Section 15

Proposal for a monitoring programme

Environmental impact assessment report | Section 15 705|

15 Proposal for a monitoring programme

The primary objective of the monitoring programme is to verify the results of the impact assessment (Chapter 8) and to reveal possible uncertainties therein. In addition, monitoring ensures that the planned mitigation measures function as intended. Monitoring is not only important for the Nord Stream project, but it is also important in providing valuable informati- on on the natural and cultural environment of the Finnish project area.

The need for and timing of the proposed monitoring programme has been based on the results and the reliability of the impact assessment and the nature of the impact target.

Objectives of monitoring

Verification of the realization of assessed impacts Indicates whether an impact occurs as anticipated in the impact assessment. Monitoring of water quality, for example, will indicate possible changes in water turbidity in the bot- tom-close water near rock placement sites. The monitoring results will be compared with the predicted changes in turbidity and be used to verify the effects described in the impact assessment.

Efficiency of mitigation measures Indicates the rate of efficiency of an implemented mitigation measure. In addition, it indica- tes / ensures that a planned mitigation actually has been implemented and is efficient. For example, it is expected that the chosen rock placement method will result in significantly less turbidity in the bottom-close water than would a dredging operation.

Identification of impacts from unplanned events If an impact unexpectedly arises, it may possibly be identified by monitoring. For examp- le, monitoring of the suspension of sediments will indicate if sediment spreading is greater than assessed or modelled.

Monitoring of environmental impacts is proposed to be conducted before, during and after the construction phase. 706 | Environmental impact assessment report | Section 15

Timing of monitoring

Prior to construction Monitoring prior to construction aims to provide baseline information for the planned impacts during construction and operation. For example, monitoring of the benthic fauna on the proposed pipeline routes.

During construction Monitoring during construction focuses on verifying planned impacts and identifying unex- pected impacts that arise during construction works. If unexpected impacts occur, it will be possible to reduce these impacts by implementing mitigation measures. For example, the impacts on water turbidity and release of contaminants will be measured and compa- red with the results of the impact assessment. If the release of contaminants is higher than expected, additional mitigation measures can be considered.

During operation (after construction phase) Monitoring during operation focuses on the reversibility of the impacts (recovery of impact targets) to their pre-impact state. In addition, this monitoring verifies assessed impacts during operation, e.g., the pipeline acting as a substrate for hard-bottom fauna.

The details (i.e. the frequency and time of monitoring) of the monitoring programme will be developed further after the EIA procedure in cooperation with the appropriate authorities.

This programme will form an integral part of the Nord Stream Project’s management system for the monitoring, management and reporting of environmental and social impacts and miti- gation measures.

The last section of this chapter includes a table that summarises the proposed monitoring programme.

15.1 Nord Stream’s HSE management system

Nord Stream AG has implemented a corporate Health, Safety and Environment (HSE) mana- gement system, which is an integral part of the company’s management systems. It provides the overall framework for Nord Stream AG’s operations in relation to environmental manage- ment.

An integrated part of the HSE management system is a “Monitoring and Reporting Module”, which, together with specific Finnish requirements, establishes a platform for the proposed monitoring programme. Environmental impact assessment report | Section 15 707|

The monitoring and reporting requirements also cover contractors working for Nord Stream AG, whereby the environmental monitoring programme becomes an integrated procedure throughout the entire pipeline project.

15.2 Monitoring of environmental impacts

Based on the impact assessments conducted for both the national Finnish EIA and the Espoo procedure, the following aspects should be given highest priority in the environmental monito- ring programme:

• expert observations before and during construction phase • monitoring of maritime traffic during construction phase • monitoring of cultural heritage during and after construction phase • monitoring of bottom sediment before and after construction phase • monitoring of water quality during construction phase • monitoring of benthic and fish fauna before and after construction phase.

The monitoring of other environmental or socioeconomic parameters is not proposed, as it has been assessed that these impacts will be insignificant and/or impossible to distinguish as impacts due to the Nord Stream project or due to other, unrelated activities.

15.2.1 Expert observations during construction – birds and mammals

It is proposed that experts will be present on some of the vessels responsible for intervention and pipe-laying operations to observe possible direct and/or acute impacts.

Preliminary discussions have e.g. been conducted with the fishermen’s associations in Finland. Representatives from these associations recognize the necessity of a protection zone and acknowledge that a ban of all fishing activities in a specific area most likely will last for only a very short period of time (a few days). The fishermen’s associations have expres- sed that their members would appreciate having observers who speak the local language onboard the pipe-laying vessel for shorter periods in specific areas, in order to warn and sup- port fishermen during the pipe-laying period

Furthermore, it is suggested that a biologist proposed by the authorities to be stationed onbo- ard vessels to monitor activities, with the aim to ensure that no critical interaction occur with the surrounding biota during the pipelaying activities e.g., avoiding of considerable disturban- ce of seals or birds. 708 | Environmental impact assessment report | Section 15

15.2.2 Monitoring of ship traffic

All movements of vessels of 300 GT or more are monitored by the GOFREP (Gulf of Finland Reporting) system /482/ in international waters of the Gulf of Finland. GOFREP is a man- datory ship reporting system and adopted by the IMO. GOFREP was established to imp- rove maritime safety, to protect the maritime environment and to monitor compliance with the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea. The sea areas in the Gulf of Finland are monitored jointly by Finland, Estonia and the Russian Federation. During construction, the pipe-laying vessel will be monitored by GOFREP as well. Thus, all ship traf- fic in international waters in the Gulf of Finland will be observed.

15.2.3 Monitoring of cultural heritage

Even if a detailed survey has been carried out prior to construction work, there is always a risk of accidental finds of cultural artefacts during construction works. The exact pipeline cor- ridor has been surveyed very closely and it is therefore unlikely that undetected, unburied wrecks are present in the immediate path of the pipelines. However, wrecks embedded in sediments may have eluded detection.

The manner in which accidental finds could be made will vary according to the laying met- hods applied in a specific section of the pipeline route. Accidental finds could be made visual- ly on the seabed (if visual inspection of construction is being performed) or by artefacts beco- ming trapped in equipment and being hauled onboard. If accidental finds are made during construction work, a predefined protocol for safeguarding the archaeological information will be effectuated. However, pipeline construction will not be stopped.

By following a predefined protocol, the negative impacts on accidental finds will be redu- ced and turned into positive result by securing the information in a structured and adequa- te manner. The protocol includes guidelines for actions to be taken in case of accidental finds or observations of cultural heritage artefacts or sites. The protocol consist of instructions for documenting observations and dealing with artefacts that may be encountered during construction and inspection work. The protocol also includes a standard form with required and optional fields to be filled in. The protocol is currently being elaborated and the FNBA will be given the opportunity to comment on the protocol prior to its adoption.

A post-lay inspection of the pipeline will also take place. Through this inspection, some effects of the pipeline project will be disclosed, including the effects of mitigation procedures related to cultural heritage, i.e., wrecks situated closer than 50 m from the pipeline. Likewise, other monitoring programmes on environmental and socioeconomic aspects may disclose useful information for the general assessment of the development in the area. Environmental impact assessment report | Section 15 709|

15.2.4 Monitoring of bottom sediment

Because some route modifications have been proposed since the previous sediment surve- ys were conducted by FIMR in 2007-2008 /45/, there is a need to carry out additional sedi- ment analysis at locations on the new pipeline routing where seabed intervention work will take place. The purpose of this survey is to establish baseline information on the natural bot- tom sediment, before the construction phase starts.

It is proposed that sampling and analysis be carried out using the same methods as the ear- lier survey (FIMR, 2007-2008 /45/), including analysis of sediment structure and content of nutrients and environmentally harmful substances (metals and organic compounds; see /45/ for detailed list).

During the operations phase, further sediment sampling and analysis should be carried out at stations where previous sampling has taken place in order to analyse impacts.

Figure 15.1. Cylindrical sediment traps deployed at various levels above the seabed to measure sedimentati- on. Photo by Erik Frausing (from /483/).

15.2.5 Monitoring of water quality

It is proposed that monitoring of water quality be carried out – in situ – during the constructi- on phase to verify the assessed impacts related to the construction works (rock placement, pipe-laying and anchor-handling). Suggested parameters to be monitored include sediment 710 | Environmental impact assessment report | Section 15

spill rate, sediment settling velocity, the extent of the sediment plumes, and vertical sediment fluxes in the water column. The results from the monitoring programme can be used to vali- date input data used for the mathematical modelling in the impact assessment and to verify the modelling results.

Automatic sampling together with regular manual sampling provides sufficient data to moni- tor possible water quality changes due to construction works. Analyses should include, e.g., oxygen, nutrients and chemical compounds that could be harmful to the environment (heavy metals and organic compounds; see /45/ for detailed list). The monitoring should be carried out in accordance with HELCOM /484/ or national standards /485/.

Figure 15.2. Water sampling works in practice (Photo by Mirja Leivuori, FIMR)

15.2.6 Monitoring of benthic and fish fauna

Monitoring of benthic fauna and fish community structures should be carried out before and after the construction phase.

The development of epi-benthos on the surface of the pipelines and on the rock berms should be the focus of these monitoring activities. Additionally, changes in benthic fauna com- munity structure immediately around the pipelines and rock berms should be monitored. Environmental impact assessment report | Section 15 711|

Benthic fauna is suggested to be monitored from fixed sampling points that include both hard and soft bottoms. These points can be the same as those that were studied during the pipe- line planning period. Samples should be taken and analysed in accordance with HELCOM or national standards /486, 487/.

Analyses should include both quantitative and qualitative analyses of species and possible changes during the monitoring period. Other indicative values are oxygen saturation, salini- ty, temperature and other water quality measurements of the bottom water at the macrozoo- benthos sampling locations. When studying the results, care should be taken to distinguish between natural year-to-year changes and changes caused by the project. To do this, also monitoring data from time series conducted by authorities (e.g. FIMR) must be analysed.

Monitoring of fish species should be carried out along the pipeline route and in some refe- rence areas before and after the construction phase. Universities and the Finnish Game and Fisheries Institute have continuous monitoring programmes along the Finnish coast, and these materials could be used as reference material.

Fish samples can be taken in accordance with HELCOM or national standards.

15.2.7 Summary of monitoring programme

Table 15.1 summarises the proposed monitoring activities to take place after submission of the EIA report. The details (i.e. the frequency and time of monitoring) of the monitoring pro- gramme will be developed further after the EIA procedure in cooperation with the appropriate authorities.

Table 15.1. Proposed environmental monitoring programme.

Items to be Prior to construction During construction After construction phase / monitored phase phase during operation Mammals, birds Ship traffic Cultural heritage Bottom sediment Water quality Benthic and fish fauna

References

Environmental impact assessment report | References 715|

/1/ European Commission, 2007, ”European Energy and Transport - Trends to 2030 - update 2007.”.

/2/ European Parliament, 2008, ”Public Hearing: The Nord Stream Pipeline and its impact on the Baltic Sea”.

/3/ European Commission, 2007, ”An Energy Policy for Europe”, in Communication from the European Commission to European Council and European Parliament.

/4/ European Parliament and European Council, 2006, ”Ruling No. 1364/2006/EC, Guidelines for Trans-European Energy Networks and repealing Decision No 1254/96/ EC”.

/5/ Nord Stream AG, 2009, ”Nord Stream Espoo Report. Offshore Pipeline through the Baltic Sea”.

/6/ European Parliament and European Council, 2006, ”Ruling No. 1364/2006/EC, Guidelines for Trans-European Energy Networks and repealing Decisions No 96/391/ EC No 1229/2003/EC”.

/7/ European Parliament and European Council, 2006, ”Decision No. 1364/2006/EC”.

/8/ Niedersächsisches Ministerium fur Umwelt and Klimaschutz, 16-8-2006, ”Auswirkungen auf die Umwelt”, http://www.umwelt.niedersachsen.de/master/ C24188911_N23067576_L20_D0_I598.html , Date accessed: 2007-10-26.

/9/ European Commission, 3-6-2008, ”ETAP Policy Agenda.”, http://ec.europa.eu/ environment/etap/agenda_en.htm#4 , Date accessed: 2007-10-19.

/10/ BP, 2008, ”BP Statistical Review of World Energy 2008”, BP, http://www.bp.com/ liveassets/bp_internet/globalbp/globalbp_uk_english/reports_and_publications/ statistical_energy_review_2008/STAGING/local_assets/downloads/pdf/statistical_ review_of_world_energy_full_review_2008.pdf.

/11/ EC, 2004, ”Council Directive 2007/67/EC of 26 April 2004 concerning measures to safeguard security of natural gas supply”.

/12/ Eurostat, 2007, ”Statistical Books: Gas and Electricity Market Statistics”.

/13/ European Commission, 2006, ”Foreign relations in terms of energy supply - principles, measures”, in Communication from the European Commission to European Counsil.

/14/ BP, 28-6-2007, ”BP Statistical Review of World Energy 2007. Energy in Perspective.”, BP, Perth, Link: http://www.agric.wa.gov.au/pls/portal30/docs/FOLDER/ IKMP/SUST/BIOFUEL/190707_STATSREVIEW07PERTH.PDF. 716 | Environmental impact assessment report | References

/15/ Federal Ministry of Labour and Economic Affairs, 2005, ”Energy merket trends p to 2030”.

/16/ International Energy Agency, 2006, ”World Energy Outlook 2006”.

/17/ European Commission, 2004, ”Trans-European Energy Networks. TEN-E priority projects”,

/18/ Nord Stream AG and Ramboll, 2006, ”Venäjä-Saksa merenalainen maakaasuputki Suomen talousvyöhykkeellä. Ympäristövaikutusten arviointiohjelma” (Finnish national EIA-program).”,

/19/ European Commission, 2008, ”Combating climate change - The EU leads the way”.

/20/ Global Insight, 2007, ”The Nord Stream Pipeline: High level evaluation of environmental footprint of alternative supply options to Europe. A study for Nord Stream”.

/21/ DNV Bergen, 2008, ”Test Campaign on X70”, Ch. BGN-R2707408 Rev_B.

/22/ Saipem, 2008-9-16, ”Personal communication with Ron Rijkers, Nord Stream AG”, Received by Ron Rijkers.

/23/ Nord Stream AG and Ramboll, 2007, ”Memo 4.3t - Assessment of pre- commissioning”, Nord Stream AG, Zug, Switzerland.

/24/ Nord Stream AG, 2008-10-10, ”Personal communication with Tom Andersson, CTO, IP-Only Telecommunication Networks”, Received by Mikko Wikström, LandPro Oy.

/25/ Eesti Energia Pöhivörk, 9-7-2008, ”Estlink 2 keskkonnamõjude hindamise programmi avalikustamine.”, http://www.pohivork.ee/index.php?id=409&L=0&tx_ ttnews%5bbackPid%5d=408&tx_ttnews%5bmonth%5d=07&tx_ttnews%5btt_ news%5d=123&tx_ttnews%5byear%5d=2008&cHash=102609882f , Date accessed: 2008-8-10.

/26/ Nord Stream AG, 2008-10-10, ”Personal communication between Dmitriy Shilyaev, Senior Project Engineer, Nord Stream AG and Dyadin Boris, Project Manager, NPP ”Shevzaphydro project””, Received by Nord Stream AG.

/27/ Gasum Oy, 2008, ”Balticconnector mission”, http://www.gasum.com/aboutgasum/ Pages/Balticconnector.aspx , Date accessed: 2008-9-9.

/28/ Western Finland Environmental Permit Authority, 2008, ”List of granted permit for raw material extraction on the seabed”. Environmental impact assessment report | References 717|

/29/ 2008, ”Claim for raw material extraction area, named ”Suomenlahden merivaltausalue”. Delivered to Finnish Ministry of Employment and the Economy”.

/30/ Nord Stream AG and Ramboll, 2006, ”Offshore Pipeline through the Baltic Sea. Project information document”,

/31/ Nord Stream AG, 2008, ”White Book of comments (Stakeholders comments received during international consultation according to the Espoo Conventions, Summaries and Responses).”2008-11-11.

/32/ Ministry of the Environment, Finland, 2002, ”Finland´s National Land Use Guidelines. Issued by the Council of State on November 20, 2000. Environment Guide 93.”, Erita Prima Ltd., Helsinki.

/33/ Ministry of the Environment, Finland, 2008, ”Protected areas”, http://www.ymparisto. fi/default.asp?node=6052&lan=en , Date accessed: 2008-11-11.

/34/ Ministry of the Environment, Finland, 2008, ”Water Protection”, http://www. ymparisto.fi/default.asp?node=6043&lan=en , Date accessed: 2008-11-11.

/35/ Ministry of the Environment, Finland, 2008, ”Press Releases, Proposals for water management plans are ready. - Vesien tila paranee – ehdotukset vesienhoitosuunnitelmiksi valmiit”, http://www.ymparisto.fi/default.asp?contentid=30190 8&lan=fi&clan=fi. Date accessed: 2008-11-11.

/36/ HELCOM, 2007, ”Baltic Sea Protected Areas (BSPA)”, http://bspa.helcom.fi/ , Date accessed: 2007-10-16.

/37/ PeterGaz, 2006, ”Detailed Geophysical Survey Baltic Sea and Gulf of Finland Phase I, 2005. Book 2, Part 2 Survey Operations text”.

/38/ PeterGaz, 2006, ”Detailed Geophysical Survey Baltic Sea and Gulf of Finland Phase I, 2005. Book 2 part 1, Survey Operation text”.

/39/ PeterGaz, 2006, ”Detailed Geophysical Survey 2006 Phase III. Survey Operations and Results. Volume 1”.

/40/ Marin Mätteknik AB, 11-4-2008, ”Marine Survey 2007 - 2008, Detailed Survey B2, Route Revision C10.3 - Finnish waters, Revision 11/04/2008.”.

/41/ DOF Subsea and Danish geotechnical institute (GEO), 29-8-2008, ”Nord Stream Geotechnical Route Survey, Baltic Sea. Kalbåda and Gulf of Finland, Block 5 - 15 (Finnish sector)”.

/42/ Snamprogetti, 10-6-2008, ”Effects of Underwater Explosions”. 718 | Environmental impact assessment report | References

/43/ PeterGaz, 2006, ”The North European Gas Pipeline Offshore Sections (The Baltic Sea). Environmental survey. Part 1. Stage I. Book 5. Final report. Section 2. Exclusive Economic Zones of Finland, Sweden, Denmark and Germany. (Environmental field investigations 2005)”, PeterGaz, Moscow, Russia.

/44/ PeterGaz, 2006, ”The North European Gas Pipeline Offshore Sections (The Baltic Sea). Environmental survey. Part 2. Stage II. Final Technical Report. Book 2. Exclusive Economic Zones of Finland, Sweden and Denmark. Section 2. (Environmental field investigations 2006)”, PeterGaz, Moscow, Russia.

/45/ FIMR, 2008, ”Supplementary environmental field investigations inside Finland EEZ at the alternative route Kalbådagrund and at the preferred route of the planned Nord Stream gas pipeline”.

/46/ FIMR, 2008, ”Environmental field investigations in 2008”, (Ed: Ramboll).

/47/ Marin Mätteknik AB and Nord Stream AG, 3-10-2008, ”Nord Stream Pipeline. Biological Survey Kalbådagrund, Finnish Waters. Factual Report”.

/48/ Al-Hamdani, Z. and Reker, J., 2007, ”Towards marine landscapes in the Baltic Sea. BALANCE interim report # 10”, Geological Survey of Denmark and Greenland, http:// balance-eu.org/xpdf/balance-interim-report-no-10.pdf.

/49/ Andersen, J. H. and Pawlak, J, 2006 ”Nutrients and eutrophication in the Baltic Sea: Effects/causes/solutions.”, presented at Nordic Council and Baltic Sea Parliamentary Conference,. pp. 32.

/50/ HELCOM, 2007, ”Baltic facts and figures”, http://www.helcom.fi/environment2/nature/ en_GB/facts/, Date accessed: 2008-11-11.

/51/ HELCOM, 2004, ”The fourth Baltic Sea pollution load compilation (PLC-4). Environment Proceedings No. 93”, in Environment Proceedings No. 93.

/52/ FIMR, 2008, ”The Finnish Institute of Marine Research (FIMR) comments to the EIA- draft of the Nord Stream AG”.

/53/ FIMR, 8-5-2008, ”The Baltic Sea Portal of Finnish Maritime Research Institute - Eutrophication”, http://www.fimr.fi/en/tietoa/rehevoityminen/en_GB/rehevoityminen/ , Date accessed: 2008-10-10.

/54/ FIMR, 3-4-2008, ”The Baltic Sea Portal of Finnish Maritime Research Institute - Harmful substances”, http://www.fimr.fi/en/tietoa/haitalliset_aineet/en_GB/haitalliset_ aineet/ , Date accessed: 2008.

/55/ HELCOM, 2003, ”The Baltic Marine Environment 1999-2002. Helsinki Commision 2003. Baltic Sea Environment Proceedings No. 87”. Environmental impact assessment report | References 719|

/56/ Pedersen, F. B. and Møller, J. S., 1981, ”Diversion of the River Neva – How it will influence the Baltic Sea, the Belts and Kattegat”, Nordic Hydrology, Vol. 12.

/57/ Jacobsen, F., 1991, ”The Bornholm Basin – Estuarine Dynamics”, (Ed: Technical University of Denmark), Lyngby, Denmark.

/58/ Snamprogetti, 27-6-2008, ”Nord Stream Project. Bathymorphological and Geotechnical Characterisation (G-EN-PIE-REP-102-00071501-A)”,

/59/ Nord Steam AG, 2008-10-6, ”Personal communication with Leivuori and Perttilä from Finnish Maritime Research Institute (FIMR)”, Received by Ramboll Finland.

/60/ Koistinen, T., 1994, ”Precambrian basement of the Gulf of Finland and surrounding area. 1:1 mill.”, Geological Survey of Finland, Espoo.

/61/ Winterhalter, B., Ignatius, H., Axberg, S. and Niemistö, L., 1981, ”Geology of the Baltic Sea” in The Baltic Sea. Oceanography Series (Ed: Voipio, A.), Elsevier.

/62/ Söderberg, P., 1988, ”Notes on the continuation of the Salpausselkä Ice Marginal Zone in the Northern Baltic Proper” in The Baltic Sea. Geological Survey of Finland (Ed: Winterhalter, B.).

/63/ Fredén, C., 1994, Berg och jord. Sveriges Nationalatlas, SNA Förlag, Stockholm.

/64/ PeterGaz, 2008, ”Nord Stream Gas Pipeline. Metocean Engineering Survey 2007 - 2008. Expedition Report. VI stage of metocean survey along the Nord Stream Gas Pipeline corridor.”, Ch. G-EN-SUR-REP-101-006F0201A-01.

/65/ Påsse, T., 1996, ”A mathematical model of the shore level displacement in Fennoscandia”, Swedish Nuclear Fuel and Waste Management Company, Stockholm, Sweden.

/66/ Ekman, M., 1996, ”A Consistent Map of the Postglacial uplift of Fennoscandia”, Terra Nova, Vol. 8, pp. 158- 165.

/67/ Klingberg, F., 2008, ”Submarine slides in south-western Baltic Proper. SGU-Dnr 08-1232/2007”, Geological Survey of Sweden.

/68/ Jacobsen, F., 1993, ”The major inflow to the Baltic Sea during January 1993”, Journal of Marine Systems, Vol. 6, pp. 227- 240.

/69/ HELCOM, 2007, ”Climate Change in The Baltic Sea Area - HELCOM Thematic Assessment in 2007”, Helsinki Commission. Baltic Marine Environmental Protection Commission. 720 | Environmental impact assessment report | References

/70/ FIMR, 13-3-2008, ”The Baltic Sea Portal of Finnish Maritime Research Institute - Water level variation in the Baltic”, http://www.fimr.fi/en/tietoa/veden_liikkeet/en_GB/ vedenkorkeuden_vaihtelu/ , Date accessed: 2008-9-18.

/71/ Carlsson, M., 1997, ”Sea Level and salinity variations in the Baltic Sea - An oceanographic study using historical data”, University of Gothenburg, Sweden.

/72/ Meier, H. E. M., Broman, B., Kallio, H. and Kjellström, E., 2006, ”Projections of future surface winds, sea levels, and wind waves in the late 21st century and their application for impact studies of flood prone areas in the Baltic Sea Region. In: Sea level change affecting the spatial development of the Baltic Sea Region.”, Special paper, Vol. 41, pp. 23 - 43.

/73/ Møller, J. S. and Hansen, I. S., 1994, ”Hydrographic processes and changes in the Baltic Sea”, Dana, Vol. 10, pp. 87- 104.

/74/ Andrejev, O., Myrberg, K., Alenius, P. and Lundberg, A., 2004, ”Mean circulation and water exchange in the Gulf of Finland – A study based on three-dimensional modelling”, Boreal Environmental Research, Vol. 9, pp. 1- 16.

/75/ Perttilä, M., Kankaanpää, H., Kotilainen, A., Laine, A., Lehtoranta, J., Leivuori, M., Myrberg, K., and Stipa, T., 2006, ”Implementation of the North European gas pipeline project – Data inventory and further need for data for environmental impact assessment”, Finnish Institute of Marine Research.

/76/ Lönnroth, M., 2005, ”Vattenkvaliteten längs Finlands sydkust 1970 - 2000”, Nylands miljöcentral, Helsingfors, Link: http://www.ymparisto.fi/download. asp?contentid=41311&lan=SV.

/77/ Nord Stream AG and Ramboll, 2008, ”Memo 4.3a-1 - Hydrodynamical model setup for the Baltic Sea”, Nord Stream AG, Zug, Switzerland.

/78/ PeterGaz, 2006, ”The North European Gas Pipeline (The Baltic Sea). Metocean report”, in G-EN-SUR-REP-101-0000000B-02, PeterGaz, Moscow, Russia.

/79/ FIMR, 25-3-2008, ”The Baltic Sea Portal of Finnish Maritime Research Institute - Life cycle of wind-induced waves”, http://www.fimr.fi/en/tietoa/veden_liikkeet/en_GB/ aaltojen-elinkaari/ , Date accessed: 2008-9-18.

/80/ FIMR, 25-3-2008, ”The Baltic Sea Portal of Finnish Maritime Research Institute - Wave height records in the Baltic Sea”, http://www.fimr.fi/en/tietoa/veden_liikkeet/en_GB/ aaltoennatyksia/, Date accessed: 2008-9-18.

/81/ Myrberg, K., Leppäranta, M. and Andrejev, O., 2003, ”Main upwelling regions in the Baltic Sea - a statistical analysis is based on three-dimensional modelling.”, Boreal environment research, Vol. 2, pp. 97-112. Environmental impact assessment report | References 721|

/82/ FIMR, 7-3-2008, ”Itämeren tärkeimmät kumpuamisalueet (Upwelling in the Baltic Sea)”, http://www.fimr.fi/fi/tietoa/veden_liikkeet/fi_FI/kumpuamisalueet/.

/83/ Perttilä, M., 2007, ”Characteristics of the Baltic Sea. Pulses introduce new water periodically”, FIMR.

/84/ HELCOM, 2007, ”Indicator Fact Sheets. Water exchange and conditions in the deep basins. Online”, www.helcom.fi/environment/indicators2003/inflow/en_GB/inflow/ , Date accessed: 2008.

/85/ FIMR, 2007, ”Monitoring of the Baltic Sea Environment. Annual Report 2006”, Finnish Institute of Marine Research.

/86/ FIMR, 3-4-2008, ”The Baltic Sea Portal of Finnish Maritime Research Institute - Baltic Sea saline pulses”, http://www.fimr.fi/en/tietoa/yleiskuvaus/en_GB/suolapulssit/ , Date accessed: 2008.

/87/ ICES Oceanographic Data Center, 2007, ”Salinity and temperature data”, http://www. ices.dk/ocean/ , Date accessed: 2007-10-21.

/88/ Laamanen, M, Fleming, V., Kauppila, P., Pitkänen, H., Bäck, S., Jaanus, A. and Olsonen, R., 2005, ”The Gulf of Finland Basin Report. Development of tools for a thematic eutrophication assessment (HELCOM EUTRO)”, in Second meeting. Riga, Latvia 30 june - 1july 2005.

/89/ FIMR, 2007, ”The Baltic Sea Portal of Finnish Maritime Research Institute - Hydrography of the Baltic Sea”, http://www.fimr.fi/en/tietoa/veden_liikkeet/en_GB/ hydrografia/ , Date accessed: 2007-6-25.

/90/ Haapala, J. and Alenius, P., 1994, ”Temperature and salinity statistics for the northern Baltic Sea 1961-1990”, Finnish Marine Research, Vol. 262, pp. 51- 121.

/91/ FIMR, 8-5-2008, ”Baltic Sea Ice Conditions”, http://www.fimr.fi/en/tietoa/jaa/en_GB/jaa/ , Date accessed: 2007-10-25.

/92/ SMHI, 1-9-2008, ”SMHIs Istjänst”, http://www.smhi.se/cmp/jsp/polopoly. jsp?d=5582&l=sv , Date accessed: 2007.

/93/ FIMR, 1978, ”Ice Winters 1971-75 along the Finnish Coast”, Helsinki

/94/ FIMR, 1982, ”Ice Winters 1976-80 along the Finnish Coast”, Helsinki.

/95/ FIMR, 1987, ”Ice Winters 1981-85 along the Finnish Coast”, Helsinki.

/96/ FIMR, 1991, ”Ice Winters 1986-90 along the Finnish Coast”, Helsinki. 722 | Environmental impact assessment report | References

/97/ Swedish Meteorological and Hydrological Institute and Finnish Institute for Marine Research, 1982, ”Climatological Ice Atlas for the Baltic Sea, Kattegat, Skagerrak and Lake Vänern (1963-1979)”.

/98/ Nord Stream AG, 2007, ”Personal communication with Jouni Vainio, Rsearcher, Finnish Marine Research Institute (FIMR)”, Received by Ramboll Finland.

/99/ Håkansson, B. and Alenius, P., 2002, ”Hydrography and oxygen in the deep basins”, http://www.helcom.fi/environment2/ifs/archive/ifs2002/en_GB/oxygen/ , Date accessed: 2007-10-21.

/100/ FIMR, 2008, ”Monitoring of the Baltic Sea Environment. Annual Report 2007”, Finnish Institute of Marine Research.

/101/ FIMR, 16-9-2008, ”The Baltic Sea Portal of Finnish Maritime Research Institute - Baltic Sea Information”, http://www.fimr.fi/en/tietoa/en_GB/tietoa/ , Date accessed: 2008-10- 13.

/102/ FIMR, 2008, ”The Baltic Sea Portal of Finnish Maritime Research Institute - Data on oxygen concentrations in the bottomclose waters 1990 - 2007”, http://www.fimr.fi/, Date accessed: 2008.

/103/ Larson, U., Elmgren, R. and Wulff, F., 1985, ”Eutrophication and the Baltic Sea: Causes and consequences”, Ambio, Vol. 14, pp. 9- 14.

/104/ Lehtoranta, J., 2003, ”Dynamics of sediment phosphorus in the brackish Gulf of Finland”, Monographs of the Boreal Environment Research, Vol. 24, pp. 58.

/105/ HELCOM, 2005, ”Nutrient Pollution to the Baltic Sea in 2000. Baltic Sea Environment Proceedings No. 100”, HELCOM, Helsinki, Finland.

/106/ Nord Stream AG, 2008, ”Personal communication and received data from Perttilä. Finnish Institute for Marine Research (FIMR). Data on nutrients in the surface waters”, Received by Ramboll Finland Oy.

/107/ Pitkänen, H. and Kiirikki, M., 2005, ”Miten Suomenlahti voi tulevaisuudessa”.

/108/ Vallius, H. and Leivuori, M., 1999, ”The distribution of heavy metals and arsenic in recent sediments in the Gulf of Finland”, Boreal Environmental Research, pp. 19- 29.

/109/ FIMR, 2007, ”Environmental field investigations in 2007”, (Ed: Ramboll).

/110/ Voipio, A., 1981, The Baltic Sea, Elsevier.

/111/ Nord Stream AG and Ramboll, 2008, ”Memo 4.3a-11 - Assessment of natural seabed erosion caused by high waves in the Gulf of Finland”. Environmental impact assessment report | References 723|

/112/ Whitehouse, R., Soulsby, R., Roberts, W. and Mitchener, H., 2000, Dynamics of estuarine muds. A manual for practical applications, Thomas Telford.

/113/ Winterwerp , J. and van Kesteren , W., 2004, “Introduction to the physics of cohesive sediment in the marine environment”, Developments in sedimentology, Vol. 56.

/114/ Kirby, M and Land, J. M., 1991 “The impact of dredging – a comparison of natural and manmade disturbances to cohesive sediment regimes”.

/115/ De Putter, B. DeWolf P. Yu C. Houthuys R. van Sieleghem J. Fransaer D, 1996 “Suspended sediment concentrations along the Belgian coast – under storm conditions and under M2 tidal cycle”.

/116/ Seymour, R. J., Tegner, M. J., Dayton, P. K. and Parnell, P. E., 1989, “Storm wave induced mortality of giant kelp, Macrocystis pyrifera, in southern California”, Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science, Vol. 28, pp. 277- 292.

/117/ Niinimäki, J., Paasivirta, L., Heitto, A., Oulasvirta, P., and Vatanen, S., 2004, “Vuosaaren satamahankkeen vesistö- ja kalatalousseuranta 2003, Fish and Waterways.”, Vuosaari Harbour Project, http://www.vuosaarensatama.fi/linked/fi/ tiedotteet/vesisto_kalatalousseur.pdf.

/118/ Pohjanmaan tutkimuspalvelu Oy, 2007, “Kokkolan väylän ja satama-altaan ruoppausten tarkkailu (environmental monitoring of the dredging of Kokkola navigation channel and harbour basin), 1995 – 1997 (especially measurements of solid content and turbidity of water).”.

/119/ Jaala, E. and Mankki, J., 2005, “Hamina – Kotka – Pyhtää merialueen yhteistarkkalun yhteenveto vuodelta 2003. (Turbidity measurement at Hamina - Kotka – Pyhtää sea area as a part of a more general environment monitoring programme)”, Kymijoen vesi ja ympäristö ry:n julkaisuja 125/2005.

/120/ FIMR, 16-4-2007, “The Baltic Sea Portal of Finnish Maritime Research Institute - Turbidity measurements of surface sea water in the Gulf of Finland and the Baltic Sea. (Finnpartner, 26. – 28.3.2005, Finnpartner, 4. - 6.4.2005, Finnpartner, 24. – 26.4.2005, Silja Opera 14. – 15.6.2005, Finnpartner, 15. – 17.6.2005, Silja Opera, 17. – 18.6.2005).”, http://www.fimr.fi/en/tietoa/algaline_seuranta/en_GB/arkisto/ , Date accessed: 2008.

/121/ Vatanen, S. and Haikonen, A., 2007, “Vuosaaren satamahankkeen vesistö- ja kalatalousseuranta 2006, Fish and Waterways.”, Vuosaari Harbour Project, http://www. vuosaarensatama.fi/linked/fi/tiedotteet/Vesisto_Kala_2006.pdf.

/122/ Valeur, J. R., 1994, “Resuspension - mechanisms and measuring methods”, Sediment trap studies in the Nordic countries, Vol. 3, pp. 184- 202. 724 | Environmental impact assessment report | References

/123/ Swedish Environmental Protection Agency, 2000, “Environmental Quality Criteria – Coasts and Seas”,

/124/ Dalziel, J., 1995, “Reactive mercury in the eastern North Atlantic and southeast Atlantic”, Marine Chem., Vol. 49, pp. 307- 314.

/125/ Pohl, C. and Hennings, U., 2005, “The coupling of long-term trace metal trends to seasonal diffusive trace metal fluxes at the oxic-anoxic interface in the Gotland Basin; (57°19,20`N; 20°03,00´E) Baltic Sea”, Journal of Marine Systems, Vol. 56, pp. 207- 225.

/126/ Kremling, K. and Streu, P., 2001, “Behaviour of dissolved Cd, Co, Zn, and Pb in North Atlantic near-surface waters (30°N/60°W to 60°N/2°W)”, Deep Sea Research, Vol. 1, pp. 2541- 2567.

/127/ Pohl, C., Kattner, G. and Schulz-Baldes, M., 1993, “Cadmium, copper, lead and zinc on transects through Arctic and Eastern Atlantic surface and deep waters”, Journal of Marine Systems, Vol. 4, pp. 17- 29.

/128/ European Environment Agency (EEA), 2003, “ Indicator fact sheet, Hazardous substances in marine organisms and loads to coastal waters”.

/129/ Nielsen, E., Larsen, J. H. and Ladefoged, O., 2006, “Risk assessment of contaminant intake from traditional Greenland food items”, Danish Veterinary and Food Administration.

/130/ Selin, H. and VanDeveer, S. D., 2004, “Baltic Sea hazardous substances management: Results and challenges”, Ambio, Vol. 33, pp. 153- 160.

/131/ Ministry of Environment, Finland, 2004, “Sedimenttien ruoppaus- ja läjitysopas. Ympäristöopas 117 (Instructions for dredging and depositing dredged material). Ympäristöministeriö”

/132/ OSPAR Commission, 2004, “Revised OSPAR Guidelines for the Management of Dredged Material (Reference number: 2004-08), OSPAR Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the North-East Atlantic”.

/133/ OSPAR Commission, 1996, “Report of the Third OSPAR Workshop on Ecotoxicological Assessment Criteria. The Hague: 25-29 November 1996”.

/134/ European Commission, 2008, “Endocrine disrupters website”2008-8-6.

/135/ Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme (AMAP), 2004, “AMAP assessment 2002: Persistent Organic Pollutants in the Artic”, AMAP, Oslo, Norway. Environmental impact assessment report | References 725|

/136/ Extoxnet, 2008, “Extension Toxicology Network. Pesticide information profiles”, http:// extoxnet.orst.edu/.

/137/ OSPAR Commission, 2006, “List of substances of possible concern. (Annex 1 to reference Number 2002-17, as updated following OSPAR 2005 and HSC(1)”.

/138/ HELCOM, 2007, “Heavy Metal Pollution to the Baltic Sea in 2004.”, in Baltic Sea Environment Proceedings No. 108, HELCOM, Helsinki, Finland.

/139/ Verta, M., Salo, S., Korhonen, M., Assmuth, T., Kiviranta, B., Koistinen, J., Ruokojärvi, P., Isosaari, P., Berggvist, P-A., Tysklind, M., Cato, I., Vikelsoe, J. and Larsen, M., 2007, “Dioxin concentrations in sediments of the Baltic Sea – A survey of existing data”, Chemosphere, Vol. 67, pp. 1762- 1775.

/140/ Rossi, E., 2008-10-9, “Personal communication with Matti Verta, Finnish Environment Institute.”, Received by Esko Rossi.

/141/ Nord Stream AG and Ramboll, 2008, “Memo 4.3n - Ship traffic”, Nord Stream AG, Zug, Switzerland.

/142/ Nord Stream AG and Ramboll, “Offshore pipeline through the Baltic Sea - Ship traffic crossing the pipeline, October 2007”, Ch. G-CE-RSK-REP-100-42300000-01.

/143/ UBA - Umweltbundesamt, 1999, “Forschungsbericht UBA FuR-Vorhaben: FKZ 10240302: MARION - Umweltrelevantes Informations und Analysesystem für den Seeverkehr”.

/144/ Stipa, T., Jalkanen, J. P., Hongisto, M., Kalli, J. and Brink, A., 2007, “Emissions of NOx from Baltic Shipping and first Estimates of their effects on air quality and euthrophication of the Baltic Sea. S.9-10. ISBN 978-951-53-3028-4. Online Version: nox_emissions_baltic_isbn978-951-53-3028-4”.

/145/ United States Department of Defense, 2007, “Underwater Acoustics”, http://www.fas. org.man.dod-101/sys/ship/acoustics.htm.

/146/ Richardson, W. J., Greene Jr., C. R., Malme, C. I. and Thomson, D. H., 1995, Marine Mammals and Noise, Academic Press, London.

/147/ Nedwell, J. and Howell, D., 2004, “A review of offshore windfarm related underwater noise sources”, Cowrie

/148/ Hatch, L., 2008, “Characterizing the Relative Contributions of Large Vessels to Total Ocean Noise Fields: A Case Study Using the Gerry E. Studds Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary. Environmental Management DOI 10.1007/s00267-008- 9169-4.”. 726 | Environmental impact assessment report | References

/149/ McDonald, M., Hildebrand, J. and Wiggins, S., 2006, “Increases in deep ocean ambient noise in the Northeast Pacific west of San Nicolas Island, California”, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, Vol. 120, pp. 711- 718.

/150/ Leppäkoski, E and Bonsdorff, E., 1989, “Ecosystem variability and gradients. Examples from the Baltic Sea as a background for hazard assessment” in Chemicals in the aquatic environment. Advanced hazard assessment (Ed: Landner, L.), Berlin.

/151/ Bonsdorff, E. and Pearson, T. H., 1999, “Variation in the sublittoral macrozoobenthos of the Baltic Sea along environmental gradients: A functional-group approach.”, Australian Journal of Ecology, Vol. 24.

/152/ Hällfors, S., Niemi, A., Ackefors, H., Lassig, J. and Leppäkoski, E, 1981, “Biological oceanography” in The Baltic Sea. Oceanography Series (Ed: Voipio, A.), Elsevier, Ch. 4.

/153/ Naturvårdsverket, 2006, “Inventering av marina naturtyper på utsjöbanker”, http:// www.naturvardsverket.se/Documents/publikationer/620-5576-3.pdf.

/154/ Oulasvirta, P., Leinikki, J., and Reitalu, T, 2001, “Underwater biotopes in Väinameri and Kõpu area, western Estonia. Ympäristöministeriö”, Ministry of the Environment - Environmental Protection Depatrment.

/155/ Nord Stream AG, 2008-11-11, “Personal communication with Ari Laine from Alleco Ltd.”, Received by Ramboll Finland Oy.

/156/ 1995, “Distributional index of the benthic macroalgae of the Baltic area” in Acta Botanica Fennica (Eds: Nielsen, R., Kristiansen, A., Mathiesen, L. and Mathiesen, H.), Ch. 155.

/157/ Finnish Environmental Institute, 2008, “Suomen luontotyyppien uhanalaisuus – Osa 2: Luontotyyppien kuvaukset”, Finnish Environmental Institute, Helsinki.

/158/ Andersin, A. B., Lessig, J. and Sandler, H., 1977, “Community structure of soft- bottom macrofauna in different parts of the Baltic” in Biology of benthic organisms (Eds: Ceidigh, B. F., Ceidigh, P. O. and Boaden, P. J. S.), Pergamon Press, New York.

/159/ Laine, A. O., Andersin, A. B. and Leiniö, S. Zuur A. F., 2007, “Stratification-induced hypoxia as a structuring factor of macrozoobenthos in the open Gulf of Finland (Baltic Sea)”, Journal of Sea Research, Vol. 57.

/160/ Laine, A. O., 2003, “Distribution of soft-bottom macrofauna in the deep open Baltic Sea in relation to environmental variability”, Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science, Vol. 57, pp. 87- 97.

/161/ Myrberg, K., Leppäranta, M. and Kuosa, H., 2006, “Itämeren fysiikka, tila ja tulelvaisuus.”, Yliopistopaino, Helsinki. Environmental impact assessment report | References 727|

/162/ Norkko, A. and Jaale, M., 2008, “Trends in soft sediment macrozoobenthic communities in the open sea areas of the Baltic Sea”, Report series of the Finnish Institute of Marine Research - MERI, Vol. 62.

/163/ Bonsdorff, E., 2006, “Zoobenthic diversity-gradients in the Baltic Sea: Continuous post-glacial succession in a stressed ecosystem”, Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, Vol. 330, pp. 383- 391.

/164/ Weile, K. and Birklund, J., 2008, “Macrozoobenthos along the Nord Stream Pipeline in the Baltic Sea in 2006 and 2007. Report by Dansk Biologisk Laboratorium (DBL)”.

/165/ Andersin, A. B. and Sandler, H., 1991, “Macrobenthic fauna and oxygen deficiency in the Gulf of Finland”, Mem. Soc. Fauna. FI Fennica, Vol. 67, pp. 3- 10.

/166/ Seire, A., 1992 “Benthic macrofauna of the deep areas of the Gulf of Finland in 1989/90 compared with earlier investigations”. pp. 151-156.

/167/ PeterGaz, 2006, “The North European Gas Pipeline Offshore Sections (The Baltic Sea). Environmental survey. Part 2. Stage II. Final Technical Report. Book 2. Exclusive Economic Zones of Finland, Sweden and Denmark. Section 1. Text of Report Folder 2.”, PeterGaz, Moscow, Russia, Ch. 6545(1)-01-P-ES-0602(1-2)-C1.

/168/ Bonsdorff, E., Laine, A. O., Hänninen, J., Vuorinen, J. and Norkko, A., 2003, “Zoobenthos of the outer archipelago waters (N. Baltic Sea) - the importance of local conditions for spatial distribution patterns”, Boreal environment research, Vol. 8, pp. 135- 145.

/169/ Laine, A. O., Pesonen, L., Myllynen, K. and Norha, T., 2003, “Veden laadun muutosten vaikutus Helsingin ja Espoon edustan merialueiden pohjaeläimistöön vuosina 1973-2001”, Helsingin kaupungin ympäristökeskuksen julkaisuja, Vol. 10, pp. 1- 47.

/170/ Anttila-Huhtinen, M., 2005, “pohjaeläintutkimukset merialueella Pyhtää-Kotka-Hamina vuosina 2000-2005 ja vertailua aikaisempiin tuloksiin.”, Kymijoen vesi ja ympäristö ry, Vol. 133.

/171/ Laine, A. O., Sandler, H., Andersin, A. and Stigzelius, J., 1997, “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, Vol. 38, pp. 135- 159.

/172/ Westerbom, M., Kilpi, M and Mustonen, O., 2002, “Blue mussels Mytilus edulis at the edge of the range: population structure, growth and biomass along a salinity gradient in the north-eastern Baltic Sea.”, Marine Biology, Vol. 140, pp. 991- 999. 728 | Environmental impact assessment report | References

/173/ Birklund, J. and Weile, K, 2008, “Macrozoobenthos along the south route of the Nord Stream Pipeline in the Baltic Sea including the Kalbådagrund alternative in the Gulf of Finland”.

/174/ Hall, S. J., 1994, “Physical disturbance and marine benthic communities: life in unconsolidated sediments”, Oceanography and Marine Biology: an Annual Review, Vol. 32, pp. 179- 239.

/175/ Zajac, R. N, Whitlatch, R. B. and Thrush, S. F., 1998, “Recolonization and succession in soft-sediment infaunal communities: the spatial scale of controlling factors”, Hydrobiologia, pp. 227- 240.

/176/ Newell, R. C., Seiderer, L. J. and Hitchcock, D. R., 1998, “The impact of dredging works in coastal waters: a review of the sensitivity to disturbance and subsequent recovery of biological resources on the sea bed. Oceanogr”, Marine Biology, Vol. 36, pp. 127- 178.

/177/ Lewis, L. J., Davenport, J. and Kelly, T. C., 2002, “A study of the impact of a pipeline construction on estuarine benthic invertebrate communities, Part 1.”, Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science, Vol. 55.

/178/ Strasser, M., 2000, “Recolonization patterns of benthic fauna in the intertidal Wadden Sea after the severe winter of 1995/96”.

/179/ Zajac, R. N and Whitlatch, R. B., 1985 “A hierarchical approach to modelling soft- bottom successional dynamics”, presented at Proceedings of the 19th European Marine Biological Symposium,. pp. 265-276.

/180/ Newell, R. C., Seiderer, L. J., Simpson, N. M. and Robinson, J. E., 2004, “Impacts of marine aggregate dredging on benthic macrofauna off the south coast of the United Kingdom”, Journal of Coastal Research, Vol. 20, pp. 115- 125.

/181/ Schuchardt, B, Krause, G., and Kulp, H-G., 1998, “Environmental impact assessment. Europipe II in Germany offshore and onshore section. Bioconsult Schuchardt & Scholle”, Statoil Stravanger, Bremen, Germany.

/182/ Herrmann, C., Krause, J. C., Tsupikova, N., and Hansen, K., 1999, “Marine sediment extraction in the Baltic Sea - Status Report”, HELCOM

/183/ Gamenick, I., Jahne, A., Vopel, K. and Giere, O., 1996, “Hypoxia and sulphide as structuring factors in a macrozoobenthic community on the Baltic Sea shore: colonisation studies and tolerance experiments”, Marine, Ecol. Prog. Ser., Vol. 144, pp. 73- 85. Environmental impact assessment report | References 729|

/184/ Joschko, T., 2007, “Influence of artificial hard substrates on recruitment success of the zoobenthos in the German Bight, Dissertation Carl von Ossietzky Universität Oldenburg”.

/185/ Pollehne, F. and Zettler, M. L., 2005, “Prozesse im Nahbereich der Piles - Teil Ostsee . In: Ökologische Begleitforschung zur Windenergienutzung im Offshore -Bereich auf Forschungsplattformen in der Nord- und Ostsee (BeoFINO). Unveröff. Gutachten im Auftrag des BMU, FKZ 0327526”.

/186/ Leonhard, S. and Birklund, J., 2006, “Change in Diversity and higher biomass In: DONG Energy, Vattenfall, The Danish Energy Authority & The Danish Forest and Nature Agency”, Ch. 44-46.

/187/ Edler, L., 1979, “Recommendations on methods for marine biological studies in the Baltic Sea. Phytoplankton and chlorophyll”, Baltic Marine Biology, pp. 1- 38.

/188/ Laine, A. O. and Norkko, A., 2005, “Trends in soft sediment macrozoobenthic communities in the open sea areas of the Baltic Sea (1965 to 2005). HELCOM Indicator Fact Sheets 2005”, http://www.helcom.fi/environment2/ifs/archive/ifs2005/ benthos_folder/en_GB/benthos/ , Date accessed: 2007-10-25.

/189/ HELCOM, 2002, “Environment of the Baltic Sea area 1994-1998”, in Baltic Sea Environment Proceedings No. 82B, HELCOM, Helsinki, Finland.

/190/ HELCOM, 2004, “Phytoplankton biomass and species succession in the Gulf of Finland, Northern Baltic Proper and Arkona Basin in 2004”, HELCOM, Helsinki, Finland.

/191/ Nord Stream AG and Ramboll, 2007, “Memo 4.3f - Fish and Fishery”, Nord Stream AG, Zug, Switzerland.

/192/ Finnish Game and Fisheries Research Institute, 2008, “Kalalajit Suomessa”, Riista- ja kalatalouden tutkimuslaitos.

/193/ Koli, L., 1990, Suomen kalat, WSOY.

/194/ Finnish Game and Fisheries Research Institute, 2007, “Commercial Marine Fishery 2006”, Riista- ja kalatalouden tutkimuslaitos.

/195/ Finnish Game and Fisheries Research Institute, 2008, “Commercial Marine Fishery 2007”, Riista- ja kalatalouden tutkimuslaitos.

/196/ ICES Oceanographic Data Center, 2006, “Report of the ICES Advisory Committee on Fishery Management, Advisory Committee on the Marine Environment and Advisory Committee on Ecosystems. ICES Advice, Book 8. The Baltic Sea”. 730 | Environmental impact assessment report | References

/197/ ICES Oceanographic Data Center, 2006, “Report of the ICES Advisory Committee on Fishery Management, Advisory Committee on the Marine Environment and Advisory Committee on Ecosystems. ICES Advice, Book 9. Widely Distributed and Migratory Stocks”.

/198/ Salminen, M., Kummu, P., and Ikonen, E., 2004, “Arvokalojen sopimuskasvatus­toi­ minta 2004-2010”, Riista- ja kalatalouden tutkimuslaitos, Helsinki.

/199/ Finnish Game and Fisheries Research Institute, 2007, “Ajankohtaista asiaa istu­tuk­ sista”, http://www.rktl.fi/kala/istutustutkimukset/ajankohtaista_asiaa_istutuksista.html, Date accessed: 2008-8-18.

/200/ Finnish Maritime Administration, 2008, “Tulostavoiteraportti maa- ja metsätalous­ minis­teriölle. Kalakantojen tila vuonna 2007 sekä ennuste vuosille 2008 ja 2009. Silakka, kilohaili, turska, lohi, siika ja kuha.”.

/201/ PeterGaz, 2006, “The North European Gas Pipeline Offshore Sections (The Baltic Sea). Environmental survey. Part 1. Stage I. Book 5. Final report. Section 1. Russia´s Exclusive Economic Zone and Territorial Waters. (Environmental field investigations 2005)”, in # 6545-10-0-ES-0501-Ñ1, PeterGaz, Moscow, Russia.

/202/ Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, Finland, 2007, “Itämeren hyljekantojen hoitosuunnitelma”, Helsinki.

/203/ Rassi, P., Alanen, A., Kanerva, T. and Mannerkoski, I., 2001, Suomen lajien uhanalaisuus 2000, Ympäristöministeriö & Suomen ympäristökeskus, Helsinki.

/204/ Hammond, P. S, Gordon, J. C. D., Grellier, K., Hall, A. J., Northridge, S. P., Thomp­ son, D., and Harwood, J., 2001, “Marine mammals. - Strategic Environmental Assess­ ment - SEA2, Technical Report 006.”

/205/ Boedeker, D., Bräger, S. and Dinter, W., 2007, “Phocoena phocoena (LINNAEUS 1758), Harbour porpoise (Phocoenidae)”, http://www.helcom.fi/environment2/biodiv/ endangered/Mammals/en_GB/Phocoena_phocoena/ , Date accessed: 2007-6-25.

/206/ FIMR, 2007, “The Baltic Sea Portal of Finnish Maritime Research Institute - Tietoa pyöriäisestä”, http://www.fimr.fi/fi/pyoriainen/fi_FI/pyoriaistietoa/ , Date accessed: 2008.

/207/ Stenman, O., Verevkin, M., Dmitrieva, L. and Sagitov, R., 2005, “Numbers and occurrence of ringed seals in the Gulf of Finland in the years 1997-2004” in Symposium on Biology and Management of Seals in the Baltic area (Eds: Helle, E., Stenman, O. and Wikman, M.), Riista- ja kalantutkimus, Helsinki.

/208/ Ilus, E., 2007, “The Chernobyl accident and the Baltic Sea”, Boreal environment research, Vol. 12, pp. 1- 10. Environmental impact assessment report | References 731|

/209/ Miettinen, M., Halkka, A., Högmander, J., Keränen, S., Mäkinen, A, Nordström, M., Nummelin, J., and Soikkeli, M., 2006, “Itämerennorpan (Phoca hispida botnica) esiintyminen Saaristomeren alueella - yhteenveto vuosien 2002–2005 kartoitustyöstä.”, WWF.

/210/ Jüssi, M., Jüssi, I. and Müür, R., “Tegevuskava Läänemere Viigerhülge (Phoca hispida botnica) Kaitseks Eesti Rannikul, Aastatel 2006–2010”.

/211/ Sinisalo, T., 2007, “Diet and Foraging of Ringed Seals in Relation to Helminth Parasite Assemblages”, Jyväskylä studies in biological and environmental sciene 174, University of Jyväskylä, Finland.

/212/ HELCOM, 2008, “Seals”, http://www.helcom.fi/environment2/biodiv/seals/en_GB/ seals/ , Date accessed: 2008-6-25.

/213/ FIMR, 2007, “The Baltic Sea Portal of Finnish Maritime Research Institute - Grey seal population still growing”, http://www.fimr.fi/en/ajankohtaista/uutisia_muualta/2007/en_ GB/1366/ , Date accessed: 2008-8-29.

/214/ Halkka, A., Helle, E., Helander, B., Jüssi, I., Jüssi, M., Karlsson, O., Soikkeli, M., Stenman, O. and Verevkin, M., 2005, “Numbers of grey seals counted in censuses in the Baltic Sea 2000-2004” in Symposium on Biology and Management of Seals in the Baltic area (Eds: Helle, E., Stenman, O. and Wikman, M.), Riista- ja kalantutkimus, Helsinki.

/215/ DMU, 2007, “Harbour seal and Grey seal in Denmark”, http://www.dmu.dk/ International/Animals+and+plants/Animals/Seals/.

/216/ Sjöberg, M., Fedak, M. A. and McConnell, B. J., 1995, “Movements and diurnal behaviour patterns in a Baltic grey seal (Halichoerus grypus)” in Polar Biology, Ch. 15.

/217/ Dietz, R., Teilmann, J., and Damsgaard Henriksen, O., 2003, “Movements of seals from Rodsand seal sanctuary monitored by satellite telemetry”, National Environmental Research Institute, Denmark, http://www2.dmu.dk/1_viden/2_Publikationer/3_ fagrapporter/rapporter/FR429.pdf.

/218/ Meier, H. E. M., Döscher, R. and Halkka, A., 2004, “Simulated distributions of Baltic sea-ice in warming climate and consequences for the winter habitat of the Baltic ringed seal”, Ambio, Vol. 33, pp. 249- 256.

/219/ Bredhult, C., Bäcklin, B-M., Bignert A. and Oloysson, M., 2008, “Study of the relation between the incidence of uterine leiomyomas and the concentrations of PCB and DDT in Baltic gray seals” in Reproductive Toxicology, Ch. 25. 732 | Environmental impact assessment report | References

/220/ Lundström, K., Hjerne, O., Alexandersson, A. and Karlsson, O., 2007, “Estimation of grey seal (Halichoerus grypus) diet composition in the Baltic Sea”, NAMMCO Scientific Publications, Vol. 6, pp. 177- 196.

/221/ Jüssi, M., Härkönen, T., Helle, E. and Jüssi, I., 2008, “Decreasing Ice Coverage Will Reduce the Breeding Success of Baltic Grey Seal (Halichoerus grypus) Females”.

/222/ Härkönen, T., 2006, “Populationsinventeringar av knubbsäl i Kalmarsund”, http://www. nrm.se/download/18.5f9fdb1010a17ea8e958000852/Knubbs%C3%A4lspopulationen+i +Kalmarsund.pdf.

/223/ European Commission, 1992, “Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora”, http://eur-lex.europa.eu/ LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:31992L0043:EN:NOT.

/224/ Habitat Mare Natura 2000, 13-8-2008, “Marine mammals”, http://www. habitatmarenatura2000.de/en/saeuger.php.

/225/ Skov, H., Vaitkus, G., Flensted, K. N., Grishanov, G., Kalamees, A., Kondratyev, A., Leivo, M., Mayr, C., Rasmussen, J. F., Raudonikis, L., Scheller, W., Stipniece, A., Struwe-Juhl, B. and Welander, B., 2000, Inventory of coastal and marine Important Bird Areas in the Baltic Sea, BirdLife International, Cambridge.

/226/ Skov, H., Durinck, J., Leopold, M. F. and Tasker, M. L., 2007, “A quantitative method for evaluating the importance of marine areas for conservation of birds”, Biological Conservation, Vol. 136, pp. 362- 371.

/227/ Hildén, O. and Hario, M, 1993, Muuttuva saaristolinnusto, Forssan kirjapaino.

/228/ Pöllänen, M., Kontiokorpi, J., Pietiläinen, O.-P. and Veijalainen, E., 1996, Arktika - muuttolintujen valtaväylillä, WSOY, Porvoo.

/229/ Väisänen, R. A., Lammi, E. and Koskimies, P., 1998, Muuttuva pesimälinnusto, Otava, Keuruu.

/230/ Hario, M. and Rintala, J., 2002, “Haahkan ja lokkien kannankehitys rannikollamme vuosina 1986-2001” in Linnut vuosikirja 2001, Ch. 26-36.

/231/ Hario, M. and Rintala, J., 2007, “Tiirojen, sotkien, naurulokin ja haahkan kannankehitys rannikoilla 1986-2006” in Linnut vuosikirja 2006, Ch. 36-42.

/232/ Yrjölä, R., 2008-5, “Personal communication with Markku Mikkola-Roos, Finnish Environment Institute about cormorant populations in Finnish coasts.”.

/233/ Hokkanen, T., 2006, “Unpublished monitoring data from 2006 on breeding birds at islets in the Eastern Gulf of Finland Archipelago”. Environmental impact assessment report | References 733|

/234/ Niemi, M., Eronen, V., Koivisto, A., Koskinen, P., Nummi, P. and Väänänen, V-M., 2007, “Valkoposkihanki pääkaupunkiseudulla.”, Suomen ympäristö, Vol. 29/2007.

/235/ Rusanen, P., Mikkola-Roos, M. and Asanti, T., 1998, “Merimetso Phalacrocorax carbo – musta viikinki; Merimetson kannan kehitys ja siihen vaikuttavat tekijät Itämeren piirissä ja Euroopassa”, Suomen ympäristö, Vol. 182.

/236/ Asanti, T., Lehikoinen, A., Mikkola-Roos, M. and Rusanen, P., 2007, “Merimetson (Phalacrocorax carbo sinensis) kannakasvu jatkuu” in Linnut vuosikirja 2006, Ch. 107.

/237/ Hario, M. and Rintala, J., 2004, “Kyhmyjoutsenen, haahkan ja hanhien kannan kehitys rannikoilla 1986 - 2003” in Linnut vuosikirja 2003, Ch. 49--57.

/238/ Hario, M., 1998, “Haahkan, ruokkilintujen, kalatiiran ja lapintiiran runsaus Suomen rannikolla” in Linnut vuosikirja 1997, Ch. 12-24.

/239/ Hario, M., 2000, “Haahkan, ruokkilintujen, kalatiiran ja lapintiiran runsaus Suomen rannikolla” in Linnut vuosikirja 1999, Ch. 40-50.

/240/ Yrjölä, R., 2007, “Personal communication with Jari Kontiokorpi, ornitologist”.

/241/ Bojarinova, J. G. and Bublichenko, J. N., 2001, “Spring bird migration on the northern coast of the Gulf of Finland (in the environs of the settlemens of Diuny- Solnechnoye) in 1999”, in Study of the Status and Trends of Migratory Bird Population in Russia, OMPO, St. Petersburg, Russia, Ch. Third.

/242/ Yrjölä, R., 2008-10-9, “Personal communication with Matti Luostarinen, ornitologist”.

/243/ Lappalainen, A., Westerholm, M. and Heikinheimo, O., 2005, “Roach ( Rutilus rutilus) as an important predator on blue mussel ( Mytilus edulis) populations in a brackish water environment, the northern Baltic Sea”, Marine Biology, Vol. 147, pp. 323- 330.

/244/ European Commission, 1979, “Council Directive 79/409/EEC on the conservation of wild birds, commonly referred to as the Birds Directive”, http://ec.europa.eu/ environment/nature/legislation/birdsdirective/index_en.htm.

/245/ Leivo, M., Asanti, T., Koskimies, P., Lammi, E., Lampolahti, J., Mikkola-Roos, M., and Virolainen, E., 2002, “Suomen tärkeät lintualueet FINIBA”, Suomen graafiset palvelut, Suomi, Kuopio.

/246/ Heath, M. F. and Evans, M. I., 2000, Important Bird Areas in Europe. Priority sites for conservation. Vol. 1: Northern Europe. 734 | Environmental impact assessment report | References

/247/ Stjernberg, T., Koivusaari, J., Högmander, J., Ollila, T. and Ekblom, H., 2004, “Suomen merikotkat 2003 - 2004 – kanta vahvistuu edelleen” in Linnut vuosikirja 2004, Ch. 14-19.

/248/ Stjernberg, T., Koivusaari, J., Högmander, J., Ollila, T. and Ekblom, H., 2007 “Population trends and breeding success of the white-tailed eagle Haliaeëtus albicilla in Finland, 1970-2005”, 2005-11-8.

/249/ Nord Stream AG, 2008, “Personal communication with Torsten Stjernberg, merikotka­ työryhmä, WWF Finland.”, Received by Ramboll Finland Oy.

/250/ Zydelis, R., Fox, A. D., Lorentsen, S-H., Kuresoo, A., Krasnov, Y., Goryaev, Y., Bustnes, J. O., Hario, M, Nilsson, L. and Stipniece, A., 2006, “Recent changes in the status of Steller’s Eider Polysticta stelleri wintering in Europe: a decline or redistribution?”, Bird Conservation International, Vol. 16, pp. 217- 236.

/251/ European Union, 16-9-2008, “Homepage of Nature and Biodiversity”, http://ec.europa. eu/environment/nature/index_en.htm , Date accessed: 2008-9-16.

/252/ Nord Stream AG, 2007, “Personal communication with M. Kunnasranta, Finnish Game and Fisheries Research Institute (RKTL) & H. Korpelainen, Ministry of Environment”, Received by Ramboll.

/253/ European Commission, 2007, “Guidelines for the establishment of the Natura 2000 network in the marine environment. Application of the Habitats and Birds Directives”.

/254/ Nord Stream AG, 2007, “Personal communication with Saara Bäck, Finnish Environment Institute, SYKE; Heikki Korpelainen, Ministry of Environment”, Received by Ramboll.

/255/ OSPAR Commission, 2003, “Declaration of the first joint ministerial meeting of the Helsinki and OSPAR commissions. First joint ministerial meeting of the Helsinki and OSPAR commissions (jmm) Bremen: 25-26 June 2003”.

/256/ United Nations, 2008, “UNESCO, people, biodiversity and ecology”, http://www. unesco.org/mab/index.shtml , Date accessed: 2008-8.

/257/ Wetlands International, 2008, “The Ramsar Sites Information Service (RSIS)”, http:// ramsar.wetlands.org/ , Date accessed: 2007-8-5.

/258/ Nord Stream AG and Snamprogetti, 2008, “Frequency of Interaction Report for the Finnish EEZ”.

/259/ Nord Stream AG, 2007-5, “Personal communication with Harry Federlay, Finnish Maritime Admimistration, about Marine statistics”, Received by Ramboll Finland Oy , Tommi Marjamäki. Environmental impact assessment report | References 735|

/260/ FIMR, 2008, “Statistics”, http://www.fma.fi/e/services/statistics , Date accessed: 2007.

/261/ Finnish Maritime Administration, 2007, “Domestic water traffic - Yearly Statistics 2007”, Finnish Maritime Administration.

/262/ Port of Helsinki, 2007, “Annual Report 2007”.

/263/ Finnish Maritime Administration, 2000, “Waterways in Finland”.

/264/ Nord Stream AG, 2007-4-25, “Personal communication with Mr. Kim Jordas, President of the Finnish Fishermen’s Association.”, Received by Ramboll.

/265/ Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, Finland, 2007, “KAKE-database (Elinkeino­ kalatalouden keskusrekisteri)”, Helsinki.

/266/ Finnish Fishermen´s Association, SAKL, 2007, “Finnish Trawling vessels operating near / in the Nord Stream pipeline area”.

/267/ Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, Finland, 2007, “Ammattikalastus merialueella”, www.mmm.fi/fi/index/etusivu/kalastus_riista_porot/elinkeinokalatalous/ammatti-kalastus/ ammattikalastus_merialueella.html , Date accessed: 2008-8.

/268/ Ministry of Trade and Industry, Finland, 2004, “Final report of the Tourism Satellite Account project”, Ministry of Trade and Industry. Statistics Finland. Economic Statistics. Tourism Satellite Account.

/269/ Finnish Tourist Board, 11-3-2008, “Basic Facts and Figures on tourism to Finland”, http://www.mek.fi/w5/mekfi/index.nsf/(Pages)/Perustietoja?opendocument&np=F-40 , Date accessed: 2008-8-14.

/270/ Finnish Tourist Board, 2008, “Border Interview Survey 2007”, http://www.mek.fi/W5/ mekfi/index.nsf/(pages)/Rajahaastattelututkimus_osa_20?opendocument&ind=w5/ mekfi/index.nsf&np=F-30.10 , Date accessed: 2008-8-14.

/271/ Nord Stream AG, 2007-5-16, “Personal communication with regional councils of Uusimaa, Itä-Uusimaa, Southwest Finland and Kymenlaakson liitto.”, Received by Ramboll Finland Oy.

/272/ Ministry of Trade and Industry, Finland, 2006, “Finland’s Tourism Strategy 2020 and Policy for Years 2007–2013”.

/273/ Nord Stream AG, 2007-5-15, “Personal communication with Liisa Hentinen, marketing researcher / MEK (Finnish Tourism Board)”, Received by Ramboll Finland Oy, Tommi Marjamäki. 736 | Environmental impact assessment report | References

/274/ Nord Stream AG, 2007-7-6, “Personal communication with regional councils of Uusimaa, Itä-Uusimaa, Southwest Finland and Kymenlaakso and Helsinki Tourist Office in May 2007. Received information on the following strategies: Tourism strategy of Uusimaa. Draft 11. 24.05.2006; Tourism strategy of Itä-Uusimaa 2007-2013, Developing the tourism industry in Southwest Finland. Strategic choices 2005-2011; Tourism strategy of Kymenlaakso 2004-2008 and economical impacts of tourism 2003”, Received by Ramboll Finland Oy.

/275/ Sail Training International, 2008, “The Tall Ships Races 2009”, http://www. sailtraininginternational.org/page.asp?partid=462 , Date accessed: 2008-10.

/276/ Finnish Maritime Administration, 2005, “Boating in Finland and its economic impacts”, Merenkulkulaitos, Ch. 5/2005.

/277/ 2007, “Guest Harbours in the Finnish Coast 2007. Käyntisatamat 2007, Suomen rannikot. Venepuhelinluettelo.”, Päijätmark, Jyväskylä.

/278/ Helsinki City Tourist and Convention Bureau, 2007, “Press release 5 April 2007”.

/279/ Nord Stream AG, 2007-7-6, “Personal communication with Jaana Vetikko, press officer 2.7.2007 [email protected] and Marcus Wikström fishing industry consultant 3.7.2007 [email protected]. Suomen vapaa- ajan kalastajien keskusjärjestö.”, Received by Ramboll Finland Oy, Otso Lintinen.

/280/ Salokorpi, S., 2006, “Kalalordit hyvällä asialla”, Finnish Tourist Board.

/281/ Hemmi, J., 2005, “Tourism, environment, nature” in Tourism, environment, nature, Jyväskylä, Ch. 1-2.

/282/ Finnish Game and Fisheries Research Institute, “Recreational Fishing 2006, Statistics 7:2007”.

/283/ Metsähallitus, 2008, “web services of Finnish Forest Authority”, https://www.metsa.fi , Date accessed: 2008-8.

/284/ Statistics Finland, “Summer Cottage Barometer 2003”.

/285/ Statistics Finland, 2007, “Tourism Statistics”, http://www.tilastokeskus.fi/til/kmok/index. html , Date accessed: 2007-5-31.

/286/ Statistics Finland, 2008, “Finland 1917 - 2007”, http://www.tilastokeskus.fi/til/kmok/ index.html , Date accessed: 2008-5. Environmental impact assessment report | References 737|

/287/ The Island Committee, Ministry of Interior, Finland, “Island Development Program 2007–2010. Island, Sea, Lakes, Rivers and Coastal Areas as Regional Development Factors”.

/288/ BaltCoast, 2004, “Baltic Sea Region, BaltCoast. Work package 1: Framework for the co-ordinated offshore water areas around the Baltic Sea. Conclusions and recommendations. Draft. December 2004”.

/289/ Finnish Defence Forces, 2000, “Act on Finland’s Territorial Surveillance”.

/290/ Finnish Defence Forces, 2000, “Decree on the Restricted Areas”.

/291/ Finnish Defence Forces, 3-10-1995, “Ampuma-alueet Suomenlahdella ja Selkämerellä, PEkoul-os:n asiak n:o 19/5.1.a/D/I”.

/292/ Ministry of Defence, Finland, 2008, “Ministry of Defence’s response to the statement request by Ramboll Finland Ltd: Response of the Ministry of Defence on the effects of the military exercise areas and other operations on the natural gas pipeline project between Russia and Germany”.

/293/ Nord Stream AG, 2008-9-3, “Personal communication with Kari Aapro (Commander G.S.), National Defence Policy Unit, Ministry of Defence, 3.7.2008, 21.8.2008 and 3.9.2008.”, Received by LandPro Oy, Mikko Wikström.

/294/ HELCOM, 1994, “Chemical Munitions Dumped in the Baltic Sea”, http://www.helcom.fi/ stc/files/Publications/OtherPublications/1994Report-ChemicalMunitionsDumpedInTheB alticSea.pdf.

/295/ HELCOM, 1995, “Final Report of the ad hoc Working Group on Dumped Chemical Munition”, HELCOM, Helsinki, Finland, Link: http://www.helcom.fi/stc/files/Publications/ OtherPublications/CHEMUFinalReport1995.pdf.

/296/ Marin Mätteknik AB, 2008, “Munition Screening and Geophysical Route Survey. Final Report, Rev. 4 2008”.

/297/ Marin Mätteknik AB, 6-10-2008, “Munitions Identification. Expert Review. Nord Stream Pipeline Project Route C14-0.”.

/298/ Marin Mätteknik AB, 2008, “Munitions Screening and Geophysical Route Survey 2007 – 2008. Detailed - Finland. Route revision C14.0 / C15.0”.

/299/ Snamprogetti, 2008, “Qualitative assessment of two pipelines in “Kalbådagrund corridor” (LA-E-70652)”.

/300/ Uusimaa Regional Counsil, 2006, “Uusimaa Regional Land-use Plan”. 738 | Environmental impact assessment report | References

/301/ Eastern Regional Counsil (Finland) and Regional Counsil of Kymenlaakso, 2005, “Tuulivoiman tuotantoon soveltuvien maa- ja merialueiden kartoitus Itä-Uudenmaan ja Kymenlaakson rannikkoalueilla”.

/302/ Regional Council of Southwest Finland, 2007, “Varsinais-Suomen tuulivoimaselvitys – Teknistaloudellinen esiselvitys ja maisemavaikutusten arviointi”.

/303/ Nord Stream AG, 2007-5-16, “Personal communication with Merja Paakkari, Hafmex Windforce Ltd.”, Received by Ramboll Finland Oy.

/304/ SWAY, 2008, “Technical description”, http://sway.no/index.php?id=17 , Date accessed: 2008-8-22.

/305/ Fairley, P., 2008, “Wind Power That Floats”, Technology Review.

/306/ Nord Stream AG, 2007-5-29, “Personal communication with Jyrki Rantataro, Geological Survey of Finland”, Received by Ramboll Finald Oy, Aino Rantanen.

/307/ Nord Stream AG, 2007-6-11, “Personal communication in a meeting with Morenia, subsidiary company of Finnish Forestry Agency”, Received by Ramboll Finland Oy, Aino Rantanen.

/308/ 1965, “Mining Act 503/1965”.

/309/ 1961, “Water Act 264/1961”.

/310/ Mimistry of Foreign Affairs, Finland, 2004, “Finnish Act on Exclusive Economic Zone 1058/2004”.

/311/ 2000, “Environmental Protection Act 86/2000”.

/312/ United Nations, 1982, “United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea”.

/313/ United Nations, 26-9-2008, “Oceans and Law of the Sea.”, http://www.un.org/Depts/ los/reference_files/chronological_lists_of_ratifications.htm. Date accessed: 2008-9-8.

/314/ Nord Stream AG, 2007, “Minutes of Meeting - Finnish National Board of Antiquities - Impacts on cultural heritage. 9 February 2007”.

/315/ National Board of Antiquities and Nord Stream AG, 2008, “An offshore Pipeline through the Finnish EEZ zone – Evaluation of the Underwater Cultural Heritage”.

/316/ Maarleveld, T, 2008, “Assessment statement. Assessment Block07 S 07 2744.doc’”. Environmental impact assessment report | References 739|

/317/ National Board of Antiquities and Nord Stream AG, 2008, “An offshore Pipeline through the Finnish EEZ zone – Evaluation of the Underwater Cultural Heritage - The Kallbådagrund route alternative”.

/318/ The Decision of Parliament, 1995, “ACT (903/1995) ON THE PROTECTION OF THE WRECK OF THE PASSENGER SHIP M/S ESTONIA”.

/319/ Schmölcke, U., Endtmann, E., Klooss, S., Meyer, M., Michaelis, D., Rickert, B. H. and Rößler, D., 2006, “Changes of sea level, landscape and culture: A review of the south-western Baltic area between 8800 and 4000BC”, Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology, Vol. 240, pp. 423- 438.

/320/ Riksantikvarieämbetet, 2007, “Underlag för Miljökonsekvensbeskrivning för Nord Stream Gas Pipeline. Dnr. 330-4636-2006”.

/321/ Snamprogetti, “Route Optimisation Process Finnish Section”.

/322/ Snamprogetti and Nord Stream AG, 3-1-2008, “Preliminary Intervention Work Design, 2008”, Nord Stream AG, Zug, Switzerland.

/323/ Snamprogetti, 2008, “Preliminary SOW for gravel support for free span (data sheet)”, Ch. G-EN-PIE-DAS-102-00070021.

/324/ Snamprogetti, 28-9-2007, “Intervention Work for Permits in the Gulf of Finland”.

/325/ Snamprogetti, 2007, “Route Definition”.

/326/ Snamprogetti, 20-3-2008, “IW Design on Route C10.3 for Permit Application in Finland”.

/327/ Snamprogetti, 8-8-2008, “Data Sheet - Gravel Work and Mattresses (Finland)”.

/328/ Snamprogetti, 2008, “IW stability analysis (Finland)”, Ch. G-EN-PIE-DAS-102- 00070527.

/329/ Snamprogetti, 2008, “IW Design (Finland)”, Ch. G-EN-PIE-DAS-102-00070526.

/330/ Oriega Mining Services, 2008 “Course material to the course “Sprængteknik” held by Orica Mining Services 2008”.

/331/ Nord Stream AG, 2008, “Munition Identification Expert Review. Nord Stream Pipeline Project C14-0. Nord Stream AG. Revision 3”, Ch. G-EN-SUR-RPT-108-UXO080910 C14-3.

/332/ Nord Stream AG, 2008, “Personal communication with Lars Møller, Commander, Head of the Danish Fleet Ordnance Demolition”, Received by Ramboll Denmark. 740 | Environmental impact assessment report | References

/333/ Nord Stream AG and Ramboll, 2008, “Spreading of sediments during pipeline layout. Memo 4.3A-4.”, Ch. G-PE-PER-EIA-100-43A40000-03.

/334/ Nord Stream AG and Ramboll, 2008, “Memo 4.3a-9 - Release of sediments from anchor operation”, Ch. G-EN-PER-EIA-100-43A90000-A.

/335/ Nord Stream AG and Ramboll, 2008, “Memo 4.3a-5 - Spreading of sediment and contaminants during works in the seabed”, Nord Stream AG, Zug, Switzerland.

/336/ Nord Stream AG and Ramboll, 2008, “Memo 4.3A-R. Spreding of sediments and contaminants from clearing of munitions.”.

/337/ FIMR, 2008, “First results of the project “Eutrophiicatiion-MAPS”, The Baltic Sea Science Congress, March 19-23, 2007,The University of Rostock, Germany”2008-11- 18.

/338/ Myrberg, K. and ., 2008, “Recent results of the EUTROPHICATION-MAPS project: WP3, short-term run”2008-11-18.

/339/ Gasunie, 2004, “Balgzand – Bacton Pipeline, Environmental Statement Complete Project”.

/340/ BritNed, 2005, “MER, SBM, Habitoets BritNed-verbinding (in Dutch).”.

/341/ Nord Stream AG, 2008, “Personal communication with Romke Bijker, expert pipeline / seabed interaction”.

/342/ Nord Stream AG, 2008, “Personal communication with Ron Rijkers, expert pipelaying”.

/343/ Bijker, R., Staub, C., Silvis, F. and Bruschi, R., 1991, “Scour induced free spans”, OTC, Houston.

/344/ Bryndum, M. B., Staub, C., Hansen, E. A. and Bijker, R., 1991, “Integrated design of pipeline free spans and self-burial. Offshore Pipeline Technology”, Kopenhagen.

/345/ Chen, Z. and Bijker, R., 2001 “Interactions of offshore pipelines and dynamic seabed”, presented at XXIX IAHR congress proceedings.

/346/ Hansen, E. A., Smed, P. F., Bryndum, M. B., Klomp, W. H. G., Chen, Z. and Bijker, R., 1995 “Free span development and self-lowering of pipelines”, presented at Offshore Mechanics & Arctic Engineering: Pipline Technology Proceedings International Conference of Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering (14th: 1995: Copenhagen, Denmark/Omae 1995 Ser)), Kopenhagen. Environmental impact assessment report | References 741|

/347/ Klomp, W. H. G., Hansen, E. A., Chen, Z., Bijker, R. and Bryndum, M. B., 1995 “Pipeline seabed interaction, Free span development”, presented at Proceedings of the 5th (1995) International Offshore and Polar Engineering Conference (ISOPE-95), Hague, 1995-6-11,.

/348/ Nord Stream AG and Ramboll, 2007, “Memo 4.3r - Temperature difference between pipeline and environment”, Nord Stream AG, Zug, Switzerland.

/349/ Mattila, J., Kankaanpää, H. and Ilus, E., 2006, “Estimation of recent sediment accumulation rates in the Baltic Sea using artificial radionuclides 137 Cs and 239,240 Pu as time markers”, Boreal environment research, Vol. 11, pp. 95- 107.

/350/ Lehtoranta, J., Pitkänen, H. and Sandman, O., 1997, “Sediment Accumulation of Nutrients (N, P) in the Eastern Gulf of Finland (Baltic Sea)”, Water, Air, & Soil Pollution, Vol. 99, pp. 477- 486.

/351/ Pitkänen, H., 1994, “Eutrophication in the Finnish Coastal Waters: Origin, fate and effects of riverine nutrients fluxes”, Water Research Institute, National Board of Waters and Environment, Helsinnki, Finland, Ch. 18.

/352/ Kankaanpää, H., Korhonen, M., Heiskanen, A. S. and Suortti, A-M., 1997, “Seasonal sedimentation of organic matter and contaminants in the Gulf of Finland”, Boreal environment research, Vol. 2, pp. 257- 274.

/353/ Nord Stream AG, 2009, “Natural suspension of particle-associated contaminants during a storm in the Gulf of FInland”.

/354/ Nord Stream AG, 2008, “Personal communication with Daniela Zenobi, Snamprogetti”, Received by Ramboll.

/355/ Nord Stream AG and Ramboll, 2008, “Memo 4.3d-04.002 - Contaminants and nutrients released from seabed intervention works, G-PE-PER-EIA-100-43D02000”.

/356/ Håkanson, L. and Bryhn, C., 2008, “Tools and criteria for sustainable coastal ecosystem management – with examples from the Baltic Sea and other aquatic systems”, Springer, Heidelberg.

/357/ Wulff, F. V, Rahm, L. A. and Larsson, P., 2008, “A Systems Analysis of the, Baltic Sea”, Springer, Heidelberg.

/358/ PeterGaz and Nord Stream AG, “Petergaz 2005 Baltic Sea survey - sediment contaminants”.

/359/ PeterGaz and Nord Stream AG, “Petergaz 2006 Baltic Sea survey - sediment contaminants”. 742 | Environmental impact assessment report | References

/360/ ICES Oceanographic Data Center, “Sediment contaminant concentrations at various ICES stations in the Baltic Sea. International Council for the Exploration of the Seas”.

/361/ TNO, 2004, “Update of an evaluation of PNEC values for water produced water according to the revised marine EU-TGD”, TNO, The Netherlands.:

/362/ Australien Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authorithy, “The reconsideration of registrations of arsenic timber treatment products (CCA and arsenic trioxide) and their associated labels. Part 2 – Environmental assessment”.

363/ HLD, 2004, “Conoco Phillips Scandinavia AS – Ekofisk Tank Cleaning Feasibility Study for cover of inner and outer annuli – Cover design and execution methods”

/364/ OLF, 2003, “A manual for standardised modelling and determination of the environmental impact factor (EIF)”, The Norwegian oil industry association, Norway.

/365/ European Union, 2006, “EU zinc risk assessment report / RAR Zinc and zinc compounds (EC Regulation 793/93). Draft version of June 2006”.

/366/ European Copper Institute, 2006, “Voluntary Risk Assessment Report for copper, copper(II)sulfate pentahydrate, copper(I) oxide, copper(II) oxide, dicopper chloride trihydroxide”.

/367/ Nord Stream AG and Ramboll, 2008, “Memo 4.3s - Materials”, Nord Stream AG, Zug, Switzerland.

/368/ Finnish Environment Institute, 2009, “Environmental information system (HERTTA)”.

/369/ OSPAR Commission, 2000, “Quality Status Report 2000 for the North-East Atlantic. Chapter 4 - Chemistry”.

/370/ European Union, 2008, “RISK ASSESSMENT Report, ZINC METAL, Final report, May 2008, PART 1. Prepared by the Netherlands Organization for Applied Scientific Research (TNO) and the National Institute of Public Health and Environment (RIVM) for the European Commission Joint Research Centre, Institute for Health and Consumer Protection, Consumer Products Safety & Quality (CPS&Q) Unit.”.

/371/ European Union, 2007, “Risk Assessment Report, CADMIUM METAL, Part I - Environment, FinalReport, 2007. Prepared by the Federal Public Service Health, Food Chain Safety and Environment for the European Commission Joint Research Centre, Institute for Health and Consumer Protection, Consumer Products Safety & Quality (CPS&Q) Unit.”.

/372/ Holthaus, N., Kaag, R., Jak, M. and Smit, M., 2004, “TNO-report. R 2004/243. Updated and evaluation of PNEC values for produced water according to the revised marine EU-TGD”. Environmental impact assessment report | References 743|

/373/ United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA), 2007, “ECOTOX Database”2007-9-20.

/374/ European Chemicals Bureau (ECB) and Institute for Health and Consumer Protection, 2003, “Technical Guidance Document (TGD) on Risk Assessment, Part II - Environmental Risk Assessment”, (Ed: European Commission).

/375/ Nord Stream AG, 2008-12-11, “Personal communication with Jouni Lehtoranta”, Received by Ramboll Finland Oy, Mattias Järvinen and Markus Tuukkanen.

/376/ TNO, 2003, “ERMS Literature study Toxicity”, TNO, The Netherlands.

/377/ Sofiev, M, Petersen, G, Kr¨ger, O, Schneider, B, Hongisto, M and Jylha, K, 2001, “Model simulations of the atmospheric trace metals concentrations and depositions over the Baltic Sea”, Atmospheric Environment, Vol. 35, pp. 1395- 1409.

/378/ Wagner, P, Little, B, Hart, K, Ray, R, Thomas, D, Trzaskoma-Paulette, P and Lucas, K, 1996, “Environmental fate of Sacrificial Zinc Anodes and Influence of a Biofilm”, International Biodeterioration & Biodegradation, Vol. PII: S0964- 8305(96)00013-3, pp. 151- 157.

/379/ The European Environmental Bureau (EEB), The European Federation for Transport and Environment, Seas At Risk and The Swedish NGO Secretariat on Acid Rain, 2004, “Air Pollution from Ships”.

/380/ Naturvårdsverket, 2001, “Ljud från vindkraftverk”,

/381/ Boué, M., “Long-range outdoor sounds propagation over sea. Applications to wind turbine noise”, The Marcus Wallenberg Laboratory, Stockholm, Sweden.

/382/ Hastings, C and Popper, N., 2005, “Effects of Sound on Fish. California Department of Transportation Contract No. 43A0139, Task Order 1. January 28, 2005 (August 23, 2005, Revised Appendix B)”.

/383/ Cole, R. H., 1965, Underwater explosions, Dover publications Inc., New York.

/384/ Parvin, S. J., Nedwell, J. R., and Harland, E., 2-2-2007, “Lethal and physical injury of marine mammals, and requirements for Passive Acoustic Monitoring”, http://www. subacoustech.com/information/downloads/reports/565R0212.pdf.

/385/ Baxter, l., Hays, E., Hampson, G. and Backus, R., 1982, “Mortality of fish subjected to explosive shock as applied to oil well severance on Georges Bank”, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, Ch. WHOI-82-54. 744 | Environmental impact assessment report | References

/386/ Nord Stream AG and Ramboll, 2007, “Memo 4.3a-4 - Spreading of sediment during pipe-laying directly on the seabed (CDF-modelling)”, Nord Stream AG, Zug, Switzerland.

/387/ Turk, T. R. and Risk, M. J., “Effect of sedimentation on infaunal invertebrate populations of Cobequid Bay, Bay of Fundy. Can. J. Fish. Aquat Sci. 38.”.

/388/ Flöder, S. and Sommer, U., 1999, “Diversity in planktonic communities: An experimental test of the intermediate disturbance hypothesis”, Limnology and Oceanography, Vol. 44, pp. 1 114 - 1 119.

/389/ Kuusisto, M, Koponen, J. and Sarkkula, J., 1998, “Modelled phytoplankton dynamics in the Gulf of Finland”, Environmental Modelling and Software, Vol. 13, pp. 461- 470.

/390/ Connell, D. W. and Miller, G. J., 1984, “Chemistry and Ecotoxicology of Pollution”, John Wiley & Sons, New York.

/391/ Kennish, M. J., 1992, “Ecology of Estuaries: Anthropogenic Effects”, CRC Press, Inc., Boca Raton, FL.

/392/ WHO, 2001, “Arsenic and arsenic compounds” in Environmental Health Criteria, World Health Organization, Geneva, Ch. 224.

/393/ Helsinki Commission. and Baltic Marine Environment Protection Commission, 2004, “Dioxins in the Baltic Sea HELCOM – Environmental Focal Point Information”, Helsinki.

/394/ Sormunen, A., Koistinen, J., Leppänen, M. and Kukkonen, J., 2008, “Desorption of sediment-associated polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins, dibenzofurans, diphenyl ethers and hydroxydiphenyl ethers from contaminated sediment”, Chemosphere, Vol. 72, pp. 1 - 7.

/395/ Laanemetsb, J., Pavelsonb, J., Huttunena, M., Vahteraa, E. and Kononena, K., 2005, “Effect of upwelling on the pelagic environment and bloom-forming cyanobacteria in the western Gulf of Finland, Baltic Sea”, Journal of Marine Systems, Vol. 58, pp. 67- 82.

/396/ Moore, P. G., 1977, “Inorganic particulate suspensions in the sea and their effects on marine animals”, Oceanography and Marine Biology: an Annual Review, Vol. 15, pp. 225- 363.

/397/ Wildish, D. J. and Power, J., 1985, “Avoidance of suspended sediments by smelt as determined by a new “single fish” behavioral bioassay”, Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol, Vol. 34, pp. 770 - 774. Environmental impact assessment report | References 745|

/398/ Levings, C. D., “The ecological consequences of dredging and dredge spoil disposal in Canadian waters. national research council of canada. NRCC Associate commitee on scientific criteria for environmental quality”.

/399/ Redding, J. M. and Schreck, C., 1987, “Physiological effects in Coho salmon and steelhead of exposures to suspended solids”, Trans. Am. Fish. Soc, Vol. 116, pp. 737- 744.

/400/ Noggle, 1978, “Behavioural, physiological and lethal effects of suspended sediments on juvenile salmonids”, University of Washington, Seattle, USA.

/401/ COWI/VKI Joit Venture, 1992, “Öresund impact assessment. Sub-report nr. 2. The Öresundskonsortiet. Environmental impact assessment for the fixed link across the Öresund”.

/402/ Wilson, K. W and Connor, P. M, 1976, “The effect of china clay on the fish of St. Austell and Mevagissey Bays. J. Mar. Biol. Ass. UK, 56: 769-780”.

/403/ Keller, O, Lüdermann K. and Kafemann R., 2006, “Literature Review of Offshore Wind Farms with Regard to Fish Fauna. In: Zucco, C., W.Wende, T. Merck, I. Köchling & J. Köppel (eds): Ecological Research on Offshore Wind Farms: International Exchange of Experiences - Part B: Literature Review of Ecological Impacts. BfN- Skripten 171. Bonn. 47-130”.

/404/ Engel-Sørensen K. and Skyt P.H., 2001, “Evaluation of the effect of Sediment Spill from Offshore Wind Farm Construction on Marine Fish. - Report to SEAS, Denmark: 18 p.”.

/405/ Clarke D.G and Wilber D.H., 2000, “Assessment of potential impacts of dredging operations due to sediment resuspension, “DOER Technical Notes Collection (ERDC TN-DOER-E9), U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Vicksburg, MS.”.

/406/ Birklund J. and Wijsman j.W.M, 2005, “Agregate Extraction: A Review on the effect on ecological funktions. - Prepared for: EC Fifth Framework Programme Project SANDPIT: 54 p.”.

/407/ Finnish Game and Fisheries Research Institute, 5-6-2007, “Kampela (Platichthys flesus)”, http://www.rktl.fi/kala/tietoa_kalalajeista/kampela/kampela.html#lisää , Date accessed: 2008-10-31.

/408/ Jensen, A. C., Collins, K. J. and Lockwood, A. P. M., 2000, “Artificial reefs in European seas.”, Kluweer Academic Publishers.

/409/ Thomsen, F., Lüdemann, K., Kafemann, R. and Piper, W., 2006, “Effects of offshore wind farm noise on marine mammals and fish”, (Ed: Cowrie), Hamburg, Germany. 746 | Environmental impact assessment report | References

/410/ Southall, B. L., Bowles, A. E., Ellison W.T., Finneran, J. J., Gentry, R. L., Greene, C. R., Kastak, D., Ketten, D. R., Miller, J. H, Nachtigall, P. E., Richardson, W. J., Thomas, J. A. and Tyack, P., 2007, “Marine mammal noise-exposure criteria: initial scientific recommendations”, Aquat. Mammals, Vol. 33, pp. 411 - 521.

/411/ Madsen, P. T., Wahlberg, M., Tougaard, J. and Tyack, P., 2006, “Wind turbine underwater noise and marine mammals: implications of current knowledge and data needs”, Marine Ecology Progress Series, Vol. 309, pp. 279- 295.

/412/ Lewis, J. A, 1996, “Effects of underwater explositions on life in the sea. AR No. AR-009-629. DSTO-GD-0080”, DSTOAeronautical and Marine Research Laboratory, Melbourne, Australia.

/413/ Goertner, J. F., 1982, “Prediction of underwater explosion safe ranges for sea mammals. Final Report NSWC TR 88-114”, Naval Surface Warfare Center, Dahlgren Division, White Oak Detachment Silver Spring, Maryland USA.

/414/ Cramp, S and Simmons, K., 1977, Handbook of the Birds of the Western Palearctic, Oxford University Press.

/415/ Mikkola-Roos, M., 1996, “Lausunto maa-aineksen ottamiseen Utön eteläpuoliselta merialueelta Saaristomereltä liittyvistä linnusto- ja hyljevaikutuksista”.

/416/ Richmond, D. R., Yelverton, J. T, and Fletcher, E. R, 1973, “Far-field underwater- blast injuries produced by small charges”, Headquarters Defense Nuclear Agency, Washington, D.C. USA.

/417/ Yelverton, J. T, Richmond, D. R, Fletcher, E. R, and Jones, R. K., 1973, “Safe distances from underwater explosions for mammals and birds. Technical Report DNA 3114T”, Defense Nuclear Agency, Department of Defense, Washington, D.C.

/418/ Watts, B. and Bradshaw, D. S., 1994, “The influence of human disturbance on the location of Great Blue Heron colonies in the Lower Chesapeake Bay”, Colonial Waterbirds, Vol. 17, pp. 184- 186.

/419/ Mensing, D. M., Galatowitsch, S. M. and Tester, J. R., 1998, “Anthropogenic effects on the biodiversity of riparian wetlands of a northern temperate landscape”, Journal of Environmental Management, Vol. 53, pp. 349- 377.

/420/ Ruddock, M. and Whitfield, D. P., 2007, “A Review of Disturbance Distances in Selected Bird Species”, (Ed: Scottish Natural Heritage).

/421/ Dierschke, V., Garthe, S and Mendel, B., 2006, “Possible Conflicts between Offshore Wind Farms and Seabirds in the German Sectors of North Sea and Baltic Sea” in Offshore Wind Energy. Research on Environmental Impacts (Eds: Köller, Köppel and Peters), Springer Heidelberg. Environmental impact assessment report | References 747|

/422/ Kala- ja Vesitutkimus Oy, Mikkola-Roos, M. and Hirvonen, H., 1996, “Toukolanranta, rakentamisen ympäristövaikutukset. Ekologinen näkökulma II”.

/423/ Common Wadden Sea Secretariat, 1998 “Stade-deklarationen. Den trilaterale Vadehavsplan. Ministererklæring fra Den 8. Trilaterale Regeringskonference om Vadehavets Beskyttelse. (With an English summary)”.

/424/ Aarhus Amt, 2003, “Udvidelse af Grenaa Havn. Forslag til tillæg til Regionplan 2001 og vurdering af anlæggets virkninger på miljøet (VVM)”.

/425/ Møller, A. L. and Edelvang, K., 2000, “Havmøllepark ved Rødsand, VVMredegørelse, Baggrundsrapport nr. 1”, Dansk Hydraulisk Institut.

/426/ Furness, R. W., 2003, “Impact of fisheries on seabird communities”, Sci. Mar., Vol. 67, pp. 33 - 45.

/427/ Inkala, A., 2008, “Vuosaaren sataman läjitystoiminnan ja hiekanoton mallisimuloinnit 2003 - 2007”, Suomen Ympäristövaikutusten Arviointikeskus (YVA) Oy.

/428/ Madsen, J., Madsen, A. B., and Petersen, I. K., 1999, “Indpasning af rekreative aktiviteter i forhold til fugleliv og odder i Skjern Å Naturprojekt - en biologisk udredning (Fitting in recreative activities to bird life and otter in the River Skjern Nature Project – a biological account)”, DMU, http://www2.dmu.dk/1_viden/2_Publikationer/3_ fagrapporter/rapporter/fr275.pdf.

/429/ Det Norske Veritas, 2006, “Interference between Trawl Gear and Pipelines”.

/430/ Institute of Marine Research, 1993, “Trawling across 40” pipeline - effects on trawl gear”, Institute of Marine Research (Norway), Fisken og Havet, Ch. 11.

/431/ Bundesforchungsanstalt für fischerei, 1995, “Schleppversuche mit Grundschleppnetzen an der Gasleitung “Zeepipe” im bBereich des deutschen Festlandsockels der Nordsee.”.

/432/ Det Norske Veritas, 2008, “Report on overtrawlability of exposed pipelines”.

/433/ Sintef, 2009, “Report on scale model tests on overtrawlability of the Nord Stream pipelines”.

/434/ Ministry of Defence, Finland, 2008, “The Finnish Ministry of Defence comments to the EIA-draft of the Nord Stream AG”.

/435/ Nord Stream AG, 2008-8-28, “Personal communication with Jussi Kohtanen, Morenia, Finland”, Received by LandPro Oy, Mikko Wikström. 748 | Environmental impact assessment report | References

/436/ Varsinais-Suomen liitto, 2007, “Varsinais-Suomen tuulivoimaselvitys – Teknistalou­del­ li­nen esiselvitys ja maisemavaikutusten arviointi”.

/437/ Edney, J., 2006, “Impacts of recreational scuba diving on shipwrecks in Australia and the Pacific”, Micronesion - Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences, Vol. 5.

/438/ Nord Stream AG, 2007-9-11, “Personal communication with Uwe Weichenhain (Nord Stream) dated 28 August 2007 and 11 September 2007”, Received by Ramboll Denmark A/S, Christine Husum.

/439/ Snamprogetti, 2008, “Design Basis”, Ch. LA-E-09302, G-GE-PIE-REP-102- 00009302_02.

/440/ DHI, 2008, “Impact of contaminants and nutrients from seabed intervention works, pipelay and anchor handling. DHI Note for Ramboll Danmark A/S”.

/441/ RAIS, 12-8-2006, “RAIS (Risk Assessment Information System).”, http://rais.ornl.gov/ .

/442/ Baars, S. J., Theelen, R., Janssen, P., Hesse, J., Meijerink, M., Verdam, L., and Zeilmaker, M., 2001, “Re-evaluation of human-toxicological maximum permissible risk levels”.

/443/ EFSA, 2004, “Opinion of the scientific panel on contaminants in the food chain on a reguest from the commission to assess the health risks to consumers associated with exposure to organotins in foodstuffs”, The EFSA Journal, Vol. 102, pp. 1 - 114.

/444/ The National Health Institute, 2000, “Ravitsemuskertomus. The National Health Institute Publications B1/2001. (In Finnish)”.

/445/ The National Health Institute, 1998, “Finravinto 1997 -tutkimus. The 1997 Dietary Survey of Finnish Adults. The National Health Institute Publications B8/1998. (In Finnish)”.

/446/ Finnish Food Safety Authority (EVIRA), 2006, “Dietary advice on fish consumption”, http://www.evira.fi/portal/en/food/information_on_food/recommendations/dietary_ advice_on_fish_consumption/ , Date accessed: 2008.

/447/ Lodge, K. B., 2002, “The measurement of the organic-carbon normalized partition coefficient,Koc, for dioxin from contaminated sediment.”, Advances in Environmental Research, Vol. 7, pp. 147 - 156.

/448/ U.S Department of Health and Human Services, 2004, “Guidance Manual for the Assessment of Joint Toxic Action of Chemical Mixtures. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, Division of Toxicology.”. Environmental impact assessment report | References 749|

/449/ Sosiaali- ja terveysalan tutkimus- ja kehittämiskeskus (STAKES), 16-10-2007, “Huoli ja epävarmuus”, http://info.stakes.fi/iva/FI/Toteutus/Tunnistaminen/huoli.htm , Date accessed: 2008-10-16.

/450/ European Gas Pipeline Incident data Group (EGIG), 2008, http://www.egig.nl/ .

/451/ The US Central Intelligence Agency, 2008, “The world factbook”, https://www.cia.gov/ library/publications/the-world-factbook/index.html.

/452/ Australian Pipeline Industry Association website, 2008, http://www.apia.net.au/ .

/453/ Nord Stream AG, 2008, “Introduction to Health, Safety and Environmental (HSE) Management in Nord Stream AG.”.

/454/ Nord Stream AG, 2008, “HSE Activities Management Plan”.

/455/ Det Norske Veritas, 2003, “Risk Management in Marine and Subsea Operations. Recommended Practice.”.

/456/ HSE, 2001, “Reducing risks, Protecting people. HSE´s decision-making process”, http://www.hse.gov.uk/risk/theory/r2p2.pdf.

/457/ Global Maritime and Nord Stream AG, 2008, “Nord Stream Pipeline Project. Risk assessment - Construction Phase”.

/458/ Nord Stream AG and Ramboll, 2007, “Memo 4.10b - Risk assessment for the pipeline”, Nord Stream AG, Zug, Switzerland.

/459/ Nord Stream AG and Ramboll, 2007, “Memo 4.3n - Ship traffic”, Nord Stream AG, Zug, Switzerland.

/460/ HELCOM, 2006, “Report on shipping accidents in the Baltic Sea area for the year 2006.”, http://www.helcom.fi/stc/files/shipping/shipping_accidents_2006.pdf.

/461/ Ramboll and Nord Stream AG, 2008, “Trawling frequencies and risk to fishing vessels”, Ramboll Danmark A/S, Virum, Danmark.

/462/ Nord Stream AG and Snamprogetti, 2008, “Frequency of Interaction Report (Kalbådagrund)”.

/463/ Nord Stream AG and Snamprogetti, 2008, “Pipeline Damage Assessment against Commercial Ship Traffic Threats in the Finnish EEZ (Kalbådagrund Corridor Re-routing)”. 750 | Environmental impact assessment report | References

/464/ Nord Stream AG and Snamprogetti, 2008, “Nord Stream Pipeline Project. Risk Assessment Report for Finnish Area – Operational Phase (Kalbådagrund)”.

/465/ Nord Stream AG and Snamprogetti, 2008, “Pipeline Protection Design against Ship Traffic Related Threats”.

/466/ SMHI, 22-5-2008, “Ytvattentemperatur i havet”, http://www.smhi.se/cmp/jsp/polopoly. jsp?d=11122&l=sv , Date accessed: 2008-10-10.

/467/ IPCC, 2007, “IPCC fourth assessment report: Climate change 2007”.

/468/ United Nations, 2008, “Carbon dioxide emissions (CO2), thousand metric tons of CO2”, http://millenniumindicators.un.org/unsd/mdg/SeriesDetail.aspx?srid=749&crid , Date accessed: 2008-10-10.

/469/ Nord Stream AG and Ramboll, 2007, “Memo 4.3p - Air emissions and climate”, Nord Stream AG, Zug, Switzerland.

/470/ Det Norske Veritas, 2001, “Recommended Practice No DNV-RP-F107, Risk Assessment of Pipeline Protection”,

/471/ IMO, 19-10-1989, “Guidelines and Standards for the Removal of Offshore Installations and Structures on the Continental Shelf and in the Exclusive Economic Zone.”, http:// www.imo.org/Environment/mainframe.asp?topic_id=1026 , Date accessed: 2008.

/472/ IMO, 1972, “London Convention. Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and Other Matter”, http://www.imo.org/home.asp?topic_id=1488 , Date accessed: 2008.

/473/ OSPAR Commission, 1992, “Convention for the Protection of the marine Environment of the North-East Atlantic (the ‘OSPAR Convention’)”, http://www.ospar.org/content/ content.asp?menu=00310108000007_000000_000000.

/474/ Department of Trade and Industry (DTI), 1-9-2006, “Guidance Notes for Industry. Decommissioning of Offshore Installations and Pipelines under the Petroleum Act 1998”.

/475/ Oil & Gas, UK, 2008, “Legislative Framework”, http://www.oilandgas.org.uk/issues/ decommissioning/framework.cfm , Date accessed: 2008-10-15.

/476/ Woodside Energy Ltd, 2006, “Guidelines for Decommissioning of Offshore Pipelines and Facilities in Australian Waters.”.

/477/ Oil & Gas, UK, 2008, “Approved decommissioning programmes”, https://www.og.berr. gov.uk/upstream/decommissioning/programmes/approved.htm , Date accessed: 2008- 10 - 15. Environmental impact assessment report | References 751|

/478/ Department of Resources, Energy and Tourism, 2008, “Decommissioning Australia’s offshore oil and gas facilities: a discussion paper.”.

/479/ Gasunie and Witteveen+Bos, 2004, “Balgzand – Bacton Pipeline, Environmental Statement Complete Project. Volume 1: Main Report”.

/480/ Culik, B. M., Koschinski, S. and Ellis, G. M., 2001, “Reactions of harbour porpoises Phocoena phocoena and herring Clupea harengus to acoustic alarms”, Marine Ecology Progress Series, Vol. 211, pp. 255 - 260.

/481/ Cox, T. M., Read, A. J., Solow, A. and Tregenza, N., 2001, “Will harbour porpoises habituate to pingers?”, Cetacean Res. Manage, Vol. 3, pp. 81 - 86.

/482/ FIMR, 2008, “Gulf of Finland Reporting Master’s Guide”, http://www.fma.fi/e/functions/tr afficmanagement/?cat=gofrep&page=2 , Date accessed: 2008-10.

/483/ Valeur, J. R. and Pejrup, M., 1998, “Sedimentological Impact of Artificial Islands and Pits, Measured with Sediment Traps”, Journal of Coastal Research, Vol. 14, pp. 1334- 1342.

/484/ HELCOM, 2008, “Manual for Marine Monitoring in the COMBINE Programme of HELCOM”, http://www.helcom.fi/groups/monas/CombineManual/en_GB/main , Date accessed: 2008-10-8.

/485/ Finnish Standards Association, “Sampling of natural waters for determination of trace metals, SFS 5503”.

/486/ Finnish Standards Association, “Sampling of the bottom fauna and sediments on soft bottoms with tube sampler, SFS 5730”.

/487/ Finnish Standards Association, “Sampling of the bottom fauna on soft bottoms with an Ekman grab, SFS 5076”.

Appendices

Environmental impact assessment report | Appendices 1(1)|

LIST OF APPENDICES

APPENDIX I The Nord Stream AG organisation and shareholders

APPENDIX II Impact assessment matrix

APPENDIX III Rock placement locations and quantities

APPENDIX IV Methods used to describe environmental conditions

APPENDIX V Protected areas

APPENDIX V A Natura 2000 areas in Finnish project area

APPENDIX V B Finnish IBAs and national FINIBA areas in the project area with key bird species and most important season of stay

APPENDIX V C Finnish BSPA’s in the project area

APPENDIX V D Finnish RAMSAR areas in the project area

APPENDIX VI Social Impacts: Questionnary

APPENDIX VI A Cover letter for resident survey

APPENDIX VI B Resident survey on the assessment of the environmental impacts of the Nord Stream project in Finland

APPENDIX VI C Resident survey reminder letter, 8 August 2008

APPENDIX VI D Resident survey on the assessment of the environmental impacts of the Nord Stream project in Finland. Survey Results.

APPENDIX VII Barrels along the pipeline Route

APPENDIX VII A Barrels located along the pipeline Route C14 (Alternative 1)

APPENDIX VII B Barrels located along the pipeline Route C16 (Alternative 2)

APPENDIX VIII Coordinating authority statement on EIA program

APPENDIX IX List of additional material related to Nord Stream project

APPENDIX X List of EIA experts

APPENDIX XI Report on the water quality modelling of the Nord Stream gas pipe- line

APPENDIX XII Environmental considerations of the munitions clearance and bar- rels within the anchoring corridor

Appendix I

The Nord Stream AG organization and shareholders

Environmental impact assessment report | Appendix I 3(5)|

Appendix I: The Nord Stream AG organization and shareholders

Gazprom

Gazprom is the largest gas-producing company in the world. It is listed on the Moscow Stock Exchange, and 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 produc- tion.

With 44,650 billion cubic metres (bcm), Russia has 25.2 % of the world’s known natural gas reserves. Russia’s natural gas reserves are thus the largest quantity of confirmed natural gas reserves in a single territorial area in the world. Gazprom owns 60% of Russia’s natural gas reserves, which equates to approximately 15 % of the confirmed global natural gas resources. 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. As a consequence of this pipeline network ownership, Gazprom has particu- larly strong competencies in the operation of natural gas pipeline networks. When its subsi- diaries are included, Gazprom is responsible for the operation of 463,000 km of the Russian pipeline and distribution network. Here, Gazprom has competencies that are purely operatio- nal as well as competencies in the field of continual optimisation of the pipeline network.

Gazprom is also active in the planning and construction of natural gas pipelines. In addition to experience with onshore pipelines on the Russian mainland, Gazprom has competencies of particular relevance to Nord Stream in the construction of offshore pipelines.

In 2005, the Blue Stream pipeline, a joint project of Gazprom and Eni S.p.A., an Italian multi- national oil and gas company with a government share of 30 %, was officially inaugurated. 4(5) | Environmental impact assessment report | Appendix I

This pipeline runs from Izobilnoye in Russia to Ankara in Turkey, and 386 km of its total length runs crosses the Black Sea. This offshore section is shorter than the Nord Stream pipeline route, but was no less technically demanding. The maximum depth of the Blue Stream pipeli- ne is 2,150 m, many times deeper than the maximum laying depth of the Nord Stream pipeli- nes, the deepest point of which would be approximately 210 m. Moreover, high concentrations of hydrogen sulphide in the Black Sea posed unique challenges to the construction and mate- rial properties of the Blue Stream pipeline. From this and other projects, Gazprom has gained specific offshore expertise that the Nord Stream pipeline system project will benefit from under the particular circumstances and environmental challenges 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. E.ON Ruhrgas employed appro- ximately 12,700 people in 2006 and delivered 62 bcm of natural gas. Through experience as builder and operator of a long-distance pipeline network, E.ON Ruhrgas has gained compre- hensive, relevant expertise.

E.ON Ruhrgas has acquired competencies that are particularly relevant to Nord Stream, with involvement in important European offshore pipelines in the North Sea, including the Interconnector UK pipeline (IUK) between the United Kingdom and Belgium; the Balgzand- Bacton Line pipeline (BBL) between the northern Netherlands and the United Kingdom; and the Seal offshore pipeline from Elgin/Franklin in the central North Sea to Bacton. In 2007, the German gas industry received 15 % of its supplies from indigenous fields, 48 % from west European sources (Norway, the Netherlands, Denmark, the United Kingdom, excluding German output), and 37 % from Russia.

Wintershall

Wintershall Holding AG (Wintershall) is a 100 %-owned subsidiary of BASF SE. For more than 75 years, Wintershall has been active in the exploration and extraction of oil and natural gas in various regions of the world (today in Europe, North Africa, South America, Russia and the Caspian Sea region). More than 60 % of the natural gas and oil extracted by Wintershall is produced from deposits in which the company itself acts as operator. During natural-gas extraction in the Dutch North Sea, Wintershall acquired wide-ranging competencies in the field of offshore pipeline engineering.

The natural gas trade, which Wintershall conducts via WINGAS GmbH & Co. KG (hereinafter ‘WINGAS’) with its Russian partner Gazprom, is, after exploration and production, the second area of work for Wintershall. WINGAS has been active in gas supply since 1993 and delivers natural gas to public services, regional gas suppliers, industry power stations in Germany Environmental impact assessment report | Appendix I 5(5)|

and elsewhere in Europe through the newly built pipeline network of WINGAS TRANSPORT GmbH & Co. KG, which 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 Net­ herlands. The company’s headquarters is in Groningen. Gasunie has more than 40 years’ experience in the construction and operation of natural gas pipelines. The company speciali- ses in infrastructure projects in the field of natural gas supply, and its main areas of business are management, operation and development of the national transport network; construction and maintenance of the national transport network; and participation in international projects. Gasunie acts as a regional natural gas distribution hub transporting gas from source count- ries including Norway and Russia to customers in Germany, Netherlands and the UK. They are also developing a Liquified Natural Gas terminal in Rotterdam as part of a Joint Venture. The business employed approximately 1,480 people in 2006 and transported 96 bcm of natu- ral gas.

Gasunie was responsible for the construction of the BBL pipeline, which was completed in December 2006. Gasunie indirectly owns 60% of the shares in this project and in opera- tor company BBL Company. As such, Gasunie is primarily responsible for the operation and maintenance of the BBL pipeline, 230 km of which cross the North Sea, connecting Balgzand (Netherlands) and Bacton (UK).

Summary of competencies in Nord Stream AG

In addition to the employees of the above-mentioned shareholders, Nord Stream AG emp- loys experienced international experts from 17 countries. Nord Stream AG also works with leading European advisors from the fields of environment, technology and finance. In interna- tional tenders, contractors with many years of experience were selected for individual assign- ment areas.

Nord Stream AG also employs many European contractors. For example, the Danish compa- ny Rambøll has been engaged for environmental assessment and permitting, and the Italian company SES has been engaged for engineering services. In the field of project certificati- on, the independent foundation Det Norske Veritas (DNV), based in Oslo, was commissio- ned. The Swedish company Marin Mätteknik AB (MMT) is conducting munitions surveys on the planned pipeline route. Other environmental surveys and field studies were conducted by well-known international companies like Geological Survey of Sweden (SGU), PeterGaz/ Russia, 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 company United Metallurgical Company (OMK) will supply the remaining 25%. For the laying work, a letter of intent has been signed with the company Saipem, registered in London.

Appendix II

Impact assessment matrix 2(15) | Environmental impact assesment report | Appendix II

Appendix II: Impact assessment matrix

Impact Project Impact Activity Impact assessment target phase Quality Type Reversibility Importance Extent Duration Impact significance Positive Direct Reversible Low Local Short No impact Negative Indirect Partly rever­ Medium Regional Medium Minor Positive and Direct and sible High National Long Moderate Significant negative indirect Irreversible Permanent Munitions clearance Partly Creation of depressions on seabed Offshore pipelaying Negative Direct Low Local Medium Minor – No Impact rever­sible Anchor handling

Cons­- Creation of elevations on seabed Rock placement Negative Direct Irreversible Low Local Permanent Minor truction Rock placement Net sedimentation of released sedi­ Munitions clearance Partly Negative Direct Low Local Medium Minor ments Offshore pipelaying reversible Seabed Anchor handling Occupation of seabed Negative Direct Irreversible Low Local Permanent Minor Change in sedimentation/erosion pat­ Pipe on seabed and gas flowing ------Minor – No Impact terns Ope­- Temperature change in seabed ------No impact ration Creation of elevations of gravel on sea­ Maintenance rock placement as required ------No impact bed Net sedimentation of released sedi­ ------Minor – No Impact ments Munitions clearance Suspension and spreading of sedi­ Rock placement Direct - Medium - Local - Negative Reversible Short Minor ments, nutrients and contaminants Offshore pipelaying Indirect High Regional Anchor handling

Physical and chemical environment Cons­- Munitions clearance truction Rock placement Nutrient discharge due to waste water Pipe supply ------Not assessed in the EIA on board of vessels Offshore pipelaying Hyperbaric tie-in Water Anchor handling quality Release of contaminants from pipeline - - - - Local - Minor

Temperature change in water by gas Pipe on seabed and gas flowing ------No impact flowing

Change in currents close to the pipeline ------No impact Ope­- ration Monitoring and surveying Nutrient discharge due to waste water Not assessed in the EIA on board of vessels Maintenance rock placement as required

Suspension and spreading of sedi­ Maintenance rock placement as required ------No impact ments, nutrients and contaminants Environmental impact assesment report | Appendix II 3(15)|

Impact Project Impact Activity Impact assessment target phase Quality Type Reversibility Importance Extent Duration Impact significance Positive Direct Reversible Low Local Short No impact Negative Indirect Partly rever­ Medium Regional Medium Minor Positive and Direct and sible High National Long Moderate Significant negative indirect Irreversible Permanent Munitions clearance Partly Creation of depressions on seabed Offshore pipelaying Negative Direct Low Local Medium Minor – No Impact rever­sible Anchor handling

Cons­- Creation of elevations on seabed Rock placement Negative Direct Irreversible Low Local Permanent Minor truction Rock placement Net sedimentation of released sedi­ Munitions clearance Partly Negative Direct Low Local Medium Minor ments Offshore pipelaying reversible Seabed Anchor handling Occupation of seabed Negative Direct Irreversible Low Local Permanent Minor Change in sedimentation/erosion pat­ Pipe on seabed and gas flowing ------Minor – No Impact terns Ope­- Temperature change in seabed ------No impact ration Creation of elevations of gravel on sea­ Maintenance rock placement as required ------No impact bed Net sedimentation of released sedi­ ------Minor – No Impact ments Munitions clearance Suspension and spreading of sedi­ Rock placement Direct - Medium - Local - Negative Reversible Short Minor ments, nutrients and contaminants Offshore pipelaying Indirect High Regional Anchor handling

Physical and chemical environment Cons­- Munitions clearance truction Rock placement Nutrient discharge due to waste water Pipe supply ------Not assessed in the EIA on board of vessels Offshore pipelaying Hyperbaric tie-in Water Anchor handling quality Release of contaminants from pipeline - - - - Local - Minor

Temperature change in water by gas Pipe on seabed and gas flowing ------No impact flowing

Change in currents close to the pipeline ------No impact Ope­- ration Monitoring and surveying Nutrient discharge due to waste water Not assessed in the EIA on board of vessels Maintenance rock placement as required

Suspension and spreading of sedi­ Maintenance rock placement as required ------No impact ments, nutrients and contaminants 4(15) | Environmental impact assesment report | Appendix II

Impact Project Impact Activity Impact assessment target phase Quality Type Reversibility Importance Extent Duration Impact significance

Munitions clearance Rock placement Cons­- Pipe supply Local - Emissions of air pollutants Negative Direct Reversible Low Long No impact - Minor truction Offshore pipe-laying National Air quality Hyperbaric tie-in Anchor handling Ope­- Monitoring and surveying Local - Emissions of air pollutants Negative Direct Reversible Low Long No impact ration Maintenance rock placement as required National Rock placement Pipe supply Airborne noise emissions Offshore pipe-laying Negative Direct Reversible Low Local Short Minor Hyperbaric tie-in Anchor handling Cons­- Munitions clearance truction Rock placement Pipe supply

Physical and chemical environment Underwater noise emissions Negative Direct Reversible Low Local Short Minor Noise Offshore pipe-laying Hyperbaric tie-in Anchor handling Monitoring and surveying Airborne noise emissions Maintenance rock placement as required Negative Direct Reversible Low Local Short No impact Ope­- Pipe on seabed and gas flowing ration Monitoring and surveying Reversible - Short - Underwater noise emissions Maintenance rock placement as required Negative Direct Low Local No impact Irreversible Permanent Pipe on seabed and gas flowing Environmental impact assesment report | Appendix II 5(15)|

Impact Project Impact Activity Impact assessment target phase Quality Type Reversibility Importance Extent Duration Impact significance

Munitions clearance Rock placement Cons­- Pipe supply Local - Emissions of air pollutants Negative Direct Reversible Low Long No impact - Minor truction Offshore pipe-laying National Air quality Hyperbaric tie-in Anchor handling Ope­- Monitoring and surveying Local - Emissions of air pollutants Negative Direct Reversible Low Long No impact ration Maintenance rock placement as required National Rock placement Pipe supply Airborne noise emissions Offshore pipe-laying Negative Direct Reversible Low Local Short Minor Hyperbaric tie-in Anchor handling Cons­- Munitions clearance truction Rock placement Pipe supply

Physical and chemical environment Underwater noise emissions Negative Direct Reversible Low Local Short Minor Noise Offshore pipe-laying Hyperbaric tie-in Anchor handling Monitoring and surveying Airborne noise emissions Maintenance rock placement as required Negative Direct Reversible Low Local Short No impact Ope­- Pipe on seabed and gas flowing ration Monitoring and surveying Reversible - Short - Underwater noise emissions Maintenance rock placement as required Negative Direct Low Local No impact Irreversible Permanent Pipe on seabed and gas flowing 6(15) | Environmental impact assesment report | Appendix II

Impact Project Impact Activity Impact assessment target phase Quality Type Reversibility Importance Extent Duration Impact significance

Munitions clearance Changes of benthos due to direct Rock placement Partly Negative Direct Low Local Medium Minor impact on seabed Offshore pipelaying reversible Cons­- Anchor handling truction Munitions clearance Changes of benthos due to resuspen­ Rock placement Local - Negative Direct Reversible Low Medium Minor sion of sediment Offshore pipelaying Regional

Benthic Anchor handling environ­ Occupation of benthic habitat areas by Negative Direct Irreversible Low Local Permanent Minor ment the pipeline

Creation of new hard substrate habitats ------No impact

Change in sedimentation / erosion pat­ Pipe on seabed and gas flowing ------No impact Ope­- terns ration Release of contaminants from pipeline - - - - Local Permanent Minor materials Temperature change in seabed ------No impact Changes in benthic communities due to Maintenance rock placement as required ------No impact maintenance rock placement

Disturbance of planktonic biota due to Munitions clearance Reversible – Cons­- Short - spreading of sediments, nutrients and Rock placement Negative Direct Partly Low Local MInor Planktonic truction Medium contaminants Anchor handling reversible environ­ ment Disturbance of planktonic biota due to Ope­- Pipe on seabed and gas flowing spreading of sediments, nutrients and ------No impact

Biological environment ration contaminants Maintenance rock placement as required Munitions clearance Avoidance reactions due to spreading Rock placement Negative Direct Reversible Low Local Short Minor of sediments Anchor handling Munitions clearance Effects in eggs due to spreading of sed­ Rock placement Negative Direct Reversible Low Local Short Minor - No impact Cons­- iments and sedimentation truction Anchor handling Munitions clearance Effects in fish due to release of contam­ Direct - Rock placement Negative Reversible Low Local Short No impacts inants Indirect Fish and Anchor handling fish stocks Fish kills due to mine clearance Munitions clearance Negative Direct Reversible Low Local Short Minor

Disturbance from noise of gas flowing Negative Direct Irreversible Low Local Permanent No impacts Pipe on seabed and gas flowing Positive – Direct - Creation of artificial reef Irreversible Low Local Permanent Minor Negative Indirect Ope­- Disturbance from noise of monito­ring ration Monitoring and surveying ------No impacts pig Around pipeline restricted area for fish­ Restriction zone ------No impacts ing - sheltered area Spreading of sediment Maintenance rock placement as required Negative Direct Reversible Low Local Short Minor Environmental impact assesment report | Appendix II 7(15)|

Impact Project Impact Activity Impact assessment target phase Quality Type Reversibility Importance Extent Duration Impact significance

Munitions clearance Changes of benthos due to direct Rock placement Partly Negative Direct Low Local Medium Minor impact on seabed Offshore pipelaying reversible Cons­- Anchor handling truction Munitions clearance Changes of benthos due to resuspen­ Rock placement Local - Negative Direct Reversible Low Medium Minor sion of sediment Offshore pipelaying Regional

Benthic Anchor handling environ­ Occupation of benthic habitat areas by Negative Direct Irreversible Low Local Permanent Minor ment the pipeline

Creation of new hard substrate habitats ------No impact

Change in sedimentation / erosion pat­ Pipe on seabed and gas flowing ------No impact Ope­- terns ration Release of contaminants from pipeline - - - - Local Permanent Minor materials Temperature change in seabed ------No impact Changes in benthic communities due to Maintenance rock placement as required ------No impact maintenance rock placement

Disturbance of planktonic biota due to Munitions clearance Reversible – Cons­- Short - spreading of sediments, nutrients and Rock placement Negative Direct Partly Low Local MInor Planktonic truction Medium contaminants Anchor handling reversible environ­ ment Disturbance of planktonic biota due to Ope­- Pipe on seabed and gas flowing spreading of sediments, nutrients and ------No impact

Biological environment ration contaminants Maintenance rock placement as required Munitions clearance Avoidance reactions due to spreading Rock placement Negative Direct Reversible Low Local Short Minor of sediments Anchor handling Munitions clearance Effects in eggs due to spreading of sed­ Rock placement Negative Direct Reversible Low Local Short Minor - No impact Cons­- iments and sedimentation truction Anchor handling Munitions clearance Effects in fish due to release of contam­ Direct - Rock placement Negative Reversible Low Local Short No impacts inants Indirect Fish and Anchor handling fish stocks Fish kills due to mine clearance Munitions clearance Negative Direct Reversible Low Local Short Minor

Disturbance from noise of gas flowing Negative Direct Irreversible Low Local Permanent No impacts Pipe on seabed and gas flowing Positive – Direct - Creation of artificial reef Irreversible Low Local Permanent Minor Negative Indirect Ope­- Disturbance from noise of monitoring­ ration Monitoring and surveying ------No impacts pig Around pipeline restricted area for fish­ Restriction zone ------No impacts ing - sheltered area Spreading of sediment Maintenance rock placement as required Negative Direct Reversible Low Local Short Minor 8(15) | Environmental impact assesment report | Appendix II

Impact Project Impact Activity Impact assessment target phase Quality Type Reversibility Importance Extent Duration Impact significance

Munitions clearance Rock placement Disturbance / damage due to noise and Pipe supply Negative Indirect Reversible Medium - Short Minor – No impacts pressure waves Cons­- Offshore pipe-laying truction Anchor handling Munitions clearance Disturbance due to spreading of sedi­ Direct - Marine Rock placement - - - Local Short No impacts mammals ments and release of contaminants Indirect Anchor handling

Pipeline on seabed and gas flowing Disturbance due to noise and pressure ------No impacts Ope­- waves Monitoring and surveying ration Maintenance rock placement as required Disturbance due to spreading of sedi­ Maintenance rock placement as required ------No impacts ments and release of contaminants Munitions clearance Rock placement Disturbance due to noise and visu­ Direct - Short - al impact from increased vessel move­ Pipe supply Negative Reversible Low Local Minor Indirect Medium ment

Biological environmen Offshore pipe-laying Anchor handling Munitions clearance Cons­- Disturbance due to spreading of sedi­ Rock placement truction Negative Direct Reversible Low Local Short Minor - No impacts ments and release of contaminants Offshore pipe-laying Seabirds Anchor handling Munitions clearance Disturbance due to reduced feeding Kiviaineksen kasaaminen Negative Indirect Reversible Low Local Short No impact base Offshore pipe-laying Anchor handling Disturbance due to noise and visual Monitoring and surveying impact from increased vessel move­ ------No impact Ope­- ment Maintenance rock placement as required ration Disturbance due to spreading of sedi­ Maintenance rock placement as required ------No impact ments and release of contaminants Environmental impact assesment report | Appendix II 9(15)|

Impact Project Impact Activity Impact assessment target phase Quality Type Reversibility Importance Extent Duration Impact significance

Munitions clearance Rock placement Disturbance / damage due to noise and Pipe supply Negative Indirect Reversible Medium - Short Minor – No impacts pressure waves Cons­- Offshore pipe-laying truction Anchor handling Munitions clearance Disturbance due to spreading of sedi­ Direct - Marine Rock placement - - - Local Short No impacts mammals ments and release of contaminants Indirect Anchor handling

Pipeline on seabed and gas flowing Disturbance due to noise and pressure ------No impacts Ope­- waves Monitoring and surveying ration Maintenance rock placement as required Disturbance due to spreading of sedi­ Maintenance rock placement as required ------No impacts ments and release of contaminants Munitions clearance Rock placement Disturbance due to noise and visu­ Direct - Short - al impact from increased vessel move­ Pipe supply Negative Reversible Low Local Minor Indirect Medium ment

Biological environmen Offshore pipe-laying Anchor handling Munitions clearance Cons­- Disturbance due to spreading of sedi­ Rock placement truction Negative Direct Reversible Low Local Short Minor - No impacts ments and release of contaminants Offshore pipe-laying Seabirds Anchor handling Munitions clearance Disturbance due to reduced feeding Kiviaineksen kasaaminen Negative Indirect Reversible Low Local Short No impact base Offshore pipe-laying Anchor handling Disturbance due to noise and visual Monitoring and surveying impact from increased vessel move­ ------No impact Ope­- ment Maintenance rock placement as required ration Disturbance due to spreading of sedi­ Maintenance rock placement as required ------No impact ments and release of contaminants 10(15) | Environmental impact assesment report | Appendix II

Impact Project Impact Activity Impact assessment target phase Quality Type Reversibility Importance Extent Duration Impact significance

Munitions clearance Rock placement Indirect - Suspension of sediments Negative Reversible Low Local Short No impact - Minor Offshore pipe-laying Direct Anchor-handling Munitions clearance Re-sedimentation of released sedi­ Rock placement Indirect - Negative Reversible Low Local Short No impact - Minor Cons­- ments Offshore pipe-laying Direct truction Anchor-handling Protected Munitions clearance areas Protected areas Rock placement Pipe supply Noise and visual disturbance Negative Direct Reversible Low Local Short No impact Offshore pipe-laying Hyperbaric tie-in Anchor-handling Pipelines on seabed and gas flowing Ope­- Direct – Short - Noise and visual disturbance Monitoring and surveying Negative Reversible Low Local No impact ration Indirect Permanent Maintenance rock placement as required Munitions clearance Rock placement Cons­- Medium - Sailing restrictions in safety zones Pipe supply Negative Direct Reversible Low Local Minor truction Short Offshore pipelaying Ship traffic Hyperbaric tie-in Monitoring and surveying Sailing restrictions in safety zones Negative Direct Reversible Low Local Short No impact Ope­- Maintenance rock placement as required ration Safety problem Pipe on seabed and gas flowing ------Restrictions zones hindering ship traffic Restriction zone ------Munitions clearance Rock placement Safety zone preventing fishing activities Pipe supply Negative Direct Reversible Low Local Short Minor Offshore pipelaying Cons­- Hyperbaric tie-in truction Munitions clearance Rock placement Socio-economic environment Avoidance reactions by fish Negative Direct Reversible Low Local Short Minor Fishery Offshore pipelaying Anchor-handling Regional - Hampering bottom trawling Negative Direct Irreversible Medium Permanent Moderate Pipe on seabed and gas flowing Local Damage to fishing gear ------No impact Ope­- ration Monitoring and surveying Safety zone preventing fishing activities Restriction zone ------No impact Maintenance rock placement as required Environmental impact assesment report | Appendix II 11(15)|

Impact Project Impact Activity Impact assessment target phase Quality Type Reversibility Importance Extent Duration Impact significance

Munitions clearance Rock placement Indirect - Suspension of sediments Negative Reversible Low Local Short No impact - Minor Offshore pipe-laying Direct Anchor-handling Munitions clearance Re-sedimentation of released sedi­ Rock placement Indirect - Negative Reversible Low Local Short No impact - Minor Cons­- ments Offshore pipe-laying Direct truction Anchor-handling Protected Munitions clearance areas Protected areas Rock placement Pipe supply Noise and visual disturbance Negative Direct Reversible Low Local Short No impact Offshore pipe-laying Hyperbaric tie-in Anchor-handling Pipelines on seabed and gas flowing Ope­- Direct – Short - Noise and visual disturbance Monitoring and surveying Negative Reversible Low Local No impact ration Indirect Permanent Maintenance rock placement as required Munitions clearance Rock placement Cons­- Medium - Sailing restrictions in safety zones Pipe supply Negative Direct Reversible Low Local Minor truction Short Offshore pipelaying Ship traffic Hyperbaric tie-in Monitoring and surveying Sailing restrictions in safety zones Negative Direct Reversible Low Local Short No impact Ope­- Maintenance rock placement as required ration Safety problem Pipe on seabed and gas flowing ------Restrictions zones hindering ship traffic Restriction zone ------Munitions clearance Rock placement Safety zone preventing fishing activities Pipe supply Negative Direct Reversible Low Local Short Minor Offshore pipelaying Cons­- Hyperbaric tie-in truction Munitions clearance Rock placement Socio-economic environment Avoidance reactions by fish Negative Direct Reversible Low Local Short Minor Fishery Offshore pipelaying Anchor-handling Regional - Hampering bottom trawling Negative Direct Irreversible Medium Permanent Moderate Pipe on seabed and gas flowing Local Damage to fishing gear ------No impact Ope­- ration Monitoring and surveying Safety zone preventing fishing activities Restriction zone ------No impact Maintenance rock placement as required 12(15) | Environmental impact assesment report | Appendix II

Impact Project Impact Activity Impact assessment target phase Quality Type Reversibility Importance Extent Duration Impact significance

Munitions clearance Rock placement Cons­- Restricted use of military area Pipe supply Negative Direct Reversible Low Local Short Minor Military truction Offshore pipelaying areas Anchor-handling Ope­- Monitoring and surveying Restricted use of military area Negative Direct Reversible Low Local Short No impact ration Maintenance rock placement as required Munitions clearance Agreement procedure with cable Rock placement Negative Direct Reversible - - Short No impact - Minor owners Offshore pipe-laying Anchor-handling Cons­- Munitions clearance Existing/ truction Interference with wind park areas Rock placement Negative Direct Reversible - Local Short No impact planned infrastruc­ Offshore pipe-laying ture and Munitions clearance utilization Interference with extraction activities Rock placement Negative Direct Reversible Low Local Short No impact of natural resources Offshore pipe-laying Agreement procedure with cable Maintenance rock placement as required Negative Direct Reversible - - Short No impact - Minor owners Ope­- Occupation of seabed - restricts area Negative Direct Irreversible - Local Permanent Minor ration from wind parks Socio-economic environment Pipeline on seabed and gas flowing Occupation of seabed – restricts area Negative Direct Irreversible - Local Permanent No impact - Minor from raw material extraction Munitions clearance Cons­- Mechanical damage of cultural heritage Rock placement Direct - Long - Negative Irreversible Medium Local Minor – No impact truction on sea floor (shipwrecks) Offshore pipe-laying Indirect Permanent Anchor-handling Cultural Changes in sedimentation patterns Maintenance rock placement as required Positive – heritage Indirect Irreversible Medium Local Long No impacts impacting cultural heritage Pipeline on seabed and gas flowing Negative Ope­- Mechanical damage of cultural heritage Maintenance rock placement as required ------No impacts ration on sea floor (shipwrecks)

Corrosion effects Pipeline on seabed and gas flowing ------No impacts

Cons­- Release of contaminants and bioaccu­ Munitions clearance Partly Negative Indirect - Local Medium No impacts Human truction mulation in humans Rock placement reversible health Ope­- Release of contaminants and bioaccu­ Pipe on seabed and gas flowing ------No impacts ration mulation in humans Environmental impact assesment report | Appendix II 13(15)|

Impact Project Impact Activity Impact assessment target phase Quality Type Reversibility Importance Extent Duration Impact significance

Munitions clearance Rock placement Cons­- Restricted use of military area Pipe supply Negative Direct Reversible Low Local Short Minor Military truction Offshore pipelaying areas Anchor-handling Ope­- Monitoring and surveying Restricted use of military area Negative Direct Reversible Low Local Short No impact ration Maintenance rock placement as required Munitions clearance Agreement procedure with cable Rock placement Negative Direct Reversible - - Short No impact - Minor owners Offshore pipe-laying Anchor-handling Cons­- Munitions clearance Existing/ truction Interference with wind park areas Rock placement Negative Direct Reversible - Local Short No impact planned infrastruc­ Offshore pipe-laying ture and Munitions clearance utilization Interference with extraction activities Rock placement Negative Direct Reversible Low Local Short No impact of natural resources Offshore pipe-laying Agreement procedure with cable Maintenance rock placement as required Negative Direct Reversible - - Short No impact - Minor owners Ope­- Occupation of seabed - restricts area Negative Direct Irreversible - Local Permanent Minor ration from wind parks Socio-economic environment Pipeline on seabed and gas flowing Occupation of seabed – restricts area Negative Direct Irreversible - Local Permanent No impact - Minor from raw material extraction Munitions clearance Cons­- Mechanical damage of cultural heritage Rock placement Direct - Long - Negative Irreversible Medium Local Minor – No impact truction on sea floor (shipwrecks) Offshore pipe-laying Indirect Permanent Anchor-handling Cultural Changes in sedimentation patterns Maintenance rock placement as required Positive – heritage Indirect Irreversible Medium Local Long No impacts impacting cultural heritage Pipeline on seabed and gas flowing Negative Ope­- Mechanical damage of cultural heritage Maintenance rock placement as required ------No impacts ration on sea floor (shipwrecks)

Corrosion effects Pipeline on seabed and gas flowing ------No impacts

Cons­- Release of contaminants and bioaccu­ Munitions clearance Partly Negative Indirect - Local Medium No impacts Human truction mulation in humans Rock placement reversible health Ope­- Release of contaminants and bioaccu­ Pipe on seabed and gas flowing ------No impacts ration mulation in humans 14(15) | Environmental impact assesment report | Appendix II

Impact Project Impact Activity Impact assessment target phase Quality Type Reversibility Importance Extent Duration Impact significance

Munitions clearance Rock placement Noise and visual disturbance from Pipe supply Negative Direct Reversible Low Local Short No impacts increased vessel movement Offshore pipelaying Hyperbaric tie-in Anchor handling Munitions clearance Rock placement Cons­- Disturbance on yachting and passenger Pipe supply truction traffic due to sailing restrictions in safety Negative Direct Reversible Low Local Medium Minor – No impact zones and increased vessel movement Offshore pipelaying Tourism Hyperbaric tie-in and recre­ ation Anchor handling Munitions clearance Rock placement Sediment dispersal from construction Offshore pipelaying ------No impacts activities Hyperbaric tie-in Anchor handling Socio-economic environment Noise and visual disturbance from Monitoring and surveying ------No impacts increased vessel movement Maintenance rock placement as required Ope­- Monitoring and surveying ration Sailing restrictions in safety zones Restriction zones ------No impacts Maintenance rock placement as required Partly Long - Impacts on “sense of security” Negative Direct high National Moderate reversible Permanent Cons­- Impacts on civic confidence and com­ Partly truction Negative Indirect high National - Moderate Citizens munity relations reversible and All project activities Partly wellbeing Impacts on living environment - Indirect high Local - No impact ope­ reversible ration Partly Impacts on use of the area - Indirect high Local - No impact reversible Environmental impact assesment report | Appendix II 15(15)|

Impact Project Impact Activity Impact assessment target phase Quality Type Reversibility Importance Extent Duration Impact significance

Munitions clearance Rock placement Noise and visual disturbance from Pipe supply Negative Direct Reversible Low Local Short No impacts increased vessel movement Offshore pipelaying Hyperbaric tie-in Anchor handling Munitions clearance Rock placement Cons­- Disturbance on yachting and passenger Pipe supply truction traffic due to sailing restrictions in safety Negative Direct Reversible Low Local Medium Minor – No impact zones and increased vessel movement Offshore pipelaying Tourism Hyperbaric tie-in and recre­ ation Anchor handling Munitions clearance Rock placement Sediment dispersal from construction Offshore pipelaying ------No impacts activities Hyperbaric tie-in Anchor handling Socio-economic environment Noise and visual disturbance from Monitoring and surveying ------No impacts increased vessel movement Maintenance rock placement as required Ope­- Monitoring and surveying ration Sailing restrictions in safety zones Restriction zones ------No impacts Maintenance rock placement as required Partly Long - Impacts on “sense of security” Negative Direct high National Moderate reversible Permanent Cons­- Impacts on civic confidence and com­ Partly truction Negative Indirect high National - Moderate Citizens munity relations reversible and All project activities Partly wellbeing Impacts on living environment - Indirect high Local - No impact ope­ reversible ration Partly Impacts on use of the area - Indirect high Local - No impact reversible

Appendix III

Rock placement locations and quantities

Environmental impact assessment report | Appendix III 3(9)|

Appendix III: Rock placement locations and quantities

A summary of the rock placement expressed in terms of the amount of gravel to be supplied is shown in Table 1 (pre-lay) and Table 2 to Table 4 (post-lay).

Table 1. Overview of pre-lay rock placement (Phase 1) in the Finnish exclusive economic zone for Route Al- ternative 1 (C14) (dark grey), for Route Alternative 2 (C16) (light grey) and for both alternatives (white, based on KPs for Route Alternative 1).

KP UTM UTM Height Length Width Support Counterfill Volume m East North m m m m3 m3 m3

North-west pipeline

158,696 433050 6644313 1.2 5 12 138 0 138 161,385 430377 6644188 4.3 5 12 1,743 0 1,743 162,944 428831 6644048 3.7 5 12 865 5,145 6,010 163,212 428570 6643988 3.2 5 12 637 2,334 2,971 163,599 428193 6643902 2.6 5 12 630 0 630 163,717 428078 6643876 1.5 5 12 236 0 236 161,267 432871 6640639 4.1 5 12 1,388 0 1,388 161,339 432805 6640610 3 5 12 894 0 894 163,550 430830 6639625 4.5 5 12 1,838 0 1838 163,677 430709 6639586 6 5 12 2,316 8,452 10,768 220,053 373984 6636127 2.5 5 12 556 0 556 220,665 373431 6635862 3.6 5 12 1,247 0 1,247 232,101 363698 6630859 2.8 5 12 535 3,217 3,752 258,139 340213 6620343 5.6 5 12 2,039 5,363 7,402 258,271 340084 6620317 5.5 5 12 2,124 5,146 7,270 Total phase 1: 31,955 m3 (Route Alternative 1 [C14]) or 35,155 m3 (Route Alternative 2 [C16])

South-east pipeline

145,177 444905 6647673 1.7 5 12 345 0 345 161,382 430433 6643968 1.3 5 12 211 0 211 161,587 430249 6643878 1.3 5 12 165 0 165 162,913 429192 6643087 2.3 5 12 490 0 490 163,548 430810 6639555 4.6 5 12 1,898 0 1,898 221,118 373429 6635749 2 5 12 338 0 338 258,725 340067 6620093 3.4 5 12 748 2 094 2,842 258,873 339943 6620013 3.7 5 12 1,391 0 1,391 Total phase 1: 5,782 m3 (Route Alternative 1 [C14]) tai 6,469 m3 (Route Alternative 2 [C16]) 4(9) | Environmental impact assessment report | Appendix III

Table 2. Overview of post-lay rock placement (Phase 2) in the Finnish exclusive economic zone for Route Al- ternative 1 (C14) (gark grey), for Route Alternative 2 (C16) (lite grey) and for both alternatives (white, based on KPs for Route Alternative 1).

KP UTM UTM Height Lenght Width Support Counterfill Volume m East North m m m m3 m3 m3

North-west pipeline

145,655 444909 6647840 1.95 9 3 179 1,778 1,957 148,195 442988 6646191 2.39 18 3 385 2,057 2,442 158,754 432992 6644315 0.94 5 3 45 0 45 159,261 432488 6644270 2.33 10 3 249 2,347 2,596 159,497 432255 6644232 2.14 5 3 223 0 223 161,277 430483 6644210 2.32 20 3 397 1,317 1,714 161,520 430244 6644166 4.23 10 3 809 4,106 4,915 161,623 430142 6644155 2.63 10 3 327 945 1,272 161,735 430030 6644147 3.15 5 3 503 0 503 161,973 429793 6644146 1.57 13 3 155 989 1,144 162,080 429686 6644152 1.97 10 3 189 626 815 162,190 429576 6644154 1.33 18 3 157 416 573 162,799 428972 6644080 1.03 5 3 51 0 51 162,884 428890 6644061 1.00 5 3 49 0 49 163,547 428244 6643914 1.70 5 3 142 0 142 163,927 427873 6643829 2.88 5 3 464 0 464 164,034 427769 6643805 1.67 5 3 125 0 125 164,252 427557 6643756 3.01 5 3 507 0 507 164,454 427361 6643705 2.69 10 3 354 2,197 2,551 163,212* 428570 6643988 3.20 9 3 16 0 16 171,079 420990 6642417 3.64 10 3 606 3,388 3,994 155,901 438196 6640693 2.71 10 3 361 3,396 3,757 160,398 433706 6640869 2.88 10 3 372 1,879 2,251 161,093 433032 6640704 4.41 5 3 1,387 0 1,387 161,762 432417 6640441 4.64 5 3 1,346 0 1,346 163,390 430980 6639681 2.65 22 3 687 1,973 2,660 163,444 430929 6639661 5.46 20 3 2,118 6 163 8,281 163,677* 430709 6639586 6.00 10 3 45 0 45 164,137 430260 6639487 2.94 10 3 416 2 595 3,011 179,633 412736 6640940 2.36 10 3 206 1 091 1,297 184,674 407812 6640627 1.22 5 3 71 0 71 184,976 407519 6640696 1.40 5 3 93 0 93 187,321 405178 6640685 2.42 5 3 309 0 309 218,604 375311 6636701 0.85 5 3 36 0 36 219,632 374373 6636288 1.96 8 3 155 792 947 219,734 374276 6636253 1.28 20 3 163 292 455 219,934 374091 6636177 5.76 8 3 1,630 5 862 7,492 220,108 373934 6636103 1.82 10 3 181 739 920 220,913 373208 6635755 5.12 5 3 1,644 0 1,644 226,427 368012 6634437 2.36 10 3 256 753 1,009 Environmental impact assessment report | Appendix III 5(9)|

KP UTM UTM Height Lenght Width Support Counterfill Volume m East North m m m m3 m3 m3 228,737 366483 6632721 2.40 10 3 278 1,571 1,849 230,349 365215 6631726 1.91 10 3 173 937 1,110 232,101* 363698 6630859 2.80 7 3 5 0 5 233,927 362043 6630089 1.50 18 3 183 762 945 241,830 354614 6627756 1.28 18 3 132 525 657 248,145 348895 6625188 1.82 15 3 202 1,052 1,254 258,139* 340213 6620343 5.60 20 3 301 0 301 258,271* 340084 6620317 5.50 20 3 296 0 296 258,321 340035 6620308 3.39 10 3 546 2,473 3,019 259,623 338749 6620103 2.00 20 3 319 1,536 1,855 259,894 338482 6620059 2.06 5 3 185 0 185 260,026 338353 6620030 1.94 20 3 326 1,506 1,832 289,922 648081 6610910 3.10 10 3 435 1,685 2,120 427,842 518593 6567033 1.25 21 3 139 1,032 1,170 435,952 510833 6564976 2.22 16 3 317 1,304 1,621 437,755 509037 6565114 2.35 21 3 427 1,912 2,339 444,925 504284 6560323 2.66 25 3 695 2,237 2,932 445,168 504246 6560083 2.40 18 3 413 2,370 2,783 445,963 504125 6559297 2.79 23 3 665 2,140 2,805 446,095 504105 6559167 2.05 22 3 430 1,252 1,681 446,233 504084 6559031 2.83 20 3 664 3,786 4,450 449,571 503025 6555901 1.80 20 3 272 4,298 4,570

Total phase 2: 80,151 m3 (Route Alternative 1 [C14]) tai 76,791 m3 (Route Alternative 2 [C16]) * Locations where rock placement will have taken place during a previous phase.

South-east pipeline

136,730 452735 6650519 1.28 5 3 90 0 90 138,494 451059 6650024 4.23 15 3 925 1,149 2,074 145,075 444983 6647736 4.16 5 3 1,149 0 1,149 148,959 442268 6644961 1.82 5 3 161 0 161 158,601 433161 6643970 1.82 5 3 136 0 136 159,505 432278 6644149 2.1 5 3 236 0 236 161,652 430192 6643847 3.84 12 3 829 3,060 3,889 163,475 428817 6642669 1.22 5 3 71 0 71 164,052 428375 6642298 1.41 15 3 136 398 534 165,335 427201 6641804 2.36 5 3 302 0 302 155,415 438739 6639713 2.71 10 3 354 2,288 2,642 158,665 435584 6639288 3.12 5 3 563 0 563 158,914 435338 6639326 2.37 5 3 268 0 268 163,351 430993 6639629 2.09 24 3 480 4,771 5,251 166,981 427437 6639499 3.3 8 3 452 997 1,449 220,221 374261 6636078 1.94 5 3 171 0 171 220,545 373971 6635935 2.34 5 3 241 0 241 221,193 373357 6635729 3.06 5 3 1,454 0 1,454 224,718 370224 6634177 1.46 25 3 229 810 1,039 240,567 355968 6628393 1.43 5 3 99 0 99 258,508 340256 6620200 3.67 12 3 658 1,546 2,204 6(9) | Environmental impact assessment report | Appendix III

KP UTM UTM Height Lenght Width Support Counterfill Volume m East North m m m m3 m3 m3 258,625 340153 6620144 2.77 15 3 488 3,430 3,918 258,725* 340067 6620093 3.4 9 3 15 0 15 259,959 339147 6619278 2.64 15 3 450 1,408 1,858 260,379 338823 6619011 3.26 25 3 711 2,091 2,802 364,829 577754 6588292 2.52 16 3 419 2,848 3,267 365,532 577071 6588129 1.78 14 3 195 338 533 399,853 545179 6576357 1.24 22 3 200 412 612 412,552 533269 6572001 3.71 15 3 825 1,933 2,758 420,242 526011 6569851 2.8 15 3 512 2,922 3,434 424,675 521871 6568320 2.79 15 3 477 1,756 2,233 437,159 510063 6564627 2.92 15 3 519 2,817 3,336 437,807 509419 6564568 2.79 15 3 509 3,197 3,706 439,698 507573 6564156 3.12 15 3 604 3,190 3,794 445,509 504668 6559627 1.7 22 3 255 1,233 1,488 475,632 484790 6537564 2.42 15 3 382 1,320 1,702 477,610 483343 6536216 2.5 12 3 326 935 1,261 Total phase 2: 50,567 m3 (Route Alternative 1 [C14]) tai 54,262 m3 (Route Alternative 2 [C16]) * Locations where rock placement will have taken place during a previous phase.

Table 3. Overview of post-lay rock placement (Phase 3) in the Finnish exclusive economic zone for Route Al- ternative 1 (C14) (dark grey), for Route Alternative 2 (C16) (lite grey) and for both alternatives (white, based on KPs for Route Alternative 1).

KP UTM UTM Height Length Width Support Counterfill Volume m East North m m m m3 m3 m3

North-west pipeline

129,924 458814 6653167 1.70 5 3 136 0 136 130,602 458186 6653422 1.04 10 3 43 214 257 130,662 458130 6653445 3.70 5 3 487 1,815 2,301 134,655 454478 6652711 2.16 5 3 150 265 416 145,655* 444909 6647840 4.23 9 3 268 0 268 148,195* 442988 6646191 2.92 18 3 56 0 56 159,261* 432488 6644270 2.33 20 3 18 0 18 161,217 430542 6644223 2.39 50 3 1,954 0 1,954 161,385* 430377 6644188 4.30 35 3 4,300 0 4,300 161,520* 430244 6644166 4.49 30 3 210 0 210 161,623* 430142 6644155 3.77 10 3 160 0 160 162,080* 429686 6644152 3.09 10 3 108 0 108 162,944* 428831 6644048 3.70 10 3 6 0 6 163,177 428604 6643996 1.51 36 3 789 1,204 1,993 164,157 427649 6643777 2.24 5 3 594 0 594 171,079* 420990 6642417 4.13 20 3 176 0 176 148,552 444499 6644097 1.84 10 3 172 585 757 155,858 438239 6640692 3.42 10 3 561 1,156 1,717 156,040 438057 6640703 2.72 5 3 360 0 360 Environmental impact assessment report | Appendix III 7(9)|

KP UTM UTM Height Length Width Support Counterfill Volume m East North m m m m3 m3 m3 160,968 433150 6640745 2.93 22 3 633 1,183 1,816 161,200– 432919 6640659 2.95 30 3 1,837 0 1,837 161,230 161,299 432841 6640626 2.95 5 3 2,023 0 2,023 163,390* 430980 6639681 2.74 22 3 15 0 15 163,444* 430929 6639661 5.89 20 3 75 0 75 163,520– 430811 6639618 6.95 100 3 9,035 0 9,035 163,620 164,215– 430708 6639585 2.65 30 3 1,345 0 1,345 164,245 187,047 405452 6640695 3.10 5 3 457 0 457 220,053* 373984 6636127 3.20 5 12 361 1/3 361 220,108* 373934 6636103 2.95 10 3 56 0 56 219,934* 374091 6636177 6.03 8 3 61 0 61 228,737* 366483 6632721 2.89 10 3 28 0 28 231,918 363862 6630939 2.39 5 3 340 859 1,199 248,145* 348895 6625188 2.95 15 3 132 0 132 259,320 339049 6620145 2.78 5 3 501 0 501 259,498 338873 6620120 4.03 5 3 701 0 701 260,749 337678 6619775 2.28 5 3 263 0 263 332,154 608214 6597559 1.08 29 3 186 1,082 1,268 437,755* 509037 6565114 2.91 21 3 64 0 64 439,300 507577 6564661 2.88 5 3 254 306 561 439,851 507139 6564328 2.95 5 3 288 880 1,167 445,963* 504125 6559297 3.94 23 3 109 0 109 446,095* 504105 6559167 3.21 22 3 133 0 133 446,378 504062 6558887 2.77 5 3 257 802 1,059 449,763 502905 6555750 2.34 20 3 979 0 979 451,901 501388 6554245 2.34 30 3 1,218 0 1,218 474,962 485201 6538024 4.45 5 3 776 3,184 3,960 487,115 475813 6530344 4.08 5 3 622 2,077 2,699 Total phase 3: 29,927 m3 (Route Alternative 1 [C14]) tai 39,064 m3 (Route Alternative 2 [C16]) * Locations where rock placement will have taken place during a previous phase.

South-east pipeline

135,237 454223 6650461 5.15 5 3 1,750 0 1,750 136,438 453026 6650549 1.57 5 3 135 0 135 136,730* 452735 6650519 3.27 5 3 613 0 613 138,494* 451059 6650024 4.73 15 3 120 0 120 158,503 433254 6643939 2.55 5 3 120 0 120 158,751 433018 6644016 2.94 5 3 432 0 432 161,652* 430192 6643847 4.39 12 3 92 0 92 162,385 429578 6643445 2.36 5 3 180 297 477 162,793 429273 6643176 5.78 5 3 3,168 0 3,168 147,943 444564 6644023 2.62 8 3 290 1372 1,662 151,204 441578 6642762 2.50 20 3 463 552 1,015 151,389 441422 6642662 2.22 15 3 311 567 878 155,317 438820 6639768 3.93 5 3 941 0 941 8(9) | Environmental impact assessment report | Appendix III

KP UTM UTM Height Length Width Support Counterfill Volume m East North m m m m3 m3 m3 155,415* 438739 6639713 4.01 10 3 90 0 90 163,300– 431017 6639639 3.00 50 3 3,026 0 3 026 163,350 163,351* 430993 6639629 2.28 24 3 17 0 17 163,480– 430853 6639571 3.10 45 3 3,031 0 3 031 163,525 163,630– 430709 6639520 3.60 50 3 2,710 0 2 710 163,680 164,160 430222 6639392 3.15 5 3 575 0 575 183,329 409537 6640229 3.18 5 3 579 0 579 184,959 407933 6640512 3.52 5 3 791 0 791 186,961 405951 6640558 4.48 5 3 1,295 0 1,295 188,160 404761 6640447 2.15 5 3 253 0 253 216,406 377830 6637194 1.90 5 3 117 228 345 217,613 376631 6637106 2.69 15 3 450 660 1,110 220,835 373701 6635830 1.30 5 3 80 0 80 221,323 373232 6635693 1.34 5 3 153 0 153 228,562 366858 6632357 6.16 5 3 2,911 0 2,911 240,567* 355968 6628393 3.42 5 3 606 0 606 245,856 351483 6625912 1.75 5 3 102 74 176 246,069 351277 6625857 1.32 5 3 83 0 83 247,133 350290 6625461 2.24 5 3 252 0 252 258,508* 340256 6620200 4.27 12 3 70 0 70 258,625* 340153 6620144 3.00 15 3 20 0 20 260,302 338886 6619057 3.74 5 3 936 0 936 260,379* 338823 6619011 4.45 25 3 211 0 211 364,829* 577754 6588292 2.72 16 3 16 0 16 412,552* 533269 6572001 4,31 15 3 119 0 119 412,695 533144 6571933 3.51 5 3 439 1,144 1,583 417,435 528637 6570807 3.46 5 3 422 1,357 1,779 420,242* 526011 6569851 3.20 15 3 39 0 39 437,159* 510063 6564627 3.60 15 3 75 0 75 437,317 509905 6564622 3.50 5 3 421 1,100 1,521 437,807* 509419 6564568 3.49 15 3 72 0 72 439,698* 507573 6564156 3.82 15 3 91 0 91 440,805 506578 6563678 3.43 5 3 418 2,476 2,894 449,832 503021 6555693 2.56 5 3 212 478 690 464,827 492270 6545240 1.73 5 3 161 0 161 465,252 491965 6544944 1.48 5 3 110 0 110 468,430 489833 6542600 2.47 5 3 198 99 297 Total phase 3: 26,225 m3 (Route Alternative 1 [C14]) tai 35,881 m3 (Route Alternative 2 [C16]) * Locations where rock placement will have taken place during a previous phase. Environmental impact assessment report | Appendix III 9(9)|

Table 4. Overview of gravel works for on-bottom stability in the Finnish exclusive economic zone for all route alternatives (based on KPs for Route Alternative 1).

From KP To KP Length Volume From KP To KP Length Volume m m3 m m3

North-west pipeline South-east pipeline

304.547 304.55 4 75 301.288 301.29 3 68 352.548 352.55 2 53 301.408 301.41 3 68 354.556 354.561 3 64 301.528 301.53 3 68 359.719 359.722 2.5 58 301.648 301.65 3 68 359.972 359.974 2 53 301.768 301.77 3 68 360.074 360.077 2 53 307.302 307.302 2.5 58 360.177 360.179 2 53 307.617 307.619 3 64 360.454 360.457 2 53 307.719 307.722 3 64 360.629 360.632 2.5 58 307.822 307.824 3 64 360.749 360.752 2.5 58 307.922 307.927 3 64 360.869 360.872 2.5 58 358.367 358.369 2 53 361.129 361.132 2 53 358.497 358.499 2 53 366.67 366.675 5.5 91 359.452 359.454 2 53 366.77 366.775 5.5 91 360.192 360.194 2 53 366.868 366.873 5.5 91 360.697 360.699 2 53 366.968 366.973 5.5 91 361.207 361.209 2 53 367.069 367.074 5.5 91 - - - - Total: 1,144 m3 Total: 972 m3

Appendix IV

Methods used to describe environmental conditions

Environmental impact assessment report | Appendix IV 3 (37)|

Appendix IV: Methods used to describe environmental conditions

1 Geophysical surveys ...... 4 1.1 Introduction...... 4 1.2 Description of surveys...... 5 1.3 Description of methods...... 6

2 Geotechnical surveys...... 8 2.1 Introduction...... 8 2.2 Description of surveys...... 9 2.3 Description of methods...... 9

3 Munitions surveys...... 10 3.1 Introduction...... 10 3.2 Description of surveys...... 10 3.3 Description of methods...... 11

4 Cultural heritage surveys...... 11

5 Environmental field investigations...... 11 5.1 Introduction...... 11 5.2 Description of surveys...... 12 5.3 Description of methods used during environmental field investigations in 2005 and 2006...... 16 5.4 Description of methods used during environmental field investigations 2007 and 2008...... 35

References...... 37 4 (37) | Environmental impact assessment report | Appendix IV

0 Aim of the annex

A number of studies and surveys have been carried out within the framework of the Nord Stream project. The purpose of these investigations is to describe the environment in the area of the pipeline corridor as well as to establish a basis for the assessment of environ- mental impacts, to facilitate route optimisation and to determine mitigation measures to reduce environmental impacts.

An environmental impact assessment (EIA) presents the methods used in the studies in a very summarised manner. Because the EIA document itself does not include detailed expla- nations of all methods and surveys related to the Nord Stream project, this annex aims to provide a more extensive overview of methods applied in the studies. This annex also includes further references to the original documents and studies, which provide even more detailed information. It should also be emphasised that not all results of conducted surveys have been used in the EIA.

1 Geophysical surveys

1.1 Introduction

The pipeline corridor and alternative routes have been investigated by means of several geo- physical surveys, which served to map the bathymetry (seabed level), the seabed conditions and the geological layering beneath the seabed surface. The resulting data have been used for route optimisation, route description and impact reduction (i.e., by reducing amount of seabed intervention works).

1.1.1 Survey equipment

The survey equipment used to carry out the geophysical surveys includes the following:

• Multibeam echosounder – used to map the bathymetry. A multibeam echosounder emits an array of sound waves, which are reflected by the seabed. The resulting data is used to determine water depth.

• Sidescan sonar – used to ’scan‘ the seabed. With sidescan sonar it is possible to determine the type of seabed sediment and to identify objects lying on the seabed.

• Sub-bottom profiler– used to map the geological layering below the seabed surface.

• Magnetometer – used to conduct magnetic measurements to identify metallic objects. Environmental impact assessment report | Appendix IV 5 (37)|

1.2 Description of surveys

A series of geophysical surveys was carried out in the period 2005 – 2008.

Geophysical field investigations in 2005

The initial geophysical survey was executed in 2005 by PeterGaz. It was a reconnaissance survey covering a 2,000 m wide corridor by parallel survey lines 200 m apart /1, 2/. The sur- veys comprised:

• bathymetric survey in a 5x5 m grid • sidescan sonar survey, frequency 100 kHz1 200 m range, target resolution 1 m • sub-bottom profiling survey with 0.5 m resolution and penetration up to 50 m into the seabed • magnetics survey using a single-sensor magnetometer.

Based on the results of the reconnaissance survey, more detailed routes were developed for the two proposed pipelines. The nominal distance between the two pipelines was determined to be 100 m but the distance varied depending on seabed conditions.

Geophysical field investigations in 2006

In 2006 a more detailed study was conducted by PeterGaz, surveying each of the two pro- posed pipeline routes by three parallel lines at 50 m spacing /3/. The surveys included:

• bathymetric survey in a 2x2 m grid • sidescan sonar survey, frequency 375 kHz, 75 m range, target resolution approximately 0.25 m • sub-bottom profiling survey with 0.5 m resolution and penetration up to 50 m into the seabed • magnetics survey using a single-sensor magnetometer.

In areas assumed to have a higher risk of munitions, two additional lines were surveyed 50 m to either side of the survey corridor.

1 The frequency of the sidescan sonar survey is measured in kHz. A standard frequency level is 100 kHz. The higher the frequency (kHz), the greater the level of detail of the survey. 6 (37) | Environmental impact assessment report | Appendix IV

Geophysical field investigations in 2007/2008

Following more detailed engineering, a revised pipeline route was identified and a new detai­ led survey was launched. The survey was undertaken by Marin Mätteknik AB in 2007/2008 and included alternative 2 (C16) /4/. Each of the two pipeline routes were surveyed along three parallel lines at 50 m spacing. The surveys included:

• bathymetric survey in a 2x2 m grid • sidescan sonar survey, frequency 600 kHz, 75 m range, target resolution approximately 0.05 m • sub-bottom profiling survey with 0.5 m resolution and penetration up to 50 m into the seabed • magnetics survey using a single-sensor magnetometer.

1.3 Description of methods

In the following sections the methods used are described in greater detail. For further infor- mation and a full description of methods, please refer to the cited reports.

1.3.1 Multibeam echosounder

The multibeam echosounder is used in the mapping of bathymetry. A multibeam echoso- under emits an array of sound waves that are reflected by the seabed. This instrument is used to determine water depth. The echosounder was used in the 2005 /1, 2/, 2006 /3/ and 2007/ 2008 /4/ surveys.

The surveys in 2005 were performed using S/V Yakov Smirnitskiy and S/V Petr Kottsov. The multibeam echosounder RESON SEABAT 8101 was used on both vessels during the surveys /1, 2/.

1.3.2 Sidescan sonar

Sidescan sonar is used to ’scan‘ the seabed. The data is then interpreted to determine the seabed sediment type, as well as to identify objects lying on the seabed. Sidescan sonar was used in the 2005, 2006 and 2007/2008 surveys.

The surveys in 2005 were performed using S/V Yakov Smirnitskiy and S/V Petr Kottsov. The sidescan sonar EdgeTech 272-TD was used onboard the S/V Yakov Smirnitskiy. It has the following specifications /2/:

• Operating frequency 100/500 KHz • Beam pattern SSS 100 KHz 1.2° / 50° (-3 dВ) Environmental impact assessment report | Appendix IV 7 (37)|

• Beam pattern SSS 500 KHz 0.5° / 50° (-3 dВ) • Range 50 m to 600 m • Pulse length 0.05 to 0.1 ms • Operating depth up to 1, 000 m

The sidescan sonar System 2000 (Model 2260, Klein Associates, Inc.) was used onboard the S/V Petr Kottsov. It has the following specifications /2/:

• Operating frequency 100/500 KHz • Beam pattern SSS 100 KHz 1,0° / 40° (-3 dВ) • Beam pattern SSS 500 KHz 0,2° / 40° (-3 dВ) • Range 12.5 m to 1,000 m • Pulssin pituus 0.025 to 0.5 ms • TVG range 80 dB • Operating depth up to 1,000 m

1.3.3 Sub-bottom profiler

The sub-bottom profiler is used to map the geological layering below the sea floor. Sub-bottom profilers were used in the 2005, 2006 and 2007/2008 surveys.

The surveys in 2005 were performed using S/V Yakov Smirnitskiy and S/V Petr Kottsov. The sub-bottom profiler CHIRP-II TTV-170 (Benthos) was used onboard S/V Yakov Smirnitskiy dur- ing the survey. It has the following specifications /2/:

• Operating frequency 2 - 7 KHz • Pulse length 5 m to 50 ms • Beam pattern 90° (-3 dВ), conical • Operating depth up to 200 m • Power up to 4 KW

The sub-bottom profiler Model 2275 (Klein Associates, Inc) was used onboard S/V Petr Kottsov. It has the following specifications:

• Operating frequency 3,5 KHz • Beam pattern 50° (-3 dВ), conical • Operating depth up to 1,000 m • Acoustic power 205 dB re 1μPa/m

1.3.4 Magnetometer

The magnetometer is used to conduct magnetic measurements to identify metallic objects. Magnetometers were used in the 2005, 2006 and 2007/2008 surveys. 8 (37) | Environmental impact assessment report | Appendix IV

The surveys in 2005 were performed using S/V Yakov Smirnitskiy and S/V Petr Kottsov. The marine magnetometer Magis (iXSEA) Overhauser was used onboard S/V Yakov Smirnitskiy. It has the following specifications /2/:

• Accuracy 0.2 nT • Sensor sensitivity 0.0035 nT√ Hz • Resolution 0.01 nT • Range 20,000nT to 100,000 nT • Operating depth up to 300 m The magnetometer was equipped with a depth sensor.

The marine magnetometer SeaSPY (Marine Magnetics Inc.) Overhauser was used onboard S/V Petr Kottsov. It has the following specifications /2/:

• Accuracy 0.2 nT • Sensor sensitivity 0.01 nT • Resolution 0.001 nT • Range 18,000 - 120,000 nT • Operating depth up to 1,000 m The magnetometer was equipped with a depth sensor.

2 Geotechnical surveys

2.1 Introduction

Geotechnical surveys to determine seabed stability were carried out in addition to the geo- physical surveys. Data from the geotechnical surveys was used for route optimisation with regard to safety and environmental impacts.

2.1.1 Survey equipment

In 2006 detailed geotechnical testing and sampling were carried out along the entire align- ment. The survey equipment used for the geotechnical surveys includes:

• vibrocorer and gravity corer – two different sampling methods to extract core samples from the seabed for laboratory analysis. • core penetration tests (CPT), T-bar and in-situ vanes – in-situ testing methods to determine the geotechnical engineering properties of the sub-surface. Environmental impact assessment report | Appendix IV 9 (37)|

2.2 Description of surveys

Because the route including alternative 2 (C16) was developed as part of an ongoing optimi- sation process in 2006, 2007 and 2008, the geotechnical programme has been performed in a number of sequential operations according to the same scope of work. Fugro carried out the geotechnical operations /5/.

The sampling frequency for the geotechnical surveys varied depending on whether or not trenching of the pipeline would be necessary at a given location. Where no trenching is nec- essary, core samples are taken every 9 km and CPT tests are undertaken every 3 km. Where trenching is necessary, the core sampling frequency is increased to every 3 km and CPT tests to every 1 km along the proposed pipeline route. According to the latest technical plan- ning information, there will be no need for trenching in the Finnish project area.

2.3 Description of methods

In 2006 detailed geotechnical testing and sampling took place along the entire alignment. This testing comprised:

• In-situ strength tests and core samples up to approximately 6 m below the seabed • Laboratory classification tests of the samples, including –– water content –– unit weight –– solid particle density –– particle size. • Laboratory geochemical tests comprising –– carbonate content –– organic content –– pH –– resistivity –– thermal conductivity

–– hydrogen sulphide (H2S) content. • Laboratory soil strength tests. 10 (37)| Environmental impact assessment report | Appendix IV

3 Munitions surveys

3.1 Introduction

To rule out risks associated with unintentional encounters with munitions on the seabed, extensive surveys have been performed in order to determine whether the pipelines or the environment may be impacted by chemical or conventional munitions in any way.

3.1.1 Survey equipment

In addition to the equipment already described in Chapter 5.1(multibeam echosounder, side- scan sonar, sub-bottom profiler and single-sensor magnetometer), a special gradiometer was used for the munitions surveys. In spring 2007 Nord Stream AG commissioned the devel- opment of a new instrument to screen the pipeline corridor in detail for metallic objects. The instrument is comprised of a gradiometer attached to a remotely operated vehicle (ROV), which is operated from the survey vessel.

The gradiometer array used for the magnetic measurements is extremely sensitive and can record the magnetic field from very small objects; the threshold for the munitions screening survey was set to ignore small pieces of scrap metal, e.g., paint buckets.

3.2 Description of surveys

The munitions surveys undertaken in 2007/2008 were carried out simultaneously with the geophysical investigations. The surveys were undertaken by Marin Mätteknik AB and inclu­ ded alternative 2 (C16) /4/. The surveys were conducted in three steps:

Munitions survey 2007/2008, Phase 1

In Phase 1 two corridors, each 150 m wide, were mapped using the data from multibeam echosounder, sidescan sonar, sub-bottom profiler and single-sensor magnetometer surveys.

Munitions survey 2007/2008, Phase 2

In Phase 2 two installation corridors, each 15 m wide, were mapped using the above- described, specially designed ROV-mounted gradiometer array with 12 sensors. In addition, continuous underwater video of the seabed was recorded along the entire pipeline alignment. Environmental impact assessment report | Appendix IV 11 (37)|

Munitions survey 2007/2008, Phase 3

In Phase 3 a visual inspection with ROV of possible targets within a +/- 25 m corridor of the pipeline alignment was performed.

Prior to installation of the Nord Stream pipelines, an anchor corridor survey will be carried out to ensure that there is a free anchoring corridor for the lay barge. The majority of the sur- vey will be conducted in a 1 km wide corridor to each side of the approved route. In shallower waters (below 100 m) the survey corridor will be 800 m wide.

3.3 Description of methods

In the following sections the methods are described in greater detail. For further information and a full description of methods, please refer to the cited reports.

4 Cultural heritage surveys

Cultural heritage in the Baltic Sea is primarily related to shipwrecks and submerged Stone Age settlements. The identification of cultural heritage sites from survey data was based on interpretations of sidescan sonar data and sub-bottom profile data that were collected dur- ing the geophysical surveys. The resolution of the sidescan sonar data from the 2007/2008 surveys was significantly higher than that of the earlier surveys, allowing better identifica- tion of wrecks. During the 2005/2006 surveys, wrecks identified within +/- 25 m of the pipeline centreline were inspected by ROV. For the 2007/2008 surveys including alternative 2 (C16), all shipwrecks identified by sidescan sonar within the 150 m survey corridor were visually inspected by ROV.

5 Environmental field investigations

5.1 Introduction

To compile an appropriate database for the assessment of the environmental impacts of the proposed pipelines, extensive environmental field investigations have been performed. Physical, chemical and biological data on the marine environment have been collected and used, along with existing data, to describe the marine environment. The environmental field investigations included sampling of water, seabed sediment, plankton (phytoplankton and zooplankton), macrozoobenthos (fauna living on the seabed), fish and surveys of marine 12 (37)| Environmental impact assessment report | Appendix IV

mammals and birds. The environmental field investigations were concentrated primarily along the pipeline route within a 2,000 m wide corridor.

5.2 Description of surveys

The Nord Stream environmental field investigations that were carried out in Finnish waters in 2005 – 2008 included the following environmental surveys:

Environmental field investigations in 2005 and 2006

In 2005 and 2006 environmental field surveys were carried out by Peter Gaz along the pipe- line route within a 2,000 m wide corridor /6, 7/. The surveys included the following parame- ters:

• Water quality: Measurements of temperature, salinity, conductivity, water transparency, oxygen content, pH, etc., and contaminant content at 89 stations in two water layers (near-surface and near-bottom)

• Sediment: Grain size distribution and content of inorganic and organic contaminants (93 samples in the Finnish project area; refer to Figure 5.2.1 for locations of sampling stations)

• Bacteria plankton, phytoplankton and zooplankton (21 samples in the Finnish project area)

• Macrozoobenthos (infauna) organisms, including chemical analysis of contaminant content (93 samples in the Finnish project area; refer to Figure 5.2.1 for locations of sampling stations)

• Fish fauna, including age determination and contaminant content (five trawling operations in the Finnish project area)

• Avifauna and marine mammals. Environmental impact assessment report | Appendix IV 13 (37)|

Figure 5.2.1. Sediment sampling stations in the Finnish project area for the 2005-2006 field survey con- ducted by PeterGaz.

Environmental field investigations in autumn 2007

In autumn 2007 additional environmental field investigations were carried out along the planned pipeline route within the Finnish EEZ by the Finnish Marine Research Institute (FIMR) using the survey vessel r/v Aranda /7/. The investigations included analyses of:

• Sediment: Grain size, dry matter, total organic content • Nutrients (nitrogen and phosphorus) • Macrozoobenthos (infauna) • Chemical analysis of contaminants content, including both heavy metals and organic pollutants • Habitat and biodiversity determination based on sidescan sonar and video recording.

The samples were taken at 10 stations along the planned pipeline route and at six sta- tions along the excluded route option ‘Estonia’, where the pipeline route passes through the Finnish EEZ (Figure 5.2.2). At each station three samples were taken: Directly on the pipeline route; 300 m north of the pipeline route; and 300 km south of the pipeline route. Macrozoobenthos samples were not taken in oxygen-deficient areas.

The sediment samples were analysed at the FIMR laboratory in accordance with their own procedures and the guidelines of the Baltic Marine Environment Protection Commission, 14 (37)| Environmental impact assessment report | Appendix IV

also known as the Helsinki Commission (HELCOM), and the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES.

Figure 5.2.2. Sampling stations for field investigations conducted by the Finnish Institute for Marine Rese- arch (FIMR) in 2007. Red numbers indicate the 2007 sampling stations. Black numbers indicate the sampling stations from the 2005 and blue ones 2006 investigations.

Environmental field investigations along the C16-route (alternative 2) in May 2008

In May 2008 additional environmental field investigations were carried out by FIMR along the route C16 (alternative 2) and along the route C14 (alternative 1) between KP 143 and KP 126 (Figure 5.2.3). The investigation included the same parameters as those in the autumn 2007 investigation along the route C14. Samples were taken at 34 stations equally distributed every 3 km along the pipeline routes. Due the hard bottoms, sediment samples for chemical parameters was collected in 26 sampling sites only /8, 9/. Environmental impact assessment report | Appendix IV 15 (37)|

Figure 5.2.3. Sampling stations for the field investigations conducted by the Finnish Institute for Marine Re- search (FIMR) in 2008 along the route C16 (alternative 2). The blue dots represent stations along the route C16 deviation; the red triangles represent stations along the route C14 (alternative 1.

Extended environmental field investigations at the Kalbådagrund area in August 2008

In August 2008 additional environmental field investigations were carried out by Marin Mätteknik AB using survey vessel M/V Franklin /10/. Kalbådagrund is under consideration for Natura 2000 based on the Habitat Directive (reefs 1170). The survey was done to fur- ther investigate the biological biodiversity in the Natura 2000 study area. The investigations included:

• High resolution Bathymetric survey • Backscatter mosaic • Continuous underwater video of the seabed photographic images along the transects carried by a ROV.

The survey was performed along seven transects with a total length of 36 km. Further, a total of 715 seabed photographic images at every 50 m were taken along the transects. 16 (37)| Environmental impact assessment report | Appendix IV

5.3 Description of methods used during environmental field investigations in 2005 and 2006

5.3.1 Oceanographic parameters

Water temperature and conductivity (which are used for calculating salinity and density) were measured with CTD probe SBE-19+ (Sea Bird Electronic, Ltd., USA), which was fixed to frame of Micro-CTD-3 probe of oceanological complex FSI (Falmouth Scientific, Inc., USA), also equipped with a rosette of plastic bathometers for water sampling at different levels. These devices are designed for continuous vertical scanning and measuring of hydrophysical marine water parameters.

Sound system submerged off a ship’s foredeck starboard by means of a regular electrome- chanical winch. Sensing in near-bottom layer was at speed 0.5 m/s. Primary processing of samples was carried out on board, according to instructions and recommendations. Each sta- tion’s sensing results with step of 1 m were compiled into a common Microsoft Excel electron- ic database including the measured characteristics value, date, time, coordinates of sound submergence, water depth. In addition, all data were registered in OBZerver programme, a standard programme in AtlantNIRO for oceanographical data processing, information storage and reporting.

Water transparency was determined in daylight using a white Secchi disk with 0.5 m accuracy.

5.3.2 Sea water chemistry analysis

5.3.2.1 Hydrochemical characteristics

Marine water was sampled to determine the concentration of suspended substances, and bottom sediment was tested to determine the sediment grain-size texture and contents of 13 chemical elements (Corg., Fe, Mn, Zn, Cu, Cr, Ni, Co, Cd, Pb, As, Sn, Hg).

Marine water sampling and its chemical test for 19 parameters of structure, qualities and pol- lution at 89 stations in two water layers (near surface and near bottom) is stipulated.

The defined hydrochemical parameters and the quantity of hydrochemical analysis are shown in Table 1. Environmental impact assessment report | Appendix IV 17 (37)|

Table 1. Hydrochemical parameters and analysis

Number of Number of Number of Number of Water examination indexes stations layers water samples chemical tests 1 2 3 4 5 Hydrogen index (pH) 89 2 196* 196 Dissolved oxygen 89 2 196* 196 Oxygenation % 89 2 196* 196 Hydrogen sulphide 89 2 178 178 Alkalinity total 89 2 196* 196 Hydrogen carbonates 89 2 196* 196 Sulphates 89 2 196* 196 Silicon 89 2 196* 196 Ammonia nitrogen 89 2 196* 196 Nitrite nitrogen 89 2 196* 196 Nitrate nitrogen 89 2 196* 196 Nitrogen total 89 2 196* 196 Mineral phosphorus 89 2 196* 196 Organic phosphorus 89 2 196* 196 Phosphorus total 89 2 196* 196 BOD5 89 2 196* 196 Oil products total 89 2 196* 196 Anionic surface active agents 89 2 196* 196 Carbolic acids total 89 2 196* 196 Yhteensä 3706 * includes 18 re-tests, to ensure reliability of chemical test results

The hydrochemical tests were carried out stages:

Sea water sampling and onboard chemical analysis. Samples were taken from near the surface (1 m below surface) and in the bottom-close (2 m above seabed) water layers by means of plastic bathometers of 1.7 l fixed on an immersed hydrological probe ’Rosette’.

Water samples were taken and fixated for oxygenation and dissolved oxygen test, pH test, ammonia nitrogen test and alkalinity test. The samples were analysed in the vessel’s onboard chemical laboratory the same day.

For the mineral oil test, anionic surface active agent test and phenol test, general water samples were placed in separate glass bottles. Samples were immediately brought to the onboard laboratory and extracted. Extracts were stored in a laboratory refrigerator prior to the start of substance concentration check.

Water samples for the biogen test were stored separately and frozen. 18 (37)| Environmental impact assessment report | Appendix IV

In onshore laboratory. Chemical analysis was carried out on the frozen water samples for nitrogen-compound content (nitrates, organic and gross) and phosphorus content (mineral, organic and gross).

5.3.2.1 Determination of suspended solids concentration

Water filtration procedure through filters with a nominal retention diameter of 0,45 microns is directed in all ecological control techniques PND F for the natural waters analysis of separa- tion of suspended and dissolved fractions.

Water samples for the following suspended solids general concentration test were collected in near-surface water (1 m below water surface) bottom-close (2 m above seabed) water layers at all 89 central profile stations. In all, 178 samples were collected: 74 samples in the Finnish EEZ, 72 in the Swedish EEZ, 22 in the Danish EEZ and 10 in the German EEZ). Water sam- pling was carried out by means of plastic bathometers fixed on ’rosetta‘ -type submersible hydrological complex.

For more precise results of the total concentration of suspended solids, each sample (2.5 l) was filtered in parallel through two filters. The quantity of the suspended solids collected on the filters was defined by a weight method (on analytical weights). Then, the concentration of suspended solids was determined by recalculating the quantity of the filtered water (average value of two analysed samples is acceptable).

5.3.2.2 Organic pollutants

Polychlorbiphenyl (PCB)

For analysis of polychlorbiphenyl (PCB) content, the test method PNDF 14.2:4.74-96 was used. The defined PCBs are presented in Table 2.

Table 2. The list of defined PCBs

IUPAC Number PCB description #28 2,4,4, – trichlorobiphenyl #52 2,2,,5,5, – tetrachlorobiphenyl #101 2,2,,4,5,5, – penta chlorobiphenyl #105 2,3,3,,4,4, – penta chlorobiphenyl #118 2,3,3,,4,4, ,5 – penta chlorobiphenyl #138 2,2,,3,4,4, ,5, – hexa chlorobiphenyl #153 2,2,,4,4, ,5,5, – hexa chlorobiphenyl #156 2,3,3,,4,4, ,5, – hexa chlorobiphenyl #180 2,2,,3,4,4, ,5,5, – hepta chlorobiphenyl Environmental impact assessment report | Appendix IV 19 (37)|

After sample preparation (non-filtered water sample1.0 dm³), the chromatograph separa- tion was recorded on gas chromatograph Varian 3400. The individual PCB concentration was then calculated.

Organic-chlorine pesticide (OCP) The management direction (MD) method 52.24.412-95 was used to determine the content of chororganic pesticides. The following OCPs, defined in the given work, were analysed: hex- achlorobenzene; 4,4`-DDE; α-hexachlorocyclohexane; 4,4`-DDD; β-hexachlorocyclohexane; 4,4`-DDT; γ-hexachlorocyclohexane; aldrin; heptachlor.

After sample preparation (non-filtered water sample 1.0 dm³), the chromatograph separation was recorded on gas chromatograph Varian 3400. The OCP concentration was then calculated.

Polyaromatic hydrocarbon (PAH)

Analysis of polyaromatic hydrocarbon (PAH) content was carried out according to MD 52.24.440-95. The following PAHs were analysed: naphthalene, pyrene, acenaphthylene, benzo(а) anthracene, acenaphthene, chrysene, fluorene, benzo(k) fluoranthene, phenan- threne, benzo(а) pyrene, benzo (g,h,i) perylene.

After sample preparation (water sample 250 ml), the chromatograph separation was tested on li­quid chromatograph KONTRON System 522. Individual PAH concentrations were then calculated.

5.3.2.3 Heavy metals

Tests to determine the contents of heavy metals were carried out according to MD 52.24.479- 95.

Instrumental analysis: The analysis was carried out on ardent atomic absorption spectrom- eter AA855 of Nippon-Jarrel Ash.

Tests for mercury contents were carried out using the mercury analyser Hiranuma Mercury Analyzer, by method of cold nuclear absorption. The main point of the method consists in res- toration uni-or bivalent mercury by tin chloride (II) in the sour environment. Elementary mer- cury removed away from a solution by air flow and in the form of atomic gas is transferred into a tray. Length absorption on wave of 253.7 nm is measured.

The most sensitive lines of elements absorption with following wave lengths (Table 3) were used. 20 (37)| Environmental impact assessment report | Appendix IV

Result calculation was done for metal concentration mg/l (mkg/l). The detection limits, which are statistically defined with 95 % probability on a series of repeated control sample tests, are presented in Table 3.

Table 3. Wave length (nanometer, nm) and detection limits (mkg/l)

Wave length Detection limits Element λ, nm Min content in the water, mkg/l Natrium (Na) 589.0 1 (mg/l) Kalium (K) 766.5 1 (mg/l) Kalsium (Ca) 422.7 1 (mg/l) Magnesium (Mg) 285.2 0.5 (mg/l) Rauta (Fe) 372.0 5 Kupari (Cu) 324.8 0.5 Sinkki (Zn) 213.9 0.5 Mangaani (Mn) 279.5 5 Lyijy (Pb) 283.3 10 Arseeni (As) 191.0 10 Kadmium (Cd) 228.8 0.5 Nikkeli (Ni) 232.0 10 Kromi (Cr) 357.9 10 Molybdeeni (Mo) 313.3 10 Tina (Sn) 286.3 10 Koboltti (Co) 240.7 - Elohopea (Hg) - 0.05

5.3.3 Bottom sediments

Two hundred and fifty-four samples of bottom sediments were taken along the pipeline route, 93 of which were taken in the Finnish project area.

5.3.3.1 Grain size distribution

Analysis of the grain size distribution of bottom sediments was conducted by water mechan- ical (sedimentation) analysis elaborated by the Institute of Oceanology of the Russian Academy of Sciences (IO RAS). During the analysis, the method of solid particles suspension (a sort of water mechanical analysis, Prokoptsev, 1964) was applied. To determine the com- position of coarse fractions in the bottom sediments (>0.1 mm) the sieve dispersion method was used (Petelin, 1967). The method is not certified because the grain-size analysis is not subject to the certification in the system of analytical laboratories accreditation (SAAL).

As a result of water-mechanical analysis use applying solid particles suspension and sieve method the following fractions of bottom sediments were determined (mm): <0.001; 0.001- 0.005; 0.005-0.01; 0.01-0.05; 0.05-0.1; 0.1-0.25; 0.25-1; 1-2; 2-3; 3-5; 5-7; 7-10; >10. Environmental impact assessment report | Appendix IV 21 (37)|

The sediments types were classified in order of grain size distribution according to the Russian classification elaborated in IO RAS (Bezrukov, Lisitsyn, 1960) as follows: pelite silt (>70 % of the fraction <0.01 mm), aleuric-pelite silt (50 % - 70 % of the fraction <0.01 mm). Other types of sediments are determined by the prevalence of fractions. Aleurite sediments – by the prevalence of the fraction 0.1 - 0.01 mm. If the dimension 0.1 - 0.05 mm predominates in the fraction, these are large aleurites, and if 0.05 - 0.01 mm predominates, these are fine aleurite silts. The sands were determined by the fraction 1.0 - 0.1 mm prevalence, gravel sedi- ments – by the fraction 10 - 1.0 mm prevalence. In the description there were sometimes allo- cated fine-grained sands (by the fraction 0.25 - 0.1 mm prevalence), medium-grained sands (by the fraction 0.5 - 0.25 mm prevalence), large-grained sands – by the fraction 1.0 - 0.50 mm prevalence. Pebbles were determined by the fraction >10 mm prevalence.

Moraine sediments were determined by their very high density and viscosity, large admixture of pebble gravel material, uneven granulometry composition, organic carbon concentration (usually less than 3 - 5 g/kg), the brown-gray color of the sediments.

Clays were determined by high density of the sediment, high viscosity and ductility of the material, by the grain size composition (>70 % of the fraction <0.01 mm – the same as for lutites), by the low concentration of organic carbon (usually 3 - 10 g/kg). The clays of the Baltic glacier lake were determined by the brown and pink color, the clays of Ancylus Lake – by the blue-gray color and black coats of hydrotroilite and a number of other typical attributes.

5.3.3.2 Quantitative chemical analysis

Quantitative chemical analysis of the bottom-sediment samples included the determination of the net value of 13 elements: organic carbon (Corg), iron (Fe), manganese (Mn), zinc (Zn), copper (Cu), chromium (Cr), nickel (Ni), cobalt (Co), lead (Pb), arsenic (As), cadmium (Cd), tin (Sn) and mercury (Hg).

The composition determination of these 13 elements in all 254 bottom-sediment samples was performed according to the certified methods in the accredited laboratory of the Atlantic geology (LGA) of the Atlantic Department of the Oceanology Institute in the name of P. P. Shirshov of the Russian Academy of Sciences (AO IO RAN, Kaliningrad).

The composition determination of Sn and Hg in all 254 bottom sediments samples was per- formed according to the certified methods in the accredited Analytical Certification Center (ASITs) of the All-Russia Scientific and Research Institute of Mineral Resources in the name of N. M. Fedorovsky, a Federal State Unitary Enterprise (VIMS, Moscow).

Determination results of all elements composition are given in terms of absolutely dry sub- stance.

Organic carbon content determination in bottom sediment samples was carried out accord- ing to the certified method of the Analytic Methods Research Council (NSAM) at All Union Minerals Institute No 337-H ’General, noncarbonate and carbonate carbon determination in coulometric method’. 22 (37)| Environmental impact assessment report | Appendix IV

Mn, Zn, Cu net value determination in bottom sediment samples was performed in com- pliance with the certified method of the Federal Environmental regulatory document 16.1:2:2:2.3.36-02 ’Copper, cadmium, zinc, lead, nickel, manganese net value measurement method in soils, bottom sediments, sewage sludges by flame atomic absorption spectrome- try‘.

Fe net value determination was performed in compliance with the certified method of NSAM No 155-HS ’Atomic absorption and flame photometry determination of copper, zinc, cadmium, bismuth, antimony, lead, cobalt, nickel, iron manganese in rocks, ores and processing medi- ums’.

Co, Ni, Cr, Pb, Cd, As net value determination in bottom sediment samples was performed according to the certified methods of NSAM No 450-S ’Atomic absorption determination of beryllium, thallium, lead, bismuth, cadmium, copper, manganese, cobalt, nickel, chrome mic- roquantities in natural objects‘ and of NSAM 330-HS ’Atomic absorption determination of arsenic and antimony in rocks with preliminary hydrides generation’.

Sn net value determination was performed using the X-ray fluorescence method according to the certified method of NSAM 304-RS ’Tin determination in rocks and ores in the fluorescent X-ray method‘. The measurement instrument used was MagiX PRO X-ray fluorescence undu- latory sequence spectrometer (Philips, Holland).

Hg net value determination was performed by nonflame atomic absorption spectrometry according to the certified method NSAM-475-H ’Atomic absorption nonflame mercury deter- mination in soil, sands, bottom sediments in ‘cold vapour‘ method. The measurement instru- ment used was atomic absorption mercury analyzer Yulia-2 (Instrument-Making Plant of Penza).

5.3.3.3 Organic pollutants determination

To determine content of organic pollutants, bottom-sediment samples were analysed in Taifun NPO (Science and Production Association) Chemical Analysis Centre laboratories (CAC) and at the Evolution and Ecology Institute in the name of A. N. Severtsov.

A. Description of methods applied by Taifun Chemical Analysis Centre (CAC)

Polichlorinated biphenyls (PCB)

Analysis method: GC/MS (Gas Chromatography/Multispectral) (Instructional Guidelines (MUK) 4.1.663-97) and GC/MS MVI-SOP LAE-05/05 (according to US EPA SW-846 # 8270C).

To determine polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB), an analysis method based on the com- pounds analysed extraction by dichlormethane in Soxhlet’s apparatus was used. To purify the extracts, activated copper and column chromatography with floricil were used. Compounds identification was conducted according to the chromatography-mass spectrometry method. Environmental impact assessment report | Appendix IV 23 (37)|

Determination intervals comprise 0.02 - 500 mcg/kg. To control the analysis quality, a surro- gate isotopically labeled standards system, injected at various analysis stages, was used.

The instrumental analysis of the extracted samples was conducted on a Varian Saturn 2100 MS/MS chromatography-mass spectrometer.

The identification of individual PCB congeners was conducted according to typical mass- specters and individual PCB congener’s retention intervals.

Individual PCB congeners composition, Cn (mcg/kg), was calculated on the basis of the sig- nals received for each specific congener.

Organochlorine pesticides (OCP)

Analysis method: GC/MS PNDF-05/05 (Federal Environmental regulatory document) (according to US EPA SW-846 # 8270C).

To determine chlorated pesticides (OCP), there was applied an analysis method, based on the extraction of these compounds out of the sample by the mixture of dichlormethane with acetone, extracts purification from sulfur and coextractive compounds using activated copper and a chromatographic column with floricil with subsequent chromatography-mass spectrom- eter identification and quantitative determination of individual pesticides.

The OCPs determined in this work are presented in the table below:

- hexachlorbenzene; - 4,4`-DDE; - trans-nonachlor; - α-HCCH (hexachlorocyclohexane); - 2,4`-DDE; - cis-nonachlor; - β- HCCH; - 4,4`-DDD; - dieldrin - γ- HCCH; - 2,4`-DDD; - trans-chlordan - δ- HCCH; - 4,4`-DDT; - cis-chlordan; - heptachlor; - 2,4`-DDT; - aldrin; - heptachlorepoxide; - oxychlordan - mirex;

Instrumental analysis: The analysis of the extracted samples was conducted on an HP 5890/5972A chromatography-mass spectrometer.

The identification was conducted according to typical mass-specters and retention intervals of chlorated pesticides. Chlorated pesticides composition, Сn (mcg/kg), was calculated on the basis of the signals received for each specific compound.

Polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAH)

Analysis method: GC/MS (Gas Chromatography / Multispectral) (Instructional Guidelines (MUK) 4.1.663-97). 24 (37)| Environmental impact assessment report | Appendix IV

To determine polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAH), there was used an analysis method based on compounds analyzed extraction from the sample by dichlormethane, successive purifica- tion of the extracts from organic compounds of sulfur by activated copper, purification from admixtures hindering the analysis on the columns with silica gel, and successive chromatog- raphy-mass spectrometry identification and quantitative determination of individual PAH.

The PAHs determined in this work included the compounds listed in the table below:

Naphthalene Chrysene Acenaphthylene Benzo[b+j]fluoranthene Acenaphthene Benzo[k]fluoranthene Fluorene Benzo[e]pyrene Phenanthrene Benzo[e]pyrene Anthracene Perylene Fluoranthene Indene[1,2,3-cd]pyrene Pyrene Dibenzo[a,h]anthracene Benz[а]anthracene Benzo[g,h]perylene

Instrumental analysis: The analysis of the extracted samples was conducted on a chroma- tography-mass spectrometer HP 5890/5973A.

The identification of individual polyaromatic hydrocarbons was conducted according to typi- cal mass-specters and chromatographic retention intervals of individual PAHs. Individual PAH composition, Cn (mcg/kg), was calculated on the basis of the signals received for each specif- ic compound.

PAH groups and the respective isotopically labeled standards are given below:

Naphthalene, methylnaphthalenes (REC)1 Naphthalene -D8,

Acenaphthylene, acenaphthene, fluorene (REC)2 Acenaphthene -D10,

Phenanthrene, anthracene, fluoranthene, (REC)3 Phenanthrene -D10

Benz[а]anthracene, chrysene, pyrene (REC)4 Chrysene -D10

Other PAH (REC)5 Perylene -D12.

Phenols and chlorophenols

Analysis method: GC/MS (MVI SOP LAE-03/05) (according to US EPA SW-846 # 8270C).

To determine phenols, an analysis method based on acylation by acetyloxide, extraction of the derivats by hexane and subsequent chromatography-mass spectrometer determination of indi- vidual phenols was applied. Environmental impact assessment report | Appendix IV 25 (37)|

The determined phenols included the following compounds:

Phenol 2,6-Dimethylphenol 2,6-Dichlorophenol 2-Methylphenol 2,4-Dimethylphenol 2-Nitrophenol 3-Methylphenol 3,4-Dimethylphenol 4-Nitrophenol 4-Methylphenol 4-Chlor-3-methylphenol 2,4,6-Trichlorophenol 2-Chlorophenol 2,4-Dichlorophenol 2,3,6-Trichlorophenol 3-Chlorophenol 2,3-Dichlorophenol 2,4,5-Trichlorophenol 4-Chlorophenol 3,4-Dichlorophenol Pentachlorophenol

Instrumental analysis: The analysis of the extracted samples was conducted on a chroma- tography-mass spectrometer HP 5890/5972A or SATURN 4D MS/MS in the mode of ionisa- tion by an electron impact.

Identification of individual phenols was conducted according to typical mass-spectres and retention intervals of individual phenols. Individual phenols composition, (Сn mcg/l), was cal- culated on the basis of the signals received for each specific phenol.

General composition of petroleum hydrocarbons С11-С40

Analysis method: GC/DIP (Gas Chromatography/Detector with Ionization in Flame) STP 18.48-201 (according to US EPA SW-846 # 8015B).

The instrumental analysis of the extracted samples was conducted on chromatographers Carlo Erba Mega 5300. The chromatograms obtained were processed using MULTICHROME #5.4 – computer application.

Petroleum hydrocarbons total composition, (C mcg/kg), was calculated on the basis of the total signal of hydrocarbons, emitted by chromatography system, within the intervals of reten- tion times from n-C10 to n-C40.

B. Description of methods applied by the Laboratory of the Evolution and Ecology Institute in the name of A. N. Severtsov

The samples obtained were dried to air-dried condition at a temperature not exceeding 25 0С to avoid the loss of highly volatile components. The dried samples were comminuted in a mortar until the particles were <0.25 mm for silt sediments and <0.50 mm for sand samples. After extraction the samples were analysed.

Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB) and pesticides (OCP)

The PCB and chlorine-containing pesticides determination method was based on EPA meth- ods (Method 1668, Revision A; Method 8081; Method 3620C; Method 3630C; Method 3540C; Method 3660B). 26 (37)| Environmental impact assessment report | Appendix IV

After purification of the extracted samples the analysis was conducted on a high- resolution chromatography-mass spectrometer at resolution about 10,000. The following equipment and mode of operation were used: a gas chromatograph НР 6890 Plus and a mass-spectrometer Finnigan MAT 95XP. The analysis was conducted in the MID (Multi-Ion Detection) mode, reg- istering selective mass-chromatograms by ions М+ / (М+2)+ or (М+2)+/ (М+4)+ for PCBs with different level of chloration. To determine chlorine-containing pesticides, fragment ions were registered. The masses (m/z) of the ions registered are given in table 4.

All organochlorine pesticides, with the exception of DDE, DDT and mirex, were registered by ions m/z 237, 239, typical for all the pesticides registered. Due to constant automatic adjust­ment of exact masses of the ions, there were registered two peaks of the ions of a spe­cial standard to control the scale of the masses (perfluorokerosene) in the selected scope of masses. The identification was performed by the retention intervals and the com- pliance of the isotopical ratios with their theoretical values, the quantitative determinations – by the ratios of the peak area of the congener determined and the corresponding isotopical- ly labeled standard. The chromatographic conditions applied do not provide the possibility to achieve distinction of PCB congeners 31 and 28; nevertheless, according to literature data and selection control conducted with the help of the column Ultra-2, the composition of these congeners may be regarded as equal in all types of industrial PCBs, and in quantitative cal- culations there was introduced a 0.5 correction factor. Such assumptions may not lead to sig- nificant distortion in the interpretation of the results obtained, as the aim of the research was the determination of indicator PCB congeners, while congeners 28 and 31 are typical only for low-chlorine PCB mixtures and are not typical for high-chlorine mixtures.

Table 4. The masses (m/z) of the ions registered

Component Exact mass Ion TrCB 255.9613 M TrCB 257.9584 M+2 TCB 289.9224 M TCB 291.9194 M+2

13 С12-TCB 301.9626 M 13 С12- TCB 303.9597 M+2 PeCB 325.8804 M+2 PeCB 327.8775 M+4

13 С12- PeCB 337.9207 M+2 13 С12- PeCB 339.9178 M+4 HxCB 359.8415 M+2 HxCB 361.8365 M+4

HxCB 289.9037 M+2-Cl2

HxCB 289.9008 M+4-Cl2 13 С12-HxCB 371.8817 M+2 13 С12-HxCB 373.8788 M+4 HpCB 393.8025 M+2 HpCB 395.7995 M+4 Environmental impact assessment report | Appendix IV 27 (37)|

Component Exact mass Ion

13 С12-HpCB 405.8428 M+2 13 С12- HpCB 407.8398 M+4

HCCH 216.9145 M-HCl2

HCCH 218.9115 M+2-HCl2 13 С6-HCCH 268.0016 M-HCl2 13 С6-HCCH 269.9986 M+2-HCl2 HCB 283.8102 M HCB 285.8072 M+2

13 С6-HCB 289.8303 M 13 С6- HCB 291.8273 M+2

DDT/DDD 235.0081 M-CCl3

DDT/DDD 237.0052 M+2-CCl3 13 С12- DDT/DDD 247.0484 M-CCl3 13 С12- DDT/DDD 249.0454 M+2-CCl3

DDE 246.0003 M-Cl2

DDE 247.9973 M+2-Cl2 13 С12-DDE 258.0406 M+Cl2 13 С12-DDE 260.0376 M+2-Cl2

Polichlorinated cyclodien pesticides 237.0052 C5H2Сl5 Polichlorinated cyclodien pesticides 238.8384

3 13 С10/12- Polichlorinated cyclodien pesticides 241.8581 C5H2Сl5 13 13 С10/12- Polichlorinated cyclodien pesticides 243.8551 C5H2Сl5

Mirex 271.8102 M+2-C5Cl6

Mirex 273.8072 M+4-C5Cl6 13 С10-Mirex 276.8269 M+2-C5Cl6 13 С10-Mirex 278.8240 M+4-C5Cl6

5.3.3.4 Radiological study

Bottom sediment samples were collected from the central gas pipeline profile by means of Van Vina dredger. The capturing area of surface sediment was equal to 0.1 m². The samples were measured for radioactive nuclide content (natural radioactive nuclide NRN: 40K, 232Th, 226Ra and man-caused radioactive nuclides – 90Sr and 137Сs). The frozen stored samples of bottom sediment were dried in a drying chamber at 105-110 °С until constant mass and then homogenised thoroughly.

NRN assay and 137Сs specific activity determination were carried out by gamma-spectro- metric analysis using PROGRESS spectrometric complex with scintillation detector NaI(Tl) 63x63 and Progress-2000 software according to the Method for Radioactive Nuclide Activity Determination, 2003. The minimal activity than can be measured with the instrument is as fol- lows: 7 Bq of 232Th, 8 Bq of 226Ra, 40 Bq of 40K, 3 Bq of 137Сs for counting standard in 1.0 litre Marinelli’s geometry. 28 (37)| Environmental impact assessment report | Appendix IV

Determination of 90Sr specific activity was carried out according to the Method for Strontium- 90 Specific Activity Determination, 2001, by beta-radiometric analysis with preliminary radio- chemical isolation of dauther isotope 90Y. Lower detection level for 90Sr was 5 Bq/kg.

Preliminary radiochemical sample treatment included: mineralisation of samples via ashing at 550 °С for eight hours; insertion of strontium and yttrium carriers; isolation of 90Y in the form of yttrium oxalate; refinement of the latter in order to remove basic contaminating elements; yttrium chemical yield determination; radiochemical purity testing of the chemical compound obtained.

Measurements for 90Sr(90Y) compounds isolated by radiochemical method from the bottom sediment samples were carried out using an improved low-background setting (UMF-1500D) with Si (Al) semiconductor detector immediately after the preparation.

Radioactive nuclide concentration is evaluated by the units of the International SI Metric System: becquerels to dry kilogramme of bottom sediment (Bq/kg).

5.3.4 Bacteria plankton

Water samples for microbiological study were taken from the near surface layer (approxi- mately 1 m depth) and from the bottom-close layer (2 m above the bottom). Water sam- pling was carried out simultaneously with hydrochemical sampling using plastic bathometers attached to submerged hydrological probe in a rosette manner.

Determination of total bacteria number (TBN) was carried out by means of epifluorescent microscopy. Samples were fixed on site by 40 % formaldehyde solution (resulting concentra- tion - 2 % by volume) and brought to a stationary microbiological laboratory. Bacteria in the samples were stained by acridine-orange solution (1:10,000 resulting concentration), prelimi- narily filtered through a 0.2 μm mesh size membrane. Stained samples were filtered through Poretics black nuclear filters (USA) with 0.2 μm mesh size. A Millipore (USA) glass funnel of 25 mm diameter was used for the filtration procedure. The filters were air-dried, clarified by non-fluorescent oil (Cargille Lab., Type A, USA), and examined with LUMAM I-Z (LOMO) luminescent microscope with 90 × immersion objective. No fewer than 30 vision fields on every filter were subjected to counting.

Bacteria biomass was determined according to the manual by S.I. Kuznetsov & G.А. Dubinina (1989) and to the Methods in Aquatic Bacteriology (1988). The number of bacil- lus and coccus were estimated separately in every water sample. Average cell volume for all samples was determined in accordance with a special table (Rodina, 1988). It varied within the range of 0.05 - 0.1 μm 3 for different water samples from the Baltic Sea. A correction factor equal to 1.6 was used for biomass estimation to take into account the cell volume decrease during the processes of cell fixation and drying, which are the standard procedures prior to cell calculation and measurement under a microscope (Lokk, 1969; Sazhin et al., 1987; Methods in Aquatic Bacteriology, 1988). A correction factor equal to 0.15 was used for trans- lation from damp cell to dry cell biomass assuming 85% bacteria water content. A correc- Environmental impact assessment report | Appendix IV 29 (37)|

tion factor of 0.5 was introduced for translation from dry cell biomass to carbon, taking into account that 50 % of dry cell biomass falls on the latter.

5.3.5 Macrozoobenthos

5.3.5.1 Taxonomy

Sampling and investigations of benthos were carried out in accordance with generally accept- ed methods. Benthos samples were collected by 0.1 m² Van Veen grab. The samples were sieved in a gauze bag with 0.5 mm mesh size. After washing, benthic fauna were separated from bottom residue using the ‘elutriation’ method. In order to check elutriation purity 1/8 or 1/16 part of washed bottom was fixed. Living animals washed out from the bottom admixture by the above-mentioned method were fixed with 4% formaldehyde solution previously neu- tralised with NaHCO3.

In all, 267 macrozoobenthos samples were handled, including 15 samples from the Russian EEZ, 93 samples from the Finnish EEZ, 111 samples from the Swedish EEZ, 36 samples from the Danish EEZ and 12 samples from the German EEZ.

Samples were sorted under stereo-microscope. Most of the selected fauna were identified up to the species level, but Oligochaeta representatives were identified up to class level and Gammarus and Hydrobia representatives were identified up to the genus level. After species belonging determination the fauna were counted, dried on filter paper and weighed separate- ly or in groups. Mollusks were weighed together with their shells, but water from the man- tle cavity was removed prior to weighing. The resulting data for the number of organisms and biomass were recalculated for 1 m².

The standard deviation for average values of number and biomass was determined. The cluster analysis method was used to isolate bottom communities according to the Chakanovsky-Sjorensen (Bray-Curtis) similarity index in order to characterise benthos spa- tial distribution and structure. Stations where no macrozoobenthos were found or where the number of species was two or fewer (Stations 10, 26, 57) were excluded from the anal- ysis. The similarity index was calculated according to species abundance at the stations. Abundance values were sorted out and combined following the average group method. Abundance data were transformed by log(n+1). Communities were marked out relying on 65 % similarity level.

5.3.5.2 Determination of organic pollutant content

Polychlorobiphenyls (PCB)

PCB determination in benthos was performed according to methodological instruction 4.1.1023-01 ’Isomerspecific Polychlorobiphenyls (PCB) Determination in Foodstuffs‘. 30 (37)| Environmental impact assessment report | Appendix IV

After preparation of the sample (1 g of randomized and ground sample) instrumental analysis was carried out and the individual contents of PCB cogeners were determined using internal standard method.

Organic-Chlorine pesticides (OCP) OCP content in benthos was determined according to methodological instruction (Detection Methods for Micro Quantities of Pesticides, 1992). The individual OCP to be determined in benthos was the same as in water.

Extraction was carried out with 10 - 50 g of randomised and ground sample. The gas chroma- tograph Varian 3400 was used for extract testing. The components were identified according to absolute retention time of OCP.

5.3.5.3 Heavy metals assay

Heavy metal content was determined in accordance with the standards GOST 30178-96 and GOST Р 51766-2001 (Russian State Standards).

After sample preparation the assay was carried out with the use of Nippon-Jarrel Ash flame atomic absorption spectrometer AA855.

Mercury was determined by Hiranuma Mercury Analyzer using the cold atomic absorption method. The method is based on monad and dyad mercury reduction by tin(II) chloride in acid medium. Elementary mercury is removed from the solution by air stream and carried to a cuvette in molecular gas form. Absorption is measured at 253.7 nm.

The most sensitive absorption lines for different elements were used in the testing. At last the metal content was calculated.

The detection levels statistically determined with 95% probability from the series of repeated measurements for control samples are stated in table 5.

Table 5. Detection levels from the series of repeated measurements for control samples

Element Detection level in fish and benthos (mg/kg) Iron (Fe) 0.05 Copper (Cu) 0.05 Zinc (Zn) 0.05 Manganese (Mn) 0.1 Lead (Pb) 0.1 Arsenic (As) 0.02 Cadmium (Cd) 0.01 Mercury (Hg) 0.005 Nickel (Ni) 0.1 Chrome (Cr) 0.1 Tin (Sn) 0.1 Environmental impact assessment report | Appendix IV 31 (37)|

Cobalt (Co) 0.1

5.3.6 Fish fauna

5.3.6.1 Ichthyoplankton

From 16-31 January 2005, 32 samples of ichthyoplankton were collected along the projected gas pipeline route, including 10 samples from the ICES sub square 32 (stations 2, 4, 7, 10, 12, 14, 17, 20, 22, 25); three samples from the sub square 29 (stations 30, 34, 39); five sam- ples from in the 28th (stations 42, 45, 47, 50, 54); two samples from square 26 (stations 58, 60); and 12 samples from ICES sub-square 25 (stations 64, 66, 68, 70, 72, 74,76, 78, 80, 82, 89).

Sampling was carried out by means of a special net (IКС-80) made of capron sieve № 23. Samples of ichthyoplankton were collected via vertical (total) catching from the bottom to the surface. When lifted to the deck the net was rinsed in a plastic bucket, and the water from the bucket was then filtered through No. 38 capron sieve. The catch from the sieve was then placed in jars with 4 % formalin.

Cameral studies were performed in the Laboratory of the Baltic Sea (Atlant NIRO). The stud- ies consisted of two stages: preliminary concentrating of the samples, washing with running water and sorting out i.e. Separation of ichthyoplankton (spawn and fish larvae) and macro- plankton (Mysidas, large coelenterons) from the bulk sample. Species structure was studied under a binocular microscope while spawn stages, larvae lengths and number in kindmen/m² were determined.

Medusas Medusas and mysidas were found in the catches of IКС-80 ichthyoplankton net. Scyphoid medusas (type: Coelenterata, class: Scyphozoa, order: Semaeostomeae) at a certain devel- opment stage are a highly important component of the marine pelagial ecosystem in gener- al and of the Baltic Sea in particular. Large samples of medusas were counted and identified directly onboard the ship; small samples were selected from ichthyoplankton samples, identi- fied, measured, and counted in the Laboratory of the Baltic Sea.

Mysidas

Mysidas are one of important components of the Baltic Sea nectobenthos communities due to their place in the food rations of important food fish of the sea: herring, young cod and smelt.

Mysidas were found in ichthyoplankton samples from bottom-surface layer at depths greater than 42 –131 m. The number of mysidas in a catch was determined on species leve. 32 (37)| Environmental impact assessment report | Appendix IV

5.3.6.2 Fish species

Ichthyological studies included a wide range of criteria: fish accumulations revealing, trawling, catch amounts and species structure, weight and size, biological state, sampling of scales and otholiths for age detection, and sampling of stomachs for food spectrum studies. Analysis of fish concentrations in the region of the pipeline route was carried out using acoustic research equipment (ES-60 echosounder, CSH-24 Furuno echo-ranging sonar). If fish con- centrations were detected in the daytime, trawling was performed by multidepth pelagic trawl РТ/ТМ 70/300. Monitoring of the trawl course was carried out by trawl echo-ranging sonar s FS-925 (Simrad, Norway) and WESMAR (USA). Catch treatment was performed in accord- ance with the standards (Instructions, 1977; Methodological Instructions, 1995).

After lifting a trawl on board, the catch was emptied onto the deck and weighed. If the catch mass was small, all fish entirely (represented in general by sprat and herring) was taken for determination of kinds ratio and quantitative ratio in the catch (in %). In the event of a large catch, a random sample not less than 50 kg of mass was taken (depending upon catch spe- cies structure), and rest of the fish were counted with special boxes. Large fish (cod, flounder and others) were selected from the catch and were counted individually or every trawling.

For the large-scale dimensional studies, random sampling of herring and sprat consisting of 200 samples each was carried out. If the herring catch was comprised of 26 or more size groups, 250 - 300 samples were collected for study. All samples were measured in small- er catches. Bycatch fish were also fully measured. Accuracy of herring fish measurements (sprat, herring) was below 0.5 cm, and for other fish accuracy was below 1.0 сm. Overall (zoological) body length was measured.

Full biological analysis of the main food fish species (sprat, herring, cod, flounder) from each catch was carried out, including: length measurement with 0.1 сm accuracy, sample weight- ing, determination of sex and gonad maturity, estimation of entrail adiposity extent, determi- nation of gastrointestinal tract content.

Scales or otholiths of 50 - 100 fish samples (sprat, herring, occasionally smelt) from each trawl were collected for cameral determination of age. Samples for age determination for cod, flounder and salmon and so on were collected from each fish species in a catch.

Sixteen trawls were performed, five of which were in the Finnish project area. The vertical trawl opening was 32 m at 3.9 - 4.2 knot trawling rate. In general 12 fish species were marked along the pipeline alignment. All were subject to size studies (74 measurements). In all, 7,271 samples were measured. Seven fish species were subject to biological analysis; 50 trials were carried out for 2,143 samples. Samples for age detection, amounting to 2,142 pieces of oth- oliths and scales, were taken from seven fish samples during the biological studies. Samples to determine nutritional intake were gathered by two methods: group gathering and individual gathering. The former was used for sprat – 39 samples (972 samples), herring – 41 samples (930 samples), smelt – 3 samples (46 samples.), three-quilled stickleback – 8 samples (157 samples). The latter was used for the following species: cod - 93 samples, salmon - 5 sam- Environmental impact assessment report | Appendix IV 33 (37)|

ples, lumpfish - 29 samples, Ammodytes tobianus – 3 samples, sea flounder – 1 sample, river flounder – 4 samples, lamprey – 2 samples.

The first five trawls were performed in ICES sub-squares 32 and 29 EEZ of Finland). The sixth through fourteenth trawls were performed in ICES sub-squares 29, 28, 26 and 25 (EEZ of Sweden). The fifteenth and sixteen trawls were performed in ICES sub-squares 25 and 24 (EEZ of Denmark).

5.3.6.3 Fish age determination

Baltic herring. Baltic herring age was determined via otholith studies. A pair of the largest otholiths (Sagitta) was tested according to the generally accepted method. Otholiths were submerged in ethanol and studied under a binocular microscope against a black background in reflected light. Annual ring counting was performed according to the agreement of 1974, which established 1 January as the starting point for fish growth. Yearly zone is formed of winter zone (hyaline) and summer zone (opaque). Thus, the number of counted hyaline growth zones was accepted as the age of a Baltic herring individual.

Baltic sprat. Baltic sprat age was determined via otholith studies. Otholiths prepared for the studies (two otholiths from each fish) were placed into scales books. For age determination otholiths from the scales books were carried to a hollowed object-plate and clarified with two to five drops of ethanol. Clarified otholiths were examined under microscope in transmitted light following the Aps method. Differences in optical densities of otholith’s growth zones were observed in transmitted light. Age determination of the Baltic Sea sprat is based on recogni- tion and counting annual otholith increases – the structures that is formed during a full year. Annual growth consists of two adjacent zones: a wider, opaque summer zone and narrow, transparent hyaline one. A binocular 80-100- power microscope was used for age determina- tion. Sprat age was determined by studying the otholith dorsal edge, where growth seasonal- ity could be seen more clearly.

Baltic cod. For age determination fish otholiths were placed into scales books and handled in the laboratory. Sample preparation for age determination and for growth zone short axis measurements were carried out according to a method developed by Zamahaev. Otholith length, width thicknesses, annual ring radii, and annual zone widths were measured under a binocular microscope. Otholiths were weighed on torsion balances with 1 mg accuracy. Age was determined according to the rings on cross-cuts and breaks of otholiths in the clamping point of sulcus acustricus, the otholiths being previously annealed by spirit-lamp flame and clarified with ethanol-glycerine mixture. Annual rings were counted following Maier and Trout.

5.3.6.4 Fish nutrition

Samples to examine the food spectrum of sprat and herring were collected according to the group method, 25 stomachs having been selected for each dimensional group. Three size groups were set for sprat: less than 10 cm, 10 -12 cm and more than 12 сm. Sprat was fixed 34 (37)| Environmental impact assessment report | Appendix IV

as a whole (25 samples for each dimensional group) with indispensable abdominal cavity dis- section. Herring stomachs for each dimensional group were placed in vessels with 5% forma- lin. The groups differed from each other by 4 cm.

Samples from cod and other fish stomachs were collected individually. Small fish (Ammodytes tobianus, lamp-fish, stickleback, smelt) were fixed entirely. The samples were supplied with informative labels. By the group method were collected: sprat – 39 samples (972 samples), herring – 41 samples (930 samples.), three-quilled stickleback – 8 samples (157 samples). Individually sampled: cod – 93 samples., salmon –5 samples, Ammodytes tobianus – 3 samples, sea flounder– 1 samples, river flounder – 1 sample, lamprey – 2 sam- ples.

Stomach content was studied according to generally accepted quantitative weighing method (Methodological Instructions, 1974). Food organisms were identified by species, if possible, then weighed and measured.. Food structure was estimated according to percentage of total food mass. Biological analysis of fish was carried out at the same time.

5.3.6.5 Organic pollutants and heavy metals assay

Samples of ichthyofauna were examined for content of polychlorobiphenyls, organic-chlorine pesticides, heavy metals and polyaromatic hydrocarbons.

Polychlorobiphenyls (PCB)

Determination of PCB in ichthyofauna was performed according to the methodological instruction 4.1.1023-01.

Organic-chlorine pesticide (OCP) determination

OCP content in ichthyofauna was determined according to the methodological instruction (Detection Methods for Micro Quantities of Pesticides, 1992). The examined OCP are listed in the chapter “water chemistry”.

Heavy metals Heavy metals were assayed in accordance with State Standard (GOST Р 51650) and (GOST Р 51766-2001).

Polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAH)

PAH in ichthyofauna were determined according to the State Standards (GOST Р 51650, МU 4721-88). The identified PAHs are listed in the chapter “Sea water chemistry analysis”.

After liquid extraction from a weighted sample (10 g) instrumental analysis was carried out on HPLC System 522 liquid chromatograph. PAHs were identified according to the typical chro- matograms and to the retention time of a single PAH. Environmental impact assessment report | Appendix IV 35 (37)|

5.3.7 Quality assurance

5.3.7.1 Quality control was carried out for every instrumental analysis. Examples of quality control measures include:

• measuring duplicates • measuring prepared control samples • measuring blank samples • multiple-use glass dishes were silanized and the washed off water was analyzed to check the cleanness of the dishes • use of surrogate standards • new device calibration after a few measurements

5.4 Description of methods used during environmental field investigations 2007 and 2008

In the following sections the methods used during environmental field investigations in 2007 and 2008 are described.

5.4.1 Macrozoobenthos

Samples for qualitative and quantitative determination of macrozoobenthos were collected using Van Veen grab samples (one sample/station) in accordance with HELCOM guidelines. Simultaneous measurements of bottom water oxygen content, salinity and temperature were also carried out.

5.4.2 Sediment grain size and chemistry

Sediment core samples for chemical analysis were collected in parallel with the macrozoob- enthos sampling using a GEMAX Gemini-core sampler or a Van Veen Grab sampler if it was not possible to take core samples.

Three sub-samples per station were taken:

• One sub-sample from 0-2 cm depth • One sub-sample from the middle of the core sample • One sub-sample from bottom of the sediment sample. 36 (37)| Environmental impact assessment report | Appendix IV

The following analyses were carried out:

Grain size distribution (method by Buchanan (1984) or ISO standard 11277:1998) as described in OSPAR Guidelines for Monitoring the Environmental Impact of Offshore Oil and Gas Activities. Ref. number: 2004-11) and in addition:

• Dry matter • Loss of ignition • Total nitrogen (N) and Total phosphorous (P) • Total organic content (TOC) • Heavy metals: As, Cd, Cu, Hg, Ni, Pb, Zn, Cr (Method: Total destruction) • PAH (sum and 16 EPA PAHs) • Sum PCB (seven PCBs and PCBs 28, 52, 101, 118, 138,153, 180) • HCB • Sum of chlordane • Sum of HCH • Sum of DDT • Organotin (TBT, DBT, MBT)

Sediment samples were analysed in accordance to the guidelines from HELCOM/ICES, and by accredited laboratories. Environmental impact assessment report | Appendix IV 37 (37)|

/1/ PeterGaz, 2006, ”Detailed Geophysical Survey Baltic Sea and Gulf of Finland Phase I, 2005. Book 2, Part 2 Survey Operations text”.

/2/ PeterGaz, 2006, ”Detailed Geophysical Survey Baltic Sea and Gulf of Finland Phase I, 2005. Book 2 part 1, Survey Operation text”.

/3/ PeterGaz, 2006, ”Detailed Geophysical Survey 2006 Phase III. Survey Operations and Results. Volume 1”.

/4/ Marin Mätteknik AB, 11-4-2008, ”Marine Survey 2007 - 2008, Detailed Survey B2, Ro- ute Revision C10.3 - Finnish waters, Revision 11/04/2008.”.

/5/ PeterGaz/Fugro, 2006, ”Geotechnical Report. Investigation Data. Baltic Sea”.

/6/ PeterGaz, 2006, ”The North European Gas Pipeline Offshore Sections (The Baltic Sea). Environmental survey. Part 1. Stage I. Book 5. Final report. Section 2. Exclusive Economic Zones of Finland, Sweden, Denmark and Germany. (Environmental field in- vestigations 2005)”, PeterGaz, Moscow, Russia.

/7/ PeterGaz, 2006, ”The North European Gas Pipeline Offshore Sections (The Baltic Sea). Environmental survey. Part 2. Stage II. Final Technical Report. Book 2. Exclusive Economic Zones of Finland, Sweden and Denmark. Section 2. (Environmental field in- vestigations 2006)”, PeterGaz, Moscow, Russia.

/8/ FIMR, 2008, ”Supplementary environmental field investigations inside Finland EEZ at the alternative route Kalbådagrund and at the preferred route of the planned Nord Stream gas pipeline”.

/9/ FIMR, 2008, ”Environmental field investigations in 2008”, (Ed: Ramboll).

/10/ Marin Mätteknik AB and Nord Stream AG, 3-10-2008, ”Nord Stream Pipeline. Biologi- cal Survey Kalbådagrund, Finnish Waters. Factual Report”.

Appendix V

Protected areas

Environmental impact assessment report | Appendix V 3(13)|

Appendix V: Protected areas A Natura 2000 areas in Finnish project area

Only underwater habitats listed, terrestrial habitats left out

Natura 2000 Ecosystem / Species Listed Sta- Distance to area Name (code, relative amount %) / threats tus pipeline Name (latin name) C14/C16 FI0408001 Sandbanks slightly covered by sea water (1110, 0 - 1 %) Eutrophi- SAC 23 km Eastern Gulf Coastal lagoons (1150, 0 - 1 %) cation and SPA of Finland Reefs (1170, 0 - 1 %) pollution Archipelago Merlin (Falco columbarius) and waters Horned owl (Bubo bubo) (95 628 ha) Common tern (Sterna hirundo) Woodlark (Lullula arborea) Nightjar (Caprimulgus europaeus) Arctic tern (Sterna paradisaea) Black woodpecker (Dryocopus martius) Red-backed shrike (Lanius collurio) Red-breasted flycatcher (Ficedula parva) Caspian tern (Sterna caspia) Grey seal (Halichoerus grypus)

FI0100078 Narrow inlets (1650, 3 %) Diffuse nu- SCI 14,4 km / Marine pro- Reefs (1170, 0 - 1 %) trient SPA 18.km tection areas Coastal lagoons (1150, 0 - 1 %) loads in the Perna- Effluents Bittern (Botaurus stellaris) ja Bay and from resi- Bewick’s swan (Cygnus columbianus) Pernaja Arc­ dential ar- Whooper swan (Cygnus cygnus) hipelago eas Smew (Mergus albellus) (65 760 ha) Fish farms Honey buzzard (Pernis apivorus) Uncon- Hazel grouse (Bonasa bonasia) trolled Spotted crake (Porzana porzana) boat and Corncrake (Crex crex) common Common crane (Grus grus) traffic and Ruff (Philomachus pugnax) recrea­tion Wood sandpiper (Tringa glareola) Caspian tern (Sterna caspia) Common tern (Sterna hirundo) Horned owl (Bubo bubo) Nightjar (Caprimulgus europaeus) Black woodpecker (Dryocopus martius) Barred warbler (Sylvia nisoria) Red-backed shrike (Lanius collurio) Ortolan bunting (Emberiza hortulana) Marsh harrier (Circus aeruginosus) Arctic tern (Sterna paradisaea) + three endangered species (not defined) Grey seal (Halichoerus grypus)

FI0100077 Sandbanks slightly covered by sea water (1110, 0 - 1 %) Erosion (of SCI 9.8 km/ Söder- Reefs (1170, 0 - 1 %) the island) SPA 13.2 km skär and due to Caspian tern (Sterna caspia) Långören hunting Common tern (Sterna hirundo) Archipelago activities Arctic tern (Sterna paradisaea) (18 219 ha) Grey seal (Halichoerus grypus) Surrounding shallow banks are important resting plac- es for migrating seabirds 4(13) | Environmental impact assessment report | Appendix V

Natura 2000 Ecosystem / Species Listed Sta- Distance to area Name (code, relative amount %) / threats tus pipeline Name (latin name) C14/C16 FI0100026 Sandbanks slightly covered by sea water (1110, 16 %) No listed SCI 14.3 km/ Kirkkonum- Reefs (1170, 12 %) threats SPA 14.1 km mi Archipel- Coastal lagoons (1150, 0 - 1 %) ago Baltic Sea islets and islands (1620, 10 %) (SPA-nro Red-throated diver (Gavia stellata) FI0100105, Black-throated diver (Gavia arctica) 1 750 ha) Hazel grouse (Bonasa bonasia) Caspian tern (Sterna caspia) Common tern (Sterna hirundo) Horned owl (Bubo bubo) Boreal owl (Aegolius funereus) Nightjar (Caprimulgus europaeus) Grey-headed woodpecker (Picus canus) Black woodpecker (Dryocopus martius) Woodlark (Lullula arborea) Red-breasted flycatcher (Ficedula parva) Arctic tern (Sterna paradisaea)

FI0100089 Baltic Sea islets and islands (1620, 0 - 1 %) The grey SCI 10.6 km/ Kallbådan seal is 10.6 km Grey seal (Halichoerus grypus) islet and wa- sensitive ter area to human (1 520 ha) distur- bance. FI0100017 Sandbanks slightly covered by sea water (1110, 0 %) SCI 20.6 km Inkoo Archi- Reefs (1170, 1 %) SPA pelago Baltic esker islands with i.e. sub-littoral vegetation (203 ha) (1610, 29 %) Baltic Sea islets and islands (1620, 15 %) Common tern (Sterna hirundo) Arctic tern (Sterna paradisaea) Red-backed shrike (Lanius collurio) Caspian tern (Sterna caspia) + one endangered species (not defined) Environmental impact assessment report | Appendix V 5(13)|

Natura 2000 Ecosystem / Species Listed Sta- Distance to area Name (code, relative amount %) / threats tus pipeline Name (latin name) C14/C16 FI0100005 Sandbanks slightly covered by sea water (1110, 2 %) Diffuse nu- SCI 18.6 km Tammisaari Coastal lagoons (1150, 1 %) trient SPA and Hanko Large shallow inlets and bays (1160, 2 %) loads Archipela- Reefs (1170, 1 %) Mainte- go and Po- Narrow inlets (1650, 4 %) nance hjanpitäjän- works for Grey-headed woodpecker (Picus canus) lahti arine harbours Boreal owl (Aegolius funereus) Protected and ship- Horned owl (Bubo bubo) Marine Area ping lanes Common tern (Sterna hirundo) (52 630 ha) Construc- Woodlark (Lullula arborea) tion of gas Bittern (Botaurus stellaris) pipelines European nightjar (Caprimulgus europaeus) (inside Barred warbler (Sylvia nisoria) the Nat- Black-throated diver (Gavia arctica) ura 2000 Common crane (Grus grus) area) Arctic tern (Sterna paradisaea) Whooper swan (Cygnus cygnus) Wood sandpiper (Tringa glareola) Spotted crake (Porzana porzana) Honey buzzard (Pernis apivorus) Wood grouse (Tetrao urogallus) Black woodpecker (Dryocopus martius) Bewick’s swan (Cygnus columbianus) Red-backed shrike (Lanius collurio) Red-breasted flycatcher (Ficedula parva) Hazel grouse (Bonasa bonasia) Caspian tern (Sterna caspia) Ruff (Philomachus pugnax) Smew (Mergus albellus) Pygmy owl (Glaucidium passerinum) Red-necked phalarope (Phalaropus lobatus) + four endangered species (not defined) Grey seal (Halichoerus grypus)

FI0100006 Sandbanks slightly covered by sea water (1110, 10 %) Construc- SCI 29.6 km Tulliniemi Reefs (1170, 5 %) tion of gas SPA Bird Protec- Baltic Sea islets and islands (1620, 5 %) pipelines tion Area (inside Common tern (Sterna hirundo) (2 566 ha) the Nat- Arctic tern (Sterna paradisaea) ura 2000 Barred warbler (Sylvia nisoria) area) Black woodpecker (Dryocopus martius) Red-backed shrike (Lanius collurio) Red-breasted flycatcher (Ficedula parva) Barnacle goose (Branta leucopsis) Dunlin (Calidris alpine schinzii) 6(13) | Environmental impact assessment report | Appendix V

Natura 2000 Ecosystem / Species Listed Sta- Distance to area Name (code, relative amount %) / threats tus pipeline Name (latin name) C14/C16 FI0200090 Sandbanks slightly covered by sea water (1110, 1 %) Construc- SCI 29.4 km The Archi- Coastal lagoons (1150, 1 %) tion of gas pelago Sea Reefs (1170, 2 %) pipelines (49 735 ha) Baltic esker islands with sub-littoral vegetation (1610, (inside 4 %) the Nat- Baltic Sea islets and islands (1620, 4 %) ura 2000 Narrow inlets (1650, < 1 %) area)

Black-throated diver (Gavia arctica) Slavonian grebe (Podiceps auritusis) Common crane (Grus grus) Barnacle goose (Branta leucopsis) Corncrake (Crex crex) Ruff (Philomachus pugnax) Dotterel (Charadrius morinellus) Golden plover (Pluvialis apricaria) Caspian tern (Sterna caspia) Common tern (Sterna hirundo) Arctic tern (Sterna paradisaea) Little tern (Sterna albifrons) Hazel grouse (Bonasa bonasia) Wood grouse (Tetrao urogallus) Horned owl (Bubo bubo) Short-eared owl (Asio flammeus) Boreal owl (Aegolius funereus) Headed woodpecker (Picus canus) Black woodpecker (Dryocopus martius) Red-backed shrike (Lanius collurio) Red-breasted flycatcher (Ficedula parva) Barred warbler (Sylvia nisoria) + four endangered species (not defined)

Grey seal (Halichoerus grypus) Ringed seal (Phoca hispida botnica) Otter (Lutra lutra) Environmental impact assessment report | Appendix V 7(13)|

B: Finnish IBAs and national FINIBA areas in the project area with key bird species and most important season of stay

No. Important Bird Area Species Season

71 Kirkkojärvi Lake and Lupin- Bittern (Botaurus stellaris) B lahti Bay Whooper swan (Cygnus cygnus) P White-tailed eagle (Haliaeetus albicilla) P Corncrake (Crex crex) B

72 Itäinen Suomenlahti Na- Cormorant (Phalacrocorax carbo) B tional Park Mute swan (Cygnus olor) B Greylag goose (Anser anser) B Barnacle goose (Branta leucopsis) B Wigeon (Anas penelope) B Shoveler (Anas clypeata) B Tufted duck (Aythya fuligula) B Common eider (Somateria mollissima) B Velvet scoter (Melanitta fusca) B Red-breasted merganser (Mergus serrator) B Goosander (Mergus merganser) B Hobby (Falco subbuteo) B Oystercatcher (Haematopus ostralegus) B Ringed plover (Charadrius hiaticula) B Redshank (Tringa tetanus) B Common sandpiper (Actitis hypoleucos) B Ruddy turnstone (Arenaria interpres) B Common gull (Larus canus) B Black-headed gull (Larus ridibundus) B Great black-backed gull (Larus marinus) B Lesser black-backed gull (Larus fuscus fuscus) B Herring gull (Larus argentatus) B Common tern (Sterna hirundo) B Caspian tern (Sterna caspia) B Arctic tern (Sterna paradisaea) B Razorbill (Alca torda) B Black guillemot (Cepphus grille) B 73 Kirkon-Vilkkiläntura Bay Bewick’s swan (Cygnus columbianus) P Whooper swan (Cygnus cygnus) P White-tailed eagle (Haliaeetus albicilla) P Greater spotted eagle (Aquila clanga) P Corncrake (Crex crex) B Great snipe (Gallinago media) P Caspian tern (Sterna caspia) P 75 Pernaja outer archipelago Caspian tern (Sterna caspia) B Razorbill (Alca torda) B Guillemot (Uria aalge) B Black guillemot (Cepphus grylle) B

76 Porvoonjoki Delta Whooper swan (Cygnus cygnus) P Smew (Mergus albellus) P Goosander (Mergus merganser) P White-tailed eagle (Haliaeetus albicilla) P Corncrake (Crex crex) B Reed warbler (Acrocephalus scirpaceus) B 77 Porvoo outer archipelago Caspian tern (Sterna caspia) B Black guillemot (Cepphus grille) B 78 Laajalahti Bay, Vanhankau- Goosander (Mergus merganser) P punginlahti Bay and Viikki Reed warbler (Acrocephalus scirpaceus) B Bearded tit (Panurus biarmicus) B 8(13) | Environmental impact assessment report | Appendix V

No. Important Bird Area Species Season

80 Tammisaari and Inkoo White-tailed eagle (Haliaeetus albicilla) W western archipelago Common gull (Larus canus) B Great black-backed gull (Larus marinus) B, P Caspian tern (Sterna caspia) B Black guillemot (Cepphus grille) B 81 Hanko western archipelago Common eider (Somateria mollissima) B, P Steller’s eider (Polysticta stelleri) P White-tailed eagle (Haliaeetus albicilla) P, W Great snipe (Gallinago media) P

82 Kirkkonummi archipelago Barnacle goose (Branta leucopsis) B Steller’s eider (Polysticta stelleri) P White-tailed eagle (Haliaeetus albicilla) P Great black-backed gull (Larus marinus) B Herring gull (Larus argentatus) B 89 Korppoo and Nauvo south- Common eider (Somateria mollissima) R ern archipelago Great black-backed gull (Larus marinus) R Razorbill (Alca torda) R Black guillemot (Cepphus grille) R

FINIBA Läntisen Suomenlahden Cormorant (Phalacrocorax carbo) P 110129 saaristo (includes IBA are- Mute swan (Cygnus olor) P, W as 80, 81 ja 89) Whooper swan (Cygnus cygnus) P Greylag goose (Anser anser) P Shelduck (Tadorna tadorna) P Common eider (Somateria mollissima) B, P Long-tailed duck (Clangula hyemalis) P Oystercatcher (Haematopus ostralegus) P Purple sandpiper (Calidris maritima) P Dunlin (Calidris alpina schinzii) B Common gull (Larus canus) P Lesser black-backed gull (Larus fuscus fuscus) B Herring gull (Larus argentatus) P Great black-backed gull (Larus marinus) P Caspian tern (Sterna caspia) B, P Common tern (Sterna hirundo) B Little tern (Sterna albifrons) B Guillemot (Uria aalge) B Razorbill (Alca torda) B Black guillemot (Cepphus grille) B

FINIBA Espoonlahti Goosander (Mergus merganser) P 210097 FINIBA Laajalahden-Viikin alue (In- Grey heron (Ardea cinerea) P 210247 cludes IBA-alueen 78) Goosander (Mergus merganser) P Common coot (Fulica atra) P Great reed warbler (Acrocephalus arundinaceus) B Bearded tit (Panurus biarmicus) R

FINIBA Kirkkonummen-Espoon Cormorant (Phalacrocorax carbo) P 210248 saaristo (sisältää IBA-al- Mute swan (Cygnus olor) P ueen 82) Greater scaup (Aythya marila) P Common gull (Larus canus) P Lesser black-backed gull (Larus fuscus fuscus) B Caspian tern (Sterna caspia) B, P

FINIBA Tammisaaren lintuvedet Grey heron (Ardea cinerea) P 210254 Common pochard (Aythya farina) P Smew (Mergus albellus) P Common coot (Fulica atra) P Great reed warbler (Acrocephalus arundinaceus) B Bearded tit (Panurus biarmicus) R Environmental impact assessment report | Appendix V 9(13)|

No. Important Bird Area Species Season

FINIBA Helsingin edustan luodot Grey heron (Ardea cinerea) P 210265 Black-headed gull (Larus ridibundus) B Lesser black-backed gull (Larus fuscus fuscus) P Herring gull (Larus argentatus) P Common tern (Sterna hirundo) B

FINIBA Pikkalanlahti Goosander (Mergus merganser) P 210267 FINIBA Porvoonjoen suistoalue Grey heron (Ardea cinerea) P 230029 (includes IBA area 76) Whooper swan (Cygnus cygnus) P Smew (Mergus albellus) P Goosander (Mergus merganser) P Great reed warbler (Acrocephalus arundinaceus) B Bearded tit (Panurus biarmicus) R

FINIBA Pernajalahden pohjoisosa Great reed warbler (Acrocephalus arundinaceus) B 230043 FINIBA Heinlahti Bay Bewick’s swan (Cygnus columbianus) P 310012 Herring gull (Larus argentatus) P Lesser black-backed gull (Larus fuscus fuscus) P Great black-backed gull (Larus marinus) P

FINIBA Salminlahti Bay Bewick’s swan (Cygnus columbianus) P 310017 FINIBA Kirkkojärvi-Lupinlahti (In- Bittern (Botaurus stellaris) B 310109 cludes IBA 71) Bewick’s swan (Cygnus columbianus) P Whooper swan (Cygnus cygnus) P Common pochard (Aythya farina) P Smew (Mergus albellus) P Marsh harrier (Circus aeruginosus) B Moorhen (Gallinula chloropus) B Great reed warbler (Acrocephalus arundinaceus) B Bearded tit (Panurus biarmicus) R

FINIBA Vilkkiläntura-Ala-Pihlajan- Grey heron (Ardea cinerea) P 310113 lahti (IBA 73) Mute swan (Cygnus olor) B Bewick’s swan (Cygnus columbianus) P Whooper swan (Cygnus cygnus) P Tufted duck (Aythya fuligula) B Common eider (Somateria mollissima) B Red-breasted merganser (Mergus serrator) B Goosander (Mergus merganser) B Oystercatcher (Haematopus ostralegus) B Redshank (Tringa tetanus) B Ruddy turnstone (Arenaria interpres) B Black-headed gull (Larus ridibundus) B Common gull (Larus canus) B Great black-backed gull (Larus marinus) B Caspian tern (Sterna caspia) B, P Common tern (Sterna hirundo) B Arctic tern (Sterna paradisaea) B

FINIBA South coast of Hanko Pe- Mute swan (Cygnus olor) P 210180 ninsula Shelduck (Tadorna tadorna) P Greater scaup (Aythya marila) P Herring gull (Larus argentatus) P

Season: R (breeding resident), B (breeding visitor), W (winter visitor), P (passage visitor), N (non- breeding visitor) 10(13) | Environmental impact assessment report | Appendix V

C: Finnish BSPAs in the Finnish project area

BSPA no Character Threats Other information

BSPA 25 Area with low salinity biotopes, General pollution Terrestrial areas are Eastern Gulf of large offshore areas Sand extraction primarily national Finland Nation- park or nature re- al Park, Finland Important species: serve (IUCN II and Harbour seal (Phoca vitulina) IV), Natura 2000 Same as Nat- Grey seal (Halichoerus grypus) site ura 2000 area Caspian tern (Sterna caspia) FI0408001 Razorbill (Alca torda) Marine stickleback (Spinachia vulgaris) Eastern limit for common mus- sel (Mytilus edulis) itäraja

BSPA 161 Area with high natural biodiversity Alien species Pernaja and Important breeding area for many Dredging Pernaja Archi- bird species Erosion pelago Marine Important migration route and rest- Eutrophication Protection ing area for many bird species General pollution Areas Human disturbance Oil spills Same as Na­ Power generation tura 2000 area Tourism and recreation FI0100078 BSPA 160 Estuary of River Porvoonjoki Porvoonjoki es- Area with great habitat and species tuary – Stens- diversity böle Important breeding area and rest- ing area Same as Na­ tura 2000 area Important species: FI0100074 Otter (Lutra lutra) Bittern (Botaurus stellaris) Marsh harrier (Circus aerugino- sus) Spotted crake (Porzana porzana) Corn crake (Crex crex)

BSPA 159 Area includes sandbanks slightly Erosion (of the island) due Söderskär and covered by sea water Surrounding to hunting activities Långören Archi- shallow banks are important resting pelago places for migrating seabirds

Same as Natu- Important species: ra 2000 area Caspian tern (Sterna caspia) FI0100077 Common tern (Sterna hirundo) Arctic tern (Sterna paradisaea)

BSPA 158 Area includes sandbanks slightly Kirkkonummi covered by sea water Reefs Coas­ Archipelago tal lagoons

Same as Natu- Important species: ra 2000 area Red-throated diver (Gavia stellata) FI0100026 Black-throated diver (Gavia arctica) Caspian tern (Sterna caspia) Common tern (Sterna hirundo) Arctic tern (Sterna paradisaea) Environmental impact assessment report | Appendix V 11(13)|

BSPA no Character Threats Other information

BSPA 24 Area includes biotopes ranging Industry Partly nature re- Tammissaari from limnetic, brackish or estuarine Agriculture serve or managed Archipelago - to marine and offshore Ships nature reserve or Hankoniemi - Mari-culture (fish-farming) wildlife sanctuary Pojo Bay, Fin- Important area for migrating wa- Tourism (IUCN II and IV), land terfowl Recreation Natura 2000 site Construction of Same as Natu­ Important species: summer houses ra 2000 area Osprey (Pandion halieatus) FI0100005 Whooper swan (Cygnus cygnus)

BSPA 157 Area includes important underwa- Tulliniemi Bird ter habitats, such as sandbanks Protection Area slightly covered by sea water and reefs. The area also contains differ- Same as Natu­ ent types of dunes. ra 2000 area Archipelago is very important for FI0100006 nesting seabirds. Important passage area for migrat- ing birds and thus also an impor- tant area for research.

BSPA 143 Area includes large number of Ships Partly nature re- Southern Ar- small islands, mosaic of terrestrial Mari-culture (fish-farming) serve or chipelago Sea, and marine habitats Tourism managed nature Finland Recreation reserve or wildlife Important species: Construction of sanctuary (IUCN II Same as Natu­ White-tailed eagle (Haliaeetus al- summer houses and IV), NATURA ra 2000 area bicilla) 2000 site FI0200090 Velvet scoter (Melanitta fusca) Greater scaup (Aythya marila) Grey seal (Halichoerus grypus) 12(13) | Environmental impact assessment report | Appendix V

D: RAMSAR areas in the Finnish project area

RAMSAR areas in the Finnish project area

3FI022 Important area for waterfowl, especially whooper swans and Bewick’s swans, and Kirkon-Vilkkiläntura waders during migration periods. Valuable breeding wetland bird fauna. Permanent Bay (1512) shallow sea bays and brackish alluvial meadows.

Eutrophication and overgrowth caused by agriculture, nearby fish farming and previ- ous wastewaters. Drainage of Kirkontura has been accelerated due to previous ditch- ing. Hunting of waterfowl in autumn negatively affects the site. American mink (Mus- tela vison) and raccoon dog (Nyctereutes procyonoides) may inhibit the breeding of birds.

The area is protected by regulations in the Nature Conservation Act. Conservation strategies include mowing, dredging and increasing grazing to curb overgrowth of the wetland.

3FI023 The site is a valuable breeding and staging area for an exceptionally wide variety of Lake Kirkkojärvi wetland birds. Recreational importance is noteworthy. and Lupinlahti Bay (1513) Overgrowth due to dredging and eutrophication, road construction, boating. Ameri- can mink (Mustela vison) and raccoon dog (Nyctereutes procyonoides) may inhibit the breeding of birds in both areas. The causeway with electrical power lines poses a risk, especially to larger birds.

The areas are included in the Waterfowl Habitats Conservation Programme. Resto- ration plans for Kirkkojärvi were established in 1988 and 1999. The water level was raised and new pools dredged during 1994–1995. The site is included in the Natura 2000 network and is designated as a Specially Protected Area (SPA). Lupinlahti and parts of Kirkkojärvi are also designated Sites of Community Interest (SCIs).

3FI001 The archipelago forms an important breeding area for birds and includes the most Aspskär Islands (2) important islet for alcids in Finland. Shallow marine waters and rocky offshore is- lands. This area is in- cluded in to the Oil pollution damage is the main threat. American mink (Mustela vison) have notably Natura 2000 area inhibited the breeding of birds especially the colony of alcids. FI0408001 The area is guarded and landing is prohibited during the breeding season of birds. Aspskär was protected as a nature conservation area (369 km2) in 1953. The site is included in the Natura 2000 network and a designated SPA and SCI. The islands are also included in the BSPA network.

3FI002 Important breeding and staging area for birds and important area for the protection Söderskär and of grey seal. Shallow marine waters, rocky offshore islands and sand and shingle Långören Archi- shores of offshore islands. pelago Oil pollution damage is the main threat. The planned harbour of Vuosaari would in- This area is in­ crease shipping near the area. American mink (Mustela vison) have caused notable cluded in to the damage to the breeding of birds. The unguarded Långören Archipelago has suffered Natura 2000 area because of increased boating activity. Hunting of waterfowl in autumn causes distur- FI0100077 bances in several areas.

Söderskär Archipelago was established as a bird sanctuary in 1930 and Långören Ar- chipelago in 1970. Pellinki Archipelago includes the protected area of Tunnholmen Is- lands, established in 1932. The area is guarded and landing is prohibited during the breeding season of birds. Environmental impact assessment report | Appendix V 13(13)|

RAMSAR areas in the Finnish project area

3FI016 Ramsar site consisting of a diverse complex of archipelago, shallow sea bays and Bird wetlands of flats with valuable wetland bird fauna and flora, including a noteworthy amount of Hanko and Tam- threatened species in the area of the Gulf of Finland. It covers a large range of bi- misaari (1506) otopes from limnetic, brackish zones to marine and offshore zones. Shallow marine waters and sea bays, rocky marine shores and permanent freshwater lakes. Moreo- This area is in­ ver, permanent freshwater ponds and marshes, forested peat lands, coastal brackish cluded in to the lagoons and brackish alluvial meadows. The area also holds sand shores and dunes, Natura 2000 area black alder swamp forests and seasonally flooded forests. FI0100005 Oil pollution, ship traffic, recreational activities and building on the shores threaten the area. Moreover, the coastal meadows of Hanko Peninsula are becoming over- grown. Hunting of waterfowl both in autumn and early summer causes disturbanc- es in several places outside the protected areas, and American mink (Mustela vison) have inhibited the breeding of birds on several islands. Additional threats: pollution from industry and mariculture.

Several sites are included in the Conservation Programmes of Waterfowl Habitats. Ekenäs Archipelago National Park established in 1989, Uddskatan Protected Area established in 1989 and Tulliniemi Protected Area established in 1933. Master plans and management plans exist for the areas. Included are nearly 40 private protect- ed areas and state-owned protected areas as well. In the national park and in private protected areas access is prohibited during the breeding season of birds.

Appendix VI

Social Impacts: Questionnary

Environmental impact assessment report | Appendix VI 3(17)|

Appendix VI: Social Impacts: Questionnary A Cover letter for resident survey 4(17) | Environmental impact assessment report | Appendix VI

B Resident survey on the assessment of the environmental impacts of the Nord Stream project in Finland Environmental impact assessment report | Appendix VI 5(17)|

B Resident survey on the assessment of the environmental impacts of the Nord Stream project in Finland 6(17) | Environmental impact assessment report | Appendix VI

B Resident survey on the assessment of the environmental impacts of the Nord Stream project in Finland Environmental impact assessment report | Appendix VI 7(17)|

B Resident survey on the assessment of the environmental impacts of the Nord Stream project in Finland 8(17) | Environmental impact assessment report | Appendix VI

C Resident survey reminder letter 8th August, 2008 Environmental impact assessment report | Appendix VI 9(17)|

D Resident survey on the assessment of the environmental impacts of the Nord Stream project in Finland. Survey Results

Cumulative Gender Frequency % Cum. % frequency Woman 506 53 506 53 Man 454 47 960 100 Total 960 100 960 100

Cumulative Age group Frequency % Cum % frequency 18-30 years 94 10 94 10 31-50 years 288 30 382 40 51-65 years 338 35 720 75 over 65 years 242 25 962 100 Total: 962 100 962 100 10(17) | Environmental impact assessment report | Appendix VI

D Resident survey on the assessment of the environmental impacts of the Nord Stream project in Finland. Survey Results

Cumulative Present living situation Frequency % Cum-% frequency Living alone 334 35 334 35 Co-habiting 413 43 747 78 Family with children 206 22 953 100 Total: 953 100 953 100

How long have you lived or spent your holi- Cumulative Frequency % Cum-% days in an area near the project? frequency 10 89 10 5-9 years 80 9 169 18 10-29 years 253 28 422 46 30-49 years 308 34 730 80 Over 50 years 187 20 917 100 Total: 917 100 917 100

Is your permanent residence located in an Cumulative Frequency % Cum-% area near the project… frequency In the outer archipelago 17 2 17 2 On the coast 775 83 792 85 Inland 142 15 934 100 Total: 934 100 934 100

If your leisure time home is located in an Cumulative Frequency % Cum-% area near the project, is it… frequency In the outer archipelago 78 23 78 23 On the coast 179 52 257 75 Inland 87 25 344 100 Total: 344 100 344 100 Environmental impact assessment report | Appendix VI 11(17)|

D Resident survey on the assessment of the environmental impacts of the Nord Stream project in Finland. Survey Results

Baltic sea shoreline at different types of residences Yes No 9.1 Does your permanent residence located in an area near the project have a shoreline 24.6 75.4 on the Baltic Sea? n=906 9.2 Does your holiday home located in an area near the project have a shoreline on the 31.6 68.4 Baltic Sea? n=541 9.3 Does your other property or land area located in an area near the project have a 10.4 89.6 shoreline on the Baltic Sea? n=357 12(17) | Environmental impact assessment report | Appendix VI

D Resident survey on the assessment of the environmental impacts of the Nord Stream project in Finland. Survey Results

Where have you got information about the project from? Lkm % Television or radio 779 83 National newspapers 625 67 Local newspapers or magazines 247 26 Nord Stream’s brochures and publications 98 11 Other Websites 46 5 NGOs (e.g. environmental organisations) 45 5 Neighbours and other acquaintances 37 4 The environmental impact assessment programme 31 3 Nord Stream’s Website 17 2 Nord Stream’s news conferences and discussion events 3 0 Presentations by the contact authority (public events) 2 0 Other 31 3 Total: 1,961 210 N: 933

Cumulative The project should be built Frequency % Cum-% frequency I cannot say 333 35 333 35 I agree completely 61 6 394 42 I agree 204 22 598 64 I disagree 148 16 746 79 I disagree completely 193 21 939 100 Total: 939 100 939 100 Environmental impact assessment report | Appendix VI 13(17)|

D Resident survey on the assessment of the environmental impacts of the Nord Stream project in Finland. Survey Results

I believe the impact of shaping of the seabed Permanent residen- Permanent residence on the health, safety and comfort of my ce has Baltic Sea does not have Baltic resi­dential and living environment will be… (%) shoreline Sea shoreline Total

insignificant 10 12 11 fairly small 28 40 37 moderate 34 28 29 great 29 20 22 Total: 100 100 100 N: 208 667 875

Contingence = 0.128 Khi square = 14.65 Degree of freedom = 3 P-value = 0.0021 Statistically significant 14(17) | Environmental impact assessment report | Appendix VI

D Resident survey on the assessment of the environmental impacts of the Nord Stream project in Finland. Survey Results

I believe the impact of shaping of the seabed fairly on the health, safety and comfort of my resi- insignificant moderate great Total small dential and living environment will be… (%)

Woman 26 49 57 64 52 Man 74 51 43 36 48 Total: 100 100 100 100 100 N: 104 341 271 204 920 Contingence = 0.211 Khi square = 43.04 Degree of freedom = 3 P-value = 0 Statistically very significant Environmental impact assessment report | Appendix VI 15(17)|

D Resident survey on the assessment of the environmental impacts of the Nord Stream project in Finland. Survey Results

I believe the impact of shaping of the seabed fairly on the health, safety and comfort of my resi- insignificant moderate great Total small dential and living environment will be… (%)

18-30 years 12 15 7 4 10 31-50 years 35 31 33 26 31 51-65 years 33 31 35 44 35 yli 65 years 21 24 24 26 24 Total: 100 100 100 100 100 N: 104 342 271 204 921 Contingence = 0.171 Khi squar = 27.65 Degree of freedom = 9 P-value = 0,0011 Statistically significant 16(17) | Environmental impact assessment report | Appendix VI

D Resident survey on the assessment of the environmental impacts of the Nord Stream project in Finland. Survey Results

I disagree I disag- I cannot I agree comp- Impact on living environment (%) I agree completely ree say letely I believe the project will have negative envi- ronmental impacts on the Baltic Sea and the 3.2 16.7 18.4 36.5 25.2 coastal areas. I believe the project poses an environmental 3.4 15.1 15.4 36.8 29.3 risk to the Baltic Sea. N: 940 Environmental impact assessment report | Appendix VI 17(17)|

D Resident survey on the assessment of the environmental impacts of the Nord Stream project in Finland. Survey Results

Freeform answers Frequency % Comments on Russia and political aspecst of the project 88 27 Comments of the environmental issues and the Baltic Sea 84 26 Negative attitude towards the project 81 25 Comments on the questionnaire 79 25 Comments on the reliability and responsibility issues during 53 16 the operation of the pipeline Other comments 31 10 Requests for more information on the project 29 9 Positive attitude towards the project 16 5 The pipeline should be built on land only 13 4 Total. 474 147 N: 322

Appendix VII

Barrels along the pipeline route 2(9) | Environmental impact assessment report | Appendix VII

Appendix VII A: Barrels Located Along the Pipeline Route C14 (Alternative 1)

ROV ID Alternative 1 (C14) Alternative 2 (C16) Easting Northing Dimensions ROV Description

Pipeline KP Offset from Pipeline KP Offset from (highlighted barrels lie within the installation corridor) Route Route (m) Route Route (m) R-05-2448 E 147.805 -8,1 W 148.860 2198.1 443077.1 6645780.3 h = 0.3 m Possible plastic fertiliser drum or similar container Related to S-05-2447?

R-05-2447 E 147.806 -7,1 W 148.865 2198.7 443075.6 6645780.1 0.5 x 0.5 m? Possible plastic fertiliser drum or similar container. Related Very poor to S-05-2448? visibility. R-05-2449 E 148.006 3,3 W 149.553 2136.6 442930.3 6645642.4 h = 0.3 m A barrel like container and a large bag next to it.

R-05-2456 E 151.363 -6,3 W 152.263 1448.7 440254.6 6643646.7 h = 0.3 m Possible small buried barrel/drum. Only the rim showing. Could also be a lid from a barrel or drum.

R-05-2455 E 151.378 -14,0 W 152.275 1444.7 440243.8 6643632.7 h = 0.3 m A partially buried metal container in soft sediment.

R-05-2458 E 151.698 -9,6 W 152.478 1542.4 439950.4 6643504.6 Metal debris resembling an oil drum cut in half length ways

R-06-019 W 157.551 -27,5 W 159.971 3409.8 434192.0 6644300.8 h = 0.6 m, Open metal barrel/oil drum. Soft silty clay seabed (gyttja) p = 1.2 m

R-06-082 E 168.178 11,3 W 170.491 1275.6 424427.0 6642250.1 Similar to oil drum in size and appearance but of heavier construction. Seabed is gyttja with numerous cobbles and small boulders in shallow scoured hollows. R-06-2541 E 171.506 115,5 W 173.517 202.1 421231.4 6641521.3 h = 0.6 m, Rusted and partially buried oil drum. Seabed of soft silty p = 1.2 m clay (Gyttja)

R-06-2481 W 173.247 -49,3 W 175.642 21,6 419098.7 6641342.6 p = 1.0 m, Open ended oil drum/barrel or similar partially buried in the h = 0.5 m soft gyttja sediments

R-06-008 E 174.979 0,8 W 176.964 121.5 417782.9 6641149.6 1.5 x 0.5 m Standard issue rusty oil drum in a shallow scoured hollow in the soft gyttja sediments.

R-06-005 W 175.713 -4,9 W 178.109 42.6 416635.6 6641185.2 h = 0.6 m, Dented standard sized rusty oil drum in a scoured hollow. p = 1.2 m Soft seabed sediments.

R-07-5051 W 186.385 -15,2 W 188.782 15.2 406110.2 6640704.5 h = 0.5 m, A (presumed) early barrel type mine release system 500 k = 0.5 m mm diameter and partially buried in the soft sediments

R-08-5108 E 216.269 4,2 E 218.273 4.6 377957.7 6637232.3 1.0 m, h = 0.5 m Corroded thin walled oil drum.

R-E8C-10177 E 233.544 4,5 E 235.548 4.6 362828.1 6629500.9 1.5 x 0.7 x Metal 40 gallon drum sitting on top of boulder. Visibility 1.5 m good

R-08-2938 W 234.478 616.3 W 236.866 616.4 361405.6 6630547.0 h = 0.5 m, Metal barrel with a rope coiled around it. A lid was also p = 1.0 m found close by. Possibly a type of mine release system or perhaps a depth charge R-W8A-10041 W 234.867 16.7 W 237.266 16.8 361121.0 6629911.0 1.0 P x 0.5 L x Metal debris. Metal drum. Visibility good 0.5 K

R-E8C-10202 E 238.210 -20.5 E 240.214 21.2 358185.0 6629157.3 1.0 x 0.5 x 0.5 Metal debris, 44-gallon drum. Visibility good

R-09-3007 E 264.987 -21.3 E 266.987 25.4 334353.5 6618180.2 1 x 0.5 m Oil drum in a scoured hollow on silty clay seabed.

R-09-5139 E 273.53 4.7 E 275.529 4.7 664304.3 6615524.1 P =1 m, H = Oil drum in scoured hollow on soft sediment seabed. 0.5 m

R-10-3281 W 299.658 -18.6 W 302.051 18.6 639077.2 6607379.9 P = 1 m, Oil drum in a scoured hollow. H = 0.5 m Environmental impact assessment report | Appendix VII 3(9)|

Appendix VII A: Barrels Located Along the Pipeline Route C14 (Alternative 1)

ROV ID Alternative 1 (C14) Alternative 2 (C16) Easting Northing Dimensions ROV Description

Pipeline KP Offset from Pipeline KP Offset from (highlighted barrels lie within the installation corridor) Route Route (m) Route Route (m) R-05-2448 E 147.805 -8,1 W 148.860 2198.1 443077.1 6645780.3 h = 0.3 m Possible plastic fertiliser drum or similar container Related to S-05-2447?

R-05-2447 E 147.806 -7,1 W 148.865 2198.7 443075.6 6645780.1 0.5 x 0.5 m? Possible plastic fertiliser drum or similar container. Related Very poor to S-05-2448? visibility. R-05-2449 E 148.006 3,3 W 149.553 2136.6 442930.3 6645642.4 h = 0.3 m A barrel like container and a large bag next to it.

R-05-2456 E 151.363 -6,3 W 152.263 1448.7 440254.6 6643646.7 h = 0.3 m Possible small buried barrel/drum. Only the rim showing. Could also be a lid from a barrel or drum.

R-05-2455 E 151.378 -14,0 W 152.275 1444.7 440243.8 6643632.7 h = 0.3 m A partially buried metal container in soft sediment.

R-05-2458 E 151.698 -9,6 W 152.478 1542.4 439950.4 6643504.6 Metal debris resembling an oil drum cut in half length ways

R-06-019 W 157.551 -27,5 W 159.971 3409.8 434192.0 6644300.8 h = 0.6 m, Open metal barrel/oil drum. Soft silty clay seabed (gyttja) p = 1.2 m

R-06-082 E 168.178 11,3 W 170.491 1275.6 424427.0 6642250.1 Similar to oil drum in size and appearance but of heavier construction. Seabed is gyttja with numerous cobbles and small boulders in shallow scoured hollows. R-06-2541 E 171.506 115,5 W 173.517 202.1 421231.4 6641521.3 h = 0.6 m, Rusted and partially buried oil drum. Seabed of soft silty p = 1.2 m clay (Gyttja)

R-06-2481 W 173.247 -49,3 W 175.642 21,6 419098.7 6641342.6 p = 1.0 m, Open ended oil drum/barrel or similar partially buried in the h = 0.5 m soft gyttja sediments

R-06-008 E 174.979 0,8 W 176.964 121.5 417782.9 6641149.6 1.5 x 0.5 m Standard issue rusty oil drum in a shallow scoured hollow in the soft gyttja sediments.

R-06-005 W 175.713 -4,9 W 178.109 42.6 416635.6 6641185.2 h = 0.6 m, Dented standard sized rusty oil drum in a scoured hollow. p = 1.2 m Soft seabed sediments.

R-07-5051 W 186.385 -15,2 W 188.782 15.2 406110.2 6640704.5 h = 0.5 m, A (presumed) early barrel type mine release system 500 k = 0.5 m mm diameter and partially buried in the soft sediments

R-08-5108 E 216.269 4,2 E 218.273 4.6 377957.7 6637232.3 1.0 m, h = 0.5 m Corroded thin walled oil drum.

R-E8C-10177 E 233.544 4,5 E 235.548 4.6 362828.1 6629500.9 1.5 x 0.7 x Metal 40 gallon drum sitting on top of boulder. Visibility 1.5 m good

R-08-2938 W 234.478 616.3 W 236.866 616.4 361405.6 6630547.0 h = 0.5 m, Metal barrel with a rope coiled around it. A lid was also p = 1.0 m found close by. Possibly a type of mine release system or perhaps a depth charge R-W8A-10041 W 234.867 16.7 W 237.266 16.8 361121.0 6629911.0 1.0 P x 0.5 L x Metal debris. Metal drum. Visibility good 0.5 K

R-E8C-10202 E 238.210 -20.5 E 240.214 21.2 358185.0 6629157.3 1.0 x 0.5 x 0.5 Metal debris, 44-gallon drum. Visibility good

R-09-3007 E 264.987 -21.3 E 266.987 25.4 334353.5 6618180.2 1 x 0.5 m Oil drum in a scoured hollow on silty clay seabed.

R-09-5139 E 273.53 4.7 E 275.529 4.7 664304.3 6615524.1 P =1 m, H = Oil drum in scoured hollow on soft sediment seabed. 0.5 m

R-10-3281 W 299.658 -18.6 W 302.051 18.6 639077.2 6607379.9 P = 1 m, Oil drum in a scoured hollow. H = 0.5 m 4(9) | Environmental impact assessment report | Appendix VII

ROV ID Alternative 1 (C14) Alternative 2 (C16) Easting Northing Dimensions ROV Description

Pipeline KP Offset from Pipeline KP Offset from (highlighted barrels lie within the installation corridor) Route Route (m) Route Route (m) R-10-001 E 300.479 -12.8 E 302.479 13.3 638831.8 6607115.0 P = 1 m, H = Oil drum. Situated in a shallow scoured hollow. Soft sedi- 0.5 m ment

R-11-5153 W 313.705 -154.9 W 316.098 154.9 625611.9 6603498.2 0.1 x 0.3 m Metal cylindrical object found 25m from target location S-11-3328. The sediment surrounding it is of soft gyttja clay with occasional coarse materials R-11-3380 W 315.259 -130.1 W 317.653 130.1 624126.9 6603037.6 1.0 x 0.5 m Standard size oil drum on deeply scoured hollow. Drum is probably empty as cap was missing. Surrounding seabed of soft featureless gyttja. R-11-3372 E 324.822 -23.8 E 326.822 23.8 615762.2 6599677.0 1.0 x 0.5 m Standard size empty oil drum. Cap missing. Surrounding seabed of soft featureless gyttja.

R-11-3434 W 326.033 51.7 W 328.427 51.7 614052.8 6599373.3 Standard size 200 litre oil drum, hydraulic oil. Dumped re- cently. The cap in missing. Flat seabed with soft gyttja clay.

R-11-5168 W 335.083 39.5 W 337.476 39.5 605393.3 6596768.4 100l paint drum destroyed by the ROV. Found 17m NE of S-11-3422. Flat seabed of gyttja clay.

R-12-5171 E 337.808 59.4 E 339.808 59.4 603295.2 6596040.2 0.3 x 0.5 m Empty metal drum found on way (tango) to target S-12- 3451. Heavy corroded. Flat seabed with soft gyttja clay.

R-12-3499 E 339.935 9.9 E 341.935 9.9 601271.3 6595384.1 200 l Corroded oil drum (200 l). Cap is missing and it is ripped on the side. Probably empty. Sediment of soft gyttja clay.

R-12-5179 E 354.27 11.1 E 356.270 10.6 587383.3 6592031.1 h = 0.20 m, Heavy corroded metal cylinder found in a scoured hollow p = 0.30 m NE of target M-12-403. Surrounding sediment is of soft gyttja clay. R-12-380 E 357.872 20.3 E 359.872 20.3 584151.6 6590490.0 h = 0.40 m, Corroded metal barrel slightly inclined in seabed. Seabed k = 0.80 m of soft gyttja clay with stones, cobbles and some boulders scattered in the area. R-13-3546 E 374.99 -4.2 E 376.990 4.2 568195.2 6585173.4 P = 0.8 m, A semi-buried 200 litre oil drum in a shallow scoured hol- H = 0.5 m low. A plastic bag is located close to it. Seabed of soft se- diment. R-W13CG-EE- E 381.796 -7.0 E 383.797 6.6 561912.0 6582627.0 0.8 x 0.4 x Target was found to be a metal drum lying its side (A). Ad- 004-A 0.4 m ditional debris located approx. 25m to the SE, short length of small link chain with ’S’ link visible (B) and a length of thin line / wire starting at C and running West for approx. 30m. Visibility good R-14-3584 E 397.719 -18.8 E 399.720 18.9 547112.1 6577244.1 P = 0.8 m, A 200 litre oil drum located on seabed of soft sediment. H = 0.5 m Environmental impact assessment report | Appendix VII 5(9)|

ROV ID Alternative 1 (C14) Alternative 2 (C16) Easting Northing Dimensions ROV Description

Pipeline KP Offset from Pipeline KP Offset from (highlighted barrels lie within the installation corridor) Route Route (m) Route Route (m) R-10-001 E 300.479 -12.8 E 302.479 13.3 638831.8 6607115.0 P = 1 m, H = Oil drum. Situated in a shallow scoured hollow. Soft sedi- 0.5 m ment

R-11-5153 W 313.705 -154.9 W 316.098 154.9 625611.9 6603498.2 0.1 x 0.3 m Metal cylindrical object found 25m from target location S-11-3328. The sediment surrounding it is of soft gyttja clay with occasional coarse materials R-11-3380 W 315.259 -130.1 W 317.653 130.1 624126.9 6603037.6 1.0 x 0.5 m Standard size oil drum on deeply scoured hollow. Drum is probably empty as cap was missing. Surrounding seabed of soft featureless gyttja. R-11-3372 E 324.822 -23.8 E 326.822 23.8 615762.2 6599677.0 1.0 x 0.5 m Standard size empty oil drum. Cap missing. Surrounding seabed of soft featureless gyttja.

R-11-3434 W 326.033 51.7 W 328.427 51.7 614052.8 6599373.3 Standard size 200 litre oil drum, hydraulic oil. Dumped re- cently. The cap in missing. Flat seabed with soft gyttja clay.

R-11-5168 W 335.083 39.5 W 337.476 39.5 605393.3 6596768.4 100l paint drum destroyed by the ROV. Found 17m NE of S-11-3422. Flat seabed of gyttja clay.

R-12-5171 E 337.808 59.4 E 339.808 59.4 603295.2 6596040.2 0.3 x 0.5 m Empty metal drum found on way (tango) to target S-12- 3451. Heavy corroded. Flat seabed with soft gyttja clay.

R-12-3499 E 339.935 9.9 E 341.935 9.9 601271.3 6595384.1 200 l Corroded oil drum (200 l). Cap is missing and it is ripped on the side. Probably empty. Sediment of soft gyttja clay.

R-12-5179 E 354.27 11.1 E 356.270 10.6 587383.3 6592031.1 h = 0.20 m, Heavy corroded metal cylinder found in a scoured hollow p = 0.30 m NE of target M-12-403. Surrounding sediment is of soft gyttja clay. R-12-380 E 357.872 20.3 E 359.872 20.3 584151.6 6590490.0 h = 0.40 m, Corroded metal barrel slightly inclined in seabed. Seabed k = 0.80 m of soft gyttja clay with stones, cobbles and some boulders scattered in the area. R-13-3546 E 374.99 -4.2 E 376.990 4.2 568195.2 6585173.4 P = 0.8 m, A semi-buried 200 litre oil drum in a shallow scoured hol- H = 0.5 m low. A plastic bag is located close to it. Seabed of soft se- diment. R-W13CG-EE- E 381.796 -7.0 E 383.797 6.6 561912.0 6582627.0 0.8 x 0.4 x Target was found to be a metal drum lying its side (A). Ad- 004-A 0.4 m ditional debris located approx. 25m to the SE, short length of small link chain with ’S’ link visible (B) and a length of thin line / wire starting at C and running West for approx. 30m. Visibility good R-14-3584 E 397.719 -18.8 E 399.720 18.9 547112.1 6577244.1 P = 0.8 m, A 200 litre oil drum located on seabed of soft sediment. H = 0.5 m 6(9) | Environmental impact assessment report | Appendix VII

Appendix VII B: Barrels Located Along the Pipeline Route C16 (Alternative 2)

ROV ID Alternative 1 (C14) Alternative 2 (C16) Easting Northing Dimensions ROV Description Pipeline KP Offset from Pipeline KP Offset from Route Route (m) Route Route (m)

R-E6E-10505 E 161.174 -0.9 E 161.171 1.3 433116.0 6639746.0 1 P x 0.4 L Metal Debris. Oil drum, partially buried. Visibility hazy

R-06-2541 E 171.506 115.5 W 173.517 202.1 421231.4 6641521.3 h = 0.6 m, Rusted and partially buried oil drum. Seabed of soft silty clay p = 1.2 m (Gyttja)

R-06-2481 W 173.247 -49.3 W 175.642 21.6 419098.7 6641342.6 p = 1.0 m, Open ended oil drum/barrel or similar partially buried in the h = 0.5 m soft gyttja sediments

R-06-008 E 174.979 0.8 W 176.964 121.5 417782.9 6641149.6 1,5 x 0.5 m Standard issue rusty oil drum in a shallow scoured hollow in the soft gyttja sediments.

R-06-005 W 175.713 -4.9 W 178.109 42.6 416635.6 6641185.2 h = 0.6 m, Dented standard sized rusty oil drum in a scoured hollow. Soft p = 1.2 m seabed sediments.

R-07-5051 W 186.385 -15.2 W 188.782 15.2 406110.2 6640704.5 h = 0.5 m, A (presumed) early barrel type mine release system 500 mm k = 0.5 m diameter and partially buried in the soft sediments

R-08-5108 E 216.269 4.2 E 218.273 4.6 377957,7 6637232,3 1.0 m, Corroded thin walled oil drum. h = 0.5 m

R-E8C-10177 E 233.544 4.5 E 235.548 4.6 362828.1 6629500.9 1.5 x 0.7 x Metal 40 gallon drum sitting on top of boulder. Visibility good 1.5 m

R-08-2938 W 234.478 616.3 W 236.866 616.4 361405.6 6630547.0 h = 0.5 m, Metal barrel with a rope coiled around it. A lid was also found p = 1.0 m close by. Possibly a type of mine release system or perhaps a depth charge R-W8A-10041 W 234.867 16.7 W 237.266 16.8 361121.0 6629911.0 1.0 P x 0.5 L Metal debris. Metal drum. Visibility good x 0.5 K

R-E8C-10202 E 238.210 -20.5 E 240.214 21.2 358185.0 6629157.3 1.0 x 0.5 x 0.5 Metal debris, 44-gallon drum. Visibility good

R-09-3007 E 264.987 -21.3 E 266.987 25.4 334353.5 6618180.2 1 x 0.5 m Oil drum in a scoured hollow on silty clay seabed.

R-09-5139 E 273.53 4.7 E 275.529 4.7 664304.3 6615524.1 P =1 m Oil drum in scoured hollow on soft sediment seabed. H = 0.5 m

R-10-3281 W 299.658 -18.6 W 302.051 18.6 639077.2 6607379.9 P = 1 m, Oil drum in a scoured hollow. H = 0.5 m

R-10-001 E 300.479 -12.8 E 302.479 13.3 638831.8 6607115.0 P = 1 m, Oil drum. Situated in a shallow scoured hollow. Soft sediment H = 0.5 m

R-11-5153 W 313.705 -154.9 W 316.098 154.9 625611.9 6603498.2 0.1 x 0.3 m Metal cylindrical object found 25m from target location S-11- 3328. The sediment surrounding it is of soft gyttja clay with occasional coarse materials R-11-3380 W 315.259 -130.1 W 317.653 130.1 624126.9 6603037.6 1.0 x 0.5 m Standard size oil drum on deeply scoured hollow. Drum is pro- bably empty as cap was missing. Surrounding seabed of soft featureless gyttja. R-11-3372 E 324.822 -23.8 E 326.822 23.8 615762.2 6599677.0 1.0 x 0.5 m Standard size empty oil drum. Cap missing. Surrounding sea- bed of soft featureless gyttja.

R-11-3434 W 326.033 51.7 W 328.427 51.7 614052.8 6599373.3 Standard size 200 litre oil drum, hydraulic oil. Dumped recent- ly. The cap in missing. Flat seabed with soft gyttja clay.

R-11-5168 W 335.083 39.5 W 337.476 39.5 605393.3 6596768.4 100l paint drum destroyed by the ROV. Found 17m NE of S-11-3422. Flat seabed of gyttja clay. Environmental impact assessment report | Appendix VII 7(9)|

Appendix VII B: Barrels Located Along the Pipeline Route C16 (Alternative 2)

ROV ID Alternative 1 (C14) Alternative 2 (C16) Easting Northing Dimensions ROV Description Pipeline KP Offset from Pipeline KP Offset from Route Route (m) Route Route (m)

R-E6E-10505 E 161.174 -0.9 E 161.171 1.3 433116.0 6639746.0 1 P x 0.4 L Metal Debris. Oil drum, partially buried. Visibility hazy

R-06-2541 E 171.506 115.5 W 173.517 202.1 421231.4 6641521.3 h = 0.6 m, Rusted and partially buried oil drum. Seabed of soft silty clay p = 1.2 m (Gyttja)

R-06-2481 W 173.247 -49.3 W 175.642 21.6 419098.7 6641342.6 p = 1.0 m, Open ended oil drum/barrel or similar partially buried in the h = 0.5 m soft gyttja sediments

R-06-008 E 174.979 0.8 W 176.964 121.5 417782.9 6641149.6 1,5 x 0.5 m Standard issue rusty oil drum in a shallow scoured hollow in the soft gyttja sediments.

R-06-005 W 175.713 -4.9 W 178.109 42.6 416635.6 6641185.2 h = 0.6 m, Dented standard sized rusty oil drum in a scoured hollow. Soft p = 1.2 m seabed sediments.

R-07-5051 W 186.385 -15.2 W 188.782 15.2 406110.2 6640704.5 h = 0.5 m, A (presumed) early barrel type mine release system 500 mm k = 0.5 m diameter and partially buried in the soft sediments

R-08-5108 E 216.269 4.2 E 218.273 4.6 377957,7 6637232,3 1.0 m, Corroded thin walled oil drum. h = 0.5 m

R-E8C-10177 E 233.544 4.5 E 235.548 4.6 362828.1 6629500.9 1.5 x 0.7 x Metal 40 gallon drum sitting on top of boulder. Visibility good 1.5 m

R-08-2938 W 234.478 616.3 W 236.866 616.4 361405.6 6630547.0 h = 0.5 m, Metal barrel with a rope coiled around it. A lid was also found p = 1.0 m close by. Possibly a type of mine release system or perhaps a depth charge R-W8A-10041 W 234.867 16.7 W 237.266 16.8 361121.0 6629911.0 1.0 P x 0.5 L Metal debris. Metal drum. Visibility good x 0.5 K

R-E8C-10202 E 238.210 -20.5 E 240.214 21.2 358185.0 6629157.3 1.0 x 0.5 x 0.5 Metal debris, 44-gallon drum. Visibility good

R-09-3007 E 264.987 -21.3 E 266.987 25.4 334353.5 6618180.2 1 x 0.5 m Oil drum in a scoured hollow on silty clay seabed.

R-09-5139 E 273.53 4.7 E 275.529 4.7 664304.3 6615524.1 P =1 m Oil drum in scoured hollow on soft sediment seabed. H = 0.5 m

R-10-3281 W 299.658 -18.6 W 302.051 18.6 639077.2 6607379.9 P = 1 m, Oil drum in a scoured hollow. H = 0.5 m

R-10-001 E 300.479 -12.8 E 302.479 13.3 638831.8 6607115.0 P = 1 m, Oil drum. Situated in a shallow scoured hollow. Soft sediment H = 0.5 m

R-11-5153 W 313.705 -154.9 W 316.098 154.9 625611.9 6603498.2 0.1 x 0.3 m Metal cylindrical object found 25m from target location S-11- 3328. The sediment surrounding it is of soft gyttja clay with occasional coarse materials R-11-3380 W 315.259 -130.1 W 317.653 130.1 624126.9 6603037.6 1.0 x 0.5 m Standard size oil drum on deeply scoured hollow. Drum is pro- bably empty as cap was missing. Surrounding seabed of soft featureless gyttja. R-11-3372 E 324.822 -23.8 E 326.822 23.8 615762.2 6599677.0 1.0 x 0.5 m Standard size empty oil drum. Cap missing. Surrounding sea- bed of soft featureless gyttja.

R-11-3434 W 326.033 51.7 W 328.427 51.7 614052.8 6599373.3 Standard size 200 litre oil drum, hydraulic oil. Dumped recent- ly. The cap in missing. Flat seabed with soft gyttja clay.

R-11-5168 W 335.083 39.5 W 337.476 39.5 605393.3 6596768.4 100l paint drum destroyed by the ROV. Found 17m NE of S-11-3422. Flat seabed of gyttja clay. 8(9) | Environmental impact assessment report | Appendix VII

ROV ID Alternative 1 (C14) Alternative 2 (C16) Easting Northing Dimensions ROV Description Pipeline KP Offset from Pipeline KP Offset from Route Route (m) Route Route (m)

R-12-5171 E 337.808 59.4 E 339.808 59.4 603295.2 6596040.2 0.3 x 0.5 m Empty metal drum found on way (tango) to target S-12-3451. Heavy corroded. Flat seabed with soft gyttja clay.

R-12-3499 E 339.935 9.9 E 341.935 9.9 601271.3 6595384.1 200 l Corroded oil drum (200 l). Cap is missing and it is ripped on the side. Probably empty. Sediment of soft gyttja clay.

R-12-5179 E 354.27 11.1 E 356.270 10.6 587383.3 6592031.1 h = 0.20 m, Heavy corroded metal cylinder found in a scoured hollow NE p = 0.30 m of target M-12-403. Surrounding sediment is of soft gyttja clay.

R-12-380 E 357.872 20.3 E 359.872 20.3 584151.6 6590490.0 h = 0.40 m, Corroded metal barrel slightly inclined in seabed. Seabed of k = 0.80 m soft gyttja clay with stones, cobbles and some boulders scatte- red in the area. R-13-3546 E 374.99 -4.2 E 376.990 4.2 568195.2 6585173.4 P = 0.8 m, A semi-buried 200 litre oil drum in a shallow scoured hollow. A H = 0.5 m plastic bag is located close to it. Seabed of soft sediment.

R-W13CG-EE- E 381.796 -7.0 E 383.797 6.6 561912.0 6582627.0 0.8 x 0.4 x Target was found to be a metal drum lying its side (A). Additio- 004-A 0.4 m nal debris located approx. 25m to the SE, short length of small link chain with ’S’ link visible (B) and a length of thin line / wire starting at C and running West for approx. 30m. Visibility good

R-14-3584 E 397.719 -18.8 E 399.720 18.9 547112.1 6577244.1 P = 0.8 m, A 200 litre oil drum located on seabed of soft sediment. H = 0.5 m Environmental impact assessment report | Appendix VII 9(9)|

ROV ID Alternative 1 (C14) Alternative 2 (C16) Easting Northing Dimensions ROV Description Pipeline KP Offset from Pipeline KP Offset from Route Route (m) Route Route (m)

R-12-5171 E 337.808 59.4 E 339.808 59.4 603295.2 6596040.2 0.3 x 0.5 m Empty metal drum found on way (tango) to target S-12-3451. Heavy corroded. Flat seabed with soft gyttja clay.

R-12-3499 E 339.935 9.9 E 341.935 9.9 601271.3 6595384.1 200 l Corroded oil drum (200 l). Cap is missing and it is ripped on the side. Probably empty. Sediment of soft gyttja clay.

R-12-5179 E 354.27 11.1 E 356.270 10.6 587383.3 6592031.1 h = 0.20 m, Heavy corroded metal cylinder found in a scoured hollow NE p = 0.30 m of target M-12-403. Surrounding sediment is of soft gyttja clay.

R-12-380 E 357.872 20.3 E 359.872 20.3 584151.6 6590490.0 h = 0.40 m, Corroded metal barrel slightly inclined in seabed. Seabed of k = 0.80 m soft gyttja clay with stones, cobbles and some boulders scatte- red in the area. R-13-3546 E 374.99 -4.2 E 376.990 4.2 568195.2 6585173.4 P = 0.8 m, A semi-buried 200 litre oil drum in a shallow scoured hollow. A H = 0.5 m plastic bag is located close to it. Seabed of soft sediment.

R-W13CG-EE- E 381.796 -7.0 E 383.797 6.6 561912.0 6582627.0 0.8 x 0.4 x Target was found to be a metal drum lying its side (A). Additio- 004-A 0.4 m nal debris located approx. 25m to the SE, short length of small link chain with ’S’ link visible (B) and a length of thin line / wire starting at C and running West for approx. 30m. Visibility good

R-14-3584 E 397.719 -18.8 E 399.720 18.9 547112.1 6577244.1 P = 0.8 m, A 200 litre oil drum located on seabed of soft sediment. H = 0.5 m

Appendix VIII

Coordinating authority statement on EIA program

Appendix VIII

Helsinki Helsingfors Reg. no

27.2.2007 UUS-2006-R-32-531

Nord Stream AG Unofficial translation c/o Ramboll Finland Oy P O Box 3, FI-02241 ESPOO

Ref. Your letter of November 14, 2006

Re: STATEMENT ON ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT PROGRAMME, NORD STREAM, RUSSIA–GERMANY OFFSHORE GAS PIPELINE IN THE FINNISH EXCLUSIVE ECONOMIC ZONE

• Asemapäällikönkatu 14 ⋅ PL 36, 00521 Helsinki ⋅ 020 490 101 ⋅ Asiakaspalvelu 020 690 161 ⋅ www.ymparisto.fi/uus • Stinsgatan 14 ⋅ PB 36, FI-00521 Helsingfors, Finland ⋅ +358 20 490 101 ⋅ Kundservice +358 20 690 161 ⋅ www.miljo.fi/uus

1. PROJECT INFORMATION AND EIA PROCEDURE

Ramboll Finland Oy has on behalf of Nord Stream AG submitted to the Uusimaa Regional Environment Centre on November 14, 2006, an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) programme for the Nord Stream Russia–Germany offshore gas pipeline project as regards the Finnish Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ).

Developer and co-ordinating authority

The developer is Nord Stream AG, and the contact person is Dirk von Ameln. Ramboll Finland Oy act as consultants and their project manager is Tore Granskog. The Uusimaa Regional Environment Centre is the co-ordinating authority in matters concerning the assessment procedure of the project. Their contact person is Jorma Jantunen.

Need for an EIA procedure to assess the project

The need for an EIA procedure to assess the project is based on the Finnish Act on Environmental Impact Assessment Procedure (468/1994 with amendments), Sections 4 and 4 a. According to Section 4 a, the Act is applied to the Finnish EEZ as referred to in Section 1 of the Finnish Act on the Exclusive Economic Zone (1058/2004). By virtue of the EIA Act, Section 4, subsection 1, the need is regulated by the project list given in Section 6 of the Decree on Environmental Impact Assessment Procedure (713/2006), paragraph 8 (transmission and storage of energy and substances), on the basis of paragraph b. According to this paragraph, the EIA procedure is applied to gas pipelines with a diameter of more than 800 millimetres and a length of more than 40 kilometres.

Also applied to the project is the UN Convention on Environmental Impact Assessment in a Transboundary Context (the Espoo Convention, Finnish Treaty Series 67/1997). Finland and Estonia also have a bilateral treaty on EIA (Finnish Treaty Series 51/2002), where the principles for the application of the Espoo Convention are defined more specifically.

Assessment programme

The EIA programme is the plan drawn up by the developer containing the necessary investigations and the organisation of the assessment. The results of the assessment are to be collated later in the form of an assessment report, which will be subject to public hearing after the assessment programme has been handled. Public announcement of the assessment report will be published separately.

Project and alternatives

• Asemapäällikönkatu 14 ⋅ PL 36, 00521 Helsinki ⋅ 020 490 101 ⋅ Asiakaspalvelu 020 690 161 ⋅ www.ymparisto.fi/uus • Stinsgatan 14 ⋅ PB 36, FI-00521 Helsingfors, Finland ⋅ +358 20 490 101 ⋅ Kundservice +358 20 690 161 ⋅ www.miljo.fi/uus

The project comprises two parallel offshore gas pipelines from Russia to the Gulf of Finland and across the Baltic Sea to Germany. The pipeline route passes through the territorial waters of Russia and Germany and the Finnish, Swedish and Danish EEZs. The diameter of the pipes, which are planned to be at a distance of about 50 metres from one another, is 1220 mm and their length is about 1200 km. The length of the pipeline route in the Finnish EEZ is 369 km. The part of the pipeline in the EEZ is outside the territorial waters of Finland. The planned gas pipeline will be installed by lowering it to the seabed. In places the pipeline will be covered or placed in pipe trenches.

The offshore Nord Stream gas pipeline is to be brought into use in the year 2010 with one gas pipeline operating. The second pipeline is planned to be in use in the year 2012. The project is a response to the growing need for natural gas in the European Union.

Alternatives to be assessed

0-alternative (No-action alternative): The project will not be implemented; the Baltic Sea offshore gas pipeline between Russia and Germany will not be built.

Alternative 1: According to the Nord Stream project plan, a gas transfer system consisting of two pipelines will be built from Vyborg in Russia through the Baltic Sea to Greifswald in Germany.

Connections with other projects and plans

In Finland the project is not connected to the implementation of any other projects or plans.

Linkages of the assessment with other statutory procedures

The exchange of information with other Parties to the Espoo Convention is linked to the assessment procedure.

• Asemapäällikönkatu 14 ⋅ PL 36, 00521 Helsinki ⋅ 020 490 101 ⋅ Asiakaspalvelu 020 690 161 ⋅ www.ymparisto.fi/uus • Stinsgatan 14 ⋅ PB 36, FI-00521 Helsingfors, Finland ⋅ +358 20 490 101 ⋅ Kundservice +358 20 690 161 ⋅ www.miljo.fi/uus

2. INFORMATION AND HEARING OF THE ASSESSMENT PROGRAMME

Information on the public hearing of the assessment programme has been given in accordance with the Finnish EIA Act and Decree in the following newspapers: Helsingin Sanomat, Hufvudstadsbladet, Turun Sanomat, Åbo Underrättelser and Kymen Sanomat.

The assessment programme has been announced and was on view to the public from November 27, 2006, to January 26, 2007, in the coastal municipalities on the Gulf of Finland, in the municipalities in the southern parts of the Archipelago Sea and on the Internet (http://www.nord-stream.com/fin/).

The corresponding assessment plan for the whole Baltic Sea area was appended to the EIA programme.

The project was presented at events held between December 11 and 14, 2006, in Helsinki, Hanko, Turku and Kotka. In addition, a separate presentation event for authorities was held in Helsinki.

On the basis of the Espoo Convention, the public has the opportunity to have their opinions heard, also on the environmental impacts of the whole project. If the project has environmental impacts in other Baltic Sea countries, their authorities, inhabitants and associations also have the right to participate in the assessment procedure in Finland.

The Ministry of the Environment will supply the Parties to the Espoo Convention with information on the feedback received from Finland on the international part of the project.

3. SUMMARY OF PROPOSED STATEMENTS AND OPINIONS

Statements have been requested from the central ministries, expert organisations, officials and municipalities on the coast of the Gulf of Finland and the municipalities of the southern areas of the Finnish archipelago on the assessment programme.

Statements

The Ministry for Foreign Affairs states that in terms of the solidary development of European Union energy policy and the EU natural gas markets it would have been desirable if the interests of other Baltic Sea countries had been taken into account, either through an alternative pipeline routing or through enquiries to countries interested in cooperation in this project.

• Asemapäällikönkatu 14 ⋅ PL 36, 00521 Helsinki ⋅ 020 490 101 ⋅ Asiakaspalvelu 020 690 161 ⋅ www.ymparisto.fi/uus • Stinsgatan 14 ⋅ PB 36, FI-00521 Helsingfors, Finland ⋅ +358 20 490 101 ⋅ Kundservice +358 20 690 161 ⋅ www.miljo.fi/uus

In addition, the ministry proposes several revisions to the authorisation requirements specified in the assessment programme and points out that according to the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, the approval of the coastal state is required for the determination of the delineation of pipelines laid on a continental shelf.

According to the Ministry of Trade and Industry, the project has an effect on the operational environment and permitting procedures relating to energy policy. In its statement, the ministry points out viewpoints associated with energy policy, administration and application of legislation.

The ministry is of the opinion that in the planning of the project adequate attention has not been given to the development of the natural gas markets in the Baltic Sea area and connections to existing natural gas networks, and the only alternative that is proposed for the gas pipeline is the so-called zero-alternative (that the pipeline would not be built). If the planned pipeline route under the Baltic Sea were to present itself as problematic in regard to its environmental effects, the ministry proposes that the companies responsible for the project should also investigate alternatives to the south of the present route. A more detailed investigation of a more southern alternative is important for the acceptability of the project. If such alternatives are not to be investigated closer, the reason for the decision should in any event be clearly justified.

The Ministry of Trade and Industry is the authority for permits and notification for research regarding the use of the seabed in the Finnish EEZ. According to the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, the approval of the coastal state is required for the determination of pipeline routes.

The Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry states that this is an extensive and long-term project, involving the seabed of the Baltic Sea and its use, which has impacts on, for example, the fishing industry in the Gulf of Finland. The gas pipelines, construction work relating to the installation of the gas pipelines and the protection zones will have negative impacts on trawling in the marine areas outside of Helsinki and Hankoniemi, among other places. A greater detriment, however, is presented by the loss of the traditional trawling areas in the pipeline corridor. The construction activities which will alter the seabed (e.g. dredging, extraction, filling, levelling of the seabed) and their impacts (sedimentation) are not only detrimental for fishing but also to the fish stocks. Particularly, the traditional and present-day trawling areas in the Gulf of Finland need to be identified and so should the impacts of the laying of the pipeline and its possible protection zone.

• Asemapäällikönkatu 14 ⋅ PL 36, 00521 Helsinki ⋅ 020 490 101 ⋅ Asiakaspalvelu 020 690 161 ⋅ www.ymparisto.fi/uus • Stinsgatan 14 ⋅ PB 36, FI-00521 Helsingfors, Finland ⋅ +358 20 490 101 ⋅ Kundservice +358 20 690 161 ⋅ www.miljo.fi/uus

The Ministry of the Environment states that Finland is investigating the extension of the Natura 2000 network to its EEZ, because the European Commission has called for member states to expand the network by adding open sea areas. This should be noted in the evaluation of the environmental impacts of the project. It is possible that as a result of the investigation it will be necessary to expand the present Natura 2000 areas or establish completely new areas in the open sea.

The Geological Survey of Finland states that the construction of an offshore gas pipeline affects the marine environment significantly and that the construction should be carried out by using technology that causes the least amount of damage to the environment. The topography of the seabed in the Gulf of Finland is uneven and levelling the seabed would require a considerable amount of construction work in the Finnish EEZ. The pipeline and the work on building a protective cover will modify the seabed to the extent that, at least in some places, the movement of sea currents will be altered. These alterations in the sea currents will change the erosion and sedimentation conditions at least locally. The changes in the conditions may in time cause geotechnical instability to the pipe itself or its protective cover. The effect of the benthic sea currents on the erosion and sedimentation conditions before and after the construction of the pipeline should be investigated and modelled.

The Geological Survey of Finland considers the programme along with its addendums, in spite of its extent, partially deficient and points out, for example, that the information regarding the seabed is presented with a few sentences and in mentioning harmful substances the programme refers to high levels of harmful substances without presenting analysis results. In addition, there are no pictures of the geological structure of the seabed and no plans have been presented regarding the disposal of excess mass that will result from the removal of ridges. The programme states that the modifications to the seabed will affect the environment through, for example, the dispersion of sediment to a distance of approximately 1000 metres at most in the vicinity of the pipeline route. However, according to marine geological research there is evidence that fine-grained sediments are, in fact, transported along with sea currents to a significantly wider area.

In the Baltic Sea and the Gulf of Finland a few gas vents are known to be over a metre in diameter, of which the largest can be up to hundreds of metres in diameter. The areas with the gas vents and the possibly connected rock faults should be investigated for the security of the pipe in the area of the gas pipeline. The preliminary investigations should guarantee a reliable foundation of information before the installation of the pipeline, for the monitoring of the state of the environment during and after installation.

• Asemapäällikönkatu 14 ⋅ PL 36, 00521 Helsinki ⋅ 020 490 101 ⋅ Asiakaspalvelu 020 690 161 ⋅ www.ymparisto.fi/uus • Stinsgatan 14 ⋅ PB 36, FI-00521 Helsingfors, Finland ⋅ +358 20 490 101 ⋅ Kundservice +358 20 690 161 ⋅ www.miljo.fi/uus

The Finnish Maritime Administration states that the planned natural gas pipeline will be situated outside of the fairway, so it will not have a direct effect on maritime traffic towards Finland’s ports.

The installation of the pipeline along with its protection zones on busy routes of the GOFREP (Gulf Of Finland Reporting) system may produce a significant security risk for maritime transport. During the lifetime of the pipeline it is possible that situations may arise where emergency anchoring must take place along the pipeline route, thus causing a risk to the pipeline itself as well as to maritime transport.

The Finnish Institute of Marine Research states that a plan for actual evaluation of the impacts has not been made. The tight schedule for the implementation of the project significantly complicates the planning and implementation of a detailed assessment programme. Given the particular characteristics and vulnerability of the Baltic Sea, especially of the Gulf of Finland, there is reason to consider adjusting the schedule to permit a sufficiently exhaustive evaluation. The Institute of Marine Research also highlights its concerns regarding long-term research stations possibly ending up underneath the natural gas pipelines. Regarding the long-term follow-up, decades of work will be put to waste if the sampling sites are destroyed.

As recognized in the assessment programme, the most remarkable impacts of the project will most likely arise in conjunction with activities related to construction, dredging, filling and blasting. The assessment programme does not, however, describe how the impacts will be followed throughout the installation of the pipelines or afterwards. The two kilometre-wide corridor addressed in the assessment programme around the pipeline, seems to the Institute of Marine Research an arbitrary approximation. The extent of the area affected depends locally on sediment and conditions relating to sea currents. The evaluation of the possible extent of the affected area requires concrete information on the locations for dredging and disposal areas, the amounts of materials to be transferred, and modelling of different seabed types. To determine the actual impacts of the project will require mapping of the topography of the seabed, analysis of the concentrations of harmful substances and identification of the biota within the possible affected area before construction, and will require follow-up during and after construction.

The assessment programme states that the natural gas pipeline route has been investigated for harmful substances every five kilometres. This indicates that the developers have access to material relating to evaluation. The acquisition of this material for open international scrutiny is extremely important. Because the evaluation of environmental impacts should also include the

• Asemapäällikönkatu 14 ⋅ PL 36, 00521 Helsinki ⋅ 020 490 101 ⋅ Asiakaspalvelu 020 690 161 ⋅ www.ymparisto.fi/uus • Stinsgatan 14 ⋅ PB 36, FI-00521 Helsingfors, Finland ⋅ +358 20 490 101 ⋅ Kundservice +358 20 690 161 ⋅ www.miljo.fi/uus

appraisal of possible effects from elsewhere on the marine areas of Finland, the Finnish authorities should have access to the assessment data. The Institute of Marine Research points out that the results on concentrations of harmful substances can depend significantly on the sampling and primary treatment methods used. In addition, the applicability and representativity of the selected sampling locations should be evaluated in light of the modelling, as well as general and specific information on sediment.

In addition, the Institute of Marine Research states that although the planned route does not pass through any official fishing area monitored by the Federation of Finnish Fisheries Associations, the heavy pipeline placed on the seabed may form such a significant threat factor to trawling in the open sea that it requires close examination. Nor does the programme refer to any measures to be taken if dumped chemical weapons or munitions are exposed when laying the pipeline, or how information on the real distribution of the dumped chemical weapons and munitions and the information on the risk they may pose could best be increased.

The Institute of Marine Research has already in its previous reports stated that a monitoring programme should be prepared for the affected area for the duration of the construction work, in order to clarify the extent of the affected area, the quality of the suspended substances, the changes in the concentrations of harmful substances in the sea water, the dispersion of particulate matter and the effects on the biota. The assessment programme does not explain in detail what will happen to the harmful inorganic and organic substances in the bottom sediment during the construction of the natural gas pipeline. The Institute of Marine Research stresses that a simulation model, for example, should be used to investigate what will happen to harmful substances and nutrients in sediments during the construction of the pipeline.

Metsähallitus (a state-owned enterprise administering land and water areas) states that while it does not yet propose detailed descriptions of how the investigations and clarifications will be implemented, the assessment programme is quite exhaustive. According to Metsähallitus, the description of the assessment report should present precise plans for research and implementation at least in regard to how the negative impacts of the construction of the pipeline on marine life will be minimised and how disturbances to the ringed seal from ship traffic, blasting and other pipeline-related activities in the Gulf of Finland will be minimised. In addition, plans should be presented as to what measures will be taken during decommissioning of the pipelines, how the present state of all important indicator organisms is to be followed, and how the conditions in the Baltic Sea will be followed during the construction of the pipelines and after installation. Metsähallitus considers follow-up research necessary at least in regard to the bird life in the archipelago, and the most important

• Asemapäällikönkatu 14 ⋅ PL 36, 00521 Helsinki ⋅ 020 490 101 ⋅ Asiakaspalvelu 020 690 161 ⋅ www.ymparisto.fi/uus • Stinsgatan 14 ⋅ PB 36, FI-00521 Helsingfors, Finland ⋅ +358 20 490 101 ⋅ Kundservice +358 20 690 161 ⋅ www.miljo.fi/uus

fish and seal species. Metsähallitus especially places a great deal of importance on the harmful substances transported by the Kymijoki River to the eastern part of the Gulf of Finland and on the valuable natural habitats of the Gulf of Finland.

According to the National Board of Antiquities the project may have an effect on the underwater cultural heritage, especially cultural and historical shipwrecks. The Finnish Act on Archaeological Remains should be applied only in Finnish territorial waters. However, the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), which Finland ratified in 1996, binds Finland to protect archaeological and historical objects found in the sea and to preserve archaeological and historical objects found in maritime areas outside of its national jurisdiction, in view of the interest of humankind. Protection outside national marine areas is also considered important in the UNESCO Convention on the Protection of the Underwater Cultural Heritage (not ratified).

The impacts of the project on cultural heritage cannot be assessed, unless an inventory is made along the pipeline route, because the National Board of Antiquities lacks exhaustive information concerning the location of cultural and historical shipwrecks in Finland’s territorial waters or EEZ. Along the designated route for the pipeline or in its immediate surroundings there are two shipwrecks that can be considered to be sites of cultural and historical interest. In addition, there is information regarding an unidentified shipwreck situated less than one kilometre from the pipeline route. There is also information about several wrecks of different ages which are located as close to the route as the two “possible shipwrecks” specified on the map on page 38 of the Environmental Impact Assessment programme.

The Finnish Environment Institute states that the assessment programme is rather general. The evaluation includes the planned alternative of the project and the so-called no action alternative, that is, not implementing the project. In addition, route options included in an earlier stage of the programme could have been examined in the assessment programme. At the present time actual route options are lacking. The evaluations of the impacts of the project are planned to be based almost exclusively on expert assessments and no additional information or enquiries have been proposed to be acquired or carried out, throughout the assessment procedures on the environmental impacts.

The Finnish Environment Institute wishes to emphasise that the varying topography of the seabed of the Gulf of Finland and the quality of the seabed complicate the construction of an offshore natural gas pipeline. Because of variations in elevation, the levelling of the seabed (digging or blasting of hard ridges) and the adding of fill materials will likely be the cause of the most significant environmental effects on both the seabed and the water

• Asemapäällikönkatu 14 ⋅ PL 36, 00521 Helsinki ⋅ 020 490 101 ⋅ Asiakaspalvelu 020 690 161 ⋅ www.ymparisto.fi/uus • Stinsgatan 14 ⋅ PB 36, FI-00521 Helsingfors, Finland ⋅ +358 20 490 101 ⋅ Kundservice +358 20 690 161 ⋅ www.miljo.fi/uus

column. The Finnish Environment Institute points out that in the assessment report it is necessary to take special note of the environmental impacts on the seabed and their extent during the construction process. The assessment report should also specify the locations of the levelling work in order to reach reliable evaluations of impacts. An applicable and validated 3D model is needed for the simulation of the dispersion of sediment and sedimentation resulting from construction activities on the seabed, of changes in sea currents, and of the movement of substances in interstitial water. The model should include the salinity and thermal stratification, the effect of swells and fluctuations in air pressure on the currents. In the planning and implementation of the project, the Ministry of the Environment’s instructions for the dredging and disposal of sediments should be taken into account. The assessment report should include clarifications on what harmful substances will be used during the project, what concentrations will be released into the sea and what are their possible adverse effects.

As part of the evaluation of the environmental impacts of the project, possible shipwrecks in the area should be located, the risks of damage to the wrecks should be ascertained and the possible leaking of oils and other harmful substances contained in the wrecks should be evaluated.

In terms of the living environment the evaluation focuses mainly on the description of the present-day situation. The evaluation should take into account the wintering and breeding areas of birds and the migratory rest areas, and in particular the feeding areas of auks and bird species that feed on benthic fauna. In regard to the Natura areas, the assessment report should specify the conservation status of protected areas and what is meant by the inviolability of these areas. Information on the Natura areas and the effects on these areas by the project should be collected to the extent that would clearly certify that no significant detrimental impacts result. In regard to the evaluation of the impacts on Natura areas and the bird life, it is of primary importance to know the season when the installation work will take place. To avoid or minimise detrimental impacts on the bird life, installation work should not be carried out in the shallow marine areas (under 20 metres of depth) of the eastern part of the Gulf of Finland during the nesting or migratory period in May–July.

It should also be noted that Article 4 of the Act on Environmental Impact Assessment Procedure and Article 65 of the Nature Conservation Act refer to the Natura evaluation as a separate juridical status. The possible Natura evaluation referred to in the Nature Conservation Act and the required clarifications should be made in the environmental impact assessment of the natural gas pipeline before the possible authorisation procedure. In addition, the Water Act and possible clarifications arising from the Nature

• Asemapäällikönkatu 14 ⋅ PL 36, 00521 Helsinki ⋅ 020 490 101 ⋅ Asiakaspalvelu 020 690 161 ⋅ www.ymparisto.fi/uus • Stinsgatan 14 ⋅ PB 36, FI-00521 Helsingfors, Finland ⋅ +358 20 490 101 ⋅ Kundservice +358 20 690 161 ⋅ www.miljo.fi/uus

Conservation Act should be taken into account in the evaluation stage.

According to the Safety Technology Authority, the natural gas pipeline that is to be situated in the EEZ does not require a permit as referred to in the Chemical Safety Act (390/2005) and the Natural Gas Decree (1058/1993).

The Safety Technology Authority states that in further planning it is necessary to request a clarification of the technical safety of the pipeline from the operator, in which the operator is required to indicate that in the planning of the pipeline system the principle of best practices and standards are followed and the inspections are carried out accordingly. In addition, the impacts on areas other than the environment should be systematically inspected in the case of serious damage.

The Government of Åland states that the route of the gas pipeline does not traverse the territorial waters of this autonomous region. The Government of Åland hopes, however, to receive information about the EIA work and notes that the southeast waters of its autonomous region should pertain to the area of indirect impacts. In addition, the Government states that in contrast to the surrounding areas, Åland’s Natura 2000 areas are missing from the assessment programme and they should be included in the report.

In their statements the State Provincial Offices of Southern and Western Finland stress the assessment of health-related and social impacts. The State Provincial Office of Southern Finland states that the assessment should take into account the impacts on fish stocks and fishing, and should note the impacts on fish that will be used as foodstuff for humans. In considering the analysis of water quality and seabed conditions, methods of monitoring the accumulation of heavy metals, harmful substances and other related substances in the food chain should be defined.

In its statement the Regional Council of Kymenlaakso stresses that the environmental conditions and vulnerability of the marine environment of the eastern Baltic Sea should be taken more into consideration. The regional council states that to minimise the measures for the modification of the seabed, alternative pipeline routings within the proposed pipeline corridor should be evaluated and the impacts of the different alternatives should be assessed. It is also necessary to present new alternative pipeline routings not within the presently proposed two kilometre-wide corridor, nor in its proximity. In addition, the Regional Council of Kymenlaakso points out that an assessment should be made of the measures relating to where the pipeline connects to the shore in Vyborg Bay and how this could affect the coast of Kymenlaakso, for example, through the sea currents from east to west. The possible emptying

• Asemapäällikönkatu 14 ⋅ PL 36, 00521 Helsinki ⋅ 020 490 101 ⋅ Asiakaspalvelu 020 690 161 ⋅ www.ymparisto.fi/uus • Stinsgatan 14 ⋅ PB 36, FI-00521 Helsingfors, Finland ⋅ +358 20 490 101 ⋅ Kundservice +358 20 690 161 ⋅ www.miljo.fi/uus

out of flush water into the Bay of Vyborg and its impacts on the nearby coastal environment should be assessed. The Regional Council of Eastern Uusimaa has nothing to add in relation to the assessment programme. The Uusimaa Regional Council states that the assessment programme does not specify how the impacts of the project on the coast of Finland and Uusimaa will be assessed. The regional council also states that the auxiliary facilities and repair points must be determined in cooperation with the regional councils and municipalities. In addition, the assessment programme should be complemented with a description of how the effects caused by the auxiliary facilities and construction stages will be assessed. The Regional Council of Southwest Finland calls attention to the archipelago. It states that since 1999 the province has implemented a “Pro Saaristomeri” programme, which has as its central objective to improve the state and usability of the sea. In fact, the Regional Council of Southwest Finland requires that detrimental impacts from the construction of the pipeline on the aforementioned marine areas are explained in detail in the environmental impact assessment (EIA) and that measures are proposed for their minimisation. In addition, the council states that the objective of the assessment of the results is to find an optimal routing for the pipeline to avoid encroachment on conservation areas and other applications of the sea area. In addition, the failure to implement the project would cause indirect environmental impacts on Finland. For this reason, the impacts of this zero-alternative should be sufficiently clarified so that the comparison could be done and that the least detrimental alternative in terms of the environment could be justifiably chosen.

In their statements, the Employment and Economic Development Centre (EEDC) for Uusimaa and Southwest Finland stress the impacts of the programme on the fish fauna and fishing and the assessment of these impacts. In the assessment of the impacts on the fish fauna and fishing the EEDC states that the programme has mainly been expertly prepared. In addition, the EEDC states that the statistical rectangles of the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) are used in the programme to evaluate primarily, for instance, the sizes of the fish stocks and spawning stocks and the fishing mortality rate of fish species in the sub-regions of the Baltic Sea. Hence, the statistical rectangles and the methods proposed in the programme do not yet contain sufficiently detailed information on the impacts on the fish stock and fishing.

The Uusimaa EEDC points out that the data on marine mammals are outdated and it states that the grey seal began to recover already in the late 1990s and there are about 15 000 seals in the designated area.

• Asemapäällikönkatu 14 ⋅ PL 36, 00521 Helsinki ⋅ 020 490 101 ⋅ Asiakaspalvelu 020 690 161 ⋅ www.ymparisto.fi/uus • Stinsgatan 14 ⋅ PB 36, FI-00521 Helsingfors, Finland ⋅ +358 20 490 101 ⋅ Kundservice +358 20 690 161 ⋅ www.miljo.fi/uus

The Uusimaa EEDC states that an inquiry should be conducted of professional fishermen and added to the assessment programme, which would help in evaluating the qualitative effects during and after the construction of the pipeline and after it is decommissioned. In addition, the Uusimaa EEDC emphasises that due to the extent of the project, the accumulation of heavy metals in organisms and fish should be monitored.

The statements by the Southeast and Southwest Finland Regional Environment Centres point out, for example, the lack of alternatives, the living environment and conservation areas and special circumstances.

According to the Southeast Finland Regional Environment Centre the assessment should include and examine possible project alternatives or alternative pipeline routings within the proposed route. In addition, the assessment report should explain the basis on which the examined alternatives have been eliminated from the assessment programme.

The main environmental impacts of the project are cited as arising from the construction of the gas pipeline. The Southwest Finland Regional Environment Centre states that in the assessment of impacts, attention should be paid to the risks related to the release of nutrients in the seabed and related effects on the Baltic Sea and its biota. According to the Southwest Finland Regional Environment Centre, the assessment report should deal with possible environmental impacts (e.g. emissions of gas and combustion pollution) arising from possible exceptional situations (accidents, etc.) and should include measures and preparations for these exceptional situations. In the preparations for the introduction of the gas pipeline, attention should be paid to choosing the location for the discharge of water and to minimising the environmental impacts caused by the water discharge.

The Southwest Finland Regional Environment Centre states that the impacts on nature and underwater nature by the project should be investigated to gain an overall impression of the impacts of the project on the natural diversity in the immediate environment of the area of the pipeline, as well as on the areas included in the Natura 2000 network, and in terms of environmental values. The assessment report should also clearly explain the methods used in the assessment of environmental impacts and the related assumptions, as well as to what extent the assessment is based on calculatable aspects, measurements derived from simulation models, literature or reports, and previous research.

The cities of Hanko, Hamina, Helsinki, Kaarina, Kotka, Loviisa and Parainen and the municipalities of Halikko, Inkoo, Kirkkonummi, Pernaja, Ruotsinpyhtää, Sipoo, Siuntio,

• Asemapäällikönkatu 14 ⋅ PL 36, 00521 Helsinki ⋅ 020 490 101 ⋅ Asiakaspalvelu 020 690 161 ⋅ www.ymparisto.fi/uus • Stinsgatan 14 ⋅ PB 36, FI-00521 Helsingfors, Finland ⋅ +358 20 490 101 ⋅ Kundservice +358 20 690 161 ⋅ www.miljo.fi/uus

Virolahti and Västanfjärd have submitted a statement on the assessment programme.

The cities of Kaarina and Loviisa and the municipalities of Pernaja, Ruotsinpyhtää and Vänstänfjärd have no comments regarding the assessment programme. The Board of Environmental and City Planning of the municipality of Halikko acknowledged the assessment programme.

Other statements focus on the conditions of the seabed and the modification requirements for the project and their impacts on, for example, the nutrients stored in the seabed sediments and harmful substances. The mines, weapons, munitions and chemicals dumped in the sea over the years will be noted as well as the authorisations and supervision required for the project. In addition, for example, the possible effects of the release of water used for pressure equalising into the sea will be recognized. For instance, in its statement the Environmental Protection Department of the municipality of Sipoo points out that the construction area should be thoroughly mapped and that the report should indicate the measures to be taken if the seabed is found to contain substances causing a risk of pollution or objects otherwise dangerous to the environment. The city of Kotka states that a sufficiently wide area should be considered for alternatives for the pipeline routing and, when needed, other alternatives should be included so that the necessity for modifying the seabed is minimised. The city of Hanko states that the working methods which are chosen should be such that the nutrients, heavy metals and other substances stored in the sediment that are harmful to the marine ecosystem are not dispersed and reintroduced. In relation to the dispersion of nutrients, the Board of Environmental Planning of the city of Hamina and the municipality of Virolahti point out the need to assess the impacts of the project on seaweed production. The city of Helsinki states that for disposal of excess mass, the HELCOM (Baltic Marine Environment Protection Commission) guidelines should be followed.

In relation to maritime traffic, the city of Helsinki considers it necessary to investigate and observe the heavy traffic between Helsinki and Tallinn, and the environmental impacts on the maritime traffic. In addition, adverse effects on fishing, people dependent on marine areas for their livelihoods and the recreational use of the sea area should be investigated and kept as low as possible.

In relation to impacts on nature, it is stated that the Gulf of Finland is a sensitive ecosystem, that it is already polluted and that it has valuable protected areas. These areas are important to birds for nesting and as migration routes. The environmental board of Hamina and the municipality of Virolahti state that it is central in the timing of the construction that it causes no disturbances in the

• Asemapäällikönkatu 14 ⋅ PL 36, 00521 Helsinki ⋅ 020 490 101 ⋅ Asiakaspalvelu 020 690 161 ⋅ www.ymparisto.fi/uus • Stinsgatan 14 ⋅ PB 36, FI-00521 Helsingfors, Finland ⋅ +358 20 490 101 ⋅ Kundservice +358 20 690 161 ⋅ www.miljo.fi/uus

proximity of nesting areas during breeding periods. Additional information is requested in the assessment in terms of the possible spawning and reproductive areas of fish.

The project is expected to possibly affect the living environment and safety of humans. It is requested that special attention be paid to the exchange of information between different actors if problems arise. In addition, the sharing of costs in case of accidents should be clarified. It is requested that in the planning stages, it is also clarified what will happen to the pipeline system and what environmental impacts can arise from the decommissioning of the pipeline and how these adverse impacts can be minimised.

Opinions

The Coalition Clean Baltic (CCB) states that in addition to the two proposed alternatives other alternatives should also be examined. The entire Gulf of Finland should be regarded as a potential impact area and not only the two kilometre-wide corridor. The CCB also states that the schedule is too tight and that the environmental responsibility for the project is very unclear at the moment.

The environmental impacts of the pipeline construction stem mainly from the required seabed modification measures and their effects. The CCB states that in regard to the harmful substances contained in the sediments it would be necessary to investigate an alternative method of extraction and processing of the sediments. The seabed sediments also contain high levels of nutrients and it is necessary to assess how much of these might be released during construction. In addition, the munitions dumped into the sea create a risk. Therefore, it is necessary to evaluate the impacts of the project on, for example, the remobilisation and release of the potentially hazardous compounds from the dumped munitions. There should also be, for example, a description of different frequencies of underwater noise included in the assessment of the environmental impacts. The impacts on the Natura 2000 areas should be assessed separately in order to fulfil the requirements of Article 6, chapter 3 and 4 of the Habitats Directive.

It is requested that the existing information be made generally available and that assessment include the evaluation of possible accidents, and information on who are responsible parties and decision-makers if an accident were to occur. The assessment should also include a proposal for decommissioning costs and how money is to be allocated for this. The CCB also proposes in its statement that a liability fund be established for the prevention of environmental damage during the project and repair of any damages.

• Asemapäällikönkatu 14 ⋅ PL 36, 00521 Helsinki ⋅ 020 490 101 ⋅ Asiakaspalvelu 020 690 161 ⋅ www.ymparisto.fi/uus • Stinsgatan 14 ⋅ PB 36, FI-00521 Helsingfors, Finland ⋅ +358 20 490 101 ⋅ Kundservice +358 20 690 161 ⋅ www.miljo.fi/uus

In its statement the Coalition Clean Baltic also deals extensively with the international dimension of the project.

In its statement, WWF Germany/Baltic Programme mainly focuses on dealing with the project as a whole. The statement directly refers to Finland in discussing, for example, the need to assess the impacts of the project on the nesting of birds and the need to take into account seasonal variations and weather patterns when evaluating shipping routes.

In terms of the whole project, WWF Germany/Baltic Programme states that more information is necessary than is presently available in order to begin assessing the actual environmental impacts. It also considers the schedule too tight. Shortcomings are also observed, for example, in the methods, the description of nature in the project area, the assessment of the common impacts of the project and the compensatory measures for possible environmental damage. WWF Germany/Baltic Programme also points out the requirement for project follow-up.

The Hanko Environment Association, Kotkan Luonto ry (“Nature in Kotka Association”), the Uusimaa Regional Organisation of the Finnish Organisation for Nature Conservation, and WWF Finland point out the importance of providing alternatives, and request a comparable no-action alternative, and well-founded options for the exclusion of alternatives. Examples that are mentioned include the transportation of liquefied gas on ships and the development of an alternative land-based pipeline network in Eastern Europe. In addition, reasons for the routing should be further explained in the report. For example, WWF Finland states that alternative approaches to produce an equivalent amount of energy as transportable gas should be proposed and their assumed environmental impacts should be described.

Several statements point out auxiliary facilities of the gas pipeline on land. The assessment programme should include the assessment of environmental impacts of activities at the auxiliary facilities. The installation of the pipelines and the levelling of the seabed are likely to produce several detrimental impacts, such as the resuspension of nutrients, heavy metals, and other toxic substances and the release of organic material from seabed sediments. There is also concern over possible dumped chemicals and munitions along the routing of the gas pipeline. The possible impacts of the construction work on the seabed should be assessed not only in the open seas but also in coastal areas. The assessment lacks a description of noise, including frequencies and noise levels, which originate from the pipeline, as well as what kind of impact this noise has on the biota of the Baltic Sea.

• Asemapäällikönkatu 14 ⋅ PL 36, 00521 Helsinki ⋅ 020 490 101 ⋅ Asiakaspalvelu 020 690 161 ⋅ www.ymparisto.fi/uus • Stinsgatan 14 ⋅ PB 36, FI-00521 Helsingfors, Finland ⋅ +358 20 490 101 ⋅ Kundservice +358 20 690 161 ⋅ www.miljo.fi/uus

The Baltic Sea is a brackish water ecosystem that is vulnerable and unique, and these characteristics should be taken into account in the assessment. For instance, the Kymenlaakso Regional Organisation of the Finnish Association for Nature Conservation also points out that the eastern parts of the Gulf of Finland belong to Vyborg’s rapakivi massif area and in this way differs from the rest of the area in its bedrock. In spring this area is one of the most important routes for migratory birds, which should particularly be taken into consideration in the schedule for the construction, as should the increasing spawning taking place along the pipeline routing. Of marine mammals, the ringed seal in particular requires special consideration because in winters with less ice cover the reproductive areas on the ice overlap with the construction area in the east.

The report should estimate the impacts of the construction period on all of the important conservation areas in the vicinities of the pipeline route alternatives such as the Eastern Gulf of Finland National Park. The Kymenlaakso Regional Organisation of the Finnish Association for Nature Conservation mentioned the Natura areas and Hankoniemi, the Ramsar area of the Tammisaari archipelago, referred to in addendum 5 of the assessment programme. In the Gulf of Finland the affected area is wider than the specified two kilometre corridor. Furthermore, the width of the area should be determined with care.

According to the Kymenlaakso Regional Organisation of the Finnish Association for Nature Conservation the EIA should include a specification of how to avoid the release of gas into the atmosphere, because methane is a harmful greenhouse gas and has negative impacts on the atmosphere. In addition, the discharge of anoxic flushing water into the sea is problematic and its harmful effect should be minimised.

The Finnish Professional Fishing Association, the Finnish Archipelago Professional Fishing Association and the Gulf of Finland Professional Fishing Association state that the environmental assessment programme and the attached assessment plan are lacking at this stage in regard to the professional fishing interests relating to the project, as well as the impacts on fishing of the gas pipeline and the study of these impacts in terms of fishing interests.

The parallel pipes and their construction present varying adverse impacts on professional fishing. The greatest risk and disadvantage to professional fishing, when the pipeline is uncovered, arises from the prevention, hindrance and limitation of bottom trawling, and different risks relating to this activity. Trawling can also cause risks to the gas pipeline itself, for example, the concrete and anticorrosion coating may be damaged if the trawl board is dragged over the pipeline. In practice, the bottom trawling

• Asemapäällikönkatu 14 ⋅ PL 36, 00521 Helsinki ⋅ 020 490 101 ⋅ Asiakaspalvelu 020 690 161 ⋅ www.ymparisto.fi/uus • Stinsgatan 14 ⋅ PB 36, FI-00521 Helsingfors, Finland ⋅ +358 20 490 101 ⋅ Kundservice +358 20 690 161 ⋅ www.miljo.fi/uus

of the waters cutting across the direction of the pipeline will not be possible at all; and trawling parallel to the pipelines will be impaired.

Regarding the setting of the alternatives, the comments call for a well-founded justification on why the already existent gas pipeline routings are not put into use, for example, the ones in the Baltic countries and Belarus, which would not give a significant rise to new environmental impacts. The planning of the project should take into account the negative impacts of construction activities and restrictions to fishing interests and how they will be compensated.

ProKarelia finds that the gas pipeline project is in line with the economic interests of Russia and Germany and in the political interests of Russia, and the energy transported through the pipeline is intrinsically useful for European states. The crossing of the pipeline through a sea area is a project consistent with the spirit of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea.

However, the pipeline may cause extremely significant detrimental environmental impact in the heavily trafficked Baltic Sea, which is already in a rather poor state, and the pipeline may have an unpredictable negative impact on the cultural heritage of the Baltic Sea area. The pipeline has an important effect on the readiness of Finland’s naval defence. It will also take a toll on the fishing industry and tourism. The Finnish public should have access to precise information on the effects and the reparation of and compensation for possible detrimental impacts.

The comments also refer to the fact that the international human rights convention recognises the protection of property and its permanence in terms of the pipeline through Ladoga-Karelia and the Karelian Isthmus.

Private persons

Comment 1 states that an alternative that causes the least harm to the environment has not been explored in the routing of the pipeline. The routing through Finland’s EEZ has drawbacks such as a significant amount of unnecessary cutting, blasting and other work on the seabed with very detrimental impacts on the entire Gulf of Finland. In addition, under international law, Finland is considered to be responsible for this type of environmental damage in its territory.

Problems in the assessment programme are deprecating phrases and the proposed methods are rather insufficient. An actual operational plan is missing altogether. The designated schedule for the project is far too tight. A condition for the assessment on

• Asemapäällikönkatu 14 ⋅ PL 36, 00521 Helsinki ⋅ 020 490 101 ⋅ Asiakaspalvelu 020 690 161 ⋅ www.ymparisto.fi/uus • Stinsgatan 14 ⋅ PB 36, FI-00521 Helsingfors, Finland ⋅ +358 20 490 101 ⋅ Kundservice +358 20 690 161 ⋅ www.miljo.fi/uus

Finland’s part should be Russia’s full commitment to the EIA agreement.

Comment 2 points out the fact that the Baltic Sea has been designated a Particularly Sensitive Sea Area and states that the EIA should include the entire lifespan of the pipeline and that the assessment should be conducted in accordance with the worse- case scenario. The construction of the pipeline on the seabed involves more environmental, natural and health risks than does its construction on land. For example, it is easier to deal with accidents on land, both during and after construction.

The comment points out that the area of the seabed which will end up under the pipeline is extensive and questions the acceptability of building on the seabed. It states that the alteration of the seabed affects the dispersal of harmful substances and nutrients in anoxic water.

Comments 3 and 4 consider it obvious that the planned pipeline on the bottom of the Baltic Sea would have dramatic impacts on the ecology of the Baltic Sea. The planned routing passes seven kilometres away from the eastern Gulf of Finland which pertains to the Natura 2000 network. The pollution and environmental impact solely on this area is viewed in the comments as sufficient to prevent the entire project. The wide spreading of sediment will prevent the spawning of fish and have negative impacts on fishing and fish stocks. In any event fishing in the vicinity of the pipeline would be completely prevented. The owners of coastal real estate would suffer from problems caused by the pipeline for years.

The project is also stated to seriously jeopardise Finland’s national welfare, negatively affecting Finland’s naval defence and is considered politically hazardous. If it is implemented, the project would seriously hinder the construction of a cable between Finland and Estonia and destroy Finnish cultural heritage in the area. In addition, it is pointed out that a detailed report on the impacts of the project on, for example, shipping traffic and water quality has not been provided.

The comments also deal with the impacts of the project on Russian navy vessel traffic and the portion of the pipeline to be built in Karelia.

Comment 5 states that a thorough assessment of the environmental impacts of the pipeline would require the equal assessment of all alternatives. The comment proposes, in addition to the alternatives presented in the assessment programme, three new alternatives. One would examine the implementation of the pipeline routing in an environmentally more sound area in the Gulf of Finland, a second proposal is a land alternative through Lithuania and Poland and a third proposal is the so-called

• Asemapäällikönkatu 14 ⋅ PL 36, 00521 Helsinki ⋅ 020 490 101 ⋅ Asiakaspalvelu 020 690 161 ⋅ www.ymparisto.fi/uus • Stinsgatan 14 ⋅ PB 36, FI-00521 Helsingfors, Finland ⋅ +358 20 490 101 ⋅ Kundservice +358 20 690 161 ⋅ www.miljo.fi/uus

Nabucco project, that is, the construction of a pipeline through Azerbaijan, Georgia and Turkey to Europe.

The comment proposes that the developer be required to provide an assessment of the impacts of the project in light of Baltic Sea environmental conservation projects, especially the Natura 2000 network.

The comment considers the evaluation of the impacts presented in the assessment unrealistic and proposes that the developer should submit a realistic programme, which would include sufficiently precise scheduling and resource management. The comment expresses concern over the increase of naval activity because of the project and resulting environmental impacts.

Answers in accordance to the official notification according to the Convention on Environmental Impact Assessment in a Transboundary Context

Sweden, Denmark, Germany, Poland, Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia have by 20 February 2007 provided their answers to the official notification by the Ministry of the Environment in accordance with the Convention on Environmental Impact Assessment in a Transboundary Context. They have informed the ministry of their willingness to participate in the assessment of the environmental impacts and they have presented their viewpoints. Many expert statements and opinions presented in these countries have been included. These responses mainly relate to the overall assessment of the project and they present questions considered important by the countries, which are generally parallel to the issues presented in the comments and opinions expressed in Finland.

4. STATEMENT OF THE CO-ORDINATING AUTHORITY

The construction of an offshore gas pipeline from Russia to Germany is a major project, both for Finland and for the whole Baltic Sea region. However, the magnitude of the project should not mean that the environmental impacts are assessed less carefully than for smaller projects. The impacts of the project on the state of the environment in the Baltic Sea must be investigated with care, since the Baltic Sea and especially the Gulf of Finland are particularly vulnerable ecosystems, unique in terms of their natural features and already subject to an excessive pollution load.

The project extends to the territories or exclusive economic zones of five different states, and thus the planning and assessment of project impacts is a challenging task.

Feedback received under the Espoo Convention

• Asemapäällikönkatu 14 ⋅ PL 36, 00521 Helsinki ⋅ 020 490 101 ⋅ Asiakaspalvelu 020 690 161 ⋅ www.ymparisto.fi/uus • Stinsgatan 14 ⋅ PB 36, FI-00521 Helsingfors, Finland ⋅ +358 20 490 101 ⋅ Kundservice +358 20 690 161 ⋅ www.miljo.fi/uus

The responses received from Sweden, Denmark, Germany, Poland, Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia to the notification sent by the Ministry of the Environment under the Espoo Convention have been made available to the Uusimaa Regional Environment Centre and they have been taken into consideration when preparing this statement. The countries’ responses are based on the project description of the entire project from Russia to Germany corresponding to the assessment programme. This report is appended to the assessment programme and has also been made available to the public in Finland. These responses with their appended documents have been submitted to the developer, and the Parties to the Espoo Convention will meet in March 2007 to discuss them with the developer.

Description of the project

The project is described clearly, but in fairly general terms. It does not appear from the assessment programme that the levelling of the seabed is to be carried out for both pipelines at once. The routing of the pipeline has not been shown in such detail that the amount of work required on the sea bottom could be specified in detail. As regards the levelling of the seabed, it is stated that the excavation work would affect a 100–150 metre-wide corridor on the sea bottom. According to the preliminary assumption made in the assessment programme, the pipeline would be sunk into the seabed and covered for a distance of about 50–100 kilometres in the Finnish EEZ.

Since neither the detailed routing, nor the topography of the seabed, its structure or sediment composition have been presented, it has not been possible to give a detailed plan for the required seabed excavation work with the required transport of removed materials and how they relate to the various sedimentation areas in the Gulf of Finland.

The description states that the construction of the gas pipeline will require onshore maintenance or other auxiliary facilities. The locations of these facilities and the related operations have not yet been presented in the assessment programme, but they are to be presented in the assessment report.

The general nature of the description is reflected in the fact that the whole assessment programme is also very general, and this has made it difficult to define the investigations needed. This means that no accurate assessment programme or assessment can be made of the project thus described. The project should therefore be described with sufficient accuracy to allow detailed investigation and assessment of its environmental impacts.

Examination of alternatives

• Asemapäällikönkatu 14 ⋅ PL 36, 00521 Helsinki ⋅ 020 490 101 ⋅ Asiakaspalvelu 020 690 161 ⋅ www.ymparisto.fi/uus • Stinsgatan 14 ⋅ PB 36, FI-00521 Helsingfors, Finland ⋅ +358 20 490 101 ⋅ Kundservice +358 20 690 161 ⋅ www.miljo.fi/uus

The assessment programme explains the history of the project and the alternative routes that had been studied previously. In this context a project in the 1990s was mentioned, investigating a planned offshore gas pipeline from Russia to Germany, and also pipeline routes crossing the mainlands of Finland and Sweden.

As a zero-alternative, the programme mentions the new Yamal– Europe pipeline, which is parallel to the route of the existing Belarus pipeline. Another zero-alternative mentioned is the Amber pipeline via Russia, Latvia, Lithuania and Poland.

According to the assessment programme, the assessment only concerns the offshore Nord Stream gas pipeline project from Russia to Germany. In addition, the programme states that the project is intended to meet the growing need for gas in the European Union. The project is part of the European Commission’s Trans-European Energy Network (TEN-E). The purpose of the TEN-E programme is to promote the formation of European-wide energy transmission networks and thus to promote both reliable energy supply and efficient energy markets.

The various overland pipelines investigated earlier have not been examined as an alternative to the offshore Nord Stream gas pipeline project. The assessment programme does not give any grounds for eliminating the routes studied earlier. In the assessment report more detailed reasoning should be given for choosing the Baltic Sea alternative.

The Nord Stream gas pipeline would provide a new Baltic Sea route for bringing gas from Russia to the European market. According to the assessment programme, the new link would be a way to avoid the economic and political instability that sometimes affects overland pipelines.

The topography of the seabed in the Gulf of Finland is difficult with a view to construction in Finland’s EEZ, as the sea bottom is uneven, and laying the pipeline would require levelling and filling. The sea bottom of the Gulf of Finland further south of the proposed pipeline route is more even and deeper.

Because of the ecological vulnerability and heavy pollution load in the Baltic Sea, and particularly in the Gulf of Finland, it is important to find a routing and method of implementation that causes the least possible impact on the environment. The routing now proposed follows the outer limit of the Finnish EEZ very closely, and no environmental grounds have been given for this choice. The assessment should propose the best routing alternative, in terms of the environment, in the Gulf of Finland.

• Asemapäällikönkatu 14 ⋅ PL 36, 00521 Helsinki ⋅ 020 490 101 ⋅ Asiakaspalvelu 020 690 161 ⋅ www.ymparisto.fi/uus • Stinsgatan 14 ⋅ PB 36, FI-00521 Helsingfors, Finland ⋅ +358 20 490 101 ⋅ Kundservice +358 20 690 161 ⋅ www.miljo.fi/uus

On the pipeline route or in its vicinity, there are areas of long-term marine research monitoring, which are important for monitoring the state of the Baltic Sea. In further planning of the pipeline routing, the integrity of these areas should be taken into account.

Schedule

The schedule for the EIA is tight, and if necessary it should be revised to allow for any additional investigations. In order to gain an overall picture, it was good that the first stage of the assessment, the so-called scoping phase, could be implemented simultaneously for the whole project in all the Baltic Sea states, as provided in the Espoo Convention. It is desirable from the point of view of uniformity and control of the whole project that the results of the EIA should also be dealt with simultaneously for the whole project in all the Baltic Sea states.

Impacts and their investigation

The most significant impacts of the project will be caused by construction, but there may also be impacts during the operation of the pipeline.

Impact area

The area affected by the project will be defined more precisely during the assessment, and will depend on the issue under consideration at the time. The fine-grained material made up of sediments and substances released into the water may be carried further by currents than the assessment programme indicates. The scoping of the impact area towards Åland should also be examined during the assessment.

Seabed topography and sediments

A sufficiently accurate analysis should be made of the harmful substances and nutrients contained in the bottom sediment of the gas pipeline route. The assessment report should illustrate, for example, by simulation modelling, how the substances and nutrients stored in the sediments will be released and transferred, and how they will settle and bind to organisms during the construction phase.

Depending on the concentrations of harmful substances in bottom sediments, a plan should be made for handling them, with reference to the guide on dredging and dumping sediments published by the Ministry of the Environment on April 19, 2004. The guide is based on a recommendation and guidelines given under the Baltic Marine Environment Protection Convention (HELCOM) on the dumping of dredged material in the sea and the guidelines of the North-East Atlantic Convention (OSPAR) relating to dumping.

• Asemapäällikönkatu 14 ⋅ PL 36, 00521 Helsinki ⋅ 020 490 101 ⋅ Asiakaspalvelu 020 690 161 ⋅ www.ymparisto.fi/uus • Stinsgatan 14 ⋅ PB 36, FI-00521 Helsingfors, Finland ⋅ +358 20 490 101 ⋅ Kundservice +358 20 690 161 ⋅ www.miljo.fi/uus

In the project description, the draft timetable and the permit procedures required by the project, no allowance has been made for dealing with concentrations of harmful substances in the bottom sediment that could cause environmental pollution as referred to in environmental protection legislation.

Remains of weapons and munitions

Any remains of chemical weapons and munitions submerged in the construction area should be located, a description given of their handling and an assessment of the possible impacts. Remains of chemical weapons and munitions on the sea bottom are the concerns most frequently repeated in feedback from the assessment programme.

Maritime traffic and shipwrecks

The pipeline route is located near a busy fairway. Possible risks to maritime traffic from the construction work were also strongly emphasised in the feedback. The assessment report should also describe how the safety of maritime traffic is to be ensured during the construction period.

The project may have two kinds of impact on shipwrecks. On the chosen route there may be valuable shipwrecks which it is considered desirable to preserve. On the other hand, there may be shipwrecks on the pipeline route that contain oil or other harmful substances. These must be investigated in the assessment and necessary measures must be taken to deal with them.

Extending the Natura 2000 network in the Excusive Economic Zone

The European Commission has stated a requirement that Member States should extend their Natura 2000 network to their Exclusive Economic Zones. The developer should investigate whether the scope of the project includes any reefs or underwater sandbanks as referred to in the list of habitats given in Annex I of the Habitats Directive, and any species referred to in Annex II, for example, the grey seal, the ringed seal and bird species native to the open sea. In addition, the impacts of the project on these habitats and species should be assessed.

Bird life

The assessment should take into account the areas important for the different stages of the lifecycle of birds. For example, auks feed in the open sea tens of kilometres from their nesting grounds, so that distance from the pipeline, as proposed in the assessment programme, is not a sufficient criterion for assuming that the

• Asemapäällikönkatu 14 ⋅ PL 36, 00521 Helsinki ⋅ 020 490 101 ⋅ Asiakaspalvelu 020 690 161 ⋅ www.ymparisto.fi/uus • Stinsgatan 14 ⋅ PB 36, FI-00521 Helsingfors, Finland ⋅ +358 20 490 101 ⋅ Kundservice +358 20 690 161 ⋅ www.miljo.fi/uus

project will have no impacts on bird life. The criteria for the conservation status of the protected areas should be emphasised and the impacts on them assessed. The assessment should also investigate the timing of construction work in order to avoid interfering with important stages in the lifecycle of birds and other fauna.

Fish and fishing

Commercial fishermen have particularly expressed their concerns about the impacts of the project on bottom trawling. The assessment should look into the impacts of the project on fish and fishing and its significance for bottom trawling in the conditions of the Gulf of Finland.

Material, methods and monitoring

The Finnish Institute of Marine Research, the Geological Survey of Finland and the Finnish Environment Institute set up a group of experts, which has published a report "Implementation of the North European Gas Pipeline Project – Data Inventory and Further Need for Data for Environmental Impact Assessment" (Finnish Institute of Marine Research’s MERI series, No. 58, 2006). The report offers good information on the basic data available in Finland and on the need for supplementary data, as well as a proposal for a project monitoring programme.

The impact assessment should be based on up-to-date information. The EIA programme contains partly out of date or incorrect data on shipping, seals, bird life and fish.

It is to be hoped that the material used and gathered in the course of the assessment will be made available as widely as possible to the public so as to ensure the transparency of the assessment procedure. The methods used, for example, in sampling and modelling, along with the assumptions involved, should be described in the assessment report.

Participation

The developer has taken an active role, together with the Parties to the Espoo Convention, to ensure the uniform content and timing of the EIA. This has promoted comprehensive and consistent examination of the environmental assessment, and has improved the opportunities for citizens to participate in the EIA process.

The developer has disseminated information widely on the environmental impacts of the project, and there has been information available in all the main languages of the states in the Baltic Sea region. In Finland the developer, along with

• Asemapäällikönkatu 14 ⋅ PL 36, 00521 Helsinki ⋅ 020 490 101 ⋅ Asiakaspalvelu 020 690 161 ⋅ www.ymparisto.fi/uus • Stinsgatan 14 ⋅ PB 36, FI-00521 Helsingfors, Finland ⋅ +358 20 490 101 ⋅ Kundservice +358 20 690 161 ⋅ www.miljo.fi/uus

consultants, has participated in events presenting the EIA programme.

5. DISSEMINATION OF INFORMATION ON THE STATEMENT

The Uusimaa Regional Environment Centre will send the co- ordinating authority’s statement to those who have given statements and expressed opinions. The statement will also be available on the Internet (at http://www.ymparisto.fi/uus).

The Uusimaa Regional Environment Centre will also send copies of the statements and opinions on the assessment report to the project developer. The original documents will be kept at the Uusimaa Regional Environment Centre.

Director, Uusimaa Regional Environment Centre Leena Saviranta

Senior Adviser Jorma Jantunen

APPENDICES Criteria for charges

FOR THE INFORMATION OF: Ministry of the Environment Finnish Environment Institute (statement + 2 copies of assessment programme with appendices) Regional Environment Centres Authorities and others contributing statements and opinions

• Asemapäällikönkatu 14 ⋅ PL 36, 00521 Helsinki ⋅ 020 490 101 ⋅ Asiakaspalvelu 020 690 161 ⋅ www.ymparisto.fi/uus • Stinsgatan 14 ⋅ PB 36, FI-00521 Helsingfors, Finland ⋅ +358 20 490 101 ⋅ Kundservice +358 20 690 161 ⋅ www.miljo.fi/uus

Appendix IX

List of additional material related to the Nord Stream project

Environmental impact assessment report | Appendix IX 3(3)|

Appendix IX: List of additional material related to the Nord Stream project

Electronic versions available on Nord Stream’s website:

1) Contaminants and nutrients released from seabed intervention works. Memo 4.3D02 2008

2) Seabed erosion during storm events in the Gulf of Finland. Memo 4.3A-11. 2009

3) Spreading of sediments during pipeline layout. Memo 4.3A-4. 2008

4) Spreading of sediment and contaminants during works in the seabed. Memo 4.3A-5 2008

5) Release of sediments from anchor operation Memo 4.3A-9. 2008

6) Model setup for the Baltic Sea. Memo 4.3A-1. 2008

7) Temperature difference between pipeline and surroundings. Memo 4.3R. 2009

8) Materials. Memo 4.3S. 2009

9) Air emissions and climate. Memo 4.3P. 2008

10) Macrozoobenthos along the South route of the Nord Stream Pipeline in the Baltic Sea including the Kalbådagrund alternative in the Gulf of Finland. Final Report 2008

For other requests, or information not found onthe Nord Streams website, please contact Nord Stream directly.

Appendix X

List of Experts

Environmental impact assessment report | Appendix X 3(5)|

Appendix X List of Experts

EIA-report, Authors

0 NON-TECHNICAL SUMMARY Author: Ramboll Finland Ltd Supporters: Hill & Knowlton, Nord Stream AG

1 NTRODUCTION Author: Ramboll Finland Ltd Supporter: Nord Stream AG

2 BACKGROUND INFORMATION Author: Nord Stream AG

3 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT Author: Nord Stream AG Supporters: Ramboll Finland Ltd, Ramboll Oil & Gas

4 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT PROCEDURE Author: Ramboll Finland Ltd

5 PRESENT SITUATION IN THE PROJECT AREA Authors: Ramboll Finland Ltd, Ramboll Oil & Gas Supporter: Nord Stream AG

6 ALTERNATIVES AND ROUTE OPTIMISATION Author: Ramboll Finland Ltd Supporter: Nord Stream AG

7 DESCRIPTION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT Author: Ramboll Finland Ltd Supporter: Nord Stream AG

8 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT OF PLANNED ACTIVITIES 8.1 Impacts on physical and chemical environment Authors: Nord Stream AG, Ramboll Finland Ltd, Ramboll Oil & Gas 8.2 Impacts on biotic environment Authors: Ramboll Finland Ltd, Ramboll Oil & Gas Supporter: Nord Stream AG 8.3 Impacts on protected areas Author: Ramboll Finland Ltd Supporter: Ramboll Oil & Gas 8.4 Impacts on economic and human conditions Authors: Ramboll Finland Ltd, Ramboll Oil & Gas Supporter: Nord Stream AG 4(5) | Environmental impact assessment report | Appendix X

9 ASSESSMENT OF RISKS RELATED TO UNPLANNED EVENTS Author: Nord Stream AG Supporter: Ramboll Oil & Gas

10 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS FOR DECOMMISSIONING Authors: Ramboll Finland Ltd, Nord Stream AG

11 Conclusions and comparison of alternatives Author: Ramboll Finland Ltd

12 LACK OF INFORMATION AND UNCERTAINTIES Author: Ramboll Finland Ltd

13 PREVENTION AND MITIGATION MEASURES Author: Ramboll Finland Ltd Supporter: Nord Stream AG

14 FURTHER PLANNING Author: Ramboll Finland Ltd Supporter: Nord Stream AG

15 PROPOSAL FOR A MONITORING PROGRAMME Author: Ramboll Finland Ltd Supporter: Nord Stream AG 17 APPENDICES Author: Ramboll Finland Ltd APPENDIX I: The Nord Stream AG organisation and shareholders Author: Nord Stream AG, Ramboll Finland Ltd APPENDIX II: Impact assessment matrix Author: Ramboll Finland Ltd APPENDIX III: Rock placement locations and quantities Authors: Nord Stream AG, Ramboll Oil & Gas APPENDIX IV: Methods used to describe environmental conditions Authors: Ramboll Oil & Gas, Ramboll Finland Ltd APPENDIX V: Protected areas Author: Ramboll Finland Ltd APPENDIX VI: Social Impacts: Questionnary Author: Ramboll Finland Ltd APPENDIX VII: Barrels along the pipeline route Author: Nord Stream AG APPENDIX VIII: Coordinating authority statement on EIA program APPENDIX IX: List of additional material related to Nord Stream project Authors: Ramboll Finland Ltd, Nord Stream AG APPENDIX XI: Report on the Water Quality Modelling of the Nord Stream Gas Pipeline Author: Luode Consulting Ltd Environmental impact assessment report | Appendix X 5(5)|

APPENDIX XII: Environmental considerations of the munitions clearance and barrels within the anchoring corridor Authors: Nord Stream AG, Ramboll Finland Ltd

RAMBOLL FINLAND, SUBCONTRACTORS Luode Consulting Ltd Eranti Engineering Esko Rossi Ltd Ympäristötutkimus Yrjölä Ltd Ramboll Analytics Ltd Alleco Ltd

RAMBOLL OIL & GAS, SUBCONTRACTORS DHI Denmark Bio Consult

NORD STREAM AG, SUBCONTRACTORS Marin Mätteknik (MMT) AB PeterGaz/Russia Roland Berger Strategy Consultants Witteveen+Bos Saipem Energy Services Castrén & Snellman

DATA AND ASSISSTANCE PROVIDED BY Finnish Institute of Marine Research (FIMR) Finnish National Board of Antiquities (FNBA) Thijs J. Maarleveld, Professor of Maritime Archaeology, University of Southern Denmark

Appendix XI

Report on the Water Quality Modelling of the Nord Stream Gas Pipeline

Environmental impact assessment report | Appendix XI 3(14)| 4(14) | Environmental impact assessment report | Appendix XI

Introduction and goal of the Report

The construction phase of the proposed Nord Stream Gas Pipeline between Russia and Germany will cause disturbance of the seabed sediment, spreading of solids and re-suspen- sion of seabed contaminants in the water column. To assess the scope and duration of this impact, the MIKE 3 Flow and Water Quality Model was used. The modelled area covered all five national EEZs that the pipelines’ route crosses, but this report is confined to the impact of the offshore works performed within the Finnish EEZ. The pipeline consists of two paral- lel pipes that are planned to be built separately with an interval of a couple of years between them.

This report aims to describe the flow and water quality model used in the assessment work of the Nord Stream Gas Pipeline Project, the validation of the model, the results achieved and the restrictions involved in the use of the model. The modelling work was performed in Denmark by Ramboll Denmark A/S. This report is based on the English language memoran- dum on the modelling, Memo 4.3A-5, Spreading of sediment and contaminants during works in the seabed. In addition to the model, separate studies concerning the aquatic impact of the construction vessel anchor handling and munitions clearance have been prepared, the results of which are briefly presented in this study. The English language memorandums used are Memo 4.3A-9, Release of sediments from anchor operation, and Memo 4.3A-12, Spreading of sediment and contaminants from clearing of munitions.

Background information on the modelling and the water quality model used

General

The aim of the water quality modelling was to determine the scope of the impact on the water quality and the marine environment in different phases of the pipeline construction work. The modelling was performed with the commercial DHI MIKE 3 HD flow model and the related MIKE 3 PA particle transport model. In addition to the impact scope, the model was also used to determine the concentrations in which the contaminants will be transported by underwater currents in the vicinity of the pipeline and the duration of their impact in the water column.

The modelling concentrated on the pipeline construction work phases that cause spreading of solids and contaminants in the marine environment. The modelling also takes into account work phases that are not performed inside the Finnish EEZ. Those phases are not included in this report. The construction phases causing most of the re-suspension (turbidity) of seabed sediments are:

• construction of the gravel foundation under the pipeline, • impact from the anchor handling of the pipe laying vessels, and • munitions clearance in the area.

The turbidity increasing effect of the pipe-laying process is estimated to be so minor that it was not separately modelled with a flow model. A separate study has been prepared on the impact of the pipe-laying works. According to the study calculations, the lowering speed of the pipes to the seabed is so slow that no re-suspension will occur. Environmental impact assessment report | Appendix XI 5(14)|

Measurement data on the seabed quality and the work plan concerning the scope and amount of the necessary measures potentially causing sediments spreading into the water column were used as background information for the modelling work. The modelling concent- rated on the determination of the aquatic impact reaching outside the actual working area. In practice, this means modelling of the spreading of the most fine-grained seabed sediments and soluble substances. In the case of Finland, the proportion of the most fine-grained sea- bed sediments (silt, clay) was estimated as 33% of the total seabed sediment.

Background information on the model

A 3-D MIKE 3 HD model was used to estimate the aquatic impact of the Nord Stream Project in the entire Baltic Sea region. The model computes current flows, surface level, salini- ty and temperature in a three-dimensional grid. The results achieved were used as backg- round information for the MIKE 3 PA particle tracking model. For the modelling the Baltic Sea area was divided horizontally and vertically into an equidistant grid. The grid cell dimensions varied horizontally as follows: In the North Sea the cell size was 9 nautical miles (~17 km), in the Belt Sea 1 nautical mile (~2 km), and in the Baltic Sea 3 nautical miles (~5 km). Vertically, the layer is always 1 metre thick down to 210 metres’ depth, which is the maximum depth of the modelling application. Deeper areas were determined as 210 metres deep in order to limit the depth levels used in the computing. The depth of the top layer was set to 2.5 metres.

The model’s external forcing functions are the wind, the air pressure, the air temperature and the efflux from the rivers.

On the North Atlantic coast the model was forced by water surface levels brought about by the tides and differences in the air pressure. The calculation period was 1 January 2004 to 31 December 2006. The model recorded at one-hour and six-hour intervals the following two-di- mensional fields: water surface level, wind and air pressure, and the following three-dimen- sional fields: water flow velocity, salinity and temperature.

The actual water quality calculations were made with a higher resolution MIKE 3 PA model with a grid cell size of 250 x 250 metres. The flow fields computed with the flow model were interpolated to correspond the smaller grid size. The vertical grid dimension was the same in both models (1 metre).

The particle sources were input as coordinates of different work locations in all three dimen- sions and the emission amount equalled the estimated load amount (kg/sec.). The load was placed in different work phases in the water column depth where the majority of the impact occurred. The load data was collected from earlier background data from the work locations and from experts’ estimates. In the water the background concentrations were set at zero in order to find out the increase of the concentrations in different areas.

MIKE 3 HD flow model

The MIKE 3 HD flow model is a three-dimensional baroclinic non-hydrostatic numerical modelling system developed by DHI. The model takes into consideration the following fac- 6(14) | Environmental impact assessment report | Appendix XI

tors: water density changes, transport of salinity and temperature, turbulence, wind and sea- bed friction, water properties sources and sinks, temperature exchange with the atmosphere including evaporation and precipitation.

In the baroclinic method used by the model, the constant pressure surfaces of the model are not forced to follow the constant density surfaces as is done in the barotropic model, where the used model can also solve the water’s temperature, salinity and flow stratification. The used MIKE 3 HD model is non-hydrostatic, which means that the model can even be used to solve a vertical momentum equation. This means that the computation time required for the modelling becomes considerably longer, but the model’s accuracy, especially in small-scale phenomena (<10 m) improves because the grid cells in use can be smaller. The free top sur- face method of the model can also be applied to modelling surface level data.

The model solves the mass continuity equation and motion equations considering turbulen- ce, density differences, seabed profile and external forcing functions. Based on these initial parameters and the forcing functions derived from the background material collected from dif- ferent places at different times (weather, surface level and hydrographical data), the model will calculate a three-dimensional, time-dependent variable flow field to identify the aquatic impact caused by the construction works of the gas pipeline.

Validation of the flow model

To validate the flow model, the results of the model were compared with observations from six locations along the pipeline’s route. Two of the locations were in the Gulf of Finland, one in the northern part of the Baltic Proper, one in the Gotland Basin, one in the Bornholm Basin and one near the German coastline. The validation is restricted by the fact that the obser- vations used were collected from free sources, which prevented collection of simultaneous observation. In the course of the validation, the salinity values averaged in relation to time were compared with the average salinity values collected by the ICES Oceanographic Data Center in 1960 to 1980. The data from the nearest observation point were used as reference value.

Result of the validation

The validation showed that the model did not succeed in completely imaging the salinity ther- mocline in the main basins of the Baltic Sea, but mixed the water in the basins too much. In the Bornholm Basin the surface value of the salinity was simulated correctly, but below the halocline the salinity value was too low. The impact of the saline pulse of 2003 from the North Sea was not simulated correctly either. In the Gotland Basin the model results and observa- tions were identical throughout the water column. The modelling of vertical dilution is gene- rally also identified as a complex task in other modelling solutions, and is thus not a problem specific to the MIKE 3 model.

In comparison with the long time average collected by ICES, the differences in salinities pro- duced by the model were in general smaller than 1 PSU. In the eastern parts of the Gulf of Environmental impact assessment report | Appendix XI 7(14)|

Finland the model underestimated salinities by 1.8 to 2.6 PSU, and at depths of less than 100 metres the underestimation was around 1 PSU.

Observations of water levels were not available for the validation points in the open sea. Because of that, the water level values produced by the model near the coastline were com- pared with material collected from onshore measuring stations. The largest difference bet- ween a modelled and an observed water surface level was in Helsinki in the Gulf of Finland (29 cm), and the smallest difference was in Gdansk in the southern part of the Baltic Sea (6 cm). According to the comparison results, the water surface estimates produced by the model were more accurate in the southern part of the Baltic Sea than in the north. This is partly exp- lained by the fact that the seabed topography of the model is collected from many sources with different zero-point levels. The mean deviation of the water surface difference (observed – simulated) was 9 to 13 cm.

The main restriction to the validation of the model was the poor availability of flow measu- rements. In the validation points of the Gulf of Finland, the average flow velocity produced by the model was, in the surface layer (0 to 7.5 m), 5 cm/sec. at the easternmost point and 7 cm/sec. closer to the mouth of the Gulf of Finland, which falls within the same magnitude range as the estimated general flow velocity in the Gulf of Finland (in the < 7.5 m surface layer, 5 to 10 cm/sec.). Benthic currents have been observed in the Gotland Depression with velocities of 0 to 9 cm/sec. (average 3.5 cm/sec.). The average flow velocity produced by the model at the bottom of the Gotland Basin is 3 cm/sec. According to the results, the avera- ge flow velocity produced by the model was in the correct magnitude range, but the variation range of the flow velocities produced by the model of 0 to 20 cm/sec. was larger than that of the observation material.

MIKE 3 PA particle transportation model

The aquatic impact of the gas pipe construction was demonstrated by the MIKE 3 PA particle transportation model. The model can be used to estimate the transportation and sedimenta- tion of suspended and diluted materials in three dimensions. With the model, the impact of a single discharge or a lengthy emission into the water can be calculated. Flow data, calcula- ted for example with the above mentioned MIKE 3 HD flow model, is needed as background information. This background information is necessary for the computational grid covering the entire area and time to be simulated.

In the Nord Stream Project the particle transport model was used to simulate the spreading of the seabed sediments, contaminants and nutrients at different stages of the construction work. Different substances are demonstrated in the model by a large amount of particles with a certain mass for each particle. The particle mass can change during simulation, for instan- ce because of decomposition. The particles are released into the water at a loading point (such as a munitions clearance point or a construction site for gravel foundations) and they are moved in the course of simulation. This type of model is called a Lagrangian transport model. The advantages are its lack of a numerical diffusion (which would be created when transforming differential equations into a numerically computed form), inclusion of the subg- rid-scale (phenomena that are smaller than the grid cell size) impact and efficient computa- 8(14) | Environmental impact assessment report | Appendix XI

tion of narrow particle clouds. The implemented Lagrangian approach allows a more refined cell size to be used than a hydrodynamic approach would allow.

The model simulations are based on three factors promoting the spreading of different par- ticles into the construction site environment. These factors are horizontal transport or advec- tion, particle sinking and dispersion caused by random changes of the currents inside a grid cell. The dispersion impact in all three dimensions and the dispersion constants are indepen- dent of the time step and the size of the elementary cells.

Use of the particle model

The most important factor to be studied in the aquatic impact is the distance of the potential impact. This is dependent on the physical properties of the particles, especially their settling speed, existing flow velocities, the depth of the water and the depth of the emission impact. To identify the smallest, the medium and the widest possible net transport distance in diffe- rent conditions, an example case was calculated for emissions occurring on the water sur- face. Background conditions were determined as the average water depth (70 m) based on the six reference points used for validation, the average particle size (0.02 mm) based on the seabed samples for which an average settling speed (0.0002 m/s) was calculated according to Stokes’ law. Under these parameters the particles were transported by the currents for four days before sinking to the seabed. This four-day timeframe was used as the modelling basis. From this period, three different current conditions were identified during which the net tran- sport in other water systems was demonstrated.

One of the chosen passages represented calm conditions with weak current flows (the modelling period from 28 April to 28 May 2005) and the particle transport distances were accordingly short. The second chosen passage represented a normal situation with medium current flows (the modelling period from 26 September to 26 October 2005), and the third passage was a stormy period with extreme current flows and the longest particle transport distances (the modelling period from 21 November to 21 December 2005). The periods were defined to be long enough to avoid meteorological conditions that create quick changes in the current flow from influencing the final result. In such momentary situations where the cur- rent flows back and forth, net transport will not occur. A reference period defined above was compared with the entire computation period of 2004 to 2006. A comparison of the resulting transport distance distributions showed a clear correlation with the average values of the enti- re computation period.

Modelling restrictions

The aspects presented in this chapter are based on an expert opinion, not a background memo.

The validation of the MIKE 3 HD flow model is based on a very small amount of measuring observations, and the seabed currents were validated in the main basin of the Baltic Sea only. Local benthic currents occupy a significant role in calculating the spreading of turbidity caused by aquatic works. Environmental impact assessment report | Appendix XI 9(14)|

The salinity field is very close to the measuring results and differences can be partly exp- lained by incorrect forcing functions or initial values. Based on the salinity, the water move- ments produced by the model can be assumed to be nearly correct in the long term. When computing the particle spreading it is, however, important to take care of correct demonstrati- on of the flow field, even momentarily.

The model has also been used for demonstrating the transport of nutrients. The model does not consider separately the biological or chemical behaviour of the nutrients after they are released into the water column, as they are expected to behave like particles.

As the impact of aquatic works on a small-scale local flow field cannot be directly studied with this modelling system, it is difficult to estimate their impact on the amount and transport of particles in the water. Local currents varying on a scale below 10 metres finally determine the release of particles. This small-scale phenomenon cannot be directly modelled because it occurs on a scale below the model grid size. Thus the situation leading to particle release must be determined theoretically. This method is associated with many uncertainties.

MIKE 3 HD + PA model systems can be used for calculation of the impact of aquatic works on the turbidity in water and the transport of particles in different construction stages, when the above-mentioned uncertainties of the model are taken into consideration. The model runs are based on computational background values, which is why they are best suited for defi- ning the impact area and comparing the impact differences in different conditions.

Environmental impact of the aquatic works computed by the model

The scope of the impact areas presented in the following chapters is based on modelling results multiplied by security coefficient 2 used in the EIA report.

Impact of the munitions clearance

In the work area, a total of 31 old mines or munitions were located. They will be destroyed before the actual work can be started. The mines and munitions are cleared by placing next to them an auxiliary charge that will be exploded to destroy the actual clearing object. The explosion will cause the seabed sediment with combined contaminants and nutrients to be mixed, in practice, with the entire water column above the site. From there they will be tran- sported further with the currents. This was demonstrated in the model by placing the load in the middle layer of water. The amount of the re-suspending sediment is dependent on the seabed quality and the size of the explosive charge. The impact of the munitions clearance was modelled in normal conditions only, as the clearance cannot be done under difficult con- ditions. According to the estimate used in the model, no re-suspension will occur on hard rocky seabeds, whereas the amount of re-suspending sediment from soft seabeds can be as high as 200 m3, or about 500 tons per cleared munition. The clearance work will create a cra- ter in the seabed with a diameter of 2 to 15 metres. The total amount of sediment released by the mines and munitions clearance in the Finnish EEZ is estimated at 1,600 m3, or 3,000 to 4,000 tons. According to the modelling results, the released sediment is spread over an 10(14) | Environmental impact assessment report | Appendix XI

area of up to 270 km2, with a level elevation threshold value of 1 mg/l. Stronger turbidity effects of >10 mg/l are observed in an area of 15 to 20 km2.

Based on the modelling results, in addition to the spreading of solids, the behaviour of the following contaminants observed in the seabed sediments of the Baltic Sea was computed: cadmium, mercury, lead, zinc, arsenic, copper, chromium, nickel, PAH compounds and TBT. The concentrations of these substances were based on values measured from sea- bed sediment samples and capillary water. The contaminants of the seabed are very uneven- ly spread, and therefore their amount was estimated in the modelling by assuming that the original concentrations everywhere were a 90% fractile of the highest observed value. The munitions and mine clearance will cause an excess over the PNEC (predicted no-effect con- centration) values of copper and PAH compounds. The copper concentration values excee- ding the PNEC threshold value can, according to the modelling results, be observed in an area covering up to 30 km2, and excess hydrocarbon concentration in an area of 45 km2. The PNEC values and the sediment background concentrations used in the modelling work were collected from the sources listed in the Annex.

Impact of the anchor handling

The gas pipeline parts are brought to the vessel as 12-metre-long pieces, placed above the construction site to be welded together, inspected and lowered to the seabed. The construc- tion vessel is anchored to the seabed with twelve 25-ton anchors. The anchors are attached to the vessel with 7.5 cm-thick cables. The anchors are lowered and raised from dedicated auxiliary vessels. The anchors are lowered to the seabed at a speed of about 1 m/s, after which the cables are tightened on the actual pipe-laying vessel. The lowering of one anchor is estimated to release, in the worst case, about 100 kg seabed sediment, expressed as the dry weight of the sediment. It is estimated that the vessel is capable of laying about 3 km of ready gas pipe per day on the seabed.

The calculations are made assuming that during the anchor lowering process the cab- les, depending on the water depth, will sink into the seabed for a length of 100 to 150 met- res. When all the anchors are placed, the pipe-laying vessel will be supported by them while moving forward about 500 metres, until the anchors are raised again and moved to a new location. When the vessel is moved forward, the cables will cross the seabed sediment for the above-mentioned 100 to 150 metres. The amount of material cut loose is estimated to be 1,600 kg per anchor, but only a small part of this is re-suspended in the actual water column. The cable speeds when crossing the seabed sediment is in the range of a couple of centi- metres per second. Taking into account cable thickness, turbulence and benthic currents, it is estimated that the sediment will be mixed in the lowest 25 cm-thick water layer, from where it will be transported by the currents into the local vicinity. According to calculations the largest effects during the transport are confined to the lowest water layer of 1 to 2 metres, and the total amount of re-suspending sediment, depending on the weather and current conditions, is 1 to 250 kg per anchor. Environmental impact assessment report | Appendix XI 11(14)|

The amount of released sediment during anchor raising is strongly dependent on the type of seabed sediment. It is estimated that in softer areas, 80 kg of seabed sediment is released with each anchor raising.

All measures related to anchor handling are estimated to increase the spreading of solids in the water a maximum of ~10 t/km. It is estimated that the impact of the anchoring will most- ly be confined to the water layer closest to the seabed. Therefore the spreading and impact scope is not separately modelled. In part of the construction of the first pipeline and in the entire construction of the second pipeline, no anchorage is used and the vessel is kept in place using its engines instead.

Impact of the gravel foundation built under the pipeline

For part of the pipeline route, a foundation built of blasted rock and gravel is necessary under the pipeline (gravel foundation) for support underneath the pipeline in difficult seabed condi- tions where the pipe cannot be laid directly on the seabed. Turbidity caused by the construc- tion of the gravel foundations was estimated according to their number and area, assuming that the rock material is placed by lowering it close to the seabed through a descent pipe. Therefore the turbidity increasing effects (load) from the construction of the gravel founda- tions were placed in the model at 2 metres above the seabed.

It is estimated that the number of gravel foundations to be built is 146 and their total area will be less than 10 hectares. The height of a typical gravel foundation from the seabed is about 1.5 to 3 metres, and at maximum they are estimated to reach a height of 6 metres. The construction work is estimated to last about 2½ years and the necessary amount of gravel will be about 250,000 m3. Part of the work will be performed after the pipe is laid.

The quantity of solids released by the work is estimated to be 1% of the total volume of the placed rock material with a placement speed of 500 tons per hour. The biggest turbidity inc- reasing impact will be caused by disturbed seabed sediments when placed material lands on the seabed. The released sediment amount was estimated according to the dropping speed and the quantity of the placed material by computing the impact energy of the crash. The calculations resulted in the conclusion that the impact energy of the placed rock mate- rial will cause about 2,000 tons of seabed sediment to be released. The coarser parts of the seabed sediment will immediately settle back on the seabed and the finer parts will be tran- sported further by the currents before sedimentation. The sedimentation is accelerated by the accumulation property of fine-grained particles, which increases the particle size and weight. According to the modelling results, the released sediment will be spread over an area of 120 km2, with a level elevation threshold value of 1 mg/l. Stronger turbidity effects of >10 mg/l are observed in an area of about 1 km2.

The PNEC values are exceeded for copper and PAH compounds. As a result of the gra- vel foundation construction, copper concentration values exceeding the PNEC threshold value were observed in an area of up to 160 km2, and excess hydrocarbon concentrations in an area of 250 km2. The largest concentrations based on the model work were observed a couple of hundred metres from the pipeline. 12(14) | Environmental impact assessment report | Appendix XI

The amount of nutrients released from the seabed during aquatic works was estimated according to the modelling results. In estimation, the total amount of phosphorus released was 64 tons, and the total amount of nitrogen was 310 tons.

Images of spreading of the solids computed by the model Environmental impact assessment report | Appendix XI 13(14)|

Figures 1a) to 1c). The maximum extent of increased turbidity caused by mine and munitions clearance with a level elevation threshold value of 1 mg/l. The figures also contain the 10 mg/l threshold value that can be con- sidered the limit of clear turbidity increase, and the 50 mg/l threshold value for a strong turbidity increase. 14(14) | Environmental impact assessment report | Appendix XI

Figures 2a) to 2c). The maximum extent of increased turbidity caused by the construction of gravel founda- tions with a level elevation threshold value of 1 mg/l. The figures also contain the 10 mg/l threshold value that can be considered the limit of clear turbidity increase, and the 50 mg/l threshold value for a strong turbidity in- crease. Appendix XII

Environmental considerations of the munitions clearance and barrels within the anchoring corridor

Environmental impact assessment report | Appendix XII | 3(5)

Appendix XII: Environmental considerations of the muni- tions clearance and barrels within the anchoring corridor

This appendix summarizes the estimated amount of munitions and barrels within the Nord Stream project anchoring corridor in Finnish EEZ. Additionally, this appendix provides brief environmental considerations about the munitions clearance and barrels within the anchoring corridor.

The total anchoring corridor width is approx. 1,600 – 2,000 m (includes anchoring corridors along both pipeline routes). Because the corridor width varies along the whole project area we use the approximate width of 2,000 m for the estimations in this consideration. Anchoring corridor survey routes for south-east and north-west pipelines runs mostly overlapping along the project area. The visual inspection survey corridor for one pipeline route was 50 m. The total visual inspection survey corridor was 100 m width because they do not overlap. Estimations below are based on the findings from the 100 m corridor. Figure 1 presents the planned anchoring corridor.

Figure 1. Anchoring corridor along the pipeline route 4(5) | Environmental impact assessment report | Appendix XII

Munitions

The total number of munitions found within the 2 times 50 m visual inspection survey corridor is 31 (see Chapter 5.6.5). 26 of these munitions were found east from KP 300 and 5 (3 mines and 2 small air bombs) between the KP 300 and KP 495.

If the total width of the anchoring corridor is 2,000 m, the total extrapolated estimate of the munitions within the corridor is approx. 600 (2,000 m / 100 m * 31). Before KP 300 the esti- mate would be approx. 500 munitions and between KP 300 and KP 495 approx. 100 muni- tions.

If is assumed that approximately half of the found munitions have to be cleared, the number is approx. 300 munitions. However the final number of munitions to be cleared can only be evaluated on compilation of the anchor corridor survey and detailed anchor planning.

Environmental consideration of the impact on seabed

The number of munitions to be cleared is assumed to be 300 or ~10 times (300 munitions / 31 munitions) as much as assessed in the present EIA.

According to the Chapter 8.1.1 the total volume of sediment that will be released due to the munitions clearance of the 31 munitions is about 5000 ton. So the total volume of sediment that will be released due to the munitions clearance within the anchoring corridor is approx. 50,000 ton (5,000 ton * 10).

The impact assessment of the munitions clearance of the 2 * 50 m strip is based on the app- lication of the sediment spreading and sedimentation model. In the situation of clearance of approximately 2,000 m wide (20 times wider than 2 * 50 m) corridor, the area of net sedi- mentation over 1 mm (see Table 8.3) is estimated to be approx. < 1.0 km2 (20 * <0.1 km2 * 300/600) if ca 300 of 600 munitions are cleared.

Environmental consideration of the impact on the water quality

In the EIA, the area in which a certain sediment concentration is exceeded as the result of munitions clearance has been calculated with the flow model and the particle transport model. It showed that the sediment plumes extend up to a distance of 12 km outside the cor- ridor of 100 m in which the munitions are cleared. To determine the total impact area resulting from munitions clearance of the total anchor corridor, we have assumed that the total area with sediment spreading will be in line with results from 100 m corridor. As the total amount, types and distribution of munitions in the 2 km corridor is unknown it is impossible to know the exact amount of overlapping and spreading. Therefore the results must be seen as a conservative estimate.

This results the total area of concentration over 1 mg/l (see table 8.8) to be approx. ~2,670 km2 (267 km2 * 20 * 300/600) since the anchor corridor is 20 times wider than the 100 m corridor and if ca 300 of 600 munitions is to cleared. Environmental impact assessment report | Appendix XII | 5(5)

This results the total area of concentration over 10 mg/l (see table 8.8) to be approx. ~170 km2 (17 km2 * 20 * 300/600) and if ca 300 of 600 munitions are cleared.

The munitions clearance plan will be developed in such a way that cumulative impacts in terms of duration of additional concentration and noise are avoided as much as possible. That means that subsequent munitions that are cleared have sufficient distance between each other. This results in the estimation that the average duration of concentration and also the maximum duration of the concentration are comparable to the numbers given in Table 8.8.

The overall duration of the munitions clearance depend on the number of clearance spreads that will be employed.

Barrels

The total number of barrels found within the 100 m (2 * 50 m) visual inspection survey corri- dor is 34 (see Chapter 5.6.6). 20 of these barrels were found east from KP 300 and 14 bet- ween the KP 300 and KP 495. From the total of 34 barrels there were 2 barrels assessed as being the most critical. One of these was found east from KP 300 and another one between the KP 300 and KP 495.

If the total width of the anchoring corridor is 2,000 m, the extrapolated estimate of the suspi- cious barrels within the corridor is ~40 barrels (2,000 / 100 * 2 = ~40). Before KP 300 the esti- mate would be approx. 20 and between KP 300 and KP 495 approx. 20. A suspicious barrel in this context means that a barrel could contain hazardous substances.

Environmental consideration of the risks due to the suspicious barrels

When the anchor wire sweeps the seabed it is possible that it can touch barrels. The level of damage the wire could do to a barrel depends on the embedment of the barrel and the embedment of the wire and the condition of the barrel. Most of the barrels that have been visually inspected are partly embedded and mostly exposed (see Chapter 5.6.6).

This makes it likely that the barrel will move when the wire passes. The wire could pass the barrel without damaging the barrel. It is, however, possible that the wire damages the barrels which could lead to release of its content. Taken all survey results of the visually inspected barrels (from 100 m width corridor) and the uncertainty of the contents of barrels (see Chapter 5.6.6) into consideration it is assumed that the environmental risk of barrels within the anchoring corridor is low (see also Chapter 9.3.3.3).

Nord Stream AG

Head Office: Moscow Branch: Grafenauweg 2 ul. Znamenka, 7/3 6304 Zug, Switzerland 119019 Moscow, RF Tel: +41 41 766 91 91 Tel: +7 495 229 65 85 Fax: +41 41 766 91 92 Fax: +7 495 229 65 80 www.nord-stream.com [email protected]