S

um

mary

En

vir

on

men

tal

Eff

ect

Rep

ort

23

Summary Environmental Effect Report

In the Rotterdam port area space is needed

to accommodate the growth of port and industri-

al activities. With continuing economic growth, it

is expected that port and industrial activities will

also grow. Due in part to these economic deve-

lopments, the quality of the living environment

in Rijnmond has come under pressure. The cab-

inet therefore wants to decide on a package of

measures to accomplish the following:

• to reinforce the Rotterdam mainport by

solving the anticipated space shortage for

port and industrial activities;

• to improve the quality of life in Rijnmond by

utilising the opportunities afforded by

solving the space shortage problem.

Following studies and consultations in the

context of the Rotterdam Mainport

Development Project, the cabinet would like to

go ahead with three sub projects designed to

realise this double objective:

• the Existing Rotterdam Area (ERA) – a set of

projects aimed at more intensive utilisation

of space in the existing port and industrial

area and improvement of the quality of the

environment and the living environment;

• land reclamation – a new port and industrial

area of 1,000 net hectares, linked to the

existing Maasvlakte, which would be con-

structed in stages;

• a 750-hectare wildlife and recreational area

– a large-scale wildlife and recreational area

near Rotterdam, designed to improve the

quality of the living environment.

The Core Planning-plus Decision Process

(PKB+)

The decision process concerning the

Rotterdam Mainport Development Project will

take place via a Core Planning-plus Decision

Process (PKB+), with respect to the following

subjects:

• the location and scope of the land reclama-

tion;

• the area within which sand extraction may

take place;

• possible locations for compensating natural

resources lost through land reclamation;

• the location(s) and layout of a 750-hectare

wildlife and recreational area.

The PKB+ will reserve the necessary space

for the land reclamation and the 750-hectare

wildlife and recreational area sub projects and

the preconditions will be established for the

further elaboration of these two sub projects.

The preconditions, for example, concern fitting

in spatially, the environment, quality of life and

the economy. The project activities of the

‘Existing Rotterdam Area’ (ERA) sub project

concern the question of how the sub projects

contribute to the realisation of the double

objective. The PKB+ will also make this assess-

ment with respect to the other two sub proj-

ects.

Introduction

2424

25

Summary MER

S

um

mary

En

vir

on

men

tal

Eff

ect

Rep

ort

25

The Role of the Environmental Effect Report in

PKB+

For several of the activities from the PKB+

Rotterdam Mainport Development Project, an

environmental effect report (MER) procedure

must be followed. The environmental effect

report, which describes the effect of the sub

projects, was formulated in that context. The

MER provides the environmental data needed

for a proper weighing of interests in the deci-

sion process on the PMR projects.

This MER Rotterdam Mainport Development

Project provides answers to the following

questions:

• what are the positive and negative effects of

the sub projects?

• how can the negative effects be mitigated

(softened) and compensated for?

• to what extent will they contribute to the

second part of the double objective?

• what would be the most environmentally

friendly implementation of the sub projects?

Nearly all activities that take place in the

context of the Existing Rotterdam Area sub proj-

ect – as far as can be determined at present –

will not be subject to the MER. The MER report

describes these activities. They provide insight

in the contributions of the projects designed to

improve the quality of life in and around the

port.

The construction of a new strip of land at

sea would affect protected natural areas. In

these areas the ‘no, unless’ principle from

national and European nature conservation

regulations will apply. The ‘no, unless’ principle

describes the pros and cons that must be consid-

ered to ensure a carefully decision about land

reclamation. The PKB+ explains how the ‘no,

unless’ principle is applied, making use of infor-

mation from this MER. This information particu-

Figure S.1 Search areas of the Rotterdam Mainport Development Project (sub projects)

Den Haag

Goeree

Voorne

Rotterdam

search area 750 ha wildlife & recreational area

search area sanddredging

search area landreclamation

existing Rotterdam area

2626

larly refers to the effect of land reclamation on

protected natural areas, along with mitigation

and compensation of such areas.

The environmental effect report was com-

piled for part 1 of the PKB+, which contains the

policy plans formulated by the cabinet. MER

and part 1 of the PKB+ are subject to public

participation, legal advice from the Commission

for Environmental Effect Reports and adminis-

trative consultation, among others. The results

of this are described in part 2. In part 3 of the

PKB+, as a result of this information, the

cabinet formulated its definitive standpoint

about the project and submitted it for approval

to the Lower and Upper Houses. If they agree

with the cabinet’s standpoint, possibly in re-

vised form, there will be an official government

resolution and the implementation of the sub

projects can get underway.

Marker

The environmental effect report on the

Rotterdam Mainport Development Project con-

sists of three memorandums, a main report and

this summary. The summary deals with the fol-

lowing subjects:

Problem, vision and objective:

• the need to provide space in the port of

Rotterdam;

• bottlenecks in the quality of the living envi-

ronment;

• the vision relating to the development of the

Rotterdam mainport;

• the cabinet’s project objective.

Solutions:

• the possibilities for realising the project

objective;

• the choice of three sub projects;

• the existing Rotterdam area sub project;

• the land reclamation sub project;

• the 750-hectare wildlife and recreational

area sub project;

• alternatives to PMR.

Effects of the solutions:

• effects per theme;

• effects from a local perspective;

• effects on protected natural areas and the

consequences for mitigation and compensa-

tion;

• PMR’s contribution to resolving bottlenecks

in the quality of the living environment;

• PMR’s contribution to political ‘environmen-

tal’ criteria.

27

Summary MER

S

um

mary

En

vir

on

men

tal

Eff

ect

Rep

ort

Existing Maasvlakte

Skyline of Rotterdam seen from the Maasboulevard

The need to provide space for expansion in the

port of Rotterdam.

With stable and rapid economic growth, the

cabinet foresees a short-term space shortage

in the existing port and industrial area at

Rotterdam. This particularly applies to the

deep-sea container sector, related distribution

and chemical sectors. The scale of the expected

space shortage is difficult to estimate with cer-

tainty. To determine the scale of the space

shortage, the assumption was that there would

be a bandwidth of growth in world trade and its

consequences for supply, dispatch and trans-

hipment via Rotterdam port. The demand for

industrial sites by deep-sea-related companies,

which cannot be satisfied in the existing area,

could vary with rapid economic growth from

350 to 700 hectares in 2020. This estimate does

not allow for space demands related to urbani-

sation and new industrial activities.

Bottlenecks in the Quality of the Living

Environment

There is a large concentration of companies

in the Rotterdam region. Because of the con-

centration of activities in this area, virtually all

forms of environmental effect are present. In

past decades, economic development and relat-

ed urban growth have put increasingly pressure

on the remaining wildlife and recreational

areas. Production and transport activities in the

Rotterdam region, moreover, contribute to

(supra) regional environmental problems.

Figure S.2 gives a profile of the Rotterdam

region. Table S.1 summarises the major bottle-

necks for environmental quality, the country-

side, recreation and spatial quality. This table

also includes an indication of autonomous

developments – the projected situation in

Rijnmond if the cabinet’s proposals for develop-

ing the Rotterdam mainport are not imple-

mented.

Vision on the Development of Rotterdam

Mainport

Taking the strengths of the Dutch economy

as starting points, the cabinet would like to

reinforce the position of the Netherlands as an

international trading and industrial country.

Rotterdam mainport is one of these strengths.

For this reason, the cabinet is endeavouring to

create favourable conditions in the Rotterdam

region for existing and new companies. These

conditions include sufficient space, good acces-

sibility and sustainable development of goods

transport. The cabinet favours improving the

quality of life in the Rotterdam region. The

region must offer sufficient space, greenery,

recreational and leisure facilities to make the

area an attractive place to live and work.

These cabinet aspirations dovetail well with

the spatial vision of the Rotterdam region

Problem, vision and objective

2828

29

Summary MER

S

um

mary

En

vir

on

men

tal

Eff

ect

Rep

ort

29

towards developing the area. This vision as-

sumes teamwork on the part of the city, the

port and the (Rijn-Maas) delta. Besides

developing the port, the region endeavours to

see the further growth and development of the

urban economy and more, higher quality wild-

life and recreational areas in the delta.

The Cabinet’s Project Objective

Based on existing bottlenecks in the

Rotterdam region and the vision of developing

Rotterdam mainport and the surrounding area,

the cabinet has formulated the aforementioned

double objective as follows:

• reinforcing the mainport by solving the

space shortage problem;

• improving the quality of life in the

Rotterdam region by utilising the potential

afforded by resolving the space shortage.

In formulating the plans for realising this

objective, along with the Municipality province

of South Holland, Metropolitan Area and the

Municipality of Rotterdam, the national govern-

ment started the Rotterdam Mainport

Development Project.

Figure S.2 Profile of Rijnmond region

Den Haag Zoetermeer

Delft

Pijnacker

Berkel enRodenrijs

Bleiswijk

Hoek van Holland

Oostvoorne

Brielle

Maassluis

Rozenburg VlaardingenRotterdamSchiedam

Spijkenisse

HoogvlietBarendrechtVoorne-Putten

Hellevoetsluis

Rockanje

VlissingenAntwerpen

Haringvliet

Maasvlakte

SlufterEuropoort

Nieuwe MaasBotlek

Oude Maas

WaalhavenEemhaven

VierhavensMerwehaven Park bij Euromast

Kralingse bos

Nieuwe Waterweg

Hartelkanaal

Spui

De Ro

tte

Delftse Schie

Maasgeul

Bernisse

Midden Delfland

PolderSchieveen

Duinen van Voorne

Brielse meer

Voordelta

Duinen van GoereeKleinProfijt

Rhoonsegrienden Carnisse

grienden

Albrandswaard

PortlandCarnisselande

Zuiderpark

Oostvoornse meer

N57

N496

N15

Beerdam

A15

A29

A16

A20

A13

A4

N218

A20

Stenen Baakplein

DintelhavenbrugSuurhoffbrug

Hartelbrug

Calandbrug

Botlekspoortunnel

Botlektunnel

Beneluxtunnel

Beneluxplein

Ridderster

Van Brienenoordbrug

Noorderdam

5km0

3030

current bottlenecks autonomous developments

environmental

quality

wildlife

recreation

spatial

quality

• CO2 emissions are currently increasing

• NOx-, SO2-deposits are above the established

policy aims

• NO2 and fine dust have exceeded limits at

several locations

• stench and dust nuisance in residential areas

exceeds established policy aims

• traffic noise level is a bottleneck

• a small number of sweet water tidal areas

(characteristic estuary resources)

• lack of a dynamic of dune coast

• too few, large-scale (inner dike) natural areas

• natural areas are under pressure due to

increasing urbanisation and other space

utilisation

• too few interconnections between natural

areas

• lack of greenery close to the city

• accessibility of natural areas for tourists is

insufficient

• recreational facilities are lacking in quality

• no optimum use of available, scarce space

(utilisation value)

• proximity to beach, dunes and woods. The per-

ception of greenery and the village character

of the town and air quality are important (per-

ceptual values) for the residents of the

Rotterdam region

• reduction in the quality of the living environ-

ment is putting pressure on a good business

establishment climate (future value)

• without supplementary measures, the intended

reduction objectives for air quality and noise

pollution would not be met

• environmental quality could come under further

pressure due to increasing acceptance by the

surroundings of nuisance and inconvenience,

the introduction of a 24-hour economy, in-

crease in space productivity and intensification

of utilisation of the existing port and industrial

area

• the quality of the natural environment will

come under further pressure due to increased

urbanisation, e.g.

• realisation of the Provincial ecological main

structure and the Green-Blue Ribbon

• recovery of natural resources through changed

management of the Haringvliet sluices

• the quality of recreational facilities will come

under further pressure due to increased ur-

banisation and increasing demand

• recreational behaviour will be more variable

and less time will be spent on one type of

recreation

• more leisure time will be used to going out,

visiting outdoor recreation and sport

• without supplementary the Rotterdam region,

spatial quality (utilisation value, perception

value and future value) will deteriorate

Table S.1 Major bottlenecks in the quality of the living environment

31

Summary MER

S

um

mary

En

vir

on

men

tal

Eff

ect

Rep

ort

31

Possibilities of realising the Project Objective

In May 1998 the preliminary memorandum

PKB+/MER, Rotterdam Mainport Development

Project appeared. It contained the following

possible solutions, which needed to be exam-

ined to resolve the space shortage and, in this

context, to improve the quality of the living

environment:

• better utilisation of the existing port and

industrial sites in the Rotterdam area;

• better utilisation of existing and planned

port and industrial sites in Southwest

Netherlands (Moerdijk, Vlissingen and

Terneuzen);

• land reclamation for a new port and

industrial area in the form of an expansion

of the Maasvlakte.

Restricted Possibilities in the Existing Area

The study relating to better utilisation of the

existing area resulted in the conclusion that the

demand for space could not be fully satisfied

there. In particular, there will be insufficient

space for the container sector and for new

chemical companies. There were limited oppor-

tunities for expanding existing companies and

for intensifying existing sites. There were also

possibilities for improving the quality of the

living environment, such as controlling local

noise pollution or developing city greenery.

Southwest Netherlands, Insufficient Solace

The harbours of Southwest Netherlands do

not offer any solution for petrochemicals. The

space still available at Terneuzen will be used

for the autonomous growth of the companies

in the area. In Moerdijk, space could only be

found by constructing industrial sites in the so-

called Moerdijk Corner. Developing this area,

however, could endanger the quality of life in

the urban area. In addition, qua location (shal-

low water, too far from the sea, inferior hinter-

land transport), the harbours of Moerdijk and

Terneuzen are not suitable for deep-sea contain-

er transhipment. Space could be developed in

the harbour of Vlissingen for establishing deep-

sea container terminals. Shipping companies,

however, apparently do not view Vlissingen as

an alternative to Rotterdam. The harbours of

Terneuzen, Vlissingen and Moerdijk therefore

have an independent, fully-fledged position in

the network of port and industrial sites around

Rotterdam mainport, supplementary to and

working in concert with Rotterdam port.

However, the harbours in Southwest

Netherlands offer insufficient solace for the

space shortage in Rotterdam port. Since

Southwest Netherlands does not offer a solu-

tion for the space shortage, any improvement

in the quality of the living environment, for

example, by housing environmentally hazard-

ous companies from Rotterdam region, is not

longer under discussion in the project.

Solutions

32

33

Summary MER

Land Reclamation offers Sufficient Space

The timely construction of new land in the

North Sea linked to the existing Maasvlakte

could provide qualitatively good space for new

port and industrial activities. With construction

in stages, ultimately a new, 1,000 net hectares

of port and industrial area could be created.

With rapid economic growth by 2020 there

would be space demands for between 350 and

700 hectares. Such space demand from deep-

sea-related growth sectors cannot be found in

the existing port area. In addition, allowances

have been made for space demands needed for

long-term urban development. Based on this,

the cabinet would like to realise a maximum of

1,000 net hectare port and industrial area. This

would provide sufficient space to accommodate

the growth of deep-sea container sector and

related distribution activities, as well as for any

new, large-scale chemical establishments. The

cabinet would also like to make it possible for

environmentally objectionable companies, after

carefully consideration, to be removed from the

existing to the new port area. This could im-

prove the quality of the living environment.

The MER takes a net land reclamation of 1,000

hectares as its starting point.

Wildlife and Recreational Area close to the

City

If it should be decided to proceed with land

reclamation, the cabinet would also like to con-

struct a 750-hectare wildlife and recreational

area close to the city. The plan of action and the

ROM-Rijnmond Policy Covenant have deter-

mined that there is a shortage of 1,750 hectares

of wildlife and recreational areas. It was agreed

that, in combination with port expansion, 750

hectares of this would be realised, physically

linked to the reclaimed land. Later, the cabinet

decided to realise the 750 hectares in and

around the urban area, since an easily accessi-

ble and open wildlife and recreational area near

the city would provide a better contribution to

the intended quality improvement of the living

environment.

A Choice of Three Sub Projects

Based on a study of three possible solu-

tions, the cabinet reached the conclusion that

the double objective of the Rotterdam Mainport

Development Project could best be realised by

making possible the three sub projects men-

tioned (see Figure S.1):

• the Existing Rotterdam Area;

• land reclamation;

• a 750-hectare wildlife and recreational area

in the vicinity of Rotterdam.

These three sub projects are inseparably

linked with each other and should be imple-

mented in mutual connection. Any improve-

ment in the quality of the living environment

could only be brought about in combination

with resolving the space shortage, and vice

versa.

Existing Rotterdam Area Sub Project (ERA)

The ERA sub project consists of 14 projects,

which should result in improving the quality of the

living environment and in creating extra space.

Projects for intensifying and optimising space

utilisation

• Filling in the fourth Petroleum Harbour and

the Hartel Canal West, which will create

extra space.

• An efficient utilisation of tank storage capac-

ity and refinery sites.

• Stimulating higher space productivity in the

container sector.

• Tightening land-issue policy (establishment,

land price and options policies), geared

towards more efficient utilisation of space.

• Stimulating and facilitating the cleaning up

of contaminated harbour sites, including use

of the soil decontamination fund, so that

S

um

mary

En

vir

on

men

tal

Eff

ect

Rep

ort

34

sites could be reused.

• Developing the Waalhaven East Future

Vision, a study of the westerly shift of the

boundaries between the harbour and the

city.

Projects for improving the quality of the living

environment

• Setting up a sound expertise centre to devel-

op technology for reducing noise nuisance.

• locally reducing noise pollution from traffic

by building double-layer ZOAB (very open

asphalt concrete), taking measures at the

Caland Bridge and placing baffle boards.

• Industrial ecology: developing a pilot project

for joint (energy) provision for multiple

companies or a cluster of companies in the

Botlek area.

• Construction of river parks at Delfshaven,

Tarwewijk, Oud-Charlois, Wielewaal,

Heijplaat and Pernis.

• Arranging greenery on the Rozenburg

Peninsula.

• Opening of Lake Oostvoorne: research into

the possibilities and desirability of re-estab-

lishing the sea link.

• Realising ferry connections for slow traffic

between Hoek van Holland, the Rozenburg

Peninsula and the existing Maasvlakte and

between Heijplaat and the north side of the

Maasoever.

• An area-targeted approach designed to

improve the quality of the living environ-

ment throughout the area round the har-

bour sites.

The Land Reclamation Sub Project

In the PKB+ part 1, the cabinet proposes

reserving space and preconditions for the con-

struction of reclaimed land. The final design of

the reclaimed land will only come about during

the following stages of the project. This design

should fit in the space allotted and precondi-

tions, including environmental considerations.

To assess the cabinet’s proposals for spatial

reservation and environmental preconditions,

the MER describes the environmental effect of

two realistic examples of potential land recla-

mation, the so-called reference designs I and II

(see figures S.3 and S.4).

The reference designs comprise the follow-

ing components:

• a harbour entry point;

• port and industrial sites;

• infrastructure;

• sea walls and dams.

These components function as building

blocks for the design, based on various possi-

bilities of shaping and fleshing them out. Other

important ingredients of the reference designs

are the location of the search area and meas-

ures to limit the negative environmental effect

(mitigation) as much as possible.

A northerly location

Reference designs I and II are both situated

in the northern part of the search area.

Together with the existing Maasvlakte, they

form a single large port and industrial area. A

southerly

variant also exists for reference design II, to

give an impression of the effects of a southerly

location.

Harbour entrance of sea-going vessels and

inland navigation

The reference designs differ from each other

in the way in which incoming sea-going vessels

enter the reclaimed land. In reference design I,

sea-going vessels would make use of the

existing harbour entrance. They would have to

sail around via a still-to-be-realised short-cut in

the existing Maasvlakte. As with sea-going ves-

sels, inland shipping would have access to the

reclaimed land via a short-cut. In reference

35

Summary MER

S

um

mary

En

vir

on

men

tal

Eff

ect

Rep

ort

demarcatielijn

Ouddorp

E U R O G E U L

M A A S G E U LNoorderdam

MOT - terrein

Hoek van Holland

M a a s v l a k t e E u r o p o o r t

Slufter

Voorne

Oostvoorne

Hellevoetsluis

Goeree

Oostvoornse Meer

Yangtzehaven

Brielse Meer

Harin

g-

vlie

t

nieuwe Zuiderdam

POSSIBLE LAYOUTS

containers

distribution

other sectors

chemicals

soft seawall

area for active outdoor sports

viewpoint Land’s Endaccess recreational area

access harbour

parking space

MaascentreNAP -25 to -40m

NAP 0 to -1m

NAP -1 to -3m

NAP -3 to -6m

NAP -6 to -15m

NAP -15 to -25m

viewpoint

beach and bank recreation

recreational centre

small watersport

Figure S.3 Reference design I

36

design II, the current harbour entrance would

be extended and constructed further into the

sea, so that sea-going vessels would have suffi-

cient length to reduce speed and sail directly to

the reclaimed land. Inland shipping would have

access to the reclaimed land via a short-cut

through the existing Maasvlakte.

Horseshoe-shape layout of the industrial sites

In laying out the reference designs, the new

port and industrial sites form a horseshoe

shape around a central harbour canal. Figure

S.4 shows a possible surface area partition of

the industrial sectors. The final partitioning will

be determined by space demand from the mar-

ket. The designs are flexible enough to offer

space for various arrangement scenarios.

Infrastructure for all forms of transport

The port and industrial area will be opened

up to all forms of transport. The current infra-

structure bundle in the south of the Maasvlakte

would be extended directly to the reclaimed

land. Space has already been reserved for this

at the existing Maasvlakte. A second road link

along the infrastructure bundle could be re-

served as a main artery for recreational traffic

and as an emergency means of opening up the

reclaimed land.

Soft sea walls and dams

Both reference designs show the sea walls

made of sand in the west and south (‘soft’ sea

walls). Although the cost of upkeep of soft sea

walls is greater than that of hard sea walls, the

construction costs are considerably lower.

Moreover, a soft sea wall fits in better with the

natural environment. In reference design I, the

southern dam would have to be extended par-

tially. In reference design II, the dams of the

existing harbour entrance would be extended.

Measures for mitigating negative environment

effect

Because of the northerly position of the port

and industrial sites with respect to the

Haringvliet Estuary, the sea will continue to

have a major influence on the Haringvliet

Estuary and the bordering dunes. Reference

designs I and II flesh out the endeavour to con-

serve the existing natural quality of the

Haringvliet Estuary and bordering dunes. In

addition, the reference designs included some

degree of natural development through the

construction of a soft sea wall. This stimulates

sand transport in the direction of the

Haringvliet Estuary, which enables new natural

resources to develop there.

The 750-Hectare Wildlife and Recreational Area

Project

A search was carried out both to the south

and the north of Rotterdam for the possibility of

developing one or more wildlife and recreation-

al areas with a combined size of 750 hectares.

Based on a bill of specifications, the search

area was restricted to the following locations

(see Figure S.5):

Central IJsselmonde

This polder area is situated among urban

areas (Rhoon, Portland/Carnisselande and

Rotterdam), de A15 motorway and the Oude

Maas. Currently, the area is mainly intended for

agriculture with some recreational use.

The North Flank of Rotterdam

This area comprises the Schiezone sub-

sections, the so-called intermediary zone (this

refers to the area among the urban districts of

Rotterdam, Berkel and Rodenrijs in South

Polder and Schiebroeks Polder) and a section of

Eendragts Polder. These areas currently have a

mainly agricultural function, but are situated on

the periphery of the urban district. Because of

their locations, the areas are very important as

sections of recreational and interconnected eco-

37

Summary MER

S

um

mary

En

vir

on

men

tal

Eff

ect

Rep

ort

demarcatielijn

Ouddorp

E U R O G E U L

M A A S G E U L

Noorderdam

MOT - terrein

Hoek van Holland

M a a s v l a k t e E u r o p o o r t

Slufter

Voorne

Oostvoorne

Hellevoetsluis

Goeree

Oostvoornse Meer

Yangtzehaven

Brielse Meer

Harin

g-

vlie

t

verlengde Noorderdam

nieuwe Zuiderdam

NAP -25 to -40m

NAP 0 to -1m

NAP -1 to -3m

NAP -3 to -6m

NAP -6 to -15m

NAP -15 to -25m

POSSIBLE LAYOUTS

containers

distribution

other sectors

chemicals

soft seawall

area for active outdoor sports

viewpoint Land’s Endaccess recreational area

access harbour

possible bridge connection

parking space

viewpoint

beach and bank recreation

recreational centre

small watersport

Figure S.4 Reference design II

38

logical zones

Three Main Variants

Three main variants have been developed

for these two locations jointly, based on cohe-

sion with other wildlife and recreational areas,

accessibility, nature development, perceptual

value and safety. In each of these three main

variants there is room for intensive and exten-

sive recreation and nature development.

Main Variant I

Main variant I consists of a 750-hectare wild-

life and recreational area at Central IJsselmonde.

The IJsselmonde plan area as a whole is seen

as an attractive, appealing and accessible wild-

life and recreational area (see Figure S.6). There

is room for intensive and extensive recreation

in the northern section. This section would be

designed as an open park with woods and with

ample space and recreational facilities (cycle

and footpaths, lawns, picnic areas and the like).

The layout and management in the southern

section are geared strongly towards the devel-

opment of wetland natural resources, which

could easily provide for extensive co-recrea-

tional use via a system of footpaths.

Connections to the city would be enhanced in

the form of a interconnected green zone.

Main Variant II

Main variant II consists of a 600-hectare wild-

life and recreational area at Central IJsselmonde

(northern section) and, in addition, 150 hectares

in the north flank of Rotterdam. This variant

corresponds to main variant I. However, a small

section in the south of the plan area would

retain its agricultural function (see Figure S.7).

This main variant also contains two possibilities

for fleshing out the location in the north flank

of Rotterdam (see Figures S.9 and S.10). One

possibility (variant A) consists of arranging the

Figure S.5 Central IJsselmonde and the north flank of Rotterdam

Midden IJsselmonde

Eendragtspolder

Schiezone

Intermediaire zone

Den Haag Zoetermeer

Delft

Pijnacker

Berkel enRodenrijs

Bleiswijk

Hoek van Holland

Oostvoorne

Brielle

Maassluis

Rozenburg VlaardingenRotterdamSchiedam

Spijkenisse

HoogvlietBarendrechtVoorne-Putten

Hellevoetsluis

Rockanje

VlissingenAntwerpen

Haringvliet

Maasvlakte

SlufterEuropoort

Nieuwe MaasBotlek

Oude Maas

WaalhavenEemhaven

VierhavensMerwehaven Park bij Euromast

Kralingse bos

Nieuwe Waterweg

Hartelkanaal

Spui

De Ro

tte

Delftse Schie

Maasgeul

Bernisse

Midden Delfland

PolderSchieveen

Duinen van Voorne

Brielse meer

Voordelta

Duinen van Goeree

KleinProfijt

Rhoonsegrienden

Carnissegrienden

Albrandswaard

PortlandCarnisselande

Zuiderpark

Oostvoornse meer

5km0

39

Summary MER

S

um

mary

En

vir

on

men

tal

Eff

ect

Rep

ort

Schiezone and Intermediary Zone sub areas

(together 150 hectares) as an extensive recrea-

tional area to support recreational routes and

ecological interconnections . The second possi-

bility (variant B) is the arrangement of the

Eendragts Polder sub area along the Rotte (150

hectares) for extensive and route-related recre-

ational and wildlife development.

Main Variant III

Main variant III also consists of 600 hectares

of wildlife and recreational area at Central

IJsselmonde (southern section), combined with

150 hectares in the north flank of Rotterdam.

This variant is the same as variant I, except for

a small section in the northwest of the Central

IJsselmonde plan area, which will retain its

present function (see Figure S.8). The layout of

the north flank corresponds to that of main

variant II.

For all three main variants, the possibilities

of reinforcing tidal waters for the southwestern

section of the IJsselmonde plan area (bordering

the Essen Dike and piping network) were stu-

died. The layout variants for this section of the

plan area consist of wetland with pastures (wet

mosaic landscape) or tidal environment. Both

variants offer accessibility for recreation via a

network of footpaths.

Alternatives of PMR

Besides a description of the separate sub

projects, attention was given to alternatives to

the total Rotterdam Mainport Development

Project (i.e. the combination of the three sub

projects). Descriptions were included of a Zero

Alternative and the Friendliest Environmental

Alternative (MMA), along with an alternative

consisting of a package of policy decisions of

the kind included in the PKB+ part 1 (the so-cal-

led Proposed Package of Policy Decisions).

Figure S.11 shows the relationships of the sub

Figure S.6 Variant I

A 15

Koedood zone

Heinenoordtunnel

golfbaan

Klein Profijt

Rhoonse grienden

Rhoon

Rotterdam Pendrecht

Zegenpolder

Portland - Carnisselande

Molenpolder

polderhet buitenland

van Rhoon

Portlandpolder

extensive recreation

intensive recreation

wet land

covering

piping network

New to develop

main route for slow traffic

main opening up with stop

green connection

Existing situation / autonomus development

Koedood

Essendijk

OudeMaas

Essendijk

0 250 500 750 1000 m

Carnisse grienden

40

Figure S.7 Variant II

Rhoonse grienden

A 15

Rotterdam Pendrecht

Rhoon

Heinenoordtunnel

Portland - Carnisselande

Klein Profijt

golfbaan

Koedood zone

Zegenpolder Molenpolder

polderhet buitenland

van Rhoon

Portlandpolder

extensive recreation

intensive recreation

wet land

covering

piping network

New to develop

main route for slow traffic

main opening up with stop

green connection

Existing situation / autonomus development

Essendijk

OudeMaas

Koedood

Essendijk

0 250 500 750 1000 m

Carnisse grienden

Figure S.8 Variant III

polderhet buitenland

van Rhoon

A 15

Koedood zone

Heinenoordtunnel

golfbaan

Klein Profijt

Rhoonse grienden

Rhoon

Rotterdam Pendrecht

Zegenpolder

Portland - Carnisselande

Molenpolder

Portlandpolder

extensive recreation

intensive recreation

wet land

covering

piping network

New to develop

main route for slow traffic

main opening up with stop

green connection

Existing situation / autonomus development

Koedood

Essendijk

OudeMaas

Essendijk

0 250 500 750 1000 m

Carnisse grienden

41

Summary MER

S

um

mary

En

vir

on

men

tal

Eff

ect

Rep

ort

Figure S.10 Variant B for the north flank: Eendragts Polder location

Bleiswijk

Zevenhuizen

Eendragtspolder

Rottemeren

RotterdamNesselande

Hoge Bergse bos

Oosteindsche polder

Zevenhuizer plas

deRotte

layout concerning the connecting area

New to develop

0 250 500 750 1000 m

Figure S.9 Variant A for the north flank: Schiezone en Intermediary zone locations

INTERMEDIAIRE ZONE

SCHIEZONE

Airport Rotterdam

polder Schieveen

Zuidpolder

Schiebroekse polder

Rotterdam Schiebroek

Bergsche plassen

Ackerdijkse plassen

Delftsche S

chie

Oude Lee

Rotterdam Overschie

Oost-Abtspolder

Berkel en Rodenrijs

A13

layout concerning the connecting area

New to develop

0 250 500 750 1000 m

42

projects and the PMR alternatives. Zero Alternative

The Zero Alternative is the situation ex-

pected in 2020 without implementation of the

PMR projects. This is also referred to as ex-

pected autonomous developments. The Zero

Alternative assumes an unchanged policy or a

policy that has already resulted in a decision

process. The Zero Alternative serves as a frame

of reference for the effect description. The

effect of the sub projects will be determined by

comparing the situation with sub projects with

the situation without sub projects. The memo-

randum sections describe the Zero Alternative

by discussing the current situation and autono-

mous development.

The Friendliest Environmental Alternative

The Friendliest Environmental Alternative

(MMA) is the most environmentally friendly

combination of solutions. The MMA should

offer a reasonable and fully-fledged alternative

and not be regarded as impractical in advance.

According to the MER guidelines, the MMA in

Sub projectexisting

Rotterdam Area

set of project

activities

Sub projectland reclamation

referencedesigns

Sub project750 ha

wildlife and recreational area

location and

design variants

Zero Alternative

Friendliest Environmental Alternative (MMA)

Planned Package of Policy Decisions

Figure S.11 sub projects and alternatives of PMR

43

Summary MER

S

um

mary

En

vir

on

men

tal

Eff

ect

Rep

ort

PMR does not have to be developed as a new,

separate alternative, since the quality of the

living environment is used as the starting point

in formulating the sub projects. The MMA is

therefore defined as a combination of the fol-

lowing:

• the set of project activities of the existing

Rotterdam area sub project;

• the most environmentally friendly variant of

land reclamation;

• the most environmentally friendly location

and design variant for a 750-hectare wildlife

and recreational area.

For the Existing Rotterdam Area sub proj-

ect, the entire set of project activities is part

of the MMA. For the 750-hectare wildlife and

recreational area sub project, in retrospect

the friendliest variant was chosen, after the

environmental effect of the location and de-

sign variants were brought into focus. This is

variant I with sub variant ‘tides’. This variant

contributes considerably to improving the

quality and quantity of the natural environ-

ment.

The friendliest variant (MMV) in the land

reclamation sub project was developed in retro-

spect, after clarifying the environmental effect

of the reference designs. The mitigating meas-

ures applied to the reference designs are

geared towards retaining and developing some

natural resources. The MMV only assumed the

retention of natural resources. Table S.2 gives

an overview of the measures that could be

taken.

The Planned Package of Policy Decisions

Based in part on the described environmen-

tal effect of the three sub projects and the

MMA, the cabinet has included the Planned

Package of Policy Decisions in the PKB+ part 1.

The package contains the following:

• the ERA project programmes;

• the set of preconditions for realising the

land reclamation;

• the preferred variant for the 750-hectare

wildlife and recreational area.

The package of policy decisions for the

Existing Rotterdam Area project consists of the

Table S.2 Overview of measures in the most environmentally friendly variant of land reclamation

Measure restricting of:

the natural environment

most compact possible reclaimed land • effect on the marine environment area through

taking up space

located as far north as possible • effect on Voorne and Goeree dune vegetation

partial hard sea wall • effect on the morphology of the Haringvliet

Estuary and on the Voorne and Goeree dune vege-

tation

changed orientation southern coastline • effect on the morphology of the Haringvliet

Estuary and on the vegetation of the Voorne and

Goeree dune

landscape

zas northerly and as compact a location

as possible • visibility from the coats of Delfland, Voorne and

Goeree

44

entire set of projects for intensifying utilisation

of space and improving the quality of the living

environment. These projects are designed to

provide an impetus for resolving the space

shortage, for improving the quality of the natu-

ral environment, for offering quality wildlife

and recreational areas and spatial quality in the

region of Rotterdam.

For the land reclamation sub project, the

cabinet has not chosen a particular reference

design. With the PKB+, the cabinet would like

to make possible the construction of reclaimed

land and the sand extraction needed for this

purpose. In the PKB+ part 1, therefore, precon-

ditions were established in the areas of fitting

in with the environment, the environment, qual-

ity of life and the economy. The reference de-

signs and their effects have served as aids in

defining environmental preconditions. The ulti-

mate realisation must take place within these

preconditions. The package of policy decisions

included in the PKB+ part 1 for land reclama-

tion therefore concern the preconditions that

will apply to land reclamation and sand dredg-

ing when the time comes, and not to the speci-

fic location, arrangement and utilisation of the

reclaimed land.

The 750-hectare wildlife and recreational

sub project consists of a planned package of

policy decisions from a combination of variants

I and III (see Figures S.12 and S.13, respective-

ly). This involves 600 hectares at Central

IJsselmonde and two locations in the north

flank of Rotterdam – the Schiezone and the

South and Schiebroeks polders (intermediary

zone), of 150 hectares in total. The barrier

between the urban area and the 600 hectares at

Central IJsselmonde formed by the infrastruc-

ture bundle (A15 motorway and the Betuwe

Railway Line) will be removed wherever possi-

ble, by creating green interconnections for slow

and public traffic.

Figure S.13 Preferred variant, 750-hectare wildlife and recreational area (north flank)

45

Summary MER

S

um

mary

En

vir

on

men

tal

Eff

ect

Rep

ort

extensive recreationboundary concrete policy decision in PKB+ part1

0 250 500 750 1000 m

INTERMEDIAIRE ZONE

SCHIEZONE

Ackerdijkse plassenBerkel en Rodenrijs

Rotterdam Schiebroek

Bergsche plassen

Delftsche S

chie Rotterdam Overschie

Airport Rotterdam

Oost-Abtspolder

Oude Lee

polder Schieveen

Zuidpolder

Schiebroekse polder

A13

Figure S.12 Preferred variant, 750-hectare wildlife and recreational area (Central IJsselmonde)

wet nature with additional recreational usesboundary concrete policy decision in PKB+ part 1

intensive en extensive recreation

green connection

golfcourse Oude Maaswildlife and recreation are is leading, urban functions and functions related to wildlife and nature possible

piping network

Zegenpolder MolenpolderEssendijk

Portlandpolder

OudeMaas0 250 500 750 1000 m

Rotterdam Pendrecht

A 15

Koedood zone

Portland - Carnisselande

Carnisse griendenKlein Profijt

Rhoonse grienden

Essendijk

Rhoon

polderhet buitenland

van Rhoon

Koedood

The MER clarifies the environmental effect

of PMR. The effect was assessed and described

in comparison to the reference situation, or the

situation in 2020 without realisation of PMR. As

a gesture towards the various interested par-

ties, other cross-sections of the description of

the effect and assessment were given (Table

S.3).

Effect per Theme

Existing Rotterdam Area

The intensification projects in the Existing

Rotterdam Area sub project would result in bet-

ter utilisation of the scarce space in the port

(see page S.40, Table S.6). The implementation

of these projects should not cause an unaccept-

able increase of environmental effect in resi-

dential and recreational areas. The ERA sub

project therefore includes projects for im-

proving the quality of the living environment.

These projects are aimed at limiting any reduc-

tion in environmental quality in the Rotterdam

region. Over time, improvement will be feasi-

ble. The projects are especially designed to

reduce noise production and noise nuisance. In

addition, the ERA projects would contribute to

improved quality of wildlife and recreational

Effect

4646

Table S.3 Perspective of the environmental effect description

Cross-sections aim and effect per theme

aim and effect per theme • mapping out the negative and positive environmental effect

for relevant policy areas

(local effect) • offer insight in the consequences of PMR for the perception

and perspective of residents, tourists and other users of the

Rotterdam region

(effect on protected natural • provide insight as to how PMR satisfies national and European

environment) conservation areas, laws and regulations relating to nature

conservation; this deals with mitigation and compensation of

protected natural environment

(effect on quality) • indicate the contribution of PMR to the second part of the dou-

ble objective, improving the quality of the living environment,

resolving bottlenecks in the quality of life and contribute to

political environmental criteria

47

Summary MER

S

um

mary

En

vir

on

men

tal

Eff

ect

Rep

ort

47

areas in the residential surroundings and better

links between these areas..

Land Reclamation

The reference designs for land reclamation

are neutral with respect to the natural environ-

ment, recreation, traffic and transport themes

(see page 41, Table S.7). There are negative

effects for nature conservation. The negative

effects consist of a loss of protected surface

area, in particular open sea, shallow or deep

coastal zones, channels and mud flats. The

area loss would be mainly caused by the direct

space possession for reclaimed land (2,500 ha).

Land reclamation could also affect protected

species of nature such as sea strips and open,

dry dunes in the Voorne and Goeree dunes,

through a reduction in salt spray. Land recla-

mation would also result in the development of

new natural resources in the Haringvliet

Estuary (such as shallows and salt marshes).

The positive effects for nature development do

not balance the negative effects of existing

natural resources. For this reason, the nature

conservation theme was given a negative

assessment.

The reference designs differ in their effects

on the coast and sea theme. Reference design

II, with its own harbour entrance, is nautically

as safe as the current harbour entrance.

Reference design I, with access via a short-cut

in the existing Maasvlakte, could meet safety

norms with operational measures. This could

reduce the swiftness of dealing with nautical

traffic in the harbour. At present, it is being

studied as to whether acceptable nautical safe-

ty could be realised with reference design I, in

combination with an acceptable speed of

dealing with traffic. In both reference designs,

incidentally, there would be considerable in-

crease in coastal upkeep of the reclaimed land.

In addition, reference design II is expected to

require a substantial increase in maintenance

dredging work. The maintenance of dredging

work would decrease with reference design I.

Various effects among the reference designs

also occur with the landscape theme. Reference

design II, because of its own distinct harbour

entrance, creates a more appealing harbour

than does reference design I. The design is

therefore also more visible from the coast of

Delfland.

750-Hectare Wildlife and Recreational Area

The preferred variant of the 750-hectare

wildlife and recreational area sub project pro-

vides a high degree of cohesion and quality for

wildlife and recreation. Moreover, it retains the

option over time of opening the area to tidal

waters (see page 43, Table S.8). All the variants

considered scored high on the wildlife and

recreation themes. The main differences relate

to opening up or not opening up the area to

tidal waters and to the spatial distribution of

the 750 hectares. Opening up the area to tidal

waters would result in higher natural resources.

The location of the 750 hectares close to the

city, as is the case in variant I (750 hectares at

IJsselmonde) and variant II (600 hectares

situated to the north of IJsselmonde) would

result in greater cohesion and higher recrea-

tional quality.

The Friendliest Alternative (MMA)

The friendliest environmental variant for

land reclamation is geared towards conserva-

tion of existing natural resources. It could

result in limiting the degradation of natural

resources in the Voorne and Goeree dunes.

Contrarily, the opportunities afforded by the

reference designs for nature development in

the MMA would be less utilised (particularly

the development of tidal waters in the

Haringvliet Estuary).

48

The Effects from a Local Perspective

Environmental effect can also be viewed

from a local, regional or supra-regional per-

spective. The MER main report discusses three

such perspectives. This summary only presents

the most important conclusions on the effect,

as perceived by residents, tourists and others

who use the Rotterdam region.

Residents attach great importance to nearby

beaches, dunes and woods, the green quality of

the residential area and the quality of the air.

PMR would make a positive contribution to per-

ceptions of the area, especially with the imple-

mentation of the ERA projects and the con-

struction of a 750-hectare wildlife and

recreational area. Over time, the ERA projects

are intended to improve the general quality of

the living environment in the Rotterdam region.

Special attention will go to reducing noise pol-

lution. The ERA projects would not contribute

directly to any local improvement of air quality.

The ERA projects will increase the amount of

urban green and recreational areas. The 750-

hectare wildlife and recreational area sub proj-

ect will increase the number and quality of

recreational opportunities close to the urban

area. Use of reclaimed land could have a nega-

tive effect on the perception of residents be-

cause extra (rail) traffic to and from the reclaimed

land would cause extra noise nuisance.

Effects of Protected Natural Resources: mitiga-

tion and compensation

The Existing Rotterdam Area projects and

the preferred variant of the 750-hectare wildlife

and recreational area sub project would not

have any effect on protected natural resources.

The areas where these projects are planned do

not any protected status.

The reference designs of land reclamation

would affect protected natural areas, particular-

ly the North Sea, the Voordelta and the Voorne

and Goeree dunes. Together, these areas form

a major part of the so-called Ecological Main

Structure of the Netherlands. They are protect-

ed by the National Structure Scheme, Green

Areas. Parts of these areas belong to the

European Natura 2000 network. They are listed

as protected natural areas based on the interna-

tional EU Habitat Directive and to be designated

in procedure based on the international EU Bird

Directive. There are also specific

natural resources that enjoy international pro-

tection, such as the common seal, sea strips,

open, dry dunes and wet dune valleys.

Conservation of these areas and of specific

natural resources that occur means that any

‘significant’ negative effect of land reclamation

should be prevented, whever possible. If that is

not possible, then it should be limited as much

as possible (mitigated) through measures on

the reclaimed land itself. The significant effect

that remains after mitigation should be com-

pensated for. If such compensation should take

place with species of nature that would be lost,

it is assumed that there would also be compen-

sation for species of nature. The compensation

measures were only examined for any negative

effect on protected species of nature.

Land reclamation leads to the loss of an

area with five protected species of nature.

These are open sea, deep coastal zone, shallow

coastal zone (collectively called marine environ-

ment), sea strips and open, dry dunes. This

area loss would be caused particularly by the

space taken up by the reclaimed land and by

the possible effect on the Voorne and Goeree

dunes, due to a decrease in salt spray.

49

Summary MER

S

um

mary

En

vir

on

men

tal

Eff

ect

Rep

ort

Mitigation

Measures to limit the effect, mitigating

measures, are part of the reference designs for

land reclamation. The measures are especially

based on the conservation of existing natural

resources and, in addition, on enabling some

natural development in the Haringvliet Estuary.

This would involve the following mitigation

measures:

• a northerly location of the reclaimed land;

• a compact stretch of reclaimed land;

• a soft sea wall at the western and southern

side of the reclaimed land.

Compensation

The effect to be compensated for as a con-

sequence of land reclamation is approximately

the same for reference designs I and II (see

Table S.4). For mitigation and compensation

measures, therefore, no distinction is made

between the reference designs.

The MER contains a description of the na-

ture and scope of the compensatory measures

needed to meet the compensation obligation.

The package of mitigating and compensatory

measures will be established in PKB+ part 3.

There are various potential compensation

measures to meet the compensation require-

ment. The EU Habitat Directive and the EU Bird

Directive, as well as the Structure Scheme,

Green Areas, require the following, e.g.:

• compensation wherever possible for the

same natural resources (habitats and spe-

cies) that would be lost;

• compensation should take place in the vicin-

ity of the locations where the effect is

expected and/or ties in with the European

Natura 2000 network (conservation of the

integrity of the ecosystem).

If these principles were applied, then the fol-

lowing compensation measures would be the

most suitable:

• compensation of the marine environment:

creating a sea reserve for Haringvliet

Estuary;

• compensation of the dune environment:

developing a dune area at the ‘Kop van de

Brouwersdam’;

• compensation of the dune environment:

developing a dune area for the Delfland

coast.

The following are reserve options:

• reserve option, compensation of the dune

environment: developing the agricultural

area the Enden at Goeree into a dune area;

• reserve option, compensation of the dune

environment: developing a dune area at the

interior of the Delfland coast;

• reserve option, compensation of the marine

environment: opening up Lake Oostvoorne;

• reserve option, compensation of the dune

environment: a beach corner at Haringvliet

Estuary;

• reserve option, compensation of the dune

environment: Goeree East Dunes.

Tabel S.4 Effect to compensate by reference design I and II

Intervention/consequence maximum expected effect

of space in use • 2500 ha marine environment

salt spray reduction • 10 ha sea strips

• 16 ha open, dry dunes

50

Contribution of PMR to resolving bottlenecks

in the quality of the living environment in the

Rotterdam region

In the area of environmental quality (noise),

on the one hand the planned package of policy

decisions in the PKB+ would contribute via the

ERA projects. On the other hand, there would

be an increase in noise nuisance through the

growth of rail traffic (in particular) to and from

the reclaimed land. PMR would not make any

specific contribution to resolving bottlenecks in

the area of local air quality.

In the area of wildlife and recreation, the

planned package of policy decisions would

make a major contribution to the resolution of

existing bottlenecks. The planned package of

policy decisions would reduce the bottleneck of

insufficient quality and scale of wildlife areas

and interconnections among areas. This pack-

age would also make a major contribution

towards resolving the bottleneck of insufficient,

easily accessible recreational areas. Finally, the

planned package of policy decisions would

improve the local business establishment cli-

mate.

PMR contribution to political criteria

Table S.5 shows the degree to which PMR

would contribute to political consideration crite-

ria. Only those criteria were examined that

were relevant to the quality of the living envi-

ronment.

Recreation on the Maasoever

51

Summary MER

S

um

mary

En

vir

on

men

tal

Eff

ect

Rep

ort

Political criteria PMR contribution

Table S.5 PMR contribution to political criteria read further ->

criterion 2:

Improving accessibility,

measuring opportunities for a

shift in type of goods transport in

favour of pipelines, rail or inland

shipping (modal shift)

criterion 3:

Degree of intensive and

economical space utilisation

criterion 5:

Improving the total environmental

quality of the residential and

living environment, in which the

emphasis is on dust, stench,

emissions and noise nuisance

criterion 6:

Degree of innovative and

economical use of raw materials

and energy

• the effect of land reclamation on accessibility by road, rail and inland navi-

gation is limited

• attention is necessary to realise swift accessibility to reclaimed land wit-

hout its own harbour entrance for sea-going vessels (reference design I)

with an adequate level of nautical safety

• a modal shift in the direction of more road traffic would take place as a

result of the establishment of container and distribution companies on

reclaimed land

• land reclamation affords opportunities for a shift to using environmentally-

friendly transport methods (container transport)

• ERA intensification projects would contribute to a more intensive, frugal use

of space

• phased construction of reclaimed land would contribute to frugal use of

space; each phase could be the final one

• compact design of reclaimed land would contribute to frugal use of space

• land reclamation would make a ‘shift process’ possible in the long term for

new urban developments in the existing Rotterdam port area

• ERA projects aim to contribute in the longer term to improving environmen-

tal quality, particularly for noise nuisance and reduction of CO2 emissions.

Limiting other aspects such as stench and dust are not part of ERA

• land reclamation would provide a modest contribution to the total environ-

mental quality of the residential and living environment

• land reclamation would result in an increase in noise pollution, especially

as a consequence of (rail) traffic

• land reclamation would result in an increase in CO2 emissions

• by offering space to remove environmentally hazardous companies away

from the existing port area, land reclamation could contribute to an impro-

vement in the quality of the living environment

• in the longer term, the ERA project ‘Industrial Ecology’ could contribute to a

reduction in emissions and less consumption of raw materials and energy

• new industrial activities on reclaimed land would result in an increase of

total energy consumption in the region

• the arrangement of reclaimed land would afford opportunities for sustaina-

ble industrial sites in which clustering of companies could contribute to

innovative, economical use of raw materials and energy

52

criterion 7:

Developing the quality and

accessibility of regional

recreational potential

criterion 8:

Degree of damage to the natural

and landscape resources or

conservation and development of

scale and quality of the natural

environment

criterion 9:

Degree in which safety (flood

protection), water quality,

resilience and natural processes

of the water systems are affected

criterion 13:

Degree of flexibility in scale, lay-

out and use of solutions

• the ERA projects ‘realising river parks, ‘greenery arrangement on the

Rozenburg Peninsula’ ‘realising ferry connections’ are designed to increase

recreational potential in the surrounding residential area

• because of land reclamation, the current Slufters Beach would disappear,

to be replaced by a new stretch of beach further away

• the 750-hectare wildlife and recreational area would bring large-scale

recreational facilities closer to the city

• the ERA projects ‘realising river parks’ and ‘greenery arrangement of the

Rozenburg Peninsula’ would improve the quantity and quality of green

areas in the surrounding residential area

• land reclamation would have a negative effect on protected natural areas,

particularly by taking up space and reducing salt spray

• land reclamation would result in new natural resources in the Haringvliet

Estuary

• land reclamation would result in a reduction of open landscape from the coast

• the 750-hectare wildlife and recreational area would bring about a high

degree of cohesion and quality for wildlife and recreation and, moreover,

would keep open the option of introducing the effect of tidal waters in the

area in the long term

• coastal safety and sea walls would not change because of the construction

of reclaimed land and sand extraction

• with the 750-hectare wildlife and recreational area, tidal variants would

result in strengthening the natural process in the water system

• tidal variants mean that the presence of secondary dams as additional

protection would disappear; the risks of flooding would meet legally

established standards

• the ERA package represents a flexible package of specific arrangement

measures to policy intentions, which could be introduced in phases

• land reclamation could be introduced in phases and is expandable;

construction of an own harbour entrance for the reclaimed land could be

realised at various points in time

• opportunities for phasing the 750-hectare wildlife and recreational area

would depend on the instruments available

• land reclamation is extremely flexible in terms of layout and use

Political criteria PMR contribution

Table S.5 PMR contribution to political criteria (sequel)

53

Summary MER

S

um

mary

En

vir

on

men

tal

Eff

ect

Rep

ort

S

um

mary

En

vir

on

men

tal

Eff

ect

Rep

ort

55

Overview of the effect in Tables

5656

Table S.6 Overview of intended effects of the ERA projects on environmental quality (MK), wildlife and

recreation (NR) and spatial quality (RK)

ERA-projects environ. aspects intended effects

MK NR RK

intensification projects

filling the 4th Petroleum Harbour ■ sustainable use of available space

and Hartel Canal West

efficient utilisation of tank storage ■ sustainable use of available space

4th, 5th, 7th Petroleum Harbour

increased productivity ■ sustainable use of available space

container sector

accentuated land-issue policy ■ sustainable use of available space

measures for ■ sustainable use of available space through

soil decontamination accelerated availability of economic

soil decontamination locations

future vision, Waalhaven ■ ■ sustainable use and improvement of environmental

East quality in the existing residential area around

Waalhaven East

Quality of life projects

Targeted area approach ■ improving environmental quality in all districts

around the port

knowledge centre noise ■ reducing noise produced by

industry and transport

reduction of traffic noise ■ reducing local noise nuisance produced by the

Caland Railway Bridge in Rozenburg and along other

infrastructure

industrial ecology ■ reducing noise pollution, reducing emissions

of C02 and N0x, and reducing thermal

discharges

wildlife and recreation on the ■ more and better quality natural environment

Rozenburg Peninsula and recreation for residential areas, better

interconnections between natural areas

research into opening ■ improving the quality of life at West Voorne

Lake Oostvoorne with new wildlife and recreational opportunities

realisation of river parks ■ more and better quality natural environment

and recreation for residential areas; better

interconnections between natural areas

research into potential ■ improving accessibility of recreational areas and

ferry conenctions the living environment in the Hoek van Holland,

reinforcing coastal route for cyclists and hikers

S

um

mary

En

vir

on

men

tal

Eff

ect

Rep

ort

57

Summary MER

57Table S.7 Overview, Assessment of Land Reclamation Effect

Theme/aspects reference design I reference design II

-

0

0 (-)*

- - (0)*

+

-

-

0

-

0

0

+

+

-

0

0

0

0

0

0

-

0

0

0

0

0

-

+

-

0

0

+

+

+

-

0

0

0

-

-

-

0

-

0

0

+

+

-

0

0

0

0

0

0

-

0

0

0

0

0

-

+

0

++

+

+

+

+

* These scores depend on the outcome of current research into nautical safety and the swiftness of handling traffic

coast and sea

retention of coastline

coastal safety

nautical accessibility of port area and channel

nautical safety

maintenance dredging work

total

natural environment

national and international diversity of ecosystems

national and international diversity of species

Total

recreation

beach recreation

water sports

active outdoor sports

port-related recreation

accessibility

total

traffic and transport

accessibility by road

accessibility by rail

accessibility by inland navigation

modal shift

total

environmental quality

noise

air quality

stench

water quality

external safety

total

landscape

experience with openness along the coast

experience with variation in spatial dimensions

structure and cohesion

identity and image

total

spatial quality

future value

use value

total

5858

Table S.8 Summary of the assessment of the effect of 750-hectare wildlife and recreational area sub project

north situated of south situated of

IJsselmonde IJsselmonde

concentrated impetus shared impetus

theme / aspects I≈ I≠ IIa≈ IIa≠ IIb≈ IIb≠ IIIa≈ IIIa≠ IIIb≈ IIIb≠

natural enviroment

(inter)national variety of ecosystems ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++(inter)national diversity of species ++ ++ ++ + ++ + ++ + ++ +ecosystem, natural cohesion + + + + + + + + + +potential of the area + 0 + 0 ++ + + 0 ++ +effect on existing natural resources + + - - 0 0 - - 0 0total ++ + + 0 + + + 0 + +landscape, archaeology,

cultural history and geology

geology + 0 + 0 + - + 0 + -cultural history and archaeology - - - - - - - - - -landscape identity and image ++ 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 + 0landscape diversity 0 0 + + + + + + + +landscape cohesion / structure + + + + + + + + + +total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0recreation

cohesion ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ + + + +recreational quality ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ + +accessibility + + ++ ++ + + + ++ + +effect on existing facilities ++ + ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++total + + ++ ++ + + + + + +soil and water

renewable water management ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++soil - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0soil and surface water 0 + - 0 0 0 - 0 0 0total + + 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 +environmental quality

noise 0 0 0 0 0 0 - - - -external safety 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0air 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0total 0 0 0 0 0 0 - - - -coast and sea

safety from flooding - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0total - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0spatial quality

future value ++ ++ 0 + + + - 0 0 0use value - 0 - - -- - - - -- --total 0 + 0 0 - 0 - - - -trafic and transport

accessibility -- -- - - - - - - - -traffic safety - - - - - - - - - -total - - - - - - - - - -

≈ with tidal waters ≠ without tidal waters a Schiezone and Intermediary zone b Eendragtspolder

S

um

mary

En

vir

on

men

tal

Eff

ect

Rep

ort

5959

6060