Lerman Architects and Town Planners, Ltd. 120 Yigal Alon Street, Tel Aviv 67443 Phone: 972-3-695-9093 Fax: 9792-3-696-0299 Ministry of Energy and Water Resources National Outline Plan NOP 37/H For Natural Gas Treatment Facilities Environmental Impact Assesment Chapters 1 – 2 – Marine Environment November 2012 Unofficial Translation Ethos – Architecture, Planning and Environment Ltd. 5 Habanai St., Hod Hasharon 45319, Israel [email protected] Abstract Chapter 1 – Description of the environment addressed by the plan The main goal of NOP 37/H is to establish a planning infrastructure that will allow gas companies to produce, transport, and transmit natural gas from present and future discoveries to the existing and planned national transmission system in offshore drillings opposite the Israeli coast. The goal of the present stage (Stage 3 of the planning procedure) is to examine alternative locations for the treatment systems, inter alia, by implementing Chapters 1-2 of the Environmental Impact Survey for five onshore location alternatives and three offshore location alternatives for placement of the gas treatment system and the accompanying pipeline alignment. An inspection of the onshore and offshore alternatives has been conducted in the context of the Environmental Impact Survey for the onshore environment which was submitted to the Ministry of Environmental Protection in October 2012. This document deals with the marine environment for NOP 37/H and is submitted as a supplement to the Environmental Impact Survey for the land environment. In the context of this document, we will consider three alternative locations for offshore sites in the section between Dor and Netanya and the accompanying pipeline for the natural gas treatment system: 1. Hadera 2. Havatzelet HaSharon 3. Netanya Location alternatives have been surveyed under the assumption of maximum treatment at sea in order to examine the maximum impact of the offshore treatment facility under each of the alternatives. It should be emphasized that as at this stage there is a shortage of information regarding the marine environment, the inspection is a generic one, and is based on existing information. In the next stages we will conduct field surveys and more individual testing of the marine environment in order to complete Chapters 3 -5 of the Environmental Impact Survey. The inspection is carried out in accordance with the guidelines provided the Ministry of Environmental Protection, dated March 29, 2012 and approved by a meeting of the National Board, which are appended as Appendix A, and in coordination with the Ministry of Environment Protection in accordance with the meeting summary, dated August 1, 2012, enclosed as Appendix A-1. Chapter 1 of the Environmental Impact Survey presents the prevailing conditions at the three alternative sites in the offshore area and surveys the aspects detailed below: Land zoning and use – A survey of land zoning and use is presented both in text and in maps in order to describe the alternative sites within the marine environment, including offshore infrastructures, port areas, sailing routes, nature reserves, and the like. Appearance – An analysis of visibility aspects, including reference to visual elements that impact the visibility and appearance of the facilities to one extent or another. The analysis presents each visual element and aspect, but it should be noted that it is not possible to distinguish between the elements and that the totality of the components comprises the full visual picture obtained following construction of the offshore gas treatment facilities. The main landscape elements are: components of the offshore facility, the facility's visibility from the shore and its environs, and the landscape significance of the offshore facility. Seismology – The seismic risks to which gas facilities and marine elements are liable to be exposed. This section presents a survey of the total possible seismic risks and a detailed estimation of the feasibility of each one of them within the inspection space based on existing available information. The criteria used to evaluate the various seismic risks within the inspection space and their analyses on the basis of these criteria are presented below. Natural values – An evaluation of the breeding habitats and their sensitivity was conducted on the basis of existing information and details were provided regarding the soft benthic environment and the rigid seabed environment (kurkar ridges) with an appropriate note of the extent of sensitivity. Oceanographic and meteorological conditions – A survey of existing conditions with consideration of current wind and wave regimes in the site alternatives, and their environment. Since the materials for these subjects are based on information that has not been made public yet, this section was submitted in a separate appendix to the Ministry of Environmental Protection. Noise in a marine environment – The main aspect considered is the noise characteristics in a generic marine environment similar to the marine environment along the Israeli coast with respect to proximity to the shore, water depth, and the rest of the parameters that determine the acoustic behavior of sound waves at sea. Chapter 2 – Examination of alternatives Chapter 2 examines the various alternatives on the basis of the information presented in Chapter 1 and ranks them according to the inspected criteria in order of preference. As stated, the examination of alternatives for the marine environment is performed based on existing information only. In some of the examined areas, there were information gaps as a consequence of the absence of data for these areas and the inspection was conducted on the basis of assumptions using existing information. At future stages field surveys will be conducted along with more individual testing of the marine environment in order to complete Chapters 3-5 of the Environmental Impact Survey, and the options available for promoting a detailed plan. According to existing information and its analysis, it appears that the Havatzelet HaSharon site has a certain advantage over the Netanya and Hadera alternatives, mainly from the point of view of land zoning uses and geological and ecological aspects. In addition, it seems that at this stage, in light of the existing information, there are no fundamental differences in the pipeline alignment between the three proposed sites, especially given the fact that the pipeline alignment that will be selected depends on the location of future offshore drilling locations and the onshore treatment system that will be selected for development from among the Dor System and the Hadera-Neurim system alternatives (currently being considered in the framework of the onshore Environmental Impact Survey). From among the pipeline alignment alternatives there is an advantage to Corridor A + Alternative 3 (and Alternatives 4 and 2 as secondary priorities) in the western pipeline alignment (from the area of Israel's territorial waters to the offshore sites), mainly from seismic and ecological aspects. When the eastern pipeline alignment is considered (from the offshore site to the coastal entry system) the pipeline alignment leading to Dor receives higher priority. In the Hadera-Neurim system, the alignment to Neurim was found to be preferable (and the rest receive secondary priority with a certain preference for Hadera). As stated, examination of the alternatives was performed in three stages as detailed below: A. Comparison of alternatives for each element in the offshore setup: (1) the western pipeline alignment, (2) offshore sites, (3) the eastern pipeline alignment. B. Selecting the preferred treatment system setup for each of the alternative search sites (as stated, the setup comprises elements 1 to 3 above). C. Comparison of three alternatives of the complete setup and ranking them according to development priorities by the aspects considered in accordance with following color key: High preference – green. Medium preference – yellow. Low preference –red. High preference alternative Medium preference Low preference alternative alternative The following table summarizes the ranking and evaluation of the setup comprising the treatment system: Alternative Hadera Havatzelet Netanya HaSharon Element in the treatment system Western pipeline Corridor A + Alternative 3 Alternative 3 alignment Alternative 3 (Alternatives 4 and (Alternatives 4 and (Alternatives 4 and 2 are given 2 are given 2 are given secondary secondary secondary preference) preference) preference) Offshore site Eastern pipeline Dor Dor Dor alignment (Dor system/Hadera- Neurim) Neurim Neurim Neurim Summary Medium-High High Medium-High Survey Team Survey editors: Barak Katz, Assaf Sagi Ethos-Architecture, Design and Environment, Ltd. Lead designer: Gideon Lerman Lerman Architects and Town Planners, ltd. Design team: Michal Ben Shushan, Orly Lerman Architects and Town Levy, Ruti Nashitz, Amit Planners, ltd. Kalman, Michal Ben Aharon Landscape & appearance: Michal Ben Shushan Lerman Architects and Town Planners, ltd. Marine environment team Prof. Yuval Cohen head: Geology & seismology: Dr. Uri Dor Ecolog Engineering, Ltd. Risks: Doron Schwartz Eco-Safe, Ltd. Acoustics: Yoram Kedman Eco Environment Engineering and Acoustics Offshore & technology Avri Shefler, Oron Shefler Bifol, Ltd. engineering: Engineering & technology: PDI, Hugh Frayne PDI Foreign Consultants Engineering & technology: Arieh Nitzan Ludan Engineering Company, Ltd.