DOCSLIB.ORG

Non-Technical Summary

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Non-Technical Summary VYSOTSK LNG ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT NON-TECHNICAL SUMMARY Issue 2 Non-Technical Summary TABLE OF CONTENTS List of Figures ................................................................................................................................. 6 List of Tables .................................................................................................................................. 7 1 Introduction to Vysotsk LNG Project ........................................................................................ 8 2 Project Description ................................................................................................................... 9 2.1 General Information .......................................................................................................... 9 2.2 Project Timeframe .......................................................................................................... 13 2.3 Major Facilities’ Description ............................................................................................ 14 2.3.1 Phase I – Facilities and Technological Process Description ..................................... 14 2.3.2 Phase II – Facilities and Technological Process Description .................................... 17 2.3.3 Phase III – Facilities and Technological Process Description ................................... 19 2.3.4 Water supply ............................................................................................................ 24 2.3.5 Wastewater treatment and discharge ....................................................................... 26 2.3.6 Waste management ................................................................................................. 27 2.3.7 Other utilities infrastructure ...................................................................................... 28 2.4 Scope of Activities and Facilities Covered by ESIA ......................................................... 29 2.4.1 Associated Facilities ................................................................................................ 29 2.4.2 Out-of-Scope Facilities ............................................................................................. 30 2.5 Area of Influence ............................................................................................................. 30 2.5.1 Direct Impact ........................................................................................................... 30 2.5.2 Associated Facilities ................................................................................................ 31 2.5.3 Indirect Impact ......................................................................................................... 32 2.5.4 Summary ................................................................................................................. 32 2.6 Environmental and Social Projection in Design ............................................................... 34 2.6.1 Socio-Economic Rational ......................................................................................... 34 2.6.2 Market Rational........................................................................................................ 34 2.6.3 Project Management Organizational Structure ......................................................... 35 2.6.4 Environmental and Social Policy .............................................................................. 35 3 Regulatory Status .................................................................................................................. 37 2 Issue 2 Non-Technical Summary 3.1 General ........................................................................................................................... 37 3.2 Statutory Environmental Review of the Project ............................................................... 37 3.2.1 Background to the Development of Design Documentation ..................................... 37 3.2.2 Project Design Documentation ................................................................................. 38 3.2.3 Project Disclosure .................................................................................................... 39 3.3 Sanitary Protection Zones ............................................................................................... 40 4 Project Alternatives ................................................................................................................ 41 4.1 The ‘No Project’ Alternative............................................................................................. 41 4.2 Assessment of Development Options ............................................................................. 41 5 Stakeholder Engagement ....................................................................................................... 43 6 ESIA Methodology ................................................................................................................. 45 6.1 Definition of Terms .......................................................................................................... 45 6.2 Overview of the ESIA Process ........................................................................................ 45 6.3 Scoping and Consultation ............................................................................................... 46 6.4 Significance Criteria Overview ........................................................................................ 46 6.4.1 Known/Certain Impacts ............................................................................................ 46 6.4.2 Uncertain Impacts and Risks ................................................................................... 47 7 Environmental Impact Assessment ........................................................................................ 48 7.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 48 7.2 Air Quality ....................................................................................................................... 48 7.2.1 Baseline Conditions ................................................................................................. 48 7.2.2 Impacts and Receptors ............................................................................................ 49 7.2.3 Mitigation ................................................................................................................. 50 7.2.4 Residual Impacts and Conclusions .......................................................................... 52 7.3 Landscape and Soils....................................................................................................... 52 7.3.1 Baseline Conditions ................................................................................................. 52 7.3.2 Impacts and Receptors ............................................................................................ 53 7.3.3 Mitigation ................................................................................................................. 54 7.3.4 Residual Impacts and Conclusions .......................................................................... 55 3 Issue 2 Non-Technical Summary 7.4 Geology and Geohazards ............................................................................................... 55 7.4.1 Baseline Conditions ................................................................................................. 55 7.4.2 Impacts and Receptors ............................................................................................ 56 7.4.3 Mitigation ................................................................................................................. 58 7.4.4 Residual Impacts and Conclusions .......................................................................... 59 7.5 Hydrology and Water Quality .......................................................................................... 59 7.5.1 Baseline Conditions ................................................................................................. 60 7.5.2 Impacts and Receptors ............................................................................................ 60 7.5.3 Mitigation ................................................................................................................. 62 7.5.4 Residual Impacts and Conclusion ............................................................................ 65 7.6 Waste Management ........................................................................................................ 65 7.6.1 Background ............................................................................................................. 65 7.6.2 Impacts and Receptors ............................................................................................ 65 7.6.3 Mitigation ................................................................................................................. 67 7.6.4 Residual Impacts and Conclusions .......................................................................... 67 7.7 Noise and Vibration ........................................................................................................ 68 7.7.1 Baseline Conditions ................................................................................................. 68 7.7.2 Impact and Receptors .............................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Experimental Study of Municipal Solid Waste (Msw) Landfills and Non- Authorized Waste Damps Impact on the Environment
    Linnaeus ECO-TECH ´10 Kalmar, Sweden, November 22-24, 2010 EXPERIMENTAL STUDY OF MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE (MSW) LANDFILLS AND NON- AUTHORIZED WASTE DAMPS IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT Veronica Tarbaeva Dmitry Delarov Committee on Natural Resources of Leningrad region, Russia ABSTRACT A purpose was an analysis of waste disposal sites existing in the Leningrad region and a choice of facilities potentially suitable for the removal and utilization of greenhouse- and other gases. In order to achieve the purpose in view, data were collected on the arrangement of non-authorized landfills and waste dumps within the Leningrad region. The preliminary visual evaluation and instrumental monitoring were carried out for 10 facilities. The evaluation of greenhouse- and other gas emissions into the atmosphere as well as of ground water pollution near places of waste disposal was performed. A databank was created for waste disposal sites where it could be possible to organize the work on removing and utilizing of greenhouse gas. The conducted examination stated that landfills exert negative influence on the environment in the form of emissions into the atmosphere and impurities penetrating underground and surface water. A volume of greenhouse gas emissions calculated in units of СО2 – equivalent from different projects fluctuates from 63.8 to 8091.4 t in units of СО2 – equivalent. Maximum summarized emissions of greenhouse gases in units of СО2 – equivalent were stated for MSW landfills of the towns of Kirishi, Novaya Ladoga and Slantsy, as well as for MSW landfills near Lepsari residential settlement and the town of Vyborg. KEYWORDS Non-authorized waste dumps, MSW landfills, greenhouse gases, atmospheric air pollution, instrumental monitoring.
    [Show full text]
  • Common Heritage Совместное Наследие
    COMMON HERITAGE СОВМЕСТНОЕ НАСЛЕДИЕ The multicultural heritage of Vyborg and its preservation Мультикультурное наследие Выборга и его сохранение COMMON HERITAGE СОВМЕСТНОЕ НАСЛЕДИЕ The multicultural heritage of Vyborg and its preservation Proceedings of the international seminar 13.–14.2.2014 at The Alvar Aalto library in Vyborg Мультикультурное наследие Выборга и его сохранение Труды мeждународного семинара 13.–14.2.2014 в Центральной городской библиотеке А. Аалто, Выборг Table of contents Оглавление Editor Netta Böök FOREWORD .................................................................6 Редактор Нетта Бёэк ПРЕДИСЛОВИЕ Graphic design Miina Blot Margaretha Ehrström, Maunu Häyrynen: Te dialogical landscape of Vyborg .....7 Графический дизайн Мийна Блот Маргарета Эрстрëм, Мауну Хяйрюнен: Диалогический ландшафт Выборга Translations Gareth Grifths and Kristina Kölhi / Gekko Design; Boris Sergeyev Переводы Гарет Гриффитс и Кристина Кëлхи / Гекко Дизайн; Борис Сергеев Publishers The Finnish National Committee of ICOMOS (International Council for Monuments and Sites) and OPENING WORDS The Finnish Architecture Society ..........................................................12 Издатели Финляндский национальный комитет ИКОМОС (Международного совета по сохранению ВСТУПИТЕЛЬНЫЕ СЛОВА памятников и достопримечательных мест) и Архитектурное общество Финляндии Maunu Häyrynen: Opening address of the seminar ............................15 Printed in Forssa Print Мауну Хяйрюнен: Вступительное обращение семинара Отпечатано в типографии Forssa Print
    [Show full text]
  • FSC National Risk Assessment
    FSC National Risk Assessment for the Russian Federation DEVELOPED ACCORDING TO PROCEDURE FSC-PRO-60-002 V3-0 Version V1-0 Code FSC-NRA-RU National approval National decision body: Coordination Council, Association NRG Date: 04 June 2018 International approval FSC International Center, Performance and Standards Unit Date: 11 December 2018 International contact Name: Tatiana Diukova E-mail address: [email protected] Period of validity Date of approval: 11 December 2018 Valid until: (date of approval + 5 years) Body responsible for NRA FSC Russia, [email protected], [email protected] maintenance FSC-NRA-RU V1-0 NATIONAL RISK ASSESSMENT FOR THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION 2018 – 1 of 78 – Contents Risk designations in finalized risk assessments for the Russian Federation ................................................. 3 1 Background information ........................................................................................................... 4 2 List of experts involved in risk assessment and their contact details ........................................ 6 3 National risk assessment maintenance .................................................................................... 7 4 Complaints and disputes regarding the approved National Risk Assessment ........................... 7 5 List of key stakeholders for consultation ................................................................................... 8 6 List of abbreviations and Russian transliterated terms* used ................................................... 8 7 Risk assessments
    [Show full text]
  • Cost Effective Water Protection in the Gulf of Finland
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE The Finnish Environmentprovided by Helsingin yliopiston632 digitaalinen arkisto ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION Mikko Kiirikki, Pirjo Rantanen, Riku Varjopuro, Anne Leppänen, Marjukka Hiltunen, Heikki Pitkänen, Petri Ekholm, Elvira Moukhametshina, Arto Inkala, Harri Kuosa and Juha Sarkkula Cost effective water protection in the Gulf of Finland Focus on St. Petersburg . .......................... FINNISH ENVIRONMENT INSTITUTE The Finnish Environment 632 Mikko Kiirikki, Pirjo Rantanen, Riku Varjopuro, Anne Leppänen, Marjukka Hiltunen, Heikki Pitkänen, Petri Ekholm, Elvira Moukhametshina, Arto Inkala, Harri Kuosa and Juha Sarkkula Cost effective water protection in the Gulf of Finland Focus on St. Petersburg HELSINKI 2003 . .......................... FINNISH ENVIRONMENT INSTITUTE The publication is also available in the Internet www.environment.fi/publications ISBN 952-11-1426-6 ISBN 952-11-1427-4 (PDF) ISSN 1238-7312 Cover photo: Karri Eloheimo/ Water sampling in the Central Waste Water Treatment Plant in St. Petersburg. Graphics: Paula Väänänen & Mikko Kiirikki Layout: Ritva Koskinen Printing: Dark Ltd Helsinki 2003 2 ..........................................................The Finnish Environment 632 Contents Summary ..........................................................................................5 1 Introduction ..................................................................................7 2 Nutrient load ..............................................................................10
    [Show full text]
  • Review and Meta-Analysis of the Environmental Biology and Potential Invasiveness of a Poorly-Studied Cyprinid, the Ide Leuciscus Idus
    REVIEWS IN FISHERIES SCIENCE & AQUACULTURE https://doi.org/10.1080/23308249.2020.1822280 REVIEW Review and Meta-Analysis of the Environmental Biology and Potential Invasiveness of a Poorly-Studied Cyprinid, the Ide Leuciscus idus Mehis Rohtlaa,b, Lorenzo Vilizzic, Vladimır Kovacd, David Almeidae, Bernice Brewsterf, J. Robert Brittong, Łukasz Głowackic, Michael J. Godardh,i, Ruth Kirkf, Sarah Nienhuisj, Karin H. Olssonh,k, Jan Simonsenl, Michał E. Skora m, Saulius Stakenas_ n, Ali Serhan Tarkanc,o, Nildeniz Topo, Hugo Verreyckenp, Grzegorz ZieRbac, and Gordon H. Coppc,h,q aEstonian Marine Institute, University of Tartu, Tartu, Estonia; bInstitute of Marine Research, Austevoll Research Station, Storebø, Norway; cDepartment of Ecology and Vertebrate Zoology, Faculty of Biology and Environmental Protection, University of Lodz, Łod z, Poland; dDepartment of Ecology, Faculty of Natural Sciences, Comenius University, Bratislava, Slovakia; eDepartment of Basic Medical Sciences, USP-CEU University, Madrid, Spain; fMolecular Parasitology Laboratory, School of Life Sciences, Pharmacy and Chemistry, Kingston University, Kingston-upon-Thames, Surrey, UK; gDepartment of Life and Environmental Sciences, Bournemouth University, Dorset, UK; hCentre for Environment, Fisheries & Aquaculture Science, Lowestoft, Suffolk, UK; iAECOM, Kitchener, Ontario, Canada; jOntario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry, Peterborough, Ontario, Canada; kDepartment of Zoology, Tel Aviv University and Inter-University Institute for Marine Sciences in Eilat, Tel Aviv,
    [Show full text]
  • Strategy Development for Sustainable Use of Groundwater and Aggregates in Vyborg District, Leningrad Oblast
    Activity 4, Report 2: Strategy for sustainable management of ground water and aggregate extraction areas for Vyborg district The European Union´s Tacis Cross-Border Co-operation Small Project Facility Programme Strategy development for sustainable use of groundwater and aggregates in Vyborg district, Leningrad Oblast Activity 4, Report 2: Strategy for sustainable management of ground water and aggregate extraction areas in Vyborg District Activity 4, Report 2: Strategy for sustainable management of ground water and aggregate extraction areas for Vyborg district Strategy development for sustainable use of ground water and aggregates in Vyborg District, Leningrad Oblast, Russia Activity 4, Report 2: Strategy for sustainable management of ground water and aggregate extraction areas in Vyborg District Edited by Leveinen J. and Kaija J. Contributors Savanin V., Philippov N., Myradymov G., Litvinenko V., Bogatyrev I., Savenkova G., Dimitriev D., Leveinen J., Ahonen I, Backman B., Breilin O., Eskelinen A., Hatakka, T., Härmä P, Jarva J., Paalijärvi M., Sallasmaa, O., Sapon S., Salminen S., Räisänen M., Activity 4, Report 2: Strategy for sustainable management of ground water and aggregate extraction areas for Vyborg district Contents Contents ...............................................................................................................................................3 Summary ..............................................................................................................................................4 Introduction..........................................................................................................................................5
    [Show full text]
  • Beyond Fish Edna Metabarcoding: Field Replicates Disproportionately Improve the Detection of Stream Associated Vertebrate Specie
    bioRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.03.26.437227; this version posted March 26, 2021. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made available under aCC-BY-NC 4.0 International license. 1 2 3 Beyond fish eDNA metabarcoding: Field replicates 4 disproportionately improve the detection of stream 5 associated vertebrate species 6 7 8 9 Till-Hendrik Macher1, Robin Schütz1, Jens Arle2, Arne J. Beermann1,3, Jan 10 Koschorreck2, Florian Leese1,3 11 12 13 1 University of Duisburg-Essen, Aquatic Ecosystem Research, Universitätsstr. 5, 45141 Essen, 14 Germany 15 2German Environmental Agency, Wörlitzer Platz 1, 06844 Dessau-Roßlau, Germany 16 3University of Duisburg-Essen, Centre for Water and Environmental Research (ZWU), Universitätsstr. 17 3, 45141 Essen, Germany 18 19 20 21 22 Keywords: birds, biomonitoring, bycatch, conservation, environmental DNA, mammals 23 1 bioRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.03.26.437227; this version posted March 26, 2021. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made available under aCC-BY-NC 4.0 International license. 24 Abstract 25 Fast, reliable, and comprehensive biodiversity monitoring data are needed for 26 environmental decision making and management. Recent work on fish environmental 27 DNA (eDNA) metabarcoding shows that aquatic diversity can be captured fast, reliably, 28 and non-invasively at moderate costs.
    [Show full text]
  • The Island Monastery of Valaam in Finnish Homeland Tourism: Constructing a “Thirdspace” in the Russian Borderlands
    The island monastery of Valaam in Finnish homeland tourism: Constructing a “Thirdspace” in the Russian borderlands MAJA MIKULA Mikula, Maja (2013). The island monastery of Valaam in Finnish homeland tour- ism: Constructing a “Thirdspace” in the Russian borderlands. Fennia 191: 1, pp. 14–24. ISSN 1798-5617. The Orthodox island monastery of Valaam in Russian Karelia is today a popular destination for Finnish tourists visiting Russia’s western borderlands. Many of these tourists are descendants of the Karelians who had evacuated the area fol- lowing World War II. The monastery’s institutionally sanctioned genealogies construct it as the civilizing force, which had brought Christian enlightenment to the local heathen population. This discursive template is played out in the way the place is presented to visitors, with each highlight telling a carefully con- structed story that promotes the monastery’s significance for the Russian reli- gious and national identity. Yet, drawing on lived experience, as well as on popular culture, family lore and meanings from collective memory, the Finnish visitors break the monolithic official discourse and produce a complex “third- space” in their own measure. This paper is based on participant observation and semi-structured interviews conducted during a homeland visit to Ladogan Kare- lia in June 2010. Keywords: homeland tourism, Valaam, Karelia, Finland, Russia, borderlands, “thirdspace” Maja Mikula, Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences, University of Technology Sydney, PO Box 123, Broadway NSW 2007, Australia. E-mail: [email protected]. Introduction A flagship of the budding tourism industry in Russian Karelia (see, e.g., Nilsson 2004), Val- At the northeastern fringes of Europe, Ladogan aam is today a popular destination for Finnish Karelia is a place where visible traces of a trau- tourists visiting Russia’s western borderlands.
    [Show full text]
  • Labidesthes Sicculus
    Version 2, 2015 United States Fish and Wildlife Service Lower Great Lakes Fish and Wildlife Conservation Office 1 Atherinidae Atherinidae Sand Smelt Distinguishing Features: — (Atherina boyeri) — Sand Smelt (Non-native) Old World Silversides Old World Silversides Old World (Atherina boyeri) Two widely separated dorsal fins Eye wider than Silver color snout length 39-49 lateral line scales 2 anal spines, 13-15.5 rays Rainbow Smelt (Non -Native) (Osmerus mordax) No dorsal spines Pale green dorsally Single dorsal with adipose fin Coloring: Silver Elongated, pointed snout No anal spines Size: Length: up to 145mm SL Pink/purple/blue iridescence on sides Distinguishing Features: Dorsal spines (total): 7-10 Brook Silverside (Native) 1 spine, 10-11 rays Dorsal soft rays (total): 8-16 (Labidesthes sicculus) 4 spines Anal spines: 2 Anal soft rays: 13-15.5 Eye diameter wider than snout length Habitat: Pelagic in lakes, slow or still waters Similar Species: Rainbow Smelt (Osmerus mordax), 75-80 lateral line scales Brook Silverside (Labidesthes sicculus) Elongated anal fin Images are not to scale 2 3 Centrarchidae Centrarchidae Redear Sunfish Distinguishing Features: (Lepomis microlophus) Redear Sunfish (Non-native) — — Sunfishes (Lepomis microlophus) Sunfishes Red on opercular flap No iridescent lines on cheek Long, pointed pectoral fins Bluegill (Native) Dark blotch at base (Lepomis macrochirus) of dorsal fin No red on opercular flap Coloring: Brownish-green to gray Blue-purple iridescence on cheek Bright red outer margin on opercular flap
    [Show full text]
  • THE HYDROBIOTOPIC DIVERSITY of the LAKES of the LOWER PRUT RIVER, REPUBLIC of MOLDOVA Mihaela MUNTEANU (PILA)1, Silvius STANCIU
    THE HYDROBIOTOPIC DIVERSITY OF THE LAKES OF THE LOWER PRUT RIVER, REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA Mihaela MUNTEANU (PILA)1, Silvius STANCIU2 1PhD Student, „Dunărea de Jos” University of Galați, Romania, email: [email protected]. 2 PhD Professor „Dunărea de Jos”University of Galați, Romania, email: [email protected] Abstract This paper proposes the presentation and analysis of the fish fauna and the specific benthic resources of the Prut River and its tributaries: Costeşti-Stânca, Beleu, Manta. An important objective of the paper is to present the differences in hydrobiotop diversity in different riparian sectors. A healthy ecosystem has a rich ichthyofauna due to the diversity of vegetation and fish species capable of withstanding resistance to aggressive external factors and threats. The aquatic biodiversity of the Prut River is a major complex consisting of phytoplankton and zooplankton. To optimize production of fish, an important factor is maintaining the balance quantity and quality of the entire water system. From this point of view, the paper presented also quantitative aspects of zoobenthos, which is different in the analyzed areas, being influenced by the degree of pollution, the hydrological regime or the physico-chemical conditions. Research has revealed significant differences between different areas of the aquatic fauna of the Prut, mainly due to the human factor. The study is a preliminary one, preparing a broader analysis of the impact of the human factor in the aquatic areas of the Republic of Moldova. Identifying and analyzing the factors that have led to the modification of aquatic structure and diversity can serve as arguments for achieving viable measures for the protection and sustainable use of natural aquatic resources at national level.
    [Show full text]
  • 13-7 Call for Urgent Action Due to Primorsk Port Development Near
    Baltic Marine Environment Protection Commission Maritime Working Group MARITIME 19-2019 Lisbon, Portugal, 23-26 September 2019 Document title Call for urgent action due to Primorsk port development near Berezovye Islands Reserve Code 13-7 Category INF Agenda Item 13 – Any other business Submission date 02.09.2019 Submitted by Coalition Clean Baltic Reference Annotations to the Provisional Agenda of HELCOM MARITIME 19-2019 Background On behalf of its Russian member organizations and partners, the Coalition Clean Baltic would like to raise attention and call for HELCOM’s urgent action regarding the alarming situation being reported around the State Natural Reserve ‘Berezovye islands’ on the Gulf of Finland. The authorities of the Leningrad Region have recently signed an investment agreement on the creation of the universal deep-water port Primorsk worth ca 1,3 billion EUR. According to the agreement universal port should be created by 2022, with an annual turnover of about 70 million tons. It will cover an area of 760 ha on the northern coast of the Gulf of Finland. The project includes the construction of a giant port entity for handling coal, mineral fertilizers and other cargo. This project will cause real environmental threat to the Baltic Sea region and pose a danger to human health as the considerable amount of harmful substances like coal and mineral dust will be emitted into atmosphere and water. A vast territory of the coast that was used as a tourist and recreational area will become industrial zone. The construction of the Universal deepwater port Primorsk is planned on the north-east coast of the Gulf of Finland, 40 km from administrative boundary of Saint-Petersburg, 40 km from Vyborg, 55 km from the border with Finland, 4 km from The ‘Berezovye islands’ State Nature Reserve.
    [Show full text]
  • Beyond Fish Edna Metabarcoding: Field Replicates Disproportionately Improve the Detection of Stream Associated Vertebrate Species
    Metabarcoding and Metagenomics 5: 59–71 DOI 10.3897/mbmg.5.66557 Research Article Beyond fish eDNA metabarcoding: Field replicates disproportionately improve the detection of stream associated vertebrate species Till-Hendrik Macher1, Robin Schütz1, Jens Arle2, Arne J. Beermann1,3, Jan Koschorreck2, Florian Leese1,3 1 University of Duisburg-Essen, Aquatic Ecosystem Research, Universitätsstr. 5, 45141 Essen, Germany 2 German Environment Agency, Wörlitzer Platz 1, 06844 Dessau-Roßlau, Germany 3 University of Duisburg-Essen, Centre for Water and Environmental Research (ZWU), Universitätsstr. 3, 45141 Essen, Germany Corresponding author: Till-Hendrik Macher ([email protected]) Academic editor: Pieter Boets | Received 26 March 2021 | Accepted 10 June 2021 | Published 13 July 2021 Abstract Fast, reliable, and comprehensive biodiversity monitoring data are needed for environmental decision making and management. Recent work on fish environmental DNA (eDNA) metabarcoding shows that aquatic diversity can be captured fast, reliably, and non-invasively at moderate costs. Because water in a catchment flows to the lowest point in the landscape, often a stream, it can col- lect traces of terrestrial species via surface or subsurface runoff along its way or when specimens come into direct contact with water (e.g., when drinking). Thus, fish eDNA metabarcoding data can provide information on fish but also on other vertebrate species that live in riparian habitats. This additional data may offer a much more comprehensive approach for assessing vertebrate diversity at no additional costs. Studies on how the sampling strategy affects species detection especially of stream-associated communities, however, are scarce. We therefore performed an analysis on the effects of biological replication on both fish as well as (semi-)terrestrial species detection.
    [Show full text]