Regarding: The public consultation held in the period of 27.09-04.10.2004 on the EIA report for the Ljulin Motorway. The EIA report is prepared by SPEA Ingegneria Europea and Expert Team with leader Mrs. K. Kochemidova (August 2002) as part of the Phare Cross Boarder Cooperation Project.

Dear Ladies and Gentlemen,

We, residents of the Bankja town, Malo Buchino village and Sofia city, including the regions of "Ivanjane", "Suhodol", "Gorna Banja" and "Vitosha" municipality, as citizens and representatives of our organizations, urgently request that the recommendation of the above mentioned EIA report are rejected. We insist that ISPA program does not provide funding for the implementation of the project in the proposed variant. We also strongly request that none of the variants described in the above mentioned EIA report is approved, as none of them comply with the environmental requirements, raised from our organization. Our requirements are based on the existing Bulgarian and European legislation and the interest of the public. We have been proposing reasonable and feasible alternatives for years all of which have been fully neglected by the Bulgarian administration.

We acknowledge the public interest in the construction of transport infrastructure along the corridor Vidin-Sofia-Kulata, We understand the significance of the Corridor N4 for European Union and Bulgaria. However this does not override the importance that all projects along the corridor are:

• environmentally sound;
• based on sufficient assessment of alternatives (for the type of route and mode of transport) and on their environmental impact;
• in compliance with the agreement of the project-affected citizens.

This is how we understand the conditions in the Financial Memorandum 2001-16-BG-PPT-004 and the related to its implementaion documents, which require new public consultations and consideration of citizens' concerns in the decision-making.

Nevertheless, until now the Bulgarian administration is unwilling to seriously consider citizens' position. Refusing to investigate the project alternatives proposed by the citizens, the Bulgarian authorities refuse to comply with the environmental objectives and limits they are publicly assigned to fulfill. Instead, Roads Executive Agency (REA) and the Ministry of Regional Development and Public Works (MRDPW) promote the 7th variant (plus 8th one which is the combination "blue+brown") for the motorway. All route proposals are developed before the public consultations and are completely rejected by the local residents for not complying with the raised by them environmental objectives. The 7 alternatives are inadequate and unacceptable because of the non- consideration for the public opinion and because the scope of the initial conceptual design (financed by Phare) was limited administratively. Since the very begging the fundamental alternatives have been omitted.

The conflict was initiated when the original idea for building of a road between Sofia and Pernik was transformed into a motorway-construction project with two functions: 1) international high-speed transit motorway; and 2) motorway serving the traffic from Sofia in direction South. Since the begging the possibility of dividing the two types of traffic has been excluded. The impacted citizens propose using:

• the route west of (behind) Ljulin mountain for the transit traffic;
• the Vladaja gorge for the traffic from and to Sofia. (where designing a new route without enlargement of the current one that passes through residential areas should be obligatory)

Within the combined version the transit traffic will pass near and through Sofia, which is a transport connection between Corridor 4 and other international corridors. In that way the traffic will affect the 100 thousand-neighbourhood of "Ljulin". The route will also pass through the region of Bankja Balneological Resort, whereas the environmental problems in Vladaja gorge will not decrease as the traffic there will remain and increase in absolute terms.

The only explanation given by the Bulgarian Road authorities for that technical and environmental mindlessness and for the administrative imposture of one and only alternative (in 7 variations) is that the European Union do not provide money for local roads but for international highways. In that way the Bulgarian government seeks to utilize the European funds while concealing its real objectives and causing serious environmental and social conflict!

As citizens concerned about the conservation of the unique nature on the slopes of the Ljulin Mountain and the priceless mineral water and unique microclimate of the region of Bankja , "Knjajevo" and "Gorna banja", we disagree with the construction of "Ljulin" Motorway in all proposed 7 route beds and combination between them, for the third time at the current public consultation (September and October 2004).

Our arguments against "blue+brown" alternative and in general against the corridor passing through the balneological resort area are given below:

1. Five kilometers of the "blue+brown" variant pass through sanitary zone "B" of the Balneological Resort Bankja. This will lead to series of the unacceptable environmental impacts, which have not been taken, into consideration in the EIA report.

1.1 Air pollution in the region of the Bankja Resort

The intensive local and transit traffic from the motorway will be a serious source of the air pollutants, including nitric oxides, carbon oxides, carbohydrogen, lead. The data from the EIA report unmistakably point that due to the high number of the days with calm weather (with the lack of wind, which is a precondition for thermal inversions and stronger air pollution (more than 55% of the days in the year), there are perfect circumstances for systematic accumulation of the pollutants in the atmosphere and creation of toxic smog. The photochemical and oxidizing reactions, which would take place, would lead to frequent creation of smog with high concentration of ozone and carcinogenic carbohydrogens. The modeling of the air pollution does not take into consideration the possibilities for thermal inversions in the region and the effects from the accumulation of the pollutants in the ground air level. Thermal inversion could continue up to seven days in the autumn-winter season. The head of the expert team working on the EIA report, MS. Kochemindova does not seem to be aware of that problem as during the meeting of the Supreme Environmental Council, she expressed opinion that creation of ozone and carcinogenic carbohydrogens is not connected to the car traffic and should not be subject of assessment.

The local communities stated several times that the emergence of new air polluters in the resort region is unacceptable. The EIA report completely disregards that position. However, we insist that MoEW takes it into account.

Bankja is a National Resort with unique conditions for therapy of cardio vascular diseases. In Europe there are only three zones with similar characteristics! The region has significant economical, social and rehabilitation potentials, including holiday homes and sanatoriums with large capacity and thousands of people coming annually. The air pollutants mentioned above have direct negative impact on the diseases treated in the resort area and pollution caused by them is in complete contradiction with the resort's functions and importance. This question looked upon into detail in the Appeal for saving of Bankja Resort and change of the motorway alignment that was sent to you. Twenty-two Bulgarian chemistry, ecology, toxicology and medicine scientists, signed onto the Appeal. All of them are eminent independent experts and are not connected with the project.

Based on the stated above, on the Bulgarian and European legislation for air protection and on the principles for Strategic Environmental Impact Assessment on plans for transport infrastructure (EC, DG Tren, Feb. 1999, p.37 and 38 from the guidelines), we state below the main ENVIRONMENTAL OBJECTIVES connected with protection of the environment and the national Resort of Bankja, and the corresponding environmental restrictions that the new EIA decision should follow:

• the air basin over the Bankja resort should be officially separated and a become a subject of independent management plan;
• main aim of the management should be the protection and maintenance of significant air purity in the region on the basis of the stricter publicly recognized norms for air polluters;
• consequently, the construction of the new sources of pollution in the region is unacceptable.

The EIA report completely ignores the stated above environmental objectives and limitations and respectively arrives at wrong conclusions, which do not take into account the public opinion and interest and the environmental legislation. Some of the report's weaknesses are:

• the EIA report do not assess the relation between the pollution and the diseases being treated in the region and the environmental objectives raised by the public (connection with the health risk part);
• the EIA report models the air pollution without consideration of the conditions for thermal phenomena in 55% of the days annually. The thermal phenomena are leading directly to accumulation of air pollution in the low atmospheric layers. Duration of such inversions often is more that seven days during the autumn-winter period. The report does not give information whether testing of the modeling accuracy along the existing international roads has been done (for example comparison of the measured and prognosticated concentrations)
• the EIA report completely ignores the secondary pollutants (such as ozone, carcinogenic carbohydrogens) in this way disregarding parts of the Bulgarian and European standards for air quality;
• the assessment of the pollution does not correspond with the Bulgarian and European pollution norms. Old internal pollution criteria were used which were cancelled after the harmonization of the Bulgarian legislation with the European one.

1.2 Fragmentation of the Resort area

The motorway will lead to irreversible separation of the significant part of the Resort area from its core through permanent objective, visual and noise barriers. The fragmentation will affect three small settlements that are part of the Resort area. The EIA report, including its part on noise pollution and land shaft, does not make assessment this problem. The public opinion is that the Resort area should be fragmented. Therefore, we consider that the "blue+brown" alternative should be rejected. The proposed measures for mitigation of the noise pollution (noise protection walls and earth-embankments) could to some extent decrease the impact. However, they would increase the objective and visual fragmentation, which mean that they are not acceptable.

2. Environmental problems of the Capital

The "blue+brown" route is thought to combine transit and local traffic (generated from/to Sofia and via other transport corridors). That route and the rest of alternatives are following the same strategic objective: combination of the transit and local traffic. We, the undersigned citizens, are strongly against that proposal and consider that the MEW should take into account the following objectives:

• The main environmental objective of the motorway's construction should maximal distance between the traffic and residential areas, and especially those with high population (in that case the capital and its regions);
• Important environmental objective is decrease of the air pollution in the air basin of Sofia because of the regular exceedings of the air-pollution norms;
• Following the presented above objectives comes the need for investigation of the motorway route that will take out the transit traffic in maximum distance from Sofia. The request study of such alternative (west of Ljlin Mountain) was stated in 2001 with creation of the initiatives committees along the route of the motorway and after the first presentation of the project. The request was made far before the closure of the feasibility study for the motorway and preparation of the present EIA report. Nevertheless, this well-grounded public opinion has never been considered, as the assessment of the alternative is not made in the feasibility study and EIA report;
• The "blue+brown" route conflicts seriously with the above stated environmental objectives and limitations, as the transit traffic will pass in the borders of Sofia in a close distance to highly populated city regions and residential areas. Once again there are serious omissions in the EIA report regarding assessment of the impact on air, noise, land shaft and health risk;
• Adequate solution for the transit traffic is impossible at that point due to the lack of clear vision for the connection of the corridor N4 with other corridors passing through Sofia and the lack of the Strategic Environmental Impact Assessment (SEIA) on different alternatives. The feasibility study and the EIA report, financed by the Phare program, do not include any adequate assessment that could be ground for selection of the strategic route for the motorway.

We consider that selection of the route for construction of the motorway serving the transit traffic could be made only after SEIA that will take into account the above stated environmental objectives and limitations. The SEIA should be made for the entire corridor Vidin-Kulata taking into consideration the links with other transport corridors and different transport solutions. We would like to remind that according to the Bulgarian and European legislation, and the EC guidelines for Trans European Transport Network carry out of the SEIA is obligatory.

3. The route "blue+brown" is the worse solution for connecting Sofia with the transport corridor Vidin-Sofia-Kulata.

• We are fully aware and supportive for the construction of the motorway from Sofia in south-direction. It is evident that Sofia creates serious traffic in direction south and that the problem needs urgent solution;
• There are evident the environmental problems caused by the current first class road between Sofia and Pernik, especially where the road pass in few meters from the houses in "Knjajevo", Vladaja and Dragichevo. Therefore, removal of the traffic from the current road should be also priority environmental goal;
• Enlargement of the current road could not be solution for the Ljulin Motorway as it contradicts the environmental objectives and the opinion of the local intiative committees.

The route "blue+brown" is unacceptable and should be rejected because of:

• only 50% of the total traffic will pass on the Ljulin Motorway if it will be constructed according to the current proposal. Rest of the traffic will continue to pass on the current road in Vladja gorge. These are official forecast according to the feasibility study and the EIA report prepared by Expert team lead by Mr. Denev;
• in 2020, even with construction of the Ljulin Motorway, the traffic on the current road will be 3 times bigger according to the EIA report and the feasibility study;
• Mr. Dnev stated during the public consultations in Knjajevo that solution of increasing traffic on the current road should be its enlargement to motorway standards. We would like to remind that the affected citizens far ago neglected possibility for enlargement of the current road.

4. The EIA report concluded that "blue+brown" alternative is selected as the best option from environmental point of view only after the route was aproved by the Ministry of Regional Development and Public Works in July 2002. Thus selection of the appropriate route was made only on the basis of technical and administrative assessment. In violation of the principles of the European Directives and the Bulgarian legislation the environmental impacts and public opinion have not been considered at the time decision was taken.

We are strongly against positive decision of the MofEW and approval of the "blue+brown" alternative as:

• the selection of the "blue+brown" alternative for the route of the Ljulin Motorway was made by the Expert Council of the MRDPW in July 2002 in absence of the representatives of the MofEW and public. Additionally, the decision was made before the EIA procedure and public consultations part of the procedure;
• In March 2002 the same expert team with leader Mrs. Kochemidova prepared another EIA report. The content of that EIA report is similar to the one subject of the current public consultations. That EIA report is made before the decision of the MRDPW and concluded that "green" alternative is most suitable from environmental point of view;
• According to the minutes from the meeting of the Expert Council the leader of the EIA Expert team Mrs. Kochemidova made following statement: "She emphasized on the unique climatic conditions in the Bankja Resort and on the need of avoiding the existing water catchments and if possible the residential areas. This could be achieved with construction of the "green" alternative that is also preferable in geological term, but is more expensive from the "brown" one";
• The current EIA report is presented in September 2002 and its conclusions are made in line with the decisions of the Expert Council of MRDPW.

Considering the obvious violations in the preparation of the current report regarding the principles of the EIA and environmental protection legislation and the pressure on the EIA Experts for changing of the conclusions would like to raise the following questions:

• How is possible in one democratic country the MRDPW to impose its decision on the independent experts preparing the EIA report, while ignoring public opinion? Furthermore how it is possible that such malpractice is not punished when the evidents for the case was submitted to the public prosecutor a year and half ago?
• Why the administration involves alos European institutions in those anti-legilative active by using the EU funds?
• Why in such way is taking decision for the important for the Bulgaria infrastructure projects?

In conclusion, we would like to state that there are all evidence for the NEGATIVE decision on the "blue+brown" alternative. In case that public opinion is not taken into account we would like to warn you that as citizens of an accession country we would demand our rights in front of all national and European institutions.

30.09.2004
Sofia

Association for protection of the health and live of the citizens and environment - "Suhodol" region
Civil Association "Green Eurozone" - Ljulin
Civil Initiative Committee "Ljulin" - Malo Buchino village, "Ivanenjane" region, Bankja town
Civil Initiative Committee Goljamo Buchino village
Center for Environmental Information and Education
Environmental Association "Demetra"
Center for environmental rights
Environmental Association"Ecoforum"
Wildlife Society
Environmental Association Za Zemiata (For The Earth)