KOMMERSIELLT FISKE I FINLAND

Transkript

1 Avsedd för Nord Stream 2 Datum 25 september 2017 Dokumentnummer W-PE-EIA-PFI-REP SW-02 KOMMERSIELLT FISKE I FINLAND FISKARSPECIFIK KONSEKVENSBEDÖMNING UNDER DRIFTSFASEN

2 KOMMERSIELLT FISKE I FINLAND Revision 02 Päivämäärä Dokument ID Referens W-PE-EIA-PFI-REP SW / PO Anmärkning: Denna rapport är en svensk översättning av den motsvarande finskspråkiga versionen. Om det uppkommer skiljaktigheter mellan de olika språkversionerna, är det den finskspråkiga versionen som gäller. Revisionshistoria: Revision Datum Författad av Granskad av Godkänd av Godkänd av OTLI SANNAS SANSU MIBR OTLI SANNAS SANSU MIBR Ramboll P.O. Box 25 Säterinkatu 6

3 INNEHÅLLSFÖRTECKNING 1. INLEDNING 1 2. UTREDNINGENS AVSIKT 1 3. NULÄGET Materialinsamling Vattenkvalitet Rörledningens fria spann 4 4. METODER Finland, Sverige, Estland, Polen och Danmark Utgångspunkterna för bedömningen Ersättningsberäkning Lettland, Litauen och Tyskland Utgångspunkterna för bedömningen Ersättningsberäkning 7 5. BEDÖMNING AV DE PRIVATA ERSÄTTNINGARNA Finland Beräkning Sverige Beräkning Estland Beräkning Polen Beräkning Danmark Beräkning Lettland Beräkning Litauen Beräkning Tyskland Beräkning Slutsatser REFERENSER 20 BILAGOR 1. Begäran av information av Egentliga Finlands NTM-central, bemötande till begäran och kalkylblad för ersättningen 2. Begäran av information av Sveriges nationella fiskemyndighet, bemötande till begäran och kalkylblad för ersättningen 3. Begäran av information av Estlands nationella fiskemyndighet, bemötande till begäran och kalkylblad för ersättningen 4. Begäran av information av Polens nationella fiskemyndighet, bemötande till begäran och kalkylblad för ersättningen 5. Begäran av information av Danmarks nationella fiskemyndighet, bemötande till begäran och kalkylblad för ersättningen 6. Begäran av information av Lettlands nationella fiskemyndighet och bemötande till begäran 7. Begäran av information av Litauens nationella fiskemyndighet och bemötande till begäran 8. Begäran av information av Tysklands nationella fiskemyndighet och bemötande till begäran 9. Recommended practice DNV-RP-F111, Interference between trawl gear and pipelines, October Det Norske Veritas 10. Kommersiella fiskare som fiskat inom det finska projektområdet och för vilkas fiske man bedömt att projektet orsakar konsekvenser Document No.: W-PE-EIA-PFI-REP SW-02

4 1 1. INLEDNING Nord Stream 2 planerar att anlägga en ny gasrörledning i Östersjön. Med rörledningen har man för avsikt att transportera naturgas från Ryssland till EU:s konsumenter. Nord Stream 2 -projektet består av två rörledningar från Ryssland till Tyskland vilka har en kapacitet att leverera 55 miljarder kubikmeter (mrd. m 3 ) naturgas i året. Röredningens sträckning är ca km lång varav den finska sektionen inom Finlands ekonomiska zon är ca 375 km. Det genomsnittliga djupet längs med sträckningen är ca 70 m. Sträckningen löper ca km från den finska kusten. Rörledningarna kommer att anläggs norr om de befintliga Nord Stream -rörledningarna. Rörläggningen har planerats att ske under 2018 och 2019 samt idrifttagningen i början av Förutom röläggningen omfattar anläggningsverksamheterna bl.a. röjning av krigsmateriel, stenläggning och installationer vid kabelkorsningar. För den del av Nord Stream 2 -projektet (hädanefter NSP2) som ligger inom Finlands ekonomiska zon tillämpas ett miljökonsekvensbedömningsförfarande (MKB-förfarande) i enlighet med MKBlagen. Som kontaktmyndighet under MKB-förfarandet fungerar Nylands NTM-central och den projektansvarige är Nord Stream 2 AG. Den projektansvarige har inlämnat nmkb-beskrivninge till kontaktmyndigheten i april 2017 och MKB-beskrivning lades därefter fram till allmänt påseende. Förfarandet vid miljökonsekvensbedömning har avslutats och Nylands NTM-central har gett sitt utlåtande om denna (UUDELY/3100/2017). 2. UTREDNINGENS AVSIKT Nuläget för det finska kommersiella fisket, samt nuläget för de övriga ländernas fiskeflotta, metoderna och konsekvensbedömningen har presenterats i Finlands MKB-beskrivning (Ramboll 2017a). Avsikten med denna utredning är att ge en bedömning av den ekonomiska förlusten som driften av rörledningen orsakar för de kommersiella fiskarna. Detta eftersom rörledningen reserverar ett område på havsbotten och orsakar störningar för trålning nära bottnen vid rörledningen. 3. NULÄGET Trålar är den huvudsakliga redskapstypen vid det kommersiella fisket på Östersjöns havsområden. Alla havsfiskare använder sig av pelagisk trål vid fångst av strömming och vassbuk i Finska viken och i den norra delen av Östersjöns huvudbassäng. Pelagisk trål används i mellanvattnet (mellan ytan och bottnen) men kan även användas nära botten ifall fiskstim finns i de bottennära vattenskikten. Trålfiske idkas genom flera timmar (2-7 timmar) långa drag och därför kan dessa fiskefartyg på ett drag avverka långa sträckor. Fiske med drivgarn används för laxfiske på havsområdena. Laxfiske med drivgarn sker i de översta vattenskikten nära ytan med fiskeredskap som driver. Laxfiske med drivgarn förekommer främst i den södra delen av Östersjön. Laxfiske med drivgarns idkas även i liten skala i de ostliga delarna av Finska viken, men inte i på en kommersiell nivå. Man bedömer att rörledningen endast orsakar konsekvenser för trålningen i närheten av bottnen. Konsekvensen för den pelagiska trålningen hänger ihop med den mycket ojämna havsbottnen inom det finska projektområdet och mängden fria spann på rörledningen. Statistik förs över östersjöfisket i enlighet med Internationella Havsforskningsrådets (ICES) fångstrutor. Inom dessa rutområden regleras fisket enligt nationella och internationella bestämmelser samt fångstkvoter. Även fångsterna bokförs per fångstruta. Alla EU:s kommersiella fiskefartyg som finns listade i registret, och som fiskar fiskarter med kvoter, bör meddela sina fångster för dessa fångsrutor (ca 30 sjömil x 30 sjömil, se Figur 1). Från detta Document No. W-PE-EIA-PFI-REP SW-02

5 fångstmaterial får man en bra allmän uppfattning för de olika arternas fångstområden och fångstmängder Materialinsamling Uppgifter om fisket inom det finska projektområdet i Finska viken och norra Östersjön erhölls med hjälp av utskicka av brev innehållande en informationsbegäran till de olika nationella fiskemyndigheterna. Breven skickades till Finlands (bilaga 1), Sveriges (bilaga 2), Estlands (bilaga 3), Polens (bilaga 4), Danmarks (bilaga 5) Lettlands (bilaga 6), Litauens (bilaga 7) och Tysklands (bilaga 8) fiskemyndigheter. Alla dessa länders kommersiella fiskare har i enlighet med den Gemensamma fiskeripolitiken, som administrerar EU:s medlemsländers fiske, rätt fiska i varandras ekonomiska zoner. Listor med fiskare som idkat fiske i de ICES-fångstrutor som når NSP2-projektetområdet, och för vilkas fiske det i denna utredning har konstaterats uppkomma konsekvenser för, presenteras i bilaga 10. Fångststatistik för åren (Polen ) insamlades av Orbicon år 2015 (Tabell 1, Tabell 2 och Figur 1). Tabell 1. Genomsnittligt årligt ( ) värde (euro) för fiskfångsterna för Finlands, Estlands, Sveriges, Danmarks, Litauens, Lettlands, Tysklands och Polens fiskeflottor inom det finska projektområdet i Finska viken och norra Östersjön indelat per ICES-fångstruta. ICES Finland Estland Sverige Danmark Litauen 46H0 47H0 47H1 47H2 48H2 47H3 48H3 48H4 48H5 49H6 Lettland Tyskland Polen Totalt Totalt Tabell 2. Genomsnittligt årligt ( ) värde (%) för fiskfångsterna för Finlands, Estlands, Sveriges, Danmarks, Litauens, Lettlands, Tysklands och Polens fiskeflottor inom det finska projektområdet i Finska viken och norra Östersjön indelat per ICES-fångstruta. ICES Finland Estland Sverige Danmark Litauen Lettland Tyskland Polen Totalt 46H H H H H H H H H H Totalt Data från fiskefartygens övervakningssystem (VMS) insamlades av Ramboll Materialet omfattade åren (Finland ). VMS-data används för att illustrera trålfiskets områdesmässiga fördelning och intensitet. De nationella fiskemyndigheternas bemötanden till informationsbegäran gällande VMS-data och kontaktuppgifterna för de fiskare som verkat i det finska projektområdet, presenteras i bilagorna 1-8. Document No. W-PE-EIA-PFI-REP SW-02

6 3 VMS är ett satellitbaserat (GPS) övervakningssystem som används vid uppföljningen av de kommersiella fiskefartygen för att insamla position, kurs och hastighet på havet. Genom att bedöma fisket på basen av fartygets hastighet, kan VMS-data användas för att illustrera fördelningen av fiskeintensiteten för olika områden. Men eftersom VMS-systemet är obligatoriskt för endast större fartyg ( 12 m fartyg/ 15 m före 2012), saknas data för de mindre fartygen. NSP2 -rörledningens sträckning löper dock på ett betydande avstånd från kusten och högsjöfiskefartygen är per definition över 12 m långa. Eftersom högsjöfisket i Finska viken och norra Östersjön nästan enbart består av trålfiske, anses det fiske som VMS-materialet illustrerar representera i sin helhet det kommersiella fiske som bedrivs längs med rörledningen inom det finska projektområdet. Värdena för fiskfångsterna som används i de ekonomiska beräkningarna under åren baserar sig på genomsnittliga kilopriser för varje fiskart. Materialet erhölls från Östersjöländernas nationella fiskemyndigheter. Figur 1. ICES-fångstrutor längs NSP2 -sträckningen. Rörledningens sträckning löper inom Finlands ekonomiska zon genom 10 på kartan markerade ICES-fångstrutor. En ruta (47H3) når Finlands ekonomiska zon men inte till rörledningens sträckning. ICESfångstrutorna som ligger inom det sydvästliga havsområdet har på kartan markerats med en röd avgränsningslinje 3.2 Vattenkvalitet Enligt NSP2 Esborapporten (Ramboll 2017b) råder det i de sydvästligaste delarna av Finlands ekonomiska zon rätt så allmänt ett tillstånd där syrehalterna i de bottennära vattenskikten är låg eller också finns inget syre (se Esborapporten, Atlaskartta WA-02-Espoo, Ramboll 2017c). Dessa områden lider av låg syrehalt eller av syrebrist och är därför inte livsduglig miljö för strömming och vassbuk. ICES-fångstrutorna som ligger inom dessa områden har i Figur 1 markerats med en röd avgränsningslinje och i texten används för detta område benämningen det sydvästliga havsområdet. Detta gäller endast djupa områden när bottnen. I de övre vattenskikten är syresituationen gynnsam för vattenorganismer. Document No. W-PE-EIA-PFI-REP SW-02

7 I Finska viken är syresituationen fortfarande bättre vilket möjliggör levnadsförhållande för fiskbestånd även på djupa vatten Rörledningens fria spann På grund av den topografiskt ojämna havsbottnen inom Finlands ekonomiska zon, kommer det att finnas rikligt med fria spann längs med NSP2 -rörledningen. De fria spannens totala längd indelat enligt de fria spannens höjd i förhållande till havsbottnen, presenteras i tabell 3. Tabell 3. De fria spannens totala längd per ICES-fångstruta indelade per höjd för Ledning A och B. De genomsnittliga längderna anges också (Ledning A och B). Källa: Nord Stream 2. ICES-fångstruta Längden för alla fria spann (km), Ledning A Längden för fria spann, höjd 0,46 m (km), Ledning A Längden för fria spann, höjd <0,46 m (km), Ledning A Längden för alla fria spann (km), Ledning B Längden för fria spann, höjd 0,46 m (km), Ledning B Längden för fria spann, höjd <0,46 m (km), Ledning B Genomsnittliga längder för alla fria spann (km), Ledning A och B 46H0 13,9 3,8 10,1 13,7 3,7 10,0 13,8 47H0 21,8 5,7 16,1 21,6 5,1 16,5 21,7 47H1 41,9 11,4 30,5 42,3 9,9 32,4 42,1 47H2 31,7 4,5 27,2 31,9 3,7 28,3 31,8 47H3 Denna ICES-fångstruta når ej NSP2 -rörledningen, ligger dock nära sträckningen 48H2 5,0 0,2 4,8 4,7 0,2 4,5 4,9 48H3 21,3 4,0 17,4 20,4 2,8 17,6 20,9 48H4 28,9 13,5 15,4 29,4 13,2 16,2 29,1 48H5 23,4 9,5 14,0 22,5 8,9 13,7 23,0 49H6 4,2 3,2 1,0 4,9 3,1 1,7 4,5 Totalt inom Finlands ekonomiska zon METODER En exakt ersättningssumma för de negativa konsekvenser som uppkommer för fisket, är mycket svår att bedöma, speciellt eftersom inget fiskefartygsspecifikt material finns tillgängligt. Bedömingensmetoden för Finlands, Sveriges, Estlands, Polens och Danmarks fiskefartygs del beskrivs i kapitel 4.1 och för de övriga EU-fiskenationerna i kapitel 4.2. Skillnaden mellan metoderna beror på det tillgängliga datamaterialet. 4.1 Finland, Sverige, Estland, Polen och Danmark Utgångspunkterna för bedömningen Nuläget och konsekvenserna som uppkommer för fisket beskrivs i Finlands MKB-beskrivning (Ramboll 2017a). Den fiskeriföretagsspecifika bedömningen som beskrivs i denna rapport, har gjorts på basen av de olika ländernas eurobaserade värden för fiskfångsterna i ICESfångstrutorna inom det finska projektområdet, samt genom att jämföra högsjötrålarnas rörelser och fiskeansträngning längs rörledningssträckningen. Fiskeområden Från Finlands officiella fiskestatsitik (Luke 2017) framgår att trålfångsten i ICES-områdena 29 och 32 (Skärgårdshavet [samma som norra Östersjön] och Finska viken) i genomsnitt stod för 89 % av strömmingens och vassbukens totala fångster under Största delen av fångsten fiskades av de större högsjötrålarna inom den ekonomiska zonen utanför Finlands territorialvatten. I denna rapport görs därför antagandet att hela trålfångsten mätt i värde har fångats inom den ekonomiska zonen. Detta är i och för sig inte sant eftersom trålfiske även idkas Document No. W-PE-EIA-PFI-REP SW-02

8 5 inom territorialvattnet, men det är skäligt att anta att fångstandelen från de mindre trålfartygen som verkar närmare kusten är ansenligt mindre än de större högsjötrålarnas fångstansel. För de övriga ländernas fiskeflottor har hela fångsten fåtts från den ekonomiska zonen eftersom dessa flottor inte har tillåtelse att fiska i Finlands territorialvatten. Sverige är dock ett undantag eftersom Sverige och Finland har ett bilateralt avtal enligt vilket svenska fartyg kan fiska även inom Finlands territorialvatten. Torts detta har fångsterna inom de sydvästligaste ICESfångstrutorna (46H0, 47H0, 47H1 och 47H2) beaktats helt (100 %) eftersom de minsta fartygen inte kan verka inom detta område. Fiske inom projektområdet Den områdesmässiga fördelningen av fisket och fiskeansträngningarna inom de ekonomiska zonerna (innefattar Finlands, Sveriges och Estlands ekonomiska zoner) bedömdes genom att räkna antalet positionsdata från VMS-materialet då trålningshastighet (2-4 knop) använts. Detta gjordes per ICES-fångstruta inom Finska viken och norra Östersjön (Tabell 4). Fiskeansträngningen inom NSP2-rörledningens konsekvensområde bedömdes genom att räkna VMS-observationernas antal vid trålningshastighet från båda sidorna av rörledningen. Man antog att när trålarna närmade sig rörledningen började de justera tråldjupet när de var ca 75 m från rörledningen. Båda rörledningarnas korridorer fastställdes till en 150 m brett område på havsbottnen. VMS-observationernas totala antal inom den ekonomiska zonen jämfördes sedan med VMS-observationerna inom rörledningens korridor. Med jämförelsetalet illustreras den störning som rörledningarna orsakar för fisket i Finland. En 150 m (+/- 75 m) bred rörledningskorridor valdes därmed för att representera trålfiskets konsekvensområde. Tabell 4. Antalen observationer (VMS) för de nationella fiskeflottorna inom Finlands (FIN), Sveriges (SWE) och Estlands (EST) ekonomiska zoner, både det totala antalet och enskilt samt inom de ICES-fångstrutor genom vilka NSP2-rörledningen går eller tangerar. VMSobservationer även vid rörledningskorridoren (+/- 75 m för båda rörledningarna), både de totala antalet och per ICES-fångstruta. Obs. Det finska materialet omfattar en längre tidserie än de övriga ländernas. Område Finska fartyg Svenska fartyg Estniska fartyg Polska fartyg Danska fartyg EEZ (FIN, EST, SWE) EEZ (FIN) EEZ (SWE) EEZ (EST) H H H H H H H H H H Rörledningskorridoren totalt, +/- 75 m H0, rörledningskorridoren H0, rörledningskorridoren H1, rörledningskorridoren H2, rörledningskorridoren H2, rörledningskorridoren H3, rörledningskorridoren H4, rörledningskorridoren H5, rörledningskorridoren H6, rörledningskorridoren Pelagisk trålning nära bottnen Det trålfiske som idkas inom Finska viken och norra Östersjön är pelagisk trålning som även kan göras mycket nära botten. Andelen pelagisk trålning som sker nära bottnen är inte känd. Document No. W-PE-EIA-PFI-REP SW-02

9 Däremot känner man till att en stor del av projektområdet, speciellt de sydvästligaste ICESfångstrutorna, ligger inom så pass djupa havsområden att de bottennära vattenskikten lider av syrebrist. Till följd av detta finns det ingen fisk i de bottennära vattenskikten. 6 Risken att trålbord fastnar under rörledningens fria spann beror på höjderna av trålbord och de fria spannens höjd. Ju mindre trålbord, desto mindre fritt spann krävs för att det ska fastna. Kännedomen om de kritiska höjderna av de fria spannen kommer från DNV:s undersökningar som beskrivs i bilaga 9 i publikationen RP-F111 om trålredskapens och rörledningars störningar med varandra. I publikationen anges en beräkningsformel (5.1) för att beräkna den kritiska höjden för det fria spannet i förhållande till trålbordet. Enligt den före detta ordföranden för Finska vikens yrkesfiskare, Seppo Partanen, som även själv är trålfiskare, använder han i sin lilla trålare fyra slags och storlekars trålbord (Partanen 2015). Av de trålbord som Partanen använder är Thyboröns typ 2 den som verkar vara den lägsta. Enligt tillverkaren är Thyboröns typ 2 84 trålbordets höjd 1,32 m. Genom att använda detta höjdvärde i den ovannämnda beräkningsformeln för det kritiska höjden av fria spann kommer man till ett resultat på 46 cm. Den totala längden för dylika över 46 cm höga fria spann är i genomsnitt 53 km (Ledning A och B). Längden för fria spann med dessa kritiska höjder räknades även per ICES-fångstruta i syfte att beakta de negativa konsekvensernas fördelning i förhållande till fiskeansträngningarna. Även fria spann under 46 cm räknades från rörledningsmaterialet. Den totala längden för dessa mindre kritiska fria spann är i genomsnitt (Ledning A och B) 139 km (Tabell 3) Ersättningsberäkning Avsikten med beräkningen var att uppskatta den eventuella förlusten som uppkommer för trålfisket inom rörledningskorridoren (150 m för båda rörledningarna = 300 m). För att möjliggöra detta bearbetades det tillgängliga materialet per ICES-fångstruta. För varje fångstruta fanns de årliga ( ) fångstuppgifterna, längderna för olika höjder av fria spann och antalet VMS-observationer tillgängliga inom rörledningskorridoren. Ett antagande för högsjötrålningens fångstandel gjordes på basen av fångstrutans läge. För de fångstrutor som ligger i Finska viken och dess öppning, uppskattades andelen till 89 % för torskens, strömmingens, vassbukens och flundrans del. Denna uppskattning baserar sig på Naturresursinstitutets (2017) statistik. För de sydvästligaste fångstrutorna (46H0, 47H0, 47H1 och 47H2) uppskattades högsjötrålningens andel till 100 %, eftersom dessa rutor ligger långt från kusten och är därför utanför de under 12 m långa trålarnas verkningsområde. Projektområdet i Finland indelades i två områden på basen av miljöförhållandena. De djupa bottennära vattenskikten i projektområdets sydvästligaste del hör till influensområdet för Östersjöns huvudbassäng och lider därför största delen av tiden av dåliga syreförhållanden eller syrebrist. Därför behandlas de fyra sydvästligaste fångstrutorna (46H0, 47H0, 47H1 och 47H2) annorlunda i beräkningen. De uppskattade ersättningsprocenterna för fångstrutorna inom Finska viken och dess öppning skiljer sig från de motsvarande ersättningsprocenterna för de sydvästligaste fångstrutorna samt i fråga om skillnader i miljöförhållanden och höjderna för de fria spannen. Det är skäligt att anta att pelagisk trålning nära bottnen inte kan idkas vid de sydvästligaste fångstrutorna på samma sätt som man brukar göra vid Finska viken. De dåliga syreförhållandena vid havsbottnen hindrar förekomsten av fiskarter i de bottennära vattenskikten inom det sydvästliga havsområdet. Som ersättningsandel för den genomsnittliga fiskfångsten föreslås därför 0 % för de sydvästligaste fångstrutorna (46H0, 47H0, 47H1 och 47H2) till följd av de dåliga syreförhållandena nära bottnen (Tabell 5). För Finska viken och dess öppning föreslås en 10 % ersättning av fångstandelen på områden där rörledningen ligger på bottnen, 20 % för områden där höjden på de fria spannen är under 46 cm och 50 % för områden där höjden för de fria spannen är 46 cm eller mer. Inom detta område är pelagisk trålning nära bottnen den vanligaste fångstmetoden och därför har även områden där rörledningen ligger på bottnen tagits med även om de inte orsakar lika mycket störningar som rörledningens fria spann. Inom detta område har Document No. W-PE-EIA-PFI-REP SW-02

10 även de fria spannens höjder beaktats eftersom över 46 cm höga fria spann utgör en direkt fara för att trålborden fastnar. 7 Tabell 5. Ersättningskoefficienter baserat på fiskeområdet och höjden för de fria spannen. Ersättningskoefficient baserat på höjden av det fria spannet Det fria spannets höjd Rörledningen ligger på bottnen <0,46 m >0,46 m Sydvästliga havsområdet Finska viken 0,1 0,2 0,5 Ersättningen för den hela nationella trålningsflottan har beräknats först genom att multiplicera det genomsnittliga värdet för den årliga ( ) fiskefångsten med ICES-fångstrutans koefficient (0,89 eller 1,0) så att endast högsjöfiskets fångstandel beaktas. Dessa fångstrutspecifika summor har sedan multiplicerats med andelen VMS-observationer för fångstrutorna vid de ekonomiska zonerna (Finland, Estland,Sverige sammanlagt) och vid rörledningskorridoren (+/- 75 m för båda rörledningarna). Beräkningen beaktar i detta skede fördelningen av den områdesmässiga fiskeansträngningen och det genomsnittliga värdet för fiskefångsten vid varje fångstruta vid rörledningskorridoren. De uppskattade värdena för fiskefångsterna vid rörledningskorridoren har sedan multiplicerats med ersättningskoefficienten i tabell 5 varvid proportionen av de fria spannens andel vid varje fångstruta beaktas. Som ett slutresultat för beräkningen har man fått en årlig ersättningssumma i euro för varje fångstruta inom det finska projektområdet. Genom att multiplicera dessa årliga ersättningssummor med den allmänt tillämpliga engångsersättningstidsperioden 20 år, kommer man till en teoretisk engångsersättningssumma för hela fiskeflottan. Ersättningssumman för hela fiskeflottan dividerades sedan med antalet fiskeriföretag för de länder som idkat fiske i det finska projektområdet. Antalet fiskeriföretag och kontaktuppgifterna erhölls från Östersjöländernas nationella fiskemyndigheter. 4.2 Lettland, Litauen och Tyskland Utgångspunkterna för bedömningen De övriga ländernas nuläge och konsekvenserna som uppkommer för fisket beskrivs i Finlands MKB-beskrivning (Ramboll 2017a). Den fiskeriföretagsspecifika bedömningen för Lettlands, Litauens och Tysklands fiskeflottor som beskrivs i denna rapport, har gjorts genom att jämföra de genomsnittliga fiskfångsterna i ICES-fångstrutorna med storleken på det område som rörledningen reserverar (Tabell 6). Området som granskats omfattar Finlands, Sveriges och Estlands ekonomiska zoner, eftersom EU-fiskefartyg är berättigade att fiska i hela detta område. Fiskemyndigheterna i dessa länder gick inte med på att överlämna VMS-material, varvid fiskets områdesmässiga fördelning per fångstruta inte kunde analyseras noggrannare. Tabell 6. Arealen som Nord Stream 2 rörledningskorridoren reserverar inom Finlands,, Estlands och Sveriges ekonomiska zoner i Finska viken och norra Östersjön. Den totala arealen för Finlands, Estlands och Sveriges ekonomiska zoner inom Finska viken och norra Östersjön (km 2 ) NSP2 -rörledningskorridorens (+/- 75 m för båda rörledningarna = 300 m) areal (km 2 ) Andelen (%) som NSP2 -rörledningskorridoren reserverar av Finlands, Estlands och Sveriges ekonomiska zoner i det finska projektområdet ,4 0,63 Fångsternas värden har insamlades av Orbicon år (2015) (Tabell 1) Ersättningsberäkning I beräkningen beaktades endast strömmingens och vassbukens andel, eftersom dessa arter är högsjötrålningens målarter. För att fastställa andelen fångst som fåtts från rörledningskorridoren, multiplicerades de genomsnittliga årliga ( ) fångstrutspecifika fångsterna med förhållandetalet mellan rörledningskorridorens och fångstrutornas areal (Tabell 6). Beräkningen gjordes skilt för varje fångstruta. Denna bedömning om fångstens värde vid Document No. W-PE-EIA-PFI-REP SW-02

11 rörledningskorridoren i Finska viken och dess öppning, multipliceras sedan med koefficienten 0,1 för att beräkningen ska beakta endast trålningsandelen nära bottnen. Eftersom man bedömer att de större pelagiska trålarna som verkar längre söderut på Östersjön inte har specialiserat sig, likt trålarna på Finska viken, på bottennära pelagisk trålning, håller man sig fast vid att den bottennära trålningens andel är 10 % av fångsten. För de allra sydvästligaste fångstrutornas del bedömer man att det inte finns någon ersättande andel överhuvudtaget för fiskfångsterna, eftersom rörledningarna endast orsakar störningar för den bottennära trålningen och i detta område är syreförhållande i de lägsta vattenskikten dåliga vilket begränsar förekomsten av målarter för fisket i dessa vattenskikt. 8 Ersättningssumman för hela flottan erhölls genom att summera varje enskild fångstrutas ersättningssumma ihop. Genom att multiplicera dessa årliga ersättningssummor med den allmänt tillämpliga engångsersättningstidsperioden 20 år, kommer man till en teoretisk engångsersättningssumma för hela fiskeflottan. Ersättningssumman för det enskilda fiskeriförtaget räknade genom att dividerad hela flottans ersättningssumma med antalet fiskeriföretag som idkat fiske i det finska projektområdet. Antalet fiskeriföretag och kontaktuppgifterna erhölls från Östersjöländernas nationella fiskemyndigheter. 5. BEDÖMNING AV DE PRIVATA ERSÄTTNINGARNA 5.1 Finland Den genomsnittliga årliga ( ) fiskefångstens värde för de finska fiskarna i det finska projektområdet, i de ICES-fångstrutor som NSP2 -rörledningen korsar eller tangerar, presenteras i Tabell 7. De främsta fiskarter som fiskas på havsområdet är strömming och vassbuk och dessa fiskas nästan enbart med pelagisk trål. Med de övriga arterna i tabellen menas värdefulla fiskarter i kustfisket, så som lax, sik och gös. Cirka 67 % av fångstens värde i dessa fångstrutor är pelagiska fiskarter. Kustfiskets andel av fångstens värde är i genomsnitt 33 %, men eftersom denna fångst är fiskats utanför den ekonomiska zonen, beaktas denna andel inte i detta sammanhang. Tabell 7. Den genomsnittliga årliga fiskfångsten värde för finska fiskare under en femårs period ( ) i 10 ICES-fångstrutor längs med NSP2 -rörledningens sträckning i det finska projektområdet. Källa: Orbicon ICES - fångstruta Jurisdiktion Torsk Strömming Vassbuk Flundra Övriga arter Totalt 46H0 Fin/Swe/Est H0 Fin/Swe/Est H1 Fin/Est H2 Fin/Est H2 Fin H3 Fin/Est H3 Fin/Est H4 Fin/Est H5 Fin/Est H6 Fin Totalt Den Olika huvudsakliga fiskemetoden fiskemetoder Pelagisk trål Pelagisk trål Kustfiske Kustfiske - Som illustreras i Figur 2, fördelas fiskeverksamheten inte jämt på havsområdet. Det bör dock poängteras att fisket mycket väl kan förändras under ett längre tidsperspektiv (årtionden) t.ex. gällande fiskarter eller till följd av förändringar i vattenkvaliteten (temperatur, syre m.fl.) vilket i sin tur kan leda till att fisken föredrar ett annat område. Document No. W-PE-EIA-PFI-REP SW-02

12 9 Figur 2. Den finska trålningsflottans fiskeintensitet inom Finlands, Sveriges och Estlands ekonomiska zoner. Fiskets intensitetsdata baseras på satellitspråningsdata (VMS-data) från åren På bilden visas endast observationer där hastigheten varit 2-4 knop, eftersom det antas att man vid pelagisk trålning använder dessa hastigheter. Källa: Egentliga Finlands NTM-central, Åbo Beräkning Rörledningens sträckning löper genom tio ICES-fångstrutor i det finska projektområdet. Enligt VMS-data registrerades för den finska trålningsflottan under åren totalt observationspunkter med trålningshastighet (2-4 knop) inom den ekonomiska zonen i Finska viken och norra Östersjön. Alla ekonomiska zoner oberoende av jurisdiktion har inkluderats i detta, eftersom fiskefartyg som seglar under finskt flagg har rätt att bedriva fiske även i Sveriges och Estlands ekonomiska zoner. Den finska trålningsflottans fiskeansträngningar (2-4 knops trålningshastighet) medförde under åren totalt 596 VMS-observationspunkter vid rörledningskorridoren som sträcker sig 75 m på båda sidorna av NSP2 -rörledningarna. Stäckningskorridoren är därmed totalt 300 m bred. Till följd av detta orsakade rörledningarna för det för de finska trålarna en konsekvens som är 1,37 % (596 / x 100) av det området där den finska trålningsflottan idkade fiske inom det finska projektområdet. Det genomsnittliga årliga ( ) värdet för fångsterna av torsk, strömming, vassbuk och flundra inom det finska projektområdets tio fångsrutor var Enligt Naturresursinstitutets (2017) statistik erhölls 89 % av fångstens värde med trål. De sydvästligaste fångstrutornas fångst har förmodligen till 100 % erhållits med trål, eftersom dessa rutor ligger långt ute på öppet vatten. Om man utgår ifrån att nästan intill all fångst fiskats av de fartyg som verkar inom den ekonomiska zonen, är det årliga värdet för fångsten inom den ekonomiska zonen då man räknar värdet per fångstruta. Då man multiplicerar dessa fångstrutespecifika summor med VMS-observationernas jämförelsetal mellan hela ekonomiska zonen och rörledningskorridoren, får man som värde för fångsten vid rörledningskorridoren en summa på Genom att multiplicera varje fångstrutespecifika summa med ersättningskoefficienten för olika höjders fria spann (Tabell 5), får man en summa på som är det teoretiska årliga värdet för minskningen av fiskemöjligheter i det finska projektområdet för hela den finska trålningsflottan. Document No. W-PE-EIA-PFI-REP SW-02

13 Om man antar att det inte sker förändringar under nästa 20 år (den allmänt tillämpliga engångsersättningstidsperioden), är summan för det totala värdet till följd av minskningen av fiskemöjligheterna (20 x ) = Genom att dela denna summa med antalet (28) finska fiskeriföretag som verkar inom det finska projektområdet, får man som ersättningssumma för den privata förmånsförlusten ( / 28) = för hela Nord Stream 2 -rörledningssystemets verksamhetstid. Hela beräkningen för den finska fiskeflottan presenteras i tabellformat i bilaga Det är viktigt att notera att rörledningens reserverade areal inte direkt kan jämföras med de pelagiska trålfiskarnas förluster, utan snarare till den minska möjligheten att idka bottennära fiske i närheten av rörledningarna. 5.2 Sverige Den genomsnittliga årliga ( ) fiskefångstens värde för de svenska fiskarna i det finska projektområdet, i de ICES-fångstrutor som NSP2 -rörledningen korsar eller tangerar, presenteras i Tabell 8. De främsta fiskarter som fiskas på havsområdet är strömming och vassbuk och dessa fiskas nästan enbart med pelagisk trål. Med de övriga arterna i tabellen menas värdefulla fiskarter i kustfisket, så som lax, sik och gös. Eftersom kustfiskets andel fiskats utanför den ekonomiska zonen, beaktas denna andel inte i detta sammanhang. Tabell 8. Den genomsnittliga årliga fiskfångsten värde för svenska fiskare under en femårs period ( ) i 10 ICES-fångstrutor längs med NSP2 -rörledningens sträckning i det finska projektområdet. Källa: Orbicon ICES - fångstruta Jurisdiktion Torsk Strömming Vassbuk Flundra Övriga arter Totalt 46H0 Fin/Swe/Est H0 Fin/Swe/Est H1 Fin/Est H2 Fin/Est H2 Fin H3 Fin/Est H3 Fin/Est H4 Fin/Est H5 Fin/Est H6 Fin Totalt Den huvudsakliga fiskemetoden Olika fiskemetoder Pelagisk trål Pelagisk trål Kustfiske Kustfiske - Som illustreras i Figur 3, fördelas fiskeverksamheten inte jämt på havsområdet. Det bör dock poängteras att fisket mycket väl kan förändras under ett längre tidsperspektiv (årtionden) t.ex. gällande fiskarter eller till följd av förändringar i vattenkvaliteten (temperatur, syre m.fl.) vilket i sin tur kan leda till att fisken föredrar ett annat område. Document No. W-PE-EIA-PFI-REP SW-02

14 11 Figur 3. Den svenska trålningsflottans fiskeintensitet inom Finlands, Sveriges och Estlands ekonomiska zoner. Fiskets intensitetsdata baseras på satellitspråningsdata (VMS-data) från åren På bilden visas endast observationer där hastigheten varit 2-4 knop, eftersom det antas att man vid pelagisk trålning använder dessa hastigheter. Källa: Sveriges Havs och Vattenmyndighet, Göteborg Beräkning Rörledningens sträckning löper genom tio ICES-fångstrutor i det finska projektområdet. Enligt VMS-data registrerades för den svenska trålningsflottan under åren totalt observationspunkter med trålningshastighet (2-4 knop) inom den ekonomiska zonen i Finska viken och norra Östersjön. Alla ekonomiska zoner oberoende av jurisdiktion har inkluderats i detta, eftersom fiskefartyg som seglar under svenskt flagg har rätt att bedriva fiske även i Finlands och Estlands ekonomiska zoner. Den svenska trålningsflottans fiskeansträngningar (2-4 knops trålningshastighet) medförde under åren totalt 15 VMS-observationspunkter vid rörledningskorridoren som sträcker sig 75 m på båda sidorna av NSP2 -rörledningarna. Till följd av detta orsakade rörledningarna för det för de svenska trålarna en konsekvens som är 0,49 % (15 / x 100) av det området där den svenska trålningsflottan idkade fiske inom det finska projektområdet. Det genomsnittliga årliga ( ) värdet för fångsterna av torsk, strömming, vassbuk och flundra inom det finska projektområdets tio fångsrutor var Enligt Naturresursinstitutets (2017) statistik erhölls 89 % av fångstens värde med trål. De sydvästligaste fångstrutornas fångst har förmodligen till 100 % erhållits med trål, eftersom dessa rutor ligger långt ute på öppet vatten. Om man utgår ifrån att nästan intill all fångst fiskats av de fartyg som verkar inom den ekonomiska zonen, är det årliga värdet för fångsten inom den ekonomiska zonen då man räknar värdet per fångstruta. Då man multiplicerar dessa fångstrutespecifika summor med VMS-observationernas jämförelsetal mellan hela ekonomiska zonen och rörledningskorridoren, får man som värde för fångsten vid rörledningskorridoren en summa på Genom att multiplicera varje fångstrutespecifika summa med ersättningskoefficienten för olika höjders fria spann (Tabell 5), får man en summa på 0 som är det teoretiska årliga värdet för minskningen av fiskemöjligheter i det finska projektområdet för hela den svenska trålningsflottan. Document No. W-PE-EIA-PFI-REP SW-02

15 Den svenska trålningsflottan har koncentrerat sin fiskeverksamhet i det finska projektområdet till det sydvästliga havsområdet. I dessa områden gör de syrefattiga förhållandena att bottenära fiskeverksamhet inte är möjliga. I ersättningsberäkningen kommer man till slutsatsen att inga konsekvenser uppkommer för det svenska fisket i det finska projektområdet, och därför kommer inga ersättningar för de svenska fiskarna att behövas. Ersättningsberäkningen för det svenska fisket presenteras i bilaga Estland Den genomsnittliga årliga ( ) fiskefångstens värde för de estniska fiskarna i det finska projektområdet, i de ICES-fångstrutor som NSP2 -rörledningen korsar eller tangerar, presenteras i Tabell 9. De främsta fiskarter som fiskas på havsområdet är strömming och vassbuk och dessa fiskas nästan enbart med pelagisk trål. Med de övriga arterna i tabellen menas värdefulla fiskarter i kustfisket, så som lax, sik och gös. Eftersom kustfiskets andel fiskats utanför den ekonomiska zonen, beaktas denna andel inte i detta sammanhang. 12 Tabell 9. Den genomsnittliga årliga fiskfångsten värde för estniska fiskare under en femårs period ( ) i 10 ICES-fångstrutor längs med NSP2 -rörledningens sträckning i det finska projektområdet. Källa: Orbicon ICES - fångstruta Jurisdiktion Torsk Strömming Vassbuk Flundra Övriga arter Totalt 46H0 Fin/Swe/Est H0 Fin/Swe/Est H1 Fin/Est H2 Fin/Est H2 Fin H3 Fin/Est H3 Fin/Est H4 Fin/Est H5 Fin/Est H6 Fin Totalt Den huvudsakliga fiskemetoden Olika fiskemetoder Pelagisk trål Pelagisk trål Kustfiske Kustfiske Beräkning Rörledningens sträckning löper genom tio ICES-fångstrutor i det finska projektområdet. Enligt VMS-data registrerades för den estniska trålningsflottan under åren totalt observationspunkter med trålningshastighet (2-4 knop) inom den ekonomiska zonen i Finska viken och norra Östersjön. Alla ekonomiska zoner oberoende av jurisdiktion har inkluderats i detta, eftersom fiskefartyg som seglar under estniskt flagg har rätt att bedriva fiske även i Finlands och Sveriges ekonomiska zoner. Den estniska trålningsflottans fiskeansträngningar (2-4 knops trålningshastighet) medförde under åren totalt 0 VMS-observationspunkter vid rörledningskorridoren som sträcker sig 75 m på båda sidorna av NSP2 -rörledningarna. Detta betyder att den estniska fiskeflottan inte har fiskat i det finska projektområdet under femårsperioden (Figur 4). Enligt VMS-data har den estniska trålningsflottan koncentrerat sin fiskeverksamhet till Estlands ekonomiska zon och territorialvatten. Till följd av detta är ersättningssumman för hela den estniska trålningsflottan 0, då man använder samma beräkningsprinciper som för Finlands och Sveriges trålningsflottor. Hela beräkningen för den estniska fiskeflottan presenteras i tabellformat i bilaga 1. Document No. W-PE-EIA-PFI-REP SW-02

16 13 Figur 4. Den estniska trålningsflottans fiskeintensitet inom Finlands, Sveriges och Estlands ekonomiska zoner. Fiskets intensitetsdata baseras på satellitspråningsdata (VMS-data) från åren På bilden visas endast observationer där hastigheten varit 2-4 knop, eftersom det antas att man vid pelagisk trålning använder dessa hastigheter. Källa: Department of Fisheries Protection, Estonian Environmental Inspectorate, Tallinn. 5.4 Polen Den genomsnittliga årliga ( ) fiskefångstens värde för de polska fiskarna i det finska projektområdet, i de ICES-fångstrutor som NSP2 -rörledningen korsar eller tangerar, presenteras i Tabell 10. De främsta fiskarter som fiskas på havsområdet är strömming och vassbuk och dessa fiskas nästan enbart med pelagisk trål. Med de övriga arterna i tabellen menas värdefulla fiskarter i kustfisket, så som lax, sik och gös. Eftersom kustfiskets andel fiskats utanför den ekonomiska zonen, beaktas denna andel inte i detta sammanhang. Tabell 10. Den genomsnittliga årliga fiskfångsten värde för polska fiskare under en femårs period ( ) i 10 ICES-fångstrutor längs med NSP2 -rörledningens sträckning i det finska projektområdet. Källa: Orbicon ICES - fångstruta Jurisdiktion Torsk Strömming Vassbuk Flundra Övriga arter Totalt 46H0 Fin/Swe/Est H0 Fin/Swe/Est H1 Fin/Est H2 Fin/Est H2 Fin H3 Fin/Est H3 Fin/Est H4 Fin/Est H5 Fin/Est H6 Fin Totalt Den Olika fiskemetoder huvudsakliga Pelagisk trål Pelagisk trål Kustfiske Kustfiske - fiskemetoden Document No. W-PE-EIA-PFI-REP SW-02

17 14 Som illustreras i Figur 5, fördelas fiskeverksamheten inte jämt på havsområdet. Det bör dock poängteras att fisket mycket väl kan förändras under ett längre tidsperspektiv (årtionden) t.ex. gällande fiskarter eller till följd av förändringar i vattenkvaliteten (temperatur, syre m.fl.) vilket i sin tur kan leda till att fisken föredrar ett annat område. Figur 5. Den polska trålningsflottans fiskeintensitet inom Finlands, Sveriges och Estlands ekonomiska zoner. Fiskets intensitetsdata baseras på satellitspråningsdata (VMS-data) från åren På bilden visas endast observationer där hastigheten varit 2-4 knop, eftersom det antas att man vid pelagisk trålning använder dessa hastigheter. Källa: Ministry of Maritime Economy and Inland Navigation, Fisheries Department, Fisheries Monitoring Centre, Gdynia Beräkning Rörledningens sträckning löper genom tio ICES-fångstrutor i det finska projektområdet. Enligt VMS-data registrerades för den polska trålningsflottan under åren totalt 352 observationspunkter med trålningshastighet (2-4 knop) inom den ekonomiska zonen i Finska viken och norra Östersjön. Alla ekonomiska zoner oberoende av jurisdiktion har inkluderats i detta, eftersom fiskefartyg som seglar under polskt flagg har rätt att bedriva fiske även i Finlands, Sveriges och Estlands ekonomiska zoner. Den polska trålningsflottans fiskeansträngningar (2-4 knops trålningshastighet) medförde under åren totalt 4 VMS-observationspunkter vid rörledningskorridoren som sträcker sig 75 m på båda sidorna av NSP2 -rörledningarna. Till följd av detta orsakade rörledningarna för det för de polska trålarna en konsekvens som är 1,14 % (4 / 352 x 100) av det området där den polska trålningsflottan idkade fiske inom det finska projektområdet. Det genomsnittliga årliga ( ) värdet för fångsterna av torsk, strömming, vassbuk och flundra inom det finska projektområdets tio fångsrutor var Polens fångst har förmodligen helt och hållet fiskats med trål i alla fångstrutor. På basen av detta är det årliga värdet för fångsten inom den ekonomiska zonen då man räknar värdet per fångstruta. Då man multiplicerar dessa fångstrutespecifika summorna med VMS-observationernas jämförelsetal mellan hela ekonomiska zonen och rörledningskorridoren, får man som värde för fångsten vid rörledningskorridoren en summa på Genom att multiplicera varje fångstrutespecifika summa med ersättningskoefficienten för olika höjders fria spann (Tabell 5), får man en summa på 0. Detta beror på att den polska trålningsflottan koncentrerat sin Document No. W-PE-EIA-PFI-REP SW-02

18 fiskeverksamhet till de västliga vattnen och i dessa områden gör de syrefattiga förhållandena att bottenära trålningsfiske inte är möjligt. Baserat på detta kommer man i ersättningsberäkningen fram till slutsatsen att inga konsekvenser uppkommer för det polska fisket i det finska projektområdet, och därför kommer inga ersättningar för de polska fiskarna att behövas. Ersättningsberäkningen för det polska fisket presenteras i bilaga Danmark Den genomsnittliga årliga ( ) fiskefångstens värde för de polska fiskarna i det finska projektområdet, i de ICES-fångstrutor som NSP2 -rörledningen korsar eller tangerar, presenteras i Tabell 11. De främsta fiskarter som fiskas på havsområdet är strömming och vassbuk och dessa fiskas nästan enbart med pelagisk trål. Tabell 11. Den genomsnittliga årliga fiskfångsten värde för danska fiskare under en femårs period ( ) i 10 ICES-fångstrutor längs med NSP2 -rörledningens sträckning i det finska projektområdet. Källa: Orbicon ICES - fångstruta Jurisdiktion Torsk Strömming Vassbuk Flundra Övriga arter Totalt 46H0 Fin/Swe/Est H0 Fin/Swe/Est H1 Fin/Est H2 Fin/Est H2 Fin H3 Fin/Est H3 Fin/Est H4 Fin/Est H5 Fin/Est H6 Fin Totalt Den huvudsakliga fiskemetoden Olika fiskemetoder Pelagisk trål Pelagisk trål Kustfiske Kustfiske - Som illustreras i Figur 6, fördelas fiskeverksamheten inte jämt på havsområdet. Det bör dock poängteras att fisket mycket väl kan förändras under ett längre tidsperspektiv (årtionden) t.ex. gällande fiskarter eller till följd av förändringar i vattenkvaliteten (temperatur, syre m.fl.) vilket i sin tur kan leda till att fisken föredrar ett annat område. Document No. W-PE-EIA-PFI-REP SW-02

19 16 Figur 6. Den danska trålningsflottans fiskeintensitet inom Finlands, Sveriges och Estlands ekonomiska zoner. Fiskets intensitetsdata baseras på satellitspråningsdata (VMS-data) från åren På bilden visas endast observationer där hastigheten varit 2-4 knop, eftersom det antas att man vid pelagisk trålning använder dessa hastigheter. Källa: Ministry of Environment and Food, The Danish AgriFish Agency, Copenhagen Beräkning Rörledningens sträckning löper genom tio ICES-fångstrutor i det finska projektområdet. Enligt VMS-data registrerades för den danska trålningsflottan under åren totalt 706 observationspunkter med trålningshastighet (2-4 knop) inom den ekonomiska zonen i Finska viken och norra Östersjön. Alla ekonomiska zoner oberoende av jurisdiktion har inkluderats i detta, eftersom fiskefartyg som seglar under danskt flagg har rätt att bedriva fiske även i Finlands, Sveriges och Estlands ekonomiska zoner. Den danska trålningsflottans fiskeansträngningar (2-4 knops trålningshastighet) medförde under åren totalt 2 VMS-observationspunkter vid rörledningskorridoren som sträcker sig 75 m på båda sidorna av NSP2 -rörledningarna. Till följd av detta orsakade rörledningarna för det för de danska trålarna en konsekvens som är 0,28 % (2 / 706 x 100) av det området där den danska trålningsflottan idkade fiske inom det finska projektområdet. Det genomsnittliga årliga ( ) värdet för fångsterna av torsk, strömming, vassbuk och flundra inom det finska projektområdets tio fångsrutor var Danmarks fångst har förmodligen helt och hållet fiskats med trål i alla fångstrutor. På basen av detta är det årliga värdet för fångsten inom den ekonomiska zonen då man räknar värdet per fångstruta. Genom att multiplicera varje fångstrutespecifika summa med ersättningskoefficienten för olika höjders fria spann (Tabell 5), får man en summa på 0. Detta beror på att den danska trålningsflottan koncentrerat sin fiskeverksamhet till de sydvästliga vattnen och i dessa områden gör de syrefattiga förhållandena att bottenära trålningsfiske inte är möjligt i närheten av rörledningen och i de övriga områdena har inget fiske skett inom 300 m från rörledningskorridoren. Baserat på detta kommer man i ersättningsberäkningen fram till slutsatsen att inga konsekvenser uppkommer för det danska fisket i det finska projektområdet, och därför kommer inga ersättningar för de danska fiskarna att behövas. Hela ersättningsberäkningen för det danska fisket presenteras i tabellformat i bilaga 5. Document No. W-PE-EIA-PFI-REP SW-02

20 5.6 Lettland I Tabell 12 presenteras en uppskattning av fiskefångstens värde som kan förloras till följd av anläggningen av NSP2 -rörledningen på havsbottnen. Värdet har fåtts genom att multiplicera rörledningens reserverade område med trålfiskets totala fångsts värde per ICES-fångstruta (genomsnittet för åren ). Även fångstandelen för pelagisk trålning nära bottnen på Finska viken (10 %) och i det sydvästliga havsområdet (0 %) har beaktats. Som konstaterats i kapitel 4.1.2, är förhållandena i vattenskikten nära bottnen syrefattiga eller syrefria i det sydvästliga havsområdet och därför finns det inga trålbara fiskstim i dessa områden som man kunde fiska med bottennära trålning. Baserat på detta kommer man i ersättningsberäkningen fram till slutsatsen att ersättningen är 0 % av fångstens värde per ICES-fångstruta. Beräkningarna har gjorts skilt för varje ICES-fångsruta och summerats ihop i tabellens nedre del. 17 Tabell 12. Den genomsnittliga årliga fiskfångsten värde för lettiska fiskare under en femårs period ( ) i 10 ICES-fångstrutor längs med NSP2 -rörledningens sträckning i det finska projektområdet. Fångstens värde för varje ICES-fångstruta inom det område som rörledningen reserverar samt andelen bottennära pelagisk trålning. Område (A) ICESfångstruta (B) Jurisdiktion per ICESfångstruta (C) Den ekonomiska zonens areal (km 2 ) per ICESfångstruta (EEZ: FIN, SWE, EST kombinerat) (D) Rörledningsområdets areal (km 2 ), båda rören +/- 75 m zon (E) Strömmingens genomsnittliga värde ( ) för åren (F) Vassbukens genoms nittliga värde ( ) för åren (G) Det totala värdet för strömmings och vassbuks fångsterna ( ) = E + F (H) Fångstens värde vid rörlednings området = G x (D/C) Uppskattat värde av fångsten vid rörledningsområdet då endast bottennära trålning beaktats: 10 % (= H x 0,1) Finska viken och 0 % de sydvästliga havsområdena Sydvästliga havsområdet Sydvästliga havsområdet Sydvästliga havsområdet Sydvästliga havsområdet Finska viken Finska viken Finska viken Finska viken Finska viken Finska viken 46H0 47H0 Fin/Swe /Est Fin/Swe /Est , , H1 Fin/Est , H2 Fin/Est , H2 Fin 392 1, H3 Fin/Est 103 0, H3 Fin/Est , H4 Fin/Est , H5 Fin/Est , H6 Fin 276 4, Totalt , Beräkning Som framgår i Tabell 12, är värdet för den pelagiska trålningen fångst som kan förloras, till följd av NSP2 -rörledningarna, 0 för hela Lettlands fiskeflotta. Detta beror på att den lettiska trålningsflottan koncentrerat sin fiskeverksamhet till de sydvästliga vattnen och i dessa områden gör de syrefattiga förhållandena att bottenära trålningsfiske inte är möjligt i närheten av rörledningen. Baserat på detta kommer man i ersättningsberäkningen fram till slutsatsen att inga konsekvenser uppkommer för det lettiska fisket i det finska projektområdet, och därför kommer inga ersättningar för de lettiska fiskarna att behövas. Document No. W-PE-EIA-PFI-REP SW-02

21 Litauen I Tabell 13 presenteras en uppskattning av fiskefångstens värde som kan förloras till följd av anläggningen av NSP2 -rörledningen på havsbottnen. Värdet har fåtts genom att multiplicera rörledningens reserverade område med trålfiskets totala fångsts värde per ICES-fångstruta (genomsnittet för åren ). Även fångstandelen för pelagisk trålning nära bottnen på Finska viken (10 %) och i det sydvästliga havsområdet (0 %) har beaktats. Som konstaterats i kapitel 4.1.2, är förhållandena i vattenskikten nära bottnen syrefattiga eller syrefria i det sydvästliga havsområdet och därför finns det inga trålbara fiskstim i dessa områden som man kunde fiska med bottennära trålning. Baserat på detta kommer man i ersättningsberäkningen fram till slutsatsen att ersättningen är 0 % av fångstens värde per ICES-fångstruta. Beräkningarna har gjorts skilt för varje ICES-fångsruta och summerats ihop i tabellens nedre del. Tabell 13. Den genomsnittliga årliga fiskfångsten värde för litauiska fiskare under en femårs period ( ) i 10 ICES-fångstrutor längs med NSP2 -rörledningens sträckning i det finska projektområdet. Fångstens värde för varje ICES-fångstruta inom det område som rörledningen reserverar samt andelen bottennära pelagisk trålning. Område (A) ICESfångstruta (B) Jurisdiktion per ICESfångstruta (C) Den ekonomiska zonens areal (km 2 ) per ICESfångstruta (EEZ: FIN, SWE, EST kombinerat) (D) Rörledningsområdets areal (km 2 ), båda rören +/- 75 m zon (E) Strömmingens genomsnittliga värde ( ) för åren (F) Vassbukens genoms nittliga värde ( ) för åren (G) Det totala värdet för strömmings och vassbuks fångsterna ( ) = E + F (H) Fångstens värde vid rörlednings området = G x (D/C) Uppskattat värde av fångsten vid rörledningsområdet då endast bottennära trålning beaktats: 10 % (= H x 0,1) Finska viken och 0 % de sydvästliga havsområdena Sydvästliga havsområdet Sydvästliga havsområdet Sydvästliga havsområdet Sydvästliga havsområdet Finska viken Finska viken Finska viken Finska viken Finska viken Finska viken 46H0 47H0 Fin/Swe /Est Fin/Swe /Est , , H1 Fin/Est , H2 Fin/Est , H2 Fin 392 1, H3 Fin/Est 103 0, H3 Fin/Est , H4 Fin/Est , H5 Fin/Est , H6 Fin 276 4, Totalt , Beräkning Som framgår i Tabell 13, är värdet för den pelagiska trålningen fångst som kan förloras, till följd av NSP2 -rörledningarna, 0 för hela Litauens fiskeflotta. Detta beror på att den litauiska trålningsflottan koncentrerat sin fiskeverksamhet till de sydvästliga vattnen och i dessa områden gör de syrefattiga förhållandena att bottenära trålningsfiske inte är möjligt i närheten av Document No. W-PE-EIA-PFI-REP SW-02

22 rörledningen. Baserat på detta kommer man i ersättningsberäkningen fram till slutsatsen att inga konsekvenser uppkommer för det litauiska fisket i det finska projektområdet, och därför kommer inga ersättningar för de litauiska fiskarna att behövas Tyskland I Tabell 14 presenteras en uppskattning av fiskefångstens värde som kan förloras till följd av anläggningen av NSP2 -rörledningen på havsbottnen. Värdet har fåtts genom att multiplicera rörledningens reserverade område med trålfiskets totala fångsts värde per ICES-fångstruta (genomsnittet för åren ). Även fångstandelen för pelagisk trålning nära bottnen på Finska viken (10 %) och i det sydvästliga havsområdet (0 %) har beaktats. Som konstaterats i kapitel 4.1.2, är förhållandena i vattenskikten nära bottnen syrefattiga eller syrefria i det sydvästliga havsområdet och därför finns det inga trålbara fiskstim i dessa områden som man kunde fiska med bottennära trålning. Baserat på detta kommer man i ersättningsberäkningen fram till slutsatsen att ersättningen är 0 % av fångstens värde per ICES-fångstruta. Beräkningarna har gjorts skilt för varje ICES-fångsruta och summerats ihop i tabellens nedre del. Tabell 14. Den genomsnittliga årliga fiskfångsten värde för tyska fiskare under en femårs period ( ) i 10 ICES-fångstrutor längs med NSP2 -rörledningens sträckning i det finska projektområdet. Fångstens värde för varje ICES-fångstruta inom det område som rörledningen reserverar samt andelen bottennära pelagisk trålning. Område (A) ICESfångstruta (B) Jurisdiktion per ICESfångstruta (C) Den ekonomiska zonens areal (km 2 ) per ICESfångstruta (EEZ: FIN, SWE, EST kombinerat) (D) Rörledningsområdets areal (km 2 ), båda rören +/- 75 m zon (E) Strömmingens genomsnittliga värde ( ) för åren (F) Vassbukens genoms nittliga värde ( ) för åren (G) Det totala värdet för strömmings och vassbuks fångsterna ( ) = E + F (H) Fångstens värde vid rörlednings området = G x (D/C) Uppskattat värde av fångsten vid rörledningsområdet då endast bottennära trålning beaktats: 10 % (= H x 0,1) Finska viken och 0 % de sydvästliga havsområdena Sydvästliga havsområdet Sydvästliga havsområdet Sydvästliga havsområdet Sydvästliga havsområdet Finska viken Finska viken Finska viken Finska viken Finska viken Finska viken 46H0 47H0 Fin/Swe /Est Fin/Swe /Est , , H1 Fin/Est , H2 Fin/Est , H2 Fin 392 1, H3 Fin/Est 103 0, H3 Fin/Est , H4 Fin/Est , H5 Fin/Est , H6 Fin 276 4, Totalt , Document No. W-PE-EIA-PFI-REP SW-02

23 5.8.1 Beräkning Som framgår i Tabell 14, är värdet för den pelagiska trålningens fångst som kan förloras, till följd av NSP2 -rörledningarna, 0 för hela Tysklands fiskeflotta. Detta beror på att den tyska trålningsflottan koncentrerat sin fiskeverksamhet till de sydvästliga vattnen och i dessa områden gör de syrefattiga förhållandena att bottenära trålningsfiske inte är möjligt i närheten av rörledningen. Baserat på detta kommer man i ersättningsberäkningen fram till slutsatsen att inga konsekvenser uppkommer för det tyska fisket i det finska projektområdet, och därför kommer inga ersättningar för de tyska fiskarna att behövas. 5.9 Slutsatser 20 Finlands fiskeflotta är enligt bedömningen den enda fiskeflottan för vilken det uppkommer konsekvenser inom det finska projektområdet. Detta beror på att den finska fiskeflottan regelbundet fiskat inom rörledningarnas 300 m breda korridor, och framför allt eftersom den finska fiskeflottans fiske har koncentrerats till Finska viken där pelagisk trålning nära botten är en allmän fiskemetod. De övriga EU-fiskenationerna har koncentrerat sin fiskeverksamhet till det sydvästliga havsområdet av det finska projektområdet och därför orsakas inga konsekvenser av Nord Stream 2 -rörledningarna på havsbottnen. Som konstateras i kapitel 3.2, lider vattenskikten nära bottnen inom Finlands ekonomiska zons sydvästligaste havsområde låga syrehalter och därför orsakas inga konsekvenser av rörledningarna på bottnen för det fiske som idkas nära bottnen inom detta område. Fiske nära bottnen är inte möjligt på dessa områden och därför finns det inget behov för ett ersättningssystem för det fiske som idkas här. 6. REFERENSER Luke Luonnonvarakeskus. Tilastotietokanta. Kaupallinen kalastus merialueella. Orbicon Nord Stream 2 Baltic fisheries along the pipeline transect. Note Orbicon Partanen S Sähköposti Seppo Partaselta Ramboll 2017a. Nord Stream 2. A natural gas pipeline through the Baltic Sea. Environmental impact assessment report, Finland. W-PE-EIA-PFI-REP EN-09. May 08, Ramboll 2017b. Nord Stream 2. Espoo report. W-PE-EIA-POF-REP EN-06. May 15, Ramboll 2017c. Nord Stream 2. Espoo Atlas. W-PE-EIA-POF-DWG EN-06. April Document No. W-PE-EIA-PFI-REP SW-02

24 1 BILAGA 1 Begäran av information av Egentliga Finlands NTM-central, bemötande till begäran och kalkylblad för ersättningen Document No. W-PE-EIA-PFI-REP SW-02

25 Varsinais-Suomen ELY-keskus Kalatalouspalvelut VARSINAIS-SUOMEN ELY-KESKUKSELLE ASIA Hakemus Suomenlahdella ja Pohjois-Itämerellä troolausta harjoittaneiden Suomen lipun alla purjehtivien kalastusalusten omistajien yhteystiedoista vesilupahakemusta varten. Kyse on Nord Stream 2-putkilinjahankkeen vesilain mukaisen lupahakemuksen kuulemista varten hankittavista tiedoista koskien kaupallista kalastusta. HAKIJA JA OSOITE Nord Stream 2 AG Gotthardstrasse Zug Switzerland Päivämäärä 20/6/2017 Ramboll Säterinkatu 6 PL ESPOO P F ASIAMIES Ramboll Finland Oy Otso Lintinen projektipäällikkö, ympäristökonsultointi Säterinkatu ESPOO Puh otso.lintinen@ramboll.fi TIETOJA HALLINNOIVA VIRANOMAINEN Varsinais-Suomen ELY-keskus Itsenäisyydenaukio TURKU TIETOPYYNTÖ Hakija pyytää kunnioittaen, että Varsinais-Suomen ELY-keskus luovuttaisi hakijalle sähköisesti Suomen lipun alla purjehtineiden trooli- 1/3 Ramboll Finland Oy Y-tunnus , ALV rek. Kotipaikka Espoo

26 kalastusta Suomenlahdella ja Pohjois-Itämerellä vuosina harjoittaneiden kalastusalusten omistajien yhteystiedot. Tietopyyntö koskee seuraavien tilastoruutujen alueella Itämerellä saalista ilmoittaneiden alusten omistajien yhteystietoja: 53, 54, 55, 57, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 66, 67, 68, 133, 136, 137, 138 ja 142 (kuva 1). Kuva 1. ICES-osa-alueet ja saalistilastoinnin tilastoruudut Itämerellä. Tietopyyntö koskee keltaiseksi värjättyjen tilastoruutujen alueelta saalista vuosina ilmoittaneita troolikalastajia. TIETOJEN KÄYTTÖTARKOITUS Osoitetiedot tarvitaan vesilupahakemuksen kuuluttamiseksi asianosaisille. 2/3

27 Ystävällisin terveisin Otso Lintinen Projektipäällikkö, MMM Ympäristökonsultointi M otso.lintinen@ramboll.fi 3/3

28 Varsinais-Suomen ELY-keskus Kalatalouspalvelut VARSINAIS-SUOMEN ELY-KESKUKSELLE ASIA Hakemus Suomenlahdella ja Pohjois-Itämerellä troolausta harjoittaneiden Suomen lipun alla purjehtivien kalastusalusten satelliittiseuranta- ja saalistiedoista vesilupahakemusta varten. Kyse on Nord Stream 2-putkilinjahankkeen vesilain mukaista lupahakemusta varten laadittavasta aluskohtaisesta haitta- ja kompensaatioarviosta. HAKIJA JA OSOITE Nord Stream 2 AG Gotthardstrasse Zug Switzerland Päivämäärä 27/6/2017 Ramboll Säterinkatu 6 PL ESPOO P F ASIAMIES Ramboll Finland Oy Otso Lintinen projektipäällikkö, ympäristökonsultointi Säterinkatu ESPOO Puh otso.lintinen@ramboll.fi TIETOJA HALLINNOIVA VIRANOMAINEN Varsinais-Suomen ELY-keskus Itsenäisyydenaukio TURKU TIETOPYYNTÖ 1 Hakija pyytää kunnioittaen, että Varsinais-Suomen ELY-keskus luovuttaisi hakijalle sähköisesti tietoja troolikalastusalusten liikkeistä pe- 1/3 Ramboll Finland Oy Y-tunnus , ALV rek. Kotipaikka Espoo

29 rustuen satelliittiseurannasta (VMS) saatavaan tietoon. Tiedot tarvitaan kaikista satelliittiseurannan piirissä olevista troolialuksista alusten tunnistetiedoin vuosittain eroteltuna kuvan 1 kartassa keltaiseksi värjätyiltä pyyntiruuduilta (53, 54, 55, 57, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 66, 67, 68, 133, 136, 137, 138 ja 142) vuosilta , tai niin pitkältä ajalta kuin tietoja on tallennettu. Tiedoista tutkitaan troolialusten vuosittaista liikkumista putkilinjan suunnittelukäytävällä. Tarvittavia tietoja ovat kunkin aluksen aikaan sidottujen sijaintitietojen lisäksi aluksen kulkunopeus, pääpyyntiväline sekä toissijainen pyyntiväline. Kuva 1. ICES-osa-alueet ja saalistilastoinnin tilastoruudut Itämerellä. Tietopyyntö koskee keltaiseksi värjättyjen tilastoruutujen alueelta saalista vuosina ilmoittaneita troolikalastajia. TIETOPYYNTÖ 2 Hakija pyytää kunnioittaen, että Varsinais-Suomen ELY-keskus luovuttaisi hakijalle sähköisesti Suomenlahdella ja Pohjois-Itämerellä vuosina troolikalastusta harjoittaneiden vä- 2/3

30 hintään 12 metriä pitkien kalastusalusten saalistilastot (saalisilmoitustiedot, ERS). Tietopyyntö koskee kuvassa 1 keltaiseksi värjättyjen tilastoruutujen (53, 54, 55, 57, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 66, 67, 68, 133, 136, 137, 138 ja 142) alueella Itämerellä saalista ilmoittaneiden Suomen kalastuslaivaston kaupallisten kalastusalusten päivittäisiä saalisilmoituksia. TIETOJEN KÄYTTÖTARKOITUS Tietoja käytetään vesilain mukaisessa lupahakemuksessa arvioitaessa Nord Stream 2 putkilinjahankkeen aiheuttamaa haittaa yksittäisille kalastusaluksille ja sitä kautta alueella toimiville kalastusyrityksille. Vesilain mukaisessa hakemuksessa hankkeen aiheuttama yksityinen edunmenetys pitää arvioida (VnA 1560/2011, 1. luku, 2, 9 mom.). Ystävällisin terveisin Otso Lintinen Projektipäällikkö, MMM Ympäristökonsultointi M otso.lintinen@ramboll.fi 3/3

31 Otso Lintinen Lähettäjä: Nousiainen Markku (ELY) Lähetetty: 1. elokuuta :05 Vastaanottaja: Otso Lintinen Aihe: VL: Nord Stream 2 - tietoja kalastuksesta Hei Otso, nuo kalastajien yhteystiedot ovat minulla työn alla tuo saalis- ja paikkatieto on vaikeampi tuo laki yhteisen kalastuspoliitikan seuraamusjärjestelmästä ja valvonnasta määrää tietojen luovuttamisesta tuossa alla oheinen kohta. Kysyin MMM juristilta ja oli tuossa alla olevassa viestissä myös sitä mieltä, että tulee olla ko. kalastajien valtuutus antaa ko. tietoja. Terveisin Markku Nousiainen 69 Tietojen luovuttaminen rekistereistä Tässä laissa tarkoitetuista rekistereistä tiedot voidaan luovuttaa rekisterin otteella tai teknisen käyttöyhteyden välityksellä. Tietojen luovutuksesta päättää rekisteriä pitävä viranomainen. Ennen tietojen luovuttamista tietoja luovuttavan on varmistuttava siitä, että tietojen suojauksesta huolehditaan asianmukaisesti. Salassapitosäännösten estämättä käyttötarkoituksen kannalta tarpeellisia tietoja voidaan luovuttaa: 1) Tullille laissa säädettyjä valvontatehtäviä, rikosten ehkäisyä, esitutkintaa sekä verotusta ja sen valvontaa varten; 2) poliisille kalastuksen valvontaa, rajaturvallisuuden ylläpitämistä, meriliikenteen valvontaa, rikosten ehkäisyä, esitutkintaa ja öljypäästöjen tutkintaa sekä pelastustoimintaa varten; 3) Liikenteen turvallisuusvirastolle merenkulun ohjausta, meriturvallisuuden valvontaa ja alusrekisterin ylläpitoa varten; 4) ulosottoviranomaisille niille kuuluvien täytäntöönpanotehtävien hoitamista varten; 5) elintarvikevalvontaviranomaisille elintarvikkeita koskevan lainsäädännön noudattamisen valvontaa varten; 6) Ahvenanmaan maakunnan hallitukselle yhteisen kalastuspolitiikan noudattamisen valvontaan ja seuraamusten määräämiseen sekä niiden suomalaisten alusten rekisteröintiä varten, joiden kotipaikka on Ahvenanmaan maakunnassa; 7) Euroopan komissiolle, Euroopan kalastuksenvalvontavirastolle ja Euroopan unionin jäsenvaltioille yhteisen kalastuspolitiikan noudattamisen valvontaa ja seuraamusten määräämistä varten; 1

32 8) kaupallisen kalastuksen vakuutustuesta annetun lain (998/2012) 10 :ssä tarkoitetulle kalastusvakuutuslaitokselle vakuutustuen maksamista koskevaa päätöksentekoa varten; 9) kaupallisen kalastuksen vakuutustuesta annetun lain 19 :ssä tarkoitetulle elinkeino-, liikenne- ja ympäristökeskukselle vakuutustuen takaisinperintää varten. Lähettäjä: Lähetetty: 31. heinäkuuta :34 Vastaanottaja: Nousiainen Markku (ELY) Kopio: Sundqvist Lars (ELY) Aihe: VS: Nord Stream 2 - tietoja kalastuksesta Moi Lähtökohtaisesti minusta pyytäjällä tulisi olla alusten haltijoiden antama kirjallinen valtuutus saada teiltä alus/toimijakohtaiset liike- ja saalistiedot. Jos aluksilla/toimijoilla on asiassa intressiä (=toivovat korvauksia), he valtuutuksen saattavat antaakin. Yt. Maija Lähettäjä: Nousiainen Markku (ELY) [mailto:markku.nousiainen@ely-keskus.fi] Lähetetty: 26. heinäkuuta :26 Vastaanottaja: Mela Maija Kopio: Sundqvist Lars ELY-KESKUS Aihe: Nord Stream 2 - tietoja kalastuksesta Hei Maija, pyyntö, katsoisitko tuota oheista tietopyyntöä, kiitos. Ramboll konsultti pyytää troolialusten paikkatietoja ja saalistietoja! Voidaanko noita tietoja antaa jollekin ulkopuoliselle konsultille, vaikka kyseessä haitta- ja kompensaatioarvio vesilain mukaisesti??? Voisitko auttaa minua vastaamaan tuohon pyyntöön, kiitos. Kunnioittaen Var-ely Markku Nousiainen, 2

33 Otso Lintinen Lähettäjä: Nousiainen Markku (ELY) Lähetetty: 4. elokuuta :46 Vastaanottaja: Otso Lintinen Aihe: VL: Tietopyyntö Kalatalouspalveluille Liitteet: Ramboll xlsx hei, Ohessa tietopyynnössä mainitut Pohjois-Itämerellä ja Suomenlahdella vuosina troolanneiden troolialusten omistajien yhteystietoja t make Lähettäjä: Otso Lintinen [mailto:otso.lintinen@ramboll.fi] Lähetetty: 20. kesäkuuta :46 Vastaanottaja: ELY Kirjaamo Varsinais-Suomi <kirjaamo.varsinais-suomi@ely-keskus.fi> Kopio: Nousiainen Markku (ELY) <markku.nousiainen@ely-keskus.fi> Aihe: Tietopyyntö Kalatalouspalveluille Hei Ohessa tietopyyntö Kalatalouspalveluille. Ystävällisin terveisin Otso Lintinen Projektipäällikkö, MMM Ympäristö & Terveys M otso.lintinen@ramboll.fi Ramboll Säterinkatu 6 PL Espoo 1

34 Otso Lintinen Lähettäjä: Sundqvist Lars (ELY) Lähetetty: 21. elokuuta :27 Vastaanottaja: Otso Lintinen Kopio: Nousiainen Markku (ELY) Aihe: VS: Tietopyyntö Kalatalouspalveluille Tässä alukset jotka ovat kalastaneet 46H0 ruudussa vuosina Yhteystiedot omistajiin löytyy aiemmin lähetetystä dokumentista ULKOINENTUNNUS ICES PYYNTIRUUTUEU FIN-1111-U 29 46H0 FIN-1125-T 29 46H0 FIN-1115-U 29 46H0 FIN-1106-T 29 46H0 Lasse Lähettäjä: Otso Lintinen Lähetetty: 21. elokuuta :51 Vastaanottaja: Sundqvist Lars (ELY) Kopio: Nousiainen Markku (ELY) Aihe: RE: Tietopyyntö Kalatalouspalveluille Hienoa, kiitos kovasti! -Otso From: Sundqvist Lars (ELY) Sent: Monday, August 21, :50 AM To: Otso Lintinen Cc: Nousiainen Markku (ELY) Subject: VS: Tietopyyntö Kalatalouspalveluille Juu onnistuu, ajan tiedot aamukahvin jälkeen Lasse Lähettäjä: Otso Lintinen Lähetetty: 21. elokuuta :47 Vastaanottaja: Sundqvist Lars (ELY) Kopio: Nousiainen Markku (ELY) Aihe: RE: Tietopyyntö Kalatalouspalveluille Huomenta Juttelimme äsken Markun kanssa puhelimessa ja hän pyysi kääntymään sinun puoleesi. Meillä olisi kiireinen tarve yhden pyyntiruudun kalastajien selvittämiseksi. Sain elokuun alussa Saaristomeren ja Suomenlahden pyyntiruutujen kalastajien yhteystiedot. Pyynnöstä jäi kuitenkin puuttumaan ruutu 46H0, eli se kaikkein lounaisin nurkka Suomen talousvyöhykkeellä. 1

35 Olisiko sinun mahdollista jo tänään kaivaa tietokannasta tiedot ruudussa 46H0 kalastaneiden kaupallisten kalastajien yhteystiedoista? Kyse on vuosista Kaipailisin siis vastaavia tietoja kuin oheisen viestin liitteessä. Ystävällisin terveisin, -Otso Lintinen Otso Lintinen M.Sc. (Fishery science) Environment & Health M otso.lintinen@ramboll.fi Ramboll Säterinkatu 6 P.O.Box Espoo Finland From: Nousiainen Markku (ELY) [mailto:markku.nousiainen@ely-keskus.fi] Sent: Friday, August 04, :46 PM To: Otso Lintinen Subject: VL: Tietopyyntö Kalatalouspalveluille hei, Ohessa tietopyynnössä mainitut Pohjois-Itämerellä ja Suomenlahdella vuosina troolanneiden troolialusten omistajien yhteystietoja t make Lähettäjä: Otso Lintinen [mailto:otso.lintinen@ramboll.fi] Lähetetty: 20. kesäkuuta :46 Vastaanottaja: ELY Kirjaamo Varsinais-Suomi <kirjaamo.varsinais-suomi@ely-keskus.fi> Kopio: Nousiainen Markku (ELY) <markku.nousiainen@ely-keskus.fi> Aihe: Tietopyyntö Kalatalouspalveluille Hei Ohessa tietopyyntö Kalatalouspalveluille. Ystävällisin terveisin Otso Lintinen Projektipäällikkö, MMM Ympäristö & Terveys M otso.lintinen@ramboll.fi Ramboll Säterinkatu 6 PL Espoo 2

36

37

38

39

40 Compensation for Finnish offshore trawl fishermen Coefficients for compensations based on predicted Freespan Finnish fishing activities in the NSP2 traversing ICES rectangles Freespan height None <0,46 m >0,46 m Mean values (euros by ) of the Finnish fish catch in the pipeline route in each ICES rectangles Western Approaches VMS observations by Finnish trawler fleet in Gulf of Finland 0,1 0,2 0,5 Fishing area Route Free spans Fish catch by species (mean yearly values in euros by ) Value VMS observations ( ) Value Compensation amounts (EUR) ICES rectangle Mean length (km) of the NSP2 route Mean lenght (km) of the NSP2 route with free spans <0,46 m (Line A and B combined) Mean lenght (km) of the NSP2 route with free spans 0,46 m (Line A and B combined) Share (%) of NSP2 route without free spans Share (%) of the NSP2 route lenght with free spans <0,46 m Share (%) of the NSP2 route lenght with free spans 0,46 m COD HER SPR FLE Sum Share of the mean value (EUR) by offshore trawling (100 % in Western Approaches and 89 % in the Gulf of Finland) Satellite tracking (VMS) observation s in the FIN, SWE and EST EEZ Satellite tracking (VMS) observation s in the NSP2 route corridor ( +/- 75m for both pipelines) Share of VMS observation s in the NSP2 pipeline corridor compared to VMS points in the EEZ area Value (EUR) of the catch in the pipeline corridor according to the share of the VMS observatio ns Compensation amount 0 % in Western Approaches and 10 % in the Gulf of Finland of the catch value) in nonfree span sections Compensation amount 0 % in Western Approaches and 20 % in the Gulf of Finland of the catch value) in free span sections <0,46 m Compensation amount 0 % in Western Approaches and 50 % in the Gulf of Finland of the catch value) in free span sections 0,46 m 46H0 Western Approaches 17 10,1 3,7 18,7 59,3 22, , H0 Western Approaches 30 16,3 5,4 27,6 54,5 17, , H1 Western Approaches 65 31,4 10,7 35,2 48,4 16, , H2 Western Approaches 51 27,7 4,1 37,6 54,4 8, , H3 Gulf of Finland , H2 Gulf of Finland 8 4,7 0,2 39,0 58,5 2, , H3 Gulf of Finland 60 17,5 3,4 65,2 29,2 5, , H4 Gulf of Finland 64 15,8 13,4 54,5 24,7 20, , H5 Gulf of Finland 60 13,8 9,2 61,7 23,0 15, , H6 Gulf of Finland 16 1,3 3,2 71,9 8,4 19, , Total in Finland , Total compensa tion / NSP2 operating year Compensation amout for one year Overall compensation for 20 years for the trawling fleet EUROS EUROS

41 2 BILAGA 2 Begäran av information av Sveriges nationella fiskemyndighet, bemötande till begäran och kalkylblad för ersättningen Document No. W-PE-EIA-PFI-REP SW-02

42 Sweden, Swedish Agency for Marine and Water Management Estonia, Ministry of Rural affairs Latvia, Fisheries Department Lithuania, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries Service Poland, Ministerstwo Rolnictwa i Rozwoju Wsi (kancelaria@minrol.gov.pl) Germany, Federal Office for Agriculture and Food (info@ble.de) Denmark, Statistik for fiskeriets regulering (dataanalyse@lfst.dk) TO THE NATIONAL FISHING AUTHORITIES AROUND THE BALTIC SEA Date June 2 nd 2017 MATTER Request for contact information and satellite tracking data of trawl fishing vessels that have conducted trawling in the Finnish EEZ in the Northern Baltic proper or in the Gulf of Finland during Nord Stream 2 project is preparing a Water permit application in Finland for the installation of the gas pipeline system from Russia to Germany in the Finnish EEZ. For the permit application project would need contact information for the fishing companies under the flag of EU member states and who have operated in the Finnish EEZ in the Nord Stream 2 project area. The satellite tracking data would be needed for the impact assessment of the project s possible impacts on individual fishing vessels. Ramboll Säterinkatu 6 PL ESPOO FINLAND P F APPLICANT AND ADDRESS Nord Stream 2 AG Gotthardstrasse Zug Switzerland REPRESENTATIVE Ramboll Finland Ltd. Otso Lintinen Fisheries expert, Environmental consulting Säterinkatu ESPOO FINLAND Mob otso.lintinen@ramboll.fi 1/3 Ramboll Finland Ltd. Company code , VAT registered. Home office in Espoo, Finland

43 DATA REQUESTS 1. The applicant requests that the National fishery authorities would hand over electronically the contact information for those fishing companies that have logbooked trawl fishing catch data from certain ICES rectangles during The data request concerns ICES rectangles in the Northern Baltic proper and in the Gulf of Finland: 47H0, 47H1, 47H2, 47H3, 48H1, 48H2, 48H3, 48H4, 48H5, 48H6, 48H7, 48H8, 49H4, 49H5, 49H6, 49H7 and 49H8 (Figure 1). Figure 1. Area coverage of the data request mark yellow in the map of the ICES rectangles. The data request concerns fishing vessels that have registered fish catch from above mentioned ICES rectangles during The applicant requests that the National fishery authorities would hand over electronically the Vessel monitoring system data of the fishing vessels under their national flag. The data request concerns of those individual vessels that have reported fish catch from the Finnish EEZ from the ICES rectangles marked yellow in the above map (Figure 1) during /3

44 2017. The data request concerns the ICES rectangles: 47H0, 47H1, 47H2, 47H3, 48H1, 48H2, 48H3, 48H4, 48H5, 48H6, 48H7, 48H8, 49H4, 49H5, 49H6, 49H7 and 49H8 (Figure 1). The data should be separated by year. The needed information from the VMS database is the individual identifications of the vessels, location tracking plots, direction of the movement, speed of vessel and the main and the secondary fishing gear of the vessel. PURPOSE OF USE Requested data will be used for hearing purposes in the permit process in Finland. Affected fishing companies will be requested to participate in the water permit process by giving them an opportunity to make a statement of the impacts the Nord Stream 2 project might has on their fishing. VMS data will be used in impact assessment in evaluating the effect of the pipeline project on individual fishing vessel and its owner. The data will be presented in maps. FEE OF THE DATA EXTRACTION Possible fee from the requested data extractions may be addressed to the representative. Your obedient servant, Otso Lintinen Project Manager, M.Sc. (Fishery Science) Environmental consulting M otso.lintinen@ramboll.fi 3/3

45 Otso Lintinen Lähettäjä: Jarl Engquist Lähetetty: 15. elokuuta :09 Vastaanottaja: Otso Lintinen Aihe: SV: Data request related to fisheries - Dnr Liitteet: Nord Stream ICESrect 46H0.xlsx Dear Otso Lintinen, Enclosed you will find the requested data regarding VMS for ICES rectangle 46H0. Best regards/jarl Engquist Från: Otso Lintinen [mailto:otso.lintinen@ramboll.fi] Skickat: den 15 augusti :46 Till: Jarl Engquist Ämne: RE: Data request related to fisheries - Dnr Dear Jarl Engquist I got contact with Anton Paulrud. Thank you for providing his contact info. He promised to send me those contact information for Swedish pelagic trawlers. I would still need that VMS data for ICES rectangle 46H0. Could you please send it for me? Yours Sincerely Otso Lintinen M.Sc. (Fishery science) Environment & Health M otso.lintinen@ramboll.fi Ramboll Säterinkatu 6 P.O.Box Espoo Finland From: Otso Lintinen Sent: Monday, August 07, :30 PM To: 'Jarl Engquist' Subject: RE: Data request related to fisheries - Dnr Dear Jarl Enqquist Thank you very much of the data you sent. I apology but would it be very inconvenient to provide yet VMS data from one more ICES rectangle? I would still need information regards the movement of Swedish fishing fleet in ICES 1

46 rectangle 46H0. There lays a small corner of Finnish EEZ and that was lacking from my previous application. Could it be possible for you to hand this also? The coverage of the VMS data was Yours Sincerely Otso Lintinen M.Sc. (Fishery science) Environment & Health M otso.lintinen@ramboll.fi Ramboll Säterinkatu 6 P.O.Box Espoo Finland From: Jarl Engquist [mailto:jarl.engquist@havochvatten.se] Sent: Thursday, July 06, :33 AM To: Otso Lintinen Cc: Havs- och vattenmyndigheten; 'Anton Paulrud (anton.paulrud@pelagic.se)' Subject: SV: Data request related to fisheries - Dnr Dear Otso Lintinen, Enclosed you will find the requested data regarding VMS for the time period in the Baltic Sea. Regarding the contact information for the fishing companies, please contact Anton Paulrud at the Swedish Pelagic Federation (SPF). Best regards Jarl Engquist Havs- och vattenmyndigheten Swedish Agency for Marine and Water Management jarl.engquist@havochvatten.se Gullbergs Strandgata 15 Box Göteborg 2

47 Compensation for Swedish offshore trawl fishermen Swedish fishing activities in the NSP2 traversing ICES rectangles Freespan height None <0,46 m >0,46 m Mean values (euros by ) of the Swedish fish catch in the pipeline route in each ICES rectangles Western Approaches VMS observations by Swedish trawler fleet in Gulf of Finland 0,1 0,2 0,5 ICES rectangle Fishing area Route Free spans Fish catch by species (mean yearly values in euros by ) Value VMS observations ( ) Value Compensation amounts (EUR) Mean length (km) of the NSP2 route Mean lenght (km) of the NSP2 route with free spans <0,46 m (Line A and B combined) Mean lenght (km) of the NSP2 route with free spans 0,46 m (Line A and B combined) Share (%) of NSP2 route without free spans Share (%) of the NSP2 route lenght with free spans <0,46 m Share (%) of the NSP2 route lenght with free spans 0,46 m COD HER SPR FLE Sum Share of the mean value (EUR) by offshore trawling (100 % in Western Approaches and 89 % in the Gulf of Finland) Satellite tracking (VMS) observation s in the FIN, SWE and EST EEZ Satellite tracking (VMS) observation s in the NSP2 route corridor ( +/- 75m for both pipelines) Share of VMS observation s in the NSP2 pipeline corridor compared to VMS points in the EEZ area Value (EUR) of the catch in the pipeline corridor according to the share of the VMS observatio ns Coefficients for compensations based on predicted Freespan Compensation amount 0 % in Western Approaches and 10 % in the Gulf of Finland of the catch value) in nonfree span sections Compensation amount 0 % in Western Approaches and 20 % in the Gulf of Finland of the catch value) in free span sections <0,46 m Compensation amount 0 % in Western Approaches and 50 % in the Gulf of Finland of the catch value) in free span sections 0,46 m 46H0 Western Approaches 17 10,1 3,7 18,7 59,3 22, , H0 Western Approaches 30 16,3 5,4 27,6 54,5 17, , H1 Western Approaches 65 31,4 10,7 35,2 48,4 16, , H2 Western Approaches 51 27,7 4,1 37,6 54,4 8, , H3 Gulf of Finland , H2 Gulf of Finland 8 4,7 0,2 39,0 58,5 2, , H3 Gulf of Finland 60 17,5 3,4 65,2 29,2 5, , H4 Gulf of Finland 64 15,8 13,4 54,5 24,7 20, , H5 Gulf of Finland 60 13,8 9,2 61,7 23,0 15, , H6 Gulf of Finland 16 1,3 3,2 71,9 8,4 19, , Total in Finland , Total compensa tion / NSP2 operating year Compensation amout for one year Overall compensation for 20 years for the trawling fleet 0 EUROS 0 EUROS

48 3 BILAGA 3 Begäran av information av Estlands nationella fiskemyndighet, bemötande till begäran och kalkylblad för ersättningen Document No. W-PE-EIA-PFI-REP SW-02

49 Sweden, Swedish Agency for Marine and Water Management Estonia, Ministry of Rural affairs Latvia, Fisheries Department Lithuania, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries Service Poland, Ministerstwo Rolnictwa i Rozwoju Wsi (kancelaria@minrol.gov.pl) Germany, Federal Office for Agriculture and Food (info@ble.de) Denmark, Statistik for fiskeriets regulering (dataanalyse@lfst.dk) TO THE NATIONAL FISHING AUTHORITIES AROUND THE BALTIC SEA Date June 2 nd 2017 MATTER Request for contact information and satellite tracking data of trawl fishing vessels that have conducted trawling in the Finnish EEZ in the Northern Baltic proper or in the Gulf of Finland during Nord Stream 2 project is preparing a Water permit application in Finland for the installation of the gas pipeline system from Russia to Germany in the Finnish EEZ. For the permit application project would need contact information for the fishing companies under the flag of EU member states and who have operated in the Finnish EEZ in the Nord Stream 2 project area. The satellite tracking data would be needed for the impact assessment of the project s possible impacts on individual fishing vessels. Ramboll Säterinkatu 6 PL ESPOO FINLAND P F APPLICANT AND ADDRESS Nord Stream 2 AG Gotthardstrasse Zug Switzerland REPRESENTATIVE Ramboll Finland Ltd. Otso Lintinen Fisheries expert, Environmental consulting Säterinkatu ESPOO FINLAND Mob otso.lintinen@ramboll.fi 1/3 Ramboll Finland Ltd. Company code , VAT registered. Home office in Espoo, Finland

50 DATA REQUESTS 1. The applicant requests that the National fishery authorities would hand over electronically the contact information for those fishing companies that have logbooked trawl fishing catch data from certain ICES rectangles during The data request concerns ICES rectangles in the Northern Baltic proper and in the Gulf of Finland: 47H0, 47H1, 47H2, 47H3, 48H1, 48H2, 48H3, 48H4, 48H5, 48H6, 48H7, 48H8, 49H4, 49H5, 49H6, 49H7 and 49H8 (Figure 1). Figure 1. Area coverage of the data request mark yellow in the map of the ICES rectangles. The data request concerns fishing vessels that have registered fish catch from above mentioned ICES rectangles during The applicant requests that the National fishery authorities would hand over electronically the Vessel monitoring system data of the fishing vessels under their national flag. The data request concerns of those individual vessels that have reported fish catch from the Finnish EEZ from the ICES rectangles marked yellow in the above map (Figure 1) during /3

51 2017. The data request concerns the ICES rectangles: 47H0, 47H1, 47H2, 47H3, 48H1, 48H2, 48H3, 48H4, 48H5, 48H6, 48H7, 48H8, 49H4, 49H5, 49H6, 49H7 and 49H8 (Figure 1). The data should be separated by year. The needed information from the VMS database is the individual identifications of the vessels, location tracking plots, direction of the movement, speed of vessel and the main and the secondary fishing gear of the vessel. PURPOSE OF USE Requested data will be used for hearing purposes in the permit process in Finland. Affected fishing companies will be requested to participate in the water permit process by giving them an opportunity to make a statement of the impacts the Nord Stream 2 project might has on their fishing. VMS data will be used in impact assessment in evaluating the effect of the pipeline project on individual fishing vessel and its owner. The data will be presented in maps. FEE OF THE DATA EXTRACTION Possible fee from the requested data extractions may be addressed to the representative. Your obedient servant, Otso Lintinen Project Manager, M.Sc. (Fishery Science) Environmental consulting M otso.lintinen@ramboll.fi 3/3

52 4 BILAGA 4 Begäran av information av Polens nationella fiskemyndighet, bemötande till begäran och kalkylblad för ersättningen Document No. W-PE-EIA-PFI-REP SW-02

53 Sweden, Swedish Agency for Marine and Water Management Estonia, Ministry of Rural affairs Latvia, Fisheries Department Lithuania, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries Service Poland, Ministerstwo Rolnictwa i Rozwoju Wsi (kancelaria@minrol.gov.pl) Germany, Federal Office for Agriculture and Food (info@ble.de) Denmark, Statistik for fiskeriets regulering (dataanalyse@lfst.dk) TO THE NATIONAL FISHING AUTHORITIES AROUND THE BALTIC SEA Date June 2 nd 2017 MATTER Request for contact information and satellite tracking data of trawl fishing vessels that have conducted trawling in the Finnish EEZ in the Northern Baltic proper or in the Gulf of Finland during Nord Stream 2 project is preparing a Water permit application in Finland for the installation of the gas pipeline system from Russia to Germany in the Finnish EEZ. For the permit application project would need contact information for the fishing companies under the flag of EU member states and who have operated in the Finnish EEZ in the Nord Stream 2 project area. The satellite tracking data would be needed for the impact assessment of the project s possible impacts on individual fishing vessels. Ramboll Säterinkatu 6 PL ESPOO FINLAND P F APPLICANT AND ADDRESS Nord Stream 2 AG Gotthardstrasse Zug Switzerland REPRESENTATIVE Ramboll Finland Ltd. Otso Lintinen Fisheries expert, Environmental consulting Säterinkatu ESPOO FINLAND Mob otso.lintinen@ramboll.fi 1/3 Ramboll Finland Ltd. Company code , VAT registered. Home office in Espoo, Finland

54 DATA REQUESTS 1. The applicant requests that the National fishery authorities would hand over electronically the contact information for those fishing companies that have logbooked trawl fishing catch data from certain ICES rectangles during The data request concerns ICES rectangles in the Northern Baltic proper and in the Gulf of Finland: 47H0, 47H1, 47H2, 47H3, 48H1, 48H2, 48H3, 48H4, 48H5, 48H6, 48H7, 48H8, 49H4, 49H5, 49H6, 49H7 and 49H8 (Figure 1). Figure 1. Area coverage of the data request mark yellow in the map of the ICES rectangles. The data request concerns fishing vessels that have registered fish catch from above mentioned ICES rectangles during The applicant requests that the National fishery authorities would hand over electronically the Vessel monitoring system data of the fishing vessels under their national flag. The data request concerns of those individual vessels that have reported fish catch from the Finnish EEZ from the ICES rectangles marked yellow in the above map (Figure 1) during /3

55 2017. The data request concerns the ICES rectangles: 47H0, 47H1, 47H2, 47H3, 48H1, 48H2, 48H3, 48H4, 48H5, 48H6, 48H7, 48H8, 49H4, 49H5, 49H6, 49H7 and 49H8 (Figure 1). The data should be separated by year. The needed information from the VMS database is the individual identifications of the vessels, location tracking plots, direction of the movement, speed of vessel and the main and the secondary fishing gear of the vessel. PURPOSE OF USE Requested data will be used for hearing purposes in the permit process in Finland. Affected fishing companies will be requested to participate in the water permit process by giving them an opportunity to make a statement of the impacts the Nord Stream 2 project might has on their fishing. VMS data will be used in impact assessment in evaluating the effect of the pipeline project on individual fishing vessel and its owner. The data will be presented in maps. FEE OF THE DATA EXTRACTION Possible fee from the requested data extractions may be addressed to the representative. Your obedient servant, Otso Lintinen Project Manager, M.Sc. (Fishery Science) Environmental consulting M otso.lintinen@ramboll.fi 3/3

56 Otso Lintinen Lähettäjä: Filip Rybicki Lähetetty: 17. elokuuta :48 Vastaanottaja: Otso Lintinen Kopio: 'Zbigniew Grabowski'; Michał Makowski; Michal Gradzik Aihe: RE: Request on fisheries information from the national databases Liitteet: Polish fishery data in the Gulf of Finland during supplement.xls Good afternoon, Please find attached the supplement of requested Polish fishery data in the Gulf of Finland during Best regards, Filip Rybicki Ministry of Maritime Economy and Inland Navigation Fisheries Department FMC Gdynia Kollataja 1/511, Gdynia Poland Tel Fax frybicki@cmr.gov.pl From: Otso Lintinen [mailto:otso.lintinen@ramboll.fi] Sent: Monday, August 14, :21 PM To: mgradzik@cmr.gov.pl Cc: zgrabowski@cmr.gov.pl; Michał Makowski <mmakowski@cmr.gov.pl> Subject: RE: Request on fisheries information from the national databases Dear Michałem Gradzikiem Related to my previous application, would it be very inconvenient to provide yet VMS data from one more ICES rectangle? I would still need information regards the movement of Polish fishing fleet in ICES rectangle 46H0. There lays a small corner of Finnish EEZ and that was lacking from my previous application. Could it be possible for you to hand this also? With the same coverage of years as you already provided. Please find attached the original application. Please don t hesitate to contact me if you have anything to ask related to this application. And I am still hoping to get those contact information for the Polish trawling companies been operating in the Finnish EEZ. Yours Sincerely Otso Lintinen M.Sc. (Fishery science) Environment & Health M otso.lintinen@ramboll.fi Ramboll Säterinkatu 6 1

57 P.O.Box Espoo Finland From: Otso Lintinen Sent: Monday, August 07, :14 PM To: Cc: 'Michał Makowski' Subject: RE: Request on fisheries information from the national databases Dear Michałem Gradzikiem Michał Makowski s automatic response asked to get contact with you. Could you please help with the following? Yours Sincerely Otso Lintinen M.Sc. (Fishery science) Environment & Health M otso.lintinen@ramboll.fi Ramboll Säterinkatu 6 P.O.Box Espoo Finland From: Otso Lintinen Sent: Monday, August 07, :50 PM To: 'Michał Makowski' Cc: zgrabowski@cmr.gov.pl; mgradzik@cmr.gov.pl Subject: RE: Request on fisheries information from the national databases Dear Michał Makowski Thank you very much for the data you provided. I would ask also about the contact information of the fishing companies. For the permit process of Nord Stream 2 pipelines in Finland we should have contact information of every fishing company regardless of nationality that have conducted offshore fishing in the Finnish EEZ in the Northern Baltic proper or in the Gulf of Finland. Would it be possible for you to deliver these contact information? What we would need is the full contact information for those companies that have been fishing in the area for the past five years. We don t need any specifications about the vessels and their more precise fishing area, just contact information of those companies who have fished in the Finnish waters. Please don t hesitate to contact me if you have any questions. Yours Sincerely Otso Lintinen 2

58 M.Sc. (Fishery science) Environment & Health M otso.lintinen@ramboll.fi Ramboll Säterinkatu 6 P.O.Box Espoo Finland From: Michał Makowski [mailto:mmakowski@cmr.gov.pl] Sent: Friday, July 21, :54 PM To: Otso Lintinen Cc: zgrabowski@cmr.gov.pl; mgradzik@cmr.gov.pl Subject: Request on fisheries information from the national databases Good afternoon, Please find attached the requested Polish fishery data in the Gulf of Finland during Best regards, Michał Makowski Ministry of Maritime Economy and Inland Navigation Fisheries Department Fisheries Monitoring Centre Kollataja 1/508, Gdynia Poland Tel Fax

59 Compensation for Polish offshore trawl fishermen Coefficients for compensations based on predicted Freespan Polish fishing activities in the NSP2 traversing ICES rectangles in the Finnish EEZ Freespan height None <0,46 m >0,46 m Mean values (euros by ) of the Polish fish catch in the pipeline route in each ICES rectangles Western Approaches VMS observations by Polish trawler fleet in Gulf of Finland 0,1 0,2 0,5 Fishing area Route Free spans Fish catch by species (mean yearly values in euros by ) Value VMS observations ( ) Value Compensation amounts (EUR) Share of VMS Value (EUR) of Satellite observation the catch Compensation Compensation Compensation Mean lenght Mean lenght tracking (VMS) s in the NSP2 in the pipeline amount 0 % in Western amount 0 % in Western amount 0 % in Western (km) of the (km) of the Share of observation pipeline corridor Approaches Approaches Approaches NSP2 route NSP2 route Share (%) of Share (%) of the mean Satellite s in the corridor according and 10 % in the and 20 % in the and 50 % in the Total with free with free the NSP2 the NSP2 value (EUR) tracking NSP2 route compared to the Gulf of Finland Gulf of Finland Gulf of Finland compensa spans <0,46 spans 0,46 Share (%) of route lenght route lenght by offshore (VMS) corridor ( to VMS share of of the catch of the catch of the catch tion / Mean length m (Line A m (Line A NSP2 route with free with free trawling observation +/- 75m for points in the VMS value) in nonfree value) in free value) in free NSP2 (km) of the and B and B without spans <0,46 spans 0,46 (100 % in s in the both the EEZ observatio span span sections span sections operating ICES rectangle NSP2 route combined) combined) free spans m m COD HER SPR FLE Sum all area Finnish EEZ pipelines) area ns sections <0,46 m 0,46 m year 46H0 Western Approaches 17 10,1 3,7 18,7 59,3 22, , H0 Western Approaches 30 16,3 5,4 27,6 54,5 17, , H1 Western Approaches 65 31,4 10,7 35,2 48,4 16, , H2 Western Approaches 51 27,7 4,1 37,6 54,4 8, , H3 Gulf of Finland , H2 Gulf of Finland 8 4,7 0,2 39,0 58,5 2, , H3 Gulf of Finland 60 17,5 3,4 65,2 29,2 5, , H4 Gulf of Finland 64 15,8 13,4 54,5 24,7 20, , H5 Gulf of Finland 60 13,8 9,2 61,7 23,0 15, , H6 Gulf of Finland 16 1,3 3,2 71,9 8,4 19, , Total in Finland , Compensation amout for one year Overall compensation for 20 years for the trawling fleet 0 EUROS 0 EUROS

60 5 BILAGA 5 Begäran av information av Danmarks nationella fiskemyndighet, bemötande till begäran och kalkylblad för ersättningen Document No. W-PE-EIA-PFI-REP SW-02

61 Sweden, Swedish Agency for Marine and Water Management Estonia, Ministry of Rural affairs Latvia, Fisheries Department Lithuania, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries Service Poland, Ministerstwo Rolnictwa i Rozwoju Wsi (kancelaria@minrol.gov.pl) Germany, Federal Office for Agriculture and Food (info@ble.de) Denmark, Statistik for fiskeriets regulering (dataanalyse@lfst.dk) TO THE NATIONAL FISHING AUTHORITIES AROUND THE BALTIC SEA Date June 2 nd 2017 MATTER Request for contact information and satellite tracking data of trawl fishing vessels that have conducted trawling in the Finnish EEZ in the Northern Baltic proper or in the Gulf of Finland during Nord Stream 2 project is preparing a Water permit application in Finland for the installation of the gas pipeline system from Russia to Germany in the Finnish EEZ. For the permit application project would need contact information for the fishing companies under the flag of EU member states and who have operated in the Finnish EEZ in the Nord Stream 2 project area. The satellite tracking data would be needed for the impact assessment of the project s possible impacts on individual fishing vessels. Ramboll Säterinkatu 6 PL ESPOO FINLAND P F APPLICANT AND ADDRESS Nord Stream 2 AG Gotthardstrasse Zug Switzerland REPRESENTATIVE Ramboll Finland Ltd. Otso Lintinen Fisheries expert, Environmental consulting Säterinkatu ESPOO FINLAND Mob otso.lintinen@ramboll.fi 1/3 Ramboll Finland Ltd. Company code , VAT registered. Home office in Espoo, Finland

62 DATA REQUESTS 1. The applicant requests that the National fishery authorities would hand over electronically the contact information for those fishing companies that have logbooked trawl fishing catch data from certain ICES rectangles during The data request concerns ICES rectangles in the Northern Baltic proper and in the Gulf of Finland: 47H0, 47H1, 47H2, 47H3, 48H1, 48H2, 48H3, 48H4, 48H5, 48H6, 48H7, 48H8, 49H4, 49H5, 49H6, 49H7 and 49H8 (Figure 1). Figure 1. Area coverage of the data request mark yellow in the map of the ICES rectangles. The data request concerns fishing vessels that have registered fish catch from above mentioned ICES rectangles during The applicant requests that the National fishery authorities would hand over electronically the Vessel monitoring system data of the fishing vessels under their national flag. The data request concerns of those individual vessels that have reported fish catch from the Finnish EEZ from the ICES rectangles marked yellow in the above map (Figure 1) during /3

63 2017. The data request concerns the ICES rectangles: 47H0, 47H1, 47H2, 47H3, 48H1, 48H2, 48H3, 48H4, 48H5, 48H6, 48H7, 48H8, 49H4, 49H5, 49H6, 49H7 and 49H8 (Figure 1). The data should be separated by year. The needed information from the VMS database is the individual identifications of the vessels, location tracking plots, direction of the movement, speed of vessel and the main and the secondary fishing gear of the vessel. PURPOSE OF USE Requested data will be used for hearing purposes in the permit process in Finland. Affected fishing companies will be requested to participate in the water permit process by giving them an opportunity to make a statement of the impacts the Nord Stream 2 project might has on their fishing. VMS data will be used in impact assessment in evaluating the effect of the pipeline project on individual fishing vessel and its owner. The data will be presented in maps. FEE OF THE DATA EXTRACTION Possible fee from the requested data extractions may be addressed to the representative. Your obedient servant, Otso Lintinen Project Manager, M.Sc. (Fishery Science) Environmental consulting M otso.lintinen@ramboll.fi 3/3

64 Otso Lintinen Lähettäjä: Troels Pade (LFST) Lähetetty: 14. elokuuta :36 Vastaanottaja: Otso Lintinen Kopio: Rasmus Nielsen (LFST) Aihe: SV: FRA DATA-MAILEN - TPA: Til? - VS: Request on fisheries information from the national databases Liitteet: dnk_vms.txt Dear Otso Please find attached updated file including rectangle 46H0. It seems that there is no registrations from that rectangle. Data elements are similar to previous mail. Med venlig hilsen Troels Pade Enhedschef Data & Analyse tpa@lfst.dk Miljø- og Fødevareministeriet Landbrugs- og Fiskeristyrelsen Nyropsgade 30, 1780 København V Tlf mail@lfst.dk Fra: Otso Lintinen [mailto:otso.lintinen@ramboll.fi] Sendt: 14. august :24 Til: Troels Pade (LFST) <tpa@lfst.dk> Cc: Rasmus Nielsen (LFST) <rasnie@lfst.dk> Emne: RE: FRA DATA-MAILEN - TPA: Til? - VS: Request on fisheries information from the national databases Dear Troels Related to my previous application, would it be very inconvenient to provide yet VMS data from one more ICES rectangle? I would still need information regards the movement of Danish fishing fleet in ICES rectangle 46H0. There lays a small corner of Finnish EEZ and that was lacking from my previous application. Could it be possible for you to hand this also? With the same coverage of years as you already provided. Please find attached the original application. Please don t hesitate to contact me if you have anything to ask related to this application. Yours Sincerely Otso Lintinen M.Sc. (Fishery science) Environment & Health M otso.lintinen@ramboll.fi Ramboll Säterinkatu 6 P.O.Box Espoo Finland 1

65 From: Troels Pade (LFST) Sent: Thursday, June 29, :48 PM To: Otso Lintinen Cc: Rasmus Nielsen (LFST) Subject: VS: FRA DATA-MAILEN - TPA: Til? - VS: Request on fisheries information from the national databases Dear Otso I have attached data according to point 2 in your data request. The format of the attached file is csv with the following content: Year;vesse-id;date;ices rectangle;latitude; longitude; direction (course); speed (nautical knots); gear. Vessel-id is not the actual vessel-id, I have anonymized the real vessel-id. I know it is a little more information than you asked for, but in order to get the full picture I thought these extra variables was necessary. I cannot send you contact information for each vessel. If you require contactinformation to each vessel it has to go through the Danish Fishermen Association with the following contact information Danmarks Fiskeriforening Producent Organisation, Nordensvej 3, Taulov, 7000 Fredericia, Denmark. is mail@dkfisk.dk. When they receive information from you, they can contact me for identification of the vessels if necessary. The reason for this procedure is that I cannot send you any information which can identify a fisherman, but if the fisherman is a member of the Danish Fishermen Association it is allowed to send personal identifiable information since the fisherman has signed a document allowing the Fishermen Association to receive this type of information from the authorities. Our financial department will send you the invoice later DKK 4.454,80. If you have further questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Best regards, Troels Pade Head of Department Data and Analysis tpa@lfst.dk Ministry of Environment and Food The Danish AgriFish Agency Nyropsgade 30, DK-1780 København V Tlf mail@lfst.dk Fra: Lisa Christoffersen (LFST) På vegne af Data & Analyse (LFST) Sendt: 2. juni :01 Til: Troels Pade (LFST) <tpa@lfst.dk> Emne: FRA DATA-MAILEN - TPA: Til? - VS: Request on fisheries information from the national databases Fra: Otso Lintinen [mailto:otso.lintinen@ramboll.fi] Sendt: 2. juni :29 Til: havochvatten@havochvatten.se; kalateave@ut.ee;normunds.riekstins@zm.gov.lv; info@zuv.lt; kancelaria@minrol.gov.pl; info@ble.de; Data & Analyse (LFST) <dataanalyse@lfst.dk> Emne: Request on fisheries information from the national databases Dear fisheries authorities On behalf of the Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline project I send you a request for the information from the national fisheries databases. Please find attached the request letter that explains the exact need for the data. The request relates to the Finnish national permit process for the Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline in the Finnish EEZ in the Baltic Sea. Yours Sincerely Otso Lintinen Project Manager, M.Sc. (Fishery Science) Environment & Health 2

66 M Ramboll Säterinkatu 6 P.O.Box Espoo Finland 3

67 Compensation for Danish offshore trawl fishermen Coefficients for compensations based on predicted Freespan Danish fishing activities in the NSP2 traversing ICES rectangles Freespan height None <0,46 m >0,46 m Mean values (euros by ) of the Danish fish catch in the pipeline route in each ICES rectangles Western Approaches VMS observations by Danish trawler fleet in Gulf of Finland 0,1 0,2 0,5 Fishing area Route Free spans Fish catch by species (mean yearly values in euros by ) Value VMS observations ( ) Value Compensation amounts (EUR) Share of VMS Value (EUR) of Satellite observation the catch Compensation Compensation Compensation Mean lenght Mean lenght tracking (VMS) s in the NSP2 in the pipeline amount 0 % in Western amount 0 % in Western amount 0 % in Western (km) of the (km) of the Share of Satellite observation pipeline corridor Approaches Approaches Approaches NSP2 route NSP2 route Share (%) of Share (%) of the mean tracking s in the corridor according and 10 % in the and 20 % in the and 50 % in the with free with free the NSP2 the NSP2 value (EUR) (VMS) NSP2 route compared to the Gulf of Finland Gulf of Finland Gulf of Finland Total spans <0,46 spans 0,46 Share (%) of route lenght route lenght by offshore observation corridor ( to VMS share of of the catch of the catch of the catch compensati Mean length m (Line A m (Line A NSP2 route with free with free trawling s in the FIN, +/- 75m for points in the VMS value) in nonfree value) in free value) in free on / NSP2 (km) of the and B and B without spans <0,46 spans 0,46 (100 % in SWE and both the EEZ observatio span span sections span sections operating ICES rectangle NSP2 route combined) combined) free spans m m COD HER SPR FLE Sum all area EST EEZ pipelines) area ns sections <0,46 m 0,46 m year 46H0 Western Approaches 17 10,1 3,7 18,7 59,3 22, , H0 Western Approaches 30 16,3 5,4 27,6 54,5 17, , H1 Western Approaches 65 31,4 10,7 35,2 48,4 16, , H2 Western Approaches 51 27,7 4,1 37,6 54,4 8, , H3 Gulf of Finland , H2 Gulf of Finland 8 4,7 0,2 39,0 58,5 2, , H3 Gulf of Finland 60 17,5 3,4 65,2 29,2 5, , H4 Gulf of Finland 64 15,8 13,4 54,5 24,7 20, , H5 Gulf of Finland 60 13,8 9,2 61,7 23,0 15, , H6 Gulf of Finland 16 1,3 3,2 71,9 8,4 19, , Total in Finland , Compensation amout for one year Overall compensation for 20 years for the trawling fleet 0 EUROS 0 EUROS

68 6 BILAGA 6 Begäran av information av Lettlands nationella fiskemyndighet och bemötande till begäran Document No. W-PE-EIA-PFI-REP SW-02

69 Sweden, Swedish Agency for Marine and Water Management Estonia, Ministry of Rural affairs Latvia, Fisheries Department Lithuania, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries Service Poland, Ministerstwo Rolnictwa i Rozwoju Wsi (kancelaria@minrol.gov.pl) Germany, Federal Office for Agriculture and Food (info@ble.de) Denmark, Statistik for fiskeriets regulering (dataanalyse@lfst.dk) TO THE NATIONAL FISHING AUTHORITIES AROUND THE BALTIC SEA Date June 2 nd 2017 MATTER Request for contact information and satellite tracking data of trawl fishing vessels that have conducted trawling in the Finnish EEZ in the Northern Baltic proper or in the Gulf of Finland during Nord Stream 2 project is preparing a Water permit application in Finland for the installation of the gas pipeline system from Russia to Germany in the Finnish EEZ. For the permit application project would need contact information for the fishing companies under the flag of EU member states and who have operated in the Finnish EEZ in the Nord Stream 2 project area. The satellite tracking data would be needed for the impact assessment of the project s possible impacts on individual fishing vessels. Ramboll Säterinkatu 6 PL ESPOO FINLAND P F APPLICANT AND ADDRESS Nord Stream 2 AG Gotthardstrasse Zug Switzerland REPRESENTATIVE Ramboll Finland Ltd. Otso Lintinen Fisheries expert, Environmental consulting Säterinkatu ESPOO FINLAND Mob otso.lintinen@ramboll.fi 1/3 Ramboll Finland Ltd. Company code , VAT registered. Home office in Espoo, Finland

70 DATA REQUESTS 1. The applicant requests that the National fishery authorities would hand over electronically the contact information for those fishing companies that have logbooked trawl fishing catch data from certain ICES rectangles during The data request concerns ICES rectangles in the Northern Baltic proper and in the Gulf of Finland: 47H0, 47H1, 47H2, 47H3, 48H1, 48H2, 48H3, 48H4, 48H5, 48H6, 48H7, 48H8, 49H4, 49H5, 49H6, 49H7 and 49H8 (Figure 1). Figure 1. Area coverage of the data request mark yellow in the map of the ICES rectangles. The data request concerns fishing vessels that have registered fish catch from above mentioned ICES rectangles during The applicant requests that the National fishery authorities would hand over electronically the Vessel monitoring system data of the fishing vessels under their national flag. The data request concerns of those individual vessels that have reported fish catch from the Finnish EEZ from the ICES rectangles marked yellow in the above map (Figure 1) during /3

71 2017. The data request concerns the ICES rectangles: 47H0, 47H1, 47H2, 47H3, 48H1, 48H2, 48H3, 48H4, 48H5, 48H6, 48H7, 48H8, 49H4, 49H5, 49H6, 49H7 and 49H8 (Figure 1). The data should be separated by year. The needed information from the VMS database is the individual identifications of the vessels, location tracking plots, direction of the movement, speed of vessel and the main and the secondary fishing gear of the vessel. PURPOSE OF USE Requested data will be used for hearing purposes in the permit process in Finland. Affected fishing companies will be requested to participate in the water permit process by giving them an opportunity to make a statement of the impacts the Nord Stream 2 project might has on their fishing. VMS data will be used in impact assessment in evaluating the effect of the pipeline project on individual fishing vessel and its owner. The data will be presented in maps. FEE OF THE DATA EXTRACTION Possible fee from the requested data extractions may be addressed to the representative. Your obedient servant, Otso Lintinen Project Manager, M.Sc. (Fishery Science) Environmental consulting M otso.lintinen@ramboll.fi 3/3

72 Otso Lintinen Lähettäjä: Jānis Lagūns Lähetetty: 27. kesäkuuta :32 Vastaanottaja: Otso Lintinen Kopio: Normunds Riekstiņš Aihe: RE: Request on fisheries information from the national databases Dear Otso, Taking into account that fisheries logbook data and vessel monitoring system data are used exclusively only for the fisheries control and scientific purposes, the Ministry of Agriculture are not in the position to send you the requested information. We have also forwarded your request to the Latvian fisherman organizations and received a replay that Latvian fisherman in recent years have not operated in the Finnish EEZ waters. Best regards Janis Best regards Jānis Lagūns Ministry of Agriculture Fisheries Department Head of Fisheries Strategy division Janis.laguns@zm.gov.lv From: Normunds Riekstiņš Sent: otrdiena, gada 27. jūnijs 11:13 To: Jānis Lagūns <Janis.Laguns@zm.gov.lv> Subject: FW: Request on fisheries information from the national databases From: Otso Lintinen [mailto:otso.lintinen@ramboll.fi] Sent: Tuesday, June 27, :59 AM To: havochvatten@havochvatten.se; kalateave@ut.ee; Normunds Riekstiņš; kancelaria@minrol.gov.pl; info@ble.de; dataanalyse@lfst.dk Subject: RE: Request on fisheries information from the national databases Dear fisheries authorities I approached you with the attached request letter on June 2. I still have no response from you. Could you please respond so that we will be able to carry on with our process? If you have any questions related to the request please don t hesitate to contact my either by or by phone. 1

73 Yours Sincerely Otso Lintinen M.Sc. (Fishery science) Environment & Health M otso.lintinen@ramboll.fi Ramboll Säterinkatu 6 P.O.Box Espoo Finland From: Otso Lintinen Sent: Friday, June 02, :29 PM To: 'havochvatten@havochvatten.se'; 'kalateave@ut.ee'; 'Normunds.Riekstins@zm.gov.lv'; 'info@zuv.lt'; 'kancelaria@minrol.gov.pl'; 'info@ble.de'; 'dataanalyse@lfst.dk' Subject: Request on fisheries information from the national databases Dear fisheries authorities On behalf of the Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline project I send you a request for the information from the national fisheries databases. Please find attached the request letter that explains the exact need for the data. The request relates to the Finnish national permit process for the Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline in the Finnish EEZ in the Baltic Sea. Yours Sincerely Otso Lintinen Project Manager, M.Sc. (Fishery Science) Environment & Health M otso.lintinen@ramboll.fi Ramboll Säterinkatu 6 P.O.Box Espoo Finland 2

74 7 BILAGA 7 Begäran av information av Litauens nationella fiskemyndighet och bemötande till begäran Document No. W-PE-EIA-PFI-REP SW-02

75 Sweden, Swedish Agency for Marine and Water Management Estonia, Ministry of Rural affairs Latvia, Fisheries Department Lithuania, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries Service Poland, Ministerstwo Rolnictwa i Rozwoju Wsi (kancelaria@minrol.gov.pl) Germany, Federal Office for Agriculture and Food (info@ble.de) Denmark, Statistik for fiskeriets regulering (dataanalyse@lfst.dk) TO THE NATIONAL FISHING AUTHORITIES AROUND THE BALTIC SEA Date June 2 nd 2017 MATTER Request for contact information and satellite tracking data of trawl fishing vessels that have conducted trawling in the Finnish EEZ in the Northern Baltic proper or in the Gulf of Finland during Nord Stream 2 project is preparing a Water permit application in Finland for the installation of the gas pipeline system from Russia to Germany in the Finnish EEZ. For the permit application project would need contact information for the fishing companies under the flag of EU member states and who have operated in the Finnish EEZ in the Nord Stream 2 project area. The satellite tracking data would be needed for the impact assessment of the project s possible impacts on individual fishing vessels. Ramboll Säterinkatu 6 PL ESPOO FINLAND P F APPLICANT AND ADDRESS Nord Stream 2 AG Gotthardstrasse Zug Switzerland REPRESENTATIVE Ramboll Finland Ltd. Otso Lintinen Fisheries expert, Environmental consulting Säterinkatu ESPOO FINLAND Mob otso.lintinen@ramboll.fi 1/3 Ramboll Finland Ltd. Company code , VAT registered. Home office in Espoo, Finland

76 DATA REQUESTS 1. The applicant requests that the National fishery authorities would hand over electronically the contact information for those fishing companies that have logbooked trawl fishing catch data from certain ICES rectangles during The data request concerns ICES rectangles in the Northern Baltic proper and in the Gulf of Finland: 47H0, 47H1, 47H2, 47H3, 48H1, 48H2, 48H3, 48H4, 48H5, 48H6, 48H7, 48H8, 49H4, 49H5, 49H6, 49H7 and 49H8 (Figure 1). Figure 1. Area coverage of the data request mark yellow in the map of the ICES rectangles. The data request concerns fishing vessels that have registered fish catch from above mentioned ICES rectangles during The applicant requests that the National fishery authorities would hand over electronically the Vessel monitoring system data of the fishing vessels under their national flag. The data request concerns of those individual vessels that have reported fish catch from the Finnish EEZ from the ICES rectangles marked yellow in the above map (Figure 1) during /3

77 2017. The data request concerns the ICES rectangles: 47H0, 47H1, 47H2, 47H3, 48H1, 48H2, 48H3, 48H4, 48H5, 48H6, 48H7, 48H8, 49H4, 49H5, 49H6, 49H7 and 49H8 (Figure 1). The data should be separated by year. The needed information from the VMS database is the individual identifications of the vessels, location tracking plots, direction of the movement, speed of vessel and the main and the secondary fishing gear of the vessel. PURPOSE OF USE Requested data will be used for hearing purposes in the permit process in Finland. Affected fishing companies will be requested to participate in the water permit process by giving them an opportunity to make a statement of the impacts the Nord Stream 2 project might has on their fishing. VMS data will be used in impact assessment in evaluating the effect of the pipeline project on individual fishing vessel and its owner. The data will be presented in maps. FEE OF THE DATA EXTRACTION Possible fee from the requested data extractions may be addressed to the representative. Your obedient servant, Otso Lintinen Project Manager, M.Sc. (Fishery Science) Environmental consulting M otso.lintinen@ramboll.fi 3/3

78 ZUvTNTNKYSTES TARNYBA prie LIETUVOS RESpUBLIKOS Zrvrns frkio MINISTERIJOS FISHERIES SERVICE UNDER THE MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE OF THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA Ramboll Finland Ltd. Otso Lintinen Fisheries expert, Environmental consulting Saterinkatu ESPOO FINLAND otso. lintinen@ramboll. fi t5!6nu-- No. Rls- 5Y( Ref No. REGARDING TO RAMBOLL REQUEST DATED 2 JUNE 2017 Lithuania provides contact information of companies that catch by trawl vessels operating in the Northern Iialtic proper and in the Gulf of Finland by listed in your request ICES rectangles during as follows: Enterprices UAB "Banginis" UAB "Monistico" UAB "Baltiios Sprotai" Director or deputy's name and surname Alsirdas Au5ra Tiit Sober Erika Lapaite-BruZiene Contacts phone: ; e -mail : info@ianginis. eu phone: ; e -m ail : com phone: ; e -m ail : baltij os.zvej as@gmail' com The data request concerns the VMS data of individual vessels not complying with the level of protection on professional and commercial secrecy of data rules that apply in Lithuania' In the circumstances referred to in the statement above, Liihuania can not provide location tracking plots on individual vessels. Director Indre Sidlauskiene 4,ffi: ^c ^3 kcfr - 2(U^17 - sporromerar?" ";p,htkurtai Irina Jakovleva, tel.:* , imajakovleva@ntvj1 'rr { { $ i{ Lietuvai p16ne ll'1/5 Data have been accumulated and stored in the Register of Budgetary agency ifi;ffifl::;, Lr-or102Vlnius, :f l:','-: :':lil' **':1*:'"^Y:::i+i:i'#il Lithuania El-mail. info@zuv.lt PVM moketojo kodas LTl0000ll2l5l2 Current account. LT464010M AB DNB bankas Vilnius branch SWIFT code AGBL LT 2X

79 8 BILAGA 8 Begäran av information av Tysklands nationella fiskemyndighet och bemötande till begäran Document No. W-PE-EIA-PFI-REP SW-02

80 Sweden, Swedish Agency for Marine and Water Management Estonia, Ministry of Rural affairs Latvia, Fisheries Department Lithuania, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries Service Poland, Ministerstwo Rolnictwa i Rozwoju Wsi (kancelaria@minrol.gov.pl) Germany, Federal Office for Agriculture and Food (info@ble.de) Denmark, Statistik for fiskeriets regulering (dataanalyse@lfst.dk) TO THE NATIONAL FISHING AUTHORITIES AROUND THE BALTIC SEA Date June 2 nd 2017 MATTER Request for contact information and satellite tracking data of trawl fishing vessels that have conducted trawling in the Finnish EEZ in the Northern Baltic proper or in the Gulf of Finland during Nord Stream 2 project is preparing a Water permit application in Finland for the installation of the gas pipeline system from Russia to Germany in the Finnish EEZ. For the permit application project would need contact information for the fishing companies under the flag of EU member states and who have operated in the Finnish EEZ in the Nord Stream 2 project area. The satellite tracking data would be needed for the impact assessment of the project s possible impacts on individual fishing vessels. Ramboll Säterinkatu 6 PL ESPOO FINLAND P F APPLICANT AND ADDRESS Nord Stream 2 AG Gotthardstrasse Zug Switzerland REPRESENTATIVE Ramboll Finland Ltd. Otso Lintinen Fisheries expert, Environmental consulting Säterinkatu ESPOO FINLAND Mob otso.lintinen@ramboll.fi 1/3 Ramboll Finland Ltd. Company code , VAT registered. Home office in Espoo, Finland

81 DATA REQUESTS 1. The applicant requests that the National fishery authorities would hand over electronically the contact information for those fishing companies that have logbooked trawl fishing catch data from certain ICES rectangles during The data request concerns ICES rectangles in the Northern Baltic proper and in the Gulf of Finland: 47H0, 47H1, 47H2, 47H3, 48H1, 48H2, 48H3, 48H4, 48H5, 48H6, 48H7, 48H8, 49H4, 49H5, 49H6, 49H7 and 49H8 (Figure 1). Figure 1. Area coverage of the data request mark yellow in the map of the ICES rectangles. The data request concerns fishing vessels that have registered fish catch from above mentioned ICES rectangles during The applicant requests that the National fishery authorities would hand over electronically the Vessel monitoring system data of the fishing vessels under their national flag. The data request concerns of those individual vessels that have reported fish catch from the Finnish EEZ from the ICES rectangles marked yellow in the above map (Figure 1) during /3

82 2017. The data request concerns the ICES rectangles: 47H0, 47H1, 47H2, 47H3, 48H1, 48H2, 48H3, 48H4, 48H5, 48H6, 48H7, 48H8, 49H4, 49H5, 49H6, 49H7 and 49H8 (Figure 1). The data should be separated by year. The needed information from the VMS database is the individual identifications of the vessels, location tracking plots, direction of the movement, speed of vessel and the main and the secondary fishing gear of the vessel. PURPOSE OF USE Requested data will be used for hearing purposes in the permit process in Finland. Affected fishing companies will be requested to participate in the water permit process by giving them an opportunity to make a statement of the impacts the Nord Stream 2 project might has on their fishing. VMS data will be used in impact assessment in evaluating the effect of the pipeline project on individual fishing vessel and its owner. The data will be presented in maps. FEE OF THE DATA EXTRACTION Possible fee from the requested data extractions may be addressed to the representative. Your obedient servant, Otso Lintinen Project Manager, M.Sc. (Fishery Science) Environmental consulting M otso.lintinen@ramboll.fi 3/3

83 Otso Lintinen Lähettäjä: RECHTSANGELEGENHEITEN, Funktion Lähetetty: 24. heinäkuuta :25 Vastaanottaja: Otso Lintinen Kopio: 522, Funktion; Holz, Ricarda Aihe: Ihre vom ; hier az /17 Sehr geehrter Herr Lintinen, mit vom haben Sie die Herausgabe von anonymisierten VMS-Daten für die nördliche Ostsee (Gebiete 3D29 und 3D32) für die Jahre 2013 bis 2017 beantragt. Ihr Antrag ist mir zur weiteren Bearbeitung übertragen worden, da Sie damit Zugang zu Umweltinformationen nach dem Umweltinformationsgesetz (UIG) begehren. Da jedoch nicht ausgeschlossen werden kann, dass durch die Herausgabe der Daten Betriebs- und Geschäftsgeheimnisse der Fischereibetriebe betroffen sind, müssen vor Herausgabe der Daten die Einwilligungen der Fischereibetriebe eingeholt werden (sog. Drittbeteiligungsverfahren). Nach Durchführung des Drittbeteiligungsverfahrens und Zusammenstellen der Daten werde ich unaufgefordert auf die Angelegenheit zurückkommen. Abschließend mache ich Sie darauf aufmerksam, dass für die Herausgabe von Informationen aufgrund des UIG i.v.m. der entsprechenden Gebührenverordnung je nach Aufwand Gebühren bis zu 500,- und Auslagen erhoben werden können. Svea Geraats Referentin Referat 121 Allgemeine Rechtsangelegenheiten Bundesanstalt für Landwirtschaft und Ernährung Deichmanns Aue Bonn Telefon: +49 (0) Fax: +49 (0) Internet: Anträge, die der Schriftform bedürfen, oder Rechtsbehelfe müssen auf dem Postweg, per Telefax, über versehen mit einer qualifizierten elektronischen Signatur oder über durch D in der Sendevariante mit bestätigter sicherer Anmeldung übermittelt werden. Andere -Adressen stehen nur für die allgemeine Kommunikation zur Verfügung, über sie ist kein elektronischer Rechtsverkehr möglich. 1

84 9 BILAGA 9 Recommended practice DNV-RP-F111, Interference between trawl gear and pipelines, October Det Norske Veritas Document No. W-PE-EIA-PFI-REP SW-02

85 RECOMMENDED PRACTICE DNV-RP-F111 INTERFERENCE BETWEEN TRAWL GEAR AND PIPELINES OCTOBER 2010 DET NORSKE VERITAS

86 FOREWORD DET NORSKE VERITAS (DNV) is an autonomous and independent foundation with the objectives of safeguarding life, property and the environment, at sea and onshore. DNV undertakes classification, certification, and other verification and consultancy services relating to quality of ships, offshore units and installations, and onshore industries worldwide, and carries out research in relation to these functions. DNV service documents consist of amongst other the following types of documents: Service Specifications. Procedual requirements. Standards. Technical requirements. Recommended Practices. Guidance. The Standards and Recommended Practices are offered within the following areas: A) Qualification, Quality and Safety Methodology B) Materials Technology C) Structures D) Systems E) Special Facilities F) Pipelines and Risers G) Asset Operation H) Marine Operations J) Cleaner Energy O) Subsea Systems The electronic pdf version of this document found through is the officially binding version Det Norske Veritas Any comments may be sent by to For subscription orders or information about subscription terms, please use Computer Typesetting (Adobe Frame Maker) by Det Norske Veritas If any person suffers loss or damage which is proved to have been caused by any negligent act or omission of Det Norske Veritas, then Det Norske Veritas shall pay compensation to such person for his proved direct loss or damage. However, the compensation shall not exceed an amount equal to ten times the fee charged for the service in question, provided that the maximum compensation shall never exceed USD 2 million. In this provision "Det Norske Veritas" shall mean the Foundation Det Norske Veritas as well as all its subsidiaries, directors, officers, employees, agents and any other acting on behalf of Det Norske Veritas.

87 Recommended Practice DNV-RP-F111, October 2010 Changes Page 3 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The following companies sponsored this JIP: Hydro ASA Statoil DNV. The following organisations have made major contributions to the hearing process: Reinertsen Engineering Subsea 7. DNV is grateful for the valuable input, including test results, cooperation and discussions with these companies. CHANGES General As of October 2010 all DNV service documents are primarily published electronically. In order to ensure a practical transition from the print scheme to the electronic scheme, all documents having incorporated amendments and corrections more recent than the date of the latest printed issue, have been given the date October An overview of DNV service documents, their update status and historical amendments and corrections may be found through Main changes Since the previous edition (October 2006), this document has been amended, most recently in April All changes have been incorporated and a new date (October 2010) has been given as explained under General. DET NORSKE VERITAS

88 Recommended Practice DNV-RP-F111, October 2010 Page 4 Changes DET NORSKE VERITAS

89 Recommended Practice DNV-RP-F111, October 2010 Contents Page 5 CONTENTS 1. GENERAL Introduction Trawling aspects Scope and application Limitations Relationship to other rules References Trawl-pipeline interaction phases Units Symbols and abbreviations TRAWL DESIGN DATA Types of trawl gear Basic data requirements Most critical trawl gear Trawl gear impact frequency IMPACT Introduction Impact energy Energy dissipation Simplified response calculations PULL-OVER Introduction Structural modelling Pull-over loads for trawl boards and beam trawls Pull-over loads for clump weights Pull-over duration Trawl boards and beam trawls Pull-over duration - clump weight Response calculations HOOKING Introduction Structural model Snagging Critical span height Part penetration Wedged Maximum warp line force Response calculations ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA General Pipe shell - impact Coating - impact Pull-over Hooking COATING IMPACT TESTING General Specimens Test equipment Test procedure Test-rig calibration BIBLIOGRAPHY APP. A ADVANCED IMPACT CALCULATION METHOD APP. B EXAMPLE DET NORSKE VERITAS

90 Recommended Practice DNV-RP-F111, October 2010 Page 6 Contents DET NORSKE VERITAS

91 Recommended Practice DNV-RP-F111, October 2010 Page 7 1. General 1.1 Introduction Fishing activities such as bottom trawling shall be considered for offshore pipelines for two main reasons: m Clump Weight possible hazard and inconvenience to the fishermen in case of trawl gear hooking to the pipeline, and possible hazard to the integrity of the pipeline due to loads from the trawl gear. This Recommended Practice (RP) covers the aspects of pipeline integrity and not the potential hazard for fishermen in particular. Equipment used for bottom trawling can expose a pipeline to substantial loads that may damage it. Such load is associated with the instantaneous impact and the subsequent pull-over as the trawl gear hits and is dragged over the pipeline. In addition, hooking of trawl equipment may impose considerable loading to the pipeline. Typical trawl gears are illustrated in Figures 1-1 to 1-3. Figure 1-1 Typical otter trawl gear crossing a pipeline Figure 1-1 shows a typical otter trawl. The otter trawl board holds the trawl net open by hydrodynamic forces. Such trawl boards are dragged along the seabed and may represent a hazard to the pipeline. Trawl net Trawl net Sweepline Beam Beam Shoe Trawl board Figure 1-2 Typical beam trawl gear crossing a pipeline Warpline Warpline In beam trawling, a transverse steel beam is used to keep the net open as shown in Figure 1-2. Beam shoes are mounted at each end of the beam and represent a substantial hazard to pipelines due to their sharp edges and large kinetic energy. In twin trawling the clump weight shown in Figure 1-3 has a mass typically in the range of 2 to 9 tonnes, and can cause larger impact energy and pull-over loads than trawl boards. Several designs are used, ranging from a clump of chain to spherical or cylindrical rollers. Twin trawling with clump weight is currently not used for industrial trawling, and is hence only relevant in consumption trawl areas. Figure 1-3 Typical twin trawling with clump-weight. Traditionally, pipelines are protected against trawl impact by coating, gravel or burial. As such protection is expensive; there is a need for improvement with respect to design methods and rules for trawl gear interference. This RP gives information on design methods such that unnecessary conservatism may be avoided. At the same time it intends to give a more uniform safety level for the potential failure modes. 1.2 Trawling aspects The authority requirements with respect to interference between trawl gear and pipeline/ subsea structures vary from country to country. In the Norwegian sector, it is required that all subsea installations shall not unnecessarily or to an unreasonable extent impede or obstruct fishing activities, whereas in other countries the authorities allow non-overtrawlable structures (i.e. by applying safety zones and restricted areas on maps, or by using guard vessels). Subsea installations attract fish, and hence fishing activity. A good dialog between the fishing and offshore industries is important in order to ensure safe and cost effective operation for all parties. Examples of elements important to communicate are: pipelines preferably to be routed outside fishing banks whenever practical, and thus, designers need important information about such; the offshore industry needs information on trawl equipment used, to design for appropriate loads and to reduce risk of hooking; new trawling equipment should be designed to minimize risk of hooking pipelines, subsea structures and other seabed obstructions; and development of new trawl equipment may have impact on existing pipeline designs. Trawl velocity and pattern is mainly governed by fish movement pattern, sort of fish to catch (swimming speed), and economic speed of trawl vessels. Therefore, it is not likely that the trawling velocity will increase significantly in the future. Trawling for prawns is typically performed at 2-3 knots (1-1.5 m/s), whereas trawling for fish is performed at up to 5-6 knots (2.8 m/s average). Presently (2005), the heaviest twin trawl equipment has a typical mass up to 9-10 tonnes and is used in the Barents Sea and outside Greenland - mainly trawling for prawn in areas without offshore activities. However, trawlers operating in these areas may also use the same heavy equipment in the North Sea or the Norwegian Sea (i.e. to avoid having two sets of equipment). The weight of the clump weights used is typically % of the total weight of the trawl doors. Trawling along a curved path may cause the trawl equipment path to be considerably different from the path of the vessel. Figure 1-4 illustrates a potential scenario where the trawl vessel turns around a 500 m radius safety zone and causes the trawl equipment to follow a path well within the restricted zone, [9]. It should be noted that trawling inside the safety zones is not allowed. However experience shows that this may occur and should be considered in the design. DET NORSKE VERITAS

92 Recommended Practice DNV-RP-F111, October 2010 Page 8 zone Figure 1-4 Possible trawl vessel and bottom trawl gear positions when fishing around platform safety zone. Trawl interference with pipeline rock-berm and trenches as well as cuttings deposited during well drilling operations and left after removal of installations may represent considerable loading (and potential hooking) to trawl equipment. These aspects are not covered by this RP. 1.3 Scope and application The objective of this RP is to provide rational criteria and guidance on design methods for pipelines subjected to interference from trawling gear; including the impact, pull-over and possible hooking phases. Design criteria are given as well as guidance on applicable calculation methods. For pipelines subjected to global buckling, such as: 1) pipelines with release of effective, compressive axial force (buckling) prior to trawling, or 2) pipelines with release of effective, compressive axial force simultaneously with trawling, i.e. the trawl load triggers global buckling. Global buckling pipeline response analyses is required in combination with the trawl load assessment. The global buckling analyses needs to include sensitivity studies of governing parameters such as pipe to soil interaction in accordance with DNV-RP-F110, to establish the proper functional load condition factor. This document is applicable to rigid pipelines with outer steel diameters larger than 10" (i.e. the smallest pipe diameter tested in model tests have been used as basis for this RP). However, if measures are taken in the analyses to account for scaling effects outside of the model test validity range, the methodology reflected in this RP may still be applicable. Typically, this would involve special assessments of soil to pipe interaction factors (ref. Figure 3-3), global bending stiffness of pipeline and factors related to relative sizes between pipe and trawl equipment. For pipelines with outer steel diameter less than 10", the soil reduction factors based on Figure 3-3 should conservatively be based on 300 mm outer diameter for impact load calculations. Loads and load effects on flexible pipelines can be determined, provided relevant flexibility characteristics and acceptance criteria are specified. Trawl pull-over and hooking may govern the acceptable free span lengths and gaps. These aspects are covered within this RP, while the effect of environmental loads on free spans is covered by DNV-RP-F105. This document does not cover pipeline attachments such as anodes. However, it is envisaged that such equipment is designed for trawl loads both with respect to impact and pullover including abrasion from trawl wire. Additionally, edges and protrusions and or bolts that may snag trawl nets need to be avoided. Further, a methodology for qualifying possible DEH cable attached to the pipeline inside a protective structure is given in Appendix A. This RP is intended for use on a world-wide basis. However, the collection of trawl gear data has been carried out for the North Sea and the Norwegian Sea. Data is given appropriate for otter, beam and twin trawling equipment in use in 2005 and expected for use in the near future in these areas. The following design aspects are considered: coating damage due to impact pipe denting due to impact overstress due to pull-over or hooking. This comprises the following topics: most critical trawl equipment frequency of trawl impacts effective impact energies to be absorbed by the coating and the pipe requirements to structural modelling recommendations for pull-over loads recommendations for lifting heights due to hooking acceptance criteria. Figure 1-5 shows part of a flow chart for a typical pipeline design. After deciding on diameter, material, wall thickness, trenching and coating for weight and insulation, the trawling design is performed. It must be emphasised that the trawl pullover assessment must be based on a realistic estimate of the effective axial force, and any changes due to sagging in spans, lateral buckling, end expansion, changes in operational conditions etc., must be properly accounted for. Unacceptable results from trawl impact, pull-over and/or hooking may change the sequence in this design flow chart (Figure 1-5) as it may have impact on coating and burial of the pipeline. DET NORSKE VERITAS

93 Recommended Practice DNV-RP-F111, October 2010 Page 9 Trenching Expansion OK Yes Burial No Figure 1-5 Flow chart for pipeline design Safety evaluations Flow assurance Material selection Wall thickness design Routing Trench/ Protection / weight coating / wall thickness Intervention Check feasibility wrt. installation 1.4 Limitations This RP gives loads and load effects on pipelines due to trawl gear interference. These loads are related to the size, shape, velocity and mass of the trawling gear. This document is based on data for trawl equipment typically used in the North Sea and the Norwegian Sea up to 2005, however the methods may be used for other geometrically similar equipment as well. The design criteria and associated set of partial safety factors are based on the assumption that load effects are obtained from a state-of-the-art FE-analysis or similar calculation method which includes the most important linear and possible non-linear effects of the considered pipeline section. 1.5 Relationship to other rules This RP replaces the DNV Guideline number 13 issued in 1997, and is a supplement to and complies with the DNV-OS- F101. This document further relates to and harmonises with No No No No No Stability OK Trawling OK Expansion OK Free-span OK the DNV-RP-F110. The NORSOK standard "Subsea Production systems", U-001 gives requirements with respect to interference with trawl gear. Generally, this document is in accordance with the requirements given in the NORSOK standard. However, with regard to trawl impact, pull-over and hooking loads, this RP gives more precise and detailed estimates for the loads which may occur for pipelines while the NORSOK requirements refer to trawl loads on subsea structures. In case of conflict between requirements of this RP and a referenced DNV Offshore Code, the requirements of the code with the latest revision date shall prevail. Any conflict is intended to be removed in next revision of that document. In case of conflict between requirements of this Offshore Code and a non DNV referenced document, the requirements of this Code shall prevail. 1.6 References The latest revision of the following documents apply: DNV Offshore standard DNV-OS-F101 Submarine Pipeline Systems, Det Norske Veritas. DNV Recommended Practice DNV-RP-C205 Environmental Conditions and Environmental Loads, Det Norske Veritas. DNV-RP-F105 Free Spanning Pipelines, Det Norske Veritas. DNV-RP-F110 Global Buckling of Submarine Pipelines, Det Norske Veritas. Other standards NORSOK, Standard, "Subsea Production systems", U Trawl-pipeline interaction phases When bottom trawl gear is towed across a pipeline, the interaction may conveniently be divided into two stages: impact and pull-over. As a special case hooking may occur. Impact, i.e. the initial impact phase when a trawl board, beam shoe or clump weight hits a pipeline. This phase typically lasts some hundredths of a second. It is mainly the local resistance of the pipe shell, including any protective coating and/ or attached electric cable protection structure that is mobilised to resist the impact force. Pull-over, i.e. the second phase where the trawl board, beam trawl or clump weight is pulled over the pipeline. This phase can last from about 1 second to some 10 seconds, dependent on the water depth, span height, and other factors. This will usually give a more global response of the pipeline. Hooking, i.e. a situation whereby the trawl equipment is "stuck" under the pipeline. This is a seldom occurring accidental situation where forces as large as the breaking strength of the warp line may be applied to the pipeline in extreme cases. An overview of the design process for pipelines with respect to interference with trawl gear is shown in Figure 1-6. First, trawl equipment characteristics and frequency must be established. Then, analysis and design with respect to impact, pull-over and hooking is conducted. The impact energy to be used in testing of coated pipe sections is calculated. The effect of pull-over is found through global analysis. The capacity to resist possible hooking is checked by applying a certain lifting height. DET NORSKE VERITAS

94 Recommended Practice DNV-RP-F111, October 2010 Page 10 Redesign Trawl equipment Size, mass, frequency, etc. (Sect. 2.) Redesign Pipeline parameters Safety class, diameter, thickness, coating, etc. (Sect. 2.) Impact (Sect. 3) Pull-over (Sect. 4) Hooking (Sect. 5) Simplified calculations (Sect. 3) Critical spans (Sect. 5.5 & 5.6) NO OK YES Height 1 Height 2 Advanced analyses Absorbed energy and dent depths (Appendix A) Dynamic analyses FE-calculations check of limit states (Appendix A) Lift analyses Trawl board wedged or penetrated check of limit states (Appendix A) NO OK NO OK OK NO YES Verifying coating Tests (Sect. 7) YES YES NO OK YES Successful design Figure 1-6 Overview of the design of pipelines with respect to interference with trawl gear. 1.8 Units The international system of units (SI system) is applied throughout this document (e.g. length in meters, mass in kilograms, time in seconds and force in Newton). DET NORSKE VERITAS

95 Recommended Practice DNV-RP-F111, October 2010 Page Symbols and abbreviations The following definitions apply: A clump A e A i A w B C b C F C h C T d D E E a E DEH E loc E s f imp F b F sh f T F p F z f y f y, temp g H h h H a H cr H i H l H p,c H sp H t I k b k c1 k c2 k c3 k i k pb k ps k s k w L L clump clump weight dimension, gap between roller and pipeline contact point (see Figure 4-1) cross-sectional area of the steel pipe exposed to external pressure cross-sectional area exposed to internal pressure warp line cross-sectional area half height of trawl board coefficient of effective beam trawl mass during impact coefficient of pull-over force coefficient of effect of span height on impact velocity coefficient for pull-over duration water depth steel pipe nominal outside diameter Young s modulus impact energy due to hydrodynamic added mass impact energy absorbed locally by the DEH cable including protection structure impact energy absorbed locally by the pipe shell and coating impact energy due to steel mass of trawl board, beam with shoe or clump weight trawl gear impact frequency impact force due to trawl board bending action maximum impact force experienced by the pipe shell trawl frequency per considered section, see Sec.6.4. maximum pull-over force on pipe, horizontal direction maximum pull-over force on pipe, vertical direction (note positive down) yield stress to be used in design f y = (SMYS - f y, temp ) α U derating value due to the temperature of the yield stress gravitational acceleration dimensionless height (= (H sp + OD/2+0.2)/B) trawl board height (=2B) dimensionless moment arm, to calculate clump weight pull-over load height of attachment point of warp to beam trawl critical free span height for hooking impact hammer pendulum height lifting height during hooking permanent dent depth (characteristic value) span height (pipeline to seabed gap) dent depth (elastic and plastic) trawl vessel density (annual mean no. of trawlers per unit seabed area) out-of-plane stiffness of trawl board stiffness of protection cover for heating cables attached to the pipeline (when applicable) coating stiffness coating stiffness due to interaction effects between coating and steel pipe in-plane stiffness of trawl board effective bending stiffness of pipe in impact calculation (time dependent) effective soil stiffness applied to pipe in impact calculation (time dependent) local shell stiffness of steel pipe stiffness of trawl warp trawl board length, beam length or clump weight width distance from clump weight interaction point with pipeline to clump weight centre of gravity (See Figure 4-1) L w M t M td m a m h m t m 1 m 2 n cap n g n mean N OD p e p i R fa R fs S Su t t nom t corr T p V α e α U δ p γ A γ C γ F η ϕ φ σ warp line length moment resulting from trawl pull-over load design moment for resulting from trawl pull-over load hydrodynamic added mass of trawl board or beam mass of test impact hammer steel mass of trawl gear mass of test rig pipe support mass of test rig floor capacity of coated pipe expressed as number of repeated impacts to failure number of trawl boards, beam shoes or clump weights per trawl vessel mean number of impacts of coating before failure axial force in pipe wall (true force) (tension is positive) overall outside diameter of pipeline, including coating external pressure characteristic internal pressure reduction factor for impact energy associated with hydrodynamic added mass reduction factor for impact energy associated with steel mass effective axial force (tension is positive) soil undrained shear strength pipe wall thickness (steel), t = t nom - t corr (i.e. equivalent to t 2 in DNV-OS-F101) nominal thickness of the pipe (uncorroded) corrosion allowance pull-over duration tow velocity of trawler proportion of pipeline length exposed to trawl interference (not buried or protected e.g. by rock cover) Material strength factor, ref. DNV-OS-F101: α U = 0.96, except for pipeline material fulfilling supplementary requirements U, where α U = 1.0 global deflection of pipe at point of trawl pull-over load effect factor, for trawl load classified as accidental (γ A = 1.0) load condition factor, ref. DNV-OS-F101 load effect factor, with the trawl load classified as a functional load usage factor prevailing trawl direction relative to the pipeline perpendicular soil internal friction angle standard deviation for impact test results DEH Direct Electrical Heating FE finite element ROV remotely operated vehicle RP Recommended Practice SCF stress concentration factor SMYS specified minimum yield strength Polymer materials such as rubber and plastics Characteristic load the reference value of a load to be used in the determination of load effects Load effect effect of a single load or combination of loads on the equipment system, such as stress, strain, deformation, displacement, motion, etc. Load effect factor the partial safety factor by which the characteristic load effect is multiplied to obtain the design load effect. Industrial trawling catch for industrial production (e.g. oil, meal, animal food) Consumption trawling catch for food commerce DET NORSKE VERITAS

96 Recommended Practice DNV-RP-F111, October 2010 Page Trawl Design Data 2.1 Types of trawl gear There are two main categories of bottom trawl gears of concern in the North Sea and the Norwegian Sea; conventional otter trawl gear, and beam trawl gear used in southern part of the North Sea. These differ in the way the trawl net is kept open: fish which governs the trawl type and thereby the board size and trawling velocity. A typical beam trawl shoe and its components are shown in Figure 2-2. Beam trawls are developed to catch various species of flat fish. They are mainly used on flat, sandy seabed in shallow waters in the southern parts of the North Sea. Otter trawls by use of trawl boards Beam trawls by use of transverse beams In addition, the use of pair trawling by two ships and twin rig set-ups has developed in recent years. Such gear must be accounted for if heavy clump weights are used in order to force the trawl net down. The size and design of such clump weights varies. Otter trawling in these areas is carried out with a range of ship sizes and types of gear. Typical types of ships and gear are: Consumption trawlers which have the largest equipment Industrial trawlers Prawn trawlers (operate in the deep water of the Norwegian trench and closer to the coast). Figure 2-2 Typical outline of a beam trawl shoe Typical clump weights are shown in Figure 2-3 and Figure 2-4. Various trawl board designs exist, however two major types, polyvalent / rectangular and V-shaped boards, are in common use. The polyvalent boards have generally been found to give the highest loads on pipelines. Figure 2-1 shows two typical trawl boards used in the North Sea and the Norwegian Sea. In recent years, trawl boards with spoilers have been developed, to improve the efficiency of the hydrodynamic force and thereby reduce drag forces and trawler fuel consumption. Figure 2-3 Typical clump weight (Bobbin type) Trawl direction Figure 2-4 Typical clump weight (Roller type) Figure 2-1 Typical Consumption trawl boards: Polyvalent (upper) and V-board (lower). The size of the trawl board mainly depends on the type of trawl net being used. No depth dependency for trawl board sizes and velocities has been found. It is rather the type and quantity of 2.2 Basic data requirements Before calculating the load and load effects of the pipeline some basic data with respect to expected trawling along the pipeline route has to be established. These shall include, but not be limited to, data along the route for: trawling category (i.e. industrial or consumption trawling with otter, beam trawl gear, or pair / twin trawling with clump weight) trawling equipment in use (type, shape, size, mass, trawling speeds) expected frequency of trawl gear crossing over the pipeline; and DET NORSKE VERITAS

97 Recommended Practice DNV-RP-F111, October 2010 Page 13 expected or possible developments or changes in the foreseen trawling equipment or frequency (e.g. new equipment, larger vessels, increased frequency, etc.). The route should be divided into subsections categorised in a suitable manner with respect to the above factors. Data shall be obtained from the relevant authorities. The design process shall ensure that the collected data are relevant and up to date. If development of trawl equipment deviates from design assumptions, the need for reanalyses to account for these (e.g. trawl equipment type, mass, velocity and frequency) has to be considered. 2.3 Most critical trawl gear It should be observed; when considering the most critical trawling equipment, velocities, impact frequencies and area of application; that these parameters are subject to change. As an example, the largest trawl board in the North Sea and the Norwegian Sea has increased from about kg in the late 70's and 80's to kg in In the Barents Sea trawl boards up to kg are currently being used. Development of fishing technology may open new areas for fishing, while international and national laws and regulations may introduce changes in fishing activity in certain areas. It is therefore essential to establish relevant data for trawl equipment and to assess possible future development and its impact on trawl-pipeline interaction. Table 2-1 lists the appropriate data for the largest trawl boards, beam trawls and clump weights in use in the North Sea and the Norwegian Sea in However, the following area specific trawl data needs to be investigated for each project: the types and maximum size of trawl gear normally used in the area future trends (new types, mass, velocity and shape) the trawling frequency in the area. Table 2-1 Data for largest trawl gears in use in the North Sea and the Norwegian Sea in 2005 Consumption Industrial Beam Clump weight Mass [kg] Dimension Lxh [m] ) 1) Trawl velocity [m/s] ) Typical dimension of the largest clump weights of 9 tonnes are L = 4 m wide (i.e. length of roller) by 0.76 meter diameter cross section. For smaller size roller type clump weights (i.e to kg), the width L is typically 3.2 m, whereas the roller diameter is unchanged. 2) Beam trawl length (i.e. distance between outside of each shoe) 2.4 Trawl gear impact frequency Due to evolution of fishing equipment and change in fishing stocks, the trawling frequency may change significantly during the lifetime of the pipeline. The following aspects should be addressed to obtain a good estimate of the frequency of interference (hereafter termed the trawl gear impact frequency) between the pipeline and trawl gear: fishing vessel density in the relevant area prevailing trawling direction relative to the pipeline distribution of different trawl equipment and sizes If this information is not available, the highest frequency class according to Section 6 shall be used. An estimate of the trawl gear impact frequency, f imp, is: fimp = ng I V αe cosϕ (2.1) where n g is the number of trawl boards, beam shoes or clump weight for each vessel, I is the expected trawler density (i.e. annual mean number of trawlers per unit seabed area), V is the trawling velocity, α e is the proportion of the pipeline length exposed to trawl loads, and ϕ is angle of the prevailing trawling direction relative to the pipeline perpendicular. If sufficient information is available a distribution function for the trawling directions can be applied instead of the cos ϕ term. ϕ applied in Eq. (2.1) should not be taken larger than Impact 3.1 Introduction The impact loads are associated with the transfer of kinetic energy from the impacting trawl board, beam shoe or clump weight to the pipe, its coating, possibly DEH cable protection structures and the soil. Generally the time of energy transfer is so short that most of the energy transferred is absorbed as local deformations. For smaller diameter pipelines some energy is also absorbed by global deformation of the pipe and in the soil. The impact assessment covers the following main steps: calculate the impact energy level the system will absorb from considered trawl gear interference, as basis for the impact test specifications calculate the pipe steel wall capacity with respect to specified denting acceptance criterion. The methods included here are based on the theoretical work presented in [1] and [4]. 3.2 Impact energy The impact direction and the amount of energy transferred to the pipe coating depend in general on the shape of the front of the trawl board, clump weight or beam shoe, on the pipe diameter and span height and on the direction of travel relative to the pipeline. The impact energy constitutes effective masses with an effective velocity. The total effective mass consists of the steel mass of the board/beam/clump and the hydrodynamic added mass, including mass of entrained water. The effective velocity may be taken as the towing velocity component normal to the pipeline. The effective masses and velocity may be obtained through simulation of the trawl gear-pipeline interaction. Alternatively Table 3-1 gives design data which can be applied if no more detailed information is available. It is emphasised that trawl gear data differs per location, and may change in future. Therefore, area specific trawl data that accounts for future development should be established. 3.3 Energy dissipation The kinetic energy of the trawl gear may partly or entirely be dissipated during the impact by: deformation of trawl equipment deformation of protection cover for attached heating cables etc. deformation of coatings (i.e. corrosion-, weight-, thermal insulation- and / or field joint coating) elastic deformation and possibly plastic denting of pipe steel wall global deflection of the pipeline, including soil friction effects; and / or deformation of soil. Each of these elements needs to be represented by equivalent characteristics (spring stiffness, mass etc.), when applying the advanced impact assessment method given in Appendix A. The spring characteristic should be based on tests or equivalent DET NORSKE VERITAS

98 Recommended Practice DNV-RP-F111, October 2010 Page 14 analysis to establish the representative load displacement characteristics - including nonlinear effects. For cable protection covers, the load / displacement level at which load is transferred directly to the cable needs to be accounted for. The impact energy assessment gives the total energy that the considered system will absorb, which is used as basis for the energy level to be applied in the impact testing. Elements with low stiffness, such as field joint coatings and cable protection covers may increase the total energy absorbed by the pipeline, although the energy absorbed by the pipe steel wall may decrease. Table 3-1 Design parameters for trawl gear impact Parameters Consumption Industrial Beam Clump weight Shape of board Polyvalent & V-board rectangular Direction of impact ϕ deg Effective impact velocity: m/s 2.8 C 1) h 2.8 C 1) h 1.8 C 1) h Steel mass: m t kg In plane stiffness: k i MN/m ) Bending board stiffness: k b MN/m Hydrodynamic added mass: m a kg 2.14 m t 1.60 m t 2.90 m 5) t 2.14 m t ) ) 4) 1) The factor C h is given by Figure ) The largest clump weights used per 2005 are the "roller type", see Figure 2-4. The specified clump weight stiffness is conservatively based on the stiffness of the corner plate. Alternatively, more advanced dynamic analyses with less conservatism can be performed, accounting for flexibility of the clump weight structure absorbing some amount of energy (if available), and considering the two scenarios, see Figure 3-2: a) Base case: Trawl direction normal to the pipeline, single point impact at mid-span of clump weight. Effective clump weight mass is equal to the total steel mass. b) For locations with prevailing trawl direction inclined to the pipeline, impact energies may be distributed into two frequency classes, one normal to the pipeline and one oblique to the pipeline axis. The latter implies impact at clump weight corner, causing in-plane rotation of the clump weight. Effective clump weight mass may then be approximated as ½ the total steel mass. For impact directions oblique to the pipeline, the velocity component normal to the pipeline may be used. 3) Based on sea water volume of roller cylinder (diameter 0.76 m, and length 3.14 m), calculated in accordance with DNV-RP-C205. Factor to account for seabed proximity is taken as 2.29 and reduction factor to account for length of cylinder is 0.8. Note, for reference an equivalent clump weight of mass of kg has an estimated hydrodynamic added mass and mass of entrained water of kg (i.e. based on roller diameter 0.76 m, length 2.34 m, and mass of entrained water of 890 kg). 4) Includes mass of water entrained in the hollow section. For the kg clump weights, the mass of the entrained water estimated as 465 kg (ref. manufacturer). For an equivalent kg clump weight, the mass of the entrained water is specified as 890 kg. 5) For V-boards up to kg mass, hydrodynamic mass to be taken as 2.9 m t, for larger polyvalent boards 2.14 m t may be assumed. C h V-board Polyvalent board (consumption) Span Height (m) Figure 3-1 C h coefficient for effect of span height on impact velocity DET NORSKE VERITAS

99 Recommended Practice DNV-RP-F111, October 2010 Page 15 Impact scenario 1: Warp line Impact scenario 2: Warp line Pipeline Pipeline Clump weight, 9 tonnes, 2.8 m/s Clump weight, 9 tonnes, 2.8 m/s Sweep line Sweep line Clump weight corner hitting the pipeline, giving reduced impact energy (i.e. due to reduced effective mass by approx. 50 %,). Sweep line Sweep line Centre warp line bracket of clump weight, hitting perpendicular on pipeline i.e. no reduction in impact energy due to rotation of clump weight. a) Clump weight front frame plate (typ mm thick) with warp line pad-eye hit the pipeline c) Impact configuration at spans, for different pipeline diameters Warp line OD Pipeline Clump weight Impact energy absorbed by pipeline depends on pipeline diameter relative to clump weight geometry. b) b) Clump Clump weight weight roller roller hit hit partly partly submerged penetrated and into / soil or small and/or diameter small diameter pipeline pipeline. Warp line Clump weight Seabed Pipeline Figure 3-2 Relevant clump weight impact configurations 3.4 Simplified response calculations General The impact assessment methodology given in the following applies for steel pipelines (i.e. bare pipes, painted pipes and pipes with thin corrosion coating and / or with concrete coating). For other configurations (e.g. pipeline with other coatings, or pipelines with piggy-back electrical cable with protection structure) special assessments are required, see Appendix A. The following simple, conservative method may be used to calculate the energy absorbed by the pipe locally, assuming that the pipe deforms locally by indentation, and that all the impact energy is absorbed through such a deformation. Correction factors for energy absorbed by global pipeline deformation and in the soil may be found (ref. R fs and R fa ) in Figure 3-3. Alternatively, the pipeline response may be assessed through more advanced analyses, as described in Appendix A Trawl board The impact energy associated with the steel mass of the trawl board is: E = R s fs 1 2 m ( C V ) 2 t h where m t is the trawl board steel mass. R fs is a reduction factor depending on the outer pipe diameter and given in Figure 3-3 for bare steel pipes and pipes coated with concrete. For softer coatings, e.g. polymers, R fs should be assessed but can conservatively be set to 1.0. C h is span height correction factor for the effective pull-over velocity, see Figure 3-1. Guidance note: For pipelines with outer diameter less than 300 mm, the reduction factors given in Figure 3-3 for 300 mm could conservatively be used, unless otherwise documented. ---e-n-d---of---g-u-i-d-a-n-c-e---n-o-t-e--- (3.1) DET NORSKE VERITAS

100 Recommended Practice DNV-RP-F111, October 2010 Page Reduction factor, R fs and R fa sand (any friction angle) or clay (Su=50kPa) or free spanning pipes Outer Diameter [mm] Figure 3-3 Reduction factors for concrete coated and bare steel pipes. Added mass, R fa Steel mass, R fs clay (Su=50kPa) sand (φ=50 o ) or clay (Su=35 kpa) sand emb (φ 35 o ) or clay (Su=15 kpa) clay (Su 5kPa) or free spanning pipes Notes to the reduction factors: 1. For clay stiffness values above Su=50 kpa and on rocky seabed the reduction factor is to be taken as unity (1.0) 2. φ=35 o (for sand) or Su=5 kpa (for clay) is to be used as a minimum for the reduction factor. The reduction factor shall not be taken as less than For soil values inbetween linear interpolation shall be used. The main contribution of the hydrodynamic added mass is in the direction perpendicular to the board and is activated through lateral bending of the board. The impact force associated with the hydrodynamic added mass of the trawl board may be estimated as: Appropriate parameters are given in Table 3-1. Eq. (3.5) is conservatively based on a relationship between the impact force and associated indentation of the pipe representative for a bare steel pipe: F b = C h V m a k b (3.2) Fsh 3 2 = 5 f y t H t 1 2 (3.5) The associated impact energy from added mass of the trawl board is: E where: a = R fa 2( F ) 75 f t 3 b 2 y 3 where m a is the trawl board added mass, t the steel wall thickness (i.e. to be taken as the nominal wall thickness minus the corrosion allowance) and k b the lateral bending stiffness of the board. α U is the material strength factor, ref. DNV-OS-F101. f y,temp is the temperature derating value of the yield stress. α U = 0.96, except for pipeline material fulfilling supplementary requirements U, where α U = 1.0. R fa is a reduction factor depending on the pipe diameter and the soil type which is given by Figure 3-3 for bare steel pipes and pipes coated with concrete. For softer coatings, e.g. polymers, R fa should be assessed but can conservatively be set to m ( C V ) Guidance note: The pipe wall thickness to be applied is t = t nom - t corr, however if more detailed knowledge on corrosion mechanism exists, e.g. that corrosion is limited to grooves at 6 and/ or 12 o'clock position and is concluded to cause minor reduction in trawl load capacity, applying t = t nom may be acceptable. ---e-n-d---of---g-u-i-d-a-n-c-e---n-o-t-e--- a (3.3) f y = (SMYS - f y, temp ) α U (3.4) h 2 Here, F sh is the impact force experienced by the pipe shell and H t is the dent depth (i.e. both elastic and permanent). A conservative estimate of the kinetic energy absorbed by local deformations of the coating and the pipe wall is found by taking the maximum of E s and E a : E loc E = max E s a (3.6) Beam trawl For beam trawls, the impact energy absorbed by the pipe and its coating may be calculated as: E loc = R fs (3.7) where C b is a factor taking into account the effective mass and may conservatively be set equal to 0.5 if a more precise estimate is not available. m t is the steel mass of the beam trawl inclusive shoes, and m a is the hydrodynamic added mass including the mass of water entrained in the hollow beam Clump weights For clump weights, the total absorbed energy can be calculated as: E loc = R fs 1 C m m 2 b t + a ) ( V 1 m m 2 t + a ) ( V 2 2 (3.8) DET NORSKE VERITAS

101 Recommended Practice DNV-RP-F111, October 2010 Page 17 where m t is the dry steel weight of the clump weight, and m a is the hydrodynamic added mass including the mass of water entrained in the hollow sections. The added mass can be estimated as the mass of the displaced sea water volume, multiplied by a factor 2.29 for proximity to sea bed and a factor 0.8 for limited length, according to DNV- RP-C205. The mass of entrained water is given in Table 3-1. The effective impact mass (m t + m a ), the local stiffness and the in-plane stiffness of the clump weight depend on impact configuration as shown in Figure 3-2. The clump weight mass and stiffness given in Table 3-1 are conservative. Less conservative values may be adopted based on dynamic simulations or tests of actual configuration. Two impact scenarios are considered relevant for clump weights (see Figure 3-2): Trawl direction normal to the pipeline, with the clump weight hitting with its total mass at centre of the clump weight. Typically, the warp line pad-eye protrudes causing a single point contact. If there are no protrusions, the impact load transfer will be distributed over a larger area and hence becomes less critical. Trawl direction at an inclined angle to the pipeline, with the corner of the clump weight hitting the pipeline. The impact energy will be reduced from rotation of the clump weight. For scenarios where the pipeline interferes with the roller directly (e.g. for partly buried and / or smaller diameter pipelines, see Figure 3-2 b) the clump weight will roll over and cause smaller loads to the pipeline, than for interference with the structural frame of the clump weight as illustrated in Figure 3-2 a and c. The governing impact scenario depends on type of clump weight, relative height of clump weight versus pipeline diameter, trawl direction, span height etc. The clump weight impact specification given in Table 3-1 are based on conservative estimates. Less conservative values may be adopted, if documented by representative tests or dynamic simulations Pipe shell indentation If no detailed relationship between the impact force and associated indentation of the steel pipe wall is available, the permanent indentation of the pipe shell caused by the impact may be estimated as: 2 F F D H = sh sh p, c 3/ 2 3/ 2 5 f y t 5 f y t (3.9) where H p,c is the estimated permanent plastic dent depth and: F sh / 3 E f 2 loc y ) = ( t (3.10) Eq. (3.9) and (3.10) are valid for bare steel pipes. Pipes with thick polymer coating will in general be subjected to smaller impact loads but absorb more energy. The latter is caused by the significant energy absorption in the coating. Therefore, the above simplified approach may give non-conservative results for such coatings, and the advanced method given in Appendix A should be applied. Similar comments apply to DEH cable protection structures. This simplified analysis will lead to increasingly conservative results for smaller and lighter pipes. In this case the advanced assessment (Appendix A) is recommended. 4. Pull-over 4.1 Introduction Pull-over analysis deals with the global response of the pipeline as the trawl gear is pulled/ forced to cross over the pipe. During this phase, the pipeline may be subjected to relatively large horizontal (lateral) and vertical forces. The pull-over calculation procedure for trawl boards is based on both experimental [3, 5, 6] and theoretical work [7, 8], the basis for beam trawls is tests [1, 2], while the basis for the clump weights is established as part of specific field development projects in the Norwegian Sea. 4.2 Structural modelling The structural behaviour of the pipeline during pull-over shall be evaluated by modelling a sufficiently large part of the pipeline, the seabed and other supports and performing a structural dynamic analysis by applying the pull-over load (static analysis is likely to be non-conservative). The most critical position for trawl pull-over depends on: length, height and shoulder supports of free spans; effective axial force; lateral curvature of the pipeline; and lateral or axial supports or restraints. The pull-over load for trawl boards and clump weights shall be applied as a single point load while the pull-over load for beam trawls may be applied as two concentrated loads at a distance equal to the width of the trawl beam and with half the pull-over force at each position. All relevant non-linear effects shall be taken into account in the analysis of trawl gear pull-over. These may be, but not restricted to: buckling effects caused by effective axial force; large displacements including geometrical stiffness; soil resistance; and non-linear material behaviour The effective axial force must be accounted for: S = N p A + p A i i (4.1) where p i and p e denote the internal and external pressures and A i and A e the corresponding cross-section areas of the steel pipe exposed to internal and external pressure, respectively. For more details, see DNV-OS-F101. The boundary conditions at the ends of the pipeline model shall be sufficient to represent the pipe-soil interaction and the continuity of the whole pipeline length. In case of buckling it is important to model a sufficient length of the pipeline (anchor length) or by alternative boundary conditions allow the buckled section to be exposed to the potential axial feed-in. Due to erosion/scouring, free spans may develop over time and change the pipe-soil interaction. This must be accounted for in the analysis/modelling of trawl pull-over. 4.3 Pull-over loads for trawl boards and beam trawls Pull-over loads may be assessed through model tests or numerical simulations. Alternatively, if the flexibility of potential free-spans is not dominating, the method given below may be used for 10" to 40" pipelines. The maximum horizontal force applied to the pipe, F p, is given by: e e DET NORSKE VERITAS

102 Recommended Practice DNV-RP-F111, October 2010 Page 18 Trawl boards: F p = C Beam trawls: F p = C F F V where k w is the warp line stiffness and V the trawling velocity. m t is the steel mass of board or beam with shoes, and m a is the hydrodynamic added mass and mass of entrained water. The empirical coefficient C F is a function of trawl gear type and some geometrical parameters characterising the trawl-pipeline interaction. For trawl boards this coefficient is: For polyvalent and rectangular boards: For V-shaped boards: and H is a dimensionless height: Here, H sp is the span height (negative for partly buried and trenched pipelines), OD the pipe outer diameter including coating and B is half the trawl board height. The span height should represent a conservative estimate to account for uncertainties (e.g. survey inaccuracy). Trawl loads on trenched or partly buried pipelines have not been covered by the model tests used as the basis for this RP. For partly buried and or trenched pipelines, this may be simulated by specifying a negative span height, H sp, in the pull-over load calculations. For beam trawls: With hoop bars: V ( m kw) t 1/ 2 1/ 2 [ m + m ) k ] ( t a w 0.8 H C F = 8.0 (1 e ) 1.1 H C F = 5.8 (1 e ) H sp + OD / H = B (4.2) (4.3) (4.4) (4.5) (4.6) better information is available, the warp stiffness of one single wire (typically mm diameter) may be calculated as: k w = Lw where L w is the length of the warp line in meters. Typically, the warp line length is 2.5 to 3.5 times the water depth. The wire length is relatively longer in shallow water (i.e. 2.5 times is for deep water applications). It should be considered that two or three 32 mm diameter wires are commonly used as warp lines for beam trawls. The warp line stiffness given above is based on the assumption of a straight wire between the bottom trawl gear and the vessel. In case of a catenary shaped warp line, the stiffness will be lower which again will cause a lower pull-over force. In case such a reduced stiffness shall be applied, the weight of the wire, the warp line force and the drag load caused by combination of trawling velocity and current have to be accounted for. For trawl boards the maximum vertical force acting in the downward direction can be estimated as: Polyvalent and rectangular boards: F z = F ( e V-shaped boards: p 1 Fz = F 2 p [N/m] (4.9) 2.5 H (4.10) (4.11) This downward acting force may be assumed to have the same force-time history as the corresponding horizontal force. The pull-over forces given by Eq. (4.2) to (4.11) are valid for one trawl board while for beam trawls these equations give the total pull-over force from both beam shoes. 4.4 Pull-over loads for clump weights As for trawl boards and beam trawls the pull-over loads may be assessed through model tests or numerical simulation. Alternatively, if the flexibility of potential free-spans is not dominating, the method given below may be used for pipes of 10" to 40" diameter (i.e. range of dimensions used in the model tests to derive pull-over loads from clump weights) as long as the clump weight is of the sphere/bobbin or roller type. ) 4.0 CF = 6.0 OD/ H a 3.0 OD / Ha < 2 for 2 < OD / H a < 3 (4.7) OD / H a > 3 L clump Warp line Without hoop bars: 5.0 CF = OD / H a 3.5 OD / H a < 2 for 2 < OD / H a < 3 (4.8) OD / H a > 3 C F shall be taken as for beam trawls without hoop bars if it is not assured that all beam trawls in the relevant area have such bars installed. If no better information is available, the attachment point of the warp line, H a, may be set to 0.2 meters. The warp stiffness, k w, is estimated as k w = EA w /L w, where EA w is the axial stiffness of the warp and L w its length. If no Clump weight Centre of gravity Seabed Figure 4-1 Clump weight interaction with pipeline F z m t g F p A clump OD Pipeline H sp DET NORSKE VERITAS

103 Recommended Practice DNV-RP-F111, October 2010 Page 19 The estimate for the maximum horizontal pipeline pull-over force from clump weights is given below: Force [N] V- board Fp = 3.9 mt g 1.8 h' ( 1 e ) 0.65 OD Lclump (4.12) F p, F z ( H sp + OD) Lclump h = / (4.13) P- board where (see Figure 4-1) OD is the outer diameter of pipe including coating, and L clump is the distance from reaction point to centre of gravity of the clump weight, m t is the steel mass and g is the gravitational acceleration. The distance from the reaction point to the centre of gravity of the clump weight can be taken as: Time [s] 0.2s 0.6s Figure 4-2 Sketch of force-time history for otter trawl board pull-over force on pipeline. (Applies for both lateral and vertical pull-over forces, F p and F z ). T p L clump = 0. 7 [ m] - roller type (4.14) Force (N) L clump = [ m] - sphere/bobbin type (4.15) F p Note that L clump is constant, and not to be scaled for other sizes of clump weights, unless more specific data is available. 0.7F p Further, the model tests are base on roller type clump weight drum diameter of 0.76 m. To account for larger drum diameters, this may be approximated by linear scaling: Roller type clump weight: 0.6T T p Time (s) Lclump 0.5 Ddrum + Aclump = [ m] (4.16) Figure 4-3 Sketch of force-time history for beam trawl pull-over force on pipeline Bobbin type clump weight: 0.5 Ddrum + Aclump Lclump = [ m] (4.17) The total pull-over time, T p, is given by: T p 1/ 2 = C C ( m / k ) +δ / V T F t w p (4.20) where 0.32 and 0.28 are the un-scaled lengths. A clump, for the roller- and bobbin type clump weights respectively (see Figure 4-1), whereas D drum and A clump represents the new dimensions for the clump weight with larger drum/ sphere diameter. The maximum upward (vertical) pull-over force for clump weights is estimated by: F z = 0.3F 0. 4 m g p t (4.18) While the maximum downward force (i.e. negative sign) becomes: F z = 0.1F 1. 1 m g p t (4.19) In each case it should be considered if the upward or the downward force will give the most critical load combination. 4.5 Pull-over duration Trawl boards and beam trawls The force-time history of the horizontal and vertical force applied to the pipe is shown in Figures 4-2 and 4-3 for trawl boards and beam trawls, respectively. Note that the same coefficient, C F, is used as for the forces and is given by Eq. (4.4) to (4.8). δ p is the displacement of the pipe at the point of interaction which is unknown prior to response simulations. Therefore, the value of δ p /V must be assumed (e.g. as C T C F (m t /k w ) 1/2 /10) and may be corrected after response simulations in some sort of iterative approach. However, the response has normally been shown to be rather insensitive to realistic values of δ p. The coefficient for the pull-over duration, C T, is given as: C T = trawl boards (4.21) C T = beam trawls (4.22) The fall time for trawl boards may be taken as 0.6 seconds, unless the total pull-over time given by Eq. (4.20) is less than this, in which case the fall time should be equal to the total time but still allowing for some force build-up say 0.1 second. Care should be taken in case of very short pull-over durations. A sensitivity check with respect to the duration is recommended, especially if the duration is close to half the natural vibration period of a span. 4.6 Pull-over duration - clump weight The model tests shows that the clump weight can be represented as a quasi-static load, and dynamic loading effects are not significant during the pull-over. First the clump weight DET NORSKE VERITAS

104 Recommended Practice DNV-RP-F111, October 2010 Page 20 stops in the collision, then the warp line is tightened until the clump weight is rotated over the pipeline. However, the pipeline response may be dynamic, e.g. if global buckling is triggered. Thus, the following parameters are governing for the pull-over duration. trawl velocity pipeline induced movement at interaction warp line stiffness clump mass The pull-over duration of a bobbin and roller type clump weight can be calculated as: Tp = Fp /( kw V) + δ p / V (4.23) where, as for trawl boards and beam trawls, δ p is the displacement of the pipe at the point of interaction which is unknown prior to response simulations. Therefore, the value of δ p /V must be assumed (e.g. δ p /V = 0.1F p / (k w V)) and may be corrected after response simulations in some sort of iterative approach. The force-time history of the pull-over force for clump weights is shown in Figure 4-4 below. Force [N] F p 0.5F p 0.2s Time [s] 0.6s Figure 4-4 Sketch of force-time history for clump weight pull-over force on pipeline (Applies for both lateral and vertical pull-over forces, F p and F z ). 4.7 Response calculations Inertia forces reduce global response but may cause localisation of bending, such that it is uncertain whether neglecting inertia will be conservative or not. Therefore it is recommended to conduct the pull-over analyses as dynamic analyses. Pipeline deflection and resulting bending moment from pullover loads depend on axial and lateral soil resistance: a lower bound axial friction is conservative with respect to pipeline displacement a lower bound lateral soil resistance may be conservative with respect to bending moment from the pull-over force alone, but may be non-conservative if the displacement is dominated by the compressive axial force in the pipeline. A sensitivity study needs to be performed, analysing the pipeline response from pull-over loads considering both upper- and lower bound lateral soil resistance, combined with the lower bound axial friction. The global analysis needs to include sensitivity studies of governing parameters such as pipe to soil interaction, to establish the proper functional load condition factor. The soil resistance applied in the structural model shall take into account the short duration of the pull-over load. In case of pipeline sections exposed to global buckling due to temperature and/or pressure loads, trawl pull-over may trigger lateral buckling, and reference is made to the design methodology and design criteria in DNV-RP-F110. T p The pull-over analysis shall consider effects from subsequent trawl pull-over considering the deformed shape from a previous pull-over and the most critical direction for subsequent crossings. The number of subsequent pull-over events shall consider the expected number of trawl gear interactions over the design life for the relevant section. 5. Hooking 5.1 Introduction Trawl gear hooking of pipelines, such that the trawl gear gets stuck, is a rarely occurring event. As an example there were reported a total of 7 events of trawling gear hooking on the Norwegian Continental Shelf related to pipelines from 2000 to In this context, hooking is defined as the condition where the trawl gear is wedged under the pipeline, the trawler is forced to stop, back up, and attempt to free the gear by winch in the warp line (usually lift directly up). The most likely scenarios for hooking, according to observation from small scale and field tests are: a de-stabilised trawl board (dragged on its back along the seabed) approaches a pipeline on the seabed or a free spanning pipeline with a small gap. The trawl board may dig under the pipeline and get hooked. the crossing angle with the pipeline is less than 45 and the pipeline is free spanning. The warp line lifts the trawl board off the seabed, it slides along the pipeline, becomes de-stabilised, turns over and slides underneath the pipeline until it gets wedged at the span shoulder. For this reason free spans represent an increased risk of hooking. However, even for pipelines resting on the seabed, hooking cannot be ignored. A trawl-board may become unstable and partly penetrate underneath the pipeline. Such a scenario is most likely when the board is towed in a direction almost parallel to the pipeline or there are several pipelines or other seabed obstructions in the area. A typical hooking scenario at a free span is illustrated in Figure 5-1. The typical response of trawlers experiencing hooking can be described as: Initially the trawler moves with a constant velocity. The tension from the warp lines onto the drum of the trawl winches is relatively even. Brakes lock the trawl winch drum. The brakes are pre-set to avoid damage to the trawl in case it gets fastened. If the trawl gear hooks the pipeline, the winch starts paying out with the pre-set tension governed by the brakes. The trawler reduces/reverses the propulsive force. The trawler tries to unfasten the equipment by pulling with the winch power from different directions. If this does not work, the trawler may haul the warp lines and pull until something breaks or the gear comes loose. This is provided that the winch has sufficient power or structural strength and brake power if the ship motion is used for jerking. The jerking can be caused by wave action or by propulsion. This implies that the pipeline structural integrity has to be considered for large hooking loads in different directions. Usually the most extreme load will be vertical lifting until the trawl gear is loose or the capacity of the lifting wire is reached. Two hooking conditions are considered: Part penetration: where a part of the considered trawl gear components (trawl board, clump weight or beam) is stuck underneath the pipeline. For trawl boards this may occur for all span heights, also for pipelines resting on the seabed, while for DET NORSKE VERITAS

105 Recommended Practice DNV-RP-F111, October 2010 Page 21 clump weights and beam trawl a certain minimum span gap is required. Wedged is defined as the condition when the trawl gear components have crossed under the pipe in a free span and is stuck at the opposite side of the pipeline with the warp line under the pipe. This is considered as a scenario with a very low likelihood and is only relevant for trawl boards. A certain critical span height is required for this to happen. 5.2 Structural model The integrity of the pipeline when exposed to hooking is performed by static finite element analyses, lifting the pipeline at the hooking point to the critical height in accordance with Section 5.5 and 5.6. The element type, pipeline model length and boundary conditions requirements are the same as specified in Section Snagging As for subsea structures it must be ensured that no protruding components or details exists that parts of the trawl gear such as the ground rope of trawl net can snag on. Examples may be bolted flanges, Tees, valves, etc. These need to be protected / covered in order to avoid large snagging loads and in order to be overtrawlable. 5.4 Critical span height Trawl boards may become wedged for a free span height exceeding: The critical span height with respect to board wedging is proportional to the board size. Hence, small boards are equally exposed to hooking as larger ones, they are more frequently used and give a smaller critical span height for wedging. Part penetration is relevant for clump weights and beam trawls provided the span height exceeds: H cr = 0.7 H cr = 0.5 H cr = 0. 7B - trawl boards (5.1) [m] - clump weights (5.2) [m] - beam trawls (5.3) In case of beam trawling, span heights above the critical height are normally not allowed since hooking may lead to excessive loads due to the potential lever effect of the long beam. Guidance note: Rock dumping underneath the pipeline has been used to reduce the span height below the critical value to mitigate potential wedging. It is assumed that the rock berm must have a certain width related to the length of the trawl board to give the intended effect. ---e-n-d---of---g-u-i-d-a-n-c-e---n-o-t-e Part penetration If the maximum span height is below the critical height given in Section 5.4, the pipeline should be analysed for a static lifting height H l, possibly limited by the maximum warp force (Section 5.7). H l may be estimated as: H l = 0.7B 0. 3 OD H l = 0. 2L In the lifting height expression for trawl boards above, the distance from the front to the first warp line attachment point should be used as "B", if this distance is larger. If detailed dimensions about the trawl boards used in the area are not known, use of half the trawl board height, B, is assumed adequate. The lifting height expression for clump weights is a ratio of the clump weight width, L. For beam trawls, span heights exceeding critical height is not allowed (ref. Section 5.4), and lift height from part penetration is hence not relevant. 5.6 Wedged If the maximum span height exceeds the critical height given in Section 5.4, the pipeline should be analysed for an increase in static lifting height of: H l = B 5.7 Maximum warp line force The maximum warp line pull may be limited by: the strength of the warp line the braking capacity of the winches the maximum winch power The pipeline can be subjected to the maximum warp line force if the trawl gear does not loosen itself, e.g. by lifting the pipeline, before this force level is reached. The breaking strength of a typical warp line is approximately 400 kn (32 mm diameter). However, double and triple warp wires (up to 3 38 mm diameter) are used for the heaviest trawl gears giving a total breaking strength of kn. Note that loads exceeding the winch power may be achieved by locating the trawler just over the point where the trawl gear is hooked, hauling the warp line until it forms a straight, vertical line, lock the winch and using wave motion and/or propulsion force to increase the warp line force. 5.8 Response calculations - trawl boards (5.4) - clump weights (5.5) (5.6) The hooking response can be calculated by a static analysis applying the maximum lifting height as a prescribed displacement. The maximum warp line force may limit the relevant lifting force used in the analysis. For calculation of the response during hooking relevant and conservative models shall be applied. If simpler methods are used, the conservatism in the results should be documented. Assessment of hooking must consider the effect of any restraint including rock berms, tie-in points, subsea structures and other types of restraint. DET NORSKE VERITAS

106 Recommended Practice DNV-RP-F111, October 2010 Page 22 a) b) 6.2 Pipe shell - impact An acceptable design against impact requires assurance against the following failure modes: Denting: The out-of-roundness due to a dent should not prevent safe operation of internal inspection vehicles. Collapse: The capacity against collapse shall be checked according to the collapse criterion in DNV-OS-F101 by using an ovality which corresponds to the dent depth. Such a failure mode will, however, mainly affect temporary phases with external overpressure, e.g. installation or loss of pressure. May also apply for shut-downs, when the fluid density is less than for the external sea water. Fatigue: The stress concentration caused by a dent shall be accounted for by a suitable SCF in fatigue calculations. The maximum accepted ratio of permanent dent depth to the outer pipe steel diameter is: c) H / D 0.05η (6.1) p, c = Figure 5-1 Sketch of typical hooking scenario in a free span a) trawl board approaches pipeline span at a skew angle, b) warp line comes in contact with pipeline and lifts board off seabed, board turns over c) board slides along pipeline with its front underneath the pipe until stuck at the span shoulder. 6. Acceptance Criteria 6.1 General The following specifies acceptance criteria for design or in operation assessments to prevent damage due to trawl interference. These criteria are based on DNV-OS-F101 wherein classification of safety classes is used to define acceptance criteria. In DNV-OS-F101, the pipeline loads are classified into different load categories to relate the load effect to different uncertainties and occurrences. Trawl loads are classified as an "Interference" load. The criteria are further differentiated with respect to the trawl gear impact frequency, f imp. If necessary data to calculate the impact frequency is lacking, the most critical frequency class given in Table 6-1 shall be selected. Table 6-1 Frequency classes for trawl gear crossings Frequency class Impact frequency, f imp [/year /km] High > 100 Medium Low < 1 For pipelines exposed to different types of trawl equipment with significant differences in mass and trawling frequency (e.g. trawling both with and without clump weights), qualification may be based on an acceptance criterion for each equipment type. Impact testing would then need to cover the total number of test blows of all equipment categories. The number of trawl equipment categories should be limited to three, to avoid unrealistic low frequency class per category. where H p,c is the characteristic permanent plastic dent depth and η is the usage factor. The acceptable permanent dent sizes are given in Table 6-2. No notch or sharp indentations is permitted. This shall be ensured by the use of a coating which protects the steel pipe from direct contact with any sharp edged part of the trawl gear. Table 6-2 Acceptable dent sizes relative to outer diameter Frequency class Usage Dent depth, H pc [%] of D High (> 100) Medium (1-100) Low (< 1) Note: Acceptable dent depth also needs to comply with the requirements given in DNV-OS-F101. The dent size shall be estimated by using the force-dent pipe shell relationship given in Section 4 or similar calculations using non-linear shell FE analysis as described in Appendix A. The dent size may also be measured during impact testing of the coated pipe. The effect of dents on additional failure modes for fatigue and collapse shall be considered. Dents and especially dents with notches in the girth weld area may have a significant effect on the fatigue damage due to e.g. variations in the internal pressure. 6.3 Coating - impact Coating is used for protection of the steel pipe in addition to possible weight increase and thermal insulation. The protective coatings must be qualified by impact testing applying the following: The energy absorbed by the coated pipe shell shall be quantified based on the impact response calculations in Section 3 taking into account the efficiency of the test rig. The number of test impact blows shall consider the trawling frequency, see Table 6-3. Table 6-3 Number of test impact blows within 0.5 metre length Frequency class Impact frequency, f imp [/year /km] Blows High > Medium Low < 1 1 Note that the field joint coating must satisfy the same requirements as for the general coating because the impact frequency DET NORSKE VERITAS

107 Recommended Practice DNV-RP-F111, October 2010 Page 23 applies per unit length. The impact testing considers repeated testing within a single 0.5 m length. The probability of impact is equally distributed along each section of the pipeline. Hence, the probability of impact is equal for the 0.5 m long field joints as for the pipe joints. The following functional requirements apply for the coating including the field joint coating: the pipeline steel material shall be protected against dents larger than acceptable the pipeline corrosion protection system shall remain intact, i.e. if damage to the corrosion coating exposing the steel is not acceptable, this must be compensated by conservative increase in cathodic protection acceptable weight loss shall be in accordance with the requirements for on-bottom stability of the pipeline. Additional requirements valid for concrete coating: the inner reinforcement layer shall not be exposed large areas (typically 200 x 200 mm) of concrete spalling should be avoided. However, the acceptance criterion for acceptable spalling area is governed by cathodic protection requirements for pipeline and coating steel reinforcement, and requirements related to resulting submerged weight of the pipeline. Provided these acceptance requirements are met, larger spalling areas may be accepted. Additional requirements valid for insulation coating: the insulation effect must not be degraded by trawl gear impacts. 6.4 Pull-over The trawl pull-over load may cause a lateral displacement and associated bending of the pipeline. In combination with the compressive axial force, trawl pull-over may lead to rather large deflections and high utilisation of the pipeline steel material. Four scenarios are typically foreseen: 1) a pipeline with negligible effective axial force 2) a pipeline with release of effective, compressive axial force (postbuckling) prior to trawling 3) a pipeline with release of effective, compressive axial force simultaneously with trawling (i.e. the trawl load triggers the global buckling) 4) a free spanning pipeline. Scenario 1 and 4 are covered within this RP. For scenarios 2 and 3, more detailed assessments are required to establish the proper functional load condition factor including sensitivity studies, analysing the pipeline response from pull-over loads considering both upper- and lower bound lateral soil resistance, combined with the lower bound axial friction. Scenario 1 and 4 are covered within this RP, while scenarios 2 and 3 are covered by this RP in combination with DNV-RP- F110. Figure 6-1 gives an overview of the safety factors to be applied to the trawl pull-over load effect. Trawling Frequency (Annual per relevant section) Design Operating Pressure and temperature Figure 6-1 Trawl pull-over load effect factors. M td =γ F γc M t =1.1 γc M t ULS M td = γ A γc M t = 1.0 γ C M t ALS Disregarded Low Normal High Safety Class Guidance note: The annular trawling frequency threshold level where trawl pullover loading may be disregarded is one order of magnitude below the acceptance criteria on total probability of failure, given in DNV-OS-F101. This is to account for that the considered pipeline section may be exposed to additional accidental loads than trawling. ---e-n-d---of---g-u-i-d-a-n-c-e---n-o-t-e--- As noted from Figure 6-1, the trawl pull-over load is combined with the design functional load (i.e. local design pressure and temperature - i.e. not "maximum incidental pressure") for an annual trawling frequency per section larger than one. For pipeline sections with annual trawling frequency of less than one, the pull-over interference load shall be combined with the local normal operating functional loads (i.e. not "Maximum Operating Loads", and based on appropriate temperature- and pressure profiles along the pipeline, to reflect the local functional load per considered section). Further, for sections with annual trawling frequency of less than one, the trawl pull-over load may be reduced by a factor of 0.8 to account for the low probability that such low frequency trawling occurs with the combination of both the largest equipment, trawl direction perpendicular to the pipeline at maximum trawling velocity and at the most critical position. See Table 6-4. Table 6-4 Trawl pull-over load factor for different trawl frequencies f T >1 f T < 1 Load factor Note: this is a load factor to be applied directly on the pull-over load calculated according to equations given in Sec. 4 above (i.e. and not on the load effect referred in Figure 6-1). Note that the trawling frequency given in Figure 6-1 is not annual per kilometre as for the trawl impact frequency in Table 6-1 but annual per relevant section. This frequency is calculated according to Eq. (2.1) by considering section length instead of per km. Section is here defined differently depending on pull-over scenario: pull-over response in the apex of a lateral buckle (postbuckling, scenario 2): The section length is taken as the length of the sum of buckles if more than one buckle is anticipated. The length of the relevant section is typically less than 100 meters per buckle. pull-over response of not buckled pipeline (pre-buckling DET NORSKE VERITAS

108 Recommended Practice DNV-RP-F111, October 2010 Page 24 scenario 1 and scenario 3): section taken as the length of the entire pipeline (order of kilometres) or a pipeline stretch where trawl gear crossing frequency, effective axial force, soil resistance and other important parameters are more or less constant pull-over response in free-spans (scenario 4): section length taken as the sum of the span lengths. The condition load effect factor defined in DNV-OS-F101, γ C, may be used to account for different reasons, e.g. due to: uneven seabed pull-over with low probability of occurrence, and/or due to sensitivity analysis for buckling pipelines. In case several γ C are relevant simultaneously, they should be multiplied to account for all effects. For free spans on uneven seabed the γ C applies for the vertical load component of the trawl load. This is to account for uncertainty in gap height, span length, soil support stiffness and possible variations of these over time. The load condition factor for the vertical load component of the trawl load shall be taken as γ C = 1.07, unless sensitivity studies on relevant parameters can justify a lower factor. The load condition factor for the horizontal component of the trawl load at free spans is γ C = 1.0. The following requirements shall be fulfilled to ensure safe operation of the pipeline during and after trawl pull-over: The trawl pull-over load effect shall be checked in combination with other load effects (e.g. from temperature, pipeline sagging, etc.). All relevant failure modes stated in DNV-OS-F101, i.e. local buckling, accumulated plastic strain, etc. shall be checked. The usage factors for these failure modes are given in DNV-OS-F101 for each safety class. In free-spans, the span length and the gap may change for different operating conditions. The trawl interference analyses should be performed for all relevant span configurations. A load effect factor equivalent to the functional load effect factor (γ F = 1.1) shall be used for the pull-over interference load with an annual trawling frequency >10-2. For occurrences less than once per hundred year, the pull-over interference load may be considered as an accidental load (γ A = 1.0). In case of extremely infrequent trawling, the pull-over load effect can be disregarded, see Figure 6-1. Possible accumulation of damage, i.e. strain, due to subsequent trawling should be accounted for where applicable. The worst combination of subsequent trawling directions should be checked, i.e. all in the same direction or some in the opposite direction. The effect of concrete coating bending stiffness should be considered, as localisation of bending may occur due to the discontinuity of stiffness in the field joints. For pipelines exposed to different types of trawl equipment with significant differences in masses and trawling frequency (e.g. trawling both with and without clump weights), qualification may be performed for each of these - e.g. the pull-over load from equipment with low trawl frequencies may be considered combined with appropriate operating loads (i.e. pressure and temperature), whereas equipment with high trawl frequency should be combined with the design pressure and temperature. 6.5 Hooking The following requirements shall be fulfilled for hooking loads: The trawl hooking load effect shall be checked in combination with other load effects where applicable (e.g. temperature effect loads, pipeline sagging, etc.). Due to the low probability of hooking, typical / normal operational values can be used for pressure and temperature. All relevant failure modes from DNV-OS-F101, i.e. local buckling, accumulated plastic strain etc. shall be checked. The usage factors for these failure modes are given in DNV-OS-F101 for each safety class. Hooking shall be regarded as an accidental limit state, thus the load effect factors for the hooking and other load effects shall be equal to unity, i.e. γα = 1.0. The hooking load effect shall be checked as a load controlled (LC) condition. The effect of concrete coating should be considered, as the stiffening effect of the coating will lead to a longer lifted section, higher lifting forces and bending moments. For the lowest trawl gear impact frequency class, hooking is assumed to have a very low probability (i.e. annual hooking frequency per pipeline of less than 10-4 to 10-5 per year) and can be neglected. 7. Coating Impact Testing 7.1 General The following describes a method for qualification of the protective coating with respect to trawl impact. The method implies testing of coated pipe sections and covers the following items: specimens to be tested test equipment test procedures calibration of test equipment. 7.2 Specimens Types: Coated pipes with relevant materials and dimensions. Number of specimens per coating type: minimum 3 Length of specimens: minimum 2xOD The coating shall be documented by specifying the coating type, possible reinforcement and the application procedure. For quality control of the coating during production or application, samples should be tested when new batches of coating are applied. New batch is in this context defined as a batch for which a possible change in the production procedure can change the final mechanical properties. Concrete coating shall have achieved its twenty-eight day strength before testing. In case the coating is sensitive to temperature, the impact test shall be carried out both at maximum and minimum temperatures. The effect of ageing during the design lifetime should be accounted for. The field joint coating must satisfy the same requirements as for the general coating. Alternatively, documentation from previous tests on similar pipes may qualify the field joint coating material. For pipelines with attached heating cable protection cover, this cover could be qualified by impact testing separately from the pipeline with coatings. The protection cover test should then be performed on rigid foundation, and include the heating cable. The test energy level needs to be derived from representative analyses, reflecting the tested configuration as illustrated by Figure 7-1. DET NORSKE VERITAS

109 Recommended Practice DNV-RP-F111, October 2010 Page 25 Force F Test Hammer P m 1 E DEH E Pipe m 2 Deformation Figure 7-1 Typical load versus displacement plot for a pipeline with coating and attached DEH cable with protection structure The following two impact test requirements apply for the DEH cable with protection structure attached to the considered pipe section: 1) Impact test energy level E Test = E DEH + E Pipe. Alternatively, if the DEH cable with protection structure is tested separately from the pipe on a rigid foundation, the test energy may be limited to E Test = E DEH. 2) Minimum required impact force induced by the test hammer shall be F Test (see Figure 7-1), to document that the system including cable sustains this load level without unacceptable damage. Alternatively, the load capacity can be documented by a static load versus deformation test. The value of the F Test needs to be established based on representative analyses, as described in Appendix A. The load versus deformation curve may vary for different protection structure designs, and needs to be established by tests for each type. 7.3 Test equipment General A typical test rig is shown in Figure 7-2. Figure 7-2 Typical test rig outline The kinetic energy of the hammer is: E = m gh kin h i (7.1) where m h is the mass of the hammer, g is the gravitational acceleration and H i is the pendulum height Hammer The mass of the hammer shall reflect the mass of the trawl equipment that the test is to represent. The hammer shall be designed to accommodate the impact forces without significant flexing or permanent deformation. The front of the hammer should ideally have a shape representative of the trawl equipment. Normally both trawl boards and beam trawls (with hoop bars) have rounded frontal shapes. Further, the structural frame of the largest clump weights is made from mm plates. A rectangular plate of 300 mm height and 50 mm width with a flat or half-round front may generally be used, see Figure 7-3. DET NORSKE VERITAS