Detailed Assessment

Up one level

7.2. Detailed Assessment

The impact of Hot Spots on biodiversity and habitats was assessed by 14 indicators grouped into five directions (categories):

- general

- fish

- waterfowl

- benthos

- plants

Each indicator for every Hot Spot was described in a separate table (Annex D).

7.2.1. General

Proximity of the Hot Spots to Wildlife Sanctuaries

There are three wildlife sanctuaries in this region [20,21]:

- Briansky Woods

- Central Chernozem

- Woods-upon-Vorskla (which in 1999 added areas outside Dnipro basin and was renamed as Belogorje).

In addition, there is a large federal game reserve, Kletnyansky, which should also be considered under the given category.  The Kletnyansky Reserve maintains a unique Briansk population of brown bear, wild ungulates, as well as wood grouse, black grouse, hazel grouse, water fowl and birds of prey from the Red Book of the Russian Federation: osprey, golden eagle and etc.; muskrat and beaver colonies; rare insects; and their habitats.  The summary [20,21,50,51] of these specially protected areas (SPA) is given in Table 7.1, while their location is shown on Figure 7.1.  The figure shows that the wildlife sanctuaries Briansky Woods and Woods-upon-Vorskla, as well as Kletnyansky Reserve, are located at a significant distance from the Hot Spots. However, the Central Chernozem Biosphere Wildlife Sanctuary is close to Kursk.  The distance from the northern border of the ”Cossack” area of the sanctuary, with its unique meadow steppes, to the discharge outlet of the Kursk wastewater treatment plants is about 15 km.  Therefore, the Hot Spot of Kursk vodokanal was assigned a score of 1 point (Table D-1, Annex D), while the other Hot Spots were assigned zero scores.

 

Figure 7.1.  Wildlife Sanctuaries and National Parks in the Russian Portion of the Dnipro Basin.

 

Table 7.1 : Specially Protected Areas in the Russian Portion of the Dnipro Basin.

 

-Proximity of the Hot Spots to the National Parks

The closest national parks are:

- Smolensky Lakeshore

- Orlovsky Woodlands

They are located at a significant distance from the Hot Spots (see Figure 1), therefore there is no reason to assume the possibility of an impact.  In Table D-2 (Annex D), all Hot Spots are assigned the score of 0.

-Proximity of Hot Spots to an Area Frequented by Rare and Endangered Species

It is a fact that many rare and even endangered species, recorded in the Red Book, still have large habitat.  For instance, the habitat of the endangered regular bullhead (Cottus gobio, Linnaeus, 1758) is the whole Russian portion of the Dnipro basin [29].  This is also the case for the Ukrainian lamprey (Petromyzon mariae, Berg, 1931), and such rare birds as the golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos, Linnaeus, 1758), fish-hawk (Pandion haliaetus, Linnaeus, 1758), erne (Haliaeetus albicilla, Linnaeus, 1758), eagle owl (Bubo bubo, Linnaeus, 1758), regular gray shrike (Lanius excubitor Linnaeus, 1758) and big curlew (Numenius arquata, Linnaeus, 1758), etc.

One can say that practically all Hot Spots under consideration are located in proximity to areas frequented by rare or endangered species.  Therefore, all Hot Spots were assigned the highest score, that is, 5 (Table D-3, Annex D).

-Proximity of Hot Spots to Unprotected Areas of Ecological Significance

It is difficult today, in Central Europe, to find areas of ecological significance that would be completely unprotected.  Therefore, this section is focused on ”poorly protected” areas, such as local game reserves or areas of special interest, referred to in this category on the local (oblast) level.  Usually, protection of such areas is quite poorly organized.  In addition, game reserves only protect separate elements of the ecosystem during specific periods, rather than the ecosystem as a whole, as done in wildlife sanctuaries.

Figure 7.2 shows the location of such areas in the Russian portion of the Dnipro basin.  The information has been gathered from various literature sources [1,2,3,4,9,13,34,50,52,56,57,58].  It includes areas of special botanical interest and reserves (with the focus on specific or numerous plant species), zoological (including game reserves intended to maintain commercial species of animals and birds), complexes, parks, wetlands and lakes.

As shown in Figure 7.2, literally all Hot Spots under consideration are located in proximity to reserves or areas of special interest.  Depending on the location and ecological significance of areas, the Hot Spots were assigned by the National Experts scores from 1 to 5 (Table D-4, Annex D).

Figure 7.1.  Wildlife Sanctuaries and National Parks in the Russian Portion of the Dnipro Basin.

 

Table 7.1 : Specially Protected Areas in the Russian Portion of the Dnipro Basin.

 

-Proximity of the Hot Spots to the National Parks

The closest national parks are:

- Smolensky Lakeshore

- Orlovsky Woodlands

They are located at a significant distance from the Hot Spots (see Figure 1), therefore there is no reason to assume the possibility of an impact.  In Table D-2 (Annex D), all Hot Spots are assigned the score of 0.

 Proximity of Hot Spots to an Area Frequented by Rare and Endangered Species

It is a fact that many rare and even endangered species, recorded in the Red Book, still have large habitat.  For instance, the habitat of the endangered regular bullhead (Cottus gobio, Linnaeus, 1758) is the whole Russian portion of the Dnipro basin [29].  This is also the case for the Ukrainian lamprey (Petromyzon mariae, Berg, 1931), and such rare birds as the golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos, Linnaeus, 1758), fish-hawk (Pandion haliaetus, Linnaeus, 1758), erne (Haliaeetus albicilla, Linnaeus, 1758), eagle owl (Bubo bubo, Linnaeus, 1758), regular gray shrike (Lanius excubitor Linnaeus, 1758) and big curlew (Numenius arquata, Linnaeus, 1758), etc.

One can say that practically all Hot Spots under consideration are located in proximity to areas frequented by rare or endangered species.  Therefore, all Hot Spots were assigned the highest score, that is, 5 (Table D-3, Annex D).

Proximity of Hot Spots to Unprotected Areas of Ecological Significance

It is difficult today, in Central Europe, to find areas of ecological significance that would be completely unprotected.  Therefore, this section is focused on ”poorly protected” areas, such as local game reserves or areas of special interest, referred to in this category on the local (oblast) level.  Usually, protection of such areas is quite poorly organized.  In addition, game reserves only protect separate elements of the ecosystem during specific periods, rather than the ecosystem as a whole, as done in wildlife sanctuaries.

Figure 7.2 shows the location of such areas in the Russian portion of the Dnipro basin.  The information has been gathered from various literature sources [1,2,3,4,9,13,34,50,52,56,57,58].  It includes areas of special botanical interest and reserves (with the focus on specific or numerous plant species), zoological (including game reserves intended to maintain commercial species of animals and birds), complexes, parks, wetlands and lakes.

As shown in Figure 7.2, literally all Hot Spots under consideration are located in proximity to reserves or areas of special interest.  Depending on the location and ecological significance of areas, the Hot Spots were assigned by the National Experts scores from 1 to 5 (Table D-4, Annex D).

 

Figure 7.2.  Reserves and Areas of Special Interest in the Russian Portion of the Dnipro Basin.

 

Proximity of Hot Spots to Environmentally Sensitive Areas

Environmentally sensitive areas include floodlands of rivers with former riverbeds, wetlands, meadows, as well as adjacent wetlands and woods.  Proximity of the Hot Spots to environmentally sensitive areas is presented in Annex D, Table D-5.  The majority of the considered Hot Spots under consideration are located close to such areas and can have an adverse impact on biodiversity.

Not only proximity of a Hot Spot to an environmentally sensitive area is important, but also the specific facts of its adverse impact on these areas.  Unfortunately, there is not much direct evidence of adverse impacts of Hot Spots on environmentally sensitive areas.  It includes data on:

- reduced number and size of young fish;

- mass poisoning of fish;

- heavy metals in the flora, fauna, and soil of the flood-lands;

- changes in habitats, for instance, obliteration of open wetlands and meadows with reeds or bushes.

There is no such data available for many Hot Spots.  However, the volume and composition of pollutants discharged with the wastewater into natural water bodies allows assumption of their highly probable adverse impact on environmentally sensitive areas.

Table D-5 (Annex D) presents professional judgment regarding the impact of the Hot Spots on the environmentally sensitive areas.  It was recognized that all 15 considered Hot Spots are sources of adverse impacts on the nearest environmental features, with adverse effects from this impact.

The Hot Spots “Smolensk municipal vodokanal” and “Briansk inter-district engineering services” are located within 1 km from environmentally sensitive areas and have the most adverse on them.  These Hot Spots were assigned the highest score, that is, 5 (Table D-5, Annex D).

Proven Adverse Impact of Hot Spots

The field studies of the Dnipro tributaries (on the Russian territory) in 2001-2002 [40] established the fact of anthropogenic eutrophication of the rivers, determined by the condition of bottom biocenosis.  Figure 7.3 shows that the biomass of the zoobenthos is higher around large cities with a steep peaks next to the discharge outlets of treated wastewater from municipal water treatment plants.  This is caused by the massive introduction into the water body of organic matter that benthos feeds on.

Figures 7.4 and 7.5 show the determined Oligochetta index (ratio of quantity of oligochetta to total quantity of zoobenthos) generally confirms this relationship.  Oligochetta, as an indicator of organic contamination of the water body, reaches the highest quantity also on the stretches downstream of the effluent discharge (Figure 7.4).

The increase in biomass in he water bodies has led to drastic changes in the natural communities and change in species.  The biodiversity usually decreases due to the prevailing dominance of a small number of species in the community.

Based on the above, the Hot Spots were assigned the scores as shown in Table D-6 (Annex D).

Figure 7.3.  Biomass of Zoobenthos, Summer 2002

Figure 7.4.  Oligochetta Index, Summer 2002

 

Figure 7.5.  Oligochetta Index, Summer 2001

7.2.2. Aquatic Fauna: Fish

Adverse Impact of Hot Spots on Fish Habitats

The role that Hot Spots play in eutrophication of river reaches, and the changes in hydrochemical and hydrological regimes of streams were discussed earlier (in the sections on water quality).  All these are important elements of the fish habitat that have substantial influence on the ichthyofauna.

As known, the Dnipro tributaries in the Russian territory are represented mainly by upper streams, that is, by prevailing relatively small rivers, brooks, some ponds and thereon.  The nature of the water bodies explains the relatively modest composition of ichthyofauna and quite poorly developed fishing and fishery in the area in general.  Apparently, this has also resulted in the rivers of the area being poorly studied in terms of their ichthyology.

The upper rivers of the area under consideration – at the sources and in the shallow brooks - usually provide habitat mainly for such fish as loach and minnows.  Further downstream they are accompanied by bleak, Cobitis taenia taenia, gudgeon and still further – downstream, roach, pike, dace and eel-pot.  As the brook turns into a small river, the habitat is typically suitable for, among others, perch, Blicca bjoerkna, chub and ide.  The small river then turns into a river, with small coves, and bushes of semi-submerged plants along the banks.  Rudd, tench, bream, ruff, cat-fish and Chodrostoma nasus can be observed on these stretches, however, minnow, Cobitis taenia taenia and loach start disappearing.  Only in the largest of these rivers are found barbel, Barbus barbus, Pelecus cultratus, Vimba vimba, Gymnocephalus acerinus, zander, chub, Abramis sapa sapa, Abramis ballerus and sterlet.  Former river-beds and ponds, built on the rivers, provide habitat for mainly crucian, eel, Alburnus alburnus, tench, rudd, roach and pike and, in some places one can observe, Rhodeus sericeus.

There is practically no commercial fishing in the natural water bodies of this area.  The main forms of fishing are sport and recreational (for instance, Briansk Oblast has over 20 thousand recreational fishermen that catch about 100 tonnes of fish during the summer period).

The data estimates for recreational fishing shows a reduction the number of recreational fish caught during 1991-2001 for: perch, crucian, carp and pike.  Catches have also decreased for other fishes: Aspius aspius, chub, bream and Blicca bjoerkna.  Only the share of roach in catches has had practically no changes.  Most species show a reduction in the age and size of fish caught [48].  An evaluation of the available data allows the conclusion that all of the 15 Hot Spots have had an adverse impact on fish habitat, quantity, biomass and species composition (Table D-7, Annex D).

Fish Kills

Based on the data of the State Fish and Environmental Protection Inspectorate, no mass fish kills have been observed in the water bodies of the area under consideration during recent years.  However, there is information for almost every Hot Spot on one or two wintertime fish kill events, caused by the lack of oxygen.  A reduction of the oxygen in the river water to below the maximum allowable concentrations can be either caused by a volley discharge of untreated wastewater, or can happen naturally, due to insufficient oxygen supply from ambient air into river water.  By this criterion, the Hot Spots were assigned the scores from 1 to 4 (Table D-8, Annex D).

Impact on Reproduction of Fish

This criterion is used for the respective assessment of the Hot Spot when study results prove that the Hot Spot has had an adverse impact on the reproduction of fish that usually affects biodiversity and fish community structure.  The Hot Spot can be a proven source of impact on reproduction, potential source of such impact, or not anything of the kind.  Degradation of biodiversity and fish community structure have been observed in the immediate proximity to the “Kursk vodokanal” Hot Spot.  This was assumed to indicate an adverse impact of this Hot Spot on the reproduction of fish.  However, no direct relationship was proven.  By this criterion, the Hot Spot was assigned score 2 out of 5.

In relation to the other 14 Hot Spots, there was assumed to be an adverse impact on the reproduction of fish, with adverse effects.  Therefore, by this criterion, these Hot Spots were assigned score 3 out of 5.

It is technically very difficult to prove scientifically that, in fact, such an impact has occurred for all Hot Spots under consideration.  This would require years of special studies addressing the condition of the main representatives of the ichthyofauna (prolificacy, maturity, fatness and growth rate of fish).  Such studies on all stretches of the rivers under consideration have not been conducted.  However, the results available for similar studies [36] reliably allow the conclusion of a highly probable adverse impact of the Hot Spots on the fish reproductive processes.  It is completely obvious that the first to be affected will be the relatively psychrophilic fish species (loach, minnow, gudgeon and Cobitis taenia taenia), which would be unfavorably affected by the abnormally high water temperature, usually observed in the water bodies (rivers) downstream of municipal vodokanals, thermal and nuclear stations (Smolensk, Kursk).  Downstream of wastewater treatment facilities, the water bodies usually record higher concentrations of organic matter and lower concentrations of oxygen.  This situation is especially unfavorable during the period of egg development and growth of young fish.

Based on characteristics of the fish on the stretches of rivers, adjacent to the Hot Spots, and on nature of anthropogenic impact, the National Experts assigned scores to of 1 to 4 for this category (Table D-9, Annex D).

7.2.3. Benthic Species of Aquatic Fauna

Impact of Hot Spots on Benthic Species

A benthic study was conducted in 2001-2002 on some of the Dnipro River tributaries within the Russian territory.  The study determined species composition and quantity (and, in 2002, also biomass) for the main groups of zoobenthos.

The area of the Hot Spots, and especially the points of effluent discharge, demonstrate an increased biomass of the benthic biocenoses and a substantial change in their species composition (for instance, the proportion of of Oligochetta significantly increased).  All this indicates eutrophication resultant from the introduction of large amounts of organic matters that serve as food for these organisms.  Strong eutrophication usually leads to reduced biodiversity [39].

Figure 7.6 presents data on the index for zoobenthic biodiversity (Shannon Index) and shows a reduced index in Dnipro downstream of Smolensk.  However, an index 2.5 (downstream of Smolensk) is not an extremely small value and does not indicate a catastrophically reduced biodiversity.

 

Figure 7.6.  Biodiversity Index of the Zoobenthic Community (Index by Shannon).

Based on the results of the study conducted, the National Experts assigned to the Hot Spots the scores as shown in Table D-10 (Annex D).

Biotic Index (by Woodiwiss)

The Biotic Index (by Woodiwiss) (BI) is widely used to assess condition (pollution) of rivers.  On the one hand, it takes into account the benthic biodiversity, on the other, it indicates the significance of the species in the benthic community [12].  The higher the index, the higher the number of species and the higher representation in the community of the organisms sensitive to pollution.

Figures 7.7 and 7.8 show the BI values for the rivers studied in 2001-2002.  Figure 7.7 clearly demonstrates the BI in the area of Smolensk and Kursk as low as 2-4, thus indicating substantial deterioration in the water quality.

 

Figure 7.7.  Biotic Index, Summer 2002.

Figure 7.8.  Biotic Index, summer 2001.

Based on the obtained results, the Hot Spots were assigned the scores as presented in Table D-11 (Annex D).

7.2.4. Waterfowl

Adverse Impact of the Hot Spots on the Habitats of Waterfowl

The Bird Protection Society of Russia has been trying to identify during the last years the so-called key ornithological territories (KOTR), which are substantially important to preserve a specific bird species in its nesting areas, migratory ways or wintering areas, representing the whole territory of its habitat.  Figure 7.9 presents information on the location of such territories in the considered area [24,25,26,27].  Apparently, they occupy significant areas, but only some are located in the immediate proximity to the Hot Spots.  This primarily refers to KOTRs Б-3, Б-4, Б-6 and К-1.

Territory Б-3 is a flood plain of the Iput River (from the mouth of Unechi to the village Kholevichi).  It hosts numerous former riverbeds and canals in combination with vast meadows and low-lying swamps.  Up to 6000-17000 geese (Anser albifrons and A.fabalis), 3000 ducks (Anas sp.) and 2000 sandpipers (Charadrii sp.) congregate here in spring.  It is a nesting area for 5-10 couples of such regionally rare and vulnerable species as big godwit, Tringa totanus and white-cheek tern (Chlidonias hybrida).  It is the foraging area for at least 25 couples of white storks (Ciconia ciconia), nesting in neighboring villages.  There are sand dunes in the riverside, which are attractive for the Haematopus ostralegus.

Territory Б-4 is a tract of virgin flood plain oak forests, the largest in the Briansk Oblast.  It is located on the left bank of the Desna River from the mouth of the Revna River to the Gavansk Lake.  It abounds in former riverbeds and black alder swamps.  This area is vitally important for all birds related to oak forests.  It is a nesting area for black stork, at least two couples of Circaetus gallicus, green-peak (Picus viridis, 3-5 couples) and medium motley woodpecker; the territory abounds in white-neck flycatchers, blackbirds and some other birds of the Western European origin.

Territory Б-6 is one of the best-preserved forest tracts with virgin coniferous-deciduous and deciduous forests, and numerous swamps.  It is located between the Desna, Nerussa and Navlya Rivers.  It provids habitat for black stork, Aquila clanga and A. pomarina, Circaetus gallicus, Hieraaetus pennatus, black kite, eagle owl, roller and gray shrike.  It is the only place in Europe, which is inhabited by all 10 European species of woodpeckers.  Here the Southern border is the nesting area location for many taiga species: wood grouse, hazel grouse, bullfinch and others.

Territories К-1 and Л-1 are actually located within the boundaries of wildlife sanctuaries: ”Central Chernozem” and ”Belogorje” (”Woods-upon-Vorskla”).

An assessment of the anthropogenic impact on birds should take into account that literally all the 15 Hot Spots provide habitat for waterfowl, including rare and endangered species.  In the Russian portion of the Dnipro Basin, these are Podiceps ruficollis, big egret, black stork, Haematopus ostralegus, Rufibrenta ruficollis, reedwarbler and Cygnus olor.

Taking into consideration these circumstances, the National Experts assigned a score from 2 to 4 to for all Hot Spots (Table D-12, Annex D).

 

Figure 7.9. Location of the ”Key” Ornithological Territories in the Russian Portion of Dnipro Basin.Adverse Impact on Migratory Birds

The Russian part of the Dnipro Basin is located at the intersection of flyways of migratory birds (Southbound and back) and Eastbound and back (Polessky).  The vast waterlogged flood plains of Dnipro, Desna, Seim and their tributaries with their numerous former riverbeds, swamps, meadows and bushes, flooded in full water, are of a special value for migratory waterfowl.  Here the birds, tired from lengthy migrations, rest and feed for 1-2 weeks or longer, before flying then on towards north Russia to nest and returning in autumn.

Studies were not conducted for each of the 15 Hot Spots, however there are all reasons to assume that the Hot Spots areas are frequented by migratory species.  The usual migratory birds include various species of geese and ducks.  The rare and endangered species of migratory birds include Cygnus cygnus, small swan, brent-goose, red-crop brand goose, scoter, erne, golden eagle, merlin and peregrin. 

By this criterion, the Hot Spots were assigned the score from 1 to 3 (Table D-13, Annex D).

7.2.5. Plants

Adverse Impact of Hot Spots on Plants

The field studies which were carried out between 2001and 2002 focused on aquatic plants that, in principle, include not only the well-known larger plants (macrophytes), but also the very small ones, which can be seen only under a microscope - algae.

The data on the algae biomass of the river phytoplankton for 2001, which is presented in Figure 7.10, indicate a moderate degree of phytoplankton development, typical local rivers.  However, this data, and data on the algae composition, were not enough to identify the Hot Spots impact on phytoplankton.  It can be possibly related to the fact that the considered plankton changes are caused by more natural, rather than anthropogenic factors.

The studies also identified differences in the degree of macrophyte development in the studied rivers (Figure 7.11).  However, we should not explain these differences with anthropogenic factors.

At the same time, assuming that not all possible methods of study have been used and that adverse impact on water plants still exists if the anthropogenic load is so high (aquatic plants here include the Red Book species), the Hot Spots were assigned the scores as shown in Table D-14 (Annex D).

 

Figure 7.10.  Biomass of phytoplankton, mg/l, summer 2001.

Figure 7.11.  Development of Macrophytes (Projective covering %) on Various Stretches of Dnipro, Seim and Vorsklitsa Rivers in the Territory of Russia, Summer 2002.