chapter 7 environmental baseline€¦ · on geohazards relating to the proposed additional western...

Chapter 7 Environmental Baseline

80343_ESIA_ADD_chapter_div.indd 7 05/03/2014 11:16

SCP Expansion Project, Georgia

Environmental and Social Impact Assessment Addenda Draft for Disclosure (Amended)

TABLE OF CONTENTS

7 ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE ........................................................................ 7-1 7.1 Introduction ............................................................................................... 7-1 7.2 Geology, Geomorphology and Geohazards .............................................. 7-1

7.2.1 Information from Desktop Literature Survey .................................................... 7-1 7.2.2 Data Gaps and Field Survey Methods ............................................................ 7-2 7.2.3 Baseline Geology ............................................................................................ 7-2 7.2.4 Baseline Geohazards ..................................................................................... 7-6 7.2.5 Key Sensitivities .............................................................................................. 7-6

7.3 Soils and Ground Conditions .................................................................... 7-6 7.3.1 Information from Desktop Literature Survey .................................................... 7-7 7.3.2 Data Gaps and Field Survey Methods ............................................................ 7-7 7.3.3 Baseline Soils ................................................................................................. 7-8 7.3.4 Soil Erosion Potential .................................................................................... 7-12 7.3.5 Soil Sensitivities ............................................................................................ 7-12

7.4 Landscape and Visual Receptors ........................................................... 7-12 7.4.1 Information from Desktop Literature Survey .................................................. 7-13 7.4.2 Data Gaps and Field Survey Methods .......................................................... 7-13 7.4.3 Baseline Landscape Character ..................................................................... 7-17 7.4.4 Landscape Sensitivities ................................................................................ 7-23

7.5 Surface Water ......................................................................................... 7-24 7.5.1 Information from Desktop Literature Survey .................................................. 7-24 7.5.2 Data Gaps and Field Survey Methods .......................................................... 7-24 7.5.3 Baseline Surface Water ................................................................................ 7-24 7.5.4 Surface Water Sensitivities ........................................................................... 7-26

7.6 Groundwater ........................................................................................... 7-26 7.6.1 Information from Desktop Literature Survey .................................................. 7-26 7.6.2 Data Gaps and Field Survey Methodology .................................................... 7-29 7.6.3 Baseline Groundwater .................................................................................. 7-29 7.6.4 Groundwater Sensitivities ............................................................................. 7-30

7.7 Ecology ................................................................................................... 7-30 7.7.1 Information from Desktop Literature Survey .................................................. 7-30 7.7.2 Data Gaps and Field Survey Methods .......................................................... 7-32 7.7.3 Baseline Ecological Conditions ..................................................................... 7-33 7.7.4 Ecological Sensitivities .................................................................................. 7-45

7.8 Climate and Air Quality ........................................................................... 7-45 7.8.1 Climate Information from Desktop Literature Survey ..................................... 7-45 7.8.2 Baseline Air Quality ...................................................................................... 7-48 7.8.3 Sensitivities ................................................................................................... 7-49

7.9 Noise ....................................................................................................... 7-49 7.9.1 Introduction ................................................................................................... 7-49 7.9.2 Information from Desktop Literature Survey .................................................. 7-49 7.9.3 Data Gaps and Field Survey Methods .......................................................... 7-49 7.9.4 Baseline Noise .............................................................................................. 7-51 7.9.5 Noise Sensitivity ........................................................................................... 7-53

7.10 Cultural Heritage ..................................................................................... 7-54 7.10.1 Information from Desktop Literature Survey .............................................. 7-54 7.10.2 Data Gaps and Field Survey Methods ....................................................... 7-54

Environmental Baseline i



7.10.3 Baseline Archaeological Conditions .......................................................... 7-55 7.10.4 Archaeological Sensitivities ....................................................................... 7-57

Tables Table 7-1: Soil Fertility Sample Locations ............................................................... 7-7 Table 7-2: Topsoil Classification and Density based on Particle Size Distribution and

Field Logs ........................................................................................................ 7-9 Table 7-3: Baseline Soil Fertility Chemical Analysis Results ................................... 7-9 Table 7-4: Phase 1 Contamination Survey Features Observed ............................ 7-10 Table 7-5: Erosion Classification along Proposed Additional Sections of Pipeline 7-12 Table 7-6: Results of Groundwater Conditions Encountered at Area 80 Potable

Water Supply Wells ........................................................................................ 7-29 Table 7-7: Key Species Identified in Desktop Literature Survey with Potential to be

Present in the Survey Area ............................................................................ 7-31 Table 7-8: Habitats Recorded along the Proposed Eastern Section of Pipeline .... 7-33 Table 7-9: Important Bird Species Recorded During Survey of Additional Eastern

Section of Pipeline ......................................................................................... 7-39 Table 7-10: Habitats Recorded in Survey Area of Additional Western Section of

Pipeline .......................................................................................................... 7-40 Table 7-11: Site Absolute Maximum and Minimum Temperatures and Monthly

Average Temperatures for CSG1 and PRMS (reproduced from Technical Note - Design Ambient Temperature Review) .......................................................... 7-47

Table 7-12: Proximity of Receptors to Additional Pipeline Sections ...................... 7-48 Table 7-13: Noise Monitoring Locations ................................................................ 7-50 Table 7-14: Noise Monitoring Results at 013 (Khaishi) ......................................... 7-51 Table 7-15: Noise Monitoring Results at 014 (Quarry Site) ................................... 7-51 Table 7-16: Noise Monitoring Results at 015 (Water Tank Adjacent to Railway

Line) ............................................................................................................... 7-52 Table 7-17: Noise Monitoring Results (dB) ............................................................ 7-53 Table 7-18: Proximity of Receptors to Additional Pipeline Sections ...................... 7-53 Table 7-19: Potential Cultural Heritage Sites in Vicinity of Additional Sections of

Pipeline .......................................................................................................... 7-57 Figures Figure 7-1 Exploratory hole locations near to pigging station MX74 ....................... 7-3 Figure 7-2: Location of inactive mines and licensed mineral deposit of brown coal in

the Akhaltsikhe municipality ............................................................................. 7-5 Figure 7-3: Asbestos Cement Fragments Located Near KP57 ............................. 7-11 Figure 7-4: Municipal Waste Near to PRMS KP0 .................................................. 7-11 Figure 7-5: Landscape Monitoring Locations along Proposed Additional Eastern

Section of Pipeline ......................................................................................... 7-15 Figure 7-6: Landscape Monitoring Locations along Proposed Additional Western

Section of Pipeline ......................................................................................... 7-16 Figure 7-7: View Facing North along Proposed Pipeline Route Close to KP57 ..... 7-18 Figure 7-8: Church Located Approximately 800m South of KP59.5 ...................... 7-19 Figure 7-9: View from Church Located Approximately 800m South of KP59.5 ..... 7-19

Environmental Baseline ii



Figure 7-10: Small houses and small farm holding located approximately 300m north

of KP59 .......................................................................................................... 7-20 Figure 7-11: View from West to East Overlooking Proposed Pigging Facility ....... 7-21 Figure 7-12: View from Border Security Hut Southwards Towards PRMS KP0 .... 7-22 Figure 7-13: View from Main Road Northwards over Proposed Route near PRMS

KP1 ................................................................................................................ 7-23 Figure 7-14: Ephemeral Stream at KP61.6 ........................................................... 7-25 Figure 7-15: Small Stream at PRMS KP2.1 .......................................................... 7-25 Figure 7-16: Hydrogeological Cross-section of Marneuli Gardabani Artesian

Basin .............................................................................................................. 7-26 Figure 7-17: Steppe............................................................................................... 7-35 Figure 7-18: Spontaneous Vegetation Dominated by Liquorice ............................ 7-36 Figure 7-19: Hemixerophytic Deciduous Shrubbery .............................................. 7-37 Figure 7-20: Cornfield ............................................................................................ 7-38 Figure 7-21: Blackthorn-Dominated Deciduous Shrubbery ................................... 7-42 Figure 7-22: Riparian Woodland ........................................................................... 7-43 Figure 7-23: Deciduous Woodland with Mixture of Conifers .................................. 7-44 Figure 7-24: Noise Monitoring Locations in Relation to the Proposed Pigging

Station ............................................................................................................ 7-50 Figure 7-25: Orchosani Site BTC/SCP Excavations .............................................. 7-56

Environmental Baseline iii


Environmental and Social Impact Assessment Addendum Draft for Disclosure (Amended)

7 ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE

7.1 Introduction This section of the ESIA Addendum presents a description of the environmental baseline conditions of the proposed additional sections of pipeline, i.e. between SCPX KP56.6-62.3 (the proposed additional eastern section) and PRMS KP0-2.5 (the proposed additional western section). This information is also presented in the Environmental and Social Baseline Report (ESBR) Addendum for the proposed additional sections of pipeline (RSK, 2014), and where appropriate this chapter contains references to data appendices from the ESBR Addendum. The baseline information gathered for the original draft ESIA Addendum was reviewed for the area of the re-route between KP 59-60. The review assessed whether existing desk-based data and survey data provided sufficient information to assess the re-route. It was concluded that further ecology and cultural heritage surveys of the area of the re-route were needed but other data were sufficiently comprehensive. Amendments to the baseline data to account for the re-route have been incorporate into this chapter of the amended ESIA Addendum. This section covers the following topics:

• Geology, geomorphology and geohazards • Soils and ground conditions • Landscape and visual receptors • Surface water resources • Groundwater resources • Ecology • Climate and air quality • Noise • Archaeology and cultural heritage.

This chapter also contains a summary, for each of the above topics, of the key environmental sensitivities for the proposed additional sections of pipeline. Constraint maps within Appendix A highlight the location of key environmental sensitivities.

7.2 Geology, Geomorphology and Geohazards This section describes the geology underlying:

• The proposed additional eastern section of pipeline , which is located in the Volcanic

plateau region • The proposed additional western section of pipeline, which is located in the

‘Akhaltsikhe Basin’. The section considers the geomorphology in these areas and the geological sensitivity and geohazards that the project must take into account.

7.2.1 Information from Desktop Literature Survey The main source of information on geology and geomorphology in this report is from the baseline literature survey carried out for the SCP ESIA (2002).

Georgia Environmental and Social Baseline 7-1



In addition, information on locations of mineral and subsoil deposits has been based on correspondence from the Agency of Natural Resources (SCP/INC/0052, 2012). Information on geohazards relating to the proposed additional western section of pipeline has been taken from the SCPX TANAP Connection Pipeline Geohazards Assessment report, prepared by CBI in 2013 (ref: CB-MX00ZZ-CV-REP-0008-000).

7.2.2 Data Gaps and Field Survey Methods Both proposed additional sections of the SCPX route closely follow the ROW for the SCP pipeline, and are characterised by the same geological formations and geomorphologic features. Supplementary ground investigations were carried out by RSK in 2013 (not yet published). These included the drilling of five boreholes along the proposed additional eastern section of pipeline, four trial pits and three boreholes in the location of the proposed pigging facility, and six boreholes and three trial pits along the route of the proposed additional western pipeline.

7.2.3 Baseline Geology An overview of the geological conditions in Georgia, which is applicable to the additional sections of pipeline, is provided in Section 7.2.3 of the Final ESIA.

7.2.3.1 Geology and geomorphology at proposed additional eastern section of pipeline A volcanic plateau starts to the west of the River Algeti and continues for the rest of the additional proposed eastern section of pipeline, beyond KP62.3. This comprises steep peaks, a volcanic plain and historic lava flows. The plateau is composed of Upper Creataceous and Tertiary igneous rocks including lavas and shallow intrusive rocks such as andesite, basalt and dolerite. The proposed additional eastern section of pipeline (KP56.6-62.3) lies between the Algeti River and the Bedeni Ridge and is comprised of lava flows. The geology of the section is recorded in the SCP ESIA (2002) as Upper Miocene-Pliocene Volcanic-Continental facies.

The borehole and trial pit logs from intrusive investigations (RSK, 2013) show that the underlying geology changes after SCPX KP62. Two boreholes drilled just before SCPX KP62 (GE BH 036 and GE BH 037) recorded clay and silt overlaying basalt to a depth of 6.0m and 5.5m respectively. Trial pit MX74-TP002, which is located just after SCPX KP62 also reveals clay (with a horizon of boulders at around 2m) terminating at a depth of 3.5m.The three boreholes drilled at the location of the pigging station (approximately 0.3km further west) record strong basalt underneath the topsoil, at depths of between 0.8m and 1.6m. The locations of the exploratory holes which were excavated during the RSK, 2013 site investigation are shown on Figure 7-1. The additional eastern section of pipeline lies partially (KP59.5 – 62.3) within a 187,824ha area designated as a state fund geological deposit for metals (Agency of Natural Resources, 2014). Owing to the large area of this deposit and the relatively small area impacted by the pipeline route, it is concluded that its presence does not represent a key baseline sensitivity.




Figure 7-1 Exploratory hole locations near to pigging station MX74




7.2.3.2 Geology and geomorphology at proposed additional western section of pipeline The ‘Akhaltsikhe Basin’ in which the proposed additional western section of pipeline is located is a synclinal basin, which is a geological downward fold formed in a circular pattern. The hills in the northern part of the basin are composed of Tertiary sedimentary rocks dissected by river valleys, with associated Palaeogene flysch deposits including clays, gypsiferous clays, sandstones, marls and limestones. Towards the Turkish border there are volcanic hills and pyroclastic deposits of tuff, breccia, tuff breccia, tuff sandstones and conglomerates interbedded with lava flows. A geological log from the PRMS water well, comprises interbedded volcano-sedimentary deposits recorded to a depth of 231m below ground level. No evidence of mineral deposits were recorded in the geological log. The geohazards assessment (CBI, 2013), identified the following occurrences:

• Rock is present near the ground surface on the ridges and steeper slopes, but not always within trenching depth. Boulders will be a likely occurrence at these locations. Deep colluvial or residual soils can be expected elsewhere

• Some of the types of rock present on the slopes and ridges in the area may require rock breaking (moderately strong to very strong rock, with medium to large discontinuity spacing and sometimes interlocked blocks).

Out of the six boreholes which were drilled during the ground investigation (RSK, 2013), five revealed hard to stiff clay or silt to at least 5m depth. The remaining borehole (GE BH T06) revealed gravel and sandstone conglomerates from 1.1m to 2.52m, underlain by a strong sandstone conglomerate. The three trial pits all revealed clay. The proposed additional western section of pipeline (PRMS KP0-2.5) is situated within a state fund deposit of brown coal in Akhaltsikhe municipality (Agency of Natural Resources, 2012) shown in Figure 7-2.

There are number of old inactive mines that exist within the general area; the nearest are mines No. 3 and 4, which are located approximately 1.5km from the start of the additional section of pipeline (Figure 7-2). Owing to the large distance from the proposed pipeline route, and their inactive status, it is concluded that the presence of mines does not represent a key baseline sensitivity.




Figure 7-2: Location of inactive mines and licensed mineral deposit of brown coal in the Akhaltsikhe municipality




7.2.4 Baseline Geohazards The design and construction of the Project takes account of geohazards including soil erosion, landslides and seismic events. Geohazards relevant to the proposed additional sections of pipeline have been outlined below.

7.2.4.1 Geohazards on proposed additional eastern section of pipeline No geohazards were identified along the route of the proposed additional eastern section of pipeline. As discussed above, ground investigations (RSK, 2013) revealed the presence of hard rock (basalt) at shallow depths somewhere between KP62 and at the termination of the additional section at KP62.3.

7.2.4.2 Geohazards on proposed additional western section of pipeline A desktop assessment of geohazards (CBI, 2013) identified the following minor geohazards which could be present along the route of the proposed additional western section of pipeline:

• Where exposed, the soils are erodible, easily developing gullies on slopes. However, there are no signs of abnormal erosion on this section other than at two existing gullies where there is some localised soil erosion and gully-head retreat (these are avoided by the pipeline ROW).

• As discussed in Section 7.2.3.2, the presence of rock has been identified near the ground surface on the ridges and steeper slopes, which may require rock breaking. Boulders will be a likely occurrence at these locations.

• The undulating topography and its impermeable superficial materials may make it susceptible to temporary water accumulation in places, due to snow melt and during intense rainstorms. The elevation (about 1,200m above sea level) and relief of the site makes it highly likely that snow will accumulate and be present there for a number of months a year.

The liquefaction susceptibility of the area has been assessed as ‘Low’ under the seismic conditions for this part of the country.

7.2.5 Key Sensitivities The key sensitivity of the proposed additional eastern section of pipeline is the presence of hard rock (basalt) at shallow depth near to the pigging station at KP62.3. This is likely to require blasting. The key sensitivities on the proposed additional western section of pipeline are considered to be:

• Large rock masses or boulders may be present at certain points, which may require breaking when preparing the trench

• Localised erosion and gully-head retreat outside of the ROW.

7.3 Soils and Ground Conditions This section describes the types of soil that may be crossed by the proposed additional sections of pipeline, to allow for the Project’s impacts to be assessed. Aspects to be considered comprise:

• Soil structure and fertility • Soil contamination.

Environmental Baseline 7-6



This section is based largely on the results of fieldwork undertaken to inform the ESIA Addendum in September 2013 and information from the SCPX Final ESIA.

7.3.1 Information from Desktop Literature Survey Prior to undertaking the fieldwork, the field survey reports, soil mapping and literature review compiled for the SCP project ESIA was reviewed. The main sources of literature are outlined in Section 7.3.1 of the SCPX Final ESIA.

7.3.2 Data Gaps and Field Survey Methods In the SCPX Final ESIA, the existing information on soil structure and fertility of the SCP ROW was considered insufficient to assess the impact of the Project. Likewise for this assessment of the proposed additional sections of pipeline, a survey team was mobilised and the following were undertaken:

• A topsoil survey to assess soil fertility • A phase 1 (non-intrusive) survey to identify soil contamination along the proposed

additional eastern and western sections of pipeline.

7.3.2.1 Topsoil survey The team took soil samples to determine the soil types present at SCPX KP57 and KP62, on the proposed additional eastern section of pipeline, and at PRMS KP1 on the additional western section. Table 7-1 gives the coordinates of the sample locations.

Table 7-1: Soil Fertility Sample Locations X Coordinate Y Coordinate 8479870 4597303 8474919 4598017 8318927 4609104

The survey methodology is the same as that described in the SCPX Final ESIA, Section 7.2.3.1. At each site, the soil scientist made global positioning system (GPS) readings, took photographs and recorded observations on a form including the following parameters:

• Land use • Surface characteristics • Soil colour • Topsoil depth • Hole depth.

The soil samples were returned to a laboratory and tested for:

• Nitrogen, phosphorous and potassium (water soluble) • Particle size distribution • Salinity (water soluble), as NaCl • Total organic carbon.

The soil scientist classified the soil at each sample location from field observations and the fertility of the samples using the World Reference Base for Soils Resources (WRB). Soil classification at the proposed additional western section of pipeline was not undertaken in the field. The FAO digital soil map of the world (2007) was used to determine soil classification for this section of pipeline. Data within the soil map concurred with the findings of the soil surveys for both the additional eastern section (KP56.6-62.3) and the section




described in the SCPX Final ESIA (KP1-56.6). This suggests that a reasonably high level of confidence can be placed in the accuracy of the soil map.

7.3.2.2 Phase 1 contamination survey The team carried out a phase 1 contamination survey of the additional eastern and western sections of pipeline. The scope of work was to make a visual observation of the area, looking for evidence of any surface contamination (e.g. hydrocarbon-impacted soils), fly-tipped waste (including asbestos) and storage of hazardous chemicals. The survey methodology is the same as that described in the SCPX Final ESIA, Section 7.2.3.2.

7.3.3 Baseline Soils

7.3.3.1 Soil types The field survey along the proposed additional eastern section of pipeline identified Kastanozems as the only soil type present. However, the SCPX Final ESIA identified meadow grey cinnamonic and grey cinnamonic as the only soil types to be present between KP1 and KP54. The sudden change in soil type is supported by the FAO digital soils map of the world (2007), which shows a change in soil type from chromic cambisols (meadow grey cinnamonic and grey cinnamonic soils are classified by the WRB soil taxonomy system as chromic cambisols) to Kastanozems, in the area close to where the proposed additional eastern section of pipeline begins (KP57). Changes in soil type are often attributed to differences in parent material or topography. At KP55 the proposed additional pipeline crosses the Algeti river, which may be one of the factors influencing the change in soil. A review of the FAO digital soils map of the world (2007) identified the soil type underlying the proposed additional western section of pipeline to be Leptosols. Kastanozems Kastanozems are humus-rich soils that were originally covered with early-maturing native grassland vegetation, which produces a characteristic brown surface layer (FAO, 1998). They are found in relatively dry climatic zones (200–400 mm of rainfall per year), usually bordering arid regions. Kastanozems are principally used for irrigated agriculture and grazing. They occupy about 3.7% of the continental land area on Earth (FAO, 1998). Kastanozems have relatively high levels of available calcium ions bound to soil particles. These and other nutrient ions move downward with percolating water to form layers of accumulated calcium carbonate or gypsum (FAO, 1998). Organic matter is typically 2–4% and seldom exceeds 5%. Lime accumulates at a depth of approximately 1 metre; gypsum accumulation occurs in drier regions, commonly at a depth of 150–200cm. Leptosols Leptosols accommodate very shallow soils over hard rock or highly calcareous material but also deeper soils that are extremely gravelly and/or stony (FAO, 1998). They are particularly common in mountain regions, which correspond with the western section of proposed additional pipeline. Leptosols are largely conditioned by the characteristics of the parent material and the climate. Calcareous Leptosols have generally better physical and chemical properties than non-calcareous ones and are also less diverse. Leptosols are normally free from noxious levels of soluble salts. However, their shallowness and/or stoniness, and implicit low water holding capacity, are serious limitations (FAO, 1998). Erosion is the greatest threat to Leptosol areas, particularly in mountain regions in the temperate zone where high population pressure, overexploitation and increasing




environmental pollution lead to increasing deterioration of forests and threaten large areas of vulnerable Leptosols (FAO, 1998). Leptosols on hill slopes are generally more fertile than their counterparts on more level land. One or a few ‘good' crops could perhaps be grown on such slopes but at the price of severe erosion (FAO, 1998).

7.3.3.2 Soils on proposed additional sections of pipeline Soil classification Table 7-2 summarises the results of the soil classification tests for the three soil samples taken along the additional sections of pipeline. The bulk density sample taken at PRMS KP1 was spoiled during transit and therefore not representative of in situ conditions. Instead the bulk density was inferred from the results of the particle size distribution analysis using British Standard BS 8002:1994.

Table 7-2: Topsoil Classification and Density based on Particle Size Distribution and Field Logs

Location (Sample ID)

Soil Constituents (%) Classification Bulk Density (g/cm3)*

Topsoil depth (cm)

KP57 Clay 55.89% Silt 29.8 % Fine silt 2.61 10

KP62 Clay 53.88% Silt 38.4 % Very fine silt 2.29 20

PRMS KP1 Gravel 3% Sand 15% Silt 44% Clay 38%

Brown slightly gravelly slightly sandy CLAY 1.5* 30

*Inferred bulk density based on British Standard (BS 8002:1994) Bulk density values measured in the eastern section of the proposed additional pipeline route are both relatively high, and the soil can therefore be considered compact. Compacted soil can result in shallow plant rooting, poor plant growth and reduced vegetative cover. In addition, compaction can also lead to reduced water infiltration in the soil, which can cause increased run-off and erosion. Soil fertility Table 7-3 summarises the results of the analysis of baseline fertility parameters (water-soluble nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium) for the three soil samples taken.

Table 7-3: Baseline Soil Fertility Chemical Analysis Results Location (Sample ID)

Nitrogen (water soluble) (mg/kg) (LOD: 0.2mg/kg)

Phosphorus (water soluble) (mg/kg) (LOD: 10mg/kg)

Potassium (water soluble) (mg/kg) (LOD: 10mg/kg)

Salinity (water soluble) (mg/kg) (LOD: 16mg/kg)

KP57 29 12.6 458 1300 KP62 48 19 950 2800 PRMS KP1 0.8



Salinity measurements at all three sample locations were relatively low. Low salinity may be an indication the soil is sterile and there is limited nutrient availability for plants, which is supported by low levels of nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium, as described above. Phase 1 soil contamination The survey team did not observe evidence of soil contamination by oil or chemicals at ground level and did not identify any specific potential sources of such contamination. However, they did observe some fly-tipping of waste as well as potential ex-military related infrastructures at the border. Table 7-4 summarises locations where particular observations were recorded.

Table 7-4: Phase 1 Contamination Survey Features Observed

Approximate Location GPS coordinate Feature

Proposed Additional Eastern Section of Pipeline

KP57 X: 8479868 Y: 4597337 Asbestos cement fragments

Proposed Additional Western Section of Pipeline

PRMS KP1 X: 8318804 Y: 4608970 Municipal waste dumped

PRMS KP1 X: 8318753 Y: 4608822

Abandoned potential military bunker. No contamination was observed at this location, although the interior of the bunker was not accessed.

PRMS KP1.5 X: 8318733 Y: 4608640 Asbestos cement fragments

Figure 7-3 shows the asbestos fragments near KP57 and Figure 7-4 shows the municipal waste near PRMS KP1.




Figure 7-3: Asbestos Cement Fragments Located Near KP57

Figure 7-4: Municipal Waste Near to PRMS KP0




7.3.4 Soil Erosion Potential

Erosion is a natural process that wears away the land surface. Rates of natural erosion are often relatively low because the rate of removal is often balanced by the rate at which new soil is formed. Where the land surface is disturbed, topsoil and/or subsoil is removed and particularly when vegetation is removed, erosion rates increase. The soils erosion potential assessment followed the same methodology as described in the SCPX Final ESIA Section 7.3.4. As a result of the assessment procedure, the additional sections of pipeline can be classified into erosion classes. Definitions of the classifications used are detailed in Table 7-6 of the SCPX Final ESIA.

7.3.4.1 Soil erosion potential on the proposed additional sections of pipeline Table 7-5 presents the erosion class and estimated erosion rate for the proposed additional sections of pipeline. This is the result of a desktop review and field-survey verification exercise.

Table 7-5: Erosion Classification along Proposed Additional Sections of Pipeline

Location (SCP KP) Erosion Class Estimated Erosion Rate (t/ha)

54.5-72.5 3 3 7.2 241.5-246.5 3 23.6

NB: Total SCP KPs were used for the erosion assessment; hence the route length totals 246.5k

7.3.5 Soil Sensitivities

7.3.5.1 Soil • The texture of the soils along the proposed additional sections of pipeline is very

small, primarily fine silts and clays, which are considered more prone to erosion. The proposed additional western section of pipeline has a higher sensitivity to erosion.

• The small particle size of the soils of both sections means they are more prone to compaction, have poor traffic-ability when wet and are prone to dust generation during dry conditions.

7.3.5.2 Contamination • There is a small volume of municipal waste at PRMS KP1 and fragments of

asbestos-cement sheet at KP57 and PRMS KP1.5.

7.4 Landscape and Visual Receptors This section presents a description of the baseline landscape conditions and visual receptors along the proposed additional sections of SCPX pipeline. It is based primarily on data collected from field surveys along the additional sections of pipeline in November 2013. The section begins by reviewing the data sources and field survey methodology used to gain an understanding of the baseline landscape conditions. Subsequent to this the section provides a general description of the landscape along the proposed additional sections of pipeline in terms of its character, quality and sensitivity to change. It also identifies the main groups of visual receptors and their sensitivity to change




7.4.1 Information from Desktop Literature Survey

The main information sources for this chapter were:

• Section 7.4 of the Environmental Baseline chapter of the SCPX Final ESIA • Field survey of the proposed additional sections of pipeline and the new location of

the pigging station, conducted in November 2013 • Photographs and maps of the landscape and environs of the proposed additional

sections of pipeline and the pigging station • 2011 landscape monitoring pro formas for the BTC and SCP pipelines.

7.4.2 Data Gaps and Field Survey Methods A review of the 2011 landscape monitoring pro formas provided an understanding of the habitat types within the landscape along proposed additional sections of pipeline. This was used to help develop the field survey sheets and identify the potential impacts on specific landscape elements such as grasslands, field boundaries, and trees. The field survey was undertaken to identify and confirm landscape and visual receptors in close proximity to, and along, the existing and proposed pipeline route corridor, and to identify and record any potential changes, such as changes in land use, land cover or settlement pattern, during this time. In addition, the survey assessed the extent of visibility of the proposed additional sections of pipeline and the pigging station at KP62.3. During the field survey, sensitive receptors potentially affected by the proposed development, such as views from nearby settlements and roads, were identified, and representative photographs were taken from vantage points to illustrate the baseline character and visual context. Viewpoints to illustrate the baseline landscape character and views towards the pipeline route corridor, and the pigging station were photographed and the positions recorded using the following equipment:

• Garmin GPS60 GPS unit • Nikon Coolpix AW110 with a NIKKOR lens and a 5–25mm focal length • Camera tripod with panoramic head and levelling plates.

7.4.2.1 Overview of the landscape survey of the proposed additional sections of pipeline The baseline landscape and visual assessment survey for the proposed additional sections of pipeline has been undertaken with regard to the following best practice (UK) guidelines and international standards:

• Environmental and Social Policy and Performance Requirements, European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (PR1, PR6 and PR8 as appropriate)

• Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (Third Edition), Landscape Institute and the Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment, 2013.

These standards and guidelines have been applied in the context of the existing BTC/SCP landscape monitoring procedure for the BTC/SCP pipelines. The BTC/SCP landscape monitoring procedure was set up to provide a visible demonstration of the restoration of the landscape following construction of these pipelines. For the survey of the proposed additional sections of pipeline, photographs were taken along the pipeline route based on the BTC/SCP methodology. This has the advantage of facilitating closer monitoring of landscape restoration than would be possible if the photograph was taken from a receptor, as these are often distant from the proposed pipeline route. In addition, views from any receptors were described during the survey, including residents of nearby settlements and road users. Representative photographs were taken from vantage points to illustrate the baseline character and visual context.




7.4.2.2 Survey locations

Survey locations included the proposed additional section of pipeline, at KP56.6-KP62.3, including the location of the proposed pigging station at KP62.3 as well as the PRMS and the proposed additional western section of pipeline leading up to the Turkish border (PRMS KP0-2.5). The survey locations were recorded using a GPS with sub-3m accuracy to facilitate post-construction monitoring. In additional to the above, the locations of any new vantage points from potential visual receptors identified in the field were recorded using the GPS unit.

7.4.2.3 Survey methods At least four high-definition photographs were taken at each of the survey locations along the proposed additional sections of pipeline, facing north, east, south and west, using a standard camera lens, see Figure 7-5 and Figure 7-6. Appendix B of the ESBR Addendum shows the photographs taken at each of the monitoring locations. At each location, a pro forma was completed, including information on land use and crop type, existing development (e.g. pylons, pipelines, industry), landscape character, receptors that can view the proposed pipeline route and the likely view of the proposed additional sections of pipeline from these receptors. Copies of the completed pro-formas for each location are in Appendix B of the ESBR Addendum.




Figure 7-5: Landscape Monitoring Locations along Proposed Additional Eastern Section of Pipeline




Figure 7-6: Landscape Monitoring Locations along Proposed Additional Western Section of Pipeline




7.4.2.4 Assessment of likely importance and sensitivity of baseline landscape character and visual receptors The assessment of the likely importance and sensitivity of the landscape and visual receptors is based on the Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (Third Edition), published by the Landscape Institute and the Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment (2013). This is described in detail in Chapter 3 Approach and Methodology. Landscape assessment is based on an evaluation of the existing (baseline) landscape character, condition and quality. When completing the description of the baseline conditions for the proposed additional sections of pipeline the following elements have been identified and considered:

• Land form and land use • The presence of specific landscape elements, whether natural or man-made • The presence of items that detract from the landscape, such as modern intrusive

built developments • The overall scale of the landscape • The overall coherence and integrity of the landscape and/or the extent of

fragmentation • The sensitivity of the landscape to change, which is a function of landscape quality

and value. The visual assessment has involved an evaluation of the baseline visual context, the identification of visual receptors, and an assessment of their sensitivity to change. Sensitivity is a function of the location and existing visual context of the receptor or viewpoint, the expectations and occupation or activity of the receptor, and the importance of the view. On the basis of the above assessments the likely importance of the landscapes crossed and their potential sensitivity to change, and the likely importance and sensitivity of the visual receptors affected, has been classified into categories ranging from very low to very high. By their nature these judgements are subjective, to varying degrees, based on the evidence available and the spatial scale at which they are applied. The assessments made are therefore qualified, where appropriate.

7.4.3 Baseline Landscape Character

7.4.3.1 Landscape Character on the additional eastern section of pipeline The proposed additional eastern section of pipeline is located within the volcanic plateau geomorphological region. The volcanic plateau comprises steep peaks, a volcanic plain and historic lava flows. The plateau is composed of upper creataceous and tertiary igneous rocks including lavas and shallow intrusive rocks such as andesite, basalt and dolerite. From KP56.6 to the location of the proposed pigging station at KP62.3 the landscape is mostly homogenous in terms of land use and cover. The landscape of dry plains bluestem-wormwood steppe is strongly modified and degraded in part by agricultural land uses and cover predominated by pasture, with some areas intensively grazed, and occasional arable uses (refer to LM1 – LM8, Appendix B of the ESBR Addendum) (see Figure 7-7). The grazing land is mostly of poor or very poor quality with little or no vegetation cover. The relief along the proposed pipeline route varies from flat to gently undulating terrain. In the wider area, adjacent to the proposed pipeline route, the relief also comprises more steeply sloping terrain with raised hills and dry valleys.




A railway line runs parallel to the north of the proposed pipeline, varying between approximately 150m to 500m from the route. A road runs parallel to the south of this section from KP57 to approximately KP62, at which point it crosses to the north.

Figure 7-7: View Facing North along Proposed Pipeline Route Close to KP57 Visual receptors identified along the proposed route comprise an aggregate processing facility 650m to the north-east of KP59, several small houses and a small farm holding approximately 300m to the north of KP59 and the settlement of Khaishi to the south of KP59-61.5. The undulating nature of some of the landscape means that several of the receptors are elevated above the proposed route and as such have a clear view of the proposed route. The receptors considered most sensitive, owing to proximity and raised elevation in relation to the proposed pipeline route, comprise:

• a church (N8476910, E4597026) located within Khaishi, approximately 800m south of KP59.5 (see Figure 7-8 and Figure 7-9)

• several small houses and a small holding (N84777144, E4598085) approximately 300m north of KP59 (see Figure 7-10).

The residents of the houses at the above-mentioned locations will have a clear view of pipeline construction works and the route is relatively close to them. Churchgoers will have a clear view of the pipeline, but at a considerable distance.




Figure 7-8: Church Located Approximately 800m South of KP59.5

Figure 7-9: View from Church Located Approximately 800m South of KP59.5




Figure 7-10: Small houses and small farm holding located approximately 300m north of KP59

7.4.3.2 Landscape Character at Pigging Station KP62.3 The landscape around the proposed pigging station at KP62.3 is mostly characterised by poor quality grazing land, with an open landscape and no field boundaries (refer to survey point 9 of Appendix B of the ESBR Addendum) (see Figure 7-11). There is a railway line running parallel to the site, approximately 150m north.




Figure 7-11: View from West to East Overlooking Proposed Pigging Facility The receptors considered most sensitive to the proposed pigging station location are a row of houses on the western boundary of the settlement of Khaishi. The houses are approximately 500m east of the proposed location.

7.4.3.3 Landscape Character on the additional western section of pipeline The proposed additional western section of pipeline is located within the Akhaltsikhe basin. The Akhaltsikhe basin is composed of undulating hills and valleys and forms the geomorphological zone between the Trialeti range and the Turkish border. The hills are composed of tertiary sedimentary rocks dissected by river valleys and their associated deposits. The beginning of the proposed additional western section of pipeline is located in a remote location on a plateau in the northern part of the Erusheti hill. The land cover of this section of route comprises rough grassland (steppe and xeric grassland), with occasional areas of scrub vegetation and rocky outcrops (refer to LM9 and LM10, Appendix B of the ESBR Addendum). The relatively high elevation of the route, which peaks at approximately 1200m, means distant views may be gained across the deep valley of the Potskhovi river to the settlements of Julda (south-east) and Vale (north-west) on the eastern valley slopes. At PRMS KP1–2 the proposed additional route runs parallel to the main road that leads up to the border crossing with Turkey. Adjacent to the road there are several buildings associated with the border crossing, including a border security hut, a border control building, and industrial unit and also several other smaller buildings, including residential dwellings. All of these buildings are east of the route and due to their increased elevation have a clear view of the proposed pipeline. The building from which the route is likely to be most visible appeared to be the border control security hut (see Figure 7-12), which is approximately 500m east of PRMS KP1.




Figure 7-12: View from Border Security Hut Southwards Towards PRMS KP0 Visual receptors also include passing traffic on the main road adjacent to the proposed additional section of pipeline. The road leads to the border crossing between Georgia and Turkey, and as such is often relatively busy. The road traverses the pipeline at approximately PRMS KP1, at which point the pipeline is readily visible on either side (see Figure 7-13). Within the wider landscape, the relief comprises mountains with dome-shaped massifs and steep-sided valleys and occasional flat plateaus. Within the villages and valley bottoms, land use is dominated by cultural uses of gardens, orchards and hay fields, with large areas of deciduous and coniferous forest. The middle valley slopes feature coniferous forests, and the upper slopes have land cover of subalpine and alpine meadow with scrub vegetation.




Figure 7-13: View from Main Road Northwards over Proposed Route near PRMS KP1

7.4.4 Landscape Sensitivities The sensitivity of a landscape and its constituent features is not absolute; it will vary according to its key characteristics and the values placed on them. The sensitivity of visual receptors varies. The most sensitive visual receptors are those with a particular interest in their surroundings or where prolonged viewing opportunities may be gained, e.g. residential locations, special visitor or recreational sites, nationally or locally recognised footpaths, or promoted scenic drives or tourist routes. The following subsections summarise the components of the baseline conditions that, in the Project context, are considered the most important based on the anticipated impacts of the proposed additional sections of pipeline.

7.4.4.1 Landscape sensitivities on the additional eastern section of pipeline This proposed additional section of pipeline has generally low landscape sensitivity. The most sensitive visual receptors comprise houses and farm holdings approximately 300m north of the proposed route KP59 and the settlement of Khaishi to the south of KP59–61.5, which includes a church located on a hill approximately 800m south of KP59.5. Overall this area is considered to have a low landscape sensitivity and a medium sensitivity for visual receptors.

7.4.4.2 Landscape sensitivities at pigging station KP62.3 The landscape at KP62.3 is of strongly degraded, intensively grazed land that has low landscape sensitivity. Houses on the western boundary of Khaishi, located approximately 500m south-east of the proposed location, are considered the most sensitive visual receptors because they will have a permanent view of the station. Overall this location is considered to have a low landscape sensitivity and a medium sensitivity for visual receptors.




7.4.4.3 Landscape sensitivities on the additional western section of pipeline

The landscape along this section of pipeline is generally comprised of relatively degraded grassland although, due to its elevation, pipeline works will be visible from several receptors along the route. However, there are a limited number of mainly non-residential visual receptors in this area and their sensitivity to change is likely to have been reduced by the presence of the road to the border, existing border and other military and industrial buildings. Overall this location is considered to have a low landscape sensitivity and a low sensitivity for visual receptors.

7.5 Surface Water The following section provides a baseline assessment of the hydrological and surface water quality conditions along the proposed additional sections of pipeline.

7.5.1 Information from Desktop Literature Survey The main source of information on surface water features in this report is the baseline literature survey carried out for the SCP ESIA (2002). The additional SCPX pipeline loops follow the ROW for the SCP pipeline, hence these sections can be characterised by the same features as the SCP pipeline. Based on the review of the ESIA there are no major water crossings on either additional section of pipeline. The Potskhovi River, which is crossed twice by the existing SCP pipeline at KP 238 and KP 242, is the nearest major river to the proposed additional western section of pipeline. This river is likely to be used as the source of hydrotest water for this section of pipeline. The River Potskhovi starts on the eastern slopes of Arsiani ridge in Turkey, at an altitude of 2,720m AMSL. It flows into the River Mtkvari from the left bank at the village of Kotlakhevi. The river is approximately 64km long, the water catchment basin occupies 1,840km2. The river length in Georgia is approximately 35km while the catchment basin is 1,331km2. The river is recharged by snow melt, rain and groundwater. It is characterised by spring floods and flashfloods owing to heavy summer-autumn precipitation rains and low-flow conditions in winter. Spring discharge is 55% of the annual volume, summer discharge 25%, 13% in autumn and 7% in winter (SCP ESIA, 2002). Hydrotest water for the additional eastern section of pipeline will be sourced from the Mtkvari River and Algeti River, both of which are described in Section 7.5.3 of the SCPX Final ESIA, as water sources to hydrotest the pipeline from KP0-56.6.

7.5.2 Data Gaps and Field Survey Methods No additional specific baseline field surveys were considered necessary. However, during execution of other environmental and engineering surveys, any minor surface water features identified were recorded.

7.5.3 Baseline Surface Water

7.5.3.1 Proposed additional eastern section of pipeline This section of pipeline crosses only one minor feature: a small, ephemeral stream that was almost dry at the time of visit (July 2013) adjacent to the road crossing at KP61.6 (Figure 7-14). This was observed to be dry during a subsequent visit in August 2013.




Figure 7-14: Ephemeral Stream at KP61.6

7.5.3.2 Proposed additional western section of pipeline This section of pipeline crosses only one minor feature, a small stream, at PRMS KP2.1 (Figure 7-15).

Figure 7-15: Small Stream at PRMS KP2.1




7.5.4 Surface Water Sensitivities

The above minor watercourses are considered to be of low importance and sensitivity due to their small size and low flow rates.

7.6 Groundwater This section describes the hydrogeological conditions along the proposed additional sections of pipeline.

7.6.1 Information from Desktop Literature Survey Information on the hydrogeology of the area was taken from Sections 8.5 and 8.7 ‘Geomorphology, Geology and Geohazards’ and ‘Contamination’ of both the BTC and SCP Project ESIAs. Additional detailed information on groundwater quality was derived from water monitoring undertaken in connection with the SCP/BTC pipelines and is described in Section 7.6.1 of the SCPX Final ESIA.

7.6.1.1 Groundwater along the proposed additional eastern section of pipeline The proposed additional eastern section of pipeline lies on the Marneuli-Gardabani accumulative depression. This morphological unit stretches from SCP KP0 to SCP KP70 and comprises a synclinal basin underlying a thick Quaternary series of sediments. The geological structure of the Marneuli-Gardabani artesian basin and adjacent areas includes Cretaceous, Palaeogene, Neogene and Quaternary sedimentary formations, which are mainly represented by terrigenous and partially carbonatic facies. A geological cross section is included in Figure 7-16.

Figure 7-16: Hydrogeological Cross-section of Marneuli Gardabani Artesian Basin




The following major water-bearing horizons and complexes as well as water-impermeable layers have been identified:

• Water-bearing horizon of riverbed and floodplain recent alluvial sediments (alQ4) • Water-bearing horizon of early Quaternary alluvial sediments (alQ 3-1) • Water-bearing horizon of the Upper Miocene-Pliocene volcanogenic-continental

facies (N21- N13) • Water-impermeable Miocene-Oligocene sediments (N1-P3) • Water-bearing complex of Eocene-Palaeocene volcanogenic-sedimentary strata (P2-

P1) • Water-bearing horizon of Senton carbonate strata (K2Sn).

Water-bearing horizon of riverbed and floodplain recent alluvial sediments (alQ4) and water-bearing horizon of early Quaternary alluvial sediments (alQ 3-1) The literature review identified that the first two horizons in the region contain two important aquifers. These lie in the riverbed and floodplain recent alluvial sediments and the early Quaternary alluvial sediments. These two horizons do not underlie the proposed additional eastern section of pipeline because the Upper Miocene-Pliocene volcanogenic-continental facies, that underlies the more recent alluvial sediments, outcrops between SCPX KP56 and KP57 at the western extent of the alluvial sediment associated with the Algeti River and continues to be the uppermost geological horizon to SCP KP70. The lack of shallow, water-bearing horizons makes the groundwater less vulnerable to potential surface contamination than if the aquifers were located in the upper geological strata. Upper Miocene-Pliocene volcanogenic-continental facies (N21- N13) These igneous deposits comprise friable conglomerates, sands and pebbles with a silty matrix and boreholes reaching 500m depth have identified seven artesian water-bearing horizons, separated by impermeable cohesive strata. It is of various chemical compositions and the horizon is mainly recharged by infiltration of river water, which takes place in the lower parts of the alluvial fans. The overall groundwater flow direction within these deposits is from north-west to south-east and the natural discharge of the horizon occurs mostly through seepage into surface watercourses. The groundwater within the underlying Upper Miocene-Pliocene volcanogenic-continental facies presents a limited resource and is encountered at a significant depth. This combined with the presence of intermittent impermeable horizons providing protection to the water-bearing horizons present, make this aquifer less vulnerable to potential surface contamination. This resource is utilised for localised water supply. Deeper aquifers As with the SCP and BTC ESIA studies, the water-bearing complex of Eocene-Palaeocene volcanogenic-sedimentary strata and the Senton carbonate strata are also not considered to be significant in the context of this study owing to the hydraulic isolation from the upper formations and the pipeline.

7.6.1.2 Groundwater along the proposed additional western section of pipeline The hydrogeology of the proposed additional western section of pipeline falls within the Akhaltsikhe artesian basin. The identification of the same lithology from SCP KP245 to the Turkish border in the geological mapping that was included in the SCP ESIA indicates that the baseline conditions described in the SCPX Final ESIA for the PRMS location (Area 81) will be the same for those underlying the proposed additional western section of pipeline. The hydrogeology of the proposed additional western section is characterised by two main aquifer units:




• Recent alluvial sediments of riverbed and floodplain (alQ4) • Water-bearing complex of Upper Miocene-Lower Pliocene (Kisatibi series) lava

layers (N21 and N12 - N21). Recent alluvial sediments of riverbed and floodplain (alQ4) The water-bearing horizons of the recent alluvial sediments of riverbed and floodplain origin have a wide distribution over the extensive valley areas of the Mtkvari, Tsinubnistskali, Abastumani, Potskhovi and Kvabliani. Sediments of the lower floodplain terraces contain water, while the upper terraces are sporadically water-bearing. The yield of springs connected to alluvial sediments varies within a wide range, namely from 0.01 to 12.0 l/sec. The yield of only one spring, located near village Tmogvi, reaches 30 l/sec. Water of bicarbonate calcium-sodium chemical composition predominates. Bicarbonate-sulphate magnesium water is less frequent. Correspondingly, mineralisation varies from 0.1 to 1.1g/l. Fluctuation in temperature is within 4-18°C according to the seasons. Upper Miocene-Lower Pliocene (Kisatibi series) (N21 & N12 - N21) The water-bearing horizon of the Lower Pliocene (upper part of the Kisatibi series) lava layers is exposed in outcrops on a fairly large area in the vicinity of villages Mikeltsminda and Tsira within the study area. The lava layers consist of andesite, andesite-dacite, liparite and their associated pyroclastic deposits. Owing to high porosity and intensive fissuring, this formation is highly permeable. According to the degree of relief dissection, depth of the groundwater changes from 20 to 150m. Owing to the absence of impermeable strata within the Kisatibi series, groundwater is never found under artesian conditions. Pressurised groundwater has been found through boreholes only on the western shore of Tabatskuri lake, where andesite is covered by Quaternary sandy silts and silty lacustrine sediments. Water of this horizon has low mineralisation (M1l/sec). Waters of this horizon are widely used for water supply of large settlements, such as Akhaltsikhe, Adigeni, Uraveli and others. Water-bearing complex of Upper Miocene-Lower Pliocene (lower part of Kisatibi series) lava layers is exposed over a large area, namely south of the village Arali, between the villages Skhvlisi and Tskaltbila and south of the village Varkhani. The lithology of the complex includes andesite, andesite-dacitic and dacitic tuff and tuffaceous breccia lava layers. The water content varies significantly and depends on the degree of fissuring of the strata. Thus, yield of springs connected to the lower part of the Kisatibi series does not exceed 0.2 l/sec in the central part of Akhaltsikhe depression, while high-yield springs (50-80 l/sec) occur in these series outside the 10km route corridor, namely near the village Atskvita. Circulation is mostly through fissure systems, less frequently through natural porosity as well as fissures. Groundwater chemical composition of the Kisatibi series is generally bicarbonate calcium-sodium or calcium-magnesium. Mineralisation varies from 0.1 to 0.7g/l. Temperature reaches 13°C. Data from the borehole drilled to provide a water supply to the Area 80 (PRMS KP0) accommodation facility indicate that the shallowest groundwater horizon is some 70–80m below ground level. Other water-bearing horizons were also encountered at depths of 89–123m and 164–220m. The potable water supply itself is drawn by a pump and well installed some 80m below ground level. As with the additional eastern section of pipeline, the lack of shallow, water-bearing horizons makes the groundwater along the additional western




section of pipeline less vulnerable to potential surface contamination than if the aquifers were located in the upper geological strata.

7.6.2 Data Gaps and Field Survey Methodology As part of the SCPX geotechnical inspection of the proposed SCPX Project facilities, four groundwater monitoring wells were installed at the PRMS to a depth of approximately 10m. Well locations were identified based on a triangulation technique to cover the likely upstream and downstream shallow groundwater flow at the facility locations. Drillers’ logs were provided to RSK for review and to determine groundwater depth and whether a sufficient quantity of water was likely to be available for sample collection and subsequent testing. However, all boreholes, trial pits and groundwater monitoring wells excavated at the PRMS were dry. This was confirmed by a monitoring visit undertaken on 6 June 2012, which recorded the absence of groundwater within the monitoring wells. No groundwater was encountered in any of the shallow geotechnical boreholes drilled along the additional section of pipeline. In addition to the information above, groundwater quality data, in the form of chemical test results from the borehole drilled at Area 80 (PRMS KP0) for potable water supply to the accommodation facility, were reported in the SCPX Final ESIA and are updated below to account for current monitoring results.

7.6.3 Baseline Groundwater

7.6.3.1 Groundwater quality at PRMS KP0 Groundwater quality data, in the form of chemical test results from the borehole drilled at Area 80 (PRMS KP0) for potable water supply to the accommodation facility was reported within the SCPX Final ESIA Section 7.6.3.3. Data from 2013 has been added to that which was previously reported and is summarised below in Table 7-6. The 2012 data showed marginally elevated sulphate concentrations and the levels of total coliforms in the 2013 data were also elevated. Other than these, where a direct comparison could be made, determinands were not reported in excess of the UK/EC drinking water standards.

Table 7-6: Results of Groundwater Conditions Encountered at Area 80 Potable Water Supply Wells

Analyte 2009 Results 2012 Results 2013 Results Ammonium/Ammonia Nitrogen mg/l 0.4 0.054 - Hydrocarbonate mg/l 354 268.4 331.8 Calcium mg/l 52 53.2 54 Magnesium mg/l 34 16.9 37 Potassium mg/l 4.39 2.10 13.2 Copper mg/l - 0.107 - Iron mg/l - 0.055 0.015 Zinc mg/l - 0.013 - Manganese mg/l - 0.0204 - Nickel mg/l - 0.10 - Lead mg/l - 0.065 - Suspended solids mg/l - 5.4 1.75 Chloride mg/l 53 110.3 53.175 Sulphate mg/l 120 358.2 190 Total coliforms, in 300ml sample - Not detected 180 E. coli, in 300ml sample - Not detected Not detected




7.6.4 Groundwater Sensitivities

7.6.4.1 Groundwater sensitivities on proposed additional eastern section of pipeline In terms of water-bearing strata, the most important water-bearing horizons in the region that are associated with alluvial sediment do not underlie this additional section of pipeline. Deposits of the Miocene-Pliocene volcanogenic-continental facies, which outcrop between SCPX KP58 and SCP KP70 and underlie the pipeline, are deemed less sensitive owing to the depth of groundwater and the presence of impermeable horizons.

7.6.4.2 Groundwater sensitivities on proposed additional western section of pipeline The monitoring wells located at the PRMS site, installed as part of the geotechnical investigation for the SCPX Project, did not contain any groundwater. The depth to the aquifer at PRMS which is used for water abstraction is understood to be in the region of 80m below ground level in the Upper Miocene-Lower Pliocene (Kisatibi series) lava deposits. Given the depth to groundwater, this water-bearing horizon is not considered to be sensitive to the construction of this additional section of pipeline.

7.7 Ecology This section of the report describes the flora and fauna present along the proposed additional sections of pipeline. This section is based largely on the results of fieldwork undertaken in September 2013.

7.7.1 Information from Desktop Literature Survey In addition to the literature sources outlined in Section 7.7.1 of the SCPX Final ESIA, the following publications were also used to identify and classify animals, plants and habitats found along the proposed pipeline route:

• BTC/SCP proposed route survey, 2000 • Bukhnikashvili, A. (2004) ’Cadastre of Small Mammals (Insectivora, Chiroptera,

Lagomorpha, Rodentia) of Georgia’, Publishing House ’Universal’, Tbilisi: 144 p. • Gurielidze Z. 1997. Large Mammals (Carnivora, Artiodactyla, Cetacea). In book:

Chatwin, M.E., Kikodze, D., Svanidze, T., Chikvaidze, J., Gvritishvili, M., and Tarkhnishvili, D.N. (Eds.), Georgian Country Biological Diversity Study Report, (1996., Program "Assistance for preparation of Biodiversity Country Study in the Republic of Georgia"), UNEP, Ministry of Environment of Georgia, Noah's Ark Centre for Recovery of Endangered Species; 1997, Tbilisi, Georgia : 74-82. (in Georgian and English).

• Kikodze, D., Memiadze, N., Kharazishvili, D., Manvelidze, Z. and H. Müller-Schärer (2010). The alien flora of Georgia, by the Federal Office of Environment; Swiss National Science Foundations (SCOPES), Georgian Ministry of the Environment; 40pp.

• SCPX Area 81 Route Walk Survey Report # BC-MX81ZZ-EV-REP-0007-000, Revision P01.

A desktop search undertaken to identify records of species that could be present within 250m of the proposed route (i.e. a 500m wide area of search) collected 149 records of animals that could potentially use the habitats along the route. Those with national or international designations are included in Table 7-7.




Table 7-7: Key Species Identified in Desktop Literature Survey with Potential to be Present in the Survey Area

Species Scientific Name Group Location: KP56.6-62.3, PRMS KP0-2.5, Both

National Status Other

Brandts hamster

Mesocricetus brandtii Mammal Both

Georgian Red List

IUCN cat. NT*

Grey dwarf hamster

Cricetulus migratorius Mammal Both

Georgian Red List

European marbled polecat

Vormel peregusna Mammal PRMS KP0-2.5

Georgian Red List IUCN cat. VU*

Mehely’s horseshoe bat

Rhinolophus mehelyi Mammal KP56.6-62.3


Mediterranean tortoise Testudo graeca Reptile Both


Ibera Greek tortoise Testudo ibera Reptile Both

Georgian Red List -

Levant sparrowhawk

Accipiter brevipes Bird KP56.6-62.3

Georgian Red List

Ramsar and Bonn Convention

Egyptian vulture

Neophron percnopterus Bird Both

Georgian Red List


Eurasian griffon vulture Gyps fulvus Bird KP56.6-62.3

Georgian Red List -

Long-legged buzzard Buteo rufinus Bird Both

Georgian Red List


Greater spotted eagle Aquila clanga Bird Both

Georgian Red List


Imperial eagle Aquila heliaca Bird Both Georgian Red List Ramsar and Bonn Convention

Lesser kestrel Falco naumanni Bird Both Georgian Red List Ramsar and Bonn Convention

Red-footed falcon

Falco vespertinus Bird KP56.6-62.3

Georgian Red List


Saker falcon Falco cherrug Bird Both Georgian Red List Ramsar and Bonn Convention

*Vulnerable (VU): A taxon is Vulnerable when the best available evidence indicates that it meets any of the criteria A to E for Vulnerable (see Section V), and it is therefore considered to be facing a high risk of extinction in the wild. Near Threatened (NT): A taxon is Near Threatened when it has been evaluated against the criteria but does not qualify for Critically Endangered, Endangered or Vulnerable now, but is close to qualifying for or is likely to qualify for a threatened category in the near future.

7.7.1.1 Protected areas and other sites of potential significance There are no ecologically protected areas within the 2km search area either side of the additional section of pipeline. The nearest ecologically protected area to the proposed additional western section of pipeline is Borjomi Nature Reserve, which is approximately 27km to the north. The nearest ecologically protected area to the proposed additional eastern section of pipeline is Algeti Nature Reserve, which is approximately 32km to the north west.




7.7.2 Data Gaps and Field Survey Methods

7.7.2.1 Data gaps The two proposed additional sections of pipeline, KP56.6-62.3 and PRMS KP0-2.5, were not included in the habitat surveys for the SCPX Final ESIA. Following the philosophy used in the SCPX Final ESIA, the information from the SCP ROW surveys of 2000 therefore needed to be updated to produce a robust ecological baseline description for the SCPX Project.

7.7.2.2 Surveys undertaken Phase 1 ecological surveys undertaken to inform the ESIA Addendum comprised habitat surveys and animal survey transects along the lengths of the additional eastern and western sections of pipeline. In addition, detailed ornithological surveys were undertaken at PRMS KP0.7 on the western section of pipeline. The surveys of the proposed additional section of pipeline at KP56.6-62.3 were undertaken during 2–3 September 2013 and 28 May 2014. The surveys at PRMS KP0-2.5 were undertaken during 4–7 September 2013. The timing of the surveys was suitable for confirming the habitat types present and their potential to support important plant species. In addition, surveys were undertaken at a time of year when all animal species are still active, i.e. before some species become less active or hibernate during winter. As such, surveys at this time of year would have identified these species, or confirmed the potential for the species to be present. Surveys also coincided with the autumn bird-migration period, enabling surveyors to easily record birds as they passed over the survey areas.

7.7.2.3 Phase 1 habitat survey with a faunal walkover The Phase 1 habitat surveys walked the route of the proposed extensions and recorded all habitats within a 100m corridor (50m either side of the pipeline centre line). Habitats were recorded and classified following the same methodology as described in Section 7.7.2.3 of the SCPX Final ESIA. The faunal surveyors walked transects at selected locations along the entire length of the proposed extensions. They assessed the potential of the habitats crossed within the 100m corridor for their ability to support amphibians, reptiles, birds, mammals and invertebrates (particularly with regard to protected/rare/endemic animal species). The survey followed the methodology described in Section 7.7.2.3 of the SCPX Final ESIA.

7.7.2.4 Technical constraints Technical constraints to be noted include:

• only a single visit was undertaken • agricultural operations were underway in certain areas at the time of the survey for

the original ESIA Addendum and • high vegetation during the amended ESIA Addendum survey may have restricted

visibility for small and medium mammals However, based on the habitats recorded, these constraints are not seen as significant as the habitats present are not likely to be suitable for the important species noted in Table 7-7. In particular, although the species listed in Table 7-7 have been recorded within the regions of Georgia crossed by the proposed additional sections of pipeline, the specific habitats required by these species (and the amount of suitable habitat) is not present within the survey area or crossed by the pipelines. As such, surveys at different times of year are unlikely to alter the baseline conditions detailed in this report. Furthermore, the survey conducted in September for the original ESIA, when dying vegetation at the end of the season would have improved visibility, did not identify the presence of the species listed in Table 7-7.




7.7.3 Baseline Ecological Conditions

7.7.3.1 Flora recorded on the additional eastern section of pipeline The study area supports both natural/semi-natural and modified habitats. Most of the survey area is intensively used as pasture. The habitats recorded along the route between KP56.6 and KP62.3 are as follows:

• Steppes • Spontaneous vegetation (previously agricultural fields which are no longer worked) • Hemixerophytic deciduous shrubbery (shibljak) • Tragacanthic scrub • Agricultural fields. •

These habitats are common and were well represented along the main SCPX route. Habitat maps are included in Appendix E of the ESBR Addendum.

Table 7-8: Habitats Recorded along the Proposed Eastern Section of Pipeline Habitat Characteristics Notable Species Conservation value Steppes Diverse habitat, found on

slightly inclined areas which have not been used for agricultural planting, with high number of species. This habitat supports high number of weeds and ruderal species.

Beard grass (Bothriochloa ischaemum) Fescue (Festuca valesiaca) various herbs and ephemeral plant species

Overall conservation value of this habitat is low as it does not support either communities or individual species of high conservation value. The habitat is ‘Natural’, although it had been extensively grazed. The steppe vegetation is heavily modified due to long-term human-induced impacts and disturbances, so it is considered to be of low conservation value.

Spontaneous vegetation

Relatively diverse habitat which has developed on areas which were used as agricultural fields in the past. It is a secondary habitat with a prevalence of weeds and common species

Grasses and forbs, licorice (Glycyrrhiza glabra), Bermuda grass (Cynodon dactylon), oat (Avena ludoviciana)

The habitat is of low conservation value as it is composed mostly of weedy and common species. The example in the study area did not support any legally protected species. The habitat has elements of both ‘Natural’ and ‘Modified’ origins. However, when characterising the habitat it is more appropriate to class it as ‘Modified’

Hemixerophytic deciduous shrubbery (shibljak)

Common habitat in drier parts of east Georgia dominated by deciduous shrub species.

Habitat is dominated by deciduous Christ’s thorn (Paliurus spina christi).

The habitat is ‘Modified’ due to long-term human-induced impacts. There are no legally protected or high value conservation species associated with this habitat.




Habitat Characteristics Notable Species Conservation value Tragacanthic scrub This monodominant

habitat occupies very limited area. Habitat is widespread in drier parts of Georgia.

Habitat is dominated by thorny cushion forming dwarf Caucasian wetch (Astragalus caucasicus).

Common habitat almost throughout drier parts of Georgia and does not support any species of conservation value. The structure of the habitat is heavily influence by grazing, but the habitat would be considered ‘Natural (as defined by the International Finance Corporations’ Performance Standard 6)’.

Agricultural fields These occupy a very limited area within the study site. The habitat is represented by fenced of land parcels where harvested crops (cereals) are grown

Cereals and common weeds

A ‘Modified’ habitat with no conservation value.

The descriptions of studied habitats are provided below. Steppes are found on the slightly inclined areas which were not used as agricultural fields in the past (Figure 7-17). The route passes along the edge of an area of Steppe habitat between KP60 and KP61. The habitat is dominated by beard-grass (Bothriochloa ischaemum) which is a common dominant species of steppic vegetation in Georgia. By the time of survey, the habitat was intensively grazed and many species were in senile phase. This habitat is characterised by the presence of the following herbaceous species: yarrow (Achillea micrantha), desert madwort (Alyssum desertorum), saffron thistle (Carthamus lanatus), field eryngo (Eryngium campestre), immortelle (Xeranthemum squarrosum), mountain ironwort (Sideritis montana), etc. Locally, few individuals of shrubs such as Christ’s thorn (Paliurus spina-christi) and rose (Rosa sp.) were also recorded. All species listed above are widespread in drier parts of east and south Georgia and their abundant populations are associated with a wide range of natural, semi-natural and man-made habitats. The steppe vegetation is heavily modified due to long-term human-induced impacts and disturbances and is composed of common species including weeds, does not support any legally protected species and its level of modification is quite high due to grazing and trampling. As such the conservation value of this habitat is low.




Figure 7-17: Steppe Spontaneous vegetation has developed on areas which were used as agricultural fields in the past; at present, extensive areas covered with spontaneous vegetation are used for hay harvesting (see Figure 7-18). This habitat dominates the survey area and is crossed by the eastern section of pipeline for the majority of its length. The habitat is rather diverse and represented by four major variants which are dominated respectively by (1) grasses and forbs, (2) liquorice (Glycyrrhiza glabra), (3) Bermuda grass (Cynodon dactylon) and oat (Avena ludoviciana). Spontaneous vegetation is a secondary habitat with prevalence of weeds and common species widespread throughout Georgia. This habitat is of low conservation value as it is composed mostly of weedy and common species and does not support any legally protected species.




Figure 7-18: Spontaneous Vegetation Dominated by Liquorice Hemixerophytic shrubbery, frequently referred to as ‘shibljak’ in scientific literature is of fragmentary distribution within the study area and is crossed by the pipeline route at several locations between KP61 and KP62 (mainly at road crossings). This habitat is found on stony substrata or is associated with stone piles (Figure 7-19). This habitat is heavily modified due to cutting of shrubs, grazing and trampling; it supports a high number of weeds and common species as a result of long-term human-induced disturbance. The shrub layer is dominated by Christ’s thorn (Paliurus spina-christi) associated by Buckthorn (Rhamnus pallasii), dog-rose (Rosa sp.) and spirea (Spiraea hypericifolia) and the herbaceous layer is dominated by common species and weeds. Hemixerophytic deciduous shrubbery is of low conservation value as it is heavily modified due to long-term human-induced impacts; no legally protected/high conservation value species are associated with this habitat.




Figure 7-19: Hemixerophytic Deciduous Shrubbery

Tragacanthic scrub occupies only a limited area within the study area; it is dominated by cushion-like dwarf shrub - Caucasian vetch (Astragalus caucasicus). This habitat supports abundant populations of common species such as beard grass (Bothriochloa ischaemum), false flax (Camelina microcarpa), proliferous pink (Kohlrauschia prolifera), restharrow (Ononis pusilla), scabious (Scabiosa micrantha), etc. which are all widespread throughout Georgia. This habitat is of low conservation value as its structure is heavily modified due to grazing; floristic composition of this habitat is marked by the presence of common species. This habitat does not support any floral sensitivity including legally protected/high conservation value species. Agricultural fields occupy a very limited area and are represented by fenced land parcels where annually harvested crops (cereals) are grown (Figure 7-20). T

chapter 7 environmental baseline€¦ · on geohazards relating to the proposed additional western...

Documents