E1 593 Vol. 2

FROM THE AMERICAN PEOPLE Public Disclosure Authorized

RURAL ENERGY PROGRAM COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT NO. 114-A-00-05-00106-00 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR LOPOTA SMALL HYDROPOWER REHABILITATION Public Disclosure Authorized PROJECT

-"'-' - ' :.' Public Disclosure Authorized

-. .

, - il e

g-- *.

' - '...;'t,...B Public Disclosure Authorized U s

ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR LOPOTA SMALL HYDROPOWER REHABILITATION PROJECT

Prepared for: USAID / Caucasus 25 Atoneli Street 0105 Tbilisi, Georgia

Prepared by: Rural Energy Program 26 Dzmebi Kakabadzeebi Street, Tbilisi, 0105, Georgia Tel: +995 32 50 63 43 Fax: +995 32 93 53 52 TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. Introduction ...... 2 2. Site Specific Environmental Management Plans ...... 5 2.1. Lopota Small Hydropower Project (Napareuli Community) ...... 5 2.1.1. Project Activities Overview ...... 5 2.1.2. Environmental Review ...... 9 2.1.3. Environmental Determination ...... 10 3. Mitigation Plan ...... 15 4. Monitoring Plan ...... 21 Annex A. Environmental Screening of the Lopota Project Site ...... 25 Annex B. Physical and Socio-Economic Environment ...... 31 Annex C. Geological Evaluation of the Lopota SHP site ...... 35 1. INTRODUCTION

The USAID-sponsored Rural Energy Program (formerly known as the Renewable Energy and Environment Development Program, or REED) in Georgia aims at developing in-country capacity to increase the utilization of small hydropower resources and realization of energy efficiency potential in rural Georgia. The primary objectives of the Rural Energy Program include 1) increased supply of energy to rural areas (both grid connected and off-grid); 2) improved management of local energy production; 3) improved in-country capacity to develop and deploy renewable energy applications in rural communities; and 4) improved capacity to more efficiently utilize and protect the local energy resource base. The Rural Energy Program envisions the implementation of a number of pilot projects in such areas as small, mini and micro hydropower installations, extensions of natural gas distribution networks, renewable energy systems (other than small, mini and micro hydro facilities), and natural resource management programs. Rural Energy Program activities as funded by a federal government agency, USAID, are subject to applicable U.S. environmental laws, and regulations including USAID's environmental impact assessment procedures. These procedures intend to implement the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1970. Title 22 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 216 (so called 22 CFR 216), applies to all USAID programs, projects, activities and substantive amendments. To comply with 22 CFR 216, the PA Consulting Environmental Team completed a Programmatic Environmental Assessment (PEA) for the Rural Energy Program in March of 2006. USAID approved the PEA for further implementation. The PEA scope contained (a) a definition of environmental screening criteria for a set of projects similar in size, range and magnitude of impacts, and (b) characterization of common mitigation measures for each project type to alleviate the recognized impacts. Projects that did not share common attributes (such as medium and large hydropower projects, projects located in national parks, or projects which raised substantial issues regarding wetlands or sensitive habitats that would require a separate Environmental Assessment) were not addressed in the PEA. The PEA evaluated four types of projects considered for investment under the Rural Energy Program. These included the following project categories: * Small-scale hydropower plants; * Community natural gas (NG) distribution systems; * Renewable energy/ energy efficiency projects; and * Natural resource management projects. Work completed by the PA Environmental Scoping Team set the stage for the PEA. Issues identified during preparation of the Rural Energy Program Scoping Statement (Appendix E) were examined by the multidisciplinary PEA Team through literature reviews, stakeholder interviews, multiple field evaluations and environmental screening analyses. Through a process of integrating issues identified through scoping with information collected in literature reviews, regulatory reviews, interviews, field and screening evaluations, the PEA Team identified environmental aspects that had to be addressed in the PEA.

2 The environmental aspects presented in the PEA included the following subjects: * Geology and Soils * Water Resources * Biological Resources * Socioeconomics (including Public Health) * Cultural Resources. The PEA also simplified environmental due diligence for the preparation of environmental management plans (including mitigation and monitoring plans) for a larger set of activities expected under the Rural Energy Program. Due to the completion of the Programmatic Environmental Assessment for the entire Rural Energy Program, it was unnecessary to define environmental significance ranking criteria for each individual environmental management plan. The unified significance criteria elaborated in the PEA were utilized for the environmental impact ranking presented in individual environmental management plans. An environmental management plan for each project is based on a specific environmental review conducted at each project site. The review process was designed to specify environmental impacts characteristic of each project site attributable to either construction or operational phases of project implementation. The mitigation options are aligned with the general mitigation recommendations specified in the PEA. The Environmental Management Plans (EMP) consists of a set of mitigation, monitoring, and institutional measures to be taken into account during implementation and operation to eliminate adverse environmental and social impacts, offset them, or reduce them to acceptable levels. The plans also include actions needed to implement these measures. EMPs identify feasible and cost- effective measures that may reduce potentially significant adverse environmental impacts to acceptable levels. Specifically, the EMPs include the following: (a) Summaries of all anticipated significant adverse environmental impacts (including those involving indigenous people or involuntary resettlement); (b) Descriptions (with technical details) of each mitigation measure, including the type of impact to which it relates and the conditions under which it is required (e.g., continuously or in the event of contingencies), together with designs, equipment descriptions, and operating procedures, as appropriate; (c) Estimates of any potential environmental impacts of these measures; and (d) Linkages with any other mitigation plans (e.g., for involuntary resettlement, indigenous peoples, or cultural property) required for the project. The monitoring section of the EMP provides the following information: (a) A specific description and technical details of monitoring measures, including the parameters to be measured, methods to be used, sampling locations, frequency of measurements, detection limits (where appropriate), and definition of thresholds that will signal the need for corrective actions; and (b) Monitoring and reporting procedures to ensure early detection of conditions that necessitate particular mitigation measures.

3 It was assumed that a legislative and regulatory framework is identical for all projects and was already discussed in the Programmatic Environmental Assessment for the Rural Energy Program. Obtaining accurate natural resource, ecological health and employment-related statistics in any part of Georgia is extremely difficult. Also, local hospitals and other institutions do not keep health records and are unwilling to discuss or acknowledge health problems. For these reasons, it was not been possible to analyze any data related to public health issues including environmental and occupational health statistics in the project communities.

4 2. SITE SPECIFIC ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLANS

The following section presents environmental management plans specified for each IPP project to be implemented in Year 1. As it was mentioned above, the Lopota SHP was examined and included in the PEA report prepared in March 2006. The specific project environmental impact categories and mitigation recommendations were identified during a second site visit completed by the Rural Energy Program Environmental Team in December 2006. The proposed mitigation measures are in line with common recommendations outlined in the PEA. 2.1. LOPOTA SMALL HYDROPOWER PROJECT (NAPAREULI COMMUNITY) 2.1.1. Project Activities Overview The Lopota Small Hydro Power (SHP) is the first level of the hydro power plant cascade located on the Lopota Tiver, in the Telavi district of the Kakhety Region in East Georgia. Location of the Lopota SHP is presented in Figure 1.

Figure 1. Location of the Lopota SHP in Eastern Georgia

- , map

'C'Chax AiS4a B

Tianeti

Mtske t i An >

t Si aredz-ho btr4 Tjn eLISI Gurdzha

The construction of the Lopota SHP started in 2003 and isn't yet completed. The work was discontinued in 2004 due to lack of financing. The project plans to install the 2,000 kW generation capacities. The project envisages the construction of a low head diversion weir, restoration of the intake and silt tanks, penstock, tailrace, hydro-mechanical units and electric equipment. The layout of the facility is presented in Figure 2:

5 Figure 2. Layout of the Lopota Small Hydropower Plant

D.. -- RlRver Lopota

--- tl Ba'- ,/ A Ccram.- Ploili

clm - -lo*)

raa 4 M3

V ~HP LPT 1- vinoyard -khr. P4goInI i

X ------*j*t

Powerhouse Headwork's Settling Basin

6 The Rural Energy Program Engineering Team has visited the site and summarized the status of the hydropower infrastructure as follows:

* The existing settling basin is 6.4 meters wide, 5 meters long and 4 meters high. The settling basin is equipped with a trash rack and flashing, and flow regulating gates. The settling basin also serves as a forebay tank; * The existing silt tank is 6 meters wide, 36 meters long and 6 meters high. * Water flows from the settling basin through the silt tank into a 2,080-meter long, and 1,400-mm in diameter penstock, which conveys water to the power turbines in the powerhouse; * Water is discharged into the irrigation canal through a 300-meter long, 2,400 mm diameter wide pipe tailrace and then enters the Alazani River through an 800 meter long open canal. The project design documents specify the following activities to be completed at the project site: 1. Construction of a low head diversion weir; 2. Rehabilitation of the settling basin and installation of emergency and flow regulating gates; 3. Rehabilitation of the silt tank; 4. Rehabilitation of the penstock; 5. Rehabilitation of the tailrace 6. Installation of hydro-mechanical units (turbine bearings, bearing thermo control system, flywheel, pressure control in the draft tube); and 7. Installation of electrical equipment 8. Setting up the switch yard Civil works associated with the full scale rehabilitation of the low height diversion weir include the following activities: * De-watering the intake pool using gabions or soil embankments. This action will allow drying of the section of the weir for the rehabilitation works; * Removing debris from the de-watered section; * On-site concrete mixing, forming; and gravel preparation; * Constructing wooden forms for concrete and adding steel bars as required by the design; Removing wooden forms after concrete is dry and set; * Testing the concrete using special testing equipment; * Rehabilitating the intake and emergency spillway gates; * Collecting and disposing all debris, construction waste, scrap and remaining construction materials in designated disposal sites. The rehabilitation works will be conducted at the water intake which is a concrete pool equipped with a number of emergency and flow regulating gates. * Removing debris from the water intake pool; * Constructing wooden forms for concrete and adding steel bars as required in the design; * Removing all gates and sending them for repairs; * Removing wooden forms after concrete is dry and set; * Performing concrete testing; * Reinstalling the repaired water flow regulating gate; * Conducting testing of the water intake pool for leaks by filling with water and closing the gate; * In case of minor leaks, filling in the gaps with concrete; and

7 * Disposing of all debris, scrap and left over construction materials in a designated disposal site. The above-listed works shall be completed within the same timeframe as the diversion weir works. This measure will assure that, in the event of flooding during the repair of the diversion weir, the rehabilitated system will be able to absorb some of the flood flow. The Lopota SHP penstock also requires rehabilitation. The quality of the metal in the penstock will be inspected and weaker sections replaced according to the instructions in the technical design. The penstock was damaged during recent flooding. Gabions need to be constructed on both sides of the penstock in order to prevent future damage as described in the design. The penstock rehabilitation includes the following activities: * Removing the damaged section of the penstock using gas-welding equipment; * Welding of new sections using a mobile electric welding machine; * Reinforcing the supports/saddles of the penstock according the instruction in the design * After the completion of the above-mentioned works, re-watering the penstock and monitoring for a specific period of time (two days +/-) to identify and repair the leaks, giving special attention to the pipe joints; * Painting the penstock using water-based anticorrosion paint; and * Disposing all debris, scrub and left over construction materials at a designated disposal site and in an approved manner The tailrace at the Lopota SHP requires rehabilitation. The tailrace presents a massive concrete channel from which water flows into a 300-meter long, 2,400 cm in diameter steel pipe. The pipe diverts water into the irrigation canal. The joint between the pipeline and the canal needs to be reinforced with concrete to ensure that the maximum water volume reaches the canal. The tailrace rehabilitation includes the following activities: * De-watering the joint section between the pipeline and canal gabions. This action will allow drying of the section for the rehabilitation works; * Removing debris and sedimentation from the canal and tailrace; * Constructing wooden forms for concrete and adding steel bars as required by the design; * Removing wooden forms and waiting until concrete is dry and set; * Testing concrete using special test equipment; * Filling the tailrace and canal with water and testing for leaks; * In case of minor leaks, filling in the gaps with concrete; and * Disposing of all debris, scrap and left over construction materials at a designated disposal site and in an approved manner. When all rehabilitation works are completed, the entire hydro system will be re-watered and monitored for a period of time specified in the design to identify and repair leaks. Installation of electrical equipment: The Lopota SHP project envisages the installation of new power distribution and control panels. The following works are planed to be conducted: * Installing a thermo control system on both turbine bearings; flywheel, governor, draft tube and base plate; * Installing new wiring; * Installing new control and automation systems; * Removing of all old and non-functioning equipment and replacing it with modern, more efficient equipment. The automation system should be rehabilitated to increase the operation efficiency of the SHP; * Installing transformers, feeders, bus bars, transmission poles, and power lines;

8 * Securing the territory of the powerhouse with proper fencing and safety signs indicating types of potential hazards; * Equipping the settling basin and tailrace with safety handrails or netting fences; * Posting high voltage signs to indicate a threat of electrocution in the powerhouse and on the powerhouse and switch yards.

Table 1. Electrical Equipment to be Installed at the Lopota SHP Project

Power transformer, dry 630 kVA 10/0.4 kW 10 kV voltage set of switchgear Voltage transformer Electro-magnet switch with temperature breaker Voltmeter 10 kV power cable Exterior lighting in the SHP area

2.1.2. Environmental Review The Rural Energy Program Engineering Team visited the site in December 2006. The purpose of the visit was to assess the current environmental conditions at the site and complete a screening analysis of potential environmental impacts. The following section contains an analysis of the significance of the various potential environmental impacts associated with the project, and, where applicable, describes the mitigation measures (including monitoring) which are needed to address the identified impacts. The results of the screening exercise at the Lopota SHP project site are presented in Annex 1. Issues which were determined to be insignificant or irrelevant following the screening analysis (in compliance with the significance criteria outlined in the PEA) are shown in Table 2 below. Table 2: Potential Environmental Impacts Excluded From Further Analysis

Construction Phase Issues Reasons for Exclusion Disruption to wildlife or sensitive ecological habitats Rehabilitation of the existing scheme and no significant habitats in the vicinity Disruption of the hydrological regime Existing hydrological patterns will be maintained Disruption of local movement and access to roads Most works will be away from village roads and relatively of small-scale Operational Phase Disturbance or threat to important ecological habitats, Rehabilitation of the existing infrastructure and no including protected ecosystems (e.g. national parks) significant habitats in the vicinity Salt water intrusion Not applicable Impediment to movement of livestock and humans Rehabilitation of the existing infrastructure, people will likely improve access to land Threat to historic, cultural and aesthetic sites and Rehabilitation of the existing infrastructure, and no features land acquisition Disruption of fisheries No significant fisheries present

2.1.3. Environmental Determination Based on the conducted environmental review including environmental screening of the Lopota SHP project site, significant environmental impacts related to the assessed environmental aspects are identified and presented below. It is necessary to note that the identified impacts have moderate to low probabiity for occurance. Thus such impacts are mitigated and prevented through following best management, construction and operational practices. The Mitigation Plan for the Lopota SHP outlines major mitigation activities associated with each impact. Below there is a list of environemntal impacts that were identified as moderate or significant for each environemtal aspect proposed in the PEA. The impact list is acoompanied with a set of measures recommended to mitigate the impacts. 1) Geology and Soil (a) Construction: Some geological hazards may occur during the construction of the Lopota SHP. (b) Mitigation measures: ,4 Evaluate the site suitability for construction of a small hydropower facility; 4. Provide recommendations on types of construction materials to be used; ;. Calssification of the soil layer's strength to assess potential for geological hazards (e.g. landslide); 4, Provide recommendations on adequate river bank protection in the catchment area to prevent erosion

10 (c) Construction: Moderate to low impact from disturbance of topsoil and aggravation of erosion during the construction phase. (d) Mitigation measures: Proper landscaping of slopes and replanting vegetation. (e) Operation: Moderate to low impact of soil contamination during the opeartion activiites. This impact is realted to improper handling of chemicals, lubricants and transformer oils during the operation. (I) Mitigation mesures: 4 Regular checking for oil leaks in the machinery; 4 No mashinery washing at the site; and 4. Subcontracting professional services for regular oil change in transformers. 2) Water Resource (a) Construction: 4 Increased Turbidity Downstream of the Headworks Construction. Construction activities require excavation, removal and movement of soil, gravel and rocks from the riverbed (in order to construct the dam and create embankments), and concrete mixing (i.e. a large constructed area). These activities will potentially generate high levels of suspended solids that will increase turbidity downstream of the weir. 4 Increased Erosion of the Lopota River Stream. Construction activities at the headwors involve excavation, removal and movement of soil, gravel or rocks from the riverbed (e.g. create new embankments). A significant amount of concrete mixing is needed (i.g. a large construction area). These activities will potentially increase erosion of the river stream (in case the excavated soil is piled inappropriately). This in turn may increase sedimentation of the waterway and generate changes to the floodplains. 4 Increased Flooding and Changed Flooding Patternes during the Headwork Construction Activities. Flooding during the construction activities might damage or destroy the formwork where concrete will be poured for gabions and soil embankments.

11 (b) Mitigation Measures: 4. Avoid blocking stream flow during construction to eliminate the potential for flooding upstream to the weir and to increase the level of suspended solids coming from the floodplain; -. Avoid stockpiling soils on the river banks and the floodplains to minimize soil moving through run-off; A. Use concrete blocks instead of soil (where feasible) for temporary stream diversion to reduce soil movement and stream sedimentation; 4 Restore landscaping and replant vegetation at the river bank and within the riparian ecosystem to its original form; k Employ proper drainage techniques to prevent surface submersion and - Avoid construction during wet seasons where possible; activities should be scheduled to reduce the duration of construction during the wet season. (c) Operation: X- Generated changes in the Lopota river geomorphology. The Lopota SHP requires major construction of the weir. Water will be diverted to the Lopota SHP during the operation, significantly reducing water flow from the weir to the tailrace. Changes of the flow regime downstream of the weir will cause impact on the river geomorphology. 4 Reduced conservational value of the Lopota River. Water will be diverted to the SHPs during the operation, significantly reducing the flow between the water diversion point and tailrace. This reduction might cause changes in the flooding pattern as well as adverse impacts to the fish populations in this section of the river, especially during the dry section. (d) Mitigation measures: 4. Conduct regular maintenance activities; Use best management practices to preserve water quality during maintenance activities (e.g. provision of silt traps, stockpiling of soil and debris taken from the weir away from riverbanks, maintaining as much as possible of riparian vegetation, etc) A. Proper scheduling of activities: planning maintenance activities during dry seasons to minimize erosion and scheduling the placement of sediment capturing devices and key runoff control measures before major land disturbing activities to minimize the sediment release; 4. Conduct adequate bank protection in the catchment area to prevent erosion (e.g. replanting and maintenance of vegetation) and 4. Maintain a minimum level of water flow (a minimum ecological flow)

12 3) BiologicalResources: (a) Construction: 4. Impact on Fish Spawning. If the construction activities are scheduled for the spring and the beginning of the fall season (September - October), these works can disrupt fish spawning in the area thus creating a negative effect on the fish population. 4a Construction activities of the Lopota SHP require temporary diversion of the stream from the weir. Blocking of the stream flow will dry the canal between the weir and the tailrace discharge, which might cause significant impact on the aquatic species. (b) Mitigation measures: 4. Maintain a minimal sustainable river flow (minimum ecological flow) to sustain the river hydrology, water quality, existing fish population and wildlife (according to seasonal fluctuations in flow levels). 4. Avoid scheduling of the construction works during the fish spawning periods; 4. Maintain minimum wet channel perimeters at all control structures with a constant flow in the river throughout the year. (c) Operation: 4. The river flow from the weir to the powerhouse will be greatly reduced due to the operation of the Lopota SHP project. A portion of the water will be diverted from the weir to the powerhouse, significantly reducing the river flow. Though, in order to maintain a sustainable fish population, the minimum flow would be released. Not maintaining the minimum river flow (especially in the dry season) would adversely affect the fish population. 4X Loss of Fish. The planned hydro-electrical system diverts a portion of the Lopota river flow to the penstock and the turbine. Juvenile fish that passes through the turbine (entrainment) may be caught killed in the turbine. Both juvenile and potentially some adult fish might be affected by impingement against water intake structures and fish screens. The Salmo fario species listed in the Red Book of Georgia is present in the Lopota River. Therefore, the operation phase of the Lopota SHP project is anticipated to result in moderate and potentially significant impacts on juvenile fish. (d) Mitigation measures: 4. Install fish screens at the intake to the canal where water is diverted from the river's natural course. The mesh in such screens is about 3 mm x 3 mm. It will prevent all larger fish and most small fish from entering the canal and the penstock. The screens require periodic cleaning from dirt and debris by the operator. 4. Maintain a minimal sustainable river flow (minimum ecological flow) to sustain the river hydrology, water quality, existing fish population and wildlife (according to seasonal fluctuations in flow levels). 4. Maintain a minimum wet channel perimeter at all control structures with a constant flow in the river throughout the year

13 4) Human Resources (a) Construction: • Impact on the Napareuli Community from Construction Activities (including the presence of temporary workers on the site). Local population can be disrupted during the construction phase from the increased transport traffic and the presence of temporary employees working at the site. 4 Increased probability of work related injuries to workers and local population during the construction activities. 4A Exposure to construction materials that can endanger public health. During the construction such materials as asbestos can be used, which might present threat to public health. (b) Mitigation measures: 4. Establish and adhere to construction timetables to minimize disruption to normal activities at or in the vicinity of the construction area; 4. Coordinate truck trafficking and other construction activities to minimize noise, traffic disruption and dust. (c) Operation: Increased probability of work related injuries and death for the plant personnel and the general public in case operation safety measures are not implemented. (d) Mitigation measures: Follow state safety regulations and guidelines, and implement best management practices. The REP Team has also prepared a list of safety equipment for mandatory installation at the SSHP. The list is presented in Table 3.

Table 3. Personal Safety Equipment

SAFETY EQUIPMENT - MANDATORY

Hard Hats Eye Protection - Goggles Safety Shoes Work Gloves Eye Wash Station First Aid Kit (for 50 people) Oil Absorbing Pads 15X19in minimum weight 100 per case ABS 24,7 gallons quantity boxes Orange Vests Harness for Personnel (inspections/dam work)

14 3. MITIGATION PLAN

SIGNIFICANCE ACTIVITY POTENTIAL & PROBABILITY MITIGATION RESPONSIBILITY MONITORING FOR RESIDUAL IMPACT OF MEASURES FOR MITIGATION REQUIREMENTS MONITORINGIMPACT OCCURRENCE

Repair of the Verify applicability REP Program, intake pool Injury to contractors Safe working Contractor, of written safe Kakheti Regional - and workers and other Moderate - procedures to be Napareuli working Environmental Negligible Unlikely construction of persons during Possible followed by Community procedures. Ad Office/ SHE the dam at the works contractor Organization hoc inspection of Officers; REP head-works works Program All waste material to REP Program, Injury to contractors be stored in a Contractor, Kakheti regional workers and others Moderate - secure, designated Napareuli Ad hoc Environmental Negligible - from unsafe storage Possible area prior to removal Community inspections Office / SHE Unlikely of waste to a designated Organization Officers; REP waste landfill site Program Soil contamination Best management Napareuli Negligible - from spilled Moderate - practices are Community Ad hoc inspection chemicals, liquid Possible implemented by COmmuniztion of the construction REP Program Unlikely concrete, other liquid construction Contractor site materials contractors polltioe (isaand Modrael Waste to be Napareuli REP Program, pollution (visual and Moderate - disposed of at a Community Ad hoc Kakheti Regional Negligible - other) caused by Possible designated waste Organization, inspections Proff meR Unlikely improper disposal of landfill site Contractor UnlikelyRE ______waste materials ______Program Disturbance to Installation to be Napareuli REP Program, Community Ad hoc REP ronal Moderate - residential areas Moderate - scheduled during Unlikely caused by noise Probable normal weekday Organization, inspections Environmental / generated during working hours only. Contractor SHE Officers; REP installation Program

15 ACTIVITY POTENTIAL SIGNIFICANCE MITIGATION RESPONSIBILITY MONITORING RESPONSIBILITY RESIDUAL IMPACT & PROBABILITY MEASURES FOR MITIGATION REQUIREMENTS FOR IMPACT OF MONITORING OCCURRENCE Avoiding blocking stream flow during construction, Using concrete forms rather than soil as temporary stream diversions, Avoiding stockpiling soils in river banks and the floodplain; Returning Increased topsoil along the river REP Program, Incream Moderate - bank and riparian REP Program, Ad hoc Kakheti Regional Moderate - downstream turbidity Probable ecosystem to its Contractor inspections Environmental Possible In the rver original location, and Office restoring land contours; Scheduling maintenance activities during dry seasons; sediment capture devises should be placed before the land disturbing activities are taking place

16 ACTIVITY POTENTIAL SIGNIFICANCE MITIGATION RESPONSIBILITY MONITORING RESPONSIBILITY RESIDUAL IMPACT & PROBABILITY MEASURES FOR MITIGATION REQUIREMENTS FOR IMPACT OF MONITORING OCCURRENCE Avoiding blocking stream flows; Use concrete blocks rather than soil as temporary stream diversions; Avoiding stockpiling Napareuli of soil; Community Ad hoc REP Program, Increased Erosion of Moderate - Scheduling Organization, REP Kakheti Regiona Low - Unlikely River Stream possible maintenance Program, site Environmental activities during dry Contractor Office seasons; Using erosion control measures such as bales to prevent run-offs; Minimizing the use of heavy machinery Ad hocREP Program, Moeae- Work schedules Adnpetons hora, Kakheti Regional Mdrt Modraitel Increased flooding Modee - during dry seasons; REP Program, inspedton, Amelioration of the I a l n dsaspch Ministry of inspection Agriculture ______

17 ACTIVITY POTENTIAL SIGNIFICANCE MITIGATION RESPONSIBILITY MONITORING RESPONSIBILITY RESIDUAL IMPACT & PROBABILITY MEASURES FOR MITIGATION REQUIREMENTS FOR IMPACT OF MONITORING OCCURRENCE

Arrangement of fish by-passes for migrating fish; Damage to fish installation of net fish REP Program, REP Program, stock including Moderate - screens to prevent REP Program, then periodic Kakheti Regional Moderate - disruption of fish possible ensupply co ane Contractor inspections by Environmental Possible spawning supply canal and operator Office minimal ecological flow in the river.

Pollution (visual and Waste to be Kakheti Regional other) caused by Moderate - disposed at a REP Program, Ad hoc Environmental Negligible - improper disposal of Possible designated waste Contractor inspections Officer, REP Unlikely waste materials landfill site Program Repair of the Kakheti Regional penstock Injury to contractor Workers must follow Environmental workers from Moderate - safety guidelines and REP Program, Ad Hoc Office/ SHE Negligible - construction Probable if necessary wear Contractor inspections Officers, REP Unlikely equipment protective gear Program

Modernization Verify applicability of powerhouse Iut Moderate- Safollpw Iof written safe REP Program, including Injryerto contractrd Safatroeuesw orkin CNtaraors, working Kakheti Regional Ngiil replacement woperson aduother Modsbert protedures tolowbed Cpareunit procedures. Ad Environmental Uneligibley of auxiliary persos duigbosil writtenandofloe COmmuniztyo hoc inspection of Inspectorate, SHE Ulkl equipment wok ycnrco raiainworks Officers

All waste material to Injury to contractor be stored in a Kakheti Regional workers and others Moderate - secure, designated Cotrct Ad hoc Environmental Negligible - from unsafe storage Possible area prior to removal ontracor inspections Inspectorate/ SHE Unlikely of waste to a designated Officers waste landfill site Pollution (visual and Waste to be Napareuli Kakheti Regional other) caused by Moderate - disposed at a Community Ad hoc Environmental Negigible - improper disposal of Possible designated waste Organization, inspections lnspectorate Unlikely waste materials landfill site Contractor nspectorate

18 ACTIVITY POTENTIAL SIGNIFICANCE MITIGATION RESPONSIBILITY MONITORING RESPONSIBILITY RESIDUAL IMPACT & PROBABILITY MEASURES FOR MITIGATION REQUIREMENTS FOR IMPACT OF MONITORING OCCURRENCE Installation to be Napareuli REP Program Disturbance to scheduled during Community Ad hoc Evi rongental Moderate - occupiers and normal weekday Organization inspections Inspectorate SHE Possible nearby residential Moderate - working hours only. Contractor Officers areas caused by rPrbable Equipmentcb e Cs noise generated inaed onw Kakheti Regional during installation of Facility Ogram, Inspectinsat Environmental Negligible - electrical equipment suitable buildings/ Contractor commencement Inspectorate, SHE Unlikely powerhouse (not of works Officer outside)______Daily checks of Kakheti Regional machinery for leaking Facility Operator Ad hoc inspection Environmental Minor - Possible Oil pollution of soil oil ______nspectorate and water during Moderate - Likely No washing of Kakheti Regional Possible SSHP operation machinery at the site, Operator Ad hoc inspection Environmental Minor - no oil change at the OprtrA ociseto nspecto rate Operation of site the Lopota Reduce plant load to SHP facility maintain a minimal Disruption of fish ecological flow in the REP program, spawning and Moderate - river, during the Periodic Kakheti Regional Negligible - increased juvenile Possible spawning season; Operator inspection Environmental Unlikely fish mortality screens to prevent Inspectorate entrance to the penstock______Restoration of Damage to eco-SectoofnwleRgua tesic sytm,ohaias Moderate - routes (if any) to Design Consultant inspection of Kakheti Regional Negligible - yard and as a result of Possible avoid sensitive and contractor construction sites environmental Unlikely electrical lines installation of new habitats and operation Inspectorate poles zones Separation of topsoil insectiona o Lsoftpoland subsoil during trsenchiong work KkeiRgoa Lossoftopsoil Moderate - pole installation,tecigwr KkeiRgoa leading to increased Probable repair or replacement Contractor and other environmental Minor - Possible soil erosion of topsoil after the operation zones Inspectorate I I Ipoles are installed

19 ACTIVITY POTENTIAL SIGNIFICANCE MITIGATION RESPONSIBILITY MONITORING RESPONSIBILITY RESIDUAL IMPACT & PROBABILITY MEASURES FOR MITIGATION REQUIREMENTS FOR IMPACT OF MONITORING OCCURRENCE

Daily checks of Kakheti Regional Oil pollution of soil machinery for leaking Contractor Ad hoc inspection environmental Minor - Possible and water at Moderate - Likely Ol Inspectorate construction site No washing of Kakheti Regional machinery at Contractor Ad hoc inspection environmental Minor - Likely construction site Inspectorate Works performed Kakheti Regional Moderate - strictly during normal Contractor Ad hoc inspection environmental Major - Unlikely village Definite weekday working Inspectorate hours Visual impact (lines Route alignment to Regional are installed above Major - Definite aboveigraonad ln Design consultant Ad hoc inspection Environmental Negligible - ground) isallatigound lieOfficer Unlikely

Landscaping and Regular Reduced amenity Moderate - replanting of inspection of Oblast Rayon Negligible- values of the area Possible construction area Contractor completed Environmental Uneligibley after completion of sections of the Officer Unikely line installation works pipeline Only fully trained Connection of Damage to personnel to carry Regular electrical lines Poisoning or out installations UtlyCopn isecosby Ipcorfm to homes / explosion due to gas Major - Possible according to industry Uility Company inspections by Iuetory Major- Unlikely apartments leaks guid pantcean authority authority guidance and standards Safety information to Utility Company I Regular Inspector from houeholderstoContractor inspections regulatory householders_____authority Major - Possible Trained professional Inspector from Major - Unlikely to inspect, clean, and Utility Company I Follow up regulatory adjust equipment Contractor inspections authority every year

20 4. MONITORING PLAN The Monitoring Plan presents a number of criteria against which monitoring indicators are set. Monitoring Categories

Criteria Descriptor Evidence

Regulatory Compliance: The facility complies with the The facility, or proposed facility, * The project owners have obtained all requirements of national has all the necessary permissions required construction and operation environment, health and safety and permits required under permits and licenses including an laws and regulations. Georgian national laws and environmental permit. regulations. * The REP Program in cooperation with the project owner prepared the Programmatic Environmental Assessment and developed an environmental management plan per requirement of the project sponsors (USAID, EBRD). Water Flow: The facility maintains a minimum * Maintain minimum wetted * The project owner has obtained a ecological flow in the river that is channel perimeters, at all water use permit for the existing fish control structures, with a * Ecological-sanitary flow of the Lopota adequate 3 population, wildlife and water constant flow in the river River is equal to Qsan=0.48m /sec) quality taking into account throughout the year. seasonal fluctuations in flow * Facility operation schedules to rate to assure that the minimal levels. be based on the minimum ecological flow is maintained. ecological flow required to sustain the existing environment. Water Quality: The facilities operations do not The facility has minimal impact on Best management practices on contribute to the deterioration of water quality at the head-works, hydropower construction are followed. water quality either upstream or canal, tailrace and diversion dam. The facility will not contributed to the downstream of the facility. deterioration of water quality after the completion of the construction activities. Fish Passage and Protection:

The facility had minimal impact on . There should be minimal loss of * Information has been gathered on both local fish populations, provides fish or fish habitat. the local and migratory fish effective fish passage for local and . Facility preserves fish populations; migrating fish species and also population. . The project design includes fish * Facility construction and screens; operation do not limit fish . The project design includes adequate spawningt mitigation measures to ensure that i. protection criteria are met. fish . Flows at the intake and downstream of the tailrace are adequate to support aquatic and riparian species in the facility area. Watershed Protection: The facility does not negatively * The facility does not affect the . An assessment of impacts associated impact environmental conditions in integrity of the existing ecosystem with additional components has been the watershed. either upstream or downstream of made. the facility. . An assessment of upstream and . Facilities components and downstream impacts has been made. infrastructure (e.g. access roads, . Adequate mitigation measures have power lines, and generation been provided to ensure the eligibility facilities) have minimal impact criteria are met. on the riparian environment.

22 Threatened & Endangered Species Protection: The facility does not negatively * The facility is not constructed on * Sensitive or protected areas on or impact any threatened or a protected or sensitive river. around the river have been idenbfied. endangered species nor any * The facility does not threaten or * Endangered or threatened species areas designated for their harm the habitat or migratory present in the area of or downstream protection. routes of endangered species. from, the facility have been identified. The facility has no significant * The REP Environmental team has impactlon the existing wildlife assessed the potential impact of the impact on populating facility on any such areas or species. habitat and populations. * The project design provides for adequate mitigation measures to ensure that the criteria are met. Recreation: The facility does not stop or Access to the water remains Identification of any current recreational limit recreational uses of the unchanged with the facility and uses of the river around the site and river. accommodates recreational confirmation that these uses will not be activities on the river. affected by the development of the facility. Cultural Issues: The facility does not Cultural property includes sites No cultural sites or property in the inappropriately impact cultural having archaeological vicinity of the facility has been identified. property (prehistoric), paleonthological, historical, religious and unique natural values. Cultural property includes remains left by previous human inhabitants and unique natural features such as canyons and waterfalls.

23 Community Issues: The facility does not reduce The facility does not prevent or * Local community uses of the river have local community use of either limit the local community from been identified. the river or the surrounding access to the river as a communal * The locally affected community has lands. leisure amenity, and the irrigation been notified and consulted prior to the facility development of the facility. . Adequate mitigation measures have been agreed to ensure that eligibility criteria are met.

24 ANNEX A. ENVIRONMENTAL SCREENING OF THE LOPOTA PROJECT SITE

ENVIRONMENTAL SCREENING ANALYSIS - SMALL HYDROPOWER PLANTS

1) General Information

Project Name Lopota SHP Type of project Rehabilitation Location (district / region) Region - Kakheti District -Telavi Ownership Private (L.T.D. Energia) Surrounding Present Land Use [ X] Agriculture [ ] Residential [ ]Tourism [ Industrial [X] Forest Land [ ] Institutional X ] Commercial [ ] Open Spaces ] Others, pis. Specify: Installed Capacity (kW) 2 000 Project Cost (USD) $300, 000

2) General Construction Activities Is there and impact because / to Construction Operation and Maintenance Construction / rehabilitation of structures and buildings? Y N Construction / rehabilitation of access roads? N N Construction / rehabilitation of transmission lines? N N Temporary sites used for construction works or housing of Y N construction workers? Significant risk associated with waste transport? N N Inadequate waste disposal facilities? Y N Include grading, trenching, or excavation > 1.0 hectares N N Conducted near geologic hazards (faults, landslides, N N liquefaction, un-engineered fill, etc)? Require offsite overburden / waste disposal or borrow pits N N >1.0 ton? Cause loss of high quality farmlands > 10 hectares N N Require the use of dangerous / hazardous substances (e.g. Y Y oil, lubricants, chemicals; pls. Specify)? Require an oil / lubricants collection and disposal system? Y Y Increase vehicle trips > 20% or cause substantial Y N congestion? Cause or contribute to safety hazards? Y Y Inadequate access or emergency access for anticipated N N volume of people or trafffic? Produce solid wastes during construction or operation or Y N decommissioning? Involve actions that will cause physical changes in the locality Y Y (topography, land use, changes in water bodies, etc)? 3) Geology and Soils Is there and impact because / to Construction Operation and Maintenance Earthquakes, subsidence, landslides or erosion? N N Movement of soil? Y N Rates of erosion or siltation by wind or water? N Y Management of excess soil or spoil material (from mining)? N N Physical degradation of the local environment? N N

4) Water Resources Is there and impact because / to Construction Operation and Maintenance Risks of contamination of land or water from releases of Y N pollutants onto the ground or into sewers, surface waters, groundwater, coastal waters or the sea? Run-off as a result of the hardening of surfaces, or loss of the N N sponge effect of vegetation? Flooding or extreme or adverse climatic conditions? N N Ability to absorb run-off? N Y Changes to flood plains? Y y Quantity of surface water, groundwater or public water N Y supplies? Threats to hydrological functioning through existing or altered N Y water extraction? Withdrawals from or discharges to surface or ground water? N Y Threats through existing or altered impoundment N N construction? Conservational or recreational value of rivers, streams, lakes, N N wetlandsthrugor islands? Threats through existing or altered pollution? N N Threats through existing or altered turbidity? Y Y Threats through existing or altered agricultural run-off? N N Threats through existing or altered chemical processes or N N nutrient balances? Threats through existing or altered changes in sediment flows N Y and siltation rates? Changes through existing or altered canalization? N Y River, stream or lake onsite or within 30 meters of Y y construction? Excavation or place of fill, removing gravel from a river, Y Y stream or lake? Onsite storage of liquid fuels or hazardous materials in bulk N N quantities? Decreased water flow that may change the flooding regime, N N resulting in the destruction of wetlands? Decrease in downstream water flow that may affect N N downstream users (human, fisheries, and wildlife)?

26 5) Bioloaical Resources Is there and impact because / to Construction Operation and Maintenance Important, high quality or scarce resources that could be N N affected by the project? Located in a Protected Area or Wildlife Corridor? N N Inundate or remove wetland habitats? N N Survival of rare or endangered plant species? N N Diversity of plant communities? N N Vegetation communities of conservation or scientific N N importance? Natural replenishment of existing species? N N Firewood collection? N N Overexploitation of biological resources? N N Survival of rare or endangered animals? N N Diversity of animal communities? N N Natural migration of species? N Y Introduction of alien species? N N Loss of native species or genetic diversity? N N Vegetation removal or construction in wetlands or riparian N N areas > 1.0 hectare? Use of pesticides / rodenticides, insecticides, or herbicides > N N 1.0 hectare? Construction in or adjacent to a designated wildlife refuge? N N Decreased water flow that may change the flooding regime, N N resulting in the destruction of wetlands? Decrease in downstream water flow that may affect N Y downstream users (human, fisheries, and wildlife)? Re-entry pipe cause increased scouring of stream bank N N where water is returned to the stream? Flora and / or fauna of ecological or commercial significance N N to be found?

27 6) Socioeconomic Issues Is there and impact because / to Construction Operation and Maintenance Existing settlements in the vicinity of the proposed project? Y Y Existing land uses on or around the project that could be N N affected by the project? Areas on or around the location of the project that are N N already subject to pollution or environmental damage? Permanent or temporary change in land use, land cover or N N topography including increases in intensity of land use? Social infrastructures located in or near the project area (e.g., N N schools, health canters / clinics, places of worship, others? Be affected by natural disasters causing environmental N N damage (e.g. floods, earthquakes, landslide etc)? Social acceptability of the project (community, government, Y Y non-governmental organizations)? Visual and odor effects of waste sites? N N Risk to the community and the local environment should the N Y facility break down? Potential conflict with adjacent land uses? N N Non-compliance with existing codes, plans, permits or design N N factors? Construction in national park or designated recreational N N area? Relocation of >10 individuals for +6 months? N N Interrupt necessary utility or municipal service > 10 N N individuals for + 6 months? Loss or inefficient use of mineral or non-renewable N N resources? Noise levels > 5 decibels for + 3 months? N N Adverse visual impact when compared to the surrounding N N natural landscape? Affect future land uses on or around the location? N N Are there any areas on or around the location that are N N densely populated or built-up, which could be affected by the project? Highly visible to many people? N N Lead to pressure for consequential project that could have N Y significant impact on the environment (e.g. more housing, new roads, new supporting industries or utilities, etc)? Cumulative effects due to proximity to other existing or N N planned projects with similar effects? Social changes, for example, in demography, traditional Y Y lifestyles, and employment?

28 7) Cultural Issues Is there and impact because / to Construction Operation and Maintenance Prehistoric, historic, or paleontological resources within 30 N meters of construction? N Unique cultural or ethnic values at the site? N N

8) Public Health issues Will the project affect... Construction Operation and Maintenance Human or community health or welfare? Y Y The quality or toxicity of air, water, foodstuffs and other N N products consumed by humans? Morbidity or mortality of individuals, communities or Y Y populations by exposure to pollution? Occurrence or distribution of disease vectors including N Y insects? Vulnerability of individuals, communities or populations to N Y disease? Individuals' sense of personal security? Y N Community cohesion and identity? N N Cultural identity and associations? N N Minority rights? N N Housing conditions? N N Employment and quality of employment? Y Y Economic conditions? Y Y Social institutions? Y Y Cause accidents that could affect human health or the Y Y environment? - From explosions, spillages, fires etc? Y Y - From storage, handling, use or production of hazardous Y Y or toxic substances? Be affected by natural disasters causing environmental N N damage (e.g. floods, earthquakes, landslip, etc)? Vulnerable groups of people who could be affected by the Y Y project (e.g. hospital patients, the elderly)?

29 9) Air Quality Is there and impact because / to Construction Operation and Maintenance Onsite air pollutant emissions? Y N Violation of applicable air pollutant emissions or ambient N N concentration standards? Vehicle traffic during construction or operation? Y N Demolition or blasting for construction? N N Odor during construction or operation? N N Alteration of microclimate? N N Release pollutants or any hazardous, toxic or noxious Y N substances to air? - Emissions from combustion of fossil fuels from stationary Y N or mobile sources? - Emissions from materials handling including storage or N N transport? - Emissions from construction activities including plant and Y N equipment? - Dust or odors from handling of materials including Y N construction materials, sewage and waste? - Emissions from burning of waste in open air (e.g. slash N N material, construction debris)?

10) Noise and Vibration Is there and impact because / to Construction Operation and Maintenance Noise and vibration or release of light, heat energy or Y Y electromagnetic radiation? - From operation of equipment (e.g. engines, ventilation Y Y plant, crushers)? - From construction or demolition? Y N - From blasting or piling? N N - From construction or operational traffic? Y N - From sources of electromagnetic radiation? N N

30 ANNEX B. PHYSICAL AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT

1. Physical Environment River lopota, where the Lopota SHP is located, represents the tributary of the Alazani River, which belongs to the Caspian Sea Basin. Caspian Sea Basin is located in the eastern part of the country and influences the region's drier climate. The main rivers of the Caspian Sea Basin are: Kura River with its tributaries, Terek, Alazani and lori. Geology The village of Napareuli lies near the Lopota River, which is a tributary of the Alazani River. The village is located in the district of Telavi, in the Kakheti region located in East Georgia. Geologically, the landscape is constructed mostly of Mesozoic and Tertiary formations. Jurassic layers are represented with sandstone and clay. Related to the central Caucasus, the mountain elevations range from 2000 meters to 3000 meters and have no glaciers. Ancient glaciers shaped the local relief. Eroded landscapes dominate. A typical feature is poor development of the foothill belt. (Encyclopedia of Georgia, 1964) The Caucasus Mountains are found in the northeast area of the Telavi district and range in elevation of 2,870 meters to 3,293 meters. To the southwest, the Gombori Mountain Range can be found with elevations ranging from 1,522 meters to 1,903 meters. The central portion of the area is the Alazani River Valley, with elevations ranging from 350 meters to 600 meters (Encyclopedia of Georgia, 1964). Geo Hazards In terms of seism the territory is considered to be an active seismic zone. Seismicity of the region is a "nine" (9) using the MKS scale (Map of Seismic Hazard Assessment of Georgia, 2006). Soils Various soil types are found in different parts of the Kakheti region resulting from differences in physical geographical and climatic conditions. On the left bank of the Alazani River, sandy, alluvial and non-calcareous soils are most common. In the lowest strip of the first upper terrace near the Alazani River flood plain, mainly meadow- bog, alluvial-, and carbonate soils can be found. Forest- meadow, alluvial and non-calcareous soils are predominant on the vast areas of the left bank. Toward the mountain strip these soils gradually change into forest brown soils (Map of Soil Types of Georgia, 2000). Climate The climatic factors of the Lopota River are stipulated by solar radiation, distance from the Black Sea and orographical conditions of the basin. On the territory of the Lopota River Basin climate is damp with hot summer and cold winter. One of the main factors, which define the climatic factors, is air temperature. Its average monthly, annual and extreme values defined by the existing meteorological station Naphareuli are given in Table 1 below.

31 Table 1: Air Temperature (Average Monthly, Annual and Extreme Values), t°C m/ Temperature -I - III IV V VI Vii Vill IX X XI XII Year 5 Average 1.0 2.3 6.1 12.0 17.0 20. 23.1 22.9 18.6 12.8 7.5 2.9 12.2

X Abs. maximum 21 22 28 31 34 37 39 39 38 35 28 23 39 a-

z Abs. minimum -24 -18 -14 -4 0 6 8 8 0 -6 -8 -20 -24

The hottest month is July, the coldest - January. The annual sum of precipitations reaches 770mm (Department of Hydrometeorology of Georgia). Hydrology The source of the Lopota River is on the southern slope of the Caucasian Range at 2380 m height. It joins the left bank of the Alazani River. The length of the river is 33 km, total drop - 2000 m, catchments basin area - 263 kM2, and average depth - 1400 m.

The average many year's discharge of the river Lopota is - 3.26 m3/sec, while average many years maximal water discharge is 19,7 m3/sec. The river water regime is characterized with floods in spring, flash floods in autumn and spring, unstable low water in summer and stable low water periods in winter.

The distribution of average annual discharges of the Lopota River per months in the headwork section of the diversion canal of the Boldoba SHP is given below:

Table 2: Annual Distribution of Average Water Discharges of Lopota River

P% I II IV V VI VIl Vill IX X Xl XII Year 10 2.93 3.44 5.94 11.9 13.1 9.80 7.14 5.31 5.62 5.94 4.42 3.42 6.58 50 2.13 2.50 4.32 8.64 9.52 7.12 5.19 3.86 4.07 4.32 3.21 2.48 4.78 95 1.24 1.46 2.52 5.04 5.56 4.16 3.03 2.25 2.38 2.52 1.87 1.45 2.79 Vegetation The natural cover of lowland and mountainous parts of Alazani River is greatly affected by anthropogenic activities; the entire area is covered by various types of cultural and man-made landscapes (Fig 5.10). Unused land is covered by steppe (represented by steppe-like vegetation comprised of Stipa), forest-steppe (represented by following species: hombeam (Carpinus orientalis), wild rose (Rosa cinnamomea), Jerusalem thron (Paliurus spina-christi), long leaf buckthorn (Rhamnus pallasii), thom (Crataegus pentagyna), and secondary forest represented by oak (Querpus) and hombeam (Carpinus) (Ketskhoveli N., 1959). Riparian oak-dominated forests are found in the vicinity of the village of Napareuli. Generally, oak woodlands are dominated by oak (Quercus pedunculiflora, Quercus pedunculiflora), elm (Ulmus foliacea), willow (Salix excelsa), ash (Fraxinus excelsior), hornbeam (Carpinus caucasica), maple (Acer campestre) and lime (Tilia caucasica). Sub-forests in oak-dominated woodlands are comprised of quite a few species of shrubs such as privet (Ligustrum vulgare), medlar (Mespilus

32 germanica), dogwood (Cornus mas) and hazel (Corylus avellana). Oak woodlands are marked by the presence of abundant lianas such as smilax (Smilax excelsa) and ivy (Hedera helix). The following species found in the vicinity of the district are listed in the Red Book of Georgia: oak (Quercus pedunculiflora), wing nut (Pterocarya pterocarpa), persimmon (Diospyros lotus), wild vine grape (Vitis sylvestris) and ivy (Hedera pastuchowii, Hedera pastuchowii). Timber logging has become very intensive targeting especially high quality wood species such as oak, Caucasian wing nut, hornbeam and elm. Due to intensive logging, some zones of forest ecosystems have been destroyed entirely. In the area of forest cleared by logging, dense liana shrubbery has developed suppressing woody plant regeneration. Wood in this area is primarily used as fuel and for construction (Alazani Flood Plain Management Plan, 2005). Mammals On the left bank of the Alazani River the following species were registered: North American raccoon (Procyon lotor), wildcat (Felis silvestris), pine marten (Martes Martes), fox (Vulpes vulpes), jackal (Canis aureus), bear (Ursus arctos, Red Book of Georgia National category-EN), and badger (Meles meles). Several species found in areas surrounding the district are included on the IUCN list for rare and endangered species including: horseshoe (Rhinolophus ipposideros, Rhinolophus ferrumequinum), lesser noctule (Nyctalus leislern), Caucasian squirrel (Sciurus anomalus) and otter (Lutra lutra). Avifauna The Alazani Flood Plain acts as a corridor for migratory birds from spring to autumn, providing resting grounds and feeding places for these migratory species. The presence of migratory species was not confirmed nearby the village of Napareuli. Most commonly cited bird species of the village are the golden oriole (Oriolus oriolus), dipper (Cinclus cinclus) and robin (Erithacus rubecula) (Jordania R., Boeme B., Kuznetsov A., 1999). Reptiles According to available literature the following reptile species have been reported within the Telavi district: European glass lizard (Ophisaurus apodus) slow worm (Anguis fragilis), ring snake (Natrix natrix), water snake (Natrix tessellate), and lizard (Lacerta strigata). The following amphibians are found in the vicinity of the district: frog (Rana ridibunda,), green toad (Bufo viridis) and the European tree frog (Hyla arborea). The Alazani River and its adjacent areas are presumably also inhabited by the banded newt (Tritorus vitatus), considered an endangered species and included in the Red Data Book of Georgia (Alazani Flood Plain Management Plan, 2005). Fish The following fish species have been listed in available literature: trout (Salmo fario, Red Book of Georgia, Statute-Vulnerable), riffle minnow (Albumoides bipunctatus eichwaldi), and silver bream (Blicca bjoerkna transcaucasica). It should be noted that illegal fishing in the Lopota River has had a detrimental affect on fish population. Spawning periods for major fish species found in the river Lopota are noted in Table 3 below.

33 Table 3: Lopota River Fish Spawning Periods

Fish Spawning Period Trout September-October Riffle Minnow April-August Silver Bream May-June

2. Socio-Economic Environment Population and Settlements: The community (sakrebulo) of Napareuli consists of 1,458 households and 3,490 persons, a 5% decrease from 1989. The vast majority (90%) of the population is Georgian. There are also Armenians (4%) and Azeris (6%) in the community. (Lado Skhirtladze, Lopota SHP owner). Land Use: The community has 1,317 hectares of arable lands, 280 hectares of vineyards, 12 hectares of orchards, and 83 hectares pastures. Fifty-six (56) hectares are non-agricultural lands. Of all land, 47.6% of land is privately owned. (Lado Skhirtladze, the Lopota SHP owner). Income and Infrastructure: Ten percent (10%) of the population is registered as wage employees. Eighty percent (80%) is self- employed involved mainly in selling agricultural products. Average monthly per household cash income equals $25. (Lado Skhirtladze, the Lopota SHP owner). Social Infrastructure: The community has one school, two medical facilities and one cultural facility. The Kakheti Distribution Company supplies grid electricity to the local community. Power supply is very poor and there is no NG network. Alternative energy sources are kerosene and generator. The sakrebulo has access to a central water system. The main road connecting the sakrebulo to the district center is six kilometers in length and is paved (asphalt) but seriously damaged. Roads within the sakrebulo total 50 kilometers in length and are all unpaved. (Lado Skhirtladze, Lopota SHP owner). Attitude towards rehabilitation of the hydropower plant: Operation of the Lopota SHP envisages providing electricity to the local community (approximately 4000 households) and nearby small enterprises such as pottery is. From the operation of the Lopota SHP the local population expects to receive permanent electricity supply and new job opportunities. Besides, the amount of water which is used for SHP's functioning will be enough for irrigation of 1000 hectare land and therefore will cause increase of quality and quantity of fruit and crops production.

34 ANNEX C. GEOLOGICAL EVALUATION OF THE LOPOTA SHP SITE

1. FOREWORD In compliance with a Terms of Reference provided by the Rural Energy Program, the engineering team undertook to conduct visual inspection of the construction site of the hydroelectric power plant on the river Lopota and revise the results of geotechnical investigation of the same construction site carried out by the Georgian Office of the Association of Energy Engineers in 2002. Phase I included geotechnical and geological investigation of the Lopota SHP construction site (photo 1-11). Preliminary results of particle-size analysis of sample water (photo 7-8) showed that the floodplain is suitable for construction of the headwork for reception of required volumes of water and the hypsometric curve in the area from the headwork to the power-plant enables free flow of water. Phase II involved revision of the results of geotechnical examination of the Lopota SHP construction site carried out by Energia Ltd. in 2002.

2. HEADWORK CONSTRUCTION SITE CHARACTERISTICS The construction site is situated in the area of River Lopota's bed and floodplain. The floodplain is composed of boulders and cobbles of alluvial-prolluvial genesis with loam and loamy sand matrix. Petrographically, cobbles and boulders are represented by sandstone and shale. Stone material is slightly rounded. Based on available data and examination results, two geotechnical elements (GE) have been identified in the study area: a) GE-1: slightly rounded broken stone, gravel, and cobble with loamy sand matrix and b) GE-2: cobbles with boulders, clay with loamy matrix. The construction site soil characteristics and geotechnical data necessary for the construction are based on laboratory research (tables 2, 3) and publications (table 1). Table 1: Soil Category

(U ( a-

2 >co C' co o co W (U LX u - 8 %o> h-; 0

2 r-E 0 0 CO-> . 0- 3

0 Cl m(U LO

6r- - C 2 1 ( . .5 3 2 1 0(U21 0V E7

~C) CE 035 ~ E Based on particle-size analysis, water-bearing stratum is composed of cobbles and boulders with loamy matrix (Table 2). Table 2. Particle Size Distribution

PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION, %

o o CD C _j( C 7 9CAC 9 A 0 0 ° 0 o O N ° ° 6 9

1 0-0 6.67 14.86 17.78 12.33 11.36 9.10 4.90 7.70 5.90 3.60 2.30 0.60 1.30 1.60 2 0-0 10.01 14.48 14.52 12.51 10.49 8.25 4.12 7.55 6.35 5.47 3.14 0.58 1.29 1.24

Chemical composition of the River Lopota water was examined during the surveys (table 3).

Table 3. Groundwater Chemical Testing - Laboratory Data Content per 1 liter . - Anions Cations Dry HC0 54C- residual 3 C0 3 | CL- S04 Ca++C| Mg++ Na++K+ |++ + Fe. NH4

mg-I 63.9 38.2 4.254 15.2 12.4 2.8 3.9

eqmuiv 0.00 0.00 0.63 0.12 0.32 0.62 0.23 0.21 0.00 0.00 0.00

1 % mg 0.00 0.00 58.93 11.29 29.78 58.23 21.67 20.09 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.7 ol equiv. ______muiv 0.00 0.00 2.10 0.20 0.56 1.70 0.70 0.46 0.00 0.00 0.00

equ I 0.00 0.00 73.45 7.10 19.45 59.53 24.45 16.02 0.00 0.00 0.00

Based on results of laboratory analysis (tables 4, 5), the water is fresh, containing hydrogen carbonate, sulphate, calcium, magnesium, and natrium. The water is colorless and tasteless with pH=6.7 and total hardness of 0.850 mg/equivalent. The water belongs to non-aggressive type, but is slightly aggressive by its pH content. Environmental attack on metal structures if wetted is weak, while attack on carbon steel is medium.

36 Table 4. Groundwater Aggressiveness To Concretes

E Groundwater aggressivity to structures

* 0 In soils Kf>0.lm/24h In soils Kf<0.lm/24h zo > m Aggressiveness: -L Concrete grade per permeability E E W4 W6 W8 W4 W6 W8 Bicarbonate hardness No No No No No No mg eq/l Hydrogen ion No No No Feebly No No Aggressive carbon dioxide No No content, mg/l Magnesia salt No No No No No No content, mg/l Ammonia salt co 0 content, mg/l a. 0.00 _ _ _ o High alkalinity No No No No No No content, mg/I _ _ No No No No_No Sulfates for concrete Portland cement (roCT10178- No No No No No No 76) Portland blast- furnace (slag) No No No No No No cement Sulfate-resistant No No No No No No cement

Table 5. Groundwater Aggressiveness To Metals Soil E Water aggressivity impact aggressivity c on reinforced concrete to metal parts hydrocarbon . Osteel, ___ below z groundwater - If periodically level with E If in water subject infiltration e) to water rate >0.1 m/24h

Lopota No Feebly Medium

37 3. HYDROLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE RIVER LOPOTA The River Lopota originates in the northern slopes of the Main Caucasus Range from a spring located at the height of 2380 meters above sea level 1km westward of the Mountain Sokori's peak. The river length is 33 km, total gradient - 2000 m, average gradient - 60.6 m. The total area of the catchment is 263 km2 ;average altitude - 1400 m. The River Lopota basin is situated on the southern slopes of the Main Caucasus Range bordering with the River Stori to the northwest, the Main Caucasus Range to the north, the Sajikhve range to the northeast, and the Alazani Valley to the south. The catchment is divided into the mountain area and the plain. The mountain area with its hilly sharply contoured terrain cut by ravines covers the southern slope of the Main Caucasus Range at the height of 500-3000 m. A small section in the lower part of the catchment has smooth terrain. The right bank of the river is cut by irrigation channels and small streams. The plain is slightly sloped (1-20) towards the River Alazani. The ravines are filled with alluvial sediments. Alluvial material and loamy quaternary sediments are spread in the plain. The river gorge in the mountainous area is V-shaped. The width of the gorge ranges from 2 m (near the riverhead) to 1 km (village Lapankuri), but for the most part it makes up 100 m. The slopes are terraced and mostly convex. Flat or concave slopes are uncommon. The angle of slope at the bottom is 2-450, rarely 500, while at the top it makes 10-250. In the widest part of the gorge, near the Village Lapankuri and further downstream, the slopes are smoother and strongly dissected by tributaries and ravines. The surface of the slopes is constituted by gravel and clay and covered by thick forests. The riverbed is moderately weaving. Starting from the Village Lapankuri, river adjacent areas are submerged during high waters and floods. The width of the river increases downstream from 2 m (near the riverhead) to 12m (1 km upstream from the Village Lapankuri), but for the most part it makes up 5 m. The minimal and maximal depths of the river are 0.1 m (near the riverhead) and 0.7 m (1 km downstream near the River Gojati mouth) respectively, while for the most part is makes 0.4 m. Rate of flow mostly makes 1 m/sec; its maximum index is 2.5 m/sec (upstream) and minimum - 0.8 m/sec (2 km up from mouth). The bottom of the river in the upstream section is rocky and mostly covered with stones, cobble and sand with boulders. The bottom becomes even and gravelly when the river riches the Alazani Valley. In the upstream and midstream sections the banks are smooth while downstream they are flat, open and washable. Starting from the riverhead the banks join the slopes. Downstream they are 1-2 m high. The River Lopota has not been studied sufficiently in hydrological sense. The first investigations of the catchment were held August 1-2, 1943 (from the mouth to the village Lapankura) and September 17-18, 1947 (from the village Lapankuri to the riverhead). As a rule observations of gaging stations or river stations controlled by the Georgian Hydro- Meteorological Service or other relevant department are used for river regime analysis. The

38 absence of such stations on the River Lopota hindered hydrological observations. Therefore, ambulatory water-metering stations were used during the hydrological studies. The results of observations made by these stations back the hydrological conclusion that the River Lopota feeds with precipitation and melting water. The time and intensiveness of the first spring flood depends on the amount of snow and duration of melting, which as a rule coincides with a rapid rise in temperature. The flood period upstream the Lopota starts in March or in the first half of April. The later the flood period begins the higher water rises and vice versa. In case of early melting the river hydrograph is smooth in terms of water level fluctuation. Water level drops in July and law-water season begins in August with water level decreasing to its annual minimum. Water level begins to increase in autumn as rainy weather sets in, but this is a temporary event and water starts decreasing in a while and steadies down at the lowest winter level as temperature falls. The observations of the Lopota water level allow referring this river to precipitation-melting feeding type. Maximum water flow discharge (60%) falls on the spring flood period. Analysis of hydrometric data received in the area of the headwork (in this case the main water metering station which helps to identify the river regime) allows defining the following characteristic of the River Lopota: minimum water discharge amplitude falls on the winter months, while maximum falls on spring. During floods the river water carries suspended sediments and bed load, which settle in the midstream and downstream. Construction of the Lopota SHP low-head weir will cause the changes in the flow regime in the downstream of the weir, and will have impact on the Lopota river geomorphology. Ice crust is thin and never covers the river completely. Land ice, bottom ice and ice cover are formed in December-January and melt in early March. Hydrological characteristics of the River Lopota are given in the Table 6 below.

39 Table 6. Hydrological Characteristics Of The River Lopota

Discharge, me/sec Minimum . E Monthly Cu Monthly . Annual average Maximum mean -c mean winter I o summer

Cu

o - -a) I 1D LO -- L r- LO > E c rl- o - X cu - - o I' o

C- E 98.6 1650 3.45 3.00 2.42 298 258 196 167 113 0.64 0.36 0.20 -J C:

co a) 0 LO

2 ~0 E 137 1420 3.50 3.08 2.44 358 302 224 1901 1.14 0.65 0.43 0.31

153. 0 1350 3.60 3.14 2.48 378 319 236 201 1.15 0.66 0.48 0.36 0) OD

04 4. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

1. The choice of the area is geologically consistent (photo 3-4). 2. No hazardous geological processes able to hinder exploitation of the facility have been observed. 3. The water in the study area is non-aggressive and not dangerous for any kind of concrete. 4. Environmental attack on carbon steel and metal structures if wetted is moderate. 5. Based on their seismic characteristics the soils in the study area fall under the second category (CH4n 11-7-81), which means that seismic capacity of the construction site based on these soils complies with seismic zoning. The Lopota SHP construction site area belongs to 9- point seismic zone. 6. During the SHP construction special attention should be given to preservation of the existing drain channel, which can be used at the time of low water (photo 6). 7. To reduce changes in the river geomorphology due to the construction of the low head weir, it is recommended to: a) Maintain a minimum ecological river flow. According to the callculations (done by the hydrometeological department), ecological-sanitary flow of average 10% long-term water discharge (norm) in the Lopota River is equal to Qan=0.48m3/sec; b) Construct adequate bank protection in the catchment area to prevent future erosion (e.g. maintenance vegetation), extract coarse materials from the riverbed and use sediment trapping devises; 10. Part 2.5 (geotechnical investigation) of the project carried out by Energya Ltd. (The Lopota SHP on the River Lopota, 2002), has been implemented at a high level. 11. Geological engineer's presence during the SHP construction is preferable to make timely corrections in case of need.

41 Photo 1 Photo 2

Photo 3 Photo 4

n ~~ 1 - , --

_ _ _.

- Photo 5 Photo 6

42 Photo 7 Photo 8

Photo 9 Photo 10

Photo 1 1

43 VI WINROCK INTE RNA IONAL FROM THE AMERICAN PEOPLE Putting Ideas to Work

RURAL ENERGY PROGRAM COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT NO. 114-A-00-05-00106-00 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN SMALL HYDRO POWER REHABILITATION PROJECTS

.:b ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN SMALL HYDRO POWER REHABILITATION PROJECTS

Prepared for: USAID / Caucasus 25 Atoneli Street 0105 Tbilisi, Georgia

Prepared by: Rural Energy Program 26 Dzmebi Kakabadzeebi Street, Tbilisi, 0105, Georgia Tel: +995 32 50 63 43 Fax: +995 32 93 53 52 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. Introduction ...... 1 2. Site Specific Environmental Management Plans ...... 3 2.1 Khani-2 Small Hydropower Project (Nergeeti Community) ...... 3 2.1.2 Project Activities Overview ...... 3 2.1.3. Environmental Review ...... 8 2.1.4. Environmental Determination ...... 9 3. Mitigation Plan ...... 14 4. Monitoring Plan ...... 20 Annex A. Environmental Screening of the Khani-2 Project Site ...... 22 Annex B. Physical and Socio-Economic Environment ...... 28 1. INTRODUCTION The USAID-sponsored Rural Energy Program (formerly known as the Renewable Energy and Environment Development Program, or REED) in Georgia aims at developing in-country capacity to increase the utilization of small hydropower resources and realization of energy efficiency potential in Georgia's rural communities. The Rural Energy Program also includes identification and implementation of a number of small hydropower and natural gas extension projects throughout Georgia's regions. The primary objectives of the USAID sponsored Rural Energy Program (RED) include 1) increased supply of energy to rural areas (both grid connected and off-grid); 2) improve management of local energy production; 3) improved in-country capacity to develop and deploy renewable energy applications in rural communities; and 4) improved capacity to more efficiently utilize and protect the local energy resource base. The RED Program envisions the implementation of a number of pilot projects in such areas as small, mini and micro hydro power installations, extensions of natural gas distribution networks, renewable energy systems (other than small, mini and micro hydro facilities), and natural resource management programs. RED Program activities as funded by a federal government agency, USAID, are subject to applicable U.S. environmental laws, and regulations including USAID's environmental impact assessment procedures. These procedures intend to implement the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1970. Title 22 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 216 (so called 22 CFR 216), applies to all USAID programs, projects, activities and substantive amendments. To comply with 22 CFR 216, the PA Environmental Team completed the Programmatic Environmental Assessment (PEA) for the projects funded by the USAID RED Program in March 2006. USAID has approved the PEA for further implementation. The PEA scope contained (a) a definition of environmental screening criteria for a set of projects similar in their size, range and magnitude of impacts, and (b) characterization of common mitigation measures for each project type to alleviate the recognized impacts. Projects that did not share common attributes (such as medium and large hydropower projects or projects located in national parks, or raised substantial issues regarding wetlands or sensitive habitats that would require a separate Environmental Assessment) were not addressed in the PEA. The PEA evaluated four types of projects considered for investment under the RED Program. These included the following project categories: * Small-scale hydropower plants; * Community Natural Gas (NG) distribution systems; Renewable energy/ energy efficiency projects; and * Natural resource management projects. The work completed by the PA Environmental Scoping Team set the stage for the PEA. Issues identified during preparation of the Rural Energy Program Scoping Statement (Appendix E) were examined by the multidisciplinary PEA Team through literature reviews, stakeholder interviews, multiple field evaluations and environmental screening analyses. Through a process of integrating issues identified through scoping with information collected in literature reviews, regulatory reviews, interviews, field and screening evaluations, the PEA Team identified environmental aspects that had to be addressed in the PEA. The environmental aspects presented in the PEA included the following subjects: * Geology and Soils Water Resources Biological Resources

1 * Socioeconomics (including Public Health) * Cultural Resources. The PEA also simplified environmental due diligence for the preparation of environmental management plans (including mitigation and monitoring plans) for a larger set of activities expected under the RED Program. Due to the completion of the Programmatic Environmental Assessment for the entire RED Program, it was unnecessary to define environmental significance ranking criteria for each individual environmental management plan. The unified significance criteria elaborated in the PEA were utilized for the environmental impact ranking presented in individual environmental management plans. An environmental management plan for each project is based on a specific environmental review conducted at each project site. The review process was designed to specify environmental impacts characteristic of each project site attributable to either construction or operational phase of the project implementation. The mitigation options are aligned with the general mitigation recommendations specified in the PEA. The Environmental Management Plans (EMP) consists of a set of mitigation, monitoring, and institutional measures to be taken during implementation and operation to eliminate adverse environmental and social impacts, offset them, or reduce them to acceptable levels. The plans also include actions needed to implement these measures. EMPs identify feasible and cost- effective measures that may reduce potentially significant adverse environmental impacts to acceptable levels. Specifically, the EMPs include the following: (a) Summaries of all anticipated significant adverse environmental impacts (including those involving indigenous people or involuntary resettlement); (b) Descriptions (with technical details) each mitigation measure, including the type of impact to which it relates and the conditions under which it is required (e.g., continuously or in the event of contingencies), together with designs, equipment descriptions, and operating procedures, as appropriate; (c) Estimates of any potential environmental impacts of these measures; and (d) Linkages with any other mitigation plans (e.g., for involuntary resettlement, indigenous peoples, or cultural property) required for the project. The monitoring section of the EMP provides the following information: (a) A specific description, and technical details, of monitoring measures, including the parameters to be measured, methods to be used, sampling locations, frequency of measurements, detection limits (where appropriate), and definition of thresholds that will signal the need for corrective actions; and (b) Monitoring and reporting procedures to ensure early detection of conditions that necessitate particular mitigation. It was assumed that a legislative and regulatory framework is identical for all projects and was already discussed in the Programmatic Environmental Assessment for the RED Program. Obtaining accurate natural resource, ecological health and employment related statistics in any part of Georgia is extremely difficult. Also, local hospitals and other institutions do not keep health records and are unwilling to discuss or acknowledge health problems. For these reasons, it was not been possible to analyze any data related to public health issues including environmental and occupational health statistics in the project communities.

2 2. SITE SPECIFIC ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLANS be The following section presents environmental management plans specified for each project to implemented in Year 1. The specific project environmental impact categories and mitigation recommendations were identified during of site visits completed by the Rural Energy environmental team in December 2006. The proposed mitigation measures are in line with common recommendations outlined in the PEA. 2.1 Khani-2 Small Hydropower Project (Nergeeti Community)

2.1.2 Project Activities Overview The Khani-2 SHP is the first level of the hydro power plant cascade located on the river Khanistskali in the Nergeeti village of the Bagdadi district, the Imereti region in Western Georgia. Figure 1. Location of Nergeeti SHP in Western Georgia

SAKRAULA RIVER WATERSHED

*USAID

SAKRAUL.A I RIVER WATERSHED 3-

The plant was built in 1950, and commissioned in 1952. From 1952 through 1964 the hydropower plant supplied 300 kW of electricity to the Bagdadi settlement and the adjacent villages. Since 1964 the plant is not operational. The project site was privatized in 1996 and presently generates about 10 kW of electricity to power an on-site storage refrigerator for the ice making factory. The project envisions the restoration of the previously constructed hydro infrastructure (the channel, spillways, intake gates, etc.), the installation of a 300 kW generator and other rehabilitation works on the dam and site infrastructure. The layout of the facility is presented in Figure 2 below.

3 Figure 2. Layout of the Khani-2 Small Hydropower Plant

,.- ,7/ Khani -1 P ' - h- / -lS ;X) I l|(

1 ! )/ 'I

Irrigation channsl \

9''\. b,b($.1 \I -2 ~ W3i parn ng kn Cl J. .'11

Hidraulic jumwll LECA

Dam t

Khanistskali River at the project site

The project works are outlined in the Khani-2 Business Plan prepared by the Rural Energy engineering team in cooperation with the project owner. The Rural Energy engineering team has visited the site and summarized the status of the hydropower infrastructure as follows: * The dam outlet, is 3-4 meter wide, and its left side weir pier are completely damaged; * The 12 meter-long area of the regulating weir adjacent to the dam outlet is completely damaged. At the same time the destruction process of the dam is progressing leftwards, causing a gradual widening of the damaged area; At the damaged area of both the dam outlet and the regulating weir some concrete blocks are laid down to create the water level required for the supply canal. This could prevent effective rehabilitation of the dam and the intake pool area;

4 There are damages at the stilling basin as well. In some areas, the concrete lining practically completely disappeared. The tail-bay of the facility is washed out, and the elevation of tail water is lower (by 1-2 meters) than it was originally designed; Only some isolated parts of the concrete collar of the stilling basin are usable; The downstream apron is completely damaged; The control gate is more or less in good shape. The first (concrete) part of the channel with a rectangular cross-section is also in normal condition; * As the head works was operating with no outlet for years, the outlet was arranged at the dam's head section and fitted with a 1200 mm steel pipe. This outlet is operational in normal condition; • The divider that controls the water flow to the supply channel and the reservoir is in place but its concrete lining is damaged and weakened. The existing gates are in bad condition and need to be replaced; The concrete walls of the reservoir are still usable; * No shutter or a gate exists at the inlet section of the pressure pipeline; and * Few 3 meter-high piles of earth excavated during the clean-up operations of the supply channel are found at the reservoir area. To ensure the proper operation of the reservoir these piles need to be removed and the area adjacent to the basin to be leveled off. The project design documents specify the following activities to be completed at the project site: 1) Rehabilitation of the power house and cleaning and improving the powerhouse yard; 2) Creation of a crib cofferdam; 3) Restoration of the spillway; 4) Rehabilitation of the penstock fore bay (from the dividing unit to the pressure pipe); 5) Cleaning the river bed in the upper and lower pools of the dam; 6) Rehabilitation of the supply channel; 7) Rehabilitation of the idle spillway; 8) Dismantlement and removal of equipment from the on-site ice making factory; 9) Installation of a Francis type turbine; 10) Installation of a 300 kW generator; 11) Restoration of the switch yard; and 12) Electrical wiring. Civil works associated with the rehabilitation of the Khani-2 hydropower plant infrastructure include the following activities: * De-watering the intake pool using gabions or soil embankments. This action will allow drying of the section of the weir for the rehabilitation works; * Removing debris from the de-watered section; * Removing and repairing the intake and emergency spillway gates; * On-site concrete mixing and forming; and Collecting and disposing all debris, construction waste, scrap and remaining construction materials in designated disposal sites according.

5 The rehabilitation works also will be conducted at the water intake, which presents a concrete pool with a water flow regulating gate. This rehabilitation activity includes: Removing debris from the water intake pool; * Constructing wooden forms for the concrete and add steel bars as required in the design; Removing the intake pool gate and repair it; Removing wooden forms after concrete has dried and set; Performing concrete testing; * Reinstalling the repaired water flow regulating gate; * Conducting testing of the water intake pool for leaks by filling with water and closing the gate; * In case of minor leaks, filling in the gaps with concrete; and * Disposing of all debris, scrap and left over construction materials in a designated disposal site. The above-listed works shall be started and completed within the same timeframe, as the diversion weir works. This will assure that, in the event of flooding during the repair of the diversion weir, the rehabilitated system will be able to absorb some of the flood flow. The Khani-2 canal requires modest repair and cleaning. The following activities are planned at the canal and the aqueduct: * Removing debris and sedimentation from the canal and aqueduct; * Constructing wooden forms for concrete and add steel bars as required by the design; Removing wooden forms and wait until concrete is dry and set; Testing concrete using special test equipment; Reinforcing the support slabs at the aqueduct according the instructions in technical design; Conducting testing of the canal and aqueduct, checking for leaks by filling it with water and closing all gates; In case of minor leaks, filing in the gaps with concrete; and Disposing of all debris, scrap, and left over construction materials in designated disposal sites and in an approved manner. The Khani-2 SHHP uses a forebay, which is an extension of the canal. The forebay serves as the intake for the penstock. The forebay tank requires the same rehabilitation works as the water intake pool as these two are similar in structure. The forebay rehabilitation includes the following activities: Removing debris and sedimentation from the canal and aqueduct; Constructing wooden forms for concrete and add steel bars as required by the design; Removing trash rack and the gate from the forebay tank and send for repairs; Removing wooden forms and waiting until concrete is dry and set; Testing concrete using special test equipment; Reinstalling the repaired trash rack, water flow and flushing gates; Conduct testing of the forebay tank for leaks by filling it with water and closing all gates;

6 * In case of minor leaks, filling in he gaps with concrete; and Disposing of all debris, scrap and left over construction materials at a designated disposal site and in an approved manner. When all rehabilitation works are completed, the entire hydro system will be re-watered and monitored for a period of time to identify and repair leaks. The powerhouse at the site requires substantial inside and outside repair works (see pictures of the powerhouse below). The planned renovation involves the following activities: Replacing damaged sections of the roof; . Repairing building walls (both inside and outside) and applying two coats of water- repellent painting; . Replacing entrance doors and windows of the building; reinstalling them after wall painting work is completed; Removing debris and metal scrap from the powerhouse floor and repair floor as needed; Repairing the water drainage system in the building; * Cleaning the powerhouse yard from litter, waste, and scrap materials; and * Disposing all debris, scrap and left over construction materials at a designated disposal site and in an approved manner.

v~..

Installation of electrical equipment: the Khani-2 project envisions the installation of a new turbine and a generator along with power distribution and control panels. The following works associated with the installation of power and electrical equipments are planned: Removing and dismantling the turbine and the generator; Repairing casing, the runner, shaft, bearings, flywheel, governor, and draft tube and base plate; * Installing new wiring; * Installing new control and automation systems; All old and non-functioning equipment should be removed and replaced with modern, more efficient equipment. The automation system should be rehabilitated which would result in improved, more efficient operation of SHP; Replacing transformers, feeders, bus bars, transmission poles, and power lines; and Securing the territory of the powerhouse with proper fencing and safety signs indicating types of potential hazards;

7 * Equipping the canal and the forebay tank with safety handrails or netting fences; and * Posting high voltage signs to indicate a threat of electrocution in the powerhouse and on the powerhouse and switch yards.

Table 1. Electrical equipment to be installed at the Khani-2 SHP project:

Mobile ..it* Stationary Equipment

Two 3x185+1x70 power cables - connect existing The ballast block will be installed outdoor and outdoor 10/0,4/0.23 kV substation with 400 KVA properly covered. transformer to the indoor power distribution box. Grounding mat in SHP area consists - vertical iron poles connected with iron stripe Exterior lighting in SHP area Descriptions of the site physical and socio-economic environments are provided in Appendix B

2.1.3. Environmental Review The Rural Energy Environmental team visits the site in December 2006. The purpose of the visit was to assess the current environmental conditions at the site and complete the screening analysis of potential environmental impacts. The following sections contains an analysis of the significance of the various potential environmental impacts associated with the project, and, where applicable, describe the mitigation measures (including monitoring) which are needed to implement to address the identified impacts. The results of the screening exercise at the Khani-2 project site are presented in Annex A. Issues which were determined to be insignificant or irrelevant following the screening analysis (in compliance with the significance criteria outlined in the PEA) are shown in Table 2.

Table 2: Potential environmental impacts excluded from further analysis

Construction Phase Issues Reasons for Exclusion Disruption to wildlife or sensitive ecological habitats Rehabilitation of the existing scheme and no significant habitats in the vicinity Disruption of the hydrological regime Existing hydrological patterns will be maintained Disruption of local movement and access to roads Most works will be away from village roads and Irelatively of small-scale Operational Phase Disturbance or threat to important ecological Rehabilitation of the existing infrastructure and no habitats, including protected ecosystems (e.g. significant habitats in the vicinity national parks) Salt water intrusion Not applicable Impediment to movement of livestock and humans Rehabilitation of the existing infrastructure, people will likely improve access to land Threat to historic, cultural and aesthetic sites and Rehabilitation of the existing infrastructure, and no features land acquisition Disruption of fisheries No significant fisheries present

8 2.1.4. Environmental Determination Based on the conducted environmental review including environmental screening of the Khani-2 project site, significant environmental impacts related to the assessed environmental aspects are identified and presented below. It is necessary to note that the identified impacts have moderate to low probabiity for occurance. Thus such impacts are mitigated and prevented through following best management, construction and operational practices. The Mitigation Plan for the Khani-2 SHHP outlines major mitigation activities associated with each impact. Below there is list environemntal impacts that were identified as moderate or significant for each environemtal aspect proposed in the PEA. The impact list is acoompanied with a set of measures recommended to mitigate the impacts 1) Geology and Soil: (a) Construction: - Moderate to low impact on soil and geology as the project presents rehabilitaiton of the existing facility and does not envisions new construction activities. The canal and river banks are not located on slide prone geological structures. Since the commissioning of the hydropower facility back in 1952 there were no land slides observed on sites occupied by the hydropower infrastructure (headrace, dam, intake pool, canal, penstock, powerhouse, tailrace, etc.). A4 Moderate to low impact from disturbance of topsoil and aggravation of erosion during the construction phase. (b) Mitigation measures: Proper landscaping of slopes and replanting vegetation. (c) Operation: Moderate to low impact of soil contamination during the opeartion activiites. This impact is realted to improper handling of chemicals, lubricants and transformer oils during the operation. (d) Mitigation mesures: ;4 Regular checking for oil leaks in the machinery; .4 No mashinery washing at the site; and 4 Subcontracting professional services for regular oil change in transformers. 2) Water Resources. (a) Construction: 4 Increase Turbidity Downstream of the Headworks Construction. Construction activities require excavation, removal and movement of soil, gravel and rocks from the riverbed (in order to repair the dam and create embankments), and i concrete mixing (i.e., large constructed area). These activities will potentially generate high levels of suspended solids that will increase turbidity downstream of the weir.

9 4. Increased Erosion of the Khanistskali River Stream. Construction activities at the headwors involve excavation, removal and movement of soil, gravel or rocks from the riverbed (e.g., to fix old and create new embankments) and impoundments. Small amount of concrete needed for construction also is planned to mix the site. These activities might potentially increase erosion of the river stream (in case the excavated soil is piled inappropriately). This in turn may increase sedimentation of the waterway and generate changes to the floodplains. A Increased flooding and changed flooding patternes during the headwork construction activities. Flooding during the construction activities might damage or destroy the formwork where concrete will be poured, gabions and soil embankments. (b) Mitigation Measures: 4 Avoid blocking stream flow during construction to eliminate the potential for flooding upstream to the weir and to increase the level of suspended solids coming from the floodplain; 4. Avoid stockpiling soils on the river banks and the floodplains to minimize soil moving through run-off; ; Use concrete blocks instead of soil (where feasible) for temporary stream diversion to reduce soil movement and stream sedimentation; 4 Restore landscaping and replant vegetation at the river bank and within the riparian ecosystem to its original form; and A Employ proper drainage techniques to prevent surface submersion. (c) Operation: Reduced Conservational Value of the Khanistskali River. Water is diverted to the Khani-2 SHP during the operation. This might significantly reduce the flow coming into the irrigation channel (the exit point at the tailrace). This reduction might cause changes in the availability of water resources for irrigation as well as adverse impacts fish populations in this the section of the river adjacent to the SHP, especially during dry seasons. Since the project envisions restoring the power plant to its planned capacity of 300 kW, more water than presently will be diverted into the SHP to generate electricity. This could potentially aggravate the above-identified impacts. (d) Mitigation measures: L4 Maintain a minimal sustainable river flow (minimum ecological flow) to sustain the river hydrology, water quality, existing fish population and wildlife (according to seasonal fluctuations in flow levels). 4. Maintain a minimum wet channel perimeter at all control structures with a constant flow in the river throughout the year.

10 3) Bioloaical Resources: (a) Construction: Impact on Fish Spawning. If the construction activities are scheduled for the beginning of the fall season (September-October), these works can disrupt fish spawning in the area thus creating a negative effect on the fish population. Proper scheduling of the construction works is the critical factor influencing the intensity of this impact. (b) Mitigation measures: 4. Maintain a minimal sustainable river flow (minimum ecological flow) to sustain the river hydrology, water quality, existing fish population and wildlife (according to seasonal fluctuations in flow levels). 4. Maintain minimum wet channel perimeters at all control structures with a constant flow in the river throughout the year. (c) Operation: Loss of Fish. The planned hydro-electrical system diverts a portion of the Khanistskali river flow to the canal, and then to the penstock and the turbine. Juvenile fish that passes through the turbine (entrainment) may be caught killed in the turbine. Both juvenile and potentially some adult fish might be affected by impingement against water intake structures and fish screens. The Salmo fario species listed in the Red Book of Georgia and is present in the Khanistskali River. Therefore, the operation phase of the Khani-2 SHP project is anticipated to result in moderate and potentially significant impacts on juvenile fish. (d) Mitigation measures: Install fish screens at the intake to the canal where water is diverted from the river's natural course. The mesh in such screens is about 3 mm x 3 mm. It will prevent all larger fish and most small fish from entering the canal and the penstock. The screens require periodic cleaning from dirt and debris by the operator. 4) Human Resources: (a) Construction: 4a Impact on the Nergeeti Community from Construction Activities (including the presence of temporary workers on the site). Local population can be disrupted during the construction phase from the increased transport traffic and the presence of temporary employees working at the site. 4. Increased probability of work related injuries to workers and local population during the construction activities. a Exposure to construction materials that can endanger public health. During the construction such materials as asbestos can be used, which might present threat to public health. (b) Mitigation measures: A. Establish and adhere to construction timetables to minimize disruption to normal activities at or in the vicinity of the construction area; 4 Coordinate truck trafficking and other construction activities to minimize noise, traffic disruption and dust.

11 (c) Operation: Increased probability of work related injuries and death for the plant personnel and the general public in case operation safety measures are not implemented. (d) Mitigation measures: Follow state safety regulations and guidelines, and implement best management practices. The Rural Energy Team has also prepared a list of safety equipment for mandatory installation at the SHP. The list is presented in Table 6.

12 Table 3. Personal Safety Equipment

SAFETY EQUIPMENT - MANDATORY

Hard Hats Eye Protection - Goggles Safety Shoes Work Gloves Eye Wash Station First Aid Kit (for 50 people) Oil Absorbing Pads 15X1 9in minimum weight 100 per case ABS 24,7 galoons quantity boxes Orange Vests Harness for Personnel (inspections/dam work)

13 3. MITIGATION PLAN

ACIIYSIGNIFICANCE & MITIGATION ACTIVITY POTENTIAL IMPACT RESPONSIBILITY MONITORING RESPONSIBILITY RESIDUAL PROBABILITY OF MEASURES FOR MITIGATION REQUIREMENTS FOR MONITORING IMPACT OCCURRENCE

Repair of the Rural Energy intake pool and Vrf plcblt f Porm uas dam at the head- Injury to contractors Safe working procedures Contractor, works workers and other Moderate - Possible Nergeeti Verify sappiabltwofkn PRegogram,Ktas to be wrkiten and fllowed Community ritesfe w oi REirona t is Negligible - Unlikely persons durng works by contractor Organization inspection of works SHE Officers; Rural Energy Program

Injury to contractors All waste materal to be Rural Energy workers and others Moderate - Possible stored in a secure, Contractor, Nergeeti Ad hoc inspections Program, Kutaisi from unsafe storage of Negligible - Unlikely designated area prior to Community Environmental Office Nelgbe-Uiky waste removal to a designated Organization / SHE Officers; Rural waste landfill site Energy Program

Soil contamination from spilled chemicals, liquid Best management Nergeeti Community Ad hoc inspecbon of concrete, other liquid Moderate - Possible practices are Organization, the construction site Rural Energy materals Negligible - Unlikely implemented by Contractor P construction contractors

Water and soil pollution Rural Energy (visual and other) Waste to be disposed of Nergeeti Community Program, Kutaisi caused by improper Moderate - Possible at a designated waste Organization, Ad hoc inspections Regional disposal of waste landfill site Contractor Environmental Office; Negligible - Unlikely materals Rural Energy Program Disturbance to Rural Energy residential areas Installation to be caused Program, Kutaisi by noise Moderate -Probable scheduled during normal Nergeeti Community Ad hoc inspections Regional generated Moderate - Unlikely durng weekday working hours Organization OfficerRal installation only. Contractor Officers;Energy Program Rural

14 & MITIGATION RESPONSIBILITY MONITORING RESPONSIBIUITY SIGNIFICANCE RESUIREMENTS FOR MONITORING ACT ACTMTY POTENTIAL IMPACT PROBABILITY OF MEASURESLFORPMITIGATION OCCURRENCEMESRSFRMTGTO REURMNS FRM IOIG

Avoiding blocking stream flow during construction, Using concrete forms rather than soil as temporary stream Rural Energy Program, Kutaisi Moderate - Possible downstream Moderate - diversions, Avoiding Adhcisetos Increased hoc inspections Regional turbidity in the river Probable stockpiling soils in river Rural Energy Ad banks and the floodplain; Program, Contractor Environmental Office Retuming topsoil along the river bank and rparian ecosystem to its original location, and restoring land contours Avoiding blocking stream flows; Use concrete blocks rather than soil as temporary stream Nergeeti Community Rural Energy Program, Kutaisi Lw-Ulkl Increased Erosion of diversions; Organization, Rural Ad hoc inspections Avoiding stockpiling of Energy Program, to the site Regional Low - Unlikely River Stream Moderate - possible soil; Contractor Environmental Office Using erosion control measures such as bales to prevent run-offs; Minimizing the use of heavy machinery Rural Energy Work schedules durng Ad hoc inspections, Program, Kutaisi Moderate - inspection Regional of the Possible Increased flooding Moderate - possible dry seasons; Rural Energy scheduled Progam, ontrctorMinistry of Agriculture Arrangement of fish by- passes for migrating fish; installation of net fish Rural Energy Rural Energy Program, Kutaisi Moderate - to fish stock screen to prevent Program, then Damage inspections Regional Possible including disruption of Moderate - possible entrance to the supply Rural Energy periodic operator Environmental Office fish spawning canal and penstock; Program, Contractor by maintain minimal ecological flow in the nver.

15 SIGNIFICANCE & MITIGATION RESPONSIBIUTY MONITORING ACTIVITY POTENTIAL IMPACT PROBABILITY RESPONSIBIUTY RESIDUAL OF MEASURES FOR MITIGATION REQUIREMENTS FOR MONITORING IMPACT OCCURRENCE

Pollution (visual and Waste to be disposed at other) caused by Moderate - a designated waste Rural Energy Kutaisi Regional improper disposal of Possible landfill site Program, Contractor Ad hoc inspections Environmental Negligible - Repair of the waste materials Officer, Rural Unlikely supply canal Energy Program and penstock Kutaisi Regional Injury to contractors Workers must follow Environmental workers from Moderate - safety guidelines and if Rural Energy Ad Hoc inspections Office/ SHE Negligible - construction Probable necessary wear Program, Contractor Officers, Rural Unlikely equipment protective gear Energy Program

Rehabilitation Verify applicability and IjrtocnrcosSafe working Cointractors, of written safe PRogram, Kuaiieegigbly modemization Injury to contractors Moderate - procedures to be written Nergeeti working Program, Kutaisi Negligible - of powerhouse workers and other Possible and followed by Community procedures. Ad Regional Unlikely including pesn uigwrscontractor Organization hoc inspection of Eniom ta replacement of works SHE Officers turbine, generator and Workers must wear auxiliary Injury to contractors protective glasses, Rural Energy eupetwresfoimrprmasks and gloves Contractors Prugral E , oneracyo equpmntiorer ofro imprsope Moderate - Nergeeti Ad Hoc inspections Rayon UNelikibely or insulating mineral Probable Promote use of glass Community Environmental Unlikely wool free (Rock Wool) Organization SHE Officers mineral glass

Injury to contractors All waste material to be wresadohr Moeae-stored workers and others MdPossible designatedin a secure, Rayon Ngiil area pror to Contractor Ad hoc inspections Environmental Negligible - froausafestrgof Psil removal to a designated SHE Officers Ulkl waste landfill site Pollution (visual and Nergeeti other) caused by Moderate - Waste to be disposed of Community Oblast Negligible - improper disposal of Possible at a designated waste Organization, Ad hoc inspections Environmental Unlikely waste materials landfill site Contractor Officer

16 MONITORING RESPONSIBILITY RESIDUAL IMPACT SIGNIFICANCE & MITIGATION RESPONSIBIUTY REIULMPC ACTIVTY POTENTIAL IMPACT PROBABIUTY OF MEASURES FOR MITGATION REQUIREMENTS FOR MONITORING OCCURRENCE

Installation to be Nergeeti Rural Energy Kutaisi Moderate - Disturbane to scheduled during normal Organization Ad hoc inspections Program occupiers and nearby weekday working hours OgnztoAdhciseins Environmental" Possible residential areas only. Contractor SHE Officers caused by noise Moderate - Probable Equipment is to be generated during NeIgbl installation of electrical installed only within Rural Energy Inspection at Kutaisi Regional equipment suitable buildings/ Program, Contractor commencement of Environmental / negligle - powerhouse (not works SHE Officers Unlkely outside)

Daily checks of Facility Operator Ad hoc inspection Kutaisi Regional Minor - Possible machinery for leaking oil Environmental Oil pollution of soil and Officer water at during SHP Moderate - Likely No washing of Kutaisi Regional Operation of the operation Environmental Khani-2 SHP machinery at the site, no Operator Ad hoc inspection facility oil change at the site OfcrMnr-Psil Reduce plant load to minimal Kutaisi Regional Dsutooffs Moeae-maintain Environmental Negligible - Disuption of fish Moderate - ecological flow in the Operator Periodic inspection Unlikely spawning Possible river, during the Office spawning season

Restoration of Damage to eco- the svvitch yard ste ,orhabitt Selection of new line Regular inspection Ols ao si andoeration environmental Negligible - and e a result of Moderate - routes (if any) to avoid Design Consuttant lines installation of new Posbesensitive habitats an otatr stsadoeain Officer Ulkl

Separation of topsoil Regular inspection and subsoil during pole of trenching work - installation, repair or adohroeain KtiiRgoa Losoftopoilleaing Moderate Minor - Possible tossncratopsoil Probable replacement and Contractor zones Environmental erosion replacement of topsoil Officer after the poles are installed

17 SIGNIFICANCE &

ACTIVITY POTENTIAL IMPACT OCCURRENCE MITIGATION RESPONSIBILITY QUIREMENTS RESPONSIBILITY RESIDUAL IMPACT

Daily checks of Contractor Ad hoc inspection Kutaisi Regional Minor - Possible machinery for leaking oil Environmental Oil pollution of soil and Officer water at construction Moderate - Likely site stNowashing No wsigofofEnvironmental Kutaisi Regional machinery at Contractor Ad hoc inspection Officer Minor- Likely construction site

Noise pollution in Moderate - Works performed strictly Kutaisi Regional towns Definite during normal weekday Contractor Ad hoc inspection Environmental / Major - Unlikely working hours SHE Officer Visual impact (lines Route alignment to Regional are installed above Major - Definite minimize areas of above Design consultant Ad hoc inspection Environmental Negligible - ground) ground piping Officer Unikely Landscaping and Reduced amenity Moderate - replanting of Regular inspectionible values vausoof theh ra Possible construction area after Contractor of completed Environmental elgil area competion of piping sections of the Officer Unlikely __of___piping__ completion______wokspipeline

Connection of Only fully trained electrical lines Daaet osnn esne ocryot UiiyCmay Regular inspections Inspector from tocHomes or explosion due to Major - Possible installations according to Contraoruator Major - Unlikely apartments electric shocks industry best practice C apartments ______q_ uidance and standards ______

18 RESIDUAL & MITIGATION RESPONSIBIUTY MONITORING RESPONSIBILITY SIGNIFICANCE REQUIREMENTS FOR MONITORING IMPACT ACTIVITY POTENTIAL IMPACT PROBABILITY OF MEASURES FOR MITIGATION OCCURRENCE

Inspector from Major - Possible Utility Company / Regular inspections of installations regulatory authority Contractor records Safety information to be Utility Company / Inspector from Major - Unlikely given to householders Contractor Regular inspections regulatory authority Trained professional to inspect, dean, and Utility Company / Follow up Inspector from adjust appliances every Contractor inspections regulatory authority year

19 4. MONITORING PLAN The Monitoring Plan presents a number of criteria against which monitoring indicators are set. Monitoring Categories

Criteria Descriptor Evidence

Regulatory Compliance: The facility complies with the The facility, or proposed oThe project owners have obtained all requirements of national facility, has all the necessary required construction and operation environment, health and safety permissions and permits permits and licenses including an laws and regulations. required under Georgian environmental permit. national laws and regulations. * The Rural Enegy Program in cooperation with the project owner prepared the Programmatic Environmental Assessment and developed an environmental management plan per requirement of the project sponsors (USAID, EBRD). Water Flow: The facility maintains a * Maintain minimum wetted *The project owner has obtained a minimum ecological flow in the channel perimeters, at all water use permit river that is adequate for the control structures, with a * Periodic measuring of the water flow existing fish population, wildlife constant flow in the river rate to assure that the minimal and water quality taking into throughout the year. ecological flow is maintained. account seasonal fluctuations * Facility operation schedules in flow levels. to be based on the minimum ecological flow required to sustain the existing environment.

Water Quality: The facilities operations do not The facility has minimal impact Best management practices on contribute to the deterioration on water quality at the head- hydropower construction are followed. of water quality either works, canal, tailrace and The facility will not contributed to the upstream or downstream of diversion dam. deterioration of water quality after the the facility. completion of the construction activities.

Fish Passage and Protection: The facility had minimal impact * There should be minimal *Information has been gathered on on local fish populations, loss of fish or fish habitat. both the local and migratory fish provides effective fish passage * Facility preserves fish populations; for local and migrating fish population. *The project design includes fish species and also protects fish * Facility construction and screens; from entrainment. operation do not limit fish *The project design includes adequate movement, migration and mitigation measures to ensure that spawning. fish protection criteria are met. * Flows at the intake and downstream of the tailrace are adequate to support aquatic and riparian species in the facility area.

20 Criteria Descriptor Evidence Watershed Protection: The facility does not negatively * The facility does not affect the * An assessment of impacts impact environmental integrity of the existing associated with additional conditions in the watershed. ecosystem either upstream or components has been made. downstream of the facility. * An assessment of upstream and * Facilities components and downstream impacts has been infrastructure (e.g. access made. roads, power lines, and * Adequate mitigation measures have generation facilities) have been provided to ensure the minimal impact on the riparian eligibility criteria are met. environment.

Threatened & Endangered Species Protection: The facility does not negatively * The facility is not constructed * Sensitive or protected areas on or impact any threatened or on a protected or sensitive around the river have been endangered species nor any river. identified. areas designated for their * The facility does not threaten * Endangered or threatened species protection. or harm the habitat or present in the area of, or migratory routes of downstream from, the facility have endangered species. been identified. * The facility has no significant * The Rural Energy Environmental impact on the existing wildlife team has assessed the potential habitat and populations. impact of the facility on any such areas or species. *The project design provides for adequate mitigation measures to ensure that the criteria are met. Recreation: The facilitydoes not stop or Access to the water remains Identification of any current limit recreational uses of the unchanged with the facility recreational uses of the river around river. and accommodates the site and confirmation that these recreational activities on the uses will not be affected by the - river. development of the facility.

Cultural Issues: Cultural property includes No cultural sites or property in the The facilitydoes not sites having archaeological vicinity of the facility has been inappropriatelyimpact (prehistoric), paleonthological, identified. culturalproperty historical, religious and unique natural values. Cultural property includes remains left by previous human inhabitants and unique natural features such as canyons and waterfalls.

Community Issues: The facilitydoes not reduce The facility does not prevent * Local community uses of the river local community use of or limit the local community have been identified. either the river or the from access to the river as a * The locally affected community has surrounding lands. communal leisure amenity, been notified and consulted prior to and the irrigation facility the development of the facility. * Adequate mitigation measures have been agreed to ensure that eligibility criteria are met.

21 ANNEX A. ENVIRONMENTAL SCREENING OF THE KHANI-2 PROJECT SITE Environmental Screening Analysis - Small Hydropower Plants

1) General Information Project Name Khani2 SHP Type of project Rehabilitation Location (district / region) Region-Imereti, District- Bagdadi, Village-Nergeti Ownership Private ("Ubani 2004") Surrounding Present Land Use [ X ] Agriculture [ X ] Residential [ ] Tourism [ Industrial [] Forest Land [ ] Institutional Commercial [ ] Open Spaces [ ] Others, pls. Specify Installed Capacity (kW) 300 Project Cost (USD) $70,000

2) General Construction Activities Is there and impact because / to Construction Operation and Maintenance Construction / rehabilitation of structures and buildings? Y N Construction / rehabilitation of access roads? N N Construction / rehabilitation of transmission lines? N N Temporary sites used for construction works or housing of Y N construction workers? Significant risk associated with waste transport? N N Inadequate waste disposal facilities? Y N Include grading, trenching, or excavation > 1.0 hectares N N Conducted near geologic hazards (faults, landslides, N N liquefaction, un-engineered fill, etc)? Require offsite overburden / waste disposal or borrow pits N N >1.0 ton? Cause loss of high quality farmlands > 10 hectares N N Require the use of dangerous / hazardous substances (e.g. Y Y oil, lubricants, chemicals; pis. Specify)? Require an oil / lubricants collection and disposal system? Y Y Increase vehicle trips > 20% or cause substantial Y N congestion? Cause or contribute to safety hazards? Y Y Inadequate access or emergency access for anticipated N N volume of people or traffic? Produce solid wastes during construction or operation or Y N decommissioning? Involve actions that will cause physical changes in the locality Y (topography, land use, changes in water bodies, etc)?

22 3) Geology and Soils and Is there and impact because / to Construction Operation Maintenance N Earthquakes, subsidence, landslides or erosion? N N Movement of soil? Y Rates of erosion or siltation b wind or water?N N N Management of excess soil or spoil material (from mining)? N Physical degradation of the local environment? N N

4) Water Resources and Is there and impact because / to Construction Operation Maintenance Risks of contamination of land or water from releases of Y N pollutants onto the ground or into sewers, surface waters, groundwater, coastal waters or the sea? Run-off as a result of the hardening of surfaces, or loss of the N N sponge effect of vegetation? Y Flooding or extreme or adverse climatic conditions? Y Ability to absorb run-off? N N Changes to flood plains? N N Quantity of surface water, groundwater or public water N Y supplies? Threats to hydrological functioning through existing or altered N N water extraction? Withdrawals from or discharges to surface or ground water? N N Threats through existing or altered impoundment N N construction? Conservational or recreational value of rivers, streams, lakes, N N wetlands, dams or islands? Threats through existing or altered pollution? N N Threats through existing or altered turbidity? Y Y Threats through existing or altered agricultural run-off? N N Threats through existing or altered chemical processes or N N nutrient balances? Threats through existing or altered changes in sediment flows N N and siltation rates? Changes through existing or altered canalization? N N River, stream or lake onsite or within 30 meters of Y Y construction? Excavation or place of fill, removing gravel from a river, Y Y stream or lake? Onsite storage of liquid fuels or hazardous materials in bulk N N quantities? Decreased water flow that may change the flooding regime, N N resulting in the destruction of wetlands? Decrease in downstream water flow that may affect N Y downstream users (human, fisheries, and wildlife)?

23 5) Biological Resources Is there and impact because / to Construction Operation and Maintenance Important, high quality or scarce resources that could be N Y affected by the project? Located in a Protected Area or Wildlife Corridor? N N Inundate or remove wetland habitats? N N Survival of rare or endangered plant species? N N Diversity of plant communities? N N Vegetation communities of conservation or scientific N N importance? Natural replenishment of existing species? N Y Firewood collection?N N Overexploitation of biological resources? N N Survival of rare or endangered animals? N N Diversity of animal communities? N N Natural migration of species? N N Introduction of alien species? N N Loss of native species or genetic diversity? N N Vegetation removal or construction in wetlands or riparian N N areas > 1.0 hectare? Use of pesticides / rodenticides, insecticides, or herbicides > N N 1.0 hectare? Construction in or adjacent to a designated wildlife refuge? N N Decreased water flow that may change the flooding regime, N N resulting in the destruction of wetlands? Decrease in downstream water flow that may affect N Y downstream users (human, fisheries, and wildlife)? Re-entry pipe cause increased scouring of stream bank N N where water is returned to the stream? Flora and / or fauna of ecological or commercial significance N N to be found?

24 6) Socioeconomic Issues Is there and impact because / to Construction Operation and Maintenance Existing settlements in the vicinity of the proposed project? Y Y Existing land uses on or around the project that could be N N affected by the project? Areas on or around the location of the project that are N N already subject to pollution or environmental damage? Permanent or temporary change in land use, land cover or N N topography including increases in intensity of land use? Social infrastructures located in or near the project area N N (e.g., schools, health canters / clinics, places of worship, others? Social acceptability of the project (community, government, N N non-governmental organizations)? Visual and odor effects of waste sites? N N Risk to the community and the local environment should the N Y facility break down? Potential conflict with adjacent land uses? N N Non-compliance with existing codes, plans, permits or N N design factors? Construction in national park or designated recreational N N area? Relocation of >10 individuals for +6 months? N N Interrupt necessary utility or municipal service > 10 N N individuals for + 6 months? Loss or inefficient use of mineral or non-renewable N N resources? Noise levels > 5 decibels for + 3 months? N N Adverse visual impact when compared to the surrounding N N natural landscape? Affect future land uses on or around the location? N N Are there any areas on or around the location that are N N densely populated or built-up, which could be affected by the project? Highly visible to many people? N N Lead to pressure for consequential project that could have N Y significant impact on the environment (eg more housing, new roads, new supporting industries or utilities, etc)? Cumulative effects due to proximity to other existing or N N planned projects with similar effects? Social changes, for example, in demography, traditional Y Y lifestyles, and employment?

7) Cultural Issues Is there and impact because I to Construction Operation and Maintenance Prehistoric, historic, or paleontological resources within 30 N N meters of construction? Unique cultural or ethnic values at the site? N N

25 8) Public Health issues Will the project affect... Construction Operation and Maintenance Human or community health or welfare? Y Y The quality or toxicity of air, water, foodstuffs and other N N products consumed by humans? Morbidity or mortality of individuals, communities or Y Y populations by exposure to pollution? Occurrence or distribution of disease vectors including N N insects? Vulnerability of individuals, communities or populations to N N disease? Individuals' sense of personal security? Y N Community cohesion and identity? N N Cultural identity and associations? N N Minority rights? N N Housing conditions? N N Employment and quality of employment? Y Y Economic conditions? Y Y Social institutions? Y Y Cause accidents that could affect human health or the Y Y environment? - From explosions, spillages, fires etc? Y Y - From storage, handling, use or production of hazardous Y Y or toxic substances? Be affected by natural disasters causing environmental N N damage (e.g. floods, earthquakes, landslip, etc)? Vulnerable groups of people who could be affected by the Y Y project (e.g. hospital patients, the elderly)? 9) Air Quality Is there and impact because / to Construction Operation and Maintenance Onsite air pollutant emissions? Y N Violation of applicable air pollutant emissions or ambient N N concentration standards? Vehicle traffic during construction or operation? Y N Demolition or blasting for construction? N N Odor during construction or operation? N N Alteration of microclimate? N N Release pollutants or any hazardous, toxic or noxious Y N substances to air? - Emissions from combustion of fossil fuels from stationary Y N or mobile sources? - Emissions from materials handling including storage or N N transport? - Emissions from construction activities including plant and Y N equipment? - Dust or odors from handling of materials including Y N construction materials, sewage and waste? - Emissions from burning of waste in open air (eg slash N N material, construction debris)?

26 10) Noise and Vibration Is there and impact because i to Construction Operation and Maintenance Noise and vibration or release of light, heat energy or Y Y electromagnetic radiation? - From operation of equipment (e.g. engines, ventilation Y Y plant, crushers)? - From construction or demolition? Y N - From blasting or piling? N N - From construction or operational traffic? Y N - From sources of electromagnetic radiation? N N

27 ANNEX B. PHYSICAL AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT 1. Physical Environment The Khani-2 project and the Nergeeti village are located in the Western part pf Georgia, which belongs to the Black Sea Basin of Western Georgia, and located with the Rioni River Basin. The Black Sea Basin, comprising a large number of rivers and lakes, is located in the western part of the country and strongly influences the climatic environment of West Georgia. The Rioni River Basin constitutes almost 20% of Georgia's land area. The Rioni River is the largest tributary of the Black Sea in Georgia and is considered to be the largest single source of pollution along the Georgian Black Sea coast, reaching the Black Sea at Poti (UNECE). Geologv Village Nergeti lies in western Georgia, in the riv. Khanistskali basin (left tributary of the river Rioni). The approximate elevation is 220 meters. The Bagdati district is surrounded with the Vani district in the West, the Terjola and Zestaphoni districts from the Northeast, the Kharagauli district from the East, Akhaltsikhe and Adigeni districts from the South. The mountainous area of the region is constructed by clay shale from the Cretaceous period. The main orographic segments of the region are Nageba (2607 m), Didmagali (2588 m), Tskhaltsitea (2496 m). Lowest part of the region is represented by Imereti valley (Atlas of Georgia, 1964). Geo Hazards In terms of seism the territory is considered to be active seismic zone. Seismicity of the region is rated an 'seven' 7using the MKS scale (Map of seismic hazard assessment of Georgia, 2006). Soils Soils are very diverse in the region. On the plains alluvial soils and subtropical podzols are widespread. On the subalpine and alpine part of the region meadow soddy peat soils are found (Map of Soil Types of Georgia, 1999). Climate The climate is mild subtropical with moderately cold winters and warm long summers. The annual average temperature is 140 Celsius. The absolute maximum air temperature is 420 while the absolute minimum is - 180. The total annual precipitation averages 1500 millimeters with an average wind speed is 13 meters per second. The maximum snowfall is 118 millimeters. Hydrology The main artery of water is the Khanistskhali River with the source on the north slope of Atchara- Imereti Ridge at 2280 meters which flows into the Vartsikhe Reservoir. The average height of the river reservoir is 1240 meters. The Khanistkali River has a tendency to expand beyond its banks and to flood the surrounding areas. Table 3: The Average Annual Water Discharge Rate in the River Khanistskali, m3/sec

Parameters I 11 iII IV v VI VII Vil Ix x Xi Xii Average Natural flow 8.9 12.4 19.9 35.1 31.3 18.7 10.6 7.86 7.15 11.2 11.5 11.5 15.4 (m3/sec)

Maximum 18.3 28.2 44.1 80.2 56.0 32.9 20.8 24.4 18.4 38.8 27.5 21.5 38.8 monthly average ____I_ Minimum 2.05 3.45 7.63 11.4 13.1 5.97 4.32 3.20 2.93 3.21 2.36 1.80 8.84 monthly average

28 Vegetation Sixty percent of the area is forested, rest area of the region is covered by cultural landscapes and agricultural landscape formed by gardens, orchards, vineyards, plots of maize. The village neighbors Bagdati section of the Bagdati forestry (Community Development Strategic Plan 2004- 2009; Nergety Community). Native landscape is covered with Colchic-type of forest. Dominating trees are spruce (Picea orientalis), fir (Abies nordmaniana), pine (Pinus kochiana), beach (Fagus orientalis), hornbeam (Carpinus betulus), chestnut (Castanea sativa), lime-tree (Tilia caucasica), elm (Ulmus glabra, Ulmus elliptica), oak (Quercus imeretina), mapple (Acer laetum), rare - yew (Taxus baccata). Subforest is represented by Pontic Rhododendron (Rhododendron ponticum), holy (Ilex aquifolium), Laurel Cherry (Laurocerasus officinalis), oriental hornbeam (Carpinus orientalis), Bilberry (Vaccinium myrtillus), Cornel cherry (Cornus mas), Medlar (Mespilus germanica), Hazelnut (Corylus avellana), Blackberry (Rubus spp.), raspberry (Rubus idaeus) (Encyclopedia of Georgia, 1984). Populations of the following herb species have been recorded in the vicinity of the village: cyclamen (Cyclamen vernum, Cyclamen colchicum, Cyclamen ponticum), twayblade (Listera ovata), red helleborine (Cephalanthera rubra), ghost orchid (Epipogium aphyllum) (Epipogium epipogium), Autumn lady's tresses (Spiranthes spiralis), and orchid (Orchis palustris). These species are listed under Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES). Mammals The following species were reported in the vicinity of the Nergeeti village: wolfs (Canis lupus), jackals (Canis aureus), roe deers (Capreolus capreolus), chamois (Rupicapra rupicapra), wild boars (Sus scrofa), fox (Vulpes vulpes), martens (Martes martes, M. foina), badger (Meles meles) and hares (Lepus europaeus). The following species, which are listed in the Red Book of Georgia, are found in the vinicintiy of the Nergeti village: bears (Ursus arctos, Red Book of Georgia National category-Endangered), lynx (Lynx lynx, Red Book of Georgia National, category-Critically endangered),

Avian fauna The following bird species are found in the vicinity of the village: quail (Coturnix cotumix), woodcock (Gal/inago gallinago), black grouse (Tetrao mlokosiewiszi), duck (Anas plathyrhynchos), corncrake (Crex crex), swan (Cygnus olor), wild pigeon (Columba palumbus), blackbird (Turdus merula), miscle thrush (Turdus viscivorus), chaffinch (Fringilla coelebs), woodpecker (Dendrocopos spp.), (Jordania R., Boeme B., Kuznetsov A., 1999). Reptiles Limited information on reptiles is available for this area. In the vicinities of the river Khanistskali following species have been reported: ring snake (Natrix natrix), slow worm (Anguis fragilis), European glass lizard (Ophisaurus apodus) (Georgian Encyclopedia, 1984). Fish Following fish species were reported in the Khanistskli river: barbell (Barbus capito), mudfish (Cobitis taenia satunini), trout (Salmo fario) Red Book of Georgia, National Statute Vulnerable), are found in the Khanistskali River (Elanidze, R. 1988). Spawning periods for major fish species found in the river are noted in Table below.

29 Table 4: Khanistskali River Fish Spawning Periods

Fish Spawning Period Barbell May-June Mudfish May-June Trout September-October 2. Socio-Economic Environment PoDulation and settlements: the Nergeeti community is located adjacent to the town of Bagdati and 26 km from the Imereti regional center, Kutaisi. The Sakrebulo (administrative unit) includes five villages: Nergeeti, Zeda Dimi, Tskaltashua, Tsablarakhevi and Alismereti. The Nergeeti community consists of 160 households (472 permanent residents). The community is 100% Georgian orthodox. A substantial seasonal migration is observed during the summer season. From May to September the population grows by 200 to 350 persons who spend their vacations in the region (the Community Development Strategic Plan 2004-2009; Nergeeti Community). Land Tenure: The majority of the local population relies on the land for as the main source of income, Land is primarily used for crop cultivation and grazing of livestock. 100% of the population is engaged in vegetable cultivation. Many households own one or two cows and a small number of sheep, pigs and poultry for subsistence purposes (wool, milk and meat). During the winter season, municipal and state land is also used by migratory sheep-herders for grazing their animals. The land privatization process began in late 1996 and had progressed rapidly. 95% of the community residents have direct ownership or use of land. The community's main arable land is located in the Vartsikhe area, 15 km north of the village. The communal pastures are located near a forest area south of the village. The community residents posses 418 hectares of agriculture lands, including 172 ha of arable lands, 9 hectares of orchards, 107 hectares of pastures, and 130 hectares of vineyards (the Community Development Strategic Plan 2004-2009; Nergeeti Community). Income and Emplovment: The primary employment of the Nergeeti residents is small-scale farming. Forty five (45) persons are employed in non-agricultural businesses. Of these, seventeen people are employed in state budgetary organizations; and the remaining twenty-eight individuals are permanently employed in trade, manufacturing and service enterprises. An average monthly cash income equals 100 GEL per household. Thus, household incomes in the community are generated by the following sources: . State sector employment, e.g. teachers, doctors, and government posts; * Individual farming; . Social aid - provided by the State; . Social transfers - state pensions, benefits, etc. • Hunting, fishing and gathering; and . Trade - including local shops and businesses (70% of communities have at least one shop or a market). . Besides agricultural activities, some fraction of the local male population (between 40-50 men) is employed in seasonal logging in Bagdati private logging enterprises from late May through December (Community Development Strategic Plan 2004-2009; Nergeeti Community).

30 Attitude towards rehabilitation of the hydroDower Plant The local population supports the rehabilitation of the Khani-2 small hydro power plants as it brings electricity supply to three out five villages in the community. Employment is by far the most important perceived benefit related to potentially enhanced engagement of local population in agricultural processing industries. Local people should be offered first refusal for jobs for which they were qualified. Social Infrastructure includes three secondary schools, an ambulatory clinic, the Bagdati agricultural market and a museum. Only 30% of the community has access to a communal piped water supply system. Since water quality in the local piped water network is poor, this water is not portable and used only for non- drinking domestic needs (e.g. washing, laundering and watering of vegetable plots). The majority of the population uses wells and springs for drinking water supply needs. There are almost no active refuse or sewerage systems in the larger Bagdati community. Many services, such as fire departments and banks are virtually non-existent within the community (the closest bank is located in Kutaisi), while other services such as police and public health services have insufficient public funding. Access to reliable sources of energy is a major concern for the community. The Bagdati lager community (all five villages) receives infrequent electricity supply totaling to three hours a day during the nighttime hours. The community also has no gas supply due to the absence of gas supply networks within the local area.

31 u~aI WI WINROCK AIF f NTE R N A t IO NA L 4 FROM THE AMERICAN PEOPLE Putting Ideas to Work

RURAL ENERGY PROGRAM COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT NO. 114-A-00-05-00106-00 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN SMALL HYDRO POWER REHABILITATION PROJECTS

-~ ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN SMALL HYDRO POWER REHABILITATION PROJECTS

Prepared for: USAID / Caucasus 25 Atoneli Street 0105 Tbilisi, Georgia

Prepared by: Rural Energy Program 26 Dzmebi Kakabadzeebi Street, Tbilisi, 0105, Georgia Tel: +995 32 50 63 43 Fax: +995 32 93 53 52 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. Introduction ...... 1 2. Site Specific Environmental Management Plans ...... 3 2.1 Okami Small Hydropower Project ...... 3 2.1.1 Project Activities Overview ...... 3 2.1.2 Environmental Review ...... 7 2.1.3 Environmental Determination ...... 8 3. Mitigation Plan ...... 12 4. Monitoring Plan ...... 19 Annex A. Environmental Screening of the Okami Project Site ...... 23 Annex B. Physical and Socio-Economic Environment ...... 29 1. INTRODUCTION The USAID-sponsored Rural Energy Program (formerly known as the Renewable Energy and to Environment Development Program, or REED) in Georgia aims at developing in-country capacity increase the utilization of small hydropower resources and realization of energy efficiency potential in Georgia's rural communities. The Rural Energy Program also includes identification and implementation of a number of small hydropower and natural gas extension projects throughout Georgia's regions. The primary objectives of the USAID sponsored Rural Energy Program (RED) include 1) increased supply of energy to rural areas (both grid connected and off-grid); 2) improve management of local energy production; 3) improved in-country capacity to develop and deploy renewable energy applications in rural communities; and 4) improved capacity to more efficiently utilize and protect the local energy resource base. The RED Program envisions the implementation of a number of pilot projects in such areas as small, mini and micro hydro power installations, extensions of natural gas distribution networks, renewable energy systems (other than small, mini and micro hydro facilities), and natural resource management programs. RED Program activities as funded by a federal government agency, USAID, are subject to applicable U.S. environmental laws, and regulations including USAID's environmental impact assessment procedures. These procedures intend to implement the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1970. Title 22 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 216 (so called 22 CFR 216), applies to all USAID programs, projects, activities and substantive amendments. To comply with 22 CFR 216, the PA Environmental Team completed the Programmatic Environmental Assessment (PEA) for the projects funded by the USAID RED Program in March 2006. USAID has approved the PEA for further implementation. The PEA scope contained (a) a definition of environmental screening criteria for a set of projects similar in their size, range and magnitude of impacts, and (b) characterization of common mitigation measures for each project type to alleviate the recognized impacts. Projects that did not share common attributes (such as medium and large hydropower projects or projects located in national parks, or raised substantial issues regarding wetlands or sensitive habitats that would require a separate Environmental Assessment) were not addressed in the PEA. The PEA evaluated four types of projects considered for investment under the RED Program. These included the following project categories: * Small-scale hydropower plants; * Community Natural Gas (NG) distribution systems; * Renewable energy/ energy efficiency projects; and * Natural resource management projects. The work completed by the PA Environmental Scoping Team set the stage for the PEA. Issues identified during preparation of the Rural Energy Program Scoping Statement (Appendix E) were examined by the multidisciplinary PEA Team through literature reviews, stakeholder interviews, multiple field evaluations and environmental screening analyses. Through a process of integrating issues identified through scoping with information collected in literature reviews, regulatory reviews, had interviews, field and screening evaluations, the PEA Team identified environmental aspects that to be addressed in the PEA. The environmental aspects presented in the PEA included the following subjects: * Geology and Soils

1 * Water Resources * Biological Resources * Socioeconomics (including Public Health) * Cultural Resources. The PEA also simplified environmental due diligence for the preparation of environmental management plans (including mitigation and monitoring plans) for a larger set of activities expected under the RED Program. Due to the completion of the Programmatic Environmental Assessment for the entire RED Program, it was unnecessary to define environmental significance ranking criteria for each individual environmental management plan. The unified significance criteria elaborated in the PEA were utilized for the environmental impact ranking presented in individual environmental management plans. An environmental management plan for each project is based on a specific environmental review conducted at each project site. The review process was designed to specify environmental impacts characteristic of each project site attributable to either construction or operational phase of the project implementation. The mitigation options are aligned with the general mitigation recommendations specified in the PEA. The Environmental Management Plans (EMP) consists of a set of mitigation, monitoring, and institutional measures to be taken during implementation and operation to eliminate adverse environmental and social impacts, offset them, or reduce them to acceptable levels. The plans also include actions needed to implement these measures. EMPs identify feasible and cost-effective measures that may reduce potentially significant adverse environmental impacts to acceptable levels. Specifically, the EMPs include the following: (a) Summaries of all anticipated significant adverse environmental impacts (including those involving indigenous people or involuntary resettlement); (b) Descriptions (with technical details) each mitigation measure, including the type of impact to which it relates and the conditions under which it is required (e.g., continuously or in the event of contingencies), together with designs, equipment descriptions, and operating procedures, as appropriate; (c) Estimates of any potential environmental impacts of these measures; and (d) Linkages with any other mitigation plans (e.g., for involuntary resettlement, indigenous peoples, or cultural property) required for the project. The monitoring section of the EMP provides the following information: (a) A specific description, and technical details, of monitoring measures, including the parameters to be measured, methods to be used, sampling locations, frequency of measurements, detection limits (where appropriate), and definition of thresholds that will signal the need for corrective actions; and (b) Monitoring and reporting procedures to ensure early detection of conditions that necessitate particular mitigation. It was assumed that a legislative and regulatory framework is identical for all projects and was already discussed in the Programmatic Environmental Assessment for the RED Program. Obtaining accurate natural resource, ecological health and employment related statistics in any part of Georgia is extremely difficult. Also, local hospitals and other institutions do not keep health records and are unwilling to discuss or acknowledge health problems. For these reasons, it was not been possible to analyze any data related to public health issues including environmental and occupational health statistics in the project communities.

2 2. SITE SPECIFIC ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLANS

The following section presents environmental management plans specified for each project to be implemented in Year 1. The specific project environmental impact categories and mitigation recommendations were identified during of site visits completed by the Rural Energy Program team in December 2006. The proposed mitigation measures are in line with common recommendations outlined in the PEA. 2.1. OKAMI SMALL HYDROPOWER PROJECT 2.1.1. Project Activities Overview The Okami site is constructed on the Tezi-Okami irrigation system. It is located in the village of Okami in the Kaspi district of the Shida Kartli region in Eastern Georgia. The facility was built about three years ago but was never operational. The construction started in 2003 but the project was never completed due to lack financing resources. The objective of this project was to generate electricity to meet demand from the nearby rural communities and small and medium enterprises. The total installed capacity planned in the original design is 1.6 MW. A private company Ama Ltd. is the owner of the Okami SHP facility and the prime developer of the project. Figure 1. Location of the Okami SHP in Eastern Georgia

-e-s-.e.3

The layout of the facility is presented in Figure 2: Figure 2. Layout of the Okami Small Hydropower Plant

-

a,-i L ns -\

r- Ua K..E

. X W ''".4

Penstock Powerhouse The original design of the project includes the following characteristics: * Type of small hydro operation - take-off-river (the irrigation canal); * Head - 91.6 meters; * Discharge rate - 2 m3/sec; * Installed capacity - 1. 6 MW; * Average annual generation - 8.74 million kW/h. The Tezi-Okami irrigation system is an intake facility including the open irrigation canal with the flow rate of Q = 6.5 m3/sec. Water is diverted from the Ksani River into the irrigation system. The fore- bay tank serving also as an intake for the Okami SHP, is constructed on the left bank of the irrigation. The fore-bay tank has the length of 8.6 meters and 1.3 meters in height from the bottom of the canal. The capacity of irrigation canal is sufficient to satisfy the SHP and irrigation water demand. However, in accordance with irrigation regulations SHP operations have to be suspended irrigation seasons (summers) as all available water in the canal is utilized for irrigation purposes. According to the facility design used water is discharged into the tail water well and flows back into the irrigation system through the tailrace. The planned project activities are outlined in the Okami SHP Business Plan. Since the main construction activities were completed about three years ago the project works focus on finishing the equipment installation and performing minor equipment adjustments at the power house facility. The majority of the project works is already fully or partially completed at the project site including: 1) Building a fore-bay tank with a flashing chamber and emergency spillway, and 2) Construction of a penstock, and a powerhouse with two Francis-type turbines. Specialists from the Georgia Water Project (GWP) visited the site and performed full load testing on the powerhouse generating and low voltage (6 kV and 10 kV) distribution equipment to identify works required for the completion of the facility. The tests identified that there are some minor adjustments to be carried out on the installed equipment. The project design documents specify activities involve works on upgrading the generation equipment. In particular two synchronous motors are installed in the powerhouse. At the present moment these generators cannot be used without speed run away controls and excitation systems. Even if the existing motors are upgraded, their reliability remains very low. During the site visit the GWP specialists recommended to replace the existing synchronous motors with generators that are equipped with all necessary controls and protection systems. These upgrade works are described in greater detail in the project technical design documents available at the REP project office. The project design documents specify the following installation, upgrading and adjustment works to be performed on the powerhouse electrical equipment including: a) Relocation of pressure gauges (manometers) from the top of the casing to the casing inlet; b) Checking bearings heat controls for proper operation; c) Connection of vacuum gauges must be attached to the draft tubes; d) Purchase and installation of control panels e) Purchase and replacement of two hydropower generators each of 800 kW capacity with exciters;

5 The below list summarizes the works planned for the Okami SHP project: 1) Rehabilitation of the water intake; 2) Rehabilitation of the spillway 3) Purchase and installation of turbines; 4) Purchase and installation of control panels; 5) Purchase and Installation of hydro-generators (two generators of 800 kW capacity each with exciters); Civil works associated with the completion of the Okami hydropower plant infrastructure include the following activities: A fore-bay tank, which serves as an intake facility, is constructed on the left wall of the irrigation canal. Intake does not provide delivery of rate discharge. Following activities on the water intake are planned: * Demolition of a concrete wall located on the left bank of main canal; * Removing all the debris from the water intake pool;

* Making wooden forms for construction of concrete panels and adding steel bars as required in the project technical design; * Removing all gates from the intake pool and sending them for repairs; * Removing wooden forms after the concrete is dry; * Testing the concrete using special test equipment; * Reinstalling the water flow regulating gates; * Conducting the testing of the water intake pool for leaks; * In case of minor leaks patching the gaps with concrete; * Installing safety handrails or netting fences around the fore-bay area; * Disposing of all debris and construction materials at designated disposal site and in an approved manner. The spillway requires modest repair and cleaning. The following activities are planned: * Removing debris and sedimentation from the canal; * Enforcing the canal banks and walls; * Disposing of all debris, scrap, and left over construction materials at designated disposal sites and in an approved manner. The powerhouse construction is complete. There are works in the powerhouse and the powerhouse yard required for the installation of electrical equipment. Installation of electrical equipment: the Okami project envisions the installation of a turbine and replacing two generators along with power distribution and control panels. The following works associated with the installation of power and electrical equipments are planned: * Removing and dismantling the presently installed generators; * Installing new generators and a turbine;

6 * Installing new wiring; * Installing new control and automation systems; * Posting high voltage signs to indicate a threat of electrocution in the powerhouse and on the powerhouse and switch yards. * Removing debris and metal scrap from the powerhouse floor and repair floor as needed; * Closing electrical cable ducts in the powerhouse and the powerhouse and switch yards; * Cleaning the powerhouse yard from litter, waste, and scrap materials; and * Disposing all debris, scrap and left over construction materials at a designated disposal site and in an approved manner.

Table 1. Electrical equipment to be installed at the Okami SHPP project:

Stationary EquOlipme3 t',.

Two 800 kW generators Turbine Automated control systems

2.1.2. Environmental Review

The REP Environmental team visits the site in December 2006. The purpose of the visit was to assess the current environmental conditions at the site and complete the screening analysis of potential environmental impacts. The following sections contains an analysis of the significance of the various potential environmental impacts associated with the project, and, where applicable, describe mitigation measures (including monitoring) which are needed to implement for addressing the identified impacts. The results of the screening exercise at the Okami project site are presented in Annex A. Issues which were determined to be insignificant or irrelevant following the screening analysis (in compliance with the significance criteria outlined in the PEA) are shown in Table 2. Table 2: Potential Environmental Impacts Excluded From Further Analysis Construction Phase Issues Reasons for Exclusion Disruption to wildlife or sensitive ecological habitats Rehabilitation of the existing scheme and no significant habitats in the vicinity Disruption of the hydrological regime Existing hydrological patterns will be maintained Disruption of local movement and access to roads Most works will be away from village roads and -relatively of small-scale Operatio al Phase Disturbance or threat to important ecological habitats, Completion of the existing infrastructure and no including protected ecosystems (e.g. national parks) significant habitats in the vicinity Salt water intrusion Not applicable Impediment to movement of livestock and humans Completion of the existing infrastructure, people will likely improve access to land Threat to historic, cultural and aesthetic sites and Completion of the existing infrastructure, and no land features acquisition Disruption of fisheries No significant fisheries present Increased water turbidity during the construction No major construction operations are planned which phase might affect water turbidity either in the irrigation or the river as the Okami facility and relating infrastructure are already completed Increased risk of soil instability and erosion during the No major construction operations are planned as the construction phase Okami facility and relating infrastructure are already completed.

2.1.3. Environmental Determination

Based on the conducted environmental review including environmental screening of the Okami project site, significant environmental impacts related to the assessed environmental aspects are identified and presented below. It is necessary to note that the identified impacts have moderate to low probabiity for occurance. Thus such impacts are mitigated and prevented through following best management, construction and operational practices. The Mitigation Plan for the Okami SHPP outlines major mitigation activities associated with each impact. Below there is a list of environemntal impacts that were identified as moderate or significant for each environemtal aspect proposed in the PEA. The impact list is acoompanied with a set of measures recommended to mitigate the impacts

8 1) Geology and Soil: (a) Construction: 4. Moderate to low impact on soil and geology as the project envisions only small scale construction activities on spillway rehabilitation. 4 Moderate to low impact from disturbance of topsoil and aggravation of erosion during the construction phase. The canal wall replacement and hand rail installation does not require involving heavy machinery that can damage top soil. No works are planned to excavate substantial amounts of ground or top soil for completion the spillway and the canal rehabilitation. (b) Mitigation measures: Proper landscaping of slopes and replanting vegetation. (c) Operation: Moderate to low impact of soil contamination during the opeartion activiites. This impact is realted to improper handling of chemicals, lubricants and transformer oils during the operation. (d) Mitigation mesures: 4. Regular checking for oil leaks in the machinery; 4. No mashinery washing at the site; and 4A Subcontracting professional services for regular oil replacement in transformers. 2) Water Resources. (a) Construction: Increased turbidity during the construction phase: construction activities will require the excavation work and removal of gravel from the irrigation canal, and concrete mixing. These activities will generate the downstream turbidity in the canal. (b) Mitigation Measures: 4 Avoiding stockpiling soils along the canal; 4. Returning topsoil along the canal bank and riparian ecosystem to its original location (c) Operation: 4 Increased erosion. Project releases back in the irrigation system are equivalent to natural discharges. Therefore it is expected that the quantity released during the plant operation will not impact the current rate of erosion. The water discharges will have a slightly higher capacity to carry sediment, but given the flow and lack of fluctuation, no significant increase in the current rate of erosion is expected.

9 a4 Decreased availability of water resources for irrigation. Water will be diverted to the Okami SHPP during its operation. This might significantly reduce the flow coming into the irrigation channel (the exit point at the tailrace). This reduction might cause changes in the availability of water resources for irrigation as well as adverse impacts on fish population in this the section of the irrigation canal and the Ksani river in locations adjacent to the SHPP, especially during dry seasons. Since the project envisions commencing power generation of 1,600 kW, more water than presently will be diverted into the SHPP to generate electricity. This could potentially aggravate the above-identified impacts. (d) Mitigation measures: 4. Maintain a minimal sustainable river flow (minimum ecological flow) to sustain the river hydrology, water quality, existing fish population and wildlife (according to seasonal fluctuations in flow levels). .4 Maintain a minimum wet channel perimeter at all control structures with a constant flow in the canal throughout the year. 3) BiologicalResources: (a) Operation: Loss of Fish. The planned hydro-electrical system diverts a portion of the Ksani river flow to the canal, and then to the penstock and the turbine. Juvenile fish that passes through the turbine (entrainment) may be caught killed in the turbine. Both juvenile and potentially some adult fish might be affected by impingement against water intake structures and fish screens. The Salmo fario species listed in the Red Book of Georgia and is present in the Khanistskali River. Therefore, the operation phase of the Okami SHPP project is anticipated to result in moderate and potentially significant impacts on juvenile fish. (b) Mitigation measures: Install fish screens at the intake to the canal where water is diverted from the river's natural course. The mesh in such screens is about 3 mm x 3 mm. It will prevent all larger fish and most small fish from entering the canal and the penstock. The screens require periodic cleaning from dirt and debris by the operator. 4) Human Resources: (a) Construction: 4- Impact on the Okami Community from construction and installation activities (including the presence of temporary workers on the site). Local population can be disrupted during the construction phase when equipment installation and spillway fixing are performed. The disruption might occur due to the increased transport traffic and the presence of temporary employees working at the site. 4- Increased probability of work related injuries to workers and local population during the construction and installation activities. 4- Exposure to construction materials that can endanger public health. During the construction such materials as asbestos can be used, which might present threat to public health.

10 (b) Mitigation measures: 4 Establish and adhere to construction timetables to minimize disruption to normal activities at or in the vicinity of the construction area; 4. Coordinate truck trafficking and other construction activities to minimize noise, traffic disruption and dust. (c) Operation: Increased probability of work related injuries and death for the plant personnel and the general public in case operation safety measures are not implemented. (d) Mitigation measures: Follow state safety regulations and guidelines, and implement best management practices. The REP Team has also prepared a list of safety equipment for mandatory installation at the SHPP. The list is presented in Table 6.

Table 3. Personal Safety Equipment

SAFETY EQUIPMENT - MANDATORY

Hard Hats Eye Protection - Goggles Safety Shoes Work Gloves Eye Wash Station First Aid Kit (for 50 people) Oil Absorbing Pads 15X1 9in minimum weight 100 per case ABS 24,7 gallons quantity boxes Orange Vests Harness for Personnel (inspections/dam work)

11 3 MITIGATION PLAN

SIGNIFICANCE RSOSBLT ACTMTy POTENTIAL & PROBABILITY MITIGATION RESPONSIBILITY MONITORING RESPONSRBILITY RESIDUAL IMPACT OF MEASURES FOR MITIGATION REQUIREMENTS MONITORING IMPACT OCCURRENCE

Repair of the Verify applicability REP Program, spillway and Injury to contractors Safe working Okami of written safe Regional dam at the workers and other Moderate - procedures to be Contractor, working Environmental Negligible - head-works persons during Possible written and followed Community procedures. Ad Office/ SHE Unlikely works by contractor rg hoc inspection of Officers; REP works Program

All waste material to REP Program, Injury to contractors be stored in a secure, Contractor, Okami Regional workers and others Moderate - designated area prior Community Ad hoc Environmental Negligible - from unsafe storage Possible to removal to a organity inspections Office / SHE Unlikely of waste designated waste Organiation Officers; REP landfill site Program Soil contamination Best management from spilled Moderate - practices are Okami Community Ad hoc inspection N - chemicals, liquid Possible implemented by Organization, of the construction REP Program Unlikely concrete, other liquid construction Contractor site materials contractors

Water and soil REP Program, pollution (visual and M Waste to be disposed Okami Community Ad hoc Regional Negligible other) caused by Moderate of at a designated Organization, inspections Environmental Unlikely improper disposal of waste landfill site Contractor Office; REP waste materials Program

12 SIGNIFICANCE RESIDUAL POTENTIAL & PROBABILITY MITIGATION RESPONSIBILITY MONITORING RESPONSIBILITY REQUIREMENTS FOR IMPACT ACTIVITY IMPACT OF MEASURES FOR MITIGATION OCCURRENCE MONITORING

Disturbance to Intlaint eREP Program, reietilaeaoeat chdld u'g Okami Community Ad hoc Regional ModerateUnlikely - caused by noise Installatioroln o bOnetio inspedions Environmental generated during Prbblwormalhur weekdy. Contractor nsetosSHE Officers; Ulkl installation wrighusol.REP Program Avoiding blocking stream flow during construction, avoiding stockpiling soils in REP Program, Increased canal banks and the Regional Moderate - downstream turbidity Moderate - floodplain; Returning REP Program, Ad hoc Environmental Unlikely in the canal and the probable topsoil along the canal Contractor inspections Office river bank and riparian ecosystem to its original location, and restoring land contours Avoiding blocking stream flows; Avoiding stockpiling of Okami Community soil; Organization, Ad hoc REP Program, Inraerso f Low - unlikely Using erosion c-ontrol REP Program, inspections to the gionanliel site e nvionffiace River Stream measures such as Contractor bales to prevent run- Oce offs; Minimizing the use of heavy machinery

13 SIGNIFICANCE POTENTIAL & PROBABILITY MITIGATION RESPONSIBILITY MONITORING RESPONSIBILITY RESIDUAL IMPACT OF MEASURES FOR MITIGATION REQUIREMENTS MONITORING IMPACT OCCURRENCE MNTRN

Installation of net fish Damage to fish screen to prevent REP Program, REP Program, stock including Lo- ukale a a to diestoee REP Program, then periodic Regional Moderate - disruption of fish maintainnikminimaalan esok, Contractor inspections by Environmental Possible spawning ~~~ecological flow in theoprtrOfc river.

Pollution (visual and Waste to be disposed REP Program, Ad hoc Regional other) caused by Moderate - at a designated waste Contractor inspections Environmental Negligible - improper disposal of Possible landfill site Officer, REP Unlikely waste materials Program

Injury to contractors Workers must follow Regional workers from Moderate - safety guidelines and REP Program, Ad Hoc Environmental Negligible - construction Probable if necessary wear Contractor inspections Officer RE Unlikely equipment protective gear Oicers, REP Program

14 SIGNIFICANCE POTENTIAL & PROBABILITY MITIGATION RESPONSIBILITY MONITORING RESPONSIBILITY RESIDUAL FOR IMPACT ACTIVITY IMPACT OF MEASURES FOR MITIGATION REQUIREMENTS OCCURRENCE MONITORING

Modernization Verify applicability REP Program, of powerhouse Injury to contractors Safe working of written safe Regional Negligible - including workers and other Moderate - procedures to be Contractors, working Ad Environmental / Unlikely replacement persons during Possible written and followed Okami Community procedures. of generators works by contractor hoc inspection of SHE Officers and works installation of a turbine, and Injury to contractors Workers must wear REP Program, auxiliary workers from protective glasses, Contractors, Negligible - equipment improper handing of Moderate - masks and gloves Contractors, Ad Hoc Unlikely asbestos or Probable Promote use of glass Okami Community inspections Rayon insulating mineral free (Rock Wool) SHE Officers wool mnrlgas______

All waste material to Injury to contractors be stored in a secure, - workers and others Moderate - designated area prior Contractor Ad hoctosSEonfers Negligible from unsafe storage Possible to removal to a inspections SHE Offcers Unlikely of waste designated waste landfill site (visual and Waste to be disposed Okami Communit AhcRegional Pollution Negligible - other) caused by Moderate - of at a designated Organization, inspec Environmental improper disposal of Possible winspections Unlikely

______waste materials

15 SIGNIFICANCE RSOSBLT ACTIVITY POTENTIAL & PROBABILITY MITIGATION RESPONSIBILITY MONITORING RESPONSIBILITY RESIDUAL IMPACT OF MEASURES FOR MITIGATION REQUIREMENTS MONITORING IMPACT OCCURRENCE

Ditrac oInstallation to be Okami Community REP Program Disturbance to scheduled during Ad hoc Regional Moderate occupiers and normal weekday Organization inspections Environmental / Possible nearby residential working hours only. 'Contractor SHEOffcers areas caused by Moderate - noise generated Probable Equipment is to be during the installed only within REP Program, Inspection at Regional Negligible - installation of suitable buildings/ Contractor commencement Environmental / Unlikely electrical equipment powerhouse (not of works SHE Officers outside)

Daily checks of Kutaisi Regional machinery for leaking Facility Operator Ad hoc inspection Environmental Minor - Possible Oil pollution of soil oil Officer and water at during Moderate - Likely No washing of Regional SHPP operation machinery at the site, Environmental Operation of Operator Ad hoc inspection Offcer Minor - Possible the Okami no oil change at the SHP facility site Reduce plant load to Disruption of fish Moderate - maintain minimal Periodic Regional Ngiil spting Possible ecological flow in the Operator inspection Environmental Negligible - sannPosberiver, during the Ofo spawning season

Restoration of Damage to eco- Regular the switch systems, or habitats M Selection of new line Design Consultant inspection of Regional / Rayon thedswitchreul o Moderate - routes (if any) to avoid Deig oslat construction sites environmental Negligible - electrical lines installation of new Possible sensitive habitats and contractor and operation Officer Unlikely poles zones

16 SIGNIFICANCE POTENTIAL & PROBABILITY MITIGATION RESPONSIBILITY MONITORING RESPONSIBILITY RESIDUAL IMPACT ACTIVITY IMPACT OF MEASURES FOR MITIGATION REQUIREMENTS FOR OCCURRENCE MONITORING

Regular Separation of topsoil inspection of and subsoil during tecigwr Loss of topsoil pole installation, repair and other Regional leading to increased Low- Unlikely or replacement and Contractor operation zones Environmental Minor - Possible soil erosion replacement of topsoil Officer after the poles are installed

Daily checks of Regional machinery for leaking Contractor Ad hoc inspection Environmental Minor - Possible Oil pollution of soil oil Officer and water at Moderate - Likely Regional construction site No washing of Environmental machinery at Contractor Ad hoc inspection Officer Minor - Likely construction site

Works performed Regional Major - Unlikely Noise pollution in the Moderate - strictly during normal Contractor Ad hoc inspection Environmental village Definite weekday working SHE Officer hours . - Visual impact (lines Route alignment to Regional are installed above Major - Definite minimize areas of Design consultant Ad hoc inspection Environmental Negigible - ground) above ground piping Officer Unikely Landscaping and Regular Reduced amenity Moderate - replanting of inspection of Regional / Rayon NeIgbl values of the area Possible construction area after Contractor completed Environmental Ueligkily completion of piping sections of the Officer nlikely works pipeline

17 SIGNIFICANCE RSOSBLT POTENTIAL & PROBABILITY MITIGATION RESPONSIBILITY MONITORING RESPONSIBILITY RESIDUAL ACTIVITY IMPACT OF MEASURES FOR MITIGATION REQUIREMENTS MONITORING IMPACT OCCURRENCE

Only fully trained Connection of personnel to carry out Regular Inspector from electrical lines Damage caused by . - installations according Utility Company / inspections by regulatory Major - Unlikely to homes / electrical shocks to Major - Possible to industry best Contractor regulatory authority apartments practice guidance and authority standards

Major - Possible Regular Inspector from Utility Company / inspections of regulatory Contractor installations authority records

Safety information to Company / Reular Inspector from Major - Unlikely be given to Uotilityompn insRegulars regulatory householders Cotatrisetosauthority

Trained professional Inspector from to inspect, clean, and Utility Company / Follow up regulatory adjust equipment Contractor inspections authority every year

18 4. MONITORING PLAN

The Monitoring Plan presents a number of criteria against which monitoring indicators are set. Monitoring Categories

Criteria Descriptor Evidence

Regulatory Compliance: The facility complies with the The facility, or proposed facility, *The project owners have obtained all requirements of national has all the necessary required construction and operation environment, health and safety permissions and permits permits and licenses including an laws and regulations. required under Georgian environmental permit. national laws and regulations. * The REP Program in cooperation with the project owner prepared the Programmatic Environmental Assessment and developed an environmental management plan per requirement of the project sponsors (USAID, EBRD). Water Flow: The facility maintains a * Maintain minimum wetted * The project owner has obtained a minimum ecological flow in the channel perimeters, at all water use permit river that is adequate for the control structures, with a existing fish population, wildlife constant flow in the river rate to assure that the minimal and water quality taking into throughout the year. ecological flow is maintained. account seasonal fluctuations in flow levels. * Facility operation schedules to be based on the minimum ecological flow required to sustain the existing environment.

19 Criteria Descriptor Evidence

Water Quality: The facilities operations do not contribute to the deterioration of The facility has minimal impact Best management practices on water quality either upstream or Tefclt a iia mat Bs aaeetpatcso downstream of the facility, on water quality at the head- hydropower construction are followed. Y- works, canal, tailrace and The facility will not contributed to the diversion dam. deterioration of water quality after the completion of the construction activities.

Fish Population Protection:

The facility had minimal impact * There should be minimal loss * Information has been gathered on both on local fish populations, of fish or fish habitat. the local and migratory fish provides effective fish passage populations; for local and migrating fish * Facility preserves fish species and also protects fish population. * The project design includes fish from entrainment. * Facility construction and screens; operation do not limit fish * The project design includes adequate movement, migration and mitigation measures to ensure that fish spawning. protection criteria are met. * Flows at the intake and downstream of the tailrace are adequate to support aquatic and riparian species in the facility area.

20 Criteria Descriptor Evidence

Watershed Protection: The facility does not negatively * The facility does not affect the * An assessment of impacts associated impact environmental integrity of the existing with additional components has been conditions in the watershed. ecosystem either upstream or made. downstream of the facility. * An assessment of upstream and * Facilities components and downstream impacts has been made. infrastructure (e.g. access . . roads, power lines, and * Adequate midtgation measures have generation facilities) have been provided to ensure the eligibility minimal impact on the riparian criteria are met. environment.

Threatened & Endangered Species Protection: * The facility is not constructed * Sensitive or protected areas on or The facility does not negatively on a protected or sensitive around the river have been identified. impact any threatened or river. endangered species nor any .* Endangered or threatened species areas designated for their * The facility does not threaten present in the area of, or downstream protection. or harm the habitat or from, the facility have been identified. migratory routes of endangered species. * The REP Environmental team has p . assessed the potential impact of the * The facility has no significant facility on any such areas or species. impact on the existing wildlife habiatppultion. nd *The project design provides for adequate mitigation measures to ensure that the criteria are met.

21 Criteria Descriptor Evidence

Recreation: The facility does not stop or limit recreational uses of the Access to the water remains Identification of any current recreational river. unchanged with the facility uses of the river around the site and and accommodates confirmation that these uses will not be recreational activities on the affected by the development of the river. facility. Cultural Issues: The facilitydoes not Cultural property includes No cultural sites or property in the inappropriatelyimpact sites having archaeological vicinity of the facility has been cultural property (prehistoric), paleonthological, identified. historical, religious and unique natural values. Cultural property includes remains left by previous human inhabitants and unique natural features such as canyons and waterfalls. Community Issues: The facilitydoes not reduce The facility does not prevent . Local community uses of the river have local community use of either or limit the local community been identified. the river or the surrounding from access to the river as a oThe locally affected community has lands. communal leisure amenity, been notified and consulted prior to the and the irrigation facility development of the facility.

. Adequate mitigation measures have been agreed to ensure that eligibility criteria are met..

22 ANNEX A. ENVIRONMENTAL SCREENING OF THE OKAMI PROJECT SITE

ENVIRONMENTAL SCREENING ANALYSIS - SMALL HYDROPOWER PLANTS 1) General Information

Project Name Okami SHP Type of project Completion of previously started construction Location (district / region) Region-Shida Kartli, District- Kaspi, Village-Okami Ownership Private Surrounding Present Land Use [ X ]Agriculture [ X ] Residential [ ] Tourism [ Industrial [] Forest Land [ ] Institutional [ Commercial [ ] Open Spaces ] Others, pis. Specify: Installed Capacity (kW) 1,600 kW Project Cost (USD) $502,000 2) General Construction Activities

Is there and impact because / to Construction Operation and Maintenance Construction / rehabilitation of structures and buildings? N N Construction / rehabilitation of access roads? N N Construction / rehabilitation of transmission lines? N N Temporary sites used for construction works or housing of Y N construction workers? Significant risk associated with waste transport? N N Inadequate waste disposal facilities? Y N Include grading, trenching, or excavation > 1.0 hectares N N Conducted near geologic hazards (faults, landslides, N N liquefaction, un-engineered fill, etc)? Require offsite overburden / waste disposal or borrow pits N N >1.0 ton? Cause loss of high quality farmlands > 10 hectares N N Require the use of dangerous / hazardous substances (e.g. Y Y oil, lubricants, chemicals; pls. Specify)? Require an oil / lubricants collection and disposal system? Y Y Increase vehicle trips > 20% or cause substantial Y N congestion? Cause or contribute to safety hazards? Y Y Inadequate access or emergency access for anticipated N N volume of people or traffic? Produce solid wastes during construction or operation or Y N decommissioning?

23 Is there and impact because / to Construction Operation and Maintenance Involve actions that will cause physical changes in the locality (topography, land use, changes in water bodies, etc)? 3) Geology and Soils

Is there and impact because / to Construction Operation and Maintenance Earthquakes, subsidence, landslides or erosion? N N Movement of soil? Y N Rates of erosion or siltation by wind or water? N N Management of excess soil or spoil material (from mining)? N N Physical degradation of the local environment? N N 4) Water Resources

Is there and impact because / to Construction Operation and Maintenance Risks of contamination of land or water from releases of Y N pollutants onto the ground or into sewers, surface waters, groundwater, coastal waters or the sea? Run-off as a result of the hardening of surfaces, or loss of the N N sponge effect of vegetation? Flooding or extreme or adverse climatic conditions? Y Y Ability to absorb run-off? N N Changes to flood plains? N N Quantity of surface water, groundwater or public water N Y supplies? Threats to hydrological functioning through existing or altered N N water extraction? Withdrawals from or discharges to surface or ground water? N N Threats through existing or altered impoundment N N construction? Conservational or recreational value of rivers, streams, lakes, N N wetlands, dams or islands? Threats through existing or altered pollution? N N Threats through existing or altered turbidity? Y Y Threats through existing or altered agricultural run-off? N N Threats through existing or altered chemical processes or N N nutrient balances? Threats through existing or altered changes in sediment flows N N and siltation rates? Changes through existing or altered canalization? N N River, stream or lake onsite or within 30 meters of Y Y construction? Excavation or place of fill, removing gravel from a river, Y Y stream or lake?

24 Is there and impact because / to Construction Operation and Maintenance Onsite storage of liquid fuels or hazardous materials in bulk N N quantities? Decreased water flow that may change the flooding regime, N N resulting in the destruction of wetlands? Decrease in downstream water flow that may affect N Y downstream users (human, fisheries, and wildlife)? 5) Bioloaical Resources

Is there and impact because / to Construction Operation and Maintenance Important, high quality or scarce resources that could be N Y affected by the project? Located in a Protected Area or Wildlife Corridor? N N Inundate or remove wetland habitats? N N Survival of rare or endangered plant species? N N Diversity of plant communities? N N Vegetation communities of conservation or scientific N N importance? Natural replenishment of existing species? N Y Firewood collection? N N Overexploitation of biological resources? N N Survival of rare or endangered animals? N N Diversity of animal communities? N N Natural migration of species? N N Introduction of alien species? N N Loss of native species or genetic diversity? N N Vegetation removal or construction in wetlands or riparian N N areas > 1.0 hectare? Use of pesticides / rodenticides, insecticides, or herbicides > N N 1.0 hectare? Construction in or adjacent to a designated wildlife refuge? N N Decreased water flow that may change the flooding regime, N N resulting in the destruction of wetlands? Decrease in downstream water flow that may affect N Y downstream users (human, fisheries, and wildlife)? Re-entry pipe cause increased scouring of stream bank N N where water is returned to the stream? Flora and / or fauna of ecological or commercial significance N N to be found?

25 6) Socioeconomic Issues

Is there and impact because / to Construction Operation and Maintenance Existing settlements in the vicinity of the proposed project? Y Y Existing land uses on or around the project that could be N N affected by the project? Areas on or around the location of the project that are N N already subject to pollution or environmental damage? Permanent or temporary change in land use, land cover or N N topography including increases in intensity of land use? Social infrastructures located in or near the project area N N (e.g., schools, health canters / clinics, places of worship, others? Social acceptability of the project (community, government, N N non-governmental organizations)? Visual and odor effects of waste sites? N N Risk to the community and the local environment should the N Y facility break down? Potential conflict with adjacent land uses? N N Non-compliance with existing codes, plans, permits or N N design factors? Construction in national park or designated recreational N N area? Relocation of >10 individuals for +6 months? N N Interrupt necessary utility or municipal service > 10 N N individuals for + 6 months? Loss or inefficient use of mineral or non-renewable N N resources? Noise levels > 5 decibels for + 3 months? N N Adverse visual impact when compared to the surrounding N N natural landscape? Affect future land uses on or around the location? N N Are there any areas on or around the location that are N N densely populated or built-up, which could be affected by the project? Highly visible to many people? N N Lead to pressure for consequential project that could have N Y significant impact on the environment (e.g. more housing, new roads, new supporting industries or utilities, etc)? Cumulative effects due to proximity to other existing or N N planned projects with similar effects? Social changes, for example, in demography, traditional Y Y lifestyles, and employment?

26 7) Cultural Issues

Is there and impact because / to Construction Operation and Maintenance Prehistoric, historic, or paleontological resources within 30 N N meters of construction? Unique cultural or ethnic values at the site? N N 8) Public Health issues

Will the project affect... Construction Operation and Maintenance Human or community health or welfare? Y Y The quality or toxicity of air, water, foodstuffs and other N N products consumed by humans? Morbidity or mortality of individuals, communities or Y Y populations by exposure to pollution? Occurrence or distribution of disease vectors including N N insects? Vulnerability of individuals, communities or populations to N N disease? Individuals' sense of personal security? Y N Community cohesion and identity? N N Cultural identity and associations? N N Minority rights? N N Housing conditions? N N Employment and quality of employment? Y Y Economic conditions? Y Y Social institutions? Y Y Cause accidents that could affect human health or the Y Y environment? - From explosions, spillages, fires etc? Y Y - From storage, handling, use or production of hazardous Y Y or toxic substances? Be affected by natural disasters causing environmental N N damage (e.g floods, earthquakes, landslip, etc)? Vulnerable groups of people who could be affected by the Y Y project (e.g. hospital patients, the elderly)?

27 9) Air Quality

Is there and impact because / to Construction Operation and Maintenance Onsite air pollutant emissions? Y N Violation of applicable air pollutant emissions or ambient N N concentration standards? Vehicle traffic during construction or operation? Y N Demolition or blasting for construction? N N Odor during construction or operation? N N Alteration of microclimate? N N Release pollutants or any hazardous, toxic or noxious Y N substances to air? - Emissions from combustion of fossil fuels from stationary Y N or mobile sources? - Emissions from materials handling including storage or N N transport? - Emissions from construction activities including plant and Y N equipment? - Dust or odors from handling of materials including Y N construction materials, sewage and waste? - Emissions from burning of waste in open air (eg slash N N material, construction debris)? 10) Noise and Vibration

Is there and impact because / to Construction Operation and Maintenance Noise and vibration or release of light, heat energy or Y Y electromagnetic radiation? - From operation of equipment (e.g. engines, ventilation Y Y plant, crushers)? - From construction or demolition? Y N - From blasting or piling? N N - From construction or operational traffic? Y N - From sources of electromagnetic radiation? N N

28 ANNEX B. PHYSICAL AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT

1. Physical Environment Geoloav The village Okami is located in the Shida Kartli Region of Eastern Georgia in the River Ksani basin (left tributary of the Mtkvari River). The main orographic segment of the region is the Trialety ridge (the highest point is Mount Oboli Kide with the altitude of 2083 m above the sea level). Middle part of the region is dominated by plains constructed by clay shale from Crataceous period, and with deeply cut valleys formed by the Mtkvari River and its tributaries. Slopes of the mount Kvernaky surround the Northern part of the Mukhrani valley (the highest altitude - 1097 m) (Atlas of Georgia, 1984). Geo Hazards The region is considered an active seismic zone. The seismicity of the region is rated an 8 'eight' using the MKS scale (Medvedov-Sponheuer-Karnic Scale) (Map of seismic hazard assessment of Georgia, 2006). Soils Soils are very diverse in the region. Alluvial soils dominate the plains along with steppe terrestrial vegetation. On the upper part terraces and ranges, black earth ("Chernozem") is found (Map of Soil Types of Georgia, 1999). Climate The climate is subtropical with moderately cold winters and hot summers. The average annual temperature on the plain is 110 Celsius, on the mountainous area - 7,70 Celsius. The absolute maximum air temperature is +370, while minimum is -37 0. The total annual precipitation averages 608 millimeters. Hydrology Okami SHP is constructed on the Tezi-Okami irrigation system (with flow rate Q = 6.5 m3/sec). Water is diverted into the irrigation system from the Ksani river. Ksani river rises on the southern slopes of Greater Caucasus mountain range and flows into the Kura River. Ksani river as well as other left tributaries of the Kura river (Prone, Liakhvi, Lekhura, Ksani, Aragvi and others) is used for irrigation purposes. Annual water discharge rates of the Ksani river are presented below in Table 4.

Table 4: The Average Annual Water Discharge Rate in the River Ksani, m3/sec

Parameters I II III IV V VI VI I Vil| IX X Xi XII Average Natural flow 4.10 5.16 10.9 20.1 21.4 19.2 10.5 7.92 6.57 5.55 4.96 4.49 10.2 (m3/sec) Maximum 7.67 8.91 24.2 34.0 35.9 48.0 21.1 25.4 12.9 9.88 9.98 9.86 15.2 monthly average Minimum 2.24 2.80 3.54 7.46 9.79 6.24 5.72 3.41 2.53 2.84 2.42 2.12 6.14 monthly average

29 Vegetation The region vegetation compositions and origins are complex. In the past, oak (Quercus iberica), beech (Fagus orientalis), and hornbeam (Carpinus caucasica) forests prevailed the area. Presently this floral diversity to a big extent was diminished due to illegal logging, firewood cutting and other human activities in the region. Large area is covered by the steppe like vegetation with forest elements (Encyclopedia of Georgia, 1984). Floodplain forests are found along the river Ksani and it's tributaries. Dominant floral species include willow (Salix pentandra), poplar (Populus tremula and Populus nigra), oak (Quercus pedunculiflora). The sub-forest layer is formed by such species as black fruit thorn (Crataegus pentagyna) and sea buckthorn (Hippophae rhamnoides). Steppe dominates the region terrestrial ecology including some fragmented forests. Main floral species include christ's thorn (Paliurus spina-christi), Jerusalem thom (Rhamnus pallasii), blackthorn (Prunus spinosa), european hackberry (Celtis caucasica). Non- wooded plants: fescue (Festuca pratensis) and peony (Paeonia tenuifolia) etc. Woundwort, an herb species endemic to Georgia (Gallantus alpinus and Gallantus latifolius) (CITES list) is found in the vicinities of the village Okami. Mammals As a result of significant anthropogenic activities, biodiversity of local fauna is rather poor in the region (Encyclopedia of Georgia, 1984). The following mammals are found in the vicinities of the Okami village including bear (Ursus arctos - Red Book of Georgia National category-EN), badger (Meles meles), wolf (Canis lupus), fox (Vulpes vulpes), marten (Martes martes), wild boar (Sus scrofa), roe deer (Capreolus capreolus) and hare (Lepus europeus). Common vole (Microtus arvalis) is a dominating rodent species (Atlas of Georgia, 1984). Avifauna Avifauna is represented by species typical for the steppe area dominated by the following avian species: black-eared wheatear (Oenanthe hispanica), shrike (Lanius collurio), rock-bunting (Emberiza cia) and hoppoes (Upupa epops). In the area there found nests of imperial eagle (Aquila heliaca), which is included in the IUCN Red List of threatened species. Black grouse (Tetrao mlokosieviczl) and partridge inhabit In the neighboring Trialeti mountains (Perdix perdix) (Jordania R., Boeme B., Kuznetsov A., 1 999). Reptiles Limited information on reptiles is available for this area. In the vicinities of the river Okami such species as snake (Natrix natrix and Natrix tessellate), and european glass lizard (Ophisaurus apodus) were reported (Georgian Encyclopedia, 1984). Fish The following fish species were reported in the Okami river: trout (Salmo fario - Red book of Georgia, Statute-VU), and barbell (Barbus lacera cyri and Barbus mursa) (Elanidze, R. 1988). Spawning periods for the major fish species found in the river are noted in Table below.

30 Table 5. Okami River Fish Spawning Periods

Fish Spawning Period Trout September-October Barbell May-August

2. Socio-Economic Environment

Population and settlements: Okami community is located at 26 km from the Shida Kartli regional center, Kaspi. The community (Sakrebulo) of Okami includes 6 villages (Okami, Tezi, lgoeti, Mrgvali Chala, ferma, Tchangilari). At present 670 households and 1350 persons are registered in the community. The community is 100% of Georgian Orthodox (Department of Statistics, Tbilisi, 2003). Land Tenure: The community holds 700 hectares of agriculture lands. The most important domestic animals are cattle (about 500-520 units) and pigs (about 600-650 units). Other domestic animals include poultry (200), horses (30) and donkeys (50). Income and EmDlovment: The primary employment of Okami residents is small-scale agricultural activities: vegetable produce and fruits, cattle breeding. Low percent of local population is employed in a trading (markets in Tbilisi, Mtskheta and Gori) business. The local manufacturing and processing sector includes one sawmill and one bread bakery. One pig farm is also in operation. Attitude towards the completion and commencement of the hvdroDower Dlant The Okami community residents support the completion of the hydropower plant. After the commencement of the plant the village of Okami will receive electricity for households and local businesses (8,000 people). Employment is by far the most important perceived benefit related to potentially enhanced engagement of local population in agricultural processing industries. Social Infrastructure In the community there are two secondary schools, an ambulatory and a social and entertainment club. The community has a centralized water supply system. The Shida Kartli Distribution Company supplies electricity from grid to the local community. Reliability of electricity supply remains an acute problem during both summer and in winter periods. The local population uses kerosene, candle and diesel fueled power generators as alternative energy sources. There is no centralized gas supply to the community.

31 El-EL IWINROCK WS INT.ERNATIONAL FROM THE AMERICAN PEOPLE Putting Ideas to Work

RURAL ENERGY PROGRAM COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT NO. 114-A-00-05-00106-00 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR KABALI SMALL HYDROPOWER REHABILITATION PROJECT

,Iw - 8 't

i - .' I ;I. ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR KABALI SMALL HYDROPOWER REHABILITATION PROJECT

Prepared for: USAID / Caucasus 25 Atoneli Street 0105 Tbilisi, Georgia

Prepared by: Rural Energy Program 26 Dzmebi Kakabadzeebi Street, Tbilisi, 0105, Georgia Tel: +995 32 50 63 43 Fax: +995 32 93 53 52 TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. Introduction ...... 2 2. Kabali small hydropower project (kabali community) ...... 5 3. Environmental Review ...... 10 4. Mitigation Plan ...... 16 5. Monitoring Plan ...... 22 Annex A. Environmental Screening of the Kbali Project Site ...... 24 Annex B. Physical and Socio-Economic Environment ...... 30 Annex C. Geological Evaluation of the Kabali SHP site ...... 33 1. INTRODUCTION

The USAID-sponsored Rural Energy Program (formerly known as the Renewable Energy and Environment Development Program, or REED) in Georgia aims at developing in-country capacity to increase the utilization of small hydropower resources and realization of energy efficiency potential in rural Georgia. The primary objectives of the Rural Energy Program include 1) increased supply of energy to rural areas (both grid connected and off-grid); 2) improved management of local energy production; 3) improved in-country capacity to develop and deploy renewable energy applications in rural communities; and 4) improved capacity to more efficiently utilize and protect the local energy resource base. The Rural Energy Program envisions the implementation of a number of pilot projects in such areas as small, mini and micro hydropower installations, extensions of natural gas distribution networks, renewable energy systems (other than small, mini and micro hydro facilities), and natural resource management programs. Rural Energy Program activities as funded by a federal government agency, USAID, are subject to applicable U.S. environmental laws, and regulations including USAID's environmental impact assessment procedures. These procedures intend to implement the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1970. Title 22 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 216 (so called 22 CFR 216), applies to all USAID programs, projects, activities and substantive amendments. To comply with 22 CFR 216, the Rural Energy Program environmental team completed a Programmatic Environmental Assessment (PEA) for the Rural Energy Program in March of 2006. USAID approved the PEA for further implementation. The PEA scope contained (a) a definition of environmental screening criteria for a set of projects similar in size, range and magnitude of impacts, and (b) characterization of common mitigation measures for each project type to alleviate the recognized impacts. Projects that did not share common attributes (such as medium and large hydropower projects, projects located in national parks, or projects which raised substantial issues regarding wetlands or sensitive habitats that would require a separate Environmental Assessment) were not addressed in the PEA. The PEA evaluated four types of projects considered for investment under the Rural Energy Program. These included the following project categories: * Small-scale hydropower plants; * Community natural gas (NG) distribution systems; * Renewable energy/ energy efficiency projects; and * Natural resource management projects. Work completed by the PA Environmental Scoping Team set the stage for the PEA. Issues identified during preparation of the Rural Energy Program Scoping Statement (Appendix E) were examined by the multidisciplinary PEA Team through literature reviews, stakeholder interviews, multiple field evaluations and environmental screening analyses. Through a process of integrating issues identified through scoping with information collected in literature reviews, regulatory reviews, interviews, field and screening evaluations, the PEA Team identified environmental aspects that had to be addressed in the PEA.

2 The environmental aspects presented in the PEA included the following subjects: * Geology and Soils * Water Resources * Biological Resources * Socioeconomics (including Public Health) * Cultural Resources. The PEA also simplified environmental due diligence for the preparation of environmental management plans (including mitigation and monitoring plans) for a larger set of activities expected under the Rural Energy Program. Due to the completion of the Programmatic Environmental Assessment for the entire Rural Energy Program, it was unnecessary to define environmental significance ranking criteria for each individual environmental management plan. The unified significance criteria elaborated in the PEA were utilized for the environmental impact ranking presented in individual environmental management plans. An environmental management plan for each project is based on a specific environmental review conducted at each project site. The review process was designed to specify environmental impacts characteristic of each project site attributable to either construction or operational phases of project implementation. The mitigation options are aligned with the general mitigation recommendations specified in the PEA. The Environmental Management Plans (EMP) consists of a set of mitigation, monitoring, and institutional measures to be taken into account during implementation and operation to eliminate adverse environmental and social impacts, offset them, or reduce them to acceptable levels. The plans also include actions needed to implement these measures. EMPs identify feasible and cost-effective measures that may reduce potentially significant adverse environmental impacts to acceptable levels. Specifically, the EMPs include the following: (a) Summaries of all anticipated significant adverse environmental impacts (including those involving indigenous people or involuntary resettlement); (b) Descriptions (with technical details) of each mitigation measure, including the type of impact to which it relates and the conditions under which it is required (e.g., continuously or in the event of contingencies), together with designs, equipment descriptions, and operating procedures, as appropriate; (c) Estimates of any potential environmental impacts of these measures; and (d) Linkages with any other mitigation plans (e.g., for involuntary resettlement, indigenous peoples, or cultural property) required for the project. The monitoring section of the EMP provides the following information: (a) A specific description and technical details of monitoring measures, including the parameters to be measured, methods to be used, sampling locations, frequency of measurements, detection limits (where appropriate), and definition of thresholds that will signal the need for corrective actions; and (b) Monitoring and reporting procedures to ensure early detection of conditions that necessitate particular mitigation measures.

3 It was assumed that a legislative and regulatory framework is identical for all projects and was already discussed in the Programmatic Environmental Assessment for the Rural Energy Program. Obtaining accurate natural resource, ecological health and employment-related statistics in any part of Georgia is extremely difficult. Also, local hospitals and other institutions do not keep health records and are unwilling to discuss or acknowledge health problems. For these reasons, it was not been possible to analyze any data related to public health issues including environmental and occupational health statistics in the project communities. 2. KABALI SMALL HYDROPOWER PROJECT (KABALI COMMUNITY) Kabali SHP had been examined and included in the PEA report prepared in March 2006. The specific project environmental impact categories and mitigation recommendations were identified during a second site visit completed by the Rural Energy Program environmental team in December 2006. The proposed mitigation measures are in line with the common recommendations outlined in the PEA. The Kabali SHP is located on the left bank of the Kabali River, eight kilometers from the village of Baisubani in the Lagodekhi district of the Kakheti Region in Eastern Georgia. Figure 1. Location of Kabali SHP in East Georgia

The Kabali SHP was built in the early 1950s and began operation in 1953. From 1953 till 2001 the hydropower plant supplied 1,500 kW of electricity to the surrounding villages. The plant was closed in 2001. The current owner of the Kabali hydropower plant is Kablihesi 2006 Ltd, who bought all assets from Electrokompania Ltd in 2006. In 2001, the owner of the project financed minor renovation works of the three turbine/generator units. The layout of the area surrounding the facility is presented in Figure 2 below.

5 Figure 2. Layout of the Kabali Small Hydropower Plant

------. t Rwver kbah

. !M

1_ _E ' 4 - - R

,tji.Us

.-

Headwork's Penstock (in riverbed) Turbine-Generators, Powerhouse Planned project works are outlined in the Kabali Business Plan prepared by the Rural Energy Program engineering team in cooperation with the project owner. The Rural Energy Program engineering team visited the site and summarized the status of the hydropower infrastructure as follows: • The low height diversion weir is 5.4 meters high and 66 meters long. The weir is equipped with an emergency spillway and flow-regulating gate. * A tyrol-type settling basin with the bottom based flashing facility is 3 meters high, 4 meters wide and 22 meters long. This structure has a second water inlet to allow the plant to continue to operate with limited capacity when repair works are needed for the diversion weir. The settling basin is equipped with the trash rack and flashing and flow regulating gates. The settling basin serves as a forebay tank as well. * Water from the settling basin flows into the 2,300-meter long, and 1100-mm in diameter penstock, which conveys water to the horizontal sefting hydro units in the powerhouse. P Water is discharged back to the Kabali River through the 190-meter long tailrace.

6 The project design documents specify the following activities to be completed at the project site: * Rehabilitation of the powerhouse (repairing of the roof, walls, and floor, installing of a glass wall in the control room) and cleaning and improving the powerhouse yard; * Rehabilitation of the hydro-mechanical equipments; * Rehabilitation of the weir; * Rehabilitation of the tyrol-type water intake dam; * Repair of the settling basin and spillway; * Repair of the emergency spillway, flashing and flow regulating gates; * Rehabilitation of the penstock (arrangement of a flood protection wall for penstock); * Rehabilitation of the access road (from the SHP building to the headwork's (about 100 m distance); * Rehabilitation of the tailrace; * Cleaning the river bed in the upper and lower pools of the dam; * Restoration of the switch yard; * Extending a portable water pipeline to the SHP territory; and * Electrical wiring. Civil works associated with the rehabilitation of the low height diversion weir include the following activities: * De-watering the intake pool using gabions or soil embankments. This action will allow drying of the section of the weir for the rehabilitation works; * Removing debris from the de-watered section; * Constructing wooden forms into which concrete will be poured and adding steel bars as required by the design; * Removing and repairing the water intake and emergency spillway gates; * Removing wooden forms after concrete is dry and set; * On-site concrete mixing and forming; * Reinstalling the water intake and emergency spillway gates; * Collecting and disposing all debris, construction waste, scrap and remaining construction materials in designated disposal sites. The water intake which represents a concrete pool with a number of emergency and flow regulating gates requires the following rehabilitation: * Removing debris from the water intake pool; * Constructing wooden forms for concrete and adding steel bars as required in the design; * Removing all gates and sending them for repairs; * Removing wooden forms after concrete is dry and set; * Performing concrete testing; * Installing the repaired water flow regulating gate; * Performing testing of the water intake pool for leaks by filling it with water and closing the gate; * In case of minor leaks, filling in the gaps with concrete; * Disposing of all debris, scrap and left over construction materials in a designated disposal site; and * Equipping the settling basin with safety handrails or netting fences. The above-listed works shall be started and completed within the same timeframe, as the diversion weir works. This will assure that, in the event of flooding during the repair of the diversion weir, the rehabilitated system will be able to absorb some of the flood flow.

7 Kabali SHP penstock requires rehabilitation. The quality of the metal in the penstock will be inspected and weaker sections shall be replaced according to the instructions in the technical design. The penstock was damaged during recent flooding. In order to prevent future damage, it is planned to conduct the riverbed along the penstock and construct flood protection gabions of 600 m length. The penstock rehabilitation includes following activities: * Removing the damaged section of the penstock using gas-welding equipment; * Welding of the new sections using mobile electric welding machine; * Reinforcing the supports of the penstock according the instruction in the design; * After completion of the above-mentioned works, re-watering penstock and monitoring for a specific period of time (two days +/-) to identify and repair the leaks; * Painting the penstock using water-based anticorrosion paint; and * Disposing all debris, scrub and left over construction materials in an approved manner.

The tailrace at the Kabali SHP needs rehabilitation including the following activities: * De-watering the joint section between the pipeline and canal gabions. This action will allow drying of the section for the rehabilitation works; * Removing debris and sedimentation from the canal and tailrace; * Constructing wooden forms for concrete and adding steel bars as required by the design; * Removing wooden forms and waiting until concrete is dry and set; * Testing concrete using special test equipment; * Filling the tailrace and canal with water and testing for leaks; * In case of minor leaks, filling in the gaps with concrete; and * Disposing of all debris, scrap and left over construction materials at a designated disposal site and in an approved manner; and * Equipping the tailrace with safety handrails or netting fences. When all rehabilitation works are completed, the entire hydro system will be re-watered and monitored for a period of time specified in the design to identify and repair leaks. Installation of electrical equipment: The Kabali SHP project envisages the restoration of the turbines and generator and rehabilitation of the power distribution and control panels. The following works are planed to be conducted: * Removing of the turbines and sending their parts for repairs: casing, runner, shaft, bearings, flywheel, and governor. The draft tube and base plate may require repair in the powerhouse. The generator may be removed and sent for rewinding; * Replacing the old wiring with the new one; * Removing the old and non-functioning equipment and replacing it with modern, more efficient equipment; * Repairing of the transformers, feeders, bus bars, transmission poles, and power lines; * Securing the territory of the powerhouse with proper fencing and safety signs indicating types of potential hazards; and * Posting high voltage signs to indicate a threat of electrocution in the powerhouse and on the powerhouse and switch yards.

8 Table 1. Electrical Equipment to be Installed at the Kabali SHP Project

Stationary Equipment

Generator Regulator Control DC board Battery station with charging device Unit control equipment

9 3. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The Rural Energy Program environmental team visited the site in December 2006 to assess the current environmental conditions and complete the screening analysis of potential environmental impacts. The following sections contain an analysis of the significance of the various potential environmental impacts associated with the project, and, where applicable, describe the mitigation measures (including monitoring) which are needed to address the identified impacts. The results of the screening exercise at the Kabali SHP project site are presented in Annex 1. Issues which were determined to be insignificant or irrelevant following the screening analysis (in compliance with the significance criteria outlined in the PEA) are shown in Table 2 below. Table 2: Potential Environmental Impacts Excluded From Further Analysis Construction Phase Issues Reasons for Exclusion Disruption to wildlife or sensitive ecological habitats Rehabilitation of the existing scheme and no significant habitats in the vicinity Disruption of local movement and access to roads Most works will be away from village roads and Irelatively of small-scale Operational Phase Disturbance or threat to important ecological habitats, Rehabilitation of the existing infrastructure and no including protected ecosystems (e.g. national parks) significant habitats in the vicinity Salt water intrusion Not aplicable Impediment to movement of livestock and humans Rehabilitation of the existing infrastructure, and no activities that hinder movement of livestock and human are planed Threat to historic, cultural and aesthetic sites and Rehabilitation of the existing infrastructure, and no features land acquisition Based on the conducted environmental review including environmental screening of the Kabali SHP project site, significant environmental impacts related to the assessed environmental aspects are identified and presented below. It is necessary to note that the identified impacts have moderate to low probabiity for occurance. Thus such impacts should be mitigated and prevented through following best management, construction and operational practices. The Mitigation Plan for the Kabali SHP outlines major mitigation activities associated with each impact. Below there is a list of environemntal impacts that were identified as moderate or significant for each environemtal aspect proposed in the PEA. The impact list is acoompanied with a set of measures recommended to mitigate the impacts. 1) Geology and Soil Construction: 4 Moderate to low impact from disturbance of topsoil and aggravation of erosion during the construction phase. Technical design, envisages earth excavation activities of approximately 250-300 m3 of soil for cannal and forebay tank clean-up works. Minor quantities of the localy available rver gravel will be

10 used in construction activities as an addition to cement, construction gravel and sand mixture. Mitigation measures: 4 Proper landscaping of slopes and replanting vegetation. Construction: A The Kabali SHP might have some geological impact during the construction of the low head weir. Mitigation measures: A geological study of the project has been carried out and results are provided in Annex C. The recommended mitigation measures include: a Maintenance of the riparian vegetation. 4' Extraction of coarse material from the riverbed. s Use of sediment trapping devices. 4 Construction supervision by geological engenieer. Operation: -. Moderate to low impact of soil contamination during the opeartion activiites. This impact is realted to improper handling of chemicals, lubricants and transformer oils during the operation. Mitigation mesures: s Regular checking for oil leaks in the machinery. 4 No mashinery washing at the site.

,1 Subcontracting professional services for regular oil change in transformers.

2) Water Resources Construction: 4- Increased Turbidity Downstream of the Headworks Construction. Construction activities require excavation, removal and movement of soil, gravel and rocks from the riverbed (i.e. creating embankments), and concrete mixing (i.e. large construction areas). The above activities will potentially generate high levels of suspended solids that will increase turbidity downstream of the weir. 4 Increased Erosion of the Kabali River Stream. Construction activities at the headwors involve excavation, removal and movement of soil, gravel or rocks from the riverbed (e.g. create new embankments) and impoundments. A significant amount of concrete mixing is needed as well (i.g. large construction areas). These activities will potentially increase erosion of the river stream (in case the excavated soil is piled inappropriately). This in turn may increase sedimentation of the waterway and generate changes to the floodplains. Mitigation Measures:

11 4. Avoid blocking stream flow during construction to eliminate the potential for flooding upstream to the weir and to increase the level of suspended solids coming from the floodplain. 4. Avoid stockpiling soils on the river banks and the floodplains to minimize soil moving through run-off. ,4 Use concrete blocks instead of soil (where feasible) for temporary stream diversion to reduce soil movement and stream sedimentation. 4. Restore landscaping and replant vegetation at the river bank and within the riparian ecosystem to its original form. 4. Employ proper drainage techniques to prevent surface submersion. 4. Avoid construction during wet seasons where possible; activities should be scheduled to reduce the duration of construction during the wet season. Operation: 4. Reduced conservational value of the Kabali River. During the operational phase water is diverted to the Kabali SHP. This will reduce the water flow between the diversion gates and the tailrace. The reduction of water flow in this segment of the river might cause changes in the flooding pattern as well as adverse impacts on the fish population, especially in the dry season. After rehabilitation of the Kabali SHP it is planned to expand electricity generation capacity by 500 kW, thus more water will be diverted to the SHP, which might aggravate the impact. 4. Increased turbidity downstream of the weir: regular maintenance of the facility requires cleaning of weir from sediments once a year. Above activity will release soil and debris downstream and increase turbidity. Mitigation measures: 4. Use best management practices to preserve water quality during maintenance activities (e.g. provision of silt traps, stockpiling of soil and debris taken from the weir away from riverbanks, maintaining as much as possible of the riparian vegetation, etc). 4. Proper scheduling of activities: planning maintenance activities during the dry season to minimize erosion and scheduling the placement of sediment capturing devices and key runoff control measures before major land disturbing activities to minimize sediment release. 4A.Use biodegradable compounds for pipe/tunnel cleaning, watershed treatment etc. 3) BiologicalResources Construction: 4. Impact on Fish Spawning. If the construction activities are scheduled for the spring (May-June) and beginning of the fall season (September - October), these works can disrupt fish spawning in the area, creating a negative effect on the fish population. 4. Impact on the aquatic species. The construction phase involves temporary diversion of the stream from the weir. Blocking of the stream flow will dry the

12 canal between the weir and the tailrace discharge point, which will cause significant impact on the aquatic species. Mitigation measures: 4. Maintain a minimal sustainable river flow (minimum ecological flow) to sustain the river hydrology pattern, water quality, existing fish population and wildlife (according to seasonal fluctuations in flow levels). 4 Maintain minimum wet channel perimeters at all control structures with a constant flow in the river throughout the year. a Avoid construction works during the fish spawning period. Operation: a Loss of Fish: The planned hydro-electrical system diverts a portion of the Kabali river flow from the weir to the turbine. Juvenile fish that passes through the turbine (entrainment) may be killed in the turbine. Both juvenile and potentially some adult fish might be affected by impingement against water intake structures and fish screens. The trout (Salmo fario) species listed in the Red Book of Georgia is present in the Kabali River. Therefore, the operation phase of the Kabali SHP project is anticipated to result in moderate and potentially significant impacts on juvenile fish. 4 Impact on aqua fauna. A portion of the water flow will be diverted from the weir to the powerhouse, significantly reducing the river flow. Not maintaining a minimum river flow (especially in the dry season) would adversely affect the fish population. Mitigation measures: -4 Install fish screens at the intake to the canal where water is diverted from the river's natural course. The mesh in such screens is about 3 mm x 3 mm. It will prevent all larger fish and most small fish from entering the canal and the penstock. The screens require periodic cleaning from dirt and debris by the operator. A Maintain a minimal sustainable river flow (minimum ecological flow) to sustain the river hydrology, water quality, existing fish population and wildlife (according to seasonal fluctuations in flow levels). ,. Maintain minimum wet channel perimeters at all control structures with a constant flow in the river throughout the year.

4) Human Resources Construction:

41 Impact on the Kabali Community from Construction Activities (including the presence of temporary workers on the site). Local population can be disrupted during the construction phase from the increased transport traffic and the presence of temporary employees working at the site. 4 Increased probability of work related injuries to workers and local population during the construction activities.

13 4 Damage to workers/or inhabitants and to infrastructure due to the flooding. Flash floods occur during the summer and autumn periods in the Kabali River. Floods could pose a threat to workers as well as damage/or destroy the forms in which concrete would be poured, as well as gabions and soil embankments and other on-site equipment. Mitigation measures: 4 Establish and adhere to construction timetables to minimize disruption to normal activities at or in the vicinity of the construction area. 4 Coordinate truck trafficking and other construction activities to minimize noise, traffic disruption and dust. 4 Avoid construction during the wet season (where possible). If it is not feasible (because of the Kabali SHP project timeframe) activities should be scheduled to reduce the duration of construction during the wet season. Operation: 4 Increased probability of work related injuries and death for the plant personnel and the general public in case operation safety measures are not implemented. Mitigation measures: 4 Follow state safety regulations and guidelines, and implement best management practices. The REP Team has also prepared a list of safety equipment for mandatory installation at the SHPP. The list is presented in Table 3.

5) Waste materials Construction: 4 Pollution of Environment with Construction Waste. Construction related activities such as excavation, removal and movement of soil and concrete mixing; installation of electrical equipments etc. will generate certain amount of construction wastes. Mitigation measures: 4 Segregate waste that can be re-used; If re-using of wastes is not feasible, take waste materials to appropriate, designated local disposal areas; 4 Minimize burning of waste materials;

4 If waste will be buried on site, avoid siting burial pits up-gradient of the drinking water sources such as wells. Pits should be lined with impermeable materials.

14 Table 3. Personal Safety Equipment

SAFETY EQUIPMENT - MANDATORY

Hard Hats Eye Protection - Goggles Safety Shoes Work Gloves Respirators First Aid Kit (for 50 people) Oil Absorbing Pads 15X19in minimum weight 100 per case ABS 24,7 gallons quantity boxes

Orange Vests Harness for Personnel (inspections/dam work) 4. MITIGATION PLAN

POTENTIAL SIGNIFICANCE & MITIGATION RESPONSIBILITY MONITORING RESPONSIBILITY RESIDUAL ACTIVITY IMPACT PROBABILITY OF MEASURES FOR MITIGATION REQUIREMENTS FOR MONITORING IMPACT OCCURRENCE

Repair of the . Verify applicability REP Program, intake pool Injury to Safe working K of written safe Kakheti Regional and contractors Moderate - procedures to be Contractor, Kabali working Environmental Negligible - rehabilitation workers and Possible followed by Community procedures. Ad Office/ SHE Unlikely of the dam other persons contractor Organization hoc inspection of Officers; REP and the head- during works works Program works

All waste material to be stored in a Injury to secure, designated REP Program, contractors area prior to Kakheti regional workers and Moderate - removal to a Contractor, Kabali Ad hoc inspections Environmental Negligible - others from Possible designated waste Community Office / SHE Unlikely unsafe storage of landfill site. Nearest Organization Offcers; REP waste landfill is located in ProgrEP the Gurjaani District Program (Shabraani) 30 km from the construction lace Soil contamination Best management Ad hoc inspection from spilled Moderate - practices are Kabali Community of the construction Negligible - chemicals, liquid Possible implemented by Organization, site REP Program Unlikely concrete, other construction Contractor liquid materials contractors

Water and soil pollution (visual Waste to be Kabali Community REP Program, anu osedb Moderate - disposed of at a Organization, Kakheti Regional N 1 improper disposal Possible designated waste Contractor Ad hoc inspections Environmental nlikeiy of waste landfill site Office; REP Unlikely materials Program Disturbance to REP Program, residential areas Installation to be Kakheti Regional caused by noise Moderate - scheduled during Kabali Community Ad hoc inspections Environmental / Moderate - generated during Probable normal weekday Organization, SHE Officers; REP Unlikely installation working hours only. Contractor Program

16 ACTIVITY POTENTIAL SIGNIFICANCE & MITIGATION RESPONSIBILITY MONITORING RESPONSIBILITY RESIDUAL IMPACT PROBABILITY OF MEASURES FOR MITIGATION REQUIREMENTS FOR MONITORING IMPACT OCCURRENCE

Avoiding blocking stream flow during construction, Using concrete forms rather than soil as temporary stream Increased diversions, Avoiding REP Program, downstream Moderate - stockpiling soils in Adhcisetos Kakheti Regional Moderate - turbidity in the Probable river banks and the REP Program, Ad hoc inspections Environmental Possible river floodplain; Contractor Office Replacing topsoil along the river bank and restoring the riparian ecosystem and land contours to their original condition, Avoiding blocking stream flows; Using concrete blocks rather than soil as temporary stream diversions; Avoiding stockpiling of soil; Kabali Community REP Program, Increased erosion Moderate - Scheduling Organization, REP Ad hoc inspections Kakheti Regional Low - of river/stream possible maintenance Program, Contractor to the site Environmental Unlikely activities during dry Office season; Using erosion control measures such as bales to prevent run-offs; Minimizing the use of heavy machinery

17 ACTIVITY POTENTIAL SIGNIFICANCE & MITIGATION RESPONSIBILITY MONITORING RESPONSIBILITY RESIDUAL IMPACT PROBABILITY OF MEASURES FOR MITIGATION REQUIREMENTS FOR MONITORING IMPACT OCCURRENCE

Work schedules Ad hoc KakhetiREP Program, Regional Increased Moderate - during dry seasons; C o gram, inspections, Min ion of Moderate - flooding oe -gr E rga,scheduled Aeirtoofhe Possible posbeContractor inspectionMistyo Agriculture Arrangement of fish by-passes for migrating fish; installation of net Damage to fish fish screens to REP Program, REP Program, stock including Moderate - prevent entrance to then periodic Kakheti Regional Moderate - disruption of fish ossible the supply canal REP Program, inspections by Environmental Possible spawning and penstock; Contractor operator Office maintain a minimal ecological flow in the river.

Pollution (visual and other) DsposalKakheti Regional caused by Mode andesig wate REP Program, Ad hoc inspections Environmental Negligible - improper disposal Possible landfill site ContractorOfie,RPUlky of waste Program Repair of the materials penstock Kakheti Regional Injury to Environmental contractors Moderate -Workers must follow Office/ SHE Ngiil workers from Probable safety guidelines REP Program, Ad Hoc inspections Officers, Negligible - construction and if necessary Contractor Program Unlikely equipment wear protective gear

Modern. of Verify applicability powerhouse . of written safe REP Program, including Ionjurytor Safe working working Kakheti Regional replacement workers and Moderate - procedures to be Contractor procedures. Ad Environmental Negligible - of auxiliary other persons Possible followed by hoc inspection of Onspectorate, SHE Unlikely equipment during works contractor works Officers

18 ACTIVITY POTENTIAL SIGNIFICANCE & MITIGATION RESPONSIBILITY MONITORING RESPONSIBILITY RESIDUAL IMPACT PROBABILITY OF MEASURES FOR MITIGATION REQUIREMENTS FOR MONITORING IMPACT OCCURRENCE

Injury to All waste material to contractors be stored in a Kakheti Regional workers and Moderate - secure, designated EvrnetlNgiil others from Possible area prior to Contractor Ad hoc inspections Environmental Negligible - unsafe storage of removal to a Officers waste designated waste landfill site Pollution (visual and other) Waste to be Kabali CommunityKahtReinl Nggbe- casdb oeae-disposed of at a Organization, Ad hoc inspections Environmental Unlikely improper disposal Possible designated waste Contractor of waste landfill site Inspectorate materials

REP Program Disturbance to Installation to be Kabali Community Kakheti regional occupiers and scheduled during Organization Ad hoc inspections Environmental Moderate - nearby residential normal weekday ,Contractor Inspectorate SHE Possible nrearb rauesdential rae working hours only. Officers areas caused by Moderate - noise generated Probable Equipment is to be durng nsalltin Euimen i tobeKakheti Regional Negligible - of electrical installed only within REP Program, Inspection at Environmental Unlikely equipment suitable buildings/ Contractor commencement of Inspectorate, SHE powerhouse (not works Officers outside)

Daily checks of Kakheti Regional Minor - machinery for Facility Operator Ad hoc inspection Environmental Possible f Oil pollution of leaking oil Inspectorate the Kabali soil and water Moderate - Likely SHP facility during SHPP No washing of Kakheti Regional operation machinery at the Operator Ad hoc inspection Environmental Minor - site, no oil change OprtrA ociseto nspectorate Possible at the site

19 ACTIVITY POTENTIAL SIGNIFICANCE & MITIGATION RESPONSIBILITY MONITORING RESPONSIBILITY RESIDUAL IMPACT PROBABILITY OF MEASURES FOR MITIGATION REQUIREMENTS FOR MONITORING IMPACT OCCURRENCE

Reduce plant load to maintain minimal ecological flow in Disruption of fish the river, during the REP program, spawning and Moderate - spawning season; Operator Periodic inspection Kakheti Regional Negligible - increased juvenile Possible Installation of net Environmental Unlikely fish mortality fish screen to Inspectorate prevent entrance to the penstock

Restoration of Damage to eco- the switch systems, or Selection of new line Regular inspection Kakheti Regional yard and habitats as a Moderate - routes (if any) to Design Consultant of construction etirenal Negligible - electrical result of Possible avoid sensitive and contractor sites and operation environmental Unlikely lines installation of new habitats zones poles

Separation of topsoil and subsoil during Regular inspection Loss of topsoil pole installation, and other Kakheti Regional leading to Moderate - repair or ancoper Kakhetirenal Minor - increased soil Probable replacement and Contractor operation zones environmental Possible erosion replacement of Inspectorate topsoil after the poles are installed

Daily checks of Kakheti Regional Minor - machinery for Contractor Ad hoc inspection environmental Possible Oil pollution of leaking oil Inspectorate soil and water at Moderate - Likely construction site No washing of Kakheti Regionai machinery at Contractor Ad hoc inspection KakhetinRegintal Mnr-Lkl construction site Inspectorate

Works performed Noise pollution in Moderate - strictly during Contractor Ad hoc inspection Kakheti Regional Major - village Definite normal weekday environmental Unlikely working hours Inspectorate

20 ACTIVITY POTENTIAL SIGNIFICANCE & MITIGATION RESPONSIBILITY MONITORING RESPONSIBIUTY RESIDUAL IMPACT PROBABILITY OF MEASURES FOR MITIGATION REQUIREMENTS FOR MONITORING IMPACT OCCURRENCE

Visual impact Route alignment to Rgoa istalledabe Major - Definite minimize areas of Design consultant Ad hoc inspection Environmental Negligible - installeground) above ground piping Officer

Landscaping and Reduced amenity Moderate - replanting of Regular inspection Oblast / Rayon Negligible - varuea ofteconstruction area Contractor of completed Environmental UNelikibely values ofte Possible after the completion sections of the Officer Ulkl of line installation pipeline works

Only fully trained Connection of Damage to personnel to carry electrical Poisoning or out installations Utility Company I Regular Isetrfo ao lines to explosion due to Major - Possible according to Contractor inspections by regulatory authority Unlikely homes/gasleaks ~~industry best rgltr uhrt apartments g practice guidance and standards Safety information to be given to Utility Companyr Regular Inspector from householders Contractor inspections regulatory authority

Major - Possible Trained professional Major - to inspect, clean, Unlikely and adjust Utility Company / Follow up Inspector from equipment every Contractor inspections regulatory authority year

21 5. MONITORING PLAN The Monitoring Plan presents a number of criteria against which monitoring indicators are set. Monitoring Categories

Criteria Descriptor Evidence

Regulatory Compliance: The facility, or proposed facility, * The project owners have obtained all The facility complies with the has all the necessary permissions required construction and operation requirements of national and permits required under permits and licenses including an environment, health and safety Georgian national laws and environmental permit. laws and regulations. regulations. * The REP Program in cooperation with the project owner prepared the Programmatic Environmental Assessment and developed an environmental management plan per requirement of the project sponsors (USAID, EBRD). Water Flow: * Maintain minimum wetted * The project owner has obtained a The facility maintains a minimum channel perimeters, at all control water use permit ecological flow in the river that is structures, with a constant flow * Ecological-sanitary flow of the Kabali adequate for the existing fish in the river throughout the year. River has been determined (which is population, wildlife and water * Facility operation schedules are equal to Qsan=0.3OM 3I/sec) quality taking into account based on the minimum * Periodic measuring of the water flow seasonal fluctuations in flow ecological flow required to rate to assure that the minimal levels, sustain the existing environment. ecological flow is maintained.

Water Quality: The facility has minimal impact on Best management practices on The facilities operations do not water quality at the head-works, hydropower construction are followed. contribute to the deterioration o canal, tailrace and diversion dam. The facility will not contribute to the rt q deterioration of water quality after the downstreamqualit ofeither.wa the facility.upstrea. completion of the construction activities.

Fish Passage and Protection: . There should be minimal loss of * Information has been gathered on both The facility had minimal impact on fish or fish habitat. the local and migratory fish local fish populations, provides * Facility preserves fish populations; effective fish passage for local and population. * The project design includes fish migrating fish species and also * Facility construction and screens; protects fish from entrainment. operation do not limit fish * The project design includes adequate movement, migration and mitigation measures to ensure that fish spawning. protection criteria are met. * Flows at the intake and downstream of the tailrace are adequate to support aquatic and riparian species in the facility area. Watershed Protection: * The facility does not affect the * An assessment of impacts associated The facility does not negatively integrity of the existing with additional components has been impact environmental conditions in ecosystem either upstream or made. the watershed. downstream of the facility. * An assessment of upstream and * Facility components and downstream impacts has been made. infrastructure (e.g. access roads, * Adequate mitigation measures have power lines, and generation been provided to ensure the eligibility facilities) have minimal impact criteria are met. on the riparian environment.

22 Threatened & Endangered * The facility is not constructed on * Sensitive or protected areas on or Species Protection: a protected or sensitive river. around the river have been identified. The facility does not negatively * The facility does not threaten or * Endangered or threatened species impact any threatened or harm the habitat or migratory present in the area of, or downstream endangered species nor any routes of endangered species. from, the facility have been identified. areas designated for their * The facility has no significant * The REP environmental team has protection. impact on the existing wildlife assessed the potential impact of the habitat and populations. facility on any such area or species. *The project design provides for adequate mitigation measures to ensure that the criteria are met. Recreation: Access to the water remains Identification of any current recreational hl unchanged with the facility and uses of the river around the site and The facility does not stop or accommodates recreational confirmation that these uses will not be limit recreatonal uses of the activities on the river. affected by the development of the nver. facility.

Cultural Issues: Cultural property includes sites No cultural sites or property in the The facility does not having archaeological vicinity of the facility has been identified. inappropriately impact cultural (prehistoric), paleonthological, property historical, religious and unique natural values. Cultural property includes remains left by the previous human inhabitants and unique natural features such as canyons and waterfalls. Community Issues: The facility does not prevent or * Local community uses of the river have The facility does not reduce limit the local community from been identified. local community use of either access to the river as a communal * The locally affected community has the river or the surrounding leisure amenity, and the irrigation been notified and consulted prior to the lands. facility development of the facility. * Adequate mitigation measures have been agreed to ensure that eligibility criteria are met.

23 ANNEX A. ENVIRONMENTAL SCREENING OF THE KBALI PROJECT SITE

1) General Information Project Name Kabali SHP Type of project Rehabilitation Location (district / region) Region - Kakheti Ownership Private (Giorgi Bibiluri) Surrounding Present Land Use [ X I Agriculture [ I Residential [ ] Tourism [ Industrial [X] Forest Land [ ] Institutional [ Commercial [ ] Open Spaces { l Others, pls. Specify: State lands Installed Capacity (kW) 1500 Project Cost (USD) $350, 000

2) General Construction Activities Is there and impact because / to Construction Operation and Maintenance Construction / rehabilitation of structures and buildings? Y N Construction / rehabilitation of access roads? N N Construction / rehabilitation of transmission lines? N N Temporary sites used for construction works or housing of Y N construction workers? Significant risk associated with waste transport? N N Inadequate waste disposal facilities? Y N Include grading, trenching, or excavation > 1.0 hectares N N Conducted near geologic hazards (faults, landslides, N N liquefaction, un-engineered fill, etc)? Require offsite overburden / waste disposal or borrow pits N N >1.0 ton? Cause loss of high quality farmlands > 10 hectares N N Require the use of dangerous / hazardous substances ( e.g. Y Y oil, lubricants, chemicals; pls. Specify)? Require an oil / lubricants collection and disposal system? Y Y Increase vehicle trips > 20% or cause substantial Y N congestion? Cause or contribute to safety hazards? Y Y Inadequate access or emergency access for anticipated N N volume of people or traffic? Produce solid wastes during construction or operation or Y N decommissioning? Involve actions that will cause physical changes in the locality Y Y (topography, land use, changes in water bodies, etc)?

3) Geologv and Soils Is there and impact because / to Construction Operation and Maintenance Earthquakes, subsidence, landslides or erosion? N N Movement of soil? Y N Rates of erosion or siltation by wind or water? N N Management of excess soil or spoil material (from mining)? N N Physical degradation of the local environment? N N

24 4) Water Resources Is there and impact because / to Construction Operation and Maintenance Risks of contamination of land or water from releases of Y N pollutants onto the ground or into sewers, surface waters, groundwater, coastal waters or the sea? Run-off as a result of the hardening of surfaces, or loss of the N N sponge effect of vegetation? Flooding or extreme or adverse climatic conditions? Y Y Ability to absorb run-off? N Y Changes to flood plains? N N Quantity of surface water, groundwater or public water N N supplies? Threats to hydrological functioning through existing or altered N N water extraction? Withdrawals from or discharges to surface or ground water? N N Threats through existing or altered impoundment N N construction? Conservational or recreational value of rivers, streams, lakes, N N wetlands, dams or islands? Threats through existing or altered pollution? N N Threats through existing or altered turbidity? N Y Threats through existing or altered agricultural run-off? N N Threats through existing or altered chemical processes or N N nutrient balances? Threats through existing or altered changes in sediment flows N N and siltation rates? Changes through existing or altered canalization? N Y River, stream or lake onsite or within 30 meters of Y Y construction? Excavation or place of fill, removing gravel from a river, Y Y stream or lake? Onsite storage of liquid fuels or hazardous materials in bulk N N quantities? Decreased water flow that may change the flooding regime, N N resulting in the destruction of wetlands? Decrease in downstream water flow that may affect N Y downstream users (human, fisheries, and wildlife)?

25 5) Biolocical Resources Is there and impact because / to Construction Operation and Maintenance Important, high quality or scarce resources that could be N Y affected by the project? Located in a Protected Area or Wildlife Corridor? N N Inundate or remove wetland habitats?N N Survival of rare or endangered plant species? N N Diversity of plant comrunities? N N Vegetation communities of conservation or scientific N N importance? Natural replenishment of existing species? N Y Firewood collection? N N Overexploitation of biological resources? N N Survival of rare or endangered animals? N Y Diversity of animal communities? N N Natural migration of species? N Y Introduction of alien species? N N Loss of native species or genetic diversity? N N Vegetation removal or construction in wetlands or riparian N N areas > 1.0 hectare? Use of pesticides / rodenticides, insecticides, or herbicides> N N 1.0 hectare? Construction in or adjacent to a designated wildlife refuge? N N Decreased water flow that may change the flooding regime, N N resulting in the destruction of wetlands? Decrease in downstream water flow that may affect N Y downstream users (human, fisheries, and wildlife)? Re-entry pipe cause increased scouring of stream bank N N where water is returned to the stream? Flora and / or fauna of ecological or commercial significance N N to be found?

26 6) Socioeconomic Issues Is there and impact because / to Construction Operation and Maintenance Existing settlements in the vicinity of the proposed project? Y Y Existing land uses on or around the project that could be N N affected by the project? Areas on or around the location of the project that are N N already subject to pollution or environmental damage? Permanent or temporary change in land use, land cover or N N topography including increases in intensity of land use? Social infrastructures located in or near the project area N N (e.g., schools, health canters / clinics, places of worship, others? Be affected by natural disasters causing environmental N Y damage (e.g. floods, earthquakes, landslide etc)? Social acceptability of the project (community, government, Y Y non-governmental organizations)? Visual and odor effects of waste sites? N N Risk to the community and the local environment should the N Y facility break down? Potential conflict with adjacent land uses? N N Non-compliance with existing codes, plans, permits or N N design factors? Construction in national park or designated recreational N N area? Relocation of >10 individuals for +6 months? N N Interrupt necessary utility or municipal service > 10 N N individuals for + 6 months? Loss or inefficient use of mineral or non-renewable N N resources? Noise levels > 5 decibels for + 3 months? N N Adverse visual impact when compared to the surrounding N N natural landscape? Affect future land uses on or around the location? N N Are there any areas on or around the location that are N N densely populated or built-up, which could be affected by the project? Highly visible to many people? N N Lead to pressure for consequential project that could have N Y significant impact on the environment (erg more housing, new roads, new supporting industries or utilities, etc)? Cumulative effects due to proximity to other existing or N N planned projects with similar effects? Social changes, for example, in demography, traditional Y Y lifestyles, and employment?

7) Cultural Issues Is there and impact because / to Construction Operation and Maintenance Prehistoric, historic, or paleontological resources within 30 N N meters of construction? Unique cultural or ethnic values at the site? N N

27 8) Public Health issues Will the project affect... Construction Operation and Maintenance human or community health or welfare? Y Y The quality or toxicity of air, water, foodstuffs and other N N products consumed by humans? Morbidity or mortality of individuals, communities or Y Y populations by exposure to pollution? Occurrence or distribution of disease vectors including N Y insects? Vulnerability of individuals, communities or populations to N Y disease? Individuals' sense of personal security? Y N Community cohesion and identity? N N Cultural identity and associations? N N Minority rights? N N Housing conditions? N N Employment and quality of employment? Y Y Economic conditions? Y Y Social institutions? Y Y Cause accidents that could affect human health or the Y Y environment? - From explosions, spillages, fires etc? Y Y - From storage, handling, use or production of hazardous Y Y or toxic substances? Be affected by natural disasters causing environmental N N damage (e.g. floods, earthquakes, landslip, etc)? Vulnerable groups of people who could be affected by the Y Y project (e.g. hospital patients, the elderly)?

9) Air Quality Is there and impact because / to Construction Operation and Maintenance Onsite air pollutant emissions? Y N Violation of applicable air pollutant emissions or ambient N N concentration standards? Vehicle traffic during construction or operation? Y N Demolition or blasting for construction? N N Odor during construction or operation? N N Alteration of microclimate? N N Release pollutants or any hazardous, toxic or noxious Y N substances to air? - Emissions from combustion of fossil fuels from stationary Y N or mobile sources? - Emissions from materials handling including storage or N N transport? - Emissions from construction activities including plant and Y N equipment? - Dust or odors from handling of materials including Y N construction materials, sewage and waste? - Emissions from burning of waste in open air (e.g. slash N N material, construction debris)? _

28 10) Noise and Vibration Is there and impact because / to Construction Operation and Maintenance Noise and vibration or release of light, heat energy or Y Y electromagnetic radiation? - From operation of equipment (e.g. engines, ventilation Y Y plant, crushers)? - From construction or demolition? Y N - From blasting or piling? N N - From construction or operational traffic? Y N - From sources of electromagnetic radiation? N N

29 ANNEX B. PHYSICAL AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT 1. Physical Environment The Kabali River represents a left tributary of the Alazani River, which belongs to the Caspian Sea Basin. The Caspian Sea Basin is located in the eastern part of the country and influences the region's drier climate. The main rivers of the Caspian Sea Basin include the Kura River with its tributaries, Terek, Alazani and lori Rivers. Geology The Kabali SHP is positioned in the Kakheti region in the Eastern Georgia. The Northern part of the district lies on the southern slopes of the Kakheti Caucasus Mountains. The Alazani River is situated further to the South of the Kakheti Caucasus Mountains (Atlas of Georgia, 1964). The Alazani Plain consists of alluvial sediments of different origin and nature that accumulated on the surface of a young continental geo-syncline. At the end of the middle Pliocene period the sub- mountainous relief of the Caucasus Ridge consisted primarily of low mountains and hills in the area where the Alazani Plain is located today. This relief experienced tectonic subsidence in the upper Pliocene; a process that continues today. Due to this subsidence, the mountainous-hilly relief has been eroded; its base subsided and was covered by a thick layer of sediments. Geo Hazards The territory is considered an active seismic zone. The seismic rating of the region is "nine" (9) on the MKS scale (Map of Seismic Hazard Assessment of Georgia, 2006). Sudden floods (flash floods) may occur, during heavy rains especially in summer I autumn or intense snow and ice melting on the Kabali River (Department of Monitoring and Prognosis, 2005). Soils Various soil types are found in different parts of the Kakheti region due to differences in physical, geographical, and climate conditions. On the left bank of the Alazani River sandy, alluvial and non- calcareous soils are most common. On the lowest strip of the first upper terrace near the Alazani River flood plain primarily meadow, alluvial, and carbonate soils swampy in some locations are present Forest-meadow, alluvial and non-calcareous soils predominate also in the vast areas of the left bank. Toward the mountain strip these soils gradually change into forest brown soils (Map of Soil Types of Georgia, 1999). Climate The climatic factors of the Kabali River Basin are determined by the distance from the Black Sea and its orographical conditions. The annual average temperature is 12.60 Celsius. The absolute maximum air temperature is 380 while the absolute minimum point is - 230. The total annual precipitation averages 1076 millimeters with an average wind speed of 11 meters per second (Lagodekhi Meteorological Station).

Hydrology The source of the Kabali River is located on the Southern slope of the Caucasian Range at the height of 2720. The length of the Kabali River is 48 km, the total drop is 2500 m, the catchments basin area is 291 kM2, and the average depth is 850 m.

The Kabali River water regime is characterized with floods in spring, flash floods in autumn and summer, unsuitable low water levels in summer and stable low water periods in winter. The average annual discharge rates of the Kabali River are given in Table 1 below (Department of Hydrometeorology of Georgia).

30 Table 1: The Average Annual Discharge of the River Kabali m3 /sec Section Fkm 2 Hav Hmm Qm3/sec Cv Cs Provision p % Av 25 50 75 80 90 95

73.9 1625 1360 3.18 028 056 3.72 3.09 2.54 2.42 2.11 1.88 Design

Vegetation The village of Kabali is about 20 kilometers from the Lagodekhi Reserve (Map of Protected Areas, WWF, 2005). A large, almost pristine forest area is found in the Lagodekhi district, along with small and isolated patches of degraded flood plain forests. The following plant species are found in the flood plain forest: oak (Quercus pedunculiflora), elm (Ulmus foliacea), poplar (Populus canescens and Populus nigra), willow (Salix excelsa), and others. In the upper part of the district near the village of Kabali, the following plant species are present: oak (Querpus pedunculifora), hornbeam (Carpinus caucasica), ash (Fraxinus excelsior), lime (Tilia caucasica), and maple (Acer campestre). The sub-forest area is formed by the following species: privet (Ligustrum vulgare), medlar (Mespilus germanica), dogwood (Comus mas), hazel (Corylus avellana), etc. Ground flora is species-poor and consists of several grass species including tor grass (Brachypodium sylvaticum), fescue (Festuca gigantean), and orchard grass (Dactylis glomerata) with a mixture of some widespread taxa such as creeping cinquefoil (Potentilla reptans), goldenrod (Solidago virgaurea), and others. The following species found in the vinicintiy of the village are listed in Georgia's Red Book: ivy (Hedera pastuchowi,), oak (Quercus pedunculiflora) and wild vine grape (Vitis sylvestris). The endemic herb specie of Georgian woundwort (Gallantus lagodechianus) (CITES list) is found in the vicinities of the village of Kabali. Mammals The following species were reported in the area: wild cat (Felis silvestris), pine marten (Martes Martes), fox (Vulpes vulpes), jackal (Canis aureus), bear (Ursus arctos, Red Book of Georgia, National Category-Endangered), badger (Meles meles), forest dormouse (Dryomys nitedula), mouse (Apodemus ponticus, Apodemus fulvipectus, Apodemus uralensis), and others. The following species found in the area are included in the IUCN list of rare and endangered species: greater horseshoes (Rhinolophus ferrumequinum), little horseshoe (Rhinolophus hipposideros), lesser noctule (Nyctalus leislen), Caucasian squirrel (Sciurus anomalus), otter (Lutra lutra), and lynx (Lynx lynx, Red Book of Georgia National category-Critically endangered). Avifauna From spring to autumn, the area surrounding the Lagodekhi district and specifically the Alazani Flood Plain, serves as a corridor for migratory birds, providing resting grounds and feeding grounds for these migratory groups. However, the presence of the migratory species was not confirmed near the village of Kabali (Map of Alazani Flood Plain Birds, 2005). Syrian woodpecker (Dendrocopos syriacus) is found in the vicinity of the village and is listed in the Red Book of Georgia. Its nesting period is in April (Jordania R, Boeme B, 1999).

ReDtiles According to the available literature, the following were reported species within the Lagodekhi district: snake (Elaphe quatuorlineata sauromates), European glass lizard (Ophisaurus apodus), slow worm (Anguis fragilis), lizard (Lacerta strigata), etc. The following amphibians inhabit the area: frog (Rana ridibunda and Hyla arborea) and toad (Bufo viridis) (Alazani Flood Plain Forest Management Plan, 2005).

31 Fish The following fish species were reported in the Kabali River: trout (Salmo fario, Red Book of Georgia, Statute-Vulnerable) and silver bream (Blicca bjoerkna transcaucasica) (Elanidze, 1988). Spawning periods for major fish species found in the river are noted in Table 2 below. Table 2. Kabali River Fish Spawning Periods Fish Spawning Period Silver Bream May-June Trout September-October

2. Socio-Economic Environment Population and Settlements The community (sakrebulo) of Kabali consists of the following villages: Kabali, Karajala, Uzuntala, and Ganjala. At present, 3,289 households and 10,797 persons are registered in the community. The population rate is 12% higher than it was in 1989. Almost 100% of the community's population is Azeri Muslims. The community also has six Russians, two Georgians, two Lezgins, and one Armenian (Jemal Almazov, Kabali sakrebulo chairman). Land Use The total community area equals to 2,373 hectares. The community land is either privately owned (47%) or leased. 1,633 hectares are arable lands, and 153 hectares are pastures. The community has 4,293 cattle heads of which 14,972 are sheep, goats and horses, and 17,110 are poultry (Jemal Almazov, Kabali sakrebulo chairman). Income and EmDlovment Two percent (2%) of the population are wage employees, working for budgetary organizations, and 47% are self-employed involved in selling agricultural products. The average monthly household cash- income is $25 (Jemal Almazov, Kabali sakrebulo chairman). Social Infrastructure In the community there are one kindergarten and five schools. The Kakheti Distribution Company supplies grid electricity to the local community. Electricity is fairly reliable both in summer and winter periods. As alternative energy sources the local population uses kerosene, candle and diesel fueled power generators. There is no centralized gas supply in the community (Jemal Almazov, Kabali sakrebulo chairman). There is also no central water supply system in the community, and households must depend on local wells for water supply (Jemal Almazov, Kabali sakrebulo chairman). The duration of the local roads is 80 kilometers, of which seven kilometers are paved with asphalt. However, the surface of the paved segments is damaged, and the remaining 73 kilometers of the local roads are unpaved (Jemal Almazov, Kabali sakrebulo chairman). Attitude towards rehabilitation of the hydropower Dlant After the rehabilitation the Kabali SHP will supply electricity to seven villages and nearby small enterprises. Employment is the most important benefit to be received from the operation of the Kabali small hydro power plant.

32 ANNEX C. GEOLOGICAL EVALUATION OF THE KABALI SHP SITE 1. Foreword In compliance with a Terms of Reference provided by the Rural Energy Program, the engineering team undertook to conduct visual inspection of the construction site of the hydroelectric power plant on the river Kabali and revise the results of geotechnical investigation of the same construction site carried out by the Georgian Office of the Association of Energy Engineers in 2002. The group of independent engineers has conducted geotechnical investigation of the Kabali SHP rehabilitation area and the revetment on the Kabali River. Particle-size analysis of water samples from the rehabilitation area and the riverbed was carried out on the spot. 2. Geological and Hydrological Features The study area is constituted by Kimeridgian and Titonic layers of the upper Jurassic covered by late Quaternary sediments. Petrographically, the Malm layers are represented by clay shale of Mestia-Tianeti zone, breccia, argillite, gravelite, and sandstone turbidites with flysch inclusions. The Quaternary structures are composed of delluvial, prolluvial and alluvial sediments. The study area is formed by boulders with loamy sand matrix of alluvial genesis, broken stone and cobbles. The Kabali River originates from the junction of mountain springs on the southern slopes of the Caucasus Range at the height of 2720 m. It flows into the Alazani River from the left side 3 km northward of the Eriskari Village. The Kabali's length is 48 km; total gradient - 2500 m; average slope - 52.1 %; catchment area - 391 km2. The mountainous part of the catchment is constituted by sandstone, limestone and clay shale. The soil is represented by forest brown soil type. The area between the 2000 th and 2200th meters is covered with alpine meadows and about 65% of the catchment area is covered with forests. Presence of fresh water in alluvial soil is characteristic of hydro geological conditions of the area. Groundwater occurrence depth in the investigated area ranges between 0.5 and 1.5 m. The Kabali River regime is characterized by floods in spring, unstable low level of water in summer, stable low level of water in winter and high level of water in autumn. During summer and autumn floods caused by rainfalls, water sometimes rises higher than during spring floods. For instance, on August 18 , 1955, flood caused by a heavy rainfall damaged the Kabali HPP pressure pipeline and agricultural lands. Construction of the Kabali SHP low-head weir will cause the changes in the flow regime in the downstream of the weir, and will have impact on the Kabali river geomorphology. The river is studied insufficiently in hydrological sense; therefore its average annual discharge was defined using a method given in "Water Balance of Georgia" monograph. Average annual discharges of the Kabali River have been calculated using the distribution curve parameters and the coordinates of three-parameter distribution as given in table 1.

Table 1. Average Annual Discharges of the Kabali River

H 2 - Qm/sec Provision p% Section Fkm2 Hmm Cv TCs ave. ave. 25 50 75 80 90 95 Design 1625 73.9 1360 3.18 0.28 0.56 3.72 3.09 2.54 2.42 2.11 1.88 value{

33 3. Geotechnical Characteristic of the Rehabilitation Area

The study area includes the Kabali river floodplain and the adjacent 1 st terrace. Two geotechnical elements (GE) have been identified in the study area: GE-1: cobbles - 35-40%; gravels - 20-25%; boulders - 10%; fine sand matrix - 30-35%. GE-2: cobbles - 35-40%; gravels - 20-25%; boulders - 10%; dust sand matrix - 30-35%. The SHP area surface is composed of well-rounded alluvial cobbles and gravel material. GE-1 occurs down to 1.3m in the test pit #2, while GE-2 is bedded beneath it to the prospected depth of 3.0m. Two shallow test pits (0.5m) have been made to define particle-size distribution of soil (GE-1) in the floodplain. The results of particle-size analysis (field and laboratory) of the soil from the test pits as well as the particle-size distribution diagram are given in the tables 7, 8, 9 .

Table 2 shows composition of different grain sizes in the soil (example: D10 is a diameter up to which all grains sizes constitute 10% of soil). Table 2. Composition of Grain Sizes

Ds Die D16 D36 Dso Deo D66 D84 Deo U(D60/DlO) GE-1 0.032 0.064 0.150 2.36 6.09 16.72 27.70 114.60 195.38 261

Estimated value of modulus of deformation under load (P=0.1-0.2 MPa) makes up: 45 MPa for GE- 1 and 43 MPa for GE-2.

Strength parameters (angle of internal friction and cohesion): 440 and 0.011 MPa for GE-1 and 420 and 0.016 MPa for GE-2.

GE-1 estimated soil resistance Ro makes up 6.0 0.1 MPa (Rules and Regulations - CHLfn 2.02.01.83, Table 9).

GE-2 estimated soil resistance makes 5.0 0.1 MPa.

Based on their seismic characteristics the soils in the study area fall under the second category (CHL4n 11-7-81, Part 2, Article 7); the area belongs to 8-point seismic zone.

Results of laboratory examination of water samples are given in Tables 3, 4, 5. According to them, the water contains hydrogen carbonate, sulphate, and calcium. The water is colorless, odorless and tasteless; its total hardness is 2.84 mg/ equivalent.

The water belongs to non-aggressive type (Tables 3, 4 and 5) Table 3. Groundwater Chemical Testing - Laboratory Data

Content per 1 liter Anions Cations

# ' PH D Dry S0- C+ g+ Na++K residua HCO3 CL SCL c Mgat + P

mg-I 36.6 4.254 10 8.8 3.7 3.4

1 .- mg- 48.4 0.60 0.12 0.21 0.44 0.30 0.18 6.9 °equiv. % g64.6 12.93 22.43 47.32T 32.79 19.89

34 Table 4. Groundwater Aggressiveness to Structures

E Groundwater aggressivity to structures _- . A i In soils Kf>0.lm/24h In soils Kf<0.1m/24h z 'ac Aggressiveness: .- Concrete grade per permeability E C) W4 W6 W8 W4 W6 W8

Bicarbonate No No No No No No hardness mg_eq/l

Hydrogen ion No No No No No No Aggressive carbon dioxide content, No No mg/l Magnesia salt No No No No No No content, mg/l Ammonia salt content, mg/l 1 kabali 0.00 High alkalinity No No No No No No

content, mg/l No No No No_ No

Sulfates for concrete

Portland cement Noo No o No o (rOCT10178-76) No No No No No No Portland blast- furnace (slag) No No No No No No cement Sulfate-resistant No No No No No No cement

Table 5. Water Aggressiveness on Metal

E Water aggressiveness impact on reinforced concrete metal parts mL Soil aggressiveness to o x hydrocarbon steel, below z groundwater level with E. If periodically infiltration rate >0.1 m/24h E c If in water subject to water

1 Kabali 0.00 No feebly Feebly

4. Geotechnical Characteristic of Revetment Construction Site A lengthwise test pit allowed examining litho logic section along the Kabali bank. Two identical geotechnical elements were found in the headwork area and in the revetment construction site.

GE-1: cobbles - 35-40%; gravels - 20-25%; boulders - 10%; fine sand matrix - 30-35%. GE-2: cobbles - 35-40%; gravels - 20-25%; boulders - 10%; dust sand matrix - 30-35%. The SHP area surface consists of well-rounded alluvial cobbles and gravel material. The identity of soils and groundwater in both areas conditioned identical physical and mechanical characteristics. Design parameters for both GEs are given in Table 6.

35 Table 6. Design Parameters of Geotechnical Elements

a)

U) a- cor~ 0.0

>- c- 20-25%co Cob - a

Li - LI)o E ) -~aa~e x)t0 a) Z E a C I '.-a E a) LU C-C:( .09 0 06 0 U_) U) F

-M 0U) E0

5. CocuinsadRcmmnain fo an 0 o E .9 E U)i

03% GE-2:cobeCu5-0;gael ~ ~ 1 6B-111 11 1:0.502%;budr C 1:1 2.00 -1%45 44dus 0.011sadmtiU 6

2 6B-111 11 1:0.5 1:1 1.95 43 42 0.016 5

poe-ln enbe fre flo ofwtr 5. Conclusionsreiteeon and stdRecommendations area. =h 1. Two geotechnical elements (GE) have been identified in both study areas by means of geotechnical investigation and laboratory analysis: GE-I: cobbles - 35-40%; gravels - 20-25%; boulders - 10%; fine sand matrix - 30-35%. GE-2: cobbles - 35-40%; gravels - 20-25%; boulders - 10%; dust sand matrix - 30-35%.

The study shows that the floodplain is suitable for construction of the headwork for reception of required volumes of water and the hypsometric curve in the area from the headwork to the power-plant enables free flow of water.

2. No hazardous geological processes able to hinder operation of the facility have been registered on the study area.

3. Water of the river Kabali and the groundwater belongs to non-aggressive and not dangerous for any type of concrete.

4. It is necessary to conduct adequate bank protection in catchement area to protect the headwork and the line structure from future erosion. For this reason, we recommend following actions: a) maintenance of riparian vegetation; b) extract coarse materials from the riverbed and c) us,e sediment trapping devices. 5. To reduce changes in the river geomorphology due to the construction of the low head weir, it is recommended to maintain minimum ecological river flow. According to the callculations done by the hydrometeological department, ecological-sanitary flow of average 10% long-term water discharge (norm) in the Kabali River is equal to Qsan=0.30 M3/sec;

7. Geological engineer's presence during the Kabali SHP construction is preferable to make timely corrections in case of need.

36 Table 7. Particle Size Distribution (Sieving) - Sample I

SOIL DESCRIPTION: Sample no. 1

Cobbles - 35-40%; gravels - 20-25%; boulders - 10%; sand matrix - 30-35%. Depth, m 0.50

TEST METHOD: BS 1377: Part 2: 1990 : 9.3 Date 09,03,2007 Initial dry mass ml 93560.0 g Mass retained g BS test sieve Percentage Cumulative percentage actual corrected, retained passing m 400 mm - - 100.00 200 mm 7404.4 7404.4 8.65 91.35 120 mm 3971.8 3971.8 4.64 86.71 100 mm 5230.2 5230.2 6.11 80.60 75 mm 3620.9 3620.9 4.23 76.37 63 mm 2970.3 2970.3 3.47 72.90 50 mm 1241.2 1241.2 1.45 71.45 37.5 mm 3518.2 3518.2 4.11 67.34 28 mm 2850.5 2850.5 3.33 64.01 20 mm 3638.0 3638.0 4.25 59.76

Passing 20 mm m2 51154.6 total (check with mi) 85600.0

riffled M3 2000.0 riffled and washed m4 correction factor Ml 25.58

14 mm 78.7 2013.1 2.65 57.11 10 mm 100.4 2567.6 3.38 53.73 6.3 mm 128.0 3274.1 4.31 49.42 Passing 6.3 mm m5 1692.9

total (check with M4) 2000.0

riffled m6 200.0

37 Correction factor 216.50

45.19 5 mm 17.1 3706.2 4.23 38.32 3.35 mm 27.8 6019.2 6.87 30.37 2 mm 32.2 6965.5 7.95 29.06 1.18 mm 5.3 1147.8 1.31 24.48 600 mm 18.5 4012.8 4.58 21.64 425 mm 11.5 2488.3 2.84 20.08 300 mm 6.3 1366.8 1.56 16.61 250 mm 14.0 3040.3 3.47 15.27 150 mm 5.4 1174.1 1.34 8.80 63 mm 26.2 5668.8 6.47 8.80 % Passing 63 mm mF or mE 35.6 7710.2 Total (check with m6) 200.0 43299.8 100.00 %

38 Table 8. Particle Size Distribution (Sieving) - Sample 2

SOIL DESCRIPTION: Sample no. 2 Cobbles - 35-40%; gravels - 20-25%; boulders - 10%; sand matrix - 30-35%. Depth, m 0.50 TEST METHOD: BS 1377: Part 2: 1990: 9.3 Date 09,03,2007 Initial dry mass mi 93560.0 g

Mass retained g Percentage Cumulative percentage BS test sieve corrected, retained passing m 400 mm - - 100.00 200 mm 6933.0 6933.0 8.65 91.35 120 mm 3719.0 3719.0 4.64 86.71 100 mm 4897.2 4897.2 6.11 80.60 75 mm 3390.3 3390.3 4.23 76.37 63 mm 2781.2 2781.2 3.47 72.90 50 mm 1162.2 1162.2 1.45 71.45 37.5 mm 3294.2 3294.2 4.11 67.34 28 mm 2669.0 2669.0 3.33 64.01 20 mm 3406.4 3406.4 4.25 59.76 Passing 20 mm m2 47897.6 total (check with mi) 80150.0 riffled m3 2000.0 riffled and washed M4

Correction factor M2 23.95

14 mm 78.7 1884.9 2.65 57.11 10mm 100.4 2404.1 3.38 53.73 6.3 mm 128.0 3065.6 4.31 49.42 Passing 6.3 mm ms 1692.9

total (check with M4) 2000.0 riffled m6 200.0

39 Correction factor [2 x 202.71 5 mm 17.1 3470.2 4.23 45.19 3.35 mm 27.8 5636.0 6.87 38.32 30.37 2 mm 32.2 6522.0 7.95 1.18 mm 5.3 1074.7 1.31 29.06 600 mm 18.5 3757.3 4.58 24.48 21.64 425 mm 11.5 2329.9 2.84 20.08 300 mm 6.3 1279.8 1.56 250 mm 14.0 2846.7 3.47 16.61 15.27 150 mm 5.4 1099.3 1.34 63 mm 26.2 5307.8 6.47 8.80 Passing 63 mm mF or mE 35.6 7219.3 8.80 % Total (check with m6) 200.0 40543.0 100.00 %

40 Table 10. Particle Size Distribution (Sieving) - Sample 3 SOIL DESCRIPTION: Sample no. 3 Cobbles - 35-40%; gravels - 20-25%; boulders - 10%; sand matrix - 30-35%. Depth, m 0.50 TEST METHOD: BS 1377: Part 2: 1990: 9.3 Date 09,03,2007 Initial dry mass ml 93560.0 g

Mass retained g BS test sieve Percentage Cumulative percentage actual corrected, retained passing m 400 mm - - 100.00

200 mm 7283.3 7283.3 8.65 91.35 120 mm 3906.9 3906.9 4.64 86.71 100 mm 5144.6 5144.6 6.11 80.60 75 mm 3561.7 3561.7 4.23 76.37 63 mm 2921.7 2921.7 3.47 72.90 50 mm 1220.9 1220.9 1.45 71.45 37.5 mm 3460.6 3460.6 4.11 67.34 28 mm 2803.9 2803.9 3.33 64.01 20 mm 3578.5 3578.5 4.25 59.76

Passing 20 mm m2 50317.9

total (check with m1) 84200.0 riffled m3 2000.0 riffled and washed M4

Correction factor ml 25.16

14 mm 78.7 1980.1 2.65 57.11 10 mm 100.4 2525.6 3.38 53.73 6.3 mm 128.0 3220.5 4.31 49.42 Passing 6.3 mm m5 1692.9 total (check with m4) 2000.0

riffled m6 200.0

41 Correction factor ( Ml (MI MI)212.96

5 mm 17.1 3645.5 4.23 45.19 3.35 mm 27.8 5920.8 6.87 38.32 2 mm 32.2 6851.5 7.95 30.37 1.18 mm 5.3 1129.0 1.31 29.06 600 mm 18.5 3947.2 4.58 24.48 425 mm 11.5 2447.6 2.84 21.64 300 mm 6.3 1344.5 1.56 20.08 250 mm 14.0 2990.6 3.47 16.61 150 mm 5.4 1154.9 1.34 15.27 63 mm 26.2 5576.0 6.47 8.80 8.80 % Passing 63 mm mF or mE 35.6 7584.1 100.00 % Total (check with m6) 200.0 42591.6

42