eia-report-russia-unofficial-english-translation_20081001.pdf

The Nord Stream offshore pipeline construction project (Russian Sector) Volume 8 Environmental Protection Book 1 Offshore section Part 1 Environmental Impact Assessment PETERGAZ 36/07-01- Feasibility study ООС-0801(1)-С6 NORD STREAM G-PE-LFR-EIA-101-08010100-06 Moscow 2008.

UNOFFICIAL ENGLISH TRANSLATION – FOR COURTESY ONLY

The Nord Stream offshore pipeline construction project (Russian Sector) Volume 8 Environmental Protection Book 1 Offshore section Part 1 Environmental Impact Assessment

Assistant General Manager А.А. Arkhipov

Project Engineering Manager G.V. Grudnitzky PETERGAZ 36/07-01- Feasibility study ООС-0801(1)-С6 NORD STREAM G-PE-LFR-EIA-101-08010100-06 Moscow 2008.


PETERGAZ 36/07-01- ТЭО-ООС-0801(1)-С6 NORD STREAM G-PE-LFR-EIA-101-08010100-06

Prepared by

Full name Position Signature Date

Balashova S.P. Chief of The Environmental Bureau, Doctor of Technical

Science 30.10.08

Vilchek G.E. Deputy Chief of Environmental

Bureau, Doctor of Science (Geology)

30.10.08

Rodivilova О.V. Chief of EIA Department, Doctor of Technical Science

30.10.08

Goriunova V.B. Deputy Chief of EIA Department, Doctor of Science (Biology)

30.10.08

Poddubskaya M.B. Chief Specialist

30.10.08

Perovskaya M.N. Chief Specialist

30.10.08

Pavlov B.A. Chief Specialist, Doctor of Science (Biology)

30.10.08

Pankratova N.V. Chief Specialist

30.10.08

Uvarov O.A. Chief Specialist

30.10.08

Dzutzeva M.V. Leading Expert

30.10.08

Chugunova N.A. Leading Expert

30.10.08

Zhuravlev E.A. Leading Expert

30.10.08

Lomakina Е.S. Engineer

30.10.08

Matiko I.I. Engineer

30.10.08



The Nord Stream

offshore pipeline construction project (Russian sector) includes:

Volume / Book / Part Document name Code of OOO Petergaz / code of

«Nord Stream AG»

Volume 1 Explanatory Generic Report 36/07-01-ТЭО-ОПЗ-0101 / G-PE-LFR-REP-101-01000000

Volume 2 General Layout and transport 36/07-01-ТЭО-ГПТ-0201 / G-PE-LFR-REP-101-02000000

Volume 3 Technology and technical solutions

Book 1 Pipeline water pressure and heat calculations 36/07-01-ТЭО-ТТР-0301 / G-PE-LFR-REP-101-03010000

Book 2 Corrosion protection of the pipeline

Part 1 Corrosion protection calculation of offshore section of the pipeline

36/07-01-ТЭО-ТТР-0302(1) / G-PE-LFR-REP-101-03020100

Part 2 Corrosion protection calculation of onshore section of the pipeline

36/07-02-ТЭО-ТТР-0302(2) / G-PE-LFR-REP-101-03020200

Book 3 Calculation of strength and integrity of offshore part of the pipeline

36/07-01-ТЭО-ТТР-0303 / G-PE-LFR-REP-101-03030000

Book 4 Linear part of the pipeline

Part 1 Offshore section 36/07-01-ТЭО-ТТР-0304(1) / G-PE-LFR-REP-101-03040100

Part 2 Onshore section 36/07-01-ТЭО-ТТР-0304(2) / G-PE-LFR-REP-101-03040200

Part 3 Landfall Area 36/07-01-ТЭО-ТТР-0304(3) / G-PE-LFR-REP-101-03040300

Book 5 Testing and commissioning 36/07-01-ТЭО-ТТР-0305 / G-PE-LFR-REP-101-03050000

Book 6 Operation, maintenance, and repairs 36/07-01-ТЭО-ТТР-0306 / G-PE-LFR-REP-101-03060000

Volume 4 Labour organization and working condition. Manufacturing and facility management.

36/07-01-ТЭО-УП-0401 / G-PE-LFR-REP-101-04000000

Volume 5 Construction and architectural solutions 36/07-01-ТЭО-АСР-0501 / G-PE-LFR-REP-101-05000000

Volume 6 Engineering equipment, systems, and networks 36/07-02-ТЭО-ИОС-0601 / G-PE-LFR-REP-101-06000000

Volume 7 Construction organization

Book 1 Project for building organization of offshore section of the pipeline

36/07-01-ТЭО-ОС-0701 / G-PE-LFR-REP-101-07010000

Book 2 Project for building organization of onshore section of the pipeline

36/07-01-ТЭО-ОС-0702 / G-PE-LFR-REP-101-07020000

Book 3 Logistics 36/07-01-ТЭО-ОС-0703 / G-PE-LFR-REP-101-07030000

Book 4 Removing of the pipeline and other associated structures 36/07-02-ТЭО-ОС-0704 / G-PE-LFR-REP-101-07040000

Volume 8 Environmental Protection

Book 1 Environmental Protection of offshore section of the pipeline



Volume / Book / Part

Document name Code of OOO Petergaz / code of «Nord Stream AG»

Part 1 Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) of offshore section of the pipeline

36/07-01-ТЭО-ООС-0801(1) / G-PE-LFR-EIA-101-08010100

Part 2 Environmental Protection of offshore section of the pipeline

36/07-01-ТЭО-ООС-0801(2) / G-PE-LFR-EIA-101-08010200

Book 2 Environmental Protection of onshore section of the pipeline

Part 1 Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) of onshore section of the pipeline

36/07-01-ТЭО-ООС-0802(1) / G-PE-LFR-EIA-101 -08020100

Part 2 Environmental Protection of onshore section of the pipeline

36/07-01-ТЭО-ООС-0802(2) / G-PE-LFR-EIA-101 -08020200

Book 3 Industrial environmental monitoring and audit (IEMA) 36/07-01-ТЭО-ООС-0803 / G-PE-LFR-EIA-101 -08030000

Book 4 Technical and biological reclamation 36/07-01-ТЭО-ООС-0804 / G-PE-LFR-EIA-101 -08040000

Book 5 Waste management 36/07-01-ТЭО-ООС-0805 / G-PE-LFR-EIA-101-08050000

Volume 9 Engineering operations of civil defence. Operations for the prevention of emergency situations

36/07-01-ТЭО-ИТМ-0901 / G-PE-LFR-REP-101 -09000000

Volume 10* Estimate documentation * - no longer included in project content

Book 1 Summary estimates for the offshore sections of the pipeline

Book 2 Summary estimates for the onshore sections of the pipeline Volume 11 Industrial safety declaration Book 1 Industrial safety declaration (ISD) 36/07-01-ТЭО-ДПБ-1101 / G-PE-

LFR-REP-101-11010000 Book 2 Appendix 1 of ISD "Estimates explanatory report" 36/07-01-ТЭО-ДПБ-1102 / G-PE-

LFR-REP-101-11020000 Book 3 Appendix 2 of ISD "Information sheet" 36/07-01-ТЭО-ДПБ-1103 / G-PE-

LFR-REP-101-11030000 Volume 12 (Appendixes)

Engineering surveys

Book 1 Offshore section Part 1 Geotechnical surveys 36/07-01-ТЭО-ИИ-1201(1) / G-PE-

LFR-REP-101-12010100 Part 2 Engineering metocean surveys 36/07-01-ТЭО-ИИ-1201(2) / G-PE-

LFR-REP-101-12010200 Part 3 Ecological-engineering surveys 36/07-01-ТЭО-ИИ-1201(3) / G-PE-

LFR-REP-101-12010300 Part 4 Geodetic-engineering surveys 36/07-01-ТЭО-ИИ-1201(4) / G-PE-

LFR-REP-101-12010400 Book 2 Onshore section Part 1 Geodetic-engineering surveys 36/07-01-ТЭО-ИИ-1202(1) / G-PE-

LFR-REP-101-12020100 Part 2 Geotechnical surveys 36/07-01-ТЭО-ИИ-1202(2) / G-PE-

LFR-REP-101-12020200




«Nord Stream AG»

Part 3 Engineering metocean surveys 36/07-01-ТЭО-ИИ-1202(3) / G-PE-LFR-REP-101-12020300

Part 4 Ecological-engineering surveys 36/07-01-ТЭО-ИИ-1202(4) / G-PE-LFR-REP-101-12020400

Volume 13 (Appendixes)

Technical requirements for materials and articles specification

Book 1 Technical requirements for materials of offshore section

Part 1 Technical requirements for tubing 36/07-01-ТЭО-ТМИ-1301(1) / G-PE-LFR-SPE-101-13010100

Part 2 Technical requirements for anti-corrosion coating 36/07-01-ТЭО-ТМИ-1301(2) / G-PE-LFR-SPE-101-13010200

Part 3 Technical requirements for internal pipe coating 36/07-01-ТЭО-ТМИ-1301(3) / G-PE-LFR-SPE-101-13010300

Part 4 Technical requirements for sacrificial anodes installation

36/07-01-ТЭО-ТМИ-1301(4) / G-PE-LFR-SPE-101-13010400

Part 5 Technical requirements for concrete weight coating 36/07-01-ТЭО-ТМИ-1301(5) / G-PE-LFR-SPE-101-13010500

Part 6 Technical requirements for welding and non-destructive testing methods


Part 7 Technical requirements for sacrificial anode material 36/07-01-ТЭО-ТМИ-1301(7) / G-PE-LFR-SPE-101-13010700

Book 2 Technical requirements for materials of onshore section

Part 1 Technical requirements for weight-coating 36/07-01-ТЭО-ТМИ-1302(1) / G-PE-LFR-SPE-101-13020100

Part 2 Technical requirements for ball valves 36/07-01-ТЭО-ТМИ-1302(2) / G-PE-LFR-SPE-101-13020200

Part 3 Technical requirements for pig launcher 36/07-01-ТЭО-ТМИ-1302(3) / G-PE-LFR-SPE-101-13020300

Part 4 Technical requirements for shut-off and control valves NB 400 – NB 50


Part 5 Technical requirements for pipes and items 36/07-01-ТЭО-ТМИ-1302(5) / G-PE-LFR-SPE-101-13020500

Part 6 Technical requirements for isolation joints 36/07-01-ТЭО-ТМИ-1302(6) / G-PE-LFR-SPE-101-13020600

Part 7 Technical requirements for welding and non-destructive testing


Part 8 Technical requirements for field joint coating at onshore section


Part 9 Technical requirements for external coating of above-ground equipment


Part 10 Technical requirements for external coating of underground pipelines


Part 11 Technical requirements for anchor flanges 36/07-01-ТЭО-ТМИ-1302(11) / G-PE-LFR-SPE-101-13021100

Part 12 Technical requirements for gate valve 36/07-01-ТЭО-ТМИ-1302(12) / G-PE-LFR-SPE-101-13021200




«Nord Stream AG» Volume 14 (Appendixes)

Approvals 36/07-01-ТЭО-МС-1401 / G-PE-LFR-REP-101-14000000



Declaration of project conformity by Project Engineering Manager

Approved technical solutions are in compliance with applicable law,

regulations and rules of Russian Federation of fire, explosion, and environmental and work safety, and ensure safety for life and health of people in operation of industrial units, under prescribed measures, in compliance with the relevant project documentation. Project Engineering Manager G.V. Grudnitzky



LIST OF DESIGNATIONS AND ABBREVIATIONS 16 INTRODUCTION 18 1. GENERAL 21 1.1. INFORMATION ABOUT THE APPLICANTS/OWNERS 21 1.1.1. Applicant and operator 21 1.1.2. Participants of Nord Stream project 22 1.1.3. Sphere of competence of the participants of Nord Stream project 25 1.1.4. Summary of the project 26 1.2. PROJECT HISTORY 27 1.2.1. Objectives and structure 27 1.2.2. 1980-1990. Russian-Scandinavian initiatives to launch new 27 supply projects 1.2.3. 1990-1995. Yamal pipeline construction 28 1.2.4. 1995-2000. Nord Trangas Oy (NTG) studies – Nord Stream’s 28 hour of birth 1.2.5. A brief excursus: Baltic Sea as an optimal new base case 31 route for Europe’s energy supply 1.2.6. 2001-2005: Gazprom returns – NTG switches over to 35 North European Gas Pipeline 1.2.7. Initiation of Nord Stream project 36 1.2.8. Future prospects 37

1.3. RATIONALE FOR THE NORD STREAM PROJECT: ENSURING 39 EUROPE’S ENERGY SECURITY 1.3.1. New natural gas import capacities are needed to meet rising demand for natural gas within

the EU 39

1.3.2. The strategic importance of Russia as a natural gas supplier 42 1.3.3. The importance of connecting Russian natural gas reserves to the European market at an

early stage in the context of the rising demand for natural gas in Asia 45

1.3.4. The Nord Stream pipeline as an essential element of the Trans-European 47 Energy Networks 1.3.5. Consequences of non-realisation of the project 51 1.3.6. To conclude: 55

1.4. DESCRIPTION AND ANALYSIS OF MAIN ALTERNATIVES 56 1.4.1. Zero alternative – renouncing from planned activity 56 1.4.2. Using tankers to transport liquefied natural gas 57 1.4.3. Onshore pipeline 57 1.4.4. Offshore pipeline route options 58 1.4.5. Russian sector alternatives of Nord Stream pipeline 58

1.5. AN OVERVIEW OF TECHNICAL SOLUTION 70 1.5.1. Nord Stream routing (offshore section) 70



1.5.2. Pipeline design features 73 1.5.3. Methods of construction works 78

1.5.3.1. Crossing of the shore line 80

1.5.3.2. Laying 81

1.5.3.3. Free-span correction 84

1.5.3.4. Crossings 86 1.5.4. Testing and preparation for operation 86 1.5.5. Pipeline operation technologies 89 1.5.6. Decommissioning 91 1.5.7. Construction time schedule 91

1.6. DESCRIPTION OF POSSIBLE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF THE PLANNED ACTIVITY ON ALTERNATIVES

92

1.7. APPLICABLE LAWS AND OTHER LEGISLATIVE ACTS 95 1.7.1. International environmental legislation 95 1.7.2. National environmental and nature management legislation during construction of offshore

section of Russian sector of Nord Stream pipeline 103

1.7.3. National legislation and EIA guidelines 109

1.8. COMPLIANCE OF PROJECT DOCUMENTATION WITH NATIONAL LEGISLATION EIA REQUIREMENTS

112 1.8.1. Explanatory Report for documentation in support 112 1.8.2. Measures to prevent and/or mitigate possible adverse environmental impacts 113 1.8.3.

Uncertainties on the Environmental Impact Assessment of a planned economic or other activity revealed during the assessment

113 1.8.4. Outline of monitoring programmes and post-project analysis 113 2. NATURE USE RESTRICTIONS 114 2.1. SPECIALLY PROTECTED NATURAL TERRITORIES 114 2.2. GEOLOGICAL NATURE USE RESTRICTIONS 116 2.3. RARE SPECIALLY PROTECTED BIRD AND MAMMAL SPECIES 117 3. CURRENT ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS 118 3.1. GEOLOGICAL AND GEOMORPHOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS 118 3.1.1. Tectonics and seismicity 118 3.1.2. Geological structure of pre-quaternary sediments 121 3.1.3. Geological structure of quaternary sediments 122 3.1.4. Geomorphological conditions 126 3.1.5. Surface sediment parameters along pipeline route 130 3.1.5.1. Grain size distribution 130



3.1.5.2. Pollution levels of sediment surface layer 133

3.1.6. Lithodynamic processes 140 3.1.6.1. Coastal dynamics of sediments 140 3.1.6.2. Water circulation during storms 142 3.1.6.3. Seabed deformations along continental slope 143 3.1.6.4. Deformations due to submerged bars relocation 148 3.1.6.5. Long-term trends of shore development 149

3.2. CLIMATE AND ATMOSPHERIC AIR CONDITION 151 3.2.1. Physical and geographical summary 151 3.2.2. Air temperature 153 3.2.3. Atmospheric pressure 154 3.2.4. Wind 155 3.2.5. Nebulosity and precipitation 156 3.2.6. Adverse atmospheric effects 158 3.2.6.1. Fogs 158 3.2.6.2. Thunderstorms 158 3.2.6.3. Snowstorms 159 3.2.6.4. Spouts 159 3.2.6.5. Restricted visibility 159 3.2.7. An overview of air pollution levels 159

3.3. OCEANOGRAPHY AND SEA WATER QUALITY 161 3.3.1. Stream conditions 161 3.3.1.1. Seawater temperature 161 3.3.1.2. Sea water salinity 163 3.3.1.3. Currents and tidal oscillation 164 3.3.1.4. Wave conditions and sea level 168 3.3.1.5. Sea water transparency 171 3.3.1.6. Ice conditions 172 3.3.2. Hydrochemical processes and water quality 175 3.3.2.1. Sea water hydrochemistry 175 3.3.2.2. Sea water pollution 179 3.3.2.3. Sea water quality assessment 182

3.4. WATER BIOTA – LOWER TROPHIC LEVELS 187 3.4.1. Bacterial plankton (in coastal landfall areas) 187 3.4.2. Phytoplankton 187 3.4.3. Zooplankton (invertebrates) 192 3.4.4. Benthic communities 196 3.4.4.1. Benthic macrophytes 196 3.4.4.2. Meio - macrozoobenthos 200 3.4.4.3. Typology and spatial pattern of benthic communities 204

3.5. ICHTHYOFAUNA 206



3.5.1. Biology of key fish species 206 3.5.2. Numbers, biomass and productivity of key species 210 3.5.3. Fish migration routes, spawning and nursery areas 212

3.6. AVIFAUNA 215 3.6.1. Numbers and biotopical confinedness of birds 215 3.6.2. Migration routes, focal points on nesting, wintering and stops during flights 220 3.6.3. Rare specially protected bird species 226

3.7. MARINE MAMMALS 229 3.8. SOCIO-ECONOMIC CONDITIONS 236

3.8.1. Summary of socio-economic conditions. Political and administrative borders 236 3.8.2. Fishery 237 3.8.3. Algae fishery and mariculture 238 3.8.4. Ship traffic (routes, anchoring areas) 238 3.8.5. Tourism and recreational areas 241 3.8.6. Cultural Heritage Site 242 3.8.6.1. Historical and archive information about cultural heritage sites in pipeline laying

area 243

3.8.6.2. Interpretation of the results from the geophysical surveys (SSS, ROV 2005-2007) along the pipeline route

245 3.8.6.3. Expert assessment on historical and cultural value of identified submerged objects

along Nord Stream pipeline route within the Russian territorial Sea and exclusive economic zone

251

4. Environmental Impact Assessment 252 4.1. IMPACTS ON THE BIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENT 252 4.1.1. Construction period 252 4.1.1.1.Sources and types of impact 252 4.1.1.2.Impact on bottom sediments 253 4.1.1.3.Impact on the relief of the seabed 267 4.1.1.4.Impact on lithodynamic processes 268 4.1.2. Operational phase 271 4.1.2.1. Sources and types of impact 271 4.1.2.2. Impact on transport bottoms in deep waters 271 4.1.2.3. Impact on bottom sediments during incidental situations 276 4.1.2.4. Bed movement under pipeline 276 4.1.2.5. Impact on lithodynamic processes of nearshore section 278

4.1.3. Decommissioning phase 279 4.2. IMPACT ON ATMOSPHERIC AIR 281

4.2.1. Construction period 281



4.2.1.1. Sources and types of impact 281 4.2.1.2. Impact assessment 282

4.2.2. Operational phase 286 4.2.2.1. Sources and types of impact 286 4.2.2.2. Impact assessment 286

4.2.3. Decommissioning phase 286 4.3. IMPACT ON SEA WATER ENVIRONMENT 287

4.3.1. Construction period 287 4.3.1.1. Sources and types of impact 287 4.3.1.2. Impact assessment 288 4.3.2. Operational phase 306 4.3.2.1. Sources and types of impact 306 4.3.2.2. Impact assessment 306 4.3.3. Decommissioning phase 306

4.4. IMPACT ON SEA WATER BIOTA OF LOWER TROPHIC LEVELS AND ICHTHYOFAUNA

307 4.4.1. Construction period 307 4.4.1.1. Sources and types of impact 307 4.4.1.2. Impact assessment 308 4.4.2. Operational phase 313 4.4.2.1. Sources and types of impact 313 4.4.2.2. Impact assessment 313 4.4.3. Decommissioning phase 314 4.4.3.1. Sources and types of impact 314 4.4.3.2. Impact assessment 314

4.5. IMPACT ON AVIFAUNA 315 4.5.1. Construction period 315 4.5.1.1. Sources and types of impact 315 4.5.1.2. Impact assessment 315 4.5.2. Operational phase 317 4.5.3. Decommissioning phase 317 4.5.3.1. Sources of impact 317 4.5.3.2. Impact assessment 317

4.6. IMPACT ON MARINE MAMMALS 318 4.6.1. Construction period 318 4.6.1.1. Sources and types of impact 318 4.6.1.2. Impact assessment 318 4.6.2. Operational phase 320 4.6.2.1. Sources and types of impact 320 4.6.2.2. Impact assessment 320 4.6.3. Decommissioning phase 321

4.7. IMPACT OF PHYSICAL FACTORS 322



4.7.1. Sources and types of impact 322 4.7.2. Assessment of impact of physical factors 323

4.8. IMPACT OF INDUSTRIAL AND CONSUMPTION WASTES 327 4.8.1. Characteristic of object as a source of waste generation 327 4.8.2. Calculation and grounds of waste generation volume 328 4.8.3. Determination of a hazard class for wastes 329 4.8.4. Waste types, physical and chemical features and sites of generation 331 4.8.5. Requirements for temporary waste accumulation places 333

4.9. IMPACT ON SOCIO-ECONOMIC CONDITIONS 334 4.10. TRANSBOUNDARY IMPACTS 338

5. FORECAST AND MEASURES ON PREVENTION AND ELIMINATION OF INCIDENTAL SITUATIONS

340 5.1. CONSTRUCTION PERIOD 340 5.1.1. The main project characteristics and risks arising from project activities 340 5.1.2. Risk analysis of hydrocarbons spills during construction of Nord Stream 341 pipeline 5.1.3. Assessment of ecological risks 346 5.1.3.1. Trajectory analysis of field of ecological risks of oil spills 348 5.1.3.2. Assessment of oil weathering 354 5.1.3.3. Fields of ecological risks of oil spills 357 5.1.3.4. Assessment of separate spill 360 5.1.4. Assessment of possibility of oil migration to specially protected natural territories 362 5.1.5. Impact on atmospheric air 365 5.1.6. Impact on sea water environment 366 5.1.7. Impact on marine biota 368 5.1.8. Impact on bottom sediments 369 5.2. OPERATIONAL PHASE 369 5.2.1. List of key factors and potential causes promoting risks 369 5.2.2. Base cases of accidents 370 5.2.3. Impact on sea water environment 375 5.2.4. Impact on atmospheric air 375 5.2.5. Impact on the geologic environment 376 5.2.6. Impact on marine biota 376 6. MEASURES TO REDUCE POSSIBLE ADVERSE IMPACT 379

7. ECOLOGICAL AND ECONOMIC APPRAISAL 380



8. SIMULTANEOUS OPERATIONS ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING AND CONTROL 382 CONCLUSION 384 LIST OF REFERENCES 388 APPENDIXES 422 APPENDIX TO CHAPTER 1 423 APPENDIX TO CHAPTER 2 435 APPENDIX TO CHAPTER 3 440 APPENDIX 3.1-1 TO SECTION "GEOLOGICAL AND GEOMORPHOLOGICAL 441 CHARACTERISTICS" APPENDIX 3. 1-2 METHODOLOGY OF CALCULATION OF POSSIBLE SEABED DEFORMATIONS DUE

448

TO WAVES AND CURRENTS ALONG NORD STREAM OFFSHORE PIPELINE ROUTE WITHIN THE PORTOVAYA BAY APPENDIX 3.2 TO SECTION "CLIMATE AND ATMOSPHERIC AIR CONDITION" 453 APPENDIX 3.3 TO SECTION "OCEANOGRAPHY AND SEA WATER QUALITY" 455 APPENDIX 3.4 TO SECTION "SOCIO-ECONOMIC CONDITIONS" 466 APPENDIX 3.6 TO SECTION "AVIFAUNA" 472 APPENDIX TO CHAPTER 4 475 APPENDIX 4.1 MODELLING OF SUSPENSION AND SPREADING OF SEDIMENTS 476 DURING PIPELINE CONSTRUCTION. RUSSIAN SECTOR APPENDIX 4.1-1 SIMULATOR FOR PROGNOSIS OF THE SPREADING OF 515 SUSPENDED MATTER ON THE SHELF APPENDIX 4.1-2 DESCRIPTION OF HYDRODYNAMIC CONDITIONS AND HYDRODYNAMIC MODELLING

521

IN DREDGING AREAS DURING PIPELINE CONSTRUCTION APPENDIX 4.1-3 CHARACTERISTICS OF SEABED SEDIMENTS ALONG NORD 540 STREAM ROUTE APPENDIX 4.2 MODELLING OF THE SPREADING OF SUSPENDED MATTER IN 570 THE MARINE ENVIRONMENT DURING NORD STREAM PIPELINE CONSTRUCTION IN RUSSIAN SECTOR (SUPPLYING SEDIMENT FOR FREE-SPAN ELIMINATION AND ENSURING PIPELINE STABILITY) APPENDIX 4.3 PASSPORT OF GRANITE AGGREGATES OF ERKILA DEPOSIT, 659 VYBORG DISTRICT, LENINGRAD REGION APPENDIX TO CHAPTER 5 661 APPENDIX 6. NORD STREAM PROJECT PUBLIC 681 CONSULTATIONS PAPERS APPENDIX 7. NON-TECHNICAL SUMMARIES 781 CHANGE SHEET 798



List of designations and abbreviations Abbreviation Designation for abbreviations

BOC Biochemical oxygen consumption FL Fuels and lubricants

HCH Hexachloro-cyclohexane HCB Hexachlorobenzene AC Allowable concentration DP Dynamic positioning

DDT Insecticide dichlordiphenyl trichlormethyl methane EU European Union PS Pollutant AP Affected party ICI Information controlling intersystem EEZ Exclusive Economic Zone EES Ecological-engineering surveys CS Compressor station KP Kilometre points at offshore section (1 per 1 km) CA Competent authorities of the affected parties

MARPOL 73/78 International convention to prevent marine pollution from vessels 1973, changed by Protocol 1978 with further amendments approved by International Maritime Organisation

MNR Ministry of Natural Resources RV Research vessel EIA Environmental Impact Assessment

E Environment UN United Nations

SPNA Specially protected natural areas EP Environmental Protection

DEGPHP Dangerous exogenous geological processes and hydrological phenomena MAC Maximum Allowable Concentration KO Kilometre points at onshore section (1 per 100 m)

CSPR Control system of pressure regulation PCBD Polimeric-container ballast devices

SW Software DTS Data transfer subsystem ISP Intermediate Service Platform РСВ Polychlorinated biphenyls SCA Sanitary Control Areas PIG Pipeline inspection gauges PO Party of origin

LNG Liquefied natural gas PCS Pressure control system PRS Pressure regulation system SDW Solid domestic waste LV Pipelay vessel

HELCOM The Baltic Marine Environment Protection Commission (Helsinki Commission) BSPA Baltic Sea Protected Areas



Abbreviation Designation for abbreviations

DSV Diving support vessel FJC Anticorrosion coating JCP Environmental programs in the Baltic region TEN-E Trans-European Energy Network UNEP United Nation environmental program



INTRODUCTION This document contains materials of environmental impact assessment (EIA) by construction and operation of the Russian sector (0-125,5 km) of offshore pipeline «Nord Stream» (former name - the North-European gas pipeline, Offshore section). The report was developed by OOO Petergaz (Moscow, Russia) under the contract 103-07, March 29, 2007 with business customer Nord Stream AG. Nord Stream AG head office is located in Zug, Switzerland. Grafenauweg 2, 6304. Phone: +4141,7669191, Fax : +41 41 766 91 92. Nord Stream AG branch office in Moscow : Знаменка, д.7, стр.3, 119019, Москва, Россия. Phone: +7 495 229 65 85; Fax : +7 495 229 65 80. Contact Nord Stream AG Technical Director Serdukov Sergei Gavrilovitch Phone: +7 495 229 65 85; Fax : +7 495 229 65 80. Area manager of offshore section of Russian sector of Nord Stream pipeline Feygin Boris Lvovitch Phone: +7 495 229 65 85; Fax : +7 495 229 65 80. The preparation of the EIA materials was based on construction and operation project data of offshore section of Russian sector of Nord Stream pipeline; sections EIA and "Environment Protection"of Conceptual Design (investment substantiation) of construction of the North-European gas pipeline, designed in 2005-2006 in accordance with technical specification and schedule to the contract 6545-10 dated 5.09.2005 between OOO Petergaz and ОАО Giprospetsgaz on the basis of research carried out by ОАО Nord Transgas in 1998 for a feasibility study of North-European gas pipeline, stock and literary materials, the results of engineering and engineering and environmental investigations conducted by OOO Petergaz along the pipeline route in 2005 - 2007. In preparing this volume, international legal acts requirements have been considered (including The Convention on Environmental Impact Assessment in a Transboundary Context (Espoo Convention) and The Baltic Marine Environment Protection Commission (Helsinki Commission)): Environmental Impact Assessment is conducted before a decision to approve or realize the proposed activity; the opportunity to participate in the procedures of environmental impact assessment of proposed activities is given to the public of affected areas; environmental measures were developed to ensure adverse effects do not occur along Baltic area during construction and operational phases. In preparing EIA volume, were considered the remarks contained in expert assessment of OAO Gazprom 93 of 30.12.02 "Investment substantiation for Nord Stream pipeline construction project", remarks contained in state environmental expert committee investment substantiation for adjustment of Nord Stream pipeline design in order to increase the transmission capacity up to 55 bcm per year (Federal Service on the Supervision of the Use of Natural Resources, 2007), as well as:



• Comments and suggestions expressed during public meetings on investment substantiation in Vyborg of Leningrad Region, 21 September 2006;

• Questions, comments, and suggestions expressed by public authorities, organisations, public

associations and private persons during project consultations under the Espoo Convention (129 comments available at Nord Stream AG web cite: www.nordstream.com ;

• Questions, comments, and suggestions detailed in Coalition "Clean Baltic" letter addressed to

Russian Government;

• Questions, comments, and suggestions of public, received during public hearings of 23 November 2007 in Vyborg on EIA Technical Scope discussion and consideration of a draft version of EIA of Russian section of offshore pipeline Nord Stream.

Regarding the differences in the natural conditions of construction areas, as well as specifics of land and marine ecosystems functioning, two components are highlighted in materials:

• Book 1 – sea component which includes underwater pipeline and landfall sites (till isolation joint);

• Book 2 – onshore component including onshore section.

Materials of EIA and EP (volume 8) provide books and parts as follows:

• Book 1 Environmental Protection of offshore section of the pipeline.

Part 1 Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) of offshore section of the pipeline

Part 2 Environmental Protection of offshore section of the pipeline

• Book 2 Environmental Protection of onshore section of the pipeline

Part 1 Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) of onshore section of the pipeline

Part 2 Environmental Protection of onshore section of the pipeline

• Book 3 Industrial environmental monitoring and audit (IEMA).

• Book 4 Technical and biological reclamation.

• Book 5 Waste management. This book (Volume 8 Book 1 Part 1) provides materials of marine ecosystems impact assessment. Structure and content of the present volume are in compliance with the following:

• Practical development guide for section "Environmental Impact Assessment" to CP 11-101-95 "The order of development, coordination, approval and justification for the investment substantiation in construction of buildings and structures" (М.: CENTERINVESTproject State enterprise, 1998);



• "Regulation on the Environmental Impact Assessment of a Planned Economic or Other Activity in Russian Federation" (EIA Provisions), adopted by the Order of Goskomekologii of 16 May 2000 No.372;

• Legal regulatory and standards documents on environmental protection, natural resources,

industrial and environmental safety;

• SNiP provisions, instructions, standards, and GOSTs. Regulatory literature from Annex 1.1 was used in preparing the volume. Technology, construction and technical solutions were developed with respect to climatic and geological conditions of the area of construction, the existing environmental constraints on the environmental conditions during the construction and operation of the designed objects. Design solutions are aimed at preventing and mitigating the adverse impacts of planned economic activities on the environment, protection of technological facilities and systems against harmful effects of natural and technogenic nature in order to reduce the likelihood of accidents and other emergencies. Materials were developed by specialists of OOO Petergaz. The following scientific and design organizations were invited as associate contractors: ZAO Engineering and Environmental Center Econeftegaz, Institute of Oceanology of Russian Academy of Sciences named after P.P. Shirshov, groups of staff of the Computing Center, Russian Academy of Sciences named after А.А. Dorodnitsin, Federal State Scientific Institution "State Research Institute of lake and river fishing industry" (FSSI "SSILRF").



1. GENERAL Nord Stream is a trunkline to transport natural gas from Russia to Germany with onshore couplings to existing pipeline networks of these countries. The pipeline system will be constructed by Nord Stream AG. The pipeline will go through Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZ) of five countries: Russia, Finland, Sweden, Denmark and Germany, and the territorial waters of Russia, Germany and Denmark. At full capacity, it will provide 55 billion cubic metres of natural gas per year to West European consumers. Nord Stream is a priority project of Trans-European Energy Network (TEN-E). The shareholders behind Nord Stream AG project are ОАО Gazprom, Wintershall AG a BASF AG subsidiary), E.ON Ruhrgas AG (an E.ON AG subsidiary), and N.V. Nederlandse Gasunie. The headquarters of Nord Stream AG is in Zug, Switzerland, with branch in Moscow. The Company is responsible for the development and construction of the offshore pipelines, and will later on also be the operator of the gas transit system. Nord Stream project consists of two underwater trunk pipelines from Russia to Germany. Nord Stream is strictly committed to environmental protection in the planning, construction and operational phases of the project, as well as at future decommissioning Therefore, environmental constraints have played an important role in the overall routing of the pipelines and environmental surveys has influenced the final topographic map of the route. The detailed technical design will acknowledge the environmental constraint in the Baltic Sea, and a close connection between the technical design and the environmental surveys will be established. Therefore, Nord Stream AG will do all it can to minimise impacts on the environment during planning of the system, as well as at future construction and operation. The general information, participants and applicants, history and structure, description of main alternatives and main technical solutions of the project are described below

1.1. Information about applicants/owners

1.1.1. Applicant and operator In 2000 the European Commission has recognised the northern European gas pipeline through the Baltic Sea as an integral element of the Trans-European Network for Energy (TEN-E). The European Commission referred to the project in September 2006 as one of the highest priority energy projects in the European Union and of interest to the whole of Europe. Hence, TEN-E attained the new status.1



In September 2005, OAO Gazprom (hereinafter “Gazprom”), BASF AG (today BASF SE, hereinafter “BASF“) and E.ON AG (hereinafter “E.ON”) reached an agreement on the joint assumption of responsibility for the development, construction and operation of this natural gas pipeline system. The North European Gas Pipeline Company was founded in November 2005 on the basis of the cooperative intent of these three companies. This company was renamed Nord Stream AG (hereinafter "Nord Stream") in October 2006. Gazprom holds a 51% interest in this joint project. Each of the European companies, BASF (indirectly via its 100%-owned subsidiary Wintershall Holding AG, hereinafter “Wintershall”) and E.ON (indirectly via its 100%-owned subsidiary E.ON Ruhrgas AG, hereinafter “E.ON Ruhrgas”), have each a 20% share. The gas infrastructure company Gasunie Infrastruktur AG, a 100 % affiliate to the Dutch N. V. Nederlandse Gasunie, (hereinafter “Gasunie”) has a 9% share. The pan-European nature of the pipeline is determined by the international composition of its participants and the importance of the project, which goes far beyond the respective companies, both in organizing countries, and countries in which Nord Stream pipelines shall be built. The headquarters of Nord Stream AG is in Zug, Switzerland.

1.1.2. Participants of Nord Stream project The structure of Nord Stream ensures efficient and successful implementation of the project. The reliability and competence of project implementation will be guaranteed by the shareholders Gazprom, Wintershall, E.ON Ruhrgas and Gasunie. These companies have many years of experience in the fields of exploration, production, transport and marketing of natural gas, which they bring to bear in Nord Stream. In the following, a description of participants and skills is given below. Gazprom

Gazprom is the largest gas-producing company in the world. It is listed on the Moscow Stock Exchange 50.002% of the company is owned by the Russian state. The German energy company E.ON Ruhrgas owns a 6.4% share in Gazprom. In 2006, the company employed approximately 432,000 people, of which the largest share, 65%, worked in natural gas production. Russia has 25.2% of the world's currently known natural gas reserves equal to 44,650 bcm. Russia’s natural gas reserves are thus the largest quantity of confirmed natural gas reserves in a single territorial area in the world. Sixty percent of Russia’s natural gas reserves are owned by OAO Gazprom, which corresponds to 15% of the world’s total reserves. The amount of natural gas delivered by Gazprom in 2006 amounted to 556 bcm. Gazprom also has the world’s largest network of pipelines for transporting natural gas, at a total length of 155,000 km. In consequence of this pipeline network ownership, Gazprom has particularly strong competence in the operation of natural gas pipeline networks. When subsidiaries are included, Gazprom is responsible for the operation of 463,000 km of the Russian pipeline and distribution network. Thus, Gazprom is qualified both in the direct operation of pipeline networks and their continuous improvement.

1 Ruling no. 1364/2006/EC of the European Parliament and Council. 2 From BP data of Statistical Review of World Energy, S.22, June 2008



Gazprom is also active in planning and constructing new gas pipelines. In addition to experience with onshore pipelines on the Russian mainland (onshore), Gazprom has competences of particular relevance to Nord Stream in the construction of offshore pipelines. Thus, in 2005, the Blue Stream pipeline, a joint project between Gazprom and Eni S.p.A., an Italian multinational oil and gas company with a government share of 30%, was officially inaugurated. This pipeline runs from Izobilnoye in Russia to Ankara in Turkey. 386 km of its total length runs under the Black Sea. This offshore section is shorter than the Nord Stream pipelines route, but it is no less demanding technically. The maximum depth at which the Blue Stream pipeline is laid is 2,150 m, many times deeper than the maximum laying depth of the Nord Stream pipelines, the deepest point of which is approximately 210 m. Moreover, high concentrations of hydrogen sulphide in the Black Sea posed particular challenges to the construction and material properties of the Blue Stream pipeline. Gazprom, implementing this project as well as the others, possesses vast experience in building offshore pipelines; this experience will be used during Nord Stream pipeline construction, taking into consideration the particular circumstances of the Baltic Sea E.ON Ruhrgas

E.ON Ruhrgas AG (E.ON Ruhrgas) is a 100%-owned subsidiary of E.ON AG and responsible for E.ON’s natural gas business in Germany and Europe. The company, with its headquarters in Essen, has been active in the heating gas market for approximately 80 years and in the natural gas market for approximately 45 years. E.ON Ruhrgas is Germany’s largest supplier of natural gas and among Europe’s leading gas companies. According to 2006 data, E.ON Ruhrgas employed approximately 12,700 people and delivered 62 bcm of natural gas. E.ON Ruhrgas has also substantial experience constructing and operating trunk offshore pipelines. E.ON Ruhrgas has built competencies that are particularly relevant to Nord Stream, with involvement in important European offshore pipelines in the North Sea. Thus it took part in construction of pipeline (IUK) between Great Britain and Belgium; the Balgzand-Bacton Line pipeline (BBL) between the northern Netherlands and Great Britain; and the Shearwater offshore pipeline connectingElgin/Franklin gas field in the central North Sea to Bacton terminal in Great Britain.



Wintershall

Wintershall Holding AG (Wintershall) is a 100%-owned subsidiary of BASF SE. For more than 75 years, Wintershall has been active in various regions of the world (today in Europe, North Africa, South America, Russia and the Caspian Sea region) in exploring and extracting oil and natural gas. Over 60% of the natural gas and oil extracted by Wintershall is produced from deposits in which the company itself acts as operator. Thanks to natural-gas extraction in the Dutch North Sea, Wintershall acquired wide-ranging competence in the field of offshore pipeline building. The natural gas trade, which Wintershall conducts via WINGAS GmbH & Co (hereinafter WINGAS) with its Russian partner Gazprom, is, alongside exploration and production, another area of work for Wintershall. WINGAS has been active in gas supply since 1993 and delivers natural gas to public services, regional gas suppliers, industrial operations and power stations in Germany and elsewhere in Europe through a newly built pipeline network of WINGAS TRANSPORT GmbH & Co. KG that is now more than 2,000 km long. In 2006 WINGAS delivered 23 bcm of natural gas to its customers. Nederlandse Gasunie

The Dutch company N.V. Nederlandse Gasunie is 100%-owned by the Kingdom of the Netherlands. The company’s headquarters is in Groningen. And Gasunie has 40 years of experience building and operating pipelines. The company specialises in infrastructure projects in the field of natural gas supply. Its main areas of business are in the following: management, operation and development of the national transport network; construction and maintenance of the transport network; participation in international projects. According to 2006 data, the business employed approximately 1,480 people and transported 96 bcm of natural gas Gasunie was responsible for the construction of the BBL pipeline, which was completed in December 2006. As Gasunie owns 60% of operator company BBL, it indirectly owns the 60% in this project. Thus, Gasunie actually is responsible for the operation and maintenance of the BBL pipeline, connecting Balgzand (Netherlands) and Bacton (UK) – including 230 km of offshore section.



1.1.3. Sphere of competence of the participants of Nord Stream project

Figure 1.1-1 Organisational structure of Nord Stream

In addition to the employees of the above-mentioned shareholders, Nord Stream employs experienced international experts from 17 countries. Nord Stream shareholders also work with leading European advisors from the fields of environment, technology and finance. Moreover, in international tenders, contractors with many years of experience were selected for individual assignment areas. The contractor structure is further testament to the European character of the project. For example, in the field of environmental assessment and permitting from environmental inspections, was invited the Danish company Rambøll and for engineering services the Italian company Snamprogetti were selected. In the field of project certification, the independent foundation Det Norske Veritas, based in Oslo, was commissioned. The Swedish company Marin Mätteknik AB is conducting unexploded munitions surveys on the planned pipelines route. Further environmental surveys and field studies are conducted by well known international companies like Geological Survey of Sweden (SGU), PeterGaz/Russia, Finnish Institute of Marine Research, DHI/Denmark, Fugro OSAE/Germany and Institute for Applied Ecology/Germany. The German company Europipe will supply 75% of the pipes for the first pipeline, and the Russian United Metallurgical Company (OMK) will supply the remaining 25%. For the pipelaying work, a letter of intent has been signed with the company Saipem, registered in London.



1.1.4. Overview of the project The Nord Stream company plans the construction of two parallel pipelines that run on the seabed of the Baltic Sea. The pipelines system, which will total about 1200 km in length, is to run from Portovaya Bay in the area of Vyborg/St Petersburg in Russia to Lubmin in the Greifswald region in Germany thus connecting the integrated European pipeline network with the world’s largest gas deposits in Russia. Nord Stream will be the project’s commissioner and operator. The first pipeline of the Nord Stream project should be completed by the end of 2011. With this first pipeline, a transport capacity of approximately 27.5 bcm of natural gas per annum will be provided. In a second project phase, this transport capacity is to be doubled by a second pipeline to run almost in parallel to the first, increasing the overall transport capacity to approximately 55 bcm of natural gas per annum. The second pipeline is planned to be completed in 2012. The Nord Stream offshore pipelines will transport natural gas to Germany, from where it can be shipped to Denmark, the Netherlands, Belgium, Great Britain, France, Poland and other countries.



1.2. History of the project

1.2.1. Objectives and structure The purpose of the history of the Nord Stream project given below is to give an overview of main evolutions that led to the project as it is set up today rather than tracking back the numerous single decisions that were taken at different stages of the project. This section also contains feasibility information for selecting the current pipeline route with consideration of all national and international legislation requirements. The project history is arranged chronologically and adequately describes basic economic principles of supply and demand, approaches to evaluate necessary financing and spending, main aspects of corporate strategy of project participants, geopolitical conditions, environmental issues, as well as technical development of the project.

1.2.2. 1980-1990: Russian-Scandinavian initiatives to arrange new supply projects The idea of a natural gas transportation from Northern Europe to Western Europe is not a new one. Indeed, these plans had been considered long before the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989. See below how they evolved and finally shaped the Nord Stream project. Norwegian plans for gas supply to Sweden and gas transit via Sweden

In the early 1980s, when oil and gas prices were comparatively high and in Sweden discussions rose concerning nuclear energy as a possible alternative to these fuels, several studies were conducted to determine feasibility of gas transportation via Sweden. The most ambitious project was the Trans-Scandinavian project, proposed by Statoil, to transport gas from the Barents Sea via Sweden (and possibly Denmark) to Germany. Besides, several plans were developed to bring gas from the Haltenbanken fields, in the Norwegian Sea, via Sweden to Central Europe. Several new systems have been developed in the recent years, for instance, Skanled offshore pipeline, connecting Norway, Sweden, and Denmark, with a spur line through the Baltic Sea to Poland. At the same time, onshore pipeline projects, like Scandinavian Gas Ring, were found unfeasible due to various reasons including market peculiarities, environmental protection requirements, taxation issues and regulatory authorities requirements.



Russian gas transportation to Finland and Sweden via the Baltic Sea

In the late 1980s the Swedish gas company Swedegas, in cooperation with the Finnish company Neste, devised a business plan for transportation of Russian gas to Sweden and Western Finland. In 1989 and 1990 feasibility studies were performed for offshore pipelines north and south of the Åland Islands. The breakdown of the Soviet Union and the following economic crises in Sweden and Finland were the reasons for abandoning the project. In the late 1970s a sharp increase in oil and gas prices was followed by an equally dramatic fall in 1986. OPEC decided to reduce oil extraction, and oil and gas prices started to grow as a result of the decrease in supply. By that time time there was a strong lobby in Sweden against the use of natural gas. The projects did not attract attention and feasibility study was not undertaken until the late 1990s, when the President of Russia Boris Yeltsin visited Sweden.

1.2.3. 1990-1995: Construction of the Yamal pipeline The Yamal pipeline runs from the West Siberian gas fields via Belarus and Poland to the Brandenburg State border in Germany. The pipeline connects the German distribution network near Frankfurt on Oder. The total length of the pipeline to the Russian city of Torzhok is 1,600 km, diameter is 56'' (1,420 mm), and gas supply to Western Europe reaches 33 bcm per year. The Yamal-1 project was initiated due to expected growth in demand for natural gas in both Poland and Western Europe. This also meant diversification of technical means of transporting Russian natural gas in addition to those in service. The Yamal project was the first major pipeline construction project carried out by a newly organized Gazprom after the collapse of the USSR. Construction began in the mid 1990s to bring gas to Poland. The construction continued with long delays mostly due to complicated negotiations with Polish and Byelorussian landowners and farmers. The pipeline is operated by a Russian-Polish joint venture set up by Gazprom, Polish state oil company Polskie Górnctwo Naftowe i Gazownictwo SA (PGNiG) and Gas-Trading S.A. Gazprom and PGNiG each hold 48% of the shares and Gas-Trading S.A. possesses 4% of the shares.

1.2.4. 1995-2000: North Transgas Oy (NTG) studies – The Nord Stream project hour of birth NTG project – definition and participants

North Transgas Oy, established in 1997, was responsible for conducting a detailed analysis of two possibilities: to bring gas to Scandinavia and transport gas via Scandinavia to Western and Central Europe. Finland and Sweden joined the EU in 1995 and, from a Brussels prospective, they had to integrate into the European gas system.



The NTG study was revolutionary for its time since it included a very ambitious, yet carefully detailed, feasibility study with the budget of over $20 million – larger than any similar project in Europe. The shareholders behind NTG were Gazprom and Fortum Oil and Gas Oy, which was the result of a merger between Neste and IVO in 1998. Neste was a Finnish company heavily engaged in natural gas transporting to Scandinavia in the late 1990s. Neste worked on the Nordic Gas Grid study and on projects initiated by the Nordic Council of Ministers, an international organization for cooperation between Denmark, Sweden, Finland, Norway and Iceland, to integrate those countries' gas systems. IVO, whose full name was Imatran Voima Oy, was then Finland's largest energy company. The NTG headquarters were in Helsinki, where the majority of work on feasibility study was performed. Feasibility study – Amount

The NTG study was conducted in 1998. Approximately 3,900 km in the Baltic Sea, Gulf of Finland and Gulf of Bothnia were screened to identify a possible route for one or several pipelines. Over one hundred geological seabed samples were taken for laboratory testing. The project considered three different route alternatives and sixteen pipelines landfall locations. Furthermore, alternatives were analysed to avoid the islands of Gotland and Bornholm from the west and east. The project considered the following three base case routes and pipelines landfall locations:

• Option 1: Overland Finland and Sweden, including marine sector north of the Åland islands.

• Option 2: Overland Finland with a spur line to Sweden or north of the Åland islands (Option 2a) or north of Gotland (Option 2b).

• Option 3: Totally offshore pipeline with spur lines to Finland and Sweden near Hanko and

Nyköping respectively.



Figure 1.2-1. Route options examined in the NTG feasibility study in 1998. Greifswald was considered as a terminating point for all options, however, alternative destinations (Lübeck and Rostock) were also examined. Apart from this, there was also a brief evaluation of another terminating point, the island of Usedom (east of the Greifswalder Bodden), however, due to technical requirements and high recreational significance of the area, this option had been abandoned prior to the study. NTG had no plans to perform construction works in the Baltic States and Poland, therefore, the pipeline was to connect Russia, Finland, Sweden, and Germany, notwithstanding the option selected. The proposed amount of gas supply varied from 35.5 bcm to 21.6 bcm annually. Thus, the two Nordic countries which joined the EU in 1995, would have been fully integrated in the EU gas system. The study also included the possibility of reverse gas flows from the Mediterranean, Middle Eastern and North Sea region via Germany to Scandinavia using diversified German supply structures in case of supply bottlenecks from Russia. Feasibility study – Results

In 1999, after evaluating the routes and establishing their technical feasibility, the NTG company came to a conclusion, than Option 2b which implies routing through the Baltic Sea would be the most appropriate. This route consisted of an onshore section in Finland and an offshore section through the Baltic Sea to Germany. At the next stage it was decided to lay the Finnish sector on the seabed of the Gulf of Finland, not onshore.



However, these plans failed to be accomplished then - Fortum Oil and Gas Oy changed its priorities and more focus was given to the energy sector: constructing new nuclear power plants in Finland and acquiring Swedish utility systems. Hence, a gas pipeline connecting Scandinavia and Western and Central Europe was no longer included in Fortum's corporate strategy. Gazprom and the Russian Government put more emphasis on the Southern flank and signed an intergovernmental agreement on the construction of an offshore gas pipeline Blue Stream connecting the Russian Black Sea coast and the Turkish city of Samsun in 1999 to enhance the strategic partnership between Russia and Turkey. Gazprom participated in this project in cooperation with the international Italian oil and gas company Eni S.p.A. As a part of the project, Turkey and South European and South-East European states should receive 16 bcm of natural gas annually.

1.2.5. A brief excursus: Baltic Sea as an optimal new base case route for Europe’s energy supply NTG's feasibility study conclusions were determined by a range of basic principles (see below). Economic principles As for supply, the Russian Baltic shore and its proximity to Russian gas fields make it a favourable starting point for the pipeline. Nord Stream's key supply basis comprises gas fields on the Yamal peninsular and the Yuzhno-Russkoye gas field in the short and medium term. Later it is also projected to use gas from the Shtokman field in the Barents Sea. From an investment perspective, the market size targeted by the project is decisive. Thus, with regard to demand, Western European region is becoming more and more luring as its own gas reserves have been depleting and the due to stricter requirements for greenhouse gas emissions. Germany has an appropriate structure to assist a smooth transition to a well-developed pipeline network and receive gas from countries outside the EU. Constructing an onshore pipeline via the Baltic States and Poland is unfeasible from the economic perspective. West European market potential appears to be more promising. The same reasons, as well as low population density and long distances between prospective points of sales, determined the decision to reject the option of an onshore pipeline through Sweden and Finland. Political components



An argument of the market size at the time of the study was substantially enforced by another component, a political one. In its feasibility study NTG examined several pipeline route alternatives, however, all this was considered as the only possible way of connection between Russia and the EU or between vast Russian gas reserves on one side, and major consumers of 300 million people in the EU (1998 status) on the other side. Compared to an onshore routing via Poland or the Baltic States, the legal situation in EU countries seems more predictable and stable. Though investment projects are based on economic decisions, political backing can be an important factor as well. Thus, candidates from Central and Eastern Europe to join the EU seek to reduce their dependence on Russian gas and diversify energy supply, while West European countries face an issue of growing demand and securing energy supply. Financing aspects From the economic perspective in the late 1990s Russia was still one of the International Monetary Fund's receiving countries and thus was not able to finance a project of such scale. Therefore, preliminary options of constructing an onshore pipeline through Finland and Sweden were partially determined by financial requirements. Alternative options of pipelines through the former Soviet-led states were unfeasible due to the lack of funds as well as other factors. However, with the prompt recovery of the Russian economy, the assignment of credit ratings and a sharp increase in global prices on energy, the construction of a direct line between Russia and Western and Central European countries became possible. Preliminary spending analysis To complete the economic argumentation, a cost comparison between on- and offshore solutions seems to be adequate. Therefore, it would be useful to discuss a feasibility study completed by Nord Stream. The Nord Stream offshore pipeline was compared to onshore pipelines Amber and Yamal-Europe. For the needs of precise analysis it is necessary to compare pipeline systems which connect supply points with distribution points for existing pipelines. Therefore, a basic model was selected connecting such points of sales as Yamburg (East Siberian gas fields) and Murmansk (Shtokman field) on one side and the German gas system Achim in Lower Saxony and Olbernhau in Saxony. Besides, it is necessary to consider comparable transport capacities. That is why, on one hand, the Nord Stream project with a transport capacity of 55 bcm (two lines) would be comparable with two Amber pipelines with a transport capacity of 27.5 bcm each and 55 bcm taken together. On the other hand, the Nord Stream pipeline would be comparable to a single line of the Amber pipeline and the Yamal-Europe pipeline with a total transport capacity of 55 bcm or 2x27.5 bcm. Finally, when comparing spending it is necessary to consider pressure under which the gas transportation would be performed – it should be comparable both for offshore and onshore pipelines. Based on the arguments mentioned above three scenarios were developed for a subsequent analysis:

3 So-called Amber project - a pipeline which was supposed to connect Russia and the Yamal-Europe line through Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland.



• Scenario one considered the Nord Stream pipeline containing two lines and connections to Russian supply lines and German distribution lines.

• Scenario two refers to a model of two Amber pipelines including the aforementioned connection lines.

• Scenario three considers a combination of one Amber and one Yamal-Europe pipeline including the aforementioned connection lines.

Key results are shown as follows: Nord Stream pipeline is shorter in length than the Amber or Yamal-Europe solution and that the need for compressor power is significantly lower for the offshore route. The smaller number of compressor stations require less fuel gas and, as a consequence, operational costs are reduced. This, in return, is an average cost advantage for the Nord Stream pipeline in terms of modern common costs. Costs accounting were based on several assumptions. Due to differences in considered connections to supply and distribution points, assumed budget, pipeline diameters, technical parameters such as design pressure and wall thickness, Nord Stream pipeline has more remarkable cost advantages compared to the Amber pipeline over an assumed life span of 25 years. According to the project life cycle for the Nord Stream pipeline, decommissioning has been estimated after a life span of approximately 50 years. This is additional economic advantage of the project. Comparing Scandinavian alternatives, the route via Finland and Sweden will have a greater capital costs due to its greater length. Onshore route via Finland and Sweden will be much longer - 1,400 km as opposed to the 1,200km offshore route. Environmental impact From an environmental perspective, the Kyoto Protocol, signed at the end of 1997, has had an important influence on energy related questions. Thus, the displacement of coal usage in Germany, the UK and other European countries by dints of the natural gas pipeline will contribute to the reduction of carbon dioxide emissions on which parties to the treaty, such as the EU, have agreed on. In addition, an offshore pipeline through the Baltic Sea will generate significantly less carbon dioxide than onshore routes via Eastern and Central Europe. This is based on increased efficiencies from higher design pressure.



In the longer term, even rough comparison of potential environmental impact shows that an overland route will cause much more environmental problems that offshore route. Firstly, an overland route will require a land allotment 40 m wide, and lay rate for onshore and offshore pipelines will be different. Offshore pipelines construction is expected to occur at a rate of 2.5 to 3 km a day. Onshore pipelines lay rate is much lower, therefore environmental impact will be more intensive. Secondly, offshore pipeline construction is more favourable due to geographical specifics. Going onshore via Scandinavia or the Baltic States - Poland corridor will require complex solutions for crossing lakes and rivers; the pipeline itself will pass environmentally sensitive area. For example, in previously planned project of the construction of an onshore section in Finland, which is 328 km for alternative 1 and 391 km for alternative 2, crossing Kymijoki river would be required. Near Edvainen - one of planned landfall areas in Finland - the pipeline will pass environmentally sensitive area; if pipeline landfall will be north of Hanko, construction of a complicated crossing of Pohjapitejenlahti Bay will be required. In Sweden, the approximately 654 km onshore part would have faced two major lake crossings and the environmentally sensitive Fyledalen valley. Moreover, seabed conditions around the Finnish town of Hanko are rough and would have led to considerable intervention works. Route through the Baltic States and Poland also passes through various environmentally sensitive areas. There are many national parks in the north east of Poland, that host very abundant bird and animal life, for example, Wiger National Park as well as Bibrzan and Natwian. In addition, numerous large and small lakes and wetlands are located in the area close to the border to Kaliningrad and Lithuania. The largest of them are Mamry and Sniardwy lakes connected by small rivers, canals and other lakes. Tourism and recreation are the most promising business around the lakes and the national parks. Finally, the area south of the Kaliningrad border is characterised by an almost unspoiled mix of agricultural activities, forests, wetlands, lakes and rivers. A comprehensive environmental comparison would require a full impact assessment of possible onshore routes, which is outside the scope of Nord Stream project. Moreover, such study has not been conducted by the involved EU member states. Anyhow, nobody asked for EU funds planned to to allocate for the study, as appears from the Section below.4



1.2.6. 2001-2005: Gazprom returns – NTG switches over to North European Gas Pipeline From 2001 to 2005 the activities shifted from Finnish Fortum to Russian Gazprom. The Russians enhanced their cooperation with German gas company Ruhrgas, which was taken over by E.ON AG and ultimately renamed E.ON Ruhrgas AG in 2004, and German gas producer and BASF subsidiary Wintershall. As Fortum Oil and Gas Oy had changed its business strategy, Gazprom bought Fortum's 50 percent stake in NTG in 2005. Development of new markets and improving technology are favourable events for construction of gas pipeline across the Baltic Sea. Name of the project has been changed. Now it is called North European Gas Pipeline. The project has also gained two additional target markets: Denmark and the Netherlands. Due to a decline in gas production in the UK, the British gas market got into more focus and supply route solutions from Russia via Denmark to the United Kingdom were assessed. UK gas companies were considering alternative supply sources, next to Russian ones also Norwegian options and LNG supplies. Due to the geographical proximity of the pipeline's starting point to Russian gas fields, NEGP would increase the diversification of the EU's gas supply. From a technological point of view, the improvement of technology for large diameter, high pressure and long distance pipelines was further developed mainly from Norway to the European mainland and UK, but also in the Middle East. The milestone of the construction of the Bluestream pipeline at depths upto 2150 m also paved the way for a new generation of technologically advanced offshore projects. For the Baltic Sea offshore solution a gas supply of 19.2 bcm/year was foreseen with a pipeline diameter between 42” and 48” and design pressure of respectively 220 and 160 bar. Eventually, it was decided to build the Langeled pipeline from the Norwegian offshore Ormen Lange field to the UK and other offshore connections from Norway to British shores. Moreover, plans to develop the Shtokman gas field as an LNG field for non-European markets were discussed. To diversify supply to the UK it was decided to construct a new pipeline from the Netherlands, Balgzand-Bacton, along almost the same route as a section of North European Gas Pipeline.

4 See It. 1.2.7.



Hence, no direct pipeline from Russia to the UK was required as the Balgzand-Bacton Line pipeline (BBL) could be used to serve this market via transit through Germany and the Netherlands. Moreover, the possible use of intermediate storage facilities in Germany turned out as an additional advantage. To sum up, the promoters of the Norway-UK connection, Statoil and Hydro, as well as the main drivers of the BBL pipeline, Dutch energy company Gasunie and Belgium gas corporation Fluxys, contributed indirectly, but considerably to Nord Stream as it is set up today. Route Optimisation and further plans Several studies were conducted with regard to route optimisation. In 2004 PeterGaz, a Russian project company, obtained an order for new survey of of the off-shore section of the pipeline in the Baltic Sea. The primary objective of the survey was a detailed analysis of NTG data as well as other available data including commercial and publically available. Second objective was a development of optimal corridor to conduct detailed geophysical survey in the Baltic in 2005. This survey allowed to align the route for further evaluation and design activities. The aligned route has been recognised as suitable for conceptual design and identified as the base case for further development activities. Several opportunities for optimisation have been identified during the route conceptual design to potentially further reduce the impact and risks posed to the environment. Finally, the route had been revised, and in 2006 prepared for visual inspection using Remotely Operated Vehicles. Traced pipeline installation corridor extends from Portovaya Bay near the Russian town of Vyborg in the Leningrad region to Lubmin near Greifswald in the German state of Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania. Its length is 1,200 km. Spur line to Sweden is envisaged as well.

1.2.7. Initiation of Nord Stream project Signing contracts and official starting work A basic agreement to construct the pipeline was finally reached in September 2005. Two months later, the North European Gas Pipeline Company was founded and registered in Zug, Switzerland, whose hares originally being distributed between Gazprom (51%), E.ON Ruhrgas AG (24.5%) and BASF/Wintershall Holding AG (24.5%). The company was renamed to Nord Stream AG in October 2006. The final shareholder agreement on the construction of Nord Stream from Russia to Germany via the Baltic Sea was signed in July 2007 and did not contain a Swedish branch due to a lack of demand in this market. The company Gasunie Infrastruktur AG bought 4,5% share of the two German shareholders, causing the company have a 9% share. The incorporation of the Dutch company to the membership of shareholders guaranteed the opening of the BBL pipeline as a prolongation of gas transport network through the Nord Stream pipeline to the United Kingdom.



The routing selection decision proves its timeliness The agreements foresaw construction of two pipelines, in order to grow annual productivity up to 55 BCM and to ensure a higher level of flexibility of inspection and maintenance. The need for annual productivity growth was created by pressures from EU countries, demanded to decrease carbon dioxide emissions by displacing coal with natural gas. Once project of the joint development of the Yuzhno-Russkoye gas field are agreed upon, the supply side gained an additional heavy argument. In addition, the project details from a demand perspective provided with the fact, that the transportation companies of the two German shareholders E.ON and BASF respectively will operate the two large diameter coastal pipelines to Achim and Olbernhau, meaning the routes for transporting natural gas to the integrated EU gas system. Consequently, the pipeline can supply Denmark, the Netherlands, the UK, Belgium, France, Poland and other countries. These perspectives of the project for the Europe are reflected in the decision of the European Parliament and the European Council, which informs that the pipeline installation as part of the Trans-European Energy Networks (TEN-E) is a "Project of European Interest". According to European Commissioner for Energy, Andris Piebalgs, the pipeline installing projects Yamal II and Amber were selected in 2004 for a comparative feasibility study to which the Commission was planned to allocate funds of approximately 1 million euros6. However, no feasibility study was conducted as nobody showed interest in that. In addition, while the primary energies supply security for many West European countries is becoming increasingly important, Polish Minister of Economic Affairs issued in 2007 a decree about renouncing at additional Russian gas imports to Poland and focussing on the construction of LNG ports. In contrast, attitude of EU towards the Moscow is quite open: In September 2008, the EU unanimously stressed its inclination to keep tight economic relationships with Russia. The decision of basing head office of Nord Stream in the financial hub proved to be a visionary one as well. Some difficulties appear with funding the project after the real estate crises in USA in winter 2007 - 2008.



1.2.8. Future prospects The process of submitting the application to various environmental state authorities of stakeholders is presently going on. Due to these activities on national levels, the Nord Stream pipelines, for which construction state-of-the-art technology in the field of development, design installing and operating of pipelines are used, will meet the requirements of highest standards set out by international authorities. An obligation to comply UNECE Convention regarding Assessment of Environmental Impacts in a Transboundary Context was assumed for the project. In addition, Equator Principles will be complied - the global list of environmental and social rates for the pertinent aspects of the project financing management, which are based on standards in environmental and social spheres, developed by organizations of World Bank Group (International Bank for Reconstruction and Development and International Finance Corporation). The Nord Stream project is an example of successful uplifting of a challenging idea born in 1980s to an integral and key component of Europe’s stable gas supply.

5 European Parliament: Decision 1364/2006/ЕС of the European Parliament and the Council of 6 September 2006 laying down guidelines for trans-European energy networks and repealing Decision No 1229/2003/EC. 6 Public hearing on 29 January 2008.



1.3. Rationale for the Nord Stream Project: ensuring Europe's energy security

1.3.1. New natural gas import capacities are needed to meet rising demand for natural gas within the EU

Import share of the entire EU's gas consumption will increase.

In the EU, natural gas demand is expected7 to grow against the decline in the EU's own productive capacity and reserves. As consequence import share of the entire EU's gas consumption will increase. It is estimated that natural gas import requirements are expected to rise from 314 bcm per annum, corresponding to 58% of total demand, in 2005 to 509 bcm, corresponding to 81% of total demand, in 20258. Therefore, new import capacities are needed to prevent the emergence of a natural gas import gap.

Figure: 1.3-1. Forecast supply and demand in the EU. (The graph is based on the assumption that current gas supply contracts will be prolongated). The following section

• shows why further growth is projected for EU natural gas demand • deals with the proposed decline in the EU's own productive capacity and reserves; • provides a detailed analysis of the proposed growth in EU gas import requirements.

The rising demand for natural gas in the EU

7 EU includes 27 European Union member states 8 Based on data from European Commission: European Energy and Transport, updated 2007, p. 96. Figures are based on 10.3 kwh/m3 at 20 °C. The conservative scenarios for oil prices were adopted for the source. These and subsequent figures were rounded.



Currently making up one quarter of the primary energy consumption, natural gas accounts for a significant proportion of energy consumption within the EU. Moreover, EU natural gas demand is expected to grow at an average annual rate of 0.74%: from 543 bcm in 2006 to 629 bcm in 20259. Over this 20 year period, the share of natural gas in the primary energy mix is expected to rise from 25% to 26%, while the share provided by oil, coal and nuclear power declines. The share of renewable energy sources will grow from 7% to 11%.11

Figure 1.3-2. Development outlook for the EU primary energy sources structure between 2005 and 2025. Source: European Commission: European Energy and Transport. Updated 2007, p. 96.

Extra demand for natural gas in terms of total volume come mostly from Great Britain, Italy, Germany, Poland and Spain12 reflecting amongst other factors as progressive replacement of oil and coal for electricity generation13. In addition, natural gas consumption per household grows. In Germany, France, Belgium, the UK, the Netherlands and Italy, households constitute the largest or second-largest source of gas demand14. The EU Council Directive 2004/67/EC of 26 April 2004 concerning measures to safeguard security of natural gas supply states: “In view of the growing gas market of the European Community it is important that security of gas supply is maintained, in particular in regard to household customers”.15 Environmental compatibility is the further factor contributing to the rising demand for natural gas in the EU. In this respect gas as a primary energy source is beneficial in comparison to other fossil fuels: Due to higher hydrogen-carbon molar ratio and ecologically cleaner combustion process, natural gas creates 30 – 50% less pollution and greenhouse gas emissions through combustion than coal and oil, thus significantly contributing to an environmentally sustainable energy supply.16

9 Based on data from European Commission: European Energy and Transport. Trends to 2030. Updated 2007, p. 96. 10 Based on data from European Commission: European Energy and Transport. Trends to 2030. Updated 2007, p. 96. 11 Based on data from European Commission: European Energy and Transport. Trends to 2030. Updated 2007, p. 96. 12 Based on data from European Commission: European Energy and Transport. Trends to 2030. Updated 2007, different pp. 13 European Commission: New document "Towards the European strategy of energy supply security". 2001, p. 42. 14 Based on data from European Commission: European Energy and Transport. Trends to 2030. Updated 2007. 15 EU Council Directive 2004/67/EC of 26 April 2004 concerning measures to safeguard security of natural gas supply.



Especially against the backdrop of the decision by the European Council in March 2007 to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions by 20% by the year 2020 a further increase in demand for natural gas is expected17. Use of renewable sources to meet EU primary energy demand is forecast to extend, but not sufficiently to cover the forecast shortfall in EU gas supplies. While its importance will grow, the share of renewables in the EU primary energy is forecast to rise only to 10% by 2020 and 12% by 2030. That means, that natural gas itself cannot be replaced by the consolidated use of alternative primary energy sources until 2030. Decline of the own natural gas reserves in EU Against the background of increase in demand within the EU the decline in its own reserves takes place. Current total proven natural gas reserves in the EU (about 2.800 billion cubic m) 19 are relatively low compared with projected demand of 629 billion m per annum in 2025. The Netherlands, with 1250 bcm, has the largest proven reserves within the EU. The UK, which currently contributes approximately 16% of annual natural gas production in the EU, has reserves of only approximately 410 bcm.20 Moreover, no significant new finds of natural gas in the EU are expected.21 As a result, the EU’s self-sufficiency will decline further. At present, natural gas production in the EU covers approximately 42% of demand,22 and production from existing natural gas reserves in the EU will decline from around 229 bcm per annum in 2005 to only 120 bcm per annum in 2025.23 As a result, the EU’s self-sufficiency will decline further. At present, natural gas production in the EU covers approximately 42% of demand,22 and production from existing natural gas reserves in the EU will decline from around 229 bcm per annum in 2005 to only 120 bcm per annum in 2025.23 Against the background of production having dropped and rising demand in the coming decades the EU Council sees the necessity to acquire “substantial additional natural gas quantities.24 New natural gas import capacities are needed to cover the shortfall of natural gas within the EU.

16 http://www.umwelt.niedersachsen.de/master/ C24188911_N23067576_L20_D0_I598.html (consulted 26 October 2007) 17 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/etap/agenda_en.htm#4 (consulted 19 October 2007) 18 European Union: European Energy and Transport. Trends to 2030. Updated 2007, p. 96. 19 BP AG: Statistical Review of World Energy. June, 2008, p. 22. 20 BP AG: Statistical Review of World Energy. June, 2008, p. 22. 21 European Commission: European Energy and Transport. Trends to 2030. Updated 2007, p. 74. 22 Based on data from European Commission: European Energy and Transport. Updated 2007, p. 96. 23 Based on data from European Commission: European Energy and Transport. Updated 2007, p. 96. 24 EU Council Directive 2004/67/EC of 26 April 2004 concerning measures to safeguard security of natural gas supply.



The need for new natural gas import capacities to the EU As a result of the decline in the EU's own productive capacity and reserves coupled with an increase in the demand for natural gas within the EU, natural gas import requirements are expected to increase from 314 bcm per annum in 2005 to 509 bcm per annum in 2025. Therefore, new import capacities are needed to prevent the emergence of a natural gas import gap. Europe currently obtains natural gas primarily from three sources: Russia, that provides the most important share, Norway and Algeria25. The size of reserves as well as their geographic proximity to the EU and the long term reliability of supply will be important factors in the choice of future import sources. Apparently Russia does offer all that advantages.

1.3.2. The strategic importance of Russia as a natural gas supplier Russia may significantly contribute to maintenance of gas supply security in EU in future: (a) Russia has the largest confirmed natural gas reserves in the world, (b) is geographically close to the EU, and (c) can show a reliable supply relationship for over 35 years with natural gas customers in the EU (а) Russia has the largest confirmed natural gas reserves in the world The current composition of import volumes from natural gas-producing countries will shift in favour of regions with long-term resources. Therefore, the size of reserves will be an important factor in the choice of future import sources. Known world gas reserves are located in three main regions:

Europe and Eurasia: roughly 33,5% (Russia - 25,2%, Norway - 1,7%);

Middle East: 41,3% (Iran – 15,7%, Qatar – 14,4%);

Africa: 8,2% (Nigeria – 3,0%, Algeria – 2,5%).26 The remaining 17% of total world reserves are distributed in small volumes across various regions.

25 Eurostat statistical reports: Statistical data for natural gas and electricity market. 2007 edition, p. 56. 26 BP AG: Statistical Review of World Energy. June, 2008, p. 22. Please also refer to this source for a detailed definition of regions.



Figure 1.3-3. General distribution of confirmed natural gas reserves: Russia, Norway, Iran, Qatar, Nigeria, Algeria. Source: BP Statistical Review of World Energy for June 2007

Major gas supplies in all three above mentioned regions have been developed by EU from the countries which come first or second in the list of remaining gas reserves - Algeria, Qatar, Norway and Russia.. No gas is being supplied from Iran. Algeria, that is situated not far from the countries of Mediterranean Europe, currently has 4520 bcm of natural gas.27 Increase in export volumes from the today's rate of 65 bcm per annum to 115 bcm per annum in 2015 is planned.28 Qatar has the third-largest reserves of natural gas in the world after Russia and Iran (at 25400 bcm)29. Exports are transported mainly in the form of liquified natural gas (LNG) because of the great distances to target markets. Current efforts to encourage Qatari LNG exports are mainly aimed at the Japanese and South Korean markets. After decrease in exports to EU in 2000 begun, measures to expand exports towards North America and Europe have been undertaken. However in December 2006 part of the supplies planned for North America has been sold to Pacific region 30 , showing the instability of LNG supply routes. Nevertheless, at present an official moratorium has stopped any further natural gas production projects.

27 Based on BP Statistical Review of World Energy for June 2008, S.22. 28 German-Algerian chamber of commerce and industry: http://algerien.ahk.de/index.php?id=landesinfos, accessed on August 4, 2008 29 ВР Statistical Review of World Energy.. June, 2008, p. 22. 30 Energy Information Administration: International energy perspectives in 2007, p. 41-42.



Hence the short-term and medium-term perspectives for LNG capacities expanding in Qatar are not clear. Norway with 2960 bcm of natural gas 31 will continue to play an important role in the natural gas supply of Europe in short-term and medium term. However, Norway’s gas export is expected to peak at 150 bcm per annum in 2020. By 2025, Norway's natural gas export is expected to attain merely 120 bcm per annum 32 , that accounts for 19% of the total supply requirement in EU for 2025. Natural gas reserves of Russia equal 44 650 bcm or 25,2% of the known world resources. 33 Their geographical position is also favourable for their development: 90% of mining activities is being held in West Siberia. In future gas will be extracted on the Shtokman field in Barents Sea and some remote offshore fields in the Kara Sea. The proven natural gas reserves on the Shtokman field have been recorded to 3700 bcm being concentrated within one field not far from EU, which is a big advantage. The potential rise in gas exports from Norway, Algeria and Qatar are insufficient to cover medium- and long-term growth in EU import requirements. Significance of the additional natural gas transport capacities from Russia to EU is emphasised by the probability of the shortfall occurrence in gas supplies. (b) Proximity of Russia to EU Natural gas is imported to EU from different countries, whereby geographical proximity is the main factor in the choice of import sources. Countries like Germany, France, Belgium and the UK obtain natural gas mainly from Russia and Norway, most Italian and Spanish natural gas imports come from Algeria. Geographic proximity will be an important factor in the choice of future import sources. Alongside unique resource base Russia offers such an advantage as geographical proximity to the EU markets. In future the Shtokman gas field will significantly support the security of energy supplies to EU. (c) Russia has established a reliable supply relationship with natural gas customers in the EU

31 ВР Statistical Review of World Energy. June, 2008, p. 22. Note: The gas reserves of Norway are not part of the natural gas reserves of the

EU. 32 German Ministry for the Economy: «Monitoring-Bericht des BMWi nach § 51 EnWG zur Versorgungssicherheit bei Erdgas», p.17 33 ВР Statistical Review of World Energy. June, 2008, p. 22.



History of the winning relationships between EU and Russia in domain of energy supply numbers over 35 years. Target markets in EU account for 80% of total natural gas export from Russia.34 Russian reserves play an important role in maintaining the EU energy supply security in future. The oil and gas industries constitute a major sector of the Russian economy, accounting for two thirds of its export revenue in 2007. Gas export earnings are crucial to Russia's national budget. The European Commission speaks of an evident mutual dependency on the part of the EU and Russia in respect of energy partnership, and of the mutual benefit of Russia having greater access to the EU’s natural gas market..35 Moreover, the exporting company is committed to make additional volumes of natural gas available. Russian Energy company Gazprom has already contractually agreed to sell an additional 21 bcm of natural gas per annum to be supplied via the Nord Stream pipeline to various purchasers. These contracts demonstrate that Gazprom's intention to export via the new supply route is matched by the long-term demand for natural gas projected by the European energy companies concerned. The Nord Stream pipeline system is thus a priority project, both for the provider Gazprom and for European consumers. Although a tried and tested supply relationship has existed between exporting companies in Russia and purchasers in the EU, early connection of Russian natural gas reserves to the European market is also important given the increasing competition between natural gas consumers. For more detailed information on this question please refer following section.

1.3.3. The importance of connecting Russian natural gas reserves to the European market at an early stage in the context of the rising demand for natural gas in Asia

China's geographic proximity to Russian gas fields in north Tyumen region is comparable to the EU's geographic proximity. Given the increasing competitive pressure to access natural gas supplies, the strategic safeguarding of sources in Russia is becoming increasingly important for the EU. This is primarily associated with the rising demand for natural gas in Asian countries..36 Demand for natural gas between 2004 and 2030 is estimated to grow at 5.1% per annum in China and 4.2% per annum in India, compared with 3.4% and 3.0% per annum for oil and 2.8% and 3.3% per annum for coal.37 The Asia-Pacific region currently consumes 439 bcm per annum, about 81% EU levels.

34 ВР Statistical Review of World Energy. June, 2008, p. 30. 35 Commission of European Council, 12 October 2006: Foreign relations in energy supply domain: principles and measures. 36 Federal Ministry of Economics and Labour: Energy Market Trends to 2030, 2005, p. 18. 37 International Energy Agency: International energy perspectives in 2006, p. 86, 112, 127.



China is one of the largest and fastest growing target markets for natural gas in the region. Given the expected increase in demand, China is likely to show a heightened interest in Russian natural gas exports. China's geographic proximity to Russian gas fields will encourage the transport of gas from Russia to China.

Picture: 1.3-4. Existing gas reserves in Russia and construction of the supply network for China. As energy trading relations enhance between Russia and Asia, there is a danger of the EU taking second place as a customer for Russian gas from Tyumen region. An early strategic expansion of the connection from Russia to the European market is therefore important in securing the supply of natural gas to the EU over the long term. Readiness of OAO Gazprom to high level investments for the Nord Stream pipeline construction project shows the interest of the world's leading natural gas producer Gazprom in a long-term supply relationship with the EU. This is a significant benefit to the EU in the context of increasing competitive pressure in pursuit of the natural gas energy reserve. Establishing a direct link between Russian gas reserves and the EU market is gaining in urgency. Therefore, the European Commission supports projects aiming at the timely expansion of gas infrastructure to the EU from third countries via the Trans-European Energy Network (TEN-E). Pipeline Nord Stream can to significant extent safeguard the necessary additional transport capacities in EU and thus is of great importance for EU gas supply organizing. Nord Stream was recognised by the decision of the European Parliament and the Council of 6 September 2006 as a “project of European interest” ,38 and thus a part of the Trans-European Energy Network (TEN-E).



1.3.4. The Nord Stream pipeline as an essential element of the Trans-European Energy Networks The Nord Stream pipeline in the context of the Axes for Priority Projects of the Trans-European Energy Networks Implementing the Trans-European Energy Network (TEN-E) involves improving the integration and development of the energy transport infrastructure by furthering the connection, interoperability and development of natural gas transport capacities. In the context of this programme, certain axes that must be expanded or newly created for natural gas supplies to the EU from external countries and for increasing the efficiency of the EU's internal energy markets are prioritised. 39 Procedures corresponding to the “Priority Project Axes” gain financial support from the EU. On 6 October 2006 six priority project axes have been defined by EU (from NG1 to NG6).40

38 European Parliament: Decision No 1364/2006/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of September 6, 2006 laying down guidelines for trans-European energy networks and repealing Decisions No 96/391/ЕС and No 1229/2003/EC. 39 European Commission: Trans-European Energy Networks: TEN-E Priority Projects 40 Decision No 1364/2006/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of September 6, 2006 laying down guidelines for trans-European energy networks and repealing Decision No 1229/2003/EC.



Figure 1.3-5. Trans-European Energy Networks: Natural gas priority projects based on data from European

Commission The NG1 axis covers a corridor from Russia to Great Britain via northern continental Europe (including Germany, the Netherlands and Denmark) for the creation of a new import route for Russian natural gas. This axis aims at the connection between Russian gas reserves in Western Siberia in general – more particularly the Shtokman field - and the EU. The Nord Stream pipeline as the backbone of this corridor will serve to realise exactly this goal. The efficiency of the internal EU gas market should also be increased through the development of the export capacity between continental Europe and the UK. A pipeline network connecting Algeria with Europe is to be created on the NG2 axis. This includes several routes to Spain and Italy. Besides of that, number of routes to France has been envisaged from this point. On the NG 3 axis the connection of gas reserves from the Middle East and the Caspian region to the EU is planned via the new Nabucco pipeline passing through Turkey, Bulgaria, Romania, Hungary and Austria.



The aim of the projects, designated as NG4, is the construction of additional regasification terminals for liquefied natural gas (LNG) in Belgium, France, Spain, Portugal and Italy. These projects, presupposing on the first stage designing of flexible transport routes for transporting by ship, are intended to stimulate competition between natural gas-exporting countries, providing an additional export potential and diversification of natural gas import sources. However, already today the LNG world market is characterised by a strong competition between importing countries in Europe, the United States and the Far East. The aim of the projects, designated as NG5, -is to increase gas storage capacity primarily by constructing underground storage facilities (e.g. depleted natural gas deposits, salt caves). The NG6 axis focuses on expanding pipeline capacity from Libya, Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Turkey to EU Member States in the Mediterranean region: establishing of the East Mediterranean Gas Ring. The Nord Stream pipeline in the context of the various projects realized for the Trans-European Energy Network In accordance with the priority axes defined by European Commission a number of new projects concerning the gas import infrastructure has been planned to implement. The Nord Stream pipeline is defined as one of TEN-E infrastructure projects and the largest single project for new import capacity into the EU.



Picture: 1.3-6. Trans-European Energy Networks: priority projects for natural gas The Langeled pipeline, which runs from the Nyhamna Terminal in Norway to Easington in England, is one of the strategic infrastructure projects mentioned. In combination with the development of the Norwegian Ormen Lange field, this pipeline, officially inaugurated in 2006, is contributing approximately 20 bcm per annum to the EU’s import capacities. Expansion of pipeline connections between North Africa and Italy or Spain is designed to increase annual EU import capacity by up to 42 billion per annum starting in 2015 (pipelines GME, MEDGAZ, GALSI, Transmed, expansion of the Green Stream pipeline). The Nabucco pipeline is planned as an import route for natural gas from the Caspian region with import capacities of 20-30 bcm per annum starting in 2011 at the earliest. The size of LNG production is planned to be at about 66 bcm per annum, gained on the additional regasification terminals, which implies annual productivity growth at 180 bcm by 2015 approximately. Yet, most of the above-listed projects are currently at the early phases of planning and in some cases their practical implementation is in certain respect doubtful.




PETERGAZ 36/07-01- Feasibility study ООС-0801(1)-С6 NORD STREAM G-PE-LFR-EIA-101-08010100-06

Volume 8. Book 1. Offshore section. Part 1. EIA pp. 51

As a result of implementation in the framework of TEN-E of all the projects of pipelines building (both currently planned and being under construction) EU export potential including Nord Stream gas pipeline will be increased by 140 bcm. This corresponds to over 70% of EU additional gas import needs in 2025. The Nord Stream pipeline system with a planned capacity of 55 bcm per annum, is meant to provide more than 25% of EU additional gas import needs, and therefore makes a significant contribution to guaranteeing the security of EU gas supplies. As stressed by EU Energy Commissioner Andris Piebalgs, Nord Stream should be seen as complementary to other projects, which will also need to be completed, not competitive to them.41 Besides its meaning in terms of the amount, the chosen Nord Stream pipeline route, will broadly favour the "diversification of natural gas sources and transport routes".42It is documented by the European Commission report about TENE priority projects dated 10 June 2004.43 Diversification is described by the EU in its ruling 1364/2006/EC dated 6 September 2006 as a priority in the future development of Trans-European Energy Networks. In the same document the project of an offshore pipeline from Russia to Germany is mentioned as a “project of common interest” of EU.44 In consideration of strategic importance of Nord Stream gas pipeline and its significant contribution in import potential rise, the project non-realisation seems unfeasible.

1.3.5. Consequences of non-realisation of the project This section examines the consequences of eventual non-realisation of Nord Stream project for future gas supply to EU. As detailed above, non-realisation of Nord Stream project will run the substantial risk to gas supply to EU security because of lack of planned 55 bcm per year that should be supplied through the Nord Steam pipeline. The planned pipeline system would cover more than one-quarter of additional gas import demand, estimated at up to 195 bcm p.a. by 2025. Non-implementation would seriously threaten EU energy supply security. Significant contribution in import potential rise is planned to be largely provided by means of gas import projects listed in section 1.3.4. All of these projects should be regarded as complementary in relation to each other. The supply gap resulting from the non-implementation of the Nord Stream project would have to be covered by projects that are not even yet under consideration not to mention planning.

41 Public Hearing of the Committee on Petitions, Brussels, 29 January 2008. 42Decision No 1364/2006/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of September 6, 2006, Article 4.3. See also the communication from the Commission to the European Council and the European Parliament entitled “An energy policy for Europe”, 10 January 2007, p. 6. 43European Commission: Trans-European Energy Networks: TEN-E priority projects, 2004, p. 25. 44Decision of the European Parliament and the Council No.1364/2006/ЕС of 6 September 2006 about guidelines of Trans-European Energy Networks arrangement, revoking the Decision No.1254/2003/ЕС.




Non-implementation of the Nord Stream project leads to necessity of consideration of the following items: a) Other delivery areas; b) Other transport routes of natural gas to EU; c) Other energy sources. Besides the analysis of these three aspects, it must be emphasized that, in addition to Nord Stream, other projects, currently under consideration, are required to meet the rising demand for imported natural gas (see section 1.3.4), and therefore, cannot be regarded as alternatives to the Nord Stream project. (a) Other delivery areas There is no comparable alternative for Russia,because:

• Russia possesses the largest natural gas reserves in the world, and will be able to deliver natural gas to EU in the long-term;

• Russia is geographically situated near EU. • Russia is able to secure supply in the long-term; • In medium term transition to gradual increase in export volumes of Russian gas is possible.

Additional possible sources of gas:

• Caspian and Middle East region – transmission pipeline systems and LNG; • Algeria and Libya - Mediterranean Sea seabed pipelines; • Norway - Norway pipelines; • More distant sources – LNG.

None of these possess all the advantages of Nord Stream project that connects EU with Russian gas reserves. In addition, their implementation needs some years more than Nord Stream project implementation . Furthermore, e.g., LNG transportation is connected with high emissions of СО2 creating. (b) Another transport routes of natural gas to EU; Another transport options to be compared with Nord Stream project by emissions - main environment aspect that must be considered - are shown below. Other aspects that are taken into account are safety and public perception of these means of transport.




The Nord Stream project offers distinct advantages in terms of CO2 emissions compared to onshore routes and LNG transport, an important factor in view of the EU’s goal of emissions reducing. Shore pipelines The energy needs for the operation of a pipeline, at even throughput volumes, are essentially related to the maintenance of pipeline pressure necessary for maintaining natural gas transportation. With increasing pressure the specific pressure consumption during transportation will drop due to the compressible nature of gases, thus reducing the number of compressor stations necessary for gas transmission over a certain distance. With the maximum input pressure of 220 bar for the Nord Stream pipelines system no intermediate compression is needed to transport gas over a distance of more than 1200 km. Because shore pipelines are usually operated under pressure much more than 100 bar, much more compressor stations will be needed to provide normal operation, therefore, fuel gas consumption will be increased. So, CO2 emissions at Nord Stream pipeline operation will be less compared to a shore pipeline. LNG transport LNG transports are markedly less energy-efficient and involve higher carbon emissions than an offshore pipeline. The difficult LNG production process includes gas liquefaction at high pressure in departure point, use of special vehicles with the following regasification. All stages of the process involve significant energy losses and carbon emissions. Analysis shows that a pipeline link from the Murmansk province where the Shtokman gas will be landed will involve fewer energy losses and lower carbon emissions than transportation by LNG tanker to the North German coast. The same comparative benefits of pipeline transmission over LNG transport also apply to a subsea link to North Germany from Vyborg on Russia's Baltic coast. Planned transportation through Nord Stream pipeline substitution to LNG tanker transportation means 600 to 700 trips yearly. Baltic water area will be severely affected, taking into consideration not only carbon emissions, but also noise and other impacts. Moreover, in a 2007 statement the European Commission observed that "completion of various LNG terminals encountering significant delays" referring to TEN-E Priority Projects that are at least in the planning stage.45. In the statement the construction complexity of additional LNG terminals which development has not currently started is underlined.




(c) Other energy sources Renewable energy sources By 2025 the European Union expects the Europe-wide share of renewable energy to be 11% of the primary energy mix46. From an environmental point of view, renewable energy is a preferred option. However, the projects of use of renewable energy sources can not provide for achieving the main goal of the project development, because their share in energy mix remains very little. To replace the 55 bcm of gas to be provided via the Nord Stream pipeline, 240,000 wind mills would have to be built, or approximately 90,000 to 100,000 square kilometres of corn fields would have to be added for bio ethanol production. So, the projects of use of renewable energy sources cannot be regarded as alternatives to the introduced project. Fossil fuels Natural gas creates 30 – 50% less pollution and greenhouse gas emissions than other fossil fuels such as coal and oil, as natural gas has a higher hydrogen-carbon ratio and a clean combustion process. Therefore, use of gas impacts the environment less than use of other fossil fuels. Satisfaction of needs for energy by use of other fossil fuels with non-realisation of Nord Stream project would mean construction of 55 additional coal power plants or use of 150 additional tankers per year in the Baltic Sea. Further increase in the demand for natural gas is expected, especially against the background of the implementation of the targets determined by the European Council in March 2007 for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions by 20% by the year 2020 47. Projects used fossil fuels cause more negative impact on the environment than Nord Stream project so they cannot regarded as its alternative. Nuclear energy An increased use of nuclear energy as an alternative to the use of natural gas might be an option if the long term supply of natural gas through existing infrastructure proves to be less than the demand. Satisfaction of needs for energy by use of nuclear energy with non-realisation of Nord Stream project would mean construction of 23 additional nuclear power plants. Because of long nuclear power plants construction time covering the import gap in 2025 by nuclear energy is practically impossible. 45 European commission: Report from the Commission to the European Council and the European Parliament: Priorities consolidation plan, p. 11. 46European Commission: European energy and Transport. Trends to 2030. Update 2007, p. 96. 47 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/etap/agenda_en.htm#4 (consulted 19 October 2007)




In addition, use of nuclear energy has a number of environmental shortcomings. On the one hand nuclear power generation has a positive effect on CO2 emissions. On the other hand, taking into account remaining uncertainty of long-term influence48, electricity generation on nuclear power plants cause more negative impact on the environment than Nord Stream project. Additionally it can be observed that the future use of nuclear energy is heavily challenged in many countries of the European Union by public pressure. E.g. Germany has committed itself not to build any new nuclear power plant and step-by-step to replace existing nuclear power plants by using other sources of energy. So, the projects of use of nuclear energy cannot be regarded as alternatives to the introduced project. The Nord Stream project offers distinct advantages in terms CO2 emissions compared to onshore routes and LNG transport. LNG is method of natural gas transport connected with the most intensive carbon emissions. In contrast, transferring gas in a submarine pipeline is one of the most efficient and safe ways to transport energy. In this respect, its impacts on marine flora and fauna must be compared in the context of use of natural gas instead of other fossil fuels. Taking into account that the construction of an offshore pipeline through the Baltic Sea is considered to be the environmentally most favourable option for increasing the natural gas transportation capacity into the EU, and considering that withdrawing from increase of import capacity into the EU is not a viable option, the following can be concluded: Apart from renewable energy, any other projects aiming to supply the EU with required energy sources, would result in more harmful effects on the environment. 1.3.6. Conclusion Non-realisation of Nord Stream pipeline system providing delivery of 55 bcm per year that accounts over 25% of EU additional gas import needs would seriously threaten EU energy supply security.

• The Nord Stream pipeline system is an integral element of the TEN-E priority projects that aim at securing the EU's gas supply.

48 E.g., uranium mining, safety issues and nuclear waste issues.




• The Nord Stream pipeline will connect the EU with the world's largest known natural gas reserves. • Nord Stream offshore pipeline is the environmentally most favourable option for increasing the natural gas

transportation capacity into the EU. • Compared with other gas transportation projects into the EU, the Nord Stream project is at a very advanced

stage of technical design and planning. It may be finished and put into operation in terms to help meet the EU's growing demand for gas. Therefore, the Nord Stream pipeline is of major importance for meeting EU gas demand as it will increase in the coming years.

1.4. Description and analysis of main alternatives At preliminary stages of the Nord Stream Project development and early stages of EIA the following alternatives and subalternatives of construction of the pipeline route design.

1.4.1. Zero alternative – renouncing from planned activity At not constructing the new natural gas pipelines from Russia to EEC countries no direct environmental impacts would take place. Baltic Sea ecosystem condition remains unchanged in comparison to to the current state. However, it should be assumed that enouncing from planned activity will have indirect environmental effects for Western Europe, as foreseeable scarcity in gas supply unavoidably brings appropriate increase in the total import and consumption of oil. It should be noted that petroleum and petroleum products burning is accompanied with considerable pollutant emissions into atmosphere comparing with natural gas burning, and oil extraction, transportation and storage are fraught with danger of its spill and appropriate negative impacts for ground and water ecosystems. In addition, failures connected with use of petroleum products are over two orders lower for human life and health than failures connected with transport use of natural gas. So renouncing from planned activity will in reality have negative effect for Europe environment and population, although its scale quantitative estimation is difficult. It may be expected that not building the Pipeline will also have negative socioeconomic impacts: subsequent oil and other energy carriers prices grow (with appropriate consequences for national economics of all the countries importers), growth of economical and subsequently political dependence of European countries from petroleum exporting countries, first of all - from Middle East countries.




1.4.2. Using tankers to transport liquefied natural gas

As alternative of natural gas pipeline transporting is transport of Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) which worldwide popularity grows during past decades. LNG tanker transport obvious advantage is ability of accumulation of natural gas considerable stores in relatively compact reservoirs (both in exporters and importers countries), gas supply diversification, maneuverability of export-import currents depending on market conditions. From other hand, LNG tanker transport is much more expensive than natural gas pipeline transport, therewith tankers are dangerous manufacturing entity, risk of incidents with tankers is higher and consequences for humans and environment are larger than in pipelines incidents. The last is of particular concern in Baltic Sea environmental conditions which has highly trafficked shipping routes (especially in Gulf of Finland), high density of oil terminals and large volumes of oil tanker transport. Construction of terminals for LNG shipment and reception and grows of tanker fleet may have highly negative impact to Baltic sea environment.

1.4.3. Onshore pipeline Different versions of gas pipeline laying to Germany overland Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Byelorussia, Poland are repeatedly investigated last years. Positive aspects of onshore pipeline are less expensive maintenance and better repairability. However, whatever specific routes, all of onshore versions have several negative consequences:

• lead to increase of gas price for user because of necessity to pay for transit to the countries through which territories the pipelines shall be built;

• need transfer of territories, including agricultural and forest; • pass through the infrastructure objects numerous in Europe (highways, railways, pipelines,

telecommunications, high-voltage lines etc.), that both overburdens design, construction and increases risk of incidents;

• pass through the numerous water obstacles - rivers flowing in Eastern Europe mainly from south to north and flowing into the Baltic Sea, increasing risk of pollution during construction not only the sea but also rivers around it.

• pass through the densely populated areas that identifies special heaviness of consequences in case of incidents with gas ignition (in case of fire and explosion);




• pass near borders of specially protected natural territories; • badly protected from unauthorized access to them.

Thus, negative environmental and economic effects from laying the pipeline onshore probably exceed positive ones and make prefer sea version of the pipeline.

1.4.4. Offshore pipeline route options Economically sea pipelines are more expensive during construction, but cost of gas for user proves to be lower than in case of onshore transportation because of absence of expenses for gas transition payment. In case of sea pipelines incidents risk for human life and health is not high especially if gas pipeline landfalls are situated in sparsely populated area or protected from unauthorised access. When chosing the alternative routes for the offshore part of the Nord Stream gas pipeline the following borders and modes were considered:

• of territorial Sea and exclusive economic zones of Baltic region countries; • of national and international level specially protected natural territories and their protective zones; • of restricted nature use zones, valuable and vulnerable land and sea areas; • of existing cables, pipelines, wind mills; • of main shipping lanes; • of main fisheries; • of military practice areas, mine lines, possible dumpsites of explosive and chemical weapon.

On the basis of these assessments, the principal pipeline route was chosen, and for its implementation Nord Stream AG was established.

1.4.5. Russian sector alternatives of Nord Stream pipeline Within the Russian territorial Sea and exclusive economic zone three landfall points were considered: Portovaya Bay, surroundings of Primorsk and Vysotsk ports. Two last places are preferable for construction organization (availability of developed infrastructure, including maritime one), however, intense shipping and especially presence of oil terminal in Primorsk make to prefer Portovaya Bay. Further in Gulf of Finland route variants are limited by presence of specially protected natural territories (Berezovye Islands nature reserve ('zakaznik') and proposed Ingermanlandsky Strict Nature Reserve to the North, Vyborgsky zakaznik' in the South) and deposits of iron-manganese concretions to the North and South of chosen pipeline route.




At the stage of investment substantiation the different route options in Gulf of Finland were investigated, and the route north of Gogland (fig.1.4-1) was recommended to detailed design in environmental, technological and economical criteria. Correctness of the chosen path was confirmed by State Environmental Assessments by Federal Service on Environmental, Technological and Nuclear Control (Order No. 183 of 23 March 2007 "On approval the conclusion of expert commission of SEECS of material "Additional correction of substantiation of investment of construction of the North-European gas pipeline taking into account increase in export volumes of gas up to 55 bcm a year") and Federal Service on the Supervision in the Area of Natural Resources Use (Order No. 187 of 26 June 2007 "On approval the conclusion of expert commission of SEECS of material "Additional correction of substantiation of investment of construction of the North-European gas pipeline taking into account increase in export volumes of gas up to 55 bcm a year (Offshore Section, Russian Sector)"). However, despite the Environmental Assessments of Russian Federation that approved northern route around the island of Gogland , taking into account heightened public interest to this issue worldwide and in its commitment to unconditioned objectivity of documentation in support, Nord Stream AG took own detailed studies of suitability of south and north alternatives of routes around the island of Gogland; for this purpose comprehensive studies of archival and scientific data were performed and expeditionary researches on south and north versions of routes around the island of Gogland. The findings of the alternative comparison are presented in Table 1.4-1.

Table 1.4-1

Environmental and other constraints

Route alternatives North to Gogland South to Gogland

Length of the pipeline ~ 20 km shorter than south alternative

Seabed morphology Complex morphology, needed relief corrections

Complex morphology, needed relief corrections

Closed marine areas, military interests zones

Military training practice areas and exclusion zones are situated to the south of route

Military training practice areas and exclusion zones are situated to the north and south of route in close vicinity

Underwater infrastructure and areas with extraction of raw materials

Intersection with 1 telecom cable. Extraction of raw materials is not performed

4 cables crossed. In close vicinity of the route iron-manganese concretions extraction is performed

Ship traffic (fig. 1.4-1*) Sailing routes (VTS) Sailing routes (VTS) in




– figures are taken from Nature conservation atlas of the Russian section of the Gulf of Finland by Baltic nature foundation of ROO St. Petersburg Naturalists Society, World Wildlife Fund.

Fig.1.4-1. Alternatives of the pipeline route (to the north and south of Gogland island).

Environmental and other constraints

Route alternatives North to Gogland South to Gogland

far from pipeline route in close vicinity to pipeline route

Specially protected natural territories (fig. 1.4-2)

No SPNA in vicinity to the route Near the route areas of proposed Ingermanlandsky Strict Nature Reserve are situated

Staging sites and migration routes of birds (fig. 1.4-3-1.4-5)

Near the route there is no staging sites and mass gatherings during migration

Near the route there are protected areas with mass birds staging sites. In the southern part of Gogland island the birds rest during the flight

Sea mammals breeding grounds and migration routes (fig. 1.4-6-1.4-8)

Seals appear in the route area rarely

The route crosses migration routes of ringed seal

Spawning grounds No spawning grounds in vicinity to the route

The route crosses spawning grounds of sprat

Pollution of seabed sediments Sandy and pebbly grounds with low percentage of pollutants. Secondary seabed pollution during seabed correction is unlikely.

There is no reliable mass data about pollution of seabed sediments, although Sevmorgeo data indicate rather high level of pollution with zinc and lead.




Fig. 1.4-1. Sailing routes




Fig.1.4-2. Specially protected natural territories




Fig. 1.4-3. Flight routes and main staging places of swans in autumn




1.4-4. Baltic winter bird fauna representatives distribution in spring-summer (breeding) period




Fig. 1.4-5. Traces of terrestrial birds spring migration




Fig. 1.4-6. Baltic ringed seal rendezvous positions at herds and its migration routes




Fig. 1.4-7. Grey seal distribution and its migration routes




Fig. 1.4-8. Distribution of species of amphibians, reptiles and mammals included in Red Books



The comparative analysis of the two alternatives shows that the route north of Gogland is preferable due to less length, distance from environmental sensitive areas, military practice areas, shipping routes. The north version was taken by Nord Stream AG as basic one. In 2005-2007 the 2 km wide corridor along the north route alternative was surveyed very closely. The results of geophysical, geotechnical, metocean, engineering and environmental investigations are shown in Appendices to this Project. Routes of two pipelines were chosen in the margins of surveyed corridor according to the following criteria:

• Unevenness of sea bed and need for relief correction works (span correction, pipelines stability ensuring etc.)

• Presence of identified and unidentified potentially hazardous facilities (munitions); • Presence of wrecks and other potential cultural heritage sites; • Minimal length.

Route optimization involved several stages. At Conceptual Design stage first of all requirement of pipeline the route minimization was taken into account. The next stage of optimization permitted to minimize the magnitude of necessary excavation works (rock berms for construction of supports), exclude dredging (except for nearshore section). At the last stage the route was corrected according to recommendations of archaeologists and requirements of Leningrad Region Culture Committee to keep the distance 50-100 m from the found cultural heritage (wrecks, rigging parts). Thus, the route presented in the Project is the safest for environment and cultural heritage albeit economically less advantageous. The significant number of technological alternatives was also considered, comparative assessment of their potential environmental impact was performed. The most environmentally significant are parameters of the ditch excavated for pipeline laying in the shallow near coast area in Portovaya Bay because water pollution by suspended matters and appropriate damage to water biota including fish stocks depends on volumes of soil developed. As a result of engineering decisions optimization and ice gouging detailed analysis in the above area the near-shore trench length was shortened from 5 km initially accepted in the Conceptual design up to ~ 1.4 km that minimized damage to the environment.



1.5. An overview of technical solutions

Detailed description of gas pipeline design, methods of construction, commissioning, operation features, methods of decommissioning and removal are listed in Volume 1 "Explanatory Generic Report" and appropriate sections of this technical and economic feasibility study. A brief description of used materials, technologies, designs is given below. Two pipelines performance is equal to 55 bcm per year. Nord Stream raw materials base at first stage will be Nadym-Pur-Tazovsky region reserves (Yamal-Nenets Autonomous Area), later - reserves of Yamal Peninsula, the Ob-Taz Bay and Shtokman gas field (Barents Sea). Contents of transported gas: methane (98.185%), ethane (0.6848%), other hydrocarbons (0.2789%), nitrogen (0.8176%), carbon dioxide (0.0339%). Construction of the pipeline will start at 2010 by preparatory works. End of construction - December 2012. Project service life of the pipeline is at least 50 years.

1.5.1. Nord Stream routing (offshore section) Nord Stream pipeline will run from Portovaya Bay near Vyborg on Russia’s Baltic coast through the Gulf of Finland and the Baltic Sea to Lubmin in the Greifswald area on the northern coast of Germany. The route proposed by the project developer is shown on fig. 1.5-1. The red lines indicate the exclusive economic zones of Baltic Sea Region countries. Common length of subsea pipeline system is more than 1220 km. The system consists of two pipelines laid on the seabed. The nominal distance between the two pipelines will be about 100 m, but that distance could be changed depending generally on seabed topography. The Nord Stream offshore pipeline will be connected to a compressor station at the Russian landfall in Vyborg district, Leningrad region. Likewise, the pipelines will be connected to a receiving terminal at Greifswalder Bodden in Germany. The terminal will be equipped with a metering station as well as pressure-regulation facilities to ensure interface with the German gas network.



Fig. 1.5-1. Proposed pipeline route The choice of preferred subsea route between the specified coastal points was based on investigations of several versions of the route. There were the following choice criteria:

• minimization of total length of the route. Generally it allows minimize the term of seabed continual loading and decreases the cost of comissioning and operational expenses. In addition, it permits to maximize the general project specifications of the pipeline system;

• avoidance of particularly important areas. These are nature reserves areas, areas with sensitive flora and fauna, cultural heritage areas etc.;

• avoidance of areas where other sea operations may be crossed and interfere with installation and operation of the pipelines. These are areas of fishing, raw material extraction, zones of military operations, offshore wind farms or established ships anchoring areas;

• compliance with the conditions on shipping traffic directions. It minimizes the risks of pipelines damage caused by sea ships (dropped anchors, submerged or grounding ships etc.);



• avoidance of areas with unsuitable conditions of seabed and|or bathymetric data. Such areas may

destabilize the pipelines and increase the need of trenching and|or pipelines support using rock placement or bunds;

• to the maximum comply with routes of existing cables. The route passes through the Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZ) of four EU member states: Finland, Sweden, Denmark and Germany. In Denmark and Germany the pipelines route passes through coastal territorial sea. In addition, the route passes through EEZs and territorial sea of Russia. In table 1.5-1 the pipeline length is shown.

Table 1.5-1 Nord Stream pipeline length, in Exclusive Economic Zones and territorial sea

Route C10.3 W Classification Section length, km

Length through the country, km

Total length, km Area of land|sea

Russia

Area of land 1,5 1,5 1,5 Territorial sea 122,2 124,0 125,5

1219,4

EEZ 1,8

Finland EEZ 369,3 369,3 492,6

Sweden EEZ 506,4 506,4 999,0

Denmark EEZ 46,1 135,9 1135,0 Territorial sea 89,8

Germany

EEZ 28,6 84,4 1163,5 Territorial sea 55,9 1219,4 Area of land 0,5 0,5 0,5 Territorial sea 55,8 1220,4 Area of land 0,5 0, 5 0,5

Boundaries of OOO Petergaz designing and of Russian sector of Nord Stream pipeline begin from isolation joints situated at onshore section downstream after protective cranes of Portovaya KP and finish in Baltic Sea by intersection point with Russian EEZ border. Russian sector of sea pipeline length is equal to 125.5 km. Position of Russian sector of the pipeline is shown on fig. 1.5-2.



Fig. 1.5-2. Position of Russian sector of Nord Stream pipeline within the Russian territorial Sea (red line -

border of territorial Sea, blue line - proposed pipeline)

1.5.2. Pipeline design features The pipelines system is designed ain accordance with Det Norske Veritas requirements, generally according to DNV OS-F101 – Submarine Pipeline Systems - with necessary adjustments to accommodate national regulations and rules on agreement with the government standardization authorities. The Nord Stream Project will consist of two parallel pipelines of steel pipes with total capacity of 55 billion m3 of natural gas p.a. The pipelines design life is equal to 50 years of operation. The main characteristics of the pipelines are shown in Table 1.5-2.



Table 1.5-2

Pipeline design within marine section Parameters Units Designations

Quantity of pipelines items 2 Constant inner diameter mm 1153 Wall thickness mm 41.0 from KO3+56 to KP 0.5

34.6 from KP 0.5 and to the end of designed section Pipe designation SAWL 485 I DF Steel strength grade by API 5L Х70 Yield stress MPa 485 Ultimate stress MPa 570 Antifriction coating - based on epoxy resin Anticorrosion coating - shop-built, 3-layer polyethylene - coating thickness mm 4,2 - density [kg/m3] 890 Field joint coating - Multicomponent liquid isolation coating Weight Coating Continuous concrete solidification - coating thickness

mm 60

Eastern pipeline KP 0 - KP 79.53 Western pipeline KP 0 - KP 78.58

80 Eastern pipeline KP 79.53 - KP 123.984 Western pipeline KP 78.58 - KP 123.452

- density kg/m3 3040

Distance between the two pipelines is generally equal to 100 m. Maximal distance is 1568 m - in КР 84.5, minimal distance is 20 m - in КР 0. Quantity of route angles of rotation - 36 for western pipeline and 34 for eastern pipeline. Route angles of rotation are performed as elastic bending with radius 2800 to 7000 m. The Nord Stream pipelines will be constructed of long-length steel line pipe sections that will be welded together. To reduce the risk of pipe break in certain places the protective armature (tube clamps) will be installed. The Nord Stream project will use a double submerged arc, single seam, longitudinally welded SAWL 485 I DF grade carbon steel line pipe. The pipelines will be assembled of pipe joints of 12.2 m medium length and connected by welding. The wall thickness of the pipes is 26.8 - 41.0 mm



To reduce the risk of longitudinal pipe break the antideformative rings will be installed on the areas where the pipeline lays at greater depths. Antideformative rings of the pipes (BA) are made of the same alloyed steel as the pipelines themselves and their length is the same as the pipe sections. The total length of areas with antideformative rings is 240 km. Proposed interval is 80 sections (about 1000 m). Welding of linear part of the pipelines will be performed using consumables similar and compatible to the composition of the line-pipe material . The welding seams properties will be in accordance with minimal grade of steel, similar to the pipeline steel. The pipeline internal coating will be made of material based on epoxy resins. The coating is intended to decrease hydraulic friction and increase the pipeline capacity. The coating thickness is equal to 70 +/- 20 µm and it covers the full length of pipe joint except for bitumen 30 +/- 10 mm at the pipes ends. To protect the pipeline from corrosion the external coating will be applied. As anticorrosion coating three-layer polyethylene (3LPE) will be used as shown on Fig. 1.5-3.

Fig. 1.5-3. Principle of external anticorrosion coating

Three-layer coating consists of inner coating of epoxy composition (dark green), an adhesive layer in the middle (light green) and a top layer of polyethylene (black). The pipelines will have outside coating of concrete reinforced with iron ore. The concrete coating will be applied over the anticorrosion coating (fig. 1.5-4) and will give the pipelines sufficient weight to remain stable on the seabed both during construction works and in regular operation. The concrete consists of a mix of cement, water and aggregate (inert solid bodies such as crushed rock, sand, gravel). The concrete coating will be reinforced with steel bars with 6.0 mm minimum diameter welded to the frameworks or with metal lath with 2.0 mm minimum wire diameter. Iron ore aggregate will be added to increase the density of the weight coating.



Fig. 1.5-4. Concrete coating on top of the three-layer anticorrosion coating Concrete coating has the following characteristics:

• concrete thickness 60-110 mm; • coating density 3.040-3.400 kg/m3; • water absorption 2% by weight; • length of shear plane 400 mm ±10 mm.

Internal pipeline coating is applied by the pipeline producers, external concrete weight coating is applied at the coating plants located around the Baltic Sea. After that the pipes are joined by welding. After being connected by welding the field joints are screened using non-destructive testing. Coating ((FJC) is applied all around the field joints to fill the space between concrete coating on each side of the field joint and to protect the joint against corrosion. The inside parts of the pipes, compensators and vertical columns are coated at the manufacturing sites, the exterior is coated at the coastal plants. After that the pipes are pulled to the offshore construction site for hyperbaric welding. After pipe welding the welds are screened using non-destructive testing. There will be no coating at the hyperbaric field joint locations, as anticorrosion protection is deemed to be sufficient.



Figure: 1.5-5. Field joint without coating. Concrete coating is visible Cathodic protection of the offshore pipelines will be made of zinc anodes (in the coastal area it will be a combination of zinc and aluminium anodes). The anodes, approximately 1 m long, will be located according to specification (depending on the weight coating width as well as the calculations of the cathodic protection). Figure 1.5-6 shows a standard anode mounted on a pipeline.

Figure: 1.5-6. Sacrificial anode mounted on concrete-coated pipe Estimated required materials are shown in table 1.5-3.



Table 1.5-3

Estimated required materials for two pipelines per 1 km of the pipeline

Component Density [kg/m3]

Total weight (in tonnes)

Weight per 1 km of pipeline (in tonnes)

Steel (pipeline and anti-deformation coils) 7850 2186000 ~ 1800 Internal epoxy coating 1400 431 ~ 0.35 External anti-corrosion coating - 30270 ~ 25 Concrete coating - iron ore - concrete (cement and aggregate)

- ~1726000 ~ 740000

~ 1425 ~ 610

Cathodic protection - zinc anodes - aluminium anodes

- 1602,981

8,378 ~ 12,8 ~ 0,07

Field joint coating - 118500 ~ 1 00

1.5.3. Methods of construction works Large-scale construction of the sub-sea section requires reliable coastal supply bases. These include: storage units for pipes without coating and with anticorrosion/weight coating, coating equipment and coating materials, as well as general storage units for providing consumables to vessels that lay submarine pipelines, e.g. spare details, fuel, tools, section isolation valves, flanges and fittings, rigging (tackles, wire, anchors etc.). The required logistic support of the construction works and the number of coastal supply bases were investigated in 2007. The preferred location sites are given below. Construction of the supply bases will naturally require national authorization documents. The pipeline sections with pre-coating that were produced at the existing plants in Russia and Germany and/or Japan will be transported to the plants in Kotka, Finland, and Sassnitz-Mukran, Germany, for concrete weight coating with addition of iron ore. Weight-coating plants will be also used as open storage facilities, however, for logistical reasons weight-coated pipe joints for construction of the middle section of pipelines will be transported to interim stockyards by coastal vessels (see fig. 1.5-7). The supposed location sites of the interim stockyards are as follows:



• Hanko area, Finland • Slite (Gotland), Sweden • Karlshamn, Sweden

However the final decision on the stockyards location are to be agreed between Nord Stream and the contractor:

Figure: 1.5-7. An example of pipes storing at the stockyard Two pipelines will be laid and comissioned on the seabed separately. The width of the seabed corridor located directly under the active pipelines, including the dredging area, if any, will amount to 100 - 150 m. However in areas where the distance between the two pipelines will exceed 100 m, the corridor will be expanded accordingly. Both pipelines will be laid through the certain areas for subsequent tie-ins. Sub-sea pipelines will be divided in four submarine areas and two coastal areas which will total in six construction and mounting areas per pipeline. These zones are displayed in Table 1.5-4.

Table 1.5-4 Pipeline construction areas

Area Description Start, RP Finish, RP

LRF Landfall site in Russia, crossing in Russia and nearshore section.

0 5

1 Gulf of Finland 5 300 2-1 North-eastern part of the route 300 557 2-2 Central part of the route 557 800 3 South-western part of the route 800 1194/1154* LFG Landfall site in Germany, crossing in Germany and

nearshore section 1194/1154* 1221



* for the eastern pipeline Based on construction methods, the sector in Russia is divided into three subsections:

• Coastline section • Coastline intersection point • Deep-water section

The pipe-laying technology in the onshore area is described in Volume 7. Book 2. "Project for construction arrangement for onshore section of the pipeline" and Volume 8. "Environmental Protection" of the Book 2 "Onshore Section".

1.5.3.1. Crossing of the shore line The coastline area is stretched from the dragging board KO 3+56 to KP 1.5. The length of the western section is 1826 m, the length of the eastern section is 1828 m. The Russian nearshore section belongs to the ice gouge area which is the main criterion when trenching the pipeline. Taking into account the size of the sub-sea ridges the impact of the ice features is supposed to reach 14 m deep. According to the project plans, the pipeline will be trenched throughout the section to the depth of 1.2-2.0 m from the upper side of the pipeline concrete coating to the seabed surface. Each pipeline is laid in the separate trench 4.4 m wide. The distance between the pipeline axes - 20 meters. Prior to commencing construction of the pipelines 2 dams (one dam along the outer side of each pipeline) will be built in shallow areas to protect the nearshore section of the prepared trench from the washing due to wave impact. These installations are also used to develop the trench in the coastline area by means of land based equipment (dredgers from the dams) that will allow to significantly speed up the trench development in the near-coast section. The trench will be developed using:

• onshore equipment from the dams (from coastline part to the depth of 2 m, overall length - approximately 500 m);

• back-hoe dredger mounted on water craft (from the depth of 2 m to the depth of 5 m); • scoop dredge "At Your Service" (МРТС) with a dredger Liebherr P994 (from the depth of 5 m to

the depth of 14 m). A portion of the developed material will be used for construction of the dams maintaining operation of the land based equipment. The main portion of the developed material will be stored along the trench which will minimize environmental impact due to redeposition of the sediment.



Crossing of the shore will be carried out by pulling the pipeline section from the PLB to the shore using the land based winch. This will be done using the second-generation PLB with the shallow draft allowing to start operation at the depth of 5 m. After pulling the pipe to the shore the second-generation lay barge (PLB II) will continue laying the pipeline by common S-lay method through the end of the section (1.8 km, isobath - 14 m). Upon arriving to the specified stake the end of the pipeline will be lowered onto the seabed. All bevelling, welding, quality control and field joint coating operations will be carried out from PLB. After completing the pipelay activities the trench will be backfilled. The trench will be backfilled with the previously excavated soil and dams material using dredgers. The offshore section of the trench will be backfilled with the stone and gravel mix using dredgers from the water craft and an opening-bottom self-propelled barge or a barge with a lateral fault.

1.5.3.2. Laying of the main offshore section of the pipeline Pipelaying operations in the main offshore area more then 14 m deep consist in manufacturing and laying on seabed of the pipeline 244.5 m long, including the first section (122 km) and the second section (122.5 km). In this area the pipeline is laid on the seabed surface without burial. The pipeline laying is carried out from the lay barge. The pipes will be laid by the common S-method using dynamically positioned lay barges or anchored vessels with the support of anchor-handling tug, pipe-haul vessels and, typically, a survey vessel. Individual pipe sections of approximately 12 m length will be delivered to a pipe-laying barge, where they will be assembled into a continuous pipe string and lowered onto the seabed (examples of such lay barges are given later in this chapter). The processes onboard the pipe-laying barge include the following steps, which are carried out continuously:

• pipes welding; • non-destructive testing of welded joints; • preparation of a field joint; • laying of pipes onto the seabed.

Welding of the new pipes to the continuous pipe string will be carried out onboard by semiautomatic or automatic methods. Example welding of a field joint is shown on Fig. 1.5-8. The welds are tested by means of non-destructive testing. Non-destructive testing has been always carried out by X-ray method. Lately, this method was replaced by automatic ultrasonic testing (AUT) - a higher-quality and safer method of non-destructive examination of the Nord Stream pipelines. AUT will be used to locate, measure and record defects. The criteria for the accepting of welding defects have been developed before the start of the construction and will be passed for approval to the appointed certification bodies.



Fig. 1.5-8. Welding (left) and automatic ultrasonic testing (right) of a field joint

Upon completion of welding and AUT the field joints will be protected with anticorrosion coating. Multiple options of anticorrosion coatings were investigated. One of the options is a heat-shrink sleeve, when a thin heat-shrink sleeve made of polyolefin (or polyethylene) is applied directly onto the field joint. Polyurethane foam is poured into the polyethylene form around the joints to fill the spaces between concrete coatings from each side of the field joint. Upon completion of the sections tie-in process the vessel will move on for the distance equal to the length of one or two pipeline sections (12.2 or 24.4 m). After this a new pipeline section will be connected to the stalk, as described above. As the vessel moves on, the continuous pipe stalk is located at the rear end of the vessel in the water. The stalk is supported by the stinger (floating stairs) 40-100 m long which is situated at the back and below the level of the vessel. The stinger is designed to control and support the pipeline configuration. The stalk running from the stinger to the point of contact with the seabed is held continuously under tension to avoid the risk of longitudinal cracking and damage to the pipelines. The force required to forward the lay barge is provided by anchors, or by steerable thruster, in case of using the dynamically positioned vessel (DP). The average lay rate typically amounts to 2-3 km per day depending on weather conditions. In order to minimize obstructions during the pipes laying, a special area will be created around the lay barge from the navigation side, within the distance of 2500-3000 m from the location of the furthermost anchor. Unauthorized ships, including fishing vessels, will not be allowed to the area.



Laying of subsea pipeline is supposed to be carried out by several vessels of various purposes to support construction works. One or two deep-water lay vessels (stationary anchor-positioned vessels (DP) or DP mono-hull vessels) will be used to lay both pipelines. In nearshore areas of Russia and Germany shallow-water lay barges will be used. According to the Project, an anchored lay vessel Saipem Castoro Sei will be used as a deep-water lay vessel (Fig. 1.5-9, left). The vessel is positioned by anchoring vessels, which handle the anchors attached directly to wenches and controlled by means of cables. In shallow waters the pipes could be laid by Saipem Castoro Due - a second-generation flat-bottomed, anchor-positioned vessel (Fig. 1.5-9, right). The positioning is carried out by means of anchoring system controlled from the anchored vessel.

Fig. 1.5-9. Castoro Sei deep-water lay vessel (left) and Castoro II shallow-water lay vessel (right). Photo by

Saipem S.p.A. The anchor-handling vessels are generally quite large, with overall length of 130200 m. Additionally, a lay barge requires using of one supply vessel. Anchors positioning and supply will be carried out by a multipurpose DP vessel, for example, Saipem Far Sovereign (Fig. 1.5-10).



Fig. 1.5-10. Multipurpose supply vessel Far Sovereign and an anchor-positioning vessel. Photo by Saipem S.p.A.

A typical supply vessel used during the precommissioning phase is shown on Fig. 1.5-11. A vessel Saipem Bar Protector is classified as a diving support vessel (DSV) and as such could be used for underwater tie-in activities.

Fig. 1.5-11. The Saipem Bar Protector is a multipurpose, dynamically-positioned supply vessel. Photo by Saipem S.p.A.

1.5.3.3. Free-span correction Laying the pipeline through uneven sea bed results in forming of free spans. In cases when pipeline will be exposed to unacceptable forces and (or) turbulent vibrations, the free-span correction will take place, which involves construction of supports made of stone-gravel material of estimated size (Fig. 1.5-12).



Fig. 1.5-12. Free-span correction. The unacceptable free spans removal is carried out by means of rock dumping, e.g. filling with rock. At the same time, the backfilling of additional gravel supports is carried out, thus reducing the length of a free span. Filling operations in consistency with Project data, will be carried out in stages. During the first stage, gravel supports will be constructed to provide static stabilization before the laying of eastern and western pipeline sections. During the second stage, gravel will be placed to provide static stabilization after the laying of both pipeline sections. During the third stage, gravel will be placed to provide dynamic stabilization after the pipelines laying. During the fourth stage, gravel will be placed to minimize lateral bend after the pipelines laying, and during the fifth stage, gravel will be placed to minimize vertical bend after the pipelines laying. Table 1.5-5 shows the amount of stone-gravel material required for free-span correction. According to the Project, stone-gravel material will be transported from Erkila quarry located in Vyborg (managing company - "Vozrozhdenie - Nerud").

Table 1.5-5 Stone-gravel material volume (m3)

Gravel support types Pipeline

Eastern Western Pre-lay installation 30650,6 30088 Post-lay installation (static loading criterion) 42903 29783 Post-lay installation (fatigue destruction criterion) 5538 5043 Post-lay installation (bend buckling criterion) 668424 681959 Total 747515,6 746873



Figure 1.5-13 shows special vessel for rock dumping and fall pipe, used for rock dumping at the seabed.

Figure: 1.5-13. Flexible fall pipe vessel (FFPV) (left) and fall pipe for distribution of rock material around the

pipeline close-up

1.5.3.4. Cable Crossings In Russian section Nord Stream route crosses 3 cables. During pipeline construction measures in order to ensure crossings safety will be taken. There are different options to secure crossings:

• Cutting the cable and taking it beyond pipeline corridor in case the cable is not used and owner's permission has been obtained.

• Cable burial with a water jetting equipment. Selecting crossing option depends both from individual environment conditions in the crossing point and from crossing object owner requirements.

1.5.4. Testing and preparation for operation Shank bore cleaning and pipeline testing are carried out once all construction and installation works in construction section has been completed. As there will be two stages of construction of two pipelines in Russian sector, testing also will be carried out in two steps: The first phase - testing of both of the landfall areas together with PIG launch chamber, as well as the offshore section of the western pipeline. Offshore section of the eastern pipeline is laid from the dragging board to KP 5 (seabed depth is 20 m) and closed down temporarily until next construction season. In order to do that it will be dried and filled with nitrogen. The second phase/ Completion of construction of offshore eastern pipeline, testing and carrying out of golden weld. Due to stepwise construction and different design pressure (hence, different testing pressure) whole Nord Stream pipeline is divided into 5 testing sections:



Section name Design pressure, MPa Testing pressure, MPa

Russian onshore section 22 24,2 First offshore section from КР0 to КР300 22 24,2 Second offshore section from КР300 to КР800 20 22 Third offshore section from КР800 to КР1200 17 18,7 German onshore section 17 18,7

Nord Stream onshore testing section (both pipelines) in Russian coast starts from stationary PIG launch chamber and finishes with temporary PIG reception chamber. Each offshore section is restricted by temporary chambers of PIG reception and launch. Testing of western and eastern pipelines in Russian sector will be held in first offshore section (from КР0 to КР300). The activities in western and eastern pipelines offshore section are the following:

• Flushing, gauging and cleaning of the offshore pipeline shank bore for mechanical impurities removal;

• Offshore pipeline flooding (flooding during flushing and gauging); • Pressure test ((Figure= 1,1 Рр); • Depressurisation; • Water removal from pipe shank bore and flushing from salt; • Drying for irreducible water removal.

Sea water is used for flooding and pressure testing of the whole underwater pipeline. Pressure test water will be extracted in the vicinity of the Russian sector in Portovaya Bay, Gulf of Finland. After pressure testing the water will be discharged to Gulf of Finland near 6th isobath in a distance of 750-1000 m from the coastline. Seawater intake and discharge will be made using pumping station or plough.



Water intakes are equipped with mesh fish-saving constructions in accordance with SNiP 2.06.07-87. During the water discharged from the pipelines, at Russian coastline will be received 4 pigs for welding (remaining in the pipe after hyperbaric welding) and 8-10 separator pigs. At receiving of each pig 200 m3 of water is discharged to settling basin for screening manner (and if necessary for cleaning) before discharge into the sea. The total volume of cleaning water discharged to settling basin after cleaning is 2,000 m3. For the first stage of pressure test 1,289,200 m3 of seawater is necessary (water intake from Gulf of Finland). No freshwater is necessary at the second stage of tests at the Russian coastline, and demand for seawater, and place of discharge is similar to the first stage (1,289,200 m3 ). Thus, the total volume of seawater necessary for pressure test is 2,578,400 m3. Cleaning and internally gauging of offshore sections of the pipeline will be made by transiting at least four gauging pigs. Flooding will start with the first section (КР0 - КР300). Water will be filled by forcing pumps located at the Russian coastline area. The vessel located at КР 300 will control air drain from pipe, arriving of cleaning pigs into underwater pig receiver at КР 300 and bypass of cleaning water at the second offshore section. The cleaning water will bypass to the second offshore section after pig receiving. Then the following 4 pigs will be launched from the underwater launcher at КР 300. The second offshore section flooding will be made through the bypass at КР 300. Then cleaning pigs will be received at KP 800. Bypass of cleaning water at КР 800 and pig launching will be made with the help of the vessel in a similar way. Then the third offshore section will be flooded and pigs will arrive into temporary pig receiver at КР 1200. All cleaning water will come to settling basin at German coastline. The total volume of water for one pipeline cleaning is approximately 6,000 m3. The uptake of seawater for pressure-test is to occur within the limits of Exclusive Economic Zone of Russian Federation. Seawater will be taken from 6 m depth approximately 750-1000 m offshore. Water intakes are equipped with mesh fish-saving constructions in accordance with SNiP 2.06.07-87. Filtered and chemically treated seawater is used for flooding of offshore section. The total volume of seawater for offshore section flooding is 1,289,200 m3. For the offshore section pressure increase is used a temporary pumping station located on the dragging border. Dewatering of the offshore section of the pipeline will be carried out through the use of compressed air from a temporary compressor station. Compressor station will be located on German landfall area.



Before dewatering of the offshore section several cleaning pigs will be launched to remove sediment (calcium carbonate) from pipe surface. When taking these pigs at Russian landfall area 200 m3 of water in front of them and water between them will be discharged to 3,000 m settling basin for analysis and cleaning (if required). The space between first four separator pigs is filled with fresh water to remove salt from pipe wall, then with air. Flushing with fresh water is necessary to remove salt from pipe wall. The total volume of water necessary to remove salt is 3,000 m3. Fresh water filtering level is 50 µm, sediment content in water maximum 20 g/m3. To ensure that the pigs are not blocked and do not leak air, pigs movement speed is 0.5 - 1.0 m/s. All pigs must be equipped with pig position sensors.

1.5.5. Pipeline operation technologies Nord Stream AG as owner and operator of the pipeline system, and Gazprom as the owner and supplier of natural gas transported by pipeline system reached an agreement on natural gas transporting. OAO Gazprom will supply gas to the entry point in Russia and the company Nord Stream will carry out the transportation and return of the gas to the receiving terminal in Germany. Transportation can be defined as a continuous operation of Nord Stream pipeline system to transport natural gas by pipeline. For reliable and safe achievement of this aim Nord Stream group will communicate with Gazprom on a daily basis regarding the operation of the entrance compression station and commercial gas accounting and interact with Wingas regarding the German landfall and the commercial gas accounting at the outlet. The Nord Stream pipeline system contains high quality control and shutdown devices. Gazprom and Wingas will line up their plants as required to deliver and receive the daily gas nomination. Nord Stream, Gazprom, and Wingas will be aware of planned day's volume of gas transported and Nord Stream will monitor pipeline gas transport to ensure that the pipeline system is operated within its normal operating envelope. The DNV standard permits the pipeline to be divided into sections with different design pressures and without physical barriers between the sections, provided that a suitable pressure control system (PCS) is installed. The Nord Stream pipeline system is divided into three sections:

• the Russian landfall at KP 300 — 220 barg;



• from KP 300 to KP 800 - 200 barg; • from KP 800 to Germany landfall (LFG) - 170 barg;

Nord Stream Pressure control system (PCS) consists of a pressure regulating system (PRS) and two control systems of pressure regulation (CSPR). These three systems are completely independent and ensure high level of reliability. The Pressure regulation system (PRS) is designed to ensure that the local design pressure of each pipeline section is not exceeded during normal operation. Control system of pressure regulation (CSPR-1) and (CSPR-2) is designed to prevent any accidental exceeding of maximum pressure of each pipeline section. When a pressure regulating system signals about the approaching to the risk zone, Nord Stream will inform Gazprom and Wingas and they will undertake necessary reinstatement measures. This will usually mean increasing or decreasing of gas pressure, or a combination of both actions. Nord Stream Pressure regulation system (PRS) will automatically decrease pressure level in the pipeline by compressor station control room. In an exceptional case, when the pressure regulating system (PRS) will not be able to maintain the pipeline system in normal operation, Nord Stream control system of pressure regulation will automatically close the pipeline by Nord Stream emergency shut-down valves. The headquarters of Nord Stream AG is in Zug, Switzerland. The main control room of the pipeline will be located in the same headquarters, where monitoring and management of the pipeline will be manned 24 hours per day. Branch office in Moscow will have any necessary information about monitoring and management. It will operate during normal working hours. The Russian onshore section of the Nord Stream pipeline is supported by the following equipment required to ensure normal pipeline operation: pig launchers to clean and monitor the pipeline; shut-down valves; local operator room (LOR). Landfalls in Russia will be regularly surveyed by staff. Gas transportation control will be carried out remotely by controllers on duty from planned main control room in the headquarters in Zug. Day and night shifts are planned. The controllers from main control room will maintain pipeline operation in normal working hours. Procedures for planning and nominating daily transportation volumes, including intra-day adjustments, will be established in the operating manual. The operating manual will also determine the rules of everyday communication between Nord Stream, Gazprom and Wingas.



The main service personnel 24 hours per day will be at full readiness for emergency response to unexpected conditions on the pipeline. Controllers of main control room will mobilize the on-call staff if necessary. Nord Stream intends to enter into service contracts with the necessary contractors to produce more complex and labour-intensive work on the scheduled maintenance of equipment, repair of buildings and equipment malfunctions. During the operation of pipelines the cleaning is performed to remove the formed liquid sludge. Pigs or "pigs in trains" will be launched from the inlet point and driven through the pipeline by the gas medium. The frequency with which these inspections will be required will depend on the quality of gas fed into the pipeline system, and will be adjusted by Nord Stream as necessary. Every seven or ten years Nord Stream will carry out a more in-depth examination of the pipeline condition. An intelligent pig will be sent through all the pipeline system to check for any corrosion or changes in pipeline wall thickness caused by third party impacts. The principle of detection is based on electromagnetic monitoring of gas leakages in the longitudinal direction of the pipeline. Prior to the intelligent pig run, a so-called calliper pig will be propelled through the pipeline in order to ensure the safe passage of the intelligent pig, particularly through line valves. Landfall in Russia is a point for pig launcher to clean and monitor the pipeline.

1.5.6. Decommissioning When de-commissioning offshore pipelines, there are two main alternatives: 1) complete dismantling and removal for the subsequent disposal of the entire system and 2) conservation of the linear part of the pipeline in place. The second option seems preferable from technological, economic and environmental points of view but current international legislation requires the dismantling and removal of all engineering facilities after completion of operation. The decision on decommissioning methods for the Nord Stream pipelines after completion of operation (in 50 years at least) will be taken by the owner of the pipeline in accordance with legal requirements and technologies that will be then applicable.

1.5.7. Construction time schedule The project was initiated with a feasibility study, in which Russian research institutes and the Russian-Finnish company North Transgas Oy conducted thorough surveys and maritime research in the Baltic Sea. The study for the offshore section, confirmed the technical feasibility of the pipeline project.



The phase of comprehensive planning has been started in 2007 in parallel with environmental surveys and preparation of authorization documents. The Permitting process on construction started on 14 November 2006, when a project information document on the planned pipeline through the Baltic Sea was submitted to the responsible environmental authorities of Denmark, Finland, Germany, Russia and Sweden in accordance with the Convention on Environmental Impact Assessment in a Transboundary Context (Espoo Convention). The duration of the entire construction phase including pipe laying and pre-commissioning jobs is projected now to be three years. Preparatory works for construction is scheduled to be in January-August of the first year of construction. Construction of first phase of offshore and onshore areas of line 1 and line 2 is scheduled for the period June-October of the first year of construction. Construction of the second stage - the main part of Russian sector (line 2) is scheduled for the period June-December ( 1st - 3rd year of construction). Commissioning of the line 1 is scheduled for the end of the 2nd year of construction and 2nd line is scheduled for the last quarter of the 3rd year of construction. Construction time schedule of offshore section is provided in Volume 7 Book 1 "Project for building organization of offshore section of the pipeline".

1.6. Description of possible environmental impact of the planned activity on alternatives Nord Stream pipeline route in the Russian sector of the offshore section is characterized by the following special conditions of construction:

• concentration of significant environmental interests, including areas crucial to flora, fauna, tourism;

• existence of areas under the protection of international environmental laws, including: Ramsar Convention and EC Directive on the Conservation of Wild Birds; protected areas of the Baltic Sea with the status of ecosystem protected with Helcom

Recommendation 15/5/1; natural reserves protected under national legislations; areas of great importance for the reproduction of fish stocks;



• intensive ship traffic; • active communications cables in the Baltic Sea; • areas for fishery with bottom trawling activities; • territories, objects, and communications of the Defence Ministry and Federal Security Service in

Portovaya Bay (Gulf of Finland). The project is in compliance with rules, requirements and restrictions on the environment, taking into account the impact of technological sources on natural objects. Comparison of the possible impacts on alternatives see p.1.4.5 , Table 1.4-1. The sources are divided according the nature of contact with the environment:

• sources of impacts on air environment; • sources of impacts on sea water; • sources of impacts on geological environment; • sources of impacts on marine biota.

Sources of pollution are divided spatially into point, areal, and linear. The project envisages the construction of linear objects - pipelines. The vessels to be employed in the pipeline construction can be regarded as the area source (a set of point sources). From temporal point of view, all sources of environmental impact can be classified as short-term. They are typical for the period of construction and installation works. Impacts of different sources on the environment can be divided into following types: mechanical, chemical, and physical The main impact on the atmospheric air is a chemical pollution with harmful substances emitted by construction vessels. Harmful physical factor is characterized by high acoustic background due to vessels operation. Mechanical impacts are expected due to pipeline burial works, post-lay trenching to ensure sustainability of the pipeline, dam construction, and a small chemical impact on the bottom soils in the Gulf of Finland is also possible. Limitation of ranges of habitat and noise from the operating equipment will be important factors of concern for the animal world. Dredging, dam construction works, post-lay trenching will lead to the partial destruction of food supply of fish, partial destruction of fish fry, and temporary partial reduction of the areas of fish habitat. Analysis of the technological sources mentioned above, the effects of their impacts allow to evaluate the composition and scope of environmental problems associated with the implementation of planned activities, to formulate priority goals and minimize potential damages. Possible kinds of impacts and effects from construction and operation activities of offshore section of Russian sector of Nord Stream pipeline are given in table 1.6-1.



Table 1.6-1

Possible environmental impacts related to the construction and operation of the pipeline

No Environment components

Environmental impacts from activities

Mitigation measures in relation to environmental protection from negative impacts caused by tech-

nology

Residual adverse impacts

1. Atmosphere Power units of vessels. Welding on supply vessel. Noise impacts.

Instrumental measurements of atmospheric air.

General increased content of contaminants in atmosphere compared to background levels, but less than Maximum Allowed Concentrations (MAC)

2. Marine environment

Suspended matter pollutant from construction works. Unauthorized discharge from vessels, accidental oil / fuel spills Pressure test water discharge

Rapid elimination of accidental spillage of oil or petroleum products. Minimising of water abstraction. Compliance with the requirements of MARPOL to vessels.

Sea water interim excess pollution.

3. Geologic environment

Dredging, soil dumping. Unauthorized discharge from vessels, accidental oil / fuel spills

Use of modern equipment at construction works to minimise effects on soils Rapid elimination of accidental spillage of oil or petroleum products. Compliance with the requirements of MARPOL to vessels

Changes in local grading of soil, and local changing of the seabed.

4. Marine biota Noise impacts. Destruction of food supply of fish, destruction of fish fry associated with turbiding and seawater intake. Reduction of the areas of fish habitat associated with turbiding and during the consrtuction of the pipeline and dam. Creating obstacles to animal migration routes

Use of modern equipment during seabed intervention works to minimise sediment turbiding and noise impacts. Equipment of water intakes by mesh fish-saving constructions in accordance with SNiP 2.06.0-87. Works schedule harmonization with the timing of migration of fish and marine mammals

Temporary exclusion of nursery areas, temporary partial destruction of foraging resources.



1.7. Applicable laws and other legislative acts

Projection of offshore section of Russian sector of Nord Stream pipeline is performed in accordance with the current environmental and nature management legislation. The development of project documentation on construction of the offshore pipeline Nord Stream is performed in accordance with national and international environmental regulations: Conventions, Directives, Laws, SNiPs, SanPiNs, GOSTs, etc. In EIA materials preparation of Nord Stream project have been also taken into account provisions of the Espoo Convention and provisions of article 7 (Environmental Impact Assessment) of The Baltic Marine Environment Protection Commission (Helsinki Commission). This section lists legal regulatory and standards documents at federal and regional levels for business activities while the pipeline is being laid across the Baltic Sea, to be considered at implementation of the Project of offshore pipeline Nord Stream.

1.7.1. International environmental legislation This section discusses the main International conventions and agreements relevant to the Nord Stream offshore pipeline construction project. For the main International conventions and contracts ratified, signed or adopted by Russia, refer the table 1.7-1.

Table 1.7-1 Main international conventions and contracts, ratified and signed by Russia

Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution from Vessels (MARPOL), London, 1973 Convention on the Protection and Use of Transboundary Watercourses and International Lakes, Helsinki, 1992

Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Waste and other Matters, London, 1972

Basel Convention on the control of transboundary movements of hazardous wastes and their disposal, Basel, 1990

United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, Montego Bay, 1982 The Convention on the Protection of the Marine Environment of the Baltic Sea Area, Helsinki, 1974 and 1992

Convention on the Transboundary Effects Of Industrial Accidents, Helsinki, 1992 Convention on Environmental Impact Assessment in a Transboundary Context



Main international conventions and contracts, ratified and

Espoo, Finland, 1991, signed by Russia but not ratified. Convention on the Prevention of Pollution of the Sea by Oil, London, 12 May 1954.

Geneva Convention on the High Seas, 1958 International SOLAS-74 Convention International Convention on Liability and Compensation for Damage in Connection with the Carriage of Hazardous And Noxious Substances By Sea, London, May 3, 1996

UN Declaration on Environment and Development, Rio de Janeiro, 1992 On the Rio de Janeiro Conference on Environment the Declaration has been enunciated, a statement of 27 principles directed to the protection of the environment and sustainable development. The foundational Principle 1 reads: Human beings are at the centre of concerns for sustainable development. They are entitled to a healthy and productive life in harmony with nature. The other 26 principles formulate missions of the state to provide the fulfilment of the principle 1. The announced in the Declaration principles have found their expression in the Russian legislation. So, the rights of the Russian citizens on the wholesome environment are secured in Russian Constitution. The principles of international cooperation in environmental protection are generally defined in the Russian Federal Law On Environmental Protection. Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution from Vessels (MARPOL), London, 1973 Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution from Vessels (hereafter - MARPOL), was signed in 1973, came into effect on August 30, 1975. Convention has been ratified by USSR on December 15, 1975. Convention is aimed on prevention of marine environment pollution by harmful substances or by effluents containing such substances. Penalties for violation of Convention statements are defined in the legislation of the state, which flag the vessel flies. The respective issues can be settled only at the national level. Monitoring is restricted to territorial seas of respective states, in the high sea it is restricted to the so-called national flag principle operating in the case of vessels flying the flag of separate state. In accordance with the article 8 the accident caused by the discharge of harmful substances is to be reported in compliance with the Protocol 1 statements of the Convention.



In this Convention and UN Convention the Baltic Sea has been granted a special status so that any waste is regarded illegal. The special region status implies discharge prohibition of the following substances:

• oily mixture with the insignificant exceptions (minor quantities from small-size vessels); • other harmful substances (chemicals) carried as bulked or fluid cargo; • sewage from the vessels if these are not processed mechanically or disinfected; • vessel wastes.

Convention on the Protection and Use of Transboundary Watercourses and International Lakes, Helsinki, 1992 г. Convention on the Protection and Use of Transboundary Watercourses and International Lakes was signed in Helsinki on March 18, 1992. Russia became a Party of this Convention on November 2, 1993. Convention aims to enhance the measures preventing, restricting and reducing water pollution, which is likely to have a transboundary effect, it also aims environmentally sound and rational use of water resources. These measures are to be taken in the pollution source, whenever possible. Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Waste and other Matters, 1972 Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Waste and other Matters was prepared on December 29, 1972 and came into effect on August 30, 1975. The Convention has been ratified by USSR on December 15, 1975. Convention aims to enhance measures preventing marine pollution by discharge of waste and other matters, which could be dangerous for public health, inflict harm to living resources and marine life and cause damage recreational zones. Each willful removal of waste or other matters from the vessels, platforms etc. into the sea is qualified as "dumping". No removal of waste and matters resulting in regular exploitation of the vessels, platforms etc. is seen as "dumping". Basel Convention on the control of transboundary movements of hazardous wastes and their disposal, Basel, 1990 Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Waste and other Matters has been prepared on March 22, 1989. Ratified by Russia through the Federal Law No. 49-FZ of 25 November 1994.



This Convention pursues secure transboundary transportation of hazardous wastes. While carrying out economic activities one shall take following measures:

• to secure minimizing production of hazardous and others wastes within the enterprise with due account for the social, technical and economical aspects;

• to guarantee availability of respective disposal facilities for economically sound use of hazardous and other wastes regardless of disposal location;

• to minimize transboundary movements of hazardous and other wastes via ecologically sound and effective use of such wastes;

• to protect human health and environment from adverse impact caused by transboundary movements of wastes.

Given bordering and transport role of the Baltic sea area, the significance of this Convention grows from year to year, the more so that the issue of import-export of toxical wastes as such has become recently one of the most urgent both for government authorities of EU states and for international ecological organisations. United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, Montego Bay, 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (1982) and the predating UN Convention on the International waters (1958) established an international legislative foundation, extended by bilateral agreements on marine borders between the neighbour states. United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (1982) also includes statements concerning protection of environment and special statements on sheltered and half-sheltered seas. Convention grants the states certain restricted mandates enabling them to raise ecological claims to all foreign vessels entering the waters of their economical zones. Especially thoroughly the questions of environmental protection from the pollutions caused by vessel traffic are elaborated. Convention includes prohibition to dump oil, chemicals, discharge water and fuel of vessel engines. Meeting of these prohibitions is being constantly controlled. Convention on the Transboundary Effects of Industrial Accidents, Helsinki, 1992 Convention on the Transboundary Effects of Industrial Accidents has been signed in Helsinki on March 17, 1992 This Convention aims prevention of industrial accidents, securing of preparedness to them and elimination of their aftermath if the accidents may cause a transboundary effects. The Convention on the Protection of the Marine Environment of the Baltic Sea Area, Helsinki, 1974 and 1992



The Convention on the Protection of the Marine Environment of the Baltic Sea Area, (hereafter - Helsinki Convention) has been signed on March 22, 1974 by the representatives of the bordering Baltic states and came into effect on May 3, 1980. Helsinki Convention 1974 has been the first international agreement concerning all pollution sources on the shore, offshore and also air pollution sources. The UNEP program on the ecology issues sees this convention as a model for six further regional seas. 1992 the updated Helsinki Convention was signed and ratified by all states bordering Baltic sea and by EU Commission. The Helsinki Commission - Baltic Marine Environment Protection Commission - (“HELCOM”), where EU, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Russian Federation, Finland, Sweden and Estonia are represented, is the governing body of the Helsinki Convention. HELCOM takes decisions unanimously. Decisions on the measures of nature conservation usually are recommendations and are subject to implementation in the framework of national legislation. A key objective of Helsinki Convention is to prevent and liquidate pollution, thus furthering secure ecological regeneration of the Baltic Sea area and maintaining its ecological balance. Helsinki Convention includes registration system of large-size vessels and vessels transporting dangerous goods. Environmental protection system in the framework of Helsinki Convention comprises a number of express prohibitions (prohibition to discharge DDT and PCB, prohibition of waste dumping into the sea; prohibition of any dumping except of the earth after excavation activities) and beside of that it contains some programme statements, requiring development of further recommendations. Monitoring and periodical assessments of the marine conditions are being held by all Baltic states. So, in 1988 and 1989 programmes of data acquisition and summarization on pollution of Baltic marine area have been implemented. In 1991 the first condition assessment of all coastal waters has been carried out by the HELCOM experts group. It shall be noted that the policy of Baltic states concerning Baltic area is not limited with the joint investigations. Declaration of 1988, signed by the environment ministers testifies the agreement to reduce inputs of nitrate, organic matters and heavy metals into the Baltic sea to 50%. In 1992 the 14 states that signed the Baltic Convention in cooperation with credit institutes launched implementation of Comprehensive Joint Activity Program aimed on the improvement of marine conditions of Baltic sea within the next two decades. By the realization of Nord Stream project the most serious attention is to be paid to some HELCOM Recommendations. HELCOM Recommendation 15/5 "\System of the coastal and marine protected areas in the Baltic sea"



Adopted on March 10, 1994. In accordance with the Recommendation member states of the Convention have to take measures to organize the system of coastal and marine protected areas in the Baltic sea (BSPA). HELCOM Recommendation 9/1 "On Protection of the seals in the Baltic Sea Region" Adopted on February 15, 1988. In accordance with the Recommendation member states of the Convention have to "exert efforts on design of nature reserves for the seals to conserve the genetic fond of declining populations of the Baltic seals" Convention on Environmental Impact Assessment in a Transboundary Context, Espoo, Finland, 1991 As the Nord Stream pipeline runs through the waters of 5 states (Russia, Finland, Sweden, Denmark, Germany) the question about the transboundary effects caused by implementing of the project gains in urgency. In 1991 the Convention on assessment of enviromental impact in transboundary aspect (designated also as Espoo Convention) has been signed. Since then the Convention has been ratified by the absolute majority of European states including all states of Baltic region. Russian Federation has signed the Convention, yet it is not a Party of the latter. Nevertheless Russia will act as Party of Origin as far as it corresponds to its national legislation. Clause 8 of Appendix I to the Convention defines large-diameter oil and gas pipelines as objects in relation to which the Convention is to be invoked and for which the EIA in transboundary context is required. Nord Stream completely fits that Clause and thus falls under a jurisdiction of the Convention. Hence let us briefly consider the main provosions of the Convention and the defined procedures. Article 2 of the Convention describes general principles of Convention implementation and EIA application in the transboundary context, so we present a selection of quotations from it: «2. Each Party shall take the necessary legal, administrative or other measures to implement the provisions of this Convention, including ... the establishment of an environmental impact assessment procedure that permits public participation and preparation of the environmental impact assessment documentation. 3. The Party of origin shall ensure that in accordance with the provisions of this Convention an environmental impact assessment is undertaken prior to a decision to authorize or undertake a proposed activity. 4. The Party of origin shall, consistent with the provisions of this Convention, ensure that affected Parties are notified of a proposed activity. 6. The Party of origin shall provide, in accordance with the provisions of this Convention, an opportunity to the public in the areas likely to be affected to participate in relevant environmental impact assessment procedures regarding proposed activities and shall ensure that the opportunity provided to the public of the affected Party is equivalent to that provided to the public of the Party of origin.



Volume 8. Book 1. Offshore section. Part 1. EIA pр. 101

7. Environmental impact assessments in accordance with the provisions of Convention shall, as a minimum requirement, be undertaken at the project level of the proposed activity. To the extent appropriate, the Parties shall endeavour to apply the principles of environmental impact assessment to policies, plans and programmes. In the following articles (as well as in recommendations and guidances added to Convention) activities of the Party of impact origin (PO) and of the Affected Party (AP) are described. The procedure can be summarized as follows: 1. Party of impact origin sends Notification on the proposed activity, including brief description of the project and its possible transboundary impact (recommended form of Notification is provided in Annexes to Convention) to competent authorities (CO) of affected states. 2 AP shall respond to the PO, indicating whether it intends to participate in the EIA procedure or not, and also provides (at the request of CA) the relevant information regarding the EIA procedure. To coordinate further activities Party may establish a joint (bilateral and multilateral) body. 3 The program of EIA is to be submitted by CA of PO to CA of AP to display and agree with concerned authorities and public. Furthermore the public of AP has to be informed on proposed activity not later than the public of PO and dispose over the same time for display the documentation. Public participation may be fulfilled with the help of mass-media, Internet, in form of public meetings etc. 4 CO of AP will submit to CO of PO comments, objections or additions to the EIA program. 5 CO of PO will submit to CO of AP the Report on EIA and project documentation to display and agree with concerned authorities and public (s. c. 3). 6 CA of AP will submit to CA PO its comments, objections regarding EIA Report and project at large. 7. CA of PO will provide to CA of AP the final decision on the proposed activity, this information shall also become available to the public of AP. The other articles of Convention deal with procedures of dispute settlement, signing and ratifying of Convention etc. As it was defined by the Parties of impact origin (Germany, Russia, Denmark, Sweden and Finland) and the Affected Parties (Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia) on the meetings in Hamburg (Germany) on April 19-20 and May 9, the procedures of Espoo Convention will be applied to the Nord Stream project in full, although in a slightly modified form. The latter results from the fact that 5 states of impact origin are at the same time affected parties, and the project as a whole is not appropriate to be divided into "national" sectors. Therefore the decision about preparation of the consolidated Notification and the consolidated EIA program for all states was taken.




Germany, Denmark, Finland and Sweden consider themselves as Parties of origin in terms of Convention. Russian Federation has signed the Convention, yet it is not a Party of the latter. Nevertheless Russia will act as Party of Origin as far as it corresponds its national legislation. All 9 states of the Baltic region, including Germany, Denmark, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Russian Federation, Finland, Sweden and Estonia are regarded as Affected Parties in terms of Espoo Convention. The requirement to notify the neighbour states on the proposed activity likely to have a transboundary impact on the environment is contained in the Article 7 of Convention on the protection of the marine environment of the Baltic Sea area (Helsinki, 1992) ratified by the Russian Federation. Convention on the Prevention of Pollution of the Sea by Oil, London, 12 May 1954. This Convention defines that all the vessels shall have an equipment preventing leakage of fuel oil and diesel in oil contaminated waters, which content is discharged into the sea without being first cleaned in oil-water separator. Geneva Convention on the High Seas, 1958 It defines that each state has to take necessary measures to ensure safety of the ships flying its flag, i.a. with respect to:

• use of the signals, maintaining contacts and collision prevention,

• labour conditions of the crews with respect to relevant international legal acts on labour,

• construction, equipment of the vessels and their sailing characteristics. Every state has to issue rules to prevent marine water pollution by the oil from vessels. International SOLAS-74 Convention and the Protocol 1988 to it with amendments 1993-1999 which became part of the Rules of Russian Marine Sailing register (RMSR). SOLAS-74 Convention:

• establishes comprehensive number of minimum standards concerning safe vessels construction and core safety equipment (fire prevention, navigational, rescuing, radio equipment etc.) that has to be available on board;




• requires vessel and its equipment to be maintained in the state ensuring its aptness at sea

without any danger for the vessel and people on board;

• contains operational instructions, i.a. concerning procedures by accidents and provides regular inspections of the vessel and its equipment, issuing of compliance certificates.

International Convention on Liability and Compensation for Damage in Connection with the Carriage of Hazardous And Noxious Substances By Sea, London, May 3, 1996 This convention defines the responsibility limits and size of damage compensation resulting from pollution of environment, and also procedure of such compensation.

1.7.2. National environmental and nature management legislation during construction of offshore section of Russian sector of Nord Stream pipeline

The nature conservation legislation of Russia concerning construction of the offshore gas pipelines and the assessment preparation of environmental impact of proposed activity is based on following documents:

1. Water Code of the Russian Federation (Federal Law No.167-FZ of 16 November 1995 versions No. 201-FZ of 04.12.2006, No. 232-FZ of 18.12.2006, No. 118-FZ of 26.06.2007, No. 258-FZ of 08.11.2007, No. 261-FZ of 08.11.2007 , No. 333-FZ of 06.12.2007).

Baseline norms and the legislative control principles for water resources use and aquatic medium protection are regulated on the federal level by the Water Code of the Russian Federation No. 74-FZ of 03.06.06, Federal Laws "On environmental protection" No. 7-FZ of 10.01.2002, "On fees for use of aquatic objects" No. 71-FZ of 06.05.98, and "On introducing amendments and additions in the Federal Law "On fees for use of aquatic objects" No. 111-FZ as of 07.08.1998. The Federal Law "On environmental protection" i. a. states: "Authority scope of Russian state bodies concerning relationships associated with environmental protection includes: «... ensuring of the environmental protection, particularly aquatic medium on the continental shelf in the EEZ of Russia" (Article 5). It is also indicated that the environmental impact is paid and the mode of payment for adverse effect on the environment is defined by the Federal Laws. Adverse effects on the environment include: emissions of pollutants and other matters into the atmospheric air;




discharge of polluting substances, other matters and microorganisms into the surface and ground water bodies and into the water-collection areas (Article 16). Russian water legislation (Water code) regulates relationships in the domain of aquatic objects use and conservation, i.a. for maintaining the optimal water use conditions; for maintaining surface and ground waters in state complying with sanitary and ecological norms, for protection of aquatic objects from pollution and clogs; for conservation of biological diversity of aquatic ecosystems. In relation to physical geographical, hydro-condition and other features water objects are divided into: surface water bodies, internal seawaters, territorial sea of Russia, ground water objects. The internal seawaters and territorial sea of Russia constitute the state property. Rights to use water bodies are being acquired on a basis of the licence for water use and the respective water use agreement. Licences are being issued, executed and registered by MNR of Russia and its territorial bodies responsible for the agreement with executive authorities concerned. A water use agreement is compulsory for all facilities that have obtained a licence. Granting the use of a water body is exercised pursuant to the "Rules for granting the use of publicly owned water bodies, establishing and revising of the water usage limits, issuing of the water use licence and administrative licence" adopted by the Decree of the Russian Government No. 383 of April 3, 1997. By localizing, planning and constructing of offshore section of Russian sector of Nord Stream pipeline its possible impact on the conditions of the aquatic objects and their environment shall be taken into account (Art. 105). According to Russian legislation Nord Stream pipeline project shall be approved by specially authorized bodies, responsible for water use and protection, by specially authorized state bodies for environmental protection, by State body for Sanitary and Epidemiological Supervision. State Ecological Expert Examination of the project documentation shall be performed prior to the beginning of the construction (Art. 80). According to the Water Code (Art. 82, 90 and 109) standartization of the water use is conducted implying: defining of the water use limits (water consumption and discharge); defining of the standartized maximum permissible levels of adverse impact on the aquatic bodies.




2. "On Inside Sea Areas, Territorial Sea and Nearest Sea Water of the Russian Federation"

(Federal Law No. 155-FZ of July 31, 1998, version of August 22, 2004 No. 122-FZ (version of December 29, 2004), of November 08, 2007 No. 261-FZ).

This Federal Law defined conducting of the economic and other activities in the inside sea waters, territorial sea and nearest sea water. Article 16, Clause 4. Procedures of construction, operation and use of artificial islands, installations and plants for any purpose, and also laying of pipelines in the inside waters and territorial sea for any purpose are defined by the Russian Government. Article 32. Protection and conservation of the marine environment, nature resources of the inside sea waters and territorial sea are fulfilled by the specially authorised federal executive bodies within their authorities, and the respective executive bodies of the Russian subjects in compliance with Russian legislation and international agreements signed by Russia. Article 33, Clause 2. The marine environment of the inside sea waters and territorial sea are maintained in the state complying with the environmental requirements, which is ensured by the defining and monitoring of the standardized maximal allowed concentrations of the pollutants and standardized maximal allowed impact on the marine environment of the inside sea waters and territorial sea and other requirements and measures defined by the Russian legislation on the environmental protection and the Russian water legislation. All kinds of economical and other activities in the internal marine waters and territorial sea are to be conducted only by the obtained positive decision of the State Environmental Expertise.

3. "On the continental shelf of Russia" (Federal Law No 187-FZ of November 30, 1995, version No. 188-FZ of November 4, 2006, No. 333-FZ of December 6, 2007).

Present Federal Law i.a. defines conducting of the economic and other activities on continental shelf. Activity on the continental shelf is conducted with respect to ship traffic, fishery, marine scientific investigations, other lawful activities and also with respect to ensured protection and conservation of marine environment, mineral and living resources. Activities on construction of artificial islands, installations and plants, and laying of the pipeline shall comply with the norms of Russian and international right provided that no disturbance for the regional geological investigation of the continental shelf, exploration and development of mineral resources or exploitation of the living resources, exploitation and repairing of the already laid cables and pipelines are caused, and the measures for protection and conservation of the environment are taken.




Requests on construction of artificial islands, installation and plants on the continental shelf shall be presented, reviewed, evaluated by the present Federal Law and international agreements signed by Russia, these are also define the procedure on taking decisions on these requests. Applicants who obtained the permission to construct an artificial islands installations and plants must:

• satisfy the present Federal Law and international agreements signed by Russia;

• ensure safe work of the permanent means signalling the presence of artificial islands, installations and plants;

• ensure free access to the artificial islands, installations and plants for the officers of

security bodies;

• regularly communicate with coast guards of Russia and transmit within the adopted international synoptic timeframe operative data of meteorological and hydrological surveys to the nearest radio-meteorological centre of Russia in compliance with the procedures of World Meteorological Organization.

Underwater pipelines are internationally protected in compliance with the norms of international right.

4. «On the Exclusive Economical Zone of Russian Federation» (Federal Law No. 191-FZ of 17 December, 1998, version No. 126-FZ of 8 August 2001, No. 31-FZ of 21 March 2002, No. 48-FZ of 22 April 2003, No. 86-FZ of 30 June 2003, No.148 of 11 November, 2003, No. 90-FZ of 18 July 2005, 188-FZ of 4 November 2006, No. 333-FZ of 6 December 2007).

Present Federal Law defines status of the exclusive economical zone of Russia, sovereign rights and jurisdiction of Russia in its exclusive economical zone and their exercising in compliance with Constitution of Russia, universally recognized principles and norms of international right and and international contracts signed by Russia. Questions concerning Russian exclusive economical zone and activities conducted there, not envisaged by the present Federal Law shall be regulated by other federal laws, applicable for Russian exclusive economical zone and conducted there activities. In the internal sea waters, territorial sea, on the continental shelf and in the exclusive economical zone the sovereign rights are being exercised by Russia for exploration, development and conservation of nonliving resources and control of such resources, exploration of the sea bottom and its subsoil. Regulation of the activities on exploration and development of nonliving resources, as well as their protection falls within the competence of the Government of Russian Federation.




Authority scope of federal control bodies in the internal sea waters, territorial sea and continental shelf and in the exclusive economical zone comprises:

• defining of the investigation strategy of finding, exploration and development of nonliving resources, protection and conservation of marine environment on base of federal strategies, programs and plans with respect to conclusions of the state ecological expert examination;

• management of the subsoil of Russian continental shelf;

• regulating the procedure of non-living resources exploitation including the procedure of

licencing with respect to proposals made by Russian local executive bodies of the territories adjacent to the seashore;

• registering research, exploration and extraction of non-living resources activities,

accumulating the federal reserve balance of non-living resources;

• imposing restrictions on exploitation of subsoil in specific areas for the purpose of enforcing national security and environmental protection;

• controlling the rational exploitation and preservation of of non-living resources, protecting

the marine environment in cooperation with Russian local authorities of the territories adjacent to the seashore;

• conducting SEECSs, state environmental inspections and state environmental monitoring

in cooperation with Russian local executive bodies of the territories adjacent to the seashore.

According to the Federal Law on the Russian Continental Shelf and the Federal Law on Subsoil Resources, certain sections on the continental shelf can be allocated for regional geological research of the continental shelf in order to evaluate the potential of oil and gas content of vast regions on the continental shelf (regional geological and geophysical activities, geological survey, geotechnical surveys, resource studies and other activities not causing significant damage to the subsoil integrity). These sections are geometrical units, and their parameters are specified in the licence to perform regional geological research of the continental shelf, exploration and extraction of mineral resources, including the area of the seabed with coordinates of its borders. Holders of such sections are obliged to follow applicable internationals regulations and standards, laws and rules of the Russian Federation on protection of the marine environment, and mineral and living resources.




Resource studies of non-living resources, search, exploration and extraction thereof can be performed by Russian citizens, Russian entities, foreign residents and foreign entities, foreign states and competent international organisations in possession of a licence to study, search, explore and extract non-living resources, granted by a specially authorised federal executive body for geology and subsoil exploitation, subject to approval by specially authorised federal bodies: for defence, fishing, environmental and natural resources protection, defence industries, at notice of specially authorised federal bodies: for border guard, for science and engineering policy, for custom affairs. The licence certifies the right to conduct activities of geological research of the subsoil. The state licencing system is a single procedure of granting licences, which includes informational, scientific analytical, economic and legal preparation and handling of materials. The state licencing system aims to provide:

• implementation of state programmes of mining industry and mineral raw material base development;

• enforcement of national security of Russian Federation;

• protection of social, economic, environmental and other interests of the population;

• equal opportunities to all entities and citizens when obtaining a licence;

• development of market relations, conduct of antitrust policy in the field of the subsoil

exploitation;

• indispensable guarantees to licence holders and protection of their rights to exploit the subsoil.

Rights and responsibilities of the holder arise at the moment of the licence grant. The following information should present in the licence:

• on ecological provision of section usage, including environmental monitoring, coordinated methods for recovering damages to living resources;

• on measures to prevent and eliminate emergency situations;

• on insurance.

It is prohibited to include in the licence: nature reserves, sanctuaries, areas of conservation or other specially protected territories on the continental shelf, that are important for preservation, reproduction and migration of valuable living resources.




Protection and preservation of the marine environment and natural resources of the internal seawaters, the territorial sea and the exclusive economic zone are organised in compliance with the Russian legislation and international treaties of Russian Federation by specially authorised federal executive bodies within the limits of their authority and by the relevant local executive bodies of the subjects of Russian Federation. In order to maintain the marine environment of the internal seawaters, the territorial sea and the exclusive economic zone in condition that meets the relevant environmental requirements, standards for maximum allowable concentrations of harmful substances and standards for maximum allowable impact on the marine environment of the internal seawaters and the territorial sea, as well as other requirements and measures under the Russian law on environmental protection and the water legislation of Russia, are introduced and followed.

5. Decree No. 251 of the Government of the Russian Federation of 24 March, 2000, List of Hazardous Substances, Prohibited to Be Discharged from Vessels, Other Floating Facilities, Aircrafts, Artificial Islands, Installations and Structures within the Russian Exclusive Economic Zone.

This decree contains a list of hazardous substances, prohibited to be discharged from vessels within the exclusive economic zone.

6. Decree No. 748 of the Russian Government of 3 October 2000 on Maximum Allowed Concentrations and Conditions for Discharging Harmful Substances within the Russian

Exclusive Economic Zone. In decree No. 748 of the Government maximum allowed concentrations of harmful substances, allowed to be discharged, are specified. As well as conditions for discharging harmful substances.

7. Decree No. 950 of the of Russia of 29 August 1997 on Measures to Ensure Protection of the Marine biological resources and the State Regulation in This Field.

1.7.3. National legislation and EIA guidelines The following documents comprise the fundamentals of the Russian legislation:

• On Environmental Protection (Federal Law of 10 January, 2002 No. 7-FZ, rev. of 26 June, 2007 No. 118-FZ).

• "On SEECS" (Federal Law of 23 November, 1995 No. 174-FZ, rev. of 18 December, 2006

232-FZ).




• Regulation on the Environmental Impact Assessment of a Planned Economic or Other

Activity in Russian Federation (adopted by the order of Goskomekologia of 16 May, 2000 No. 372).

• SP 11-102-97. Ecological-engineering surveys for construction.

• Practical guide to SP 11-101-95 for development of section "Environmental Impact

Assessment when justifying for the investment substantiation in construction of plants, buildings and structures" (recommended for use by Goskomekologia of Russia of 19 June, 1998, Gosstroy of Russia, Centerinvestproject State Enterprise, 1998).

Main provisions of the EIA procedure are summarized as follows:

1. Environmental impact assessment is conducted in relation to planned economic and other activities that can cause direct or indirect impact on the environment, irrespective of the legal status of an entity carrying out economic or other activities.

2. The environmental impact assessment is conducted during the development of all

alternatives of pre-project (including pre-investment) and project documentation) which substantiates planned economic and other activities in cooperation with public associations.

3. The requirements to the environmental impact assessment materials are introduced by

federal executive bodies which perform state regulation in the field of environmental protection (Article 32).

Federal Law "On the State Environmental Expert Committee Survey" No.174-FZ as of 23 November, 1995 directly refers to the environmental impact assessment, where conducting of the state environmental expert committee surveys is determined by the presence of "documentation .. , containing the environmental impact assessment materials ..." (Article 14, Item 1, Paragraph 2) among the presented materials. A more detailed regulation of the EIA procedure can be found in "Regulation on the Environmental Impact Assessment of a Planned Economic or Other Activity in Russian Federation" (EIA Provisions), adopted by Order of Goskomekologia of 16 May 2000, No. 372. Discussions of the proposed economic activity, governed by the EIA Provisions, with the community is an inseparable part of the EIA procedure. The discussions are held by local self-governing authorities. According to the "Regulations of the Offshore Pipeline Design and Construction" VN 39-1.9-00598, all environmental protection activities must be included in the approved EIA plan when designing an offshore pipelines system. The EIA plan must incorporate a set of structural, construction and technological measures for environmental protection.




During the EIA development the following factors are considered (quoted selectively):

• evaluation of the present and projected environmental conditions and risk with a reference to the risk source (technological impacts) and potential damages;

• measures to monitor the technical condition of offshore pipelines system and promptly

eliminate emergencies;

• monitoring of environmental conditions within the region. Federal Law of 10 January, 2002 No. 7-FZ "On Environmental Protection" contains an article on environmental expert committee survey (Article 33). It notes: "The SEECS is organised and held by a federal executive body for environmental expert assessment and by Russian local authorities in accordance with the procedure provided in the present Federal Law, other regulatory documents of Russia, local laws and other regulatory documents." The purpose of such a survey is to ensure that the proposed economic or other activity complies with environmental protection requirements. The procedure for the environmental expert committee survey is set by the Federal Law On Environmental Expert Assessment. A specific nature of the environmental expert committee survey is reflected in the Federal Law of 23 November, 1995 No 174-FZ "On the State Environmental Expert Committee Survey". According to the first-mentioned law: There are three targets for the SEECS at the federal level: 1) drafts of normative-technical and instructive-methodical documentation on environmental protection, approved by Russian public authorities; 2) projects of federal target programmes covering the construction and operation of facilities of economic activities that cause an environmental impact, in terms of their location with regard to the level of protection of natural sites. 3) draft of production sharing agreements; 4) documentation in support of an application for a licence for an activity that can cause environmental impacts, where the issuance of such licences is within the competence of the federal executive bodies according to the Russian law;




5) drafts of technical documentation for new equipment and technology that can cause environmental impacts as well as technical documentation for new substances that are likely to enter the natural environment; 6) data of the comprehensive environmental survey of areas, that substantiates granting these areas the legal status of specially protected natural territories of federal importance, ecological disaster zone or environmental emergency zone; 7) the targets for the SEECS, mentioned in the Federal Law of 30 November 1995 No. 187-FZ "On the Continental Shelf of Russian Federation", Federal Law of 17 December, 1998 No. 191-FZ "On the Exclusive Economic Zone of Russian Federation", Federal Law of 31 July 1998 No. 155-FZ "On the Internal Seawaters, Territorial Sea and Adjoining Zone of Russian Federation". 8) a target for the SEECS, mentioned in the present article and formerly approved by the SEECS, in case of: enhancement of such a target with respect to comments provided by the previous SEECS; target implementation with deviations from the documentation approved by the SEECS and in case of corrections made in the aforementioned documentation. the expiry of the approval by the SEECS (Article 11).

1.8. Compliance of Project documentation with National Legislation EIA Requirements

In accordance with a practice of preparing investment documentation and Item 4.1 provisions of SNiP 11-01-95 "Instruction for Development, Coordination, Approval and Contents of the Project Documentation for Constructing Plants, Buildings, and Structures" regulatory document, a range of sections of documentation in EIA, specified by the Annex 2 to the Provisions for assessing environmental impacts of the proposed economic or other activity in Russia (adopted by Order of Goskomekologia of Russia of 16 May, 2000 No. 372), are included in the project documentation in volumes of feasibility study, mentioned below.

1.8.1. Explanatory Report for documentation in support A general explanatory report is presented in the project documentation as a separate volume 1. General Explanation Report (G-PE-LFR-REP-101-01000000).




1.8.2. Measures to prevent and/or mitigate possible adverse environmental impacts

The description of measures taken to prevent and/or mitigate potential adverse effect on the environment is included in the project documentation as separate volumes on environmental protection (Vol. 8. Book 1. Part 2. Environmental Protection of the Offshore Section of the Pipeline (G-PE-LFR-EIA-101-08010200) and Vol. 8. Book 2. Part 2. Environmental Protection of the Onshore Section of the Pipeline (G-PE-LFR-EIA-101- 08020200).

1.8.3. Uncertainties in the Environmental Impact Assessment of a planned economic or other activity revealed during the assessment

The main uncertainty of the completed EIA of the project is current lack of information on methods of decommissioning of pipeline to be carried not earlier than in 50 years, in accordance with legal requirements and technologies that will be then applicable.

1.8.4. Outline of monitoring programmes and post-project analysis A detailed description of the environmental monitoring programme can be found in a separate volume of documentation of the feasibility study for the current project (Vol. 8. Environmental Protection). Book 3. Industrial environmental monitoring and audit (IEMA)) G-PE-LFR-EIA-101- 08030000. According to Appendix V of the Convention on Environmental Impact Assessment in a Transboundary Aspect, the post-project analysis includes the following: (а) controlling the compliance with conditions set forth in the approval or stipulated at the time of approval of the activity and the efficiency of mitigation measures; (b) analysing an impact type in order to ensure an adequate level of control and responsive potential in uncertain conditions; (c) checking earlier forecasts to leverage the accumulated experience in the future when performing similar activities. The implementation of the industrial environmental monitoring and audit (IEMA) programme after the completion of the project would allow to reach the main targets of post-project analysis (see the aforementioned Book 3 of Vol. 8 of the feasibility study documentation (Industrial environmental monitoring and audit (IEMA) G-PE-LFR-EIA-101- 08030000).




2. NATURE USE RESTRICTIONS Nature use restrictions are a legally adopted responsibility imposed on economic activities when work is performed in the areas with a special level of protection: specially protected natural territories, water protection zones, coastal shelter belts, ranges of rare species of animals and plants, spawning grounds, and hazardous exogenous geological processes. This responsibility is introduced in order to avoid deterioration of environmental quality.

2.1. Specially protected natural territories Construction of the offshore section of the Nord Stream pipeline in the Russian sector does not affect specially protected natural areas (SPNA) of federal, regional or local importance (Appendix to Chapter 2). A brief description of the SPNA sections closest to the proposed pipeline route is given below. According to the letter of 2 August, 2007 by Rosprirodnadzor of the Leningrad region (Appendix to Chapter 2), the offshore section route of the Nord Stream pipeline does not affect areas of the proposed Ingermanlandsky state nature reserve. The nature reserve will enable Russia to fulfil its obligations to HELCOM to protect the Baltic marine environment, the Baltic Sea Joint Comprehensive Environmental Action Programme (JCP), as well as the Ramsar Convention on Waterfowl Habitats Conservation. The main purposes for this nature reserve:

• To preserve reference natural complexes of the Eastern Baltic, to maintain biodiversity.

• To preserve traditional migrating wetland bird rest sites to maintain the functioning of the migration passage from the White Sea to the Baltic Sea.

• To preserve waterfowl (or the like) mass nesting places, to protect habitats of rare and

threatened species.

• To preserve habitats of the Red Book marine mammal species - grey seal and ringed seal.

• To realize international agreements from Russian side concerning environmental action programmes in the Baltic area including creation of SPNA in bordering with Finland area; integration with international SPNA system in the Baltic Sea.

Proposed Strict Nature Reserve consists of 9 islands; the distance to the pipeline route is:

SPNA The distance to the proposed Nord Stream pipeline route Min (km) Average (km)

Dolgy Kamen 4,2 7,7 Kopytin 14,6 15,5 Bolshoy Fiskar 2,9 3,2




SPNA The distance to the proposed Nord Stream pipeline route |

Min (km) Average (km) Skala Hally 9 10 Virginy 16,8 18,6 Maly Tuters 28,5 33,3 Bolshoy Tuters 31,6 35,7 Skala Virgund 38,6 43,3 Seskar 34 38,4 The closest to the proposed pipeline is Bolshoy Fiskar Archipelago - total area of all islands is about 7 ha, marine area is 204 ha. The border of the territory passes over a marine area at 10-meter isobath. Border length is about 13 km. The section is not colonised. Part of Mannonen island (0.01 ha) with a lighthouse with battery power unit is excluded from the section. The archipelago is very interesting with its numerous birds breeding colonies. There are colonies of great cormorants, gulls including black-backed gull, Caspian tern, Arctic tern, large and medium mergansers, common eider, kiddaw and razorbill. Water area around the islands is used by fish eating birds to forage. Prigranichny nature reserve of regional importance is located at a distance of 4 km. The nature reserve is located on the coast and Gulf of Finland islands, near Russian-Finnish border. Its northern border comes from Finnish border (at 60°33' N; 27°49' E) along Kirovskaya Bay coast). Eastern border is along Chistopolskaya bay coast line from Serga river mouth to Cape Urpalanniemi (at 60°29' N; 28 °00' E). Southern border is from Cape Urpalanniemi along coast line to Gorny Island, then on marine area south-eastward at 10-meter isobath to the crossing of the isobath with Finnish border at 60°28' N.; 27°44' E. Western border is along Finnish border from 60° 28.20' N; 27°44.80' E. Nature reserve area is about 5,825 ha, of these land is about 3,225 ha and marine area is about 2,600 ha. The main purposes of the nature reserve are:

• maintaining biological diversity;

• preservation of rare animal and plants included in Red Books of the Russian Federation, Baltic region, Eastern Fennoskandia, Leningrad Region and specially protected objects in Europe;

• preservation of migrating wetland bird rest sites and flying routes from the White Sea to

the Baltic Sea.




Suursaari is 6.6 km from pipeline route. The nature reserve is created in order to preserve unique geological structure of Gogland island with its scenic nature, peculiar relief, many rare and sensitive species of of flora and fauna (fig.2-1). Nature reserve area is 1,044 ha. The overall length of nature reserve borders is 25.5 km.

Figure 2-1. Suursaari proposed nature reserve landscape

The nature reserve is designed by St.Petersburg University Institute of Biology in 2003-2004 to preserve valuable geological, hydrobiological, geobotanical and botanical, zoological objects, including ornithological and theriological. Existing nature reserves of regional importance are to the pipeline route: The Beryozovye Islands - 15 km, Vyborgsky - 19 km, Kurgalsky - 34.7 km respectively. Pohjaskorkija proposed natural monument is 3 km from pipeline offshore section route.

2.2. Geological Nature Use Restrictions Main nature use restrictions during offshore section construction related to geologic environment and relief conditions involve:

• ice gouging development within the Portovaya Bay;

• high degree of breaks in deep-water route section;

• distribution of lithodynamic processes in in the coastal zone of construction area.




2.3. Specially protected rare bird and mammal species

The analysis of contemporary state of bird fauna shows that bird fauna in Nord Stream offshore pipeline proposed section area in Russian waters has rich diversity of species and large proportion of rare, specially protected species (bittern, mute swan, gadwall). See Section 3.6 of these Volume for detailed description of specially protected bird species. There are three species of seal in the Baltic Sea: grey seal (Halichoerus grypus), harbour seal (Phoca vitulina) and ringed seal (Pusa hispida). All these species are included in the Red Book of Russia and International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources [259]. Chosen pipeline route does not cross seal migration routes included in Russian Red Book and does not coincide with seal rendezvous positions outside migration seasons (see Appendix to Chapter 2). The project includes measures to reduce adverse impact on animal life during Nord Stream offshore pipeline construction, described in Volume 8. Book 1. Part 2. EP Conclusion: Chosen Nord Stream offshore pipeline route does not affect SPNAs of federal, regional or local importance, both existing and proposed.




3. CURRENT ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS

3.1. Geological And Geomorphological Characteristics

3.1.1. Tectonics and seismicity The seabed in the Gulf of Finland in proposed offshore section area of Russian sector of Nord Stream pipeline has typical platform two-layer morphology. Lower layer is a foundation formed by North Karelian plicate zones with possible presence of transformed anticline or block anticline Archaean structures. It is further formed with masses and small negative structures of Gothic layer, its peneplained surface is sunk at an angle of maximum 15' - 25' south-south-eastward. The foundation with sharp structure unconformity is overlapped almost entirely with plate mantle forming upper laying and presented by late Baykal complex. It has flat-lying monoclinal bedding with plunge in southern rumbs. The research data shows the sameness of strata isohypse foundation surface drawing and Vendic mantle plates which emphasises preserving stratigraphic power of individual subdivisions and secondary denudation nature of their cutting. Dead mantle embedding is complicated with faults and flexures in some places. There are slight changes of regional trap slope angle [58]. As such, regarding faults in the mantle, one can speak about low amplitude of their dip slip which is not more than 10 to 20 m, nonlinearity, "segmenting" of transgressions in scheme, or their development in the mantle, and unstable stretch parameters, as well as prevailing north-east and east-west stretch, which indicates extremely weak reactivation of old structural scheme. According to Map of general seismic zoning of Russian Federation territory OSR-97 (SNiP II-7-81 (2000) "Construction in seismic areas", proposed offshore section of Russian sector of Nord Stream pipeline is within the area of shocks of force 5 on MSK-64 scale (fig. 3.1-1) for average soil.




Figure 3.1-1. Map of design seismicity with the area of proposed pipeline route

In the map of Northern Eurasia OSR-97 construction section is in ground vibration peak acceleration zone ≤0,2 m/s 2 . Source zones (SZ) maps, included in this set of maps, which is the base for seismicity calculations, can be found on Fig. 3.1-2.

Figure 3.1-2. Source zone (SZ) fragment of OSR-97 for proposed object placement area




According to the map, pipeline route is within large, stretched north-eastward domain where Ммах is 4. In joined domains to the north-east and south-west of the Gulf of Finland Ммах is defined as 3.5. Return period of seismic events is unknown in all cases or more than 5,000 years. A significant part of source zones is not in isometric areas, but in linear zones (in figure 3.1-3 are indicated as I, II, III, IV).

Legend: 1 – earthquake focuses, symbol size is equal to М/60 magnitude; 2 – zones of seismic activity; 3 – Nord Stream pipeline Russian section.

Figure 3.1-3. St. Petersburg area earthquakes Zone of seismic activity (III) in the immediate vicinity of the route has low activity (М – from 2 to 3) and shallow embedding of sources (Н – from 1 to 5 km). Within the zone, near Loviisa nuclear power plant in Finland, a high-frequency digital seismograph net of four stations worked in 1990s. During 1987-1989 this net recorded 29 microquakes with М≈⁄=2. Here in 1951-1956 the largest swarm in Finland with about 100 weak events of force 4 occurred in 1951-1956. There are no natural resources in the list of State Reserves Register within Russian sector of Nord Stream offshore pipeline. By Decrees of Russian Government dated 07.02.2006 No. 170-r, 171-r, 172-r, OOO Petrotrans was granted a right to use a section of Russian territorial sea subsoil in the Gulf of Finland in order to explore and extract ferrimanganese concretions of Vikhrevoye, Koporskoye, Kurgalskoye fields. The border of the latter, near Sommers island, is 7 km to the south of the offshore pipeline corridor (Appendix 3.1-1).




3.1.2. Geological structure of pre-quaternary sediments

Lower - upper Proterozoic (poorly defined formations) (PR 1-2). Pre-quaternary sediments in the Gulf of Finland basin include Archaean-early Proterozoic metamorphic and intrusive complexes forming lower structural layer, and Vendic - Phanerozoe plate mantle rock of upper layer. In spite of additional interpretation factors, such as some static spatial differences in metamorphic and intrusive complexes relief as well as distinctness of Hogland acidic effusives (due to the highest erosion resistance), division of Lappee type granitoids and effusives of Hogland series seems to be almost impossible. For this reason, these formations within proposed pipeline zone are described as poorly defined (PR 1-2). Lower Proterozoic (PR1). Among early Proterozoic formations there are quartzite, carbonate rock. aluminous gneiss and amphibolites found in seabed rock material and on Gulf of Finland islands. They differ with mosaic-linear slightly reduced magnetic field different from the one typical to Vyborg mass phases. Some indirect data shows that the presence of similar formations is possible within sags of rapakivi overlying bed of east-west zone of increased differential magnetic field south of Bolshoy Berezovy island, including south-east tip of the latter. It is proposed that the rock is represented by migmatised garnet-biotite and cordierite-garnet-biotite gneiss, as well as development in amphibolites cut. There are no direct geologic data on composition and age of the complex. Upper Proterozoic (PR2). Lower Riphean (R3). Stratified rock, starting pre-quaternary sediments cut, are represented by lower Riphean sediments and vulcanites (upper Proterozoic). Most of them are on Gogland island, they also outcropped on Bolshoy and Maly Sommers islands. These rocks are described as separate poorly defined Hogland series. Upper Proterozoic (PR2). Upper vend (V2), Valday series. Sedimentary mantle is represented almost everywhere by Valday Vend series sediments which are bedded gently monoclinally with dominated very weak in 0.2о - 0.3о dip southward or south-south-eastward. Sandy-argillaceous formations of the series taper out northward due to secondary denudation cutting, so that erosion damage led to complex boundaries of outcrops of different subdivisions, on areal extent periphery of which there are groups of correlant buttes.




3.1.3. Geological structure of quaternary sediments

Quaternary sediments are the most representative part of the upper unconsolidated sequence of the considered seabed and at the same time, the basic foundation for the engineering projects. With the variety of material composition, morphology, thickness and distribution they practically form the continuous cover. Minimum thickness of the coverage with local areas of its absence due to erosion limited to underwater slopes of continental and island coastline. In this case, eluvial deposits comes out on the surface of the seabed up to coarse clusts or undisturbed bedrocks belonging to nondesiccated Achaean layer migmatised by composite gneiss of lower Proterozoic complex, as well as early Riphean granite intrusions of so-called Vyborg complex. The remaining areas of the seabed are overlapped by the Quaternary sediments, with the thickness directly related to the erosion desiccation of the surface of the buried original substance. For the whole area of the planned pipeline seabed, the intense activity of continental glaciation was typical during the Quaternary period, which led to the disappearance of traces of interglacial transgressions. At the seabed of the Gulf of Finland only the sediments of final stages of Ostashkovskaya glacial epoch can be reliably recognized in the form of glacial, fluvial-glacial and lacustrine-glacial deposits of Luzhskaya and Nevskaya stages of the last glaciation, overlapped by glacial lake deposits and the Holocene neptunian deposits [36]. Glacial deposits (lgIIIkr) (Moraine Luzhskaya)are presented at the seabed of the Gulf of Finland almost generally. Moraine Luzhskaya normally lies at the base of Quaternary strata, forming the structure of flow in relation to the uneven pre-quaternary layer. The thickness of Moraine Luzhskaya varies very widely reaching a maximum of 50 m with average of 20-30 m. In some places in the middle of the underwater slope of islands and along the northern shoreline of the Gulf of Finland it crops out on the seabed surface more often in the form of residual plated couplet (boulder bridge). The age of Moraine Luzhskaya is 14,000 - 13,000 years. Granulometric composition of moraine is extremely heterogeneous. Content of coarse clasts may be up to 30%, a fraction composition with less than 2.0 mm is three-component: aleuritic clay sands. Sediments gradation is very bad. Humidity ranges from 15-20% (in the east) to 25-50% (west), the density is 2.10 - 2.75 g / cm3, the adhesion is greater than 5 kPa. Granite-rapakivi are dominated in the petrographic composition of clasts. The presence of boulders «in the form of iron» with drift scratches is typical. In the float fraction predominates quartz. Feldspar, muscovite, biotite, are also present. Clay fraction consists of a mixture of micaceous clay, kaolinite and clinkstone.




Heavy mineral is mainly represented by ore minerals (39.3-37.0%), amphiboles (hornblende) (37.4-30.4%), achmatite (12.0-11.0%). Almandine-pyrope garnets (9.6-9.5%) and zircon (8.8-4.2%) are also present. Stratigraphically above glacial sediments upward the sequence are water-ice sediments (fIIIkr). Generally they are coarse-grained and medium-grained sands with the inclusion of gravel and pebbles (up to 30-35%) with high rounding level. Their thickness vary from 3-5 to 10-12 meters. Lymnetic - glacial sediments (lgIIIkr), were formed at the bottom of local glacial lakes (for the section of the Russian sector of the pipeline it is so-called Lake Ramsey) after the glacier retreat. They often form sheet-like landmasses in relief with variety of facial layers at different bathymetric levels when changing depths of the sea in the Russian sector from minimum (shoreline) to maximum 70-80 m. Their thickness ranges from 5 ÷ 15-18 m. In the north-eastern part of the Gulf of Finland lacustrine-glacial deposits are cropped out at the seabed on the periphery of islands and underwater uplifts, as well as the underwater slopes of Moshchny and Maly Islands. In general, they are not widespread because a large part of the seabed is overlapped by the Baltic glacial lake sediments. The variety of material composition of glacial lake sediments shows the whole spectrum of dimensions from finely homogeneous and varved clays to coastal gravel and pebbles formations. Mostly in the considered area they are represented by a very specific cross-rhythmically-laminated sediments, which are a banded alternation of clay and sand-clay aleurites. The thickness of straticules usually grows down the interval and in the same direction the total psephicity of sediments increases. The composition of argillites is as follows: micaceous clay (60-80%), clinkstone (9-15%), kaolinite (10-20%). Rock-forming minerals of float fraction are represented by quartz (75-89%), feldspar (10-20%), clasts (3%). The content of heavy mineral in these sediments is low (nх10-2 %). Among heavy mineral are dominated authigenous micronoddles of barium sulphate, which ranged from 30 to 100% of the heavy fraction. Among allothigenic heavy mineral are hornblende (30-70% allothigenic fraction composition 0.1-0.25 mm; 25-50% - 0.01-0.1 mm), almandine-pyrope garnets (5-30 %), black mica (0-60%), achmatite (10-20%), zircon (up to 10%), titanic iron ore (up to 4%). As an accessory minerals there are sphen, apatite, tourmaline, pyroxene. Lymnetic - glacial sediments of the Baltic glacial lake (lgIIIbl).As a result of Luzhsky (Nevski) glacier tongue retreat and the disintegration (melting) local glacial-lake basins junctioned with the formation of the single largest freshwater glacial basin known as the Baltic glacial lake. Glacial lake deposits are widely spread on the bottom of the Gulf of Finland in the form of extensive underwater terraced plains. Above sea levels of overlying bed vary from 0 to 70-80 m and thickness ranges from 3-5 to 8-10 m.




Baltic glacial lake deposits form a single sedimentary cycle consisting of a few members, regularly changing in section (bottom-upwards): banded type clays with clear binomial structure and thickness of rhythm 3-8 mm; mud shale, with lamination which resulted from the filamentary interlayers of a more rudaceous stock; clays with barely visible horizontal bedding; band clays with interdigitation of thin beige and gray stripes; the last member is a mud shales with sand-aleuritic lenses with thickness 1-3 mm, which are gradually replaced by monotonous ball-clays. Deluviums are of reddish, brown, beige, gray tones, they differ from the underlying banded clays vary by sharp decline in density. By granulometric composition these deluviums are represented by clays and silt clays (Md = 0.0005-0.005 mm) with particles less than 0.01 mm - 80-95%, and less than 0.001 mm - 40-60%. The increase of clay fraction upward the sequence, accompanied by a reduction in the number of sand particles, and the median size is typical for the described deposits. Clay minerals are represented by micaceous clay (70-85%), kaolinite (5-20%), clinkstone (7-15%). Float fraction consists of quartz (70-85%), feldspar (15-30%) and clasts (up to 6%). Among allothigenic heavy mineral are dominated: hornblende (25-45%), achmatite (0-20%), almandine-pyrope garnets (6-20%). Baltic glacial lake deposits superpose Holocenic bodies. By analogy with the adjacent territories the starting moment of the retreat of the glacier from ridge Salpauselka (10200 years ago) is considered the lower boundary of the Holocene formations in the Gulf of Finland in the stratigraphic and paleogeographic terms. Usually the Holocene deposits have low thickness (ranging from 1-2 up to several meters), although there are anomalous values up to 20-25 m. The genesis of Holocene deposits are typically associated with lymnetic and neptunian conditions reflecting postglacial stages of the Baltic Sea (Gulf of Finland) habit. There is also possible the local habit of chemogenic, biogenic and industrial sediments. Lake deposits of Lake Antsilovoye typically superpose glacial lake deposits (Karelian and the Baltic glacial lake). Their thickness is low and it ranges from the first meters (0.5 to 2.2 m). Above sea levels of overlying bed within the water area vary from -10 to -60 m and around Berezovye Islands reach +20 m. Lake Antsilovoye deposits are represented by gray or brown-gray clays or silt clays of very soft consistency. The presence of micronoddles of authigenous sulphides (hydrotroilite) forming grouped in chains concretions with 0.1-1.5 cm thickness is a differential characteristic of these sediments. Enrichment of near-contact levels by these concretions is typical (upper and lower hydrotroilite levels). In a number of cross-sections the complex of Antsilovoye lake deposits are covered by thin (20-30 cm) member monotonous blue clays, which are enriched by authigenous sulphides (micronoddles of pyrite). Another feature of the Antsilovoye lake deposits is a non-uniform composition due to the large number of small-scale (split millimeter) xenomorphic aleuritic clusters. Among Antsilovoye lake deposits there dominate well-graded sands with gyttja interlayers.




Lake Antsilovoye clays and silt clays are marked by high content of aleuritic particles (up to 25%), which leads in general to increasing of the median size and deterioration of gradation (Мdср=0.01, Sср=2.66). Particles less than 0.01 mm can take from 40 to 70 %, and less than 0.001 mm - max 30%. The predominant types of deposits are aleuritic clays along with silt clays. Humidity of Lake Antsilovoye clays is ranged from 65 to 79%, and density - from 1.55 to 1.66 g / cm. The range of values of plasticity index varies from 14 to 32, due to uneven distribution of organic matter in deposits. Mineral composition of Lake Antsilovoye deposits not differ from the underlying glacial lake clays. Argillites are represented by micaceous clay (75-80%), kaolinite (5-18%) and clinkstone (5-10%), and terrigenous mineral fraction of float fraction are represented by quartz (75-80%), feldspar (10-20%) and clasts (up to 8%). Neptunian Holocene deposits (mQIV) are different in age and genesis. Littorina and limnea stages stand out within the water area (as well as nondesiccated Littorina-limnea) with presence of nepheloid and wave genetic types. Neptunian littorina sand deposits are of wave genetic type. They are considerable in the coastal shallow waters and in some small uplands at water depths of no more than 10-15 m. The thickness of deposition ranges from 8 to 12 m. Their development is likely to be connected with a decrease in sea level during Antsilovoye lake regression, and initial stages of Littorina transgression. Coastal facies of Littorina sediments are presented in the form of fine-grained and aleuritic sands as well as semigravel sands. There is a thin layer of coarsegrained, gravel sands usually on the surface and below they change to medium-grained followed by fine-grained sands. The mineral composition of sandy deposits relatively uniform: it consists of subarcoses with high content of feldspar clasts. The volume of heavy mineral in some areas is up to 3%. Nondesiccated littorina-limnea deposits are mainly dark greenish-gray pelites and flowage silt pelites, containing a large quantity of organic matter. Depending on the nature of organic matter distribution the deposits have either a spotted or banded composition. Higher volumes of organic matter in deposits (> 5%) leads to black decay ooze silts with a specific odour of hydrogen sulfide. Most of these deposits have lens, layers and accumulations of gray aleurit and incorporation of phytodetritus.




Granulometric analysis of deposits shows the volatility of their composition: along with the dominant pelites, silt pelites and silt clays there are three-component sediments - sand-aleuritic clays, aleuritic clay sands and aleuritic sandy clays, the granulometric parameters upward the sequence are highly varied (Md - from 0.05 mm to 0.001 mm, particles less than 0.01 mm - from 30 to 80%, less than 0.001 mm - from 7 to 40%). A notable feature of the maritime area of Russian sector of offshore gas pipeline Nord Stream is the presence of high concentrations of iron-manganese nodules (Annex 3.1-1). Gas-containing subsoils are present in series of Holocene neptunian sediments throughout the projected pipeline route. The source of gas is the gas generation process in decaying of soil organic matter. According to literature data, the surface gas is almost always composed almost entirely of methane (the specific smell testifies the presence of small quantity of hydrogen sulphide). The gas containing was expressed in the form of areas with the loss of correlation in the acoustic images. The gas volumes were not checked by technical equipment. Biogenic sediments on islands consist of turf grade laterally in the lower part to gyttja. The thickness of biogenic sediments is about 0.3 m, in rare cases 1-2 m. The radiocarbon dating showed that the biogenic deposits on the terraced surface on the Bolshoy Berezovy island on above sea levels about + 5 m were older than 200 years, and at the same location at about 10 meters up were formed during the Sub-Atlantic period.

3.1.4. Geomorphological conditions Geomorphological conditions of the seabed in the area of the planned gas pipeline in the Gulf of Finland are represented by glacial hilly-ridged plain, with some areas of rock outcrops. Crests of large ridges form a chain of islands and banks. Subsea depths varying from 0 at Portovaya Bay shoreline to 88 m in the central part of the offshore section. The mean depth of the route is - 40-60 m (figure 3.1-4).




Figure 3.1-4. Bathymetry map of the Gulf of Finland. Bottom profile of the gulf axial region along line АВ (On top)

Generally the area is characterized by moderate and high degree of breaks and the relatively low diversity of its forms. The principal seabed-forming processes in the area of work are differentiated diastrophic movements, and repeated glaciation. Hills are a small in square, round and elongated in plan view landmasses grouped in chains of north-western stretch with the length 1 km and more. The hills and ridges are separated by cols in width from 0,1 ÷ 0,2 to 5÷6 with a gradient less than 1 °. Ridges are intermittent and constitute a chain of uplifts (banks) with ordnance datum 5-10 m below sea level, separated by cols with cleves, where the amplitude of the relief may be as high as 10-20 m. Hollow bottoms have low angles to the south-east, and traced to a depth of 30 m. As a similar forms of relief on the adjoining land, rises are formed by escars and kames. On land, these forms are the result of the overlying bed prominence of Proterozoic rock foundation, overlapped by blanketlike water-glacial sediments of a small (from 0.4 to 1.2 m) drift sheet. The amplitude of the relief of solid rock and moraine is up to 40 m. Directly in the corridor route from shoreline of Portovaya Bay to КР 0.250 pipeline passes through subhorizontal undulating plain underwater continuation of Holocene marine terrace with depths from 0 to 0.3 m. Starting from КР 0.250 the route crosses offshore shoreface. Underwater gradient at the site is 1 °. The water depth at the end of the area near КР 1.100 is 12.5 m.




From КР 1.100 the route runs along the eastern coast of cape Portovy. Close to the КР 3, near the Portovaya Bay exit, the route crosses a shallow area on the underwater extension of the Cape Portovy with sounding marks from 13 to 15 m. From the КР 4.700 abeam Maly Fiskar Island the route crosses the southern slope of this lifted block and comes out on underwater plain with depths over 25 m near KP 5.300. In this area the route crosses the lifted block of the bank Shevyakova - Zapadnaya (КР 15), then goes to the east of Bolshoy Fiskar island and Kouhuva Rock bank (КР 18), then crosses the south-eastern continuation of the lifted block of Hallikarti and Itakivi islands and bank Sitirock, then turn from the south-east elevation which adjoins to Sommers island and Maly Sommers Rock (КР 43). From Maly Sommers Rock the route comes out into a hollow limited by 50-meter isobath, located east of Gogland. From КР 74 the route runs along the northern slope of the elevation which adjoins to the banks Mordvinova and goes on to Gogland. From КР 88 to КР 98 the route crosses underwater elevation adjacent to Gogland. From КР 89, south of the bank Meririutta the route comes into hollow. Here the route crosses the border of the EEZ of Russia (КР 121). The water depth is 65 m here. In the structure of most of the northern shoreline of the Gulf of Finland abrasion-accumulative coasts are dominated. The main subtypes are the moraine (abrasion, slope beach with boulder armouring), sand (accumulative, sandy beach with a band of front downs) and in some places mudflats (accumulative coast with little accumulation of alevropelit sediments). Further to the west of the northern coast of the Gulf takes a typically skerry nature. The following subtypes of the coasts are highlighted here: rocky (residual forms of glacial exaration in the coastal area), moraine, muddy, and sandy in rare cases. The main types of seabed of the Gulf of Finland were formed in the final stages of the Valdai glaciation. As a result of glacial flows followed by water-ice, lake and ocean basins the following types of relief were formed: Accretion relief. As part of the accretion relief there are the greatest number of types of terrain. This is because that during the upper quaternary age the bottom of the Gulf of Finland took the lowest hypsometric position and therefore was an area of accumulative processes prevalence of different genesis - glacial, water-glacial, lymnetic and neptunian. As a result a broad accumulative surfaces were formed within the described underwater territory. Undulating-morainic plain. This type of relief formed by the accumulation of moraine material is pervasive primarily in the shallow zones. Morainic plains are located on the periphery of the islands and along the continental coast in the north-eastern part of the Gulf of Finland. Because of this hypsometric position the surface was subjected to significant erosion. As a result, there formed shoaly ridging surfaces with relative elevations of 5-15 m and with a length of hundreds of meters (maximum 1-2 km). Ridges are oriented parallel to the direction of glacier from the north-west to south-east. The landfall area of Russian gas pipeline sector in the Bay Portovaya is typical for this type of relief.




In addition to plains covering the coastal and shallow-water zones there are quite large accumulative surfaces in the central part of the area at depths of 20-40 m, which are a series of table uplands and large ridges, separated by localized degradations. The relative elevations are 10-20 m in here, and the size of individual forms varies within 1-3 km. Fluvio-glacial (glacial - fluviatile) plain. Fluvio-glacial relief is relatively limited. Most commonly it is pervasive at Berezovye Islands, where fluvio-glacial sands form a hollow hilly outwash plains on above sea levels + 15 ... +20 m. Such bodies are also noted on Gogland. Quite large ridge-like elevation of Stirsudden banks with guidance from the north-west to south-east and location in the eastern part of the area can be classed to the described type of relief within the water area. Its height is 10-15 m. All this elevation is formed by anisometric sands. At the top there are ridges with length of the first hundred meters, which are formed by semigravel sands with pebbles and isolated small boulders. Limno-glacial (lymnetic - glacial) plain. Accumulative lymnetic-glacial plains were formed over a relatively long period of time. During the period of existence of local glacial meare the accumulation of banded and banded type sediments in them led to a partial alignment of pre-glacial relief. This process lasted with more intense and at the time of the Baltic glacial meare. Active accumulation in lymnetic - glacial basins has led to very large (at some places almost complete) alignment of quite desiccated relief of overlying bed moraine deposits. All this has led to the formation of subhorizontal or low-angled levelled up surfaces. In some places there are ridging elevations with very flat slopes with a length first hundred meters. The described plains cover very large areas in southern and western parts of the pipeline route, and they are the most common type of relief. Lake plain. This type of relief has very limited area of distribution, and in Gulf of Finland exists only in Western parts. The lake plain is shaped due to clayey sediments accumulation in Ancyl lake. It presents almost flat accumulative surface at depths 30-40 m. On the islands (Berezovye, Ceskar) the described plain is situated on above sea levels +10 - +15 m. Sea plain of non-wave genesis. Non-wave (basin) accumulation play the leading role in sea accumulative processes. Due to rather intensive settling of sediments in the sea basins areas characterised by calm hydrodynamic regime very uniform by morphological properties surfaces spreading both central and coastal sea areas are formed. Plains or very sloping wavy plains having elevations no more than 1-2 m prevail here. The described plains are situated on different depths from 20-30 up to 70 - 80 m. The period of this plain formation is the period of existence of Littorina and post-Littorina sea basin.




Sea wave plain The sea wave accumulation processes are naturally shown the most bright way in coastal regions. Commonly impact of these processes leads to formation of low-angled surfaces, laid by sand stuff. These surfaces are situated on depths from 0 up to 5-10 m and have slight inclination towards the sea. Area of the described relief distribution is not large. Insignificant by surface accumulative sea plains are shown at Maly and Ceskar islands as well as in Bjerkesund sound. Abrasion-accumulative relief. This genetic category consists of only one type of relief - abrasion-accumulative plain. Its formation is stipulated by scour of sediments situated in shallow water, different by age and genesis and deposition of scouring products virtually in place in local saddles. In the result finely divided (relative elevations of individual forms no more than 2-5 m) low-angled or subhorizontal surfaces are formed, within them abrasion and accumulative parts alternate. Similar relief is pervasive along the Gulf of Finland coast in its north-west part and also in the sector "Yermilovskaya bay - Stirsudden cape". Abrasion relief. This genetic category as well as the previous one consists of one type of relief - finely divided abrasion plain. Abrasion surfaces formation takes place due to scouring of sediments rising on the seabed by the waves. As far as the depth up to which influence of wave processes in Gulf of Finland is seen is not more than 15-20 m, the described type of relief is situated in shallow, predominantly coastal zones. In the result of intense seabed sediments scouring the finely divided low-angled (to the sea) surfaces developed on the sediments different by composition and genesis are formed. Such surfaces are located on the periphery of Berezovye islands, along southern coast of Maly island, on the periphery of Moshchny Island as well as along the continental shore.

3.1.5. Surface sediment parameters along pipeline route

3.1.5.1. Grain size distribution The pipeline route region within Russian sector may be divided into 3 areas by the surface sediment parameters:

• Portovaya Bay - sandy sediments prevail;

• central area between Portovaya Bay and Gogland - consists mostly of greenish-grey and black silts with high iron-manganese concretions content;

• area near Gogland - sandy sediments.




Grain size distribution of these sediments is shown on fig. 3.1-5 and 3.1-6, and space distribution of fractions >0.1 and <0.05 mm - on fig. 3.1-7 and 3.1-8,

Figure 3.1-5. Average grain size distribution of surface sediments on areas of the route near Portovaya Bay and Gogland

Figure 3.1-6. Average grain size distribution of surface sediments on central area of the route




Figure 3.1-7. Space distribution of fractions >0.1 mm in surface layer of seabed sediments on Russian sector of pipeline route




Figure 3.1-8. Space distribution of fractions less 0.05 mm in surface layer of seabed sediments on Russian sector of pipeline route

3.1.5.2. Pollution levels of sediment surface layer

Assessment of sediment contamination was performed by defined 6 areas on the pipeline route. The averaging areas borders pass through the route turning points. Portovaya Bay is assigned as separate area. The averaging areas diagram is shown on fig. 3.1-9. The seabed sediments level of pollution along the route of the planned gas pipeline in the limits of Russian gas pipeline sector has the following characteristics: Grounds chemical testing methods are listed in table 1.7 (Vol.12 Book 1. Part 3. Section 1).




Figure 3.1-9. Map of gas pipeline route areas showing seabed sediments pollution class according to "Norms and criteria of seabed sediments contamination assessment in St. Petersburg

water objects? 1996" Regional norm [211] Organic carbon (Org.C) Organic carbon levels in gas pipeline sea area seabed sediments varies largely: from 0.009 up to 23.5 g/kg of dry sediment in muddy grounds with smell of hydrogen sulphide. Petroleum hydrocarbons (P.Hc). P.Hc levels in sea area seabed sediments varies relatively largely: from 4.9 to 239 microgram/kg of dry sediment. The least average levels of P.Hc are characteristic for seabed sediments of areas 1 (Portovaya bay region) and 6 (Gogland region), and the most one - for area 3 (central part of the route). The mean level of P.Hc. for seabed sediments along the whole route is equal to 54.6 microgram/kg of dry sediment. 3.1-10).




Figure 3.1-10. Average levels of P.Hc. in seabed sediments at different areas of pipeline route. Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs). In seabed sediments along pipeline route all the 16 priority PAHs group compounds were identified. Individual PAHs revealing rate made up for: naphthalene - 95.8%, acenaphthylene - 31.3%, fluorene - 45.8%, phenanthrene - 95.8%, anthracene - 87.5%, fluoranthene - 91.7%, pyrene - 70.8%, benz(a)anthracene - 79.2%, chrysene - 70.8%, benz(b)fluoranthene - 100%, benz(k)fluoranthene - 95.8%, benz(a)pyrene - 75.0%, dibenz(a,h)anthracene- 81,3%, indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene - 91.7%, benz(ghi)perylene - 95.8%. Sum PAHs levels in seabed sediments changes from 5.2 to 612 ng/g of dry sediment. Minimum PAHs sum levels in seabed sediments (same as P.Hc) were recorded in areas 1 and 6, minimum ones - in areas 3 and 4, where levels of benz(a)pyrene, the most toxic compound of this group, reached 33.8 ng/g of dry sediment. Mean PAHs sum levels in seabed sediments along the whole route is equal to 188 ng/g of dry sediment, and of benz(a)pyrene - 5.5 ng/g of dry sediment. Fig. 3.1-11 shows average levels of PAHs in seabed sediments of defined averaging areas along the pipeline route.

Figure 3.1-11. Average levels of PAHs levels and benz(a)pyrene in seabed sediments on different areas along the pipeline route




Organochlorines (OCh) 13 of 16 organochlorines pesticide were identified with different detection frequency (14.6 to 100%). The most frequent in seabed sediments DDT and its metabolites (up to 100% together), and also pentachlorobenzene (18.8%), hexachlorobenzene (45.8%), alpha-HCH (37.5%), beta-HCH (45.8%), gamma-HCH (20.8%) are settled. Maximum levels of HCH isomers sum, DDT and its metabolites sum, chlorobenzenes sum reached 0.77, 17.4 and 1.61 ng/g of dry sediment at areas 6, 5, 3 accordingly. Mean levels of HCH isomers sum, DDT and its metabolites sum, chlorobenzenes sum along the whole route reached 015, 2.73 and 0.12 ng/g of dry sediment All the congeners of 9 analyzed particular РСВs were fixed with detection frequency 33.3 to 100%. Average levels of РСВ sum along the pipeline route are equal to 3.90 ng/g of dry sediment, and maximum - 15.3 ng/g of dry sediment. Maximum levels of concentration of most congeners and PCB sum were fixed at area 4 seabed sediments. Average levels of PCB group, DDT, HCH and chlorobenzenes in the route seabed sediments are shown on fig. 3.1-12 and 3.1-13.

Figure 3.1-12. Average levels of PCB and DDT group in seabed sediments at different route areas

Figure 3.1-13. Average levels of HCH and chlorobenzenes in seabed sediments at different route

areas




Phenols. Levels of the most individual phenols in all the samples of seabed sediments were below detection limit of used analyse method (<0.01 microgram/g of dry sediment). Maximum phenol levels in seabed sediments (0.035 microgram/g of dry sediment) were detected at area 3. Average phenol levels in seabed sediments along the whole route were in whole below the detection limit (<0.01 microgram/g of dry sediment). Heavy metals (HM). HM average levels in planned gas pipeline sea area seabed sediments contained:

• iron - 19.89 mg/g of dry sediment;

• manganese - 3.78 mg/g of dry sediment;

• zinc - 101.1 microgram/g of dry sediment;

• copper - 22.6 microgram/g of dry sediment;

• nickel - 17.1 microgram/g of dry sediment;

• cobalt - 11.9 microgram/g of dry sediment;

• zinc - 23.2 microgram/g of dry sediment;

• cadmium - 0.71 microgram/g of dry sediment;

• chromium - 13.8 microgram/g of dry sediment;

• arsenic - 5.79 microgram/g of dry sediment;

• mercury - 0.083 microgram/g of dry sediment; Maximum levels of all the range of HMs are identified in seabed sediments classified (by GOST 25100-82) as clayey silts, situated at areas 3, 4, 5 and 6. Maximum levels of iron (57.1 microgram/g), manganese (37.5 microgram/g), cobalt (48.8 microgram/g), arsenic (41.1 microgram/g) are identified in seabed sediments at area 5. Maximum levels of zinc (271 microgram/g), copper (64.2 microgram/g), lead (83.6 microgram/g), cadmium (2.10 microgram/g), chromium (42.8 microgram/g) - at area 3. Maximum levels of nickel (37.1 microgram/g) - at area 4); mercury (0.580 microgram/g) - at area 6. Average levels of the most toxic HM in seabed sediments along the gas pipeline route are shown on fig. 3.1-14 and 3.1-15.




Figure 3.1-14. Average levels of copper, nickel and zinc in seabed sediments at different areas of

pipeline route

Figure 3.1-15. Average levels of mercury and cadmium in seabed sediments at different areas of

pipeline route Allowable level of contaminants in sediment is not specified by Russian federal regulations. Therefore, assessment of sediment contamination levels in the area of proposed pipeline construction was carried out based on the following:

• requirements of regional regulation "Provisions and criteria for the evaluation of sediment contamination in Saint-Petersburg water bodies", 1996.

• recommendations SP11-102-97 based on the conformance of contamination levels to the

criteria for ecological assessment of sediment contamination according to Neue Niederlandische Liste. Altlasten Spektrum 3/95.

On the whole, according to the Regional Regulation, sediment contamination along the proposed pipeline route corresponds to the "zero" and "first" class (clear and slightly contaminated sediments) in sections 1, 2, 5, and 6, and to the "second"class (moderately contaminated sediments) in sections 3 and 4.




Comparing the survey data from 2005, showing the allowable concentration levels (AC) and disturbance levels (DL) of sediment contamination along the route within the Russian EEZ, with the Regulations of Neue Niederlandische Liste (Altlasten Spektrum 3/95) showed the following. The excess of AC in sediments collected at the offshore section of the proposed pipeline was detected for the total hydrocarbons (up to 4.78 AC), total DDT (up to 6.97 AC), Gamma-HCH (up to 1.41 AC), from the list of organic pollutants; and for zinc (up to 1.94 AC), cadmium (up to 2.36 AC), copper (up to 1.78 AC), cobalt (up to 2.44 AC), nickel (up to 1.06 AC), mercury (up to 1.93 AC) and arsenic (1.42 AC), from the list of heavy metals. In all cases the recorded contaminant concentrations were much lower than the disturbance levels. The excess of the allowable concentration level of hydrocarbons in sediments was detected in 31.3% of samples. The maximum concentration of hydrocarbons (up to 4.78 AC) was detected in sediments of Section 3. The lowest levels of hydrocarbons concentration were detected in Sections 1 and 6 and did nit exceed AC. The excess of AC for DDT pesticide group containing in sediments of the observed marine area was detected in 29.2% of samples. The maximum concentration of DDT group compounds was detected in Section 5 and amounted to 6.97 AC. Based on average concentration of DDT group pesticide (2.20 AC), the most contaminated area is Section 3. The lowest levels of DDT not exceeding AC were recorded in Sections 1, 2 and 6. The excess of AC for Gamma-HCH containing in sediments of the observed marine area was detected in 14,6 % of samples. The maximum concentration of Gamma-HCH was detected in Section 3 and amounted to 1,41 AC. Based on average concentration of Gamma-HCH (0,6 AC), the most contaminated area is Section 3. The lowest levels of Gamma-HCH not exceeding AC were recorded in Sections 1, 2 and 6. Upon the surveys results, the average total concentration of PAH containing in sediments of the observed marine area amounted to 188 mkg/kg of dry sediment (0.19 AC), including benzo[a]pyrene (5.50 mkg/kg of dry sediment). As in the previous case, the maximum total concentration of PAH did not exceed AC in any section and amounted to 612 mkg/kg of dry sediment (0.61 AC) in Section 4. The AC excess for heavy metals was detected:

• for zinc in 27.1% of samples amounting to 1.94 AC in Section 3;

• for copper in 31,3 % of samples amounting to 1,78 AC in Section 3;

• for nickel in 20.0 % of samples amounting to 1.40 AC in Section 4;

• for cobalt in 12.5 % of samples amounting to 2.44 AC in Section 5;

• for lead in 0 % of samples amounting to 0.98 AC in Section 3;

• for cadmium in 37.5 % of samples amounting to 2.63 AC in Section 3;

• for chrome in 0 % of samples amounting to 0.43 AC in Section 3;

• for arsenic in 8.3 % of samples amounting to 1.42 AC in Section 5;

• for mercury in 6.3 % amounting to 1.93 AC in Section 6;




It should be noted that for the sediments collected along the offshore section of the proposed pipeline, the maximum levels of heavy metals were detected only in seabed sediments at the certain stations of Sections 3 and 5. The average concentration of all types of HM in seabed sediments of the observed water area did not exceed AC. Radionuclides. According to surveys data from 2005, levels of Specific Activity of caesium -137 and strontium - 90 in seabed sediments did not exceed the level of the Minimum Measured Activity and were substantially lower than the value of Minimal Significant Specific Activity (MSSA) [213]. Significant concentrations of other types of radionuclides in samples were not detected.

3.1.6. Lithodynamic processes

3.1.6.1. Coastal dynamics of sediments In the area of Portovaya Bay, the studying of lithodynamic processes in order to assess water circulation, turbidity current and potential seabed deformations during storms, was carried out by means of numerical modelling. The calculations were based on mathematical models designed by I.O. Leontiev (Leontiev I.O. 2007, 2008) [148, 149] (Appendix 3.1-2). The calculations were carried out using the following input parameters:

• original sea-bottom profile;

• deposits characteristics (density, representative average size);

• wind and waves parameters;

• duration of wave disturbance. The bathimetric survey was based upon the navigation map and echo-sounding data. The bathimetric plan of the nearshore bay is depicted on Fig. 3.1-16 (isobaths are smoothened). The same Figure shows the pipeline route, sampling points of soil the grain size distribution of which was used during modelling, and the position of design profile.




Figure 3.1-16. Bathimetric plan of nearshore area of Portovaya Bay

The lower boundary of profile is located 10 m deep. According to preliminary assessment, in more deep-water areas, seabed deformation under existing wind and wave climate will be insignificant. The higher boundary of profile corresponds with the forepart of boulder armouring specific to the shoreline in Portovaya Bay. The underwater slope has an average value of approximately 0.01, with the slope less steep near the shoreline. Throughout the profile there is a thick layer of coarse sand, particles of which distribute within the size range of 0.5-1.0 mm. The calculation was performed using the middle-size value, e.g. d=0.75 mm. The values of the sand density and porosity were estimated at 2.65 х 103 kg/m3 and 0.4 respectively. The modelling was performed for the extreme storm events with a return period of 1/1, 1/10 and 1/100 years. It was assumed that the most strong storms were those of S-W and S points, and due to the deep refraction, the waves in the inner bay distribute beyond the pipeline route practically at a normal curve toward the shoreline, regardless of their original direction. [150].




The main source of information on the extreme storms parameters used during the calculation, was the the Snamprogetti Report data (hereinafter - "Wave data 1" (WD1)). Additionally, during comparative evaluation were used design parameters of storms from the Research Work report...[2004] (hereinafter - "Wave data 2» (WD2) and "Wave data " (WD3)). All existing data is shown in Table 3.1-1

Table 3.1-1 Original parameters of the wave climate in Portovaya Bay

Storm 1/1 year 1/10 years 1/100 years

Wave data 1 (WD1) Hs, m 2.1 2.8 3.5 TР, s 6.1 7.1 7.9 η +, m 1.63 2.48 2.85 η-, m -0.76 -1.12 -1.51

Wave data 2 (WD1) W, m s-1 19 25 30 Hs, m 3.09 3.74 4.48 tp , s 6.65 7.29 8.75 η +, m 1.2 1.2 1.2

Wave data 3 (WD3) HS , m 1.8 2.2 2.6 Tp, s 5.4 6.0 6.5

Here are shown the significant values of wave height H

s and the periods of spectral peak Tp in the areas

with water depth of 14-15 m (WD1 and WD2) or in the open sea areas (WD3). WD1 also provides information on the level increase during surge (η+) and the level decrease during negative surge (η-). WD2 propose significantly lesser value of maximum surge and provide characteristic wind speeds (W) that were used during the currents calculation. The proposed duration of storms during the modelling of seabed deformation estimated at 1 day.

3.1.6.2. Water circulation during storms Fig. 3.1-17 shows a typical example of water circulation in Portovaya Bay under moderate South-point storm conditions. The highest value of the currents speed was detected at the capes amounting to 0.5-0.6 m/s. In shallow-water areas at the top of the Bay the speed is changing to the range of 0.2-0.3 m/s. However, for the most of the water area the value does not exceed 0.1 m/s.




Figure 3.1-17. Water circulation during moderate South-point storms. The shades of green indicate different levels of currents speed. The flow lines are given in m3s-1

The water circulation during storms is characterised by water shift along the shores toward the centre of a bay and by its outflow to the deeper areas. Areas at the top of a bay are characterised by relatively stagnant conditions which is indicated by the presence of water circulation. The results of modelling of the extreme storm events with a return period from once a year to once in 100 years show that the highest speed values of the storm currents may amount to 1 m/s. However, the highest speed of the currents is still detected near the bay shoreline. On the whole, the average speed of the currents within the pipelines route will not exceed 0.3-0.4 m/s.

3.1.6.3. Seabed deformations along continental slope The results of calculations of seabed deformation due to the storms, based on the wave data WD1, WD2 and WD3, are shown on Figures 3.1-18, 3.1-19 and 3.1-20. The negative values indicate the bed movement.




Figure 3.1-18. Distribution of seabed deformations due to the storm events, based on WD1

The calculations based on WD1 were carried out for the normal level, surge and negative surge. The seabed profile, as well as the maximum level deviations from average position are shown at the bottom of Fig. 3.1-18. The distribution of deformations has undulating nature. Three areas of accumulation and two areas of scouring can be distinguished. Under normal level and negative surge values the amplitudes of positive and negative deformations are quite similar (0.4-0.5 m). The main scouring occurs in the areas with water depth from 2 to 4 m. Accumulation takes place in areas with water depth from 5 to 8 m, as well as directly along the shoreline). The deformations amplitude increase with the increase of storm levels. As we can see, the scouring near the shoreline under normal level could be partly compensated by the accumulation during negative surge.





During the surge, the conditions significantly change. The entire area of deformations shifts toward the shoreline and the main scourging occurs at a relatively steep section of the beach. Seabed depression here amounts to 0.5 m during storms with a return period of 1/10 years, and 1.2 m during storms with a return period of 1/100 years. Calculations based on WD2 (Fig. 3.1-19) refer to the normal level and surge value which is the same under any climate. In fact, these calculations show the same distribution of deformations as in the previous case, although the amplitudes are slightly higher. The most significant difference may be observed during surge. The underwater part of the beach is being washed away, as it is in the previous case. However, during the storm with a return period of 1/100 years, waves are forming a berm (embankment) up to 1.4 m high in the above water part.





Seabed deformations based on WD3 (Fig. 3.1-20) almost do not exceed the depth of 5 m and their amplitudes are significantly lower than in the previous cases. The scouring does not exceed 0.25 m. Therefore, changing of input wave parameters apparently affect the character of the results. However, it seems that there is a certain range of conditions under which the deformations will be similar despite different input data. This is indicated by the precision of measurements based on WD 1 and WD2 at the normal level. Probably the design assessment of deformations is not that critical for the precision of wave parameters, if they do not fit in the "right" range. Also, the calculations results show close connection between the beach dynamics and the height of surge. Under the normal level and surge value up to 1.2 m, sediments can accumulate above the shoreline, and after the level increase for 1 more meter accumulation gives place to significant scouring. At the same time, this climate change points out the possible way for the recovery of material washed out from the beach under high surges. Table 3.1-2 shows the maximum deformations, both positive (Δh-) and negative (Δh+), as well as the depths at which these occur. The negative depth values refer to the above-water part of the bank vault. All the maximum values fall into the depth range of 8 to 3.2 m. That is the most active area of shoreline profile.




Table 3.1-2

Maximum deformations (numerator) and the corresponding depths (denominator)

Storm 1/1 year 1/10 years 1/100 years Δh+, m Δh-, m Δh+, m Δh-, m Δh+, m Δh-, m

Wave data 1 Norm. level 0.32

3.6 -0.16 1.3

0.45 4.0

-0.26 1.5

0.38 4.0

-0.38 1.8

Negative surge 0.32 4.0

-0.24 1.8

0.26 4.0

-0.35 2.4

0.45 8.2

-0.40 3.2

Surge 0.12 2.4

-0.06 -1.8

0.36 -0.4

-0.58 -3.2

0.29 3.2

-1.18 -1.8


4.0 -0.24 1.8

0.38 4.0

-0.34 2.0

0.56 0.2

-0.47 2.0

Surge 0.30 3.2

-0.14 1.5

0.58 -0.4

-0.30 0.7

1.40 -0.4

-0.46 0.9


3.2 -0.10 1.1

0.35 3.6

-0.18 1.1

0.40 4.0

-0.25 1.3

Fig. 3.1-21 contains all calculated distributions of deformations related to different input data, return periods of storm and level positions. As one can see, visible seabed deformations start from the depth of 10 m to the shoreline falling into value range of ±0.5 m. At the shoreline and above the range expands to +1.4 and - 1.2 m. The resulting values appear to be sufficiently representative for continental slope.

Figure 3.1-21. Summary diagram for distribution of deformations resulting from storm events.




3.1.6.4. Deformations due to submerged bars relocation

Significant sand deposits and relatively low-sloped bank vault could be considered as indirect features indicating potential development of topographic mesoforms in form of submerged bars in the shoreline area of the bay.

Figure 3.1-22. Scheme of submerged bars

It is known that during severe storms bars tend to shift towards the open sea, while under smooth sea conditions they more often move toward the shore. Such movements occur at a range of some ten metres resulting in seabed deformations with the maximum amplitude corresponding to the height of bar Z bar= ht - hc , where ht and hc indicate the depths at a trough and above the top of bar [151] (Fig. 3.1-22). There are internal and external bars located in the outer and inner parts of the coastline respectively. External bars are characterized by large lateral dimension, but are less mobile and usually shorter than the largest internal bar which is located in the area of the major storm waves crushing. The parameters of this bar which are of great practical interest could be assessed using Leontiev's model [2008б]. In this case the storms with a return period of 1/1 year served as a basis for the assessment. As in the previous cases, the calculations were based on wave data of the following types - WD1, WD2 and WD3. The results are shown in Table 3.1-3.

Table 3.1-3

Design parameters of the major submerged bar Wave data Hs, m Tp , s hв, m hс , m ht m 1в, m 11, m Zbar , m

WD1 2,1 6,1 3,5 2,4 3,2 47 38 0,8 WD2 3,1 6,6 4,7 3,4 4,9 61 49 1,5 WD3 1,8 5,4 2,7 1,9 2,4 37 30 0,5

Here are shown the original wave parameters, crushing depth hB , depths above the bar hc and at a trough ht , distance from the crushing point to the top of the bar lB , distance from the top to the trough centre l

t , and hight of the bar Z

bar . As can be seen, the design evaluations differ significantly depending on type of the input data. For example, the bar dimensions predicted on basis of WD2 mainly correspond with the conditions of the open Baltic coast.




The most realistic bar parameters are those received from WD1. Taking them as a base we may estimate seabed deformations resulting from the bar shifting at ±0.8 m. Similar deformations are most probable at the depths from 2 to 4-5 m.

3.1.6.5. Long-term trends of shore development The problem in question are the trends of the shoreline transformations during the next several decades. These trends are defined taking into account existing condition of sediment in the given morphodynamic system. The balanced conditions provide the stability of the coast. If the incoming sediment does not compensate the sediment loss, the coast is backing off. The main reserve for sandy shores constitute gradient along the shoreline flow of sediments and transverse material flows through the bottom and top boundaries of the shoreline area. Furthermore, the significant role play additional material sources and and runoffs resulting from, e.g., river flow and sand extraction at a bank vault. Another consideration should be paid to the changes of relative water level resulting from global processes (climate changes and

the tectonics). The speed of the shoreline shifts depends on the total of sediment reserve elements and could be calculated using the equation (12) in Appendix 3.1-2. In Portotvaya Bay there is no alongshore sediment flow. Neither there are any additional material sources, other than small streams flowing into the bay. Therefore, there are three main components: flow across the bottom boundary q*, eolic flow across the top boundary qAeol, and virtual flow subject to level changes with the speed w. Therefore, balance equation (12) takes the following shape

where h* and zc indicate the depth at the bottom boundary and the coast rising at the top boundary, and lX - indicates the distance between the profile boundaries. Calculation of values included in the equation requires the data on return periods of different hight gradations and wave periods throughout the year. Such data contains only in array WD2. It was used as a basis for calculating the required parameters. Moreover, the fact is that the wave heights in WD2 are approximately 1.5 and the periods 1.1 higher than in WD1. Taking this into account, the resulting values were recalculated for WD1. The result shows estimates for the parameters of sediment reserves and shoreline shifts based on both data arrays. The results are shown in Table 3.1-4.

Table 3.1-4

Parameters of sediment reserves and long-term coast transformations Parameter Wave data 1 Wave data 2

Significant wave hight H 0.14% , m 2,6 3,8

Avg. wave period T 4% , s 3,6 4,0




Parameter Wave data 1 Wave data 2

Closing depth h*, m 5,2 7,6 Top boundary zs, m 3,5 3,5

Vert. scale h* + zs, m 8,7 11,1 Horiz. scale lX, m 450 680

Parameter S2 10,5 12,3 Flow at the bottom boundary q*, m3m-1 year-1 9,2 10,5 Flow at the top boundary qAeol, m3m-1year-1 3,0 3,0

Virtual flow wlX, m3 m-1 year-1 0,8 1,1 Accumulation, m3m-1year-1 5,2 6,7

Coastal accretion δχδτ, m year-1 0,6 0,6 As the Table shows, in spite of different input data, positive sediment reserve (accumulation prevails) is predicted in both cases. Concerning the quality, calculations confirm the stability of the considered coast. Furthermore, it may be shifting toward the sea in the future. The sand reserve on the seabed is sufficient to support this process for a long time (at least for several decades). Even assuming accelerated raising of the World Ocean level for 0.005 m per year (as some forecasts [Church et al., 2001] predict) the reserve is still positive. Therefore during the next decades, the coast in Portovaya Bay is expected to remain stable or even to grow. On the whole, assessment of lithodynamics natural system in the coastal area of the pipeline section within Portovaya Bay allows to conclude the following:

1. Under existing dynamic conditions and sedimentation features along the pipeline route within Portovaya Bay, significant deformations will occur at the depth of 10 m and gradually increase toward the shore.

2. In the area of continental slope with water depth from 10 to 4-5 m maximum

amplitudes of deformations resulting from storm events fall into value range of ±0.5 m.

3. In the area with water depth of 3-4 m the presence of submerged bar is possible, the

shifting of which can result in seabed deformations with amplitude of ±0.8 m. It would be appropriate to take this value as a model to assess maximum deformations for the entire profile from the depth of 4-5 m to the shoreline.




3.2. Climate and air conditions

3.2.1. Physical and geographical summary The Eastern part of the Gulf of Finland is located in the temperate climate zone with typical slight daily and annual variation of air temperature, high humidity, significant cloud amount and frequent precipitation. Although water masses of the Gulf of Finland serve as a some kind of capacitor accumulating heat during summers and giving it back during winters, however it does not have any decisive influence, due to relatively small area of the Gulf and shallow water column. The climate of the Eastern part of the Gulf of Finland is more severe than the climate of the rest of the Gulf and the open area of the Baltic Sea [10,16]. Location of the main hydrometeorological stations collecting the climate data is shown on Fig. 3.2-1 [61, 62, 63].

Figure 3.2-1. Location of the hydrometeorological stations in the Eastern part of the Gulf of

Finland The nature of atmospheric macroprocesses in the Eastern Gulf of Finland is governed by the prevailing influence of air masses from the Atlantic. As a rule, cyclones move from the West to the offshore area of the Gulf of Finland during all seasons. Moreover, during autumn and winter, there is a great possibility of their repeated shifting from the North-West, and in spring and summer in this area often occur South-West cyclones [39]. Table 3.2-1 shows the return period of cyclones course originating from different directions, both per season and per year.

Table 3.2-1

Return period (%) of cyclones courses beyond the Eastern part of the Gulf of Finland Season Direction

N NE E SE S SW W NW autumn 1 - - - 8 11 51 29 winter - - - 1 3 14 48 34 spring - - - 1 3 25 43 28

summer - - - 4 11 28 34 23 UNOFFICIAL ENGLISH TRANSLATION – FOR COURTESY ONLY


Volume 8. Book 1. Offshore section. Part 1. EIA page 152

Season Direction

N NE E SE S SW W NW Aver. annual 1 - - 1 6 20 44 28

It is thermic regime of the air that is mainly used as a criterion of the season. It is considered the beginning and the end of the winter season the date of bringing the average daily temperature of air over 0°С, and the beginning and the end of the summer season - bringing over 10°С. Winter in the Gulf of Finland area begins in mid November and ends in 1st ten-day period of April. Cyclonical activity is the most significant process in this season. Western and southern airflows dominate, consequently, lukewarm humid weather with temperatures of air between 0 and -8°С is the most frequency (around 60%). Warm humid air with temperatures between 3 and 6°С is reported in warm quadrants of incoming Atlantic and Mediterranean cyclones (with frequency 10%) [96]. Thaws and most significant precipitations are associated with these cyclones. Inrush of air masses from north and north-east took place from January, due to arctic anticyclone increasing (with frequency around 5%) and cold arid weather is setting with air temperature between -17 and -25°С. Daily air temperature range is short and at average is 1-3°С. Lower-cloud clear sky becomes twice likely from December to March, and precipitation becomes generally widespread and falls about a quarter of its annual rate. Spring takes place in April and May, and cold's comebacks and late snowfalls are often reported during spring. Precipitations are rarer, than in winter, and their duration is shorter, than in other seasons. In spring, relative humidity is the least in a year, and daily air temperature range in this period at average is greatest (6-8°С) and can extend 20°С in discrete fair days. Summer - is temperately warm and takes place between early June and mid-September. Dominating western airflows bring humid air masses with temperature close to normal (12-20°С). Rarer south-eastern transports (with frequency around 12%) ensure warm arid weather, and penetration of air masses of arctic origin in the Gulf of Finland's area decreases temperature to 5-10°С in rear-parts of north-western cyclones. Autumn begins in mid-September and is associated with common weather deterioration - temperature decreasing, turbidity, and lower cloud increasing. Cyclones migrating over the gulf bring lingering foul weather periods. Duration of precipitation during October and November is 2-3 times longer than in summer, but most of them are widespread; consequently, sum of monthly precipitations is less than in summer. Due to air masses of vary origin repeatedly issuing over the area of the Gulf of Finland, essential deviations of some characteristics from the average annual ones may occur in certain seasons [310, 311, 312, 313].




3.2.2. Air temperature

The coldest months in the eastern Baltic area are January and February. Average air temperature in these months is -5 - -8°С. Air temperature in the eastern Gulf of Finland may decreases to -25 - -30°С, when arctic air masses inrush. However, thaws, when air temperature increases to 5-10°С, are possible. Colds are observed between September-October and May. The most frequent they observed between December and March. The warmest month in Baltic area is July. During this time, average monthly air temperature in the open sea is between 16 and 18°С, and on the coast is between 14 and 20°С. Fig.3.2-2. shows the air distribution of the average air temperature in January and in July over Baltic Proper [99, 100].

Figure 3.2-2. Monthly average air temperature in distribution in Baltic area Air temperature is typically decreased by northwestern and north-eastern winds and increased by south-western and south-eastern ones. Characteristics of temperature regime for stations are shown in Table 3.2-2.

Table 3.2-2

Air temperature, coastal stations in the Baltic area, °С

Stat

ion

Months

Ann

ual

aver

age

1 II III IV V VI VII VIII IX X XI XII

Vyb

org Av. -8,0 -8,4 -4,9 1,9 9,0 14,5 17,6 15,6 10,3 4,4 -0,7 -5,3 3,8

Abs. max. 6 5 14 21 28 32 32 32 27 20 12 7 32

Abs. min. -37 -38 -31 -21 -8 -1 4 0 -6 -14 -22 -36 -38

Mos

hchn

y Is

land

Av. -5,5 -7,0 -4,7 1,1 7,3 13,4 17,4 16,6 12,2 6,7 1,7 -2,4 4,7 Abs. max. 6 5 11 21 26 29 30 30 26 20 11 8 30

Abs. min. -31 -30 -31 -20 -5 2 8 5 2 -4 -14 -27 -31

Gog

land

Is

land

Av. -4,9 -6,2 -3,6 2,0 7,8 13,3 16,9 16,8 12,3 6,9 2,2 -1,8 5,2

Abs. 6 4 13 24 26 33 32 31 26 19 11 9 33




St

atio

n

Max.

Months

Ann

ual

aver

age

1 II III IV V VI VII VIII IX X XI XII

Abs. min.

-29 -31 -28 -18 -5 0 6 5 -1 -7 -15 -28 -31

The season dynamics of air temperature is typical of the temperate latitudes - minimal levels are timed to February and maximal - to July. Furthermore, continentality of the climate, which is characterised by increasing of annual range, is growing eastward from the west of the Gulf of Finland. Average monthly air temperature in July-September and March-April is more or less homogeneous across almost the whole Gulf. It is between 17 and 18°С in July, between 16,5 and 17,5°С in August, between 11 and 12°С in September, between -1 and -2°С in March, between 2 and -3°С in April. Air temperature's horizontal gradients considerably increase in May-June and from October to February. In May, average monthly air temperature increases from the west to the east from 8 to 10°С, and in June from 13 to 16°С. From October to February temperature increases in the opposite direction: from 5 to 8°С in October, from -1 to 4°С in November, from -3 to 1°С in December, from -7 to -1°С in January, and from -6 to -3°С in February. Furthermore, greatest temperature's horizontal gradients are observed in the easternmost part of the gulf, and they are relatively low in the central and western parts. Average continuous cold periods' duration is estimated to 7 days. Continuous cold weather's duration is only occasionally observed to be between 20 and 30 days and its frequency is about 5%. The most number of cold days is observed in January and February (22-23 days). Average number thaw days in the near-shore area of the eastern part of the Gulf is: 20 in November, 12 in December, between 7 and 8 in January, between 6 and 7 in February, between 15 and 16 in March. Thaw's duration is normally short: most commonly it is between 1 and 2 days (with frequency 40-46%), and at the mean it is between 4 and 5 days [310, 311, 312, 313].

3.2.3. Atmospheric pressure The peculiar feature of the atmospheric pressure regime in the eastern Gulf of Finland is great temporal variation, especially in the cold seasons, that is also determined by cyclonic activity. The atmospheric pressure range is from 951 hPa (December, 1982) to 1065 hPa (January, 1907). Winter season is characterised by increased pressure background due to effect of Asia anticyclone's wedge, restructuring of the baric field to summer processes take place in spring with few pressure decrease. The annual atmospheric pressure range, measured over the proper is short, amount of the amplitude (around 4 hPa) is normal for the offshore climate. Maximum of pressure on average is observed in May, and minimum is observed in July. However, average monthly atmospheric pressure, measured in certain years and by different stations, may greatly differ from perennial one, especially in cold half of year, when such deviations may reach up to 15-20 hPa.




Average atmospheric pressure's maximums reach up to 1044 hPa, while minimums reach up to 976,9 hPa, i.e., amplitude of average monthly atmospheric pressure's fluctuation over the Gulf of Finland reaches up to 67,1 hPa. When a baric system rapidly moves through the gulf area, pressure may vary in 24 hours on 30-40 hPa in winter and on 15-20 hPa in summer [228].

3.2.4. Wind West, south-west and south winds dominate over the Gulf of Finland. Their average annual frequency is above 50%, notably, winds of the dominating directions also are normally the strongest ones. East and north winds are rarer observed. Fig. 3.2-3 shows frequency (%) of wind directions in Vyborg and Gogland. 3.2-3.

Figure 3.2-3. Frequency of wind directions, % Wind rapidly accelerates in certain days when cyclones are passing through. Gales of winds (12 m/s or more) are observed in zone of atmospheric front and in rear-parts of cyclones and mainly are directed westward or north-westward. Short-time gales continuing for less than 6 hours are most frequently observed. Frequency of strong gales with wind speeds of higher than 20 m/s is small (they are reported on average less than 8 times per decade). Number of windy days per year (when wind speeds reaches up to 15 m/s or higher at least once) is a useful characteristic of the wind regime. On average, there are 20-25 windy days per year in the eastern Gulf of Finland. Table 3.2-3 shows information about wind speeds with various frequency.

Table 3.2-3

Average frequency (%) of wind speeds in the Gulf of Finland Speeds range, m/s Winter Spring Summer Autumn

<5 25 36 70 28 6- 10 39 34 26 39

11 - 15 33 28 4 31 16 20 2,5 1,5 0,1 16




Speeds range, m/s Winter Spring Summer Autumn

>20 0,5 0,5 0,02 0,4 Table 3.2-3 shows that winds with speeds between 6 and 10 m/s dominate over the eastern Gulf of Finland in autumn, winter and spring; less than 5 m/s - in summer [32, 39]. The highest wind speeds (25 to 30 m/s) are reached in the Gulf of Finland. Table 3.2-4 shows probability of highest wind speeds at coastal stations in the eastern Gulf of Finland. It can be seen from the table, that wind speeds in the eastern Gulf of Finland is most likely highest at Gogland.

Table 3.2-4

The highest wind speeds (m/s) possible once per N years in the eastern Gulf of Finland

Station N years

1 5 10 15 20 Vyborg 22 26 27 28 29 Gogland 25 28 30 31 32

Lomonosov 19 22 23 24 25 Nevskaya (St. Petersburg)

20 23 24 25 26

3.2.5. Nebulosity and precipitation Average monthly nebulosity's variations in the Baltic Sea during year are from 5 to 8 points, only at a few stations it is 9 points in November and December. The greatest amounts of clouds are reported between October and February-March. Average annual number of cloudy days (amount of clouds is 8 to 10 points) on the coast mainly varies from 115 to 170, and in the Gulf of Finland area increases up to 190 to 220. Greatest number of cloudy days takes place between October and February-March, when its average monthly value is equal 13 to 26. Number of cloudy days at the most stations is equal 4 to 12 between April and September. It is a few of fair days (amount of clouds is 0 to 2 points): 22 to 74 on the average per year. Average monthly number of fair days varies from 1 to 8, the least number of fairy days (1 to 2 on average per month) is observed between September-October and February. Cumulus and cumulo-nimbus clouds are most likely to be observed in spring and summer, and stratus, strato-nimbus and strato-cumulus clouds - in autumn and winter. Cloudy weather (mount of clouds is 10 points or more) dominates during year over the Gulf of Finland, and its frequency for total nebulosity is 75 to 85% in cold season. Lower-cloudy sky is also frequently observed in winter (70 to 75%), and frequency of cloudy weather decreases toward summer time to 25 to 30%. One can estimate about cloudy weather's stability with number of cloudy days (with dominating mount of clouds between 8 and 10 points). 160 to 170 of such days for total nebulosity and 90 to 110 for lower nebulosity are reported on the coast of the gulf [326].




Similarly as for total nebulosity, average monthly mounts of clouds at lower level over the Gulf of Finland slightly change. Maximal mounts of lower clouds during annual variation are reported in November for all stations (except Pakri); limit range is from 7.8 to 8.3 (Moshchny Island). Minimal mounts of lower clouds during annual variation are also high and vary over the Gulf proper in 1 point (from 3.0 in Ozerki to 4.0 in St Petersburg). Minimal mounts of clouds over the gulf is mainly observed in June, but at certain stations minimum may be reported also in May (Vyborg, St. Petersburg). The Gulf of Finland belongs to the excessive precipitation area. Precipitation is not uniform during year: approximately 70% take place in the warm season and 30% - in the cold season; and more than half of precipitation falls in liquid form. Extended widespread rains with a relatively less intense (0.2 to 0.4 mm/h) dominate in cold months, their intense increases up to 1.1 to 1.3 mm/h in summer due to the rainstorm precipitation. Annual precipitation amount in the open area of the Gulf of Finland is from 550 to 790 mm. The most precipitation (from 45 to 100 mm per month) falls between June- July and November-December. Between January and May-June, average monthly precipitation is from 20 to 45 mm. The rainiest months in the Gulf of Finland are August and September, and the dustiest ones are January and April. Number of rainy days per year varies from 146 to 191, and it varies from 9 to 21 per month. The length of precipitations is from 1030 to 1990 h per year and reaches its maximum in December-January and minimum in June. Average daily duration of precipitations is from 10 to 11 h. in winter and around 4 h. in summer. Snow falls between October and April, and occasionally in May. It is especially often (up to 20 days a month on average) from December to March [61]. Table 3.2-5 shows average monthly precipitation at the nearest stations.

Table 3.2-5.

Average monthly precipitation in the eastern Gulf of Finland, mm.

Station Months

Yea

r

1 II III IV V VI VII VIII IX X XI XII Vyborg 47 36 31 39 43 59 67 85 79 67 60 52 665

Moshchny 27 22 21 28 33 40 50 67 63 61 51 42 505 Gogland 27 22 21 28 32 39 49 65 62 60 50 41 496

Analysing of seasonal features of the precipitation distribution allow to include the northern coastal area of the Gulf of Finland, especially its north-western areas, to the most humid regions, whereas the central and southern coastal areas of the Gulf obtain less precipitation. This precipitation distribution is likely caused by orographic features of the northern coastal area and western and south-western winds domination.




3.2.6. Adverse atmospheric effects

3.2.6.1. Fogs

Fogs frequently occur in the Baltic Sea. Their frequency in the open sea is from 1 to 5%. Fogs are most frequently observed from September-October to March-April, when monthly average number of foggy days varies between 5 and 10. Fogs are least reported from May-June to August. Advective, radiation and evaporation fogs are characteristic for describable area. Fogs are most frequently observed in spring and summer. Advective fogs are characterized by high tolerance, significant vertical width and are very extensive. Average duration of fogs in the open sea is from 5 to 6 h., and largest ones in certain months reach up to from 50 to 60 h. Wefts are often observed over the sea in winter. Table 3.2-6 shows number of foggy and thunderstorm days at station Vyborg [10].

Table 3.2-6

Number of foggy (F) and thunderstorm (T) days

Stat

ion

Months

Ann

ual

tota

l

Num

ber

of

obse

rvat

ion

year

s

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

F 3 3 3 3 2 1 1 1 3 3 4 4 31 30

Vyborg T 0 0 0 0 1 3 5 3 2 0 0 0 14 26

The most frequency of fogs (from 5 to 10%, 12% at certain places) is observed from December to April. Frequency of fogs is less than 5% in other months. Foggy days' number at the coastline varies between 30 and 75 per year. Fogs are most frequently observed from September-October to March-April, when monthly average number of foggy days varies between 4 and 7, it reaches up to 10 at certain places. Number of foggy days in other months is less than 3 per month.

3.2.6.2. Thunderstorms Thunderstorms are rarely reported in the open area of the Gulf of Finland. Number of thunderstorm days on average varies between 10 and 23 per year. Thunderstorms are normally observed from April-May to September, but occasionally they may be reported in winter. Monthly average number of thunderstorm days is from 1 to 6. Thunderstorm's activity is highest in July and August. Information about average number of days with dangerous meteorological activities of the eastern Gulf of Finland is shown in the Table 3.2-7 [310].

Table 3.2-7

Seasonal regime information about average number of days with dangerous meteorological activities of the eastern Gulf of Finland

Season Fog Glaze Hoarfrost Snowfall Rainfall Rain-with-snow-fall Thunderstorm

Autumn 13 2 <1 9 34 9 1 Winter 14 8 14 41 4 14 *) Spring 13 1 3 12 17 7 3




Season Fog Glaze Hoarfrost Snowfall Rainfall Rain-with-snow-fall Thunderstorm

Summer 4 - - - 41 *) 12 Note: *) - possible rarely

3.2.6.3. Snowstorms Snowstorms over the Baltic Sea are mainly reported from November to April, but they are most likely in January and February, when number of days with them may reach up to 10. Their duration is usually less than 24 hours.

3.2.6.4. Spouts Spouts are rarely observed. Spouts are most likely to appear in warm season of a year. Spout velocity is 10 m/s on average. Wind speeds in spout reaches up to from 50 to 100 m/s. Rotation in it may be directed clockwise or in opposite direction. Duration of spouts varies from a few minutes to several tens of minutes [348, 355].

3.2.6.5. Restricted visibility Visibility better than 5 miles dominates in the open sea areas of the Gulf of Finland during whole year, its frequency in certain months reaches up to 95%. Best visibility is reported in summer. Frequency of visibility worse than 2 miles is less than 15%, from November-December to March-April it increases up to 20 to 30% in the upper areas of Vyborg Bay [310].

3.2.7. An overview of air pollution levels The geographical position of the projected pipeline (the sea area near unsettled islands and northern coast line in the eastern Gulf of Finland) gives no active Rosgidromet stations of the air pollution's monitoring in the area. The nearest residential areas at the Russian landfall are Bolshoy Bor, Primorsk, Svetlogorsk, Vyborg, at the Finish landfall they are Virolahti and Kotka port. The air pollution assesses based on the monitored rates comply with the established PDK and OBUV according to the:

• The Hygienic Norms GN 2.1.6.1338-03 - Maximum Allowed Concentrations (PDKs) of polluting substances in the ambient air of residential areas.

• The Hygienic Norms GN 2.1.6.1339-03 - Approximate Safe Concentration Levels

(OBUVs) for substances in the air of residential areas established. Suspended matters, sulphur dioxide and nitrogen dioxide are known to be the most conservative in time of presence in the lower layers of the atmosphere in a range of toxic polluting substances [220, 221]. "The Annals of the Air Pollution Conditions in Russian Towns and Areas", from 1997 to 2005 reports pollution rate of the coastal area of the Gulf of Finland to be predominantly characterised as being low.




The characteristic feature of this area is no industrial plants affecting the atmospheric air. The State Bureau "St Petersburg's CGSM-R" reports air pollution at the area of the Portovaya Bay with the following substances (Appendix 3.2):

• Suspended matter - 0.17 mg/m3.

• Sulphur dioxide - 0.015 mg/m3.

• Carbon monoxide - 1.5 mg/m3.

• Nitrogen dioxide - 0.05 mg/m3.

• Nitrogen monoxide - 0.021 mg/m3.




3.3. Oceanography And Sea Water Quality

3.3.1. Stream conditions

3.3.1.1. Seawater temperature

The annual variation in surface water temperature in the eastern Gulf of Finland generally follows air temperature, which is the typical pattern for moderate latitudes. From January to March, the Gulf of Finland is almost entirely ice-covered and the water temperature in the eastern Gulf of Finland is close to 0С. The lowest average monthly surface water temperature is reported in March. After the ice melts in the eastern Gulf of Finland in April to May, the surface water begins to heat up rapidly. Almost all coastal stations in the eastern part of the Gulf record a water temperature shift from an average of 3°С during 16 to 28 April, and from an average of 10°С during 10 to 27 May. Water temperature's heating continues to the end of June to the beginning of August, when the maximum appears in the annual variation of monthly average surface water temperature, reaching from 18 to 20°С. Absolute maximum of temperature in the open Gulf in this period reaches up to 24 to 26°С20 in the eastern area and 20 to 22°С in the central area of the Gulf [250] . In autumn the upper water layer begins to cool gradually: coastal stations in the eastern Gulf of Finland record a water temperature shift from an average of 10°С at the mean during 20 September to 5 October, and from an average of 5°С during 20 to 30 October. intensive radiational heating and windless weather in summer result forming of a seasonal thermocline, in which strong vertical gradients of temperature occurs (to 2.5°С/m), determining significant stability of water mass and hampering vertical mixing. In autumn in the open Gulf, surface water temperature reaches uniform due to intensive wind and convective mixing, seasonal thermocline is being destructed, and thermal stratification of the water of the Gulf of Finland becomes unstable. Average, maximal and minimal water temperatures at the coastal stations during recent years are shown in the table 3.3-1.

Table 3.3-1

Surface water temperature at coastal stations in the Gulf of Finland, °С Station Value I II III IV V VI VII VIII IX X XI XII Vyborg

(1977-2000) Aver. 0,01 0,00 0,11 2,00 10,18 16,75 19,43 18,57 13,19 7,19 1,93 0,22 Min. -0,30 0,00 -0,10 0,00 0,60 9,90 13,30 13,60 6,50 0,80 0,00 0,00 Max. 0,50 0,40 1,70 11,30 21,90 24,90 26,30 24,80 19,70 13,10 6,70 3,70

Moshchny (1977-1993)

Aver. -0,06 -0,19 -0,11 0,97 8,98 15,32 18,59 17,32 12,08 6,93 2,62 0,37 Min. -0,60 -0,50 -0,50 -0,20 -0,10 6,00 11,60 10,40 4,60 0,00 -0,40 -0,50




Station Value I II III IV V VI VII VIII IX X XI XII

Max. 2,30 0,20 0,80 11,50 20,50 26,80 26,90 25,80 18,90 12,80 7,90 5,10 Gogland

(1977-1996) Aver. 0,17 -0,09 0,08 1,16 6,78 13,33 17,01 17,32 13,21 8,76 4,60 1,56 Min. -0,60 -0,50 -0,40 -0,30 0,00 7,00 8,80 13,00 7,60 6,00 -0,20 -0,60 Max. 3,20 1,40 2,80 9,90 18,60 25,60 25,60 24,10 19,40 13,40 8,50 6,00

Annual variation of temperature of deep water in the open Gulf of Finland differs significantly from surface one: range of water temperature variation decreases, water temperature reaches its maximum later. The thermal regime of the coastal waters mainly exhibits the same pattern of annual variation as water temperature in the open waters of the Gulf of Finland. However, due to shallow nature in spite of weak wind and waves mixing, the whole water column becomes thermally homogeneous during a short period of time. The heating in this area in spring is few quicker and water column temperatures are higher on average of from 2 to 3°С than in the open Gulf. The cooling of water column here in autumn is quicker too and full homothermy is achieved earlier than in the open Gulf. That's why in spring and autumn seasons in the coastal waters of the Gulf of Finland, thermic bar (offshore front) is often observed, where water temperature's horizontal gradients reach up to 0.5 to 1.0°С/km. Figure 3.3-1 shows seasonal distribution of temperature on the various levels in autumn.




Fig. 3.3-1. Seasonal distribution of temperature on the levels of 0, 20 and 50 m in the Gulf of

Finland in September to November

3.3.1.2. Sea water salinity The surface water salinity in the Gulf of Finland varies very small when compared with the water temperature. Minimal monthly average salinity rates are observed during the spring/summer and maximal ones - during the autumn/winter. Width of the water upper layer, where well-marked annual variation of salinity rates is observed, is less than from 5 to 10 m. Salinity rate increases with depth. In the open Gulf of Finland, a permanent halocline exists at depths of 60 - 70 m. Maximal vertical gradients of salinity is reported in the upper of the eastern Gulf in spring and summer. Average monthly salinity rate in this period is from 1 to 2 ‰ at the surface layer, at the depths of 20 m it is from 4 to 5 ‰, and deeper than 50 m it is from more than 7 ‰. In autumn due to the winds and waves mixing, salinity becomes vertically uniform, increasing at the surface layer and slightly decreasing in the depth layer. The space distribution of salinity rates at the surface layer of the Gulf is generally characterised by increasing westward from between 1 and 2‰ to between 6 and 6.5‰ in all the season of year [63]. Therefore, the rate in the northern Gulf is slightly smaller than in the southern coastal area, due to desalting impact of Finish rivers and general circulation of water in the Gulf of Finland. Average, maximal and minimal water salinity at the coastal stations during recent years is shown in the table 3.3-2.

Table 3.3-2

Surface water salinity at coastal stations in the Gulf of Finland, ‰ Station Value I II III IV V VI VII VIII IX X XI XII Vyborg

(1977-2000) Aver. 1,13 1,11 1,08 0,72 0,55 0,81 1,15 1,35 1,49 1,35 1,15 1,05 Min. 0,16 0,27 0,21 0,15 0,12 0,16 0,34 0,41 0,27 0,08 0,13 0,21 Max. 2,80 2,24 2,36 2,22 1,46 2,34 2,31 3,10 2,80 2,93 2,40 2,44

Moshchny (1977-1993)

Aver. 5,13 4,72 3,95 2,52 4,30 4,34 4,45 4,42 4,51 4,79 4,93 5,04 Min. 3,75 1,91 1,87 0,00 1,69 2,92 3,06 3,00 3,19 2,83 3,71 2,67




Station Value I II III IV V VI VII VIII IX X XI XII

Max. 6,74 6,58 6,65 5,39 5,84 5,73 6,02 6,49 5,66 6,13 5,97 6,40 Gogland

(1977-1996) Aver. 4,48 3,67 3,10 2,57 4,45 4,80 4,91 4,90 4,88 5,05 5,08 5,05 Min. 0,82 0,00 0,45 0,17 0,10 2,29 2,85 3,89 3,04 2,66 3,65 1,93 Max. 7,20 6,60 6,65 6,83 7,00 6,21 6,24 6,15 7,30 6,30 6,54 6,98

Water temperature and salinity in the Gulf of Finland is subject to significant short-term changes. One of the reasons for this variability is the coastal upwelling, which plays an important role in the formation of the thermohaline structure of coastal waters. Horizontal magnitude of the upwelling areas is 100 km along the coast and from 10 to 20 km offshore, surface water temperature's gradients reach up to 0.5 to 1.0°С/km (occasionally 4°С/km), and temperature differential between upwelling water and water in the open Gulf of Finland varies from 2 to 10°С. In some cases, satellite subsequent imageries show upwelling front's and its centre's movement at a rate of from 10 to 15 km per 24 hours. The average duration of the effect of a coastal upwelling in certain months varies from 1 to 10 days, in most cases it is from 1 to 4 days. After the weather changes, the background distribution of water temperature at the coastal area is restored in about 2-3 days. Upwelling events lasting less than 24 hours occur when a thermocline lies fairly close to the Gulf’s surface and wind direction changes rapidly. In these cases, upwellings are far less extensive (tens of kilometres), but exhibit more abrupt temperature contrasts. Upwelling frequency in various areas of the coastal water of the Gulf of Finland differs from each other in spring and summer. For example in certain months, more than five surface water temperatures may take place in the coastal area. On average in May-June, upwellings generally more frequently are created at southern coast of the Gulf of Finland, they are often observed near the coasts of Finland in July, and their frequency is uniform in August-September.

3.3.1.3. Currents and tidal oscillation General water circulation of the Gulf of Finland forms mainly by exchange with the Baltic Sea, and it, in turn, - with the North Sea, and, to a lesser extent, by the river runoff's input. These two factors cause horizontal and vertical inhomogeneity of density field. Figure 3.3-2 shows general current pattern of the Baltic Sea.




Fig. 3.3-2.General water circulation pattern in the Baltic and the North Seas Vertical water circulation in the Baltic Sea, including the Gulf of Finland, is owing to saline North-Sea water input and desalted water output. The vertical currents pattern is mainly determined by stratification of the water body of the Baltic Sea. Figure 3.3-3 shows principle pattern of water movements at the vertical plane.

Figure 3.3-3. Water circulation pattern at the vertical plane in the Baltic Sea The desalted and lighter water in the upper layer, mainly from the Gulf of Finland, flows unimpeded to the North Sea. The saline and thus denser water of north-sea origin, flowing at the deep layer to the Baltic Sea, comes across obstacles of submerged ridges (steps) and deeps. It can fill the deeps only in case its density exceeds density of the old bottom-water. But typically, this water, mixing with the water in the depth of halocline, currents along it. The depth of the halocline differs depending on the density ratio of the new north-sea incoming water and old Baltic one.




Deep water rising is reported in the lifting areas, turbulent circulation forms in the deep areas. Whereby, while it is mainly cyclonic at the upper and intermediate layers, it is anticyclonic at deeper layer of the deeps. Wind currents, long-wave currents play a major role, and runoff, tidal and inertia currents - a minor role, in currency pattern in the Gulf of Finland. Wind currents in the Baltic Sea and the Gulf of Finland develop in the upper layer to thermocline in summer (20-30 m) and to halocline in winter (60-70 м) due to wind impact on underlying water surface. In the water depth current speeds drop rapidly. It is considered, that on the surface wind current speeds in the Gulf of Finland exposed areas are not more than 50 cm/s, in 90% of all cases not more than 20-25 cm/s [182]. Known statistical evaluations of dependence of wind current speed from depth and wind speed are shown in Figure 3.3-4 diagram.

Figure 3.3-4. Wind current speed change on the surface against wind speed and depth Long waves and related currents play key role in formation of currents conditions in the Baltic Sea, especially in the Gulf of Finland. There are stimulated and free long waves. Stimulated long waves in the Baltic Sea arise as a reaction of the basin to moving nonhomogeneous field of atmospheric pressure (cyclone). This type of wave movements grasps whole water column and is followed by strong currents. It is considered, that the speed of such currents in Gulf of Finland coastal areas can exceed 100 cm/s, and on exposed areas can reach 50-70 cm/s [149]. Free long waves (seiches) are fluctuations of level with natural frequency of basin, maximum seiche range in the upper parts of the bays reaches 70-100 cm, in the open sea it is 10-20 cm. At extreme seiche oscillation ranges current speed in central Baltic Sea does not exceed 15-25 cm/s, in the shallow coastal basins and upper parts of the bays (in the Gulf of Finland) reaches 80-90 cm/s.




In the depth seiche current speeds damp out rapidly and, accordingly, in the open sea at depths of more than 30 metres do not exceed 10 cm/s [149]. Inertial and flood currents. Inertial currents are result of Coriolis force impact to any tide; they are exhibited as elliptic loop in current progressive vector diagram. Inertial currents period in the Baltic Sea, including Gulf of Finland, is 13.3-14.6 hours. Duration of period with distinct current inertial fluctuations does not exceed 2-3 days. Inertial currents are typical generally for central Baltic Sea; their speed does not exceed 15-20 cm/s. The influence of the tide in the Baltic Sea and the Gulf of Finland is not large, therefore flood currents are small. Flood currents in the Gulf of Finland do not exceed 2-3 cm/s. Average and maximum speeds assessments of different types of currents in the Gulf of Finland are shown in the Table 3.3-3.

Table 3.3-3 Average and maximum speeds assessments of different types of currents in the Gulf of Finland

Current type Speed Gulf of Finland, narrow places

0..20m 20..50m >50m

Permanent Av. 10 5 2

Wind Av. 10 5 0

Max. 40 10 0

Long waves Av.

Max. >100 >100 >100

Seiche Av. 20 10 0

Max. 90 70 0

Inertial Av. 0 0 0 Max. 0 0 0

Flood Av. 2 2 2 Max. 3 3 3

Average current speed in the Gulf of Finland exposed area is 5-15 cm/s, maximal - 75 cm/s. Close to the coast current directions are along the coast, in all such areas, except upper Neva Bay, where westward currents prevail, current direction can be either towards upper bay or opposite, proves their high variability [28]. Water dynamics in the Gulf of Finland, as well as the entire Baltic Sea mainly depends on atmospheric processes, which develop over the marine area. Actual current picture is a complex of movements of different scale and different nature. According to their nature all kinds of movements can be divided into quasiperiodical and quasistationary. First include wave processes and related currents, which contribute to water circulation variability above all and are the main reason of the deep sea dynamics. Second kind of movements deals with horizontal heterogeneity of physical fields and initiates definitely directional movement of the water mass in the sea.




Quasiperiodical processes in water column caused by stimulated long waves during deep baric formations movement play the key role in overall currents in the Gulf of Finland. The duration of such processes is from 1 to 5 days. In some coastal areas, including Gulf of Finland coast, the speed of currents caused by them can reach 100 cm/s. In the open sea during normal baric conditions the speed of these currents rarely exceeds 15-20 cm/s.

3.3.1.4. Wave conditions and sea level Wind-induced wave in the Gulf of Finland is strongest from September to December. Table 3.3-4 shows the results of systematization of published data on wave regime in the Gulf of Finland received by summarising vessel surveys data.

Table 3.3-4

Frequency of wave height 3% probability Height range, m Winter Spring Summer Autumn

Gulf of Finland <1 27 27 43 24 1-2 48 49 39 51 2-3 17 17 13 17 3-4 5 5,8 3,3 5,1 4-5 2 0,4 1,1 2 5-6 0,6 0,5 0,4 0,6 6-7 0,2 0,17 0,1 0,2 7-8 0,11 0,08 0,06 0,06 8-9 0,05 0,03 0,02 0,02 9-10 0,04 0,02 0,02

In winter there can be waves more than 9 m (in the Gulf of Finland exposed area). Waves less than 3 m high are observed in 70-80% of all cases (with probability 3%). In summer wave intensity is much less: about 80% are waves less than 2 m high. Usually there are waves of small periods, less than 5s, in the Baltic Sea, especially in the Gulf of Finland. Changing sea levels in the eastern Gulf of Finland is caused by a number of physical processes both in the Gulf itself and in the Baltic Sea as a whole. Mean level of the Baltic Sea smoothly rises from the Danish Straits to the upper Gulf of Finland averagely 1 cm every 70-80 km. Mean long-term level of the Baltic Sea in relation to Kronstadt tide-gauge zero on data is shown in figure 3.3-5.




Figure 3.3-5. Mean long-term level of the Baltic Sea (cm) in relation to Kronstadt tide-gauge 0

Overall variability of the sea level is characterised by total variance of fluctuations of level. The value of total variance of fluctuations of level (cm2) is shown in Figure 3.3-6.

Figure 3.3-6. Total variance of fluctuations of level (cm2)

Interannual variability is caused by global climatic and geophysical factors influence. The key contributors to this kind of variability are processes causing the change of air flow forms. Interannual variability of the level increases from the Danish Straits to the upper Gulf of Finland and to Bothnia. For example, root-mean-square deviation of average annual level near the Danish Straits is 9-10 cm, in Kronstadt region is 19.4 cm. Seasonal or within-year variability (month - year) of the levels is caused by seasonal changes of water balance constituents, including alteration of water exchange with the North Sea and seasonal changes in atmospheric processes. Overall in the Baltic Sea minimum variability of average monthly level values occurs in May to August, maximum in September to April.




The proportion of this kind of variability in total variance of fluctuations of level changes considerably along the sea. Annual range of average monthly level values increases from the Danish Straits where it is about 10 cm, to the upper Gulf of Finland, where it reaches 30-40 cm. It should be noted that fluctuations of level within every year differ: dates of maximum and minimum values can shift, and fluctuation range in certain months can reach 90-120 cm and more. The annual variation of mean sea level values on the Gulf of Finland coast is shown in Table 3.3-5.

Table 3.3-5

Mean sea level values on the Gulf of Finland Station Period I II III IV V VI VII VIII IX X XI XII Year Vyborg 1965-1990 5 -9 -15 -12 -19 -7 7 4 10 13 21 19 1

Moshchny 1946-1964 2 -13 -21 -19 -18 -9 1 2 6 7 -4 5 -5 1965-1985 -2 -12 -17 -15 -23 -12 3 -1 6 8 15 13 -3

Gogland 1965-1990 2 -15 -21 -16 -23 -12 2 -2 4 6 11 12 -4 The most stable element of annual variation of levels in the Gulf of Finland in interannual variability range is summer level rise; the most varying from year to year is level positions in winter. Autumn maximum, which is the main for the Gulf of Finland, is observed in October and rarer in September. Secondary winter maximum falls to December. Spring minimum, the deepest, most often begins in March - April, secondary autumn minimum - in November. Fluctuations of level of synoptic scale (1-30 days) are mainly caused by atmospheric processes and passage of cyclones, fluctuations of daily scale (6-24 hours) - by astronomic factors. Largest tidal fluctuations of level in the Baltic Sea are in the Gulf of Finland where they do not exceed 10 cm, surging and seiche fluctuations of level play major role. Summary of contribution of described kinds of fluctuations of sea level is in Table 3.3-6.

Type of fluctuations of level Gulf of Finland

Secular dh/dt, mm/year +2 Interannual (RMSE, cm) RMSE, cm 17..20

Seasonal RMSE, cm 8..11 Av. range, cm 30..40

Seiche Average range, cm 30..50 Period, hour 6..39 Max. range, cm 120




Type of fluctuations of level Gulf of Finland

Surging Period, hours 12..48 Max. range, cm >200

Tidal Max. 5..10

Total variance in the region, cm2 Av. 340

Max. 400 Largest fluctuations of level in the Gulf of Finland are associated with high flood caused by passage of cyclones over Baltic proper and the Gulf of Finland. Predominant cyclone movement from the west to the east, gradual depth decrease in the eastern part of the gulf and its sharp narrowing to the Neva estuary makes Neva Bay area, especially St. Petersburg, dangerous in terms of floods, most of which have complex nature, when long wave, intensified by wind, collides with seiche.

3.3.1.5. Sea water transparency The highest water transparency is reported in the central areas of the Gulf of Finland. Closer to the coastlines, shallow areas and river mouths the water transparency decreases. Near the shores the transparency never exceeds 3 m, even under the most favourable conditions, and after storms it is reduced to 1-2 m. Highest level of transparency is reported in winter, with the maximum in open areas up to 18 m. In spring the transparency ranges between 9 and 14 m. The water is green or grayish. In the spring the transparency in areas close to mouths decreases to 0.5-1 m. The lowest transparency is reported in summer period during maximum plankton dynamics with average of 6-8 m, maximum transparency in summer in open areas is 12 m. Toward autumn the transparency increases up to 9-11 m, with a maximum in open areas up to 14 m. Gradual increasing of transparency is reported in the eastern Gulf of Finland along designed Nord Stream pipeline route from Portovaya Bay (transparency 2.2 - 2.7 m) to Gogland Island and further to the west (5.5 - 6.5 m). At the stations, in the exposed route area with depths over 30 m, transparency remains at a considerably high level: 56 m average. The connection between transparency and turbidity is quite logic. Figure 3.3-7 shows the water transparency values determined by means of a white disk, and the mean depth turbidity data obtained by the hydrological measuring probe along the axis of the surveying area. Increasing of the transparency is accompanied by a decrease in turbidity from the 1st to the 47th station.




Figure 3.3-7. Distribution of transparency and the mean depth turbidity data on axial cross section stations (from Portovaya Bay No1 to the border of Russian territorial sea No47)

In the eastern Gulf of Finland along designed Nord Stream pipeline route from Portovaya Bay to Gogland Island autumn period is connected with to two or three-layer water structure (depending on the depth of water area). Homogeneous surface water layer with mean thickness of 15-17 m is slightly lower in temperature and salinity in comparison with the underlying layer. Maximum values of salinity and minimum temperature values are found in deep water areas with depths greater than 50 m, where transformed sea waters underlie. Optical turbidity and transparency parameters characterize the investigated area east of the Gulf of Finland as pure enough in terms of suspended mineral and organic particles presence.

3.3.1.6. Ice conditions Ice regime of the Gulf of Finland is determined by its geographical location, climatic conditions, depth and seabed topography, freshening influence of runoff, the intensity of heat exchange with the open part of the Gulf of Finland, and by water circulation. Gulf of Finland is characterized by a more severe ice conditions than in the Baltic Sea due to more frequent intrusions of cold air masses. Time variation of the relative area of ice cover of the Gulf of Finland and the central part of the Baltic Sea is shown on Figure 3.3-8. Here the relative area of ice cover is the ratio of the area covered by ice to the total area of the basin.




Figure 3.3-8. The relative area of ice cover S Ice conditions are extremely diverse in the Gulf of Finland. The severity of ice conditions increases dramatically in the eastern part of the gulf due to the increase of climate continentality and gradually reduces the depth and salinity of waters. The ice appears at the North of the Gulf of Finland in late November-early December, the central part is covered by ice in early January, and only in late January - early February it appears in the coastal areas of the western part of the Gulf. Ice thickness varies largely. During hard winters the ice thickness in the eastern Gulf of Finland reaches 70-80 cm and in the western part usually does not exceed 40-50 cm. The maximum spread of ice, ice pack concentration and the thickness of shore ice belt during the hardest winter shows the Figure 3.3-9.

Figure 3.3-9. Ice extent boundaries of ice pack and shore ice belt, and their characteristics in hardest winters

The map chart of the mean number of days with ice cover is based on ice regimes for certain points on the Baltic Sea shoreline (Figure 3.3-10).




Figure 3.3-10. The map chart of the mean number of days with ice cover along designed pipeline

route Ice ridging The most important in the pipeline project is the ice conditions in the landfall where the lower edge of the shore ice and the ridges formed on it may cause damage to pipes. In hard winters more than 20% of the Gulf of Finland is covered with ridges with sail height of 2-3 m. Large ice ridges occur in areas of stationary cracks in the shore ice debacle. Maximum height of coastal ridges may reach 10-12 m [18]. The most significant part in the formation of ridges play wind impacts, water level fluctuations during surge and negative surge, and water currents. Ridges formation processes reach maximum scale at the joint impact of surge and strong west winds. Ridges formation is mainly associated with the movement and compression of ice, and ridges spatial distribution depends on seabed topography, the morphology of the shorelines, and unevenness in shore ice formation. Ridges formed in inter-island coastal zone are mainly of autumn and winter background. The zone includes the Vyborg Bay, coastal areas of the northern coast with numerous islands and banks. The autumn-winter period of hummocking during the mild winter in the inter-island zone usually occurs in December and January and in shore ice debacle in February. During the hardest winters in the inter-island zone the glaciation takes a few days practically without ridges formation. Ridges moving to the shoe may ground, forming a chain of grounded ice hummocks with the height of the sail 3 - 5 m. Ridges in near coastal zone are mainly formed either at the beginning of winter when the border of shore ice for some time takes a stationary position near the coast, or in spring when the ice cover partially cleans and its boundary is approximately in line with the coastal isobaths. The most stable position of shore ice is mainly associated with isobaths 5, 10, and in part with 20 m. Just along these isobaths hummocking occurs. Due to the shallow nature of the area the coastal hummocking is commonly widespread. The most intensive hummocking and ice pileup on the shore and banks are reported in the vicinity of Moshchny Island, Seskar, Gogland, Bolshoy Berezovy Island, and Stirsudden cape. The piles of ice up to 8 - 10 m were many times noted in there.




In exposed areas the hummocking is found in the second part of January. Most often the hummocking occurs in west quarter winds, at the same time the formation of coastline stops. The forming of ridges in packed ice resulting from ice floes interaction is another feature of the hummocking in the exposed areas. In mild winters the hummocking takes place in January-March in the eastern of the exposed part of the Gulf and the distribution of ridges is local. In hard and moderate winters the hummocking occurs in the second decade of January. By the end of February the hummocking covers the entire central part of the Gulf and the increasing of the mean ice thickness at the area is 20 - 25% due to ridges. The hummocking reaches maximum scale in mid-March.

3.3.2. Hydrochemical processes and water quality

3.3.2.1. Sea water hydrochemistry According the results of observations quality assessment of waters of the eastern Gulf of Finland made in the mid 1990s the values of pH ranging from 7 to 8.5. The highest average pH values are typical for the summer season, the lowest - for the winter. Seasonal changes of average pH values on the surface of the Gulf of Finland are outlined in Table 3.3-7.

Table 3.3-7

Seasonal changes of avergae pH values on the surface of the Gulf of Finland Region Winter Spring Summer Autumn

Neva Bay ice 8,25 7,80 - Gulf of Finland:

Central part 7,82 7,79 8,01 7,94 Western part 8,00 8,43 8,17 7,94

The upper layer of the Gulf of Finland close to oxygen saturation (in spring and summer due to photosynthesis up to 110-130%, in autumn and winter 90-96%). The dissolved oxygen content is at least 4 mg/l [220]. Biochemical oxygen consumption (BOC5) in the sea surface layer is 2.33±0.4 mgО2/l; in the near-bottom layer – 1.64±0.4 mgО2/l. The values of BOC show small volumes of decomposable organic matters in surface and bottom layers in the eastern part of the Gulf of Finland. The average concentration of total nitrogen, total phosphorus and their ratio for the period 1994-1998 is shown in Table 3.3-8.




Year Substance

Ntotal Ptotal Ntotal/Ptotal 1994 934 49 19,1 1995 718 25 28,7 1996 712 40 17,8 1997 744 23 32,3 1998 752 39,5 19

The concentration of total nitrogen, total phosphorus and their ratio is one of the most informative indicators of the degree of eutrophication of a basin. For much humified basins ratio N total/P total has exponent 100 and higher: for oligotrophic - 30-40; mesotrophic - 25-30; eutrophic - 15-25; hypertrophic - 12-18. Thus, in the table values show a high degree of pollution by biogenic elements of the eastern Gulf of Finland [220]. Maximum concentrations of phosphates in the sea surface layer are observed in winter (10-14 Рμg/l), minimum concentrations in late summer (1-3 Рμg/l). In the deep layer below the layer of sharp density gradient the volume of phosphates sharply increases in the process of regeneration of organic matters. The most typical distribution for nitrate is also the concentration increasing in proportion to depth. The volume of nitrates in euphotic layer in spring and summer is often reduced due to photosynthesis, and in winter it is raised (up to 10 Nμg/ l). Due to the large river discharge the Gulf of Finland waters have a high concentration of dissolved silica: in the sea surface layer 300-1100 Si μg/ l, in the deep layer 1200-2500 Si μg/ l [63]. Hydrochemical description of the investigated areas of the pipeline construction is given on the basis of engineering and environmental investigations conducted in 2005. The current data on hydrological and hydrochemical regime in autumn was obtained during the engineering and environmental investigations at offshore section of Russian sector of Nord Stream pipeline. The data of distribution and variations of the main hydrochemical indicators obtained in 2005 follow the same perennial dynamics of changes in autumn of the main hydrochemical parameters of water area eastern Gulf of Finland. Methods of laboratory testing of sea water samples, on the basis of which the hydrochemical characteristics were obtained, are presented in Table 1.4. (Volume 12, Book 1, Chapter 3, Section 1). The area of Portovaya Bay is the closest to the land and is located on the northeastern border of the projected pipeline route. All this gives grounds to conclude about the existence of quite a lot of sufficiently freshened waters formed under the influence of runoff. The range of concentrations of chlorides and sulfates are as follows: chlorides -1046÷2092 mg/l, sulphate - 240.0÷360 mg/l. The average content of dry residue is 3063 mg/l.




Variation of electrical conductivity, which is directly dependent on the content of salts, is in the range 0.3314 to 0.4041 cm/m. Changing the values of oxidation-reduction potential Eh for the surface is from 184 to 242 mV, and at the bottom from 120 to 218 mV. Mean value of Eh for all the investigated water area during the observation period is 196 mV. The values of alkalinity on the surface of the projected pipeline area vary from 0.86 to 1.28 mg-eq/l, and at the bottom from 0.86 to 1.42 mg-eq/l. The average value of total alkalinity for all the investigated water area during the observation period is 1.13 mg-eq/l. In general the area is characterized by a low content of suspended matter. In particular the concentration of suspended matter in most of the stations is below the limit of detection (less than 3.0 mg/l). Dissolved oxygen volumes are significantly higher of the lower tolerance limit for the fisheries waters (6.0 mg/l), indicating a high capacity of water self-purification. There is a natural excess of oxygen in surface waters (9.88 ÷ 10.30 mg/l) compared to the bottom layer (9.48 ÷ 10.20 mg/l). The oxygen content of surface water on the horizon 1.0 m varies from 10.60 to 9.97 mg/l, and in the near-bottom layer from 10.58 to 4.88 mg/, thereby complying with the limit. The highest content of dissolved oxygen is in the two horizons of the north-eastern coastal area of the route. The value of hydrogen index (pH) for the entire water column is stable: 7.22 ± 0.02 рН, which is close to a neutral reaction of a background and corresponds to the tolerance range of 6.5÷8.5 рН. The most high hydrocarbonate level is in the bottom layer of study area - up to 109.8 mg/l, with the average value 85.9 mg/l. These concentrations correspond to a neutral reaction of water with a predominance of hydrocarbonate on carbon dioxide (in the case of acidic waters) and carbonates (for alkaline waters). Ranges of concentrations of calcium ions, magnesium ions and the amount of potassium + sodium are respectively 42.1 ÷ 52.1 mg/l, 100.9 ÷ 139.8 mg/l, 575 ÷ 1460 mg/l. With the exception of calcium the content does not exceed the tolerance limit for the fisheries fresh waters (180 mg/l), the content of magnesium and potassium + sodium is in the interval between freshwaters and marine Maximum Allowed Concentrations (PDKs): for Mg - 40 and 940 mg/l for K + Na -50 +120 mg/l 390+7100 mg/l. These elements are not detected in the vertical distribution probably due to the intense convective mixing. Total hardness of water is kept in range 10.5 ÷ 13.6 mg-eq/l, which corresponds to very lime water (more than 9.0 mg-eq/l). Exceeding of limits for the nitrite (PDK = 0.02 mg/l) and nitrate (PDK = 9.0 mg/l) nitrogen was not detected. The high degree of homogeneity of waters for these forms of nitrogen should be noted: 0.013 ÷ 0.017 mg/l for nitrite and 0082 ÷ 0.112 mg/l for nitrate. The range of concentrations of ammonia nitrogen is significantly greater: from 0.067 mg/l to 0.400 mg/l, with a maximum value in the bottom layer coincides with the Maximum Allowable Concentration (PDK).




The average content of total nitrogen in the surface and bottom layers is almost the same: 0.618 and 0.610 mg/l, respectively. The similar by the homogeneity distribution is observed for concentrations of phosphorus compounds. Thus, the limits of change of mineral phosphorus ranged from 0.011 to 0.020 mg/l, while PDK = 0.2 mg/l and total phosphorus content is everywhere below 0.04 mg/litre. In the exposed route area with depths 32.2-52.7 m extended from the bank Tatasova in the east to Sommers Island, more saline waters compared with the water area of the Bay Portovaya define the high content of chlorides, sulfates, and solid residue. Indeed, the concentrations of these parameters across the column are higher: chlorides on the surface: 1551 ÷ 1947 mg/l, chlorides on the bottom: 1839 ÷ 3101 mg/l; sulfates on the surface: 288 ÷ 336 mg/l, sulfates on the bottom: 312 ÷ 432 mg/l. The amount of solid residue ranges from 3514 (surface) to 6802 mg/l (bottom). Extreme values of electrical conductivity of water are quite consistent with salt content and are on the surface: 0.4165 cm/m, and at the bottom: 0.6553 cm/m. Given the greater depth of this section water area, the differences in the content of dissolved oxygen is more significant on the surface and on the bottom. Thus, the surface level of dissolved oxygen remains high and homogeneous: from 9.97 to 10.63 mg/l. The variability of concentrations significantly higher in the bottom layer but mostly within the limit: from 6.05 to 10.14 mg/l. pH value remains stable across the entire water column: 7.16 ÷ 7.22 pH, thereby complying with the limit. Compared with the coastal route section maximum BOC5value decreases to 1.47 mgО2/l, and the average level of oxidable organic matters in the water does not exceed 1.15 mgО2/l (0.6 PDK). Basically on the entire study area the surface layer of BOC20 values are higher than 2 mg/l (the mean value 2.08 mg/l); in the bottom layer BOC20values are lower than 2 mg/l (the mean value 1.67 mg/l). The mean value of BOC20 for the entire investigated water area is 1.81 mg/l. The most high hydrocarbonate content level is recorded in the bottom layer - 109.8 mg/l, while the mean value is - 89.3 mg/l that is slightly higher than in Portovaya Bay. Comparison of levels of calcium, magnesium and sodium + potassium amount in seawater with data from the Bay Portovaya shows a noteworthy increase of these values to 40.1 ÷ 70.1 mg/l, 121.6 ÷ 261.4 mg/l, 875 ÷ 1743 mg/l respectively. In this case we see the trend of excess of bottom layer concentrations of magnesium and potassium + sodium over the surface layer concentrations. Trouble-free state of waters in point of biogenic elements remains unchanged but some differences compared to coastal waters are seen. The content of nitrite-nitrogen significantly reduces up to an absence, a slight decrease of the mean values of nitrate nitrogen (84.9 compared with 91.2 mg/l) and decrease of total nitrogen (607.7 compared with 613.5 mg/l). The mean content of ammonia-nitrogen are increasing (185.5 compared with 180.5 mg/l), and especially are increasing the mean content of mineral phosphorus (29.2 compared with 16.6 mg/l).




Gas pipeline route section between Sommers and Gogland is situated to the west and has big depths (57.6-63.8 m). The limits of change in the content of chlorides, sulphates and solid residual are a little shifted to increasing in comparison with water mass laying to the east: 1911÷2741 mg/l for chlorides, 312÷432 mg/l for sulphates, 4566÷5172 mg/l for solid residual. In surface waters minimum electrical conductivity of the water raises up to 0.4800 S/m, and maximum electrical conductivity in near-bottom waters is somewhat less - 0.6484 S/m. Hydrogen ion exponent values are stable - 7.20÷7.25 pH. Minimum amount of oxygen is recorded in surface waters of the route area situated to the south of Gogland and near Gogland. The lowest levels of oxygen in bottom-water column are in deep water central part of planned area where mean saturation value is 56.1-58.5%. In comparison to the previous area, decrease of BOC5 maximum value is up to 1.31 mg O2/l. On the majority of stations BOC5 proves to be below the detection limit, i.e. below 1 mg/l. The lowest values of BOC20 are recorded in the area situated west to Gogland - 1.10 and 1.05 mg/l accordingly. High levels of waters total hardness persist - 16.2÷19.2 mg-equivalent/l due to high concentrations of calcium - 48.1÷64.1 mg/l and magnesium - 160.5÷198.2 mg/l. Maximal content of total potassium+sodium is recorded in near-bottom level (1568 mg/l), minimal - in surface level (1028 mg/l) with mean value in area - 1278 mg/l. Of the three defined parts of the route in this area minimum nitrogen and phosphorus compounds content occurs in surface level, none of them exceeds fishing norms. Mean average concentrations of mineral phosphorus on the whole investigated area are no more than 2.0 microgram/l. Mean average concentrations of total nitrogen for the whole investigated area at observation period is equal to 294 microgram/l.

3.3.2.2. Sea water pollution The considered Nord Stream pipeline route in the Russian sector of the offshore section is the region of active interaction of land freshwater flow and Baltic Sea water. The main polluted flows of river waters come from Neva through Neva Bay and from Saima channel via Vyborg Bay. During engineering and environmental investigations conducted in 2005 - 2007 at Nord Stream in the Russian sector of the offshore section the modern data of contaminants content level in Gulf of Finland marine environment. Sea waters contamination assessment is performed for regions defined by hydrobiological criteria. Portovaya Bay region Synthetic surfactants concentrations in the surface layer at certain monitoring stations reach 0.016-0.018 mg/l that is less than allowed concentrations (PDK) (0.1 mg/l). In a number of instances, phenol concentrations were higher than the Russian fisheries standard (0.001 mg/l); the highest values occurred in certain cases in the bottom horizon (4 PDK).




The elevated concentration of petroleum products, above the detection limit, was found in the bottom layer - 0.05 mg/l (1.0 PDK) and 0.06 mg/l (1.2 PDK). The petroleum hydrocarbons (P.Hc.) in the rest of the samples were below the detection limit. The metal concentrations recorded at Portovaya Bay indicate that the water is relatively clean. During the works performing totally one PDK excess was recorded for iron total - 1.4 PDK, one - for lead - 1.2 PDK and two excesses for mercury - 2.0 PDK. Overall the analysed metals have the following concentrations: iron total -0.008-0.072 mg/l, copper - less 0.0006-0.0011 mg/l (0.2 PDK), manganese - 0.002÷0.006 mg/l (0.1 PDK), zinc - 0.0222-0.0422 mg/l (0.8 PDK), cadmium - less 0.0001÷0.0067 mg/l (0.7 PDK), lead - less 0.002÷0.012 mg/l (1.2 PDK), mercury - less 0.00001÷0.0002 mg/l (2PDK). No chromium, nickel or cobalt was found analytically. The low concentration of priority organic pollutants supports the conclusion that the Portovaya Bay area is free of harmful organic impurities. HOP, HCB, BCB, PAH content is everywhere below the limit of detection by standard analytical methods. Maximum values of PAH sum in comparison to the other regions were found in Portovaya Bay. The highest revealing rate and relatively heightened mean values of PAH group on both levels are characteristic for the part (Portovaya Bay), 110 and 75.8 ng/l accordingly. In Nord Stream route open region with depths 32.2-52.7 m, is situated from Tatasov bank in the east up to Sommers Island, more salty waters in comparison to Portovaya Bay area define elevated concentration of chlorides, sulphates and solid residual. Synthetic surfactants concentrations remains insignificant, the range is less 0.01 to 0.14 mg/l. Maximal concentrations of phenols are focused in eastern part of considered area - 0.003-0.004 mg/l or 3-4 PDK. The most significant variation in this part takes place in terms of petroleum products concentration, and fishing norm is exceed in all the stations. In comparison to Portovaya Bay waters oil pollution level has grown on the average more than 16 times, and absolute maximum is registered in surface level - 3.30 mg/l (66.0 PDK). Metals containment in water does change significantly in comparison to the previous region. Concentrations varying range for other metals is equal to: copper - less 0.0006-0.0018 mg/l (0.4 PDK), manganese - less 0.001÷0.021 mg/l (0.4 PDK), zinc - 0.0121-0.0275 mg/l (0.6 PDK), cadmium - less 0.0001÷0.0004 mg/l (0.04 PDK), lead - less 0.002÷0.007 mg/l (0.7 PDK). No chromium, nickel or cobalt was found.




The same as in Portovaya Bay, situation with contamination of area east to Sommers with organic toxicant is quite favourable, as no significant contents of HOP, HCB, BCB, PAH were found. Gas pipeline route section between Sommers and Gogland is situated to the west and has big depths (57.6-63.8 m). The limits of change in the content of chlorides, sulphates and solid residual are a little shifted to increasing in comparison with water mass laying to the east: 1911÷2741 mg/l for chlorides, 312÷432 mg/l for sulphates, 4566÷5172 mg/l for solid residual. Synthetic surfactant concentrations are less 0.012 mg/l and concentrations of phenols is less 0.002 mg/l. Concentrations of petroleum hydrocarbons remained relatively high throughout the water column - 3.8 PDK (bottom) to 47.4 PDK (surface). Heavy shipping is also considered to be the most likely cause of oil pollution there. The most unfavourable situation in chemical rates in the design region is by content of dissolved petroleum products, mercury and phenols. In open part of the gulf adjacent to navigable pass petroleum products both at the surface and near bottom exceed norms by decades. In Portovaya Bay coastal region only several water samples contained petroleum products in PDK level. Range of contamination with mercury and phenols is much less (2-4 PDK), at that mercury excessive concentrations were recorded on every part of the area, however phenols were found only east to Sommers. During engineering and environmental investigations the area estimation by regions defined by environmental criteria was also performed. The results of these analyses in Gulf of Finland segments not always compare with the previous ones. This fact may indicate both presence of local short-time contaminations and located quasistationary parts of area characterizing by contamination by several ingredients. The following sections were defined:

• section 1 - area including stations from No.1 to No.6 (Portovaya Bay);

• section 2 - area including stations from No.7 to No.15;




• section 6 - area including stations from No.42 to No.48; Borders of defined regions are shown on fig. 3.3-11.




Figure 3.3-11. Layout diagram of stations and defined sections of information averaging on the route of offshore section of Russian sector of Nord Stream pipeline

Intervals and concentrations average values of monitored rates for sea waters by defined sections and also these rates measured in PDK units are shown in tables 3.3-3 - 3.3-9 (Appendix to section 3.3).

3.3.2.3. Sea water quality assessment Sea water quality assessment was performed by identified sections of data averaging (fig. 3.3-11). The averaging areas borders pass through the route turning points. Portovaya Bay is defined as separate section where except for water quality assessment by fishing norms the assessment according to SanPiN demands was performed. Sea water quality assessment by sanitary and chemical rates (in Portovaya Bay) In terms of water for domestic and recreational purposes quality assessment, 65 of 109 rates investigated in the water of monitored area are normalized (by individual value or by sum of compounds group concentrations). These rates PDK values are shown in table 3.3-1 (Appendix to section 3.3). During survey performing in Portovaya Bay PDK exceeding in water for domestic and recreational purposes quality assessment was not detected. Containment of phenol, nitro- and chlorophenols, synthetic surfactants in sea water is below the sensitivity of accepted methods of analysis and much less than defined PDKs for these substances. Containment of naphthalene, benz(a)pyrene - hundredth parts of PDK, containment of normalized OCh (γ-HCH, sum of DDT, sum of BCB, heptachlor, pentachlorobenzene and hexachlorobenzene) - thousandth parts of PDK.




Of analyzed heavy metals concentrations of iron, nickel, manganese, arsenic and cadmium are equal to tenth of PDK; zinc, copper, cobalt, chromium and mercury to hundredth parts of PDK. Containment of total petroleum hydrocarbons, suspended matters and BOC5 is equal to tenth parts of PDK. Therefore, in terms of sanitary and chemical requirements, water in Portovaya Bay area may be used for domestic and recreational purposes without damage to public health. Sea water quality assessment by fishing norms Sea water quality assessment at gas pipeline construction site in Gulf of Finland area were performed based on hydrochemical rates values concordance to defined PDKs for fishing basins taking into account actual requirements of Roskomvod and Rosgidromet documents. List of PDK values is shown in table П3.3-2 (Appendix to section 3.3). In terms of water for fishing basins, 60 of 109 rates investigated in the water of monitored area are normalized. In the waters of monitored parts of Gulf of Finland PDK exceeding is identified for dissolved oxygen level, BOC20, nitrite nitrogen, petroleum hydrocarbons (P.Hc.). Values of remaining 56 normalized rates are below PDK. Sea water quality assessment of monitored area was performed by rates of complexity, stability and level (PDK exceeding ratio) of water contamination. Contamination complexity rate is ratio of contaminants number which containment exceeds PDK to total number of normalized ingredients defined by survey program. Sea water quality assessment for the region of monitored area has shown that on the average contamination complexity rate (CCR) is equal to 6.6%, which indicates small role of anthropogenic component in formation of chemical composition of sea water in surveyed region. Therefore, in region 6 (west of Gogland) contamination complexity rate has zero values. Estimation of stability and water contamination level is performed based on calculation of recurrence and PDK exceeding ratio for the whole water object or its part. Characteristic of water contamination stability is percentage of quality of samples where PDK achievement or exceeding is found (recurrence of PDK exceeding cases). Characteristic of stability is defined using the following estimation scale:

• zero contamination (pollutant concentration values do not reach PDK);

• singular contamination (contamination is observed in singular samples, recurrence of PDK exceeding is less than 10%);

• instable contamination (recurrence of PDK exceeding is 10% to 30%);

• stable contamination (recurrence of PDK exceeding is 30% to 50%);

• characteristic contamination (recurrence of PDK exceeding is 50% to 100%);




Waters contamination level by specific ingredient is characterised by PDK exceeding ratio according to which the contamination level may be changed according to the following scale: no contamination (contaminants concentrations values do not reach PDK), low level contamination (norm exceeding ratio is less than 2), middle level contamination (norm exceeding ratio is 2 to 10), high level contamination (norm exceeding ratio is 10 to 50), very high level contamination (norm exceeding ratio is 50 to 100). Sea water contamination stability and level assessment of monitored area is shown in table 3.3-9.

Table 3.3-9 Recurrence and defined PDK exceeding ratio for limiting contaminants on the planned gas pipeline

section in the Gulf of Finland in autumn 2005. Sections numbers

BOC20 О2 NO2 P.Hc.

Number of PDK exceeding cases, % 1 16,7 - - 8,3 2 11,1 - - - 3 5,6 - 5,6 - 4 - 18,8 - - 5 - 16,7 - 5,6 6 - - - -

Whole region 9,6 11,5 1,9 2,1 PDK exceeding ratio

1 up to 1.06 - - up to 1.4 2 up to 1.69 - - - 3 up to 1.08 - up to 3.9 - 4 - up to 1.16 - - 5 - up to 1.23 - 1,06 6 - - - -

whole region up to 1.69 up to 1.23 up to 3.90 up to 1.4 Number of cases of VZ (more than 30 PDK) and EVZ (more than 50 PDK) achievement

whole region 0 0 0 0 In hydrochemical practice for comparative assessment of water quality of different water objects and their parts the water contamination index (WCA) calculated by formula (for sea water):

where Сi - ingredient mean concentration, PDKi - maximum allowed concentration for this ingredient. WCA calculation was performed using the values of dissolved oxygen level, BOC20, P.Hc. and values of sum of normalized groups of organochlorine compounds, including sum of pesticides HCH, DDT and BCB. Criteria of water contamination estimation by WCA and criteria of quality change dynamics estimation are shown in table 3.3-10.




Table 3.3-10

Sea water quality classification by WCA

Quality class Name of quality class WCA value I Very clean < 0,25 II Clean 0,25 - 0,75 III Moderately contaminated 0,75 - 1,25 IV Contaminated 1,25 - 1,75 V Dirty 1,75 - 3,0 VI Very dirty 3,00 - 5,00 VII Highly dirty >5,00

Comparative characterisation of water quality, defined sections of hydrochemical information averaging is shown in table 3.3-11.

Table 3.3-11

WCA value and quality class for defined sections of planned gas pipeline sections in the Gulf of Finland in 2005.

Sections No. Stations No.

WCA Sea water classification

Minimal Maximal Medium Water quality class Name

1 1-6 0,26 0,66 0,49 II Clean 2 7-15 0,25 0,70 0,39 II Clean 3 16-24 0,26 0,62 0,37 II Clean 4 25-32 0,29 0,56 0,42 II Clean 5 33-41 0,32 0,83 0,53 II Clean 6 42-48 0,25 0,45 0,36 II Clean

Medium WCA for the whole region

0,25 0,83 0,42 II Clean

Obtained values of WCA index foe defined sections of the gas pipeline route change from 0.25 to 0.83. Mean WCA value for the whole monitored area for the reviewed period is equal to 0.4, sea water is characterized as clean (quality class II). Maximal WCA value in the survey period was recorded in the bottom layer near Gogland (WCA - 0.83). In surface waters maximal WCA value is recorded near station 15 (WCA - 0.70). For the whole region water of monitored area may be rated to II class - "clean" (mean WCA value in area is 0.42). The least contaminations are recorded in the area west of Gogland (section 6) (p. 16-24) (mean WCA is 0.36). Maximal contamination is characteristic for water of section 5 (p. 33-41) situated east to Gogland. WCA value in this region is from 0.32 to 0.83 with mean 0.53, which corresponds to II class of water quality - "clean".




As was mentioned above, intervals and concentrations average values of monitored rates for sea waters and also these rates measured in PDK units are shown in tables 3.3-3 - 3.3-9 (Appendix to section 3.3).




3.4. Water biota – lower trophic levels

3.4.1. Bacterial plankton (in coastal landfall areas)

Microbiologically Baltic Sea may be characterised as weakly flowing water area with low salinity and high level of development of aerobic and anaerobic microbial processes subject to strong anthropogenic influence [97]. In Baltic Sea brackish microorganisms adapted to living at low levels of salinity are widespread [1, 6, 7, 23, 24, 25]. In Gulf of Finland of Baltic sea generally high level of microbal populations development is observed which is most likely connected both with high activity of phytoplankton here and with increased water trophism in this area [56, 75]. The main part of Gulf of Finland area is subject to strong impact of Neva and several small rivers freshwater runoff. Here favourable conditions for microorganisms development due to entering of great amount of allochthonic mineral and organic substances being substrates for microbal vital activity. Microbiological situation on coastal sections in eastern part of Gulf of Finland is different from Baltic sea sections. This region relatively localised from another part of the sea is subject to much greater influence of coastal runoff, and in Portovaya Bay region - and anthropogenic influence too. Most likely it explains maximal in all of investigated regions mean values of bacteria numbers and biomass observed in Portovaya Bay [102], in both near-bottom and surface levels at that (table 3.4-1) [230].

Table 3.4-1 Mean values of total number (million cells/million) and biomass (mg S/m3) of bacteria for areas in

east part of Gulf of Finland. Region Level Number Biomass

Eastern part of Gulf of Finland

surface. 2,870 22,6 benthic 2,644 19,4

Portovaya Bay surface. 4,367 44,6 benthic 4,257 40,2

3.4.2. Phytoplankton According to literary data for Gulf of Finland more than 300 species and forms of algae are recorded, the most varied of them are green (141 species), diatoms (73 species) and cyanobacteria (48 species). Presently most species are oligosaprobes - 88.7%, share of meso- and polysaprobes is 11.3% [40, 50, 65, 66, 69]. Seasonal outgrowth of phytoplankton both in Gulf of Finland and in the whole Baltic sea is determined by temperature regime, illuminance and input of nutrients, firstly with river flow [108]. Therefore, maximum of phytoplankton outgrowth takes place in spring-summer time. Spring outburst of phytoplankton takes place in April-May, with relatively low temperatures, this time in its compositions 3-5 algae species dominate [19, 23, 114]. At first stage of outgrowth diatoms dominate making up to 98% of total biomass. In the end of May - beginning of June dinoflagellates grow intensive, their significance is especially high in deep-water region where they may form up to 85-95% of total algae biomass. In deep-water zone the spring mass is formed by arctic brackish Achnanthes sp. and Gonyaulax catenata and to a lesser extent -D. econgatum.




In summer time especially in shallow regions in phytoplankton share of cyanobacteria of Ascillatoria genus and of also several chlorococcus grows. These species in June-July shape more than 90% of number and up to 80-90% of biomass. In deep-water region in summer time leading role belongs also to cyanobacteria making up more than 70% of phytoplankton total biomass [203, 198, 205]. Common dominance of cyanobacteria and green algae is characteristic for structure of summer and autumn phytoplankton in Vyborg Bay and other regions of Gulf of Finland east part [92, 93]. In recent years cyanobacteria are predominant of two these groups. It is their mass development is connected with water bloom processes. Green algae by significance of role that they play in plankton gradually obnubilate, the more so because in autumn their diversity reduces fast while cyanobacteria go on vegetating [163, 393]. According to the data achieved during engineering and environmental investigations in spring season phytoplankton abundance in eastern part of the Gulf of Finland along the planned pipeline route varied within 1.3-7.6 million cells/l, biomass - 0.2-2.2 g/m. High figures were reported in Portovaya Bay and on the adjacent waters of Gulf of Finland, the least quantification were recorded after Gogland [162, 163]. By abundance on the most part of the area in this period green algae dominated with subdomination of cyanobacteria, in some cases - of diatom, shares of the groups listed varied in the limits 25-80 %, 10-70 % и 1-30 % accordingly. The main species dominating by abundance all over the area were: small monocelled form of chlorococcus of green - Monoraphidium contortum (share is 2575%) and representatives of small-celled colonial chroococcus cyanobacteria -Gloeocapsa minima, G.limnetica (8-37%). In Portovaya Bay in adjacent area apart with designated species the single-cell diatomaceous Synedra acus, S.ulna (up to 15%) and colonial form of green -Dictyosphaerium pulchellum (up to 15%) reached essential development. In addition, in the area of the bay and in its outlet noticeable share in phytoplankton total population has the diatom Diatoma elongatum (share 7-14%). The main groups dominating by biomass were dinophites (16-80%), green (7-74%) and diatoms (8-38%). On the most part of the area the dinophites dominated. By biomass among dinophites Goniaulax catenata and Peridinium aciculiferum, prevailed everywhere, their maximal abundance was recorded in the north-west part of Portovaya Bay.




In summer season phytoplankton abundance varies within 2.8-77.6 million cells/l, biomass - 0.2-2.2 g/m3 (2.41, 2.42). High figures (23-40 million cells/l, 0.7-1.2 g/m3) are reported in the most part of Portovaya Bay area and on the adjacent area of Gulf of Finland. The least quantification was recorded after Gogland (fig.3.4-1, 3.4-2).

Figure 3.4-1. Phytoplankton abundance distribution in the eastern Gulf of Finland on Nord

Stream sea part area in July (left column) and August (right column) in 2006.




Figure. 3.4-2. Phytoplankton biomass distribution in the eastern Gulf of Finland on Nord Stream

sea part area in July (left column) and August (right column) in 2006. The absolute dominants of phytoplankton by abundance were cyanobacteria, their share is 87-99%. The main species dominating all over the area were small-celled filamentous oscillator forms: Planktothrix agardhii, Limnothrix planctonica, Aphanizomenon gracile. On the most part of the area alongside with the dominants noticeable contribution to total population made: cyanobacterial filamentous form Planktolyngbya subtilis (up to 20%) and Aphanizomenon flos-aquae (up to 8%), and near Gogland and after it - cyanobacterial filamentous form Nodularia spumigena (6-10%).




By abundance on the most part of the area the cyanobacteria dominated. The main species dominating by biomass all over the area were small-celled filamentous oscillator forms, generally Planktothrix agardhii (up to the half of total biomass of phytoplankton) and Limnothrix planctonica (up to 27%). On the most part of the area as subdominants were Aphanizomenon gracile (up to 20%) and Aphanizomenon flos-aquae (up to 10%), and near Gogland and further along the route - Nodularia spumigena (up to 20%). Significant contribution in total biomass of phytoplankton on open sea area of Gulf of Finland made dinophites (representatives of Gymnodinium genus, generally -G.rhomboides); near Gogland they were dominating group (40%). In autumn period, for phytoplankton spacial distribution the phytoplankton functions (concentrations of active chlorophyll, pheopigments and primary production amount) decrease was characteristic further offshore to the open part of the gulf. High levels of phytoplankton activity are recorded near the shores of Portovaya Bay, Gogland and Maly Fiskar islands. Here higher primary production amount and concentrations of both chlorophyll а, as well as its active part are recorded. In autumn phytoplankton occurring in large numbers fresh water eurybiont forms are included. The brackish species are several ones usual for Gulf of Finland: Nodularia spumigena of cyanobacteria, Carteria marina of green algae, Chaetoceros wighamii, Cmiellery of diatom. For autumn phytoplankton of Portovaya Bay dominance of cyanobacteria (up to 80%, abundance more than 10 million cells/l) is characteristic, on shallow water - dominance of filamentous algae Planktothrix agardhii. For shallow water near Gogland dominance of small-celled chroococcus colonial form Gomphosphaeria lacustris and minimal abundance of cyanobacteria on open deep water (1 million cells/l nearby) are characteristic. So, phytoplankton of area of sea part route of North European gas pipeline during engineering and environmental investigations was presented by species usual for this area and seasons. In the phytoplankton occurring in large numbers fresh water eurybiont forms are included. Only several species were brackish or sea ones usual for Gulf of Finland: Nodularia spumigena (cyanobacteria), Gonyaulax catenata, Dinophysis acuminata, Protoperidinium bipes, P.brevipes (dinophites), Carteria marina (зеленые), Chaetoceros wighamii (diatoms). The phytoplankton outgrowth quantification is characterized by considerable spatial and temporal heterogeneity. The considerable impact on phytoplankton outgrowth has its provision with biogenic elements, water temperature, light conditions in the water body as well as force and character of prevailing currents (defining distribution of characteristic very important for phytoplankton - salinity gradient).




The eastern Gulf of Finland on Nord Stream sea part area may be classified as mesotrophic. Over the recent years in the Gulf of Finland phytoplankton community structural change in favour of eutrophic species takes place. Growth of role of oscillator-chroococcus complex algae indicates increasing of anthropogenic impact on the system and organic content accumulation in ground and water [163].

3.4.3. Zooplankton (invertebrates) In Gulf of Finland zooplankton infusoria (over 36 species), rotifers, cladocerans and copepods prevail. The main biomass is presented by brackish complex. The constant species are Eurytemora hirundoides and Bosmina obtusirostris maritima. Other representatives of the complex preferring higher salinity optimum are Limnocalanus grimaldii, Acartia bifilisa, A. tonsa, Synchaeta baltica, S. monopus, Keratella quadrata, Brachionus calyciflorus [3, 7, 35, 248]. Salinity mode has drastic effect on season changes in zooplankton species composition and biomass. In spring season (May - beginning of June) brackish and euryhaline-freshwater forms prevail over the whole area 135, 396, 188]. In the years of strong desalting in the epilimnion nauplia and copepodits Eurytemore spp., and also euryhaline-freshwater rotifers Notholca caudata, К. quadrata, S. grandis are the most important. Summer biomass quantities in the investigations area must be anticipated about 0.030.35 g/m. In the summer salt water positive setup from the west occurs, and role of marine euryhaline forms Podon polyphemoides, P. intermedius, E. nordmanni in zooplankton composition increases. The zooplankton biomass may reach 2.1-3.1 g/m3 in the summer. In the autumn the zooplankton abundance decreases over the whole area of eastern Gulf of Finland. Cladocerans crustaceans and rotifers virtually disappear from the plankton. The main biomass (up to 98-99%) makes copepods crustaceans. In the shallow water zooplankton biomass decreases up to 0.001-0.10 g/m, and in the deeper zones up to 0.1-0.4 g/m3. Winter plankton is poor by quantity and quality. In its compositions copepods prevail which are presented in Gulf of Finland by brackish species Limnocaslanus, Eurytemora и Acartia bifilosa. According to the data achieved during engineering and environmental investigations in Gulf of Finland along the planned pipeline route in spring season zooplankton biomass varied along the whole route within 1.71-135.05 mg/m3, its minimum was recorded in the open part of the Gulf, and maximum - in Portovaya Bay. The zooplankton abundance varied within 1.35-18.04 thousand specimens/m3, its minimum was recorded in the open part of the Gulf, and maximum - in Portovaya Bay.




In summer period the zooplankton abundance varied within 7.48-39.92 thousand specimens/m3, its minimum was also recorded in the open part of the Gulf, and maximum - in Portovaya Bay. Abundance figures close to maximum (34.01-34.76 thousand specimens/m3) were also recorded in deep water stations near Gogland (fig. 3.4-3 and 3.4-4). The zooplankton biomass varied within 73.91-1007.46 mg/m3, its minimum was recorded in the part of the area adjacent to Portovaya Bay, and maximum - near Gogland in maximum depths zone (over 900 mg/m3).

Figure 3.4-3. Zooplankton abundance (thousand specimens/m3) in the eastern Gulf of Finland

on Nord Stream sea part area in June (left column) and August (right column) in 2006.




Figure 3.4-4. Zooplankton biomass (mg/m3) in the eastern Gulf of Finland on Nord Stream sea

part area in June (left column) and August (right column) in 2006. The zooplankton species composition during investigations was typical for brackish and deep sea region in the eastern Gulf of Finland. In the samples 40 species were found, in June 26 of them were met, and in August - 35 species. In the zooplankton composition three environmental complexes representative presented: freshwater, brackish, and marine ones. The freshwater complex of zooplankton was presented by Keratella quadrata, Keratella cochlearis, Asplanchna priodonta, Euchlanis dilatata, Synchaeta stylata, Notholca caudata, Conochilus unicornis (rotifers), Diaphanosoma brachyurum, Bosmina obtusirostris, B.longirosrtis, B.crassicornis, Daphnia cucullata, D. cristata, Chydorus sphaericus, Leptodora kindtii (cladocerans), Mesocyclops leuckarti, M.(T.) oithonoides, species of Acanthocyclops genus (copepods). In the largest number freshwater species are presented in Portovaya Bay, some of them (B.obtusirostris, species of Mesocyclops genus) are also largely recorded outside of this bay.




To brackish species related Synchaeta baltica, S.monopus (rotifers), Podon polyphemoides (cladocerans), Limnocalanus grimaldii, Eurytemora hirundoides, Acartia clausi, A. bifilosa (copepods). The last ones, especially E.hirundoides, defined abundance and biomass of the community on the most part of the region of gas pipeline route sea part. In copepods population the young (nauplia and copepodits) prevailed. The large cladoceran - Caspian polyphemide Cercopagis pengoi belongs to this complex too. This specie appeared in plankton fauna relatively recently. In spring 2006 (June) the crustacean was recorded singularly; in summer (August) it appeared nearly everywhere, but in small amount. However, because of its large dimensions the crustacean made sometimes essential part of cladoceran biomass. The marine complex of zooplankton was presented by small number of species: Podon leuckarti, Evadne nordmanni (cladocerans), Centropages hamatus, Aetideopsis rostrata, as well as nectobenthic Microsetella norvegica, Ydyaea furcata (copepod). Of the listed marine species only cladocerans played significant role on formation of the community common plenty; they appeared virtually everywhere in some quantity and make essential part of the zooplankton biomass in summer. The copepods appeared in little amount on the majority of the stations (M. norvegica) or (Y. furcata, C. hamatus, A. rostrata). It should be noted that Gulf of Finland zooplankton is characterized by extraordinary variability in both space and time. The zooplankton distribution irregularity by the area is firstly connected with the water temperature changes. Relatively shallow area of Portovaya Bay heats up well in summer. It sets conditions for the zooplankton high productivity and consequently high numbers of its plenty with which the community meets the winter. For deep-water poorly heated area of open region of the gulf all over the vegetation period lower numbers of zooplankton abundance and biomass rather than in shallow parts were characteristic. In recent years nonpredatory zooplankton production corresponded to 30-40% of phytoplankton production, whereas for clear natural water this proportion averages about 8%. Eastern Gulf of Finland is heavily loaded by allochthonic organic substance of anthropogenic origin, and its input to the gulf area during the vegetation period 5-6 times exceeds the input of autochthonous organics. However, the meaning of food phytoplankton eatable for nonpredatory zooplankton is not large and makes 22 to 60% of the whole biomass of real food. It explains appearance of such species-indicators of eutrophication as A. tonsa and Е. affinis able to consume detritus in amounts comparable to algae. Growth of the role of A. bifilosa may be also thought as indicator of eastern part of the Gulf of Finland eutrophication. In shallow region the eutrophic waters indicators are Bosmina coregoni thersites and В. coregoni gibbera increased in large numbers in the summer at favourable temperature conditions.




Generally, i case of anthropogenic impact growth on Gulf of Finland area the nonpredatory zooplankton abundance and its change to crustaceans’ predators should be inspected. However, despite of discontinuity of spatio-temporal distribution of zooplankton abundance and biomass on examined sea region, its species composition, presented by key species for this region remains virtually invariable.

3.4.4. Benthic communities

3.4.4.1. Benthic macrophytes The benthic flora of the Baltic Sea is a combination of seawater and freshwater species. 313 species of aquatic flora are known in Baltic Sea: 106 species of green algae, 86 species of brown algae, 106 species of red algae and 15 species of flowering plants [50, 65, 66]. Their distribution and quantitative development depends, first of all, on the salinity, soil conditions and water transparency. Low salinity hinders many marine species from spreading into the Baltic Sea - the diversity of the algal flora drops to the east from Dart sill, which is the east border for spreading more than 20 species of red and brown algae. In general the species richness sinks from west to north and north-east. 45 species of benthic macrophytes are known in Gulf of Finland [139]. The vertical distribution of the algae depends on soil conditions and water transparency. The lower limit of the macrophyte zone goes usually on the depth of about 20 metres, below 40 m there is no macrophyte benthos at all. Benthic algal flora communities are wide spread on sandy or slightly silty banks in the bays if the east part of the Gulf of Finland (i.e. in Portovaya bay). Algae often cover the whole surface of the bank bottom forming uninterrupted carpet, with inclusions of the higher aquatic vegetation meadows (Fennel pondweed, filiform pondweed, clasping-leaved pondweed, small pondweed, horned pondweed, batrachium aquatile and some others). Distribution pattern of the algae reaches up to the 2 meter deep. Composition of the phytobenthos is dominated by the green filamental algae (Fig. 3.4-5), sometimes with significant admixture of stonewort [26, 280]. The higher aquatic flora is spread in the coastal waters of the entire eastern part of the Gulf of Finland and is represented by the communities of aquatic and coastal-aquatic plants [112]. In particular in Portovaya Bay the aquatic flora is concentrated mostly on the top of the Gulf in the shallow section within 200 m zone off the coastline along the pipeline route (Fig. 3.4-6). In the composition of the Portovaya Bay 45 higher plants species are identified, that belong to 22 different families of 9 algal species of 8 families. In the general list of flora both aquatic and terrestrial species were entered, that are encountered in the community of coastal-aquatic plants in the Portovaya Bay. Among the rare species not entered in the compiled flora lists of the Gulf of Finland Myriophyllum alterniflorum is worth mentioning DC [125, 126].




Figure 3.4-5. Algal community The aquatic and coastal-aquatic flora in Portovaya Bay covers total area of approximately 12 ha, 5 of them are covered with aquatic flora, 7 of them are covered with aero-aquatic flora.

Figure 3.4-6. Distribution of the main phytocenoses of aquatic and aero-aquatic flora in

Portovaya Bay




The maximum depth where the higher aquatic plants - cenoses of fennel pondweed (Potamogeton pectinatus L.) - are recorded is 2.5 m (water transparency according to Secchi disc 2,5 m) (fig. 3.4-7). Meadows of fennel pondweed cenoses covers 30% of the investigated shallow waters area, comprising at about 4 hectares. Total projective coverage varies from 30% to 60%. On the maximum depth they are encountered without accompanying species. In the shallow waters (10-20 cm) in their beds filiform pondweed (Potamogeton filiformis Pers.) clasping-leaved pondweed (Potamogeton perfoliatus L) are recorded, among the lower plants in this group blanket weed (Cladophora glomerata (L.) Kutz), vaucheria (Vaucheria sp.) and nostoc (Nostoc pruniforme Ag) are recorded. Approaching the coastline this flora group is followed by the small spots of (by 4-10 m2) clasping-leaved pondweed with the accompanying species: gramineous pondweed, small pondweed (Potamogeton pusillus L.), batrachium marinum (Batrachium marinum Fr), horned pondweed (Zannichellia palustris L) and stonewort.

Figure 3.4-7. Fennel pondweed communities at depth of 2,5 m.

The aero-aquatic flora is represented by the beds of the common reed (Phragmites australis (Cav.) Trin. ex Steud.), softstem bulrush (Scirpus tabernaemontani C.C. Gmel.), sea clubroot (Bolboschoenus maritimus (L.) Palla), and mace reed (Typha latifolia L.).




Figure 3.4-8. Softstem bulrush communities Along the coastline in the shallow waters at the depth of 0-15 the softstem bulrush curtains are found covering from 10 to 100 m2, which is 10% of the total bed area (fig. 3.4-8.). Total projective cover degree in the curtains varies between 50 and 80%. The beds are mostly monodominant, the accompanying species if recorded at all are plants from the surrounding groups: clasping-leaved pondweed, sea clubroot, common spike rush (Eleocharis palustris (L.) Roem. & Schult.), water-starwort (Callitriche hermaphroditica L.) alternate-flowered Water-milfoil (Myriophyllum alterniflorum DC.). Reed curtains near to the shore are followed by the sea clubroot beds; they spread along the coastline on the top of the bay and cover 20% of the total bed area. Total projective cover varies between 30% and 100%. Accompanying species are: Needle spike rush (Eleocharis acicularis (L.) Roem. & Schult.), common mare's-tail (Hippuris vulgaris L.), water-starwort and alternate-flowered water-milfoil. Reed beds cover usually 40% of the total area of aero-aquatic flora. Share of the reed in the curtains is over 90% by the total coverage 100%. Plants are 2.3 m high. Most of the reed beds are on the shore, so the accompanying plants are represented generally by land species. In the water meadows of the reed the accompanying species are very rare. These are creeping bent grass and marsh woundwort. In the north-western part of the bay top the curtain of the mace reed is recorded with total area of 100m2. The whole projective cover is 100%. The mace reed individuals are rather big, up to 2 m high; they are dominant in the curtains. The accompanying species are very rare.




3.4.4.2. Meio- and macrozoobenthos

In the Gulf of Finland in general (except of Neva Bay populated by the freshwater fauna) only 180 species of benthic invertebrates are recorded. The marine and freshwater taxa are almost equal in number. making 39 and 40% from the total amount respectively. The characteristic feature of the zoobenthos composition of the Gulf of Finland is drastic reduction of the most marine and brackish water species within the Gulf in the direction from west to east because of salinity getting lower and the climate becoming more continental. Meiobenthos. Under meiobenthos, considered the microscopic pluricellulars with the size less than 1 mm. The number of specific features characterizes this benthic group. First, almost all the representatives of meiobenthos have no pelagic (plankton) larvae. Thus, the dwellers of any area of the bottom are descendants of the species inhabiting this area within many generations. Compensation of the impact resulting in death of some species is hindered and will be much more time consumptive than by the organisms having dispersal stages. The results of such impacts (impoverishment of the species composition, extinction of some species) will be observed within the long periods. On the other hand, the shorter in comparison with macrobenthos lifecycles (comprising several weeks or months) allow tracking structural changes in the communities of the meiobenthic organisms within the shorter periods. Yet until now, the meiobenthos of the Baltic Sea is being studied less thoroughly than its macrobenthos. The composition of the meiobenthos is dominated by nematodes, harpacticides, and ostracods. The structure of the meiobenthical communities is getting simpler from west to east, the quantitative distribution of the meiobenthos the clear vertical gradient is observable - communities of meiobenthos reach their maximum development in the coastal parts, the abundance and the diversity of the meiobenthos drops proportionally the depth reaching minimum values in the deep water basins, where the meiobenthical organisms are often the only pluricellulars. Occurrence of the meiobenthical groups in the Gulf of Finland On the offshore section of the Nord Stream construction representatives of 10 groups of invertebrates in the composition of the benthic meio-fauna are recorded: Nematoda, Harpacticoida, Ostracoda, Oligochaeta, Chironomidae, Cladocera, Cyclopoida, Turbellaria, Acari, Tardigrada. The occurrence of the meiobenthic groups in the Gulf of Finland is shown in the Table 3.4-2.

Table 3.4-2

Occurrence of the meiobenthical groups in the Gulf of Finland Meiobenthic groups Occurrence, %

Nematoda 100 Harpacticoida 63 Ostracoda 53 Oligochaeta 42 Chironomidae 5




Meiobenthic groups Occurrence, %

Cladocera 5 Cyclopoida 47 Turbellaria 26 Acari 26 Tardigrada 16 The total composition of the meio-fauna in the marine area comprises 33 groups and species of invertebrates. The harpacticides display the richest diversity of species (10). The composition of the benthic meio-fauna is also represented by 8 ostracoda species, 7 oligochaeta groups and species, 2 cyclopoida species and one species of Chironomidae and Cladocera respectively. The benthic communities in the coastal area display the maximal richness in species diversity whereas the communities in the open areas are less diverse. The figures of population and biomass vary significantly both for the meiobenthos in general and for individual groups and species. Total population fluctuates between 400 and 386,400 individuals per square meter, and biomass varies between 0.2 and 5154.5 mg per square meter (Figure 3.4-9). In general, the meiobenthos of the Gulf of Finland is characterized by rather high species richness and diversity. Yet the distribution of the benthic meiofauna species and groups is extremely heterogeneous and depends on the concrete physical chemical conditions of the concrete biotopes. The rates of quantitative development of the benthic meiofauna in particular aquatic areas may rum to high values. In such local habitats, meiobenthos plays a significant role in the functionality of benthic communities; in particular, it may be a foraging resource for benthic macro-invertebrates and fish, especially for young fish.

Figure 3.4-9. Meiobenthos population (N, individuals per square meter) and biomass (B, mg per square meter) changes in the Gulf of Finland according to depth (based on the data of engineering

and environmental investigations in 2005)




Macrozoobenthos. Species diversity of macrobenthos reaches its maximum in the South Baltic, by now 400 species are recorded. In an easterly direction the number of species notably decreases - in the Central Baltic 170 species of macrobenthos are registered, in the Gulf of Riga - 158, in the Gulf of Finland (except of Neva Bay, populated with freshwater fauna) - 180 species of benthic invertebrates. [386, 387, 389, 136] In terms of abundance and distribution of macrozoobenthos along the route of planned pipeline, 2 regions are distinguished: Portovaya Bay - relatively shallow coastal zone and Nord Stream route section from Portovaya Bay to Gogland Island. Portovaya Bay In the species composition of the community, representatives of 5 benthic groups are recorded: oligochaetes (2 species), chironomid larvae (2 species), molluscs (1 species), crustaceans (2 species) and nematods. The population of zoobenthos varies significantly between 0.1 and 0.76 thousand individuals per square metre; biomass varies even more - between 0.02 and 37.59 g per square meter (Fig. 3.4-10 A). In general, in terms of population and biomass oligochaetes are the leading group in the composition of Portovaya Bay. Average population of macrozoobenthos including molluscs on that section of the marine area is 0.34 thousand individuals per square meter, average biomass is 7.8 g per square meter. The maximal biomass of the food benthos (without molluscs) in this marine area is 1 g per square meter. Section of the Nord Stream route from Portovaya Bay to Gogland Island. Macrozoobenthos is poor on this section. On some areas with silty sands, no macrobenthos is recorded. In the rest area of the bottom, macrobenthos is uniform and is represented by oligochaetes (2 species), chironomid larvae (1 species) and crustaceans (2 species). The population of zoobenthos varies between 0.04 and 0.58 thousand individuals per square meter, biomass varies between 0.09 and 13.14 g per square meter (Fig. 3.4-10 B).




Figure 3.4-10. Macrozoobenthos population (1 - thousand individuals per square meter) and biomass (2 - g per square meter) in the open area (A) and Portovaya Bay (B) along the planned

route of Nord Stream



Volume 8. Book 1. Offshore section. Part 1. EIA Page 204

3.4.4.3. Typology and spatial pattern of benthic communities

In terms of abundance and biomass, in the main part of water area prevail crustaceans (Monoporea affinis). Average abundance of macrozoobenthos amounts to 0.11 K species/m, total average biomass - 1.46 g/m2. 16 biocoenoses of zoobenthos have been identified in the Gulf of Finland and at its mouth. Due to complex and steep seabed, the nature of their distribution in the Gulf of Finland is more irregular than in the Gulf of Riga and Central Baltic [165]. Only 5 biocoenoses are widespread in the Gulf of Finland [386, 387]. Polytopic marine boreal biocoenosis Масоmа baltica inhabits the main part of sublittoral and significant areas of littoral in the Gulf of Finland. It is common at the depth of 3-77 m, where salinity amounts to 3.4-10%. Its biomass in the Gulf of Finland is higher than in other parts of the Baltic Sea: 75 g/m2 on average, with population density 3,900 species/m2. Euryedaphic brackish epibiotic arctic biocoenosis Меsidothеа entomon is widespread in the elittoral of the northern and eastern parts of the Gulf. It is observed at the depth of 27-70 m where salinity amounts to 3.8-8.8 %. Average biomass and population density of this biocoenosis are relatively low: 15 g/m2 and 1,000 species/m2. Euryedaphic brackish epibiotic arctic biocoenosis Pontoporeia affinis occupies large areas of the elittoral in the eastern part of the Gulf. It is common at the depth of 28-79 m where salinity amounts to 5.1-10.6 %; average biomass of this biocoenosis is 11 g/m2, average population density is 4,800 species/m2. Marine epibiotic arctic biocoenosis Pontoporeia femorata is widespread in the lower horizon of elittoral in the central part of the Gulf. It is found at the depth of 59-75 m where salinity amounts to 6.7-9.4 %. Average biomass of this biocoenosis is 7 g/m2, average population density is 200 species/m2. Lithophilous marine biocoenosis Mytilus edulis is widespread in sublittoral at the mouth and in western part of the Gulf. It is found at the depth of up to 27 m where salinity amounts to 5-8.6 %, and has a high biomass of 165 g/m2 on average, and up to 3,580 g/m2 in some places; average population density of this biocoenosis is 5,600 species/m2. Other 11 biocoenoses are scarcely found in the Gulf. On the whole, zoobenthos of the Gulf of Finland is characterised by the low biomass amounting approximately to 20 g/m2 on average. Average zoobenthos biomass amounting to 57 g/m2 indicated for the Gulf of Finland by L.A. Zenkevitch and A.S. Zernov, is obviously exaggerated. Low biomass of zoobenthos in the Gulf of Finland is mainly caused by the following two matters: 1) over the area of 5,500 km2 of the Gulf (with water depth more than 70-80 m) zoobenthos is currently absent due to unfavourable gas conditions; 2) almost half of the Gulf area inhabited by zoobenthos is occupied by epibiotic arctic biocoenoses of crustaceans with typically low biomass. Zoobenthos distribution in the Gulf is highly spotted: along with large deep-water areas where zoobenthos is highly scarce (<10 g/m2) or does not occur at all, there are certain areas near coastline where biomass of zoobenthos is very high (>100 g/m2, and up to 1,500-3,580 g/m2 in some places). Average population density of zoobenthos in the Gulf of Finland is moderate - approximately 1,800 species/m2.




The major part of the route runs through seabed areas with no macrobenthos, or through the areas inhabited by relatively poor and homogeneous communities. Shallow-water communities of the near-coast area are characterized by the highest biomass and demonstrate mosaic spatial distribution. They play the main role in providing both fish and birds with foraging resources.




3.5. Ichthyofauna

3.5.1. Biology of key fish species

Ichthyofauna of the Gulf of Finland had been forming during postglacial period when the present appearance of the Baltic Sea was also formed. Therefore, this area inhabits species belonging to the warm-freshwater Danube association (e.g., many Cyprinidae species) and to the arctic marine epibiotics (four-horned goby) [48, 282]. The ichthyofauna of the Gulf of Finland includes species belonging to two fauna associations - marine and freshwater, - which is determined by relatively low salinity or sweetness of water in the eastern part of the Gulf of Finland. Salinity is one of the main factors of water, and its spatial distribution impacts spatial distribution of fish population in the eastern part of the Gulf of Finland. In addition to salinity, water temperature should be mentioned as it also plays its role in distribution of the ichthyofauna in the Gulf. The fish of the freshwater fauna association mainly dwell in the Neva estuary as well as in estuaries of other rivers, such as Luga, Sestra, Narova; in Vyborg Bay and in near-coast shallow-water area around the periphery of almost entire Gulf. The species of the marine fauna association mainly dwell in the areas of Gogland, Bolshoy and Maly Tyuters, Moshchny, and other islands of the Russian Federation west of the Luga Bay. The marine fish - sea snail, four-horned goby, eelpout, Baltic sprat - frequently occur in these areas. The sprat is widespread throughout the Gulf of Finland, only avoiding areas with water salinity less than 2% in lower-salinity and estuary parts of Vyborg Bay, Neva and Luga Bays. The distribution of smelt during the summer periods is closely associated with the distribution of foraging organisms, and depends on water salinity and temperature. According to data provided by various authors, the catches in the eastern part of the Gulf of Finland included more than 60 fish species as well as lampreys [144, 183]. The main target species in the eastern part of the Gulf of Finland are traditionally the following: Baltic herring (Clupea harengus L.), sprat (Sprattus sprattus L.), smelt (Osmerus eperlanus L.), pike-perch (Stizostedion lucioperca), perch (Perca fluviatilis), bream (Abramis brama); certain importance for fishing industry also have whitefish (Coregonus lavaretus), roach (Rutilus rutilus (L.), and pope (Gymnocephalus cernua (L.). Baltic herring (Clupea harengus membras L.). A local population of the spring-spawning Baltic herring dwells in the eastern part of the Gulf of Finland. The Baltic herring of the eastern part vary from western species by its size and age structure, with prevailing younger age groups and accelerated breeding rate. Baltic herring is classified as an early-maturing fish with an age limit of 6-7 years. The main part of Baltic herring population reaches maturity at the age of 2 years, and the next year almost every species is ready to spawn.




Baltic sprat (Sprattus sprattus baltica) is more thermophilic than Baltic herring, and therefore dwells in the west part of the Gulf of Finland where water temperature in winter does not fall below 2.5 С and salinity is ranging from 6.5 at the surface to 9-11% at near-bottom horizons, which is an integral spawning condition for sprat. Sprat is a species with a short life cycle. Typically, maturity is reached when the fish is 12 cm, less frequently - 8-9 cm long. Baltic sprat is a plankton feeder competing for food with Baltic herring. The most abundant migratory fish is smelt (Osmerus eperlanus L.). Typically, smelt reaches maturity at the age of two-four years, partly at the age of one year, the male species maturing earlier than the female. Fertility rate of sprat, as of other species, depends on its age and size and increases with the growing of species. It varies from 2 to 70 thousand species (approximately 15 thousand species on average). To the spawning areas come spawners with the body length from 7 to 25 cm weighting from 12 to 130 g. The prevailing species are three to four years old (up to 60%), mature one-year-old fish constitute 5-7%, older fish accounts for no more than 25-30%. Older fish are represented mainly by female species. Age series is significantly wide (within 1012 classes) [252]. Bream (А-bramis brama (L.) - abundant commercially important fish. Widely spread in the near-coast area it dwells at the depths not exceeding 20 m with water salinity up to 3%. It can be found in Luga, Koporye, Neva, Vyborg and Narva Bays, as well as around Sestroretsk, Zelenogorsk, Vysotsk and at Gangut, Manola and other banks. In winter periods bream concentrates around the Kotlin Island. Male species reach maturity at the age of 6-7 years, while the females mature a year later. Despite the fact that bream is a typical benthos feeder, until the age of three-four years it feeds mainly on maxillopods which are making up to 90% of its gut contents. Later the dominant component are chironomid larvae which are making up to 60% of mass of a six-seven-years-old bream. Additionally, at this age the rate of detritus in feeding of bream increases (from 25 to 50%). In diet of middle- and old age fish, shellfish play a significant role sometimes making up to 30% of consumed food mass. On the whole, bream shows relative diversity in terms of foraging. The maximum foraging intensity is typical for summer months (mainly July-August), while in spring and autumn food consuming is less intensive. In winter bream virtually does not feed [316]. Pike-perch (Stizostedion lucioperca (L.) - commercially important fish. Occurs mainly along the southern and eastern coast and in the area of Vyborg Bay. In the western area and in the open Gulf is not numerous. Average maturity age is 5 years. Male species typically mature a year earlier. Pike-perch is classified as a facultative predator. Its main foraging object is smelt - an easily digested dominant. As is known, average size of foraging organisms (prey-fish) for pike-perch is 9-10 cm which is equivalent to immature one-year-old and mature two-year-old species. Total level of the condition and fatness of predators depends on yield of prey-species generations [317, 318].




Whitefish (Coregonus lavaretus lavaretus (L.) does not belong to the main commercial species, however it is of certain commercial importance. According to the latest surveys, whitefish was regularly caught in areas near Sestroretsk, Zelenogorsk, the Bierkesund Channel, Grekov Bank, and around Gogland. In the southern part of the Gulf (Luga, Koporye Bays) whitefish is rarely found, while in the Neva Bay it occurs mainly in spring (immediately after melting) and in autumn [323]. The ratio between male and female species aged from 4 to 5 years is close 1:1.3. In older age groups number of female species gradually increases to 2.8:1. Spawning begins at the age of 4 years with the dominant group consisting of 5-6-years-old fish. The maximum detected age is 9 years. (Singular event of catching a whitefish weighing 6.2. kg with body length 81 cm, is a unique case that does not mirror the general state of population in terms of its age and size.) The size of spawners in the spawning population varies from 22 to 43 cm, the main part of the population consisting of species 28-35 cm long weighing 340-430 g. The share of small male and female species (weighing 230-280 g, 25-30 cm long) is considerable (up to 40%) Young species are found continuously amounting to no more than 3-5% of total catches. The examined part of the population is characterised by low age diversity. The spawning population comprises only 6 age groups. Roach (Rutilus rutilus (L.) - one of the dominant species of the eastern part of the Gulf of Finland. It is mainly occurs in the near-coast areas along the 10-metres isobathe around the periphery of almost entire Gulf. However, maximum densities are detected in Vyborg Bay, Luga and Koporye Bay, as well as in Neva estuary. Mass maturity of roach occurs at the age of two. The main spawning species are 4-6-years-old fish with body length from 14 to 22 cm, weighing from 40 to 150 g. The difference in size of male and female species is insignificant. Their ratio in spawning grounds is close to 1:1. Age series of the spawning population consists of 13 classes; the fish older than ten years is represented mainly by females. The speed of linear growth for roach is relatively stable throughout its lifecycle (2-3 cm per year, on average). Most significant weight increments show the fish older than 5 years. Maximum sizes (33-36 cm, while weighing 1-1.25 kg) were detected among female species aged from 11 to 13. The dominant commercial group for roach consists of 4-6-years old fish (up to 75 %) [323]. Perch (Perca fluviatilis (L.) - one of the most common fish of the Gulf of Finland. It is represented by two ecological forms: small stunted species maturing at the age of 2-4 years, and large predatory species maturing at the age of 5-7 years. Abundance of the large perch is significantly smaller than abundance of small species, not exceeding several percents of the total population. Age series of the spawning population consists of 13 classes. The dominant species are 4-7-years-old fish (up to 70%) with average length from 12 to 38 cm and body mass from 22 to 1.4 kg [324].




Growth rate of perch which is relatively low during the first years of life significantly increases after switch to predaceous feeding; maximum increments are observed at the age of 4-6 years (up to 3-5 cm and 30-50 g per year). The dominant commercial groups are the fish of these age classes (up to 75%). There is no difference between growth rate of male and female species, however in certain age series female species are somewhat larger than the male. Pope (Gymnocephalus cernua (L.) does not belong to the main commercial species of the Gulf of Finland, however it forms a significantly large population. Its main habitats are situated in the southern and eastern parts of the Gulf. Growth ratio of pope is relatively high - the dominant age series (3-4-year-old fish) reaches the mass of 20-30 g. Maturity occurs at the age of 2-3 years. Pope eats considerable quantities of other fish eggs, especially smelt eggs. The pope itself is a foraging object for the majority of predators in the near-coast part of the Gulf, mostly for pike perch and perch, to the lesser extent - for pike [320]. Ichthyological surveys along the pipeline route allowed evaluation of the state of the fish community during autumn in various ecological zones of the Gulf, from the near-coast, almost fresh-water biotopes to the deeper brackish-water biotopes. The net and trawl surveys have registered 20 fish species belonging to 9 families and one round-mouthed species (Tab. 3.5-1) [48, 282].

Table 3.5-1

Species composition of the fish population in the pipeline construction zone Fam. Cyprinidae Fam. Carps Rutilus rutilus (L.) roach Alburnus alburnus (L.) bleak Blicca bjorkna (L.) white bream Abramis brama (L.) bream Leuciscus idus (L.) orfe Vimba vimba (L.) vimba Fam. Percidae Fam. Perches Perca fluviatilis (L.) perch Stizostedion lucioperca (L.) pike perch Gymnocephalus cernua (L.) pope/ruffe Fam. Gasterosteidae Fam. Sticklebacks Gasterosteus aculeatus (L.) three-spined stickleback Pungitius pungitius (L.) nine-spined stickleback Fam. Clupeidae Clupea harengus membras L. Sprattus sprattus baltica (Schneider)

Fam. Herrings Baltic herring Baltic sprat

Fam. Coregonidae Fam. Whitefishes Coregonus albula (L.) Vendace Coregonus lavaretus lavaretus (L.) Whitefish Fam. Osmeridae Osmerus eperlanus (L.)

Fam. Smelts sparling

Fam. Cottidae Myoxocephalus quadricornis (L.)

Fam. Gobies sculpin

Fam. Cyclopteridae Liparis liparis L.

Fam. snailfish




Fam. Zoarcidae Zoarces viviparus (L.)

Fam. Eelpouts eelpout

Fam. Petromyzonidae Lampetra fluviatilis (L.)

Fam. Round-mouthed river lamprey

Modifications in the species composition are clearly connected with the distance from the shore and water salinity. The main fish community group of the near-coast biotope (fish species with occurrences value more then 50%) predominantly consists of species belonging to the fresh-water association (perch, pope, pike perch, roach, white bream). The main fish community group of the offshore area is formed by marine species (Baltic herring, sprat, eelpout, goby) with some migratory and indifferent species, such as smelt, lamprey, stickleback.

3.5.2. Numbers, biomass and productivity of key species During the last decade species composition of major commercial fish has slightly changed. However, their quantity has changed significantly (Tab. 4.6-4). The decrease in catches is concerned mainly with the marine association species (Baltic herring - more than five times, sprat - more than ten times). It is known that variation in abundance and population of Baltic herring has direct connection with the long-term and year to year variations of climate as well as with biotic conditions. The last decades featured predominance of subnormal temperature resulting in the significant decline in stock abundance of Baltic herring. For example, average annual yield of generations in 1974-1985 in the eastern part of the Gulf of Finland amounted to 690 million species versus 1005 million species over a period of 1960-1973. At present, abundance of Baltic herring continues to decrease. During the last two years the catches have stabilised at a critical low level (around 1,100 tons) [201]. Capture level of sprat has been changing drastically from year to year due to instable fishery resources. During the period from 1982 to 1995 sprat was not present in commercial catches (Table 3.5-2). After that, for several years it was the second, after Baltic herring, target species in the Gulf. Until 2005 the catches of sprat have varied from 600 to 2,000 tons. Last year the capture level came down to 80 tons. [296]. In the near future the probable tendency for reduction of its stock will remain.

Table 3.5-2

Fish catches (in tonnes) in the eastern part of the Gulf of Finland, 1996 - 2005 Fish

species 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005*

Baltic herring

6774 7400 6900 6350 7010 6700 6200 4300 1110 1168

Sprat 831 999 1141 1216 1975 1760 1426 678 642 80,5 Salmons 4 0,4 0,2 0,3 0,2 0,2 0,2 2,2 0,1 0,08 Whitefish 3 0,2 0,4 0,3 0,7 0,5 0,4 0,5 0,5 0,6 Vendace 0,3 2,3 5,7 5,5 8,6 6,9 6 8,2 9,5 7,7 Smelt 782 718 691 429 683 729 388 245 195 74 Pike-perch 51 53 38 49 42 36 31 48 60 30 Perch 98 82 79 54 82 89 116 157 155 61 Pope 222 214 206 263 302 322 359 254 302 205 Pike 2,7 3,8 1,7 4,7 5,9 3 3,7 4,1 3,8 0,8




Fish

species 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005*

Carp bream 177 131 166 171 179 172 183 192 126 81 Roach 121 112 88 79 118 116 119 150 140 49 Vimba 2,1 1,5 2,6 0,9 0,8 0,4 0,4 0,4 1,9 1,91 Orfe 0 0,1 0,3 0,1 0,9 0,1 0,1 0,1 0,1 0,08 White bream

2,4 11,8 8,6 5 21,1 10,5 13 11,7 10,6 8,58

Ziege 4,7 4,4 1 5,1 1,4 0,3 0,3 0,3 2 1,44 Bleak 9,7 11,6 11,2 8,7 6,1 17,3 7,1 5,5 10 8,1 Burbot 2 0,1 0,1 0,1 0,1 1,7 0,5 1,2 0,9 0,88 Stickleback 88,5 203 121 187 41,4 207,5 328 127 191 170 Lamprey 2,4 8,3 15 21 15,5 27,7 21,1 14,5 31 28,2 Total 9177,8 9956,5 9476,8 8849,7 10493,7 10200,1 9202,8 6199,7 2991,4 1976,87 *- data exclusive of amateur fishery Smelt ranks third in terms of catches level on the long-term scale, after Baltic herring and sprat. During the last five years the catches of smelt have been decreasing sensibly and in 2005 it was ten times less than in mid 90-s. Reserves and catches of smelt vary from year to year, as well as on a long-term scale. The main factors responsible for abundance of sprat populations are abundance of parental stock and water temperature during early postembryonic development of the young stock. During the last years the fishery deals mainly with 3-year-old smelt. Moreover, the possibility for the future increase of the stock and catches is not obvious [296]. Despite the fact that in recent years the catches of species belonging to fresh-water association have been declining, they still have remained on the level of normal biological values. Furthermore, pope accounts almost for half of the catch belonging to this association. Capture rate of bream is also consistently high. Its catching is regular and active. The main fishing areas are Vyborg Bay accounting for 50-90% of the total capture of bream, and Neva Bay with adjacent waters along the northern coast. Capture rate of pike perch in the eastern part of the Gulf of Finland is lower than that of bream. The catches level of this species is characterised by secular changes. During the last decade it has declined more then twice settling down at 30-60 tons. The capture level of lamprey shows permanent growth with the catches increasing by tens during the recent years. The catches of commercially important fish such as salmon, whitefish, vendace, have remained at traditionally low levels. Usually, total catches of these species (by year) do not exceed ten tons. One of the main commercial species is three-spined stickleback. Its reserves in the Gulf are sufficiently high. In certain years the catches level of this species reached significant values (3,783 tons in 1983). In recent years the catches have been changing sensibly (from 41 tons in 2000 to 328 tons in 2002). Such variations seem to result both from biological features (significant abundance variations are common to short-cycle species) and from changing fishing intensity.




3.5.3. Fish migration routes, spawning and nursery areas

Marine pelagic spawning fish (plaice, flounder, turbot, dab, cod, silver rockling) spawn only in deep-water areas of the open sea with high salinity levels (more than 10.5%). Plaice, dab and turbot requiring high salinity levels (no less than 13-14%) during spawning seasons spawn in salty south-west areas of the Baltic Sea (to the west of Bornholm). Cod, flounder and silver rockling are less demanding to water salinity (at least 10.5-11.0%), and their eggs are found in seabed layers over a larger area, including Saaremaa and Hijumaa. Sprat, due to its euryhalinity (5-20%) has a wide spawning range. Marine fish (Baltic herring, sand eel, garfish, snailfish, lumpfish, gobies) laying demersal eggs have occupied near-coast areas and bays of lower salinity including the Gulf of Finland [317, 318, 319]. Baltic herring spawns in sand-and gravel soil covered with red and brown algae. The main spawning substrate are benthic macrophytes Furcellaria lumbricalis, Ceramium rubrum, Polysiphonia nigrescens and Pilayella littoralis, as well as stones, mollusc shells and Balanuses. Usually, spawning season starts in the second part of May. The peak of spawning season is detected in June at a water temperature 8-13 C and water salinity 2.6% and more (lower salinity level results in the eggs demise). The majority of spring-spawning Baltic herring spawns at the depth of 3 to 17 m, depending on presence of suitable substrate and favourable temperature and gas (sufficient amount of oxygen) conditions in the area. Fertility rate of Baltic herring varies from 512 thousand eggs. The ratio between male and female species of Baltic herring at spawning grounds comes close to 1:1. There are five reproductive areas of Baltic herring in the Gulf of Finland: 1 - Western (near-coast area adjacent to Tallinn), 2 - The Narva Bay, 3 - Eastern (Luga and Koporye Bays), 4 - Island (Moshchny, Maly, Seskar, Gogland islands), 5 - Northeastern (near-coast area stretching from the state border with Finland to Cape Peschany, including the Berezovye Islands), e.g. the share of Baltic herring spawning grounds in the eastern part of the Gulf of Finland amounts to 4/5 from the total reproductive area of the Gulf of Finland. Reserves of sprat in the Gulf depend on its abundance in the sea and on its feeding migrations in the eastern direction. During the spawning season it moves from the shores and lays pelagic eggs above the depth of 50-100 m at water salinity from 4-5 to 17-18% and water temperature 16-17 C. Feeding migration of sprat to the Gulf is observed in the second half of the year, when it is widespread in the areas adjacent to Estonia, around the islands Bolshoy and Maly Tyuters and Gogland. In certain years sprat pervades the entire water area of the Gulf. The highest concentrations of sprat in this area were detected in October. Spawning and development of eggs and larvae of smelt takes place in a low-salinity area of the Gulf, mainly within the Neva river, Neva Bay and the rivers falling into Vyborg Bay. In high-water years this fish entries the rivers Luga, Sista Kovash and spawns there. The duration of smelt spawning run to the Neva river continues for 20-45 days (20 days on average), sometimes for 10-12 days. Some part of it spawns in the Gulf proper. The spawning grounds are mainly located on the hard sand or sand-and-gravel soil at the depth of 1.5-3 metres. The spawning season usually starts in the end of April when water temperature reaches 5 C, and finishes in the end of May at water temperature 12 C and higher. There are several bursts of activity during the smelt spawning run which could be explained by the biological diversity of spawners. The first to come at the spawning grounds are male species, at the height of the run the differences between sexes are levelled out, and in the end again the mail species prevail over the female, but no more than twice.




After switching to exogenous feeding, the smelt eggs use plankton community in the open offshore zone. After switching to mainly benthos feeding smelt expands over the eastern part of the Gulf. The main concentrations of bream during the spawning season also occur in the Neva Bay, Vyborg Bay and shallow-water near-coast areas in between. The Neva Bay accounts for 38% of bream stock. The main concentration of bream eggs is detected in the Neva Bay, around Sestroretsk and Zelenogorsk and in Vyborg Bay. The spawning season of bream usually starts in May at water temperature from 13 to 28 C (the spawning peak is observed at 16-17 C). Bream lays its eggs in aquatic vegetation of the near-coast areas and bays protected from rough sea conditions. According to surveys, the bream spawners make 2-3 runs: the larger species start the spawning season, followed by middle-sized and at last, by smaller, just matured species. The female species spawn simultaneously. Their fertility differs from 40 to 300 thousand eggs. The ratio between male and female species that spawn for the first time comes close to 1:1, later the typical proportion is 2:1. The spawning stock consists mainly of fish aged 6-8 years (up to 90%). The spawning season of pike perch typically starts in May-July at water temperature 14-16 C, and continues from 10 to 30 days, depending on water temperature. During the spawning season pike-perch comes close to the coast concentrating around the spawning grounds. The high concentrations of pike-perch is detected along the northern and southern coasts in the eastern part of the Gulf of Finland, including the stony banks to the south of the Vysotsky islands, around the area of Bolshoy and Maly Berezovy islands - the island Igrivy - the island Vikhrevoy located in Vyborg Bay. The large spawning grounds of pike-perch are located along the coast of Vyborg Bay, from Vyborg to Vysotsk, and further to the east of the Vysotsky islands. During the last twenty years the pike-perch spawning area has decreased due to human activities (such as detonation and dredging). Pike-perch lays its eggs in shallow near-coast areas, in the sand, sand-and-pebble and gravel soil, as well as in soil covered with the aquatic vegetation roots. The typical depth of the spawning grounds is 3-8 metres. The first to come and the last to leave the spawning grounds are male species. Usually pike-perch creates spawning nests, in which the eggs are also protected by male species. The rate of female species in the spawning grounds ranges at 1:2, 1:3. Average fertility of the female species amounts to 200-250 thousand eggs with fluctuations between 80 and 1200 thousand eggs. Linear size of pike-perch spawning for the first time amounts to 30-35 cm with body mass from 400 to 700 g. The spawning stock is dominated by the species 5-7 years old [55, 106]. Usually, feeding migration of pike-perch occurs after the movement of Baltic herring and smelt stalks. In the near-coast areas pike-perch remains only during the first years of its life as it prefers the offshore areas with clear water. In summer 2-3-year old immature species typically stay in littoral areas, while the older species dwell in offshore lake areas, often around the banks. In winter significant amounts of pike-perch are found around the banks Diomid, Grekov, Agamemnon, and around the islands Berezovy and Rondo.




Whitefish gathers in pre-spawning stalks along the eastern and north-eastern coasts of the Gulf mainly during September-October. Typically, they prefer to stay in the drop-off area and in seabed layers of water. Before spawning they move to more shallow-water areas. There are no pre-spawning concentrations of whitefish in the rivers estuaries (except the Neva estuary). The significant part of whitefish population supposedly spawns directly in the Gulf. The spawning grounds have been positively detected at the banks Uvarov's, Kiri, Diomid, as well as at the stony shallow-water areas to the west and south-west of the islands Berezovye. During its pre-spawning period whitefish is also regularly caught in the Neva Bay. The spawning grounds are typically located on pebble-and-gravel soil, rarely - on sand-and-pebble soil. Generally whitefish spawns at a depth not exceeding 10 metres. The spawning season usually begins at water temperature 5-6 C and continues at least 710 days, depending on weather conditions. Fertility rate of spawning female species varies in the range of 8-30 thousand eggs [320, 321, 322]. Roach is a typical phytophil choosing for spawning shallow-water areas covered with soft vegetation, with water depth usually not exceeding 1 m. Pre-spawning stalks of roach form already under ice. After melting, when water temperature reaches 8-12 C roach concentrates at the spawning grounds laying its eggs into aquatic vegetation, dumped bushes, snags. Its fertility varies from 5.5 to -112 thousand eggs (approximately 30 thousand eggs on average). Usually, the rate is higher with the older fish. The smaller species of perch feed in the near-coast areas virtually over the entire Gulf intensely consuming zooplankton, partly - benthos and young fish. The larger species prefer more open deep-water areas of littoral where they deal as active predators. During winter both types of perch stay in relatively deep-water areas, around the drop-offs, on the holes, sometimes gathering in large stalks. The main concentrations of perch occur in the Neva Bay, Vyborg Bay, Luga and Koporye Bays. Both types of perch migrate for spawning in the aquatic vegetation of the near-coast area at spring, immediately after melting. The larger species spawn a little later than the small, laying its eggs not only in vegetation, but also on stones. More than 80% of species reach their maturity at the second age of life. Juvenile species account for no more than 2% of the three-year-old perch stalk, while the female species account for 20% and male species - for more than 75%. Later the share of male and female species of perch in spawning stalk levels out coming close to the proportion of 1:1. Fertility of perch varies in the range of 7-160 thousand eggs (45-50 thousand eggs on average). With advancing age and increase in size and weight, fertility of perch rises as well. Spawning of pope takes place in late May-June. Fertility of pope amounts to 7-12 thousand eggs. Female species lay their eggs several times. Species with body length 6-10 cm lay from 4 to 6 thousand eggs, while species 15-18 cm long lay up to 100 thousand eggs.




3.6. Avifauna

One of the key principles of The Nord Stream AG is its effort for preserving the wild life objects and their habitats. According to this, a large-scale field research was carried out in the proposed construction area which allowed to collect abundant data on the present state of avifauna. The results of this research and a careful study of of archival data allowed to make a precise assessment of impact upon birds which indicates almost full absence of impact on this animal group and and allows to assess the consequences of indirect impact. The details on species composition and abundance, biotopic location, migrations, wintering and breeding are based on summarized literature data and the materials of ecological-engineering research 2006. The research was carried out over a vast area. This section describes the area of the proposed pipeline with the neighbouring islands Maly Fiskar (0.94 km from the proposed Nord Stream route), Bolshoy Fiskar (2.90 km) and Gogland (2.70 km). The other islands the bird fauna of which is described in the EES Volume, are located at a distance of more than 4 km from the construction area (see Chapter 2 of this Volume). The bird fauna of this area is relatively diverse: it is represented by local species of boreal complex enriched by a great number of arctic migrating species. It includes representative from 15 orders [45, 105, 168]. The hunting objects are represented by various species of Anseriformes and several species of sandpipers. Although there are several hunting seats in the near-coast areas, at present they play no significant role as the hunting grounds of Leningrad region. The Russian part of the Gulf of Finland includes the Important Bird Areas (IBAs) and Wetlands of international importance (the Berezovye islands, the Kurgalski Peninsula, Lebyazhye are the sites of Important Bird Areas) which play the significant part in supporting biodiversity of the region and are places of high priority for migrating bird species [117]. These territories are mostly located at considerable distances from the proposed pipeline route and will not suffer any significant impact from the pipeline construction. The closest territory to the route is "The Berezovye islands" the detailed description of which is given below (see Section 3.6.2).

3.6.1. Numbers and biotopical confinement of birds The area plays an important role in supporting biodiversity of the marine, water and semi-aquatic bird species during their migrating seasons, breeding and moulting periods. The abundance of various bird species in the construction area during breeding and migration is different [43, ,44, 54, 214]. Data on the average abundance during these seasons is summarized in Table (3.6-1).




Table 3.6-1

Abundance of birds in the impact area of the pipeline construction during various periods of

annual cycle (from the research data, 2007)

Species Periods of annual cycle

Abundance (species) in the

impact area 1. Black-throated diver

Gavia arctica* Breeding 4

Migrations. 4000

2. Red-/black-throated diver Gavia stellata*

Breeding 0

Migrations. 500

3. Little grebe Podiceps ruficollis*

Breeding 0

Migrations. 5

4. Slavonian grebe Podiceps auritus*

Breeding 0

Migrations 20

5. Red-necked grebe Podiceps griseigena*

Breeding 0

Migrations 200

6. Great crested grebe Podiceps cristatus

Breeding 80

Migrations 1000

7. Great cormorant Phalacrocorax carbo

Breeding 6000

Migrations 15000

8. Mute swan Cygnus olor

Breeding 40

Migrations 300

9. Whooper swan Cygnus cygnus*

Breeding 0

Migrations 4000

10. Berwick's swan Cygnus bewickii*, **

Breeding 0

Migrations 2500

11. Greylag goose Anser anser*

Breeding 20

Migrations 300

12. Bean goose Anser fabalis

Breeding 0

Migrations 7000

13. White-fronted goose Anser albifrons

Breeding 0

Migrations 7000

14. Lesser White-fronted Goose Anser erythropus*, **

Breeding 0

Migrations 100

15. Barnacle goose Branta leucopsis*, **

Breeding 60

Migrations 6000

16. Brent goose Branta bernicla*

Breeding 0

Migrations 10000

17. Mallard Anas platyrhynchos

Breeding 400

Migrations 12500

18. Green-winged teal Anas crecca

Breeding 400

Migrations 3000

19. Gadwall Anas strepera*

Breeding 5

Migrations 100 UNOFFICIAL ENGLISH TRANSLATION – FOR COURTESY ONLY



20. Wigeon Anas penelope

Breeding 20

Migrations 8000

21. Northern pintail A. acuta*

Breeding 20

Migrations 1000

22. Garganey teal Anas querquedula

Breeding 0

Migrations 1000

23. Northern shoveler Anas clypeata

Breeding 20

Migrations 1000

24. Siberian eider Polysticta stellery *

Breeding 0

Migrations 500

25. Common eider Somateria mollissima*

Breeding 160

Migrations 1700

26. Tufted duck Aythya fuligula

Breeding 1000

Migrations 10000

27. Greater scaup Aythya marila

Breeding 0

Migrations 4000

28. Velvet scoter Melanitta fusca

Breeding 40

Migrations 20000






impact area 29. Black scoter

Melanitta nigra Breeding 0

Migrations 20000

30. Long-tailed duck Clangula hyemalis

Breeding 0

Migrations 30000

31. Goldeneye Bucephala clangula

Breeding 40

Migrations 7000

32. Red-breasted merganser Mergus serrator

Breeding 100

Migrations 10000

33. Goosander Mergus merganser

Breeding 40

Migrations 6000

34. Magpie diver Mergus albellus *

Breeding 0

Migrations. 200

35. Coot Fulica atra

Breeding 0

Migrations 300

36. Ringed plover Charadrius hiaticula*

Breeding 24

Migrations 100

37. Little ringed plover Charadrius dubius

Breeding 200

Migrations 700

38. Black-bellied plover Sqatarola sqatarola

Breeding 0

Migrations 200

39. Golden plover Pluvialis apricaria*

Breeding 0

Migrations 250

40. Lapwing Vanellus vanellus

Breeding 0

Migrations 1000

41. Oystercatcher Haematopus ostralegus*

Breeding 40

Migrations 400

42. Green sandpiper Tringa ochropus

Breeding 40

Migrations 1000

43. Wood sandpiper Tringa gl areola

Breeding 0

Migrations 500

44. Greenshank Tringa nebularia

Breeding 0

Migrations 2000

45. Redshank Tringa totanus *

Breeding 40

Migrations 1000

46. Common sandpiper Actitis hypoleucos

Breeding 200

Migrations 2000

47. Turnstone Arenaria interpres

Breeding 20

Migrations 900

48. Ruff Philomachus pugnax*

Breeding 0

Migrations 5000

49. Little stint Breeding 0 UNOFFICIAL ENGLISH TRANSLATION – FOR COURTESY ONLY



Calidris minutus Migrations 100

50. Temminck's stint C. temminckii

Breeding 0

Migrations 300

51. Dunlin C.alpina*

Breeding 0

Migrations 2000

52. Curlew sandpiper C. ferruginea

Breeding 0

Migrations 500

53. Robin sandpiper Calidris canutus

Breeding 0

Migrations 100

54. Sanderling Calidris alba

Breeding 0

Migrations 20

55. Curlew Numenius arquata*

Breeding 0

Migrations 1200

56. Whimbrel Numenius fhaeopus *

Breeding 0

Migrations 800

57. Black-tailed godwit Limosa limosa *

Breeding 0

Migrations 200

58. Bar-tailed godwit Limosa lapponica

Breeding 0

Migrations 600

59. Common gull Breeding 2000






impact area Larus canus Migrations 100000

60. Herring gull Larus argentatus

Breeding 5000

Migrations 50000

61. Lesser black-backed Gull Larus fuscus*

Breeding 500

Migrations 1000

62. Cob Larus marinus

Breeding 50

Migrations 200

63. Black-headed gull Larus ridibundus

Breeding 300

Migrations 100000

64. Common tern Sterna hirundo

Breeding 500

Migrations 45000

65. Arctic tern Sterna paradisaea*

Breeding 80

Migrations 3000

66. Little tern Sterna albifrons Pall. Sterna albifrons*

Breeding 40

Migrations 1000

67. Caspian tern Hydroprogne caspia*

Breeding 60

Migrations 300

68. Razorbill Alca torda*

Breeding 80

Migrations 350

69. Guillemot Cepphus grille*

Breeding 30

Migrations 550

Note: * - species listed in the Red Book of the Russian Federation; ** - species listed in the Red Book of the Leningrad region

Winter season Feeding gulls (black-headed gull and herring gull) as well as mallard, wigeon and tufted duck are registered in the Portovaya Bay. The composition of bird species around the islands Maly Fiskar and Gogland is virtually similar. The most important area is Bolshoy Fiskar Archipelago. Species composition of winter fauna is summarized in Table 3.6-1.

Table 3.6-2. Species composition and abundance (in pairs) of typical winter bird fauna (based on materials of engineering and ecological research performed in the Portovaya Bay ad along the Nord Stream

route, 2006)




Species Maly

Fiskar Bolshoy Fiskar

Gogland

1 Gaviidae

Black-throated diver -Gavia arctica 0 0 3

Podicipediformes 2 Great crested grebe –Podiceps cristatus 1 0 4

Copepoda

3 Great cormorant- Phalacrocorax carbo 0 40 0

Anseriformes 4 Mallard -Anas platyrhynchos 14 16 13

5 Wigeon-Anas penelope 12 18 2

6 Greater scaup-Aythia fuligula 6 125 2

7 Common eider - Somateria mollissima 2 35 0

8 Greater scaup-Aythya marila 3 12 0

9 Velvet scoter- Melanitta fusca 4 120 0

10 Black scoter -Melanitta nigra 0 300 0

11 Long-tailed duck -Clangula hyemalis 5 600 0

12 Goosander -Mergus merganser 1 2 3

Charadriiformes




Species Maly Fiskar Bolshoy

Fiskar Gogland

13 Mew gull -Larus canus 12 45 11 14 Herring gull - L.argentatus 3 12 4 15 Black-headed gull- Larus ridibundus 11 40 8 16 Coomon tern -Sterna hirundo 0 1 0 17 Guillemot - Cepphus grylle 0 75 0 18 Razorbill - Alca torda 0 60 0 Passeriformes

19 Fieldfare -Turdus pilaris 23 0 0 20 Corbie crow-Corvus corax 1 0 2

Summer season (breeding and moulting) The basis of the breeding population of the area consists of gulls with the addition of various species of Anseriformes (mainly sea-ducks, swans and dabbling); in some colonies also breed cormorants The most important for reproducing of the marine, water and semi-aquatic birds is Bolshoy Fiskar, a little less important are the islands Maly Fiskar, Sommers and Gogland [215, 43, 44, 352].

Table 3.6-3.

Abundance (in pairs) of breeding population of the marine and semi-aquatic birds on Bolshoy Fiskar Archipelago (based on materials of engineering and ecological research performed in the

Portovaya Bay ad along the Nord Stream route, 2006) Species Bolshoy Fiskar

1. Great cormorant (Phalacrocorax carbo) 2300 2. Mute swan (Cygnus olor) 2 3. Greylag goose (Anser anser) 2-3 4. Shellduck (Tadorna tadorna) 0 5. Mallard (Anas plathyrhynchos) 0 6. Gadwall (Anas strepera) 0 7. Wigeon (Anas penelope) 0 8. Northern pintail (Anas acuta) 0 9. Garganey teal (Anas querqedula) 5 10. Northern shoveler (Anas clypeata) 0 11. Green-winged teal (Anas crecca) 0 12. Common eider (Somateria mollissima) 5-10 13. Greater scaup (Aythya fuligula) 20-30 14. Velvet scoter (Melanitta fusca) 2-3 15. Red-breasted merganser (Mergus serrator) 5 16. Goosander (Mergus merganser) 3-5 17. White-tailed eagle (Haliaeetus albicilla) 0 18. Common buzzard (Buteo buteo) 0 19. Hobby (Falco subbuteo) 0 20. Corncrake (Crex crex) 0 21. Purple sandpiper (Oharadrius dubius) 1-3




22. Oystercatcher (Haematopus ostralegus) 1-3 23. Redshank (Tringa totanus) 2-3 24. Turnstone (Arenaria interpres) 0 25. Mew gull (Larus canus) 10 26. Herring gull (Larus argentatus) 1700 27. Lesser black-backed gull (Larus fuscus) 250 28. Great black-backed gull (Larus marinus) 10-15 29. Black-headed gull (Larus ridibundus) 0




Species Bolshoy Fiskar

30 Common tern (Sterna hirundo) 5 31. Arctic tern (Sterna paradisaea) 10 32. Guillemot (Cepphus grylle) 25-30 33. Razorbill (Alca torda) 140 34. Coot (Fulica atra) 0 Bolshoy Fiskar Archipelago. The breeding colonies are formed mainly by gulls. On these islands are located the most abundant in the Russian part of the Gulf of Finland colonies of guillemots, razorbills, Caspian terns (the population of the latter has increased from 27 pairs in 1995 to 46 pairs in 2005), and great cormorants (population development from 800-1,100 pairs in 1995 to 2,300 pairs in 2005). The total amount of breeding birds in 2005 numbered 44.5 thousand pairs. The Maly Fiskar island. The breeding population consists mainly of herring gulls and black-backed gulls (300 and 100 pairs respectively), also there are 20 pairs of razorbill, 10 pairs of guillemot, 4-5 pairs of common eider, 1 pair of barnacle goose, 3-6 pairs of red-breasted merganser and goosander, and several pairs of greater scaup. The Sommers island. The colonies of herring gulls and black-backed gulls number 400 species (80 pairs of which are black-backed gulls). Also it is a breeding area for common eider (3-4 pairs), scoter (3-5), red-breasted merganser and goosander (3-4) and the wintering grounds for inconsiderable numbers of eiders and guillemots and - rarely - kittiwake. Therefore the key important site for reproducing of marine and semi-aquatic populations in the direct area of the proposed route is the Bolshoy Fiskar Archipelago, while the rich in terms of fauna Seskar Archipelago (31.6 km away from the proposed route) and The Berezovye islands (15 km) are located at a considerable distance. The first species to come to breeding grounds are gulls which begin to occupy the breeding islands as early as in March and start to lay eggs in the end of April or in May. Early in April eiders come to the breeding grounds leaving the islands with their brood in July. Later begins the breeding season for other sea- and diving ducks (mergansers, scaups): they breed in May-June, and July-August the broods could be still found. The last (from June to August) to breed are scoters and guillemots. From the end of June till August continues the moulting season of water birds, during which they lose their ability to fly becoming more sensitive to the impact of various negative anthropogenous factors.

3.6.2. Migration routes, focal points on nesting, wintering and stops during flights Most birds fly over Gulf of Finland without stopping. Waterfowl flight begins in second half of September. The bulk of migrating sea birds have been observed to leave Vyborg gulf up to the middle of October (Appendix to section 3.6, fig. 2) [9, 54, 190].




The researches have shown that in Portovaya Bay sea area in migration time separate birds or small flocks feeding on the water or flying in the air are recorded. Most concentrations of birds are seen near Bolshoy Fiskar Archipelago. In addition, near Berezovy Islands one of the main in North-West Russia waterfowl staging sites in their spring flight is situated. Near Maly Fiskar and Gogland islands big concentrations of birds are not seen. Several groups (generally long-tailed duck, black scoter, velvet scoter and tufted duck) by tens of thousands stops to feed in Bolshoy Fiskar Archipelago sea area. During season flights bird fauna diversity increases greatly due to arctic migrants. Every year more than 10 million birds fly through the Russian section of the Gulf of Finland. In the autumn after breeding even greater amount of birds fly in opposite direction. Sea shallow waters of the gulf are playing a key role as place of migrants stop for feeding in spring and autumn. In comparison to the birds flights along the south coast of the Gulf of Finland, their movement along the north coast has predominantly transit nature. Big depths, and most importantly, skerry type of seashore prevent migrants from formation of long feeding stopovers. But only in several bays and around some islands flocks of hundreds and in apex part of Vyborg gulf - of thousand migrating birds arise. Winter period. Wintering of sea birds and waterfowl on Gulf of Finland area depend on time of ice cover and ice conditions forming, so wintering has random character, and number of gathering birds and their distribution are very variable. According to Nature conservation atlas of the Russian section of the Gulf of Finland the main regions of waterfowl wintering (in mild winters) lay mainly in southern part of Gulf of Finland and are situated on the islands (Moshchny , Seskar, Bolshoy Tyuters, Maly Tyuters, Gogland) and several segments of the seashore (west coast of Kurgalski peninsula, Luzhskaya bay, Koporskaya bay, near estuary of Narva river). Spring period. Timeframes and course of spring migrations especially for species having stops on the sea area depends mainly on ice conditions of particular season and general course of spring on the flight route. Divers (Gavia spp.). Red-throated and black-throated divers are mass migrants. The both species form mass pre-starting stopovers before overcoming Vyborg gulf and Karelian Isthmus. Such stopovers are either focused in base of Vyborg gulf or distributed dispersedly (by 10-200 individuals) on large space from Berezovye Islands to Seskar and Kozliny islands). For clarification of this issue the additional field surveys are required. In spring totally 15 to 25 thousand divers (taking into account fluctuations between years) fly over this region. Mass migration starts as sea area becomes ice free and continues during May (fig. 3.6-1).




Figure 3.6-1. Divers spring migration dynamics Grebes (Podiceps spp.). Starting from second decade of April and up to the middle of May grebes (first of all - crested grebe) may form mass stopovers, up to 500 individuals, but distributed dispersedly within 10 m isobath, on the flight routes along the north coast of the gulf. As spring runs, birds accumulation take place near eastern ice edge. Swans (Cygnus spp.) on north coast are not mass migrants, as mail quantity of birds fly along the south coast, and only group flying on south-eastern Finland, comes to the Gulf of Finland. Within Russian waters (fig. 3.6-2).

Figure 3.6-2. Swans spring migration dynamics Gees (Anser spp.). Gees spring migration over considered area is not considerable. Totally in second-third decades of May 1.5 thousand individuals fly over north islands. Brants (Branta spp.). Are in spring the most large scale group of migrants after sea ducks. The flight goes on from the middle of May up to beginning of June, by waves. During spring from 275 to 110-120 thousand individuals (by different assessments) of barnacle geese and brent geese pass through the corner of Vyborg Bay. Migrations character for these two species is different (fig.3.6-3). They may make short-term stopovers on all of external line islands free from forest. As a rule, stopover aggregations number tens individuals.




Figure 3.6-3. Brants spring migration dynamics Sea ducks. In this group (and also among all water birds) black scoter and long-tailed duck make overwhelming majority of migrants. During spring (with peak in first half of May) 1.4 to 3 million long-tailed ducks and 0.5-1.5 million black scoters fly over Vyborg Bay.

Figure 3.6-4. Sea ducks spring migration dynamics. River(Anas spp.) and sea (Aythya spp.) ducks. By its quantitative terms duck flight of these group is very weak, predominantly transit with insignificant stopovers. During spring no more 1-2 thousand river ducks and 1-3 thousand sea ducks fly with stopovers. The nearest regions of this group of birds mass concentration is Seskar archipelago. Gulls (Larus spp.). During spring about 2-5 thousand herring gulls, up to 150-200 black-backed gulls of barnacle of White Sea population and also several thousand lake gulls and little gulls pass through the corner of Vyborg gulf . Herring gulls fly already in March-April, black-backed gulls migrate in May. The migration has forward character with formation of short-living accumulations of hundreds individuals on external zone islands.




Arctic terns (Sterna spp.) and skua gulls (Stercorarius spp.) fly in small amounts and in transit, distributed dispersedly on the sea area. Berezovy Islands important bird area description is shown below (Appendix to section 3.6, fig.1). Shallow straits between these islands are overgrown with reeds and are important place of nesting and stopovers during waterfowl spring and autumn migration as well as mass moulting area of river ducks. During the migrations in this area grebes (Podiceps cristatus and Podiceps grisegena) are recorded, their number reaches 1,000-2,000 individuals, brent geese and barnacle geese (Branta leucopsis и Branta bernicla) in amount of 50,000-70,000 individuals, 28 species of sandpipers with total amount about 100,000 individuals, gulls (Larus argentatus, Larus fuscus, Larus canus, Larus ridibundus) about 500,000 individuals in spring and about 1-1.5 million individuals in autumn, arctic terns (Sterna hirundo and Sterna paradisea) - 300-500 individuals, and also 11 species of sea ducks are recorded. Gees (Anser spp.). - 4 species do not stop in this area, they fly in transit. At that this area amounts 33,600 ha including 21,600 ha of water area. The area fully coincides with wetlands "Berezovy Islands of Gulf of Finland" having international importance, in addition, in this area for a long time (from 1975) Berezovye Islands nature reserve ('zakaznik') exists. The considered area is situated on the distance 15 km from the planned pipeline route, so insignificant impact from the pipeline construction to this area may be expected. Autumn period In autumn period most birds fly over Vyborg Bay without stopping. The main part of birds in the investigated region flies over Gulf of Finland in transit. Only several groups (generally long-tailed duck, black scoter, velvet scoter and tufted duck) by tens of thousands stops to feed in Bolshoy Fiskar Archipelago sea area. Gulls migrate in October-November predominantly over open sea regions. Common gulls move generally in a westerly direction and fly wide-front. The diffusive groups of common gulls move slowly and continuously during all the solar time. At that they interchange feeding (gather food from water surface, hundreds of birds gather near fishing ships), flight and rest. Indistinct migration behaviour of gulls hampers their calculation. On Bolshoy Fiskar Archipelago there are traditional resting spots of gulls (common and black-headed) where tens of thousands of birds stop. The certain species of waterfowl flight characteristic is cited below on the base of literary materials (fig.3.6-5).




Figure 3.6-5. Waterfowl autumn migration dynamics in the North Gulf of Finland Divers (Gavia spp.). In October-November predominantly black-throated divers migrate over considered area of Gulf of Finland (fig.3.6-6). Red-throated diver are recorded in smaller amounts. Migration of sole white-billed divers (the species is included in the Red Book of Russia) is recorded. Over Bolshoy Fiskar in autumn 12-20 thousand of divers fly and then only over Maly Fiskar island 1.5-2 thousand of divers. The movement is generally nonstop with forming of short-time dispersed over large area accumulations of tens of birds.

Figure 3.6-6. Divers autumn migration dynamics Brants (Branta spp.). Autumn migration of brants in the region is not so marked as spring one as the birds predominantly fly along the south coast of the gulf and even to the south, over the land. In autumn barnacle geese make short-time stops everywhere on water meadows near shore and in the islands (including Fiskars, Ryabinnik, Malaya Otmel, Kamennaya Zemla, Tyuterses, Moshchny and others), at that the accumulations are rarely over 100 individuals, but usually - several tens.




3.6.3. Rare and specially protected bird species

Bittern (Botaurus stellaris). Included in Red Books of Baltic region, Eastern Fennoskandia and Leningrad Region. In recent years the species abundance decreased, that is connected with immediate shooting of bittern by hunters as well as with reduction of large reed tangle which are necessary for this species habitation. Mute swan (Cignus olor). Mass nesting places of mute swan are situated west of Leningrad Region, in particular, in Finland and Baltic countries. The greatest population growth is recorded in Estonia where nesting sites situated in coastal bays and Baltic sea islands are very characteristic. It is evident that from here starts swans penetration into more western part of Gulf of Finland; within Leningrad Region mute swan nesting is lately known in the region of Kurgalski reef and also on the island in Gulf of Finland: Moshchny , Bolshoy Tyuters and Maly. Shelduck (Tadorna tadorna). Included in Red Books of Baltic region, Eastern Fennoskandia and Leningrad Region. Until recently in Leningrad Region only autumn meetings with individual birds of passage were known. The last decade is characteristic with the species settling further on to the west. The birds are more frequently seen in the eastern part of the Gulf of Finland. Gadwall (Anas strepera) Included in Red Books of Baltic region, Eastern Fennoskandia and Leningrad Region. The last decade the species is actively settling to the west. Gadwall nesting was found on Seskar island as well as on sandbars near the southern coast of Gulf of Finland. Meanwhile, gadwall nests regularly on small islands in western Estonia. Common eider (Somateria mollisima). Included in Red Book of Leningrad Region. Common eider nesting is seen on Gogland, Moshchny, Bolshoy Tyuters, Tuman and Oritsaari near the north coast of the Gulf of Finland. In recent years nests of this species are found in the islands of Kurgalski reef. Black scoter (Melanitta nigra). In the area of Leningrad region black scoter regular nesting is known at present at the islands of Kurgalski reef, at Berezovye Islands and in the north of Ladoga. It is more common in the western Gulf of Finland: in Estonia and especially in Finland. It is the nesting species rare in Leningrad region. It is quite regularly registered during summer migrations in the Gulf of Finland area, at Berezovye Islands and at the forts of Kotlin Island. Little tern (Sterna albifrons). Included in Red Books of Baltic region, Eastern Fennoskandia and Leningrad Region. It is the rare nesting species. Nests regularly at Kronstadt spit.




It should be noted one of the most threatened and potentially affected for the planned activities bird species - fronted goose (Anser erythropus) (subarctic species met on the flight, protective status: IUCN (VU), Red book of Russian Federation (2), Red book of Leningrad region (1CR), Red book of Eastern Fennoskandia (+), SPEC 1, BD I, Bonn I, Bern II), its sole individuals may be met in flocks of migrating geese, and white-billed diver (arctic species met on the flight, protective status: Red book of Russian Federation (3), Bonn II, Bern III), migrating through the region in the autumn in small amounts. The species included in Red book of Russian Federation mostly exposed to the risk of negative impact at the project implementation is Bewick’s swan (protective status: Red book of Russian Federation (2), Red book of Leningrad region (3VU), BD I, Bonn I, Bern II). Through the Gulf of Finland virtually the whole Atlantic (western) passaging population of the species using East Atlantic route (from the White Sea to the Baltic Sea) flies. Its abundance is assessed in 25-30 thousand individuals. In the examined region traditional mass migration stopovers comprising tens of individuals are situated. The most mass of them were traditionally concentrated in the region of Berezovye Islands. However, lately, because of irrupted anthropogenic pressing in the region of Vyborg Bay and Primorsk the stopovers began to move to the bays of northern coast of the Gulf. Several species of predator birds and great snipe also having priority protective states are weekly exposed to potential negative consequences because of their bionomy. Nests of white-tailed eagle (IUCN (NT), Red book of Russian Federation (3), Red book of Leningrad region (3VU), Red book of Baltic Region (2), Red book of Eastern Fennoskandia (+), CITES I, SPEC 1, BD I, Bonn I, Bern II) on Kokor and Bolshoy Pogranichny islands should be mentioned. In terms of biodiversity of bird fauna of the Russian section of the Gulf of Finland support nesting on the islands and summering in coastal waters of the gulf south-east of eider ducks, great cormorants, razorbills, black guillemots, greylag geese and shelducks is important. Analysis of waterfowl distribution in Gulf of Finland area in season migration and nesting periods allows to mark out the species to which the pipeline construction and operation may have considerable impact. They must include the mass species and also rare ones, environmentally connected with marine and coastal habitats, present within NEGP zone of influence, namely: black-throated diver, red-throated diver, cormorant, mute swan, whooper swan, Bewick’s swan, greylag goose, barnacle goose, brent goose, European wigeon, common eider, Steller's eider, velvet scoter, black scoter, long-tailed duck, goosander, red-breasted merganser, magpie diver, ringed plover, oystercatcher, redshank, common sandpiper, ruddy turnstone, curlew, whimbrel, black-tailed godwit, bar-tailed godwit, herring gull, lesser black-backed gull, great black-backed gull, arctic tern, little tern, Caspian tern, razorbill, guillemot. Special role in Gulf of Finland islands ecosystems belongs to great cormorant and herring gull, because in their colonies the conditions for nesting of many rare species are created. Therefore, on the base of literary materials and the data achieved during engineering and environmental investigations the conclusion is:

• active autumn migration of several waterfowl and near-water birds species in the region of proposed Nord Stream pipeline route takes place starting from second half of September and finishes in the middle of October.




• the absolute dominant of bird migrating at day time is long-tailed duck: abundance of

this bird species exceeds total abundance of all other bird species;

• the main direction of autumn migrations is south-west.




3.7. Marine Mammals

Pinnipeds (Pinnipedia) Earlier (slightly more than 100 years ago) 3 species of seal were found in Baltic Sea. grey seal (Halichoerus grypus), harbour seal (Phoca vitulina) and ringed seal (Pusa hispida). At the edge of XIX and XX centuries populations of these mammals were much more than nowadays - at least 200,000 ringed seals, 100,000 grey seals, and 5,000 harbour seals. Populations of all these species of animals has dramatically decreased in the result of hunting, and in 1950th and 1960th. their populations undermined as it is were seriously damaged in the result of serious reproductive, metabolic and immunological changes caused by accumulation of hazardous substances in the environment, especially of polychlorinated biphenyl which accumulates in tissues of sea mammals and leads to adult females sterilization [333]. Presently Gulf of Finland is inhabited by only two species of seals - ringed seal and grey seal. Their population currently increases due to restriction of hunting and fall of dangerous substances concentrations in the water, however, reproductive abnormalities still negatively impact on these species population development [8, 367]. Disturbance having anthropogenic origin and danger of meshing in fishing nets also pose permanently treat to Baltic seals (HELCOM 2003, Report No. 87). Grey seal (Halichoerus grypus). Grey seals are coastal animals, they form rookeries on isolated beaches and rocky marine terraces of Russia offshore islands. Observations of marked pups show that pups move freely within the Baltic Sea. Season changes in seals population lead to the conclusion about probable large-scale migration of seals from Baltic Proper to Gulf of Bothnia (see also map in Appendix to chapter 2 of this volume).

Figure 3.7-1. Grey seal (Halichoerus grypus) In Baltic sea grey seal breeds in the end of winter, from February to March, on fast shore ice. Grey seals move away on long distances from the rookeries in periods between breeding seasons, however, they commune together again during moulting. In winter they usually live alone or by small groups. They feed along the coast with various fish and invertebrates [332, 335].




Based on the investigations of these pinnipeds species held beforehand it should be noted that grey seal in Russian sea area of Gulf of Finland in winter period is rarely found and generally gets here together with drifting ice from the west of the gulf. During air calculation only single meetings of this species of seal are met [367]. In summer grey seals appears mainly near the southern coast of the Gulf. In the north only sole individuals are met and, as a rule, in the water, however there is a plenty of rookeries here. They are islands and reefs of Bolshoy Fiskar and Maly Fiskar archipelagos, rocky exits near Kopytin and Smolistye islands, sloping rocky islet Hally and finally Hallikarti reefs. It should be noted that the region of listed islands is rich with fish, so there are not only rocks usual for rookeries, but also plenty of food for seals. However, number of meeting of seals in these places is insignificant at present. In southern part of the Gulf the grey seal rookeries are found on Maly Tyuters, on reefs near Vigand island and on Hitamatala island including in Kurgalski reef. On Maly Tyuters in May-July seals appear in the evening and spend night on single projected rocks near north and south-west ends of the island. Numerous rookery near Vigand island is noted on two rocky ridges. The animals form two tight group here, where maximal amount of seals may be seen in windless weather (up to 150 individuals simultaneously). Similar situation was observed on Hitamatala pebble bank in Kurgalski reef and to north-west on the reef. Up to 200-250 grey seals gather here. Analysing the results of grey seal calculations (by the data of Biological research institute) in Gulf of Finland (table 3.7-1) held last years stabilization of this animal population with tendency to its growth may be stated. In 2002 and 2003 calculation of seals has been held a month later than optimum term, the achieved results are not matched with real population of this seal species in the Gulf. At present, grey seal population in Gulf of Finland may be evaluated as 550-600 individuals. It should be noted that in Baltic, in territorial waters of USSR grey seal hunting was stopped in 1975. This species is included in Red Book of Russia and International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources as threatened animal with index EN (endangered species).

Table 3.7-1

Results of grey seal calculations in Russian sea area of Gulf of Finland (by the data of Biological research institute of St. Petersburg state university)

Year 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Population (individuals) 445 89 183 547 545




It should be noted that in Baltic, in territorial waters of USSR grey seal hunting was stopped in 1975. This species is included in Red Book of Russia and International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources as endangered animal with index EN (extincting species). Baltic ringed seal (Phoca hispida botnica) Baltic ringed seal (Phoca hispida botnica) occurs in Gulf of Finland all over the year, for it seasonal change of habitats is characteristic. Baltic ringed seal area of distribution is controlled by pack and ground ice and also sections with seasonal glaciation. In the period when sea surface is free from ice, ringed seals generally stay south to Berezovy Islands and north to Kurgalski peninsula; north-west to Berezovy Islands ringed seals are not numerous.

Figure 3.7-3. Baltic ringed seal (Phoca hispida botnica) Contrary to two other populations of Baltic ringed seal that occur in the Gulf of Riga and in the Bothnian Sea, in the Gulf of Finland Baltic ringed seal makes rookeries. The seals get out to rocky ridges and are situated in the vicinity of each other. The larges rookeries were found near Vigand island and Hitamatala island, here ringed seal comes to the land together with grey seal. In this case mixed groups are formed, at that grey seals are situated in the middle of group of rookery, and ringed seals - on the periphery. In May-June and September-November ringed seal forms rookeries, reached several tens of individuals near Remisaar island and in Kiskolsky reef. Small groups of ringed seals by 5-15 individuals are usual on Maly Tyuters islands, and sole individuals get out to the rocks along the shore of Kurgalski peninsula and on Bolshoy Tyuters, Moshchny and Seskar islands. It should be noted that with the water warming up ringed seals come from the continental shore and in summer rest on the rocks only near small islands or in the reefs in the sea [279, 332].




Ringed seals pupping takes place on ice to the south and south-west of Berezovy Islands, single burrows with pups are also met near Kurgalski peninsula shores. Ringed seals spring migration (in May) takes place in the direction from south-west to north-east, and autumn-winter migration runs contrariwise (see map in Appendix to chapter 2 of this volume). However, in the middle of summer ringed seals leaves from the shores to the deep sections of the Gulf of Finland. Ringed seals population was estimated predominantly by air calculations in moulting periods, when n windless weather the main part of the animals was situated on ice. In 1993 - 2002 the air calculations results were rather stable, number of calculated on ice made 150 - 170 annually. The fullest calculation succeeded to be performed in 1997, when sunny windless weather lasted long time, and after long-continued westerly wind all the icy field proved to be in west part of the Gulf and in area permitted for flights, therefore, accessible for calculations. According to the data of 1997, up to 280 ringed seals were on ice. So, ringed seals population in Gulf of Finland by the end of XX century was about 800 individuals. Breeding success of ringed seal is considerably influenced by winter thaws, leading to breakup and pups death. On the ground of last researches we can state that at present in Baltic Sea three independent populations of ringed seal are formed. Ringed seal declines in numbers in Gulf of Finland may lead to its full disappearance from the region. It should be noted that in Baltic, in territorial waters of USSR grey seal hunting was stopped in 1979. Baltic ringed seal is counted as vulnerable species (VU) in Red Book of International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources and in Red Book of Russia. Taking into account the information on pinnipeds distribution in Russian sea area of Gulf of Finland (Nature conservation atlas of the Russian part of the Gulf of Finland, researches data) we can say that in western part of the area the range of seals is predominantly along the south shore up to the western part of Koporskaya bay and also in northern part of the gulf - near Berezovye islands, in addition, in summer time ringed seals are not numerous in the entry to Vyborg Bay.




Harbour Seal (Phoca vitulina) There appear two distinct populations of harbour seals in the Baltic Sea. They present local specific race (sub-population) having sufficient value for preservation taking into account that genetically it is different from other north European populations of harbour seal. Non-migratory harbour seals are generally met in the coastal waters. For rookeries and breeding harbour seal uses beaches, gently sloping rocks and ice. In the see they are met singly or by small groups. Breeding takes place in April and June. After breeding harbour seals are sedentary. They feed on various fish, cephalopod molluscs and crustaceans. In 1996 very small harbour seal population in Baltic sea was recorded, in Russian waters only sole individuals were seen. During engineering and environmental investigations performed by specialist of Biological research institute this species of seal was not recorded in the region of planned gas pipeline route. Harbour seal is not included in fauna of sea mammals in Nature conservation atlas of the Russian part of the Gulf of Finland edited in 2006 and drawn up on the base of summarized data of last decade researches.

Figure 9.1-24. Harbour Seal (Phoca vitulina) Harbour Seal included in Red Book of Russia but not included in Red Book of International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources by the case of not enough information on its population number. Cetacean order (Cetacea) In Baltic sea fauna there are nominally 14 species of cetaceans. However for 10 of them stay in Baltic sea is characterized as "occasional", the most frequently in Baltic sea 4 species of dolphins are met: the smallest representative of toothed whales - harbour porpoise (Phocoena phocoena), and also common dolphin (Delphinus delphis), whitebeaked dolphins (Lagenorhynchus albirostris) and bottle-nosed dolphin (Tursiops truncates). At that rather more than 100 years ago the composition of sea mammals species in Gulf of Finland was a great deal more than nowadays, and their population was well over. However, strengthening of anthropogenic pressing on marine natural complexes in the Gulf expressed in environment pollution and strengthening of disturbance factor led to reduction of species range and population of sea mammals.




Figure 3.7-4. Common dolphin, Delphinus

delphis

Figure 3.7-5. Whitebeaked dolphin,

Lagenorhynchus albirostris

Figure 3.7-6. Bottle-nosed dolphin,

Tursiops truncates Harbour porpoise (Phoecoena phocoena). Harbour porpoise is usually met on shallow waters, often near shore, by groups up to 8 animals, but sometimes they gather in stocks of 50 to 100 individuals for feeding and migration. This species is timid and do not approach to ships. Harbour porpoise population in Baltic sea do not exceed 599 individuals according to the calculation of 1995. In Russian waters sole individuals are met. They feed on various fish and cephalopod molluscs. During the investigations performed by specialist of Biological research institute this species was not recorded in the region of planned construction. In addition, in Nature conservation atlas of the Russian part of the Gulf of Finland edited in 2006 and drawn up on the base of summarized data of last decade researches facts of harbour porpoise residence (as well as other species of cetacean) in Russian part of the Gulf of Finland are not described.

Figure 3.7-7. Harbour porpoise, Phoecoena phocoena This species is threatened with extinction in the Baltic proper. Population of harbour porpoise was sharply diminished as a result of hunting, periodic disastrous mortality connected with severe ice conditions in winter time, contamination, disturbance by noise and deaths connected with fishing.




Harbour porpoise is counted as vulnerable species (VU) in both Red Book of Russia and in Red Book of International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources . Common dolphin (Delphinus delphis) - preferably lives in moderate and warm zones, in European waters of Atlantic it is common to the north up to the latitude of North Norway, but penetrates in Baltic sea rarely. It eats predominantly small schooling fish in pelagic conditions. Whitebeaked dolphin (Lagenorhynchus albirostris) - lives in waters of moderate and subarctic zones of north Atlantic, it is rare in Baltic sea. Remains predominantly close to the coasts, commonly in pairs or flocks of various dimension. Eats fish, including bottom-dwelling fish (cod, whiting, herring, navaga, capelin). Bottle-nosed dolphin (Tursiops truncates) - is common in Atlantic from north regions of Scandinavia to South Africa. In Baltic sea is rare. Bottle-nosed dolphin eats mainly bottom-dwelling fish. Generally, populations of listed above three dolphin species are the most numerous in more southern seas (Black sea) where these animals have more favourable living conditions. Dolphin inhabiting Baltic sea enter to the Gulf of Finland but virtually do not make stable population in Russian waters. Critical periods Data on marine mammals critical periods based on the information on these animals general ecology are listed below in Table 3.7-2. During these periods the mammals are especially sensitive to violation of habitual mode of life.

Table 3.7-2

Critical periods for marine mammals living in Baltic sea Marine mammal Breeding period Moulting (seals)

Grey seal February - March May - June Harbour seal April – June August - September

Baltic ringed seal February - March April - May Harbour porpoise May - July -

HELCOM Recommendations 9/147/2 Member states are recommended to prohibit grey seal, Baltic ringed seal and harbour seal hunting in Baltic sea using the national lawgiving means. To provide survival of these species the prohibition must be in force up to the time of scientific statement of normal level of individuals health and normal reproductive volume. Moreover, representative countries must take measures for creation of seals nature reserves and, if necessary organize the programs of seals breeding for the purpose of, conservation of genetic individuality of Baltic seals decreasing population.




3.8. Socioeconomic conditions

3.8.1. Summary of socio-economic conditions Political and administrative borders

Nord Stream pipeline route in the Russian sector of the offshore section lays within the Russian territorial sea from Portovaya Bay in Vyborg district, Leningrad region to the borders of exclusive economic zone.of Finland avoided exclusive economic zone and territorial sea of adjacent Estonia. According to the Constitution of the Russian Federation, territorial sea is under jurisdiction of federal authorities of the Russian Federation. The coastline intersection area of the gaspipeline and small land section from the coastline up to Portovaya KP is under jurisdiction of Leningrad region authorities. The area of Leningrad region includes national border) of Russia with Finland and Estonia, administrative border with five Subjects of the Russian Federation: Novgorod, Pskov, Vologda regions, Karelia Republic and St. Petersburg City. According to the population census of 2002, on the area of Leningrad region resides representatives of more than 100 ethnic group (Totals of All-Russian population census...). The majority of population is formed by Russians - 89.58% followed by Ukrainians - 2.51%, Byelorussians - 1.58%, Tatars - 0.57%, Finns - 0.48%, Armenians - 0.33%, and also Gipsies, Jews, Karelians, Chuvashs, Estonians, Poles, Azerbaijanians, Uzbeks. Their percentage in population of the region is equal to 4.95%. Besides Russians, the native population of North-West region of Russia residing in Leningrad region nowadays includes people of Finno-Ugric language group - Veps, Izhora and Ingermanland Finns. Industry of Leningrad region has diversified character. The main branches: fuel, oil-refining, timber, pulp and paper, chemical, engineering. Production and technical product makes over 85% of industrial output. The base of region industry is composed of about 300 enterprises, majority of them are joint-stock companies. The essential singularity of the region economy is in its proximity to St. Petersburg. The region possesses considerable reserves of wood, non-metallic materials, peat, bauxites, slate coal, phosphorites. The region infrastructure is characterized by developed network of roads and railways, sea and river ports. Being separate subject of Russian Federation, the region includes 17 districts. Vyborg district is the greatest industrial district as part of Leningrad region. The area of the district - 7,350.9 square kilometres. Vyborg district population size as of January 1st 2006 amounted 188.3 thousand people. The population size change dynamics as of beginning of 2006 compared with 2001 - 97.4%. On the area of the district there are 8 urban settlements and 6 rural settlements. In the administrative centre of the district Vyborg 78.6 thousand people resides.




Vyborg town is large industrial and cultural centre, it is international port and important rail junction. Bolshoy Bor settlement nearest to the landfall is situated in 3.5 km from the route. Part of the settlement population is occupied in forestry. The majority of population arrive to the settlement in summer season. The areas adjacent to Portovaya Bay coastline are mainly used for recreation.

3.8.2. Fishery Sea area of Gulf of Finland is used according to the Fishery rules in the Baltic Sea for trawling of small herring species at the depths over 20 m (see Appendix 3.8-1). Gulf of Finland has significant commercial fishing importance, as it concentrates considerable areas of spawning grounds and nurseries of freshwater (bream, pike-perch, roach, pike) and brackish (Baltic herring, smelt) fish species [382, 383]. Shallow-water areas of the gulf limited by 10-meter isobath are both spawning ground for majority of fish and nurseries for their young fattening. So, in bays of Vyborg gulf up to 80% of bream and 45% of pike-perch of eastern part of the Gulf of Finland are reproduced. Inshore fishery of freshwater and fluvial anadromous fish in Gulf of Finland shallow water is performed by passive gear. The main part of catch consists of Baltic herring, smelt, stickleback, bream, pike-perch, perch, roach, and ruff. Fishing in coastal area is performed predominantly in spring in the period of fish spawning concentration. The main commercially exploited species is Baltic herring. Its catch varies from 7 to 15 thousand tonnes a year, and in spawning period from 1 to 2 thousand tonnes. In addition, at inshore fishery from 4 to 9 thousand tonnes of fluvial anadromous and freshwater fish is yearly caught. Considerable irregularity of Vyborg Bay coastline and numerous islands are favourable to young fattening of bream, pike-perch, smelt, pike and other fish species. In Portovaya Bay Baltic whitefish, pike-perch, bream, perch, roach, ide, ruff, smelt are found. In the bay the spawning grounds and feeding area of young pike-perch, Baltic herring, perch, roach are situated. At small distance of the bay wintering pits of pike-perch and bream are recorded. Via Vyborg Bay the salmon fishes (Baltic salmon, sea trout - species included in Red book of Russian Federation) migration routes pass. In Vyborg Bay industrial and industrial and amateur fishery is performed [382,383]. According to the data received as inquiry answer from Authority of veterinary and phitosanitary control of the Leningrad region, in coastal 5 km area of Vyborg Bay the fishing district of JSV "Primorsky Rybak" vested by License agreement is situated (fig. 3.8-1 and Appendix 3.8-1).




Figure 3.8-1. Fishing district layout In Portovaya Bay industrial fishing used to be performed. In catches pike-perch, bream, perch, roach, pike, ide prevailed. Potential possible catch of Baltic herring in Portovaya bay - 20 tonnes.

3.8.3. Algae fishery and mariculture The commercial species of algae in Baltic Sea are: brown algae (Phaeophyta - bladder wrack Fucus vesiculosus), red algae (Rhodophyta - furcellaria lumbricalisFurcellaria lumbricalis). In the section of the pipeline route in Gulf of Finland the commercial fields are absent. Aquaculture in Gulf of Finland is developed insignificantly in consequence of unfavourable negative natural environment. At present the main object of breeding in Baltic sea is rainbow trout. Within the Russian sector of the planned pipeline route there is no mariculture enterprises.

3.8.4. Ship traffic (routes, anchoring areas) All the vessel passages in Baltic sea area are divided into external and internal. The data on vessel passages are received from several sources: archival data (special literature, databases, Internet), data of information services of main ports and terminals of considered region (see figure 3.8-2).




The considerable part of maritime traffic are planned traffic lanes (mainly passenger traffic). At present,the higher intensity of maritime traffic in considered region should be expected. Increasing of ships and ferries number, establishment of new routes are possible. Leningrad region has developed transport infrastructure. Volga-Baltic Route passing through Leningrad region makes it possible to connect the basins of all the inland waterways of Russia with both St. Petersburg and Baltic sea basin ports. By the Leningrad region waterways more than 40 million tonnes of different cargoes are transported by NorthWest river shipping company vessels. In the region there are Podporozhye and Sviritsa river ports equipped with modern technology, two sea ports in Vyborg and Vysotsk and highly developed production and technical base for ships repair and building. The number of pipeline route crossings in the considered area by various types of vessels (cargo, bulk carriers / combined, container carriers, tankers, refrigerator ships, passenger, fishing, exploratory, military, yachts, boats) - up to 28300 yearly, various cargo vessel are 59% of them, tankers - 15%, passenger - 9%, others - 17%.




Figure 3.8-2. Gas pipeline route layout in territorial sea of Russia and shipping lanes




Gulf of Finland is a shipping hotspot with large amounts of cargo traffic and numerous liners in the region of gas pipeline route. Vyborg port specialises in trans-shipment of general cargo, containers and refrigerated cargo. Vysotsk port specialises in trans-shipment of coal and oil. Data on cargo trans-shipment via Vysotsk port are listed in table 3.8-4 (NPC Tekhnologia Ltd. "Ship traffic in Baltic sea in the region of section of Russian sector of Nord Stream pipeline" Project, 2007).

Table 3.8-4

Data on cargo trans-shipment via Vysotsk port Cargo name Freight

turnover in 2006,

thousand tonnes

Ship characteristics Number of vessels in 2007 (for 10 months)

N, m D, thousand tonnes

C, thousand tonnes

L, m B, m T, m Crew, people

Coal 2500 11 39 24 182 24 10,2 25 125 Oil and oil products

16500 14,5 100 60 247 37 14,1 25 330

Total: 19000 455

3.8.5. Tourism and recreational areas Tourism development in Baltic sea region significantly accelerated after opening of the borders between East and West. The main kind of tourism in this region is domestic travel and journeys to adjacent countries. In the region there are no mass tourism areas, but in the fields of domestic travel the concentration is high enough, as, i.e. in the coast of Germany. Large amounts of tourists are received by large cities and capitals of the countries in the region. Recreational tourism is highly dependent upon the season of the year, greatly improving in vacations and holidays seasons. The most widespread kinds of recreational tourism are sea cruises, bathing, visiting historical and archaeological sites etc. Lately, in the most countries of the region improved water quality along coastlines is recorded. It stipulates increased number of people visiting beaches and choosing this kind of recreation. Unlimited recreational abilities of the region ate presently used extremely little. At the same time the tourist flow to the region increases constantly. Yearly the region having 1,700,000 people population is visit by up to 1.9 million guests (data of 2007), and to the end of 2008 the tourist flow is expected up to 2.1 million people (Leningrad Region Regional Law "On Tourism and recreation scope in Leningrad region development for 2006-2008 regional task program dated 13 September 2005). The recreational demand (first of all from foreign tourists) is mainly connected with cultural and historical heritage monuments of St. Petersburg and its closest suburbs. With respect to the districts of the region, tourism development is here is hampered by lack of necessary recreational infrastructure and modern tourist equipment.




The hotel service available for tourists is relatively developed today in Karelian Isthmus (Vyborg, Vsevolozhsk, Priozersk districts) where tourist bases, campings, hotels, sanatoriums, places of resort, highways, snack bars, cafes are situated. Here accumulates the main recreational demand of St. Petersburg people. The main natural-aesthetic value of Karelian isthmus present coast of Gulf of Finland, lake Ladoga and lake and river system Vuoksa continuing the views and landscapes of adjacent Finland. However, virtually all the districts of the region have considerable recreational potential both in excursion-cognitive and sport tourism development. Vyborg district of Leningrad region is one of more advanced ones in terms of tourism development. Already there is ever-increasing demand from western tourists for licensed shooting of moose, bear, wild boar, lynx etc. However, this demand is satisfied in minimal extent. Investments in recreational area development are extremely prospective, as in the nearest future tourism promises to become one of main items of regional budget.

3.8.6. Cultural Heritage Sites Expert assessment on historical and cultural value of identified submerged objects along Nord Stream pipeline route within the Russian territorial Sea and exclusive economic zone was prepared by Institute of Material Culture History of the Russian Academy of Sciences based on a contract No. 51-ES-06 of 24 October 2006 with OOO Petergaz. Prospecting work data review and expert assessment preparation were performed based on Permit for archaeological excavations and surveys No. 175 for Gulf of Finland area issued by Institute of archaeology of the Russian Academy of Sciences in name of P.E.Sorokin. Conducting of protective archaeological surveys in zones of construction (communications laying) is aimed at fulfilment of the requirements stated in Law on of national historical and cultural heritage objects of peoples of Russian Federation of 25 June 2002. According to this law al the shipwrecks sinking more than 40 years ago are potential historical and cultural heritage objects (art.3, art.18). Expert assessment on historical and cultural value of identified submerged objects along Nord Stream pipeline route within the Russian territorial Sea and exclusive economic zone includes:

• Determination of historical and cultural heritage objects present in the immediate vicinity of Nord Stream pipeline route on the base of archival data analysis [124, 274-277, 304, 342].

• Analysis of engineering surveys data (sonar survey, magnetometer) by OOO Petergaz

for determination of historical and cultural heritage objects.




Analysis of underwater video (ROV) performed by OOO Petergaz for identification of found objects and determination of their historical and cultural value.

• Development of expert assessment on historical and cultural value of identified of found objects.

• Preparation of report containing expert assessment on historical and cultural value of

identified submerged objects along Nord Stream pipeline route within the Russian territorial sea and exclusive economic zone.

3.8.6.1. Historical and archive information about cultural heritage sites in pipeline laying

area On the base of archival and bibliographic researches the information on historical ships sunk in the region of along proposed Nord Stream gas pipeline route within the Russian territorial Sea and exclusive economic zone of Russia [124, 274-277, 304, 342].

• Proposed route crosses north part of Gulf of Finland in the area between Cape Portovy peninsula in the north and Gogland in the south in meridional direction. It crosses historical water communication from West Baltic sea area to the Neva estuary, Berezovy Islands and Gulf of Vyborg taking place from the Middle Ages. From the beginning of 18th century across this region one of main ways passed connecting St.Petersburg to North Europe countries.

• From Portovaya Bay west of M. Fiskar Island, south-east of B.Fiskar archipelago

and banks Sitiron, near Sommers island, bank Mordvinova, Gogland shoal, west of Gogland island the pipeline route crosses areas of numerous wrecks of ships going on "northern" fairway and regions of wrecks in sea battles. This region in 18th-20th centuries was included in coverage of two beacons - Sommers and North Gogland.

• Portovy peninsula - M. Fiskar - B. Fiskar region. The particular danger in this

region is connected with coastal stones near Portovy peninsula and also Niemenmatala bank. In addition, this sea area belongs to west part of region of Vyborg sea battle 1790, where died several tens of Swedish ships (Tyulenev 1996, Sorokin 1999, SFH 1942). According to statistical data only from 1841 to 1858 2 ships sunk in this region (Russian State Archive of Navy F.402, op.2, dossier 1044).

• Region below Sitiron bank, which takes its name from the name of English sailing

vessel died there, is also place of death because of storm at night of 23/24 June 1790 of about 20 Swedish ships taking part in Vyborg sea battle (Tyulenev 1996, Sorokin 1999, SFH 1942).

• Region of Sommers and M.Sommers islands where in different years of 18th and

19th centuries more than 50 commercial and military vessels sunk. Galliot "Strelna" in 1773 was wrecked at north side of Sommers. The crew managed to survive. Exact place of the wreck in not known as well as its dimensions. Usual dimensions of galliots are length 18-30 m, width 4-7.5 m. (Dudscus 1987:123). According to statistical data only from 1841 to 1858 5 ships sunk and one ship was seriously damaged in this region (Russian State Archive of Navy F.402, op.2, dossier 1044), from 1856 to 1866 died 4 and damaged 8 ships here (Russian State Archive of Navy F.402, op.2, dossier 1314).




• Gremyashchy steam frigate was sent from Kronstadt to help American ship

Emperor grounding near Maly Sommers island. It left Kronstadt 16 September 1862 and the next day was wrecked on rocky bank near Maly Sommers island. Despite of refloating with refloating attempts the ship sank on 23 September. (Russian State Archive of Navy F.402, op. 1. dossier 1251). Gremyashchy steam frigate is the only extant specimen of first Russian military paddle-steamers.

• In bank Mordvinova areain 2003 the unique cultural heritage object was found - 57-

cannon sail-propeller frigate "Oleg" perished in 1869. By its integrity it is significant site of universal importance and national heritage of Russia.

• Region of Gogland - North Gogland shoal - place of the most mass wrecks of

commercial and military vessels in 18th-20th centuries in East Baltic. Totally about 800 ships belonged virtually to all the countries of Europe perished here. Of special interest of them are wrecks of two 32-canon frigates: "Gektor" (sank in 1742) and "Archangel Mikhail" (sank in 1760) and also of 66-canon "Vyacheslav" ship of the line (sank in 1789) - as rarest monuments of Russian military shipbuilding.

• According to statistical data only from 1841 to 1858 14 ships sunk and 4 ships were

seriously damaged in this region (Russian State Archivum of Navy F.402, op.2, dossier 1044). During the period from 1856 to 1866 12 ships sunk and 14 ships were damaged (Russian State Archive of Navy. F.402, op.2, dossier 1314).

• Most of these ships were private commercial vessels, mainly foreign: English, Dutch,

Norwegian, Finnish, Swedish. There is some in-depth information about death here she ships as: Galliot "Enge-Tobias" in 1771, transport yacht "Feodosia" in 1814, transport "America" in 1856 (Marine col. XXVI No.14 p. 32-35). Dimensions of wrecks in this region of the area may be witnessed by the fact that only in 1856 here sank: Swedish schooner "Victor", English vessels: ship "Alexander", brig "Young Dickson", steamer "Jackal" (Russian State Archive of Navy. F.402, op.2, dossier 403): In 1860 died here: Finnish schooner "Ida", English commercial vessels "Fany" and "Homesval", and Dutch vessel "Triton" (Russian State Archive of Navy. F.402, op.2, dossier 1086). These data may be considered as average annual.

• Medieval vessels. From viking age (8th-9th centuries) up to the later Middle Ages

(17th century) the way along north coast of Gulf of Finland was the main way of Europeans' navigation to Russia. During this period the main fairway for entry to Neva marked on Swedish maps of 17th century as old way to Nien, went through Bolshaya Nevka.




• From foundation of Vyborg in 1293 through this region went communications

connected this town with Sweden. Taking into account that existing fairways for shipment appear at Middle Age, discovery here wrecks of Middle Age ships not mentioned in historical documents may be predicted.

• Ships of the Great Patriotic War period. In design zone there is a significant

number of ships sunk during the Great Patriotic War. In this area ships died during passage from Tallinn (28-30 August 1941) and garrison evacuation from Hanko peninsula (26 October - 2 December 1941) as well as during the campaign near Sommers island in August 1942 (MA. V.3. 1966, Berezhnoy 1988).

3.8.6.2 Interpretation of the results from the geophysical surveys (SSS, ROV2005-2007) along the pipeline route

Taking into account a large number of known and potential cultural heritage objects in the Eastern Gulf of Finland, OOO Petergaz performed in 2006-2007 detailed investigation of the whole planned construction corridor using side-scan sonar SSS) and video investigations of found objects from underwater apparatus (ROV) (table 3.8-1). Later these materials were submitted to Institute of Material Culture History of the Russian Academy of Sciences for identification of the discovered objects, their description, evaluation and preparation of the appropriate expert’s opinion.

Table 3.8-1

Numbers and coordinates of objects having the properties of cultural heritage objects No. Block Code ROV Code SSS X Y Latitude (N) Longitude (E) 1 2 G_07_185 2_181 540269,1 6675575,6 60° 12' 53.95" 27° 43' 36.07" 2 2 G_07_214 2-M-26 537706,8 6673273,4 60° 11' 40.42" 27° 40' 48.09"

G_07_218 2153 537698,0 6673269,6 60° 11' 40.30" 27° 40' 47.51" 3 3 G_07_306 2146 527545,3 6667568,7 60° 08' 38.95" 27° 29' 45.61" 526657,0 6667321,7 60° 08' 31.18" 27° 28' 47.91" 4 3 G_07_308 03-S-90 526619,3 6667318,1 60° 08' 31.07" 27° 28' 45.47"

526626,0 6667307,7 60° 08' 30.73" 27° 28' 45.90" 526639,9 6667302,2 60° 08' 30.55" 27° 28' 46.80" 5 2153+ 5 37706 66 73 281 60°11.6778'

N; 27°40.8009' E 6 2159+ 537702 66 73 275 60°11.6744'

N; 27°40.7964' E 7 2188+ 537694 66 73 268; 60°11.6778' 27°40.8009' E




No. Block Code ROV Code SSS X Y Latitude (N) Longitude (E)

8

12

G_07_e173

2208+ 535531 495992

66 72 031; 6665344

N; 60°11.0160'

N; 60° 07' 30.31"

27°38.4345' E 26° 55' 40.35"

The geophysical surveys using underwater video (ROV) include some information about submerged objects near Sommers island. Wrecks and their parts identified in this region are situated in depths about 50-60 m, so they are rather well preserved. Object No.1. (ROV - G_07_185, SSS code 2_181). Ship general characteristic. Wooden hull, dimensions about 17 x 6 x 1.2 m (here and later length x width x height over ground) is rather well preserved. The double shell is carvel-built. The siding is not large, connected with frame with metal nails. In upper side board the dale is seen, it was intended for water drain from the deck of the ship. The bulwark remains here and there. The deck of the ship is wooden and preserved partly. There is siding on its surface, probably, it is the fallen bulwark. The deck is fallen in here and there, and in the hold the hull and rigging structures. The stem or stern post (probably the stem post) is made of bent beam. In its central part the rope is hitched through the hole. Its upper end is intended for connection to an absent piece, maybe for head figure fixation. In the nose upper pulpit siding is preserved, over which wooden studding of bulwark are risen (on about 0.5 m), and to them the siding is fixed. The fallen mast lays on the shipboard and later on the ground outside it. Near the shipboard the sight rail or cat davit - bar stuck out over the shipboard and intended for work with anchor is preserved. Near it there are capstan studding and the (small) capstan, probably, also intended for work with anchor. Under the forward end of the ship disintegration of wooden constructions is seen, amongst them there are boards with oval holes and figured processed boards and also the rope, probably the anchor rope. As judged by the design features of sunk vessel, it has small dimensions and was used for cargoes transportation. The bricks fixed on the deck near the stem of the ship, they have clear rectangular configuration indicative of perfect technology of their fabrication method. It enables to assess its date of not earlier than the end of 19th century. In the design of the ship the brick can be used only in the stove of the galley. It releases suggests that this vessel transported bricks, probably the fire-proof ones. The traditional supplier of fire-proof bricks in St.Petersburg in the end if 19th and beginning of 20th century was Finland. However, in Vyborg Bay the sunk vessel with cargo of fire-proof bricks from Denmark is known.. Object No.2. (ROV - G_07_214, G_07_218). In this region considerable amount of wooden part is seen, they probably are the wreck. The ship design is not traced by available material. The place has total length about 12 m, width 2.5-4 m, height over ground 1-1.5 m. Judging by recorded on video steel barrel (big can) within the object, it may be dated to 20th century. To adjust the conclusion by the object the additional information is required.




Object No.3. (ROV - G_07_306) The iron admiralty anchor with ear, eye, wooden stock, fixed by two pairs of iron lugs. Judging by its shape and design features, it is probably of Russian origin. Estimated date - middle of 18th - middle of 19th century. Object No.4. (ROV - G_07_308) - Dimensions: 25 m х 6-7 m, height over ground about 4-6 m. The hull remained on the full height. The depth from the ground to the bulwark varies from 63.6 to 59.3 m. The underbody is sheeted by nonferrous metal. In the central part of the side the rubbing pieces are seen, in its upper part, - the pulpit siding and bulwark. In upper end of the side the dale holes are seen. In the photographed part the portholes absent, that releases suggests that was a cargo ship. However this part is photographed by narrow strip, so the military purpose of the ship cannot be excluded. On the ground around the ship at the distance up to 30 m there are parts of rigging: masts up to 10 m long, yards, ropes. On the hulls there are fragments of fishing nets - traces of catches. By the design features the ship may be preliminarily dated to 19th century. Object No..5. (SSS No. 2153+) Length: 15.0 m, Width: 4.5 m Object No.6.(SSS No. 2159+) Length: 15.0 m, Width: 4.5 m, Height 1.5 m Object No.7. (SSS No. 2188+) Length: 14.4 m, Width: 3.7 m, Height: 1.5 m Objects No.5-7 by its shape and dimensions look like torpedo boats. According to the archival documents, in the years of the Great Patriotic war near Sommers island the considerable quantity of Soviet vessels died. 20 September 1941 by the enemy aviation the torpedo boats No.21 and No.91 sank, and 28 September 1941 - small submarine chaser MO 305 (Central State Archive of Navy, dossier 109, p.207). On 8-10 July 1942 during landing and food delivery operation to Sommers island at the warfare with enemy gunboat several Soviet torpedo boats died: Nos. 31, 121, 71, 113, 22, 83, 123, and also Maly Okhotnik (small submarine chaser) MO 306 (Central State Archive of Navy, dossier 5340). Small submarine chasers MO-4 belonged to project 174. They had Gross Register Tonnage 56 tonnes, length 26.9 m. width 4.02 m, draught 1.48 m, 3 engines GAM-34-BS with total power 2025 h.p., Maximum speed 22-24 knots. The crew consisted of 22 people. Armament: 2-45-mm 21 K, 2-12.7 mm DSK, depth charges B-1 - 8 pcs, M-1 - 20 pcs, Could take on the deck up to 4 mines. (Shirokorad 2002: 152). The torpedo boats TKA Nos. 21, 71, 91, 113, 121 are of G5 type. They were built in 1930s and had Gross Register Tonnage 14.9-17.8 tonnes, length 19.1 m, width 3.4 m, draught 1.24 m, two engines with power 1,700-2,000 h.p., speed up to 50 knots. The boars crew consisted of 8 people. Armament: two torpedo tubes by 2 torpedoes in each, two DSK machine guns, armed additionally with mines and depth charges. (Shirokorad 2002: 113-114).




The torpedo boat TKA No.83 was of Sh-4 type. This type of boats had Gross Register Tonnage 10 tonnes, length 18.07 m, width 3.33 m, draught 1.0 m, two engines with power 1050 h.p., speed up to 44 knots. The crew consisted of 6 people. Armament: two torpedo tubes by 2 torpedoes in each, 1 DSK machine gun, armed additionally with mines and depth charges. (Shirokorad 2002: 113-114). Object No.8.(SSS No. 2159+) Length: 15.0 m, Width: 4.5 m, Height 0.36 m. By its dimensions and shape it resembles small wooden vessel, extant, probably not at full length. Object No.9. (ROV G_07_500) (coordinates are unknown). Two iron wheels fixed on the stand - supposedly steering gear of the vessel - tiller with rope or chain drive, end of 19th or 20th century. Object No.10. (ROV G_07_201) - accumulation of cobble-stones up to 2 m high was interpreted by operators as "wreck". However, any parts of vessel design are not traced on the submitted materials. Various dimensions of cobble-stones and boulders shown on the video prevent from their association with ship ballast. Object No.11. (ROV G_07_153) - log about 7 m long, diameter about 25 cm with regular grooves on the ends and in the central part. It surely is a part of the hull. Separate processed wooden parts, and especially their accumulations recorded on video materials many times may be evidence of wrecks found nearby. Object No.12. (ROV G_07_e173). Wooden ship with approximate dimensions 25 x 6 x 4 m. Mast, wooden rudder, iron anchor are traced. It is probably a commercial (cargo) vessel loaded with wheels of carriages. The stern is fully destroyed. By the design features the ship may be preliminarily dated to 18th - 19th century. Object No.13. (ROV G_07_402op2) (coordinates are unknown) - Hall's anchor variation with tiltable flukes. Date - middle of 19th - 20th century. Object No.14. (ROV G_07_424) (coordinates are unknown). The iron admiralty anchor with ear, eye, wooden stock with two pairs of iron lugs. The approximate dimensions of flukes 50x40 cm, of stock 2.5 m x 30 cm. Near the anchor the iron chain and other metal parts are traced. Estimated date - 19th century. Object No.15. (ROV G_07_400 (coordinates are unknown). Heavy iron anchor chain with separating link bars. The chains of such design appear about 1840. The identified objects layout relative to the pipeline trace is shown on figure 3.8-3.







Figure 3.8-2. Sites of cultural heritage objects (А, В, С –detailed segments of identified objects layout relative to the pipeline route). The identified objects are

market by dots with indices, the circles designate 100-m neighbourhood of the objects.







3.8.6.3. Expert assessment on historical and cultural value of identified submerged objects

along Nord Stream pipeline route within the Russian territorial Sea and exclusive economic zone

During the prospecting work performed by OOO Petergaz in 2005-2007 along the Nord Stream pipeline route within the Russian territorial Sea and exclusive economic zone several objects having the properties of cultural heritage objects were found: wrecks and their parts. Objects No.1. (ROV - G_07_185), No.2 (ROV - G_07_214, G_07_218) No.4 (ROV -G_07_308),No.12 (ROV G_07_e173) are wrecks of wooden vessels of 18th - beginning of 20th centuries. Objects 5-7 (SSS 2153+, 2159+, 2188+, 2208+) are probably sank torpedo boats of the Great Patriotic War period. All of them are historical monuments of shipbuilding and shipping of that time, and military ships are also monuments of military history. During construction works it is necessary to provide retention of all the found vessels on the place of finding. To provide their retention the planned route should be located not closer than 100 m from identified objects. In conditions of unfavourable seabed relief near object No.12 (ROV G_07_e173) near KP90 stake, the pipeline route may be planned at the distance not closer 50 m from the object at the strict condition of the object retention. In case of wreck removal their full conservation must be provided. Parts of wrecks (objects 3. 9-11. 13-15) found out of objects complexes and found in pipeline laying area: anchors, seaborne machinery and wooden constructions may be surfaced under supervision of archaeologists upon the condition of their conservation and subsequent submission to the state museum keeping. Cultural heritage objects absent on coastline section of the pipeline (from the coastline up to the ground line valve station place). Based on the Expert assessment of Institute of Material Culture History of the Russian Academy of Sciences the approval of gas pipeline route from the Leningrad Region Culture Committee (Department of State Control of cultural heritage preservation and use), presented in volume 14 "Approvals" was received (see Appendix 3.8-2).




4. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT

4.1. Impact on the geologic environment

4.1.1. Construction period

4.1.1.1. Sources and types of impact On the construction stage of offshore section of Russian sector of Nord Stream pipeline impacts on the geological environment, relief of seabed of the Gulf of Finland and landfall in Portovaya Bay will be defined by:

• dredging works at pre-trenching for 2 sea pipeline strings in near-coast area;

• construction of embankments in near-coast and coastal area of Portovaya Bay:

• pre-trenching and subsequent reassembly in the laying trench for 1st and 2nd pipeline strings at the site of coastline transition;

• arrangement of winch sites for 1st and 2nd pipeline strings pulling;

• works on crossing of active communications (cables) along the pipeline route;

• route seabottom levelling at the process of unacceptable free spans correction in deep-

water route section. At that the main source of anthropogenic impact on geological environment and relief conditions will be work of onshore building equipment and mechanisms in near-coast zone and operation of vessels of transport, technical and special fleet in the area of Gulf of Finland. The main types of impact on geological environment and relief conditions during the construction phase are: mechanical impact:

• during dredging (underwater pre-trenching) in the pipeline route section from coastline of Portovaya Bay to 14m depth (lengths of the trenches is 1,828m, including 1,470m in the sea, 358m on the land);

• during ground embankments constructed from height mark +0.5mBS to 2.0m depth

during the works of sea-land border transition of pipeline development (two fill embankments stretching by 500 m long including about 380m offshore, 120m onshore);

• during arrangement of bases-foundations for winches for 1st and 2nd pipelines pulling

(two sites at 450 m2);




• during underwater works on the route bottom levelling at the sections of very billowy

relief at the process of unacceptable free spans correction (totally 328 stone and gravel bases of different design with total volume 1,391,769 m3on both pipelines);

• during the works of cables embedment places of crossing the pipeline with a water jetting

equipment or gravel supports arrangement;

• during changes of parameters of sediments flow along the coastline on the section of underwater pre-trenching in the near-coast area and during construction of embankments;

chemical impact:

• occasional and unintentional leakages of technical, cleaning and waste water from vessel and technical means used in construction in the Gulf of Finland area;

• unorganized storm discharges from the region of construction works on the shore of

Portovaya Bay during sea-land border transition of pipeline development.

4.1.1.2. Impact on bottom sediments The construction works impact on bottom sediments will be stated as changes in local grading and possible contamination of sediment surface layer. Changes in local grading of bottom sediments. Local derangements in local grading of bottom sediments surface layer will take place during pre-trenching and backfilling in the pipeline route section from coastline of Portovaya Bay to 14m depth. Moreover, before the start of the pipelines construction 2 embankments (one embankment along the outer side of each pipeline) are planned to be built in shallow areas (from coastline to the depth of 2 m) to protect the near-coast section of the prepared trench from the washing out due to wave impact. These installations will be also used to develop the trench in the coastline intersection point by means of land based equipment (dredgers) that will allow to significantly speed up the trench development in the near-coast section (fig. 4.1-1). Dredger boom outreach from the embankment makes it impossible to develop the whole width of the trench. So the central part of the trench will be worked further by dredgers from the water craft. So, the levees arrangement will also lead to changes in local grading of bottom sediments in the near-coast area of the construction site.




Figure 4.1-1. Protecting embankment in the onshore area of marine transition: a) during the trenching works b) before dragging of the pipeline in the pre-constructed trench with the help of

winches. At the depths between 2 and 5 m the trench will be dug with help of dredgers, installed on the pontoon. Dredged soil will be disposed in the underwater dump site along the trench. On the route section at depth from 5 to 14 m dredging will be performed with help of scoop dredge. Dredged soil will be also deposit in the dump site along the trench at the distance of 15 m, and then it will be used for burying the pipeline after it is laid. On the coastal section (except of stone riprap in the onshore section with a maximum length of 250 m) and with a maximum depth 14 incl. bottom sediments from the surface are mostly the sandy fractions (gross granulated sands with inclusions of gravel up to 15%). Maximum thickness of sand sediments at the sea depth up to 2.0 - 2.5 m is 5-7 m, decreasing along the route of trench to 1.5 - 2.0 m at the depth of 14 m, where the trench stops. The sands underlie clayed silts, loamy silts and marginally rubbly-pebbly soils with sabulous filling. In specific sections (in the central and seawards remote parts of the trench) by the intervention works stirring-up of the clayed soil will take place. But its share in the total volume of the retrieved soil will be under 10-20%. That will lead to the turbidity plums consisting of the particles of aleuritic and pelitic size that after being transferred by the currents will be sedimented, forming a layer of the fine dispersion fresh sediments. The assessment of the sediments for the whole period of dredging activities have been carried out by the Computational centre of the Russian Academy of Sciences named after А.А. Dorodnitsin (foreman B.V.Arkhipov, the calculations have been conducted according to the certified mathematical model "AKS-EKO Shelf", developed by CC RAS named after А.А. Dorodnitsin and Ecological centre of MTEA. Certificate of compliancy issued by State Standardisation authority of Russia: - РОСС RU.СП05.С00055; Ecological certificate of compliance MNR RF: - СЕР(351)-Г-11/ОС-20.) 2008 They showed that the maximal distance from the trench border to the border of the zone with the fresh sediments layer thickness 100 mm and more will not exceed 18 m, with 60 m for the layer thickness over 10 mm, and with 800 m for layer thickness over 1 mm. The bottom areas covered with the sediment layers with varying thickness, where after construction the alteration of the grain size distribution will take place are shown in the table 4.1-1 and in the figure 4.1-2.




Table 4.1-1

Sea bottom areas, covered with the sediment layers of varying thickness resulting from suspension

sedimentation after dredging works for the trench excavation at the depth 0-14 m. Depth Sediment layer thickness, mm

sea 0-14 m >100 >50 >20 >10 >5 >1 Area 39,841 m2 50,970 m2 83,258 m2 121,474 m2 172б444 m2 377,776 m2

Figure 4.1-2. Field of the sediment layer thickness (mm) resulting from dredging works in the section of crossing the shore line upon completion of all the works

Such changing of the grain size distribution at the depth up to 14 m in the trench and protective embankment area will be temporary, since after the first storms resuspension of the fresh fine dispersion sediments will take place and they will be distributed across the big aquatic area by the storm currents. Generally impact upon the grain size distribution of the surface sediments during trenching for the pipe-laying will be localised in space and will be also a short term one, it will be recorded only during the construction works and not long after them. After two pipelines are laid, the trench will be backfilled. For the backfilling the soil will be used that was extracted by the trenching works and disposed in the dumping area along the trench on the onshore and offshore sections and on the site of soil deposition, and also the imported stone and gravel mix and embankments material left after they are liquidated. From the embankment area on (at level +0.5 m BS) seawards backfilling will be conducted as follows: Around the laid pipeline the soil from the dumping site will be strewed at the distance of 30 cm from the pipeline walls. Then the trench will be buried under the remaining soil from the dumping site. Then the trench will be filled up to the top with a layer of the stone gravel mix roughly 35 cm thick. On the very top a protective layer 50 cm thick will be put. On this section of the route, which covers approximately 80,000 m2, upon a completion of trench burying, surface of the bottom will be much more coarse-grained in comparison with background bottom surface material.




The local alterations of the grain size distribution of the sediments during construction works will also occur on the deep water sections of the route with varied relief, where corrections of the non-allowable free spans will be fulfilled. According to the technical solutions such corrections will be carried out with the help of stone gravel material in the places where the pipelines may sag or be instable. Gravel-stone materials will be delivered from the Erkila quarry by Vyborg (Appendix 4.3). Post-lay trenching will be executed in stages. During the first stage, designated with Number 1, gravel supports will be constructed to provide static stabilization before the laying of eastern and western pipelines. During the second stage, designated with Number 2, gravel will be placed to provide static stabilization after the laying of both pipelines. During the third stage, designated with Number 3, gravel will be placed to provide dynamic stabilization after the pipelines laying. During the fourth stage, designated with Number 4, gravel will be placed to reduce the longitudinal bend after the pipelines laying. In terms of process technology all kinds of post trenching differ only by the volume of the filled material and by the disposition of the post trenching locations. Figure 4.1-3 post trenching locations are marked with different colours and designated pursuant the listed numbers 1 - 4.

Figure 4.1-3. Post-trenching locations on different work stages




The first three stages of construction works are characterized by relatively low (about 10,5%) volumes of the filling material. On the last (fourth) stage the volumes increase significantly (89,5%), and the post trenching will be located actually along the whole route from КР - 2+003 to КР - 119+523. In general during all construction stages 328 fillings with the total volume 1,391,769 m3 will be carried out (2,129,407 tonnes of stone and gravel material). Total area of the working surfaces of the supports (top part of bulk constructions, the immediate base of the pipes to be laid on) will be approximately 134,000 m2 (without areas/volumes necessary to bury the underwater cloughs). Furthermore the resuspended and sedimented around the construction site soil will be accumulated on the sea bottom. Altogether 42,588 tonnes of the soil will be suspended and cover 131,000 m2 after sedimentation (by sedimentation thickness over 1 mm). Upon that prior to pipelines laying about 4,5% from the whole volume of construction material only will be used up for the so-called "pre-trenching". The main part of the trenching (post-trenching) will take place already after the pipelines are laid (95.5%). Summarized data on the volumes of fill-ins during different stages of the work for the east and west pipelines are presented in the table 4.1-2.

Table 4.1-2

Volumes of fill-ins on different stages of construction works for the east and west Nord Stream pipelines

From KP to KP Number of fill-ins Average volume (m3) Variant number 1 stage - construction of gravel supports for static stabilization before the laying of pipelines

(eastern and western) 15066 39347 8 667,6 1 62632 93972 22 1352,2 2 110088 120327 16 1603,0 3

2 stage - construction of gravel supports for static stabilization after the laying of pipelines (eastern and western)

9124,5 21466.24 33 439,1 4 31547 43374.41 36 360,7 5 62364 120228.3 61 741,5 6

3 stage - construction of gravel supports for dynamic stabilization after the laying of pipelines (eastern and western)

4760 9658 4 110,0 7 15443 33968 15 69,7 8 60827 119426 27 392,1 9

4 stage - construction of gravel supports for minimizing of lateral and vertical bend after the laying of pipelines (eastern and western)

2003 29023 47 15651,0 10 30461 59186 45 9494,3 11 60377 119194 14 12666,1 12




Alteration of the grain size distribution by the correction of the free spans is expected actually along the whole Russian sector of the offshore pipeline. Mathematical modelling of sediment spreading is fulfilled by RAS Computational Centre named after A.A.Dorodnitsin (foreman B.V.Arkhipov) in 2008. Taking into account the inequivalence of the fill-in volumes for the work stages 1-3 and stage 4 (proportion is roughly 1:9) all calculations were divided into 2 groups - for work stages 1, 2 and 3 (computation variants 1-9) and for work stage 4 (variants 10-12). Within the group following has been considered:

• functionality of fill-ins (1-6 - for static stabilization of the pipeline, 7-9 - for dynamic stabilization of the pipeline and 10-12 for the bend risk reducing);

• moment of trenching with regard to already laid pipeline (1-3 and 7-9 take place before

laying of pipelines, 4-6 and 10-12 - after laying of the pipelines). Thus, mathematical models were developed for 12 variants impacts of trenching activities upon the benthic layers environment of Gulf of Finland, including:

• (variants 1-3) - relatively small trenching carried out prior to pipelines laying and foreseen for improving of its statical stability;

• (variants 4-6) - relatively small trenching carried out after pipelines laying and foreseen

for improving of its statical stability;

• (variants 7-9) - relatively small trenching carried out after pipelines laying and foreseen for improving of its dynamical stability;

• (variants 1012) - big trenching carried out after pipelines laying and foreseen for reducing

of the pipe bend risk; The results of calculations for the variants 1-6 are shown in the tables 4.1-3 and 4.1-4. Since the soil volume used for the first three stages is low, they are characterized by minor size sea bottom areas, covered with the sediment layers of varying thickness. The layer thickness rarely exceeds 50 mm by that (table 4.1-3) .

Table 4.1-3

Sea bottom areas covered with a sediments layer of different thickness resulting from sedimentation of suspension during the works for pipeline stabilisation

Calculation variant

Sediment layer thickness, mm >1 >5 >10 >50 >100 >200

1 2,008 m2 759 m2 408 m2 0 0 0 2 2,939 m2 1,224 m2 765 m2 19 m2 0 0




Calculation

variant Sediment layer thickness, mm

>1 >5 >10 >50 >100 >200 3 3,258 m2 1,352 m2 861 m2 89 m2 0 0 4 1,631 m2 536 m2 210 m2 0 0 0 5 1,473 m2 440 m2 128 m2 0 0 0 6 2,136 m2 829 m2 453 m2 0 0 0 7 631 m2 0 0 0 0 0 8 389 m2 0 0 0 0 0 9 1,517 m2 485 m2 166 m2 0 0 0

Distance of suspension distribution is also rather short, its average values don't exceed 95 m from the turbidity source for the sediment thickness below 1 mm, 55 m for the thickness of benthic sediments between 1 and 5 mm and 45 m for the thickness between 5 and 10 mm (table 4.1-4).

Table 4.1-4

Characteristic distances (m) of technological sedimentation around the gravel support Calculation

variant Sediment layer thickness, mm

>1 >5 >10 >50 1 72,2 42,9 31,6 0 2 89,1 54,1 42,9 14,7 3 95,3 56,4 45,4 15,8 4 63,2 34,7 24,0 0 5 59,6 32,8 20,5 0 6 74,4 43,9 33,9 0 7 38,2 0 0 0 8 31,1 0 0 0 9 60,9 34,9 23,6 0

Halos of suspended particles sedimented on the bottom for different calculations variants are shown on the figures 4.1-4 – 4.1-12.




Figure 4.1-4. Sediment layer thickness (mm) (calculation variant No.1)















Figure 4.1-10. Sediment layer thickness (mm) (calculation variant No,7)





Figure 4.1-12. Sediment layer thickness (mm) (calculation variant No.9) Gravel trenching for reducing of lateral and vertical bend of the pipeline (calculation variants 10-12) presupposes usage of essentially higher volumes of construction materials (above 1,2 million m3), the works will be conducted on the wide areas of sea bottom during rather long time (up to to 8 days per each support against 0.5 days on the previous stages). The cloud, generated during the works and contaminated with suspended matter drifts according to directions and and velocity of the currents. The major results of modelling for the computational variants 10-12 are shown in the tables 4.1-5, 4.1-6 and in the figure 4.1-13.

Table 4.1-5

Sea bottom areas covered with a sediments layer of different thickness resulting from sedimentation of suspension during the works for pipeline stabilisation

Calculation variant Sediment layer thickness, mm

≥ 1 ≥ 5 ≥ 10 ≥ 20 ≥ 50 ≥ 100 10 42 390 21 721 14 131 6 828 4 661 4 026 11 30 082 14 179 8 522 3 520 2 870 2 483 12 42 552 18 999 11 840 5 090 4 215 3 608




Table 4.1-6

Characteristic distances (m) of technological sedimentation around the gravel support

Calculation variant Sediment layer thickness, mm

≥ 1 ≥ 5 ≥ 10 ≥ 20 ≥ 50 ≥ 100 10 93 47 35 27 5,1 4,8 11 85 36 25 13 4,9 4,2 12 117 35 27 15 4,5 3,8

Figure 4.1-13. Field of the sediment layer thickness (mm) resulting from dredging works for reducing lateral and vertical bend of the pipeline

Generally on the stage of the pipeline construction the grain size distribution of the surface sediments on some sections will be localized in space and short-term (on the section of the route at depth 0-14 m in the area of Portovaya Bay), or they will last over rather long time (on the rest of the route within the sections of free span correction) and will not exercise any significant influence upon the geological environment of the Gulf of Finland.




Pollution of seabed sediments. When carrying out pipeline construction works pollution of benthic sediments is possible because of re-deposition of the contaminated sediments on certain route sections and because of possible spillage of oil products from the technical means involved in the construction works in the marine area (pipe-laying vessels, tugs, vessels for dredging works and gravel rock dumping, supply ships for delivery of pipes). As it was evident from the chemical contamination assessment of the benthic sediments of the Russian section of the Nord Stream pipelines, fulfilled in 2005-2006, pursuant the Regional Regulation "Provisions and criteria for the evaluation of sediment contamination in Saint-Petersburg water bodies" sandy sediments of Portovaya Bay and Gogland island district can be attributed as clean, and muddy sediments of the pipeline route between these two points can be attributed as moderately contaminated. While carrying out the works on correction of intolerable spans in the route section with muddy sediments stirring-up of benthic sediments is possible, exposing of the pollutants residing in the mass of benthic sediments, their distribution by the currents, sedimentation and secondary pollution of the surface layer of sediments on the surrounding seabed. With respect to the scale of existing pollution of benthic sediments (see section 3.1.5) secondary pollution, associated with the technological distribution of the benthic sediments will be insignificant. On the route sections in the Portovaya Bay and Gogland island regions no secondary pollution of the surface sediments layer is expected. Generally, probable secondary pollution of the surface sediment layer resulting from re-deposition of contaminated sediments, residing in the mass of benthic sediments will be a localised one (mostly on the deep waters in the central part of Russian section of Nord Stream off-shore pipeline), and will not exercise any significant influence on the environment of the geology conditions of Baltic sea. During pipelines construction works marine environment pollution by heavy fuel oil, diesel, lubricant oils and other oil products (FL) is possible by their spillage from the technical equipment used for construction works on the marine area (pipe-laying vessels, tugs, vessels for dredging works and gravel rock dumping, supply ships for delivery of pipes, etc.). Besides that, inputs of pollutants into the sea are possible by the non-organised run-offs from the shore in the areas where the pipeline crossing of the offshore-onshore border is being prepared. Emulgated oil contaminations that are highly sticky and adsorptive will be sedimented on the suspended particles. Sedimentation of the suspended matters on the sea bottom will partly further purification of the sea water from oil and at the same time - contamination of the benthic sediments with oil.




By the rigorous compliance with the existing Russian and international regulations on waste collection and utilisation on the vessels no contamination of the benthic sediments from that source during pipeline construction works will take place.

4.1.1.3. Impact on the relief of the seabed Local relief alterations of the seabed will take place by trenching works for laying of two pipelines on the route section from coastline in the Portovaya Bay to the areas at the depths of 14 meters and by the erection of 2 embankments 500 m long each (from the level +0.5 m to the depth 2 m) by preparing of pipelines crossing the onshore-offshore border. Such alterations of relief will take place on the area of 80,000 м2 by trenching works and about 3,500 м2 by embankment construction. These alteration will be short-term, since the bottom relief after pipelines laying and post-trenching and liquidation of bulk embankments will be similar to the back-ground one (fig. 4.1-14).

Figure 4.1-14. longitudinal trench profile in the coastal area of Portovaya Bay (a) and the post-trench scheme after completion of construction works (b)

The local alterations of the bottom relief during construction works will also occur on the deep water sections of the route with varied relief, where corrections of the non-allowable free spans will be fulfilled. According to the technical solutions such corrections will be carried out with the help of stone gravel material in the foreseen places where the pipelines may sag or be instable (fig. 4.1- 15).




Figure 4.1-15. Installation of the gravel-stone support using post-trenching The total bottom area of the Gulf of Finland, which relief will be modified during stone-gravel support installation comprises about 134,000 м2 (based on the report «Data Sheet - Gravel Works and Mattresses (Russia) G EN PIE DAS 102 00070020 B» - only working surface (top part) of the support, without area of the post-trenched underwater cloughs). Average height (depth) of the intolerable spans, that will be trenched, makes 2.0-2.2 metres (extreme values from 0.3 m to 8.7 m, heights from 0.5 m to 2.5 m dominate absolutely). Moreover the relief alteration will be associated with the accumulation of the suspended soil, that was sedimented on the bottom around the working site - totally about 131 thousand m2 (based on mathematical modelling of sediment spreading fulfilled by RAS Computational Centre named after А.А. Dorodnitsin). Local alterations of the bottom relief along the full length of the pipelines will be marked in case of PLB use with the anchor positioning system. In that case by the positioning bottom ploughing by the anchors will take place. Length and depth of the furrows will depend on the soil characteristics and positioning time in every point. In whole bottom relief alterations along its route during construction works will be localised in space and have a short-term character (on the bottom area with the depths of 0 - 14 m by Portovaya Bay), having a long term character on the rest of the route, where the works on the free span correction will take place). On the route sections where the works on gravel support installation will be conducted the marks of bottom height will be higher in comparison with background conditions. Such local and long-term alterations of the bottom relief will generally have no significant impact on the geological conditions of Baltic Sea.

4.1.1.4. Impact on lithodynamic processes On the stage of pipelines construction the impact on the lithodynamic processes during the storms will be conditioned by the presence of the trench in the bottom for pipelines laying. Part of the flow of sediments will be intercepted by the trench and accumulated in it. Calculated values of the trench burial and thickness of the layer of the accumulated sediments along the trench are shown on the fig. 4.1 - 16, and their integral characteristics are shown in the table 4.1-7.




In the upper part of the fig. 4.1-16 volumes of spread sediments are shown, that are accumulated in the trench within the year period (iceless period). Contributions of the particular wave disturbance points are shown, as well as the summarized result. In the middle part of the figure distribution of the local thickness of the sediment layer in the trench is presented, also bottom profiles in the natural condition and by the presence of the trench are given. Depth of the latter in regard of bottom level is 3.2 m.

Figure 4.1-16. Distribution of the trench burial velocities and thickness of the sediment layer along the bottom profile of the trench

Table 4.1-7

Integral values of the material accumulation in the trench for the most wavy directions

Point of wave disturbance Spread sedimentation, 103 m3year-1

Average thickness of the sediment layer, m

E 4,2 0,2 SE 6,1 0,3 S 11,0 0,6

Total 21,3 1,1 According to the calculations (see section 3.1., fig. 3.1-19 of this volume) spread sedimentation in the trench is possible, mostly in the strip between coastline and 10 meter isobath. Trench takes up 75-80% of the crossing spread sediments. The most contribution in the spread sedimentation is associated with the south wave disturbance (11,000 m3year-1). Summarised accumulation in the trench is evaluated to be 21,300 m3year-1. Taken into consideration that the full trench volume up to 14 meter deep is approximately 60,000-65,000 m3, the spread sedimentation for the iceless period may exceed 1/3 of the trench volume. Thickness of the sedimented layer equalised to the trench length will be 1.1 m.




It should be noted that sediment accumulation peak in the band of the most intense sediments flows (at the depths of from 2 to 4 m). The thickness of the accumulation layer might exceed 2.5 m in this area of continental slope. Therefore, the redistributions of the sedimentation in the coastal area (at the depths of less than 10m) may result in significant sediment accumulation in the trench and add pipeline installation complexity. It should be noted that the placement's of the pipeline operation in the near-shore trench is shorter than the iceless period, and the "open" status duration is counted a few days. As such, the impact can be significantly lower than the design. The trench may in principle accumulate sedimentation at the depths more than 10 m also due to currents of non-wave nature (floating and surge currents etc.). However, material rearranging and accumulating speeds are at least by an order of magnitude below the coastal area, and are of no risk for the trench. The trench is expected to cause local disturbances of the wave field and storm currents, which are expected, in return, to result in local bed movement at the downwind board of the trench. Width of the movement area is expected to comply the flow renaturation area extend. Given the relatively small width and depth of the trench, it is considered that, the disturbances will not spread beyond 100 to 200 m stripes, located on either side of the trench. Board movement is not expected inside the section of the trench, where protection embankments are designed (preventing such a movements is one of these constructions' major tasks). Possibly, presence of the trench on the seabed will make natural tendency of water outflow in sea along the axis of the bay slightly increase. However, no significant trench impact on the coastal dynamic is expected, a reasonable time is required for essential coast restructuring due to inertness of sediment transport. This amount of time is unable due to the short lifetime of the trench. Analogous conclusions may be drawn about effects of the protection embankments on lithodynamic processes in Portovaya Bay. Construction and operation of the embankments as a technological facilities are predicted during the period when no significant oscillatory motion is observed (from May to September). According to the statistic perennial observing, average duration of weather windows with wave heights less than 1.5 m supplied with 3% in the area is: 31 days in May, 30 days in June, 31 days in July, 31 days in August, 25.6 days in September. Rare storms are possible able to cause certain changes of the coastline in the intake area of the embankments and their partial scour. However, there is no reason to expect significant trench and embankments impact during their relatively short lifetime on the lithodynamic processes.




4.1.2. Operational phase

4.1.2.1. Sources and types of impact The main source of impacts caused by technology on the geologic environment in this phase is pipelines installed on the bottom of the Gulf of Finland, and the stone and gravel supports, build for incorrect free span liquidation. The main sources of impacts on the geologic environment and relief conditions in operation phase are: mechanical impact:

• changing of the transport bottoms in the deep waters pipeline section;

• local bed movement under pipeline;

• local alteration of the seabed, possible with accidental pipeline failures; chemical impacts:

• secondary sediments pollution, possible with accidental pipeline failures at sections with high content of contaminants.

4.1.2.2. Impact on transport bottoms in deep water section During the pipeline operation, in the areas on the seabed around the stone-gravel support, impacts on sediment transport's regime and morphodynamic alteration of the seabed will be observed. The impact targets, which result morphodynamic seabed conditions' changing, are sand movement, occurring due to waves and currents activity. The pipeline with the stone-gravel support is continuous impenetrable obstruction for these movements. Sedimentation's consumption decreases during approach to the windward side of the obstruction, conditions for the deposition of particles of solids occur, resulting depth decreasing. In the rear of the obstruction, in contrast, area of scouring occurs, sedimentation's consumption recovers from null to initial amount along the area (fig. 4.1-17).




Figure 4.1-17. Scheme of the pipeline's and the stone-gravel support's interaction with sand movement, occurring due to waves and currents activity.

The sand movements therefore may occur at the depths of up to 30 m, but seabed deformations become insignificant at the depth of 25 m. The most significant deformations are resulted by storms with a return period of once per year, due to their sufficient total duration. Width of the accumulation layer exceeds of 0.6 m, and scouring depth- of 0.4 m. The key contribution is situations with the presence of the current. The rarer storms' contributions in various situations are approximately similar. Table 4.1-8 shows maximal magnitudes of the deformations for for last 50 years at the various depths in situation with no current (Δh0) and with current, with speed of 0.1 m s-1 (Δh0.1) and 0.2 m s-1 (Δh

0.2) Accumulating rates are shown in the numerator, and scouring rates are shown in the denominator.

Table 4.1-8 The maximal seabed deformations for for last 50 years at the various depths in the various dynamic

situations Storm 1/1 year 1/10 years 1/100 years

h=15 m Δh0, m 0.41 -0.20 0.33 -0.11 0.18

-0.05 Δh0.1, m 0.64 -0.42 0.37 -0.15 0.18

-0.05 Δh

0.2, m 0.66 -0.45 0.38 -0.15 0.17 -0.05

h=20 m Δh0, m 0.11 -0.03 0.04

-0.02 Δh0.1, m 0.21 -0.06 0.06

–0.02 Δh

0.2, m 0.23 -0.07 0.06 -0.02

h=25 m Δh0, m 0.01

-0.01




Storm 1/1 year 1/10 years 1/100 years Δh0.1, m 0.03

-0.01 Δh0.2, m 0.03

-0.01 Taking into account that pipeline is supposed to bring from the trench to the surface at the depth of 14 m (at approximately 1.5 km from coastline in the Portovaya Bay), and 25-meter isobath is located at 5.7 km from the coastline, pipeline stretch length, where sediment transport potentially may impact, is expected to be 4.2 km. Grain size distribution of seabed sediments on this sector of pipeline route are mostly the sandy fractions (during the modelling, medium granulated sand's parameters were estimated at: ds =0.5 mm, ρs = 2.65103 kg m-3 and porosity σ =0.4). The general direction of this sector of the pipeline route is from north southward (fig. 4.1- 18).

Figure 4.1-18. The sector of the pipeline route, where seabed deformations associated with soil support's installation are potentially possible

Essential feature of this area of the Baltic Sea should be therefore regarded, namely domination of the western waves. This means that situations, when sediments move eastward, are the most frequent. Eastern storms are just not strong enough to impact seabed of the deep water proper and cause any significant movement in the opposite direction. The seabed deformations close to the pipelines route should be therefore asymmetric. Accumulation will dominate from the west side of the obstruction, and scouring - from the east side. The most significant deformations are expected at the minimal depths (from -14 m). The waves' and currents' impact on the seabed will decreases with depth. The results of modelling are shown on fig. 4.1-19.




Figure 4.1-19. The resulting seabed deformations at the various depths after 50 and 100 years

Maximal positive (Δh + ) and negative (Δh - ) seabed deformations' magnitudes are shown in table 4.1-9.

Table 4.1-9

Maximal magnitudes of accumulations and scouring after 50 and 100 years Depths, m 50 years 100 years

Δh+, m Δh-, m Δh+, m Δh-, m 15 1,30 -0,99 1,88 -1,49 20 0,42 -0,20 0,58 -0,35 25 0,07 -0,02 0,13 -0,04




The data is shown for illustration purposes on fig. 4.1-20, which characterises corridor of the possible deformation's magnitudes with depth variation.

Figure 4.1-20. The seabed deformations' limits in the vicinity of the pipelines depending on depth It follows from these result that the potential deformations should damp out rapidly in the depth, and become insignificant when h > 25 m (0.1 m per 50 years). In contrast, closer to the coastlines, pipeline's impact on the litho- and morphodynamics is rapidly increases. At the depths of 15 m at the windward side of the construction, sediment layer of almost 1.5 metres width may be accumulated after 50 years of the pipeline operation. Certain risk for construction stability may be caused by scouring at its downwind side (up to 1 m per 50 years). The stone-gravel material of the support may gradually moves to the scouring valley, resulting a sag of whole construction. Disturbances of the relief locate in close vicinity to the construction, and will not not spread beyond stripes of about 10 m. Due to the fact, that both pipelines are separated with a much larger distance, their mutual impacts are negligible. The seabed deformations close to each of the pipelines should be therefore approximately similar. The results of the modelling allow drawing the following conclusions:

• the stone-gravel support of subsea pipeline at the depths of from 15 to 25 m is an obstruction that will cause sands accumulations to the west from construction and scouring to the east from it due to the features of the dynamics in the area.

• changes to the seabed, caused by the construction, locate in the intake area of its borders

(width of less than 10 m). The deformations damp out rapidly in the depth, and practically are not observed deeper than 25 m.




• maximal deformation's magnitude is expected in the area of pipelines bringing to the

surface of the seabed (at the depth of 15 m). The thickness of the accumulation layer may reach up to 1.3 m per 50 years. The depth of the eastern scouring may reach up to 1 m per 50 years.

The impact will have a long-term character, but its magnitude will be minimal. According to the accepted technical solutions, on the route section from 14-metres isobath to 25-metres isobath 10 discrete soil supports 5m x 3m size are planned on the western pipeline and 4 similar - on the eastern one.

4.1.2.3. Impact on bottom sediments during incidental situations During the normal (accident-free) operation of the pipeline, there are no impacts on the seabed sedimentation, due to the absence of any impact sources. In case of accidental pipeline defect on the route section, where seabed sedimentations are characterised as polluted, secondary pollution of the surface sediments layer is enable in the area of the accident. Such a pollution of the surface sediments layer will be localised and have no significant impact on the geological environment of Baltic Sea.

4.1.2.4. Bed movement under pipeline During the normal (accident-free) operation of the pipeline, local bed movements under the pipeline on the route section, where seabed sedimentation deposits are mainly sands. Strong near-bottom currents are usually situated at these areas. At water flow around the pipeline laying on the seabed the pressure fall between the windward and the leeward part of the pipe is formed. At strong near-bottom currents due to these pressure falls the seepage in the sediments under the pipe arises and critical conditions are encountered they begin to flow leading to local washouts under the pipe. These washouts are three-dimensional as it is outlined in fig. 4.1-21. The local washout pits expand along the pipe leading to increase of washout area along it and shortening of parts (balks), where pipe lays on the seabed. Maximal washout takes place under lower edge of the pipe and increases up to zero at the distance about 3-5 pipe diameters in the direction across it.




Figure 4.1-21. Scheme of local washout under the pipeline laying on the seabed. Section A-A - through the washout zone; Section B-B through the balk between local washouts. The arrows show

the direction of washout propagation under the pipeline At action of current to the pipeline when its speed is above critical value for start of seabed particles movement maximal the washout depth under its lower edge will be 0.6 its diameters (Summer et al., 1999; 2001). Within Russian sector of Nord Stream offshore pipeline there is the only section with increased speed of seabed currents and sandy composition of sediments situated near Gogland (on fig. 4.1-3 it is marked with blue ring). At speed of seabed currents above 20-25 m/s exceeding the speeds necessary for start of seabed particles movement the washouts forming under the pipeline is possible. According to the data of the grounds characteristics and seabed currents presented in the results of engineering and engineering and environmental investigations (Engineering and environmental investigations, Part 1, 1 stage, Book 5. Section 1. Exclusive economical zone and territorial waters of Russia, OOO Petergaz. Document No.6545-10-0-IEI-0501-С1 and the report "Hydrodynamic and probabilistic modelling, formation of a corpus of hydrometeorological calculation data along route of the North European gas pipeline (Baltic Sea) and preparation of recommendations future hydrometeorological engineering research, 2005" informs that only in three small sections of the area with increased speeds conditions for sediments washout is possible (on sandy grounds once 100 years the speed of seabed currents may reach 29. 36 and 30 cm/s.). Under the stipulation that sandy sediment layer thickness on the seabed is rather big, maximal dimension of seabed washout under the pipeline may reach up to 0.7 m.




The washout zones length along the pipeline may depend on variation of seabed sediment physical and mechanical properties on local washout area, the speed of the current and its direction relative to the pipe axis, time of action of the current with the speed above critical value for start of seabed particles movement etc. At some stage of design work execution the decision was taken about enlarged use of stone-gravel supports along all the pipeline route. According to the report «Data Sheet - Gravel Works and Mattresses (Russia) G EN PIE DAS 102 00070020 B» all of the pipeline sections most crucial in respect to washout proved to be in the zone of installation of stone-gravel bedding course of all present variations (fig. 4.1-3). At average dimension of gravel 20-40 mm there will be no washout of bedding at these speeds. Thus on the pipeline operation stage the possibility of seabed washout by the pipeline at implementation of actual project decisions is practically unlikely.

4.1.2.5. Impact on lithodynamic processes of nearshore section After construction has been completed and the relief will be restored in zone of the trench up to the conditions close to baseline conditions of relief the the impact caused by technology on the lithodynamic processes will not be seen. As the trench will be backfilled with the rock-gravel mixture, no additional seabed deformation in its limits at existing wave modes will be present. Relief changes in the region of route sections nearshore area of Portovaya Bay are possible only due to natural processes out of the trench area. The seabed deformation range will be nearly the same as before the pipeline construction. Ice gouge of the seabed and shores near the coastline crossing is dangerous during pipeline operation. The glaciation in Portovaya Bay forms every year, irrespective of the harshness of the winter. Its width and power reach the maximal value in February-April. Principally dangerous conditions for coastal area arise in the beginning of the spring (April) when the glaciation which did not pass thawing stage brakes and becomes the broken ice. This ice is virtually freshwater at maximal power and strength and able to form erosion bars on the seabed on the areas of underwater bank vault covered with loose deposits (sands, silts). In this situation, the ice foot frozen to the seabed plays the protective role: the beach destruction does not take place as the ice foot "armours" the beach and bank slope from the action of ice. The most intensive impacts may arise on edge of the shore ice where during long winter period in the result of repeated compressing and hummocking the "ice dams" forms up to the bottom, at those considerable seabed deformations are possible. The area bathymetry analysis along the route allows to choose the areas in terms of the most dangerous exaration. Figure 4.1-22 shows the fragment of Portovaya Bay bathimetric map with marked pipeline route and profiles along which exaration calculation was performed.




Exaration is possible only at depths less than 12 m, because there is no reasons to estimate ice formations with greater immersion in this region. As evident from the figure, only in one place the pipeline route crosses the dangerous sections in the region of the land fall (profiles 1A - 4A). The calculations results show that maximal rated exaration depth may make 1.36 m (profile 1A) This exaration corresponds to mass of ice formation 107 tons, wind speed 35 m/s and current speed 1.5 m/s. These conditions are not possible more frequently than once every 1000 years. Exarations amounts for conditions possible once a year, 10 and 100 years may be estimated as 0.12, 0.81 and 1.1 m accordingly.

Figure 4.1-22. The route section in Portovaya Bay and profiles for calculations for exaration depth calculations.

4.1.3. Decommissioning phase

Impact on geological environment and relief condition at decommissioning phase (after 50 years of operation) is similar to the impact at construction stage and will be examined in a separate project taking into account the legislative requirements and technological abilities that will be available at the time of starting decommissioning works.




Taking into account possible impact of construction works and consequent pipeline operation on the natural environment conditions the project provides the complex of measures to minimize the negative impact on geological environment both during the construction works and in the period of the construction operation. The protective measures are presented in Volume 8. Book 1. Offshore section. Part 2. EP.




4.2. Impact on atmospheric air


4.2.1.1. Sources and types of impact

Impact on atmospheric air will take place virtually at all the industrial processes performed during construction of Russian sector (movement of ships and building machinery, welding works, free spans addition of ground). The Russian nearshore section belongs to the ice exaration area, so the pipeline will be laid in the trench about 1.4 km long. Time and duration of environmental impact during construction of the pipeline offshore section is defined by the Construction time schedule (Volume 7 Book 1 Project for building organisation). It should be noted that impact during construction will have local and short-term character. The pipeline laying is performed by lay barge and support fleet. The main source of emissions to the atmosphere during construction will be waterborne vehicles. The approximate list of waterborne vehicles is presented in Volume 7 Book 1 Project for building organisation. The calculation of pollutant emitted into the atmosphere amount is performed using:

• "Methodological guide for calculation, rate setting and control of air emission into the atmospheric air" developed by research institute of Atmosphere, St. Petersburg, 2005.

• "Method of calculating of harmful emissions into the atmosphere of sea ports" RD

31.06.06 - 86. L., 1986.

• "Method of inventory performing of pollutants emissions into the atmosphere for road-building machinery bases (by computational method)" (Moscow, 1988);

• Amendments and supplements to the "Method of inventory performing of pollutants

emissions into the atmosphere for road-building machinery bases (by computational method)" (Moscow, 2001);

• Amendments and supplements to the "Method of inventory performing of pollutants

emissions into the atmosphere for motor-car repair enterprises (by computational method)" (Moscow, 1998);

• Amendments to the "Method of inventory performing of pollutants emissions into the

atmosphere for motor-car repair enterprises (by computational method)" (Moscow, 1999);

• Methodical directions for determination of emission of contaminants into the atmosphere from reservoirs, 1997;

• Amendments to the "Methodical directions for determination of emission of contaminants

into the atmosphere from reservoirs". St. Petersburg, 1999.




• Method of calculation of release (emission) of contaminants into the atmosphere at

welding works (by values of specific release)" St. Petersburg, 2000); as well as taking into account job practices, technical specifications of applying machinery. The sources of contaminants emission into the ambient air during construction of considered area is examined in EP Volume.

4.2.1.2. Impact assessment The main pollutants emitted by the combustion of fuel are: nitrogen dioxide, sulphur dioxide, carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons, etc. Welding works produce iron oxides, manganese oxides, dust, and hydrocarbons. List and characteristics of main contaminants generated during construction of offshore section in Russian EEZ are presented in Table 4.3-1.

Table 4.3-1 The list of main contaminants

The name of a substance

The used criteria Criterion value, mg/m3

Class of hazard

Emission of pollutant, warm period

Vanadium PDK, a.d. 0,002 1 0,000041 Iron oxide PDK, a.d. 0,04 3 1,4599 Cadmium PDK, a.d. 0,0003 1 0,0000009 Manganese compounds PDK max. one-off 0,01 2 0,3616 Copper PDK, a.d. 0,002 2 0,0000023 Nickel PDK, a.d. 0,001 2 0,0000009 Tin PDK, a.d. 0,02 3 0,000023 Lead PDK max. one-off 0,001 1 0,000039 Chromium OBUV 0,01 1 0,000031 Nitrogen dioxide PDK max. one-off 0,2 2 2212,017 Nitrogen oxide PDK max. one-off 0,4 3 359,446 Hydrogen chloride PDK max. one-off 0,2 2 0,022179 Soot PDK max. one-off 0,15 3 146,612 Sulphur dioxide PDK max. one-off 0,5 3 93,65659 Hydrogen sulphide PDK max. one-off 0,008 2 0,0001245 Carbon monoxide PDK max. one-off 5 4 614,7729 Anhydrous hydrogen fluoride

PDK max. one-off 0,02 2 0,001413

Petrol PDK max. one-off 5 4 0,0053 Kerosene OBUV 1,2 - 432,85249 Hydrocarbons PDK max. one-off 1 4 0,04433 Suspended matter PDK max. one-off 0,5 3 0,002729 Non-organic dust (70-20%)

PDK max. one-off 0,3 3 0,08184

Total Substances: 22 3861,337




Total emissions from vessels used in the construction of the pipeline are calculated at heaviest operating conditions. The calculation takes into account the simultaneous operation of all of the equipment according to the schedule of work presented in Volume 7. Book.1. Construction organisation plan Calculations of the dispersal of contaminants into the atmosphere are made using PRISMA software system (version 4.30 edition 02) for the warm period of the year according to the construction schedule. Calculation of the dispersal were conducted for the following contaminants: vanadium pentoxide (reg. 0110), iron oxide (reg. 0123), cadmium oxide (reg. 0133), manganese compounds (reg. 0143), copper oxide (reg. 0146), nickel oxide (reg. 0164), tin oxide (reg. 0168), lead compounds (reg. 0184), chromium trivalent (reg. 0228), nitrogen dioxide (reg. 0301), nitrogen oxide (reg. 0304), hydrogen chloride (reg. 0316), carbon black (reg. 0328), sulphur dioxide (reg. 0330), carbon monoxide (reg. 0337), fluorides (reg. 344), petrol (reg. 2704), kerosene (reg. 2732), saturated hydrocarbons (reg. 2754), suspended matter (reg. 2902), non-organic dust (reg. 2908). Part of emitted into the atmosphere pollutants causes a cumulative impact to atmospheric air (nitrogen dioxide and sulphur dioxide; vanadium pentoxide and manganese; sulphur dioxide and vanadium pentoxide; sulphur dioxide and lead; carbon monoxide and non-organic dust). According to the Hygienic Norms 2.1.6.1124-02 "Maximum Allowed Concentrations (PDKs) of polluting substances in the ambient air of residential areas" (Supplement number 5 to the HG 2.1.6.695-98) 3 and 4-component mixtures including nitrogen dioxide and/or hydrogen sulfide, and members of the multicomponent air pollution do not cause the summation effect if the relative weight of concentration of one of them, expressed in shares of the maximum one-off PDK is:

• in 2--component mixture more than 80 %,

• in 3-component mixture more than 70 %,

• in 4-component mixture more than 60 %, the proportion of nitrogen dioxide concentrations in the 2-component mixture with sulphur dioxide is 96.4% by preliminary estimates, and so the mixture does not cause the summation effect. Thus, the following groups of summation were taken into account in calculating : vanadium pentoxide and manganese; sulphur dioxide and vanadium pentoxide; sulphur dioxide and lead; carbon monoxide and non-organic dust. Calculations have been conducted with respect to background presented in Volume 8, Book 1, Chapter 2. Appendix 3.1 The full description of the sources of contaminants emission into the air see in Volume 8, Book 1, Chapter 2. EP When calculating the dispersion of contaminants all sources are associated with the local system of coordinates. Calculating area is 10,000 m x 10,000 m at 1000 m intervals. There was accepted for calculations the combination of emission sources actually taking place under normal operating conditions at which the maximum value of surface concentrations. Thus, several options of calculations are considered.




According to Section 2, paragraph 13 of «Methods for calculation, regulation and control of emissions of pollutants into the air» of Research Institute of Atmosphere, 2005. it is recommended not to include the emissions of nitrogen oxides from power plants of vessels in dispersion calculations until the new Methods for calculation would be published because these values are unreasonably high. However, these calculations have been incorporated into the document by request of the experts. In all variants of the calculation PDK is exceeded only for nitrogen dioxide. When considering Option 1 - construction equipment operation in the coastal area (300 m), as well as seabed intervention works (from -2 m to -14 m) - the maximum concentration of nitrogen dioxide is 2.25 PDK. At the Bolshoy Bor area border the concentration is 0.403 PDK. The concentration of 1PDK is in 1.15 km distance from the source. Option 2 of calculation of the dispersal of contaminants takes into account the pipelaying works at a landfall area (from -14 m). The maximum concentration of nitrogen dioxide is 2.686 PDK. At the Bolshoy Bor area border the concentration is 0.895 PDK. The concentration of 1PDK is in 3.1 km distance from the source. According to the construction schedule (Volume 7, Book 2, Chapter 2) works in the coastal area takes 1-2 days, as the laying rate is anticipated to be 2.5 km/day. Then the route comes closer to the sea. Thus, this concentration will be for very short period of time. Other contaminants do not exceed the PDK. Option 3 of calculation is made to the case of simultaneous operation of a landfall team (more detailed information see in Volume 8, Book 2, Chapter 2. Atmospheric air protection) and pipelaying works. Such a situation is possible for a very short time (maximum 1-2 days). For this option the maximum concentration of nitrogen dioxide is 2.71 PDK. At the Bolshoy Bor area border the concentration is 0.98 PDK. The concentration of 1PDK is in 3.67 km distance from the source. Calculations of the dispersal of contaminants are carried out for the warm period of the year at a height of 2 m. The results are shown in Table 4.3-2. As a result, maps of the dispersal of contaminants were obtained. Calculations and maps of contaminants dispersion are presented in Volume 8, Book 1. Chapter 2. Appendix 3.2

Table 4.3-2

The planned facility's impact on the ground layer of the atmosphere

Code Contaminants Concentration, PDK shares where the

concentration is 1 PDK maximum On the Bolshoy

Bor r.a. border Option 1

301 Nitrogen dioxide 2,253 0,403 1,15 304 Nitrogen oxide 0,215 0,065 - 328 Soot 0,463 0,015 - 330 Sulphur dioxide 0,102 0,035 - 337 Carbon monoxide 0,367 0,304 - 2732 Kerosene 0,174 0,008 -




Code Contaminants Concentration, PDK shares where the

concentration is 1 PDK maximum On the Bolshoy Bor r.a.

border Option 2

110 Vanadium calculation is not feasible (less than 0.01 PDK) 123 Iron oxide calculation is not feasible (less than 0.01 PDK) 133 Cadmium calculation is not feasible (less than 0.01 PDK) 143 Manganese compounds 0,280 0,06 - 146 Copper calculation is not feasible (less than 0.01 PDK) 164 Nickel calculation is not feasible (less than 0.01 PDK) 168 Tin calculation is not feasible (less than 0.01 PDK) 184 Lead calculation is not feasible (less than 0.01 PDK) 228 Chromium calculation is not feasible (less than 0.01 PDK) 301 Nitrogen dioxide 2,686 0,895 3,1 304 Nitrogen oxide 0,250 0,105 - 316 Hydrogen chloride calculation is not feasible (less than 0.01 PDK) 328 Soot 0,584 0,091 - 330 Sulphur dioxide 0,1 0,048 -

337 Carbon monoxide 0,346 0,312 - 344 Fluorides calculation is not feasible (less than 0.01 PDK)

2704 Petrol calculation is not feasible (less than 0.01 PDK) 2732 Kerosene 0,134 0,039 - 2902 Suspended matter 0,340 0,340 - 2908 Non-organic dust (70-

20%) calculation is not feasible (less than 0.01 PDK)

6017 110+143 0,280 0,006 - 6018 110+330 0,1 0,048 - 6034 184+330 0,1 0,049 - 6046 337+2908 0,346 0,314 -

Option 3 110 Vanadium calculation is not feasible (less than 0.01 PDK) 118 Titanium dioxide calculation is not feasible (less than 0.01 PDK) 123 Iron oxide calculation is not feasible (less than 0.01 PDK) 133 Cadmium calculation is not feasible (less than 0.01 PDK) 143 Manganese compounds 0,280 0,06 - 146 Copper calculation is not feasible (less than 0.01 PDK) 164 Nickel calculation is not feasible (less than 0.01 PDK) 168 Tin calculation is not feasible (less than 0.01 PDK) 184 Lead calculation is not feasible (less than 0.01 PDK) 203 Chromium hexavalent calculation is not feasible (less than 0.01 PDK) 228 Chromium trivalent calculation is not feasible (less than 0.01 PDK) 301 Nitrogen dioxide 2,71 0,986 3,67 304 Nitrogen oxide 0,252 0,112 - 316 Hydrogen chloride calculation is not feasible (less than 0.01 PDK) 328 Soot 0,578 0,095 -




Code Contaminants

Concentration, PDK shares where the concentration is 1

PDK maximum On the Bolshoy Bor r.a. border

330 Sulphur dioxide 0,1 0,05 -

333 Hydrogen sulphide calculation is not feasible (less than 0.01 PDK)

337 Carbon monoxide 0,347 0,316 -

342 Fluoride gases calculation is not feasible (less than 0.01 PDK)

344 Fluorides calculation is not feasible (less than 0.01 PDK)

703 Benz(a)pyrene calculation is not feasible (less than 0.01 PDK)

1325 Formaldehyde calculation is not feasible (less than 0.01 PDK)

2704 Petrol calculation is not feasible (less than 0.01 PDK)

2732 Kerosene 0,135 0,04 -

2902 Suspended matter 0,340 0,340 - 2908 Non-organic dust (70-

20%) calculation is not feasible (less than 0.01 PDK)

6017 110+143 0,280 0,006 -

6018 110+330 0,1 0,05 -

6019 110+203 calculation is not feasible (less than 0.01 PDK)

6034 184+330 0,1 0,051 -

6035 333+1325 calculation is not feasible (less than 0.01 PDK)

6039 330+342 0,1 0,052 -

6043 330+333 0,1 0,051 -

6046 337+2908 0,347 0,316 -

During construction of the pipeline the impact on the atmospheric air will not cause significant changes in the atmosphere which is confirmed by practical experience (analogues objects).


4.2.2.1. Sources and types of impact There is no impact on atmosphere at normal operation of the pipeline. During the operational phase accidental pipeline ruptures are possible, resulting in natural gas release into the atmosphere, the fire and explosions (see Chapter 5).

4.2.2.2. Impact assessment In standard compliant with the norms and accident-free use of the gas pipeline, there are no gas release into the environment.

4.2.3. Decommissioning phase During removal of the pipeline the impact on the atmospheric air is similar to the impacts during the construction phase. The removal phase will be considered more directly in a separate project.




4.3. Impact on sea water environment



Sources and types of impact on the marine environment during the construction phase are mainly determined by design features, technology and the organisation of construction. The pipeline construction may be characterised primarily by its laying in a trench in the coastal zone. A major negative impact occur consequently in the coastal area during dredging operations and trenching, backfilling, and during the construction of embankments. The main sources of impact on the marine environment during the construction phase are:

• dredging work during excavation of trenches and pipeline trenching;

• construction of embankments in the coastal area within Portovaya Bay for ground-based pre-trenching works;

• backfilling of pipeline trench in the coastal area by excavated soil and soil brought in;

• rectification of long free spans;

• laying of pipes onto the seabed;

• vessels and construction equipment movement;

• hydro-pressure-testing.

The main impact on sea water environment during pipeline construction will be:

• physical and chemical transformation of seawater properties mainly as a result of their polluting by suspended minerals;

• changing levels of contaminants;

• seawater intake and discharge;

• temporary exclusion of water area for pipelaying and embankments construction.

The main source of suspended matter emission into the water environment is the implementation of dredging in the coastal area, as well as free-span elimination almost along the entire pipeline. The slight increase in turbidity will occur due to the construction of the embankments.




In addition, during the construction phase the contamination of sea water with oil products is possible from the work of vessels and construction equipment. Seawater intake will be conducted mainly for pressure-testing and for pipeline flushing. Relatively small volumes of seawater will be consumed for the domestic and technological needs on vessels. Time and duration of environmental impact during construction of offshore sections of pipeline is determined by the work schedule.

4.3.1.2. Impact assessment Spreading of suspension and sediment matter flow The main impact on sea water environment during pipeline construction will be a temporary local physical and chemical transformation of seawater properties mainly as a result of their polluting by suspended minerals. The increase of suspended matter in water will occur primarily due to dredging operations and trenching, backfilling, construction of embankments, and work on construction of gravel-rock supports to eliminate the free-spans. Modelling of the spread of sediments has been carried for environmental impacts assessment on water environment of dredging and construction works to eliminate the free-spans in Russian sector of offshore gas pipeline Nord Stream. Details of possible spread of suspension, the calculations and the detailed results see in volume "Modelling of suspension and spreading of sediments during pipeline construction. Russian Sector", Appendix to Chapter 4 (carried out by the Computational centre of the Russian Academy of Sciences named after А.А. Dorodnitsin, foreman B.V.Arkhipov). The area of dredging on sea section of the Russian sector including the embankments is shown in Figure 4.3-1. The major results of modelling during construction of the embankments, excavation and backfilling of trenches at the offshore section of the Russian sector of the Nord Stream pipeline are shown in Figure 4.3-2 and in table 4.3-1. Formed during the work cloud of suspended matter, drifting according the direction and speed of currents. The range of maximum concentrations for the entire period of work (maximum concentration achieved) is shown in Figure 4.3-2. The distances from the edge of the trench to the position of the contour line with a suspension concentration of 100 mg/l do not exceed 31 m, with a concentration of 50 mg/l - 83 m, with a concentration of 20 mg/l - 275 m, and with a concentration of 10 mg/l - 765 m.




Figure 4.3-1. Depths (а) and dredging area (b) at the offshore section of the Russian sector of offshore gas pipeline Nord Stream

Figure 4.3-2. The range of maximum admissible concentrations (mg/l) during dredging work in

the area of offshore section of Russian Sector offshore gas pipeline Nord Stream




Table 4.3-1

Volumes (thousand m3) and time of existence (min, hours) of water volumes contaminated by

suspension with different concentrations during dredging works Parameters defined Concentration of suspension in water, mg/l

≥ 1 ≥ 10 ≥ 20 ≥ 50 ≥ 100 Flowing water volumes through the area of the plume of suspension with the concentration above the given one, thousand m3 (FW)

4 835 889 503 012 235 124 81 111 21 514

The mean time of water flow through suspension plume area with the concentrations exceeds the given , hour (Тmean )

5 0,7 0,3 0,1 0,05

Maximum values of momentary volumes of plume areas, thousand m3 (ММV)

7 153 447 140 36 18

Average values of momentary volumes of plume areas, thousand m3 (AМV)

1 991 98 33 7 1

Time of existence of plumes with a concentration above the given one, days (Texistence)

90,9 77,1 73,5 51,7 27,6

The major results of modelling during non-allowable free spans correction works in the area of offshore section of Russian Sector offshore gas pipeline Nord Stream are shown in Figure 4.3-4, 4.3-5 and in tables 4.3-3, 4.3-4, 4.3-5. Backfilling of free spans will be executed in stages:

• during the first stage (No 1, fig. 4.3-3),gravel supports will be constructed to provide static stabilization before the laying of eastern and western pipelines;

• during the second stage (No 2, fig. 4.3-3) gravel will be placed to provide static

stabilization after the laying of both pipelines;

• during the third stage (No 3, fig. 4.3-3) gravel will be placed to provide dynamic stabilization after the pipelines laying;

• during the fourth stage (No 4, fig. 4.3-3) gravel will be placed to reduce the longitudinal

bend after the pipelines laying. In terms of process technology all kinds of post trenching differ only by the volume of the filled material and by the disposition of the post trenching locations. Post-trenching locations are shown in Figure 4.3-3.




Figure 4.3-3. Post-trenching locations on different work stages The classification of all activities was conducted for modelling of sediment spreading. The results of this classification are shown in table 4.3-2. As can be seen from the table the average volumes of post trenching relatively small on the first three stages, but the work is carried out both at sites located near the coastline (KP-4760, 0) and at the west end (KP-120341, 0). At the last stages of post trenching the volumes significantly increase as they are in fact all along the pipeline from the KP - 2003 to KP - 119523. At all stages will be carried out 328 post trenching with a total volume of 1,391,769 m3.

Table 4.3-2 Summarized data on the volumes of post-trenchings during different stages of the work for the east

and west pipelines and modelling variant numbers From KP to KP Number of fill-ins Average volume (m3) Variant number

1st stage 15066 39347 8 667,6 1 62632 93972 22 1352,2 2 110088 120327 16 1603,0 3

2nd stage 9124,5 21466.24 33 439,1 4 31547 43374.41 36 360,7 5 62364 120228.3 61 741,5 6




From KP to KP Number of fill-ins Average volume (m3) Variant number

3d stage 4760 9658 4 110,0 7 15443 33968 15 69,7 8 60827 119426 27 392,1 9

4th stage 2003 29023 47 15651,0 10 30461 59186 45 9494,3 11 60377 119194 14 12666,1 12

Calculations of volumes of contaminated waters and time of existence of contaminated plumes for the first 9 options of post-trenching are shown in Table 4.3-3. In these options the volumes of post trenching are relatively small and work duration for each option is not exceed one day. Spread of contaminated plumes for the options No 1 – 9 are listed in Chapter 4 "Water environment protection" (Volume 8. Book 1. Offshore section. Part 2. EIA)

Table 4.3-3

Volumes (thousand m3) and time of existence (min, hours) of water volumes contaminated by suspension with different concentrations during static stabilization works before pipeline laying

(options 1-3), static stabilization works after the pipeline laying (options 4-6), dynamic stabilization works after the pipeline laying (Nos. 7-9)

Parameters defined Concentration of suspension in water, mg/l ≥ 10 ≥ 20 ≥ 50 ≥ 100

1

Flowing water volumes through the area of the plume of suspension with the concentration above the given one, thousand m3 (FW)

487 326 173 0

Time of existence of plumes with a concentration above the given one, hours. (Texistence)

8,2 8,0 7,9 0,0

2


982 661 370 0


16,4 16,2 16,1 0,0

3


1 124 744 416 0


19,4 19,2 19,1 0,0

4


314 204 99 0


5,5 5,3 5,2 0,0





5


262 169 93 0


4,6 4,4 4,3 0,0

6


541 362 193 0


9,1 8,9 8,8 0,0

7


87 53 29 0


1,6 1,4 1,3 0,0

8


57 33 17 0


1,1 0,9 0,8 0,0

9


294 195 99 0


5,0 4,8 4,7 0,0

The major results of modelling during free-span correction (options No 10-12) of offshore section of Russian sector of Nord Stream pipeline are shown in Figure 4.3-4 and in Table 4.3-4. The cloud, generated during the works and contaminated with suspended matter drifts according to directions and velocity of the currents. The range of maximum concentrations for the entire period of work (maximum concentration achieved) is shown in Figure 4.3-4. This figure enable evaluation of the scales of distribution of suspension. in option No 10 (Figure 4.3-4, а) the distances from the location of the source of the suspended materials to the position of the contour line with a suspension concentration of 100 mg/l do not exceed 86 m, with a concentration of 50 mg/l - 391 m, with a concentration of 20 mg/l - 1,245 m, and with a concentration of 10 mg/l - 2,305 m. in option No 11 (Figure 4.3-4, b) the distances from the location of the source of the suspended materials to the position of the contour line with a suspension concentration of 100 mg/l do not exceed 22 m, with a concentration of 50 mg/l - 67 m, with a concentration of 20 mg/l - 228 m, and with a concentration of 10 mg/l - 727 m. in option No 12 (Figure 4.3-4, c) the distances from the location of the source of the suspended materials to the position of the contour line with a suspension concentration of 100 mg/l do not exceed 39 m, with a concentration of 50 mg/l - 172 m, with a concentration of 20 mg/l - 869 m, and with a concentration of 10 mg/l - 1,547 m.




Figure 4.3-4. The range of maximum admissible concentrations (mg/l) resulting from dredging

works for reducing lateral and vertical bend of the pipeline

Table 4.3-4

Volumes (thousand m3) and times of existence (min, hours) of water volumes contaminated by suspension with different concentrations during dredging works for reducing lateral and vertical

bend of the pipeline


10


16 889 6 582 913 77


7,8 7,8 7,8 7,8

11


6 954 2 806 570 10


4,7 4,7 4,7 4,7

12 Flowing water volumes through the area of the plume of suspension with the concentration above the given one, thousand m3 (FW)

9 476 4 429 486 25




Parameters defined Concentration of suspension in water, mg/l


≥ 10 ≥ 20 ≥ 50 ≥ 100

6,3 6,3 6,3 6,3 Time of existence of plumes with a concentration above the given one (Texistence) is expected to be close to the duration of works, i.e. the plumes disappear directly after the excavation is completed. Therefore, the time is much the same for each type of plumes in this case. Thus, during post-lay trenching to ensure sustainability of the pipeline will be carried out 328 post trenching with a total volume of 1,391,769 m3 or 2,129,407 tonnes. 42,588 tonnes of soil during works will be suspended. The total volume of «new» water flowing through areas with contamination concentrations up to 10 mg/l is 37,474,047 m3. (see Table 4.3-5). In the process of post trenching works the maximum distances of spread of suspended matter will occur when carrying out large-scale post trenching during the fourth stage. In certain moments the concentrations of 10 mg/l of added suspension may occur at distances up to 2 km from the location of the source. The prevailing direction of suspended matter spreading is the direction along the pipeline route, as it coincides with the predominant direction of currents in this area. Therefore, the the position of the contour line with a suspension concentration of 10 mg/l does not exceed 300-500 m from the pipeline across the route. The typical scales of distribution of the suspended matter in the vicinity of the islands Gogland are shown in Figure 4.3-5. It follows that the waters north of this island will be exposed to concentrations of up to 5 -10 mg/l.

Table 4.3-5 Flowing water volumes through the area of the plume of suspension with the concentration above

the given one, thousand m3

Concentration of suspension in water, mg/l ≥ 10 ≥ 20 ≥ 50 ≥ 100

37 474 16 570 3 464 113




Figure 4.3-5. The area of typical concentrations of suspended matter near Gogland (а – fine scale, b – large scale)




Secondary sea water pollution The chemistry of marine waters will be impacted only during the pipeline construction works by the input of substances from the benthic sediments into the water, because part of these sediments will be suspended in the water during dredging works. This kind of impact will not be significant, which is proved by the investigations conducted by the Institutes for Water Issues of Russian Academy of Sciences. Below the main results of the IWI RAS are presented. During these works (as it was shown above) the clouds of dissolved and suspended pollutants are being generated especially on the first stage, during the stripping operations. The size of the cloud significantly depends on the thickness of the muddy sediments layer, that consists of the fine dispersal particles (coarse fractions settle quickly on the seabed, their part is negligibly small). Further deepening in the underlying rocks exercises essentially lower impact. As the observations show, the excess turbidity disappears much earlier in the marine waters, which are electrolyte because of fine particles aggregating into the coarse ones, that have high sedimentation rates. The accumulated in the benthic sediments toxic substances by may be partly dissolved by roiling. In case of heavy metals dissolution of the suspended substances depends on the share of the relatively mobile forms of the metals by disturbed soil. Only these forms can transit to the water environment and participate in the mass-transfer processes between seabed and benthic water tables. For oil hydrocarbons, most of which are hydrophobic compounds, transition from suspended into the dissolved state is not likely. On the opposite, dissolved organic matters will be adsorbed at the suspended particles by the increased turbidity and finally will be removed from the water environment after a sedimentation of the turbidity cloud. Thus pursuant the investigations (RAS Institute of Water Issues) within 1 hour settlement significant removal of the oil products from the water takes place, and after 18 hours more than 95% of these pollutants disappears from the water. At calculations of the potential subtraction of the elements from the cloud of suspended substances, generated during the works with soil, the worst case conditions have been taken: calculations have been fulfilled per momentary volumes of the plume areas, gross content of the metals in solid state in these areas were taken by analogy with benthic sediments of the water reservoirs situated in the similar nature conditions. As mobile forms, only ion-exchange forms, and forms associated with organic matter, are considered. Metal forms, associated with the hydroxides Fe and Mn are not seen as potentially dangerous, as by the oxidizing conditions they do not dissolve neither they enter solutions. Heavy metal content in the Baltic waters and their Maximum Allowed Concentrations (PDKs) in the marine water are presented in the table 4.3-6.




Table 4.3-6

Heavy metal content in the Baltic Sea waters and in the pipe-laying area (μg/l)

Elements

Heavy metals concentrations in

the Baltic Sea waters

MAC HM in marine

environment

HM concentrations in Portovaya Bay

area (bottom)

HM concentrations

in Sommers Island area

(bottom) As 0,6-1,3 10,0 - - Mn 50,0 50,0 - - Cd 0,02-0,25 10,0 - - Pb 0,04-1,07 10,0 2,0-7,0 2,0-4,0 Cu 0,66-2,3 5,0 - - Zn 0,87-8,5 50,0 22,0-32,0 12,0-26,0 Cr 0,05-0,4 1,0 - - Ni 0,75-1,4 10,0 - - Fe 0,3-4,4 50,0 10,0-70,0 5,0-22,0 0,002 0,1 0,01-0,1 0,004-0,2

In the table 4.3-7 the average contents of the elements and organic matter in the sands and silts of benthic sediments of the area are shown. Benthic sediments of the planned route are mostly silts with high iron-manganese concretions content. In the table the quantitative evaluation of the element mass in the generated plum of suspended substances is shown as well as that of its part that may transit in the dissolved state and be subtracted from the plume.

Table 4.3-7

Potential amount of mobile forms of the elements subtracted from the plume of suspended substances generated during dredging activities

Concentration in DO, mg/kg

Mass in suspensions, g Mobile forms, % Subtraction from the plume, g

As 4,66 86,7 21 18,21 Mn 520,91 9688 32,2 3119,54 Cd 1,25 23,25 32,1 7,46 Pb 41,35 769 4,8 36,9 Cu 36,63 681,245 4,5 30,66 Zn 162,83 3028,3 28,4 860 Cr 41,96 780,37 3,1 24,2 Ni 30,72 571,33 6 34,28 Fe 55009,43 1023065,3 12,2 6711,2 Hg 0,52 9,67 14 1,35

Table 4.3-8 presents conditions forecast of the water masses heavy metal pollution. These volumes are calculated using the methods of mathematical modelling. The modelling has also estimated volumes of the lotic waters, running through the plume areas within the time interval from 10.1 to 36.9 minutes. These volumes of the water running through the plume are decisive for the evaluation of the pollutants dilution that are subtracted from the suspension.




Table 4.3-8

Forecast of the primary pollution levels of the water masses by the transition of heavy metals from

the solid phase to the marine water along Nord Stream route Heavy metal concentration, μg/l in water

Elements Water volume is 53,100m3

Water volume is 64,626.8 m3


Water volume is 542,368.5m3

Increment Concentration Increment Concentration Increment Concentration Increment Concentration As 0,343 1,643 0,282 1,582 0,0566 1,357 0,0366 1,337




Heavy metal concentration, μg/l in water

Elements Water volume is 53,100m3



Water volume is 542,368.5m3

Increment Concentration Increment Concentration Increment Concentration Increment Concentration Mn 58,75 108,75 48,27 98,27 13,47 63,47 5,71 55,71 Cd 0,14 0,39 0,12 0,37 0,032 0,282 0,014 0,214 Pb 0,69 7,69 0,57 7,57 0,16 7,16 0,07 7,07 Cu 0,58 2,88 0,47 2,77 0,132 2,432 0,006 2,306 Zn 16,22 48,22 13,07 45,07 3,74 35,74 1,58 33,58 Cr 0,46 0,86 0,37 0,77 0,1 0,5 0,04 0,44 Ni 0,68 2,08 0,53 1,93 0,15 1,55 0,06 1,46 Fe 126,9 130,8 103,8 108,2 29,0 33,4 12,37 16,77 Hg 0,03 0,23 0,02 0,22 0,006 0,206 0,003 0,203

Thus, by the performance of dredging works on the Russian section only insignificant and short-term local contamination of the waters by Mn, Fe will be observed and only within the volumes beset with the plume of suspended substances. As follows from the calculations, by the performance of dredging works on the Russian section only insignificant and short-term local contamination of the waters by heavy metals will be observed. As the calculations testify, for the most heavy metals a short-term increasing of concentration in comparison with back-ground values will not be above 1-6% by the big volumes of diluting marine water. Taking into consideration the concentrations of the most heavy metals in the marine water in the pipeline laying area, which are significantly lower than their PDK, small increment of their concentration during the performance of the works can be regarded as insignificant. Thus the seabed disturbance associated with laying of the pipeline shall not be seen as likely to arouse deterioration of the water quality in the area of construction works in Baltic sea practically for all microelements. Impacts on the water quality from the working vessels and waterborne vehicles During operation of the ship power plants (SPP) inevitably the oil containing bilge water and fuel wastage is generated. Bilge waters are generated because of the oil products being spilled through the valves, flanged connections and sealings of the oil and fuel system pumps, through the sealing of the heat-exchangers. Accumulation of the polluted waters in bilges and wells occurs by cleaning of mud-mats and devices, by condensate run-off by the sweating of the walls of engine rooms, inside cleaning and blowdown of vapour generator, etc. Along the bilge waters by the SPP operation wastage of oil products is generated because of their filtration, separation, overflow, oil renewal, repair, etc. Used up rags, fuel and oil filter media may also be sources of oil products inputs. These pollutants will flow into the aquatic environment mostly with the bilge and cleaning waters from the vessels. Pursuant the requirements of Russian and International regulations (International convention on Preventing of Pollution from Vessels, MARPOL 73/78) during performance of construction works in the basin of Gulf of Finland binding collection and utilisation of all oil containing waste waters and domestic waste with the help of special devices is provided. Subsequently there is no marine water pollution by the oil products during construction.




Water consumption and water discharge characteristics 1. Water consumption and water discharge during pressure test Impact on the aquatic environment will also caused by the sea-water intake by cleaning and carrying out of the pipeline pressure test. The whole pipeline is divided into 5 test sections. Test sections are shown in the table 4.3-9.

Table 4.3-9

Test sections of the pipeline Section name Design pressure, MPa Testing pressure, MPa

Russian onshore section 22 24,26 First offshore section from КР0 to КР300 22 24,26

Second offshore section from КР300 to КР675 20 22,05 Third offshore section from КР675 to КР1200 17 18,74

German onshore section 17 18,74 Test of the offshore section will be carried out in several stages. First stage (2010) Upon completion of the construction activities tests of both onshore sections are being carried out together with a PIG launch chamber and also the west pipeline of the offshore section. East pipeline of the offshore section is laid only from the dragging border to KP 5 (seabed depth is 20 m) and will not be tested on the first stage (see figure 4.3-6).

Figure 4.3-6. Design of the Nord Stream pipeline division into the test sections (1 stage) Second stage (2011) Test of the East (second) offshore pipeline is conducted. For the test design of the East pipeline of Nord Stream on the second stage refer Figure 4.3-7.




Figure 4.3-7. Division design of the Nord Stream pipelines into the test sections (2 stage) According to clause 5 of В202 DNV-OS-F101 the offshore pipeline sections will be tested with the sea water pressure of 1,05×1,05~Рр, which makes 24.26 MPa for the first offshore section and 22.05 for the second offshore section. The third offshore section will be tested from the German shore, therefore it is not described in details in this section. Sea water is used for flooding and pressure testing of the offshore section of West and East pipelines. Pressure test water will be extracted in the vicinity of the Russian sector in Portovaya Bay, Gulf of Finland. Intake of the water is similar for both considered stages of pressure test. Balance sheet for water consumption and water discharge is shown in the table 4.3-10. Thus for the first two stages of pressure test 2,578,400 m3 of seawater is required. Filtered and chemically treated seawater is used for flooding of offshore section. To prevent oxygen corrosion in the pipe during the pressure test of the offshore following additives are used:

• sodium bisulphite (NaHSO3) for the oxygen absorption, • sodium hydroxide (NaOH) for the required pH value.

Seawater will be taken from 6 m depth approximately 750-1000 m offshore. Intake sea water will be filtrated and cleaned from the foreign substance bigger than 50 µm. Sediment content in water shall not be above 20 g/m3. A grid will be used in order to avoid the intake of foreign objects, dirt and small fish. After pressure test the used water (2,566,400 m 3)will be discharged under control into the surface layers of the aquatic area in Portovaya Bay of the Gulf of Finland. Calculation of PDS is presented in Appendix 4 (Volume 8. Book 1. Offshore section. Part 2. EP). For the water discharge the pipeline NB 700 is used. Protecting grid will be removed from the frame. Maximal discharge rate is 2.5 m/s.




The remaining volume of cleaning water after two pipeline cleanings is approximately 12,000 m3. All cleaning water will be collected in the settling basin on the German shore (table 4.3-10). Waste waters at receiving of the pigs after the pipeline cleaning from salt will be cleaned in the settling basin with the volume 3000 m3 and discharged into the Portovaya Bay after that. To prevent pollutants input into the soil the basin bottom is paved with the polyethylene film. After sedimentation of the pollutants by the end of the first and second stages the water is pumped from the basin into the Portovaya Bay through the temporary pipeline (1,774 m3 at the end of each stage). Settled water will be purified up to concentration not exceeding PDK and is relatively clean. Thus, no pollution of Portovaya Bay marine environment is expected. After a displacement of the water by the pumps the remaining thickness of the water film on the pipeline surface is about 0.05 mm. To remove the remaining water film the pipeline will be dried. Thus the nonrecoverable losses make about 452 m3 (common for both stages).




Table 4.3-10 Balance sheet for water consumption and water discharge for the cleaning and pressure test of the offshore sections of the pipeline (2010-2011) Water consumption, m3 Water discharge, m3

Name

Fresh water intake on the

German shore, m3

Sea water intake from the Gulf of Finland, m3

Total water consumption

Settling basin on the Russian

shore

Settling basin on the German

shore

Discharge into Portovaya

Bay, Gulf of Finland

Total discharge of waste water

Nonrecoverable-losses, m3

1 Cleaning of the west and east pipelines of the offshore section

- 12 000 12 000 - 12 000 - 12000 -

2 Flooding of the first, second and third offshore sections

- 2 538 000 2 538 000 - - 2 538 000 2 538 000 -

3 Test of the first and second offshore sections

- 28 400 28 400 - - 28 400 28400 -

4 Cleaning of the pipelines from the salt

4 000 - 4 000 3 548 - - 3 548 452

Total 4 000 2 578 400 2 582 400 3 548 12 000 2 566 400 2 581 948 452



Volume 8. Book 1. Off-shore section. Part 1. EIA Page 304

2. Water consumption and water discharge on the vessels Sea water will be also abstracted by the vessels for different purposes. Water on the vessels will be used mostly for service-utility and process needs. For the service-utility needs sea water will be abstracted and then desalted on the vessels. For the estimated costs of water consumption for service-utility needs and wet cleaning of the premises refer to table 4.3-11. The complete list of the vessels is shown in the volume 7, book 1. "Project for building organization of offshore section of the pipeline". Water consumption rates for service-utility needs are approved according to "Sanitary rules floating drilling units", adopted on 23 December 1985 (#4056-85). According to this regulation water consumption rate is: 50 l of drinking water per person per day and 100 l of wash water. Water consumption rate for the wet cleaning of premises are approved according to VSN 199-84 "Projection and construction of the camps for transport builders" (with the self-contained water supply). Thus for the entire period of construction for service-utility needs and for wet cleaning of the premises on the vessels 21,101.43 m3 sea water will be abstracted. Sea water will be also abstracted for the cooling of power plants of the vessels, winches and other mechanisms on boards of the vessels. Water used for that purposes will circulate in the outer contour of the cooling systems and will not be in contact with pollution sources. Discharge rate of waste service and drinking waters is the same as the rate of water consumption (20,968.35 m3 ). Water discharge rate for wet cleaning of premises is 70% from water consumption rate (93.16 m3 ). Remaining 30% are the nonrecoverable losses (see table 4.3-11). Total discharge rate of the water used for service-utility needs for the whole construction period id 14,771.00 m3. For the collection of the household waste waters vessels are equipped with the collecting tank with respective capacity and content volume control. Further household waste waters from vessels will be discharged with the help of fuel vessels and subsequently delivered in the port of arrival. Sea water used for cooling of power plants of the vessels, winches and other vessel devices will be discharged pursuant the requirements of MARPOL 73/78. These waters are regarded as nominally clean and are not considered in the water balance design.




Table 4.3-11

Water consumption and water discharge balance on the vessels

Objects of water consumption

Water consumption Water discharge

Number of the working

days

Number of the

working weeks

Units Quantity Day rate, l

Need Total Nonrecoverable losses

per day, m3

during the constructio

n period, m3

per day, m3

during the construction period,

m3

per day, m3

during the construction period,

m3 Service and drinking needs on the vessels

Vessels performing earthwork in the coastal area 1 person 42 150 6,30 277,20 6,30 277,20 - - 44 -

PLV 1 person 330 150 49,50 6 286,50 49,50 6 286,50 - - 127 - Vessels involved in the pipeline laying 1 person 491 150 73,65 9 353,55 73,65 9 353,55 - - 127 -

Vessels, performing earthworks for elimination of the free spans 1 person 149 150 22,35 5 051,10 22,35 5 051,10 - - 226 -

Totally for the service and drinking needs 151,80 20 968,35 151,80 20 968,35 524

Wet cleaning of the premises Vessels performing earthworks in the coastal area 1m2 1 680 0,2 0,34 2,04 0,24 1,43 0,10 0,61 - 6

PLV 1m2 4 000 0,2 0,80 14,40 0,56 10,08 0,24 4,32 - 18 Vessels involved in the pipeline laying 1m2 26 000 0,2 5,20 93,60 3,64 65,52 1,56 28,08 - 18

Vessels, performing earthworks for the free span elimination 1m2 3 600 0,2 0,72 23,04 0,50 16,13 0,22 6,91 - 32

Totally for wet cleaning of the premises 7,06 133,08 4,94 93,16 2,12 39,92 74

Total 158,86 21 101,43 111,20 14 771,00 47,66 6 330,43




4.3.2. Period of operation


In comparison with a construction period the impact during the operation will not be so significant. On this stage the pipelines, laid on the seabed of the Gulf of Finland, are the main source of technological impact on the marine environment. The main insignificant kind of impact on the marine environment during operation will be the alteration of the chemical composition of sea water resulting from the substances emission from anodes while using the system of corrosion protection. This impact will not be significant and will not lead to the irreversible consequences.

4.3.2.2. Impact assessment During normal operation of the pipelines following kinds of impact on the chemical composition of the waters are possible:

• during the gas leakage by diffusion or in the form of streaming upwards bubbles, that will exchange their gas components with the surrounding water;

• by the metal corrosion of the pipeline and transition of the metals of anode protection to

dissolved state. Since the data of the total losses by the normal operation of the pipelines (losses caused by the water leakage through the welds and pipe-walls) are absent by now, assessments of their impact on the chemistry of the waters is not possible. As it follows from the motion theory of gas bubbles in the stratified liquid dissolution of the gas uprising to the surface has no substantial effect upon the water chemistry. During operation of the pipelines with the passive system of corrosion protection the impact upon the water environment resulting from the substances emitted from the anodes will be insignificant.

4.3.3. Decommissioning phase The impact upon the marine environment during the decommissioning phase will be similar to that executed during the construction. Assessment of the impact on the aquatic environment during the decommissioning phase will be fulfilled in separate project.




4.4. Impact on sea biota of the lower trophic levels and on ichthyofauna


4.4.1.1. Sources and kinds of impact Main sources of the adverse impact on the water biota

in this period will be:

• construction of embankments;

• divestiture of the seabed area, under the embankments;

• development and back-filling of the trench for the pipelines;

• dumping into the temporary underwater dumping areas;

• dredging of the soil from the temporary underwater dumping area for the filling of the trench;

• water intake during the operation of the pump-dredge (in the pulp) and during

hydrotesting. The main factors causing the adverse impact on the biota are: divestiture of the marine area (including the nonrecoverable one), mechanical disruption (by the seabed disturbance) and alteration (by the dumping) of the structure of the soil underlying the seabed, increasing of the water turbidity by all above-mentioned kinds of works, acoustical effect (noise impact from the operating mechanisms) and other physical impacts. water intake as a part of pulp by the operation of technical equipment, alteration of the environment chemistry (different kinds of pollutions and violence of the chemical quality), as well as alteration of the social situation (increasing of the human presence and the associated factors, such as disturbance, poaching etc.). Marine area divestiture (seabed area and the respective water volume), which is inevitable by the construction of the objects in the marine area, reduces the inhabited area of the aquatic organisms including fish and invertebrates that form the food supply for the birds and marine mammals. In the coastal zone, seized for the hydro-technical objects, spawning areas of some fish species are located (in this case that of herring). Divestiture of the coastal shallow waters causes also to the reducing of the grounds where the communities of zooplankton and zoobenthos are developed, which form the food supply for the young fish. Thus, the divestiture of the coastal zone of marine area causes reducing of the feeding grounds of young fish and to the likely reducing of the spawning areas. Mechanical disruption of the seabed structure during the performance of dredging works, removal and displacements of the soil causes disruption of the formed biotopes of the benthic organisms and is accompanied by the complete or partial death of the latter. Impact on the benthic organisms (zoobenthos) is aggravated by the fact that most of these organisms have a sedentary way of life and as opposed, in particular, to the adult fish, cannot abandon the zone of adverse impacts caused by the works. In general the extent of the impact on the coenosis of the benthos depends on the effect duration of the factor and time necessary for its recovery (in a natural way or with help of special measures) [52]. Yet it should be stressed that by the alteration of the soil structure, underlying the bottom, on the damaged zone conditions are to be formed that are appropriate for the survival of benthic fauna, i.e. the new biotope is to be established. Its establishing and inhabiting takes a long time, normally it needs several years (from 3 to 8).




Increasing of the water turbidity is inevitable by the conduction of all above-mentioned hydro-technical works. This factor is adverse to the life of all hydrobionts [166], including both the fish themselves and the invertebrates (plankton and benthos), In spite of the fact, that by the performance of the hydro-technical works the adverse impact of the mineral suspension in the concentrations, lying above the back-ground ones, has mostly temporary character, it causes partial or complete death of the organisms which are the food supply for fish. That saps food resources for the fish and thus violates the normal conditions of the fish resources regeneration [52, 120, 372]. For the marine shelf zone that is deeper than 8 m the increasing of the inert natural mineral suspension is allowed to be not higher than 10.0 mg/l. The indicated norm relates to the underwater rock dumping area. For the most organisms that are food supply for the fish the food source is the suspended in the water (for zooplankton) and precipitated in the seabed (for zoobenthos) living (bacterio- and phytoplankton) and non-living (detritus) organic matter. According to their feeding method these organisms can be subdivided into the filter-feeding and the sedimentators. By the increased turbidity resulting from the soil suspension inhospitable conditions for the survival of plankton and benthic invertebrates are provided, because the vitally important functions of their organisms are disturbed [97, 120, 152-154]. During water intake and as for the pressure test and as a part of pulp the plankton organisms will be impacted from the hydraulic shock (pressure difference), mechanical disruption of the plankton is also possible, as well as a thermal impact. Adverse impact factor upon the hydrobionts will also be the acoustical effects, generated by the pipeline construction, for they may disturb spawning and trophic migrations of fish. During construction and operation of the pipelines, emergency situations excluded, no significant inputs of the pollutants into the water environment is expected (see section 4.3 of this volume). At the same time increasing of the general antropogenic impact upon the offshore section of the pipeline may result in the deterioration of the toxicologic situation, first because of the input of the oil products and other pollutants into the water column, which is caused by the increased water traffic and amount of working mechanisms, used in the hydro-technical activities.

4.4.1.2. Impact assessment Impact on the macrophytes in the littoral zone. Besides of direct loss of the macrophytes meadows in the littoral zone of Portovaya Bay during the construction of the pipelines the adverse impact of the hydro-technical works on the remaining meadows are expected. In particular the investigations conducted on the certain sections of the east part of the Gulf of Finland have testify that the higher aquatic plants species, belonging to the submerge ecotype are very sensitive to the long term effect of the increased water turbidity [372]. Even plants in the coenosis located on the relatively lesser turbidity that survived during the season when the hydro-technical works were carried out, did not put out the next year. That is explained by the fact that the suspension, settling on the leaves, prevented photosynthesis, and the root system of the plants did not have during the wintering enough amount of nutrients, necessary for the vegetation begin the next year.




Impact on the plankton communities. The photosynthetic component of plankton - planktonic algae community is exposed during the hydro-technical works complicated and multidirectional impact. On the one hand the suspension penetrating the water column impacts the optical properties of water, reducing the size of the euphotic zone and adversely impacts the photosynthetic activity of the planktonic algae. On the other hand, the hydro-technical activities contribute to the input of the different substances, including biogenic, from the benthic sediments into the water, which can be stimulating factor for the plankton algae growth. Reaction of the phytoplankton on the increased water turbidity at the sections where during the construction stage the hydro-technical works are performed can exhibit according to several criteria.

• Reducing general taxonomic diversity.

• Change of the general structure of the plankton algae community. As a rule, the amount of species having dominated before commencement of works (in the Gulf of Finland, mostly from the group of cyanobacteria) decreases essentially after the start, population of benthic species, of diatoms of a bigger size, and besides of that of cryptophyte flagellates rises, the latter usually indicate the organic pollution.

• At the dredging section all indicators of the plankton abundance (population, biomass), as

a rule, drop, in the areas of rock dumping after its disposal these indicators grow. Apparently in the latter case the "fertilization effect" takes place due to the input of the biogens from the dumped soil into the water.

• In the area of dredging works the "a" chlorophyl concentrations is normally lower, and

the content of auxiliary pigments: "b", "c" as well as carotinoids, on the contrary, is relatively high. The recorded fact speaks for the decreasing of the physiological activity of phytoplankton in the dredging area. In the rock-dumping areas high concentrations of the "a" chlorophyll are recorded, relatively lower concentrations of carotinoids, which testify high physiological activity of the phyto-plankton and its stimulation by the biogens, that enter the water together with the dumped soil.

• The phytoplankton suppression in the dredging area and its stimulation in the dumping

area is confirmed through the dynamics of the values of day assimilation number (DAN - daily specific chlorophyll production), which characterises the photosynthetic activity of phytoplankton - minimal values are most frequently recorded in the dredging area, the maximal are in the rock-dumping area.




• Alteration of the functional characteristics are often tracked also by the assessment of the

plankton primary production - in the zones of the increased turbidity at the dredging works it drops significantly, in the rock-dumping areas it grows.

In general in the area of hydro-technical works decrease of the functional activity of phytoplankton and suppression of the photosynthesis process are expected because of the increased water turbidity, and in the rock dumping area - stimulation of the phytoplankton by the additional biogen batches is expected, because the biogens enter the water together with the dumped soil. During water intake for different technical needs complete death of phytoplankton is inevitable. The most part of plankton organisms (zooplankton) are the filter-feeders. With increased concentration of mineral suspension in the water they die because of consumption of "heavy" mineral particles, which eliminates buoyancy of the animals. Mineral suspension blocks gill apparatus, hurts it and the plankton animals die from asphyxia. Investigations of plankton in the areas of hydro-technical works accompanied with the increasing of the water turbidity demonstrated that always the abundance of the zooplankton falls (in spite of masking effect of the horizontal transportation), injured and dead animals are being recorded. The longer is the period of the works, the more apparent is the impact (Kaygorodov, 1979; Gorbunova, 1986; Susloparova, 2002; Lavrentieva, 2002). As a result the important member of the food web of the aquatic object drops out, and as a result its fish stocks decline. While filtering organic suspension from the water zooplankton besides of that plats a crucial role in the processes of self cleaning of the aquatic object. Suppression of its activity and death drastically lowers the self cleaning capacity of the aquatic object. Recruitment of the plankton coenosis normally is completed a year after activities cease. Thus by the construction works on the pipelines number of significant alterations of the structure and quantitative characteristics is expected.

• In the zone of increased turbidity the number of all kinds of taxonomic groups of zooplankton takes place (up to 45-60% from the base level). The main losses suffer normally the sedimentators and filter-feeders, maximal losses - armorless rotifer (from the Synchaeta, Polyarthra, Conochilus groups) a little less - small cladoceras (Bosmina, Chydorus, Daphnia groups). The most resistant to the increased turbidity impacts of the water are the copepods. Respectively the "predator" forms increases and the "peaceful" forms decreases in the communities.

• In the plankton composition the benthic forms appear, such as representatives of

Harpacticoida (Canthocamptus sp.) suborder, fam. Chydoridae (species from the Alona, Rhynchotalona, Pleuroxus genera), fam. Macrothricidae (Ilyocriptus trigonellus).




• Increasing of the average size of the individual of community, and as a result - more

significant decrease of the population characteristics in relation to biomass characteristics. In the dredging areas the population and biomass of the zooplankton falls in comparison with the basic, normally, from 2 to dozens, and in some cases hundred times. The brightest manifestations of that are recorded in the autumn period against natural decreasing of quantitative characteristics of the community.

• In the dumping zone by the sampling immediately after disposal and directly at its section

nearly 100% death of zooplankton may be recorded. Due to constant horizontal transportation of the water masses this effect will be temporary. After sedimentation of the coarse suspension at dumping section higher values of zooplankton population and biomass in comparison with neighbor sections may be recorded. The reason for that may be supposedly the outbreak in the phytoplankton growth which causes zooplankton migration to the food reserves.

• Operation of some mechanisms (e.g. suction dredges) presupposes water intake from the

aquatic object. In this case the zooplankton residing in the abstracted water will be impacted adversely. Zooplankton will die in the water intake system because of mechanical disruptions and hydraulic shock.

Impact on the zoobenthic communities. In the increased turbidity zone both in the area of dredging works and in the dumping area the amount of zoobenthic species drops drastically. Molluscs and the secondary water animals, such as chironomids die first. In some cases at the seabed sections where the maximal suspended mineral concentrations were recorded as a result of the works, only oligochaeta survived. In the zones of increased turbidity zoobenthic population as a rule never differs significantly from the back-ground due to the fact, that mostly the large-sized but inconsiderable in number zoobenthic organisms die, the biomass drops to 5-15 times by that. Discussing about the expected reaction of benthic fauna on the increased turbidity of the water along the route by the pipeline construction first shall be stressed that its species composition in the east part of the Gulf of Finland is basically rather poor. Besides of the death of benthic organisms directly at the hydro-technical work site significant part of them will appear in the increased turbidity zone and the precipitated on the seabed mineral suspension will bury existing biotope of the animals, which as a rule will be accompanied with complete or partial death of the latter. Significant part of benthic invertebrates feeds on precipitated from the water column organic suspension. High concentrations of mineral suspension will aggravates their feeding and breathing. Impacts mechanisms of the mineral suspension upon the zoobenthic organisms is analogous to that of zooplankton, the result is similar: benthic biocoenoses are being ruined. In the high water turbidity zone multiple decrease of the amount of benthic organisms is expected. Consequences of that for the fish stocks and the ecosystem in general are similar to those by the death of zooplankton. The recruitment of the benthic coenosis will proceed slowly with losses of some species and decreasing (up to 60% from the baseline value) of the biomass of benthos. In the North-west region the average time of the zoobenthos recruitment is 3-5 years.




Impact on the ichthyofauna. The planned hydro-technical works and their consequences will impact on ichthyofauna representatives directly and indirectly. Excavation works (dredging and trenching) and ground placement on the sea area (trenches back-filling, rock-dumping) cause changes in hydrochemical and physical properties of water environment (washing the contaminants out of the ground, water gas performance degradation and turbidity increasing etc. These factors impact fish directly causing low gas exchange level, being biostatic for fish. The mostly unfavourable it impacts on early stages of their ontogenesis. In addition, in the area of construction activities foraging organisms productivity decreases, and in case of sea area irrevocable seizure the spawning and feeding areas decrease [146]. One of the main negative factors is water turbidity increasing. At high concentration of mineral slurry due to breathing and feeding processes abnormality (availability of food decreases) and also direct traumatic impact, fish growth rate decreases. In addition, spawning efficiency decreases, unfavourable conditions for fish eggs and larvae are created increasing their death. Because of high water turbidity for natural movements and migrations, availability of food decreases. In the regions of conducting of hydro-technical work the decreased numbers of fish, species composition changes and dimensional structure of their populations are recorded. Fish eggs and young larvae are the most sensitive to the negative impact [154]. Acoustic impact. The noise of working mechanisms during construction impacts on fish behaviour; it causes violation of their natural movements (spawning and food migrations, descent of youth etc.) Study of character and effect of each of factors below separately to ichthyocenosis needs scaled long-term researches. Fish habitation conditions describe not only ichthyofauna fullness, its species composition and structure, but influence on ichthyocenosis consistency level. Essential fluctuation of main parameters of coastal and shallow-water zones ichthyocenosis are conditioned by significant mixing of coastal waters in surf zone, small number of shelters and low degree of overgrowing by higher aero-aquatic flora. Only fish population tied in his life cycle to local biotopes has the consistency level high enough and permits estimate the consequences of impact of foreign factors, particularly of dredging activities, with high degree of confidence. Local changes of fish habitation density upon anthropogenic factor are usually accompanied with changes in ichthyofauna species composition. It should be noted that as the situation with fish distribution density, the species structure season changes are more meaningful then differences depending on dredging activities impact to ichthyofauna.




On the other hand, structural parameters analyse of community of fish found both inside the increased turbidity zone and outside it, permits to find substantial alteration in species composition of ichthyocenosis taking place under the action of increased concentration of suspended matter. The sense of the changes is in drastic reduction of number and biomass of family Percidae (perch, pope, pike perch) with relatively stable condition of bream population. At conduction the works in shallow water, density of roach and bleak most commonly decreases while dredging at deeper sections are accompanied with growth of this species biomass number in contamination zone. It was noted before that the region of planned construction maritime area of offshore gas pipeline Nord Stream is one of the most productive areas of eastern part of the Gulf of Finland and is an active fishing zone. In near-shore and deep sections of examined region fishing is performed predominately in spring and autumn periods. Planned construction including conducting of hydro technical work in the area will negatively impact on fish stocks in two main fields:

• indirect - through decreasing of food supply of fish,

• direct - decreasing of effective spawning, interruption of fish natural movements.


4.4.2.1. Sources and types of impact Main sources of impact during the normal (accident-free) operation of the pipeline

• takeover of area of the bottom occupied by the pipeline and volume of water displaced by it as these areas are excluded from aquatic organisms living zone.

• local and insufficient change of chemical composition of the water at gas leakage from

the pipeline by means of diffusion or as bubbles at anode protection metals transition into dissolved form.

4.4.2.2. Impact assessment

There will be virtually no impact on water biota during the normal (accident-free) operation of the pipeline.






Impact sources at pipeline dismantling will be similar to the impact at construction stage.

4.4.3.2. Impact assessment Impact on water biota at pipeline dismantling will be comparable to the impact at construction stage both by space and time. Specific description of the impact and losses calculation will be performed after pipeline dismantling project decisions development and taking into account environment conditions changed during the pipeline operation (50 years).




4.5. Impact on avifauna



The key species main list comprises:

• physical fields actions (thermic, acoustic, electromagnetic etc.) and animals disturbance [272];

• changes of physical and chemical properties of animals areas (see section 4.3 of this

volume);

• changes of biotic components of the area (see section 4.3 of this volume) that acts indirectly through change in condition and availability of food supply;

• change in social situation (human presence increase and associated factors including

disturbance, poaching etc.). The main factor of impact on avifauna within the construction period is disturbance of animals by working vessels and machinery. Use of various types of machinery may also be connected with anthropogenic contaminations connected with substances from fuel combustion emissions. Actions of all these factors are interconnected and in the end create complex impact which will result in avoidance by birds of the works area. However it should be noted that the impact by its character will have temporary and local consequences. Impact on birds during pipeline laying apart from the construction working mode may be connected with incidents. During construction the most characteristic are nautical accidents with vessels (grounding, collision in sea), fires and oil spillage during incidents with vessels (chapter 5 of this volume).

4.5.1.2.Impact assessment In assessment of construction work impact on avifauna it should be taken into account that the region is a shipping hotspot (see "Socioeconomic conditions" section). So the birds that inhabited this area are to some degree adapted to noise and vibration impact that arises due to the waterborne vehicles movement. As it appears from the data adduced in section 4.7 of this volume, noise will be perceived by birds in 2 - 3 km radius. Thus, maximal impact on avifauna will be shown at a distance below up to 0.5 km from the place of the works; at a distance from 0.5 km to 1 km strong impact will appear, at a distance 1 - 2 km the impact on avifauna will be moderate and at a distance from 2 to 3 km the impact on avifauna will be minor.




In the result the impact of the construction taking place in the sea the breeding success decrease or radical change of spatial structure of nesting population of island avifauna and as a consequence reducing of its numbers and productivity is unlikely. Mainly by the case that the islands are distant from the planned pipeline, namely: Bolshoy Fiskar - 2.90 km and Gogland - 2.70 km, and others at the distance over 4 km. The exception is Maly Fiskar located 0.94 km from the proposed Nord Stream route) The island avifauna will be subject to strong impact that be expressed as reduction of densities of the birds nesting on the shore, several individuals will probably use adjacent islands or coast of Gulf of Finland for breeding, i.e. areas very distanced from the work area and not having strong noise emission. It cannot be excluded that in the year of the works some birds may nest in north part of Maly Fiskar, as it is more distant from the place of the works as opposed to the south one. Construction of the marine part of gas pipeline will impact on spring staging sites for waterfowl in the area between Berezovye Islands and Portovaya Bay (see Nature conservation atlas of the Russian part of the Gulf of Finland and also descriptions of spring migrations in section 3.6 of this book. The total number of migrants staying on this area is nearly 800 thousand individuals in spring and 2 to 2.5 million at autumn. As the result of construction works displacement of part of migrating waterfowl staying in the works area, to adjacent parts of Vyborg Bay area is planned, whereas the construction works will not impact on the dominant (north-east) direction of spring migration flow and timeframes of migration. In the autumn migration period the birds will also avoid staging near construction works area, and will use the adjacent parts of Gulf of Finland area for staging and feeding. Oil spills on water surface generated as the result of incidents pose the most danger for migrating birds forming aggregations on sea areas. Feathering is easy contaminated with fuel oil and loses its waterproof features and filling with water and fuel oil does not dry for a long time. Consequently the feathering becomes heavy, birds loose their ability to fly and die in the result of hypothermia. Moreover, petroleum products accumulate in birds’ organism leading to strong poisoning and in some case reproductive abnormalities. From the aforementioned it follows that oil spills on water surface may considerably influence number of migrating birds and in some cases affect the success of breeding of these birds. In order to minimise oil spills at the construction works, compliance with safety and equipment operation rules is necessary. During the normal (accident-free) working mode and, provided all environmental protection measures are taken, technological pollution will be minimal and will not significantly affect birds . Generally the impacts during construction will be short-term and reversible (disturbance, water turbidity, temporal withdrawal and breach of habitats). Nevertheless even in complying with all environmental protection measures the negative impact on avifauna during construction is inevitable. In this connection calculation of damages for birds is provided in the project material (see article 8, v.8, book 1, part 2).





During the incident free operation of Nord Stream sea pipeline its influence on the environment provided the actual technological rules, regulations and environmental protection requirements are being obliged will not result in changes in ecological environment in the gas pipeline area. During the operational phase birds in the pipeline area will be encountered in quantity typical for natural environment in this region. During pipeline operational phase, in working mode, density of gulls and ducks virtually will not differ from their usual density in the sea.


4.5.3.1. Sources of impact Impact sources at pipeline dismantling will be similar to the impact at construction stage, namely:

• disturbance of animals by working ships and mechanisms.

• changes of physical and chemical and also bioproductive properties of habitat;

• through anthropogenic contaminations connected with substances from fuel combustion emissions, spillages of fuels and lubricants.

4.5.3.2. Impact assessment

Impact on avifauna will be comparable with construction stage and will be expressed firstly in avoidance by birds of the working area. Impact on avifauna during decommissioning of the pipeline will be described in more detail within the relevant project.




4.6. Impact on marine mammals



The sources on impact on marine mammals will be first of all the work of machines and mechanisms accompanied with noise disturbing marine mammals and forcing them to avoid working areas. Main list of the key types of impact comprises:

• physical fields actions (thermic, acoustic, electromagnetic etc.);

• changes of physical and chemical properties of animals areas (see section 4.3 of this volume);

• disturbance of animals by working ships and mechanisms.

• changes of biotic components of habitat (see section 4.4 of this volume) that acts

indirectly through change in condition and availability of food supply;

• change in social situation (human presence increase and associated factors including disturbance, poaching etc.).

So, impact on marine mammals at implementation of planned activity may be expressed in their immigration from the areas with noise effects, decreased foraging success because of feeding base shortening (fish and lesser macrozoobentos) and death in the result of poaching. Impact on marine mammals may be strong at the accident situations accompanied with environment contamination (see article 5 of this volume).

4.6.1.2. Impact assessment Impact on marine mammals assessment and based on it losses calculation were performed on the basis of modern information on marine mammals populations condition in Russian part of the Gulf of Finland. Unofrtunately, modern data on number and distribution of marine mammals in Russian waters of the Gulf of Finland are rather scant. The sea and coastal area surveys in the region of planned construction that have been performed during the investigation allow to state absence of stable population of harbour seal in the Russian part of the Gulf of Finland and the stay character of this species as occasional. Hence, it seems difficult to predict impact of this pinnipeds species. For similar reason (occasional character of stay) impact on cetaceans in the region of pipeline construction is assessed as minor. At the process of the project implementation the impact on Baltic ringed seal and grey seal inhabiting in area within the pipeline route will be insufficient. Both of the species are rare and protected in the region in question and within the last years their number has shown a sharp decline. They are included in Red Book of the Russian Federation and Red Book of Leningrad Region.




Ringed seal as far as water warms leaves mainland shore and in the summer uses for rookeries small islands and reefs, so, its summer population is rather dispersed and is not permanently connected with any section of the shore, in this season ringed seal may perform local migrations. The character of ringed seal staying in the works region lets predict insufficient impact on its population at performing the works. The timings of construction of the offshore part of the pipeline (1st June - 1st November) are chosen not to coincide with pupping period when the youth can be significantly damaged. Grey seal uses Halikarti island situated 5-6 km from pipeline route for summer rookeries. This is an important part of habitat used by seals every year at movement time. Taking into account distance from the island to the pipeline route, it is possible to predict that there will be no impact on seals using the island for rookeries, moreover, in summer period and in movement period the seals are not connected with definite section and are less subject to local impacts. Nevertheless, to provide the grey seal herd integrity on Halikarti island it is recommended not to perform construction works near the island in May and July (moulting period). To conclude: The planned pipeline route virtually does not cross the main migration routes of ringed seal and grey seal (see maps in Appendix to chapter 2 of this volume). Taking into account local character of impact of pipeline laying works and existing navigational situation (in conditions of which ringed seal and grey seal inhabit) as well as seals number and distributions in Gulf of Finland, it may be stated that pipeline construction will have no significant negative impact on seasonal migrations and feeding of seals in the Gulf of Finland. On the basis of the surveys made in 2006, including the special seal registrations performed by Biological research institute specialists (in the days of marine mammals international registration 28.05 - 02.06.2006) from the shipboard following the planned pipeline route it may be concluded that in summer period in the Gulf of Finland, within the area adjacent to the planned pipeline route, the seals virtually do not occur with the exception of large rookery on Halikarti island (110 - 130 individuals), situated at the distance 6 km prom the planned pipeline route, but not having permanent character (the herd uses various islands for rookeries in the region). Data establishing presence of seals in Portovaya Bay region in summer period are absent. In winter period grey seal in Russian sea area of Gulf of Finland is solitary (see section 3.7), and ringed seal is predominantly near the coastline where makes dens and pups on ice. According to the information available (see section 3.7) in winter period the basic mass of seals is situated to the south and east of planned pipeline route.




The main places of seals rookeries are situated in central and south sector of Russian part of the Gulf of Finland being on considerable distance from the planned pipeline route and will not be impacted as the result of planned works. Due to existing probability of ships meeting with marine mammals the ships will be equipped with special instructions for the crew on how to handle such situations. The directions forbid purposeful pursuit, frightening away, feeding and any kind of hunting these animals. To minimize the impact on marine mammals the timing of construction of the offshore part of the pipeline is chosen so that the possibility of death of youth and pupping females of seal and destruction of seal dens situated on ice is excluded. The sea works will be performed from June to November, i.e. within the season when sea is free of ice. As the result of analysis of research material and archival data about the modern state of cetaceans in the Russian part of the Gulf of Finland it is possible to conclude that all 4 cetacean species inhabiting the Baltic sea are currently absent in the water area of Russian part of the Gulf of Finland or are encountered here exclusively incidentally. Incidental nature of this group of animals stay within the pipeline construction area does not allow forecasting impact on them. Thus, the data presented as the results of engineering and environmental investigations and sparse literary data on number and seasonal distribution of pinnipeds in the Russian part of the Gulf of Finland allow predicting insignificant impact on this group of marine mammals at the planned pipeline construction period.


4.6.2.1. Sources and types of impact In operational phase sources of impacts on marine mammals are non-existent as during the pipelines operation phase no significant impact of physical are expected (see section 4.7 of this volume).

4.6.2.2. Impact assessment There will be no impact on marine mammals during the normal (accident-free) operation of the pipeline. Impact in accidental situations is examined in article 5 v.8, book 1, part 1.





Impact on marine mammals at pipeline dismantling will be comparable to the impact at construction stage both by space and time. Specific description of the impact and calculation of losses will be performed after development of decisions on the pipeline dismantling project and taking into account environment conditions changed during the pipeline operation (50 years).




4.7. Impact of physical factors

4.7.1. Sources and types of impact

Harmful physical impacts on environment include, first of all, noise, vibration, electromagnetic radiations. As noise considered any untidy, undesirable sound or totality of sounds preventing from perception of useful signals, breaking the silence, impacting harmfully or irritantly on human body, decreasing capacity for work and/or being disturbance factor for animals. Noise impact on environment is characterized by bandwidth and acoustic vibration amplitude. Vibration is a kind of mechanical oscillations spread in solid medium. Vibration affecting biological objects has dual character. In some cases they stimulate vital processes, in other cases they depress them, cause baseless fright, failure of nerve, inadequate response on surrounding environment. Vessels park (towboats, pipe-laying vessels, tankers, supply vessels, etc.) should be noted as one of the main sources of noise and vibrations at construction phases as their main motors and propellers generate underwater noise, whereas the flue-pipes of main motors ventilation and air conditioning systems, bow and stern swashes of vessel on pure water generate air noise. At underwater crossing operation the source of acoustic impact is gas transport in the pipeline. Electromagnetic fields impact on marine biota and humans. Fish is one of the most sensitive to electromagnetic fields. Threshold of sensitivity for it is fewV/m. Impact of electromagnetic fields on neurohumoral system cause metabolic disorder, sensitize organism. The effect of electromagnetic fields is not studied in full-scale just as has not been studied the effect of harmful factors complex acting simultaneously with electromagnetic fields. Normalization of electromagnetic field intensity with respect to human is carried out depending on frequency: with frequency increasing the admissible values of intensity decrease. The sources of electromagnetic fields are waterborne vehicles equipped with radio stations and also other sources - radio communication and broadcasting, microwave radiation used in radar stations, infrared radiation from heating elements and tools, ultraviolet radiation, video terminals and computers.




4.7.2. Assessment of impact of physical factors

The route of offshore section of Russian sector of Nord Stream pipeline passes through an area of high shipping traffic so the ecosystems are adapted to the high background levels of physical factors (noise, vibration, electromagnetic radiation). Noise impact on water ecosystems depends on background noise level of water area, determined by hydrometeorological conditions and depths, as well as the characteristics of noise distribution, damping out and dissipation under certain conditions. In addition, background noise of the water area is determined by the technical equipment and other works in the vicinity of the pipeline. The sea constitutes a rather noisy environment by its very nature. Natural background noise is largely linked to the sea conditions. The results of the multiannual hydrographic surveys indicate that background sea noise has a tendency to rise with increasing wind speed and wave height. Broadband underwater background noise levels and noise levels in predominant frequencies caused by the artificial nature of the various activities associated with shipping, engineering works and directly by industrial activities during the laying of offshore pipeline are presented in Table 4.7-1. In addition, there are noise data to compare with other activities.

Table 4.7-1

Broadband underwater background noise levels and noise levels in predominant frequencies

Source Source levels

Broadband dB re 1 Pa

In predominant frequencies Hz dB re 1 Pa

Background noise, wind < 1 knot 100 60 Wind 11-16 knots 100 97 Wind 22-27 knots 100 102 Intensive ship traffic 50 105 Insignificant ship traffic 50 86 Outlying ship traffic 50 81 Seismic airguns 216-259 50-100 Supply vessels 170 20-100 With guiding headpiece of ship propeller 160 With accessorial propeller on ship nose 180 Large tanker 186 125 177 Supertanker 190-205 70 175 The main types of noise impact on marine ecosystems are:




• underwater noise of vessels caused by ship engines, and propellers;

• underwater noise of vessels caused by dredger;

• air noise of vessels caused by gas-freeing of main engines, ventilation and air

conditioning systems, nose and aft breaking wave on clear water. In assessing the noise impact on the ecosystems it should be noted that the marine biota well perceives sounds in the frequency range about 500 - 600 Hz. Above these frequencies the sensitiveness drops rapidly. Frequencies that exceed 1.5 - 2.0 kHz are not actually accepted. Therefore, noises over 1 kHz have virtually no negative impact on marine biota. Spectrum comparison for the deep and shallow waters shows that above 500 Hz the noise levels in the coastal areas are 5-10 dB higher than in deep-water areas (see Figure 4.7-1). The sound pressure level of the spectrum, dB relative to background value of 0.0002 dyne/cm2

Frequency (Hz)

Figure 4.7-1. Sea noise spectrum

1 - border of the prevalent noise, 2 - the noise from the bubbles and splashing depending on the wind, 3 - low-frequency dependence of the wind in very shallow areas, 4 - serious atmospheric deposition, 5 - noises caused by intensive ship traffic, 6 - noises caused by usual ship traffic in shallow areas, 7 - noises caused by the normal traffic in deep waters, 8 - thermal noise, 9 - general characteristics of noise from earthquakes and explosions, 10 - extrapolation.




I. Intermittent and local impact: 11 - earthquakes and explosions, 12 - biological phenomena, 13 - atmospheric deposition, 14 - ship traffic, industrial activities, 15 - sea ice. II. Prevalent noise: 16 - pressure fluctuations due to turbulent phenomena, 17 - ship traffic, 18 - bubbles and splash (mixing of surface layers), 19 - surface waves (pressure impact of second-order), 20 - background associated with seismic events. Horizontal arrows indicate the approximate frequency range of of different sources impact, the blue figures indicate wind strength (Beaufort Scale). According to survey data in the performing of similar projects the potential negative impact of noise will occur at a distance from a vessel in which within the range of frequencies up to 1 kHz the noise levels from a vessel will exceed more than 20 dB the natural background noise in the water area. The environmentally dangerous area around a noise source is determined by levels of background noise of water area, and by the features of hydrology and bathymetry of route section. The noise level is reduced to background values at a distance of 10-12 km from the construction sites. The noise will be perceived by animals in a 2 ÷ 3 km radius. The impact of acoustic fields and vibrations on marine biota during the construction of the pipeline will be local and episodic in nature, will depend on the animal species, season of the year and reflected in animals leaving from the source of noise. During the normal operation of the pipeline, the impacts on marine biota are minor. The people of Bolshoy Bor area located on the coast of the Gulf of Finland at a distance of approximately 4 km from the site of construction works of Nord Stream offshore pipeline may also be a recipient of the acoustic impacts. Acoustic level dB (A) at the calculation point in the construction site, a subject to noise impact due to vessels operations in water area is defined by the formula (SNiP 2303-2003 «Protection from noise»):

where

sound power level of noise source, dB(А). The maximum level of noise from the propellers of ships does not exceed 180 dB(А). Given the noise dampening in water column the noise level from vessels does not exceed 140 dB(А);

spatial angle (in steradians) of noise emission, 10lgΩ = 8 dB(А);

distance, m, from acoustic point of noise source to the estimated point (the nearest residential area), r = 4000 m;

amendment, dB (A), to the absorption of sound in air, ΔAr = 0.96 dB(А);

increasing the sound level due to sound reflection from large surfaces (ground, wall, corner of two walls), located at a distance from the estimated point of no more than 0.1 r, dB (A), ΔALστρ = 0;

additional reduction in sound level, dB (A), by the elements of the environment, ΔLCА = 0;




sound level decrease in dBA by strips of green planting, as there is a forest between the

construction site and the residential area, the maximum value is adopted = 12 dB(A) in accordance with SNIP 23-03-2003 «Protection from noise».

Predicted noise level in the residential area Bolshoy Bor due to vessels operations in water area of the Bay Portovaya is:

L1A= 140 - 8 - 20lg4000 - 0.96 + 0 - 0 -12 = 46.6 dB(А).

The maximum allowable noise level for residential areas in accordance with the CH 2.2.4/2.1.8.562-96 is 60 dB at night and 70 dB in the daytime. Consequently, the noise level due to vessels operation for a residential area is not higher than health and safety rules and standards. Heat exposure. It is expected that the gas temperature after the compressor station in Vyborg is high (40-60 ° C), which may cause an increase of water and sediment temperature around the pipeline sector close to the Russian coast, and the possible impact on the marine environment of the Gulf of Finland. In order to assess the heat around the projected pipeline to the marine environment, a mathematical modelling of hydrodynamic processes (computational hydrodynamics of continuous environments) was carried out, as set out in the report of Ramboll company «Offshore Pipeline through the Baltic Sea. Memo no. 4.3r. Temperature and difference)) 2007. Modelling was carried out for pipeline sections freely resting on the seabed, and for the pipeline lowered into the seabed. As a result it was found that the thermal impact of the pipeline on the environment is insignificant. Nevertheless, the temperature difference between the pipeline and the environment along the first ten km of the route is 25-35 ° C depending on the initial temperature of gas at the pipeline inlet. When modelling the temperature effects on crossing the coastline near Vyborg, the following initial conditions are adopted: the inlet gas temperature: 60 ° C, water temperature: (-2)°C, sediment temperature:- 0°C, and velocity of sea current - 0.1 m/sec. It is a slight increase of temperature (up to 0,5°C) in adjacent layers of water that is predicted in these conditions for pipeline sections freely lying on the seabed near the coastline crossing in the vicinity of Vyborg. Whereas the temperature impact shows at a distance of 0.5-1 m from the pipeline. The temperature of the sediments around the lowered into the seabed pipeline is slightly increased in the 10-20 cm layer around the pipe, and directly in its vicinity at a distance of several centimetres the maximum increase of temperature can reach 40 ° C. Along the entire route of the Nord Stream gas pipeline in the Russian waters in accordance with the results of calculations a slight temperature impact on the environment will be observed: temperature difference between the Nord Stream pipeline and the environment at a distance of 10 km from the beginning of the pipeline on the Russian coast is (depending on the adopted initial temperature) 30-40 ° C; at a distance of 20 km - 25-30 ° C; at a distance of 30 km - 18-22 ° C; and at a distance of 40 km - 12-25 ° C. Such a slight but steady increase of water temperature will have a positive impact on the marine biota.




4.8. Impact from Industrial and Consumption Wastes

From temporal point of view, all sources of environmental impact can be classified as short-term. They are typical for the period of construction and installation works. The impact on the environment from wastes generated during construction of the pipeline is minimal, since all the waste refers to non-fugative types. The impact of construction and installation work is reversible, as at the end of pipeline laying the water area would no longer be exposed to equipment impacts, and degraded ecosystems would be expected to recover. All places of temporary storage of waste are in line with Russian environmental requirements.

4.8.1. Characteristic of object as a source of waste generation Under construction When carrying out pipeline construction works the industrial and consumption wastes accumulate during the preparation works, and directly during the construction period (running in the pipeline joints on the shore, welding pipe within the water area). During the construction and installation works will be produced the following types of waste:

• Non-sorted scrap ferrous metal;

• steel welding electrode stubs and residues;

• waste from bitumen in hard form;

• waste from the use of vessels (TBT, food waste, operating costs, household discharge wastewaters, etc.).

The reducing of the amount of industrial and consumption wastes to the minimum possible level by the use of modern equipment and advanced technologies is stipulated in the design of offshore pipeline. Operational phase In normal operation of the pipeline the accumulation of any industrial and consumption wastes is not planned, except for possible repair works, which are not considered in this project. Decommissioning phase The waste would not be accumulated if implementing the variant of the pipeline conservation. In complete removal of the pipeline the list of wastes will be similar to the list of wastes in construction, namely:

• Non-sorted scrap ferrous metal;




• steel welding electrode stubs and residues;

• waste from bitumen in hard form;

• waste from the use of vessels (TBT, food waste, operating costs, household

discharge wastewaters, etc.). Due to the fact that for the removal of the pipeline a separate project would be created, the calculation and substantiation of the volume of wastes will be produced in this project.

4.8.2. Calculation and grounds of waste generation volume Wastes' amounts, generated during construction works, are determined by reference to relative quantity of wastes's generation, or to normal construction loss in corresponding materials (except of the shop-built pieceworks) for the whole construction period, with calculating method. The initial information used for evaluation of the waste quantity is data on the volumes of required materials:

Мwaste = Mi х Dpot for: Мi - the volume of required material for whole construction period Dpot - relative degree of waste's generation, i.e. normal construction loss (%), used in accordance with "Reference Documentation on Relative Degrees of Most Important Industrial and Consumption Wastes' Generation", "The Material Consumption in Common Construction Works", "The Material Consumption in Special Construction Works". In the design of waste generation limits projects the following documents were used:

• "Reference Documentation on Relative Degrees of Most Important Industrial and Consumption Wastes' Generation", Moscow, 1996;

• "Collection of Relative Degrees of Industrial and Consumption Wastes' Generation",

Moscow, 1999;

• RDS 82-202-96 "Rules of developing and adopting standards labour organisation losses and material waste during construction";

• RDS 153-39.4-115-01 "Relative standard degrees of waste generation during construction

and operation of production facilities OAO "AK "TransNeft" For more detailed information on evaluation of waste generation's amounts please refer Volume 8 "Environment Protection", Book 1 "Offshore Section", Part 2, and Section 7. Waste amounts are shown in Section 4.8-4 of this Volume.




4.8.3. Determination of a hazard class for wastes

Assignment of hazardous wastes to the hazard class for environment was approved in accordance with Article 14 of the Federal Law "On Industrial and Consumption Wastes", "Criteria of the assignment of hazardous wastes to the hazard class for environment" (MNR RF Order No. 511 dated 15 June 2001), "Federal Classification Registry of Wastes" with appendix (MNR RF Order No. 663 dated 30 July 2003 and MNR RF Order No. 786 dated 2 December 2002). The list of wastes with hazard class and code noted by the FKKO is shown in the table 4.8-1. Wastes are divided into 5 hazard classes with the magnitude of an impact on the environment:

Table 4.8-1

Hazard classes of wastes

Hazard class of wastes Hazard degree of wastes 1st class of hazard Extremely hazardous 2nd class of hazard Highly hazardous 3rd class of hazard Moderately hazardous 4th class of hazard Lowly hazardous 5th class of hazard Almost non-hazardous

Hazard class of wastes was identified with one of the following methods:

• based on the last number of code by FKKO;

• based on the hazard degree of wastes's components (meth. 2001) (MNR RF Order No. 511 dated 15 June 2001 "On the confirmation of the criteria of the assignment of hazardous wastes to the hazard class for environment");

• based on "A temporary classification of toxic industrial wastes and methodological

recommendations for identification of the waste’s class of toxicity" Moscow, 1987, Ministry of Health of the USSR, State committee for science and technology of the USSR (meth. 1987);

• by analogy in "A temporary classification of toxic industrial wastes" (analogy).

Table 4.8-2

List of wastes generated during construction of the object and their hazard classes

Code by FKKO Wastes' name

Waste’s class of hazard to

the environment

Reference book's name

1 2 3 4 351 301 00 01 99 5 Ungraded scrap iron 5 FKKO 351 216 01 01 99 5 Welding electrode remains and stubs 5 FKKO 549 012 00 01 00 4 Solid wastes from bitumen 4 FKKO




Code by FKKO Wastes' name Waste’s class of

hazard to the environment

Reference book's name

1 2 3 4 912 004 00 01 00 4 Ungraded debris from amenity

rooms of organisations (except large) 4 FKKO

912 010 01 00 00 5 Ungraded food wastes from kitchens and public catering organizations

5 FKKO

- Operational wastes 3 М., 2001 - Wastes (sediments) from dump wells

and service-utility runoffs 4 М., 2001




4.8.4. Waste types, physical and chemical features and sites of generation

Wastes' name Site of waste

generation (industrial plant,

facility, technological

operation, machine)

Hazard class of wastes

(FKKO)

Physical and chemical features of the wastes (composition, contents of the elements, condition,

humidity, weight etc)

Wastes quantity (total), t

Wastes using (t) Site, requirements for temporary

waste accumulation

places

Method of removal

(storage) of the wastes Physical

state Component content, %

Dissolvability in water

Volatility Handed over to other

companies

Dumped in storages, mud

depository, landfill sites

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Ungraded scrap iron Construction site, deck of the pipe-

laying vessel

5 Solid Scrap iron - 98%, mechanical

admixtures - 2%

Insoluble Non-fugative

2,604 2,604 - In containers Specialised organisation

Welding electrode remains and stubs

Construction site, deck of the pipe-

laying vessel

5 Solid Scrap iron - 94%, remains of daub -

3%, mud - 3%


9,812 9,812 In containers Specialised organisation

Solid wastes from bitumen

Construction site, deck of the pipe-

laying vessel

4 Solid Bitumen - 98%, mechanical

admixtures - 2%



Ungraded debris from amenity rooms of organisations (except large)

Vessels, wastes from the normal

living activities of the staff

4 Solid Food wastes 40-49%, paper and board 22-30%, polyethylene

films and polymeric

packaging 3-6%, glass waste 2-3%,

others 12-23%



Ungraded food wastes from kitchens and public catering organizations

Vessels, wastes from the normal

living activities of the staff

4 Solid Food wastes 80%, others 20%






Name Site of waste generation

(industrial plant, facility,

technological operation, machine)

Hazard class of wastes

(FKKO)

Physical and chemical features of the wastes (composition, contents of the elements, condition,

humidity, weight etc)

Wastes quantity (total), t

Wastes utilization (t)

Site, requirements

for temporary

waste accumulation

places

Method of removal

(storage) of the wastes

Physical

state Component content, %

Solubility in water

Volatility Handed over

to other companies

Dumped in

storages, mud

depository, landfill

sites 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Operational wastes Maintenance of parts and facilities

4 Solid Paint - 50%, rags - 20%,

engine sediments -

30%



Wastes (sediments) from dump wells and service-utility

runoffs

Wastes from the normal living

activities of the staff

4 Liquid Sand, iron oxides, oil products -

12%, water 70%,

Other - 18%

Solute Non-fugative

21 049,93 21 049,93 In tanks Delivered in port




4.8.5. Requirements for temporary waste accumulation places

Scrap and waste of iron are collected into containers on the pipe-laying vessel and delivered to VtorCherMet for the subsequent disposal in port of registration or in contractor organization's harbour. It is not allowed:

• inputs of others wastes in iron waste, as it significantly hampers its further recycling. Solid domestic waste, food waste and operational waste are collected and delivered in the port. Used oil is collected into vessels with closable lids. The containers for used oil storage must be placed on metal pallets. It is not allowed:

• overflow of vessels for used oil storage and its exuding;

• input of water into the vessels for oil storage. Waste in the form of rugs, polluted with oils, is collected at the point of its generation in special closed containers complying with fire safety rules. Wastes generated on vessels are dispensed by special organisation. Temporary accumulation places for wastes in the form of vehicles polluted with oils must be equipped with fire fighting equipment. It is not allowed:

• input of oiled rugs in containers for SDW or any other types of wastes;

• input of foreign objects into the containers for oiled rugs accumulation;

• violation of fire safety rules during the waste storage. The project includes measures to handling industrial and consumption wastes, offering to minimise the environmental impact during construction and installation work. For more detailed information on environmental protective measures please refer Volume 8, Book 1 "Environment Protection at the Offshore Section", Part 2 EIA, Section 7. Payments for industrial and consumption wastes disposal are calculated in Volume 8, Book 1 "Environment Protection at the Offshore Section", Part 2 EIA, Section 8.3.




4.9. Impacts on the socioeconomic environment

The project in general is set to have a positive impact on the situation in the socioeconomic sphere (amongst economic impact of Europe’s natural gas supplies itself). Construction and, partly, operation of the Nord Stream pipeline will result in creation of new jobs. Taking into consideration that approximately 5,000 people in the area of Vyborg search for work and 1000 are registered as unemployed, new workplaces creation will allow to resolve the problem of employment of local people. Average wages increase too due to appearance of relatively high paid staff. Construction of the gas pipelines will require intensification of the local mineral extraction (sands and gravel), expansion of the food export market, resulting positive impact on local life and economics of the region in general. However, some negative impact on certain aspects of economic activities cannot be neglected. Primarily the pipeline construction will entail temporary deterioration of conditions for fishery. Damage to fishing will be composed of the damage to fish stocks by water pollution with suspended matter during trenching operations, post-trenching, embankment construction, gravel supports for free spans elimination installing, etc, (calculations are detailed in Chapter 4.4 of this Book, and in Chapter 5.2, Volume 8, Book 2), and of the damage, difficult to assess, resulted by obstructing fishing vessels due to temporary exclusion of areas around lay barges. However, the fact that new substrates, resulted by construction (pipelines' surface itself, gravel supports etc), is known due to experience of construction and operation of pipelines in the North Sea and in other areas to be rapidly colonised by benthos, macrophytes, cannot be neglected. This, in turn, develops favourable conditions for benthos feeding fishes, and subsequently has a positive impact on fishing. Unfortunately there are no methods of quantitative assessment of this positive impact. While the Gulf of Finland is a shipping hotspot, the main traffic sailing routes are located to the south from the projected pipeline. Therefore, establishment of safety zones around the pipe-laying vessels (where unauthorised vessels are not permitted to enter) and safety zones along the route of the pipeline operation (where no vessel are permitted to anchoring) will have no impact on the shipping. During construction and commissioning (pressure test) phases, noise, producing by vessels and machines, will have some impact on recreation in the coastal area. Due to the absence of the tourist infrastructure objects (recreation houses, hotel complexes etc) in the area, it will impact non-organised recreation only - resting Vyborg and St Petersburg's population in Bolshoy Bor. The same factors will impact on the residency comfort of local population in the residential area (13 people), though severity of the impacts (refer to Chapter 4.7 of this Book) suggest that the construction will not threaten the sanitary-epidemiological well-being, both local and vacationist's.




There are some archaeological features on the bottom of the Gulf of Finland in the construction area - wrecks and rigging parts. The construction corridor had been primarily surveyed with the magnetometers method, SSS (side-scan sonar), all targets had been inspected with ROV (Remotely Operated underwater Vehicle) in order to prevent possible impact on these cultural heritage artefacts and the monuments destruction. Archaeological assessment, compiled by the Institute of Material Culture History of the Russian Academy of Sciences (refer to Volume 14) has approved the status of the located objects, based on this, Leningrad Region Culture Committee confirmed the pipeline's route provided that the distance between each of the runs' centreline and the discovered objects should be more than 100 m, and it should be more than 50 m in places with relief, which does not permit lager distance. The result of the corrections of the pipeline route was that the requirement of the Culture Committee has been regarded: distance from the pipeline route to the discovered cultural heritage artefacts is more than 100 m in all cases, but the one where relief of the bottom did not permit to move the pipeline away more than 50 m from a discovered wooden wreck. The confirmed pipeline route with regard to discovered objects is shown on Fig. 4.9-1. Fig. 4.9-2 shows pipe-laying at the maximal possible distance (50 m) from the object G_07_e173 involving complex conditions of bottom relief. During the construction of the pipeline near the cultural heritage artefacts super-accurate pipe-laying will be employed and dredging or other excavation works are excluded from the Project in order to decrease negative impact. The construction of the pipeline will not therefore result in impacts on the cultural heritage artefacts. It is also important to note that it is the surveys carried out in the framework of the Nord Stream project, that allowed to discover previously unknown archaeological sites, which have both cultural and scientific values.




Figure 4.9-1. Cultural Heritage Sites with Regard to the Pipeline Route.




Figure 4.9-2. The Pipeline Route Correction Near the Object G_07_e173. The Radius of the Circle is 50 m.




4.10. Transboundary Impacts

Analysis of the potential environmental impacts during implementation of the Nord Stream project shows that proposed activity in general might cause only insignificant transboundary impact. During the construction phase some transboundary effect may be caused by the following activities and related impacts: Atmospheric transport of substances from fuel combustion in power source of pipe-laying and support vessels. It may cause insignificant air pollution increasing over the waters of Estonian EEZ and, less likely, due to domination of north-easterly winds, of the Finish one. The impact of СО and СО2 emission on the global climate will be insignificant due to the negligible emissions' amount. Transport with currents of the bottom sediments disturbed during excavation works. The spreading of the suspends may be observed with a range beyond from 1 to 3 km from the sites of intervention works. There are no reported strong currents in the construction area; Portovaya Bay, where the main excavations will take place, is semi-enclosed area, and the distance from the area to the Finish and Estonian EEZ boarder is much larger than even maximal possible distance of suspend transport; the suspend transport therefore will not be observed. When carrying out large-scale post-trenching during the fourth stage, the concentrations of 10 mg/l of added suspension may occur at distances up to 2 km from the source. The prevailing direction of suspended matter spreading is the direction along the pipeline route, as it coincides with the predominant direction of currents in this area. The position of the contour line with a suspension concentration of 10 mg/l does not exceed from 300 to 500 m from the pipeline across the route. As the post trenching is up to 120 km from the route, there will be no transboundary impact. Spillage of diesel fuel and other oil products caused by accidents (collisions etc) of the lay barge and support vessels. Oil spillage may exceed the border of the construction area, and, if the appropriate measures of the emergency situation's liquidation were not taken, reach the EEZ of adjoining countries. However, it should be noted that such accidents are highly unlikely due to application of the system of vessel movements' management in the Gulf of Finland (GOPREP), establishment of safety zones around the pipe-laying vessels (that makes the vessels collisions with third parties unlikely), using of superior navigation systems, using of double-hulled tankers to carry the fuel for the pipe-laying vessels, taking appropriate measures to prevent and liquidate emergency situations (see Section 5).




During the operational phase of the Nord Stream gas pipeline offshore section, an accidental gas release (failure of the pipeline) is the only impact that may have a transboundary effect. Such an accident results in natural gas streams reaching the sea surface and forming an ascending plume of gas above the surface which mixing with the surrounding air disperses above the area (see Volume 11. Book 2. Estimates explanatory report of the Industrial Safety Declaration). In these circumstances, a sufficiently significant amount of the greenhouse gas methane (around 216,621.8 t) may release in atmosphere within the short term. Although the gas cloud formed on the sea surface is inflammable, its explosion is unlikely, since there are virtually no ignition sources on the sea surface, and ignition of the cloud by an accidental sparks or by lightning strike is very unlikely. It should be noted that dispersion of natural gas into the atmosphere, caused by pipeline failure, may occur to be a significant factor, having impact on content of the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere of the countries in the Baltic Region and on the accordance with the obligations of the Kyoto Protocol. However, failure probability on offshore Russian section of the route is low (9.16Е-03), in other words, 0.9 failures are expected to happen per 100 years of pipeline operation (see G-GE-PIE-REP-102-00085203-02. Risk Assessment Report Offshore).


PITER GAS NO. 36/07-01- TEO-OOC-0801(1)-S6 NORD STREAM No. G-PE-LFR-EIA-101-08010100-06

Volume 8. Book 1. Off-shore section. Part 1. EIA Page340

5. PREDICTION AND MEASURES TO PREVENT AND ERADICATE

ACCIDENT SITUATIONS An accident is understood to be the failure of facilities and (or) technical equipment used on a dangerous production object, an uncontrolled explosion and (or) emission of hazardous substances. Accidents can be caused by acts of nature or be man-made. As a rule, they are of an arbitrary and random nature. Therefore, for every potential type of accident, the probability of its occurrence can be determined, which is linked with an understanding of the risk. One of the main objectives of the analysis and assessment of risks is to prove that the risks are reduced to a practically reasonable level for the object considered. The assessment of potential danger of the planned gas pipeline in the current stage of planning was based on the determination of the maximum threat, i.e. the identification of the accident development scenarios with the worst impact on the environment during the stages of construction and use. From the perspective of assessing the maximum damage, this section considers the most unfavourable variants of potential accident situations connected with a tanker accident or gas pipeline explosion. The section was prepared on the basis of work conducted by OOO Piter Gaz as part of a preliminary identification of dangers and assessment of risks, which was carried out for the Russian sector of the Nord Stream sea gas pipeline to be laid on the bed of the Baltic Sea.

5.1. Construction period

5.1.1. Principal project characteristics and dangers occurring during the implementation of the project

When assessing the risks linked to the construction of the Nord Stream gas pipeline, mainly data from prior experience of constructing and using similar objects in the North Sea and the Gulf of Mexico were used. Furthermore, systematic statistical data on accidents in maritime transport were also used. The data used constitute sufficiently reliable information. However, as a result of differences between the conditions of use in different regions, the results of the risk assessment cannot be considered to be absolutely precise. They enable a sufficiently reliable assessment of the order of magnitude and obtaining the level of risk. When considering this project, it was established that the principal reasons for an accident during the construction of the gas pipeline may be:

• An exit from the equipment system of floating craft used during construction;

• Errors of the staff or team of tank vessels;

• Extreme acts of nature (weather, commotion, fog, etc.).

• Extreme acts of nature (weather, commotion, fog, etc.).




According to statistics, 70-80% of accidents are caused by human failure. The main reasons which may cause an accident with vessels involving an oil spill are:

• A collision of floating craft;

• A grounding of a vessel;

• Fire and explosions on the floating craft;

• A destruction of the body of floating craft as a result of impact from wind-wave loads.

5.1.2. Analysis of risks of a spill of hydrocarbons during the construction of the Nord Stream gas pipeline

A detailed analysis of the risk oil product spills due to accidents during the construction of the sea section of of the Russian part of the Nord Stream gas pipeline represents overall a very complex task and can only be carried out when drafting a plan to eradicate accidental spills of oil products during construction. This analysis must include the methods of risk analysis, such as: the check list method, an analysis of danger and working capacity, an analysis of the types and consequences of failures, an analysis of the graphs of failures and events and a quantitative risk analysis. The rulings of the Russian Federation Government of 21 August 2000 (No. 613) and 15 April 2002 (No. 240) establish the Main requirements for the development of plans for the warning of and eradication of accidental oil and oil product spills and the Rules of organising measures for the warning of and eradication of oil and oil product spills in the Russian Federation. In accordance with these documents as well as Order No. 156 of the Ministry of Natural Resources of the Russian Federation of 03.03.2003, oil and oil product spills are classified as emergency situations and eradicated in accordance with the oil spill contingency plan (PLARN). PLARN is developed in accordance with the applicable legal acts, taking into account the maximum possible volume of spilled oil and oil products, which is specified for the following objects:

• oil vessel - 2 tanks;

• oil barge - 50 per cents of its total tonnage;

• stationary and floating extraction units and oil terminals – 1,500 tonnes;

• tanker lorry – 100 per cent of the volume;

• transportation by rail – 50 per cent of the total volume of the tanks on the train;

• pipelines in the event of leaks – 25 per cent of the maximum volume of throughput over 6 hours and the volume of oil between the blocking valves in the burst section of the pipeline;

• pipelines in the event of puncture - 2 per cent of the maximum amount of

throughput over 14 days.




Depending on the volume of the oil or oil product spill in the sea, the following categories are assigned to emergency situations:

• local significance – low level of oil and oil products spill (determined by a specially authorised federal executive body in the area of environmental protection) up to 500 tonnes of oil and oil products;

• regional significance – spill of 500 to 5000 tonnes of oil and oil products;

• federal significance – spill in excess of 5000 tonnes of oil and oil products.

On the basis of the location of the spill and hydrometeorological conditions, the emergency situation category may be increased. The risks of oil spills were assessed on the basis of a conservative, integrated approach. The main information was that on previous accidents during the construction of sea gas pipelines in connection with accidents of pipe-laying barges when laying a pipeline, dredge ships, supply ships, during the conducting of dredging work, transporting loads and assembly/disassembly work. When assessing the risks, the governing norms and industrial recommendations were taken into account, as specified in the collection of sources stated in Table 5.1-1.

Table 5.1-1

List of sources of statistical information on hydrocarbon spills Name Description 1 R. I. Vyakhirev, B. A. Nikitin, D. A. Mirzoev Development

and exploration of oil and gas deposits. M., Publishing House of the Academy of Mining, 1999

Statistical information on accidents on the sea shelf

2 Information on the reliability of the classification society of Norway, Veritas, DNV, WOAD -98

Statistical information on accidents on the sea shelf

3 Statistical information from HSE UK Assessment of consequences 4 Information of the US State Department (Mineral Resources

Service, 1991). Statistical information on accidents on the sea shelf

5 Oil in the sea. Input, Fates and Effects. The National Academies Press. Washington, DC, 2003

Information on the volumes of oil in the sea

The conception of the risk assessment for the planned facility means that the facility considered must be planned in such a way that the threshold of the initial risk as specified as acceptable or permissible must not be exceeded. Depending on the number of people injured in accidents, level of disruption of the habitable conditions and amounts of material and environmental damage, accident situations are classified in accordance with the Provisions on the classification of emergency situations caused by nature or technology. Ministry of Natural Resources, 1996 as follows:

• local;

• areal;




• territorial;

• regional;

• federal;

• cross-border.

The environmental conditions in areas of accident (emergency) situations is characterised in accordance with the Criteria of assessing the ecological conditions of territories in order to define areas of an emergency ecological situation and zones of ecological disaster (RF Ministry of Natural Resources, 1992) as follows:

• relatively satisfactory;

• strained;

• critical;

• crisis;

• catastrophic. In order to assess extremely high levels of environmental pollution, the following special criteria have been developed. In particular, for sea waters the following indicators are used:

• maximum one-off content for standard substances of danger classes 1 and 2 in concentrations not exceeding the maximum contamination level five-fold or more, and for substances of danger classes 3-4 fifty-fold or more;

• occurrence of smells not inherent to water, with an intensity of more than 4 points;

• covering with a film (oil, grease or other origin) of more than 1/3 of the water body

surface with its area ranging up to 6 km2;

• drop of the level of dissolved oxygen in the water up to 2 or less mg/l;

• increase in the biochemical consumption of oxygen (BCO) in excess of 40 mg/l;

• mass perishing of fish, molluscs, crabs, algae and water flora, etc. When assessing the admissibility of environmental risks, two keywords are used, one of which is linked to the probability of an accident and its consequences and the other to its scale. The criteria used for the risks of accidents in terms of the probability of their occurrence are specified in Table 5.1-2, and the categories of the scales of accidents are in Table 5.1-3.




Table 5.1-2

Categories of accidents and frequency of their implementation

Category Accident characteristics

Frequency of the occurrence of

accidents in the events per year

Description

1 Practically impossible

<10-6 An event of this type has virtually never taken place, but is not ruled out

2 Rare 10-6 ÷10-4 Such events have taken place on a global scale, but only a couple of times

3 Unlikely 10-4 ÷10-2 Such an accident occurs, but is unlikely over the term of implementing the project

4 Likely 10-2 ÷1 It is possible that such an accident will occur over the term of implementing the project

5 Practically inevitable

>1 May occur, on average, more frequently than once a year

Table 5.1-3

Categories of the scales of the consequences of accidents Category Consequences Description

1 Insignificant • does not affect the health and safety of the population; • no injury on the facility; • no damage to the facility; • does not affect natural resources; • oil spill up to 1.0 m3.

2 Minor • no serious injury to or death of people; • minor damage to the facility; • no down time; • minor, short-term impact on natural resources; • oil spill of 1-40 m3.

3 Severe • severe injuries to and death of people on the facility possible, but no threat to the health and life of the public;

• significant, negative, but ultimately reversible impact on several natural resources;

• some damage is caused to the non-production facilities on the shore;

• oil spill of 40-400 m3. 4 Catastrophic • injuries to and death of a small number of the local population or

injuries to and death of a large number of workers on the facility; • significant damage to facilities; significant and long-term damage

is caused to two or more natural resources; • oil spill in excess of 400 m3.

In the distribution model of Poisson the probability P (n, T) of the occurrence п of accidents of a certain scale (for instance, more than 1 m3) during the time interval T depending on the average number λ of accidents in the time unit (usually a year) is determined in the formula:

The probability that the accident will not occur (n=0) is equal:




while the assessment of the risk of accident for the period T is:

For instance, if during the carrying out of a certain operation on average one accident with an oil spill occurs over 100 years (1=0.01), which is equal to an accident on one of 100 similar facilities on the sea shelf per year, the probability of such an accident for the period in 0.5 years is 4.98 10-3 and the risk 4.98 10-3. The probability of two accidents (and the scale of risk) for the same period is 1.24 10-5. The example specified shows that for small amounts the Poisson λT model provides virtually coinciding levels of the probability of the occurrence of one accident and risk, which are sufficiently precisely assessed by the value: λТ (in the reviewed case Р (п=1, T) = R = λТ = 5 10-3). In virtually all cases considered below λT<<1. It is therefore possible to use the interrelation Р(n=1, Т) = R = λT. Parameter 1 can be a certain function of the scale of the accident. For instance, in the event of oil spills, its value is reduced when increasing the amount of oil spilled. Parameter 1 has the maximum value if accidents with any small amount of spill are considered as the event when conducting operations characterising the specific type of production activity. If parameter λ is a function of the mass of the spill, the expression (2.3) provides the probability of exceeding the set amount of the spill, while the function

can be considered to be the function of distributing the probability of the scales of the spill during the set period of time. If the risks are considered over one year, then

The next step is to determine the suitable dependence of parameter λ of the scale of the spill; one possible approach is the following:

In this event the distribution (2.5) has the Freshe distribution type

The task of the statistical analysis is to assess the parameters m, β.




The results of the analysis conducted are specified as a risk curve for material losses (F/G curve) in Fig. 5.1-1. This curve describes the probability of the occurrence of accidents, in which the scale of spill is larger than a certain value. When analysing the chart (Fig. 5.1.-1), the conclusion can be drawn that waste water from accidents with volumes in excess of 100 m3 are categorised as rare events. During construction, oil vessel - Bunkerovshik-5 - total capacity of 8 oil tanks, comprising 3424 cub m will be used. Accordingly, the volume of one tank is 428 cub m, while the volume of 2 tanks is 856 cub m. As such, an event of damage to two bunker tanks and leakage of the respective amount of oil of the vessels mainly used can be essentially categorised as events occurring on a global scale, but only a couple of times. During transport operations for the delivery of cargo and removal of waste, short-term weather forecasts will be used which are sufficiently accurate, for which reason the risks of accidents and discharges related to them will be even smaller.

Fig. 5.1-1. Probability of hydrocarbon spill in excess of the set values over the course of a year

Taking into account the assessment obtained when modelling spills, it can be recommended that values of approx. 1 tonne, 10 tonnes, 50 tonnes, 100 tonnes, 45 tonnes and 856 tonnes be used. The last spill value has a small probability. It complies with the volume of two tanks of an oil vessel, and is used in modelling in accordance with ruling No. 613 of 21 August 2000 of the RF Government. When modelling the various spill scenarios, it can be assumed that they occur in the area of the Russian section of the line and they last 1-2 hours. A detailed description of the methods of creating the causes for environmental risks can be found in the Environmental risk assessment report and mathematical modelling of the spread of oil spills in a sea environment during the construction of the Russian section of the Nord Stream sea gas pipeline and is available in the archive of OOO Piter Gaz.

5.1.3. Environmental risk assessment The method of calculating the possible spread of oil in the event of an accidental spill is based on the model simulation of possible scenarios of oil behaviour under the set hydrometeorological conditions.




The assessments of the spread of accidental oil spills in a water environment are conducted separately for on-going and extraordinary oil spills. The set hydrometeorological conditions (wind and current causes, including tides) imitate the hydrometeorological situations which are typical, and sometimes extreme, for the Baltic Sea. It is assumed that an oil spill may occur with the equal probability at any time of a given hydrometereological situation. The meteorological situation to be used for the assessments may be developed on the basis of an analysis of the long-standing data of synoptic observations. With the continuous and sufficiently long-standing data on the causes for ground wind and pressure and sea current calculated on the basis of a mathematical model in accordance with these causes, a selection of equally likely scenarios of hydrometeorological conditions can be developed. The following main stages of conduct oil spread assessments after accidental leakage into the sea can be emphasised. 1. Preparation of scenarios of hydrometeorological conditions on the basis of an analysis of archive data and a reconstruction of missing information with the help of mathematical models, including a model for the calculation of ground wind causes, sea current models and other models required to fulfil specific tasks. 2. Preparation of scenarios of possible accidental oil leakage into the sea environment during transport operations in the waters of the Baltic Sea on the basis of an analysis of spill risks. A calculation of the probability of the occurrence of accidental hydrocarbon spills of various volumes on the basis of

statistical data. To this end, this paper uses the Freshe distribution , which provides the probability of the occurrence of a spill over a year of a specified volume (1/year). Example F/G – a risk curve for material losses is specified in Figure 5.1-1. 3. Trajectory analysis: determination of the conditions for the probability of oil slick transfer to various points of the waters and coastal area. Calculation of possible trajectories for the carrying over of contamination and their subsequent analysis in order to establish where the trajectories of oil slick movements cross environmentally vulnerable facilities on the coast and waters. This is conducted excluding the probability oil volumes or weathering, based on the modelling of movement markers under the influence of hydrodynamic factors (wind, current). Approximation of these probabilities for various

moments of the analysis. Determination of the spread parameters 4. Calculation of the processes of the physical and chemical transformation of an oil spill, on the account of which part of the oil fractions enter into the atmosphere as a result of evaporation and is spread as atmospheric pollution and part of the oil enters as water-in-oil emulsion into the water column and forms inter-mass pollution of the water environment. Calculation of the weathering characteristics in average conditions and specific environmental parameter values. Obtaining of a weathering tables characterising the amount of oil remaining on the surface, evaporating and dispersed in the water and transformation of its properties.




5. Calculation on the basis of a "weathering functions" weathering model, dependence of the oil mass remaining on the water on the time or inverse function of the time passed of the oil remaining on the

water in the form of . 6. Determination of the conditional probability of mass transfer greater than that set in the region of

the waters and the coastal area in the form of 7. Statistical processing of the results of calculating the oil spread trajectory taking into account the results of calculating the physical and chemical transformation of an oil spill in a sea environment in order to determine the areas contaminated by the oil spill, water sections for specific time intervals, breakdown of times of reaching coastal areas and contamination of coastal sections in various hydrometeorological situations. Determination of risk causes, i.e. calculation of the probability of oil mass transfer greater than the set value m into specific sections of the waters and/or coast over one year in the form of the following loss function

In order to conduct numerical calculations of the Baltic Sea's current and spread of oil, the wind data of an entire year were prepared. The following was used as the initial information: NCEP/NCAR re-analysis archive for 2006. To calculate the currents which comply with the tidal impacts and prepared causes of ground wind regarded as typical for the region of the Baltic Sea, a three-dimensional barocline model was used.

5.1.3.1. Trajectory analysis of the causes for the environmental risks of oil spills A mathematical modelling of the possible spread of oil from the source of an accidental leakage located in the region of the route of the Russian section of the Nord Stream gas pipeline in the Baltic Sea was conducted on the basis of 1360 equally likely scenarios of meteorological conditions set according to the data of the meteorological conditions of an entire "typical year". Using the trajectory model, the regions were specified which are vulnerable to oil spills. The calculations were carried out at the control points specified in Figure 5.1-2.




Fig. 5.1-2. Location of the spill control point. In order to assess the probability of a transfer of oil spills to the Russia's territorial waters, point I is selected, which is located in the centre of the gas pipeline's Russian section. Figures 5.1- 3 and 5.1-4 specify the results of modelling the possible spread of oil from the source of an accidental leakage with two value types:

• the probability of slick transfer to the various regions of the waters;

• minimum time of reaching these regions or the coast. It must be noted that at this stage the trajectory analysis is carried out without taking into account weathering characteristics only on the basis of the movement of markers under the influence of wind and currents. The configuration of the probability causes and risk zones (times of reaching) in the various regions of the sea is determined by the space and time structure of the cause and the according current causes. In coastal areas the risk zones change in accordance with the characteristics of littoral circulation and the influence of coastal features.










Fig. 5.1-3. Conditional probability of an oil spill transfer to the various regions of the waters

over a year in the event of an oil spill calculated in respect of a typical meteorological year: a – after 10 hours, b – after 50 hours, c – after 100 hours, d – after 200 hours and e – after 480 hours.




Fig. 5.1-4. Times of reaching various sections of the waters in the event of an oil spill calculated in respect of a typical meteorological year: a - waters, b – coast line.

Probability distribution analysis for the transfer of oil spills to various points in the waters (Fig. 5.1-3) and risk calculation zones (minimum time of reaching) (Fig. 5.1-4) reveals the following:

• in the first 10 hours the oil spill spread area is no more than 10-15 km from the point of spill and the probability of reaching the coast does not exceed 0.01;

• the oil slick may reach the northern and southern coasts of the Gulf of Finland within

approx. 50 hours, in particular the regions of Helsinki will be reached within approx. 100 hours;

• judging from the calculation results, under no conditions can oil contamination reach

the region of the Baltic proper, the Gulf of Bothnia or the Gulf of Riga;

• The calculations show that the probability of transfer of a spill to the territorial waters of Latvia, Lithuania and, in particular, Poland is small. The conditional probability is below 10-5, the absolute probability, taking into account the occurrence of several independent events of minor probability, is below 10-9 and is categorised as an virtually impossible event. More significant is the conditional probability of a spill transfer to the territorial waters of Finland and Estonia (approx. < 10-2). Simultaneously, the absolute probability (taking into account the occurrence of several independent events of minor probability) of penetration into the territorial waters of these countries of significant volumes of oil is small (< 5 ·10-7) and is also categorised as a virtually impossible event.

A description of the model for the possible spread of oil from the source of the accidental leakage at control points, calculations and detailed modelling results are presented in volume Environmental risk assessment and mathematical modelling of the spread of oil spills in a sea environment during the construction of the Russian section of the Nord Stream sea gas pipeline and is available in the archive of OOO Piter Gaz.




5.1.3.2. Oil weathering assessment

The calculations of the physical and chemical transformation of an oil spill were conducted for an average temperature of the environment of 10° C in the in the regions of the Baltic Sea considered and are presented in the volume Environmental risk assessment and mathematical modelling of the spread of oil spills in a sea environment during the construction of the Russian section of the Nord Stream sea gas pipeline. An analysis of the data obtained shows that at average winds (6m/sec) approx. 40% of the oil remains on the surface and 60% is weathered. At winds of more than 9m/sec, the amount of oil remaining on the surface is less than 22%. The hydrocarbons composition used for modelling is characterised by a rather large content of heavy fractions and its characteristics are similar to rather heavy oil (Fig. 5.1-5, Group 4).

Fig. 5.1-5. Weathering characteristics of various types of oil

Table 5.1-5

Characteristics of various types of oil per consistency level Group Relative weight Examples

Group I < 0,8 gasoline, kerosene Group II 0,8 - 0,85 crude oil at deposits in Abu Dhabi, gas oil Group III 0,85-0,95 Arabic crude oil, oil in deposits of the North Sea, for instance

Forties Group IV > 0,95 heavy fuel oil It was established by calculations that the mass of the water which may emulsify in the oil is 70% of the oil's mass. The viscosity is also increased due to the processes of evaporation and emulsification and may reach 20 times the value of the initial composition's viscosity. The characteristics of calculating the weathering of an oil spill (diesel oil) drifting in the waters at various wind speeds ranging from 3-12 m/sec are listed in Table 5.1-6.




Table 5.1-6

Change of the main characteristics of an accidental oil spill and contamination of the sea for a leakage volume of 856 m3 at a sea surface temperature of 10°С

Win

d sp

eed

Tim

e,

Are

a,

Evap

orat

ing

oil,

Dis

pers

ed

oil,

Oil

and

the

sea

surf

ace,

conc

eptio

n of

oil

lock

ed in

w

ater

in a

la

yer

of2

Shar

e of

w

ater

in

the

oil

Evap

orat

ed o

il,

Dis

pers

ed

oil,

Oil

and

the

sea

surf

ace,

Wat

er

mas

s in

the

oil

Vis

cosi

ty

hours square km % % % mg/l % kg kg kg kg sPz 3 m/s 1 0.17 0.07 0.21 99.73 0.87 10.62 498.52 1489.37 724512.11 86115.74 4.00 6 1.24 0.79 1.16 98.05 0.68 43.93 5755.39 8422.63 712321.99 558007.30 14.00 12 2.83 2.03 2.16 95.81 0.56 60.29 14759.87 15695.56 696044.57 1056684.38 35.89 24 6.23 4.72 3.77 91.51 0.44 68.65 34273.18 27372.10 664854.71 1456064.19 66.77 48 12.84 8.86 5.87 85.27 0.33 69.97 64356.85 42631.76 619511.38 1443742.62 74.50 72 18.79 11.82 7.07 81.11 0.27 70.00 85905.54 51349.58 589244.88 1374872.04 74.66 100 24.86 14.98 7.85 77.18 0.23 70.00 108815.18 57004.21 560680.60 1308254.43 74.66 150 33.78 19.90 8.45 71.66 0.18 70.00 144558.11 61359.70 520582.19 1214691.78 74.66 200 40.79 23.40 8.64 67.95 0.15 70.00 170029.75 62798.84 493671.41 1151899.95 74.66 240 45.36 25.24 8.70 66.06 0.14 70.00 183379.34 63224.06 479896.61 1119758.75 74.66 6 m/s 1 0.17 0.10 0.82 99.08 3.49 27.72 725.03 5940.27 719834.70 276080.68 7.01 6 1.24 1.13 4.55 94.32 2.67 66.60 8229.77 33069.11 685201.12 1366414.28 56.72 12 2.83 2.81 8.34 88.85 2.14 69.84 20419.30 60561.18 645519.52 1494445.19 73.63 24 6.23 6.01 14.12 79.87 1.65 70.00 43644.90 102599.34 580255.76 1353905.05 74.66 48 12.84 10.22 21.17 68.61 1.20 70.00 74212.31 153814.76 498472.93 1163103.49 74.66 72 18.79 13.55 24.93 61.53 0.96 70.00 98408.84 181102.34 446988.82 1042973.91 74.66 100 24.86 16.91 27.24 55.86 0.80 70.00 122828.14 197872.59 405799.27 946864.96 74.66 150 33.78 20.77 28.94 50.28 0.62 70.00 150915.89 210266.10 365318.01 852408.69 74.66 200 40.79 22.56 29.50 47.94 0.53 70.00 163885.73 214309.05 348305.22 812712.18 74.66 240 45.36 23.32 29.66 47.01 0.48 70.00 169429.22 215513.70 341557.09 796966.53 74.66 9 m/s 1 0.17 0.14 1.83 98.03 7.81 45.00 993.12 13302.15 712204.74 582615.64 14.76 6 1.24 1.52 9.94 88.54 5.83 69.85 11035.58 72196.58 643267.84 1490615.69 73.75 12 2.83 3.61 17.71 78.68 4.55 70.00 26224.71 128652.76 571622.53 1333766.73 74.66




W

ind

spee

d

Tim

e,

Are

a,

Evap

orat

ing

oil,

Dis

pers

ed o

il,

Oil

and

the s

ea

surf

ace,

Max

. co

ncep

tion

of

oil l

ocke

d in

w

ater

in a

la

yer

of 2

m

Shar

e of

wat

er

in th

e oi

l

Evap

orat

ed

oil,

Dis

pers

ed o

il,

Oil

and

the s

ea

surf

ace,

Wat

er m

ass i

n th

e oi

l

Vis

cosi

ty

hours square km % % % mg/l % kg kg kg kg sPz 24 6.23 6.99 28.71 64.29 3.35 70.00 50799.80 208609.44 467090.76 1089878.44 74.66 48 12.84 11.23 40.69 48.08 2.30 70.00 81575.81 295603.20 349320.98 815082.30 74.66 72 18.79 14.55 46.34 39.11 1.79 70.00 105713.48 336653.45 284133.06 662977.15 74.66 100 24.86 16.91 49.54 33.54 1.45 70.00 122876.85 359938.29 243684.86 568598.00 74.66 150 33.78 18.51 51.82 29.67 1.11 70.00 134453.03 376491.67 215555.30 502962.38 74.66 200 40.79 19.14 52.56 28.30 0.94 70.00 139064.04 381859.69 205576.27 479677.96 74.66 240 45.36 19.47 52.78 27.75 0.85 70.00 141445.71 383459.47 201594.82 470387.91 74.66 12 m/s 1 0.17 0.17 3.23 96.60 13.78 57.72 1241.04 23492.97 701765.99 958177.57 30.31 6 1.24 1.86 16.96 81.19 9.95 70.00 13492.76 123196.06 589811.18 1376092.60 74.65 12 2.83 4.21 29.15 66.64 7.50 70.00 30584.11 211795.70 484120.19 1129613.78 74.66 24 6.23 7.45 44.73 47.81 5.22 70.00 54144.59 324982.91 347372.50 810535.84 74.66 48 12.84 11.57 59.19 29.24 3.35 70.00 84078.74 430021.08 212400.19 495600.43 74.66 72 18.79 13.85 64.95 21.19 2.51 70.00 100635.92 471895.01 153969.07 359261.17 74.66 100 24.86 14.73 67.96 17.30 1.99 70.00 107030.60 493761.46 125707.94 293318.52 74.66 150 33.78 15.27 70.02 14.72 1.51 70.00 110918.47 508669.97 106911.56 249460.32 74.66 200 40.79 15.57 70.66 13.77 1.26 70.00 113113.35 513361.80 100024.85 233391.32 74.66 240 45.36 15.80 70.85 13.35 1.13 70.00 114792.57 514738.74 96968.68 226260.26 74.66




Figure 5.1-6 shows the oil weathering characteristics (percentage of oil on the surface, evaporating and dispersing).

Fig. 5.1-6. Change of the main characteristics of an accidental oil spill and contamination of

the sea for a leakage volume of 856 m3 at a sea surface temperature of 10°С

5.1.3.3. Environmental risk causes of oil spills In accordance with the methods of assessing environmental risks, the ultimate objective is to assess the probability of a transfer of oil during possible spills into various regions of the waters and coast line. Figure 5.1-3 shows the results of a trajectory analysis of the conditional probability of a spill entering Russia's territorial waters. They were obtained by examining the trajectories of markers and proportion entering the grid cell examined over one year. Furthermore, the analysis does not take into account the probability of spills and the processes of oil weathering. To determine the risk causes, i.e. calculation of the probability of oil mass transfer greater than the set value m into specific sections of the waters and/or coast over one year, both of these factors must be taken into account as a loss function. The probability of a transfer over one year of an oil volume greater than that set into a specific region of the sea is determined by generating two probabilities: the probability that the spill of a specific volume m0 occurred and the probability of a transfer of the slick to the region examined. In the second value, oil weathering is also taken into account in respect of approaching the region examined. Figure 5.1-7 shows the probability of a transfer of specific oil masses (environmental risk causes) for the waters of the Baltic Sea (within Russia's territorial waters) in the assumption of a spill at the point examined (Fig. 5.1-2). An analysis of the probability distribution of a transfer of oil spills to various points of the waters shows that in all cases considered only for masses of 0.5 t and 1 t the probability of a transfer outside an area of 15 km around the point of spill is 10-5. With a mass size in excess of 1 t, the probability is significantly smaller. Probabilities of reaching the coasts for various masses:




• mass of 0.5 tonnes - probability of 10-6


• mass of 5.0 tonnes - probability of 3·10-9


A comparison of the data obtained with the risk criteria specified in Table 5.1-2 shows that the value of a risk of oil volumes occurring outside an area of 15 km from the point of spill is classified as rare and for large oil volumes as virtually impossible.







Fig. 5.1-7. Environmental risk zones, probability of a transfer of a specific mass of oil to various regions of the waters over one year in the event of an oil spill from point No. 1, calculated

for a typical meteorological year: a – for a mass of 0.5 t, b – for a mass of 1 t, c – for a mass of 5 t, d – for a mass of 10 t.

The results obtained allow drawing the following conclusions:

• in the first 10 hours the oil spill spread area is no more than 15 km from the point of spill and the probability of reaching the coast does not exceed 0.01;

• coastal areas are reached within a time of approx. 50-100 hours;

• an analysis of the probability distribution of a transfer of oil spills to various points of

the waters shows that in all cases considered only for masses of 0.5 t and 1 t the probability of a transfer outside an area of 15 km around the point of spill is 10-5. With a mass size in excess of 1 t, the probability is significantly smaller.

• a comparison of the data obtained with the criteria of risk (Table 5.1-2) shows that

the value of a risk of oil volumes occurring outside an area of 15 km from the point of spill is classified as rare and for oil volumes larger than 1 t is virtually impossible.

5.1.3.4. Individual spill assessment

Figure 5.1-8 shows the location of an oil slick for the spill of 856 t from a marked point at various moments in time. It follows that under certain conditions an oil spill reached the coast within approx. 35 hours. Furthermore, of the 856 t of oil spilled, approx. 362.5 t reached the coast. (Fig. 5.1-9). Figure 5.1-10 shows the oil weathering characteristics (percentage of oil on the surface, evaporating and dispersing).




Fig. 5.1-8. Oil slick location

Fig. 5.1-9. Amount of oil reaching the coast




Fig. 5.1-10. Weathering characteristics of a specific oil spill.

5.1.4. Assessment of the possibility of an oil slick migrating to special protected natural areas

A list of special protected natural areas (SPNT) is stated in Table 5.1-6, and location of their characteristic points is shown in Fig. 5.1-11.

Table 5.1-6

SPNTs in the area of work Special protected natural area

(SPNT) Northern latitude

East longitude

Comments

The Beryozovyye Islands 60 17 30 28 32 00 Vyborgsky 60 29 40 28 34 00 Kurgalsky 59 50 00 28 03 00 Dolgy Kamen 60 29 00 27 54 30 Ingermanlandsky Reserve of

federal significance Kopytin 60 25 42 27 42 30 Ingermanlandsky Reserve of

federal significance Bolshoy Fiskar 60 24 15 27 56 15 Ingermanlandsky Reserve of

federal significance Skala Hally 60 24 12 28 08 18 Ingermanlandsky Reserve of

federal significance Virginy 59 56 00 26 52 30 Ingermanlandsky Reserve of

federal significance Maly Tuters 59 48 00 26 57 00 Ingermanlandsky Reserve of

federal significance Bolshoy Tuters 59 51 00 27 12 00 Ingermanlandsky Reserve of

federal significance Skala Virgund 59 46 42 27 44 00 Ingermanlandsky Reserve of

federal significance Seskar 60 01 30 28 23 00 Ingermanlandsky Reserve of

federal significance Prigranichnyy 60 31 00 27 51 00




Special protected natural area

(SPNT) Northern latitude

East longitude

Comments

Suursaari 60 02 30 27 00 00 Pokhyaskorkiya 60 05 30 26 57 30 Gustoy Island 60 40 00 28 35 30

Fig. 5.1-11. Location of the characteristic points of SPNTs in relation to the line

Table 5.1-7. states the minimum distances to the characteristic points of these areas from the pipeline and the maximum possible amount of oil which may reach them in the event of a spill of 856 м3 in the area of the line.

Table 5.1-7

Assessment of the maximum oil mass possible (in the event of a spill of 856 m3)


(SPNA) Point Distance

(km) Drift time

(hours)

Maximum oil mass possible

(in the event of a spill of 856

m3) (t)

Transfer probability assessment

The Beryozovyye Islands

With the Beryozovyye

Island) 27.8 51.5 435.2 < 5 ·10-7

Vyborgsky Lisy Island 26.0 48.1 445.7 < 5 ·10-7 Kurgalsky 59.9 110.9 313.2 < 10-7

Dolgy Kamen Ostrovok (depth 27 m) 7.7 14.3 609.2 < 2·10-6





(SPNA) Point Distance

(km) Drift time

(hours)

Maximum oil mass possible

(in the event of a spill of 856

m3) (t)

Transfer probability assessment

Kopytin Around the border of the terr. waters 15.5 28.7 522.8 < 5·10-7

Bolshoy Fiskar B. Fiskar Archipelago 3.2 5.9 683.2 < 5·10-6

Skala Hally Hally Island 10.0 18.5 579.7 < 10-6 Virginy 18.6 34.4 496.6 < 5·10-7

Maly Tuters 33.3 61.7 406.5 < 5·0-7 Bolshoy Tuters 35.7 66.1 395.3 < 5·10-7 Skala Virgund 43.3 80.2 364.4 < 2·0-7

Seskar 38.4 71.1 383.7 < 3·10-7

Prigranichnyy near B. Prigranichny Island 12.5 23.1 551.9 < 10-6

Suursaari South Gogland 10.5 19.4 573.9 < 10-6 Pokhyaskorkiya North Gogland 3.2 5.9 683.2 < 5·10-6 Gustoy Island Gustoy Island 2.1 3.9 706.8 < 5·10-6

It follows from the above data that a significant proportion of the oil spilled may reach the regions examined. Furthermore, it must not be forgotten that, as follows from probability assessments of previous spills, the probability of such events during the construction of gas pipelines in the Russian section is extremely small. These assessments establish that this probability is in all cases smaller than a value of 10-6. In accordance with the classification of Table 5.1-2, the relevant events are classified as virtually impossible. There is an even smaller probability of a transfer of a spill to the territorial waters of Latvia, Lithuania and, in particular, Poland. As the results of sections 2.2 and 7.1 show, this probability is smaller than 10-9 and is classified as a virtually impossible event. More significant is the conditional probability of a spill transfer to the territorial waters of Finland and Estonia (approx. 10-2). Simultaneously, the absolute probability (taking into account the occurrence of several independent events of minor probability) of penetration into the territorial waters of these countries of significant volumes of oil is low (< 5 -10-7) and is also categorised as a virtually impossible event. It follows from the above data that a significant proportion of the oil spilled may reach the SPNTs if an accident occurs. It follows from the probability assessments that the full (unconditional) probability of such events during the construction of gas pipelines in the Russian sector is not big. The assessments show that this probability is in fact smaller than a value of 10-6 because it is determined by the generation of small probabilities of independent events. In accordance with the classification of Table 2.1, the relevant events are classified as virtually impossible.




5.1.5. Impact on atmospheric air

As the calculations of the physical and chemical transformation of an oil spill have shown, approx. 60% of oil products (diesel oil) are weathered, while saturated hydrocarbons and hydrogen sulphide enter the atmospheric air. Possible volumes of polluting substances transferring to the air environment during the evaporation of a diesel oil spill from the sea surface are presented in Table 5.1-8.

Table 5.1-8

Wind speeds,

m/s

Spill volume, kg

Transfer of polluting substances to atmospheric air saturated

hydrocarbons aromatic hydrocarbons hydrogen sulphide

t g/s t g/s t g/s 3 183379,34 182,59 0,000395 0,28 0,000000596 0,46 0,0000009925 6 169429,22 168,70 0,000503 0,25 0,000000758 0,42 0,0000012625 9 141445,71 140,84 0,000585 0,21 0,000000882 0,35 0,0000014700 12 114792,57 114,30 0,000624 0,17 0,000000941 0,29 0,0000015675

The results of calculating the spread of hazardous substances during an accident situation of an oil product spill in the waters of the Baltic Sea during construction work are specified in Table 5.1-9 and in the Annex to the section.

Table 5.1-9

Maximum calculation ground concentrations of polluting substances in accident situations - oil product spill without fire

Component Maximum permissible concentrations

Concentration, maximum contamination level shares

maximum in residential area Hydrogen sulphide 0,008 0,0056 Aromatic hydrocarbons 0,3 0.0000896 Maximum hydrocarbons S12-S19 50,0 0.0178297 The results of calculating the spread show that, in the event of an accident situation developing in this scenario, the maximum concentration levels of polluting substances and concentration levels on the border of residential areas does not exceed the sanitary and hygienic standards. Oil product spills are subject to extreme fire risks. If there is a source of ignition (discharge of atmospheric electricity, sparks from friction or blows, etc.), there is a possibility of fire and release into the atmosphere of polluting substances (carbon monoxide, nitrogen, sulphur, soot, etc.). The probability of a fire or explosion, with the main causes for tanker accidents being grounding, collisions or damage to the body, is, according to the statistics of the International Maritime Organisation and International Association of Tanker Owners, equal: 0.17, 0.03 and 0.1. Possible volumes of polluting substances transferring to the air environment during the burning of a diesel oil spill from the sea surface are presented in Table 5.1-10.




Substance Release in the event of fire, kg

kg g/s Carbon monoxide 810,436 4,4266E-06 Hydrogen sulphide 114,793 6,2700E-07 Nitrogen dioxide 2996,086 1,6365E-05 Sulphur dioxide 114,793 6,2700E-07 Soot 1480,824 8,0883E-06 Hydrocyanic acid 114,793 6,2700E-07 Vanadium pentoxide 2,640 1,4421E-08 Benzapyrene 0,008 4,3263E-11 The results of calculating of the spread of hazardous substances during an accident situation of an oil product fire during the spill in the waters of the Baltic Sea during construction work are specified in Table 5.1-11 and in the Annex to the section.

Table 5.1-11 Maximum calculation ground concentrations of polluting substances in accident situations - oil

product spill with fire

Component Maximum permissible concentrations

Concentration, maximum contamination level shares

maximum in residential area

Carbon monoxide 5,0 0,300000 0,300000 Hydrogen sulphide 0,008 0,0022394 Nitrogen dioxide 0,2 0,2500018 0,2500005 Sulphur dioxide 0,5 0,0300358 Soot 0,15 0,0046222 Hydrocyanic acid maximum contamination

level ss = 0.01 0,0001792

Vanadium pentoxide maximum contamination level ss = 0.002

0,0000618

Benzapyrene maximum contamination level ss = 1.0-5

0,0001236

Summation group (SO2+NO2) - 0,2800019 0,2800005 Summation group (V2O5+SO2) - 0,0300976 Summation group (H2S+SO2) - 0,0322753 The results of calculating the spread show that, in the event of an accident situation developing in this scenario, the maximum concentration levels of polluting substances and concentration levels on the border of residential areas does not exceed the sanitary and hygienic standards. Taking into account the conducting of measures to eradicate accident spills of oil products, the spread of contamination and the distance from residential areas, the impact on the atmospheric air can be classified as insignificant.

5.1.6. Impact on sea water environment From an environmental perspective, it is important to distinguish the two main types of oil spills in the sea. One of them includes spills which start and end in open waters without affecting the coast line (pelagic spill scenarios). Their consequences are, as a rule, of a temporary, local and invertible nature. The other spill type assumes a carry-over of the slick to the coast, an accumulation of oil on the shore and UNOFFICIAL ENGLISH TRANSLATION – FOR COURTESY ONLY



long-term environmental disruption in the coastal and littoral area. A specific oil contamination scenario depends on the wind conditions observed at the time of the accident and over the following days.




The behaviour of oil spills in the sea is determined both by the physical and chemical properties of the actual oil and the condition of the sea environment [240, 241]. It is generally accepted that three main processes determine the behaviour of oil in the sea - advection, flowing properties and weathering. Advection is the process whereby the oil is carried under the influence of wind and currents. As a rule, oil moves across the surface of the sea at a speed ranging between 3-3.5% of the speed of wind and 60-100% of the speed of the current. Flowing is a process which depends on the activity of the oil's positive buoyancy, the flowing coefficient on account of surface tension and diffusion, which results in an increase of the sea surface area covered in the oil layer. Over time the process of gravitational flowing slows down, while horizontal turbulent diffusion starts to take effect. At various moments in time, various processes, the temporary characteristics of which are specified in Figure 5.1-12, are significant.

Fig. 5.1-12. Temporary characteristics of the main processes the oil slick is subject to Oil entering sea water causes:

• a change to the physical properties of the water;

• a change to the chemical properties of the water;

• creation of floating contamination on the surface of the water (oil mousse, aggregates) and their sedimentation on the seabed.

The maximum concentration of hydrocarbons in the top layer (on average for a layer of 10 m) of the sea under an oil slick significantly exceeds the maximum contamination level (0.05 mg/l) and may reach values of 3-4 mg/l.




5.1.7. Impact on sea biota

Oil spills have different effects on the sea biota depending on the volume of oil spilled, time of year, weather conditions, chemical characteristics of the oil and the effectiveness of the work to eradicate spills. There are different types of the impact of oils spills - from short-term severe (death in certain instances) to chronic at the level of species, populations and communities [127, 240, 241]. Long-term chronic impact on many types of communities prevails. Permanent impact (after clean-up) on areas of the environment can usually be assessed as weak to moderate. Several years pass for a full recovery of the environment to the initial condition. Important exceptions are spills near places where birds nest (or their colonies) or places of mass concentration of protected species. A strong impact in these exceptional instances requires the drawing up of complex plans to tackle spills. Mainly birds and the young of many fish and water invertebrates (including fish eggs and larvae) suffer from oil spills, and many of them die within the first hours or days after a spill. In the event of spills in the spring, autumn or end of winter, the high mortality rate can threaten entire age groups and subpopulations of species (in particular if climatic and other biophysical factors have a synergetic impact on the surviving populations). Numerous studies of plankton communities [127, 240, 241] have shown that spills in the open sea have an insignificant impact on the structure and functions of the community for the following reasons: (а) the oil concentration quickly drops to harmless levels as a result of the spread and dilution as well as evaporation and photochemical decomposition, (b) the displacement of a "new" flora and fauna after the displacement of water masses from neighbouring areas; (c) the high speed of reproduction (with a doubling of the population within several hours or days). Thanks to the fast passing of the oil slick and its spreading in the open sea as well as the processes of evaporation, photochemical decomposition and biological breakdown of solid particles, little oil is built up in the sediments of littoral areas (while in the open sea only an insignificant amount of oil reaches the seabed). The only exception are shallow waters near the coast and half-closed bays as well as when spills occur during the spring development of plankton (in April/May, when zooplankton and diatomic algae form aggregates, which fall to the seabed quickly and take many other particles and polluting substances from the waters with them). As such, if the exceptional instances are not considered, benthos is usually not subject to impact from oil spills on a significant scale. In shallow waters and after the sedimentation of a large amount of particles contaminated by oil, benthos reacts in the same way as phyto- and zooplankton and the impact can be predominantly classified as severe and short-term with minimum changes to the structure and functions of benthic communities or their complete absence. Generally speaking, marine mammals are less subject to impact from oil than other marine organisms, such as sea birds or invertebrates.




The types of impact which can be caused by oil spills include:

• direct negative impact on marine mammals (sea lions and whales) as a consequence of them coming into contact and breathing fumes of toxic substances;

• indirect negative impact on marine mammals through the impact on their food supply;

• collapse of food supply in this region for marine mammals;

• avoiding by marine mammals of the region of the oil spill due to noise and work

conducted to clean up the region from the oil spilled.

• The impact can be serious for marine mammals if:

• oil collects next to their rookeries and breeding grounds;

• the spill occurs in the winter next to breeding grounds;

• the spill occurs on the migration routes

5.1.8. Impact on sediments Hydrocarbon contamination of water inevitably results in the contamination of seabeds. The process of hydrocarbon contamination of seabeds markedly increases in the presence of a large amount of suspended solid particles in the water, which absorb these pollutants. The subsequent sedimentation of suspended solid particles results in an accumulation of hydrocarbons in the seabeds and to a repeat contamination of the water when spreading the sediments of the contaminated seabed. While oil contamination of sea waters can in many cases be of a transitional nature, because hydrocarbons are generally carried outside of the waters where their leakage occurred, they can remain stored in the seabeds for long periods of time. In the event of an intensive sedimentation, the hydrocarbons connected to the seabed are usually buried on the seabed under fresh sediments, as a result of which their further biodegradation is extremely limited due to a lack of oxygen.

5.2. Period of use

5.2.1. List of the main factors and possible causes for the occurrence of dangers Below are possible factors and causes for the occurrence and unfolding of accidents for the linear section of Nord Stream.

1. Equipment failure:

• high pressure of transported gas (up to 22 MPa);

• internal corrosion;

• external corrosion with defects in the anti-corrosion protection systems;




• structural failure or mechanical defects of pipes, welding joints, insufficient

ballasting, etc., cracking of steel pipes, deformation of pipes under the impact of an external water column in combination with bending. Accidents can happen as a result of the development of initial defects of the base metal, joints or welding;

• increase in pressure in the pipeline during the use of the pipeline over a long period of

time without timely cleaning of intelligent pigs or the consequence of a formation of hydrated-gas stoppers in the pipeline;

• failure of automatic systems.

2. Misoperation of the staff:

• improper diagnostics and detection of defects during the use of technical equipment

and pipelines;

• absence or insufficient quality of repair work,

• untimely detection or underestimation of the risk of defects of the technical equipment and pipelines;

• non-compliance of terms of conducting diagnostics of equipment (or non-conducting),

inspecting protective devices as well as terms of inspecting and calibrating EC&I devices.

• operator errors.

• Mechanical damage to the pipeline when carrying out construction and repair work

and as a result of falling to the seabed of various objects, planting anchors or impact of trawl nets.

3. External impact of a natural and technological nature:

• seismic activity and faults;

• geo hazards (diluation of seabeds, instability of banks, density currents fault

displacements);

• erosion of the bottom seabed and stripping of the pipeline;

• extreme wind and eave loads, storms;

• impact from fishing vessels (trawling);

• impact on the gas pipeline as a result of vessels anchoring;

• falling of objects (for instance, containers for the disposal of waste) on the ground of the sea;

• sabotage and terrorist attacks, acts of vandalism.

5.2.2. Main scenarios of the occurrence of accidents




On the basis of an analysis of the statistical data on accidents and failures of sea pipelines [373] used in various sea regions, the following picture can be forecast: An underwater release of compressed gas under high pressure forms high-speed gas jets which converge at the place of decompression, but although the difference in the density of the gas and water is sufficiently large and buoyancy significantly higher, the strong resistance power results in the destruction of the underwater gas-water plume and it ascension to the sea surface in the form of a series of gas bubbles. On the surface, the gas release reduces to concentrations which do not exceed the limits of inflammation if the inflammable air-gas cloud does not reach the source of fire. Above the sea surface, an ascending plume of gas forms which mixes with the surrounding air and forms an inflammable cloud above the sea surface. If a vessel enters the inflammable area, the air-gas cloud may ignite from sources on the vessel and, as a result, burn members of the crew or passengers on the vessel. If there are no ignition sources (from passing vessels) on the sea surface, the inflammable cloud disperses safely. Therefore, the following typical scenarios of the unfolding of accidents are considered for the sea section of the projected gas pipeline: Scenario group Air and Gas Releases 1 Release of gas into the atmosphere with ignition of air and gas cloud by sources on a passing vessel: Destruction of the gas pipeline —> expansion of compressed gas into the surrounding area with creation of a compression wave spreading in the water and on the seabed —> discharge of a powerful gas column drawing in a large amount of surrounding water and eroding the bottom seabed with creation of a crater —> ascension of gas from the crater to the sea surface with drawing in of surrounding water and creation on the sea surface of a more or less intensive gas and water "plume" (powerful water column) —> discharge of gas from a restricted area on the sea surface with formation of a gas and air cloud (plume) above the surface of the water —> entry of a vessel in the inflammable area of the inflammable gas and air cloud expansion with possible ignition of the cloud from sources on the vessel —> entry of members of the vessel's crew into the area of radiation, thermal impact —> burns of various levels of severity suffered by people —> formation and expansion of a cloud of combustion products, pollution of the environment. Scenario group Air and Gas Releases 2 Release of gas into the atmosphere without ignition: Destruction of the gas pipeline over an entire section —> discharge of gas from the underwater gas pipeline into the sea environment with creation of a plume of gas bubbles —> rising of gas bubbles to the sea surface and their destruction with discharge of gas into the atmosphere —> spread of gas in the atmosphere, contamination of the environment, intensification of the greenhouse effect. The scenarios of both groups can be equally dangerous in terms of their environmental consequences. On the basis of an analysis of data on the accident risk of sea pipelines, the average statistical intensity of accidents occurring with a leakage of the product transported is assessed at a level of 7.96х10-5 1/ (km year). This value takes into account possible damage to the gas pipeline as the result of the impact of corrosion, defects to material, faults when constructing the gas pipeline and as a result of the possible impact on the planned gas pipeline by third parties (shipping, loss of cargo and flooding of vessels) and is used to analyse the accident risk in the sea section of the planned gas pipeline.




To calculate the consequences of underwater gas releases in the event of accidents on gas pipelines, the general three-dimensional numerical model was used to model the behaviour of submerged jets which occur as the result of underwater gas releases from pipelines and underwater cracks and the subsequent transfer to the sea surface. The model is based on the Lagrange intervals method. The model includes both a cross-directed drawing in of water into the plume as well as their forced carry-over. The existence of multidirectional external currents is also taken into account. A symbolic apparatus of the model includes a description of the processes of diffusion and dissolution of the stream from the underwater gas and water plume into the environment and expansion of the liquid phase (of oil products) (if present in the release) on the sea surface. The above numerical model was implemented as a special POL-PLUME software. The program allows assessing the radius and other parameters (speed, share of gas) of an underwater gas and water plume occurring as the result of underwater gas releases along the axis of the plume in discontinuous time intervals. The results of modelling the underwater gas and water plume using the POL-PLUME program were compared to the data of modelling in respect of master models as well as with a series of results of experiments stated in the report from Professor Fannelop "Highlander Plume Study". The limitation of the model is that the radius of an underwater gas and water plume weakly depends on the accident gas flow rate and is mainly determined by the depth of the place of release. The dynamics of changing the mass flow rate of gas over time from the damaged sea section of the planned gas pipeline is shown in Figure 5.2-1.




Fig. 5.2-1. Dynamics of changing the mass flow rate of gas over time in the event of an explosion of the sea section of the gas pipeline

As shown in Figure 5.2-1, a complete explosion of a pipeline is characterised by a very high initial mass flow rate of gas which drops quickly. Although the gas release from the sea section lasts several hours, already within ~40 s the accident gas flow is half of its initial rate. As a result of such a change to the flow rate, by the time the gas reaches the sea surface (i.e. within ~10 seconds) the underwater release of gas drops significantly and does not ensure the formation of a gas and air plume above the sea surface in accordance with the initial accident gas flow rate. In the further calculations, the assumption was used that the established regime of gas release from the explosion is in line with the gas flow rate 180 seconds after the explosion. The calculation values of the main parameters of gas and water jets (if the accident occurred in the territorial waters of Russia) are specified in Table 5.2-1.

Table 5.2-1 Parameter Value

Section of the planned gas pipeline off-shore section (Russian sector) Kilometre note selected for modelling (KR), km 58 Grounds for selecting KR This section of the line is crossed by vessel routes

between the ports of Kotka (Finland) and Sillamäe (Estonia)

Sea depth, m 63,6 Radius of the underwater gas and water plume near the sea surface, m

18,2

Proportion of gas in the plume (near the sea surface) 99%




Table 5.2-2

Gas and water jet parameters

Section

Dis

tanc

e to

exp

losi

on

L, k

m

Dep

th H

, m

Mas

s flo

w ra

te o

f gas

G

a, k

g/s

Rad

ius

of th

e ar

ea o

f ga

s re

leas

e on

the

surf

ace

bg0,

m

Mas

s sh

are

of w

ater

re

achi

ng th

e su

rfac

e in

the

cent

re o

f the

jet

x w0

Leve

l of a

gita

tion

of

the

wat

er s

urfa

ce o

r he

ight

of "

plum

e"

abov

e th

e su

rfac

e hw

, m

Tim

e th

e w

ater

rise

s to

the

surf

ace

in th

e ce

ntra

l par

t of t

he je

t tw

, s

Comments (forecast of

visually observed picture)

Jet parameters during sonic release stage

Littoral section from the Russian

side 2 10 84720 43,6 0,00 49,8 0,5

Major gas release,

surrounded by individual jets and splashes of

water Jet parameters during subsonic release stage ("powerful" jet)


side 2 10 1000 8,8 0,29 11,9 0,8

Gas release, noticeable gas

and water "plume"

Jet parameters during subsonic release stage ("weak" jet)


side 2 10 1,0 1,8 0,935 0,34 3,3

Insignificant agitation of free surface with gas

release as bubbles

For the sea section of the planned gas pipeline, concentration fields of a gas plume were considered which is formed at the level of 10 metres (characteristic location of possible ignition sources on vessels) above the water surface. The data in Table 5.2-1 were used as the initial data and the release direction was assumed to be equal 45° (conservative assessment). The results of calculating the dispersion of gas in the atmosphere are listed in Table 5.2-3.

Table 5.2-3 Parameter Value

Section of the planned gas pipeline off-shore section (Russian sector) Kilometre note selected for modelling (KR), km 58 Maximum distance at which a concentration is observed in accordance with the maximum concentration limit of inflammability, m

79,7

Maximum distance at which a concentration is observed in accordance with the minimum concentration limit of inflammability, m

136,8

Maximum distance at which a concentration is observed in accordance with 1A of the minimum concentration limit of inflammability, m

194,1




In order to determine the part of the cloud which may be involved in the formation of a fire outburst for the purposes of a further risk analysis, the maximum distance value is used at which a concentration in accordance with 1/2 of the minimum concentration limit of inflammability is observed at a level of 10 m above the sea surface. A modelling of the spread of the above-water gas and air plume showed that the areas of inflammability risk (limited to 1/2 of the minimum concentration limit of inflammability) at a level where an ignition of a gas and air mixture is possible can reach 194.1 m in the wind direction. The reason for such insignificant distances for the spreading of an inflammable cloud is the occurrence of a marked vertical flow at speeds in the range of 1-4 m/s caused by the effect of the powers of Archimedes, which are due to the discharge of a gas lighter than air from a large area of the sea surface. The total mass of natural gas release during an accident of one line in the sea section of the gas pipeline may reach 216621.8 t. Approx. 75% of the total amount of gas is released into the environment over the course of the first 35-60 mins from the moment the accident occurs when the the stage of powerful sonic gas release from the pipeline explosion sets in. The remaining amount of the gas is later discharged in a less powerful subsonic jet, the intensity of which drops over time.

5.2.3. Impact on sea water environment After analysing the calculation results, the conclusion can be drawn that during the clearly expressed jet discharge stage the time of contact between the water and the gas phase tw is not big. Furthermore, the mass share of water xw, which comes into contact with the gas phase, also turns out to be small. It follows from here that a noticeable dissolution of gas in the water is only possible in a relatively tight periphery of the jet's "gas core" or in the very next stages of the gas discharge process, when its release is small, a "bubble plume" is created directly on the seabed of the waters, and the rising time of the water drawn into the "plume" is relatively long. However, in this case too the water saturated with diluted natural gas will initially enter the near-surface layer of the waters, where in contact with the atmosphere it will experience quick degassing, because the gas concentration in the atmosphere is virtually equal to nil. We are also taking into account that the dissolvability of saturated hydrocarbons is extremely low in the water (dissolvability of methane at normal pressure and t 10°C is equal 0.03 l/l). Based on the above, the conclusion can be drawn that a noticeable contamination of water with saturated hydrocarbons resulting in the death of the marine biota will not occur, while the entire natural gas discharged as a result of the accident will enter the atmosphere.

5.2.4. Impact on atmospheric air After the methane enters the atmosphere, the specific density of which is less than the specific density of air, is quickly dispersed. A specific environmental danger is only presented if heavier saturated hydrocarbons (ethane, etc.), whose specific density is greater than the specific density of air, enter the air. The mass share of them in the natural gas pumped constitutes about 2.1%.




The amount of dangerous substances entering the environment reaches up to 216621.8 tonnes. During the unfolding of an accident with ignition, nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxide and unburnt methane enter the atmospheric air. An approximate amount of substances from gas combustion, which are created during the unfolding of an accident with ignition of gas, is listed in Table 5.2-4.

Table 5.2-4 Amount of substances from gas combustion entering the atmosphere in the event of a gas pipeline

explosion (with ignition) Component Mass, t

Methane 3247,3 Carbon monoxide 12347,4 Nitrogen oxide 28,2 Nitrogen dioxide 173,3

5.2.5. Impact on the geological environment During accident situations, the impact on sediments can result in the short-term fluidisation of the material covering the pipe or of the sludge over the trench through ascending flows of water with bubbles in the event of pipe explosions or demolition by currents. The jet occurring during a pipeline explosion moves the main mass of the seabed outside the explosion crater, a thin layer of the seabed becomes fluid and drifts with the current and settles on the seabed, forming newly created sediments. The duration of the source's activity is about half an hour. The amount of sediments from the thin layer of seabed becoming fluid is 2.5%. As a result of the mathematical modelling, assessments of the seabed release volumes (Table 5.2-5) in the event of an accident in the territorial waters of Russia were obtained.

Table 5.2-5

Volume of seabed displaced as a result of an accident

Section Distance to explosion L,

km

Crater surface area SH, m2

Crater depth h, m

Volume of seabed displaced

V, m3 Littoral section from the

Russian side 2 7222 4.6 33221

5.2.6. Impact on sea biota A negative impact on the sea biota occurs as the result of a release of methane to the sea surface, benthic sediment spreading and their subsequent settling on the seabed. In the event of accident transfer of methane from a pipeline, its concentration will quickly drop on account of the gas rising to the sea surface and diluting of the water column contaminated with dissolved gas. The dimensions of slicks of water with a contaminated surface layer can reach hundreds of metres. Contaminated areas exist for several hours.




The death of organisms, in particular plankton, resulting from a toxic level of methane is only possible in the direct vicinity of the place of gas release to the water surface. Pelagic fish, mammals and birds are able to avoid areas of impact and will be in those for too short a time such as to die or suffer noticeable injury. The impact on benthos will be of a punctuated nature due to the low solubility of methane in water and its fast rise to the sea surface. Population reactions and disruption in the event of an accident are not forecast. In the event of an accident situation on the gas pipeline in the winter period in waters with a solid ice cover, the negative environmental consequences will be significantly more intensive. This may result in mass death of fish in hibernation locations or death of a significant amount of plankton and benthic organisms. As regards the impact on the sea biota, the two possible types of gas pipeline accidents - leakage and explosion - are entirely different. The impact of leakage in the deep water area of the gas pipeline will have no effect on the sea biota. For the ecosystem of the open sea, the impact of a gas pipeline explosion will result in the release of gas to the surface. Such an impact appears particularly severe in the part of the sea where the gas in the pipeline is under the greatest pressure. However, such an impact will be strictly local (the slick is no more than 1-3 km in diameter), gas will be released into the atmosphere partly and the impact on the ecosystem must be considered insignificant, because the dissolution of gas in the water is not expected in this instance. Impact on the ichthyoplankton and ichthyofauna. In waters with a solid ice cover. In this case, part of the gas released during an accident is dissolved in the water. Preliminary conclusions from experiments studying the impact of dissolved gas on the sea biota [343] show that natural gas has a negative effect on plankton crustaceans in concentrations of 2 mg/l and above, concentrations below 0.4 mg/l had no effect on the survival rate or fertility of this group. Benthic crustaceans are affected by natural gas in a concentration of 2.0 mg/l, a toxic impact started to take effect in a concentration range from 2.6-4.7 mg/l, concentrations of 5.0 mg/l and above triggered a severely toxic effect. In experiments with littoral gastropod molluscs, the toxic impact of natural gas was detected starting from concentrations of 1.6 mg/l; a reduction of the reproductive ability of molluscs was detected at concentrations of 3.3-7.2 mg/l. A direct impact of methane and its homologues on the early stages of the development of fish was virtually not studied. It is assumed that methane and other hydrocarbons have a narcotic, neuroparalytic and "generally toxic" impact on water organisms developing during increased water temperatures. Its impact is based on hypoxia, which severely increases the presence of ethane, propane, butane and other homologues of this series. It is believed that the initial semi lethal effects start at methane concentrations in the sea water of approx. 10-1 and severe toxicity starts at levels of more than 1 ml/l.




In the event of a gas pipeline explosion in shallow waters, the negative impact of natural gas on the early stages of fish development is increased by a powerful hydrodynamic blow, which occurs during an explosive release of gas transported under great pressure. However, the negative effect of such a blow will be of a local nature and its impact on the ichthyoplankton can be assessed as weak. It is established that during the most powerful impact of elastic waves from explosions of multiple kilogramme explosive devices, the radius of the area of lethal injury for fish does not exceed several dozen metres. Another factor with a negative impact of the gas pipeline on ichthyoplankton is the increase in suspended sedimentation concentrations formed from bottom sediments. The maximum calculation speed of the spreading of suspended sedimentation does not exceed 30 sm/s, while the speed of movement of all food fish (young and adult) exceeds 300 sm/s. It follows from this that, possessing a firm reaction to avoid areas of increased muddiness and a speed of movement several times higher than that the speed of suspended sedimentation spreading, food fish do not come into contact with the area of muddiness. Accident releases of gas during the explosion of an underwater pipeline result in the formation of an erosion crater on the seabed of the local area of increased muddiness, which constitutes a danger for the biota in the section adjoining the location of the accident. Overall, the muddying of sediments during an accident explosion of a gas pipeline is of a local and short-term nature and does not have a significantly negative impact on the environment. The impact on the sediment in the event of a partial explosion of a pipeline (diameter of the hole up to 10% of the entire section of the gas pipeline) can result in the short-term fluidisation of the seabed covering the pipe over the trench through ascending flows of water with bubbles and their demolition by currents. Microphytobenthos . During an explosion of the pipe, the impact results in a muddying of sediments and disruption of communities when conducting repair work. During a leakage through the seabed in the surface layers, methanol acidic bacteria develop, which can result in a reduction of microphytobenthic wealth, which is in no way comparable to the loss when conducting maintenance and repair work. Macrophytobenthos. Neither pipe explosions in shallow waters nor methane leakage through the seabed result in damage to the macrophytobenthos.




6. MEASURES TO REDUCE ANY POSSIBLE NEGATIVE IMPACT In accordance with Russian environmental protection legislation and the applicable regulative documents for environmental protection, in all stages of the implementation of the Nord Stream gas pipeline construction plan, the measures to reduce any possible negative impact must be complied with. The main purpose of these measures is to reduce any negative impact on all environments specified in Volume 8 Environmental Impact Assessment. A detailed description of the measures is presented in a special volume of EIA materials for this project (Volume 8. Protection of the Environment. Book 2, Part 1).




7. ENVIRONMENTAL AND ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT As a result of conducting an environmental and economic assessment of the planned facility's impact on the environment, the main environmental and economic parameters were obtained, which are presented in Table 7.1-1.

Table 7.1-1

Environmental and economic parameters of the impact of the Nord Stream gas pipeline (Russian off-shore section) on the environment

No. Parameter name Measurement unit Quantity

1. Expansion of the gas pipeline's offshore sections: km Western (first) line 124 Eastern (second) line 123,5 2. Du/working pressure mm/MPa 1200/22 3. Gas pipeline capacity billion.m3/year 55 4. General area of waters used, including: Temporary

diversion (construction phase) Permanent diversion (operation phase)

km2 km2 247,5 61,76

5. Amount of sea water required during the construction phase m3 2 599 501,43

6. Repeat contamination of suspended substances: t 58 164 Seabed mass converted into suspended condition during

construction 7. Overall (gross) amount of contaminated substances

released into the atmosphere by the planned facilities t

- during construction t 3861,337 - during operation t/year - 8. Amount of production waste during the period of construction: - 1st class - - 2nd class t - - 3rd class t 6,288 - 4th class t 21 279,794 - 5th class t 138,226 Amount of production waste during the period of use: - 1st class t/year - - 2nd class t/year - - 3rd class t/year - - 4th class t/year - - 5th class t/year - 9. Amount of used and disposed production waste during construction: - handed over to other enterprises t 21 062,346 - dumped in landfill sites t 361,962 Amount of used and disposed production waste during

operation:

- transferred to other enterprises t/year -




No. Parameter name Measurement

unit Quantity

- dumped in landfill sites t/year - 10. Environmental damage over the period of construction to the fauna RUB 16 414 338 to marine bioresources RUB 16 003 516 as a result of releases of contaminated substances

to RUB 312 000

the atmosphere during construction as a result of using the water area RUB 8 375 400 as a result of contamination of the sea waters

with suspended RUB 10 082 148

substances as a result of repeat chemical contamination RUB 402 of the waters as a result of water supply intake RUB 21 551 as a result of a release of contaminated runoffs

after RUB 12 274

hydrotesting as a result of waste disposal occurring during RUB 114 445 the construction period Total RUB 51 336 074 Environmental damage within the operation phase to the atmosphere as a result of a release of

contaminating substances RUB/year -

as a result of using the waters RUB/year 2 089 870 to the environment as a result of waste disposal RUB/year - from production and use Total RUB/year 2 089 870 The environmental and economic parameters calculated are preliminary and must be corrected in respect of the actual data after construction.




8. PRODUCTION AND ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING AND

CONTROL In accordance with Russian environmental protection legislation and the applicable normative legal documents for environmental protection, in all stages of the implementation of the project production and environmental monitoring (PEM) must be conducted. The main purposes of the PEMC system of the Nord Stream gas pipeline is to obtain reliable information on the environmental condition of the facility examined and to provide it in good time to the management of the object, the environmental protection services and investor in the project (user) in order to take administrative decisions in the area of environmental protection. Furthermore, the PEMC system will perform the following tasks:

1. Collection of original information on the sources and types of impact on areas of the environment in the region of Nord Stream gas pipeline's influence;

2. Complex assessment of the environmental condition of the areas of the environment; 3. Forecasting of the dynamics of the environmental situation; 4. Presentation of information to the management to take decisions; 5. Obtaining of documents on the effectiveness of environmental protection measures.

In order to achieve the objectives set during the construction and use of the examined Nord Stream gas pipeline in the sea section, a monitoring system is being organised for the condition and quantity determination of the parameters of contaminating the main areas of the environment. Furthermore, the following specialist sub-systems in the PEMC system stand out for the controlled areas: For the Russian sea section of the gas pipeline:

1. Monitoring of sea waters and bottom sediments; 2. Monitoring of the geological environment; 3. Monitoring of the sea biota.

For both the sea and coast section:

1. Monitoring of the air environment; 2. Operational satellite monitoring; 3. Production and environmental control of compliance with environmental protection

norms - PEC; 4. Monitoring of the handling of waste; 5. Monitoring of socioeconomic conditions.

The following periods of conducting production and environmental monitoring are scheduled:

1. monitoring during the period of construction;




2. monitoring during the period of operation.

During the period of construction, three monitoring stages are planned:

1. start phase (until the start of construction); 2. main phase (during the carrying out of the main construction work); 3. final phase (after completing the main construction work).

A detailed description of the environmental monitoring programme is presented in a special volume of EIA materials for this project (Volume 8. Protection of the Environment. Book 3. Production and Environmental Monitoring and Control (PEMC)).




CONCLUSION The Russian offshore section of the planned Nord Stream gas pipeline is located in the eastern part of the Gulf of Finland of the Baltic Sea. An analysis of the existing materials, a qualitative and quantitative analysis of the probable impact of the construction and use of this section of the gas pipeline on the environment allow drawing the following conclusions. Underlying condition of the environment of the Baltic Sea in the area of laying the route of the Russian offshore section of the Nord Stream gas pipeline (in the eastern part of the Gulf of Finland) can be characterised as relatively unharmed. In geological relation, the seabed of the Gulf of Finland in the area of the planned laying of the Nord Stream offshore gas pipeline is characterised as a typical platform structure with a prevalence of a relief of an accumulative type. The most representative part of the seabed area's profile are the quarternary sediments, sand sediments presented (b. Portovaya and area of the Island of Gogland) and sludge (central part of the off-shore section) with a high level of ferromanganese concrete. The lithodynamic system of the shore area is in stable condition. The sea waters and bottom sediments of the Gulf of Finland are "clean" or "relatively clean" as regards their quality class. The biodiversity in the regions examined complies with the level typical for the eastern part of the Gulf of Finland, including the detected vulnerable and particularly protected types listed in the Red Books of the Russian Federation, Leningrad Region, etc. Over a significant length of the oil pipeline, the ecosystems are distinguished by a low level of biodiversity, in particular, there are sections without any benthos along the planned line. The region is relatively poor in biological resources (mainly fish), however, the shore part of the waters, where the gas pipeline is to be laid (in b. Portovaya), is of great importance to the fishing industry - sprat breeding grounds are located here. This part of the waters is used for industrial fishing with passive fishing equipment. The industrial activities in the Gulf of Finland are characterised to be of a low and average level of intensity, with the exception of shipping south of the Nord Stream line. The development of technological and technical solutions for the transportation of gas in the Nord Stream off-shore gas pipeline system is based on the principle of ensuring maximum reliability and safety of the planned facilities. The plan is to apply state-of-the-art methods of constructing offshore gas pipelines with the use of high-tech and environmentally sound contemporary equipment, both from domestic and imported production. A comparison of the various variants of implementing the project (including a refusal of activities, onshore gas transport routes, etc.) shows that the line variant selected is ideal from the perspective of environmental protection, because it allows:

• minimising the length of the gas pipeline;

• reducing the number of states whose territorial waters and exclusive economic zones are crossed by the route;




• reducing to a minimum the route’s crossing of special protected natural areas (such a

crossing is only unavoidable where crossing the shores of Germany) and maintaining a maximum distance of the line from borders located close to special protected natural territories;

• reducing to a minimum the number of shipping routes, cables and other infrastructure

facilities crossed;

• avoiding the crossing of objects of cultural heritage, as well as zones of concentrating military interests, recreation areas, intensive fishing zones and mining regions.

A final optimisation of the line within the restrictions of the selected and examined two-kilometre corridor was carried out. The principal project decisions are developed in accordance with the governing provisions of the public health regulations and other normative legal documents governing the relations in the area of environmental protection and natural resource management in the Russian Federation, which are directed towards the warning and mitigation of negative impacts of specified industrial activities on the environment. In order to ensure the environmental soundness of the construction and use of the gas pipeline, a system of measures was developed, which are designed to minimise or avoid in full any negative impacts. Because the greatest impact on the environment may be during the period of conducting the construction work, precisely during this period the strictest measures to warn of or reduce negative impacts will be taken. The main measures can be described in brief as follows:

• selection of the most ideal dimensions of the trench when crossing shore lines, application of the best technology for laying it, minimisation of seabed volumes displaced;

• mandatory recultivation of sections in the places of the gas pipeline entering the shore

disturbed during construction.

• use of non-reactive, natural materials (gravel, macrofragmental material) which has no negative impact on the ecosystem, to cover up the trench;

• establishment of safety zones around the pipe-laying vessels and taking of other

measures to ensure the safety of shipping in the region of conducting the work;

• conducting of permanent environmental monitoring in the region of construction and control of compliance with all legal requirements;

• collection, transportation to the shore and use of all solid waste, liquid runoffs from

vessels used in construction;




• conducting of construction work in seasons most beneficial for the biotic components

of the ecosystem (i.e. outside periods of nesting and molting of birds or egg-laying of fish, etc.);

The conducted assessment of the potential impact of the processes of constructing and using the off-shore section of the planned gas pipeline on the environment allows forecasting that when implementing the designed activities and complying with all environmental protection measures specified by the project, there will be no significant or irreversible changes to the environment:

• the calculations of the spreading of contaminated substances in the ground layer of the atmosphere showed that no residential areas enter into the area exceeding the maximum contamination level during the pipe-laying work and that on the border of the residential area of Bolshoy Bor the concentration of toxic substances does not exceed the maximum contamination level even when simultaneously taking into account the sources working in the coast and shore areas, i.e. at the turn of construction of the shore and off-shore sections;

• when conducting construction and installation work, there is a switch of the

electromagnetic, thermal and radiation background in the region examined, in view of the absence of sources of electromagnetic or radiation contamination. The maximum level of noise in the closes residential area of Bolshoy Bor during the carrying out of the construction work is 14.16 dB(A), which does not exceed the public health norms in accordance with SN 2.2.4/2.1.8.562-96;

• the main impact on the sea water environment will be an increase in the content of

suspended substances, predominantly as a result of conducting dredging work when developing and the covering of the underwater trench, the construction of dams, as well the eradication of free transits (there is virtually no impact on the water's chemical composition). The impact will consist of a diversion of sea water to conduct the hydrotesting of the gas pipeline;

• the impact on fish stocks, birds and marine mammals will come as a result of the

physical and chemical and bioproductive properties amongst their population, while these impacts will be predominantly reversible and short-term and not result in significant and large-scale restructuring of the communities. With inadvertent environmental protection measures, losses in the number of living organisms indigenous to the region of the planned construction will be compensated with the help of paying out money in compensation for the fauna and fish stocks in accordance with the state authorities responsible for the protection of the biodiversity and condition of the bioresources in the region;

• in the processes of conducting the construction and installation work, 7 types of waste

disposal and use of 3-5 danger classes will be created, with a total volume of 21,425,308 tonnes. Service-utility runoffs will be directed to a service vessel collecting bilge water and disposed of in the Primorsk port (OOO Spetsimornegeport Primorsk). For the removal of waste in the form of scrap iron and electrode stubs, an agreement will be concluded with a specialist company (ZAO Ekoproekt). Waste from bitumen, the normal living activities of the staff and the use of vessels will go to landfill. Environmental protection fees will be imposed for the use of waste.




Overall, in standard accident-free use of the gas pipeline, there are no or only negligible negative impacts on the environment. The economic component of damage inflicted on the environment during the construction of the coast section is taken into account in the estimated calculation. Main expense items are payments for the use of natural resources, payments for the contamination of components of the environment and compensation payments. The probable material losses of third parties must be compensated by Nord Stream AG. The issue of a safe shut-down of the gas pipeline will probably be resolved later - after terminating the planned term of its operation (50 years), taking into account the legal requirements and technological possibilities which will exist at this time. The materials of the Assessment of the impact on the environment allow drawing the following conclusions: 1. Under the condition of complying with the planned decisions and environmental protection measures during the period of constructing and operation of the Russian offshore section of the Nord Stream gas pipeline specified by the project, the impact on the region's environment will be of a predominantly local and short-term nature, negative changes to the ecosystems of the Baltic Sea will be reversible and moderate in scale. 2. The damage to the environment and interests of third parties may be compensated by the operator of the project as specified by law. 3. The route of the gas pipeline selected and the construction technologies applied are ideal from an environmental perspective. 4. The specified range of environmental protection measures is sufficient to minimise any damage to the environment. Overall, the Russian section of the Nord Stream off-shore gas pipeline will not have a significant impact on the environment. The main impact of the activities anticipated on the environment, which is of a local and short-term nature, will be linked to the construction stage, while there will be virtually no impact during the operation phase of the gas pipeline. The implementation of the project is permissible from an environmental perspective.




LITERATURE 1. V. A. Abakumov, G. M. Chernogaeva, Condition of ecosystems on surface waters in Russia

according to data from many years of monitoring // Condition and complex monitoring of the natural environment and climate. Variation limits. М.: Nauka, 2001. pp. 177-191.

2. V. A. Abakumov, V. N. Maksimov, A. P. Levich, N. G. Bulgakov, 2004, The ecology of fresh

waters in Russia and neighbouring countries information system. 3.2 Monitoring macrozoobenthos // http://ecgrade.belozersky.msu/ru/opis3.htp#3.2.

3. V. A. Avinsky, I. V. Telesh, Composition and qualitative parameters of zooplankton. In the book

The Gulf of Finland under anthropogenic impact conditions. 1999. pp. 161-188. 4. N. A. Aybulatov, Russia's activities in the shore area of the sea and environmental problems. -М.:

Nauka, 2005 - 364 p. 5. A. F. Alimov Functional physiology of freshwater bivalve molluscs. L., 1981. 248 p. 6. A. F. Alimov, V. N. Nikulina, V. E. Panov, I. V. Telesh, N. P. Finogenova, 1993, Hydrobiological

characteristics of the Neva Bay in the Gulf of Finland. - Gidrobiol. zhurnal., vol. 29, No. 3: 3-14. 7. A. F. Alimov, V. E. Panov, E. V. Balushkina, S. M. Golubkov, V. N. Nikulina, I. V. Telesh, N. P.

Finogenova, L. P. Umnova, Assessment of the condition of the Neva Bay and eastern part of the Gulf of Finland in terms of hydrobiological parameters. /Environmental conditions in St Petersburg and the Leningrad Region in 1997. Reference and analytical review, SPb, 1998, pp. 109-119.

8. L. Almkvist, M. Olsson, D. D. Tormosov, A. V. Yablokov, 1987, Condition of populations and

problems of protecting the Baltics, Zool. zh. vol. LXVI, issue 4, pp. 588 - 597. Moscow. 9. M. A. Antipin, A. R. Gaginskaya, 2006, Obersvations of the migration of birds on the Island of

Gogland // Migration routes and stop-overs of birds in Eastern Fennoscandia. The. of an international symposium 14-16 March 2006, SPb. pp. 7-8.

10. A. E. Antonov, Large-scale variability of the hydrometeorological condition of the Baltic Sea and

its impact on the industry. L.: Gidrometeoizdat, 1987-248 p. 11. L. J. Appleby, L. Devell, Yu. K. Mishra et al. Migration routes of artificial radionuclides in the

environment. Radioecology after Chernobyl: Transl. from English. Edited by F. Warner and R. Harrison. - М.: Mir, 1999 - 512 p.

12. R. A. Aps Age and growth of the Baltic sprat. Riga.- 1986. 13. V. K. Arguchintsev, 1999, Numerical modelling of hydrologic characteristics and processes or the

spread of gas pollutants in the water environment // RAN Pres. -Vol.370. 6. С-803-806. 14. N. M. Arshanitsa, 1990, Fish as indicators of water quality // All-Union Conference. Methodology

of Environmental Standardisation. Thes. pres. Kharkov. pp. 73-74.




15. N. M. Arshanitsa, B. K. KArimov, 1986, Materials for the diagnosis and prevention of fish

toxicoses // Sb. scientific work GosNUORKh. Issue 257. pp. 85-97. 16. Atlas of flooding and wind of the Gulf of Finland. - L.: Gidrometeoizdat, 1967, 48 p. 17. Atlas of ice of the Gulf of Finland, ed. by V. A. Drabkin. - published by GUNiO MO, 2000 Adm.

6225. 18. Atlas of hydrometeorological occurrences which are dangerous and particularly dangerous for

shipping and fishing. North and Baltic seas. L.,1980-168 p. 19. N. B. Balashova, V. N. Nikitina, 1983, Towards a specific and environmental composition of the

phytoplankton in the Kopor Bay in the Gulf of Finland. In the collection: Environmental aspects of examining heat sink atomic power stations. М: 24-32.

20. M. Ya. Balode, 1991, Environmental situation in the Baltic Sea during the "blooming" of

optionally toxic cyanobacteriae. Biological resources of water bodies in the Baltic Sea. Thes. pres. 23 scientific conf. for the research of the water bodies of the Baltics. Petrozavodsk: 201-202.

21. E. B. Balushkina Functional significance of larvae chironomids in continental water reservoirs. L.:

Nauka, 1987, 179 p. 22. E. V. Balushkina, G. G. Vinberg, Dependence between mass and length of the body of plankton

animals. //Main general findings of water ecosystems, ed. by G. G. Vinberg, L: Nauka, 1979, pp. 169-172.

23. S. L. Basova, D. E. Bychenkov, V. V. Kovaleva, E. K. Lange, N. V. Rodionova, 1997,

Hydrobiological characteristics of water quality in the Neva Bay an eastern part of the Gulf of Finland. - Environmental conditions in St Petersburg and the Leningrad Region in 1996. Reference and analytical review. SPb: 67-76.

24. S. L. Basova, E. K. Lange, V. V. Kovaleva, 1999, Characteristics of the Neva Bay and shallow

water region of the eastern Gulf of Finland in respect of hydrobiological parameters. Environmental protection, nature management and safeguarding of environmental safety in St Petersburg in 1998, SPb: 202-210.

25. S. L. Basova, M. G. Rodionova, Z. P. Zheludkova, L. P. Sugonyaeva, V. D. Malysh, N. A.

Alekseevna,, 1984, Overview of the pollution conditions in the eastern part of the Gulf of Finland in respect of hydrobiological parameters in 1983. - FOL SZUGKS. L.: 105 p.

26. A. P. Belavskaya, 1987, Characteristics of littoral vegetation. In the book The Neva Bay:

hydrobiological findings. L.: pp. 66-69. 27. V. V. Belov et al. Synoptic wind variability over the Baltic Sea. Trudy LGMTs, 1991, issue 5, pp.

10-16. 28. A. P. Belyshev, L. Yu. Preobrazhensky, Structure of currents in the Neva Bay and eastern part of

the Gulf of Finland. - Trudy GGI, 1988, issue 321, pp. 4-16. 29. A. S. Berezhnoy, S. S. Berezhnoy, Boats and vessels of the USSR Navy 1928-1945. М. 1988.




30. A. A. Berezovsky, Examinations of the water quality in the Baltic Sea basin. М.,

Gudrometeoizdat, 1991, 98 p. 31. V. V. Betin, P. V. Panteleev, Maps of the surface currents in the gulfs of Finland and Riga on the

basis of materials from aerial photography of the currents in 1966 // Trudy LGMO, 1967, No. 4, pp. 3-42.

32. V. V. Betin, P. V. Panteleev, Seasonal variations of the permanent currents scheme in the Baltic

Sea and their changes under the influence of the wind // Collection of the Leningrad GMO and Petrozavodsk GMO, 1970, issue 6, pp. 45-69.

33. E. P. Bityukob, Zooplankton of the eastern part of the Gulf of Finland and its significance for the

food of Baltic gerring.- Avtoref. kand. diss. L. 1961. 34. E. P. Bityukov, Битюков Э.П. Food supply of Baltic herring (Clupea harengis membras L.) in the

eastern part of the Gulf of Finland. Questions of ichthyology. Vol.1, issue 4 (21). M., 1961, pp. 723-736.

35. E. P. Bityukov, V. N. Greze, M. V. Petrovskaya, 1971, Zooplankton of the Gulf of Finland. - Izv.

GosNIORKh, vol. 76. pp. 46-64. 36. A. I. Blazhchishin, Paelography and evolution of later quarterny sedimentation in the Baltic Sea.

Editos A. A. Gaygalas, 1998, Kaliningrad: Yantarny skaz. - 160 p. 37. Bogatyrev 1994 - S. V. Bogatyrev, Losses of military ships and cutters of the USSR Navy during

the Second World War. L. 3. 38. V. N. Bokov et al. Synoptic wind variability over the Baltic Sea. Trudy LGMTs, 1991, issue 5, pp.

10-16. 39. M. M. Borisenko Борисенко М.М., N. K. Kravchenko, Some results of examining the mode of

strong winds in the Baltic Sea and north west of the ET USSR//Tr.Zap.-Sib.NIGMI, -1979,- No. 45. Pp.41- 51.

40. L. P. Vraginsky, 1955, On the level of toxicity of blue and green algae. Priroda, pp. 1-117. 41. I. F. Brandta (1856) Vertebrates of northern European Russia and in the characteristics of the

Northern Urals // Annex to the book by Gofman Northern Urals and littoral range of Pay-Khoy. SPb.

42. R. R. Bruks, Pollution by microelements // Chemistry of the environment, 1982, pp. 371-413. 43. V. A. Buzun, 1998, Details on the migration of birds on the Island of Seskar (Gulf of Finland,

Baltic Sea) // Materials from the programme Examination of the condition of populations of migrating birds and tendencies of their changes in Russia. V.2. pp. 47-69.

44. V. A. Buzun, 1998, Migration of birds on the archipelago of the Kurgal reef (south eastern part of

the Gulf of Finland) in autumn 1997 // Materials from the programme Examination of the condition of populations of migrating birds and tendencies of their changes in Russia. М., 2: 108-122.

45. V. A. Buzun, P. Kerauskas, 1993, Ornithological findings in the eastern part of the Gulf of Finland

// Ris. ornitol. zhurnal, No. 2, issue 2 . pp. 253-259.


PETER GAZ NO. 36/07-01- TEO-OOS-0801(1)-S6 NORD STREAM No. G-PE-LFR-EIA-101-08010100-06


46. V. V. Bulyon, Original plankton production in inland waters. L., 1983. 150 p. 47. V. V. Kosheleva, M. A. Novikov, I. P. Migalovsky, A. M. Lapteva, E. A. Gorbacheva 48. A. Viller, Determinant of sea fish and fresh waters of the North European Basin, М., 1983, 429 p. 49. G. G. Vinberg,, Original plankton production, Minsk., 1960, 329 p. 50. Algae. Handbook. 1989. Kiev: Nauk. dumka. 608 p. 51. K. V. Volkov, A. N. Popov, Intertype contingency of fish of the eastern part of the Gulf of Finland according to

data of trawler mapping. Collection of scientific work of the GosNIORKh, issue 291, pp. 87-97. L.1989. 52. E. G. Volkova, V. N. Pesonichny, Influence of dredging on the environment. Hydromechanisation and problems

for the environment, Theses pres. All-Union Scientific and Research Conference, M, 1981. 53. Temporary method of assessing damage inflicted on fish stocks as a result of construction, reconstruction or

expansion of businesses, buildings and other facilities and conducting various types of work on fishing reservoirs. M., 1990.

54. A. R. Gaginskaya, 1967, On the migration of birds on the southern coast of the Gulf of Finland (according to

observations from 1960-1962 in the region of Stary Petergof) // Results of ornithological research in the Baltics. Tallin.

55. N. P. Galkina, L. V. Shirokov, On the distribution and number of fish larvae in the eastern part of the Gulf of

Finland. // News from the GosNIORKh. 1978., vol. 129, pp. 43 -52. 56. V. F. Galchenko, Bacterial cycle of methane in marine ecosystems // Nature. 1995. 6. pp. 35-48. 57. Geography and monitoring of biodiversity, authors' collective, М.: Publishing house of the Scientific and

Education Technology Centre, 2002. 432 p. 58. Geology of the Baltic Sea Edited by V. K. Gudelis, E. M. Emelyanov, Vilnius: Mokslas, 1976, 380 p. 59. D. E. Gershanovich, A. A. Elizarov, V. V. Sapozhnikov, Bioproductivity of the ocean, М.: Agropromizdat,

1990, 237 p. 60. Hygienic demands on the quality and safety of food staples and alimentary products. Sanitary rules and

standards. SanPiN 2.3.2.560-96., М., 1997 61. Hydrometeorological conditions of the shelf zone in the seas of the USSR. Handbook. Vol.1. Issue 1.- L.:

Gidrometeoizdat, 1983.-173 p. 62. Hydrometeorology and hydrochemistry of the seas of the USSR. Volume 3. The Baltic Sea, issue 1.

Hydrometeorological conditions. - SPb: Gidrometeoizdat, 1992, 450 p.




63. Hydrometeorology and hydrochemistry of the seas. Vol. III. The Baltic Sea. Issue 2. Hydrometeorological

conditions and oceanographic foundations of the formation of biological productivity. Gidrometeoizdat, 1994. 64. A. Gill, Dynamics of the atmosphere and ocean. Vol. 2. М.: Mir. 1986, 415 p. 65. M. M. Gollerbakh, L. K. Krasavina, Determinant of freshwater algae in the USSR. Issue 14. Charophytes. L.:

Nauka. 190 p. 66. M. M. Gollerbakh, E. K. Kosinskaya, 1953, V. I. Polyansky, Blue and green algae. Determinant of freshwater

algae in the USSR. М.- L.:, Nauka, issue 3, 643 p. 67. A. V. Gorbunova, Influence of an increased content of sediments in the water on the growth of three cladoceran

species // Sb. nauch. tr. GosNIORKh, 1986, issue 255, pp. 79-82. 68. State water registry. Multiple-year data. Vol. 1. RSFSR, issue 5, Nos. 1 and 2. -L., 1986, 344 p. 69. G. B. Grauman, Ichthyoplankton, in the book: Studies into the biological productivity of the Baltic Sea, vol. 3,

М. 1984, pp. 259-456. 70. G. B. Grauman, Environmental features of reproduction of the principal pelagic fish in the Baltic Sea.//

Fischerei-Forschung. 1980. 18. 77-81. 71. A. I. Gritsenko, G. S. Akopova, V. M. Maksimov, Ecology. Oil and gas. - М.: Nauka, 1997. 72. V. K. Gudelis, History of the development of the Baltic Sea. Chapter 3 in the book: Geology of the Baltic Sea,

pp. 95-116. Publishing house Moklas, Vilnius, 1976. 73. V. V. Gurvich, Methods for quantitative research of the micro- and mezobenthos // Biol. intern. wat. Inform.

biol. 1969. 3. pp. 57-63. 74. I. N. Davidan, A. E. Mikhaylov, A. I. Smirnova, Long-term variability of the hydrological conditions of the

Baltic Sea. // Problems of researching and mathematical modelling of ecosystems in the Baltic Sea. International project Baltika. Issue 4.- L.: Gidrometeoizdat, 1989, pp. 6-61.

75. A. N. Dzyuban, I. N. Krylova, I. A. Kuznetsova, Features of the spread of bacteria and gas mode in the waters of

the Baltic Sea in the winter period // Oceanology. 1999, vol. 39, No. 3. 76. ‚A. N. Dobrotvorsky et al. Results of examining the processes of shelf seabed transformation under the influence

of waves, currents and ice cover in some littoral areas of the Baltic Sea. RAO / CIS OFFSHORE - 2005. September 13-15, 2005.

77. V. A. Dogel, Zoology of invertebrates. M., 1975. 78. V. R. Dolnik, 1981, "Eksperiment" programmes: comparison of methods of observing the flight of birds // Tr.

Zool. in-ta AN SSSR 104: 3-7. 79. V. B. Evstigneeva, L. I. Prokhorova, 1968, On the determination of chlorophyll a and b // Biochemistry, vol. 33,

issue 2.




80. Almanach of the quality of the sea waters in the eastern part of the Gulf of Finland according to hydrobiological

parameters in 1988. 1989. L. 81. Almanach of the quality of the sea waters in the eastern part of the Gulf of Finland according to hydrobiological

parameters in 1989. 1990. L. 82. Almanach of the quality of the sea waters in the eastern part of the Gulf of Finland according to hydrobiological

parameters in 1989. 1990. Sevzapgidromet, L. 90 p. 83. Almanach of the quality of the surface waters according to hydrobiological parameters in the area of activity of

SZUGKS in 1987. 1988. L. 84. E. M. Emelyanov, Barrier zones in the ocean. Sedimentation and mineralisation, geoecology. Yantarny skaz,

Kaliningrad. 1998, 416 p. 85. E .M. Emelyanov, Powers of winkle sludge and natural long-term currents in cavities of the Baltic Sea below the

halocline. Thes. pres. Kh\Ch Intern. scientific school for marine geology, Moscow, 14-18 November 2005. М., 2005. GEOS, vol. I, pp.189-190.

86. E .M. Emelyanov, Spread of chemical elements in bottom sediments. In the book: Ecosystem models.

Assessment of the current condition in the Gulf of Finland. S-Petersburg, Gidrometeoizdat, 1997, Issue 5, part II, pp. 166-175.

87. E .M. Emelyanov, V. A. Kravtsov, Transitional and heavy metals in the waters of the Gulf of Finland. In the

book: Ecosystem models. Assessment of the current condition in the Gulf of Finland. Gidrometeoizdat, S-Petersburg, 1997, Issue 5, part II, pp. 329-351.

88. E. M. Emleyanov, V. T. Paka, V. A. Kravtsov, The problem of the Baltics in the 20th century. Captured

chemical weapons. Journal of the RF Navy Morskoy Sbornik. 2000. No. 2(1839), pp. 41- 43. 89. E. M. Emelyanov, E. S. Trimonis, G. S. Kharin, Geological structure of the seabed of the Northern Baltics.

Oceanology, 1996, vol. 36, No. 6, pp. 910-918. 90. L. A. Zenkevich, Biology of the seas of the USSR, М., 1963, 739 p. 91. L. A. Zenkevich, Seas of the USSR, their fauna and flora. М., 1956, 424 p. 92. V. V. Zernova, Autumn phytoplankton of the Baltic Sea // Oceanology 1997. Vol. 37, No. 2. pp. 236-244. 93. V. V. Zernova, V. P. Shevchenko, Structure of phytocens of the Baltic Sea under conditions of continuous

eutrophication of the waters // Oceanology. 2001. Vol. 41., No. 2, pp. 231 -239. 94. V. A. Zubakin, 1988, Polar tern // Birds of the USSR. Seagulls. M. pp. 337-347. 95. V. I. Zubov, V. N. Koterov, V. M. Krivtsov, A. V. Shipilin, Non-stationary gas-dynamic processes in the gas

pipeline on the underwater crossing of the Black Sea // Mathematical modelling. 2001. Vol. 13, No. 4. pp.58-70. 96. M. M. Zubova, Dependence of wind speed on the gradient of atmospheric pressure for the Baltic Sea // Tr.

GOIN, 1962, issue 70, pp. 25-31. 97. V. V. Ivanova, Experimental modelling zoobenthos choking when dumping soil. // Collection of scientific works

from GosNIORKh, 1988, issue 285. pp. 107-113.




98. Ivankovskoe water reservoir: current condition and problems of protection. М,: Nauka, 2000, 344 p. 99. Yu. A. Izrael, A. V. Tsyban, Anthropogenic ocean ecology. L.: Gidrometeoizdat, 1989, 528 p. 100. Yu. A. Izrael, A. V. Tsyban, ed. Examination of the Baltic Sea ecosystem. St Petersburg, Gidrometeoizdat, 2005. 101. Yu. A. Izrael, A. V. Tsyban., S. A. Shuka, S. A. Mosharov, 1999, Flows of polychlorinated biphenyls in the

ecosystems of the Baltic Sea // Meteorology and hydrology. 10. pp. 63-74. 102. V. V. Ilinsky, Heterotrophic bacterioplankton: ecology and role in the processes of natural cleaning of the

environment from oil contamination. Avtoref. dis. dotkora biol. nauk. M: Prostator, 2000. 103. IOS, vol. 1, 1996 - History of domestic shipbuilding. Vol. 1. SPb. 104. IOS, vol. 2, 1996 - History of domestic shipbuilding. Vol. 2. SPb. 105. Yu. A. Isakov, 1982, Situation of studying the fauna of the USSR // Birds of the USSR. Study history, divers,

toadstools, tube-nosed. М.:pp. 208-224. 106. I. I. Kazanova, Determinant of eggs and larvae of fish in the Baltic Sea and its gulfs // Tr. VNIRO / Biology and

industry of the main commercial fish in the Baltic Sea / ed. by N. A. Dmitrieva - 1954, vol. XXVI. pp. 221-265. 107. N. E. Kaygorodov, Influence of mineral sediments on marine life and spread of suspended particles with the

flow during dredging work // Collection of scientific works of GosNIORKh, 1979, issue 2. pp. 128-131. 108. B. Ya. Kalveka, 1980, On the seasonal cycles of phytoplankton development in the open parts of the Baltics and

the Riga Gulf in 1976, works of BaltNIIRKh, 15, pp. 36-45. 109. M. V. Kaleys, Contemporary hydrological conditions in the Baltic Sea // Ashyu Special Report, 1976, No. 4, pp.

37-44. 110. S. S. Kamaeva, Corrosiveness of soil taking into account microbiological factors. Methods of determination.

NRTs Gazprom. Moscow, 2000, 79 p. 111. K. Karri-Lindal, Birds over the land and sea: Global overview of the migration of birds. М.: Mysl, 1984. 204 p. 112. V. M. Katanskaya, 1981, Increased aquatic vegetation of continental water bodies of the USSR. L., Nauka. 187

p. 113. Catastrophe of the Globe Asimi tanker in the port of Klaipeda and its environmental consequences, M.:

Gidrometeoizdat, 1990, 232 p. 114. I. L. Kiselev, 1948, On the photoplankton of the subsaline region of the Gulf of Finland (area of the Koporskoy

and Luzhskoy bays and Gulf of Narva). Collection of articles in memory of academician A. S. Zernov. L.: 192-204.




115. R. K. Klige On the influence of global hydrometeorological changes to the level and thermal mode of the

Atlantic Ocean and Baltic Sea // Works of the 12th conference of Baltic oceonographic scientists and 7th meeting of experts on the hydrologic equilibrium in the Baltic Sea, L.,1981, pp. 27-41.

116. The climate of Leningrad. - L.: Gidrometeoizdat, 1982, 252 p. 117. Key ornithological territories of Russia's Baltic region (Kaliningrad and Leningrad regions). SPb: Russian

Association for the Protection of Birds, 2000, 136 p. 118. R. Z. Kovalevskaya, Ковалевская Р.З. Assimilation numbers of plankton // General foundations of studying

water ecosystems. L.: 1979. pp. 157-163. 119. V. I. Kozhanchikov, 1964, Marine flora of the Neva in Leningrad and its surroundings. - LGU Messenger, 15,

biol. series, 3. 120. M. P. Kokuricheva et al. Impact of suspended substances during the extraction of sand on marine organisms.

Hydromechanisation and problems for the environment. Theses pres. All-Union Scientific and Technical Conference, M., 1981.

121. A. M. Kolmogorov, Towards a cinematics of the movement of liquid with variable muddiness. Information from

the AN SSSR No. 5, ONTI, 1946. 122. A. V. Kondratiev, 2000, Key ornithological territories of Russia's Baltic region (Kaliningrad and Leningrad

regions). SPb., 136 p. 123. N. V. Kondratieva, O. V. Kovalenko, 1975, Brief determinant of the types of toxic blue and green algae, -

Naukova dumka, Kiev: 80 p. 124. Konkevich 1869 - L. Konkevich, Chronicle of accidents and other disasters of military vessels, SPb, 1874. 125. I. L. Korelyakjova, 1989, The Gulf of Vyborg: marine flora and life. Collection of scientific work of the

GosNIORKh, issue 291: 26-43. 126. I. L. Korelyakova, 1997, Increased marine life of the eastern part of the Gulf of Finland. SPb.:GosNIORKh. 160

p. 127. T. V. Koronelli, V. V. Ilinsky, M. N. Semenenko, Oil contamination and stable marine ecosystems // Ecologyо,

1993. 4. pp. 78-80. 128. A. A. Korchagin, 1976, Structure of plant communities // Field geobotanics. L., vol. 5, pp. 7-313. 129. V. N. Koterov, V. I. Zubov, V. M. Krivtsov, Study of the processes of hydrogen sulphide release in the area of

laying a gas pipeline in the instance of its explosion in the off-shore section. Scientific and technical report - М.: VTs RAN - IBRAE - VNIIGAZ, 2000.

130. Red book of the nature of the Leningrad Region. 1999. Vol. 1. Particularly protected natural areas (ed. G. A.

Noskov, M. S. Boch) SPb., Publishing house Aktsioner i K. 352 p.




131. Red book of the nature of the Leningrad Region. 2002. Vol. 3. Animals. (ed. G. A. Noskov) SPb, ANO NPO Mir

i Semya. 480 p. 132. Red book of the RSFSR. 1983. Animals. M. Rosselkhozizdat. 456 p. 133. Red book of the USSR. 1984. Vol. 1. М.: Lesnaya Prom., 478 p. 134. Accident of the Amerika tanker at the northern tip of Gogland. 15.10. 1856. Morskoy sb. XXVI No. 14 pp. 32-

35. 135. I. I. Kryshev, V. N. Ryabova, 1986, Periodic processes in the dynamics of zooplankton in the eastern part of the

Gulf of Finland. In the book: Hydrobiological estuary studies. Works of ZIN AN SSSR. Vol. 141. pp. 43-57. 136. L. A. Kudersky, Quantitative report of the bottom fauna in the eastern part of the Gulf of Finland of the Baltic

Sea // Works of GosNIORKh, 1982, issue 192. pp. 78-93. 137. L. A. Kudersky, G. M. Lavrentieva, Assessment of damage to waters of the fishing industry from disposing soil

masses (relating to the eastern part of the Gulf of Finland). SPb. 1996. 52 p. 138. L. A. Kudresky, V. A. Rumyantsev, V. G. Drabkova, 2000, Ecological condition of the Onega Lake, Ladoga

Lake, River Neva and Gulf of Finland water system at the turn of the 21st century. - SPb: 79 p. 139. Kh. A. Kuk, 1979, Кук Х.А. 1979. Macrophytes of the eastern and north-eastern coast of the Gulf of Finland, -

News from the systematics of lower plants, vol. 16: 15-18. 140. E. V. Kumarin, 1979, Method of studying the visible migration of birds, Tartu: 1-59. 141. E. A. Kurashov, Meiobenthos as a component of lake ecosystems, SPb: Alga-Fond, 1994. 224 p. 142. E. A. Kurashov, On the interrelation of the biomass meio- and macrobenthos and share of meiobenthos in the

general biomass of lake ecosystems during various productive levels of benthos communities // Examination of freshwater and marine invertebrates. L., 1986а. pp. 162-171.

143. G. M. Lavrentieva (manager). Report: Conducting environmental monitoring of the environment in the region of

the construction of facilities of hydrotechnological equipment and port structure of Primorsk oil-loading terminal. Section: Fishing industry monitoring. 2002 . - Funds of GosNIORKh.

144. G. M. Lavrentieva (manager). Report: Fish industry monitoring of the area of the construction of a equipment to

protect St Petersburg from flooding, Funds of GosNIORKh. 2003 145. G. M. Lavrentieva, S. V. Mesheryakova, O. I. Mitskevich, V. A. Ogorodnikova, O. N. Susloparova, T. V.

Tereshenkova, Hydrobiological characteristics of the Gulf of Vyborg, straits of Berkezund, Bay of Batareyna and Luzhskoy Bay (eastern part of the Gulf of Finland). In the book: The Gulf of Finland under anthropogenic impact conditions. 1999. SPb. pp. 211-256.




146. G. M. Lavrentiev, O. N. Susloparova, V. A. Ogorodnikova, O. I. Mitskevich, O. V. Lebedeva, T. V. Tereshkova,

H. I. Volkhonskaya, G. A. Alekseeva, A. S. Shurukhin, Fish industry assessment of major second-level gulfs (Vyborg, Koporskaya and Luzhskaya bays) of the eastern part of the Gulf of Finland. - Thes. pres. VIII conference of the Hydrobiological Society RAN. Kaliningrad, 2001, vol. 1, pp. 51 -52.

147. V. D. Lebedev, Fish of the USSR, M, 1969, 447 p. 148. I. O. Leontiev, Changes to the coast line under the influence of hydrotechnical equipment // Oceanology, 2007.

Vol. 47 (forthcoming). 149. I. O. Leontiev, Littoral dynamics: waves, currents and streams of deposits. М.: GEOS, 2001, 272 p. 150. I. O. Leontiev, Account of sediments and forecast of the development of the coast // Oceanology, 2008а, vol. 48,

(forthcoming). 151. I. O. Leontiev, On the mechanism of creating underwater waves on a sandy shore slope // Oceanology, 2008b,

vol. 47 (forthcoming). 152. L. A. Lesnikov, Biological aspects of conducting dredging work, //Collection of presentations and information

provided at the scientific and technical conference for the study of influence of dredging and soil dumping on the environment. Leningrad basin management of the scientific and technical society of water transport, LenmorNIIproekt and LIVT, 1975: 27-32.

153. L. A. Lesnikov, Biological aspects of conducting dredging work, In the collection: Presentations and information

provided at the scientific and technical conference on the influence of dredging and soil dumping on the environment, L, Nauka, 1975.

154. L. A. Lesnikov, Influence of moving soil on fishing industry waters // Collection of scientific work of

GosNIORKh, 1986, issue 255: 3-9. 155. A. P. Lisitsyn, New possibilities of four-dimensional oceanology and monitoring the second generation -

experience of two years' of examining the White Sea // Contemporary problems of oceanology, М.: Nauka, 2003.

156. A. P. Lisitsyn, Sediment formation in the Bering Sea, М., Nauka, 1966, 574 p. 157. A. P. Lisitsyn, The marginal filter of oceans // Oceanology, 1994. Vol. 34, 5. pp. 735- 747. 158. D. S. Lyuleeva, M. M. Zhapakyavichus, M. E. Shumakov, M. L. Yablonkevich, K. V. Bolshakov, 1981,

Comparison of results of examining the daily flight in autumn 1977 to Kursk plait with five methods // Tr. Zool. in-ta. AN SSSR 104: 57-70.

159. Yu. I. Lyakhin, S. V. Makarova, A. A. Maksimov, O. P. Savchuk, N. I. Silina, 1997, Environmental situation in

the eastern part of the Gulf of Finland in July 1996, in the book: Problems of researching and mathematical modelling of ecosystems in the Baltic Sea, issue 5, Ecosystem models. Assessment of the current condition in the Gulf of Finland, Part 2, Hydrometeorological, hydrochemical, hydrobiological, geological conditions and dynamics of the water of the Gulf of Finland, Gidrometeoizdat, SPb: 416-434.




160. МА. Vol. 3, 1966 - Sea Atlas, Vol. 3, М., 1966. 161. P. F. Mayevsky, 1964, Flora in moderate climates of the European part of the USSR, L., 880 p. 162. S. V. Makarov, 1997, Species composition and quantitative characteristics of phytoplankton, In the book:

Problems of researching and mathematical modelling of ecosystems in the Baltic Sea, issue 5, Ecosystem models. Assessment of the current condition in the Gulf of Finland, Part 2, Hydrometeorological, hydrochemical, hydrobiological, geological conditions and dynamics of the water of the Gulf of Finland, Gidrometeoizdat, SPb: 354-365.

163. S. V. Makarov, 1999, Dynamics of structural parameters of phytoplankton of the eastern part of the Gulf of

Finland over many years. - Avtoref. cand. dis., SPb: 24 p. 164. V. I. Makarova, Calculation of wind fields in accordance with fields of atmospheric pressure over the sea //

Background information, Issue No. 4. Hydrometeorology, Hydrometeorology series, 1989. 165. A. A. Maksimov, Macrozoobenthos of the eastern part of the Gulf of Finland // Ecosystem models. Assessment

of the current condition in the Gulf of Finland. Part 2, Hydrometeorological, hydrochemical, hydrobiological, geological conditions and dynamics of the water of the Gulf of Finland, SPb: Gidrometeoizdat, - 1997. - Issue 5. pp. 405-416.

166. O. B. Maksimova, Assessment of the influence of increased water muddiness, occurring when conducting

hydrotechnological work, on the structural and functional characteristics of photoplankton. Avtoref. dis. cand. biol. nauk. SPb.: GosBIORKh, 2002, 22 p.

167. Yu. S. Malyshev, Yu. V. Polyushkin, Assessment of the condition of ecosystems - a key element of

environmental monitoring//Geography and natural resources, 1998. No. 1. pp. 35-42. 168. A. S. Malchevsky, Yu. B. Pukinsky, 1983, Birds of the Leningrad Region and surrounding areas, L., vol. 1, 480

p., vol. 2, - 504 p. 169. G. G. Matishov, B. A. Nikitin, 1997, Scientific and methodical approaches to the assessment of impact of gas

and oil extraction on the ecosystems of the Arctic Sea (based on the example of the Shtokman deposit), Apatity, Publishing house KNTs RAN, 393 p.

170. D. G. Matishov, G. G. Matishov, Radiological environmental oceanology, - Apatity: publishing house Kolskogo

NTs RAN, 2001, 417 p. 171. International environmental protection legislation in the region of the Baltic Sea: comments to the conventions,

St Petersburg, 1999, 37 p. 172. Methods of assessing the pollution and estimating the volume of damage from the destruction of fauna and

disturbance of their habitat, confirmed by the RF State Environmental Committee. 28 April 2000




173. Methods of assessing the pollution and estimating the volume of damage from the destruction of fauna and

disturbance of their habitat (confirmed by the Russian State Environmental Committee on 28 April 2000). 174. Methodical recommendations for the collection and processing of materials during hydrobiological studies in

freshwater bodies. Photoplankton and its production, 1981. L. 175. Methodical recommendations for the collection and processing of materials during hydrobiological studies in

freshwater bodies. Zooplankton and its production, 1984. L. 176. Methodical recommendations for the collection and processing of materials during hydrobiological studies in

freshwater bodies. Zoobenthos and its production, 1983. L. 177. Procedural MU guidelines 2.1.7.730-99. 178. Procedural guidelines. Conducting observations of toxic contamination of bottom sediments in freshwater

ecosystems on the basis of biotesting 2002. 179. Methodical textbook for studying the food supply and food relations of fish in natural conditions. 1974, M:

Nauka, 254 p. 180. Procedure manual for water biotesting, M, 1991. 181. Methods of studying organic substances in the ocean / edited by E. A. Romankevich, M, Nauka, 1980, 343 p. 182. Yu. D. Mikhailov, Probable characteristics of littoral currents of the Baltic Sea//Tr. GOIN, 1972, Issue 111, pp.

76-97. 183. O. I. Mitskevich (manager) Report: Local fish industry monitoring during hydrotechnical work in the waters of

the specialised oil-loading sea port of Primorsk. Funds of GosNIORKh. 2006 184. Modelling of the physical effects during accident disturbance of one of the lines of the underwater crossing of

Yamal-Tsentr through Baydaratskaya Bay. Scientific and technical report. - М.: RAO Gazprom - NTP Ekhotekhnorisk Neftegaz, 1996.

185. T. O. Moiseenko, I. V. Rodyushkin, V. A. Dauvalter, L. P. Kudryavtseva, Formation of the quality of surface

waters and bottom sediments of anthropogenic strain on the catchment area of the Arctic basin. Apatity Kolsky Research Centre RAN, 1996, 263 p.

186. T. I. Moiseenko, Theoretical foundations of standardising anthropogenic strain on reservoirs of the Subarctic,

Apatity, Kolsky Research Centre, 1997, 261 p. 187. A. S. Monin, A. M. Yaglom, Statistical hydromechanics, Part 1.//М. Nauka, 1965, 639 p. 188. F. D. Mordukhay-Boltovskoy, I. K. Rivier, Predatory cladocerans Podonidae, Polyphemidae, Cercopagidae and

Leptodoridae of the world fauna. - L.: Nauka, 1987, -182 p.




189. I. E. Moroz, V. P. Gorelov, V. M. Tyunyakov, Influence of dredging work on the physiological condition of

some hydrobionts//Collection of scientific work of GosNIORKh, 1998, issue 323: 115-125. 190. V. A. Moskalev, 1975, Migration of water fowl at the tips of the Gulf of Vyborg in autumn 1971//Information

from the Baltic Committee for the Study of the Migration of Birds 9: 47-52. 191. Manual of applied science in respect of the climate of the USSR. Series 3, parts 1-6, issue 3. - L.:

Gidrometeoizdat, 1988, 692 p. 192. I. A. Nemirovskaya, Hydrocarbons in the ocean (snow-ice-water-suspended matter-bottom sediments) М.:

Nauchny Mir. 2004. 328 p. 193. I. A. Nemirovskaya, S. A. Zaretskas, 2000, Balance of hydrocarbons in the Baltic Sea // Geochemistry. No. 11

pp. 1210-1225 194. I. A. Nemirovskaya, S. A. Zaretskas, Composition of hydrocarbons and bottom sediments in the Baltic Sea //

Oceanology. 2001. 1. pp. 53-60. 195. I. A. Nemirovskaya, M. P. Nesteropva, O. S. Pustelnikov, Organic compounds in the waters of the Eastern

Baltics // Water resources. 1987. 1. pp. 111-118. 196. I. A. Nemirovskaya, V. P. Pilipenko, Experience of using the Milikhrom chromatograph for the analysis of

polygene in natural objects//Oceanology. 1991, vol. 31. Issue 4. pp. 678-682. 197. N. Nechaeva, Microbiological studies of the Gulf of Finland // Examination of the seas of the USSR. - 1933 -

issue 18. pp. 145-164. 198. I. I. Nikolaev, 1950, Main ecological and geographic complexes of phytoplankton of the Baltic Sea and their

spreading. - Botanical journal, No. 6, vol. 35: 602-611. 199. I. I. Nikolaev, 1954, On the "flowering" of water in the Baltic Sea, - Works of VNIRO, 26: 210-220. 200. I. I. Nikolaev, 1961, Short quantitative characteristics of the plankton in the Baltic Sea, - Works BaltVNIRO, 7:

78-98. 201. I. I. Nikolaev, Plankton and fish productivity of the Baltic Sea, Riga, 1960, 56 p. 202. V. N. Nikulina, 1987, Dynamics of the number and biomass of phytoplankton in the Neva Bay, - Works of ZIN

AN SSSR, 151:. 20-28. 203. V. N. Nikulina, 1988, Phytoplankton of the Neva Bay and eastern part of the Gulf of Finland, - Study of the

water system of the Ladoga Lake - River Neva - Neva Bay and eastern part of the Gulf of Finland. Works of GGI, issue 1: 59-66.

204. V. N. Nikulina, 1989, Plankton blue and green algae of the eastern part of the Gulf of Finland. Works of ZIN AN

SSSR, vol. 205: 26-37. 205. V. N. Nikulina, 1991, Composition, spreading and interannual changes to the phytoplankton in eastern part of

the Gulf of Finland, In the collection: Studies of phytoplankton in the system of monitoring the Baltic Sea and other seas of the USSR, М.: 55-68.




206. V. N. Nikulina, 1999, Phytoplankton of the Neva Bay and eastern part of the Gulf of Finland, - the Gulf of

Finland under anthropogenic impact conditions, Institute of Lymnology RAN, SPb: 114-137. 207. V. N. Nikulina, Plankton blue and green algae of the eastern part of the Gulf of Finland. Works of ZIN AN

SSSR, vol. 205: 1989. 26-37. 208. V. N. Nikulina, V. A. Bolshakova, 1998, Phytoplanktion of the River Neva estuary in the area of constructing

equipment for the protection of St Petersburg from floods. - Gidrobiol. zhurnal., vol. 34, No. 1: 25-33. 209. S. Yu. Novoselov, I. V. Bondarenko, A. Yu. Kuzmin, Environmental problems of developing oil and gas

deposits on the shelfs of the Barents and Karsk seas // Materials of the reporting session in respect of the results of NIR PINRO in 1991, Murmansk: PINRO, 1992, pp. 237-248.

210. Normative data for the maximum permissible levels of contamination with polluting facilities of the

environment. Reference material. SPb, 1994, 234 p. 211. Norms and criteria of assessing the contamination of bottom sediments in water facilities, 1996 - Regional

guideline, SPb, 20 p. 212. Norms and criteria of assessing the contamination of bottom sediments in the water facilities of St Petersburg,

Regional guideline, SPb, 1996, 20 p. 213. Radiation safety standards (NRB-99): Health guidelines. - М.: Centre for health and epidemiological

standardisation, health certification and expert reports of the Russian Ministry of Health, 1999, 116 p. 214. G. A. Noskov, E. R. Gaginskaya, A. O. Khaare, V. M. Kamenev, K. V. Bolshakov, 1965, Migration of birds in

the eastern part of the Gulf of Finland // Information from the Baltic Committee for the Study of the Migration of Birds, Tartu, 3: 3-27.

215. G. A. Noskov, V. A. Fedorov, A. R. Gaginskaya, R. A. Sagitov, V. A. Buzun, 1993, On the ornithological fauna

of the islands of the eastern part of the Gulf of Finland // Russian Ornithological Journal, vol. 2, issue 2, pp. 163-173.

216. Ensuring radiation safety when handling production waste with increased levels of natural radionuclides on

facilities of the RF oil and gas sector. Health and safety rules and standards, SanPiN 2.6.6.1169-02, Moscow: Russian Ministry of Health, 2002. - 24 p.

217. Ensuring satellite information of work for the environmental mapping of the Baltic Sea in October 2005 [text]:

report on the work under Agreement No. 01/1005 of 17 October 2005 / Atlantic scientific research of the fishing industry and oceanography, - Kaliningrad, 2005 - 20 p., 101 p., maps - ordered by: OOO Morskie Sputnikovye Tekhnologii.

218. A. I. Obzhirov, Gas chemical fields of the natural layer of seas and oceans, М. Nauka, 1993, 138. 219. Reports on the condition of pollution of the eastern part of the Gulf of Finland in respect of hydrobiological

parameters in 1981-1985, - FOL SZ UGKS.




220. Reports on the environmental condition of the seas of the USSR and specific regions of the Atlantic Ocean in

1990, SPb, Gidrometioizdat, 1991. -144 p. 221. Reports on the environmental condition of the seas of the USSR and specific regions of the Atlantic Ocean in

1991, SPb, Gidrometioizdat, 1992. - 156 p. 222. S. N. Olenin, The benthic "desert" and transitional environmental area on the seabed of the eastern part of the

Baltic Sea // Oceanology. - 1989. - vol. 29, issue 6. pp. 1006-1009. 223. Approximately permissible concentration of heavy metals and arsenic in soils. (Supplement 1 to PDK and ODK

list No. 6229-911) Health guidelines GN 2.1.7.020-94.М.1995, 7 p. 224. Main tendencies for the evolution of ecosystems / ed. I. N. Dovidan, O. P. Savchuk, SPb: Gidrometeoizdat, issue

4, 1989, pp. 96-102. 225. NIR report Theoretical and experimental studies into the processes of transforming relief ground under the

influence of wind waves, currents and ice cover for the purposes of optimising project decisions for the laying of the lines of the Northern European gas pipeline in the sections with access to the shore and in shallow water areas of the Baltic Sea. Vol. 3, Description of the models used and results of mathematical modelling, St Petersburg, 2004.

226. Report on NIS SChS run 2156, 2005. 227. Report on STM K-1711 Atlantniro run, 2005. 228. Report on the topic Analysis of the hydrometeorological conditions in the insular passage area, Ice-1. - GNINGI

MO, 1998, 140 p. 229. Environmental protection, environmental management and safeguarding environmental safety in St Petersburg in

1997, ed. A. S. Baeva and N. D. Sorokina, SPb, 1998, 306 p. 230. Assessment of the current condition in the Gulf of Finland. Part. 2, Hydrometeorological, hydrochemical,

hydrobiological, geological conditions and dynamics of the water of the Gulf of Finland/ ed. I. N. Dovidan, O. P. Savchuk, SPB, Gidrometeoizdat. issue 5, 1997, pp. 390-404.

231. Assessment of the level of contamination of soils with chemical substances, Part 1, heavy metals and pesticides,

М., Minprirody RF, 1982. 232. Studies into the biological productivity of the Baltic Sea, vol. 2, M., Administration of the SEV Secreteriat,

1984, 374 p. 233. E. A. Oyaveer, Baltic herring: Biology and industry, M., Agropromizdat, 1988, 2006 p. 234. E. B. Paveleva, Yu. I. Sorokin, Assessment of the catching efficiency of zooplankton with various fishing

equipment // Biology of inland waters. Information bulleting, 15. L., 1972. pp. 75-79. 235. V. T. Paka, Submerged chemical weapons: problem status, Russian Chemical Journal VKhO named after D. I.

Mendeleev, 2004, vol. ХLVIII, pp. 99-109.




236. V. T. Paka, Terminology of the water structure at the sections in the Slupsky stream of the Baltic Sea in spring

1993, Oceanology, 1996, vol. 36, No. 2, pp. 207-217. 237. S. A. Patin, 1997, Environmental problems of developing oil and gas resources of the sea shelf, M.: VNIRO

publishing house, 350 p. 238. S. A. Patin, Suspended matter as a natural and anthropogenic factor of influence on the sea environment and

organisms // Protection of marine bioresources under the conditions of intensive development of oil and gas deposits in the shelf and domestic water bodies of the Russian Federation: Collection of materials from an international seminar, - М., 2000. pp. 177-181.

239. S. A. Patin, Influence of contamination on the biological resources and productivity of the Atlantic Ocean, -М :

The Food Industry, 1979, 303 p. 240. S. A. Patin, Oil and the environment of the continental shelf, 2001. 241. S. A. Patin, Oil and the environment of the continental shelf, М.: VNIRO, 2001. 247 p. 242. F. A. Patokina, N. A. Kalinina, The ecology of the food supply of Baltic codfish and its place in the trophic

structure of the Baltic Sea // ICES C.M. Trophic Relationships 1997/GG:06. 243. F. A. Patokina, V. N. Feldman // Food supply and food relations of Baltic herring (Clupea harengus membras L)

and Baltic sprat (Sprattus sprattus Balticus Schneider) in the south-eastern part of the Baltic Sea/works of AtlantNIRO. Industrial and biological studies in the Baltic Sea in 1996-1997, collection of scientific works of AtlantNIRO, Kaliningrad, 1998, pp. 25-36.

244. List of maximum permissible concentrations and approximately permissible amounts of chemical substances in

the soil, M., 1993, 14 p. 245. List of fishing industry standards: maximum permissible concentrations and approximately safe levels of

influence of hazardous substances for water bodies which are of significance for the fishing industry, VNIRO, М., 1999.

246. Yu. A. Pesenko, Principles and methods of quantitative analysis in fauna studies: // 1982, М., "Nauka", 248 p. 247. T. B. Petrova, P. S. Miklyaev, V. K. Vlasov et al. Background content of 137Cs in the soils of Moscow // ANRI

Apparatus and news of radiation measurements, - 2004. - 3. pp. 35-41. 248. M. L. Pidgayko, 1971, Zooplankton of the eastern part of the Gulf of Finland as the nutritional foundation for

Baltic herring, - Information from GosNIORKh, vol. 76. 249. V. V. Pirogov, V. A. Andriyanov, V. Yu. Andreev, Influence of dredging work on the condition of the fauna of

molluscs in the Eastern Caspian channel. // Dredging work and the problem of protecting fish stocks and the environment of fishing industry waters, Astrakhan, 1984.

250. K. S. Pomeranets, Regional variability of the water temperature in the Baltic Sea//Works of GOIN, 1972, issue

110, pp. 37-44.




251. V. M. Ponyatovskaya, 1964, Report on the abundance and characteristics of the spread of species in natural plant

communities // Field geobotany, М., L., vol. 3, pp. 209-299. 252. A. N. Popov, Food supply of smelt in the eastern part of the Gulf of Finland, News from GosNIORKh, vol. 129,

L., 1978, pp. 53-63. 253. I. F. Pravdin, Management for the study of fish, // М., 1966, 376 p. 254. L. Prandtl, Hydromechanics, M.: Publishing house for foreign literature, 1949. 520 p. 255. Maximum permissible concentrations of chemical substances, SPb, 2000. 256. Order No 372 of 16.05.2000 On confirming the provisions for the assessment of influence of the intended

operations and other activities on the environment of the Russian Federation, Register, In the RF Ministry of Justice, 4 July 2000, No. 2302.

257. Annex (database) to Report on the scientific and research work for the study and development of technology for

the interactive supply of the navy with modal and operative-forecasting information on the condition of the sea environment (code Prozrachnost-1) (conclusive) - Obninsk, 2004, 58 p.

258. Annex (database) to Report on the scientific and research work for the study and development of technology for

the interactive supply of the navy with modal and operative-forecasting information on the condition of the sea environment (code Prozrachnost-1) (conclusive) - Obninsk, 2004, 58 p.

259. Nature conservation atlas of the Russian part of the Gulf of Finland, Edited by: V. B. Pogrebov, R. A. Sagitov,

Publishing house TUSKARORA, SPb, 2006. 260. Problems of researching and mathematical modelling of ecosystems in the Baltic Sea. International project

Baltika. Issue 1.- L.: Gidrometeoizdat, 1983, 255 p. 261. Problems of researching and mathematical modelling of ecosystems in the Baltic Sea, issue 5, Ecosystem

models. Assessment of the current condition in the Gulf of Finland. Part 2, Hydrometeorological, hydrochemical, hydrobiological, geological conditions and dynamics of the water of the Gulf of Finland. Edited by Prof I. N. Davidan and O. P. Savchuk, SPb, Gidrometeoizdat, 1997, 450 p.

262. Future assessment of the technogenetic influence on the environment, edited by A. N. Stepanova, M., 2007, 107

p. 263. Alimentary raw materials and food products. Health requirements for the safety and nutritional value of food

products. 264. V. R. Protasov, P. B. Bogatyrev, E. Kh. Velikov, Methods of protecting ichthyofauna during various types of

underwater work, 1982. М., pp. 17-23. 265. O. S. Pustelnikov, Quantitative determination of suspended matter in the south-eastern part of the Baltic

Sea//Oceanology, 1974, issue 9. 6. pp. 815-820.




266. Yu. S. Ravkin, Experience of assessing the damage to wildlife during an environmental expert report on business

projects // The economics of protecting biodiversity, Moscow, 1995, pp. 214-221. 267. Yu. S. Ravkin, Principles and procedures of calculating the value of assessing resources of land animals and

damage inflicted on them by business activities // Wildlife protection, issue 3(8), Nizhny Novgorod, 1997, pp. 56-61.

268. Radiation situation in Russia and neighbouring states in 1993, Almanach / edited by K. P. Makhonko, Obninsk,

NPO Tayfun, 1994, 398 p. 269. Radioactivity of the Baltic Sea, 1984-1991, Works of KHELKOM, issue No. 61, Helsinki, 1995, translation, -

SPb: OO Ekologiya i biznes, 1996, 244 p. 270. Development of the scientific foundations for the planning of technological, natural and technical decisions for

the development of the Bovanenkov and Kharasaveysk deposits and construction of the Yamal Centre system of main gas pipelines. Section 17, Baydaratskaya Bay (items 17.1-17.6). Scientific and technical report. - М.: IPO, EKO-SISTEMA, 1995.

271. J. Raymont, Plankton and productivity of the ocean,. Vol. 2. Zooplankton: In 2 parts, Part 1, / translated from

English by N. P. Nezlin and A. G. Pelymsky, edited by A. V. Chesunov, М.: Agropromizdat, 1988, 544 p. 272. M. J. S. M. Reine, G. Weinbas, R. Foppe, Forecast of impact of transport on the population of nesting birds,

Engineering department of roads and hydraulics, DLO-Institute for the study of the forest and nature, 1998, 91 p. 273. I. M. Raspopov, 1985, Increased aquatic vegetation of major lakes of the north west of the USSR, L., Nauka, 199

p. 274. Russian State Navy Archive, F. 402, op. 2, d. 1044. 275. Russian State Navy Archive, F. 402, op. 2, d. 1044. The Baltic Sea with marking of vessels' accidents near the

Russian coast from 1884 to 1858. 276. Russian State Navy Archive, F. 402, op. 2, d. 1314. The Baltic Sea with marking of vessels' accidents near the

Russian coast from 1856 to 1866. 277. Russian State Navy Archive, F. 402, op. 2, d. 403. 278. Reactions of hydrobionts to contamination of the environment in the process of developing oil and gas deposits

in the Arctic // Protection of marine bioresources under the conditions of intensive development of oil and gas deposits on the shelf and internal water bodies of the Russian Federation. Collection of materials from an international seminar, М., 2000, pp. 80-86.

279. G. V. Rezvov, 1975, On the spread of breeding grounds of the Baltic jar seal (Phoca hispida botnica Gmelin,

1788) in the Gulf of Finland depending on the harshness of the winter // Marine mammals, Part 2, Keiv: Nauk. Dumka, pp. 73-74.




280. M. A. Rozanova, M. M. Golubeva, 1921, Materials for the study of increased vegetation of the Petergof coast, -

Works of the Petrograd Society of Natural Scientists, 52, 1. 281. N. N. Romanova, Procedural guidelines for the study of benthos of the southern seas of the USSR, - М.: 1983. -

(VNIRO). 282. S. V. Ruzhin, Species composition of the fish population in the Neva Bay during the spring/summer periods in

connection with the construction of protection dams. Collection of scientific work of the GosNIORKh, issue 247, pp. 4-13, L., 1986.

283. Management of the methods of analysing sea waters, RD 52.10, 243-92. / edited by S. G. Oradovsky, St

Petersburg, Gidrometeoizdat, 1993. 264 p. 284. Management of the determination of permissible non-erosive speeds of the water flow for various soils during

the calculation of channels, VTR-11-25-80 /edited by Ts. E. Mirtskhulava, A. V. Magomedova, Yu. P. Polyakov // M., USSR Ministry of Water Management, 1981, 58 p.

285. V. A. Rumyantsev, V. G. Drabkova, ed., The Gulf of Finland in the conditions of anthropogenic impact, SPb,

1999, 368 p. 286. V. V. Rusanov, A. A. Matveev, L. M. Savina, L. M. Pryagunova, S. I. Khvinevich, Environmental assessment of

the impact of hydromechanical work on river biocoenosis, Hydromechanisation and problems for the environment, Theses pres. All-Union Scientific and Technical Conference, M., 1981.

287. N. G. Rybalsky, M. A. Malyarov, V. V. Gorbatovsky, V. F. Rybalskaya, T. V. Krasyukova, S. V. Levin,

Environmental safety. Reference book, volume 2, Environmental safety part 2, VNIIPI, Moscow, 1993, 321 p. 288. O. P. Savchuk, M. Ya. Balode, 1983, Phytoplankton, - Baltika project, The ecosystem and its components. issue

1, L.: 142-152. 289. O. P. Savchuk, M. Ya. Balode, 1989, Phytoplankton and initial production, - Baltika project, Main tendencies for

the evolution of ecosystems, issue 4, L: 91- 94. 290. A. F. Sazhin, I. N. Mitskevich, M. N. Poglazova, On the changes to the dimensions of bacterial cells during

insiccation and fixation // Oceanology, - 1987. - 1. pp. 142-145. 291. Health regulations and standards (SaNPiN 2.1.4.559-96) М.: Russian State Committee on Health and

Epidemiology Surveillance, 1996, 110 p. 292. SaNPiN 2.3.2.1078-01. Russian Ministry of Health, М., 2002. 293. V. E. Seleznev, V. V. Aleshin, G. G. Klishin, Methods and technologies of numerical modelling of gas pipeline

systems, - М.: Editorial URRS, 2002. 294. V. N. Sergeev, V. N. Ryabova, Analysis of seasonal succession of zooplankton in the eastern part of the Gulf of

Finland, - Ecology, No. 3. 1981.




295. V. N. Sergeev, V. N. Ryabova, L. A. Belogolovaya, 1977, Characteristics of the dynamics and spreading of

zooplankton in the eastern part of the Gulf of Finland, 1969-1971, News from GosNIORKh, vol. 123, pp. 52-64. 296. Yu. T. Sechin, I. B. Bukhanevich, V. V. Blinov, M. V. Matushansky, V. N. Kovalenko, L. M. Lvova, V. I.

Bandura, S. V. Shibaev, L. A. Zykov, V. R. Krokhalevsky, Methodical recommendations for the use of cadastral information for making forecasts of fish catching amounts in domestic waters (Part I, main calculation algorithms and examples) М., VNIRO, 1990, 56 p.

297. N. I. Silina, Birth types of Acartia in the plankton of the eastern part of the Gulf of Finland in the Baltic Sea,

Works of ZIN AN SSSR, vol. 205, 1989. pp. 108-118. 298. N. I. Silina, Zooplankton and its participation in the biothic cycle, Ecosystem models. 299. N. I. Silina, Zooplankton and its participation in the biothic cycle, In the book: Ecosystem models, Assessment

of the current condition in the Gulf of Finland. 1977. Issue 5, Part II, pp. 390-404. 300. N. I. Silina, Current condition of zooplankton in the eastern part of the Gulf of Finland of the Baltic Sea //

Oceanology, 1991, vol. 31, 4. pp. 616-620. 301. A. I. Simonov, ed. The hydrochemical mode of the Baltic Sea, L., Gidrometeoizdat, 1965, 168 p. 302. A. I. Simonov, V. I. Mikaylov, Content forms of the main contaminating substances in water near the border of

the section with the atmosphere // Words of the State Oceanographic Institute, 1986. Issue 177, pp. 73-81. 303. A. V. Smirnova et al. Study of the wind energy resources of the Leningrad region, - Works of LGMTs, 1989,

No. 4, pp. 3-33. 304. Sorokin 2000 Archaeological examination of the place of the Vyborg battle of 1790 // Study of monuments of

marine archaeology, issue 4, SPb, 2000. pp. 60-74. 305. SP-102-97. Engineering and environmental exploring for construction, М., Gosstroy of Russia, 1997. 306. Reference book for the hydrological mode of the seas and estuaries of the USSR, Part 1, Vol. 1, Issue 1, Eastern

part of the Gulf of Finland, - L.: GUGMS, 1970, 446 p. 307. Reference book for the hydrological mode of the seas and estuaries of the USSR, Part 1, Vol. 1, Issue 1, Eastern

part of the Gulf of Finland, Supplement GMS Kronshtadt, - L.: GUGMS, 1972, 42 p. 308. Reference book for the hydrological mode of the seas and estuaries of the USSR, Part 1, Vol. 1, Issue 1, Eastern

part of the Gulf of Finland, - L.: GUGMS, 1970, 446 p. 309. Reference book for the hydrological mode of the seas and estuaries of the USSR, Part 1, Vol. 1, Issue 1, Eastern

part of the Gulf of Finland, Supplement GMS Kronshtadt, - L.: GUGMS, 1972, 42 p.




310. Reference book on the climate of the USSR, issue 3, Part 2, L.: Gidrometeoizdat, 1965, 340 p. 311. Reference book on the climate of the USSR, issue 3, Part 3, L.: Gidrometeoizdat, 1966, 270 p. 312. Reference book on the climate of the USSR, issue 3, Part 4, L.: Gidrometeoizdat, 1968, 326 p. 313. Reference book on the climate of the USSR, issue 3, Part 5, L.: Gidrometeoizdat, 1968, 248 p. 314. Reference data on the mode of winds and waves in the seas washing against the coast of the USSR, In the

register of the USSR, - L.: Maritime transportation, 1962, 156 p. 315. N. S. Stroganov, Questions of water toxicology, M., Nature, 1970, 219 p. 316. V. V. Suslova, E. Yu. Zabavin, Questions of the influence of hydromechanised work on the ecosystem of water

bodies // Results of fishing industry studies in the Saratov and Volgograd water reservoirs, GosNIORKh, SPb, 2000, 48-58.

317. O. N. Susloparova (manager) Report: Local monitoring of the environment during the conducting of dredging

work in the Saymensky channel, Section Fishing industry monitoring, 2001. - Funds of GosNIORKh. 318. O. N. Susloparova (manager) Report: Local fishing industry monitoring during the creation of waters of the

railway and ferry complex in MTP Ust-Luga, Funds of GosNIORKh, 2003. 319. O. N. Susloparova (manager) Report: Local fishing industry monitoring during the creation of territory and

dredging waters of the railway/car and ferry complex in MTP Ust-Luga, Funds of GosNIORKh. 2004. 320. O. N. Susloparova (manager) Report: Calculation of damage to fish stocks when conducting dredging work in

the waters of MTP Vyborg and in the section of the Vyborg track between points PK 0 - PK 21, 2003, Funds of GosNIORKh.

321. O. N. Susloparova (manager) Report: Fishing industry monitoring in the composition of work in respect of local

environmental monitoring and environmental accompanying of dredging work in the northern part of MTP Ust-Luga during the period of summer navigation in 2005, Funds of GosNIORKh. 2005.

322. O. N. Susloparova (manager) Report: Fishing industry monitoring during the conducting of dredging work in the

harbour of Strelna, Funds of GosNIORKh, 2002. 323. O. N. Susloparova (manager) Report: Ecomonitoring of the area of construction and use of the port in Primorsk,

Section: Fishing industry monitoring 2001 b. -. Funds of GosNIORKh. 2001. 324. O. N. Susloparova, L. P. Baranova, N. I. Volkhonskaya, V. A. Ogorodnikova, Cercopagis - a new biota element

in the eastern part of the Gulf of Finland, Collection of works of the international conference Natural and anthropogenic aerosols, III, St Petersburg, 24.09-27.09 2001.

325. Yu. V. Sustavov, E. S. Chernysheva, I. E. Tsuprova, Examination of the wind currents in the Baltic Sea on the

grounds of a mathematical model of the interaction of boundary layers // Works of GOIN, 1982, issue 157. pp. 29-43.




326. F. S. Tarziev, ed., Hydrometeorology and hydrochemistry of seas, vol. 3, issue 2, Gidrometeoizdat, 1990, 300 p. 327. A. L. Takhtadzhan, 1974, Plants in the system of organisms // The life of plants, М.: Prosveshenie, vol. 1, pp.

49-57. 328. L. A. Tikhomirova, N. P. Morozov, Mercury, lead and cadmium on the surface of the waters of the Baltic Sea,

Materials of the 1st All-Union Symposium on Oceanographic Aspects of Protecting Water from Chemical Contaminants, M., 1975, pp. 150-153.

329. Levels of toxicity in fish with the foundations of pathology, SPb, 2006, 179 p. 330. A. G. Tomilin, 1957, Beasts of the USSR and neighbouring countries, vol. 1Х, cetaceans, pp. 7 - 755, Publishing

house of the AN SSSR, Moscow. 331. A. V. Topachevsky, L. A. Sirenko, A. I. Sakevich, 1968, The role of volatile matter of blue and green algae in

the creation of "flowering" biocenosis, - Hydriobiological Journal., 4, 2: 42-50. 332. D. D. Tormosov, 1977, Maintaining and studying the populations of jar seals and grey seals in the Baltic Sea //

Rare types of mammals and their protection, M., pp. 166-167. 333. D. D. Tormosov, 2000, Chemical contamination of the seals of the Baltics (H.grypus, P. hispida botnica ) and

Ladoga ( P. hispida ladogensis ). Book: Marine Mammals, Holarctics: Materials of an international conference, pp.386-388, Arkhangelsk.

334. D. D. Tormosov, A. G. Esipenko, 1990, Rare and disappearing types of mammals of the USSR, M., Nauka,

1990. 335. D. D. Tormosov, A. G. Esipenko, 1990, Grey Baltic seal, Collection: Rare and disappearing types of mammals

of the USS, pp. 44-49. Publishing house Nauka, Moscow. 336. V. S. Travyanko, L. V. Evdokimova, MT-TE bentometer // Hydrobiological Journal, 1968, vol. 4, No. 1, pp. 94-

96. 337. A. I. Treshev, Intensity of fishing // M., Light and food industries, 1983, 236 p. 338. I. S. Trifonov, V. N.Nikulina, O. A. Pavlova, 1988, Autumn phytoplankton - parameter of the environmental

condition of the system of the Ladoga Lake - - Neva - Neva Bay and eastern part of the Gulf of Finland, - Water resources, volume 25, No. 2.: 223-230.

339. S. N. Tupikin, Тупикин С.Н. Typification of trajectories of storm cyclones for the southern part of the Baltic

Sea // Mode-forming factors, hydrometeorlogical and hydrochemical processes in the seas of the USSR, L., Gidrometeoizdat, 1988, pp. 260-269.

340. S. N. Tupikin, Types and trajectories of storm cyclones in the southern Baltics // Contemporary problems of

studying the Atlantic Ocean: Thes. pres. sect. 37th Conference of the Geographical Society of the USSR, Frunze, 1980, pp. 41-51.

341. K. V. Tylik, Ichthyofauna of the Kaliningrad Region, Kaliningrad, 2003, 127 p. 342. Tyulenev 1996 - V. A. Tyulenev, The Gulf of Vyborg as an object of marine archaeological study, Archeology

of Petersburg, issue 1, SPb. pp. 48-51.




343. P. P. Umorin, G. A. Vinogradov, A. S. Mavrin, V. B. Verbitsky, A. A. Bruznitsky, Impact of utility gas on the

ichthyofauna and zooplankton organisms // Theses of presentations of the second All-Union Conference on Fishing Industry Toxicology, vol. 2, St Petersburg, 1991, pp. 222-224.

344. D. Ya. Fashuk, V. V. Sapozhnikov, Anthropogenic strain on the geosystem of the sea/catchment area and its

consequences for the fishing industry, М.: VNIRO, 1999, 124 p. 345. S.M. Fedorov et al. Report on the work on topic No. 787d (Kronshtadt object) Marine geological survey work on

sheets P-35-XXXVI, O-35-V, VI, 0-36-I of a scale of 1:200 000 and preparation for publishing of the marine part of the sheets of the State Geological Map 200 (within the limits of sheets O-35-V, VI), for 1989-1994, St Petersburg, SZRGTs, December 1994.

346. J. Khaltiner, F. Martin, Dynamic and physical meteorology.// Publishing house Foreign Literature, Moscow,

1960. 347. M. I. Khalturina, Food supply of Baltic herring in the eastern part of the Gulf of Finland, Feed basis, plankton,

nutrition of plankton-eater and young fish and breeding of the main commercial fish in the eastern part of the Gulf of Finland, Manager: B. N. Kazansky, 1972, Funds of GosNIORKh.

348. L. A. Khandozhko, Typical trajectories of storm cyclones for the north west ETS//Works of LGMTs, 1964, issue

22, pp. 54-61. 349. Characteristics of the current radiation situation in the western industrial basin, Kaliningrad, AtlantNIRO, 1996-

2005. 350. V. V. Khlebovich, Critical salinity of biological processes, L., 1974. 235 p. 351. V .G. Khoroshev, T. V. Ermakova, Results of hydrochemical studies of the regions flooded with contaminating

substances in the Baltic Sea, Works of the International Conference on Shipbuilding, Section G., Ecology and Environmental Protection, St Petersburg, 1994, pp. 32-37.

352. V. M. Khrabry, 1984, Birds of the Berezovye Islands // Materials on the Fauna of the Vybird Nature Reserve,

Works of ZIN, 123, pp. 116-146. 353. P. Khupfer, The Baltics, small sea - big problems, L., Gidrometeoizdat, 1982, 135 p. 354. N. N. Tsvelev, 2002, Determinant of vascular plants in the north west of Russia (Leningrad, Pskov and

Novgorod regions), SPb: Publishing house SPKhFA, 781 p. 355. V. G. Tserava, Storms in the Baltic Sea and their connection to ESP // Work of GGO, 1965, issue 149, pp. 49-52. 356. N. L. Tsvetkova, Littoral freshwater shrimps of the northern and far eastern seas of the USSR and neighbouring

waters, - L.: Nauka, 1975, 260 p. 357. Yu. D. Tsinzerling, 1925, Plants of the sea cost on the shores of the lakes of the north west USSR, - Journal of

the Russian Botanical Society, vol. 10, No. 3-4, pp. 355-374.




358. A. V. Tsyban, ed., Study of the Baltic Sea's ecosystem, issue 1. L., Gidrometeoizdat, 1981, 150 p. 359. A. V. Tsyban, ed., Study of the Baltic Sea's ecosystem, issue 2, L., Gidrometeoizdat, 1981, 260 p. 360. A. V. Tsyban, ed., Study of the Baltic Sea's ecosystem, issue 3, L., Gidrometeoizdat, 1990, 168 p. 361. A. V. Tsyban, Ecological monitoring of the Baltic Sea, - М.: Gidrometeoizdat, 1983, 14 p. 362. A. V. Tsyban, V. M. Kudryavtsev, V. O. Mamaev, N. V. Sukhanov, Microflora and microbiological processes in

the open seas of the Baltic Sea, in the book: Study of the Baltic Sea's ecosystem, issue 3, L., Gidrometeoizdat, 1990, pp. 51-57.

363. S. K. Cherepanov, 1995, Vascular plants of Russia and neighbouring states, SPb, Mir i Semya, 992 p. 364. S. N. Cherkinsky, Health conditions of the drainage of waste water and water bodies, M., 1971. 365. A. I. Chernomashentsev, 1984, Influence of dredging work on the fishing industry in the north western part of

the Black Sea // Thes. pres. All-Union Conference on the Study of the Influence on Dredging Work and Soil Dumping on the Fishing Industry, 18-20 September 1984, Atrakhan, pp. 201-203.

366. A. I. Chernomashentsev, I. S. Dzerzhinskaya, G. A. Margalik, Health and hygiene condition of the waster

environment during dredging work, Hydromechanisation and problems for the environment, Theses pres. All-Union Scientific and Research Conference, M, 1981.

367. V. I. Chernook, Multispectral air images of seal rookeries, Murmansk, Publishing house PINRO, 1997, 12 p. 368. A. V. Chernyavsky, Transformation of bottom zoocenoses in the area of the Grigorovsky soil dumping site //

Dredging work and the problems of protecting fish stocks and the environment of fishing industry waters, Astrakhan, 1984, 208-210.

369. Z. N. Zhirkova, Microbenthos // Method of studying biogeocenoses of domestic water bodies, М., 1975, pp.

178-185. 370. A. A. Shelepchikov, N. A. Klyuev, E. S. Brodsky, V. V. Shenderyuk, L. P. Bakholdina, 2003, Contamination of

hydrobionts with dibenso-p-dioxins and dibenzofurans, Materials of the IV International Practical Research Conference, Production of fish products: problems, new technologies, quality, pp. 219-221.

371. V. V. Shenderyuk, L. P. Bakholdian, G. N. Rodyuk, Oyu. A. Shukhgalter, G. V. Grikhina, T. I. Grokhova,

Assessment of the chemical contamination and parasite situation in the south eastern part of the Baltic Sea and connected gulfs, Ways of increasing the quality and safety of fish production, Collection of scientific works, Kaliningrad, 2002, pp. 27-32.




372. O. A. Sherstneva, Influence of increased water muddiness, occurring during the conducting of hydrotechnical

work, on the productivity of immersed macrophytes, Avtoref. diss. cand. biol. nauk., SPb, 2002, 19 p. 373. A. V. Shipilin, V. N. Koterov, V. I. Zubov, V. M. Krivtsov, Forecast of non-stationary technological modes of

gas pipeline work and procedures for a gas pipeline in the event of its explosion, Scientific and technical report - М.: VTs RAN - VNIIGAZ, 1999.

374. L. V. Shirokov, S. A. Ilenkova, A. N. Popov, 1982, Spreading of fish in the eastern part of the Gulf of Finland //

Collection of scientific works of GosNII, lake and river fishing, issue 192, pp. 57-69. 375. A. Shirokorad, Vessels and boards of the USSR Navy, 1939-1945, Minsk, 2002. 376. B. A. Shishkin, V. N. Nikulina, A. A. Maksimov, N. I. Silina, Main characteristics of the biota at the top of the

Gulf of Finland and its role in the creation of the water quality // Studies of the River Neva, Neva Bay and eastern part of the Gulf of Finland, L., 1989, 96 p.

377. B. A. Shishkin, N. F. Smirnova, Initial production of the Neva Bay and eastern part of the Gulf of Finland //

Study of the water system of the Ladoga Lake - River Neva - Neva Bay and eastern part of the Gulf of Finland, Works of GGI, 1988, issue 1, pp. 53-58.

378. A. A. Shlyk, 1968, On the spectrophotometric determination of chlorophyll a and b // Biochemistry, vol. 3, issue

2, Part С 2. 379. O. F. Shmalgauzen, 1874, List of plants included in Yamburg and Petergof districts, - Works of the St

Petersburg Society of Natural Scientists, vol. 5, issue 2. pp. 33-112. 380. A. A. Shorygin, Food supply and food interrelations of fish in the Caspian Sea, M., Pishepromizdat, 1952, 254 p. 381. V. P. Shuntov, Birds of the far eastern seas of Russian, vol. 1, Vladivostok, TINRO, 1998, 423 p. 382. A. S. Shurukhin (manager), Assessing the condition of stocks and developing a forecast of types of herring in the

eastern part of the Gulf of Finland (32 sub-area IKES) for 2001-2007, 2000-2005. - Funds of GosNIORKh. 383. A. S. Shurukhin, A. N. Popov, D. V. Bogdanov, Current condition of stocks of the main commercial fish in the

eastern part of the Gulf of Finland, Collection of materials from the conference Development of the Russian fishing industry, SPb. 2004. pp. 18-19.

384. E. A. Shushkina, M. E. Vinogradov, T. A. Lukasheva, L. P. Lebedeva, S. V. Vostokov, Comparative use of

various equipment for catching plankton when monitoring multi-year changes to Black Sea communities, Oceanology, vol. 43. 5.2003. pp. 744-750.

385. Ecosystem models. Assessment of the current condition in the Gulf of Finland. Part 1, 1997, SPb,

Gidrometeoizdat, 450 p. 386. A. Yarvekyulg, Bottom fauna of the eastern part of the Baltic Sea, Tallinn: Valgus, 1979, 382 p.




387. A. Yarvekyulg, Quantitative determination and biocenoses of zoobenthos in the Gulf of Finland // Materials of

the IV Soviet-Finnish Symposium on Matters of Protecting the Waters of the Gulf of Finland, - Tallinn, 1973, pp. 8-15.

388. A. A. Yarvekyulg, Zoobenthos of the central and eastern Baltics // Reports on the biological productivity of the

Baltic Sea, - М., 1984, vol. 3, pp. 155-256. 389. Almkvist L. 1982. Baltic Marine Mammals - a status report. Section of Vertebrate Zoology, Swedish Museum of

Natural History, P.B. 50007, S- 104 05 Stockholm, Sweden. (unpublished matter). 390. Anderson R.S., De Henau A.M. An assessment of the meiobenthos from nine mountain lakes in western Canada

// Hydrobiologia. 1980. V.70. N 3. P.257-264. 391. Appelberg M.. Swedish standard methods for sampling freshwater fish with multi-mesh gillnets. //

FISKERIVERKET INFORMATION. Drottningholm. 2000. 392. Arkhipov B.V. About some properties of geophysical hydrodynamic equations on the staggered grid// Journal

«Oceanology», v.29, N5, p.723-729,1989 393. Basova S.L.& Lange, E.K. 1998. Trends in late summer phytoplankton in the Neva Bay and eastern Gulf of

Finland during 1978 to 1990. - Memoranda Soc/Fauna Flora Fennica, 74: 1-14. 394. Bell R.P. Isopleth's calculations for ruptures in sour gas pipeline // Energy Processing Canada. 1978. July-

August. Pp. 36-39. 395. Biggs R.B., Environmental effects of overboard spoil disposal, ASCE. J. Sanit. Eng. Div., 94,477,1968. 396. Bondsdorff E., Aarnio K., Sandberg E. Temporal and spatial variability of zoobenthic communities in

archipelago waters of the northern Baltic Sea - consequences of eutrophication // Int. Revue ges. Hydrobiol. 1991.Vol.76 3. Р. 433-449

397. Brown, C.L. and Clark, R., Observations on dredging and dissolved oxygen in a tidal waterway, Water Resour.

Res. 4, 1381, 1968. 398. Bruan G.W. and Langston W.J. Bioavailability, accumulation and effects of heavy metals in sediments with

special reference to United Kingdom estuaries: a review Environmental Pollution vol. 76, Issue 2, 1992, p. 89-131.Buzun V.A. 2001. Report on the spring bird migration over the Vyborg Bay of the Baltic Sea in 1998 // Study of the Status and Trends of Migratory Bird Populations in Russia. 3-rd issue. St Petersburg. Р. 64-70.

399. Calmano W, Forstner U. Kersten M. Krause D. Behaviour of dredged mud after stabilization with different

additives. In Assink JW, Van Den Brink WJ (eds.) Contaminated soil. pp. 737-746. Martinus Nijhoff Publ. Dordrecht ,The Nerher-lands, 1986.

400. Clarke K.R., Warwick R.M. Change in marine communities: an approach to statistical analysis and

interpretation. - Plymouth: Plymouth Marine Laboratory, 1994. - 144 p. 401. Davies A.M. A bottom boundary layer-resolving three-dimensional tidal model: a sensitivity study of viscosity

formulation // Journal of physical oceanography. 1993, vol. 23, D92, p. 1437 - 1453.




402. Davies A.M., Lawrence J. The response of the Irish Sea to boundary and wind forcing: Results from a three -

dimensional hydrodynamic model// Journal of geophysical research. 1994, vol. 99, C11, p. 22,665-22,687. 403. Davies A.M.. Jones J.E. Application of a three-dimensional turbulence energy model to the determination of

tidal currents on the northwest European shelf // Journal of Geophysical Res.. 1990, vol. 95, p. 18143 - 18162. 404. Ditmars J.D., Cederwall K. Analysis of Air-Bubble Plums // Coastal Engineering Conference. 1974.

Copenhagen. V.II. Ch.128. P.464-465. 405. Dudscus 1987 - Dudscus, Henriot, Krumrey. Das grosse Buch der Schiffstypen. Berlin. 406. Durinck J., Skov H., Jensen F.P., Pihl S. Important Marine Areas for Wintering Birds in the Baltic Sea. Ornis

Consult Ltd, Copenhagen, 1994. 105 pp. 407. Edwards, M.H., 1986. Digital Image Processing of Local and Global Bathymetric Data. Master's Thesis.

Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences, Washington Univ., St. Louis, Missouri, USA, 106 p." 408. Eia Jakobson. Monitoring of radionuclides in the Baltic Sea 2002 // HELCOM MORS-PRO. Document 3/13.

August 2003. - Helsinki, Finland. - 3 p. 409. Environment of the Baltic Sea Area 1994-1998. Baltic Sea Environment Proceedings no. 82B. 82B. Helsinki

Commission. Baltic Marine Environment Protection Commission, 2002. 211 p. 410. Environmental Protection Agency, Ocean dumping: final regulations and criteria, Fed. Reg., 38,28610,1973. 411. Etkin D.S. Historical overview of oil spills from all sources (1960-1998)// Proceedings on the 1999 International

Oil Spill Conference. Washington D.C. APL. 1999. 412. Fannelop T.K., Sjoen K. Hydrodynamics of underwater blowouts. // Norwegian Maritime Research. No 411980. 413. Final Report of the ad hoc Working Group on Dumped Chemical Munitions (HELCOM CHEMU) to the 16th

Meeting of the Helsinki Commission (March 1995) 414. Forstner U., Calmano W., Hong J., Kersten M. Sediment Quality Criteria - Role of redox -sensitive components.

5-th Intern.Symp. on River Sediments. Unesco, Paris.1993, р.20-25. 415. Frankenberg, D. And Westerfield, C., W., Oxygen demand and oxygen depletion capacity of sediments from

Wassau Sound, Georgia, Bull. G. Acad. Sci., 26, 160, 1968. 416. Fredsoe J., Hansen E.A., Mao Y., Summer B.M. 1988. Three dimensional scour below pipelines. J. Offshore

Mech. Arctic Eng.,ASME, V. 110, P. 373-379. 417. Fredsoe J., Summer B.M, Arnskov M.M. 1992. Time scale for wave/current scour below pipelines. Int. Journ.

Polar Eng., V. 2, P. 13-17. 418. Gannon,J.E. and Beeton, A.M., Procedures for determining the effects of dredged sediments on biota-bentos

viability and sediment selectivity tests, J. Water Poll. Contr. Fed. 43,392,1971.




419. Gardenfors U. (ed.). Rodlistade arter i Sverige 2005. The 2005 Red List of Swedish Species. Art Databanken,

SLU. Uppsala, 2005. 496 pp. 420. GESAMP (Joint Group of Experts on the Scientific Aspects of marine pollution) Reports and Studies.1993.

50. IMO, London. 180 p. 421. Golubkov S.M., Alimov A.F., Telesh I.V., Anokhina L.E., Maximov A.A., Niculina V.N., Pavel'eva E.B., Panov

V.E. Functional response of midsummer planctonic and benthic communities in the Neva Estuary (eastern Gulf of Finland) to anthropogenic stress // Oceanologia. 2003. V. 45 (1). P. 53-66.

422. Gray J. The ecology of marine sediments. - Cambridge: 1981. 423. Gronroos T.T. 1917.Muutamien muuttolintujen tuloja lahtoajat Viipurin kahistolla v. 1916 // Luonnon Ystava

21: 107-108. 424. Hakanson L. An ecological risk index for aquatic pollution control. A sedimentological approach. Water Res. 14.

1980, p. 975-1001 425. Hallfors G. Checklist of Baltic Sea Phytoplankton Species. Baltic Sea Environment Proceeding. 95. Helsinki

Commission. Baltic Marine Environment Protection Commission. Helsinki. 2004. 208 p. 426. Hallfors S. Baltic Sea Portal. FIMR, 2005 (http://www.balticseaportal.fi.) 427. Hario M. & Rudback J. 1996. High frequency of chick diseases in nominate Lesser Black-backed Gull Larus f.

fuscus in the Golf of Finland// Ornis Fennica. 73. P. 69-77. 428. Hario M. & Uuksulainen J. 1993. Mercury load according to molting area in primaries of the nominante raze of

the Lesser Black-backed Gull Larus f. fuscus // Ornis Fennica. 70. P. 32-39. 429. Hario M. 1990. Breeding failure and feeding conditions of Lesser Black-backed Gulls Larus f. fuscus in the Golf

of Finland// Ornis Fennica. 67. P.113-129. 430. Hario M. 1994. Reproductive performance on the nominante Lesser Black-backed Gull under the pressure of

Herring Gull predation// Ornis Fennica. 71. P. 1-10. 431. Haxby, W.F. et al., 1983. Digital Images of Combined Oceanic and Continental Data Sets and their Use in

Tectonic Studies. EOS Trans actions of the American Physical Union, vol. 64, no. 52, pp. 995-1004." 432. Heath M.F., Evans M.J. (eds.). Important Bird Areas in Europe. Priority sites for conservation. Vol. 1.

Cambridge, UK: BirdLife International, 2000. 866 pp. 433. Hela I. Secular changes in the salinity of the upper waters of the Northern Baltic Sea//Comm.Phys.-Math.Soc.Sci

Fennica.-1966.-Vol.31-No.14.-21p. 434. HELCOM, 2002. Environment of the Baltic Sea area 1994-1998. Baltic Sea Environ. Proc. No.82 B., 215 p.

Helsinki Commission, Helsinki, Finland. 435. HELCOM, Guidelines for the Baltic Monitoring Programme for the Third Stage: Part D. Biological

Determinants // Baltic Sea Environment Proceedings. - 1988. - 27D, 161 p.




436. HELCOM, Third periodic assessment of the state of the marine environment of the Baltic Sae // Baltic Sea

Environment Proceedings, - 1996. - No 64B. 437. Holopainen I.J., Paasivirta L. Abundance and biomass of the meiozoobenthos in the oligotrophic and mesohumic

lake Paajarvi, southern Finland // Ann. Zool. Fen. 1977. V.14. N3. P.113-134. 438. Hussain N.A., Siegel R. Liquid Jet Pumped by Rising Gas Bubbles // Journal of Fluids Engineering. 1976.

March. P.49-57. 439. Hynen O. 1904. Kevainen lintuelama Viipurinlahdella // Luonnon Ystava 8: 80-84. 440. ICES (International Council for the Exploration of the Sea), Report of the Working Group on the extraction of

the marine sediments on the marine ecosystem/ Copenhagen 1998. 127 p 441. Important Bird Areas in Europe. Priority sites for conservation. Vol. 1. - Cambridge, UK: BirdLife International,

2000. - 866 pp. 442. Important Bird Areas. IBA Criteria. Categories and Thresholds. - BirdLife International, 1995, unpublished

working materials. 443. IODS (International Oil Spill Database), Oil Spill Intelligence Report 1997. 444. Iribarren, Talud limitentre la rotura y la reilexion de las olas, Revistra de Obras Publicas, Madrid, fev. 1950. 445. Kobus H.E. Analysis of Flow Induced by Air-Bubble System // Coastal Engineering Conference. 1968. London.

V.II. Ch.65. P.1016-1031. 446. Kohn J. Mysidacea of the Baltic Sea - state of the art // Taxonomy, biology and ecology of (Baltic) mysids. -

Rostock: 1992. - P. 5-23. 447. Kontiokorpi J., Parviainen A. 1995. Spring migration of arctic waterfowl from Vyborg and Repino (Russia) in

spring 1993. //IWRB Seaduck Research Group Bulletin. 5. P. 25-29. 448. Kontiokorpi J. 1993. Autumn migration of arctic waterfowl in Finland in 1991// Linnut. 449. Kontiokorpi J. 1993. Milljoonien vesilintujen syksy// Linnut 28: 9-16. 450. Kontiokorpi J. 2000. Vyborg, Russia - the Arctic Migration // Alula. 1. P. 8-15. 451. Kontiokorpi J., Leivo M. 1998. Spring migration of arctic waterfowl in Vyborg, NW Russia. Workshop //

«Studies of Arctic Bird Migration in the Region of the Northern Baltic and White Sea». Helsinki. P. 11. 452. Kontkanen H. 1994. Syksyn 1993 arktika. Suomessa, Virossaja Vena&fls t// Linnut 29: 8-15. 453. Kotsovinos N.E. A note on the conservation of the axial momentum of a turbulent jet // Journal of Fluid

Mechanics. 1978. V. 87. Pt. 1. P. 55-63. 454. Laidna A. 1994. The Long-tailed Skua, Stercorarius longicaudus Vieill. // Birds of Estonia: Status, distribution

and numbers. Tallinn: 123-124.




455. Laine A.O., Sandler H., Andersin A.-B., Stigzelius J. Long-term changes of macrozoobenthos in the Eastern

Gotland Basin and the Gulf of Finland (Baltic Sea) in relation to the hydrographical regime // Journal of Sea Research, - 1997. - Vol. 38. - P. 135-159.

456. Lappalainen A., Shurukhin A., Alekseev G., Rinne J. Coastal Fish Communities along the Northern Coast of the

Gulf of Finland, Baltic Sea: Responses to salinity and Eutrophication. / Internat. Rev. Hydrobiol., 85, 2000, 5-6, рр.687-696.

457. Leito A.A. 1999. Status of the Dark-bellied Brent Goose Branta b. bernicla in the Baltic states. In: International

Scientific Workshop "Towards European Management of the Dark-bellied Brent Goose Branta b. bernicla as a Game Species". Paris. P. 26-30.

458. Leont'yev I.O. Modeling the morphological response in a coastal zone for different temporal scales. // Advances

in Coastal Modeling. Ed. Lakhan, V.C. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier Science Publishers, 2003, pp.299-335.

459. Luyten P.J., Deleersnijder E., Ozer J., Ruddick K.G. Presentation of a family of turbulence closure models for

stratified shallow water flows and preliminary application to the Rhine outflow region.// Continental shelf Research, 1996, Vol. 16, No 1, 101-130.

460. MacKenzie, B. R. and Koster, F.W., 2004. Fish production and climate: sprat in the Baltic Sea. Ecology, 85:

784-794. 461. Matsumoto, K., M. Ooe, T. Sato, and J. Segawa, Ocean tide model obtained from TOPEX/POSEIDON altimetry

data, J. Geophys. Res., 100, C12, 25,319-25,330, 1995. 462. Matthaus W. Climatic and seasonal variability of oceanological parameters in the Baltic Sea//Beitr.

Meereskunde.-1984-H.51.-s.29-49. 463. Maunula P. Baltic Sea Portal. FIMR, 2005 (http://www.balticseaportal.fi.) 464. Maxey W.F. Fracture arrest behavior of underwater pipe line // Pipe Line Indust. V.67. No 4. Pp.32-34. 465. May, E.B., Effects on water quality when dredging a polluted harbor using confined spoil disposal, Ala. Mar.

Resour. Bull., 10, 1, 1974 466. May, E.B., Environmental effects of hydraulic dredging in estuaries, Ala. Mar. Resour. Bull., 9,1,1973. 467. Melvassalo T., Niemi A., Niemisto L., Rinne L. 1985 . Nitrogen fixation by planktonic blue-green algae and

nutrient balance in the Gulf of Finland. - Problems Concerning Bioindication of the Ecological Condition of the Gulf of Finland. Tallin: 68-75.

468. Moore G.M., Bett B.J. The use of meiofauna in marine pollution impact assessment // Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society. 1989. V.96. P.263-280.

469. Mundheim O., Fannelop T.K. Studies of Oil Spills from Blowouts and Broken Underwater Pipelines // Offshore

North Sea Technology Conference/ Stavanger. Paper ONS-S-III/3.




470. N.Wasmund, J.Alheit, F.Pollehne, H.Siegel, M.L.Zettler Der biologische Zustand der Ostsee im Jahre 1998 auf

der Basis von Phytoplankton-, Zooplankton- und Zoobenthosuntersuchungen. Meereswissenschaftliche Berichte. Mar. Sci. Rep. 37. 1999. 75p.

471. Niemela E. 1973. Merialueittemmehylkeet // Suome luonto. Vol.32. 6. P.249-278. 472. Nikulina V.N. Seasonal dynamics of phytoplankton in the inner Neva Estuary in the 1980s and 1990s //

Oceanologia. 2003. V. 45 (1). P. 25-39. 473. Noskov G., Gaginskaya A., Sagitov R., Fedorov V. 1993. «Rediscovered» islands in urgent need of protection//

WWF Baltic Bulletin. 1. P. 4-6. 474. Noskov G.A. 2002. The main results of bird migration studies in the North-West Region of Russia // Study of

the Status and Trends of Migratory Bird Populations in Russia. 4th issue. St Petersburg. Р. 62-78. 475. Nyberg P., Degerman E., Appelberg M. Estimating the number of species and relative abundence of fish in

oligotrophic Swedish lake using multi-mesh gill nets. // Nordic J. Freshw. Res. 1988, 4, р.91-100. 476. Ossipov D., Gaginskaya A. 1994. Архипелаг Большой Фискар - жемчужина Восточной Балтики// WWF

Baltic Bulletin . N 3. P. 9-11. 477. Osterroht C. Dissolved PCBs and chlorinated hydrocarbon insecticide in the Baltic, Nature, 1972. N 251, P.369-

371 478. Ostsee -Algenflora Von Helmut Pankow, Rostok unter Mitarbeit von Volkbert Kell, Norbert 479. Parsons T.R., Strrickland J.D.H. Discussion of spectrophotometric determination of marine-plant pigments with

revised equations for ascertaining chlorophylls and carotinoides // J. Mar. Res., 1963, v. 21, p. 155-163. 480. Pekka Alenius, Alexander Antsulevich, Svetlana Basova, Nadja Beresina, D.V Bogdanov, Jan-Erik Bruun, Vivi

Fleming, Heli Haapasaari, Seppo Kaitala, Pirkko Kauppila, Mikko Kiirikki, Ari Laine, Mirja Leivuori, Jaakko Mannio, Aleksey Maximov, Henn Ojaveer (& al), Vadim Panov, Heikki Peltonen, Heikki Pitkanen, A.N.Popov, Jukka Ponni, Mika Raateoja, Eija Rantajarvi, Jorma Pytkonen, Alexander S.Shurukhin, Jenni Vepsalainen & Pentti Valipakka (2004) State of the Gulf of Finland in 2003 - MERI-Report Series of the Finnish Institute of Marine Research .51,2004,Helsinki,Finland.

481. Perttila M., Stenman O., Pyysalo H., Wickstrom K., 1986. Heavy Metals and Organochlorine Compounds in

Seals in the Gulf of Finland. Marine Environ. Res. 18, 43 -59. Elsevier Applied Science Publishers Ltd, England. 482. Pettibone M.H. Revision of species referred to Antinoe, Antinoella, Antinoana, Bylgides and Harmothoe

(Polychaeta: Polynoidae: Harmothoinae) // Smithsonian Contributions to Zoology. - 1993. - 545. - P. 1-41. 483. Pihl S., Durinck J., Skov H. Waterbird Numbers in the Baltic Sea, Winter 1993. NERI Technical Report no. 145,

1995. 60 pp.




484. Popovsky J., Pfister L.A. Dinophyceae (Dinoflagellata)// Subwasserflora von Mitteleuropa. Bd.6. Aufl. Jena;

Stuttgart: Fischer, 1990. 272 S. 485. Putkonen T.A. 1938. Havaintoja Lavansaaren ja Peninsaaren Linnnnnustosta // Ornis fenn. 15: 32-46. 486. Putkonen T.A. 1940. Valkoposki-hanhen, Branta leucopsis (Bechst.), kevatmuuto sta Viipurin seudulla // Ornis

Fennica. 17 (1). P. 14-16. 487. Putkonen T.A. 1942. Kevatmuutosia Viipurinlahdella // Ornis fenn.19, 2: 33-44. 488. Raffaelli D., Mason C.F. Pollution monitoring with meiofauna, using the ratio of nematodes to copepods //

Mar.Pollut.Bull. 1981. V.12. P.158-163. 489. Red Data Book of East Fennoscandia. Helsinki. 1998 490. Red Data Book of the Baltic Region. Uppsala, Riga, 1993. 95 p. 491. Renk H., Bralewska J. M., Lorenz Z., Nakonieczny J., Ochocki S. Primary production of the Baltic Sea // Bull.

Sea Fish. Inst. 1992. 3 (127). P. 35-42. 492. Renk H., Ochocki S. Primary production in the southern Baltic Sea determined from photosynthetic light curves

// Bull. Sea Fish. Inst. 1999. 3 (148). P. 23-39. 493. Report of SCOR- UNESCO working group 17 on determination of photosynthetic pigments, June 4-6, 1964.

UNESCO, Paris, 1964. 12 p. 494. Report of the Baltic Fisheries Assessment Working Group (WGBFAS)//ICES CM 2005/ ACFM:19. 495. Report on Chemical Munitions Dumped in the Baltic Sea. Report to the 15th Meeting of Helsinki Commission 8

- 11 March 1994 from the Ad Hoc Working Group on Dumped Chemical Munitions (HELCOM CHEMU) 496. Risberg L. Sveriges faglar. Stockholm, 1990. 295 pp. 497. Roed L.P., Cooper C. Open boundary conditions in numerical ocean models, in Advanced Physical

Oceanographic Numerical Modeling, edited by J.J. O'Braien, NATO ASI Ser. C, 186, 411-436,1986. 498. Scheffer V.B. 1958. Seal, sea lions of the Pinnipedia. Standford. 179 p. 499. SFH 1942. - Svenska flottans historia, v.2.(1680-1814). Maln™ 500. Sikorski A.V., Bick A. Revision of Marenzelleria Mesnil, 1896 (Spionidae, Polychaeta) // Sarsia. - 2004. - Vol.

89. - P. 253-275. 501. Skidaway Institute of oceanography, Research to determine the Environmental Response to the deposition of

Spoil on salt Marshes using Diked and Undiked Techniques, Final Report under Contract DASW 21-71-C-0020, National Technical Information Service, ADA010470, 1974.

502. Skov H., Vaitkus G., Flensted K.N., Grishanov G., Kalamees A., Kondratyev A., Leivo M., Luigujoe L., Mayr

C., Rasmussen J.F., Raudonikis L., Scheller W., Sidlo P.O., Stipniece A., Struwe-Juhl B., Welander B. Inventory of coastal and marine Important Bird Areas in the Baltic Sea. BirdLife International Cambridge, 2000. 287 pp.




503. Snow D.W., Perrins C.M. The birds of the Western Palearctic. Vol. 1. Non-Passerines. Oxford, New-York.

Oxford university press, 1998. 1008 pp. 504. STORE Baltic Project. Environmental and fisheries influences on fish stock recruitment in the Baltic Sea. Part 1.

626 p. 505. Summer B.M, Fredsoe J. 1990. Scour below pipelines in waves. J. Waterway Port Coastal and Ocean Eng,

ASCE, V. 116, P. 307-323. 506. Summer B.M, Fredsoe J. 1991. Onset of scour below a pipeline exposed to waves. Int. Journ. Polar Eng., V. 1, P.

189-194. 507. Summer B.M, Fredsoe J. 1994. Self-burial of pipeline at span shoulders. Int. Journ. Polar Eng., V. 4, P. 30-35. 508. Summer B.M, Fredsoe J., Christensen S., Lind M.T. 1999Sinking/Flotation of pipelines and other objects in

liquefied soil under waves. Coastal Engineering. V. 38, P. 53-90. 509. Suomalainen H. 1937. Uber die Verbreitung der marinen Scharenvohel im Finnnischen Meerbusen // Ornis fenn.

14: 18-26. 510. Susswasserflora von Mitteleuropa Bd 2. Krammer K., Lange-Bertalot H.Bacillariophyceae.2. Teil: Bacillariacea,

Epithemiaceae, Surirellaceae.-Stuttgart: Gustav Fischer, 1988.- 596 p. 511. Švažas S., Meissner W., Serebryakov V., Kozulin A., Grishanov G. (eds.). Changes of wintering sites of

waterfowl in Central and Eastern Europe. OMPO Special Publication. Vilnius, 2001c. 152 p. 512. The Baltic Marine Biologists Publication No.16a Intercalibration and distribution of diat om species in the Baltic

Sea Volume 1 Edited by Pauli Snoeijs 1993 Opulus Press Uppsala Snoeijs, P.& Vilbaste,S. (eds.) Intercalibration and distribution of diatom species in the Baltic Sea. Vol.2.1994, 125 p.

513. Tolosa I., Mora S., Sheikholeslami M.R., Villeneuve J.P. et al. Aliphatic and Aromatic Hydrocarbons in coastal

Caspian Sea sediments // Mar.Pollut.Bull. 2004.V.48. P.44-60. 514. Topham D.R. Hydrodynamics of Oil Well Blowout // Beaufort Technical Reports. 1975. No 33. 515. Townsend A.A. The mechanism of entrainment in free turbulent flows // Journal of Fluid Mechanics. 1966. V.

26. Pt. 4. P. 689-715. 516. Tucker G.M. & M.F. Heafh. 1994. Bird in Europe: their conservation status. - Cambridge, U.K.: Bird Life

International. 600 p. 517. Tucker G.M., Heath M.F. Birds in Europe: their conservation status. Cambridge, UK. BirdLife International,

1994. 518. Vassiljeva N.A. 2001. Migration of the Barnacle Goose Branta leucopsis on the northern coast of the Gulf of

Finland in the autumn of 1992 and in the spring of 1993 // Study of the Status and Trends of Migratory Bird Populations in Russia. 3-rd issue. St Petersburg. Р. 60-63.




519. Vernberg,W, and DeCoursey, P., The effects of dredged material on certain species of planktonic invertebrates ,

in Bioassay Studies, Charleston Harbor, South California, Section 11, Final Report to U.S. Army Corp. Of Engineers, Charleston District, Belle W. Baruch Coastal Research Institute, University of South Carolina Contract DACW60-71-C-0009, 1973.

520. Vesa-Pekka Vartti, Tarja K. Ikaheimonen, Erkki Ilus, Seppo Klemonla. Monitoring of radionuclides in the Baltic

Sea in 2004 // HELCOM MORS-PRO. Document 3/4. October 2005. - Helsinki, Finland. - 6 p. 521. Victor Tishkov, Vitali Gavrilov, Ludmila Ivanova, Yuri Panteleev, Andrey Stepanov, Alexander Rubalko.

Preliminary results of radionuclide's contents in bottom sediments of the Baltic Sea, 2003 // HELCOM MORS-PRO. Document 3/13. September 2004. - Helsinki, Finland. - 6 p.

522. Wakeman T.H. Susrar J.F., Dicson W.J. Impacts of three dredge types compared in S.F.District. World

Dredging, 1975, N 2. 523. Wang L.K., Leonard R.P. Dredging pollution and environmental conversation in the United States. Environ.

Conserv., 1976, v.3, N 2. 524. Warwick R.M. The nematode/copepod ratio and its use in pollution ecology // Marine Pollution Bulletin. 1981.

V.12. P.329-333. 525. Windom, H.L. Environment aspects of dredging in estuaries, ASCE J. Waterw. Harbors Coastal Eng. Div.

98,475, 1972 526. Windom, H.L., Processes responsible for water quality changes during pipeline dredging in marine

environments, in Proc. World Dredging Conf. V, Hamburg , Germany, Simcon, San Pedro, California, 1974, 761.

527. Zmudzinski L. Swiat zwierzecy Baltyku. Atlas makrofauny - Warszawa: Wydawnietwa Szkolno Podagogiezno,

1990. - 196 p. 528. V. Stefanoni et at., "Modeling sub-sea oil and gas releases from offshore pipelines", 11th International

Symposium on Loss Prev. & Safety Prom. In the Process Ind., Prague 2004 529. P. D. Yapa and L. Zheng, "Simulation of oil spills from underwater accidents I", Journal of Hydraulic Research,

1997 530. P. D. Yapa and L. Zheng, "Modeling of underwater oil/gas jets and plumes", Journal of Hydraulic Engineering,

1999 531. P. D. Yapa and H. Xie, "Modeling of underwater oil/gas jets and plumes: comparison with field data", Journal of

Hydraulic Engineering, 2002 532. G-GE-PIE-REP-102-00085201-02. Consequence Assessment Report. 533. G-GE-PIE-REP-102-00085200-02. Frequency of Interaction Report. 534. G-GE-PIE-REP-102-00085203-02. Risk Assessment Report Offshore. 535. PARLOC 2001: The update of Loss of Containment Data for Offshore Pipelines, Energy Institute, London,

2003г.




APPENDICES




APPENDIX 1




LIST OF NORMATIVE LEGAL AND NORMATIVE TECHNICAL DOCUMENTS

Decrees of the RF President 1. On introducing amendments and supplements to individual decrees of the RF President in connection with

adopting the Federal Law On Environmental Expert Reports of 1 March 1996. No. 302 (as amended and supplemented on 24 April 1998).

2. On the state strategy of the Russian Federation for the protection of the environment and securing of a

sustainable development of 04 February 1994. 236. 3. On the concept for the transition of the Russian Federation to a sustainable development of 01 April 1996.

440.

Laws of the Russian Federation 4. Constitution of the Russian Federation. Adopted on 12.12.93. Amendments made to the documents: Decree of

the RF President of 09.01.96 No. 20, Decree of the RF President of 10.02.96 No. 173. 5. Water Code of the Russian Federation of 3 June 2006 No. 74-FZ (version of 14.07.2008). 6. Civil Code of the Russian Federation (as amended on 26 January, 20 February, 12 August 1996, 24 October

1997, 8 July, 17 December 1999, 16 April, 15 May, 26 November 2001, 21 March, 14, 26 November 2002, 10 January, 26 March, 11 November, 23 December 2003, 29 June 2004, 29, 30 December 2004, 2, 21 July 2005, 3, 10 January 2006, 3, 30 June, 27 July, 3 November, 4 December, 18 December 2006, 01.12.2007).

7. On animal life of 24 April 1995 No. 52-FZ (version of 06.12.2007 No. 333-FZ). 8. On the continental shelf of the Russian Federation of 30.11.95 No. 187-FZ. 9. On mineral resources of 21 February 1992 No. 2395-1 in the version of federal laws of 03.03.1995 No. 27-FZ, of

10.02.1999 No. 32-FZ, of 02.01.2000 No. 20-FZ, of 14.05.2001 No. 52-FZ, of 08.08.2001 No. 126-FZ, of 29.05.2002 No. 57-FZ, of 01.12.2007 No. 295-FZ.

10. Tax Code (part two) of 05.08.2000 No. 117-FZ (version of 05.12.06, as amended on 30.12.06 and 06.12.2007г). 11. On introducing amendments and supplements to the federal law On the payment for using water bodies of 7

August 2001 No. 111-FZ. 12. On the industrial safety of dangerous production facilities of 21 July 1997 No. 116-FZ.




13. On special protected natural areas of 14 March 1995. No. 33-FZ. 14. On waste from production and consumption of 24 June 1998. No. 89-FZ. 15. On the protection of atmospheric air of 04 May 1999. No. 96-FZ. 16. On the protection of the cultural heritage (monuments of history and culture) of the nations of the Russian

Federation of 25 June 2002 No. 73-FZ of 25.06.2002. 17. On the protection of the environment of 10 January 2002. No. 7-FZ. 18. On environmental expert opinions of 23 November 1995. No. 174-FZ. 19. On domestic sea areas, territorial sea and nearest sea water of the Russian Federation. Federal law of 31 July

1998 No. 155-FZ. 20. On the federal budget for 2008 and the planned periods of 2009 and 2010. RF federal law of 24.07.2007 No.

198-FZ. 21. On the exclusive economic zone of the Russian Federation. Federal law of 17 December 1998 No. 191-FZ (as

amended).

International treaties 22. The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, Montevideo, 1982 (UNCLOS). 23. UN Declaration on the Environment and Development, Rio de Janeiro, 1992. 24. Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and Other Matter, 1972. 25. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, Rio de Janeiro, 1992. 26. Convention on Biological Diversity, Rio de Janeiro, 1992. 27. Convention on the Transboundary Effects of Industrial Accidents, Helsinki, 1992. 28. International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL), London, 1973. 29. Convention No. 174 of the International Labour Organisation (ILO) on the Prevention of Major Industrial

Accidents (Geneva, 1993). 30. Convention on Environmental Impact Assessment in a Transboundary Context; 31. Convention on the Protection the Marine Environment of the Baltic Sea; 32. Convention on Environmental Impact Assessment in a Transboundary Context (Espoo Convention).




Rulings of the Government of the Russian Federation

33. On the Red Book of the Russian Federation of 19 February 1996. 158. 34. On immediate measures for prevention and eradication of accident spills of oil and oil products of 21 August

2000 No. 613 (as amended on 15 April 2002). 35. On the standards of paying for releases into the atmospheric air of contaminating substances from stationary and

mobile sources, dumping of contaminating substances in surface and underground water bodies, disposing of waste from production or consumption. 12 June 2003 No. 344.

36. On the State Committee of the Russian Federation for Fishing. Ruling of the Russian Federation of 01 November

2007 No. 733. 37. On the classification of natural or technical emergency situations. Ruling of the RF Government of 21 May 2007

No. 304. 38. On the measures of securing fulfillment of its obligations by the Russian Federation arising from the Convention

on Wetlands of International Importance Especially as Waterfowl Habitat of 2 February 1971. Ruling No. 1050 of the RF Government of 13.09.1994.

39. On changing the rate to calculate the amount to be collected for damage inflicted on water biological resources

of 26 September 2000 No. 724. 40. On the confirmation of the provisions on state control for the protection of atmospheric air of 15 January 2001

No. 31. 41. On the confirmation of the provisions on the procedure of state environment expert reports of 14 June 1996.

698. 42. On the confirmation of the rules of granting the use of water bodies under state ownership, establishing and

reviewing the limits of water usage, issuing of licences for water usage and an administrative licence of 03 April 1997. 383.

43. On the confirmation of the rules of developing standards for maximum permissible concentrations of hazardous

substances and standards for maximum permissible hazardous impacts on the marine environment and natural resources of domestic sea waters and the territorial sea of the Russian Federation of 10 March 2000. 208.

44. On the confirmation of the rate to calculate the amount to be collected for damage inflicted through the unlawful

exploitation or destruction of fauna or flora objects of 04.05.1994. 126




45. On the confirmation of the requirements to prevent the death of animal life when carrying out production

processes and when using transport routes, pipelines, communication and power transmission lines of 13 August 1996. 997.

46. On engineering research for the preparation of project documentation, construction and reconstruction of major

building facilities. Ruling of the RF Government of 19 January 2006 No. 20.

Standards

Atmospheric air 47. General health and safety requirements for the air of working areas. GOST 12.1.005-88. 48. Environmental protection. Atmosphere. Diesel cars. Release of hazardous substances with exhaust gas.

Measurements standards and methods. OST 37 001.234-81. 49. Environmental protection. Atmosphere. Release classification by composition. GOST 17.2.1.01-76. 50. Environmental protection. Atmosphere. Meteorological aspects of contamination and industrial release. Main

terms and determinations. GOST 17.2.1.04-77. 51. Environmental protection. Atmosphere. Standards and methods of measuring the content of oxides and

hydrocarbons in exhaust gases of cars with petrol engines. Safety requirements. GOST 17.2.2.03-87. 52. Environmental protection. Atmosphere. General requirements for the methods of determining contaminating

substances. GOST 17.2.4.02-81. 53. Environmental protection. Atmosphere. Determination of carbon monoxide release parameters. OST 48307-87.

Hydrosphere 54. Water supply. Terms and determinations. GOST 25151-82. 55. Water quality. Terms and determinations. GOST 27065-86 01.01.87. 56. Environmental protection. Hydrosphere. Water usage and protection. Main terms and determinations (as

amended on 08.83 and 01.87) GOST 17.1.1.01-77. 57. Environmental protection. Hydrosphere. Classification of water bodies. GOST 17.1.1.02-77. 58. Environmental protection. Hydrosphere. Classification of water usage. GOST 17.1.1.03-86 replacing GOST

17.1.1.03-78.




59. Environmental protection. Hydrosphere. General requirements for the methods of determining oil products in

natural and waste waters. GOST 17.1.4.01-80. 60. Environmental protection. Hydrosphere. General requirements for the recovery of samples of bottom sediments

in water bodies for contamination analysis. GOST 17.1.5.01-80. 61. Environmental protection. Hydrosphere. General requirements for the protection of surface and underground

waters from contamination with oil and oil products. GOST 17.1.3.05-82. 62. Environmental protection. Hydrosphere. General requirements for the protection of surface waters from

contamination. GOST 17.1.3.13-86. 63. Environmental protection. Hydrosphere. General requirements for the protection of underground waters. GOST

17.1.3.06-82. 64. Environmental protection. Hydrosphere. Status parameters and taxation rules for fishing industry water bodies.

GOST 17.1.2.04-77. 65. Environmental protection. Hydrosphere. Rules of controlling the quality of sea waters. GOST 17.1.3.08-82.

Physical impact 66. Equipment for arched and contact electro-welding. Permissible levels of noise and measurement methods. GOST

12.1.035-81. 67. Noise. Methods of determining noise characteristics. General requirements. GOST 23941-79. 68. Noise. Standardisation of the noise characteristics of stationary equipment. Main provisions. GOST 27409-87. 69. Noise. Determination of the noise characteristics of noise sources. Indicative method. GOST 12.1.020-80. 70. Noise. Transport flows. Methods of measuring noise characteristics. GOST 20444-85.

Other 71. Analysis of types, consequences and the criticality of failures. Main provisions. GOST R 27.310-93. 72. Hazardous substances. Classification and general requirements for safety. GOST 12.1.007-76 SSBT.




73. Environmental protection. Procedures for carrying out environmental protection work in businesses. GOST

107.17.004-91. 74. Fire safety. General requirements. GOST 12.1.004-91. 75. Labour safety standards system. Fire safety. General requirements. GOST 12.1.004-91. 76. System of standards in the area of environmental protection and natural resource usage improvement. GOST

17.0.0.01-76.

Standard norms and rules, maximum contamination level 77. List of fishing industry standards: maximum permissible concentrations and approximately safe levels of

influence of hazardous substances for water bodies which are of significance for the fishing industry, confirmed by Decree of the State Fishing Committee of Russia on 28 April 1999 No. 96.

78. Procedures for accumulation, transporting, detoxification and dumping of toxic industrial waste (health rules).

Ministry of Health of the USSR, 1985. 79. Maximum contamination levels and recommended permissible levels of hazardous substances in the water of

water bodies for domestic and cultural usage. Supplements 1 and 2 to the health rules and standards for the protection of surface waters from contamination (SaNPiN of 4 July 1988 No. 4630-88).

80. SanPiN 2.1.5.980-00. Health requirements for the protection of surface waters. 81. SanPiN 2.1.6.1032-01 Health requirements for the protection of air quality in residential areas.

Standards and rules 82. Protection from noise. SNiP 23-03-2003 83. Engineering protection of territories, buildings and equipment from dangerous geological processes. Main

planning provisions. SNiP 22-02-2003. 84. Construction work organisation. SNiP 12-01-2004. 85. Retaining walls, shipping locks and fish protection equipment SNiP 2.06.07-87. 86. Rules for the protection of surface waters from contamination with waste waters. М.: 1991. 87. Rules for protection from contamination of littoral sea waters. Confirmed by the USSR Ministry of Melioration

and Water Management, 25 July 1983 No. 13-5-02/850.




88. Rules for the protection of surface waters (typical provisions), confirmed by the USSR State Nature Committee,

21.02.91. 89. Rules for the protection of surface waters (confirmed by the USSR State Nature Committee, 21 February 1991). 90. Rules for the granting of permission for dumping in order to dispose of waste and other matter in the sea. - М.,

Gidrometeoizdat, 1984. 91. SP 11-102-97. Engineering and environmental exploring for construction. 92. Practical manual for SP 11-101-95 for using the section Environmental impact assessment when substantiating

investments in the construction of businesses, buildings and equipment. Moscow, 1998. 93. Environmental protection standards and planning rules. Reference book, M., Stroyizdat, 1990. 94. RDS 82-202-96 Rules of developing and adopting standards labour organisation losses and material waste

during construction 95. Health rules and standards for the protection of littoral sea waters from contamination in places of population

water usage. Confirmed by the USSR Ministry of Health, 6 July 1988, No. 4631-88. 96. SNiP 2.01.07-85. Strain and impacts on hydrotechnical equipment (wave, ice and of vessels). М., Stroyizdat,

1986, 1989, amendment 2, 1995. 97. VSN 014-89 Construction of main and industrial pipelines. Environmental protection. (confirmed by decree of

the Ministry of Oil and Gas Construction, 03.05.1989. 103).

Methods, instructions, recommendations, management 98. Temporary methods of determining the economic effectiveness of environmental protection measures and

assessment of economic losses inflicted on water bioresources by contamination of fishing industry water bodies. USSR Ministry of Fishing, 1989.

99. Temporary methods of determining the economic effectiveness of environmental protection measures and

assessment of economic losses inflicted on water bioresources by contamination of fishing industry water bodies. (USSR State Planning Committee and confirmed by the USSR Ministry of Fishing in 1988).

100. Temporary method of assessing damage inflicted on fish stocks as a result of construction, reconstruction or

expansion of businesses, buildings and other facilities and conducting various types of work on fishing reservoirs. (USSR State Nature Committee, USSR Ministry of Fishing, 1989).


PITER GAS NO. 36/07-01- TEO-OOS-0801(1)-S6 NORD STREAM No. G-PE-LFR-EIA-101-08010100-06


‘’


PETERGAS NO. 36/07-01- TEO-OOS-0801(1)-S6 NORD STREAM No. G-PE-LFR-EIA-101-08010100-06

Volume 8. Book 1. Off-shore section. Part 1. OVOSPage 431

101. Temporary methodical manual for the calculation of releases from non-organised sources in the

construction materials industry. NPO Soyuzpromekologiya, 1985. 102. Temporary methodical recommendations for the calculation of the volume of losses inflicted on

land plot owners, land users, land owners and land plot tenants through seizure, temporary seizure, limiting rights or deterioration of the quality of lands as a result of the activities of other individuals. (confirmed by the head of the Federal Real Estate Cadastre Agency on 11 March 2004).

103. Temporary instructions for the determination of underlying concentrations of hazardous

substances in the atmosphere of the air for standardising releases and determining maximum permissible releases. USSR State Hydrometeorology Committee, 1981.

104. Temporary instructions for the assessment of an increase in muddiness during dredging work

conducted to ensure transit shipping in rivers and the consideration of its impact on water quality and ecology of hydrobionts. RSFSR Ministry of the River Fleet. М.: 1986.

105. Instructive methodical guidelines for the collection of payments for the contamination of the

environment. Confirmed by the RF Ministry of Natural Resources on 26.01.93. 106. Method of calculating releases from fire sources during the spill of oil or oil products. RF State

Environment Committee. - M., 1997. 107. Method of calculating payments for the contamination of sea waters and surfaces of water bodies

which are in the federal ownership of the Russian Federation, when conducting work related to the removal and harvesting of seabed soils, exploration of non-metallic materials from underwater quarries and dumping of soils in underwater pits. RF State Committee for Environmental Protection. Moscow, 1999.

108. Methods of assessing the pollution and estimating the volume of damage from the destruction of

fauna and disturbance of their habitat (conf. by the RF State Environment Committee on 28 April 2000)

109. Methodical recommendations for the classification of accidents and incidents in dangerous

productions facilities under the control of gas supervision (RD 12-378-00). 110. Methodical instructions for the determination of the economical effectiveness of conservation

measures in the gas industry. USSR Gas Industry Ministry, 1988. 111. Procedure manual for the environmental assessment of the impact of hydrotechnical construction

on water facilities. Kiev: AN USSR. 1990.




112. Recommendations for the breakdown of enterprises into risk categories depending on the mass and

content type of contaminating substances released into the atmosphere. ZapsibNII, Novosibirsk, 1987.

113. Recommendations for the preparation of the Environmental Impact Assessment. SSSR State

Nature Committee, 1990 114. Manual for the methods of examining and calculating the removal of deposits and dynamics of the

shores during engineering research - М.,: Gidrometeoizdat, 1975, 238 p. 115. Manual for the standardisation of releases into the atmosphere by gas-developing enterprises.

VNIPIgazodobycha, 1988. 116. Manual for the organisation of observations, conducting work and granting approvals for the

dumping of waste in the sea (temporary) (edited by I. A. Shlygin. -M: Mosk. Otd. Gidrometeoizdata, 1984).

117. Manual for the conducting the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) when selecting grounds,

developing technical and economic grounds and projects for the construction (reconstruction, expansion and technical re-equipment) of commercial facilities and complexes. Conf. by the Ministry of Natural Resources of Russia in 1992.

118. Collection of procedures for the calculation of releasing contaminating substances from various

production facilities into the atmosphere. UNV SSSR State Hydrometeorological Committee, 1986.

119. Collection of standard procedures and analytical materials for the development and

implementation of environmental programmes of all levels. Ministry of Natural Resources of Russia, 1994.

120. System of production for environmental monitoring on gas industry facilities. Planning rules.

OAO Gazprom. VRD 39-1.13-081-2003. 121. STO Gazprom 6-2005 Procedure manual for the determination of the component composition of

natural and waste water in gas industry facilities. 122. STO Gazprom 7-2005 Management structure. Powers and obligations in the system of managing

environmental protection. 123. STO Gazprom 9-2005 Assessment of the environmental effectiveness in the system of managing

environmental protection. 124. STO Gazprom 10-2005 Methodical instructions for the chemical health control of the air

environment in respect of the content of hydrocarbons in OAO Gazprom facilities, its subsidiary companies and organisations (in replacement of RD 51-106-86).




125. STO Gazprom 11-2005 Methodical instructions for the calculation of gross hydrocarbon releases

(summary) into the atmosphere at OAO Gazprom (in replacement of RF 51-90-84). 126. STO Gazprom 12-2005 Catalogue of production waste and consumption of OAO Gazprom

subsidiary companies and organisations. 127. STO Gazprom 2-1.19-074-2006 Methodical instructions for the perfection of procedure of

calculating payments for releasing contaminating substances into the atmosphere. 128. STO Gazprom 2-1.19-075-2006 procedure manual. Chemical agents for the gas industry.

Environmental aspects of use 129. STO Gazprom 3-2005 Register of greenhouse gas releases. General requirements for maintenance

and execution.

Instructions 130. Instructions on the procedures of controlling the planning and construction of compensatory fish-

rearing improvement facilities and their use. Confirmed by joint order No. 327/130 of the Russian Federation Committee for Fishing and the Ministry for the Protection of the Environment and Natural Resources of 17 August 1995.

131. Instructions on the procedures of conducting state expert opinions on construction projects. RDS

11-201-95. Ministry of Construction, М., 1995. 132. Instructions for the standardisation of releases (dumping) of contaminating substances into the

atmosphere and water bodies. USSR State Nature Management Committee, 1989. 133. Instructions for environmental foundations of commercial and other activities. Confirmed by

Order No. 539 of the Ministry of Natural Resources of Russia of 29.12.95.

Provisions 134. On the annexes to the Manual for Environmental Expert Opinions for Pre-project and Project

Documentation. Letter No. 11-31216 from the Directorate-General for State Environmental Review of 16.05.94.

135. Provisions on assessing the impact of scheduled commercial or other activities on the environment

in the Russian Federation, Confirmed by Order No. 372 et al. of the Directorate-General for State Environmental Review of 16 May 2000.

136. Manual for assessing the risk connected with possible accidents during construction, storage, use

and transport of large quantities of inflammable, explosive and toxic substances, NMTs, Risk Informatic Technology, 1992 (approved by the Department for environmental standards and methodical implementation of State Environmental Expert Report No. 10-8-7 of 31.01.92).




Others

137. On the annexes to the Manual for Environmental Expert Opinions for Pre-project and Project

Documentation. Letter No. 11-31216 from the Directorate-General for State Environmental Review of 16.05.94.

138. Collection of documents on issues of state extra-departmental expert reports in Russia.

Directorate-General for State Environmental Review of Russia, 1995. 139. Reference materials on certain parameters of the creation of the most important types of

production and consumption waste, Moscow, 1996. 140. Collection of certain indicators of the creation of production and consumption waste, Moscow,

1999.




APPENDIX TO SECTION 2


To the General Director of OOO PeterGaz A. S. Fedorov 62, Starokaluzhskoe shosse, 117630, Moscow, Russia

The Federal Service for Supervision of Natural Resource Usage Department in the Leningrad Region has reviewed your letter No. 1456 of 20.07.2007 on the existence of Special Protected Natural Areas, which are in the economic jurisdiction by the federal administration and managed by the federal authorities of state power in the area of impact (500 m in both directions from the line) of the planned off-shore section of the Nord Stream gas pipeline - from the warp of the water of Portovaya Bay to the Island of Gotland. We hereby inform the following. According to the draft submitted, removal of the Nord Stream gas pipeline route in the immediate proximity of the boundaries of the sections of the planned Ingermandlandsky state natural reserve are not intended. However, during the execution of a more detailed the route design, you must contact the Department to confirm the routing of the gas pipeline outside the reserve, and also to obtain the conditions for monitoring the impact of the gas pipeline during construction and use on the ecosystem of this area of the Baltic Sea.

Acting Head of Department

M. V. Pantyukhov

S. A. Frolova 272-16-94


To the General Director OOO PeterGaz A. S. Fedorov 117630, Moscow, Russia. 62, Starokaluzhskoe shosse tel./fax (495) 784-71-61, 784-71-62

Dear Aleksandr Stanislavovich The Committee for Natural Resources and Environmental Protection of the Leningrad Region in response to Ref. No. 1455 of 20.07.2007 hereby informs you that in the area of possible impact of the planned gas pipeline on the relevant sections located in the area of Portovaya Bay and the Island of Gotland of the Vyborg District, Leningrad Region, there are no Special Protected Natural Areas. The closest special protected natural areas is the regional comprehensive reserve Beryozoviye Ostrova, located at a distance of some 15 km to the south east of the planned gas pipeline. I hereby also inform you that the gas pipeline route runs through the territory of the planned Ingermanlandsky State Natural Reserve, as special protected natural area of federal status (Eastern Gulf of Finland).

Committee Chairman

M. A. Dedov

EIS A. E. Zhukovskaya tel.: (812)710-00-81


Meeting places of Baltic subspecies of the jar seal (Phoca hispida botnica) in the rookeries of the spring/summer and summer/autumn periods of the year and its migration routes to the spring and autumn/winter periods of the year.


Map of the spread of the grey seal (Halichoerus grypus) during the spring, summer and autumn periods of the year and its migration routes in the spring and autumn periods of the year


PETERGAS NO. 36/07-01- TEO-OOS-0801(1)-S6 NORD STREAM No. G-PE-LFR-EIA-101-08010100-

06


APPENDIX TO SECTION 3



06


APPENDIX 3.1-1

To the section Geological and geomorphological characteristics


Please find enclosed the conclusion stating the absence of minerals in the area requested for the construction of the North European Gas Pipeline (SEG) (off-shore sections, Russia), which runs through the waters of the eastern part of the Gulf of Finland. Enclosed: Conclusion on the plan for the SEG route, scale 1:750,000 - 1 sheet


Conclusion The area requested for the construction of the North European Gas Pipeline (SEG) (off-shore sections, Russia), which runs through the waters of the eastern part of the Gulf of Finland, runs along the grounds of a geological allocation granted to OOO PETROTRANS, licence for the use of mineral resources LOD 11335 TP. Under the provisions of the licence agreement, the geological examination of iron manganese concrete in the Gulf of Finland, Southern section constitutes the purposeful objective and types of work. No mineral reserves in the section which the gas pipeline runs through are listed on the government's records.

Head of Sevzapnedra

A. V. Lebedev


PeterGaz Limited Liability Company

_______ ______ For _____of_____

To the Head of the Department for the Use of Minerals in the North-Western Federal Area A. V. Lebedev

On providing information on the existence (non-existence) of minerals

Dear Alexey Valentinovich OOO PeterGaz is currently developing a plan for the construction of the Russian section of the Nord Stream offshore gas pipeline. The Russian section of the offshore gas pipeline includes the onshore section which is adjacent to Portovaya Bay in the Vyborg District of the Leningrad Region (1.5 km in length) and the offshore section in the waters of the Gulf of Finland from Portovaya Bay to the border of the Russian territorial waters in the area of the Island of Gogland (123.5 km in length) (Appendix 1). In order to prepare the project decisions, we must enquiry on clarification of the information on the existence (non-existence) of minerals within the corridor of the planned Nord Stream offshore gas pipeline. Conclusion No. 1-13/820 of 14.07.2006 on the non-existence of minerals within the area requested for the construction of the North European Gas Pipeline section (currently the Nord Stream offshore gas pipeline) stated that the pipeline route runs through the ground of the geological allotment granted to OOO Petrotrans for the geological examination of iron manganese concrete in the Southern section (Appendix 2).

62, Starokaluzhskoe shosse, 117630, Moscow, Russia, telephone: (495) 784-71-61, fax: (495) 784-71-62 E-mail: ООО[email protected] Website: www.petergaz.com

62, Starokaluzhskoe shosse, 117630, Moscow, Russia Phone: (007)(495) 784-71-61, Fax: (007)(495) 784-71-62 E-mail: [email protected] Internet site: www.petergaz.com


Please provide information on the current stage of this section developement as well as the time period for which the geological allotment was granted to OOO Petrotrans under a licence for the rights of using minerals. Enclosed: 1. Arrangement plan for the Nord Stream gas pipeline on 1 sheet in 1 copy 2. Conclusion 01-13/820 of 14.07.2006 on the non-existence of minerals in the area requested for the

construction of the North European Gas Pipeline (SEG) section (offshore sections, Russia) on 2 sheets in 1 copy.

Deputy General Director

A. A. Arkhipov

EIS O. A. Uvarov Tel. (495)784-71-60 62, Starokaluzhskoe shosse, 117630, Moscow, Russia, telephone: (495) 784-71-61, fax: (495) 784-71-62 E-mail: ООО [email protected] website: www.petergaz.com

62, Starokaluzhskoe shosse, 117630, Moscow, Russia Phone: (007)(495) 784-71-61, Fax: (007)(495) 784-71-62 E-mail: [email protected] Internet site: www.petergaz.com



Conclusion

In the section requested by OOO PeterGaz for the development of the project to construct the Russian section of the Nord Stream offshore gas pipeline within the onshore section adjacent to the waters of Portovaya Bay in the Vyborg District of the Leningrad Region (1.5 km in length), no deposits of minerals listed in the government's records and accounted for in the State Register of Mineral Deposits (GKM) were discovered.

Deputy Head

V. M. Lukinov



06


APPENDIX 3.1-2 METHOD OF CALCULATING POSSIBLE DEFORMATIONS OF THE SEABOTTOM UNDER

THE INFLUENCE OF WAVES AND CURRENTS ALONG THE NORD STREAM GAS PIPELINE ROUTE WITHIN THE WATERS OF PORTOVAYA BAY



06


1. Waves and currents The active waves are considered as irregular with a narrow-band spectre of frequencies and directions and are characterised as of medium-square significance in wave height H, of a period of spectral maximum tp and general direction regarding the normal shore line Θ. The determination of the waves in the bay includes calculating the refraction, transformation and dissipation of the waves. The refraction is calculated on the basis of the law of wave vectors conservation [Philips, 1980],

where the axes ОХ and OY are directed in accordance with the normal line and along the shore, C is the waves' phase velocity. The field of the medium-square heights of the waves H(хy) is determined from the equation of the balance of energy which in the conditions of stationary waves is of the type

where Е and Cg are the waves' energy and the speed of its transfer (group speed), ρ is the water density, g the gravity increase and D the energy dissipation speed connected to the proportion of waves formed in the spectrum. The foundation for a qualitative description of the littoral circulation is the equation of the dynamics and continuity, as obtained by Phillips [1980] on the basis of equations of motion taking into account the specific conditions of littoral zones:

where Qx=Uh and Qy=Vh are diametrical and lateral water rate (U and V constituent speeds averaged per depth h), ζ changes to the average level, which are based on wind and waves. The values Fх and Fy express the impact on account of gradients of radiation strains and strains based on rollers when waves collapse, τbx, τby are the strains of seabed friction, τ1 is Reynolds' turbulent strain connected to the horizontal momentum exchange and Twx and Twy are the strains from the wind.



06


2. Storm deformations Calculations of storm deformations of the bottom and changes to the depth h of the calculation profile are based on the integration of a mass conservation equation.

where t is the time, x the horizontal distance along the site and qx the sediment displacement on one unit of the flow section's width. The value qx, expressed in m3m-1ch-1 is assessed on the basis of I. O. Leont'yev's model [2001, Leont'yev, 2003]:

where β = -dh/dx is the local bottom slope, h the depth, μ = 3600/[g(ρs - ρ)(1 - σ)], ρ and ρs is the density of water and sediments, σ the leakage of the bottom, εb and εs the coefficient of the effectiveness of transporting be loads and suspended deposits, F the corner of the actual bottom slope, Ws the deposit's hydraulic coarseness, Df the thickness losses due to bottom friction, V the turbulence energy dissipation speed arising on the bottom when waves collapse, um is the orbital ground speed, UW and UC the seabed speeds based on wave transformation and current. The wave speed transfer at the ground Uw is determined as [Leont'yev, 2001]

where D and D*are the local dissipation speed and its medium value, X is the distance of this point from the shore. The value Uc during a wind surge characterises the down current speed of the directed to the sea. The structure of storm deformation calculations is shown in Fig. 1. The cycle is repeated until the ongoing time t matches the set disturbance length tw. A step in time Ft has the order of dozens of wave periods, while a step in space Δx is measured in metres. The two-step numerical scheme of Laks-Wendroff is used.



06


ENTRY

Bottom profile Bottom properties Wave parameters

Disturbance duration tw WAVES AND CURRENTS SEDIMENT DISPLACEMENTS t<tw BOTTOM DEFORMATION t=tw EXIT

New bottom profile

Figure 1. Storm deformation calculation structure 3. Deformations connected to the displacement of underwater sand banks The maximum deformations of this type correspond to the bank height Zbar, which is determined as the difference of depths in the coombe ht and above the bank ridge hc, i.e. Zbar = ht - hc. If there is no information on the underwater bank parameters, Leont'yev's [2008b] model can be used, which enables assessing the sizes of the largest bank in hh of the internal part of the coastal zone. The depths hc and ht are determined as

where hB is the collapse depth, lB the distance from the place of collapse to the top of the bank, lt the

distance from the top to the centre of the coombe, The distances lB and lt are calculated in respect of their interrelations

where T is the waves' medium period in a characteristic storm, and the values m and n are determined with empirical variables



06


where ds is the medium sand size. The collapse depth is assessed with the formula

where Hю1% is the waves' height of 1% probability in the system in deep water. 4. Long-term changes to the shore The forecast of long-term changes to the position of the shore line is based on a balance equation, which is linked to the speed of moving the shore line дx / дt with the integral parts of the sediments' budget [Leont'ev, 2008а]:

Here h* is the closure depth, which marks the conditional lower boundary of the shore area. It is determined as h* - 2H 0.14%, where H 0.14% is the waves' significant height with an annual probability of 0.14% (active about 12 hours per year). Zc is the rise of the top boundary of the shore area, which corresponds to the highest level or brow of the active cliff. The values in brackets characterise the inflow or outflow of sediments on account of the gradient along the shore flow Q (y - distance along the shore), the distances of lateral flows at the top and bottom boundaries (qAeol and q*) as well as supplemental material sources or drains Ω . The value wlx expresses the range of changes of the relevant sea level (w - дζ / дt, lx is the length of the active part of the profile between h* and Zc). The determination of the gradient дQ / дy is based on sediment calculations [Leont'yev, 2001] along the relevant section of the shore for various situations which are characteristic for the wind and wave mode. This provides a year-average spread of the flow Q, from which the shore gradient is also determined. The year-average lateral flow via the lower boundary q* is determined with empirical variables [Leont'yev, 2008a]

where β* - h* /l* is the average bottom slope (l* the distance from the shore to the depth h*); ds is the average size of sediment particles; T4% is the period of waves with a 4% annual probability. If S2 >3.2, the flow q* is directed towards the shore, and at lower values in direction of the sea. The flow qAeol, based on wind-borne transport, is calculated with the formulas specified in the manual [Coastal Engineering Manual (CEM), 2002].



06


APPENDIX 3.2

To the section Climate condition and status of atmospheric air



06


To the General Director of ZAO IETs Ekoneftegaz S.

M. Oshitov

On underlying concentration levels In response to your request, I am hereby informing you on the underlying concentration levels (mg/m3) of contaminating substances in the atmospheric air of Bolshoy Bor (Lomonosovsky District):

suspended substances - 0.17 sulphur dioxide - 0,015 carbon monoxide - 1.5 nitrogen dioxide - 0.050 nitrogen oxide - 0,021

Without taking into account the deposit of the facility The data is valid until 2008.

Head of the Centre

Yu. D. Malashin

Petrova (812) 328 09 19



06


APPENDIX 3.3

to the section Oceanogrophy and sea water quality



06


Table P 3.3-1

Health standards for the levels of hazardous substances in water bodies which are used culturally

and generally (SanPiN 2.1.5.980-00 taking into account GN 2.1.5.1315-03, GN 2.1.5.1316-03)

Contaminating substances (parameter)

Measurement units Hazard indicator

Maximum contamination level

in waters used commercially, culturally and

generally

Risk category

Suspended matter mg/l 75 pH value pH unit 6,5-8,5 Dissolved Oxygen mg/l 4 BOD5 mgO2/l 4 Nitrogen ammonium mg/l org. smell 1,5 4 Nitrites mg/l org. 3.3 2 Nitrates mg/l sanitary-toxicological 45 3 oxide of silicon (for Si) mg/l sanitary-toxicological 10 2 Sulphates (SO4 2-) mg/l org. 500 4 Hydrogen sulphide mg/l org. smell 0.003 4 Iron (Fe, summary) mg/l org. 0.3 3 Cadmium (Cd, summary) mg/l sanitary-toxicological 0.001 2 Manganese (Mn, summary) mg/l org. 0.1 3 Copper (Cu, summary) mg/l org. 1.0 3 Arsene (As, summary) mg/l sanitary-toxicological 0.01 1 Nickel (Ni, summary) mg/l sanitary-toxicological 0.02 2 Aluminium (Al) mg/l org. (muddy) 0.2(0.5) 3 Mercury (Hg, summary) mg/l sanitary-toxicological 0.0005 1 Lead (Pb, summary) mg/l sanitary-toxicological 0.01 2 Chrome (Cr+6) mg/l sanitary-toxicological 0.05 3 Zinc (Zn) mg/l org. 1.0 3 Cobalt (Co) mg/l sanitary-toxicological 0.1 2 Sodium (Na) mg/l sanitary-toxicological 200 2 Oil products, summary mg/l org. area 0.3 4 Surface actants, anionic mg/l org. foam 0.5 3 Hexachlorobenzene mg/l sanitary-toxicological 0.001 1 Tetrachlorobenzene mg/l sanitary-toxicological 0.01 2 Pentachlorobenzene mg/l sanitary-toxicological 0.01 2 HCCH (hexachlorane) mg/l sanitary-toxicological 0.02 1 Aldrin mg/l org. odour 0.002 3 DDT (isomere total) mg/l sanitary-toxicological 0.1 2 PCB congeners mg/l sanitary-toxicological 0.001 1 Heptachlor mg/l sanitary-toxicological 0.05 2 Benzene mg/l sanitary-toxicological 0.01 1 Ethylbenzene mg/l org. odour 0.01 4 Xylene mg/l org. smell 0.05 3



06


Contaminating substances (parameter)

Measurement units Hazard indicator

Maximum contamination level in waters

used commercially, culturally and

generally

Risk category

Isopropylbenzene (cumene) mg/l org. odour 0.1 3 Toluol mg/l org. smell 0.5 4 Naphthalene mg/l org. smell 0.01 4 Benzapyrene mg/l sanitary-toxicological 0.00001 1 Phenol mg/l org. smell 0.001 ** 4 3- and 4-methyphenol mg/l sanitary-toxicological 0.004 2 Dimethylphenol mg/l org. smell 0.25 4 Chlorophenol mg/l org. smell 0.001 4 Dichlorophenol mg/l org. odour 0.002 4 Trichlorophenol mg/l sanitary-toxicological 0.004 1 Pentachlorophenol mg/l sanitary-toxicological 0.01 2 4-nitrophenol mg/l sanitary-toxicological 0.02 2 3-nitrophenol mg/l sanitary-toxicological 0.06 2 2-nitrophenol mg/l sanitary-toxicological 0.06 2 Notes:

• The fourth column states the limiting indicator of the substances' hazardousness for which the standard is set: s.-t. - sanitary-toxicological org. - organic with a breakdown of the character of change of the organic properties of water (smell - changes the water's smell; odour gives the water an odour);

• **- the maximum contamination level of phenol - 0.001 mg/l - is specified for the amount

of flying phenols; the maximum contamination level refers to water bodies with the application of chloride in the process of its cleaning on water facilities or when determining the conditions of release of waste water exposed to decontamination with chloride. In other circumstances, it is allowed to keep the level of flying phenols in water bodies at concentration levels of 0.1 mg/l;



06


Table P 3.3-2

Maximum contamination level values adopted for sea waters, as applied by the RF State

Committee for fishing on 28.04.1999

Contaminants Maximum

contamination level

Risk category

Contaminants

Maximum contamination

level

Risk

category

Oxygen, mg/l summer

6 Oil products, mkg/l 50 3

Oxygen, mg/l winter

4 DDT total, mkg/l 0,01 1

BOD20, mg/l 3 2 HCCH total, mkg/l 0,01 1 рН, рН unit 6,5-8,5 PCB total, mkg/l 0,01 Phosphates (phosphate-phosphorus), mkg/l

200 (65) Iron, mkg/l

50 4

Nitrates (nitrate nitrogen), mkg/l

40000 (9100) 3 Manganese, mkg/l 50 4

Nitrites (nitrite nitrogen), mkg/l

80 (20) Chrome, mkg/l 70

Ammonium, mkg/l

500 (390) 4 Nickel, mkg/l 10 3

Benzene, mkg/l 500 4 Zinc, mkg/l 50 3 Toluol, mkg/l 500 3 Copper, mkg/l 5 3 Ethylbenzene, mkg/l

1 3 Lead, mkg/l 10 3

Para- and meta-xylene total

50 Cobalt, mkg/l 5 3

Ortho-xylene, mkg/l

50 3 Cadmium, mkg/l 10 2

Isopropylbenzene, mkg/l

100 3 Arsene, mkg/l 10 3

1,2,4-trimethylbenzene, mkg/l

500 3 Tin, mkg/l 112 4

Naphthalene, mkg/l

4 3 Mercury, mkg/l 0,1 1

Benzapyrene mkg/l

0,005

Phenols, mkg/l 1 3 Detergents, mkg/l 100 4



06


Table P 3.3-3

Measured parameter values and measured concentration levels in maximum contamination level

units in the waters of the entire line

Parameters Measured concentration levels Measured concentration levels in

maximum contamination level units INTERVALS

Average INTERVALS Average

рН 7.43-8.15 7.86 - - Eh, mv 120-241 195 - - Suspended substances, mg/l 0.10-1.89 0.63 - - BOD20, mgO/l 0.52-5.07 1.81 0.17-1.69 0.60 Nitrogen ammonium, mkg/l 90.0-350 176 0.23-0.90 0.45 Nitrite nitrogen, mkg/l <0.5-78.0 5.71 0.00-3.90 0.29 Nitrate nitrogen, mkg/l 5.00-39.0 15.9 0.00 0.00 General nitrogen, mkg/l 150-584 295 - - Phosphates, mkg/l 5.00-48.0 20.0 0.08-0.74 0.31 General phosphorus, mkg/l 7.00-53.0 25.8 - - Fe, mkg/l 2.30-16.3 6.53 0.05-0.33 0.13 Mn, mkg/l 0.31-5.10 1.72 0.01-0.10 0.03 Cu, mkg/l 0.70-3.50 1.67 0.14-0.70 0.33 Pb, mkg/l 0.66-2.81 1.64 0.07-0.28 0.16 Zn, mkg/l 1.50-7.70 4.47 0.03-0.15 0.09 Cd, mkg/l 0.08-0.26 0.17 0.01-0.03 0.02 Ni, mkg/l 0.50-2.50 1.43 0.05-0.25 0.14 Co, mkg/l 0.10-0.50 0.24 0.02-0.10 0.05 Cr, mkg/l 0.24-1.14 0.68 0.00-0.02 0.01 Hg, mkg/l 0.01-0.04 0.02 0.09-0.35 0.22 As, mkg/l 0.82-1.53 1.22 0.08-0.15 0.12 HU, mkg/l 2.20-70.2 19.1 0.04-1.40 0.38 Benzapyrene, ng/l <0.5 <0.5 0.00 0.00 Naphthalene, ng/l 2.00-61.4 18.2 0.00-0.02 0.00 HCCH total, ng/l <0.05-1.30 0.49 0.00-0.13 0.05 DDT total, ng/l <0.05-0.46 0.11 0.00-0.05 0.01 Chlorobenzene total, ng/l <0.05-0.71 0.14 - - Chlorophenol total, ng/l <0.05 <0.05 - - PCB total, ng/l 0.21-2.00 0.88 0.02-0.20 0.09 OCP total, ng/l 0.12-1.83 0.74 - -

PAH total, ng/l 3.40-128 34.5 - -



06


Table P 3.3-4


units, section No. 1 (stations 1-6)




рН 7.82-7.97 7.90 - - Eh, mv 183-208 193 - - Suspended substances, mg/l 0.63-1.60 1.03 - - BOD20, mgO/l 0.81-3.19 2.25 0.27-1.06 0.75 Nitrogen ammonium, mkg/l 96.6-135 118 0.25-0.35 0.30 Nitrite nitrogen, mkg/l 7.00-15.0 9.42 0.35-0.75 0.47 Nitrate nitrogen, mkg/l 9.00-17.0 13.1 0.00 0.00 General nitrogen, mkg/l 161-226 197 - - Phosphates, mkg/l 5.00-28.0 14.4 0.08-0.43 0.22 General phosphorus, mkg/l 14.0-43.0 23.2 - - Fe, mkg/l 2.70-11.2 4.53 0.05-0.22 0.09 Mn, mkg/l 0.31-3.20 1.18 0.01-0.06 0.02 Cu, mkg/l 0.84-2.40 1.53 0.17-0.48 0.31 Pb, mkg/l 0.70-2.11 1.43 0.07-0.21 0.14 Zn, mkg/l 1.50-5.40 3.57 0.03-0.11 0.07 Cd, mkg/l 0.08-0.23 0.14 0.01-0.02 0.01 Ni, mkg/l 0.50-1.00 0.74 0.05-0.10 0.07 Co, mkg/l 0.10-0.30 0.16 0.02-0.06 0.03 Cr, mkg/l 0.27-0.98 0.44 0.00-0.01 0.01 Hg, mkg/l 0.01-0.02 0.02 0.09-0.24 0.15 As, mkg/l 0.82-1.11 0.97 0.08-0.11 0.10 HU, mkg/l 2.60-70.2 21.9 0.05-1.40 0.44 Benzapyrene, ng/l <0.5 <0.5 Naphthalene, ng/l 22.8-61.4 40.1 0.01-0.02 0.01 HCCH total, ng/l 0.20-0.48 0.35 0.02-0.05 0.03 DDT total, ng/l <0.05-0.35 0.13 0.00-0.04 0.01 Chlorobenzene total, ng/l <0.05-0.39 0.09 - - Chlorophenol total, ng/l <0.5 <0.5 - - PCB total, ng/l 0.48-1.72 1.07 0.05-0.17 0.11 OCP total, ng/l 0.26-1.22 0.57 - - PAH total, ng/l 53.4-128 92.8 - -



06


Table P 3.3-5






рН 7.76-7.92 7.88 - - Eh, mv 182-221 207 - - Suspended substances, mg/l 0.35-1.89 0.79 - - BOD20, mgO/l 0.97-5.07 1.89 0.32-1.69 0.63 Nitrogen ammonium, mkg/l 90.0-216 153 0.23-0.56 0.39 Nitrite nitrogen, mkg/l 5.00-18.0 10.7 0.25-0.90 0.53 Nitrate nitrogen, mkg/l 8.00-23.0 14.1 0.00 0.00 General nitrogen, mkg/l 150-361 255 - - Phosphates, mkg/l 8.00-20.0 12.8 0.12-0.31 0.20 General phosphorus, mkg/l 10.0-40.0 23.0 - - Fe, mkg/l 3.70-14.3 6.148 0.07-0.29 0.12 Mn, mkg/l 0.79-2.60 1.47 0.02-0.05 0.03 Cu, mkg/l 0.80-2.30 1.47 0.16-0.46 0.29 Pb, mkg/l 0.87-2.60 1.72 0.09-0.26 0.17 Zn, mkg/l 1.60-6.10 3.69 0.03-0.12 0.07 Cd, mkg/l 0.08-0.22 0.15 0.01-0.02 0.02 Ni, mkg/l 0.60-1.90 1.13 0.06-0.19 0.11 Co, mkg/l 0.10-0.20 0.15 0.02-0.04 0.03 Cr, mkg/l 0.24-1.14 0.62 0.00-0.02 0.01 Hg, mkg/l 0.01-0.04 0.02 0.09-0.35 0.23 As, mkg/l 0.86-1.41 1.17 0.09-0.14 0.12 HU, mkg/l 2.60-43.4 15.6 0.05-0.87 0.31 <0.5 <0.5 - - Benzapyrene, ng/l 9.60-40.3 21.8 0.00-0.01 0.01 Naphthalene, ng/l HCCH total, ng/l 0.29-0.66 0.43 0.03-0.07 0.04 DDT total, ng/l <0.05-0.44 0.11 0.00-0.04 0.01 Chlorobenzene total, ng/l 0.05-0.54 0.19 - - Chlorophenol total, ng/l <0.5 <0.5 - - PCB total, ng/l 0.46-1.04 0.78 0.05-0.10 0.08 OCP total, ng/l 0.34-1.36 0.74 - - PAH total, ng/l 28.5-86.8 52.9 - -



06


Table P 3.3-6

Measured parameter values and measured concentration levels in maximum contamination level units, section No. 3 (stations 16-24)




рН 7.61-8.15 7.91 - - Eh, mv 174-241 204 - - Suspended substances, mg/l 0.23-1.24 0.65 - - BOD20, mgO/l 0.80-3.25 1.72 0.27-1.08 0.57 Nitrogen ammonium, mkg/l 107-253 169 0.28-0.65 0.43 Nitrite nitrogen, mkg/l 1.00-78.0 9.56 0.05-3.90 0.48 Nitrate nitrogen, mkg/l 5.00-27.0 14.7 0.00 0.00 General nitrogen, mkg/l 179-423 282 - - Phosphates, mkg/l 5.00-43.0 18.2 0.08-0.66 0.28 General phosphorus, mkg/l 8.00-53.0 25.1 - - Fe, mkg/l 3.70-12.0 7.64 0.07-0.24 0.15 Mn, mkg/l 0.64-4.10 1.85 0.01-0.08 0.04 Cu, mkg/l 0.70-2.40 1.39 0.14-0.48 0.28 Pb, mkg/l 1.22-2.81 1.91 0.12-0.28 0,19 Zn, mkg/l 2.10-7.70 4.41 0.04-0.15 0.09 Cd, mkg/l 0.10-0.22 0.15 0.01-0.02 0.02 Ni, mkg/l 0.80-1.90 1.41 0.08-0.19 0.14 Co, mkg/l 0.10-0.40 0.22 0.02-0.08 0.04 Cr, mkg/l 0.30-1.05 0.69 0.00-0.02 0.01 Hg, mkg/l 0.01-0.03 0.02 0.14-0.34 0.23 As, mkg/l 1.05-1.41 1.22 0.11-0.14 0.12 HU, mkg/l 2.50-44.4 12.3 0.05-0.88 0.25 Benzapyrene, ng/l <0.5 <0.5 - -

Naphthalene, ng/l 2.40-46.4 15.7 0.00-0.01 0.00 HCCH total, ng/l <0.05-0.66 0.45 0.00-0.07 0.04 DDT total, ng/l <0.05-0.46 0.14 0.00-0.05 0.01 Chlorobenzene total, ng/l <0.05-0.71 0.22 - - Chlorophenol total, ng/l <0.5 <0.5 - - PCB total, ng/l 0.46-1.77 0.87 0.05-0.18 0.09 OCP total, ng/l 0.12-1.34 0.81 - -

PAH total, ng/l 11.6-74.6 33.1 - -



06


Table P 3.3-7






рН 7.43-7.99 7.72 - - Eh, mv 138-233 193 - - Suspended substances, mg/l 0.11-1.13 0.55 - - BOD20, mgO/l 1.07-2.74 1.72 0.18-0.91 0.57 Nitrogen ammonium, mkg/l 99.6-350 211 0.00-0.90 0.54 Nitrite nitrogen, mkg/l <0.1-8.00 2.19 0.00-0.40 0.11 Nitrate nitrogen, mkg/l 5.00-38.0 18.2 0.00 0.00 General nitrogen, mkg/l 166-584 352 - - Phosphates, mkg/l 6.00-48.0 26.6 0.00-0.74 0.41 General phosphorus, mkg/l 8.00-53.0 27.6 - - Fe, mkg/l 3.00-10.7 6.24 0.00-0.21 0,12 Mn, mkg/l 0.90-5.10 2.00 0.00-0.10 0.04 Cu, mkg/l 0.80-2.40 1.52 0.02-0.48 0.30 Pb, mkg/l 0.66-2.00 1.43 0.07-0.20 0.14 Zn, mkg/l 2.20-6.10 4.61 0.04-0.12 0.09 Cd, mkg/l 0.09-0.26 0.17 0.02-0.03 0.02 Ni, mkg/l 1.00-2.40 1.54 0.02-0.24 0.15 Co, mkg/l 0.10-0.40 0.30 0.02-0.08 0.06 Cr, mkg/l 0.36-1.04 0.62 0.01-0.04 0.01 Hg, mkg/l 0.01-0.03 0.02 0.00-0.34 0.23 As, mkg/l 1.06-1.51 1.33 0.00-0.15 0.13 HU, mkg/l 2.20-34.5 20.0 0.00-0.69 0.40 Benzapyrene, ng/l <0.5 <0.5 - -

Naphthalene, ng/l 2.20-8.00 4.66 0.00-0.01 0.00 HCCH total, ng/l 0.37-0.91 0.57 0.00-0.09 0.06 DDT total, ng/l <0.05-0.22 0.10 0.00-0.02 0.01 Chlorobenzene total, ng/l <0.05-0.22 0.10 - - Chlorophenol total, ng/l <0.5 <0.5 - - PCB total, ng/l 0.63-1.68 1.04 0.00-0.17 0.10 OCP total, ng/l 0.47-1.21 0.76 - -

PAH total, ng/l 7.80-26.3 16.4 - -



06


Table P 3.3-8



Parameters Measured concentration levels Measured concentration levels

in maximum contamination

level units INTERVALS Average INTERVALS Average

рН 7.52-7.97 7.84 - - Eh, mv 120-221 185 - - Suspended substances, mg/l 0.12-1.20 0.47 - - BOD20, mgO/l 0.52-2.86 2.18 0.17-0.95 0.73 Nitrogen ammonium, mkg/l 99.6-338 202 0.26-0.87 0.52

Nitrite nitrogen, mkg/l <0.1-2.00 1.17 0.00-0.10 0.06

Nitrate nitrogen, mkg/l 5.00-39.0 18.1 0.00 0.00 General nitrogen, mkg/l 166-564 337 - - Phosphates, mkg/l 12.0-42.0 29.3 0.18-0.65 0.45 General phosphorus, mkg/l 7.00-52.0 28.9 - - Fe, mkg/l 2.30-16.3 6.72 0.05-0.33 0.13 Mn, mkg/l 0.43-4.90 1.88 0.01-0.10 0.04 Cu, mkg/l 1.10-2.60 1.91 0.22-0.52 0.38 Pb, mkg/l 0.69-2.30 1.59 0.07-0.23 0.16 Zn, mkg/l 3.10-6.30 4.96 0.06-0.13 0.10 Cd, mkg/l 0.11-0.26 0.18 0.01-0.03 0.02 Ni, mkg/l 1.10-2.50 1.85 0.11-0.25 0.19 Co, mkg/l 0.20-0.40 0.26 0.04-0.08 0.05 Cr, mkg/l 0.33-1.02 0.76 0.00-0.01 0.01 Hg, mkg/l 0.01-0.03 0.02 0.09-0.34 0.21 As, mkg/l 0.94-1.53 1.24 0.09-0.15 0.12 HU, mkg/l 4.80-52.8 25.0 0.10-1.06 0.50 Benzapyrene, ng/l <0.5 <0.5 - - Naphthalene, ng/l 2.00-8.00 4.23 0.00-0.00 0.00 HCCH total, ng/l 0.23-1.30 0.61 0.02-0.13 0.06 DDT total, ng/l <0.05-0.43 0.08 0.00-0.04 0.01 Chlorobenzene total, ng/l <0.05-0.35 0.06 - -

Chlorophenol total, ng/l <0.5 <0.5 - - PCB total, ng/l 0.21-2.00 0.93 0.02-0.20 0.09 OCP total, ng/l 0.31-1.83 0.75 - - PAH total, ng/l 3.40-24.5 12.7 - -



06


Table P 3.3-9



Parameters Measured concentration levels Measured concentration

levels in maximum

contamination level units INTERVALS Average INTERVALS Average

рН 7.72-8.03 7.90 - - Eh, mv 148-219 186 - - Suspended substances, mg/l 0.10-1.07 0.32 - - BOD20, mgO/l 0.70-1.69 1.07 0.23-0.56 0.36 Nitrogen ammonium, mkg/l 105-322 193 0.27-0.83 0.50

Nitrite nitrogen, mkg/l <0.1-2.00 1.07 0.00-0.10 0.05

Nitrate nitrogen, mkg/l 5.00-36.0 17.1 0.00 0.00 General nitrogen, mkg/l 176-538 321 - - Phosphates, mkg/l 10.0-35.0 19.1 0.15-0.54 0.29 General phosphorus, mkg/l 9.00-51.0 27.2 - - Fe, mkg/l 3.40-14.6 7.43 0.07-0.29 0.15 Mn, mkg/l 0.67-4.40 1.84 0.01-0.09 0.04 Cu, mkg/l 1.10-3.50 2.28 0.20-0.70 0.46 Pb, mkg/l 1.06-2.43 1.67 0.11-0.24 0.17 Zn, mkg/l 4.20-6.70 5.50 0.08-0.13 0.11 Cd, mkg/l 0.15-0.26 0.20 0.02-0.03 0.02 Ni, mkg/l 1.10-2.50 1.74 0.11-0.25 0.17 Co, mkg/l 0.10-0.50 0.34 0.02-0.10 0.07 Cr, mkg/l 0.58-1.12 0.89 0.01-0.02 0.01 Hg, mkg/l 0.01-0.03 0.02 0.13-0.34 0.22 As, mkg/l 1.14-1.51 1.32 0.11-0.15 0.13 HU, mkg/l 2.30-31.5 15.4 0.05-0.63 0.31 Benzapyrene, ng/l <0.5 <0.5 - - Naphthalene, ng/l 2.00-2.70 2.43 0.00-0.00 0.00

HCCH total, ng/l 0.31-0.57 0.47 0.03-0.06 DDT total, ng/l <0.05-0.33 0.11 0.00-0.03 0.05 Chlorobenzene total, ng/l <0.05-0.39 0.16 - 0.01

Chlorophenol total, ng/l <0.5 <0.5 - - PCB total, ng/l 0.34-0.86 0.66 0.03-0.09 0.07 OCP total, ng/l 0.44-1.20 0.74 - - PAH total, ng/l 4.40-17.2 11.2 - -



06


APPENDIX 3.4

To the section Socio-economic conditions


PeterGaz Limited Liability Company

_______ ______ For _____of_____

To the Head of the Federal Service Department for Veterinary and Phytosanitary Control in St Petersburg and the Leningrad Region N. V. Shirokov

Enquiry on the existence of fishing and trawling areas in the transit region of the North European Gas Pipeline (offshore section)

Dear Nikolay Vasilievich

OOO PeterGaz is currently conducting project design work of the North European Gas Pipeline (offshore section). The offshore section of the North European Gas Pipeline route from Portovaya Bay to the Island of Gotland (km 0 to km 105) runs through the waters of the eastern part of the Gulf of Finland in the Baltic Sea within the territorial waters of the Russian Federation. The point of entry into the Gulf is in Portovaya Bay (Vyborg District, Leningrad Region), 13 km from the state border of the Russian Federation with the Republic of Finland. From Portovaya Bay, the route is directed towards the Island of Sommers and further towards the Island of Gotland. For the purposes of complying with the protection mode and to establish the limitations on exploiting the environment during the construction of the SEG, we hereby request you to provide details on the existence of fishing and trawling areas in the region of the gas pipeline route. Enclosed: coordinates of the SEG route within Russia - 1 sheet

Vice President A. A. Arkhipov EIS O. V. Rodivilova Tel.: (495) 784-71-61

62, Starokaluzhskoe shosse, 117630, Moscow, Russia Phone: (495) 784-71-61, Fax: (495) 784-71-62 E-mail: [email protected] Web site: www.petergaz.ru

62, Starokaluzhskoe shosse, 117630, Moscow, Russia Phone: (007)(495) 784-71-61, Fax: (007)(495) 784-71-62 E-mail: [email protected] Web site: www.petergaz.ru


Enclosed

Coordinates of the SEG route within Russia

ID Width Length 1 60° 31.6544' N 28° 04.4777' Е 2 60° 30.3862' N 28° 05.5057' Е 3 60° 29.1020' N 28° 05.5057' Е 4 60° 28.3857' N 28° 04.4024' Е 5 60° 26.9935' N 28° 02.0197' Е 6 60° 24.9785' N 28° 01.2403' Е 7 60° 24.1685' N 28° 00.4075' Е 8 60° 22.2482' N 27° 59.1230' Е 9 60° 21.6039' N 27° 57.7671' Е 10 60° 21.2040' N 27° 56.7185' Е 11 60° 17.3434' N 27° 51.6288' Е 12 60° 16.7325' N 27° 51.2366' Е 13 60° 15.8989' N 27° 50.9709' Е 14 60° 14.6689' N 27° 49.5140' Е 15 60° 13.6859' N 27° 45.7131' Е 16 60° 12.1414' N 27° 42.4037' Е 17 60° 08.5917' N 27° 29.9760' Е 18 60° 08.6712' N 27° 24.0072' Е 19 60° 08.1272' N 27° 17.1040' Е 20 60° 08.1068' N 27° 12.2066' Е 21 60° 08.2195' N 27° 07.8123' Е 22 60° 08.1147' N 27° 02.4379' Е 23 60° 07.7843' N 27° 00.2116' Е 24 60° 07.7864' N 26° 56.6852' Е 25 60° 06.8849' N 26° 53.5897' Е 26 60° 06.7389' N 26° 52.4070' Е 27 60° 05.7827' N 26° 48.0324' Е 28 60° 05.6687' N 26° 45.5964' Е 29 60° 03.8324' N 26° 39.3865' Е 30 60° 03.6947' N 26° 36.5004' Е 31 60° 03.4240' N 26° 33.1873' Е 32 60° 02.7591' N 26° 30.1525' Е 33 60° 01.6136' N 26° 27.8294' Е 34 60° 01.3510' N 26° 26.1312' Е 35 60° 01.2719' N 26° 25.0615' Е

Россия, Москва, 117630, Старокалужское шоссе, 62 Телефон: (495) 784-71-61, Факс: (495) 784-71-62 E-mail: [email protected] Сайт в Интернете: www.petergaz.ru

62, Starokaluzhskoe shosse, 117630, Moscow, Russia Phone: (007)(495) 784-71-61, Fax: (007)(495) 784-71-62 E-mail: [email protected] Internet site: www.petergaz.ru


To Vice President OOO Peter Gaz A. A. Arkhipov 62, Starokaluzhskoe shosse, 117630, Moscow

In response to your enquiry No. 1796 of 15.09.06 on the existence of fishing and trawling areas in the transit region of the North European Gas Pipeline (offshore section) Within the boundaries of the offshore section of the North Europe Gas Pipeline route, as defined by the coordinates stated in the enclosure to the enquiry (the entry point of the gas pipeline into the Gulf of Finland is in Portovaya Bay), in the littoral 5-km zone a fishing industry site, OOO Primorsky Rybak, is located, as assigned by a usage agreement, which carries out the commercial fishing of water bioresources on the grounds of a permit for commercial activity involving water bioresources. Section coordinates: N 60°36'19" Е 28°23'12"

N60°33'10" Е28°26'43" , N60°31'16" Е27°51'52" N60°15'45" Е28°54'45" N60°11'38" Е28°41'08" N60°26'36" Е27°50'09"

The remaining zone of the Gulf of Finland is used for industrial fishing, including, under the Rules for Fishing in the Baltic Sea, at depths of more than 20 m for conducting trawling business of small herring fish species.


To the General Director OOO Peter Gaz A. S. Fedorov

62, Starokaluzhskoe shosse, 117630, Moscow, Russia 1

On approval of the route of the Nord Stream gas pipeline During geophysical examinations conducted along the route of the Nord Stream section (North European Gas Pipeline) in 2006-2007, sunken vessels were discovered which possess indications of objects of cultural heritage:

Expert report

number

ROV code SONAR code, No.

X Y Width (N) Length (Е)

1 G 07 185 2 181 540269,1 6675575,6 60° 12' 53.95" 27°43' 36.07" 2 G 07 214

G 07 218 2-М-26 2153

537706,8 537698.0

6673273,4 6673269,6

60° 11'40.42" 60° 11'40.30"

27° 40'48.09" 27° 40'47.51"

4 G_07_308

526657,0 6667321,7 60° 08*31.18" 27°28' 47.91" 03-S-90 526619,3 6667318,1 60° 08'31.07" 27°28'45.47" 526626,0 6667307,7 60° 08'30.73" 27° 28' 45.90" 526639,9 6667302,2 60° 08'30.55" 27° 28' 46.80"

5 2153+ 5 37706 6673281 60° 11.6778' N 27°40.8009'Е 6 2159+ 5 37702 6673275 60° 11.6744' N 27°40.7964'Е 7 2188+ 5 37694 6673268 60° 1 1.6778'N 27°40.8009'Е (object Nos. 5-7 may represent the remains of a sunken vessel) 8 2208+ 5 35531 66 72 031 60" 11.0160'N 27°38.4345'Е 12 G 07 el73 495992 6665344 60° 07'30.31" 26° 55'40.35" Furthermore, during examinations in 2006 (GBO 1) several objects were detected which are also interpreted as sunken vessels. The coordinates of these objects were not presented by the specialists of IIMKA RAN. Judging by the diagrams, the objects specified as _2.359 and _2.360 may represent the remains of the same vessel as object No. G_07_308, the others are not stated in the examinations of 2007:


Materials of the investigations of 2006 (GBO 1)

16 (_308) n/a n/a 17 (_2.7.) n/a (diagram, section С) n/a (diagram, section С) 18 (_2.181) n/a n/a 19 (_3-41) n/a (diagram, section В) n/a (diagram, section В) 20 (_313) n/a (diagram, section А) n/a (diagram, section А) 21 (_3.438) n/a (diagram, section А) n/a (diagram, section А) 22 (_3.124) n/a n/a Please submit to the department the coordinates of the objects detected in 2006. The remains of all vessels listed possess the indications of objects of cultural heritage. When conducting the project work for the Nord Stream gas pipeline route, it must be foreseen that they remain unmoved. To ensure safety, the planned gas pipeline route must not run closer than 100 m of a detected object. In the event of an unfavourable seabed relief in the area of object No. 12 (Rov G_07_el73) near the picket of КР 90, the gas pipeline route can be planned at a distance of no closer than 50 m from the object. In the area of laying the gas pipeline, there are also parts of vessels, anchors, vessel mechanisms, construction parts, etc.

Expert report number

ROV code SONAR code, No.

X Y Width (N) Length (Е)

3 G 07 306 2146 527545,3 6667568,7 60°08'38.95" 27°29'4561" 9 G 07_500 n/a (diagram,

section А) n/a (diagram, section А)

11 G_07_l 53 n/a (diagram, section С)

n/a (diagram, section С)

13 G 07 402ор2 n/a n/a 14 G 07_424 n/a (diagram,

section А) n/a (diagram, section А)

15 G_07_400 n/a (diagram, section А)

n/a (diagram, section А)

The objects stated can be lifted to the surface under the control of specialist archaeologists on the condition of ensuring their integrity and subsequent handing over to state museum safekeeping. If these objects are not lifted, their integrity must be ensured. Because during the examinations, sunken vessels were detected, which have the indications of objects of cultural heritage, the project must foresee archaeological control of the process of the works to lay the gas pipeline. When complying with the conditions listed, the department agreed the presented route of the Russian section of the Nord Stream offshore gas pipeline.

Head of Department

S. Vasiliev

EIS T. B. Krylova (275-56-49)



06


APPENDIX 3.6

To the Ornithofauna section


Figure 1.

Key ornithological territories in the Russian section of the Gulf of Finland According to the Nature conservation atlas of the Russian part of the Gulf of Finland)


Figure 2.

Terms of migration of aquatic and semi-aquatic birds in the eastern part of the Gulf of Finland.

Notes: Standard migration terms: spring (-----), summer (--------), autumn (--------); possible variations of terms of beginning and ending of spring (…….), summer (……..) and autumn (…….) migrations.


PETER GAZ No. 36/07-01- ТЭО-ООС-0801(1)-С6 NORD STREAM No. G-PE-LFR-EIA-101-08010100-06


APPENDIX TO CHAPTER 4




Appendix 4.1

SIMULATION OF DISTRIBUTION OF SLURRY AND BOTTOM SEDIMENT DURING CONSTRUCTION OF THE PIPELINE.

RUSSIAN SECTOR




DESCRIPTION OF CONSTRUCTION OF THE FACILITY AND THE TYPES OF WORK

1.1. General information The planned offshore gas pipeline Nord Stream is a transportation system intended for the exportation of natural gas from Russia to Germany through the Baltic Sea. The pipeline will be constructed by the company Nord Stream АG. The pipeline's route crosses the exclusive economic zones (EEZ) of 5 states: Russia, Finland, Sweden, Denmark and Germany, and the territorial waters of Russia, Germany and Denmark (Fig. 1.1).

Fig. 1.1. Diagram of the Nord Stream route The EU Directorate General for Energy and Transport has designated the construction of Nord Stream a priority project. The shareholders of Nord Stream AG are OAO Gazprom, Wintershall AG (an associated company of BASF) and E.ON Ruhrgas (an associated company of E.ON). The head office of Nord Stream AG is located in Zug (Switzerland) and the company has a representative office in Moscow. The Nord Stream project plans for the staged construction of two offshore gas pipe strings with conditional diameters of 1200 mm. The planned productivity of the offshore pipeline (for the 2 pipe strings) amounts to 55 billion m3 per year. The total length of the offshore section of the pipeline is 1200 km, while the length of the Russian sector of the pipeline is 125.5 km (Fig. 1.2).




Fig. 1.2. The route of the Nord Stream pipeline in the Russian sector

1.2. The composition and basic specifications of the facility's construction and the construction schedule

The section of pipeline in question extends from the isolating joint located at the onshore section of the Russian sector of the Nord Stream pipeline, along the gas flow past the Portovaya Compression Station safety valves to the point of intersection with the border of the Russian EEZ at the 125.5 km point. The general direction of the pipeline route is south-east. The isolating joint does not fall within the scope of the planned section and is under the authority of OAO Gazprom. The lengths of the sections for construction:

• West (line I) - 124.0 km

• East (line II) - 123.5 km. Some of the technical specifications of the Nord Stream offshore pipeline (Russian section) are presented in Table 1.1.

Table 1.1

Technical specifications of the pipeline Parameter Value

Pipe number SAWL 485 I DF Wall thickness, mm 0-0.500 km 0.500-123 km

41 34,6 Corrosion tolerance, mm 0

Constant internal diameter, mm 1153 Thickness of concrete coating Eastern line 0-79.53 km 79.53-123 km




Parameter Value

60 mm 80 mm Western line 0-78.58 km 78.58-123 km

60 mm 80 mm Thickness of anti-corrosion coating, mm 4

Type of anti-corrosion coating 3LPP

1.3. Main work The main offshore construction work includes:

• pre-trenching at the landfall point and onshore section;

• coastline intersection;

• laying of the pipeline;

• embedding intersecting cables;

• installation of supports in the locations of cable intersections;

• correction of long free spans;

• backfilling of pipeline trenches. The main types of constuction work to be carried out on the shore include:

• pre-trenching;

• backfilling over pipeline;

• cleaning and hydraulic testing of the pipeline. The schedule for completion of work is based on the following principles:

• work on construction of legs at the intersection of the coastline and near-coast sections will be carried out by one construction spread for both lines;

• for completion of laying work for the legs at the coastline intersection, the near-coast

sections and the main part of the Russian section, a single, 3rd-generation pipelaying vessel will be used, with a laying speed of 2.5 km per day and 0.5 km per day for pulling in in the pipeline;

• hydraulic testing and removal of water at the legs at the intersection of the coastline and the

near-coast sections from the Russian side will be carried out on section KP0-KP300;

• all the work on transporting the pipeline through communications until mobilization will be carried out by a 3rd or 4th-generation pipelaying vessel;

• correction of long free spans will be carried out before and after laying the pipeline with the

use of a support structure made of a gravel-stone material of an appropriate fineness;




• final correction of long free spans will be carried out after filling the pipeline with water.

1.4. Construction work on the section

Construction work on the leg at the intersection of the coastline (depth from +5 m to -14 m) and deep-water section (from -14 m to ~ -70 m) includes: 1. Preparatory works:

• construction of embankments for ground-based pre-trenching work on the near-coast section and to protect the trenches from wave activity;

• platform facilities for installation of winches;

• installation of winch for pulling in the pipeline.

2. Pre-trenching:

• pre-trenching at the landfall point;

• pre-trenching in the embankment zone;

• pre-trenching at the shallow near-coast section to a water depth of -14 m; 3. Work on laying the offshore pipeline by means of a pipelaying barge:

• pulling in the pipeline onshore (1st and 2nd string);

• laying the deep-water section (1st and 2nd string); 4. Backfilling the trenches; 5. Correction of long free spans; 6. Intersection of underwater communications; 7. Cleaning of chambers and testing; 8. Completion of construction:

• dismantling of embankments;

• recovery of platforms and surface layer. Below follows a brief description of the methods of execution of the construction and assembly work.

1.5. Preparatory works The preparatory works include the following: 1. construction of embankments; 2. platform facility for winch on the shore; 3. mounting of winch for pulling in the pipeline onshore.




In accordance with the schedule, the preparatory works will be carried out in May 2010. Construction of embankments Before beginning construction of pipelines for the shallow sections, to ensure protection from water washing of the prepared trenches in the near-coast zone due to wave action, 2 embankments will be constructed (one on the outer side of each string) (figure 1.3). These constructions will also be used for excavation of the trenches for the leg at the coastline intersection with the help of ground-based equipment (excavators on the embankments), which will enable signficant acceleration in the excavation of trenches at the near-coast section.

Fig. 1.3. Construction of embankments at the coastline intersection The embankments will begin at a level of +0.5 m on the shore and end at a depth of 2 m of the average sea level. The height of the embankment above sea level will be 0.5 m. The characteristics of the embankments are provided in Table 1.3.

Table 1.3

Embankment characteristics No. Characteristic Unit of

measurement Section

1 2 3 4

1. Length of embankment

Total m Western string Eastern

string 502 500

2. including - from water edge m 383 383 3. - from water edge to +0.5 m m 119 117 4. Slopes 1:1,5 5. Width at apex m 7 6. Total volume of soil bank for construction

of two embankments thousand m3 8







The embankments will be filled up with a rock and gravel mixture. The planned work will be carried out using material from the Erkilya quarry in Vyborg, located ~ 75 km from Portovaya bay. Delivery of the material will be made by the quarry's land transport. The embankments will be filled by dumper trucks and levelled off in layers by bulldozers. Work off the embankments will be carried out during daylight hours during the period of white nights, so there is no plan for the use of masts for lighting. If it becomes necessary, 2 masts with floodlights will be set up on the embankments. Power will be provided by a 50 kW mobile diesel generator. Platform facilities For the installation of the winch, so that pulling in of the pipeline may be carried out close to the edge by bulldozers, a platform is planned for the shore (a shared platform for both pipeline strings). On this, a winch mount will be installed for each of the strings. The mount for the winch will be constructed from 1P30.18 reinforced concrete slabs (3.0 x 1.75 x 0.17 m). The slabs will be set on the prepared platform surface by a KC-4571 crane with a carrying capacity of 25 tonnes. The first winch mount to be set up will be that for pulling in the 2nd pipeline. After laying has been completed, the winch and slabs will be disassembled, moved across and set up on the axis of the 1st pipeline. Another mount will be constructed from slabs for the power and drive unit for the winch, positioned between the axes of the two pipeline. The area of each winch mount will be ~450 m2 (30 x 15 m). 2 temporary floodlight masts are planned to provide lighting for the platform. Power will come from the winch power and drive unit. Mounting of the winch For the onshore pulling in of the coated pipeline, equipped with pontoons, a tonnage of 212 tonnes will be required. The project proposes the use of a KTC350 winch (made by Bezemer Dordrecht b.v.) with a hauling capacity of 350 tonnes. Before beginning to pull in the 2nd pipeline, the winch will be mounted on the reinforced concrete slab mount on the axis of the 2nd pipeline. After the 2nd pipeline has been pulled in, the winch will be moved across for the 1st pipeline to be pulled in.

1.6. Pre-trenching Pre-trenching must be carried out in accordance with the work execution plan, the requirements of regulatory documents and under the immediate direction of the people responsible for execution of the work. In accordance with the solutions planned, the pipeline will be laid in a previously excavated trench for the whole section into which it is being pulled in. The scope of the sections for soil excavation and the length of the trenches are shown in Table 1.4




String Start of section End of section

Trench length, m Kilometre

point Level Kilometre

point Level

Western (1st string)

3+56 +5,0 14+74 -14,0 1826

Eastern (2nd string)

3+56 +5,0 14+72 -14,0 1828

For the two pipelines, two trenches will be excavated with a constant width at the bottom of 4.4 m along the whole length of the buried section. The distance between the axes of the trenches will be 20 m. [1] During execution of the groundwork, the following specifications will be controlled:

• ground elevations;

• measurements of the trench bottom;

• width of the trench at the bottom;

• slopes;

• adequacy of the trench and pipeline route. Depending on construction conditions, soil type and technical drawings, execution of the groundwork for the string at the intersection of the coastline on the Russian side must be divided into 3 main zones:

• landfall point (depth from +0.5 m to +5 m);

• embankment zone (depth from 0.5 m to -2 m);

• near-coast section (depth from -2 m to -14 m). Pre-trenching at the landfall point The minimum required depth of the pipeline for this section is no less than 1.2 m from the top of the pipeline's concrete covering. The slopes of the trench on the shore will be at 1:1.5. The onshore section of the trench will be excavated using ground-based equipment - excavators with backfillers. The excavators will start work at the coastline and move back along the axis of the trench they are working on. The excavated soil will be loaded onto dumper trucks and transported to the storage location on the hydrotesting platform. This soil will be used to backfill the onshore section of the trench. The KRANEX EK 400-05 excavator for soil excavation for the onshore section is shown in Figure 1.4.




Figure 1.4. Trench excavation using a ground-based excavator. Pre-trenching in the embankment zone The minimum required depth of the pipeline for this section is no less than 2.0 m from the top of the pipeline's concrete covering. The slopes of the underwater trench in the embankment zone will be at 1:1.8. Trench excavation in the embankment zone will be carried out using a combination of ground-based equipment (excavator with an extended stick) working from the embankment and excavators working off a floating rig (excavator on pontoon). The excavation work will be commenced by the excavators working from the embankment. The direction of excavation will be from dry land towards the sea. The boom reach of the excavator on the embankment will not be sufficient for excavation of the whole width of the trench. For this reason, the central part of the trench will be reworked by excavators working off the floating rig. The direction of excavation for excavators working off the floating rig will be from the sea towards dry land. The soil excavated from the land section of the embankment (kilometre point 1+19.3 - kilometre point 0 for the western pipeline and kilometre point 1+16.7 - kilometre point 0 for the eastern pipeline) will be loaded onto dumper trucks and transported to the storage location on the hydrotesting platform. The soil excavated from the sea section of the embankment (kilometre point 0 - kilometre point 3+83) will be placed in a bank along the trench as follows. The soil excavated by the excavators working off the pontoon will be placed on the embankment and from there, bulldozers will move it to the underwater soil dump from the outer side of the embankment. Trench excavation by means of excavators installed on a floating rig is shown in figure 1.5.




Figure 1.5. Trench excavation by an excavator on a pontoon. Trench excavation in the near-coast section Trench excavation to the minimum required depth (not less than 2.0 m from the top of the pipeline's concrete covering) will be carried out to a water depth of 12 m. Beyond this, there is a transition zone (from -12 m to -14 m) with a gradual reduction of trench depth (from -3.4 m to 0 m) and the emergence of the pipeline through the surface of the seabed. Beyond an isobath of 14 metres, the pipeline will be laid directly on the seabed. The slopes of the underwater trench in the near-coast section, including the transition zone, will be at 1:3. Trench excavation in the shallow near-coast section will be carried out by means of a grab-bucket dredger. During trench excavation, the grab-bucket dredger will move from the sea towards the embankment. For execution of the work, an MRTS "At Your Service" grab-bucket dredger will be used. The "At Your Service" grab-bucket dredger (Figure 1.6) can carry out dredging work to a maximum depth of 1.5 metres. Efficient movement of the dredger will be carried out via a hydraulic spud system. The excavated soil will be moved to a dump heap along the trench at a distance of up to 15 m away and will be used to backfill over the pipeline after laying.




Figure 1.6. The MRTS "At Your Service" grab-bucket dredger. Characteristics of the area, parameters for the work on excavating soil and total volumes of excavated soil for the 1st and 2nd strings are given in Table 1.5.

Table 1.5 Division of the string at the coastline intersection into distinct zones on the basis of the parameters

of trench excavation.

Section name Zone

From To Length,

m Slope

Volume of excavated

soil, thousand

m3

Equipment for trench

excavation Kilometre

point Isobath Kilometre point Location

1 2 3 4 5 6 10 9 11 12

Landfall points Zone 1

Kilometre point 3+56

+5


(kilometre point

1+16.7)

+0,5 236,7 (239,2) 1:1,5 22,7 Excavators with

backfillers

Embankment zone Zone 2


(kilometre point

1+16.7)

+0,5 Kilometre

point 3+83

-2,0 502,6 (500,1) 1:1,8 41,1

Excavators with extended stick

from the embankment and

excavators on the pontoon




Section name Zone

From To Length,

m Slope

Volume of excavated

soil, thousand

m3

Equipment for trench

excavation Kilometre

point Isobath Kilometre point Location

1 2 3 4 5 6 10 9 11 12 Near-coast

section (including transition

zone) Zone 3


-2,0

Kilometre point

14+70 (Kilometre

point 14+72)

-70 1826 (1828) 1:3 104,8 Grab-bucket

dredger

* - soil slopes given comply with the construction standard "SNiP III-42-80". Figures in parantheses refer to the eastern pipeline in cases where it differs from the western pipeline.

1.7. Laying the pipeline

1.7.1. Main provisions for laying the offshore section of the pipeline Depending on the method used to lay the pipeline, the whole Russian offshore section may be divided into 2 separate sections for construction, as shown in Table 1.6: the string at the coastline intersection down to a depth of 2 m, and the deep-water section with a water depth of 2 m or more. For the string at the coastline intersection, the pipeline will be laid by means of a crane installed on the shore dragging the pipeline joints, these having been prepared on a pipelaying vessel. For the deep-water section, the pipeline will be laid on the seabed by the pipelaying vessel.

Table 1.6

Division of the section strings Section name Start End Length, km Depth range, m

1 2 3 4 5 The string at the coastline

intersection Kilometre point

3+56 Kilometre point 14+7 ~1,83 +5 to -14

Deep-water section Kilometre point 14+7

1st string - Kilometre point 123+45 ~112,2 -14 to -70 2nd string - Kilometre point 123+98

In accordance with the schedule, work on laying the pipeline in the offshore section will be carried out in the following order:

2010 (1st and 2nd strings)




• pulling in the 2nd string at the coastline intersection;

• laying the 2nd string to a distance of 5 km;

• pulling in the 1st string at the coastline intersection;

• laying the 1st string to a distance of 123.5 km;

• 2011 (2nd string)

• raising the end of the preiously laid 2nd string of the pipeline at the 5 km point;

• laying the 2nd string to a distance of 123.9 km;

Before beginning to execute the work, the pipelaying vessel must carry out testing, including testing of the welding equipment, non-destructive control methods, equipment for isolation and butt welding repairs to the pipe, tensioning devices, winches, control instruments and drive system enabling the vessel to move along the route and lay the pipeline at the planned locations.

1.7.2 Coastline intersection Production of the pipeline joints will be carried out on the pipelaying vessel. The pipeline joints are produced and laid at the onshore section in the previously prepared trenches using a winch installed on the shore (figure 1.7).

Figure 1.7. Illustration of the pipeline being laid at the shore from the pipelaying vessel with use of

a winch installed on the shore. The sequence of work on laying the final section of pipeline at the shore will be as follows:

• the pipelaying vessel approaches the shore and drops its anchor at the appropriate point;

• relaying the end of the cable of the pull winch installed on the shore to the pipelaying vessel and fastening it to a special hatch attached to the pipeline;

• pulling in the pipeline stockpiled on the shore with use of the winch.

The pipelaying barge is positioned at a water depth of 14 m and begins production of joints, installation of the unloading pontoon and laying the joints on the seabed. The project plans for pontoons with a tonnage of 20 tonnes and spacing of 20 m (figure 1.8).




Figure 1.8. Pulling in the pipeline from the pipelaying vessel with the pontoons installed at the

shore. Due to their large frame and weight, the pontoons cannot be installed directly on the stinger of the pipelaying vessel. For this reason, the pontoons' suspension work will be carried out after the pipeline has been set down from the pipelaying vessel. To this purpose, the project plans for the additional provision of a Bar Protector all-purpose diving boat, produced by the company Saipem (figure 1.9).

Figure 1.9. Specialized Bar Protector diving boat. During the pulling-in process, all workers stationed onland and at sea must have two-way communciation with the drive station, located onboard the pipelaying vessel. Prearranged signals must be worked out relating to moving and stopping the pipeline, which may be transmitted from the drive station by telephone via portable radio sets.




1.7.3 Laying the pipeline in the deep-water section

Work on laying the pipeline in the main section, with a water depth of over 14 m, requires the production and laying on the seabed of 244.5 km of pipeline, including 122 km for the 1st string and 122.5 km for the 2nd string. In accordance with the pipeline construction, sea depths, hydrometeorological conditions and geomorphological characteristics of the seabed for construction of the deep-water section, the pipeline will be laid as S-curves with bending of the pipeline (figure 1.10).

Figure 1.10. S-curve laying method As the pipeline sections build up in length, the vessel moves forward and the pipeline comes out of the lower end of the stinger onto the seabed. Controls on modes of deformation in the pipeline, on the section extending between the stinger and the seabed, are carried out by creating a longtitudinal stretching force, the magnitude of which depends on the depth being laid to and the rigidity of the pipeline. After completion of each joint, the pipelaying vessel progresses forward by a distance equal to the length of two pipe sections (24 m). The project plans for the use of Castoro Sei vessel, made by the company Saipem (figure 1.11).

Figure 1.11. Castoro Sei




The "Castoro Sei" is a pipelaying barge that is semisubmerged on stabilizing posts. The "Castoro Sei" is equipped to lay pipe of a diameter of up to 60" and has three tensioners with a tonnage of 110 tonnes. The pipelaying line consists of a conveyor for supplying the pipe, equipment for producing the lips (bearing faces) of the pipes by welding, facilities for aligning the pipes by use of an internal centering skid, welding equipment, a repair station and isolating and control stations. Control of pipelaying operations will be carried out from a central console. The Castoro Sei is a vessel with an anchor positioning system (20-post) and for stowage of the anchors (raising, moving and placing the anchors in the designated places) three tugboats need to be used. Before work begins, diagrams of the layout of the anchors need to be produced. The arrangement of the anchors will be a determining factor in terms of the direction and position of the vessel during work on laying the pipeline. In addition, while drawing up the diagram of the layout of the anchors, the following parameters need to be taken into account:

• sea depth;

• wave activity;

• speed and direction of current;

• wind speed and prevailing direction;

• seabed characteristics. The actual position of the anchors and the tension level of the anchor cables must be constantly controlled duing execution of the laying work. During the laying, the following main operations will be carried out:

• unloading of the encased pipes from the transportation barges (PHV) onto skids for storage on the pipelaying vessel;

• all pipes are inspected, and damaged pipes are separated off and then repaired or returned to

the shore;

• after the pipe is accepted onto the pipelaying vessel, the condition of every pipe is entered into the log prior to it being moved onto the technical line;

• after being moved to the technical line, the pipes are grooved, ensuring a clean and

geometrically straight groove under the joint weld, with each pipe receiving two types of grooves: during welding of single pipes into two-pipe sections and during welding of two-pipe sections to the joint;

• grooved pipes are moved to the additional line for welding of single pipes into two-pipe

sections;

• at the first welding station, seam and cap welding are carried out;




• at the second welding station, the backing string at the root of the joint is carried out with

the inner weld head;

• after the completion of welding work, the welded joint is moved to the section for non-destructive checks, where an ultrasonic inspection is carried out;

• the prepared and grooved two-pipe sections are moved to the main welding line, where

preliminary induction heating of the grooves takes place prior to welding;

• at the first weld station of the main line, the alignment and welding of the root joint and 1st hot pass take place;

• the joint is moved forward along the length of the two-pipe section (24.4 m);

• at the next weld station, seam and cap welding of the layers are carried out following

prepation of the joint, which is carried out at the first station;

• the joint passes through 3 tensioners, between which there is an additional weld station, which is used in cases with special welding requirements;

• after the completion of welding work, the welded joint is moved to the section for non-

destructive checks, where an ultrasonic inspection is carried out, as well as any repair to the joint if necessary;

• after acceptance of the joint, the vessel moves forward a further 24.2 m and the joint is

moved to the section for plating with the insulation coating, where a heat-shrinkage sleeve is fitted to the joint;

• after checks on the insulation coating and protection of the uncoated section, the vessel

moves forward further, the pipeline is lowered along the stinger into the water and is laid onto the seabed.

Welding of the pipeline joints is carried out by specially trained welders who are certified in compliance with the requirements of international standards. In accordance with the schedule, work on laying the pipeline in the deep-water section will be carried out in 2 stages (2010 and 2011). year 2010 After pulling in the 2nd string, the pipelaying vessel continues laying the pipeline as far as the 5 km point. When the end of the pipeline has been lowered onto the seabed, the vessel returns to string in the 1st string. The process of lowering the pipeline onto the seabed includes the following operations:

• fitting of a temporary end wall (harness equipment) onto the last pipe of the pipeline, and connection of a cable;

• preparation of the winch for temporary lowering and raising, and transfer of the tension onto

this winch;




• the vessel continues moving, releasing the cable, after which the end of the pipeline is

released into the water, while the tension is supported by the pipelaying vessel's winch;

• after the pipeline has been laid on the seabed, the tension on the hauling cable reduces and the cable is released to the seabed;

• the cable is detached from the end wall (harness equipment) of the pipeline and is connected

to a marker buoy. After pulling in the 1st string, the pipelaying vessel continues to lay the pipeline until the end of the Russian section (the EEZ border, 123.5 km for the 1st string). (And for a further 300 km beyond the border of the Russian section). year 2011 Work begins with the raising of the 2nd string at the 5 km point, using a winch for raising-lowering operations. Work on raising the pipeline is carried out in a sequence to the reverse of that for lowering the pipeline. Further laying of the 2nd string will be carried out to the end of the Russian section (the EEZ border, 123.9 km for the 2nd string). (And for a further 300 km beyond the border of the Russian section). Controls on the lowering of the pipeline must include the measurement and recording of the following parameters:

• depth of sea at the location of laying;

• length of the released section of pipeline from the seabed to the lower end of the stinger;

• depth of submersion and angle of the stinger;

• extent of tension of the pipeline.

1.8. Backfilling over the pipelines Backfilling of the trenches at the coastline intersection will be carried out after pulling in. The material to be used for backfilling will be the soil obtained during excavation of the trenches, which was dumped along the length of the trenches of the onshore and offshore sections and on the soil storage platform (placed on the platform for hydrotesting), as well as the rock-gravel mixture that was transported and the embankment material for construction of the protective infill layer. In the onshore section, the trench will be filled entirely with soil from the dumping area spread alongside the trench and from the storage platform. Part of the volume will be filled by bulldozers directly from the dumping area, while the remaining part will be delivered to the filling location by dumper trucks from the storage area - a distance of 150 m. Starting with the embankment zone (from the +0.5 m point), backfilling will be carried out in the following manner. The area around the laid pipeline will be sprinkled with soil taken from the dumping area at a distance of 30 cm from the pipeline walls. To continue, the trench will be filled will the remaining soild from the dumping area. Then, a layer of rock-gravel mixture will be sprinkled on, up to the top of the trench, to a depth of approximately 35 cm. A protective layer of 50 cm thickness will be sprinkled on the top (figure 1.12).




Figure 1.12. Backfilling of the trench In the onshore section of the embankment from +0.5 m to 0 m, the trench will be backfilled with soil from the storage platform, material from the embankments and the rock-gravel mixture that was brought in. Soil from the storage platform and the rock-gravel mixture from the quarry will be conveyed by dumper trucks. In the offshore section of the embankment at a water depth from 0 to 2 m, the trench will be backfilled with soil from the underwater dumping area and the rock-gravel mixture brought in, which will be conveyed by dumper trucks. Backfilling of the section at a water depth from -2 m to -14 m will be carried out with soil from the underwater dumping area and the rock-gravel mixture brought in, which will be conveyed by 3000-tonne pontoons. Backfilling will be carried out in accordance with the relative division of the route section into zones during excavation of the trench and with the same equipment that was used for excavation of the trench in these zones. The division of the section into zones and the volume of soil for backfilling are given in Tables 1.7-1.8.

Table 1.7

Division of the section at the coastline intersection into distinct zones depending on

Section name Zone From To Length,

km Slope Equipment for backfilling of trench Kilometre

point location Kilometre point location

1 2 3 4 5 6 10 9 12

Landfall points Zone 1 Kilometre point 3+56 +5


(kilometre point

1+16.7)

+0,5 236,7 (239,2) 1:1,5

Excavators with backfillers,

bulldozers, dumper trucks

Embankment zone Zone 2

Kilometre point 1+19 (kilometre

point 1+16.7

+0,5 Kilometre

point 3+83

-2,0 502,6 (500,1) 1:1,8

Excavators with extended stick from the embankment and

excavators on the pontoon, bulldozers,

dumper trucks

Near-coast section (including

transition zone) Zone 3 Kilometre

point 3+83 -2,0

Kilometre point

14+70 (kilometre

point 14+72)

-70 1826 (1828) 1:3 Grab-bucket dredger,

pontoon

* - soil slopes given comply with the construction standard "SNiP III-42-80".




Figures in parantheses refer to the eastern string in cases where it differs from the western string.

Table 1.8

Soil volumes for backfilling per section Parameter Onshore section Embankment Near-coast section

Volume of extracted soil 22.7 41.1 104.8

Volume of returned backfill 22.7 49.7 131.6

from dumping heap 22.7 33.6 89.8

gravel 6 12.3

overfill 10.1 29.6

1.9. Correction of long free spans After the pipeline is laid in sections with an uneven seabed, long free spans will be formed. In those cases, when the pipeline experiences excessive strain and (or) turbulent vibrations, work will be carried out to correct the long free spans (figure 1.13).

Рис. 1.13. Correction of long free spans. The project requires correction of long free spans before and after laying the pipeline. To correct long free spans, the project proposes using a support consisting of rock-gravel material of the determined fineness. To implement the support equipment requires the following construction work: Preparatory works:

• preparation of a storage platform with gravel-rock material at the Customer storehouse in the region of Vyborg;

• detailed planning;




• preparation by the Project contractor for execution of the work, which is passed to the

Customer for approval;

• acquisition of gravel-rock material for use as support equipment;

• lease of transport and loading equipment for delivery of the gravel-rock materials from the quarry;

• transportation of gravel-rock materials to the Customer storehouse to ensure sufficient

supplies;

• mobilization of a specialized vessel equipped with a discharge conduit. Main work:

• loading the gravel-rock materials onboard the specialized vessel, equipped with a discharge conduit;

• the specialized vessel equipped with a discharge conduit travels to the region in which the

work is to be carried out, and the preliminary investigation is carried out;

• after the preliminary investigation has been carried out, arrangement of the support by means of the specialized vessel with discharge conduit (figure 1.14). If needed, an investigation and monitoring will be carried out during the process of the work;

• to complete the work, a final investigation of the section will be carried out;

• the results of the preliminary and final investigations will be given to the Customer's

representative onboard;

• the specialized vessel equipped with discharge conduit travels to the next place where work is to be carried out.

Figure 1.14. Gravel-rock support installation Completion of work:

• after construction of the last support, the vessel equipped with discharge conduit is demobilized;




• the equipment for loading and transportation of the gravel-rock materials is also

demobilized;

• restoration of the storage platform for gravel-rock materials at the Customer's storehouse. The gravel-rock materials will be delivered from the Erkilya quarry in Vyborg (management company Vozrozhdeniye-Nerud). The results of a mathematical simulation of the spreading of suspended material during rectification of long free spans is given in Appendix 4.1-2.

1.10. Intersection of underwater communications The relief of the seabed in the places where cables intersect with the pipeline is leveled, the incline of the areas being from 0 to 2 degrees. The seabed is composed mainly of loamy silt, which is highly unstable with a low load-bearing capacity. According to the data from engineering investigations, it has been established that 3 cables cross the route of the planned pipeline within the Russian section: 4. Cable K-160, belonging to VMF MO. Crosses each string at 4 points. 5. The Mussalo-Kolganpya cable. Crosses the route at one point. 6. Unknown cable. Crosses the route at one point. The status, type and owner of the cable are

unknown. In selecting the method of intersection, the following factors were taken into account: status of the communication; geomorphological and geological characteristics of the region of intersection; requirements of regulatory documents and of the owners of the communications. It is planned that when the pipeline is laid, cable K-160 will be taken out of operation, cut and placed above the assembled pipeline. The remaining cables will be buried in soil at 0.5 m at the regions where the pipeline passes them, while the pipeline itself will be laid on a gravel-rock support on both sides of the cable being crossed.

1.11. Cleaning of chambers and testing of the pipeline The work on cleaning the chambers and testing the pipeline will be carried out after completion of all of the contruction and assembly operations in the section of construction and will be carried out in two stages: First stage

• eastern string (from the end of the string-in section to kilometre point 5) - drying, filling with nitrogen;

• western string (from the end of the string-in section to kilometre point 123.5) - cleaning,

testing, drying. Second stage




• eastern string (from the end of the pull-in section to kilometre point 124) - cleaning, testing,

drying. For the offshore section of the eastern string, in 2010 only drying and filling with nitrogen will be carried out (from the end of the pull-in section to kilometre point 5). Cleaning and scouring of the section will not take place in that stage. After filling with nitrogen, the section will be closed until the next stage of construction. The Russian sections of the western and eastern strings will be tested in Zone 1 across the whole pipeline in the first stage and in the second stage thereafter. The length of the offshore section that will be tested from the Russian shore amounts to 300 km for each string. The pipeline sections being tested in Zone 1 for both strings are fitted on both sides with temporary cameras receiving and stringning diagnostics. In the offshore section the following types of work will be carried out on the 1st and 2nd strings:

• Scouring, calibration and cleaning the inner chambers of the offshore pipeline for removal of mechanical impurities;

• Filling the offshore pipeline with water (filling is carried out during the process of scouring

and calibration);

• Hydrotesting (pressure differential = 1.1 Rr);

• Pressure release;

• Removal of water from pipe chambers and scouring of salts;

• Drying in order to remove any remaining water. Cleaning of the inner chambers of the offshore pipe section is carried out using clean sea water with a gate of two cleaning pistons. Cleaning starts after scouring of Zone 2-1 (kilometre point 542.5 - kilometre point 300). Pumps are stationed on the vessel and feed the water through. The cleaning pistons arrive at a temporary chamber at the Zone 2-1 entrance and the contaminated water passes through a bypass pipeline from Zone 2-1 and overflows into Zone 1. For cleaning of Zone 1, the cleaning pistons are launched from the temporary chamber for launching the diagnostic tools arranged at the region of kilometre point 300. The pistons move in the direction of the water, which is pumped by pumps from the vessel, located at kilometre point 300. The total volume of wash water after scouring of Zones 2-1 and 1 at the section from kilometre point 542.5 to 0 amounts to approximately 5000 m3 per string and is discharged at the Russian coast into a settling pit with a volume of 6000m3. For filling the offshore section before starting hydrotesting, filtered sea water is used. Filling is carried out from a vessel located at kilometre point 300. Equipment will be fitted at the Russian shore to enable air to exit the pipeline being filled. To raise the pressure prior to testing, an additional volume of water (5000 m3) will be pumped into the pipeline from the 6000 m3 settling pit, where by that time sea wash water will have been gathered. To raise the pressure in the offshore section there will also be the use of a temporary pump station, which, as for the onshore side, will be located at the end of the pull-in section at the onshore section. The water will be driven out by compressed air, fed by the temporary pump station.




1.12. Completion of construction

After pulling in the pipeline, the platform used for pulling it in is disassembled and the surface is rehabilitated. After backfilling the trench with soil from the dump heap, the embankments are dismantled and the top layer is backfilled with material from the embankments. 1. BASIC CHARACTERISTICS OF THE DATA USED FOR MODELLING

2.1. Characteristics of seabed sediment Appendix 4.1-3 to these materials provides detailed characteristics of the seabed sediment along the route of the pipeline and in the region where dredging work is carried out. The characteristics of the grain-size classification used in these calculations for the near-coast section in the region of the coastline intersection from the Russian side are provided in Table 4 (see Appendix 4.1-3). During excavation of the trench by the excavator and grab-bucket dredger, the soil forms particles of siltstone and clay dimensions. These particles will then form plumes of slurry during excavation of soil and storage of the soil near the trench. The part of the soil that is converted into a suspension state, and used in these calculations for various procedures, is provided in Table 2.1. This data corresponds with the basic documents [1-3] regulating the volume of soil converted into suspension (see "Methods for calculation of charges for contamination water areas, seas and surface water that are the federal property of the Russian Federation during the execution of work connected with the displacement and removal of sediment, extraction of non-metallic materials from underwater quarries and burial of soil in underwater banks. Approved by the chairman of the State Committee of the Russian Federation for the protection of the environment. 29 April 1999"). The gravel-rock supports will have a height of from 1.5 m to 3 m, a length of 20 m and the maximum volume for one support (height 3 m) will be 756 m3. Breakup of the gravel-rock material is from 2.5 to 13 cm (1" - 5"). The distance between gravel-rock supports will be no more than 60m (the entire length of a long free span will be divided into equal sections of less than 60 m). During dumping of the gravel-rock supports two sources of suspended material will arise. The first of the materials arising will be washed out and a small fraction will return to a suspended state - that which is always present in material from quarries. Secondly, in the location of construction of the supports, there will be a secondary stirring up of bottom sediment, a component of the seabed. The capacities of these sources will depend on both the breakup of the material being dumped and the breakup of the bottom sediment. To carry out the calculations an expert evaluation was made of the average quantity of suspended materials given up during the technical operations being examined and it amounts to 2% of the volume of material being dumped.




The number of supports that need to be installed is 2134 and their height may be from 1.5 to 3 metres, so different quantities of material are needed for each support. Furthermore, at present the precise locations of all the supports have not been determined. For these reasons, the following outline was used for calculations of the parameters needed for evaluation of damage to fish stocks. A scenario was adopted in which an erection of one support with the maximum planned height (3 m) and the average characteristics of the grain-size classification and sea currents were used. The calculations carried out allowed to determine parameters needed to evaluate the damage to fish stocks during the erection of one support. For the whole series of supports, integral characteristics are determined in the form of the sums of characteristics for separate supports (volumes of flowing water, seabed area covered with suspended materials). Corresponding data is provided in the result tables. Detailed characteristics of seabed sediment along the pipeline route are provided in Appendix 4.1-3 to these materials. A summary of the data used for modelling is provided in Table 2.2. This data corresponds with the basic documents [1-3] regulating the volume of soil converted into suspension (see "Methods for calculation of charges for contamination water areas, seas and surface water that are the federal property of the Russian Federation during the execution of work connected with the displacement and removal of sediment, extraction of non-metallic materials from underwater quarries and burial of soil in underwater banks. Approved by the chairman of the State Committee of the Russian Federation for the protection of the environment. 29 April 1999").

2.2. Hydrodynamic conditions. The characteristics of the currents in the area of dredging work, received through the modelling data, are given in Appendix 4.1-2. Appendix 4.1-2 also contains description of the mathematical models for calculation of the flow fields both for the whole Baltic Sea and for the immediate construction work sections. The resultant input data for modelling the distribution of slurry during construction work on the different sections of the pipeline route is provided in Tables 2.1-2.2.




Table 2.1

Input data for modelling the distribution of slurry during excavation and backfilling of trenches at the near-coast section in the area of the coastline intersection on

the Russian side

Installation/ section/

operation

KP - start, m

KP - end, m

Volume of soil handled, cubic m

Volume of water used,

cubic m

Duration of work,

days

Productivity, cubic m/hour

Productivity, cubic m/day

Part of the soil converted to a

suspended condition

Output of source during

excavation, m3/hour


excavation, kg/day

Mass of the soil converted to a

suspended condition,

tones Trench excavation

Construction of embankments

0 383 8 180 25,0 13,6 0,004 0,9% 0,061 0,037 81

Trench excavation at Section 1

0 383 41 100 61 650 31,0 55,2 0,015 2,5% 0,69 0,42 1130

Trench excavation at Section 2

383 1 470 104 800 157 200 30,0 145,6 0,040 2,5% 1,82 1,11 2882

Dumping of extracted soil from Section 1 onto dump heaps

0 383 41 100 31,0 55,2 0,015 2,5% 0,69 0,42 1130

Dumping of extracted soil from Section 2 onto dump heaps

383 1 470 104 800 30,0 145,6 0,040 2,5% 1,82 1,11 2882

Backfilling of the trench

Embankment distribution

0 383 8 180 12 270 4,8 70,8 0,020 0,9% 0,32 0,19 81





operation

KP - start, m

KP - end, m



cubic m

Duration of work,

days




suspended condition


excavation, m3/hour


excavation, kg/day

Mass of the soil converted to a suspended

condition, tonnes

Extracted soil in dump area for backfilling of section 1

0 383 34 900 52 350 20,5 70,8 0,020 2,5% 0,89 0,54 960

Extracted soil in dump area for backfilling of section 2

383 1 470 89 000 133 500 20,4 181,8 0,051 2,5% 2,27 1,4 2448

Backfilling of Section 1 with soil from dump area

0 383 34 900 20,5 70,8 0,020 2,5% 0,89 0,54 960

Backfilling of Section 2 with soil from dump area

383 1 470 89 000 20,4 181,8 0,051 2,5% 2,3 1,4 2448

Backfilling of Section 1 trench with gravel

0 383 16 100 9,5 70,8 0,020 0,9% 0,32 0,19 159

Backfilling of Section 2 trench with gravel

383 1 470 41 900 9,6 181,8 0,051 0,9% 0,82 0,50 415





operation

KP - start, m

KP - end, m



cubic m

Duration of work,

days




suspended condition


excavation, m3/hour


excavation, kg/day

Mass of the soil converted to a suspended

condition, tonnes

Total 416 970 15 575




Table 2.2

Input data for modelling the distribution of slurry during construction of gravel-rock supports

Installation/ section/ operation

Volume of soil, cubic

m

Duration of work,

days


Quantity of soil converted to a

suspended condition

Capacity of source, kg/day

Installation of one support 756 0,375 0,0233 2,0% 0,618

Installation of all supports 1 613 304 800 0,0233 2,0% 0,618

2. MODELLING OF PARAMETERS A list of the modelling of parameters for evaluation of the effect on the marine environment and biota due to the trench excavation work for laying the pipelines and backfilling of the trenches is presented in Table 3.1.

Table 3.1

Modelling of parameters for evaluation of the effect of the offshore construction work on the marine environment and biota

Parameters defined Method of definition and presentation Values for evaluation of scales of influence

Momentary location of plume of contaminated water at different moments in time and the maximum distance from the source to the edge of the zone with concentrations and excesses for the given value

here

- position of the point with the specified concentration

- position of the source, M (t) - set of points P (cf) with the specified concentration. Calculated value, colour map, contour map

Range of maximum allowable concentration for the period of work of concentration and maximum distances of distribution of concentrations from source or edge of area for the whole period of work

Calculated value, colour map, contour map

Range of depth of settlements laid and maximum distances from source or edge of area to the edge of the zone with depth of settlement, exceeding the given value




Parameters defined Method of definition and presentation

Calculated value, colour map, contour map Values for calculation of damage to fish stocks

Maximum values for period of work of momentary volumes (plume areas) contaminated in access of given concentrations (MMV)

Calculated value Average value of momentary volumes contaminated in access of given concentrations for the work period (AMV)

Calculated value

Term of existence of plumes with the concentrations exceeding the given value

Calculated value

Volumes of clean uncontaminated water flowing through the regions of the slurry plumes with the given concentration for the work period

u - current speed Acr - area of section of tail squared by current speed Calculated value

Average time of flow throw volumes of slurry plumes with the concentrations exceeding the given value

Lc - length of the path of liquid particles through the plume along the current speed. Calculated value

Areas of settlement with thickness exceeding the given value outside the the dredging zone

Calculated value

Volume of water required during the works

Defined according to slurry characteristics and project data

Area of disturbed seabed According to project data 3. RESULTS OF MODELLING Modelling of the distribution of suspended materials in the marine environment in the process of dredging works during excavation and backfilling of trenches was carried out according to the certified "AKS-EKO Shelf" mathematical models developed by VT RAN and MTEA Ecocentre. Certificate of compliance with Russian State Standards: — ROSS RU.SP05.P00217; Ecological certificate of compliance with the Ministry of Natural Resources of the Russian Federation: — SER(351)-G-11/OC- 20. A description of the mathematical models is provided in Appendix 4.1-1 to these materials.




Modelling of the distribution of slurry in the water and sediment deposited on the seabed was carried out for all operations accompanied by a change to the suspended materials of soil in the marine environment. Calculations were carried out for the offshore near-coast section in the coastline intersection area on the Russian side and for work on construction of gravel-rock supports. Work for which modelling was carried out on the distribution of suspended materials and evaluation of the thickness of the layer deposited when slurry falls to the seabed, includes the following operations: 1. construction of embankments, 2. trench excavation at the section with a sea depth of up to 2 m, 3. trench excavation at the section with a sea depth of 2 m to 14 m, 4. discharge of extracted soil onto a dump heap at the section with a sea depth of up to 2 m, 5. discharge of extracted soil onto a dump heap at the section with a sea depth of 2 m to 14 m, 6. intake of previously extracted soil from dump heap at the section with a sea depth of up to 2 m, 7. backfilling of trench with previously extracted soil at the section with a sea depth of up to 2 m, 8. intake of previously extracted soil from dump heap at the section with a sea depth of 2 m to 14 m, 9. backfilling of trench with previously extracted soil at the section with a sea depth of 2 m to 14 m, 10. embankment distribution, 11. backfilling of trench with gravel at the section with a sea depth of up to 2 m, 12. backfilling of trench with gravel at the section with a sea depth of 2 m to 14 m, 13. construction of gravel-rock support.

4.1. Parameters of effect on marine environment, determined according to projected data Areas of damaged seabed, volumes of sea water required for dredging work ("damaging") and volumes of water for scouring and hydrotesting of the pipelines are provided in Table 4.1.1.

Table 4.1 Parameters of impact on marine environment, determined according to projected data.

Section of route Length, km Area of damaged seabed under pipeline and in area with buried pipeline, m2

Water volume, m3

dredging work scouring and hydrotesting

Near-coast section in the area of the coastline intersection on the Russian side

1470,5 79 255* 416 970 22 000

*The area of calculation includes the trenches of both strings and the embankments with slopes in the offshore section (sea depth from 0 m).




4.2. Near-coast section in the area of the coastline intersection on the Russian side

Figure 4.2.1 shows the dredging zone, including the embankments and depths in the area of the work. The main results of the modelling required for calculation of the damage to biological resources during construction of the embankments, excavation and backfilling of trenches at the offshore section in the area of the coastline intersection on the Russian side are provided in Tables 4.2.1-4.2.3 and in figure 4.2.2—4.2.4. A cloud that is formed during the works and contaminated with suspended materials drifts in accordance with the direction and speed of wind currents. The range of maximum concentrations for the whole period of work (maximum allowable concentration) is provided in figure 4.2.2. Figure 4.2.3. shows the plume of suspended materials during dredging. These diagrams allow to evaluate the scales of distribution of suspended materials. The distances from the edge of the trench to the position of the contour line with a slurry concentration of 100 mg/l do not exceed 31 m, with a concentration of 50 mg/l - 83 m, with a concentration of 20 mg/l - 275 m, and with a concentration of 10 mg/l - 765 m. The range of thickness of deposits from sediment slurry is provided in figure 4.2.4. The maximum distance from the edge of the trench to the edge of a zone with a sediment thickness of over 100 mm does not exceed 45m, over 50 mm - 69 m, over 20 mm - 135 m, over 10 mm - 210 m, over 5 mm - 300 m, and over 1 mm - 815 m.




Figure 4.2.1. Depths (a) and dredging zones in the region of the coastline intersection on the Russian side




Figure 4.2.2. The range of maximum admissible concentrations (mg/l) during dredging work in

the region of the coastline intersection on the Russian side after completion of all works







Figure 4.2.3. The plume of suspended materials during dredging works on separate sections at

different moments in time

Figure 4.2.4. The range of depths sediment layer (mm) during dredging works in the region of

the coastline intersection on the Russian side after completion of all works




Table 4.2

Volumes (m3) and times of existence (min, hours) of water volumes contaminated by slurry with different concentrations during dredging work in the region of the coastline intersection on the

Russian side after the completion of all works. Parameters defined Concentration of slurry in the water, mg/l*

≥ 1 ≥ 10 ≥ 20 ≥ 50 ≥ 100 Flowing water volumes through the the plume of slurry area with the concentrations exceeding the given value, m3

4 835 889 470 503 012 313 235 124 239 81 111 325 21 514 043

Average time of water flow through slurry plume region with the concentrations exceeding the given value, hours (Taverage)

5 0,7 0,3 0,1 0,05

Maximum values of momentary volumes of plume areas, m3

(MMV)

7 153 330 447 083 140 972 36 250 18 750

Maximum values of momentary volumes of plume areas (AMV), m3

1 991 302 98 239 33 760 7 158 1 369

Time of existence of plumes with the concentrations exceeding the given value, days (Texistence)

90,9 77,1 73,5 51,7 27,6




Table 4.3

The area of the seabed (m2) covered with a layer of sediment of different depths during the release of slurry, during dredging works in the area of the coastline intersection on the Russian side after

completion of all works

Depth of sea, m Thickness of sediment layer*, mm

≥ 1 ≥ 5 ≥ 10 ≥ 20 ≥ 50 ≥ 100 0-20 377 776 172 444 121 474 83 258 50 970 39 841

* Outside the zone of dredging work (see Figure 4.2.1 and Table 4.1.1)

Table 4.4

The area of seabed (m2), exposed to the effect of slurry of various concentrations during dredging work in the region of the coastline intersection on the Russian side after completion of all works

(calculated from average volumes of plumes)

Depth of sea, m Concentration of slurry in the water, mg/l*

≥ 1 ≥ 10 ≥ 20 ≥ 50 ≥ 100 0-20 357 241 17 624 6 057 1 284 246




Literature. 1. Hayes D.F., Crocket T.R., T.J. Ward., D. Averret. Sediment resuspension during cutterhead

dredging operations. Journal of Waterway, Port, Coastal, and Ocean Engineering, 2000. Vol. 126. P.153-161.

2. Goncharov A.A., Lyashenko A.F., Shlygin I.A. Research and modelling of the processes of

dispersion of various substances during the burial of waste in seas and oceans. Review of information. - Obninsk: VNIIGMI/MTsD (ВНИИГМИ-МЦД). Oceanology series, 1982. - 30pp.

3. Methods for calculation of charges for contamination water areas, seas and surface water that are

the federal property of the Russian Federation during the execution of work connected with the displacement and removal of sediment, extraction of non-metallic materials from underwater quarries and burial of soil in underwater banks. Approved by the chairman of the State Committee of the Russian Federation for the protection of the environment. 29 April 1999.




APPENDIX 4.1-1

Mathematical model for forecasting the distribution of suspended materials in plumes

The mathematical model described here was developed by a team of authors from the RAN[1] Computational centre and is intended for forecasting the distribution of suspended materials in shelf regions of the ocean. The model takes account of the following existing features of the examined matter: 1. GENERAL CONCEPTS ON WHICH THE MODEL IS BASED In describing the distribution of suspended materials two qualitatively different regions may be distinguished: the near zone, the dimensions of which are defined by the characteristics of the slurry source, and a far zone. In the near zone, concentrations of suspended materials are great and modelling of the transfer of contamination requires detailed information about the arrangement of equipment, constituting a highly complex task. In the far zone, concentrations of suspended materials are considerably fewer, due to the process of turbulent exchange and as a result of the deposition of particles of solids. Transportation of each of the solids at the same time occurs independently from the others, with the speed of horizontal transportation of all solids being determined only by the speed of the current and intensity of eddy diffusion in the body of water. The only differences are in their speed of settling. Consequently, in the far zone the applicable diffusion and drift approaches are connected with disregard for lags in relation to movements of the contaminating component in the environment and also with interdependence with these components. In the event of small volumes of concentration of suspended materials (in the far zone), distribution of contamination may occur in the form of movement of an aggregate of separate, non-interacting eddies. These eddies move through the water column under the influence of local currents and, possibly, are deposited on the seabed. In the process of movement, they increase in size due to turbulent diffusion and the concentrations of suspended materials they contain drop.




Concentration of slurry at an arbitrary point meanwhile presents itself in the form of concentrations of suspended materials in separate eddies including the given point at the moment in time in which they are examined. The size of the area of contamination turns out to be considerably greater than the depth of the body of water. For this reason we may use a two-dimensional (considering an average depth) model of transportation of suspended materials. At the same time, the horizontal sizes of the area, in which the transportation of suspended materials is being studied, are as a rule small in comparison to the scales of space in which the components U and V of speed and current (and also parameters of horizontal turbulence) undergo changes in existence. As a result of this, we will assume that the components of speed and current do not depend on the point in the water being examined but exist as functions of time t. In this case, the concentration i of the particle of the contaminant Ci in a separate eddy and the mass mi of this particle being deposited per unit of seabed surface will satisfy the equations

in which K - coefficient of horizontal turbulent diffusion, H - local water depth, Wi - terminal velocity of the particles taking into account differences in speed of deposit of slurry in flowing water compared to still water [8,9]. In accordance with the "4/3" law detected by Richardson on the basis of processing experimental data on the dispersion of smoke in the atmosphere and theoretically substantiated by Kolmogorov and Obukhov (see [2-4]), the coefficient of turbulent diffusion depends on the linear expansion s of the diffusing eddy and may be described as

where B - structural parameter of turbulence. Law (1.2) is justified even in the event of disperson of additives in the ocean [5]. According to size in shelf regions B≈10-2≈10-4 m2/3/c. In several studies (see [6]) for constant B the value 4.5-10-4 m2/3/c is used. We also highlight that the solution to the equation (1.1) for any i particle from a separate eddy of suspended materials may be presented in the form

Here Mi - initial mass of i particle in eddy, while the function G, which does not depend on the number of particles, describes the conventional distribution of the eddy with a single mass. This satisfies the equation




with the condition of normalization

2. CALCULATION OF MULTIDISPERSION OF THE COMPOSITION OF

THE SLURRY DEPOSIT Multidispersion of the composition of suspended materials is shown in the differential character of the deposition of the different particles of the contaminant. In the event of dumping of a contaminant with a

complex particle structure, the overall concentration of suspended materials will be equal to where Ci satisfies the equation (1.1). Taking the summation (1.1) for all particles, we find that the overall concentration C will also satisfy the equation (1.1) if the effective terminal velocity W is determined in

the following way: . We also note that each of the Ci values satisfies correlation (1.3). As a result we find:

Consequently, the task of modelling the distribution of an eddy of multidispersed slurry in a two-dimensional arrangement results in the calculation of the distribution of a single-dispersed suspended material, but with the speed of deposition depending on time according to formula (2.1). 3. CALCULATION OF DISTRIBUTION OF A SEPARATE EDDY OF

CONTAMINATION The time-space evolution of the concentration of multidispersed slurry in an individual eddy, the mass m of the slurry which is being deposited onto a unit of area on the seabed, and the thickness of the sediment h can clearly be described in the following way (see point 1):

Here t0 - the moment of "birth" of the eddy, M - initial mass of the substance in the eddy, H0 - depth of the water at the point of "birth" of the eddy, e - coefficient of porosity of the sediment, r - mineral density of the slurry, while function G answers equation (1.4) and normalization (1.5). The two-dimensional Gauss distribution provides the precise solution to task (1.4) and (1.5).




in which the paramaters Xc and Yc, giving the position of the gravity centre of the eddy, and the values σx, σy, Dxy satisfies the equation

The isolines of function (3.1) appear as ellipses turning a corner but relatively to the selected system of coordinates (x,y). If a=0, then sx and sy represent typical values of the axis of the ellipse, while Dxy=0. The diffusion coefficient K in (3.2) is defined by the horizontal turbulent movement of the water. In the event of homogenous and isotropic (at the horizontal level) turbulence with the Kolmogorov’s spectrum of pulsations, as was already observed in point 1,

Equation (3.2) is not difficult to integrate if we know the initial position of the centre of the eddy Xc, Yc, and the initial values of the parameters sx, sy, Dxy, which determine the size of the eddy and its orientation in the selected fixed system of coordinates. 4. FORMATION OF EDDIES OF CONTAMINATION An algorithm is used for the formation of individual eddies of suspended materials in the model described, which is based on the following conditions. During the execution of works with current equipment of typical size used for dredging works is followed bz turbulent wake , containing mineral slurry (see figure 4.1. Beyond the initial section of the wake, in the section that remains at the approximate distance x'0>10a from the equipment (see for example [7]), the lateral section of the distribution of the contaminated material is close to a Gauss curve. Also in agreement with [7] is the parameter c≈0.5.




Figure 4.1. Diagram explaining the algorithm for formation of eddies of contamination Let Q [kg/c] - flow rate of slurry entering the water environment as a result of works. Then by the law of preservation of mass

where u - speed of movement of water in relation to the dredging equipment. Let us give a fairly small interval of time tc, through which the eddies of additives will be formed accordingly. Then the mass of the slurry that is first contained in the eddy must give M=Qtc. We will choose a typical eddy size sx¢ in the direction of the speed vector u and consequently, the maximum concentration of slurry within it equals C0:

From (4.2), (4.3) we will now get:

To conclude, we will quote the formula that should be used to convert parameters that are typical parameters for an eddy when transferring from a local system of coordinates (x¢,y¢) to the basic system of coordinates (x,y), in which the joint evolution of the system of eddies is calculated:

Here a - angle between axes x and x¢ (see figure 4.1), while the values of sy¢ and sx¢ are determined by the formulas (4.1b) and (4.4).




Literature. 1. Arkhipov B.V., Koterov V.N., Solbakov V.V. The AKS model for forecasting distribution after

industrial dumping from offshore drilling platforms. Information on applied mathematics — M.: RAN computing centre, 2000. — 71 c.

2. Ozmidov R.V. Diffusion of additives in the ocean. - L.: Gidrometeoizdat, 1986. 3. Kolmogorov A.N. Local turbulence structure in incompressible liquid with very large Reynolds

figures // DAN USSR, 1941 T.30 No.4 C. 299.




APPENDIX 4.1-2

3.1. Description of hydrodynamic conditions and modelling of hydrodynamic processes in areas of dredging work for construction of the pipeline

1. HYDRODYNAMIC CONDITIONS The main hydrodynamic characteristics along the Nord Stream route for purposes of planning were obtained in the scientific research report "Hydrodynamic and probabilistic modelling, formation of a corpus of hydrometeorological calculation data along route of the North European gas pipeline (Baltic Sea) and preparation of recommendations future hydrometeorological engineering research" (2005, Infomar). An overall diagram of the route with indications of calculated points is provided in figure 1.1. Geographical coordinates of the calculated points of the route of the Nord Stream gas pipeline are provided in Table 1.1. The calculated maximum overall flow speed, gained from this report, is provided in Tables 1.2-1.4.

Figure 1.1. Overall diagram of the route of the North European gas pipeline from Portovaya

Bay to Greifswald with indication of turning points (numbered from Portovaya Bay)




Table 1.1

Geographical coordinates (S.S.; V.D.) of calculated points on the route of the North European gas

pipeline Point no. Northern latitude Eastern longitude

1 60 31 36 28 4 24 2 60 30 6,4 28 5 23,3 3 60 24 50,6 28 3 16,7 4 60 14 12,1 27 48 11,4 5 60 8 42,7 27 28 41,7 6 60 7 48,1 26 57 11,4 7 60 4 11,7 26 40 22,8 8 60 0 14,9 26 17 30 9 59 59 30 26 7 29,9 10 59 56 12,1 25 58 11,9 11 59 53 29,9 25 21 59,9 12 59 54 0,1 25 1 60 13 59 39 48 24 2 0,1 14 59 23 53,1 22 10 1,9 15 59 13 0 21 12 00 16 58 49 39,6 20 25 36,8 16a 58 04 01,2 20 00 00 16b 57 13 58,8 19 23 02,4 17 56 31 26,7 18 47 36,8 18 56 20 18,1 18 34 12 19 56 14 59,9 18 6 48,1 19a 56 04 01,2 17 28 01,2 20 55 39 60 16 28 18 21 55 35 35,9 16 27 47,9 22 55 5 11,7 15 55 29,7 23 54 49 0,1 14 56 17,8 24 54 28 29,8 14 5 0,2 25 54 16 34,1 13 48 8,4 26 54 11 55,6 13 37 50,4 27 54 9 42,6 13 37 17 28 54 8 48,3 13 38 23,3




Table 1.2

Calculated maximum speed of overall currents (cm/c) considering distribution of directions

possible per year, per 10 years and per 100 years. Point no.3

Sector, degree Surface Bottom

1 year 10 years 100 years 1 year 10 years 100 years 7.5°<α≤22.5° 3 4 4 7 12 18 22.5°<α≤37.5° 3 4 7 9 14 25 37.5°<α≤52.5° 4 6 8 9 14 32 52.5°<α≤67.5° 5 8 9 5 9 21 67.5°<α≤82.5° 10 16 27 3 5 7 82.5°<α≤97.5° 26 42 62 2 4 4 97.5°<α≤112.5° 25 34 40 2 4 4 112.5°<α≤127.5° 13 19 23 1 4 5 127.5°<α≤142.5° 8 12 18 1 3 4 142.5°<α≤157.5° 5 7 11 2 4 5 157.5°<α≤172.5° 4 7 9 2 4 6 172.5°<α≤187.5° 4 6 9 3 5 7 187.5°<α≤202.5° 4 7 9 5 8 11 202.5°<α≤217.5° 4 8 10 7 12 13 217.5°<α≤232.5° 5 9 21 8 12 14 232.5°<α≤247.5° 8 11 22 8 12 14 247.5°<α≤262.5° 12 24 29 7 11 13 262.5°<α≤277.5° 28 43 52 6 10 12 277.5°<α≤292.5° 23 29 32 5 8 11 292.5°<α≤307.5° 9 12 13 4 8 11 307.5°<α≤322.5° 5 6 7 4 8 11 322.5°<α≤337.5° 3 5 6 4 8 11 337.5°<α≤352.5° 3 4 6 4 8 11 352.5°<α≤7.5° 3 4 6 5 10 15




Table 1.3

Calculated maximum speed of overall currents (cm/c) considering distributions of directions


Sector, degrees Surface Bottom

Periodicity (years) Periodicity (years) 1 year 10 years 100 years 1 year 10 years 100 years

7.5°<α≤22.5° 14 22 30 7 11 16 22.5°<α≤37.5° 13 22 35 8 11 17 37.5°<α≤52.5° 11 19 23 7 12 14 52.5°<α≤67.5° 11 21 26 7 13 18 67.5°<α≤82.5° 12 27 67 7 20 36 82.5°<α≤97.5° 16 41 95 9 23 46 97.5°<α≤112.5° 20 42 74 9 25 48 112.5°<α≤127.5° 27 43 53 11 20 43 127.5°<α≤142.5° 32 49 83 11 19 24 142.5°<α≤157.5° 33 49 66 12 19 29 157.5°<α≤172.5° 35 53 75 13 21 23 172.5°<α≤187.5° 31 62 99 14 23 34 187.5°<α≤202.5° 18 39 50 14 25 37 202.5°<α≤217.5° 12 30 68 12 22 27 217.5°<α≤232.5° 9 26 69 11 18 32 232.5°<α≤247.5° 8 19 36 10 20 51 247.5°<α≤262.5° 7 12 17 8 12 16 262.5°<α≤277.5° 7 15 31 7 9 12 277.5°<α≤292.5° 9 17 24 7 14 25 292.5°<α≤307.5° 13 23 36 7 15 21 307.5°<α≤322.5° 19 27 31 8 14 17 322.5°<α≤337.5° 22 29 34 8 12 15 337.5°<α≤352.5° 21 28 34 8 11 12 352.5°<α≤7.5° 17 24 31 7 11 12




Table 1.4

Calculated maximum speed of overall currents (cm/c) considering distribution of directions


Sector, degrees Surface

Periodicity (years) 1 year 10 years 100 years

7.5°<α≤22.5° 7 9 11 22.5°<α≤37.5° 8 10 14 37.5°<α≤52.5° 10 13 16 52.5°<α≤67.5° 12 15 21 67.5°<α≤82.5° 18 26 35 82.5°<α≤97.5° 29 46 67 97.5°<α≤112.5° 32 46 56 112.5°<α≤127.5° 23 35 53 127.5°<α≤142.5° 14 28 48 142.5°<α≤157.5° 10 15 21 157.5°<α≤172.5° 8 14 22 172.5°<α≤187.5° 8 15 18 187.5°<α≤202.5° 7 15 19 202.5°<α≤217.5° 7 15 21 217.5°<α≤232.5° 8 16 30 232.5°<α≤247.5° 9 13 21 247.5°<α≤262.5° 12 18 24 262.5°<α≤277.5° 18 24 34 277.5°<α≤292.5° 20 27 29 292.5°<α≤307.5° 15 21 23 307.5°<α≤322.5° 11 13 19 322.5°<α≤337.5° 9 12 15 337.5°<α≤352.5° 8 9 12 352.5°<α≤7.5° 7 9 10

2. MATHEMATICAL FORMULATION OF MODEL This section describes the method and the given calculations according to models of hydrometeorological processes and surface wind for purposes of solving ecological tasks connected to the distribution of suspended materials during dredging work and oil flow in the Baltic Sea. Calculations were carried out for 1 year of modelling time. using data for 2005. In addition, an examination of the corpus of information, calculations used and the results of calculations of hydrodynamic processes was carried out. For descriptions of the wind and sea currents and variations in the level of the Baltic Sea, use the following system of equations [Gill. 1986]:




The start of the coordinates is located on the non-turbulent sea surface, λφ –the length, width and axis z directed vertically upwards. The following symbols are used: f = 2Ωsin φ - the coriolis parameter, u - the zonal speed component (positive to the east), v - the meridian speed component (positive to the north), w - the vertical speed component (positive upwards), ζ - digression of free surface from non-turbulent position, g - gravity acceleration, Ω - rotational speed of land, Az, Kz - vertical turbulent viscosity coefficient. Wind turbulence forms on the sea surface:

kinematical condition:

The quadratic friction law is formed on the ground:

On the hard side boundary the non-leakage condition for complete flows is formed:

On the open sea border, seal level turbulence is created which is determined by the tidal oscillations. Depending on the position, tasks can be the different variants of the border condition on the open boundary, which are considered below.




For a description of the processes of the turbulent exchange, a series of approaches is considered. The models, in which the vertical viscosity and diffusion coefficients are entered as algebraic expressions, follow from L. Prandtl's expression for the turbulent viscosity coefficient the boundary layer of the following type [L. Prandtl, 1949]:

where l is the length of mixing route and ur the speed of turbulent pulsation. Such an expression is introduced for the analogy with the molecular viscosity/diffusion coefficient, and in turbulence theory a heuristic expression is used for the parametrisation of turbulent processes under specific conditions. Scale l in the area of wall-adjacent boundary layer is directly proportional to the distance of zd to the wall: l = k zd, k = 0.4 is the permanent pouch. In this instance, we have a logarithmic speed profile around the wall. For seas, the scale is often taken in the form of the parabolic formula l = kHψ (zd /H). It is at its maximum near the middle line at the maximum distances from the ground and surface of the sea and tends towards k kz closer to the borders. The most simple example of such a function is:

Here H = ζ +h is the full depth, h is the depth from the undisturbed level, as shown in Figure 1. σ =(z+h)/( ζ +h). zs , z0 and [m] are the ruggedness parameters on the surface and ground, respectively.

Fig. 2.1.1. Configuration of the ground and free surface




Aiming for the surface formula (2) with an expression for the scale (3)

gives: the friction speed. Model with one transfer equation (for k). Over the past years, in three-dimensional field forecast models of littoral circulation, models based on equations for turbulence energy and dissipation (or scale) speed have been used most frequently. We are considering the variants of such models [Davies A.M., Lawrence J., 1994]. The equation for turbulence has the following type

Here E - turbulence energy, [E]=dzh/kg=m2/s2, E - dissipation speed, [e]=dzh/kg=m2/s3, l - mixing length, [m], b = -g×(ρ- ρo)/ ρo – buoyancy, N2= ∂b/ ∂z – Vaysyal frequency For the mixing length, an expression slightly different from (2.1.7) can be taken, as is the case in the work of Davies [Davies A.M., Lawrence J.,1994]:

The model described is determined by the following selection of permanent empirical coefficients.

Table 2.1

Value of invariables in the model with one transfer equation [Davies A.M., 1993] [Luyten P.J. at all,1966]

β 0.73 1.0 C1 (Co)3=0.099 0.166 C0 C 1/4=0.46 0.548




с 0.046 k 0.4 permanent pouch β 1 -2 coefficient in the exponent for the scale z0 0.001-0.01m ruggedness parameter on the ground zs 0.001-1m ruggedness parameter on the surface The formula (3) is the result of equations (4) in approximation of local balance (generation = dissipation). Model with two transfer equations (for k and e). In this variant, a transfer equation of dissipation speed is added. We receive the following setting:

Boundary conditions for turbulent values. When approaching surfaces, the free surface or ground, the conditions of local balance are fulfilled, from which follows

In the model with two transfer equations, the following invariable values are used (Сµ, C1ε., C2ε, C3ε, σk, σε) =(0.091,1.51,1.92,1.0,1.3). Description of bottom logarithmic boundary layer. In the bottom layer, a change of speed can be described with sufficient precision with the logarithmic law [Monin A. S., Yaglom, A. M. 1965]:




u = u*/k ln(z/z0) (8) where z0 is the ruggedness parameter, u* = Vtb the friction speed and k=0.4 the pouch invariable. When using the quadratic friction law as the friction coefficient, C100 is often used, i.e. its value at a distance of measurement point equal 100 m from the ground. In the execution suggested (5), we have: u = √α u100 /k ln(z/z0), (9) Therefore, if we assume the last calculation point of the grid at a distance of 1 m from the ground, the speed at smaller distances can be determined with the formula (4), taking as a the value C100, which is known from experiments. At the same time (2.1.13) serves as a link of the friction coefficient and ruggedness parameter z0: α = [k/ ln(z/z0)]2. (10) We note that the ruggedness parameter is linked to a medium height of ruggedness elements for the conditions of the boundary layer in pipes or above plane plates with the expression z0 = h0/30. When taking z0 = 0.3 cm [Davies A.M., Lawrence J., 1994], then α = 0.005. For an approximation of the equation system (1) as regards time, a differential scheme is used which is hidden and bilayer in terms of time. In this scheme, members of the vertical viscosity are deemed hidden, and the other members open. For an approximation in terms of space, the C grid with differential points is used. In the centre of this grid's cell, the non-vector variables are determined and on the boundaries the vector variables. A more detailed description of the calculation scheme can, for instance, be found in (Arkhipov B.V., 1989). 3. INITIAL DATA AND CALCULATION RESULTS The calculations are made under the influence of tidal, wind and density impacts (forcing). On the open boundary (Fig. 2.1) tidal disturbances of the sea level are created. An adequate setting of the configuration in the calculation area (ground relief and shore line) has great significance, on the one hand, for a correct creation of the main physical (hydro- and litodynamic) processes forming the spread and changeability of sea currents, temperature and salt levels of sea water, seabed sediments, etc., and, on the other hand, for a correct geographical calibration of the results obtained from model calculations. The latter is particularly important during construction engineering and using hydrotechnical facilities. To calculate the flow fields in the Baltic Sea, use was made of bathometry, the construction on the basis of the bodies of ETOPO5, iowtopo2, ETOPOREF.IAX2 (http://www.io-warnemuende.de/en_iowtopo.html, UNEP/GRID Documentation Summary for Data Set: 'ETOPO-5' Elevation) and bathometrical maps of the waters for the pipeline course presented by Petergaz. This body was drafted at the U. S. National Geophysical Data Center (NGDC) in Boulder, Colorado (USA). It is the best of existing numerical bodies of the relief which was obtained on the basis of a grid with a 5-minute resolution (approximately 9 km by 9 km). Outline intervals are every 1 m. This body includes bathometrical characteristics of 10000 m and more. The relief, which is higher than the sea level, reaches in this body 8000 m. The ETOPO5 body includes the body of the Carthographic Agency of the U. S. Ministry of Defence for the territory surrounding the US, Western Europe and Japan, the body of the Australian Mineral Resources Department as well as the New Zealand Department of Science and Industrial Research.




The ETOPO5 body has 2160 entries, consisting of 8640 bytes each. The dimension of the body is 21604320 two-byte elements. It spreads from 90N to 90S and from 180E to 180W. The volume of the entire body is 18.66 MB. A more detailed description of the body can be found in [Edwards, M.H.,1986, Haxby, W.F. et al., 1983]. To make calculations on the basis of the ETOPO5 body, a grid area was set up on the grid with a spacing of Dl = 0.109457132°, Dj = 0.054079296° (area size 1100х1100 km). An image of the calculation area is specified in Fig. 3.1.

Fig. 3.1. Waters of the Baltic Sea and grid area, for which are calculated the hydrodynamic processes (а) and position of local areas (b) where the currents area calculated for a calculation of

the spread of suspended substances




Boundary impact is implemented via the emission conditions (Roed L.P., Cooper C.,1986) established on the western boundary of the area considered, where tidal impact is formed:

is the local speed of gravitational waves. Via the top boundary of reservoirs, mechanical and heat impact from the atmosphere is passed on. The mechanical impact occurs as wind loads established by the value and direction of wind speed at a height of 10 m.

Here ra is the air density, rw the water density, and a the corner between the direction to the north and wind speed.

When using formulas (11), the question arises on determining the wind speed V10 . Several approaches are currently being applied for the calculation of wind fields. The first method involves the direct development of wind fields for full-scale measurements of the speed and direction of wind conducted from passing and exploration vessels, with ABS and on coastal weather stations. The drawback of this method is the low level of precision in the wind speed measurements, the mean-square error around 2.5 m/s as well as the imprecision of observations and their inequality in terms of space and time. In the second variant the wind speed field can be determined in accordance with the global atmosphere circulation model. Such models are used in major meteorological centres. It has recently been very promising to use satellite information. In particular, methods are being developed which are based on a back scatter signal analysis and wind speed reconstruction using special methods. This will be discussed in detail in a section by describing the information. In the fourth variant, the pressure fields can be repelled, which are reconstructed above the areas considered, with the use of some procedure. In order to conduct numerical calculations of the Baltic Sea's current and spread of oil, the wind data of an entire year were prepared. The following was used as the initial information: reanalysis archive of the NCEP/NCARforа 2005 with a spatial resolution of 2.5 degrees. Furthermore, data available on the following CD ROM collection was used: NSCAT OCEAN WINDS CD-ROM, (volume Ocean_wind01- Ocean_wind01, spatial resolution: grid with a spacing of 25 km). These discs are circulated by the organisation: PO.DAAC (Physical Oceanography Distributed Archive Center) JPL Physical Oceanography DAAC, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, USA.




As an illustration in Fig. 3.2. the wind field according to the data of an NCEP/NCAR reanalysis are specified.

Fig. 3.2. Wind fields as per the data of an NCEP/NCAR reanalysis at the start of 2005 To create the tidal impact on the boundary of the region (Fig. 5.2), use was made of cotidal maps of the main tidal waves in the area considered, which are created on the basis of the global ocean tide model ORI.96, as developed at Tokyo University (Ocean Research Institute). In this model, the tides are calculated on a 0.50 grid with involvement of satellite data (NASA TOPEX/POSEIDON MGDR). This ensures harmonic invariables for 8 constituents (M2, S2, N2, K2, K1, O1, P1, Q1). Examples of the calculated momentary summary currents in the surface layer are specified in Fig. 3.3.







Fig. 3.3. Currents field according to data from the calculations of various times of the year from the

start of 2005 To describe the currents directly in the area of conducting dredging work as specified in Fig. 3.4.(b) mathematical modelling was conducted with the use of the following system of equating shallow water [Gill, 1986]:

x,y — length and width. The following symbols are used: f =2 Ω sinφ — Coriolis parameter, u — zonal speed component (positive, eastern direction) v — meridional speed component (positive, northern direction), H, h — complete depth and mark fo the day, g — gravity acceleration, Ω — earth angular velocity.




Data on currents obtained from the global model was used as boundary conditions. A grid (100*100 cells) was used for the calculations. Δx = 247.16m, Δy = 247.67m for the northern part and Δx = 462.86 m, Δy = 449.05m for the southern part. Fig. 3.4 shows the results of calculation the currents in the areas of the littoral section in the area of crossing the shore line on the Russian side.







Fig. 3.4. Current fields calculated with the model at various times for the area of lines in the region

of the littoral area near the crossing of the shore line on the Russian side




Literature

Arkhipov B.V. About some properties of geophysical hydrodynamic equations on the staggered grid// Journal «Oceanology», v.29, N5, p.723-729,1989 Davies A.M. A bottom boundary layer-resolving three-dimensional tidal model: a sensitivity study of viscosity formulation // Journal of physical oceanography. 1993, vol. 23, D92, p. 1437 - 1453. Davies A.M., Jones J.E. Application of a three-dimensional turbulence energy model to the determination of tidal currents on the northwest European shelf // Journal of Geophysical Res.. 1990, vol. 95, p. 18143 - 18162. Davies A.M., Lawrence J. The response of the Irish Sea to boundary and wind forcing: Results from a three -dimensional hydrodynamic model// Journal of geophysical research. 1994, vol. 99, C11, p. 22,665-22,687. Luyten P.J., Deleersnijder E., Ozer J., Ruddick K.G. Presentation of a family of turbulence closure models for stratified shallow water flows and preliminary application to the Rhine outflow region.// Continental shelf Research, 1996, Vol. 16, No 1, 101-130. Roed L.P., Cooper C. Open boundary conditions in numerical ocean models, in Advanced Physical Oceanographic Numerical Modelling, edited by J.J. O'Braien, NATO ASI Ser. C, 186, 411-436,1986. A. Gill, Dynamics of the atmosphere and ocean. Vol. 2. М.: Mir. 1986, 415 p. V. I. Makarova, Calculation of wind fields in accordance with fields of atmospheric pressure over the sea // Background information, Issue No. 4. Hydrometeorology, Hydrometeorology series, 1989. A. S. Monin, A. M. Yaglom, Statistical hydromechanics, Part 1.//М. Nauka, 1965, 639 p. L. Prandtl, Hydromechanics, M.: Publishing house for foreign literature, 1949. 520 p. J. Khaltiner, F. Martin, Dynamic and physical meteorology.\\ Publishing house Foreign Literature, Moscow, 1960. Edwards, M.H., 1986. Digital Image Processing of Local and Global Bathymetric Data. Master's Thesis. Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences, Washington Univ., St. Louis, Missouri, USA, 106 p." Haxby, W.F. et al., 1983. Digital Images of Combined Oceanic and Continental Data Sets and their Use in Tectonic Studies. EOS Trans actions of the American Physical Union, vol. 64, no. 52, pp. 995-1004." Matsumoto, K., M. Ooe, T. Sato, and J. Segawa, Ocean tide model obtained from TOPEX/POSEIDON altimetry data, J. Geophys. Res., 100, C12, 25,319-25,330, 1995.




ANNEX 4.1-3

Seabed sediment characteristics along the Nord Stream line This section provides characteristics of the seabed sediments along the gas pipeline according to engineering and environmental research (Part 1. 1st stage Book 5. Final report):

• Section 1. Exclusive economic zone and territorial waters of Russia (OOO Piter Gaz (archive No. OAO Giprospetsgaz 6545.152.010.21.14.03.01.05);

• Section 2. Exclusive economic zones of Finland, Sweden, Denmark and Germany (OOO

Piter Gaz archive No. OAO Giprospetsgaz 6545.152.010.21.14.03.01.05); Materials specified in Volume 7. Book 1 Project Plan for Organising the Construction of the Off-Shore Section of the Gas Pipeline were also used, which state the results of a geological survey along the pipeline route. The seabed sediment characteristics were obtained at the stations specified in Table 1 and Fig. 1. The following abbreviations are used in the table: GR – gravel, SA – sand, VFS - very fine sand, FS - fine sand, SCS - sand and clay spiniforms, CS – clay spiniforms, CB - clay bands, CM - clay morainics.

Table 1

Station coordinates and sediment type

Station No. Length Width Sediment type Station identifier

1 26.9903 60.1289 VFS 1.2.zdo 2 26.79703333 60.09135 SA 2.2.zdo 3 26.5838 60.05125 SCS 3.2.b2 4 26.37366667 60.06842 CS 4.2.zdo 5 26.36866667 60.0315 CS 5.2.zdo 6 26.14908333 59.98953 GR 6.2.b1 7 25.977 59.93483 CS 7.1.b2 7 25.9742 59.9345 CS 7.2.b2 7 25.9715 59.934 SCS 7.3.b2 8 25.78538333 59.9184 SA 8.2.zdo 9 25.57276667 59.90437 SA 9.1.b2





9 25.5699 59.90377 SCS 9.2.b2 9 25.56756667 59.90312 SCS 9.3.b2 10 25.3735 59.8897 CB 10.1.b2 10 25.3737 59.88773 SCS 10.2.b2 10 25.37446667 59.88603 SCS 10.3.b2 11 25.15891667 59.89308 CB 11.1.b2 11 25.15956667 59.89162 FS 11.2.b2 11 25.15978333 59.88927 SA 11.3.b2 12 24.97508333 59.8857 FS 12.1.b2 12 24.97503333 59.88373 CB 12.2.b2 12 24.97488333 59.88775 VFS 12.3.b2 13 24.832 59.8365 CS 13.1.b2 13 24.8275 59.83783 CS 13.2.b2 13 24.83533333 59.833 SCS 13.3.b2 14 24.61613333 59.80418 CB 14.1.b1 14 24.61803333 59.80123 CB 14.2.b1 14 24.61983333 59.79825 CB 14.3.b1 15 24.4344 59.75777 CS 15.1.b2 15 24.4382 59.75612 CS 15.2.b2 15 24.4414 59.75378 CB 15.3.b2 16 24.25255 59.72678 FS 16.1.b2 16 24.25576667 59.72428 SCS 16.2.b2 16 24.25963333 59.72178 SA 16.3.b2 17 24.07338333 59.67472 CB 17.1.b1 17 24.07553333 59.6716 FS 17.2.b1 17 24.07663333 59.66862 CB 17.3.b1 18 23.89103333 59.64303 CS 18.1.b2 18 23.89216667 59.64013 CS 18.2.b2 18 23.89405 59.63758 CS 18.3.b2 19 23.70758333 59.6319 CS 19.1.b2 19 23.70896667 59.62832 CS 19.2.b2





19 23.7106 59.62532 CS 19.3.b2 20 23.52433333 59.5915 CS 20.1.b2 20 23.52583333 59.58883 CS 20.2.b2 20 23.528 59.58633 CS 20.3.b2 21 23.34133333 59.56267 CS 21.1.b2 21 23.3425 59.56 CS 21.2.b2 21 23.344 59.55717 CS 21.3.b2 22 23.15966667 59.54147 CS 22.1.b2 22 23.16033333 59.53802 CS 22.2.b2 22 23.16383333 59.53522 CS 22.3.b2 23 22.97463333 59.51175 CS 23.1.b2 23 22.97783333 59.50852 CS 23.2.b2 23 22.97798333 59.50572 CS 23.3.b2 24 22.85721667 59.50428 CS 24.1.b2 24 22.85963333 59.50197 CS 24.2.b2 24 22.86103333 59.4996 CS 24.3.b2 25 22.65771667 59.4715 CS 25.1.b2 25 22.65901667 59.46903 CS 25.2.b2 25 22.66126667 59.46627 CS 25.3.b2 26 22.46146667 59.44077 SCS 26.1.b2 26 22.46316667 59.43783 CS 26.2.b2 26 22.46574 59.43498 CS 26.3.b2 27 22.25783333 59.41067 CS 27.1.b2 27 22.25966667 59.408 CS 27.2.b2 27 22.261 59.40533 CS 27.3.b2 28 22.06166667 59.37867 CS 28.1.b2 28 22.06636667 59.376 CS 28.2.b2 28 22.06533333 59.37367 CS 28.3.b2 29 21.856 59.342 CS 29.1.b2 29 21.85633333 59.33817 CS 29.2.b2 29 21.85866667 59.33583 CS 29.3.b2





30 21.67233333 59.30658 CS 30.1.b2 30 21.67415 59.30343 CS 30.2.b2 30 21.6759 59.30158 CS 30.3.b2 31 21.48796667 59.27288 CB 31.1.b2 31 21.48846667 59.27015 CS 31.2.b2 31 21.48935 59.2679 CS 31.3.b2 32 21.31543333 59.23965 CB 32.1.b2 32 21.32025 59.23695 CS 32.2.b2 32 21.32468333 59.23502 CS 32.3.b2 33 21.12533333 59.17452 CB 33.1.b2 33 21.13013333 59.17207 CS 33.2.b2 33 21.1345 59.16973 CS 33.3.b2 34 20.95153333 59.09253 CB 34.1.b2 34 20.95533333 59.09048 CB 34.2.b2 34 20.96033333 59.08785 CB 34.3.b2 35 20.78386667 59.00733 CS 35.1.b2 35 20.78668333 59.00545 CS 35.2.b2 35 20.7898 59.00313 CS 35.3.b2 36 20.59805 58.91153 CS 36.1.b2 36 20.601 58.91002 CS 36.2.b2 36 20.60525 58.907 CB 36.3.b2 37 20.41565 58.81887 CS 37.1.b2 37 20.42 58.81713 CS 37.2.b2 37 20.42303333 58.81517 CS 37.3.b2 38 20.33311667 58.70342 CS 38.1.b2 38 20.33633333 58.70192 CS 38.2.b2 38 20.34575 58.70053 CS 38.3.b2 39 20.23911667 58.57463 FS 39.1.b2 39 20.24333333 58.57365 FS 39.2.b2 39 20.24833333 58.5723 SCS 39.3.b2 40 20.32868333 58.44067 CS 40.1.b2





40 20.33348333 58.44012 CS 40.2.b2 40 20.33758333 58.4385 CS 40.3.b2 41 20.12165 58.39425 SA 41.1.b2 41 20.1271 58.39333 SA 41.2.b2 41 20.13096667 58.39185 SA 41.3.b2 42 20.0149 58.25797 CM 42.1.b2 42 20.02033333 58.25747 SA 42.2.b2 42 20.02516667 58.25575 VFS 42.3.b2 43 19.92068333 58.12028 CS 43.1.b2 43 19.92563333 58.11942 CS 43.2.b2 43 19.93078333 58.11882 CS 43.3.b2 44 19.89776667 57.99255 CS 44.1.b2 44 19.90313333 57.99225 CS 44.2.b2 44 19.90803333 57.99212 CS 44.3.b2 45 19.75285 57.89117 CS 45.1.b2 45 19.757 57.88903 CS 45.2.b2 45 19.76095 57.88705 CS 45.3.b2 46 19.66795 57.77247 SCS 46.1.b2 46 19.67286667 57.77173 SA 46.2.b2 46 19.6774 57.77077 VFS 46.3.b2 47 19.58783333 57.65512 SA 47.1.b2 47 19.59223333 57.65415 FS 47.2.b2 47 19.59678333 57.65298 SCS 47.3.b2 48 19.50425 57.53995 SA 48.1.b2 48 19.50946667 57.53867 SA 48.2.b2 48 19.5146 57.53793 CM 48.3.b2 49 19.43243333 57.42735 SCS 49.1.b2 49 19.4378 57.42617 SCS 49.2.b2 49 19.44216667 57.42487 SCS 49.3.b2 50 19.34693333 57.30685 CS 50.1.b2 50 19.351 57.30617 CS 50.2.b2





50 19.3566 57.30497 CS 50.3.b2 51 19.26956667 57.18932 CS 51.1.b2 51 19.27346667 57.18797 CS 51.2.b2 51 19.27666667 57.18647 CS 51.3.b2 52 19.17201667 57.07358 CS 52.1.b2 52 19.17501667 57.07133 CS 52.2.b2 52 19.17788333 57.0695 CS 52.3.b2 53 19.10025 56.95702 CS 53.1.b2 53 19.10433333 56.95637 CS 53.2.b2 53 19.11006667 56.9555 CS 53.3.b2 54 19.0215 56.8527 CS 54.1.b2 54 19.0262 56.85162 CS 54.2.b2 54 19.0316 56.85068 CS 54.3.b2 55 18.93333333 56.72553 SCS 55.1.b2 55 18.93866667 56.7245 SCS 55.2.b2 55 18.94293333 56.72343 CS 55.3.b2 56 18.84808333 56.60575 SA 56.1.b1 56 18.85293333 56.60472 FS 56.2.b1 56 18.85835 56.60367 FS 56.3.b1 57 18.73361667 56.47715 VFS 57.1.b2 57 18.73715 56.47637 FS 57.2.b2 57 18.7421 56.47533 VFS 57.3.b2 58 18.59973333 56.36143 FS 58.1.b2 58 18.60431667 56.35927 FS 58.2.b2 58 18.60833333 56.35862 FS 58.3.b2 59 18.43073333 56.30937 VFS 59.1.b1 59 18.43316667 56.30642 VFS 59.2.b1 59 18.4365 56.3044 VFS 59.3.b1 60 18.25663333 56.2755 SA 60.1.b1 60 18.25825 56.27298 SA 60.2.b1 60 18.25986667 56.27062 SA 60.3.b1





61 18.06773333 56.2378 SA 61.1.b2 61 18.07023333 56.23533 SA 61.2.b2 61 18.07225 56.2329 GR 61.3.b2 62 17.88895 56.17348 VFS 62.1.b2 62 17.89213333 56.17088 SA 62.2.b2 62 17.89481667 56.16873 SA 62.3.b2 63 17.71563333 56.10977 VFS 63.1.b2 63 17.7191 56.10727 VFS 63.2.b2 63 17.72176667 56.10525 VFS 63.3.b2 64 17.539 56.05405 SA 64.1.b1 64 17.54188333 56.05182 SA 64.2.b1 64 17.54386667 56.0493 GR 64.3.b1 65 17.36783333 55.9886 GR 65.1.b2 65 17.37033333 55.986 SA 65.2.b2 65 17.37333333 55.98382 SA 65.3.b2 66 17.18906667 55.9246 SA 66.1.b2 66 17.19226667 55.92225 SA 66.2.b2 66 17.19481667 55.91998 SA 66.3.b2 67 17.01813333 55.86068 SA 67.1.b2 67 17.02053333 55.85853 SA 67.2.b2 67 17.02415 55.85593 SCS 67.3.b2 68 16.8417 55.8292 SA 68.1.b1 68 16.84243333 55.82708 SA 68.2.b1 68 16.845 55.824 SA 68.3.b1 69 16.66811667 55.73903 VFS 69.1.b1 69 16.67266667 55.73713 VFS 69.2.b1 69 16.67608333 55.73572 VFS 69.3.b1 70 16.50033333 55.67533 SCS 70.1.b2 70 16.50273333 55.67268 SCS 70.2.b2 70 16.50556667 55.67067 SCS 70.3.b2 71 16.3973 55.5382 SCS 71.1.b2





71 16.40168333 55.53677 CS 71.2.b2 71 16.4068 55.53598 SCS 71.3.b2 72 16.26683333 55.421 SCS 72.1.b2 72 16.27 55.42015 SCS 72.2.b2 72 16.27425 55.4183 SCS 72.3.b2 73 16.13171667 55.28823 CS 73.1.b2 73 16.13608333 55.28682 SCS 73.2.b2 73 16.14028333 55.28565 SCS 73.3.b2 74 15.97135 55.24467 SCS 74.1.b2 74 15.97508333 55.24305 CS 74.2.b2 74 15.97893333 55.24135 CS 74.3.b2 75 16.00131667 55.16992 CS 75.1.b2 75 16.00555 55.16817 CS 75.2.b2 75 16.00966667 55.16682 CS 75.3.b2 76 15.8775 55.05918 CS 76.1.b2 76 15.8805 55.05695 CS 76.2.b2 76 15.88355 55.05472 CS 76.3.b2 77 15.70063333 54.98905 CS 77.1.b2 77 15.7034 54.98658 CS 77.2.b2 77 15.7064 54.98453 CS 77.3.b2 78 15.5371 54.92223 CS 78.1.b2 78 15.54005 54.91967 CS 78.2.b2 78 15.54373333 54.91787 CS 78.3.b2 79 15.3733 54.84255 SCS 79.1.b2 79 15.376 54.84033 SCS 79.2.b2 79 15.37933333 54.83842 SCS 79.3.b2 80 15.22383333 54.77598 SCS 80.1.b2 80 15.22646667 54.77405 SCS 80.2.b2 80 15.22988333 54.77175 CS 80.3.b2 81 15.03903333 54.73835 SCS 81.1.b2 81 15.04075 54.736 SCS 81.2.b2





SCS 81.3.b2 82 14.8682 54.69368 FS 82.1.b2 82 14.87055 54.69117 FS 82.2.b2 82 14.87196667 54.68877 FS 82.3.b2 83 14.69846667 54.65585 VFS 83.1.b1 83 14.69976667 54.65332 VFS 83.2.b1 83 14.70223333 54.65055 VFS 83.3.b1 84 14.52023333 54.61017 SA 84.1.b1 84 14.52158333 54.60743 SA 84.2.b1 84 14.52308333 54.60467 SA 84.3.b1 85 14.35053333 54.57272 SA 85.1.b1 85 14.35208333 54.57017 SA 85.2.b1 85 14.35381667 54.56762 SA 85.3.b1 86 14.20166667 54.52255 SA 86.1.b1 86 14.20375 54.52018 SA 86.2.b1 86 14.20628333 54.51778 SA 86.3.b1 87 14.08405 54.46883 SA 87.1.b1 87 14.08696667 54.46667 SA 87.2.b1 87 14.08931667 54.4643 SA 87.3.b1 88 14.0724 54.53617 SA 88.1.b1 88 14.07488333 54.53393 SA 88.2.b1 88 14.07768333 54.53167 SA 88.3.b1 89 16.8402 55.81213 SA 89.1.b2 89 16.84316667 55.81013 GR 89.2.b2 89 16.84613333 55.80778 GR 89.3.b2

Along the North-European gas pipeline in the Baltic Sea, all seabed sediment types and late quaternary sediments can be found (figures 1 and 2). These include morainics, clay bands of the Baltic glacial lake, clays of the Yoldia Sea and Ancylus lake and sediments of the marine holocene, which former after an outbreak of salty North Sea waters into the Baltics (7800 years ago) and the conversion of the Baltic water body from a lake to a sea. Sediments of the marine holocene are presented by: pelitic (predominantly clayey), siltstone and fine siltstone clays, very fine sands and sands. In the top layer there are gravel and pebble sediments, as well as their mixture (pebble and gravel, gravel and sand, etc.). These grit stone sediments were formed either during the littoral transgression or appear as residual after the washaway of moraines and lake clay or after the rewashing (carrying-out of pelitic factures) by strong seabed currents.




In the Gulf of Finland (Fig. 2, stations 1-26, depths of 43-80 m) the following can usually be observed in the range of types: sands - very fine sands - fine silt clay - silt-pelitic clay - pelitic clay. The first one of these types is the most shallow-water and the last the most deep-water. However, there are also exceptions. The first is that typically siltstone sediments (in particular, very fine sands with a fracture of 0.1-0.05 mm) either occupy a very narrow interval of depths or they disappear entirely, while sands are gradually replaced with clays. This results in mixed sediments, which are frequently called by numerous explorers clayey sands or sandy clays. The second exception refers to sands and pelitic clays: in some (highly hydrodynamically active) areas, the sands drop to such depths as do clays (50-60 m), while pelitic clays in quiet (small hydrodynamic activity) areas rise to levels where sands usually spread (2740 m). Given that the relief of the ground of the Gulf of Finland is very rugged and characterised by many semi-isolated excavations, islets and elevations, the spreading of clayey sediment types of, predominantly, pelitic clays, is very mosaic. Over the process of the entire marine (littoral) stage of the development of the Baltic Sea, these excavations are places where pelitic clays amass.




Fig. 1. Spread of seabed sediment types according to depth in the Baltic Sea, data of 46 trips of STM AtlantNIRO, 2005

The sands contain from 49.0 to 96.1% of fracture > 0.1 mm or from 45.4 to 91.2% of sandy (1.0- 0.1 mm) fractures. Only sand samples have a significant addition of gravel materials (up to 26.9% of fracture > 1.0 mm), the others have a significant addition of pelitic material (up to 20.4% of fracture < 0.01 mm). These are usually coarse-grained or fine-grained sands.




Very fine sands are found at a depth of 47 m. They contain 54.4 – 66.4% of siltstone material or 32.1 – 53.0% of fracture of 0.1 – 0.05 mm. In one case, very fine sands are presented as a unimodal histogram and well assorted, in the other case as a bimodal histogram and badly assorted.



Volume 8. Book 1. Off-shore section. Part 1. OVOS Page 552

Fig. 2. Spread of sediment types in seabed deposits (layer of 0-5 cm) in the Baltic Sea along the pipeline and station number (1-89) on 3 sheets. The columns represent the structure of the strata where there are layers of coarse-grain sediments on the ground surface



Volume 8. Book 1. Off-shore section. Part 1. OVOS Page 553


PETER GAZ 36/07-01- Feasibility study - EIA - 0801(1)-C6 NORD STREAM G-PE-LFR-EIA-101-08010100-06

Vol. 8. Book 1. Offshore section. Part 1. Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Page 575

Fig. 2.3. Areas where post-trenching is arranged during different stages of the works With a view to performing a simulation, all forms of work are classified. Detailed information regarding this classification is provided in Appendix 1. The results of this classification are given in Tables 2.1 - 2.2 and in fig. 2.3. As can be seen from these tables, during the first three stages, the average amount of post-trenching is relatively small although the work is carried out in sections situated very near to the coast (control point -4760.0) as well as at the western end (control point -120341.0). During the final stage, the volumes of post-trenching increase significantly, being arranged practically along the entire length of the pipeline from control point - 2003 to control point - 119523. During the work stages as a whole, 328 post-trenches will be realised with a total volume of 1 391 769 m3. In accordance with the design data, the productivity of the equipment used in the post-trenching is equal to 84 m3/hour.

Table 2.1.

Aggregate data according to the volume of post-trenching during the different stages of the work From the

control point As far as the control point

Number of post-trenches

Average volume during the stage

(m3)

Length (m) Breadth (m)

First stage. Gravel support fortification for ensuring static stability until the eastern pipelines are laid 15066 39662 3 317 5 12 62632 90917 15 936 5 12 110088 120341 5 3132 5 12




First stage. Gravel support fortification for ensuring static stability until the western pipelines are laid

31504 39347 5 878 5 12 80792 93972 7 2 244 5 12 102045 120327 11 908 5 12

Second stage. Gravel-filled post trench for static stability after the eastern pipelines have been laid 14678 21810 19 465 11 3 31547 43055 19 389 8 3 62364 120666 31 861 14 3

Second stage. Gravel-filled post trench for static stability after the western pipelines have been laid 9124.5 21466.24 14 404 10 3 31181.9 43374.41 17 329 10 3 62353.09 120228.3 30 618 12 3

Third stage. Gravel-filled post trench for dynamic stability after the eastern pipelines have been laid 4760 9658 4 110 13 3 15443 39415 10 93 8.3 3 60827 119811 14 396 7.5 3

Third stage. Gravel-filled post trench for dynamic stability after the western pipelines have been laid 15544 33968 5 23.2 5 3 86077 119426 13 388 6.3 3

Fourth stage. Gravel-filled post trench for reducing buckling and vertical twisting after the eastern pipelines have been laid

2003 29132 22 17351 602 2.9 30461 59078 22 9019 310 2.9 60377 119523 8 11035 391 2.7

Fourth stage. Gravel-filled post trench for reducing buckling and vertical twisting after the western pipelines have been laid

2003 29023 25 14563 517 3 31207 59186 23 9949 323 3 60174 119194 6 14841 504 3

Adding up the data for the eastern and western pipelines provides us with basic modelling options. These options are referred to below in the "Calculation results" section.

Table 2.2.

Aggregate data according to the volume of post-trenching during the different stages of the work for the eastern and western pipelines and modelling option numbers

From the control

point As far as the control

point Number of post

trenches Average volume

(m3) Option number

First stage 15066 39347 8 667.6 1




62632 93972 22 1352.2 2 110088 120327 16 1603.0 3

Second stage 9124.5 21466.24 33 439.1 4 31547 43374.41 36 360.7 5 62364 120228.3 61 741.5 6

Third stage 4760 9658 4 110.0 7 15443 33968 15 69.7 8 60827 119426 27 392.1 9

Fourth stage 2003 29023 47 15651.0 10 30461 59186 45 9494.3 11 60377 119194 14 12666.1 12




2.2. SOIL CHARACTERISTICS

In Appendix 2, a detailed analysis is performed of the soils in the region in question. Table 2.2. provides aggregate data on soils.

Table 2.2.

Aggregate data on soils

Control point Gravel, sand Silt Mudstone >10.0 - 0.1 0.1 - 0.01 0.01 - 0.0001

0 - 5016 G1 89 11 0 5016 - 10332 G2 13.1 66.7 20.2 10332 - 16474 G3 3.8 32 64.2 16474 - 23860 G4 20.4 29.3 50.3 23860 - 32930 G5 21.3 32.8 45.9 32930 - 42260 G6 2.1 28.7 69.2 42260 - 52504 G7 17.2 36.6 46.2 52504 - 78235 G8 15 48.5 36.5 52504 - 78235 G9 33 8.8 58.2 78235 - 122358 G10 20.7 29.5 49.8

2.3. Characteristics of the currents In Appendix 3, a detailed analysis is performed of the currents in the region in question. Using the data provided as a basis gives us the direction and a value for the speed of the current (cm/s) which are accepted in calculations concerned with the diffusion of suspended matter (Table 2.3.). It follows from points 3-6 of this table (see Fig. 1 of Appendix 3) that the most likely directions are NNE-NE, while in points 7-9, the most likely directions are W-SW. It follows from Section 2.1 that the amount of post-trenching during the first three stages is relatively small and does not last for more than twenty-four hours. For this reason, as regards modelling in relation to these stages, the average speeds given in Table 2.3. were used. In the case of calculations during the fourth stage, in light of the large volume of work and its duration (up to 6 days), variable current speeds obtained during the simulation (Appendix 3) were used every so often.




Table 2.3.

Direction and a value for the speed of the currents (cm/s) which are accepted in calculations concerned with the diffusion of suspended matter when carrying out work concerned with

guaranteeing stability of the pipelines Point number Control point Control point Direction of the speed Speed (cm/s)

Point 3 14300 26310 37,5°<α≤52,5° 9 Point 4 26310 47200 22,5°<α≤37,5° 8 Point 5 47200 71000 22,5°<α≤37,5° 10 Point 6 71000 95000 22,5°<α≤37,5° 7 Point 7 95000 113000 262,5°<α≤277,5° 10 Point 8 113000 128000 217,5°<α≤232,5° 8 Point 9 128000 138000 217,5°<α≤232,5° 9

2.4. DEFINED PARAMETERS An evaluation of the scales of impact on the marine environment when carrying out dredging work must provide a set of parameters on which basis further evaluations of the resulting damage to the bioresources may be carried out. This evaluation includes a set of values determined directly in accordance with the design data (see Table 3.1.) and values determined on the basis of modelling the diffusion of the suspended matter and the silting up of the bottom during the post-trenching process (see Table 3.2.).

Table 3.1.

Parameters for evaluating the impact of offshore construction work on the marine environment which are obtained on the basis of design data

Defined parameters Method of determination and presentation

Total mass of all the post trenches cleared away during the

stage (t)

Design data

Total mass passing into the suspended state during the

interval (t)

Determined in accordance with the regulatory document entitled "Methodology for calculating the charge for contamination of sea

areas and surface bodies of water which are the Federal property of the Russian Federation during execution of the work associated with displacement and removal of ground soils, the extraction of non-

metallic materials from underwater quarries and the deposition of soils in underwater dumps. Ratified by the Chairman of the State

Committee of the Russian Federation on Environmental Protection. 29 April 1999".

Area of backfilled land according to design data (m2)

Design data




Table 3.2.

Model parameters for evaluating the impact of offshore construction work on the marine environment and regional fauna and flora

Defined parameters Method of determination and presentation

Values for assessing the levels of impact Momentary position of the location of

the plume of contaminated water at different points in time and the

maximum distance from the source to the boundaries of the areas which have concentrations in excess of the target

value

Based on modelling. Calculated value, colour chart, isoline map.

Area of maximum allowable concentration (MAC) during the work period and the maximum diffusion distances of the concentrations from the source or boundary of the area for the entire period of the work


Area of thickness of the deposited sediments and the maximum distances from the source or boundary of the area to the boundaries of the areas where the sediment thickness exceeds the design value


Values for calculating the damage to fish stocks Maximum values during the work period for the momentary extent (of the plume areas) with pollution levels above the stipulated concentration (m3)

Based on modelling. Calculated value.

Average values during the work period for the momentary extent of pollution levels above the stipulated concentration (m3)


Period of plume occurrence with concentrations in excess of target levels (hours)


Volumes of freshly contaminated water flowing past the area of plumes of suspended matter with a stipulated concentration during the period of the work (m3)


Average flow time through volumes of suspended matter plumes with concentrations in excess of target levels (minutes)


Areas of sedimentation with thicknesses in excess of the target value beyond the boundaries of the dredging area (m2)





3. CALCULATION RESULTS

3.1 OPTIONS 1-9 Table 3.1. provides environmental impact design parameters.




Table 3.1.

Influencing parameters defined according to design data for all options.

Option number

Length Width Number of post

trenches

Average volume of a single post

trench (m3)

Mass of a single post

trench which has been

cleared away (kg)

Mass passing into the

suspended state for a single post

trench (kg)

Duration of a single post

trench (seconds)


trench (hours)

Yield of the source of the suspended

matter (kg/s)

Total mass of all the post

trenches cleared away

during the stage (t)

Total mass passing into the suspended state

during the interval (t)

Area of backfilled

land according to design data

(m2) 1 5,0 12,0 8 667 1021199 20424 28 605 8 0,714 8 169,6 163,4 480

2 5,0 12,0 22 1352 2069116 41382 57 958 16 0,714 45 520,6 910,4 1320

3 5,0 12,0 16 1603 2452590 49052 68 700 19 0,714 39 241,4 784,8 960

4 10,0 3,0 33 439 671855 13437 18 819 5 0,714 22 171,2 443,4 990

5 9,6 3,0 36 361 551990 11040 15 462 4 0,714 19 871,6 397,4 1036

6 11,5 3,0 61 741 1134051 22681 31 766 9 0,714 69 177,1 1 383,5 2105

7 13,0 3,0 4 110 167918 3358 4 704 1 0,714 671,7 13,4 156

8 8,3 3,0 15 69 106182 2124 2 974 1 0,714 1 592,7 31,9 374 9 6,3 3,0 27 392 599703 11994 16 798 5 0,714 16 192,0 323,8 511




Option number

Length Width Number of post

trenches

Average volume of a single post

trench (m3)

Mass of a single post

trench which has been

cleared away (kg)

Mass passing into the

suspended state for a single post

trench (kg)


trench (seconds)


trench (hours)

Yield of the source of the suspended

matter (kg/s)

Total mass of all the post

trenches cleared away

during the stage (t)

Total mass passing into the suspended state

during the interval (t)

Area of backfilled

land according to design data

(m2) 10 516,9 2,9 47 15651 23946318 478926 670 765 186 0,714 981 799,1 19 636,0 61038

11 323,0 2,9 45 9494 14526534 290531 406 906 113 0,714 653 694,0 13 073,9 42341

12 504,2 2,9 14 12666 19378980 387580 542 829 151 0,714 271 305,7 5 426,1 20561

Total 328 2 129 407 42588 131870




Tables 3.1 - 3.9 provide calculations of the volumes of contaminated water for options 1 - 9 (see Table 2.1). In these options, the amounts of post-trenching are relatively small and the working time for each option does not exceed twenty-four hours. Table 3.10. provides areas of the sea floor (m2) which are covered in a layer of sediment of varying thickness when carrying out post-trenching for the options under consideration. Table 3.11. gives areas of the sea floor (m2) which are subject to influence by suspended matter of varying concentrations (calculated using average plume volumes).

Table 3.1.

Volumes (m3) and the period of occurrence (minutes, hours) of volumes of water which are contaminated with varying concentration levels of suspended matter when carrying out work

concerned with guaranteeing stability of the pipeline. Calculation option 1

Defined parameters Aqueous suspended matter concentration, mg/l*

≥ 10 ≥ 20 ≥ 50 ≥ 100 Volumes of water flowing through areas of

suspended matter plumes with concentrations in excess of target levels,

m3 (flow volumes) (FV)

487 711 326 108 173 815 0

Average flow time of the water through areas of suspended matter plumes with

concentrations in excess of target levels, minutes (T

average)

18 8 3 0.0

Maximum values for the momentary extent of the plume areas, m3 (maximum

momentary volume) (MMV)

19 557 6 503 1 243 0

Average values for the momentary extent of the plume areas, m3 (average

momentary volume) (AMV)

10 634 3 302 457 0

Period of plume occurrence with concentrations in excess of target levels,

hours (Toccurrence)

8.2 8.0 7.9 0.0

Table 3.2.

Volumes (m3) and the period of occurrence (minutes, hours) of volumes of water which are

contaminated with varying concentration levels of suspended matter when carrying out work concerned with guaranteeing stability of the pipeline. Calculation option 2



suspended matter plumes with concentrations in excess of target levels, m3 (flow volumes)

982 436 661 704 370 428 0

Average flow time of the water through areas of suspended matter plumes with concentrations in

excess of target levels, minutes (Taverage)

21 11 4 0.0

Maximum values for the momentary extent of the plume areas, m3 (maximum momentary volume)

19 605 6 503 1 387 0

Average values for the momentary extent of the plume areas, m3 (average momentary volume)

13 322 4 179 636 0





≥ 10 ≥ 20 ≥ 50 ≥ 100 Period of plume occurrence with

concentrations in excess of target levels, hours (Tсущ)

16.4 16.2 16.1

Table 3.3.






m3 (flow volumes)

1 124 798 744 750 416 771 0



average)

22 11 4 0.0


momentary volume) 19 701 6 360 1 435 0


momentary volume) 13 921 4 204 631 0


hours (Toccurrence)

19.4 19.2 19.1 0.0

Table 3.4.






m3 (flow volumes)

314 569 204 596 99 675 0



average)

14 7 3 0









hours (Toccurrence)

5.5 5.3 5.2 0.0




Table 3.5.






m3 (flow volumes)

262 109 169 623 93 263 0



average)

13 6 2 0






hours (Toccurrence)

4.6 4.4 4.3 0.0

Table 3.6




≥ 10 ≥ 20 ≥50 ≥ 100 Volumes of water flowing through areas of


m3 (flow volumes)

541 985 362 939 193 607



average)

19 9 3






hours (Toccurrence)

9.1 8.9 8.8 0.0




Table 3.7.



Defined parameters Aqueous suspended matter concentration, mg/l* ≥ 10 ≥ 20 ≥ 50 ≥ 100

Volumes of water flowing through areas of suspended matter plumes with

concentrations in excess of target levels, m3 (flow volumes)

87 240 53 044 29 145 0



average)

7 3 1 0.0




momentary volume) 2 992 941 166 0


hours (Toccurrence)

1.6 1.4 1.3 0.0

Table 3.8.




≥ 10 ≥ 20 ≥ 50 ≥ 100



57 901 33 614 17 293 0



average)

8 2 1 0.0




momentary volume) 2 017 628 92 0


hours (Toccurrence)

1.1 0.9 0.8 0.0




Table 3.9.




≥ 10 ≥ 20 ≥ 50 ≥ 100



294 669 195 130 99 273



average)

13 7 2



Average values for the momentary extent of the plume areas, m3 (average momentary

volume) 7 941 2 445 297 0


hours (Toccurrence)

5.0 4.8 4.7




Table 3.10.

Areas of the sea floor (m2) covered in a layer of sediment of varying thickness when carrying out

work concerned with guaranteeing stability of the pipeline

Operation Thickness of the layer of sediment, mm ≥ 1 ≥ 5 ≥ 10 ≥ 50 ≥ 100

Calculation option 1 2008.3 758.7 408 0 0 Calculation option 2 2939.2 1224.1 765.1 19.1 0 Calculation option 3 3257.9 1351.6 860.7 89.3 0 Calculation option 4 1613 535.6 210.4 0 0 Calculation option 5 1472.8 439.9 127.5 0 0 Calculation option 6 2135.8 828.8 452.7 0 0 Calculation option 7 631.2 0 0 0 0 Calculation option 8 388.9 0 0 0 0 Calculation option 9 1517.4 484.5 165.8 0 0




Table 3.11.

Areas of the sea floor (m2) which are subject to influence by suspended matter of varying

concentrations during dredging when carrying out work concerned with guaranteeing stability of the pipeline (calculated on the basis of average plume volumes)

Operation Aqueous suspended matter concentration, mg/l*

≥ 10 ≥ 20 ≥ 50 ≥ 100 Calculation option 1 1 418 440 61 0 Calculation option 2 1 776 557 85 0 Calculation option 3 1 856 561 84 0 Calculation option 4 1 077 321 41 0 Calculation option 5 977 296 44 0 Calculation option 6 1 476 458 64 0 Calculation option 7 399 125 22 0 Calculation option 8 269 84 12 0 Calculation option 9 1 059 326 40 0

Table 3.12. provides specific distances for the diffusion of the suspended matter and the silting up of the bottom.

Table 3.12.

Specific distances (m) for the diffusion of the suspended matter and the silting up of the bottom

Option number 1 mg/l 10 mg/l 20 mg/l 50 mg/l 1 mm 5 mm 10 mm 50 mm

1 409 77 34 12 72,2 42,9 31,6 0 2 462 88 45 16 89,1 54,1 42,9 14,7 3 481 92 45 17 95,3 56,4 45,4 18,5 4 325 60 29 11 63,2 34,7 24 0 5 298 54 27 10 59,6 32,8 20,5 0 6 422 79 36 13 74,4 43,9 33,9 0 7 177 30 15 6 38,2 0 0 0 8 194 34 8 3 31,1 0 0 0 9 353 54 27 10 60,9 34,9 23,6 0

Figs. 3.1 - 3.9 provide contaminated water plumes for options 1 - 9 (see Table 2.1). Inasmuch as the amounts of post-trenching in these options are relatively small and the working time for each option does not exceed 12 hours, the calculations are performed at constant flow speeds described in Appendix 3.




Fig. 4.1. Contaminated water plumes (a, g/m3) and sediment thickness (b, mm) (option 1)




































3.2 Gravel-filled post trench for reducing buckling and vertical twisting after laying the pipeline (options 10 - 12)

In so far as the duration of the work in the options under consideration is significant, amounting to 8 days, the calculations were performed under variable velocity profiles. Any (vapour) plume forming during the work which is contaminated with suspended matter shall drift in accordance with the direction and speed of the currents. The principal results are given in Tables 3.13 - 4.17. The area of maximum concentration throughout the entire work period (maximum allowable concentrations) are given in fig. 3.10. This diagram allows an assessment to be made of the scale of diffusion of the suspended matter. In option 10 (fig. 10а), the distance from the point of the source of the suspended matter up to the location of isolines with a suspended matter concentration of 100 mg/l does not exceed 86 m, while distances of 391 m, 1,245 m and 2,305 m are not exceeded with concentrations of 50 mg/l, 20 mg/l and 10 mg/l respectively. In option 11 (fig. 10b), the distance from the point of the source of the suspended matter up to the location of isolines with a suspended matter concentration of 100 mg/l does not exceed 22 m, while distances of 67 m, 228 m and 727 m are not exceeded with concentrations of 50 mg/l, 20 mg/l and 10 mg/l respectively. In option 12 (fig. 10c), the distance from the point of the source of the suspended matter up to the location of isolines with a suspended matter concentration of 100 mg/l does not exceed 39 m, while distances of 172 m, 869 m and 1,547 m are not exceeded with concentrations of 50 mg/l, 20 mg/l and 10 mg/l respectively. The area of thickness of the sediments deposited from the suspended matter is given in fig. 3.11. In option 10 (fig. 11 а), the maximum distance from the centre of the support to the boundary of the area where the sediment is more than 100 mm thick does not exceed 4.8 m, while distances of 5.1 m, 27 m, 35 m, 47 m and 93 m are not exceeded where the sediment is more than 50 mm, 20 mm, 10 mm, 5 mm or 1 mm thick respectively. In option 11 (fig. 11 b), the maximum distance from the centre of the support to the boundary of the area where the sediment is more than 100 mm thick does not exceed 4.2 m, while distances of 4.9 m, 13 m, 25 m, 36 m and 85 m are not exceeded where the sediment is more than 50 mm, 20 mm, 10 mm, 5 mm or 1 mm thick respectively. In option 12 (fig. 11 c), the maximum distance from the centre of the support to the boundary of the area where the sediment is more than 100 mm thick does not exceed 3.8 m, while distances of 4.5 m, 15 m, 27 m, 35 m and 117 m are not exceeded where the sediment is more than 50 mm, 20 mm, 10 mm, 5 mm or 1 mm thick respectively.




Fig. 3.10. Area of maximum allowable concentration (mg/l) when carrying out work concerned with reducing buckling and vertical twisting of the pipeline




Fig. 3.11. Area of thickness of the deposited sediments (mm) when carrying out work concerned with reducing buckling and vertical twisting of the pipeline




Table 3.13.

Volumes (m3) and the period of occurrence (minutes, days) of volumes of water which are

contaminated with varying concentration levels of suspended matter when carrying out work concerned with reducing buckling and vertical twisting of the pipeline for option 10


≥ 10 ≥ 20 ≥ 50 ≥ 100 Volumes of water flowing through areas of suspended

matter plumes with concentrations in excess of

target levels, m3 (flow volumes)

16 889 812 6 582 805 913 880 77 944

Average flow time of the water through areas of suspended


target levels, minutes (Taverage)

80 34 6 0,8

Maximum values for the momentary extent of the plume

areas, m3 (maximum momentary volume)

367 513 127 059 33 633 9 384


volume)

105 324 28 025 3 287 294

Period of plume occurrence with concentrations in excess of

target levels, days (Toccurrence)

7,8 7,8 7,8 7,8




Table 3.14.







6 954 617 2 806 380 570 584 10 086



target levels, minutes (Taverage)

67 26 5 0,4



225 000 66 583 13 167 4 500


volume)

86 988 22 465 2 456 49



4,7 4,7 4,7 4,7




Table 3.15.







9 476 200 4 429 536 486 277 25 471



target levels, minutes (Тaverage)

91 34 4 0,4



371 351 126 697 25 223 5 577


volume)

104 087 25 540 1 977 100



6,3 6,3 6,3 6,3




Table 3.16.

Areas of the sea floor (m2) covered in a layer of sediment of varying thickness when the suspended matter separates out and when carrying out work concerned with reducing buckling and vertical

twisting of the pipeline

Technological operation Thickness of the layer of sediment, mm

≥ 1 ≥ 5 ≥ 10 ≥ 20 ≥ 50 ≥ 100 Option 10 42 390 21 721 14 131 6 828 4 661 4 026 Option 11 30 082 14 179 8 522 3 520 2 870 2 483 Option 12 42 552 18 999 11 840 5 090 4 215 3 608

Table 3.17.

Areas of the sea floor (m2) which are subject to influence by suspended matter of varying concentrations when carrying out work concerned with reducing buckling of the pipeline

(calculated using average plume volumes, average momentary volume)

Technological operation Aqueous suspended matter concentration, mg/l* > 10 > 20 > 50 > 100

Option 10 14 043 3 737 438 39 Option 11 11 598 2 995 328 6 Option 12 13 878 3 405 264 13

Table 3.18.

Maximum distances (m) for the diffusion of the suspended matter and the silting up of the bottom

Option number Concentration values Sediment thickness values

10 mg/l 20 mg/l 50 mg/l

100 mg/l

1 mm 5 mm 10 mm 10 mm 50 mm 100 mm

Option 10 2 305 1 245 391 86 93 47 35 27 5,1 4,8 Option 11 727 228 67 22 85 36 25 13 4,9 4,2 Option 12 1 547 869 172 39 117 35 27 15 4,5 3,8

4. CONCLUSIONS 328 post trenches with a total volume of 1 391 769 m3 or 2 129 407 tonnes will be realised during work involved with post-trenching soils for guaranteeing stability of the gas pipeline system. 42 588 tonnes of soil passes into the suspended state during the work process. Total backfilled area according to the design data with a thickness of 1 m and more directly on post-trenching areas is 131 870 m2. In addition, the sea floor will be backfilled with soil which has been suspended and settled to the bottom around the work area (Table 3.19). The total amount of "fresh" water flowing through the contaminated area up to a concentration of 10 mg/l is 37 474 047 m3. (see Table 3.20).




Maximum dispersion distances of the suspended matter when carrying out post-trenching work will be observed when performing large-scale post-trenching work during the fourth stage. At particular moments, concentrations of the suspended matter which has been added of 10 mg/l can be observed at distances of up to 2 km from the point of the source. The prevailing direction of the diffusion of the suspended matter is along the route of the pipelines inasmuch as it coincides with the prevailing direction of the currents in the region. Therefore, transverse to the route, the extent of diffusion of the isoline with a concentration of 10 mg/l does not exceed 300 - 500 m. The specific extent of the diffusion of the suspended matter in the area of Gogland island is shown in fig. 3.12. It follows from this that the waters in the northern part of this island will be exposed to the impact of concentrations right up to 5 - 10 mg/l.

Table 3.19. Sea floor areas (m2) covered in a layer of sediment of varying thickness when the suspended matter

separates out, when performing all types of work

Technological operation Thickness of the layer of sediment, mm

≥ 1 ≥ 5 ≥ 10 ≥ 50 ≥ 100 All operations 130 988 60 522 37 483 11 854 10 117

Table 3.20.

Volumes of water flowing through areas of suspended matter plumes with concentrations in excess

of target levels, m3

Aqueous suspended matter concentration, mg/l

≥ 10 ≥ 20 ≥ 50 ≥ 100 37 474 047 16 570 229 3 464 011 113 501




Fig. 3.12. Area of specific concentrations of the suspended matter in the area of Gogland island (а - far view, b - near view)




APPENDIX 1.

REFERENCE DATA ON BACKFILLING FOR DIFFERENT TYPES OF WORK

Table 1.

Gravel support fortification for ensuring static stability until the eastern pipelines are laid

Wor

k nu

mbe

r

KP

Len

gth

Wid

th

Hei

ght

Bea

ring

vol

ume

(m3)

Add

ition

al

volu

me

(m3)

Tot

al v

olum

e (m

3)

Typ

e of

ear

th

Eas

tern

co

ordi

nate

Nor

ther

n co

ordi

nate

UT

M [U

nive

rsal

T

rans

vers

e M

erca

tor]

zon

e

E001 15066 5 12 1.5 179.9 0 179.9 U3 C1 556600 6696730 Z35 E002 31705 5 12 2.4 549.2 0 549.2 U1_S3 547333 6683081 Z35 E003 39662 5 12 1.7 221.5 0 221.5 U3_C1 542666 6677297 Z35 E004 62632 5 12 2.0 308.8 476 784 U2_C2 522892 6667511 Z35 E005 62691 5 12 1.8 246.4 0 246 U2_C2 522833 6667514 Z35 E006 85205 5 12 1.6 127.1 0 127 U2_C2 500698 6665598 Z35 E007 85352 5 12 2.5 600.2 0 600 U1_S3 500555 6665632 Z35 E008 89366 5 12 3.0 969.9 0 970 U1_R 496590 6665624 Z35 E009 89411 5 12 3.5 2182 0 2182 U1_R 496549 6665606 Z35 E010 89481 5 12 4.7 1743.7 0 1744 U1_R 496485 6665576 Z35 E011 89584 5 12 2.5 609.8 0 610 U1_R 496393 6665531 Z35 E012 89771 5 12 4.0 1573.8 0 1574 U1_R 496230 6665439 Z35 E013 89849 5 12 3.5 1203.8 0 1204 U1_R 496164 6665398 Z35 E014 90077 5 12 3.3 995.1 0 995 U1_R 495976 6665269 Z35 E023 90225 5 12 3.0 854.9 0 855 U1_R 495854 6665184 Z35 E015 90277 5 12 2.5 596.5 0 597 U1_R 495811 6665154 Z35 E016 90390 5 12 1.0 116.3 0 116 U1_R 495719 6665090 Z35 E017 90917 5 12 3.9 1437.8 0 1438 U1_R 495286 6664789 Z35 E018 110088 5 12 4.2 1107.3 4918 6025 U2_C2 477661 6658173 Z35 E019 110248 5 12 4.0 1006.6 4628 5635 U2_C2 477502 6658153 Z35 E020 119756 5 12 4.8 2052.2 0 2052 U1_R 469155 6654179 Z35 E021 119786 5 12 3.0 930.9 0 931 U1_R 469125 6654172 Z35 E022 120341 6 12 2.0 363.9 652 1016 U2_C2 468587 6654040 Z35

TOTAL 19977.6 10673 30650.6




Table 2.

Gravel support fortification for ensuring static stability until the western pipelines are laid

Wor

k nu

mbe

r

KP L

engt

h

Wid

th

Hei

ght

Bea

ring

vol

ume

(m3)

Add

ition

al

volu

me

(m3)

Tot

al v

olum

e (m

3)

Typ

e of

ear

th

Eas

tern

co

ordi

nate

Nor

ther

n co

ordi

nate

UT

M [U

nive

rsal

T

rans

vers

e M

erca

tor]

zon

e

W001 31504 5 12 1.5 267 267 U1_S3 547269 6683143 Z35 W022 31601 5 12 2.0 396 396 U1_S3 547252 6683047 Z35 W023 38412 5 12 2.7 671 671 U1_S3 543531 6677866 Z35 W002 38545 5 12 2.7 714 714 U1_S3 543411 6677809 Z35 W003 39347 5 12 3.5 715 1626 2341 U3_C1 542687 6677463 Z35 W004 80792 5 12 6.6 4411 4411 U1_R 504601 6666534 Z35 W005 80909 5 12 1.0 95 95 U2_C2 504483 6666528 Z35 W006 89110 5 12 3.8 925 1117 2041 U2_C2 496548 6665669 Z35 W007 89297 5 12 6.4 4223 4223 U1_R 496375 6665596 Z35 W008 90518 5 12 3.6 1103 1103 U1_R 495326 6664978 Z35 W009 90645 5 12 4.7 1399 1209 2608 U2_C2 495220 6664906 Z35 W010 93972 5 12 3.4 1229 1229 U1_R 492221 6663517 Z35 W011 102045 5 12 1.5 241 241 U1_R 484726 6660856 Z35 W012 102100 5 12 2.4 564 564 U1_R 484679 6660827 Z35 W013 104620 5 12 1.8 295 222 U2_C2 482521 6659526 Z35 W014 104683 6 12 2.4 477 950 1427 U2_C2 482467 6659494 Z35 W015 109780 6 12 2.8 616 1437 2053 U2_C2 477610 6658239 Z35 W016 109892 5 12 2.4 538 538 U1_R 477498 6658225 Z35 W017 112609 5 12 1.4 186 186 U1_S3 474827 6657782 Z35 W018 113536 5 12 1.8 237 237 U2_C2 473973 6657419 Z35 W019 119327 5 12 4.7 2141 2141 U1_R 469227 6654252 Z35 W020 119453 5 12 4.0 1409 1409 U1_R 469104 6654222 Z35 W021 120327 5 12 2.2 349 622 971 U2_C2 468250 6654038 Z35

TOTAL 23200 6961 30088




Table 3.

Gravel-filled post trench for static stability after the eastern pipelines have been laid

Wor

k nu

mbe

r

KP L

engt

h

Wid

th

Cle

aran

ce

Hei

ght

Bea

ring

vol

ume

(m3)

Add

ition

al

volu

me

(m3)

Tot

al v

olum

e (m

3)

Typ

e of

ear

th

Eas

tern

co

ordi

nate

Nor

ther

n co

ordi

nate

UT

M [U

nive

rsal

T

rans

vers

e M

erca

tor]

zon

e

E004 62629 8 3 2.0 2.4 39.4 0 39.4 U2 C2 522895 6667511 Z35 E018 110088 15 3 4.2 4.6 78.5 0 78.5 U2 C2 477661 6658173 Z35 E019 110248 15 3 4.0 4.4 70.7 0 70.7 U2_C2 477502 6658153 Z35 E022 120338 9 3 2.0 2.4 16.2 0 16.2 U2 C2 468589 6654041 Z35 E347 14678 29 3 0.4 0.8 102 506 608 U3 C1 556769 6697078 Z35 E348 14988 24 3 1.2 1.6 269 680 949 U3 C1 556638 6696797 Z35 E349 15098 26 3 0.7 1.1 164 658 822 U3 C1 556584 6696701 Z35 E350 15533 5 3 1.9 2.3 164 0 164 U1 R 556338 6696343 Z35 E351 15783 5 3 0.5 0.9 28 0 28 U1_R 556174 6696154 Z35 E352 15893 5 3 0.4 0.8 26 0 26 U1 R 556097 6696076 Z35 E353 16375 5 3 0.6 1.0 37 0 37 U1 R 555748 6695743 Z35 E301 16475 5 3 1.2 1.6 117 0 117 U1_R 555676 6695674 Z35 E302 16735 5 3 1.0 1.4 91 0 91 U1 R 555487 6695495 Z35 E303 16957 15 3 1.3 1.7 204 675 880 U2 C2 555326 6695342 Z35 E354 18520 29 3 0.7 1.1 188 971 1159 U3 C1 554517 6694023 Z35 E355 20527 27 3 0.5 0.9 126 546 672 U3 C1 553512 6692312 Z35 E356 20717 5 3 0.3 0.7 22 0 22 U1_R 553373 6692183 Z35 E357 21117 5 3 0.6 1.0 37 0 37 U1 R 553080 6691911 Z35 E304 21205 5 3 1.1 1.5 110 0 110 U1 R 553016 6691851 Z35 E358 21230 5 3 0.7 1.1 42 0 42 U1_R 552997 6691834 Z35 E359 21557 5 3 0.3 0.7 20 0 20 U1_R 552757 6691611 Z35 E360 21677 5 3 1.5 1.9 116 0 116 U1_R 552669 6691530 Z35 E305 21810 5 3 3.2 3.6 433 2500 2933 U2_C2 552572 6691439 Z35 E361 31547 5 3 0.6 1.0 34 0 34 U1_S3 547377 6683232 Z35 E306 31790 5 3 0.8 1.2 68 0 68 U1_S3 547312 6682998 Z35 E362 32202 32 3 0.5 0.9 150 924 1074 U2_C2 547228 6682595 Z35 E307 32346 5 3 1.2 1.6 121 0 121 U1_S3 547206 6682452 Z35 E363 32524 5 3 0.9 1.3 54 0 54 U1_S3 547179 6682277 Z35 E308 32556 5 3 2.0 2.4 285 0 285 U1_S3 547174 6682245 Z35 E364 32831 5 3 0.2 0.6 15 0 15 U1_S3 547132 6681973 Z35 E365 32931 5 3 0.5 0.9 27 0 27 U1_S3 547117 6681874 Z35 E309 33021 5 3 1.8 2.2 231 0 231 U1_S3 547103 6681785 Z35 E366 33051 5 3 0.8 1.2 49 0 49 U1_S3 547099 6681755 Z35




W

ork

num

ber

KP

Len

gth

Wid

th

Cle

aran

ce

Hei

ght

Bea

ring

vol

ume

(m3)

Add

ition

al

volu

me

(m3)

Tot

al v

olum

e (m

3)

Typ

e of

ear

th

Eas

tern

co

ordi

nate

Nor

ther

n co

ordi

nate

UT

M [U

nive

rsal

T

rans

vers

e M

erca

tor]

zon

e

E367 33166 5 3 0.4 0.8 24 0 24 U1_S3 547081 6681642 Z35 E368 33309 5 3 0.4 0.8 23 0 23 U1_S3 547059 6681501 Z35 E369 34074 5 3 0.3 0.7 20 0 20 U1_R 546836 6680771 Z35 E370 38520 5 3 1.3 1.7 93 0 93 U1_S3 543682 6677821 Z35 E371 39075 5 3 0.2 0.6 16 0 16 U1_S3 543188 6677567 Z35 E372 39530 32 3 0.3 0.7 100 610 710 U2_C2 542784 6677358 Z35 E310 42976 11 3 2.0 2.4 303 1195 1498 U2-C2 540324 6675100 Z35 E311 43017 6 5 2.0 2.4 209 889 1098 U2-C2 540307 6675062 Z35 E312 43055 5 3 3.2 3.6 463 1490 1953 U2-C2 540290 6675028 Z35 E319 62364 19 3 1.4 1.8 265 1052 1317 U2-C2 523159 6667499 Z35 E320 81055 23 3 1.3 1.7 379 1602 1981 U3-C1 504696 6666267 Z35 E321 81092 12 3 2.9 3.3 560 1223 1783 U3_C1 504662 6666251 Z35 E322 81499 15 3 3.4 3.8 696 4606 5302 U2_C2 504298 6666069 Z35 E323 81670 15 3 1.5 1.9 211 572 783 U2-C2 504146 6665993 Z35 E324 86851 16 3 0.7 1.1 119 206 325 U2-C2 499075 6665827 Z35 E325 86951 23 3 0.9 1.3 177 816 994 U3-C1 498975 6665828 Z35 E326 88769 18 3 1.4 1.8 273 1033 1306 U3-C1 497161 6665797 Z35 E328 90540 5 3 2.0 2.4 273 0 273 U1_R 495596 6665005 Z35 E329 90800 5 3 2.0 2.4 299 0 299 U1_R 495382 6664856 Z35 E330 91165 15 3 1.5 1.9 248 551 799 U2-C2 495083 6664648 Z35 E331 91282 5 3 1.0 1.4 97 0 97 U1_R 494986 6664581 Z35 E332 91452 5 3 1.2 1.6 118 0 118 U1_R 494847 6664483 Z35 E333 92125 15 3 1.8 2.2 293 1045 1338 U2-C2 494295 6664099 Z35 E334 94169 15 3 2.2 2.6 393 942 1335 U2-C2 492535 6663083 Z35 E335 94297 15 3 1.6 2.0 237 1371 1608 U2-C2 492411 6663050 Z35 E336 100763 13 3 1.6 2.0 249 612 861 U2_C2 486134 6661640 Z35 E337 102271 28 3 0.6 1.0 152 350 502 U2-C2 484841 6660863 Z35 E338 106630 15 3 0.8 1.2 109 258 367 U2-C2 481079 6658670 Z35 E339 106732 20 3 0.8 1.2 153 347 501 U2-C2 480982 6658637 Z35 E340 113387 5 3 1.1 1.5 99 0 99 U1_S3 474610 6657134 Z35 E341 114409 14 3 1.1 1.5 132 362 495 U2-C2 473824 6656481 Z35




W

ork

num

ber

KP

Len

gth

Wid

th

Cle

aran

ce

Hei

ght

Bea

ring

vol

ume

(m3)

Add

ition

al

volu

me

(m3)

Tot

al v

olum

e (m

3)

Typ

e of

ear

th

Eas

tern

co

ordi

nate

Nor

ther

n co

ordi

nate

UT

M [U

nive

rsal

T

rans

vers

e M

erca

tor]

zone

E342 119704 5 3 4.7 5.1 1524 0 1524 U1_R 469205 6654192 Z35 E343 119964 5 3 1.4 1.8 148 0 148 U1_R 468953 6654128 Z35 E344 120446 10 3 2.6 3.0 403 999 1403 U2-C2 468484 6654020 Z35 E345 120556 26 3 0.8 1.2 177 402 580 U2-C2 468375 6654001 Z35 E346 120666 11 3 1.2 1.6 135 202 337 U2-C2 468267 6653985 Z35

TOTAL 12708 30196 42903




Table 3.

Gravel-filled post trench for static stability after the western pipelines have been laid

Wor

k nu

mbe

r

KP L

engt

h

Wid

th

Cle

aran

ce

Hei

ght

Bea

ring

vol

ume

(m3)

Add

ition

al

volu

me

(m3)

Tot

al v

olum

e (m

3)

Typ

e of

ear

th

Eas

tern

co

ordi

nate

Nor

ther

n co

ordi

nate

UT

M [U

nive

rsal

T

rans

vers

e M

erca

tor]

zon

e

W0003 39347.954 10 3 3.5 3.9 53.4 53 U3_C1 542687.182 6677462.903 Z35 W0006 89110.498 9 3 3.8 4.2 67.5 68 U2_C2 496547.702 6665668.813 Z35 W0009 90645.619 7 3 2.4 2.8 12.9 13 U2_C2 495220.146 6664905.935 Z35 W0014 104683.238 7 3 2.8 3.2 13.6 14 U2_C2 482467.311 6659493.575 Z35 W0015 109780.204 9 3 2.2 2.6 18.9 19 U2_C2 477609.583 6658238.652 Z35 W342 9124.553 30 3 0.4 0.8 123 675 798 U3_C1 557152.205 6702499.569 Z35 W343 9434.553 31 3 0.3 0.7 93 517 610 U3_C1 556986.234 6702237.905 Z35 W301 14992.241 14 3 1.8 2.2 246 555 801 U3_C1 556107.372 6696789.680 Z35 W344 15177.241 5 3 0.7 1.1 39 39 U1_R 556030.173 6696621.590 Z35 W341 15627.241 5 3 0.8 1.2 66 66 U1_R 555800.428 6696235.147 Z35 W354 15722.241 5 3 0.6 1.0 33 33 U1_R 555744.676 6696158.232 Z35 W302 20611.242 5 3 1.4 1.8 148 148 U1_R 553058.788 6692154.818 Z35 W355 20751.242 5 3 0.5 0.9 30 30 U1_R 552964.069 6692051.724 Z35 W303 20881.242 5 3 2.8 3.2 597 597 U1_R 552876.116 6691955.994 Z35 W304 21048.742 5 3 1.4 1.8 143 143 U1_R 552762.791 6691832.650 Z35 W305 21088.742 5 3 1.0 1.4 86 86 U1_R 552735.729 6691803.195 Z35 W306 21161.242 9 3 2.0 2.4 252 576 827 U2_C2 552686.678 6691749.807 Z35 W345 21271.242 5 3 0.3 0.7 18 18 U1_R 552612.256 6691668.805 Z35 W307 21466.242 11 3 2.3 2.7 354 1108 1462 U3_C1 552480.326 6691525.210 Z35 W346 31181.895 5 3 0.2 0.6 15 15 U1_S3 547323.945 6683458.482 Z35 W347 31439.382 5 3 0.9 1.3 57 57 U1_S3 547280.185 6683207.265 Z35 W308 31646.882 5 3 1.0 1.4 95 95 U1_S3 547244.576 6683002.843 Z35 W309 32039.382 19 3 1.5 1.9 309 988 1297 U2_C2 547177.220 6682616.165 Z35 W356 32204.382 5 3 1.3 1.7 90 90 U1_S3 547148.904 6682453.613 Z35 W348 32349.382 5 3 0.5 0.9 27 27 U1_S3 547124.021 6682310.764 Z35 W310 32411.882 5 3 1.1 1.5 100 100 U1_S3 547113.296 6682249.191 Z35 W349 32496.882 5 3 0.7 1.1 44 44 U1_S3 547098.709 6682165.452 Z35 W350 32809.382 5 3 0.6 1.0 33 33 U1_S3 547045.081 6681857.588 Z35




W

ork

num

ber

KP

Len

gth

Wid

th

Cle

aran

ce

Hei

ght

Bea

ring

vol

ume

(m3)

Add

ition

al

volu

me

(m3)

Tot

al v

olum

e (m

3)

Typ

e of

ear

th

Eas

tern

co

ordi

nate

Nor

ther

n co

ordi

nate

UT

M [U

nive

rsal

T

rans

vers

e M

erca

tor]

zon

e

W351 32944.382 5 3 0.4 0.8 25 25 U1_S3 547021.914 6681724.591 Z35 W352 33638.920 31 3 0.1 0.5 70 393 463 U2_C2 546858.044 6681050.855 Z35 W339 38202.954 5 3 0.7 1.1 59 59 U1_S3 543720.095 6677956.983 Z35 W311 39252.954 16 3 1.4 1.8 234 1137 1370 U2_C2 542772.882 6677503.897 Z35 W312 42879.408 5 3 2.7 3.1 484 484 U1_S3 539924.636 6675361.386 Z35 W340 42929.408 5 3 2.1 2.5 326 326 U1_S3 539897.946 6675319.106 Z35 W353 43374.408 27 3 0.8 1.2 199 858 1057 U3_C1 539660.400 6674942.812 Z35 W313 62353.085 18 3 0.9 1.3 157 448 605 U2_C2 522843.145 6667568.909 Z35 W314 80749.610 28 3 2.3 2.7 978 3930 4908 U3_C1 504642.996 6666536.451 Z35 W315 85131.550 22 3 0.7 1.1 137 328 465 U2_C2 500313.278 6666942.748 Z35 W316 85554.050 15 3 0.7 1.1 101 238 340 U2_C2 499900.376 6666854.861 Z35 W317 86244.745 5 3 1.9 2.3 272 272 U1_S3 499247.592 6666629.446 Z35 W318 88519.745 18 3 0.8 1.2 132 363 495 U2_C2 497103.107 6665869.969 Z35 W319 89150.498 5 3 3.4 3.8 865 865 U1_R 496510.635 6665653.777 Z35 W320 89347.998 5 3 3.6 4.0 1000 1000 U1_R 496329.447 6665575.216 Z35 W321 89935.498 5 3 1.8 2.2 236 236 U1_R 495810.718 6665300.116 Z35 W322 90320.619 5 3 1.9 2.3 254 254 U1_R 495488.766 6665088.878 Z35 W323 90415.619 5 3 1.2 1.6 110 110 U1_R 495410.246 6665035.403 Z35 W324 91115.619 5 3 1.1 1.5 115 115 U1_R 494831.680 6664641.370 Z35 W325 91151.496 18 3 1.7 2.1 330 960 1290 U2_C2 494802.027 6664621.176 Z35 W326 91288.996 5 3 1.6 2.0 200 200 U1_R 494686.584 6664546.504 Z35 W327 93315.735 5 3 0.7 1.1 56 56 U1_R 492799.161 6663829.083 Z35 W328 93884.954 5 3 3.8 4.2 1094 1094 U1_R 492298.414 6663558.413 Z35 W329 94014.954 5 3 1.8 2.2 273 273 U1_R 492184.058 6663496.584 Z35 W330 98384.704 21 3 0.6 1.0 109 280 389 U2_C2 488078.732 6662157.876 Z35 W331 98477.204 22 3 1.7 2.1 396 789 1185 U2_C2 487986.649 6662149.098 Z35 W332 106314.175 23 3 0.8 1.2 150 344 494 U2_C2 481039.007 6658713.567 Z35 W333 112756.590 5 3 2.3 2.7 247 897 1144 U2_C2 474691.351 6657724.169 Z35 W334 113716.590 37 3 0.6 1.0 150 386 536 U2_C2 473807.794 6657348.767 Z35 W335 113816.590 5 3 0.6 1.0 51 51 U1_S3 473715.757 6657309.662 Z35 W336 119563.903 5 3 2.1 2.5 306 306 U1_R 468997.184 6654194.711 Z35




Table 5.

Gravel-filled post trench for dynamic stability after the eastern pipelines have been laid

Wor

k nu

mbe

r

KP

Len

gth

Wid

th

Cle

aran

ce

Hei

ght

Bea

ring

vol

ume

(m3)

Add

ition

al

volu

me

(m3)

Tot

al v

olum

e (m

3)

Typ

e of

ear

th

Eas

tern

co

ordi

nate

Nor

ther

n co

ordi

nate

[Uni

vers

al

Tra

nsve

rse

W337 119628.903 5 3 2.8 3.2 247 834 1081 U2_C2 468934.143 6654178.874 Z35 W338 120228.299 16 3 1.1 1.5 178 478 656 U2_C2 468348.684 6654051.893 Z35

TOTAL 12701 7082 29783

Wor

k nu

mbe

r

KP

Len

gth

Wid

th

Cle

aran

ce

Hei

ght

Bea

ring

vo

lum

e (m

3)

Add

ition

al

volu

me

(m3)

Tot

al v

olum

e (m

3)

Typ

e of

ear

th

Eas

tern

co

ordi

nate

Nor

ther

n co

ordi

nate

[Uni

vers

al

Tra

nsve

rse

Mer

cato

r]

E615 4760 5 3 0.2 0.6 17 0 17 U1_S3 559641 6706010 Z35 E616 4813 5 3 0.4 0.8 22 0 22 U1_S3 559632 6705958 Z35 E617 9068 21 3 0.3 0.7 67 120 187 U3_C1 557250 6702528 Z35 E618 9658 21 3 0.5 0.9 91 122 213 U3_C1 556959 6702015 Z35 E619 15443 23 3 0.3 0.7 82 419 501 U3_C1 556393 6696414 Z35 E620 18017 5 3 0.1 0.5 13 0 13 U3_C1 554709 6694488 Z35 E621 21452 5 3 0.5 0.9 31 0 31 U1_R 552834 6691683 Z35 E622 31627 5 3 0.4 0.8 25 0 25 U1_S3 547354 6683155 Z35 E623 31882 5 3 0.6 1.0 33 0 33 U1_S3 547290 6682908 Z35 E624 32261 5 3 0.7 1.1 43 0 43 U1_S3 547219 6682536 Z35 E625 33236 5 3 0.1 0.5 12 0 12 U1_S3 547071 6681573 Z35 E626 38820 5 3 1.2 1.6 85 0 85 U1_S3 543415 6677684 Z35 E627 38985 5 3 0.8 1.2 46 0 46 U1_S3 543268 6677608 Z35 E628 39415 20 3 0.5 0.9 89 47 136 U2_C2 542886 6677411 Z35 E601 60827 5 3 0.7 3.1 316 0 316 U1_R 524695 6667426 Z35 E602 62559 5 3 0.9 3.3 369 0 369 U1_R 522965 6667508 Z35 E603 85297 5 3 0.9 3.3 377 0 377 U1_S3 500608 6665620 Z35 E604 85652 5 3 0.9 1.3 52 0 52 U1_S3 500263 6665702 Z35 E605 85956 5 3 0.5 0.9 32 0 32 U1_S3 499966 6665769 Z35 E606 89886 5 3 1.2 1.6 77 0 77 U1_R 496133 6665377 Z35




Table 6.

Gravel-filled post trench for dynamic stability after the western pipelines have been laid

Wor

k nu

mbe

r

KP

Len

gth

Wid

th

Cle

aran

ce

Hei

ght

Bea

ring

vol

ume

(m3)

Add

ition

al

volu

me

(m3)

Tot

al v

olum

e (m

3)

Typ

e of

ear

th

Eas

tern

co

ordi

nate

Nor

ther

n co

ordi

nate

UT

M [U

nive

rsal

T

rans

vers

e M

erca

tor]

zon

e

E607 91047 5 3 3.8 6.2 1679 0 1679 U1_R 495179 6664715 Z35 E608 101324 5 3 0.8 3.2 357 0 357 U1_R 485653 6661352 Z35 E609 104709 5 3 0.3 0.7 20 0 20 U1_R 482753 6659606 Z35 E610 105294 5 3 0.4 2.8 255 0 255 U1_S3 482252 6659304 Z35 E611 109780 22 3 0.7 1.1 133 333 466 U2_C2 477966 6658211 Z35 E612 110158 5 3 0.2 2.6 223 0 223 U1_R 477592 6658164 Z35 E613 112929 23 3 0.7 1.1 137 431 567 U3_C1 474965 6657424 Z35 E614 119811 5 3 2.1 4.4 749 0 749 U1_R 469101 6654166 Z35

Wor

k nu

mbe

r

KP

Len

gth

Wid

th

Cle

aran

ce

Hei

ght

Bea

ring

vol

ume

(m3)

Add

ition

al

volu

me

(m3)

Tot

al v

olum

e (m

3 )

Typ

e of

ear

th

Eas

tern

co

ordi

nate

Nor

ther

n co

ordi

nate

UT

M [U

nive

rsal

T

rans

vers

e M

erca

tor]

zon

e

W614 15544 5 3 0.2 0.6 15 0 15 U1 R 555847 6696303 Z35 W615 31171 5 3 0.1 0.5 13 0 13 U1_S3 547326 6683471 Z35 W616 31776 5 3 0.8 1.2 46 0 46 U1_S3 547222 6682875 Z35 W617 33133 5 3 0.1 0.5 11 0 11 U1_S3 546989 6681538 Z35 W618 33968 5 3 0.5 0.9 31 0 31 U1_R 546729 6680747 Z35 W601 86077 5 3 1.7 2.1 217 0 217 U1_S3 499405 6666685 Z35 W602 89212 5 3 0.6 3.0 431 0 431 U1_R 496453 6665630 Z35 W603 89830 5 3 1.2 1.6 234 0 234 U1_R 495901 6665354 Z35 W604 90165 5 3 0.8 1.2 193 0 193 U1_R 495617 6665176 Z35 W605 90563 5 3 0.7 3.1 328 0 328 U1_R 495288 6664952 Z35 W606 90950 5 3 1.4 1.8 274 0 274 U1_R 494968 6664734 Z35 W607 91726 22 3 1.3 1.7 282 668 949 U2_C2 494299 6664345 Z35 W608 93255 5 3 0.7 3.0 312 0 312 U1_R 492852 6663857 Z35




W

ork

num

ber

KP

Len

gth

Wid

th

Cle

aran

ce

Hei

ght

Bea

ring

vol

ume

(m3)

Add

ition

al

volu

me

(m3)

Tot

al v

olum

e (m

3)

Typ

e of

ear

th

Eas

tern

co

ordi

nate

Nor

ther

n co

ordi

nate

[Uni

vers

al

Tra

nsve

rse

W609 102135 5 3 0.8 1.2 153 0 153 U1 R 484649 6660809 Z35 W610 104935 5 3 0.4 0.8 89 0 89 U1_S3 482251 6659363 Z35 W611 105580 5 3 0.6 1.0 147 0 147 U1_S3 481699 6659030 Z35 W612 114326 5 3 0.6 3.0 431 0 431 U1 R 473246 6657110 Z35 W613 119426 5 3 3.1 5.5 1286 0 1286 U1 R 469131 6654228 Z35

TOTAL 4375 668 5043

Table 7.

Gravel-filled post trench for reducing buckling and vertical twisting after the eastern pipelines have been laid

Wor

k nu

mbe

r

From

the

cont

rol

poin

t

Eas

t Z35

Nor

th Z

35

As

far

as th

e co

ntro

l po

int

Eas

t Z35

Nor

th Z

35

Typ

e of

ear

th

Wid

th a

t the

top

Len

gth

Incl

ine

Hei

ght

Vol

ume

(m) (m) (m) (m) (m) (m) (m) (m) (m) (m3) E Lat 1 2003 55956 0 670873 2 3093 55975 3 670766 1 sand 2.7 109 3 1:3 1.0 2520 4 E_up_1 4200 55970 6 670655 7 4699 55962 9 670606 3 sand 3.0 500 1:2 1.0 9046 E Lat 2 5044 55956 2 670572 6 6114 55915 2 670474 2 clay 2.7 106 7 1:4 1.0 3062 9 E Lat 3 7986 55791 7 670334 1 9014 55721 7 670258 8 clay 2.7 102 8 1:4 1.0 2950 8 E_up_2 9201 55710 8 670243 6 9301 55705 4 670235 2 clay 3.0 100 1:4 1.0 2833 E_up_3 9501 55695 4 670217 9 9621 55689 9 670207 2 clay 3.0 120 1:4 1.0 3371 E Lat 4 10499 55663 7 6701238 11498 55654 5 670024 3 clay 2.7 100 0 1:4 1.0 2871 2 E Lat 5 13611 55636 8 669813 8 14592 55623 8 669716 7 clay 2.7 980 1:4 1.0 2814 3 E_up_4 14712 55620 4 669705 2 15152 55604 1 669664 4 clay/rock 3.0 440 1:4 1.0 1743 3 E_up_5 15502 55587 0 669633 9 15902 55563 2 669601 8 rock 3.0 400 1:2 1.0 9223 E_up_6 16002 55556 7 669594 2 16201 55542 8 669579 9 rock/clay 3.0 200 1:4 1.0 6087







Wor

k nu

mbe

r

From

the

cont

rol

poin

t

Eas

t Z35

Nor

th Z

35

As

far

as th

e co

ntro

l poi

nt

Eas

t Z35

Nor

th Z

35

Typ

e of

ear

th

Wid

th a

t the

top

Len

gth

Incl

ine

Hei

ght

Vol

ume

(m) (m) (m) (m) (m) (m) (m) (m) (m) (m3) E_up_7 16326 55533 9 669571 1 16951 55492 7 669524 3 clay/rock 3.0 625 1:4 1.0 2568 7 E Lat 6 17041 55487 6 669516 9 17961 55448 9 669433 8 clay 2.7 920 1:4 1.0 2643 7 E_up_8 18102 55445 0 669420 2 18552 55430 7 669377 6 clay 3.0 450 1:4 1.0 1467 9 E Lat 7 19349 55390 5 669309 0 20251 55330 2 669242 0 clay 2.7 903 1:4 1.0 2596 5 E_up_9 20601 55306 6 669216 2 20751 55296 4 669205 2 rock 3.0 150 1:2 1.0 3301 E up 10 21061 55275 4 669182 3 21231 55263 9 669169 8 rock 3.0 170 1:2 1.0 4489 E up 11 21516 55244 6 669148 8 21751 55228 8 669131 5 rock 3.0 235 1:2 1.0 6132 E up 12 21801 55225 4 669127 9 22051 55208 5 669109 4 rock/clay 3.0 250 1:4 1.0 9672 E Lat 8 22561 55173 9 669071 9 23440 55116 5 669005 4 clay 2.7 880 1:4 1.0 2530 0 E Lat 9 24565 55050 0 668914 6 25433 54998 8 668844 6 clay 2.7 867 1:4 1.0 2493 6 E Lat 10 28265 54831 6 668616 0 29132 54784 7 668543 2 clay 2.7 867 1:4 1.0 2493 6 E up 13 30461 54744 8 668417 0 30571 54742 9 668406 2 clay 3.0 110 1:4 1.0 2968 E up 14 31651 54724 4 668299 8 31851 54720 9 668280 1 sand 3.0 200 1:2 1.0 6948 E up 15 32001 54718 4 668265 3 32121 54716 3 668253 5 sand 3.0 120 1:2 1.0 2760 E Lat 11 32304 54713 2 668235 5 33096 54699 6 668157 4 sand 2.7 793 1:3 1.0 1833 4 E up 16 34086 54667 6 668064 3 34226 54661 2 668051 8 rock/clay 3.0 140 1:4 1.0 5013 E up 17 36351 54534 2 667884 0 36476 54524 2 667876 4 clay 3.0 125 1:4 1.0 3701 E Lat 12 37019 54478 5 667847 3 37782 54409 9 667813 8 clay 2.7 764 1:4 1.0 2200 7 E up 18 38480 54347 0 667783 7 38540 54341 6 667781 1 sand 3.0 60 1:2 1.0 1791 E up 19 38585 54337 5 667779 2 38720 54325 3 667773 4 sand 3.0 135 1:2 2.0 6834 E up 20 38850 54313 6 667767 8 38950 54304 6 667763 4 sand 3.0 100 1:2 1.0 2043




W

ork

num

ber

From

the

cont

rol p

oint

Eas

t Z35

Nor

th Z

35

As

far

as th

e co

ntro

l poi

nt

Eas

t Z35

Nor

th Z

35

Typ

e of

ear

th

Wid

th a

t the

to

p L

engt

h

Incl

ine

Hei

ght

Vol

ume

(m) (m) (m) (m) (m) (m) (m) (m) (m) (m3) E up 21

39500 54255 0

667739 7

39640 54242 3

667733 7

sand 3.0 142 1:2 1.0 5247

E Lat 13

41183 54108 4

667657 1

41917 54050 3

667612 7

clay 2.7 735 1:4 1.0 2117 4

E up 22

42142 54034 8

667596 3

42182 54032 2

667593 3

clay 3.0 40 1:4 1.0 1630

E up 23

42701 54001 9

667551 1

42871 53992 9

667536 8

clay 3.0 170 1:4 1.0 5264

E up 24

43101 53980 6

667517 3

43201 53975 2

667508 9

clay 3.0 100 1:4 1.0 2897

E up 25

43361 53966 7

667495 3

43601 53953 9

667475 0

clay/sand 3.0 240 1:4 1.0 7483

E up 26

43641 53951 8

667471 7

43840 53941 1

667454 8

clay 3.0 200 1:4 1.0 5687

E Lat 14

46695 53714 8

667287 0

47405 53652 8

667252 5

clay 2.7 709 1:4 1.0 2044 0

E Lat 15

52357 53221 5

667009 1

53040 53162 9

666974 2

clay 2.7 683 1:4 1.0 1969 8

E up 27

56005 52907 1

666824 1

56403 52871 1

666807 2

clay 2.7 398 1:4 1.0 1158 0

E up 28

56805 52833 8

666792 2

57005 52814 9

666785 6

clay 2.7 200 1:4 1.0 5964

E Lat 16

58420 52677 2

666754 2

59078 52611 7

666749 3

clay 2.7 657 1:4 1.0 1895 9

E up 29

60377 52481 7

666751 6

60577 52461 8

666752 2

clay 2.7 200 1:4 1.0 5964

E up 30

60877 52431 8

666753 0

61097 52409 8

666753 6

clay 2.7 220 1:4 1.0 6533

E up 31

61952 52324 3

666755 8

62247 52294 8

666756 6

clay 2.7 295 1:4 1.0 8665

E up 32

62804 52239 1

666757 4

63007 52218 9

666756 4

clay 2.7 203 1:4 1.0 6035

E Lat 17

64966 52025 6

666725 2

65601 51963 1

666714 2

clay 2.7 635 1:4 1.0 1832 8

E Lat 18

72001 51328 6

666657 1

72616 51268 5

666669 9

clay 2.7 614 1:4 1.0 1773 3

E Lat 19

79417 50597 4

666660 7

79927 50546 4

666658 0

clay/rock 2.7 509 1:4 1.0 1145 5

E up 33

11907 4

46946 8

665432 6

11952 3

46903 6

665420 4

clay/rock 2.8 450 1:4 1.0 1356 4

Total volume

66842 4




W

ork

num

ber

From

the

cont

rol p

oint

Eas

t Z35

Nor

th Z

35

As

far

as th

e co

ntro

l poi

nt

Eas

t Z35

Nor

th Z

35

Typ

e of

ea

rth

Wid

th a

t the

to

p

Len

gth

Incl

ine

Hei

ght

Vol

ume

(m) (m) (m) (m) (m) (m) (m) (m) (-) (m) (m3) Volume

(m3)

Table 8.

Gravel-filled post trench for reducing buckling and vertical twisting after the western pipelines

have been laid

Wor

k nu

mbe

r

From

the

cont

rol

poin

t

Eas

t Z35

Nor

th Z

35

As

far

as th

e co

ntro

l poi

nt

Eas

t Z35

Nor

th Z

35

Typ

e of

ear

th

Wid

th a

t the

top

Len

gth

Incl

ine

Hei

ght

Vol

ume

(m) (m) (m) (m) (m) (m) (m) (m) (m) (m3) W_Lat_1 2003 559579 6708738 3096 559773 6707665 sand 2.7 1093 1:3 1.0 25204 W_up_1 4166 559733 6706597 4700 559650 6706069 sand 3.0 535 1:2 1.0 9635 W_Lat_2 5048 559588 6705727 6118 559195 6704737 clay 2.7 1067 1:4 1.0 30629 W_up_2 6858 558757 6704142 7006 558655 6704034 clay 3.0 150 1:4 1.0 4262 W_Lat_3 7844 558073 6703432 8870 557369 6702685 clay 2.7 1028 1:4 1.0 29508 W_up_3 8873 557367 6702683 9278 557135 6702352 clay 3.0 405 1:4 1.0 12063 W_up_4 9458 557046 6702195 9558 557001 6702106 clay 3.0 100 1:4 1.0 2944 W_Lat_4 10715 556708 6700994 11698 556780 6700015 clay 2.7 983 1:4 1.0 28223 W_Lat_5 13026 556955 6698699 13986 556956 6697743 clay 2.7 960 1:4 1.0 27575 W_up_5 14006 556952 6697723 14206 556913 6697527 clay 3.0 200 1:4 1.0 5766 W_up_6 14956 556653 6696826 15016 556624 6696773 clay/rock 3.0 60 1:4 1.0 3126 W_up_7 15076 556595 6696721 15406 556416 6696444 rock 3.0 330 1:2 1.0 7690 W_up_8 15556 556324 6696325 15706 556227 6696211 rock 3.0 150 1:2 1.0 3566 W_up_9 16258 555833 6695824 16508 555652 6695652 clay 3.0 250 1:4 1.0 7201 W_Lat_6 16645 555552 6695557 17565 554935 6694879 clay 2.7 920 1:4 1.0 26437 W_Lat_7 19155 554284 6693432 20059 553833 6692654 clay 2.7 903 1:4 1.0 25965 W_up_10 20356 553635 6692431 20507 553527 6692326 rock 3.0 150 1:2 1.0 2874 W_up_11 20592 553464 6692268 20692 553391 6692200 rock 3.0 100 1:2 1.0 3122 W_up_12 20807 553307 6692122 21207 553014 6691850 rock 3.0 400 1:2 1.0 13340 W_up_13 21207 553014 6691850 21407 552867 6691713 rock 3.0 200 1:2 2.0 7481




W

ork

num

ber

From

the

cont

rol p

oint

Eas

t Z35

Nor

th Z

35

As

far

as th

e co

ntro

l poi

nt

Eas

t Z35

Nor

th Z

35

Typ

e of

ear

th

Wid

th a

t the

to

p

Len

gth

Incl

ine

Hei

ght

Vol

ume

(m) (m) (m) (m) (m) (m) (m) (m) (m) (m3) W_up_14 21447 552838 6691686 21607 552721 6691577 clay 3.0 160 1:4 1.0 7558 W_Lat_8 21665 552678 6691538 22545 552109 6690870 clay 2.7 880 1:4 1.0 25300 W_Lat_9 25573 550459 6688333 26440 549986 6687605 clay 2.7 867 1:4 1.0 24936 W_up_15 26703 549843 6687385 26903 549734 6687218 clay 3.0 200 1:4 1.0 5736 W_Lat_10 28190 549032 6686138 29023 548578 6685440 clay 2.7 832 1:4 1.0 23941 W_up_16 31207 547486 6683554 31447 547407 6683327 clay 3.0 240 1:4 1.0 7566 W_up_17 31447 547407 6683327 31687 547338 6683098 sand 3.0 240 1:2 2.0 12823 W_up_18 32007 547264 6682786 32157 547236 6682639 sand 3.0 150 1:2 1.0 4640 W_up_19 32257 547219 6682540 32306 547212 6682492 sand 3.0 50 1:2 1.0 1082 W_Lat_11 32309 547212 6682489 33104 547091 6681704 sand 2.7 793 1:3 1.0 18334 W_up_20 33852 546920 6680977 33952 546884 6680884 rock 3.0 100 1:2 1.0 2239 W_up_21 36036 545776 6679130 36281 545599 6678961 clay 3.0 245 1:4 1.0 7518 W_up_22 36881 545126 6678593 37006 545021 6678526 clay 3.0 125 1:4 1.0 3889 W_Lat_12 37024 545006 6678516 37787 544333 6678157 clay 2.7 764 1:4 1.0 22007 W_up_23 38157 544004 6677987 38207 543959 6677964 sand 3.0 50 1:2 1.0 1109 W_up_24 38317 543862 6677914 38607 543604 6677781 sand 3.0 290 1:2 1.0 11590 W_up_25 38957 543293 6677621 39107 543160 6677552 sand 3.0 150 1:2 1.0 3123 W_up_26 39207 543071 6677506 39407 542893 6677414 sand/clay 3.0 200 1:4 1.0 13771 W_Lat_13 41740 540945 6676162 42475 540539 6675552 clay 2.7 735 1:4 1.0 21174 W_up_27 42981 540322 6675095 43107 540267 6674981 clay 3.0 125 1:4 1.0 3823 W_up_28 43257 540195 6674850 43447 540095 6674688 rock/clay 3.0 190 1:4 1.0 7403 W_up_29 43542 540041 6674610 43662 539970 6674513 clay 3.0 120 1:4 1.0 3493 W_up_30 43907 539812 6674326 44007 539744 6674253 clay 3.0 100 1:4 1.0 2932 W_up_31 44337 539501 6674030 44437 539423 6673968 clay 3.0 100 1:4 1.0 2860 W_Lat_14 47152 537051 6672651 47859 536428 6672316 clay 2.7 709 1:4 1.0 20440 W_Lat_15 52766 532134 6669944 53448 531551 6669590 clay 2.7 683 1:4 1.0 19698 W_up_32 56018 529351 6668261 56631 528804 6667987 clay 2.8 613 1:4 1.0 18356 W_Lat_16 58528 526989 6667454 59186 526335 6667386 clay 2.7 657 1:4 1.0 18959 W_up_33 60174 525347 6667396 60712 524810 6667421 clay/sand 2.8 537 1:4 1.0 16130 W_Lat_17 64974 520574 6667225 65606 519952 6667112 clay 2.7 635 1:4 1.0 18328




Wor

k nu

mbe

r

From

the

cont

rol p

oint

Eas

t Z35

Nor

th Z

35

As

far

as th

e co

ntro

l poi

nt

Eas

t Z35

Nor

th Z

35

Typ

e of

ea

rth

Wid

th a

t the

to

p L

engt

h

Incl

ine

Hei

ght

Vol

ume

(m) (m) (m) (m) (m) (m) (m) (m) (m) (m3) W_Lat_18 72007 513607 6666461 72620 512996 6666509 clay 2.7 614 1:4 1.0 17733 W_Lat_19 79424 506286 6666566 79932 505778 6666540 clay 2.7 509 1:4 1.0 14742 W_up_34 88611 497316 6665822 88891 497041 6665771 clay 2.8 280 1:4 1.0 8550 W_up_35 118744 470136 6654430 119194 469700 6654318 clay/rock 2.8 450 1:4 1.0 13564

Total Volume

(m3)

681959




APPENDIX 2. SOIL CHARACTERISTICS

Soil characteristics which are necessary for modelling the diffusion of the suspended matter and the silting up of the bottom are given in Table 1. (Environmental engineering surveys, Part 1. Ist STAGE, Book 5. Section 1. Exclusive economic zone and Russian territorial waters, Peter Gaz. Document 6545-10-0-environmental engineering surveys-0501-С1). Sampling point locations are shown in fig. 1. Table 2 provides aggregate data on soils. It follows from this table that sands are encountered in the coastal area (G1, G11-G12), sludges in the transition area and clays far out.

Fig. 1. Location of soil sampling points (G1, G2, … G10)




Table 2.2.4.1

Table 1. Granulometric composition (%) of the soils

Number of stations

>10 10-5 5-2 2-1 1-0.5 0.5-0.25 0.25-0.1 0.1-0.05 (<0.1) 0.05-0.01 0.01-0.002 <0.002

G1 0.8 5.5 31.8 12.5 2.7 2.0 33.7 11.0 G11 6.0 3.8 6.3 2.5 2.2 11.5 62.7 5.0 G12 1.3 1.5 7.0 7.3 10.5 13.5 55.7 3.2 G13 1.5 2.2 3.3 4.4 3.0 52.6 24.5 4.5 2.0 2.0 G14 1.0 1.3 1.8 8.0 47.0 38.4 2.5 G15 1.0 1.0 1.5 1.0 1.2 56.5 31.7 0.8 2.7 2.6 G2 0.7 3.5 3.2 5.7 36.2 30.5 14.2 6.0 G17 1.2 7.0 7.7 29.5 18.8 15.0 16.8 4.0 G3 0.5 0.5 2.8 10.5 21.5 44.0 20.2 G4 1.0 4.4 15.0 16.8 12.5 35.5 14.8 G5 1.5 6.5 13.3 18.0 14.8 30.4 15.5 G18 1.8 5.3 12.8 15.0 8.0 40.5 16.6 G6 0.3 0.3 1.5 9.7 19.0 48.5 20.7 G7 0.5 4.2 12.5 19.3 17.3 30.0 16.2 G8 3.0 3.5 8.5 27.0 21.5 28.0 8.5 G9 0.4 3.4 9.5 7.0 12.7 5.0 3.8 20.5 37.7 G16 0.5 6.0 8.5 32.0 15.5 10.8 23.0 3.7 G10 1.0 6.0 13.7 15.5 14.0 34.0 15.8 G19 0.3 0.6 0.6 2.5 1.5 63.0 16.5 4.3 6.0 4.7




Fig. 2. Sands in the coastal section (G1, G11-G12)

Fig. 3. Types of silt in the transitional region (G2, G8)




Fig. 4. Types of clay (G3, G4, G5, G6, G7, G9-G10)




APPENDIX 3.

CHARACTERISTICS OF HYDRODYNAMIC PROCESSES

Results of observations and calculations. An analysis of the recurrence interval of the speed and direction of the overall flow was carried out in accordance with data from the report entitled "Hydrodynamic and probabilistic modelling, the formation of a data file containing hydrometeorological calculation data pertaining to the route of the North European gas pipeline (Baltic Sea) and the preparation of recommendations on future hydrometeorological engineering research, 2005". A particular aspect of this report was the performance of statistical processing concerning the observations relating to the currents. Series of observations carried out at a distance not exceeding 20 miles from the route amount to 605. However, the majority of these observations were conducted in the coastal areas. Consequently, for statistical analysis purposes, only those stations of sufficient duration were selected where measurements were carried out at distances not exceeding 2.5 miles from the route. In total, 29 series of observations were picked out in connection with the currents in the various water lines situated closest to the route taken by the pipeline relating to points 8, 9, 10, 12, 18 and 22. For calculation of the diffusion of suspended matter during post-trenching work, points of focus are located in the Gulf of Finland within the works area. Points 8 and 9 of fig. 1 included in them.

Table 1.

The location of calculation and observation points in connection with the currents

Point number Eastern longitude Northern latitude Depth 3 28.05464 60.41406 31.7 4 27.80317 60.23669 49.2 5 27.47825 60.14519 56.1 6 26.95317 60.13003 47.2 7 26.673 60.06992 52.5 8 26.29167 60.00414 65.3 9 26.12497 59.99167 59.6 10 25.96997 59.93669 48.9 11 25.36664 59.89164 52.6 12 25.03333 59.90003 56.9 16 20.42689 58.82767

The results of the statistical processing of these observations are given in tables 2 - 3, while the current conditions constructed using this data can be found in figs. 2. - 3.




Fig. 1. The location of calculation and observation points in connection with the currents

Table 2.

Current speed distribution according to compass points and repeatability (%), point number 8 Gradation

s (cm/s) N NN

O NO O SO SS

O S SS

W SW WS

W W WN

W NW NN

W Σ

Bed - 36 m <5 1 1 4 7 7 8 5 3 0 2 6 4 10 2 6 5 71

0,1 0,1 0,4 0,6 0,6 0,7 0,4 0,3 0,0 0,2 0,5 0,4 0,9 0,2 0,5 0,4 6,3 5,1-10 11 3 12 13 39 48 21 7 3 10 49 36 39 19 19 9 338

1,0 0,3 1,1 1,2 3,5 4,3 1,9 0,6 0,3 0,9 4,4 3,2 3,5 1,7 1,7 0,8 30,2 10,1-15 11 5 7 11 38 23 32 20 25 18 44 29 36 20 28 16 363

1,0 0,4 0,6 1,0 3,4 2,1 2,9 1,8 2,2 1,6 3,9 2,6 3,2 1,8 2,5 1,4 32,4 15,1-20 22 8 5 0 7 16 15 8 23 47 31 16 13 17 37 20 285

2,0 0,7 0,4 0,0 0,6 1,4 1,3 0,7 2,1 4,2 2,8 1,4 1,2 1,5 3,3 1,8 25,5 20,1-25 2 0 0 0 1 4 4 1 0 3 18 8 7 3 6 4 61

0,2 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,1 0,4 0,4 0,1 0,0 0,3 1,6 0,7 0,6 0,3 0,5 0,4 5,5 25,1-30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1

0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,1 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,1 Σ 47 17 28 31 92 99 77 39 51 80 148 94 105 61 96 54 1119

4,2 1,5 2,5 2,8 8,2 8,8 6,9 3,5 4,6 7,1 13,2

8,4 9,4 5,5 8,6 4,8 100,0

Max. 21,0

19,0 19,0

15,0

21,0

23,0

24,0

21,0 20,0

23,0 25,0

26,0

23,0

21,0

24,0

21,0

26,0

Mean 14,3

14,1 10,6

9,0 10,5

11,1

12,5

12,4 15,1

15,5 13,2

12,7

11,7

13,4

14,0

13,9







Note: In the table, the top figure represents the number of occurrences, the bottom figure - repeatability in a percentage.

Table 3. Current speed distribution according to compass points and repeatability (%). Subsea crossing

route in the Baltic Sea, area of point number 9 Gradation

s (cm/s) N NN

O NO ON

O O OS

O SO SS

O S SS

W SW WS

W W W

N W

NW

NN W

Σ

Bed - 35 m <5 53 33 38 43 47 34 44 33 55 43 28 30 38 28 36 53 636

1,4 0,9 1,0 1,1 1,2 0,9 1,1 0,9 1,4 1,1 0,7 0,8 1,0 0,7 0,9 1,4 16,5 5,1-10 33 37 62 62 136 96 82 38 47 66 122 118 157 103 117 65 1341

0,9 1,0 1,6 1,6 3,5 2,5 2,1 1,0 1,2 1,7 3,2 3,1 4,1 2,7 3,0 1,7 34,8 10,1-15 73 26 26 40 82 64 71 51 98 66 129 67 99 73 118 89 1172

1,9 0,7 0,7 1,0 2,1 1,7 1,8 1,3 2,5 1,7 3,3 1,7 2,6 1,9 3,1 2,3 30,4 15,1-20 41 18 11 5 19 36 37 34 53 78 68 37 32 42 61 45 617

1,1 0,5 0,3 0,1 0,5 0,9 1,0 0,9 1,4 2,0 1,8 1,0 0,8 1,1 1,6 1,2 16,0 20,1-25 2 0 0 1 1 7 6 1 4 6 18 10 8 6 13 8 91

0,1 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,2 0,2 0,0 0,1 0,2 0,5 0,3 0,2 0,2 0,3 0,2 2,4 25,1-30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1

0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 Σ 202 114 137 151 285 237 240 157 257 259 365 263 334 252 345 260 3858

5,2 3,0 3,6 3,9 7,4 6,1 6,2 4,1 6,7 6,7 9,5 6,8 8,7 6,5 8,9 6,7 100,0

Max. 21,0

20,0 20,0

21,0 21,0

23,0 24,0

21,0 22,0

23,0 25,0

26,0

23,0

23,0

24,0

25,0

26,0

Mean 10,5

9,3 8,5 8,4 9,4 10,5 10,5

10,6 11,1

11,8 12,0

11,0

10,3

11,1

11,5

10,8

Note: In the table, the top figure represents the number of occurrences, the bottom figure, repeatability as a percentage.

Point 8, bed - 36 m

Fig. 2. Current conditions (cm/s) at the bed - 36 m.




Relative provision ("cumulative percentage" (%)) is plotted on the vertical axis while the scales for the speed of the currents are indicated in colour (cm/s). Subsea crossing route in the Baltic Sea, area of point number 8.




Point 9, bed - 35 m

Fig. 3. Current conditions (cm/s) at the bed - 35 m. Relative provision ("cumulative percentage"

(%)) is plotted on the vertical axis while the scales for the speed of the currents are indicated in colour (cm/s). Subsea crossing route in the Baltic Sea, area of point number 9.

Maximum calculated speeds for the currents as a whole, with an indication of the directions possible every year, every 10 years and every 100 years, at various beds, calculated using hydrodynamic and probabilistic modelling according to data contained in the report "Hydrodynamic and probabilistic modelling…, 2005" which is provided in Tables 3 - 10, with the current conditions constructed using this data given in figs. 3 - 9.

Table 4. Maximum calculated speeds for the currents as a whole (cm/s), considering their distribution based

on directions which are possible every year, every 10 years and every 100 years. Point no. 3

Sector, degrees Benthic

1 year 10 years 100 years

7,5°<α≤22,5° 7 12 18 22,5°<<α≤37,5° 9 14 25 37,5°<α≤52,5° 9 14 32 52,5°<α≤67,5° 5 9 21 67,5°<α≤82,5° 3 5 7 82,5°<α≤97,5° 2 4 4 97,5°<α≤112,5° 2 4 4 112,5°<α≤127,5° 1 4 5 127,5°<α≤142,5° 1 3 4 142,5°<α≤157,5° 2 4 5 157,5°<α≤172,5° 2 4 6




172,5°<α≤187,5° 3 5 7 187,5°<α≤202,5° 5 8 11 202,5°<α≤217,5° 7 12 13 217,5°<α≤232,5° 8 12 14 232,5°<α≤247,5° 8 12 14 247,5°<α≤262,5° 7 11 13 262,5°<α≤277,5° 6 10 12 277,5°<α≤292,5° 5 8 11 292,5°<α≤307,5° 4 8 11 307,5°<α≤322,5° 4 8 11 322,5°<α≤337,5° 4 8 11 337,5°<α≤352,5° 4 8 11 352,5°<α≤7,5° 5 10 15




Table 5.

Maximum calculated speeds for the currents as a whole (cm/s), considering their distribution based


Sector, degrees Benthic Recurrence interval (years)


7,5°<α≤22,5° 6 12 19 22,5°<α≤37,5° 8 18 31 37,5°<α≤52,5° 10 17 19 52,5°<α≤67,5° 9 16 21 67,5°<α≤82,5° 7 11 13 82,5°<α≤97,5° 6 9 13 97,5°<α≤112,5° 5 8 10 112,5°<α≤127,5° 5 7 8 127,5°<α≤142,5° 4 6 8 142,5°<α≤157,5° 4 6 8 157,5°<α≤172,5° 4 7 8 172,5°<α≤187,5° 5 8 9 187,5°<α≤202,5° 6 9 11 202,5°<α≤217,5° 8 12 16 217,5°<α≤232,5° 11 16 19 232,5°<α≤247,5° 12 17 21 247,5°<α≤262,5° 11 15 16 262,5°<α≤277,5° 9 14 18 277,5°<α≤292,5° 8 13 15 292,5°<α≤307,5° 8 12 15 307,5°<α≤322,5° 7 11 15 322,5°<α≤337,5° 6 12 16 337,5°<α≤352,5° 6 11 15 352,5°<α≤7,5° 6 12 20




Table 6.









Table 7.




1 year 10 years 100 years 7,5°<α≤22,5° 6 12 21 22,5°<α≤37,5° 7 14 20 37,5°<α≤52,5° 7 13 15 52,5°<α≤67,5° 7 11 15 67,5°<α≤82,5° 6 9 11 82,5°<α≤97,5° 5 9 10 97,5°<α≤112,5° 4 8 10 112,5°<α≤127,5° 4 7 11 127,5°<α≤142,5° 4 7 8 142,5°<α≤157,5° 4 7 8 157,5°<α≤172,5° 4 7 9 172,5°<α≤187,5° 5 7 9 187,5°<α≤202,5° 5 9 11 202,5°<α≤217,5° 7 10 13 217,5°<α≤232,5° 8 12 16 232,5°<α≤247,5° 8 13 16 247,5°<α≤262,5° 8 12 14 262,5°<α≤277,5° 8 12 13 277,5°<α≤292,5° 7 12 14 292,5°<α≤307,5° 7 12 16 307,5°<α≤322,5° 6 11 13 322,5°<α≤337,5° 6 10 15 337,5°<α≤352,5° 5 9 12 352,5°<α≤7,5° 5 10 13




Table 8.









Table 9.








Table 10.








Fig. 4. Current conditions (cm/s) at the benthic bed. Subsea crossing route in the Baltic Sea, area

of point number 3


of point number 4


of point number 5





of point number 6


of point number 7


of point number 8




Fig. 10. Current conditions (cm/s) at the benthic bed. Subsea crossing route in the Baltic Sea, area of point number 9.

Mathematical formulation of model. This section describes the methodology and the calculation data according to models of hydrometeorological processes and surface wind for the purpose of resolving ecological tasks connected with the distribution of suspended matter during dredging work and oil spills in the Baltic Sea. Calculations were carried out for a period of 1 year of modelling time, using data from 2005. In addition, the nature of the data files used in calculations and the results of calculations relating to the hydrodynamic processes were examined. For descriptions of the wind and tidal currents and variations in the level of the Baltic Sea, the following system of equations is used [Gill, 1986]:

The beginning of the coordinates is arranged on the calm surface of the sea, λ,φ - longitude and latitude, the z axis is directed vertically upwards. The following symbols are used:




f 2Ω sinφ - Coriolis parameter, u - zonal speed component (positive in an easterly direction), v - meridional speed component (positive in an westerly direction), w - vertical speed component (positive in an upwards direction), ζ - deviation of the free surface from the undisturbed location, g - acceleration due to gravity, Ω - angular velocity of the earth's rotation, Az, Kz - coefficient of the vertical turbulent viscosity. Values of wind stresses are given at the surface of the sea:

Kinematic condition:

A quadratic friction law is pre-assigned on the sea floor:

A non-flow condition for full flows is pre-assigned at the solid boundary at the side:

Variations in the sea level, determined by the tidal oscillation regime, are pre-assigned at the open sea boundary. Depending on the organisation of the task, different options in terms of conditions at the boundary to the open sea are feasible. These will be examined below. Provision is made for a number of approaches in terms of describing turbulent exchange processes. Models in which coefficients of vertical viscosity and diffusion are recorded in the form of algebraic expressions are based on L. Prandtl's expressions regarding the turbulent viscosity coefficient in the following type of boundary layer [L. Prandtl, 1949]:

where l - length of path of displacement, ur - speed of turbulent pulsations. Such an expression is introduced by analogy with the molecular coefficient of viscosity/diffusion and, in the theory of turbulence, serves as a heuristic expression with regard to realising parameterisation of turbulent processes under specific conditions. Scale l in the area of the boundary layer is directly proportional to the distance zd to the quay: l = k zd, k = 0.4 - Karman constant. In this instance, a logarithmic profile is obtained of the velocity close to the quay. As far as the sea is concerned, the scale is frequently tackled in the form of a parabolic expression




l = kHψ (zd /H). This is at its maximum not far from the centre line at maximum distances from the bottom and the surface of the sea, while k zd is striven for as the boundaries are approached. A simpler example of such a function will be: where H = ζ+h - full depth, h - depth from the undisturbed level as demonstrated in fig. 1. σ= (z+h)/(ζ+h). zs , z0, [m] - roughness parameters at the surface and bottom respectively.

Fig. 11. Configuration of the sea floor and the free surface When striving for the surfaces, formula (2), together with the expression regarding scale (3), gives the

following: where is the velocity of friction. Description of the bottom logarithmic boundary layer. In the bottom layer, the change in velocity can be described with a sufficient degree of accuracy using the logarithmic law (A. S. Monin and A. M. Yaglom, 1965]: u = u*/k ln(z/z0) (8) where z0 - roughness parameter, u* = Vxb - friction velocity, k=0.4 - Karman constant. When using a quadratic friction law as a friction coefficient, С100 is frequently used, i.e. its value at a distance from a measurement point is equal to 100 cm from the bottom. In the theoretical hypothesis (5), we have the following: u = √α u100 /k ln(z/z0), (9) Consequently, if we arrange the final reference junction of the grid at a distance of 1 m from the bottom, then a determination of the velocity at lesser distances may be carried out in accordance with formula (4), accepting as the value С100 which is well known from experiments. At the same time, (2.1.13) serves to link the coefficient of friction and the roughness parameter z0: α = [k/ ln(z/z0)]2. (10)




It should be noted that the roughness parameter is linked to the average height of surface elements in relation to boundary layer conditions in pipelines or above flat plates and provides us with z0 = h0/30. If z0 = 0.3см [Davies A.M., Lawrence J., 1994], then α = 0.005. To approximate the system of equations (1) according to time, a semi-implicit, two-layer, time differential chart is used. In this chart, the vertical viscosity elements are examined implicitly, while the remaining elements are examined explicitly. In terms of approximation along the area, "С" - a grid with junctions which are spaced apart, is used. Scalar variables are determined at the centre of the cell in this grid, with vector variables determined at the boundaries. A more detailed description of the calculation chart is provided, for example, in Arkhipov B. V., 1989. Original data and calculation results. The calculations are carried out allowing for the impact of the tide, wind and specific gravity ("forcing"). Tidal surges affecting the sea level are pre-assigned at the open boundary (fig. 2.1). Adequate specification of the configuration of the calculated area (alteration of the sea bed and waterfront) is of great importance as regards the correct reproduction of basic physical (hydrodynamic and lithodynamic) processes which shape the distribution and changeability of the sea currents, the temperature and salinity of the sea water, benthic deposits and so on, on the one hand, and as regards the accurate geographical plotting of the results obtained from model calculations on the other. The latter is especially important in the process of structural safeguards regarding the construction and operation of hydrotechnical installations. For calculating flow fields in the Baltic Sea, echo sounding based on "ETOPO5", "iowtopo2" and "ETOPOREF.IAX2" (http://www.io-warnemuende.de/en_iowtopo.html, UNEP/GRID Documentation Summary for Data Set: 'ETOPO-5' Elevation) data files and bathymetric maps provided by the company "Peter Gaz" concerning the route of the pipeline were used. This data file was prepared at the U. S. National Geophysical Data Center (NGDC) in Boulder, Colorado (USA). This is the best of the digital topography files available which is obtained on the basis of a grid with a 5 minute resolution (approximately 9 km by 9 km). Contour intervals are 1 m. This data file includes bathymetric characteristics upwards of 10,000 m. Topography in excess of sea level reaches 8,000 m in this file. The ETOPO5 data file includes a data file from the National Imagery and Mapping Agency within the USA's Ministry of Defence for areas surrounding the USA, Western Europe and Japan, as well as data files from Australia's Mineral Resource Directorate and New Zealand's Department of Science and Industrial Research. The "ETOPO5" data file has 2,160 records, each one 8,640 bytes. The data file has 2160 x 4320 two-byte elements. It extends from 90 N to 90 S and from 180 E to 180 W. The size of the file as a whole is 18.66 MB. Refer to Edwards, M.H.,1986, Haxby, W.F. et al., 1983, for a more detailed description of the data file. To carry out calculations on the basis of the "ETOPO5" data file, a grid area has been constructed on

the grid with a spacing of (size of the area » 1,100 х 1,100 km). A representation of the calculation area is provided in fig. 3.1.




Fig. 12. Baltic Sea waters and the grid area for which a calculation of hydrodynamic processes

is performed (а), the whereabouts of local areas (b) in which flows for calculating the diffusion of suspended matter are computed




The impact at the boundary is realised through emission conditions (Roed L. P., Cooper C.,1986) determined at the western border of the area under consideration in which the impact of the tide is pre-assigned:

Here - is the local velocity of gravitational waves. The atmosphere exerts a mechanical and thermal effect via the above ground boundary of the body of water. The mechanical impact manifests itself in the form of wind stresses determined by the magnitude and direction of the wind speed at an altitude of 10 m.

Here, ra - is the air density, rw - the water density and a - the angle between the northerly direction and the wind speed.

When using formula (11), the question arises regarding determination of the wind speed Currently, several different approaches are applied when calculating wind fields. The first approach consists of the direct construction of wind fields according to full-scale changes in wind speed and direction, carried out using passing and expeditionary vessels with auto pilot and at coastal meteorological stations. The drawback with this approach is the lack of accuracy when measuring wind speed, the root-mean-square error in the region of 2.5 m/s, and also the lack of observations and their non-uniformity according to area and time. In the second approach, the wind field speed can be determined using the method of global atmospheric circulation. Such models are utilised by big meteorological stations. Latterly, the use of satellite data has been extremely far-sighted. In particular, methods have been developed based on an analysis of the back scatter signal and restoration of the wind speed using special methods. The chapter explaining the information will provide more detail on this. In the fourth option, one may dispense with areas of pressure re-established above the region under consideration using some procedure or other. In order to conduct numerical calculations of the Baltic Sea's currents and the dispersal of oil, wind data relating to one whole year was prepared. The following was used as the initial information: an NCEP/NCAR reanalysis for 2005 with a spatial resolution of 2.5 degrees. Data presented on CD ROM was also used: NSCAT OCEAN WINDS CD-ROM, (vol. Ocean_wind01- Ocean_wind01, spatial resolution: grid with a spacing of 25 km). These disks are distributed by the following organisation: PO.DAAC (Physical Oceanography Distributed Archive Center) JPL Physical Oceanography DAAC, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, USA.




The wind field according to the NCEP/NCAR reanalysis data is given in fig. 3.2 as an illustration.

Fig. 13. Wind field according to the NCEP/NCAR reanalysis data at the start of 2005 When calculating the impact of the tides at the border of the area (fig. 5.2), cotidal maps of the principal surges in the area under consideration are used; constructed on the basis of the global ocean tide model ORI.96 developed at the University of Tokyo (Ocean Research Institute). In this model, the tides are calculated using a 0.50 grid with assimilated satellite data (NASA TOPEX/POSEIDON MGDR). This model ensures harmonic constants for the eight constituents (M2, S2, N2, K2, K1, O1, P1, Q1). Examples of instantaneous currents as a whole which have been calculated in the surface layer are shown in fig. 3.3.







Fig. 14. Current fields based on calculation data at various times of the year since the beginning of 2005

To provide a direct description of the currents in the sphere of performing dredging work, as demonstrated in fig. 3.4 (b), mathematical modelling was carried out using the following system of shallow water formulae [Gill, 1986]:

x,y - longitude and latitude. The following symbols are used: f =2Ωsinφ - Coriolis parameter, u - zonal speed component (positive in an easterly direction), v - meridional speed component (positive in a northerly direction), H,h - full depth and sea floor elevation respectively, g - acceleration due to gravity, Ω - angular velocity of the earth's rotation.




Data relating to currents obtained using the global model were used as boundary conditions. A grid with a resolution of 100 x 100 cells was used for calculation purposes. Δx = 247.16 m, Δy = 247.67 m for the northern section and Δx = 462.86 m, Δy = 449.05 m for the southern section. Fig. 3.4 gives the results of the flow calculations for trench areas in coastal sections in the region of the coastline intersection on the Russian side.







Fig. 15. Current fields calculated using the model at various times for trench areas in near-coast sections in the region of the coastline intersection on the Russian side




APPENDIX 4.

MATHEMATICAL MODEL FOR FORECASTING THE DISTRIBUTION OF

SUSPENDED MATTER ON THE SHELF The mathematical model described here was developed by a number of authors from the Russian Academy of Sciences [1] computing centre and is intended for forecasting the distribution of suspended matter in oceanic shelf regions. The model takes account of the following existing features of the situation under examination:

• the multi-dispersity of contaminants in the area of water containing suspended mineral sediments and the possibility of differential precipitation of its various solids;

• the turbulent nature of the conversion of suspended matter in the shelf area under

consideration, leading to an obvious dependence of the coefficient of horizontal diffusion on the linear size of the polluted "eddies" (law "4/3" discovered by Richardson and substantiated in theory by Kolmogorov and Obukhov; see [2-5]).

• the temporary changeability of the velocity of the current, both in terms of magnitude and

direction;

• the possibility of displacing the source of the suspended matter while work is being carried out.

1. General concepts on which the model is based In describing the distribution of suspended matter, we may distinguish between two qualitatively different regions: the near zone, the dimensions of which are defined by the characteristics of the slurry source, and a far zone. In the near zone, concentrations of suspended matter are high and modelling of the transfer of contamination requires detailed information about the arrangement of the equipment, making this a highly complex task. In the far zone, concentrations of suspended matter are considerably less due to the process of turbulent exchange and as a result of the deposition of particles of solids. Conversion of each of the fractions in this connection occurs independently from the others, with the speed of horizontal conversion of all solids being determined only by the speed of the current and the intensity of eddy diffusion in the body of water. The only differences are in the speed of settlement. Consequently, in the far zone, the applicable diffusion and drift approaches are connected with a disregard for lags relative to the movement of the contaminating component in the environment and also with the interaction between these components. In the case of small concentrations of suspended matter (in the far zone), distribution of contamination may occur in the form of movement of an aggregate of separate, non-interacting eddies generated by momentary sources of matter which simulate the infiltration of matter into the far zone from the near zone. These eddies move through the water column under the influence of local currents and, possibly, are deposited on the seabed. In the process of moving, they increase in size due to turbulent diffusion while the concentrations of suspended matter in them fall. Slurry concentrations at an arbitrary point meanwhile present themselves in the form of concentrations of suspended matter in separate eddies, including the given point at the moment in time in which they are examined. 0




The size of the area of contamination turns out to be considerably greater than the depth of the body of water. For this reason we may use a two-dimensional (taking an average depth) model of the migration of suspended matter. At the same time, the horizontal sizes of the area in which the migration of suspended matter is being studied are, as a rule, small in comparison with the scales of space in which the components U and V of the current speed (and also parameters of horizontal turbulence) undergo substantial changes. As a result of this, we will propose that the components of current speed do not depend on the point in the water being examined but exist as functions of time t. In this case, the concentration of the i fractions in the contaminant Ci in a separate eddy, and the mass mi of this fraction being deposited per unit of seabed surface, will satisfy the equations

in which K - coefficient of horizontal turbulent diffusion, H - local water depth, Wi - terminal velocity of the particles taking into account differences in speed of deposit of slurry in flowing water compared to still water [8,9]. In accordance with the "4/3" law discovered by Richardson on the basis of processing experimental data on the dispersion of smoke in the atmosphere and substantiated in theory by Kolmogorov and Obukhov (see [2-4]), the coefficient of turbulent diffusion depends on the linear expansion s of the diffusing eddy and may be described as

where B - structural parameter of turbulence. Law (1.2) is correct even in the event of dispersion of impurities in the ocean [5]. In order of size in shelf regions, B"10-2¸ 10-4 m2/3/s. In several studies (see [6]) for constant B use the value 4.5×10-4 m2/3/s. We also point out that a solution to the equation (1.1) for any i particle from a separate eddy of suspended matter may be presented in the form

Here, Mi - initial mass of i particle in eddy, while the function G, which does not depend on the number of particles, describes the conventional distribution of the eddy with a single mass. This satisfies the equation

under the condition of normalisation




2. Multidispersion calculation of the composition of the slurry deposit Multidispersion of the composition of suspended matter is demonstrated in the differential nature of the deposition of the different contaminant fractions. In the event of a contaminant with a complex particle

structure being dumped, the overall concentration of suspended matter will be equal to , where Ci satisfies equation (1.1). Performing a summary (1.1) for all fractions, we find that the overall concentration C will also satisfy equation (1.1) if the effective hydraulic velocity W is determined in the

following way: .We also point out that each of the Ci values satisfies correlation (1.3). As a result we find:

Consequently, the task of modelling the distribution of an eddy of multidispersed slurry in a two-dimensional arrangement results in the calculation of the distribution of a single-dispersed suspended material, but with the speed of deposition depending on time according to the following formula (2.1). 3. Calculating the distribution of a separate contaminated eddy The time/space evolution of the concentration of multidispersed slurry in an individual eddy, the mass m of the slurry which is being deposited on to a unit of area on the seabed, and the thickness of the sediment h, can clearly be described in the following way (see point 1):

Here t0 - the moment of "birth" of the eddy, M - the initial mass of the substance in the eddy, H0 - the depth of the water at the place of "birth" of the eddy, e - the coefficient of porosity of the sediment, r - the mineral density of the slurry, while function G satisfies equation (1.4) and normalisation (1.5). The two-dimensional Gaussian distribution provides the precise solution to tasks (1.4) and (1.5)

in which the parameters Xc and Yc, giving the position of the gravitational centre of the eddy, and the values σx, σy, Dxy satisfy the equation

The isolines of function (3.1) appear as ellipses rotated at a certain angle but relative to the selected system of coordinates (x,y). if α= 0, then σx and σy represent typical values for the axis of the ellipse, while Dxy = 0.







The coefficient of diffusion K in (3.2) is defined by the horizontal turbulent movements of the water. In the event of locally homogenous and isotropic (at the horizontal level) turbulence with the Kolmogorov spectrum of pulsations, as was already observed in point 1,

Equation (3.2) is not difficult to integrate if we know the initial position of the centre of the eddy Xc, Yc, and the initial values of the parameters σx, σy, Dxy, which determine the size of the eddy and its orientation in the chosen fixed system of coordinates. 4. Formation of contaminated eddies For the formation of individual eddies of suspended matter in the models being described, an algorithm is used which is based on the following conditions. During execution of work under typical flow conditions and using equipment utilised in dredging work, a turbulent wake is formed which contains mineral slurry (see figure 4.1). Beyond the initial section of the wake, in the (cross) section that remains at the approximate distance x'0»10a from the equipment (see [7] by way of example), the lateral section of the distribution of the contaminated material is close to a Gauss curve. In this connection, as per [7], the parameter c»0.5.

Fig. 1. Diagram to explain the formation algorithm for contaminated eddies Let Q [kg/s] - flow rate of slurry entering the water environment as a result of work. Then, by virtue of the law of preservation of mass,




where u - speed of movement of water relative to the dredging equipment. We will work out a fairly small interval of time tc through which the contaminated eddies will be formed accordingly. Then the mass of slurry that is first contained in the eddy must be M = Qtc. We will choose a typical eddy size σx’ in the direction of the speed vector u such that the maximum concentration of slurry therein equals C0:

From (4.2), (4.3) we will now have:

To conclude, we will quote the formulae that should be used to convert parameters that are typical for an eddy during the switchover from a local system of coordinates (x´,y´) to the basic system of coordinates (x,y) in which the joint evolution of the system of eddies is calculated:

Here a - the angle between axes x and x¢ (see fig. 1), while the values σy’ and σx’ are determined by the formulae (4.1б) and (4.4).




Literature: 1. Arkhipov B. V., Koterov V. N., Solbakov V. V. Automatic compressor station model for forecasting distribution following industrial dumping from offshore drilling platforms. Information on applied mathematics. - М.: Russian Academy of Sciences computing centre, 2000. - 71 с. 2. Ozmidov R. V. Diffusion of impurities in the ocean. - L.: Gidrometeoizdat [Hydrometeorological publishing house in the Russian Federation], 1986. 3. Kolmogorov A.N. Local turbulence structure in incompressible liquid with very large Reynolds figures // Reports compiled by the USSR Academy of Sciences, 1941 vol. .30 number 4 C. 299. 4. Bao-Shi-Shiau, Jia-Jung Juang. Numerical Study on the Far Field Diffusion of Ocean Dumping for Liquid Waste // Proceedings of the Eighth (1998) International Offshore and Polar Engineering Conference. Canada. May 24-29, 1998.




APPENDIX4.3

CERTIFICATE RELATING TO CRUSHED GRAVEL-ROCK MATERIAL FROM THE "ERKILYA" SITE

VYBORG DISTRICT, LENINGRAD OBLAST

Moscow 2008






Vol. 8. Book 1. Offshore section. Part 1.EIA Page 661

APPENDIX TO CHAPTER 5




Calculation of the dispersal of contaminants into the atmosphere Nord Stream project (offshore section)

Option 1 – Emergency situation without ignition

DISPERSAL CALCULATIONS USING A COMPUTER

The calculation is performed using the "PRISMA"® software system developed by the "LOGUS" research and development enterprise.

The "PRISMA" software system is coordinated with the State hydrometeorological observatory named after Voejkov, 9 February 2005, 115/25




Weather conditions

CALCULATION MODEL: NS_incidents_without combustion CALCULATION DATE: 25.12.2007 TOWN: Russia Meteorological characteristics and coefficients which determine the conditions under which contaminants are dispersed into the town's atmosphere: Characteristic designations Values Coefficient dependent upon the stratification of the atmosphere А 160 Coefficient of terrain relief η 1 Average temperature of the outside air during the hottest month at 1.00 p.m., °С 21.70

Average temperature of the outside air during the coldest month (for boilers which operate according to a heating schedule), °С

-8.00

Average annual wind rose, % N 11.00

NE 11.00 E 11.00

SE 9.00 S 16.00

SW 20.00 W 11.00

NW 11.00 Wind speed (U*), the frequency of increase of which is 5%, m/s 9.00

Calculation options Calculation method: OND-86, automatic device

The calculation is performed at wind speeds of: 0.5, 0.5 Um/s, 1.0U m/s, 1.5 Um/s, u* The calculation is performed for all wind directions

Background calculation: uniform background Calculation criteria: 0.0500000 Evidence of a calculation of the contaminant level in the horizontal well: Yes Evidence of a gas calculation: No

Enterprises, industrial sites Industrial site: Nord_Stream

Matching the enterprise's system of coordinates to the urban system: The enterprise's system of coordinates corresponds to the urban system

Calculation parameters Number of contaminants: 3 Number of background contaminants: 0 Number of summation groups: 2 Number of calculation squares: 1 Number of calculation points: 1 UNOFFICIAL ENGLISH TRANSLATION – FOR COURTESY ONLY



List of contaminants vented into the atmosphere

Substance Atmospheric air quality criteria

Code Designation

MAC [maximum allowable

concentration], one-off

(mg/m3)

MAC, averaged over a 24-hour

period (mg/m3)

TSEL [tentative safe exposure

level] (mg/m3)

Hazard class

1 2 3 4 5 6 333 Dihydrosulphide; hydrogen

sulphide 0.0080000 2

602 Benzene 0.3000000 0.1000000 2 2754 Alkanes C12-C19; saturated

hydrocarbons C12-C19; solvent RPK-265

1.0000000 4




Substance

code Summation and contaminant

group designations MAC, one-off

(mg/m3) MAC, averaged over a 24-hour period (mg/m3)

TSEL (mg/m3) Hazard class

1 2 3 4 5 6

Group: 6009 (self-diffusion coefficient = 1.00) 301 Nitrogen dioxide; (nitrogen (IV)

oxide) 0.2000000 0.0400000 3

330 Sulphur dioxide; sulphurous anhydride

0.5000000 0.0500000 3

Group: 6043 (self-diffusion coefficient = 1.00) 330 Sulphur dioxide; sulphurous

anhydride 0.5000000 0.0500000 3

333 Dihydrosulphide; hydrogen sulphide

0.0080000 2

List of contaminants and summation groups in respect of which detailed atmospheric pollution calculations are not

required

Item Substance (substance group)

Parameter E Code Designation 1 2 3 4 1 333 Dihydrosulphide; hydrogen sulphide 0.0055986 2 602 Benzene 0.0000896 3 2754 Alkanes C12-C19; saturated hydrocarbons C12-C19; solvent RPK-

265 0.0178297

Summation groups 4 6043 0330 +0333 0.0355986

List of calculation squares

Number X coordinate

(m) Y coordinate

(m) Length (m) Breadth (m) Length

increment (m)

Breadth increment

(m)

Height (m)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 561172 6709762 10000 10000 1000 1000 2.0

Results of the substance and summation group calculations

Substance: 333 - Dihydrosulphide; hydrogen sulphide MAC: MAC value for calculation purposes: 0.0080000 (for calculation purposes, MAC on a one-off basis is used)

Sources of contaminant emissions: 333 Part 1

Industrial site

number

Section number

Source number

Type Season Back-ground

Height Coefficient of relief

Diameter Localised source at one

end of the linear centre to the side of

the area of the source

At the second end of the linear

source at the midpoint

of the opposite side of

the area

Areal width

m M X (m) Y(m)_ X (m) Y(m) m

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 1 6001 It. 1 Summer + 2.0 1.0 559575 6705984 562910 ****** 2000




Part 2 Industrial

site number

Section number

Source number

GVS parameters Rate of release

F Maximum concentration

Dangerous wind speed

Hazardous distance Average

discharge Average

speed Temperature

m3/s m/s t° g/s mg/m3 m/s m

(1) (2) (3) 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 1 6001 0.0000016 1.0 0.0000448 0.50 11.4

Total number of sources venting the substance: 1

Total emissions from all sources: 0.0000016 g/s 0.0000000 t/a

Totals - Cm/MAC and (Сm+Сф)/MAC for all sources: Cm/MAC = 0.0055986 (Cm+Сф)/MAC = 0.0055986

Calculation results




Average weighted wind speed: 0.500000 m/s Substance: 602 - Benzene MAC: MAC value for calculation purposes: 0.3000000 (for calculation purposes, MAC on a one-off basis is used)

Sources of contaminant emissions: 602

Part 1 Industria

l site number

Section numbe

r

Source numbe

r

Type

Season Back-groun

d

Height

Coefficient of relief

Diameter

Localised source at one end of the linear centre to the side of the

area of the source


source at the midpoint of the opposite side of

the area

Areal widt

h

m M X (m) Y(m)_ X (m) Y(m)_ M

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

1 6001 It. 1 Summer + 2.0 1.0 55957

5 670598

4 56291

0 *****

* 2000

Part 2

Industrial site

number

Section number

Source number





discharge Average

speed Temperature


(1) (2) (3) 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 1 6001 0.0000009 1.0 0.0000269 0.50 11.4



Totals - Cm/MAC and (Сm+Сф)/MAC for all sources: Cm/MAC = 0.0000896 (Cm+Cф)/MAC = 0.0000896

Calculation results Average weighted wind speed: 0.500000 m/s Substance: 2754 - Alkanes C12-C19; saturated hydrocarbons C12-C19; solvent RPK-265 P / TOC equivalent MAC: MAC value for calculation purposes: 1.0000000 (for calculation purposes, MAC on a one-off basis is used)


Part 1 Industria

l site number

Section numbe

r

Source numbe

r

Type

Season Back-groun

d

Height


Diameter


area of the source



the area

Areal widt

h

m M X (m) Y(m)_ X (m) Y(m)_ M

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 1 6001 It. 1 Summe + 2.0 1.0 55957 670598 56291 ***** 2000 UNOFFICIAL ENGLISH TRANSLATION – FOR COURTESY ONLY



r 5 4 0 *

Part 2 Industrial

site number

Section number

Source number





discharge Average

speed Temperature


(1) (2) (3) 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 1 6001 0.0006240 1.0 0.0178297 0.50 11.4






Totals - Cm/MAC and (Сm+Сф)/MAC for all sources:

Cm/MAC = 0.0178297 (Cm+Cф)/MAC = 0.0178297

Calculation results Average weighted wind speed: 0.500000 m/s




Calculation of the dispersal of contaminants into the atmosphere Nord Stream project (offshore section)

Option 2 – ignition-related incident

DISPERSAL CALCULATIONS USING A COMPUTER

The calculation is performed using the "PRISMA" ® software system developed by the "LOGUS" research and development enterprise.

The "PRISMA" software system is coordinated with the State hydrometeorological observatory named after Voejkov, 9 February 2005, 115/25.




Weather conditions

CALCULATION MODEL: NS_ignition-related incident CALCULATION DATE: 25.12.2007 TOWN: Russia Meteorological characteristics and coefficients which determine the conditions under which contaminants are dispersed into the town's atmosphere: Characteristic designations Values Coefficient dependent upon the stratification of the atmosphere А 160 Coefficient of terrain relief η 1 Average temperature of the outside air during the hottest month at 1.00 p.m., °С 21.70 Average temperature of the outside air during the coldest month (for boilers which operate according to a heating schedule), °С

-8.00

Average annual wind rose, % N 11.00

NE 11.00 E 11.00

SE 9.00 S 16.00

SW 20.00 W 11.00

NW 11.00 Wind speed (U*), the frequency of increase of which is 5%, m/s 9.00

Calculation options Calculation method: OND-86, automatic device (Russian national regulatory dispersion model)

The calculation is performed at wind speeds of: 0.5, 0,5Um/s, 1.0 Um/s, 1.5 Um/s, u* The calculation is performed for all wind directions

Background calculation: uniform background Calculation criteria: 0.1000000 Evidence of a calculation of the contaminant level in the horizontal well: Yes Evidence of a gas calculation: No

Enterprises, industrial sites Industrial site: Nord_Stream

Matching the enterprise's system of coordinates to the urban system: The enterprise's system of coordinates corresponds to the urban system

Calculation parameters

Number of contaminants: 8 Number of background contaminants: 5 Number of summation groups: 3 Number of calculation squares: 1 Number of calculation points: 1

List of contaminants vented into the atmosphere




Substance Atmospheric air

quality criteria Code Designation MAC [maximum

allowable concentration],

one-off (mg/m3)

MAC, averaged over a 24-hour

period (mg/m3)


level] (mg/m3)

Hazard class

1 2 3 4 5 6 110 Divanadium pentoxide;

Vanadium (V) oxide / dust 0.0020000 1

301 Nitrogen dioxide; (nitrogen (IV) oxide)

0.2000000 0.0400000 3

317 Hydrocyanide; prussic acid; hydrocyanic acid

0.0100000 2

328 Carbon; carbon black 0.1500000 0.0500000 3 330 Sulphur dioxide; sulphurous

anhydride 0.5000000 0.0500000 3

333 Dihydrosulphide; hydrogen sulphide

0.0080000 2




337 Carbon oxide 5.0000000 3.0000000 4 703 Benzopyrene; 3,4-benzpyrene 0.0000010 1

Summation group contaminant list

Substance

code Summation and contaminant

group designations MAC, one-off

(mg/m3) MAC, averaged over a 24-hour period (mg/m3)


level] (mg/m3)

Hazard class

1 2 3 4 5 6 Group: 6009 (self-diffusion coefficient = 1.00)


0.2000000 0.0400000 3


0.5000000 0.0500000 3

Group: 6018 (self-diffusion coefficient = 1.00) 110 Divanadium pentoxide; Vanadium

(V) oxide / dust 0.0020000 1


0.5000000 0.0500000 3

Group: 6043 (self-diffusion coefficient = 1.00) 330 Sulphur dioxide; sulphurous

anhydride 0.5000000 0.0500000 3

333 Dihydrosulphide; hydrogen sulphide 0.0080000 2

List of contaminants and summation groups in respect of which detailed atmospheric pollution calculations are not required

Substance (substance group) Parameter E Item Code Designation

1 2 3 4 1 110 Divanadium pentoxide; Vanadium (V) oxide / dust 0.0000618 2 317 Hydrocyanide; prussic acid; hydrocyanic acid 0.0001792 3 328 Carbon; carbon black 0.0046222 4 330 Sulphur dioxide; sulphurous anhydride 0.0300358 5 333 Dihydrosulphide; hydrogen sulphide 0.0022394 6 703 Benzopyrene; 3,4-benzpyrene 0.0001236

Summation groups 7 6018 0110 +0330 0.0300976 8 6043 0330 +0333 0.0322753

Background contaminants and data concerning their concentrations at observation stations

Contaminant Observation station Concentration

at wind speeds of 0 - 2 m/s

(mg/m3)

Concentration at wind speeds in excess of 2 m/s

(mg/m3) Code Designation Number Coordinates relative

to NC towns Direction Concentration

X (m) Y (m) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8


1 0 0 0.0500000 UNOFFICIAL ENGLISH TRANSLATION – FOR COURTESY ONLY



304 Nitrogen (II) oxide; nitrogen oxide

1 0 0 0.0210000


1 0 0 0.0150000

337 Carbon oxide 1 0 0 1.5000000 2902 Suspended matter 1 0 0 0.1700000

List of calculation squares

Number X coordinate

(m) Y coordinate

(m) Length (m) Breadth (m) Length

increment (m)

Breadth increment

(m)

Height (m)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 561172 6709762 10000 10000 1000 1000 2.0




Results of the substance and summation group calculations

Substance: 110 - Divanadium pentoxide; Vanadium (V) oxide / dust MAC: MAC value for calculation purposes: 0.0200000 (for calculation purposes, MAC averaged over a 24-hour period * 10 is used)


Part 1 Industria

l site number

Section numbe

r

Source numbe

r

Type

Season Back-groun

d

Height


Diameter


area of the source



the area

Areal widt

h

m m X (m) Y(m) X (m) Y(m) m 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

1 6002 It. 1 Summer + 2.0 1.0 55957

5 670598

4 56291

0 *****

* 2000

Part 2

Industrial site

number

Section number

Source number





discharge Average

speed Temperature


(1) (2) (3) 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 1 6002 0.0000164 1.0 0.0004676 0.50 11.4





Results of calculations taken at separate calculation points

Number X

coordinate (m)

Y coordinate

(m) Height

Maximum background concentration

Direction of the wind

from the Х axis (°)

Wind speed (m/s)

Background

mg/m3 MAC quotas mg/m3 MAC

quotas 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 562444 6711731 2.0 0.0500001 0.2500005 73.0 9.0 0.0500000 0.2500000

Contributions made by the separate calculation points

Contributions at the point indicated by the number 1 and X and Y coordinates of 562444 and 6711731 respectively Total concentration at this point from all sources: 0.0000001 mg/m3 0.0000005 MAC quotas UNOFFICIAL ENGLISH TRANSLATION – FOR COURTESY ONLY



Industrial site number

Section number

Source numbe

r

Contribution value Contributio

n percentage

(%) mg/m3 MAC quotas

1 2 3 4 5 6 1 6002 0.0000001 0.0000005 100.00

Calculation results according to the points of maximum concentration at the boundary between the sanitary

protection zone and the residential area

Reference point Reference calculation concentrations at dangerous wind speeds

Type of point

X coordinate

(m)

Y coordinate

(m)

Height Z (m)

Maximum background

concentration



Wind speed (m/s)

Background

mg/m3 MAC quotas mg/m3 MAC quotas

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Outside

the sanitary

protection zone

559172 6705762 2.0 0.0500003 0.2500013 225.0 0.75 0.0500000 0.2500000

Residential area

562513 6711721 2.0 0.0500001 0.2500005 73.0 9.00 0.0500000 0.2500000

Border with the sanitary

protection zone

559063 6706490 2.0 0.0500004 0.2500019 206.0 0.50 0.0500000 0.2500000

MAX 559172 6706762 2.0 0.0500004 0.2500018 202.0 0.50 0.0500000 0.2500000 Outside the sanitary protection zone - point of maximum concentration outside the sanitary protection zone Residential area - point of maximum concentration within the residential area Border with the sanitary protection zone - point of maximum concentration at the boundary to the sanitary protection zone MAX - maximum point according to the calculation squares

Contributions according to the maximum concentration points Contributions at the point within the standard sanitary protection zone with X = 559172 Y= 6705762


Section number

Source number

Contribution value Contribution percentage

(%)

mg/m3 MAC quotas

1 2 3 4 5 6 1 6002 0.0000003 0.0000013 100.00

Contributions according to the maximum concentration points

Contributions at the point within the residential area with X = 562513 Y=6711721 UNOFFICIAL ENGLISH TRANSLATION – FOR COURTESY ONLY



Industrial

site number Section number

Source number


(%)

mg/m3 MAC quotas

1 2 3 4 5 6 1 6002 0.0000001 0.0000005 100.00


Contributions at the point bordering the standard sanitary protection zone with X = 559063 Y= 6706490




Industrial


Source number

Contribution value Contribution percentage (%)

mg/m3 MAC quotas 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 6002 0.0000004 0.0000019 100.00


Contributions at the maximum point according to the calculation squares with X = 559172 Y=6706762


Section number

Source number

Contribution value Contribution percentage (%) mg/m3 MAC quotas

1 2 3 4 5 6 1 6002 0.0000004 0.0000018 100.00

Substance: 317 - Hydrocyanide; prussic acid; hydrocyanic acid MAC: MAC value for calculation purposes: 0.1000000 (for calculation purposes, MAC averaged over a 24-hour period * 10 is used)


Part 1 Industria

l site number

Section numbe

r

Source numbe

r

Type

Season Back-groun

d

Height


Diameter


area of the source



the area

Areal widt

h

m m X (m) Y(m) X (m) Y(m) m

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

1 6002 It. 1 Summer + 2.0 1.0 55957

5 670598

4 56291

0 *****

* 2000

Part 2

Industrial site

number

Section number

Source number





discharge Average

speed Temperature


(1) (2) (3) 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 1 6002 0.0000006 1.0 0.0000179 0.50 11.4








Substance: 328 - Carbon; carbon black MAC: MAC value for calculation purposes: 0.1500000 (for calculation purposes, MAC on a one-off basis is used)


Industrial site

number

Section number

Source number

Type

Season

Back-ground

Height Coeffi-cient of relief

Dia-meter

Localised source at one end of the linear centre to the side of

the area of the source

At the second end of the linear source at the midpoint of the opposite side of the

area

Areal width

m m X (m) Y (m) X (m) Y (m) m

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 1 6002 It. 1 Summer + 2.0 1.0 559575 6705984 562910 ****** 2000

Industrial

site number

Section number

Source number

Average discharge

Average speed

Temperature Rate of release



Hazardous distance


(1) (2) (3) 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

1 6002 0.0000081 3.0 0.0006933 0.50 5.7







Calculation results Average weighted wind speed: 0.500000 m/s Substance: 330 - Sulphur dioxide; sulphurous anhydride MAC: MAC value for calculation purposes: 0.5000000 (for calculation purposes, MAC on a one-off basis is used)


Industrial site

number

Section numbe

r

Source numbe

r

Type

Season Background

Height


Diameter

Localised source at one

end of the linear centre to the side of the

area of the source

At the second end of the

linear source at the

midpoint of the opposite side of the

area

Areal widt

h

m m X (m) X (m) m

1 2 3 It. 1 5 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

1 6002 Summer + 2.0 1.0 55957

5 670598

4 56291

0 *****

* 2000

Part 2

Industrial site

number

Section number

Source number





discharge Average

speed Temperature


(1) (2) (3) 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

1 6002 0.0000006 1.0 0.0000179 0.50 11.4 Total number of sources venting the substance: 1







Substance: 333 - Dihydrosulphide; hydrogen sulphide MAC: MAC value for calculation purposes: 0.0080000 (for calculation purposes, MAC on a one-off basis is used)


Industrial site

number

Section numbe

r

Source numbe

r

Type

Season Background

Height


Diameter



area of the source




area

Areal widt

h

m M X (m) X (m) M

1 2 3 It. 1 5 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

1 6002 Summer + 2.0 1.0 55957

5 670598

4 56291

0 *****

* 2000

Part 2

Industrial site

number

Section number

Source number





discharge Average

speed Temperature


(1) (2) (3) 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 1 6002 0.0000006 1.0 0.0000179 0.50 11.4 UNOFFICIAL ENGLISH TRANSLATION – FOR COURTESY ONLY









Calculation results Average weighted wind speed: 0.500000 m/s Substance: 337 - Carbon oxide MAC: MAC value for calculation purposes: 5.0000000 (for calculation purposes, MAC on a one-off basis is used)


Industria

l site number

Section numbe

r

Source numbe

r

Type

Season Background

Height


Diameter



area of the source




area

Areal widt

h

m M X (m) Y (m) X (m) Y(m) M

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

1 6002 It. 1 Summer + 2.0 1.0 55957

5 670598

4 56291

0 *****

* 2000

Part 2

Industrial site

number

Section number

Source number





discharge Average

speed Temperature


(1) (2) (3) 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

1 6002 0.0000044 1.0 0.00001265 0.50 11.4 Total number of sources venting the substance: 1




Results of calculations taken at separate calculation points

Number X

coordinate (m)

Y coordinate

(m)

Height Z (m)




Wind speed (m/s)

Background


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

1 562444 6711731 2.0 1.5000000 0.3000000 73.0 9.0 1.5000000 0.3000000 UNOFFICIAL ENGLISH TRANSLATION – FOR COURTESY ONLY




Contributions at the point indicated by the number 1 and X and Y coordinates of 562444 and 6711731 respectively Total concentration at this point from all sources: 0.0000000 mg/m3 0.0000000 MAC quotas


Section number

Source number

Contribution value

Contribution percentage (%)

mg/m3

MAC quotas

1 2 3 4 5 6 1 6002 2.7621e-08 5.5242e-09 100.00

Calculation results according to the points of maximum concentration at the boundary between the sanitary protection zone and the residential area


Type of point

X coordinate

(m)

Y coordinate

(m)

Height Z (m)

Maximum background

concentration Direction of the wind from the Х

axis (°)

Wind speed (m/s)

Background

mg/m3 MAC quotas

mg/m3 MAC quotas

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Outside

the sanitary

protection zone

556172 6714762 2.0 1.5000000 0.3000000 127.0 9.00 1.5000000 0.3000000

Residential area

562444 6711731 2.0 1.5000000 0.3000000 73.0 9.00 1.5000000 0.3000000


protection zone

560287 6705282 2.0 1.5000001 0.3000000 258.0 0.50 1.5000000 0.3000000


Contributions according to the maximum concentration points Contributions at the point within the standard sanitary protection zone with X and Y coordinates of 556172 and 6714762 respectively


Section number

Source number

Contribution value Contribution percentage (%)

mg/m3 MAC quotas

1 2 3 4 5 6 1 6002 1.0436e-08 2.0873e-09 100.00




Contributions according to the maximum concentration points Contributions at the point within the residential area with X and Y coordinates of 562444 and 6711731 respectively


Section number

Source number


(%)

mg/m3 MAC quotas

1 2 3 4 5 6 1 6002 2.7621e-08 5.5242e-09 100.00


Contributions at the point bordering the standard sanitary protection zone with X and Y coordinates of 560287 and 6705282 respectively


Section number

Source number


(%)

mg/m3 MAC quotas

1 2 3 4 5 6 1 6002 9.8345e-08 1.9669e-08 100.00


Contributions at the maximum point according to the calculation squares with X and Y coordinates of 556172 and 6714762 respectively


Section number

Source numbe

r

Contribution value Contribution

percentage (%)

mg/m3 MAC quotas

1 2 3 4 5 6 1 6002 1.0436e-08 2.0873e-09 100.00




Substance: 703 - Benzopyrene; 3,4-benzpyrene MAC: MAC value for calculation purposes: 0.0000100 (for calculation purposes, MAC averaged over a 24-hour period * 10 is used)


Part 1 Industrial

site number

Section number

Source number

Type Season Back-ground

Height Coefficient of relief

Diameter Localised source at one end of the linear centre to the side of the

area of the source

At the second end of the linear source at the

midpoint of the opposite side of

the area

Areal width

m M X (m) Y (m) X (m) Y (m) M

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

1 6002 It. 1 Summer + 2.0 1.0 559575 6705984 562910 ****** 2000

Part 2 Industrial

site number

Section number

Source number





discharge Average

speed Temperature


(1) (2) (3) 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

1 6002 4.3260e-11 1.0 1.2361e-09 0.50 11.4 Total number of sources venting the substance: 1

Total emissions from all sources: 4.326000000e-11 g/s 0.0000000 t/a


Calculation results Average weighted wind speed: 0.500000 m/s Summation group: 6009: 0301 + 0330 Coefficient for combining joint hygiene-related operations: 1.00




Results of calculations taken at separate calculation points UNOFFICIAL ENGLISH TRANSLATION – FOR COURTESY ONLY



Number X

coordinate (m)

Y coordinate

(m)

Height Z (m)




Wind speed (m/s)

Background


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 562444 6711731 2.0 0.0000000 0.2800005 73.0 9.0 0.0000000 0.2800000


Contributions at the point indicated by the number 1 and X and Y coordinates of 562444 and 6711731 respectively Total concentration at this point from all sources: 0.0000000 mg/m3 0.0000005 MAC quotas




Industrial


Source number


(%) mg/m3 MAC quotas

1 2 3 4 5 6 1 6002 0.0000000 0.0000005 100.00

Calculation results according to the points of maximum concentration at the boundary between the sanitary

protection zone and the residential area


Type of point

X coordinate

(m)

Y coordinate

(m)

Height Z (m)

Maximum background

concentration Direction of the wind from the Х

axis (°)

Wind speed (m/s)

Background

mg/m3 MAC quotas

mg/m3 MAC quotas

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Outside

the sanitary

protection zone

559172 6705762 2.0 0.0000000 0.2800013 225.0 0.75 0.0000000 0.2800000

Residential area

562513 6711721 2.0 0.0000000 0.2800005 73.0 9.00 0.0000000 0.2800000


protection zone

559796 6705767 2.0 0.0000000 0.2800019 233.0 0.50 0.0000000 0.2800000


Contributions according to the maximum concentration points Contributions at the point within the standard sanitary protection zone with X and Y coordinates of 559172 and 6705762 respectively


Section number

Source number


(%)

mg/m3 MAC quotas

1 2 3 4 5 6 1 6002 0.0000000 0.0000013 100.00





Contributions at the point within the residential area with X and Y coordinates of 562513 and 6711721 respectively


Section number

Source number


(%)

mg/m3 MAC quotas

1 2 3 4 5 6 1 6002 0.0000000 0.0000005 100.00


Contributions at the point bordering the standard sanitary protection zone with X and Y coordinates of 559796 and 6705767 respectively


Section number

Source number


(%)

mg/m3 MAC quotas

1 2 3 4 5 6 1 6002 0.0000000 0.0000019 100.00

Contributions according to the maximum concentration points Contributions at the maximum point according to the calculation squares with X and Y coordinates of 559172 and 6706762 respectively


Section number

Source number


(%)

mg/m3 MAC quotas

1 2 3 4 5 6 1 6002 0.0000000 0.0000019 100.00




Summation group: 6018: 0110 + 0330 Coefficient for combining joint hygiene-related operations: 1.00



Calculation results Average weighted wind speed: 0.500000 m/s Summation group: 6043: 0330 + 0333 Coefficient for combining joint hygiene-related operations: 1.00







APPENDIX 6

Materials relating to public hearings concerning the Nord Stream project




CONTENTS

1. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION IN THE INTERNATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT PROCEDURE........................................................................................................................................................... 684 1.1. NOTIFICATION PERTAINING TO THE NORD STREAM PROJECT ..................................................... 684 1.2. COMPREHENSIVELY INFORMING THE PUBLIC ABOUT THE PROJECT ........................................ 685 1.3. WHITE PAPER .............................................................................................................................................. 685 1.4. INTERNATIONAL MEASURES CARRIED OUT BY THE COMPANY IN CONNECTION WITH THE ADVANCEMENT OF THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE NORD STREAM GAS PIPELINE............................... 687 2. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION IN THE NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT PROCEDURE........................................................................................................................................................... 693 2.1. WAYS OF INFORMING THE PUBLIC ABOUT HOLDING THE HEARINGS ....................................... 693 2.2. HOLDING PUBLIC HEARINGS RELATING TO THE PROJECT ............................................................ 693 2.3. OBSERVATIONS AND SUGGESTIONS MADE DURING THE PUBLIC HEARINGS.......................... 695 2.4. CONCLUSIONS BASED ON THE RESULTS OF THE PUBLIC HEARING CONCERNING ENVIRONMENTAL ASPECTS OF THE PROJECT .............................................................................................. 704 SUPPLEMENTS TO APPENDIX 6. ...................................................................................................................... 705




INTRODUCTION Public participation in the national Russian environmental impact assessment (EIA) procedure is essential in accordance with Federal Law 174-FZ dated 23 November 1995 "On ecological expertise" and the "Regulation concerning the impact assessment of the envisaged economic and other activities on the environment of the Russian Federation", ratified by Order 372 dated 16 May 2000 issued by the Russian State Ecology Committee. This Paper describes all the steps taken by the company with a view to maintaining a continuous dialogue between Nord Stream and the general public in the Baltic Region countries.




1. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION IN THE INTERNATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL

IMPACT ASSESSMENT PROCEDURE

1.1. Notification pertaining to the Nord Stream project Nord Stream is one of the most open and transparent infrastructure projects in Europe. One of the most important stages in the environmental impact assessment procedure, both in a national and international context, is the project notification.

As regards the Nord Stream project, this procedure was performed in November 2006. The official notifications constituted a detailed document describing the project as well as the nature of the possible impact on the environment for so-called "passing parties" to whom this document was also sent. It reached various responsible State institutions in the following countries: Russia, Finland Sweden, Denmark and Germany. "Affected parties" were also informed within the notification framework: Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Poland. From this time, the company received 129 comments from responsible State institutions, establishments, NGOs and the general public in the Baltic Region countries (Denmark - 5, Estonia - 12, Finland - 50, Germany - 29, Latvia - 1, Lithuania - 1, Poland - 1, Russia - 1 and Sweden - 29). Nord Stream participated in 22 public hearings and meetings during the first international consultation stage which has already been concluded.




1.2. Comprehensively informing the public about the project

Detailed project-related information was translated into 10 languages of the Baltic Region countries. The company's website was translated into six languages so that people could familiarise themselves with the project and the progress of the environmental impact assessment, as well as with a view to receiving criticisms relating to the project and participation by governmental and public organisations in discussions. From April 2007, Nord Stream shall publish newsletters in five languages on its website (www.nord-stream.ru). These newsletters reflect the most important stages of the project, for instance:

• the fact that Nord Stream shall continue with its environmental impact assessment;

• the work strategy developed in the event of munitions being discovered;

• the fact that the European Union has confirmed its support for the Nord Stream project;

• the fact that the leading company has drawn up a detailed technical design for the gas pipeline;

• Nord Stream Project financing; • the fact that international consultations relating to

the Nord Stream project are continuing; • the pipe laying process; • the fact that Nord Stream is supporting

environmental and cultural projects in the Baltic Region;

• the fact that offshore pipelines are the most eco-friendly.

1.3. White Paper A White Paper was prepared on the basis of the questions and comments reaching the company from State institutions and private individuals from all the countries in the Baltic Region following official notification of the project in November 2006 and the publication of materials concerned with the project's progress in October 2007. This White Paper represents an in-depth analysis of the results of international consultations with the public authorities in Baltic Region countries and the general public. This compilation gives answers provided by Nord Stream (as at June 2008) to more than 200 questions and comments from State institutions and private individuals from all the countries in the Baltic Region.




It satisfies the principles of transparency and open dialogue observed by the Nord Stream company. It constitutes an additional element of the process whereby international consultations are held and the general public is informed in accordance with the Espoo Convention which regulates the environmental impact assessment procedure in a transboundary context. The White Paper is an important element of the continuous dialogue which is taking place between Nord Stream and the general public in the Baltic Region countries. This compilation demonstrates the responsible approach undertaken by Nord Stream in relation to all the project-related comments it receives and provides information on the general principles and the key results of the company's research in a form which can be understood by laymen in areas such as natural sciences, project engineering, national and international law.

Mr. Dirk von Ameln, Deputy Technical Director of Nord Stream, who is responsible for finding solutions, pointed to the following: "Nord Stream is carrying out the most extensive environmental research ever undertaken in the Baltic Sea. The White Paper is one of the most important components of the on-going dialogue with the general public and public authorities in this region". The White Paper contains Nord Stream's replies to project-related questions and comments which reflect the project's development and the results of the research carried out. The replies to all the questions which are of interest to the general public are to be found in the EIA report. The sections of the White Paper direct the reader to the relevant chapters of the report. The results of the scientific research and the changes to the gas pipeline route currently being discussed are included in the final project report which was presented for consideration by State institutions in October 2008. The final report shall be published upon conclusion of the next round of international consultations. Allowing for the complexity of the subjects affected and the comprehensive nature of the material, Nord Stream has structured its White Paper in such a way so as to identify and elucidate more than 1,600 questions relating to the potential impact of the gas pipeline on the environment, possible alternative routes and planned safeguards. The White Paper is divided into 89 sections according to seven main topics and contains coherent replies to the questions raised.




The 530 page compilation consists of two sections. The first section offers comments and replies to questions on subjects raised by interested parties. The second section has chapters relating to the individual countries. Every chapter presents comments received from countries and correlates these with the replies provided by Nord Stream in the relevant section.

1.4. International measures carried out by the company in connection with the advancement of the construction of the Nord Stream gas pipeline

Ever since official notification of the project, Nord Stream has organised and participated in a multitude of events whose main aim is to provide transparency for the project and exchange information. Nord Stream AG is informing the general public about the environmental aspects of the offshore pipeline of the same name, not just within the framework of official international and national procedures, but also outside this framework, informing the public when international events are being held, conducting informal meetings with representatives of the general public and replying to their letters. Below is a list of the main events held within the framework of the project. Events in 2006 1. Information evening for local authority representatives in the Federal territory of Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania, 23 June 2006 On 23 June 2006, Nord Stream held an information evening for local authority representatives in the Federal territory of Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania. Nord Stream's General Manager and a technical and environmental expert delivered presentations on the project, followed by a discussion. This event was organised in Schwerin, the capital of Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania. 2. Press Conference in Finland, 14 November 2006 The press conference was hosted by the Finnish Ministry of the Environment to mark the start of Nord Stream's EIA programme in Finland. Following the project presentation, Nord Stream representatives replied to questions put by Finnish journalists. Photo: Mr Dirk von Ameln, Permitting Director of Nord Stream, answers questions raised by Finnish journalists.

3. Public information meetings in Stockholm and Visby, 29-30 November 2006 Nord Stream held public information meetings within the framework of the Espoo Convention in Stockholm and Visby (Gotland) on 29-30 November 2006, during which the company answered questions relating to the project which were of interest to the general public. Inger Alness, from the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency, also participated in the meetings and presented a report concerning an assessment of the impact on the Swedish environment.




4. Public meetings in Finland, 11-14 December 2006 Within the framework of the Espoo Convention, Nord Stream held public meetings in Helsinki (11 December), Hanko (12 December), Turku (13 December) and Kotka (14 December). In the course of the meeting, the company presented the project and answered a great number of questions concerning its possible impact on the environment and fishing, energy supply security, the route of the gas pipeline and other issues.

Events in 2007 5. Participation in the Eighth International Environmental Forum - "Baltic Sea Day" - in St. Petersburg, 21 - 23 March 2007 A "Nord Stream project" round table meeting was held within the framework of the environmental forum: an assessment of its impact on the environment within the framework of the Espoo Convention. The topics up for discussion at this round table meeting were selected in execution of the recommendations made at the third and seventh round table meetings relating to the Nord Stream project within the framework of the preceding Seventh International Forum entitled "Baltic Sea Day", which took place on 22 - 23 March 2006. 92 representatives from 9 states (Germany, Latvia, Lithuania, Norway, Poland, Russia, Switzerland, Sweden and Estonia), including 7 Baltic Sea States, participated in the round table meetings. 14 reports were given hearings from the round table meetings in Germany, Denmark, Lithuania, Russia and the "Coalition Clean Baltic" NGO. This NGO unites NGOs in Germany, Denmark, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Russia, Ukraine, Sweden, Finland and Estonia. The international community rated the company's activities very highly in terms of informing the general public in the course of the project's implementation, specifically: "The participants in the round table: NOTE that on 19 April 2006, less than one month after the Seventh International Forum entitled "Baltic Sea Day" had been held, its recommendations regarding commencement of the international assessment of the impact of the Nord Stream project on the environment were implemented: at the initiative of the project's engineers, official bodies in five countries (Germany, Denmark, Russia, Sweden and Finland), in whose waters it is proposed laying the gas pipeline, initiated consultations concerning carrying out such an assessment within the framework of the Espoo Convention; WELCOME the decision taken by the Russian Federation, which is not a party to the Espoo Convention, to participate in carrying out such an assessment, acting in the spirit of good neighbourliness and cooperation; APPROVE of extensive participation on the part of the general public in the EIA procedure concerning the Nord Stream project, something which is realised on the basis of UNECE guidance on public participation in the environmental impact assessment in a transboundary context (confirmed at the Third Meeting of the Parties to the Espoo Convention (Cavtat, Croatia, 1-4 June 2004)), drawn up by an international group of experts, including representatives from the EU, UNECE, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, UK, Hungary, Georgia, Italy, Kirghizia, Romania, Croatia, Finland, France and Estonia, with Russia playing a coordinating role as the leading country. The full text of the resolution is presented in Appendix No. 6-1.




6. Information meeting with representatives of environmental organisations in St. Petersburg, 28 June 2007 Nord Stream and the Russian Regional Environmental Centre held an information meeting with representatives of environmental NGOs from the Baltic Region at which the gas pipeline construction project through the Baltic Sea was presented. 7. Public hearing regarding the preliminary EIA report in Vyborg, 23 November 2007 On 23 November 2007, in the municipal administration of the Leningrad oblast in the Vyborg District, public hearings were held regarding the preliminary version of the EIA materials relating to the Russian sector of the Nord Stream offshore gas pipeline. Officials from the Vyborg District, managers of a number of enterprises in the district, representatives of leading Russian and international ecological and environmental organisations, along with members of the media and Vyborg district residents, participated in the hearings. Events in 2008 8. Nord Stream press briefing, Stockholm, 7 January 2008 On 7 January 2008, members of the Swedish media took part in the Nord Stream press briefing, which was dedicated to submission of the application to undertake construction in Sweden. Nord Stream's Permitting Director, Mr Dirk von Ameln, presented the project, while also dwelling on issues of energy development, climate change and the reliability of gas supplies to Europe, having noted the particular importance of developing infrastructure projects with the aim of procuring reliable energy supplies in the future. Mr von Ameln emphasised that the reduction in gas production in the UK will establish the need to increase the volumes of gas imported into Europe. He also emphasised that Nord Stream is a priority project within the framework of a development programme for Trans-European Energy Networks (TEN-E). Mr Jens D. Müller, Nord Stream Communications Manager, described the process of submitting an application to obtain a licence in Sweden. 9. Public hearing of the Committee on Petitions, Brussels, 29 January 2008. In response to the petition sent to the European Parliament in 2006 by representatives of Lithuania and Poland, the European Parliament's Committee on Petitions adopted a resolution to prepare a report on an assessment of the impact of the Nord Stream project on the environment. On 29 April 2008, the Committee conducted public hearings to which all members of the European Parliament were invited. The discussion attracted the attention of a large number of participants, primarily, European Parliament representatives from Poland, Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia. Matthias Warnig, Nord Stream's Managing Director, and Mr Dirk von Ameln, Permitting Director, were invited to participate in the discussion as speakers.




Other speakers included representatives from the company Ramboll - an independent consultant providing the Nord Stream project with expertise in the sphere of environmental research, high-ranking representatives from interested parties - European institutions, scientific research centres, NGOs involved with energy-related issues and the impact on the environment, as well as independent experts. Stavros Dimas, European Commissioner for the Environment, reminded MEPs that responsibility for conducting the environmental impact assessment procedure in connection with the project will not rest with the European Commission but with the countries affected. He also added that Nord Stream had participated in a large number of consultations and was discharging all the obligations incumbent upon it in accordance with international legislation. Stavros Dimas particularly noted the transparency of the Nord Stream project. Andris Piebalgs, European Commissioner for Energy, explained that the Nord Stream gas pipeline would increase the reliability of energy supplies to Western Europe, guaranteeing additional supplies along the new route. This is precisely why, in accordance with the Guidelines on Trans-European Energy Networks (TEN-E), Nord Stream acquired the status of a priority, trans-European infrastructure project which satisfies general European interests. Andris Piebalgs also noted that Nord Stream is not the only channel whereby gas can be transported to Europe, but is an extremely attractive proposition which should be regarded as an addition, and not as an alternative, to other planned infrastructure projects and those which require completion. Mr Piebalgs called on MEPs to support the Nord Stream project. Nord Stream welcomed the initiative of the European Parliament's Committee on Petitions inasmuch as it afforded a unique opportunity to broaden dialogue with the European Parliament and to take it to a new level. During the public hearings, Nord Stream representatives had the opportunity to respond to all the questions - all members of the European Parliament's relevant committees received replies in writing. 10. Round table meeting with environmental NGOs, 14 May 2008 At the round table meeting with environmental NGOs which took place in Riga on 14 May 2008, Nord Stream received praise for its openness and its serious attitude to environmental concerns. The meeting was organised with a view to exchanging information regarding the development of the Nord Stream project and discussing issues of concern to the ecological community. At the meeting, detailed information concerning optimisation of the gas pipeline route, environmental research and international consultations within the framework of the Espoo Convention was presented which regulates the environmental impact assessment procedure in a transboundary context.




The round table meeting in the Latvian capital took place immediately after the Forum of Baltic Sea States NGOs, anticipating the meeting of Heads of State and Government in the Baltic Sea Region which will take place in Riga in June 2008. The forum was attended by representatives of leading international environmental organisations from Denmark, Germany, Latvia, Lithuania, Russia, Finland, Sweden and Estonia, including the Baltic Environmental Forum Group, the Russian Regional Environmental Centre, the Green Party in Estonia, MILKAS in Sweden, Russian Green World, the Centre for Environmental Initiatives, the cross-border environmental information agency and other institutions. Nord Stream experts talked in detail about the project's progress and the on-going, detailed research in the Baltic Sea, noting the particular importance of the work on the EIA report, the final version of which should be submitted this year. The company is planning to hand over the one-off research results to representatives of HELCOM - the Baltic Marine Environment Protection Commission - in order to make this information as readily available as possible to the environmental community. The data collected will be used to facilitate further research into the Baltic Sea's ecosystem. In the main, the environmental community is interested in issues linked to the project's possible impact on the environment and the characteristics of coordinating the project in the various countries, in particular, everything concerning the environmental impact assessment procedure with regard to the Russian part of the project. Despite the fact that Russia has not ratified the Espoo Convention, it intends to clearly follow its recommendations with respect to execution of the Nord Stream project. Representatives of the environmental community are concerned about the possible pipeline route near the planned Ingermanland Nature Reserve. Nord Stream experts emphasised that they are ready to discuss this and other issues in more detail, while also emphasising their interest in consolidating cooperation and the mutual exchange of information with NGOs. Participants at the meeting were satisfied with the detailed information they received and noted that the Nord Stream project was one of the most transparent in the Baltic Sea region, while experts in the company аre giving particular thought to cooperation with the aim of preserving the environment in the unique Baltic Sea region. Vera Ovcharenko, from Russian Green World and the international "Coalition Clean Baltic" NGO, commented: "This is the first time we have been present at such meetings where company experts were very attentive to the questions and comments received from environmentalists". The participants in the Riga meeting agreed to hold similar round table discussions involving Baltic Sea region environmental agencies and Nord Stream representatives. Comments made at these future meetings would be taken into account during the project's implementation. 11. Gas pipeline information tour around Baltic Region countries Nord Stream has developed a mobile exhibition devoted to its project. This information tour, the aim of which is to provide the general public with information on all aspects of the project's development, will be housed in a bus which will travel to many towns along the Baltic Sea coast.

These exhibitions have already visited Finland and Sweden while tours through Germany, Russia and Denmark are planned. The information tour is designed to explain all aspects of the Nord Stream project to the public at large. Visitors will be able to learn more about Nord Stream using, for example, an interactive multimedia terminal which provides interesting information on environmental issues, the use of gas, gas pipeline safety, its construction and operation.




2. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION IN THE NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT PROCEDURE

In the context of public participation in discussions on construction of the Nord Stream gas pipeline project, public hearings were held on two occasions - at the investment report stage in 2006 and at the feasibility study / project stage in 2007. Minutes of the public hearings involving discussions of the environmental impact assessment materials consisting of the "Additional amendments to the investment report pertaining to construction of the North European gas pipeline considering the increase in gas supplies for export to 55 billion m3 per annum" in the Leningrad oblast are presented in Appendix 6-2.

2.1. Ways of informing the public that hearings are being conducted In accordance with Federal Law No 174-FZ dated 23 November 1995 "On ecological expertise", public discussions are being conducted on the initiative of local authority bodies. In connection with this, the Head of the municipal administration of the Leningrad oblast in the Vyborg District issued Decree 30 dated 15 October 2007 "Regarding the holding of public hearings concerning a general outline of the project" which included the Nord Stream gas pipeline construction project (Appendix 6-3). In accordance with Order No. 372 dated 16 May 2000 issued by the Russian State Ecology Committee, information concerning the location and timeframes for holding public discussions was published in the Federal publication "Rossiyskaya Gazeta" 236 dated 23 October 2007) and three regional publications ("Vesty - the main newspaper in the Leningrad oblast" 205 dated 3 October 2007), "Sankt-Petersburg Vedomosty" 199 dated 23 October 2007; "Vyborg" 166 dated 19 October 2007). (Appendix 6-4). The technical report concerned with conducting the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) and preliminary EIA materials were available for perusal by the general public from 23 October 2007 to 23 November 2007 in the offices of the municipal administration in the Vyborg District, at the central library named after A. Aalto (in Vyborg) and on Nord Stream AG's company website (www.nord-stream.com). Electronic versions of all of the materials were made available to all interested public organisations. The following were placed in the library for receiving criticisms, suggestions and comments:

• a register of legal entities and natural persons; • a book for suggestions and observations (Appendix 6-5).

2.2. Holding public hearings relating to the project

On 23 November 2007, in the municipal administration of the Leningrad oblast in the Vyborg District, public hearings were held regarding the preliminary version of the EIA materials relating to the Russian sector of the Nord Stream offshore gas pipeline. Officials from the Vyborg District, managers of a number of enterprises in the district, representatives of leading Russian and international ecological and environmental organisations, along with members of the media and Vyborg district residents, participated in the hearings.




A complete list of all those participating in the public hearings is provided in Appendix 6-6. Nord Stream experts talked about the project and the detailed environmental research that had been carried out, while also presenting their findings based on the preliminary version of the EIA materials that, on the whole, the Nord Stream gas pipeline will not have a significant impact on the environment.

Fig. 1. Public hearings at the municipal administration of the Leningrad oblast in the Vyborg District Representatives of the "Peter Gaz" corporation and Nord Stream AG responded to questions raised by the environmental community and took note of their comments which will be considered when preparing the final version of the EIA materials relating to the Russian sector of the Nord Stream offshore gas pipeline.




Fig. 2. Chief project engineer G. V. Grudnitskiy answers questions put by members of the general public In the course of public discussions relating to the project, comments and suggestions were received from various NGOs and experts, including from Mr. A. N. Sutyagin, "Friends of the Baltic", an inter-regional, environmental organisation for young people, TEIA [Transboundary Environmental Information Agency] and others. (Appendix 6-7). Further to the hearings conducted Minutes of the public hearings on discussion of the technical specification of performing the environmental impact assessment and the preliminary EIA materials pertaining to construction of the Russian sector of the Nord Stream offshore gas pipeline (feasibility study/project stage) were drawn up and signed. The full text of the minutes is presented in Appendix No. 6-8.

2.3. Observations and suggestions made during the public hearings All observations made during the public hearings were considered when formulating the volumes of EIA materials. The table, by way of example, provides several responses to observations made during the public hearings.




REPLIES TO OBSERVATIONS MADE BY THE GENERAL PUBLIC Observations and suggestions made Replies A. N. Sutyagin, project entitled "Monitoring the Baltic pipeline system". Observations on the preliminary EIA materials relating to the Russian sector of the Nord Stream offshore gas pipeline, prepared for the public hearings on 23 November 2007.

Note: The observations made and the references to the lists of preliminary EIA materials relate to the preliminary version of the EIA materials presented at the public hearings.

According to page 3 of the preliminary EIA materials relating to the Russian sector of the Nord Stream offshore gas pipeline, in the synopsis for non-specialists, not a single accident resulting in the shutting off or reparation of offshore pipelines built after 1980 was registered. This assertion is based on information confirming the absence of accidents involving offshore gas pipelines (Energy Institute, London) and does not correspond to the data found in Table 11.2-1, Page 223, of the preliminary EIA materials relating to the Russian sector of the Nord Stream offshore gas pipeline (offshore section), or to the data in PARLOC-2001 ("The Update of Loss of Containment Data for Offshore Pipelines", 5th edition, 2003). Please explain this disparity.

In the final version of the draft, statistical data concerning gas pipeline incidents is given in the Industrial Safety Declaration (vol. 11 of the draft).

According to page 3 of the preliminary EIA materials relating to the Russian sector of the Nord Stream offshore gas pipeline, in the synopsis for non-specialists, and in the preliminary EIA materials relating to the Russian sector of the Nord Stream offshore gas pipeline (offshore section), in accordance with design solutions along the entire length of the section from the water edge up to the isobathic line of minus 10 m, the pipeline will be laid in a trench ensuring its depth. At the same time, according to page 10 of the same preliminary EIA materials relating to the Russian sector of the Nord Stream offshore gas pipeline, in the synopsis for non-specialists, and in the preliminary EIA materials relating to the Russian sector of the Nord Stream offshore gas pipeline (offshore section), the working of the trench for laying the pipeline will take place along the section of the route from the water line in Portovaya Bay to an isobathic line of minus 20 m, i.e. along a length exceeding by almost 5 times the length of a gas pipeline section in the former case. Please explain the reason for this disparity.

In the course of development work, certain technical solutions, including the parameters of the trench along the coastal section, were changed, in particular, in order to minimise the volume of excavation and the subsequent damage to the environment. Finally, the need to work the trench from the water edge up to the isobathic line of minus 12 m was substantiated. This solution is documented in the "Construction organisation plan" (vol. 7, book 1) and vol. 3, book 4, part 1. All the calculations performed in the final version of the EIA materials (vol. 8 of this draft) are based on these definitive parameters.

Please assess the impact This assessment is provided in the




Observations and suggestions made Replies of nautical accidents on the safety of the Russian sector of the Nord Stream offshore gas pipeline (offshore section) or provide proof of absence of such an impact.

"Industrial Safety Declaration (vol. 11).

According to the preliminary EIA materials relating to the Russian sector of the Nord Stream offshore gas pipeline (offshore section), Section 11.2.2, Page 222 - "Basic accident scenarios", various options are examined in the event of methane escaping when the gas pipeline is damaged, for instance, through micro holes (flaws) in the pipe. However, no calculations have been produced in the preliminary EIA materials regarding the dispersion, diffusion and absorption of the methane in water, and the formation of volumes of water with methane concentrations which are toxic for the regional fauna and flora.

Such assessments are provided in the final version of the EIA materials: vol. 8, book 1, part 1, pp. 274-277.

The EIA materials relating to the Russian sector of the Nord Stream offshore gas pipeline (offshore section) do not contain any analysis of the possible presence and negative impact on the environment of explosive munitions submerged along the route of the main gas pipeline (or in its safety corridor) (mines, bombs, projectiles and other dangerous objects) during the construction and operation thereof.

Inasmuch as the project makes provision for a thorough inspection of the route and clearing it of dangerous objects (including explosive munitions), contact with such objects is excluded and there is no need to examine its consequences for the environment.

Please provide actual bathymetric and geolocation profiles of the route (scale 1:1000000 or higher) with an indication of the distribution of the areas of impermissible spans, seabed movement zones, etc.

Actual bathymetric profiles of the route, along with detailed information on the nature of the soils, hydrometeorological and other parameters are presented in the engineering survey materials (vol. 12, book 1).

The EIA materials do not show the boundaries of areas which impact on given specially protected natural sites during construction of the gas pipeline - areas where suspensions disperse, areas of acoustic influence, areas affected when methane escapes following an accident, etc. No proof is furnished of the fact that, during the construction and operation phase, given specially protected natural sites will not be adversely affected in any way whatsoever by agitating factors (the storage of construction tools and gear, etc. on their territories, unlawful hunting and fishing, the presence of gas pipeline personnel and suchlike). There is no indication of the extent of boundaries of sites inhabited by sea birds or those which reside near the water with respect to the pipeline route

Questions regarding the possible impact of the construction of the gas pipeline on specially protected natural sites and corresponding graphic materials are listed in vol. 8, book 1, part 1, on pages 56-60 and in Appendix 2 (map). The project did not make provision for the presence of personnel or the storage of materials on islands or in adjacent waters (see also "The organisation of construction", vol. 7).




Observations and suggestions made Replies and its area of influence, for example, close to the islands of Bolshoy and Maliy Fiskar, Gogland and others. The preliminary EIA (Page 206, point 9.5.2) mistakenly asserts that the least vulnerable time for sea birds is the months of August and September although, in reality, the habitats of sea birds on their return flights have been observed during September and October in the area of Portovaya Bay. There is no indication of the extent of boundaries of existing grounds inhabited by marine mammals and other places which are important for their ecology with regard to the route taken by the gas pipeline and its area of influence.

According to the technical report into performance of the environmental impact assessment relating to the Russian sector of the Nord Stream offshore gas pipeline dated 29 March 2007, areas which are of great importance for fish reproduction should be taken into account in the EIA as special construction conditions. However, according to inquiry 17/96 raised by the "Peter Gaz" corporation dated 15 September 2006 (Appendix 10-1, Page 406), no questions were asked at all regarding the locations of such areas (spawning grounds, feeding and wintering grounds for fish, migration routes). The only enquiries made related to fishing and trawling areas. For this reason, the preliminary EIA only shows the location of fishing areas of the "Primorsky Rybak" corporation (fig. 10.1-1) and not the location of spawning, feeding and wintering grounds and migration routes of the principal commercial fish species located along the gas pipeline route.

Development of the EIA in the sphere of safeguarding fish stocks was entrusted to the establishment carrying out public monitoring of the state of fish stocks in the region (State Scientific and Research Institute concerned with fishing in lakes and rivers) which, according to the technical report, had to take into account those spawning grounds and areas on the bottom which are important as regards reproduction. This was done when assessing the resources which are necessary for replacing the forecast losses in fish stocks. Obtaining a more detailed description of the spawning grounds and the migration of fish along the pipeline route is recommended during execution of the industrial environmental inspection and monitoring until the start of production work in the waters where fishing establishments are located with the aim of defining industrial production periods more precisely with a view to avoiding impacts on the fish, as well as on the spawn, larvae and fry of commercial fish, during the spawning season.

There is even a lack of information on fish catches in the fishing zones of the "Primorsky Rybak" corporation. Data on fish caught are only given for the Gulf of Finland as a whole.

The information provided on fish caught over the last 10 years characterises the state of hunting and stocks of those commercial species of fish caught which gain weight in all the waters of the Gulf of Finland. Information on the fish caught by one commercial fishing organisation is insufficient for analysing the level of utilisation of fish stocks which have been caught by several commercial fishing organisations.

Extreme negligence in calculating the damage to fish fauna realised in the preliminary EIA stands out like a sore thumb (State Scientific and Research Institute concerned with fishing in lakes and rivers).

A reduction in zooplankton biomass does not imply its loss. Any impact on fish food resource organisms when




Observations and suggestions made Replies Above all, the conclusion drawn by the preliminary EIA (refer to Page 196) whereby 25% of plankton dies in the event of increased turbidity in the range from 10 mg/l to 50 mg/l is completely without foundation since, according to its own published monitoring results in its paper entitled "The impact of increased turbidity in the water as a result of the performance of hydroengineering work on the structural and functional characteristics of zooplankton", which was drawn up by O. N. Susloparov, V. A. Ogorodnikov and N. N. Volkhonekaya, vol. 1, pp. 274-334, State Scientific and Research Institute concerned with fishing in lakes and rivers, St. Petersburg, 2006), the quantity of zooplankton biomass fell 3-9 fold in the presence of additional turbidity ranging from 18 mg/l to 60 mg/l as a result of dredging, for example, in Luzhsk Bay. This means that in a genuine experiment, only 30-10% of plankton survived, and not 75% as in the preliminary EIA. And even less plankton survived with a turbidity range in excess of 50 mg/l. By the same token, food resource losses as a result of temporary damage will be three times higher than in the preliminary EIA.

conducting hydroengineering work is dependent on many factors, including the extent of suspended particles and pollution (by petroleum products, heavy metals and other substances), seafloor sediments, secondary contamination and the duration of the impact. A sufficiently wide range of empirical data is available on this issue, offering varying levels of aquatic organism losses. Therefore, in the industrial environmental inspection and monitoring schedules, provision is always made for sampling of sea-bottom organisms and zooplankton and a more precise definition of the level of the impact on aquatic organisms and the extent of aquatic bioresource losses.

Although the preliminary EIA confirms, with reference to S. A. Patin's well-known book ("Oil and the Ecology of the Continental Shelf", All-Russian Scientific Research Institute for Fishing and Oceanography, 2001), that seafloor biotic communities are already wiped out when the bottom is backfilled with sediment to a thickness of 5 mm (refer to Page 193 of the preliminary EIA and others), when calculating the level of permanent damage due to the Baltic herring losing its breeding grounds when the trenches are filled, refer to Page 200, consideration is only given to the impact at a distance of 18 m from trenches in the event of these being backfilled with a layer of sediment more than 100 mm thick. However, fish eggs perish under a substantially thinner layer of sediment of 5 - 10 mm or more. Hence, the permanent damage as a result of the Baltic herring losing its breeding grounds is underestimated at least 10 times fold!

The impact on spawning substrata of Baltic herring fish (macrophytes, soil surfaces) and not losses of seafloor biotic communities is estimated. The loss of seafloor biotic communities does not so much depend on the thickness of the sediment as on the characteristic features of the organisms making up the seafloor community (the extent of macrophytes, the versatility of the fauna, the extent of siphonal growth in bicuspid molluscs and so on), as well as on the speed of deposition of soil particles and the extent of such particles. The book by S. A. Patin is not a comprehensive monograph on this critical issue. The industrial environmental inspection and monitoring schedules always make provision for an elaboration of the extent of the impact on seafloor biotic communities.

Moreover, "scientists" from the State Scientific and Research Institute concerned with fishing in lakes and rivers forgot that the permissible removal of commercial stocks of Baltic herring, which they themselves estimated at 8,800 tonnes (refer to Paget 200 of the preliminary EIA), is measured in tonnes per annum, i.e. it makes sense to indicate the extent of catches which are permitted during a single fishing season.

What is meant here is the average annual permissible level of commercial stock removal over a period of many years. In the final version of the EIA materials, a conversion to the impact on fish resources was performed in accordance with accepted technical solutions.




Observations and suggestions made Replies When calculating the level of permanent damage, it is also necessary to multiply the specific damage inflicted over a period of one year by the number of years during which the work will be in progress, i.e. for at least 8 years, according to Page 199 of the preliminary EIA. Hence, the permanent losses suffered by the Baltic herring are underestimated at least 8 fold and are not in the order of 3 tonnes, as specified in the preliminary EIA, Page 200, but at least 30-240 tonnes!

The level of permanent losses is counted using another formula and does not require multiplication by 8 years (Page 204). The damage to fish stocks is calculated as being methodically correct.

In addition (refer to Page 200 of the preliminary EIA), the authors calculating the level of losses confused the roe stage of development of the Baltic herring (fish eggs are located on the bottom or on macrophytes) with its larval stage (larvae and alevins swim near the surface of the water), which continues for 1-2 months and requires a ban on dredging work being carried out, if only until the end of June (N. Popov, "Dynamics over a period of many years of the state of Baltic herring stocks in the eastern part of the Gulf of Finland and determining factors"). "Ecological aspects of the impact of hydraulic engineering on the regional fauna and flora in the spawning grounds of the eastern part of the Gulf of Finland", vol. 2, pp. 119 - 139, State Scientific and Research Institute concerned with fishing in lakes and rivers, St. Petersburg, 2006).

This aspect is being taken into consideration: work in these waters will commence in July.

In the preliminary EIA, when calculating the permanent and temporary losses, no consideration whatsoever is given to losses influenced by algal macrophyte suspensions which serve as a substrate for the roe of the Baltic herring during spawning (O. A. Sherstneva "The influence of turbidity in the water on the population and productivity of submerged macrophytes on the eastern shore of the Gulf of Finland", "Ecological aspects of the impact of hydraulic engineering on the regional fauna and flora in the spawning grounds of the eastern part of the Gulf of Finland", vol. 1, pp. 12-35, State Scientific and Research Institute concerned with fishing in lakes and rivers, St. Petersburg, 2006).

In this instance, the macrophytes are not used by the industry, are not eaten by the fish and are only regarded as spawning substrata.

When calculating the temporary losses (refer to Pages 200-201 of the preliminary EIA), the reduction in the volume of water in the area of negative influence of the suspended matter on account of the volume of the trenches, or the soil separated from it, is totally absurd since, in the soil (of the trench), zooplankton does not only not survive but does not even breed. Also, the thrice-repeated subtraction of the volume of soil separated from the trench from three volumes of water containing differing concentration levels of suspended matter is absurd three times over.

The volume of soil is deducted from the general area of increased turbidity because zooplankton do not live in the soil.




Observations and suggestions made Replies There is no justification at all for the reducing coefficient 7 (refer to Page 204 of the preliminary EIA) since, in reality, the variation in prices in terms of a kilogramme in weight between salmon and the remaining fish species (whitefish, smelt and others) does not exceed 200-300% (by2007 prices).

This coefficient is based on a method and the price level of various species of fish in the Leningrad oblast (determined by the statistical management of the regional administration on a quarterly basis). The price of salmon is not being compared with species of whitefish but with average prices according to the composition of the catch.

According to Page 160 of the preliminary EIA materials relating to the Russian sector of the Nord Stream offshore gas pipeline (offshore section), ichthyological mapping only took place during the autumn when the principal commercial fish species (Baltic herring, bream, smelt and others) are not spawning. For this reason, no calculation was performed of the damage resulting from losses of roe and larvae during hydroengineering work - refer to Page 198.

Incorrect. Autumnal mapping was performed in 2005, while spring and summer mapping took place in 2006. No calculation was performed of the damage resulting from losses of roe and larvae during hydroengineering work since no hydroengineering and earth work will be taking place in the waters or in the coastal area during the vulnerable periods of the life cycles of fish and pinniped mammals (breeding and spawning migration).

The basis for this - the fact that during the spawning season, according to the data obtained from inspections in the area of the Beryozovye Islands, the fish are avoiding areas where hydroengineering work is being carried out - is incorrect because: a) no data has been produced from these very observations corroborating this fact, b) no such data can be available in principle since, according to Page 205 of the preliminary EIA, at the request of fish conservation agencies, a ban is being observed on all forms of hydroengineering work from April until 15 June inclusive during the spawning season. For this reason, a calculation of the damage to fish stocks, as per Page 198 of the preliminary EIA, does not have any basis in principle.

This assertion does not correspond to reality. During construction of the port of Primorsk in the Strait of Berkezund, inspections were performed by the State Scientific and Research Institute concerned with fishing in lakes and rivers. In point of fact, there was no need to carry out any inspections on the impact of hydroengineering work on spawning fish. Any work in the water must be prohibited during the spawning season. Such a decision by fish conservation agencies was taken several decades ago on the basis of inspection results. One of these inspections was the impact of hydromechanised work in the Salekhard river port on the spawning season of species of whitefish in the River Sob in the 1980s (the documents can be found in the "The Central department of fisheries expert opinion and standards concerned with the conservation and rehabilitation of fish stocks" Federal State Institution).

The particular losses suffered by plankton-eating fish (refer to Page 200 of the preliminary EIA and others) on account of the reduction in available food resources for such fish during trench development and backfilling in Portovaya Bay are not substantiated either.

The parameters of the feeding components of plankton and sea-bottom organisms are determined by the State Scientific and Research Institute concerned with fishing in lakes and rivers. If other data is available, it should be included in the observations.

Although calculations have been carried out in relation to the areas having a negative impact on such fish when performing hydroengineering work (refer to table 9.4-3 for the suspended matter content because of turbidity), the preliminary EIA does not contain any information on the background level of the concentration of suspended matter in

Consideration is given to background concentrations in all programmes concerned with calculating the dispersion of suspended matter. The area affected as far as aquatic bioresources are concerned was determined taking account of the maximum allowable concentration of suspended matter for the shelf and data provided by the State Scientific and Research Institute concerned with fishing in lakes and rivers.




Observations and suggestions made Replies areas where hydroengineering work is being performed, in particular, in Portovaya Bay. According to the preliminary EIA, such data on the background level of the concentration of suspended matter in areas where hydroengineering work is being performed was not calculated, not determined by experiments, and not even inquired about. Given this, it is not possible to reliably assess the extent of the negative impact of the solution which forms when carrying out hydroengineering work on ichthyofauna or on aquatic organisms as a whole.

The preliminary EIA also fails to determine the damage to the fishing industry when establishing the safety corridor (1 km either side of the gas pipeline) during gas pipeline operation and construction.

During the period of pipeline operation when using fixed casting and trap nets, no losses are anticipated for the fishing industry provided, during this time, vessels which ensure pipeline operation (or repair) do not operate.

Please do not just perform an accurate calculation of the damage to fishing stocks which is pertinent to actual activity, but present to the preliminary EIA the substantiated alteration to the design solutions and technology used to lay the main gas pipeline which will enable such damage to be actually and appreciably reduced.

The calculation corresponds to accepted procedures. There is no justification for recalculating the damage. If necessary, this recalculation may only be performed by the State Scientific and Research Institute concerned with fishing in lakes and rivers, using its original data pertaining to regional fauna and flora, something which it did when drawing up the final version of the environmental impact assessment in connection with the updating of the technical solutions for the concluding stages of the project. In conclusion, recommendations are necessary concerning the issues broached relating to the performance of the industrial environmental inspection and monitoring.

Please take into account the fact that, with the technology being used, according to Table 6.3-1 of Page 112 to the preliminary EIA, the duration of settlement of the suspended matter in the coastal part in concentrations which are toxic to the regional fauna and flora will be more than 3 months, for the duration of the construction itself - about 1 month, i.e. the impact of the construction of the main gas pipeline will not be brief and negligible as stated in the preliminary EIA.

The data obtained by the State Scientific and Research Institute concerned with fishing in lakes and rivers regarding monitoring is different. It is possible that there is a lack of data used in the model. In reality, the suspended matter is absorbed by the plankton, coagulates and settles much more quickly. The State Scientific and Research Institute concerned with fishing in lakes and rivers did not obtain data demonstrating 100% zooplankton loss under turbidity conditions of 100 mg/l in Neva Bay. Justification for recalculating the damage resulting to fish stocks on the basis of this design solution must be obtained when performing the industrial environmental inspection and monitoring.

According to the technical report dated 29 March 2007 concerning performance of the EIA relating to the Russian sector of the Nord Stream offshore gas pipeline, the development of an industrial and environmental programme for monitoring the impact of gas pipeline construction and operation was required.

A detailed monitoring programme was presented in vol. 8. book 5 of the draft.




Observations and suggestions made Replies However, such a monitoring programme was not presented in the month leading up to the hearings or during the hearings themselves.

Questions and suggestions put by the "Friends of the Baltic" organisation

When assessing the impact of the project on the environment, consideration was not given to background characteristics ... To carry out additional research ... and evaluate the impact of the project as a whole together with existing environmental violations.

Background contamination of the Gulf of Finland's ecosystems is taken into account in the final EIA materials when assessing secondary contamination of the aquatic environment whose seafloor sediments contain pollutants.

The EIA materials do not indicate the boundaries of existing and planned specially protected natural sites ... an assessment was carried out of the possible impact of the project on the ecosystems of the specially protected natural sites.

Questions regarding the possible impact of the construction of the gas pipeline on specially protected natural sites and corresponding graphic materials are listed in vol. 8, book 1, part 1, on pages 56 - 60 and in Appendix 2 (map).

The EIA materials do not provide any information on important fishing industry areas close to the route taken by the gas pipeline.

Such information is provided in vol. 8. book 1, part 1, pp. 171 - 172, in the final version of the EIA materials.

The EIA materials do not contain any information relating to the use of coastal territories and islands in the Gulf of Finland for storing construction equipment and other auxiliary materials and equipment.

The project did not make provision for the presence of personnel or the storage of materials on islands or in coastal areas with the exception of the construction area in Portovaya Bay (see also "The organisation of construction", vol. 7).

Memorandum of social responsibility of Russian business

A proposal to the Nord Stream company to support the establishment of the Ingermanland Nature Reserve

Nord Stream supports the idea of the establishment of the Ingermanland Nature Reserve and shall be pleased to examine concrete proposals for action which could promote implementation of this project.

To conduct additional investigations of the pipeline route for the purpose of identifying any dangerous objects.

A detailed inspection of the entire route for the purpose of identifying submerged chemical weapons and dangerously explosive objects was conducted by Nord Stream and on its instructions. Careful inspection of the exposed objects will be continued.

We propose that independent monitoring be conducted within the area of potential impact of the pipeline and that its results be made available to the public.

The project makes provision for performing industrial and environmental monitoring in the construction area and in adjacent waters (including on islands). A design for the industrial and environmental monitoring system is provided in vol. 8 book 3.

Letter from the TEIA [Transboundary Environmental Information Agency]:

Regarding the possible impact of the intended Questions regarding the possible impact of the




Observations and suggestions made Replies activity on the specially protected natural sites construction of the gas pipeline on specially protected

natural sites and corresponding graphic materials are listed in vol. 8, book 1, part 1, on pages 56 - 60 and in Appendix 2 (map).

Taking account of the background state of ecosystems when assessing the impact of constructing the gas pipeline.

Background concentrations of contaminants in the atmosphere in the construction area are extremely small, the impact of bulk oil terminals in Primorsk and Vysotsk is not observed here, and background contamination is therefore disregarded in the EIA materials. The increase in background turbidity associated with other forms of economic activity in the Gulf of Finland is a transitory phenomenon comparable with the natural increase in turbidity following storms and, for this reason, this process is also disregarded. At the same time, background contamination of the ecosystems in the Gulf of Finland is taken into account in the final EIA materials when assessing secondary contamination of the aquatic environment by pollutants contained in the seabed sediments.

2.4 Conclusions based on the results of the public hearing concerning environmental aspects of the project

Representatives of public organisations and the local administration and residents of the Vyborg District familiarised themselves with the preliminary EIA materials pertaining to construction of the Russian sector of the Nord Stream offshore gas pipeline along the bottom of the Gulf of Finland and, having taken these materials into consideration, expressed their wishes that both Nord Stream AG and project engineers of "Peter Gaz" consider the observations and suggestions put forward when completing the environmental impact assessment. Additional completion work saw consideration given to all possible observations which were reflected in the volumes of the draft.




SUPPLEMENTS TO APPENDIX 6.




APPENDIX 6-1


International Environmental Forum "Baltic Sea Day" St. Petersburg, 21 - 23 March 2007

International Environmental Forum "Baltic Sea Day"

St. Petersburg, 21 - 23 March 2007


ROUND TABLE RESOLUTION The "Nord Stream" project: Environmental impact assessment within the framework of the Espoo convention

Within the framework of the Eighth International Environmental Forum - "Baltic Sea Day"

CHAIRMEN: S. G. Serdyukov (Technical Director, Nord Stream AG), A. A.Startsev (Representative of the Environmental Committee of the State Duma of the Russian Federation), N. B. Tretyakova (Ministry of Natural Resources in the Russian Federation, Head of the Russian delegation in HELCOM) Number of participants: 92 The subject of this round table was chosen in order to implement Recommendations 3 and 7 of the Round Table on the Nord Stream project (NEGP) within the framework of the Seventh International Forum - "Baltic Sea Day" (22 - 23 March 2006) whereby it was recommended to the project management to carry out an assessment of the impact of the gas pipeline on the environment on the basis of international environmental law and with the involvement of international and national experts, as well as to provide public access to comprehensive environmental information during the EIA process. The round table sessions were attended by 92 representatives from 9 states (Germany, Latvia, Lithuania, Norway, Poland, Russia, Switzerland, Sweden and Estonia) including 7 states of the Baltic Sea region. 14 presentations were made by round table participants from Germany, Lithuania, Russia and the "Coalition Clean Baltic" NGO consisting of non-governmental organisations from Germany, Denmark, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Russia, Ukraine, Sweden, Finland and Estonia. CONSIDERING THE FACT that the Nord Stream project is part of the Trans-European Transport Networks (TEN-E) development programme and is carried out in accordance with the basic goals of the common European energy policy: stability, competitiveness and reliability of supplies; TAKING INTO ACCOUNT the fact that the implementation of the Nord Stream project is designed to mitigate possible energy shortages in European countries to ensure their economic development in a sustainable manner. NOTING the importance of the comprehensive account of environmental factors during the preparation and implementation of the project and the need to minimise adverse impacts on the sensitive and vulnerable ecosystem of the Baltic Sea; RECOGNISING the Convention on Environmental Impact Assessment in a Transboundary Context (Espoo Convention) developed within the framework of the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE), as the prevailing international law in the field of transboundary environmental impact assessments; The participants of the round table: NОTE that on 19 April 2006, less than one month after the Seventh International Forum entitled "Baltic Sea Day" had been held (22 - 23 March 2006), its recommendations regarding commencement of the international assessment of the impact of the Nord Stream project on the environment were implemented: at the initiative of the project's engineers, official bodies in five countries (Germany, Denmark, Russia, Sweden and Finland), in whose waters it is proposed laying the gas pipeline, initiated consultations concerning the carrying out of such an assessment within the framework of the Espoo Convention;






WELCOME the decision taken by the Russian Federation, which is not a party to the Espoo Convention, to participate in carrying out such an assessment, acting in the spirit of good neighbourliness and cooperation; SUPPORT the joint decision of Nord Stream AG and official bodies in Germany, Denmark, Russia, Sweden and Finland which was taken as a result of consultations held in Germany (19 April, 9 May and 17 October 2006), Russia (28 - 29 August 2006) and Denmark (7 November 2006) concerning performance of the international environmental impact assessment as per the Espoo Convention, in accordance with which agreement was reached on the following:

• the Nord Stream gas pipeline is assigned number 8 (large diameter oil and gas pipelines) in the List of activities in Appendix I to the Espoo Convention which may have adverse transboundary impacts. Thus, the EIA procedure, in accordance with the Convention, should be undertaken for the given project in Germany, Denmark, Sweden and Finland, which are parties to the Convention, as well as in the Russian Federation;

• Germany, Denmark, Finland and Sweden consider themselves as the parties of origin in the sense of the Espoo Convention. However, the Russian Federation, not being a party to the Convention, will act as the party of origin only as far as this complies with its national legislation;

• All nine states of the Baltic Sea region, including Germany, Denmark, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, the Russian Federation, Finland, Sweden and Estonia are considered to be affected parties according to the Espoo Convention;

• The four parties of origin and the Russian Federation agreed to send out an identical, agreed notification to each affected party;

• Having sent this notification, the project owner will prepare EIA documentation taking account of the comments received from stakeholders and the general public. This documentation will then be sent as per the Espoo Convention by the parties of origin and the Russian Federation to those affected parties who will express their interest in participating in the EIA procedure. Later, the affected parties and the general public will have another opportunity to participate in consultations regarding prepared EIA materials.

TAKE ACCOUNT OF activities of Nord Stream AG as the company prepared materials on environmental aspects of planned activities (over 100 pages), provided for its translation into all languages of the Baltic Sea region countries, as well as into English, and sent these materials, along with the notification, within the framework of the Espoo Convention to all Baltic Sea region countries on 14 November 2006 with a view of receiving comments from stakeholders and the general public, and also posted these materials on the company's website. APPROVE of extensive participation on the part of the general public in the EIA procedure concerning the Nord Stream project, something which is realised on the basis of UNECE guidance on public participation in the environmental impact assessment in a transboundary context (confirmed at the Third Meeting of the Parties to the Espoo Convention (Cavtat, Croatia, 1-4 June 2004)), drawn up by an international group of experts, including representatives from the EU, UNECE, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, UK, Hungary, Georgia, Italy, Kirghizia, Romania, Croatia, Finland, France and Estonia, with Russia playing a coordinating role as the leading country. More than 140 responses were received from official bodies and stakeholders, including the general public, in all nine Baltic Sea region countries. These were discussed at a meeting of representatives of the official bodies to the Espoo Convention, the parties of origin, the Russian Federation and Nord Stream AG (20 - 21 March 2007, Stockholm) and will be taken into account during further research and EIA document preparation.






The participants in the round table recommend the following:

1. TO CONTINUE with further constructive actions on the part of the official bodies in Germany, Denmark, the Russian Federation, Sweden and Finland, as well as Nord Stream AG, regarding the performance of an international environmental impact assessment within the framework of the Espoo Convention, including broad participation by the general public and other stakeholders.

2. TO INFORM the general public about Nord Stream's EIA within the framework of various international forums and meetings, including meetings of the UNECE Working Group on EIA, 21 - 23 May and 21 - 23 November 2007, Geneva, Switzerland, and meetings of the Parties to the Espoo Convention, 19 - 21 May 2008, Bucharest, Romania, meetings of the Head of Delegations and Ministerial Meetings of the Baltic Marine Environment Protection Commission (HELCOM), and also the HELCOM Ministerial Meeting, 15 November 2007, Krakov, Poland.

3. TO PUBLISH the results of Nord Stream's international environmental impact assessment within the framework of the Espoo Convention in easily accessible and special mass media, to send these to the governments, parliaments, interested authorities, scientific and educational organisations, public and scientific libraries and public organisations in the Baltic Sea region countries, and to post them on the Internet, and also to facilitate the implementation of other projects which promote the informing and participation of the general public in the EIA procedure within the framework of the Espoo Convention.

4. TO CONSIDER the responses from official bodies and stakeholders, including the general public, which have been received in response to the Nord Stream project notification within the framework of the Espoo Convention and, as a result of this round table discussion, in future research and preparation of EIA materials; in particular, the programme of future EIA-related work should include research into:

reasonable alternatives (for example, of geographical or technological nature) to activities proposed, including the no-action alternative;

the consequences of disturbing the sea floor; the possible impact of submerged WWII chemical and other weapons and of hazardous substances of

technogenic origin; the impacts on commercial fishing; the conditions where the gas pipeline intersects with the coast; risks.

5. TO PROVIDE an opportunity for all interested parties, including the general public, including those who sent their comments and proposals at the stage of discussions over the Notification on the project within the framework of the Espoo Convention, to study the EIA materials prepared in accordance with the Espoo Convention regarding the planned construction of the Nord Stream gas pipeline.

6. TO PROVIDE an opportunity for all interested parties, including the general public, to submit their comments to the official bodies of the parties of origin and the Russian Federation regarding the draft EIA materials relating to the planned Nord Stream gas pipeline.

7. TO DRAW ATTENTION to the fact that conclusion of the inter-governmental agreements on the construction of the Nord Stream gas pipeline along the bottom of the Baltic Sea where WWII chemical munitions were dumped gives cause to once again consider the impact of these munitions on the Baltic Sea ecosystem. The round table participants appeal to the governments of Great Britain and the USA to provide access to the information on the chemical munitions dumped by these countries and recommend that HELCOM reconsider this problem from the point of view of current issues.

8. TO ENSURE that the final decision on the proposed activity (construction of the Nord Stream gas pipeline) takes due account of the outcome of the environmental impact assessment, including the environmental impact assessment documentation and the comments received in this connection.


PETERGAZ 36/07-01- Feasibility study - EIA - 0801(1)-C6 NORD STREAM G-PE-LFR-EIA-101-08010100-06

Volume 8. Book 1. Off-shore section. Part 1. Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Page 711

APPENDIX 6-2




MINUTES

of the public hearings involving discussions of the environmental impact assessment materials consisting of the “Additional amendments to the investment report pertaining to construction of the North European

gas pipeline in the context of the increase in gas supplies for export to 55 billion m3 per annum” in the Leningrad oblast.

Leningrad oblast 21 September 2006 Vyborg, ul. Sovetskaya, building 12 The public hearings were organised by the customer - the private joint stock company “YamalGazInvest” and the public joint stock company “Giprospetsgaz”, with the help of the private joint stock company “NPF DIEM”, in consultation with the administration in Leningrad oblast and the administrative offices of the Vyborg municipal district, attended by scientific, public and environmental organisations and engineering companies in accordance with:

Federal Law number 174-FZ dated 23 November 1995 “On ecological expertise” (with addenda dated 29 December 2004 and 31 December 2005);

the “Regulation on the environmental impact assessment of a planned economic or other activity

in the Russian Federation”, ratified by Order no. 372, dated 16 May 2000, issued by the Russian State Ecology Committee.

Information on the holding of these public hearings will be brought to the attention of the general public via the mass media: the newspapers “Rossiyskaya Gazeta”, “Vesti” and “Vyborg”. The meeting was opened by Nadezhda Yurevna Lyudvikova, chair of the Committee on economics and investment of the Vyborg municipal district administrative office in Leningrad oblast. Chairman of the meeting: Nadezhda Yurevna Lyudvikova, chair of the Committee on economics and investment of the Vyborg municipal district administrative office in Leningrad oblast. Party coordinating the meeting: Aleksandr Vyacheslavovich Kozyritsky - Project manager of the ecological and analytical department of the private joint stock company “NPF DIEM”. Secretary: Victoria Anatolevna Bashmak - Senior specialist of the political economy section of the Committee on economics and investment of the Vyborg municipal district administrative office in Leningrad oblast. Participants: Heads and specialists of State and supervisory bodies in the Vyborg municipal district, the senior specialist of the department concerned with the development and monitoring of Federal construction and dedicated regional programmes prepared by the Construction Committee in Leningrad oblast, heads and specialists of territorial executive bodies, representatives from the media and specialists from the building owner, the private joint stock company “YamalGazInvest”, design documentation development engineer specialists from the public joint stock company “Giprospetsgaz” and the EIA development engineers from “NPF DIEM”, along with representatives from public organisations and scientific establishments and members of the general public from the Vyborg municipal district (see Appendix 1 for a list of participants).




Presidium: N. Yu. Lyudvikova, S. I. Igolnikov, A. A. Shchelkunov, V. M. Leushin, A. V. Yurev, E. O. Ulyanova. Introductory remark: N. Yu. Lyudvikova - Chair of the Committee on economics and investment of the Vyborg municipal district administrative office in Leningrad oblast. Subject under discussion: materials relating to the environmental impact assessment carried out as part of the “Additional amendments to the investment report pertaining to construction of the North European gas pipeline in the context of the increase in gas supplies for export to 55 billion m3 per annum”. Aim of the public hearings: the discussion of issues connected with the environmental impact assessment, opinion research and collecting proposals and observations from the general public on the subject under discussion.

Agenda: 1. Introductory remarks made by the parties responsible for initiating these public hearings. 2. Report entitled “Main characteristics of the construction and operation of the European gas pipeline in the context of the increase in gas supplies for export to 55 billion m3 per annum. Principal technical solutions relating to the project. General project-related information”. V. M. Leushin - chief project engineer, deputy chief engineer of the public joint stock company “Giprospetsgaz”. 3. Report entitled “Environmental impact assessment carried out as part of the additional amendments to the investment report pertaining to construction of the North European gas pipeline in the context of the increase in gas supplies for export to 55 billion m3 per annum”. E. O. Ulyanova - chief engineer in the department concerned with the development of environment-oriented documentation at the private joint stock company “NPF DIEM”. 4. Debates, question answering. 5. Summary of the outcome of the hearing and pronouncements. The following parties were heard: The first issue was addressed by Mr V. M. Leushin, chief project engineer of the public joint stock company “Giprospetsgaz”, who presented information on the conceptual technical solutions, on the increased need for natural resources, on basic regulations concerned with safeguarding the environment from technogenic influences, on the protection of areas earmarked for construction from possible emergencies of an environmental nature and on preliminary investment. The speaker noted the following in particular: 1. The work was carried out in accordance with the task involving additional amendments to the “Investment report pertaining to construction of the North European gas pipeline in the context of the increase in gas supplies for export to 55 billion m3 per annum”, which was affirmed by the “Gazprom” public joint stock company in 2006. 2. The planned gas pipeline route will take it through the Vologod and Leningrad oblasts, joining up with the Gryazovets - Vyborg gas pipeline currently under construction.




The route of the North European gas pipeline along the Baltic Sea will pass from Portovaya Bay (Russia) to the Bay of Greifswald (Germany). 3. Implementation of the project will resolve the problem of diversified gas export flows; will ensure that the pipeline is put to good use and will provide a direct link between Russia’s gas transport networks and Baltic region countries, satisfying the growing demands for gas in the Northern European region of Russia. Construction of a second branch of the Gryazovets - Vyborg gas pipeline will facilitate an increase in the supply of gas for export. 4. During construction, the existing infrastructure will be utilised in the form of the client base, the pipe-welding base, temporary small towns housing builders and suchlike, thereby allowing the temporary allocation of land to be kept to a minimum during construction, and the permanent allocation of the same to be kept to a minimum during the period of operation. 5. Along the entire 512 km section between Gryazovets and Volkhov 331 km of piping in the form of looping of the Gryazovets - Vyborg gas pipeline that is already under construction will be laid. 405 km of piping will be laid along the Volkhov - Vyborg section over its total length of 405 km. During construction of the gas pipeline, piping shall be used with a smooth-walled internal diameter of 1420/1220 mm at a working pressure of 9.8 MPa. The offshore section of the pipeline will be laid using third/fourth generation S-shaped pipe-laying vehicles (pipe-laying barge). The pipes will be supplied using pipe carriers with intermediate storage platforms. The pipeline will be laid directly on the sea floor. Excavation work (profiling of the bed) will be required in individual areas to reduce the clear span dimensions. 6. Provision is made for the construction of seven linear compressor stations in order to ensure that gas can be transported to the starting point of the offshore section of the North European gas pipeline in the section between Gryazovets and Vyborg. The arrangement of additional compressor station works which ensure an increase in the supply of gas to the starting point of the offshore section of the North European gas pipeline (Portovaya compressor station) to the tune of 55.0 billion cubic metres per annum will be realised in areas where the Gryazovets - Vyborg gas pipeline has already been constructed. Four of these compressor station works, in turn, will be combined with the compressor station areas relating to the Gryazovets - Leningrad gas pipeline. 7. Additional amendments to the investment report pertaining to construction of the North European gas pipeline in the context of the increase in gas supplies for export to 55 billion m3 per annum will be undertaken in full accordance with Gazprom’s environmental policy. Project planning will be executed on the basis of existing Federal regulatory acts in the sphere of conservation and the rational management of natural resources, as well as regulatory acts in the Leningrad oblast. 8. All the indicators presented are subject to further substantiation and elaboration owing to optimisation in consideration of better global practices. 9. Resources will be returned to the regional funds in the form of taxes. Tax revenues which can be obtained from the operation of installations located within Leningrad oblast are estimated at USD 5.9 billion. 10. Gazprom’s approach is based on the recruitment of specialists in places where, in the absence of the necessary categories of workers, the plan is to attract them from outside or for them to undergo training in Leningrad oblast.




The second issue was addressed by E. O. Ulyanova, chief engineer with the private joint stock company “NPF DIEM”, who presented information concerned with an assessment of the impact of the construction and operation of the North European gas pipeline on the environment. The environmental impact assessment is performed with the aim of averting and/or minimising the impacts arising during construction and operation of the North European gas pipeline installations on the environment and the social, economic and other consequences associated with this. The section entitled “Environmental impact assessment” regarding the offshore section of the North European gas pipeline is carried out in accordance with current international agreements in the area of conservation and the legislation of the countries whose jurisdiction applies in this instance. To achieve the stated aim when carrying out the EIA, the following tasks were resolved:

An assessment was carried out of the modern (background) state of environmental components in the areas of the proposed location of North European gas pipeline installations, including the state of the atmosphere, as well as the state of the soil, land and water and also the vegetation, animals resources and fish stocks.

A full assessment was conducted regarding the impact of the North European gas pipeline

installations on the environment;

Factors having a negative impact on the natural habitat were examined, while a determination was made of the quantitative and qualitative characteristics of the environmental impact when constructing and operating the North European gas pipeline;

Measures were formulated regarding the prevention and reduction of the possible impact of the

North European gas pipeline installations on the environment;

Recommendations were worked out regarding the performance of environmental monitoring when constructing and operating the North European gas pipeline;

The extent of the compensation for damage done to various environmental components while

implementing the project was determined;

The uncertainties associated with the possible impact on the environment when carrying out the planned activity were identified and described while recommendations were worked out on eliminating these uncertainties during subsequent work stages.

The speaker noted the following: 1. The impact on the environment when carrying out the building and installation works will consist of pollutant emissions into the atmosphere and discharges into the water, noise, the formation of construction waste and effects on vegetation and animals (including ichthyofauna). The impact during the period when construction work is being carried out will be of a transitory and local nature. 2. During the period when the compressor stations are operational, all environmental components will be contaminated on a constant basis, while its quantitative and qualitative characteristics are substantiated by calculations using established methods, and which are agreed in accordance with established procedure.




An industrial and environmental monitoring system has been created to monitor the state of the environment. 3. The performance of industrial and environmental monitoring enables the impact of facilities for transporting gas on various components of the natural habitat to be controlled and environmental protection measures to be implemented which will facilitate the timely prevention or localisation of the negative effects on the environment. 4. The project makes provision for a series of environmental protection measures during construction and operation. Consideration is given to the environmental constraints of undertaking the project. Discussions The following participated in the debates: representatives of public organisations, representatives of controlling environmental agencies, scientists, specialists, residents of the region (refer to Appendix 2 for the questions and proposals expressed at the public hearings). The chair of the meeting mentioned the following: To acknowledge the significance of the construction facility and its economic and environmental validity. It is necessary to pay special attention to the environmental and socio-economic components during the subsequent stages of the project. To acknowledge the significance of the construction facility and its economic and environmental validity. It is necessary to pay special attention to the environmental and socio-economic components during the subsequent stages of the project. As far as the benefit of constructing the gas pipeline is concerned, this is obvious and, at the same time, damage which will be compensated is in evidence. The following decisions were taken at the meeting: 1. To approve as a whole Gazprom’s intention to construct the North European gas pipeline in the context of the increase in gas supplies for export to 55 billion m3 per annum along the territory of the Vyborg municipal district in Leningrad oblast. 2. To approve materials presented for discussion by the general public relating to the environmental impact assessment carried out as part of the “Additional amendments to the investment report pertaining to construction of the North European gas pipeline in the context of the increase in gas supplies for export to 55 billion m3 per annum”. 3. To recommend that “YamalGazInvest”, “Giprospetsgaz” and “NPF DIEM” take into account the questions and proposals put by the participants at the public hearings (Appendix 2). 4. To recommend that Gazprom examines the possibility of providing a gas supply to populated areas of the Vyborg municipal district in Leningrad oblast. Nadezhda Yurevna Lyudvikova, chair of the Committee on economics and investment of the Vyborg municipal district administrative office in Leningrad oblast, proposed bringing the public discussions surrounding the EIA to a close and switching to preparation of the minutes.




Chairman of the meeting Party coordinating the meeting Secretary of the meeting Signatures: Senior specialist of the department concerned with the development and monitoring of Federal construction and dedicated regional programmes prepared by the Construction Committee in Leningrad oblast Manager of USEG, with an office in St. Petersburg, the public joint stock company “Giprospetsgaz” Deputy chief engineer of the public joint stock company “Giprospetsgaz”, chief project engineer “Giprospetsgaz”’s chief project engineer responsible for the North European gas pipeline in the section between Gryazovets and Vyborg Chief engineer in the department concerned with the development of environment-oriented documentation at the private joint stock company “NPF DIEM”

N. Yu. Lyudvikova A. V. Kozyritsky V. A. Bashmak S. I. Igolnikov A. A. Shchelkunov V. M. Leushin A. V. Yurev E. O. Ulyanova




Participants at the public hearings







Appendix No. 1

to the minutes of the public hearings dated 21 September 2006

List of registered participants at the public hearings On behalf of the administration of the Leningrad oblast of the Russian Federation Sergei Ivanovich Igolnikov - Senior specialist of the department concerned with the development and monitoring of Federal construction and dedicated regional programmes prepared by the Construction Committee in Leningrad oblast On behalf of the Vyborg municipal district administrative offices Nadezhda Yurevna Lyudvikova - Chair of the Committee on economics and investment of the Vyborg municipal district administrative office in Leningrad oblast; Irina Aleksandrovna Fomina - Leading expert on the administration of property from the “Kamenogorsk urban settlement” municipal district administrative office; Vladimir Nikolaevich Orlov - Senior forest ranger at the “Roshchin regional forestry administration” federal state institution; Pyotr Vasilivich Lavriv - Chief engineer concerned with forestry management at the “Roshchin regional forestry administration” federal state institution; Sergei Aleksandrovich Frolov - Head of the “Pervomay rural settlement” municipal district administrative office; Sergei Ivanovich Nechuchaev - Head of the “Selezen rural settlement” municipal district administrative office; Rimma Ivanovna Vodnyuk - Head of the “Goncharov rural settlement” district administrative office; Lyudmila Aleksandrovna Kozlova - Head of the “Goncharov rural settlement” municipal district administrative office; Nikolai Aleksandrovich Stepanchenko - Senior forest ranger at the “Vyborg rural regional forestry administration”; Yuri Davidovich Grin - Director of “Agroprom Trans” [a limited liability company]; Nina Petrovna Omelina - Chair of the Council of Veterans; Lyudmila Nikolaevna Tkachyova - Deputy head of the “Roshchin urban settlement” administrative office; Sergei Yurevich Smirnov - Deputy Head of department of the State Project-Design institute in the Vyborg district; Nikolai Nikolaevich Aleynikov - Assistant senior architectural engineer for the “Krasnosel rural settlement”; Yelena Vasilevna Ivoshova - Senior specialist of the Vyborg municipal district administrative office in Leningrad oblast; UNOFFICIAL ENGLISH TRANSLATION – FOR COURTESY ONLY



A. N. Buyanov - Deputy head of the “Vyborg urban settlement” municipal district administrative office; A. V. Pronicheva - leading expert at the department of architectural engineering and urban design and building within the Committee on municipal property management and urban design and building; I. A. Kuprevich - Senior specialist of the Committee on economics and investment of the Vyborg municipal district administrative office in Leningrad oblast; M. V. Tretyak - leading expert of the Committee on economics and investment of the Vyborg municipal district administrative office in Leningrad oblast; V. A. Bashmak - Senior specialist of the Committee on economics and investment of the Vyborg municipal district administrative office in Leningrad oblast; I. I. Moiseenko - Senior specialist at the Vyborg interregional state institution “Ecological monitoring in the Leningrad oblast”; A. I. Golovanov - Chair of the “Kauratgevist” special engineering design company; On behalf of the mass media Lilia Ivanovna Smirnova - correspondent for the “Vyborgskiy Vedomosti” newspaper; N. Adylanova - journalist, “Our town” media group; A. Grigorev - operator, “Our town” media group; Yelena Vladimirovna Sokolova - Assistant editor in chief of the “Vyborg” newspaper, member of the “Vyborg urban settlement” municipal district administrative office; On behalf of the building owner Aleksandr Alekseevich Shchelkunov - Manager of USEG, with an office in St. Petersburg; Nikolai Eduardovich Aylamazyan - Deputy manager of USEG, with an office in St. Petersburg; On behalf of the design documentation developers Vladimir Mikhailovich Leushin - Assistant chief engineer of the public joint stock company “Giprospetsgaz”, chief project engineer; Andrei Vladimirovich Yurev - “Giprospetsgaz”’s chief project engineer responsible for the North European gas pipeline in the section between Gryazovets and Vyborg; Natalya Rudolfovna Peterson - Senior specialist from the department of industrial ecology, safety and the organisation of construction at “Giprospetsgaz”; Kirill Valentinovich Chernetsov - Head of the group responsible for introducing new network technologies and information security in “Giprospetsgaz”; Andrei Viktorovich Subbotin - Interregional association of archaeologists;




On behalf of the developers of the EIA materials Oksana Viktorovna Rodivilova - Head of the department of design and EIA in the “Peter Gaz” corporation; Aleksandr Vyacheslavovich Kozyritsky - Project manager of the ecological and analytical department of the private joint stock company “NPF DIEM”; Alfia Gabdrakhmanova Sadekova - Category I engineer of the ecological and analytical department of the private joint stock company “NPF DIEM”; Yelena Olegovna Ulyanova - Chief engineer in the department concerned with the development of environment-oriented documentation at the private joint stock company “NPF DIEM”. Vasiliy Arkadevich Uvarov - responsible for transfer of the task-force group. Secretary of the Meeting V. A. Bashmak




Appendix No. 2

to the minutes of the public hearings dated 21 September 2006

Questions and proposals expressed at the public hearings Question: S. A. Lavriv, S. I. Nechuchaev Will the local population be recruited to assist in the construction of the gas pipeline? Reply: A. V. Yurev Local labour will be utilised during the preparatory period. Specialist organisations used in the construction of the North European gas pipeline will be chosen by the client, the private joint stock company “YamalGazInvest”, by tender. Question: S. A. Frolov How will our region benefit financially? Reply: Sergei Ivanovich Igolnikov - Senior specialist of the department concerned with the development and monitoring of Federal construction and dedicated regional programmes prepared by the Construction Committee in Leningrad oblast. The project will have an exceptionally high social and economic significance, both from the point of view of the economic potential in the region, and for the state as a whole. Everything proposed under the law will be transferred to the budget of the Leningrad oblast in accordance with established procedure. Funds may reach the budget of districts in the Leningrad oblast as follows: 1. In accordance with the Land Code of land users (landowners), compensation will be paid in respect of the removal or temporary occupation of land and losses of agricultural output. The make up of the compensation and its amount will be determined in accordance with standards ratified by the government of the Russian Federation on the basis of data presented and corroborated by agricultural producers and land users. Everything prescribed by the law will be reimbursed. Responsibility for this question rests with “YamalGazInvest”. 2. In the consolidated budget covering construction, mandatory provision is made for funds for repairing and reinstating roads and bridge structures affected during construction of the gas pipeline. 3. When locating residential settlements for construction workers: 3.1. Contractors must register with the taxation body. Funds allocated by the contractors will flow to the region’s budget.




3.2. As a rule, the residential settlement for construction workers will be located at the base of unused buildings (rest homes, pioneer camps and suchlike). The workers will pay rent. At the same time, extensive repairs are carried out on premises under the housing fund, as provided for by the project. In the absence of such accommodation, the residential settlement shall be built from scratch. Once the construction work is complete, the accommodation shall be transferred to the district. 3.3. Local labour will be utilised during the preparatory period. Question: L. A. Kozlova Does the project make provision for protecting the gas pipeline against terrorist acts? Reply: V. M. Leushin - Chief project engineer of the public joint stock company “Giprospetsgaz” Yes, absolutely. A special department is being developed. This information is confidential (for official use only). This issue comes under the jurisdiction of a special subdivision of Gazprom. Question: L. A. Buyanov What is the level of industrial safety and reliability of the planned main gas pipeline? Reply: A. V. Yurev - Chief project engineer of the public joint stock company “Giprospetsgaz” The project makes provision for a separate volume - the “Industrial safety declaration” - to be drawn up. Organisational and technical solutions concerned with ensuring industrial safety in relation to the North European gas pipeline, anticipating emergencies and eradicating their consequences, and measures taken by the State protection department, have been formulated in the materials presented. A raft of solutions have been worked out aimed at anticipating emergency situations and ensuring that the lives and health of staff are protected during construction of the pipeline and the operation of its installations. In the materials presented, the dangers posed to the gas pipeline were identified, emergency situations assessed and a system of measures in the area of industrial safety practices, fire prevention measures and conservation drawn up and introduced. Wish: E. V. Sokolova Will it be possible to report on the construction of the North European gas pipeline in the media? Reply: V. M. Leushin - Chief project engineer of the public joint stock company “Giprospetsgaz.” Publications concerning our project appear in the media periodically. Detailed information relating to the project can be found on Gazprom’s website. Environmental impact assessment materials by means of which the general public can familiarise themselves with the project can be found in the regional library. Question: E. V. Ivanovna, A. V. Pronicheva, S. I. Nechuchaev 1. Will it be possible to provide gas to populated areas in municipal districts in Leningrad oblast through which the pipeline passes? 2. Is there the option of including further populated areas in the targeted gas supply programme? 3. Will residents need to make an additional appeal for their populated area to be included in the targeted gas supply programme? UNOFFICIAL ENGLISH TRANSLATION – FOR COURTESY ONLY



4. At whose expense will the populated areas be supplied with gas? Reply: A. V. Yurev - Chief project engineer of the public joint stock company “Giprospetsgaz” Responsibility for resolving this issue rests with Gazprom. Within the framework of constructing the North European gas pipeline, the public joint stock company “Giprospetsgaz” is engaged in designing the main gas pipeline. S. I. Igolnikov (addendum): Re point 1: The targeted gas supply programme which is being revised and prolonged every year is operating within the framework concluded between the administration of the Leningrad oblast and Gazprom. Re point 2: Yes, such a possibility does exist. A specific populated area is included in the targeted gas supply programme on the basis of economic expediency, allowing for increases in natural gas prices. The supply of liquefied natural gas to populated areas is frequently justified economically speaking. Re point 3: The regional administrative offices ought to present the project concerned with supplying gas to populated areas to the Committee on the energy, housing and utilities sectors in Leningrad oblast. Re point 4: Gazprom shall ensure the supply of gas, while the administration in Leningrad oblast shall explore the possibility of designing and constructing the gas pipelines and its branches to guarantee the supply of gas to populated areas. The tenants must bear the cost of acquiring meters, gas cookers, etc. Question: A. V. Pronicheva Who should be notified when shortcomings show up while the gas pipeline is being laid (for example, the land which has been disturbed is not restored, road reinstatement measures, etc. have not been carried out)? Reply: V. M. Leushin - Chief project engineer of the public joint stock company “Giprospetsgaz” When shortcomings show up, a report should be drawn up and the building owner, the private joint stock company “YamalGazInvest”, notified. Fines will be imposed on guilty parties. Question: S. I. Nechuchaev What production facilities will be built on Vyborg district territory with a view to servicing the gas pipeline? Reply: V. M. Leushin - Chief project engineer of the public joint stock company “Giprospetsgaz” In addition to the gas pipeline itself, the Vyborg district will see the construction of the Portovaya compressor station along with temporary buildings and structures (the client’s transhipment facility, areas where materials and equipment are unloaded, pipe-welding stations, the construction base and temporary residential settlements). Question: UNOFFICIAL ENGLISH TRANSLATION – FOR COURTESY ONLY



S. I. Nechuchaev Where will the production facilities be located? Reply: V. M. Leushin - Chief project engineer of the public joint stock company “Giprospetsgaz” Comprehensive information regarding the arrangement of production facilities in the Vyborg district is provided in the project documentation in the section entitled “Project concerned with the organisation of construction”. Question: S. I. Nechuchaev Has a study been carried out concerning the economic situation and the situation in terms of health and disease control in the region? Reply: A. V. Yurev - Chief project engineer of the public joint stock company “Giprospetsgaz” Yes, such a study has been carried out. The EIA materials contain a section devoted to the social characteristics and those in terms of health and disease control in the region where the facility has its planned location. These materials have to be agreed in the Federal consumer rights protection and human health control service. Circumvention and contravention is not possible. Question: I. I. Moiseenko Who will obtain the permits? Reply: V. M. Leushin - Chief project engineer of the public joint stock company “Giprospetsgaz” “Giprospetsgaz” is engaged in the gathering of basic data, followed by obtaining agreement on the documentation prepared. Question: I. I. Moiseenko How is the amount of compensation determined and who pays it? Reply: V. M. Leushin - Chief project engineer of the public joint stock company “Giprospetsgaz” The make up of the compensation and its amount will be determined in accordance with standards ratified by the government of the Russian Federation. Everything proposed under the law will be reimbursed. Responsibility for this question rests with “YamalGazInvest”. Question: S. Yu. Smironov Has provison been made for the construction of a fire station at the site of the compressor station? Reply: V. M. Leushin - Chief project engineer of the public joint stock company “Giprospetsgaz” Yes, absolutely. A fire station forms part of the projected buildings and structures at the Portovaya compressor station. UNOFFICIAL ENGLISH TRANSLATION – FOR COURTESY ONLY



Question: Yuri Davidovich Grin - Director of “Agroprom Trans” [a limited liability company] What are the demands in terms of land resources for building the Portovaya compressor station on Vyborg district territory? Reply: V. M. Leushin - Chief project engineer of the public joint stock company “Giprospetsgaz” As a whole, regarding the installation under consideration on Vyborg district territory within Leningrad oblast, the project has determined that the construction and operation of compressor station structures will require an amount of land in excess of 100 hectares, including: - for long-term use (for the period of operation) - in the region of 70 hectares - for short-term use (for the period of construction) - in the region of 30 hectares Once the principal construction work has been concluded across all of the territory assigned to the construction of compressor station structures in the short-term, provision is made for restoration. Question: Lilia Ivanovna Smirnova - correspondent for the “Vyborgskiy Vedomosti” newspaper Is this Russia’s first attempt at constructing an offshore gas pipeline? Reply: V. M. Leushin - Chief project engineer of the public joint stock company “Giprospetsgaz” No. The “Blue Stream” gas pipeline which runs along the bottom of the Black Sea between Russia and Turkey has already been constructed and is operational. Question: Lilia Ivanovna Smirnova - correspondent for the “Vyborgskiy Vedomosti” newspaper Were requirements under international legislation taken into consideration when designing the North European gas pipeline? Reply: V. M. Leushin - Chief project engineer of the public joint stock company “Giprospetsgaz” The gas pipeline between Gryazovets and Vyborg was designed in accordance with the laws of the Russian Federation and other normative documents of the Russian Federation, thereby ensuring industrial, fire-fighting, public health and environmental safety, and measures for overcoming emergency situations. The offshore part of the main gas pipeline is designed in accordance with the requirements of international legislation. In this connection, consideration is given to international treaties which are directly related to implementation of this project and to which the Russian Federation is a signatory. When designing the overland part in connection with the proximity of Finland, consideration was given to the cross-border transfer coefficient.




Question: Lilia Ivanovna Smirnova - correspondent for the “Vyborgskiy Vedomosti” newspaper Which countries environmental interests must be taken into account when laying the undersea part of the North European gas pipeline? Reply: V. M. Leushin - Chief project engineer of the public joint stock company “Giprospetsgaz” The offshore section of the North European gas pipeline will originate in the area of Portovaya Bay not far from the town of Vyborg (Leningrad oblast), will run along the bottom of the Baltic Sea within Russian territorial waters, the Exclusive Economic Zone of Finland, the Exclusive Economic Zone of Sweden, the Exclusive Economic Zone of Denmark and the Exclusive Economic Zone of Germany and its territorial waters. The pipeline ends at the receiving terminal in the Bay of Greifswald (Germany). The section entitled “Environmental impact assessment” regarding the offshore section of the gas pipeline is carried out in accordance with current international agreements in the area of conservation and the legislation of the countries whose jurisdiction applies in this instance. Question: Yuri Davidovich Grin - Director of “Agroprom Trans” [a limited liability company] Will the technological facilities arranged around our settlement have a harmful impact? Reply: V. M. Leushin - Chief project engineer of the public joint stock company “Giprospetsgaz” The use of modern gas turbine pumping units with low noise emission levels, accepted technological solutions depending on the layout of the technological equipment, architectural/structural solutions and the use of noise-reducing materials ensures a compressor station noise level not exceeding 45 dB. The impact of noise on the environment when operating the Portovaya compressor station of the North European gas pipeline, as well as noise levels at the boundaries of populated areas in the region where the projected installation will be located, correspond to permissible noise levels, both during the day and at night, and satisfy the requirements laid down in construction standards and regulations. Question: Vladimir Nikolaevich Orlov - Senior forest ranger at the “Roshchin regional forestry administration” federal state institution How is the compensation for converting forest land into non-forest land calculated? Reply: V. M. Leushin - Chief project engineer of the public joint stock company “Giprospetsgaz” The level of payment for converting forest land into non-forest land and for removing land from the forestry fund with a view to constructing the compressor station is calculated in the project concerned with converting forest land into non-forest land and the removal of forest land which was executed by specialist organisations on the basis of: - data pertaining to forest management which contains information on the area apportioned, the plantation quality index and the forest protection category; - the calculation of losses and the level of compensation in respect thereof in terms of forest management when converting forest land into non-forest land, utilisation of the forestry fund, and when transforming forestry fund land into land in other categories, as confirmed by Russian Government Decree No. 647 dated 17 November 2004;




- materials used in the preparation of the plan for allocating land which form part of this project and contain information on the extent of areas which are subject to allocation during periods when the projected installation is being constructed, Question: Vladimir Nikolaevich Orlov - Senior forest ranger at the “Roshchin regional forestry administration” federal state institution How will damage incurred by forestry production be compensated? Reply: V. M. Leushin - Chief project engineer of the public joint stock company “Giprospetsgaz” The financial estimate will include the costs of reimbursing the damage caused to forestry production as a result of construction. These losses will be elaborated on when working out land use planning during the period when areas of land are allocated under law. All expenses relating to the reproduction of forest resources and the reimbursement of land users for losses will be compensated in full. Question: Vladimir Nikolaevich Orlov - Senior forest ranger at the “Roshchin regional forestry administration” federal state institution When will the land management file be processed? Reply: V. M. Leushin - Chief project engineer of the public joint stock company “Giprospetsgaz” The client is obligated to legalise land use planning before construction begins. This is scheduled to take place at the end of 2007/start of 2008. Question: Ye. V. Sokolova - Assistant editor in chief of the “Vyborg” newspaper Can you tell us when work on constructing the gas pipeline will commence in the Vyborg district? Reply: Vladimir Mikhailovich Leushin - Chief project engineer of the public joint stock company “Giprospetsgaz” According to the “Schedule for commissioning the North European gas pipeline”, work on construction of the gas pipeline will begin in July 2008. Secretary of the Meeting A. Bashmak







APPENDIX 6-3




PETERGAZ No. 36/07-01- Feasibility study - EIA-0801(1)-C6 NORD STREAM No. G-PE-

LFR-EIA-101-08010100-06

HEAD OF THE MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION OF THE

VYBORG DISTRICT IN LENINGRAD OBLAST

DECREE dated 15 October 2007 No. 30 regarding the holding of public hearings concerning general project outlines In accordance with Article 28 of Federal Law No. 131-FZ dated 6 October 2003 “Regarding general principles of local government organisation within the Russian Federation”, and Articles 11, 12, 15, 24, 28, 37 and 39 of Town Planning Code No. 190-FZ of the Russian Federation dated 29 December 2004, Article 31.3 of Land Code No. 136-FZ of the Russian Federation dated 25 October 2001, and Article 12 of the municipal administration rules and regulations

IT IS HEREBY DECREED: 1. to conduct public hearings concerning general project outlines at the following addresses. 1.1. “Selezen rural settlement” municipal district administrative office in Vyborg district within Leningrad oblast, Portovaya Bay - the design and construction of the Russian section of the Nord Stream gas pipeline (Russia - Germany) (Portovaya Bay [Russian Federation]) - Greifswald (Germany) - (“Nord Stream AG” branch office [Switzerland]). 1.2. “Kamenogorsk urban settlement” municipal district administrative office, Pravdino settlement - SKZ1 No. 34 “Pravdino”, Druzhnosiel settlement - SKZ No. 10 “Druzhnosiel”, “Goncharov rural settlement” municipal district administrative office, Ozernoye settlement, - SKZ No. 29 “Ozernoye”, project involving reconstruction of the cathodic protection system for the main “Leningrad-Vyborg-State border” gas pipeline and its first and second branch lines (“Lentransgas” limited liability company); 1.3. “Sovetskoye urban settlement” municipal district administrative office, Polovo settlement, “Vysotskoye urban settlement” municipal district administrative office, the town of Vysotsk, section of the railway line between Polovo and Vysotsk - reconstruction of the railway approaches to Vysotsk station - the public joint stock company “RZHD”; 1.4. The positioning of metal towers for the radio-telephone communication network of base stations by the public joint stock company “MTS” at the following addresses: - “Selezen rural settlement” municipal district administrative office, settlements of Bolshoy Bor and Kravtsovo; - the 122 km long “Scandinavia” highway.

1 Abbreviation not found - trans. UNOFFICIAL ENGLISH TRANSLATION – FOR COURTESY ONLY

PETERGAZ 36/07-01- TEO-OOS-0801(1)-C6 NORD STREAM G-PE-LFR-EIA-101-08010100-06

Volume 8. Book 1. Offshore section. Part 1.

Leningrad Region

(Constituent entity of the RF)

Vyborg District

(District)

City of Vyborg

(Name)

Book of proposals and comments

Preliminary version of Environmental Impact Assessment material and Terms of Reference for the EIA

for the Russian section of the Nord Stream offshore gas pipeline

Commenced 26 October 2007

EIA page 747




////Handwritten text//// 27 October 2007 In my opinion if this project does not cause any damage or harm to the environment and the population (and judging from the material this is the case) then I am in favour of this project being implemented. 6 November 2007 The main thing is that there should be no damage to the environment. 7 November 2007 When carrying out “measures” of this kind all the risks need to be taken into account. In my opinion in Russia today the risks are being understated, and this could damage our ecology, and thereby damage each person individually and the population as a whole. [initials] 17 November 2007 Of course we’re all for gas! 19 November 2007 I hope that the people who are involved in this project are sufficiently competent not to cause any harm and to use resources for the good of our children and grandchildren, in other words for our future.




////Handwritten text//// 21 November 2007 I support the project in the depths of the Baltic Sea but I am concerned about the irreplaceable loss of flora, fauna and ichthyology in the Vyborg district. 22 November 2007 I do not support this decision. The “squandering” of forests, oil and gas from such a huge country which has equally huge demands for these raw materials, is ill-advised. One of the key challenges of the day is to develop industry, and with that development comes a growth in the demand for natural raw materials, and what will be left of them in the future? This may be an economic standpoint, but I am in favour of raw materials such as gas, oil and timber staying in Russia. [initials] 22 November 2007 I cannot say that I am either “for” or “against”, I think that everything has its positive and negative aspects. It would be good if the construction of the gas pipeline has a good effect on the life of Russia and of Vyborg in particular. [name] 22 November 2007 For gas! 22 November 2007 I am concerned that “Nord Stream” is quite a young company, and we don’t know what kind of experts they have. And then cutting down the forests – soon there won’t be any trees left. And who will give us a guarantee that young fish won’t die in nets, unable to withstand the heaving of the water? And will the “short-term changes in the chem[ical] properties of the environment” significantly alter the ecology? [1 word illegible] the damage? When nature has been destroyed it’s hard to restore it with money. But if we have to choose based on the principle of the least of several evils, then maybe it’s better to let them build the offshore gas pipeline than to have other onshore energy systems which have an adverse effect on the environment (coal).




////Handwritten text//// 22 November 2007 Of course, I’d like to believe and hope that any undertaking will turn out to be a “plus” both for our country as a whole and for our little “homeland” in particular. But I have to admit that we are losing something: the forests, lands being destroyed and animals disappearing. I’m not an expert, of course, but the overall total amount of damage of around 71.5 million roubles does seem rather small to me. And on a more general note, maybe we need the gas ourselves. Maybe we need to some thinking, about the irreplaceability of what we’re losing.




Stamp of Vyborg Municipal Aalto Library

EIA page 751




APPENDIX 6-6




Public hearings into the preliminary version of the EIA material for the Russian

section of the Nord Stream offshore gas pipeline Vyborg, 23 November 2007

List of participants

Name Organisation Contact details Signature

1 Yuri Sergeevich Shevchuk

Chairman, St Petersrburg Branch, Green Cross International

Tel: 812-492-2583 [signature]

8 911-951-79-49 [email illegible]

2 Olga Sergeevna Krivonos

“Bellona” Environmental Rights Centre

936-00-74 [signature] [email protected]

3 Grigori Mikhailovich Pasko

Journalist 749-24-85 [signature] [email protected]

4 Vera Vladimirovna Ovcharenko

“Green World” 8-921-9217925 [signature]

5 Tatiana Pavlovna Artemova

“Posev” magazine [email protected] [signature]

6 Vladimir Nikolaevich Zaitsev

Giprospetsgaz (812) 271 0544 [signature] [email protected]

Pavel Sergeevich Kharin

Administration of Roschino

88137864755 [signature]

Vasili Alexeevich Ryskolenko

NP Ryskolenko 89213058095 [signature]

Alexander Albertovich Kazarin

“VNP” Closed Joint Stock Company

957-10-09 [signature]





section of the Nord Stream offshore gas pipeline Vyborg, 23 Novembver 2007

List of participants Name Organisation Contact details Signature

4 Olga Nikolaevna Senova

Friends of the Baltic Sea

Mob: 911-79-86 [signature]

5 Dmitri Sergeevich [surname illegible]

“Akvadril” LLC 921-188-16-45 [signature] [email protected]

6 Nikolai Donskov

“Novaya Gazeta” 918-13-36 [signature] [email protected]

7 Liudmila Bogdan

RREC [signature]

8 David Morchiladze

Eco [illegible] 625 0826 [signature] [email protected]

9 Gennadi Viktorovich Stopov

Giprospetsgaz 8 911 7345156 [signature]

10 Alexander Nikolaevich Sutyagin

“BTC Monitoring” project

[signature] [email protected]

11 Alexander Shkrebets

TEIA 812-315-66-22 [signature] sash

12 Tatiana Vasilievna Marushkina

All Russian Political Public Movement of Greens for the Motherland

8-921-346 70 82 [signature] [email protected]

13 Rimma Ivanovna Vozniuk

Goncharovskoe settlement

63230 [signature]





section of the Nord Stream offshore gas pipeline Vyborg, 23 Novembver 2007


14 Valentin Petrovich Kudryavtsev

Vyborg District Administration

283-38 [signature]

15 IriniaViktorovna Nekrasova

Kamennogorskoye regional settlement

8 813 78 48-335 [signature]

16 Anatoli Pavlovich Krug

Deputy Chairman, Property management

213-00 [signature]

17 Valentin Grigorievich Polyakov

“Zheldoripoteka” CJSC


18 Sergei Anatolievich Alexeev



18 Evgeniya Valentinovna [illegible]



19 Viktor Nikolaevich Maximov

Pensioner 8 9215703659 [signature]

20 [name illegible] Helsinki Sanomat [signature]

21 Galina Raguzina Belonna +7 911 4650400 [signature] [email protected]

22 Sergei Ivanovich Nechupaev

Head of Seleznevskoyoe settlement administration

9119695203 [signature]







Rashid Alimov Bellona +7 9219956118 [signature] [email protected]

Alexei Udarov Helsingin Sanomat 8-911-252-0831 [signature] [email illegible]

Alexei Viktorovich Maximov

Property survey agency

(8-13)78 3-21-69 [signature]

Nelli Anatolievna Li

Architect, Member of town planning council

9213326414 [signature]

Evgeni Viktorovich Romanov

[illegible] LLC, Northern trunk gas pipeline division

8-921-940-69-47 [signature]

Andrei Kolotunski

“Vyborgskie Vedomosti” newspaper

[email protected] [signature]

[name illegible]

Leading specialist [illegible]

[signature]







Evgeni Valentinovich Filippov

Vyborg City Administration

[email illegible] [signature] [email protected]




APPENDIX 6-7


TEIA

TRANSBOUNDARY ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION AGENCY

“Transboundary Environmental Information Agency” (TEIA) Independent non-commercial organisation Registered with the St Petersburg Registration Chamber under 38910 on 12 April 1996

190000 Russian Federation. St Petersburg, per. Grivtsova 10, 26 Tel/Fax +7 812-3156622

Taxpayer Identification Number: 782352101 6 22 November 2007 St Petersburg

Dr. Dirk von Ameln Nord Stream AG

Dear Dr Dirk von Ameln Having studied the Preliminary Version of the EIA material for the Russian section I would like to mention the vast amount of work done by “PeterGaz” in preparing this material. On the whole the material describes in sufficient detail the nature of the work and the conditions in which it is to be performed, and it covers virtually all aspects of the environmental impact of the work. However, there are two puzzling issues and it is these issues which have prompted me to write this letter. - The first question concerns the examination of the situation regarding the Specially Protected Natural Territories in the region of the construction of the gas pipeline. The EIA preliminary material lists all the Specially Protected Natural Territories which fall within the impact zone of the construction, and yet it is concluded that: “All existing and planned SPNA’s are located at a considerable distance from the planned route of the pipeline and therefore will not be affected.” Later it is stated that “In 2000 a Leningrad Region Government Resolution for the creation of a reserve was adopted. The “Ingermanland” reserve was included in the list of prospective SPNAs for 2001-2010, approved by Russian Government decree No. 725-r of 23 May 2001. Therefore from our point of view it is not entirely correct to call the “Ingermanland” reserve “planned”, since decisions to establish the reserve have been taken both at Russian Federation Government level and at the Russian Federation Constituent Entity level. The unique nature of the 9 islands which form the reserve is beyond any doubt, however even the EIA material state that “7 out of 9 sections are located in the region where the gas pipeline is to be built”, therefore to conclude that “All existing and planned SPNAs are at a considerable distance from the planned route of the pipeline and therefore will not be affected” is in our view also incorrect. This also concerns the “Prigranichni” reserve which is in the immediate vicinity of both the onshore and offshore sections of the gas pipeline. It is possible that the misunderstanding was caused by the response of the Head of Rosprirodnadzor for the Leningrad Region, Veronika Mikhailovna Tarbaeva (currently no longer in this post), contained in the appendix relating to the onshore section of the gas pipeline.



On behalf of the competent body, Ms Tarbaeva states that “in the onshore section in question … there are no specially protected natural areas”, without providing response for other information requested in relation to rare species of plants and animals, and the background radioactive and chemical contamination of elements of the environment. It is possible that in a purely formal sense she is correct, but such a standpoint on the part of an official of Rosprirodnadzor undermines the competence of the whole Rosprirodnadzor, and the issue of the “Ingermanland” reserve has been raised on more than one occasion at the highest level of the Ministry of Natural Resources. As early as October 2006 the Minister for Natural Resources, Yuri Petrovich Trutnev, said at an EU-Russia summit that “the new “Ingermanland” reserve will be included in the transboundary reserves” while on 21 September this year Alexander Ishkov, the Director of the Department of state environment policy of the Russian Ministry of Natural Resources named the “Ingermanland” reserve among the national parks and reserves being created in the near future. Unfortunately I could not find the enquiry about the protected areas and species of plants and animals in the material relating to the offshore section of the pipeline, but I very much hope that “ PeterGaz” has conducted additional expert research on this subject. The second question concerns the methodology for presenting data on atmospheric air and the pollution of the aquatic medium. The EIA contains calculated data on atmospheric air pollution but in so doing it does not provide data on emissions from facilities located in the immediate vicinity, such as the oil terminals at Primorsk and Vysotsk, although the State Report on Environmental Protection for the Leningrad Region points out that more than 30% of all volatile organic compounds (VOC) in the region come from the Primorsk terminal. There is no indication of the impact on atmospheric air during the construction of the onshore section of the pipeline from Gryazovets to Vyborg. The same is true of the pollution of the aquatic medium. Thus, for example, the dredging operations during the construction of the so-called Saint Petersburg sea façade caused considerable turbidity in the waters of the Gulf of Finland, and with this in mind the actual pollution along the route of the pipeline may be dozens of times higher than the calculated values contained in the EIA. I very much hope that our comments will be taken into consideration during the international EIA process. I would also like to inform you that I am a signatory on behalf of the TEIA of the Memorandum for the Social Responsibility of Russian Business, prepared by a group of public organisations of northwest Russia during discussion of the Nord Stream project. Yours sincerely, Executive Director A. E. Shkrebets



FRIENDS OF THE BALTIC SEA Interregional Public Youth Environmental Organization Member of the International Coalition for a Clean Baltic Sea St Petersburg, Per. Grivtsova, 10. office 26 Tel/fax: (812) 3156622, e-mail: [email protected] http://baltfriends.ru, htlp://spareworld.org

QUESTIONS AND PROPOSALS

for the public discussions of the EIA for the NORD STREAM PROJECT 23.11.2007, Vyborg

1. When assessing the impact of the project on the environment, the baseline characteristics caused by other existing impacts were not taken into account. At the same time, according to the evidence both of experts and of amateur fishermen, the turbidity of the gulf is already substantial both in the coastal zone of the Gulf of Vyborg and in the open waters of the Gulf of Finland. Proposal: Conduct additional research taking account of baseline characteristics (including in relation to the turbidity of the water, air pollution, threats to the fishing industry etc.) and assess the total impact of the project in combination with existing environmental impacts. 2. The EIA material does not show the boundaries of existing and planned SPNA, but it is stated that the route does not cross these areas. There is no assessment of the possible impact of the project on the ecosystems of the SPNA during the implementation of the project. Proposals: • Indicate in the EIA the boundaries of existing and planned SPNA, the location of the route

of the gas pipeline, showing the distances from the route to the boundaries of the SPNA; • Conduct additional research into the impact of the project and also of possible accidents on

the ecosystems of the SPNA, involving expert ornithologists, mammalogists and hydrobiologists, and taking into account the disturbance factor along the route of the gas pipeline, paying particular attention to the rare “red book” species of birds and mammals.

• Consider the possibility of moving the route of the gas pipeline by a few kilometres to the east of Great Fixar Island.

3. The EIA does not contain information about the major fishing areas in the vicinity of the gas pipeline route. Proposal: include in the EIA a list of the major fishing areas and conduct additional research into the impact of the project on the protection and reproduction of fish resources. 4. The EIA material does not contain any information about the use of the areas on the coast or on the islands of the Gulf of Finland for the storage of construction equipment and other auxiliary material and equipment. Proposals:

• Indicate in the EIA material which areas on the coast and the islands of the Gulf of Finland will be used for storage of equipment and materials.

• Conduct additional research into the impact of the storage of equipment and materials on the environment.

Please send your reply to our comments and proposals to the following address: St Petersburg, 190000, Per. Grivtsova, 10, office 26, MOMEO “Friends of the Baltic Sea”. Chairman of the Board MOMEO “Friends of the Baltic Sea” O. N. Senova Tel. 9117986 [signature] [stamp]



MEMORANDUM

on social responsibility of business The environmental organisations of St Petersburg and the Leningrad Region are writing to the management of Nord Stream to suggest that they should demonstrate a modern approach to the development of their business, and that in conjunction with the implementation of the gas pipeline project they take under their patronage the system of protected natural areas in the Gulf of Finland which falls into the impact zone of the project, and primarily the Ingermanland reserve, constituted by Russian Government decree No. 725-r of 23 May 2001. Concern about the fate of the Ingermanland reserve was expressed by the environmentally concerned public of North-West Russia in a special address to the participants in the VI Conference of Environment Ministers from European Countries. This area has been preserved thanks to the fact that for half a century it has been a closed border zone, so that the landscape here has remained untouched along with the biological diversity of its marine and coastal ecosystems, habitats of rare and Red Book species, major migration resting and nesting grounds for bird colonies, seal breeding grounds and spawning grounds for commercial species of fish. The “Ingermanland” reserve could become a key link connecting the system of protected natural areas of Russia, Estonia and Finland in the Gulf of Finland. It is a well-known fact that to be socially and environmentally responsible is not only honourable but also beneficial; such an approach attracts investment and significantly enhances a company’s potential. Helping to implement this conservation project is all the more important because in 2008 Russia will be chairing the HELCOM, which imposes additional responsibilities for protection of environment on Russia. In our opinion this is very much the right time for establishing the Ingermanland reserve, with the appearance of yet another threat to the natural life of the Baltic. The Ingermanland reserve does not itself fall into the area of the route where the gas pipeline is to be laid, but the operation of the reserve will have a substantial stabilising impact on the natural complexes of the Russian section of the Gulf of Finland where the construction is to take place, thereby compensating for any possible damage. Another important issue which it would benefit the image of the company to address would be to consider whether it is possible and reasonable to conduct additional research into the route, in order to identify any dangerous objects in the area where chemical weapons are submerged. Moreover we propose that independent monitoring should be conducted in the pipeline impact zone and that the results of that monitoring should be accessible to the public. The above proposals were discussed by the group of public environmental organisations for North-West Russia at seminars held by the Russian Regional Environmental Centre. Participants in the seminar of representatives of public organisations and scientific organisations of St Petersburg and the Leningrad Region, 20.11.2007, St Petersburg.



Seminar on the problems of the impact of the Nord Stream project on

the Baltic Sea

St Petersburg, 20 November 2007 “Phoenix” Training Centre, VO 10 liniya d.33 (metro “Vasileostrovskaya”)

Time: 10:00 -17:30

List of participants

Name Organisation Contact details 1 Tatiana Pavlovna

Artemova, Co-chairperson

“Posev” magazine and the Association of Environmental Journalists, St Petersburg

[email protected] Tel.:+7 (812) 572 47 62 Mobile:+7 921 922 20 36

2 Daria Akhutina NORDEN Association [email protected] Phone: +7 (812) 5714090 Fax: +7 (812)3147153

3 Liudmila Georgievna Bogdan, expert in Russia-EU co-operation on the environment, seminar organiser

Russian Regional Environmental Centre (RREC), Moscow

[email protected] Tel./fax:+7(495)7376448

4 Mikhail Vladimirovich Verevkin Dr. Sc. (Biology)

St Petersburg State University, Institute of Biology

vermiv@TV9311 .Spb.edu Mob. 8 921 976 94 99

5 Olga Vasilievna Volnina, post-graduate student

“Neftegazgeodeziya” LLC, Department of Environmental Protection

[email protected] Tel.: 452 54 56

6 Andrei Glebovich Grigoriev

All-Russian Geological Institute

Tel.: 328 90 01

7 Nikolai Donskov, Head of Northwestern bureau

“Novaya Gazeta” [email protected] Mob. +7 921 918 13 36

8 Sergei Kouzov St Petersburg State University, Institute of Biology

[email protected] Tel.: 745 43 02

9 Olga Krivonos, lawyer

Environmental Rights Centre (ERC), “BELLONA”, St Petersburg

[email protected] [email protected] Tel.:+7 (812) 275 77 61 Fax: +7(812) 719 88 43

10 Tatiana Vasilievna Marushkina

OPSZFO, environment working group

Mob.: 8 921 346 70 82

11 David Morchiladze, Head of Environment and Energy Section

European Academy of Natural Sciences

[email protected] Tel.: + 7 (495) 625 51 15 Fax: +7 (495) 745 00 98 Mobile: +7 985 761 05 05

12 Georgi Alexandrovich Noskov, Doctor of Biological Sciences, ornithologist

Research Institute of Biology Tel.: +7 (812) 450-73-10, Mobile: 937-84-86

13 Vera Vladimirovna Ovcharenko, Seminar co-ordinator

“Green World” environmental organisation, Sosnovy Bor, Leningrad Region

[email protected] Mobile: +7 921 921 79 25



14 Vadim Timofeevich Paka “Institute of Oceanology”, Atlantic branch

[email protected] [email protected]

15 Tatiana Rudolfovna Pal’, director

“Rodina” Russian Green Movement

newgreen [email protected] Mobile.: 8 909 593 04 87

16 Anna Poptsova Centre for Transboundary Cooperation, St Peterburg

[email protected] tel.: +7 (812) 3348835

17 Igor Vsevolodovich Rozhdestvensky, Senior member of the department for project management, Cand. Sc. (Physics and Mathematics)

St Petersburg State University, Faculty of Geography and Geoecology

[email protected] Mob.: 8 921 978 89 20

18 Alexander Evmenievich Rybalko, Doctor of geological and mineral sciences, head of geo-ecological monitoring laboratory

“Sevmorgeo” [email protected] Tel.: +8 (812) 252-21-12

19 Olga Nikolaevna Senova, Chairman of the Board

“Friends of the Baltic Sea” Interregional Youth Environmental Organization, St Petersburg and Leningrad Region

[email protected] [email protected] Tel./fax: +7 (812) 315 66 22 Mobile: +7 921 911 78 86

20 Mikhail Alexandrovich Spiridonov, Doctor of geological and mineral sciences, head of department of regional geoecology and marine geology

Russian Geological Research Institute, VSEGEI

[email protected] Тел.: +7 (812) 328-91-59

21 Olga Nikolaevna Susloparova, Dr. Sc. (Biology), ichthyologist

State Research Institute for Lake and River Fishing, GOSNIORKh

[email protected] Tel.: +7 (812) 323-77-24

22 Alexander Nikolaevich Sutyagin, Project manager, seminar co-organiser

“BTS Monitoring” project, St Petersburg

[email protected] Tel.: +7 (812) 376-77-70

23 Alexander Vladimirovich Fedorov, manager

Centre for Environmental Initiatives, St Petersburg

[email protected] Tel./fax: +7 (812) 315 66 22

24 Lev Alexandrovich Fedorov, Grand Doctor of Chemistry Sc.

Union for Chemical Safety [email protected]

25 Mikhail Borisovich Shilin, chief specialist, Grand Doctor of Geography Sc.

“Neftegazgeodeziya” LLC, Department of Environmental Protection

[email protected] [email protected] Tel.: +7 (812) 528-72-31 Fax: +7 (812) 528-86-40

26 Alexander Evgenievich Shkrebets, manager

TEIA, St Petersburg [email protected] Tel.:+7 (812) 315 66 22



Appendix 2.

Comments on the EIA material for the Russian section of the “Nord Stream” offshore gas pipeline prepared for the public hearings on 23 November 2007.

A. N. Sutyagin. “BTS Monitoring” Project. St Petersburg, tel. +7 (812) 376-77-70, Е-mail: [email protected]

1. According to page 3 of the PEIA material for the Russian section of the “Nord Stream” offshore gas pipeline, in the summary for non-specialists, there were no accidents recorded which has led to the shutdown or repair of offshore pipelines built since 1980. This statement is based on the “Statement on the absence of data relating to accidents on offshore gas pipelines” (Energy Institute, London), and does not correspond to the data in Table 11.2-1, sheet 223 of the PEIA material for the Russian section of the “Nord Stream” offshore gas pipeline (offshore section), or to the data contained in PARLOC-2001 (“Тhe Update of Loss of Containment Data for Offshore Pipelines”, 5th Edition, 2003). Please explain this discrepancy and give a precise reference to the aforementioned Statement, or make it available to the public (for example, on the company’s website). 2. Also according to page 3 of the EIA material for the Russian section of the “Nord Stream” offshore gas pipeline, in the summary for non-specialists, the CO2 emissions when transporting gas through “Nord Stream” will be lower than when transporting gas through the onshore “Yamal-Europe” pipeline and also by comparison with the alternative option of transporting liquefied natural gas by tanker, according to the research of the Global Insight Institute. Since at the investment justification stage when the various alternative projects for transporting gas were examined and compared the PEIA material for the “Nord Stream” project was not available to the public, please make this analysis available (for example, on the company’s website). 3. According to page 7 of the PEIA material for the Russian section of the “Nord Stream” offshore gas pipeline, in the summary for non-specialists, and the PEIA material for the Russian section of the “Nord Stream” offshore gas pipeline (offshore section), in accordance with the design decisions the pipeline will be embedded in a trench along the whole length of the section from the water’s edge to the -10m isobathic line. At the same time, according to page 10 of the same PEIA material for the Russian section of the “Nord Stream” offshore gas pipeline, in the summary for non-specialists, and the PEIA material for the Russian section of the “Nord Stream” offshore gas pipeline (offshore section), dredging of a trench for laying the pipeline will be performed on the section of the route from the water’s edge in Portovaya Bay to a depth of -20m, i.e. along a length almost 5 times greater than in the first instance. Please explain the reasons for this discrepancy. 4. According to the PEIA material for the Russian section of the offshore “Nord Stream” gas pipeline (offshore section), section 10.1.4, sheet 209, “Shipping”, no analysis has been made of the existing number of vessel crossings across the eastern part of the Gulf of Finland along the fairway near the route of the offshore gas pipeline (dry-cargo carriers and tankers) and in the shallow part of the Gulf of Finland (fishing boats etc.), taking into account the traffic of the existing Primorsk “Special oil terminal”, the RPK-II terminal of “Lukoil” OJSC, and the sea ports of St Petersburg, Vysotsk and Vyborg (a total of 9500 ship crossings in one direction in 2005-2006).

Page 1 [initials]



The data presented was obsolete data for 1995, before the construction of the main oil terminals and the expansion of the port of St Petersburg. In the PEIA there is also no assessment of the probability of various types of navigation accidents, for example, due to ship groundings on shallows near the fairway, and the impact of such accidents on the safety of the offshore pipeline during its construction and operation – according to sheet 221 of the PEIA material for the Russian section of the “Nord Stream” offshore gas pipeline (offshore section). According to official data from HELCOM the frequency of ship groundings in the Russian section of the Gulf of Finland amounts to 2-3 incidents per year, such as, for example, the incident involving the tanker “Propontis” on 9 February 2007. Please conduct an assessment of the impact of navigation accidents on the safety of the Russian section of the “Nord Stream” offshore gas pipeline (offshore section), or provide evidence of the absence of any such impact. 5. According to the PEIA material for the Russian section of the “Nord Stream” offshore gas pipeline (offshore section), section 11.2.2, sheet 222, “Main accident scenarios”, possible scenario options for the escape of methane, for example through a microscopic hole (flaw) in the pipeline in the event of the pipeline being damaged were examined. However the PEIA material does not show any calculations for the dispersal and absorption of methane in the water, and for the formation of water volumes containing methane concentrations which are toxic for biota. Please provide examples of such calculations to confirm that in the event of the release of methane through holes in the pipeline as a result of an accident there is no danger to the sensitive natural phenomena along the route of the pipeline, for example, the Baltic herring spawning grounds. 6. The PEIA material for the Russian section of the “Nord Stream” offshore gas pipeline (offshore section) does not contain any analysis of presence along the route of the offshore gas pipeline (or in its safety corridor) of submerged explosives (mines, bombs, shells and other dangerous objects), and any adverse environmental impact which these could cause during the construction and operation of the gas pipeline. Although such an analysis was carried out at the project notification stage, together with a mapping of the possible locations of such devices (see the company’s website), and this was presented at the “North Europe Pipeline Project” Round Table at the VII International Environmental Forum “Day of the Baltic Sea” on 22 March 2006. Please provide data about the presence of such objects along the route of the gas pipeline. 7. According to Figure 2.4-2 of the PEIA material for the Russian section of the “Nord Stream” offshore pipeline (offshore section), the location of the route of the gas pipeline is shown within the limits of the RF Exclusive Economic Zone of the Gulf of Finland, but the geolocation profile (Fig. 5.1-2) and the bathymetric profile (Fig.5.1-3) are shown in directions which are either perpendicular to the route or in the middle of the Gulf of Finland. Therefore the bathymetric and geolocation profiles of the route are not shown in the PEIA material, and it is not possible to understand how the seabed areas to be modified are distributed and where they are located, i.e. areas where impermissible pipeline spans have to be eliminated, sedimentation zones, sediment transit zones and bed movement zones which pose a hazard for the gas pipeline.

Page 2 [initials]



Therefore it is impossible to assess the reliability of the assessment of damage to biota during hydrotechnical operations. Please provide the actual bathymetric and geolocation profiles of the route, showing the sections which contain impermissible spans, bed movement zones etc. 8. According to the Terms of Reference for conducting the EIA for the Russian section of the “Nord Stream” offshore gas pipeline, dated 29 March 2007, among the special construction conditions the EIA must take account of those regions which are very significant for the reproduction of fish resources. However, according to “ petergaz” LLC enquiry No. 17/96 of 15 September 2006 (Appendix 10-1, sheet 406), there was no request for the location of such regions (spawning grounds, fish feeding and wintering areas, migration corridors). Only the fishing and trawling areas were requested. Therefore the PEIA contains only the position of the fishing area of “Primorski Rybak” LLC, Fig. 10.1-1, but does not contain the positionof the spawning, feeding and wintering grounds and the migration corridors of the main commercial fish located along the route of the gas pipeline. There is also no information on the catch of fish in the “Primorski Rybak” fishing areas. Data on fish catches are provided only for the Gulf of Finland as a whole. Please provide this information and present it in a graphic format. 9. According to the Terms of Reference for conducting the EIA for the Russian section of the “Nord Stream” offshore gas pipeline, dated 29 March 2007, there was a requirement to take into account the presence along the route of the gas pipeline of natural reserves protected under RF legislation. According to “Pitergaz” LLC letter No. 17/99 of 15 September 2006 to Rosprirodnadzor for the Leningrad Region, information was requested only about the protected natural areas situated in the vicinity of the onshore section of the route of the gas pipeline. Information about the location and boundaries of the marine SPNA was not requested. Therefore the statement in the PEIA, sheet 32, that all existing and planned SPNA are located at a significant distance from the planned route of the gas pipeline and therefore will not be affected by it, and that none of the 7 of the 9 sections of the “Ingermanland” reserve included in the list of prospective SPNA for 2001-2010, approved by Russian Government Decree No. 725-r of 23 May 2001, and of the “Prigranichny” reserve, is located in the immediate vicinity of the route of the gas pipeline, is unfounded. The PEIA material does not indicate the boundaries of the impact zones for these SPNA during the construction of this gas pipeline –dispersal zones of suspended matter, acoustic impact zones, accidental methane leak impact zones etc. No evidence is provided that during construction and operation the impact of disturbance factors on these SPNA will be completely eliminated (storage of construction equipment, machinery etc. in these areas, unauthorised hunting and fishing, the presence of personnel servicing the gas pipeline etc.).

Page 3 [initials]



The boundaries of the resting grounds of marine and wading birds in relation to the route of the gas pipeline and its impact zones are not shown, for example, near the Great Fiskar and Minor Fiskar islands etc. The boundaries of the breeding grounds of marine mammals and other areas important for their ecology are not shown in relation to the route of the gas pipeline and its impact zones. Please provide this information or conduct additional research into these distributions. 10. According to sheet 160 of the PEIA material for the Russian section of the “Nord Stream” offshore gas pipeline (offshore section), ichthyological surveys were carried out only in the autumn season when there is no spawning taking place of the main spawning species (Baltic herring, bream, smelt etc.). For this reason no calculation was made of the damage from the loss of roe and larvae when carrying out hydrotechnical operations – see sheet 198. It is not correct to justify this on the grounds that according to data from observations in the region of the Berezovye Islands during the spawning period fish avoid areas where hydrotechnical works are carried out, since: a) the actual observation data confirming this fact is not provided, b) in principle such data cannot exist, since according to sheet 205 of the PEIA, at the request of the fish protection authorities during the spawning period from April to 15 June inclusive there is a ban on carrying out all types of hydrotechnical operations. For this reason the calculation of the damage to fish stocks, according to sheet 198, is unsubstantiated. Also unsubstantiated is the particular damage for plankton-eating fish, see sheet 200 et seq., due to the reduction in the food supplies for these fish during trench excavation and filling. Although calculations have been made of the negative impact zones for these fish during hydrotechnical operations, see Table 9.4-3 in relation to suspended matter content due to turbidity, the PEIA does not contain any information about the baseline level of concentration of suspended matter in the areas where hydrotechnical operations are to be carried out, in particular in Portovaya Bay. This data on the baseline level of concentration of suspended matter in the areas where hydrotechnical operations are to be carried out has not been calculated and was not requested. As a result it is not possible to make a reliable assessment of the extent of the negative impact on icthyofauna and the hydrobiota as a whole from suspended matter generated during hydrotechnical operations. Nor has the damage to fishing due to establishing a safety corridor (1 kilometre either side of the gas pipeline) during pipeline operation and construction been determined.

Page 4 [initials]




Please conduct an accurate and substantiated calculation of the actual damage to fish stocks, and provide this material to the PEIA. 11. According to the Terms of Reference for the EIA for the Russian section of the “Nord Stream” offshore gas pipeline, dated 29 March 2007, there was a requirement to develop a programme of routine environmental monitoring of the impact of the construction and operation of the gas pipeline. However no such monitoring programme was presented at the hearings. Please provide such a programme in accordance with the Terms of Reference.

23 November 2007 A. N. Sutyagin

Page 5 [initials]

EIA page 757




ПРИЛОЖЕНИЕ 6-8




APPROVED Head of administration of the municipality of Vyborg District, Leningrad Region K. N. Patraev 200

PROTOCOL

Conduct of public meetings to discuss the technical objectives of conducting an environmental impact assessment (EIA) and the

preliminary EIA materials relating to construction of the Russian section of the Nord Stream offshore gas pipeline

(Feasibility study/Design stage) Vyborg 23 November 2007 The public hearings were organised by: The administration of the municipality of Vyborg District, Leningrad Region Nord Stream AG OOO PeterGaz Information about the holding of public hearings was brought to public notice through the media: “Vyborg” newspaper (Vyborg, Vyborg District, Leningrad Region) issue no. 166, 19 October 2007 “Vesti” newspaper (leading regional newspaper of the Leningrad Region) issue no. 205, 23 October 2007

EIA page 748




“Sankt-Peterburgskie Vedomosti” newspaper issue no. 199, 23 October 2007 and “Rossiyskaya Gazeta” newspaper, issue no. 236, 23 October 2007. The technical objectives of conducting an EIA and the preliminary version of the EIA materials were placed on public display at the municipal administrative offices of the Vyborg District and the Alvar Aalto central city library (Vyborg) and on the Nord Stream AG website at www.nord-stream.com from 23 October 2007. 46 participants participated in the public hearings. List of registered participants is attached (Annex 1). The speakers at the public hearings were: Deputy Chairman of KUMIG and Chief Architect of the municipality of Vyborg District, Leningrad Region, O. Y. Likhovidov, who gave the introductory address. In accordance with articles 39 and 46 of the RF’s town planning code No. 190-F3 of 29.12.2004, order of the head of the administration of the municipality of Vyborg District, Leningrad Region. He explained that: The objectives of the hearings were to inform the population, to consider public opinion and to involve citizens in discussions on the question of the location of the Nord Stream offshore pipeline which will be laid from Russia to Germany on the the Baltic Sea seabed. The preliminary version of the environmental impact assessment materials in respect of the Russian section of the Nord Stream offshore gas pipeline was submitted for consideration by those present at the public hearings. Ms. I. D. Vasilyeva, Nord Stream AG PR advisor gave a brief outline of the project. Mr. N. N. Grishin, senior specialist at Nord Stream AG, gave an account of international discussions of the EIA materials. Mr. G. V. Grudnitsky, the project’s chief engineer with OOO PeterGaz, reported on “The design and construction of the Russian section of the Nord Stream gas pipeline”. Mr. G. E. Vilchek, the project’s chief engineer on environmental issues with OOO PeterGaz , reported on “The environmental impact assessment”.


http://www.nord-stream.com/



The following took part in the discussion on the preliminary EIA materials: Ms. T. Artemova, “Posev” magazine and Association of Environmental Journalists of St. Petersburg: - In your presentation, you have not said a word about chemical munitions dumps in the Baltic, even though experts consider this problem to be an extremely serious one. Is there any likelihood that under certain conditions chemical munitions dumped in the Baltic will be on the gas pipeline route? Mr. G. Vilchek: - Our investigations within the boundaries of the 2-kilometre corridor along the route did not uncover any chemical munitions or traces of them (decomposition products of toxic agents). Nor is there any documented evidence of chemical munitions dumping having taken place in the Russian sector of the Baltic. It is for this reason that we are not looking into the consequences of possible contact with chemical munitions. Ms. O. Senova, “Friends of the Baltic” organisation and “Coalition Clean Baltic” - Was the background status of the Baltic environment allowed for in the calculations of possible pollution levels? Is it possible to give an overall assessment of the effects of construction of the pipeline that allows for existing background pollution? Mr. G. Vilchek: - Yes, by carrying out large-scale environmental investigations, we now have data on the background pollution levels of the Baltic Sea environment. This data will be taken into account in drawing up the final version of the EIA. Mr. Y. Shevchuk, “Green Cross”: - The materials distributed did not show the locations of Specially Protected Natural Areas, and for some reason, archaeological monuments, in particular ship wrecks, and Finnish protected areas were not marked on the map. Will construction work be limited during nesting, spawning and seal breeding periods? It is unclear where pipes of such diameter and gauge will be sourced from as they are not produced in Russia. The summary table of materials used indicates that the volumes of aggregate used for post-trenching and free-span correction are around 2.5 million tons. Where will this aggregate be taken from and how will it be transported - through the port of Vyborg or Vysotsky? Mr. G. Vilchek: - The gas pipeline route was surveyed with the object of identifying items of cultural heritage. Data on items uncovered was handed over to the expertise of archaeologists from the Institute of the History of Material Culture of the Russian Academy of Sciences. According to their findings, the remains of two 19th century merchant vessels and a range of smaller objects are to be found on the route. The route was modified on the recommendations of the archaeologists so as not to inflict damage on the monuments that had been discovered. There is a map of these and it will be included in the EIA. Finnish Specially Protected Natural Areas were not shown on the map solely to make it easier to comprehend.




The construction schedule has been optimised so as to avoid impacting on fauna during the most sensitive periods: this is the winter for pinnipeds and the spring and summer for birds and fish. During these seasons, no active construction work will be carried out. Mr. G. Grudnitsky: - Pipes of such diameter and wall thickness have not been produced by Russian factories in the past, but they are beginning to handle this type of production. The question of selecting a supplier is being decided. On the question of gravel, we are now carrying out work aimed at cutting our requirements for it. It will be transported to the site of works by vessel, but the sites for loading vessels will be determined based on the proximity of the carriers and the distance to the pipeline route. Mr. B. Feygin, Nord Stream AG: - The pipes required will by produced by the Vyksunsky Metal Works Plants and Europipe. It is the Vyksunsky plant that has won the contract to produce the pipes for the Russian section. Mr. A. Sutyagin, “Monitoring BTC” project: - The EIA materials presented are more complete than those previously available, but a range of materials is also missing from these. For example, a bathymetric and hydro-acoustic profile of the route, without which it is difficult to asess what will be the distribution of inadmissible free spans that are subject to correction (which Mr. Grudnitsky talked about); also not specified are areas of seabed erosion that are dangerous for the gas pipeline, boundaries of marine Specially Protected Natural Areas, spawning grounds, areas impacted by suspension, areas impacted acoustically, and others. There is no data on the status of munitions which may be present. In connection with this issue: are you prepared to present the real EIA materials and not “extracts” with references to existing data. And in that case, if there are comments on these of material significance to you, are you prepared to carry out additional investigations or to alter project decisions? Mr. G. Vilchek: - EIA materials never cite primary data. Of course, we have such data, but much of what has been listed is a classified information and cannot be presented to the public. Secondly, this is a huge amount of data comprising many dozens of volumes. They are available at Nord Stream and OOO PeterGaz. Contact Nord Stream for permission to use them. Environmental materials are not secret and may be provided. If you familiarise yourselves with the materials and have comments and suggestions, we will be grateful if you voice these. And if it proves necessary, then we will, of course, introduce amendments to the project.




Mr. N. Donskoye “Novaya Gazeta”: - In what regard are materials confidential? And what is this data? Mr. G. Vilchek: - These are large-scale maps which are confidential in Russia in accordance with the law. This has no specific relation to the Nord Stream project. Ms. T. Marushkina, “Rodina” green movement: - Will the pipes be transported each time from the shore or will they be stored on islands? Ms. I. Vasilyeva: - The logistics will be optimised in terms of both economic and environmental parameters. From the factories the pipes will be transported to intermediate storage bases in order to minimise the distance to the construction site. No storage locations in Russia have yet been planned. Mr. B. Feygin: - The pipes will be transported on barges directly to the pipe-laying vessel. They will not end up on the beach. The intermediate storage bases will be located in existing ports outside Russia. Ms. V. Ovcharenko, non-governmental environmental organisation “Green World”, member of the board of “Coalition Clean Baltic”: - Did I understand you correctly that Nord Stream will not carry out any construction work during the period of mass fish spawning and will follow fisheries regulations in the Leningrad Region, the effect of which limits certain kinds of activity in the waters of the Gulf of Finland from 15 April to 15 June? How will waste be utilised? Is constructing of a plant for waste processing planned in Vyborg? Hasn’t the damage evaluation - 71 million roubles - been undervalued in the EIA, since, according to assessments by ornithologists from St. Petersburg State University, damage to avifauna alone will amount to 18 million?




Mr. G. Vilchek: - That is completely correct: in strict compliance with the legislation, works will not be carried out in the stated period, when spawning is taking place in adjacent areas. As regards to the damage to avifauna, we are working together with ornithologists from St. Petersburg State University. The project is still subject to further amendments and so is subject to amendments the sum of total of damages . Ms. O. Rodivshova, OOO PeterGaz: - We are developing a “Waste management” document. We are looking at all the possible mechanisms for utilising waste. The construction of a special plant is not envisaged. Waste formed during construction of the onshore section will be transferred to specialised facilities in the Leningrad Region which hold the appropriate licences. We are conducting negotiations with them and have received their agreement that contracts will be concluded prior to the commencement of construction. Concerning the waste which is generated during construction of the offshore section, this will be generated on foreign construction vessels and in accordance with established procedures will be transferred at ports of registration or bunkering ports outside Russia. All the vessels have systems for utilising consumption waste in accordance with international codes. Ms. O. Krivonos, “Bellona” environmental centre: - Will the environmental risks be insured? How will decommissioning of the gas pipeline be implemented? Are there residents of the Vyborg district present at the hearings? Ms. I. Vasilyeva: - The object will, of course, be insured by the owner. Negotiations are currently underway with insurance companies. It is anticipated that the gas pipeline will operate for 50 years. It is possible that its operating life will then be extended. In accordance with international practice, the way in which the gas pipeline will be taken out of service will be determined upon termination of its operating life in accordance with the norms which apply at that time. Mr. G. Grudnitsky: - We have a “decommissioning” section in the project, and funds are earmarked for this. As a rule, decommissioned offshore gas pipelines are now flushed out and left in place. Ms. I. Vasilyeva: - It would be best to ask those present about this. Request for residents of Vyborg district to raise their hands. (About a third of those present raised their hands).




Mr. A. Shkrebets, Transboundary Environmental Information Agency: - I cannot agree to Ingermanlandsky nature reserve being referred to in the EIA as a planned reserve. It should be included as an existing reserve. In response to your enquiry to Rosprirodnadzor, you received a reply only about the absence of Specially Protected Natural Areas on the onshore section, but not about radionuclide levels, etc. Nor was an enquiry submitted regarding the offshore section. In this case what data are you taking as your basis? Mr. G. Vilchek: - Ingermanlandsky nature reserve is officially still only a planned reserve, but all the same we are examining possible impacts on it. As regards the replies from Rosprirodnadzor we have recently carried out our own investigations and obtained all the necessary data. Maximov, pensioner, Seleznevskaya rural district: - There will be a gas pipeline running through Seleznevskaya rural district, but it has not been reviewed here at all. Where will it run and how will damage due to its construction be compensated for? For there will surely be some areas of waterlogging, and land drainage networks and roads will be ruined… I would like the rural district and the municipaly not to wait until residents raise these questions, but to take tough measures themselves. Ms. I. Vasilyeva: - We are talking today about the Nord Stream offshore gas pipeline, and what will be constructed on land does not form part of this project. Onshore gas pipelines are part of the unified gas transportation system and fall within the remit of OAO Gazprom. Ms. O. Senova, Friends of the Baltic: - At the Baltic Sea Day event, Mr. V. P. Serdyukov said that the company was looking for pipe storage sites, also in Russia. Will this be reflected in any way in the EIA? Is Nord Stream intending to support the establishment of the Ingermanlandsky nature reserve in any way? The non-governmental organisations suggest that Nord Stream AG demonstrate its social responsibility by supporting the establishment of the Ingermanlandsky nature reserve. Ms. I. Vasilyeva: - As I said, the logistics is being developed and optimised. The pipe storage bases will be on the shores of the Baltic, but most likely not in Russia. If this is required, then an additional EIA will be conducted for these sites. As far as sponsorship is concerned, the company has a sponsorship policy and funds a range of projects relating to the environment and cultural heritage of the Baltic region. We are also open to new proposals, but these would have to be discussed in more concrete terms.




Mr. A. Sutyagin, “Monitoring BTC” project: - A safety corridor will be established along the pipeline, and this will limit fishing activity. And the probability of accidents through contact with trawls and during anchoring is high, according to published PARLOC-2001 data. Is this reflected in the EIA? Would it not be necessary to discuss these issues with fishermen in advance, bearing in mind the catastrophic state of fisheries in the Gulf of Finland, and to reach agreement, for example, on compensation? Mr. B. Feygin: - The gas pipelines will be marked on charts, but catching fish along them will not be prohibited. Besides, fish will concentrate here. From the technical viewpoint, the pipe has been designed so as to withstand any impact from trawl boards, even those that may appear in future. Anchoring will, however, be prohibited. Ms. I. Vasilyeva: - The safety corridor is being established in respect of anchoring, not fishing. We are in dialogue with fishing organisations in the Baltic and organising a seminar where we will explain how to ensure safety when trawling in the vicinity of the gas pipeline. As regards other safety aspects, risk analysis is by all means an important element of the project. Mr. A. Sutyagin, “Monitoring BTC” project: - Are you planning to invite Russian fishermen to this seminar? Ms. I. Vasilyeva: - The question is acknowledged but it is not possible for me to give a definite answer to it now, as the company colleague responsible for preparing the seminar is not present here today. Mr. A. Sutyagin, “Monitoring BTC” project: - Another factor in potential accidents is ship grounding. And the probability of this is not zero, according to published HELCOM statistics (for example, the Propontis tanker accident in February 2007), since no recommended navigational corridors for tankers have yet been introduced. Ms. I. Vasilyeva: - The safety corridor is being established in respect of anchoring, not fishing. We are in dialogue with fishing organisations in the Baltic and conducting a seminar where we explain how to ensure safety when trawling in the vicinity of the gas pipeline. As regards other safety aspects, risk analysis is by all means an important element of the project.




Mr. B. Feygin: - As regards the risk that a vessel will sink and in doing so fall onto the gas pipeline, risks of this kind have been assessed by OOO PeterGaz and deemed acceptable. This is reflected in the “Declaration of industrial safety”. Ms. T. Artemova, “Posev” magazine and Association of Environmental Journalists of St. Petersburg: - Yesterday I received a letter signed by one of the senior managers of Nord Stream containing the following statement: “Nord Stream will do everything possible to minimise the risk of dumped munitions”. And it contained detailed information about munitions, i.e. the company does not deny the fact that there are dumps. Will you be considering the possibility, even if it is only hypothetical, that during construction or operation of the gas pipeline munitions will be found on the route or in its impact zone? Is there an action plan for this eventuality: removal, transportation, processing, safety measures? Ms. I. Vasilyeva: - Thank you for mentioning our information bulletin on munitions. It containes examination of all aspects of both chemical and conventional weapons. We have designed the route far from dumping sites and, in addition, the corridor has also been inspected by OOO PeterGaz and by a specialist company. If dangerous objects are detected nonetheless, then measures to deal with them will be taken jointly with the competent bodies of the country concerned. Mr. A. Shkrebets, Transboundary Environmental Information Agency: - What is the further procedure regarding the EIA? Mr. N Grishin: - With consideration of your comments, the EIA will be finalised and submitted to Russia’s Rosprirodnadzor for an environmental audit in the first quarter of 2008. Ms. O. Rodivilova, OOO PeterGaz: - Before the materials are handed over to Rosprirodnadzor, they will be submitted for approval by the fish conservation agencies and the regional administration of Leningrad Region.




Ms. O. Senova, Friends of the Baltic: - How will access to the environmental monitoring materials be arranged in practice? Will they be openly accessible? Will this be specified in the EIA? Mr. G. Vilchek: - Thank you for the question. We see monitoring as our working tool; the materials will be handed over to the supervisory state bodies, but we will think of the ways of how to make them accessible to the public. The Chairman Mr. O.Y. Likhovidov proposed that, in respect of the laying of the gas pipeline on the seabed, the project be approved, considering the proposals of those who had spoken. Applications to Nord Stream and comments on the project and the preliminary EIA materials were submitted in writing (Annexes 2-5 to the Protocol) by the representatives of non-governmental organisations. RESOLUTION: The administration and residents of Vyborg district, as well as representatives of the region's non-governmental organisations, familiarised themselves with the preliminary EIA materials on the Russian section of the Nord Stream offshore gas pipeline along the seabed of the Gulf of Finland and, having taken note of them, expressed their desire to the company and project designers for the remarks and proposals expressed to be taken into account when the EIA is finalised. The participants in the discussion expressed their gratitude for the holding of public hearings to the organisers - the administration of the municipality of Vyborg District, Leningrad Region, Nord Stream AG and OOO PeterGaz.




APPENDIX 7

NON-TECHNICAL SUMMARY




Introduction

This Annex No. 7 to the materials of the environmental impact assessment has been drawn up in accordance with the "Regulation of the assessment of the impact of projected economic activity on the environment in the Russian Federation” (Annex to Order No. 372 of 16 May 2000 of the State Committee of the Russian Federation for Environmental Protection). The text of Annex No. 7 represents a brief summary of the materials of the environmental impact assessment (EIA) of the construction and operation of the offshore section (including the underwater pipeline and landfall sections as far as the isolation point) of the Russian sector of the Nord Stream offshore gas pipeline. The materials were developed by OOO PeterGaz (Moscow, Russia) under contract no. 1 03-07 dated 29 March 2007 with its client company Nord Stream AG. The head office of Nord Stream AG is located at: Grafenauweg 2, 6304 Zug, Switzerland. Tel.: +41 (0) 41 766 91 91; fax: +41 41 766 91 92. Nord Stream AG’s Moscow branch office is located at the following address: Znamenka 7, building 3, 119019, Moscow, Russia. Tel.: +7 495 229 65 85; fax: +7 495 229 65 80. Contact persons at Nord Stream AG: Sergey Gavrilovich Serdyukov - Technical Director. Tel.: +7 495 229 65 85; fax: +7 495 229 65 80. Boris Lvovich Feygin - Regional manager of the Russian sector of the Nord Stream offshore gas pipeline. Tel.: +7 495 229 65 85; fax: +7 495 229 65 80. The baseline information for preparation of the EIA materials was provided by materials for the project to construct and operate the offshore section of the Russian sector of the Nord Stream offshore gas pipeline, the EIA and “Environmental protection” chapters of the conceptual design (investment rationale) for construction of the North European Gas Pipeline developed in 2005-2006 in accordance with the technical objectives and schedule relating to agreement no. 6545-10 of 5 September 2005 between OOO PeterGaz and OAO Giprospetsgaz on the basis of materials from surveys carried out by AO Nord Transgaz in 1998 for the North European Gas Pipeline feasibility study, archive and bibliographical materials and the results of engineering and environmental engineering surveys conducted by OOO PeterGaz along the gas pipeline route in 2005/2007. In drawing up the preliminary EIA section, account was taken of comments from Gazprom contained in expert report No. 93 of 30 December 2002 on “Rationale for investment in the Nord Stream gas pipeline construction project”, of comments reflected in the conclusion of the State Environmental Expert Review Board on the rationale for investment in amending the Nord Stream project up to a capacity of 55 billion cubic metres per annum (Rosprirodnadzor, 2007), and of:

• Comments and proposals presented during public hearings on the rationale for investment, in Vyborg, Leningrad Region, on 21 September 2006;

• Questions, comments and proposals advanced during discussion of the project within the

framework of the Espoo Convention by government bodies, organisations, non-governmental associations and private individuals (129 comments which can be viewed on Nord Stream AG's company website at www.nord-stream.com);




• Questions, comments and proposals set out in a letter from the Coalition Clean Baltic to

the Russian Federal Government;

• Questions, comments and proposals from the public received during public hearings on 23 November 2007 in Vyborg to discuss the technical objectives for conducting an EIA and the preliminary version of the EIA materials in respect of the Russian section of the Nord Stream offshore gas pipeline.

This Annex sets out a brief summary of the materials of the impact assessment on marine ecosystems.

Environmental restrictions on natural resource use Construction of the offshore section of the Russian sector of the Nord Stream gas pipeline will not affect any Specially Protected Natural Areas (SPNA) of federal, regional or local importance. Closest to the route of the pipeline is the island of Bolshoy Fiskar (about 3 km), which is covered by the planned Ingermanlandsky State Nature Reserve. Located at a distance of 4 km is the Prigranichny reserve, a reserve of regional status. The reserve is situated on the mainland coastal zone and islands in the Gulf of Finland near the Russian/Finnish border. The area of the reserve is approximately 5,825 ha, of which about 3,225 ha is on land and 2,600 ha in the waters of the Gulf. Suursaari reserve is 6.6 km from the gas pipeline route. It was established to conserve a unique geological formation which is the island of Gogland with its picturesque natural environment, distinctive relief, rich collection of rare and vulnerable species of flora and fauna. The reserve covers an area of 1,044 ha. The principal natural constraints upon construction of the offshore section in terms of the geological environment and relief conditions are linked to:

• the occurrence of ice gouging processes inside Portovaya Bay;

• the high degree of the relief roughness in the deepwater section of the route;

• special features of lithodynamic processes in the littoral zone of the construction section. Analysis of the current status of the avifauna showed that in the area which the planned section of the Nord Stream offshore gas pipeline will pass in Russian waters the avifauna is characterised by high diversity of species and a high proportion of rare and specially protected species (bittern, mute swan, gadwall). Three species of seal are encountered in the Baltic Sea: the grey seal (Halichoerus grypus), common seal (Phoca vitulina) and ringed seal (Pusa hispida).




All these species are listed in the Russian Federation’s Red Book and in the IUCN Red List. The gas pipeline route was selected so that it does not cross the migration paths of seals listed in the RF Red Book, and does not coincide with their rendezvous positions outside the migration seasons. The gas pipeline route also does not affect any specially protected natural areas of federal, regional or local importance, either existing or planned.

Impacts on the geological environment of the ancient Baltic shield. In the area’s geological structure, an ancient foundation can be identified, comprising proterozoic formations (rock material up to 2 billion years’ old) and a cover laid down in quaternary depositions. The bulk of the quaternary depositions comprise accumulations dating from the Valday glaciation (approximately 12,000 years ago) and the subsequent stages of the Baltic glacial lakes and modern sea basins. The glacial deposits are formed of moraines which are laid down as dense clays with inclusions of boulders, pebbles, gravel and sand lenses. In the lake and sea sediments, clays of different consistency and grain size and silts predominate. The seabed is a hilly and ridged plain which formed under the action of repeated glaciations and neotectonic uplift of the Baltic shield. The ridges are small elongated massifs of islands and banks grouped in chains extending in a north-westerly direction and separated by lower flat areas. The ridges are in most cases composed of moraine deposits, the plains between the ridges of clays and silts. The gas pipeline route lies in a relatively quiet seismic zone, with seismic tremors not expected to exceed an intensity of 5 on the MSK-64 scale. Moreover, the probability of earthquakes occurring is extremely small. Along the route, most sections of the seabed provide favourable lithodynamic conditions for laying a gas pipeline, and are also characterized by quiet hydrodynamic conditions. The only place where any noticeable movement of alluvia can be observed is in a narrow coastal strip. However, calculations of the amounts of alluvia have shown that status of the shore under consideration is stable, and in coming decades the shore in Portovaya Bay will remain stable and may even accrete. The impact on the geological environment and on relief conditions will be linked to the carrying out of dredging during development of the subsea trench in the coastal zone (in Portovaya Bay from the water line to a depth of 14 metres) and to levelling of the seabed along the gas pipeline route when filling with rock and gravel material to prevent unacceptable pipe sagging on uneven stretches of submarine relief. The impact will manifest itself in:




• changes in the grain-size composition of seabed sediments along the gas pipeline route and in

adjacent areas. When backfilling uneven areas of seabed with imported rock and gravel material (av. diameter 20-40 mm) an increase in the size of sea-floor particles will occur. In addition, when work is being carried out, the suspension (disturbance) of local fine-dispersed sediments (consisting mainly of clay and silt particles) together with their dispersal by currents and subsequent deposition will be observed. This will lead to the formation in the area adjacent to the gas pipeline route of a layer of freshly deposited sediments, with the particles composing them being of minimal size. This effect will be temporary and localised in nature and will be evident only during construction of the installation. The newly deposited sediments on the edge of the route will, after the first storms, be repeatedly subject to re-suspension and dispersal by storm currents over a large area of the sea. The grain-size composition of rock and gravel supports will differ from the natural background material throughout the operational life of the pipeline. But this will not have any negative consequences for the geological environment.

• pollution of seabed sediments with oil products given the potential for leakage from technical

equipment operated during construction work in the waters of the Gulf of Finland and the near-shore section of Portovaya Bay. If oil products do enter the aquatic environment, they may sink to the bottom in the form of suspended matter. This helps in part to cleanse the sea water of oil but at the same time leads to greater contamination of seabed sediments with oil. By means of strict compliance with existing Russian and international regulations governing the collection and utilisation of waste on vessels, there will be no pollution of seabed sediments from this source.

• changes in the seabed relief of the Gulf of Finland along the gas pipeline route Local and short-

term changes (only during the construction phase) linked to the working and subsequent backfilling of trenches in the near shore zone. Upon completion of construction, the relief will have a similar appearance to the natural background. Throughout the operational life of the gas pipeline there will be changes in relief conditions at locations where gravel supports are arranged, the latter ranging from 0.5 to 6.5 metres in height. However, since most of the backfilling will take place at depths in excess of 20 metres, where lithodynamic processes are of little significance, technogenic deformation of the seabed surface will not have any negative consequences.

• changes in the parameters of lithodynamic processes. During construction, this will be linked to

the arrangement of a trench in the near shore zone. Where a trench lies open for a sufficiently long period of time (up to several months), part of the sediment flow will be intercepted and accumulate in it. The trench will absorb 75-80% of the sediments crossing it, thereby modifying the natural lithodynamic flow. Total accumulation over the whole length of the trench is estimated at 21.3 thousand m3 per annum. Taking into account that the overall volume of the trench to a depth of 14 metres is approximately 60-65 thousand m3, then over the ice-free period the sediment accumulatation material brought in may exceed 1/3 of the volume of the trench. However, it must be taken into account that the pipe-laying cycle in the near shore trench is short and therefore the time for which the trench will lie “open” is put at days. For this reason, the actual impact will be significantly lower than that calculated and will not lead to a substantial change in the alongshore transfer of seabed sediments. During gas pipeline operation, an impact on sediment transfer conditions and morphodynamic changes in the seabed will be observed at individual sites where rock/gravel supports are located. The impacted objects influencing changes in seabed morphodynamic conditions are sand sediments brought into motion by the action of waves and currents. The pipeline, together with its rock/gravel foundation presents a continuous impenetrable barrier for such alluvia. Sediment flow decreases as the barrier is approached from the windward side, and conditions for solid particle accumulation arise, which results in a decrease in depth. By contrast, in the lee of the barrier a scouring zone appears, over which the flow of sediments recovers from zero to its initial value. Movements of sandy deposits are possible down to a depth of 30 m, but from a depth of 25 metres seabed deformations become minor. It is estimated that at a depth of 15 metres maximum seabed deformation over the 50 years of operation of the gas pipeline may reach 1.3 m (accretion)/ -0.99 m (erosion). The impact will be of a long-term nature, but its scale and intensity will be minimal. In accordance with technical decisions taken, on the section of the route from the 14-metre isobath to the 25-metre isobath it is planned to arrange 10 seafloor supports measuring 5x3 metres for the western pipeline and 4 similar supports for the UNOFFICIAL ENGLISH TRANSLATION – FOR COURTESY ONLY



eastern pipeline, with a total span of 70 linear metres. At depths of 15-22 m, there are plans to install a continuous 3-metre-wide support for each of the lines (300 metres in length for the eastern line, 200 metres for the western). In addition, local seabed scouring below the pipeline is possible during pipeline operation on those sections of the route where sands form the seabed deposits. Such sections usually have to coincide with strong bottom currents. The conditions for this process to occur are possible on local sections of the gas pipeline route near to the island of Gogland. But the probability of it intensifying is minimal, and the impact may be defined as being of little significance.

Thus, the impact of both the construction and the subsequent operation of the gas pipeline will be localised and mainly short-term in nature and will exert an insignificant effect on the geological environment of the Gulf of Finland in the Baltic Sea.

Impact on atmospheric air The main pollutants which form as a result of burning fuel are nitrogen dioxide, sulphur dioxide, carbon dioxide, hydrocarbons, etc. Welding activities generate iron and manganese oxides, dust and hydrocarbons. Gross emissions from vessels used during construction of the gas pipeline were calculated at maximum operating conditions. The calculations took into account the simultaneous operation of all the equipment used in conformance with the production schedule submitted in the Project for the organisation of the construction work. Calculations of the dispersion of harmful substances in the atmosphere were carried out using the software package “Prisma” (version 4.30 revision 02) for the warm period of the year in accordance with the construction works schedule. The results of the calculations showed that no residential areas fall within the area exceeding 1 MAC (Fig. 1).




Figure 1. Map of nitrogen dioxide dispersion It must be stressed that the impact during construction will be local and of short duration. Thus, the conclusion that the impact on atmospheric air during construction of the gas pipeline will not lead to significant changes in atmospheric air is corroborated both by computational results and by practical experience gained in the construction of similar installations.

Impact on the marine aquatic environment Hydrological conditions in the Gulf of Finland are principally determined by the nature of the water exchange with the Baltic Sea. Furthermore, in coastal areas considerable importance is being attached to river runoff and the configuration of the coastline. Overall, hydrological conditions in the Gulf of Finland are characterised by well developed wind flows, the dominance of waves with a short wave period, of less than 5 s, and a height of up to 2 m, and a relatively high temperature and low salinity of the water. Surging and seiche fluctuations in the water level are one of the distinctive features of the water level regime in the Gulf of Finland. Assessment of sea water quality in the waters of the Gulf of Finland was carried out based on a comparison of the values of hydrochemical indicators against established MAC values for fishery waters. For the area as a whole, the waters of the monitored body of water fell within class II in terms of quality class, i.e. “clean”.

EIA page 764




Among the chemical indicators, the most unfavourable situation is in the planned area are the levels of dissolved oil products, mercury and phenols. In the open areas of the Gulf adjacent to the shipping lanes, concentrations of oil products exceed the norm by a factor of dozens. In the near shore zone of Portovaya Bay the levels of oil products are at the MAC level. The degree of water contamination with mercury and phenols is significantly lower (2-4 MAC) (average value for the zone on the water contamination index stands at 0.42). The main impact on the marine aquatic environment is expected to occur during the gas pipeline construction phase. The largest negative impacts will occur during dredging operations, free span correction as well as during cleaning and hydrotesting of the gas pipeline. The main impact on the marine aquatic environment during dredging operations and work to remove free spans will consist in temporary local changes in the physical/chemical properties of the seawater owing to their contamination with mineral suspensions. To assess this impact, modelling of the distribution of suspended material was carried out by the Dorodnitsin Computing Centre of the Russian academy of Sciences. The field of maximum concentrations reached over the whole period of dredging operations is plotted in Figure 2. The distance from the edge of the trench to the position of the isoline representing a concentration of suspended matter of 100 mg/l does not exceed 31 m, 83 m to the isoline representing a concentration of 50 mg/l, 275 m to the isoline representing a concentration of 20 mg/l and 765 m to the isoline representing a concentration of 10 mg/l.

Fig. 2 Field of maximum concentrations (mg/l) reached during dredging operations in the offshore section of the Russian sector of the Nord Stream offshore gas pipeline

The maximum distances of spread of suspended matter during the elimination of free spans will be observed in the stage of reducing longitudinal and vertical bending after laying the pipelines. In isolated instances, concentrations of 10 mg/l may be observed at distances of up to 2 km from the source.

EIA page 765




In the course of dredging operations and operations to correct free spans, more than 55,000 tons of seafloor material will pass into suspended state (approximately 2% of all the material worked). There will be practically no impact on the chemical composition of the seawater as a result of the stirring up of seabed deposits. A very insignificant proportion - tenths of one per cent - of the heavy metals contained in the seabed sediments will pass into dissolved form as the sediments are stirred up. During hydraulic testing of the gas pipeline the marine environment will be impacted by the intake and discharge of seawater. Something in the order of 2,578,400 m3 of seawater will be taken from the waters of Portovaya Bay in order to carry out the hydraulic testing. For the purposes of preventing corrosion in the pipeline, sodium hydroxide (NaOH) and possibly sodium hydrosulphide (NaHS) will be added to the water. Calculation of the MAC values of these pollutants has shown that no substantial impact will be exerted on the marine aquatic environment. Flush water after cleaning of the pipeline will be discharged into a sump/settling basin and cleaned to concentrations not exceeding the MAC value for fishery waters. It is assumed, accordingly, that there will be no contamination of Portovaya Bay waters in this case. Project decisions provide a whole range of general technical and organisation mitigation measures which will make it possible to reduce significantly the harmful impact exerted on the aquatic environment during construction of the gas pipeline. The project also stipulates compensation payments for pollution of the marine aquatic environment during implementation of the construction phase. No adverse impact on the aquatic environment is forecast when the gas pipeline is in normal operation. Provision has been made to carry out environmental monitoring and control measures in order to prevent unforeseen situations arising during operation of the gas pipeline.

Impact on fish and their food supply. Both marine and freshwater fish are found in the Gulf of Finland, whose water is characterised by its low salinity. Freshwater fish (perch, ruffe, pike-perch, roach and white bream) principally inhabit near shore areas of the Gulf, close to river estuaries. Marine fish (sprat, eelpout, sculpin, snailfish, flounder, turbot, dab, cod, burbut) primarily inhabit the area around the islands of Gogland, Bolshoy and Maly Tyuters, Moshchnyy and other islands of the Russian Federation lying to the west of Luzhskaya Bay. Fish species such as Baltic herring, smelt, lamprey and stickleback are encountered everywhere. Commercial fishing is well developed in the Gulf of Finland. The main commercial fish have traditionally been herring, sprat, smelt, pike-perch, perch and bream, and other species with a definite commercial value include whitefish, roach and ruffe. Over the last decade, there has been practically no change in the species composition of the main commercial fish, but the quantity of saltwater fish caught has declined substantially (for example, catches of Baltic herring are down more than fivefold and of sprats more than tenfold).




Coastal sections of the Gulf of Finland are of major importance as feeding and breeding areas for commercial fish. It is in the near shore coactal sections that the greatest quantity of food organisms is concentrated and the Baltic herring spawning grounds are located (see Fig. 3). The remaining saltwater fish species breed outside the Gulf of Finland as in order to breed they require higher salinity levels than are found in the Gulf of Finland (not less than 10.5-11.0%o).

Figure 3. Distribution of Baltic herring spawning sites in the Eastern part of the Gulf of Finland

The more deepwater sections of the Gulf of Finland are relatively poor in biological resources: fish and invertebrates. Over a significant area of the deepwater sections of the Gulf there is a complete absence of bottom-dwelling organisms which provide the food supply for fish because conditions are unfavourable for living organisms to dwell in these sections. The ever increasing pressure which human economic activity is exerting on the waters of the Gulf of Finland and which has led to a number of changes in the species composition of organisms inhabiting the Gulf should also be noted. The construction works will have a negative impact on marine organisms, the principal source of this being the operation of machinery and mechanisms in the waters which will be accompanied by disturbance of the seabed surface and an increase in the turbidity of the water.

EIA page 767




At the same time, living organisms on which the fish feed will die in areas of seabed disturbance and in volumes of water contaminated with suspended materials. Baltic herring spawning grounds located in the shallow waters of Portovaya Bay areas will also be partially destroyed. The area of spawning grounds destroyed constitutes less than 1% of the total Baltic herring spawning grounds in the Gulf of Finland. All these negative impacts have been taken into account in the design. To reduce the damage to fish stocks, nature conservation measures have been drawn up, including plans for the financing of measures to reproduce valuable fish species in the region. At the same time, construction of the gas pipeline may also have a positive impact on the fauna of the Gulf of Finland during the operational phase of the gas pipeline, since there are plans to pour in gravel material supports in order to lend stability to the gas pipeline. Such gravel foundations are known to be colonised quickly by bottom-dwelling organisms, which will increase the productivity of the Gulf, and will foster an improvement in the food supply for fish, marine mammals and birds. During operation of the gas pipeline under normal conditions, no noticeable adverse impacts on the fauna of the Gulf of Finland are anticipated, and therefore the measures which are taken will be targeted primarily at regularly monitoring the integrity of the gas pipeline, as well as at supporting the capacity of the technical systems to operate properly and at preventing accidents. The issue of the safe decommissioning of the gas pipeline will probably be resolved later - after completion its planned service life (at least 50 years) taking into account the legislative requirements and technological capabilities which will exist at that time.

Impact on marine mammals and birds According to data from environmental surveys and bibliographical sources, the contemporary fauna of marine mammals and birds in the Russian part of the Gulf of Finland comprises 69 species of birds and 7 specials of mammals, of which only 2 species are found regularly, the remaining 5 species being distributed further to the west, beyond Russian waters. The following features are characteristic of the Russian part of the Gulf of Finland: - the Gulf of Finland is a busy shipping traffic zone; - the White Sea-Baltic migration route, which is used by hundreds of thousands of birds nesting in the north of European Russia and a number of species from the Asian tundra, passes through the Gulf of Finland; - the Gulf of Finland is a habitat for rare pinnipeds listed in the Red Book - the grey seal and the ringed seal; - a large number of islands are located in the Russian part of the Gulf of Finland, and numerous reefs and rocks are found along the coast. The combination of specific natural, climatic and geological conditions has led to the emergence of unique natural systems, including those in the areas around the islands. To preserve these systems, specially protected natural areas of various categories have been established and unique wetlands and Important Bird Areas designated in the Russian part of the Gulf.




The most valuable in the nature conservation sense are islands with seabird colonies and seal herds, and sections of the coast and coastal waters. The concentration of migrating birds in the inner part of the Gulf of Vyborg merits separate mention. The main impact on marine mammals will come from the operation of machinery and equipment which is accompanied by noise that frightens the marine mammals and causes them to leave the site where the work is being carried out. The list outlining the main types of impact includes:

• the impact of physical fields (thermal, acoustic, electromagnetic, etc.);

• changes in the physical and chemical characteristics of animal habitats (see section 4.3 of this document);

• disturbance of animals by vessels and machinery in operation;

• changes in a habitat’s biotic components (see impact on fish and their food supply in this

document), which impact indirectly through changes in the status and accessibility of the food supply;

• changes in the social situation (increase in human presence and associated factors,

including disturbance, poaching, etc.). Thus, the impact on marine animals during implementation of the projected activity may result in their withdrawal from areas affected by noise, in the deterioration of their nutrient conditions due to a reduction in the food supply (of fish and, to a lesser extent, of the macrozoobenthos) and in mortality as a result of poaching. The most dangerous impact on marine mammals and birds will arise only in the event of an emergency situation accompanied by an oil/fuel spill. Birds The area of the planned pipeline construction is a busy shipping zone, and birds resident here are to a certain extent adapted to the noise and vibration impacts which are produced by shipping traffic. The greatest impact on the avifauna will be at distances of up to 0.5 km from the site of operations, whereas at a distance of 0.5 km -1 km the impact will be strong, at a distance of between 1-2 km the impact on the avifauna will be moderate, and at a distance of 2-3 km the impact on birds will be weak. A reduction in reproductive success or radical changes in the spatial structure of the nesting population of island avifauna and consequently a decline in its numbers and productivity is unlikely to result from the impact of construction operations carried out offshore. This is chiefly because the islands are located far from the projected gas pipeline, as follows: Bolshoy Fiskar is 2.9 km away and Gogland is 2.7 km away, while all others are at distances in excess of 4 km. The sole exception is the island of Maly Fiskar which is located at a distance of 0.94 km from the planned route. The island’s avifauna will be subject to a strong impact which will be reflected in a reduction in the density of birds nesting on the shore and it is possible that some individual birds will use neighbouring islands or the Gulf of Finland coastal area for breeding, i.e. areas located far from the site of operations and not affected by a heavy noise loading”. It cannot be ruled out that during the year in which the work is carried out, some birds will not prefer to nest in the northern part of Maly Fiskar island since that part is further from the site of operations than the southern part of the island.




Construction of the offshore part of the gas pipeline will affect spring concentrations of waterfowl in the area between the Beryozovyye Islands and Portovaya Bay (see Nature conservation atlas of the Russian part of the Gulf of Finland, and also the description of spring migrations in chapter 3.6 of this book). The total numbers of migrants stopping over in this area stand at approximately 800,000 individuals in the spring and between 2 and 2.5 million individuals in the autumn. It is forecast that as a result of the construction work being carried out there will be a movement of a proportion of the migrating waterfowl stopping over in the area to contiguous parts of Gulf of Vyborg waters, but at the same time the construction work will not affect the general (north-westerly) direction of the migration flow nor the migration times. During the autumn migrations, birds will also avoid stopping over near to the site where operations are being carried out, using instead adjacent sea areas of the Gulf of Finland for resting and feeding. The greatest threat to migrating birds forming concentrations on offshore waters comes from oil spills forming on the surface of the water as a result of accidents. To prevent oil spills when work is being carried out, it is essential that all safety regulations be observed. Under normal (accident-free) operating conditions during construction and provided nature protection measures are observed, technogenic pollution will be minimal and will not have a significant effect on birds. Overall, the impacts during construction will be short-term and reversible (disturbance, water turbidity, temporary habitat removal and disruption). Nonetheless, it is inevitable that even where nature protection measures are observed there will be an adverse impact on the avifauna during the construction phase. In this connection, an estimate of the damage to birds is presented in the project design materials (see ch. 8, vol. 8, book 1, part 2). Mammals The assessment of the impact on marine mammals has been carried out based on current information about the population status of these animals in the Russian part of the Gulf of Finland. Unfortunately, current information on the numbers and distribution of marine mammals in Russian waters of the Gulf is quite scarce. Investigations of the sea and coasts in the planned construction area which were conducted in the course of surveys confirmed the absence of a stable population of the common seal in the Russian part of the Gulf of Finland; the presence of this species can be described as occasional. On this basis, it is difficult to forecast the impact on this species of pinniped. For the same reasons (occasional nature of their presence), the impact on cetaceans is considered insignificant.




Hence, during implementation of the project, the impact on Baltic ringed seals and grey seals, which inhabit the area through which the gas pipeline passes, will be insignificant. Both species are rare and protected in the area concerned, but in recent years their numbers have declined sharply. They are listed in the Red Book of the Russian Federation and in the Red Data Book of Nature of the Leningrad Region. As the water warms up, the ringed seal leaves the mainland shore and in summer uses the small island and reefs for haul-outs so that the summer seal population is fairly dispersed and not permanently tied to any section of the coast. During this part of the year the seal may undertake local migrations. The nature of the seal’s presence in the work area makes it possible to predict that the impact on the seal’s population while work is being carried out will be insignificant. The periods during which construction work will be carried out on the offshore part of the gas pipeline do not coincide with the pupping period in which significant casualties may be inflicted among the young seals. The grey seal uses the Khalikarty islands, located some 5-6 km from the gas pipeline route, for summer haul-outs. This is an important area of habitat used by the seals every year during migration. Taking into consideration the distance from the island to the gas pipeline route, it can be predicted that the impact on seals using the islands for haul-outs will be insignificant. Furthermore, in the summer and during the migration period the seals are not tied permanently to a particular site and are less vulnerable to local impacts. Nonetheless, to ensure the safety of the grey seal haul-out sites on the Khalikarty Islands, it is recommended that no construction activities be carried out around the island in May and June (moulting period). Conclusion The projected pipeline route practically doesn't overlap with the main migration routes of the ringed seal and the grey seal. Taking into consideration the local nature of the impact of gas-pipeline laying activities and the existing situation in terms of shipping traffic (in which conditions the ringed seal and grey seal reside) and also the numbers and distribution of seals in the Gulf of Finland, it can be stated that construction of the gas pipeline will not have a significant effect on the seasonal movements and feeding of seals in the Gulf of Finland. Based upon the materials of surveys in 2006, including special seal counts conducted by specialists from the Biological Scientific Research Institute (as part of the international count of marine mammals between 28 May and 2 June 2006) from on board a ship following the route of the projected gas pipeline, it can be concluded that during the summer practically no seals are encountered in the sea area of the Gulf of Finland adjacent to the route of the projected gas pipeline, with the exception of the major haul-out site on the island of Khalikarty (110-130 individuals). This site is located at a distance of 6 km from the route of the projected gas pipeline, but is not of a permanent nature (the herd uses various islands as haul-out sites during this period).




There is no data to suggest the presence of seals in the area of Portovaya Bay during summer. During the winter, individual grey seals are encountered in the waters of the Russian part of the Gulf of Finland, but ringed seals are predominantly encountered close to the shoreline where they build lairs and give birth to pups on the ice. According to the data that is available, during winter the majority of seals are encountered further south and east than the projected gas pipeline route. The seals’ main haul-out sites are situated in the central and southern sector of the Russian part of the Gulf of Finland. They are located at a significant distance from the projected pipeline route and will not be impacted by the projected operations. Due to the likelihood that exists of vessels encountering marine mammals, special instructions governing the conduct of the crew in such situations will be placed on the vessels. The instructions will prohibit the deliberate chasing, frightening, feeding and any kind of catching of these animals. For the purposes of minimising the impact on marine mammals, work times for construction of the offshore part of the gas pipeline have been selected so as to rule out the likelihood of juvenile seals and breeding females being killed and of seal lairs located on the ice being destroyed. Offshore work will be carried out in the period from June to November, the season when the sea is free of ice. From analysis of survey materials and archive data on the current status of cetaceans in the Russian part of the Gulf of Finland it can be concluded that all 4 species of cetaceans which inhabit the Baltic Sea today are absent from the waters of the Russian part of the Gulf of Finland and are only occasionally encountered here. The random nature of the presence of this group of mammals in the gas pipeline construction area does not make it possible to reliably predict the impact on them. Thus, data presented in the materials of environmental engineering surveys and the small amount of data in the literature on the numbers and seasonal distribution of pinnipeds in the Russian part of the Gulf of Finland make it possible to predict that the impact on this group of marine mammals during construction of the projected gas pipeline will not be significant. During accident-free operation of the Nord Stream offshore gas pipeline, its influence on the natural environment, provided the applicable technical rules and regulations and nature conservation requirements are observed, will not lead to a change in the ecological conditions in the area around the gas pipeline. When the gas pipeline is in operation, the numbers of birds in the pipeline area will be typical of those found in that area under natural conditions. During the operational phase of the gas pipeline, the density of typical seabirds will be practically the same as their normal density offshore.




The impact on marine mammals and birds during dismantling of the gas pipeline will be comparable to the impact during construction, both in scale and duration. A specific description of the impact and estimates of damage will be made after project decisions on dismantling of the gas pipeline have been reached and taking into account changes in the state of the environmental elements over the operating life of the gas pipeline.

Impact of production and consumption waste During installation and construction operations, 7 types of production and consumption waste of 3-5 hazard categories will be generated:

• Unsorted ferrous metal scrap;

• residues and cinders from steel welding electrodes;

• solid bitumen waste;

• waste from vessels (solid domestic waste, food waste, maintenance waste, domestic effluent ).

The total volume of waste will be 21,424,308 tons. In terms of time, the environmental impact of the production and consumption waste can be classified as a short-term impact, typical of the length of time for carrying out installation and construction works. The environmental impact of waste generated during construction of the gas pipeline will be minimal since all the waste types concerned are nonvolatile. The impact of the installation and construction works is reversible since when the laying of the pipelines in complete the aquatic environment will not be subjected to impact from the technology, and damaged ecosystems will recover. Domestic effluent will be transferred to a vessel dealing with the collection of waste water and bilge water and delivered to the port of Primorsk (OOO Spetsmornefteport Primorsk). A contract will be concluded with a specialist organisation (ZAO Ecoproyekt) for the removal of waste in the form of ferrous metal scrap, electrode cinders and bitumen waste. Bitumen waste and waste generated by employees and from vessel operations will be delivered to port and disposed of at a testing ground, and nature conservation payments will be made for the waste. During normal operation of the gas pipeline, no production or consumption waste is expected to be generated, the exception being where possible repair work which has not been considered within the scope of this project has to be carried out. If an option of conservation of the gas pipeline is realiyed, then no waste will be generated. If the pipeline is fully dismantled, the list of waste products will be similar to the list of waste products generated during construction, namely:

• unsorted ferrous metal scrap;

• residues and cinders from steel welding electrodes;




• solid bitumen waste;

• waste from vessels (solid domestic waste, food waste, maintenance waste, domestic

effluent etc.). In order to minimise the environmental impact of production and consumption waste, all temporary waste storage sites will conform to Russian nature conservation requirements.

Conclusion. The Environmental Impact Assessment materials allow the following conclusions to be made: 1. Provided that project decisions and nature conservation measures envisaged under the project are observed during construction and operation of the offshore part of the Russian section of the Nord Stream offshore gas pipeline, the impact on the area's environment will be predominantly local and short-term in nature, and negative changes to the ecosystems of the Baltic Sea will be reversible and moderate in scale. 2. Compensation for damage to the environment and to the interests of third parties may be provided by the project operator in accordance with established statutory procedures. 3. The gas pipeline route selected and construction technologies used are optimal from the environmental point of view. 4. The set of nature conservation measures envisaged is sufficient for minimising damage to the environment.




LIST OF AMENDMENTS TO DOCUMENT 36/07-01- TEO-OOS-0801(1)

Sheet Description of amendment Date of amendment Signature

Throughout Nord Stream logo moved so that it comes before the PeterGaz logo 30.10.2008 [signature]

Throughout References to source material added 30.10.2008 [signature]

Throughout Abbreviation CDS (cleaning and diagnostics system) replaced by DCD (diagnostic cleaning devices)

06.10.2008 [signature]

16-17 Lists of symbols and abbreviations included 07.10.2008 [signature]

21-113 Chapter 1 “General information” revised in accordance with Espoo document. 07.10.2008 [signature]

21-113 “North European gas pipeline” and “Service platform in Swedish waters” data removed. 07.10.2008 [signature]

21-113, 252-280, 476-569

Duplicate figures showing the distribution of rock material around the pipeline removed. 07.10.2008 [signature]

18

Information inserted to the effect that the requirements of international legislative acts were taken into account when developing the volume (insertion of paragraph “When preparing this volume … ”


58 Para. 1.4.5. “Alternatives for the Russian sector of the Nord Stream gas pipeline” added.


59

The following sentence added to para. 1.4.5: “Nevertheless, in spite of the conclusions received from Russian Federation state expert reviews …”


59 Reference to fig. 1.4-1 inserted. 30.10.2008 [signature]

60

Fig. 1.4-1 inserted, showing alternatives for the gas pipeline route south of Gogland Island from the “Espoo report” (September 2008).


71 Fig. 1.5-1 updated in accordance with the new version of the gas pipeline route. 07.10.2008 [signature]

76 Sentence beginning “The inner coating of the pipes …” replaced by “Applying to the pipes …” (page. 38 of version C4)


83 Sentence “For one pipe-laying vessel …”removed (p. 45 of version C4) 29.10.2008 [signature]





86 Sentence “The route of the Nord Stream gas pipeline presumably crosses …” removed (p. 48 of version C4).


87-88

In the paragraph “For filling and pressure-testing the whole offshore pipeline …” the word “discharge” has been replaced by “releasing”, and “settling tank” by “cleaning installation” (p. 49 of version C4


90

“The onshore pipeline outlets are periodically serviced by personnel” replaced by “The onshore pipeline outlets in Russia are regularly inspected by personnel” (p. 52 of version C4).


91

“When necessary duty personnel were mobilised by the controllers in the main control room” replaced by “When necessary duty personnel will be mobilised by the controllers in the main control room” (p. 53 of version C4)


92

Sentence “The detailed design stage was begun in 2006 in parallel with the environmental studies and the drawing up of permitting documents” replaced by “The detailed design stage was begun in 2007 in parallel with the environmental studies and the preparation of permitting documents” (p. 54 of version C4).


92

“Processing of permitting documents …” replaced by “The procedure for obtaining construction permits …” (p. 54 of version С4).

29.10. 2008 [signature]

92

“In accordance with the Convention for the assessment …” amended to “in accordance with the Convention on the assessment … ” (p. 54 of version C4)


92

Para. 1.6. Renamed “Description of possible types of environmental impact for the given activity for each option” (p. 54 of version C4).


93

Reference added to section 1.4.5 (“Comparison of possible impact.”) which provides a comparison of the environmental impact when different options are implemented (table 1.4-1).






93

Sentence “It is forecast that mechanical (dredging operations …” (p. 55 of version C4) amended to “It is forecast that mechanical (pipeline burying operations …”

29.10.2008

[signature]

93 Sentence “Carrying out dredging operations …” reworded (p. 55 of version C4). 29.10.2008 [signature]

94 The phrase “discharge of water after pressure testing” added to the impact factors in Table. 1.6-1.

29.10.2008

[signature]

95

When preparing the EIA material, the Espoo Convention and the Convention on the protection of the marine environment of the Baltic Sea area were taken into account (paragraph “In addition when preparing the material …”).

07.10.2008

[signature]

101-102 Phrase removed: “Representatives of the RF Ministry of Natural Resources stated …” (note to p. 64 of version C4).

07.10.2008

[signature]

102

Addition of wording from the Notice sent to the Russian Ministry of Natural Resources to the Espoo Convention official bodies in which it was stated that “Germany, Denmark, Finland and Sweden see themselves as Parties of origin in the terms of the Convention …”

07.10.2008

[signature]

112-113 Paragraph 1.8 added: “Compliance of design documentation with the requirements of national legislation for EIA”.

07.10.2008

[signature]

112 Paragraph 1.8.1. added: “Explanatory note on substantiating documentation”. 29.10.2008

[signature]

113 Paragraph 1.8.2. added: “Measures to prevent and/or mitigate the possible negative impact of the project on the environment”.

29.10.2008

[signature]

113

Paragraph 1.8.3. added: “Uncertainties in determining the environmental impact of economic or other activity identified when carrying out the assessment”.

29.10.2008

[signature]

113 Paragraph 1.8.4. added: “Summary of monitoring and post-project analysis programmes”.

29.10.2008

[signature]

133

Paragraph 3.1.5.2. The following sentence added to the paragraph “Level of contamination of the surface layer of deposits” : “Chemical soil analysis methods” (p. 94 of version C4)

29.10.2008

[signature]





176

In 3.3.2.1. the following sentence added to the paragraph beginning: “During engineering and environmental surveys”: “Laboratory analysis methods for sea water samples …”.

29.10.2008

[signature]

215 Paragraph added: “One of the main principles of Nord Stream AG …”. 30.10.2008

[signature]

234-235 Section 3.7: brief information about cetaceans added. 07.10.2008

[signature]

243-250 Obsolete material about shipwrecks updated. 07.10.2008 [signature]

250 Figs. 3.8-2 А В С replaced in accordance with comments (comment to p. 211 of version C4)

29.10.2008

[signature]

257

Areas occupied by earth supports and disturbed deposits clarified (p. 214 of version C4), paragraph “In total, at all stages of construction filling will be performed 328 times…”.

08.10.2008

[signature]

257 KП replaced by KP 29.10.2008 [signature]

270

Areas where the seabottom relief will be modified during the construction stage clarified. Misprint removed: amended to: “The total accumulation in the trench is estimated to be 21.3 thousand m3year-1”.

08.10.2008

[signature]

290

In Table 4.3-1 the times shown for different concentrations of plumes of suspended particles are different. These times were calculated taking into account the duration of work and the plumes being fed with new suspended material. It should be noted that in general the duration of the existence of a plume of suspended particles is determined not so much by the concentration of the suspended particles in that plume as by the duration of the work.

30.10.2008

[signature]

291-292 KП replaced by KP 29.10.2008 [signature]

290-295 In Tables 4.3-1, 4.3-3, 4.3-4, 4.3-5 the dimension has been changed (m3 replaced by thousand m3).

29.10.2008

[signature]

320

Paragraph included re the absence of any impact on the cetaceans in the Gulf of Finland (“Following a study of the materials …”).

07.10.2008

[signature]




Page Description of amendment Date of amendment Signature

338 Paragraph added: “When carrying out large-scale filling in the fourth stage …” (note to pa. 294 of version C4).

29.10.2008

[signature]

339 In the section entitled “Transboundary impact” the quantity of harmful substance entering the environment has been clarified.

07.10.2008

[signature]

338-339

“Although the danger zone where the gas come out onto the surface of the water is small ... Baltic region in a 24-hour period” (p. 294 of version C4) replaced by “As a result of such an accident, gas jets …Risk Assessment Report Offshore)”.

29.10.2008

[signature]

375 In the paragraph “Total mass of relase” the quantity of harmful substance entering the environment has been clarified.

07.10. 2008

[signature]

379 New chapter included: “Measures to mitigate possible adverse impact” 07.10.2008

[signature]

381 In Table 7.1-1 the values for environmental damage during the construction and operation phases have been rounded off.

30.10.2008

[signature]

382-383 New chapter added: “Environmental Monitoring and Control Programme”. 07.10.2008

[signature]

476-569 Incorrect numbering in Appendix 4.1 removed. 07.10.2008

[signature]

659-660 Appendix 4.3 added: “Granite macadam certificate”. 08.10.2008

[signature]

681-780 Appendix 6 added: “Material from the public hearings concerning the Nord Stream project”.

07.10.2008

[signature]

781-797 Appendix 7 added: “Non-technical summary”. 07.10.2008

[signature]


Source text Target text ////Page 25//// ////Page 25//// КОНТРОЛИРУЮЩИЕ ОРГАНЫ SUPERVISORY BODIES

Совет акционеров Shareholders' council РУКОВОДСТВО MANUAL. Генеральный директор General Manager Директорат Board of directors Функции: Functions: технические вопросы, коммерческие вопросы, финансовые и др

technical issues, commercial issues, financial, etc.

////Page 39//// ////Page 39//// млрд. куб .м bcm

Дефицит импортных поставок Import supply gap Текущий объем импорта Current import capacity Собственное производство Domestic production ////Page 40//// ////Page 40//// ////Picture 1//// ////Picture 1//// Возобновляемые энергоносители Renewable energy carriers Атомная энергия Nuclear energy Природный газ Natural gas Твердое топливо Hard fuel Нефть Oil Доля в первичном энергопотреблении в 2005 г

Share in primary power consumption in 2005

////Picture 2//// ////Picture 2//// Возобновляемые энергоносители Renewable energy carriers Атомная энергия Nuclear energy Природный газ Natural gas Твердое топливо Hard fuel Нефть Oil Доля в первичн ом энергопотреблении в 2025 г.

Share in primary power consumption in 2005

////Page 43//// ////Page 43//// Норвегия Norway Россия Russia Алжир Algeria Нигерия Nigeria Иран Iran Катар Qatar ////Page 46//// ////Page 46//// Штокман Shtokman Ямал Yamal Район добычи Extraction area ЕС 27 ЕС 27 Трубопровод для природного газа Natural gas pipeline ////Page 48//// ////Page 48////


ПГ1 – Газопроводы с северо-запада России

NG1 – Pipelines from the north-west of Russia

ПГ2 - Газопроводы из Алжира NG2 - Pipelines from Algeria ПГ3 – Газопроводы с Каспия и Ближнего Востока

NG3 – Pipelines from Caspian Region and the Middle East

ПГ4 – Терминалы СПГ NG4 – LNG terminals ПГ5 – Подземное хранилище газа NG5 – Underground gas storage ПГ6 – Восточно-Средиземноморское газовое кольцо

NG6 – East Mediterranean Gas Ring

Трубопровод от Штокмановского месторождения до газопровода «Nord Stream»

The pipeline from Shtokman gas field to «Nord Stream» pipeline

////Page 50//// ////Page 50//// Лангелед (20 млрд.куб.м/год) Langeled (20 bcm/year) СПГ (55-60 млрд. куб.м/год) LNG (55-60 bcm/year) Медгаз (8 млрд. куб.м/год) Medgaz (8 bcm/year) Галси (8 млрд. куб.м/год) Galsi (8 bcm/year) Трансмед (8 млрд. куб.м/год) Transmed (8 bcm/year) Зеленый поток (8-11 млрд. куб.м/год) Green Stream (8-11 bcm/year) Соединительный год) трубопровод Pipeline Link Турция – Греция (11-12 млрд. куб.м/год) Turkey – Greece (11-12 bcm/year) Nord Stream (55 млрд. куб.м/год) Nord Stream (55 bcm/year) Южный поток (30 млрд. куб.м/год) South Stream (30 bcm/year) Набукко (31 млрд. куб.м/год) Nabucco (31 bcm/year) Эксплуатируется 2005 года Operated from 2005 c c В процессе строительства Under construction В процессе разработки Underway ////Page 61//// ////Page 61//// Русунок 2. Figure 2 Плотность постоянного населения на побережье, антропогенная нагрузка и “горячие точки”

Resident population density on the coast, anthropogenic strain and "hot spots"

Антропогенная нагрузка Anthropogenic strain СВ – изъятие и намыв грунта СВ – removal and hydraulic deposition of

soil CD – укрепление берегов CD – shore protection СЕ - эвтрофикация СЕ - eutrophication CF – рыболовство CF – fishery СG - морской транспорт СG - marine traffic CP - техногенное загрязнение CP - technological pollution DR - отдых населения DR - public recreation CW - водопользование CW - water use CY - военная деятельность CY - military activity ´´Горячие точки´´ "Hot spots" На сегодня, (существующие) For today (existing)


На перспективу, (потенциальные) For future (potential) Водоочистные станции Water treatment plants ЛАЭС Leningrad APP

Условные обозначения Legend Государственная граница National border Автомобильные дороги Automobile roads Железные дороги Rail roads Действующие нефтяные порты Working oil ports Перспективные нефтяные порты Future planned oil ports Прогнозируемый транспорт нефтепродуктов в 2010 – 2012 гг.

Predicted oil product transport in 2010 - 2012

(млн. тонн) (million tonnes) Города Cities Менее 2 000 жителей Less than 2,000 people От 2 000 до 10 000 жителей From 2,000 to 10,000 people От 10 000 до 50 000 жителей From 10,000 to 50,000 people От 50 000 до 100 000 жителей From 50,000 to 100,000 people От 100 000 до 500 000 жителей From 100,000 to 500,000 people Более 1 млн. жителей – Санкт-Петербург

More than 1,000,000 people - St.Petersburg

Поселки городского типа Urban-type settlements Более 2 000 жителей More than 2,000 people Поселки сельского типа Rural-type settlements Менее 500 жителей Less than 500 people От 500 до 1 000 жителей From 500 to 1,000 people Более 1 000 жителей More than 1,000 people В 1 сантиметре 6 километров 1 centimetre is 6 kilometres Сплошные горизонтали проведены через 25 метров

Continuous contours are every 25 metres

Балтийская трубопроводная система Baltic pipeline system

Глубина, м Depth, m

////Page 62//// ////Page 62//// Рисунок 39. Figure 39. Особо охраняемые природные территории

Specially protected natural territories

Перечень особо охраняемых природных территорий (ООПТ)

List of specially protected natural areas (SPNA)

Лебяжье. Lebyazhye. Водно-болотные угодья международного значения

Wetlands of international importance

Березовые острова. The Berezovye Islands. Региональный комплексный заказник Complex nature reserve of regional

importance Выборгский. Vyborgsky. Региональный комплексный заказник Complex nature reserve of regional

importance


Озеро Мелководное. Melkovodnoye Lake Региональный орнитологический заказник

Ornithological nature reserve of regional importance

Раковые озера. Rakovye Lakes. Региональный комплексный заказник Complex nature reserve of regional

importance Гряда Вярямянселькя. Värämänselkä Ridge. Региональный комплексный заказник Complex nature reserve of regional

importance Болото Озерное. Ozernoye Wetland. Региональный гидрологический заказник

Hydrological nature reserve of regional importance

Гладышевский. Gladyshevski. Региональный комплексный заказник Complex nature reserve of regional

importance Линдуловская роща. Lindulovskaya Wood. Региональный ботанический заказник Botanical nature reserve of regional

importance Болото Ламмин-Суо. Lamminsuo Wetland. Региональный гидрологический заказник

Hydrological nature reserve of regional importance

Юитоловский. Yuntolovski. Региональный комплексный заказник Complex nature reserve of regional

importance Гостилицкий. Gostilitski. Региональный ботанический заказник Botanical nature reserve of regional

importance Дубравы и деревни Велькота. Velkota oak woods and villages. Региональный комплексный заказник Complex nature reserve of regional

importance Котельский. Kotelski. Региональный комплексный заказник Complex nature reserve of regional

importance Остров Густой. Gustoy Island. Геологический памятник природы Geological natural monument Озеро Красное. Krasnoye Lake. Геологический и гидрологический памятник природы

Geological and hydrological natural monument

Комаровский берег. Komarovo beach. Комплексный памятник природы Complex natural monument Обнажения на реке Поповка. Outcrop on Popovka river Геологический памятник природы Geological natural monument Дудергофские высоты. Dudergof Hills. Комплексный памятник природы Complex natural monument Стрельнинский берег. Strelna beach. Комплексный памятник природы Complex natural monument


Парк ´´Сергиевка´´. Sergievka Park. Комплексный памятник природы Complex natural monument Донцо. Dontso. Комплексный памятник природы Complex natural monument Радоновые источники и озера в поселке Лопухинка.

Radon springs and lakes in Lopukhinka village.

Геологический и гидрологический памятник природы

Geological and hydrological natural monument

Ингерманландский. Ingermanlandski. Государственный природный заповедник.

National nature protection area.

Приграничный. Prigranichny. Региональный комплексный заказник Complex nature reserve of regional

importance Ореховский. Orekhovski. Региональный комплексный заказник Complex nature reserve of regional

importance Кургальский. Kurgalski. Региональный комплексный заказник Complex nature reserve of regional

importance Приморский берег. Primorsk beach. Комплексный памятник природы Complex natural monument Саперное. Sapernoye. Региональный комплексный заказник Complex nature reserve of regional

importance Долина реки Смородинка. Smorodinka river valley. Региональный комплексный заказник Complex nature reserve of regional

importance Термоловский. Termolovski. Региональный комплексный заказник Complex nature reserve of regional

importance Сестрорецкий разлив. Sestroretski Razliv. Региональный комплексный заказник Complex nature reserve of regional

importance Сюрьевское болото. Syuryevskoye Wetland. Региональный комплексный заказник Complex nature reserve of regional

importance Озеро Лубенское. Lubenskoye Lake. Региональный комплексный заказник Complex nature reserve of regional

importance Репузи (Пудость). Repuzi (Pudost). Комплексный памятник природы Complex natural monument Гатчинская ´´Чудо-полянка´´. "Wonder lawn" in Gatchina. Ботанический памятник природы. Botanical natural monument. Истоки реки Парица. Paritsa river head. Ботанический и гидрологический Botanical and hydrological natural


памятник природы monument Болото Карпиково. Karpikovo Wetland. Ботанический памятник природы Botanical natural monument Глядино. Glyadino. Комплексный памятник природы Complex natural monument Вильповицы. Vilpovitsy. Ботанический памятник природы Botanical natural monument Гостилицкий склон. Gostilitsy flank. Ботанический памятник природы Botanical natural monument Копорский глинт. Koporye steep ("glint"). Комплексный памятник природы Complex natural monument Условные обозначения Legend Особо охраняемые природные территории (ООПТ)

Specially protected natural areas (SPNAs)

Существующие Existing Водно болотные угодья международного значения (1)

Wetlands of international importance (1)

Заказники (2-14) Nature reserves (2-14) Памятники природы (15-23) Natural monuments (15-23) Проектируемые Planned Заповедники (24) Nature protection areas (24) Заказники (25-27) Nature reserves (25-27) Памятники природы (28) Natural monuments (28) Предлагаемые Proposed Заказники (29-34) Nature reserves (29-34) Памятники природы (35-42) Natural monuments (35-42) В 1 сантиметре 6 километров 1 centimetre is 6 kilometres Сплошные горизонтали проведены через 25 метров

Continuous contours are every 25 metres

Государственная граница National border Автомобильные дороги Automobile roads Железные дороги Rail roads Глубина, м Depth, m

////Page 63//// ////Page 63//// Рисунок 21 Figure 21 Пути пролета и основные места стоянок лебедей осенью

Flight routes and main staging places of swans in autumn

Условные обозначения Legend Государственная граница National border Автомобильные дороги Automobile roads Железные дороги Rail roads Глубина, м Depth, m

Пути пролета Flight routes Основные места стоянок Main staging places В 1 сантиметре 6 километров 1 centimetre is 6 kilometres ////Page 64//// ////Page 64////


Рисунок 26. Figure 26. Распределение представителей балтийской морской орнитофауны в весение – летний ( гнездовой ) период.

Baltic Sea bird fauna representatives distribution in spring-summer (breeding) period


Гага Common eider Турпан Velvet scoter Лебедь-шипун Mute swan Гагарка и чистики Razorbill and guillemots Серый гусь Greylag goose Белощокая казарка Barnacle goose Пеганка Shellduck Кулик-сорока Oyster-catcher Камнешарка Turnstone Чернозобик Dunlin Большой баклан Great cormorant Морская чайка у клуша Great black-backed gull and lesser black-

backed gull Чеграва Caspian tern Полярная крачка Arctic tern В 1 сантиметре 6 километров 1 centimetre is 6 kilometres ////Page 65//// ////Page 65//// Рисунок 30. Figure 30. Пути весенней миграции сухопутных птиц

Traces of terrestrial birds spring migration


В 1 сантиметре 6 километров 1 centimetre is 6 kilometres Пути массовой весенней миграции Traces of mass spring migration Пути весенней миграции Traces of spring migration ////Page 66//// ////Page 66//// Рисунок 33. Figure 33. Места встреч балтийского подвида кольчатой непры (Рhoca hispida botnica) на залежкак в весение – летний и летне – осенний периоды года и ее миграционные пути в весенний и осенне - зимний периоды года

Baltic ringed seal (Рhoca hispida botnica) rendezvous at herds during spring / summer and summer / autumn and its migration routes during spring and autumn / winter

Условные обозначения Legend


Государственная граница National border Автомобильные дороги Automobile roads Железные дороги Rail roads Глубина, м Depth, m

Залежки балтийского подвида кольчатой нерпы в летне – осенний период года (август – октябрь)

Baltic ringed seal herds during summer / autumn (August - October)

Залежки балтийского подвида кольчатой нерпы в весенне - летний период года ( май – июнь)

Baltic ringed seal herds during spring / summer (May - June)

Пути весенней миграции ( май) Traces of spring migration (May) Пути осенно - зимней миграции (ноябрь – февраль)

Traces of autumn / winter migration (November - February)

В 1 сантиметре 6 километров 1 centimetre is 6 kilometres ////Page 67//// ////Page 67//// Рисунок 34. Figure 34. Распределение серого тюленя (Halichoerus grypus) в весенний, летний и осенний периоды года и его миграционные пути в весенний и осенний периоды года

Grey seal (Halichoerus grypus) distribution during spring, summer, and autumn and its migration routes during spring and autumn


Залежки более 100 особей Herds with more than 100 individuals Залежки от 10 до 100 особей Herds with 10 to 100 individuals Залежки до 10 особей Herds with less than 10 individuals Весенняя миграция ( май ) Spring migration (May) Осенняя миграция (сентябрь – октябрь) Autumn migration (September - October) В 1 сантиметре 6 километров 1 centimetre is 6 kilometres ////Page 68//// ////Page 68//// Рисунок 38. Figure 38. Распределение на побережье видов амфибий, рептилий и млекопитающих, занесенных в Красные книги

Distribution of species of amphibians, reptiles and mammals, included in Red Books, ashore


Серый тюлень ( балтийский подвид – Halichoerus grypus macrorhynchus )

Baltic grey seal (Halichoerus grypus macrorhynchus)

Кольчатая нерпа ( балтийский подвид – Phoca hispida botnica )

Baltic ringed seal (Phoca hispida botnica)


Европейская норка ( Mustela lutreola ) European mink (Mustela lutreola) Гребенчатый тритон ( Triturus cristatus ) Great crested newt (Triturus cristatus) Обыкновенный уж (Natrix natrix ) Grass snake (Natrix natrix) Летяга ( Pteromys volans ) Flying squirrel (Pteromys volans) Рыжая вечерница ( Nyctalus noctula ) Noctule (Nyctalus noctula) Садовая соня ( Eliomys quercinus ) Garden dormouse (Eliomys quercinus) Обыкновенная чесночница ( Pelobates fuscus )

Spade-footed toad (Pelobates fuscus)

В 1 сантиметре 6 километров 1 centimetre is 6 kilometres ////Page 71//// ////Page 71//// Запланированный газопровод Nord Stream

Planned Nord Stream pipeline

Газопровод Европейской сети природного газа

European natural gas network pipeline

Газопровод запланирован или в cтроитeльcтвe

The pipeline is planned or during construction

Границы территориальных вод The limit of the territorial waters Граница исключительной экономической зоны

The limit of the exclusive economic zone

Граница исключительной экономической зоны ( неофициальна)

The limit of the exclusive economic zone (not official)

////Page 85//// ////Page 85//// Гравийные опоры Gravel supports Трубопровод Pipeline ////Page 119//// ////Page 119//// ////Picture text1//// ////Picture text1//// 5 баллов менее 5 points and less Зоны интенсивности, баллы Areas of shocks, force Границы зон балльности Areas of shocks limit Субьекты Рф Russian Federation Subjects ////Picture text2//// ////Picture text2//// Легенда Legend домены domains ////Page 127//// ////Page 127//// б – ка Глатова Glotov bank п – ов Ханка Hanko peninsula о. Урсандет Ursandet Island о. Гогланд Gogland Island п – ов Киперорт Kiperort peninsula Березовые о - ва Berezovye Islands Зеленогорск Zelenogorsk Сестрорецк Sestroretsk Санкт - Петербург St. Petersburg ////Page 131//// ////Page 131//// ////Graphic text 1//// ////Graphic text 1//// Содержание, % Content, %


Бухта Портовая Portovaya Bay о. Гогланд Gogland Island Фракция, мм Fraction, mm

////Graphic text 2//// ////Graphic text 2//// Содержание, % Content, %

илы silts глина clay Фракция, мм Fraction, mm

////Page 132//// ////Page 132//// Финляндия Finland Россия Russia Северный North Березовый Berezovy о. Западный Western Island Березовый Berezovy о. Большой Bolshoy Island Березовый Berezovy о. Мощный Moshchny Island о. Малый Maly Island о. Сескар Seskar Island о. Большой Тютерс Bolshoy Tyuters Island о. Малый Тютерс Maly Tyuters Island Лужская Губа Luga Bay Условные обозначения Legend Балтийское море Baltic Sea Восточная часть Финского залива Eastern part of Gulf of Finland Проекция Гаусса-Крюгера Gauss-Krüger-Projection Система координат "Пулково-42" Pulkovo-42 system of coordinates километры kilometres ////Page 133//// ////Page 133//// Финляндия Finland Россия Russia Северный North Березовый Berezovy о. Западный Western Island Березовый Berezovy о. Большой Bolshoy Island Березовый Berezovy о. Мощный Moshchny Island о. Малый Maly Island о. Сескар Seskar Island о. Большой Тютерс Bolshoy Tyuters Island о. Малый Тютерс Maly Tyuters Island Лужская Губа Luga Bay Условные обозначения Legend Балтийское море Baltic Sea


Восточная часть Финского залива Eastern part of Gulf of Finland Проекция Гаусса-Крюгера Gauss-Krüger-Projection Система координат "Пулково-42" Pulkovo-42 system of coordinates километры kilometres ////Page 134//// ////Page 134//// Условные обозначения Legend граница участков осреднения информации

Information averaging areas borders

участок - ст. area - st. участок - ст. area - st. участок - ст. area - st. участок - ст. area - st. участок - ст. area - st. участок - ст. area - st. II класс II class класс загрязнения донных отложений Benthic sediments pollution class ////Page 135//// ////Page 135//// ////Graphic text1//// ////Graphic text1//// НУ (мкг/г) P.Hc. (μg/g) НУ P.Hc. Участки осреднения информации Information averaging areas ////Graphic text2//// ////Graphic text2//// Сумма ПАУ (нг/г) Sum PAH (ng/g) сумма ПАУ sum PAH

бенз(а)пирен benz(a)pyrene Бенз(а)пирен (нг/г) Benz(a)pyrene (ng/g) Участки осреднения информации Information averaging areas ////Page 136//// ////Page 136//// ////Graphic text1//// ////Graphic text1//// Сумма ПХБ и ДДТ (нг/г) Sum РСВ and DDT (ng/g) сумма ПХБ sum РСВ

сумма ДД Sum DDT

Участки осреднения информации Information averaging areas ////Graphic text2//// ////Graphic text2//// Сумма ХБ и ГХГЦ (нг/г) Sum РСВ and HCH (ng/g) сумма ГХГЦ sum HCH

сумма ХБ sum РСВ

Участки осреднения информации Information averaging areas ////Page 138//// ////Page 138//// ////Graphic text1//// ////Graphic text1//// Медь, никель (мкг/г) Copper, nickel (μg/g) медь copper никель nickel цинк zinc Цинк (мкг/г) Zink (μg/g) Участки осреднения информации Information averaging areas


////Graphic text2//// ////Graphic text2//// Ртуть (мкг/г) Mercury (μg/g) ртуть mercury кадмий cadmium

Кадмий (мкг/г) Cadmium (μg/g) Участки осреднения информации Information averaging areas ////Page 141//// ////Page 141//// Расчётный профиль Design profile Точка отбора проб грунта ; 1 Sampling point of soil; No.1 Точка отбора проб грунта ; 2 Sampling point of soil; No.2

Точка отбора проб грунта ; 3 Sampling point of soil; No.3 Трасса Route Расстояние, м Distance, m

////Page 143//// ////Page 143//// Трасса Route Расстояние, м Distance, m

////Page 144//// ////Page 144//// Волновые данные 1 Wave data 1 Деформации, м Deformations, m

Нормальный уровень Normal level Деформации, м Deformations, m

1/1 год 1/1 year 1/10 лет 1/10 years 1/100 лет 1/100 years Сгон Negative surge Деформации, м Deformations, m

Нагон Surge Глубины, м Depths, m

макс. нагон max. surge спокойный уровень calm level макс. сгон max. negative surge Расстояние, м Distance, m


Нормальный уровень Normal level Деформации, м Deformations, m

Нагон Surge 1/1 год 1/1 year 1/10 лет 1/10 years 1/100 лет 1/100 years Глубины, м Depths, m

макс. нагон max. surge спокойный уровень calm level Расстояние, м Distance, m



1/1 год 1/1 year 1/10 лет 1/10 years 1/100 лет 1/100 years Нормальный уровень Normal level Глубины, м Depths, m

спокойный уровень calm level Расстояние, м Distance, m

////Page 147//// ////Page 147//// Деформации, м Deformations, m

волн. данные 1 wave data 1 волн. данные 2 wave data 2 волн. данные 3 wave data 3 Глубины, м Depths, m

спокойный уровень calm level Расстояние, м Distance, m

////Page 148//// ////Page 148//// Спокойный уровень Calm level ////Page 151//// ////Page 151//// Гогланд Gogland Шепелево Shepelevo ЛЦГМС Leningrad Centre for Hydrometeorology

And Environmental Monitoring Мощный Moshchny Ломоносов Lomonosov Старое Гарколово Staroye Garkolovo Кронштадт Лисий Нос Kronstadt Lisiy Nos Невская Nevskaya Усть-Луга Ust-Luga Нарва-Йыэсуу Narva-Jõesuu Приморск Primorsk Выборг Vyborg Озерки Ozerki Сестрорецк Sestroretsk ////Page 153//// ////Page 153//// Январь January Июль July ////Page 155//// ////Page 155//// Выборг Vyborg январь January апрель April июль July октябрь October Год Year


Гогланд Gogland январь January апрель April июль July октябрь October Год Year ////Page 162//// ////Page 162//// о. Гогланд Gogland Island о. Мощный Moshchny Island Температура воды, гор 0 м, сентябрь-ноябрь

Water temperature, 0 m, September - November

о. Гогланд Gogland Island о. Мощный Moshchny Island Температура воды, гор 20 м, сентябрь-ноябрь


////Page 163//// ////Page 163//// о. Гогланд Gogland Island о. Мощный Moshchny Island Температура воды, гор 50 м, сентябрь ноябрь


////Page 166//// ////Page 166//// Скорость течения, см/с Current speed, cm/s Глубина, м Depth, m

////Page 172//// ////Page 172//// Прозрачность, м Transparency, m

Мутность, NTU Turbidity, NTU

Номер станции Station number ////Page 173//// ////Page 173//// ////Graphic 1//// ////Graphic 1//// Финский залив Gulf of Finland Центральные районы Central areas ////Graphic 2//// ////Graphic 2//// Сплоченность Concentration дрейфующего льда, б of ice pack, b Условные обозначения: Legend: Толщина припая, см Thickness of shore ice belt, cm

Дрейфующий лед Drifting ice Припай Shore ice belt ////Page 182//// ////Page 182//// Станции отбора проб морской воды и донных осадков

Sea water and bottom sediment sampling stations

Трасса проектируемого газопровода Planned pipeline route Границы исключительных экономических зон

Borders of the Exclusive Economic Zones

////Page 189//// ////Page 189//// Синезелёные Cyanobacteria


Диатомовые Diatoms Динофитовые Dinophites Зелёные Green Прочие Other ////Page 190//// ////Page 190//// Синезелёные Cyanobacteria Диатомовые Diatoms Динофитовые Dinophites Зелёные Green Криптофитовые Cryptophytes Эвгленовые Euglenophyta ////Page 193//// ////Page 193//// Копеподы Copepods Кладоцеры Cladocerans Коловратки Rotifers ////Page 194//// ////Page 194//// Копеподы Copepods Кладоцеры Cladocerans Коловратки Rotifers ////Page 201//// ////Page 201//// N, экз/м 2 N, species/m2

Глубина, м Depth, m

В, мг/м 2 В, mg/m2

////Page 222//// ////Page 222//// ////Graphic 1//// ////Graphic 1//// Число особей в час Number of individuals per hour Даты Dates Gavia spp Gavia spp ////Graphic 2//// ////Graphic 2//// Число особей в час Number of individuals per hour Даты Dates ////Page 223//// ////Page 223//// ////Graphic 1//// ////Graphic 1//// Число особей в час х 100 Number of individuals per hour х 100 Даты Dates Branta bernicla Branta bernicla Branta leucopsis Branta leucopsis ////Graphic 2//// ////Graphic 2//// Число особей в час х 1000 Number of individuals per hour х 1000 Даты Dates Clangula hyemalis Clangula hyemalis Melanitta nigra Melanitta nigra ////Page 225//// ////Page 225//// ////Graphic 1//// ////Graphic 1//// Число птиц Number of birds Сентябрь September


Октябрь October Ноябрь November Гагары Divers Лебеди Swans Гуси Gees Кряква Mallard Свиязь Wigeon Хох черн Tufted duck Турпан Velvet scoter Синьга Black scoter Морянка Long-tailed duck ////Page 238//// ////Page 238//// Условные обозначения Legend трасса трубопровода pipeline route рыбопромысловый участок fishing ground ООО "Приморский Рыбак" OOO Primorsky Rybak ////Page 240//// ////Page 240//// Unreadable Unreadable ////Page 249//// ////Page 249//// Схема расположения морского участка газопровода Nord Stream

Layout of Nord Stream gas pipeline offshore section

////Page 255//// ////Page 255//// Только траншен Trenches only Траншен + дамбы Trenches + dams бух. Bay Портовая Portovaya ////Page 267//// ////Page 267//// ////Graphics//// ////Graphics//// ////Graphic texts//// ////Graphic texts//// Финский залив Gulf of Finland Конструкция траншеи в прибрежной части

Trench design in the shore area

Коренные породы Bedrocks Уровень моря Sea level Уровень дна Seabed level Привозная каменно – гравийная смесь Imported stone gravel mix Грунт из отвала Soil from dump heap ////Page 269//// ////Page 269//// Глубина, м Depth, m

Толщина слоя, м Layer thickness, m

Скорость накопления, м3м-1год-1 Accumulation rate, m3m-1year-1

Общий итог Grand total Спокойный уровень Calm level Естественный профиль дна Natural sea-bottom profile Профиль дна по створу траншеи Bottom profile of the trench Расстояние, м Distance, m


////Page 272//// ////Page 272//// профиль profile Деформации дна Seabed deformations ////Page 274//// ////Page 274//// Деформации, м Deformations, m

Направление волн и течений Waves and currents direction Глубина 15 м Depth 15 m

50 лет 50 years 100 лет 100 years Деформации, м Deformations, m

Глубина 20 м Depth 20 m

50 лет 50 years 100 лет 100 years Деформации, м Deformations, m

Глубина 25 м Depth 25 m

50 лет 50 years 100 лет 100 years Расстояние, м Distance, m

////Page 275//// ////Page 275//// Деформации, м Deformations, m

50 лет 50 years 100 лет 100 years Глубины, м Depths, m

////Page 277//// ////Page 277//// Трубопровод Pipeline Зона размыва Washout zone ////Page 291//// ////Page 291//// сооружение гравийных опор для статической устойчивости до укладки трубопроводов , этап 1

construction of supports to provide static stabilization before laying of the pipelines, stage 1

подсыпка гравия для статической устойчивости после укладки трубопроводов, этап 2

gravel post-trenching to provide static stabilization after laying of the pipelines, stage 2

подсыпка гравия для динамической устойчивости после укладки трубопроводов, этап 3

gravel post-trenching to provide dynamic stabilization after laying of the pipelines, stage 3

подсыпка гравия для уменьшения продольного и вертикального изгибов после укладки трубопроводов, этап 4

gravel post-trenching to reduce the longitudinal and vertical bend after laying of the pipelines, stage 4

////Page 300//// ////Page 300//// этап stage Германский березовой участок German shoreline section морской участок offshore section морской участок offshore section морской участок offshore section Российский березовой участок Russian shoreline section


Восточная нитка Eastern pipeline Балтийское море Baltic Sea граница пратаскивания end of the run-in section Стационарная камера приема у запуска СОД

Stationary PIG launch and reception chamber

Временная камера приема и запуска поршней

Temporary pig reception and launch chamber

////Page 301//// ////Page 301//// этап stage Германский березовой участок German shoreline section морской участок offshore section морской участок offshore section морской участок offshore section Российский березовой участок Russian shoreline section Западная нитка Western pipeline Восточная нитка Eastern pipeline граница пратаскивания end of the run-in section Стационарная камера приема у запуска СОД

Stationary PIG launch and reception chamber

Временная камера приема и запуска поршней

Temporary pig reception and launch chamber

////Page 324//// ////Page 324//// Террористические акты Terrorist attacks


SOURCE TEXT TARGET TEXT ////Page 346//// ////Page 346//// F/G кривая F/G curve ////Page 354//// ////Page 354//// Группа 3 Group 3 Группа 2 Group 2 Группа 1 Group 1 Группа 4 Group 4 Объем (%) Volume (%) Час Hour Сутки Days Неделя Week Месяц Month Год Year ////Page 357//// ////Page 357//// Oill spill (856 m3) Oil spill (856 m3) Time, hour Time, hour Vapour Vapour Dispers Dispersion Surface Surface ////Page 361//// ////Page 361//// 35 час 35 hours 30 час 30 hours 20 час 20 hours 10 час 10 hours ////Page 362//// ////Page 362//// На поверхности On the surface Испарение Evaporation Диспергирование Dispersion час Hours ////Page 363//// ////Page 363//// Сескар Seskar Копытин Kopytin Виргины Virginy Суурсаари Suursaari Выборгский Vyborgsky Кургальский Kurgalsky Скала Халли Skala Khally Малый Тютерс Maly Tyuters Приграничный near the border Похъяскоркия Pokhyaskorkiya Долгий камень Dolgy Kamen Скала Виргунд Skala Virgund Большой Фискар Bolshoy Fiskar Большой Тютерс Bolshoy Tyuters Березовые острова The Beryozovyye Islands


Остров Gustoy Густой island ////Page 367//// ////Page 367//// Испарение Evaporation Растворение Diffusion Фотоокисление Photooxidation Биодеградация Biodegradation Седиментация Sedimentation Эмульсификация Вода в Нефти Emulsification of the water in oil Нефть в Воде Oil in water Дисперсия Dispersion Растекание Spread Дрейф Drift Часы Hours Сутки Days Устойчивый мусс Stable mousse Неустойчивая эмульсия Unstable emulsion ////Page 436//// ////Page 436//// ФЕДЕРАЛЬНАЯ СЛУЖБА ПО НАДЗОРУ В СФЕРЕ ПРИРОДОПОЛЬЗОВАНИЕ

FEDERAL SERVICE ON SUPERVISION IN THE SPHERE OF RESOURCE MANAGEMENT

УПРАВЛЕНИЕ ФЕДЕРАЛЬНОЙ СЛУЖБЫ ПО НАДЗОРУ В СФЕРЕ ПРИРОДОПОЛЬЗОВАНИЕ ( РОСПРИРОДНАДЗОРА ) ПО ЛЕНИНГРАДСКОЙ ОБЛАСТИ

OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL SERVICE ON SUPERVISION IN THE SPHERE OF RESOURCE MANAGEMENT (ROSPRIRODNADZOR) FOR LENINGRAD OBLAST

(Управление Росприроднадзора по Ленинградской области

(Office of the Federal Service on supervision in the sphere of resource management for Leningrad oblast)

Литейный пр.,л. 39 , г. Санкт-Петербург, 191104

Liteiny prospekt, building 39, St. Petersburg 191104

т. (812) 331-74-84, ф.(812) 331-74-62 Tel.: (812) 331-74-84, Fax: (812) 331-74-62

На Ν° At No ////Page 437//// ////Page 437//// АДМИНИСТРАЦИЯ ЛЕНИНГРАДСКОЙ ОБЛАСТИ

ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE IN LENINGRAD OBLAST

КОМИТЕТ ПО ПРИРОДНЫМ РЕСУРСАМ У ОХРАНЕ ОКРУЖАЮЩЕЙ СРЕДЫ ЛЕНИНГРАДСКОЙ ОБЛАСТИ

COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES AND CONSERVATION IN LENINGRAD OBLAST

191311, Санкт-Петербург , ул. Смольного, 3

191311, St. Petersburg, ul. Smolnogo 3

Для телеграмм : For telegrams: Санкт-Петербург, 191311 St. Petersburg, 191311 Телетайп : Teletype:


121025 «Время» 121025 "Vremiya" Тел. Tel. Факс : Fax: На Ν° At No ////Page 438//// ////Page 438//// Условные обозначения Legend Залежки балтийского подвида кольчатой непры в летне-осенний период года (август-октябрь)

Breeding grounds of the Baltic ringed seal during the summer/autumn period (August - October)

Залежки балтийского подвида кольчатой непры в летне-осенний период года (май-июнь)

Breeding grounds of the Baltic ringed seal during the spring/summer period (May - June)

Пути весенней миграции (май) Spring migration routes (May) Пути осенне-зимней миграции (ноябрь-февраль)

Autumn/winter migration routes (November - February)

////Page 439//// ////Page 439//// Условные обозначения Legend Залежки более 100 особей Breeding grounds with more than 100 seals Залежки от 10 до 100 особей Breeding grounds with between 10 and 100

seals Залежки до 10 особей Breeding grounds with up to 10 seals Весенняя миграция (май) Spring migration (May) Осенняя миграция (сентябрь-октябрь) Autumn migration (September - October) ////Page 442//// ////Page 442//// ФЕДЕРАЛЬНОЕ АГЕНТСТВО ПО НЕДРОПОЛЬЗОВАНИЮ (Роснедра)

FEDERAL AGENCY FOR SUBSOIL MANAGEMENT (Rosnedra)

РЕГИОНАЛЬНОЕ АГЕНТСТВО ПО НЕДРОПОЛЬЗОВАНИЮ ПО СЕВЕРО-ЗАПАДНОМУ ОКРУГУ (Севзапнедра)

REGIONAL AGENCY FOR SUBSOIL MANAGEMENT IN THE NORTH-WEST REGION (Sevzapnedra)

////Unreadable text//// ////Unreadable text//// ////Page 446//// ////Page 446//// Трасса проекттируемого газопровода Route of the projected gas pipeline Буфер (500м в каждую сторону от трассы)

Buffer (500 m on each side of the route)

Приложение 1 к Appendix 1 to ////Page 454//// ////Page 454//// ФЕДЕРАЛЬНАЯ СЛУЖБА ПО ГИДРОМЕТЕОРОЛОГИИ И МОНИТОРИНГУ ОКРУЖАЮЩЕЙ СРЕДЫ

FEDERAL SERVICE ON HYDROMETEOROLOGY AND ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING

Государственное учреждение «Санкт-Петербургский центр по гидрометеорологии и мониторингу окружающей среды с региональными функциями»

State institution "St. Petersburg centre on hydrometeorology and environmental monitoring with regional functions"

(ГУ «Санкт-Петербургский ЦГМС-Р» (State institution "St. Petersburg centre on


hydrometeorology and environmental monitoring with regional functions")

23 линия, дом 2а, В.О., Санкт-Петербург, 199026

23 liniya, building 2а, Vladimirskaya oblast, St. Petersburg, 199026

Для телеграмм : For telegrams: Санкт-Петербург ГИМЕТ St. Petersburg GIMET

Телефон : Tel.: (812) 323-68-276 ; Факс : (812) 323-68-276; Fax: Телетайп : Teletype: ////Page 469//// ////Page 469//// ФЕДЕРАЛЬНАЯ СЛУЖБА ПО ВЕТЕРИНАРНОМУ И ФИТОСАНИТАРНОМУ ПАДЗОРУ (Россельхознадзор)

FEDERAL SERVICE ON VETERINARY AND PHYTOSANITARY SUPERVISION (Rosselkhoznadzor)

УПРАВЛЕНИЕ ПО САНКТ-ПЕТЕРБУРГУ У ЛЕНИНГРАДСКОЙ ОБЛАСТИ

ST. PETERSBURG ADMINISTRATIVE AUTHORITY IN LENINGRAD OBLAST

////Page 470//// ////Page 470//// ПРАВИТЕЛЬСТВО ЛЕНИНГРАДСКОЙ ОБЛАСТИ

LENINGRAD OBLAST ADMINISTRATION

КОМИТЕТ ПО КУЛЬТУРЕ ЛЕНИНГРАДСКОЙ ОБЛАСТИ

CULTURE COMMITTEE IN LENINGRAD OBLAST

ДЕПАРТАМЕНТ ГОСУДАРСТВЕННОГО КОНТРОЛЯ ЗА СОХРАНЕНИЕМ У ИСПОЛЬЗОВАНИЕМ ОБЪЕКТОВ КУЛЬТУРНОГО НАСЛЕДИЯ

STATE INSPECTION DEPARTMENT CONCERNED WITH THE PRESERVATION AND USE OF CULTURAL HERITAGE SITES

////Page 473//// ////Page 473//// Условные обозначения Legend Лебяжье Lebyazhye Кургальский п-ов Kurgalsky Peninsula Березовые о-ва Berezovye islands Копорская губа Koporskaya Bay о. Сескар Seskar island Южное побережье Невской губы Southern coast of Neva Bay Острова Большой Фискар и Долгий Риф The islands of Bolshoy Fiskar and Dolgy

reef Сестрорецкий Разлив Sestroretsky Razliv Северо-Западные пригороды С.-Петербурга

North-West suburbs of St. Petersburg

Выборгский залив Vyborg Bay Государственная граница State border Автомобильные дороги Road traffic routes Железные дороги Railways ////Page 477//// ////Page 477//// Швеция Sweden


Выборг Vyborg Эстония Estonia Латвия Latvia Литва Lithuania Россия Russia Польша Poland ////Page 494//// ////Page 494//// Уровень моря Sea level Уровень дно Sea floor level Привозная каменно-гравийная смесь Delivered stone/gravel mixture Грунт из отвала Soil from the stockpile ////Page 527//// ////Page 527//// Уровень свободной поверхности Free surface level Дно Bottom

////Page 531//// ////Page 531//// Глубина Depth Швеция Sweden Выборг Vyborg Эстония Estonia Латвия Latvia Литва Lithuania Россия Russia Польша Poland ////Page 533//// ////Page 533//// Скорости ветра Wind speeds ////Page 534//// ////Page 534//// Скорости течений Speeds of the currents Скорости течений Speeds of the currents ////Page 535//// ////Page 535//// Скорости течений Speeds of the currents ////Page 550//// ////Page 550//// Типы осадков Types of sediment Глубина , м Depth, m

Условные обозначения Legend гравий Gravel песок Sand Крупные алевриты Coarse silts мелко-алевритовы илы Fine-aleurite silts алевритово-пелитовые илы Aleurite-pelite silts пелитовые илы Pelite silts глины Clays Финский залив Gulf of Finland Северо-Балтийская впадина Northern Baltic Sea Basin Северные средние банки Medium-sized shoals in the north Борнхольмская впадина и банка Рёне Bornholm Bottom and Raney Bank ////Page 552//// ////Page 552////


А-Типы осадков А-type sediments гравий Gravel песок Sand Крупные алевриты Coarse silts мелко-алевритовы илы Fine-aleurite silts алевритово-пелитовые илы Aleurite-pelite silts пелитовые илы Pelite silts глины Clays Верхний ряд станции – с индексом 1, средний – с индексом 2, нижний – с 3

Upper row of stations - with a classification number of 1, medium - with a classification number of 2, lower - with a classification number of 3

Б – Условные обозначения для колоночек

B - Key for core samples

гравий Gravel пески, гравий Sands, gravel Пески Sands Крупные алевриты Coarse silts Мелкоалевритовые илы Fine-aleurite silts Алеврито-пелитовые илы Aleurite-pelite silts Пелитовые илы Pelite silts микрослоистые пелитовые илы Micro-layered pelite silts Гомогенные глины Homogeneous clays Гомогенные глины серые Homogeneous grey clays Ленточные глины коричневые Varved brown clays Микроленточные глины Micro-varved clays Глины моренные Moraine clays суглинки моренные Moraine loams гидропроилитовые слой Hydro spilled layer ////Page 567//// ////Page 567//// Балтийское море Baltic Sea Восточная часть Финского залива Eastern part of the Gulf of Finland Условные обозначения Legend ////Page 568//// ////Page 568//// Балтийское море Baltic Sea Восточная часть Финского залива Eastern part of the Gulf of Finland Условные обозначения Legend ////Page 571//// ////Page 571//// Глубина Depth Швеция Sweden Выборг Vyborg Эстония Estonia Латвия Latvia Литва Lithuania Россия Russia ////Page 572//// ////Page 572////


Выборг Vyborg Приморск Primorsk Санкт-Петербург St. Petersburg Луга Luga Нарва Narva Таллин Tallinn Хельсинки Helsinki Намменлина Hammelina Кувола Kouvola ////Page 573//// ////Page 573//// Гравийные опоры Gravel supports Трубопровод Pipeline ////Page 575//// ////Page 575//// сооружение гравийных опор для статической устойчивости до укладки трубопроводов , этап 1

Gravel support fortification for ensuring static stability until the pipelines are laid, stage 1

подсыпка гравия для статической устойчивости после укладки трубопроводов, этап 2

Gravel-filled post trench for static stability after the pipelines have been laid, stage 2

подсыпка гравия для динамической устойчивости после укладки трубопроводов, этап 3

Gravel-filled post trench for dynamic stability after the pipelines have been laid, stage 3

подсыпка гравия для уменьшения продольного и вертикального изгибов после укладки трубопроводов, этап 4

Gravel-filled post trench for reducing buckling and vertical twisting after the pipelines have been laid, stage 4

////Page 624//// ////Page 624//// Кувола Kouvola ////Page 626//// ////Page 626//// Гравийно песчанный грунт Gravelly and sandy soil гравий, песок Gravel, sand алеврит Silt пелит Mudstone Илы Types of silt ////Page 627//// ////Page 627//// Глины Clays ////Page 639//// ////Page 639//// Точка 3 Point 3 Точка 4 Point 4 ////Page 640//// ////Page 640//// Точка 6 Point 6 Точка 7 Point 7 ////Page 641//// ////Page 641//// Точка 9 Point 9 ////Page 643//// ////Page 643//// Уровень свободной поверхности Free surface level Дно Bottom


////Page 645//// ////Page 645//// Глубина Depth Швеция Sweden Выборг Vyborg Эстония Estonia Латвия Latvia Литва Lithuania Россия Russia Польша Poland ////Page 647//// ////Page 647//// Скорости ветра Wind speeds ////Page 648//// ////Page 648//// Скорости течений Speeds of the currents Скорости течений Speeds of the currents ////Page 649//// ////Page 649//// Скорости течений Speeds of the currents ////Page 684//// ////Page 684//// Национальные процедуры получения разрешений

National authorisation procedures

Сторона происхождения Party of origin Страна, через исключительную экономическую зону и/или территориальные воды которой пройдет проект

The exclusive economic zone and/or territorial waters of the country through which the pipeline will pass

Затрагиваемая сторона Party concerned Страна, на которую проект может оказать воздействие

The country which may be affected by the project

////Page 685//// ////Page 685//// ФАКТЫ FACTS

ВЫПУСК 7 / 08 – 2008 July / August 2008 ISSUE

ФАКТЫ О ГАЗОПРОВОДЕ ЧЕРЕЗ БАЛТИЙСКОЕ МОРЕ

FACTS RELATING TO THE GAS PIPELINE PASSING THROUGH THE BALTIC SEA

СОВРЕМЕННАЯ ТЕХНОЛОГИЯ МОНИТОРИНГА ТРУБ СПОСОБСТВУЕТ БЕЗОПАСНОСТИ ЭКСПЛУАТАЦИИ

MODERN PIPELINE SURVEILLANCE TECHNOLOGY PROMOTES OPERATIONAL SAFETY

Безопасность является приоритетом Nord Stream .

Safety is Nord Stream's priority.

Новейшая система мониторинга труб – одна из инноваций, устанавливающих новые стандарты проектирования, строительства у эксплуатации газопроводов.

The up-to-date pipeline monitoring system is one of innovation, laying down new standards in terms of gas pipeline design, construction and operation.

Система позволяет отслеживать у фиксировать все этапы производства,

The system allows all stages of pipeline production, delivery and laying to be


доставки у укладки труб, а также хранить подробную информацию по отдельным трубам, из которых будет построен газопровод общей протяженностью 1220 км.

monitored and recorded, while also allowing detailed information on individual pipes which will be used to build a gas pipeline stretching 1,220 km to be stored.

Данная технология представляет собой сложную систему сонтроля.

This technology represents a complex control system.

Она собирает информацию на каждом этапе логистической цепочки ( производство, транспортировка, хранение обетонирование и укладка труб) и помещает ее в единый банк данных.

It gathers information at every stage of the supply chain (production, transport, storage, coating and laying of pipes) and stores it in a single database.

Этот банк данных на протяжении нескольких десятнлетий будет обеспечивать непрерывный контроль качества и повысит безопасность эксплуатации всей трубопроводной системы.

Over a period of several decades, this database will ensure continuous quality control and will raise the operational safety of the pipeline system as a whole.

Как работает эта система? How does this system operate? Каждой трубе (выполненной из специальной стали Х70 и сертифицированной независимым сертификационным обществом DNV (Det Norske Veritas) на соответсвие общепризнанному морскому стандарту (OS – F 101), присваивается уникальный серийный номер.

Each pipe (made from special steel Х70 and certified by the independent accreditation society DNV (Det Norske Veritas) for compliance with the generally recognised maritime standard (OS - F 101) is assigned a unique serial number.

Это позволяет Nord Stream обеспечивать постоянный контроль качества, начиная с процесса производства, транспортировки, нанесения утяжеляющего бетонного покрытия у хранения вплоть до заключительного процесса сварки на борту трубоукладочного судна.

This allows Nord Stream to provide permanent quality control, starting with the production process, transport, application of the weighting concrete covering and storage, right up to the final welding process on board the pipe-laying vessel.

Результаты выборочных испытаний материалов (частности, качества стали) также заносятся в центральный банк данных, в котором хранится информация по каждой трубе, клапану у другим элементам трубопровода.

The results of the spot checks performed on the materials (particularities, quality of the steel) are also recorded in the central database which holds information on each pipe, valve and other pipeline elements.

Полученная таким образом информация автоматически сверяется с результатами периодических проверок.

The information obtained in this way is automatically updated with the results of the periodic checks.

Процесс контроля безопасности The pipeline safety inspection process will


трубопровода будет осуществлятьса на трёх уровнях:

be performed at three levels:

инспекция и проверка качества будут проводиться производителями стальных труб, специалистами Nord Stream и независиными экспертами.

the inspection and quality check will be carried out by the manufacturers of the steel pipes, Nord Stream specialists and independent experts.

Важнейшим элементом системы контроля качества является участие независимых инспекторов, привлекаемых компанией Nord Stream (таких как DNV).

The most important element of the quality control system is participation by independent inspectors recruited by Nord Stream (such as DNV).

Имея неограниченный доступ к центральному банку данных, независимые инспекторы будут проводить регулярные проверки с помощью системы непрерывного контроля качества, организованного Nord Stream на каждом этапе логистической цепочки.

Having unlimited access to the central database, the independent inspectors will perform regular checks using the continuous quality control system organised by Nord Stream at every stage of the supply chain.

Они ставят свою подпись под результатами проверок и гарантируют соблюдение установленных стандартов.

They put their signatures under the results of the checks and guarantee that established standards have been observed

Контролю подлежит качество материалов, погрузка труб на трубоукладочные суда и сварка труб.

The quality of the materials, the loading of the pipes on to pipe-laying vessels and pipe welding are all subject to inspection.

Такой сложный процесс позволяет фиксировать местонахождение каждой трубы а коридоре укладки, а также обеспечивает соответствие техническим спецификациям всех комплектующих узлов обеих линий газопровода, каждая из которых будет состоять более чем из 100 тысяч труб.

A complex process such as this enables the location of every pipe in the laying area to be recorded, while also ensuring that all the associated parts of both branches of the gas pipeline, each of which will consist of more than 100,000 pipes, conform to technical specifications.

Уникальный серийный номер каждой трубы газопровода Nord Stream можно будет проследить по свей логистической цепочки.

The unique serial number of every pipe in the Nord Stream gas pipeline will be traceable throughout the entire supply chain.


Documents

eia-report-russia-unofficial-english-translation_20081001.pdf