Chapter 18: Ecosystem Services

URS-EIA-REP-202375

Table of Contents

18 Ecosystem Services ...... 18-1 18.1 Introduction ...... 18-1 18.2 Approach ...... 18-5 18.3 Scoping ...... 18-7 18.4 Spatial and Temporal Boundaries ...... 18-22 18.4.1 Project Area ...... 18-23 18.4.2 Affected Ecosystems ...... 18-23 18.4.3 Terrestrial Affected Ecosystems ...... 18-23 18.4.4 Marine Affected Ecosystems ...... 18-23 18.4.5 Affected Beneficiaries ...... 18-30 18.4.6 Temporal Boundaries ...... 18-31 18.5 Baseline Data ...... 18-33 18.5.1 Methodology and Data ...... 18-33 18.5.2 Secondary Data ...... 18-34 18.5.3 Data Gaps ...... 18-34 18.5.4 Primary Data / Baseline Surveys ...... 18-34 18.5.5 Data Assumptions and Limitations ...... 18-36 18.6 Baseline Characteristics...... 18-37 18.6.1 Capture Fisheries ...... 18-37 18.6.2 Timber ...... 18-42 18.6.3 Water (supply) ...... 18-49 18.6.4 Hazard Regulation ...... 18-54 18.6.5 Water Quality Regulation ...... 18-60 18.6.6 Soil Quality Regulation ...... 18-63 18.6.7 Tourism and Recreation Values ...... 18-64 18.6.8 Cultural and Spiritual Values ...... 18-68 18.6.9 Wild Species Diversity ...... 18-72 18.6.10 Baseline Summary ...... 18-77 18.7 Impact Assessment ...... 18-79 18.7.1 Impact Assessment Methodology ...... 18-79 18.7.1.1 Impact Assessment Criteria ...... 18-80 18.7.1.2 Impact Significance ...... 18-84 18.7.2 Assessment of Potential Impacts: Construction and Pre-Commissioning . 18-85 18.7.2.1 Introduction ...... 18-85 18.7.2.2 Assessment of Potential Impacts (pre-mitigation) ...... 18-85 18.7.2.3 Mitigation and Monitoring ...... 18-112 18.7.2.4 Residual Impacts: Construction and Pre-Commissioning Phase..... 18-117 18.7.3 Assessment of Potential Impacts: Operational Phase ...... 18-117 18.7.3.1 Introduction ...... 18-117 18.7.3.2 Assessment of Potential Impacts (Pre-Mitigation) ...... 18-123 18.7.3.3 Mitigation and Monitoring ...... 18-126

URS-EIA-REP-202375 i Chapter 18 Ecosystem Services

18.7.3.4 Residual Impacts: Operational Phase ...... 18-127 18.7.4 Assessment of Potential Impacts: Decommissioning Phase ...... 18-127 18.7.4.1 Introduction...... 18-127 18.7.4.2 Assessment of Potential Impacts (Pre-Mitigation) ...... 18-127 18.7.4.3 Mitigation and Monitoring ...... 18-133 18.7.4.4 Residual Impacts: Decommissioning Phase ...... 18-133 18.8 Unplanned Events ...... 18-137 18.8.1 Construction and Pre-Commissioning Phase ...... 18-137 18.8.1.1 Fuel and Oil Spills ...... 18-137 18.8.1.2 Fires ...... 18-137 18.8.1.3 Introduction of Invasive Species ...... 18-137 18.8.2 Operational Phase ...... 18-138 18.8.2.1 Release of Natural Gas ...... 18-138 18.8.2.2 Fires ...... 18-138 18.8.2.3 Alien Invasive Species ...... 18-139 18.8.3 Decommissioning Phase ...... 18-139 18.9 Cumulative Impacts Assessment ...... 18-139 18.10 Conclusions ...... 18-139

ii URS-EIA-REP-202375

Tables

Table 18.1 Ecosystem Services in the 2012 IFC Performance Standards ...... 18-3

Table 18.2 Ecosystem Services Checklist ...... 18-8

Table 18.3 Criteria for Determining the Scope of the Ecosystem Services Assessment ...... 18-10

Table 18.4 Scoping Exercise: Summary of the Rationale for Inclusion or Exclusion of Each Ecosystem Service ...... 18-13

Table 18.5 Ecosystem Service Beneficiaries ...... 18-33

Table 18.6 Stakeholder Meetings Conducted During Site Visits ...... 18-35

Table 18.7 Landownership within the Landfall Section ...... 18-45

Table 18.8 Full Extent and Resource Rates of the Galata Aquifer ...... 18-50

Table 18.9 Baseline Summary ...... 18-78

Table 18.10 Criteria Used to Determine Receptor Sensitivity ...... 18-80

Table 18.11 Approach to Determining Overall Receptor Sensitivity ...... 18-82

Table 18.12 Criteria for Determining Impact Magnitude ...... 18-82

Table 18.13 Determining Overall Impact Magnitude ...... 18-84

Table 18.14 Impacts Significance Matrix for Ecosystem Services ...... 18-84

Table 18.15 Estimated Areas of Woodlands to be Felled ...... 18-92

Table 18.16 Assessment of Potential Impacts: Construction and Pre-Commissioning Phase ...... 18-118

Table 18.17 Assessment of Potential Impacts: Operational Phase ...... 18-128

Table 18.18 Assessment of Potential Impacts: Decommissioning (under Option 2) ...... 18-134

Table 18.19 Assessment Summary ...... 18-140

Figures

Figure 18.1 The Relationship between Ecosystems, Services, and Benefits ...... 18-2

Figure 18.2 The Ecosystem Services Assessment Process ...... 18-7

Figure 18.3 Impact Pathway for Assessing Impacts on Ecosystem Services ...... 18-22

Figure 18.4 Defining Spatial Boundaries for Assessing Impacts on Ecosystem Services ...... 18-22

URS-EIA-REP-202375 iii Chapter 18 Ecosystem Services

Figure 18.5 Terrestrial Affected Ecosystems ...... 18-25

Figure 18.6 Marine Affected Ecosystems ...... 18-27

Figure 18.7 Affected Beneficiaries ...... 18-31

Figure 18.8 Fishing Grounds and Exclusion Zones ...... 18-43

Figure 18.9 Land Ownership within the Landfall Section ...... 18-47

Figure 18.10 Surface Water Resources in the Affected Ecosystems ...... 18-51

Figure 18.11 Location of Groundwater Abstraction Points and Sanitary Source Protection Zones near the Project Route ...... 18-55

Figure 18.12 Terrestrial Hazard Areas ...... 18-57

Figure 18.13 Recreational Resources ...... 18-69

Figure 18.14 Habitats and Protected Areas ...... 18-73

iv URS-EIA-REP-202375

18 Ecosystem Services

18.1 Introduction International Finance Corporation (IFC) Performance Standard (PS) 6 defines ecosystem services as “the benefits that people, including businesses, obtain from ecosystems” (Ref. 18.1), which accords with the definition provided by the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA) (Ref. 18.2). While there is no single system for categorising ecosystem services, the MA framework is widely accepted and, as acknowledged in IFC PS Guidance Note 6 (paragraph 2), provides a useful starting point. The MA identifies four broad categories of ecosystem service:

• Provisioning services – the products people obtain from ecosystems. These may include (i) crops, livestock, seafood and game, wild foods, and ethno botanical plants; (ii) water for drinking, irrigation, and industrial purposes; and (iii) vegetated areas which provide the basis for many biopharmaceuticals, construction materials, and biomass for renewable energy. Goods may be provided by managed ecosystems, such as agricultural and aquacultural systems and plantation forests, or by natural or semi-natural ones, for example in the form of capture fisheries and the harvest of other wild foods;

• Regulating services – the benefits people obtain from the regulation of ecosystem processes. These may include inter alia (i) local climate regulation and carbon storage and sequestration; (ii) natural hazard mitigation; (iii) purification of water and air; (iv) control of pests and disease; and (v) pollination;

• Cultural services – the cultural, educational, and spiritual benefits people obtain from ecosystems. These may include inter alia (i) cultural, spiritual, or religious upliftment from cultural heritage, spiritual, or sacred sites; (ii) opportunities for recreation such as sport, hunting, fishing, ecotourism; and (iii) opportunities for scientific exploration, knowledge- building, and education; and

• Supporting services – the natural processes that maintain the other services such as soil formation, nutrient and water cycling, or primary production.

Supporting services differ from provisioning, regulating, and cultural services in that, unlike the other types of service from which people can directly benefit, their impacts on human well- being are indirect (Ref. 18.3 and Ref. 18.4) and mostly long-term in nature; the formation of soils, for example, takes place over decades or centuries. All other ecosystem services – regulating, provisioning, and cultural – ultimately depend on them. Supporting services are strongly interrelated to each other and are generally underpinned by a vast array of physical, chemical, and biological interactions. Supporting services are linked to particular biophysical structures or processes of an ecosystem, such as the way water storage is linked to soils, trees, plants, and other vegetation, and underpin the provision of the services which are of direct value to people, such as reduced surface water runoff, filtering of air and water quality, timber provision, and wild foods. These final ecosystem services provide benefits to people such as reduced damages from flooding, which are valued by their beneficiaries (Figure 18.1).

URS-EIA-REP-202375 18-1 Chapter 18 Ecosystem Services

Figure 18.1 The Relationship between Ecosystems, Services, and Benefits

The benefits of ecosystems are conferred at many scales and often to multiple beneficiaries. At the local level, ecosystem services are frequently the basis for rural livelihoods and subsistence, particularly for the poor. Artisanal fishing of coastal waters and rivers, for example, provides both cash income and food for low-income families. Similarly, harvesting of plants for traditional medicine can provide an important substitute for more expensive commercially available pharmaceuticals. Benefits can also be regional – such as the provision of flood protection and erosion control afforded to communities and businesses by coastal mangroves – or national, such as sites that form part of a country’s cultural heritage. At a global scale, ecosystems regulate climate and support the biodiversity which underpins all biological production.

Businesses and projects may also benefit from ecosystem services through, for example, the direct use of inputs such as water or through protection from natural hazards such as flooding. Identifying and protecting such services can have further benefits such as avoiding punitive regulation and negative publicity, strengthening the organisation’s reputation and, in some cases, providing effective natural alternatives to more expensive engineering solutions.

Despite the widespread benefits of ecosystem services, a number of recent high-profile reports have revealed that a significant number of global ecosystems are in a degraded state. In 2005 for example, the MA concluded that on a global scale the majority of ecosystem services have been degraded (Ref. 18.2). More recently, The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB), a major international initiative, published a series of reports which found that many ecosystem services are so degraded they are reaching tipping points, and highlighted the growing costs of biodiversity loss and ecosystem degradation (Ref. 18.5).

This has led to a growing shift in national and international policy, away from looking at the environment in separate “silos” – air, water, soil, biodiversity – towards a more integrated approach based on entire ecosystems. Identifying impacts in this manner stresses the linkages and trade-offs between different services, allowing the ecosystem approach to identify areas which provide multiple benefits. Further, the emphasis placed on looking at the environment in terms of the benefits that people derive from it helps to ensure that the full value of ecosystem services and people’s preferences for these are incorporated into decision-making processes.

In 2010, the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) adopted a Strategic Plan with the aim of “maintaining ecosystem services, sustaining a healthy planet, and delivering benefits essential for all people” (Ref. 18.6). The EU also adopted a target to halt

18-2 URS-EIA-REP-202375

the loss of biodiversity and the degradation of ecosystem services by 2020 and restore them where possible (Ref. 18.7).

In 2012, the vision for a Green Economy outlined in Rio +20 recognised that economic performance depends on effective ecosystem and biodiversity management and the continued flow of ecosystem services (Ref. 18.8). In the same year, the IFC published its revised PSs on Environmental and Social Sustainability which, in addition to the requirements set out in PS6, included reference to ecosystem services throughout many of the other PSs (Table 18.1). IFC PS6 recognises that sustainable development cannot be achieved if either biodiversity or ecosystem services are lost or degraded by development efforts and therefore requires that “where a project is likely to adversely impact ecosystem services, as determined by the risks and impacts identification process, the client will conduct a systematic review to identify priority ecosystem services” (Ref. 18.1). Since ecosystem services are, by nature, cross-cutting they apply to several of the IFC PSs as shown in Table 18.1.

Table 18.1 Ecosystem Services in the 2012 IFC Performance Standards

Performance Standard Summary of Requirements

PS1: Assessment and Where the project involves specifically identified physical elements, Management of Environmental aspects, and facilities that are likely to generate impacts, and Social Risks and Impacts environmental and social risks and impacts will be identified in the context of the project’s area of influence. This area of influence encompasses, as appropriate, indirect project impacts on biodiversity or on ecosystem services upon which Affected Communities’ livelihoods are dependent.

PS4: Community Health, The project’s direct impacts on priority ecosystem services may result Safety, and Security in adverse health and safety risks and impacts to Affected Communities. With respect to this PS, ecosystem services are limited to provisioning and regulating services as defined in paragraph 2 of PS6…where appropriate and feasible, the client will identify those risks and potential impacts on priority ecosystem services that may be exacerbated by climate change. Adverse impacts should be avoided, and if these impacts are unavoidable, the client will implement mitigation measures in accordance with paragraphs 24 and 25 of PS6. With respect to the use of and loss of access to provisioning services, clients will implement mitigation measures in accordance with paragraphs 25–29 of PS5.

PS5: Land Acquisition and This PS applies to physical and/or economic displacement resulting Involuntary Resettlement from the following types of land-related transactions…restriction on access to land or use of other resources including communal property and natural resources such as marine and aquatic resources, timber and non-timber forest products, freshwater, medicinal plants, hunting and gathering grounds and grazing and cropping areas (natural resource assets referred to in this PS are equivalent to ecosystem provisioning services as described in PS6).

Continued…

URS-EIA-REP-202375 18-3 Chapter 18 Ecosystem Services

Performance Standard Summary of Requirements

PS6: Biodiversity Conservation Where a project is likely to adversely impact ecosystem services, as and Sustainable Management determined by the risks and impacts identification process, the client of Living Natural Resources will conduct a systematic review to identify priority ecosystem services…with respect to impacts on priority ecosystem services of relevance to Affected Communities and where the client has direct management control or significant influence over such ecosystem services, adverse impacts should be avoided. If these impacts are unavoidable, the client will minimise them and implement mitigation measures that aim to maintain the value and functionality of priority services. With respect to impacts on priority ecosystem services on which the project depends, clients should minimise impacts on ecosystem services and implement measures that increase resource efficiency of their operations, as described in PS3. Additional provisions for ecosystem services are included in PSs 4, 5, 7, and 8.

PS7: Indigenous Peoples If the client proposes to locate a project on, or commercially develop natural resources on lands traditionally owned by, or under the customary use of, Indigenous Peoples, and adverse impacts can be expected, the client will take the following steps…document efforts to avoid and otherwise minimise impacts on natural resources and natural areas of importance to Indigenous People. “Natural resources and natural areas of importance” as referred to in this PS are equivalent to priority ecosystem services as defined in PS6 where a project may significantly impact on critical cultural heritage that is essential to the identity and/or cultural, ceremonial, or spiritual aspects of Indigenous Peoples lives, priority will be given to the avoidance of such impacts (natural areas with cultural value are equivalent to priority ecosystem cultural services as defined in PS6). Where significant project impacts on critical cultural heritage are unavoidable, the client will obtain the Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC) of the Affected Communities of Indigenous Peoples. Includes natural areas with cultural and/or spiritual value such as sacred groves, sacred bodies of water and waterways, sacred trees, and sacred rocks.

PS8: Cultural Heritage Where the client has encountered tangible cultural heritage that is replicable and not critical, the client will apply mitigation measures that favour avoidance. Where avoidance is not feasible, the client will apply a mitigation hierarchy as follows…minimise adverse impacts and implement restoration measures, in situ, that ensure maintenance of the value and functionality of the cultural heritage, including maintaining or restoring any ecosystem processes needed to support it (consistent with requirements in PS6 related to ecosystem services and conservation of biodiversity).

Complete.

18-4 URS-EIA-REP-202375

The assessment in this chapter has been undertaken in accordance with the 2012 IFC PSs (Ref. 18.1), with reference to the Guidance Notes that accompany the Standards (Ref. 18.9) where relevant. The approach is also informed by separate ongoing dialogue between URS and the IFC’s Environment, Social, and Governance Department (Ref. 18.10) and the World Resources Institute (WRI) (Ref. 18.11) regarding their risk screening procedures, expectations of ecosystem services assessments, and emerging guidance on consideration of ecosystem services in ESIAs.

This chapter presents an assessment of the potential impacts and dependencies on ecosystem services resulting from the Construction and Pre-Commissioning, Operational, and Decommissioning Phases of the Project. In addition, measures to anticipate and avoid, or where avoidance is not possible, minimise, and, where residual impacts remain, compensate / offset for risks and impacts on priority ecosystem services are presented.

Specifically, the purpose of this chapter is to:

• Systematically identify and assess the likely impacts of Project Activities on ESS and the nature and significance of these impacts on ESS beneficiaries 1;

• Evaluate Project dependence on ESS in order to help manage risks and take advantage of opportunities related to ecosystem change; and

• Help inform, for unavoidable impacts, the selection of appropriate mitigation measures which aim to maintain the value and functionality of priority ESS and enhance the resource efficiency of Project operations.

This chapter is not intended to be read in isolation; instead it presents and assesses the key ecosystem service considerations relevant to the topics presented in other chapters of this ESIA Report, including key inter-linkages, to ensure that the values which ecosystem service beneficiaries attach to ecosystem goods and services are appropriately considered and addressed throughout the ESIA process. The findings of the assessment in this chapter have also been used to inform the baseline data collection process, impact assessment, and selection of appropriate mitigation options in other relevant technical chapters. This chapter also brings together the findings of the other chapters to examine the issues at an ecosystem level and to assess how impacts on one aspect of the environment can affect others. As such, the chapter is informed by the other chapters of the ESIA Report and cross references these where appropriate.

18.2 Approach The approach to, and methodology for, the ecosystem services assessment in this chapter is based on the Ecosystem Services Identification, Valuation, and Integration (ESIVI) approach (Ref. 18.12). The ESIVI tool was created in order to provide a rigorous and transparent

1 The ESS framework focuses on assessing impacts on the beneficiaries of ecosystem services. Where impacts on ecosystem services reduce the benefits to beneficiaries, then these beneficiaries are identified as Project Affected Communities (PACs). Thus, not all ESS beneficiaries will necessarily be PACs. A beneficiary only becomes a PAC when the Project reduces the level of benefits provided to an individual or group of beneficiaries.

URS-EIA-REP-202375 18-5 Chapter 18 Ecosystem Services

framework for ecosystem service assessments that meets the requirements set out in the 2012 IFC PSs.

The development of the ESIVI tool was informed by both the conceptual framework established by the MA, which explicitly links ecosystem services and human well-being, and the WRI’s conceptual framework for Ecosystem Services Review for Impact Assessment (Ref. 18.13). The WRI framework puts the Project at the centre of the interactions between human well-being, ecosystem services, ecosystems, and drivers of ecosystem change, recognising that the Project has the potential to affect all the components of the framework and is itself affected by them. It reflects the two ways the Project relates to ecosystem services in terms of:

• Potential impacts on the existing relationships between human well-being, ecosystem services, and ecosystems; and

• Project dependence on these relationships for the achievement of successful performance.

The development of the ESIVI tool was informed by expertise built up from carrying out policy and project level work on ecosystem service assessments over the past ten years as well as a number of Good International Industry Practices (GIIP) and guidelines, including:

• IFC PSs 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 and their accompanying Guidance Notes (Ref. 18.1); • Landsberg et al. (2011), ‘Ecosystem Services Review for Impact Assessment: Introduction and Guide to Scoping’ (Ref. 18.13);

• IPIECA/OGP (2011), ‘Ecosystem Services Guidance: Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services Guide and Checklists’ (Ref. 18.14);

• Convention on Biological Diversity (2006), ‘Voluntary Guidelines on Biodiversity-Inclusive Impact Assessment’ (Ref. 18.15);

• TEEB (2010), ‘The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity: Mainstreaming the Economics of Nature’ (Ref. 18.5);

• Bateman et al. (2010), ‘Economic Analysis for Ecosystem Service Assessments’ (Ref. 18.16); • Burkhard et al. (2009), ‘Landscapes‘ Capacities to Provide Ecosystem Services – A Concept for Land-Cover Based Assessments’ (Ref. 18.3);

• Landsberg et al. (2013), ‘Weaving Ecosystem Services into Impact Assessment: A Step-by- Step Method’ (Ref. 18.17); and

• UNEP-WCMC (2012), ‘UK National Ecosystem Services Assessment’ (Ref. 18.18).

In line with the impact assessment methodology described in Chapter 3 Impact Assessment Methodology, the ecosystem services assessment process comprises four stages:

• Scoping – to identify the services provided by affected ecosystems that could potentially be impacted by the Project or that the Project may depend upon;

• Baseline establishment – to assess the status of these services within the affected ecosystems in the absence of the Project, as well as the location of ecosystem service beneficiaries and the extent to which they benefit from the services provided;

18-6 URS-EIA-REP-202375

• Impact assessment – to identify the likely impacts of Project Activities on ecosystem services and their beneficiaries, the significance of these impacts, and which services should be considered priority ecosystem services; and

• Mitigation and residual impact assessment – to identify the range of measures that may be implemented to anticipate and avoid, or where avoidance is not possible, minimise adverse impacts on priority ecosystem services and to determine the residual impacts once mitigation is in place.

Figure 18.2 provides a schematic overview of the assessment process and the key sources of data at each stage.

Figure 18.2 The Ecosystem Services Assessment Process

18.3 Scoping The objective of the initial scoping exercise is to identify those ecosystem services which could potentially be affected by Project Activities or that the Project may depend upon and which therefore ought to be subject to more detailed investigation.

URS-EIA-REP-202375 18-7 Chapter 18 Ecosystem Services

Due to the complexity and interconnectivity of ecosystems, together with the uncertainty surrounding how each process within an ecosystem is likely to respond to change, isolating and assessing each of the likely impacts of a project on particular ecosystem services is a difficult task. Further, the potentially wide range of people who benefit from ecosystem services and the different values they attach to such services mean that assessing the impacts and dependencies of a project on ecosystem services is an extensive undertaking.

As such, a comprehensive assessment of every impact or dependency on each ecosystem service and an economic valuation of each type of use is beyond the scope of an ESIA 2. An effective ESIA should therefore focus resources on assessing the services which are likely to be of highest priority, with further, more detailed assessments being carried out where necessary to inform the development of follow up reports. For example, while it is not appropriate to undertake a full economic valuation for each ecosystem service within an ESIA, valuing certain services may be a useful exercise for informing the development of Livelihood Restoration Plans which depend on ecosystem based forms of income such as fishing and farming.

An important element of the scoping stage is therefore to identify which services can be excluded from the ESIA in order to provide a comprehensive and manageable assessment. This was done using the ESIVI tool which contains a checklist of ecosystem services that has been compiled using the guidance, checklists, and other relevant information contained in the studies listed in the previous section.

In this assessment the ESIVI checklist (Table 18.2) was used to systematically identify the services which may potentially be impacted by the Project or upon which the Project may depend. Definitions and examples of each of the ecosystem services are provided in Appendix 18.1: Ecosystem Services Checklist.

Table 18.2 Ecosystem Services Checklist

Provisioning Services Regulating Services Cultural Services

Crops Local climate regulation Tourism and recreation values

Livestock and fodder Global climate regulation Cultural and spiritual values

Capture fisheries Air quality regulation Scientific and knowledge values

Aquaculture Hazard regulation Wild species diversity

Wild foods Water quality regulation

Timber Pollination

Continued…

2 Note, IFC Guidance Note 6 states that “client requirements are focused on the mitigation of impacts on ecosystem services and the benefits that ecosystem services might bring to companies rather than on the economic valuation for such services”.

18-8 URS-EIA-REP-202375

Provisioning Services Regulating Services Cultural Services

Energy Disease and pest control

Biochemicals/medicine Noise regulation

Water (supply) Soil quality regulation

Fibres and ornamental resources

Genetic resources

Complete.

It is important to note that impacts on supporting services are not explicitly accounted for in the ESIVI ecosystem services assessment in order to avoid double-counting. This follows from Bateman et al. who draw the distinction between supporting ecosystem services (e.g. nutrient cycling), final ecosystem services (e.g. growth of trees), goods (e.g. timber), and benefits (e.g. livelihoods) (Ref. 18.16).

Final ecosystem services are the last item in the chain of ecosystem functioning which inputs to the production of goods. They are the aspects of the natural environment which most directly affect human well-being. This focus on the final item in the chain of ecosystem services is to avoid the double counting which would occur if an attempt is made to value those intermediate ecological processes or outcomes (e.g. weathering, photosynthesis, nutrient cycling, etc.) which are captured elsewhere in the provisioning, regulating, and cultural services that they support. For example, the impacts of supporting services such as photosynthesis are accounted for in terms of their support of crop growth and timber production.

An important exception is nevertheless made in the case of biodiversity. The authors of the MA argued that biodiversity underpins ecosystem function and should therefore be categorised as a supporting service. As such, biodiversity in itself would be excluded from the ecosystem service assessment in order to avoid double counting. However, a number of other studies suggest that the existence of biodiversity is itself a service, regardless of whether or not it provides a supporting role in the provision of any other services, and that people are willing to pay to preserve global biodiversity even if they do not benefit from any of the ecosystem services it supports (Ref. 18.19, 18.20, and 18.21). Excluding biodiversity from the ecosystem services assessment would fail to capture such values.

Therefore, in order to capture as wide a range of benefits as possible, and following the approach of the landmark UK National Ecosystem Assessment (Ref. 18.18), “wild species diversity” is included in the assessment as a distinct cultural service in its own right. To avoid double counting, the ecosystem services assessment distinguishes between biodiversity as a supporting function, and wild species diversity that is valued for its own sake (i.e. the existence value that people are willing to pay for the preservation of particular species, or local values attached to particular species which are not captured within other services). As a result, the assessment for wild species diversity focuses on any threats to populations of locally, regionally, nationally, or globally significant species.

URS-EIA-REP-202375 18-9 Chapter 18 Ecosystem Services

Using the ESIVI checklist (Table 18.2), the range of ecosystem services potentially provided by the affected ecosystems, and the likely beneficiaries (direct or indirect) of each of those services were identified. As set out in PS 1, the emphasis during the initial identification stage is on covering the broadest possible scope of beneficiaries, including:

• Local beneficiaries, such as those who benefit from growing crops in a household plot close to where they live;

• Regional beneficiaries, such as those living within a watershed who benefit from flood protection;

• National beneficiaries, such as those across the country who visit an area for tourism / recreational purposes; and

• Global beneficiaries, such as those across the world who for example, benefit from carbon sequestration.

Identifying the type of beneficiary is important at this stage because different types of beneficiary are assessed differently with regard to mitigation requirements. For example, IFC PS6 applies to ESS whose beneficiaries are at the local or regional scale, while PS 1 applies to ESS with global beneficiaries, such as carbon sequestration. Further, the type of beneficiaries also informs whether an ecosystem service is classed as a Type 1 service, where impacts on ecosystem services may adversely affect communities, or a Type 2 service, where the project directly depends on an ecosystem service for its operations. Identification of beneficiaries at this stage also informs the baseline data collection plan by identifying the particular groups or individuals who need to be consulted about the extent to which they presently benefit from (or value) each of the ecosystem services identified.

Once the broadest possible range of potential ecosystem services and their associated beneficiaries were identified, each service was systematically reviewed and scored against the inclusion criteria shown in Table 18.3 to identify which ecosystem services should be included in the more detailed impact assessment and which should be scoped out of the assessment.

Table 18.3 Criteria for Determining the Scope of the Ecosystem Services Assessment*

Inclusion Criteria Assigned Score

Is this service provided by affected ecosystems? No Potentially Yes 0 1 2

Is the Project likely to have an impact on the ecosystem which No Potentially Yes provides this service? 0 1 2

Continued…

18-10 URS-EIA-REP-202375

Inclusion Criteria Assigned Score

Is the Project likely to reduce any of the benefits that any No Potentially Yes people derive from this ESS?** 0 1 2

Does the Project depend on this ESS for successful No Potentially Yes performance? 0 1 2

Does the client have direct management control or significant No Potentially Yes influence over this ESS?† 0 1 2

Is the Project likely to have an overall beneficial impact on No Yes service use or provision? 0 15

Ecosystem Service Relevance Score

Negligible Service not present and unlikely to be affected 0 Does not have to be assessed further

Low Project may have an insignificant impact / dependence on the service 1-4 Does not have to be assessed further

Moderate Project likely to have a significant impact on beneficiaries of the service or 5-8 likely to be dependent on the service Must be assessed further

High Project likely to have a significant impact on beneficiaries of the service 9-10 and likely to be dependent on the service Must be assessed further

Benefit Project is likely to have a positive impact on service provision >10 Does not have to be assessed further

* Note, under the scoring system set out in Table 18.3, a service can only be classed as high relevance if it is both a Type 1 and a Type 2 service i.e., the Project could reduce the benefits that people derive from the service and the Project itself depends on the service for successful performance. ** Note, this criterion specifically refers to potential impacts on users of a service while the preceding criterion refers to potential impacts on the ecosystem which provides the service. This is an important distinction because a Project may have significant impacts on an ecosystem (such as by withdrawing significant amounts of water from a river), however, whether or not people are using this service is an important factor in assessing the significance of the impact. † Note, this criterion follows the guidelines set out in the IFC PSs and identifies whether a client can be said to have control over a Project’s impacts on an ecosystem service (this may exclude, for example, upstream manufacture of inputs or downstream use of a product) and whether the impacts are likely to be of significant influence (while a Project may impact on a service, for example, it may be possible to exclude these impacts from the assessment if it is known at the scoping stage that the impacts will be insignificant in terms of beneficiaries well-being). Complete.

URS-EIA-REP-202375 18-11 Chapter 18 Ecosystem Services

The purpose of this initial scoping exercise was to identify any ecosystem services which may be provided by affected ecosystems, the extent of use, and how likely each of these services are to be impacted by the Project. Once the likely relevance was assessed, a shortlist of ecosystem services to be included in the baseline and impact assessment sections was compiled. Since this is a scoping exercise, the potential impact ratings shown in Table 18.4 should not be interpreted as an ultimate determination of impact significance; rather they are intended as an indication of the potential for an impact on a service to occur and the potential level of that impact.

The scoping exercise was undertaken through a review of both the information and data collected for the Project EIA and other ESIA chapters, including satellite mapping, site visits, and stakeholder consultation. A review of published literature was also carried out to supplement the existing evidence and to provide more detailed technical information where needed. As further information became available throughout the baseline and impact assessment process, the initial scoping exercise was revisited and updated where necessary in order to ensure that all relevant ecosystem services were included in the impact assessment.

The scoping exercise resulted in the identification of nine ecosystem services to be taken forward for more detailed assessment. These are:

• Capture fisheries; • Timber; • Water (supply); • Hazard regulation; • Water quality regulation; • Soil quality regulation; • Tourism and recreation values; • Cultural and spiritual values; and • Wild species diversity.

The full results of the scoping exercise are found in Appendix 18.2: Scoping Results while a summary of the rationale for inclusion or exclusion of each ecosystem service is provided Table 18.4.

18-12 URS-EIA-REP-202375

Table 18.4 Scoping Exercise: Summary of the Rationale for Inclusion or Exclusion of Each Ecosystem Service

Ecosystem Service Likely Include in Justification Relevance* Impact Assessment

Crops Low No Within the surrounding area agricultural land (predominantly vineyards) is relatively abundant. However, within the landfall section of the Project Area, the main land use is predominantly woodland (both semi-natural and plantations) together with areas of scrub and open habitats. There is one small plot of land (0.09 ha) within the landfall section of the Project classified as agricultural land although a site visit found that this land appears to be forested in common with neighbouring land (see Table 18.7). The plot does not fall within the RoW and vegetation clearance will not be required; although the plot is on the border of the Operational Phase safety exclusion zones (Chapter 15 Socio-Economics). Given that this land has not recently been cultivated, as well as the relative abundance of agricultural land within the surrounding area, there will be no significant impacts on the provision of this service or the well-being of any of the service beneficiaries.

Livestock and fodder Low No Livestock farming is present within the vicinity of the Project Area and animal grazing (primarily goats) occurs in the area surrounding the proposed site for the landfall facilities. The Project will not lead to loss of access to this land although there could be some noise / visual disturbance during construction activities. Any impacts on livestock farming are likely to low and there are alternative grazing areas available nearby. As such, there is unlikely to be a significant impact on the provision or use of this service.

Capture fisheries Moderate Yes Recreational, commercial, and artisanal fishing is practised within and around the nearshore and offshore sections of the Project Area. The Project could potentially limit access to fishing areas and disturb fish habitats and fisheries productivity which could potentially impact on the well-being of a number of beneficiaries.

Concern over the Project’s impact on this service was raised by Association Odessos and Association BG Fish during the initial stakeholder engagement process (Chapter 6 Stakeholder Engagement). The Ada Bacha fishing community also reported changes in fish migration patterns which they attribute to noise and vibration generated by the existing Galata pipeline.

Continued…

Ecosystem Service Likely Include in Justification Relevance* Impact Assessment

Aquaculture Low No There are a number of aquaculture farms which harvest mussels (Mytilus edulis and Mytilus galloprovincialis) and kelp algae along the Black Sea Coast. Within the Varna region there are currently two registered farms, Moreski Oasis Mussel Farm and the Setlavi Mussel Farm, both of which are located to the north of the port with the closest being approximately 16 km from the Pipeline. In addition, members of the Ada Bacha Community are developing a 50 ha mussel farm approximately 2.5 km to the north of the Pipeline that they plan to operate from 2014. Given the distance of these farms from the Project Area, and following consultation with the Ada Bacha community, it is considered unlikely that the Project will impact aquaculture production or the benefits derived from this service. Sediment from construction activities could potential impact such farms although, due to a weak northern current, suspended sediment from dredging and back filling should settle rapidly back onto the sea bed. At 2.5 km north of the Project Area suspended sediment is likely to be low (less than 5 mg/l) and so any impacts on the proposed mussel farm is highly unlikely. No discharges from the Project vessels will take place within 2 NM of the shore and therefore no impacts to water quality are expected. The project will be compatible with the objectives of the EU Shellfish Water Directive.

Wild foods Low No A variety of foods such as vegetables, fruits, honey, and berries are sold in local markets in Varna suggesting that rural households may collect wild foods from forested areas within the Project Area. The Regional Forest Directorate (Varna) issues licences to private individuals for collection of plants and wild herbs (for traditional remedies, medicines and food). It is understood that only a small number of licences (between 1 and 5) is issued each year although it is acknowledged by the Forest Directorate (Varna) that some unlicensed harvesting for personal and commercial purposes occurs (Ref. 18.22). The Project could potentially reduce the provision of such foods due to vegetation clearance and through temporarily restricting access to land within the landfall section during construction. However, the scale of vegetation loss is minor relative to the extent of habitat in the surrounding area and the habitat is well represented nearby. Further, vegetation clearance along the route may also increase accessibility of this resource by providing a path which could be used to exploit forest resources. Mussels are also collected recreationally along Pasha Dere and Chernomorets beaches each, a small business sells them (along with other seafood) on Chernomorets beach for 2.5 lev/kg (1.75 USD). The Project could temporarily reduce the accessibility of such resources during the construction period although there are several other areas nearby where shellfish could be collected. As such, any impact on provision or use of the service is likely to be low.

Continued…

Ecosystem Service Likely Include in Justification Relevance* Impact Assessment

Timber Moderate Yes The landfall section will pass through areas of state and privately owned forest comprising a mix of natural, semi- natural, and plantation forestry. The Project will require temporary clearance of forested areas during Construction and Pre-Commissioning Phase and a permanent area of clearance at the site of the landfall facilities and either side of the Pipeline. The loss of forest land could lead to the loss of a potential source of income for those involved in the sale of wood products as well as for the Regional Forest Directorate (Varna) which derives income from the sale of licences to harvesting companies. During site visits in June 2013 and March 2014 a number of roadside timber sellers were identified who harvest timber (under licence) from forests within Varna Municipality. There are specific sites designated for timber harvesting (which change over time according to planting and growth cycles) although none of these fall within the Project Area.

Energy Low No During a site visit in June 2013 there was evidence that firewood is collected in the vicinity of Pasha Dere Beach and used for fires during camping. This use is small-scale, seasonal, and recreational. It was also identified that rural and low-income households may collect fuel wood from forests within the Project Area. The Project has the potential to reduce the availability of such fuels due to vegetation clearance although the habitat (and provision of fuel wood) is well replicated nearby. Further, vegetation clearance along the Pipeline route may also increase accessibility of this resource by providing a path which could be used to exploit forest resources. As such, any impact on provision or use of the service is considered to be low. There is no use of other ecosystem-based energy such as wind power, hydropower, or other biofuels that could be affected by the Project.

Biochemicals / Low No It is possible that there are some pharmacologically active plants and herbs within the Project Area which may be medicine collected by rural households and visitors who practise traditional folk medicine or make use of herbal remedies. As noted above (under Wild Foods), the Regional Forest Directorate (Varna) issues permits to individuals to harvest wild plants and herbs for food and medicinal purposes. The Project could reduce the provision of such plants due to vegetation clearance within the landfall section.

Continued…

Ecosystem Service Likely Include in Justification Relevance* Impact Assessment

However, the habitat is well replicated nearby and vegetation clearance along the route may increase accessibility of this resource by providing a path which could be used to exploit forest resources. Further, the level of affluence and development of the area, together with the fact that alternative medicines are readily available from the local pharmacy, suggest that this is unlikely to be an important service and that most wild plant collection is for personal / household use and is primarily for ornamental purposes (i.e. collection of wild flowers).

Peloid 3deposits in Lake Varna are extracted for medicinal purposes and used in a number of health and well-being resorts although the Project is unlikely to impact provision or use of this service. As such, it is considered that impacts on provision or use of this service are likely to be of low significance.

Water (supply) Moderate Yes There are no known surface water abstractions within or downstream of the landfall section although the Pasha Dere River catchment supplies the protected ‘Liman’ wetland which is dependent on continued surface flows for ecosystem functioning. There are several groundwater abstractions in the vicinity of the Project Area, including the ‘Pasha Dere’ well-field (comprising eight abstraction wells) used for potable supply. The two closest wells are 600 m south east and 800 m south west of the Project Area. Freshwater will be required by the Project for general use by construction workers and construction activities. Water for domestic purposes will be brought to site by road tanker and bottled water will be provided for drinking purposes. The source of industrial water supply for the Project is currently being investigated by South Stream Transport although is likely to be sourced from an existing well in the Port of Varna. There is an existing 328 mm diameter steel pipe water main, owned by Water and Sewerage (ViK) Varna OOD, that runs perpendicular to and crosses the landfall section route of the Project pipelines supplying water to Rakitnika. The pipeline will also cross the Karabiyuk Stream, which is an ephemeral watercourse, approximately 1.4 km north west of its confluence with the Pasha Dere River.) using open cut construction techniques.

Continued…

3 Mud or clay deposits formed from humus and minerals over many years and used therapeutically in health spas and for medicinal uses.

Ecosystem Service Likely Include in Justification Relevance* Impact Assessment

These techniques could potentially impact upon surface water flows by diverting water channels. No other stream crossings are proposed. The landfall facilities are located at least 200 m from the nearest watercourse. Vegetation clearance could also impact surface flows and groundwater recharge rates. The well-being of groundwater abstractors within the region and the Project itself depend on the water supply. As such, this is a Type 1 and a Type 2 service.

Fibres and Low No Shells are collected from beaches in the local area and are used for ornamental purposes by households (e.g. in ornamental the Ada Bacha fishing community) or sold as handicrafts in local markets. The Project is unlikely to have a resources significant impact on service use or provision as the collection of shells is available from a number of other beaches and the supply of shells is unlikely to be impacted. Wildflowers (including snowdrops) are collected by individuals for ornamental purposes and some are also sold in local markets in Varna (although the source of these flowers is unknown). However, the Project is unlikely to have a significant impact upon those who collect wildflowers as the flowers are widespread and, given the small quantities sold and the short lifespan of the flowers once cut, are more likely to be collected closer to Varna than the Project Area. Goat skin instruments are also sold in local markets although the Project is unlikely to impact on the provision or use of this service.

Genetic resources Low No There is no evidence of any use of flora or fauna within or immediately surrounding the Project Area for the conservation or preservation of genetic resources. While it is possible that there may be as yet undiscovered genetic resources, there is no recorded scientific interest in the Project Area for exploitation of genetic resources or of any species unknown to science. Further, the habitat and fauna is replicated nearby and there are unlikely to be any unique genetic resources lost by any Project Activities.

Local climate Negligible No Due to the small scale of the Project Area relative to the extent of the surrounding ecosystems, it is unlikely that regulation the area impacted by the Project plays an important role in local climate control, e.g. the regulation of precipitation, cooling, or shading etc. As such, there is unlikely to be any significant change in provision or use of this service.

Continued…

Ecosystem Service Likely Include in Justification Relevance* Impact Assessment

Global climate Low No Vegetation and soils play a role in sequestering and storing greenhouse gases. Construction of landfall facilities and regulation the Pipeline, clearance of vegetation, and fuel burnt in generators and transportation will generate greenhouse gases. Disturbance of the seabed could also potentially lead to the release of methane deposits. However, the impact of these activities relative to global greenhouse gas emissions and their effects on the well-being of populations affected by climate change is considered to be negligible.

Air quality regulation Low No Vegetation can act as a natural barrier or filter for airborne pollutants (e.g. sulphur or nitrogen) and dust plumes. The Black Sea non-governmental organisation (NGO) Network raised concerns over the impacts of the Project on air quality during the initial stakeholder engagement process. The Project could potentially impact air quality through vegetation clearance and temporary emissions from construction vehicles and equipment. However, the overall impact of the Project on the ability of ecosystems to regulate air quality is likely to be low due to the temporary nature of Project emissions and the small extent of vegetation clearance relative to the total area of vegetation. As such, the Project is not likely to lead to a significant change in air quality or the well-being of any beneficiaries of this service (Chapter 9 Air Quality).

Hazard regulation Moderate Yes The Project could impact local flooding events through the crossing of a watercourse and changes in topography and could lead to an increase in erosion due to the clearance of trees which bind soil particles together. Scour and potential exposure of the buried pipelines along channel crossings onshore may also be of concern to the Project. As such, this is a Type 1 and a Type 2 service. Construction activities in the nearshore and offshore sections could also potentially affect natural coastal processes leading to coastal erosion, a changing coastal profile, and coastal flooding in certain locations.

Water quality Moderate Yes Vegetation, wetlands, streams, and various marine organisms play a role in the interception, filtration, regulation decomposition, and detoxification of pollutants and wastes. Regulation of water quality is important for the fishing industry, human consumption, tourism (particularly for water sports such as scuba diving), recreation, and for wider biodiversity (particularly species within the Liman wetland such as otters and newts).

Continued…

Ecosystem Service Likely Include in Justification Relevance* Impact Assessment

The Project could impact the ability of marine and freshwater ecosystems to regulate water quality through vegetation clearance, creation of sediment plumes during dredging, pollutant run-off during construction activities, and through the disposal of water used in hydrotesting. Concerns over the impacts of the Project on water quality in the local area were raised by the Black Sea NGO Network during the initial stakeholder engagement process.

Pollination Low No During the site visit several Lepidoptera (in their butterfly or moth adult life stage), beetle, and bee species were observed feeding on flower nectar within the landfall section and are likely to play some role in pollination within the surrounding area. The terrestrial land take required by the Project is likely to lead to a small loss of habitat which supports such pollinators. However, the limited extent of this loss in respect to the surrounding habitat means that the Project is unlikely to significantly impact the distribution or population of any important natural pollinators. As such, the impact on the provision and use of the service is expected to be low.

Disease and pest Negligible No There is no evidence to suggest that the ecosystems or any particular species within the vicinity of the Project Area control play a significant role in pest control. There is also no evidence of any habitats (e.g. standing water) which may influence the incidence and abundance of human pathogens.

Noise regulation Low No Vegetation of a certain density and quantity can play an important role in attenuating unwanted noise (e.g. traffic). Concerns over the impacts of the Project on noise regulation were raised by several residents of the local area during the initial stakeholder engagement process who mentioned that residents live in the area ‘because there is no noise, only the sound of sea’. Noise from construction traffic and the temporary generators together with vegetation clearance in the landfall section could impact on the ability of ecosystems to provide this service and thereby adversely affect nearby communities and users of Pasha Dere Beach (Chapter 10 Noise and Vibration). However, the noise regulating capacity of vegetation is dependent on its characteristics. To be effective, vegetation needs to be thick, tall forest at least 100 m deep and set close to the source. The clearing of vegetation required for the land take is unlikely to have a significant impact on the ability of ecosystems to regulate noise. While construction and, to a lesser extent operational, activities will generate noise resulting in a loss of tranquillity, this will not impact the ability of ecosystems to regulate noise. As such, these impacts are considered within the recreation ecosystem services.

Continued…

Ecosystem Service Likely Include in Justification Relevance* Impact Assessment

Soil quality Moderate Yes Terrestrial soil quality is important for landowners, workers, human health, flora, and fauna. Healthy soil also plays regulation an important role in flood regulation through the capacity for water absorption. The Project could impact this service through potential contamination of the soils through accidental leaks and spills or disturbance causing mobilisation of existing contaminants, compaction and erosion.

Tourism and Moderate Yes Tourism is an important and growing industry in the Varna region and the Project could affect both terrestrial and recreation values marine tourism and recreation through temporary or permanent loss of access to fishing spots, camping grounds, trails, and areas where water sports (e.g. boating or diving) are practised. Recreational visitors to Pasha Dere Beach are likely to experience a loss of visual amenity as a result of protective fencing and activities associated with clearance of vegetation during construction., The mobilisation of vessels associated with construction activities, large semi-stationary barges, and construction activity on the landfall section of the Project are also likely to cause a reduction in visual amenity. This visual pollution could impact the recreational beach and marine users of Pasha Dere Beach who value the area for its remoteness and unique aesthetic qualities. Controlled hunting takes place within the vicinity of the Project Area. Three hunting clubs with a total of over 300 members operate under the auspices of the Varna Hunting and Fishing Association within concessions granted by the Regional Forest Directorate (Varna). The Project’s landfall section is located in the territory of the Galata Hunting Club. Nearly all of this hunting is for sport purposes and only occurs on weekends for a limited number of months each year. For the rest of the year, the hunting clubs are actively engaged in conservation (Ref. 18.23). Some illegal poaching of deer and wild boar is reported to occur. Impacts on wild animals are assessed under Wild Species Diversity. The potential impacts on tourism and recreation were raised repeatedly during the initial stakeholder engagement process. Given the potential for impacts on beneficiaries, Tourism and recreation values have been scoped into the assessment.

Continued…

Ecosystem Service Likely Include in Justification Relevance* Impact Assessment

Cultural and spiritual Moderate Yes The natural environment plays an important role in the cultural identity and aesthetic value of the local area. There values are also a number of sites of cultural (graves / cemeteries / statues) and scientific (archaeological remains) importance. The Project could temporarily restrict access to such sites and permanently damage or disturb the natural environmental setting of the area which could impact on the well-being of any beneficiaries.

Scientific and Benefit No Marine surveys for the Project collected geophysical data from Black Sea locations not previously studied. knowledge values Preliminary analysis of these data suggest that the Project has facilitated the discovery of information which will be valuable to scientific knowledge. Publication of the results of this research will be explored in appropriate academic publications when available. Bacterial life which has adapted to survive in extreme anoxic environments may be present in areas of deep water offshore. While some mussel / bacterial matts were identified there was no evidence to suggest that this life is of any unique interest to science. Due to the potentially significant contribution to science that such surveys have revealed, the impact of the Project on this service is considered to be beneficial.

Wild species Moderate Yes A number of terrestrial and marine Red List species are present within the vicinity of the Project Area; cetaceans, diversity fish, and bird species that were recorded in the nearshore section near Varna are included in the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red list. The Project will pass through three sites designated as ‘Natura 2000’ protection areas under the EU Birds and Habitat Directives. Potential Project impacts on biodiversity were raised by the Varna Regional Administration, the Black Sea NGO Network, and the Bulgarian Society for the Protection of Birds during the initial stakeholder engagement process. Representatives from the Varna Hunting and Fishing Association and Galata Hunting Club also expressed concern about the potential for the Project to impact on wildlife. The construction of the Pipeline could impact such species through disturbance / severance / loss of habitat and as a result of noise from both construction activities and the operation of the Pipeline and compressor station itself.

*As calculated using the approach set out in Table 18.3; see Appendix 18.2 for full details.

Complete.

Chapter 18 Ecosystem Services

18.4 Spatial and Temporal Boundaries Ecosystem services are the contributions that ecosystems make to human well-being and business performance. As such, the focus of the ecosystem services assessment is on assessing changes in beneficiary well-being (including both Affected Communities and the Project itself), as a result of impacts on ecosystems and their associated services (Figure 18.3).

Figure 18.3 Impact Pathway for Assessing Impacts on Ecosystem Services

Impact on ecosystems Impact on Project activity and associated beneficiaries services

The assessment in this chapter therefore differs from other chapters in that it involves a two- stage process. First, the impacts on the ecosystem and its associated services (the physical receptor) need to be understood before the implications for ecosystem service beneficiaries (the social receptor) can be assessed.

As such, the spatial boundaries of this assessment are determined by: the Project Area and the ecosystems within it which are affected by the construction, operation, and decommissioning phases of the Project (a physically defined area); the flows of ecosystem services generated by these ecosystems; and, ultimately, the locations of the ecosystem service beneficiaries (a socially defined area).

The relationship between the Project Area, the Affected Ecosystems, and the Affected Beneficiaries is illustrated in Figure 18.4. Further details on each of the assessment areas are provided in the following sections.

Figure 18.4 Defining Spatial Boundaries for Assessing Impacts on Ecosystem Services

Project Area Affected Affected Ecosystems Beneficiaries

•The extent of •The extent of likely •The extent of the Project impacts on likely impacts footprint ecosystems and on beneficiaries relating to their associated of services Project services arising provided by, or components in from construction, dependent on, the landfall, operation, and Affected nearshore, and decommissioning Ecosystems offshore activites sections

18-22 URS-EIA-REP-202375

18.4.1 Project Area

The Project Area includes landfall, nearshore, and offshore sections. These are described in detail in Chapter 1 Introduction and in Chapter 5 Project Description.

18.4.2 Affected Ecosystems

The Affected Ecosystems are defined by the extent of the ecosystems or land uses which are most likely to be impacted by the Construction and Pre-Commissioning, Operational, or Decommissioning Phases of the Project.

Since ecosystems make up interconnected areas of natural habitat they cannot be restricted to a particular spatial area on a map. However, drawing a defined spatial boundary at this stage provides a basis for identifying the ecosystems most likely to be impacted by the Project. Since the Project includes both onshore and offshore components, the potential impacts on both marine and terrestrial ecosystems (including inland freshwater bodies) are considered.

18.4.3 Terrestrial Affected Ecosystems

Any ecosystems which fall at least partly within the landfall section of the Project Area could potentially be impacted by the Project through habitat loss, vegetation clearance, compaction, etc., while certain activities such as leaks, spills or emissions could have physical impacts on ecosystems (or parts thereof) outside of the Project Area.

Further, while the area within the safety exclusion zone (a 380 m width surrounding the Pipeline and the landfall facilities) may not experience any direct physical impacts, there will be restrictions on land use and development within the exclusion zone which could potentially affect access to ecosystem services provided in situ (e.g. crops, wild foods, etc.).

For the purposes of the ecosystem services assessment, the starting point for identifying potentially Affected Ecosystems has been defined as a 1 km radius surrounding the landfall section, extending to the coastline (Figure 18.5).4

18.4.4 Marine Affected Ecosystems

As noted above, the Project Area is divided into landfall, nearshore and offshore sections. This division is based on technical consideration of different construction activities to be employed in each section, and has no connection to the ecosystems in which Project Activities take place. Since the nearshore and offshore sections of the Project Area are ecologically contiguous, the marine Affected Ecosystems are considered as one area covering the extent of both the nearshore and offshore sections (Figure 18.6). The extent of this area is set out below.

4 Note - taking this as a starting point recognises that the extent of the Affected Ecosystem could extend beyond the 1 km boundary. These wider impacts are accounted for through the assessment of impacts on beneficiaries.

URS-EIA-REP-202375 18-23

LEGEND Terrestrial affected ecosystems Land Uses Main roads Minor roads/trails and paths Rivers Municipality boundaries Indicative military area Nationally protected area Agricultural land (unconfirmed) Coastal vegetation Deciduous forest plantations Deciduous shrub Disturbed dry grassland Grey dune grassland Open Habitat Plantation Woodland (non-native) Settlements/infrastructure Swamp Vineyard Woodland (predominantly native) Black Sea Coast Territory Act Zone A Black Sea Coast Territory Act Zone B Varna Municipality Bulgarian Sector of South Stream Offshore Pipeline Proposed offshore pipelines Proposed microtunnels Proposed landfall section pipelines Landfall facilities Right-of-Way Microtunnel entry point Microtunnel exit point Temporary construction sites Temporary construction site for permanent access road to be constructed by SSTTBV Permanent access road to be constructed by SSTTBV Galata Pipeline Infrastructure Existing Galata gas pipeline Existing Galata gas processing plant South Stream Pipeline System on the territory of the Republic of Bulgaria Varna compressor station Pasha Dere receiving terminal SSBAD pipelines Permanent access road to be Rakitnik constructed by SSBAD

Projection: Lambert Conformal Conic Purpose of Issue For Information Liman Client

Project Title SOUTH STREAM OFFSHORE Avren Municipality PIPELINE PROJECT

Drawing Title TERRESTRIAL AFFECTED ECOSYSTEMS

Drawn Checked Approved Date AH VS VS 23/07/2014 URS Internal Project No. Scale @ A3 46369082 1:25,000

0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 Drawing Number Rev m Figure 18.5 Plot Date: 08/11/2012 File Name: I:\5004 Information- Systems\46369082_South_Stream\MXDs\Report Maps Bulgaria\Alternatives- Assessment\Figure 6.2 Bulgaria Landfall Constraints Map Landfall.mxd

Bliznatsi

LEGEND Marine affected ecosystems Bulgarian Sector of South Stream Offshore Pipeline -1500 Proposed offshore pipelines Galata Pipeline Infrastructure Existing Galata gas pipeline -20 Exclusive Economic Zone boundary

-500 Isobaths

Bulgarian EEZ

-50 -2000

-1000

Projection: Lambert Conformal Conic -200 Purpose of Issue For Information

Client

Project Title SOUTH STREAM Turkish EEZ OFFSHORE PIPELINE Drawing Title MARINE AFFECTED ECOSYSTEMS

Drawn Checked Approved Date AH RW MW 24/03/2014 URS Internal Project No. Scale @ A3 46369082 1:700,000 This document has been prepared in accordance with the scope of URS' appointment with its client and is subject to the terms of that appointment. URS accepts no liability for any use of this document other than by its client and only for the purposes for which it was prepared and provided. Only written dimensions shall be used. © URS Infrastructure & Environment UK Limited

URS Infrastructure & Environment UK Limited -100 Scott House Alencon Link, Basingstoke Hampshire, RG21 7PP Telephone (01256) 310200 Fax (01256) 310201 www.ursglobal.com 0 10 20 30 40 50 Drawing Number Rev km

PlotDate: 24Mar 2014 FileName:\\ba-wip-001\4400 - ManagementServices\5004 - Information Systems\46369082_South_Stream\MXDs\Report Maps- Bulgaria\Bulgarian ESIA\Chapter 18\Figure18.6 Marine Affected Ecosystems.mxd Figure 18.6

The Offshore Section: This extends from the boundary of the Turkish and Bulgarian EEZs (230 km from the Bulgarian coast) to approximately 24 km from the Bulgarian coast, where the water depth is approximately 36 m. The four pipelines enter the Bulgarian EEZ at a water depth of approximately 2,140 m. The offshore section is approximately 206 km in length and located solely within the Bulgarian EEZ (i.e. not within territorial waters).

The offshore section of the Project Area is primarily defined by the maritime safety exclusion zones in a radius around the pipe-lay vessel. The Project Area consists of a corridor of 3 km from the start of the nearshore section to the 600 m water depth contour, after which the corridor decrease to 2 km width either side of the Pipeline from the 600 m water depth contour to the EEZ boundary. The offshore section of the Project Area encompasses:

• The area impacted by sediment dispersion, based on sediment models; • The route of the four individual pipelines; and • The likely anchor spread and movement locations of vessels directly associated with the Pipeline installation and maintenance.

The offshore section is approximately 1,273.4 km2.

The Nearshore Section: This will be approximately 24 km from the Bulgarian coast in a water depth of approximately 36 m and will extend to the exit point of the microtunnels located approximately 420 m from the coast in a water depth of approximately 12 m. From 36 m water depth to 24 m water depth (located approximately 2 km from the shoreline), the pipelines will be laid directly on the seabed. From 24 m water depth to the microtunnel exit points, the pipelines will be installed in dredged trenches of approximately 2.5 m depth with a minimum cover of 1.5 m. At the microtunnel exit point, the pipelines will emerge from the microtunnel in an exit pit dredged to a depth of approximately 6 m.

The nearshore section of the Project Area is defined by the maritime safety exclusion zones around the construction vessels, extending in a 3 km radius around an anchored pipe-lay vessel, encompassing:

• The area impacted by sediment dispersion, based on sediment models; • The route of the four individual pipelines; • The likely anchor spread and movement locations of vessels directly associated with the Pipeline installation and maintenance;

• The proposed dredging area and spoil storage sites; and • The proposed microtunnel exit pits.

The nearshore section Project Area is approximately 101.3 km2.

As such, the starting point (i.e. the marine Affected Ecosystems) for assessing the potential impacts on ecosystem services in the marine environment has been delineated as a 2 km wide corridor from the EEZ boundary to the 600 m water depth contour, and then a 3 km wide corridor from the 600 m water depth contour to the end of the nearshore section of the Pipeline. Again, taking this as a starting point recognises that the potential extent of predicted

URS-EIA-REP-202375 18-29 Chapter 18 Ecosystem Services

impacts (e.g. noise disturbance) may extend beyond this boundary. These are captured in the assessment of impacts on beneficiaries.

18.4.5 Affected Beneficiaries

Due to the interconnectedness of ecosystem processes and the flows of services they provide, impacts on Affected Ecosystems may also influence the ability of people to use or access particular services outside of the Affected Ecosystems.

For example, abstraction from surface waters within Affected Ecosystems could reduce surface water flows which could impact the ability of beneficiaries to abstract water downstream. Likewise, fish species may breed at particular sites within marine Affected Ecosystems and then migrate throughout the marine environment supporting fishing industries across multiple countries.

As such, beneficiaries living outside of the Affected Ecosystems may be impacted by changes to the services provided and the assessment therefore needs to consider, “project-related impacts across the potentially affected landscape or seascape…which does not necessarily correspond to any one pre-defined unit of geographical space” (Ref. 18.9).

Further, the location of beneficiaries can vary depending on the type of service and, as such, beneficiaries are not restricted to a particular spatial area or landscape. For example, while the beneficiaries of the local climate regulation service may be restricted to the surrounding area, the beneficiaries of global climate regulation may be located throughout the world. As such, the extent of impacts on beneficiaries of ecosystem services can extend far beyond the Project Area or the Affected Ecosystems.

The Affected Beneficiaries are therefore defined by the location of the beneficiaries of the services provided by or dependent upon the Affected Ecosystems. While most of the beneficiaries are likely to be located within or around the ecosystems providing services, they vary across different services and can be located regionally, nationally, or even globally.

As such, the locations of Affected Beneficiaries are not restricted to a single pre-defined unit of geographical space and instead are defined for each ecosystem service depending on the beneficiaries of that service.

While the focus of the assessment in this chapter is on potential impacts on local beneficiaries living close to or within the Affected Ecosystems (defined as beneficiaries living in the Local Area5), impacts on regional, national, and global beneficiaries are identified and accounted for where applicable (Table 18.5 and Figure 18.7).

5 Note: in alignment with Chapter 15 Socio-Economics, the Local Area encompasses Varna (city), Asparuhovo, Galata and Zelenika, Priboj and Fichoza, Borovets (including Kantara), Rakitnika, Priseltsi and Priseltsi VZ.

18-30 URS-EIA-REP-202375 LEGEND 0 25 50 km Local Communities Other communities Ada Bacha fishing community Varna Region Fishing businesses A5 Motorway VARNA MUNICIPALITY Route 9 Krushkite Road AVREN Municipality boundary MUNICIPALITY Varna Mayoralty boundary Bulgarian Sector of South Beloslav B l a c k S e a Varna Beach Fishing Stream Offshore Pipeline Varna Bay L a k e V a r n a businesses Proposed offshore pipelines Burgas Proposed microtunnels Port of Varna Proposed landfall section (Varna East Port) pipelines V a r n a B a y Landfall facilities 0 100 200 km Asparuhovo Right-of-Way Microtunnel entry point Microtunnel exit point Asparuhovo Mayoralty Permanent access road to be constructed by SSTTBV VARNA MUNICIPALITY Zelenika Galata Pipeline Infrastructure Bulgaria Varna Existing Galata gas pipeline Galata Region Existing Galata gas Zvezditsa processing plant B l a c k South Stream Pipeline System on the S e a Borovets A5 Motorway territory of the Republic of Bulgaria Priboj and Varna compressor station Fichoza Pasha Dere receiving terminal Route 9 SSBAD pipelines Kantara Permanent access road to be constructed by SSBAD

Krushkite Road Projection: Lambert Conformal Conic Priseltsi VZ Rakitnika

Check Ada Bacha Revision Details By Suffix Check Date fishing Purpose of Issue community For Information AVREN MUNICIPALITY Priseltsi Mayoralty Client Chernomorets Beach

Priseltsi Project Title SOUTH STREAM OFFSHORE PIPELINE Pasha Dere Beach Drawing Title

AFFECTED BENEFICIARIES

Route 9 Drawn Checked Approved Date AH VS VS 08/05/2014 URS Internal Project No. Scale @ A3 46369082 1:65,000

URS Infrastructure & Environment UK Limited Scott House Alencon Link, Basingstoke Hampshire, RG21 7PP Telephone (01256) 310200 Fax (01256) 310201 www.ursglobal.com 0 1 2 3 Drawing Number Rev km Figure 18.7 PlotDate: 02Sep 2013 FileName:I:\5004 - InformationSystems\46369082_South_Stream\MXDs\Report Maps - Bulgaria\Bulgarian EIA\Chapter15\Figure 15.1 NationalRegional Municipal district andlocal community contextof the project.mxd

Table 18.5 Ecosystem Service Beneficiaries

Location of Definition Beneficiaries

Local Area Residents, landowners, and companies located within Varna and Avren Municipalities who directly or indirectly benefit from services (e.g. fuel wood) provided by Affected Ecosystems. Specifically, this includes the settlements of: Varna, Asparuhovo, Borovets, Galata and Zelenika, Rakitnika, Priboj and Fichoza, Priseltsi and Priseltsi VZ.

Regional Residents, landowners, and companies within the wider region (Varna and Avren Regions) who directly or indirectly benefit from services provided by the Affected Ecosystems (e.g. fisheries).

National Residents, landowners, and companies within Bulgaria who directly or indirectly benefit from services provided by the Affected Ecosystems (e.g. tourism).

Global Residents, landowners, and companies within other countries who directly or indirectly benefit from services provided by, or dependent upon, the Affected Ecosystems (e.g. carbon sequestration).

18.4.6 Temporal Boundaries

The temporal boundaries of this assessment are defined by the five key phases of the Project as set out in Chapter 1 Introduction. These include:

• Feasibility Phase (2007 to early 2012); • Development (or Design) Phase (early 2012 to late 2013); • Construction and Pre-Commissioning Phase (late 2014 to end 2017); • Fully Operational Phase (2017 to 2065) 6; and • Decommissioning Phase (2065 onwards).

Unless otherwise indicated, the temporal boundaries of this assessment are assumed to be the life of the Project (i.e. 50 years).

18.5 Baseline Data

18.5.1 Methodology and Data

Following the scoping exercise, the next step was to establish the present condition of the scoped-in services as well as broad trends in their provision and use. The baseline provides an analysis of the existing condition of an ecosystem and the services it provides in the absence of the Project, taking into account external factors (i.e. not related to the Project) that may affect

6 First gas from Pipeline #1 is scheduled for late 2015, and all four pipelines are expected to be fully operational by the end of 2017.

URS-EIA-REP-202375 18-33 Chapter 18 Ecosystem Services

future service provision including, for example, climate change, population growth, and changes in land management. The assessment is based on the impacts of the Project in relation to this baseline and covers:

• Current provision of services and how the habitat / land cover supports their delivery; • The importance of ecosystem services to beneficiaries; and • How ecosystem services and the benefits they provide are likely to change in future in the absence of the Project.

The data used for the baseline assessment was obtained from a wide range of sources including secondary sources (i.e. existing data including government or academic reports etc.) and primary sources (i.e. new data collected through interviews, field surveys, and stakeholder engagement activities as described in Chapter 6 Stakeholder Engagement).

Information collected during the baseline data collection stage revealed locally important ecosystem services which were not included in the initial scoping exercise, as well as some services initially thought to be important which were found not to be of significant value. As data was collected, the outcomes of the original scoping exercise were updated to ensure that these more accurately reflected the importance of each of the ecosystem services to beneficiaries as suggested by the evidence from the baseline data analysis.

The remainder of this section sets out the data sources in more detail and the limitations of the assessment in terms of the availability of data collected.

18.5.2 Secondary Data

Secondary data and information was obtained through a literature review of relevant peer- reviewed journal articles, research reports, newspaper articles, and publically available databases.

18.5.3 Data Gaps

Due to the fact that the importance of services provided by different ecosystems depends upon how people interact with and value them, the analysis revealed a number of information gaps in relation to the provision and use of services which were not captured through secondary data sources.

18.5.4 Primary Data / Baseline Surveys

In light of the data gaps that emerged from the review of secondary data, a data collection exercise was undertaken which sought to supplement the secondary data gaps as well as to verify and ground-truth the secondary data available. Primary data on ecosystem services was collected during field visits in 2013 and 2014. These visits included: stakeholder meetings; observations of conditions; and meetings and interviews with local government authorities, local businesses including fisheries enterprises representatives, and local landowners.

The first ecosystem services site visit was conducted on 11 to 12 June 2013 (together with the socio-economics team) to gain a better understanding of:

18-34 URS-EIA-REP-202375

• The extent and status of terrestrial and coastal ecosystems; • The topography and the spatial distribution of ecosystems and their associated services across the landscape; and

• The proximity of local communities to natural environment features that give rise to ecosystem services e.g. Pasha Dere Beach, wooded areas, fishing grounds, etc. and the extent to which local communities benefit from these services.

During the site visit, meetings were held with representatives of the Ada Bacha fishing community and the Varna Chamber of Tourism as detailed in below.

A second visit was conducted in March 2014 to obtain further information about the nature and extent of harvesting of forest products (including timber, fuel wood and flora) and hunting activities within the vicinity of the Project Area. Meetings held during this time are listed in Table 18.6.

Table 18.6 Stakeholder Meetings Conducted During Site Visits

Stakeholder Purpose of meeting Date

Ada Bacha fishing To obtain further information about the Ada Bacha fishing 11 June 2013 community community including degree of dependency on fishing, location of fishing grounds, perceived / actual impacts of the Galata pipeline and perception of the South Stream Offshore Pipeline Project in relation to fishing activities.

Varna Chamber of To obtain further information about principal tourism 12 June 2013 Tourism destinations and activities around Varna, and particularly to the south of Varna town.

State Forest Office To obtain further information about timber harvesting and 6 March 2014 (Varna) collection of non-timber forest products.

Varna Hunting and To obtain further information about hunting activities within 6 March 2014 Fishing Association the vicinity of the Project Area and the perceived / actual and Galata Hunting impacts of the Galata pipeline on wild animals. Club

Information was also collected from the Varna Cultural and Tourist Information Center in relation to tourism and leisure facilities and activities along the Black Sea Coast and specifically on cycle routes, scuba diving, water sports, fishing, hunting, and camping.

Since ecosystem services represent the intersection of the natural and human environment, this chapter also draws upon the baseline information and analysis conducted in other relevant chapters of the ESIA, including information made available in the form of minutes of meetings and a report on a beach usage survey at Pasha Dere Beach (see Appendix 15.2: Pasha Dere Beach Usage Survey). Any gaps in the baseline data relating to ecosystem services were discussed with the relevant technical chapter specialists in case the information was readily

URS-EIA-REP-202375 18-35 Chapter 18 Ecosystem Services

available and / or could be obtained through ongoing data collection and stakeholder engagement.

18.5.5 Data Assumptions and Limitations

Accurate, quantifiable data on the use of ecosystem services is used where possible, however, for many ecosystem services the data were not available to establish a detailed and quantifiable metric in terms of baseline provision or use for each ecosystem service.

While this is a potential limitation, it does not significantly undermine the results of the assessment since the ecosystem services assessment refers to and builds upon the assessments undertaken in each chapter of the ESIA which use measurable metrics for assessing changes in the natural environment. The emphasis of this assessment is placed on drawing together the other chapters in the ESIA to assess the impacts on the well-being of beneficiaries resulting from changes in the natural environment. As such, the ecosystem services assessment aims to quantify changes in well-being as a result of changes in the provision of ecosystem services.

Due to the fact that there is a high degree of variance between the values which beneficiaries attach to services, measuring well-being impacts using a single metric across all services and beneficiaries is a difficult task. One approach is to use economic valuation techniques to estimate the value of changes in well-being resulting from changes in ecosystem service provision in monetary terms.

However, due to the need for detailed, high quality primary data to establish reliable economic valuation estimates, and the time consuming nature of undertaking such primary data collection exercises, it is considered beyond the scope of an ESIA to carry out an economic valuation of ecosystem service use.

In light of this, the value of services provided by Affected Ecosystems has been assessed in a qualitative manner through stakeholder engagement exercises, expert discussion, and literature review. Where residual impacts are identified on priority ecosystem services which require compensation, economic valuation may be considered to evaluate the effectiveness of proposed mitigation and/or the value of economic displacement and the appropriate level of compensation.

18-36 URS-EIA-REP-202375

18.6 Baseline Characteristics

18.6.1 Capture Fisheries

Definition: The capture of wild fish for consumption and recreation purposes through trawling and other non- farming methods.

18.6.1.1 Black Sea Fisheries

The total Black Sea catch has been highly variable over the past 40 years. The modernisation of the fishing fleet from the 1970s resulted in an almost eight-fold increase in annual fish landings between 1970 and 1988. This was followed by a drastic decline, noticeably in anchovy (Engraulis encrasicolus), sprat (Sprattus sprattus), and other small pelagics as a result of a combination of overfishing, the accidental introduction of the invasive predatory ctenophore Mnemiopsis leidyi, and nutrient loading and pollution of the Black Sea (Ref. 18.24). The accidental introduction of the M. leidyi led to a major decline in zooplankton abundances (Ref. 18.25). This situation persisted until 1997 to 1998, with another accidental introduction, possibly from ship ballast water, of the ctenophore Beroe ovata (Ref. 18.26). This species is the main predator of M. leidyi and subsequently the zooplankton community began to recover both in species composition and abundance (Ref. 18.27). Mnemiopsis leidyi feeds on both plankton (a food source for numerous fish species) and fish larvae themselves and as such directly impacted the abundance of commercially important fish species in the Black Sea.

Catches began to increase from 1992 onwards and have fluctuated between approximately 150,000 and 400,000 tonnes. The high degrees of fluctuation have been attributed not only to the changes in biomass of the commercial stocks but also economic fluctuations and the relative profitability of different fisheries. This, at least in part, explains the change in the species composition of the catch over the years, with large-sized “food valuable” fish such as turbot (Scophthalmus maximus), bluefish (Pomatomus saltator), and Atlantic bonito (Sarda sarda) being replaced by smaller pelagic species such as European anchovy (Engraulis encrasicolus) and sprat (Sprattus sprattus), which have a lower unit price and may be used for oil or fishmeal rather than consumed directly (Ref. 18.24).

A 2012 assessment of Black Sea fish stocks by the Scientific, Technical, and Economic Committee for Fisheries (STECF) found that turbot, anchovy, and whiting stocks are all subject to overfishing, although a lack of data prevented projections of stocks in the medium term (Ref. 18.28). Sprat stock was found to be at a historically high abundance, although a recent increase in Turkish catches was found to have placed unprecedented increases in fishing pressure on the species and a negative trend in stock biomass and expected catches is predicted (Ref. 18.28).

The Black Sea is characterised by low salinity levels due to the fact that it is isolated from the world's oceans and has a positive balance of freshwater receiving about 350 km3 per year of from three large rivers, Danube, Dnieper and the Don. In the central area of the sea, surface

URS-EIA-REP-202375 18-37 Chapter 18 Ecosystem Services

salinity is 18 ‰ increasing to 22 ‰ with depth resulting in the vertical stratification of the water column into a number of layers of different densities. Due to the weak mixing of the waters, deep layers of water below 150 m depth are anoxic and are unable to support life (for any commercially significant species). This limits the fishing grounds to areas on the continental shelf above 150 m for anything but pelagic trawling.

A detailed description of the fisheries within the Black Sea is provided in Appendix 15.1: South Stream Offshore Pipeline Fisheries Study. A summary of the information relevant to the ecosystem services assessment is presented below.

18.6.1.2 Fisheries in Bulgarian Waters of the Black Sea

The marine resources in the Black Sea are shared by Bulgaria, Georgia, Romania, the Russian Federation, Turkey, and the Ukraine. Historically, Turkey has dominated Black Sea fishing activity and it continues to do so today, accounting for 77% of the total catch (by volume) in 2010. By comparison, Bulgaria’s catch accounted for around 1% of the total Black Sea catch in 2010 (Ref. 18.29).

The fisheries sector (including inland fisheries, aquaculture, and secondary sectors such as processing and manufacturing) represents around 0.14% of Bulgaria’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP) (Ref. 18.30). However, it is an important source of employment at a regional level, particularly in coastal areas and communities in the provinces of Varna (particularly Byala), Dobrich and Burgas (particularly Burgas, Nessebar, Primorsko and Sozopol) (Ref. 18.30).

All Bulgarian fishing activities take place within the contiguous zone (up to 24 NM offshore) with the majority located within Territorial Waters (up to 12 NM offshore). Data from Vessel Monitoring Systems (VMS) 7 suggests that the area between Cape Galata and Cape Cherni Nos (in particular Cape Ilandzhik – Kamchia River close to Pasha Dere Beach), between 10 NM and 16 NM offshore, is one of the most productive areas for fish populations in the Bulgarian Black Sea. Offshore fishing vessels operate up to depths of around 100 m and use either demersal gear (bottom-set gillnets) or pelagic gear (midwater trawls, and hooks and lines); there are also some areas where bottom beam trawling is permitted for rapa whelk). In shallower waters close to the coastline, small-scale artisanal fisheries use stationary pound nets, gillnets, and hooks- and-lines.

The Bulgarian Fisheries and Aquaculture Act (FAA) had placed a ban on all forms of destructive fishing, including bottom trawls and dredges, within Bulgarian waters. However, this legislation was recently changed to allow bottom beam trawling for rapa whelk (Rapana venosa) in five specific areas. This includes a small area that intersects the Pipeline route and exclusion zone.

There is also an area closed to fishing, construction of mussel farms, underwater dredging activities, and anchoring, defined by the Maritime Administration in Varna as Area 310. It covers the area of the current Galata pipeline shown in Figure 18.8. There are seasonal restrictions on fishing for turbot (with all gear types) from the 15th April for 60 days and for fishing for gobies with nets from 15th April to 15th May; this coincides with the spawning times for both species.

7 As of January 2011, 111 vessels operating in Bulgarian waters use this system which is monitored by and reported to the Fisheries Monitoring Centre (FMC)

18-38 URS-EIA-REP-202375

Analysis of historical and survey data reveals a relatively high species diversity and the presence of rare and declining fish species. More than 100 species have been documented along the Bulgarian coast (Chapter 13 Marine Ecology). The shallow continental shelf that extends offshore from Pasha Dere Beach is distinguished by declining species diversity as water depths increase. The nearshore coastal area is characterised by large populations of small species such as gobies (Gobiidae), black scorpionfish (Scorpaena porcus), sand sole (Pegusa lascaris), stargazer (Uranoscopus scaber), greater weever (Trachinus draco), and red mullet. Larger species (e.g. turbot, shad, spiny dogfish, common stingray, thornback ray etc.) are typically found in deeper waters. The main landing ports are Balchik, Burgas, Varna, Sozopol, and Nessebar. Varna and Balchik are located to the north of the Project Area and Burgas, Nessebar, and Sozopol are located to the south. Fishery businesses in the Varna area are concentrated in the vicinity of the small port on the north side of the southern channel linking Varna Lake with Varna Bay, opposite the town of Asparuhovo. This is the operational base of ‘Sever Export’ one of the leading private fishing companies engaged in both fishing and fish processing in Varna. Sever Export fishes in the offshore section of the Project Area and has four of its own fishing vessels (Ref. 18.31). Its main export is the rapa whelk (often referred to as ‘topshell’) which it has been processing since the late 1990s and exports mainly to East Asia. Annually, it exports between 400 and 450 tonnes of frozen, boiled topshell meat and has an annual turnover of between US$2.5 million and US$5 million (Ref. 18.31). In the last decade, the rapa whelk (a mollusc) has seen a significant increase in commercial value.

The composition of fish landings in Bulgaria includes 36 species of fish, molluscs, and crustaceans (Ref. 18.32). The most important pelagic fish species are European sprat (Sprattus sprattus), Mediterranean horse mackerel (Trachurus mediterraneus), and anchovy (Engraulis encrasicolus). Demersal fish species with commercial importance include turbot (Psetta maxima), gobies (Gobiidae), and piked dogfish (Squalus acanthias). The fishing grounds within the vicinity of the Project Area (i.e. around Varna Bay) lie in the migratory paths of a number of these species. However, the most significant species for the Bulgarian fishing industry are the non-migratory rapa whelk (Rapana venosa) and the European sprat (Sprattus sprattus) which migrates between nearshore and offshore areas.

The rapa whelk is located all around the Black Sea shelf down to depths of 40 m but is found in highest densities along the Ukrainian and Bulgarian coasts. This non-native marine snail, now established in Bulgarian waters, predates primarily on bivalves including oysters and mussels and has had severe impacts on local populations. They move inshore in summer to spawn on compact, sandy areas of seabed, after spawning they move to deeper water where they bury themselves in the substratum. The fishing season is in summer, when they are easier to catch on the seabed surface. Rapa whelk are mainly harvested through bottom trawling and accounted for around 60% of Bulgaria’s total catch in 2012. Although banned off the coast of Bulgaria, there are a number of areas further offshore where beam trawling for rapa is permitted. They are also caught by divers. Most processing is carried out in Varna. This species is not typically consumed locally, but is exported to Asia. Commercial exploitation of this species provides a source of income as well as controlling the spread of this non-native species, thereby conserving native mussel beds.

Along with the rapa whelk, sprat makes up over 90% of the total catch by the Bulgarian fleet. In 2012, 2,836 t were landed in Bulgarian waters, although this represents only around a third

URS-EIA-REP-202375 18-39 Chapter 18 Ecosystem Services

of the quota of 8,032 t allocated to Bulgaria in that year. They are normally fished on the continental shelf, between depths of 15 and 110 m, during the day using midwater trawls or uncovered pound nets nearer to shore. Special permission is required by vessels wanting to fish beyond the 12 NM territorial zone. The fishing season is normally over the winter months as the sprat move inshore to form aggregations over their winter feeding ground, in spring and summer they move to deeper water over the shelf to spawn, up to 100 km offshore. They have no set wintering grounds and their movements are highly dependent on environmental conditions, particularly water temperature. Low catches in some areas of the Black Sea have been attributed to warmer waters on the continental shelf causing them to move elsewhere (Appendix 15.1). They are a visual predator, feeding mainly on planktonic crustaceans, and are known to avoid turbid waters, although they are unlikely to be sensitive to sedimentation as they are pelagic spawners with pelagic eggs and larvae. They have also been shown to be highly sensitive to low frequency sound (Appendix 15.1 and Chapter 13 Marine Ecology).

The lifecycle of fish species in the Black Sea and the nature of Black Sea currents mean that certain species within the marine environment can be important to fishing industries operating across the entire Black Sea. For example, anchovy migrate extensively across the Black Sea, passing most coastal sections as well as open water, with important life stages (e.g. spawning, larvae, wintering, feeding) occurring in many different locations. Both migratory and non- migratory species regularly cross national territorial waters and EEZ boundaries. Any potential impacts on species stocks in the marine environment may therefore have the potential to influence fisheries in other Black Sea countries.

Surveys undertaken for the ESIA found that the ichthyoplankton community in the marine environment is characterised by larvae and juveniles of sprat and whiting and, in autumn, by eggs and larvae of anchovy and horse mackerel. The majority of fish captured during surveys were juveniles of species such as sprat, anchovy, horse mackerel, whiting, and turbot, suggesting that the marine environment is an important nursery ground for these species. Anchovy populations in the area are characterised by early maturation due, in part, to nutrient enrichment from Lake Varna which increases the plankton biomass in coastal waters aiding development of planktivorous anchovy (Chapter 13 Marine Ecology).

18.6.1.3 Ada Bacha Fishing Community

In addition to commercial fishing operations there are a number of smaller, artisanal fisheries that operate along the coast. The nearest to the Pipeline is the Ada Bacha fishing community. Ada Bacha is located approximately 2.7 km to the north of the landfall section on the northern end of Chernomorets Beach. It was formally registered in 1993 and comprises 22 fishermen from 7 families; 10 are full time, artisanal fishermen 8 and 12 fish recreationally.

The Ada Bacha fishing community owns approximately 20 boats ranging in size from 3.4 m to 6.8 m. All are powered by outboard engines ranging in power between 4 hp and 90 hp with the majority being between 4 hp and 10 hp. These allow fishermen to reach fishing grounds which,

8 A small-scale or artisanal fishery is usually understood to mean a fishery involving fishing households (as opposed to commercial companies), using a relatively small amount of capital and energy, relatively small fishing vessels (if any), making short fishing trips, close to shore, with the catch being sold, bartered or traded mainly for local consumption (including that of the fishing households).

18-40 URS-EIA-REP-202375

depending on the season and species, range from the peninsular, approximately 2.5 NM to the north, to about 3 NM to the south of the current restricted zone around the Galata gas pipeline and a maximum of 4 NM out from shore (see Figure 18.8).

Fishing activities are mostly undertaken using monofilament gillnets, which are attached to the bottom using weights and supported with floats on the surface. Driftnets are also used (similar to gillnets but not attached, or attached only at one end to the boat) as well as hooks on vertical longlines in deeper water, angling is also practiced from the shore. Gillnets can be up to 600 m long and hang down 20 to 30 m depending on the species targeted.

The Ada Bacha fishermen target a number of different migratory species when they are present. For some species, such as blue fish (Pomatomas saltatrix), this period may be very short, about 4 to 5 days on their north to south migration. Fishing for other migratory species takes place every day during the season (September to early July). There is no fishing from mid-July to August due to the warmer water temperature. The community is also planning to start a mussel farm in the bay around 2.5 km north of the Project Area which will cover an area of approximately 50 ha (Ref. 18.33).

Income per person, as estimated by a representative of the Ada Bacha fishing community, ranges between around 200 lev and 1,000 lev (US$140 to US$700) per month dependent upon catch. While there is a small amount of processing done on site, most of the catch is sold on to export companies, such as Sever Export based in Varna, who come down to the Ada Bacha to collect it in refrigerated vans. Some fish are also sold privately to individuals. Income from fishing is the sole source of income for several of the families and, when asked about alternative livelihoods if they were unable to fish, a representative of the fishing community replied that they did not consider there to be any alternatives as fishing is an important aspect of their cultural identity. Many of the women in the fishing community are involved in cleaning and sorting the fish although some also have work in Varna.

During consultation in June 2013, a representative of the fishing community reported that fish stocks in the marine environment are declining (with catches approximately 50% less than 10 years ago) and the level of effort has had to increase significantly to catch the same number of fish. They attributed this partly to changes in sea temperature, but also to the impact of the Galata gas pipeline on fish migration routes.

The community representative also reported that while noise and vibration from the Galata pipeline (which is unburied and lies on the seabed) has not necessarily affected fisheries productivity overall, fish stocks are no longer as abundant in the vicinity of the Pipeline. They reported that this is because fish migrating south along the coast reach a certain point and then turn away from the Pipeline; whereas most species eventually cross the Pipeline there are some species which are particularly sensitive to disturbance and have altered their migration patterns. They also note that the composition of the catch is changing with species not previously found in the area, such as sardines and mackerel, increasingly being caught. While these findings are based on anecdotes from a representative of the fishing community, there is no published evidence to support or verify the findings.

There are also a number of fishermen, understood to be part-time, operating from a small group of permanent structures near Galata beach about 6 km north from the intersection of the

URS-EIA-REP-202375 18-41 Chapter 18 Ecosystem Services

Pipeline routes with the coastline. Like the Ada Bacha fishermen, they have small boats and fish in the nearshore waters.

Recreational fishing is also undertaken within the marine environment (including from Pasha Dere beach) and is discussed in the tourism and recreation services section.

Fishing grounds and exclusion zones are shown in Figure 18.8. For further details see Chapter 15 Socio-Economics, Chapter 13 Marine Ecology, and Appendix 15.1.

18.6.2 Timber

Definition: The harvesting of trees for timber for use in construction of buildings and furniture.

Forest areas represent about 37% of the total area of Bulgaria, occurring largely on mountain slopes and land not suitable for crop cultivation. The concentration of forests is uneven, ranging from almost 70% of the land in the most wooded areas, to only about 8% in the least wooded area (Ref. 18.34). Deciduous forests cover approximately 67% of the forested area, with coniferous forests comprising the remainder. The variety of species is largely dependent on the altitude: oak forests cover the zone up to 1200 m; beech forest occurs up to 1600 m; and coniferous forests occur up to 2,20 0 m (Ref. 18.35).

Forests in Bulgaria are largely public property, with approximately 90% of forest land owned by the State or municipalities, churches, and schools. Private forests account for the remainder and tend to be smaller scale. The wood harvesting, wood processing, and furniture industry are largely privately operated and the wood processing and furniture industry accounts for about 2.5% of the GDP of the country (Ref. 18.36).

The majority of the terrestrial Affected Ecosystems comprise of a mix of natural, semi-natural, and plantation forestry. Areas of native plantation woodland represent the dominant land use, within which there are pockets of non-native plantation woodlands. The two main forest character types include:

• Native Forest – predominantly native woodland of ash, oak, hornbeam, and beech; and • Plantation Forest – planted woodland comprising predominantly Turkey oak and Hungarian oak with some conifers and other species, around 40-60 years old and generally managed for forestry purposes.

The areas of plantation forest include economically important tree species such as oak (Quercus cerris), white pine (Pinus sylvestris), and black pine (Pinus nigra). The native forest areas also contain economically important species such as beech (Fagus sylvatica) and ash (Fraxinus spp.) (Ref. 18.35).

There are approximately 30 parcels of land that are located within or nearby the Project Area, most of which is forest, some of which is managed for multi-purpose usage including wood production and agriculture. Most of this land is owned by the State, primarily the Ministry of Agriculture.

18-42 URS-EIA-REP-202375 LEGEND Areas permitted for beam trawling Romanian EEZ Fishing Grounds (no. of vessels) 1 - 33 34 - 53 54 - 76 76 - 205 205 - 15084 Bulgarian Sector of South Stream Offshore Pipeline

Proposed offshore pipelines 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 Proposed South Stream km offshore pipeline exclusion zone -200 Galata Pipeline Infrastructure -100 Existing Galata gas pipeline -20 Existing Galata gas pipeline exclusion zone

-500 Exclusive Economic Zone boundary Isobaths Bulgarian EEZ

-1500

-2000

-1000

Projection: Lambert Conformal Conic Purpose of Issue For Information

Client

-50

Project Title SOUTH STREAM OFFSHORE PIPELINE

Drawing Title FISHING GROUNDS AND EXCLUSION ZONES

Drawn Checked Approved Date AH RW MW 24/03/2014 Turkish EEZ URS Internal Project No. Scale @ A3 46369082 1:700,000 This document has been prepared in accordance with the scope of URS' appointment with its client and is subject to the terms of that appointment. URS accepts no liability for any use of this document other than by its client and only for the purposes for which it was prepared and provided. Only written dimensions shall be used. © URS Infrastructure & Environment UK Limited

URS Infrastructure & Environment UK Limited Scott House Alencon Link, Basingstoke Hampshire, RG21 7PP Telephone (01256) 310200 Fax (01256) 310201 www.ursglobal.com 0 10 20 30 40 50 Drawing Number Rev km

Four of these land parcels (totalling approximately 16.6 ha) are privately held under single ownership and are collectively zoned under the Varna General Development Plan (GDP) for development as a residential and resort development comprising three apartment blocks and approximately 70 villas (Chapter 15 Socio-Economics). Table 18.7 sets out the owner and use of each of the land parcels in relation to the plan shown in Figure 18.9.

Table 18.7 Landownership within the Landfall Section

Ref Ownership Classification Designation† Area (ha) No*

1 State Forest State Private 447.26

2 Ministry Of Agriculture Forest State Private 657.19

3 Ministry of Agriculture and Forests, Forest State Private 297.80 Forest Directorate Varna

4 State Forest State Private 7.62

5 Private Forest Private 0.60

6 Private Forest Private 3.40

7 Private Forest Private 0.50

8 Private Forest Private 1.15

9 Private Forest Private 1.99

10 Private (Bank) Forest Private 6.44

11 Private (Bank) Forest Private 7.93

12 Varna Municipality Agricultural Road Road 0.21

13 Private Forest Private 0.90

14 Private Agriculture‡ Private 0.09

15 Ministry of Agriculture Forest State Public 4.09

15 Ministry of Agriculture Forest State Private 2.42

16 Private (Bank) Forest Private 0.10

17 Ministry of Agriculture Forest State Private 1.36

Continued…

URS-EIA-REP-202375 18-45 Chapter 18 Ecosystem Services

Ref Ownership Classification Designation† Area (ha) No*

18 Private (Bank) Forest Private 2.17

19 State Beach Exclusive State 1.72 Public

20 State Beach Exclusive State 1.72 Public

21 Private Forest Private 0.50

22 Private Forest Private 0.80

23 Private Forest Private 1.70

24 Private Forest Private 0.74

25 Private Forest Private 0.70

26 Private Forest Private 0.60

27 Ministry of Agriculture Forest Road State Private 0.01

28 Varna Municipality Agricultural Road Road 0.13

29 State Forestry Agency Forest State Private 0.60

30 Ministry of Agriculture and Forests, Forest State Private n/a Forests Directorate Varna

* Reference number relates to the number on the plan in Figure 18.9. Complete. † ‘State Public’ and ‘State Private’ are categories which define the use to which land is put. They are both state owned. State Public covers land for use by the public such as roads, paths etc. State Private covers land owned by the state over which does not automatically have public use. There is another category called Exclusive State Public. The different categories limit what the state can do with the land. State Private land can be sold/ leased without any special procedure. State Public land can only be disposed of following special permission from the council of ministers. Exclusive State Public cannot be disposed of at all. The beach crossing is Exclusive Public State. ‡ Parcel no. 14, although classified for Agriculture, appears to be forested in common with neighbouring land.

18-46 URS-EIA-REP-202375 LEGEND Land parcels Mayoralty boundaries Bulgarian Sector of South Stream Offshore Pipeline Proposed offshore pipelines Proposed microtunnels Proposed landfall section pipelines Landfall facilities Right-of-Way Temporary construction sites Temporary construction site for permanent access road to be constructed by SSTTBV Microtunnel entry point Microtunnel exit point Permanent access road to be 4 constructed by SSTTBV No isolated residential buildings or agricultural farms No residential or other developments involving more than 150 persons in an area per kilometre of pipeline (e.g. not more than 15 isolated houses/farms) 27 No residential or other developments involving more than 1500 persons in an area per 1 kilometre of pipeline (e.g. not 6 more than 150 isolated 5 houses/apartments) 26 Galata Pipeline Infrastructure 25 Existing Galata gas pipeline 24 Existing Galata gas processing plant 23 22 South Stream Pipeline System on the 8 7 territory of the Republic of Bulgaria Varna compressor station 9 21 2 Pasha Dere receiving terminal SSBAD pipelines Permanent access road to be constructed by SSBAD

Projection: Lambert Conformal Conic 19 18

28 Check Revision Details By Suffix Check Date 11 10 29 12 Purpose of Issue 13 For Information 16 17 14 Client 15 15

Project Title SOUTH STREAM 30 OFFSHORE PIPELINE

Drawing Title LAND OWNERSHIP WITHIN THE LANDFALL SECTION

Drawn Checked Approved Date 3 AH VS VS 06/05/2014 URS Internal Project No. Scale @ A3 46369082 1:15,000

URS Infrastructure & Environment UK Limited Scott House Alencon Link, Basingstoke Hampshire, RG21 7PP Telephone (01256) 310200 Fax (01256) 310201 www.ursglobal.com 0 200 400 600 800 1,000 Drawing Number Rev m Figure 18.9 PlotDate: 06May 2014 FileName:I:\5004 - InformationSystems\46369082_South_Stream\MXDs\Report Maps - Bulgaria\Bulgarian ESIA\Chapter 18\Figure 18.9 Land Ownershipwithin the landfallsection.mxd

The majority of the trees to be felled for the Project are owned and managed by the Regional Forest Directorate (Varna) under the Bulgarian Ministry of Agriculture and Food’s Executive Forestry Agency although there is also one private owner. However, private individuals (and selected institutions, such as state and municipality schools and religious institutions) can acquire harvesting rights from state-owned forests if the timber is used for non-commercial purposes. It has not been possible to ascertain information on the extent to which such licences are used within the municipality. However, such licences typically restrict the harvested volume for timber to less than 5 m3 per year for one household (Ref. 18.37).

18.6.3 Water (supply)

Definition: The provision of freshwater in lakes, rivers, and underground aquifers.

The landfall section of the Project is located within the catchment of the Pasha Dere River system which covers an area of approximately 40 km2. Surface waters within the Pasha Dere catchment include the Pasha Dere River, the Karabiyuk (a major tributary), several smaller tributaries, numerous gullies, and the Liman wetland.

The wetland is a designated protected area that supports locally important flora and fauna (Chapter 11 Terrestrial Ecology). The wetland has a localised recharge catchment zone. While it is fed from the ephemeral Karabiyuk River, the Pasha Dere River, and its tributaries, the wetland is also fed by rainwater runoff, perennial springs, and a small artificial dam / impoundment located further inland. The springs that feed the wetland emerge from the ground on the upper slopes of the catchment zone, where the aquifer intersects the ground surface (Chapter 8 Soils, Groundwater and Surface Waters).

The Chek Dere catchment, which is located to the northeast of the Pasha Dere catchment, includes a single river, the Chek Dere. The Chek Dere is a small river immediately to the north of the Karabiyuk that discharges directly to the Black Sea. The Chek Dere helps to support the ecosystems of the Galata Special Protection Area (SPA) and Site of Community Importance (SCI) (Chapter 11 Terrestrial Ecology) but does not flow into the Liman wetland.

These surface waters (including the main river channel of the Pasha Dere) are ephemeral and the water flow regime fluctuates throughout the year. Watercourses are predominantly precipitation fed, with surface water flows associated with high rainfall and flooding events. In addition, surface waters are also fed seasonally from high groundwater tables through local springs. Surface water flows typically peak during winter months when rainfall is highest. During summer months when rainfall is limited, most surface water permeates into underlying soils. This typically results in watercourses effectively drying up and the formation of discrete ponds of water (where underlying soils are saturated and unable to drain the water away).

The locations of surface waters within the Pasha Dere catchment are shown on Figure 18.10.

URS-EIA-REP-202375 18-49 Chapter 18 Ecosystem Services

There are no surface water abstractions for drinking or domestic water supply within or downstream of the Affected Ecosystems. Surface water courses do, however, play an important role in supporting the ecosystems of the Galata SPA and SCI, and the Liman wetland.

The Pipeline will cross the Karabiyuk Stream using open cut construction techniques. No other stream crossings are proposed. The landfall facilities are located at least 200 m from the nearest watercourse. The Pipeline traverses the Karabiyuk stream which is an ephemeral watercourse, approximately 1.4 km northwest of its confluence with the Pasha Dere River (Figure 18.10).

There are two groundwater bodies underlying the Project Area and groundwater also occurs in porous lenses of the superficial soils. Groundwater is only present in the superficial deposits during periods of high rainfall or snowmelt, following which the water drains away to the river network. The superficial deposits are therefore not considered as belonging to or comprising a recognised groundwater body (Chapter 8 Soils, Groundwater and Surface Waters).

The groundwater body immediately beneath the landfall section of the Project occurs within the geological formation known as the Galata Formation. The Galata formation is underlain by the Ruslar Formation, which is of low permeability and is assessed as not belonging to a groundwater body. The Ruslar Formation is underlain by the Varna Shabla aquifer. The deeper Varna Shabla aquifer lies below the low permeability Ruslar Formation and there is no hydraulic connection with the Galata Formation. The Varna Shabla aquifer has therefore been scoped out of the groundwater assessment (Chapter 8 Soils, Groundwater and Surface Waters). Both aquifers (Galata and Varna Shabla) are recorded as being of ‘Good’ quantitative status and thereby meeting the requirements of the Water Framework Directive (WFD) (see Table 18.8 for further details on water supply in the Galata aquifer).

Table 18.8 Full Extent and Resource Rates of the Galata Aquifer

Area km2 Natural Existing Permitted Available Resources L/s Resources L/s Abstraction L/s Resources L/s

428 322 294 67 227

The water-bearing permeable layers of the Galata Formation are interbedded and confined by clay layers. The Galata Formation aquifer is made up of localised discrete groundwater bearing units of varying depths and distribution. As such, the overall aquifer is considered both unconfined (where shallow sand layers are present) and confined (beneath the clay and marlstone at depth where groundwater encountered is in artesian conditions).

18-50 URS-EIA-REP-202375 Kantara

LEGEND Main roads Ephemeral watercourses Protected sites Bulgarian Sector of South Stream Offshore Pipeline

Proposed offshore pipelines Proposed microtunnels Rakitnika Proposed landfall section pipelines Landfall facilities Right-of-Way Microtunnel entry point Microtunnel exit point Galata Pipeline Infrastructure Existing Galata gas pipeline Existing Galata gas processing plant South Stream Pipeline System on the territory of the Republic of Bulgaria

Chek Dere Varna compressor station Karabiyuk Pasha Dere receiving terminal SSBAD pipelines Rakitnik

Liman

River Pasha Dere

Projection: Lambert Conformal Conic Purpose of Issue For Information

Client

Project Title SOUTH STREAM OFFSHORE PIPELINE

Drawing Title SURFACE WATER RESOURCES IN THE AFFECTED ECOSYSTEMS

Drawn Checked Approved Date AH RW MW 06/05/2014 URS Internal Project No. Scale @ A3 46369082 1:25,000 This document has been prepared in accordance with the scope of URS' appointment with its client and is subject to the terms of that appointment. URS accepts no liability for any use of this document other than by its client and only for the purposes for which it was prepared and provided. Only written dimensions shall be used. © URS Infrastructure & Environment UK Limited

URS Infrastructure & Environment UK Limited Scott House Alencon Link, Basingstoke Hampshire, RG21 7PP Telephone (01256) 310200 Fax (01256) 310201 www.ursglobal.com 0 500 1,000 1,500 Drawing Number Rev m

PlotDate: 06May 2014 FileName:I:\5004 - InformationSystems\46369082_South_Stream\MXDs\Report Maps - Bulgaria\Bulgarian ESIA\Chapter 18\Figure 18.10 Surface WaterResources in theAffected Ecosystems.mxd Figure 18.10

The superficial deposits that overlay the Galata Formation and its unconfined layers are drained by the river network. Groundwater recharge occurs from precipitation and watercourses. The groundwater discharges at the surface via springs which are typically located along the steep coastal slope or deeply cut gullies. During the dry season, groundwater may be expected at a considerable depth and the shallow deposits nearer to the surface are generally dry. This is reflected in the ephemeral nature of the springs in the Affected Ecosystems which dry up in the summer months. Conversely, during periods of high rainfall or snowmelt, temporary perched groundwater bodies can form within the shallow deposits which interact with surface waters. The perched water is able to flow into surface water when the perched water level rises above the base of the river. The confined Galata Formation provides water for drinking and household use and is therefore a designated Water Protection Zone. Existing groundwater abstractions within the vicinity of the Affected Ecosystems are shown on Figure 18.11. The closest abstractions to the proposed route are:

• “Pasha Dere” well field which consists of eight abstraction wells used to supply potable water. A Sanitary Protection Zone has been defined for the resource which lies outside of the Project Area;

• Well C-1x at Chernomorets Hut which is not used for potable supply and, as such, no Sanitary Protection Zone has been defined; and

• Two groundwater abstraction test boreholes at “Priboi Ltd – Varna” within an official Zone I Sanitary Protection Zone, 1,060 m to the northeast of the Project Area. The water- abstraction permit is suspended.

The groundwater is abstracted from the confined Galata Formation. It is unlikely that there is a hydraulic connection between the perched water or unconfined Galata Formation aquifer and Sanitary Protection Zones II and III associated with the Pasha Dere well field, and the Chernomorets Hut well fields within the confined Galata Formation aquifer.

There is, however, likely to be a hydraulic connection between the perched water associated with the superficial deposits and the underlying unconfined layers of the Galata Formation aquifer (Chapter 8 Soils, Groundwater and Surface Waters).

Annual precipitation across Bulgaria has varied considerably over the 20th century and climate change is predicted to lead to a decrease in surface water flows and precipitation levels. While there are no available projections specific to the Local Area, national projections estimate that Bulgaria will experience a 9% decrease in precipitation and water resources by 2050 and a 13% decrease by 2100 (Ref. 18.38).

Bulgaria is already subject to droughts and long dry summers which are likely to worsen due to declining precipitation levels. The last drought period in Bulgaria (1982-1994) had a considerable impact on groundwater levels, with wells experiencing lower water levels and springs experiencing reduced discharge of up to 20 to 30% (Ref. 18.39). Sea level rise may also be exacerbated by climate change leading to intrusion of seawater into groundwater resources (Ref. 18.40).

URS-EIA-REP-202375 18-53 Chapter 18 Ecosystem Services

The combination of a growing population in the Varna Municipality (Chapter 15 Socio- Economics) and a decrease in precipitation levels due to climate change is likely to place increasing pressures on water resources within the Local Area.

For further details see Chapter 8 Soils, Groundwater and Surface Waters.

18.6.4 Hazard Regulation

Definition: The capacity of the natural environment to regulate water, soil, and sediment transfer so as to: maintain the integrity of land surfaces in order to reduce the hazards associated with mass movements (e.g. landslides and slumping), coastal erosion, and flooding; maintain ‘intact’ soil cover and low suspended sediment loads in fluvial systems; and retain and store water and delay release from the land surface and attenuation of peaks as flood water passes through river networks to reduce the risks associated with runoff and flooding (Ref. 18.18).

There are a number of hazards associated with the Local Area including landslides, seismic activity, erosion, and flooding. The key features within the Affected Ecosystems which contribute to the regulation of natural hazards include vegetation which binds together soil particles and attenuates surface water flows; phaeazom soils which absorb water and play an important role in flow regulation; the Liman wetland which regulates and stores water flows; and the coastal section including beaches, and cliffs which dissipate energy from waves and regulate levels of coastal erosion and flooding.

As set out in Section 18.6.3, watercourses flowing through the Affected Ecosystems are predominantly fed by precipitation and, as such, rivers and tributaries within the catchment are typically ephemeral with flooding sometimes occurring following extreme rainfall events.

Surface water run-off in the Affected Ecosystems can cause erosion of weak soils at or near the surface. This results in the formation of ravines and gullies as shown in Figure 18.12. Fluvial processes are also prominent in the Affected Ecosystems with channels formed by ephemeral waterways present within the Pasha Dere valley. The sides of the channels are typically steep and un-vegetated which can lead to land sliding. Fluvial processes are typically associated with periods of intense rainfall in the region, where soils become saturated and subject to surface water run-off down the channels.

The Pasha Dere River flows into the Black Sea. Depositional features (such as sand bars) have formed at the mouth of the river. These features have affected the course of the river, which has led to channel migration and to the development of Liman open water and swamp conditions behind a sand bar. This area of wetland, which measures 5.2 ha and surrounds the Liman Lake, is a designated protected area that supports locally important flora and fauna (Chapter 11 Terrestrial Ecology). The wetland functions as a natural sponge which traps and slowly releases surface water, rain, groundwater, and flood waters. Trees, root mats, and other wetland vegetation also slow the speed of flood waters and distribute them more slowly over the floodplain. This water storage can lower flood heights and reduce erosion.

18-54 URS-EIA-REP-202375 S GPP LEGEND Borovetz Borovets Sanitary protection zones SPZ Zone 1 SPZ Zone 2 S-1x Veteran SPZ Zone 3 - Varna S-2x Veteran - Varna TC Astreya Location of groundwater Kantara Trade - abstraction points Varna Ephemeral watercourses Bulgarian Sector of South Stream Offshore Pipeline

SK NTV Proposed offshore pipelines Invest - SHC-1 "Krastyu Proposed microtunnels Priseltsi Krastev - Pribol Proposed landfall section Rakitnika pipelines Landfall facilities Right-of-Way Microtunnel entry point Microtunnel exit point

TC Maknil-Priseltsi Galata Pipeline Infrastructure Existing Galata Chatal gas pipeline Cheschma S-1x Existing Galata gas Drainage Parkstroi processing plant - Varna South Stream Pipeline System on the territory of the Republic of Bulgaria

Karabiyuk Varna compressor station Pasha Dere receiving terminal SSBAD pipelines

TC Rekar - S-3 Pasha S-3 Pasha S-6 Pasha Priseltsi dere dere dere

S-1 Pasha S-8 Pasha dere Projection: Lambert Conformal Conic SHK Avren Pasha Dere River S-2 dere Purpose of Issue Municipality-Dam Pasha S-7 Pasha lake Priseltsi For Information dere S-4 dere Pasha S-5 Pasha Client dere dere

Project Title SOUTH STREAM Vassilev-Twins OFFSHORE PIPELINE Fountain Drawing Title LOCATION OF GROUNDWATER ABSTRACTION POINTS AND SANITARY SOURCE PROTECTION ZONES NEAR THE PROJECT ROUTE Drawn Checked Approved Date AH RW MW 06/05/2014 URS Internal Project No. Scale @ A3 46369082 1:30,000 This document has been prepared in accordance with the scope of URS' appointment with its client and is subject to the terms of that appointment. URS accepts no liability for any use of this document other than by its client and only for the purposes for which it was prepared and provided. Only written dimensions shall be used. © URS Infrastructure & Environment UK Limited

PlotDate: 06May 2014 FileName:I:\5004 - InformationSystems\46369082_South_Stream\MXDs\Report Maps - Bulgaria\Bulgarian ESIA\Chapter 18\Figure 18.11 Location ofGroundwater abstraction points andSPZ.mxd Figure 18.11

Associated potential LEGEND Legend Geomorphological zone Relief forms geohazards Geomorphical Features & Associated Undulating watershed Geohazards n/a 1 Weathered ridge top surfaces Lateral Erosion In Riverbeds (watershed boundary) Gently inclined ridge Localised linear Gully Erosion 2 surfaces erosion Erosion down cuttings (furrows, 3 Weathered ridge slopes Slopes between 3-7° small gullies etc.) Linear erosion and Slopes between 7-15° Talus and Rockfalls 4 landslides Erosion-weathering Linear (Including Landslides slopes of ridges, river gully) erosion, Swamping valleys and erosion 5 Slopes >15° rockfalls, talus, slope Geomorphological Boundaries features failure, landslides, Brows of small erosion forms abrasion (gullies and hollows) and Sub - horizontal and river valleys 6 Floodplain for gently inclined Swamping, flooding 1 Contours of water catchment permanent and floodplain surfaces depressions temporary watercourses River beds and River erosion, linear Active Abrasion Cliff 7 (erosion and intermittent (inlcuding gully) Inactive Abrasion Cliffs with joined accumulation zones) watercourses, small erosion, swamping, accumulative terrace erosion forms flooding Bulgarian Sector of SouthStream Abrasion-accumulative Beaches/benches, Offshore Pipeline Abrasion 8 relief of coastal zone coastal bars Proposed offshore pipelines Proposed microtunnels Proposed Landfall section pipelines Landfall facilities Construction corridor Microtunnel entry point Microtunnel exit point 3 Permanent access road to 3 4 be constructed by SSTTBV 2 Galata Pipeline Infrastructure Existing Galata gas pipeline Existing Galata gas processing plant 1 5 South Stream Pipeline System on the territory of the Republic of Bulgaria 3 4 5 7 Varna compressor station Pasha Dere receiving terminal SSBAD pipelines 2 Permanent access road to be constructed by SSBAD 3 Study area Main roads Ephemeral watercourses Lake 7 Projection: Lambert Conformal Conic 4 Purpose of Issue 3 For Information 8 7 Client 7 6 6 6 4 5 6 Project Title 4 4 4 7 5 7 SOUTH STREAM 6 3 OFFSHORE PIPELINE 6 5 5 6 Drawing Title 4 5 4 3 5 TERRESTRIAL HAZARD AREAS 1 4 4 5 Drawn Checked Approved Date 2 AH RW MW 23/07/2014 5 URS Internal Project No. Scale @ A3 46369082 1:14,000 This document has been prepared in accordance with the scope of URS' appointment with its client and is subject to the terms of that appointment. URS accepts no liability for any use of this document other than by its client and only for the purposes for which 4 it was prepared and provided. Only written dimensions shall be used. 3 © URS Infrastructure & Environment UK Limited URS Infrastructure & Environment UK Limited Scott House 5 Alencon Link, Basingstoke Hampshire, RG21 7PP Telephone (01256) 310200 Fax (01256) 310201 www.ursglobal.com 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 Drawing Number Rev km Figure 18.12 Plot Plot Date:16Sep2013 File Name:I:\5004- InformationSystems\46369082_South_Stream\MXDs\Report Maps Bulgaria\Bulgarian- EIA\Chapter 7Physical Environment\Figure 7.4.3.8 Geomorphological Map the of OnshoreSurveyArea_A3.mxd

Adjacent to the Liman Lake is Pasha Dere Beach, a sandy beach surrounded by coastal cliffs up to approximately 30 m high. Pasha Dere Beach is around 30-35 m wide and 1.5 km long. The beach is part of a relatively dynamic coastline which responds significantly to storm events, and as such, is sensitive to short term erosion. Over the long term, however, measurements show that the beach is in a state of net equilibrium, with its position remaining almost constant since 1991.

The surrounding coastal cliffs are subject to intense wave action during heavy storms which has resulted in the erosion of relatively soft bedrock deposits. The narrow beach at the base of the coastal cliffs does not provide substantial protection from erosion by wave action associated with heavy storms, and surges although in areas where the beach area is greater than 25 to 35 m wide, wave energy is dissipated and the cliffs are protected from erosion.

Landslides are evident in the region along the marine coastal slopes and to a lesser extent on the slopes of river valleys or ravines (Chapter 7 Physical and Geophysical Environment). Such events are typically associated with the saturation of soils or sudden ground movement (associated with faulting and/or earthquakes). The Affected Ecosystems are located within the zone of influence of the Kaliakra Fault Zone. Geo-hazards associated with seismic and fault movement activity include deformation of slopes (including landslides and collapse of cliffs / slopes), liquefaction of saturated sands located on the beach, and tsunamis.

Geohazards associated with the marine Affected Ecosystems include seismic activity, steep slopes, slope stability issues and mass movements, rock outcrops and boulders, soft sediments, and gas.

Sea level changes along the Bulgarian Black Sea coast have been observed for over 100 years based on the records of marine stations in Varna and Burgas. Over this period, monitoring stations have recorded an average rise in sea level for the western part of the Black Sea between 1.5 to 3 mm/y. Natural factors contributing to sea level rise include: river discharge into the Black Sea, the rainfall-evaporation balance, water exchange through the straights linking the Black Sea to the Mediterranean, and subsidence of the land. However, anthropogenic factors also affect sea level rise including urbanisation, dam and reservoir building, groundwater mining, deforestation, and anthropogenic climate change (Ref. 18.40).

Meteorological conditions can also result in short term changes in sea level; generating localised sea level surges of up to 1 m, although they are typically less than 20 to 40 cm and the frequency is lower than in other regions. Significant coastal changes can occur during extreme events, causing more intense coastline retreat and beach erosion (Ref. 18.40). As such, erosion poses the greatest threat to the coastal zones of Bulgaria and around 45% of the coastline is currently subject to erosion, due to a combination of human activities as well as natural events. Areas which are particularly vulnerable to coastal erosion include the coastline around the cities of Varna (Varna), Primorsko (Burgas), Sarafovo (Burgas), and Shabla (Dobrich).

With the changing climate, hazard risk may be exacerbated in future leading to increasing problems of coastal erosion and flooding, which could impact the structure of Pasha Dere Beach, as well as leading to intrusion of seawaters into groundwater resources. Around 20% (83 km) of the entire 412 km long Bulgarian coast are indicated as flood-prone territories and

URS-EIA-REP-202375 18-59 Chapter 18 Ecosystem Services

low lying areas around Varna Bay have been identified as the most vulnerable to inundation (Ref. 18.40).

For further details see Chapter 7 Physical and Geophysical Environment and Chapter 12 Marine Environment.

18.6.5 Water Quality Regulation

Definition: The natural environment can regulate marine and fresh water quality through processes such as: plant and microbial nutrient uptake, pollutant sequestration in soil and marine and freshwater sediments, biofiltration from marine and freshwater organisms, breakdown of organic pollutants, acidity buffering, and denitrification. These processes contribute to the detoxification and purification of water used for human uses such as drinking, agriculture, industrial uses, fisheries, tourism, and recreation (Ref. 18.18). The ability of ecosystems to provide this service depends upon the extent of pollutant sources (both manmade and natural) and the resulting concentration of pollutants in water resources. If, for example, the concentration exceeds the assimilative capacity of an ecosystem to absorb and detoxify pollutants, critical thresholds can be reached below which the ecosystem can no longer provide this service. The water regulatory capacity of ecosystems therefore depends on the extent to which ecosystems purify water by filtering pollutants from, and reducing inputs into, water resources, and the level of pollutant inputs and pressures placed on the natural environment and its capacity to regulate.

There are no identified abstractors of surface water within or downstream of the Affected Ecosystems. However, water quality is important for the ecosystem functioning of the Liman wetland (which also plays an important role in regulating water quality) and Galata Protected Areas, as well as providing a number of recreational and aesthetic benefits. Further, there are a number of wells which abstract groundwater directly from the environment and any contamination (either directly or through infiltration of contaminated surface waters) could have impacts on human health.

There is no long-term data available on the water quality of the Pasha Dere River system. Monitoring surveys were undertaken as part of this ESIA and surface water samples were screened against Bulgarian surface water protection standards for a suite of potential contaminants. Concentrations of manganese, nitrite and suspended solids were found to exceed their standards. Although below the relevant threshold concentrations, oil products, surfactants and benzo(a)pyrene were detected in the samples, indicating the potential presence of anthropogenic disturbance and contamination in the catchment. However, no potential sources of contamination from historic or current land use have been identified.

The Priboi Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) (located in the town of Priboi and operated by Priboi OOD, Varna) holds a permit to discharge treated wastewater into surface water. The treated wastewater is not discharged into the Pasha Dere or Chek Dere catchments and thus is not expected to affect water quality in the Affected Ecosystems (Chapter 8 Soils, Groundwater and Surface Waters).

18-60 URS-EIA-REP-202375

The chemical status of the two groundwater bodies (Galata and Varna Shabla) was assessed as ‘Good’ according to the WFD. Surveys undertaken of the superficial aquifer as part of this ESIA found that a small number of water quality parameters exceeded the National Limit values for manganese and iron levels. The presence of oil and surfactants indicates that the water quality may have been impacted by anthropogenic processes, the source of which has not been identified. Consequently, the possibility exists that the detection of oil and surfactants may be as a result of natural background concentrations, laboratory analysis errors or false positives.

Marine water quality in the Affected Ecosystems plays an important role in supporting fisheries and in the recreation / tourism industry, which includes activities such as water sports, bathing, spear fishing, and scuba diving. Marine water quality is also important for human health, particularly for those working within the Black Sea such as the fishing industry, with contaminants in the marine environment potentially having significant impacts on those exposed to concentrations of contaminants, toxic algae blooms, or through bioaccumulation of contaminants and subsequent entry into human food sources.

Water quality in the marine environment is primarily influenced by the discharge of the Kamchia River waters that transport waste water from the Varna lake system; and the persistent coastal current along the southern coast of Varna Bay which flows south of Cape Galata. Nutrient enrichment has been identified as a key pressure on coastal water quality in this region. Bulgaria makes a relatively minor contribution to nutrient levels in the Black Sea compared with countries such as Romania and the Ukraine (Chapter 12 Marine Environment).

The EU Bathing Water Directive 2006/7/EC sets the microbial standards for water quality at popular beaches and inland bathing sites. Results of the 2011 Bulgarian bathing water quality survey showed that the waters of the Pasha Dere Beach meet the mandatory water quality standard.

Many contaminants of the marine environment are able to bind to sediments (thereby being temporarily locked up but available to be re-mobilised if disturbed), however, surveys in the Affected Ecosystems suggest that key pollutant concentrations measured are under or near the detection limits, and under the target values as specified in the Dutch List (Chapter 12 Marine Environment). The concentrations of organic compounds were also below the permissible concentrations. As such, sediments surveyed in the nearshore zone of the Pipeline route in Bulgaria are not considered to be contaminated by heavy metals, hydrocarbons, or organic pollutants.

Contaminants can also be accumulated by organisms such as invertebrates and macroalgae. Benthic macroalgae and grasses (macrophytobenthos), in particular, enrich water with oxygen, take up dissolved organic matter, and assimilate heavy metal contaminants, thereby increasing the quality of coastal waters (Ref. 18.41 and 18.42). Macrophytobenthos are also critical components of the marine ecosystem as primary producers, providing food and shelter to a wide variety of organisms either as living plant matter or detritus.

Zoobenthos organisms, in particular mussels, also play an important role in water quality regulation in marine and freshwater basins in the area and contribute to the degradation and decrease of organic matter in these systems. A bed of the Mediterranean mussel (Mytilus galloprovincialis) runs parallel to the shore along the entire Bulgarian Black Sea coast. After the

URS-EIA-REP-202375 18-61 Chapter 18 Ecosystem Services

Black Sea ecological depression in the 1980s, the mussel fields disappeared but a decrease in the abundance of the natural predator of mussels, the whelk, because of commercial fishing, has enabled the mussel beds to recover more recently.

In deeper waters, marine water quality in the Black Sea is anoxic. Waters with hypoxic or entirely anoxic conditions are typically incapable of sustaining permanent populations of species dependant on aerobic respiration. Oxygen depletion occurs in layers below 80 to 150 m and hydrogen sulphide (H2S) builds up below these depths. Consequently, the potential for significant marine life occurring at depths of greater than 200 m within the Black Sea is likely to be limited to those organisms capable of anaerobic respiration (e.g. chemosynthetic life).

Anaerobic respiration typically produces H2S and methane (CH4) as a by-product.

Concentrations of H2S are known to be elevated within the bottom waters of the Black Sea.

Marine water quality throughout the Black Sea has been affected by rapid economic development and a lack of adequate management of marine resources in the later decades of the 20th Century, resulting in major environmental and ecological changes in the Black Sea ecosystem. In particular, eutrophication, due to excessive levels of nitrogen from land based sources reaching the Black Sea, have given rise to massive increases in primary production and a shift in the abundance and composition of phytoplankton species. Larger and more frequent algal blooms increased biosedimentation of decaying plants and detritus to the seabed inducing a sharp decline of dissolved oxygen and a silting of benthic communities in many areas. Increased incidence of harmful algal blooms (red tides) caused the death of many fish and the increased turbidity of the water column reduced light availability to bottom plants in deeper waters.

It is possible that pressures on water quality regulation will increase in future due to a combination of climate change (which may lead to rising water temperatures, increasing frequency of algae blooms, acidification of marine water, and concentration of surface water pollutants during periods of lower flows) and increasing development (particularly any expansion in the agricultural industry and subsequent increase in surface water runoff which could lead to eutrophication in both marine and freshwater environments).

However, since the early 2000s the governments of the Black Sea coastal states have adopted a basin-wide approach to pollution reduction and enhancement of cooperation of coastal and non- coastal states towards strategic goal of restoring the ecological status of the Black Sea similar to the one observed in the 1960s (Ref. 18.43). Furt he r, implementation of the EU WFD is a key driver for efforts to improve the quality of water resources in Bulgaria. Since implementation began, pollution pressure from land based sources, although still intense, has shown a decreasing trend and some improvements in ecological status have been observed. This coordinated action, if continued, is also likely to contribute to reduced pressures on water quality in the marine environment.

For further information see Chapter 8 Soils, Groundwater and Surface Waters, Chapter 12 Marine Environment, and Chapter 13 Marine Ecology.

18-62 URS-EIA-REP-202375

18.6.6 Soil Quality Regulation

Definition: The capacity of natural processes to regulate soil quality through the storage and degradation of organic matter leading to replenishment of the topsoil layer; storing, degrading, and transforming materials such as nutrients and contaminants; mediating exchange of gases to the atmosphere; and maintaining a structural composition which supports growth of plants and water flow regulation.

Phaeozem soils are the dominant soil cover in the Affected Ecosystems and typically comprise organic and humus rich topsoil layer, covered in vegetation, including grass and/or forest vegetation. As such, they support agricultural and forest ecosystems across the Affected Ecosystems. These soils have a high water absorption capacity and play a key role in water regulation. As such, the soil quality regulation service is linked to hazard regulation, and all households living within the area benefit from an indirect reduction in flood risk due to the role of soil quality regulation. Phaeozem soils are structurally prone to compaction and erosion, and vulnerable to contamination through surface spills.

Fluvisols are also present in the valley bottoms and play a role in the hydrological cycle. As they are associated with watercourses and valley bottoms they can act as pathways for movement of chemical contaminants into groundwater and surface water.

Surveys of soil quality within the Affected Ecosystems found that none of the samples exceeded the Bulgarian ‘Intervention Level’ for soil contaminants (the level at which contaminant exceedance can result in soil function failure and be hazardous to both the environment and human health). Mercury samples taken from two locations exceeded the Bulgarian ‘Protective Concentrations’ levels. However, they did not exceed either the Bulgarian ‘Maximum Allowable Concentration’ or the ‘Intervention Level’ concentrations. Consequently, it can be inferred from the soil testing that the soil is not contaminated and that the soil will be sensitive to pollution from construction activities. As such, it can be inferred that the soil is of good quality and has low levels of contamination.

Owners of land within the Affected Ecosystems benefit from the higher economic rents associated with good quality soil and productive use in agriculture and/or forestry. The regulation of contaminants by natural processes also provides a service to workers who come into contact with soils. Workers and owners of land adjacent to the Affected Ecosystems may also benefit from soil quality regulation processes since, depending on the physical properties of the soil (including soil porosity, soil potential for pollutant absorption, and soil saturation). Contamination of soil within the Affected Ecosystems could lead to contaminant migration, through both groundwater and surface water, and subsequent impacts on soils in adjacent areas of land.

Development within the Local Area may lead to an increase in the level of pollutants within soils and put pressure on soil quality regulation. Further, increases in traffic and vehicle emissions could lead to greater deposition of airborne particles which could also increase pollutant levels within soils.

For further information see Chapter 8 Soils, Groundwater and Surface Waters.

URS-EIA-REP-202375 18-63 Chapter 18 Ecosystem Services

18.6.7 Tourism and Recreation Values

Definition: Natural environments such as woodlands, rivers, beaches, and marine ecosystems provide a variety of tourism and recreation opportunities such as hiking, walking, camping, scuba diving, spear fishing, and beach-based recreation.

Varna Region is well established as a tourism destination in Bulgaria, with a range of high-end tourism resorts. Tourism accommodation, infrastructure and attractions in Varna are overwhelmingly located along the coast to the north of the city of Varna within resorts such as the Golden Sand Resort, Saint Constantine and Elena, Riviera and Sunny Day.

The area to the south of Varna Bay, between Asparuhovo and the Project, is much less developed in comparison to the coast to the north of Varna. The tourists that do visit this area are predominantly those that own their own summer house and who visit during the summer, often along with their relatives and friends. The Chamber of Tourism was not sure of exact numbers but indicated that there are summer houses in the area and a limited number of small hotels (Ref. 18.44). There is a resort area, Kamchiya, located approximately 12 km south of the Project.

From 2000 to 2009, the economy of the Varna Region grew faster than the national average. As economic activity has contracted since 2009 following the global economic downturn, Varna’s economic activity has declined at a slower rate in comparison to the national average. It is considered that the significance of the national and regional tourism industry has made the Varna Region more economically resilient than other parts of Bulgaria. Avren Municipality is increasingly promoting the development of tourism, particularly along the Black Sea coast and the Kamchiya reserve area.

During an interview with the Chamber of Tourism it was reported that tourism activity in Varna peaked in 2008 and then declined following the global economic recession for the three following years. However, it has started to recover again now and 2012 was better than 2011 and has been increasing year on year since then; although it may take another 2 to 3 years to reach and surpass the previous peak levels seen in 2008. Turkey and Greece are rival destinations but political instability in those countries and the level of interest shown at recent spring exhibitions (in terms of number of enquiries) gives the Chamber hope that 2013 will be a strong year for tourism to Bulgaria, and to Varna more specifically. Varna’s bid to be European Capital of Culture in 2019 may also boost tourism in the future.

According to the Chamber of Tourism there are no specific environmental groups or organisations (e.g. bird watching or wildlife) which operate south of Varna city although 2013 was designated as the Year of Nature-based Tourism (Ref. 18.44).

The landscape in the vicinity of the Affected Ecosystems is characterised by gently rolling hills with a combination of agricultural fields (principally vineyards) and forest sloping down towards the Black Sea coast. The landfall section includes the beach and a coastal cliff, with the Pasha Dere River wetland to the south, part of which comprises the Liman wetland, while the nearshore and offshore sections include the marine environment. The visual quality of the

18-64 URS-EIA-REP-202375

natural and agricultural landscape, together with the diversity of ecosystems, generates high amenity value for residents and tourists visiting the region and supports a range of tourism and recreational activities including:

• Picnicking and camping; • Marine recreational fishing (including an annual spear fishing competition); • Marine water sports including yachting and scuba diving; • Beach based recreation and bathing; and • Vineyards and winery based tourism (within the Local Area – although not in the Affected Ecosystems themselves – there are several vineyards where wine tasting is available although vineyard based tourism is not actively promoted in the Local Area).

There are a number of areas of particular touristic interest in the Local Area located along the coast south of the city of Varna, including:

• The communities of Rakitnika and Priboj, which are recognised summer holiday locations; • Chernomorets Tourist Resort in Rakitnika - a summer camp rest area that is located approximately 700 m north of the shore crossing and Chernomorets Beach located adjacent to the camp;

• Pasha Dere Beach, approximately 2 km south of Rakitnika, which is frequented in the summer by tourists and local residents; and

• Kamchia Beach approximately 17 km south of Varna, which is in close proximity to a popular tourist area with substantial tourism infrastructure.

The future potential baseline represented by the General Development Plan (GDP) for the Varna Municipality, shows an allocated area for ‘tourist and health resort development’ directly west of the shore crossing.

18.6.7.1 Beach-based Recreation

Of particular relevance to the Project is the recreational use of Pasha Dere Beach. While the beach is not a major tourist destination (it is not advertised in any of the local tourist brochures or promoted by the Chamber of Tourism), it is popular with residents of the settlements within its immediate vicinity, as well as from further afield, for sun bathing, beach sports, sailing, and fishing. Both ends of the beach are also known to be popular with naturist groups. The beach is dependent on coastal geomorphological processes (for example, long-shore dynamics of sediment erosion/accretion) to maintain its current character and profile).

Recreational users of the beach were identified as a group potentially impacted by the Project and in order to better understand the use of Pasha Dere Beach two repeat surveys were conducted. The surveys revealed that, at the height of the tourist season (August) there can be as many as 300 people at the beach on a peak day, such as a public holiday or a weekend. Small-scale recreational fishing was also observed from Pasha Dere Beach, with 3 to 5 artisanal fishermen operating with sticks and hooks from the beach and one boat. The fishermen were part of camping groups which were catching fish in the morning, preparing fires in the afternoon, then barbequing the catch in the evening (Appendix 15.2).

URS-EIA-REP-202375 18-65 Chapter 18 Ecosystem Services

Immediately adjacent to the crossing at Pasha Dere is an area of coastal woodland that is used for informal car-parking, picnics, and camping, with an improvised campsite in the woods, which lies within the Project Area. The picnic area and campsite consists of a wooded area cleared of undergrowth. Although there is no formal infrastructure there is some evidence of an abandoned temporary toilet facility. The area behind the beach is also used for informal recreation (including horse-riding, quad-biking and hiking). For further details refer to Chapter 15 Socio–Economics.

During stakeholder consultations held in February 2013, local government authorities and residents of Galata voiced concerns regarding the potential loss or restriction of access to Pasha Dere Beach during the peak summer months, how any restrictions would be communicated and what steps would be taken to reinstate the beach following construction (Ref. 18.45 and 18.46).

While there are alternative sandy beaches at Asparuhovo-Galata and Chernomorets, they do not share the same attractive visual and landscape characteristics of Pasha Dere Beach, or the sense of privacy and tranquillity which make it popular amongst naturist groups. This is demonstrated by the efforts taken by users to reach the beach which is remote, not served by public transport, and not easily accessible by car. Most visitors walk, cycle, or use vehicles to reach the area along two tracks: a 2 km unpaved track from Galata Gas Processing Plant, or a 1 km unpaved track in the forest from the Rakitnika / Chernomorets chalets in the north.

Chernomorets Beach is located to the immediate north of Pasha Dere Beach around a small rocky cliff and headland. Chernomorets beach is a sandy beach, similar in length to Pasha Dere and is also characterised by relatively undeveloped hinterland. However, it is located closer to Rakitnika (approximately 700 m away on foot via a trail running from the south of Rakitnika) and it is also overlooked by the Chernomorets Tourist Resort (located to the west of the beach) and by the Ada Bacha fishing community (located on a small cove at the northern end of the beach). The camp includes several dozen cabin or bungalow-style buildings (which appear to be in good condition and are used as tourist accommodation), a restaurant, and a snack shop.

18.6.7.2 Trails and Paths

There are several trails and paths that run through the Project Area, including a signposted cycle route which runs through the campsite located in the woods behind Pasha Dere Beach. The number of people using the paths and trails for walking and cross country cycling is not known; however, given their relative remoteness from residential communities, usage is likely to be limited. They are most likely to be used during the summer season, between April and September.

18.6.7.3 Angling and Watersports

During consultation with the Ada Bacha group it was reported that there is a significant level of recreational fishing along the coast; with up to 100 anglers estimated to be visiting the coast during the peak seasons (spring and autumn). A representative of the fishing community reported that recreational fishing does not conflict with any of the Ada Bacha activities as recreational fishermen typically target different species, in particular: leaping mullet (Liza saliens); horse mackerel, scad (Trachurus mediterraneus); and red mullet (Mullus barbatus ponticus). It was also reported that an annual spear fishing competition is held in the waters off

18-66 URS-EIA-REP-202375

Chernomorets Beach with participants competing to catch the greatest number of fish within an hour. There are numerous shops selling general recreational and speciality spear fishing equipment in Varna suggesting that the activity plays a role in supporting a number of livelihoods.

Most other water sports take place north of the Project Area although scuba diving may take place at particular sites within the marine environment. While there is limited information available in regard to diving; it is understood from visiting local diving shops and speaking with the Chamber of Tourism and the Ada Bacha fishing community that some scuba diving is associated with visiting shipwrecks to the north and south of Varna Bay as well as spear fishing (or underwater fishing). However, the baseline study has not identified any specific dive sites at Pasha Dere Beach within the Project Area.

18.6.7.4 Hunting

Sport hunting occurs within the landfall section of the Project on land owned by the Regional Forest Directorate (Varna). There are three clubs (with a total of over 300 members) that operate within the Varna Region under the auspices of the Varna Hunting and Fishing Association (HFA), a non-profit organisation whose primary goal is the conservation and management of game (Ref. 18.23 and Ref. 18.47). The landfall section of the Project is located in the territory of the Galata Hunting Club which has approximately 63 members (Ref. 18.23). Most of the club’s members come from Galata and Varna although there are also a small number of hunters who come from abroad.

Shooting takes place on weekends for 3 to 5 months per year (over autumn / winter) and in accordance with a schedule issued by the Union of Hunters and Anglers In Bulgaria (National Association of Hunters and Anglers) (Ref. 18.23 and Ref. 18.47). The main species targeted are wild boar, fallow and roe deer, jackals / wild dogs and wolves. The hunting clubs reportedly manage the population of wild dogs which has been expanding rapidly in recent years (Ref. 18.23).

One of the favoured hunting areas is located within the vicinity of the South Stream Bulgaria AD (SSB) Pasha Dere receiving terminal (RT) and Varna compressor station (CS). This is considered by local hunters to be “one of the most beautiful and quiet locations” within the hunting area and as a result “attracts many animals” (Ref. 18.23). There is a wild animal feeding station located within this area close to the memorial to Dr Nikola Stoyanov which is approximately 71 m northwest of the landfall facilities area (5 km southeast of Priseltsi VZ) and in the area to be developed by SSB. Scouts from the hunting club bring food to the feeding station and also provide care (e.g. parasite removal) for the wild animals present at the site.

Figure 18.13 shows the location of recreational resources. For further information on tourism and recreation see Chapter 14 Landscape and Visual, and Chapter 15 Socio-Economics.

URS-EIA-REP-202375 18-67 Chapter 18 Ecosystem Services

18.6.8 Cultural and Spiritual Values

Definition: The diversity of ecosystems is one factor influencing the diversity of cultures and many religions attach spiritual and religious values to ecosystems or their components. Many societies also place a high value on the maintenance of historically important landscapes and value the “sense of place” that is associated with recognised features of their environment. In addition to this sense of place, cultural services can also include tangible services for which environmental processes or settings play an important role in their use or value (such as archaeological sites, shipwrecks, and natural springs), intangible services (such as local festivals, cultural identity, and spiritual practices), and natural sites themselves with cultural importance (such as cultural landscapes and particular physical, biological, or geological formations).

The environmental setting of the Local Area is characterised by a deeply undulating, extensively wooded landscape throughout the Pasha Dere Valley Landscape Character Area (LCA), and the Black Sea Coastal LCA which provides a combination of coastal slopes, cliffs, sandy beach, dunes and maritime vegetation fronting the Black Sea. The area is valued for its combination of remoteness, wilderness, and far-reaching, panoramic views along the coastline and over open water.

The visual amenity provided by these landscapes is an important factor in residents choosing to reside in the area; and residents with views of the sea (particularly in Rakitnika) and across the Pasha Dere valley (particularly in Borovets) are concerned about the potential impacts to the visual amenity associated with the construction and operational works.

Surveys undertaken for the ESIA in the Local Area revealed a number of sites of archaeological interest including a Late Antique basilica / monastery of Saint Elias (which has registered national monument status); an Antique settlement (Hellenistic, Roman, and Early Byzantine); foundations of a Late Antique building comprising the corner of a limestone mortared wall; and possible foundations of a limestone building which are undated.

Within the Local Area there is also a memorial to Dr Nikola Stoyanov (1949-2006) of the Sofia University of Forestry, erected by forestry colleagues in woodland 71 m northwest of the landfall facilities. There are several further sites of cultural and spiritual interest including two memorials to Armenian General Andranik Ozanian (1865-1927) in Galata and a monument to Naiden Raikov (1898-1934) in Priseltsi. A number of memorial ceremonies are celebrated at various sites throughout the year, particularly with respect to remembering soldiers who have fought and died for the country.

There are a number of sites of spiritual importance in the Local Area (although outside of the Affected Ecosystems) with several cemeteries located in the villages to the north, west, and south of the landfall section. Several 20th century Bulgarian Orthodox religious buildings were identified and there is a roadside cross at Galata.

18-68 URS-EIA-REP-202375 Social services and facilities LEGEND Social services and facilities Cultural heritage Fishery facilities Main roads Recreation Minor roads/trails and paths Moon Lake ship wreck Overhead power cable 4. Lipite camp - Abandoned camping area Varna Bay Nationally protected area 6. Rest Area Summer Camp Chernomorets (bungalows) Asparuhovo 7. Ada Bacha Fishing Community Park Borovets 8. Rest Area Summer Camp Cherno more (bungalows) 9. Summer Camp Romantika (bungalows) Recreation 10. Rest Area Summer Camp Raiski kat (bungalows) 12. Summer Camp Solvey Sodi - holidays, bungalows, rest areas Settlements/infrastructure 13. Chaika rest area (bungalows) Vineyard 14. Summers camp (ex-rest area of the Devnya cement plant)-bungalows 15. Fisherman kiosks Wetland 21. Summer Camp Vratsa 35. Resort Water body 37. Camp site (unserviced) and picnic area 35 21 Municipality boundary Bulgarian Sector of South Stream Offshore Pipeline Konstantinovo Zelenika Proposed offshore pipelines Proposed microtunnels Proposed landfall section Galata 15 pipelines Landfall facilities VARNA MUNICIPALITY Right-of-Way Zvezditsa Borovets Permanent access road to 14 be constructed by SSTTBV Construction sites 13 Galata Pipeline Infrastructure Existing Galata Priboj and gas pipeline Fichoza Existing Galata gas processing plant 41 South Stream Pipeline Kantara System on the territory 12 of the Republic of Bulgaria Varna compressor station Pasha Dere receiving terminal SSBAD pipelines

Priseltsi VZ Permanent access road to be 10 constructed by SSBAD Rakitnika 9 8

7 B l a c k S e a Projection: Lambert Conformal Conic

Revision Details Check By Suffix Check Date Purpose of Issue For Information AVREN MUNICIPALITY Chernomorets beach Client 6

4 Project Title Rakitnik Priseltsi SOUTH STREAM OFFSHORE PIPELINE PROJECT

Pasha Dere Beach Drawing Title 37 RECREATIONAL RESOURCES

Drawn Checked Approved Date AH VS VS 23/07/2014 Liman URS Internal Project No. Scale @ A3 46369082 1:40,000

This document has been prepared in accordance with the scope of URS' appointment with its client and is subject to the terms of that appointment. URS accepts no liability for any use of this document other than by its client and only for the purposes for which it was prepared and provided. Only written dimensions shall be used. © URS Infrastructure & Environment UK Limited URS Infrastructure & Environment UK Limited Scott House Alencon Link, Basingstoke Hampshire, RG21 7PP Telephone (01256) 310200 Fax (01256) 310201 www.ursglobal.com 0 1 2 3 Drawing Number Rev km Figure 18.13 Plot Date: 08/11/2012 File Name: I:\5004 Information- Systems\46369082_South_Stream\MXDs\Report Maps Bulgaria\Alternatives- Assessment\Figure 6.2 Bulgaria Landfall Constraints Map Landfall.mxd

Within the marine environment surveys undertaken for the ESIA have identified a number of shipwrecks with historical interest and several wooden shipwreck sites have been identified within the marine Affected Ecosystems that potentially date to the post-medieval or modern period.

None of these sites were identified as being visited by local dive operators and their value is likely to be predominantly scientific. In particular, due to the anoxic conditions in the Black Sea, which inhibit corrosion and microbial degradation, the preservation potential for objects is greatly enhanced below a water depth of 120 m to 200 m. As such, the nearshore and offshore sections have high potential for featuring archaeological elements such as: prehistoric sites that became submerged as a result of the Black Sea flooding; historic coastal settlements; shipwrecks and maritime structures; and remains associated with 19th and 20th century conflict.

There are no marine or nautical-related nationally, regionally, or locally registered elements of intangible cultural heritage or Bulgarian Living Human Treasures in the Local Area. However, the marine environment was identified as playing an important part of the cultural identity of the area, particularly for the Ada Bacha fishing community who depend on fishing as part of their cultural identity. There is also a group named “Sea Friends” which operates in Varna and is dedicated to: environmental education and education for young people; acquisition of sustainable maritime knowledge and skills for the young; development and implementation of socially useful projects; training, consultancy, and expert services in marine issues (Ref. 18.48); and several marine-based festivals being held in Varna, including:

• ‘Epiphany – Anniversary of Hristo Botev’ held in January where wreaths are laid at the monument of Hristo Botev in the Seaside Garden. It is followed by a ritual on the beach where a cross is cast into the water of the Varna Bay; and

• ‘Sea Week Celebrations’ held in August including open-air concerts, exhibitions, sport competitions (Ref. 18.49).

During a meeting with the Friends of the Sea group, held on 7 February 2013, the club highlighted the conservation of cultural heritage in the Black Sea, such as shipwrecks, which have been preserved deep on the sea bottom due to the anaerobic environment. The group is concerned that bringing them to the surface will result in their degradation.

During a meeting with the local community of Avren Municipality on the same day, a participant noted that there is a sacred underwater cemetery in within the marine environment surrounding the Project Area. A meeting with Captain Nikifor Guerchev, Executive Director of the Bulgarian Voluntary Search and Rescue Service held on 28 February 2013 noted that this is the site of a Soviet submarine sunk in the Second World War and is a war grave. The war grave of the Soviet submarine ShCh-204 that was sunk in the Black Sea 39 km south of Varna on 6 Dec 1941 is located well north of the selected pipeline route and will not be affected by the offshore construction works.

For further information see Chapter 17 Cultural Heritage.

URS-EIA-REP-202375 18-71 Chapter 18 Ecosystem Services

18.6.9 Wild Species Diversity

Definition: People derive value from interaction with wild species as well as from knowledge of their continued existence, these values may extend locally, regionally, nationally, or even globally. Species are considered to be locally important if they are valued by local communities for reasons in addition to the other provisioning and regulating ecosystem services they may provide. For example, filter feeding and detritivorous organisms (marine zoobenthos) contribute to the cycling of organic matter and when present in sufficient numbers may impact water quality; however, some species may neither provide tangible services nor be identified as being of conservation importance at any level. Their pure existence may, nevertheless, be valued by local communities and any impacts on the populations of these species (such as the loss of commonly seen birds or butterflies) could in turn affect the well- being of local beneficiaries. Species are considered to be nationally important if they are included within the Annexes of the Bulgarian Biodiversity Act or the Red Data Book of the Republic of Bulgaria, and globally important if included within the Annexes of the EU Habitats and Birds Directive or listed on the IUCN Red data list as being vulnerable, endangered, or critically endangered.

There are a total of six natural9 and seven modified10 habitat types within the terrestrial Affected Ecosystems, seven of which are included in the Habitats Directive or Bulgarian Red Data Book. Full descriptions of each of the terrestrial and marine habitats are provided in Chapter 11 Terrestrial Ecology and Chapter 13 Marine Ecology.

The habitats within the Affected Ecosystems form part of five protected areas, including:

• Rakitnik Protected Site designated with the purpose of conserving the habitat of sea buckthorn (Hippophae rhamnoides);

• Liman Protected Site designated with the purpose of conserving a lake and its flora and fauna;

• Galata SPA designated under the Birds Directive. Prior to designation as an SPA, this area was previously designated as an Important Bird Area (IBA) by Birdlife International. The boundary of that designation formed the boundary of the subsequently designated SPA;

• Galata SCI designated under the Habitats Directive; and • Emona SCI designated under the Habitats Directive.

The location of these protected areas is shown in Figure 18.14 and further details are provided in Chapter 11 Terrestrial Ecology and Chapter 13 Marine Ecology.

9 As set out in IFC PS 6, natural habitats are areas composed of viable assemblages of plant and/or animal species of largely native origin, and/or where human activity has not essentially modified an area’s primary ecological functions and species composition. 10 As set out in IFC PS6. modified habitats are areas that may contain a large proportion of plant and/or animal species of non-native origin, and/or where human activity has substantially modified an area’s primary ecological functions and species composition.

18-72 URS-EIA-REP-202375 LEGEND Land Uses Main roads Minor roads/trails and paths Rivers Municipality boundaries Indicative military area Nationally protected area Natura2000 area designated for habitats Natura2000 area designated for birds Agricultural land (unconfirmed) Coastal vegetation Deciduous forest plantations Deciduous shrub Disturbed dry grassland Grey dune grassland Open Habitat Plantation Woodland (non-native) Settlements/infrastructure Varna Municipality Swamp Vineyard Woodland (predominantly native) Black Sea Coast Territory Act Zone A Black Sea Coast Territory Act Zone B Bulgarian Sector of South Stream Offshore Pipeline Proposed offshore pipelines Proposed microtunnels Proposed landfall section pipelines Landfall facilities Right-of-Way Microtunnel entry point Microtunnel exit point Temporary construction sites Temporary construction site for permanent access road to be constructed by SSTTBV Permanent access road to be Rakitnik constructed by SSTTBV Galata Pipeline Infrastructure Existing Galata gas pipeline Existing Galata gas processing plant South Stream Pipeline System on the territory of the Republic of Bulgaria Varna compressor station Liman Pasha Dere receiving terminal SSBAD pipelines Permanent access road to be Avern Municipality constructed by SSBAD Projection: Lambert Conformal Conic

Revision Details Check By Suffix Check Date Purpose of Issue For Information

Client

Project Title SOUTH STREAM OFFSHORE PIPELINE PROJECT

Drawing Title Bliznatsi HABITATS AND PROTECTED AREAS

Drawn Checked Approved Date AH VS VS 23/07/2014 URS Internal Project No. Scale @ A3 46369082 1:35,000

0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 Drawing Number Rev m Figure 18.14 Plot Date: 08/11/2012 File Name: I:\5004 Information- Systems\46369082_South_Stream\MXDs\Report Maps Bulgaria\Alternatives- Assessment\Figure 6.2 Bulgaria Landfall Constraints Map Landfall.mxd

18.6.9.1 Terrestrial Affected Ecosystems

The habitats within the Affected Ecosystems have the potential to support a number of terrestrial flora and fauna species which are of local value and are of national and global conservation importance. Surveys undertaken for the ESIA identified eight flora species that are of national conservation importance and 16 species of reptile were recorded, 13 of which are listed under Annex IV of the Habitats Directive. One species of newt (the southern crested newt (Triturus karelinii)), which is of conservation significance is also found within the Liman wetland. This suggests that the area supports an important assemblage of reptiles and, to a lesser extent, amphibians.

Of highest conservation importance are two species of terrestrial tortoise, the spur-thighed tortoise (Testudo graeca), which is listed on the IUCN as Vulnerable, and Hermann's tortoise (T. hermanni), which is listed as Near Threatened. Both species are listed in the Habitats Directive and the Bulgarian Biodiversity Act, as well as the Bulgarian Red Data Book. They occur in woodland habitats, open area habitats, and the coastline, spending most of their lifecycle in woodland and migrating to sandy areas to lay eggs.

The two threatened species of tortoise were frequently recorded along or adjacent to the beach, access tracks and open scrub, and, to a lesser extent, within the woodland. The population density is estimated to be around 10 animals per hectare. The Galata gas pipeline, access tracks, meadows, and sunny glades offer optimal foraging habitat whilst the woodland and scrub provide shelter from overheating during hot periods. Both species excavate burrows in loose earth and sand which is prevalent throughout the Affected Ecosystems. Field surveyors reported egg chambers within the coastal habitats which separate the sandy beach from the woodland edge.

The Liman wetland area was assessed to contain the range of habitats and resources such as food and shelter necessary to support a resident population of otters (Lutra lutra). This species is a mammal listed under Annex II and Annex III of the Bulgarian Biodiversity Act, the Bulgarian Red Data Book, the Habitats Directive, and the IUCN Red List as ‘near threatened’.

The surveys also recorded various regionally and nationally notable mammals (including several bats); internationally important invertebrates, particularly associated with woodland and wetland habitats; nationally and internationally notable bird species; as well as birds which are considered to be locally rare and endangered.

18.6.9.2 Marine Affected Ecosystems

There are three broad habitat types in the Black Sea, including:

• Surface waters (typically 0 to 50 m water depth) which are well oxygenated, have a fairly low salinity, and have historically supported large populations of pelagic fish. There are a number of different benthic habitat types within these shallow waters including: rocky substrates which allow the development of macroalgal beds that in turn support a highly diverse array of fauna; sandy sediments which support a range of infaunal communities, typically bivalve dominated; and mud sediments which support infaunal communities of polychaetes and bivalves;

URS-EIA-REP-202375 18-75 Chapter 18 Ecosystem Services

• Mid-depth waters (approximately 50 to 100 m water depth) which show decreasing oxygen concentrations and increasing salinity. Benthic habitats at these depths are often muddy sediments; and

• Deep waters (below about 150 to 200 m) where conditions are anoxic. Muddy sediments predominate in deeper waters, and while little is known about the benthos of the deep Black Sea, chemosynthetic bacteria can occur here. For example, in the anoxic shelf of the north-western Black Sea numerous gas seeps are populated by methanotrophic microbial mats that can form tall reef-like structures, though such features have not been detected along the Pipeline alignment in the Bulgarian sector (Chapter 13 Marine Ecology).

A number of threatened bird species were observed within the marine environment, part of which includes the Galata SPA. The shallow sea area along the coastline of the Galata SPA is sensitive to overfishing, trawling for mussels and general construction activity. In total, the Galata SPA is estimated to support 178 bird species, 34 of which are listed in the Red Data Book for Bulgaria (Chapter 13 Marine Ecology).

In addition, the Galata SPA IBA has been designated for supporting two species, one of which is a seabird and a regularly occurring congregation of migratory species. The site has been identified as potentially supporting a breeding population of Yelkouan shearwater (Puffinus yelkouan), although a colony has not been identified. Shearwaters are listed as endangered in the Bulgarian Red Data Book, are a Habitats Directive Annex 1 species, and a qualifying interest feature of the Galata SPA. Shearwaters spend much of their time at sea and are most likely to be encountered during offshore operations.

Three endemic, IUCN listed cetacean species inhabit the Black Sea and are found off the Bulgarian coast, namely the Black Sea harbour porpoise (Phocoena phocoena relicta), the Black Sea common dolphin (Delphinus delphis ponticus), and the Black Sea bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus ponticus). Dolphin species may also have local importance to people in the Local Area (as demonstrated by the popularity of the dolphinarium in Varna).

Fishing interactions are the major threat to all Black Sea cetaceans, through a combination of reduced prey availability, degradation of feeding grounds, disturbance, modification of feeding and social behaviour, alteration of migrations and direct injuries or mortality through interaction with vessels and fishing gear (Chapter 13 Marine Ecology). It is noted that the Emona SCI is in the vicinity of the Project Area and the harbour porpoise and bottlenose dolphins are designating features of the site.

The coastal distribution of the harbour porpoise (and to some extent the bottlenose dolphin) makes them vulnerable to human impact in comparison to common dolphins. However, since common dolphins are observed nearer the shore during feeding migrations (in the summer) they are also vulnerable to impacts of human activity.

Groups of all species were observed with calves, and feeding groups, sometimes together with seabirds, were also seen. There was also an incidental observation of a pair of Black Sea common dolphins displaying mating behaviour. The Affected Ecosystems may therefore be important for movement, feeding (in the spring season this is probably related to migration of the shad species), breeding, and rearing for all three cetacean species (Chapter 13 Marine Ecology).

18-76 URS-EIA-REP-202375

Additional species of potential local importance include species of the algae Phyllophora and Cystoseira which act as edificators in benthic communities (i.e., species which determine local habitat structure and, to some extent, species composition of a community). They form large underwater thickets, densely covering the surface of rocks and boulders which provide habitat for a range of other plants and animals. The species P. n e r v o s a formerly occupied vast areas of the northwestern Black Sea but has been significantly reduced due to commercial exploitation and deteriorating water quality. P. brodiaei and P. nervosa are listed as vulnerable in the Black Sea Red List while Cystoseira barbata and C. crinata are both endangered. While macroalgal stands are known to exist in the marine environment, of the species mentioned above, only Cystoseria barbata was found to occur.

In some areas of the Black Sea, the mussel (Mytilus galloprovincialis) forms beds orientated according to the prevailing currents. The mussel is an important structural species forming biogenic reefs and providing a solid substrate, stabilising the seabed and creating organic-rich ‘mytilus mud’. Mussel beds also provide habitat for a wide variety of other marine fauna (sponges, hydrozoans, sea anemones, bryozoans, ascidians, polychaetes), and serve as a food resource for larger animals species as well as providing a key ecological service due to their filter-feeding bio-filtration capacity.

Emona SCI is designated for the presence of mussel beds (13% of the national coverage) However, there were no mussel beds detected during extensive grab and video surveys in 2013 in the Project Area, which crosses a small marginal part of the Emona SCI. There were small patches of mussels on muddy sediments in water depths greater than about 23 m but these were generally small and had a low density of individuals.

For further information see Chapter 11 Terrestrial Ecology and Chapter 13 Marine Ecology.

18.6.10 Baseline Summary

A summary of the baseline conditions of the nine key ecosystem services is provided in Table 18.9. Likely future trends are indicated as follows:  increasing provision;  decreasing provision;  no overall change in provision; and ± some increases and some decreases in provision. The importance of the ecosystem service to beneficiaries is indicated by: high importance; moderate importance; low importance; and negligible importance.

URS-EIA-REP-202375 18-77 Chapter 18 Ecosystem Services

Table 18.9 Baseline Summary

Service Provision Trend and Key Drivers Key Beneficiaries Importance

Capture Important service Overfishing, Ada Bacha community and other fisheries for Ada Bacha eutrophication, artisanal fishers fishing community invasive Commercial fishing companies in and commercial species, climate local area and wider region fleets change, Galata pipeline Fishing companies operating throughout the Black Sea

Timber Significant Market forces, Landowners in area potential timber climate

provision in area suitability

Water Several Climate change, Groundwater abstractors supply groundwater population Users of the Liman wetland abstractors and growth surface waters which support protected areas

Hazard Vegetation, soils, Climate change Local households and private regulation wetlands, and companies within region coastal features The Project itself offering protection Beach users

Water Supports a range Runoff, Groundwater abstractors quality of uses including eutrophication, Users of Liman wetland drinking, fishing, policy, waste and tourism water Fishing and tourism industries discharges

Soil Important service Airborne Landowners quality in reducing health emissions, Workers who may contact regulation risks, determining surface run-off contaminated soils land productivity, and regulating Local residents benefiting from surface flows reduced flood risk

Continued…

18-78 URS-EIA-REP-202375

Service Provision Trend and Key Drivers Key Beneficiaries Importance

Tourism Important sector Investment in Tourists from thhe wider region and of local economy, tourism Local recreatioonal users recreation recreational use of industry, global values the area is also financial crisis Visitors to Cherrnomorets Tourist important Resort Households annd companies dependent on ttourism

Cultural Important land n/a Local residents and and seascapes Local people who value the spiritual and a number of marine environment values cultural sites are present National and global scientific community

Wild A number of Climate change, Local communiities and NGOs species important pollution, Regional, national, and global diversity terrestrial and hunting, conservation community marine species regulation, and habitats habitat loss, invasive species

Complete.

18.7 Impact Assessment

18.7.1 Impact Assessment Methodology

The assessment of impacts on ecosystem services broadly follows the approach set out in Chapter 3 Impact Assessment Methodology. It follows the same steps and uses the same assessment criteria but differs in one important respect: it assesses impacts from the point of view of the ecosystem service beneficiaries. The impact is therefore measured as the changn e in human well-being (relative to the baseline) as a result of a changee in the level of provision of an ecosystem service.

The nature and significance of impacts are determined using a set of criterria that reflect the value of ecosystem services to beneficiariees, the resilience of ecosystems and their beneficiaries to change. It also considers the extent, duration, reversibility, and frequency of the impacts. These criteria are explained more fully in the sections that follow.

URS-EIIA-REP-202375 18-79 Chapter 18 Ecosystem Services

18.7.1.1 Impact Assessment Criteria

Receptor Sensitivity

Receptor sensitivity is determined using information from the baseline and provides a detailed understanding of the importance of each ecosystem service to its respective beneficiaries, taking account of:

The value of ecosystem services to beneficiaries, i.e.:

• The extent to which beneficiaries are dependent on the ecosystem service (e.g. whether fishing is undertaken occasionally as a recreational activity or regularly as an important part of livelihoods); and

• The scarcity value of the ecosystem service (e.g. the availability of suitable alternatives or substitutes) and how readily replaceable it is considering accessibility and affordability.

And the resilience of ecosystems and beneficiaries to change, i.e.:

• The sensitivity of the ecosystem to change (e.g. as a result of climate change, population pressures, etc.). This will depend on, amongst other things, the existing condition of the ecosystem, its functions, and its thresholds. For example, some fish species (such as sturgeon) are particularly sensitive to changes in water temperature (Ref. 18.50); and

• The sensitivity of beneficiaries to changes in ecosystem service provision. This will depend on, amongst other things, beneficiaries’ existing endowments of, or access to, factors such as financial, human, physical, natural, and institutional capital. For example, poorer rural households who collect water directly from the environment through household wells are likely to be more sensitive to changes in the supply and quality of their water than wealthier households in urban centres who are connected to a public water supply system.

The extent to which an ecosystem service fulfils each of these criteria is scored on a four point scale as shown in Table 18.10. Note that receptor sensitivity is independent of Project impacts and relates to the existing situation and the capacity of ecosystems and ecosystem service beneficiaries to adapt to any type of change (e.g. climate change, population growth, etc.).

The scores assigned to each criterion are then added together for each ecosystem service to arrive at the overall receptor sensitivity score as shown in Table 18.11.

18-80 URS-EIA-REP-202375

Table 18.10 Criteria Used to Determine Receptor Sensitivity

Significance Criteria Assigned Scores

Score 1 Score 2 Score 3 Score 4

What is the degree of dependence Negligible Low Moderate High by beneficiaries on the ecosystem service? Note: this can include type of use e.g. subsistence vs. recreational and

intensity of use e.g. occasional vs. continual

Value To what extent is this ESS Service is Some Few No replaceable? Or are good substitutes widely alternatives alternatives alternatives available without entailing significant available available available available costs? Note: this should specifically refer to the availability of alternatives

What is the sensitivity of the Negligible Low Moderate High ecosystem to change? Note: this should refer to the biological sensitivity of the ecosystem to change

What is the vulnerability of the Negligible Low Moderate High Resilience human receptors to any change in ecosystem service provision? Note: this should refer to the socio- economic capacity of people to adapt

URS-EIA-REP-202375 18-81 Chapter 18 Ecosystem Services

Table 18.11 Approach to Determining Overall Receptor Sensitivity

Impact Magnitude Score

Negligible The service is of low value to beneficiaries (due to low dependency or the 4 existence of widely available alternatives) and the environmental and human receptors are highly resilient.

Low The service is of low value to beneficiaries (due to low dependency or the 5-8 existence of widely available alternatives) and the environmental and human receptors are moderately to highly resilient. Alternatively, the service is of moderate value to beneficiaries and the environmental and human receptors are highly resilient.

Moderate The service is of moderate value to beneficiaries (due to moderate 9-12 dependency or the existence of some alternatives) and the environmental and human receptors are moderately resilient. Alternatively, the service is of high value to beneficiaries and the environmental and human receptors are highly resilient.

High The service is of high value to beneficiaries (due to high dependency or the 13-16 lack of suitable alternatives) and the environmental and human receptors have low resilience. Alternatively, the service is of moderate value to beneficiaries and the environmental and human receptors have low resilience.

Impact Magnitude

The assessment of Project impacts on ecosystem services follows the methodology described in Chapter 3 Impact Assessment Methodology. The magnitude of each of the identified impacts on ecosystem services is evaluated on the basis of the following criteria:

• The severity of the impact on the well-being of ecosystem service beneficiaries; • The reversibility of the impact (i.e. how quickly is the ecosystem able to recover from the impact); and, based on this,

• The duration of the impact on beneficiaries; and • The frequency with which ecosystem service beneficiaries are affected by the impacts of Project Activities.

Each impact is scored against each of the criteria on a four point scale as shown in Table 18.12.

The scores assigned to each criterion are added together for each ecosystem service to arrive at a total impact magnitude score for each ecosystem service which is classified as shown in Table 18.13.

18-82 URS-EIA-REP-202375

Table 18.12 Criteria for Determining Impact Magnitude

Magnitude Criteria Assigned Scores

Score 1 Score 2 Score 3 Score 4

Severity: What is the likely Negligible Low Moderate High severity of the impact on the well- being of any beneficiaries of the service, considering both the number of beneficiaries affected and the degree to which they are affected?

Reversibility: How quickly is the Short term Medium term Long term Permanent ecosystem (or ecosystem Will recover Reversible Reversible functionality) able to recover from completely in after some after some the impact? a short period time with no time with of time once intervention. intervention. the activity Ecosystem Recovery will ceases, e.g. functionality occur but is turbidity levels will recover retarded by in a water with some impact (e.g. column changes to regrowth of ecosystem vegetation function at once original natural topsoil has recovery rates been replaced) (e.g.re- establishment of riverbed)

Duration: How long is the impact Short term Medium term Long term Permanent on beneficiaries expected to last? Impacts occur Impacts occur Impacts affect Impacts over a few over an the current extend over weeks or for a extended human multiple single season period generation, generations, covering e.g. 25 years e.g. >25 multiple years seasons

Frequency: How often are Once off Periodic Regular Continuous ecosystem service beneficiaries Effects are Effects are affected by the impacts of the intermittent intermittent Project activity? and sporadic but regularly over repeated over assessment assessment period period

URS-EIA-REP-202375 18-83 Chapter 18 Ecosystem Services

Table 18.13 Determining Overall Impact Magnitude

Impact Magnitude Score

Negligible The impact is within the normal range of variation of the ecosystem and is not 4 significant for the ESS beneficiaries.

Low The impact results in a small reduction in the availability or functionality of the 5-8 ecosystem but is unlikely to give rise to any significant, lasting change in service provision or well-being of any beneficiaries and will not impact on Project operations.

Moderate The impact results in a moderate reduction in the availability or functionality 9-12 of the ecosystem which may give rise to a change in service provision and the well-being of any beneficiaries and/or may compromise Project operations.

High The impact results in the loss of all or a significant proportion of the 13-16 availability or functionality of an ecosystem which is likely to give rise to a significant change in service provision and the well-being of any beneficiaries and/or will compromise Project operations.

18.7.1.2 Impact Significance

Once the receptor sensitivity and impact magnitude for each of the ecosystem services is estimated they are then combined to estimate the impact significance using the matrix set out in Table 18.14 which is consistent with the overall approach as set out in Chapter 3 Impact Assessment Methodology.

Table 18.14 Impacts Significance Matrix for Ecosystem Services

Receptor Sensitivity

Negligible Low Moderate High

Negligible Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant / Low*

Low Not Significant Low Low / Moderate† Moderate

Moderate Not Significant Low / Moderate Moderate High

Impact Magnitude High Low Moderate High High

* Allows technical discipline author to decide if impact significance is Not Significant or Low. † Allows technical discipline author to decide if impact significance is Low or Moderate.

Based upon the resulting impact significance score, priority ecosystem services i.e. those upon which the Project is likely to have a significant impact and which result in adverse impacts

18-84 URS-EIA-REP-202375

on beneficiaries, and/or those upon which the Project is directly dependent for its operations are determined as follows:

• Not significant to low impact significance – not a priority service and no mitigation required beyond that which is set out in other chapters; and

• Moderate to high impact significance – priority service and further mitigation measures required to maintain the value and functionality of the affected service.

An initial draft of the impact assessment was sent to each of the relevant technical specialists to review in order to check that any information that they had provided had been correctly interpreted and used in the description and assessment of impacts on ecosystem services and to seek their advice on the selection of appropriate mitigation measures.

18.7.2 Assessment of Potential Impacts: Construction and Pre- Commissioning

18.7.2.1 Introduction

The following sections provide a description of the nature and significance of Project impacts on ecosystem services and their beneficiaries during the Construction and Pre-Commissioning Phase. A detailed breakdown of the scoring assigned to each ecosystem service is provided in Appendix 18.3: Impact Assessment – Construction and Pre-Commissioning.

18.7.2.2 Assessment of Potential Impacts (pre-mitigation)

Capture Fisheries

The service considered in this assessment is the capture of wild fish for consumption and recreational purposes located within, or dependent upon the marine Affected Ecosystems. The key beneficiaries are the Ada Bacha fishing community. Further beneficiaries include commercial fishing organisations within the Local Area, wider region, and other Black Sea countries which also harvest stocks of fish in the Black Sea that may migrate or spawn in waters within the Affected Ecosystems.

The Project Activities that could potentially impact upon capture fisheries include:

• Disturbance caused by noise, vibration and light from vessels used for surveying, dredging, installation of pipelines, pipe-laying, back-filling, and tie-ins;

• Sediment disturbance during dredging, installation of pipelines, pipe-laying, and back-filling; • Implementation of safety exclusion zones around anchored vehicles (during surveys) and during dredging, installation of pipelines, pipe-laying, back-filling and tie-ins; and

• Introduction of invasive species into the marine environment which could impact populations of commercially important species (impacts on invasive species are assessed under Wild Species Diversity). The risk and impact associated with the introduction of invasive species are discussed in Section 18.8.1.3.

URS-EIA-REP-202375 18-85 Chapter 18 Ecosystem Services

Receptor Sensitivity

Fishing is the primary source of income for the Ada Bacha fishing community and makes up an important part of their cultural identity. When asked what they would do as an alternative livelihood if they were no longer able to fish they replied that there were no alternatives to fishing for them. As such, the dependence on this service by the Ada Bacha community is considered to be high. Given the relatively low importance of fisheries to the local economy and the relatively small number of people engaged in commercial fishing (Ref. 18.30) dependence on fisheries outside of the Ada Bacha fishing community is considered to be generally low11. While the Ada Bacha community is highly dependent on the fisheries service for income, the community has demonstrated that it is adaptable. Discussions with the Ada Bacha fishing community revealed that fishing is undertaken up to 3.5 NM out to sea across a number of fishing grounds and that there are alternatives to particular fish species and fishing grounds. Since the construction of the Galata pipeline they have shifted fishing grounds further up the coast in order to maintain catch size (i.e. to intercept fish migration routes before they reach the Galata pipeline) and, following reported changes in species composition in the Black Sea, they have adapted by targeting alternative species. As such, alternatives to this particular service within the range of accessible grounds are considered to be widely available. Similarly, the commercial fleet, with more sophisticated and longer-range boats, is likely to be able to travel further to reach alternative fishing grounds in response to changes in fish migration patterns and fisheries productivity.

Black Sea fish stocks are sensitive to changes in the marine ecosystem and there are recorded declines in a number of species as a result of over-fishing, eutrophication, and the introduction of alien invasive species (Ref. 18.51). Members of the Ada Bacha fishing community claim to have observed a decline in fish stocks in the area and report that catches have declined substantially over the last decade. They also claim to have observed a shift in fish migration patterns since construction of the Galata pipeline although the correlation between fish migration patterns and the presence of the Galata pipeline has not been verified by any published evidence. On the basis of the published evidence surrounding the effects of temperature changes, over-fishing, eutrophication and the introduction of alien invasive species on marine fisheries, the ecosystem is considered to be highly sensitive to change.

Unlike large scale commercial fishing organisations, the Ada Bacha fishing community has relatively little access to the necessary resources (e.g. finances, technology, fleet capacity) to adapt to any substantial changes in provision of the fisheries service. Further, as the existence (and, to some extent the cultural identity) of the Ada Bacha community is strongly linked to fishing in the area, the community is highly vulnerable to the loss of this service. As such, the vulnerability of human receptors is considered to be high.

The overall sensitivity of the Ada Bacha community to changes in access to the fisheries resource is therefore assessed as being high. For commercial enterprises who are more readily able to adapt to significant changes in the location of fisheries, sensitivity is assessed as moderate.

11 The percentage of the population employed in the fisheries sector (fishing and processing) in Varna was estimated to be 0.5% 2003 (Ref. 18.30).

18-86 URS-EIA-REP-202375

Impact Magnitude

Seabed sediment dispersion caused by the construction of the microtunnel and the seabed dredging process could potentially impact adversely on fish or other marine resources and subsequently the livelihoods of the Ada Bacha fishing community.

Sedimentation will occur as a result of the dredging of four individual trenches from approximately 2 km offshore (water depth of approximately 24 m) to the microtunnel exit pits located approximately 420 m from the coast in a water depth of approximately 12 m. Depending on the construction method used there may be additional discharge of drill cuttings and slurry (made up of water and bentonite 12 ), however the quantity and dispersal of this discharge will be minimised through a number of measures put in place during the construction process. These are described in Chapter 5 Project Description.

Sediment modelling has shown that the sediment plume will be present throughout the proposed dredging activities, estimated to take about 35 days in total (under the assumption of a single dredger working with a production rate around 10,000 m3 per day) but will disperse 3-5 hours after activities cease. With typical unidirectional current velocities, this plume is confined to within 6 km of the works. The affected distance northward (towards Ada Bacha) is about 2.5 km, just short of the location of the fishing community, although the anticipated sedimentation at this distance is low (5 mg/l) (Ref. 18.52). The southward spread would be more extensive but confined within 5 km.

Increased sediment may affect fish in two ways: through increased turbidity caused by high suspended sediment concentrations reducing the capacity of visual predators to locate prey, or sediment settling on the seabed smothering eggs and possible prey items for some benthic feeders and restricting the settlement of larvae. Both of these have the potential to reduce the reproductive capacity of fish species which could lead to a reduction in stocks over time or cause fish to locate elsewhere. However, the effects are likely to be minimal given that the anticipated timescale for the nearshore section of the Construction and Pre-Commissioning Phase is less than 12 months; with nearshore dredging scheduled for around 40 days.

Of the commercial fish species in the Affected Ecosystems, sprat will be the most likely to be affected by turbidity as they are known to avoid turbid waters (Appendix 15.1). While the sediment plume is likely to appear over some of the fishing areas, the dispersal of the plume is rapid (4 days after the end of dredging (Ref. 18.52)), and higher concentrations of suspended sediment will be limited to near the seabed and will only have the potential to affect the fishery if it occurs during the winter fishing season. While it is possible that there could be some effect of sedimentation on the rapa whelk populations, it appears that the plume does not significantly impact any of the permitted rapa whelk fishing areas.

The majority of the fish species targeted by the Ada Bacha fishing community are species which spawn pelagically and are migratory (i.e. will pass through the area), so it is unlikely they will be adversely impacted by sedimentation or turbidity. There may be some effect on their feeding grounds but this is also likely to be minimal. Of the species targeted by the Ada Bacha

12 Natural, inert, non-toxic clay.

URS-EIA-REP-202375 18-87 Chapter 18 Ecosystem Services

fishermen, the species most like to be adversely affected is the goby, as it has demersal eggs which stick to solid substrates and thus have the potential to be smothered by the settling of dispersed sediment.

A mussel farm is also planned for the small bay directly in front of the location of the Ada Bacha fishing community; however, due to a weak northern current, suspended sediment from dredging and back filling would settle rapidly back onto the sea bed in an area northward and the affected distance is a maximum of about 2.5 km. At 2.5 km north of the Project Area suspended sediment would be low, less than 2 mg/l and so any impacts on the proposed mussel farm is highly unlikely.

The results of the fisheries study undertaken for the purposes of this ESIA Report concluded that any impacts on fish populations are likely to be minimal and localised. As such, there are unlikely to be any significant impacts on stocks of fish in the Black Sea that migrate or spawn in waters within the Affected Ecosystems.

The implementation of safety exclusion zones during the Construction and Pre-Commissioning Phase, and the need to avoid supply and pipe-laying vessels operating in fishing areas, may restrict the available fishing grounds or restrict navigation of fishing vessels. The effect of the restrictions on marine navigation during the Construction and Pre-Commissioning Phase is dependent on the physical extent and the time of year that the restrictions are put in place.

The exclusion zone during the construction activities will be a ‘moving’ circle (between 1.5 km and 2.75 km per day depending on the type of vessel used) with a radius of 3 km around an anchored lay barge and 2 km around a dynamically positioned (DP) barge. It is understood that the 3 km radius can be reduced in shallow water, where the spread area of the anchors required is significantly reduced by the shallowness of the waters. As a result, the construction safety exclusion zone in the nearshore section will be reduced to less than 3 km. The actual radius of the exclusion zone in the nearshore section will be decided in consultation with the relevant authorities.

Due to the use of trenchless shore crossing for all four pipes, there will be no dredging within about 420 m of the shore. For the remainder of the nearshore dredging works, an exclusion zone of 500 m around the dredging spread will be maintained. It will not, therefore, restrict the movement of vessels to and from Ada Bacha and the exclusion zone will be defined and managed in order to avoid any significant interference with maritime traffic and vessels approaching the harbour.

During Pre-commissioning there will be an exclusion zone of 500 m around the vessels at the tie-in location engaged in the pre-commissioning activities. The exclusion zones and related restrictions will be coordinated with, and approved by, the Maritime Authorities, who will also define procedures for their implementation such as where the pipe-lay vessels cross shipping lanes.

The Ada Bacha fishing community currently depends on fishing within an area approximately 2.5 NM (approximately 4.6 km) to the north of the Project Area, 5.5 NM to (approximately 10 km) to the south, and 3.5 NM (approximately 6.5 km) offshore. They do not fish in the restricted area around the Galata gas pipeline but their fishing grounds extend to the south of

18-88 URS-EIA-REP-202375

it. This was indicated as the maximum extent of the fishing depending on the time of year and species targeted.

Their vessels are small (between 3.4 and 6.8 m in length with the engine power mostly ranging between 4 hp and 10 hp) and as such are more geographically constrained in their fishing activities than larger commercial vessels. The realistic range for vessels with smaller engines is around 10 NM or approximately 18 km (assuming a speed of 5 knots suggests a travelling time to and from the fishing grounds of around 4 hours).

The local and temporary nature of the exclusion zone means that the effect of the Construction and Pre-Commissioning Phase on navigation and fishing activities for the Ada Bacha fishing community is likely to be minor. It is unlikely that the fishing community will look for new fishing grounds outside the areas they currently fish but they may concentrate more of their fishing effort to the north or circumnavigate the safety exclusion zone which may result in increased fuel costs during this phase.

Noise, vibration, and light generated by the dredging, pipe laying, and support vessels could potentially affect fish migration patterns or cause dispersal of some benthic species, which may reduce catches and revenues for the Ada Bacha fishing community. A full assessment of the likely effects of noise generated during the Construction and Pre-Commissioning Phase on fish is presented in the Appendix 13.4: Underwater Sound Analysis.

The results of noise modelling, however, found that noise from Project Activities have little potential to cause injury or mortality to fish and little potential for the annual migration of shad species along the Bulgarian coast to be interrupted. Some hearing specialists such as sprat and anchovy will be affected over a limited area relative to these species’ range with behavioural effects predicted up to a maximum of 710 m away from the noise source. The effect will be short term with pipe-laying expected to be undertaken at a rate of approximately 1.5 km per day meaning that any one area will only be affected for a very short period (Chapter 13 Marine Ecology).

Overall, the fisheries report found that there is unlikely to be a significant impact on any fish species. While there may be some disruption to fishing activities which could incur costs (such as longer travelling times) they are likely to be minimal and there are unlikely to be any disruptions which restrict the ability of any beneficiaries from being able to undertake fishing activities or derive their livelihoods from this service. As such, the impact on the well-being of beneficiaries of this service is likely to be low. The impact on beneficiaries is expected to last for the duration of the construction and pre-commissioning period and is likely to be felt periodically during this time during points in the fishing season when potentially disturbed or restricted areas are fished. Any disturbances are likely to be minor and normal fish behaviour is likely to resume in a short period of time once the sources of disturbance have ceased.

The overall impact magnitude is therefore considered to be low for the Ada Bacha community and negligible (given the wider range over which the fleet can travel) for the commercial fleet.

Impact Significance

The overall significance of the Construction and Pre-Commissioning Phase of the Project on capture fisheries (and specifically for the Ada Bacha fishing community) is assessed as being

URS-EIA-REP-202375 18-89 Chapter 18 Ecosystem Services

Moderate and fisheries are therefore considered to be a priority service requiring mitigation (refer to Appendix 18.3 for the scoring against each of the magnitude significance criteria). There is unlikely to be any significant effect on the commercial fleet (i.e. impacts are not significant).

Timber

The service considered in this assessment is timber provided by standing woodlands and forests in the Project Area. The key beneficiaries include:

• Bulgarian Ministry of Agriculture and Food’s Executive Forestry Agency (and the Regional Forestry Directorate (Varna)); and • A private landowner within the Project Area.

The main Project Activities during the Construction and Pre-Commissioning Phase which could impact this service include the clearance of vegetation for construction of the Pipeline.

Receptor Sensitivity

As noted in the baseline, most of the trees to be felled for the Project Area are owned and managed by the Regional Directorate of Forestry (Varna) under the Bulgarian Ministry of Agriculture and Food’s Executive Forestry Agency. It is understood that most of the State-owned forest land is not managed specifically for commercial purposes, although there are several experimental plots. The plantation forestry is the result of experimental planting undertaken by the Bulgarian government to test the suitability of different species. During discussions held with the Executive Forestry Agency it has been confirmed that the forest does not have any commercial value to the Agency and it is not commercially exploited, nor is it being managed for future commercial exploitation (Chapter 15 Socio-Economics).

There is also an area of privately owned land in the Project Area which will be cleared. This land is comprised of four parcels that are held under single ownership. The sites are collectively zoned under the Varna GDP for development as a residential and resort development comprising three apartment blocks and approximately 70 villas and therefore, not currently zoned for timber production. The four land parcels were repossessed in 2013 following financial difficulties experienced by the previous owner who was seeking permission to develop a residential and leisure resort scheme in accordance with the zoning. Consequently, the site is now owned by a bank. In discussions with South Stream Transport, the bank has confirmed that they do not want to develop the site and that they are willing to sell the site to South Stream Transport.

As such, there is no management of the land for timber production within the Project Area that is due to be cleared and the dependency on this service is low.

The forest habitat is widely distributed throughout the Local Area and, as such, small-scale losses of forested areas (less than 1%) are not considered to significantly affect the availability of timber as alternative sources are widely available and plots outside the Project Area that are owned by the State and/or the private landowner could be brought into production.

18-90 URS-EIA-REP-202375

The sensitivity of the woodland ecosystem is likely to be low as the forests within the Project Area are in good health, well replicated, and not subject to any significant environmental or anthropogenic threats. Likewise, the sensitivity of beneficiaries are likely to be low as owners are able to access financial and land based capital needed to adapt to any changes in supply or provision of this service.

The overall receptor sensitivity is therefore considered to be low.

Impact Magnitude

During construction the entire construction corridor (varying from 60 m – 120 m wide) will be cleared of vegetation which will result in a loss of approximately 44 hectares of forested land. The following areas will be cleared of any trees present prior to the construction of the Project:

• The area of the permanent landfall facilities (approximately 12 ha); • The area required for the Landfall Facilities Construction Site and Pre-commissioning Spread (approximately 5 ha);

• The construction corridor (approximately 23 ha); • The area required for the Microtunnel Construction Site (approximately 1.5 ha); and • A swathe approximately 26 m wide for a 1 km length (approximately 2.5 ha) for the permanent access road to the landfall facilities. The remaining 300 m of access road area will be cleared for the landfall facilities and Landfall Facilities Construction Site and Pre- commissioning Spread.

In addition, trees and deep-rooted vegetation located in the Right of Way (RoW) above the pipelines housed within the microtunnels (approximately 3.8 ha) have to be cleared to meet the requirements of Bulgarian Ordinance No. 16, Ordinance on the Easement Zones of Energy Facilities published in State Gazette 88. However, South Stream Transport will consult with the appropriate Bulgarian authorities about the easement requirements and whether it will be possible to avoid the felling of deep-rooted vegetation and the removal of trees on the RoW above pipelines housed in microtunnels. If it is necessary to clear trees during initial construction, replanting of the RoW will be undertaken in accordance with the easement requirements currently in force. If the tree felling above the microtunnel is not required, the trees will be left.

Replanting felled areas, except where required to be left unplanted for the operation of the Project (see Section 5.6.6), will be undertaken with native broadleaf woodland. Furthermore, although there is no legal requirement to undertake tree planting in new areas to compensate for the trees lost as a result of the Project, South Stream Transport intends to undertake voluntary replanting. This replanting programme (including the identification of suitable areas) will be developed with the North East State Enterprise (NESE) in Shumen. Further details on replanting are provided in Chapter 11 Terrestrial Ecology.

The total area of each type of woodland to be felled to accommodate the construction and operation of the Project is shown in Table 18.15. Further information on the woodland to be felled for the Project can be found in Chapter 11 Terrestrial Ecology. Due to the fact that

URS-EIA-REP-202375 18-91 Chapter 18 Ecosystem Services

none of this land has been identified as being managed under timber production the impact on beneficiaries of the timber service is likely to be negligible.

Table 18.15 Estimated Areas of Woodlands to be Felled

Woodland Type Area of Forest to be Felled (ha)

Oak Woodland 27.13

Hornbeam Woodland 0.15

Coniferous Plantation 8.44

Deciduous Plantation 7.23

Felling of merchantable timber will be harvested and extracted by conventional methods and standard forestry equipment. During consultations in August 2013, the Executive Forestry Agency confirmed that they do not wish to take possession of the timber that is felled. South Stream Transport will consult with relevant stakeholders to identify potential uses for the timber. Stemwood (the wood of the stem of a tree) with diameter above approximately 7 cm will be stored temporarily or taken off site while the branches removed from the stemwood will either be left in place in accordance with standard practice or taken off site, depending on the outcome of the stakeholder consultation.

Land acquisition will be carried out in accordance with Bulgarian legislation which provides for land acquisition by compulsory means or by negotiated settlement. With respect to private landowners of forested land, South Stream Transport will negotiate regarding the purchase price and/or compensation amounts. Land acquisition will be carried out in accordance with South Stream Transport’s Land Acquisition Plan. The Plan has been drafted in accordance with Bulgarian legislation and the objectives of IFC PS5, applying the higher of the two standards wherever they are not consistent. The Plan provides for compensation, including for any reduction in land values as a result of the Project, based on a valuation mechanism conducted in accordance with the objectives of IFC PS5 or national legal requirements, whichever is the greater. A negotiated settlement with the land owners of the plots will be reached. This will include provision for compensating the land owners for any reduction in values, if identified in accordance with Bulgarian legislation and the objectives of IFC PS5, applying the higher of the two standards wherever they are not consistent.

After construction, land that has not been acquired permanently will be reinstated to a state as near to the original condition as possible or to a form in keeping with the surrounding topography where this is not precluded by risk to integrity of the Pipeline or erosion considerations.

As such, the overall impact magnitude, in terms of change in the well-being of any beneficiaries of this service, is assessed as being negligible (refer to Appendix 18.3 for the scoring against each of the magnitude significance criteria).

18-92 URS-EIA-REP-202375

Impact Significance

The overall significance of the Construction and Pre-Commissioning Phase of the Project on timber is assessed as being Not Significant and, depending on how felled timber is distributed, the potential impact could be temporary beneficial.

Water Supply

The service considered in this assessment is the use of ground and surface freshwater resources provided by, or dependent upon, the Affected Ecosystems. This includes water resources used throughout the Pasha Dere and Check Dere catchment. The baseline did not identify any surface water abstractors who may be impacted by the Project although there are a number of beneficiaries of groundwater resources within the catchments, including:

• Users of the Pasha Dere well field; • Users of the well at Chernomorets; and • The Project itself. Further beneficiaries include those who use and value the Liman wetlands and Galata Protected Areas which are dependent on water supply for continued ecosystem functioning. In order to avoid double counting impacts on these beneficiaries will be assessed in Wild Species Diversity. Since the abstraction permit for the boreholes at Priboi Ltd. are suspended they are excluded from this assessment.

The specific Project Activities that could affect the water (supply) services provided by or dependent on the Affected Ecosystems include:

• Abstraction from aquifers for use in construction and hydrotesting leading to decreasing groundwater levels; and

• Alterations to surface water flows during construction due to crossing of surface waters, trenching and tunnelling activities, and alterations to vegetation cover.

Receptor Sensitivity

There are nine groundwater abstractions identified in the baseline, eight of which (at the Pasha Dere well-field) are used for potable water supplies, although these are located some distance (600 m at the nearest point) from the Project Area itself. Alternative supplies of water for use by the Project and other abstractors are widely available through the use of other aquifers or surface water resources, or through tinkering / piping in supplies from other areas (although the last approach is likely to incur significant environmental and social costs). While supplies are widely available, due to the importance for human well-being of being able to easily access water supplies, particular groups or households may have a moderate dependency on accessing particular resources at particular times.

The sensitivity of the ecosystem to change is considered to be low as water supplies in the Local Area are not currently over abstracted (the quantitative status of the Galata Formation aquifer is good) or under significant pressures from any environmental change, although climate change may lead to increasing pressures on water resources in future. Human receptors are also likely to have low sensitivity to change as most households are connected to the public

URS-EIA-REP-202375 18-93 Chapter 18 Ecosystem Services

water supply and do not abstract directly from groundwater sources. As such, water users are likely to be protected against water shortages by their supplier(s).The overall receptor sensitivity is therefore considered to be low (refer to Appendix 18.3 for the scoring against each of the magnitude significance criteria).

Impact Magnitude

During construction water will be required for domestic purposes (drinking water, mess and welfare facilities) and industrial use (for example microtunnel construction and wheel washing, dust suppression, etc.). Water for domestic purposes will be brought to site by road tanker and bottled water will be provided for drinking purposes.

As outlined in Section 5.3.7.1, the source of industrial water supply for the Project is currently being investigated by South Stream Transport. Four potential options are being examined and are summarised below:

• Obtain industrial water from an existing well at Varna West Port and transfer the water by a tanker vessel/barge to Varna East Port;

• Abstraction of water from the Kamchia River (located approximately 20 km south of the Project landfall section). Possible abstraction points are unknown at this time;

• Drilling a borehole within the footprint of the Project landfall section to obtain water; and • Abstraction of seawater within the Project nearshore section which is pumped via a hose to desalinisation plant located within the Project landfall section temporary facilities.

At this stage of development, it is most likely that the Project will use Option 1 as the source of water for the Project and this option is assessed in the ESIA Report. The estimated consumption of water is around 12 m3 per day (at peak of construction) for domestic uses, 20,000 m3 for microtunnel construction, and 5 m3 for various uses such as dust suppression and wheel washing etc. 1,300 m3 of water will also be required to fill the two 650 m3 firefighting water storage tanks. Assuming that this water is sourced from Varna West Port, there are likely to be no impacts on water resources in the Affected Ecosystems and the beneficiaries of such resources.

The principal impacts on water (supply) are likely to arise through potential disturbance of the flow regime through construction activities. During trenching and microtunnelling, for example, dewatering of pipeline trenches may be required if excavations occur below the water table. However, trench dewatering is only anticipated to be required following large rainfall events if the stability of the excavations or working conditions are compromised. Further, excavations are likely to be at most 2.5 m in depth and so will not be deep enough to affect the underlying Galata Formation a q ui fe r. The impact on the flow regime in the Galata Formation aquifer during microtunnelling has been taken into account in the planned design measures, and impacts are likely to be indistinguishable from natural variation.

Potential impacts on surface water flows and groundwater infiltration rates may arise due to the removal of vegetation, changes in topography, and compaction of bare soils. However, given the drainage control measures in place, and the fact that water courses are ephemeral there is not

18-94 URS-EIA-REP-202375

likely to be any significant change in water flows. There are no identified impacts on the Liman wetland water supply.

Depending on the timing of the construction works at the point where the Pipeline crosses the Karabiyuk Stream, there could be impacts on the water quality, watercourse continuity and the hydro-morphology of the river channel. However, the stream is ephemeral and the channel crossing will be designed so as to minimise the impact on flow through the river channel. Appropriate diversion channels will be incorporated during construction such that continuity of the stream flow will be maintained during the works in the event of low intensity rainfall events during construction. Assuming works are undertaken in the dry, the impact upon the Karabiyuk Stream channel and downstream areas will be of low magnitude. Further, there are no beneficiaries abstracting water downstream of the crossing so the impact on well-being is likely to negligible. The channel crossings have been designed so as to minimise the impact on flow through the river channel.

The overall impact magnitude is therefore considered to be negligible (refer to Appendix 18.3 for the scoring against each of the impact magnitude criteria).

Impact Significance

The overall significance of the Construction and Pre-Commissioning Phase of the Project on water (supply) is assessed as being Not Significant and water (supply) is not therefore considered to be a priority service.

Hazard Regulation

The service considered in this assessment is the capacity of Affected Ecosystems to regulate natural hazards. The key beneficiaries include:

• Households and businesses in areas vulnerable to flooding, erosion, and landslides; • Recreational users of Pasha Dere Beach (and other beaches along the coastline); and • The Project itself which may be affected by flooding, erosion, and landslides.

The specific Project Activities which could affect the hazard regulating services include:

• Site clearance and earthworks, particularly where these result in loss of vegetation; • Preparation of foundations which may increase the risk of ground instability; • Impacts on the structural composition of Phaeozem soils which play an important role in water storage and flow regulation; and

• Impacts upon coastal processes due to changes in sedimentation deposition and erosion as a result of dredging.

Receptor Sensitivity

The level of dependence on this service by the beneficiaries discussed above is assessed as negligible since there are no households within the Affected Ecosystems and the risk of surface water flooding and landslides to people living within the Local Area is low. Users of Pasha Dere

URS-EIA-REP-202375 18-95 Chapter 18 Ecosystem Services

Beach and the Project itself are more dependent upon the regulation of coastal erosion and flooding, which could impact on future recreational use of the area and the operation of the Project. However, given the long timeframes over which the impacts of changes in coastal processes would be felt, the sensitivity of current beneficiaries is considered to be negligible and that of future beneficiaries to be low.

The role Affected Ecosystems currently play in regulating hazard risks could be replicated through various engineered alternatives such as the construction of coastal flood defences, beach reclamation, creation of flood water attenuation ponds, or afforestation. Many of these approaches would, however, be expensive and/or take a long time to implement. It is therefore considered that there are few viable alternatives.

The Affected Ecosystems are considered to be moderately sensitive to change with respect to their ability to provide a hazard regulating service. While in a state of long term equilibrium, Pasha Dere Beach is sensitive to short term changes in erosion and deposition rates, and climate change is projected to lead to an increase in coastal erosion over the next 50 years. Phaeozem soils are structurally prone to compaction and erosion which can reduce their ability to store and filter water and regulate flows. Subsequently, they are considered to have a low resilience to impacts, and would not readily return to their natural state within the Project’s lifetime.

Beneficiaries of this service (including the Project itself) are considered to be resilient to any change in the provision of this service. The current hazard risk to beneficiaries is low and the impacts of any changes in flood or erosion risk are expected to be negligible given both the nature of impacts and the small size of the affected population.

Overall the receptor sensitivity is therefore assessed as being low.

Impact Magnitude

The removal of vegetation (which binds soil particles together and protects the soil surface from wind and rain exposure) will expose bare soils to erosion and/or compaction caused by weather and the movement of heavy machinery and vehicles. The loss of phaeozem soils, in particular, or damage to their structural composition, could also impact on the ability of ecosystems to regulate water flows. As such, it is likely that surface water run-off will increase which could in turn increase flood risk. However, the clearance of natural habitat is small relative to the service provision in the surrounding area and there are no households identified as being vulnerable to flooding events. Users of Pasha Dere Beach could potentially be impacted by flood events although the presence of the Liman wetland is likely to play a role in absorbing water flows before reaching the beach. As such, there is not likely to be a measurable impact on the well- being of any beneficiaries.

Vegetation and soil also plays a role in maintaining slope stability and preventing landslides, mud flows, and erosion. Earthmoving activities (including vegetation clearance, construction activities for the facilities, trenching activities for the Pipeline, and road access construction) may cause ground instability due to overloading of slopes and stockpiles of excess spoil waste. While this could potentially lead to slope collapse, gravitational slides (including landslides), mass soil movement, ground subsidence, and the formation of slope erosion features, the

18-96 URS-EIA-REP-202375

likelihood is low. In addition, design measures and design controls have been developed to minimise the chance of such impacts and therefore the likelihood of the Project causing any landslide activity that could affect any beneficiaries is low (Chapter 8 Soils, Groundwater and Surface Water).

Excavation and removal of marine sediment during nearshore trench dredging could potentially lead to alterations in coastal processes leading to changes in erosion rates. This could have a significant impact on well-being if Pasha Dere Beach is eroded. However, the microtunnel option does not require coastal dredging and therefore this risk has been avoided (Chapter 12 Marine Environment). As such, any impacts on coastal processes and beach formation / erosion rates or their users are likely to be negligible.

Successful operation of the Project itself could potentially be impacted by changes in the hazard regulation service, however, measures have been incorporated into the Project design to reduce this risk.

Taken together, it is unlikely that the Project will have any significant impact on the well-being of beneficiaries in terms of any changes in the hazard regulation service. As such, the impact magnitude is considered to be negligible (refer to Appendix 18.3 for the scoring against each of the impact magnitude criteria).

Impact Significance

The overall significance of the impact of the Construction and Pre-Commissioning Phase on the well-being of people benefitting from hazard regulating services provided by Affected Ecosystems is assessed as being Not Significant. Hazard regulation is therefore not considered to be a priority service during this Phase.

Water Quality Regulation

The service considered in this section is the capacity of Affected Ecosystems to regulate and maintain marine and fresh water quality. This includes water in Affected Ecosystems in the marine environment and freshwater resources used throughout the Pasha Dere catchment. The key beneficiaries include:

• Groundwater abstractors at Pasha Dere wells and Chernomorets; and • People working in the fishing industry who are in contact with marine water and those consuming the captured fish and shellfish who benefit from the regulation of health risks. Other beneficiaries of this service include tourists, recreational users, and the tourism industry who rely on good quality marine water for water sports, bathing, and scuba diving. In order to avoid double counting, impacts on these beneficiaries are assessed in the Tourism and Recreational Values section.

The specific Project Activities that could potentially affect the water quality regulating service include:

• An increase in pollution levels in surface and ground waters during construction activities due to soil disturbance, accidental leaks and spills from vehicles / plant, and waste generation;

URS-EIA-REP-202375 18-97 Chapter 18 Ecosystem Services

• Clearance of terrestrial vegetation which absorbs pollutants and sediment from water resources;

• Disposal of contaminated water into the marine environment after use for hydrotesting, cleaning, and gauging the Pipeline; and

• Seabed disturbance and release of sediments into the marine water column as a result of vessel movements, dredging, and pipeline construction.

Receptor Sensitivity

The dependence of beneficiaries on water quality is assessed as being high. Contamination of aquifers could have direct impacts on human health for those abstracting water from the environment, while contamination within the marine environment could also impact human health if marine water users come into direct contact with particular pollutants or if contaminants enter the food chain.

For both fresh and marine waters there are a number of alternatives to the water quality regulation service provided by the natural environment. These include planting new trees or creating wetlands in appropriate locations to reduce sediment loads, chemically treating polluted waters, supporting the growth of biofiltering organisms within the marine environment, or reducing pollutant inputs from other sources. Since these activities are likely to incur relatively high costs, it is considered that there are a limited number of alternatives available.

Marine and fresh water resources in the Local Area were generally found to be of good quality and marine sediments were not found to be contaminated by heavy metals, hydrocarbons, or organic pollutants. There are a number of external pressures which could impact the ability of ecosystems to regulate marine and fresh water quality in future, such as climate change, rising water temperatures, and increasing development leading to habitat clearance and pollutant runoff. However, actions by Black Sea States to restore the ecological status of the Black Sea to a condition similar to that of the 1960s, combined with the implementation of the WFD, have resulted in a decline in land-based sources of pollution and improvements in ecological status. As such, fresh and saline water resources in the Affected Ecosystems are assessed as being of low sensitivity to change.

Human receptors are likely to be of low sensitivity to changes in freshwater quality due to the level of affluence and development of the area, together with the fact that alternative water supplies are readily available from the public water supply system. However, human receptors are likely to be more sensitive to change in marine water quality, particularly, those working in the fishing industry who are most likely to come into regular contact with marine water.

The receptor sensitivity is therefore assessed as being moderate.

Impact Magnitude

Within the terrestrial environment, the Project could lead to contamination of surface and ground waters from accidental leaks and spills during the construction period. However, the likely volumes of accidental spills, and the ephemeral nature of water courses, means that the Project is unlikely to have significant lasting impacts on the ability of ecosystems to assimilate and regulate water quality.

18-98 URS-EIA-REP-202375

There are no surface water abstractors within or downstream of the Affected Ecosystems who are likely to be impacted by any localised pollution. While there are groundwater abstractors (such as at the Pasha Dere well field), any contamination is likely to be limited to the unconfined Galata Formation aquifer as the deep groundwater of the Galata Formation aquifer is confined. Since groundwater is abstracted from the confined aquifer, there is no risk of contamination of the Pasha Dere well field or other abstractors.

Wastewater from domestic and industrial sources associated with the Project will be tankered off-site to an appropriate waste treatment facility and the risks associated with accidental release of oil, fuel, concrete and other pollutants will be controlled through appropriate storage, handling, and accident prevention procedures. The exception to this is the filtered seawater used for pre-commissioning hydrotest, which will be discharged to the sea through the Pipeline with a water depth of 37 m.

Disposal of hydrotest water (which will be of low toxicity) and accidental leaks or spills at sea could release contaminants into the marine environment and lead to localised changes in water temperature and quality, although this is unlikely to significantly impact the ability of ecosystems to regulate water quality.

Dredging activities and the resultant dispersal of sediments in the water column could impact on water quality, although results of the sediment modelling assessment suggest that any impacts on marine water quality in terms of TSS resulting from dredging are likely to be small, localised, and short term. As such, the impact on the well-being of any beneficiaries is likely to be negligible.

The overall impact on water quality regulating services is therefore assessed as being of negligible magnitude (refer to Appendix 18.3 for the scoring against each of the impact magnitude criteria).

Impact Significance

The impacts of the Construction and Pre-Commissioning Phase on the well-being of beneficiaries of the water quality regulation services provided by the Affected Ecosystems are considered to be Not Significant and water quality is not considered a priority service.

Soil Quality Regulation

The service considered in this section is the capacity of Affected Ecosystems to regulate and maintain soil quality. The key beneficiaries include:

• Landowners within and around Affected Ecosystems; and • Workers who interact with soils and benefit from the regulation of health risks. Further beneficiaries of this service include local residents and businesses who benefit from the soil’s capacity to store water and reduce flood risk. In order to avoid double counting, impacts on these beneficiaries are assessed under Hazard Regulation earlier in this section.

The Project Activities which may impact provision of this service include:

URS-EIA-REP-202375 18-99 Chapter 18 Ecosystem Services

• Increase in concentration of contaminants which could exceed the capacity of soils to regulate quality through accidental leaks and spills and deposition of dust and atmospheric pollutants generated during construction activities;

• Increased susceptibility of soil to erosion through clearance of vegetation and excavation works;

• Loss of soils as a natural resource due to hardstanding / development relating to the Project;

• Loss of nutrients and soil carbon due to soil excavation and removal of vegetation which contributes to soil composition; and

• Degradation of soil, physical damage, and compaction through stockpiling of soils during construction.

Receptor Sensitivity

Landowners in the Local Area are dependent on the regulation of soil quality for the production of crops and timber. Further, highly degraded soil, which is unable to regulate contaminants through natural processes, is likely to be of lower productivity and of lower value as a potential asset for sale. Workers are also dependent on the soil quality regulation service as contaminated soil can lead to significant adverse health impacts. Taken together, the dependence on this service is considered to be high.

The regulation of soil quality played by ecosystems could potentially be replaced through the treatment of soils, use of fertilisers (which could replace loss of nutrients or organic carbon), import of good quality soils from other regions, or through the purchase of good quality agricultural land elsewhere, although the costs of some of these measures may be high. As such, there are some alternatives considered available for this service.

The baseline data suggests that soils are generally of good quality and of low sensitivity to change. However, Phaeozem soils are structurally prone to compaction and erosion, as well as contamination through surface spills. Subsequently, they have a low resilience to impacts, and do not readily return to their natural state. As such, the sensitivity of the ecosystem to change is considered to be moderate.

Landowners are considered to be moderately vulnerable to a change in provision of this ecosystem service as reductions in soil quality and the ongoing ability of soil ecosystems to regulate contaminants could significantly reduce the potential use and potential value of their landholdings. Workers are also likely to be vulnerable to changes in soil quality regulation (including exposure of previously unidentified contamination) although they are likely to be able to mitigate such changes through the adoption of adequate health and safety procedures and protective clothing. Overall, the sensitivity of receptors to changes in this service prior to any mitigation is considered to be moderate.

The overall receptor sensitivity is therefore considered moderate.

18-100 URS-EIA-REP-202375

Impact Magnitude

As a result of Project Activities, there is a risk of contamination of soils from accidental leaks and minor spills during the handling and storage of fuels, and chemicals, for example during refuelling, and grouts / drilling fluid during microtunnelling. Depending on the size and nature of the spillage, and the physical properties of the soil (including soil porosity, soil potential for contaminant degradation and migration, and soil saturation), this could lead to contaminant migration and impacts at some distance from the site (Chapter 8 Soils, Groundwater and Surface Water), although such a risk is low.

Contaminated soil could potentially affect workers through being inadvertently ingested or inhaled or through dermal contact and could have impacts on the health of anyone exposed to soil contamination. Contamination of soil resources could also lead to reduced livelihoods for landowners if the long term productivity of soil is reduced or contamination of crops. While the potential impact of the Project on the well-being of beneficiaries is high, the likelihood of such an event is low.

The removal of vegetation (which previously bound soil particles together and protected the soil surface from wind and rain exposure) will expose bare soils to erosion and/or compaction by the movement of heavy machinery and vehicles. The release of soil particles into surface watercourses and general migration down slopes could occur as a result of erosional processes. Impacts on beneficiaries in terms of resulting ground instability and hazard risk are discussed in the section on hazard regulation.

With regard to potential damage to the structure and composition of soil during excavation and storage, measures have been incorporated into construction practices to reduce the risk of any impacts on soil structure or its wider ecological functioning (Chapter 8 Soils, Groundwater and Surface Water). In the event that excavated spoil generated as part of pipeline or landfall facilities installation is unable to be re-used as part of Project bulk-earthworks, removal of excess spoil may be required. The potential loss of soil from the landfall section Project Area as a result of this is estimated to be less than 10,000 m3 and as a result is of minor extent and of low impact magnitude to the soils.

While the risk of contamination is low, if such an event did occur, the potential impact on beneficiaries of the soil quality regulation service would be long-term, with any contamination or impact on the structure of soil quality occurring during the construction period likely to affect the current generation of users in terms of lower productivity and increased health risk. Following the construction period, the ecosystem would be expected to be able to recover from any impacts at natural recovery rates although for certain contaminants (such as heavy metals) or for significant structural damage, this could take significant periods of time. The risk of impacts on soil quality would be through periodic, accidental events resulting from particular activities such as spills or contamination events.

The overall impact magnitude is therefore considered moderate (refer to Appendix 18.3 for the scoring against each of the impact magnitude criteria).

URS-EIA-REP-202375 18-101 Chapter 18 Ecosystem Services

Impact Significance

As such, the impact significance on the well-being of beneficiaries of the soil quality regulation service provided by Affected Ecosystems is therefore judged to be Moderate and soil quality regulation is identified as a priority service.

Tourism and Recreation Values

The service considered in this assessment is the environmental setting within the Affected Ecosystems that provides both amenity value and opportunities for recreation. The key beneficiaries of this service are:

• Recreational users of Pasha Dere Beach from the Local Area; • Recreational users of the marine environment including spear fishers, scuba diving, yachting etc.; • Visitors to the Chernomorets Tourist Resort near to the landfall section of the Project; • Recreational users of trails and the campsite at Pasha Dere; and • Members of local hunting clubs (Varna, Galata and Zvezditsa) who carry out hunting and sport fishing. Further beneficiaries include households and companies in the Local Area and wider region dependent on the tourism industry although it is considered unlikely that the Project will have any significant impact on livelihoods or incomes generated from the tourism industry in the area due to the fact users of the services provided in the Affected Ecosystems are predominantly residents from within the Local Area and the area is, at least at present, generally less well-developed for tourism (compared to the area north of the city of Varna). As such, this assessment focuses specifically on potential impacts on recreational users and tourists to the Affected Ecosystems.

The specific Project Activities that could affect tourism and recreation services provided by Affected Ecosystems during Construction and Pre-Commissioning Phase include:

• Restriction of access to a small area of Pasha Dere Beach, the campsite, trails leading to the area and hunting grounds;

• Visual and noise disturbance to people using beaches, the campsite and the trails; • Disturbance to game that is targeted by hunters during shooting season; • Dredging activities within the nearshore section which may result in a temporary decrease in the quality and clarity of seawater within a zone of sediment dispersal and disturbance to marine species which could impact on bathing activities, water sports, and scuba diving etc.; and

• Impacts on beach formation due to dredging activities and changes in coastal erosion and deposition rates (impacts on coastal processes are assessed under Hazard Regulation earlier in this section and were identified as being negligible).

Receptor Sensitivity

Visitors to the beaches, Chernomorets Tourist Resort, and users of the marine environment for recreational fishing, diving, or beach use are not dependent on the service for livelihoods although it is still an important service and general well-being may be impacted by any changes

18-102 URS-EIA-REP-202375

to the service. In particular, at the Scoping Consultation Meetings held in February 2013, several stakeholders voiced concerns around the potential for the Project to restrict access to Pasha Dere Beach due to its importance to users in the local area (Chapter 6 Stakeholder Engagement). Further, a significant number of users (up to 300 people use the beach each day in peak season) make a special effort to reach the beach as they value the isolated and relatively undeveloped and uncrowded character of the beach and its immediate hinterland; suggesting that beneficiaries value this service for recreational use and well-being.

The recreational fishing and diving sites identified in the baseline are not considered to be unique and there are a number of alternative sites which could be used that could provide similar levels of recreational value. Likewise, there are several resorts of a similar standard to Chernomorets (including those north of the city of Varna, and the more recently developed Kamchiya resort to the south) which tourists could visit. However, Pasha Dere Beach is considered to be a unique resource due to the isolated and relatively undeveloped character of the beach. The nearest alternative sandy beaches are at Asparuhovo-Galata or Rakitnika (Chernomorets Beach) although neither is considered to have the distinctive visual and landscape characteristics of Pasha Dere Beach.

There are a number of informal camp sites within reach of Pasha Dere Beach; however only one of these (the one immediately behind Pasha Dere Beach) has views of the sea. The position of this camp site means that users are likely to consider the campsite unique and that alternatives are not readily available in the nearby area. Due to the uniqueness of Pasha Dere Beach and the campsite being located togethe r, it is considered that there are no suitable replacements available for the services provided.

Many of the tourism and recreational opportunities provided within the Local Area are ecosystem based, including beach-based recreation and water sports (at Pasha Dere and Chernomorets beaches), cycling, camping, picnicking and hunting. As discussed in Section 18.6.1, fish populations in the area are sensitive to changes in the marine ecosystem which could impact on the ability of beneficiaries to undertake recreational spear fishing and scuba diving. The Pasha Dere Beach is vulnerable to short term flooding and erosion events although over the long term it is considered to be in a state of equilibrium. Users of Pasha Dere Beach, the access trails, and campsite as well as visitors to the Chernomorets Tourist Resort and beach area are likely to be sensitive to changes in the aesthetic quality of the landscape as well as changes to noise levels, water quality, flood risk, and coastal erosion. Local hunting clubs have also expressed concern over the impacts of Project Activities on game and their hunting activities. This is particularly the case for the Galata Hunting Club whose hunting concession overlaps with the Project Area. Overall the sensitivity of the Affected Ecosystems with respect to the recreational services provided is considered to be moderate.

Due to the relatively high level of development and low unemployment in the area, together with the fact that tourism and recreation within the Project Area is not a major contributor to household income, the vulnerability (in terms of loss of livelihoods or income) of human receptors to any changes in service provision is considered to be low. However, the change in well-being associated with reductions in aesthetic quality and recreational use is nevertheless expected to be moderate and adverse.

Overall, receptor sensitivity is assessed as being moderate.

URS-EIA-REP-202375 18-103 Chapter 18 Ecosystem Services

Impact Magnitude

Pasha Dere Beach Users

The Pipeline will cross under the shore at Pasha Dere Beach using microtunnel techniques at a depth of approximately 20 m under the beach. Therefore, it is expected that there will be no physical disturbance of the beach area by the construction activities and that the beach will remain accessible to the public throughout the construction of the trenchless shore crossing. However, as a precautionary measure, public access to a section of the beach area (including behind the cliff and the adjacent nearshore) approximately 150 m wide will be temporarily restricted while the tunnel boring equipment passes under the beach area. The restricted area will be indicated via clear signage.

As set out in Chapter 15 Socio-Economics, the size of the area to which access will be restricted is small relative to the total area of beach (less than 10%). However, the location of the restricted area will mean that the general public will be unable to freely move between the northern and southern ends of the beach during the restriction period. In a worst case scenario, it may be more difficult to access the part of the beach to the south of the Pipeline alignment (i.e. approximately half of the existing beach) because access to this portion is most easily (but not exclusively) gained from the northern end of the beach. While restrictions on access to the beach will inconvenience beach users, they will not prevent enjoyment of other sections of the beach. Given the construction schedule, such restrictions will most likely occur on a limited number of occasions during the Construction and Pre-Commissioning Phase.

Chapter 10 Noise and Vibration concluded that there would be a temporary impact on Pasha Dere Beach during the summer when the beach is considered to be a sensitive receptor due to high visitor levels. This is due to noise emitted by construction activities, including microtunnelling, giving rise to noise levels between 2 and 3 dB(A) above the daytime ambient noise levels at Pasha Dere Beach. The same assessment also concluded that there would be an impact on Pasha Dere Beach at night-time during summer as a result of microtunnelling and pre-commissioning activities. Impacts on the well-being of Pasha Dere Beach users are likely to be short-term and temporary, with a relatively low exceedance of the applicable night-time noise standards (as measured in decibels). Therefore, noise and vibration are considered unlikely to materially compromise enjoyment of the beach for recreation (Chapter 15 Socio- Economics).

The assessment of visual impacts on Pasha Dere beach in Chapter 14 Landscape and Visual concluded that microtunnelling under Pasha Dere Beach will have a low impact on the visual amenity of the beach for recreational users. There will be no direct, close views of the works on the offshore section. However, the mobilisation of vessels to and from the exit point on the microtunnel site and vessel movements within the construction spread of the nearshore section will be visible. Visual amenity will also be affected by the clearance of the taller vegetation on the coastal slope although this is not likely to have a significant impact on the well-being of beneficiaries or access to recreational services.

Given the low levels of visual disturbance and the temporary, relatively infrequent periods during which noise impacts would be experienced and access would be likely to be restricted, as well as the small extent of the area of the beach to which access would be temporarily

18-104 URS-EIA-REP-202375

restricted, the magnitude of impact on recreational beach users and their enjoyment of the beach is considered to be low.

Campsite Users

The camping and picnic area adjacent to Pasha Dere Beach lies directly above the Pipeline alignment and within the construction corridor. Public access to the camping area behind the Pasha Dere Beach will be restricted at the same time as access to the beach is restricted. However, people camping may be inconvenienced by the need to relocate completely to accommodate the temporary restrictions.

As set out in Chapter 15 Socio-Economics, potential removal of trees and restrictions on re- vegetation within the Pipeline route could alter the character and experience of the site as a camping and picnic area (although this is not considered to be the most likely scenario). If this occurs, users may consider such a change in the ecosystem from a relatively secluded, treed and sheltered site, to a site that is in an approximately 60 to 120 m wide area that will cleared of trees and deep rooting vegetation, to be an adverse impact. As a result, existing users of the camping and picnic area may feel that the character of the site is so changed that they stop camping there, effectively resulting in the removal of the site as a camping facility for those users. On the other hand, it may increase the area that is available for camping after construction. The impact could potentially be permanent, as it is not clear that it will be permitted to reinstate trees within the RoW even above the microtunnels. However, the impact would also be highly localised and it is possible that there may be other sites nearby which could be developed as alternative camping sites.

Trail Users

Numerous paths in the vicinity of the landfall section will be closed to allow for construction of the landfall section for a period of approximately 18 to 24 months, although disturbance will be kept to a minimum. This impact will be temporary, and the isolated location of the paths and trails that will be closed means that the impact is likely to be experienced by a small number of people, who will be impacted mostly in the period of April-September. Recreational users of the paths and trails within the forests and the agricultural areas have alternatives, as there is an extensive network of paths and tracks in the vicinity of the landfall section. The magnitude of impacts on recreational users of these paths and trails will therefore be low.

Marine Water Users

While changes in marine water quality due to sediment plumes could potentially affect bathers at Pasha Dere and Chernomorets beaches, dredging is expected to have a short-lived impact on marine quality (no more than a few hours in most cases) and modelling results suggest that sediment plumes will be barely visible at the surface (Ref. 18.52). Likewise, there are unlikely to be any impacts on scuba diving activities or recreational fishing opportunities resulting from sediment dispersal or other construction activities (Chapter 13 Marine Ecology). Any visual impacts on users of the marine environment are likely to be low and temporary (Chapter 14 Landscape and Visual). As such, it is unlikely that there will be any significant impact on the well-being of beneficiaries of marine recreational services.

URS-EIA-REP-202375 18-105 Chapter 18 Ecosystem Services

Chernomorets Beach and Tourist Resort Users

Chapter 10 Noise and Vibration concluded that there is likely to be a temporary adverse impact on the Chernomorets Tourist Resort at night-time during pre-commissioning activities. Mitigation measures will be employed to ensure that the noise levels at this receptor do not exceed the relevant criteria given in the Bulgarian legislation.

Chapter 14 Landscape and Visual identified some visual disturbance to visitors to Chernomorets Tourist Resort. While construction activities on the landfall section will not be visible from Chernomorets due to the intervening landform of the wooded headland, there will be views of vessels mobilising to and from the nearshore section and vessel movements within the construction spread. The impact is temporary and unlikely to significantly impact the well- being of any beneficiaries or their ability to access recreational services.

Hunting Groups

Construction activities will restrict access to parts of the concession used by the Galata Hunting Club and may also result in disturbance to game that is targeted by hunters. The shooting season begins between August and October (depending on the species targeted) which coincides with the time that construction is expected to occur. However, representatives of the Varna Hunting and Fishing Association and Galata Hunting Club are most concerned with the impacts of Project Activities on wildlife conservation. It was reported that the construction of the Galata pipeline and gas processing plant resulted in the disappearance of many animals from the area for several years, apart from wild boar that return every winter because they prefer the milder coastal climate (Ref. 18.23). The impact on wild animals themselves is expected to be of low significance as the animals are mobile and likely to avoid construction areas. Any displacement due to change in habitat will be temporary in nature and noise and visual impacts will be low and of limited duration (Chapter 11 Terrestrial Ecology). The well- being of hunters (and specifically members of the Galata Hunting Club) may, however, be adversely impacted particularly where the displacement of animals coincides with the hunting season. The impact on hunters is predicted to be of low magnitude as there are alternative hunting grounds available, impacts will be temporary in nature and will not therefore affect income or enjoyment over the longer term.

Overall

Overall, impacts on the well-being of beneficiaries of this service are likely to be low. The impacts are expected to last for the duration of the Construction and Pre-Commissioning Phase whereafter the Affected Ecosystems are expected to recover completely in a short period of time (as impacts are primarily noise and visual disturbance and reduced access). There is some potential for permanent impacts if vegetation clearance is undertaken in the campsite area and replanting is prohibited, although this is considered the less likely scenario (Chapter 15 Socio- Economics). The ecosystem service beneficiaries will be affected periodically by different types of activities during the Construction and Pre-Commissioning Phase.

The overall impact magnitude is therefore assessed as being low.

18-106 URS-EIA-REP-202375

Impact Significance

The overall significance of the Construction and Pre-Commissioning Phase of the Project on tourism and recreation values is assessed as being Moderate and it is therefore considered to be a priority service requiring mitigation (refer to Appendix 18.3 for the scoring against each of the impact magnitude criteria).

Cultural and Spiritual Values

The services considered in this section are the cultural and spiritual values provided by, or dependent upon, Affected Ecosystems. The key beneficiaries of this service are therefore:

• Local and regional visitors to memorials and cultural sites; • Local residents who benefit from the cultural and aesthetic qualities of the landscape and its history and identity as an area adjacent to the Black Sea; and • National and global scientific community who may be interested in sites of cultural and scientific importance. Further beneficiaries include the Ada Bacha fishing community and other groups in the area such as “Friends of the Sea” who value the marine environment as part of their cultural heritage. In order to avoid double counting, impacts on these beneficiaries are discussed in Capture Fisheries and Wild Species Diversity.

The Project Activities which may impact provision of this service include:

• Damage to the environmental setting of the Local Area and particular sites through vegetation clearance, noise pollution, and visual disturbance;

• Direct disturbance of culturally important sites through ground excavation and terracing work; drilling, blasting, and boring work; construction and realignment of roads and temporary road diversions; diversion of utilities and drainage; and ground preparation activities, including building foundations and piling;

• Potential looting of archaeological remains or interference with sites, due to increased site access;

• Collision damage to monuments and disturbance of tranquility for local users through increased construction related traffic; and

• Damage or loss of marine archaeological resources through seabed disturbance, anchor or remote operated vehicle (ROV) strikes, and changes to erosion and sedimentation regimes.

Receptor Sensitivity

While local and regional populations are not likely to be “dependent” on cultural services for their livelihoods or income, they may nevertheless value them and derive spiritual and cultural gratification. For example, the landscape is an important aspect of the aesthetics of the area and the cultural identity of local communities (and was raised by residents as being an important issue), while cultural sites may be particularly important at certain times of the year for festivals, memorials, pilgrimages etc. National and global scientific communities interested in the cultural, historical, or scientific value of services, may also attach value to sites of cultural

URS-EIA-REP-202375 18-107 Chapter 18 Ecosystem Services

interest. Chapter 17 Cultural Heritage identifies a number of cultural heritage receptors (marine and terrestrial) that are not necessarily designated, but which either contribute significantly to acknowledged national or international research objectives, or are well preserved historic landscapes or seascapes (maritime historic and archaeological landscapes) with considerable or exceptional coherence, time-depth, or other critical factors.

The aesthetic and cultural identity of a landscape and the populations living within it cannot be easily replaced through construction or engineering. However, within the context of the wider region, the cultural value of the landscape within the Local Area is not considered to be unique. While the environmental setting is important for particular cultural sites (e.g. shipwrecks or memorials) and for local residents, there are no archaeological sites identified as being of unique scientific importance or whose value is in large part determined by the environmental setting in which they are located. The environmental sensitivity is therefore assessed as moderate.

Although the environmental setting of cultural sites may be vulnerable to direct impacts such as land and vegetation clearance or disturbance to the seabed, they are less likely to be vulnerable to more indirect changes such as climate change, population growth, changing water availability, or temperature etc. Local and regional populations may be somewhat sensitive to changes in the provision of this service because, for people who have been living in the area and/or visiting such sites for long periods of time (as is likely to be the case for war memorials and cemeteries), any loss of the asset or a change to its environmental setting may be difficult. For national and global communities, sensitivity to change is likely to be lower as only one site (St. Elias monastery) is registered as being of national importance and they are less likely to visit the cultural assets in their environmental setting. Taken together beneficiary sensitivity is assessed as moderate.

In sum, the receptor sensitivity for cultural and spiritual services is considered to be moderate.

Impact Magnitude

Any development which requires vegetation clearance within a landscape with cultural and aesthetic value to local populations (and visitors from other areas) will have some lasting impact on the aesthetics and identity of the area. However, due to the relatively small extent of natural habitat loss which will be cleared by the Project (Table 18.17), and the fact that most of the cleared land can be replanted following construction, it is unlikely that the Project will significantly change the character of the land and seascape or the nature of the Local Area. As such, the Project is unlikely to have a significant impact on the cultural value of the landscape and is unlikely to lead to a significant change in the well-being of any beneficiaries of this service.

Impacts on marine ecosystems through dredging processes could lead to damage to archaeological resources of potential interest to national and global communities, although the impact on well-being is likely to be low as none of the sites are used by dive operators or have been identified to be of significant scientific, cultural, or historic importance that could not be found elsewhere. The Project will not require the excavation of any wrecks as impacts on such sites have been avoided through careful pipeline routing and the site of the Soviet submarine

18-108 URS-EIA-REP-202375

(as discussed in Section 18.6.8) is located well north of the selected pipeline route and will not be affected by the offshore construction works.

The risk of changes to the environmental setting which result in permanent habitat loss or damage to archaeological resources and cultural/aesthetic value means that impacts on beneficiaries are likely to extend over multiple generations although the ecosystems themselves are likely to be able recover naturally within the short term. Any impact on beneficiaries in terms of the loss or damage to a particular site or change in the nature of the landscape is likely to be a one off event.

In sum, the impact magnitude for cultural and spiritual services is considered to be low (refer to Appendix 18.3 for the scoring against each of the impact magnitude criteria).

Impact Significance

In combination, the total impact significance on the cultural and spiritual values ecosystem service is therefore judged to be Low and cultural and spiritual values are not identified as a priority service.

Wild Species Diversity

The service considered in this section is the diversity of locally, regionally, nationally, or globally important species which live within, or are dependent upon, Affected Ecosystems. The beneficiaries include:

• Any communities within the Local Area, wider region, nation, or global area who value and appreciate the existence and diversity of species living within or dependent upon Affected Ecosystems.

The Project Activities which may impact provision of this service include:

• Loss of terrestrial habitat resulting from vegetation clearance during soil stripping and land clearance;

• Changes in hydrology due to changes in drainage regime; • Injury, death or disturbance of individual terrestrial species during site preparation and construction as well as noise and vibration emissions from vehicles, plant, and construction activities;

• Impacts on aquatic life through vessel and welding wastes, cooling water discharge, proximity of vessels, and use of lighting;

• Impacts on benthic communities from seabed disturbing activities including surveys and inspections, obstacle removal (“pre-sweeping”), dredging, pipe-laying, post-lay trenching, rock placement / seabed intervention, and anchoring;

• Disturbance to seabirds through vessel movements during mobilisation, surveying and pipe- laying activities, displacement or loss of prey in the nearshore section, and mortality due to bird strikes on highly illuminated offshore installations;

URS-EIA-REP-202375 18-109 Chapter 18 Ecosystem Services

• Disturbance to marine mammals through surveying and pipe-laying activities, cooling water discharges, displacement of food resources, noise and collisions from vessel movements and use of dynamic positioning; and

• Introduction of invasive non-native species.

Receptor Sensitivity

There are a number of species which have conservation value (e.g. the spur-thighed tortoise and Hermann's tortoise) and which have local importance (e.g. song birds which contribute to the tranquility of the area and marine mammals such as dolphins which have cultural value), however, beneficiaries of wild species diversity are considered to be of low dependence on the service as there are no species upon which any groups are directly dependent on species for income, livelihoods, or well-being.

While the ecological role of a particular species could potentially be replaced by another, the existence value of that species cannot. Therefore, there are no replacements available to individual species. If a species is lost from an area it could be reintroduced from other areas although there are significant costs associated with such processes and a successful reintroduction can be difficult to achieve.

Due to the presence of several endangered species and a number of areas of protected habitat within the Affected Ecosystems, the ecosystem sensitivity is considered to be moderate, although the receptor sensitivity is considered low due to the widespread capacity of national and international financial and legislative resources available to adapt to any changes.

In sum, the receptor sensitivity for the wild species diversity service is considered to be moderate.

Impact Magnitude

There are a total of four habitat types falling within the terrestrial Affected Ecosystems. The effects of construction activities on these habitats are discussed in Chapter 11 Terrestrial Ecology.

With regard to the protected areas, a total of approximately 24 ha of habitat within the Galata SPA will be directly impacted by the Project. This represents approximately 0.3% of the total area of the SPA. The effects of the project on the Natura 2000 sites and their qualifying features are considered within a separate Appropriate Assessment. Based on the information provided in the Appropriate Assessment, it is concluded in this ESIA Report that the Project would not result in adverse effects on the integrity of the Natura 2000 site (Chapter 11 Terrestrial Ecology).

If habitat clearance leads to the loss of any of the threatened species identified within the Affected Ecosystems it could have a significant impact on the well-being of beneficiaries. The greatest impacts within the terrestrial area are likely to occur due to the removal of predominantly oak woodland, which provide habitats for nesting birds and reptiles. However, the loss of Quercus woodland in which these species reside is very small when compared to the total resource available for these species in the wider local area. The loss of such a small area is

18-110 URS-EIA-REP-202375

unlikely to significantly affect the overall abundance and distribution of these species in the forest.

There may also be impact on otter populations due to localised disruption of populations, changes in water flows, and direct mortality of any individuals that may fall into excavations and become trapped.

Other mammals are mobile and likely to avoid construction areas. This temporary displacement due to change in habitat, noise and visual impacts will be low and of limited duration. Movement of construction machinery outside the landfall section construction sites may result in injury to or death of individuals. Given the location of the proposed transport routes and the short duration of construction the impact is considered temporary and short-term (Chapter 11 Terrestrial Ecology).

There will also be a permanent net loss of nesting bird habitat as a result of construction, noise disturbance to bird species, and displacement of breeding species into other unaffected sections of forest. Although there is an abundance of alternative nesting habitat in the wider local area associated with the unaffected areas of forest, there may be some localised impact on bird populations which could affect the tranquility of the area although the overall population integrity is unlikely to be affected.

Depending on the previous location of the vessels, including the pipe-laying vessel, and support and supply vessels, there is a risk that the vessels could introduce invasive species to the Black Sea via ballast water (Chapter 13 Marine Ecology). The introduction of non-native species can have repercussions for the entire food web with subsequent impacts on other services such as water quality regulation, fisheries, tourism and recreation etc. Despite its low probability of occurrence, the possibility of population or community-wide effects makes this an impact of high significance for beneficiaries’ well-being.

Seabed disturbance may occur through several different activities, including surveys and inspections, obstacle removal (“pre-sweeping”), dredging, pipe-laying, post-lay trenching, rock placement / seabed intervention, and anchoring. Seabed disturbance may result in direct loss of habitat for e.g. in the footprint of the pipelines and in areas to be dredged and indirect impacts due to the effects of increased turbidity associated with sediment plumes and subsequent settling out of re-suspended sediment. This could potentially affect large areas of the seabed and associated species and habitats. Impacts to benthos are significant not only from the perspective of biodiversity, but also the ecological processes that benthos provides, namely primary production, nutrient cycling and biofiltration (Chapter 13 Marine Ecology). Loss of populations of benthic species could have a direct impact on the well-being of groups such as Friends of the Sea as well as a wide range of indirect impacts on human beneficiaries through declines in fishery productivity, reduced marine water quality, impacts on scuba diving operations etc.

There are also potentially significant impacts on populations of marine mammals which are important to beneficiaries in the Local Area. The pipeline route crosses through the Emona SCI which is designated for its support of populations of marine mammals including the harbour porpoise and bottlenose dolphin. Noise from vessel movements, pipe-laying and trenching can negatively impact marine mammals as it influences their ability to echolocate, communicate and

URS-EIA-REP-202375 18-111 Chapter 18 Ecosystem Services

can cause physical harm (through risk of disorientation leading to beaching, as well as in extreme cases, trauma to the auditory apparatus). Noise can also cause certain cetacean species to vacate feeding areas, due to disturbance and interference with acoustic prey location (Chapter 13 Marine Ecology).

The impact on well-being of beneficiaries of the service (in terms of changes in well-being arising from declines in populations of any of the identified species) is likely to be low and limited. Populations are likely to recover from any noise, disturbance, or collision damage following the construction period, however, loss of terrestrial habitat, disturbance to breeding patterns, or introduction of any species which become successfully established could have longer lasting impacts on the ability of species to feed and reproduce, which could have long term impacts on population structures. The risks and disturbance to species (and therefore the impact on beneficiaries) are likely to be continuous throughout the construction period.

In summary, the impact magnitude on the wild species service is considered to be moderate (see Appendix 18.3 for the scoring against each of the impact magnitude criteria).

Impact Significance

In combination, the total impact significance on the wild species diversity ecosystem service is therefore judged to be Moderate and is identified as a priority service.

18.7.2.3 Mitigation and Monitoring

Based on the results of the impact assessment (see Appendix 18.3 for a detailed summary of the scoring assigned to each ecosystem service), four ecosystem services were identified as priority services which are likely to be significantly impacted during the Construction and Pre- Commissioning Phase of the Project and which will require further mitigation:

• Capture fisheries; • Soil quality regulation; • Tourism and recreation values; and • Wild species diversity.

In accordance with GIIP, the Project will strive to avoid and then to minimise impacts as far as possible through design before undertaking mitigation measures. Design measures aimed at achieving this goal are summarised in the description of relevant Project design measures set out in Chapter 5 Project Description.

Where impacts cannot be avoided through design, appropriate mitigation measures for each of the adverse environmental and social impacts identified are discussed in detail in the relevant technical chapters. For the four priority services identified, the measures implemented by the Project have the additional goal of maintaining (or restoring where they have been damaged or degraded) the value and functionality of these services for beneficiaries over the short- and long-term.

Due to the cross-cutting nature of ecosystem services, mitigation of impacts on these services will be captured under a range of Construction Management Plans (CMPs) in the Health and

18-112 URS-EIA-REP-202375

Safety, Security and Environmental Integrated Management System (Chapter 23 Environmental and Social Management).

Capture Fisheries

The impact on fisheries prior to mitigation was assessed as being of moderate significance. The principal impacts on beneficiaries concern the restriction of access to fishing grounds by the Ada Bacha fishing community during pre-commissioning and construction activities.

Since there are alternative fishing grounds and alternative fish species that could be targeted by the fishing industry and the Ada Bacha community, and due to the relatively limited impact of Project Activities on overall fishery productivity, it is unlikely that the Project will prevent any people who are currently fishing from continuing to do so during the Construction and Pre- Commissioning Phase or thereafter. The impacts are more likely to be felt in terms of nuisance and potentially increased costs as fishers have to travel to alternative areas or target alternative species.

Wherever possible, avoidance of impacts on the marine environment have been embedded into overall Project design such as through the choice of pipe-laying mechanism. Where impacts cannot be avoided, these will be managed, and minimised as far as possible, through:

• Providing information on the coordinates of exclusion zones and the periods over which they will apply to the Maritime Administration to communicate to vessel operators; and

• Where requested, and as part of ongoing stakeholder engagement, holding meetings with marine users to provide further information about the purpose and location of exclusion zones.

Despite these mitigation measures, residual impacts may remain, particularly if there are changes in the location of fish stocks. This is of particular concern to small-scale fishing operations such as Ada Bacha which may lack the resources needed to adapt to such changes (e.g. if the increases in time and fuel costs due to further travel make up a larger proportion of expenditure than for larger scale operations).

In order to accommodate the potential for residual impacts on fishers, the Project will undertake to appoint a Community Liaison Officer who, through ongoing stakeholder engagement, can act as a point of contact between fishing organisations (and wider stakeholder groups) and the Project. The Officer will be able to report any concerns raised by the fishing community about the impacts of Project Activities on fishing and these will be dealt with through the Grievance Procedure (Chapter 6 Stakeholder Engagement) and, where necessary, the Livelihood Restoration Framework.

While none of these measures can completely rule out any impact on fisheries, fishing activities will be able to continue throughout the Construction and Pre-Commissioning Phases. Beneficiaries will be able to report any impacts that do arise (e.g. as a result of increased travel costs) through the Grievance Procedure. Measures to monitor ecological impacts on fisheries are discussed in Chapter 13 Marine Ecology. As such, the impact magnitude with mitigation in place is reduced to not significant and the overall residual impact is assessed as being Low.

URS-EIA-REP-202375 18-113 Chapter 18 Ecosystem Services

Soil Quality Regulation

The impact on soil quality was assessed as being of moderate significance. The primary impacts with respect to beneficiaries are likely to be in terms of potential contamination of soils or disturbance of existing areas of contamination which could lead to human health risks, and structural damage to soils which could lead to lower soil productivity and impairment of natural ecosystem functioning. Mitigation measures for these impacts are set out below.

Human Health Risk

The main risks of soil contamination can be avoided through the Project design controls and minimised by adopting the mitigation measures set out in Chapter 8 Soils, Groundwater and Surface Waters. While it is unlikely that contamination risks can be avoided completely, development of a Spill and Prevention Response Plan for early identification and disposal of contamination should minimise any remaining risk. In addition, in order to reduce the risk of disturbing existing areas of contamination, a contingency plan will be developed in the ESMP to deal with encountering soil contamination not identified during the pre-construction studies. In the event that previously unidentified contamination is observed during construction, the plan will set out that works in the affected area will cease and appropriate mitigation measures will be designed.

There may be potential risks to workers on the Project who come into contact with contaminated soil, for example through soil being inadvertently ingested or inhaled or through dermal contact. Workers will therefore be given access to the necessary safety equipment as well as full health and safety training in accordance with the Health and Safety Management Plan.

Structural Damage to Soils

A number of measures are also set out in Chapter 8 Soils, Groundwater and Surface Waters to minimise structural impacts on soils including careful management of the topsoil to be displaced during construction as well as replanting of native vegetation which will help to maintain the structural and ecological integrity of the soil.

Residual Impact

With the above-mentioned mitigation measures in place, the risks to the health of workers and structural composition of the soil should be reduced to negligible. As such, the magnitude of impacts with mitigation is considered to be negligible and the overall residual impact is therefore Not Significant.

Tourism and Recreation

The impact significance of the Project on tourism and recreation values was assessed as moderate. The principal impacts on beneficiaries are likely to be in terms of disruption to users of Pasha Dere Beach, and campsite and trails and potentially also to members of Galata Hunting Club.

18-114 URS-EIA-REP-202375

The design controls set out in Chapter 5 Project Description seek to avoid impacts on this service as far as possible. However, it is unlikely that adverse impacts on beneficiaries can be avoided altogether. Measures to be put in place to minimise unavoidable impacts and, where necessary, compensate beneficiaries, are set out below.

Disturbance to Users of Pasha Dere Beach, Campsite and Hunting Grounds within the Project Area

• Minimising construction activities during the peak tourist season, where possible; • Keeping the closure of the affected section of Pasha Dere Beach to a minimum; • Early and ongoing engagement with stakeholders to discuss potential impacts on Pasha Dere Beach, including the timing of proposed closures and the nature of any restorative work to be undertaken following construction;

• Ongoing engagement with the Varna Hunting and Fishing Association and Galata Hunting Club to keep them updated on Project Activities and the timing of restrictions on access to areas along the construction corridor; and

• Ensuring that affected beneficiaries are aware of the Grievance Procedure and that their complaints are taken seriously and addressed in a timely and effective manner.

Chapter 14 Landscape and Visual sets out a range of design controls and additional mitigation measures to reduce landscape and visual effects including:

• Minimal clearance of taller (deep-rooted) vegetation; • Closure of, and restricted beach / campsite / trail areas will be indicated via clear signage and notice of restrictions will be provided as far in advance as practicable;

• Erection of construction site fencing and screening; • Appropriately selected vegetative screening to be applied around permanent infrastructure and landfall facilities; and

• Reinstatement of RoW habitat (restricted to small shrubs).

Chapter 12 Marine Environment sets out measures to monitor water quality impacts (from sedimentation) on recreational water users along the coast line, including at Pasha Dere Beach and Chapter 10 Noise and Vibration describes measures to mitigate and monitor noise impacts on recreational users of Pasha Dere Beach and campsite.

The mitigation measures listed above are unlikely to entirely eliminate potential impacts on beneficiaries as there will be some level of temporary and permanent visual disruption and temporary loss of access to recreational resources. Beach, trail, and campsite users may also use the Grievance Procedure to raise any grievances arising from impacts on these areas. While they cannot be eliminated the impacts are unlikely to have a significant lasting effect on the ability of any beneficiaries to enjoy recreational services in the area, and beneficiaries are likely to be able to adapt their practices such that any impacts on livelihoods or well-being are low.

URS-EIA-REP-202375 18-115 Chapter 18 Ecosystem Services

Residual Impact

With the proposed mitigation measures in place the magnitude of impacts is therefore expected to be not significant and the overall residual impacts are expected to be Low.

Wild Species Diversity

The impact on wild species diversity prior to mitigation was assessed as being of moderate significance. The principal impacts on beneficiaries concern the potential impacts on species of local, national or international value.

Impacts on Terrestrial Species and their Beneficiaries

Microtunnelling will take place beneath the Galata SCI, which will avoid any impacts on the habitats and species of this designated site. However, other adverse impacts on other habitats and species cannot be avoided altogether but measures to minimise the impact will be put in place.

Measures to mitigate impact to terrestrial wild species diversity are set out in Chapter 11 Terrestrial Ecology. These mitigation measures are anticipated to reduce all residual impacts to low or negligible. Given this, there should not be residual effects that would impact on beneficiaries.

Impacts on Marine Species and their Beneficiaries

Measures to mitigate impacts to marine based wild species diversity are contained in the Chapter 13 Marine Ecology, which are chapter which are anticipated to reduce the residual impacts on wild species diversity to low or negligible. Given this, there should not be residual effects that would impact on beneficiaries.

While there are some impacts which cannot be fully mitigated, these are unlikely to have a significant lasting effect on the ability of any beneficiaries to enjoy wild species diversity in the area, and beneficiaries are likely to be able to adapt their practices such that any impacts on livelihoods or well-being are low.

Chapter 13 Marine Ecology also sets out a number of monitoring requirements which will be incorporated within the project’s overall Environmental and Social Management System (ESMS) so that the results of the programme can be clearly linked to management actions and the results used to evaluate the effectiveness of its mitigation strategy. Components to be monitored include:

• Suspended solids / turbidity at agreed locations including the northern boundary of the Galata SCI. If unacceptable suspended solids concentrations are reached then mitigation measures will be implemented. Thresholds for acceptable water quality will be set following baseline measurements taken over one winter season and with consideration for the potential sensitivity of receptors. The Dredging Management Plan will specify the mitigation measures once the dredging contractor has been appointed and the dredging plant identified;

18-116 URS-EIA-REP-202375

• Water quality with live feedback at agreed locations, including the northern boundary of Galata SCI, during construction in the nearshore section;

• Sediment: Key sediment characteristics will be monitored during and post construction (where appropriate) to verify the predicted seabed impacts;

• Benthic communities - to allow verification of predicted impacts and an assessment of the degree and speed of recovery of impacted areas;

• Fish - to determine the status of local populations. Species of conservation importance, including rare and endemic species and subspecies are of particular interest in this regard;

• Seabirds - to determine the extent of any disturbance or displacement impacts; and • Marine Mammals - to verify the extent of impacts, particularly with respect to underwater noise. Because of their conservation status, additional monitoring is considered appropriate.

The Project will produce a Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) which will include the mitigation strategy for identified critical habitats. The BAP will reflect the outcomes of engagement with relevant stakeholders on the measures required to help achieve net gain. Further information on the likely scope and implementation of the monitoring programme is provided in Chapter 23 Environmental and Social Management.

Residual Impact

With the proposed mitigation measures in place the magnitude of impacts is therefore expected to be not significant and the overall residual impacts are expected to be Low.

18.7.2.4 Residual Impacts: Construction and Pre-Commissioning Phase

The residual Project impacts during the Construction and Pre-Commissioning Phase are discussed in the above sections and a summary is presented in Table 18.16.

18.7.3 Assessment of Potential Impacts: Operational Phase

18.7.3.1 Introduction

In the following sections the key beneficiaries of each ecosystem service and the relevant Project impacts during the Operational Phase are discussed. For each of the ecosystem services the beneficiaries are grouped together and the Project impact is assessed in terms of the total impacts on that service across all of its beneficiaries. A detailed breakdown of the scoring assigned to each ecosystem service is provided in Appendix 18.4: Impact Assessment - Operational.

URS-EIA-REP-202375 18-117

Table 18.16 Assessment of Potential Impacts: Construction and Pre-Commissioning Phase

Ecosystem Activity Potential Impact Receptor(s) Receptor Impact Pre-Mitigation Mitigation Residual Service Sensitivity Magnitude / Impact Measures Impact Likelihood Significance Significance

Capture Sedimentation, Loss of access to Ada Bacha High Low Moderate Co-ordination with Low fisheries exclusion zone, fishing grounds, fishing maritime authorities noise, vibration changes in fishery community with regard to position and light productivity as a result of safety exclusion of sedimentation, zones turbidity, noise, etc. Ongoing stakeholder engagement through which any issues can be raised Grievance Procedure Livelihood Restoration Framework Measures to mitigate impacts on fish species are set out in Chapter 13 Marine Ecology

Continued…

Ecosystem Activity Potential Impact Receptor(s) Receptor Impact Pre-Mitigation Mitigation Residual Service Sensitivity Magnitude / Impact Measures Impact Likelihood Significance Significance

Timber Vegetation Felling of trees The State and Low Negligible Not significant Measures to mitigate Not significant clearance resulting in loss of private loss of broadleaf future income from landowners; woodland are set out timber those that use in Chapter 11 timber Terrestrial Ecology and include replanting of an area equal to the area of loss of oak woodland

Water Abstraction, Reduced accessibility Groundwater Low Negligible Not significant n/a Not significant (supply) changes in of water resources abstractors surface water flows

Hazard Vegetation Increases in Households and Low Negligible Not significant n/a Not significant regulation clearance, flood/landslide risk, businesses, earthworks, soil changes in coastal recreational excavation, erosion rates beach users, dredging Project itself

Continued…

Ecosystem Activity Potential Impact Receptor(s) Receptor Impact Pre-Mitigation Mitigation Residual Service Sensitivity Magnitude / Impact Measures Impact Likelihood Significance Significance

Water quality Waste disposal, Risk to human health Fishers, Moderate Negligible Not significant n/a Not significant regulation contamination consumers, sediment water users plumes

Soil quality Contamination, Contamination from Farmers, food Moderate Moderate Moderate Measures set out in Low regulation leaks, and Project could lower consumers, Chapter 8 Soils, spills, structural soil productivity, workers on site Groundwater and damage to top introduce and in the area Surface Water; early soil contaminants into the identification and food chain, and removal of present health risks to contamination; workers implementation of health and safety plan for workers

Tourism and Restriction of Loss of access to trails Recreational Moderate Low Moderate Where possible, limit Low recreation access to Pasha and a section of Pasha visitors to Pasha construction activities Dere Beach and Dere Beach; visual Dere Beach during peak tourist campsite, visual and landscape (e.g. Beach, season where possible disturbance; disamenity; loss of campsite and and keep closures to a sediment /reduced quality of trail users; minimum to reduce dispersal diving and people engaged the number of people spearfishing activities in water sports) affected

Continued…

Ecosystem Activity Potential Impact Receptor(s) Receptor Impact Pre-Mitigation Mitigation Residual Service Sensitivity Magnitude / Impact Measures Impact Likelihood Significance Significance

Ongoing stakeholder engagement to keep stakeholders informed of developments and provide them with an opportunity to raise issues. Grievance Procedure Measures set out in Chapter 10 Noise and Vibration, Chapter 12 Marine Environment, Chapter 14 Land and Visual and Chapter 15 Socio- Economics.

Continued…

Ecosystem Activity Potential Impact Receptor(s) Receptor Impact Pre-Mitigation Mitigation Residual Service Sensitivity Magnitude / Impact Measures Impact Likelihood Significance Significance

Cultural and Habitat loss, Reduced cultural and Visitors, local Moderate Low Low n/a Low spiritual noise and aesthetic value of residents, values visual landscape and scientific disturbance, damage to particular community collision cultural sites damage

Wild species Loss of habitat Increase vulnerability Local residents, Moderate High Moderate Measures set out in Low diversity and disruption of threatened species, global Chapter 11 to endangered loss of well-being for conservation Terrestrial Ecology tortoise local residents and community and Chapter 13 species, risk of conservation groups Marine Ecology invasive species introduction, disturbance to marine species populations

Complete.

18.7.3.2 Assessment of Potential Impacts (Pre-Mitigation)

Capture Fisheries

The potential impacts on fisheries and the well-being of beneficiaries during the Operational Phase relate to loss of access to fishing grounds and potential changes in fisheries productivity as a result of noise and vibration emitted by the Pipeline during operation.

As set out in Section 18.7.2.2, the receptor sensitivity for the fisheries ecosystem service (particularly in relation to the Ada Bacha fishing community) is assessed as being high.

Loss of Access to Fishing Grounds

Beyond approximately 420 m from the shoreline, the Pipeline will lie unburied on the seabed. As such, it presents a potential hazard for fishing vessels as it can snag fishing gear. To ensure that the subsea pipelines are not damaged by third party activities (e.g. dragged anchors, fishing gear, etc.) a permanent 500 m (0.27 NM) exclusion zone will be implemented along the Pipeline route from the trenchless crossing offshore pits (approximately 420 m offshore) to a water depth of 100 m. The exact width of the exclusion zone will be agreed in consultation with the appropriate authorities.

This exclusion zone will be in addition to, although will partially overlap, the existing Galata gas pipeline Restricted Zone (Galata Zone), which extends 0.5 NM on either side of that pipeline. The Galata Zone extends out several kilometres to a depth of over 65 m and is closed to fishing, development of mussel farms, underwater dredging activities, and anchoring. Figure 18.8 shows the Galata Zone along with the proposed South Stream Offshore Pipeline exclusion zone; it is evident that the two exclusion zones will mostly overlap as far out to sea as approximately 13 km (or 7 NM) from the shore.

The South Stream Transport exclusion zone is therefore anticipated to be only a small extension of the existing Galata exclusion zone, by approximately 150 m to the south (at the widest point). Approximately 11 km out to sea the two exclusion zones will diverge. This is outside the Ada Bacha fishing community’s normal fishing grounds but will overlap (less than 5%) with one of the permitted areas for rapa whelk fishing. It will also increase the area of the exclusion zone over current fishing grounds, and, depending on the restriction in place (all fishing or just bottom trawling), this will remove some of the fishable area.

Commercial fisheries and the Ada Bacha fishers currently operate around the existing Galata Zone. The fishing community does not carry out any fishing operations within the existing Galata gas pipeline exclusion zone but their fishing grounds do extend approximately 2 to 3 NM (approximately 2.7 – 5.6 km) to the south of its southern boundary. Most of the species they target (bluefish, horse mackerel, bonito, shad, and sardine) are migratory and are caught as they pass through the fishing grounds. However, there is some flexibility in where they can be caught. The less migratory species, such as gobies, are caught closer to Ada Bacha and the extended restricted zone is likely to have minimal additional impact. If the South Stream Exclusion Zone only restricts bottom trawling or dredging then there is unlikely to be any impact on the fishing activities of the Ada Bacha fishing community as they only use fixed nets, drift nets, and hooks and lines.

URS-EIA-REP-202375 18-123 Chapter 18 Ecosystem Services

Noise and Vibration

A representative of the fishing community interviewed in June 2013 (Ref. 18.33) stated that certain species of fish did not cross the Galata pipeline because of the noise it generated during operation (i.e. the gas flowing through the Pipeline). This was the reason suggested by the Ada Bacha fishermen for the perceived reduction in catches of bonito and bluefish.

Studies (see Appendix 15.1 for further details) have shown that some fish species are particularly sensitive to low frequency sound (0.1 to 100 Hz) resulting in low frequency sources being used to induce fish avoidance around dams and power plant intakes in some areas. Although these studies were specific for two species (Baltic herring (Clupea harengus membras) and Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) it is possible that low frequency noise will also affect other species, particularly migratory ones, possibly disturbing their navigation and orientation. In shallower water the sea surface and the seabed reflect the sound and increase the distance travelled. It is possible that, rather than not crossing the Galata gas pipeline at all, certain migratory species travel further offshore to deeper water before crossing, putting them outside the current Ada Bacha fishing grounds.

Modelling undertaken for the underwater noise assessment (Appendix 13.4) found that the effects of noise on migration of fish species during operation are likely to be insignificant (Chapter 13 Marine Ecology). Unlike the Galata pipeline, the Project pipeline will be housed within microtunnels out to approximately 420 m offshore and then buried in trenches up to 2.5 m deep up to 2 km from the shore. As such, noise and vibrations will be minimised and there are unlikely to be any changes in migration patterns or fish catches.

Taking these impacts together, the Ada Bacha fishing community is not likely to have to identify any new fishing grounds outside where they already fish; as the increased restriction zone will have little if any impact on them. This was a view shared by the representative of the fishing community, who felt if they could operate with the Galata gas pipeline in place then they could manage with the South Stream Offshore Pipeline in place. While there are unlikely to be any changes in the migratory patterns of fish as a result of the South Stream pipeline there may be a perception in the fishing community that the Pipeline is impacting fish species.

Impacts on beneficiary well-being are therefore considered to be low and, where impacts do arise, these are likely to be felt periodically during fishing seasons. Impacts are long term although ecosystems and normal fish migration, breeding, and feeding patterns are likely to resume in a short period of time once the sources of disturbance have ceased.

The impact magnitude is therefore considered negligible and the overall significance of the commissioning and operation phases of the Project on capture fisheries is assessed as being Not Significant.

Timber

Following the felling of trees in the Construction and Pre-Commissioning Phase of the Project, no further felling will be required. In accordance with Bulgarian Ordinance No. 16 (Ref. 18.53), the RoW must be kept clear of trees and deep-rooted vegetation throughout the Operational Phase of the Project. Trees will, however, be replanted outside of the 60 m RoW but within the 120 m construction corridor and microtunnel construction site.

18-124 URS-EIA-REP-202375

As such, there is no further loss of timber during the Operational and Commissioning Phases. Furthermore, in cases where replacement afforestation of native oak is undertaken following the Construction and Pre-Commissioning Phase of the Project, then active management and monitoring will be required for a number of years to ensure that other pioneer species do not out-compete the oak.

The impact magnitude is therefore negligible and the overall impact is Not Significant.

Water (supply)

Due to the use of tunnelling, the presence of the buried pipeline may alter baseflow to surface and groundwater courses, although the extent of such changes are likely to be minimal and are not expected to lead to a measurable change in the well-being of any beneficiaries. As such, the impact magnitude is assessed as negligible and the overall impact is considered Not Significant.

Hazard Regulation

There are no identified activities during the Operational Phase which are likely to have a significant impact on provision of this service or the well-being of any beneficiaries. As such, the impact magnitude is assessed as negligible and the overall impact significance is assessed to be Not Significant.

Water Quality Regulation

There are no identified activities during the Operational Phase which are likely to have a significant impact on provision of this service or the well-being of any beneficiaries. As such, the impact magnitude is negligible and the overall impact is assessed to be Not Significant.

Soil Quality Regulation

There are no identified activities during the Operational Phase which are likely to have a significant impact on provision of this service or the well-being of any beneficiaries. As such, the impact magnitude is negligible and the overall impact is assessed to be Not Significant.

Tourism and Recreation Values

The beach will be subject to an exclusion zone, 380 m either side of the outermost pipeline centrelines which will not allow erection of public buildings or developed areas for public use of any kind. The zone will not restrict the ways that people currently use and enjoy the beach nor restrict numbers using the beach.

Upon completion of construction works, the area of vegetation in the trenchless pipeline corridor across Pasha Dere Beach coastal slope will be restored to its current condition as far as reasonably possible, limiting the direct effect on the visual amenity of people on the beach. However, the beach is largely accessed via the existing Galata pipeline RoW, so the widening of the corridor by removal of deep rooting vegetation will result in more open and expansive views which could impact on trail users. While there will be some visual impacts on recreational visitors to Pasha Dere and Chernomorets beaches, they are considered to be of low magnitude

URS-EIA-REP-202375 18-125 Chapter 18 Ecosystem Services

(Chapter 14 Landscape and Visual) and are unlikely to impede recreational use or impact on livelihoods.

Hunting activities will be able to proceed as usual within the Project Area during the Operational and Commissioning Phase. Disturbance to fauna communities will be limited due to the lack of any significant groundworks or other major construction works. There will be limited lighting at the landfall facilities that may disturb surrounding local habitat areas at night. Noise pollution will be limited to that generated by the presence of occasional workers and vehicles on site during inspection of the pipelines and landfall facilities, and RoW maintenance. Such impacts will be temporary and localised in nature. Furthermore, the impacts will be limited to the footprint of the permanent Project infrastructure and are not predicted to result in disturbance to any additional areas. As a result, disturbance will occur in less than 1% of the available habitat within the local area and is considered to be of negligible magnitude (Chapter 11 Terrestrial Ecology). Given that there are not expected to be any significant impacts on wild animals, pipeline operation is not expected to have any significant impacts on hunting groups.

Overall, there are unlikely to be any impacts arising from Project Activities which prevent any beneficiaries from accessing or using recreational resources and the magnitude of the impact on well-being of beneficiaries is therefore considered negligible and the overall significance of impacts is Low.

Cultural and Spiritual Values

Operation of the Pipeline could lead to further disturbance to sites of cultural importance during surveys and repairs as well as a lasting change in the cultural and aesthetic value of the Local Area land and sea scape. However, the impact on beneficiaries is likely to be low. As such, the impact magnitude is low and the overall impact significance is Low.

Wild Species Diversity

While there may be some minor noise / disruption during this period, operational impacts resulting from the Project are likely to have a negligible impact on the stability of populations of threatened species within the terrestrial and marine environment and on the well-being of any beneficiaries of this service.

Further, the presence of the Pipeline on the seabed may act as an artificial reef which could potentially have beneficial impacts for certain benthic species. As such, the impact magnitude is considered negligible and the overall significance is Not Significant.

18.7.3.3 Mitigation and Monitoring

Based on the results of the impact assessment (see Appendix 18.4 for a detailed summary of the scoring assigned to each ecosystem service), there were no priority services identified which are likely to be significantly impacted during the Operational Phase of the Project and which will require further mitigation.

18-126 URS-EIA-REP-202375

18.7.3.4 Residual Impacts: Operational Phase

Table 18.17 presents a summary of the residual effects of impacts on ecosystem services on their beneficiaries.

18.7.4 Assessment of Potential Impacts: Decommissioning Phase

18.7.4.1 Introduction

Decommissioning of the South Stream pipeline will be carried out according to prevailing international and national legislation and regulations and GIIP regarding environmental and other potential impacts. An assessment will be undertaken to confirm that the planned decommissioning activities are the most appropriate to the prevailing circumstances and future land use. The assessment of decommissioning impacts set out below is therefore provisional, based on current practices and technologies. It is not intended to be definitive, but may serve as a high level comparison between two alternative strategies:

• Option 1 – In situ decommissioning which involves cleaning the Pipeline and filling it with seawater. The receptors that might be impacted are thus the same as those for the Operational Phase; and

• Option 2 – Removal of the Pipeline which is essentially a similar operation to pipe-laying, but in reverse. The receptors and degree of impact will thus be similar to those identified for the Construction and Pre-Commissioning Phase.

18.7.4.2 Assessment of Potential Impacts (Pre-Mitigation)

Capture Fisheries

Under Option 1, there are not likely to be any significant impacts on fisheries productivity or on access to fishing grounds beyond the restrictions that exist during the Operational Phase. As such, the significance of impacts is deemed Not Significant.

The removal of the Pipeline (Option 2) will result in disturbance from additional vessel movements and potentially the temporary loss of access to fishing grounds located near vessels involved in decommissioning activities. While this is unlikely to have a significant impact on fisheries productivity as the affected area is small relative to the total fishing area and fish are able to avoid the area of disturbance, it may cause some operators within the fishing industry to incur additional costs where they are forced to travel further in order to reach open fishing grounds. This will impact disproportionately on artisanal fishers such as the Ada Bacha fishing community. As such, the significance of impacts is assessed as being Moderate.

URS-EIA-REP-202375 18-127

Table 18.17 Assessment of Potential Impacts: Operational Phase

Ecosystem Activity Potential Impact Receptor(s) Receptor Impact Pre-Mitigation Mitigation Residual Service Sensitivity Magnitude / Impact Measures Impact Likelihood Significance Significance

Capture Noise and vibration Perceived disturbance Ada Bacha High Negligible Not significant Ongoing Not significant Fisheries from pipeline to fish communities; fishing stakeholder operation; loss of access to community; engagement imposition of fishing grounds wider fishing Grievance exclusion zones industry Procedure

Timber Re-establishment of Ability to fell trees for Landowners Low Negligible Not significant Ongoing Not significant wooded areas timber in future (timber stakeholder outside of the RoW producers) and engagement (but not necessarily timber users Grievance for timber) following Procedure construction

Water (supply) Obstruction of water Reduced accessibility Groundwater Low Negligible Not significant n/a Not significant flows of water to abstractors beneficiaries

Continued…

Ecosystem Activity Potential Impact Receptor(s) Receptor Impact Pre-Mitigation Mitigation Residual Service Sensitivity Magnitude / Impact Measures Impact Likelihood Significance Significance

Hazard n/a n/a Households and Moderate Negligible Not significant n/a Not significant regulation businesses, recreational beach users, Project itself

Water quality n/a n/a Fishers, Moderate Negligible Not significant n/a Not significant regulation consumers, water users

Soil quality n/a n/a Farmers, food Moderate Negligible Not significant n/a Not significant regulation consumers, workers on site and in the area

Tourism and Exclusion zone, Visual disturbance Recreational Moderate Negligible Low n/a Low recreation vegetation clearance visitors to Pasha values Dere Beach (e.g. beach, campsite and trail users)

Continued…

Ecosystem Activity Potential Impact Receptor(s) Receptor Impact Pre-Mitigation Mitigation Residual Service Sensitivity Magnitude / Impact Measures Impact Likelihood Significance Significance

Cultural and Disturbance to Loss of cultural and Visitors, local Low Low Low n/a Low spiritual values environmental aesthetic values of population, setting and damage landscape and sites scientific to sites community

Wild species Noise / disturbance, Change in species Local residents, Moderate Negligible Not significant n/a Not significant diversity potential artificiel composition global reef habitat conservation community

Complete.

Timber

Activities under Option 1 are not expected to impact upon timber production. As such, the significance of impacts is deemed Not Significant.

Removal of the Pipeline (Option 2) may require some vegetation clearance. However, the area of vegetation outside the existing RoW (in the Operational Phase) is unknown and will depend on the accessibility requirements and machinery available at the time of decommissioning. The number of trees to be felled during the Decommissioning Phase will be minimised as far as possible. The significance of impacts is therefore deemed to be Not Significant.

Water (supply)

Under Option 1, there are not likely to be any impacts on the provision or use of water (supply). As such, the impact significance is Not Significant.

Under Option 2, the removal of the Pipeline could impact water supply for downstream users through the potential abstraction from aquifers for use in decommissioning activities leading to decreasing groundwater levels and alterations to surface water flows during construction due to crossing of surface waters and alterations to vegetation cover.

The impacts of a changing climate, saline intrusion, projected decreases in water availability, potential population increases, new downstream water users, as well as growing demands for water in irrigated agriculture, could increase the sensitivity of water resources and their users to any changes in supply.

As such, the receptor sensitivity for this service is likely to be higher in this phase than in the Construction and Pre-Commissioning Phase. However, the Project is unlikely to significantly alter water flows or the ability of any beneficiaries to access water. As such, the impact on well-being is likely to be negligible and the impact significance is assessed as Not Significant.

Hazard Regulation

Under Option 1, there are not likely to be any impacts on the provision or use of hazard regulation services. As such, the impact significance is Not Significant.

Under Option 2, the removal of the Pipeline could impact hazard regulation through site clearance and earthworks, particularly where these result in loss of vegetation; preparation of foundations which may induce tremors that trigger mass movement of soils; impacts on the structural composition of Phaeozem soils which play an important role in water storage and flow regulation; and any dredging activities which could impact upon coastal processes and the effects of sea surges.

Climate change projections are likely to increase the frequency of hazards in the region although it is not possible to accurately predict changes in the Local Area at this stage. Any growth in the populations in the Local Area could increase the amount of people vulnerable to hazards although it is unlikely there will be any development within the Affected Ecosystems due to land use restrictions during the Operational Phase.

URS-EIA-REP-202375 18-131 Chapter 18 Ecosystem Services

As such, the likelihood of any impact on beneficiaries’ well-being and the impact significance is assessed as Low.

Water Quality Regulation

Under Option 1, there are not likely to be any impacts on the provision or use of water quality regulation services. As such, the impact significance is Not Significant.

Under Option 2, the Project could lead to higher pollution levels in surface water and ground water due to decommissioning activities and the removal of vegetation; accidental leaks and spills; impacts on mussels and other marine organisms capable of biofiltration if present in 50 years’ time; and seabed disturbance and release of sediments into the marine water column as a result of dredging and pipeline removal.

Assuming that the regulatory frameworks for improving water quality in the Local Area are implemented successfully, inputs of pollution into the marine and freshwater ecosystems should be lower by 2065. As such, receptor sensitivity would be lower and the impact significance is assessed as Low.

Soil Quality Regulation

Under Option 1, there are not likely to be any impacts on the provision or use of soil quality regulation services. As such, the impact significance is Not Significant.

Under Option 2, the Project could reduce the ability of ecosystems to regulate soil quality through an increase in concentration of contaminants through leaks, spills and emissions; increased susceptibility of soil to erosion through clearance of vegetation and excavation works; loss of nutrients and soil carbon due to soil excavation and removal of vegetation which contributes to soil composition; degradation of soil, physical damage, and compaction through stockpiling of soils during decommissioning; and displacement of soils through effects on the river channel at the Pipeline crossing point.

While pressures on soil resources and the ability of ecosystems to regulate soil quality may increase over the life of the Project due to increased levels of development in the Local Area, vegetation clearance, growing air borne emissions and greater pollutant from surface runoff, there is unlikely to be a significant change in the sensitivity of the receptors or the potential Project impacts. As such, the impact significance is assessed as Moderate.

Tourism and Recreation Values

Under Option 1, there are not likely to be any impacts on the provision or use of tourism and recreation services. As such, the impact significance is Not Significant.

Since the microtunnels will remain in place under Option 2, there are unlikely to be any physical impacts on, or changes in access to Pasha Dere beach. There may, however, be minor visual disturbance associated with removal of the Pipeline and associated infrastructure. However, receptor sensitivity is likely to be lower for the Decommissioning Phase than for the Construction and Pre-Commissioning Phase. The impact magnitude is therefore assessed as being negligible and overall impact significance is Low.

18-132 URS-EIA-REP-202375

Cultural and Spiritual Values

Under Option 1, there are not likely to be any impacts on the provision or use of cultural and spiritual services. As such, the impact significance is Low.

Under Option 2, the Project could damage the aesthetics and agricultural nature of the landscape as well as causing damage to objects of cultural importance and their environmental setting. The receptor sensitivity and impact magnitude are likely to be similar to the Construction and Pre-Commissioning Phase and, as such, the impact significance is assessed as Low.

Wild Species Diversity

Under Option 1, there are not likely to be any impacts on wild species diversity. As such, the impact is assessed as being Not Significant.

Under Option 2, the Project could impact on wild species diversity through habitat loss, disturbance during decommissioning activities, pollution incidents, and introduction of invasive species. The receptor sensitivity and impact magnitude are likely to be similar to the Construction and Pre-Commissioning Phase and, as such, the impact significance is assessed as Moderate.

18.7.4.3 Mitigation and Monitoring

Based on the results of the impact assessment there are no priority services identified for Option 1 and three priority ecosystem services identified for Option 2 as follows:

• Capture fisheries; • Soil quality regulation; and • Wild species diversity.

Due to the similar nature of the impacts the mitigation requirements for the second options of the Decommissioning Phase are likely to mirror those required for the Construction and Pre- Commissioning Phase. As such, the mitigation requirements will be similar to those set out in Section 18.7.2.3, although a review will need to be undertaken prior to decommissioning to ensure that the impact assessment and mitigation recommendations are still appropriate.

18.7.4.4 Residual Impacts: Decommissioning Phase

Table 18.18 presents a summary of the residual effects of impacts on ecosystem services on their beneficiaries following mitigation.

URS-EIA-REP-202375 18-133

Table 18.18 Assessment of Potential Impacts: Decommissioning (under Option 2)

Ecosystem Activity Potential Impact Receptor(s) Receptor Impact Pre-Mitigation Mitigation Residual Service Sensitivity Magnitude/ Impact Measures Impact Likelihood Significance Significance

Capture Movement of Loss of access to Ada Bacha Low Low Moderate Ongoing stakeholder Low fisheries vessels, pipe fishing grounds, fishing engagement through removal, safety changes in fishery community which the fishing exclusion zone productivity community can raise any issues Grievance Procedure Livelihood Restoration Framework

Timber Vegetation Loss of future Landowners Low Negligible Not significant n/a Not clearance income from timber (timber significant producers)

Water (supply) Abstraction, Reduced accessibility Downstream High Negligible Low n/a Low changes in of water resources abstractors water flows

Hazard Vegetation Increases in flood / Households and Moderate Low Low n/a Low regulation clearance, landslide risk, businesses, earthworks, soil changes in coastal recreational excavation, erosion rates beach users, dredging Project itself

Continued…

Ecosystem Activity Potential Impact Receptor(s) Receptor Impact Pre-Mitigation Mitigation Residual Service Sensitivity Magnitude/ Impact Measures Impact Likelihood Significance Significance

Water quality Waste disposal, Risk to human Fishers, Low Negligible Not significant n/a Not regulation contamination, health consumers, significant sediment water users plumes

Soil quality Contamination, Contamination from Farmers, food Moderate Moderate Moderate Measures set out in Low regulation leaks, and spills, Project could lower consumers, Chapter 7 Physical structural soil productivity, workers on site and Geophysical damage to top introduce and in the area Environment, early soil contaminants into identification and the food chain, and removal of present health risks contamination, health to workers and safety plan for workers

Tourism and Movement of Reduced recreational Tourists in the Moderate Low Low Mitigation is Low recreation vehicles and use of area; local area; minimising onshore equipment disamenity Recreational and nearshore onshore; vessel visitors to Pasha decommissioning movements in Dere Beach activities during peak the marine (e.g. beach, and tourist season where environment; trail users possible, stakeholder restriction of engagement, access to Pasha compensation. Dere Beach Decommissioning activities on the beach are very unlikely

Continued…

Ecosystem Activity Potential Impact Receptor(s) Receptor Impact Pre-Mitigation Mitigation Residual Service Sensitivity Magnitude/ Impact Measures Impact Likelihood Significance Significance

Cultural and Habitat loss, Reduced cultural and Visitors, local Low Low Low n/a Low spiritual values noise and visual aesthetic value of population, disturbance, landscape and scientific collision damage particular sites community within it

Wild species Loss of habitat Increase Local residents, Moderate High Moderate Measures set out in Low diversity and disruption vulnerability of global Chapter 11 to endangered threatened species, conservation Terrestrial Ecology tortoise species, loss of well-being for community and Chapter 13 risk of invasive local residents and Marine Ecology species conservation groups introduction, disturbance to marine species populations

Complete.

18.8 Unplanned Events Unplanned events are assessed and relevant mitigation measures presented in Chapter 20 Unplanned Events. Those relevant to the provision or use of ecosystem services are discussed below.

18.8.1 Construction and Pre-Commissioning Phase

18.8.1.1 Fuel and Oil Spills

The use of construction equipment, vehicles, power generation equipment, and vessels could lead to fuel and oil spillages. Spills to surface water courses could be harmful to aquatic organisms and may cause adverse effects in the aquatic environment, including loss of wild species diversity and a deterioration in water quality. Spillages to soil could result in localised soil and groundwater contamination. Most terrestrial oil spillage incidents, however, are likely to be relatively small (e.g. less than 100 litres). Hydrocarbon spills within the marine environment could have significant impacts across a range of ecosystem services including fisheries, wild species diversity, water quality regulation, tourism and recreation.

The nature and significance of the risks and the control measures to be adopted by the Project to mitigate these risks are detailed in Chapter 20 Unplanned Events. Control measures will be defined within a Spill Prevention and Response Plan to be developed and maintained by each Project contractor. Adherence to the Spill Prevention and Response Plan will reduce the potential for adverse impacts upon ecosystem services.

18.8.1.2 Fires

Fires during construction could occur, for example, as a result of accidental ignition of vegetation through the use of gas torches, worker smoking on site, third party activities, lightning strikes, etc. Fires could spread to habitats which surround the landfall section of the Project and could have significant impacts on the provision of a range of ecosystem services, including timber, water quality regulation, hazard regulation, tourism and recreation, cultural and spiritual values, and wild species diversity.

Figure 18.14 shows the habitats that occur within the Project Area that could be adversely affected by fire. In view of the sensitivity of some of the habitats and their protection status, as well as the presence of a limited number of residential properties, tourism establishments, vineyards and forest plantations, it is of paramount importance that stringent measures are enforced to minimise fire risks and the associated potential for significant adverse impacts.

Chapter 20 Unplanned Events sets out the control measures that will be adopted and enforced to minimise these risks, including the development of an overarching Emergency Preparedness and Response Plan and contractor-specific Emergency Response Plans.

18.8.1.3 Introduction of Invasive Species

Onshore construction activities have the potential to introduce invasive species or to create new pathways for invasive species migration which could have implications for ecosystem service

URS-EIA-REP-202375 18-137 Chapter 18 Ecosystem Services

provision as a result of disturbance to soil, vegetation and fauna. Pathways include the direct accidental introduction of reproductive bodies (e.g. seeds / eggs / spores) or whole organisms (e.g. insects / snakes) via personnel, temporary accommodation and vehicles (e.g. on tyres and tracked vehicles, and in supplies) or through the inappropriate use of non-native seeds for earthworks reinstatement works.

Vessel operations also have the potential to inadvertently introduce invasive alien species, either in ballast water, on the biofilm inside ballast tanks or carried as fouling organisms on the hull. Historically, some introductions of alien species have had extreme ecological consequences, either directly through the introduction of benthic predators such as Rapana venosa or through system wide perturbations as exemplified by the invasion of the planktonic ctenophore Mnemiopsis leidyi. In other instances, such as the introduction of the bivalve Anadara inaequivalvis, the effects have been less severe and in the case of Beroe ovata, have in fact served to redress some of the ecological the perturbations caused by M.leidyi. Despite its low probability of occurrence, the possibility of population or community-wide effects on the entire ecology of the sea makes this a potentially highly significant impact.

Measures to minimise the risks associated with the introduction of invasive species both onshore and offshore are described in Chapter 20 Unplanned Events.

18.8.2 Operational Phase

18.8.2.1 Release of Natural Gas

During the Operational Phase there is a very low risk of large-scale unplanned releases of un- ignited natural gas as a result of pipeline rupture. Any subsequent fire or explosion could cause significant environmental damage to surrounding habitats while the emissions themselves would add to the level of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Methane in the Earth's atmosphere is a potent greenhouse gas with a global warming potential 25 times higher than CO2 over a 100- year period. However, the amount of methane released even from a full bore rupture would be insignificant compared to total methane levels in the atmosphere.

Within the marine environment, any gas released from a damaged sub-sea pipeline would rise through the water column as a plume of gas bubbles. Upon reaching the sea surface, the gas would disperse into the air. Gas releases into the atmosphere are not likely to result in any significant impacts on ecosystem service provision.

The standards that will be applied to pipeline design and measures taken to reduce the risks associated with gas leakages are described in detail in Chapter 20 Unplanned Events.

18.8.2.2 Fires

If leaked gas ignited, significant acute environmental damage could be caused by the high levels of radiation from the resulting fire, potentially at large distances from the Pipeline itself in the case of a full bore rupture event. If there are dry conditions at the time of the fire event, the damage may escalate to a potentially wide-ranging area. In many instances, the area would recover relatively quickly from the effects of a fire (e.g. beach areas or areas of grassland). In the worst instance, however (e.g. if the fire was within or adjacent to a woodland area, or an

18-138 URS-EIA-REP-202375

area of environmental importance), there may be longer-term damage to ecosystems and their ability to provide services.

The specific measures that will be implemented to minimise the probability of occurrence of fires are set out in Chapter 20 Unplanned Events.

18.8.2.3 Alien Invasive Species

Vessels used for routine pipeline inspection and maintenance could also inadvertently introduce alien invasive species which could, in turn, impact upon ecosystems and the services they provide. The nature and significance of the risk is similar to that described under Construction and Pre-Commissioning (Section 18.8.1.3) above and mitigation measures are described in Chapter 20 Unplanned Events.

18.8.3 Decommissioning Phase

The expected service lifetime of the South Stream Offshore Pipeline is 50 years. The decommissioning programme will be developed during the Operational Phase of the Project. Consequently, unplanned events associated with the Decommissioning Phase are unknown at this stage; however, it is anticipated that some of the potential unplanned events, and the measures to mitigate their impacts, will be similar in nature to some of those that may arise during the Construction and Pre-Commissioning Phase.

18.9 Cumulative Impacts Assessment The cumulative impacts associated with the Project relating to ecosystem services are assessed in Chapter 21 Cumulative Impact Assessment.

The ecosystem service impacts of the SSB Pasha Dere RT and Varna CS, which will be located directly adjacent to the Project, are presented in Chapter 21 Cumulative Impact Assessment and in Appendix 21.1: Environmental Assessment of the Pasha Dere Receiving Terminal and Varna Compressor Station.

18.10 Conclusions The assessment identified four priority ecosystem services on which the Project has the potential to have a significant impact during the Construction and Pre-Commissioning Phase, prior to the implementation of mitigation measures. No priority services are anticipated to be significantly impacted during the Operational Phase.

A summary of the likely impacts on ecosystem services during the Construction and Pre- Commissioning and Operational Phases and the proposed mitigation measures is provided in Table 18.19. The assessment of decommissioning impacts undertaken in this chapter is provisional, based on current practices and technologies. The decommissioning program will be developed during the Operational Phase of the Project and will reflect the condition of the South Stream Offshore Pipeline, land uses, technological options, preferred methods, international and national legislation and regulations and GIIP prevailing at that time.

URS-EIA-REP-202375 18-139 Chapter 18 Ecosystem Services

Table 18.19 Assessment Summary

Priority Potential Impact Impact Mitigation Measures Residual Service Significance Impact* *

Capture Decline in fish catch due C: Moderate Co-ordination with C: Low fisheries to sedimentation; maritime authorities with exclusion zone; noise, regard to position of safety vibration, and light exclusion zones Ongoing stakeholder engagement through which any issues can be raised Grievance Procedure O: Not O: Not significant Livelihood Restoration significant Framework Measures to mitigate impacts on fish species are set out in Chapter 13 Marine Ecology

Timber Felling of trees resulting in C: Not n/a C: Not loss of future income from significant significant timber O: Not O: Not significant significant

Water Abstraction of C: Not n/a C: Not (supply) groundwater, impacts on significant significant surface flows O: Not O: Not significant significant

Hazard Increase in flood / C: Not n/a C: Not regulation landslide risk, changes in significant significant coastal erosion O: Not O: Not significant significant

Water Health risks due to C: Not n/a C: Not quality sediment plumes and significant significant regulation contamination O: Not O: Not significant significant

Continued…

18-140 URS-EIA-REP-202375

Priority Potential Impact Impact Mitigation Measures Residual Service Significance Impact* *

Soil quality Lower soil productivity C: Moderate Measures set out in C: Low regulation and health risks due to Chapter 8 Soils, contamination, structural Groundwater and damage and vegetation Surface Waters, early loss O: Not identification and removal O: Not significant of contamination, health significant and safety plan for workers

Tourism Reduced recreation C: Moderate Where possible, limit C: Low and opportunities due to construction activities recreation restricted access, visual during peak tourist season values disamenity and keep closures to a minimum to minimise the number of people affected Ongoing stakeholder engagement, including timely notification of potential disturbances and restrictions O: Low O: Low Grievance Procedure Measures set out in Chapter 10 Noise and Vibration, Chapter 12 Marine Environment, Chapter 14 Land and Visual and Chapter 15 Socio-Economics

Cultural Change in environmental C: Low n/a C: Low and setting and aesthetics, spiritual damage to cultural sites O: Low O: Low values

Wild Disturbance to critically C: Moderate Measures set out in C: Low species endangered tortoise due Chapter 11 Terrestrial diversity to vegetation loss and risk O: Not Ecology and Chapter 13 O: Not of impacts on marine life significant Marine Ecology significant from invasive species

* C refers to the Construction and Pre-Commissioning Phase and O refers to the Operational Phase Complete.

URS-EIA-REP-202375 18-141 Chapter 18 Ecosystem Services

References

Number Reference

Ref. 18.1 International Finance Corporation (2012). IFC Performance Standards on Environmental and Social Sustainability [online] available at: http://www.ifc.org/wps/wcm/connect/c8f524004a73daeca09afdf998895a12/IFC_Performa nce_Standards.pdf?MOD=AJPERES (accessed 9 December 2013).

Ref. 18.2 Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005). Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Biodiversity Synthesis [online] available at: http://www.maweb.org/documents/document.354.aspx.pdf (accessed 9 December 2013).

Ref. 18.3 Burkhard et al. (2009). Landscapes‘ Capacities to Provide Ecosystem Services – a Concept for Land-Cover Based Assessments, Landscape Online 15, 1-22.

Ref. 18.4 Potschin, M.B. and Haines-Young, R.H. (2011). Ecosystem services: Exploring a geographical perspective. Progress in Physical Geography 2011 35: 575.

Ref. 18.5 TEEB. (2010). The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity: Mainstreaming the Economics of Nature: A synthesis of the approach, conclusions and recommendations of TEEB.

Ref. 18.6 Convention on Biological Diversity (2010). Report of the Tenth Meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity [online] available at: http://www.cbd.int/doc/notifications/2010/ntf-2010-223-cop10-en.pdf (accessed 9 July 2013).

Ref. 18.7 Council of the European Union (2010). Biodiversity: Post-2010 - EU and global vision and targets and international ABS regime [online] available at: http://register.consilium.europa.eu/pdf/en/10/st07/st07536.en10.pdf (accessed 9 July 2013).

Ref. 18.8 United Nations General Assembly (2012) Resolution adopted by the General Assembly: 66/288. The future we want [online] available at: http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/RES/66/288&Lang=E (accessed 7 July 2013).

Ref. 18.9 IFC (2012) International Finance Corporation’s Guidance Notes: Performance Standards on Environmental and Social Sustainability [online] available at: http://www.ifc.org/wps/wcm/connect/e280ef804a0256609709ffd1a5d13d27/GN_English_ 2012_Full- Document.pdf?MOD=AJPERES&bcsi_scan_E956BCBE8ADBC89F=2ItgLv3v3S5WaD5Y12j0c AKeHJcHAQAA9PrG1A==&bcsi_scan_filename=GN_English_2012_Full-Document.pdf (accessed 10 July 2013).

Ref. 18.10 Personal communication with Lori Anna Conzo (discussion conducted 20 February 2013) and Conrad Eddie-Savy (discussion conducted 31 May 2013).

18-142 URS-EIA-REP-202375

Number Reference

Ref. 18.11 Personal communication with Florence Landsberg. Discussion conducted 17 June 2013.

Ref. 18.12 White. C., Rowcroft, P., Smith, S., Anastasopoulos, C. & Brenkley, I. (2012) ‘ESIVI: A step- by-step guide’, URS, London.

Ref. 18.13 Landsberg, F., S. Ozment, M. Stickler, N. Henninger, J. Treweek, O. Venn, and G. Mock. (2011) Ecosystem Services Review for Impact Assessment: Introduction and Guide to Scoping. WRI Working Paper. World Resources Institute, Washington DC. [online] available at www.wri.org/publication/ecosystemservices-review-for-impact-assessment (accessed 10 July 2013).

Ref. 18.14 IPIECA/OGP (2011), ‘Ecosystem Services Guidance: Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services Guide and Checklists’.

Ref. 18.15 Convention on Biological Diversity (2006), ‘Voluntary Guidelines on Biodiversity-Inclusive Impact Assessment’

Ref. 18.16 Bateman et al. (2010), ‘Economic Analysis for Ecosystem Service Assessments’.

Ref. 18.17 Landsberg et al. (2013), ‘Weaving Ecosystem Services into Impact Assessment: A Step-by- Step Method’.

Ref. 18.18 UNEP-WCMC (2012), ‘UK National Ecosystem Services Assessment’.

Ref. 18.19 Christie et al. M. (2005). Valuing the diversity of biodiversity. Ecological Economics, Vol. 58, No. 2, pp. 304-317.

Ref. 18.20 Kramer, R.M. & Mercer, D.E. (1997). Valuing a Global Environmental Good: U.S. Residents' Willingness to Pay to Protect Tropical Rain Forests. Land Economics. Vol. 73, No. 2, pp. 196-210.

Ref. 18.21 Horton, B. (2003). Evaluating non-user willingness to pay for a large-scale conservation programme in Amazonia: a UK/Italian contingent valuation study. Environmental Conservation. Vol. 30, No. 2, pp. 139-146.

Ref. 18.22 Minutes of Meeting (MOM), Regional Forestry Directorate (Varna), 6 March 2014, Varna.

Ref. 18.23 Personal Communication with representatives of the Varna Hunting and Fishing Association and Galata Hunting Club. Meeting held 6th March 2014, Varna.

Ref. 18.24 General Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean, (2012), First Meeting of the GFCM Working Group on the Black Sea, Constanta, Romania, 16-18 January 2012, Background Document on the Black Sea Fisheries.

Ref. 18.25 Alexei Birkun, Jr. The Black Sea Commission “State of the Environment Report 2001- 2006/7”. Chapter 10 the state of cetacean populations, available from http://www.blacksea-commission.org/_publ-SOE2009-CH10.asp [accessed November 2012]

URS-EIA-REP-202375 18-143 Chapter 18 Ecosystem Services

Number Reference

Ref. 18.26 G. Minicheva, O. V. Maximova, N. A. Moruchkova, U. V. Simakova, A. Sburlea, K. Dencheva, Y. Aktan, M. Sezgin. The Black Sea Commission “State of the Environment Report 2001-2006/7”. Chapter 7 the state of macrophytobenthos, available from http://www.blacksea-commission.org/_publ-SOE2009-CH7.asp [accessed November 2012]

Ref. 18.27 Impacts of invasive ctenophores on the fisheries of the Black Sea and Caspian Sea. Oceanography Vol.18, No.2, June 2005 available from http://www.tos.org/oceanography/archive/18-2_kideys.html#view [accessed February 2013]

Ref. 18.28 Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries. (2012). Assessment of Black Sea Stocks. Reference Report by the Joint Research Centre of the European Commission.

Ref. 18.29 GFCM Capture Production database - http://www.fao.org/fishery/statistics/gfcm-capture- production/en (Accessed November 2013).

Ref. 18.30 National Agency for Fisheries and Aquaculture (undated) National Strategic Plan for Fisheries and Aquaculture 2007 – 2013 [online] accessed at http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/cfp/eff/national_plans/list_of_national_strategic_plans/bulgar ia_en.pdf (last accessed 14/11/2013)

Ref. 18.31 Sever Export Ltd [online] www.severexport.com, (last accessed 17/12/13).

Ref. 18.32 National Agency for Fisheries and Aquaculture (NAFA). Statistical Information System (SIS)

Ref. 18.33 Minutes of Meeting (MOM), Ada Bacha fishing community representative, 13 August 2013, Ada Bacha.

Ref. 18.34 ICP (2005) Bulgarian national forest condition report. Report by the International Co- operative Programme on Assessment and Monitoring of Air Pollution Effects on Forests operating under the UNECE Convention on Long-range Transboundary Air Pollution. Online available at: http://www.icp-forests.org/pdf/NatRepBulgaria2005.pdf (last accessed 15/11/13).

Ref. 18.35 Grouev, I. (1984) Forest management in Bulgaria. FAO. Online available at: http://www.fao.org/docrep/q9270e/q9270e06.htm (last accessed 15/11/13).

Ref. 18.36 (no date) Timber market statement. Republic of Bulgaria Council of Ministers State Forestry Agency. Online. Available at: http://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/timber/mis/market/market-66/bulgaria.pdf (last accessed 15/11/13).

Ref. 18.37 Kostov, G., Paligorov, I. Petrov, S., and Zhivko Bogdanov (2005) Illegal logging in Bulgaria. Report commissioned by the World Wildlife Fund European Forest Programme and the Danube Carpathian Programme.

18-144 URS-EIA-REP-202375

Number Reference

Ref. 18.38 Climate Adaptation ‘Fresh water resources in Bulgaria’ [online] http://www.climateadaptation.eu/bulgaria/fresh-water-resources/ (last accessed 17/12/13).

Ref. 18.39 Alexandrov, V. & Genev, V. (2003), ‘Climate Variability and Change Impact on Water Resources in Bulgaria’, European Water, Issue 1/2, pp. 20-25.

Ref. 18.40 Palazov, A. ‘Flood-prone Low-lying Territories along the Bulgarian Black Sea Coast’ [online] http://serc.carleton.edu/vignettes/collection/31871.html (last accessed 17/12/13).

Ref. 18.41 Ratushnyak et al. (2007). The influence of the community of water macrophytes on regulation of water quality and biodiversity of the Kuibyshev reservoir littorals (Republic of Tatarstan, Russia). Egyptian Journal of Biology. Vol. 9, pp. 24-31

Ref. 18.42 Dhote & Dixit. (2009). Water quality improvement through macrophytes—a review. Environ Monit Assess. 152:149–153.

Ref. 18.43 The Commission on the Protection of the Black Sea Against Pollution (2009), ‘Convention on the Protection of the Black Sea Against Pollution’ [online] http://www.blacksea- commission.org/_convention-fulltext.asp (last accessed 17/12/13).

Ref. 18.44 Personal communication with the Secretary of the Varna Chamber of Tourism. Interview conducted 12th June 2013.

Ref. 18.45 Minutes of Meeting (MoM), Galata Community, 6 February, 2013, Galata Cultural Centre.

Ref. 18.46 Minutes of Meeting (MoM), Local Government Authorities, 5 February, 2013, Golden Tulip Hotel, Varna.

Ref. 18.47 Website of the Varna Hunting and Fishing Association - https://sites.google.com/site/lovnovarna/ubout-us

Ref. 18.48 Scuba Schools International, ‘Sea Club Friends of the Sea – Varna’ [online] http://www.seafriends.eu/ (last accessed 17/12/13).

Ref. 18.49 Varna Municipality and Department of Culture (2012), ‘Varna Culture & Art’ [online] http://varnaculture.bg/index_en.php (last accessed 17/12/13).

Ref. 18.50 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2001) Climate Change 2001: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Chapter 13 – Europe. Contribution of Working Group II to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [online] available at http://www.grida.no/publications/other/ipcc_tar/ (last accessed 11 July 2013).

Ref. 18.51 GFCM Secretariat (2012) Background Document on the Black Sea Fisheries. Online. Available at http://151.1.154.86/GfcmWebSite/SAC/WGBS/2012/GFCM-Background-Doc- BlackSea-Fisheries.pdf?bcsi_scan_AB11CAA0E2721250=0&bcsi_scan_filename=GFCM- Background-Doc-BlackSea-Fisheries.pdf (last accessed 17/12/2013).

URS-EIA-REP-202375 18-145 Chapter 18 Ecosystem Services

Number Reference

Ref. 18.52 URS. South Stream Sediment Disposal Modelling. Bulgarian Coastal Dredging and Disposal Modelling. Prepared for South Stream Transport BV, August 2013.

Ref. 18.53 Government of Republic of Bulgaria. Ordinance No. 16 of 9 June 2004 on the Easement Zones of Energy Facilities, issued by the Ministry of Economy, Energy and Tourism; Ministry of Agriculture and Food; and the Ministry of Regional Development and Public Works, promulgated in State Gazette No. 88 of 8 October 2004, last amended State Gazette No. 77 of 2 September 2008.

18-146 URS-EIA-REP-202375