Yerevan Sustainable Urban Transport Program Tranche 1 Environmental

Environmental Assessment Report

Initial Environmental Examination for Davitashen Bridge to Ashtarak Highway Upgrade (Project 1)

Document Stage: Draft Project Number: 42417 July 2010

Yerevan Sustainable Urban Transport Program Tranche 1

Prepared by Municipality of Yerevan of the Republic of Armenia for the Asian Development Bank (ADB).

The initial environmental examination document is that of the borrower. The views expressed herein do not necessarily represent those of A DB’s Board of Di rectors, Management, or staff, and may be preliminary in nature.

ABBREVIATIONS ADB Asian Development Bank EA Executing Agency EARF Environmental Assessment and Review Framework EBRD European Bank for Reconstruction and Development EIA Environmental Impact Assessment EMP Environmental Management and Monitoring Plan ERT Emergency Response Team IA Implementin g Agency IEE Initial Environmental Examination IMF International Monetary Fund IFI International financial institution IUCN International Union for Conservation of Nature LARP Land Acquisition and Resettlement Plan Master Plan Yerevan City Master Plan, Vol.5, 2004 MNP Ministry of Nature Protection MOC Ministry of Culture MFF Multi-tranche Financing Facility

NO2 Nitrog en Dioxide NO Nitrog en Oxide NPE Nature Protection Expertise NGO Non -governmental organization PIU Project Implementation Unit PPMU Program Preparation and Management Unit PPTA Project Preparatory Technical Assistance RAMSAR Ramsar Convention on Wetlands RA Republic of Armenia REA Rapid Environmental Assessment SEI State Environmental Inspectorate SNCO State Non-commercial Organization

SO2 Sulfur Dioxide UNESCO United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization

WEIGHTS AND MEASURES Bk/kg Berkelium per kilogram dBA deci bel (A-weighted) km kilomet er(s) km2 squ are kilometer(s) m meter(s) mg/m3 milligram(s) per cubic meter

NOTE In this report, "$" refers to US dollars.

In preparing any cou ntry program or strategy, financing any proj ect, or by making any de signation of or reference to a particular territory or geographic area in this document, the Asian Development Bank does not intend to make any judgments as to the legal or other status of any territory or area.

CONTENTS Page I. INTRODUCTION 1 A. Project Background and Purpose of Report 1 1. Project Background 1 2. The Project 2 B. IEE Report Outline and Methodology 2 C. Armenian and ADB Environmental Assessment Requirements 3 1. Armenian Laws Governing Environmental Management and Assessment 3 2. ADB Environmental Assessment Requirements 4 D. Extent of the IEE Study 4 II. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT 5 A. Type of Project 5 B. Project Location 5 C. Magnitude of Operation 5 D. Project Description 6 E. Alternatives to the Proposed Project 7 III. DESCRIPTION OF THE ENVIRONMENT – BASELINE 7 A. Physical Resources 7 1. Air Quality, Climate, and Noise 7 2. Surface and Groundwater 9 3. Topography, Soils, Geology and Seismology 9 B. Ecological Resources 10 C. Economic Development 11 D. Social and Cultural Resources 11 IV. SCREENING OF POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION 12 A. Environmental Parameters that may be Impacted 12 B. Impacts due to Location 13 C. Impacts Related to Design 13 D. Impacts During Construction 14 1. Site Preparation Activities 14 2. Vehicle Movements, Machinery Operation, Excavation, and Grading 15 3. Vehicle Movements on Local Roads; Altered Access 17 4. Solid and Liquid Waste Generation 17 5. Site Reinstatement 18 6. Summary of Construction Impact 18 E. Impacts Related to Operations 18 F. Cumulative Environmental Effects 19 V. ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT AND MONITORING PLAN 19 A. Environmental Management Plan 19 B. Environmental Monitoring Plan 38 C. Institutional Arrangements and Responsibilities 44 1. Institutional Arrangements 44 2. Responsibilities 44 3. Recommended Environmental and Social Safeguard Clauses for Civil Works Contracts 45 D. Cost of Implementation 46 VI. CONSULTATION AND INFORMATION DISCLOSURE 46 A. Stakeholder Meetings 46 B. Public Consultation 46 C. Information Disclosed 47 D. Future Consultation 47 VII. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 47

VIII. CONCLUSIONS 48 IX. REFERENCES 49

APPENDIXES 1. Rapid Environmental Assessment (REA) – Roads and Highways 2. Ecological site investigation 3. Archaeological site investigation 4. Noise monitoring results and predicted operational noise impacts 5. Consultation Meeting Advertisement and Attendance Sheet

Figure 1: Armenia showing the location of Yerevan

Yerevan

Figure 2: Map of Yerevan showing program project locations

Project 1 - Davitashen Bridge to Ashtarak Highway Road Link

Project 4 - Metro Opera House Project 2 - Entrance Upgrade Argavand (Yeritasardakan) Highway to Shirak Street Road Link

Project 3 - Shirak Street to Artashat Highway Road Link

Source: Municipality of Yerevan Master Plan (2004)

Figure 3: Locality map - Davitashen Bridge to Ashtarak Highway Upgrade (Project 1)

DAVITASHEN

Ashtarak Highway

Yeghvard Gevorg Highway Chaush Street

AJAPNYAK Haiabyan Davitashen Street Bridge

Source: Collage (2001) Figure 4: Project layout

Source: Municipality of Yerevan (2010) vi 1

I. INTRODUCTION

A. Project Background and Purpose of Report

1. The Republic of Armeni a is a landlocked count ry between the Black and the Cas pian Seas, bordered on the n orth by Georgia, to the east by Aze rbaijan, on the south by Iran, and to the west by Turkey as shown in Figure 1. Yerevan covers an area of 260km2 extending 18km north-south and 16km east-west with the centre and the south of the City at a lower geographic level.

1. Project Background

2. Like other New Independent States of the former Soviet Uni on, Armenia's economy still suffers from the lega cy of a centrally planned economy and the brea kdown of fo rmer Sovie t trading net works. Investment from these states in support of Armenian industry h as virtually disappeared, and consequently few major enterprises are st ill able to function. The structure of Armenia's economy has changed substantially since 1991 , with sector s such as construction and services replacing agriculture and industry as the main contributors to the economic growth. Other industrial se ctors driving industrial gr owth includ e energy, metallurgy, and food processing.

3. Steady economic progr ess ha s ear ned Armenia increa sing support from international institutions. The International Monetary Fu nd (IMF), World Bank, European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD), as well as other internation al financia l institutions (IFIs) and foreign countries are extending con siderable gr ants and loans. These loans are targeted at reducing t he budget deficit; stabilizing the l ocal curren cy; developing private businesses related to energy, a griculture, f ood processing, transp ortation, and health and education sectors. In D ecember 2005, the U.S. Millennium Challenge Corporation approved a 5-year $235 million contract with the Governm ent of Armenia, which was t o focus on rehabilitation of irrigation networks and upgrading of rural transport infrastructure.

4. There has been little traffic forecasting, with the last study conducted in 2007 through the Millennium Challenge Corporation, by engineering consultancy SWECO. That study used gross domestic product (GDP) per capita to forecast the future growth in car ownership. This is ba sed on car ownership of 80 per 1,000 of population in 2007, projected to incr ease to 344 per 1,00 0 by 2026. The carbon dioxide emissions related to passenger transport are expected to increase by 160% o ver this period resulting in increased greenhouse gas emissions which contribute to climate change. Other adverse effects of passenger transport such as air pollu tion, traffic congestion, and noise are also likely to increasingly affect t he environment and qua lity of life in a negative way.

5. Yerevan has seen increasing and rapid economic development, resulting in:

(i) Growing car ownership and increasing congestion; (ii) Outdated public transport; (iii) Safety issues; and (iv) Decreased air quality linked to vehicle emissions.

6. Yerevan ha s a high ro ad traffic accident rate with the number of recorded accid ents increasing 65% from 2001 to 2006, with steady increases over these years. Approximately one- fifth of these accidents are fatal.

2. The Project

7. During 2007, The Mun icipality of Yerevan worked with th e World Ba nk on the p ublic transport network, traffic management, parking, and ticketing systems, and has s et relevant objectives. The Asian Developme nt Bank (ADB) is now working with Govern ment of Arme nia and the Municipality to address some of the objectives by improving municipal infrastructure and reducing ro ad transport ation constr aints on e conomic activity. The program aims to promote efficient an d effective urban transport service s with in centives and capacity to improve the quality, reliability, accessibility, affordability, integration, and coverage of transport services. The Yerevan Sustainable Urban Transport Program has been d eveloped and is to be fu nded by the ADB under a Multi-tranche Financi ng Facility (MFF) Investment Program. The fo ur proposed engineering projects under Tranche 1 of the Program, as shown in Figure 2, are:

(i) Project 1 - Davitashen Bridge to Ashtarak Highway Road Link; (ii) Project 2 - Argavand Highway to Shirak Street Road Link; (iii) Project 3 - Shirak Street to Artashat Highway Road Link; and (iv) Project 4 - Metro Opera House Entrance Upgrade (Yeritasardakan).

8. The three road projects will complete the missing road links of the Yerevan west byp ass to divert through-traffic around the City centre. This report presents the findings o f an Initial Environmental Examination (IEE) of Project 1 - Davitashen Bridge to Ashtarak Highway.

B. IEE Report Outline and Methodology

9. This IEE report comprises the following key components:

(i) Description of the project; (ii) Description of the environment; (iii) Screening of the potential environmental impacts and mitigation; (iv) Environmental Management and Monitoring Plan (EMP); (v) Public consultation and information disclosure; and (vi) Findings, recommendation, and con clusion on whether there is a ne ed for a full EIA.

10. The study has been undertaken in accord ance with the ADB’s Safeguard Policy Statement (2009), Environmental Assessment Guidelines (2003) and Armenia: Yerevan Sustainable Urban Transport Program Environmental Assessment and Review Framework (March 2010). Internationally reco gnized st andards and guidelines have provid ed guidance where local standards are not ava ilable and/o r where ref erred to by the ADB o n particula r environmental aspects. This inclu des World Bank’s Pollution Prevention and Abatement Handbook (1998) and Environment, Health, and Safety General Guidelines (2007).

11. Baseline da ta and other information were obt ained from published a nd unpublished sources in cluding climat e, topography, geology and soils, natural reso urces, flora and fauna, and socio-e conomic data. The Yerevan City Master Plan Vol.5, (2004) (Master Plan) is a primary source of baseline data, and has been s upplemented by other information sources and specialist studies.

12. Site inspections were conducted by the International Environment Specialist an d National Environment Specialist during Ja nuary, Feb ruary, and March 2010. The site

3 inspections included driving the route of existing roads and walking sections o f the route, including areas of potential environmental significance or likely impact.

13. Meetings were held with stakehold er authoritie s to discuss the relevant environme ntal aspects of t he project, obtain infor mation and gauge any specific environmental concerns. A consultation event was held to pr esent the p roject to th e public an d allow opportunity for comment. Refer to Section VI of this report for further detail on consultation activities.

C. Armenian and ADB Environmental Assessment Requirements

14. This environmental assessment has been undertaken to satisfy both the ADB and Republic of Armenia requirements with r egard to environmental protection and management. This IEE has been prepared in English as a safeguard requirement of ADB and a separate EIA report has been prepared in Armenian language.

1. Armenian Laws Governing Environmental Management and Assessment

15. After Arme nia gained its indepe ndence in 1991, the deteriorating environme ntal condition of the country became mo re apparent and, as environmental concerns became hig h priority political issue s, the process of developm ent of en vironmental legislation w as initiated. The 10th Ar ticle of the Constitution of the Rep ublic of Armenia (passe d in 1995) outlines the State responsibility for environment al protectio n, reproduct ion, and use of natural resources. Some 33 rel evant national laws have been prom ulgated to protect the environment . There are two main laws administered by the Ministry of Nature Protection (MNP):

(i) Law on the Principles of Environmental Protection (1991); and (ii) Law on Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) (1995).

Law on the Principles of Environmental Protection (1991)

16. The Law on the Principles of Environmental Protection (1991) outlines the environmental protection p olicy of the Republic of Armenia. Its purpose is to ensure state regulation of environmental protection and use within the territory of the Republic. It provides a legal basis for the development of en vironmental legislation regulating the protection an d use of forest, water, flora and fa una, and th e atmosphere. This law also grant s every citizen the rig ht to obtain reliable information on environmental conditions.

Law on Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) (1995)

17. The Law on Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) (1995) contains the standard steps of the EIA p rocess for various proje cts and activities in Armenia. It establishes, in Articles 2-5 , the general legal, economic, and organizational principles for conducting mandatory state EIA of various types of proje cts and “con cepts” of se ctoral development, which include s construction and infrastructure. The law forbids any economic unit to operate or any concept, program, plan or master plan to be implemented without a positive conclusion of an EIA. This right was given to local auth orities, ministries, lo cal communities, and non-government al organizations (NGOs) in Article 4 . The MNP can init iate a review of environme ntal impact when it dee ms it to be necessary. The EIA Law specifies notification, documentation, public consultation s, and appeal procedures and requirements (Articles 6-11).

18. The key departments within the MNP that have administrative authority over EIA and the project approval process are two State Non-commercial Organizations (SNCOs):

(i) The SNCO Nature Prot ection Expertise (NPE) is responsible for reviewing and approving EIA reports and project s for implementation and adding conditions when necessary to protect the environment; and (ii) The SNCO State Environmental Inspectorate (S EI) is respo nsible for inspecting projects to ensure compliance with conditions imposed by the NPE and with the project EMP.

19. The EIA process and the SEI’s power to inspect are the principal tools used by the MNP to achieve compliance with environmental protection principles.

20. To satisfy r elevant regulations an d to gain p roject appro val of the MNP, an EI A, in accordance with the Law on Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) (1995), has been prepared. The MNP EIA will have similar, if not identical, requirements as the ADB IEE.

Other Relevant Environmental Legislation

21. Other pieces of pertinent environmental legislation have also been considered during the assessment, which in clude specia lly protecte d natural a reas, air pr otection, cultural and historical monuments, flora, fauna, water use, seismic defense, waste, hygiene, a nd workers’ protection.

22. The Republic of Armenia has also signed and ratified many Internatio nal Convent ions and Protocols on environmental protection.

2. ADB Environmental Assessment Requirements

23. ADB’s Safeguard Policy Statement (2009) se ts the requ irements of environme ntal assessment for all proje cts supported by the ADB. At an early stage of project prepa ration, the policy requires that the project’s p otential risks and their signif icance be identif ied and in consultation with stakeholders. If potentially adverse environmental impacts and risks are identified, a n environmental assessment must be undert aken as e arly as po ssible. The assessment should consider all phases of the project including construction and operation, and impacts should be prevented where possible or mitigation be recommended.

24. Under the ADB’s Environmental Assessment Guidelines (2003), preliminary assessment of Project 1 was undertaken through a Rapid Environmental Assessment (REA) c hecklist for road improvements (see Appendix 1). The assessm ent indicates an environment c ategory ‘B’ which mean s that impa cts that ma y arise fro m the imple mentation of all the components will generally be minor and measures to mitigate them will be provided and instit uted without difficulty. T he Safegua rd Policy re quires that risks and p otential impacts be ide ntified and reported in an IEE report.

D. Extent of the IEE Study

25. The IEE study for the sub-project was carried o ut by the Project Preparatory Technical Assistance (PPTA) consultants with ADB guidance, and whe re relevant environment al policies and guidelines of the Govern ment of Armenia were n ot available , internation al guidance . Environment Specialists of the PPTA consultan ts visited th e sub-proje ct site and also carried

5 out public consultat ion prior to preparation of this report. The IEE involved th e following activities:

(i) Gathering of baseline information on the physical, biological, and socio-economic environment of the project area and understanding the technical, so cial, and institutional aspects; (ii) field visits; (iii) discussions with officers of the relevant agencies; (iv) public consultation; (v) screening of potential issues, concerns, and impacts relat ive to locat ion, design, construction, and operation to distinguish those that are likely to be significant and warrant further study; (vi) preparing an EMP indicating impact areas, recommended mitigation measures, method of monitoring the impacts, responsible agencies/persons, and associated costs; and (vii) proposing the institutional set-up for implementation of the EMP.

26. Findings of site recon naissance, technical d escriptions based on t he preliminary engineering designs, and outcomes of discussions with officers of the relevant agencies and the general public are integrated into this IEE report.

II. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT

A. Type of Project

27. This is a Multi-tranche Financing Facility (MFF) Investment Program. This IEE assesses the first of four proposed projects (Project 1) of the first tranche of the MFF.

B. Project Location

28. The project site is located in Armenia’s cap ital of Yerevan. The alignment connects Davitashen Bridge and Ashtarak Highway (M-1), forming a border t o the Davitashen and Ajapnyak districts, approximately 4km north-west of the centre of the City of Yerevan (refer to Figure 2). The approximately 2.2km alignment is conf ined within a previously established right- of-way (‘red lines’) as indicated o n the Ye revan Master Plan. This land is o wned by the Municipality of Yerevan.

C. Magnitude of Operation

29. This sect ion of road is part of a program of ro ad section upgrades to complete the Yerevan western bypass, aiming to divert throu gh-traffic around Yerevan’s City centre, which will improve traffic flow and reduce congestion o n local roads. Presently vehicles from Ashtarak and cities t o the West of Yereva n bound for the Northern suburbs need to travel through residential n eighborhoods of Yerevan. The prop osed lin k in Project 1 will change the flow of traffic from radial to tangential relative to the City centre. As identified un der Section I, there are two other road section upgrades in this tranche, and further upgrades have been defined conceptually under Tranches 2 and 3 to the north of Yerevan and these projects are likely to be constructed following those within Tranche 1.

D. Project Description

30. Over a length of approximately 2.2km, the project includes construction of a new 6- lane divided road connectin g Ashtarak Highway with Haiabyan Street (a 0 .3km long b ranch) and widening from the existing 4-lanes t o Davitashen Bridge. A trumpet-shape interchange will be constructed at Haiabyan Street and a half-clover leaf interchange connecting the new road to Ashtarak Highway and Gevorg Chaush Street. Figure 3 illustrates the design.

31. The roads and bridges will be designed in accordance with:

(i) Road Design Building Code SNIP 2.07.01-89; (ii) Bridge Design Building Code SNIP 2.05.03.84; and (iii) Construction Norm of Republic of Armenia IV11.05.02-99.

32. The design for this section was pre pared in the 1980’s and the fly-over piers for both interchanges were constructed, but construction was stopped and the link was never completed. The existing piers will be tested for concrete strength and corrosion of reinforcement, so subject to the result will be either retained or removed. The new bridge sections of the interchanges will likely be prefabricated.

33. Widening of the road to Davitashen Bridge will involve re moval of existing asphalt l ayer (and grinding and re-using it as much as possible). The below-standard top and sub-bases will be removed as required and replaced with material meetin g accepted quality standards. A new concrete asphalt layer will be laid over the roa d and shoulders. The design inclu des road-side drainage. Road traffic safety measures will be installed including signage and traffic markings.

34. A 3m wide pedestrian p ath will be constructed a long both sides of the road. Road-level pedestrian crossings ar e unlike ly due to safety reasons; therefore, a p edestrian o verpass or underpass accessible by stairways in one or two location s will likely be incorpor ated into th e detailed design to connect the residential area north of the road (Davitashen neighborhood) with the City (Halabian Road) and Norashen neighborhood.

35. Other activities associated with construction include:

(i) identification and prote ction or relocation of existing utilities in cluding water mains, gas mains, sewers, electricity and communication lines; (ii) selection of suitable locations for construction camps; facilities and o ffices; and storage of materials and machinery. Install gated securit y fences around the camps; (iii) removal of existing waste material dumped along the route; (iv) excavation and grading of the alignment although the majo rity of earthworks has already been undertaken; (v) establishing wheel-wash facilities for vehicles leaving the site; (vi) use of an existing concrete batching plant located near the Halabian interchange; and (vii) landscaping of the shoulders and median following construction.

36. Detail design for this project is expected to be completed in 2010 and it is expected that construction will begin in 2011 and will be undertaken over a period of up to two and a hal f years.

E. Alternatives to the Proposed Project

37. The ADB’s Environmental Assessment Guidelines (2003 ) require consideration of feasible alternatives to the project in terms of project locat ion and design allowing measures to be proposed to avoid or prevent potential environmental impacts. 38. The City of Yerevan has been planned with the central area connected by radial roads to the suburbs. This directs through-traffic into the City centre as there is currently no complete link directing thr ough-traffic around the City cent re. The heavy congestion along the existing sections of road contributes to high noise, vehicle emissio ns, and traffic accident s. A complex transport development scheme for Yerevan was originally included in the Yerevan Master Plan in 1981 a nd construction of some sections of t he scheme began in the 1980’s bu t was never completed. The current 2004 Mast er Plan began to be de veloped in 2000, at wh ich time the transport de velopment scheme was reviewed, and the pro posed sche me essentia lly remain s similar to the original design. Construction of this new section of road will complete a section of the Yerevan western bypass to d ivert through-traffic off local roads. Th is will ea se congestion, improve traffic conditions and contribute to improving economic factors, and improve regional air quality.

39. There are no practicable alter natives in terms of location, de sign, const ruction methodology, and social and enviro nmental impacts. The no-go option is not considered viable as the conditions will worsen as traffic congestion would increase over time.

III. DESCRIPTION OF THE ENVIRONMENT – BASELINE

A. Physical Resources

1. Climate, Air Quality, and Noise

40. Climate. Yerevan e xperiences a continental climate1, with hot and d ry summers and moderately cold winters with unsta ble snow coverage. The average annual air temperature is 11.5oC, whilst the average low is -2.9 oC in January and th e average h igh of 24.5 oC is in July. Extreme temperatures range from -30 oC to 40 oC. Humidity is generally low with 49%-53% in summer and 70%-77% in winter. Average annu al precipitation is 353mm, with the highest leve l in May at 5 5mm and th e lowest in August at only 8mm. T he prevailing wind direction is north - east.

41. Air quality. Yerevan is surrounded by mountains on three sides which does not allow for natural dispersion of pollutants in the atmosphere, thereby resulting in high concentrations in the air. The main source of air p ollutants ar e emissions arising from auto mobiles which i s exacerbated by a congested road network. It is estimated in the Master Plan that approximately 95% of the pollutants in the air are the result of transport emissions.

42. In addition t o pollution caused by vehicle em issions, a significant pro portion of d ust is present in the atmosphere. This is largely due to extensive deforestation which has occurred in the region in close prox imity to the City borders. These larg e areas of a rid landscape produce significant dust during the dry summer months.

43. Table III.1 shows the measured concentration s from a monitoring st ation locate d at Arabkir, approximately 1km east of t he eastern extent of th e project site. The table compares

1 Weather results from the Arabkir monitoring station, approximately 1km east of the site.

8 the maxi mum permissible concent ration (MPC) of air pollutants ba sed on the Armenian standard Maximum Permissible Concentration (MPC) for Ambient Air in Human Settlements. Based on the annual average measured, the tabl e indicates th at the yearly average concentrations of dust, sulfur dioxide and nitr ogen oxide were consistently below the MPC; however, the average dust recorde d in Yerevan between 2007 and 2 008 indicates that du st is considerably higher bet ween Marc h to Ma y when compared to other months. The measured annual average of nitrogen dioxide exceeded the daily MPC limit in all three measured years.

Table III.1: Measured Concentrations and Maximum Permissible Concentration of Air Pollutants

Annual average measured at monitoring Maximum permissible station N7 – Arabkir (mg/m3)1 concentration (mg/m3)2 Pollutant TOTAL Maximum Daily 2007 2008 2009 AVERAGE single event medium 2007 - 2009

Dust 0.06 0.06 0.05 0.06 0.5 0.15

Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) 0.05 0.04 0.03 0.04 0.5 0.05

Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) 0.077 0.056 0.077 0.07 0.085 0.04

Nitrogen Oxide (NO) 0.04 0.04 0.02 0.03 0.4 0.06 1 Data supplied by L Margaryan of the Environmental Impact Monitoring Centre, dated 24/03/10. 2 Maximum Permissible Concentration (MPC) for Ambient Air in Human Settlements, Repu blic of Armeni a government decision N160-N, 02.02.2006.

44. Yerevan also experiences a high concentra tion of ground o zone, especially in summer, which results in the developmen t of a pho tochemical smog as a result of Yerevan’s geographical location and emissions from transport.

45. According to the Master Plan, the City is designated a ‘moderate air pollution zone’2 with respect to air quality.

46. Noise. Currently, the dominant noise source in Y erevan is associate d with transportation. Noise measurements were taken at five posit ions near th e areas of Davitashen and Norashen between 29 March and 1 April 2010. The measurements and a map of the survey positions are presented in Appendix 4. A summary of the measurement results is given in Table III.2.

47. This is compared in Table III.3 to Armenian standards that limit maximum permissible noise to 55 dBA LAeq during the day (6 a.m. to 10 p.m.) and 45 dBA LAeq during the night (from 10 p.m. to 6 a.m.). This indicates that baseline noise levels at three positions near the project site are already above maximum permissible noise levels.

2 Acc ording t o the Master Plan, th e C ity is se parated into t wo a ir q uality zones, ‘ moderate a ir pollution’ and ‘permissible air pollution’. The zone classification is based on a pollution index calculation of parameters including nitrogen oxide, carbon oxides, and dust, and takes into account of exceedance of MPCs, harmfulness, and other aspects. T he methodology is based o n ‘M ethodical g uidelines of sanit ary su pervision in the reg ional pl anning’ (USSR, 1990).

Table III.2 Summary of Measured Noise Levels Average Daytime Noise Level Receptor dB LAeq,15min Point N1 48 Point N2 59 Point N3 57 Point N4 45 Point N5 60

Table III.3 Maximum Permissible Noise Levels1

Level of noise LA and Maximum level Time Receptor level of equivalent of noise L (hours) AMax noise LAeq dBA dBA

Close territories of apartment buildings, 06.00 – 55 70 policlinics, dispensaries, rest homes, 22.00 boarding houses, homes for senior or disabled citizens, preschools, schools and 22.00 – 45 60 other educational institutions, libraries 06.00 Source: Ministry of Health, Republic of Armenia, Order N138, 6 March, 2002, Order on adoption of N2-III- 11.3 sanita ry norms "Noise in workpla ces, apa rtment and public buildi ngs, territo ries of urba n construction"

2. Surface and Groundwater

48. Other than the Hrazdan River, there are no surface water bo dies within or near the site. Groundwater beneath the site is at depths of 10-20m.

49. The Master Plan indicates that there is a low risk of flooding in the vicinity of the p roject site, probably because the Hrazdan River is highly regulated to control flooding in the area.

3. Topography, Soils, Geology and Seismology

50. The project site occupies a part of t he Yeghvard plateau, giving the site a height ab ove sea level of between 9 00 and 120 0m. The ea stern ex tent of the alig nment is ap proximately 500m west of Hrazdan River gorge and it generally slopes down to the south.

51. Yerevan City and the adjacent regions are located in a seismic area and are consid ered to have a high degree of seismic risk along existing fault lines. Earthquakes in th e area can reach up to the magnit ude of 9 a nd above on the Richt er scale an d maximu m horizontal acceleration of 0.4 g. There was a serious e arthquake in 1988 in the north of the country, measuring 6.9 on the Richter scale, which led to a large loss of life.

52. The geomorphology is a combination of volcanic basalt, fau lted uplift, a nd sedimentary infill overlying lava. The soils are ma inly mixed clay and sand composition at a depth averaging 30-40cm.

53. The Master Plan indicates that soils along the alignment contain concentrations of heavy metals (including chro mium, nickel, lead, zinc, copper, cobalt, molybdenum, and silver) which are elevated when compared to backgroun d c oncentrations which is ca lculated on a n aggregated index. Significant concentrations of metals have been recorded in areas which have been subjected to industrial land u ses, although information in the Master Plan sug gests that such conta mination is localized. There is no indication that historical land use along the alignment included industrial operations.

54. According t o the Master Plan, radioactivity towards the Davitashen Bridge end of the project is r elatively high, being more than 80 0Bk/kg as compared to natural le vels of 500 - 600Bk/kg.

B. Ecological Resources

55. In Armenia the Law on Flora and the Law on Fauna set out policies for the conservation, protection, use, regene ration, and managemen t of natural populations of plants an d animals, and for regulating the impact of human activities on biodiversity. The Armenian Red Book has been developed which lists all rar e and vani shing species that need to be pro tected. The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) has developed an IUCN Red Data Book and the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species, wh ich highlights those plants and animals that are facing a higher risk of global extinction and are therefore listed as critica lly endangered, endangered, or vulnera ble). Species endemic t o Yerevan have been identified; ho wever, they are expected to be commonly found within the Yerevan and surrounding regions.

56. A preliminary investigation was undertaken by an ecologist in March and April 2010 to verify the Master Plan or identify any protected species and the potential impact from the project on them (see Appendix 2). The season over which the study was undertaken was not favorable from the vegetation, migration, wintering, ovipositing (egg-laying), and other biological perspectives. Based o n the preliminary inve stigation, it was determined that it is like ly tha t protected species are not present at the site ; however, this will need t o be confir med through further investigation prior to construction.

57. The project site is lo cated in a semi-desert lan dscape zone with elements of desert. In this landscape are diffe rent types of flora and f auna species which are typical of Yerevan. In general, Yerevan contains the following flora and fauna types (Yavruyan, 2010):

(i) Plants - 900 types of vascular plants, 15 are included in the Armenian Red Book, among them one endemic species is included on the IUCN Red List. (ii) Mammals - 25 species, three are in cluded in the Armenian Red Book, 5 are on the IUCN Red List. The City area is widely po pulated by undesirable species, such as grey rats and the house mouse. (iii) Birds – about 170 species, 29 are registered in the Armenian Red Book. At least 100 types, of which 15 are included in the Armenian Red Book, build nests. Birds are also regularly present during seasonal migration, wintering, and feeding time. The most numerous are synanthropic types, such as the sparrow, grey crow, magpie, rock pigeon (including feral pigeon), and Eurasian Collared Dove. (iv) Reptiles - 25 species, five are included in the Armenian Red Book. (v) Amphibians - the Syri an spade-footed Toad (Pelobates syriacus), list ed in the Armenian Red Book, is likely to have disappeared due to l andscape alteration and alterations to water reservoir flows.

(vi) Invertebrates – there a re many throughout Yerevan. The most investigated are beetles: about 700 kno wn species, most of which are end emic to Armenia an d some endemic to Yerevan. Kno wn insect species include 60 fly species (dipterans); 40 wasp, bee and ant specie s (hymenopt erans); 130 butterfly species; be tween 10 to 20 types of grassho pper, cricke t and locu st specie s (orthoptera); spiders; sn ails (molluscs); and ab out 30 types of gnawing beetles and tick species. (vii) Fish – 10 species are registered in the rivers Hrazdan and Getar.

58. Notwithstanding the above, the pro ject site is within an urban area that has been highly modified, including with deposited domestic and construction waste within the alignment. Some fruit and decorative trees have been planted within the alignment.

59. The Yerevan Master Plan identifie s natural biodiversity sites in the vicinity of the p roject site which contain regist ered species that need special protection (registered in Ar menian Red Book, Armenian endemic, original e cosystems). The natural biodiversity sites within the vicinity of the project site are:

(i) Hrazdan River Canyon (approximately 500m east from the project site) - Greater Horseshoe Bat (Rhinolophus ferrumequinum), Lesser Horseshoe Bat (Rhinolophus hipposideros), 20 bird species, Tr anscaucasian Ratsnake (Elaphe hohenackeri), six plant species; and (ii) Steppe territories (appr oximately 1. 5km north of the proje ct site) - Dr y steppe original territories, 18 bird species, four endemic beetles, two plant species.

C. Economic Development

60. Where the alignment meets Ashtarak Highway, the route is surrounded mostly by vacant land and only a few res idential properties. The remainder of the alignment is locate d within a medium to high-density urban a rea comprising pocket s of single houses a nd high-rise apartment blocks, commercial buil dings, a small military base, the Ar menia TV premises, an d other simila r land uses. Some residential prop erties back onto the alignment and there are private houses and b uildings co nstructed w ithin the r ight-of-way, and repor tedly without Municipal approval.

61. Above ground gas pip es are loca ted within the alignment. Other utilitie s, incl uding electricity and communications lines, water mains, and sewers within or near the alignment will be confirmed through a survey by the Contractor prior to construction.

D. Social and Cultural Resources

62. In 2001-2006, 34.3% of the Armeni an population lived within Yerevan ’s 12 districts. Following in dependence in 1991 and the sub sequent economic decline, the po pulation ha s fallen mainly as a consequence of labor migrati on, a decreased birth rate, and a slight increase in the morta lity; which has since led to a static population in Yerevan. Statistically 28% of the population in Yerevan is categorized as below the UNDP poverty line. Poverty reduction targets aim to decrease the percentage of classified poor in Yerevan to a target figure of 2.6% by 2021.

63. Overall employment h as stagnate d although the economic recovery has led to an increase in employment sectors be nefiting fro m foreign investment. According t o household surveys carried out by t he National Statistical Service of the Republic of Armenia (NSS, 2001),

12 the unemployment rate exceeded 30%.The unemployment rate has since fallen from 10.1% in 2003 to 6.5% in 2008 in Yerevan, but official figures may underestimate the true situation.

64. An archa eological in vestigation was undertaken to ide ntify any archaeological sites and items of interest in or around the study area, a nd that may be affected by the proj ect. Refer to the full repo rt in Appendix 3. The Hrazdan River is one of the main water bodies for Armenia and has attracted nearby settlement as far back as early humans, especially Neanderthals, with traces of th eir activity recorded in caves along the lower section of t he river. Terrace and “peninsulas” within the g eology, formed by the main river and its tribu taries, served a basis f or fortified settlements, citadels, and fo rtresses. Traces of irrig ation channel structures are visible along the b orders of th e gorge. Co nsidering th e importance of Hrazda n River in p olitical and economic lif e of Yereva n, and a high density of archaeological sites on the sur face of the terraces, the study of the areas closer to its canyon are of a high priority.

65. The archaeological field investigations were in hibited due to the depo sited construction waste along many sections investig ated; however two area s containing traces of settlements were identified:

(i) South-eastern corner of Halabya n Street and Yeghvard Highway – small obsidian artifacts (retouched thin blades and scraper, natural pebble, hammer stones, an d Medieval pottery fragments) ly ing in the se diment, with traces of construction remains; and (ii) South-western corner of Grevorg Chaush Street – traces of wall structu res and houses, however fully destroyed by road construction activities.

66. Neither of these two archaeological structures are recorded in publish ed and archival records, nor in list s of p rotected sites adopted b y the Ministry of Culture (MOC). The two sites have no clear features and are likely to be destroyed. The i nvestigation concluded that there is no need for any special action to pr otect the sit es or to org anize recovery excavations before construction begins.

67. There are n o other cultural heritage or archaeological site s designated by UNESCO or the MOC within the vicinity of the site.

IV. SCREENING OF POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION

A. Environmental Parameters That May Be Impacted

68. There are likely to be b oth beneficial and adve rse impacts associat ed with Project 1 to construct and widen the road, including on:

(i) Physical environment – air quality, water, soil and landscape; (ii) Ecological resources – flora and fauna; (iii) Economic development – industry a nd commerce, loca l and regional r oads and transport; and (iv) Social and cultural – human health and safety; income and employment.

69. The potential issue s, concerns, and/or impacts relativ e to location, design, and construction and operat ion phases of the project are outlined below. T he significa nce of any

13 impact and need for mitigation o r opportunit y for enhan cement are also discu ssed be low. Detailed mitigation measures are included in Section V.

B. Impacts Due to Location

70. The project location is wholly within a right-of-way that was established during the 1980’s and is owned by the Municipality of Yerevan , so there will be no l and acquisit ion. However, there are several priva te residential and other buildings within the right-of-way, reportedly without Mun icipal approval, that wo uld be remo ved and oc cupants resettled. Businesses also operating from these buildings will be required to relocate. Resettlement and compensation are detailed in the Land Acquisition and Resettlement Plan (LARP) for Project 1.

71. The purpose of constructing the new section of road is to provide a link between Ashtarak Highway and Davitashen Bridge, which will form p art of the Yerevan western bypass. Completion of this bypa ss will divert through-traffic around t he City centre and is ex pected to improve regional air quality due to a reduction in congestion.

72. The alignment runs between the communities of Davitashen, Huso Avan and Norashen. Due to safet y reasons, pedestrian level crossings will not b e provided at road level across the new road at the intersections. To o vercome an y social impacts asso ciated with severance o f communities, one or two pedestrian overpasses or underpasses will be included in the design.

73. No part of the project passes thro ugh or near any designated ecolog ically sensitive areas, designated wildlife or other sanctuary, national park, botanical garden, nor area of international significance (e.g., IUCN, RAMSAR site). Based on this, the project will not impact any ecologically sensitive areas.

C. Impacts Related to Design

74. The road was designed in the 1980’s and construction of fly-over pylons started, but was not completed. The existing design has sin ce been reviewed and upd ated in accordance wit h current road design standards. Recent changes to the desig n include side alignment changes, which will enhance road safety and new pedestrian crossing/s to alleviate severance.

75. The new ro ad section is anticipate d to improve road sa fety and Yerevan’s regiona l air quality by removing through-traffic from the City and congested loca l roads. The road will be designed and constructed to current high standards, further facilitating driver safety.

76. Drainage has been in corporated into the ro ad design t o control f low and thereby preventing accelerated erosion of soils and local flooding.

77. As noted above, the design will make pr ovision for one or two pedestrian overpasses or underpasses; however, the design will include stairs. Mob ility friendly ramps have not been considered due to cost and space restrictions.

78. The structural elements of the project will be designed with consideration to the high risk of seismic activity of the region. This will enhance the sustainability of the project.

79. The design includes lan dscaping on the median and along the shoulde rs. Benefits o f landscaping include en hancing ecological value, facilitat ing infiltratio n of run-off, enhancing visual aesthetics of the locality, and providing some noise attenuation.

D. Impacts During Construction

80. Activities d uring the p re-construction, site pre paration, an d constru ction phases are outlined below and the potential impacts assessed and mitigation measures recommende d. Section V outlines mo re detailed mitigation measures including th e requirement to prepa re detailed op erating plans for specific aspe cts for inclu sion in the EMP. Re gulations o n environmental protection, safety of the public, and safety and hygiene of workers should be fully complied with in all phases of constructing the project.

81. There is po tential for the project to generate e mployment opportunitie s for lo cals. It is recommended that recruitment be offered in th e local community as it is likely to p romote good community relations and encourage good work practices. Procurement of local workers will also minimize social problems otherwise caused by non-local workers attracting camp followers.

82. On-site workers should be made aware of, a nd trained in, standard environme ntal protection requirements and the IEE requireme nts. Contractors will be contractual ly required to include environmental training and monitoring as part of their management of the project.

83. Potentially sensitive receptors will be notified by the Contractors of upcoming construction activities in their area that may result in in creased dust, noise, temp orary roa d closures and traffic diversions. Th is may include media announcements to the general public. Notifications should pro vide contact details on who to contact to obtain further information or make a complaint.

1. Site Preparation Activities

84. Prior to the start of construction, th e occupants of the buildings within the right-of-way will need to be resett led and the b uildings de molished. T he full social impact of this i s being assessed through a so cial analysis report, and resettlement will be undertaken in accordance with the LARP.

85. Locations for the constr uction camps will be se lected by the Contractor in consul tation with the PPMU (Progra m Preparation and Man agement Unit) Environment Specialist to ensure minimal environmental impact.

86. Waste that has been d eposited al ong the ali gnment will need to be moved prior to excavation and grading activities. The source of the waste is unknown; however, based on site visits, the material is a combination of dome stic and co nstruction w aste (large- sized rubble ). The waste should not be used as fill material on the project and wil l be transp orted and disposed in accordance with MNP requirements.

87. There is potential for disruption to both a bove and below-ground utilities d uring construction. This might include abo ve-ground gas mains, water mains, sewers, and electricity and communications lines. Surveys will be undertaken by the Contractor prior to con struction to identify operational and redundant utilitie s. Plans will be prepared to set out temporary or permanent relocation a nd/or prote ction measures prior to constru ction. Any disruption to services will be short-term and localized. Consideration will need to be given to the time of yea r and time of day for any disruption a nd those po tentially affected should be notified prior to the works.

88. Construction site safety for workers and residents of th e nearby communities is of concern to the ADB. T he construction site layout will be planned and areas and machinery secured as required prior to and during constr uction to en sure safety. First aid fa cilities will b e provided and safety and environmental emergency response plans prepared prior to the start of construction.

2. Vehicle Movements, Machinery Operation, Excavation, and Grading

89. Prior to construction, decorative and orchard trees and other ve getation within the alignment will be cleared. Based on the ecological investigation (Appendix 3), none of the trees are protecte d species. Clearing of vegetation, earthmoving activities, and other construction activities ha ve the pote ntial to impact on othe r flora and fauna. There are no plant species considered at risk of being affected by the pr oject so plants are not listed in Ta ble IV.1. The preliminary ecological investigation identified that it is likely that no prote cted fauna species are present at the site; however, this will need to b e confirmed through further investigation prior t o construction. Table IV. 1 lists tho se protected species th at may be potentially impacted by construction activities associated with the project, if present on site.

Table IV.1 Protected Species That Would Potentially Be Impacted

Common name Scientific name ARDB1 IUCN2 Note

Birds

Lammergeier Gypaetus barbatus 9 Migratio n, feeding

Eurasian Griffon Vulture Gyps fulvus 9 Migratio n, feeding

Black (Monk) Vulture Aegypius monachus 9 LR/NT Migratio n, feeding

Reptiles

Transcaucasian Ratsnake Elaphe hohenackeri 9

Insects

Willowherb Hawkmoth Proserpinus Proserpina 9

Seathorn Hawk-moth Hyles hippophaes 9 1 ARDB – Armenian Red Data Book 2 IUCN - International Union for Conservation of Nature Red List of Threatened Species. IUCN Red List Categories: NT - Near Threatened, LR - Low Risk

90. Any impact on the Hraz dan River Canyon natur al biodiversity site (approximately 5 00m east), as identified in Yerevan Master Plan, will also be confirmed through further inv estigation. The steppe territories natural biod iversity site , approximately 1.5km north of the site, would unlikely be impacted by the project.

91. Vegetation removal and site clearing will be undertaken during late autumn and/or winter which are seasons most favorable to avoid impact on flora and protected fauna species.

92. As ground cover is re moved, exp osed soils of the site will provide a dust so urce potentially causing nuisance to ne arby recept ors and a reduction in local air q uality. The generation of dust should be mitigated primarily through maintaining vegetation cover as long as practicable, and surfacing internal haul roads with gravel . Another measure is spraying the internal haul roads with water.

93. Particulate matter and nitrogen d ioxide will be generat ed by construction ve hicle exhaust. The exposure to potential receptors is expected to be insign ificant beca use of the limited level, duration o f exposure, and likely adequate dispersion of pollutants before they reach receptors. Exhaust attenuatio n such a s scrubbers or diesel particulate filters, should still be applied to vehicles.

94. The alignment does n ot pass thro ugh or near any cultura l heritage o r archaeolo gical sites designated by UNESCO or th e MOC; ho wever, the archaeological investigation identified traces of two unrecorded settlements near the alignment which are likely to be mostly destroyed by more recent road construction and other urban development activities. If any item of cultural heritage or archaeological interest is uncovered during excavation activities, works must stop and the MOC notified. Constructio n activities cannot commence until th e chance-find has been investigated by an archaeologist an d written pe rmission given by the MOC. Contra ctors will be obliged to f amiliarize t hemselves with the ch ance-find pr ocedure of the MOC a nd will be contractually required to implement them strictly.

95. During construction, n oise will be generated from the operation of vehicles and machinery (including ex cavators, compactors, jackhammers, and vehicle reversin g alarms), verbal communications and other construction-related act ivities. The most sensit ive receptors are occupa nts of residential prop erties and other buildings that ar e adjacent to the site boundary.

96. Construction noise levels at near by receptors will vary throughout the constru ction period depe nding on the activitie s carried out and the d istance to se nsitive rece ptors. The Contractor will develop a Noise and Vibration Management Plan, when actual locations of construction camps are known. Without mitigation, increased noise levels would likely result in significant temporary noise impact s. Mitigation measures that will be a pplied to mi nimize noise include:

(i) Siting of construction camps away from residential areas; (ii) Distancing noisier activities away from receptors where practicable; (iii) Scheduling of noisy activities towards the middle of the da y and avoidi ng night- time activities; (iv) Minimizing the need for heavy vehicles to pa ss through r esidential a reas by specifying routes along public roads, site access points, and haul routes; (v) Installing an d maintaining effective exhaust silencing systems on vehicles and equipment; and (vi) Installing temporary hoarding around noise sources where considered necessary where other mitigation measures are not sufficient or practicable.

97. Construction equipment may generate vibrat ion at the properties immediately adjacent to the align ment. Any vibration would result in nuisance effects, an d will be lo calized and temporary a nd will unlikely result in structural damage to buildings or walls of the adjacen t private properties. A pr operty dilapi dation surv ey will be u ndertaken p rior to const ruction and

17 again following constru ction to inspect any damage. Any damage as a r esult of construction of the project will either be repaired or the owners will be compensated.

98. If excess spoil is genera ted from the excavation and grading activities, the spoil will be classified and transported and reused or dispo sed in accordance with MNP requirements. Soil towards the Davitashen Bridge end of the alig nment will need to be tested for the p resence of radiation. If radioactivity in the soil is higher tha n permissible levels, the Contractor must have approval from the MNP for reuse in the same location or disposa l in accordance with MNP requirements. Workers in this ar ea must be appropriately trained and be provided with appropriate personal protective equipment.

99. There is potential for spill or leak of fuels and oils from inappropriately stored material or when refueling. This would conta minate the soil and co uld infiltrate into the groundwater or eventually enter surface water if carried off site through run-off. Mitigation in the EMP sets out recommendations for avoiding on-site maintenance and re-fu elling where practicable, providing bunded areas for fuel st orage and maintenance where on-site maintenance activities cannot b e avoided, clean-up of any spill and leak, and reporting to the MNP in case of spills and leaks.

3. Vehicle Movements on Local Roads and Altered Access

100. The project will incre ase heavy vehicle movements on local roads throughout construction from transp ort of waste, spoil, and construction materials and machinery. There is potential for disruption t o public roa d access, including div ersions, an d increased road traffi c conflict. A Traffic and Transport Management Plan will be prepared by the contracto r to set out safe entry and exit points, enforce strict safet y on public roads in conjunction with Yereva n police force, specify timing for deliveries, and, in conjunction with the Municipality of Yerevan , determine routes on local roads to manage traffic and minimize potential conflict.

101. Dirt and mud carried onto public roads from construction vehicles exiting the site has the potential to cause safety hazard. Graveled site exits and wheel wash facilit ies will mitigate this potential impact.

102. The haul roads to the project site a re in poor condition, so me of which are minor local unpaved roads. Heavy vehicle movements o n t hese roads during constructio n have the potential to result in further dilapid ation. These roads should be inspected by t he Armenia n Roads Directorate withi n the Muni cipality and will require maintenance during and following construction if road conditions beco me unsafe. A dilapidatio n survey will be undertaken by the Contractor prior to co nstruction and after and an approach to repair agreed with the Municipality.

4. Solid and Liquid Waste Generation

103. Solid waste that may be generated during construction includes redundant road surface, oil filters, material packaging, and solid waste di scarded by construction workers. Liquid wastes that will be generated by the project include construction worker sewage and wast e oils. T he EMP specifies that wast e must be collected, stored, transported, and disposed in a ccordance with MNP and Municipality requirements.

5. Site Reinstatement

104. Following construction, and prior to handover of the sit e by the Contractor to the Municipality, the Contractor will rei nstate the site which will include clearing th e site of all construction-related material and waste, and landscaping. The landscaping activ ities shou ld include grass-seeding and planting native trees within the median and along the shoulder. All trees removed from publicly owned land will be replaced by native trees at a rat io of 10:1, of which the majority will be in the vicinity of the site.

6. Summary of Construction Impact

105. In summary, adverse impacts due to the con struction of the project will be temporary and short-term, and can be mitigated in accordance with the EMP to insi gnificant levels. Short- term emplo yment of local populat ion in con struction will result in lo w to moderate positive impacts.

E. Impacts Related to Operations

106. Traffic flow will be improved by diverting tr affic from local roads. Overa ll improvement to air quality is likely to occur as a result of implementing the scheme due to reduce d road traffic congestion providing a positive impact to the local area. It is envisaged that air quality will improve over time due to cleaner vehicles on roads. Ho wever, the new road will be brou ght closer to residents adjo ining the alignment and these residents may b e exposed t o increased local air pollution (nitrogen dioxide and particulate matter) from vehicle emissions and increased road traffic noise.

107. Operational noise levels are predicted to increase in areas directly adjacent to the new road and it is reasonable to expect decreases at receptors adjacent to existing roads as traffic is diverted from those roads. The figu re in Appendix 4 shows the predict ed noise im pacts at the measurement locations, all of which are close to the new road alignment. Predicted noise levels at these measurement locations show increases in noise o f between 3 and 25dBA soon after opening the road, the largest incre ases are w here noise levels are currently low including in Davitashen. In these areas noise in creases should be mitigated by the construction of acoustic barriers.

108. The figure in Appendix 4 also sh ows the ap proximate location of t he 55dBA noise contour which marks a position in side which t he maxi mum permitted noise level for daytime would be exceeded. Noise levels should be reduced by either the use of an acoustic barrier or through the use of a noise reducing road surface (a thin surface course) so, where practical, no dwelling is exposed to noise levels in excess of the maxi mum permitted noise level. The actual locations of acoustic b arriers will be identifie d and designed by a noise speciali st when topographic mapping of the area is available.

109. Often with road bypass projects there is concern about negative socio-economic impacts from lost bu siness of in cidental through-traffic. Based on th e current st ate of cong estion along these local roads that will be bypassed by the new alignment, it is envisaged that t he resulting effect along the local r oads will b e an enhancement of the amenity thereby attracting new business and customers with positive socio-economic effects.

110. The project will also bring socio-economic ben efits to the local community by providing short-term local employment opportunities. The improved road link, along with completion of the

19 other Yerevan west bypass se ctions, will induce regiona l economic growth by enhancing accessibility between the north and south of Yerevan.

F. Cumulative Environmental Effects

111. During construction, re ceptors adjacent to th e route will be exposed to short-t erm construction-related nuisance effects, includ ing noise, dust, and altered access resulting in cumulative effects. The se impacts will be temp orary and will be mitigated as much as possible by limiting construction traffic and observing maintenance regimens.

112. Project 1 is one of four projects wit hin Tranche 1. Due to t he minor potential impacts associated with the oth er three pro jects and their distance from each other, there will be no adverse combined impacts during construction.

113. Combined with the ot her two roa d upgrade projects an d future tra nche projects to upgrade road section s, Project 1 will improve the links wit hin the regi onal through-traffic road network. This will contribute to economic benefit s as well as reduci ng air quali ty impacts associated with the currently congested road network.

114. Further upgrades have been defined conceptua lly under Tranches 2 and 3 to the north of Yerevan and these p rojects are likely to be constructed following t hose within Tranche 1. These proje cts are likely to result in sim ilar nu isance impa cts during construction including temporary noise and traffic disruptio n. The cumulative outcome of thes e projects is for medium to long-term road impro vements. T here are no other known current or planned co nstruction projects in the vicinity o f the proje ct area. As such, there will be no cumulative impacts in t his respect.

V. ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT AND MONITORING PLAN

115. Environmental management invol ves the im plementation of environmental protection and mitigation measures and monitoring for en vironmental impacts. The purpose of the EMP is to set the framework fo r ensuring compliance with the ADB’s environmental requirements and all applicable Go vernment of Armenia environmental laws, regulations, and standards for environmental protection.

116. Environmental protection measures are taken to:

(i) mitigate environmental impacts, (ii) provide in-kind compensation for lost environmental resources, or (iii) enhance environmental resources.

117. The plan covers all phases of the project which includes pr e-construction, construction, and operati on. Provisions set out i n the Environmental Management Plan of the EMP will be implemented by the Contractor and monitored by the PIU Environment Specialist.

A. Environmental Management Plan

118. The Enviro nmental Management Plan in Table V.1 summarizes the anticipated environmental impacts a s identified in Section IV, mitigation measures, required environmental monitoring activities, a nd the entities responsible for carrying out those activities t ogether with estimated costs of implementation.

119. The purpose of the EMP is to guid e engineers and contra ctors in the prevention and mitigation of environmental impacts related to construction activities, to guide monitoring by the relevant authorities including the SEI, and to g uide the Municipality in the subsequent operation of the road. The EMP:

(i) links road works activities, the ir potential im pacts and their prevention or mitigation; (ii) provides the basis for updating b y the Contractor prior t o commenc ement of specific identified activities; and (iii) forms the basis for preparing a program of monitoring for checking on compliance with impact prevention and mitigation measures.

120. The Enviro nmental Ma nagement Plan and the Environmental Monitoring Plan will be updated dur ing detailed engineerin g design w hen more information is available, and will b e reviewed and approved by ADB before included in the bid a nd contract documents. They wil l then be furt her refined by the contr actor based on the construction contract and thereafter as required by changing conditions.

Table V.1: Summary of Impacts and Proposed Mitigation Measures (Environmental Management Plan) Potential Project Indicative cost of Environmental Proposed Mitigation Measures Responsible Entities Activities mitigation (US$) Impacts Detail Design Phase (To be updated as required by Detail Design Consultant and PPMU & PIU Environment Specialists) Fauna Degradation of • Undertake fauna surveys to confirm findings of the preliminary ecological PIU PPMU investigation flora and fauna investigation. The investigation is to be first agreed with the MNP and shall be Hire specialists $10,000+ for specialist species, guided by the following: investigation including o Establish a team of qualified and experienced botanists and zoologist. protected fauna o Program fieldwork to collect reliable data. (The timing of the fauna investigation is dependant on the species status; i.e., migrating, nesting, stable habitat, etc. o Include in the outputs a site biodiversity and protected species database, detailed descriptions of possible environmental impact, and recommendations for the relevant mitigation measures for inclusion in the Flora and Fauna Management Plan, which includes protected fauna. o Develop protection measures and/or a relocation program in consultation with the MNP if the specialist identifies protected species on the site that would be affected. Hiring of Social impacts • Maximize employment opportunities for local people by employing them as part PPMU Cost savings Contractor’s from non-local of the project labor force. Ensure provision is envisaged labor force workers included in bid and contract documents and review bids Land Social impacts • Implement LARP and social assessment. PIU Costed under LARP acquisition associated with Implement LARP and land acquisition ADB resettlement and Review resettlement Environment Protection and • Update EMP to reflect detail design and incorporate in bid and contract Detail Design Detail Design protection preservation documents Consultant Consultant and requirements • Include specific requirement in bid and contract documents: Update EMP and included in contract preservation do not reflect include appropriate PIU of detail design o withholding of payment or penalty clauses, to ensure contractor’s clauses in bid and included in archaeology implementation of environmental and archeological mitigation measures; contract documents environmental due

Table V.1: Summary of Impacts and Proposed Mitigation Measures (Environmental Management Plan) Potential Project Indicative cost of Environmental Proposed Mitigation Measures Responsible Entities Activities mitigation (US$) Impacts o employment of a designated Environmental Specialist and a designated PIU diligence budget Archeologist to oversee environmental and archeological issues and Review updated EMP ADB mitigation; and and bid and contract included in corporate o provision of environmental and archaeological awareness training to all staff documents environmental due and periodic reinforcement training and effectiveness monitoring. ADB diligence budget Review updated EMP and bid and contract documents and provide non-objections Construction Phase (To be updated by the Contractor together with the PIU Environment Specialist prior to beginning construction and thereafter, as required) • Update EMP to reflect contract documents Contractor Contractor • Update EMP to reflect changed conditions Update EMP • inclu ded in PIU construction contract Review updated EMP PIU ADB included in Review updated EMP environmental due and provide non- diligence budget objection ADB included in corporate environmental due diligence budget Construction Damage to • Undertake prior to construction a utilities survey for protection and/or relocation Contractor Contractor planning utilities and of water mains, gas mains, sewers, electricity, and communication lines • inclu ded in interruption of construction contract services Construction Damage to • Obtain necessary approvals from the Armenian Roads Directorate and Contractor Contractor transport public roads Municipality for occupation of roads. • Includ ed in planning and property • Undertake a Pre-Construction Road and Property Dilapidation Survey to construction contract document the condition of the road. Construction Impact to • Obtain necessary approvals from MOC for construction in areas where Contractor Contractor planning for archaeological archaeological finds have been identified. Hire an archaeologist • $2,000 + for archaeology find archaeologist

Table V.1: Summary of Impacts and Proposed Mitigation Measures (Environmental Management Plan) Potential Project Indicative cost of Environmental Proposed Mitigation Measures Responsible Entities Activities mitigation (US$) Impacts Contaminated Safety of • Hire specialists to undertake an investigation on radioactivity in soils at the Contractor • $2,000 + for land workers and Davitashen Bridge end of the project. This investigation shall set out Hire specialist specialist services investigation public requirements for working near these soils and management of contaminated PIU • Cost for radioactive material. Approve plans soil disposal to be Pollution of soil, • Hire, depending on the outcome of the investigation, specialists to develop a determined by water, and air plan, TOR, and outline contract for safe disposal of the soil. additional bid. • Review the requirements of the investigation and amend other plans as appropriate to reflect the findings – Waste Management and Disposal Plan, Traffic and Access Plan, Emergency Plan for Hazardous Materials, Health, Safety, and Environment Emergency Response Plan. Contractor or Insufficient • Contract to include specific contractual requirement; e.g., withholding of Contractor Contractor workers not environmental payment or penalty clauses, to ensure contractor’s implementation of Monitor environmental • $5,000 per year Env. following controls environmental mitigation measures. parameters and report Protection team environmental implemented • Contract to include the requirement that the contractor has on staff a to PIU. IA/EA requirements designated Environmental Specialist to oversee environmental issues and PIU monitoring and mitigation. Monitor the Contractor reporting included in • Contract to include the requirement for the contractor to provide environmental and representative environmental due induction training to all staff. environmental diligence budget parameters and reports MNP to MNP and ADB State budget through EA. ADB MNP’s State Expertise Department3 included in corporate environmental due Monitor the Contractor. diligence budget ADB Monitor EA/IA based on reports and through periodic missions All site Degradation of • Prepare and submit, within 30 days of contract effectiveness, the following Contractor Contractor activities environment environmental management sub-plans: Update and implement • inclu ded in PIU construction contract Degradation of 1. Health, Safety, and Environment Emergency Response Plan Review and monitor PIU

3 Yerevan Municipality is the Executing Agency (EA) and MNP’s State Expertise Department will provide an Environment Specialist to participate in a Program Preparation and Management Unit (PPMU).

Table V.1: Summary of Impacts and Proposed Mitigation Measures (Environmental Management Plan) Potential Project Indicative cost of Environmental Proposed Mitigation Measures Responsible Entities Activities mitigation (US$) Impacts archaeological, 2. Public Relations and Communications Plan implementation included in historical, and ADB 3. Flora and Fauna Plan environmental due cultural sites Review and issue non- diligence budget and 4. Physical Cultural Resources Plan objection prior to ADB monuments 5. Utility Protection and Relocation Plan construction included in corporate environmental due 6. Drainage, Slope Stability, Erosion and Sediment Control Plan Deleterious diligence budget effects on 7. Construction Work Camps Plan nearby residents from 8. Traffic and Access Plan air and noise 9. Spoil Disposal Planning and Management Plan pollution 10. Emergency Plan For Hazardous Materials Health hazards 11. Vegetation Clearing Plan to workers and 12. Dust and Emissions Control Plan nearby residents 13. Noise Control Plan 14. Waste Management and Disposal Plan

15. Site Reinstatement, Landscaping, and Revegetation Plan

• Base the sub-plans on the EIA report, bid and contract documents, best international environmental management practices, and as briefly outlined below. All site Workers 1. Health, Safety, and Environment Emergency Response Plan Contractor Contractor activities damage Hire training specialist • $10,000 – trainers • The purpose of this sub-plan is to document the approach of the general environment 4 to devise plan and Personal protective and contractor (GC), subcontractors (SCs), and their workers in the implementation implement training Worksite of a training program for construction workers in relation to environmental, equipment – $5,000 (at safety archaeological, program $40/worker) historical, and archaeological, and occupational health and safety issues. Record and report Security fencing cultural sites • Training rationale. The implementation of the EMP will require the environment and safety purchased: and involvement of all construction personnel. The nature of the EMP is such that incidents to relevant • Metal wire and monuments. personnel at all levels have a degree of responsibility in relation to authorities. environmental, archaeological, and occupational health and safety issues and concrete supports – $36,000 (at 2.2m

4 The general contractor is the entity who enters into a contract for the works with the EA and who is responsible, by contract, for the work and conduct of its subcontractors.

Table V.1: Summary of Impacts and Proposed Mitigation Measures (Environmental Management Plan) Potential Project Indicative cost of Environmental Proposed Mitigation Measures Responsible Entities Activities mitigation (US$) Impacts the implementation of measures contained in the EMP. As such, training for all PIU high - $36/m). Plus Sickness, personnel in relation to environmental issues and the implementation of the Review plan and plastic fencing –

injury, or death EMP will be critical to ensuring the effectiveness of the EMP. monitor implementation $4,000 ($2-4/m) of workers, • Training objective. The objective of the training program is to raise the Review incident logs • Alternative option is road users and awareness and enhance the skills of the construction workforce in relation to ADB metallic hoarding other people relevant legislation and the four following issues: with concrete Review and issue non- near the site supports – $220,000 o general environmental awareness, including rules and regulations to be objection prior to caused by (at 2m height - $220- followed on the construction site and in the construction camps; construction exposure to 250/m) hazardous o general health and safety awareness, including an AIDS/HIV and STD • Ot her costs covered substances; awareness program; by labor cost of the slips, trips and o job-specific training for workers with responsibility for activities that could construction budget falls; and falling have adverse impacts on the environment or humans (e.g., PAH); and PPMU & PIU objects. o requirements for worker personal protective equipment including hard hats, included in safety boots, high-visibility vests, gloves, eye-glasses and ear defenders, environmental due and PAH masks or equivalent, as required. diligence budget • The training should include posters in work camps that illustrate the Red Book ADB species likely to be found in various areas of the project. included in corporate environmental due • Contractor should post a progressive penalty plan to discourage the hunting and diligence budget consuming of wildlife. • Blasting. Training should include a module on the safety aspects of blasting (if blasting is contemplated). Topics should include: o public meetings to introduce the concept of blasting, o signs posted that contain times of blasting, o alarms prior to blasting, o the use of blasting mattresses, and o proper handling and storage of explosives. • Health risks and prevention. Training should include information and education on sexually transmitted diseases and HIV/AIDS for construction workers as part of the health and safety program at campsites during the construction period. • Illegal trafficking. Workers should be made aware that trafficking of humans, wildlife, endangered species, and illegal substances through the road corridor

Table V.1: Summary of Impacts and Proposed Mitigation Measures (Environmental Management Plan) Potential Project Indicative cost of Environmental Proposed Mitigation Measures Responsible Entities Activities mitigation (US$) Impacts will not be tolerated and be advised of a progressive penalty scheme up to and including dismissal.. Public Lack of 2. Public Relations and Communications Plan Contractor Contractor consultation information and Hire public liaison and • $2,000 for • The purpose of this sub-plan is to document the approach of the GC, SCs, and and understanding awareness specialist to advertising and their workers in the implementation of a plan to relate to the general public and awareness by communities devise plan and dedicated project nearby residents prior to commencing site preparation and construction building and affected implement awareness phone line parties about activities and during construction. and grievance redress • Ot her costs covered the planned • This plan should be consistent with the LARP and social assessment, and program by labor cost of the works activities should include the following: PIU construction budget and schedule of o Procedures for communicating with local residents and other nearby Review plan and PIU implementation receptors developed in advance of activities, particularly when noise, monitor the can lead to included in vibration, utility service disturbance, or other nuisances may be generated. implementation frustration and environmental due complaints, o Details on the dedicated project phone line. ADB diligence budget which could o Complaints process developed whereby the public and other stakeholders Review and issue non- ADB result in delays. may make complaints and be assured of receiving responses within a objection prior to included in corporate reasonable period, consistent with the requirements of the Grievance construction environmental due Redress Mechanism in ADB’s Safeguard Policy Statement (2009). . Review consultation diligence budget reports • The Contractor will maintain a register of complaints received (name, issue, date, response, date of response, further follow-up action, date closed out). • Meetings to be held with community representatives to discuss the project, its impacts, etc. The group should include community leaders and people who are well known in the community who represent different interests. • Community leaders and local newspapers will be provided with notices on project progress and anticipated issues. • Clear signs and notices posted around construction sites to provide project information, including the Contractor’s environmental “hot line” number. Construction Una bated 3. Flora and Fauna Plan Contractor Contractor damage to flora Hire botanist and • Cost covered by • The purpose of this sub-plan is to document the approach of the GC, SCs, and and fauna, zoologist to report on labor cost of the their workers to minimize the impact on flora and fauna and to protect areas that especially Red extent of Red Book construction budget contain known Red Book species and Red Book species that are encountered Book flora flora and Red Book species during construction. fauna respectively and

Table V.1: Summary of Impacts and Proposed Mitigation Measures (Environmental Management Plan) Potential Project Indicative cost of Environmental Proposed Mitigation Measures Responsible Entities Activities mitigation (US$) Impacts • The plan should comply with MNP policy and the RA laws on flora and fauna provide PIU and include the following provisions: recommendations to included in minimize impact on o environmental due Vegetation removal and site clearing should be undertaken during late each. autumn and/or winter which are seasons most favorable to avoid impact to diligence budget PIU protected flora and fauna species. ADB Review plans and o No clearance of vegetation other than that outlined within the plan. included in corporate monitor the environmental due o If Red Book plant and/or nesting places, burrows, and holes of animals implementation diligence budget discovered, inform toPIU environmental specialist and MNP for future ADB actions. Review implementation o Reporting any observation of animals on site to the MNP. reports o Contacting an animal rescue centre in the case of an injured animal being found. • See also Sub-plan 11. Vegetation Clearing Plan All site Unabated 4. Physical Cultural Resources (PCR) Plan Contractor Contractor activities damage to Hire archaeologist to • $5,000+ for chance- • The purpose of this sub-plan is to document the approach of the GC and SCs archaeological, report on extent of find investigation and their workers to protect identified archaeological, historical, and cultural historical, and archaeological impacts, specialist services cultural sites sites and monuments and to manage any physical cultural resources that are provide • Cost for chance-find and encountered during the construction works. recommendations to excavation to be monuments • The plan should comply with procedures set by MOC. minimize impact on determined by • The plan should delineate clearance boundaries to avoid impact on areas of known each, and supervise negotiated extra archaeological and cultural interest. excavations, if any. cost. Hire sub-contractors to • In the event of an archaeological find: PIU excavate any chance included in o stop work immediately; finds. environmental due o notify the PIU; PIU diligence budget o isolate the site; Review plan and ADB monitor implementation. o inform the MOC’s Department for Protection of Historical and Cultural included in corporate Provide Monuments and Hire an experienced and qualified archaeologist to liaison with environmental due determine whether and how the chance-find should be preserved; MOC diligence budget ADB o document and photograph the find and area immediately around it; Review implementation o when advised and as directed by the MOC, excavate and remove the find; reports

Table V.1: Summary of Impacts and Proposed Mitigation Measures (Environmental Management Plan) Potential Project Indicative cost of Environmental Proposed Mitigation Measures Responsible Entities Activities mitigation (US$) Impacts and • resume construction only following clearance from the MOC. Utilities Disruption to 5. Utility Protection and Relocation Plan Contractor Contractor protection services Survey utilities and • Cost will be • The purpose of this sub-plan is to document the approach of the GC to protect and impacting on prepare plan determined following or relocate identified utilities and to manage the protection or relocation of any relocation end users Liaise completion of survey utilities that are encountered during the construction works. with local representatives, and development of • Undertake a utilities survey and prepare a Utility Protection and Relocation Plan especially for irrigation plan in consultation with relevant government agencies, user groups, and service facilities, and service • Majority of costs providers. providers covered by labor • If there is potential for disturbance to services (i.e. cut off for periods), schedule PIU cost of the the disturbances to take account of the time of year, week, and day to minimize Review plan and construction budget the disturbance. monitor implementation. and service provider • Notify the potentially affected receptors well in advance of the works. Assist with liaison with PIU local representatives included in and service providers environmental due ADB diligence budget Review implementation ADB reports included in corporate environmental due diligence budget

Earthworks Erosion of soil 6. Drainage, Slope Stability, Erosion and Sediment Control Plan Contractor Contractor and material Prepare plan • Plastic sediment • The purpose of this sub-plan is to document the approach of the GC, SCs, and piles, and PIU fencing –$5,000 (at discharge of their workers in the implementation of measures to manage erosion and Review plan and $2-4/m) sediment and sedimentation caused as a result of the construction activities. monitor implementation. • Grass seeding for pollutants into • One of the main risks to water quality during construction arises from the temporary ground water courses ADB erosion of soils and the resulting effects of sediment-laden pollutants entering cover –$3,000 (at and/or aquifers watercourses. Several elements of the construction activities have the potential Review implementation 2 reports $0.8/m ) to cause erosion and generate sediment that can have adverse effects on the PIU surrounding environment in terms of water quality. However, the implementation of the following erosion and sediment control measures should reduce the risk included in of any impacts to an acceptable level: environmental due diligence budget

Table V.1: Summary of Impacts and Proposed Mitigation Measures (Environmental Management Plan) Potential Project Indicative cost of Environmental Proposed Mitigation Measures Responsible Entities Activities mitigation (US$) Impacts o Preserve existing ground cover where practicable. ADB o Where ground cover is removed and if ground is to be exposed for long included in corporate periods, provide temporary cover such as fast-growing grass species. environmental due diligence budget o Avoid erosion and therefore, generation of sediment-laden runoff, through appropriate siting of works and minimization of exposed areas. o Ensure clean runoff is diverted around the construction site where possible. o Treat sediment-laden runoff generated by construction activities prior to it entering watercourses. o Regularly monitor operation and effectiveness of mitigation measures, record the results, and submit toPIU on a monthly basis. o Regularly maintain drains, runoff, erosion and sedimentation protective measures to ensure effectiveness. o Inspect and repair or modify drainage structures and erosion controls as soon as practicable after rain events. Accommodat Adverse health 7. Construction Work Camps Plan Contractor Contractor ion of and aesthetic Prepare plan • inclu ded in • The purpose of this sub-plan is to document the approach of the GC, SCs, and workers and effects on work PIU construction contract equipment force and their workers in the implementation of measures to manage construction work Review plan and PIU and materials nearby camps that will be part of the project. monitor implementation. included in storage residents • Issues associated with the design, construction, and use of the camps relate ADB environmental due both to the potential environmental impacts of the camps, and the need to diligence budget suitably plan camps to protect the environment and maximize worker health, Review implementation ADB safety, and amenity. The following aspects of camp development should be reports addressed in this sub-plan: included in corporate environmental due o Definition of elements to be included in construction work camps. diligence budget o Criteria/principles for the location of components of the work camps to minimize soil and water pollution, diseases and possible outbreaks, and conflict situation with villagers, local/central authorities and/or the contractor. o Specific management requirements for construction of components of the work camps. o Management of camp operation. • See also Sub-plan 10: Emergency Plan For Hazardous Materials.

Table V.1: Summary of Impacts and Proposed Mitigation Measures (Environmental Management Plan) Potential Project Indicative cost of Environmental Proposed Mitigation Measures Responsible Entities Activities mitigation (US$) Impacts Vehicle Dust and 8. Traffic and Access Plan Contractor Contractor movements emissions Prepare plan • Rep air and/or • The purpose of this sub-plan is to document the approach of the GC, SCs, and on and off-site Noise and PIU restoration of roads their workers in the implementation of measures to manage traffic and access vibration to be agreed with the on the construction site during the construction works. The sub-plan will cover Review plan and Armenian Roads Traffic hazards vehicle management on and off-site and will include: monitor implementation. and safety ADB Directorate and the o Driver requirements (license, training) and safety requirements. Municipality Dirt and mud Review implementation o • carried onto Carefully selected construction vehicle routes including safe entry and exit reports Traffic management public roads points. measures not in causing traffic o Clear route directions. environmental hazard and budget o Designated parking areas. sediment in • Road and property drainage o Appro priate signage. dilapidation survey, system o Established speed limits. provisionally Damage to $10,000, however o Scheduling of vehicle movements to avoid peak periods where practicable. roads from not in environmental heavy vehicles o Traffic diversions on public roads including direction signs, markings, traffic budget signals, lighting, clearly visible solid barriers to channel traffic, flagmen • The road and employed as needed, and maintenance of diversions. property dilapidation o Vehicles requirements including covering loads (when carrying sand, soil, survey and other spoil and waste material), exhaust attenuators, silencers, regular costs covered by maintenance of vehicles to prevent fuel and oil leaks to meet national labor cost in the standards requirements and to ensure compliance. construction budget o Provision for graveled surfaces and vehicle wash facilities at site exits with PIU suitable runoff protection. Inspecting dirt and mud on roads from the included in construction site and sweeping as needed and when safe. environmental due o Provisions to use and using water spray of road surfaces to control dust. diligence budget ADB • Undertake a Post-Construction Road Dilapidation Survey and agree the repair or restoration of any roads with Armenian Roads Directorate and the included in corporate Municipality. environmental due diligence budget • Maintain communication with the railway operator and discuss scheduling of construction, risks of work overruns, management and communications. Obtain relevant notification/approvals from the appropriate authorities on construction over the railway line.

Table V.1: Summary of Impacts and Proposed Mitigation Measures (Environmental Management Plan) Potential Project Indicative cost of Environmental Proposed Mitigation Measures Responsible Entities Activities mitigation (US$) Impacts Earthworks Spoil is 9. Spoil Disposal Planning and Management Plan Contractor Contractor disposed in Prepare plan • inclu ded in • The purpose of this sub-plan is to document the approach of the GC, SCs, and inappropriate Coordinate construction contract their workers in the implementation of measures to manage spoil generated by disposal of locations. PIU the construction of the project. surplus soil and exceess topsoil with included in • Topsoil is Spoil should be disposed of in locations approved by MNP and local heads of local environmental due wasted government. communities diligence budget • Topsoil should be stored for site restoration and in medians. Surplus top soil PIU ADB should be distributed in the area based on recommendations by the local Review plan and included in corporate government. monitor implementation. environmental due Provide liaison with diligence budget local communities ADB Review implementation reports Handling Leakage or 10. Emergency Plan For Hazardous Materials Contractor Contractor hazardous spillage of Prepare plan • $5,000 – 10,000 for • The purpose of this sub-plan is to document the approach of the GC, SCs, and substances diesel or oil Dispose designated materials their workers for the handling, storage, use, and disposal of chemicals and in of hazardous may result in materials per MNP storage area the substance the implementation of measures in the event of spills or accidental releases of directive • Spill clean-up to enter the soil, hazardous materials during the construction works. The implementation of the PIU material – $1,245 (at surface water following measures should reduce the risk of any impacts to an acceptable $83/spill kit) and/or level: Review plan and • groundwater. o Develop and implement procedures to ensure safe handling and storage of monitor implementation. $1,000 for specialist These hazardous substances, e.g., diesel, waste oil. Material safety data sheets, Provide liaison with trainer substances are emergency response procedures, and clean-up materials should be readily MNP • Ot her labor costs toxic to living available on site and their proper use should be part of the workers’ training. ADB covered by the organisms. construction budget o Spill clean-up materials should be appropriately located and stored to ensure Review implementation PIU availability. reports included in o An Emergency Response Team (ERT) that is part of the Environment environmental due Protection team should be identified, include an organizational diagram, diligence budget work and out of hours phone numbers, and reporting lines. ADB o Ensure that the ERT receives emergency response training. included in corporate o Ensure that the ERT and all personnel handling chemicals and hazardous environmental due

Table V.1: Summary of Impacts and Proposed Mitigation Measures (Environmental Management Plan) Potential Project Indicative cost of Environmental Proposed Mitigation Measures Responsible Entities Activities mitigation (US$) Impacts substances receive hazard and risk management training. diligence budget o The area of spill should be cleaned in a timely manner to prevent potential contamination of surface and groundwater and soil and the spilled material, together with contaminated soil and and absorbent materials should be disposed of in a site approved by MNP. • Only necessary chemicals, hazardous substances, and fuel should be stored on site, within a covered, secure and naturally ventilated area that has an impervious floor and impervious bund around it. The bund should have a capacity of at least 150% of the capacity of the largest tank. • The storage area should be located away from drainage lines and danger areas. Site clearing Overclearing of 11. Vegetation Clearing Plan Contractor Contractor vegetation Prepare plan • inclu ded in • The purpose of this sub-plan is to document the approach of the GC, SCs, and Clearing of construction contract their workers to vegetation clearing activities during construction. The plan Hire arborist to devise vegetation at dendro design for tree PIU times should comply with MNP policy and the RA Law on Flora and include the following provisions: replanting or included in detrimental to replacement environmental due o Guidance on mulching removed vegetation, storage, and use. fauna habitat Report results monthly diligence budget o Storing and managing removed topsoil (graded, stabilized and drained) for PIU ADB re-use for landscaping activities. Review plan and included in corporate o Vegetation removal and site clearing should be undertaken during late monitor implementation. environmental due autumn and/or winter which are seasons most favorable to avoid impact to Provide liaison with diligence budget protected flora and fauna species. MNP o No clearance of vegetation other than that outlined within the plan. ADB • See also Sub-plan 3. Flora and Fauna Plan Review implementation reports Materials Excessive dust 12. Dust and Emissions Control Plan Contractor Contractor hauling and air pollution Prepare plan • inclu ded in • The purpose of this sub-plan is to document the approach of the GC, SCs, and due to vehicle construction contract their workers in the implementation of measures to control gaseous emissions Hire local water trucks emissions PIU and dust resulting from the construction activities, including quarry sites, for dust control crushing plants, road construction, haulage of materials, and establishment of Report results monthly included in construction work camps. The management measures in this sub-plan have PIU environmental due been developed to minimize potential health and nuisance impacts by Review plan and diligence budget incorporating the following principles: monitor implementation.

Table V.1: Summary of Impacts and Proposed Mitigation Measures (Environmental Management Plan) Potential Project Indicative cost of Environmental Proposed Mitigation Measures Responsible Entities Activities mitigation (US$) Impacts o Preserve existing ground cover where practicable. ADB ADB o Provisions to use and using water spray of road surfaces to control dust. Review implementation included in corporate reports environmental due o Minimize the amount of excavated material held on site and cover all diligence budget materials wherever possible to prevent generation of dust. o Avoid double handling of material. o Ensure that vehicles used should be at their maximum load capacity to minimize the number of vehicles and journeys to and from the site. o Do not leave construction equipment idling when not in use. o Use mains electricity or battery power where possible (or practical for hand tools) rather than diesel. o Avoid the use of diesel or petrol powered generators where practicable. o Spray aggregate loading point at quarries and crusher plants All site Excessive 13. Noise Control Plan Contractor Contractor activities noise resulting Prepare plan • Noise wall (concrete) • The purpose of this sub-plan is to document the approach of the GC, SCs, and from Report results monthly – ($500,000+ (at their workers in the implementation of measures to minimize and manage the 2 construction PIU $150/m ) activities impacts of noise generated during construction. Review plan and PIU • A number of elements of the construction activities have the potential to cause monitor implementation. included in noise impacts. The health effects of noise range from annoyance to hearing ADB environmental due impairment and can impact both construction workers and nearby villages or diligence budget settlements. The management measures in this sub-plan have been developed Review implementation ADB to minimize potential health and nuisance impacts by incorporating the following reports principles: included in corporate environmental due o minimization of noise generation at source; diligence budget o reduction of the transmission of noise from the source to sensitive receivers including nearby villages and settlements and construction workers on the construction site; o schedule noisier activities towards the middle of the day where practicable; o locate noisier activities away from sensitive receptors where practicable;

5 This time requirement is more stringent than the Armenian standard which sets out a day-time limit of 6am to 10pm and night-time limit of 10pm to 6 am, respectively. The standard is Order N138, 6 March, 2002, Order on adoption of N2-III-11.3 sanitary norms "Noise in workplaces, apartment and public buildings, territories of urban construction".

Table V.1: Summary of Impacts and Proposed Mitigation Measures (Environmental Management Plan) Potential Project Indicative cost of Environmental Proposed Mitigation Measures Responsible Entities Activities mitigation (US$) Impacts o fit vehicles and equipment with silencers to meet national noise standards and regularly check to ensure compliance; o install noise control barriers (e.g. solid walls, earth barriers, noise-reflective panels, double-glazed windows) when necessary and practicable to shield houses and other sensitive receptors; o construct permanent noise barriers along the site early in construction where indicated in final design and agreed by local village heads; o unless agreed with the relevant authorities, noise levels at receptors shall not exceed:

8am to 8pm (day) – 55dBA LAeq, 70dBA LAmax 5 8pm to 8am (night) – 45dBA LAeq, 60dBA LAmax. ; and

• provide response mechanism for noise-related complaints (see also Section IV. D in IEE). Generating Waste and 14. Waste Management and Disposal Plan Contractor Contractor and pollutants Prepare plan Environmental charge • The purpose of this sub-plan is to document the approach of the GC, SCs, and handling entering Hire sub-contractors to $100,000 (according to hazardous drainage their workers in the implementation of measures for the management of wastes waste categorization produced during construction. load and haul wastes to and non- system and/or sites approved by MNP under the Armenian hazardous infiltrating into • Several elements of the construction activities have the potential to generate PIU Law on Rates of substances groundwater waste that can have adverse effects on the surrounding environment in terms of Environmental Review plan and from all Litter in public water quality, soil quality, air quality (odor and pollutants) and human health: Charges (2006), Article monitor implementation. activities places 3: • Non-hazardous solid waste includes construction waste and domestic refuse. Provide liaison with - solid waste Worker and • Category 1 – $133/t Improper storage, handling, and disposal may cause adverse effects via spills or MNP streams public safety being carried away by wind or vectors, may affect health and be unsightly. Non- ADB • Category 2 -$72/t - removed hazard hazardous solid waste can be further divided into putrescible and non- Review • Category 3 – $13/t vegetation putrescible waste streams. implementation • - spoil reports Category 4 – $4/t • Ha zardous solid wastes can have the most severe impacts. A material is • - contaminate Non -hazardous – hazardous if it is ignitable; corrosive; reactive; or toxic (causing bodily damage, $2/t) d spoil sickness, or death). The following categories of hazardous wastes will

liquid potentially be generated by the project: wastes o Chemi cal wastes

Table V.1: Summary of Impacts and Proposed Mitigation Measures (Environmental Management Plan) Potential Project Indicative cost of Environmental Proposed Mitigation Measures Responsible Entities Activities mitigation (US$) Impacts o Medical wastes • Non -hazardous o Batteries, paint, and solvents produced during land excavation and o Used oil and grease construction - $0.2/t • Wastewater includes wastewater from construction activities (e.g. sediment PIU pond outlets, crushing plant operation), domestic wastewater from activities included in such as from kitchens or showers (grey water) and may contain pollutants such environmental due as grease, soap and mild detergents, and liquid sanitary waste (black water) diligence budget that contains nutrients, organic substances, and pathogens. ADB • The key waste management philosophy that is applied in this sub-plan is based included in corporate on the following hierarchy of waste management approaches (highest to lowest environmental due priority) diligence budget 1. Avoid waste generation 2. Minimize waste generation 3. Reuse as much waste as practical 4. Recycle as much waste as practical 5. Dispose of any remaining waste in an environmentally suitable manner in locations approved by the MNP • Implementation of this hierarchy, together with the use of appropriate collection, segregation, storage, disposal and education/training methods will ensure that the level of risk associated with waste management is low. Site re- Construction 15. Site Reinstatement, Landscaping, and Revegetation Plan Contractor Contractor instatement materials that Prepare plan • Tree planting – • The purpose of this sub-plan is to document the approach of the GC, SCs, and of all areas are not cleared Hire arborist to prepare $3,500+ (at $14/tree) from the site their workers in the implementation of site clearance and restoration, Re- dendro design • Land scaping with are potential landscaping, and revegetation measures as part of the construction works. The vegetation, Hire landscape grass – $3,000 (at safety hazards sub-plan should include the following: landscaping contractor to implement $0.8/m2) Localized • All construction-related materials and equipment cleared from the site including plan • Arborist - $2,000 flooding from waste, unused materials, fencing etc. PIU PIU impermeable • Natural drainage lines reinstated. surfaces if Review plan and included in inadequate • Plan of areas to be landscaped. monitor implementation. environmental due drainage • Check-list to be prepared for final sign-off by the PIU Environment Specialist Monitor tree survival diligence budget Sediment and • Procedures for planting, maintenance and monitoring to ensure stable growth of erosion of trees and groundcover.

Table V.1: Summary of Impacts and Proposed Mitigation Measures (Environmental Management Plan) Potential Project Indicative cost of Environmental Proposed Mitigation Measures Responsible Entities Activities mitigation (US$) Impacts uncovered (i) Species MUST be ADB ADB areas o endemic to entire site or specific area, Review implementation included in corporate o readily available (commercially or from seed collection), and reports environmental due diligence budget o relatively easy to propagate. • Species should ideally be o easily seeded (manual or mechanical methods), and o relatively easy to maintain. • Replant trees and bushes according to dendro design and agreements with heads of affected communities. • Plant new trees at a ratio of 10 new trees per 1 tree cut. • Maintain new trees until viable or 3 years, whichever comes first as certified by qualified arborist (Note: 80% survival is considered excellent). • See also Sub-plan 16. Waste Management and Disposal Plan Operation and Maintenance Phase (If required, to be updated by the PIU Enviro nment Specialist prior to operation of the road) Potential Project Indicative cost of Environmental Proposed Mitigation Measures Responsible Entities Activities mitigation (US$) Impacts Traffic Noise impacts • Engage an acoustic specialist to monitor noise on a periodic basis and in PPMU PPMU movements Air pollutants response to any complaints. Hire acoustic and air • $5,000 for purchase from vehicle • Engage a specialist to monitor air quality associated with vehicle emissions on quality monitoring of air quality emissions a periodic basis and in response to any complaints. specialists monitoring equipment • Identify the need for further investigation or mitigation. • Labo r within

Municipality budget Vegetation Vegetation, and • Include project area in Municipality of Yerevan vegetation maintenance Contractor Contractor particularly operations. Maintain trees for 3 • As required – part trees, do not • Monitor the health of the trees and replace as required. years after planting of Tree establish Municipality of Management Plan Yerevan budget

B. Environmental Monitoring Plan

121. The environmental mo nitoring pla n within th e EMP is the framewo rk within w hich environmental monitoring will be conducted. It will guid e the PIU in determining if the recommended mitigatio n measures during the pre-constr uction, con struction, a nd operatio n phases are being implemented effectively. The basic framework for environmental monitoring is provided in Table V.2. In addition to the responsible entities below, each item will b e monitored by the PIU Environmen t Specialist monthly, or at a freque ncy deeme d appropriat e. Quarterly reviews will also be u ndertaken o f Contractor records t o satisfy tha t monitoring has been undertaken, as appropriate.

122. Environmental monitori ng results will be do cumented to record that signs of a dverse impacts are detected at the earliest time practicable. Where monitoring results do not meet th e environmental performance indicator, action tak en will also be recorded. Monitoring results wil l be reported monthly by the PIU Environment Specialist to t he Municipality of Yerevan (as the EA), who will compile the monthly reports into semi-annual reports to the ADB. Annual reporting and end of phase reporting will be undertaken for submissi on to the PPMU head, who will i n turn submit to MNP for endorsement and to the ADB.

123. The format for the monthly and annual en vironmental monitoring report will be developed during project implementation by the PIU Environment Specialist.

Table V.2: Monitoring Requirements – Site Preparation and Construction

Location / Activity / Parameters to Monitoring Method of Responsible Frequency Environmental performance indicator Phase (as be monitored location/s monitoring entities (formal monitoring) relevant) Construction Phase (To be updated by the Contractor together with the Environment Specialist prior to beginning construction and thereafter, as re quired) Construction Noise To be agreed by Noise meter Maximum at monitoring location: Contractor To be developed in the of rail the Contractor and Noise and Vibration - 8am to 8pm (day) – 55dBA LAeq, 70dBA LAmax Hire overpasses PIU Environment specialist to Management Plan - 8pm to 8am (night) – 45dBA LAeq, 60dBA LAmax and all Specialist as monitor works within identified in the or as agreed with the relevant authority6 50m of a Noise and Vibration PIU sensitive Management Plan Review receptor complaints All areas Noise To be agreed by Noise meter and If complaint received monitoring the complainant, Review complaints Monthly review records contractor and PIU records, Environment monitoring records Specialist Waste Solid waste Designated waste Visual inspection No litter Contractor Spot-check Ongoing managemen (general receptacles No waste outside designated areas PIU t and domestic, All site areas disposal construction, Monitor Formally weekly

hazardous) results Material Stockpiled Stockpile locations Visual Within designated area Contractor stockpiles material Stockpiled correctly Spot-check Weekly PIU Topsoil sto ckpiled co rrectly and no t within drainage line Environment Specialist Monthly All areas Slope protection Site boundary and Visual and by Water released is clear and does not exceed Contractor Integrated list of MPCs and and drainage downhill sample, if required USSR standard PIU Weekly nearly safe levels of influence of pollutants on Run-off control water in fishing reservoirs for Total suspended Review Monthly

6 This time req uirement is more stringent than the Arm enian standard which sets o ut the day-time limit of 6am to 10pm and night-time limit of 10pm to 6am, respectively. The standard is Order N138, 6 March, 2002, Order on adoption of N2-III-11.3 sanitary norms "Noise in workplaces, apartment and public buildings, territories of urban construction".

Table V.2: Monitoring Requirements – Site Preparation and Construction

Location / Activity / Parameters to Monitoring Method of Responsible Frequency Environmental performance indicator Phase (as be monitored location/s monitoring entities (formal monitoring) relevant) solids (TSS) being < 30mg/l records Following a rain event No evidence of erosion Drainage control measures in place Secured Security fence Boundary Visual Security fence maintains integrity Contractor construction Check entire Weekly sites/camps lenght PIU

Environment Specialist Monthly Transportation Dust All site areas Visual No visible suspended dust Contractor Ongoing and weekly Vehicles Vehicles covered Check inspection covered if Daily during transporting earthmoving activities PIU domestic Monthly wastes, soil, Environment spoil, sand and Specialist other materials All site Air pollution – Representative Dust deposition Dust deposited below 0.15 mg/m3 daily average Contractor Maximum areas dust boundary between gauge or other in accordance with standard Monitor and Samples analyzed Permissible Concentration (MPC) road and adjacent method approved for Ambient report monthly residence/s by PPMU (e.g., Air in Human Settlements, Republic of Armenia sticky pad, government decision N160-N, 02/02/2006. PIU gravimetric) Review Monthly report records Traffic and Mud and dirt on Site exits Visual inspection No mud and dirt on public roads Contractor road safety public roads Vehicles leaving site: Check Daily (i) loads covered PMU (ii) tires do not contain excessive mud/dirt Spot check Monthly Traffic and Traffic diversion Public roads Visual and records Measures in place in accordance with the Traffic Contractor When road safety measures and and Transport Management Plan Check measures/signage is

Table V.2: Monitoring Requirements – Site Preparation and Construction

Location / Activity / Parameters to Monitoring Method of Responsible Frequency Environmental performance indicator Phase (as be monitored location/s monitoring entities (formal monitoring) relevant) signage No accidents facilities installed PMU Spot check Monthly Work site Personal All workers Visual Personal protective equipment worn Contractor safety protective Question a sample Demonstrated knowledge of workers Conduct Ongoing and weekly equipment of workers as awareness Monthly report Knowledge of specified in testing and procedures, Health, Safety and Safety signage appropriately displayed report results points of contact Environment PIU Emergency Review Monthly Response Plan results Public Public notices At gates Visual Notices in place Contractor relations around the site Complaints documented per requirements of the Keep log and Complaints Grievance Redress Mechanism in ADB’s report Monthly register Safeguard Policy Statement (2009) PMU If complaint received Complaints resolved and resolutions recorded Review reports Handling Hazardous Designated Visual Appropriately stored and in designated areas Contractor hazardous materials hazardous material Keep Weekly materials storage area inventory Monthly All site areas current PMU Check inventory Revegetatio Vegetation All soil exposed Visual Exposed soils for extended periods Contractor n cover surfaces PMU Monthly Spot check Revegetation Vegetation All soil exposed Visual Revegetation as per Landscaping and Site Contractor As required at the end

Table V.2: Monitoring Requirements – Site Preparation and Construction

Location / Activity / Parameters to Monitoring Method of Responsible Frequency Environmental performance indicator Phase (as be monitored location/s monitoring entities (formal monitoring) relevant) for site re- surfaces Reinstatement Plan PMU of works until signed off instatement Check as acceptable compliance with Sub-plan Site Waste All sites as Visual Waste, materials and equipment removed Contractor As required at the end rehabilitation Drainage lines construction is Drainage lines reinstated PIU of works until signed off completed as acceptable Ensure compliance with checklist Records Inspection Recorded Visual review All available, record ed co rrectly, any follow-up Contractor and checklist information has been carried out as required PIU Monthly reporting Complaints log Environment Specialist to Consultation record EA via PIU head and Training records PPMU director. Licenses, EA approvals, permits Report to ADB Bi-annually Operation and Maintenance Phase (To be updated by the PIU Environment Specialist prior to operation of the road if required) Parameters to Monitoring Method of Responsible Location / Environmental performance indicator Frequency Activity be monitored location/s monitoring entities Landscaped Landscaping Landscaped areas Visual No dead trees Contractor Quarterly over the first 2 areas No exposed soils for period years th en bi-annually specified in for the next 2 years contract Municipality of Yerevan thereafter

124. Although monitoring will be formally undertaken at a frequ ency specified in Table V.2, visual observation should be undertaken by all workers (especially supervisors and other trained personnel) on a daily basis and during key activities, and any potential or actual issues reported to PIU’s Environment Specialist.

C. Institutional Arrangements and Responsibilities

1. Institutional Arrangements

125. The Municipality of Yerevan is the Executing Agency (EA) of Project 1 and the other three projects within Tranche 1 of this MFF. The Mu nicipality will establ ish a Program Preparation and Management Unit (PPMU) to manage and monitor all implementation activities of the prog ram and the project s. The Yerevan Development Project Implementation Unit (Yerevan PIU) has been established as the Implementing Agency (IA). The role of Yerevan PIU is to manage day-to-day coordination, impleme ntation, monitoring, and administration activities of individual projects through a Program Imple mentation Team including expertise in social and environmental safeguards and whose Environ ment and Resettlement Specialists are to provide immediate oversight for environmental and social safeguards.

2. Responsibilities

126. The Executing Agency’s (EA’s) Program Preparation and Management Unit (PPMU):

(i) Establish a safeguard unit that includes a PPMU Environ ment Speci alist for at least the duration of Tranche 1, preferably for the duration of the Prog ram, and ideally as the core for future projects that involve environment safeguards; (ii) Manage and monitor the Yerevan PIU safeguard unit; and (iii) Report regularly to the ADB.

127. The Implementing Agency (IA): Yerevan Development Project Implementation Unit (Yerevan PIU):

(i) Establish a safeguard unit that inclu des a PIU Environment Specialist for at least the duration of Tranche 1, preferably for the duration of the Program, an d ideally as the core for future projects that involve environment safeguards; and (ii) Report regularly to the EA.

128. The IA’s Environment Specialist (PIU Environment Specialist):

(i) Assist the Yerevan PIU in procuring the Contractor, in particular, ensure that bid and contract documents include specific environmental safeguard provisions that reflect the IEE EMP; (ii) Work with the contractor in further developing an EMP based on the IEE EMP; (iii) Assist the Contractor to provide environmental awareness traini ng to site supervisors and workers; (iv) Support the PPMU En vironment Specialist in implementin g mitigation measures as specified in the EMP; (v) Undertake monitoring activities as specified in the IEE EMP; (vi) Report on compliance with ADB and Government of Armenia requirements; (vii) Be a point of public contact for any complaints or concerns;

(viii) Respond to emergencies and notif y the releva nt authoritie s within rea sonable times; and (ix) Keep updated with changes in authority req uirements and legislat ion and respond as appropriate.

129. The Contractor:

(i) Hire the services of a Contractor Environment Specialist; (ii) Update the IEE EMP based on the actual contract and thereafter based on actual conditions prevailing on site; (iii) Implement the construction phase components of the EMP; (iv) Support the PPMU/PIU En vironment Spec ialist in implementin g various components of the EMP including the provision of training and monitoring; and (v) Respond to emergencies and notif y the PPMU/PIU En vironment Specialist and emergency authorities.

130. Independent Environment Specialist:

(i) Monitor co mpliance of the proje ct with the EMP and any other authority requirements.

3. Recommended Environmental Safeguard Clauses for Civil Works Contracts

Clause 1 – Environmental Safeguards

131. The contractor shall: (i) Provide facilities for the on-site Environment Specialist; (ii) Allow access to the sit e for environmental inspection at any time re quested, pending completion of appropriate safety training; (iii) Undertake the following investigations prior to construction: (a) Utilities survey for protection and/or relocation of water mains, gas mains, sewers, electricity and communication lines; and (b) Road and property dilapidation surveys. (iv) Within 30 calendar days of contract effectiveness, submit for approval by the PIU and non-objection by ADB a detailed EMP based on the measures outlined in the IEE report and incorporating the following operating plans: 1. Health, Safety, and Environment Emergency Response Plan 2. Public Relations and Communications Plan 3. Flora and Fauna Plan 4. Physical Cultural Resources Plan 5. Utility Protection and Relocation Plan 6. Drainage, Slope Stability, Erosion and Sediment Control Plan 7. Construction Work Camps Plan 8. Traffic and Access Plan 9. Spoil Disposal Planning and Management Plan 10. Emergency Plan For Hazardous Materials 11. Vegetation Clearing Plan 12. Dust and Emissions Control Plan 13. Noise Control Plan 14. Waste Management and Disposal Plan 15. Site Reinstatement, Landscaping, and Revegetation Plan

(v) Implement the EMP and operating plans, including u ndertaking monitoring, maintenance, reporting, etc. Any d eparture from the EMP must first be agreed in writing with the PIU Environment Specialist and be approved by releva nt authorities and ADB; (vi) Execute, upon work co mpletion, all work nece ssary to reinstate all u nconstructed areas of the site as near to its original condition. This work will be complete when the PIU En vironment Spe cialist provides written certificatio n of reinstatement to a reasonable level.

D. Cost of Implementation

132. The cost of environmental monitoring will be that required for the remun eration of staff involved in EMP activities and their traveling expenses as well as any direct cost for monitoring activities.

133. The monitoring plan does not include p eriodic mo nitoring to obtain specific measurements, such as noise level and, air quality or water quality. However, if any unexpected impact or complaint arises it is recommended that the Environme nt Specialist take the necessary action in coordination with the PIU. It is recommended that th e PIU set up a working arrangement with the r elevant Government agency to use its fa cilities and/or equ ipment in taking samples for analyses and/or in the analyses, whichever is/are applicable.

VI. CONSULTATION AND INFORMATION DISCLOSURE

A. Stakeholder Meetings

134. Meetings were held wit h representatives of a number of stakeholder g roups and will be ongoing with the same and different stakeholder groups during the preparation of other projects planned to be funded under the MFF.

135. Stakeholder meetings as at the date of this report include:

(i) Municipality of Yerevan – the Executing Agency (ii) Yerevan Development Project I mplementation Unit ( Yerevan PI U) - th e Implementing Agency (iii) Ministry of Nature Protection o Department of Economics o Environmental Protection Department (iv) Ministry of Culture o Agency for Protection of Historical and Cultural Monuments o Department of Cultural Heritage (v) Non-government organizations (NGOs) o Public Environmental Alliance (an alliance of NGOs) o Association for Sustainable Human Development.

B. Public Consultation

136. An advertisement (see Appendix 5) was placed in The Armenian Times newspaper and on the Muni cipality of Yerevan web site and sent directly to key autho rity stakeholders inviting interested persons to a formal public con sultation event on Friday 19 March 2010 at Yerevan Municipality. Amongst the attende es were fi fteen recor ded representatives o f relevant

47 government agencies and NGOs; and members of th e general public. The following summarizes issues raised and discussed:

(i) Trees that will be cut down; (ii) Uncovering new historical monuments during excavation; (iii) Sustainability of the projects and greater program; and (iv) Management of contaminated soil.

137. ADB’s Social Safeguards Specialist generally addressed resettlement and compensation questions. Comment was raised by a resident , who lives adjacent to the route, that the new road link would reduce congestion, improve air quality, and be safer.

C. Information Disclosed

138. The IEE will be made publicly available on the ADB website (in English only) and an EIA in the Armenian language will be submitted to the MNP and made publicly available on the MNP and the Municipality of Yerevan websites. This will ensur e the disclo sure of env ironmental concerns a nd proposed mitigation measures to the relevant authorities and other interested parties.

D. Future Consultation

139. A workshop will be hel d in early May 2010 a nd will provide a platfor m to discuss the projects wit h key stakeholders. The four projects will be assesse d during this workshop b y participating stakeholde rs with con cerns and issues cap tured and where appropriate further actions taken to alleviate concerns raised at the event. The display material from the workshop will remain within the foyer of the Municipality building for public viewing.

140. Under Armenia’s EIA legislation, the EIA will be subject to public heari ngs conducted by the MNP ‘… for the publ ic opinion, the opinions of affected community leaders, the opinions of affected communities, and relevant state bodies.’

VII. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

141. Based on t he environmental scre ening carrie d out for th e IEE study, the proposed project is unlikely to cause significant, irreversible adverse impacts on the environment.

142. The benefits of the project will include: (i) Reduced traffic congestion, thereby reducing air pollution, and improve d safety once operational; (ii) Economic benefits by generating employment opportunities during construction; (iii) Long-term regional improvements in air quality; (iv) Landscaping on the shoulders to improve ecological value and amenity; (v) Removal of planted trees will be replaced at a ratio of 10:1; and (vi) Deposited waste removed from the area.

143. The potential adverse impacts that are asso ciated with location, design, constru ction, and operation of the pr oject will be of low mag nitude and localized, an d can be mitigated to acceptable levels without difficulty. The impacts during construction will be tempora ry and can be minimized by following the construction management and supervision outlined in the EMP. Careful consideration w ill need to be given to mitigating noise at ne arby sensiti ve receptors

48 during construction through appropriate siting of activities and application of attenuation. There is potential for damage to roads and properties from construction activities which will need to be monitored and any repair carried out . There will likely be a slight increase of air quality pollution from vehicle emissions at properties adjoining the alignment, however t here is expected to be attenuated by cleaner vehicle technologies.

144. It is recommended that:

(i) The clauses set out in the EMP be included in t he Bid Doc uments and Contract Documents; (ii) The Contractor prepare a detailed EMP based on the EMP contained in this IEE; (iii) The EA, the PPMU, and the PIU ensure that the impact prevention and mitigation measures specified in the IEE and EMP be implemented; and (iv) Environmental monitoring be carried out as specified in the monitoring plan within the EMP.

145. All project activities prior to constru ction, during construction, and durin g operation will be monitored in accordance with relevant Government of Armenia regulations and ADB policy.

VIII. CONCLUSIONS

146. Based on the indication of the Rapid Environme ntal Assessment in App endix 1 and the findings of t he IEE, the classificat ion of t he subproject as Category “B” is confirmed, and no detailed EIA will be needed to comply with the environmental policies of the ADB. Any additional studies proposed or deemed necessary based o n site conditions not yet known are expected to result in mitigation measures that are routine and can be easily incorporated within the construction schedule. Accordingly, the IEE wit h the recommended institutional arr angements and monitoring program given in the EMP will become the co mpleted En vironmental Assessment.

147. Nuisance impacts, including noise , dust, traffic and acce ss change s, are likely to be experienced by nearby receptors d uring construction; however these will be most ly mitigated. Acoustic walls should be constructed along the road to minimize potential noise impacts from operation of the road. Key benefits of this pr oject in clude a reduction in traffic congestion ; economic benefits; and improvements to regional air quality once operational.

IX. REFERENCES

Advanced Logistics Group (2007). Assistance to Yerevan Municipality for Passenger Transport Grant # TF 057789: Institution al Strengthening for Passenger Transport Planning a nd Organization.

Advanced Logistics Group (2007). Assistance to Yerevan Municipality for Passenger Transport Grant # TF 057789: Assessment of Passenger Transport Strategy Options.

Asian Development Bank (2003), Environmental Assessment Guidelines.

Asian Development Bank (2009), Safeguard Policy Statement.

Asian Deve lopment Ba nk (March 2010) Armenia: Yerevan Sustainable Urban Transport Program Environmental Assessment and Review Framework.

The Association for Sustainable H uman Development/UNEP National Committee (2007). Geo Yerevan: Assessment of the Local Environmental Conditions 2004 – 2006 (Summary).

Department of the Environment (1995). Industry Profiles . Internet http://www.en vironment- agency.gov.uk/research/planning/33708.aspx

Environmental Impact Monitoring Center, MNP. Internet www.armmonitoring.am.

Gasparyan, B. (2010). Preparing the Yerevan Sustainable Urban Transport Investmen t Program. Archaeological impact of Project 1 – Davitashen Bridge – Ashatarak Highway (Preliminary report).

Ministry of Health, RoA (6 March 2002). Order N138 on adoption of N2 -III-11.3 sanitary norms. Noise in workplaces, apartment and public buildings, territories of urban construction.

Ministry of Nature Protection, Environmental Impact Monitoring Centre. Data supplied by L Margaryan, dated 24/03/10.

Municipality of Yerevan (2004), Yerevan City Master Plan, Vol. 5 - The complex scheme of Environmental Protection.

Municipality of Yerevan (2004), Yerevan City Master Plan, Vol. 9 - General concepts.

Municipality of Yerevan. Internet www.yerevan.am

Municipality of Yerevan (2009) Four year development project of Yerevan for 2010-2 013 years. Decision number N52-N, 23 December 2009.

Municipality of Yerevan (2009). Yerevan develo pment project for 2010 year, Decision Number N53-N, 23 December 2009.

National Statistical Service of the R epublic of A rmenia. Environment and Natural Resources in the Republic of Armenia for 2008. Internet www.armstat.am.

National Statistical Service of the Republic of Armenia. Stat istical Yearbook of Arme nia, 2009. Internet www.armstat.am.

Republic of Armenia (RA), Ministry of Nature Protectio n, Fourth National Report to the Convention on Biological Diversity, Yerevan, 2009

Republic of Armenia (RA), Ministry of H ealth (April 2010), Stateme nt N51 – N54 Noise Measurement. Prepared for Mott MacDonald for the Ye revan Sust ainable Urban Transport Project: Project 1 Davitashen Bridge to Ashtarak Highway.

World Bank Group (1999), Pollution Prevention and Abatement Handbook 1998 . The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/The World Bank.

World Bank Group (2007). Environment, Health, and Safety General Guidelines. The World Bank.

World Health Organization (WHO). Air Quality Guidelines Global Update, 2005. In International Finance Corporation (IFC) General EHS Guidelines: Environmental. Intern et www.ifc.org/ifcext/enviro.nsf/Content/EnvironmentalGuidelines

Yavruyan, Davit (2010). Yerevan Sustaina ble Urban Transport Program: Ecologica l Investigation. Armenian Nature Protectors Union NGO, Yerevan State University. Stud y prepared for Mott MacDonald.

Yerevan Sustainable Urban Transport Program Davit Yavruyan, April 2010 APPENDIX 1

Rapid Environmental Assessment (REA) Checklist Roads and Highways

Instructions: This checklist is to be prepared to support the environmental classification of a project. It is to be attached to the environmental categorization form that is to be prepared and submitted to the Chief Compliance Officer of the Regional an d S ustainable Development Department. This checklist is to be completed with the assistance of an Environment Specialist in a Regional Department. This checklist focuses on enviro nmental issu es and concerns. To ensure that social dimensions are adequately considered, refer also to ADB checklists and handbooks on (i) involuntary resettlement, (ii) indigenous peoples planning, (iii) poverty reduction, (iv) participation, and (v) gender and development. Answer the question s assuming the “without mitigatio n” case. The p urpose is to identify pot ential impa cts. Use th e “remar ks” secti on to discu ss a ny anticipated mitigation measures.

Country/Project Title: Armenia / Yerevan Sustainable Urban Transport Project Davitashen Bridge - Ashtarak Highway section Sector Division: Roads and Highways Conducted by / date: Arman Vermishyan and Klaus Schonfeld, 28 Jan 2010 Naomi Hull and Klaus Schonfeld, 10 Feb 2010 Naomi Hull, Davit Yavruyan, and Klaus Schonfeld, 17 Mar 2010 SCREENING QUESTIONS Yes No REMARKS A. PROJECT SITING

Is the Project area adjacent to or within any of the following environmentally sensitive areas? 1. Cultural heritage site X 2. Protected area X 3. Wetland X 4. Mangrove X 5. Estuarine X 6. Buffer zone of protected area X 7. Special area for protecting biodiversity X B. POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

Will the Project cause… 1. Encroachment on historical/cultural areas; disfiguration of landscape by road X embankments, cuts, fills, and quarries? 2. Encroachment on precious ecology (e.g. X Sensitive or protected areas)? 3. Alteration of surface water hydrology of waterways crossed by roads, resulting in X increased sediment in streams affected by

Project 1: Davitashen Bridge to Ashtarak Highway Road Link51

SCREENING QUESTIONS Yes No REMARKS increased soil erosion at construction site? 4. Deterioration of surface water quality due to silt No surface water bodies. runoff and sanitary wastes from worker-based Discharges onto surrounding camps and chemicals used in construction? X land that may affect groundwater will be minimized through routine mitigation measures during construction as set out in EMP. 5. Increased local air pollution due to rock Routine mitigation during crushing, cutting and filling works, and X construction as set out in EMP. chemicals from asphalt processing? 6. Noise and vibration due to blasting and other Routine mitigation during X civil works? construction as set out in EMP. 7. Dislocation or involuntary resettlement of Land Acquisition and people X Resettlement Plan (LARP) refers. 8. Other social concerns relating to Generation of dust, which is a inconveniences in living conditions in the normal occurrence during this project areas that may trigger cases of upper kind of construction, will be X respiratory problems and stress? minimized through routine mitigation measures as set out in EMP 9. Hazardous driving conditions where Routine mitigation during X construction interferes with pre-existing roads? construction as set out in EMP. 10. Poor sanitation and solid waste disposal in Routine mitigation during construction camps and work sites, and X construction as set out in EMP. possible transmission of communicable diseases from workers to local populations? 11. Creation of temporary breeding habitats for X mosquito vectors of disease? 12. Dislocation and compulsory resettlement of LARP refers. X people living in right-of-way? 13. Accident risks associated with increased While improved roads are vehicular traffic, leading to accidental spills of expected to result in increased toxic materials and loss of life? traffic volumes, better alignment, X surfacing, signage, and controls (traffic lights) are expected to result in overall decrease of accident risks. 14. Increased noise and air pollution resulting from X Routine mitigation during traffic volume? construction as set out in EMP. 15. Increased risk of water pollution from oil, No surface water bodies. grease and fuel spills, and other materials from X B.13 also refers. vehicles using the road?

52 Yerevan Sustainable Urban Transport Program Davit Yavruyan, April 2010 APPENDIX 2

ECOLOGICAL INVESTIGATION

Yerevan Sustainable Urban Transport Program Ecological Investigation Report for Project 1: Davitashen Bridge to Ashtarak Highway Road Link

This ecolog ical study has been undertaken as part of environmental assessments for Davitashen Bridge – Ashtarak Highway road link. The key purpose of the study is to identify protected flora and fauna and to develop mitigation measures for their protection.

1. Study approach and limitations

The site has been visited with the purpose of ecolo gical survey . During t he visits investigations of the cur rent general env ironmental situatio n have bee n implemented and relevant professional study, as well as overview study of the zoological and biological variety has been fulfilled.

The preliminary environmental research was implemented in the period 17-26 Marc h, 2010, the field visit on 17 March 2010. Th e study was undertaken within tight time limitations and over a season which did not allow full investigation of the variety and quantity composition of the flora an d fauna. Th e season over which the study was undertaken was not a favorable season from the vegetation, mig ration, wi ntering, ovipositing (egg-laying) and other biological perspectives.

Thus, with the purpose of professional investigation aimed at the development of preliminary environmental research, results have been gathered from the field visit, as well as a number of other informational sources; the list of t he la tter is inclu ded in Ann ex 4. Meetings have been organized and discussions held with relevant professionals (zoolo gists and biologists) who have previously implemented research in the areas under discussion.

In general, Yerevan contains the following flora and fauna types:

• According to the expert evaluation, the natural flora of Yerevan includes about 900 types of vascular (high class) plants; 15 of them are included in Armenian Red Book, among them one endemic species included in the IUCN Red List. • Yerevan’s fauna diverse. There are 25 mammal types, among them 3 included in Armenian Red Book and 5 – in IUCN Red List. • The City area is widely populated by und esirable mammal species, such as grey rat s and house mouse. • From ab out 170 bird t ypes 29 are registered in Ar menian Red Book. At least 1 00 types, of which 15 t ypes included in the A rmenian Red Book, build n ests. The o ther types a re re gularly present at seasonal mig ration, wint ering and feeding time . Th e most numerous are s ynanthropic t ypes, su ch a s sparro w, grey cro w, magpie, rock pigeon (including feral pigeon), in recent years also Eurasian Collared Dove. • There are 25 types of reptiles, of which 5 are included in Armenian Red Book. • The Armenian Red B ook i ncludes a mphibians, i ncluding Syrian spade-footed Toad (Pelobates syriacus), w hich has most l ikely d isappeared due t o t he devastation of landscapes and unfavorable alterations of the water reservoir schedules. • There are a numbe r of inverte brates spread within the city. The most investigated ones are the beetles: there are kn own about 700 types of b eetles; most of the m are Armenian and some even Yere van endemic. Of these insect s, those known are 60 Project 1: Davitashen Bridge to Ashtarak Highway Road Link53

dipterans, 4 0 h ymenopterans, 1 30 butterflie s, f rom 10 to 2 0 types of orthopterous insects ( Orthoptera), s piders, mollusks (Mollu sca), about 30 ty pes of gnawing beetles (Ostomatidae) and ticks. • There are 10 types of fish registered in the rivers Hrazdan and Getar.

Construction works can adversely impact on the flora and fauna on or near the site. In thi s report, the focus is only on direct impacts o n vegetation removal, habitat removal and harming pro tected specie s. Other impacts on flora and fauna have b een identifie d in the complete Initial Environmental Ex amination report and mitigation meas ures are provided. This ecolog ical inv estigation focu s’ on the impact on flora and fauna and provides recommendations for mitigation including protection and compensation for trees removed.

2. Basic description of the project location and construction methodology

a Over a length of approximately 2.2km, the project includes construction of a new 6 - lane divided road conn ecting Ashtarak Highway with Halab yan Street (a 0.3km long branch) and widening fr om the ex isting 4-lanes to Davitashen B ridge. A trumpet- shape int erchange will be constru cted at Haiabya n Street an d a h alf-clover le af interchange connecti ng the new road to Ashtarak Highway and Gev org Chaush Street. b The design for this section was prepared in the 1980’s and the fly-over piers for both interchanges constru cted, but con struction w as stopped and the li nk was ne ver completed. The existing piers will b e te sted for concrete strength and corrosion of reinforcement so subje ct to the result will be either retain ed or removed. The new bridge sections of the interchanges will likely be prefabricated. c Widening of the road to Davitashen Bridge will inv olve removal of existing a sphalt layer (and grinding an d re-u sing it as much a s possible). A new con crete asph alt layer will b e laid ov er the road and shoulders. The design inclu des road-side drainage. d A pedestrian overpass or u nderpass on one or two locations will likely be incorporated into the detailed design to connect the residential area north of the road (Davitashen neighborh ood) with the Ci ty (Halabyan Road) and/or Norashe n neighborhood. e Other activities associated with construction include:

(i) Identification and prote ction or relo cation of existing utilities inc luding water mains, gas mains, sewers, and electricity and communication lines; (ii) Selection of suitable locations f or construction camps; fac ilities and o ffices; and storage of materials and machinery; (iii) Removal of existing waste material dumped along the route; (iv) Excavation and leveling of the alignm ent although the majo rity of earth works has already been undertaken; (v) Establishing wheel-wash facilities for vehicles leaving the site; and (vi) Use of an existing concrete batching plant located near the Halabian interchange. (vii) Landscaping of the shoulders and median following construction.

f It is expecte d that con struction will be undertaken ov er a period of up to two and a half years.

54 Yerevan Sustainable Urban Transport Program Davit Yavruyan, April 2010

3. Desk-top investigation

RARE AND ENDANGERED ANIMAL AND HERB TYPES THAT NEED PROTECTION Davitashen Bridge – Ashtarak Highway road link

Could be Influence is # Common Name Scientific Name Note affected unlikely IUCN IUCN ARDB ARDB Endemic Animals Mammals 1 Greater Horseshoe Bat Rhinolophus ferrumequinum LR/CD X 2 Lesser Horseshoe Bat Rhinolophus hipposideros VU X Bird 1 Lammergeier Gypaetus barbatus +, U Migration, feeding X 2 Eurasian Griffon Vulture Gyps fulvus + Migration, feeding X 3 Black (Monk) Vulture Aegypius monachus + LR/NT Migration, feeding X 4 Short-toed Eagle Circaetus gallicus +, U Nesting X 5 Pallid Harrier Circus macrourus + LR/NT Migration X 6 Montagu’s Harrier Circus pygargus + Migration X 7 Levant Sparrowhawk Accipiter brevipes + Nesting X 8 Lesser Kestrel Falco naumanni VU Nesting X 9 Merlin Falco columbaris + Wintering X 10 Woodchat Shrike Lanius senator + Nesting X 11 White-throated Robin Irania gutturalis + Nesting X 12 Finsch’s Wheatear Oenanthe finchii + Nesting X 13 Rock Thrush Monticola saxatillis + Nesting X 14 Blue Rock Thrush Monticolla solitarius + Nesting X 15 Orphean Warbler Sylvia hortensis + Nesting X 16 Penduline Tit Remiz pendulinus + Nesting X 17 Wallcreeper Tichodroma muraria + Wintering X 18 Pale rock - finch Carposiza brachydactyla + Nesting X Reptiles 1 Transcaucasian Ratsnake Elaphe hohenackeri + U X Insects 1 Willowherb Hawkmoth Proserpinus Proserpina + X

Project 1: Davitashen Bridge to Ashtarak Highway Road Link 55

Could be Influence is # Common Name Scientific Name Note affected unlikely IUCN ARDB Endemic 2 Seathorn Hawk-moth Hyles hippophaes + X 3 Yerevan road beetle Medon erevaensis + X 4 Armenian road beetle Heterotops armeniacus + X 5 Blister beetle Lydus araxidis + X Plants 1 Large field beet Beta macrorhiza + X 2 Dusty miller Centrarea erivaensis + X 3 Oriental virginsbower Clematis orientalis + X 4 Adam Saffron Crocus adami + X 5 Caucasian Persimmon Diospyros lotus + Most probably disappeared X 6 Persian walnut Juglans regia + X 7 Caucasus Red Elder Sambucus tigranii + + + X 8 Oriental poppy Papaver orientale + X Notes: ARDB – Armenian Red Data Book; U – Re d Data Book of USSR. The USSR Red B ook has no current legal standing, however it is still referred to today as an a dditional source of information to understand migrating species from neighboring countries and forms a basis for the evaluation of the ecological significance. IUCN - IUCN Red List + Exists in mentioned categories

IUCN Red List Categories EX - Extinct EW - Extinct in the Wild CE - Critically Endangered CD - conservation dependent EN - Endangered NT - Near Threatened VU - Vulnerable LR - Low Risk LC - Least Concern

DD - Data Deficient NE - Not Evaluated

4. Environmental situation

4.1 The environmental situa tion of the p roject site based on the Yerevan Ci ty Master Pl an includes (citation):

• No dangerous geological phenomena registered at the project area. • No rivers or other waterways are running through or near the project area. • No shallow ground water. • No special protected areas, rare or endemic species present. • Soil pollution: fields of mild and moderate pollution. In the Davitashen Bridge end of the project areas there is high pollution. • Air pollution: moderate air quality zone. • Noise: factual recorded noise fluctuates from 65 to 70 dB. • Biodiversity: the majo rity of the n atural landscape of the project area is conside rably changed. The area has types of flora and fauna typical of landscapes in semi-desert and desert zone s. In the middle part of the project area there are low-storied reside ntial houses with fruit and decorative trees. • Waste: there are piles of soil, construction and industrial garbage.

4.2 Description of the current environmental situation of the project site fr om a biodiversity point of view based on the site visit results.

The project area is under strong anthropogenic influence. It runs through residential area s, which is rich with vege tation (mainly orchar ds) and unsettled areas, which are co vered wit h construction and indust rial waste. There are officially recorded endangered flora and fauna species in t he given area (in that particular district of Yerevan). Inve stigations7 re garding the study of new/penetrated zoologica l species (re ptiles) in th e area (near to Ashtarak Highway) have also been undertaken (http://www.seh-herpetology.org/files/12th_SEH.pdf ).

5. Conclusion and recommendations

There are multiple types of protected zoologica l and biological species registered in the area o f the project. Based on preliminary investigation, it is likely that protected species are not present at the site; however this will nee d to be confirmed through furthe r investigation prior to construction, during the vegetation season which is April – September, and the most favorable months are June and July. For the fauna the investigation time depends on the status (migrating, nesting, sta ble habitat, etc) and the specialist should su ggest the investigatio n timelines.

The most suitable timing for construction is outlined as follows:

• The most favorable seasons for con struction with the least impact on the mammals are the summer, late autumn and winte r. Care sho uld be taken during construction in It is necessary to prohibit any clearing activities in spring and early autumn. • For the least impact on the birds the most favo rable time for construction would be the whole year except spring and early summer. • For the reptiles the co nstruction could be implemented with the least impact in late autumn, winter and extremely hot summer days.

7 Danielyan F.D., Aslanyan A. On the rec ord of C aspian gecko (Tenuidactylus caspius) in Armeni a // 12th Ordinary General Meeting of Societas Herpetologica Europaea: Programme & Abstracts. Saint-Petersburg, 2003. P. 53. Project 1: Davitashen Bridge to Ashtarak Highway Road Link57 58

• For insects this would be late autumn and winter. It is again extremely importa nt to exclude any clearing activities in spring, early summer and early autumn. • For the least impact on the flora the best time for construction activities would be late autumn and winter. Again it is necessary to prohibit any clearing activities in spring.

Construction activities include tr ee cutting and landscape alteration, which might have unfavorable impact on the biodiversity of the g iven area. To investigate definite species it is recommended to establish a team o f botanists and zoologist, (at least th ree specialists in each group) that have the appropriate education and at least 5 years of experience of field work. The team leaders should ha ve a scient ific title and relevant experience for this kind of assessment, as well a s experience with relevant reporting. To colle ct r eliable da ta each specialist should spend in the field at least 8 weeks. The work of these groups should result in a site biodiversity and protect ed species database, a s well as d etailed descriptions of possible en vironmental impact and recommendations for the relevant mitigation measures. Th e data co llected should be summarized in the Initial Environmental Examination and Environmental Management Plan.

To protect any identified protected species it is necessary to follow the environmental legislation of Republic of Armenia and ensure the implementat ion of th ose mitigation measures that are based on t he recommendations o f specific specialist s. It is essent ial to consult the releva nt experts while developing the project and to implement constant e nvironmental monitoring/investigation during the project implementation.

Image 1 The Ashtarak Highway end of the road link.

Image 2: Middle part of the road link, close to the urban areas.

Image 3: Middle part of the road link

Image 4: Middle part of the road link, near to urban areas.

Project 1: Davitashen Bridge to Ashtarak Highway Road Link59 60

Image 5: The beginning of the road link.

Image 6: Middle part of the road link.

Annex 1

Laws and Legislations passed by the Government of RA

• RA Law on Flora. • RA Law on Fauna. • RA Law on Payments against the Damage to the Flora a nd Fauna a s a Result of Environmental Violations (03.05.2005). • RA Law on Environmental Impact Expertise • RA Law on Local Self-Governance, adopted on May 7, 2002 envisages the authority of the head of the local community in the areas of land usage, as well as th e liabilities of the head of the community in the a rea of the n ature and e nvironment protection. • RA Criminal Code was adopted on April 18, 2003 and sets out criminal liabilities fo r the violation of environmental protection rules. • RA Law on Environmental Monitoring (11.04.2005), that approved of th e liabilities of the environmental mon itoring depa rtment and defined the function of the give n department in different sectors, including the land protection/preservation.

Currently there have been developed and are in different stages of d iscussions the Draft Laws on Environmental Fund, on Natur al Areas un der Special Protection, on Major Provisions of National Water Policy a nd Environmental Exp ertise, as well as on Ru les of State Monitoring of the Land Utilization and Protection.

Annex 2

RA Government Decrees

• The Rule of Usage of the Fertile Layer of Lan d (19.09.2002, RA Government De cree 1622-N), which regulates the activiti es related t o preservation and rehabilitation of l and after mining of natural construct ion materials and minerals, like t he removal and appropriate use of the fertile layer of the soil d uring the mining (removal, preservation and registration of the removed soil); this decree also defines the liabilities of state and local self-governance bodies. • RA Go vernment Decree on the Marginal Rates on Activities Plan ned Subject to Environmental Impact expertise (25.04.1999, RA Government Decree N193) • On Approvi ng the Rules for Construction/Urba n Development Activities in the Special Protected Nature Areas and Forest Fund Lands (08.05.20 0, Decree 613-N) regulates the relevant procedures for the urban construction activities and the liabilities of diffe rent bodies. • On Defining the Rule of Totally or Partially, Permanently or Temporarily Exclusion of the Special Pro tected Wat er Systems out of Economic Activity Field” (10.07.2003. RA Government Decree 888-N). • On Approving the Procedures of Use and Protection of the Specially Protected Areas of International Value (15.09.2005. RA Government Decree 1628-N). • On the Report/land B alance of t he RA Land Fund A vailability a nd Distribut ion (22.12.2005. RA Government Decree 2243-N), which note d the introduced balance and appointed to introduce the final balance of RA lands in 2006. • In accordan ce with the RA Go vernment Decree 125 On the Organization of L and Construction Procedures it is p lanned to implement land use and prot ection monitoring activities. Project 1: Davitashen Bridge to Ashtarak Highway Road Link61 62

Annex 3

Participation of Armenia in the International Environmental Conventions

NAME PLACE AND DATE In force Signed Ratified Convention on Biological Diversit y (Rio-de-Janeiro, 21.03.1994 1992 14.05.19 1992) 93 UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (Rio- 21.03.1994 1992 14.05.19 de-Janeiro, 1992) 93 Convention on Environmental Impact Assessment in 10.09 1997 21.02.19 a Transboundary Context(Espoo, 1991) 97 Convention on Combat Desertification (Paris, 1994) 27.09.1996 1994 02.07.19 97

Annex 4 List of references

1. Yerevan City Master Plan, Volume 5: Complex Outline of Yerevan City Environmental Protection, Yerevan, 2004 2. Yerevan City Master Plan, Volume 9: General Provisions, Yerevan, 2004 3. Major provisions of the new plan of Yerevan City 4. Yerevan Sustainable Urban Transport Program DRAFT Basic construction methodology 5. Yerevan Sustainable Urban Transport Program Public Consultancy on Environmental Protection 6. S. K. Dal, “Fauna of Armenian SSR”, 1954. 7. M.G. Dadikyan, “The Fish of Armenia”, 1986. 8. First National Action Plan of Armenia on Biodiversity, 1999. 9. Fourth National Report to the Con vention on Biological Diversity Republic of Armenia, 2009 10. National Project on Combating Desertification in Armenia, 2002. 11. Red Book of Armenia (plants) 12. Red Book of Armenia (animals). 13. “Water-log vegetation in Armenian SSR”, Barseghyan,1990. 14. Flora of Armenia, volumes. 15. “Vegetation of Armenian SSR”, K. Magakyan, 1941. 16. Atlas of Populated areas of the Republic of Armenia, Yerevan, 2001. 17. Atlas of Armenian SSR, 1961. 18. Nature of Armenia, Yerevan 2006. 19. Birds of Armenia, M.S.Adamyan, 1985. 20. RA Law on the Size of Compensation Caused to the Fauna and Flora as a Result of Environmental Offences, 03.05.2005. 21. RA Law on Environmental Impact Assessment, 20.11.1995 22. The Chiropteras of Armenia and Mediterranean (fauna, ecology and economic importance), doctoral thesis Yavruyan E.G. 1991 23. New and rare bats species for Armenia , Gusiyan R.R, Danielian F.D.,1963 24. The Fauna of Chiropteras of Karmir Blur caves, Yavruyan E.G., Barsegyan A.A., 1975 25. Catalogue of Palaearctic Coleoptera - Volume 2, 2004 Lobl & A. Smetana (Apollo Books) 26. http://www.answers.com/ 27. http://www.gbif.net/species/browse/taxon 28. http://zipcodezoo.com/utilities/search.asp

29. http://www.trueknowledge.com/ 30. http://species.wikimedia.org 31. http://en.wikipedia.org/ 32. http://www.iucnredlist.org/apps/redlist/details 33. http://www.globalnames.org/name_strings?search 34. http://www.biolib.cz/en/formsearch/ 35. http://www.faunaeur.org/index.php 36. http://www.cac-biodiversity.org/arm/arm_natreserves.htm 37. http://www.biodiversitylibrary.org 38. http://www.plantsystematics.org/taxpage/0/genus/ 39. http://www.nature-ic.am/ccarmenia/en/ 40. http://www.globalnames.org/name_strings 41. http://bvi.rusf.ru/taksa/

Project 1: Davitashen Bridge to Ashtarak Highway Road Link63 64

APPENDIX 3

ARCHAEOLOGICAL INVESTIGATION

Preparing the Yerevan Sustainable Urban Transport Investment Program. Archaeological impact of Project 1 – Davitashen Bridge – Ashatarak Highway (Preliminary report)

The studied area, inclu ding around 2200 m of distance, located in the north-western part of the city, along the border between Da vitashen and Ajapnyak communities (Map 1 of th e General report). The planned sectio n of the roa d (new and upgraded to 4-6 lane divided roads) is starting f rom the en d of the Davitashen Bridge, from the Yeghva rd Highway, continuin g straight, along the south of the quarter of the private houses of the Da vitashen district, adjacent to Melkumyan Street an d connects with the Ashtarak-Gyumri Highway (Map 2). The conducted survey for a rchaeological study of t he describe d area took two da ys, facing some difficultie s, because of the surface of the local original landscape is mainly covered by modern construction waste and is strongly changed by construction activities. For this reason the surveying activities here, carried not systematic, but intensive character. The road be gins near D avitashen Bridge over the Hrazdan River Can yon, one of t he most important ecological niche s and geomorphologic un its, not only for the limits of Yerevan, but the whole Armenia (Image 1). Hrazdan River was on e of the ma in water bodies for the central Armenia, supply ing the territ ory of Yerevan with pur e water during thousan ds of years. All human activity conducted here was related to the natural structu re of the river. Forme d sometime around 250 000 years ago, the canyon of Hrazdan attracted Early humans, especially Neanderthals. Long term traces of their vital activity are recorded in so called Yerevan-1-2 caves in the lower strea m of the river. Hundreds of cave st ructures, present in the limits of the gorge are indicating the presence of the human life from its dawn up to recent past (Image 2 ). The convenient relief o f the terraces, as well th e “peninsulas”, formed by the main river and its tributaries, were serving ideal basis for fortifie d settlements, citadels, f ortresses. All along the borders of t he gorge traces of irrig ation channel structures are visible (Image 3). Considering the importance of Hrazdan River i n Political a nd Economic life of Yerevan, high density o f archaeological sites on the surface of the terraces, the stud y of the areas clo ser to its canyon are of a high priority. The beginning of the planned road construct ion directly fit s into this concept.

The first d ay of surveying inclu ded from Davitshen Bridge along the Yeghvard Highway, cl oser to Mel kumyan Street (Map 2, Images 5-7 ). Here, duri ng the checking of the sections, under heavy deposits of construction waste, first archaeological finds were made (Map 2, Image 8). The finds are represented by sm all obsidian artifacts (retouched thin blades and scraper, natural pebble, hammer st ones and Medieval pottey fragment s) lying in th e sediment, with traces of construction remains. The sectio n is covered by thick deposit of co nstructional garbage; the finds are mixed with modern artefacts; which is making the future study of the area of the finds difficult. For understanding the context of those finds, the a rea of private houses of the Davitah en district was checke d as well. Here, form the surface of private g ardens lying between the houses, strongly we athered and destroyed medieval ceramic fragments were collected. The location of the Davitashen quart er on a con venient, flat surface hill, attached to one of the former (nowadays fully disappeared) tributaries of the Hrazdan River, is talking about possibility of an existing settlement on the h ill. The finds are probably associat ed with the southern ending of the settlement. While che cking the con cept, the place of fall o f the existe d tributary to t he Hrazdan River was f ound on the left side of the Davitashen Bridge (Image 4). Nowadays the settlement is fu lly destructed; the surface is covered by modern private houses and buildings and the scientific potential of the site is lost. Continuation of the first phase of the survey in the area of ju nction with the Melkum yan street after the pr ivate houses, was fully impossible, because of 4-5 m thick constructional garbage deposits (soil and huge basalt blocks), covering the original surface of the ground (Images 10-13). Second day of the s urvey activities was carried out in the section adjacent to Melkumyan Street and t o Ashtarak Highway (M ap 2). The studied are a is fully destroyed b y construction activity, cleaned by me chanisms and covered by construct ional garbage (soil an d basalt blo cks). The che cking of the existing art ificial sect ions identif ied no archeological fin ds (Images 14 and 15). Only at the junction of Melkumyan Street with the Ashtarak Highway, at the south-western side of the highway, t races of a settlement were recorded. The settlement is fully destroyed by road acti vities. In a small surv ived “island”, escaped from the co nstructional activities, tr aces of wall structure s and houses are visible (Map 2, Images 16 and 17). Th e existing remains of the site are so small, th at there is not enough potential t o make any conclusion about its cultural distribution, occupational phases and timing. It is likely, that the hill under the Ashtarak Highway contains remains of a small seasonal settlement (Map 2). Putting together the collected archaeological data from the surveyed area, we can say, that along P1 at least traces of two badly preserved settlements were recorded. Neither of these archaeological structures are present in the published and archival records and in the lists of the

Project 1: Davitashen Bridge to Ashtarak Highway Road Link65 66 protected sites, adopted by the Ministry of Culture 8. Two former sites h ave no clear features – the first one is not visible and probably destroyed, and, the second one is fully destroyed. There is no need of any special operation to protect them or to organize rescue excavations before the construction activities. Summarizing the study of the area P1 in terms of the archaeological impact, we can say tha t there are no any “arc haeological barriers” to start the constructiona l activities. It should be possible to recommend to the authorized body (the Ministry of Culture) to allow the construction operations in the area with a cond ition that th e construct ion contract should inclu de provision of suitably qualified st aff, such as an archaeologist, to e nsure, that proper chance-find procedures are implemented during those activities along the cleaned and opened sections9.

Boris Gasparyan Archeologist consultant 01.05.2010

8 T he la w on preservation and u tilization of Immovable Mo numents o f Histor y and Culture an d o f the Historic Environment (adopted on the 11 o f November 1989) – LPUIMHCHE LAW. Chapter 13. The recorded list of the monuments has a power of law and is a basis for giving an official status to the monument. 9 LPUIMHCHE LAW. Chapter 19. Any type of the construction activity in the areas containing historical monuments or archaeological sites must be realized in agreement with the authorized body (Ministry of Culture). Chapters 21- 22. Des truction o f his torical monuments a nd i ts env ironment is forbidden. B efore the realization o f any kind of activity at the area of the site the authorized body must study it and give corresponding permits or solutions. 66

Project 1: Davitashen Bridge to Ashtarak Highway Road Link67 68

Project 1: Davitashen Bridge to Ashtarak Highway Road Link69 70

Project 1: Davitashen Bridge to Ashtarak Highway Road Link71 72

Artefacts found in the area after the Davitashen Bridge, from the section, situated not far from the left turn to the Halabyan street. Hammer stones, obsidian michrolithic artefacts, obsidian pebble, Ceramic fragment

Project 1: Davitashen Bridge to Ashtarak Highway Road Link73 74

Project 1: Davitashen Bridge to Ashtarak Highway Road Link75 76

APPENDIX 4

NOISE MONITORING RESULTS

Nature of noise

according according to time

Date to spector description sound location dBA (Lmax) LAeq,15min LAeq,15min Measurement measurement n ng ive ude nent pted Maximum level of tonal Time of day duringTime of day amplit perma vibrati transp ortatio interru impuls 29/03/2010 Point N1 + + 08:30-10:30 41.3 48.4 29/03/2010 Point N1 + + 13:00-15:00 49.2 57.9 29/03/2010 Point N1 + + 17:50-19:45 47.5 51.8 30/03/2010 Point N1 + + 08:45-10:40 48.5 55.6 30/03/2010 Point N1 + + 13:20-15:30 48.2 52.4 30/03/2010 Point N1 + + 17:30-19:15 47.7 56.1 31/03/2010 Point N1 + + 09:00-11:00 47.1 57.7 31/03/2010 Point N1 + + 14:00-16:10 52.3 61.7 31/03/2010 Point N1 + + 18:30-20:00 48.9 54.7 01/04/2010 Point N1 + + 08:40-10:15 50.3 58.1 01/04/2010 Point N1 + + 13:30-14:50 47.0 54.5 01/04/2010 Point N1 + + 17:30-19:25 48.7 56.4 Arithmetic Average Point N1 48.1 Daytime Level 29/03/2010 Point N2 + + 08:30-10:30 59.3 70.2 29/03/2010 Point N2 + + 13:00-15:00 58.5 65.3 29/03/2010 Point N2 + + 17:50-19:45 60.3 68.8 30/03/2010 Point N2 + + 08:45-10:40 61.5 71.8 30/03/2010 Point N2 + + 13:20-15:30 61.3 70.6 30/03/2010 Point N2 + + 17:30-19:15 58.2 63.9 31/03/2010 Point N2 + + 09:00-11:00 57.5 63.8 31/03/2010 Point N2 + + 14:00-16:10 57.8 71.6 31/03/2010 Point N2 + + 18:30-20:00 56.8 62.2 01/04/2010 Point N2 + + 08:40-10:15 56.5 62.7 01/04/2010 Point N2 + + 13:30-14:50 56.1 66.1 01/04/2010 Point N2 + + 17:30-19:25 59.2 65.4 Arithmetic Average Point N2 58.6 Daytime Level 29/03/2010 Point N3 + + 08:30-10:30 57.8 68.8 29/03/2010 Point N3 + + 13:00-15:00 58.2 68.9 29/03/2010 Point N3 + + 17:50-19:45 59.5 65.4 30/03/2010 Point N3 + + 08:45-10:40 58.7 70.0 30/03/2010 Point N3 + + 13:20-15:30 58.3 65.0 30/03/2010 Point N3 + + 17:30-19:15 55.0 61.2 31/03/2010 Point N3 + + 09:00-11:00 59.8 70.7 31/03/2010 Point N3 + + 14:00-16:10 56.2 65.3 31/03/2010 Point N3 + + 18:30-20:00 57.5 62.9 01/04/2010 Point N3 + + 08:40-10:15 58.0 64.7 01/04/2010 Point N3 + + 13:30-14:50 54.6 65.3 01/04/2010 Point N3 + + 17:30-19:25 54.0 59.5 Arithmetic Average Point N3 57.3 Daytime Level

Nature of noise

accordin according to time g to Date

spector description sound dBA (Lmax) LAeq,15min measurement n Maximum level of ng ive Time of day duringTime of day ude Measurement place nent pted tonal amplit perma vibrati transp ortatio interru impuls 29/03/2010 Point N4 + + 08:30-10:30 44.0 47.2 29/03/2010 Point N4 + + 13:00-15:00 47.1 58.7 29/03/2010 Point N4 + + 17:50-19:45 43.0 45.7 30/03/2010 Point N4 + + 08:45-10:40 43.2 45.2 30/03/2010 Point N4 + + 13:20-15:30 44.2 50.5 30/03/2010 Point N4 + + 17:30-19:15 45.7 56.9 31/03/2010 Point N4 + + 09:00-11:00 43.3 52.5 31/03/2010 Point N4 + + 14:00-16:10 42.8 48.5 31/03/2010 Point N4 + + 18:30-20:00 47.5 49.1 01/04/2010 Point N4 + + 08:40-10:15 45.7 57.2 01/04/2010 Point N4 + + 13:30-14:50 46.3 57.2 01/04/2010 Point N4 + + 17:30-19:25 44.6 51.6 Arithmetic Average Point N4 44.8 Daytime Level 29/03/2010 Point N5 + + 08:30-10:30 59.7 66.3 29/03/2010 Point N5 + + 13:00-15:00 59.4 66.8 29/03/2010 Point N5 + + 17:50-19:45 55.5 60.3 30/03/2010 Point N5 + + 08:45-10:40 58.1 62.4 30/03/2010 Point N5 + + 13:20-15:30 60.6 69.7 30/03/2010 Point N5 + + 17:30-19:15 57.9 70.0 31/03/2010 Point N5 + + 09:00-11:00 61.7 74.4 31/03/2010 Point N5 + + 14:00-16:10 59.3 64.1 31/03/2010 Point N5 + + 18:30-20:00 63.6 72.9 01/04/2010 Point N5 + + 08:40-10:15 62.0 71.7 01/04/2010 Point N5 + + 13:30-14:50 61.4 67.6 01/04/2010 Point N5 + + 17:30-19:25 55.8 66.8 Arithmetic Average Point N5 59.6 Daytime Level

Project 1: Davitashen Bridge to Ashtarak Highway Road Link77 78 78 Predicted Operational Noise Impacts and Map of Noise Measurements Positions

APPENDIX 5

PUBLIC CONSULTATION EVENT - 19 MARCH 2010

Advertisement in The Armenian Times

Project 1: Davitashen Bridge to Ashtarak Highway Road Link79 80

Attendance list - translated

Note that t he actual attendance lists con tain repeat na mes and does not in clude several attendees.

No. Name Position Address/organization 1. Karen Avetisyan Coordinator Association for Sustainable Human Development, NGO forum on ADB 2. Karine Danielyan President of NGO, Association for Sustainable Representative of environmental Human Development NGO ADB Armenian Office Public Alliance 3. Abrahamyan Tamara President of NGO “Araza” NGO 4. Andra nik Tevosyan Citizen 5. Ashot Mnatsakanyan Advisor to the Mayor Yerevan Municipality 6. Mush egh Yerevan Municipality Staff Yerevan Municipality Burnusuzyan Transport Department Main Specialist 7. Diana Yeritspokhyan Ecologist Yerevan Municipality 8. Basencyan Frunz Yerevan Municipality 9. Tadevo syan Rudik Yerevan Municipality 10. Ofelia Sivonyan Yerevan Municipality Information Department 11. Hayk Abelyan Deputy of the Head of District Ajapnyak Administrative District 12. Gevorgyan Gagik Land Usage Town Department Davitashen Administrative Region Head Deputy Director 13. Vardanyan Vardan Shengavit Administrative District 14. Felix Afyan Deputy Director PIU 15. Ruben Srapyan Leading specialist PIU 16. Levon Hakobyan Yerevan Building Investment PIU PIU Director 17. Goha r Aleksanyan Journalist 18. Ha smik Gregorgyan Journalist ArmenPress 19. Anahit Avagyan Journalist Public radio 20. Areg Barseghyan ADB Representative ADB Armenian office 21. Anna Avagyan Translator ADB Armenian office 22. Klaus Schonfeld Environment Specialist ADB 23. Lanfranco Blanchetti Resettlement Specialist ADB 24. Anjela Arakelyan “AdInfoSys” CJSC 25. Milena Babaeva Translator “AdInfoSys” CJSC 26. Liana Mkhitaryan Social and Resettlement “AdInfoSys” CJSC Specialist 27. Vahe Tunyan Transport Specialist “AdInfoSys” CJSC 28. Qri stine Araqelyan “AdInfoSys” CJSC 29. Arman Vermishyan Environment Specialist “AdInfoSys” CJSC 30. Paul Holmes Project Manager Mott MacDonald 31. Naomi Hull Environment Specialist Mott MacDonald 32. Tom Streather Resettlement Specialist Mott MacDonald

Attendance list – actual (1 of 3)

Attendance list – actual (2 of 3)

Project 1: Davitashen Bridge to Ashtarak Highway Road Link81 82

Attendance list – actual (3 of 3)