an interim target of reducing net Regulation (EU) 2018/1999 and Directive GHG emissions by at least 55% below 1990 2. 98/70/EC and repealing Council Directive (EU) levels by 2030 (Chapter 7). 2015/652 with regard to the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources. Directive 2006/42/EC of the European This Directive requires that the conformity Parliament and of the Council of 17 May 2006 on assessment process under the EU Directives machinery and amending Directive 95/16/EC requires the manufacturer to carry out a risk 3. (recast) (Text with EEA relevance). analysis and assessment of its product and its intended use, covering design, manufacture, production and use as well as operation (Chapter 5.3). Directive 2000/60/EC of the European The water quality of the water bodies under Parliament and of the Council of 23 October GUBA is assessed in relation to the 4. 2000 establishing a framework for Community requirements of the EU Water Framework action in the field of water policy. Directive (Chapter 6). Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on The Directive has been taken into account in the conservation of natural habitats and of wild the SEA assessment. Species of Annex II of 5. fauna and flora. the Habitats Directive (BD II) have been recorded and mapped in the site (Section 4.1). Regulation (EU) 2024/1991 of the European Taken into account in the NATURA 2000 Parliament and of the Council of 24 June 2024 on Nature Conservation Impact Assessment 6. nature restoration and amending Regulation (EU) (Chapter 7.9). 2022/869 (Text with EEA relevance). Council Directive of 2 April 1979 on the Identify the bird species and groups of bird 7. conservation of wild birds. species to be assessed for the effects of the Proposed Action (Chapters 6 and 7). 16 No. Statutory instrument and its requirements How it has been taken into account in the EIA report Directive 2014/30/EU of the European The Directive has been taken into account Parliament and of the Council of 26 February with regard to the protection of citizens 8. 2014 on the harmonisation of the laws of the (chapter 5.3). Member States relating to electromagnetic compatibility (recast) Text with EEA relevance. Directive 2012/18/EU of the European Taken into account in the preparation of the Parliament and of the Council of 4 July 2012 on Environmental Impact Assessment (Chapter the management of major-accident hazards 5). 9. involving dangerous substances and amending and subsequently repealing Council Directive 96/82/EC Text with EEA relevance. Directive (EU) 2018/2001 of the European Taken into account in the preparation of the Parliament and of the Council of 11 December Environmental Impact Assessment (Chapter 10. 2018 on the promotion of the use of energy 7). from renewable sources (recast) (Text with EEA relevance). European Commission Regulation No 601/2012 Taken into account in the climate change of 21 June 2012 concerning monitoring and impact assessment (chapters 5.4 and 12). 11. reporting of greenhouse gas emissions pursuant to Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council. Regulation (EU) 2021/1119 of the European Specifies that Member States should Parliament and of the Council of 30 June 2021 support the accelerated development of establishing a framework for climate neutrality renewable energy projects, in cooperation and amending Regulations (EC) 401/2009 and with local and regional authorities, by (EU) 2018/1999 ("the European Climate Act"). identifying and designating land, surface, underground and marine or inland water areas required for the installation of renewable energy plants for the production 12. 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). Communication from the Commission to the Taken into account in the preparation of the European Parliament, the European Council, the Environmental Impact Assessment (Chapter 13. Council, the European Economic and Social 6.10). Committee and the Committee of the Regions - A European Green Deal. EC report on the Council conclusions of Taken into account for the protection of the 12.07.1999. (1999/519/EC) Recommendation on population (chapter 5.3). 14. the limitation of exposure to electromagnetic fields (0 Hz to 300 GHz). 17 No. Statutory instrument and its requirements How it has been taken into account in the EIA report Waste Management Law, 18.11.2010, amended Taken into account in the assessment of 11.04.2023. waste management during construction. There is a low risk of contamination of soil and groundwater during construction. 15. During construction and operation, the requirements for the organisation of works and the technical condition of the equipment (Chapter 5.1) will be complied with. Law on Specially Protected Nature Areas, in The statutory list has been taken into force since 07.04.1993, with amendments in account in the characterisation of the force since 13.04.2022. natural values of the area surrounding the The aim of the Law is to establish the basic Proposed Development (Chapters 3.1, 6.4, principles of the system of specially protected 7.6 and 7.9). nature territories, the procedure for establishing and ensuring the existence of specially protected Three Natura 2000 sites are located in the nature territories, the procedure for managing vicinity of the proposed development: 16. specially protected nature territories, monitoring − Vitrupe valley 1.8 km from the area and accounting for their status, as well as to of the Proposed Action; combine national, international, regional and − Salaca Valley 2.1 km; private interests in the establishment, − Niedrāju-Pilka swamp 2.7 km. conservation, maintenance and protection of specially protected nature territories. The annex to the law contains Latvia's Natura 2000 list of protected areas of European importance. Energy Law, in force since 06.10.1998, Article 24: The EIA report takes into account and the energy supply company shall compensate the assesses changes to the buffer zones owner of the immovable property for losses (Chapters 3 and 4). directly related to the installation of new facilities of the energy supply company or to the operation The procedure for the installation and and repair 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 supply business; 17. 2) the redevelopment of the facility increases the area of land occupied by the energy supplier's facility or the buffer zone along or around the facility. 19. article 5 stipulates that the energy supply undertaking is 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, 18 No. Statutory instrument and its requirements How it has been taken into account in the EIA report networks, lines and their accessories, if at least one of the conditions 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 municipality. 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. Law on the Procedure for the Construction of Taken into account in the context of the Facilitated Energy Supply Structures to Promote initial consultation foreseen in the Energy Security and Independence, in force from assessment. Programme No.5-03/7/2023 for 05.10.2022. the Environmental Impact Assessment for 7.articles. Environmental impact assessment and the implementation of the Limbaži Wind timelines for wind farm construction. Farm and related infrastructure project in (1) The environmental impact assessment of the the municipalities of Salacgrīva and Vilķene construction of wind power plants shall be carried in Limbaži County was received on 12 out in accordance with the Law "On September 2023, but the Law requires that Environmental Impact Assessment", unless the initial consultation be carried out 18. otherwise provided for in this Law. despite the premature issue of the (4) The State Environmental Bureau shall issue an programme. Consequently, upon receipt of environmental impact assessment programme Programme No. 5-03/7/2023, the within 15 days from the date of receipt of the Proponent of the Proposed Action, in decision referred to in the third paragraph of this accordance with Article 15 of the Article or the decision of the State Environmental Environmental Impact Assessment Law, was Service on the application of the environmental required to provide an initial consultation impact assessment procedure for the on the impacts of the Proposed Action, construction of wind power plants. which took place from 10-30 November (Chapters 3, 4 and 8). Construction Law, in force from 01.10.2014. Taken into account in determining the 19. construction arrangements (Chapter 4). Water Management Act, in force from Taken into account in determining the 20. 15.10.2002. ownership of the area of the Proposed 19 No. Statutory instrument and its requirements How it has been taken into account in the EIA report Action. According to this law, the territory of the Proposed Action falls within the Gauja river basin district (Chapter 6). Environmental Impact Assessment Act, in force Taken into account in the EIA procedure 21. since 13.11.1998. (throughout the document - all chapters). Protection Zones Act, the restrictions set out in Taken into account for any works/activities the protection zones, the requirements of Articles in the buffer zones that require protection 22. 35 and 45, and others. of the sites. These works will be carried out in agreement with the owner of the site (3. 6. and Chapter 7). Species and Habitats Conservation Act, in force Taken into account for the assessment of since 19.04.2000. measures needed to protect protected 23. plant, fungi, lichen and animal species, their habitats and habitats (Chapters 6.4, 7.6 and 7.9). Law on Land Reclamation, in force from Taken into account in the assessment of 24. 25.01.2010. drainage systems in the study area (Chapters 4, 6 and 8). Amendments to the Electricity Market Law, in Taken into account in the Environmental 25. force from 05.01.2024. Impact Assessment (Chapter 14). Law "On the Protection of Cultural Monuments", Taken into account in the Environmental 26. in force from 10.03.1992. Impact Assessment (Chapter 7). Cabinet of Ministers 19.08. 2014. regulation Taken into account in determining the No.500 "General Building Regulations", Annex 1. category of the substation structure and the measures required for its construction. For the purposes of these Regulations, a 27. 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). Cabinet of Ministers Regulations No 982 of Taken into account in the design of 05.12.2006 "Methodology for Determination of construction works and the corresponding Protective Zones of Energy Infrastructure buffer zones (Chapter 3.1). Objects": 8.paragraph 4.1 states that if, while carrying out earthworks, legal or natural persons 28. discover a cable that is not specified in the technical documentation for the works, they shall stop the earthworks and ensure that the cable is preserved, and shall immediately notify the owner or operator of the electricity network and the local municipality. Cabinet of Ministers Regulation No.635 of Taken into account when planning the 07.11.2023 "Regulations on Electricity Trade and connection of electricity installations to the 29. Use" establishes the procedure for electricity electricity system. supply to electricity users, the rights and The connection of the electricity obligations of the electricity trader and the installations to the electricity system will 20 No. Statutory instrument and its requirements How it has been taken into account in the EIA report electricity system operator and the user in the take place after the decision of the Council supply and use of electricity. According to of the Public Utilities Regulatory Paragraph 3 of the above mentioned Regulation, Commission on the system connection rules connection of the user's electrical installations to for the electricity system participants the electricity system or increase of the permitted (Chapters 4 and 14). loads shall be carried out in accordance with the system connection rules for electricity system participants approved by the Public Utilities Regulatory Commission. Cabinet of Ministers Regulation No.253 of The design and construction of the 09.05.2017 "Construction Regulations for Certain electricity supply will be carried out in 30. Engineering Structures". accordance with these Regulations (Chapter 4). Cabinet of Ministers Regulation No.574 of Determine the location of utilities planned 30.09.2014 "Regulations on Latvian Building Code in the area of the Proposed Operation. The LBN 008-14 "Location of Engineering Networks". location of utilities planned in the planning 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 AS "Sadales tīkls", their vehicles and other equipment. The proposed action will involve the use of certain sites: 31. - 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). Cabinet of Ministers Regulation No 303 of Taken into account in the Environmental 19.03.2011 "Individual Rules for the Protection Impact Assessment (Chapters 3 and 6). The and Use of the North Vidzeme Biosphere proposed activity is not located within the Reserve". Northern Vidzeme Biosphere Reserve. It is prohibited to install WPP in the North Vidzeme Biosphere Reserve, except in the areas specified in Annex 2 to this Regulation, subject to 32. the following conditions: WPP shall be sited after written permission from the NCA; 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. 21 No. Statutory instrument and its requirements How it has been taken into account in the EIA report Cabinet of Ministers Regulation No.240 of Taken into account in the siting of the 30.04.2013 "General Regulations on Spatial WPPs: the planned WPPs will be sited within Planning, Use and Construction" the established minimum distances to According to the requirements of the Regulations, buildings. According to the Limbaži WPPs with a capacity greater than 20 kW are municipality spatial plan, the construction allowed to be located in the industrial area (R), area of the WPP park includes land units or technical area (TA), agricultural area (L) and their parts, the planned (permitted) use of forest area (M) under the conditions of the which is basically defined as a forest area. environmental impact assessment. Relatively small areas of the WPP 163. The following conditions shall apply to the construction area are covered by water. siting of wind turbines and wind farms: Where necessary, changes or additions to 163.1. for wind power plants with a capacity of the spatial planning documents will be between 20 kW and 2 MW, the distance between initiated (Chapters 1, 3, 5, 6 and 7). the nearest planned wind power plant and the boundary of the wind park and residential and public buildings shall be at least 500 m; 163.2. for wind farms with a capacity greater than 2 MW, a distance of at least 800 m from the nearest boundary of the proposed wind farm and wind farm to residential and public buildings; 33. 163.3. in order to protect bird species or natural 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; 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 is defined from the outermost tower of the wind farm. (in the wording of Regulation No 630 of the Cabinet of Ministers of 13.10.2020 ) 163.1 The conditions referred to in Paragraph 163 of this Regulation 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. Cabinet of Ministers Regulation No 163 Taken into account in the buffer zone. The of23.04.2002. "On noise emission from boundary of the wind park is defined from equipment for use outdoors", point 5. the edge of the WPP, so the decision not to 34. install individual WPPs may affect the potential buffer zone, resulting in a change in the potential total population in each area (Chapter 7). 22 No. Statutory instrument and its requirements How it has been taken into account in the EIA report 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, 35. 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). Cabinet of Ministers Regulation No.16 of The assessment of noise from the operation 07.01.2014 "Noise assessment and management of the WPP shall be carried out using the procedure" specifies permissible noise levels for calculation methods specified in Annex 5 to various equipment, noise assessment, calculation this Regulation. 36. methods, etc. The equipment to be used during installation and operation shall comply with the requirements of this Regulation (Chapters 6, 7 and 10). Cabinet of Ministers Regulation No 432 of Suitable for determining climatological 37. 17.09.2017 "Regulations on Latvian Building Code performance of buildings and their elements LBN 003-19 "Building Climatology"". (Chapter 4). Cabinet of Ministers Regulation No.306 of Suitable for the establishment of 02.05.2012 "Regulations on the Methodology for operational protection zones around 38. Determining the Operating Protection Zone drainage structures and installations on around Drainage Structures and Devices on agricultural land and forest land (Chapters 6 Agricultural Land and Forest Land". and 7). Cabinet of Ministers Regulation No 1055 of The list referred to in the Regulations has 19.09.2009 "Regulations on the List of Species of been taken into account in the Fauna and Flora of European Community characterisation of the natural values of the Importance in Need of Protection and the List of area surrounding the Proposed Individuals of Fauna and Flora of European Development (Chapters 4, 6 and 7). Community Importance whose Harvest in the 39. 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). Cabinet of Ministers Regulation No.925 of The species and habitat expert opinions 40. 30.09.2010 "Content of the expert opinion in the annexed to the report have been prepared 23 No. Statutory instrument and its requirements How it has been taken into account in the EIA report field of species and habitat conservation and in accordance with the Regulations minimum requirements contained therein". (Chapters 6 to 9). Cabinet of Ministers Regulation No 511 of The Regulations provide for damage 07.07.2008 "Procedure for assessing damage to assessment and remediation measures for 41. natural monuments and calculating the costs of natural monuments designated by the remediation measures". Cabinet of Ministers as well as the municipality (Chapters 6 and 7). Cabinet of Ministers Regulation No 213 of The Regulations require that significant 31.03.2007 "Regulations on Criteria for Assessing adverse changes from the baseline 42. the Significance of the Impact of Damage to condition are determined using numerical Specially Protected Species or Specially Protected data for species and measurable data for Habitats". habitats (Chapters 6 to 9). Cabinet of Ministers Regulation No.153 of The list contained in the Regulations has 25.02.2006 "Regulations on the List of European been taken into account in the Union Priority Species and Habitats Occurring in characterisation of the natural values of the 43. Latvia" provides a list of European Union priority area of the Proposed Development and its species and habitats occurring in Latvia. surroundings (Chapters 6 to 9). Cabinet of Ministers Regulation No.350 of The list contained in the Regulations has 28.06.2017 "Regulations on the List of Specially been taken into account in the 44. Protected Habitat Types" defines the list of characterisation of the natural values of the specially protected habitat types. area of the Proposed Action and the surrounding area (Chapters 6 to 9). Cabinet of Ministers Regulation No.264 of Taken into account in determining the 31.03.2010 "General Regulations on the compliance of the Proposed Activity with Protection and Use of Specially Protected Nature the general procedure for protection and Territories". use of specially protected nature territories, including permitted and prohibited activities 45. in protected areas, as well as the model of special informative sign to be used for marking protected areas in nature and the procedure for its use and establishment (Chapters 1 and 7). Cabinet Regulations 01.07.2015. No 329 A large part of the area of the proposed "Regulations on Latvian Building Standard LBN action is forested. 224-15 "Melioration systems and hydrotechnical Paragraph 116 of the Regulation states that 46. structures"". the regulation of woodland moisture shall be provided by a regulating network of drainage ditches, swales and road ditches (Chapters 4 and 6). Cabinet of Ministers Regulation No 133 of Taken into account in the Environmental 47. 01.07.2021 "Procedure for accounting of waste Impact Assessment (Chapter 5). and its transportation". Cabinet of Ministers Regulation No.720 of According to these rules, natural or legal 26.10.2021 "Regulations for the Record-keeping, persons who, in the course of construction 48. Protection, Use and Restoration of Cultural or other works, discover an object of Monuments". cultural heritage value, shall notify the 24 No. Statutory instrument and its requirements How it has been taken into account in the EIA report 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). Cabinet of Ministers Regulation No.46 of Taken into account in the identification of 21.01.2021 "List of objects of increased danger". sensitive receptors in the area of the 49. Proposed Action. The sites listed (Chapters 1 and 3) are not located within the site. Cabinet of Ministers Regulation No 570 of In accordance with these provisions, each 21.07.2008 "Regulations on marking and WPP within the area of the Proposed equipping objects with protective lights". Operation will be equipped with two protective lights so that their position in the 50. 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° (Chapter 4). Cabinet of Ministers Regulation No 131 of The potential risk of accidents associated 01.03.2016 "Procedure for risk assessment of with the operation of electrical energy 51. industrial accidents and risk reduction measures". storage installations shall be assessed in accordance with these Regulations (Chapter 5). 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 Water Management Districts". basin areas: The Gauja (large catchment 52. area code 52) and the Gauja-Salaca (large catchment area code 54) are divided into several catchment areas (Chapter 6). 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 53. Protected Species and Specially Protected Species these Regulations (Chapters 6 and 7). of Restricted Use". Cabinet of Ministers Regulation No 940 of The bird species and groups of bird species 18.12.2012 "Regulations on the establishment on which the impact of the Proposed Action and management of microreserves, their has been assessed are those included in the protection, as well as the designation of list of Appendix I to Cabinet Regulation No microreserves and their buffer zones". 396 of 14 November 2000 "Regulations on 54. the List of Specially Protected Species and Specially Protected Species of Restricted Use", Cabinet Regulation No 940 of 18 December 2012 "Regulations on the establishment and management of microreserves, their protection and the 25 No. Statutory instrument and its requirements How it has been taken into account in the EIA report designation of microreserves and their buffer zones" and Annex I or II (Chapters 1, 6 and 7) of Directive 2009/147/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the conservation of wild birds. Cabinet of Ministers Regulation No.674 of Taken into account in the Environmental 55. 21.11.2023 "Regulations on Nature Reserves". Impact Assessment (chapters 1, 3, 6 and 7). Cabinet of Ministers Order No 238 of 28 March Taken into account in the Environmental 56. 2024 "On the Landscape Policy Implementation Impact Assessment (chapters 6 and 7). Plan 2024-2027". Latvia's Sustainable Development Strategy Taken into account in the Environmental 57. "Latvia2030". Impact Assessment (all chapters). Latvia's National Development Plan 2021-2027 Taken into account in the Environmental 58. (NDP2027). Impact Assessment (all chapters). National Energy and Climate Plan 2021-2030. Taken into account in the Environmental 59. Impact Assessment (all chapters). Landscape Policy Implementation Plan 2024- Taken into account in the Environmental 60. 2027. Impact Assessment (chapters 6 and 7). Latvia's climate change adaptation plan for the Taken into account in the Environmental 61. period to 2030. Impact Assessment (all chapters). Latvia's strategy to achieve climate neutrality by Taken into account in the Environmental 62. 2050. Impact Assessment (all chapters). Environmental Policy Guidelines 2021-2027 Taken into account in the Environmental 63. Impact Assessment (all chapters). Gauja river basin district management plan and This has been taken into account in the 64. flood risk management plan 2022-2027. preparation of the Environmental Impact Assessment. Vidzeme Planning Region Sustainable This has been taken into account in the 65. Development Strategy 2030. development of the Environmental Impact Assessment (Chapters 6 and 7). Development programme of Salacgrīva town and Noted. 66. rural areas. 67. Limbazi municipality spatial plan 2012-2024. Noted. Spatial plan of territorial units of Salacgrīva Noted. 68. municipality from 2009. Limbazi Municipality Development Programme Noted. 69. 2022-2028. Limbazi Municipality Sustainable Development Noted. 70. Strategy 2022-2046. Nature Conservation Plan of the Northern Noted. 71. Vidzeme Biosphere Reserve Nature Park "Salaca Valley", section "Salacgrīva", 2005-2019. 26  3. DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE OF THE PROPOSED ACTIVITY AND ASSESSMENT OF ITS ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS 3.1. Compatibility of the proposed activity with the spatial plan and existing use of the site Administratively, the territory of the Proposed Action includes the Salacgrīva municipality and Viļķenes municipality of Limbaži County, but the EIA study area also includes the territory of Ainaži, Pāles and Staicele municipalities of Limbaži County and the town of Salacgrīva. Due to the fact that after the administrative-territorial reform of 1 July 2021, Limbaži municipality merges several administrative territories (former Aloja, Limbaži and Salacgrīva municipalities), Limbaži municipality does not have a single valid spatial plan so far: the spatial plans of the former municipalities are valid until their elaboration is completed. According to the Limbaži municipality spatial plan, the construction area of the WPP park includes land units or their parts, the planned (permitted) use of which is basically defined as a forest area. Relatively small areas of the WPP construction area are covered by water. The main use of forest and marsh land (M) is for forestry activities, but there are also natural areas that should be kept intact and also for recreation. According to the TIAN of Limbaži Municipality, the permitted uses in these territories are: − forestry use − forest infrastructure; − forest parks on municipally owned forest land; − exploration and extraction of minerals through land transformation − lookout and observation towers, paths, footbridges; − buildings and structures related to forestry, game farming and game tourism; − a wildlife garden; − agricultural use (including cultivation of berries) through land transformation or deforestation; − detached houses and outbuildings in private forests; − sports facilities; − a cemetery, including an animal cemetery; − engineering networks and facilities; − engineering infrastructure facilities necessary for the functioning of the site. TIAN of Limbaži municipality stipulates that forest land transformation or deforestation can be carried out in accordance with the requirements of the existing state regulatory enactments. The Cabinet of Ministers Regulation No.240 of 30.04.2013 "General Regulations on Spatial Planning, Use and Construction" in the wording in force since 15.11.2024, stipulates: "161. Wind power plants (..) are allowed to be located in (..) forest area (M) according to the conditions of the environmental impact assessment." The TIAN of Limbaži municipality stipulates that the minimum distance from the WPP or communication mast to the boundaries of the adjacent land plot is not less than one and a half metres of the height of the respective structure. Chapter 3.11 Engineering and technical support of TIAN, Paragraph 76 states that it is not allowed to locate WPP in specially protected nature territories, except for those territories defined in the normative acts of the North Vidzeme Biosphere Reserve (hereinafter - NVBR), in villages and town territories. In residential areas it is allowed to locate WPP with maximum power up to 20 kW, it is allowed 27 to locate in the construction zone of a detached house area, if the height of the WPP mast does not exceed 12 m and it is possible to provide a WPP protection zone equal to - mast height x 1.5 within the land plot, or if an agreement has been reached with the owner of the adjacent real estate on the imposition of a burden - protection zone on the land plot, registered in the Land Register. During the EIA procedure, the Proponent of the Proposed Action consulted the Limbaži Municipality on the proposed activity. Limbaži Municipality, in its letter No 8.2/23/1443 of 17 November 2023 (attached as Annex 2), indicated a number of conditions to be taken into account in the EIA. The proponent of the proposed activity also consulted the Limbaži municipality later - asking for its opinion on the construction of a WPP with height restrictions in the protection zone around the “Lībiešu upuralas” to allow the construction of WPPs with a maximum height of 250 m or 275 m, while avoiding the construction of 300 m high WPPs. In its letter No 8.2/24/789 of 1 July 2024 (Annex 2), the Limbaži Municipality states that it agrees to the construction of individual WPPs (Z8, Z11, Z9) within a two- kilometre protection zone around the “Lībiešu upuralas” with a height of 250 m or less. The Guidelines on the inclusion of wind farms in municipal spatial development planning documents - spatial plans and sustainable development strategies7 (31.10.2022) state that the municipality cannot impose engineering requirements (height of the WPP, distance to sites, etc.) or require approval from adjacent property owners8. The Limbaži Municipality spatial plan sets out the conditions for the implementation of the Proposed Action and the Proposed Action does not conflict with them. 3.2. Characteristics of the surroundings of the proposed activity The implementation of the wind park and its related infrastructure is planned for the Salacgrīva and Viļķenes parishes of Limbaži municipality, in the LVM wind park research land area, with a total area of 1894 ha. The nearest settlements from the boundary of the area of the Proposed Action to the south are the village of Ķirbiži approximately 1 km away, to the west - Lāņi approximately 5 km and Svētciems approximately 4.5 km, while to the north are the villages of Vecsalaca approximately 2 km and Korģene approximately 1.5 km from the LVM wind farm study area (Figure 1.1). The nearest town is Salacgrīva: in a south-westerly direction approximately 5 km from the nearest assessed WPP and assembly and maintenance site. There are also several farmsteads in the immediate vicinity of the area of the proposed activity, which are not closer than the distance from the WPP as specified in the regulatory enactments. The population density in and around the LVM wind farm study areas is shown in Figure 3.2.1. There are no permanent residents in the area of the proposed activity and the adjacent area has a population density of less than 5 people per km2. The location of access roads and cable lines within the wind park area is planned, as far as possible, using the existing public road network: direct access roads to the WPP are planned as far as possible within the LVM land areas, so as not to encroach on other land property boundaries. It is expected that access to the planned wind farm during construction and operation will be provided by the national main road A1 (Riga - Estonian border), regional road P12 (Limbaži - Salacgrīva), state local roads V138 (Lāņi - Ķirbiži - Jelgavkrasti) and V143 (Akmeņkalni - Lauvas - Ķekari), municipal roads, forest roads maintained by LVM, as well as newly constructed or adapted existing access roads. 7 https://www.varam.gov.lv/lv/media/33749/download?attachment 8 Sub-paragraph 6.2 of the Constitutional Court's judgment of 24 February 2011 in Case No 2010-48-03. 28 According to the information published in the data management system "OZOLS" of the NCA, the study area of the Proposed Action, which is wider than the study area of the LVM wind farms, contains several Special Protection Areas and microreserves, species deposits and their areas, habitats of European Union importance and specially protected trees. The Proposed Action is located in the NWBR (Neutral Zone) area (part of the Proposed Action area is also located in the Landscape Protection Zone, but no WPPs are proposed). More detailed information on the natural values of the area is provided in subsections 6.4 and 6.5. Figure 3.2.1. Population density around the 37 WPPs evaluated in the Limbaži WPP LVM wind park study area 29 Figure 3.2.2. 800 m buffer zone around the WPP and the location of houses near the WPP and the assembly and maintenance areas (WWP park) 30 From 1 May 2024, the site for management of contaminated sites of the VVD and the Latvian Centre for the Environment, Geology and Meteorology (hereinafter - LVGMC) is available: pvps.vvd.gov.lv. However, given that this site has been opened to the public relatively recently, it does not yet contain the full list of contaminated and potentially contaminated sites, as was the case with the previous register of the LVGMC, available until 1 May this year. Therefore, the EIA report used the information obtained in February 2024 from the previous LVGMC 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 Action9. Figure 3.2.3. Contaminated and potentially contaminated sites in the vicinity of a WPP and assembly and maintenance yards (WPP park) 9 http://parissrv.lvgmc.lv/#viewType=pppvMapListView&incrementCounter=1 - viewed. 2024. february 2011. 31 The nearest potentially contaminated sites are in Korģene village (WPP park construction study area Z) - former boiler house in Korģene, reg. 66357/2757 (approx. 2 km away); former fuel storage in Korģene reg.no. 66357/2756 (2,3 km away); former chemical warehouse in Korģene, reg. no. 66357/2761 (2 km away). From the site of the Proposed Development in direction A, in Lauvas, there is a former fuel depot, reg. 66357/2755 (approx. 3.2 km from the study area), Salacgrīva municipality, while in the W direction near the village Vecsalaca there is Stienūži landfill site with reg.no. 6357/2754 (approx. 0.85 km) (Figure 3.2.3). According to publicly available information at10, hard minerals such as sand, sand-gravel and peat are present in the vicinity of the proposed activity and have been extracted for a long time. Sand and sand- gravel are extracted for construction, road building, maintenance and repair. The peat is extracted for agricultural purposes. Information on mineral deposits is provided in Chapter 6.12. The location of the proposed activity in relation to other wind farms 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 3.2.4. The assessment of the cumulative environmental impacts of wind farms is based on publicly available information on these wind farms. The nearest wind park is the Aloja Wind Park, located approximately 25 km from the area of the Proposed Action. Figure 3.2.4. Location of the proposed activity in relation to other wind parks in the vicinity 10 https://videscentrs.lvgmc.lv/iebuvets/zemes-dzilu-informacijas-sistema 32 According to the information available on the website of the NRWB11 , the decision on the necessity of EIA for the wind park Aloja was adopted on 28 August 2023 and the Environmental Impact Assessment Programme was issued on 14 September 2023. Up to 31 new generation NHPs are planned to be installed in the wind park. No cumulative environmental effects are expected between the two wind farms. The other wind farms in northern Latvia and southern Estonia are located more than 50 km away, where no cumulative environmental effects are expected to occur. The nearest wind farm in Estonia, in the municipality of Valga, is located more than 70 km from the area of the Proposed Action. 3.3. Characteristics of wind conditions Wind conditions in the area of the Proposed Action are an important aspect to be taken into account in the siting and environmental impact assessment of WPPs. Information on wind conditions in the area of the Proposed Action is based on long-term observation data. The EIA uses data from the ERA5 5th generation ECMWF Global Climate Atmospheric 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 24.500000, latitude 57.750000, Local coordinates: (LKS92) Y: 529759.57 X: 400986.94). The wind data used in this EIA describes the wind at a point in the vicinity of the Proposed Action at Vecsalaca (see Figure 3.3.1). 11 https://www.vpvb.gov.lv/lv 12 https://climate.copernicus.eu/copernicus-regional-reanalysis-europe-cerra 33 Figure 3.3.1. WPP park with a point characterised by the wind data used 34 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 records underlying 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 FOR A DA D DR R ZR Total Up to 3,00 m/s 882 855 820 822 738 820 946 976 6859 3,01-8,00 m/s 4456 3914 4498 4460 4785 5649 6157 5745 39664 8,01-13,00 m/s 2278 2308 3648 4025 6763 7756 6183 4324 37285 13,01-18,00 m/s 351 296 424 646 2360 3436 2069 931 10513 18,01-23,00 m/2 16 5 12 9 167 395 235 86 925 23,01-infinity 0 0 0 0 0 25 32 1 58 Total 7983 7378 9402 9962 14813 18081 15622 12063 95304 Table 3.3.2. Percentage distribution of wind measurements by speed and direction Z FOR A DA D DR R ZR Up to 3,00 m/s 0,925 0,897 0,860 0,863 0,774 0,860 0,993 1,024 7,197 3,01-8,00 m/s 4,676 4,107 4,720 4,680 5,021 5,927 6,460 6,028 41,618 8,01-13,00 m/s 2,390 2,422 3,828 4,223 7,096 8,138 6,488 4,537 39,122 13,01-18,00 m/s 0,368 0,311 0,445 0,678 2,476 3,605 2,171 0,977 11,031 18,01-23,00 m/2 0,017 0,005 0,013 0,009 0,175 0,414 0,247 0,090 0,971 23,01 - infinity 0,000 0,000 0,000 0,000 0,000 0,026 0,034 0,001 0,061 8,376 7,742 9,865 10,453 15,543 18,972 16,392 12,657 100 35 Based on the results of the characterisation of wind conditions, 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. 1.part: Design Requirements", these are Class III turbines, which have been assessed in detail in the noise and flickering shadow impact assessment. For noise modelling (subsection 7.2.1) and flickering shadow modelling (subsection 7.3), the following steps shall be taken. chapter 7.2), these wind data are used in the speed range 3-23 m/s, as most of the currently available WPP models do not turn in no-wind (below 3 m/s) and similarly do not automatically stop in excessive wind (above 23 m/s): this is in total 92.7 % of the time throughout the year (assuming that a WPP model is installed in the area of the Proposed Operation that automatically stops at wind speeds higher than 23 m/s). 3.4. Characteristics of adverse meteorological conditions The meteorological conditions in the area of the proposed operation are suitable for the siting of WPPs complying with the international standard IEC 61400-1 "Wind turbines. 1.part: 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 from 3 to 23 m/s: at ~3 m/s the rotor starts to rotate slowly, by ~10 m/s it reaches a rotation speed close to the maximum and continues to operate until wind speeds reach ~23 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 WPP or its wings. The rotation speed is technologically limited in two ways: 1) as wind speed increases, the orientation of the wing plane 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 WPP and consequently braking the rotor more strongly, i.e. extracting more energy from the same rotational speed. At wind speeds of ~23 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. Accordingly, when the wind speed drops below 23 m/s, the wings start to catch the wind again and the rotor starts to rotate again. Thus, the conditions that are unfavourable for the operation of WPPs are: 1) windless (< 3 m/s), 2) winds too strong (>23 m/s). The distribution of wind speeds at the proposed site is described in Chapter 3.3, including Table 3.3.2: adverse wind conditions are expected ~7.3% 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 Chapter 5.3. When assessing the environmental impact of WPPs, sunny weather is also considered to be to some extent an adverse meteorological condition: in bright sunshine, WPPs can cause a disturbance to the flickering shadows of the surrounding houses, which is not a nuisance when it is cloudy. The characteristics of solar irradiance are given in Chapter 7.3, including Table 7.3.1. 36 4. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES 4.1. Siting of WPPs, study areas and WPP site alternatives 4.1.1. Location of the WPP study area The total area of the construction area of the wind park, the use of which has been agreed with LVM for the transfer of land to Ltd “Latvijas vēja parki” (Cabinet Order No 831 of 28 November 2023 "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") is 1,894 ha. When the study was launched, the area was to be explored for up to 20 WPPs, with a maximum rated capacity of 8 MW per WPP. The study area included a total of 28 land units, where 37 potential sites for the installation of WPPs were identified. The northern boundary of the operational area is roughly marked by the Salaca, Korģe and the P12 motorways, the eastern boundary by the national roads P12, V143 and V142, the southern boundary by the national road V138 and Vitrupe, the western boundary by the national main road A1, see Figure 4.1.1. The extensive LVM road network in the area of the proposed activity means that the existing network is very dense and the WPP will require less new road construction, see Figure 4.1.1. 37  Figure 4.1.1. LVM wind park study areas During the EIA, the boundaries of the areas investigated and surveyed in relation to the LVM study area varied, as a result of the environmental area assessed, see Figure 4.1.2, e.g: − in assessing 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 38  location of the WPP and the area up to 150 m around it; potential access roads and the area up to 150 m along them, as well as potential power transmission cable routes and the area along them; − the ornithofauna study area covers a 3 km zone around all WPP assessed; − the Landscape Assessment Study Area is a 10-kilometre zone around the maximum possible outer boundary of the wind farm (from the outer WPP); − noise and flicker have been assessed to the extent that the likely effects of the Proposed Action have been calculated. Figure 4.1.2. The boundaries of the surveyed areas in relation to the LVM study area and the 37 WPP assessed 39 In addition to the watercourses already mentioned, the hydrography of the area of the proposed action is characterised by small rivers: Kulaurga, Ungenurga and Vedemurga. There are no natural water bodies, the largest artificial water bodies are the water reservoirs of the Ķulaurga and Stienūži IV quarries. The study area includes several natural and artificial water bodies. The natural water bodies are Priecumu Lake, Primma Lake and Kliķezers, which are located in the subglacial valley between the north-eastern area of the Proposed Action and the Niedrāju-Pilka Swamp. Artificial water bodies include Jaunīši pond, Pāle reservoir, Turmatu pond, Viļķenes mill pond, Viļķenes fish ponds, as well as many unnamed ponds. The Gulf of Riga is about 6 km from Limbaži WPP Park. Figure 4.1.3. Distribution of land use types in the territory of the Limbaži WPP Park (source: EEA Land monitoring service) 40 The western edge of the LVM wind farm study area is located approximately 3.5 km from the proposed Rail Baltica railway line. The area of the proposed activity is mostly covered by forest, with some agricultural land and water areas (rivers, Figure 4.1.3). The study area is surrounded by open areas: agricultural land around the A1 motorway, around Svētupe (between Svētciems and Avotkalni), Arupīte, Vitrupe, Vilķeni and Korģeni; built-up areas (especially the town of Salacgrīva) and marshes - both natural and developed: Pilkas Bog, Lielpurvs or Zābaku Bog, Ērgļu Bog (developed) and Lūru (Brikmani) Bog. 4.1.2. Study area alternatives The EIA included an assessment of the nature values and an assessment of the impacts of the Proposed Action on a large study area in Limbaži Municipality, initially: a chamber feasibility study of the area, as well as an expert assessment of species and habitats. After consultation with 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, SPNAs, habitats of EU importance and protection zones around them (NCA recommendation - 40 m from wet habitats of EU importance). 2022. in 2010, information on potential new or expanding SPNAs was received from the NCA and, where possible, WPPs and their infrastructure are planned outside these areas. Also, the NCA recommended in early 2022 that WPPs and their infrastructure should be located as far as possible in clearings and coppice areas. • Preliminary alternative for the location of the WPP Park study area. The assessment of nature values (bird species, bat species and forest habitats) was launched in 2022. Initially, 45 WPP sites were assessed, of which 28 were in the northern area and 17 in the southern area (Figure 4.1.5). Figure 4.1.5. Preliminary alternative for the location of the study area: 45 WPP installation sites 41  • A basic alternative for the location of the WPP Park study area. Following initial fieldwork by experts in nature conservation, expert interviews, recommendations and conclusions, the WPP design has been refined several times. The location of the study area in the baseline alternative for which EIA Programme No.5-03/7/2023 (as amended on 10 January 2024 and No.5-02- 1/3/2024) was issued on 12 September 2023., 2024. of. 20. November) (Annex 1). The LVM wind farm study area includes a total of 28 land units, where 37 potential sites for the installation of WPPs have been identified (Figure 4.1.6). In contrast to the location of the study area, the 8 WPPs in the original alternative were excluded from further investigation. Figure 4.1.6. Basic alternative for the location of the WPP: 37 WPP installation sites and recommended WPPs - Alternative A and Alternative B 42  4.1.3. Location alternatives for the Proposed Activity assessed in the EIA Report As indicated above, 45 potential WPP sites were investigated during the initial feasibility phase of the project, but after consultation with certified experts and the NCA, 8 WPPs were excluded from further investigation. The EIA study includes a detailed assessment of 37 potential WPP sites, for which environmental impact aspects have been assessed. Taking into account the recommendations of an ornithologist, a plant species and habitat expert, a landscape expert, a bat expert and a hydrologist, the location of the WPP and the operating conditions, it was concluded in June 2024 that up to 22 WPPs could be installed. Enviroprojekts Ltd, together with certified nature experts, recommended the abandonment of part of the originally planned WPPs 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 reduce the impact on the landscape from the viewpoints of the cultural and historical sites. The potential WPPs to be installed were grouped into two alternative locations for the WPP park. Limbaži WPP Park location alternative A - 14 WPPs: compact area in the north, and location alternative B - 22 WPPs: area in the north (14 WPPs of alternative A) and the southern part of the WPP study area to be implemented13. For these alternatives, 14 and 22 WPPs respectively, a physical impact assessment was carried out and additional assessment by natural experts was requested. It is important to note that the detailed additional assessment, which included additional habitat and vascular plant, moss and lichen species assessments, was only carried out for Alternative A, as it was prematurely concluded that only Alternative A (northern part of the WPP) would be more viable and feasible at this stage of the project development, and therefore no additional assessment was carried out for the potential locations of the southern part of the WPP. It was also concluded that Alternative A has the advantage of proximity to the 110 kV high voltage line (less deforested area for new AST lines and avoiding a river crossing) and proximity to potential electricity consumers in Salacgrīva. Following the supplementary expert advice, the assessment of the planned WPPs in the northern part of the site was revised and significant environmental effects - impacts on natural values - were identified for a further 3 WPPs - Z6, Z8 and Z11, of which Z6 could be retained if the location of the WPPs was adjusted. This recommendation was taken into account: The position of Z6 was changed. According to the additional assessment, the alternative locations defined above have 12 WPPs in Alternative A and 20 WPPs in Alternative B14. For the construction of the 17 WPPs, it was concluded that significant adverse changes are expected as a result of the Proposed Action: impacts on bird species, habitats and/or landscape. The assessment of the final alternatives has been carried out in two stages, following 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 13 No more than 20 WPPs would be built in total in the Limbaži WPP Park; the WPPs that would not be built would be determined by the results of engineering geological studies and other studies during the design phase. 14 For Alternative B, there is a condition: For potential WPP sites, additional assessment of vascular plant, moss and lichen species and development of a solution for the AST connection, as well as additional freshwater impact studies for the power line crossing over the Svētupe River, are mandatory measures. 43 connectivity)15. The assessment of alternatives and the final location of the WPP also assesses cumulative impacts from certified expert opinions and EIA expert assessments. The chronology of the study of the Limbaži WPP area is presented in Table 4.1.1. Table 4.1.1. Chronology of the Limbaži WPP site investigation Chronology of WPP park configuration WPP site investigations Initial feasibility 45 potential WPP sites identified and investigated. After consultation with certified phase experts and the NCA, 8 WPP were excluded from further investigation after the first preliminary assessment. 37 WPPs are examined in more detail in the EIA procedure: 15 WPPs were identified as having significant environmental impacts and were excluded from detailed study due to the constraints identified (37 - 15 = 22 WPP). 22 WPPs are being promoted for potential installation. It was decided to group the 22 selected WPPs into two alternative ones: Alternative A 2024 situation at in the northern part of the study area and Alternative B in both the northern and the start of the southern parts of the WPP area* year *The northern and southern parts are separated by the natural boundary of the Svētupe River: The WPP and the area north of the Svētupe are assumed to be the northern part and the area to the south the southern part. Alternative A - 14 WPP: in the W part of the study area Alternative B - 22 WPP: 14 WPPs in the N part of the study area + 8 WPPs in the D part of the study area. Due to the scenic impact of both alternatives A and B, which originally assessed the height of all WPPs at 300 m, some WPPs have been reduced in height to 250 or 275 m 2024 in summer in two different ways, resulting in adjusted alternatives A and B and their complementary alternatives A' and B'. Additional assessment of habitats, vascular plants and moss and lichen species in the 2024 september northern part of the site (Alternative A), as well as assessment of a new AST and 2009 power line. 2024. october Impact on habitats identified; expert recommendation: abandon 2 more WPPs in N 2009 (and relocate WPP Z6). 37 WPPs assessed in detail: exclusion restrictions for 17 WPPs (20 remain). Alternative A - 12 WPP: in the W part of the site Alternative B - 20: both parts of Z+D* Intermediate * Significant preconditions have been identified for 8 WPPs in Part D, which can only result be decided after further assessment of vascular plant, moss and lichen species and the development of a solution for the connection to the AST, as well as additional freshwater impact studies for the power line crossing over the Svētupe River. Recommended Alternative A for construction - 12: Z In total, 12 WPPs are recommended for construction in the N part of the park with Result reduced height (compared to alternative A'). The EIA report considers the recommendation for a WPP park of this size as part of the assessment of the proposed development alternative B, as a total of 20 potential WPP sites have been 15 https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/2b6c4b16-e867-42da-b604-f67ee6fe60c3 44  Chronology of WPP park configuration WPP site investigations identified in the study area N and D. Of the 20 identified potential WPP sites, 8 sites in Part D are subject to significant pre-conditions: assessment of additional vascular plant, moss and lichen species and development of a solution for the AST connection, as well as additional freshwater impact studies for the power line crossing over the Svētupe River. See Figure 4.1.7 for alternatives for the location of the WPP: Alternative A - in the northern part of the WPP Park study area (12WPP). Alternative B - WPP without exclusion restrictions in the northern part and WPP in the southern part if the condition for additional exploration is met (20 WPP). 45 Figure 4.1.7. Limbaži WPP park Location Alternatives A and B before and after additional assessment by nature experts 46 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 worldwide 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 wind16. 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 (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 Manufacturer Model Rotor MW Mast height, Wing tip Starting, End of diameter, max, m height, m/s run, m/s m max, m Nordex17 N175/6. 175 6,0- 179 266,5 3,0 20 X 6,9 Vestas18 V172 172 7,2 199 285,0 3,0 25 Enercon19 E175 175 6,0 162 249,5 2,020 2521 Siemens Gamesa Renewable SG170 170 7,0 185 270,0 323 2524 Energy22 General Electric25 Cypress 164 6,1 167 249,0 326 2527 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. 16 https://www.windpowerengineering.com/calculate-wind-power-output/ 17 https://www.nordex-online.com/en/product/n175-6-x/ 18 https://www.vestas.com/en/energy-solutions/onshore-wind-turbines/enventus-platform/V172-7-2-MW 19 https://www.enercon.de/en/turbines/e-175-ep5 20 https://en.wind-turbine-models.com/turbines/2472-enercon-e-175-ep5 21 Ibid, 22 https://en.wind-turbine-models.com/turbines/2475-siemens-gamesa-sg-7.0-170 23 https://en.wind-turbine-models.com/turbines/2346-siemens-gamesa-sg-6.6-170 24 Ibid, 25 https://www.gevernova.com/wind-power/onshore-wind/cypress-platform 26 https://en.wind-turbine-models.com/turbines/2307-ge-vernova-ge-6.0-164-cypress 27 https://en.wind-turbine-models.com/turbines/2307-ge-vernova-ge-6.0-164-cypress 47 With regard to noise, the frequency levels (50/60 Hz for all models compared) and the maximum noise are equivalent, and the differences are not significant (106.0 dB(A) - 107.0 dB(A)), all the models considered have aerodynamically improved latest generation wings which reduce the noise level when operating and a change of operating modes to optimise noise. There are various solutions for wing de-icing, such as automatic icing detection systems, automatic wing heating systems and additional warnings. Several models have built-in bird and bat protection systems, such as stopping the operation of the WPP if there is an increased risk of collision in the vicinity. The lifetime of the WPP models considered is ~25 years (25-30 years, depending on the manufacturer and the lifetime of the WPP). The latest technologies can have a working life of up to 35 years. According to the information provided by the leading manufacturers of WPP, the wind speed at which the plant starts operating is 3 m/s, while it stops at 23 m/s (however, this may vary slightly from model to model). WPP are 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, 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 divided into several individual mast segments, which are assembled together at the WPP installation site (Figure 4.2.1). Figure 4.2.1. Multi-segment WPP mast (Vestas LDST28) This EIA assesses alternatives for the location of the WPP park and the height of the WPP tower. The height alternatives for the WPP tower are defined for the two 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. 28 http://terralwind.com 48 For each of the areas assessed during the EIA process, the alternative options - siting and/or technological - for the implementation of the Proposed Action are summarised in Table 4.2.2. Table 4.2.2. Areas assessed and corresponding alternatives assessed: location and/or technological Area assessed Location alternative Technological alternative Alternative A - 12: Z (in full) Alternative B - 20: Z+D* (partial) (*Significant preconditions identified for the 8 WPPs in Part D, to be Species and constructed only after further assessment of vascular plants and habitats moss and lichen species and development of a solution for connection to the AST, and involvement of a freshwater expert for the crossing of the Svētupe) Bats X (both alternatives in full) Birds X (both alternatives in full) X (both alternatives in full) X (both Landscape alternatives in full) X (both alternatives in full) X (both Cultural alternatives in history full) Tourism and X (both alternatives in full) recreation Alternative A - 12: Z (in full) Alternative B - 20: Z+D* (partial) (*Significant preconditions identified for the 8 WPPs in Part D, to be Natura 2000 constructed only after further assessment of vascular plants and moss and lichen species and development of a solution for connection to the AST, and involvement of a freshwater expert for the crossing of the Svētupe) X (both alternatives in full) X (both Noise alternatives in full) Low X (both alternatives in full) frequencies Vibration X (both alternatives in full) X (both alternatives in full) X (both Flicker alternatives in full) Air X (both alternatives in full) Hydrology X (both alternatives in full) Environmental X (both alternatives in full) risks and accidents Climate X (both alternatives in full) 49 Table 4.2.3. WPP location alternatives and additional height alternatives A' and B': the compared WPP maximum height limits are given in metres Nr.p.k. Name of the WPP site Alternative A Alternative A' Alternative B Alternative B' 1 D3 300 300 2 D4 300 300 3 D8 250 275 4 D9 250 275 5 D10 300 300 6 D11 300 300 7 D13 300 300 8 D14 300 300 9 Z1 300 300 300 300 10 Z2 300 300 300 300 11 Z3 300 300 300 300 12 Z4 300 300 300 300 13 Z5 300 300 300 300 14 Z6 300 300 300 300 15 Z9 250 275 250 275 16 Z10 300 300 300 300 17 Z12 300 300 300 300 18 Z13 300 300 300 300 19 Z16 300 300 300 300 20 Z17 250 275 250 275 Total 12 12 20 20 50  Figure 4.2.2. WPP design parameters 4.3. The process of building a WPP 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 around two years and the construction works will be carried out in accordance with the work organisation 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; the activities will be carried out without endangering protected natural values. In the case of changes to the works, these are to be agreed separately with the relevant expert. Meteorological conditions such as strong winds, snow, etc., which may affect the construction process, will also be taken into account. 51  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 will make maximum use of the existing road network, reinforcing or widening LVM and/or municipal roads where necessary. Construction of road connections between the existing LVM and/or municipal road and the prospective WPP. 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 this site will be determined during the design process, taking into account the identified constraints 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 within the road right-of-way to the extent possible, minimising the impact on adjacent properties. WPP 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 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 52 forestry, as periodic maintenance of the equipment would be required, which would imply re- deforestation of the area. WPP WPPs with a maximum rated capacity of 8 MW and a total height of up to 300 m are currently under development. The model and technical characteristics of the WPPs to be installed are currently still to be determined and selected, and several possible models are being considered, inter alia in the light of the results of the EIA report. In the Limbaži WPP project area, the location of the WPPs is planned in alternative B in a compact area in the northern part of the site - 12 WPPs and in alternative B - 20 WPPs: the area in the northern part (12 WPPs of alternative A) and the southern part of the study area for the WPPs to be implemented. High-voltage substation The construction of the high-voltage substation is being carried out in accordance with AST's technical specifications. 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 kV) is the construction of overhead transmission lines between the substation and the high-voltage network. The exact technical solution will be worked out in the construction project. BESS The BESS will be located on an area 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 rotor diameter of 200 m. The choice of the specific WPP model to be built will depend on many conditions for the supply of equipment outside the EIA procedure, 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 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 engineering geological investigation reveals insufficient soil bearing capacity for the installation of the selected WPPs, the foundation structure 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 53 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 SEA 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. Consequently, in view of the request of the NCA, experts not only on forest or swamp habitats, but also on mosses, lichens and vascular plants have been engaged in the area of the Proposed Action affecting old, historical forest massifs. 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. 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). 54  Figure 4.3.2. WPP construction (illustrative image)29 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 mounting 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 construction and maintained during operation 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 construction 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 work 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. Figure 4.3.3. Installation area of the WPP (example - VESTAS 5,6 MW) 29 https://www.peikko.ae/reference/simo-wind-park/ 55  4.3.3. Construction solutions for roads and squares The equipment and components of the WPP will be delivered along 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 works: no heavy traffic is planned on the road network after the end of the works. The sequence of works shall include the construction of access roads in accordance with the designers' instructions. Depending on the design options 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 completion (Figure 4.3.2). The necessary engineering structures and drainage will be realigned in accordance with the construction design solutions to be agreed with the relevant road owner (for the existing road network) or in accordance with LVM road construction solutions and equipment manufacturers' conditions (for new roads). According to the manufacturers, the minimum required road width for transporting equipment and wings is 4.5 m on straight sections and 6.5 m on small curved sections (depending on the assessment and specification of each individual WPP manufacturer after thorough site investigation and survey). No new road infrastructure or deforestation works are planned on the existing road sections, the construction of which was carried out in accordance with the requirements of LVM "Technical Regulations for the Design of Forest Infrastructure Objects, 2015"30 . Figure 4.3.4. Access characteristics (example) Outside Latvia, in countries where equipment and extra-long rotor wings are also transported over mountainous roads with difficult terrain: specialised transport units are also used that can lift the wing at a high angle to the ground, thus reducing the required in-plane turning radius. The specific solution will be 30 https://www.lvm.lv/images/lvm/Profesionaliem/Infrastruktūra/MIO_TN/MIO_TP_noteikumi_2015.pdf 56 evaluated during the design of the works, once the specific WPP 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) has an approximate mass of 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 non-load bearing, non- confined pavement to allow vehicular and crane access if the BESS equipment package (container) needs to be replaced. During the construction process, several technological solutions can be used to raise the existing ground surface without affecting the groundwater flow. This solution is refined during the design process after evaluation of the geotechnical data in order to achieve the required load-bearing capacity. Commercially proven geotextile, geogrid or other solutions to improve the bearing capacity of soils can be used to improve performance. The WPP service areas 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 availability of possible supplies and the availability of personnel from the relevant technical supplier, as well as to take into account the weather conditions: it is not possible to assemble the wind farm components in strong winds. Figure 4.3.5. Road construction solution for the WPP park (photo: Ltd Enviroprojekts) 57  Figure 4.3.6. WPP site base under preparation (photo: Ltd Enviroprojekts) 4.3.4. Solution for WPP foundation structures According to the manufacturers, the WPP mounting areas must have a load capacity of at least 250 kN/m2. As an indication, the foundations of a single WPP will require up to 1000 m3 of concrete and 125 t of steel on average. Thus, up to 20 000 m3 of concrete and 2500 t of steel reinforcement are needed to install the foundations for 20 WPPs (for each WPP and for each soil condition, the solution may vary according to the results of the geological investigation) (Figures 4.3.7 and 4.3.8). Figure 4.3.7. Part of the WPP foundation steelwork under construction (photo: Ltd Enviroprojekts) 58  Figure 4.3.8. Part of the WPP foundation steelwork under construction (photo: Ltd 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. Before installation, the WPP is brought disassembled, with the longest part - the wing - being 100 m. At the EIA study stage, a rectangular area was evaluated 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. 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 59 The 5.6 MW area of the VESTA model (Figure 4.3.9) is indicative. WPP technology for 300 m high terrestrial WPP models has not yet been developed, so information on similar WPPs with an appropriate site margin (plus 20 %) for higher detail dimensions is used (Figure 4.3.10). Figure 4.3.10. WPP installation in Latvia: Targale project, 2022 (photo: Ltd Enviroprojekts) 4.3.6. Construction of utilities The electricity utilities in the WPP area are usually constructed using two solutions: overhead transmission lines or cable lines. In this project, it is planned to construct cable lines to connect the WPP to the common electricity grid, as this solution has less impact on the future use of forest land. The WPP cable connection is implemented in a 20-40 kV cable line with a connection to an AST substation, which in turn is connected to an AST overhead line, which will be connected to the common transmission grid in accordance with the technical regulations issued by AST. Prior to the start of construction, a detailed engineering study will be carried out in the future design process in accordance with the cable routes defined in the EIA report, which have been investigated in the field, in order to determine the optimal final cable route, taking into account the geological conditions and the environmental protection requirements set out in the EIA opinion on the planned activity. For optimal power supply solutions, the planned location of the WPPs is taken into account, as cables from each WPP must be routed 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 typically used to transport electricity from the WPP to the collection points, as well as high-voltage cables (110 kV and above) between the collection points and the electricity grid. After the cables have been laid, 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. 60 As part of the construction of the WPP Park project, a new substation is to be built and connected to the AST 110 kV network (Figure 4.3.11). The LVP foresees the location of the substation on a 110 kV high voltage line. The EIA assessed two options for substation locations. The construction of the substation will be agreed with AST. A 20-35 kV network will be constructed to interconnect the WPPs with the substation under construction, 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. Figure 4.3.11. High-voltage substation under construction - Tārgale project, 2022 (photo: Ltd Enviroprojekts) The connection and substation will also be constructed in accordance with AST's technical specifications, which will be received upon completion of the EIA. It is expected that the substation construction project will be implemented together with the construction of the full set of necessary equipment for the AST and LVP installations. Within the substation area, the main equipment groups will be housed in two small-scale technical application buildings, one for AST technical staff and the other for Latvian wind farms on the medium voltage side. 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. 61 A BESS system (up to 1 ha) will be constructed next to the substation, according to the envisaged technical solution for operation, thus making optimal use of the road and cable infrastructure. The site will be surfaced with a non-load bearing material of adequate strength to support the operation of the BESS system and 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 civil works. 4.3.7. Transport of WPP components The delivery of the components of the WPP to the area of the Proposed Operation 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: Salacgrīva, Skulte, Riga). They will be transported from the port by road: some parts by public road vehicles without special permits, and some parts - the bulky mast sections, nacelle and wings - 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, depending on traffic needs and possibilities, the projection of the wing length on roads and access roads on the route from the port to the installation site of each WPP can be reduced by special vehicles carrying the wing half-raised at greater or lesser angles, but the length of the vehicle itself is only ~30 m. 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 more difficult to notice and understand in time a temporary traffic stops 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 an analogue WPP is as follows (mass and number are indicative and may vary slightly depending on the WPP model chosen): − 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). 62 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 planned WPP park during construction and operation will be provided by the national main road A1 (Riga - Estonian border), regional road P12 (Limbaži - Salacgrīva), state local roads V138 (Lāņi - Ķirbiži - Jelgavkrasti) and V143 (Akmeņkalni - Lauvas - Ķekari), municipal roads, forest roads maintained by LVM, as well as newly constructed or adapted existing access 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): - construction of a substation and the necessary new access roads and increasing the carrying capacity of existing roads to deliver heavy equipment: substation area up to 1 ha, preparation of an access road with a carrying capacity >250 kN (up to 350 trucks for the substation and up to 25 trucks for every 100 m of road to be constructed/reconstructed); - 110 kV grid connection (overhead line): planned length (before obtaining technical regulations from AST) - 300 m, including crossing of the Korge river with the overhead line, 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 per 100 km of road to be built/reconstructed); - construction of service bays for each WPP (300 lorries/m for each service bay to be built); - WPP foundation and footing construction (average 1100 m3 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 20 WPP WPP foundation construction Up to 50 x 20 WPP Supply of WPP equipment Up to 20 x 20 WPP Installation of WPP equipment Up to 7 x 20 WPP 63 Figure 4.3.12. Projected vehicle volumes during the construction of the WPP 64  Figure 4.3.13. Special equipment for transporting WPP wings Figure 4.3.14. Transport of WPP parts in Latvia: Targale project, 2022 (photo: Ltd 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 WPP and network parameters. 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). According to the requirements of nature experts and the NCA, the WPP will be equipped with the necessary digital bird and bat monitoring systems, which will allow the WPP to be stopped at short notice 65 in case of detection of flying objects. 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 for the installation of the WPP in the area of the proposed activity, taking into account the results of the post-construction monitoring. All potential WPP suppliers also offer in their technology specifications tailored packages of additional equipment for so-called climate (winter) risks, such as de-icing and others. 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, a multi-stage commissioning phase will be carried out for WPP, BESS and also for the HV substation to ensure the stable operation of both the wind park as an electricity generator and BESS, as well as the connection and the stability of the HV line. According to previous practice in similar projects in Latvia, the commissioning programme for a substation can take more than six months. 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 will be dismantled and the materials used for the delivery and installation of the WPP will be disposed of. If it is intended to return the used site material to another location, contamination analyses will be carried out on the materials concerned. 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. During the construction phase, the possibility of reclaiming the site and returning part of the site to forestry will also be assessed. However, this possibility must be assessed against the equipment supplier's conditions for the future maintenance of the WPP. 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. Today, WPP manufacturers are also ready 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 or repowered. 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, for example as Refuse Derived Fuel ("RDF") or concrete can be recycled as construction waste31. 31 https://windeurope.org/newsroom/press-releases/repowering-wind-farms-a-major-opportunity-for- europe/#:~:text=In 2021 the wind industry,and developed blade recycling solutions. 66 2021. in 2010, the wind industry called for a Europe-wide ban on the landfilling of WPP wings32 and committed to reuse, recycle or recover 100% of used wings. WPP manufacturers have set the goal of fully recyclable wings and have developed solutions for wing recycling.33 For example, Siemens Gamesa Renewable energy has announced the commercial availability of WPP with fully recyclable blades34. WPP manufacturer VESTAS has also 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 WPP blades) to facilitate the recycling of WPP blades already manufactured and to be manufactured in the future35. Other WPP manufacturers are also developing this line of research. 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 been carried out in Latvia in the past on former missile sites, such as Zvaigznīte, which are technologically more complex structures. The artists have also published videos and photos from the projects.36 2) Reusing equipment foundations with newer and more efficient equipment (so-called Repowering). There is a high probability of such renewal already before the end of the project life cycle. The German Wind Energy Project Development Report states that in the first half of 2023, 25% of new installations in Germany were replacements of existing WPPs with more efficient ones37. 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, blackstart 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, Ltd Latvijas vēja 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. 32 https://windeurope.org/newsroom/press-releases/wind-industry-calls-for-europe-wide-ban-on-landfilling- turbine-blades/ 33 https://windeurope.org/eolis2023/programme/sessions/blade-recycling-projects-i/ 34 https://www.siemensgamesa.com/global/en/home/explore/journal/recyclable-blade.html 35 https://www.vestas.com/en/media/company-news/2023/vestas-unveils-circularity-solution-to-end-landfill-for- c3710818 36 https://www.demontaza.lv/ 37 https://www.wind-energie.de/english/statistics/statistics-germany/ 67 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 influences 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), 2. high-temperature batteries that store electricity in molten salt (e.g. sodium sulphideNa2S); 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 fire risk 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. Individual cells or blocks are contained in a single battery module, which in turn form spacks or arrays. The battery cabinets are fully equipped with a battery management system and the necessary safety systems: temperature maintenance and air ventilation, as well as a fire alarm and extinguishing system. In addition to batteries, energy and storage management systems (SMS), converters (inverters/rectifiers) and transformers for power conversion, low and medium voltage distribution, air handling solutions: heating, ventilation and air conditioning 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 control requires a high converter power but not a high energy capacity: 1 MW / 0.5-1 MWh. However, arbitrage and balancing of the WPP/Solar Power Plant (hereafter – SPP) are important for high energy capacity: 1 MW / 2-4 MWh). In the Limbaži WPP Park, the main function of BESS will be balancing. The efficiency of batteries is typically around 96 % (4% losses), but the efficiency of a BESS must take into account the technological consumption of electricity and losses in other equipment: transformer, cables, converters and auxiliary systems. This could lead to 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 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 68 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. This is why BESS usually calculates the total working lifetime to 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 the maximum rated capacity, the largest area required is assessed on the basis of the maximum precautionary principle: ➢ 20 WPP x 8 MW = 160 MW, which is the maximum capacity that the Limbaži WPP can develop in one hour, producing 160 MWh. One container can hold a BESS with a capacity of ~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) 69  Figure 4.4.2. BESS layout on the site (illustrative image, author: Kristīne Eglīte) 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 after the construction of the WPP in the same way as before. The WPP Park will be managed and monitored throughout its lifetime to ensure its sustainability. The following elements of a monitoring system can be identified: − monitoring operating parameters and electricity production − monitoring of ornithology and natural values and an active prevention system that stops WPP during specific conditions (radar or camera and machine vision technological solutions); − technological (equipment parameters, e.g. "shadow monitoring"): detecting risks of wear or failure of equipment well before the risk of an accident occurs, using a sensor system; − accounting for potential losses of natural values, in line with the monitoring scope identified by ornithological and bat experts in the EIA report; 70  − field surveys to assess spatial impacts 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 environmental and nature experts involved in the EIA 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 range 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. 71  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 received permits for the management of the waste type. 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 petroleum products, oils, etc. may be generated. Hazardous waste (used chemical/mixture containers, spills from equipment/filling, machinery, etc.) will be collected, segregated and stored in accordance with hazardous waste storage requirements. Hazardous waste will be transferred to a licensed hazardous waste manager 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". Part 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, the soil will not be used for its intended purpose without remediation: contaminated soil will be transferred to waste managers who have obtained permits for the management of the type of waste concerned. 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 solutions for the re-use of polymer materials related to the wind energy industry. For example, a publication prepared by Wind Europe, the European Composites Industry Association and the European Chemical Industry Council in 202038 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 WPPs. 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 38 https://windeurope.org/newsroom/press-releases/repowering-wind-farms-a-major-opportunity-for- europe/#:~:text=In 2021 the wind industry,and developed blade recycling solutions 72 used wings by 2025.39 WPP manufacturers have set the goal of fully recyclable wings and have developed solutions for wing recycling. For example, Siemens Gamesa Renewable energy have already announced that they are able to produce 100 % recyclable rotor wings for commercial use40. Other major European and US WPP manufacturers are also working to provide this solution for their own WPPs. 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 has taken 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 effects of the flicker effect. As regards electromagnetic radiation, studies41 show that the electromagnetic field generated by WPPs is negligible and is unlikely to cause adverse effects on public health unless a person is permanently in the immediate vicinity of the WPP (up to 10 m from the mast of the WPP). 2010. in 2009, 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 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 health42. Similar studies have been carried out for high voltage power lines43. According to the widely used classification of electromagnetic waves, the 50 Hz frequency is part of the so-called very low frequencies 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 the 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 Hz.44 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 (0 Hz to 300 39 https://windeurope.org/newsroom/press-releases/repowering-wind-farms-a-major-opportunity-for- europe/#:~:text=In 2021 the wind industry,and developed blade recycling solutions 40 https://www.siemensgamesa.com/global/en/home/explore/journal/recyclable-blade.html 41 https://ast.lv/sites/default/files/editor/att-projekti/IVN_Zinojums_22_aprilis.pdf 42 https://www.vpvb.gov.lv/lv/media/2779/download?attachment 43 https://ast.lv/sites/default/files/editor/att-projekti/IVN_Zinojums_22_aprilis.pdf 44 Estonia-Latvia third electricity interconnection from Sindi (Kilingi-Nõmme) in Estonia to Salaspils Environmental Impact Assessment, SIA Eiroprojekts, 2019 73 GHz) shown in Table 5.2.1, 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,W/m2 head,mA*m-2, rms W/kg W/kg 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 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 5.2.2. 45 5.table 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 strength The external field required to achieve this current 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 1 m above the ground directly below the 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 lateral conductor, 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 5.2.1). 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 74  Figure 5.2.1. Results of magnetic field measurements of PPAs in Latvia Magnetic field measurements were carried out in 2014 for the newly built PPA in Kurzeme by the laboratory46, 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 NE ISO 17020 as a Type C inspection body (LATAK-I- 248) and LVS NE ISO/IEC 17025 as a testing laboratory (LATAK-T-166), which confirms compliance with international standards and the quality of the services provided. However, measurements of the 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 UK47, 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 (EMFs) 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. 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 47 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 75 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. 5.table 2.3 summarises the UK calculated magnetic field values at different distances from the cable centreline48. 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 WPPs themselves with voltage < 1 kV and their 20 kV substations and cables from the WPPs 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. Environmental risk and emergency forecast 5.3.1. Natural disasters According to the Cabinet of Ministers Regulation No 563 of 19 September 2017 "Procedure 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. Among the natural disasters that could potentially affect the operation of the Limbaži WPP, the most significant are: storms, lightning, forest fires and icing.49 The WPP Limbaži is located entirely within forest land, and 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 decades of operation of WPPs of different capacities and sizes. The main potential risks are: • falling ice chunks from icy WPP rotor wings in the vicinity of the plant, • Mechanical damage/destruction of a WPP by the spreading of debris in its vicinity, • WPP rollover. Increased wind speed According to the international insurance company FM Global (USA), excessive wind speeds and loads can contribute to the malfunctioning of WPPs. Wind speed combined with erroneous wind measurements (e.g. wind speed or direction) or malfunctions in the control or safety system of the WPP (e.g. blade pitch, yaw 48 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 49 https://fireprotectionsupport.nl/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/FMDS1310-2022-07-Wind-Turbines.pdf 76 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 can overturn the WPP due to excessive force, causing the support tower to buckle or damaging the tower foundation.50 Damaged rotor blades in a WPP can pose a risk to surrounding properties from falling blade debris. 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 and 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 cause the WPP to remain operational or to restart when the wind speed exceeds the cut-off speed, or with a significant yaw error that can damage the WPP.51 Latvian legislation does not provide a methodology for assessing the risk of WPP icing, so the experience of other countries and professional organisations and the methods used for risk assessment have been used. Potential for human exposure to falling ice chunks52: − 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 car, 10% of the time the windscreen can be damaged: it takes 140 J of energy 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 of53 : 10-4 (one ten-thousandth) to10-6 (one millionth) per 1 m2. 50 https://fireprotectionsupport.nl/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/FMDS1310-2022-07-Wind-Turbines.pdf 51 https://fireprotectionsupport.nl/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/FMDS1310-2022-07-Wind-Turbines.pdf 52 https://windren.se/WW2015/WW2015_39_521_Refsum_Lloyd_Ice_throw_evaluating_risk.pdf 53 Kipperberg, G., Onozaka, Y., Thi Bui, L., Lohaugen, M., Refsdal, G., Sæland, S., Hassan, G. 2007. Recommendations for risk assessment of ice throw and blade failure in Ontario. Canadian Wind Energy Association. 77  Figure 5.3.1. Probability of an ice chunk falling per 1 m2 , based on fieldwork calculations54 By contrast, the probability of an ice chunk falling further than 220 m from the WPP is less than10-8 (one hundred millionth) per 1m2, the average fall distance is 100 m and the mass of ice chunks is less than 1 kg, but much less on average (tiny splinters that still break up in flight). But the Canadian study looked at WPPs with 80 m mast height and 80 m rotor diameter: both 2.5 times smaller than in this EIA. To extrapolate these conclusions to a 200 m mast height and 200 m rotor diameter, it is first necessary to consider that from the largest WPPs, ice chunks can fly on average from 2.5 times the height and at 2.5 times the speed, so a rough approximation can be assumed, to fly 2.5 times further, 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 longer flight and will not allow the distance to be as 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 in this EIA can be maximised to a distance of 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 additionally stressed here 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. In Germany, the proposed minimum distance between WPPs and people or objects is set out in the recommendation of the European Commission report55 : 1.5 * (pole height + rotor diameter)56. This criterion is in the list of technical provisions of the German Building Regulations, so if a WPP does not meet 54 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 55 https://op.europa.eu/lv/publication-detail/-/publication/9cde4269-9b53-4fd7-b064-5b3caf85aabf 56 https://windeurope.org/summit2016/conference/allposters/PO337.pdf 78 this minimum distance and is 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, supplemented by an assessment report on ice on the wings of the WPP. The minimum distance recommended in Sweden is also 1.5 * (pole 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 * (pole 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. Another regulation that affects the use of WPP in icy climatic conditions is Directive 2006/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, 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 that the conformity assessment process under the EU Directives requires the manufacturer to carry out a risk analysis and assessment of its product and its intended use, covering design, manufacture, production and use. 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 reduction58. In this context, in some countries, such as Austria and Germany, wind farm licensing authorities may require WPPs to be systematically shut down during icing to reduce the risk in the vicinity of the WPP. 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 rotors59, 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 length60. 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. 57 https://winterwind.se/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/3_3_28_Bredesen_IEA_Task_19_- _IceRisk_Review_of_current_knowledge_and_the_way_forward_in_risk_assessments_associated_with_ice_throw _from_wind_turbine_blades_Pub_v1-1.pdf 58 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 59 Kipperberg, G., Onozaka, Y., Thi Bui, L., Lohaugen, M., Refsdal, G., Sæland, S., Hassan, G. 2007. Recommendations for risk assessment of ice throw and blade failure in Ontario. Canadian Wind Energy Association. 60 Ibid, 79 In Sweden, a study at Uppsala University61 has found a correlation between wind speed and the flying distance of ice debris (Figure 5.3.2). Figure 5.3.2. Ice debris flying distance (modelling data) vs. wind strength (WPP rotor height 125 m, wing height 180 m)62 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"63 . 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), D - rotor diameter (m), H - mast height (m), 61 Renström, J. 2015. Modelling of Ice Throws from Wind Turbines. Modellering av iskast från vindkraftverk. Uppsala University. 62 Ibid, 63 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 80  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 can 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. Figure 5.3.3. Average number of hours of icing per year in Sweden and Norway64 64 Renström, J. 2015. Modelling of Ice Throws from Wind Turbines. Modellering av iskast från vindkraftverk. Uppsala University. 81 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. 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 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.65 The risk of icing and ice fall is usually concentrated on short periods during the year. Predicting and controlling icing66: • 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 WPPs 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 lightning strikes can cause gradual damage to the entire electrical system.67 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 fire development) 65 https://winterwind.se/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/3_3_28_Bredesen_IEA_Task_19_- _IceRisk_Review_of_current_knowledge_and_the_way_forward_in_risk_assessments_associated_with_ice_throw _from_wind_turbine_blades_Pub_v1-1.pdf 66 https://windren.se/WW2015/WW2015_39_521_Refsum_Lloyd_Ice_throw_evaluating_risk.pdf 67 https://fireprotectionsupport.nl/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/FMDS1310-2022-07-Wind-Turbines.pdf 82 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 plastic. There are no known cases of structural damage to the WPP support towers, which are usually made of steel or sometimes concrete. Forest areas are characterised by planting, maintenance and harvesting activities when the main harvesting age is reached. 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, Table 5.3.1). 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 the area of 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 total68 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. 68 https://stat.gov.lv/lv/statistikas-temas/noz/mezsaimnieciba/8673-meza-ugunsgreki 83  Table 5.3.1. Number of forest fires and total area of fires in Latvia in the last 10 years69 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Number of fires 698 704 641 423 972 1110 581 466 391 653 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 x10-4/ha/year, or 1 ha out of 4577.24 ha of forest area per year. Risk mitigation measures External sources of fire are relatively more dangerous for small HPPs, 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 compiles risks of various types, recommends a 150 m tree-free zone around WPPs, or a 60 m tree-free zone if the area is scrub or grass.70 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 effects of an ignition due to a WPP fire, the area around the WPP site should be cleared of brush and grass within 25 m of the site, which can contribute to the spread of fire in the ROW.71 5.3.2. Risk assessment of mechanical damage to WPP For the assessment of the risk of accidents at the Limbaži WPP Park, a quantitative risk assessment method has been selected, 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 assessing the risks of wind farms. A WPP overturning is the maximum accident that can be considered an emergency. A partial WPP collapse with debris falling or flying is also exceptional. In the Netherlands, the statistical average frequency of mechanical failures of WPPs has been calculated by analysing accident statistics from the Netherlands, Germany and Denmark, and a methodology for risk assessment of WPPs has been developed. The risk 69 https://stat.gov.lv/lv/statistikas-temas/noz/mezsaimnieciba/8673-meza-ugunsgreki 70 https://fireprotectionsupport.nl/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/FMDS1310-2022-07-Wind-Turbines.pdf 71 https://cfpa-e.eu/app/uploads/2022/05/CFPA_E_Guideline_No_21_2021_F.pdf 84 scenarios listed in Table 5.3.2 are considered for the assessment of mechanical damage in accordance with the risk assessment methodology72 . 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 Rotor and/or nacelle breakage 4,0 ×10-5 25000 years The guidelines also define the maximum radius of the zone of influence within which the effects of the risks listed in Table 5.3.2 are to be assessed, according to the class and type of WPP, and shall not exceed the maximum height of the WPP. The Danish study Risk assessment of wind turbines close to highways73 assesses the probability of a car travelling on a highway with a WPP directly adjacent (60 m away) every 500 m along its entire length being involved in a fatal collision with parts of a fully or partially collapsed WPP. The resulting probability per kilometre of road was 5 x10-12, or one part in two hundred billion. By comparison, the overall probability of a car suffering a fatal collision on each kilometre of Danish motorway was (2009) 2 x10-9, 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 by the 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 WPPF (see Table 5.3.3). 5.figure 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. Table 5.3.3. Input data (assumed in calculations) WPP height, m 250 275 300 Mast height, m 150 175 200 Rotor diameter, m 200 200 200 72 https://omgeving.vlaanderen.be/sites/default/files/2022-12/2022 12 01 - IWT - handboek.pdf 73 https://backend.orbit.dtu.dk/ws/portalfiles/portal/7903618/Risk_assessment_of_wind_turbines.pdf 85  WPP height, m 250 275 300 Gondola dimensions Length, m 15 15 15 Width, m 9 9 9 Height, m 7 7 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 outlook74 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 sites. 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. Table 5.3.4. Calculated individual risk and zone distance in metres for different types of WPPs for the WPP Limbaži alternatives A, A` and B, B` Individual risk zone size for different WPP modifications (distance in metres from the Individual risk WPP) level 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 74 Pisano, F. 2019. Input of advanced geotechnical modelling to the design of offshore wind turbine foundations. Norwegian Geotechnical Institute 86  Notes. PR individual risk curve (the two 'spikes' in the PR curve are related to the rotor blade flying distance at nominal mode of operation and at operating conditions where the rotor speed is 2× the nominal rotational speed). PR` smoothed individual risk curve According to the Belgian WPP 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. 01/10/201975 For the effects of WPP accidents, not only the individual risk level is determined depending on the technological parameters of the installation, but also the safety distances between the WPP and other objects in the vicinity of the WPP parks, as applicable in the above mentioned EU Member State: sensitive objects, critical infrastructure objects, public and individual buildings, etc., see 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 5 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 measures to mitigate the risk in the surrounding area are not specified in the regulatory enactments. 75 https://omgeving.vlaanderen.be/sites/default/files/2021-10/2019 10 01 - WT - handleiding rekenblad_0.pdf 87 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 recommendatory 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 the 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. Additional 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 the different alternatives for the proposed activity. In addition to the mechanical risks from flying debris, an accident at a WPP could also result in an oil spill, given that the nacelle may contain 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 example76). Since 27.09.2004, the "Convention on the Transboundary Effects of Industrial Accidents" has been in force, establishing transnational cooperation in the field of industrial accidents. However, the quantity and hazardousness of chemicals at the site assessed in this EIA do not reach the threshold values specified in this conversion, and therefore the provisions of this regulation are not applicable to the construction of the Limbaži WPP Park and its associated infrastructure. 76 https://www.basicconcepts.com/news/secondary-containment-solutions-for-the-green-energy-industry/ 88 Figure 5.3.7. Individual risk zoning for Alternative B of the Limbaži WPP 89  Table 5.3.6. Calculated safety distance in metres for different types of WPPs for Alternatives A, A` and B, B` of the Limbaži WPP Calculated safety distance in metres for different types of WPP Location of another facility in the Object WPP WPP WPP potential area of influence (h=250 m) (h=275 m) (h=300 m) Sites covered by the SEVESO Directive Not detectable 747 767 786 Liquefied natural gas (LNG) filling station, Compressed natural gas (CNG) not detectable filling station, Liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) filling station, LNG bunkering 747 767 786 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 Not detectable 676 696 715 endangered 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 WPP - Z2 Nuclear objects 2000 2000 2000 Not detectable Flying distance of ice debris High-voltage transmission facilities, 525 562,5 600 forest land, local road V260, regional road P24, main road A3, forest roads 90 Figure 5.3.8. WPP recommended safety distances and calculated ice debris fall distance zone for Alternative B 91 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 accidents, only 10 involved WPPs with a capacity of more than 1 MW, while two thirds involved WPPs installed in households.77 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-out appliances, which should be replaced or repaired in time to avoid the risk of accidents that could result in ignition, see 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 WPP caught fire in 2011. According to statistics, the probability of ignition of a WPP is 5.85 x10-4/year. 78 Another internationally accredited company, DNV GL, estimates the probability of a WPP fire to be 1 in 2000 per year. DNV GL analysis examines WPP fires regardless of whether the fire results in a total loss of the WPP. The probability of ignition of a WPP is quite similar to the previous figure: 1 of 1710. In 2020 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. However, aircraft can also be used to fight a WPP fire, which is the only way to access a fire at an altitude of 200 m. In Latvia, Mi8-MTV helicopters of the National Armed Forces Air Force, equipped with the Canadian-made fire extinguishing device (bag) "Bamby Bucket 5566HD"79, have been effectively used in forest fires. The main advantages of a helicopter in WPP firefighting: 1) short water-drop-refill cycle times, as any sufficiently deep water source can be used. Usually, the required depth of a body of water is only 2 metres or even less, and there are many such bodies in Latvia, 2) water can be dropped anywhere, thanks to the helicopter's ability to stop in mid-air, which is important in the event of a WPP spot fire. There are no data on WPP ignition incidents in Latvia. 77 http://www.vindmoellegodkendelse.dk/media/1097/egv-årsrapport-2014-jnr-64036-0025.pdf 78 You, F., Shaik, S., Rokonuzzaman, Md., Rahman, K, S., Tan, W,S.2023. Fire risk assessments and fire protection measures for wind turbines: A review, Heliyon 9 19664 79 https://www.vugd.gov.lv/sites/vugd/files/meza20un20kudras20ugunsgreku20dzesanas20vaditaja20rokasgramat a20a52098lpp1.pdf 92  Figure 5.3.9. Damage to a WPP caused by fire.80 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 squares, which not only slows the spread of the fire, but also allows the fire brigade to start extinguishing work quickly. 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- Guidelines-for-wind-farm-development-2004.pdf 93 Safety distances, Infrastructure, other objects in the vicinity of the proposed activity Residential buildings According to 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 boundary of a WPP or wind park to residential and public buildings, if the planned capacity is more than 2 MW, is at least 800 m, measured from the outermost tower of the WPP. Roads, railways Major infrastructure facilities in the vicinity of the planned WPPs and distances to the nearest planned WPP: • a1 motorway - 4.5 km; • 3.5 km of the planned Rail Baltica railway line; • p12 motorway - 1.2 km; • v143 motorway - 1.3 km. 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 WPP of 300 m, the 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, unless technical solutions are implemented to mitigate environmental risks. However, this EIA report takes into account Article 13 of the Protected Zones Act, which states that in rural areas, the width of the protected zones along roads from the road axis to each side is: a) 100 metres for national trunk roads (A), b) 60 metres for national regional roads (P), c) 30 metres for national and local roads (V). Based on the level of individual risk of a technogenic disaster, the A1 national trunk road is within the acceptable individual risk zone of 1 x10-7/year; for comparison, a road user is killed (includes all road users: pedestrians, cyclists and drivers) In Latvia, the risk of injury is 7 x10-5/year, or 100 times higher than from the operation of a WPP. Some local and forest roads are in the individual risk zone of1x10-5 to1x10-6/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/media/9969/download?attachment 85 https://lvafa.vraa.gov.lv/faili/materiali/petijumi/2016/LVPA_133/Vadlinijas_LVPA_F240217.pdf 94  Figure 5.3.10. Acceptable social risk curve86 Impacts on electricity transmission facilities (lines, etc.) In Latvia, there are no criteria or restrictions for the assessment of the impact of WPPs on transmission lines. Some other countries have requirements for the location of WPPs on transmission lines. The Belgian electricity grid operator Elia points out that WPPs can have an impact (e.g. vibration) within a 500 m radius. 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 WPP, and 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 95 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 exposure" limit = 1,5 DR = minimum distance according to international studies below which air movement caused by WPP can cause undesired movement of HV line conductors with risk of damage (including breakage) in the long term. Zone of Influence (ZOG) = a cylindrical area behind the WPP where turbulence can occur in the air layers and cause vibrations in the 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 WPP rotor influence zone Hw = height of WPP rotor axis relative to the ground Figure 5.3.11. Criteria used for assessing the impact of WPP and for coordination with the TSO, Belgium88 The Swedish Transport Agency's recommendations89 state that WPP and masts with anchorages with a total height of less than 50 metres should be located at least 100 metres from power lines, and WPP and masts with anchorages with a total height of more than 50 metres should be located at least 200 metres from the power line. The distance is calculated from the periphery of the WPP rotor. If the rotor radius is 100 metres, the distance between the tower and the line must be greater than 300 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 above calculated methodology that a high voltage infrastructure object (110 kV line) is located within the safety distance zone (700 m) of WPP Z2, it is recommended that the Proponent of the Proposed Action consult with JSC Sadales tīkls on the assessment of potential impacts at a specific critical infrastructure section in order to assess the significance of the impacts, if necessary, providing for compensatory measures. Measures to reduce the risk of accidents at WPPs 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/ 96 In general, industrial accident risks affect areas located on forest land. Consequently, no other economic activity or residential and public housing sites are affected. Given that the Forest Act allows natural persons to stay in forest areas without technical measures to reduce risk, public information, warning signs, restrictive barriers or fencing, where necessary, play an important role. The causes of accidents in WPPs are studied by the 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. As forest roads and forest paths, boundary lines are located in the potential ice fall zone in the event of icing, it is advisable to provide for risk reduction measures, which include equipping WPP with sensors to detect icing, stopping the operation of equipment during the risk of icing and equipping stations with anti- icing systems. According to Section (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". This right can 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: see Table 5.3.7. Table 5.3.7. Measures to reduce the risk of falling ice and their effectiveness91 Security measures Degree of risk Suitable for reduction Warning signs for ice-fall conditions. 1 to 10 Local roads and paths Warning by light equipment connected to the WPP ice 10 to 100 Local roads and paths detection system in combination with warning signs. Rerouting, diverting, detouring, monitored by security, 10 to 100 Local roads and paths to protect against high-risk events. Physical barriers (regional road closures) and signs. 10 to 100 Roads and official and frequently used tourist hiking routes 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 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 97  5.3.3. Impact of the WPP on air traffic, navigation equipment WPP are signal reflectors that are larger than the radars they are transmitting to, so their presence can hide weaker signals from smaller targets. In addition, rotating wings cause a shift in the echo frequency compared to stationary objects. As current radars are not designed to identify and filter WPP signals, they may cause interference to radar information in the vicinity of the wind farm.92 The Ministry of Defence (MoD) in a statement to93 states that the construction of new WPPs in the vicinity of National Armed Forces (NAF) radars may 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 Latvian territory 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 Limbaži WPP Park is located in the yellow area of the map (Figure 5.3.12), so the impact on air navigation capabilities needs to be assessed separately and may require compensatory measures, the nature and extent of which need to be agreed with the Ministry of Defence or a subordinate authority during the design process. 92 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 93 https://tapportals.mk.gov.lv/public_participation/ef12074d-d5b9-434f-bf3b-64e12498c2f6 98 Figure 5.3.12. Location of military navigation facilities and their possible influence on each other in relation to WPP location 99 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. The nearest civil aviation aerodrometo the Limbaži WPP Park is the Limbaži/Vidrižu aerodrome: Ltd Vidrižu Atvari (address: "Atvari", Vidrižu parish, Limbaži municipality, LV-4013) within 22 km (17,5 km from the airfield buffer zone). According to LGS94 , there is no radio navigation equipment at the aerodrome. The take-off and landing of aircraft is not affected by the proposed action due to the distance between the two sites (Figure 5.3.13). Figure 5.3.13. Limbaži/Vidriži aerodrome location in relation to Limbaži WPP 94 https://www.airspace.lv/lgs 100 The second closest is Cēsis Aerodrome: Ltd Forest Owners Consultative Centre (address: "Lidlauks", Priekuli municipality, Cesis region, LV-4126) 60 km away. It also has no radio navigation equipment. For the location of radionavigation equipment in other locations in Latvia according to Latvian air traffic data, see Figure 5.3.14. To assess the potential impact of the WPP 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 for the location of WPPs in relation to radio-navigation aids, 4 zones and impact assessment requirements have been defined (Table 5.3.7). Given that the WPP Limbaži is located more than 15 km from the PSR (Primary Surveillance Radar) radionavigation sites and is likely to be within the radar's visibility and operational range, a simplified assessment is required to determine the degree of potential impact in Zone 3. Table 5.3.8. Assessment requirements depending on the position of the wind farm in relation to the PSR and SSR (Secondary surveillance radar) radar95 Zone 1. zone 2. zone 3. zone 4. zone Description 0-500 m 500m -15 km Beyond 15 km, Outside the radar's (PSR and SSR (PSR and SSR including radar field of view and range system radars) system radars) visibility and range (PSR and SSR system (PSR radars only) radars) Assessment To be protected Detailed Simple assessment Not to be judged requirements assessment Risk mitigation measures The Limbaži WPP is not expected to pose any risk to the operation of the radio-navigation equipment, and it is therefore recommended that the LGS be formally agreed to confirm this (Figure 5.3.14). In accordance with consultations with LGS (letter of 29.02.2024, attached as Annex 2), LGS does not oppose the further advancement of the WPP Park project with conditions (in accordance with cooperation agreement No LG- AD/JPN-01/24/14 of 23.05.2024 between LGS and Ltd Latvijas Vēja Parki) and unambiguously formulates: "No impact assessment required". In addition, the LGS map (Figure 5.3.14) confirms that there are no air traffic radionavigation facilities closer to Latvia than those already identified. 95 https://www.pagerpower.com/news/eurocontrol-radar-wind-turbine-guidelines-v1-2/ 101 Figure 5.3.14. Radio navigation deployment in Latvia, Source: LGS 102  5.3.4. BESS container accident risk BESS (battery energy storage system) cells are typically 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 an external container, which can vary in length, typically from 6 to 18 m. Several types of battery can be distinguished: • lithium ion, • lead-acids, • nickel-cadmium, • sodium-sulphur, • fluxes (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 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 battery charging or recharging, 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: • damage caused during transportation, assembly or operation, • manufacturing defect: can create conditions that cause the battery packs to short-circuit during use, • battery overcharging: lithium-ion batteries are prone to overheating, which can occur when batteries are left in chargers for too long until the charger exceeds its protection limit or fails, • short-circuits due to various reasons, including poor installation, product defect and physical damage. Risk mitigation measures Safety precautions for operating BESS equipment are provided by the equipment manufacturer in the operating instructions. Additional information on fire safety requirements for BESS is also provided by the US Professional Firefighters' Organization document NFPA 855 "Standard for the Installation of Stationary Energy Storage Systems". The above document covers systems that can reduce the fire risk associated with battery energy storage and provides industry best practices that should be followed for all new BESS installations in the USA. The document summarises information on safety systems for BESS construction, safety distances between BESS containers, fire compartments, ventilation systems, detectors, fire extinguishing systems, etc. 5.4. Information on climate change impacts This chapter presents the life cycle impacts of installing and operating a WPP, including both negative (GHG emission increases and removals) and positive (GHG emission reductions and removals) impacts. A detailed calculation is attached in Annex 5. 103 Increased CO2 emissions from deforestation The forest ecosystem is a major contributor to 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 their trunks, branches and root systems. Carbon sequestered by photosynthesis in a growing tree is taken out of the cycle and no longer contributes to the production of greenhouse gases that are harmful to the climate. The necessary amount of deforestation will be carried out for the construction of the WPP infrastructure. Deforestation will stop CO2 sequestration in the trees growing on these areas. The total impact of the project is calculated (see Annex 5) over a 50-year period, taking into account GHG emissions and CO2 sequestration from deforestation and afforestation. After the project, the GHG emissions balance will deteriorate over the next 15-17 years and then improve due toCO2 sequestration in biomass from young trees 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. Alternative A results in a total increase in GHG emissions of 16.3 Gg CO2 eq. (see Table 5.4.1). The offsetting effect of afforestation with substitution effect will reduce GHG emissions from deforestation by 6.9 Gg CO2 eq., while the calculation without substitution effect will reduce GHG emissions by 6.3 Gg CO2 eq. The residual GHG emissions from deforestation in the 50th year after the start of the project is calculated as 9.4 Gg CO2 eq. (42 % reduction in emissions from deforestation), and 10.0 Gg CO2 eq. (39 % 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 Tonnes CO2 eq. 16 319 GHG emissions from afforestation Tonnes CO2 eq. -6892 -6287 Increase in GHG emissions from the project Tonnes CO2 eq. 9427 10032 Alternative B results in a total increase in GHG emissions of 31.3 GgCO2 eq. (see Table 5.4.2). The offsetting effect of afforestation with substitution effect will reduce GHG emissions from deforestation by 11.1 GgCO2 eq., while the calculation without substitution effect will reduce GHG emissions by 10.1 GgCO2 eq. The residual GHG emissions from deforestation in the 50th year after the start of the project are calculated as 20.2 GgCO2 eq. (35% reduction in emissions from deforestation), and 21.2 GgCO2 eq. (32 % reduction in emissions from deforestation). 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 Tonnes CO2 eq. 31312 GHG emissions from afforestation Tonnes CO2 eq. -11084 -10128 Increase in GHG emissions from the project Tonnes CO2 eq. 20228 21184 The cumulative value of GHG emissions of Alternatives A and B 50 years after the start of the project differs by about a factor of two. Scenario B involves higher emissions and the need for compensatory measures. Importantly, construction activities in both scenarios will also affect existing forest roads and drainage 104 systems, so the actual area to be deforested and afforested will be smaller than in this report, so this is considered a conservative estimate. CO2 emissions increase 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 to CO2 emissions. According to the website of the international consultancy ICF, the life cycle CO2 emissions of a WPP are broken down as follows96: − 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 %97. The following assumptions have been used to calculate the life cycleCO2 emissions of a WPP: − Total electricity produced by WPPs: o A In the case of Alternative: 15 625 GWh; o B In case of alternative: 23 750 GWh. − Average CO2 emissions from the operation of the WPP: 20 g CO2 eq./ KWh98. Figure 5.4.1. The WPP Limbaži development: Alternative A - 12 WPP 96 https://www.icf.com/insights/energy/recycling-initiatives-carbon-considerations-wind-energy 97 Ibid, 98 https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/03/Chapter-7-Wind-Energy-1.pdf 105  Limbazi wind farm development "B "alternative 20 WPP 800 600 400 200 0 V172-7.2 E-175 N175/6.X GE 6.1-164 SG 7.0-170 Figure 5.4.2. The WPP Limbaži development: Alternative B - 20 WPP According to the calculations (Annex 5) for Alternative A, the total increase in CO2 emissions from the operation of the WPP, including production and construction, will be 153 600 t CO2 eq., broken down as follows: − Total CO2 emissions during the production phase of WPP: 136 704 t CO2 eq. ; − Total CO2 emissions during the installation phase of the WPP: 6 144 t CO2 eq. ; − Total CO2 emissions during the operational phase of the WPP: 10 752 t CO2 eq. According to the calculations (Annex 5) for Alternative B, the total increase inCO2 emissions from the operation of the WPP, including production and construction, will be 256 000 tCO2 eq., broken down as follows: − Total CO2 emissions during the production phase of WPP: 227 840 t CO2 eq. ; − Total CO2 emissions during the installation phase of the WPP: 10 240 t CO2 eq. ; − Total CO2 emissions during the operational phase of the WPP: 17 920 CO2 eq. GHG emission reductions from substitution The operation of WPPs will replace fossil-fuelled electricity with WPP-generated energy, which has 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 GHG emission reductions resulting from the substitution have been calculated 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: − the amount of electricity generated by renewable energy technologies to be fed into the electricity grid to be fed into the electricity grid: o Alternative A: 307 200 MWh/year; o Alternative B: 512 000 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": 0.0735 t CO2/MWh 99; − CO2 emission factor for electricity transmission in the electricity grid in accordance with Annex 1, Paragraph 1 of Cabinet of Ministers Regulation No 42 of 23 January 2018 "Methodology for Calculation of Greenhouse Gas Emissions": 0.0070 t CO2/MWh. 99 https://www.kem.gov.lv/lv/siltumnicefekta-gazu-emisiju-aprekina-metodika 106 According to the calculations (Annex 5), the total amount of substitution of GHG emission reductions resulting from the operation of the WPP will be as follows: − Alternative A: 510 720 t CO2 eq. − Alternative B: 851 200 t CO2 eq. GHG emission reductions from successive afforestation of deforested areas At the end of the WPP development (preparation and construction) phase, partial afforestation of the area required for the WPP development is planned, resulting in additional CO2 emissions100. According to the calculations (Annex 5), the total CO2 emission reductions from successive afforestation of the deforested area required for the WPP development will be as follows: − Alternative A: 2 736 t CO2 eq. − Alternative B: 4 382 t CO2 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, emission reductions, t CO2 eq. t CO2 eq. Deforestation of the WPP development area - 16 000 -30 480 Partial afforestation of the WPP development area 2 736 4 382 CO2 emissions during the WPP production phase -136 704 -227 840 CO2 emissions during the installation phase of a WPP - 6 144 -10 240 CO2 emissions during the operational phase of a WPP - 10 752 -17 920 Electricity substitution 510 720 851 200 TotalCO2 emissions 343 856 569 102 Overall, each alternative delivers significant GHG savings, with the largest savings in Alternative B with a higher number of WPPs, which overall is a demonstration of WPPs as a green energy source with GHG emission reductions as one of its main objectives. 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 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. According to the information on wind conditions provided in Chapter 3.3, 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). They are class III turbines according to the standard.101 100 Lazdiņš, A. 2024. Changes in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from the Limbaži Wind Farm and associated infrastructure project. 101 https://i-windenergy.com/content/popularity-class-iii-wind-turbines 107 6. ASSESSMENT OF THE EXISTING STATE OF THE ENVIRONMENT 6.1. Hydrogeological conditions The area of the proposed activity is located in the eastern part of the Baltic artesian basin. The intensity and chemical composition of water exchange in the artesian basin section distinguishes between active (free) water exchange zones (freshwater), slow water exchange zones (brackish water) and passive or slow water exchange zones (saline water), which are isolated throughout Latvia and the study area by two regional aquifers: the Middle Devonian Narva Suite (D2nr) and the Silurian-Ordovician Aquifer (S-O). Both aquifers are composed of impermeable dense sedimentary rocks, which makes interaction between the two aquifers very difficult, although small amounts of water overflow 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 retarded water exchange includes the Pärnu (D2pr) and Kemeri (D1km) aquifers, which in the vicinity of Salacgrīva contain fresh waters of the calcium hydrogen carbonate type with mineralisation between 0.3 and 0.4 g/l and waters of the sodium hydrogen carbonate or hydrogen carbonate-chloride type. This is determined by the location of the water-bearing rocks in the geological section of the complex, the direction of water exchange with adjacent aquifers or the recharge of aquifers by meltwater from the last glaciation. Saline waters unsuitable for water supply are found in most of Latvia's territory in the distribution area of the Ķemeri and Pērnava aquifers. According to the LVGMC database "Boreholes" and cartographic information, groundwater aquifers associated with Quaternary sediments and rocks of the 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 Water aquifer Water-bearing Hydrogeological zone Water aquifer complex sediments Swamp(bQ4) sediment aquifer turf Undistributed aquifer of alluvial (aQ4), eolian (vQ3ltv), glaciolluvial sand, gravel, pebbles, Quaternary sediment (lgQ3ltv) and glaciofluvial (fQ3ltv) aleurite, loamy sand Active water complex (Q) sediments exchange (freshwater) zone moraine sandy loam Sporadically irrigated aquifer of with interbeds of sand- intermontane sediments (fQ3ltv) gravel-clay sediments Middle Devonian sandstone with clay and Arukila-Burtnieku (D2ar+br), aquifer horizon complex aleyrhyllite in between Middle Devonian and sandstone with Slow water exchange Ķemeri-Pērnavas (D1km-D2pr) sub-Devonian interbeds of clay and zone aquifer horizon complex aleutolite Often, the sand layers associated with groundwater are only a few metres thick. Groundwater provides water for the individual sector: it is widely used in homesteads (wells). Groundwater is extracted at depths between 0.35 and ~10 m from the surface: the further from the sea, the greater the depth. Groundwater levels are influenced by rainfall. Water quality is most often affected by human activities. 108 Groundwater is mainly associated with sandy Upper Pleistocene Baltic Ice Lake sediments (lgQ3ltv). The groundwater aquifer associated with alluvial deposits (aQ4ltv) is mainly composed of variously grained sands distributed in the valleys of watercourses (Salaca, Vitrupe, etc.). In the depressions and depressions between the hills, the marsh sediments (bQ4) also contain water. The glacigenic (gQ3ltv) sediment layer consists of sandy clay or loamy sand with occasional lenses of sandy material and interbeds where groundwater is occasionally present at low pressures. The thickness of the water-bearing lenses and interbeds is very uneven, and groundwater depths vary widely from 1.0 to 10 m. Quaternary waters from sandy sediments are mainly used for water supply to private farms. The waters are of the bicarbonate or bicarbonate-sulphate calcium-magnesium type. The pressures in the sandy lens deposits are of good drinking water quality and are overlain by Baltic Ice Lake sediments (lgQ3ltv) in the WPP Park study area. The rest of the area is covered in places with bog, alluvial and fluvioglacial deposits. The thickness of the aquifer and groundwater flow are locally influenced by the weakly permeable clay and aleuritic layers and lenses. At most WPP sites, the water table is 0-2 m below the ground surface. Only in the southern part of the WPP Park, WPP D1, D2, D3 and D6 can the water table reach 5 m (Figure 6.1.1). Figure 6.1.1. Extract from a schematic map of the depths of the first of the surface water aquifers 102 102 Tracevski G, Yushkevich V, Polivko J, Bicko A. Report on 1:200 000 scale complex geological, hydrogeological and engineering geological mapping in the territory of site O-35-XIX. Geological Survey, Riga, 1967. ĢF No 07142 109 In its natural state, groundwater flow in the area of the Proposed Action is directed towards river valleys (e.g. Salaca, Svētupe) and towards the Gulf of Riga to the west and north-west, which is a regional groundwater recharge area. The Salaca, Vitrupe and Svētupe rivers are considered to be local 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, due to a lack of data, it is not possible to accurately assess the impact of rivers and drainage systems on groundwater levels and flow directions. The groundwater depth pattern in the WPP study area is presented in Figure 6.1.3. Figure 6.1.2. Groundwater level hydro-isohips map103 103 Latvian Regional Hydrogeological Model (LAMO) of Riga Technical University (RTU) Environmental Modelling Centre (EMC) 110  Figure 6.1.3. Groundwater depth model for the WPP study area, map for areas dominated by sandy sediments Due to the natural vulnerability of groundwater to contaminant infiltration, the Quaternary aquifer complex is not used for centralised water supply but is mainly used for rural water supply. 111 Beneath the Quaternary aquifer, the middle Devonian Arukil-Burtnieki groundwater aquifer (D2ar+br) is separated from the second widely used Kemeri-Pärnu water supply aquifer (D1km-D2pr) by the regional weakly permeable Narva aquifer (D2nr). The main water-bearing rock of the Arukila-Burtnieki aquifer (D2ar+br) is sandstone. Localised clastic layers consist of aleurolite and clay. Porous rock material predominates. The thickness of the sediments varies from 0.2 to 154 m, with an average thickness of 79 m. The area is dominated by downward groundwater flow. The water level of the Arukila-Burtnieki aquifer (D2ar+br) is 5-9 m below the surface, or 32-37 m a.s.l. in absolute terms. The aquifer has been widely used for water supply. These waters are separated from higher groundwater and potential contamination by a moraine aquifer, which is highly variable in thickness and can be only a few metres thick, and which provides poor protection from contamination. The Ķemeri-Pērnavas aquifer (D1km-D2pr) is the main source of artesian water in Salacgrīva municipality. The water-bearing rocks of the Ķemeri-Pērnava aquifer consist of sandstones, siltstones, aleurolites, aleuric clays, conglomerates and, in places, platy dolomites. The surface of the underground aquifer is 125- 315 m below the surface. The Ķemeri-Pērnava aquifer is well waterproofed and well protected from surface contamination, including contaminated groundwater. The wells in the Ķemeri-Pērnava aquifer are self-drilling. The wells can have a self-discharge height of up to 20 m. The absolute mark of the water table is 12-26 m a.s.l. As the Ķemeri-Pērnavas aquifer is very well protected from contamination, no protection zones have been established for these wells. Analysis of the groundwater model data developed in the Depth-to-water project104 in the area of the proposed operation shows that the groundwater table at the potential WPP sites is on average 2-5 m. No significant adverse effects on the water quality of groundwater, surface water, groundwater and water abstraction points are expected from the Proposed Development, as there are no contaminated or potentially contaminated sites in the Proposed Development area and construction activities are being monitored during construction. 6.2. Hydrological conditions 6.2.1. Surface water bodies and ecological quality of water in the area of the proposed activity According to the classification developed in the Gauja River Basin District Management Plan (GUBA) 2022- 2027105 the territory of the Proposed Action falls within 5 surface water bodies (hereinafter - SWB): Vitrupe_2 (Water Code G266), Ungenurga (Water Code G267), Svētupe (Water Code G268), Salaca_2 (Water Code G301) and Korģe (Water Code G302). 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 two criteria: chemical and biological 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. Watercourse Vitrupe_2 from Riebezers to the estuary (G266). The water body has a surface area of 83.56 km2and a catchment area of 198.29 km2. The river has a mostly natural bed, between the villages of Ķirbiži and Vitrupe the river is straight. The catchment area is predominantly forested (68 %), with farmland and marshland in the middle reaches. Some anthropogenic pressure from villages without SPNAs is possible. 104 https://www.lbtu.lv/sites/default/files/files/projects/LIFE-OrgBalt-1st_Technical-article_final_canva_11.pdf 105 https://videscentrs.lvgmc.lv/lapas/udens-apsaimniekosana-un-pludu-parvaldiba 112 There is a monitoring station "Vitrupe, estuary". The ecological quality of the water is assessed as good. The Vitrupe_2 MPA is a priority salmonid water. UO Ungenurga (G267). The water body has a surface area of 21.13 km2and a catchment area of 21.95 km2. In the upper reaches it flows through woodland (76 % of the catchment area) and natural stretches alternate with straight stretches. The downstream is almost completely straight, surrounded by farmland and intensive drainage. Possibly a periodically drying watercourse. There is a monitoring station "Unģenurga, estuary". The ecological quality of the water is assessed as good. UO Svētupe (G268). The water body has a surface area of 414.86 km2and a catchment area of 475.55 km2. Connected to the Salaca River via the Jaunupe Canal (the outflow is to the Salaca River), the old channel is much smaller than the canal. The water catchment area is rich in forests (64 %) and marshes, the upper reaches are straight. There are several sluice gates on the tributaries of the river, and the Robežnieki HPP is located on the Dzirnupīte (Šķirstiņa). Non-significant impact of Pale and Svētciems NAI. In the middle reaches, especially in the catchment of the Pearl River, the impact of livestock farming is negligible. There is a monitoring station, "Svētupe, estuary". The ecological quality of the water is assessed as good. The Svētupe MPA (G268) is a priority salmonid water. Salaca_2 (Water Code G301). The water body has a surface area of 280.27 km2and a catchment area of 3252 km2. The catchment area is largely covered by forests (70 %) and raised bogs (4%), with some agricultural land downstream. The ecological quality of the water is assessed as medium. UO Korģe (G302). The water body and catchment area is 113.28 km2. Upstream straight, reclaimed, with a similar proportion of farmland/forest in the surrounding area. Overall, 67% of the catchment area is forested. The proportion of clearcuts in the catchment has increased over the last 10 years. The biggest polluters are the wastewater treatment plant in Korģenes village and 2 farms, but the impact is not significant. In the lower reaches the river is natural, meandering, flowing mainly through woodland, tributary drainage ditches. The monitoring station - "Korģe, estuary", the ecological quality of the water is assessed as good. One of the potential reference rivers, corresponding to a priority salmonid water. 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 Information System"106 and the "Gauja River Basin District Management Plan and Flood Risk Management Plan 2022-2022" developed by the LVGMC. - 2027"107 The site of the proposed activity is not located in a flood risk area. According to the "Flood Risk and Flood Hazard Maps" developed by the LVGMC108 the nearest flood risk area is located approximately 60 km to the south of the area of the Proposed Development: Ādaži district, at the mouth of the Gauja River in the Gulf of Riga. 106 https://pris.lvgmc.lv/ 107 https://videscentrs.lvgmc.lv/lapas/udens-apsaimniekosana-un-pludu-parvaldiba 108 https://videscentrs.lvgmc.lv/iebuvets/pludu-riska-un-pludu-draudu-kartes 113 Figure 6.2.1. Surface water bodies location diagram. 114  6.2.2. Drainage facilities in the area of the proposed activity According to the Water Management Law, the territory of the Proposed Activity falls within the Gauja basin area and according to the information of the Melioration Cadastre of the Ministry of Agriculture 109 and the Cabinet of Ministers Regulation No 397 of 3 July 2018 "Regulations on the classification of water management districts", is located in two large river basin districts: the small river basin between the Gauja and the Salaca (large river basin code 53) and the Salaca large river basin (large river basin code 54), which are divided into several catchment districts (Figure 6.2.2). The area of the proposed action is located in the catchment area of small rivers of the Seaside. The nearest watercourses are the Vitrupe, Svētupe, Vedamurga River, Korģe, as well as Kliku and Prima Lakes. Part of the area of the Proposed Action is crossed by drainage systems of national importance and forest drainage systems. According to the drainage cadastre information, the large basin of small rivers between Gauja and Salaca includes: − Vitrupe catchment area (drainage code: 5361); − Ungenurga catchment area from the source to the mouth of the Gulf of Riga (drainage code: 5372) − Svētupe River from Vedamurga to the mouth of the Gulf of Riga (drainage code: 53811); − Vedamurga catchment area from the source to the mouth of the river Svētupe (drainage code: 53812); − Ķulaurga catchment area from the source to the mouth of the Svētupe River (drainage code: 53814). The Salaca river basin includes: − The catchment area of the Jaunupe river (drainage code: 54112); − Korģe from the Kliķu lake stream basin to the Korģīte stream (drainage code: 54123); − Korģe from the Korģīte stream basin to the Salaca estuary (drainage code: 54121); − The catchment area of the Kliķu Lake stream from the outlet to the mouth of the Korģė (drainage code: 54124). 109 https://www.melioracija.lv 115  Figure 6.2.2. River catchment areas and reclaimed agricultural land in the vicinity of WPP110 All existing drainage systems will be preserved during the construction of the WPP Park, and if necessary (if a branch of the system is affected), rehabilitated or rebuilt. As these activities will be implemented as designed, respecting the layout and functionality of the drainage systems, the overall quality of the 110 www.melioracija.lv 116 drainage systems will not be compromised. The construction works will be carried out in accordance with the requirements of the Melioration Law and Cabinet Regulation No 329 "Regulations on Latvian Building Standard LBN 224-15 "Melioration Systems and Hydrotechnical Structures"" and the Limbaži Municipality Territorial Use and Building Regulations. According to the publicly available information of LVM, in the next 3 to 5 years in the area of the Proposed Action it is planned to carry out rehabilitation of drainage systems as well as construction of forest roads, see Figure 6.2.3. Figure 6.2.3. LVM planned forest drainage system areas to be restored and forest roads to be developed 117  6.3. Geological structure and engineering geological conditions The area of the proposed activity is partly located in the Metsapole Plain of the Central Latvian Lowlands and the Vidzeme Coastal Plain (Figure 6.3.1). The surrounding area of the Limbaži WPP Park is characterised by relatively flat topography. The absolute elevation of the terrain on the site and in the immediate vicinity varies between 25 and 40 m a.s.l. Figure 6.3.1. Location of the area of the proposed activity in relation to the natural zonation areas of Latvia. 6.3.1. Pre-quaternary sediments The southern regions of Vidzeme are part of the ancient Eastern European platform. The geological section here distinguishes between two elements characteristic of ancient platforms: the crystalline basement 118 rock and the sedimentary cover. The surface of the crystalline basement is 700-800 m below sea level111. According to the tectonic zoning112, the crystalline basement rock corresponds to the Estonian-Latvian monocline of the Baltic syncline. The basement fault is cut north-south from Tūja to Ainaži by the Salacgrīva tectonic fault (Figure 6.3.2). The sedimentary cover, starting with the oldest deeper-lying rocks, includes sediments from the Vendian (Late Proterozoic), Cambrian, Ordovician, Silurian, Devonian and Quaternary periods. Devonian strata are the most extensive in the sedimentary cover. The oldest sediments forming the Devonian system correspond to the sub-Devonian Kemeri Suite (D1km). The Middle Devonian Pärnu Suite (D2prn), Narva Suite (D2nr), Arukil Suite (D2ar) and Burtnieki Suite (D2br) sediments are higher (Figure 6.3.2). The geological structure of the area is best characterised by the well with LVGMC DB No. 11504, located 4.5 km to the west of the WPP Park (Figure 6.3.2), and the well with LVGMC DB No. 11503, located approximately 7.5 km to the north-west of the WPP Park. The geological sections of the boreholes can be seen in Figure 6.3.3, a detailed description of the pre-Quaternary sediments is provided in Annex 10 - Expert Opinion. 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 LVGMC, scale 1:200 000 and tectonic map, scale 1:500 00) 111 Ivanova O. and Nulle I., 2003. A structural map of the surface of the base clitter at a scale of 1 : 500 00 112 Brangulis, A. J., Kuršs, V., Misāns, J. & Stinkulis Ģ. 1998. Geology of Latvia. 1:500 000 scale geological map and description of pre-Quaternary sediments. 119  DB-11503 geological section DB-11504 geological section coordinates: X(E) 521026, Y(N) 405565 (LKS-92) coordinates: X(E) 522290, Y(N) 395580 (LKS- 92) Figure 6.3.3. Geological sections of boreholes in the LVGMC DB "Boreholes" 6.3.2. Quaternary sediments Quaternary sediments form an almost continuous blanket of uneven thickness, consisting of layers of different age, genesis and composition. They cover the eroded surface of pre-Quaternary rocks. The thickness of the Quaternary sediments varies from 6 m to 35 m (decreasing towards the west). However, in river valley cuts, the Quaternary sediments can be up to 90-100 m thick. The sediments of the Baltic Ice Lake (glQ3ltvb) - sand, gravel, pebbles and aleurite - dominate in the area of the proposed activity. Thickness ranges from a few metres to 20 metres or more (Figure 6.3.4). Marsh deposits (bQ4) cover some of the lower parts of the plain. The sediments of the marshes consist of high and low peat types. In general, the surroundings of the proposed WPP site are slightly waterlogged. Marsh sediments occur only in a few small areas in the immediate area of the proposed activity (Figure 6.3.4). Fluvial or alluvial deposits (aQ4) occur in river floodplains. The oldest Quaternary sediments occur in places in the area, directly overlying pre-Quaternary rocks of the Upper Pleistocene Latvian Ice Age moraine formation (gQ3ltv). The predominantly moraine sandy loam, often with gravel and pebbles, ranges from 3 to 96 m thick (Figure 6.3.4). Small areas of Upper Pleistocene aeolian sediments (vQ3ltv) - fine dusty sand. The thickness of the deposits varies - up to 10 m. 120 Figure 6.3.4. Quaternary sediment map of the area of the proposed activity (based on the quaternary sediment map published by the LVGMC, scale 1:200 000) 121  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. Consequently, the description of the engineering geological conditions in the EIA report is based on publicly available geological information113. The upper part of the geological section of the WPP Park is basically characterised as a complex of Quaternary soils. According to the geotechnical classification (LVS 437:2002 "Civil Engineering. Primer. 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). Their total thickness, according to the literature, varies from 6 m to 35 m and can reach 90-100 m in valley cuts. The surface of the ground is made up of easily compressible soils - soil, peat in places, and, deeper down, sand, gravel, aleurite, loamy sand, sandy clay, which is mostly water-saturated. 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. Swamping and fluvial erosion are possible in small areas in the vicinity of the proposed action area. River erosion or accumulation is not pronounced in the area of the proposed action and mainly affects the banks of the Salaca, Svētupe and Vitrupe rivers, which are located outside the area of the WPP Parks and do not pose geological risks to the WPP Parks. Potential swamping processes are limited to isolated locations and are not expected to develop during the construction and operation of the WPPF. If, as a result of the engineering geological investigations to be carried out prior to the implementation of the Proposed Action at the construction design stage, areas are identified where the soil bearing capacity is insufficient for the construction of the selected WPP and where the peat is less than 3 m thick, peat removal will be carried out. The peat is overlain by moraine sediments, the moraine is made up of sandy loam and clayey sand, which is a stable substrate that can serve as a base for the WPP structures. If the peat is thicker, the foundation will be based on piles. The need for piles and the technological solution for their construction will be determined during the preparation of the construction project. According to V.Nikulin's Latvian seismic zoning114, the area of the Proposed Action is located north of the Svētupe Seismogenic Zone (ST), where future earthquakes with an intensity of 6 magnitude at epicentre (on the MSK-64 scale) may occur (Figure 6.3.5). 113 Juškevičs, V., Āboltiņš, O. 2000. Geological map of Latvia. Quaternary sediments, Riga-43 and Ainaži-53. Scale 1:200 000 [Book]. - Riga : National Geological Survey, ISBN 9984-9299-6-5. 114 Nikulin, V. 2007. Seismotectonic conditions and seismic hazard of Latvia. University of Latvia, Riga. 122  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 6.3.5. General seismic zoning map of Latvia (LVSR-98) (the area of intended operation is marked in red)115 Seismological monitoring in Latvia is carried out by the LVGMC. The aim of seismological monitoring is to detect, record and localise seismic events of natural or tectonic (earthquakes) and technogenic (as explosions) origin, as well as to determine the parameters of seismic events in the Baltic region. Data from 11 broadband seismological stations in Lithuania, Poland, Estonia, Russia, Denmark and Finland are used to record seismic events. In Latvia, measurements are made at the Slītere (SLIT) observation station. Seismological data are collected from the global GEOFON seismological monitoring network using the Seiscomp4 open-access seismic processing and download software. The results of annual seismic monitoring are summarised in monitoring reports, which are available on the LVGMC website 116. The seismic monitoring data indicate that seismic events of magnitude 2.0-2.4 are possible in the immediate vicinity of the proposed development area. The epicentres of seismic events could be approximately 4-6 km from the area of the Proposed Action. The genesis of these seismic events is unknown, but there are some tectonic faults in the area. There is a possibility that tectonic earthquakes could be among them. Overall, the seismicity of the proposed area of operation is very low. Earthquakes with a magnitude of 2.0-2.4 can be rated as weak on the earthquake intensity scale. The fluctuations are only felt by some people inside buildings, especially on upper floors. No damage to buildings or serious damage is observed for an earthquake with magnitude <2.9. The earthquake hazard is therefore assessed as having a very low probability. 115 Strategic Environmental Assessment. Updated version. RP Alianse Ltd, 2019. 116 https://videscentrs.lvgmc.lv/lapas/seismological-monitoring 123  6.4. Characteristics of the natural values of the surroundings 6.4.1. Special areas of conservation and Natura 2000 sites The study area and its surroundings contain several SPNA and micro-reserves, species sites and their areas, habitats of European Union importance and specially protected trees. The Proposed Action is located in the NVBR (Neutral Zone) area (part of the Proposed Action study area is also located in the Landscape Protection Zone, but no WPPs are proposed). An overview of nature conservation values is summarised in Figure 6.4.1 and a map of SPNA is provided in Figure 6.4.2. The nearest SPNA (within 3 km from the boundary of the LVM wind farm study area land units) are summarised in Table 6.4.1. Table 6.4.1. Specially Protected Nature Areas in the vicinity of the territory of the Limbaži WPP Park117 Minimum Minimum distance distance from the Name Status from the nearest Establishment criteria nearest WPP recommended WPP under assessment No.1407 Microreserve For the protection of specially protected 0,3 km 1,5 km species and habitats No 385 Microreserve For the protection of specially protected 0,3 km 0,3 km species and habitats No 1406 Microreserve For the protection of specially protected 0,6 km 1,1, km species and habitats No 1377 Microreserve 0,8 km 1,5 km For bird conservation No.3118 Microreserve For the protection of specially protected 1,1 km 1,5 km species and habitats No 3119 Microreserve For the protection of specially protected 1,1 km 1,5 km species and habitats No.3120 Microreserve For the protection of specially protected 1,1 km 3,5 km species and habitats Vitrupes ieleja NATURA 2000 For the protection of specially protected 0,9 km 0,9 km species and habitats Salacas NATURA 2000 For the protection of specially Ieleja 1,8 km 1,8 km protected species other than birds and specially protected habitats Niedrāju- NATURA 2000 Specially protected species other than Pilka purvs 2,7 km 5,3 km birds and for the protection of specially protected habitats No 1405 Microreserve For the protection of specially protected 3,0 km 4,0 km species and habitats No 1754 Microreserve 2,6 km 2,6 km For bird conservation 117 Data corresponds to DDPS "Ozols" (25.09.2024.) 124 Figure 6.4.1. Natural values in and around the Limbaži WPP 125 Figure 6.4.2. Protected natural areas in the vicinity of the location of the proposed activity. 126 There are 3 Natura 2000 sites in the vicinity of the LVM WPP park study area: − “Vitrupes ieleja” (area code: LV0530500) 0,8 km from the boundary of the land units, distance to the nearest WPP - 0,9 km, distance to the nearest WPP in Alternative A - 8,7 km; − “Salacas ieleja” (area code: LV0302200) 1,6 km from the border of the land units, distance to the nearest WPP - 1,8 km, distance to the nearest WPP in alternative A - 1,8 km; − “Niedrāju-Pilkas purvs”, (area code: LV0509800) 1,2 km from the border of the land units, distance to the nearest WPP - 5,3 km, distance to the nearest WPP in alternative A - 5,3 km. “Vitrupes ieleja” is an important site for the conservation of hillside forests and for the conservation of a rare species of Annex 2 of the EU Habitats Directive - the Vertigo genesii, for which the site is one of only four known in Latvia. Two protected plant species have been recorded in the area: the Allium ursinum and the Lunaria rediviva, and 9 protected invertebrate species. The hillside forests of the Vitrupe valley are one of the three sites of the Helicigona lapicida in the country. Many of the forest stands meet the criteria for key forest habitats. According to the Cabinet of Ministers Regulation No.254 of 24 March 2009 "Individual Rules for the Protection and Use of the Nature Reserve "Vitrupes ieleja"", the nature reserve was established to ensure the protection of specially protected invertebrate and plant species, sandstone outcrops, forests and freshwater habitats, as well as to promote sustainable management of the area. The site has four zones: regulated, nature reserve, landscape protection and neutral. The regulations stipulate that the landscape protection zone is established to preserve the landscape characteristic of the reserve (Vitrupe floodplain with terraces) and the coastal biodiversity, while allowing economic activities based on the principles of sustainable development, while the neutral zone is established to ensure economic activities based on the principles of sustainable development in the area of the reserve. Construction in the neutral zone shall be permitted in accordance with the spatial plan of the local municipality, observing the procedures and restrictions established in these Regulations and other regulatory enactments. “Salacas ieleja” is an important area for the protection of several EU Habitats Directive habitats: sandstone outcrops, undisturbed caves, hillside forests, oxbow lakes, stream channels and dry meadows on calcareous soils, etc. It has outstanding scenic value in many parts of the river, especially in the Skaņākalns area near Mazsalaca, downstream of Staicele, at Mērnieku krāce and Sarkana cliffs. The area is also geologically significant: Pietraga Red Rocks, Dauģēnu Rocks and Caves, Neļķu Rocks and Caves, Silmaču Rock and Caves, Swallow Rocks and Caves, Dzelveskalns Outcrops and Caves, etc. In accordance with Cabinet Regulation No 228 of 10 March 2009 "Individual Rules for the Protection and Use of the Nature Park "Salacas ieleja"", the Nature Park was established to ensure the protection of habitats of species specially protected in Latvia and in the European Union, in particular - the protection of salmonid and lamprey spawning and habitats, to ensure the protection of habitats specially protected in Latvia and in the European Union (including slope and ravine forests, sandstone outcrops, river floodplains) and to preserve the territory for public recreation and education and to ensure sustainable development of the territory. “Niedrāju-Pilka purvs” is an important site for the conservation of the priority habitats of the EU Habitats Directive Annex 1 - raised bogs and swamp forests. A large number of protected bird species can be found: Black stork, Bean goose, Greater white-fronted goose, European honey buzzard, lesser spotted eagle, Black grouse, Hazel grouse, European golden plover, common gull, Whooper swan, etc. A summary of the objectives for the establishment and protection of the Natura 2000 sites adjacent to the 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. 127  Table 6.4.2. Assessment of Natura 2000 sites in Latvia adjacent to the area of the proposed activity Nature Reserve “Vitrupes ieleja” Objectives for creation and The site has been designated to protect the following habitats of EU importance: protection (habitats)118 freshwater, grasslands, marshes, rock outcrops and forests119 3260, 6270*, 6450, 7160, 8220, 9010*, 9020*, 9050, 9160, 9180*, 91F0 Objectives for Spined loach, Eurasian pygmy owl, White-backed woodpecker, Thick shelled river establishment and mussel, Red-backed shrike, Corn crake, Salmon, Large copper, Black woodpecker, conservation (species)120 Hazel grouse, European bullhead, Woodlark, Round‐mouthed whorl snail, Brook lamprey, Eurasian three-toed woodpecker, European river lamprey, Ural owl, Eurasian otter, European nightjar, Middle spotted woodpecker, Common kingfisher. The patterns and The reserve was established to ensure the protection of specially protected interactions that determine invertebrate and plant species, sandstone outcrops, forests and freshwater the existence of natural habitats, as well as to promote sustainable management of the area. values in these areas121 Factors affecting nature - Forestry activities values prior to - Vitrupe riverbank development, bank reconstruction implementation of the - Water pollution Proposed Action122 - High number of beaver dams and chokes in the river - Removal of dead wood - Overgrowing meadows - Spontaneously created waste dumps on the coastal strip - Agricultural activities - Concession - Problem native species Nature park "Salacas ieleja" Objectives for creation and The site has been designated to protect the following habitats of EU importance: protection (habitats)123 freshwater, grasslands, marshes and forests124 2180, 3260, 6210, 6270*, 6410, 6430, 6450, 6510, 7110*, 7150, 7160, 7220*, 8220, 8310, 9010*, 9020, 9050, 9160, 9180*, 91D0*, 91E0*, 91F0 Objectives for Spined loach, Eurasian pygmy owl, white stork, White-backed woodpecker, Thick establishment and shelled river mussel, Brown bear, Red-backed shrike, Geyer's whorl snail, Pond conservation (species)125 bat, Common crane, Corn crake, Sichel, Golden eagle, hermit beetle, salmon, Common merganser, Lesser Spotted Eagle, Red-breasted flycatcher, Western capercaillie, Black stork, Black woodpecker, Eastern pasqueflower, Hazel grouse, Western marsh harrier, Grey-headed woodpecker, weatherfish, European bullhead, Woodlark, Narrow-mouthed Whorl Snail, European bitterling, hairy agrimony, Brook lamprey, Eurasian three-toed woodpecker, European river lamprey, Ural owl , Eurasian otter, European nightjar, Middle spotted woodpecker, Green snaketail, Osprey, Common kingfisher. The patterns and The Nature Park was established to ensure the protection of habitats of species interactions that determine specially protected in Latvia and in the European Union, especially salmonid and lamprey spawning and habitat protection, to ensure the protection of habitats specially protected in Latvia and in the European Union (including slope and ravine 118 https://biodiversity.europa.eu/sites/natura2000/LV0530500 119 Here are the EU Habitat Codes, for detailed descriptions of the habitats see https://www.varam.gov.lv/sites/varam/files/es_biotopi_latvija_rokasgramata_lv_2_izdevums.pdf 120 https://biodiversity.europa.eu/sites/natura2000/LV0530500 121 https://www.daba.gov.lv/lv/vitrupes-ieleja 122 https://biodiversity.europa.eu/sites/natura2000/LV0530500 123 https://biodiversity.europa.eu/sites/natura2000/LV0302200 124 Here are the EU Habitat Codes, for detailed descriptions of the habitats see https://www.varam.gov.lv/sites/varam/files/es_biotopi_latvija_rokasgramata_lv_2_izdevums.pdf 125 https://biodiversity.europa.eu/sites/natura2000/LV0302200 128  the existence of natural forests, sandstone outcrops, river floodplains) and to preserve the territory for values in these areas126 public recreation and education and to ensure sustainable development of the territory. Factors affecting nature existing and potential negative influencing factors and threats in the "Salacas values prior to ieleja": implementation of the − Overgrowing meadows Proposed Action127 − Concession − Agricultural activities − Diffuse pollution of surface water from agricultural and forestry activities − Erosion − Forestry activities − Invasive alien species − Problem native species − Motorised water sports − Other outdoor sports and activities − Anthropogenic reduction of habitat connectivity Nature reserve "Niedrāju pilkas purvs" Objectives for creation and The site has been designated to protect the following grassland habitats of EU protection (habitats)128 importance129 : 3160, 7110*, 7120, 7140, 7150, 9010*, 9020*, 9050, 9080*, 91D0*, 91E0* Objectives for White-backed woodpecker, Greater white-fronted goose, Red-backed shrike, establishment and European golden plover, Common crane, European honey buzzard, Lesser Spotted conservation (species)130 Eagle, Red-breasted flycatcher, Black stork, Black woodpecker, Hazel grouse, Black grouse, Bean goose, large white-faced darter, Ural owl, Eurasian otter. Factors affecting nature The main factors and threats affecting the site are established waste sites, land values prior to reclamation and drying out. implementation of the Proposed Action131 6.4.2. Protected habitats In the entire habitat study area, covering both the northern and southern parts of the Proposed Action study area, specially protected habitats cover approximately 7 % of the total area: they are found scattered throughout the LVM wind farm study area (see figure 6.4.3), also forming larger concentrations along small rivers (Vedamurga, Kulaurga, Urgenurga, etc.), which in some places correspond to the habitat Stream courses and natural river reaches 3260. Along them, mainly occur alluvial riparian and floodplain forests 91E0*, which cover the largest areas in the study area, i.e. 106.5 ha (Figure 6.4.3). There is also some Old Mixed Broadleaved Forest 9020* (17.6 ha) along the streams and in the NE part of the site. The second largest habitat group, which occurs most frequently in scattered patches throughout the site, is Old or natural boreal forest 9010* (66 ha). Typically, habitats that are highly dependent on moisture conditions - Swamp forests 91D0* and Conifer forests 9080* - are more concentrated in the north-eastern part of the study area, where adjacent areas are also surrounded by swamp habitats. Coniferous forest and swamp forest habitats also survive in small patches in other parts of the site. The area also has a fragmentary occurrence of broadleaved spruce forests 9050 (13.6 ha). Along the Svētupe River, which corresponds to 126 https://www.daba.gov.lv/ 127 https://biodiversity.europa.eu/sites/natura2000/LV0302200 128 https://biodiversity.europa.eu/sites/natura2000/LV0509800 129 Here are the EU Habitat Codes, for detailed descriptions of the habitats see https://www.varam.gov.lv/sites/varam/files/es_biotopi_latvija_rokasgramata_lv_2_izdevums.pdf 130 https://biodiversity.europa.eu/sites/natura2000/LV0509800 131 Ibid, 129 the biotope 3260 Streams and natural stretches of rivers, there are also 9180* Slope and ravine forests, 7.2 ha in area. Just to the east of the quarry, in the southern part of the study area, there is a wooded coastal dune 2180 habitat of 4.3 ha. Habitat area, ha 120 106.5 100 80 66.2 60 37.2 32.0 40 17.6 13.6 7.2 20 4.3 0 Veci vai dabiski Mežainas piejūras Staignāju meži Lakstaugiem bagāti krastmalu un palieņu Purvaini meži Veci jaukti platlapju Nogāžu un gravu meži Aluviāli meži (aluviāli boreāli meži egļu meži kāpas meži meži) 91E0* 9010* 9080* 91D0* 9020* 9050 9180* 2180 Figure 6.4.3. Habitat area in the area of LVM wind farm study lands of WPP park Limbaži Overall, when habitats are analysed according to biodiversity quality, almost half (48%) are of good or excellent quality; the same proportion are of medium or poor quality (Figure 6.4.4). Habitat area by quality class, % Izcila Zema Nav zināma 4% 3% 4% Vidēja 45% Laba 44% Figure 6.4.4. Habitat area by quality class in the area of LVM wind park study lands of WPP park Limbaži All forest habitats of EU importance in the surveyed area require a non-interference regime to achieve and/or maintain a favourable conservation status132, including for some of them not only the protection of the habitat itself, but also the microclimate and natural hydrological regime provided by the surrounding forest stands (e.g, for biotopes 9080* Coniferous forests, 91D0* Swamp forests, 91E0* Alluvial forests, also 9010* Old or natural boreal forests in dry and wet vegetation types). 132 Ikauniece S. (ed.) 2017. Guidelines for the conservation of protected habitats in Latvia. 6. volume. Forests. Nature Conservation Agency, Sigulda. 167 pp. 130 The surveys also re-identified several habitats of EU importance throughout the study area: information and questionnaires are included in the Habitat Expert Reports. 6.4.3. Special-status species or groups of species and their distribution features Specially protected species (SSPs) identified in the study area (northern part of the WPP Park), for which the impact of the Proposed Action on both forest and swamp habitats and on vascular plant, moss and lichen species has been assessed (BD II - species listed in Annex II of the European Council Directive 92/43/EEC on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora; SPA I, II - according to the number of the Annex to the Cabinet of Ministers Regulation on the List of Protected Species), species for which a micro-reserve (MIR) is to be established are marked 6.4.table 3, grouped in alphabetical order according to their Latin name and indicating their occurrence in the study area, as well as in Figure 3 of the expert opinion of 07.11.2024 attached as Annex 6. Where the name of a species in the scientific literature differs from the name used in the legislation on species conservation, this is indicated in brackets. The table includes only protected species and other rare species (e.g. specialist species of natural forest habitats) whose habitats are located in the area of potential impact of the northern part of the WPP Park. Table 6.4.3. Protected habitats of EU importance found in the northern part of the WPP Park Species Conservation status, Species, No on map Accessibility in the area group IUCN133 1. Huperzia selago vascular IR II, LC Some occurrences throughout the plants WPP Park, most likely outside the surveyed area. 2. Zygodon baumgartnerii son I, MIK, NT In the plot near parking lot Z11. (rupestris) 3. Ceruchus chrysomelinus invertebrates SHORT I, MIK, EN In the plot along Jaunupe Road. 4. Lejeunea cavifolia son I, MIK, LC In some good quality forest habitats along the Vedamurga track and Aivara road, as well as along the 1A connection track. 5. Dactylorhiza fuchsii vascular IAS I, LC Single specimens throughout the plants study area in wet forest patches. 6. Lycopodium annotinum vascular IR II, LC Frequent throughout the study plants area, especially in the dry forest patches. 7. Neckera (Alleniella) son IAS I, LC In some areas around site Z11. complanata 8. Jungermannia leiantha son I, MIK, NT Two deposits, at Sites Z11 and Z16. (Liochlaena lanceolata) 9. Anastrophyllum hellerianum son I, MIK, LC In the vicinity of site Z12. (Crossocalyx hellerianus) 10. Odontoschisma denudatum son IAS I, LC Scattered throughout the area, occurring in greater abundance on suitable slopes. More common in the northern part of the study area. 11. Arthonia leucopelleae lichens I, NT Several plots in the north-eastern part of the study area, including near site Z8. Found both in EU protected forest habitats and 133 Assessment according to IUCN (International Union for Conservation of Nature) criteria, based on LIFE FOR SPECIES project materials. https://sarkanagramata.lu.lv/par-projektu/materiali/ LC - Least Concern - Secure, NT - Near Threatened , VU - Vulnerable , EN - Endangered , CR - Critically endangered 131  Species Conservation status, Species, No on map Accessibility in the area group IUCN133 outside them in mature stands with suitable microclimates. 12. Arthonia spadicea lichens IAS I, LC It is relatively common throughout the site in areas of high humidity. 13. Gyroporus castaneus mushrooms SHORT I, VU One site in the vicinity of Z11. 14. Scaphopods Scapania spp. son SHORT I, VU or NT One site in the massif to the east (not traceable to species in the of Aivars Road, one along the 1A R field, but almost all species of connection to the high voltage the genus occurring in Latvia are line. protected) 15. Phellinus (Phellopilus) mushrooms IAS I, MIK One site to the west of N13. nigrolimitatus 16. Platanthera spp vascular IAS I, LC/NT Some deposits throughout the plants (P.bifolia/P.chlorantha) area. 17. Dactylorhiza maculata vascular IAS I, LC On the route of the 1A R plants connection. 18. Bazzania trilobata son IAS I, MIK, NT Close to the 1A A connection route. 19. Phellinus ferrugineofuscus mushrooms I, NT Near the Z6 car park. (Phellinidum ferrugineofuscum) 20. Lycpodium clavatum vascular IR II, LC Two sightings: at Z6 and 1A on the plants R track. 21. Arthonia vinosa lichens I, NT Some occurrences in good quality protected forest habitats of EU importance, more in the vicinity of site Z11. 22. Buxbaumia viridis son IAS I, MIK, BD II, VU Some occurrences both within and outside protected forest habitats of EU importance, near Raven's Road, Aivars Road, track 1A R. 23. Thelotrema lepadinum lichens I, MIK, NT One site near the Kuikule road. The specially protected species found are associated with forest habitats. Most of them are indicator or specialist species of natural forest habitats, so these species need stands that are little affected by economic activities, have a stable microclimate, a natural hydrological regime, and ensure the production of dead wood. In the study area and in the wider area, the most significant factor is forestry, which has led to the destruction of habitats and reduced their quality by affecting the microclimate through clear-cutting adjacent to the habitat. As the site is part of a long-standing forest stand, species characteristic of natural forest habitats occurs relatively frequently and also in younger stands, indicating the longevity of the forest and the resilience of the ecosystem to disturbance from economic activities. The area is affected by drainage, including from road side ditches (e.g. in areas along the Vedamurga track, where the former swamp forest has been converted to dry forest), but much of the forest is still under a natural moisture regime: both wetland and swamp types, which not only have elevated ground humidity but also a humid microclimate favourable for rare moss and lichen species (e.g. arthonia, Baumgartner's tooth, naked round-leaved fern, etc.).c.). Species that are not threatened in the area because they have sufficient habitat and do not have high requirements for habitat characteristics include night violets, Fuchs' cuckoo, cuckoo and annual pipistrelles, and the common pipistrelle. 132 07.11.2024. the site survey also revealed new records of specially protected plant species: information on the records is provided in the species habitat expert reports (Annex 6). Each site identified has a mapped habitat of EU importance or a designated habitat of a specially protected species. Some vascular plant species have low habitat requirements and population maintenance is sufficient if surrounding forest areas are not transformed for other uses (night violets, annual creeping bentgrass, common spicebush); others require a stable hydrological regime with increased humidity (cuckoo pondweed). The specially protected species of mosses, lichens, fungi and invertebrates found in the area require the same conditions as protected forest habitats: a constant microclimate, undisturbed dead wood formation and an undisturbed hydrological regime. 6.4.4. Bird species in the area The methodology used for the survey of bird species is attached in the opinion of the Certified Naturalist DU/2024/01 (Annex 6, Appendix "Survey Methodology"). Methodology agreed with NCA on 30 September 2022. The area of the proposed activity, the LVM wind farm study area and the study area including it have been surveyed and observations recorded 19 times on 13 dates in 2022 and 62 times on 46 dates in 2023, as well as in 2024 in a random manner, with particular attention paid to the survey of the vicinity of the observation of a hoopoe (near Korģene) in 2023 and the installation of passive acoustic monitoring devices. The most significant economic activity in the area of the proposed action is related to forestry, which is clearly the most significant impact prior to the establishment of the WPP Park. During the ornithofauna inventory of the site in the 2023 season, there are no signs that intensive forestry activities (i.e. many new clear-cuts and 'thinned' forest patches) have ceased in the area. It is therefore quite safe to assume that the overall value of the site for many protected bird species is only declining. At the same time, these species reliably choose to survive in resource-limited environments, but an objective assessment of this capacity and feasibility would require a long-term and resource-intensive study, including nest success. 133  Figure 6.4.5. View of the Svētupe River near the Kuiķuļi River in the central part of the study area of the planned WPP park, photo taken on 02.08.2023, coordinates X:529052, Y:396767, author: Dāvis Ūlands. Field surveys in the study area, as well as for particularly sensitive species (Eurasian eagle-owl and Black Stork) in and around the 2 km study area, recorded a total of 54 species (53 species and an unknown bird nest - the Great Crested Newt), of which 38 are protected species) (Table 6.4.4). explanation of abbreviations used in Table 6.4.4: PD I - Annex I to the Birds Directive; SPEC 1 - Specially Protected Species Annex 1; SPA 2 - Specially Protected Species Annex 2; ML - Microreserve species Species in grey are not on the protected species lists. The degree of threat of the species in Latvia is described according to the internationally recognised criteria of the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN)134 Table 6.4.4. Species recorded during the survey. Latvian name of Latin name of the species Observations PD I SHORT SHORT ML IUCN the species 1 2 EN Zosis Anser spp. 22 Vistu vanags Accipiter gentilis 6 v EN Zvirbuļu vanags Accipiter nisus 12 LC Krūmu ķauķis Acrocephalus dumetorum 2 LC Zivju dzenītis Alcedo atthis 1 v v LC 134 Ķerus, V., Dekants, A., Auniņš, A., & Mārdega, I. 2021. Breeding bird atlases of Latvia 1980- 2017. Bird numbers, distribution and changes. Latvian Ornithological Society. 134 Latvian name of Latin name of the species Observations PD I SHORT SHORT ML IUCN the species 1 2 EN Lielais baltais Ardea alba (Egretta alba) 1 v LC gārnis Zivju gārnis Ardea cinerea 2 LC Ausainā pūce Asio otus 2 VU Baltvaigu zoss Branta leucopsis 1 v Ūpis Bubo bubo 3 v v v CR Gaigala Bucephala clangula 1 LC Peļu klijāns Buteo buteo 8 VU Gugatnis Calidris pugnax (Philomachus 1 v v CR pugnax) Vakarlēpis Caprimulgus europaeus 165 v v LC Baltais stārķis Ciconia ciconia 10 v v LC Melnais stārķis Ciconia nigra 3 v v v CR Niedru lija Circus aeruginosus 10 v v LC Mazais ērglis Clanga pomarina (Aquila pomarina) 24 v v v LC Meža balodis Columba oenas 26 v v LC Grieze Crex crex 45 v v NT Mazais gulbis Cygnus columbianus bewickii 1 v v Ziemeļu gulbis Cygnus cygnus 5 v v v NT Baltmugurdzenis Dendrocopos leucotos 10 v v v LC Dižraibais dzenis Dendrocopos major 3 VU Mazais dzenis Dryobates minor (Dendrocopos 3 CR minor) Melnā dzilna Dryocopus martius 47 v v LC Bezdelīgu Falco subbuteo 2 LC piekūns Lauku piekūns Falco tinnunculus 1 v NT Mazais Ficedula parva 19 v v LC mušķērājs Žubīte Fringilla coelebs 1 LC Apodziņš Glaucidium passerinum 15 v v v VU Dzērve Grus grus 23 v v LC Jūras ērglis Haliaeetus albicilla 5 v v v VU Tītiņš Jynx torquilla 1 v LC Brūnā čakste Lanius collurio 11 v v VU Lielā čakste Lanius excubitor 2 v NT Sudrabkaija Larus argentatus 1 LC Vidējais dzenis Leiopicus medius (Dendrocopos medius, 5 v v v LC Picoides medius) Priežu Loxia pytyopsittacus 1 CR krustknābis Sila cīrulis Lullula arborea 11 v v LC Rubenis Lyrurus tetrix (Tetrao tetrix) 2 v v LC Lielā gaura Mergus merganser 3 v LC Kuitala Numenius arquata 2 v VU Zivju ērglis Pandion haliaetus 3 v v v NT Ķīķis Pernis apivorus 9 v v LC Trīspirkstu dzenis Picoides tridactylus 28 v v v CR Pelēkā dzilna Picus canus 22 v v LC 135  Latvian name of Latin name of the species Observations PD I SHORT SHORT ML IUCN the species 1 2 EN Ormanītis Porzana porzana 5 v v LC Sārtgalvītis Regulus ignicapilla 5 LC Meža pūce Strix aluco 13 LC Urālpūce Strix uralensis 31 v v VU Mednis Tetrao urogallus 82 v v v DD Mežirbe Tetrastes bonasia (Bonasa bonasia) 17 v v EN Information available from other sources on protected bird species in the area of the Proposed Action has also been compiled. In the period since 2015, 140 records (designated as records) have been recorded in the study area of the "Ozols" SPA for a total of 29 bird species (28 species and an unknown bird nest), of which 27 are protected species, some of the records recorded by the "Ozols" SPA are duplicates. Of the species mentioned in other sources of information, only two were not found in this area during the survey: Seifer Warbler Locustella luscinioides and Northern Shrike Perdix perdix. Table 6.4.5. Summary of protected bird species observations in the study area and assessment of potential impacts No. Bird species Accessibility in the study area Recommendations for the WPP Park 1. Accipiter Six records of the species and two occupied It is recommended not to construct WPP gentilis nests have been recorded, no records of within 1000 m around known nests in the NE the species have been recorded in the part of the study area, and to equip WPP study area of DDPS "OZOLS". Accordingly, with rotor braking and/or stopping camera six breeding districts have been identified: systems in the SE and SW parts of the area at three proven and three probable. The least 1000 m around the observation sites. radius of the breeding area is assumed to Potentially affected species, mitigation be 1500 metres, based on the ecology of measures required. the species. 2. Alcedo atthis During the survey one individual was No negative impacts on the breeding observed in a small tributary of the population of the species in the study area Kulaurga River in the central part of the are expected from the implementation of study area, attributed to feeding in these the WPP Park. watercourses, the site is not suitable for breeding. 3. Ardea alba The species was observed once in the study No impact is foreseeable. area during the survey, no records were recorded in DDPS OZOLS. During the survey one individual was observed outside the study area in Niedrāju-Pilka purvs. The observation is considered to be casual and is not assessed further. 4. Bubo bubo The presence of the species has been Based on the recommended buffer zone detected in the micro-reserve established distances (1-2 km to the nearest WPP site), for the protection of the Osprey at even with only a possible nesting at this site, Svētciems, but successful breeding has not the condition is fulfilled. On the other hand, been observed in 2023. Given that the the ecological and behavioural aspects do species has nested successfully in this area not clearly suggest that impacts are over the last five years, it is assumed that unforeseeable. The species is also unlikely to the breeding site is assessed as a proven be present episodically, as no typical feeding breeding site. Considering the distance of sites for the species have been identified in the site from the WPP Park, it is fairly the WPP area, unless the wood grouse certain that it will not be adversely affected Tetrao urogallusis used as an important prey by the Park, and it should be noted that it item. 136 No. Bird species Accessibility in the study area Recommendations for the WPP Park is located on the heavily used A1 motorway. 5. Caprimulgus The species occurs and breeding is likely No significant negative impacts on the europaeus throughout the study area. The survey breeding population of the species in Latvia identified 47 breeding sites (all rated as are expected from the implementation of likely) and a further 35 sites where the WPP Park. Some of the breeding breeding is possible. However, only three population will change the location or records of the species have been recorded density of the breeding sites used, especially in the study area, which is likely due to its within 350 m of the WPP. specific occurrence and activity during the The species is not assessed in the context of dark hours of the day. the impact of WPP parks, based on information in the literature, similarly to the known practice in Latvia. No information is available on the potential risks to it during the breeding season, it is assumed that the expected impacts are minor or not significant. Therefore, no specific measures are needed to restrict the operation of the WPP outside the potential construction period. 6. Ciconia In the study area, suitable habitats for the No negative impacts on the breeding ciconia White Stork are found mainly in the population of the species in the study area periphery. The WPP is planned to be are expected if the proposed WPP Park is located in a forest landscape that is implemented. This is mainly due to the lack considered sub-optimal for both nesting of suitable habitats for the species in the and foraging habitat. WPP area. The nearest occupied nest is approximately 850 m from the WPP. A total of 40 White Stork nests were recorded in or near the study area during the survey. 7. Ciconia nigra The species was recorded three times The presence of the Stork and the location of during the survey: once in 2022 and twice potential nest sites should be a focus of in 2023. All observations are considered to future monitoring in the area. be attributable to feeding site visits only. A 500 m free zone should be maintained Historically, only one nest has been known along Svētupe and Korģe (but this does not in this area, which was successful every affect any WPP), a 100 m zone along year from 1982 to 1985. The nest was not Vedamurga would be preferable. checked for a long time afterwards and in 2005 it was found to have perished, presumably in a windstorm. Since the nest was destroyed by natural causes, the bird has probably moved somewhere else (nearby). The most likely feeding rivers are located in the study area: Svētupe and Korģe. 8. Circus DDPS "OZOLS" records five sightings, one In general, the species is only likely to occur aeruginosus of which is a duplicate. During the survey, in the WPP Park episodically during transit or however, ten records were recorded with migration. at least some evidence of grouping near A possible mitigation measure is to restrict or suitable nesting habitats. Breeding sites completely suspend the operation of the identified include a complex of long-lived smart chamber WPP. beavers in the periphery of the NE part of WPP Park and an abandoned and flooded gravel pit in the NW part of the park, as well as, based on observations recorded by 137 No. Bird species Accessibility in the study area Recommendations for the WPP Park DDPS "OZOLS", Kliķu Lake in the NE part of the park near Korģene. The main foraging habitats of the species in the area are agricultural land and secondary wetlands. 9. Clanga In the study area, the species is regularly Given the location of the proposed WPP in a pomarina found in the open landscapes that forested landscape, it is expected that the encompass the area of the proposed WPP presence of Lesser Spotted Eagles will be park. relatively low, as potential feeding sites are In the study area, 24 observations of the mainly located in the open landscape on the species were recorded, and eight breeding periphery of the park. districts were identified: three of them The construction of WPP (if equipped with were considered successful breeding (one mitigation technology) at distances of less nest found, two young birds observed), than 2000 m from the centre of an accepted three were considered probable breeding nesting site or an occupied nest, but not less districts (birds observed repeatedly during than 1500 m, is permitted. both spring and summer surveys) and two A prerequisite is the application of mitigation were considered possible breeding camera systems in WPP within 3000 m of the districts. The distance between the centres adopted centres of the breeding colonies of adjacent areas varies from 1.5 km to 3 and the occupied nest. km. 11 records have been recorded for the Taking into account these precautionary species in DDPS "OZOLS", 9 of them are recommendations, the predicted impact on assessed as the lowest breeding the Lesser Spotted Eagle population nesting probability group - possible breeding. Two in the Study Area is considered to be low. records, which are actually one duplicate record, are recorded as proven breeding. A micro-reserve for the protection of the species (MRCODE 1754) has been established in the study area. 10. Columba In the study area of DDPS "OZOLS" 5 No measures are required to protect the oenas records of the species were recorded, 26 species and mitigate impacts. In the case of records were recorded during the study. the WPP Park, there is no objective impact Based on these, 6 probable breeding sites prediction. were identified and a further 8 were assessed as possible. 11. Crex crex In the DDPS "OZOLS", 16 records of No restrictions required: it is likely that no Ospreys were recorded, and 45 records adverse effects on the population of the were recorded during the survey. They are species in the study area are foreseeable mainly concentrated in low-use grasslands: from the implementation of the proposed floodplains, pastures or abandoned activity. farmland. 12. Cygnus During the survey, one breeding pair was If overhead cable lines are planned in the cygnus recorded in the territory of the WPP park proposed WPP park, it is recommended that in the NW part of the park in a flooded they are marked with bird deterrent mineral quarry. Three records (two of markers. However, the expert himself has them duplicates) have been recorded at pointed out that no significant bird migration DDPS "OZOLS", and these are assessed as routes have been observed in the area of the probable breeding. proposed activity, so such a claim is not justified. No other impacts are foreseeable. 13. Dendrocopos During the survey, 10 records were The primary critical impact for the species is leucotos recorded, of which 4 are traces of activity: the reduction of suitable habitat areas - species-specific forgings. Taking into biologically valuable forest stands, which in account the clustering of observations and most cases are habitats of EU importance - in suitable habitats for the species, 2 the breeding area through deforestation. probable and 1 possible breeding sites Not recommended for WPP D4, D5 and Z21, were identified. No records of the species the construction of which may result in the have been recorded in DDPS "OZOLS". 138  No. Bird species Accessibility in the study area Recommendations for the WPP Park destruction of habitats of EU importance through deforestation. 14. Dryocopus During the survey, 47 sightings or traces of The species is not assessed in the context of martius species-specific activity were recorded. the impact of WPP parks, based on Based on the replicate observations and information in the literature, similarly to the their grouping, 8 probable breeding sites known practice in Latvia. and 3 possible breeding sites were No mitigation measures are required. identified in the study area. 14 sightings have been recorded in DDPS "OZOLS". 15. Falco The survey recorded one individual that Given that the site is more than 2 km from tinnunculus can be confidently identified as a migrant. the nearest WPP, the impact on it cannot be DDPS "OZOLS" recorded one record in predicted with any certainty. 2022, defined as a possible breeder. 16. Ficedula 13 records of the species have been No special measures are required to restrict parva recorded in DDPS "OZOLS", 19 records of activities outside the potential construction the species have been recorded in the period of the WPP farm. study area, mainly in mature or overgrown The species is not assessed in the context of forest stands with a significant amount or the impact of WPP parks, based on dominance of spruce. information in the literature, similarly to the known practice in Latvia. 17. Glaucidium The species was recorded 15 times during In the context of the impact of WPP parks, passerinum the survey, and based on these the species is mostly not assessed, similarly observations, 2 probable breeding sites to the known practice in Latvia. No and 2-3 possible breeding sites were information is available on the potential risks identified. DDPS "OZOLS" recorded 2 to it during the breeding season, it is records of the species, both with possible assumed that the expected impacts are breeding status. minor or not significant. The Species Conservation Plan for the owl species group135 gives quite specific recommendations for the protection of the species in relation to noise pollution and recommends that the WPP model should be as quiet as possible in order to comply with them. 18. Grus grus 17 records of the species have been As a possible mitigation measure, smart recorded in DDPS "OZOLS", during the cameras should be used to limit or survey the species was recorded 23 times, completely stop the operation of the WPP. of which 11 records were considered as at least possible breeding. Based on their grouping, there are at least seven occupied breeding territories. The optimal breeding area for the species is the concentration of Great Bitterns in the NE part of the WPP Park study area, where there are no records of the species. 19. Haliaeetus During the survey period, the species was Overall, the presence of the species in the albicilla observed sporadically: 5 records, while one study area (within 3000 m of the nearest record in 2022 was recorded in the data WPP) can be reliably described as occasional. imported by DDPS "OZOLS" from Despite the fact that the species has not dabasdati.lv. Taking into account the been proven to breed in the area, it is breeding peculiarities of the species in recommended that, as a precautionary 135 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. 139 No. Bird species Accessibility in the study area Recommendations for the WPP Park Latvia, the entire study area is measure, the closest WPPs to a given characterised as suitable for breeding observation group (at least 1000 m from the (especially taking into account possible nearest observation) should be equipped long-distance foraging flights of the with rotor braking and/or stopping camera species), as it contains a large amount of systems. clearings with ecological trees. It should also be noted that the NE part of the study area contains a concentration of wetlands, mainly consisting of perennial beaver grasses, which is considered a potential feeding area. However, the species was not recorded in this area during the survey. 20 Jynx torquilla DDPS "OZOLS" recorded 8 records for the No impact is foreseeable. species, of which 4 are duplicates. The species was recorded 1 time in the periphery of the study area during the survey. 21. Lanius collurio The species has been recorded 7 times in No impact predicted. DDPS "OZOLS", 2 of the records are duplicates, the records were mainly recorded in the periphery of the study area. The species was recorded 11 times throughout the study area during the survey, of these records 3 were assessed as confirmed breeding, 2 as probable breeding and 6 as possible breeding. 22. Lanius DDPS "OZOLS" recorded the species 2 No impact predicted. excubitor times, the observations are considered as a probable breeding site. The species was recorded 2 times during the survey, one of the records on agricultural land was assessed as a migrant or wintering individual, the other record was assessed as a possible breeder. 23. Leiopicus DDPS "OZOLS" recorded 7 records of the The expected impact is minor or not medius species, including 1 confirmed breeding at significant. Kuiķule River. During the survey, 5 records There are several priority protected area of the species were recorded, and given cells within the study area, but these are not the relatively small size of the area, it is affected by the Proposed Action. assumed that there are up to 5 possible breeding sites in part D of WPP Park, however, it is possible that some of the birds observed have flown considerable distances or that the area occupied by them is larger than typically expected in the mosaic of different forest vegetation types. 24. Lullula DDPS "OZOLS" has 8 records for the Outside the time-limited period of the arborea species, of which 2 are duplicates. 11 potential construction of the WPP, no records of the species have been recorded specific mitigation measures are foreseen to in the study area; the species has been limit its operation. observed in suitable breeding habitats. It is assessed to occur sporadically throughout the study area. 25. Pernis DDPS "OZOLS" has 4 records for the Potentially affected species: equip WPP with apivorus species, 2 of them are duplicates. The collision mitigation solutions for cameras. 140 No. Bird species Accessibility in the study area Recommendations for the WPP Park species was recorded 9 times during the survey. No grouping or repeated sightings have been recorded, nor has its breeding been detected by monitoring known large nests. At the same time, it should be noted that the species is likely to breed in the study area. 26. Lyrurus tetrix No records have been recorded for the No impact predicted. species in DDPS "OZOLS". No records of the species were recorded in the study area during the survey, the species was observed in the Niedrāju-Pilka marsh. 27. Mergus The species has 23 records in DDPS No impact predicted. Outside the time- merganser "OZOLS" and was recorded twice during limited period of the potential construction the survey. of the WPP, no specific mitigation measures are foreseen to limit its operation. 28. Pandion The species has not been found breeding, No or low impact predicted. haliaetus may forage in quarry water bodies as well as in the Salaca River, highest risks for migratory birds, however, overall numbers are expected to be low in the area. 29. Picoides 1 record of the species has been recorded No or low impact predicted. tridactylus at DDPS OZOLS, 1 record of the species has been recorded during the survey, as well as traces of its activity at 27 sites. One probable breeding site has been identified, but the species is likely to be present throughout the entire WPP area. The mainly alluvial forests that surround small watercourses are an important feeding area. 30. Picus canus Only 4 records of the species have been No or low impact predicted. recorded in DDPS "OZOLS", 22 records of the species have been recorded during the survey. Based on these, 5 probable breeding districts and 4 possible breeding districts were identified. 31. Porzana 1 record of the species has been recorded No impact predicted. porzana in DDPS "OZOLS", 5 records of the species have been recorded during the survey period, 2 of them can be reliably identified as migratory or non-breeding individuals in the territory of WPP Park. Using passive audio recording systems, the species was detected again in the vicinity of the record at DDPS "OZOLS". 32. Strix uralensis 4 records have been recorded for the The entire area of the WPP Park falls within species in DDPS "OZOLS", 31 records have the inventoried areas, some also within the been recorded for the species during the cells of priority protected areas, with a total survey. Based on the observations, 1 of six WPP designed in priority protected proven breeding site, 6 probable breeding areas for this species. The species' sites and 5 possible breeding sites have conservation plan identifies the effects of been identified. In the forest landscape, noise pollution. Significant the species can be safely assessed as the recommendations for the protection of the most common protected owl species in the species against noise pollution, and to study area. 141  No. Bird species Accessibility in the study area Recommendations for the WPP Park implement this it is recommended to install the quietest possible WPP turbine model. 33. Tetrao 6 observations were recorded in the DDPS In the context of WPP parks, the species is urogallus "OZOLS", 7 bird observations and 31 considered very sensitive in the literature, activity traces were recorded in the however, despite the relatively long database provided by LVM, 12 species movements of the capercaillie outside the observations and 70 activity traces were breeding season (1 April to 15 May), the recorded during the survey. literature mainly recommends a buffer zone The number of huns in the study area of 1000 m, which in the case of Scandinavia should be estimated to be at least 8-12 is applied to breeding events where five or birds. more breeding birds are assessed. In In the study area, according to the addition to collisions with WPP, which could information received from LVM, there are be considered as a direct negative factor for three known rookeries/zones for the the local population, there are also negative protection of the roe deer habitat. effects of noise and possible flicker from WPP operations, as well as distances between WPP and the infrastructure road network, which may further contribute to disturbance caused by the direct presence of humans, including during maintenance work for the functioning of the WPP park. 34. Tetrastes 10 records of the species have been No information is available on the potential bonasia recorded in DDPS "OZOLS", 17 records of risks to the species during the breeding the species have been recorded during the season and the expected impacts are minor survey, some of them outside the breeding or not significant. season. Based on the observations, 1 probable breeding site and 5 other possible breeding sites have been identified. 35. Locustella In the study area of DDPS "OZOLS" 2 No impact is expected. luscinioides records (duplicate) were recorded in a habitat suitable for nesting: In the Lake Kliķu inflow system. 36. Perdix perdix DDPS "OZOLS" recorded 3 records of the No impact is expected. species, of which 2 are duplicates. 37. Aegolius Of the species for which priority protected Given that the priority and inventory layers funereus area layers were prepared, only the Bitter essentially overlap with the breeding areas apple was not detected during the survey. of the Barn Owl, the same mitigation Also, no records of the species have been measures apply as for the Barn Owl: the recorded in the study area. recommendations for the protection of the species with regard to noise pollution recommend installing the quietest possible WPP model to comply with them. Large nests During the survey, available information on large nests within the study area and its immediate surroundings was collected, including information on large nests received from the proponent (essentially at the end of the survey), as received from LVM. The group of nests to be surveyed also includes all newly found nests. A total of 33 large nest sites were checked in or near the study area. Of these, 14 do not exist in the wild: most are not found (in such situations, the nearest vicinity of the nest site is walked, checking the most suitable trees and slopes up to about 100-150 m away), some are located in felled forest stands, and some have fallen down due to various circumstances. One of them has been wrongly identified as a large nest. 142 Of the occupied or visited nests, eight were identified as breeding species by the Buteo buteo, two by the Accipiter gentilis and one by the Clanga pomarina, with a further eight nests assessed as undetermined to species: of these, four were assessed as unoccupied during the survey, while three were visited (some nest material was added) and one was occupied. These previously undetectable nests are most likely to have been visited by Buteo buteo during the spring period, however, given that no detectable signs were found, they are retained as undetectable. Four of the large nests surveyed are within 500 m of the nearest WPP site, one of which was successfully nested by a Buteo buteo. The other three are at least visited, although no breeding attempt has been detected. Migratory birds Migratory birds are often perceived as being strongly negatively affected by WPP parks: migratory birds are killed or forced to change their traditional flight paths and expend more of their limited available energy on longer and longer journeys136 137 138 139. Potentially the main migration directions in the area should be NE-SW and vice versa140. As regards the effectiveness of visual observations in assessing migration, it should be noted that they are largely unrepresentative of migration, as a large proportion of birds make their migratory flights at dusk, when visual observations are not possible: at best, migration can be detected as a fact - from bird calls - rather than its intensity141; for diurnal birds, migration is mostly characterised as variable in magnitude, but in any case a minor part of the total migratory flow, as most migratory flights take place at altitudes where birds are no longer observable by eye142. No significant and long-lasting stopover sites (feeding or roosting areas) for migratory birds have been identified in the WPP study area. As for potential bird migration routes, these can vary from year to year and are influenced by many factors that change from year to year. The available information on GPS transmitter-equipped individuals of different bird species crossing the territory of Latvia demonstrates quite a wide variability throughout the Northern Vidzeme region during different years143. During the study period, migrant observation sessions were carried out in the autumn seasons of 2022 and spring season of 2023. Open landscape lands on the periphery of the study areas were also surveyed on several occasions for potential feeding sites for migratory birds. 136 Newton, I. 2023. The migration ecology of birds. Elsevier. 137 Pearse, Aaron & Metzger, Kristine & Brandt, David & Shaffer, Jill & Bidwell, Mark & Harrell, Wade. 2021. Migrating Whooping Cranes avoid wind-energy infrastructure when selecting stopover habitat. Ecological Applications. 31. 10.1002/eap.2324. 138 Cabrera-Cruz, S.A.; Cohen, E.B.; Smolinsky, J.A.; Buler, J.J. 2020. Artificial Light at Night is Related to Broad-Scale Stopover Distributions of Nocturnally Migrating Landbirds along the Yucatan Peninsula. Mexico. Remote Sens. 12, 395. 139 Rydell, J., Ottvall, R., Pettersson, S., Green, M. 2017. The effects of wind power on birds and bats. Swedish Environmental Protection Agency, Sweden. 140 Schwemmer, P., Mercker, M., Haecker, K., Kruckenberg, H., Kampfer, S., Bocher, P., Fort, J., Jiguet, F., Franks, S., Elts, J., Marja, R., Piha, M., Rousseau, P., Pederson, R., Duttmann, H., Fartmann, T., & Garthe, S. 2023. Behavioral responses to offshore windfarms during migration of a declining shorebird species revealed by GPS-telemetry. Journal of Environmental Management, 342, 118131. 141 Newton, I. 2023. The migration ecology of birds. Elsevier. 142 Ibid, 143 https://laji.fi/en 143 Of the migratory species, individuals or groups of the following species have been observed in the territory: Branta leucopsis, Calidris pugnax, Cygnus columbianus bewickii, Cygnus cygnus, Numenius arquata, Grus grus, Anser albifrons, Anser fabalis. In the NW periphery of the study area, approximately 1400 Anser sp. geese were recorded on 19 April 2023 in agricultural land near Upmali House on the ground; no more birds were recorded when the same site was visited later that day. Intensive migration Anser sp. and Cygnus sp. in the study area were only observed on 22 October 2022, starting at dusk and approximately 2 h after local sunset. During the 2023 breeding season, in other survey types, relatively low migration intensities (migratory flocks of a few tens of Anser sp.) were recorded during the normal migration period in both March and April, but this is not characteristic of a highly intensive migration flow of many birds (several thousand individuals). The design of the WPP Park fulfils essentially the main conditions: The WPP shall not be located within 500-1000 m of the shoreline of the Gulf of Riga and the WPP shall not be planned in areas where long- term feeding or roosting sites for migratory birds have been identified or are known to exist. Changing conditions in the area may result in the localised but temporary presence of relatively large numbers of migratory species during their overflights. Objectively, the most effective solution to reduce the risk of collisions with overflying birds in such situations is to use smart camera technology to limit or stop the speed of WPP. 6.4.5. Bat species in the area The area of the proposed activity was surveyed seven times per season, using a previously validated methodology in Latvia, with two nights in May, June and July and four nights in August and September (2x2 nights, 2 weeks apart). The number of survey nights and the locations of survey points and routes were chosen according to the bats' biological cycle (breeding, migration/mating). In the planned WPP Park area, surveys at eight recording stations (D1-D8, see Figure 6.4.6) yielded 5619 recording files, of which 2824 files contained bat sound recordings with a total of 3242 individual bat passes recorded (Table 6.4.6). 144  Figure 6.4.6. Observation stations D1-D8 and the routes M1 and M2 (red lines) in the WPP study area in the 2022 season. D1-D4 stations are located in the northern area, D5-D8 in the southern area The aim of the route surveys on routes M1 and M2 (Figure 6.4.6) was to assess overall bat activity in the study area and surrounding landscape, but not specifically in the vicinity of the proposed WPP. Apart from the habitat aspect, the possibility to follow the route by road using a car was also important for the route choice. In forest habitats, the so-called vagrant species that are most often killed in collisions with WPP usually hunt in various openings: above forest roads, stigmas, clearings and forest edges, so that routes along roads were more likely to record potentially threatened species that might also use WPP access roads as feeding sites in the future. 145  Table 6.4.6. Bat species or species groups detected by automatic detectors at 8 observation stations (D1- D8) in the territory of the Limbaži WPP Park in May-September 2022, their status in Latvia and the number of recorded overflights Bat species in Latvian Bat species in Latin Migratory or wintering Number of species overflights Ziemeļu sikspārnis Eptesicus nilssonii Wintery 2821 Rūsganais vakarsikspārnis Nyctalus noctula Migratory 101 Divkrāsainais sikspārnis Vespertilio murinus Wintering/ migratory 64 “Niktaloīdi” Nyctalus/ Vespertilio/ Eptesicus Migratory or semi- 24 genus group migratory Natūza sikspārnis Pipistrellus nathusii Migratory 170 Pigmejsikspārnis Pipistrellus pygmaeus Migratory 3 Garausainais sikspārnis Plecotus auritus Wintery 4 Naterera naktssikspārnis Myotis nattereri Wintery 1 Naktssikspārņu ģints Myotis spp. All species wintering 52 Nenoteiktas sugas sikspārnis Chiroptera 2 Total 3242 A total of seven bat species were identified in the analysis of bat calls. Some records could not be traced to a species with certainty, but could be assigned either to the species group Myotis (ecologically mostly a "thicket" group) or to the species group "nictaloids", which includes bat species of the genera Nyctalus, Vespertilio and Eptesicus (all "roost" species). In the species group Myotis, there are a total of five possible species of this genus: Myotis dasycneme, M. daubentonii, M. brandtii, M. mystacinus and M. nattereri (the last species was identified in one case by a record also at species level). The species group Nyctalus/Vespertilio/Eptesicus comprises five species belonging to the genera mentioned in the title: Nyctalus noctula, N. leisleri, Vespertilio murinus, Eptesicus nilssonii and E. serotinus. In some cases, the recorded calls could not also be identified to a species group and the bat was marked as "species undetermined". All the records resulted in a total of 248 bat call files with 309 recorded bat flights (Table 6.4.7). Four species of bats reliably identified to species level were detected along the routes, as well as calls of bats belonging to the noctule group. Table 6.4.7. Bat species or species groups detected in the area of Limbaži WPP during May-September 2022 at 18 points along two routes in 10-minute sessions, their membership of the migratory or hibernating bat group and the number of recorded overflights Bat species in Latvian Bat species in Latin Migratory or wintering Number of species overflights Ziemeļu sikspārnis Eptesicus nilssonii Wintery 292 Natūza sikspārnis Pipistrellus nathusii Migratory 2 Rūsganais vakarsikspārnis Nyctalus noctula Migratory 4 Garausainais sikspārnis Plecotus auritus Wintery 3 Naktssikspārņu ģints Myotis spp. All species wintering 8 Total 309 Several of the species most frequently found in the area - Eptesicus nilssonii, Pipistrellus nathusii, Nyctalus noctule and Vespertilio murinus - are species at highest risk from WPP. According to EUROBATS statistics on bat fatalities from WPP in Europe in 2003-2014, Nyctalus noctule was the first bat, Pipistrellus nathusii was the third, and Eptesicus nilssonii is the most frequent victim of WPP in Scandinavia. In Latvia, the 146 Pipistrellus nathusii ranks first among recorded WPP victims and Eptesicus nilssonii second144. Noctule bats are generally not considered to be a high-risk species, as they usually fly and hunt close to landscape structures and are relatively rarely seen at higher altitudes. Thus, the noctule bat group and the long-eared bat are less relevant for this study. The overall average bat activity at all 8 stations in the 7 censuses in the planned wind park area is 6.73 passes per hour. The results can be compared with other bat species surveys carried out in 14 other potential WPP parks using identical methodology. The overall bat activity recorded in the Limbaži WPP Park is assessed as high, as it is well within the fourth quartile (Table 6.4.8). This result was also to be expected, as the expert assessments carried out so far for the planned wind farms were carried out in more open and less suitable areas for bats. Table 6.4.8. Total bat activity thresholds for three activity classes - low, medium or high (assessed at 14 different sites in Latvia) Activity class Quartile Average number of flights per hour Zema below 1st quartile ≤1,29 Medium 2.-3rd quartile >1,29 - 2,35 Growing above 3rd quartile >2,35 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 assessment of the impact of the WPP on terrestrial non- flying mammals (the opinion is attached as Annex 6). The wind parks "Limbaži" and "Valmiera-Valka" were assessed as part of the opinion. The information provided in the opinion is based on data obtained within the framework of 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 have been recorded on numerous occasions in the framework of several projects, which are listed in the expert opinion (attached as Annex 6). 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 6.4.9. 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 WPP Limbaži and WPP Valmiera-Valka so far145. 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 specially protected and economically exploited, in the area where the wind farms are planned to be established does not exceed 1% of the total population and range of Latvia. Extensive literature studies on the impact of WPP parks on terrestrial wild mammal and domestic animal species have been carried out in Sweden146. The source also provides basic requirements for monitoring 144 https://tethys.pnnl.gov/sites/default/files/publications/EUROBATS-2015.pdf 145 https://www.silava.lv/images/Petijumi/2023-Lacu-monitorings/2023-Lacu-monitorings-Parskats.pdf 146 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. 147  impacts and evaluating the results of monitoring. It is believed that results should not be extrapolated from one area to another. The construction and maintenance of additional access roads to WPP may cause additional disturbance to large mammals if they 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, see147. According to the WPP, impacts are related to the interest of killed birds in the vicinity of the installations as food or background noise that interferes with the hearing of approaching predators148. Separate studies have been devoted to the impact of wind farms on wolves149150. These studies show the impacts and suggest 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 WPP and those perceived by wild mammals and humans shows that animals perceive the noise of WPP operations in a similar way to humans151. There is no evidence of adverse effects of electromagnetic fields on the body. Studies in Poland do not confirm the effects of WPP operation (sound, vibration, lighting changes) on small rodents and insectivores 152. Some studies have also produced contradictory results. The density and activity of roe deer and hare tracks decreases in the vicinity of WPP, as does fox activity153. Field voles living in the vicinity of the WPP 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 answered154. WPP causes increased stress levels in badgers, as evidenced by several times higher blood cortisol levels in badgers living near wind farms. Chronic stress can lead to many health and psychological problems in badgers155. 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 additional gravel roads should also be taken into account as negative factors.156 In essence, the effect of WPP on mammalian behaviour will depend on the interaction of two processes: reaction 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. Table 6.4.9. Mammal species and species groups in the study area Species % of LV Species value: points 0-4 Status in Latvia and population* economic** ecological recreational scientific the EU (Annex to the *** and aesthetic ***** Species and Habitats **** Directive) Small <1 0 3 1 3 to be saved mammals (insectivores, 147 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2021.109037 148 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2023.110382 149 https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-60351-3_5 150 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 151 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. 152 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/s10661-016-5095-8 153 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-017-6018-z 154 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2017.08.052 155 https://doi.org/10.7589/2015-09-231 156 https://www.diva-portal.org/smash/record.jsf?pid=diva2:1887676&dswid=1545 148  Species % of LV Species value: points 0-4 Status in Latvia and population* economic** ecological recreational scientific the EU (Annex to the *** and aesthetic ***** Species and Habitats **** Directive) rodents, carnivores) Sicista <1 0 1 1 3 special Protection betulina Area (BD V) Castor fibre <1 3 4 3 4 game, specially protected, restricted, (BD V) Sciurus <1 0 3 4 3 to be saved vulgaris Lepus timidus <1 1 3 3 3 game, specially protected, restricted, (BD V) Lepus <1 1 3 3 2 prey europaeus Ursus arctos 1-10 0 3 3 4 Special Protection Area (BD II,IV) Canis lupus <1 2 4 3 4 game, specially protected, restricted, (BD V) Vulpes vulpes <1 1 3 3 2 hunt Nyctereutes <1 1 2 1 2 prey procyonoides Lynx lynx <1 0 4 4 4 Special Protection Area (BD IV) Lutra lutra <1 0 4 4 4 Special Protection Area (BD II,IV) Neovison <1 1 2 1 2 Prey, vison to be restricted as an invasive species Meles meles <1 1 3 3 2 prey Martes <1 1 2 2 2 game, specially martes protected, restricted, (BD V) Martes foina <1 1 2 2 2 hunt Mustela <1 1 2 2 3 game, specially putorius protected, restricted, (BD V) Alces alces <1 4 3 4 4 prey Cervus <1 4 3 4 3 prey elaphus Capreolus <1 4 3 4 3 hunt capreolus Sus scrofa <1 3 3 2 4 Prey, to be restricted due to ASF *the share is estimated on the basis of the approximate share of the area covered by wind farms (WPP "Limbaži" and WPP "Valmiera-Valka") (i.e. 136 km²) compared to the species' area in the whole country; **based on importance in the game farm; 149 ***based on impacts on other species, habitats, capacity to affect forestry, agriculture, fish farming; ****based on the possibility of being observed during visits to the forest related to tourism or other non-management activities; *****based on research, monitoring or education-related demonstration opportunities 6.5. Scenic and cultural heritage significance 6.5.1. Landscape characteristics In terms of landscape, the study area of the Proposed Action falls within the Northern Vidzeme and the Maritime area. In terms of geomorphological zoning, the study area of the Proposed Action falls within the Metsepole Plain of the Central Latvian Lowland and the Vidzeme Coast of the Maritime Lowland. These conditions determine the flat (average altitude about 25 m) topography, the main contributors to which are the river valleys: Salaca, Korģe and Svētupe, which divide the WPP massifs in the A-R direction; also Jaunupe and Vitrupe. 150  Figure 6.5.1. Compatibility of the site of the proposed activity with the landscape division The visibility of WPP is affected by distance, colour, sunshine and the angle at which the sun's rays fall on them and the angle from which they are viewed. On clearer days, they will be more visible due to the colour contrast, but on cloudy days, the WPP will blend into the sky and be less visible, thus having less impact on the surrounding landscape. In order to reduce their visual impact on the surrounding area, the landscape expert considers that the rotors of the WPP should be painted in light colours and the supports 151 in earth tones (green), creating a transition to light, thus blending them into their surroundings and further reducing their volumetric impact on the landscape. However, only one turbine manufacturer offers such a solution, so it cannot be guaranteed that it will be possible to install such a solution on the wind farm site. 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 is not a new element in the surrounding landscape: it is gradually becoming familiar and familiar, especially in Kurzeme. The WPPs assessed in this EIA differ in size from the existing ones 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 it and making it recognisable. Building on the Landscape Policy Plan: in the light of the EU's climate neutrality objectives, the priority actions of the Plan are activities that contribute to moving towards climate neutrality, such as planning and developing green infrastructure networks at different spatial scales, in particular in urban areas. Landscape assessment at regional and local scales is an important task for landscape management, in order to identify areas of landscape value and conditions for their use in different scales of spatial development planning documents, which should be taken into account in the planning and construction of energy supply and other large-scale industrial facilities. In line with the objectives of the European Green Deal and Latvia's energy independence, landscape assessment at regional and local scales should take into account that energy independence and security are equally important and should be taken into account alongside tourism and environmental protection. 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. 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 (September 2024 version) of the 2024 update of the Latvian National Energy and Climate Plan 2021-2030: "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 WPPs 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 152 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 SPNA 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 WPP is an example of modern architecture, differing from many other landscape elements in shape and scale of height. Given their size and rotor movement, they can become visually dominant elements in the landscape. It should be borne in mind that the use of wind energy will expand and increasingly impact on the landscape, but these changes must be made in a deliberate way, taking into account the unique landscape, landscape values and significance. Some landscapes may be particularly sensitive to wind energy, while WPPs can add new values to other landscapes. When designing and siting elements of this scale, great care and respect for the territory and its value must be taken, both in the creation of large parks and in the siting of individual WPPs. 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. A field survey of the study area and its surroundings has been carried out of the most significant landscape features (within a 10 km radius around the outer WPPs) whose views may be affected. the 10 km assessment area is defined in accordance with the Guidelines for the Preliminary Environmental Impact Assessment of the Construction of Wind Power Plants157 from the outer WPP of the wind park (such boundary 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 there are sites to be assessed for impacts that do not allow the construction of WPPs in their immediate vicinity, the surroundings outside the potential WPP area have been assessed. Although WPP will be visible at distances of more than 20 km in clear weather,158 has not assessed their impact on the landscape at such distances, as the surface area of the viewshed covered by them would be proportionally small. However, it is noted that in this case - the wind farm - the WPP will have a cumulative effect. Landscape assessment follows the guidelines for local landscape planning approved by the MoEPRD.159 A large part of the landscape study area is considered to be part of the Latvian landscape canon, which includes the Seaside and Latvian forest landscapes.160 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 157 https://www.vvd.gov.lv/lv/media/9969/download?attachment 158 Ibid, 159 https://www.varam.gov.lv/sites/varam/files/content/files/vadlinijas_viet_limenim_2019.pdf 160 https://kulturaskanons.lv/list/?l=8#landscapes 153 the context of the study area, it is the forest massifs that "make up the forest landscape characteristic 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,161 in this case - the construction of the wind farm. According to the visibility model, 26.3 % of the total area of the landscape study area (if 37 WPPs were built) or 143.6 km2 out of 544.9 km2would be visible to the WPPs. It should be noted that in places - especially further away from the WPPs - they will only be visible to a limited extent, and not all 37 WPPs are planned to be built; up to 20 WPPs will be built. 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 activities and interactions. According to the methodological material for landscape studies162 "a cultural landscape is the result of the interaction of various human and natural factors. It illustrates the evolution of humanity through time and space, has acquired a socially recognised value and, through the physical evidence in the landscape, reflects certain traditions, historical events or their representation in works of literature and art." It is important to stress that landscape is not just a scenic (panoramic) view with a distant perspective, but that such a view is one of the ways in which landscape can be perceived and appreciated. Landscape conservation is about actions to preserve and maintain the remarkable and distinctive qualities of a landscape, based on its heritage value, as determined by its natural form and/or human activities. 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, landscape planning is determined at the highest level, however superficially, by national planning documents: Latvia's National Development Plan 2021-2027 (NDP2027) and Latvia's Sustainable Development Strategy Latvia2030. Also, during the preparation of this EIA, the Landscape Policy Implementation Plan 2024-2027 (LIP2027) was adopted, which deals specifically with landscape planning. Latvian Landscape Atlas linked to APIP163 identifies proposals for Areas of National Landscape Value (AHNVs). One of these areas - "Piejūra un Lībiešu krasts" - is partly included in the landscape study area. The impact on this is discussed in Chapter 7.8.1. It should be noted that a governance and support model and integrated guidelines for the development and planning of specific NNAVTs are planned to be developed by 2027, but currently no such plan exists. Landscape planning at local level Spatial planning in the landscape study area is determined by the planning documents of the modern Limbaži municipality, the historical Limbaži municipality (including Viļķenes and Pāles parishes) and Salacgrīva municipality (including Salacgrīva parish, Salacgrīva town, Ainaži parish), as well as the Salacgrīva parish plan, which is still in force. Limbaži municipality sustainable development strategy 161 https://kulturaskanons.lv/archive/latvijas-mezu-ainava/ 162 Stokmane, I. u.c. 2023. Approaches to landscape research and assessment in Latvia. Methodological material with examples. 163 https://experience.arcgis.com/experience/32051c63871a47f1a6446a04f8ade1c2/page/Ainavas- kartēs/?views=Nacionālās-ainavas 154 Limbaži Municipality Sustainable Development Strategy 2022-2046 landscape and culturally significant areas (Figure 6.5.2). The Strategy states that the construction of infrastructure facilities that significantly alter the landscape and its elements and change the characteristics of the cultural and historical environment is not supported in the landscape-valuable areas of the municipality. The Baltic Sea and Gulf of Riga coastal dune protection zone, the entire NVBR landscape protection zone, parks, ancient monuments, cultural and historical landscapes, groups of buildings and individual buildings designated as cultural monuments of national importance in the current spatial plan, as well as the protection zones of surface water bodies, also designated for landscape conservation and protected areas of local importance, are considered to be areas of scenic value. The Landscape Study Area includes the following areas of scenic value: The coastal dune protection zone of the Gulf of Riga and the following SPAs with a small buffer zone – Vitrupes ieleja, Niedrāju-Pilka purvs, Salacas ieleja, Randu Meadows, Lielpurvs. The strategy emphasises the development of unique natural treasures - water bodies: lakes, the Gulf of Riga, major rivers (Salaca, Vitrupe, Svētupe and their valleys) - landscapes for tourism and recreation. 155  Figure 6.5.2. Areas of scenic value and cultural and historical significance in Limbaži municipality (map from Limbaži municipality development strategy 2022-2046) Salacgrīva town and rural spatial plan The current spatial plan, which covers the town of Salacgrīva and the municipality of Salacgrīva (formerly a rural area), was approved in 2009. The explanatory memorandum does not have a separate landscape section but describes the landscape for individual sites. Lībiešu upuralas and the cliffs near it have been identified as an object of scenic value in the area of the Proposed Action and landscape study. More generally, seascapes and river valley landscapes are also characterised in this way. 156 The plan singles out biodiverse sites "where certain tourism and recreation-related activities can be developed and the work to be carried out on these sites to provide the specific functions". These are the Korģīte river valley, Jaunupe, Svētupe, Salaca valley, Vitrupe, Karateru sand toad deposit, Vedamurga (Ungenurga is shown on the planning map), Arupīte, Primma Lake, Kliķu Lake, Svētciems stone islets, Riga Bay coast, Kuiķule, Niedrāju-Pilka swamp, Mangrāvis (Ķulaurga), Norēnupīte (Noriņa), Vitrupe - dune-vigra micro-complexes, dune mound complexes of the Vitrupe-Lāņi section, coastal meadow fragments of the Lauteri-Svētciems section. The creation of a nature trail, valley landscaping, recreation areas and signage is recommended for the Svētupe and Salaca rivers. It has been described as an excellent place for infantry tourism. Similar recommendations have been made for Vitrupe, where a nature trail has already been created. Vedamurga has been described as scenically interesting. The area of the left bank of the Salaca River (from Norēnupīte to Ķieģeļnieki) is characterised by scenically interesting topography. Spatial plan of Salacgrīva municipality Salacgrīva municipality spatial plan up to 2030 has not been approved and is used as an informative source in this EIA. It defines the following areas of scenic value: Coastal dune protection zone of the Gulf of Riga and Special Protection Area in [then] Salacgrīva municipality. Separately named, but without further specification, are the "scenically important areas": near the towns of Ainaži and Salacgrīva and near the villages, as well as the coastal areas. Landscape assessment in other documents The landscape is also assessed in the nature management plans of the SACs. For example, in the nature management plan, it is mentioned that although in the "Salacgrīva-Vecsalaca" section economic development should be considered a priority, in the area from Vecsalaca to the municipal border the conservation of nature and scenic values would be more important, however, the prevention of existing conflicts and balancing nature conservation and development are equally important in the whole Salacgrīva section.164 6.5.2. Characteristics of cultural heritage According to the cartographic information of the information system "Heritage"165 there are 16 cultural monuments in the study area. Of these, 11 are archaeological monuments and 5 are monuments of art. As the monuments are located indoors - in three churches - the churches are indicated in the cartographic material. By status, 4 monuments are of national importance, 8 monuments are of regional importance, and 4 monuments are of local importance. These are summarised in Table 6.5.1. Cultural monuments further than 5 kilometres have not been assessed in depth, except for the Salaca Castle Hill or the medieval castle of Salacgrīva, which is a high-quality viewpoint. Table 6.5.1. State-protected cultural monuments in the territory of the Limbaži WPP No.166 Name Meaning Typology Distance to the Distance to the of nearest assessed nearest WPP, km recommended WPP, km 1477 Cepļa vieta local archaeology 0,93 0,93 1473 Kilzumu senkapi (Zviedru region archaeology 1,09 1,7 kapi) 164 https://www.daba.gov.lv/lv/media/10664/download 165 https://karte.mantojums.lv/ 166 State protection number of the cultural monument. 157  No.166 Name Meaning Typology Distance to the Distance to the of nearest assessed nearest WPP, km recommended WPP, km 1476 Lībiešu Upuralas - kulta country archaeology 1,41 1,41 vieta 1475 Kuiķuļu svētozolu birzs local archaeology 1,52 1,65 vieta - kulta vieta 1472 Priecumu senkapi local archaeology 2,71 3,6 6152 Zviedru ceļš region archaeology 4,27 4,27 1473 Krogkalnu senkapi country archaeology 4,37 4,37 (Baznīckalns) 1478 Salacgrīvas viduslaiku country archaeology 5,09 5,09 pils 3932, Kancele, altāris, interjera region art 5,17 5,17 3934, dekoratīvā apdare (4 3935 ciļņi) (Lielsalacas luterāņu baznīcā) 3929 Altārglezna "Kristus svētī country art 6,94 11,0 bērnus" (Pāles luterāņu baznīcā) 6150 Jaunkadagu viduslaiku region archaeology 7,2 7,2 kapsēta (Miroņkalniņš, Bikšu stilbs) 6151 Kalnazaķu senkapi local archaeology 7,89 7,89 1502 Viļķenes Baznīcas kalns local archaeology 9,39 9,39 3961 Ērģeles (Viļķenes region art 9,66 9,66 luterāņu baznīcā) Other cultural heritage Other sites or objects of cultural or historical importance within the study area have also been identified (Table 6.5.2). They include four churches or their ruins, three manor complexes, an industrial heritage site and an archaeological (cult) site. Closer sites are assessed in depth. Table 6.5.2. Other sites of cultural and historical value in the study area. Distance to the nearest Name Typology WPP, km Brīdagas baznīca architecture 1,08 Ķirbižu muiža architecture 1,21 Vecsalacas muižas apbūve architecture 2,61 Annasmuižas tilts industrial heritage 2,82 Svētciema (Svētupes) muiža architecture 5,37 Lāņu muiža architecture 5,69 Viļķenes bļodakmens archaeology 6,93 Pāles luterāņu baznīca architecture 6,96 Viļķenes pareizticīgo baznīcas drupas architecture 7,47 Viļķenes Sv. Katrīnas luterāņu baznīca architecture 9,66 158  6.5.3. Tourism and recreation opportunities in the area The construction of WPPs and the associated changes to the landscape affect both tourism and recreation. Tourism in this sub-section refers to trips outside the permanent place of residence for various purposes (including business trips, sightseeing, 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. The study area has several tourist attractions, is crossed by hiking routes of European and regional importance, has several rivers used for water tourism (Salaca, Svētupe, Jaunupe, Vitrupe), as well as several other types of recreational sites and areas. Nature tourism attractions There are two nature trails maintained by LVM in the study area relatively close to the proposed WPP: Ķirbiži forest nature trail and Niedrāju-Pilka purvs footbridge. Further afield are sites such as Muižuļa dižakmens and the Sarkanās kilintis. Water tourism The Latvian water tourism route website "Upesoga" includes four watercourses in the study area: Jaunupe, Salaca, Svētupe, Vitrupe.167 When contacting the Salacgrīva boat rental company "Lāču laivas", it was found out that apart from the Salaca, boating on other rivers is very dependent on the water level and the cleanliness of the river (presence of obstacles) and is therefore not so popular. Boating is also offered on the Korģe, but this is aimed at a very small group of people and only a few take advantage of this opportunity. Hiking/cycling routes Seafront: Part of the European Long Distance Hiking Route E9 in the Baltic States. In Latvia, it stretches along the entire coastline. As the study area also includes the shore of the Gulf of Riga, this also implies the presence of the Jurtakas. It stretches for 29 km in the study area. The closest location to the wind park - in Salacgrīva, near the Salaca Bridge - Jūrtaka is 5.3 kilometres from the planned WPP (Z2). Green railway "Ainaži-Valmiera". Green railways are cycling and hiking routes along former railway lines in Latvia and Estonia. The 20.8 km study area includes the route of the Ainaži-Valmiera green railway, which has a total length of 84 kilometres. The WPP will be located up to 9.9 km away from the route in this section. 167 https://upesoga.lv/lv/marsruti/ 159  Figure 6.5.3. Tourism and recreation sites and routes and a model for the location of the maximum number of WPPs in the study area. Basic: Ltd Jāņa sēta EuroVelo13 cycle route: the EuroVelo13 or Iron Curtain cycle route is located in the study area. EuroVelo13 is part of the EuroVelo network of European cycling routes. In Latvia, it mostly follows the coastline, and in the study area it also follows the roads closest to the Gulf of Riga for 28.7 km. Recreational opportunities in the area of operation The area of the proposed activity falls entirely within state forest land managed by LVM. The company's medium-term strategy for 2022-2027168 states that one of its objectives is to "provide natural diversity, 168 https://www.lvm.lv/images/lvm/demo/lvm_videja_termina_darbibas_strategijas_kopsavilkums.pdf 160 recreational opportunities and other ecosystem services important 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.169 According to the LVM Forest Management Plan (FMP), LVM defines Individual Planning Territories (IPT), i.e. forest areas that "require individual planning for the provision of forest values (ecosystem services - e.g. regulating, supporting and cultural) of importance to the local community within 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.170 Elsewhere in LVM materials, such as their spatial data browser LVMGEO, it is stated 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.171 The area of operation is directly adjacent to one IPT "Burlaku sils" (440 ha), mostly located in Salacgrīva municipality. Of the LVM forest land of various statuses in the study area (9 889 ha in total), approximately 4.45 % is defined as IPT, which can be considered as valuable recreational potential, although there is no information on how actively this area is used for recreation in practice and whether its configuration is suitable for it. the "Burlaku sils" has two parts, divided by the V143 road: the northern part between Avotkalni and Kuikuli (mostly on the left bank of the Svētupe, but a smaller area also on the right bank near Ķilzumi - virtually unconnected to the rest in nature) and the wedge-shaped southern part - on the V143 in a wider strip between Avotkalni and Kuikuli, but to the south in a narrow strip around the Sila- Avotkalni road approximately to the border of Vilķenes parish. 6.6. Residential houses and residential areas The proposed WPP site is located in a forested area with several settlements in the immediate vicinity (Table 6.6.1). Outside settlements and forest areas, there is a scattered, regular settlement pattern, but no settlement is within 800 m of a potential WPP site. The densest population density is found approximately 5 km to the W of the potential WPP site, in Salacgrīva (2624 inhabitants) and Svētciems (331 inhabitants). The closest potential WPPs are located in the small village of Ķirbiži and the extreme village of Brīdaga to the S of the proposed WPP area (Figure 6.6.1), as well as a number of individual farmsteads throughout the potential WPP Park, some of them also less than 1 km away. 169 Institute for Social, Economic and Humanitarian Studies (VIA HESPI) 2022. Monitoring of visitors to specially protected areas. Report on the survey results. 170 LVM 2023. LVM Forest Management Plan 2022. - 2026 Public part. 171 https://www.lvmgeo.lv/dati 161  Figure 6.6.1. Location of planned WPPs closest to Brydaga and Kirbiziai, visualisation shows all WPPs initially assessed in the southern part of the study area Table 6.6.1. Major settlements within 10 km around the potential WPP site Settlement See. population Distance from roundabout Distance from (2022, PMLP) from the centre of the site roundabout from the to the nearest assessed centre of the site to the WPP, km nearest recommended WPP, km Ķirbiži 15 1,1 1,1 Brīdaga 36 1,1 1,1 Korģene 189 1,8 2,4 Vecsalaca 185 2,4 2,4 Svētciems 331 5,4 5,4 Salacgrīva 2624 5,4 5,4 Lāņi 20 5,7 5,7 Vitrupe 63 7,4 7,4 Pāle 220 8,4 10,0 Viļķene 465 9,5 9,5 According to the population distribution model developed by Ltd Jāņa sēta, where the Central Statistical Office (hereinafter - CSO) data on population density are linked to the data on residential addresses, there are 826 registered residences in the 3 km surrounding the WPP area, and 5,818 residences in the 10 km 162 surrounding area. These figures may be inaccurate, as information on the true population at specific addresses is not publicly available. It should also be mentioned that, in accordance with Cabinet Regulation 163 of 23 April 2002. 5. as the wind park boundary is defined from the edge of the WPP, the decision not to install individual WPPs may affect the potential buffer zone, resulting also in a change of the potential total population in each area. 6.7. Noise assessment The planned locations of the individual WPPs are mainly forest stands or clearings from recent years. The nearest rural farmsteads are >800 m from the nearest WPP (see Figure 6.7.1). The noise-regulated areas are certain areas close to detached houses and, in the settlements of Kuikule, Kirbiži and Korģene, the detached house regulated areas. The settlement Kuiķule is ~1.5 km from the nearest WPP, Ķirbiži is ~1.2 km from the nearest WPP, the settlement Korģene is ~2 km from the nearest WPP. Throughout the planned WPP area, which is quite large, there are some small apparently private quarries. There are three lightly used local roads in the area: V143 - 111/11, V142 - <100/27, V138 - <100/17, further away - municipal road P12 - 770/6 (total cars/day / freight transp. %). The A1 and the railway are ~4.5 km further away and do not affect this WPP park. All roads are in or around the WPP area, local roads have low traffic volumes and their traffic noise does not affect the noise pollution of farmsteads exposed to the WPP. Rural farmsteads Alternative A: closest to the The smallest WPP park WPP site . BESS and transformer (AST) locations Additional WPPs in Alternative B Figure 6.7.1. Homesteads closest to the WPP park where noise assessment has been carried out 163 The existing farmsteads are mainly close to roads, the traffic noise from which causes discomfort to these houses. There are no businesses within the planned area of the WPPF that generate noise from their activities that would add to the noise generated by the WPP at the individual farmsteads. Other industrial sites are located in the surrounding settlements, but all of them are outside the area of the proposed WPP park. The existing noise level in the area of the proposed WPPF is determined by traffic noise on nearby roads, which is modelled to assess the existing noise situation in the area of the proposed WPPF. The proposed Rail Baltica route is 3.5 km from the nearest recommended WPP. According to the noise modelling maps for the Rail Baltica route172, the calculated limit to which the noise level of the railway without noise abatement measures exceeds 45dB (A) atLnight in the recommended railway alignment option is no closer than 2.8 km to the nearest recommended WPP. This distance is approximately 3.4 km, taking into account noise abatement measures. 6.8. Air quality assessment Wind is a clean, renewable natural resource. The operation of WPPs does not emit 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. The construction process, such as the use of machinery and access roads, including gravel roads, can cause air pollution with dust particlesPM10 and PM2.5, as well as nitrogen dioxide, and the concentration limit values for these substances are set by Cabinet of Ministers 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 Application and Issuance of Permits for Polluting Activities of Category 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 of Latvia 2014-2018 , prepared by the LVGMC173, concludes that air quality problems in relation to human health are mainly concentrated in large cities, regardless of their location: 172 https://edzl.lv/projekta-norise/izpete 173 https://videscentrs.lvgmc.lv/files/Gaiss/Gaisa_kvalitate/Gaisa_kvalitates_novertejums_2014_2018.pdf 164  − In the observation period from 2014 to 2018, exceedances of the hourly lower pollution assessment threshold of 100µg/m3 for nitrogen dioxide have only 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 (20µg/m3). − At the Liepaja and Rezekne monitoring stations, exceedances of the daily PM10 upper (35µg/m3) pollution assessment threshold for human health protection were also recorded. − Exceedances of the lower daily PM10 (25µg/m3) assessment threshold for the protection of human health were also recorded at all monitoring stations. − The annual mean upper (17µg/m3) and lower (12µg/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 10µg/m3was also exceeded at all monitoring stations "Liepāja", "Rezekne" and "Ventspils”. The latest LVGMC report on air quality in 2023174 concludes similarly: − 2023. in 2010, the daily average upper pollution assessment threshold value for PM10 (35µg/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 (15µg/m3) was exceeded at all stations except the field background monitoring station "Rucava". − 2023. in 2010, the limit value for PM2.5 recommended by the World Health Organisation guidelines of 5µg/m3was 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 Paragraph 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 statement from the LVGMC 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 4-6/1433 of the LVGMC of 26 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 LVGMC, to obtain the annual average concentrations in the area of influence without operator activity (background concentrations), modelling was performed in EnviMan (perpetual licence No 0479-7349-8007, version 3.0) using a Gaussian mathematical model. The 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 Ainaži observation station for the period 2019-2023 were used. A calculation step of 100 m was used to model the existing pollution levels. This calculation step was used to allow the calculation of the existing 174 https://videscentrs.lvgmc.lv/files/Gaiss/Gaisa_kvalitate/Gaisa_kvalitates_novertejums_2014_2018.pdf 165 pollution level in the area of influence of Ltd Latvijas vēja parki according to the indicated corner coordinates. Table 6.8.2. Annual mean background concentrations (μg/m3) in the area of the proposed activity Viela Annual mean concentration (μg/m3) PM10 13.90 PM2.5 7.78 Carbon monoxide (CO) 307.45 Nitrogen dioxide (NO2) 5.83 As can be seen in the figures below (Figures 6.8.1. - 6.8.4), the concentrations of pollutants in the vicinity of the area 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 threshold (65% of the limit value or 26μg/m3 for nitrogen oxides, 50% of the annual limit value or 20μg/m3 and 10μg/m3forPM10 and PM2.5, respectively). In conclusion, 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. As the pollutant plots show, the highest concentrations of air pollutants are found in the vicinity of Vecsalaca and the roads. Figure 6.8.1. CO (carbon monoxide) background concentrations in the WPP Park study area 166 Figure 6.8.2. PM2.5 background concentrations in the WPP Park study area 167 Figure 6.8.3. PM10 background concentrations in the WPP Park study area 168  Figure 6.8.4. NO2 (nitrogen dioxide) background concentrations in the WPP Park study area 6.9. Information on forthcoming economic activities Three LVM sand deposits "Stienūži IV", "Stienūži V" and "Ķulaurga" are located in the territory of the WPP Park; these quarries are used for economic activities: extraction of natural resources. For further information on mineral sites in the vicinity of the Proposed Action, see Chapter 6.12. The Port of Salacgrīva, the Port of Kuiviži and the Yacht Harbour are located approximately 7 km from the area of the Proposed Action. The Port of Salacgrīva does not tranship hazardous materials. Forestry and wood products are the dominant cargo types: paper wood, firewood and peat. The volume of cargo handled in the port varies depending on the economic situation in Europe. Stevedoring services in the Port of Salacgrīva are provided 169 by the stevedoring company "Salacgrīva Nord termināls" Ltd. The port and the adjacent area are home to the fish processing plant "Brīvais vilnis"175. The port of Kuiviži is used for fishing, fish processing, yachting, tourism and private property management. Fishermen carry out their economic activities in the port of Kuiviži: Ltd Banķis, ZV/S "Bute", IK "Kuivižkrasts", Ltd Barka MK2, etc., including private individuals engaged in coastal fishing. Fishing vessels and boats use 3 fishing piers. The fish is processed in a freezer and sorting workshop built by Banķis Ltd. Kuivižu osta Ltd has developed a leisure and yacht complex Kapteiņu osta Ltd, which includes a hotel, camping, restaurant176. The Kapteiņu osta yacht port is developed in the Salacgrīva port area in Kuiviži, 3 km north of Salacgrīva port, ~200 m from the VIA Baltica road. This marina offers a full range of services for yachts and yachtsmen, except refuelling. The marina has a 90-metre long berth with a depth of up to 3 metres. The port can accommodate up to 35 yachts at a time. The marina is open to yachts with drafts up to -2.5 m, length up to 35 m. A 3.5 metre wide slipway is provided for customers to retrieve/launch their boats177. 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 Action, see Chapter 3.2. The implementation of the proposed action is expected to improve access to forest land for recreational use through new construction, improvement and reconstruction of access roads to the WPP. The rehabilitation of existing access roads and the construction of new access roads will significantly improve forest drainage systems along the roads, which will also have an indirect effect on improving forest growing conditions. The air quality assessment and the air quality impacts of the Proposed Action are described and assessed in Chapter 7.4 of the EIA Report. 6.10. Consistency with Limbaži municipality planning documents The Limbaži Municipality Sustainable Development Strategy 2022-2046 states that the future specialisation of the municipality is related to the use of the opportunities offered by the sea for the production of renewable energy sources. The guidelines for spatial planning and development need to move towards a competitive and climate-neutral economy: development of renewable and green energy infrastructure, including offshore wind farms; maximising the practical use of renewable energy and electricity; and taking advantage of the bioeconomy. The Limbaži Municipality Development Programme 2011-2028 supports the use of renewable energy sources and innovation: already now the children's playground in Salacgrīva near the library, Kaiju, Zāles and Gatves streets in Ainaži, Līvānu, Ceriņu and Lazdu streets in Jelgavavkrasti, Pārupes street and the children's playground in Liepupe are illuminated with alternative energy. The Strategic Environmental Impact Assessment for the Limbaži Municipality Sustainable Development Strategy 2022-2046 and the Limbaži Municipality Development Programme 2011-2028 identifies that the current focus should be on increasing the share of renewable energy sources. It is concluded that these planning documents will not create additional environmental problems, but will help to solve existing 175 https://www.limbazunovads.lv/lv/media/20414/download?attachment 176 Ibid, 177 Ibid, 170 ones, as they contain the basic principles of sound and sustainable development of the territory, take into account the requirements of environmental legislation and public interests. The planning documents implement the development directions of 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 Green Deal, which is defined as the new European Union Growth Strategy. The Action Plan for the Development of the Riga Metropolitan Area (approved in 2020) has also been taken into account, as have the spatial development planning documents of neighbouring municipalities. According to the requirements of the Cabinet of Ministers Regulation No.240 of 30 April 2013, WPPs 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. According to the Limbaži municipality spatial plan, the construction area of the WPP park includes land units or their parts, the planned (permitted) use of which is basically defined as a forest area. Relatively small areas of the WPP construction area are covered by water. Part 3 "Rules for the use of the territory", Chapter 3.11 "Engineering and technical support", Section 3.76 of the Limbaži Municipality Spatial Plan 2012-2024, Volume III "Rules for the use and construction of the territory" states that it is not allowed to locate WPP in the Special Protection Areas, except for those areas specified in the NVBR normative acts, villages and town areas. In residential areas it is allowed to locate WPP with maximum power up to 20 kW, it is allowed to locate in the construction zone of a detached house area, if the height of the WPP mast does not exceed 12 m and it is possible to provide a WPP protection zone equal to - mast height x 1.5 within the land plot or if an agreement has been reached with the owner of the adjacent real estate about the imposition of a burden - a protection zone on the land plot, registered in the Land Register In accordance with the Law on Protective Zones, the following protective zones have been established in the spatial plan of Limbaži municipality: 1) environmental and natural resource protection zones 2) operational protection zones 3) sanitary protection zones 4) safety buffer zones. More detailed information on buffer zones is provided in Chapter 7.4. 6.11. Information on nearby airports and aerodromes and the impact on communication systems The closest airport to the WPP Park is the private general aviation certified Limbaži Aerodrome (EVLI) at a distance of 20 km, and the closest international commercial airport is Riga International Airport (EVRA) in Mārupe Municipality at a distance of 85 km (see Figure 6.11.1): The Limbaži WPP Park is located in the airspace of Riga Airport at its north-eastern border. 171 Figure 6.11.1. Location of the planned Latvian WPP "Limbaži" and "Valmiera-Valka" in relation to the airfields and airspace of Riga Airport (source: LGS). 172 Both the current directly produced by the WPP and the current transformed by the substation are at a low frequency of 50 Hz and at such low voltages that their electromagnetic field is very localised to weak and should normally have no effect on communication systems. If the receiving equipment is very close to the WPP, it can theoretically still induce 50 Hz currents. Because most amplifiers are inefficient at such low frequencies, people cannot hear these distortions. The EU has a directive on electromagnetic compatibility, the requirements of which have only been 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 the presence of electric and magnetic fields likely to be present in a normal environment. 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 distorted 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 e.g. mobile phones of maintenance staff during working hours directly at the WPPs). Studies on the impact of WPP have shown that WPP can still affect the quality of TV broadcasting and mobile communications: while digital signals cannot be distorted, they can block (obscure), fragment and reflect the signals transmitted by these communications equipment, simply by temporarily interrupting the transmission. 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 insignificant: it may only occur in areas with low broadcast signal quality (very weak signals). Also, the quality of mobile communications, including mobile internet traffic, could only be affected by WPPs 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 is evident that both 3G and 4G mobile internet are provided in high quality, with a sufficiently dense network of base stations in the wider vicinity of the Proposed Development. The height of transmitters and receivers is an important aspect to consider when assessing the potential impact of the Proposed Action on the quality of mobile or radio link communications. The towers on which mobile transmission equipment is located in the vicinity of the Proposed Action 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 Operation. 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, 173 maritime navigation radars, aeronautical navigation systems such as very high frequency circular beacons (VOR) and instrument landing systems (ILS), fixed radio networks and analogue TV broadcasting178. 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 weather radars has been demonstrated. For example, the Spanish National Meteorological Agency (Agencia Estatal de Meteorología) has recorded weather radar reflections from WPP parks that 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 WPP (up to 5 km for C-band and 10 km for S-band radars), or where the WPP construction should be agreed with the weather radar owner (up to 20 km for C-band and 30 km for S-band radars)179. More recent studies suggest that the upper limit for C-band radars, 20 km, should be increased, as impacts can be observed at greater distances180. 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 facilities181, has developed guidance for air navigation service providers on the need and procedures for assessing the impact of WPP on navigation facilities182. 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 1. zone 0-500 m from radar Safety zone for PSR and SSR installations, in which construction of WPPs would not be allowed 178 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 32 179 Finnish Meteorological Institute. 2007. EUMETNET OPERA PROGRAMME (2004-2006) - Operational programme for the exchange of weather radar information. Final report. 180 VINDRAD. Project report v1.0, A tool for calculation of interference from wind power stations to weather radars, 2011 181 International civil aviation organisation. 2015. European guidance material on managing building restricted areas: 3rd ed. 182 https://www.pagerpower.com/news/eurocontrol-radar-wind-turbine-guidelines-v1-2/ 174  Zone Description Impact assessment conditions 2. zone 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 3. zone Beyond 15 km but within the Indicative assessment area for PSR radars radar's maximum range and radar visibility 4. zone In the radar's maximum range Acceptance zone for PSR and SSR radars where no assessment is outside its visibility zone or required outside the radar's maximum range The closest meteorological radar to the territory of the proposed activity is the radar operated by the LVGMC installed near the territory of Riga Airport. The distance from the radar to the nearest WPP in the area of the Proposed Action is 85 km. According to the information published by the LVGMC, the radar installed is a C- band device with a range of up to 250 km and the 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 the lowest sounding angle of 0.25°. The distance from the radar to the nearest WPP in the proposed wind farm is 85 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 85 km, at the lowest scan angle of 0.25°, the beam height on a flat Earth would not fall below 370 m, significantly higher than the maximum height of the wingtip of the nearest WPP. This margin would be sufficient to include the finer details: the height of the 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 park and Riga Airport (the WPP site is a maximum of 40 metres higher). But the curvature of the Earth's surface makes all these calculations unnecessary: at a distance of 85 km, the point at sea level is 1.13 km below the horizon. Therefore, there is no possibility 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 should not have an impact on radio navigation and landing aids. Radionavigation and landing facilities are located at Riga Airport and possibly (now or in the future) also at Limbaži 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. 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 LVGMC Unified Environmental Information System183, where information on water supply boreholes is maintained and updated, there are no registered water supply boreholes in the 183 https://www.meteo.lv 175 territory of the proposed WPP park, but there are 10 boreholes within a 1 km radius around the study area 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 area of the proposed activity Urbum Address Year of Borehole Water Boreholes no. drilling depth aquifer status 17087 "Jennas", cad. No 6672 007 0177 1963 80,4 D2ar+br unknown 17098 "Stirnas", cad. No 6672 010 0149 1966 80 D2ar unknown (former farm "Rožkalni") 20186 Pheasant farm "Brīdaga" of Vitrupe 1983 80 D2ar unknown Forestry 21842 Ķirbiži, "Ķirbižu muiža" cad.No. 6688 2007 120 D2ar unknown 002 0110 24637 "Pīkoļi", cad. No 6672 009 0010 2008 79 D2ar unknown 20295 "Priedes", cad. No 6672 008 0035 (ex. 1985 100 D2ar unknown Kuikule 8 - yrs. school) 18454 "Ezerkrogs", cad. No 6672 005 0072 1967 66 D2ar+br unknown (former farm "Ezerkrogi") 18704 "Jaungraudiņi", cad. No 6672 005 0101 1975 120 D2ar unknown (former farm "Bērzlejas") 17088 "Lielmazspringu rija", cad. No 6672 1965 105 D2ar unknown 005 0308 (former farm "Spriņģi") 18656 "Sprīdis”, cad. No.6672 005 0165 1974 100 D2ar unknown (Korgene 8-year school) According to the data of the Unified Environmental Information System of the LVGMC, 2 underground water deposits (hereinafter – GWD) have been registered in the vicinity of the area of the Proposed Action: GWD "Salacgrīva" and GWD "Salacgrīva krasts". 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 UWD. Table 6.12.2. Groundwater deposits in the vicinity of the area of the proposed activity Site and Location Type of Water Use of the site Accepted Water Status its groundwa aquife stocks protection LVGMC ter r zones DB number Salacgrīva Salacgriva, freshwater D2pr Salacgrīva Category Strict regime - 10 operatio No Limbazi centralised water A – 400 m, bacteriological nal 612660 region supply m3/day - not required, chemical (area) - 164 ha (zone of influence) 176  Site and Location Type of Water Use of the site Accepted Water Status its groundwa aquife stocks protection LVGMC ter r zones DB number Salacgrīva Ostas iela 1 freshwater D2pr Drinking water Category Strict protection operatio - right and production, A – 849 zone - 10 m, nal bank Transporta decentralised m3/day bacteriological - No iela 16, on water supply (for not required, 612663 the right the company chemical - 36.65 bank of the "Brīvais vilnis" AS, ha Salaca as well as for River individual residential water supply) Figure 6.12.1. Water supply boreholes and underground water deposits in the vicinity of the proposed action area 177  6.12.2. Mining sites There are 3 LVM sand deposits "Stienūži IV", "Stienūži V" and "Ķulaurga" in the territory of the WPP Park (Figure 6.12.2), where sand extraction takes place. The sand deposits "Stienūži IV" and "Stienūži V" are located in the northern part of the town of Stienūži. with cadastral No 6672 008 0069, sand deposit 'Ķulaurga' - z.v. with cadastral No 6672 008 0070. Table 6.12.3 summarises the mineral reserves and extraction volumes in the sand deposits over the last 3 years. Table 6.12.3. Sand deposits in the area of operation Extraction volume, thous. Year of start of Remaining stocks on 1 January Name Category tonnes development 2023, thous. tonnes 2020.g. 2021.g. 2022.g. Stienūži IV 2004 A 58,48 2,38 0 0 (B2068) Stienūži V 2015. A 398,57 0,25 1,73 2,36 (B2788) Kulaurga 2013 N 229,19 2,0 5,89 3,95 (B2515) The land unit with cadastral No 6672 005 0195 contains two peat deposits of high type - "Purmaļu" (peat fund No 1081, deposit area 62 ha) and "Niedrāju" (peat fund No. 1084, deposit area 88 ha). Peat reserves have not been accepted and no peat extraction is taking place. In the vicinity of the proposed WPP, peat extraction has only taken place at the "Lielais Ērgļu bog" deposit in Pāle municipality, located approximately 5.5 km east of the proposed area of operation (Figure 6.12.2). Figure 6.12.2. Deposits in the vicinity of the area of operation (based on Open Street Map, source of deposits LVGMC Deep Earth Information System184) 184 https://videscentrs.lvgmc.lv/iebuvets/zemes-dzilu-informacijas-sistema 178 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 an energy transition, increased energy efficiency and a significantly higher 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 an economy based on renewable energy 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 and reversing biodiversity loss. Compared to fossil fuels, renewable energy is less exposed to potential price impacts and can therefore play an important role in the fight against energy poverty. Renewable energy can also bring wide-ranging socio-economic benefits, creating new jobs and boosting local industries, while taking into account the growing domestic and global demand for renewable energy technologies. The EU targets a share of at least 32% of gross final energy consumption from renewable energy sources by 2030. 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 (RES). The implementation of RES projects is a prerequisite for achieving the EU and Latvian climate goals. The general situation, influenced by the Russian invasion of Ukraine and the effects of the Covid-19 pandemic, has led to energy prices rising across the EU. Achieving the long-term goal of an energy system independent of third countries requires a focus on accelerating the green transformation and ensuring an energy policy that reduces emissions, 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 streamlines the requirements to simplify the administrative authorisation 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, as well as 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. State and local authorities do not have the staff and technical expertise to assess the environmental impact of proposed projects. It is therefore desirable to streamline certain environmental aspects of the authorisation procedure. Member States should support the accelerated development of renewable energy projects by identifying and defining, in cooperation with local and regional authorities, land, surface, underground and 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 ensure the achievement of the 2030 renewable energy target and to support the achievement of the climate neutrality target by 2050 at the latest in accordance with Regulation (EU) 2021/1119. A detailed description of the construction process for the planned WPPs is provided in Chapters 4.3 and 4.3 of the report. The construction process is divided into the following stages: − site preparation; − construction of access roads and squares 179  − realigning drainage systems; − construction of utilities; − WPP foundation construction; − WPP supply; − WPP installation; − site reclamation. The assessment of the construction process has identified the following potential negative impacts on the environment and society during construction: − road traffic restrictions; − impact on drainage and drainage systems − contamination of soil and groundwater − increasing air pollution − increase in noise pollution The proposed action does not require the reconstruction of sections of national roads. The adequacy of the pavement of the roads owned by the municipalities will have to be checked and, if necessary (which will certainly be the case for at least part of the route), reinforced according to the requirements of the WPP manufacturers: access roads must be approximately 5.5 m wide (depending on the turbine model chosen, width may vary) and have a bearing capacity of more than 250 kN/m² (achieved with gravel- crushed stone pavement, nominal pavement thickness 600-800 mm). Unauthorised access to construction sites and material storage areas will be restricted. Such restrictions are imposed on all construction sites and are necessary for the safety of persons. The restrictions will only affect construction sites and temporary storage areas for materials on the Proposed Development's property, and therefore their disturbance to the public is not a consideration. During construction activities in the area of the Proposed Action, spills of fuel or lubricants from construction equipment could lead to contamination of the ground or groundwater. Sites for temporary storage of equipment and materials and WPP construction sites are more likely to be contaminated. However, such pollution should not occur, and in any case should be negligible, if the construction works are organised in a way that ensures that the equipment and machinery used are in good working order: it is comparable to the pollution caused by agricultural machinery on cultivated land, which is also not excluded. There is no reason to expect that antiquities will be found in the area of the Proposed Operation, however, in such an event, construction activities will be suspended and all necessary procedures will be undertaken to ensure that the finds are properly removed and handed over to the State. The possibility of finding unknown burial sites of the fallen in World Wars in Latvia can never be ruled out. Again, the proper procedures for reburial of the deceased will be carried out (most likely by the soldiers' search party "Legenda"). However, the Law on the Protection of Cultural Monuments, which states that natural and legal persons who discover archaeological or other objects of cultural and historical value as a result of their economic activities must immediately notify the National Heritage Board and temporarily suspend further works, must be taken into account. Construction equipment and transport will cause insignificant, local, temporary and episodic noise and air pollution. At present, it is not possible to accurately predict the number of machinery units to be used during the construction process and their working hours in certain areas, so it is not possible to make detailed estimates of air and noise pollution during the construction process, but the small scale and limited time of the construction works and the absence of residential development in the vicinity mean 180 that these transient disturbances are not worth assessing as they cannot lead to any conclusions on unacceptable impacts and necessary restrictions. Overall, the impacts arising from the construction process are assessed as insignificant and are considered to be temporary interference with certain activities and insignificant harm to the environment and society. Once the WPPs are built, they will be operated in accordance with procedures developed and approved by the WPP operating company, based on the operating rules developed by the WPP manufacturers. WPPs, like any other equipment, must be operated in accordance with the manufacturers' rules, observing safety requirements, carrying out timely maintenance and replacing plant parts and equipment that are no longer usable. All waste arising from the construction and operation of the WPP and its management arrangements will be transferred for future management to companies that have obtained permits for the management of that type of waste. This will have no negative impact on the environment. 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 will be estimated during the EIA. The calculations in this chapter are for the potential WPPs to be built, corresponding to the WPP Limbaži location alternative A with 12 WPPs and location alternative B with 20 WPPs. 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 the total deforested area will be updated according to the number of recommended WPPs. The approximate area to be deforested if the recommended alternative A is implemented will be up to 46.64 ha. Of which approximately 1/3 will be young stands, middle-aged stands and mature stands, see calculations in Table 7.1.1. 6 % of deforested areas are currently clear-cut. However, if the recommended alternative B is implemented, the deforested area will be up to 69.05 ha. Of these, young stands account for about 30 %, middle-aged stands for 34% and mature stands for 25 %, see calculations in Table 7.1.2. 4 % of deforested areas are currently clear-cut. The estimated area to be deforested is a maximum, which will be refined during the design process and will be considerably smaller because, for example, the cables will be laid on one side of the road instead of both sides, which will be refined in the design. There will be sections where the punch-through method will change the side of the road or avoid other obstacles. Table 7.1.1. Total deforested area under Alternative A Alternative A TOTAL (ha) Middle- New yield Briestaudze Growing Overgrown Deforestation aged stand (ha) (ha) stand (ha) stand (ha) (ha) (ha) Total 11,80 16,36 14,76 0,73 0,24 2,75 46,64 % 25,30 35,08 31,65 1,57 0,50 5,90 181  Table 7.1.2. Total deforested area under Alternative B Alternative B TOTAL (ha) Middle- New yield aged Briestaudze Growing Overgrown Deforestation (ha) stand (ha) stand (ha) stand (ha) (ha) (ha) Total 20,41 23,42 16,98 2,75 2,45 3,04 69,05 % 29,56 33,91 24,60 3,98 3,55 4,40 According to the Central Statistical Office, in 2024 there will be 3 607 thousand ha of forest land in Latvia185, so the area deforested by Ltd Latvijas vēja parki for the WPP park Limbaži in alternative A will be approximately 0.0013 %, while in alternative B approximately 0.0019 % 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 currently feasible calculations, is summarised in Tables 7.1.3 and 7.1.4. The required deforestation areas for the construction of new roads for one WPP and for the recommended alternatives A and B, based on currently feasible calculations, are summarised in Tables 7.1.5 and 7.1.6. 7.tables 1.7 and 7.1.8 provide comparative information on deforested areas for turning extensions to existing roads. Table 7.1.3. Area to be deforested 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 transformed (incl. Area to be No. access roads, turns in the assembly site), ha (Alternative A) deforested, ha Excerpt Age group Young Middle- Briest- A mature Overgrown aged stand audze grove stand Z1 0 1,374 1,228 0 0 0 2,602 Z2 0 0 1,13927 1,46277 0 0 2,60204 Z3 0 0,95274 0,46698 1,01599 0,16633 0 2,60204 Z4 0 1,05227 1,27617 0,27361 0 0 2,60205 Z5 0 1,38434 0,69587 0,52159 0,00022 0 2,60202 Z6 0 0 0,718 1,884 0 0 2,602 Z9 0 0,70868 0,13081 1,63911 0 0,12343 2,60203 Z10 0,92547 1,67656 0 0 0 0 2,60203 Z12 0 0,1665 2,43553 0 0 0 2,60203 Z13 0 0 2,01286 0,58918 0 0 2,60204 Z16 0 0 2,138 0,463 0 0 2,601 Z17 0 1,414 0,573 0,595 0,02 0 2,602 Total 0,92547 8,72909 12,81449 8,44425 0,18655 0,12343 31,22328 185 https://data.stat.gov.lv/pxweb/lv/OSP_PUB/START__NOZ__ME__MEP/MEM010/table/tableViewLayout1/ 182  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 transformed (incl. Area to be No. access roads, turns in the assembly site), ha (alternative B) deforested, Excerpt Age group ha Young Middle- Briest- A mature Overgrown aged stand audze grove stand D3 0 1,18367 1,28441 0 0,13396 0 2,60204 D4 0 0,43511 0 0 0,00449 2,16245 2,60205 D8 0 1,66121 0 0,94082 0 0 2,60203 D9 0 0 2,60203 0 0 0 2,60203 D10 0 2,57791 0,00225 0,02186 0 0 2,60202 D11 0 0,55977 2,04225 0 0 0 2,60202 D13 0,28921 0 0,76499 0 1,54783 0 2,60203 D14 0 0,82579 1,34643 0,17978 0,25004 0 2,60204 Z1 0 1,374 1,228 0 0 0 2,602 Z2 0 0 1,13927 1,46277 0 0 2,60204 Z3 0 0,95274 0,46698 1,01599 0,16633 0 2,60204 Z4 0 1,05227 1,27617 0,27361 0 0 2,60205 Z5 0 1,38434 0,69587 0,52159 0,00022 0 2,60202 Z6 0 0 0,718 1,884 0 0 2,602 Z9 0 0,70868 0,13081 1,63911 0 0,12343 2,60203 Z10 0,92547 1,67656 0 0 0 0 2,60203 Z12 0 0,1665 1,86064 0,57489 0 0 2,60203 Z13 0 0 1,31179 1,29025 0 0 2,60204 Z16 0 0,414 2,187 0 0 0 2,601 Z17 0 1,414 0,573 0,595 0,02 0 2,602 Total 1,21468 16,38655 19,62989 10,39967 2,12287 2,28588 52,03954 Table 7.1.5. Area to be deforested for the construction of new access roads under Alternative A WPP No. New access Forest land use and age group of new roads to be built area of land to be Area to be roads to be transformed, ha (alternative A) deforested, built, m Excerpt Age group ha Young Middle- Briest- A mature Overgrown aged audze grove stand stand Z1 134,082 0 0,001 0,032 0 0 0 0,033 Z2 95,832 0 0 0,035 0 0 0 0,035 Z3 63,622 0 0,063 0 0 0 0 0,063 Z4 97,412 0 0,108 0 0 0 0 0,108 Z5 322,607 0 0 0 0,213 0 0 0,213 Z6 75,076 0 0 0,045 0 0 0 0,045 Z9 38,761 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Z10 78,557 0,066 0 0 0 0 0 0,066 Z12 27,245 0 0 0,028 0 0 0 0,028 183 WPP No. New access Forest land use and age group of new roads to be built area of land to be Area to be roads to be transformed, ha (alternative A) deforested, built, m Excerpt Age group ha Young Middle- Briest- A mature Overgrown aged audze grove stand stand Z13 88,124 0 0 0 0,092 0 0 0,092 Z16 57,987 0 0 0,007 0,006 0 0 0,013 Z17 78,184 0,059 0,041 0 0 0 0 0,1 substation 3140,343 1,319 1,707 1,858 2,608 0,184 0 7,676 Total 4297,832 1,444 2,462 3,516 0,484 0,21 0,356 8,472 Table 7.1.6. Area to be deforested for the construction of new access roads under Alternative B WPP No. New Forest land use and age group of new roads to be built area of land to Area to be access be transformed, ha (alternative B) deforested, roads to Excerpt Age group ha be built, m Young Middle- Briest- A mature Overgrown aged audze grove stand stand D3 74,91 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D4 88,992 0 0 0 0 0 0,084 0,084 D8 135,085 0 0,195 0 0 0 0 0,195 D9 78,819 0 0 0,054 0 0 0 0,054 D10 310,327 0 0,605 0 0,001 0 0,02 0,626 D11 58,627 0 0 0,02 0 0 0 0,02 D13 64,304 0 0 0,033 0 0 0 0,033 D14 481,56 0 0,175 0 0,228 0,176 0 0,579 Z1 134,082 0 0,001 0,032 0 0 0 0,033 Z2 95,832 0 0 0,035 0 0 0 0,035 Z3 63,622 0 0,063 0 0 0 0 0,063 Z4 97,412 0 0,108 0 0 0 0 0,108 Z5 322,607 0 0 0 0,213 0 0 0,213 Z6 75,076 0 0 0,045 0 0 0 0,045 Z9 38,761 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Z10 78,557 0,066 0 0 0 0 0 0,066 Z12 27,245 0 0 0,028 0 0 0 0,028 Z13 88,124 0 0 0 0,092 0 0 0,092 Z16 57,987 0 0 0,007 0,006 0 0 0,013 Z17 78,184 0,059 0,041 0 0 0 0 0,1 substation 3140,343 1,319 1,708 1,858 2,754 0,038 0 7,677 Total 5590,456 1,444 2,896 2,112 3,294 0,214 0,104 10,064 Table 7.1.7. Area to be deforested for turning extensions under Alternative A Forest land use and age groups of turning radius plots in the area to be transformed (incl. Area to be access roads in radius plots), ha (Alternative A) deforested, ha Excerpt Young Middle-aged stand Briestaudze A mature Overgrown grove stand 184  0,003 1,146 1,552 2,397 0,357 0,114 5,569 Table 7.1.8. Area to be deforested for turn extensions under Alternative B Forest land use and age groups of turning radius plots in the area to be transformed (incl. Area to be access roads in radius plots), ha (Alternative B) deforested, ha Excerpt Young Middle-aged stand Briestaudze A mature Overgrown grove stand 0,003 1,131 1,676 2,283 0,412 0,064 5,569 7.2. Changes in noise and vibration levels 7.2.1. Assessment and significance of changes in noise levels The planned location of the WPP is a large area (about 45 km²) in the municipalities of Salacgrīva and Vilķene parish; there are about 20 farmsteads in the vicinity 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 level changes, 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) (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 50 % of the time, while higher wind speeds (when other patterns become louder, and not significantly so) are expected only 42% of the time (Section 3.3). Noise propagation is modelled with the three-dimensional noise propagation prediction licensed software "SoundPLAN 9.1", Braunstein+Berndt GmbH / SoundPLAN LLC, November 2023 update (doc. No ID1038/05 of 18.09.2005, user No 10578 HL4496), which ensures the calculation of noise indicators in accordance with the provisions of the Cabinet of Ministers of the Republic of Latvia No. 16 "Noise assessment and management procedures". In accordance with the Cabinet of Ministers of the Republic of Latvia Regulation No. 16 'Noise Assessment and Management Procedures', Annex 1, paragraph 5, the input data for the calculation models produced by the noise calculation software used are attached as Annex 7 to the EIA report. 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 WPP model 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 >10 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 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 showing no statistically significant differences between day, evening and night (Table 7.2.2), resulting in noise maps showing the constant 185 noise level at all times of the day, and applying the nighttime thresholds, which are the lowest, to the assessment. Under the regulations, the limit values for ambient noise are set at annual average noise levels. The values of the noise indicators are plotted in increments of 5 dB(A). Noise performance was assessed at 4 m above ground level. Table 7.2.2. Ambient noise limits for industrial sites in functional zones with the specified permitted land uses in accordance with MC No 16 No. Land use function Noise limit values Lday Levening Lnight (dB(A)) (dB(A)) (dB(A)) 1. Territory for individual (detached, low-rise or farmstead) dwelling 55 50 45 houses, children's institutions, medical, health and social care institutions 2. Multi-storey residential area 60 55 50 3. Public buildings territory (territory of public and administrative 60 55 55 facilities, including cultural institutions, educational and scientific institutions, state and municipal administrative institutions and hotels) (with residential buildings) 4. Mixed development territory, including the territory of commercial 65 60 55 and service buildings (with residential development) 5. Quiet neighbourhoods in urban areas 50 45 40 Noise propagation has been modelled for both alternatives, where B fully includes A. For sub-alternatives A' and B', the only difference between which is the increased mast height of part of the WPP, noise propagation has not been modelled separately, as the 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 WPPs, a BESS is planned to be installed in the south-eastern part of the WPP Park, as described in Chapter 4.4 of the EIA Report, and the noise from these installations is also 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. 2. part: 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. 186 7.figure 2.1 provides a noise propagation map for Alternative B with 20 WPPs, which also includes Alternative A with 12 WPPs. No potential problems with exceedances of noise limits are expected as a result of the noise calculations: five conclusions are listed below. 1. In the existing situation, the noise level (traffic noise only) fully complies with the Cabinet Regulation No 16 of 7 January 2014 "Noise assessment and management procedures" (Table 7.2.2): the traffic noise limit values are not exceeded (and the low traffic noise does not reach the noise limit values for industrial sites); 2. In the existing situation (traffic noise), all farmsteads meet the WHO guidelines for road traffic noise, recommended daily LDV values < 53 dBA186 (Table 7.2.3) 3. Calculation of the noise level at night with 12 WPPs in operation together with 2 BESS and AST units (Alternative A): compliance with 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 of the Cabinet of Ministers No 16 of 7 January 2014 "Noise Assessment and Management Procedure". 4. Calculation of the noise level at night when operating 20 WPP with 2 BESS and AST units (Alternative B): compliance with the permissible noise level in the homestead areas at all times of the day (see Table 7.2.5), in accordance with the Regulation of the Cabinet of Ministers No 16 of 7 January 2014 "Noise Assessment and Management Procedure". 5. In some homestead areas (Alternative B, measuring points 1, 6, 7), the WHO guidelines for WPP noise do not meet the recommended dailyLDV value of <45 dBA187. In order to comply with the dailyADI values recommended in the WHO guidelines, Alternative B for WPP D8 includes mitigation measures: select WPP models with noise emissions that comply with the WHO recommendations, install WPPs with the lowest possible noise emissions or aerodynamically improved wings. 186 https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/WHO-HEP-ECH-EHD-22.01 187 Ibid, 187 Figure 7.2.1. Long-term indicator for noise from WPPs Day,Evening,Night: Alternative B with 20 WPP 188  Table 7.2.3. Long-term existing (road) noise at nightNight in farmstead areas Designation Designation Height of Long- Long- Long- Limit value for Difference of Limit value for Difference of Limit value for Difference Calculated of of calculation calculation term term term the long-term the level of the the long-term the evening the long-term of nighttime value of the calculation points for point ambient ambient ambient environmental environmental environmental level of the environmental ambient ambient points on built-up above site, noise noise noise noise indicator noise indicator noise indicator environmental noise indicator noise level L noise the map areas, m level, L indicator indicator LR MK Nr.016, L Day LR MK Nr.016, noise indicator LR MK Nr.016, compared indicatorLDVN characteristic day dBA level, L level, L L day compared to L evening L with respect L night to the dBA of the area evening night the normative to the normative dBA dBA limit values of normative limit values the Cabinet of limit values of of the Ministers of the Cabinet of Cabinet of the Republic of Ministers of Ministers of Latvia, dB the Republic of the Republic Latvia, dB of Latvia, dB 1. Akmentiņi, 4 51 49 43 65 -14 60 -11 55 -12 52 Vilķenes pag. 2. Jaunspriņģi, Salacgrīva 4 28 26 20 65 -37 60 -34 55 -35 29 municipality 3. Kardes, Salacgrīva 4 9 6 1 65 -56 60 -54 55 -54 10 par. 4. Krusteiči, Salacgrīva 4 13 10 5 65 -52 60 -50 55 -50 14 par. 5. Lakstīgalas, Salacgrīva 4 34 31 26 65 -31 60 -29 55 -29 35 pag. 6. Lauri, 4 48 45 40 65 -17 60 -15 55 -15 49 Vilķenes pag. 7. Pietes, 4 50 47 42 65 -15 60 -13 55 -13 51 Vilķenes pag. 8. Plūdumi, 4 35 32 27 65 -30 60 -28 55 -28 36 Vilķenes pag. 9. Silupītes, Salacgrīva 4 18 15 10 65 -47 60 -45 55 -45 19 par. 10. Smilškalni, 4 29 27 21 65 -36 60 -33 55 -34 30 Vilķenes pag. 189 Designation Designation Height of Long- Long- Long- Limit value for Difference of Limit value for Difference of Limit value for Difference Calculated of of calculation calculation term term term the long-term the level of the the long-term the evening the long-term of nighttime value of the calculation points for point ambient ambient ambient environmental environmental environmental level of the environmental ambient ambient points on built-up above site, noise noise noise noise indicator noise indicator noise indicator environmental noise indicator noise level L noise the map areas, m level, L indicator indicator LR MK Nr.016, L Day LR MK Nr.016, noise indicator LR MK Nr.016, compared indicatorLDVN characteristic day dBA level, L level, L L day compared to L evening L with respect L night to the dBA of the area evening night the normative to the normative dBA dBA limit values of normative limit values the Cabinet of limit values of of the Ministers of the Cabinet of Cabinet of the Republic of Ministers of Ministers of Latvia, dB the Republic of the Republic Latvia, dB of Latvia, dB 11. Urgaskalni, 4 40 38 32 65 -25 60 -22 55 -23 41 Vilķenes pag. 12. Vālodzes, 4 23 21 16 65 -42 60 -39 55 -39 25 Vilķenes pag. 13. Vectošēni, Salacgrīva 4 5 2 -3 65 -60 60 -58 55 -58 6 par. 14. Vējiņi, Salacgrīva 4 22 19 15 65 -43 60 -41 55 -40 24 par. 15. Zaļmeži 2, 5 23 20 15 65 -42 60 -40 55 -40 24 Vilķenes pag. 16. Zvaigznes Salacgrīva 6 13 10 5 65 -53 60 -50 55 -50 14 municipality 190  Table 7.2.4. Long-term WPP noise at night in theLnight homestead areas: Alternative A with 12 WPP. Designation Designation Height of Long- Long- Long- Limit value for Difference of Limit value for Difference of Limit value for Difference Calculated of of calculation calculation term term term the long-term the level of the the long-term the evening the long-term of nighttime value of the calculation points for point ambient ambient ambient environmental environmental environmental level of the environmental ambient ambient points on built-up above site, noise noise noise noise indicator noise indicator noise indicator environmental noise indicator noise level L noise the map areas, m level, L indicator indicator LR MK Nr.016, L day LR MK Nr.016, noise indicator LR MK Nr.016, compared indicatorLDVN characteristic day dBA level, L level, L L day compared to L evening L with respect L night to the dBA of the area evening night the normative to the normative dBA dBA limit values of normative limit values the Cabinet of limit values of of the Ministers of the Cabinet of Cabinet of the Republic of Ministers of Ministers of Latvia, dB the Republic of the Republic Latvia, dB of Latvia, dB 1. Akmentiņi, 4 0 0 0 55 -55 50 -50 45 -45 6 Vilķenes pag. 2. Jaunspriņģi, Salacgrīva 4 34 34 34 55 -21 50 -16 45 -11 41 municipality 3. Kardes, Salacgrīva 4 38 38 38 55 -17 50 -12 45 -7 44 par. 4. Krusteiči, Salacgrīva 4 39 39 39 55 -16 50 -11 45 -6 45 par. 5. Lakstīgalas, Salacgrīva 4 25 25 25 55 -30 50 -25 45 -20 32 pag. 6. Lauri, 4 0 0 0 55 -55 50 -50 45 -45 6 Vilķenes pag. 7. Pietes, 4 0 0 0 55 -55 50 -50 45 -45 6 Vilķenes pag. 8. Plūdumi, 4 0 0 0 55 -55 50 -50 45 -45 6 Vilķenes pag. 9. Silupītes, Salacgrīva 4 39 39 39 55 -16 50 -11 45 -6 45 par. 10. Smilškalni, 4 0 0 0 55 -55 50 -50 45 -45 6 Vilķenes pag. 191 Designation Designation Height of Long- Long- Long- Limit value for Difference of Limit value for Difference of Limit value for Difference Calculated of of calculation calculation term term term the long-term the level of the the long-term the evening the long-term of nighttime value of the calculation points for point ambient ambient ambient environmental environmental environmental level of the environmental ambient ambient points on built-up above site, noise noise noise noise indicator noise indicator noise indicator environmental noise indicator noise level L noise the map areas, m level, L indicator indicator LR MK Nr.016, L day LR MK Nr.016, noise indicator LR MK Nr.016, compared indicatorLDVN characteristic day dBA level, L level, L L day compared to L evening L with respect L night to the dBA of the area evening night the normative to the normative dBA dBA limit values of normative limit values the Cabinet of limit values of of the Ministers of the Cabinet of Cabinet of the Republic of Ministers of Ministers of Latvia, dB the Republic of the Republic Latvia, dB of Latvia, dB 11. Urgaskalni, 4 0 0 0 55 -55 50 -50 45 -45 6 Vilķenes pag. 12. Vālodzes, 4 0 0 0 55 -55 50 -50 45 -45 6 Vilķenes pag. 13. Vectošēni, Salacgrīva 4 35 35 35 55 -20 50 -15 45 -10 42 par. 14. Vējiņi, Salacgrīva 4 38 38 38 55 -17 50 -12 45 -7 44 par. 15. Zaļmeži 2, 5 0 0 0 55 -55 50 -50 45 -45 6 Vilķenes pag. 192  Table 7.2.5. Long-term indicator of WPP noise at night in theLnight homestead areas: Alternative B with 20 WPP Designation Designation Height of Long- Long- Long- Limit value for Difference of Limit value for Difference of Limit value for Difference Calculated of of calculation calculation term term term the long-term the level of the the long-term the evening the long-term of nighttime value of the calculation points for point ambient ambient ambient environmental environmental environmental level of the environmental ambient ambient points on built-up above site, noise noise noise noise indicator noise indicator noise indicator environmental noise indicator noise level L noise the map areas, m level, L indicator indicator LR MK Nr.016, L day LR MK Nr.016, noise indicator LR MK Nr.016, compared indicatorLDVN characteristic day dBA level, L level, L L day compared to L evening L with respect L night to the dBA of the area evening night the normative to the normative dBA dBA limit values of normative limit values the Cabinet of limit values of of the Ministers of the Cabinet of Cabinet of the Republic of Ministers of Ministers of Latvia, dB the Republic of the Republic Latvia, dB of Latvia, dB 1. Akmentiņi, 4 39 39 39 55 -16 50 -11 45 -6 46 Vilķenes pag. 2. Jaunspriņģi, Salacgrīva 4 34 34 34 55 -21 50 -16 45 -11 41 municipality 3. Kardes, Salacgrīva 4 38 38 38 55 -17 50 -12 45 -7 45 par. 4. Krusteiči, Salacgrīva 4 39 39 39 55 -16 50 -11 45 -6 45 par. 5. Lakstīgalas, Salacgrīva 4 25 25 25 55 -30 50 -25 45 -20 32 pag. 6. Lauri, 4 40 40 40 55 -15 50 -10 45 -5 46 Vilķenes pag. 7. Pietes, 4 40 40 40 55 -15 50 -10 45 -5 46 Vilķenes pag. 8. Plūdumi, 4 34 34 34 55 -21 50 -16 45 -11 41 Vilķenes pag. 9. Silupītes, Salacgrīva 4 39 39 39 55 -16 50 -11 45 -6 45 par. 10. Smilškalni, 4 34 34 34 55 -21 50 -16 45 -11 40 Vilķenes pag. 193 Designation Designation Height of Long- Long- Long- Limit value for Difference of Limit value for Difference of Limit value for Difference Calculated of of calculation calculation term term term the long-term the level of the the long-term the evening the long-term of nighttime value of the calculation points for point ambient ambient ambient environmental environmental environmental level of the environmental ambient ambient points on built-up above site, noise noise noise noise indicator noise indicator noise indicator environmental noise indicator noise level L noise the map areas, m level, L indicator indicator LR MK Nr.016, L day LR MK Nr.016, noise indicator LR MK Nr.016, compared indicatorLDVN characteristic day dBA level, L level, L L day compared to L evening L with respect L night to the dBA of the area evening night the normative to the normative dBA dBA limit values of normative limit values the Cabinet of limit values of of the Ministers of the Cabinet of Cabinet of the Republic of Ministers of Ministers of Latvia, dB the Republic of the Republic Latvia, dB of Latvia, dB 11. Urgaskalni, 4 39 39 39 55 -16 50 -11 45 -6 45 Vilķenes pag. 12. Vālodzes, 4 35 35 35 55 -20 50 -15 45 -10 41 Vilķenes pag. 13. Vectošēni, Salacgrīva 4 35 35 35 55 -20 50 -15 45 -10 41 par. 14. Vējiņi, Salacgrīva 4 38 38 38 55 -17 50 -12 45 -7 44 par. 15. Zaļmeži 2, 5 37 37 37 55 -18 50 -13 45 -8 43 Vilķenes pag. 194  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 37 WPPs initially assessed at the same time, fully covering the two alternatives assessed 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 made188: see Annex 7. The results obtained 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. 2. part: 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 perception level in the infrasound range and the basic hearing range is ~60 dB instead of 10 dB, there is no possibility to perceive 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. 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"189. Other sources (Guidelines for the Environmental Impact Assessment of Wind Power Plants and Recommendations on Requirements for the Construction of Wind Power Plants) also 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 the sound produced by wind turbines has been cited as the main reason for this exacerbated noise perception".190 188 WindPRO 3.6.366 by EMD International A/S, SIA "Environment" licence (client) No 8797. 189 https://pubs.aip.org/asa/jasa/article-abstract/116/6/3460/545245/Perception-and-annoyance-due-to-wind- turbine-noise?redirectedFrom=fulltext 190 https://www.vpvb.gov.lv/lv/media/827/download 195 Figure 7.2.2. Long-term low-frequency noise from WPPs at night at wind speeds of 8 m/s according to the Danish methodology: all 37 WPPs initially assessed In the "Guidelines for Environmental Impact Assessment and Recommendations on Requirements for the Construction of Wind Power Plants" it is stated 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 196 Berg (2004)191, 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 (such as open windows), transforming this sound into an already higher frequency audible sound, whose pressure level is negligible, although it may be slightly audible. The literature provides information on health symptoms attributed by some people to WPPs, particularly 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 being fulfilled, as well as misattribution of existing or new symptoms to a new technology.192 A study193by Finnish scientists on the potential health effects of WPP 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 infrared radiation from nearby WPPs. 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 WPP-emitted infrared radiation were common: ~15% of respondents living near a WPP. 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 WPP infrasound: people who suffered from them and people who did not. None of the participants were able to distinguish the frequencies of the infrasound in the WPP noise, nor did the presence of infrasound make any difference to how distracting they found the WPP noise. The participants' autonomic nervous system also did not react to the infrared sound. No evidence was found on the health effects of WPP-induced infrasound. Large 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 at 194,195,196,197. 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). 191 https://eolmernormandie.debatpublic.fr/images/documents/bibliotheque-debat/22.do-wind-turbines-produce- significant-low-frequency-sound-levels.pdf 192 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6121031/ 193 https://julkaisut.valtioneuvosto.fi/bitstream/handle/10024/162329/VNTEAS_2020_34.pdf?sequence=1&isAllow ed=y 194 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 195 A. H. Poulsen et al., Pregnancy exposure to wind turbine noise and adverse birth outcomes : A nationwide cohort study, Environment International 167, September 2018 196 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 197 A. H. Poulsen et al., Short-term nighttime wind turbine noise and cardiovascular events: A nationwide case crossover study from Denmark, Environment international 114, March 2018 197 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). 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, so 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 Canada198 199 indicate that vibration levels are no higher than 0.01m/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. 2009. in 2009, the first guidelines in the world200were approved in Germany, setting vibration limit values for the mechanical parts of WPPs. 2015. in 2010, 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 generate mechanical vibrations (unlike, for example, the operation of a pneumatic hammer or road traffic on rough roads, which directly generate 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/s2) at different frequencies are determined for the WPP components that generate the vibrations: bearing system, gearbox, alternator and nacelle. A low-frequency noise and vibration study was carried out in Germany in 2013-2015201, which, similar to Canadian studies, found that vibration levels were slightly higher than 0.01m/s2 at 285 m from the WPP. The vibration level at the base of the WPP was relatively high at 1m/s2, but 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 of Ministers Regulation No 341 of 25 June 2003 on permissible vibration levels in residential and public buildings (hereinafter - Cabinet of Ministers Regulation No 341) was in force. These regulations set lower vibration limits for operating theatres and wards in medical and rehabilitation facilities (night 198 J. G. Hurtado et al., Field monitoring and analysis of an onshore wind turbine shallow foundation system, Geo Otawa 2017 199 W.N. Edwards, Analysis of Measured Wind Turbine Seismic Noise Generated from the Summerside Wind Farm, Prince Edward Island; Geological Survey of Canada, 2015 200 VDI 3834 "Messung und Beurteilung der mechanischen Schwingungen von Windenergieanlagen und deren Komponenten - OnshoreWindenergieanlagen mit Getrieben, March 2009 201 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 198 period), where the weighted vibration acceleration could not exceed 0.028m/s2. In living areas, the weighted vibration acceleration must not exceed 0.04m/s2 at night and 0.07 m/s² during the day. Comparing the permissible limit values of Cabinet Regulation No 341 with the vibration values determined in Canadian and German studies, the vibrations from WPPs already exceed the limit values set until 2010 by about 300 m from the WPP, even in operating theatres of medical institutions. 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 VDI 3834 guidelines, there is no reason to believe that the implementation of the Proposed Action by Ltd Latvijas vēja parki. will result in a higher vibration level than that specified in the former Cabinet Regulation No 341 in force in Latvia or in the above studies where the vibration level was obtained by measurements. 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. Therefore, the impact of vibration on the population is assessed as negligible. 7.3. Effects of the flicker effect One of the impacts that is always considered to be important in assessing the impact of WPPs on social welfare is the flicker effect of WPPs. 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, 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 trigger epileptic 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, where flicker exposure limits are set in guidelines rather than in legislation, the reason is that flicker is recognised and defined as a nuisance, but there is no scientific evidence of its effects on public health. In the environmental impact assessment of WPP in other countries and also in the latest Latvian guidelines202 , the following flicker impact target values (preferred, as they are not mandatory threshold values) have been set: − 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); − 30 minutes per day for both evaluation scenarios (clearly an unreasonable figure, as in the real scenario modelling this figure decreases by about the same amount as the number of hours per year, compared to the worst-case scenario). These targets are very strict: 10 hours per year means ~1 min. 40 seconds 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 202 https://www.vpvb.gov.lv/lv/media/827/download 199 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), where 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 WPP impact assessment, when there was no methodology for realistic scenarios, and the shadows of small, rapidly rotating WPPs 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 WPP'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 WPP 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 this shadow can only be perceived 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 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 on the distance to which the shadow of a WPP spot can be considered contrasting enough to fit the meaning of an uncomfortable flickering shadow. Different sources define this distance very differently. 200 In Britan, for the second decade, there has been a conservative trend to recommend that flickering shadows be assessed as a nuisance up to a distance of 10 rotor diameters203 204 205 206. It is one of those recommendations without legal and, in fact, without 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, since 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 noteworthy 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. 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)207 finds: "International guidelines state that a practically meaningful distance to judge a flickering shadow is up to the greatest widths of the 265 wings, or about 1.1 km". This reference is to much more up-to-date guidelines,208 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 spread 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 203 https://cumbria.gov.uk/elibrary/Content/Internet/538/755/1929/17716/17720/17723/42130145839.PDF 204 https://www.infrastructure-ni.gov.uk/sites/default/files/publications/infrastructure/Best Practice Guidance to PPS 18 - Renewable Energy_0.pdf 205 https://www.gov.scot/collections/planning-advice-notes-pans/ 206 https://www.gov.ie/en/collection/85b83-planning-guidelines-standards/ 207 https://www.hauraki-dc.govt.nz/assets/services_documents/WindFarm/B-Technical-reports/B16-Shadow- Flicker.pdf 208 https://assets.cleanenergycouncil.org.au/documents/advocacy-initiatives/community-engagement/wind-best- practice-implementation-guidelines.pdf 201 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, the maximum width of the wing of the WPP under assessment in this EIA is ~5.5 m, and the first third of its length can be considered to be about this wide (rounded up). After that, the wing width decreases rapidly and reaches only ~1.3 m at the 10% wing tip. Consequently, the factor of 265 recommended in the referenced Australian guidelines (2018) as the distance to be judged, by which the maximum width of the wing should be multiplied, is a maximum precautionary factor, as shadows cast by the majority of the wing length with much smaller widths are consequently judged to be significant at the same distance. In addition, all these widths are only valid in situations where the plane of the wing 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 a 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 (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 202 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. 2018. in 2010, it is implicit in the current Australian guidelines - the shadow starts from covering half of the sun's disk area - but in Latvia it was sought visually on an experimental basis. 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. The cylindrical antenna has a total height of 146 m209, the sun shading point is 310 m high, and the antenna diameter at the sun shading point is approximately equal to the average wing width of the WPPs assessed in this EIA (⅓-½ of the maximum width). According to the Pythagorean theorem, the distance of a shadow from the object casting it is ~700 m. In addition, the antenna of the TV tower casts its shadow from one and a half times the height of the shadow of the averaged WPP, 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 unshadowed 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. Figure 7.3.1. Diagram of the situation with the Riga TV tower in Zaķusala and Lucavsala Street: the shadow of the TV tower falls over Lucavsala Street on 23 May 2010 at 8 o'clock (this situation is illustrated in nature in the next two pictures). 209 https://www.lvrtc.lv/ 203 In Latvia's current guidelines "Guidelines for the Environmental Impact Assessment of Wind Power Plants and Recommendations on Requirements for the Construction of Wind Power Plants" 210 states: "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 in the previous picture. shadow shown in the next image (the disc is much smaller than the blurred patch of light in the image). Figure 7.3.4. The shadow on Lucavsala Street is outlined in red in the previous picture. 210 https://www.vvd.gov.lv/lv/media/9969/download?attachment 204 Obviously, the 500 m minimum applies to WPPs with a maximum height of less than 100 m. On the other hand, for larger WPPs, such as the ones assessed in this EIA, the distance to be assessed "5 times the maximum height of the WPP" applies. In this case, it is 300 m x 5 = 1500 m. This corresponds perfectly to the 1460 m mentioned above as a result of the previous considerations. To further illustrate what the shadow of a WPP at 500 m (but the smallest distance assessed in this EIA is 824 m, see below) means, Annex 8 is attached: a video showing the shadow of the WPP of the Targale wind park 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 twice 1 km, such a shadow will be invisible even in motion, while at a distance of three times 1.46 km there is no doubt that it will disappear altogether: this assessment distance is certainly consistent with the principle of maximum precaution. In total, there are 162 residential houses within 1460 m of at least one WPP, of which 32 are multi- apartment houses and 130 are rural farmsteads. The closest (451 m from WPP D4) is the "Hunting Lodge", which is not subject to the requirement to be at least 800 m from the WPP, as it is not a dwelling house (building type: "12120101 - Recreational buildings", principal use: "1212 - Other temporary accommodation"), i.e. the effects of WPP, if any (including the flickering shadow) in this house do not have to be endured by people permanently as in a permanent residence, but only temporarily when using the Hunting Lodge for specific activities, and also only if these effects are present at the time (e.g. the flickering shadow hits the house only temporarily, periodically, and in most cases will not be present at all during the temporary stay). Of the dwellings subject to flickering shadow duration targets, Tamisāri is the closest: 824 m from WPP No Z2. Accordingly, a simple weighting system has been developed to assess the intensity of the Shadow. The intensity of the shadow cast by Z2 on the nearest house "Tamisāri" is given a factor of "1" or 100 %, i.e. all hours from this WPP to this house are counted as 100 % shadow duration. 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 1142 m (halfway between 824 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, based on the principle of maximum precaution, 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 824 m is considered as 100 %; if the distance to the nearest house were different (smaller), the 100 % would be different and the percentages would accordingly be smaller for all houses. 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 (south of the summer solstice), and consequently at a distance of 451 m its intensity would not be 100 % but only 74 %, 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 fleet that a higher complexity would not be a useful result. 205 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 WPP park Limbaži location alternative A with 14 WPPs and location alternative B with 22 WPPs. For these alternatives for the location of the WPP park, an assessment of physical impacts (flicker, landscape impact assessment) was carried out for the public consultation version of the EIA report. 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 that will be submitted to the SEB for its opinion, the assessment of the impact of flicker will be updated according to the number of WPPs recommended, 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 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.-2004. (Data from the LVGMC, www.lvgmc.gov.lv) Month Average number of hours of sunshine per day January 0,96 February 2,07 March 4,32 April 6,59 206  Month Average number of hours of sunshine per day 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 complicate the already complex calculations (and even more: not to complicate the verification of the calculations by the competent authorities). Effects of the Flashing Shadow In total, the shadow duration target of 10 hours per year is exceeded (11-33 h) in 12 dwellings: see Annex 8 of the worksheet "Shadows with distance attenuation" (shaded red) and the summary in Table 7.3.2, which also shows the main shadow casting WPP on each dwelling causing the exceedance and the times of the year and day when the specific WPP should be stopped during sunny periods to prevent these exceedances. Table 7.3.3 shows the same information for WPP: which limiting WPP (four in total) cast shadows on which houses and the times of the year and day when a particular WPP should be stopped during sunny periods to prevent these exceedances. Only one map is included to illustrate the distribution of the flickering shadow graphically (to avoid cluttering the EIA report with large images that are difficult to see): Alternative B, which has the highest overall shadow durations (see Figure 7.3.5): The differences of alternative B' from it are not very clear on the map, while alternatives A and A' can be read as part of it on the same map. See Annex 8 for individual maps of each alternative respectively. 207  Table 7.3.2. Flicker shadow effects on houses near the area of the Proposed Action Alternatively, limiting WPP No., period of most intense shadow: Code* A' B B' No. Shade over 20 minutes per day (shorter shadows are more House A extensive) B Akmentiņi 1 25:10 24:05 D8 20.V-23.VII,20:15-21:00 R Jaunkastaņas 28:29 28:29 28:29 28:29 Z2 1.-26.V, 19.VII-16.VIII,6:45-7:25 S Jauntošēni 22:30 22:30 22:30 22:30 Z16 18.IV-8.V, 6-29.VII,18:55-19:40 V Kardes 20:52 21:56 20:52 21:56 Z9 8.-24.IV,15.VIII-3.IX,18:40-19:30 W Krusteiči 41:33 41:33 41:33 41:33 Z2 1.V-11.VIII,6:35-7:20 AB Lauri 40:13 40:54 D8 3.V-8.VIII,19:45-20:25 AE** Medību māja 16:22 16:22 D14 - AK Pietes 33:42 33:16 D8 9.V-1.VIII,20:00-20:35 AL Plesiņi 17:40 18:00 17:40 18:00 Z9 23.III-5.IV,10.-25.IX,17:40-18:25 AU Tamisāri 25:45 25:45 25:45 25:45 Z2 7.-27.IV,13.VIII-3.IX, 7:40-8:20 AW Urgaskalni 13:51 12:52 D8*** 24.V-20.VII, 20:50-21:20*** BA Veckastaņi 31:34 31:34 31:34 31:34 Z2 8.V-3.VIII, 6:20-7:00 BD Vectošēni 11:09 11:09 11:09 11:09 Z16 14.-27.VII, 19:05-19:40 Total 214:18 214:05 312:23 313:05 Total overruns 124:18 124:05 192:23 193:05 * The code assigned by the WindPro software to find all the shadow parameters for this house in Annex 8. ** Not a dwelling house: shadow duration given for information but not counted towards total and WPP not to be stopped. *** For Urgaskalni, the dominant shadow is D9 (7.5h), but to stay within the target, it is sufficient to stop D8 for 2/3 of the entire (5.5h) period, where its shadow duration does not exceed 15.5 minutes per day. Table 7.3.3. WPP operating restrictions to reduce the flicker shadow Shaded houses (numbers according to previous table), shutdown periods in sunny weather by alternative: VES B R S V W AB AE AK AL AU AW BA BD Stop A and A' in alternative Stop B and B' in alternative D8 + + 20.V-23.VII,20:15-21:00; 9.V-1.VIII,20:00-20:35; + 24.V-20.VII, 20:50-21:20 Z2 + + + + 1.V-11.VIII,6:35-7:20; 7-27.IV,13.VIII-3.IX, 1.V-11.VIII,6:35-7:20; 7-27.IV,13.VIII-3.IX, 7:40-8.20 7:40-8.20 Z9 + + 8.-24.IV,15.VIII-3.IX, 7:40-8:20,18:40- 8.-24.IV,15.VIII-3.IX, 7:40-8:20,18:40-19:30 19:30 Z16 + + 8.-24.IV,6.-29.VII,19:05-19:40 8.-24.IV,6.-29.VII,19:05-19:40 208 Figure 7.3.5. Map of the Flickering Shadow distribution: Alternative B 209 It should be stressed here that paragraphs 7.3.2 and 7.3.3. the annual and daily periods of WPP shutdowns in Table 3.7.3 and Table 3.7.3 do not represent the duration during which the WPPs concerned must be shut down all the time: the number of hours is much higher in these periods, but this is only an indication of which period will have to be included for those times when the WPP in question must be shut down if it is sunny and windy (the rotor is turning) and the annual shadow target is at risk (the daily target of 30 minutes is not at risk in any case). The total shadow duration exceedances (see Tables 7.3.2 and 7.3.3) are only 124.3 hours in Alternative A and 192.4 hours in Alternative B, which would correspond respectively to a 1.4 % annual shutdown of WPP 1 in Alternative A, or a 0.1 % annual shutdown of the entire WPP fleet, and a 2.2 % annual shutdown of WPP 1 in Alternative B, or a similar 0.1 % annual shutdown of the entire WPP fleet. However, the WPPs will have to be shut down for about three times less time overall, because (see Table 7.3.2) shutting down Z2 reduces the shadow duration for 4 houses at a time, D8 for 3, Z9 and Z16 for 2 each, so the required WPP shutdown will reduce the annual lifetime of the WPP fleet by a negligible amount. The need for technical means for the four WPPs to ensure this shutdown is also relatively insignificant compared to the cost of the entire WPP fleet. For this purpose, four WPPs must be equipped with a shadow impact module. It is mounted on top of the nacelle, which is a free zone from any other shadows (Figure 7.3.6), and has a light sensor that continuously measures the intensity of the sun's rays at intervals of about one second, and a shadowing modulator that determines whether, for a given position of the sun in the sky and wing rotation plane, shading is likely to occur at any of a number of predefined points on the ground. If shading can occur at one of the defined points and the sun's brightness is sufficient to create shade (i.e. the weather is clear: not cloudy or hazy), the WPP automatically stops. It automatically starts again when the sun has moved (or clouded over) and no longer casts a shadow at a given point. One such shadow control module is capable of monitoring up to 300 pre-defined capture points. The management system also generates a "shadow report" (the "shadow report"). shadow report), which stores all data and measurement parameters for each trip in the system memory. The duration of the flickering shadow from a given WPP is thus adjusted according to the specific conditions each year/month/day/hour/minute, which will of course be variable. Figure 7.3.6. A light sensor is installed above the WPP nacelle to prevent shadow flicker (source: Environmental Impact Assessment of the Construction of Wind Power Plants in Tārgale Parish, Ventspils Municipality, Ltd Vides eksperti, 2022) 210  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 Guidelines211; • Discover The Vital Role of Air Quality in Construction Sites Worldwide. From Understanding Pollution Sources to Implementing212; • Local Government Air Quality Toolkit. Air quality guidance note. Construction sites213 ; • Sustainability & Environment Appraisal. LA 105 Air Quality. Design Manual for Roads and Bridges - (hereinafter - DMRB). Published June 2024214. 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 receivers: high, medium and low sensitivity. 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. When assessing the impact of dust, includingPM10 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. 211 https://iaqm.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/Construction-Dust-Guidance-Jan-2024.pdf 212 https://neuroject.com/air-quality-in-construction/ 213 https://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/resources/air/mod3p3construc07268.pdf 214 https://www.standardsforhighways.co.uk/search/af7f4cda-08f7-4f16-a89f-e30da703f3f4 211 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 construction, the following have been identified as 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 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 environment receivers/receptors (places where 250 m from the boundary of the construction site people 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 or 50 m from the boundary of the construction site 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 PM10 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 below. - 7.4.4. The limit values forPM10 used in 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". The concentration ranges used for the sensitivity assessment are 80 %, 70 % and 60 % of the threshold value, respectively. Table 7.4.2. Site sensitivity criteria for dust effects on people and property depending on the number of receivers/receptors and the distance to the construction site according to Table 2 of the IAQM Guidelines215 . 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 215 https://iaqm.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/Construction-Dust-Guidance-Jan-2024.pdf 212  Receiver/ Number of Distance from the emission source (construction site), m sensitivity receivers <20 <50 <100 <250 Low >1 Low Low Low Low Table 7.4.3. Site sensitivity criteria for dust effects on human health depending on the number of receivers/receptors and the distance to the construction site according to Table 3 of the IAQM Guidelines216 Annual meanPM10 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 28-32µg/m3 10-100 High Medium Low Low 1-10 High Medium Low Low High >100 High Medium Low Low 24-28µg/m3 10-100 High Medium Low Low 1-10 Medium Low Low Low >100 Medium Low Low Low <24µg/m3 10-100 Low Low Low Low 1-10 Low Low Low Low >10 High Medium Low Low >32µg/m3 1-10 Medium Low Low Low >10 Medium Low Low Low 28-32µg/m3 1-10 Low Low Low Low Medium >10 Low Low Low Low 24-28µg/m3 1-10 Low Low Low Low >10 Low Low Low Low <24µg/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 Table 4 of the IAQM Guidelines217 Distance from the emission source (construction site), m Sensitivity of the receiver <20 <50 High High Medium Medium Medium Low Low Low Low Having assessed the available information on the existing background levels of pollutants, the size of the development, the area of the development, the condition of the access roads (tarmac or gravel) and the location of the nearest receivers/receptors (Table 7.4.5 summarises the construction dust 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 dust from construction activities per construction site Significance of the Activities Criterion Background issue volume Low: built-up area <18000 The construction area of the WPP per Earthworks Low m2 construction site is planned at 2600 m2 216 https://iaqm.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/Construction-Dust-Guidance-Jan-2024.pdf 217 https://iaqm.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/Construction-Dust-Guidance-Jan-2024.pdf 213  Significance of the Activities Criterion Background issue volume Medium: Building area 18000-110000 m2 High: built-up area > 110 000 m2 Low: building volume ~1100m3 of reinforced concrete will be used in <12000m3 the construction of one foundation foot of the Medium: building volume WPP Construction Low 12000-75000m3 High: building volume >75000m3 Zems: Length of roads Unpaved roads are more than 100 m long. without hard surface < 50 m Medium: Length of roads Mud and dust on High without hard surface 50-100 roads m High: Length of unpaved roads > 100 m Table 7.4.6. Sensitivity assessment of surrounding areas Sensitivity of surrounding areas Potential Kneeling impact 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 13,90μg/m3 human Low Low Low annual mean background health background concentration of dust concentration of shall not exceed dust shall not exceed 13,90μg/m3 13,90μg/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 used218 . The construction process of the WPP, including the movement of vehicles involved in the construction process, will have a 218 https://iaqm.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/Construction-Dust-Guidance-Jan-2024.pdf 214 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 construction. Criteria for assessing the impact of road traffic are defined in the DMRB guidelines219. Paragraph 2.6 of the guidance states that the impact on air quality from the movement of vehicles involved in construction activities on roads should be assessed if the duration of construction activities exceeds 2 years. The total time needed to build the WPP park is expected to be no more than 2 years. The same 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 is 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 steps do not add up at the same time. 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. 7.5. Protection zones and their impact In accordance with the Law on Protective Zones, four protective zones have been established in the spatial plan of Limbaži municipality: 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 for the protection and rational use of the environment and natural resources. Their main purpose is to reduce or eliminate the negative anthropogenic effects on the objects protected by the buffer 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. − 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 Action). − 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 in the territory of the Proposed Action). − Protection zones around water abstraction points are established to ensure the preservation and replenishment of water resources and to minimise the negative impact of pollution on the quality of abstracted water resources throughout the lifetime of the water source (not within the area of the Proposed Action). 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 219 https://www.standardsforhighways.co.uk/search/af7f4cda-08f7-4f16-a89f-e30da703f3f4 215 services. The main purpose of operational protection zones is to ensure the efficient and safe operation and development of these communications and facilities. − 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, and to create a construction-free zone necessary for the reconstruction of streets and roads. − 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 of all kinds shall be established to ensure the operation and safety of electrical networks, their equipment and structures. − Operational protection zones along heat networks, their equipment and structures are established to ensure the operation and safety of heat networks, their equipment and structures (not within the territory of the Proposed Operation). − Protection zones around drainage structures and devices are established to ensure the operation and safety of drainage structures and devices. − Protection zones along water and sewerage networks are established to ensure the operation and safety of water and sewerage networks (not within the area of the Proposed Action). − Protection zones around geodetic network points shall be 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 integrity of the geodetic network points (not within the area of the Proposed Operation). − Operational protection zones around gas pipelines, gas supply facilities and structures, gas warehouses and storage facilities are established to ensure 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 (not in the area of the Proposed Action). 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 case of possible accidents, as well as the safety of the facilities themselves and the facilities in their vicinity (not in the area of the Proposed Operation). Protection zones for watercourses, existing drainage and drainage facilities In accordance with the TIAN of Salacgrīva town with rural territory of Salacgrīva municipality and TIAN of Limbaži municipality. The following surface water protection zones have been established in the vicinity of the proposed activity area: − Salaca protection zone - 100 m wide strip on each bank in rural areas, 10 m wide strip on each bank in Salacgrīva, 100 m wide strip on each bank in Vecsalaca; − Vitrupe protection zone - 100 m wide strip on each bank; − Svētciems - 10 m wide on each bank, − Korģe protection zone - 50 m wide strip on each bank; − Vedamurga buffer zone - a 50 m wide strip on each bank; − Ungenurga Protection Zone - a 50 m wide strip on each bank. 216 For other watercourses and water bodies in the territory of Salacgrīva town and countryside - 10 m wide strip on each bank. The construction of associated infrastructure (access roads, assembly yards, cable routes) could affect the buffer zones around the Korge, Vedamurga and around crossings of small watercourses where infrastructure is to be constructed. According to Article 37(5)(b) of the Law on Protected Zones, the construction of energy management and distribution structures, as well as the construction of transport networks, is allowed in the protected zone of surface water bodies. The WPP Park study area is adjacent to areas used for agricultural purposes, which have a dense network of shared watercourses and drains220, providing groundwater recharge and allowing agricultural activities in these areas. The LVM subdivisions also have a drainage system, which ensures an optimal groundwater regime and thus optimal growing conditions for the forest stand (Figure 6.2.2). According to the explanatory memorandum to the spatial plan of Limbaži municipality, since most of the drainage systems were built several years ago, they are increasingly deteriorating and are currently no longer functioning as designed. The width of the protection zones around drainage structures and devices has been determined in accordance with the Law on Protection Zones and the requirements of the Methodology for Determining Protection Zones around Drainage Structures and Devices, which will have to be taken into account when carrying out construction works in the WPP area. Protection zones around roads Protection zones along roads are established to reduce the negative environmental impact of roads, to ensure the operation and safety of transport arteries, and to create a development-free zone for the reconstruction of streets and roads. The Guidelines for the Preliminary Environmental Impact Assessment of Wind Power Plants in Latvia 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, unless technical solutions are implemented to mitigate environmental risks. However, this EIA report takes into account Article 13 of the Protected Zones Act, which states that in rural areas, the width of the protected zones along roads from the road axis to each side is: (a) 100 metres for national trunk roads (A), (b) 60 metres for national regional roads (P), (c) 30 metres for national and local roads (V). In addition to the general restrictions in the protection zones: - new residential construction is prohibited; - building new public, business or industrial facilities without the consent of the road owner; - actions that reduce the visibility of the road or increase its obstruction are prohibited; - no clear-cutting is allowed along roads of technical categories I-III in a 50 m wide strip; - no clear-cutting is allowed along technical category IV roads in a 30 m wide strip; - any construction or assembly work is prohibited without the approval of the national road authority; - is prohibited in the road protection zone without the agreement of the road owner: a. construction work; 220 https://www.melioracija.lv 217  b. mechanised excavation and filling; - planting trees and shrubs, felling trees 7.6. Impacts on natural values and mitigation measures 7.6.1. Habitats and vascular plant species - impacts and mitigation measures This chapter provides a description of the proposed WPP, platform sites, access roads, cable sites and adjacent terrain, as well as the potential impacts of the activities on the identified natural values and measures to address the identified negative impacts. The assessment of the impact of the proposed action on habitats and plant species is based on two expert opinions: 06.02.2024 expert opinion on the impact of the construction of the planned WPP Limbaži and its associated infrastructure project on the status of the identified species and habitats in the municipalities of Salacgrīva and Viļķene of Limbaži municipality and 07.11.2024 expert opinion on the impact of the planned activity - construction of the wind park infrastructure in Limbaži municipality on forest, heath and bog habitats, vascular plants and mosses, both opinions are attached as Annex 6. Factors identified as threatening nature values in relation to protected plant species sites, protected freshwater, grassland, marsh and forest and swamp 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 areas and access roads, and potential drainage impacts that may result from ditching around assembly areas and access roads where necessary for drainage. The proposed action includes the construction of assembly/operation areas 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 areas and along access roads where necessary for drainage of the areas. Assembly/construction area: not more than 100 x 260 m. The Proposed Action also includes the construction of electricity transmission cables along 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 where machinery movements could take place depending on the technical solution have been assessed as potential areas of 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 yards and substation yards. In the area of direct impact associated with the cable routes, excavation works are planned which will temporarily destroy understorey vegetation. The habitat impact surveys take into account information on rare and protected species localities and specially protected habitats available in the Nature Data Management System (NDMS) "Ozols". Protected habitats already identified were surveyed to complete the information on the occurrence of rare and protected species, recorded with GPS equipment, and protected species found in other surveyed areas were also recorded. For protected habitats not included in the DDPS "Ozols" an inventory questionnaire has been completed and habitat polygons have been marked on the map (see 06.02.2024. and 07.11.2024.) in accordance with the methodology for inventory of protected habitats of EU importance approved by the MoEPRD. 0n 06.02.2024 an expert opinion was prepared on the impact on forest and swamp habitats for 37 WPP installation sites, while on 07.11.2024 an additional expert opinion was prepared for 14 WPP installation sites only in the northern part of the WPP park Limbaži, which corresponds to alternative A, assessing the impact of the Proposed Action both on forest and swamp habitats and on vascular plant, moss and lichen 218 species. 07.the 11.2024 Opinion also assesses two substation and BESS Park alternatives (1A and 2A) and three possible connection options: cable route (1A A and 1A R) or overhead line (2A). Consultations with the NCA as part of the assessment process (23.08.2024. 4.9/5192/2024-N), it was concluded that special attention should be paid to the study of specially protected species of mosses and lichens. The assessment of additional vascular plant, moss and lichen species and the development of a solution for the connection to the AST, as well as the additional impact study on freshwater for the power line crossing over the Svētupe River, were not carried out at this stage for the potential locations of the southern part of the WPP park, as after the initial assessment on 06.02. 2024. it was concluded that the implementation of Alternative A would be more promising and feasible at this stage of the project development, and therefore an additional detailed species and habitat survey and assessment of moss and lichen species was carried out, taking into account the previous consultations with the NCA. 219 Figure 7.6.1. Habitats and species of EU importance in the area of the Proposed Action, page 1 of 6 220 Figure 7.6.2. Habitats and species of EU importance in the area of the Proposed Action, page 2 of 6 221 Figure 7.6.3. Habitats and species of EU importance in the area of the Proposed Action, page 3 of 6 222 Figure 7.6.4. Habitats and species of EU importance in the area of the Proposed Action, page 4 of 6 223 Figure 7.6.5. Habitats and species of EU importance in the area of the Proposed Action, page 5 of 6 224  Figure 7.6.6. Habitats and species of EU importance in the area of the Proposed Action, page 6 of 6 Summary of the impacts on habitats and species of the recommended alternatives (1A and 2A) for the northern part of the WPP wind farm and the substation and battery farm and the three possible connection options - cable route (1A A and 1A R) or overhead line (2A) - based on 07. 11. 2024 expert opinion on the 225 impact of the planned activity - construction of the wind farm infrastructure in Limbaži municipality - on forest and heathland and bog habitats, vascular plants and mosses (attached as Annex 6) is presented in Table 7.6.1. Table 7.6.1. Summary of impacts on habitats and species of the recommended alternatives and pathways for the northern part of the WPP park, substation and battery farm WPP/ Identified natural values Impacts on natural values, mitigation measures, substation/ residual impacts path Z1 Flat terrain, mainly under dry growing Impacts on low quality habitat are expected - the conditions. Access from the existing site is in close proximity to a very young, minimum LVM road, the technological site is suitable habitat, Staghorn Woodland 9080*, no directly adjacent to it with its narrowest SPA species are present. On the edge of the edge. The planned WPP is located in technological site there is a site of annual swift Block 434, at the intersection of a birch (~2m2) which will be destroyed during construction. coppice, a middle-aged pine coppice The construction of the technological site should and a clearing; the planned process preferably be designed to minimise the impact of area is located in forest patches that are dewatering, with a maximum potential impact coppice or middle-aged pine and spruce area of 0.7 ha, at least part of which is expected to coppice, some of which is also a remain as the habitat is immediately adjacent to clearing. the site. The construction of the site will result in the destruction of an annual site of ~2m2 of swift. Z2 Flat terrain, dry growing conditions, No protected forest or swamp habitats and no ditch along the road. Access from the specially protected plant species were found in the existing LVM road, the technological area. To the north of the Purmali track is habitat site is directly adjacent to it with its 91E0* Alluvial forests (also habitat of chestnut- longest edge. The planned WPP is brown Dartford warbler), which is already affected located in Block 404 in a middle-aged by dewatering, impact from the construction of the pine stand, the planned process area is WPP is low. located in a birch and spruce mixed No dredging of road ditches along the Purmali deer stand and a middle-aged spruce- track is allowed, as no negative impacts on birch mixed stand. protected habitats and species are expected. Z3 Located at the junction of two LVM No protected forest or swamp habitats and no tracks, flat terrain, drained soils, as specially protected plant species were found on there are drainage ditches along both the site. Theoretical potential impact on habitat roads. The WPP is located in a coppice 91E0* Alluvial forest (located 50 m south of the in block 406. The location of the edge of the planned process area, also habitat of technological site is planned in dry chestnut-brown arthonia). conditions, in damsack and hemlock The construction of the technological site must be forest types, mainly middle-aged, also carried out in the planned location, on an mature conifer-birch stands. elevation; no solutions are allowed that would cause dewatering impacts on the 91E0* biotope - the theoretical potential impact area is 1 ha, but the site is located on an elevation relative to the biotope. Z4 Located close to an existing LVM road, No protected forest or swamp habitats and no the WPP site is 80 m from an existing specially protected plant species were found in the LVM road. A road through the clearing area. Habitat 91E0*Alluvial forests (which is also a is proposed for access (Leg 21). The site habitat for chestnut-brown artonia) is located in is dry with flat terrain. The WPP is the periphery of the area of potential effect, but planned to be located in a young stand the impact is low, as the site is planned to be (406 sq.20.nog.), in a clearing of located on an elevated site. technological sites, as well as in middle- aged dry pine stands, part of which is also a mature stand. Z5 The WPP site is 310 m from the existing The surrounding area to the south and west is 226 WPP/ Identified natural values Impacts on natural values, mitigation measures, substation/ residual impacts path Kuikule road alignment. The WPP site is woodland - habitat of the chestnut-brown Dartford located in a 438 sq.2.nog. coppice of a warbler. Negative impacts on habitat microclimate dry forest type, while the technology (1.1 ha) and hydrological regime (up to 2.6 ha) are site as well as the location of the cable expected. To the east of the existing road route is located in a coppice of spruce connection is habitat 91E0 Alluvial forests and and spruce-fir coppice of wet heather habitats for several SPA species, but the impact and wet mint types, also in a middle- from the construction of the connection is unlikely aged pine coppice. to be significant if mitigation measures are taken. The road ditch on the east side of the existing road shall not be deepened to form a connection. It is preferable to design the site without side ditches on the western and southern sides to minimise the impact of dewatering on the habitat of the chestnut-brown Dartford warbler, but it is expected that the impact on the hydrological regime may remain in at least part of the site due to the direct adjacency of the site to the habitat. Estimated residual impact on chestnut-brown arthropod habitats: approximately 1.1 ha impact on microclimate and 1.3 ha impact on hydrological regime (half of maximum potential). Z6 It is recommended that the location of No protected forest or wetland habitats and no the planned WPP and the site be specially protected species have been identified in relocated to the opposite side of the the area of the proposed action and the area of road, Block 408, on flat terrain, in dry influence. soil conditions, close to the existing In its original location, the site was adjacent to wet Kuikule track. The planned WPP site and woodlands and the habitats and species they site are located in dry pine, spruce-birch contain. The site would have a negative impact on middle-aged and mature stands. the microclimate of habitat 9010* Old or natural boreal forests and also of chestnut-brown Dartford and dark-brown Helleborine in an area of 0.3 ha. Negative impacts on the hydrological regime could affect habitat 9010* up to 2.2 ha and would also affect the habitat of species such as chestnut- brown Dartford warbler 1 ha, naked round-leaved warbler 1.6 ha and dark-brown spadefoot 0.6 ha. The construction of the site would destroy 4 square metres of caterpillar moth. The recommendation to relocate the planned WPP has been taken into account. Z9 Located in close proximity to the road No protected forest or swamp habitats and no alignment, in gently undulating terrain. specially protected plant species were found in the Soil conditions are both dry and area. The southern side of the Vedamurga track, alternately wet, with a drainage ditch near which the site is planned, contains habitats along the road. The WPP is located at 9010* Old or natural boreal forest and 9080* 441 sq.37.nog. in a clearing, under dry Coniferous Forest (including cattail marten conditions. The planned site is located habitat), but impacts on these habitats are unlikely parallel to the road in part of plots if mitigation measures are followed. 32,34,35, which are generally medium- Dredging of the Vedamurga track ditches is not aged spruce-birch and mature stands. allowed and the site should be designed in such a way as not to affect the hydrological regime of the habitats on the south side of the existing road. Z10 The proposed WPP is located In the vicinity, approximately 80 m to the east of approximately 75 km from the existing the site, the wetland forest habitat 9080* Coppice 227 WPP/ Identified natural values Impacts on natural values, mitigation measures, substation/ residual impacts path road alignment, in dry soil conditions, woodland has been identified with potential on flat terrain, on 442 sq.2 km of birch construction impacts (up to 0.9 ha), as has the woodland. The planned process area is habitat of the protected species chestnut-brown located parallel to the road route, in the arthonia and hollow-leaved lechenia (0.8 and 0.9 clearing of section 1 and part of section ha, respectively). 2. Forests in the surrounding area also Potential impacts on natural values should be grow in dry or parched conditions avoided by not designing side ditches on the habitat side. Z12 The proposed WPP site is located next In the vicinity, across the road 50 m to the west, to an existing forest track, in dry there are protected forest habitats 9010* Old or conditions, on undulating terrain. The natural boreal forest and 91D0* Swamp forest, as WPP site is 398 sq.m. on the 6th of Nov. well as species of special conservation concern - in a middle-aged pine-spruce stand, as bald eagle-foot, Heller's keel, habitat of the green is most of the process area, part of box, hollow-leaved lechenia, chestnut-brown, which is also on the 11th of Nov. in a vine-coloured and cat's-foot arthonia, which could spruce stand be adversely affected by additional dredging on the west side of Aivars Road. As the road has already been reconstructed and the site is planned to be constructed on the eastern side of the road, it is expected that there will be no adverse effects on these natural values provided that the condition not to dredge the road during design is respected. Z13 The proposed action site is located in The site of the proposed activity is a forest patch dry, moist and dehumidified soil which is a habitat of the chestnut-brown Dartford conditions, in middle-aged spruce-fir warbler, the expected impact on the habitat is 0.3 stands and in mature stands. The WPP ha habitat destruction, 0.2 ha negative impact on site is planned on a quarter-mile, close the microclimate and hydrological regime. to an existing forest track. Habitat 91D0* Swamp woodland and chestnut- Technological site parallel to the road brown Dartford warbler habitat is located route. approximately 100 m to the south of the site; given the site's location on a slight elevation, no adverse effects are expected if the design conditions are met. As the habitat of the chestnut-brown Dartford warbler in the immediate area of influence is of low quality and does not qualify as a protected habitat of EU importance, it is acceptable not to relocate the proposed site. Ensure that no side ditches are created on the southern side and that the hydrological regime of habitat 91D0* is not affected. Z16 The site is located on undulating The proposed WPP site was located approximately terrain, in waterlogged soil conditions, 35 m from habitat 9080* Coppice woodland, which in close proximity to the LVM road is also a habitat for Chestnut-brown Dartford route. The planned WPP site is located Warbler, in the originally assessed location. in a spruce-fir stand, the process area in Construction of the site would have a negative a birch stand, a middle-aged spruce-fir impact on the habitat and the 0.1 ha habitat of the stand and a deer stand species and could have a dewatering effect on this habitat polygon (0.2 ha) and further west on habitat 9080*, the habitat of chestnut-brown Dartford warbler and smooth-cockaded jungermannia. During the development of the opinion, it was recommended that the WPP and the site should be shifted to the east (this 228 WPP/ Identified natural values Impacts on natural values, mitigation measures, substation/ residual impacts path recommendation has been taken on board) to avoid potentially negative impacts on wetland habitats and species assemblages and to avoid potential dewatering impacts on the habitat and habitat of the chestnut-brown Dartford warbler during design. No impacts on natural values are expected. Z17 The site is located on undulating Two options for the WPP process site have been terrain, in wet and waterlogged soil considered - a north-south oriented and a north- conditions. The planned location of the east-south-west oriented site. The first option WPP is in a pine coppice (401 sq.4 nog.), would place the edge of the site close to habitat the technological site is planned partly 9010* Coppice woodland, which is also the habitat in a forest animal feeding field and of Chestnut-brown Dartford Warbler and Bare- clearing, in a pine coppice and partly in leaved Fritillary, potentially affecting 0.7 ha. The an adult pine coppice. Access to the site dewatering would also affect the surrounding wet is via the existing Purmali Road track. woodland complex. It is therefore recommended that the site be reconfigured (this recommendation has been taken on board) to be located on an elevated site crossed by an existing road. In this configuration, dewatering impacts on habitat 9080* (0.2 ha) and Chestnut-brown Dartford Warbler habitat (0.7 ha) are theoretically possible, but these areas are located in an area already affected by road and ditch construction, as well as at a lower elevation relative to the site. To avoid impacts, ensure that no ditches are created on the southern side of the site with a bottom mark lower than the top mark of the habitat and the species' habitat. There are some trees of large landscape dimensions - oak, linden (401 sq.m.-5 sq.m.), which will be destroyed as a result of construction. Connection The planned location of the cable route The planned route contains small patches of to substation and the road is in a complex of pine, spotted (6 individuals) and Fuchs' cuckoos (5 1A R spruce and mixed spruce-fir stands of individuals), creeping buttercup (1 individual), middle age, sometimes mature, with nightshade (1 individual), naked round-leaved (3 moist forest growth conditions. The inhabited fallow). The connection would destroy route follows forest quarter-track, these deposits. Habitat 9080* Coniferous forests natural carriageways or crosses forest and habitats of various species associated with slopes. forest habitats and elevated moisture conditions are located in the immediate vicinity of the action site, which would be partially destroyed and have a negative impact on the microclimate and moisture conditions of the remaining habitats. Given that the road would be constructed through a hitherto undisturbed forest and the length of the connection is too long to allow construction without thinning the road alignment, it is expected that the affected areas would be close to the estimated areas. Areas of habitats and species negatively affected: 9080* (direct impact 0.16 ha, impact on microclimate and hydrological regime 0.3 ha), chestnut-brown and cattail arthonia (direct impact 0.4 ha, impact on microclimate and 229 WPP/ Identified natural values Impacts on natural values, mitigation measures, substation/ residual impacts path dehumidification 0.8 ha), green boxwood (direct impact 0,1 ha, microclimatic impact 0,5 ha), hollow-leaved lachen (direct impact 0,4 ha, microclimatic impact 0,9 ha, dehumidification impact 1,5 ha), naked round-leaved (0,2, 1,2 and 1,6 ha respectively), shoveler (0,2 , 0,3 and 0,3 ha respectively). Overall, this connection option has the most adverse impact on natural values, as it would degrade forest areas that have been undisturbed by deforestation. Connection The location of the planned cable and In the northern part of the site, the forest habitat to substation road runs mostly, except in the 9080* Coniferous forests is located in the 1A A northernmost part, through existing immediate vicinity. The proposed road alignment forest blocks. The forest stands found crosses habitats of various protected species, here grow under moist conditions, which would be adversely affected by habitat mainly birch coppice, but also pine and destruction, microclimate and hydrological pine-larch mature stands, but there is conditions. Expected impacts and their areas: also the influence of dehumidification. 9080* Coniferous forests (negative impact on microclimate 0.1 ha, dehumidification impact 0.7 ha), chestnut-brown arthonia (direct impact 0.1 ha, impact on microclimate 0.1 ha, dehumidification impact 0.7 ha), cat's foot arthonia (dehumidification impact 0.8 ha), three-spotted bacania (direct impact 0.1, microclimate impact 0.3), hollow-leaved lachen (direct impact 1.5 ha, microclimate impact 2.7 ha), naked round-leaved (dehumidification impact 0.3 ha) Although this option has a greater direct impact on habitat areas than Option 1A R, the areas crossed by the connection are already affected by dewatering and engineering measures to reduce dewatering (shallow side ditches, limiting runoff from habitats) would reduce the areas affected slightly but would still have a negative impact on the microclimate. If possible, this connection option should also be discarded and option 2A should be chosen. Sub-satellite The planned alternative No protected forest habitats or species habitats and cable substation/cable line connection site is were identified in the direct-action area and in the route located in a dry pine stand of mature potential area of impact on forest microclimates. alternative 2 age (site 396 sq.-13, see photo below). A The planned cable route then passes through middle-aged and mature pine, spruce-fir wet forest stands in undulating terrain, crossing deep ditches in places. Purmali track See Figure 7.6.1. The potential zone of influence of dewatering Existing full-width forest road with side includes habitats 9010* Old or natural boreal ditches, crosses a small rise in the west, forests, 9080* Coniferous forests and 91E0* then follows the plain. Alluvial forests, as well as habitats of species associated with wet forest habitats (cattail and chestnut-brown arthonia, smooth-crowned jungermannia, naked roundleaf and dark-brown 230 WPP/ Identified natural values Impacts on natural values, mitigation measures, substation/ residual impacts path and black-streaked hard-vetch). In order to avoid negative impacts, no deepening of side ditches below the existing mark is allowed in case of road realignment. Extensions to the cable route and road alignment, if necessary, should be directed along the northern side of the road, as the southern side contains some of the habitats of these species; the northern side does not contain any habitats of these species, so negative effects of the road and cable route can be ruled out in this section. Purmali track See Figure 7.6.2. Along the roadside before site Z17 is the habitat of branch Existing full-width forest road with side Chestnut-brown Dartford Warbler and habitat ditches, running on flat terrain, with a 9080* Coppice woodland. No dredging of roadside slight rise in the northern part near the ditches. It is preferable to locate the cable routes turnaround area. on the western side of the road, where there are larger forest patches, in order not to increase the impact of fragmentation on the habitat 9080* on the eastern side. Aivars' Road See Figure 7.6.1. To the west of the road, habitat 9010* Old or A small section of the road is in the natural boreal forest and 91D0* Swamp forest are process of reconstruction, most likely likely to be adversely affected by dehumidification with deepened side ditches and a over 2 and 0.9 ha, respectively. The habitats are widened alignment. also habitats for protected species (cattail, chestnut-brown and wine-coloured arthonia, green box elder, Heller's knapweed, hollow-leaved lachen, naked round-leaved). No dredging of road side ditches is allowed if the road needs to be reconstructed, the east side of the road should be chosen for cable routes to avoid negative impacts on the microclimate of habitats and species habitats. Kraukļu ceļš See Figure 7.6.1. To the south of the quarry, on the roadside, is Full-width forest road with side ditches, forest habitat 9080* Coppice woodland and a 0.5 quarry in the northern part to the east ha habitat of protected species (chestnut-brown of the road. The road is elevated for and vine-coloured arthonia, green boxwood). The long stretches. site is adversely affected by dewatering from a quarry and an existing ditch. No roadside ditches shall be dredged for approximately 150 m along the biotope. Jaunupe road See Figure 7.6.1. The southern part of the road is bordered on its A full-width forest road with side northern side by habitats 9010* Old or natural ditches, forming a connection between boreal forest and 91E0* Alluvial forest, which is also the Raven Road and the Purmali track. a habitat for chestnut-brown arthonia and birch stag The southern part of the road is beetle. To the south of site Z4 the road crosses surrounded by coppice and crosses a habitat 9010*, which is a dry stand of old pine. small ditch. In the eastern and northern The impact of the densification could potentially parts, the road passes through a affect habitats 9010* and 91E0* and species complex of both dry swamp forests and habitats in the southern part of the road, while the dry pine woodlands. crossing of habitat 9010* at site Z4 for the cable route will destroy part of habitat 9010*. To reduce the impacts, it is not allowed to deepen the road side ditches and widen the road to the north where it passes through biotopes 9010* and 231  WPP/ Identified natural values Impacts on natural values, mitigation measures, substation/ residual impacts path 91E0* (polygons 24AP116_108, 109), while at site Z4 the western side of the road should be selected for the cable route, where part of the biotope is already negatively impacted by the road and quarter-track, keeping the majority of the biotope polygon intact. Residual impact - destruction of 0.1 ha of habitat 9010*. Kikule road See Figure 7.6.1. Along Vedamurg, both on the west and east side of Full-width forest road with side ditches, the road, there is a habitat 91E0* Alluvial forests. crossing wet and dehumidified forest During the road reconstruction, trees along the stands. It crosses Vedamurga in the roadside have already been partially felled. No middle. additional dewatering of the 91E0* habitat is allowed, and the cable route should be located on only one side of the road (preferably on the east side, where the habitat area along the road is smaller). Residual impact - 0.03 ha habitat destruction). Vedamurga See Figure 7.6.4. At site Z8, on both sides of the road is habitat 91D0* route Full-width forest road with side ditches. Swamp forests, on the northern side it is also the In the western part it crosses a complex habitat of the naked round-leaved fritillary. At the of swamp forests drained by the road's road turning north, habitats 9010* Old or natural side ditches, in the eastern part around boreal forest and 9080* Coppice woodland (also the road stands of dehumidified and habitat of Chestnut-brown Dartford Warbler). In the wet growing conditions. eastern part of the road, it passes through habitat 9010* Old or natural boreal forests, which is also a habitat of the Vine-coloured Dartonia. The potential area of habitat destroyed by the cable routes could be up to 0.8 ha, but almost everywhere it is possible to locate the cable route on the opposite side of the road to the habitat - from the Ķuikule road to the southern side of the Z8 road, then on the northern and western sides of the road. Residual impact - destruction of 0.12 ha of habitat 91D0* (polygons 24AP116_112, 113). No deepening of roadside ditches below the existing mark or widening of the road where it adjoins a protected habitat. The summary of the nature values, conclusions and conditions for the implementation of the Proposed Action provided by the habitat expert in the expert opinion of 06.02.2024, as well as the additional assessment of the hydrological expert on the potential impact of the Proposed Action on changes in the hydrological regime and the clarification of the location of the WPP in the southern part of the wind farm are summarised in Table 7.6.2. For potential WPP sites, additional assessment of vascular plant, moss and lichen species and development of a solution for the AST connection, as well as additional freshwater impact studies for the power line crossing over the Svētupe River, are mandatory measures. Table 7.6.2. Summary of impacts on habitats and species in the southern part of the WPP wind farm WPP Identified natural values Conclusions and conditions for taking action substation D3 no protected forest or swamp The proposed development may have a habitats and no specially protected significant adverse effect on habitat 91E0*, plant species were found in the which is located within the zone of influence. 232  WPP Identified natural values Conclusions and conditions for taking action substation area. In the immediate vicinity of Conclusions of the hydrological expert on the the habitat Alluvial forests 91E0* potential impact on habitat 91E0*: due to the slope of the land surface of the site, surface water runoff occurs in the A direction towards the Kulaurgs stream. Surface water harvesting by the side ditch will only take place in the immediate vicinity of the side ditch and is unlikely to significantly affect the hydrological and moisture regime of the habitats. The impact of groundwater seepage from a drainage ditch or drain on adjacent properties and on the hydrology of wetlands depends very much on the "lateral effect" of the ditch - the distance in metres from the ditch that the seepage impacts occur, rather than on the width of the strip of land adjacent to the ditch whose hydrology has been altered. Given that the side roads of the planned access road will be oriented parallel to the access road, no impact on the habitat is expected. It is recommended to use the existing forest road as access. D4 no protected forest or swamp The proposed development may have habitats and no specially protected significant negative impacts on the dry and wet plant species were found in the forest habitats in the area of influence. area. Habitat Old-growth or natural D4 The WPP maintenance area crosses the boreal forest 9010* shared watercourse MK 53811:K:1. Therefore, in order to maintain the hydrological regime, the construction of the maintenance yard requires the installation of a culvert approx. 105m in length, which will make future maintenance significantly more difficult and may affect the hydrological regime of the surrounding area. Therefore, it is recommended to change the location of the maintenance area. The location of the WPP D4 maintenance site has been refined in the light of the hydrological and habitat expert's assessment. D8 No protected forest or swamp The construction of the WPP and the process habitats and no specially protected yard is not expected to result in impacts on plant species were found in the nearby protected nature areas and plant area. species sites that are sufficiently distant from the site of operation D9 No protected forest or swamp The construction of the WPP and the process habitats and no specially protected yard is not expected to result in impacts on plant species were found in the nearby protected nature areas and plant area. species sites that are sufficiently distant from the site of operation D10 The area where the technological The construction of a WPP and a process yard 233  WPP Identified natural values Conclusions and conditions for taking action substation site is originally planned contains a is not allowed on the planned site, as the area specially protected forest habitat contains specially protected biotopes and in the Alluvial forests 91E0 and in the immediate vicinity there are deposits of immediate vicinity there is a site of specially protected plant species. The area is a specially protected plant species - dominated by waterlogged woodland and perennial moonwort Lunaria without drainage, construction will not be rediviva possible and there will be significant impacts on existing natural values. It is recommended to relocate the WPP to the west, where no impacts on protected habitats are expected from the drainage of the side ditches. Repositioning of D10. D11 No protected forest or swamp The construction of the WPP and the process habitats and no specially protected yard is not expected to result in impacts on plant species were found in the nearby protected nature areas and plant area. species sites that are sufficiently distant from the site of operation D13 No protected forest or swamp The construction of the WPP and the process habitats and no specially protected yard is not expected to result in impacts on plant species were found in the nearby protected nature areas and plant area. species sites that are sufficiently distant from the site of operation D14 No protected forest or swamp The construction of the WPP and the process habitats and no specially protected yard is not expected to result in impacts on plant species were found in the nearby protected nature areas and plant area. species sites that are sufficiently distant from the site of operation Conclusions and summary of impacts on habitats and SPA species The construction of the WPP Park Alternative B, which includes the WPP in the southern part of the WPP Park, is not recommended at this stage, as it has not been subject to an assessment of vascular plant, moss and lichen species and the development of a solution for the AST connection, as well as an additional impact study on freshwater for the power line crossing over the Svētupe River. The information to assess the residual effects of the Proposed Action is incomplete. The residual impacts on protected natural values resulting from the construction of WPP Park Alternative A after the application of mitigation measures are summarised in Table 7.6.3. One of the largest areas of habitats and species habitats affected is related to the construction of the 1A A and 1A R connection, forming the road to the substation. Even with the lower impacts of Alternative 1A, there will be moderate adverse impacts at the local scale and insignificant adverse impacts at the regional scale, creating a new linear opening in the forest mass and associated impacts on the microclimate and hydrological regime of habitats and species habitats. In the case of the implementation of the connection alternative 2A, the proposed operation would have an overall insignificant adverse effect at the local and regional level: some species individuals and small areas of species habitats and protected habitats would be destroyed, but this would not have an adverse effect on species populations and the conservation status of habitats. Additional recommended measures to protect other natural assets during construction. 234 - Large-sized (>25 cm) fallen trees in the paths of roads and building sites should be moved to the nearest stand. - If ecological trees are felled in clearings during construction, they should be moved to the nearest stand as far as possible. - The use of imported black earth should be avoided to prevent the introduction of seeds of invasive species. 235  Table 7.6.3. Estimated residual impacts of Alternative A after implementation of all mitigation measures (area ha, if no other unit is specified) Direct impact Impact on the microclimate Effects of Suspension Jaunupe Kuikule Vedamurga Z1 Z13 1AR 1AA road track route Z1 Z5 Z13 1AR 1AA Z1 Z13 1AR 1AA 9010* 0.1 9080* 0.2 0.1 0.3 0.1 0.35 0.3 0.7 91D0* 0.12 91E0* 0.03 Chestnut- brown Arthonia 0.3 0.1 1.1 0.2 0.8 0.1 1.3 0.2 0.8 0.7 Catnip Artonia 0.8 0.8 0.8 Spotted Cuckoo Thrush 6i Fuchs' Cuckoo Thrush 5i Step of the 2 Year kvm Cowslip 1i Nightshade 1i 236  Direct impact Impact on the microclimate Effects of Suspension Jaunupe Kuikule Vedamurga Z1 Z13 1AR 1AA road track route Z1 Z5 Z13 1AR 1AA Z1 Z13 1AR 1AA Naked roundleaf 0.6 1.2 1.6 0.3 Green boxwood 0.1 0.5 The cavern of the lager 0.4 1.5 0.9 2.7 1.5 Shovel 0.2 0.3 0.3 Three-day bacania 0.1 0.3 237  7.6.2. Effects on birds The assessment of impacts on bird species, in the case of bird populations, is purely a prediction of impacts - factors that make an objective assessment difficult must be taken into account: - birds are characterised by high mobility (flight), which, despite their territoriality and occupied breeding sites, does not preclude occasional arrivals in other areas that may be several kilometres or tens of kilometres from their breeding sites, as well as non-breeding individuals and juveniles that may wander and are not tied to a specific area; - within a given area, species composition, density and distribution of breeding sites can vary from year to year, due to local extinction and recolonisation processes, migration conditions or available food resources and other factors; - the likelihood of detecting individuals varies within species; - including climate impacts. The literature indicates that quite often the environmental impacts assessed in EIAs, especially for birds in terms of collisions, are very different from the situation on the ground after the establishment of the park and the predicted collision risks are assessed to be significantly higher than originally estimated.221 In the specific area of the park, the main impacts are collisions, habitat destruction, habitat use restriction (noise and flicker), barrier effect. Clashes In the literature, the most prominent impact of the construction of WPP parks is the death of birds as a result of collisions. It is also pointed out that there are no places where birds are not likely to have traumatic or fatal collisions with WPP structures - rotors or towers - and no bird species (at least within Europe) that are not likely to have such collisions.222 Collision mortality is mostly estimated as the number of birds killed per year per WPP, while it has been pointed out that these values fluctuate depending on both the location and the size of the WPP, ranging from 0 birds per year to 60. The statement is expressed as an average score: 0-5 birds.223 Most literature identifies the most vulnerable species to collisions as soaring birds: diurnal birds of prey, especially sea eagles and storks, as well as migratory birds, are considered to be significant victims of collisions.224 The second group of species assessed as being at risk of collisions are passerines, more specifically, huns: this group is more likely to be involved in collisions with fixed infrastructure objects, including the mast of a WPP.225226 There are studies that have experimentally shown a reduction in the number of collisions between passerines ( Lagopus lagopus) by painting the base of towers (up to 10 metres high) black227. However, according to the "Guidelines for the Preliminary Environmental Impact Assessment of Wind Power Plants"228 - relatively recent studies have shown that most bird species collide with WPPs without distinguishing a moving wing or WPP pole against the background of the surrounding environment, while increasing contrast can significantly reduce the risk of collisions: colouring that blends 221 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2664.2011.02054.x 222 Rydell, J., Ottvall, R., Pettersson, S., Green, M. 2017. The effects of wind power on birds and bats. Swedish Environmental Protection Agency, Sweden. 223 Ibid, 224 Ibid, 225 https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.6307 226 González, M. A. 2018. Female Cantabrian capercaillie dead by collision with wind turbine.Grouse News, 55 227 https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.6307 228 https://www.vvd.gov.lv/lv/media/9969/download?attachment 238 into the landscape increases the risk of bird mortality. Given that the land use of the units included in the study area of the Proposed Action is forest, the black colouring of the lower part of the WPP would blend into the landscape and create a potential risk of bird strikes. Some of the protected species found in the study area mainly stay at or slightly above tree height, at least during the breeding season: mainly woodpeckers, but also shrikes, and to a lesser extent pigeons and European nightjar. This could quite plausibly be seen as one of the main reasons for their relatively low collision rates with WPP rotors, while at the same time it should be noted that within the EU most WPP parks are established in different habitats rather than in a larger forested area. Technical parameters of WPPs, on the other hand, are much less covered in the studies, including information on the height of WPPs, their rotor diameter, the size of the fleet and the density of their deployment. Primary impacts should be addressed in areas of particular importance (large local populations, nesting sites or close to them), avoiding the construction of specific WPPs. Secondary: through the use of mitigation technologies that help avoid collisions. Habitat destruction The construction of infrastructure facilities - access roads, cable lines and installation sites - increases fragmentation in the WPP Park area, which may have complex impacts on both nesting species and their habitat quality, both by directly destroying or transforming habitats overlapped by the planned facilities and by altering the quality of the surrounding habitats. The presence of anthropogenic disturbance in the area could potentially increase during the technical work on the WPP. Given the location of the WPP Park site, an increase in the presence of visitors unrelated to the maintenance of the WPP Park cannot be excluded. The area was assessed during the survey as a relatively popular recreational and wildlife site, with a relatively well-developed hunting infrastructure. In general, forest-nesting bird species are characterised by higher occupancy of breeding sites in areas with lower levels of fragmentation.229 230 231 232 The literature recognises that the impacts of fragmentation are significant but difficult to assess: its direct effects on breeding bird populations may only become apparent over several years.233 It is known that there has been a decline in the intensity of habitat used by Western capercaillie around roads, but anthropogenic disturbance must also be taken into account.234 235 236 237 For Hazel grouse, on the other hand, the area of the stand retained and the connectivity of individual plots or groups of plots 229 Baroni, D. 2022. CAVITY-USE AND SPATIAL ECOLOGY OF THE EURASIAN PYGMY OWL IN THE MANAGED BOREAL FORESTS. University of Turku. 230 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-023-01667-1 231 Priedniece, I., & Priednieks, J. 2013. The impact of habitat fragmentation on forest animal populations. 232 Wegge, P., Rølstad, J., & Gjerde, I. 1992. Effects of Boreal Forest Fragmentation on Capercaillie Grouse. Empirical Evidence and Management Implications. In Wildlife 2001: Populations (pp. 738 749). Springer Netherlands. 233 Uezu, A., & Metzger, J. P. 2016. Time Lag in Responses of Birds to Atlantic Forest Fragmentation. Restoration Opportunity and Urgency. PLOS ONE, 11(1), e0147909. 234 Summers, R. W., McFarlane, J., & Pearce Higgins, J. W. (2007). Measuring Avoidance by Capercaillies Tetrao Urogallus of Woodland Close to Tracks. Wildlife Biology. 13(1), 19 27. 235 Gonzalez, M., & Ena, V. 2011. Cantabrian Capercaillie signs disappeared after a wind farm construction. Chioglossa, 65-74. 236 https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/bird-conservation-international/article/severe-decline-in-cantabrian- capercaillie-tetrao-urogallus-cantabricus-habitat-use-after-construction-of-a-wind- farm/C6ABBFF601E3A60E86DC53D34CBC01A1 237 Taubmann, J., Kämmerle, J. L., Andr \\'en, H., Braunisch, V., Storch, I., Fiedler, W., Suchant, R., & Coppes, J. 2021b. Wind energy facilities affect resource selection of capercaillie Tetrao urogallus. Wildlife Biology. 239 are more important factors than their quality.238 239 240 For woodpecker species, habitat quality is a more important factor: edge effects and removal of dead wood from the stand, especially in the form of clear- cut management, have a negative impact on the species.241 242 It is recommended to avoid designing new facilities in stands with low levels of existing fragmentation and, in particular, in areas with higher concentrations of biologically valuable stands. Before construction works, planned infrastructure facilities shall be re-surveyed within a buffer zone of at least 50 m around them, and within a 500 m buffer zone around the WPP, looking at biologically valuable forest stands, assessing possible fragmentation. Based on the natural situation observed during the surveys, a relatively small increase in the existing level of fragmentation is expected, but it should be noted that the main source of fragmentation in the study area is forestry activities. Overall, the infrastructure layout is assessed as having relatively low new impacts: most infrastructure is planned along existing forest roads. It is recommended to plan the new sections on existing carriageways or stiles or avoiding mature woodland as much as possible. To the extent possible, impacts on watercourses in the study area should be minimised. To mitigate the impact of direct disturbance, deforestation and construction works should be organised outside the breeding season. Construction work within 1000 metres of Western capercaillie rookery is strictly forbidden during the rutting period from 1 April to 15 May. Where possible, this condition should be considered up to a distance of 1500 metres from the roost. The restriction applies to WPPs D8, D9, D10, D11, D12, D13, D14, D15, D16 and associated infrastructure. Barrier effect The barrier effect of WPP parks is often mentioned in the literature as one of the important impacts of WPP parks.243 244 245 Migratory birds with a WPP as an obstacle in their flight path will often choose to avoid it by flying over or around it, consuming more energy than they normally would in the absence of the WPP. The barrier effect is stronger in species that tend to avoid parks, mainly geese, swans and cranes; similar behaviour is also observed in nocturnally migrating passerines.246 247 More research has been carried out on the barrier 238 Strazds, M. and Ķerus, V. 2017. Conservation plan for the woodlark (Bonasa bonasia) 2017-2026. Latvian Ornithological Society, Riga. 239 Kajtoch, Ł., Żmihorski, M., & Bonczar, Z. 2012. Hazel Grouse occurrence in fragmented forests: habitat quantity and configuration is more important than quality. European Journal of Forest Research. 131(6), 1783 1795. 240 Borchtchevski, V. G., Hjeljord, O., Wegge, P., & Sivkov, A. V. 2003. Does fragmentation by logging reduce grouse reproductive success in boreal forests. Wildlife Biology, 9(4), 275 282. 241 Czeszczewik, D., & Walankiewicz, W. 2006. Logging affects the white backed woodpecker Dendrocopos leucotos distribution in the Białowieża Forest. Annales Zoologici Fennici, 43(2), 221 227. 242 Imbeau, L., & Desrochers, A. 2002. Area sensitivity and edge avoidance: the case of the Three-toed Woodpecker (Picoides tridactylus) in a managed forest. Forest Ecology and Management, 164(1-3), 249-256. 243 Rydell, J., Ottvall, R., Pettersson, S., Green, M. 2017. The effects of wind power on birds and bats. Swedish Environmental Protection Agency, Sweden. 244 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. 245 DREWITT, A. & LANGSTON, R. 2006. Assessing the impacts of wind farms on birds. Ibis, 148(s1), 29 42. 246 Rydell, J., Ottvall, R., Pettersson, S., Green, M. 2017. The effects of wind power on birds and bats. Swedish Environmental Protection Agency, Sweden. 247 Pearse, Aaron & Metzger, Kristine & Brandt, David & Shaffer, Jill & Bidwell, Mark & Harrell, Wade. 2021. Migrating Whooping Cranes avoid wind-energy infrastructure when selecting stopover habitat. Ecological Applications. 31. 10.1002/eap.2324. 240 effect on birds in Offshore Wind Farms, where some species show strong avoidance behaviour when circling the farms, e.g. less than 1% of migrating geese were found to be within the collision risk zone during flight.248 The literature is mixed on the impact of the barrier effect on diurnal birds of prey, with both avoidance of WPP parks and, on the contrary, a marked lack of such behaviour. It is important to note that a significant proportion of the WPP park sites reviewed in the literature are geographically and in terms of park configuration significantly different from the area under assessment, including some sites that are objectively positioned not only in areas of risk to birds, but even in strong migration routes.249 Observations during the breeding seasons in the WPP Park have not revealed any significant flyways or distinct migration routes. However, the site is relatively close to the coast, which acts as a natural boundary for migratory species: migratory birds tend to concentrate their flights along obstacles or changes in terrain in the direction of migration.250 In addition, it should be noted that, apart from the migration of small passerines, birds equipped with GPS transmitters have crossed the territory of Latvia on very diverse trajectories during migration and there are essentially no regions that are not crossed by migrating individuals. Looking at the overall location of the WPPs, it can be characterised as a relatively narrow but long group of N-S aligned (especially if the recommendation to abandon the NE part of the three WPPs is accepted), overlapping at least relatively with the general migration direction from N-NW to SW or vice versa, depending on the direction of migration. The park is also divided into two parts by a watercourse, and there is a strip of at least 2 km between the WPP groups, which could potentially be used as a flight corridor. In view of the above, the impact of the barrier effect is expected to be low and the migratory flight paths that pass through the study area episodically are not expected to cause disproportionate energy losses to migratory bird species. Noise pollution Priority protected areas for a number of special-status owl species have been modelled within the planned wind park.251 For the priority protected areas identified in the Owl Conservation Plan, it is recommended to limit additional noise pollution from WPPs by choosing the quietest possible WPP model. Taking into account that scientific studies252 253 254 255 on the impact of noise from WPP on Strix uralensis are controversial and many countries (Finland, Poland, etc.) do not have restrictions on noise impact, and that the approved Owl Conservation Plan specifies that "noise pollution levels anywhere within the micro- reserve (including at the boundary) in the frequency range 0.1 to 20 kHz should be below 35 dB", pre- construction monitoring of this species is required. 248 Newton, I. 2023. The migration ecology of birds. Elsevier. 249 Martín, B., Perez - Bacalu, C., Onrubia, A., De Lucas, M., & Ferrer, M. 2018. Impact of wind farms on soaring bird populations at a migratory bottleneck. European Journal of Wildlife Research, 64(3). 250 Newton, I. 2023. The migration ecology of birds. Elsevier. 251 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. 252 https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/article/61/3/203/238162 253 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. 254 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0006320716304621?via=ihub 255 Foote, A. D., et al. 2004. Noise pollution and marine mammal populations: Conservation biology implications for large cetaceans. Conservation Biology, 18(2), 373-375. 241 The published study Anthropogenic Noise Effects on the Hunting Ability of Owls256 provides information on the ability of owls to identify prey in the presence of increased noise pollution (Figure 7.6.7). Figure 7.6.7. 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, suggesting that a noise level of 35-40 dB has a moderate effect on the overall hunting efficiency of the owl. Thus, the results of this study show 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. This level of noise therefore creates some obstacles but does not significantly prevent owls from hunting effectively. Taking into account the Latvian Owl Conservation Plan257, 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 256 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0006320716301343?via=ihub 257 Avotiņš jun. A. 2019. Conservation plan for theBarn 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. 242 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 studies258 259that 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 usually do not exceed this threshold, so owls have learned to cope with short-term noises that can cause difficulties in hunting. Cumulative impact assessment in the context of other WPP parks 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 bird populations, as it is not possible to state unequivocally that such impacts will occur or that all construction plans will be implemented in full. Objective assessment of cumulative impacts is not feasible: experts do not have access to a system for exchanging information on other planned WPP parks in the vicinity (see Figure 3.2.4). There is also no common approach or methodology for assessing these impacts. There is information that the installation of one WPP is planned in the northern part of the WPP Park. Potentially minor impacts are expected from this proposal, which may increase the barrier effect, as if the WPP is installed in the vicinity of the WPP assessed in this Opinion (at a distance of less than 1 km) - this WPP would be perceived as a single barrier to migratory birds. Risk assessment of the impact of the proposed action on bird species By summarising the information on the observations made during the EIA and analysing them in the context of the information recorded by DDPS "OZOLS", nest inventory data and, in some cases, observations recorded on dabasdati.lv, a risk assessment of the impact on bird species has been prepared for the recommended WPP. The 500 x 500 m grid cell map used in the Species Conservation Plans for owls and woodpeckers was used to characterise the impacts. Given that birds are mobile creatures and their breeding sites vary from year to year, this allows for a more efficient and transparent characterisation of the WPP Park study area. The expert who carried out the risk assessment points out that the cell boundaries are not absolute: the local situation must be taken into account, while the assessment provides a summary picture of the most important sites for birds in the area of the proposed activity, see Figure 7.6.8. The criteria used for the assessment are described in the bird expert opinion (see Annex 6). 258 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. (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 mentions that winds of 3-5 m/s can produce noise levels of 30-50 dB, which can interfere with communication.) 259 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0006320716304621?via=ihub 243  Figure 7.6.8. Risk assessment of impacts on bird species for the recommended WPP ŠŪNAS VĒRTĒJUMS 1- DARBĪBA NETIEK REKOMENDĒTA (SARKANS) 2- DARBĪBA AR IETEKMI MAZINOŠIEM PASĀKUMIEM (ORANŽS) 3- DARBĪBA, VĒLAMS, AR IETEKMI MAZINOŠIEM PASĀKUMIEM (DZELTENS) 4- DARBĪBA BEZ IETEKMI MAZINOŠIEM PASĀKUMIEM (ZAĻŠ) NA - ŠŪNA NAV VĒRTĒTA Alternative A of the proposed action (which is also part of Alternative B) has been eliminated as a low collision risk option provided that all WPPs are equipped with technological solutions that reduce the risk of accidental collisions (WPP containment chamber systems). WPP Z9 can also be retained despite being located on the periphery of the 'red' cell (see Figure 7.6.8) and would be considered a borderline case as a result of the geometry chosen. The southern part of Alternative B is assessed as a relatively low risk area for collisions with soaring birds. In the southern part of Alternative B, risks are posed to the Western capercaillie rookeries and potential rookeries on the periphery of the Proposed Action. If the known breeding ground (information provided by LVM, 2023 field data) is located at a relatively safe distance based on the literature, the potential breeding ground in the area south of the LVM Kulaurga quarry is located within the minimum recommended distance: 1 km. As a matter of maximum precaution, WPP D11 and D13 can only be installed after additional site investigation as part of the pre-construction monitoring, as the EIA studies and surveys have not identified the exact location of the roost but have identified indications that this is the case. The restriction of the operation of WPP D11 and D13 during the rutting period (suspension of WPP operation from 1 April to 15 May in the mornings between one hour before and four hours after local sunrise and in the evenings between one hour before and one hour after local sunset) should be adapted, but should be 244 specified according to the results of additional surveys to be carried out during the pre-construction period. Negative impacts on the breeding population of Ural owls are potentially expected throughout the Park (both under Alternative A and B). The application of owl protection measures (noise restrictions) should be assessed according to the results of the pre-construction monitoring: choose the quietest possible WPP design and solution. 7.6.3. Measures to mitigate impacts on bird species During the construction of a WPP It is recommended to abandon the construction of WPP Z19, Z20 and Z21 in the NE part of the WPP Park. This is based on the presence of nesting Eurasian goshawk at distances of less than 1000 m between these WPP, as well as the presence of a known Western capercaillie rookery and another potential rookery towards the D and SE of the WPP group, also at distances of less than 1 km. This recommendation has been taken into account. WPP Z1 and Z2: Despite being located in habitats of relatively low value for protected birds, these WPP include a water body that has the potential to attract protected species such as Western marsh harrier, osprey and black stork. If WPPs are built, mitigation measures are mandatory: WPP containment chamber systems, operating restrictions in line with pre-construction monitoring results, avoid risks of collisions with soaring birds. The condition for Z1 and Z2 has been taken into account (see Annex 12). WPP D11, D12, D13, D14. These WPP are located along an already established road with a relatively high level of use and an active quarry, which are considered to be pre-existing negative factors for the Western capercaillie rookery adjacent to these WPP. If WPP are restricted by shutting down during the breeding season, the potential impact is relatively small. Ideally, if the proposed development does not allow the construction of these WPPs, this is a more optimal solution, but it does not mitigate the adverse impacts of the existing forest roads and gravel pit. The condition for D11, D13, D14 has been taken into account (see Annex 12). Construction of D12 is not recommended. During construction and operation Mitigation measures to be taken during implementation of the proposed action will focus on avoiding collisions with sensitive species groups. Planetary birds: birds of prey of the day and black storks To significantly reduce the risk of collisions with diurnal birds of prey that have occupied breeding sites on the periphery of the Proposed Action site (mainly lesser spotted eagles) and may consequently pass through the WPP Park area or stay at low intensity in the vicinity of the peripheral WPP, It is recommended to equip the WPP park with "smart camera systems" that can reduce or stop the rotation of WPP (SOD or Shutdown on Demand type solution using cameras and bird identification software), groups of WPP or the whole park, if necessary (depending on the specifics of the solution). Based on the information available in the literature, this solution avoids a significant number of potential collisions, although different assessments are available in different literature.260 A 65% reduction in collision risk for all diurnal raptor species using solutions that stop WPP operation is reliably estimated.261 There are also solutions where these systems are equipped with specific deterrent solutions (audible or visual), which also reduce 260 Rydell, J., Ottvall, R., Pettersson, S., Green, M. 2017. The effects of wind power on birds and bats. Swedish Environmental Protection Agency, Sweden. 261 Garcia-Rosa, P. B., & Tande, J. O. G. 2023. Mitigation measures for preventing collision of birds with wind turbines. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 2626(1), 012072. 245 the risk of collisions in situations where the bird has already flown into the collision risk zone of the WPP rotor. These systems are constantly evolving and improving, and their efficiency is increasing. In terms of the potential presence of soaring birds and therefore the risk of collisions, the affected WPP are located within the area of the identified breeding sites, however, due to the temporal variability of the breeding sites, it is recommended that all WPP are fitted with stop camera systems. If the solution for the WPP suspension camera system, which is being refined during pre-construction monitoring, does not ensure identification of raptors, a solution for raptor protection is recommended for all WPPs: Stop the WPP up to one hour before and after both local sunrise and sunset for the protection of soaring birds from 1 April to 1 October. The condition is partially taken into account as there are already camera solutions that are effective at dusk and the camera solution can be fine-tuned during pre-construction monitoring and there is no need for WPP shutdown, such as the dtbird solution262 (see Annex 12). Grouse: Western capercaillie One of the mitigation measures to reduce the risk of collisions between Western capercaillie and rotor wings, as well as potentially reducing the risk of collisions between other species nesting in the forest, is the height condition of the lowest point of the WPP rotor wing: the lowest point must be at least the height of two mature trees of the surrounding forest. This condition is already considered to be fulfilled in the initial planning, since if the maximum height of the WPP is 300 m and the rotor diameter is 200 m, the lowest point of the rotor is at a height of about 100 m. Taking into account the potentially high risk of the overall impact of the operation of the constructed WPP on the success of the Western capercaillie rut, the WPP located approximately 1 km away from the rookeries (D8, D10, D11, D12, D13, D14, D15, D16) should be suspended during the rutting period: it is recommended to suspend the operation of the WPP during the rutting period from 1. the following should be recommended for the period from 1 April to 15 May: in the mornings from one hour before local sunrise to four hours after local sunrise, and in the evenings from one hour before to one hour after local sunset. The condition for D8, D10, D11, D12, D13, D14 has been partially taken into account (see Annex 12) as the ornithologist has based the WPP restrictions on assumptions, so the need for them can be clarified during pre-construction monitoring and the suspension time can be reduced accordingly. D12, D15, D16 are not recommended at all, and it should be noted that the southern part of the WPP is not recommended at all at present. Birds’ active at night: owls Protected owl species occur throughout the proposed WPP park, or their priority cells are located within 500 metres of the proposed WPP sites. The bird expert points out that the operation of the WPP should be limited throughout the year (owls are roosters) so that noise pollution levels are not exceeded. In the absence of studies on the impact of sound from wind farms on birds, caution should be exercised, and further pre- and post-construction monitoring of birds should be carried out to assess the noise and disturbance impacts of WPPs. This includes studying bird behaviour and, if necessary, adjusting the operation of the WPP in line with the observed data if negative impacts from the WPP are detected. To reduce the potential impact of noise pollution on the owl species present and potentially nesting, it is recommended to choose technical solutions with the quietest possible operation of the WPP system. Condition taken into account (see Annex 12). Migratory birds 262 https://www.dtbird.com/ 246 In order to significantly reduce the risk of collisions with large migratory birds (mainly Anser sp. and Branta sp. geese as well as swans), which may pass through the territory of the WPP park or stay at low intensity in the vicinity of the edge WPP during the migration period, it is recommended to equip the WPP park with camera system(s), which can, if necessary (depending on the specifics of the particular solution), slow down or stop the rotation of one or more WPP turbines or the turbines of the entire park. The literature also mentions the positive effect of radar applications in reducing collisions of migratory birds in wind farms, which have been installed even in strong migration routes.263 Although the proposed WPP park is not considered to be located in a strong migratory flyway or bird concentration area based on survey information, it is likely to have a temporarily high presence of migratory birds. To reduce potential collisions during migration periods, it is recommended to apply solutions based on camera technology to all WPP in the park area, which limit the operation of WPP. This solution has the potential to reduce bird strikes with WPP during daylight hours, in difficult visibility conditions and at night. Alternatively, the WPP park rotors can be stopped during periods of difficult visibility and dark periods of the day during migration, which is combined with the camera systems mentioned above, but these are then additionally applicable for the detection of migrating birds (either for indicating bird size or for training the system, depending on the solution chosen). Recommended solution for migratory bird conservation for all WPP: The WPP is to be suspended for up to one hour before and after both local sunrise and sunset for the protection of migratory birds in flocks (15 February to 15 May and 1 September to 15 November), if this cannot be remedied by a camera solution to be specified during pre-construction monitoring. Condition taken into account (see Annex 12). None of the recommended solutions exclude collisions of passerines, which in exceptional cases with different infrastructure or buildings can reach extremely high levels in terms of mortality, but should be considered as exceptional cases.264265 At the same time, however, it should be noted that even existing estimates, based mainly on counts of dead birds under WPP, reliably find only a small number of dead birds.266 The numbers of passerine mortalities recorded so far range from 100 to a few hundred.267 At the same time, the impact of these collisions on passerine populations is considered to be negligible, given their rapid recovery during the breeding season (one or more breeders, many young, high population densities to a greater or lesser extent). 7.6.4. Effects on bats The recorded bat activity in the area of the Proposed Action is significantly higher than in other similar areas surveyed using identical methodologies, due to the fact that in other areas forests covered a relatively small part of the surveyed area but are considered to be one of the most suitable habitats for bats. Potential spontaneous concentrations of bats foraging at different locations in the forests may increase the risk of otherwise low collisions with the planned rotors. This is particularly important during migration, when overall bat activity and species numbers increase. 263 Cohen, E. B., Buler, J. J., Horton, K. G., Loss, S. R., Cabrera-Cruz, S. A., Smolinsky, J. A., & Marra, P. P. 2022. Using weather radar to help minimize wind energy impacts on nocturnally migrating birds. Conservation Letters, 15(4). 264 Newton, I. 2023. The migration ecology of birds. Elsevier. 265 Rydell, J., Ottvall, R., Pettersson, S., Green, M. 2017. The effects of wind power on birds and bats. Swedish Environmental Protection Agency, Sweden. 266 Nilsson, A. L. K., Molværsmyr, S., Breistøl, A., & Systad, G. H. R. 2023. Estimating mortality of small passerine birds colliding with wind turbines. Sci Rep, 13(1), 21365. 267 https://lfu.brandenburg.de/sixcms/media.php/9/Voegel-Uebersicht-Europa.xlsx 247 The highest risk of bat mortality in the planned area of the WPP Park is in July-September, i.e. during bat dispersal and migration. In May-June, the increased risk is mainly associated with one species: the northern bat. Bat activity in May is generally low, with the exception of one station that may have a colony of northern bats nearby. Based on bat activity, it is not possible to distinguish night hours when bat mortality risks would be lower, except for morning hours in autumn (September and October) when activity/migration is close to zero. The greatest risk of bat mortality at WPP is in the 2nd-8th hour after sunset. A potential bat-attracting habitat in the area of WPP Limbaži is the Ķulaurga quarry (see location in Chapter 6.12). A number of research publications268 suggest that bat activity in the area of wind parks may increase significantly after the construction of the WPP and that bats may appear in large numbers in places where they were not found during the feasibility study, including in theoretically unsuitable or poorly suited landscapes in terms of habitat. Bats are strongly attracted to WPP, although the reasons for this have not yet been clearly established.269 Thus, it is imperative to carry out at least two years of monitoring after the WPP is built and the wind farm is operational. The northern part of the proposed development (Z1 - Z21 WPP) is generally considered to be 'safer' in terms of the risk of collisions with bats, provided that the WPP are not sited near the quarry to the west of this part of the site, which is currently the case. In the southern part (D1-D16 WPP), forests generally have higher bat activity and a higher proportion of suitable foraging and roosting habitats for bats, the southern part of the WPP is not currently recommended. 7.6.5. Measures to mitigate impacts on bats The development of a wind park is permitted subject to the following restrictions and conditions on the operation of the WPP: 1. WPPs are not installed in the vicinity of the Stienūži IV and Stienūži V quarries. Minimum distance from water: 200 m from the projection of the WPP wing, but more if possible. ➢ Currently, the nearest planned WPP Z2 is at least 400 m away, so this condition is met. 2. Monitoring of bats is ensured in the first and second year after the start of operation of the WPP. The monitoring methodology is developed and standardised by a bat species expert certified by the NCA according to the site specifics and the 2022 Guidelines for assessing the impact of wind power plants on bats in Latvia. ➢ Bat monitoring in the first and second year after the start of operation of the WPP is included as a mandatory measure to be implemented after the start of operation of the WPP (see Chapter 12). 3. At the northern WPP (Z1-Z21), automatic shutdown or non-start of the WPP shall be ensured from 1 July to 30 September for at least the first eight hours after sunset or until sunrise in summer when the length of night is less than 7 hours if: 1. the wind speed at the height of the WPP tower (nacelle) does not exceed 6 m/s, 2) rainfall does not exceed 1 mm/h, 3) the air temperature is above +60C. 268 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. 269 https://tethys.pnnl.gov/sites/default/files/publications/EUROBATS-2015.pdf 248  In north-eastern Latvia, especially in September, the nights are getting colder, but bat activity continues. In this study, bat activity in September was also observed at night, when air temperatures were only +6...+80C. 4. At the southern part of the WPP (D1-D16), automatic shutdown or non-start of the WPP shall be ensured from 1 May to 30 September for at least the first eight hours after sunset or until sunrise in summer when the length of night is less than 7 hours if: 1. the wind speed at the height of the WPP tower (nacelle) does not exceed 7 m/s, 2) rainfall does not exceed 1 mm/h, 3) the air temperature is above +60C. 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 - removed altogether, relaxed or strengthened, in particular: the period during which WPP operating restrictions are required could be extended or reduced, or the wind speed threshold at which WPP operation is allowed could be changed. According to the consultant, other solutions to mitigate the impact on bats can be used during the design of the WPP, in consultation with a certified bat expert, such as smart monitoring systems equipped with ultrasonic sensors and artificial intelligence technologies that detect the presence of bats in real time and stop turbine operation. Smart technologies are also used elsewhere in Europe and provide both effective bat protection and increased power generation, e.g. Fleximaus270. WPP D12 is not recommended as it is to be installed at a site where extremely high bat activity was observed, indicating a very likely proximity to a colony. It would be preferable not to install this WPP at all, and it would also be preferable not to install WPP D11, where high bat activity has also been observed. If WPP D11 were to be installed, post-installation monitoring would be mandatory. 7.6.6. 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. The available information suggests that, in the temporal and spatial dimensions, the most widespread and, from a human perspective, the most difficult to manage impacts will be those associated with wild large mammals. 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 they affect. Their future behaviour will be determined by the new element in their environment, and they will actively seek out places and times to make up for lost resources or exploit the new resources that will be created by the construction of the WPP. It should also be borne in mind that today's society has already developed a high level of conflicts of interests, opinions and values in relation to 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. 270 https://www.fleximaus.de/?lang=ne 249  7.6.7. 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 scale and significance of the impact in terms of maintaining a favourable conservation status for these species, and in the case of economically exploited species, in terms of changes in the overall value of the population and the impact on the economy. Species interactions in the ecosystem also need to be taken into account, as WPP may indirectly affect one species and 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 populations, and which are very limited to manage and manipulate in the wild. As the construction and operation of wind farms may have impacts on wild non-flying mammal communities, the consequences and territorial limits of which are unknown and unpredictable, the expert recommends the following measures: • Leave the intensity and seasonal cycle of other existing economic activities unchanged in the area of the WPP parks and their immediate surroundings. The above applies to logging (if not directly related to the installation of WPP), reforestation, all types of stand management, restoration of drainage systems, hunting pressure, game feeding, nature tourism pressure and agriculture in farmland adjacent to forests. Of course, this does not apply to fighting forest fires, windstorms and forest pests. Action is needed to avoid cumulative disturbance effects and to separate the potential impacts of WPPs from the background of other economic activities. • Given that there are no assessments of the impact of WPP on non-flying mammals in Latvia based on wildlife studies or monitoring data, the expert does not propose mandatory monitoring requirements for the wind farm in question. The expert recommends that the controlling national authorities should require the developers of the North Latvian and Estonian border wind farms (Figure 3.2.4) to jointly initiate specialised monitoring of wild mammals in cooperation with the controlling national authorities and scientific institutions. This need is underlined by all the authors of the scientific publications used in the opinion. Monitoring is carried out in accordance with a monitoring programme developed and agreed with a certified expert. • In case of negative impacts, 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 The landscape impact assessment takes into account the Guidelines for Initial Environmental Impact Assessment of Wind Power Plants271, the Guidelines for Local Landscape Planning approved by the Ministry of Environmental Protection272, as well as the landscape impact assessment methodology of the Lithuanian 271 https://www.vvd.gov.lv/lv/media/9969/download?attachment 272 https://www.varam.gov.lv/sites/varam/files/content/files/vadlinijas_viet_limenim_2019.pdf 250 and Latvian researchers Abroms, Kamičitīte and Ziemeļniece wind parks.273 In addition, consultations have been carried out with the municipality of Limbaži on the implementation of the Proposed Action in Limbaži. Part of the landscape study area is located in the nationally important scenic area274 (NNAVT) "Piejūra un Lībiešu krasts". Within the Landscape Study Area, it is a narrow strip between the shoreline of the Gulf of Riga and the main national road A1. The nearest location to the area of the Proposed Action is in the south of Salacgrīva (at Vidzemes Street 70) - 4.6 km. The most important part of the site, the coastal zone, would not be affected, except in the vicinity of Meleki, where the WPPs would be visible at a distance of 7.2 km and would be considered as background elements. Visual impacts are expected in the landscape of the open fields (between the coastal forest and the A1 motorway) in the section from Šķīsterciema to Krūmiņu Street in Salacgrīva (see Figures 7.7.1, 7.7.2) under Alternatives B and B'. The most scenically valuable places here are the area between Lāņu Manor Avenue and the forest to the N of Svētciems, where the open areas are enriched by individual oaks (indirect effects can be seen in Figure 7.7.3, which is outside the NNAVT). WPP could be described here as prominent accents in the landscape. Figure 7.7.1. Modelled view from A1 motorway in Salacgrīva near Bišu street, direction A, scenario 'A'. WPP highlighted in red for better visibility. Photo: Google Street View. 273 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. 274 Lakovskis, P. 2023. Latvian Landscape Atlas. Landscape maps. National landscapes. Institute of Agri-Resources and Economics. 251  Figure 7.7.2. Modelled view from the A1 motorway in Salacgrīva at Krūmiņu street, SE direction, in the distance the WPPs of the B' scenario are visible in the D part of the site, in the A and A' layouts the WPPs are not visible in this direction. WPP highlighted in red for better visibility. Photo: Google Street View. Figure 7.7.3. View near the junction of A1 motorway and Rīgas street in Svētciems towards A, clearly visible in part D of the WPP area under scenarios B and B'. Photo: D. Immurs. The most significant landscapes or landscape elements in the area of the Proposed Action and/or the landscape study area are: − river landscapes (Salaca, Svētupe, Vitrupe, Jaunupe), including: o Lībiešu Upuralas and the surroundings of Kuiķule, o Sarkanās klintis; o lamprey pots in the Salaca; − coastal landscape; − landscapes of small rivers (Vedamurga, Kulaurga, Ārupīte, etc.) − Lake Primma and Lake Kliķu; − Niedrāju-Pilka purvs; − Randu meadows. 252 Limbaži municipality assessed and provided an opinion on the possibility that the EIA study could result in the designation of WPP Z11, Z8 and Z9 as permissible with a maximum height of 275 m and no designation of WPP Z7. Limbaži Municipality, taking into account the recommendations on the heights of the WPPs in the letter of Vidzeme Livic Centre of 25.04.2024, agreed that despite the fact that the WPPs are planned in the two-kilometre protection zone around the Lībiešu Upuralas, WPPs Z11, Z8, Z9 with a height not exceeding 250 m should be allowed and WPP Z7 should not be constructed. These letters from the municipality of Limbaži and the Vidzeme Livic Centre are attached as Annex 2. 7.table 7.1. High-value viewpoints of Salacgrīva municipality in the study area Viewing Distance, Nearest Visibility (for 300 m high WPP) Notes site km WPP A stretch of 1,33 Z2 Partially visible and in places, but not No specific location, chosen the Salaca towards Salaca near the Jaunjēcēniem river with floodplain meadows Lībiešu 1,27 Z7 Visible WPP not recommended Upuralas 1,34 Z8 Visible Limbaži Municipality's condition for WPP height limits - 250 m - will be taken into account 1,58 Z9 Visible Limbaži Municipality's condition for WPP height limits - 250 m - will be taken into account 1,93 Z11 Visible Limbaži Municipality's condition for WPP height limits - 250 m - will be taken into account 1,55 D1 Visible WPP not recommended 1.81 D2 Visible WPP not recommended 1,63 D15 Visible WPP not recommended 1,58 D16 Visible WPP not recommended Annasmuiža 2,88 Z2 Visible Established viewpoint Bridge (distance from) 2. lamprey 3,52 Z2 Visible Mentioned as a single common tacis object 1. lamprey 4,44 Z2 Visible tacis Salacgrīva 5,06 Z2 Unpleasant, except in certain open areas promenade of the promenade Salaca 5,11 Z2 Visible From the mound edge area pilskalns (closer to Salaca) Vitrupe 6 D6 Unhappy, except in some places and in No effect on the sea view beach the water Zvejnieku 6,29 Z2 In selected open areas of the park Park Svētupes 6,32 D4 None ieteka Kuiviži 7,72 Z2 Will be seen far away observation tower Kuiviži pier 8,1 Z2 None 253  Viewing Distance, Nearest Visibility (for 300 m high WPP) Notes site km WPP Sarkanās 9,83 Z17 None klintis According to the visibility model (7.7.4. -figure 7.7.7) A 300 m high WPP, if all 37 assessed were built, would be visible in 26.3 % of the total landscape study area, or 143.6 km2 out of 544.9 km2. It should be noted that they would be less visible under Alternatives A/A' or B/B', particularly in remote locations from the area of the Proposed Development, and only to a limited extent. Figure 7.7.4. Modelled visibility zones in scenario A. Basic: Ltd Jāņa sēta 254 Figure 7.7.5. Modelled visibility zones in scenario A'. Basic: Ltd Jāņa sēta 255 Figure 7.7.6. Modelled visibility zones in scenario B. Basic: Ltd Jāņa sēta 256  Figure 7.7.7. Modelled visibility zones in scenario B'. Basic: Ltd Jāņa sēta However, in the consultant's opinion, based on the Landscape Policy Implementation Plan 2024-2027 (LIP 2024-2027), adopted in 2024, which states that in line with the objectives of the European Green Deal and Latvia's energy independence, landscape assessment at regional and local scales should take into account that energy independence and security are just as important and important 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 space" of sea and land. The 250-metre condition could therefore be raised to 275 metres to allow for the construction of all or equivalent models of WPPs assessed in this EIA. As the effects on biodiversity or humans (physical effects such as noise) have been assessed as exclusionary effects in this EIA report, therefore the WPP with the lowest impacts on birds, bats and habitats and no 257 exceedances of ambient noise have been retained in Alternatives A and B. Accordingly, any WPP allowed should be as efficient as possible, as the main limiting factor in the consultant's view is not to exceed the noise limits. It should also be noted that the difference between 275 m and 250 m is approximately 10 %, which is not considered to be significant and visually perceptible. As an example, the Zunda Towers in Riga have a height of 123 metres for the south tower and 117.5 metres for the north tower, but these height differences are not visually perceptible in everyday life (depending on the distance and the angle of view of the towers). Visually, the difference between a 250 m and a 275 m high WPP is practically invisible, as shown in the landscape assessment of the K2 Ventum EIA report275. Figure 7.7.8. comparison of 230 m and 252 high WPP detection magnitude versus distance to WPP (schematic)276 7.7.2. Impact on cultural heritage There are a number of heritage assets within the study area (Chapter 6.5.2 and Figure 6.5.3). The impact of the Proposed Action on cultural heritage has been assessed for the closest cultural monuments to the site of the Proposed Action, as well as for other sites of cultural and historical significance, through individual assessments and in particular the significance of the Proposed Action for potential changes to the landscape. According to the cartographic information of the information system "Heritage" there are 16 cultural monuments in the study area, 11 of them - archaeological, 5 - art monuments. As the monuments are located indoors - in three churches - the churches are indicated in the cartographic material. Cepļa vieta Short description The site of the baking site on the left bank of the Svētupe River. Ceplis dates back to the modern era.277 Location Salacgrīva municipality, Limbaži district, on the bank of the Svētupe River, opposite Zvaigzne. ~ 6,8 km from Svētciems, ~ 8,7 km from Salacgrīva. Coordinates in the WGS-84 coordinate system: 57.724121, 24.455360. 275 17_attachment-landscape-architect's-opinion_.pdf 276 https://k2ventum.lv/ivn/ 277 https://mantojums.lv/cultural-objects/1477 258  Status Cultural monument of local importance (group: archaeology) Cepļa vieta (no. no. 1477). It was included in the List of Cultural Monuments when it was adopted in 1998. A standard protection zone of 500 m in the countryside.278 Landscape Located in an alluvial forest with thick undergrowth, on the left bank of the Svētupe characteristics River, inside a forest loop. The area is marked to the north by a stream flowing into the Svētupe River. In nature, the location of the kiln cannot be clearly read. A floodplain meadow with one outbuilding is located from the monument to the SDA. Although the site of the kiln is not of scenic value, the view contains elements of the cultural and historical landscape - the meandering Svētupe River, the buildings of a group of farmsteads. On the other side of the river, in the immediate vicinity, are two homesteads "Zvaigznes" and "Vedamurgas" and the mouth of the Vedamurgas River. Availability Low. Access from the V143 national road, along a natural carriageway in the national forest (approx. 600 m). From the property "Vedamurgas" you have to run roughly along the bank of the Svētupe, first through meadow, then through alluvial forest, crossing a borehole. Ownership Owned by a natural person. Tourism It is not a tourist attraction and has no potential to become one. Nearest WPP 0,93 km to the NW (Z1) Expected impact Visually high, but with local impact. The site is not identified as a high value viewpoint. The WPP will not be visible from the 'Hat Site' due to overgrowth, the nearest WPP Z1 will affect the available view of the Hat Site from the south-east (see 7.7.9., Figures 7.7.10). Recommendations No deforestation in the area of the cultural monument. Notes Included in the terms of reference from the NCMP. Surveyed in the field. Impact taking into Minor adverse effects account mitigation measures Figure 7.7.9. Photovisualisation of a potential view of the Cepļa vieta from the floodplain of the left bank of the Svētupe River (Vedamurgs house in the foreground). WPP Z1 is clearly visible, WPP Z4 is partially visible on the right side of the image. 278 Ibid, 259  Figure 7.7.10. Potential view of the Cepļa vieta from the floodplain on the left bank of the Svētupe River (in the foreground the building on the "Vedamurgas" farmstead, in the background the "Zvaigžņu" residential building) Kilzumu Ancient Cemetery (Swedish Cemetery) Short description Monuments dating from the Middle Ages to the Modern Period.279 Located between Svētupe and the V143 road, on the left bank of the river. Location Salacgrīva municipality, Limbaži district, between the national road V143 and Svētupe, opposite Vējiņi houses. ~ 6,6 km from Svētciems, ~ 8,6 km from Salacgrīva. Coordinates in the WGS-84 coordinate system: 57.719978, 24.467175. Status Cultural monument of regional importance (group: archaeology) Kilzumu Ancient Monuments (Swedish Cemetery) (aiz aizs. no. 1473). It was included in the List of Cultural Monuments when it was adopted in 1998. A standard protection zone of 500 m in the countryside.280 Part of the monument is located in a micro-reserve created for the protection of birds. Landscape Located in a spruce forest with dense undergrowth, lots of fallen trees. A larger hole is characteristics visible in nature. Not considered to be of scenic value. The location also does not provide valuable views to or from it. The territory is bordered by the Kulaurga valley to the W, the Svētupe valley to the N and the V143 road to the S. Directly to the north of the monument site is the Svētupe steep bank, which offers an overgrown view to the NNW. (see Figures 7.7.11 and 7.7.12) Availability Medium. It is located in the immediate vicinity of the national local road V143, but there is no infrastructure to access it (you have to cross a small ditch on the side of the road). Ownership State property. Tourism It is not a tourist attraction and has no potential to become one. Nearest WPP 1,09 km to D (D1) Expected impact Unlikely. The site is not identified as a high value viewpoint. The view to and from the monument is currently not compromised. It could be threatened by deforestation in and around the monument. The upper part (wings) of WPP Z5 would be visible from the steep bank of the Svētupe River within the monument's protection zone. 279 https://mantojums.lv/cultural-objects/1473 280 https://mantojums.lv/cultural-objects/1476 260  Recommendations Preserve the existing forest within the monument and, according to the forest transparency model (developed by Estonian researchers 281), preserve the forest in a 70 m zone around the boundary of the monument. Notes Included in the terms of reference from the NCMP. Surveyed in the field. Impact taking into D1 is not recommended. account mitigation Minor adverse effects measures Figure 7.7.11. View north-east of the Kilzumu ancient burial mounds (in the foreground). Figure 7.7.12. View to the north-west of the Kilzumu ancient burial mounds (in the foreground). Lībiešu Upuralas Short description Located in the Svētupe valley, on the right bank of the river. The natural and cultural monument consists of several outcrops, ranging from 2.5 to 6.5 m high, on the slope of the right bank of the Svētupe River. There are two rather large caves on the Svētupe cliff. The entrance to Lībiešu Upuralas is 2.9 m high and 3.3 m wide, with three branches at the depth of the cave. According to Guntis Eniņš' measurements, the largest cave was 46 m long. The other cave is shorter, up to 20 m long. A little further down the river, in 281 https://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/13/21/4455 261  a small outcrop 4 m long and 2 m high, there is a wide niche .39 Archaeological excavations show that the cave was used for cult purposes from the 14th century. One of the few caves in Latvia that can be defined as a specific group of archaeological and natural monuments. 2023. in 2010, it was named Archaeological Monument of the Year. It is a unique testimony to the ancient sacredness of the Liv culture. The largest number of petroglyphs dated to the 17th-18th centuries in Latvia has been found in the Svētupe river valley.40 Location Salacgrīva municipality, Limbaži county, on the bank of the Svētupe River, near Kuiķuļi. ~ 8 km from Svētciems, ~ 10 km from Salacgrīva. Coordinates in the WGS-84 coordinate system: 57.716390, 24.489939. Status • Cultural monument of national importance (group: archaeology) Lībiešu Upuralas - cult site (aiz aizs. no. 1476). Protected since 1967. It was included in the List of Cultural Monuments when it was adopted in 1998. A standard protection zone of 500 m in the countryside is established.41 • protected geological and geomorphological natural monument "Kuiķuļu Upuralas (Lībiešu Upuralas)". Protected since 1977 (as a protected geological site), with its current status since 2001. Landscape As the site is accessible from the left bank of the Svētupe River, this landscape is mostly characteristics described. A gravel path leads from the left bank of the river (Svētciems Cemetery). On the left bank of the river is a floodplain meadow, with some tourist facilities directly opposite the river. The meadow (maximum width NNE-SSW 200 m) is located inside the meander loop or Kuiķuļi Bay. From here you have a particularly high view of the cave, a sandstone outcrop situated right on the riverbank (see Figure 7.7.13), which is topped by a belt of trees, in which the foreland stands out. This view is also described as valuable by the NCA in the description of the geological monument: "The sandstone cliffs stand out well against the backdrop of the Svētupe River and the flora, significantly enriching the landscape. "42 Another valuable viewpoint is a smaller outcrop to the south-east. On the right bank is the homestead Kuiķuļi, from which a difficult dirt road (tracks) leads along the riverbank. A belt of trees and shrubs obscures the view directly above the cave, but a high-quality view can be obtained from the steep bank south of the cave (above the smaller outcrop). Unfortunately, the view is obstructed by overgrowth (see Figure 7.7.14). Availability High. Infrastructure (about 300 m of gravel footpath (theoretically passable by car, but a barrier has been created)) for access from the left bank, which offers the best views. It is also easily accessible for water tourists boating on the Svētupe River. For legal reasons (private owner's "No Entry" sign) it is not accessible from the right bank of the river, although historically there was also a nature trail (now evidenced by railings). Ownership The river and the floodplain of the left bank belong to the municipality of Limbaži, while the steep bank of the right bank belongs to natural persons (2 properties). Tourism A tourist attraction since the 16th century (!!!).43 Included in various tourist materials. Minimal tourist infrastructure and stands, accessibility. Directions to the site from national roads A1, P12 and V143. Both the Latvian Archaeological Society and the NCA draw attention to the fact that the tourist load causes damage to the site. According to the Strava app, tourists can access the area both by walking and by boating on the Svētupe River. Nearest WPP 1,41 km N (from the cave; Z8 - name of the WPP) 1,27 km NW (from the boundary of the geological monument; Z7) Expected impact High. The site has also been identified as a high-quality viewpoint of Limbaži. 1. The main view (high quality landscape) from the floodplain (see Figure 7.7.15) is impaired by the WPP Z7 blades. 2. The view of the southern outcrop from the floodplain will be impaired by WPP D16, which will have the top of the tower visible. Recommendations Considering the recommendations of landscape experts and consultations with the municipality of Limbaži, the original planned location/height of the WPP was changed. 262  1. Do not foresee the construction of WPP Z7 2. Do not foresee the construction of WPP D1, D2, D15, D16. 3. Reduce the height of D8, D9, Z8, Z9, Z11. Retain tree cover above the cave itself. Develop the viewpoint above the outcrop on the D side (at the site of the Kuiķuļi Svētozols Grove) by clearing overgrowth. Notes Included in the terms of reference from the NCMP. Surveyed in the field. Limbaži Municipality, at the request of LVP, has expressed its opinion44 on the WPP proposal, stating that it has no objection if WPPs Z11, Z8, Z9 are advanced for Environmental Impact Assessment, despite the fact that they are within the two- kilometre buffer zone around the Lībiešu upuralas, provided that their height does not exceed 250 metres and that WPP Z7 is not planned. Impact taking into Z7, Z8, D1, D2, D15, D16 - construction is not recommended. account mitigation Z9, D8, D9 - reduced height limit recommended. measures (no WPPs are currently recommended for the southern part) Minor adverse effects Figure 7.7.13. Current view of Lībiešu upuralas and the largest outcrop to the NW. Figure 7.7.14. Current view of the Lībiešu Upuralas and the larger outcrop to the NNE from the southern escarpment (at the site of the Svētozols Grove). 263  Figure 7.7.15. Modelled view of the outcrop in the N direction, from a viewpoint at floodplain level (maximum deployment scenario 37 WPP with a height of 300 m). Figure 7.7.16. Modelled view of the outcrop and cave in the N direction, from the viewpoint at floodplain level, scenarios A and B - WPP height 250m. The site of Kuiķuļu svētozolu birzs Short description Located on the steep bank of the Svētupe, on the right bank of the river. Located south of the Lībiešu upuralas (see above), in its conservation area. 1973. archaeological excavations led by Juris Urtāns in 2007 uncovered a layer of ash up to 0.3 m thick, probably from the burnt oaks. According to legend, offerings were placed in the hollows of these oaks. The location of the grove is currently not visible in nature.282 Location Salacgrīva municipality, Limbaži county, on the bank of the Svētupe River, near Kuiķuļi and Lielkuiķuļi. ~ 8,3 km from Svētciems, ~ 10,3 km from Salacgrīva. Coordinates in the WGS-84 coordinate system: 57.714562, 24.488922. Status Cultural monument of local importance (group: archaeology) Kuiķuļi sacred grove site - cult site (no. no. 1475). It was included in the List of Cultural Monuments when it was adopted in 1998. A standard protection zone of 500 m in the countryside. 283 282 https://www.senvietas.lv/kuikulu-svetozolu-birzs-vieta/ 283 https://mantojums.lv/cultural-objects/1475 264  Landscape The site of the holly grove itself is located in a small mixed forest with shrubs (possibly: characteristics overgrown farmland) in a narrowing of the Svētupe meander, near a steep bank. There are no visually detectable cultural features in nature. A terrain model of the site shows several potholes. The site itself is not of scenic value. This is also recognised by the website "Svētvietas.lv".284 As the site is located in close proximity to the Lībiešu upuralas, the steep slope of the protected area of the sacred grass grove offers a high-quality view of the river and the sandstone outcrop with a view perspective to the north. Unfortunately, the view is obstructed by overgrowth (see Figure 7.7.14 above). Availability Low. For legal reasons (private owner's "No Entry" sign) it is not accessible from the right bank of the river. From the Kuikuli homestead there is a difficult to drive dirt road (rutted) of about 300 m. Ownership Owned by a natural person. Tourism It is not a tourist attraction and has no potential to become one. However, the potentially valuable viewpoint of the Lībiešu Upuralas is located within its protection zone, although it is currently not legally accessible to tourists. Nearest WPP 1,53 km to the SW (D1) Expected impact Medium. The WPP will not be visible from the conservation area, a few metres away, at the Lībiešu upuralas (see Figure 7.7.15 above). The next ones will show a significant part of the tower and the blade. Recommendations See the recommendation in the context of Lībiešu upuralas. Notes Included in the terms of reference from the NCMP. Surveyed in the field. Impact taking into Minor adverse effects account mitigation (no WPPs are currently recommended for the southern part) measures Priecuma senkapi Short description Monuments dating from the Middle Ages to the Modern Period. 285 Located by the Priecumu Lake. Location Salacgrīva municipality, Limbaži district, near Priecumu lake. ~7,8 km from Pale, ~10,6 km from Korgenes. Coordinates in the WGS-84 coordinate system: 57.723844, 24.561544 Status Cultural monument of local importance (group: archaeology) Priecumu senkapi (aiz aizs. no. 1472). It was included in the List of Cultural Monuments when it was adopted in 1998. A standard protection zone of 500 m in the countryside. 286 Landscape characteristics Located on the edge of a mosaic landscape where former meadows/pasture intermingle with forest clusters. The ancient remains are hidden by a cluster of deciduous trees. There are several large boulders and potholes in the area. The site is located next to a shallow but distinct depression (200 m wide) containing Priecumu Lake (130 m from the monument) and small marshes. 300 metres to the east is a small hilltop where a small quarry has been established. Availability Low. Accessible from the national road V143, via a dirt road and tracks into a meadow (2,8 km). Located at the end of a difficult dirt road. Ownership Property of a natural person. Tourism It is not a tourist attraction and has no potential to become one. Nearest WPP 2.71 km to the N (Z21) Expected impact Unlikely. The WPP will not be visible from the monument but will be visible from the buffer zone. Recommendations Not proposed. 284 https://www.senvietas.lv/kuikulu-svetozolu-birzs-vieta/ 285 https://mantojums.lv/cultural-objects/1472 286 Ibid, 265  Notes Not included in the terms of reference from the NCMP. Impact taking into The nearest WPP are at Priecumu Lake: Z19, Z20, Z21 are not recommended. account mitigation No impact measures Krogkalni baznīckalns Short description 3-4 m high elevation - Baznīckalns, ancient graves dating back to the Late Bronze Age - Early Iron Age.287 The monuments consist of individual stones, clusters of stones and mounds made of stones. The largest and most prominent mound is at the N end of Baznīckalna. There is also a second, less distinct mound. Around the mounds there are many individual stones, small heaps or clusters of stones, micro-relief formations. In the legends, this place is known as Baznīckalns, or the hill on which the church used to stand. Stone barrows testify to the 1st century BC. and AD. I for the ancient cemeteries.288 Location Salacgrīva municipality, Limbaži county, on the left bank of the Arupīte River, between the homestead "Āpškalni" and the ruins of the homestead "Krogkalni". ~ 7,3 km from Ķirbiži, ~ 11,4 km from Pāles. Coordinates in the WGS-84 coordinate system: 57.676121, 24.553467 Status Cultural monument of national importance (group: archaeology) Krogkalnu Ancient Monuments (Baznīckalns) (aiz aizs. no. 1474). It was included in the List of Cultural Monuments when it was adopted in 1998. A standard protection zone of 500 m in the countryside.289 Landscape The hill stands out against the flat landscape of the surrounding area in the relative characteristics valley of Arupīte between two forest massifs. It is situated on a low (3-4 m high) mound oriented roughly NW-SE. The whole area of the hill (about 60-70 m long, 30-40 m wide) is covered with trees and bushes, and there are individual stones, clusters of stones and mounds made of stones. Around the mounds there are many individual stones, small heaps or clusters of stones, micro-relief formations.290 A public view of the mountain from the municipal road "Utkas-Zeltiņi". Availability Very low. Accessible from the V142 national road, then from the access road "Kulle 1". From home, 700 m along tracks, 400 m along a meadow. However, there is a public view of Baznīckalns from the municipal road "Utkas-Zeltiņi" (300 m away). Ownership Property of a natural person. Tourism Currently not a tourist attraction, it might seem attractive to tourists with a specific interest profile; this is most affected by inaccessibility. Nearest WPP 4.37 km to the NW (D11) Expected impact The site is not identified as a high value viewpoint. The WPP will not be visible from the site itself but will be visible from the buffer zone. For example, a public view from the Zeltiņi-Untes municipal road westwards will show the towers of seven WPPs and the blades of another WPP. Recommendations Not proposed. Notes Not included in the terms of reference from the NCMP. Impact taking into Minor adverse effects account mitigation (no WPPs are currently recommended for the southern part) measures 287 https://mantojums.lv/cultural-objects/1474 288 https://www.senvietas.lv/krogkalnu-baznickalns/ 289 https://mantojums.lv/cultural-objects/1474 290 https://www.senvietas.lv/krogkalnu-baznickalns/ 266 Zviedru ceļš Short description Zviedru ceļs dating from the Middle Ages to the Modern Period.291 Location Salacgrīva municipality, Limbaži district, between the homesteads "Graudiņi" and "Ķulles 1". ~ 7,3 km from Ķirbiži, ~ 11,4 km from Pāles. Coordinates in the WGS-84 coordinate system: 57.685177, 24.551345 Status Cultural monument of regional importance (group: archaeology) Zviedru ceļš (aiz aizs. no. 6152). It was included in the List of Cultural Monuments when it was adopted in 1998. A standard protection zone of 500 m in the countryside. 292 Landscape characteristics Located in a deciduous forest (scrub) near a small river (ditch). The Lidar elevation model shows a faint embankment. Both the property where it is located (Graudini) and the neighbouring property (Ķulles) have undergone, are undergoing, landscape alterations (excavation of ponds, older quarry, etc.). Availability Low. Accessible from the V142 national motorway, via the access road "Ķulēm 1". From this road it is located 200 m along the forest edge. Ownership Property of a natural person. Tourism It is not a tourist attraction and has no potential to become one. Nearest WPP 4,27 km to the R (D11) Expected impact Unlikely. The site is not identified as a high value viewpoint. The site of the monument is not affected. Although the WPP will be visible from the buffer zone, given the nature of the monument, no harm will be caused to the surrounding landscape. Recommendations Not proposed. Notes Not included in the terms of reference from the NCMP. Impact taking into Minor adverse effects account mitigation (no WPPs are currently recommended for the southern part) measures Salaca pilskalns Short description Salaca (also Vecsalaca, Salacgrīva) Pilskalns. Dates from the Middle Ages to the Modern Period (14th-18th centuries).293 After being blown up in the early 18th century, only the ramparts of the fortress have survived to the present day. The castle was built on an older hillfort.294 Location Limbaži district, Salacgrīva town, near Baznīcas street. Coordinates in the WGS-84 coordinate system: 57.754460, 24.363534 Status Cultural monument of national importance (group: archaeology) Medieval Castle of Salacgrīva (aiz aizs. no. 1478). It was included in the List of Cultural Monuments when it was adopted in 1998. A standard protection zone of 500 m in the countryside. 295 Landscape Located in the town of Salacgrīva, between Baznīcas Street and Salaca. Located on characteristics the right bank, on the artificially modified main bank of the river. Plantations of lime trees around the perimeter, several of which are grand lime trees. The plaza is covered with lawn, swings and a few benches. A water tourist resting place has been created on the river terrace at the river's edge. On the other side of the street there is a small parking area and an information board. 291 https://mantojums.lv/cultural-objects/6152 292 Ibid, 293 https://mantojums.lv/cultural-objects/1478 294 https://lv.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Salacas_pils 295 https://mantojums.lv/cultural-objects/1478 267  From the edges of the castle mound, you can enjoy a high quality view both towards the Salaca estuary and the bridge, and towards the opposite bank - Salacgrīva promenade (Krasta Street). Salacgrīva is defined in the municipality's master plan as a high-quality viewpoint. Availability High. Accessibility. There are stairs leading up to the hill from a small parking area, as well as several paths. Ownership Municipal property. Tourism Tourist site with good access. Nearest WPP 5.09 km to the A (Z2). Expected impact Unlikely. From the edge of the mound closest to the Salaca River, the upper parts of the WPP will be visible, and several more will have visible blades. Visibility would increase during the leaf-free period. WPP Z1 and D1 will be the most visible. Also, Z4, Z9, Z5 in the leaf-free period. D2, D4, D10 will show the blades or parts of blades. Recommendations Taking into account the importance of the site, if possible - adjust the planned location of WPP Z1, reduce the height of wind WPP D1 or do not foresee its construction. Notes Not included in the terms of reference from the NCMP. Surveyed in the field. Impact taking into D1 is not recommended, and the southern part of the WPP is currently not account mitigation recommended. measures Minor adverse effects. Church of Bridaga Short description The Lutheran House of Prayer of the Lielsalaca Brethren Church, or the Brīdaga Lutheran Church. The building of the house of prayer was built in 1879, in 1939 the construction of the church building began, which was consecrated only in 1939. It is located next to the Brīdaga Cemetery, which has cultural and historical significance - the owners of Ķirbiži Manor are buried there. The nature conservation plan of the nature reserve "Vitrupes ieleja" designates this area as culturally and historically significant. 296 Location Viļķenes parish, Brīdaga church, Limbaži municipality. 2.1 km from Ķirbiži. Coordinates in the WGS-84 coordinate system: 57.651772, 24.470415 Landscape characteristics Located on the edge of the pine woods and the cemetery of Bridaga, as well as on the NE edge of the village297 . Situated on an elevation (near the Vitrupe steep bank). In accordance with the Limbaži municipality development strategy, it is located in a high-quality landscape area. Availability High. Publicly available. Access from national road V138, 400 m section on the municipal road "Brīdaga-Kapi". Ownership Property of a legal person. Tourism A little-known tourist attraction. Nearest WPP 1,07 km to the NE (D9) Expected impact Medium. While the view of the church is unaffected by the WPP, the view of the church to the NW is significantly altered by WPP D6. Near the church you will be able to partially see WPP D9. Recommendations Re-siting or no-build of WPP D6. Notes Not included in the terms of reference from the NCMP. Surveyed in the field. Impact taking into account D6 is not recommended. mitigation measures Minor adverse effects. 296 SIA "Estonian, Latvian & Lithuanian Environment" 2005. Nature conservation plan of the nature reserve "Vitrupe Valley". JSC "Latvia's State Forests". (expired in 2013). 297 Village in the sense of settlement, not in the sense of addressing. 268 Ķirbiži Manor and its buildings Short description The manor house of Ķirbiži manor was built in 1753 and rebuilt in the 2nd half of the 19th century. From a cultural and historical perspective, it is significant that Bauman Kārlis, the author of the Latvian national anthem, briefly worked here as a home teacher. Until 2001 it was a school, in 2006 the manor was privatised and then landscaped. The manor barn has been retained in the ownership of the municipality. It has been a Forest Museum since 1989 and, according to local residents, is scheduled to close on 1 January 2024. The associated Ķirbiži Forest Nature Trail is nearby (see other tourist attractions). The nature conservation plan of the nature reserve "Vitrupes ieleja" designates this area as culturally and historically significant.298 Location Viļķenes municipality, Ķirbiži, Ķirbižu manor. Coordinates in the WGS-84 coordinate system: 57.651697, 24.494718 (manor), 57.651037, 24.491403 (Forest Museum) Landscape It is located in the area between the V138 motorway and the left bank of the Vitrupe characteristics River. In a flat landscape. Opposite the manor house, restored and in good condition, the historic manor avenue - a high-quality landscape towards the manor. Landscape Park with paved paths and historical and new plantings, pond on Vitrupe. In accordance with the Limbaži municipality development strategy, it is located in a high-quality landscape area. Availability Medium. The manor house is open to the public from the outside (160 m away), the territory is fenced and privately owned. Access from national road V138(de facto on the side of the road). A small, asphalted parking area (incl. For the forest nature trail). Ownership Property of a legal entity (manor house); property of the municipality (Forest Museum building). Tourism Manor house - tourist attraction (view from outside, distance). The Forest Museum building - an object of architectural interest. Tourism is most affected by the Ķirbiži Forest Educational Trail Nearest WPP 1,07 km to the NE (D9) Expected impact Unlikely. The most valuable view, the view of the estate, will not be affected. However, it will affect the view from the estate. From the front of the Manor House, the gondola and wings of WPP D9 and D8 will be visible through the trees. During the leafless period, the wings of several WPP (D11, D12, D14, D15) will be visible. Currently, tree planting around the perimeter of the estate (along Vitrupi) suppresses visual intrusion. Recommendations Reduce the height of D9. Notes Not included in the terms of reference from the NCMP. Surveyed in the field. Impact taking into D9 height reduced, and no WPPs are currently recommended for the southern part account mitigation Minor adverse effects. measures Vecsalaca manor buildings Short description The present manor buildings were built in the 19th century. Only part of the outbuildings has survived. The park (8.8 ha) has 33 exotic plant species.299The manor house burnt down in 1915. Located in the nature park "Salacas ieleja". Location Niedru iela 10, Vecsalaca, Salacgrīvas pag., Limbažu nov. Coordinates in the WGS-84 coordinate system: 57.755161, 24.411346 298 SIA "Estonian, Latvian & Lithuanian Environment" 2005. Nature conservation plan of the nature reserve "Vitrupe Valley". JSC "Latvia's State Forests". (expired in 2013). 299 Baltic Environmental Forum 2005. Nature management plan for the Salaca Valley section of the North Vidzeme Biosphere Reserve. Limbaži district Salacgrīva municipality. 269  Landscape characteristics Located in the village built-up area and park on the right bank of the Salaca River. The outbuilding with the arcade is the most architecturally valuable. There are still some inhabited buildings (some of them could be rebuilt manor houses), as well as ruins of manor houses. A high-quality park. In accordance with the Limbaži municipality development strategy, it is located in a high-quality landscape area. On the slope of the Salaca steep bank, next to the residential building at Parka iela 8, there is a recreational viewpoint created by local residents. Availability High. The manor's outbuilding is accessible from the outside. The park is also open to the public. Ownership The site is owned by several natural persons. Tourism Included in some local tourism material. There is no tourism infrastructure. Nearest WPP 2,61 km to the SE (Z2) Expected impact Unlikely. As the development is located in a park, the WPPs would not actually be visible surrounded by trees. Recommendations Not proposed. Notes Not included in the terms of reference from the NCMP. Surveyed in the field. Impact taking into No impact. account mitigation measures Annasmuiža Bridge Short description Annasmuiža reinforced concrete bridge over the Salaca River (3 km from Salacgrīva). Built in 1908 (opened 1909). One of only two bridges of the early reinforced concrete era in the Latvian land roads that have been partially preserved intact. 300 Located in the nature park "Salaca ieleja". Location Salacgrīva municipality, Limbaži county, bridge over the Salaca River on the V144 national road (3 km from Salacgrīva). Coordinates in the WGS-84 coordinate system: 57.750625, 24.402145 (bridge), 57.750923, 24.401105 (viewpoint) Landscape A bridge over the Salaca River is asphalted. From the bridge you can see the river characteristics valley with islets, the nearest farmsteads, and the edge of Vecsalaca Manor Park. The floodplain is mostly alluvial forest. On the right bank before the bridge, there is a view/rest area with an information board and a bench. The view is of the bridge and the wider surroundings (see Figure 7.7.17). The view is influenced by trees and could be more obstructed in summer. The Salacas ielejas Nature Park Nature Management Plan calls it a "good view", with a [rare] opportunity to see the river valley from the road. 301 Availability High. Located on a national road. The viewpoint is accessible from the municipal road. Ownership Municipal property (Salaca river), public property (road), private property (viewpoint). Tourism Included in the tourist material, the view/rest area with an information stand and a bench is convenient for car and bike tourists (less so for water tourists). Nearest WPP 2,82 km to the SE (Z2) Expected impact Medium. The upper parts of several WPPs (see Figure 7.7.18) will be visible from the viewpoint. Z4 will be the most visible. During the leafless period, approximately 2/5 of Z2, the gondola and wings of Z3 and the wings of Z1 will be visible through the trees. The WPP Z12 and Z13 blades will be visible for a short while. 300 https://www.redzet.eu/travel/apskates-vietas/tilti/annasmuizas-dzelzsbetona-tilts 301 Baltic Environmental Forum 2005. Nature management plan for the Salaca Valley section of the North Vidzeme Biosphere Reserve. Limbaži district Salacgrīva municipality. 270  Recommendations Taking into account the importance of the potential viewpoint, the Limbaži Municipality, at the request of the LVP, has expressed its opinion (letter attached as Annex 2) on the impact of the WPP Park on this viewpoint. The municipality has not expressed any conditions to mitigate the impacts of the proposed WPP from this perspective. Notes Not included in the terms of reference from the NCMP. Surveyed in the field. Impact taking into Minor adverse effects. account mitigation measures Figure 7.7.17. View of Annasmuiža Bridge to the SE from the view/rest area on the right bank of the river. 271  Figure 7.7.18. Modelled view from Annasmuiža Bridge towards the SE, deployment scenario A'. WPP are highlighted for better visibility. Photo: Google Street View. 7.8. Impact on tourism and recreation Worldwide research indicates302that wind energy development has a negative impact on the aesthetic values of the landscape, to the detriment of the tourism industry. Tourism in this assessment refers to trips outside the permanent place of residence for various purposes (including business trips, sightseeing, 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 landscapes303. Wind farms have a particularly negative impact on the attractiveness of the landscape, as opposed to stand-alone (isolated) WPPs304. 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 created305 306 or even if special viewing platforms were created that were accessible to tourists (these have been created in countries around the world, for example in the UK, Austria, Germany, the Netherlands). A Czech study found that siting WPPs in suitable locations has little or no negative impact on tourists' perception of the landscape and their choice of destination. They also found that the creation of WPP, together with good marketing, allows the development of new forms of tourism. In general, tourists have a more negative view of other industrial or infrastructure sites: factories, quarries (mines), 302 Broekel, T. & Alfken, C. 2015. Gone with the wind? The impact of wind turbines on tourism demand. Energy Policy. 86, 506-519. 303 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. 304 Ladenburg, J., Dahlgaard, J.-O. 2012. Attitudes, threshold levels and cumulative effects of the daily wind-turbine encounters. Applied Energy, 98, 40-46. 305 Broekel, T., Alfken, C. 2015. Gone with the wind? The impact of wind turbines on tourism demand. Energy Policy. 86, 506-519. 306 Frantál, B., Kunc, J. 2011. Wind turbines in tourism landscapes. Annals of Tourism Research. 38 (2), 499-519. 272 telecommunication towers or electricity pylons. Although 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 travel because of WPP307. While the overall situation with tourism could be described as having a less negative impact, studies indicate that the more negative impact is directly on the recreation of local residents. This is particularly important in areas where there are fewer or restricted access to wilderness areas. A study in Norway on the impact of WPPs near recreational areas concluded that the impact of WPPs is negative. The study uses the revealed 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 locals: a mountainous region with an extensive network of trails (assessing the impact of an inland wind farm) and two popular beaches with good tourist infrastructure, located up to 35 km from major towns (a backcountry wind farm). It concluded that the presence of the WPP would significantly reduce the number of recreational trips to both inland and coastal areas and affect the well-being of holidaymakers. The negative impact of the WPP 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). Impact on nature tourism sites Ķirbižu forest educational trail: the most notable object in this nature trail is the Vālodzes oak (6.5 m in circumference, one of the largest in Limbaži county), located 940 m from D9. As the trail is mostly through the forest, the WPP will only be visible at the beginning of the trail (on the left bank of the Vitrupe River, around the former Forest Museum building and stand) and at the Vālodzes oak tree. Although the most scenic view of the beech tree is from the direction of the WPP, the D9 blades will be visible through the trees from the side of the beech tree looking towards the WPP . Due to the nature trail, it is recommended to reduce the height of WPP D9 to 250 m, WPP for the southern part are currently not recommended. Niedrāju-Pilkas purvs trail: located in Pāles parish in Pilkas bog in the nature reserve "Niedrāju-Pilkas purvs". The nature trail is included in the tourist material of national importance. Located on the green "Ainaži-Valmiera" route. The nearest WPP (Z21) from the trailhead will be 4.86 km away in the direction of ZAA. At the end of the bog trail (footbridge) there will be a lookout tower located 5.09 km from WPP Z21. The WPP will not be visible as you walk towards the lookout tower but will be visible in the opposite direction. As the lookout tower is located behind a belt of taller trees, its view is primarily towards the east or away from the WPP. However, the upper parts and wings of WPP Z19, Z20, Z21would be visible in the leafless period. Given the distance, the impact can be considered negligible. It is recommended that the tree belt to the E of the tower separating the two open parts of the marsh be retained, but of course this is relevant to the management of the SPNA. Salaca (water tourism): The Salaca is traditionally considered one of the most popular water tourism rivers in Latvia. The river is suitable for boating with all types of boats.308 The Salaca is navigable in the study area for about 19 km from Tīrmeži (near the former railway bridge) or from the popular Sarkanās klintis. WPP will be visible from Salaca in the stretch from Veckalēji to the mouth of the Gulf of Riga. The nearest WPP 307 Ibid, 308 https://www.latvia.travel/lv/popularakas-upes-laivosanai 273 (Z2) would be 1.43 kilometres away. As the vector of the navigation or river flow is in at least two sections facing directly towards the WPP, WPP Z12, Z14, Z4 and Z3 will be visible in these sections (Z14 is not recommended). Jaunupe: a canal connecting the Svētupe and Salaca rivers. The entire length (5 km) is navigable. It is usually used to get from Svētupe to Salaca. A recreation area has been created on the bank of the Jaunupe River near Auziņas.309 The entire length of the study area, approximately half of which would have a visible WPP (the nearest (Z1) would be located 1.25 km NE of Indrani). As the boating direction is NW or towards Salaca, the WPP will not affect the view in this direction. Svētupe: one of the most suitable small rivers for recreational boating experiences (as opposed to the popular Gauja, Abava, Salaca, Irbe). Boat charterers emphasise the unspoilt nature of its shores, which is further embellished by sandstone outcrops, including Lībiežu upuralas, located between Lauva and Kuikuli. The river is easily navigable at higher water levels (spring and autumn).310 In the study area, the river flows for 32 kilometres (from Balozi, Pale municipality). Although theoretically you can start boating higher upstream, the recommended routes are from Pāles or Lauvas to Jaunupe. The stretch from Jaunupe to the mouth of the bay is considered unsuitable for boating.311 The nearest WPP (Z1) would be located 730 m downstream of Zvaigzne. Downstream of Ķilzumi, WPP Z7 would be 840 m away. WPP will be visible from the river in several places where there are not only forests but also open areas on the banks. Vitrupe: the least popular among boaters of the four watercourses considered. In the study area, it is navigable from Blome in Vilķene municipality for 24 kilometres to its mouth in the Gulf of Riga. The WPP will be visible in its reclaimed section between the village of Vitrupe and Ķirbiži, which is considered unsuitable for boating, but in the more scenically valuable section, which stretches from Ķirbiži (through the nature reserve "Vitrupes ieleja") to the sea, the WPP will not be visible, as the river flows through the valley here. The only exceptions are the surroundings of the farmstead "Delveri" and the farmstead "Segrumi". The nearest WPP (D9) is planned 950 m from the river (at the Old School). Because of the current, this stretch is recommended for boating only in early spring and for experienced boaters.312 The proposed action will have minimal visual impact on the navigable section, and no WPP are currently recommended for the southern part. Impact on hiking/biking routes Jūrtaka (part of the European long-distance hiking route E9 in the Baltic States): the closest location to the wind park - in Salacgrīva near the Salaca Bridge - Jūrtaka is 5.3 kilometres from the planned WPP (Z2). As the coast is characterised by pine forests that block the view inland, the only two locations on the beach where the WPP will be visible will be at Meleki beach in Salacgrīva municipality (the nearest WPP (D6) will be 7.2 km away) and at Kuiviži near the Kapteiņa osta (the nearest WPP (Z2) will be 7.5 km away): the impact on the landscape will be minor. WPP will also be visible at some points where the Jurtakas route bypasses the beach: at the Rakari recreation complex (5.95 km from D4) and in Salacgrīva (from 22 Sila Street to Lielsalaca Lutheran Church; at the square near the port authority; on Pērnavas Street near Salacgrīva Cemetery). Although the WPP will be visible in some locations, they will not significantly affect the coastal landscape itself, which is the main objective of the Jurtakas route, and therefore no recommendations are made in relation to the proposed activity. Green Railway Ainaži-Valmiera: a cycling and hiking route along former railway lines in Latvia and Estonia. For most of the route, the green railway passes through forest, which prevents visibility of the WPP. The 309 https://upesoga.lv/lv/marsruti/river/55-jaunupe 310 https://piedabas.lv/laivu-noma-svetupe/ 311 https://upesoga.lv/lv/marsruti/river/54-svtupe/ 312 https://www.visitlimbazi.lv/lv/vitrupe 274 nearest WPP (Z21) will be located 3.5 km from the route at the homestead "Mežvaldes" in Salacgrīva parish. The WPP will also be visible at this location. They will also be seen in other, mostly small, areas: near Mednieki, near the houses "Bites" and "Sargi", in the Pilka swamp near the nature trail, between "Purgaliai" and "Tauriņi" and between "Rozīte" and "Vienībām". EuroVelo13 cycle route: the nearest WPP (D4, but WPP for the southern part are not recommended at the moment) will be 4.92 km away, at the A1 turn-off to Rakari. In the section from Šķīsterciems to Rakari, where the cycle route follows the old Tallinn highway (the section parallel to the modern motorway), the WPP will be visible and will be an important accent of the landscape, as it will open the view to the east, but in places the view will be blocked by the scenic oak avenue along the highway. Impact on other recreational opportunities The proposed activity will not only affect views and noise but will also physically reduce forest areas: for one WPP, up to 2.6 ha of forest will need to be prepared (deforested, cleared), which will fragment the forest, 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 park could theoretically increase accessibility to natural areas. The construction of the southern array of the IPT "Burlaku sils" of the individually planned territories identified by LVM immediately adjacent to the territory of the proposed activity would adversely affect recreation and reduce the attractiveness of the territory, but it should be noted that the southern part of the WPP is currently not recommended. 7.9. Impacts on Natura 2000 sites in the vicinity of the WPP Park This assessment includes an assessment of the three Natura 2000 impacts as specified in the Programme No 5-03/7/2023 issued by the NRWB on 12 September 2023. 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 are already adversely affecting them prior to implementation of the Proposed Action is provided in Table 6.4.2 of Chapter 6.4. Impacts on habitats and protected species in Natura 2000 sites The proposed action is not planned for a Special Protection Area: the implementation of the action will not have any foreseeable adverse effects on these areas, directly or indirectly, as far as the protection of the habitats and associated plant species included in the areas is concerned. The impact of the planned construction of the WPP, access roads, transmission lines and transformer substations on the protected natural values of Alternative A of the Proposed Action has been fully assessed. No Natura 2000 site assessment for the 8 WPPs in the southern part to be constructed only after additional assessment of vascular plants and moss and lichen species and development of a solution for the connection to the AST and involvement of a freshwater expert for the crossing of the Svētupe. Alternative A of the proposed action is not planned in Natura 2000 sites and micro-reserves established for the protection of freshwater, grassland, forest or wetland habitats and will not have any direct or indirect foreseeable adverse effects on them. Impacts on bat species in Natura 2000 sites The proposed wind farm is unlikely to have any significant impacts on bat populations in the nearest Natura 2000 sites of importance for bats (Salaca ieleja, Vitrupes ieleja), and no significant cumulative impacts are expected, taking into account other wind farms planned in Limbaži municipality. 275 Impact on bird species in Natura 2000 sites The effects of Alternative A on bird species in Natura 2000 sites are summarised in Table 7.9.1. Table 7.9.1. Impact on bird species in Natura 2000 sites in the surrounding area of Alternative A of the Limbaži WPP Park No. Natura 2000 site Expected impact 1. Niedrāju-Pilka purvs No significant adverse effects are expected on the site as a result of the proposed action. In the case of forest species, it is bounded by the road and surrounding farmland, while noise pollution from the WPP at this distance would be assessed as negligible. The greatest potential impact is predicted to be on the roosting migrant Anser sp. geese roosting in the marsh lakes, however this is an unpredictable value as potential feeding sites can be highly variable from year to year and no long-term observation data are available for such sites around this DL. At the same time, it should be noted that during one observation session in the WPP Park, an intensive migration of Anser sp. in the A-R direction was detected, which may have originated from the Niedrāju-Pilka purvs, but given that no information on birds equipped with GPS transmitters during this particular migration wave has been found, this is only speculative. 2. Salacas ieleja No significant adverse effects on the protected bird population of this SPNA are expected from the proposed action. The highest credible contributing factors would be noise pollution and flicker effects. 3. Vitrupes ieleja No significant adverse effects on the protected bird population of this SPNA are expected from the proposed action. The highest credible contributing factors would be noise pollution and flicker effects. Potential impacts on hydrogeological and hydrological conditions in specially protected areas Given that no construction is planned within the SPNA, no negative impacts of the Proposed Action on the plant species and biotopes of the SPNA are expected. The planned reconstruction works of the drainage system are also assessed as minor and mainly consist of the construction and reconstruction of culverts and fragmentary reconstruction of the existing drainage system. Only in some areas where natural drainage conditions are insufficient will the construction of new soakaways along the WPP access roads be necessary. The construction of these ditches is not expected to have any impact on the hydrological regime of the adjacent SPNAs as they are being constructed to drain rainwater from roads without affecting the functionality of the existing drainage system. The potential impact on plant species and habitats in the SPNA can therefore be considered to be insignificant, as such minor changes would be insignificant against the background of natural seasonal fluctuations in groundwater levels. Summary of the assessment of impacts on Natura 2000 sites Table 7.9.2 below summarises the assessment of impacts on species and habitats in Natura 2000 sites in accordance with Cabinet Regulation No 300 "Procedure for assessing impacts on Sites of European Importance (Natura 2000)". 276  Table 7.9.2. Impact assessment according to the criteria for Natura 2000 impact assessment on species and protected habitats in sites No. Projected trend of the Criteria Indicator p.k. project 1. Habitat area of The areas of habitats and species habitats in the nature the specially reserves "Vitrupes ieleja" and "Niedrāju-Pilkas purvs" and protected the nature park "Salaca Valley" will not change, as the habitat or proposed activity does not directly affect any of the three species Special Protection Areas. Change in habitat area (as a result of the Proposed Action) (ha) and ratio (%) vs: 1. the area of habitat of the habitat or species within the Plant species and Natura 2000 site habitats remain unaffected as they are not directly affected. No change in habitat areas for bird species in Natura 2000 sites 2) the area of habitat of the habitat or species in Natura Plant species and 2000 sites in Latvia as a whole habitats remain unaffected as they are not directly affected. No change in habitat areas for bird species in Natura 2000 sites 3) the total area of habitat of the habitat or species in the Plant species and country habitats remain unaffected as they are not directly affected. No change in habitat areas for bird species in Natura 2000 sites (4) the area of habitat of the habitat or species in the Natura Plant species and 2000 network of sites in the European Union as a whole habitats remain unaffected as they are not directly affected. No change in habitat areas for bird species in Natura 2000 sites 2. Population Changes in population density No change as species density of the and habitats will not specially be affected protected species 3. Fragmentation Fragmentation relative to the initial state. There will be no of habitats of There will be no change in the degree, continuity or change in the degree, specially permanence of fragmentation of habitat areas relative to continuity or protected the baseline, as no direct or indirect effects are expected as permanence of habitat habitats or a result of the Proposed Action. The action will not affect fragmentation relative species habitat polygons in Natura 2000 sites, so no habitat to the baseline, as no fragmentation effects are expected. direct or indirect effects are expected as a result of the Proposed Action. The proposed action will 277 No. Projected trend of the Criteria Indicator p.k. project not affect SPA habitat polygons in Natura 2000 sites, so no habitat fragmentation effects are expected. In the case of the WPP Park, bird habitats are not divided into smaller, isolated fragments. 4. Disturbance to Vascular plant species No change specially For bird species in DL "Vitrupes ieleja" and DP "Salacas Possible minor noise protected ieleja". pollution and flicker species effect 5. Isolation The isolation of the most important habitats protected by The location of the (isolation) of Natura 2000 sites from other habitats of the same type is ecosystems will not be the habitat or determined by the location of the corresponding affected by the habitat of the ecosystems implementation of the specially The isolation of habitats will not change, as the isolation of proposed action protected the most important protected habitats of the Natura 2000 species from site from other habitats of the same type is determined by other habitats the location of appropriate ecosystems (e.g. active areas of or habitats of raised bog), which will not be affected by the the same kind implementation of the Proposed Action. 6. Changes in the No changes in the quality of specially protected habitats are No changes in the habitat quality expected as a result of the implementation of the Proposed quality of specially (structures and Action, as the Proposed Action is not expected to affect the protected habitats are functions) of quality of habitats in Natura 2000 sites. expected as a result of the specially No changes in the quality of specially protected habitats are the implementation of protected expected as a result of the implementation of the Proposed the Proposed Action, habitat or Action, as the Proposed Action is not expected to affect the as the Proposed Action species quality of habitats in nearby Natura 2000 sites. In Natura is not expected to be 2000 sites in the vicinity of the Proposed Action, significant implemented in effects are due to localised conditions and factors within the Natura 2000 sites 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 permanence relative No changes in the patterns and to the initial state. patterns and interactions The implementation of the proposed action does not pose interactions that that determine a threat to the conservation objectives of protected areas in determine the the structure terms of ensuring a favourable level of protection for structure and function and function of protected habitats of EU importance or to the integrity of of the sites are an area protected areas at either local or regional level. expected, as the No changes in the patterns and interactions that determine effects of the the structure and function of the sites are expected, as the Proposed Action are effects of the Proposed Action are not expected to alter the not expected to alter hydrological, geological or other conditions that the hydrological characterise the sites, or to have a significant effect on conditions, geological potential species migration corridors or stepping stones. or other conditions that characterise the site, nor are they expected to have a significant effect on 278 No. Projected trend of the Criteria Indicator p.k. project potential migration corridors or stepping stones for species. The land units included in the area of the proposed action are currently used for forestry activities. Taking into account that the planned construction of the wind farm does not directly affect any Natura 2000 sites, it can be concluded that the implementation of the recommended alternative A will not have direct or indirect negative impacts on adjacent areas, including specially protected Latvian or EU habitats in specially protected nature areas - Natura 2000 sites. The implementation of the proposed action is not expected to exacerbate the negative impacts identified in the Natura 2000 sites - drainage and changes in species composition due to vegetation succession. Based on the impact assessments and calculations carried out, 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 on: − the objectives of establishing and protecting the Natura 2000 sites referred to above; The objectives for the creation and protection of the sites are summarised in Table 6.4.2 and neither the habitats nor the species listed as objectives for creation will be affected. − factors that have already affected these areas prior to the implementation of the Proposed Action; Factors affecting nature values prior to the implementation of the Proposed Action, such as: grassland overgrowth, succession, agricultural activities, diffuse pollution of surface waters from agricultural and forestry activities, erosion, forestry activities, invasive alien species, etc., summarised in Table 6.4.2, the Proposed Action will not increase the impact of these factors on nature values in Natura 2000 sites. − the importance of Natura 2000 sites for the coherence of the national and biogeographical network. 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 Sites of European Importance (Natura 2000)". Overall, when assessing the impacts on Natura 2000 sites, the experts concluded that: 1) The Proposed Action is not expected to have a direct impact on plant species and habitats of Natura 2000 sites; it will not result in fragmentation of species and habitats, or alteration of characteristic structures and functions; 2) no significant adverse effects on the ecological functions, integrity, conservation and use objectives of Natura 2000 sites are expected from the Proposed Action; 3) Location of the proposed activity and expected cumulative impact with other wind farms in Latvia and the immediate surroundings in the north of Latvia: ✓ the types of impacts that could overlap with other WPP parks could be related to noise, changes in the hydrological regime, impacts on the landscape, impacts on bird species, 279  ✓ 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 is no wind parks built in the northern part of Latvia, but there are wind parks for which environmental impact assessments have been carried out or are in various stages of preparation; information on their location in relation to the Limbaži wind park is given in Figure 3.2.4 in Chapter 3.2. The assessment of the cumulative environmental impacts of wind farms is based on publicly available information on these wind parks; 4) 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). According to Globalforestwatch313, the land cover of the Limbaži WPP is divided as follows: natural forests - 1,200 ha, planted forests - 669 ha and other land use - 28 ha (Figure 7.9.1). Figure 7.9.1. Land cover distribution of WPP Limbaži according to Global forest watch314 . Comparing the data published on the portal, it can be concluded that in the period from 2001 to 2023, the area of forest in the LVM study lands of the Limbaži WPP Park decreased by 614 ha or 33% of the total area (Figure 7.9.2). 313 https://www.globalforestwatch.org/ 314 Ibid, 280  Figure 7.9.2. Reduction of forest cover in the area of LVM study lands of the Limbaži WPP in the period 2001-2023 Figure 7.9.3 provides a visual representation of forest land changes in the Limbaži WPP in 2001, 2010, 2020 and 2023. The area of forest stands in the LVM study area of the Limbaži WPP increased by 25 ha between 2000 and 2020, the increase is shown in the map fragment for 2023. 281 Figure 7.9.3. Changes in forest area in the LVM study area of WPP Limbaži (2001, 2010, 2020 and 2023) 282 7.10. Potential impacts on changes to hydrological and hydrogeological regimes The assessment of the construction process has identified the following potential negative impacts on the hydrological and hydrogeological regimes during construction: − potential impacts on drainage and drainage systems; − contamination of ground and groundwater and impacts on water abstraction points; − changes in soil structure and moisture in the area of influence of the proposed activity; − potential impacts on SPNAs. Impact on drainage and drainage systems As already mentioned, the area of the Proposed Action is reclaimed. No major drainage system construction and/or realignment works are foreseen during the construction of the WPP. However, the Proposed Action will require the construction of new access roads to the WPP construction sites. The area around the planned WPPs has high groundwater levels, so to ensure that the roads can be operated in both dry and wet weather conditions, ditches will be created along the roads in areas where natural runoff will be insufficient, the location of which will be determined during construction design. If the planned roads cross open watercourses, new culverts will need to be built or existing culverts will need to be rebuilt. The requirements of the Cabinet of Ministers Regulation No 329 of 30 June 2015 "Regulations on Latvian Building Standard LBN 224-15 "Melioration Systems and Hydrotechnical Structures"" will be complied with when designing and constructing elements of the drainage system. According to the TIAN of Salacgrīva parish of Limbaži municipality, the following requirements for the maintenance and installation of drainage systems must be observed when using the territory: − to prevent overwatering and rising groundwater levels, existing artificial and natural watercourses must be maintained or realigned in accordance with the drainage realignment project, incorporating ditches and watercourses into a single drainage system; − where a new access road is constructed across an open ditch or watercourse, measures must be taken to preserve or create culverted ditches and watercourses; − if ditches need to be filled in when the site is developed, new ditches must first be created in their place. If a ditch cannot be created, it can be replaced by a pipeline and, if necessary, additional drainage can be created by designing and approving a drainage system realignment project. If the construction is carried out in accordance with the requirements of the Law on Land Reclamation, the above-mentioned Cabinet Regulations and the TIAN of Limbaži Municipality Salacgrīvas parish, it is not expected that the construction process of the WPP parks could have a negative impact on the functioning of the drainage systems in the territory of the planned WPP parks or their surroundings. Contamination of soil and groundwater and impacts on water abstraction points Given that the area of the proposed activity is not located in the protection zones around water abstraction points, there is no risk of groundwater contamination, and no special measures are required for the construction and operation of the WPP. Potential swamping processes in the area of the Proposed Action are spatially very limited and will not develop during the construction and operation of the WPP. 283 Changes in soil structure and moisture as a result of the proposed activity The areas of the proposed activity are located in woodland, dominated by turf podzolic soils and pseudoglacial soils. In areas where new roads and sites are planned for the installation of the WPP, as well as in areas where WPP foundations are to be constructed, topsoil will be removed before construction work starts. Given that the removed topsoil could be used for reclamation of the site, no significant changes to the soil structure and moisture in the area of the Proposed Operation are foreseen. When assessing the impact of ditches along new access roads on adjacent forest land, it can be predicted that no changes in soil moisture are expected in these areas, as a system of drainage ditches has already been established in these areas, the purpose of which is to ensure optimum moisture conditions, allowing for quality conditions for the growth and management of forest stands. The proposed activity has no impact on forestry activities. 7.11. Summary of mitigation measures A summary of mitigation measures for the WPP included in the recommended alternative EIAs for the construction, operation and operation phases of the WPP is attached as Annex 12 (electronic Excel file due to its size). 284 8. JUSTIFICATION OF THE CHOSEN ALTERNATIVE IN THE LIGHT OF A COMPARISON OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS The aim of the Energy Security Law is to promote the production of renewable energy, to promote the 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 SEB has been received, the Cabinet of Ministers decides on the approval of the Proposed Action. The EIA for the proposed action assesses the alternatives for the location of the WPP park and the technological alternatives - height alternatives, three different heights of the WPP. The implementation of each of the alternatives evaluated will make it possible to achieve the objective of the Proposed Action: to install new WPPs, with a maximum rated capacity of 8 MW per plant. A summary, taking into account the assessments of an ornithologist, a species and habitat expert, a landscape expert, a bat expert, a hydrologist and an assessment of physical impacts, of the 37 WPP locations is given in Table 8.1. The red shading is used for WPPs and environmental impact areas where significant negative impacts have been identified, the yellow shading for WPPs and environmental impact areas where adverse impacts have been identified and the green shading for environmental impact areas where no adverse or significant impacts have been identified. For the potential locations of the WPPs in the southern part of the WPP Park, the assessment of additional vascular plant, moss and lichen species and the development of a solution for the connection to the AST, as well as the study of additional impacts on freshwater for the power line crossing over the Svētupe River were not carried out at this stage, therefore the impact assessment for these WPPs is coloured orange. For all WPPs, undesirable effects have been identified which can be avoided or reduced by conditions or constraints in the design, construction or operation of the WPP (see Annex 12 for conditions and constraints for recommended WPPs). Table 8.1. Summary of expert evaluation No. WPP Birds Bats Habitats/species Noise Flicker Landscapes Hydrology p.k. 1 D1 2 D2 3 D3 4 D4 5 D5 6 D6 7 D7 8 D8 250 9 D9 250 10 D10 11 D11 12 D12 13 D13 285  No. WPP Birds Bats Habitats/species Noise Flicker Landscapes Hydrology p.k. 14 D14 15 D15 16 D16 17 Z1 18 Z2 19 Z3 20 Z4 21 Z5 22 Z6 23 Z7 24 Z8 250 25 Z9 250 26 Z10 27 Z11 250 28 Z12 29 Z13 30 Z14 31 Z15 250 32 Z16 33 Z17 250 34 Z18 250 35 Z19 36 Z20 37 Z21 Based on this assessment, recommended alternatives for the location of the WPP park have been defined: Alternative A: In the N part of the WPP Park study area (12 WPPs) without exclusionary restrictions - see Chapter 4, Figure 4.1.7; Alternative B: WPP without exclusion restrictions in Part N and conditional on WPP in Part D, to be decided only after further assessment of vascular plant, moss and lichen species and development of a solution for the connection to the AST, as well as additional impacts on freshwater for the study power line crossing over the Svētupe in the study area (20 WPP) - see Chapter 4, Figure 4.1.7. The technological alternatives were evaluated in the following areas: landscape, cultural history, tourism and recreation, noise and flicker. 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 park, the two alternatives do not differ significantly. Both alternatives for the proposed operation are assessed as low risk areas for collisions with raptors if all WPPs are equipped with containment chamber systems. Both Alternatives A and B have the potential to have negative impacts on the breeding population of barn owls. According to the results of the pre-construction monitoring, the application of owl protection measures should be assessed: noise restrictions, which are recommended to be addressed by choosing the quietest possible WPP model. 286 Alternative B WPP D8, D9, D10, D11, D12, D13, D14, D15, D16 pose risks to potential hen harrier rookeries, but the southern WPP are not recommended at this time unless additional moss, lichen and vascular plant surveys are undertaken. Impacts on migratory bird species would be low under both alternatives, as migratory species may pass through the WPP Park or stay at low levels in the vicinity of the edge WPP during the migration period. Temporarily high presence of migratory birds is possible. In order to significantly reduce the risk of collisions with large migratory birds (mainly Anser sp. and Branta sp. geese as well as swans) that may pass through the WPP park area or stay at low intensity in the vicinity of the edge WPP during the migration period, it is recommended to equip the WPP park with camera system(s) that can, if necessary (depending on the specifics of the particular solution), slow down or stop the rotation of one or more WPP or the turbines of the whole park Although the proposed WPP park is not considered to be located in a distinct migration route or bird concentration area based on survey information, it is likely to have temporarily high concentrations of birds. Summary of effects on bat species If automatic shutdown or non-start-up of the WPP is ensured (see 7.7.2. chapter 7.6.2) and bat monitoring is ensured in the first and second year after the start of operation of the WPP, and if, based on the results of the monitoring, the WPP complies with the WPP operating restrictions, the establishment of a WPP park is allowed for both siting alternatives, as the expert has concluded that the establishment of a WPP park is allowed for all sites except D12 under certain conditions (see Chapter 7.6.3). Bat activity in the area of the WPP parks may increase significantly after the construction of the WPPs, and bats may appear in large numbers in places where they were not detected during the feasibility study. Bats are strongly attracted to WPP, although the reasons for this have not yet been clearly established. The northern part of the proposed development (Z1-Z21) is generally considered to be 'safer' in terms of the risk of collisions with bats, provided that the WPPs are not sited close to the quarry in the west of this part of the site, which is currently the case. In the southern part (D1-D16), forests generally have higher bat activity and a higher proportion of suitable foraging and roosting habitats. Comparison of location alternatives A and B in terms of impacts on habitats and plant species Overall, if the proposed activity were to be implemented at a scale of 45 WPP without mitigation measures, it would have significant adverse effects on protected habitats and protected species and their habitats at local and regional scales, and significant adverse effects at national scale. If up to 20 WPPs are deployed, the number and area of habitats and species destroyed would be significantly reduced by mitigation measures. The updated WPP siting for Alternative A minimises potential impacts on protected natural values by clarifying the configuration of WPP locations and avoiding WPP locations that would result in impacts on larger areas of protected habitats and protected species habitats. Other mitigation measures should be taken during the design process, in the selection of cable route locations and the construction of process areas where they may have an impact on the hydrological regime. Design solutions should take into account recommended mitigation distances based on forest habitat ecology and ensure that side ditches constructed adjacent to infrastructure facilities are not undercut and do not divert water away from habitats and species habitats. It is recommended to choose Alternative A, taking into account the expert conditions for mitigation measures. 287 Alternative B is not recommended: the decision on the construction of the WPP should be taken only after additional assessment of vascular plant, moss and lichen species and the development of a solution for the connection to the AST, as well as an additional study of the impact on freshwater of the power line crossing over the Svētupe River in the study area. Summary of impacts on landscapes, cultural heritage, recreation and tourism Scenario A, with an initial deployment of 14 WPPs, has the least impact on landscape, heritage, recreation and tourism. In some places, the impact remains high, despite a significant reduction in impact compared to the maximum model. In the expert's assessment, Z1 and Z8are undesirable. Z8 construction in the last version of the alternatives is not recommended according to the recommendation of the habitat experts Scenario 'A' has only a slightly higher impact on the landscape at regional level. The differences between scenario A and scenario A' are local, due to the increase in height of the 4 WPP, but as this occurs in the most sensitive locations, this scenario is not desirable. Scenario B has much greater impacts on landscape, heritage, recreation and tourism, with the addition of 8 WPPs in the southern part of the wind farm to Scenario A. Scenario 'B' has the biggest impact. The differences between scenario B and scenario B' are local. Adjustments following additional expert assessment of recommended alternatives Following the additional expert opinions, the assessment of the WPPs to be implemented was revised and significant environmental impact factors - impacts on natural values - were identified for three more WPPs, one of which (Z6) needs to be re-sited at the design stage. After further assessment of the alternative locations defined above, Alternative A has 12 and Alternative B has 20 WPPs, provided that the decision to construct WPPs is only taken after further assessment of vascular plant, moss and lichen species and the development of a solution for the connection to the AST, as well as additional freshwater impact studies for the power line crossing over the Svētupe River in the study area. Table 8.2. Alternatives for the location of the Limbaži WPP after additional expert assessment. Name of the Habitat expert additions No.p.k. Alternative A Alternative B WPP site 1 D3 V Further assessment needed 2 D4 V Further assessment needed 3 D8 V Further assessment needed 4 D9 V Further assessment needed 5 D10 V Further assessment needed 6 D11 V Further assessment needed 7 D13 V Further assessment needed 8 D14 V Further assessment needed 9 Z1 V V 10 Z2 V V 11 Z3 V V 12 Z4 V V 13 Z5 V V 14 Z6 V V Location to be specified The area may significantly affect the Z8 x x 15 habitat 91D0* 16 Z9 V V 17 Z10 V V 288  Name of the Habitat expert additions No.p.k. Alternative A Alternative B WPP site Significant adverse impacts on wet forest Z11 x x habitats are expected as a result of the 18 construction of the new road 19 Z12 V V 20 Z13 V V 21 Z16 V V 22 Z17 V V Total 12 20 Summary of the comparison of the impacts of the recommended alternatives to the proposed action Impacts assessing the existing situation in the area of the proposed action and the situation expected under the alternative to be implemented: 1. Species and habitats 2. Bats 3. Birds 4. Landscape 5. Cultural history 6. Tourism and recreation 7. Natura 2000 8. Noise 9. Low frequencies 10. Flicker 11. Hydrology 12. Environmental risks and accidents 13. Vibration 14. Climate A notional numerical characterisation has been assigned to the impact scenario assessment, 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 under the legislation. -2 Slight adverse changes are expected: The proposed activity may result in non-achievement of the environmental quality objectives set out in the regulatory enactments 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. 289 Rating Explanation 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, 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. 290  Table 8.4. Comparison of recommended alternatives to the proposed action Object or type Alternative Alternative Notes of impact for location for location B A A' Technological B' Technological Technological Technological alternative A alternative B alternative alternative 1. Species and -1 -1 -3 -3 As a result of the construction of WPP Park Alternative A , one of the largest areas of habitats and species habitats affected habitats is associated with the construction of connection 1A A and 1A R, forming the road to the substation, while in the case of connection Alternative 2A, the proposed activity will have an overall insignificant adverse effect at local and regional scales - some species individuals and small areas of species habitats and protected habitats will be destroyed but this will not have an adverse effect on species populations and habitat conservation status. The construction of the WPP Park Alternative B, which includes the WPP of the southern part of the WPP Park, is not recommended at the moment, as it has not been subject to an assessment of vascular plant, moss and lichen species and the development of a solution for the connection to the AST, as well as an additional impact study on freshwater for the power line crossing over the Svētupe River. Information to assess the residual effects of the Proposed Action is incomplete for Alternative B. 2. Birds -1 -1 -1 -1 The main expected impacts are collisions, habitat destruction, habitat use limitation (noise and flicker), barrier effect. If the WPP park is to be constructed, the application of mitigation measures (as recommended in the Annex to Chapter 7.11) during construction and operation is a mandatory condition 3. Bats 0 0 -1 1- If automatic shutdown or non-start-up of the WPP is ensured (see Chapter 7.7.2); bat monitoring is ensured in the first and second year after the WPP starts operation; and the WPP operation restrictions are respected during the WPP operation based on the monitoring results, the establishment of a WPP park is allowed for both siting alternatives. Construction of WPP D12 is not allowed. The northern part (Alternative A) is generally considered "safer" in terms of the risk of collisions with bats, and it should be noted that the southern part is not currently recommended for WPP, so implementation of Alternative B is not feasible at this time. 4. Landscape -1 -2 -1 -2 Scenario A with 14 WPPs has the least impact on the landscape. Scenario 'A', at a regional level, has only a slightly higher impact due to the increase in height of the 4 WPPs, but as this occurs in the most sensitive locations, this scenario is not desirable. Scenario B has a much higher impact on the landscape, as 8 WPPs are added to Scenario A in the southern part of the wind farm. Scenario B' has the greatest impact on the landscape. The differences between scenario B and scenario B' are local. 291 5. Cultural -1 -2 -1 -2 Scenario A with 14 WPPs has the lowest impact on cultural heritage. history Scenario 'A', at a regional level, has only a slightly higher impact due to the increase in height of the 4 WPPs, but as this occurs in the most sensitive locations, this scenario is not desirable. Scenario B has a much higher impact on cultural heritage, as 8 WPPs are added to Scenario A in the southern part of the wind farm. Scenario B' has the greatest impact on cultural heritage. The differences between scenario B and scenario B' are local. 6. Tourism and -1 -2 -1 -2 Scenario A with 14 WPPs has the lowest impact on recreation and tourism. recreation Scenario 'A', at a regional level, has only a slightly higher impact due to the increase in height of the 4 WPPs, but as this occurs in the most sensitive locations, this scenario is not desirable. Scenario B has a much higher impact on recreation and tourism, with the addition of 8 WPPs in the southern part of the wind park to Scenario A. Scenario B' has the greatest impact on recreation and tourism. The differences between scenario B and scenario B' are local. 7.Natura 2000 No significant adverse effects on Natura 2000 sites have been identified that would result in any of the WPP park location alternatives not being implemented, however, given that the southern part of the WPP has not been fully assessed for impacts on SPA species and impacts on, the expected impacts on Natura 2000 of implementing Alternative B are currently unlikely. 8. Noise 0 0 0 0 No exceedances of the noise limit values are not expected as a result of the noise calculations 9. Low 0 0 0 0 For low-frequency noise, the limit values and procedures in Denmark are the basis, as there are no limit values in Latvia. The frequencies 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) 10.Vibration 0 0 0 0 There are no laws and regulations in Latvia that regulate the level of vibration in the environment. The proposed activity does not foresee any WPP closer than 800 m to any human dwelling. The vibration magnitude of the WPP at a distance of 300 m was assessed to be lower than the lowest limit value set in the now obsolete Cabinet Regulations for operating theatres at night, i.e. the vibration acceleration should not have been higher than 0.028 m/s2 (see Chapter 7.2.3) 11. Flicker 0 0 0 0 Conditions to reduce flicker impacts have been set for the location of WPP Alternative 3, WPP Alternative A and WPP Alternative 4, WPP Alternative B. The expected impact of flicker effects is negligible for both alternatives. 12. Air 0 0 0 0 No impacts on air quality are expected such that precluding conditions for the implementation of the action can be identified. 13. 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 Limbaži Municipality Land Use and Development Regulations, 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 specially protected plant species and habitats 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. 14. 0 0 0 0 The proposed activity is located entirely within forest land, with no other sensitive receptors, public facilities or residential Environmental dwellings in the vicinity. 292 risks and The calculations are based on the risks of natural disasters, mechanical damage, air traffic impact of the WPP fleet and BESS accidents container accident. For each of the predicted risks and emergencies, the EIA defines mitigation measures that, if followed and implemented, are not expected to increase the risk of accidents (see Chapter 5.3) 15. 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 will be: 343 856 t and Alternatives B: 569 102 tonnes CO2 eq. (see Chapter 5.4), it should be noted that the southern part is not currently recommended for a WPP, so that the implementation of Alternative B is currently not feasible. 293 Overall, the comparison and analysis of the alternatives for the location and height of the WPP in Table 8.4 concludes that Alternatives A and A' can be recommended for construction: 12 In the northern part of the WPP construction study area. For Alternative B 8 in the southern part of the WPP study area, the following essential preconditions have to be fulfilled: assessment of additional vascular plant, moss and lichen species and development of a solution for the AST connection, as well as additional freshwater impact studies for the power line crossing over the Svētupe River. Information to assess the residual effects of the Proposed Action on species and habitats is incomplete for Alternative B. Figure 8.1. Recommended location for the proposed action - Limbaži WPP 294 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. Estonian territory is no closer than 13.2 km to the nearest assessed WPP. 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 Limbaži WPP-Park 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 Posted by Explanation of how this has been assessed impacts to be considered in in the EIA report the EIA by the Ministry of Climate of the Republic of Estonia 1. The proposed action may Ministry of An expert opinion on mammals is provided affect: Economic Affairs for game. - movement of game, and The noise assessment is presented in - noise pollution, Communications Chapter 7.2. No transboundary effects have - the local population, of the Republic been identified. - power grid stability of Estonia 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. 2. The nearest WPPs are likely to Estonian The nearest WPP is about 6 km from the be closer than 5 km from the Environmental Gulf of Riga. According to the methodology coast of the Gulf of Riga. The Administration for assessing the impacts of birds and wind coastline up to 5 km away is an farms, currently under development315 , the important bird migration area closest to the seaward edge of 500- corridor for both breeding and 1000 m is considered to be the most migratory birds. important for migration. The EIA report should The design of the WPP Park meets the main necessarily assess the impact of conditions - the WPP towers are not located the Proposed Action on birds, less than 500-1000 metres from the bats and green corridors (green shoreline of the Gulf of Riga, the WPP network), nature conservation towers are not planned in areas where long- values, including the term feeding or roosting sites of migratory assessment of cumulative birds have been identified or are known in impacts. Provide for impact the past. assessment (monitoring) and, if The impacts on the different aspects of necessary, mitigation measures nature values are assessed in general in Chapter 7.6. The effects on bats are assessed in Chapter 7.6.4. 315 https://lvafa.vraa.gov.lv/projects/1-08_74_2022 295 Since 27.09.2004, the "Convention on the Transboundary Effects of Industrial Accidents" has been in force, establishing transnational cooperation in the field of industrial accidents. The quantity and hazardousness of chemical substances at the site of the Proposed Activity do not reach the limit values specified in this Convention; therefore the provisions of this Regulation are not applicable to the construction of the Limbaži WPP Park and its associated infrastructure. 296 10. INFORMATION ON THE FORECASTING METHODS USED IN THE EIA REPORT The following research methods were applied in the preparation of the EIA report: − literature analysis 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 WPP 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 the EIA has mainly analysed the experience of other countries with wind energy development and its impacts. In order to assess the impact of the Proposed Development on cultural and historical assets, an analysis of archival material was undertaken, identifying existing and potential cultural and historical assets, including archaeological assets, located or potentially located within the Proposed Development area. Field surveys for the assessment have been carried out in and around the area of the Proposed Action by experts on birds, bats, mammals, plant species and habitats, and a landscape expert. During the preparation of the EIA Report, the area of the Proposed Action was also surveyed to record the technical condition of the roads and to assess the drainage systems. Ornithofauna assessment The identification of the study areas was carried out according to a study methodology agreed by the NCA, applying a 500 m or 3000 m buffer zone to the given locations of the WPP. Sources of information and cartographic material used in the chamber survey (GIS environment) before and after the field survey: • Cartographic material of the Latvian Geospatial Information Agency LVM GEO and other free access WMS layers: orthophotos, NGR orthophotos, LIDAR vegetation surface model, etc; • Satellite imagery from the Sentinel-2 programme, the fieldwork project uses the 2022.08.28 composite image; • Information available in the NCA's nature data management system "OZOLS" (hereinafter referred to as "DDPS "OZOLS", viewed from 20.06.2022) on bird sites, SPNAs and microreserves in the study area or its immediate vicinity; • information received from the Proponent of the Proposed Action on bird sites and large twig nests from information provided by LVM to the Proponent of the Proposed Action; • taxing of forest patches in the vicinity of the proposed activity site in open access data; • the location of inventoried and priority sites for the species group "Woodpeckers" and the species group "Owls", available as a digital annex to the respective nature management plans;316 317 316 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. 317 Bergmanis, M., Priednieks, J., Avotiņš, J., Andris, & Priedniece, I. 2020. Lesser Woodpecker Dryobates minor, Medium Woodpecker Leiopicus medius, White-backed Woodpecker Dendrocopos leucotos, Great Spotted Woodpecker dendrocopos major, Picoides tridactylus, Dryocopus martius and Picus canus. 297  • chamber work in a GIS environment using QGIS (3.22-3.28) in the LKS92 coordinate system (ESPG:3059). Fieldwork methodology: the methodology used for the fieldwork is described in Annex 18 of the bird expert report (attached as Annex 6). It was agreed on 30 September 2022 with the Nature Conservation Agency, represented by the lead expert of the Monitoring and Planning Unit of the Nature Conservation Department of the Nature Conservation Agency. Species and habitat assessment Surveys of the northern part of the WPP Park (recommended for construction Alternative A) have been planned and the potential impacts of the Proposed Action have been assessed taking into account the potential impact zones: for direct impacts (changes to the ground cover and topography associated with the construction of the facilities and movement of machinery) - the area of the construction sites and a 30 m wide corridor for new roads, as well as a 10 m wide corridor for cable routes outside the road right-of- way; for potential impacts on microclimate - a 50 m strip. For potential impacts on the hydrological regime, the maximum potential impact has been assessed according to the recommended impact assessment distances (Table 1b) for a 1.5 m deep ditch according to the forest vegetation type (FAT) in the "Guidelines for certified experts in species and habitat conservation for the assessment of Proposed Activities for the construction of forest roads and the establishment, rehabilitation and reconstruction of forest drainage systems"318 : 100 m - wet damselfly (Dms), narrow-leaved sedge (As) 110 m - marsh (Pv), heath (Kv), mint (Km) 130 m - reed grass (Nd), wet sedge (Grs), narrow-leaved sedge (Ks) 150 m - wet ox (Vrs), broad-leaved bull (Ap) 180 m - wet mint (Mrs), sedge (Db), bent (Lk), heather (Av), mint (Am), broad-leaved sedge (Kp). Noise assessment methods 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 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 calculation method". Methods for assessing flicker For the assessment of the flicker effect the Australian guidelines "Best practice guidelines for implementation of wind energy projects in Australia"319 were used (see chapter 5.4), an experiment was carried out in Latvia in 2010 and WindPRO 3.6.366 by EMD International A/S, Ltd Environment licence (client) No.8797. Landscape assessment methods The landscape impact assessment takes into account the Guidelines for Initial Environmental Impact Assessment of Wind Power Plants320, the Guidelines for Local Landscape Planning approved by the Ministry 318 https://environment.lv/assets/upload/Valpene/14.pielikums. Biotopu ekspertu atzinuma kopija (updateēts).pdf 319 https://assets.cleanenergycouncil.org.au/documents/advocacy-initiatives/community-engagement/wind-best- practice-implementation-guidelines.pdf 320 https://www.vvd.gov.lv/lv/media/9969/download?attachment 298 of Environmental Protection321, the landscape impact assessment methodology of the Lithuanian and Latvian researchers Abroms, Kamičkaitė and Ziemeļniece wind farms.322 The assessment also uses methodological material for the study and assessment of Latvian landscapes: "Approaches to Landscape Research and Assessment in Latvia. Methodological material with examples."323 Based on the laser scanning data (las format) prepared by the Latvian Geospatial Information Agency (LGIA), a digital surface model (DSM), digital terrain model (DTM), vegetation elevation model (CHM), as well as 3D models of the planned area of the WPP Park and some of the surrounding areas were created. The raw data produced by the LGIA are obtained by laser scanning (LIDAR). The site in question was laser scanned in 2019324 (so the analysis does not take into account changes that have occurred since then: e.g. deforestation or new growth). The total density of points obtained shall not be less than 4 p/m² (points per square metre), the average density of the points characterising the ground surface shall not be less than 1,5 p/m².325 A visibility model of the site has been developed and sight lines from potentially affected features to the WPP have been established, assessing visibility from these viewpoints. For the visibility analysis, a WPP height of 300 metres was assumed, with additional heights of 275 and 250 metres also assessed for individual WPPs in the scenario analysis. In the area around the planned WPP, where according to the DSM there is currently forest, potential clearing was also included in the model. A 3D model of the study area was created in ArcGIS Pro using DSM and DEM models derived from LIDAR data, and including all 37 potential WPP in the model at a maximum height of 300 m. A detailed 3D model using LIDAR data has been created for the in-depth study sites and other significant viewpoints, and visualisations have been produced to assess the impact of the WPP on the visual qualities of the landscape. Based on the 3D model and photographs of the existing situation, I am looking at the modelled locations of the WPP. The windPro 4.0 software, widely used in wind park planning, was also used to create the photo visualizations. Google Street View images were also used for the photo visualizations, although they are taken from an average height of 2.5 m.326 Based on the raw data, a visibility map has been created (see Landscape Expert's report attached as Annex 9). The visibility analysis of the maximum scenario was carried out using QGIS Visibility: Viewshed plug-in, analysing the areas from which the WPPs would potentially be visible, using human eye height as a potential vantage point (assumed to be 1.6 m in the analysis). The GDAL Viewshed analysis tool has also been used to assess the visibility of individual WPP from their surroundings. The results of the Viewshed analysis were post-processed using the resulting CHM values to account for the effect of vegetation on the visibility of WPP in the visibility data. Methods for assessing hydrological change The impact of changes in the hydrological regime associated with the construction of the WPP on habitats of EU importance in the area of the Proposed Action has been investigated by cameras, and a site survey has been carried out to assess the potentially affected habitats of EU importance identified in the Habitat Expert Opinion. Based on the results of the camera and survey work, a hydrological expert assessment has 321 https://www.varam.gov.lv/sites/varam/files/content/files/vadlinijas_viet_limenim_2019.pdf 322 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. 323 Stokmane, I., Skujāne, D., Ziemeļniece, A., Ņitavska, N., Īle, U., Vugule, K., Markova, M., Spāģe, A., Lāčauniece, I., Klepers, A., Lakovskis, P., Ieviņa, L., 2023. Approaches to landscape research and assessment in Latvia. Methodological material with examples. LBTU, Jelgava. 324 https://www.lgia.gov.lv/sites/lgia/files/document/LV_LAS_shema_1.pdf 325 https://www.lgia.gov.lv/lv/digitalie-augstuma-modeli 326 http://www.educatingsilicon.com/2008/04/18/google-street-view-soon-in-3d/ 299 been prepared on the location of the WPP and service areas and the construction of access roads and cables to the WPP that could be related to changes in the hydrological regime. A detailed assessment is provided in Annex 10 of the EIA Report, which summarises the opinions of the certified natural experts. In order to assess the potential risks identified, a site survey was carried out to assess the potential impact of hydrological changes on the hydrological regime in wet forest habitats of EU importance, using the currently under development "Guidelines for certified experts in the field of species and habitat conservation on the assessment of the Proposed Action regarding the construction of forest roads and forest drainage systems, restoration and reconstruction" (Latvian Environmental Protection Fund funded project No.1-08/29/2023 "Preparation of guidelines and methodological instructions for certified experts and employees of the State Environmental Protection Agency in the field of species and habitat conservation on the assessment of the proposed activities (construction of roads, forest drainage systems, cleaning of water reservoirs)"). The possible distances for the predictions of the impact of dewatering have been determined in accordance with the provisions of the Cabinet of Ministers Regulation No 329 of 30 June 2015 "Regulations on Latvian Building Code LBN 224-15 "Melioration Systems and Hydraulic Structures"". Technical characteristics The technical parameters of the WPP have been provided by the Proponent from GE Renewable Energy. 300 11. TYPES OF SOLUTIONS AND MEASURES TO AVOID SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE EFFECTS ON THE ENVIRONMENT With regard to landscape, heritage and tourism and recreation, a number of measures are proposed to offset the visual impact of the Proposed Development through the development and maintenance of valuable viewpoints and heritage sites in the vicinity of the Proposed Development. The actions are summarised in Table 11.1. These are recommendatory measures, and their implementation can be considered in cooperation with the municipality of Limbaži. Table 11.1. Recommended measures to compensate for visual impact No. Event Background 1. Develop the viewpoint above the outcrop on the Landscape improvement south side of Lībiešu upuralas (at t Kuiķuļu Svētozolu measure in the vicinity of site) by clearing overgrowth and creating Lībiešu upuralas infrastructure that, while increasing the visibility of the WPP, would primarily improve the view towards the Svētupe and directly towards Lībiešu upuralas area. 2. In case of construction of the WPP in the southern Impact on the IPT "Burlaku part of the Proposed Action, in cooperation with LVM sils". and the municipality, assess the possibility of creating IPT or recreational forests in another location in the vicinity of Salacgrīva, further away from the Proposed Action. 3. Conservation of the forest in the area of the cultural Reducing the visual impact on monument "The baking site" (No 1477) and in the the view of a cultural immediate vicinity on the left bank of the Svētupe monument. River. 4. Preservation of the forest in the territory of the Reducing the visual impact on cultural monument "Kilzumu Senkapi (Zviedru kapi)" the view from the monument. (No 1473) and preservation of the forest in a 70 m zone around the boundary of the monument, in the area to the N of the road V143. 5. Preservation of trees (overgrowth) above Lībiešu Reduction of visual impact on upuralas on the right bank of the Svētupe River the main view of the cave and (between the steep bank and the houses of Kuiķuļi outcrop. and Lielkuiķuļi) 301 12. MEASURES TO MONITOR ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY 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, hydrological regime of the site can be predicted with a high degree of accuracy by assessing the scope of the Proposed Action and using calculation methods. During the nature surveys, the impact of the WPP on wild bird and bat populations has been assessed by assessing the significance of the impact. For some wild bird species there is conflicting scientific information on the effects of the proposed WPP on them, so the effects of the proposed WPP on animal groups such as birds and bats should be further assessed through monitoring and, if necessary, the introduction of additional mitigation measures not identified in this report. The scope of monitoring and the methods to be used are based on the opinions and recommendations of certified natural experts, as well as the experience of other countries and scientific publications in the field. Bird monitoring Population monitoring should be planned and initiated prior to the construction of the WPP Park in order to obtain an assessment of the baseline status of the site's birds. Population monitoring of protected species Monitoring is required to detect any changes in the population present and to assess any potential impacts within the WPP Park. In order for monitoring to adequately assess species populations and changes and to assess possible causes, and for these data to be comparable between different WPP sites, all monitoring should follow a common framework. For the results to be useful for assessing the impact of the WPP, rather than just describing possible changes in the populations of the monitored species, a comparable control area without the impact of the WPP is also needed. In order to meet these conditions, at least in the current situation, monitoring in the area should be planned after the final technical design (similar to the preparation of the study design in the context of the opinion, based on the distances indicated in the study methodology around the sites of the Proposed Action or landfills where relocations are possible). This would provide an objective "zero" assessment of the area that would be considered to be affected by the Proposed Action and the bird populations present in it during the pre-construction period. As this area will be reliably different from the study area used for the opinion, it is not possible to make an objective judgement on the extent to which these landfill sites will differ before the final technical design is available. A fixed monitoring study area, defined as the study area in two distance bands, is essential for population estimates within it (or at least population estimates) and for the planning section for a rational arrangement of monitoring stations to obtain unbiased results. Monitoring, similar to the survey, is planned for the main potentially affected groups of protected species in the study area, following the methodology used in the survey. However, if the monitoring authorities consider that a group of species should not be monitored, or conversely should be monitored for species that have not been studied before (e.g. on the basis of information that may be expressed in forthcoming guidance on WPP research), the experts may take this into account and not monitor or instead monitor these species or groups of species, provided that this is comparable in the long term, including with other aspects of monitoring and the original research. Monitoring should be carried out during the pre-construction, construction and operational periods. Monitoring should be carried out annually before and during construction, and every second year during operation, covering at least five breeding seasons, if possible, for the entire operation period. However, 302 the consultant considers that the monitoring programme should be agreed with the NCA, and its necessity and duration should be assessed. The annual monitoring recommended during the pre-construction and construction periods is mainly justified to allow for local extinctions and recolonisations. The difference in the monitoring period from the approach of monitoring for five consecutive years during the operational period, which has been more common in Latvian practice so far, is based on the generation turnover time, which for example for diurnal birds of prey is rounded off by about ten years per generation. At the same time, it should also be noted that population-level impact assessment would require monitoring data on at least three generational changes. Monitoring of dead birds Given that a very important aspect in the assessment of direct impacts is the determination of the number of birds killed in collisions (including not only protected species) and potentially also the cause of death (physical collision, barotrauma, bird death unrelated to the operation of the WPP), at the same time, the literature327 328 suggests that due to the inaccuracy of observer counts, the limited findability under different circumstances, and the presence of scavenged remains, it is recommended that automatic camera systems or similar solutions that detect traumatised or dead birds are used to implement this monitoring point.329 330 Bat monitoring Monitoring of bats should be ensured in the first and second years after the start of operation of the WPP. The monitoring methodology is developed and standardised by a bat species expert certified by the NCA according to the site specifics and the 2022 Guidelines for assessing the impact of wind power plants on bats in Latvia. The monitoring methodology includes: 1. acoustic monitoring by installing automatic ultrasonic detectors in the nacelles of at least five WPP and/or on the lower wing leading edge level to continuously record bat activity from at least 1 May to 30 September. The placement of WPP recorders shall be random. The number/location of WPP and detectors to be included in the monitoring shall be agreed with a certified bat expert before installation; 2) counts of bat fatalities at least at those WPP where acoustic monitoring is carried out (the number of WPP to be surveyed may be increased where possible). The search for dead bats must be carried out by trained searchers, together with the monitoring of the effectiveness of the search and the timing of the disappearance of the carcasses. Monitoring should be carried out 2 or 3 years after the installation of the WPP, depending on the degree of overgrowth. To facilitate the search for dead bats, it is advisable to create a vegetation-free ground surface around the base of the WPP within a radius of at least 50 m or to ensure regular grass cutting during the monitoring period (if the area is not reforested). There is no need to create a 50 m buffer zone around the WPPs that will be installed in forests, in addition to deforestation. Monitoring of mammals Given that there are no assessments of the impact of WPP on non-flying mammals in Latvia based on wildlife studies or monitoring data, the expert does not propose mandatory monitoring requirements for 327 Rydell, J., Ottvall, R., Pettersson, S., Green, M. 2017. The effects of wind power on birds and bats. Swedish Environmental Protection Agency, Sweden. 328 Perrow, M. R. 2017. Wildlife and Wind Farms, Conflicts and Solutions: Potential Effects. Onshore. 329 Ibid, 330 https://doi.org/10.3390/jimaging7120272 303 the wind farm in question. 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 underlined by all the authors of the scientific publications used in the opinion. Monitoring is carried out in accordance with a monitoring programme developed and agreed with a certified expert. In the case of mammal monitoring, take into account the basic requirements for monitoring the impact of wild mammals and evaluating the results of the monitoring, as set out in the study "A synthesis - SWEDISH ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REPORT".331 331 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. 304 13. PUBLIC OPINION AND OPINION POLLS 13.1. Initial public consultation The initial public consultation on the Limbaži WPP Park and related infrastructure project took place from 10 to 30 November 2023. The report of the initial public consultation submitted to the NEB on 14 December 2023 is attached as Annex 3. The report on the initial public consultation includes the following information: a notice on the public consultation in the newspaper "Auseklis" No 129 (10726) of 10.11.2023; a report on the notices sent to the residents and the minutes of the meeting of the initial public consultation held on 22.11.2023. Following the initial public consultation meeting, the SEB forwarded to the operator of the proposed activity the public comments received during the initial public consultation on the proposed activity and the proposals for the environmental impact assessment to be assessed and included in the EIA report on the proposals submitted by the public, indicating how these 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, in February 2024, consultative working group meetings were held in Salacgrīva on the Limbaži WPP Park on the following topics: "Landscape", "Biodiversity", "Physical impacts of WPP parks" and "Socio-economic feasibility and climate change impacts of WPP parks". 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, environmental experts from Ltd Enviroprojekts, as well as experts from LVP, met with the residents and presented the results of their studies, as part of the environmental impact assessment, as well as explained the methodology and approach to the aspect under study. In turn, citizens actively asked questions and made their own additions, suggestions 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 (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 new renewable electricity generation plants should be built in Latvia 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 305 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 park 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 assessing publicly expressed concerns about the negative impact of wind parks on the lives of nearby residents, more than ½ of respondents generally agreed that WPP kill birds (56%), that wind farms negatively affect the value of nearby property (56%) and that WPP generate annoying sound (54%). When it comes to the best and most suitable locations for new power plants, the best location for wind power is offshore (51%). 306 307 308 309 310 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, direct and indirect growth in the number of jobs involved, 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 awarded the LVP project the status of Priority Investment Project. 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) aims 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%. 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 quotations 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. 2024. Latvia’s National Energy and Climate Plan 2021-2030, updated in 2010, 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 (Figure 14.1) with a total onshore capacity of ~12 GW (excluding those that have been discontinued) with Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs) submitted/underway/ongoing/completed at various stages of development in Latvia. 311  Figure 14.1. Environmental Impact Assessments submitted/ongoing/continued/completed for 82 WPP parks in Latvia at different stages of development332 332 https://www.vpvb.gov.lv/lv/ietekmes-uz-vidi-novertejumu-projekti,situation as of 23.09.2024 312 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 dozen (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 directly affecting the place where the project is to be implemented (locality, municipality); − local impact affecting the project area (region); − national impact, affecting the economy of the country where the project is implemented; − international spillovers affecting other economies (e.g. in the EU and EEA) 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)333 on job growth in WPP park construction projects, as well as the estimates of the proponents of the Proposed Action, several hundred persons (depending on the number of WPPs) could be temporarily employed in the construction of WPPs, the number of persons permanently employed during the operation of such WPPs could be up to 10 (as WPPs are highly automated technologies where the main human resource input is mainly in the monitoring and maintenance of the operation). 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 almost 7 TWh (6887 GWh in 2023) of electricity, some of which is imported annually. The availability of electricity on the market is one of the factors that has 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 they produce. 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 facilities in the area, as there is a lack of studies of this kind in Latvia, but studies in other European countries show that: 333 https://www.irena.org/Publications 313  − 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 construction334 335,336; − analysing the dynamics of users of recreational services after the construction of the WPP, no significant drop in turnover can be detected337,338,339. 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 usable land, due to the fact that WPPs and related 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 studies340,341, 342 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 studies 343 344, 345, 346, 347, 348have not found such an effect. In studies where negative impacts have been found, a correlation is observed between the distance 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 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, the information collected by the State Land Service on changes in housing market prices shows that after 2015, when the conditions under which persons can obtain fixed-term residence permits in Latvia were changed, real 334 https://www.nhsec.nh.gov/projects/2013-02/documents/131212appendix_31.pdf 335 C. Aitchison, Tuorism impact of wind farms, The University of Edinburgh, 2012 336 V. Braunova, Impact study of wind power on tourism on Gotland, Uppsala University 337 https://www.nhsec.nh.gov/projects/2013-02/documents/131212appendix_31.pdf 338 C. Aitchison, Tuorism impact of wind farms, The University of Edinburgh, 2012 339 V. Braunova, Impact study of wind power on tourism on Gotland, Uppsala University 340 Y. Sunak, R. Madlener, The Impact of wind farms on property values: a geographically weighted hedonic pricing model, Aachen, Germany, 2013 341 S. Sims, P. Dent, Property stigma: wind farms are just the latest fashion. Journal of Property Investment and Finance, 2007 342 M.D. Heintzelman, C.M. Tuttle, Values in the wind: A hedonic analysis of wind power facilities, Land Economics, 2011 343 S. Sims et al., Modelling the impact of wind farms on house prices in the UK. International Journal of Strategic Property Management, 2008 344 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 345 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 346 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 347 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 348 Urbis Pty Ltd, Review of impact of wind farms on property values, 2016 314 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"349 , 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 EIA report, the main socio-economic impact of the WPP development, which is not quantified, is the impact on property values in the area of the WPP development. Given that no studies have been carried out in Latvia on the impact of WPP development on real estate values, an assessment of international experience has been carried out. Abroad, incl. In European countries with more experience with WPP development, a number of studies have been carried out 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 WPP 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 WPP 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 WPP; − residential properties located within 1 mile (~1.6 km) of the WPP are devalued by 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 WPP development was announced within three to five years of the WPP becoming operational350. 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.351 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 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, while the number of permanent employees during the operation of the WPP is 10-15.352 Therefore, the number of jobs created by the Proposed Action could be between 40 and 60 during construction and between 5 and 10 during operation. 349 https://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/studies/cba_guide.pdf 350 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421523004226?via=ihub 351 Hillard G. Huntington, Creating Jobs With 'Green' Power Sources, Reprinted from USAEE Dialogue 17(1), 2009. 352 https://www.irena.org//media/Files/IRENA/Agency/Publication/2017/Jun/IRENA_Leveraging_for_Onshore_Win d_Executive_Summary_2017.pdf 315  14.2.2. Socio-economic impacts of the Limbaži WPP Park The proposed activity is planned in the administrative areas of Salacgrīva and Vilķenes parishes of Limbaži municipality. Detailed socio-economic impact calculations have been prepared for the two alternatives for the specific WPP Park and are attached in Annex 11. The socio-economic impacts have been assessed for the Limbaži WPP Park Alternative A - 12 WPPs and Alternative B - 20 WPPs: if the number of WPPs is reduced by 2-3 units, the socio-economic benefits will decrease accordingly according to the calculations of the indicative impact per WPP in Annex 11. The administrative areas of the WPP development - Salacgrīva and Viļķenes municipalities - are characterised by negative dynamics of the declared population. 2020. in 2010, the share of jobseekers/unemployed among economically active population aged 15-74 in Salacgrīva municipality was 6.8%, while in Viļķenes municipality it was 7.4%, which is in line with the Limbaži municipality average of 7.2%. Both areas show a significant decrease in the share of jobseekers/unemployed between 2017 and 2020. 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, the dominant enterprises (34% of the total number of enterprises in Limbaži municipality) in the administrative areas of the WPP development are those providing agricultural, forestry and fisheries activities, although enterprises providing other types of economic activities included in the 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. They are assessed in other impact assessments, for example recreation in the landscape assessment, ecosystem services in the habitat assessment. The assessment of the socio-economic factors to be assessed qualitatively suggests that, based on international experience, short-term negative impacts on properties in the vicinity of WPP development sites 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. 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. 14.2.3. Socio-economic benefits - Community levy Latvian Wind Parks Ltd has supported a local community development payment or "community payment" aimed at improving the well-being of the local community in whose territory the WPP development takes place, as a result of which community payments can be attributed to the socio-economic benefits of the WPP development project. 2024. on 5 January 2011, the Amendment to the Electricity Market Act entered into force, Article 221 "Payments for wind power plants for local community development" of which stipulates the following: 316 "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. 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; The total installed realistic nominal capacity of the WPP according to the indicative capacity parameters of the WPP provided by Ltd Latvijas vēja parki - 6.8 MW: • For alternative "A" (12 WPP): 81,6 MW; • For alternative "B" (20 WPP): 136 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": 81.6 MW x EUR 2500 = EUR 204 000/year; • For alternative "B": 136 MW x 2500 EUR = 340 000 EUR/year. The total benefits of community payments, expressed in discounted monetary socio-economic benefits over the project lifetime of 25 years, will be: • For alternative "A": EUR 2 252 767; • For alternative "B": EUR 3 754 611. 14.2.4. Conclusions on socio-economic benefits In terms of quantifiable socio-economic benefits and losses, 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 compensate for the short- term losses, including the short-term losses. In terms of GHG emissions. In terms of socio-economic returns to the development of the WPP, Alternative A performs slightly better, with a total net present value of EUR 89 398 054 and an internal rate of return of 18.66% (see Annex 11). However, not all projects are implemented at their proposed capacities even after the EIA has been completed. Table 14.1. Monetary results of the Limbaži WPP Park alternatives, discounted over the lifetime of the WPP Alternative/ Indicator A (12 WPP) B (20 WPP) Net present GHG emission Net present GHG emission value, EUR reductions, value, EUR reductions, tonnesCO2 eq. tonnesCO2 eq. CO2 emissions Transformation of the WPP -2 676 058 -16 000 -5 301 440 -30 480 development site Partial afforestation of the WPP 591 150 2 736 946 576 4 382 development area CO2 emissions during the WPP -19 863 928 -136 704 -33 106 547 -227 840 production phase 317  Alternative/ Indicator A (12 WPP) B (20 WPP) Net present GHG emission Net present GHG emission value, EUR reductions, value, EUR reductions, tonnesCO2 eq. tonnesCO2 eq. CO2 emissions during the -1 003 884 -6 144 -1 673 141 -10 240 installation phase of a WPP CO2 emissions during the -2 288 166 -10 752 -3 813 611 -17 920 operational phase of a WPP Electricity substitution 108 687 905 510 720 181 146 508 851 200 Total CO2 emissions 83 447 018 343 856 138 198 346 569 102 Employment growth Additional salary income 3 698 269 6 163 782 Community payments Community payment 2 252 767 3 754 611 Total 89 398 054 148 116 740 Internal rate of return, % 18,6579% 18,6257% Table 14.2. Monetary results of the Limbaži WPP Park alternatives, discounted over the lifetime of the WPP, 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, tonnesCO2 eq. tonnesCO2 eq. CO2 emissions Transformation of the WPP -223 005 -1 333 -265 072 -1 524 development site Partial afforestation of the WPP 49 262 228 47 329 219 development area CO2 emissions during the WPP -1 655 327 -11 392 -1 655 327 -11 392 production phase CO2 emissions during the -83 657 -512 -83 657 -512 installation phase of a WPP CO2 emissions during the -190 681 -896 -190 681 -896 operational phase of a WPP Electricity substitution 9 057 325 42 560 9 057 325 42 560 Total CO2 emissions 6 953 918 28 655 6 909 917 28 455 Employment growth Additional salary income 308 189 308 189 Community payments Community payment 187 731 187 731 Total 7 449 838 7 405 837 11.annex also includes a table summarising the socio-economic impacts of WPP development by their indicative impact types: international, national, local and indigenous. 318 15. SUMMARY OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT OF THE PROPOSED ACTION The Executive Summary is provided as a separate Annex, see Annex 14. 319 16. AUTHORS OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT Līga Blanka, Master of Environmental Sciences, Project Manager Pēteris Blumats, Master of Social Sciences Valdis Felsbergs, Master of Environmental Sciences, Physical Impacts Expert 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 Plant species and habitat experts: Anete Pošiva-Bunkovska, certificate No 116 (habitat groups: forests and heaths, bogs; species groups: vascular plants, mosses) Daina Bojāre, certificate No 099 (habitat group: forests and heaths; species group: vascular plants) Toms Daniels Čakars, certificate No 182 (habitat groups: forests and heaths) Līga Mihailova, certificate No 156, (habitat groups: forests and heaths; bogs) Field surveys were also carried out and information on the areas surveyed was provided by: Ilze Kukāre, certified expert, certificate No 115 Bird experts: Dāvis Ūlands, Certificate No 209; Māris Strazds, Laboratory of Ornithology, Institute of Biology, University of Latvia 320  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. 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 AS “Latvijas valsts meži”. 2023. AS “Latvijas valsts meži” Meža apsaimniekošanas plāns 2022. - 2026. gadam. Publiskā daļa. Avotiņš jun. A. 2019. Apodziņa Glaucidium passerinum, bikšainā apoga Aegolius funereus, meža pūces Strix aluco, urālpūces Strix uralensis, ausainās pūces Asio otus un ūpja Bubo bubo aizsardzības plāns. Latvijas Ornitoloģijas biedrība, Rīga. Baroni, D. 2022. CAVITY-USE AND SPATIAL ECOLOGY OF THE EURASIAN PYGMY OWL IN THE MANAGED BOREAL FORESTS. University of Turku. Bergmanis, M., Priednieks, J., Avotiņš, J., Andris, & Priedniece, I. 2020. Mazā dzeņa Dryobates minor, vidējā dzeņa Leiopicus medius, baltmugurdzeņa Dendrocopos leucotos, dižraibā dzeņa Dendrocopos major, trīspirkstu dzeņa Picoides tridactylus, melnās d zilnas Dryocopus martius un pelēkās dzilnas Picus canus aizsardzības plāns. Biedrība "Baltijas Vides forums" 2005. Ziemeļvidzemes biosfēras rezervāta dabas parka “Salacas ieleja” posma “Salacgrīva” dabas aizsardzības plāns. Limbažu rajons Salacgrīvas pilsētas ar lauku teritoriju pašvaldība. Borchtchevski, V. G., Hjeljord, O., Wegge, P., & Sivkov, A. V. 2003. Does fragmentation by logging reduce grouse reproductive success in boreal forests. Wildlife Biology, 9(4), 275 282. Brangulis, A. J., Kuršs, V., Misāns, J. & Stinkulis Ģ. 1998. Latvijas ģeoloģija. 1:500 000 mēroga ģeoloģiskā karte un pirmskvartāra nogulumu apraksts. Broekel, T., Alfken, C. 2015. Gone with the wind? The impact of wind turbines on tourism demand. Energy Policy. 86, 506—519. C. Aitchison, Tuorism impact of wind farms, The University of Edinburgh, 2012. Cabrera-Cruz, S.A.; Cohen, E.B.; Smolinsky, J.A.; Buler, J.J. 2020. Artificial Light at Night is Related to Broad-Scale Stopover Distributions of Nocturnally Migrating Landbirds along the Yucatan Peninsula, Mexico. Remote Sens. 12, 395. 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. 321 Cohen, E. B., Buler, J. J., Horton, K. G., Loss, S. R., Cabrera‐Cruz, S. A., Smolinsky, J. A., & Marra, P. P. 2022. Using weather radar to help minimize wind energy impacts on nocturnally migrating birds. Conservation Letters, 15(4). Czeszczewik, D., & Walankiewicz, W. 2006. Logging affects the white backed woodpecker Dendrocopos leucotos distribution in the Białowieża Forest. Annales Zoologici Fennici, 43(2), 221 227. DREWITT, A. & LANGSTON, R. 2006. Assessing the impacts of wind farms on birds. Ibis, 148(s1), 29 42. Edwards, W,N. 2015. Analysis of Measured Wind Turbine Seismic Noise Generated from the Summerside Wind Farm, Prince Edward Island. Geological Survey of Canada. Finnish Meteorological Institute. 2007. EUMETNET OPERA PROGRAMME (2004–2006) – Operational programme for the exchange of weather radar information. Final report. Foote, A. D., et al. 2004. Noise pollution and marine mammal populations: Conservation biology implications for large cetaceans. Conservation Biology, 18(2), 373-375. Frantál, B., Kunc, J. 2011. Wind turbines in tourism landscapes. Annals of Tourism Research. 38 (2), 499—519. Garcia-Rosa, P. B., & Tande, J. O. G. 2023. Mitigation measures for preventing collision of birds with wind turbines. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 2626(1), 012072. González, M. A. 2018. Female Cantabrian capercaillie dead by collision with wind turbine. Heintzelman, M.D., Tuttle, C.M. 2011. Values in the wind: A hedonic analysis of wind power facilities, Land Economics. 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). 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. Imbeau, L., & Desrochers, A. 2002. Area sensitivity and edge avoidance: the case of the Three-toed Woodpecker (Picoides tridactylus) in a managed forest. Forest Ecology and Management, 164(1-3), 249-256. International civil aviation organisation. 2015. European guidance material on managing building restricted areas: 3rd eddition. Ivanova O. un Nulle I., 2003. Pamatklintāja virsmas struktūrkarte mērogā 1 : 500 00. You, F., Shaik, S., Rokonuzzaman, Md., Rahman, K, S., Tan, W,S.2023. Fire risk assessments and fire protection measures for wind turbines: A review, Heliyon 9 19664 322 Juškevičs, V., Āboltiņš, O. 2000. Latvijas ģeoloģiskā karte. Kvartāra nogulumi, Rīga-43.lapa un Ainaži-53.lapa. M 1:200 000 [Grāmata]. - Rīga : Valsts Ģeoloģijas dienests, ISBN 9984-9299-6-5. Kipperberg, G., Onozaka, Y., Thi Bui, L., Lohaugen, M., Refsdal, G., Sæland, S., Hassan, G. 2007. Recommendations for risk assessment of ice throw and blade failure in Ontario. Canadian Wind Energy Association. Ķerus, V., Dekants, A., Auniņš, A., & Mārdega, I. 2021. Latvijas ligzdojošo putnu atlanti 1980- 2017. Putnu skaits, izplatība un to pārmaiņas. Latvijas Ornitoloģijas biedrība. Ladenburg, J., Dahlgaard, J.-O. 2012. Attitudes, threshold levels and cumulative effects of the daily wind-turbine encounters. Applied Energy, 98, 40—46. Lakovskis, P. 2023. Latvijas ainavu atlants. Ainavas kartēs. Nacionālās ainavas. Agroresursu un ekonomikas institūts. 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. Vēja elektrostaciju parka (VES) “Limbaži” un ar to saistītās infrastruktūras projekta īstenošanas radītās siltumnīcefekta gāzu (SEG) emisiju izmaiņas. 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. Martín, B., Perez - Bacalu, C., Onrubia, A., De Lucas, M., & Ferrer, M. 2018. Impact of wind farms on soaring bird populations at a migratory bottleneck. European Journal of Wildlife Research, 64(3). 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 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. 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. Newton, I. 2023. The migration ecology of birds. Elsevier. Ņikuļins, V. 2007. Latvijas seismotektoniskie apstākļi un seismiskā bīstamība. Latvijas Universitāte, Rīga. Pearse, Aaron & Metzger, Kristine & Brandt, David & Shaffer, Jill & Bidwell, Mark & Harrell, Wade. 2021. Migrating Whooping Cranes avoid wind‐energy infrastructure when selecting stopover habitat. Ecological Applications. 31. 10.1002/eap.2324. Perrow, M. R. 2017. Wildlife and Wind Farms, Conflicts and Solutions: Potential Effects. Onshore. 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 323  nationwide cohort study. Environ Int. 121(Pt 1):207-215. doi: 10.1016/j.envint.2018.08.054. Epub 2018 Sep 11. PMID: 30216773. 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: 30236517. 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. Priedniece, I., & Priednieks, J. 2013. Dzīvotņu fragmentācijas ietekme uz meža dzīvnieku populācijām. Renström, J. 2015. Modelling of Ice Throws from Wind Turbines. Modellering av iskast från vindkraftverk. Upsala University. 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. Rydell, J., Ottvall, R., Pettersson, S., Green, M. 2017. The effects of wind power on birds and bats. Swedish Environmental Protection Agency, Sweden. Schwemmer, P., Mercker, M., Haecker, K., Kruckenberg, H., Kampfer, S., Bocher, P., Fort, J., Jiguet, F., Franks, S., Elts, J., Marja, R., Piha, M., Rousseau, P., Pederson, R., Duttmann, H., Fartmann, T., & Garthe, S. 2023. Behavioral responses to offshore windfarms during migration of a declining shorebird species revealed by GPS-telemetry. Journal of Environmental Management, 342, 118131. SIA “Estonian, Latvian & Lithuanian Environment” 2005. Dabas lieguma “Vitrupes ieleja” dabas aizsardzības plāns. A/S "Latvijas valsts meži". (spēku zaudējis 2013. gadā). 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. Sociālo, ekonomisko un humanitāro pētījumu institūts (ViA HESPI). 2022. Īpaši aizsargājamo dabas teritoriju apmeklētāju monitorings. Aptaujas rezultātu ziņojums. 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. 324 Stokmane, I. , Skujāne, D., Ziemeļniece, A., Ņitavska, N., Īle, U., Vugule, K., Markova, M., Spāģe, A., Lāčauniece, I., Klepers, A., Lakovskis, P., Ieviņa, L. 2023. Ainavu izpētes un novērtēšanas pieejas Latvijā. Metodoloģisks materiāls ar piemēriem. SIA “RP Alianse”, 2019. Stratēģiskais ietekmes uz vidi novērtējums. Papildinātā redakcija. Strazds, M. un Ķerus, V. 2017. Mežirbes (Bonasa bonasia) aizsardzības plāns 2017.–2026. gadam. Latvijas Ornitoloģijas biedrība, Rīga. Summers, R. W., McFarlane, J., & Pearce-Higgins, J. W. 2007. Measuring Avoidance by Capercaillies Tetrao Urogallus of Woodland Close to Tracks. Wildlife Biology, 13(1), 19-27. Sunak,Y., Madlener, R. 2013. The Impact of wind farms on property values: a geographically weighted hedonic pricing model, Aachen, Germany Tracevskis G., Juškevičs V., Poļivko J., Bičko A. Pārskats par 1:200 000 mēroga komplekso ģeoloģisko, hidroģeoloģisko un inženierģeoloģisko kartēšanu lapas O-35-XIX teritorijā. Ģeoloģijas pārvalde, Rīga, 1967.g. ĢF Nr. 07142 Uezu, A., & Metzger, J. P. 2016. Time Lag in Responses of Birds to Atlantic Forest Fragmentation. Restoration Opportunity and Urgency. PLOS ONE, 11(1), e0147909. Urbis Pty Ltd, Review of impact of wind farms on property values, 2016 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. VINDRAD. 2011. Project report v1.0, A tool for calculation of interference from wind power stations to weather radars. Wegge, P., Rølstad, J., & Gjerde, I. 1992. Effects of Boreal Forest Fragmentation on Capercaillie Grouse. Empirical Evidence and Management Implications. In Wildlife 2001: Populations (pp. 738 749). Springer Netherlands. Elektroniskie resursi 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. Pieejams: https://doi.org/10.7589/2015- 09-231 Air Quality in Construction. 2024. Neuroject. Guide. Pieejams: https://neuroject.com/air-quality-in- construction/ AS "Latvijas valsts meži" S.a. Individuāli plānojamas teritorijas. Dati. Pieejams: https://www.lvmgeo.lv/dati AS “Latvijas Valsts meži”. 2015. MEŽA INFRASTRUKTŪRAS OBJEKTU PROJEKTĒŠANAS TEHNISKIE NOTEIKUMI. Pieejams: 325  https://www.lvm.lv/images/lvm/Profesionaliem/Infrastrukt%C5%ABra/MIO_TN/MIO_TP_noteiku mi_2015.pdf AS “Latvijas valsts meži”. 2022. Akciju sabiedrības “Latvijas valsts meži” vidēja termiņa darbības stratēģija 2023. – 2027. gadam. Kopsavilkums. Apstiprināta ar AS “Latvijas valsts meži” padomes 13.10.2022. lēmumu Nr. 73. Pieejams: https://www.lvm.lv/images/lvm/demo/lvm_videja_termina_darbibas_strategijas_kopsavilkums.p df AS Kjeller Vindteknikk, Rolv Erlend Bredesen. 2017. Icethrow from wind turbines. Assessment and risk management. IEA Wind Task 19, Winterwind. Pieejams: https://winterwind.se/wp- content/uploads/2015/08/3_3_28_Bredesen_IEA_Task_19_- _IceRisk_Review_of_current_knowledge_and_the_way_forward_in_risk_assessments_associated _with_ice_throw_from_wind_turbine_blades_Pub_v1-1.pdf Auniņa, A. red. 2013. Eiropas Savienības aizsargājamie biotopi Latvijā. Noteikšanas rokasgrāmata. 2. papildināts izdevums. Latvijas Dabas fonds , Vides aizsardzības un reģionālās attīstības ministrija, Rīga. Pieejams: https://www.varam.gov.lv/sites/varam/files/es_biotopi_latvija_rokasgramata_lv_2_izdevums.pdf Āboltiņš, R. 2019. Vēja enerģijas izmantošanu ietekmējošo faktoru analīze un iespējamie risinājumi. Pieejams: https://www.zalabriviba.lv/wp- content/uploads/veja_izmantosanas_analize_skersli_iespejas-1.pdf Baroni, D., Hanzelka, J., Raimondi, T., Gamba, M., Brommer, J. E., & Laaksonen, T. 2023. Passive acoustic survey reveals the abundance of a low-density predator and its dependency on mature forests. Landscape Ecology, 38(8), 1939-1954. Pieejams https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-023-01667-1 Basic concept Inc. Secondary Containment Solutions for the Green Energy Industry. Pieejams: 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. Pieejams: https://www.diva- portal.org/smash/record.jsf?pid=diva2%3A1887676&dswid=1545 Biedrība Wind Europe. 2021. Wind industry calls for Europe-wide ban on landfilling turbine blades. Pieejams: https://windeurope.org/newsroom/press-releases/wind-industry-calls-for-europe-wide- ban-on-landfilling-turbine-blades/ Biedrība Wind Europe. 2023. Blade recycling projects. Pieejams: https://windeurope.org/eolis2023/programme/sessions/blade-recycling-projects-i/ Biedrība Wind Europe. 2023. Repowering wind farms: a major opportunity for Europe. Pieejams: https://windeurope.org/newsroom/press-releases/repowering-wind-farms-a-major-opportunity- 326  for- europe/#:~:text=In%202021%20the%20wind%20industry,and%20developed%20blade%20recyclin g%20solutions 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, Pieejams: 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. Pieejams: https://www.wind-energie.de/english/statistics/statistics-germany/ Centrālā statistikas pārvalde. 2024. Latvijas meža zeme pa zemes kategorijām (tūkst. ha) 1994 – 2024. Oficiālās statistikas portāls. Datubāze. Pieejams: https://data.stat.gov.lv/pxweb/lv/OSP_PUB/START__NOZ__ME__MEP/MEM010/table/tableViewL ayout1/ Clean energy council. 2018. Best practice guidelines for implementation of wind energy projects in Australia. Pieejams: https://assets.cleanenergycouncil.org.au/documents/advocacy- initiatives/community-engagement/wind-best-practice-implementation-guidelines.pdf Compendium of WHO and other UN guidance on health and environment, 2022 update. https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/WHO-HEP-ECH-EHD-22.01 Copernicus reģionālā reanalīze Eiropai (CERRA). Copernicus Klimata pārmaiņu dienests. ERA5 piektās paaudzes ECMWF globālā klimata atmosfēras reanalīzes dati. Pieejams https://climate.copernicus.eu/copernicus-regional-reanalysis-europe-cerra Cummins, M. Google Street View – Soon in 3D?. Educating Silicon. Pieejams: http://www.educatingsilicon.com/2008/04/18/google-street-view-soon-in-3d/ Dabas aizsardzības pārvalde. Vitrupes ieleja. Pieejams https://www.daba.gov.lv/lv/vitrupes-ieleja Dabas datu pārvaldības sistēma "Ozols". Pieejams: https://ozols.gov.lv/ Dabas novērojumu portals “Dabas dati”. Pieejams: https://dabasdati.lv/lv Dalsgaard, J, S., Nørkær, J, S., Lemming, J, K. 2012. Risk assessment of wind turbines close to highways. Proceedings of EWEA 2012 - European Wind Energy Conference & Exhibition. Pieejams https://backend.orbit.dtu.dk/ws/portalfiles/portal/7903618/Risk_assessment_of_wind_turbines.p df Deichmann, J. L., et al. 2017. Sensitivity of tropical bats to anthropogenic noise. Biological Conservation, 207, 9-15. Pieejams: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0006320716304621?via%3Dihub Department of the environment. 2009. Northern Ireland’s Best Practice Guidance to PPS18. Pieejams: https://www.infrastructure- 327  ni.gov.uk/sites/default/files/publications/infrastructure/Best%20Practice%20Guidance%20to%20P PS%2018%20-%20Renewable%20Energy_0.pdf DMRB. 2024. LA 105 - Air quality. Pieejams: https://www.standardsforhighways.co.uk/search/af7f4cda- 08f7-4f16-a89f-e30da703f3f4 Dürr. T. 2023. Bird fatalities at windturbines in Europe.09. August 2023. Pieejams: https://lfu.brandenburg.de/sixcms/media.php/9/Voegel-Uebersicht-Europa.xlsx Eiropas bioloģiskās daudzveidības informācijas sistēma. Niedraju-Pilkas purvs. Pieejams https://biodiversity.europa.eu/sites/natura2000/LV0509800 Eiropas bioloģiskās daudzveidības informācijas sistēma. Salacas ieleja Pieejams: https://biodiversity.europa.eu/sites/natura2000/LV0302200 Eiropas bioloģiskās daudzveidības informācijas sistēma. Vitrupes ieleja. Pieejams: https://biodiversity.europa.eu/sites/natura2000/LV0530500 Eiropas Komisija. 2014. Guide to Cost-Benefit Analysis of Investment Projects Economic appraisal tool for Cohesion Policy 2014-2020. Pieejams: https://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/studies/cba_guide.pdf Eiropas komisijas publikācija. 2001. Assessment of plans and projects significantly affecting Natura 2000 sites. Methodological guidance on the provisions of Article 6(3) and (4) of the Habitats Directive 92/43/EEC. Pieejams: https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/2b6c4b16-e867- 42da-b604-f67ee6fe60c3 Elia, Working near high-voltage facilities. Pieejams: 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. Pieejams 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. Pieejams: https://www.pagerpower.com/news/eurocontrol-radar-wind-turbine-guidelines-v1-2/ 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: Biodiversity and Wind Farms in Portugal. Springer, Cham. Pieejams https://doi.org/10.1007/978- 3-319-60351-3_5 Ferrer, M., de Lucas, M., Janss, G. F. E., Casado, E., Muñoz, A. R., Bechard, M. J., & Calabuig, C. P. (2012). Weak relationship between risk assessment studies and recorded mortality in wind farms. Journal of Applied Ecology, 49(1), 38-46. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2664.2011.02054.x 328 Finnish Biodiversity Information Facility un Eagle Club (MTÜ Kotkaklubi) interneta vietnes). Pieejams: https://laji.fi/en Forest Monitoring Designed for Action. Pieejams: https://www.globalforestwatch.org/ 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. Pieejams https://eolmernormandie.debatpublic.fr/images/documents/bibliotheque-debat/22.do-wind- turbines-produce-significant-low-frequency-sound-levels.pdf Guidance on the assessment of dust from demolition and construction (Version 2.2). 2024. https://iaqm.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/Construction-Dust-Guidance-Jan-2024.pdf Guideline No 22:2012 F -Wind turbines – Fire protection guideline. Pieejams 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. Pieejams: https://omgeving.vlaanderen.be/sites/default/files/2022-12/2022%2012%2001%20-%20IWT%20- %20handboek.pdf HANDLEIDING REKENBLAD WINDTURBINES, 2019. Pieejams: https://omgeving.vlaanderen.be/sites/default/files/2021-10/2019%2010%2001%20-%20WT%20- %20handleiding%20rekenblad_0.pdf Happ, C., Sutor, A., & Hochradel, K. 2021. Methodology for the Automated Visual Detection of Bird and Bat Collision Fatalities at Onshore Wind Turbines. Journal of Imaging. 7(12), 272. Pieejams: https://doi.org/10.3390/jimaging7120272 IEA Wind TCP Task 19 Technical Report International Recommendations for Ice Fall and Ice Throw Risk Assessments (2022). Pieejams: 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. Pieejams: 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 Igaunijas – Latvijas trešā elektropārvades tīkla starpsavienojums no Sindi (Kilingi – Nõmme) Igaunijā līdz Salaspils (vai Rīgas TEC-2) apakšstacijām Latvijā IETEKMES UZ VIDI NOVĒRTĒJUMS I Sējums. Pieejams: https://ast.lv/sites/default/files/editor/att-projekti/IVN_Zinojums_22_aprilis.pdf Irish Planning Guidelines (undated), Pieejams: https://www.gov.ie/en/collection/85b83-planning- guidelines-standards/ K2 Ventum IVN. Pieejams: https://k2ventum.lv/ivn/ 329 Kaimai Wind Farm Shadow Flicker Analysis. 2018. Pieejams: https://www.hauraki- dc.govt.nz/assets/services_documents/WindFarm/B-Technical-reports/B16-Shadow-Flicker.pdf Klimata un enerģētikas ministrija. Siltumnīcefekta gāzu emisiju aprēķina metodika. Pieejams: https://www.kem.gov.lv/lv/siltumnicefekta-gazu-emisiju-aprekina-metodika Krogkalnu Baznīckalns. 2019. Senvietas.lv. Pieejams https://www.senvietas.lv/krogkalnu-baznickalns/ Kuiķuļu svētozolu birzs vieta. 2019. Pieejams https://www.senvietas.lv/kuikulu-svetozolu-birzs-vieta/ Kurzemes plānošanas reģions S.a. Jaunupe. Pieejams https://upesoga.lv/lv/marsruti/river/55-jaunupe Kurzemes plānošanas reģions S.a. Maršruti. Pieejams https://upesoga.lv/lv/marsruti/ Kurzemes plānošanas reģions S.a. Svētupe. Pieejams https://upesoga.lv/lv/marsruti/river/54-svtupe/ Latvijas Vides, ģeoloģijas un meteoroloģijas centrs. Piesārņoto un potenciāli piesārņoto vietu reģistrs. Pieejams http://parissrv.lvgmc.lv/#viewType=pppvMapListView&incrementCounter=1 Latvijas Vides, ģeoloģijas un meteoroloģijas centrs. Plūdu riska informācijas sistēma. Pieejams https://pris.lvgmc.lv/ Latvijas Vides, ģeoloģijas un meteoroloģijas centrs. Seismological monitoring. Pieejams https://videscentrs.lvgmc.lv/lapas/seismological-monitoring Latvijas Vides, ģeoloģijas un meteoroloģijas centrs. Zemes dzīļu informācijas sistēma. Pieejams https://videscentrs.lvgmc.lv/iebuvets/zemes-dzilu-informacijas-sistema Latvijas gaisa satiksme. Pieejams: https://www.airspace.lv/lgs Latvijas Investīciju un attīstības aģentūra. 2022. Populārākās upes laivošanai. Latvia Travel. Pieejams https://www.latvia.travel/lv/popularakas-upes-laivosanai Latvijas oficiālais stastikas portāls. Meža ugunsgrēki. Pieejams: https://stat.gov.lv/lv/statistikas- temas/noz/mezsaimnieciba/8673-meza-ugunsgreki Latvijas Valsts radio un televīzijas centra mājas lapa. Pieejams: https://www.lvrtc.lv/ Latvijas Vides, ģeoloģijas un meteoroloģijas centrs. 2024. Pārskats par gaisa kvalitāti Latvijā 2023. gadā. Rīga. Pieejams: https://videscentrs.lvgmc.lv/files/Gaiss/Gaisa_kvalitate/parskats%20par%20gaisa%20kvalitati%20 Latvija%202023.pdf Latvijas Vides, ģeoloģijas un meteoroloģijas centrs. 2019. Pārskats, Gaisa kvalitātes novērtējums Latvijā 2014. - 2018. gads. Rīga. Pieejams: https://videscentrs.lvgmc.lv/files/Gaiss/Gaisa_kvalitate/Gaisa_kvalitates_novertejums_2014_2018 .pdf LĢIA. 20.10.2020. Digitālā augstuma modeļa pamatdati no datiem, kas iegūti ar lāzerskenēšanas metodi. Pieejams https://www.lgia.gov.lv/sites/lgia/files/document/LV_LAS_shema_1.pdf LĢIA. Digitālie augstuma modeļi. Pieejams https://www.lgia.gov.lv/lv/digitalie-augstuma-modeli Limbažu novada pašvaldība. 2023. Vitrupe. Visit Limbaži. Pieejams https://www.visitlimbazi.lv/lv/vitrupe 330 Local Government Air Quality Toolkit. Module 3: Guidance note—Construction sites page 1. Air quality guidance note. Construction sites. Pieejams: https://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/resources/air/mod3p3construc07268.pdf 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. Pieejams 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. Pieejams https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-017-6018-z LVMI Silava. Lāču monitorings 2023.–2025. Gadā Pārskats par 2023. Gadu. Pieejams: 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. Pieejams: https://julkaisut.valtioneuvosto.fi/bitstream/handle/10024/162329/VNTEAS_2020_34.pdf?sequen ce=1&isAllowed=y Mantojums. Pieejams https://mantojums.lv/cultural-objects/1474 Mason, J. T., McClure, C. J. W., & Barber, J. R. 2016. Anthropogenic noise impairs owl hunting behavior. Biological Conservation, 199, 29-38. Pieejams: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0006320716301343?via%3Dihub 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. Pieejams: https://windren.se/WW2015/WW2015_39_521_Refsum_Lloyd_Ice_throw_evaluating_risk.pdf Nacionālā kultūras mantojuma pārvalde 2022. Nr. 1472 - Priecumu senkapi. Mantojums. Pieejams https://mantojums.lv/cultural-objects/1472 Nacionālā kultūras mantojuma pārvalde 2022. Nr. 1473 - Kilzumu senkapi (Zviedru kapi). Mantojums. Pieejams https://mantojums.lv/cultural-objects/1473 Nacionālā kultūras mantojuma pārvalde 2022. Nr. 1474 - Krogkalnu senkapi (Baznīckalns). Mantojums. Pieejams https://mantojums.lv/cultural-objects/1474 Nacionālā kultūras mantojuma pārvalde 2022. Nr. 1475 - Kuiķuļu svētozolu birzs vieta - kulta vieta. Mantojums. Pieejams https://mantojums.lv/cultural-objects/1475 Nacionālā kultūras mantojuma pārvalde 2022. Nr. 1476 - Lībiešu Upuralas - kulta vieta. Mantojums. Pieejams https://mantojums.lv/cultural-objects/1476 331 Nacionālā kultūras mantojuma pārvalde 2022. Nr. 1478 - Salacgrīvas viduslaiku pils. Mantojums. Pieejams https://mantojums.lv/cultural-objects/1478 Nacionālā kultūras mantojuma pārvalde 2022. Nr. 6152 - Zviedru ceļš. Mantojums. Pieejams https://mantojums.lv/cultural-objects/6152 Nacionālā kultūras mantojuma pārvalde 2022. Nr.1477 - Cepļa vieta. Mantojums. Pieejams https://mantojums.lv/cultural-objects/1477 Nacionālā kultūras mantojuma pārvalde S.a. Mantojums. Pieejams: https://karte.mantojums.lv/ Nikodemus, O. S.a. Latvijas mežu ainava. Latvijas Kultūras kanons. Latvijas Nacionālā bibliotēka. Pieejams: 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/538/755/1929/17716/17720/17723/42130145 839.PDF P. Friis, P. Daub; Årsrapport for Energistyrelsens Godkendelsessekretariat for vind møller 2014. DTU Wind Energy nr. 0079. Pieejams: http://www.vindmoellegodkendelse.dk/media/1097/egv- %C3%A5rsrapport-2014-jnr-64036-0025.pdf 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. Pieejams: https://pubs.aip.org/asa/jasa/article-abstract/116/6/3460/545245/Perception-and-annoyance- due-to-wind-turbine-noise?redirectedFrom=fulltext Pijanowski, B.C., et al. 2011 - Soundscape ecology: The science of sound in the landscape. BioScience, 61(3), 203-216. Pieejams: https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/article/61/3/203/238162 Planning Bulletin. 2004. Australian Wind Energy Association. Guidelines for wind farm development. Pieejams: https://www.wa.gov.au/system/files/2022-04/PB-67-%20Guidelines-for-wind-farm- development-2004.pdf Popularity of Class III wind turbines. Submitted by Pramod Jain on Mon, 01/12/2015. Pieejams: https://i- windenergy.com/content/popularity-class-iii-wind-turbines Projekts “Vēja parki un putni – metodika ietekmju izvērtēšanai un risku karte”. Pieejams https://lvafa.vraa.gov.lv/projects/1-08_74_2022 Redzēt grupa 2024. Annasmuižas dzelzsbetona tilts. REDZĒT. Pieejams https://www.redzet.eu/travel/apskates-vietas/tilti/annasmuizas-dzelzsbetona-tilts Renewable energy benefits leveraging local capacity for onshore wind. Pieejams. https://www.irena.org//media/Files/IRENA/Agency/Publication/2017/Jun/IRENA_Leeraging_for_ Onshore_Wind_Executive_Summary_2017.pdf 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 332  Consideration of Bats in Wind Farm Projects - Revision 2014. EUROBATS Publication Series No. 6. Bonn, Germany. Pieejams: 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. Pieejams: 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. Pieejams: https://www.windsystemsmag.com/wind-turbine-fire-risk-the-time-to-act-is-now/ Salacas pils 2022. Vikipēdija, Brīvā enciklopēdija. Pieejams: https://lv.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Salacas_pils 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. Pieejams doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2021.109037 Scotland’s PAN 45 (2002). Pieejams: https://www.gov.scot/collections/planning-advice-notes-pans/ SIA “Enercon” mājaslapa. E-175 EP5. Pieejams.: https://www.enercon.de/en/turbines/e-175-ep5 SIA “Estonian, Latvian & Lithuanian Environment”. 2023. Vadlīnijas (metodika) ietekmes uz vidi sākotnējā izvērtējuma (IVSI) veikšanai vēja elektrostaciju būvniecības radīto ietekmju uz vidi izvērtēšanai. Valsts vides dienests. Pieejams: https://www.vvd.gov.lv/lv/media/9969/download?attachment SIA “Estonian, Latvian & Lithuanian Environment”. 2024. Sertificētu sugu un biotopu aizsardzības jomas ekspertu atzinums par ietekmi uz aizsargājamiem zālāju, tekošu un stāvošu saldūdeņu, purvu, mežu un virsāju biotopiem. Pieejams: https://environment.lv/assets/upload/Valpene/14.pielikums.%20Biotopu%20ekspertu%20atzinum a%20kopija%20(aktualiz%C4%93ts).pdf SIA “Estonian, Latvian & Lithuanian Environment”. Vides pārraudzības valsts birojs. Vadlīnijas vēja elektrostaciju ietekmes uz vidi novērtējumam un rekomendācijas prasībām vēja elektrostaciju būvniecībai. Pieejamas: https://www.vpvb.gov.lv/lv/media/827/download SIA “Ge Vernova” mājaslapa. GE’s Most Powerful Onshore Wind Turbine Gets Even More Powerful. Pieejams.: https://www.gevernova.com/wind-power/onshore-wind/cypress-platform SIA “Nordex SE” mājaslapa. Pieejams.: https://www.nordex-online.com/en/product/n175-6-x/ SIA “TCK” vēja elektrostaciju parka “Ziemeļvējš” ierīkošanai Ventspils novada Tārgales pagastā. Pieejams: https://www.vpvb.gov.lv/lv/media/2779/download?attachment SIA “Terral Wind” mājaslapa. Pieejams: http://terralwind.com 333 SIA “Vesta” mājaslapa. V172-7.2 MW™. Pieejams.: https://www.vestas.com/en/energy- solutions/onshore-wind-turbines/enventus-platform/V172-7-2-MW Siemens Gamesa. Pioneering technology. RecyclableBlade. 2023. Pieejams: https://www.siemensgamesa.com/global/en/home/explore/journal/recyclable-blade.html Simo Wind Park, Simo, Finland. Pieejams: https://www.peikko.ae/reference/simo-wind-park/ Starptautiskās Atjaunojamās Enerģijas Aģentūras statistika. 2024. Pieejams: https://www.irena.org/Publications Stokke, B. G., Nygård, T., Falkdalen, U., Pedersen, H. C., & May, R. 2020. Effect of tower base painting on willow ptarmigan collision rates with wind turbines. Ecol Evol, 10(12), 5670-5679. Pieejams https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.6307 Svenska Kraftnat. When wind power is planned. Pieejams: https://www.svk.se/en/stakeholders- portal/community-planning/when-wind-power-is-planned/ Svētupes apraksts. Pieejams https://piedabas.lv/laivu-noma-svetupe/ 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. Pieejams: https://op.europa.eu/lv/publication-detail/-/publication/9cde4269-9b53-4fd7-b064-5b3caf85aabf The Impact of Wind Farms on Tourism in New Hampshire, December 2013. Pieejams: 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. Pieejams: 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. Pieejams: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2023.110382 Trokšņa modelēšanas kartes dzelzceļa Rail Baltica trasei https://edzl.lv/projekta-norise/izpete Vadlīnijas rūpniecisko avāriju riska objektu izvietošanas minimālo drošības attālumu teritorijas izmantošanas un apbūves ierobežojumu noteikšanai teritorijas plānošanas dokumentos, LRVA, 2017 Pieejams: https://lvafa.vraa.gov.lv/faili/materiali/petijumi/2016/LVPA_133/Vadlinijas_LVPA_F240217.pdf Valsts SIA "Zemkopības ministrijas nekustamie īpašumi". Meliorācijas kadastra informācijas sistēma. Pieejams: https://www.melioracija.lv Valsts zemes dienests. Datu publicēšanas un e-pakalpojumu portāls. Pieejams: Kadastrs.lv Vejledning om planlægning for og tilladelse til opstilling af vindmøller. Naturstyrelsen, Miljøministeriet 2015. ISBN: 978-87-7279-173-9. Pieejams: https://www.retsinformation.dk/api/pdf/229524 Avis d’Elia concernant la construc-tion d’éoliennes à proximité de nos installations à haute tension Version 1 février. 2024. Pieejams: https://www.elia.be/-/media/project/elia/elia-site/infra-and- 334  projects/safety_around_our_infrastructure/working-near-high-voltage-facilities/fr/procdure-elia-- -avis-eoliennes-fr-v20240201.pdf Vestas Wind Systems A/S. 2023. News release. Vestas unveils circularity solution to end landfill for turbine blades. Pieejams: https://www.vestas.com/en/media/company-news/2023/vestas-unveils- circularity-solution-to-end-landfill-for-c3710818 Vides pāraudzības valsts birojs. 2024. Ietekmes uz vidi novērtējumu projekti. Pieejams: https://www.vpvb.gov.lv/lv/ietekmes-uz-vidi-novertejumu-projekti Vides pārraudzības valsts biroja mājas lapa. Pieejams https://www.vpvb.gov.lv/lv Vides pārraudzības valsts birojs. Atzinums Nr. 3 par ietekmes uz vidi novērtējuma ziņojumu Wind turbine models mājaslapa. Enercon E-175 EP5. Pieejams: https://en.wind-turbine- models.com/turbines/2472-enercon-e-175-ep5 Wind turbine models mājaslapa. GE Vernova GE 6.0-164 Cypress. Pieejams: https://en.wind-turbine- models.com/turbines/2307-ge-vernova-ge-6.0-164-cypress Wind turbine models mājaslapa. Siemens Gamesa SG 6.6-170. Pieejams: https://en.wind-turbine- models.com/turbines/2346-siemens-gamesa-sg-6.6-170 Wind turbine models mājaslapa. Siemens Gamesa SG 7.0-170. Pieejams: https://en.wind-turbine- models.com/turbines/2475-siemens-gamesa-sg-7.0-170 Wind Turbines and Farms FMGlobal Property Loss Prevention Data Sheets 13-10, 2022. Pieejams: 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. Pieejams: 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. Pieejams: https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/03/Chapter-7-Wind-Energy-1.pdf Zariņa, A.,Vološina, M., Vinogradovs, I. 2019. Vadlīnijas lokālo ainavu plānošanai. SIA Delta Kompānija. Pieejams: https://www.varam.gov.lv/sites/varam/files/content/files/vadlinijas_viet_limenim_2019.pdf Ziemeļvidzemes biosfēras rezervāta () ainavu ekoloģiskais plāns. SIA “Estonian, Latvian & Lithuanian Environment”. Pieejams: https://www.daba.gov.lv/en/media/6869/download 335  Environmental Impact Assessment for the implementation of the Limbaži Wind Power plants park and associated infrastructure project in Limbaži municipality SUMMARY November 2024 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 WPP siting (Chapter 4 of the EIA Report) .................. 8 3. Assessment of the existing environmental status of the site (Chapter 6 of the EIA Report)........ 11 3.1. Hydrogeological, hydrological and engineering geological conditions and geological structure….. ........................................................................................................................................... 11 3.2. Nature values............................................................................................................................. 13 3.3. Landscape and heritage assessment ......................................................................................... 18 3.4. Noise assessment ...................................................................................................................... 20 3.5. Air quality assessment in the WPP area .................................................................................... 21 4. Significant environmental effects of the proposed activity and its possible alternatives (Chapter 7 of the EIA Report) ...................................................................................................................................... 22 4.1. Deforested areas ....................................................................................................................... 22 4.2. Noise and vibration levels ......................................................................................................... 23 4.3. Flicker ......................................................................................................................................... 25 4.4. Impact on air quality .................................................................................................................. 25 4.5. Impact on nature values............................................................................................................. 26 4.6. Impact on landscape and cultural monuments ......................................................................... 34 4.7. Impacts on Natura 2000 sites in the vicinity of the WPP Park .................................................. 37 5. Transboundary assessment (Chapter 9 of the EIA report) ............................................................ 39 6. Socio-economic benefits (Chapter 14 of the EIA report) .............................................................. 41 7. Comparison of the alternatives envisaged and justification of the chosen alternative (Chapter 8 of the EIA Report) ...................................................................................................................................... 42 8. Further conditions for environmental monitoring of the proposed activity (Chapter 12 of the EIA Report)................................................................................................................................................... 44 2 Introduction The Environmental Impact Assessment (hereinafter - EIA) has been prepared for the proposed activity: implementation of the wind power plant (hereinafter - WPP) park Limbaži and its related infrastructure project in Salacgrīva and Viļķenes parishes of Limbaži municipality, proposed by Ltd “Latvijas vēja parki” (hereinafter - LVP), registration No. 40203415150, legal address: Pulkveža Brieža street 12, Rīga, LV-1010 (JSC Latvenergo is 100% shareholder). EIA assesses a total of 37 WPP sites. The EIA report provides an explanation of the analysis of all the WPP locations that determine the feasibility of this WPP park. Decision No 5-03/7/2023 of the State Environmental Bureau (hereinafter - SEB) on the application of the EIA procedure to the proposed activity of LVP was adopted on 15 August 2023. EIA Programme No 5- 03/7/2023 (as amended on 10 January 2024 by No 5-02-1/3/2024 and No 5-02-1/61/2024. 2024. of. 20 November) is 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 Lease and Development Rights of Public Land", LVP 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 promoting energy independence". The EIA report has been prepared by Ltd Enviroprojekts, involving experts from various fields. The report provides detailed information on the Proposed Action itself, the existing state of the environment, the impact on natural values in and around the area of the Proposed Action, as well as alternatives and their assessment. In accordance with the terms of the programme issued by the SEB, 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) Up to 20 WPPs are planned to be installed in the area of the proposed operation, with a maximum rated capacity of 8 MW per WPP. The total area of the study area for the construction of the WPP Park is 1894 ha. The proposed action also includes and the EIA assessed the infrastructure related to the functioning of the WPP park: construction and operation of power transmission lines, transformer substations, Battery energy storage systems (hereinafter - 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 surveys.1 Based on the data from the Nature Data Management System (hereinafter - NDMS) "Ozols", the Proposed Action is not planned in Natura 2000 sites and microreserves. The nearest NATURA 2000 site is the Nature Reserve "Vitrupes ieleja", which is located 0.8 km from the boundary of the land units and the distance to the nearest WPP is 0.9 km. The Nature Park "Salacas ieleja" is located 1.6 km from the boundary of the land units, the distance to the nearest WPP - 1.8 km. The proposed activity is located within the North Vidzeme Biosphere Reserve (hereinafter – NVBR) (Neutral Zone) (part of the study area is also within the Landscape Protection Zone, but no WPPs are proposed). More detailed information on the natural values of the area is provided in Chapter 6.4 of the EIA Report. The site of the proposed activity has a well- developed infrastructure: regional road P12, local roads V143, V142 and V138, existing road network of LVM, in the wider vicinity - the main national road A1. High-voltage 110 kV transmission lines run along the area of the Proposed Action, which economically justifies the construction of the WPP near 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 42 farmsteads in the study area of the planned WPP park. 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 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 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 37 WPP assessed in detail in Limbaži municipality are presented below (Figure 1. (EIA Report figure1. 1.)). 1 https://www. lvmgeo. lv/data 2 https://www. lvm. lv/business-partners/land-purchase-and-lease/facility-parks 4 Figure 1. (EIA Report figure 1. 1.) Limbaži Wind power plant Park LVM wind park study area and location of the 37 WPPs evaluated in Limbaži municipality The rationale for the location of the proposed Limbaži 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 - AST); − restrictions, requirements and minimum distances set out in legislation and sectoral guidelines: 5  • 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 (Cabinet of Ministers' notice 30.04.2013. No 240), see Figure 3.2.2 of the EIA report; • The construction of WPPs is allowed outside towns and villages in the industrial development area, technical development area, agricultural area and on 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 wind farm is at least 800 metres (Law on the Procedure for the Construction of Facilitated Energy Supply Structures to Promote Energy Security and Independence), see Figure 3.2.2 of the EIA Report; • Siting of WPP is prohibited in specially protected nature territories - NATURA 2000 territories (Cabinet of Ministers 16.03.2010. not. No.264) and micro-reserves (Cabinet of Ministers No. No 940); • in order 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 (Cabinet of Ministers No. No 240); • 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 (Cabinet of Ministers' Decision of 30.04.2013 No. 240) (see Figure 6.5.3 of the EIA Report for a map of the cultural heritage sites located in the area adjacent to the Proposed Action); • 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); • if the wind farm's 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; • 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 proposed activity is a direct result of the overall strategic objectives of JSC “Latvenergo” set by the Cabinet of Ministers in establishing LVP in 2022, and the choice of the Limbaži WPP site is based on the possibility of concluding a development agreement, the proximity of the power transmission line and other factors listed above. As the Estonian territory is located within 13.2 km of the nearest WPP under assessment, the impacts are described for those aspects that affect these areas. The location of the proposed activity in relation to other wind farms 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 (Figure 3.2.4 of the EIA Report). The assessment of the cumulative environmental impacts of wind farms is based on publicly available information on these wind parks. The nearest wind park is Aloja, 6 located approximately 25 km from the area of the Proposed Action. According to the information available on the website of the SEB, the decision on the necessity of the environmental impact assessment for the wind park "Aloja" was adopted on 28 August 2023 and the Environmental Impact Assessment Programme was issued on 14 September 2023. Up to 31 new generation WPPs are planned to be installed in the wind park. No cumulative environmental effects are expected between the two wind farms. The other wind farms in northern Latvia and southern Estonia are located more than 50 km away, where no cumulative environmental effects are expected to occur. The nearest wind farm in Estonia, in the municipality of Valga, is located more than 70 km from the area of the Proposed Action. Figure 2. (Figure 3.2.4 of the EIA Report) Location of the proposed activity in relation to other wind parks in the vicinity 7  2. Siting of the WPP park and alternatives for WPP siting (Chapter 4 of the EIA Report) 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 up to 150 m around it, potential access roads and the area up to 150 m along them, and potential electricity cable routes and the area along them; − the ornithofauna study area covers a 3 km zone around all WPP assessed; − the Landscape Assessment Study Area is a 10 km zone around the maximum possible outer boundary of the wind farm (from the outer WPP); − noise and flicker have been assessed to the extent that the likely effects of the Proposed Action have been calculated. Figure 3. (Figure 4.1.2 of the EIA Report) The boundaries of the surveyed and surveyed areas in relation to the LVM study area and the 37 WPP assessed 8 Location alternatives for the Proposed Activity assessed in the EIA Report Following the EIA programme, 37 potential WPP sites were assessed for their environmental impacts. From those assessed, for the construction of the 17 WPPs it was concluded that significant adverse changes are expected as a result of the implementation of the Proposed Action: impacts 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 Action and its possible alternatives" and the summary in Chapter 8 of the EIA Report, 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 WPP, it was concluded in June 2024 that up to 22 WPPs could be built. Enviroprojekts Ltd, together with certified nature experts, recommends the abandonment of part of the originally planned WPP 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 reduce the impact on the landscape from the viewpoint of the cultural heritage sites (see Chapter 7 of the EIA Report). 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 and has been subject to a two-stage assessment: 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).3 The assessment of alternatives and the siting of the final WPPs also assesses cumulative impacts from certified expert opinions and EIA expert assessments. In October of 2024, following the supplementary expert opinions, the assessment of the WPPs to be implemented was revised and significant environmental impact factors - impacts on natural values if the Proposed Action is implemented on the proposed site - were identified for three additional WPPs: Z6, Z8 and Z11. WPP Z6 was retained as it was moved to the location proposed by the experts, where an additional survey was carried out. After further assessment, the alternative locations defined above have 12 WPPs in Alternative A and 20 WPPs in Alternative B. Alternatives for the location of the WPP (Figure 4.1.7 of the EIA Report, and Tables 4.2.2 and 4.2.3): Alternative A: In the northern part of the WPP Park study area (12 WPPs); Alternative B: WPP without exclusionary restrictions throughout the study area (20 WPP). Table 1. (Table 4.1.1 of the EIA Report) Chronology of the study of the Limbaži WPP Park Chronology of WPP park configuration WPP site investigations Initial feasibility 45 potential WPP sites identified and investigated. After consultation with phase certified experts and the Nature Conservation Agency (hereinafter - NCA), 8 WPP were excluded from further investigation after the first preliminary assessment. 37 WPPs are examined in more detail in the EIA procedure: 15 WPPs were identified as having significant environmental impacts and were excluded from 2024, situation at detailed study due to the constraints identified the start of the (37 - 15 = 22 WPP). 22 WPPs are being promoted for potential installation. year It was decided to group the 22 selected WPPs into two alternative ones: Alternative A in the northern part of the study area and Alternative B in both the northern and southern parts of the WPP area* 3 https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/2b6c4b16-e867-42da-b604-f67ee6fe60c3 9  * The northern and southern parts are separated by the natural boundary of the Svētupe River: The WPP and the area north of the Svētupe are assumed to be the northern part and the area to the south the southern part. Alternative A - 14 WPP: in the W part of the study area Alternative B - 22 WPP: 14 WPPs in the N part of the study area + 8 WPPs in the D part of the study area. Due to the scenic impact of both alternatives A and B, which originally assessed the height of all WPPs at 300 m, some WPPs have been reduced in 2024, in summer height to 250 or 275 m in two different ways, resulting in adjusted alternatives A and B and their complementary alternatives A' and B'. Additional assessment of habitats, vascular plants and moss and lichen species 2024, September in the northern part of the site (Alternative A), as well as assessment of a new 2009 AST and power line. 2024, October Impact on habitats identified; expert recommendation: abandon 2 more WPPs 2009 in N (and relocate WPP Z6). 37 WPPs assessed in detail: exclusion restrictions for 17 WPPs (20 remain). Alternative A - 12 WPP: in the W part of the site Alternative B - 20: both parts of Z+D* Intermediate * Significant preconditions have been identified for 8 WPPs in Part D, which result can only be decided after further assessment of vascular plant, moss and lichen species and the development of a solution for the connection to the AST, as well as additional freshwater impact studies for the power line crossing over the Svētupe River. Recommended Alternative A for construction - 12: Z In total, 12 WPPs are recommended for construction in the N part of the park with reduced height (compared to alternative A'). The EIA report considers the recommendation for a WPP park of this size as part of the assessment of the proposed development alternative B, as a total of 20 potential WPP sites have Result been identified in the study area N and D. Of the 20 identified potential WPP sites, 8 sites in Part D are subject to significant pre-conditions: assessment of additional vascular plant, moss and lichen species and development of a solution for the AST connection, as well as additional freshwater impact studies for the power line crossing over the Svētupe River. 10  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). Often, the sand layers associated with groundwater are only a few metres thick. Groundwater provides water supply for the individual sector and is widely used in homesteads (wells). Groundwater is sourced at depths between 0.35 and ~10 m from the surface (the further from the sea, the greater the depth). Groundwater levels are influenced by rainfall. Water quality is most often affected by human activities. Groundwater is mainly associated with sandy Upper Pleistocene Baltic Ice Lake sediments (lgQ3ltv). The groundwater aquifer associated with alluvial deposits (aQ4ltv) is mainly composed of variously grained sands distributed in the valleys of watercourses (Salaca, Vitrupe, etc.). In the depressions and depressions between the hills, the marsh sediments (bQ4) also contain water. 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 impacts 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 area of the Proposed Action, 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 State Enterprise "Real Estate of the Ministry of Agriculture" and the Cabinet Regulation No 397 of 3 July 2018, the territory of the Proposed Action is located in two large river basins: the small river basin between Gauja and Salaca (large river basin code 53) and the Salaca large river basin (large river basin code 54), which are divided into several drainage basin districts. According to the "Flood Risk and Flood Hazard Maps" prepared by the LVGMC, the area of the Proposed Development is not located within a flood risk area of national importance. The nearest flood risk area is located approximately 60 km south of the Proposed Development: Ādaži district, at the mouth of the Gauja River in the Gulf of Riga.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 According to the TIAN of Salacgrīva town with rural territory of Salacgrīva municipality and the TIAN of Limbaži municipality, the following surface water protection zones have been established in the vicinity of the area of the Proposed Activity: 4 Flood risk and flood hazard maps (lvgmc. lv) 5 https://www. melioracija. lv 11  − Salaca protection zone: in rural areas - 100 m wide strip on each bank, in Salacgrīva - 10 m wide strip on each bank, in Vecsalaca - 100 m wide strip on each bank; − Vitrupe protection zone - 100 m wide strip on each bank; − Svētciems - 10 m wide on each bank, − Korģe protection zone - 50 m wide strip on each bank; − Vedamurga buffer zone - a 50 m wide strip on each bank; − Ungenurga Protection Zone - a 50 m wide strip on each bank; For other watercourses and water bodies in the territory of Salacgrīva town and countryside - 10 m wide strip on each bank. The construction of associated infrastructure (access roads, assembly yards, cable routes) as part of the Proposed Action could map the buffer zones around the Korge, Vedamurga and other small watercourses where infrastructure is to be constructed. Geological structure and engineering geological conditions The area of the proposed activity is partly located in the Metsapole Plain of the Central Latvian Lowlands and the Vidzeme Coastal Plain. The surrounding area of the Limbaži WPP Park is characterised by relatively flat topography. The absolute elevation of the terrain on the site and in the immediate vicinity varies between 25-40 m a.s.l. The southern regions of Vidzeme are part of the ancient Eastern European platform. The geological section here distinguishes between two elements characteristic of ancient platforms: the crystalline basement rock and the sedimentary cover. The surface of the crystalline basement rock is 700-800 m below sea level.6 According to the tectonic zoning7, the crystalline basement rock corresponds to the Estonian-Latvian monocline of the Baltic syncline. The basement fault is cut north-south from Tūja to Ainaži by the Salacgrīva tectonic fault. Quaternary sediments form an almost continuous blanket of uneven thickness, consisting of layers of different age, genesis and composition. They cover the eroded surface of pre-Quaternary rocks. The thickness of the Quaternary sediments varies from 6 to 35 m (decreasing towards the west). However, in river valley cuts, the Quaternary sediments can be up to 90-100 m thick. Engineering geological conditions and modern exodynamic processes The engineering geological conditions of the area of the proposed operation will be assessed in an engineering geological study to be carried out during the construction phase of the WPP. The description of the engineering geological conditions in the EIA report is therefore based on publicly available geological information.8 The assessment of the potential hazard from hazardous geological processes concluded that no hazardous modern exodynamic processes, such as karst or sufosia, landslides, slumping, gully formation, or active aeolian processes are present in the area of the Proposed Development. Swamping and fluvial erosion are possible in small areas in the vicinity of the proposed development. Erosive or accumulative river activity in the area of the Proposed Action is not pronounced and mainly affects the banks of the Salaca, Svētupe and Vitrupe rivers, which are located outside the territory of the WPP Park and do not pose geological risks to the WPP Park. 6 Ivanova O. and Nulle I., 2003. A structural map of the surface of the base clitter at a scale of 1 : 500 00 7 Brangulis, A. J., Kuršs, V., Misāns, J. & Stinkulis Ģ. 1998. Geology of Latvia. 1:500 000 scale geological map and description of pre-Quaternary sediments. 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. 12 Potential swamping processes are limited to isolated locations and are not expected to develop during the construction and operation of the WPPF. According to V.Nikulin's Latvian seismic zoning9 the area of the proposed activity is located north of the Svētupe seismogenic zone (ST), where future earthquakes with an intensity of 6 magnitude at epicentre (on the MSK-64 scale) may occur (Figure 6.3.5 of the EIA Report). 3.2. Nature values Specially Protected Nature Areas The study area and its surroundings include several Specially Protected Nature Areas (SPNAs) and micro- reserves, species sites and their areas, biotopes of European Union importance and trees of special conservation concern. The Proposed Action is located within the territory of the North Vidzeme Biosphere Reserve (Neutral Zone) (part of the Proposed Action study area is also located within the Landscape Protection Zone, but no WPPs are planned to be located there). An overview of the nature values is summarised in Figure 6.4.1 of the EIA Report, and a map of the SPNAs is provided in Figure 6.4.2. Figure 4 (6.4.2 of the EIA report) Protected areas in the vicinity of a potential WPP site 9 Nikulin, V. 2007. Seismotectonic conditions and seismic hazard of Latvia. University of Latvia, Riga. 13 There are 9 microreserves and 3 Natura 2000 sites within 3 km of the boundary of the LVM wind farm study area land units. 3 Natura 2000 sites in the vicinity of the LVM wind farm study area: − Vitrupes ieleja (area code: LV0530500) 0,8 km from the border of the land units, distance to the nearest WPP - 0,9 km; − Salacas ieleja (area code: LV0302200) 1,6 km from the border of the land units, distance to the nearest WPP - 1,8 km; − Niedrāju-Pilka purvs (site code: LV0509800) 1,2 km from the border of the land units, distance to the nearest WPP - 5,3 km. Characteristics of Natura 2000 sites Vitrupes ieleja is an important site for the conservation of hillside forests and for the conservation of a rare species of Annex 2 of the EU Habitats Directive - the Vertigo genesii, for which the site is one of only four known in Latvia. Two protected plant species have been recorded in the area: the Allium ursinum and the Lunaria rediviva, and 9 protected invertebrate species. The hillside forests of the Vitrupe valley are one of the three sites of the Helicigona lapicida in the country. Many of the forest stands meet the criteria for key forest habitats. Salacas ieleja is an important area for the protection of several EU Habitats Directive habitats: sandstone outcrops, undisturbed caves, hillside forests, oxbow lakes, stream channels and dry meadows on calcareous soils, etc. It has outstanding scenic value in many parts of the river, especially in the Skaņākalns area near Mazsalaca, downstream of Staicele, at Mērnieku krāce and Sarkana cliffs. The area is also geologically significant: Pietraga Red Rocks, Dauģēnu Rocks and Caves, Neļķu Rocks and Caves, Silmaču Rock and Caves, Swallow Rocks and Caves, Dzelveskalns Outcrops and Caves, etc. Niedrāju-Pilka purvs is an important site for the conservation of the priority habitats of the EU Habitats Directive Annex 1 - raised bogs and swamp forests. A large number of protected bird species can be found: Black stork, Bean goose, Greater white-fronted goose, European honey buzzard, lesser spotted eagle, Black grouse, Hazel grouse, European golden plover, common gull, Whooper swan, etc. 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. 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. In the whole habitat study area, specially protected habitats cover approximately 7% of the total area, they are found scattered throughout the LVM wind farm study area (Figure 6.4.3 of the EIA report), forming also larger concentrations along small rivers (Vedamurga, Kulaurga, Urgenurga, etc.), which in places correspond to the habitat Water courses of plain to montane levels with the Ranunculion fluitantis and Callitricho-Batrachion vegetation 3260. Along them, mainly occur Alluvial forests with Alnus glutinosa and Fraxinus excelsior 91E0*, which cover the largest areas in the study area, i.e. 106.5 ha. There is also some Fennoscandian hemiboreal natural old broad-leaved deciduous forests 9020* (17.6 ha) along the streams and in the NE part of the site. The second largest habitat group, which occurs most frequently in scattered patches throughout the site, is Western Taiga 9010* (66 ha). Typically, habitats that are highly dependent on moisture conditions - Bog Woodland 91D0* and Fennoscandian deciduous swamp woods 9080* - are more concentrated in the north-eastern part of the study area, where adjacent areas are also surrounded by swamp habitats. Coniferous forest and swamp forest habitats also survive in small patches in other parts of the site. The area also has a fragmentary occurrence of Fennoscandian herb-rich forests 14 with Picea abies 9050 (13.6 ha). Along the Svētupe River, which corresponds to the biotope 3260 Water courses of plain to montane levels with the Ranunculion fluitantis and Callitricho-Batrachion vegetation, there are also 9180* Tilio-Acerion forests of slopes, screes and ravines covering an area of 7.2 ha. Just to the south of the study area, to the east, next to the quarry, is the 2180 Wooded dunes of the Atlantic, Continental and Boreal region 4.3 ha in area. Habitat area, ha 120 106.5 100 80 66.2 60 37.2 40 32.0 17.6 13.6 20 7.2 4.3 0 Purvaini meži Veci vai dabiski (aluviāli krastmalu Staignāju meži Lakstaugiem bagāti Mežainas piejūras Veci jaukti platlapju Nogāžu un gravu un palieņu meži) boreāli meži Aluviāli meži egļu meži meži kāpas meži 91E0* 9010* 9080* 91D0* 9020* 9050 9180* 2180 Figure 5 (Figure 6.4.3 in the EIA report). Habitat area in the area of LVM wind farm study lands of WPP park "Limbaži" Specially protected species (BD II - species listed in Annex II to the European Council Directive 92/43/EEC on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora; SPA I, II - according to the number of the Annex to the Cabinet of Ministers Regulations on the list of protected species) found in the study area (northern part of the WPP park, where the impact of the Proposed Action on both forest and swamp habitats and on vascular plant, moss and lichen species is assessed), species for which a microreserve (MIR) is to be established are marked in EIA report Table 6.4.3, grouped in alphabetical order according to their Latin name and indicating their occurrence in the study area, as well as in Figure 3 of the expert opinion of 07.11.2024 attached as Annex 6). Where the name of a species in the scientific literature differs from the name used in the legislation on species conservation, this is indicated in brackets. The table includes only protected species and other rare species (e.g. specialist species of natural forest habitats) whose habitats are located in the area of potential impact of the northern part of the WPP Park. The specially protected species of 6 vascular plants, 9 mosses, 1 invertebrate, 4 lichens and 3 fungi found in the site are noted in Table 6.4.3 of the EIA Report.10 The site survey also revealed new records of specially protected plant species: details of the records are given in the species habitat expert reports (Annex 6). Each site identified has a mapped habitat of EU importance or a designated habitat of a specially protected species. 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. 15 Figure 6 (6 .4.1 of the EIA report) Nature values in and around the Limbaži WPP Park 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 methodology used for the study of the bird species is attached in the opinion of the Certified Naturalist DU/2024/01 (Annex 6, Appendix "Methodology of the study"). The methodology was agreed with the Nature Conservation Agency on 30 September 2022. The area of the proposed activity, the LVM wind farm study area and the study area including it have been surveyed and observations recorded 19 times on 13 dates in 2022 and 62 times on 46 dates in 2023, as well as in 2024 in a random manner, with particular attention paid to the survey of the vicinity of the observation of a Eurasian eagle-owl (near Korģene) in 2023 and the installation of passive acoustic monitoring devices. A total of 54 species, 38 of which are protected species, were recorded during field surveys in the study area by a certified naturalist (Table 6.4.4 of the EIA Report). The ornithofauna of the area was characterised using expert, NCA, LVM, 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 the bird species recorded are summarised in Annex 6 of the EIA report. Field work has been carried out in the study area of the Proposed Action in 2022, 2023 and 2024 to assess the impact of the Proposed Action on nesting and passage ornithofauna. 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 6.4.4 of the EIA Report, while the impact assessment and recommended mitigation recommendations are provided in Chapter 7.6.2 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 wind farm projects"11 and the Latvian adapted "Guidelines for assessing the impact of wind power plants on bats"12. Bat species were surveyed using the following approach: − seven times a season, with two (May, June, July) or four (August, September) nights of counting each month; − the timing of the surveys was chosen according to the bats' biological cycle (reproduction, migration, mating); − bat activity was recorded at 8 fixed observation stations D1-D8 and three routes (M1-M2); − 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 5619 recording files were obtained from 8 recording stations in the planned area of the WPP Park, of which 2824 files contain bat sound recordings with a total of 3242 individual bat passes recorded (Table 6.4.6 of the EIA). 11 https://tethys. pnnl. gov/sites/default/files/publications/EUROBATS-2015. pdf 12 https://lvafa. vraa. gov. lv/files/materials/applications/2020/171/Vadlinijas_WPP_xsparni_fin. pdf 17 All the counts resulted in a total of 248 bat call files with 309 recorded bat flights (Table 6.4.7 of the EIA report). Four species of bats reliably identified to species, as well as the calls of bats belonging to the noctule group, were recorded along the routes. A total of seven bat species were identified in the analysis of bat calls. Some records cannot be traced back to the species with certainty, but can be assigned either to the species group Myotis (ecologically mostly a 'thicket' group) or to the species group 'nictaloids', which includes bat species of the genera Nyctalus, Vespertilio and Eptesicus (all 'roost' species). The overall average bat activity at all 8 stations in the 7 censuses in the planned wind park area is 6.73 passes 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 recorded in the Limbaži WPP Park is assessed as high, as it is well within the fourth quartile (Table 6.4.7 of the EIA Report). This result was also to be expected, as the expert assessments carried out so far for the planned wind farms were carried out in more open and less suitable areas for bats. 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 assessment of the impact of the WPP on terrestrial non- flying mammals. Almost all species of terrestrial non-flying mammals found in Latvia occur in the area, with the exception of the dormouse, whose distribution is restricted to some known localities outside the study areas. An overview of the species, together with their relative importance, is provided in Table 6.4.9 of the EIA Report. The information provided in the report 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 LVM institute “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's report (report attached as Annex 6 to the EIA). Observations in the vicinity of the WPP parks studied by the expert (WPP Limbaži and WPP Valmiera-Valka) show that up to 10% of the Latvian brown bear population has visited the wind park areas so far.13 Brown bears are 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, with the highest population densities and most successful breeding currently occurring in northern Vidzeme. The proportion of the population of other mammals, both specially protected and economically exploited, in the area where the wind farms 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 In terms of landscape, the study area of the Proposed Action falls within the Northern Vidzeme and the Maritime area. In terms of geomorphological zoning, the study area of the Proposed Action falls within the Metsepole Plain of the Central Latvian Lowland and the Vidzeme Coast of the Maritime Lowland. These conditions determine the flat (average altitude about 25 m) topography, the main contributors to which 13 https://www.silava.lv/images/Petijumi/2023-Lacu-monitorings/2023-Lacu-monitorings-Parskats.pdf 18 are the river valleys: Salaca, Korģe and Svētupe, which divide the WPP massifs in the A-R direction; also, Jaunupe and Vitrupe. Figure 7. (Figure 6.5.3 of the EIA Report) Tourism and recreational facilities and routes and maximum WPP location pattern in the study area. Basic: Ltd Jāņa sēta Characteristics of cultural heritage According to the cartographic information of the information system "Heritage"14 there are 16 cultural monuments in the study area. Of these, 11 are archaeological monuments and 5 are monuments of art. As the monuments are located indoors - in three churches - the churches are indicated in the cartographic material. In terms of status, 4 monuments are of national importance, 8 monuments are of regional importance and 4 monuments are of local importance (Table 6.5.1 of the EIA Report). Other sites or objects of cultural or historical importance within the study area have also been identified (Table 6.5.2). They include four churches or their ruins, three manor complexes, an industrial heritage site and an archaeological (cult) site. Closer sites are assessed in depth. Tourism and recreation opportunities in the area 14 https://karte.mantojums.lv/ 19 The study area contains several tourist attractions, is crossed by hiking routes of European and regional importance, has several rivers used for water tourism (Salaca, Svētupe, Jaunupe, Vitrupe), as well as several other types of recreational sites and areas (Figure 10 (Figure 6.5.3 of the EIA Report)). Sights and recreational opportunities in the operational area Two nature trails maintained by the LVM are located in the study area relatively close to the proposed WPP: Ķirbiži forest nature trail and Niedrāju-Pilka purvs footbridge. Further afield are sites such as the Manor Stone and Sarkanās klintis. 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. 15 Water tourism The Latvian water tourism route website "Upesoga" includes four watercourses in the study area: Jaunupe, Salaca, Svētupe, Vitrupe.16 When contacting the Salacgrīva boat rental company "Lāču laivas", it was found out that apart from the Salaca, boating on other rivers is very dependent on the water level and the cleanliness of the river (presence of obstacles) and is therefore not so popular. Boating is also offered on the Korģe, but this is aimed at a very small group of people and only a few takes advantage of this opportunity. Hiking/cycling routes Seafront: Part of the European Long Distance Hiking Route E9 in the Baltic States. In Latvia, it stretches along the entire coastline. As the study area also includes the shore of the Gulf of Riga, this also implies the presence of the Jurtakas. It stretches for 29 km in the study area. The closest location to the wind park - in Salacgrīva, near the Salaca Bridge - Jūrtaka is 5.3 kilometres from the planned WPP (Z2). Green railway "Ainaži-Valmiera". Green railways are cycling and hiking routes along former railway lines in Latvia and Estonia. The 20.8 km study area includes the route of the Ainaži-Valmiera green railway, which has a total length of 84 kilometres. The WPP will be located up to 9.9 km away from the route in this section. EuroVelo13 cycle route: the EuroVelo13 or Iron Curtain cycle route is located in the study area. EuroVelo13 is part of the EuroVelo network of European cycling routes. In Latvia, it mostly follows the coastline, and in the study area it also follows the roads closest to the Gulf of Riga for 28.7 km. 3.4.Noise assessment The planned locations of the individual WPPs are mainly forest stands or clearings from recent years. The nearest rural farmsteads are >800 m from the nearest WPP (see Figure 6.7.1). The noise-regulated areas are certain areas close to detached houses and, in the settlements of Kuikule, Kirbiži and Korģene, the detached house regulated areas. The settlement Kuiķule is ~1.5 km from the nearest WPP, Ķirbiži is ~1.2 km from the nearest WPP, the settlement Korģene is ~2 km from the nearest WPP. Throughout the planned WPP area, which is quite large, there are some small apparently private quarries. There are three lightly used local roads in the area: V143 - 111/11, V142 - <100/27, V138 - <100/17, further away - municipal road P12 - 770/6 (total cars/day / freight transp. %). The A1 and the railway are ~4.5 km further 15 Institute for Social, Economic and Humanitarian Studies (VIA HESPI) 2022. Monitoring of visitors to specially protected areas. Report on the survey results. 16 https://upesoga.lv/lv/marsruti/ 20 away and do not affect this WPP park. All roads are in or around the WPP area, local roads have low traffic volumes and their traffic noise does not affect the noise pollution of farmsteads exposed to the WPP. There are no businesses within the planned area of the WPP that generate noise from their activities that would add to the noise generated by the WPP at the individual farmsteads. Other industrial sites are located in the surrounding settlements, but all of them are outside the area of the proposed WPP park. The existing noise level in the area of the proposed WPP is determined by traffic noise on nearby roads, which is modelled to assess the existing noise situation in the area of the proposed WPP park. The proposed Rail Baltica route is 3.5 km from the nearest recommended WPP. According to the noise modelling maps for the Rail Baltica route17, the calculated limit to which the noise level of the railway without noise abatement measures exceeds 45dB (A) at Lnight in the recommended railway alignment option is no closer than 2.8 km to the nearest recommended WPP. This distance is approximately 3.4 km, taking into account noise abatement measures. 3.5.Air quality assessment in the WPP area 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. The construction process, such as the use of machinery and access roads, including gravel roads, can cause air pollution with dust particlesPM10 and PM2.5, as well as nitrogen dioxide, and the concentration limit values for these substances are set by Cabinet of Ministers Regulation No 1290 of 3 November 2009 "Regulations on Air Quality". 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 described in the letter No 4-6/1433 of the LVGMC of 26 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. Table 2. (6.8.2 of the EIA Report) Annual mean background concentrations (g/m3) in the area of the proposed activity Viela Annual average concentration (g/m3) PM10 13.90 PM2.5 7.78 Carbon monoxide (CO) 307.45 Nitrogen dioxide (NO2) 5.83 The concentrations of pollutants in the vicinity of the area of the Proposed Activity 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 (Figures 6.8.1 to 6.8.4 of the EIA Report). The existing air quality in the area of the proposed activity is good and there is no need to develop measures to improve air quality; the highest concentrations of air pollutants are in the vicinity of major settlements and roads. 17 https://edzl.lv/projekta-norise/izpete 21  4. Significant environmental effects of the proposed activity and its possible alternatives (Chapter 7 of the EIA Report) Member States should support the accelerated development of renewable energy projects in cooperation with local and regional authorities by identifying and defining land, surface, underground and 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 ensure the achievement of the 2030 renewable energy target and to support the achievement of the climate neutrality target by 2050 at the latest in accordance with Regulation (EU) 2021/1119. 4.1. Deforested areas The exact size of the total deforested area will be determined during the construction design phase, and the maximum possible area will be estimated during the EIA. The approximate area to be deforested if the recommended alternative A is implemented will be up to 46.64 ha, of which approximately 25.30% will be young stands, 35.08% middle-aged stands and 31.65% mature stands (calculations in Table 3 (EIA Report 7. 1. 1. table 2)); 5.90% of the deforested area is currently clear-cut. However, under Alternative B, the deforested area will be up to 69.05 ha. Of which 30% are young stands, 34% middle-aged stands and 25% mature stands (estimates in Table 4, EIA Table 7.1.2); 4% of the deforested area is currently clear-cut. Table 3. (Table 7.1.1 of the EIA Report) Total deforested area under Alternative A Alternative A TOTAL (ha) New yield Middle-aged Briestaudze Adult Overgrown Deforestation (ha) stand (ha) (ha) stand (ha) stand (ha) (ha) Total 11,80 16,36 14,76 0,73 0,24 2,75 46,64 % 25,30 35,08 31,65 1,57 0,50 5,90 Table 4. (Table 7.1.2 of the EIA Report) Total area to be deforested under Alternative B Alternative B TOTAL (ha) New yield Middle-aged Briestaudze Adult Overgrown Deforestation (ha) stand (ha) (ha) stand (ha) stand (ha) (ha) Total 20,41 23,42 16,98 2,75 2,45 3,04 69,05 % 29,56 33,91 24,60 3,98 3,55 4,40 According to the Central Statistical Office, in 2024 there will be 3 607 thousand ha of forest land in Latvia18, so the area deforested by LVP for the WPP park Limbaži in alternative A will be approximately 0.0013%, while in alternative B approximately 0.0019% of the total forest area in Latvia. The impact is assessed as not significant. 18 https://data.stat.gov.lv/pxweb/lv/OSP_PUB/START__NOZ__ME__MEP/MEM010/table/tableViewLayout1/ 22 4.2. Noise and vibration levels Assessment and significance of changes in noise levels The planned location of the WPP is a large area (about 45 km²) in the municipalities of Salacgrīva and Vilķenes parish; there are about 20 farmsteads in the vicinity of the WPP park. An overview of the noise propagation forecast is attached in Annex 7 of the EIA Report. No potential problems with exceedances of noise limits are expected as a result of the noise calculations: five conclusions are listed below. 1. Calculation of the noise level in the homestead areas in the existing situation (traffic noise): the permissible noise level in the homestead areas at all times of the day is complied with in accordance with the Cabinet of Ministers Regulation No 16 of 7.01.2014 "Noise assessment and management procedure". 2. In the existing situation (traffic noise), all settlements meet the WHO guidelines for road traffic noise of <53 dBA recommended daily LDV values. (Compendium of WHO and other UN guidance on health and environment, 2022 update.) 3. Calculation of the noise level at night when operating 12 WPP with 2 BES and AST units (Alternative A): compliance with the permissible noise level in the homestead areas at all times of the day is ensured, in accordance with the Cabinet Regulation No 16 of 7.01.2014 "Noise Assessment and Management Procedure". 4. Calculation of the noise level at night when operating 20 WPP with 2 BESS and AST units (alternative B): compliance with the permissible noise level in the homestead areas at all times of the day is ensured, in accordance with the Cabinet Regulation No 16 of 7.01.2014 "Noise Assessment and Management Procedure". 5. In some farmsteads (Alternative B), the WHO guideline for WPP noise is not met, with a daily LDV value of <45 dBA. (Compendium of WHO and other UN guidance on health and environment, 2022 update.) In order to comply with the dailyADI values recommended in the WHO guidelines, Alternative B for WPP D8 includes mitigation measures: select WPP models with noise emissions that comply with the WHO recommendations, install WPPs with the lowest possible noise emissions or aerodynamically improved wings. 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 37 WPPs initially assessed at the same time, fully covering the two alternatives assessed in more detail, using the Wind Pro software with up-to-date data from WPP manufacturers on the latest models for which low-frequency noise measurements have been made19: see Annex 7. The results obtained do not exceed the Danish limit values (Figure 7.2.2 of the EIA report). 19 WindPRO 3.6.366 by EMD International A/S, SIA "Environment" licence (client) No 8797. 23 Large 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 at 20 21,22,23. 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 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. 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. No new laws and regulations setting vibration limits have been issued 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 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 Action, which does not foresee any WPP within 800 m of any human dwelling, cannot by a large margin cause vibration that would disturb people. 20 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 21 A. H. Poulsen et al., Pregnancy exposure to wind turbine noise and adverse birth outcomes: A nationwide cohort study, Environment International 167, September 2018 22 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 23 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 24 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, since 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 total, the shadow duration target of 10 hours per year is exceeded (11-33 h) in 12 dwellings: See Annex 8 of the EIA worksheet "Shadows with distance attenuation" (shaded red) and the summary in Table 7.3.2, which also indicates the main shadow casting WPP on each house that is causing these exceedances and the times of the year and day when the specific WPP should be stopped during sunny periods to prevent these exceedances. The total shadow duration exceedances (EIA Tables 7.3.2 and 7.3.3) are only 124.3 hours in Alternative A and 192.4 hours in Alternative B, which would correspond respectively to a 1.4% annual shutdown of WPP 1 in Alternative A, or a 0.1% annual shutdown of the entire WPP fleet, and a 2.2% annual shutdown of WPP 1 in Alternative B, or a similar 0.1% annual shutdown of the entire WPP fleet. However, the WPPs will have to be shut down for about three times less time overall, because (Table 7.3.2 of the EIA) shutting down Z2 reduces the shadow duration for 4 houses at a time, D8 for 3, Z9 and Z16 for 2 each, so the required WPP shutdown will reduce the annual lifetime of the WPP fleet by a negligible amount. 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 construction, the following have been identified as 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 particulates, including PM10 and PM2.5. The overall level of risk of impacts is low according to the IAQM guidelines used24. The construction process of the WPP, including the movement of vehicles involved in the construction process, will have a negligible 24 https://iaqm.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/Construction-Dust-Guidance-Jan-2024.pdf 25 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 construction. 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 nature values Habitats and SP species The factors identified as threatening nature values in relation to protected plant species sites, protected freshwater, grassland, marsh and forest and swamp 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 areas and access roads, and the potential drainage impacts that may arise from ditching around assembly areas and access roads where necessary for drainage. Measures to avoid and minimise potential impacts on nature values are already identified in the 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 in order to avoid impacts on nature values. The construction of the WPP Park Alternative B, which includes the WPP in the southern part of the WPP Park, is not recommended at this stage, as it has not been subject to an assessment of vascular plant, moss and lichen species and the development of a solution for the AST connection, as well as an additional impact study on freshwater for the power line crossing over the Svētupe River. The information to assess the residual effects of the Proposed Action is incomplete. The residual impacts on protected natural values resulting from the construction of the WPP Park Alternative A after the application of mitigation measures are summarised in Table 7.6.3 of the EIA Report. One of the largest areas of habitats and species habitats affected is related to the construction of the 1A A and 1A R connection, forming the road to the substation. Even the lower impact Alternative 1A A will be moderately adverse at the local scale and insignificantly adverse at the regional scale, creating a new linear opening in the forest and associated impacts on the microclimate and hydrological regime of habitats and species habitats. In the case of the implementation of the Connection Alternative 2A, the Proposed Action will have overall minor adverse effects at local and regional scale: some individuals of species and small areas of species habitats and protected habitats will be destroyed, but there will be no adverse effects on species populations and the conservation status of habitats. Additional recommended measures to protect other natural assets during construction: − Large-sized (>25 cm) fallen trees in the paths of roads and building sites should be moved to the nearest stand. − If ecological trees are felled in clearings during construction, they should be moved to the nearest stand as far as possible. − The use of imported black earth should be avoided to prevent the introduction of seeds of invasive species. 26 Effects on birds In the WPP Park area, the main impacts are collisions, habitat destruction, habitat use limitation (due to noise and flicker) and barrier effects. Clashes In the literature, the most prominent impact of the construction of WPP parks is the death of birds as a result of collisions. It is also pointed out that there is no place where birds cannot be traumatised or fatally struck by a WPP structure - rotor or tower - and no bird species (at least within Europe) that cannot be so struck.25 Most literature identifies the most vulnerable species to collisions as soaring birds: diurnal birds of prey, especially White-tailed eagles and storks, as well as migratory birds, are considered to be significant victims of collisions.26 The second group of species assessed as being at risk of collisions are birds of prey, more specifically, Western capercaillies: this group is more likely to be involved in collisions with fixed infrastructure objects, including the mast of a WPP.2728 Some of the protected species found in the study area mainly stay at or slightly above tree height, at least during the breeding season: mainly woodpeckers, but also shrikes, and to a lesser extent pigeons and European nightjar. This could quite plausibly be seen as one of the main reasons for their relatively low collision rates with WPP rotors, while at the same time it should be noted that within the EU most WPP parks are established in different habitats rather than in a larger forested area. Technical parameters of WPPs, on the other hand, are much less covered in the studies, including information on the height of WPPs, their rotor diameter, the size of the fleet and the density of their deployment. Primary impacts should be addressed in areas of particular importance (large local populations, nesting sites or close to them), avoiding the construction of specific WPPs. Secondary: through the use of mitigation technologies that help avoid collisions. Habitat destruction The construction of infrastructure facilities - access roads, cable lines and installation sites - increases fragmentation in the WPP Park area, which may have complex impacts on both nesting species and their habitat quality, both by directly destroying or transforming habitats overlapped by the planned facilities and by altering the quality of the surrounding habitats. The presence of anthropogenic disturbance in the area could potentially increase during the technical work on the WPP. Given the location of the WPP Park site, an increase in the presence of visitors unrelated to the maintenance of the WPP Park cannot be excluded. The area was assessed during the survey as a relatively popular recreational and wildlife site, with a relatively well-developed hunting infrastructure. To mitigate the impact of direct disturbance, deforestation and construction works should be organised outside the breeding season. Construction work within 1000 metres of a rookery is strictly forbidden during the rutting period from 1 April to 15 May. Where possible, this condition should be taken into 25 Rydell, J., Ottvall, R., Pettersson, S., Green, M. 2017. The effects of wind power on birds and bats. Swedish Environmental Protection Agency, Sweden. 26 Ibid, 27 https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.6307 28 González, M. A. 2018. Female Cantabrian capercaillie dead by collision with wind turbine.Grouse News, 55 27 account up to a distance of 1500 metres from the roost. The restriction applies to WPPs D8, D9, D10, D11, D12, D13, D14, D15, D16 and associated infrastructure. Barrier effect Migratory birds with a WPP as an obstacle in their flight path will often choose to avoid it by flying over or around it, consuming more energy than they normally would in the absence of the WPP. The barrier effect is stronger in species that tend to avoid parks, mainly geese, swans and cranes; similar behaviour is also observed in nocturnally migrating prey birds.29 30 Looking at the overall location of the WPPs, it can be characterised as a relatively narrow but long group of N-S aligned (especially if the recommendation to abandon the NE part of the three WPPs is accepted), overlapping at least relatively with the general migration direction from N-NW to SW or vice versa, depending on the direction of migration. The park is also divided into two parts by a watercourse, and there is a strip of at least 2 km between the WPP groups, which could potentially be used as a flight corridor. In view of the above, the impact of the barrier effect is expected to be low and the migratory flight paths that pass through the study area episodically are not expected to cause disproportionate energy losses to migratory bird species. Noise pollution Priority protected areas for a number of special-status owl species have been modelled within the planned wind park.31 For the priority protected areas identified in the Owl Conservation Plan, it is recommended to limit additional noise pollution from WPPs by choosing the quietest possible WPP model. Priority Areas of Conservation Concern for owl species have been modelled in the area of the proposed wind park.32 Some of the Priority Areas identified in the Conservation Plan for Glaucidium passerinum, Aegolius funereus, Strix aluco, Strix uralensis, Asio otus and Bubo bubo also contain owl species and the Plan recommends limiting additional noise pollution from WPP in these areas by choosing the quietest possible WPP model. Due to the lack of studies on the effects of noise from WPPs on Strix uralensis, pre-construction monitoring of this species should be carried out to assess the potential noise disturbance from WPPs. This includes studying bird behaviour and adjusting the operation of the WPP to the observed data. Taking into account the Latvian Owl Conservation Plan33, 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 29 Rydell, J., Ottvall, R., Pettersson, S., Green, M. 2017. The effects of wind power on birds and bats. Swedish Environmental Protection Agency, Sweden. 30 Pearse, Aaron & Metzger, Kristine & Brandt, David & Shaffer, Jill & Bidwell, Mark & Harrell, Wade. 2021. Migrating Whooping Cranes avoid wind-energy infrastructure when selecting stopover habitat. Ecological Applications. 31. 10.1002/eap.2324. 31 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. 32 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. 33 Avotiņš jun. A. 2019. Conservation plan for theBarn 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. 28 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. Risk assessment of the impact of the proposed action on bird species The 500 x 500 m grid cell map used in the Species Conservation Plans for owls and woodpeckers was used to characterise the impacts. Given that birds are mobile creatures and their breeding sites vary from year to year, this allows for a more efficient and transparent characterisation of the WPP Park study area. The expert who carried out the risk assessment points out that cell boundaries are not absolute: local situations have to be taken into account, while the assessment provides a summary picture of the most important sites for birds in the area of the proposed activity. The criteria used for the assessment are described in the expert opinion on birds (Annex 6 of the EIA report). Alternative A of the proposed action (which is also part of Alternative B) has been eliminated as a low collision risk option provided that all WPPs are equipped with technological solutions that reduce the risk of accidental collisions (WPP containment chamber systems). The southern part of Alternative B is assessed as an area of relatively low risk of collisions with soaring birds. In the southern part of Alternative B, risks are posed to the Western capercaillie rookeries and potential rookeries on the periphery of the Proposed Action. If the known breeding ground (information provided by LVM, 2023 field data) is located at a relatively safe distance based on the literature, the potential breeding ground in the area south of the LVM Kulaurga quarry is located within the minimum recommended distance: 1 km. As a matter of maximum precaution, WPP D11 and D13 can only be installed after additional site investigation as part of the pre-construction monitoring, as the EIA studies and surveys have not identified the exact location of the roost but have identified indications that this is the case. The restriction of the operation of WPP D11 and D13 during the rutting period (suspension of WPP operation from 1 April to 15 May in the mornings between one hour before and four hours after local sunrise and in the evenings between one hour before and one hour after local sunset) should be adapted, but should be specified according to the results of additional surveys to be carried out during the pre-construction period. Negative impacts on the breeding population of Ural owls are potentially expected throughout the Park (both under Alternative A and B). The application of owl protection measures (noise restrictions) should be assessed according to the results of the pre-construction monitoring: choose the quietest possible WPP design and solution. Measures to mitigate impacts on bird species During the construction of a WPP It is recommended to abandon the construction of WPP Z19, Z20 and Z21 in the NE part of the WPP Park. This is based on the presence of nesting Eurasian goshawk at distances of less than 1000 m between these WPP, as well as the presence of a known Western capercaillie rookery and another potential rookery towards the D and SE of the WPP group, also at distances of less than 1 km. This recommendation has been taken into account. WPP Z1 and Z2: Despite being located in habitats of relatively low value for protected birds, these WPP include a water body that has the potential to attract protected species such as Western marsh harrier, 29 osprey and black stork. If WPPs are built, mitigation measures are mandatory: WPP containment chamber systems, operating restrictions in line with pre-construction monitoring results, avoid risks of collisions with soaring birds. The condition for Z1 and Z2 has been taken into account (see Annex 12). WPP D11, D12, D13, D14. These WPP are located along an already established road with a relatively high level of use and an active quarry, which are considered to be pre-existing negative factors for the Western capercaillie rookery adjacent to these WPP. If WPP are restricted by shutting down during the breeding season, the potential impact is relatively small. Ideally, if the proposed development does not allow the construction of these WPPs, this is a more optimal solution, but it does not mitigate the adverse impacts of the existing forest roads and gravel pit. The condition for D11, D13, D14 has been taken into account (see Annex 12). Construction of D12 is not recommended. During construction and operation Mitigation measures to be taken during the implementation of the Proposed Action are mainly aimed at avoiding collisions with sensitive species groups. Planetary birds - Birds of Prey of the day and black storks To significantly reduce the risk of collisions with diurnal birds of prey that have occupied breeding sites on the periphery of the Proposed Action site (mainly lesser spotted eagles) and may consequently pass through the WPP Park area or stay at low intensity in the vicinity of the peripheral WPP, It is recommended to equip the WPP park with "smart camera systems" that can reduce or stop the rotation of WPP (SOD or Shutdown on Demand type solution using cameras and bird identification software), groups of WPP or the whole park, if necessary (depending on the specifics of the solution). Based on the information available in the literature, this solution avoids a significant number of potential collisions, although different assessments are available in different literature.34 A 65% reduction in collision risk for all diurnal raptor species using solutions that stop WPP operation is reliably estimated.35 There are also solutions where these systems are equipped with specific deterrent solutions (audible or visual), which also reduce the risk of collisions in situations where the bird has already flown into the collision risk zone of the WPP rotor. These systems are constantly evolving and improving, and their efficiency is increasing. In terms of the potential presence of soaring birds and therefore the risk of collisions, the affected WPP are located within the area of the identified breeding sites, however, due to the temporal variability of the breeding sites, it is recommended that all WPP are fitted with stop camera systems. If the solution for the WPP suspension camera system, which is being refined during pre-construction monitoring, does not ensure identification of raptors, a solution for raptor protection is recommended for all WPPs: Stop the WPP up to one hour before and after both local sunrise and sunset for the protection of soaring birds from 1 April to 1 October. The condition is partially taken into account as there are already camera solutions that are effective at dusk and the camera solution can be fine-tuned during pre-construction monitoring and there is no need for WPP shutdown, such as the dtbird solution36 (see Annex 12). Grouse: Western capercaillie One of the mitigation measures to reduce the risk of collisions between Western capercaillie and rotor wings, as well as potentially reducing the risk of collisions between other species nesting in the forest, is 34 Rydell, J., Ottvall, R., Pettersson, S., Green, M. 2017. The effects of wind power on birds and bats. Swedish Environmental Protection Agency, Sweden. 35 Garcia-Rosa, P. B., & Tande, J. O. G. 2023. Mitigation measures for preventing collision of birds with wind turbines. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 2626(1), 012072. 36 https://www.dtbird.com/ 30 the height condition of the lowest point of the WPP rotor wing: the lowest point must be at least the height of two mature trees of the surrounding forest. This condition is already considered to be fulfilled in the initial planning, since if the maximum height of the WPP is 300 m and the rotor diameter is 200 m, the lowest point of the rotor is at a height of about 100 m. Taking into account the potentially high risk of the overall impact of the operation of the constructed WPP on the success of the Western capercaillie rut, the WPP located approximately 1 km away from the rookeries (D8, D10, D11, D12, D13, D14, D15, D16) should be suspended during the rutting period: it is recommended to suspend the operation of the WPP during the rutting period from 1. the following should be recommended for the period from 1 April to 15 May: in the mornings from one hour before local sunrise to four hours after local sunrise, and in the evenings from one hour before to one hour after local sunset. The condition for D8, D10, D11, D12, D13, D14 has been partially taken into account (see Annex 12) as the ornithologist has based the WPP restrictions on assumptions, so the need for them can be clarified during pre-construction monitoring and the suspension time can be reduced accordingly. D12, D15, D16 are not recommended at all, and it should be noted that the southern part of the WPP is not recommended at all at present. Birds’ active at night: owls Protected owl species occur throughout the proposed WPP park, or their priority cells are located within 500 metres of the proposed WPP sites. The bird expert points out that the operation of the WPP should be limited throughout the year (owls are roosters) so that noise pollution levels are not exceeded. In the absence of studies on the impact of sound from wind farms on birds, caution should be exercised, and further pre- and post-construction monitoring of birds should be carried out to assess the noise and disturbance impacts of WPPs. This includes studying bird behaviour and, if necessary, adjusting the operation of the WPP in line with the observed data if negative impacts from the WPP are detected. To reduce the potential impact of noise pollution on the owl species present and potentially nesting, it is recommended to choose technical solutions with the quietest possible operation of the WPP system. Condition taken into account (see Annex 12). Migratory birds In order to significantly reduce the risk of collisions with large migratory birds (mainly Anser sp. and Branta sp. geese as well as swans), which may pass through the territory of the WPP park or stay at low intensity in the vicinity of the edge WPP during the migration period, it is recommended to equip the WPP park with camera system(s), which can, if necessary (depending on the specifics of the particular solution), slow down or stop the rotation of one or more WPP turbines or the turbines of the entire park. The literature also mentions the positive effect of radar applications in reducing collisions of migratory birds in wind farms, which have been installed even in strong migration routes.37 Although the proposed WPP park is not considered to be located in a strong migratory flyway or bird concentration area based on survey information, it is likely to have a temporarily high presence of migratory birds. 37 Cohen, E. B., Buler, J. J., Horton, K. G., Loss, S. R., Cabrera-Cruz, S. A., Smolinsky, J. A., & Marra, P. P. 2022. Using weather radar to help minimize wind energy impacts on nocturnally migrating birds. Conservation Letters, 15(4). 31 To reduce potential collisions during migration periods, it is recommended to apply solutions based on camera technology to all WPP in the park area, which limit the operation of WPP. This solution has the potential to reduce bird strikes with WPP during daylight hours, in difficult visibility conditions and at night. Recommended solution for migratory bird conservation for all WPP: The WPP is to be suspended for up to one hour before and after both local sunrise and sunset for the protection of migratory birds in flocks (15 February to 15 May and 1 September to 15 November), if this cannot be remedied by a camera solution to be specified during pre-construction monitoring. Condition taken into account (see Annex 12). None of the recommended solutions exclude collisions of passerines, which in exceptional cases with different infrastructure or buildings can reach extremely high levels in terms of mortality, but should be considered as exceptional cases.3839 At the same time, however, it should be noted that even existing estimates, based mainly on counts of dead birds under WPP, reliably find only a small number of dead birds.40 The numbers of passerine mortalities recorded so far range from 100 to a few hundred.41 At the same time, the impact of these collisions on passerine populations is considered to be negligible, given their rapid recovery during the breeding season (one or more breeders, many young, high population densities to a greater or lesser extent). Effects on bats The recorded bat activity in the area of the Proposed Action is significantly higher than in other similar areas surveyed using identical methodologies, due to the fact that in other areas forests covered a relatively small part of the surveyed area but are considered to be one of the most suitable habitats for bats. Potential spontaneous concentrations of bats foraging at different locations in the forests may increase the risk of otherwise low collisions with the planned rotors. This is particularly important during migration, when overall bat activity and species numbers increase. The highest risk of bat mortality in the planned area of the WPP Park is in July-September, i.e. during bat dispersal and migration. In May-June, the increased risk is mainly associated with one species: the northern bat. Bat activity in May is generally low, with the exception of one station that may have a colony of northern bats nearby. Based on bat activity, it is not possible to distinguish night hours when bat mortality risks would be lower, except for morning hours in autumn (September and October) when activity/migration is close to zero. The greatest risk of bat mortality at WPP is in the 2nd-8th hour after sunset. The development of a wind park is permitted subject to the following restrictions and conditions on the operation of the WPP: 1. WPPs are not installed in the vicinity of the Stienūži IV and Stienūži V quarries. Minimum distance from water: 200 m from the projection of the WPP wing, but more if possible. ➢ Currently, the nearest planned WPP Z2 is at least 400 m away, so this condition is met. 2. Monitoring of bats is ensured in the first and second year after the start of operation of the WPP. The monitoring methodology is developed and standardised by a bat species expert certified 38 Newton, I. 2023. The migration ecology of birds. Elsevier. 39 Rydell, J., Ottvall, R., Pettersson, S., Green, M. 2017. The effects of wind power on birds and bats. Swedish Environmental Protection Agency, Sweden. 40 Nilsson, A. L. K., Molværsmyr, S., Breistøl, A., & Systad, G. H. R. 2023. Estimating mortality of small passerine birds colliding with wind turbines. Sci Rep, 13(1), 21365. 41 https://lfu.brandenburg.de/sixcms/media.php/9/Voegel-Uebersicht-Europa.xlsx 32  by the NCA according to the site specifics and the 2022 Guidelines for assessing the impact of wind power plants on bats in Latvia. ➢ Bat monitoring in the first and second year after the start of operation of the WPP is included as a mandatory measure to be implemented after the start of operation of the WPP (see Chapter 12). 3. At the northern WPP (Z1-Z21), automatic shutdown or non-start of the WPP shall be ensured from 1 July to 30 September for at least the first eight hours after sunset or until sunrise in summer when the length of night is less than 7 hours if: 1. the wind speed at the height of the WPP tower (nacelle) does not exceed 6 m/s, 2) rainfall does not exceed 1 mm/h, 3) air temperature above +60C. In north-eastern Latvia, especially in September, the nights are getting colder, but bat activity continues. In this study, bat activity in September was also observed at night, when air temperatures were only +6...+80C. 4. At the southern part of the WPP (D1-D16), automatic shutdown or non-start of the WPP shall be ensured from 1 May to 30 September for at least the first eight hours after sunset or until sunrise in summer when the length of night is less than 7 hours if: 1. the wind speed at the height of the WPP tower (nacelle) does not exceed 7 m/s, 2) rainfall does not exceed 1 mm/h, 3) the air temperature is above +60C. 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 - removed altogether, relaxed or strengthened, in particular: the period during which WPP operating restrictions are required could be extended or reduced, or the wind speed threshold at which WPP operation is allowed could be changed. WPP D12 is not recommended as it is to be installed at a site where extremely high bat activity was observed, indicating a very likely proximity to a colony. It would be preferable not to install this WPP at all, and it would also be preferable not to install WPP D11, where high bat activity has also been observed. If WPP D11 were to be installed, post-installation monitoring would be mandatory.42 Other solutions to mitigate the impact on bats can also be used in the design of the WPP, in consultation with a certified bat expert: for example, smart monitoring systems equipped with ultrasonic sensors and artificial intelligence technologies detect the presence of bats in real time and stop the operation of the WPP. Smart technologies are also used elsewhere in Europe and provide both effective bat protection and increased electricity generation, such as Fleximaus.43 42 D11 is located in the southern part of the park, the construction of WPP Park Alternative B, which includes the WPP in the southern part of the park, is currently not recommended 43 https://www.fleximaus.de/?lang=ne 33 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. As the construction and operation of wind farms may have impacts on wild non-flying mammal communities, the consequences and territorial limits of which are unknown and unpredictable, the expert recommends the following measures: − Leave the intensity and seasonal cycle of other existing economic activities unchanged in the area of the WPP parks and their immediate surroundings. The above applies to logging (if not directly related to the installation of WPP), reforestation, all types of stand management, restoration of drainage systems, hunting pressure, game feeding, nature tourism pressure and agriculture in farmland adjacent to forests. Of course, this does not apply to fighting forest fires, windstorms and forest pests. Action is needed to avoid cumulative disturbance effects and to separate the potential impacts of WPPs from the background of other economic activities. − Given that there are no assessments of the impact of WPP on non-flying mammals in Latvia based on wildlife studies or monitoring data, the expert does not propose mandatory monitoring requirements for the wind farm in question. The expert recommends that the controlling national authorities should require the developers of the North Latvian and Estonian border wind farms (Figure 3.2.4) to jointly initiate specialised monitoring of wild mammals in cooperation with the controlling national authorities and scientific institutions. This need is underlined by all the authors of the scientific publications used in the opinion. Monitoring is carried out in accordance with a monitoring programme developed and agreed with a certified expert. − In case of negative impacts, mitigation measures to protect mammals. Additional expert recommendations that are beyond the control of the Proponent, including measures to mitigate impacts on mammals, are presented in Chapter 7.6.7 of the EIA Report. 4.6. Impact on landscape and cultural monuments Impact on the landscape Part of the landscape study area is located in the nationally important scenic area44 "Piejūra un Lībiešu krasts". Within the Landscape Study Area, it is a narrow strip between the shoreline of the Gulf of Riga and the main national road A1. The nearest location to the area of the Proposed Action is in the south of Salacgrīva (at Vidzemes Street 70) - 4.6 km. The most important part of the site, the coastal zone, would not be affected, except in the vicinity of Meleki, where the WPPs would be visible at a distance of 7.2 km and would be considered as background elements. Visual impacts are expected in the landscape of the open fields (between the coastal forest and the A1 motorway) in the section from Šķīsterciema to Krūmiņu Street in Salacgrīva (see Figures 7.7.1 and 7.7.2 of the EIA) under Alternatives B and B'. The most scenically valuable places here are the area between Lāņu Manor Avenue and the forest to the N of Svētciems, where the open areas are enriched by individual oaks (indirect effects can be seen in Figure 7.7.3 of the EIA, which is located outside the NNAVT). WPP could be described here as prominent accents in the landscape. 44 Lakovsky, P. 2023. Latvian Landscape Atlas. Landscape maps. National landscapes. Institute of Agri-Resources and Economics. 34 The most significant landscapes or landscape elements in the area of the Proposed Action and/or the landscape study area are: − river landscapes (Salaca, Svētupe, Vitrupe, Jaunupe), including: o Lībiešu Upuralas and the surroundings of Kuiķule, o Sarkanās klintis, o lamprey pots in the Salaca; − coastal landscape; − landscapes of small rivers (Vedamurga, Kulaurga, Ārupīte, etc.) − Lake Primma and Lake Kliķu; − Niedrāju-Pilka purvs; − Randu pļavas. The high value viewpoints and distances to the nearest WPP in the study area and their visibility are listed in Table 7.2 of the EIA Report. According to the visibility model (Figure 7.7.4-7.7.7 of the EIA), a 300 m high WPP would be visible in 26.3% of the total landscape study area, or 143.6 km2 out of 544.9 km2, if all 37 assessed were built. It should be noted that they would be less visible under Alternatives A/A' or B/B', particularly in remote locations from the area of the Proposed Development, and only to a limited extent. Building on the Landscape Policy Plan: in the light of the EU's climate neutrality objectives, the priority actions of the Plan are activities that contribute to moving towards climate neutrality, such as planning and developing green infrastructure networks at different spatial scales, in particular in urban areas. Landscape assessment at regional and local scales is an important task for landscape management, in order to identify areas of landscape value and conditions for their use in different scales of spatial development planning documents, which should be taken into account in the planning and construction of energy supply and other large-scale industrial facilities. In line with the objectives of the European Green Deal and Latvia's energy independence, landscape assessment at regional and local scales should take into account that energy independence and security are equally important and should be taken into account alongside tourism and environmental protection. Impact on cultural heritage There are a number of heritage assets within the study area (Chapter 6.5.2 and Figure 6.5.3). The impact of the Proposed Action on cultural heritage has been assessed for the closest cultural monuments to the site of the Proposed Action, as well as for other sites of cultural and historical significance, through individual assessments and in particular the significance of the Proposed Action for potential changes to the landscape. According to the cartographic information of the information system "Heritage" there are 16 cultural monuments in the study area, 11 of them - archaeological, 5 - art monuments. As the monuments are located indoors - in three churches - the churches are indicated in the cartographic material. Summary of objects: Location of the oven. Predicted impact visually high but with localised effects. The site is not identified as a high value viewpoint. Due to overgrowth on the site, the WPP will not be visible from the Caple site, the nearest WPP Z1 will affect the available view of the Caple site from the south-east. Recommendation: do not deforest the site. 35 Kilzumu Ancient Cemetery (Swedish Cemetery). Estimated impact negligible. The site is not identified as a high value viewpoint. The view to and from the monument is not compromised. It could be threatened by deforestation in and around the monument. The upper part (wings) of WPP Z5 would be visible from the steep bank of the Svētupe River within the monument protection zone. Preserve the existing forest within the monument and, according to the forest transparency model (developed by Estonian researchers), preserve the forest in a 70 m zone around the boundary of the monument. Lībiešu upuralas. Expected impact high. The site has also been identified as a high-quality viewpoint of Limbaži. The main view (high quality landscape) from the floodplain is impaired by the WPP Z7 blades. The view of the southern outcrop from the floodplain will be impaired by WPP D16, which will have the top of the tower visible. Taking into account the recommendations of landscape experts and consultations with the municipality of Limbaži, the originally planned location/height of the WPP was changed. 1) Do not provide for the construction of WPP Z7, 2) Do not provide for the construction of WPP D1, D2, D15, D16, 3) Reduce the height of D8, D9, Z8, Z9, Z11. Retain tree cover above the cave itself. Develop the viewpoint above the outcrop on the D side (at the site of the Kuiķuļi Holy Oak Grove) by clearing overgrowth. Z7, Z8, D1, D2, D15, D16 - no construction recommended; Z9, D8, D9 - reduced height recommended; all WPPs in the southern part are currently not recommended unless additional surveys for mosses, lichens and vascular plants are carried out. Kuiķuļu svētozolu birzs. Expected impact - medium. The WPP will not be visible from the monument, but a significant part of the tower and blade will be visible a few metres away. For restrictions and planned WPP, see above under information on Lībiešu upuralas. Priecumu senkapi. Estimated impact - negligible. The WPP will not be visible from the monument, but will be visible from the buffer zone. No recommendations. Krogkalni baznīckalns. The site is not identified as a high value viewpoint. The WPP will not be visible from the site itself, but will be visible from the buffer zone. For example, a public view from the Zeltiņi-Untes municipal road westwards will show the towers of seven WPPs and the blades of another WPP. No recommendations. Zviedru ceļš. Estimated impact negligible. The site is not identified as a high value viewpoint. The site of the monument is not affected. Although the WPP will be visible from the buffer zone, given the nature of the monument, no harm will be caused to the surrounding landscape. No recommendations. Salacas pilskalns. Estimated impact negligible. From the edge of the mound closest to the Salaca River, the upper parts of several WPP will be visible, and the blades of several more will be visible. Visibility will increase during the leaf-free period. WPP Z1 and D1 will be the most visible. Also, Z4, Z9, Z5 in the leaf- free period. WPP D2, D4, D10 will show blades or parts of blades. Taking into account the importance of the site, if possible - adjust the planned location of WPP Z1; reduce the height of WPP D1 or do not envisage its construction (taken into account: D1 is not recommended). The church of Bridaga. Expected impact medium. While the view of the church is not affected by the WPP, the WPP D6 visible from the church to the NW significantly alters the landscape. Near the church you will be able to partially see WPP D9. Re-positioning or no-build of D6. WPPs are not currently recommended for the southern part. Ķirbiži Manor and its buildings. Estimated impact negligible. The most valuable view, the view of the estate, will not be affected. However, it will affect the view from the estate. From the front of the Manor House you can see through the trees the gondola and wings of WPP D9 and the wings of D8. During the leafless period, the wings of several WPP (D11, D12, D14, D15) will be visible. Currently, tree planting around the 36 perimeter of the estate (along Vitrupi) suppresses visual intrusion. Reduce the height of WPP D9. WPPs are not currently recommended for the southern part. Vecsalaca manor house. Estimated impact negligible. As the development is located in a park, the WPPs will not actually be visible when surrounded by trees. No recommendations. Annasmuiža Bridge. Expected impact medium. The upper parts of several WPPs will be visible from the vantage point. WPP Z4 will be the most visible. During the leaf-free period, approximately 2/5 of the WPP Z2, Z3 nacelle and wings and Z1 wings will be visible through the trees. The WPP Z12 and Z13 blades will be visible for a short while. Given the importance of the potential viewpoint, Limbaži Municipality, at the request of the LVP, has expressed its views on the impact of the proposed WPP on this viewpoint. The municipality has not expressed any conditions to mitigate the impacts of the proposed WPP from this perspective. 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 3 SPNA in the vicinity of the proposed wind farm that are included in the single European network of SPNAs Natura 2000 (Figure 6.4.2 of the EIA Report): − Vitrupes ieleja, (area code: LV0530500) 0,8 km from the border of the land units, distance to the nearest WPP - 0,9 km; − Salacas ieleja, (area code: LV0302200) 1,6 km from the border of the land units, distance to the nearest WPP - 1,8 km; − Niedrāju-Pilkas purvs, (area code: LV0509800) 1,2 km from the border of the land units, distance to the nearest WPP - 5,3 km. Taking into account that the planned construction of the wind farm does not directly affect any Natura 2000 sites, it can be concluded that the implementation of the recommended alternative A will not have direct or indirect negative impacts on adjacent areas, including specially protected Latvian or EU habitats in specially protected nature areas - Natura 2000 sites. The implementation of the proposed action is not expected to exacerbate the negative impacts identified in the Natura 2000 sites - drainage and changes in species composition due to vegetation succession. Based on the impact assessments and calculations carried out, 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 on: − the objectives of establishing and protecting the Natura 2000 sites referred to above; The objectives for the creation and protection of the sites are summarised in Table 6.4.2 and neither the habitats nor the species listed as objectives for creation will be affected. − factors that have already affected these areas prior to the implementation of the Proposed Action; Factors affecting nature values prior to the implementation of the Proposed Action, such as: grassland overgrowth, succession, agricultural activities, diffuse pollution of surface waters from agricultural and forestry activities, erosion, forestry activities, invasive alien species, etc., summarised in Table 6.4.2, the Proposed Action will not increase the impact of these factors on nature values in Natura 2000 sites. − the importance of Natura 2000 sites for the coherence of the national and biogeographical network. 37 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)". Overall, the experts concluded that: 1) The Proposed Action is not expected to have a direct impact on plant species and habitats of Natura 2000 sites; it will not result in fragmentation of species and habitats, or alteration of characteristic structures and functions; 2) no significant adverse effects on the ecological functions, integrity, conservation and use objectives of Natura 2000 sites are expected from the Proposed Action. 38  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. Estonian territory is no closer than 13.2 km to the nearest assessed WPP. 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 Limbaži WPP-Park is presented in Table 5 (Table 9.1 of the EIA Report). Table 5. (Table 9.1 of the EIA) Overview of transboundary impacts of the Ministry of Climate of the Republic of Estonia No. Aspects of transboundary impacts to Posted by Explanation of how this has been be taken into account in the EIA by the assessed in the EIA report Ministry of Climate of the Republic of Estonia 1. The proposed action may affect: Ministry of An expert opinion on mammals is provided - movement of game, Economic Affairs for game. - noise pollution, and The noise assessment is presented in - the local population, Communications Chapter 7.2. No transboundary effects - power grid stability of the Republic of have been identified. Estonia 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. 2. The nearest WPPs are likely to be closer Estonian The nearest WPP is about 6 km from the than 5 km from the shore of the Gulf of Environmental Gulf of Riga. According to the methodology Riga. The coastline up to 5 km away is an Administration for assessing the impacts of birds and wind important bird migration corridor for farms, currently under development 45 , the both breeding and migratory birds. area closest to the seaward edge of 500- The EIA report should necessarily assess 1000 m is considered to be the most the impact of the Proposed Action on important for migration. birds, bats and green corridors (green The design of the WPP Park meets the main network), nature conservation values, conditions: the WPP towers are not located including the assessment of cumulative less than 500-1000 metres from the impacts. Provide for impact assessment shoreline of the Gulf of Riga, the WPP (monitoring) and, if necessary, towers are not planned in areas where mitigation measures long-term feeding or roosting sites of migratory birds have been identified or are known in the past. The impacts on the different aspects of nature conservation values are assessed in general in Chapter 7.6 of the EIA. The effects on bats are assessed in Chapter 7.6.4 of the EIA. 45 https://lvafa.vraa.gov.lv/projects/1-08_74_2022 39 Since 27.09.2004, the "Convention on the Transboundary Effects of Industrial Accidents" has been in force, establishing transnational cooperation in the field of industrial accidents. The quantity and hazardousness of chemical substances at the site of the Proposed Activity do not reach the limit values specified in this Convention; therefore the provisions of this Regulation are not applicable to the construction of the Limbaži WPP Park and its associated infrastructure. 40  6. Socio-economic benefits (Chapter 14 of the EIA report) 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, direct and indirect growth in the number of jobs involved, 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. 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 dozen (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. 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. 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 net present value (NPV). In terms of GHG emissions. In terms of socio-economic returns to the development of the WPP, Alternative A performs slightly better, with a total net present value of EUR 89 398 054 and an internal rate of return of 18.66%. (Annex 11 to the EIA). 41  7. Comparison of the alternatives envisaged and justification of the chosen alternative (Chapter 8 of the EIA Report) 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. The implementation of each of the alternatives evaluated will allow the achievement of the objective of the Proposed Action: the installation of new WPPs with a maximum rated capacity of 8 MW per plant. A summary, taking into account the assessments of an ornithologist, a species and habitat expert, a landscape expert, a bat expert, a hydrologist and an assessment of physical impacts, of the 37 WPP locations is given in Table 8.1. The red colour is used for the WPPs and environmental impact areas where significant adverse effects have been identified, the yellow colour for the WPPs and environmental impact areas where adverse effects have been identified and the green colour for the environmental impact areas where no adverse or significant effects have been identified (see Annex 12 of the EIA Report for conditions and constraints for the recommended WPPs). Impacts assessed in relation to the existing situation in the area of the proposed activity and the expected situation depending on the alternative to be implemented: species and habitats, bats, birds, landscape, cultural history, tourism and recreation, Natura 2000, noise, low frequencies, flicker, hydrology, environmental risks and accidents, vibration and climate. The impacts of the development scenarios have been given a conditional numerical characterisation, summarised in Table 8.3 of the EIA Report. Overall, the comparison and analysis of the alternatives for the location and height of the WPP in Table 8.4 concludes that Alternative A can be recommended for construction: 12 In the northern part of the WPP construction study area, see Figure 8. For the eight WPPs in the southern part of the study area of Alternative B, the following essential preconditions have to be fulfilled: assessment of additional vascular plant, moss and lichen species and development of a solution for the connection to the AST, as well as an additional study of the impact on freshwater for the power line crossing over the Svētupe River. Information to assess the residual effects of the Proposed Action on species and habitats is incomplete for Alternative B. 42 Figure 8. (Figure 8.1 of the EIA report) Recommended location of the proposed activity - Limbaži WPPpark 43  8. Further conditions for environmental monitoring of the proposed activity (Chapter 12 of the EIA Report) 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. The impact of the WPP on wild bird and bat populations has been assessed during the nature study, and the significance of the impact has been assessed. Given the uncertainty of the results of the scientific studies, it is practically impossible to assess the precise impact of the proposed WPP on individual populations of ornithofauna and bats, therefore the impact of the proposed WPP on these animal groups should be further assessed through monitoring and, if necessary, additional mitigation measures not specified in this report. Bird monitoring Population monitoring should be planned and initiated prior to the construction of the WPP Park in order to obtain an assessment of the baseline status of the site's birds. Population monitoring of protected species Monitoring is required to detect any changes in the population present and to assess any potential impacts within the WPP Park. In order to adequately assess species populations, their changes and possible causes, and to make these data comparable between different areas of the WPP, all monitoring should follow a common framework. For the results to be useful for assessing the impact of the WPP, rather than just describing possible changes in the populations of the monitored species, a comparable control area without the impact of the WPP is also needed. In order to meet this condition, at least in the current situation, monitoring in the area should be planned after the final technical design (similar to the studies for the preparation of the planning opinion, based on the distances indicated in the study methodology around the sites of the Proposed Activity or landfills where displacements are likely). This would provide an objective "zero" assessment of the pre- construction status of the area that would be considered to be affected by the Proposed Action and its bird populations. As this area will be reliably different from the study area used for the opinion, it is not possible to make an objective judgement on the extent to which these landfill sites will differ before the final technical design is available. A fixed monitoring study area, defined as the study area in two distance bands, is essential for population estimates within it (or at least population estimates) and for the planning section for a rational arrangement of monitoring stations to obtain unbiased results. Monitoring, similar to the survey, is planned for the main potentially affected groups of protected species in the study area following the methodology used in the survey. However, if the monitoring authorities consider that a group of species should not be monitored or, on the contrary, should be monitored for species that have not been studied before (e.g. on the basis of information that may be expressed in the forthcoming WPP study guidelines), the experts may take this into account and not monitor or, on the contrary, monitor these species or groups of species, provided that this is comparable in the long term, including with other aspects of monitoring and the original study. Monitoring shall be carried out during the pre-construction, construction and operational periods. Monitoring should be carried out annually during the pre-construction and construction periods, and every 44 second year during the operational period, covering at least five breeding seasons; where possible, it is recommended that monitoring is carried out throughout the operational period. However, the consultant considers that the monitoring programme should be agreed with the NCA and its necessity and duration should be assessed. The annual monitoring recommended during the pre-construction and construction periods is mainly justified to allow for local extinctions and recolonisations. The difference in the monitoring period from the approach of monitoring for five consecutive years during the operational period, which has been more common in Latvian practice so far, is based on the generation turnover time, which for example for diurnal birds of prey is rounded off by about ten years per generation. At the same time, it should also be noted that population-level impact assessment would require monitoring data on at least three generational changes. Monitoring of dead birds Given that a very important aspect in the assessment of direct impacts is the determination of the number of birds killed in collisions (including not only protected species) and potentially also the cause of death (physical collision, barotrauma, bird death unrelated to the operation of the WPP), at the same time, the literature46 47 suggests that due to the inaccuracy of observer counts, the limited findability under different circumstances, and the presence of scavenged remains, it is recommended that automatic camera systems or similar solutions that detect traumatised or dead birds are used for this monitoring point.48 49 Bat monitoring Monitoring of bats should be ensured in the first and second years after the start of operation of the WPP. The monitoring methodology is developed and standardised by a bat species expert certified by the NCA according to the site specifics and the 2022 Guidelines for assessing the impact of wind power plants on bats in Latvia. The monitoring methodology includes: 1. acoustic monitoring by installing automatic ultrasonic detectors in the nacelles of at least five WPP and/or on the lower wing leading edge level to continuously record bat activity from at least 1 May to 30 September. The placement of WPP recorders shall be random. The number/location of WPP and detectors to be included in the monitoring shall be agreed with a certified bat expert before installation; 2) counts of bat fatalities at least at those WPP where acoustic monitoring is carried out (the number of WPP to be surveyed may be increased where possible). The search for dead bats must be carried out by trained searchers, together with the monitoring of the effectiveness of the search and the timing of the disappearance of the carcasses. Monitoring should be carried out 2 or 3 years after the installation of the WPP, depending on the degree of overgrowth. To facilitate the search for dead bats, it is advisable to create a vegetation-free ground surface around the base of the WPP within a radius of at least 50 m or to ensure regular grass cutting during the monitoring period (if the area is not reforested). There is no need to create a 50 m buffer zone around the WPPs that will be installed in forests, in addition to deforestation. 46 Rydell, J., Ottvall, R., Pettersson, S., Green, M. 2017. The effects of wind power on birds and bats. Swedish Environmental Protection Agency, Sweden. 47 Perrow, M. R. 2017. Wildlife and Wind Farms, Conflicts and Solutions: Potential Effects. Onshore. 48 Ibid, 49 https://doi.org/10.3390/jimaging7120272 45