Evaluation and comparison of the route alternatives for NSP2

Many of the challenges faced during the route selection process for NSP apply to the route selection for NSP2 as well and are thus considered to be relevant for the NSP2 project. The EEZ border between Poland and Denmark south of Bornholm was not settled at the time of the route planning for NSP, the NSP2 base case route nor the NSP2 NW route. Other challenges included the general ship traffic pattern, which has not been subject to significant changes since 2009. Furthermore, there have been no changes to the area of restrictions on anchoring and fishing due to the potential presence of chemical munitions or CWA, and, in general, the bottom fishery pattern has not been subject to significant changes during this period.

Apart from the now resolved delimitation of the EEZ border between Poland and Denmark, the challenges above remain valid and are highly relevant to the route selection process for NSP2.

Figure 5-3 shows the considered route alternatives for NSP2; namely, the base case route, NW route and SE route (which will join with either the SE route V1 or the SE route V2). As described above, the SE route and its respective route variants connect to the original fix points of the NSP2 base case route and the NW route at the Swedish/Danish EEZ border and the German/Danish EEZ border.

Figure 5-3 The NSP2 base case route, NW route SE route, SE route V1 and SE route V2.

The following environmental and socio-economic criteria shown in Table 5-1 below have been as-sessed for the combination of the SE route with V1 and the combination of the SE route with V2.

The results of the assessment of the combination of the SE route with V1 and the combination of the SE route with V2 are then compared to the environmental and socio-economic impacts evalu-ated for the reasonable alternatives that have been identified and studied by Nord Stream 2 AG;

the base case route and the NW route. In the evaluations, all criteria are considered important for the choice of the pipeline route in Danish waters and therefore no weighting of parameters has been applied.

Table 5-1 Environmental and socio-economic aspects considered in the comparative alternatives assess-ment.

Aspect Environmental and socio-economic criteria

Biological environment • Avoidance and minimization of impact (direct or indirect from pipe-lay and/or seabed intervention works) on protected and environmentally sensitive areas, including fishing banks and nursery and spawning areas

Maritime safety • Minimise interaction with shipping lanes Munitions risk • Avoidance of munitions

• Avoidance of chemical warfare agents (CWA) Fishery • Minimise hindrance to fishery (bottom trawling)

Maritime spatial planning • Grouping of infrastructure in a common corridor (marine spatial planning): parallel routing to the Nord Stream pipeline system so that the combined footprint of the two pipeline systems is minimised

• Avoidance of crossing of / proximity to existing and future infra-structure

Raw material extraction sites

• Avoidance of extraction areas Military practice areas • Avoidance of military practice areas Pipeline length • Minimise pipeline length

Based on the relative comparison, the combination of the SE route with V1 and the combination of the SE route with V2 have each been rated within each aspect listed above as either better, slightly better, comparable, slightly worse or worse compared to the NSP2 reference routes; i.e. base case route and NW route. The combination of the SE route with V1 is generally considered to result in comparable environmental impacts as the combination of the SE route with V2, though with slightly elevated CWA risk. Key distinctions between the two route alignments are described in the sections below where relevant to the evaluations.

Biological environment and extent of intervention works

Impacts on the marine biological environment are expected to result from construction activities.

During the construction phase, vessel operations, pipe-lay and seabed intervention works are ex-pected to cause dispersion of sediments and contaminants into the water column and to create underwater noise, which can potentially impact the biological environment. During the operational phase, the presence of the pipelines and supporting structures on the seabed may potentially im-pact the biological environment by constituting a change in seabed environment.

It is assumed that impacts from the vessel operations and pipe-lay activity will be similar along the base case route, the combination of the SE route with V1 and the combination of the SE route with V2, as they are in a similar biological environment. Differences in potential impacts on the biological environment along the routes may arise from the extent of intervention works required for instal-lation of the pipelines and the levels of contaminants, including metals, organic compounds and CWA in the seabed sediment along the different routes. Figure 5-4 below shows the protected areas in Danish waters, including Natura 2000 sites, HELCOM Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) and Ramsar sites.

Figure 5-4 Protected areas and route alternatives.

The combination of the SE route with V1 and the combination of the SE route with V2 are expected to require slightly less intervention works compared to the base case route since longer sections of these routes are situated in deep water with muddy sediment where post-lay trenching or rock placement is not expected to be necessary, see Figure 5-5. Furthermore, longer sections of the combination of the SE route with V1 and the combination of the SE route with V2 are situated at water depths of 60-90 m, in the anoxic zone with no or little benthic marine life. The potential for environmental impact is therefore considered slightly lower for the combination of the SE route with V1 and the combination of the SE route variant with V2 compared to the base case route.

The NW route is expected to require slightly more intervention works compared to the combination of the SE route with V1 and the combination of the SE route with V2 due to the need for more preparatory work for further cable crossings, freespan corrections at the TSS Bornholmsgat and potential post-lay trenching and/or rock placement in shallower waters across the Rønne Banke area, see Figure 5-5. The potential for environmental impact is therefore considered higher for the NW route compared to the combination of the SE route with V1 and the combination of the SE route with V2.

Figure 5-5 Intervention works, Natura 2000 sites and route alternatives.

Three Natura 2000 sites, three HELCOM MPAs, two Important Bird and Biodiversity Areas (IBAs) and one Ramsar site are located near the proposed route alternatives in Danish waters. The base case route, the combination of the SE route with V1 and the combination of the SE route with V2 do not cross any protected areas in Danish waters. The NW route crosses a Natura 2000 site, discussed further below.

The shortest distance to the nearest Natura 2000 site from both potential alignments of the SE route (Adler Grund and Rønne Banke) is approx. 18 km, while there is approx. 13 km to nearest Natura 2000 site (Ertholmene) for the base case route. Adler Grund and Rønne Banke is designated as a Natura 2000 site on the basis of the habitat types “reef” and “sandbank”. Ertholmene is designated as a Natura 2000 site on the basis of the habitat type “reef” and the species grey seal, guillemot and razorbill. It has been assessed that there is no risk of significant impacts on the designated habitats and on the integrity of the Natura 2000 sites from either the base case route, the combination of the SE route with V1 or the combination of the SE route with V2. The NW route crosses the Natura 2000 site Adler Grund and Rønne Banke for approximately 15 km. It is assessed in the Appropriate Assessment included in the EIA for the NW route that there will be no risk of adverse impact on the designated habitat types in this Natura 2000 site.

In conclusion, in relation to impacts on the biological environment, the combination of the SE route with V1 and the combination of the SE route with V2 are each considered slightly better when compared with the base case route, and better when compared with the NW route, given the limited amount of intervention works needed and distance from protected nature areas.

Potential impacts during the operational phase arising from the presence of the pipelines and sup-port structures are comparable for all routes and are assessed not to be significant.

The comparison of routes in relation to the biological environment is summarised in Table 5-2.

Table 5-2 Comparison summary for the routes in relation to the biological environment.

Route Comparison summary Route preference

Base case Post-lay trenching and/or rock placement is expected to a limited extent at the NSP crossing and at three other potential sections along the route. This may result in increased levels of suspended sediments and underwater noise. However, the potential impacts on the biological environment associated with the intervention works are expected to be negligible. The impact level is therefore consid-ered low.

Reference

NW The NW route will require preparatory work for several cable cross-ings, freespan corrections at the TSS and potential post-lay trench-ing and/or rock placement in shallower waters across the Rønne Banke area. The NW route additionally crosses the Natura 2000 site Adler Grund and Rønne Banke for approximately 15 km, within which intervention works may be required. It is assessed that there will be no risk of adverse impact on the integrity of the designated habitat types in this Natura 2000 site.

Reference

SE* Post-lay trenching and/or rock placement is expected to a limited extent at the NSP crossing and at one other potential section along the route. However, the potential impacts on the biological environ-ment associated with the intervention works are expected to be neg-ligible. A large section of the route will be placed at water depths of 60-90 m, in the anoxic zone with no or little marine life. Since the combination of the SE route with either V1 or V2 requires less sea-bed intervention works and is positioned farther away from pro-tected areas, both SE route alternatives are assessed to be slightly better than the base case route.

The SE route requires a minor extent of intervention works, and does not cross any protected areas. Therefore, the combination of the SE route with either V1 or V2 is considered better than the NW route, which requires a relatively greater extent of intervention works, also inside a Natura 2000 site.

Slightly better than base case

Better than NW

* These conclusions apply to both the combination of the SE route with V1 and the combination of the SE route with V2.

Maritime safety

The Bornholmsgat is located north of Bornholm. It is the main entrance to/exit from the Baltic Sea for ship traffic and is one of the most trafficked areas in the Baltic Sea. Figure 5-6 shows the ship traffic pattern (intensity) in the Danish waters around Bornholm, based on Automatic Identification System (AIS) registrations in 2014, along with the route alternatives for the NSP2 project. The figure demonstrates that the majority of ships follow predesignated routes that are in accordance with existing traffic separation schemes (TSS), see section 7.15.

Figure 5-6 Alternative routes for the NSP2 project, shown with ship traffic density.

The NSP2 project, for all route alternatives, may have an impact on maritime safety mainly during the construction phase in the high-traffic areas due to the presence of slow-moving or stationary construction vessels with limited ability to manoeuvre. Upon agreement with the relevant authori-ties, a safety zone will be implemented in the order of 1 nm around the pipe-lay vessel, and only vessels involved in the construction of NSP2 will be allowed inside the safety zone. Therefore, all other vessels that are not involved in the construction activities will be required to plan their jour-neys around the safety zone. The safety zone will be communicated through Notices to Mariners.

Furthermore, during the operational phase, the presence of the pipeline system may involve po-tential indirect risks on ship traffic and other maritime activities, e.g. by means of changed behav-iour in case of emergency anchoring events.

In general, ship traffic is less intense in the waters south and east of Bornholm, through which the base case route, the combination of the SE route with V1 and the combination of the SE route with V2 pass. All routes cross the TSS Adlergrund, which has about 7,000 ship passages per year, near the Danish-German EEZ border. In this area, safety exclusion zones will be imposed around slow-moving construction vessels, which will lead to a minor restriction on the west-bound traffic in the shipping lane within Danish waters.

With regard to the NW route, a large part of the section in Danish waters (approx. 80 km) is located within the TSS Bornholmsgat/deep water route, which experiences approx. 50,000 ship passages per year. Construction of the pipeline system in this area is viable; however, it necessitates further mitigation measures (during both the construction and operational phases) than would be the case

for either the combination of the SE route with V1 or the combination of the SE route with V2. In addition to the above mentioned safety zone, the mitigation measures include the instalment of a temporary, local notification system to inform ships approaching the pipe-lay vessel. This system can be set up with a local vessel that calls to other vessels. Such a temporary system was estab-lished during the construction of NSP, where a person local to the area was used to ensure efficient communication with other vessels. It should be noted that the construction works will be temporary in any given area and pipe-lay will progress at a rate of up to 3 km/day, and that during the EIA consultation phase for the NW route, the Danish Maritime Authority did not raise any concerns regarding potential impacts in the TSS Bornholmsgat.

The combination of the SE route with V1 would entail the crossing of the same primary ship traffic routes as would the base case route and the combination of the SE route with V2. However, one of the primary ship traffic routes, Route I, would be crossed at a point approximately 15 km to the east of the base case route and approximately 25 km to the west of the combination of the SE route with V2, see Figure 5-6. The ship traffic along Route I is expected to be the same at any point along the route. The SE route is positioned closer to one of the primary ship traffic routes, Route O (i.e., within approx. 1 km), than the base case route, see Figure 5-6. This is not considered problematic as there are no formal criteria for the distance between a pipeline parallel to a shipping lane and the shipping lane. Furthermore, ships travelling along the part of Route O that is parallel to the SE route are not bound by any TSS, meaning that ships are permitted to leave Route O and thereby avoid being affected by temporary safety exclusion zones. There is no significant difference with respect to maritime safety between the SE route V1 and the SE route V2 and the two SE route options are therefore evaluated to be comparable in this regard.

In relation to maritime safety, both SE route alternatives are therefore considered to be comparable to the base case route, and better compared to the NW route, as reflected in Table 5-3.

Table 5-3 Comparison summary for the routes in relation to maritime safety.

Route Comparison summary Route preference

Base case The main traffic separation scheme Bornholmsgat, with 50,000 ship movements per year, is not impacted. Only ship traffic routes where the ship traffic intensity is relatively low are crossed. The TSS Adler-grund is crossed, but the duration of the construction activities is short and the relatively low intensity of ship traffic, with only 9-10 west-bound ships per day, moves in a one-directional lane. Crossing TSS Adlergrund is common to all considered route alternatives. The impact level is therefore considered low.

Reference

NW The main traffic separation scheme Bornholmsgat will be directly im-pacted by the construction activities for this route. The route crosses the TSS diagonally twice and is located inside the TSS for approx.

80 km. Mitigation measures include the imposition of a safety zone around work vessels, establishment of a temporary VTS and use of a guard ship.

Reference

SE* The route crosses the same ship traffic routes as the NSP2 base case route, although the SE route is positioned closer to one of the primary ship traffic routes, Route O (i.e., within approx. 1 km), than the base case route. This is not considered problematic as ships are permitted to leave Route O and thereby avoid being affected by temporary safety exclusion zones. Therefore, the combination of the SE route with either V1 or V2 represents a comparable alternative compared to the base case route in relation to maritime safety in Danish waters.

The main traffic separation scheme Bornholmsgat, with 50,000 ship movements per year, is not impacted. Only ship traffic routes where the ship traffic intensity is relatively low are crossed. As stated above, the proximity of the SE route to Route O is not considered to represent a concern. Therefore, the combination of the SE route with either V1 or V2 represents a better alternative compared to the NW route in relation to maritime safety in Danish waters.

Comparable to base case

Better than NW

* These conclusions apply to both the combination of the SE route with V1 and the combination of the SE route with V2.

Munitions risk

Chemical warfare agent risk area

Chemical munitions are munitions containing CWA, whose toxic properties were designed to kill, injure or incapacitate humans. In 1925, the use of chemical munitions was declared illegal in the Third Geneva Convention. Chemical munitions were not used during World War II, but both the Allied and German forces stockpiled large quantities of them. After the war, the Bornholm Basin and the Gotland Deep were selected as dumping sites for chemical munitions.

The main site in Danish waters used for chemical munitions disposal was the southern part of the Bornholm Deep. It is estimated that chemical warfare materials containing 11,000 t of CWA were dumped north-east of Bornholm. The primary designated dumping area was circular with a radius of 3 nm, centred on coordinates located at approximately 55° 20’ N, 15° 37’ E. The designated area is marked on sea charts. However, since the navigational equipment at the time of dumping was not very accurate, it is very possible that dumping vessels may not have been within the predetermined location when being scuttled or did not remain in one place when overboard dump-ing was carried out. Therefore, chemical warfare materials may have been spread over a larger area. Furthermore, there are indications of individual dumping while travelling to and from the designated dumping area. Thus, a more realistic secondary dumping area is also marked on the

The main site in Danish waters used for chemical munitions disposal was the southern part of the Bornholm Deep. It is estimated that chemical warfare materials containing 11,000 t of CWA were dumped north-east of Bornholm. The primary designated dumping area was circular with a radius of 3 nm, centred on coordinates located at approximately 55° 20’ N, 15° 37’ E. The designated area is marked on sea charts. However, since the navigational equipment at the time of dumping was not very accurate, it is very possible that dumping vessels may not have been within the predetermined location when being scuttled or did not remain in one place when overboard dump-ing was carried out. Therefore, chemical warfare materials may have been spread over a larger area. Furthermore, there are indications of individual dumping while travelling to and from the designated dumping area. Thus, a more realistic secondary dumping area is also marked on the