Option 2: wet concept
7. METHOD ADOPTED FOR PRODUCTION OF ESPOO ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT DOCUMENTATION
7.2 General approach
In order to meet the requirements set out above, the following sequential steps have been undertaken:
• Scoping of potentially affected receptors, which have been addressed through the PID, the national EIAs/ES and subsequent consultation undertaken in 2013-2016 (Chapter 4 – Espoo process);
• Identification of the potential significant environmental and social impacts of the project;
• Baseline characterisation of the resources and receptors that could potentially be impacted;
• Assessment of potential impacts;
• Development of measures to address potentially significant impacts through mitigation;
• Assessment of potential transboundary impacts;
• Assessment of potential cumulative impacts.
These steps have been customised to take account of the specific context of NSP2 (see Table 7-1) and are further elaborated on in Sections 7.3 to 7.8.
Table 7-1 Issues specific to NSP2 and adopted approach.
Issues specific to NSP2 Espoo approach
Challenges of multiple national permitting processes
The requirement for national permitting necessitates dividing and assessing the project as five subprojects, with each assessment considering impacts (including transboundary impacts) arising
Preparation of an overarching report that considers the impacts of the entire project irrespective of national borders.
The adopted approach comprises a summary of the impacts identified in each country as well as the
Issues specific to NSP2 Espoo approach from activities within the respective national borders.
Impacts arising from parts of the project that are located in other countries are not addressed.
consequences of their in-combination occurrence across national borders (within the overall NSP2 project) and interactions with other planned projects (cumulative impacts).
Complexity of project
The project is located in the TW and/or EEZ of five countries and there is a possibility of cross-border impacts in the jurisdictions of other APs as a result of onshore and offshore activities, which included core components (owned and operated by Nord Stream 2 AG) and ancillary facilities (owned and operated by third parties).
Design and application of a systematic, logical and transparent process for identifying, evaluating and addressing impacts and a clear reporting structure to ensure all issues (technical, temporal and spatial) are adequately considered in the assessment, with transboundary impacts in particular being highlighted.
Integration of different national requirements and approaches into an overarching EIA
The different requirements of national agencies and legislation with respect to the content and methodology (e.g. models) used in the national EIAs/ES and the applicable standards (e.g. protection status of species and habitats, environmental quality standards (EQSs) for contaminants) may constrain the ability to undertake a consistent in-combination assessment of each receptor group across the entire NSP2 project.
While the Espoo assessment has, wherever possible, applied a consistent approach to the evaluation of impacts arising in each PoO, it has, where relevant, highlighted differences in national requirements and their implications, if any, for the assessment of specific impacts.
Different standards in a transboundary context Differences in national standards (e.g. EQSs, objectives and targets in relation to the WFD and MSFD etc.) of the PoO and APs may mean that the assessment of some transboundary impacts within the EIA of the PoO may not be consistent with the standards of the APs.
The clear identification of transboundary impacts and their nature within this report (Chapter 15 – Transboundary impacts) will enable each country where there is transboundary impact to review such impacts against their own national standards and targets and to address any perceived potential shortcomings in their consideration through consultations between concerned parties (Step 5 of the Espoo process in Section 3.2).
Ensuring and facilitating full participation of stakeholders and interested parties
A diverse audience including interested individuals, the general public, decision makers and politicians as well as special interest groups and technical experts in nine different countries.
The approach duly considered the requirements of the Espoo Convention to give the public in APs the opportunity to be informed and to express their views. This has been achieved through the translation of the Espoo Report into the nine languages of the PoOs and APs and through the provision of documentation that provides information at the appropriate level of detail that can be understood by the different target audiences, e.g.
through production of the non-technical summary (for the general public), the main Espoo Report (for an informed non-specialist audience and decision makers) and the appendices to the Espoo Report (for technical specialists and advisors). This information has been widely publicised and disseminated, including online.
Addressing of stakeholder views
Stakeholder comments raised in response to the PID and consultation process.
The scoping of issues as well as attention given to them in the assessment process took account of the comments raised during consultations and included, where appropriate, the incorporation of stakeholder views in the assessment criteria.
7.3 Identification of potentially significant impacts
Following the notification phase of the Espoo process (Section 3.2), the scope of the assessment was refined. The scoping exercise established the technical, spatial and temporal scope of the assessment. It was informed, amongst others, by the comments provided in response to the PID and those raised through various consultation events in the five PoOs and the four APs.
Technical scope 7.3.1
The environmental and socio-economic resources and receptors which could potentially be impacted by NSP2 were identified through a review of the core and ancillary project components during the construction and operation phases, as well as the general nature of baseline conditions. The former were established through a review of the project description in Chapter 6 – Project description, whilst the latter were determined through desk studies, dedicated environmental surveys (see Table 9-1, in Chapter 9 – Environmental baseline) and reviews of relevant secondary information, including the national EIA/ES documents. The identified resources and receptors are summarised in Table 7-2.
Table 7-2 Resources and receptors potentially susceptible to impacts from NSP2.
Environment Resources and/or receptors
Physical environment Terrestrial geomorphology and topography Freshwater hydrology (surface and groundwater) Marine geology, bathymetry and sediments Hydrography and seawater quality
Air quality and climate Biological environment Terrestrial flora and fauna
Plankton
Chapter 8 – Identification of environmental impacts provides a short analysis of how the various project activities and components may affect the receptors and resources identified in Table 7-2.
Chemical and conventional munitions are not environmental receptors, and therefore are not included in Table 7-2. However, the consequences of their potential presence in the vicinity of NSP2 was identified during consultations as an issue requiring particular consideration. Therefore they are considered as a specific topic within the baseline characterisation (Chapter 9 – Environmental baseline) in order to document where such features may be present within the areas potentially affected by NSP2. Potential impacts (noise, scour, etc.) associated with the planned detonation of conventional munitions are addressed in Chapter 10 – Assessment of environmental impacts, while those arising from unplanned detonation are covered in Chapter 13
– Risk assessment. The potential for mobilisation of CWAs is addressed specifically within a special section within Chapter 10, and this information is then used, together with data on other contaminants, to inform the wider assessment of the release of contaminants from sediments within the relevant sections of Chapter 10 (sediment quality, water quality, etc.).
Similarly, marine biodiversity (variability within species, between species and between habitats, ecosystems, as well as ecosystem functionality) has been included as a special topic within the biological sections of the report to ensure due consideration has been given to potential impacts at an ecosystem level, particularly with respect to the interaction of the receptors/resources associated with the marine biological environment (in line with the requirements of the MSFD).
The analysis provided in Chapter 8 – Identification of environmental impacts has identified interactions which have the potential to result in significant impacts and therefore informed the determination of specific issues to be carried forward to the baseline characterisation and impact assessment stage, as discussed in Chapters 9 – Environmental baseline and 10 – Assessment of environmental impacts.
In addition to analysing potential impacts on specific resources/receptors, it is also important to consider the impacts of NSP2 in the context of relevant EU legislation designed to protect the marine environment (i.e. MSFD, WFD and Baltic Sea Action Plan). This is addressed in Chapter 11 – Marine strategic planning.
Spatial scope 7.3.2
The pipeline route is approximately 1,200 km in length. Onshore PTAs will occupy areas of 6.25 ha in Russia and 4 ha in Germany. There will be some restrictions above the buried pipeline section in Russia. Additional areas, both onshore and marine, will be occupied temporarily during construction. Ancillary activities will be accommodated within existing facilities. The geographical area that may be affected by the project (area of influence) varies depending on how the aspects4 of each project activity propagate spatially from these project areas. The extent of such propagation therefore informs the environmental impact identification exercise reported in Chapter 8 – Identification of environmental impacts, as well as the area of influence for each impact discussed in Chapter 10 – Assessment of environmental impacts. Of particular relevance to this Espoo assessment is the identification and consideration of aspects where the area of influence extends across national borders (transboundary). These are therefore specifically highlighted in the assessment in Chapter 10 and summarised in Chapter 15 – Transboundary impacts.
The study area may extend beyond the area of influence for some receptors/resources. This arises as a result of the need to consider, as part of the assessment, the context in which the receptor ‘exists’. For example, the magnitude of an impact on a particular species will be determined through consideration of the percentage of the regional population affected rather than merely the absolute numbers. Similarly, impacts on Natura 2000 sites, which form part of a larger network of protected areas, will be determined through consideration of which, if any, of the key species or sites are impacted and the potential for impacts to also affect the integrity and functioning of the wider network.
For the purposes of this report:
• Marine areas are defined as offshore areas of the Baltic Sea (with the exception of the Bothnian Bay and the western part of the Arkona Basin) and nearshore areas. Where receptors/resources are associated with both the terrestrial and marine areas (e.g.
waterbirds) these are addressed within the “marine areas” sections of the report.
4 An aspect is a component of an activity that interacts with the environment (e.g. noise generation, sediment mobilisation). This is distinct from an impact, which is the consequence of the aspect (e.g. hearing loss, reduction in water quality).
• Onshore areas are defined as everything that is strictly onshore and has no offshore component, e.g. geomorphological characteristics, terrestrial habitats and species present in the landfall areas in Russia and Germany, together with the nearby communities present on land. It also applies to areas in the vicinity of the pipe storage yards, pipe coating facilities and roads used to transport materials.
Temporal scope 7.3.3
The temporal scope addresses both the timing of the project activities and the duration of the resulting impacts.
The project activities will occur in three phases:
• Construction (including pre-commissioning and commissioning);
• Operation;
• Decommissioning.
The construction phase of the two pipelines is planned to last approximately two years, while construction of the onshore facilities will last 21 months in Russia and 19 months in Germany.
The operational life of the pipelines is anticipated to be at least 50 years.
Given the uncertainty with regard to the method to be used for decommissioning (see Chapter 6 – Project description), a qualitative assessment of potential scenarios including their timing is provided in Chapter 12 - Decommissioning.
The duration of impacts will be highly dependent on their nature and the affected receptor. For example, the release of suspended sediment into the water column may have a short duration, as well as a short-term impact on water quality, whereas increases in the noise level, even though of short-term duration, could have long-term impacts on certain marine mammals.
Therefore the duration of impact was a key element in the assessment of impact significance.
It should be noted that impacts during the construction phase will not occur along the full length of the pipeline route at the same time but will be restricted to specific areas (i.e. the area affected by pipe-laying activities will move forward in unison with the lay barge as it progresses along the pipeline route).