Mitigation of conflicts created in the landscape ecological pattern by A2 highway in western Poland as result of cooperation between investor and scientists

(1)

Maria Wojterska

¹

, Halina Ratyńska

²

, Andrzej Patalas

³

, Bogdan Jackowiak

⁴

1 Department of Plant Ecology and Environmental Protection, Faculty of Biology, Adam Mickiewicz University, ul. Umultowska 89, 61-614 Poznań

2 Department of Botany, Faculty of Biology and Environmental Protection, Kazimierz Wielki University, ul. Ossolińskich 12, 85-072 Bydgoszcz

3 Autostrada Wielkopolska SA, ul. Dziadoszańska 10, 61-248 Poznań

4 Department of Plant Taxonomy, Faculty of Biology, Adam Mickiewicz University ul. Umultowska 89, 61-614 Poznań

Abstract: The construction of A2 highway in western Poland has been executed successively in the period when the law regulations were dynamically changing. This lasting already for over a dozen or so years enterprise may be regarded as an example of multilateral cooperation between the investor (Autostrada Wielkopolska S.A.) and scientists working in landscape ecology and environmental protection (Adam Mickiewicz University in Poznań and Kazimierz Wielki University in Bydgoszcz). It encompasses all basic stages of its construction – from project through building phase to the exploita- tion. The opinion of ecologists has been partially taken into account among others in: (1) tracing of future highway, (2) elaboration of technical measures aiming at mitigation of its adverse influence on the environment, (3) location of under- and overpasses for animals and selection of their type, (4) proposal for greenery arrangement along the road, (5) indication of methods, ways and places of compensation, (6) elaboration of a system of monitoring of environment.

A special challenge for the investor and scientists was to elaborate the methodology of environmental impact assessments adequate to physiographic conditions and legal circumstances (in the mid of 1990s century) and their modification following the implementation of the Natura 2000 Network in Poland at the beginning of 21^st century.

The experiences acquired during the construction of A2 in the western Poland indicate, that even if the cooperation between natural scientists and representatives of technical-engineering sciences is not easy it might be effective and fruitful. It requires from both sides a systematic exchange of sometimes basic explanations or justifications promoting the reciprocal understanding. As result of this long cooperation some reduction of conflicts has been achieved.

Keywords: compensation, conflicts, impact assessment, landscape ecology, legal conditions, mitigation, motorway

Introduction

The history of the development of a motorway network in Poland dates back to the time before WWII when the main connections from Poznań to Warsaw and to Gdańsk, Łódź, Katowice, Kraków were designed (Nesterowicz 1939). The first earthworks were conducted by Germans during the WWII from

(2)

Rzepin to Poznań leaving the first trace of future A2 motorway. Next activities started first in the 1990s and in 1989 the 48 km long section from Września to Konin was ready. Beyond this in the country there were only few sections of motorways near Wrocław and Szczecin (Fig. 1). In the beginning of 1994, when the documentation indispensable to obtain the administrative approval for the location of investment was gathered there were practically no experiences concerning the methodology of EIA of linear investments as well as legal regulations concerning their preparation (Jackowiak et al. 2007). In this legal frame started the collaboration between group of specialists representing environmental sciences, the designer and investor aiming in preparation of mentioned documents. In this paper we would like to present the approx- imation of the schedule and results of cooperation between investor and environmental scientists in the enterprise significantly influencing the landscape.

Fig. 1. Analyzed part of A2, Świecko – Września (210 km) on the background of the contemporary motorway pro- gramme in Poland: 1 – part under construction, 2 – part finished in 2004

Cooperation circumstances

1. Aims of cooperation

1) Achievement of best effects of investment along with assurance of maintenance of ecological rules of environmental management.

2) Mitigation of conflicts created by construction of A-2 highway in Western Poland in the landscape ecological pattern.

(3)

tion of motorway A-2 Świecko – Poznań – Warszawa – Terespol

layout of motorway concerning EIA

1994 Protection of natural environment and selection of optimal alternative motorway course in the bypass of Łagów (Ratyńska, Szwed)

Assessment of variants of bypass of an object with outstanding natural values

Act from 27.10.1994 on paid motorways introduced obligatory impact assessment

1994 Outline of documentation of Environmen- tal Impact Assessment (EIA) of A2 (Jackowiak, Ludwiczak, Wojterska, Berezowska-Apolinarska)

Methodical basis of EIA Lack of detailed rules and scope of the EIA of motorway

1995 Assessment of influence of construction and functioning of planned A2 motorway on environment and landscape values (Jackowiak, Wojterska, Ratyńska, Szwed)

Basis to obtaining accep- tance for localisation indication (1995) and adequate decisions (1996)

Regulation of Minister of Natural Resources and Forestry from 5.06.1995 on requirements towards EIA

2006 Anex to the EIA of planned construction of A2 motorway (part Świecko – Trzciel – Nowy Tomyśl) with special reference to the areas NATURA 2000 (Wojterska, Ratyńska, Jackowiak, Szwed, Kurek)

Official “environmental decisions” (2007)

Act on nature protection 16.04.2004 introduces new form of protection:

Natura 2000 and the necessity of elaboration of an EIA of motorway on this areas

2009 Detailed project and timetable of activities necessary to ensure coherence and proper functioning of Natura 2000 network (Świecko – Nowy Tomyśl, Km 2+940 –92+533) in the Lubuskie voivodeship (Wojterska, Ratyńska, Jackowiak)

Decision RDOŚ (Regio- nal Management for Environmental Protection) and construction permit (2009–2010)

“Act of 3.10.2008 r. … and on EIA”

gives new definition on conditions of issuing of admininistrative decisions

2009 Detailed project and timetable of activities necessary to ensure coherence and proper functioning of Natura 2000 network (Trzciel – Nowy Tomyśl km 92+533 – 107+900) in the Wielkopolska voivodeship (Wojterska, Ratyńska, Jackowiak)

Decision RDOŚ and construction permit (2009–2010)

In respect to the Natura 2000 the scope and standard of assessment and expert opinion has been broa- dened.

2009 EIA of A2 on Natura 2000 Rynna Jezior Rzepińskich and on Natura 2000 Ujście Ilanki within new boundaries (Wojterska, Ratyńska)

Decision RDOŚ and construction permit (2009–2010)

The stress has been put on mitigation and compensation of losses in environment

(4)

Materials and elaborated methods

The studies on environmental conditions along the designed A2 highway (part Świecko–Września – 210 km) started in 1994 and lasted until 2010. They encompassed usually the belt of 1 km (comp. Curzydło 1985) except for river valleys, bogs and in all places where the highway was broader as result of accompanying infrastructure. For evaluation of rarity of biotopes the potential natural vegetation was estimated in the 10 km broad belt.

The lack of adequate data and methodology of assessment imposed the necessity of elaboration of own scheme of studies. Taking into account the vast area to evaluate, the landscape level of studies was chosen (Fig. 2) (Jackowiak et al. 2007). Patches of plant communities really existing in nature create repeatable complexes referred to as sigmassociations (Tüxen 1973) or aggregations of phytocoenoses (Matuszkiewicz 1978, Solon 1983). At this level of organization of natural environment, complexes of plant communities are edificators of landscape. The basis of assessment constituted 330 relevés of vegetation complexes taken in the year 1994, supplemented by 102 relevés from the years 2006–2009. They docu- mented the occurrence of all plant communities, their layout and surface, as well as description of populations of chosen species. The identification of communities followed the synopsis by Matuszkiewicz (1981) and that of Brzeg (1989) and Brzeg, Wojterska (2001) for the assessment of their rarity and degree of threat. On this basis types of natural habitats were identified as specified in the Appendix No 1 to the Habitat Directive 1992, as well as in the regulation of the Minister of Environment (2001, 2004, 2005). The following was accounted for the selection of species: Appendices No 2 and 4 to the HD 1992, Bird Directive 1979, national and regional lists of the endangered and vulnerable species (Jasiewicz 1981, Żukowski, Jackowiak 1995, Głowaciński 2002, Kaźmierczakowa, Zarzycki 2001, Zarzycki and Szeląg. 2006, Mirek et al. 2006) and the Regulations of the Minister of the Environment on the species protection of plants (30.04.1983, 6.04.1995, 9.07.2004) and animals (6.01.1995, 28.09.2004, comp. Tab. 2).

Table 2. Scientific and legal assessment basis

1994/1995 2006–2009 Identification of units of potential natural vegetation (Wojterski et al. 1973, 1982)

Designation of landscape types based on the differentiated complexes of plant communities (Tüxen 1973, Solon 1983) Identification of plant communities in the evaluated belt

Matuszkiewicz 1981, Brzeg 1987 Brzeg, Wojterska 2001 Identification of protected habitat types acc. to App.1 to the Habitat Directive (1992)

HD 1992

Decree of Minuster of Environment (Rozp. Ministra Środowiska) 16.05.2005

Identification of rare and endangered plant communities

Brzeg 1989 Brzeg, Wojterska 2001

Identification of rare, endangered and protected plant species Jasiewicz 1981; Żukowski, Jackowiak 1995, Decrees:

Rozp. MLiPD 30.04.1983, Rozp. MOŚZNiL 6.04.1995

Żukowski, Jackowiak 1995, Mirek i in. 2006; Decree of Minuster of Environment (Rozp. Ministra Środowiska) 9.07.2004

Chosen indicator animal species, especially endangered and protected Głowaciński 1992, Decree (Rozp. MOŚZNiL)

6.01.1995

Głowaciński Z. (red.) 2002, Decree of Minuster of Envi- ronment (Rozp. Ministra Środowiska) 28.09.2004, Bird Directive (1979)

(5)

Fig. 2. Levels of nature organisation (Acc. to Matuszkiewicz 1978 & Solon 1983 – changed)

Chosen results of environmental impact assessments

Steps of the assessment of highway impact on environment

These steps were following the legal regulations being in force in the time of assessment. Therefore ac- cording to the Table 3 in the first stage of elaboration the stress was directed towards the identification of natural values, their evaluation, as well as assessment and mitigation of collisions (Jackowiak et al. 1994), whereas in the later time, after the accession to the European Union in 2004 and in the changed legal circumstances it was possible and obligatory to plan not only how to mitigate but also compensate for losses in environment (Wojterska et al. 2006, 2008a, 2008b).

As an example of adopted methods and results the identification (Fig. 3) and evaluation (Fig. 4) of natural values as well as collisions within the impact zone of designed highway A2 in the Obra river valley are given. The criteria adopted for evaluation were the degree of naturalness and uniqueness, share of EU Directive Habitats, presence of endangered and of protected species. All conflicts stated in the western part of the highway are shown in the Fig. 5.

(6)

Fig. 3. Identification of landscape types and of biotic elements of environment in the Obra river valley

Natural landscapes: Forests 1 – oak-beech forest, 2 – carrs, 3 – mesic coniferous forests, 4 – non forest landscape of water bodies and their surroundings. Strongly transformed forest landscape: 5 – forest communities of substitution, Seminatural landscape:

6 – humid meadows, 7 – fens, 8 – pattern of forests and meadows; Strongly transformed landscape: 9 – with some participation of swards, 10 – fallow land

Fig. 4. Evaluation of landscapes and indication of significant collisions with natural values

Criteria – naturality degree, uniqueness, share of EU Directive Habitats, presence of endangered and of protected species, 1 – insignificant, 2 – moderate, 3 – high, 4 – very high, 5 – outstanding, 6 – significant collision

(7)

Fig. 5. Distribution of significant collisions between Świecko and Nowy Tomyśl (108 km) on the background of protected areas in the years 1994/5

1 – landscape park; 2 – nature reserve; 3 – collisions; 4 – planned motorway

Table 3. Steps in the assessment of highway impact on the environment

Steps Activities Identification flora, plant communities (habitats), fauna, complexes and

landscapes characteristics; map of complexes in 1 : 10 000 Evaluation assessment and map of natural value within the impact zone

of designed highway in 1 : 10 000 or 1 : 25 000

Assessment of collisions characteristics and map within the impact zone of enterprise in 1 : 10 000 or 1 : 25 000

Indication of mitigating and compensatory solutions description and map in scale adequate to the object type Indication of terms and places of monitoring of

environment

schedule of activities, maps of distribution and site plans of permanent plots

(8)

The accession of Poland to the European Union brought about also the creation of a net of Natura 2000 areas and consequently the necessity of a new assessment concerning the influence of the planned enterprise on their integrity. In the meantime also many other forms of nature protection were established, and the previously stated collisions changed the status into formal ones (Fig. 6), but the new assessment was obligatory only for Natura 2000 areas. The area shown in the Fig. 3 and 4 became a part of the Natura 2000 „Jeziora Pszczewskie i Dolina Obry” and the Fig. 7 illustrates the distribution of all protected habitats and species, which were directly endangered through the construction of the motorway.

Fig. 6. Distribution of significant collisions between Świecko and Nowy Tomyśl (108 km) on the background of protected areas in the years 2006–2010

1 – protected area; 2 – Natura 2000 area; 3 – landscape park; 4 – landscape park buffer zone; 5 – nature reserve, 6 – collisions, 7 – motorway

(9)

Fig. 7. Identification of conflicts in the “Dolina Obry i Jeziora Pszczewskie” Natura 2000 area

A – Habitats under direct influence of constructed highway – destroyed before assessment through clear-cutting and archeological exploration, 1 – alder bog forests and reeds, 2 – reeds and communities of hydrophytes, 3 – water bodies, 4 – water and meadow communities, 5 – oak-hornbeam forests and hazel thickets , 6 – forest communities of substitution, 7 – mesic pine forests and psammophilous swards, 8 – vegetation of clear-cuts, 9 – boundaries of protected habitats requiring compensation, 10 – area shown in Fig. B.

B – Detailed view on destroyed habitats and species 1 – Boundaries of evaluated cadaster units; Council Directive Habitats; 2 – Inland dunes with psammophilous swards Spergulo-Corynephoretum (2330); 3 – Transitional mires (7140); 4 – Extensively used lowland meadows – humid; 5 – Extensively used lowland meadows – fresh (6510);

6 – Localities of protected, rare and endangered species

The proposed compensatory solutions were following the guidelines depending on the type of losses in environment (Tab. 4). Under these guidelines the detailed project of compensation expressed formally in the Environmental Decision (Decyzja Środowiskowa) from 6.08.2007, taken by regional authorities for nature protection has been elaborated. One of the proposals concerned the renaturalisation of the forests in the Natura 2000 Dolina Ilanki and its neighbourhood (Tab. 5) as compensation of loss of acidiphilous beech forest (9110 – Luzulo-Fagenion) (Fig. 8). The other, referred to the loss of protected species on the example of Nuphar lutea (Tab. 6) and described the procedure of metaplantation, taking into account the biology, population characteristics in the endangered locality and the environmental conditions of occurrence (Wojterska, Ratyńska, Jackowiak 2008).

(10)

Table 4. Guidelines for compensation depending on the type of losses in the environment

Type of endangered

habitat or species Compensation method Object to implement compensation measures

Target areas of compensation

activieties Forest habitats and com-

munities

Allowing spontaneous succession of vegetation with possible use of pro- moters accelerating this process Changes in tree stand composition in order to foster

Transformed forests in the neighbourhood of motorway representing the same type of habitat as that destroyed by construction of A2

Forest sections designed within Natura 2000 areas or in their neighbourhood Habitats and communities

of meadows destroyed by motorway construction

Controlling the process of succession within the same type of habitat though measures adequate to the type of compensated vegetation i.e.

mowing and cutting out

Not properly managed grassland

Direct neighbourhood of motorway and chosen grassland areas

Habitats and water and bog plant communities in the sealed area of motorway and in its direct neighbourhood

In case of destruction of impossible to reconstruct arrangements of habitats and phytocoenoses – protection and reconstruction of possi- bly most similar habitat types and plant communities enumerated in the Habitat Directive

Water and bog vegetation New Natura 2000 area chosen for protection

Chosen protected and endangered species ocur- ring in the motorway belt or in its direct neighbourhood

Metaplantation of population of plant species of supraregional im- portance and key species for functioning of communities mentioned in the HD aided by aplication of measures adequate to the type of compensated vegetation

Habitats suitable for metaplantation and substitute habitats for chosen animal species

In some distance from the motorway

Table 5. List of forest sections and the areas designed for compensation. Proposal of forest renaturalisation in the Natura 2000 Dolina Ilanki and its neighbourhood

Forest section

Area

(ha) Forest site type

Potential natural vege-

tation

Present composition (in %) and age of tree

stand

Composition (in %) acc. to the manage-

ment scheme

Proposed target composition

(in %)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

97A h 1,42 Mixed deciduous fresh forest

LMŚw 1

Desch f.-Fagetum

Pine 100, 47yr Pine 50 Oak, Beech 40, Larch 10

Beech 80 Oak 20

97A b 2,21 Mixed deciduous fresh forest

LMŚw 1

Desch f.-Fagetum

Beech 80 Oak 20

97A b 2,21 Mixed deciduous fresh forest

LMŚw 2

Desch f.-Fagetum

Pine 100, 47yr Oak, Beech 50, Pine 30 Larch, Hornbeam, Douglas fir 20

Beech 80 Oak 20

97 A a 7,69 Mixed deciduous fresh forest

LMŚw 1

Desch f.-Fagetum

Beech 80 Oak 20

(11)

BMśw 1

75 i 0,36 70% deciduous fresh forest

Lśw 1

Galio- Carpinettum

Oak, Beech, Larch,

Douglas fir Pine Hornbeam

Oak, linden, hornbeam

30 Humid forest Querco- Ulmetum

Ash, oak, (elm, spruce, hornbeam)

Elm, oak, ash, alder

Table 6. Outline of metaplantation project of protected species (elaboration of procedures), biology and environmental conditions of occurrence of Nuphar lutea population characteristics in the endangered locality, schedule and methods of protective activities (Wojterska, Ratyńska, Jackowiak 2008)

Activity Timetable Remarks

Acquisition of the approval of the Ministry of Environment 04.2008 Population studies in the endangered locality: number and vitality of individ-

uals, influencing the scope of compensational activities. Metaplantation of total population

03–09.2008 Observations due in the time of flowering and fruiting Assessment of water quality in the endangered locality comprising bioindica-

tors, transparency, electrolytic conductivity, pH, O2 concentration and different forms of N and P in the lab

03–09.2008 To be executed by hydrobiologist

Assessment of above mentioned parameters in the water bodies being potential places for metaplantation, their area and depth

03–09.2008 Data from monitoring or special inves- tigations

Selection and preparation of secondary habitats for metaplantation taking into account conclusions from physico-chemical analysis of both endangered locality and of those designed for metaplantation

10.2008

Transfer of plants (rhizomes with substrate) on secondary localities. Plants should be transferred in the containers filled with soil from the primary site

10.2008 Transfer to be executed in collaboration with AMU Botanical Garden Monitoring of Nuphar lutea population on secondary localities 2009–2014 Once in the flowering and fruiting time.

Photographic documentation Publication of metaplantation procedures and scope in generally accessible

scientific periodical

2009 Necessary condition

(12)

Fig. 8. Compensation of losses in the natural environment – changes in the tree-stand composition in the Natura 2000 Dolina Ilanki

Forest sites: 1 – Mesic coniferous forest, 2 – Mesic mixed coniferous forest, 3 – Mesic mixed deciduous forest 1, 4 – Mesic mixed deciduous forest, 5 – Mesic deciduous forest, 6 – bog

In case of habitats and phytocoenoses impossible to restore, the only possible compensation was to create new protected areas, which comprised endangered HD habitat types and communities (Fig. 9), and where activities directed towards renaturalisation of chosen habitats could have been undertaken. The protection of a new Natura 2000 area was proposed, with a high number of specimen of Liparis loeselii (HD species), and where also changes in the tree-stand structure were designed aiming towards renaturalisation of HD habitats.

Out of many proposed measures of mitigation of adverse influence of planned enterprise on environment comprising i.a.: implementation of other technical solutions within the project, adequate technical protection of water and soil quality, reduction of habitat and species localities destruction, as well as of habitat fragmentation and isolation of species populations and shaping of proper natural surroundings of the motorway, it’s necessary to focus on the limitation of isolation of populations through construction of ecoducts and passes. Following the suggestions in the elaborations of Iuell et al. (2003) and Jędrzejewski et al. (2004, 2006) several ecoducts and over and underpasses were proposed. The number of them as compared to that in the earlier constructed section Poznań – Konin is much higher (Tab. 7) – 153 versus 13 and exceeds standards of many already existing motorways.

In our opinion the proper management of the greenery in the direct surroundings of the motorway should promote native species and structurally differentiated plant communities (occurring in the neighbourhood) within the fenced area to lessen the influence of highway on the structure and functioning of landscape (Ratyńska, Szwed 1994, 1997). The concept of shaping the vegetation of the motorway verges was established on the basis of a list of communities occurring in the impact zone between Świecko and Nowy Tomyśl (Tab. 8, 9).

(13)

Fig. 9. Differentiation of habitats in the proposed in the year 2006 new Natura 2000 area “Lipiennikowe Bagno”

Table 7. Comparison of mitigation procedures in two sections of A2 highway

Świecko – Nowy Tomyśl (104 km) Nowy Tomyśl – Konin (148 km) – 153 passes (over and underpasses) 13 passes

26 for big size animals (10 joined) 10 passes 8 for middle size animals (2 joined)

68 for small animals

3 for small animals and amphibians 3 culverts for small animals and amphibians 48 for amphibians

Table 8. Concept of vegetation shaping in the motorway sourroundings (based on the list of communities occurring in the motorway impact zone (Świecko – Nowy Tomyśl) within all habitat types

Introduction Type of habitat No HD V I Suitable

Water bodies and their borders eutrophic 42 11 5 14 8

within fenced area eutrophic and humid 15 4 1 3 6

within fenced area mesotrophic and humid 12 1 2 3 2

within fenced area mesotrophic and mesic 33 1 4 15 21

within fenced area mesotrophic and dry 6 2 1 1 2

within fenced area oligotrophic of different humidity 10 4 – 4 7

118 23 13 40 46

(14)

Schmidt G. et al. 158

Table 9. Example of a list of communities with environmental characteristics and their suitability for the management of the motorway surroundings in a given type of habitat (case: oligotrophic habitats of different humidity) Natura CodeV M ST SSD SG FR Association TL E N Habitat requirementsFlorist pot. RC T L H M T S RS FR I W101 D N P Molinio-Franguletum F 0 0 2 3 2 1 0 1 2 2 2 2330 I K>2UC 3 D SN C Armerio-FestucetumF, R S 1 3 2 1 1 0 2 3 1 2 I 0 1 S SN P Sclerantho-Herniarietum glabraeR 0 0 3 1 1 1 0 0 1 3 2 4030 K>2UC 3 D N P Pohlio-CallunetumF 0 1 3 1 1 1 0 1 2 1 2 K>2UC 3 D N P Zb. Agrostis tenuis-Holcus mollisF, R 0 1 3 1 1 1 0 1 2 1 2 0 3 S SR C Potentillo-Artemisietum absinthii R 0 0 3 1 1 1 0 0 2 1 2 2330 I 0 3 S N P Cladonietum mitisF 0 0 3 1 1 1 0 2 1 1 2 2330 0 3 S N C Corniculario-CorynephoretumF, R S 1 3 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 3 S N C Calamagrostietum epigeiF, R 0 1 3 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 S N C Rubetum idaeiF 0 1 3 x x x 0 0 2 1 2 Explanation of abbreviations: V – vulnerability: I – indeterminate, M – maintenance: 0 – not demanding care, W 10 – cutting off undergrowth every 10 year, K>2UP – mowing rarer than every second year, elimination of swath, ST – suitability for management of road shoulders and embankments: 1 – low; 2 – medium, 3 – high; SSD – durability of community: S – successional stage, D – final community; SG – syngenesis: N – natural, SN – seminatural, SR – synanthropic ruderal; F – Frequency: P – frequent, C – common; TL – type of landscape: F – forest landscape, R – rural landscape; E – aspect: S – South, O – indifferent; N – inclination: 0 – flat, 1 – slope; Habitat requirements: L – light: 1 – shaded, 2 – moderately shaded, 3 – sunny; H – humidity 3 – humid, 2 – mesic, 1 – dry, x – broad scale of tolerance, M – soil texture: 2 – sandy loams, 1 – sands, x – variable, T – trophy: 1 – habitat poor in nutrients, x – variable; S – tolerance towards salinity: 0 – lack ; Floristic potential; RS – share of rare or endangered species: 0 – lack, 1 – singular, 2 – few; FR – floristic richness: 1 – up to 10 species, 2 – moderate (11–20), 3 – rich (>20); RC – regeneration capacity: 1 – spontaneous secondary succession, 2 – spontaneous secondary succession, when plots in the neighbourhood, 3 – requires special treatment; T – time required for regeneration: 1 – short (about 3 years), 2 – medium (min. 5 years).

(15)

– elaboration of methodological model (at the beginning), which – to our satisfaction – was in accor- dance with later introduced legal regulations and was implemented with some modifications in many other road enterprises,

– effective and quick reaction on numerous changes in legal regulations resulting in – updating of documents necessary for administrative decisions.

Other effects of collaboration:

– deeper insight in the landscapes differentiation in the region,

– dissemination of knowledge concerning environmental problems related to the construction of a motorway (presentations on several national and international conferences and seminars).

Introduction into the teaching and research curricula:

– bachelor (3) and master degree (6), – PD thesis.

Scientific development: 15 publications

International cooperation and cooperation with private sector:

– Scientific-Technical Conference in Poznań 2006 (organizers: GDDKiA, General Directorate of Natio- nal Roads and Motorways, Autostrada Wielkopolska S.A., Adam Mickiewicz University),

– elaboration of a new Project within 7^th Framework of Marie Curie Grants (Adam Mickiewicz University, Autostrada Wielkopolska S.A., Scott Wilson).

Conclusions

Knowledge on landscape ecology and biodiversity are indispensable in proper (i.e. in accordance with generally accepted standards) planning and realization of enterprises (comprising linear ones).

Optimum results can be achieved only in close collaboration between designer, investor and scientists.

Experience gained during 16 years of A2 Project in western Poland shows that it is possible to reach compromises, fulfilling always higher technological and ecological standards.

Specificity of this collaboration consists in fact of being conducted in the changing legal situation, con- nected with the accession to the European Community, but resulting also in acquisition of necessary tools for administrative procedures, aiming at environmental protection, mitigation and compensation of losses.

Commonly elaborated solutions contributed to the mitigation of environmental losses and consequently to the obtaining of administrative decisions

Added value of cooperation on the „motorway A2” Project were scientific publications, introduction of new lectures, tutorials and thesis subjects into teaching curricula of Faculty of Biology at Adam Mickiewicz University.

(16)

Bibliography

Brzeg A. 1989. Wykaz zbiorowisk roślinnych Wielkopolski. In: Wojterska M., Balcerkiewicz S. (main desi- gners) Brzeg A. Gilicka I., Jackowiak B., Latowski K., Nagengast B., Szambelańczyk K., Wisz- niewska K. Ekspertyza geobotaniczna województwa poznańskiego do koncepcji ochrony krajo- brazu. Oprac. dla Zakł. Plan. Przestrzennego TUP. Poznań. (mscr.)

Brzeg A., Wojterska M. 2001. Zespoły roślinne Wielkopolski, ich stan Poznania i zagrożenie. [W]:

M. Wojterska (red.) Szata roślinna Wielkopolski i Pojezierza Południowopomorskiego, Przewodnik sesji terenowych 52. Zjazdu PTB, 24–28 września 2001: 39–110, Bogucki Wyd. Nauk., Poznań.

Curzydło J. 1985. Wpływ lasów i zadrzewień przydrożnych na rozprzestrzenianie się toksycznych składni- ków spalin samochodowych. Sylwan 4, 129: 21–32.

Głowaciński Z. 2002. Czerwona lista zwierząt zagrożonych i ginących w Polsce. PAN Instytut Ochrony Przyrody. Kraków. ss.: 155.

Iuell L., Bekker G.J., Cuperus R., Dufek J., Fry G., Hicks C., Hlavač V., Keller V.B., Rosell C., Sangwine T., Torslov N., Wandall B., le Maire 2003. Wildlife and Traffic: A European Handbook for Indentyfing Conflicts and Designing Solutions. COST 341. KKNV Publishers.

Jackowiak B., Wojterska M., Ratyńska H., Szwed W. 1994. Ocena wpływu projektowanej autostrady A-2 na środowisko przyrody ożywionej i walory krajobrazowe na odcinku Świecko – Września, etap I.

na zlecenie Transprojekt – Poznań BCRSD – Warszawa.

Jackowiak B., Ratyńska H., Szwed W. & Wojterska M. 2007. Influence of transport infrastructure on habitats and vegetation: methodological grounds for analysis and an attempt at assessment. In:

B. Jackowiak (ed.). Influence of Transport Infrastructure on Nature. General Directorate of Nation- al Roads and Motorways, C. 51–63. Warszawa – Poznań – Lublin.

Jackowiak B,. Wojterska M., Ratyńska H., Ludwiczak I., Berezowska-Apolinarska K. 1994. Ocena oddzia- ływania na środowisko autostrady A3 w obszarze województwa gorzowskiego. Koncepcja ujęcia tematu. (mscr.)

Jackowiak B., Bekker H., Iuell B., Mikusinski G., Ratyńska H. & Wojterska M. 2007. Environmental impact assessments in the light of discussions on the influence of transport infrastructure on nature. In:

B. Jackowiak (ed.). Influence of Transport Infrastructure on Nature. General Directorate of Nation- al Roads and Motorways, C. 235–236. Warszawa – Poznań – Lublin.

Jasiewicz A. 1981. Wykaz gatunków rzadkich i zagrożonych flory polskiej. Fragm. Flor.Geobot. 27(3):

401–414.

Jędrzejewski W., Nowak S., Kurek R., Mysłajek R., Stachura K. 2004. Zwierzęta a drogi. Metody ograniczania negatywnego wpływu dróg na populacje dziko żyjących zwierząt. Zakład Badania Ssaków PAN, Białowieża. ss.: 84.

Jędrzejewski W., Nowak S., Kurek R., Mysłajek R., Stachura K., Zawadzka B. 2006. Zwierzęta a drogi.

Metody ograniczania negatywnego wpływu dróg na populacje dziko żyjących zwierząt. Wydanie II – zmienione i uzupełnione. Zakład Badania Ssaków PAN, Białowieża.

Kaźmierczakowa R., Zarzycki K. 2001. Polska czerwona księga roślin. Paprotniki i rośliny kwiatowe. Inst.

Bot. PAN, Inst. Ochr. Przyr. PAN, Kraków.

Matuszkiewicz J.M. 1978. Fitokompleks krajobrazowy – specyficzny poziom organizacji roślinności. Wiad.

Ekol. 24,1: 3–13.

Matuszkiewicz W. 1981. Przewodnik do oznaczania zbiorowisk roślinnych Polski. Wyd. Nauk. CWN.

Warszawa, s. 297.

(17)

Tüxen R. 1973. Vorschlag zur Aufnahme von Gesellschaftskomplexen in natürlichen potentiellen Vegeta- tionsgebieten. Acta Bot. Acad. Sci. Hungar., 19: 379–384. Budapest.

Wojterska M., Ratyńska H., Jackowiak B., Szwed W., Kurek R. 2006. Aneks do raportu o oddziaływaniu na środowisko planowanego przedsięwzięcia drogowego – budowy autostrady a2 na odcinku Świecko – Trzciel – Nowy Tomyśl (KM 2+940–107+900) na terenie województw lubuskiego i wielkopolskiego ze szczególnym uwzględnieniem obszarów Natura 2000, wymagany jako uzupełnienie do wniosku o wydanie decyzji o środowiskowych uwarunkowaniach zgody na realizację przedsięwzięcia.

Wojterska M., Ratyńska H., Jackowiak B. 2008. Szczegółowy projekt i harmonogram działań niezbędnych do zapewnienia spójności i właściwego funkcjonowania sieci Natura 2000 (na odcinku Świecko – Nowy Tomyśl, Km 2+940 –92+533) na terenie województwa lubuskiego.

Wojterska M., Ratyńska H., Szwed W. 2006. Opinia specjalistyczna do raportu o oddziaływaniu na środo- wisko planowanego przedsięwzięcia drogowego – budowy autostrady a2 na odcinku Świecko – Trzciel (km 2–93) na terenie województw lubuskiego i wielkopolskiego w zakresie odziaływania na obszary natura 2000, wymaganego do wniosku o wydanie decyzji o środowiskowych uwarunkowaniach zgody na realizację przedsięwzięcia (mscr.).

Zarzycki K., Szeląg Z. 2006. Red list of the vascular plants in Poland. Czerwona lista roślin naczyniowych w Polsce. In: Mirek Z., Zarzycki K., Wojewoda W., Szeląg Z. (Eds.) Red list of plants and fungi in Poland. Czerwona lista roślin i grzybów Polski. IB PAN, Kraków.

Żukowski W., Jackowiak B. 1995. Ginące i zagrożone rośliny naczyniowe Pomorza Zachodniego i Wielkopolski. Prace Zakładu Taksonomii Roślin UAM w Poznaniu nr 3. Bogucki Wyd. Nauk.

Poznań. ss. 141.

Legal documents

Dyrektywa Rady Europy 79/409/EWG z dn. 2 kwietnia 1979 r. w sprawie ochrony dzikich ptaków (z póź- niejszymi zmianami) wraz z załącznikami (I–V) (tzw. Dyrektywa Ptasia).

Dyrektywa Rady Europy 92/43/EWG z dn. 21 maja 1992 r. w sprawie ochrony siedlisk naturalnych oraz dzikiej Fauny i Flory (tzw. Dyrektywa Siedliskowa lub Habitatowa).

http://natura2000.mos.gov.pl/natura2000/pl/.

Konwencja o obszarach wodno-błotnych mających znaczenie międzynarodowe, zwłaszcza jako środowi- sko życiowe ptactwa wodnego z 1971 r. (Konwencja Ramsarska) podpisana 22.11.1972 ratyfikowana 22.03.1978 r. Dz. U. nr 7 poz. 24 i 25 z 1978 r.

Konwencja o ocenach oddziaływania na środowisko w kontekście transgranicznym z 1991 r. (Konwencja z Espoo) podpisana 25.02.1991, ratyfikowana 12.06.1997 r. Dz. U. nr 96 poz. 1110 z 1999 r.

(18)

Konwencja o ochronie dzikiej Fauny i Flory europejskiej oraz ich siedlisk naturalnych (Konwencja Berneń- ska) podpisana 24.03.1995, ratyfikowana 01.01.1996 r. Dz. U. nr 58 poz. 263 i 264 z 1996 r.

Konwencja o ochronie wędrownych gatunków dzikich zwierząt z 1979 r. (Konwencja Bońska) podpisana 1.05.1996 r. Dz. U. nr 2 Coz.17 z 2003 r.

POŚ – ustawa z 27 kwietnia 2001 r. (Dz.U. Nr 62 poz. 627)

Rozporządzenie Ministra Środowiska z dn. 16 maja 2005 r. w sprawie typów siedlisk przyrodniczych oraz gatunków roślin i zwierząt, wymagających ochrony w formie wyznaczenia obszarów Natura 2000, załączniki I–IV (Dz. U. Nr 94, poz. 795).

Rozporządzenie Ministra Środowiska z dn. 21 lipca 2004 r. w sprawie obszarów specjalnej ochrony pta- ków Natura 2000 (Dz. U. Z dnia 21 października 2004 r.).

Rozporządzenie Ministra Środowiska z dn. 28 września 2004 r. w sprawie gatunków dziko występujących zwierząt objętych ochroną (Dz. U. Nr 220, poz. 2237).

Rozporządzenie Ministra Środowiska z dn. 9 lipca 2004 r. w sprawie gatunków dziko występujących roślin objętych ochroną (Dz. U. Nr 168, poz. 1764).

Ustawa z dnia 16 kwietnia 2004 r. o ochronie przyrody (Dz. U. 2004.92.880 z późn. zm.).

Ustawa z dnia 28 września1991 r. o lasach (Dz. U. 1991.101.444 z późn. zm.).

Ustawa z dnia 18 maja 2005 r. o zmianie ustawy – prawo ochrony środowiska oraz niektórych innych ustaw (Dz. U. Nr 113, poz. 954)

Załącznik 1 do Dyrektywy 92/43/EWG z dn. 21 maja 1992 r. w sprawie ochrony siedlisk naturalnych oraz dzikiej fauny i flory: Typy siedlisk naturalnych ważnych dla miejscowych społeczności, których ochrona wymaga wyznaczenia obszarów szczególnie chronionych.

Załącznik 2 do Dyrektywy 92/43/EWG z dn. 21 maja 1992 r. w sprawie ochrony siedlisk naturalnych oraz dzikiej fauny i flory: Gatunki roślin i zwierząt będące przedmiotem zainteresowania Wspólnoty, których ochrona wymaga wyznaczenia specjalnych obszarów ochrony

Załącznik 3 do Dyrektywy 92/43/EWG z dn. 21 maja 1992 r. w sprawie ochrony siedlisk naturalnych oraz dzikiej fauny i flory: Kryteria wyboru obiektów kwalifikujących je do określenia jako obiekty będące przedmiotem zainteresowania Wspólnoty i wyznaczenia jako specjalne obszary ochrony.

Załącznik 4 do Dyrektywy 92/43/EWG z dnia 21 maja 1992 roku w sprawie ochrony siedlisk naturalnych oraz dzikiej fauny i flory: Gatunki roślin i zwierząt będących przedmiotem zainteresowania Wspól- noty, które wymagają ścisłej ochrony.