Environmental Protection of International River Basins Project

This project is funded by The European Union

DRAFT BASIN MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR AKHURYAN RIVER BASIN DISTRICT

March 2016 Acknowledgements

The development of River Basin Management Plans for selected river basins/sub-river basins according to the requirements of the WFD is one of two specific objectives under the EU funded project “Environmental Protection of International River Basins” (Service Contract Nr. ENPI/2011/279-666, EuropeAid/131360/C/SER/Multi) implemented by Hulla & Co. Human Dynamics KG in consortium with the Regional Environmental Center for Central and Eastern Europe (REC), CES Consulting Engineers Salzgitter GmbH, H.P. Gauff Ingenieure GmbH & Co. KG – JBG, Crimean Republic Association "Ekologiya I Mir" (CRAEM) and Ukrainian National Environmental NGO "Mama-86", for a period of 57 months from 30th January 2012 to 29th October 2016.

For the preparation of this River Basin Management Plan for Akhuryan River Basin District of Armenia

Specific acknowledgement is given to:

− EPRIB" Project" team:" Mr." Timothy" Turner," Mr." Zurab" Jincharadze," Mr." Bernardas" Paukstys," Ms." Birgit" Vogel,"" Mr."Peter"Roncak,"Mr."Paul"Bujis,"Ms."Romina"Alvarez,"Mr."Vahagn"Tonoyan" − “Geoinfo”"LLC;"“Resource"Management”"LLC;"“NHRS”"LLC;" − Ministry"of"Nature"Protection"of"Armenia,"and"its"Water"Resources"Management"Agency,"Akhuryan"Water"Basin" Management"Authority,"Environmental"Impact"Monitoring"Centre,"Hydrogeological"Monitoring"Centre;" − Ministry"of"Emergency"Situations,"and"its"Armenian"State"Hydrometoerological"and"Monitoring"Service;" − Shirak"Regional"Administration;"Armavir"Regional"Administration;"Aragatsotn"Regional"Administration.""

Specific contributions and support for the elaboration of the document have been provided by: − Mr." Aram" Gevorgyan" (Data" Management" and" GIS" Expert)," Mr." Vilik" Sargsyan" (Hydrologist)," Mr." Levon" Martirosyan"(Geographer),"Mr."Levon"Chilingaryan"(Water"Economist),"Mr."Boris"Mnatzakanyan"(Hydrologist);" − Mr." Vahan" Davtyan," Mr." Artyom" Mkhitaryan," Ms." Lusine" Taslakyan," Mr." Harutyun" Harutyunyan,"" Mr."Alfred"Nersisyan,"Mr."Stepan"Grigoryan,"Mr."Hrant"Zakaryan,"Ms."Gayane"Hovsepyan,"Mr."Norayr"Vardanyan," Mr."Davit"Grigoryan,"Mr."Ashot"Abgaryan,"Mr."Ararat"Vardanyan""(Water"Resources"Management"Agency"and" Akhuryan"Water"Basin"Management"Authority);" − Mr."Levon"Vardanyan,"Mr."Hamlet"Melkonyan,"Mr."Levon"Azizyan,"Mr."Edgar"Misakyan,"Mr."Hermes"Tadevosyan" (Armenian"State"Hydrometoerological"and"Monitoring"Service);" − Mr."Sasun"Sahakyan,"Ms."Gayane"Shahnazaryan,"Ms."Alina"Zurnachyan,"Mr."Artur"Gevorgyan,"Mr."Vardan"Karyan," Mr."Seyran"Minasyan,"Ms."Liana"Margaryan,"Mr."Levon"Ghukasyan,"Mr."Vahagn"Petrosyan"(Environmental"Impact" Monitoring"Centre);" − Mr." Karlen" Hakobyan," Mr." Hovik" Aghinyan," Mr." Harutyun" Yeremyan," Ms." Armine" Hakobyan," Mr." Khachatur" Gharabaghtzyan,"Mr."Karen"Papoyan,"Mr."Vahe"Sargsyan,"Mr."Gegham"Muradyan"(Hydrogeological"Monitoring" Centre);" − Mr."Artur"Baghdasaryan,"Mr."Volodya"Narimanyan,"Mr."Harutyun"Khachatryan"(Ministry"of"Agriculture);" − Mr." Sanasar" Baghdasaryan," Mr." Gor" Melikyan," Mr." Yura" Azatyan," Mr." Hamlet" Gasparyan" (Armavir," Aragatsotn" and" Shirak"Regional"Administrations);" − Mr."Gevorg"Torosyan"(Ministry"of"Energy"and"Natural"Resources);" − Mr."Aida"Petikyan"(Ministry"of"Health);" − Mr."Vahe"Asryan"(Ministry"of"Finance)." "

This%document%has%been%produced%with%the%assistance%of%the%European%Union.% The%contents%of%this%report%are%the%sole%responsibility%of%the%Human%Dynamics% Consortium%and%can%in%no%way%be%taken%to%reflect%the%views%% of%the%European%Union.% " " 2"

Table of Contents

1. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND ...... 7 1.1. Introduction to the Draft Akhuryan River Basin District Management Plan ...... 7 1.2. Akhuryan River Basin District...... 8 1.3. Structure and Content of this Draft River Basin District Management Plan ...... 10 1.4. Approaches and Methodologies...... 10

2. GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF THE RIVER BASIN DISTRICT ...... 11 2.1. Natural Conditions in the River Basin District...... 11 2.1.1. Geographic Overview ...... 11 2.1.2. Climate and Vegetation...... 12 2.1.3. Geology...... 14 2.1.4. Mudflows, Landslides, Floods...... 15 2.2. Population and Demography ...... 16 2.3. Hydrological Characteristics of the Akhuryan RBD...... 17 2.3.1. Typology of Surface Water Bodies ...... 17 2.3.2. Rivers ...... 18 2.3.3. Lakes and Reservoirs ...... 21 2.4. Groundwater Resources ...... 23 2.4.1. Characteristics of Hydrogeological Units...... 23 2.4.2. Chemical Composition of Groundwater Resources ...... 24 2.4.3. Protection of Groundwater Resources...... 25 2.4.4. Regime of Groundwater Resources...... 26 2.4.5. Interaction of Groundwater and Surface Water Resources...... 26

3. SIGNIFICANT PRESSURES AND POSSIBLE IMPACTS ON WATER STATUS...... 28 3.1. Drivers...... 28 3.1.1. Agriculture...... 28 3.1.2. Fish Farming ...... 29 3.1.3. Hydropower...... 30 3.1.4. Water Abstraction and Services ...... 31 3.1.4.1. Water Abstraction for Drinking‐household Purposes...... 34 3.1.4.2. Water Abstraction for Irrigation ...... 36 3.1.4.3. Industrial Water Abstraction ...... 39 3.1.4.4. Water Abstraction for Hydropower Generation...... 39 3.1.4.5. Water Abstraction for Fish Farming...... 39 3.1.4.6. Municipal Wastewater...... 39 3.1.4.7. Summary of Water Use...... 39 3.1.5. Industry...... 39 3.1.6. Tourism...... 42 3.1.7. Solid Waste Landfills...... 42 3.1.8. Transport ...... 43 3.1.9. Future Infrastructure Development ...... 44 3.2. Types of Pressures ...... 44 3.2.1. Point Source Pollution ...... 44 3.2.1.1. Municipal Wastewater Discharge...... 44 3.2.1.2. Wastewater Discharge from Food Industry...... 47 3.2.1.3. Wastewater Discharge from Non‐Food Industry and Mining...... 47 3.2.1.4. Solid Wastes...... 48

3 3.2.2. Diffuse Sources of Pollution ...... 49 3.2.2.1. Cultivation of Agricultural Crops and Use of Fertilizers...... 49 3.2.2.2. Livestock Production...... 50 3.2.2.3. Vehicle Transport...... 52 3.2.3. Hydromorphological Alterations ...... 52 3.2.3.1. Water Abstraction...... 52 3.2.3.2. Diversion of River Flow ...... 56 3.2.3.3. Flood Protection Measures...... 57 3.2.4. Future Infrastructure Projects...... 58 3.3. Impacts...... 58 3.3.1. Assessment of Biological Status ...... 58 3.3.2. Assessment of Chemical Status...... 59 3.3.3. Assessment of Hydromorphological Status...... 62 3.4. Key Pressures and Significant Water Management Issues ...... 65 3.4.1. Identified Significant Water Management Issues in the Akhuryan RBD...... 65 3.4.2. Major Data Gaps in the Akhuryan RBD ...... 66

4. VULNERABILITY OF WATER RESOURCES WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF CLIMATE CHANGE ...... 68 4.1. Hydrological Characteristics...... 68 4.2. Climatic Characteristics...... 70 4.3. Formation and Projection of the River Flow...... 75 4.4. Temperature and precipitation changes according to climate models...... 77 4.5. Vulnerability of water resources...... 79

5. WATER BODIES AT RISK...... 80 5.1 Risk Assessment Indicators and Criteria ...... 80 5.2. Delineation of Surface Water Bodies...... 80 5.2.1. Identification of Surface Water Bodies at Risk...... 80 5.2.2. Identification of Surface Water Bodies Possibly at Risk...... 82 5.2.3. Identification of Artificial Surface Water Bodies...... 84 5.2.4. Identification of Heavily Modified Surface Water Bodies...... 86 5.2.5. Identification of Water Bodies Not at Risk...... 88 5.2.6. Summary and Overview regarding all Delineated Surface Water Bodies...... 88 5.3. Delineation of Groundwater Bodies in the Akhuryan River Basin District ...... 91 5.3.1. Criteria and Procedure for Identification and Delineation of Groundwater Bodies...... 91 5.3.2. General Delineation of Groundwater Bodies in the Akhuryan RBD...... 92

6. PROTECTED AREAS ...... 95

7. MONITORING IN THE AKHURYAN RIVER BASIN DISTRICT...... 98 7.1. Surface Water Quality Monitoring...... 98 7.1.1. Present Infrastructure for Surface Water Quality Monitoring in the River Basin District ...... 98 7.1.2. Surface Water Quality Assessment Methodology ...... 98 7.1.3. Sampling and Analysis of Priority Substances ...... 99 7.1.4. Systems of Quality Assurance/Quality Control ...... 99 7.2. Surface Water Quantity Monitoring ...... 99 7.2.1. Current Hydrological Monitoring Infrastructure of the Akhuryan RBD ...... 99 7.2.2. Methodology and Frequency of Observations...... 100 7.2.3. Identification of Hydrological Parameters and Quality Elements...... 100 7.2.4. Historical Measurements ...... 101 7.3. Groundwater Monitoring...... 101 7.3.1. Current Groundwater Monitoring Network and Infrastructure in the Akhuryan RBD ...... 101

4 7.3.2. Groundwater Measurements...... 102 7.3.3. Data Processing and Assessment ...... 102 7.4. Hydrobiological Monitoring ...... 102

8. DETERMINATION OF ECOLOGICAL FLOW OF WATER BODIES ...... 104 8.1. Principles and Peculiarities of Determination of Ecological Flow in Akhuryan RBD...... 104 8.2. Methodology on Determination of the Ecological Flow in a River Basin...... 104 8.3. Calculation of the Ecological Flow and its Comparison to Actual Flow ...... 104

9. ENVIRONMENTAL OBJECTIVES ...... 119 9.1. Environmental Objectives for Water Bodies and Protected Areas...... 119 9.2. Exemptions to Environmental Objectives...... 124

10. PROGRAMME OF MEASURES...... 125 10.1. Basic Measures ...... 125 10.1.1. Construction of Wastewater Treatment Plants for Gyumri and Armavir Agglomerations...... 125 10.1.2. Construction of Wastewater Treatment Plants Outside of the Defined Agglomerations ...... 128 10.1.3. Application of Good Agricultural Practices ...... 128 10.1.4. Implementation of River Restoration...... 129 10.1.5. Review of Water Use Permit Conditions and Improvement of Enforcement...... 130 10.1.6. Introduction of Best Available Technologies in industry...... 131 10.1.7. Abolish Abandoned and Illegally Operated Groundwater Wells ...... 132 10.2. Supplementary Measures...... 132 10.2.1. Development of WFD Compliant Monitoring Programme and network for Surface Water and Groundwater bodies...... 132 10.2.2. Investigative Monitoring of Elevated Arsenic Concentrations in Ashotzq and Armavir Regions ...... 135 10.2.3. Improvement of Water Status Assessment...... 136 10.3. Economic Analysis and Prioritization of Measures...... 136 10.3.1. Costing of Basic Measures...... 136 10.3.1.1. Construction of Wastewater Treatment Plants for Gyumri and Armavir Agglomerations...... 137 10.3.1.2. Construction of Wastewater Treatment Plants Outside of the Defined Agglomerations...... 138 10.3.1.3. Application of Good Agricultural Practices...... 139 10.3.1.4. Implementation of River Restoration ...... 139 10.3.1.5. Review of Water Use Permit Conditions and Improvement of Enforcement ...... 139 10.3.1.6. Introduction of Best Available Technologies in industry ...... 140 10.3.1.7. Abolishment of Abandoned and Illegally Operated Groundwater Wells...... 142 10.3.2. Costing of Supplementary Measures ...... 142 10.3.2.1. Development of WFD Compliant Monitoring Program for Surface and Groundwater Bodies...... 142 10.3.2.2. Investigative Monitoring of Elevated Arsenic Concentrations in Armavir and Ashotzq Regions...... 145 10.3.2.3. Improvement of Water Status Assessment...... 145 10.4. Cost Effectiveness Analysis of the Proposed Measures and Prioritization...... 146 10.4.1. Summary of the Cost Estimates of the Proposed Measures...... 146 10.4.2. Effectiveness Analysis and Prioritization...... 146 10.5. Implementation of Pilot Projects Selected from the Program of Measures ...... 148

11. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION ...... 152 11.1. EU WFD Requirements...... 152

5 11.2. Requirements of the Armenian Legislation ...... 152 11.3. Public Participation, Information, Communication and Public Outreach Activities in Development of the RBMP in the Akhuryan RBD...... 153

12. WATER SUPPLY AND DEMAND ASSESSMENT...... 109 12.1. Present Condition ...... 109 12.2. Water Supply and Demand under Conditions of Climate Change...... 111 12.3. Assessment of Water Demand by Sectors of Economy...... 112 12.3.1. Irrigation...... 112 12.3.2. Water supply for drinking‐household purposes...... 113 12.3.3. Water supply for industrial purposes...... 114 12.3.4. Fish farming ...... 114 12.3.5. Hydroenergy production ...... 115 12.4. Assessment of the Prospective Water Supply and Demand...... 116

13. ASSESSMENT OF FINANCIAL DEFICIT IN THE AKHURYAN RBD ...... 155 13.1. Background ...... 155 13.2. Approach...... 155 13.3. Assessment of Financial Deficit...... 156 13.3.1. Financial Flows in Water Management Sector...... 156 13.3.2. Water Use Fee ...... 157 13.3.3. Environmental Fees...... 158 13.3.4. Financial Deficit in Akhuryan RBD ...... 158 13.4. Recommendations to Cover the Deficit...... 159

14. COMPETENT AUTHORITIES ...... 162

ANNEXES...... 164 Annex 1. Abbreviations...... 164 Annex 2. Important Water Management Definitions...... 165 Annex 3. Approaches and Methodologies...... 168 Annex 4. List of Hydrochemical Parameters of Surface Water Quality, Testing Standards, Norms and Equipment Employed by EIMC ...... 175 Annex 5. Surface Water Quality Norms in Rivers of Akhuryan RBD ...... 176 Annex 6. Water Use Permits in the Akhuryan RBD as of 2014 ...... 178 Annex 7. Rapid Biological Assessment...... 184 Annex 8. Hydromorphological Site Protocol...... 186 Annex 9. Hydromorphological Assessment Form...... 189 Annex 10. Assessment of the Chemical Status of Water Resources in the Akhuryan RBD ...... 191 Annex 11. List of Delineated Surface Water Bodies in the Akhuryan RBD ...... 199 Annex 12. Characterization of the Hydrogeological Units in the Akhuryan RBD ...... 201 Annex 13. Identification and Delineation of Groundwater Bodies in Akhuryan RBD...... 205 Annex 14. Proposed Monitoring Programme for the Surface and Groundwater Bodies in Akhuryan RBD...... 216 Annex 15. Proposed System for Assessment of the Status of Surface and Groundwater Bodies in Armenia...... 223 Annex 16. Summary of Comments Received on Draft RBMP for the Akhuryan RBD...... 230 Annex 17. References ...... 237

6 1. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

1.1. Introduction to the Draft Akhuryan River Basin District Management Plan

This draft pilot River Basin Management Plan for the Akhuryan River Basin District (RBD) of the Republic of Armenia (RA) is developed according to the requirements of the European Union Water Framework Directive (EU WFD). The EU WFD is the main piece of legislation in the EU for protecting and enhancing good status of all water resources aiming to prevent deterioration and ensuring long‐term sustainability. It provides for an innovative approach for managing water resources based on the river basin approach taking into account the natural geographical and hydrological borders of catchment areas.

The WFD addresses different categories of water: inland surface waters (rivers and lakes), transitional waters, coastal waters, groundwater and, under specific conditions, water dependent terrestrial ecosystems and wetlands. It establishes several integrative principles for water management, including public participation in planning and the integration of economic approaches, and also aims for the integration of water management into other policy areas.

While for EU Member States it is mandatory to implement the EU WFD and to develop River Basin Management Plans (RBMPs) in line with its requirements, Non EU Member States are not legally obliged to implement the Directive although they may hold specific agreements with the European Union. The RBMP developed for the Armenia’s Akhuryan RBD is rather to increase the technical capacities of the Armenian beneficiaries and to guide them in development and implementation of RBMPs according to the requirements of the EU WFD.

The main goal of this draft basin management plan for the Akhuryan RBD is to achieve good ecological status for all water bodies in Akhuryan RBD. It also aims at improving the common understanding of competent authorities for water management, the administration, the politicians of the Akhuryan RBD and the public in general regarding EU WFD RBMPs, with their advantages as well as disadvantages.

The core of this basin management plan for the Akhuryan RBD is the Programme of Measures (PoM) that aims at achieving the environmental objectives set for all waters (good status). The PoM is based on analyses of the baseline conditions in the basin and significant anthropogenic pressures and impacts on water resources.

Hence, one of the key steps in the development of the draft basin management plan for the Akhuryan RBD was the Pressure/Impact Analysis, which is assessing the significance of pressures on water resources and possible impacts that may put water bodies at risk to fail the environmental objectives. Water bodies at risk and their related impacts are subject of the PoM that identifies measures to ensure the achievement of the environmental objectives.

It should be highlighted here that in the course of development of this draft basin management plan for the Akhuryan RBD some major data gaps were identified. This includes data gaps on the ecology of the basin, hydromorphology and compliance assurance. If these data had been available they could significantly change the assessment of the status of water bodies, streamline the expert judgments made on the nature and impact of several pressures and largely help in identification of water bodies at risk, and thus, the subsequent PoM. However, as the purpose of the report is to pilot the WFD approach for setting up RBMPs, the available information has been used to the extent possible use and expert judgment was applied when information was absent.

7 1.2. Akhuryan River Basin District

The Akhuryan River Basin District is located in the north‐west of Armenia, sharing borders with Georgia and Turkey, and transboundary with Turkey. It combines the hydrological basins of the Akhuryan and Metsamor Rivers of Armenia, covers an area of 5,029 km2 in the territory of Armenia. Akhuryan River basin within the territory of Armenia comprises about 30% of total area of the Kars‐Akhuryan transboundary basin (Figures 1 and 2).

Figure 1: Location of the Akhuryan River Basin District

The RBD was selected as a pilot area within the Environmental Protection of International River Basins Project, by the request of the Ministry of Nature Protection (MNP) of Armenia. The basin is of a vital importance to the country due to its environmental, social and economic role, and its transboundary nature.

Surface waters of the Akhuryan RBD are intensively used for various purposes. Many reservoirs are in place for regulating river flow to be utilised for irrigation, power generation and water supply for other industrial activities. Groundwater resources in the basin are an important and key source for drinking water supply for the Shirak and Armavir regions, particularly for the cities of Gyumri and Armavir. In addition, groundwaters constitute a part of the Ararat Artesian basin, which is a strategic reserve of drinking water for Armenia.

8

Figure 2: Overview Map of the Akhuryan RBD including the Akhuryan and Metsamor River Basins

9 1.3. Structure and Content of this Draft River Basin District Management Plan

The fourteen chapters of the basin management plan for the Akhuryan RBD follow the logic and requirements of the EU WFD and national legislation. Chapter 1 presents background information of the RBMP and the pilot area. Chapter 2 serves the characterisation of the Akhuryan RBD, by providing an overview of natural conditions of the area, including geography, climate and landscapes, hydrology and hydrogeology. General demographic characteristics of the Akhuryan and Metsamor River basins are also presented. Chapter 3 of the management plan is dedicated to the identification of Significant Water Management Issues (SWMIs), closely linked with the analysis of key drivers, related significant pressures and the assessment of possible impacts on water status (Pressure‐Impact Analysis according to EU WFD Article 5). The chapter also elaborates on main data gaps regarding the Pressure‐Impact Analysis. Chapter 4 assesses the vulnerability of the water resources due to climate change. Chapter 5 of the plan presents a refined delineation of surface water and groundwater bodies in the Akhuryan RBD. The delineation shows all water bodies that are at risk to fail the EU WFD environmental objectives, as well as Heavily Modified and Artificial Water Bodies (HMWB and AWB according to EU WFD Article 2). Chapter 6 addresses protected areas in the pilot area. A description of existing monitoring programmes and networks on surface water and groundwater resources of the Akhuryan RBD are presented in Chapter 7, while the EU WFD compliant new monitoring program is provided in Chapter 10 of the basin management plan, as part of the Program of Measures. Chapter 8 describes the methodology and actual calculation of the ecological flow for the delineated surface water bodies. The environmental objectives for water resources of the Akhuryan RBD and special requirements for the protected areas are set in Chapter 9 of the report, which also determines exemptions to the environmental objectives (WFD Article 4). In combination, these chapters serve as a basis for development of the Programme of Measures that is presented in Chapter 10. The measures are aligned to preliminary cost estimates, an effectiveness analysis and implementation prioritization over several 6‐year planning cycles that start in 2015. Chapter 11 describes the public participation process of the development of this draft plan. Chapter 12 provides for an assessment of water supply and demand, while Chapter 13 assesses the financial deficit in the Akhuryan RBD. Finally, Chapter 14 presents the competent authority responsible for water resources management. The findings of the basin management plan are also illustrated in 113 tables and 66 figures, including 26 thematic maps. The more detailed information and references are presented in 17 annexes to this basin management plan.

1.4. Approaches and Methodologies

This Draft Basin Management Plan for the Akhuryan RBD is developed according to the requirements of the EU WFD. This is the main piece of legislation in the EU for protecting and enhancing “good status” of all water resources aiming to prevent deterioration and ensuring long‐term sustainability. It provides for an innovative approach for managing water resources based on the river basin approach taking into account the natural geographical and hydrological borders of catchment areas.

Preparation of river basin management plans in accordance with the WFD requires implementation of many steps, which build upon each other. Respective articles of the WFD and Annexes thereto set clear requirements for implementing each of the steps of the planning process.

Annex 3 to this Draft management plan describes in details methodologies applied for characterization of the Akhuryan RBD, including pressure‐impact analysis and risk assessment, for delineating surface and groundwater bodies, setting environmental objectives, developing a programme of measures as well as conducting the economic analysis and prioritizing the proposed measures. It also describes how the respective Guidance Documents developed as a part of Common Implementation Strategy for the WFD, Guidance Documents developed within the framework of the EPIRB project, as well as national legislation were applied while implementing the steps of the river basin management planning process.

10 2. GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF THE RIVER BASIN DISTRICT

2.1. Natural Conditions in the River Basin District

2.1.1. Geographic Overview

The Akhuryan RBD includes basins of the Akhuryan River Basin and Metsamor River Basin of Armenia (Figure 2).

The Akhuryan River Basin is located in the western part of Armenia. It borders with Georgia in the north, Turkey in the southwest to northwest. Within the territory of Armenia it borders with the Debed and, Qasakh River basins in the east and Metsamor River basin in the south.

The total area of the river basin is 2,784 km2, and the territory extends between the northern latitude 40006′‐41010′ and eastern longitude 43027′‐44010′. The maximum extension of the territory from east to west is 54 km, and from north to south is 115 km. The highest point is the northern peak of Aragats Mountain – 4,090 m. The lowest point is 948 m and is located at Akhuryan River mouth, near the village Bagaran.

As of January 1, 2011, the total population in the Akhuryan River basin was about 297,000 people. The territory of the river basin includes settlements from 3 Marzes (Provinces) of the republic, of which 3 are urban settlements, and 134 are rural settlements. Of this, 123 settlements are located in Shirak Marz, 10 in Aragatsotn Marz and 1 in Armavir Marz of the Republic of Armenia.

Landscapes in the Akhuryan River basin shift from dry steppes to high mountainous alpine and nival zones. Mountain‐steppes have the widest distribution in the basin.

The following fauna is present in the river basin: wolf, fox, rabbit and several types of rodents. In the southern part of the basin boar and badger are found. The following birds are found in the basin: eagle, hawk, stork, partridge, duck, quail and others. From the amphibians frogs and toads are widely distributed, and from reptiles – Caucasian agama, Greek tortoise, Macrovipera lebetina and Vipera raddei.

Brook trout is found in the upper reaches of the Akhuryan River and its tributaries, and catfish, carp and other fish types are found in the middle and lower reaches of the basin. Carp and khramulya fish types are found in the Arpilich Reservoir.

The Metsamor River basin borders the Akhuryan River basin in the west and north, Turkey in the south (through Araks River), and Hrazdan and Qasakh River basins in the east.

The total area of Metsamor watershed is 2,060 km2 (without Qasakh tributary), whereas the area of the basin on the left side of the Araks River (within the boundaries of Armenia) between the Akhuryan and Metsamor River mouths is 185 km2. Thus, the total area of the river basin is 2,245 km2.

The river basin extends between the northern latitude 40001′‐40029′ and eastern longitude 43032′‐44023′. The maximum extent from east to west composes 61 km, and from north to south is 52 km. The lowest point in the river mouth is about 823 m, and the highest point is 3,300 m (located on Aragats mountain massif).

As of January 1, 2011 the total population in the river basin was about 251,000 inhabitants. The territory of the river basin includes settlements from 4 marzes of Armenia, of which 3 are urban settlements, and 199 are rural settlements. Of these 71 settlements are located in Armavir Marz, 46 in Aragatsotn Marz, 1 in Shirak Marz and 1 in Ararat Marz.

11 The Metsamor River basin has different landscapes, varying from semi‐deserts to high mountainous alpine and nival zones.

The following fauna is widely distributed in the river basin: wolf, fox, rabbit and several types of rodents. From birds the following types are found in the river basin: eagle, hawk, stork, partridge, duck, quail and others. Amphibians and reptiles are also widely distributed in the basin.

Grass carp, catfish, trout, silver carp, sturgeon are among the fish types bred in the fish farms.

Table 1 below summarizes the geographical characteristics of the Akhuryan RBD.

Table 1: Summary of the Basic Characteristics of the Akhuryan RBD Akhuryan River basin Metsamor River basin Akhuryan RBD Watershed area 2,784 km2 2,245 km2 5,029 km2 Lowest point 948 m 823 m 823 m Highest point 4,090 m 3,300 m 4,090 m Population number 287,000 222,000 509,000 Urban settlements 3 3 6 Rural settlements 134 119 253 Marzes Aragatsotn, Shirak, Armavir Armavir, Aragatsotn, Shirak, Ararat Shirak, Aragatsotn, Armavir, Ararat Source: National Statistical Service of the Republic of Armenia, 2012; State Water Cadastre Information System, 2014

2.1.2. Climate and Vegetation

Based on geographical position, altitude above the sea level, complex topography and other natural factors five climatic zones are distinguished in the Akhuryan RBD (Table 2).

Table 2: Main Climatic Zones in the Akhuryan RBD Altitude, m Climate Description <1300 m Dry The territory is characterized with relatively cold winter and minor atmospheric precipitation 1300‐1500 m Mild dry Winter is cold and chilly, summer is hot, autumn is warm 1500‐2300 m Mild cold Winter lasts longer and is cold with domination of freezing days, spring is long lasting and cold, summer is mild, autumn is cold 2300‐2500 m Cold mountainous Long lasting winter with thick and stable snow layer, as well as long lasting and rainy spring, cold summer and autumn are characteristic >2500 m High mountainous‐tundra Characteristic particularly to Aragats massif, where the climate is severe Source: Martirosyan L., Poghosyan D., Nahapetyan A., Valesyan L., “Geography of Agriculture of Shirak Marz”, 2000

The Akhuryan River basin is located at significant altitude (above sea level) a.s.l. and surrounded by relatively high mountain ranges. Its vicinity to dry subtropical zone at the south and southwest, its far distance from the seas determine dry weather in summer and severe frosts in winter. Climate of the river basin varies between dry land and high mountainous.

Annual precipitation in the Shirak Valley varies between 400‐500 mm. In Ashotzq area average annual precipitation varies between 600‐700 mm, while in the lower reaches of the Akhuryan River basin precipitation is around 250 mm annually. At altitudes of 3000 m and higher, annual precipitation is about 800‐1000 mm (Table 3).

The annual multiyear average air temperature ranges from ‐2.70C (Aragats high mountainous station) to +6.10C (Artik region). The absolute maximum temperature in the Akhuryan River basin was recorded in Gyumri meteorological station in 2009, when air temperature reached +37.5°C, and the minimum temperature was recorded in 2007 in Paghakn meteorological station, when it reached ‐46.3°C (Table 3).

12 Table 3: Multiyear Annual Average Values of the Selected Meteorological Parameters Recorded in the Meteorological Stations of the Akhuryan River Basin, 1961‐2011 Absolute altitude, Average annual air Annual Meteorological station Annual precipitation, mm m temperature (0C) evaporation, mm Paghakn 2004 611 2.1 298 Ashotzq 2009 604 2.2 295 Amasia 1876 670 4.3 309 Gyumri 1556 507 6.1 368 Artik 1750 570 6.1 324 Aragats high mountainous 3229 1020 ‐2.7 160 Source: Armenian State Hydrometeorological and Monitoring Service of the Ministry of Emergency Situations of the Republic of Armenia, 2012

Winter in the basin is relatively cold, and almost everywhere a stable snow cover is formed. The average duration of the stable snow cover ranges from 95 days (Gyumri) up to 252 days (Aragats high mountainous station). The average height of the snow layer ranges from 15 to 160 cm.

The main landscape zones and soil types of Akhuryan River basin are represented in Table 4 below.

Table 4: Landscape Zones and Main Soil Types in the Akhuryan River Basin Altitude, m Landscape zone Soils 1000‐1400 Dry steppes Brown and light brown soils 1400‐2300 Mountain steppes Typical and carbonated black soil 2300‐2600 Steppes and meadows Steppe‐meadow soils 2600‐2800 Sub‐alpine meadows Sub‐alpine soils >2800 Alpine meadows Meadow soils Source: Martirosyan L., Poghosyan D., Nahapetyan A., Valesyan L., “Geography of Agriculture of Shirak Marz”, 2000

Forests cover only about 3.5% of the total area of the river basin. These forests are mainly isolated. The main types of trees are planted pines and poplars, while in the Ashotzq upland the dominating trees are aspens (57ha).

Wetlands are located in separate parts of the Ashotzq upland, such as Dzethanqov (Bazirkhan) wetland. Part of the wetland, due to dense vegetation cover, is currently transformed into a peat bog.

Mountainous topography in the Metsamor River basin has a significant impact on formation of climatic conditions. Climatic zones in the basin shift from dry terrestrial landscapes to high mountainous cold zones.

Precipitation in the Metsamor River basin is unevenly distributed, which is due a complex mountainous topography of the territory. Average annual precipitation significantly varies in different parts of the river basin. In the lower part – Ararat Valley, it comprises 250‐300 mm annually; in the sub‐mountainous and high mountainous zones the average annual precipitation is recorded with 400‐500 mm and 750‐950 mm respectively (Table 5).

The average annual air temperature ranges from –2.7°C (Aragats Mountain) up to +12°C (Ranchpar). Average monthly summer temperature ranges from 8‐12°C (Aragats Mountain) up to 26‐28°C (Ranchpar), and in January varies from –13°C (Aragats Mountain) up to –4.3°C (Ranchpar). The absolute maximum temperature in Metsamor River basin was recorded in Armavir meteorological station in 2009, when the air temperature reached +42.8°C, and the minimum temperature is recorded in Aragats high mountainous meteorological station in 2005, when ‐42.5°C was recorded (Table 5).

13 Table 5: Multiyear Annual Average Values of the Selected Meteorological Parameters Recorded in the Meteorological Stations of the Metsamor River Basin, 1961‐2011 Absolute Annual Average annual air Annual Meteorological station altitude, m precipitation, mm temperature (0C) evaporation, mm Upper Talin 1582 435 7.9 340 Armavir 875 233 11.3 233 Aragats high mountainous 3229 1020 ‐2.7 160 Source: Armenian Sate Hydrometeorological and Monitoring Service of the Ministry of Emergency Situations of the Republic of Armenia, 2012

Maximum precipitation is observed in April‐May. Spring and summer precipitation is mostly of a rainstorm nature, often resulting in mudflows when coinciding with the snowmelt.

The snow cover is distributed unevenly. In the Ararat valley it comprises 10‐20 cm, whereas in high mountainous regions it reaches up to 100 cm, where the snow layer remains for 3‐4.5 months. On the slopes of Aragats mountain, at altitude of 3000 m and higher, maximum snow cover exceeds 200 cm.

Table 6 below presents the dominating landscapes, soils and vegetation cover according to different altitude zones.

Table 6: Landscape Zones and Main Soil Types in the Metsamor River Basin Altitude Landscape Soils Dominating vegetation <1000 m Semi‐deserts, deserts Salted, sandy, gypsiferous Sarsola ericoides and clay soils 1000‐1400 m Dry steppes Brown and light brown soils Stipa pontica, Fertuca Sulcals, couch grass, meadow grass 1400‐2600 m Steppes Mountainous brown soils, Stepa stenophyila black soils 2600‐2800 m Sub‐steppes, meadows, Meadow‐step soils Sedge families, herb meadows sub‐alpine landscapes 2800‐3400 m Alpine meadows Meadow soils Short grass cover Source: National Statistical Service of the Republic of Armenia, 2014;

Alpine meadows in the river basin are good summer pastures, as well as provide with fodder for livestock breeding.

2.1.3. Geology

The geological structure of the Akhuryan RBD is characterized by sedimentary, volcanic, volcanic‐ sedimentary, lava and lake‐river rocks and formations. In Amasia anticlinal flexure tuff sandstones, conglomerates, and slightly marbled limestone of 420 m thick are found. Near the villages of Krashen and Sariar 500 m thick conglomerates, sandstones and tuff sandstones of Sepasar layer of K2 are found. Cretaceous period rocks, represented by limestone, marl, and sandstone with a thickness of 550 m are detected also in the upper reaches of the Akhuryan River basin. Sediments from Cenozoic to late Eocene eras are distributed in the vicinities of villages Krashen and Mets Sariar (Shirak mountain range). They are composed of 50‐150 m thick sandstones, marls, breccia‐type limestone. Middle Eocene epoch is represented by Shirak layer of rocks – tuff sandstones, tuff‐siltstones, andesite‐basalts, nummulite limestone with overall thickness of about 1200 m. These rocks are mainly distributed in synclinal flexures of Shirak mountain range. Same sediments are identified also in the Gyumri concave with the help of wells. Oligocene epoch sediments have limited distribution. They are represented by Bandivan layers of conglomerates, sandstones, marls and clays with thin layers of oil shale and grey coal. The overall thickness of this layer of rocks is 250 m.

14 Late‐middle Pliocene epoch is represented by the Jajur layer of rocks with about 600 m thick tuff‐breccias, tuff sandstones, clays, and coal shale. Late Pliocene epoch is represented by complexes of sedimentary and lava rocks. Sedimentary rock complex or the Marmashen layer of rocks is represented by 400 m thick clays, sandy clays, gravelites and small fragmentary gravel‐type formations. These rocks are identified by the boreholes.

Lava rock complex is represented by dolerite basalts, andesites, andesite‐basalts, and basalts with thickness of 500 m and more, which are in the Akhuryan and Metsamor River basins.

Late Quaternary period rocks are represented by different complexes. Volcanic complex is represented by volcanic sand, scoria, inter‐formational andesite‐basalt flows of 250 m and larger thickness.

Upper Akhuryan lake complex is represented by 80 m thick sands, clay‐sands, and sandy clays. Middle Quaternary period is represented by Azatan lake‐river horizon (sand, gravel, rubble up to 25 m thick), Vahramaberd tuff cover and Ashotzq lava complex (andesites, andesite‐basalts with the thickness of up to 170 m).

Upper Quaternary period is represented by Shirak lava complex (basalts and andesite‐basalts up to 75 m thick), glacial and proluvial, as well as lake‐river fragmentary formations (pebble‐rubble, sand, sandy clay up to 45 m thick). Lake‐river formations up to 100 m thick are distributed in Metsamor River basin.

Contemporary formations are represented with gravel, sands, and clay‐sands of alluvial‐proluvial, elluvial and diluvial origins. Intrusive rocks of different ages, such as granodiorit‐porphyrites, gabbro‐porphyrites and gabbro‐diorites are distributed in limited areas.

In the Akhuryan River basin from south to north Hovuni, Karmraqar and Krashen‐Mets Sepasar brachy‐ anticlinals are distinguished, and Jradzor and Torosgyugh synclinals. The above‐mentioned three brachy‐ anticlinals, arranged in coulisse‐like order, together with Jajur synclinal, are known as Shirak anticlinal. In the Metsamor River basin middle Araks depression is distinguished.

2.1.4. Mudflows, Landslides, Floods

Mudflows are often occurring in several small rivers of the Akhuryan River basin, which sometimes cause big damages and lead to disasters. The most known mudflows are mainly distributed in the southern slopes of the Shirak mountain range. The Gyumri, Hatzik, Jajur, Musayelyan, Kamo, Hovit tributaries of the Akhuryan River are mudflow‐prone, particularly due to heavy summer rains. Artikjur tributary of Karkachun River is also mudflow‐prone. These mudflow‐prone rivers often cause significant destructions. The frequency of formation of mudflows is 3‐5 years. During the recent years mudflows were frequently observed in 2003 and 2004.

Landslides in the Akhuryan River basin are mainly distributed in the upper reaches of Karkachun, Mantash and Jajur Rivers of Aragats mountain range, as well as in Yeghnajur and Ellarget rivers draining into the Arpilich Reservoir, and in Ashotzq and Ghazanchi River basins. The landslides are not active and the level of danger is not great. However, there are some active landslide areas around Arapi and Marmashen settlements.

Floods are mainly observed in the middle reaches of the Akhuryan River, upstream of the Akhuryan reservoir. After construction of the Akhuryan Reservoir no floods were observed downstream. 9 floods with various level magnitudes have been observed in the Akhuryan River basin since 1940s. The largest was recorded in 1952, in the Kaps‐Bayandur section of the Akhuryan River, where the water level increased to up to 6 meters.

15 In the Metsamor River basin Mastara and Talin mudflows of Aragats massif are distinguished, which occur approximately once in every 2‐3 years. Information on Mastara mudflows exists since 1905, and indicates mudstone nature of the flows. Particularly disastrous was the mudflow of July 9, 1929, which caused human losses, destroyed several hundred head of livestock, destroyed numerous houses and caused damage to several thousand ha of sown areas.

Mastara mudflow occurrences are mainly due to the heavy spring and summer rains, and in rare cases are a result of snow melt. Mudflow discharges sometimes have reached 165‐170 m3/sec. On May 20, 1957 the Talish mudflow flooded the north‐western part of Hoktemberyan city and destroyed several dozens of houses.

Among the mudflow‐prone rivers of the basin are also Selav‐Shamiram, Kalakut and Selav‐Getap Rivers, which drain in to the Selav‐Mastara River.

Spring floods cause a significant damage to agricultural production, settlements and environment. They occur frequently at the confluence of the Metsamor and Qasakh Rivers, and inundate basements/ground floors of private houses and cultivated areas adjacent to river banks.

In order to prevent occurrence of spring floods and inundations, the following measures are regularly implemented in the territory of the river basin: research on flood‐prone areas, identification of dangerous sites, clean‐up of the river beds and river bank stabilization.

In Metsamor River basin the landslides are very few. Small‐scale landslides are observed near the Zovasar, Kosh and Ujan settlements, which do not cause significant risks and damage.

2.2. Population and Demography

The area of Akhuryan RBD includes the districts of Amasia, Ashotzq, Akhuryan, Artik, Ani, Talin, Armavir, Baghramyan, as well as parts of the districts of Aragats, Ashtarak, Echmiadzin and Masis.

In 2011, the population residing in the Akhuryan RBD comprised 548 thousand people, 52.5% of which were women and 47.5% ‐ men. The river basin embraces 253 rural and 6 urban communities, with about 41% of the total population residing in the urban and 59% in the rural areas, respectively.

The ethnical composition of the population is rather homogeneous, with 95.2% Armenians, 3.4% Yezidis, and 1.4% Russians, Ukrainians, Kurds and others.

The largest urban community in the Akhuryan RBD and second largest in Armenia is Gyumri, with a population of 121,196 people (Census data of 2011, National Statistical Survey). At the onset of the 20th century Gyumri was home for only 30,000 people. Before the devastating earthquake of 1988, the population of Gyumri was about 250,000. That earthquake with epicentre in Spitak took the lives of 17,000 people, living in the city and in the communities adjacent to it, which comprises 68% from the total number of victims fallen in earthquakes in Armenia generally. The population of Gyumri and the Akhuryan RBD as a whole drastically decreased after the earthquake, given the disturbed natural growth and significant migration.

The other, relatively large communities of the Akhuryan RBD are Armavir (29,319 residents), Artik (17,418 residents), Metsamor (9,191 residents), Maralik (7,514 residents) and Talin (5,310 residents). Metsamor is an industrial city, founded in Soviet Era, to service the Metsamor Nuclear Power Plant.

The average population density in the Akhuryan RBD as of 2011 comprised 109 inhabitants/km2. The distribution of the population is uneven, depending on the diversity of the landscape and economic

16 activities. The transport routes also play a big role in distribution of population. The highest density of population is observed in the Akhuryan (290 inhabitants/km2) and Armavir (283 inhabitants/km2) districts, whereas the lowest was registered in the Amasia (11 inhabitants/km2) and Talin (32 inhabitants/km2) districts.

Natural growth of population in the territory of the Akhuryan RBD is low and comprises 0.4%. The births in 2011 amounted to 1.5% of total population, and the deaths ‐ 1.1%. The migration balance is negative and continues negative trend (Table 7).

Table 7: Main Demographic Characteristics of the Akhuryan RBD Migration

Year births deaths Number of Number of Population Emigration Remainder Natural growth Immigration 2005 512,000 7,106 5,268 1,838 8,156 14,144 ‐5,988 2011 548,000 8,062 5,855 2,272 8,198 11,299 ‐3,101 Source: National Statistical Service of the Republic of Armenia, 2012; Analytical‐Information Centre of the Economic Reforms, “Achievements of Shirak Marz of the Republic of Armenia in 2007‐2011”, 2012

Active population of the RBD comprised 62% of the total population in 2011, mostly employed in agriculture sector, followed by the construction sector and involvement in small private businesses. Significant changes took place in the Armenian economy after the proclamation of independence, some related to privatization, transit to free markets and some to other processes, resulting in the restructuring of the labour market in the river basin. About 17% of the population of the river basin in 2011 were pensioners. The unemployment comprised 12%, with a considerable portion (85%) thereof residing in urban communities. 70% of the unemployed people were in the age group of 20‐45 (Table 8).

Table 8: Socio‐economic Conditions in the Akhuryan RBD in 2011 Social category % from the total population Economically active population 62 Employed 30 Unemployed 12 On pension 17 On welfare 12 Below the poverty line 62 Source: National Statistical Service of the Republic of Armenia, 2012; Analytical‐Information Centre of the Economic Reforms, “Achievements of Shirak Marz of the Republic of Armenia in 2007‐2011”, 2012

The decline in a considerable part of industrial enterprises results in internal migration flows inside the Akhuryan RBD, by residents leaving the urban communities for rural areas and for the Capital.

2.3. Hydrological Characteristics of the Akhuryan RBD

2.3.1. Typology of Surface Water Bodies

The surface water bodies within the river basin were identified as falling within either one of two surface water categories: “rivers” or “lakes”. Each surface water body within the river basin was differentiated by the relevant ecoregions in accordance with the geographical areas. The Akhuryan RBD belongs to the ecoregion 24 (Caucasus) (http://www.eea.europa.eu/data‐and‐maps/figures/ecoregions‐for‐rivers‐and‐ lakes). Then the water bodies were differentiated by surface water body types according to the descriptors defined in the system A of the WFD Annex II. Based on that, the typology for the “river” water bodies and “lake” water bodies in the Akhuryan RBD is presented in Tables 9 and 10 below.

17 Table 9: Typology Parameters for the “River” Water Bodies in the Akhuryan RBD Types Descriptors I II III Ecoregion 24 (Caucasus) Altitude >800 m Geology Siliceous Catchment size, km2 <100 100‐1000 1000‐10 000 Source: “Identification, Delineation and Typology of Surface and Groundwater Bodies in the Akhuryan Basin Management Area of Armenia” Report prepared by “Environmental Policy Analysis” NGO, June 2013

Table 10: Typology Parameters for the “Lake” Water Bodies in the Akhuryan RBD Types Descriptors I II III IV Ecoregion 24 (Caucasus) Altitude >800 m Geology Siliceous Area size, km2 0.5‐1 1‐10 10‐100 Depth, m 3‐15 3‐15 3‐15 >15 Source: “Identification, Delineation and Typology of Surface and Groundwater Bodies in the Akhuryan Basin Management Area of Armenia” Report prepared by “Environmental Policy Analysis” NGO, June 2013

In addition, artificial water bodies (mainly canals and ponds) and heavily modified water bodies (mainly reservoirs) were identified (WFD Article 2 and Anexx II).

2.3.2. Rivers

The Akhuryan RBD includes the watersheds of the Akhuryan and Metsamor (without Qasakh) River basins, with total area of 5,029 km2 (also see Figure 2)

The Akhuryan River network entirely belongs to the Araks River basin that is transboundary with Turkey. Due to peculiarities of topographic, climatic and hydrogeological structures, the Akhuryan River basin has relatively low density of the river network. The average density of the river network is 0.53 km/km2.

The Akhuryan River originates from the Arpilich Reservoir, located at the altitude of 2,017 m a.s.l., and at 708 km from the river mouth flows into Araks River (at the altitude of 905 m) (Figure 3). The total length of the river is 186 km. The decline of the river in the country is 1,067 m, and the average slope per 1 km is 5.7 m. The total watershed area of the river is 9,670 km2 (including the watershed area in Turkey), of which 2,784 km2 is in the territory of Armenia. In the middle and lower sections, after the confluence with the right tributary Karakhan, the Akhuryan River is transboundary with the Republic of Turkey.

Figure 3: The Akhuryan River at the Source (Photo by: EPIRB project, 2012)

18 The most water‐abundant tributary of the Akhuryan River is the right hand tributary Kars in Turkey, which has a length of 139 km and flows directly into the Akhuryan reservoir. Among the right tributaries of the Akhuryan River the following are distinguished, which are also located in Turkey: Karakhan, Chorlu and Tekor.

In Armenia the following rivers are among the largest tributaries of the Akhuryan River: Karkachun, Tavshut, Ashotzq and Jradzor. Tributaries Karmrajur, Tsaghkut, Yeghnajur, and Dzoraget drain into the Arpilich Reservoir (Figure 2). There are large rivers with seasonal flow in the Akhuryan River basin, including Jajur, Gyumriget, Mayisyan, and Hovit tributaries, which are usually dry in summer (Table 11).

Table 11: Main Rivers of the Akhuryan River Basin and their Tributaries River name Flows into Length, km Watershed area, km2 Akhuryan Araks 186 9,670.0 Karmrajur Arpilich Reservoir 15 40.0 Yeghnajur Arpilich Reservoir 19 85.0 Dzoraget Arpilich Reservoir 10 28.0 Tavshut Akhuryan 14 108.0 Tsaghkashen Tavshut 17 88.0 Chakhkal Tsaghkashen 14 20.0 Ashotzq Akhuryan 26 198.0 Vardaghbyur Ashotzq 13 29.5 Ghazanchi Ashotzq 15 50.0 Tzoghamarg Akhuryan 12 22.3 Amasia Akhuryan 10 33.0 Jradzor Akhuryan 16 66.0 Keti Akhuryan 21 62.0 Haykavan Akhuryan 25 52.7 Karkachun Akhuryan 55 1,020.0 Geghadzor Karkachun 33 144.0 Artikjur Karkachun 26 77.0 Garnahovit Karkachun 35 249.0 Metdzorijur Garnahovit 22 45.0 Chlkan Garnahovit 18 81.2 Jajur Karkachun 34 393.0 Jrarat Jajur 18 97.0 Karmraqar Jajur 21 72.0 Aygebatz Jajur 18 40.0 Source: Armenian State Hydrometeorological and Monitoring Service of the Ministry of Emergency Situations of the Republic of Armenia, 2014

In the Akhuryan River basin quantitative monitoring of the river flow is implemented at 11 river and 2 lake hydrological observation stations (Arpilich and Akhuryan reservoirs). In previous years 29 hydrological stations were operational in the Akhuryan River basin.

The river flow coefficient in the Akhuryan River basin is low (0.24), whereas in the territory of Armenia the average river flow coefficient is 0.41. Flow module value is also low, and is about 5 l/s km2, whereas in the territory of Armenia its average value is 8 l/s km2 (Table 12).

Table 12: Actual Flow Characteristics of the Akhuryan River and its Tributaries Recorded in Hydrological Observation Posts Watershed Average Annual flow River ‐ observation station area, average altitude, annual flow, layer, module, volume, km2 m m3/sec. mm l/sec. km2 mln. m3 Akhuryan‐village Paghakn 220 2350 2.38 341 10.8 75.1 Akhuryan‐v. Amasia 696 2260 7.58 330 10.5 239 Akhuryan‐v. Kaps 839 2210 7.82 294 9.32 247

19 Watershed Average Annual flow River ‐ observation station area, average altitude, annual flow, layer, module, volume, km2 m m3/sec. mm l/sec. km2 mln. m3 Akhuryan‐v. Akhurik 1060 2100 9.38 279 8.85 296 Akhuryan‐v. Haykadzor 8140 2010 31.7 123 3.89 1000 Akhuryan‐v. Bagaran 9650 1980 16.5 53.8 1.71 519 Dzoraget‐v. Dzorakert 25.2 2220 0.29 359 11.4 9.15 Ashotzq‐v. Krasar 197 2250 3.83 542 19.5 107 Jradzor‐v. Jradzor 66.0 1980 0.54 258 8.18 17.0 Karkachun‐v. Gharibjanyan 1020 2020 1.73 53.5 1.70 54.6 Jajur‐v. Jajur 39.6 2000 0.21 167 5.30 6.63 Source: Armenian State Hydrometeorological and Monitoring Service of the Ministry of Emergency Situations of the Republic of Armenia, 2012

The Akhuryan River and its tributaries have mixed feeding sources. Except several small tributaries, the main feeding source is melting waters. The role of groundwater as feeding source is significant for the Ashotzq (80%), Karkachun (40%) and Akhuryan (60%) Rivers.

In spring, when intensive snowmelt occurs and the quantity of precipitation is relatively high (April and May), the main source supplying rivers are melting waters and rainwater. In summer‐autumn and winter low‐flow periods rivers are mainly fed from groundwater resources.

In the Akhuryan River and its tributaries the spring floods are observed in the period March‐June. During the spring inundations about 35‐90% of the total annual flow passes through the river. Maximum discharges of rivers mainly occur in April‐May, except the small, mudflow prone tributaries with temporary flows.

During the low‐flow period of summer‐autumn and winter months, 20‐65% of total annual flow passes through the rivers. The low flow period lasts for a longer time and can continue for 8‐9 months.

Every year ice cover is observed on the Akhuryan River and its tributaries, except the lower reaches of the river basin.

The Metsamor River network is part of the Araks River basin. The basin also has a low density hydrological network. The average density of the river network composes 0.40 km/km2. The source of the Metsamor River is located in a wetland area west of Ayghr Lake, at an altitude of 860 m. In addition, the Ayghr Lake contributes significantly to the discharge of the river. The river flows through the Ararat valley and discharges into Araks River at 625 km upstream the Araks River mouth. The river length is 38 km, with low slope (average 1.0 m per 1 km). The Mastara thalweg, which is formed at the altitude of 3,600 m in the western slope of Aragats mountain massif and has 98 km length, flows into the Metsamor River at the source. The Qasakh tributary discharges into the Metsamor River 26 km upstream the river mouth (Table 13).

Table 13: Main Rivers of the Metsamor River Basin and their Tributaries River name Flows into Length, km Watershed area, km2 Metsamor Araks 38.0 1,007.0 Selav‐Mastara Metsamor 98.0 3,624.0 Selav‐Getap Selav‐Mastara 44.2 267.8 Selav‐Shamiram Selav‐Mastara 32.1 215.5 Ashnak Selav‐Mastara 47.1 225.7 Katnaghbyur Selav‐Mastara 25.5 55.8 Sasnashen Ashnak 16.4 38.3 Source: Armenian State Hydrometeorological and Monitoring Service of the Ministry of Emergency Situations of the Republic of Armenia, 2012

20 In the Metsamor River basin the quantitative monitoring of river flow is conducted at 3 hydrological observation stations, whereas in previous years 6 stations were operational. The river flow coefficient is 0.57, and the flow module value is 9.6 litre/sec km2 (Table 14).

Table 14: Flow Characteristics of the Metsamor River and its Tributaries Recorded in Hydrological Observation Posts Watershed Average annual Annual flow River‐observation post area, average flow, layer, module, volume, km2 altitude, m m3/sec mm l/sec. km2 mln. m3 Metsamor‐Taronik 1560 1410 15.0 304 9.64 474 Selav‐Mastara‐Arteni 322 1670 1.38 113 3.59 36.4 Metsamor‐Ranchpar 3540 1610 33.1 294 9.35 104.4 Source: Armenian State Hydrometeorological and Monitoring Service of the Ministry of Emergency Situations of the Republic of Armenia, 2012

If the impact of tributaries is not considered, then Metsamor River is exclusively discharged by groundwater that significantly determines the natural regulation of the river flow. Thus, the river differs very much from other main rivers of Armenia taking into consideration this and other hydrological properties.

According to feeding sources the following main rivers are distinguished: Mastara (mixed feeding sources) and Metsamor (mostly groundwater feeding source, 85%). The annual river flow of Metsamor River basin is almost evenly distributed, whereas Mastara thalweg represents a temporary flow. The average annual discharge of Mastara River does not exceed 1‐2 m3/s. In low‐flow period the river is almost dry, whereas during inundations the river flow reaches up to 150 m3/sec and more. The water balance of the Akhuryan RBD is provided in the table below.

Table 15: Water Balance of the Akhuryan RBD Deep groundwater Precipitation River flow Evaporation River basin Area, km2 discharge mln. m3 % mln. m3 % mln. m3 % mln. մ3 % Akhuryan 2784 1730 100 420 24 377 22 933 54 Metsamor 2245 1151 100 194 17 156 13 801 70 Akhuryan RBD 5029 2881 100 614 21 533 19 1734 60 Source: Armenian State Hydrometeorological and Monitoring Service of the Ministry of Emergency Situations of the Republic of Armenia, 2012

2.3.3. Lakes and Reservoirs

Lakes. Only a few natural lakes are located in the Akhuryan River basin. The largest one is the Arpilich Lake, which until 1951 was a natural lake that has been transferred into a lake‐reservoir. The Lake Arpilich (Reservoir) is located in the western part of the upper Akhuryan basin. According to its origin the lake is considered to be tectonic‐dammed. The Akhuryan River originates from this lake (Figure 4).

Figure 4: The Arpilich Reservoir (Photo by: EPIRB project, 2012)

21 Until 1951 the lake remained under natural conditions, and at that time the water volume in the lake composed about 5 million m3, the surface area was 5.0 km2, and the average depth of the lake did not exceeding 2 meters. In order to increase the water storage capacity of the lake a dam was constructed in 1951, and the Arpilich Lake was transformed into a reservoir. The surface area of the reservoir now is 22.1 km2, volume of water is 90 million m3, and the “dead” volume is 5 million m3. Waters of the reservoir are used for irrigation purpose and for energy generation by the Gyumri hydropower plant.

In addition to Lake Arpilich, another 8 small lakes with the total area of about 0.15 km2 are located on the basin including Lake Tagavorakan and Lake Ardenis.

In the Metsamor River basin there are numerous small lakes, and from the relatively larger lakes Metsamor (Aknalich, Ayghr) and Avazahanq are distinguished. The Avazahanq Lake is located in the valley of the Araks River, 1 km west of Hartashat village of Armavir marz, in the watershed of the Metsamor River, at the absolute altitude of 850 m. The watershed area of the lake composes 3.89 km2. The lake has artificial origin, and was formed at the site of former sandpit, moved for construction purposes. The surface area of the lake is 121 thousand m2, the volume is 150 thousand m3, and the average depth is 1.24 m.

The Metsamor (Aknalich, Ayghr) Lake is located in the Ararat valley, in the upper reaches of the Metsamor (Sevjur) River at the absolute altitude of 860 m. The watershed area of the lake composes 2.19 km2. The maximum area of the lake’s surface is 70.6 thousand m2, the volume of water is 281 thousand m3, and the average depth is 3.96 m. The lake is fed with groundwater springs with an overall discharge of 200‐250 litre/sec. Waters of the lake are used for drinking, irrigation, fish‐farming and technical purposes. Two water‐pumping stations are constructed on the lake, with total capacity of 3.3 m3/sec. It is being used for irrigating the Ararat valley agricultural lands. In addition, there are numerous small lakes and ponds in Metsamor River basin.

Reservoirs. In Akhuryan River basin there are 9 reservoirs and in the Metsamor River basin there are 21 (Table 16). These reservoirs are used for irrigation, fish‐farming and hydropower generation.

Table 16: Main Reservoirs in the Akhuryan RBD Name of the Total volume, Useful volume, River basin Purpose of use reservoir mln. m3 mln. m3 Akhuryan Akhuryan 525 5101 Irrigation, fish‐farming Mantash Akhuryan, Mantash tributary 8.20 7.90 Irrigation,water supply Karnut Akhuryan, Karnut and Jajur thalwegs 23.9 22.6 Irrigation Tavshut Akhuryan 6.0 5.75 Irrigation Vardaqar Akhuryan 5.0 4.7 Irrigation Sarnaghbyur Akhuryan 5.0 4.85 Irrigation Artik Akhuryan 1.85 1.65 Irrigation Jajur Akhuryan 0.29 0.22 Irrigation Nerqin Sasnashen Metsamor, Sasnashen tributary 1.15 1.10 Irrigation Hatzashen Metsamor, Selav‐Mastara tributary 1.11 1.10 Irrigation Kaqavadzor 2 Metsamor, Shamiram tributary 1.0 0.95 Irrigation Shenik Metsamor, Selav‐Mastara tributary 0.78 0.63 Irrigation Katnaghbyur 1 Metsamor, Selav‐Mastara tributary 0.40 0.32 Irrigation Talin 1 Metsamor, Selav‐Mastara tributary 0.22 0.22 Irrigation Verin Bazmaberd Metsamor, Sasnashen tributary 0.22 0.21 Irrigation Ashnak 2 Metsamor, Ashnak tributary 0.33 0.32 Irrigation Davtashen Metsamor, Ashnak tributary 0.32 0.29 Irrigation Source: State Committee on Water Systems of the Ministry of Agriculture of the Republic of Armenia, 2014

1) Akhuryan Reservoir’s water is being used jointly with Turkey on 50/50 basis.

22 The largest reservoir in the basin, as well as Armenia, is the Akhuryan Reservoir, which was constructed in 1975‐1982. The total volume of the reservoir is 525 mln.m3, including 510 mln. m3 of useful volume. The water surface area is 48.4 km2, the average depth is 46 m, and the width is 5.5 km. The length of the reservoir is about 20 km, and it extends from Jrarpi village until Yerazgavors village. The dam of the reservoir is concrete with a height of 59.1 m.

The junction constructed near Jrarpi village is among the most important sections of the reservoir, which includes concrete spillway with 380 m3/second design capacity, through which the excess water is released from the reservoir. Another important hydrotechnical structure is the tunnel with 364 m length and 370 m3/sec design capacity, through which water is released.

Water of the Akhuryan Reservoir is used to irrigate the agricultural lands of Ararat Valley. Water for irrigation purposes is released from the reservoir using completely automated system – through 2 spillways located in the dam. Through the spillways the water is released into the Akhuryan River, which afterward via a 6.5 km long tunnel in the Talin region is transported for irrigation of agricultural lands. Since October 1, 1983 in the Jrarpi hydrological station level of the reservoir water, temperature and ice cover are being observed. The average temperature of water in the reservoir varies in the range of 5.0‐20.5 0C. Almost every year surface of the reservoir is covered by thick ice cover, which lasts on average for 92 days, and the average thickness of the ice layer reaches 30‐35 cm.

Figure 5: The Nerqin Sasnashen Reservoir (Photo by: Akhuryan BMO, 2012)

2.4. Groundwater Resources

2.4.1. Characteristics of Hydrogeological Units

Depending on the characteristics of the formation, movement and discharge, as well as the rate of discharge and regime of groundwater resources, the following main hydrogeological units are distinguished in the Akhuryan RBD:

A) Aquifer of alluvial‐proluvial lake‐river formations of Quaternary‐contemporary period, B) Local water‐bearing lava complex of early Pliocene‐Quaternary period, C) Local water‐bearing complex of Mezo‐Cenozoic era sedimentary rocks, predominantly carbonated rock complex, D) Local low water‐bearing‐impermeable complex of Mezo‐Cenozoic era sedimentary, volcanic‐sedimentary and sedimentary rocks.

The detailed characterization of the mentioned hydrogeological units is presented in Annex 12.

23 2.4.2. Chemical Composition of Groundwater Resources

Groundwater resources in the Akhuryan River basin are mainly characterized by up to 1 g/litre mineralization, temperature of 10‐120C and 7 mg. equiv/litre total hardness. However, depending upon recharge and formation conditions, movement and accumulation environment, as well as hypsometric altitudes, high variability of the above‐mentioned indicators is observed. The freshwaters with low mineralization of lake‐river complex of Gyumri concave are extended in its Eastern part. They are characterized by 0.6‐0.85 g/litre total mineralization, temperature of 9.8‐10.50C, hydro‐carbonate and sulphate chemical composition, and pH of 7.6‐7.8. The least value of mineralization is observed in spring (April, May months), and the highest value in autumn (November, December months). Until 2000 the overall mineralization of groundwater resources of Gyumri city and its western parts was varying within a large range.

Waters with overall mineralization of more than 1 g/litre occupy an area of more than 150 km2, where the following ions are dominant: 1.5‐2 g/litre (Sulphate is dominant with up to 0.9 g/litre), 2‐3 g/litre (Sulphate and Chromium are dominant), 3 g/litre and more (Sulphate and Aluminium are dominant).

Towards South and Southwest of Gyumri city the concentration of fluorine in unconfined waters is 1.5‐1.9 g/litre.

At different depth intervals of the Gyumri concave mineral waters saturated with hydrogen sulphide are identified. In the Western part they are identified at the depth of 25 m (village Noraber), and in the eastern part at the depth of 250 m (Akhuryan). It is possible that high concentration of Sulphate ion in the unconfined waters of the Western part is due to hydraulic linkage of freshwater and mineral water aquifers. The mineral waters are fountaining 3‐12 m above the land surface. Waters of confined freshwater aquifer of the upper Akhuryan concave are characterized by high qualitative indicators. Their total mineralization varies within the range of 0.08‐0.24 g/litre, whereas the mineralization of unconfined waters varies within the range of 0.36‐0.42 g/litre. In the deep aquifers of the Upper Akhuryan concave mineral waters are identified which are saturated with carbonic gases. In the Zuygaghbyur‐Vardaghbyur depressions they are identified at the depth of 240‐250 m. In Zuygaghbyur depression they fountain into land surface for more than 8 m high.

Waters of local water‐bearing early Pliocene‐Quaternary period volcanic rock complex in the Upper Akhuryan concave are freshwaters with very low lever of mineralization. Total mineralization varies within the range of 0.14‐0.2 g/litre, and rarely 0.27 g/litre (Zuygaghbyur) in some capture structures. Lava complex waters of southern part of Gyumri concave are characterized by relatively high mineralization. Here their total mineralization in general is up to 0.5 g/litre, and in some cases up to 0.8 g/litre. Water temperature varies within the range of 7.5‐100C. Low temperatures are recorded in the Upper Akhuryan concave. Groundwater resources of the complex of local water‐bearing Mezo‐Cenozoic era sedimentary, mostly carbonated deposits also have mineralization of up to 1 g/litre. Depending on hypsometric altitudes their total mineralization varies within the range of 0.3‐0.45 g/litre. It should be noted that the chemical composition of the groundwater resources of the given complex is being indicated according to analysis of waters of natural springs which are located at high hypsometric altitudes, outside of anthropogenic impact zone. Waters of local low water‐bearing and impermeable Mezo‐Cenozoic sedimentary, volcanic‐ sedimentary and volcanic rocks are characterized by relatively low mineralization. Their total mineralization varies within the range of 0.2‐0.3 g/litre.

Summarizing the analysis of the chemical composition of fresh groundwater resources of the Akhuryan River basin, it can be concluded that groundwater resources of different levels of mineralization are found in the basin. Groundwater resources of the complex of lake‐river sedimentary confined aquifers of inter‐ mountainous concave and of early Pliocene‐Quaternary period local water‐bearing lava rocks are

24 characterized with low mineralization (up to 0.6 g/litre) and high qualitative indicators (absence of polluting chemical elements or very minor concentrations of such elements). For waters of unconfined aquifers of inter‐mountainous concaves and for groundwater resources linked to the crusts of weathering of fundamental rocks of mountainous regions it is characteristic to have significant changes in chemical composition due to natural and anthropogenic factors.

In the Metsamor River basin groundwater resources mainly have mineralization of less than 1 g/litre. Due to over‐consumption of groundwater resources in central parts of the Metsamor River basin, mineral water is mixed with freshwater resources and increases the mineralization of these freshwaters. Currently in Metsamor River basin 8 hydrogeological monitoring observation stations operate, of which 7 are in the confined aquifer, and 1 in the unconfined aquifer.

2.4.3. Protection of Groundwater Resources

The level of protection of groundwater resources within the hydrogeological units was assessed as a sum of points. They are calculated taking into consideration the following main indicators: level of unconfined waters, lithological composition of the aeration zone, thickness of low permeable rocks within the aeration zone.

The above‐mentioned indicators are obtained through field works, according to which the unconfined waters of the inter‐mountainous concave are divided into the following categories according to level of protection: 1) I order – up to 4.5 points– highly unprotected, 2) II order ‐ 4.5‐9 points– unprotected, 3) III order ‐ 9‐13.5 points – weakly protected, 4) IV order ‐ 13.5‐18 points – protected, 5) V order ‐ 18 points and more ‐ well protected.

Highly unprotected and unprotected (I and II orders) shallow (unconfined) waters are distributed in the central parts of the Gyumri and Upper Akhuryan concaves. Depending on the depth of unconfined waters the level of their protection increases towards foothill zones, reaching to 18 points and more.

It should be noted that assessment of vulnerability of unconfined waters is made for non‐lithified sediments of clay composition (clay‐sand, sandy clay, clay), which are distributed in the inter‐mountainous concaves. As it is known in Akhuryan River basin fundamentally lithified deposits of different lithological composition and genesis are widely distributed, which differ by their fracturing, filtration properties, as well as certain depths of infiltration of atmospheric precipitation. Vulnerability of the unconfined waters of the mountain and foothill zones of these regions is assessed using the data from previously existing wells at the depth of 50‐250 m.

In the region of distribution of volcanic lavas a new order has been distinguished for sections of volcanic scoria, called conditionally protected. Despite the fact that in this section the unconfined waters are located at the depth of 70 m and more, the permeability coefficient of the above‐mentioned rocks is 60 m/day and more. That is why groundwater resources of this section are characterized as conditionally protected. In the foothill or transit zones of distribution of volcanic rocks unconfined waters are located at the depth of 50‐250 m and more. In this cross‐section lavas and tuffs of low water‐permeable dacite composition participate, as a result of which groundwater resources of these zones are considered as well protected. Waters of local water‐bearing Mezo‐Cenozoic carbonate rocks are considered as well protected since in the limited area of their distributions the karstic processes are absent. Waters linked to crust of weathering of the complex of local low water‐bearing impermeable Mezo‐Cenozoic rocks are considered conditionally protected.

25 In addition to unconfined waters the level of protection of artesian is also assessed. The assessment is conducted through the ratio of thickness of the impermeable layer covering the confined aquifer (m0) and levels of confined (H2) and unconfined (H1) aquifer waters. The following groups of vulnerability are distinguished: 1) protected, when m0>10 m, and H2>H1, 2) conditionally protected, when m0 varies within the range of 5‐10 m (5 m ≤ m0 ≤10 m), and H2>H1, 3) unprotected, when m0 is less than 5 m (m0 < 5 m), and H2≤H1.

Protected confined waters are distributed in the Northern part of the Gyumri concave, as well as Ashotzq and Ghazanchi concaves. Groundwater resources of the Southern part of Gyumri concave are assessed as conditionally protected.

2.4.4. Regime of Groundwater Resources

In Akhuryan River basin the following regimes of groundwater resources are distinguished: natural, under anthropogenic impact, under natural impact.

The natural types of regime are characteristic for the springs of mountainous regions (territories adjacent to Zuygaghbyur, Ashotzq, Ghazanchi, Arpilich Reservoir, Shirak and Pambak mountain ranges), where significant anthropogenic factors are absent. In these territories the changes in groundwater level, temperature and chemical composition are in close inter‐linkage with natural factors.

Anthropogenic impact regime is characteristic to groundwater resources of the Gyumri and Ashotzq concaves and of the Metsamor River basin. Increase of the level of unconfined waters starts with irrigation season. Correspondingly the water temperature and chemical composition also change.

The anthropogenic impact of the regime in the South‐Western part of Gyumri concave is due to abstraction of groundwater resources and irrigation. As a result, the mineralization of groundwater resources has increased. Currently in the central part of Gyumri concave sugar factory operates, the exact impact of which is still unknown due to absence of groundwater monitoring data.

Anthropogenic impact of the regime is also characteristic to groundwater resources of Metsamor River basin, which is due to significant water abstraction.

Naturally impacted regime is observed in the western part of Gyumri concave, where particularly in the region of distribution of mineral waters, increase of chemical composition of groundwater resources is observed.

Starting from 1990s in Akhuryan River basin no hydrogeological monitoring has taken place, as a result of which it is difficult to assess the current level of groundwater resources in the river basin. Assessment might be possible using the results of observations from characteristic wells.

2.4.5. Interaction of Groundwater and Surface Water Resources

In the Akhuryan River basin the groundwater and surface water resources are directly connected. Moreover, in all seasons the groundwater resources are discharged into the Akhuryan River and its tributaries. In mountainous regions (Shirak, Pambak, Khonav mountains and their mountain ranges) groundwater resources are discharged on the mountain slopes as springsor as drainage flow. In low‐flow seasons the river flow is entirely formed by the groundwater discharge due to absence of precipitation.

26 In the central parts of the Akhuryan River basin inter‐mountainous concaves (Gyumri, Upper Akhuryan) the unconfined aquifers are recharged by vertical seepage of confined aquifers. In the central parts of the mentioned concaves the level of artesian waters is replenished at the level higher than unconfined waters and land surface. Due to difference of pressures in certain territories the discharge of groundwater resources appears through wetlands and sometimes upward springs. In the Upper Akhuryan concave the discharge of Ashotzq River near the settlements Ashotzq is increased by 500 litre/second due to upward movement of confined waters. Such occurrences are also observed in Vardaghbyur‐Zuygaghbyur, Ghazanchi concaves, as well as in the Western part of Gyumri concave – Cherqezi dzor River. Here river discharge is about 350 litre/second and is entirely formed thanks to discharge of waters of lake‐river confined aquifer of Gyumri concave. Here the discharge occurs in the form of upward springs and drainage flow in the river bed. For some springs capture structures are built and these springs are being used for drinking water supply. Opposite occurrence is observed in the foothill zones of inter‐mountainous concaves. River‐flooding (alluvial‐proluvial) sediments, composed in debris cones, have wide distribution in the northern and eastern parts of Gyumri concave. These are considered to be a favourable environment for infiltration of surface flow and recharge of groundwater resources.

The Metsamor River originates in a result of discharge of groundwater resources of the Ararat Artesian Basin. It is the only river in Armenia, which is exclusively recharged by groundwater resources. Surface water resources transported from other river basins (Sevan, Hrazdan, Qasakh, Akhuryan),are used for irrigation purposes in the Metsamor river basin, which artificially feed the unconfined aquifer. The main irrigation channels pass through foothill zones, where fractured lavas have wide distribution. Filtration losses from the irrigation systems recharge the second confined aquifer. Until 1990s, water transfers to the Metsamor River basin during the irrigation season were exceeding 50 m3/s. According to some estimates, about 28‐30% of irrigation water is infiltrated into the deep flow and supplements the groundwater resources. Thus, artificial component of groundwater in the Metsamor River basin has composed about 14 m3/s until 1990s. Until 1990s surface water flow from other river basins was used for irrigation in Metsamor River basin, which resulted also in formation of artificial resources of underground waters, whereas currently irrigation uses the groundwater resources of the basin and no artificial groundwater resources are formed. Also, previously the use of waters of II confined aquifers was allowed only for drinking water supply purpose, whereas currently such waters are widely used for fish‐farming, totalling to about 13 m3/s and more nowadays.

Given that the inflow component or recharge of aquifers in the groundwater resources balance has decreased, and the outflow (evaporation, water abstraction) component has increased, it is evident that the exploitable reserves of groundwater resources will also decrease.

27 3. SIGNIFICANT PRESSURES AND POSSIBLE IMPACTS ON WATER STATUS

3.1. Drivers

3.1.1. Agriculture

Agriculture is one of the leading sectors of economy in the Akhuryan RBD. In 2013 the agricultural lands in the Akhuryan RBD comprised an area of 456,900 hectares, out of which 51% are pastures, 30% ‐ arable lands, 8% grasslands and 3% perennials, and 9% are used for miscellaneous purposes.

The focus of agricultural production in the RBD is crop production, followed by livestock production, including cows and sheep. In the Shirak Valley the main crops are grains, which are cultivated on about 70% of the cultivated land, fodder crops and potatoes. In Armavir region production of vegetables in the green houses has been gradually increasing. Various types of vegetables and strawberry are grown under glass and polyethylene covers on about 1,000 hectares of the land, which enables to provide the national population with fresh vegetables almost all over the year. In the lower reaches of Metsamor River arable lands with cereals have reduced over the last 10 years, and areas for vineyards and orchards have expanded instead.

Table 17: Crop Gross Production in the Akhuryan RBD Cultivated land, hectares Crop 2011 2012 2013 Cereals 53,381 56,983 59,959 Potatoes 5,351 5,980 6,215 Vegetables 7,644 7,694 8,122 Fruits 2,739 2,741 2,941 Grapes 4,846 5,017 5,265 Fodder 21,048 21,232 21,926 Other 17 16 31 Source: Annual Report of the Shirak Marzpetaran on Social‐Economic Situation in the Shirak Marz in 2013, 2014; National Statistical Service of the Republic of Armenia, 2014; Analytical‐Information Centre of the Economic Reforms, “Achievements of Aragatsotn Marz of the Republic of Armenia in 2007‐2011”, 2012; and “Achievements of Armavir Marz of the Republic of Armenia in 2007‐2011”, 2012.

“Shirak”, “Aragats”, “Aygabats”, “Ajapnyak”, “Aknalich”, “Masis”, “Khoy”, “Parpi”, “Amberd”, “Shahumian”, “Armavir”, “Metsamor‐Akhtamar”, “Merdzapnya”, “Araks”, “Mush”, “Karakert” and “Shenik” Water Users’ Association (WUAs) supply and service agricultural lands in the Akhuryan RBD. The total service area of the WUAs is 69,825 ha. The irrigation infrastructure consists of about 51 pump stations, network of 43 irrigation canals, including main, secondary and tertiary canals, which provide water from rivers and reservoirs for irrigation of the agricultural lands of the Akhuryan RBD. As of January 2014 the permitted annual water use for irrigation purposes in the RBD comprised 1,784,627 thousand m3, which is almost 74% of the total permitted water use. Due to poor condition of the irrigation infrastructure, water losses in the network currently comprise about 50%.

Approximately 18,000 ha of the irrigated lands of agricultural significance in the lower part of the RBD (Metsamor River basin) are currently not cultivated, mainly due to a lack of irrigation water and absence of tertiary irrigation networks, double salinization of lands, as well as low solvency of individual rural communities, and high rates of emigration.

Cattle breeding has always been a traditional branch of agriculture in the Akhuryan RBD as widespread pastures, geographical position and natural climatic conditions create favorable conditions. This is proven by an annual increase of both livestock capita and livestock yield.

28 Table 18: Number of Livestock in the Akhuryan RBD, thousand capita Cattle Pigs Sheep and goats Poultry 2011 2012 2013 2011 2012 2013 2011 2012 2013 2011 2012 2013 177.4 181.3 188.1 34.4 37 37.9 169.7 185.1 190.5 524 500.5 635 Source: Annual Report of the Shirak Marzpetaran on Social‐Economic Situation in the Shirak Marz in 2013, 2014; National Statistical Service of the Republic of Armenia, 2014; Analytical‐Information Centre of the Economic Reforms, “Achievements of Aragatsotn Marz of the Republic of Armenia in 2007‐2011”, 2012; and “Achievements of Armavir Marz of the Republic of Armenia in 2007‐2011”, 2012.

The gross agricultural product in the Akhuryan RBD has amounted to 278.7 billion AMD in 2013 (Figure 6).

Figure 6: Gross Agricultural Products in the Akhuryan RBD in billion AMD (Data source: National Statistical Service of Armenia, 2014; Annual Report of the Shirak Marzpetaran on Social‐Economic Situation in the Shirak Marz in 2013, 2014; Annual Report of the Aragatsotn Marzpetaran on Social‐Economic Situation in the Marz in 2013, 2014; Annual Report of the Armavir Marzpetaran on Social‐Economic Situation in the Marz in 2013, 2014)

3.1.2. Fish Farming

As of January 2014, there were 146 fish farms in the Akhuryan RBD, including 96 operational ones. The total annual permitted water use for fish farms composed 65,188.8 thousand m3 permitted water use, and 60,685.3 permitted return flows. These farms occupy 964 ha of land, and mostly abstract water from 176 groundwater wells.

During the last 6‐7 years fish farming has increased significantly in the Armavir Marz, contributing significantly to the economy of the RBD. Fish farms mostly abstract water from groundwater aquifers of the Ararat Valley of Armenia (covering Armavir and Ararat Marzes of Armenia) and return flows into surface waters (Metsamor and Araks rivers).

Carp, silver carp, catfish, kramulya (Varicorhinus capoeta), trout, sturgeon are being produced in the fish farms. Gross fish production amounted to about 2,500 tons in 2013 in the Akhuryan RBD, with trout and sturgeon species comprising 65‐70% of the gross production. Part of the production is used for local consumption, and the rest is imported to foreign markets, such as Russia, Ukraine, Georgia, US, Arabic countries, etc.

29 3.1.3. Hydropower

Small hydropower plant (HPP) development both in Akhuryan RBD and in Armenia as a whole is considered as very important to contribute to the renewable energy source share. Currently there are 12 small HPPs operating in the Akhuryan RBD, with a total installed capacity of 17,240 kW and 4 small HPPs in Metsamor river basin, with total capacity of 27,180 kW. The Gyumri HPP is the most powerful small hydropower plant in the RBD, with an installed capacity of 5,280 and calculated flow of 6.4 m3/sec. The Armavir HPP is the most powerful small hydropower plant on Armavir main canal, with capacity of 2,040 kW and calculated flow of 22.0 m3/sec (Table 19, Figure 7).

Table 19: Characteristics of Small HPPs Operating in the Akhuryan RBD Name of River Capacity Flow, Ecological flow Fish passes Water source the small HPP Basin kW m3/ sec maintained exist Gyumri Akhuryan 5,280 6.4 Shirak Canal No No Talin Metsamor 5,140 5.6 Talin Irrigation Canal N/A N/A Jradzor Akhuryan 3,900 5.0 Akhuryan Canal No No Paros Akhuryan 2,380 9.2 Akhuryan River No Yes Marmashen Akhuryan 2,150 16.0 Akhuryan River Yes Yes Armavir Metsamor 2,040 22.0 Armavir main canal N/A N/A Talin Irrigation Canal, 2nd Vardan Metsamor 1,710 5.0 N/A N/A stage Amasia Akhuryan 1,600 Akhuryan River No Yes Yeghnajur Akhuryan 1,230 Yeghnajur River Yes Yes Shenik‐Vanand chute of Vardanants Metsamor 1,050 4.0 Talin Irrigation Canal, 2nd N/A N/A stage “Mantash‐Artik” drinking Artik‐1 Akhuryan 380 0.25 N/A N/A water pipeline “Zuigaghbyur‐Gyumri” Mayisyan Akhuryan 320 0.5 N/A N/A drinking water pipeline Source: Public Services Regulatory Commission, 2013; Akhuryan Basin Management Organization, WRMA, 2014

Although the HPPs of the Akhuryan RBD are of small capacities they can cause significant pressures on water resources.

At present, there are 3 other small HPPs are being constructed in the Akhuryan RBD, as indicated in Table 20 and Figure 7 below.

Table 20: Characteristics of Small HPPs in Construction in the Akhuryan RBD Name of River Capacity, Flow, Ecological flow Fish passes Water source the small HPP Basin kW m3/ sec maintained exist Cascade Akhuryan 4,270 9.54 Akhuryan River No Yes Shenik Metsamor 550 Talin Irrigation Canal, 2nd stage N/A N/A Baghramyan Metsamor 440 Talin Irrigation Canal N/A N/A Source: Public Services Regulatory Commission, 2014, Akhuryan Water Basin Management Authority, WRMA, 2014

30

Figure 7: Small HPPS in the Akhuryan RBD as of January 2014 (Data source: WRMA of the Ministry of Nature Protection of the Republic of Armenia, 2014)

3.1.4. Water Abstraction and Services

Water abstraction and allocation in the Akhuryan RBD is carried out for drinking water supply, irrigation, industrial water supply, hydropower generation and fisheries. As of January 2014 and according to the water use permits, the recorded water abstraction in Akhuryan RBD was 1,192.7 mln m3. Surface water abstraction (976.7 mln m3) constituted the prevalent part of total water abstraction (81.9%), and the groundwater use was 216.0 mln m3 (or 18.1% of total). The localization of the water abstraction points is presented in Figure 8, and the breakdown of the water use volumes by water use purpose ‐ in Figure 9 (for more details refer to Annex 6 of this plan).

31

Figure 8: Water Abstraction Points in the Akhuryan RBD, as of 01.01.2014, according to Water Use Permits (Data Source: Water Resources Management Agency, Ministry of Nature Protection of Armenia, 2014)

32

Figure 9: Water Abstraction in Akhuryan RBD (in mln m3), as of January 2014, according to water use permits (Data Source: WRMA of the Ministry of Nature Protection of Armenia, 2014)

As of January 2014, there were 61 water abstraction points in the Akhuryan River basin, out of which 35 are abstractions from groundwater and 26 from surface water resources. Predominantly, groundwater abstractions are used for drinking and domestic purposes. As of January 2014, water abstraction in the river basin amounted to 936.3 thousand m3. A larger part of water abstraction is carried out for agricultural irrigation purposes (436.9 thousand m3) and hydropower generation (433.3 thousand m3). The least part of water abstraction was for industrial purposes (0.2 thousand m3). The water abstraction for drinking/ household purposes comprises 50.6 thousand m3 and for fish farming – 15.3 thousand m3.

The water discharge to the Akhuryan River basin amounts to 454,204.0 thousand m3. This water comes mainly from hydropower plants and fisheries.

Groundwater use is carried out through springs and wells. Springs are centralized in the northern outskirts of Verin Akhuryan concave. Zuigaghbyur, Ashotzq and Ghazanchi springs are captured and they serve the supply of drinking water to Gyumri and its adjacent settlements, with total flow of 1.7m3/sec. In this case, the water flow of the Ashotzq River reduces proportionally (by 1.7 m3/sec). In these concaves, particularly Ashotzq concave, water is also abstracted by the wells. Total water abstraction from 13 wells in Ashotzq concave makes 350 l/sec. This water, together with Zuigaghbyur water pipeline, is used to supply drinking water to Gyumri city and its adjacent settlements. All the wells are fountaining. Essentially, by default the waters of groundwater aquifers have been discharging into the rivers. Therefore, the actual water flow of Ashotzq River has decreased by 1.7+0.35=2.05 m3/sec, rather than by 1.7m3/sec.

There are also significant volumes of water used for drinking water supply in the Gyumri concave. Currently water is pumped from 15 wells. Water abstraction is carried out by individual communities, without measuring water quantity. If in the mentioned water abstraction conditions the groundwater table was in the range of 7‐30 m depth, in the absence of regular observations, it is difficult to predict their depth.

Currently 118 water abstraction points exist in the Metsamor River basin, 103 of which are from groundwater and 15 – from surface water resources. The number of groundwater use permits exceeds the number of surface water use by approximately 5 times due to fish‐farming recently developed in the Metsamor River basin, which uses the groundwater extracted from deep aquifers of the Ararat Valley.

33 As of January 2014, total water consumption in the Metsamor River basin amounted to 256.4 thousand m3. Most of the water is used for irrigation purposes (120.1 thousand m3). Water consumption for fish‐farming constitutes 49.9 thousand m3, for hydropower ‐ 25 thousand m3, and for drinking/household purposes – 28.6 thousand m3.

Groundwater in the Metsamor River basin is used for drinking, fish farming and irrigation purposes. A considerable part of water abstraction is carried out for fish farming (more than 13 m3/sec). There is no calculation conducted for the actual quantities of water abstraction. Due to the large volume of water abstraction, the level of confined aquifers is intensively reducing (annually 0.15‐0.35 m and more). As a result, decreases in groundwater table have direct impact on environment of the water abstraction areas.

Figure 10 presents the water abstraction shares by water use purpose in the Akhuryan RBD by river basins.

Figure 10: Water Abstraction in the Akhuryan RBD Disaggregated by the River Basins, as of January, 2014, According to Water Use Permits (Data Source: Water Resources Management Agency, MNP, 2014)

3.1.4.1. Water Abstraction for Drinking‐household Purposes

As of January 2014, annually 79.2 million m3 of water was used for drinking‐household purposes in Akhuryan RBD, according to totally issued 47 permits. Water supply for drinking‐household purposes is carried out by “Shirak Water Supply and Sewerage”, “Nor Akunk”, “Armenian Water Supply and Sewerage” closed joint‐stock companies (CJSCs), as well as by self‐servicing communities. Annually 50.6 million m3 of water was used for drinking‐household purposes in the Akhuryan River basin (amounts to 5.4% of the total water abstraction in the river basin) and 28.6 million m3 in the Metsamor River basin (11.2% of the total water abstraction in the river basin).

In the Akhuryan River basin the water supply is carried out by “Armenian Water Supply and Sewerage” and “Shirak Water Supply and Sewerage” CJSCs and local self‐government authorities (Figure 12). Water supply of 37 communities in Gyumri city, Akhuryan, Ani, Amasia regions is carried out by “Shirak Water Supply and Sewerage” CJSC from “Ghazanchi”, “Zuigaghbyur”, “Krasar”, “Krunk Spring” and “Vard Bagh” water springs, total production capacity of which makes 1,482 l/sec by gravity method. Water supply of Artik and Ashotzq communities is carried out by “Armenian Water Supply and Sewerage” CJSC from Mantash gravity system and Ashotzq water springs. Water supply is carried out by water transmission pipelines, extending for 229.2 km, which are mainly constructed in complex landscape conditions and pass through hard rock layers and marshy grounds, as well as by main water pipelines, which have a total length of 250.8 km. “Shirak Water Supply and Sewerage” CJSC operates 10 daily regulation reservoirs and 5 chlorination plants. The company provides service to internal distribution networks of communities, which have an approximate length of 660‐700 km. “Armenian Water Supply and Sewerage” CJSC operates internal distribution networks of Artik and Ashotzq communities, approximate length of which makes 150 km. Mainly 3 urban communities

34 (Gyumri, Artik and Maralik) from river basin communities receive drinking water from centralized water supply systems, where water is treated under the defined procedure. Water supply and sewerage systems in other settlements, rural areas in particular, are in very poor and worn‐out condition, which creates serious problems for delivering appropriate quality of water to the population.

In the Metsamor River basin the water supply is carried out by “Armenian Water Supply and Sewerage” and “Nor Akunk” CJSCs and local self‐government authorities (Figure 11). These organizations supply water from the Chlkanner and Aragats springs, and water springs of Taronik and Shor‐Shor pumping station, mainly with total capacity of 1,235 l/sec. Three cities and over 50 communities in the river basin receive drinking water from centralized water supply systems, where water is treated. In the remaining settlements the water supply is the responsibility of the local government authorities. The majority of households in some rural communities of the river basin use common faucets. Water for Argina, Shenik, Karakert, Myasnikyan and Koghbavan communities is supplied by tankers. Water abstracted from deep wells of Arevadasht and Hushakert communities is used for irrigation, and drinking water is received from wells of Sardarapat village.

Figure 11: Service Areas of Drinking Water Supply Companies in the Akhuryan RBD (Source: “Geoinfo” LLC, 2013)

35 3.1.4.2. Water Abstraction for Irrigation

Most of the water in the Akhuryan RBD is used for irrigation. As of January 2014, annual water abstraction for irrigation purposes was 557 mln m3 in Akhuryan RBD (about 46.7% of the total water abstraction in the RBD).

In the RBD the irrigation water is supplied by “Aygabats”, “Shir”, “Ajapnyak”, “Aragats”, “Aknalich”, “Masis”, “Khoy”, “Parpi”, “Amberd”, “Shahumian”, “Armavir”, “Metsamor‐Akhtamar”, “Merdzapnia”, “Araks”, “Mush”, “Talin”, “Karakert” and “Shenik” WUAs (Figure 12).

Figure 12: Service Areas of Water User Associations in the Akhuryan RBD (Data Source: State Water Cadastre, 2013)

In the RBD the irrigation is carried out through the following 42 canals, total irrigated area of which makes about 69,825 hectares (Table 21).

36 Table 21: Characteristics of the Canals in the Akhuryan RBD Length, Transmissibility, Irrigation Name of the canal Source of feeding km m3/sec area, ha Armavir canal Araks River 43.65 35‐50 19,538 Shirak canal Akhuryan River 21.3 6.6 9,817 Talin canal two‐level Talin canal 27 8 4,970 Talin canal one‐level Talin canal 11.2 11 4,865 Akhuryan right bank canal Akhuryan River 30.18 5 4,230 Zartonk pumping station canal Metsamor River 11.86 5 2,871 Akhuryan canal Canal 26.6 0.1‐1.12 2,826 Aygebats canal Karnut reservoir 21.7 3.6 2,668 Jrarat canal Metsamor River 19.4 5 1,440 Armavir N1, N2 pumping station canal Armavir canal 13 0.3‐1.6 1,432 Lower waterway of Aknalich pumping Lake Metsamor 11.5 2 1,325 station “Khothundzi” mechanical irrigation Akhuryan River 0.8 0.6 1,298 Haykashen canal Metsamor left bank 10 6 1,227 canal Right bank canal of the Karangu River Karangu River 17.4 2 1,193 Left bank canal of the Karangu River Karangu River 2.9 1.5 1,144 Upper waterway of Aknalich pumping Lake Metsamor 10.4 2 999 station Maralik water pipeline Sarnaghbyur reservoir 3.5 0.9 775 Kaps reservoir system Kaps reservoir 760 Akhuryan right bank canal Akhuryan River 4.4 0.7 755 Horom canal Karnut reservoir 9.2 0.8 631 Voskehask pump, canal Akhuryan River 6.1 0.6 590 Jrap‐Aghin water pipeline Akhuryan reservoir 2.52 0.4 449 Karnut water supply/irrigation system Karnut reservoir 15.5 0.8 445 Metsamor pumping station canal Metsamor River 0.6 0.35 390 Yervandashat canal Akhuryan River 10.7 2 384 Metsamor pumping station canal Metsamor River 0.6 0.35 350 Tavshut irrigation canal Tavshut reservoir 1.5 5.1 331 Jrapi‐Haykadzor Akhuryan reservoir 1.62 0.5 315 Sari Aru canal Chilkan springs 13.9 2.5 277 Akhurik‐Yerazgavors canal Pumping station 48 08 270 Metsamor left bank canal Metsamor River 16.8 11.2 226 Bazmaberd canal Vosketas springs 10.0 3.0 207 Mastara canal Chilkan springs 28.0 1.5 165 Katnaghbyur‐Ashnak canal Vosketas springs 26.0 3.5 159 Sis‐Araks N1, N2 pumping station Metsamor River 0.9 0.25 130 canal Karangi river wing canal Karangi River 0.8 0.3 123 Hatsashen canal Mastara River 3.5 2.5 118 Bayandur pumping station canal Akhuryan River 2.3 0.2 91 Agarak canal Vosketas springs 12.9 1.5 70 Karmrashen canal Karmrashen River 2.5 2.5 64 Metsamor pumping station canal Metsamor River 17.9 3 10.1 Talin canal Akhuryan River 23.4 27.5 8 Source: State Committee on Water Systems of the Ministry of Agriculture of RA, 2014

The largest canals in the RBD include Armavir Canal, with and irrigation area of 19,538 ha and Shirak Canal, with an irrigation area of 9,817 hectares.

There are 59 pumping stations in Akhuryan RBD, even though not all of them are operational. The largest ones are Artik, Pokr Sepasar, Ani two‐level and Tavshut pumping stations. Total irrigation area of the pumping stations is approximately 43,180 hectares. Ranchpar, Arevshat, Zartonk and Aknalich are the largest pumping stations in the RBD (Table 22).

37 Table 22: Characteristics of the Pumping Stations in the Akhuryan River Basin Pressure, Productivity, Irrigation area, Name of the pumping station Source of feeding m m3/sec hectares Ranchpar 1st Catchment‐drainage waters 80 1.75 9,419 Arevshat 2nd Pumping 95 3.3 9,259 Arevshat 1st Lake Metsamor 80 12.25 3,637 Zartonk Metsamor river 27 5.05 2,875 Aknalich Lake Metsamor 65 4.55 2,210 Artik Karnut reservoir 100 2 1,743 Pokr Sepasar From springs 240 0.73 1,238 Hoktemberian Aras river 52 1.66 914 Talin‐1 Talin canal 100 2.2 859 Dashtadem Akhuryan reservoir 310 1.53 852 Toros village Akhuryan reservoir 210 0.44 755 Hushakert 40 1.12 737 Voskehask Akhuryan River 210 0.55 590 Beniamin two‐level Karnut reservoir 120 0.59 396 Metsamor 52 3.04 350 Tavshut Tavshut reservoir 175 0.78 331 Akhurik three‐level Akhuryan River 65 0.38 323 Mayisian Metsamor pumping 40 0.56 300 Aygabats one‐level Karnut reservoir 120 0.32 257 Aygabats two‐level Karnut reservoir 90 0.54 250 Gharibjanian Akhuryan River 120 0.64 247 Metsamor Metsamor River 21 0.55 232 Hayreniats Karnut reservoir 70 0.30 197 Akhurik one‐level and two‐level Akhuryan River 50 0.66 185 Hushakert Armavir canal 90 0.58 163 Mayisian Shirak canal 120 0.26 160 Nor Kesaria‐1 Armavir canal 65 0.7 150 Sarnaghbyur Sarnaghbyur reservoir 210 0.32 130 Bazmaberd 600 0.16 130 Araks‐1 40 0.17 104 Bayandur two‐level Akhuryan River 75 0.23 100 Armavir Armavir canal 14 0.7 100 Bayandur one‐level Akhuryan River 90 0.57 91 Akhurik five‐level Akhuryan River 50 0.08 85 Akhurik four‐level Akhuryan River 50 0.16 80 Aknalich‐2 Lake Metsamor 30 0.08 80 Nor Kesaria ‐2 28 0.22 76 Lernamerdz Deep wells 85 0.04 75 Vardanashen From the lakes 36 0.28 70 Araks‐1 Metsamor River 14 1.05 70 Akhuryan Akhuryan River 90 0.36 67 Hatsik 20 0.08 60 Araks‐2 Metsamor River 14 0.7 60 Hushakert‐1 Armavir canal 30 0.16 40 Araks‐2 65 0.7 25 Yervandashat Araks River 55 0.08 20 Bagaran Bagaran canal 55 0.02 15 Beniamin one‐level Karnut reservoir 36 0.13 3 Kharkov Akhuryan River 210 0.16 Horom Horom reservoir 264 0.02 Arevik Drainage waters 40 0.84 Drainage Artashar Armavir canal 13.5 0.66 Drainage Aknalich‐3 Lake Metsamor 21 1.35 Offset

Source: State Committee on Water Systems of the Ministry of Agriculture of the Republic of Armenia, 2014

38 3.1.4.3. Industrial Water Abstraction

Water abstraction for industrial purposes in the Akhuryan RBD is mainly carried out in the fields of food industry, light industry and mining industry. As of January 2014, the annual water use for industrial purposes amounts to 33 mln m3 in the Akhuryan RBD, which is 2.8% of the total water abstraction.

3.1.4.4. Water Abstraction for Hydropower Generation

As of January 2014, the annual water abstraction for hydropower generation purpose amounts to 458.3 mln m3 in the Akhuryan RBD, which accounts for 38.4% of the total water abstraction. Currently there are 12 small HPPs operating in the RBD, with total installed capacity of 27,180 kW.

3.1.4.5. Water Abstraction for Fish Farming

As of January 2014, the annual water use for fishery purposes in the Akhuryan RBD exceeds 65.2 mln m3. Vast majority of over hundred fisheries withdraw water from groundwater basin of the Ararat Valley. Large quantity of water that are used from groundwater reserves of the Ararat Valley, are being lost by running into the Metsamor and Araks Rivers as surface flow and leaving the country.

3.1.4.6. Municipal Wastewater

In the Akhuryan RBD sewage and municipal wastewaters from settlements are directly discharged into the rivers without treatment, since there are non‐operational wastewater treatment plants, and sewage and industrial water pipeline networks are obsolete: 70‐80% is out of order. As a result, all wastewaters, including municipal, industrial and non‐industrial, are discharged untreated.

3.1.4.7. Summary of Water Use

Table below provides summarized data of water use in the Akhuryan RBD by water use purpose.

Table 23: Water use in the Akhuryan RBD by sectors as of January 2014 Akhuryan River basin Metsamor River basin Akhuryan RBD Water use purpose mln m3 % of total mln m3 % of total mln m3 % of total Irrigation 436.9 46.66 120.1 46.84 557.0 46.70 Hydropower production 433.3 46.28 25.0 9.75 458.3 38.42 Industry 0.2 0.02 32.8 12.79 33.0 2.77 Drinking‐household 50.6 5.41 28.6 11.15 79.2 6.64 Fish farming 15.3 1.63 49.9 19.46 65.2 5.47 Total 936.3 100 256.4 100 1192.7 100 Source: National Statistical Service of the Republic of Armenia, 2015, Water Resources Management Agency, 2015

3.1.5. Industry

Currently there are 110 acting industrial enterprises in the Akhuryan River basin, 90% of which are medium and small companies. As of 2013, 76 of the economic operators issuing products are companies belonging to the branch of manufacturing industry. Manufacturing industry is the main branch of industry, 88% of which goes to food industry (Table 24).

Table 24: Structure of the Industrial Product of the Akhuryan River Basin by Branches of Industry, % Branches of industry Volume of product,% Power, gas, steam and good quality air supply 10.7 Mining industry and operation of open mines 0.3 Processing industry 88.4 Water supply, sewerage, waste management and processing 0.6 Source: National Statistical Service of the Republic of Armenia, 2013

39 About 86% of industrial enterprises in Akhuryan River basin are located in Gyumri (mainly food production and light industry). Relatively large enterprises in the river basin include “Lenteks”, “Igit”, “Shirak” beer, Artik “Steklomash”, “Tufablokneri Gortsaran”, Maralik “Nayteks”, Artik “Artik Tuff” and other companies (Table 25).

Table 25: Relatively Large Enterprises in the Akhuryan River Basin Name of the enterprise Region Field of activity “Analitsark ‐1” OJSC Akhuryan Electrical, electronic and optical equipment “Arshaluis” OJSC Akhuryan Textile industry (hosiery) “ArmenKarpet” Gyumri Branch Akhuryan Textile industry (carpets) Gyumri Malt Beer “Shirak” CJSC Akhuryan Food and drink production “Lenteks” CJSC Akhuryan Textile industry “Steklomash” OJSC Artik Production of machinery and equipment “Artik‐Tuff” CJSC Artik Extraction of minerals “Vardatuff” LLC Artik Extraction of minerals “Shinanyut” OJSC Akhuryan Extraction of minerals “Anipemza” OJSC Ani Production of other non‐metallic mineral resources “Ashotzqi Panragortsaran” OJSC Ashotzq Food production “Amasiayi Panragortsaran” OJSC Amasia Food production Source: National Statistical Service of the Republic of Armenia, 2013

The extraction of minerals in the river basin is mainly centralized in Artik and Pemzashen, where tuff and pumice are extracted. Operation of the sugar factory was launched in the Akhuryan region, with a daily capacity of 500 tons. Construction plays an essential role in the industry of the Akhuryan River basin. During the last five years 30 billion Armenian drams were spent in the construction sector. The key expenses were incurred for housing construction in Gyumri and other settlements (Table 26).

Table 26: Production and Sale of the Industrial Products of the Akhuryan River Basin, by Types of Economic Activity Economic indicators Volume of the produced product Volume of the (expressed in current prices), sold product, million AMD million AMD Volume of the industrial product, including: 42,750 42,580 Power, gas, steam and good quality air supply 4,932 4,696 Mining industry and operation of open pits 124.3 120.5 Manufacturing industry 40,406 38,575 Water supply, sewerage, waste management and processing 287.5 281.3 Source: National Statistical Service of the Republic of Armenia, 2012; Analytical‐Information Centre of the Economic Reforms, “Achievements of Shirak Marz of the Republic of Armenia in 2007‐2011”, 2012

The return flows from the light industry are discharged into sewage system of Gyumri. However, there is no data available on location of discharging the return flows from the newly operational Akhuryan sugar factory. Considering the dissemination of ground waters in the entire Gyumri concave and high filtration rate of water‐bearing rocks (up to 24 m/day and more), the industrial flows of the mentioned factory, without primary treatment, may become a potential source of pollution for groundwater and soils.

Industry is one of the most important sectors of the economy in the Metsamor River basin. It is currently specialized in production of energy, jewellery, production of food, refreshing beverage and alcoholic drinks, as well as operation of deposits of non‐metallic mineral resources (tuff, andesite‐basalt, perlite sand and scoria quarries). Manufacturing industry, the volume of which is increasing year by year, has a significant role in the river basin industry; currently it constitutes 84% of the total industry. It has increased at the expense of foodstuff, including production of drinks and processing of non‐metallic mineral resources. Currently there are businesses manufacturing small and medium agricultural products in the river basin, and the largest of them are Armavir “Map” and “Sardarapat” companies (Table 27 and 28).

40 Table 27: Structure of the Industrial Product of the Metsamor River Basin by Branches of Industry, % Branches of industry Volume of product,% Power, gas, steam and good quality air supply 12 Mining industry and operation of open mines 3 Manufacturing industry 84 Water supply, sewerage, waste management and processing 1 Source: National Statistical Service of the Republic of Armenia, 2013

There are plenty of reserves of construction materials in the river basin. Minerals are mainly presented by tuffs, andesites‐basalt, perlite sands and scoria. Mines in the river basin are operated by 93 organizations, 50 of which are currently operational (Table 28). Only in 420 hectares of lands in 17 communities of Armavir region there are 21 land users extracting minerals from deposits.

Table 28: Production and Sale of the Industrial Products of the Metsamor River Basin, by Types of Economic Activity Economic indicators Volume of the produced product Volume of the sold (expressed in current prices), product, million AMD million AMD Volume of the industrial product, including: 39,015 40,333 Power, gas, steam and good quality air supply 4,682 4,911 Mining industry and operation of open mines 1,125 1,558 Manufacturing industry 32,773 33,467 Water supply, sewerage, waste management and 435 397 processing Source: National Statistical Service of the Republic of Armenia, 2012; Republic of Armenia Aragatsotn Marzpetaran, “Socio‐Economic Development Plan of the Republic of Armenia Aragatsotn Marz for 2011‐2014”, 2011; Republic of Armenia Armavir Marzpetaran, “Socio‐Economic Development Plan of the Republic of Armenia Armavir Marz for 2011‐2014”, 2011

Armavir Machine‐tool Construction Factory produces gold pieces (up to 9 kg each), through its unique ultra‐high precision pressure oven. It also produces iron balls for “Armenian Copper Program”, “Akhtala Ore Mining Plant”, Drmbon Gold Factory and other companies (Table 29).

Table 29: Relatively Large Enterprises in the Metsamor River Basin Name of the enterprise Region Field of activity “Armavir‐MAP” CJSC Armavir Canned food production “Levon” LLC Armavir Canned food production “Biokat Plus” LLC Talin Foodstuff and dairy production “Armavir Farmer” CJSC Armavir Fishery “Armenia Vine” CJSC Talin Production of drinks “Golden Grape Armas” OJSC Armavir Processing of agricultural products Armavir Machine‐Tool Construction Factory Armavir Machinery parts “Sardarapat” CJSC Baghramyan Canned food production Armavir Branch of “Yerevan Brandy Factory” Armavir Production of drinks CJSC Source: National Statistical Service of the Republic of Armenia, 2013

The Metsamor Nuclear Power Plant, the capacity of which is 430 MW, is located on the territory of the river basin. The nuclear power plant abstracts water from the Metsamor River to cool its generators – about 2 m3/sec. The Metsamor Nuclear Power Plant, which is situated 4 km north from the Metsamor River source. This may have the greatest possible impact on the environment. Considering that the term of operation of Metsamor NPP block has expired, from environmental and safety perspective, International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and EU countries recommend suspending activities of the old block and constructing a new one.

Due to inability to attract sufficient financial resources, the construction of the new nuclear energy block with installed capacity of 1060 MW was postponed until 2026.

41 3.1.6. Tourism

Tourism is insufficiently developed in the Akhuryan RBD.

The Akhuryan River basin is rich in picturesque sites of mountainous rivers and small lakes, as well as numerous historical, architectural monuments and obelisks, including the Marmashen medieval monastery, Harich monastery complex, which have great recreation and tourism development potential. However, at present this potential is not adequately used.

The Metsamor River basin is a unique area, where historical monuments from almost all periods of the Armenian history, or their testimonies are preserved. Urartian castles (Hnaberd, Tsaghkahovit), and Shenik (5‐7th century), Mastara (6th century), Garnahovit (6‐7th century) churches are well preserved. Metsamor archaeological museum, Armenia state ethnographic museum in Sardarapat, the biggest groundwater flow in Armenia, Ayghrlich, old pagan Centre Bagaran, Sardarapat memorial are also there. There are ruins of castles and spiritual monuments in Talin. On the left side of Yerevan‐Armavir highway, between Aknalich and Taronik villages, Metsamor fortress is located. There are ruins of primeval fortresses and mausoleums in the vicinity of Aknalich, which show that this territory and its adjacent settlements have been populated since ancient times. Provided there is necessary care and investments, the lake may become an important tourist site. From all of the historical, cultural and natural values mentioned above, tourist traffic is observed only towards the Sardarapat memorial. Considering the lack of adequate road networks, hotels, resorts and services in the Akhuryan RBD, tourism has not developed yet. Still weakly developed tourism sector does not cause significant pressure on water resources of the Akhuryan RBD.

3.1.7. Solid Waste Landfills

Issues related to waste management in the Akhuryan RBD are a priority and urgent, due to lack of sanitary municipal waste landfills, compliant with the requirements of urban development, lack of separate collection of industrial and municipal wastes, as well as lack of actions aimed at waste prevention, collection, transportation, storage, processing, recycling, reclamation, removal, decontamination and disposal.

Gyumri, Artik, Maralik and Akhurik municipal landfills in the Akhuryan River basin are in poor condition. The landfill of Gyumri is located in the North‐western part of the city, Akhuryan River valley, which has approximately 40 hectares of territory and lacks a sanitary protection zone of 1,000 m. Registration of accumulation of industrial and municipal wastes is not carried out. Particularly hazardous wastes are not separated and they are dumped into the general landfill. There are also considerable construction waste and municipal solid waste accumulations in various sections of the city ‐ gorges, watercourses, etc., which significantly impact the ecological status of the city. During rainfalls and snowmelts, waste accumulated in the city area is washed with water, and the latter results in infiltration of hazardous chemical compositions into groundwater basins.

In the Metsamor River basin, municipal, as well as industrial and construction wastes are practically removed to urban and rural landfills, together with solid municipal wastes. Waste removal in the river basin is not carried out in compliance with the RA Law “On Wastes” (adopted in 2004) and other regulatory documents, which raises probability of negative impact from solid waste accumulations and landfills on human health and natural environment, particularly on land and, through infiltration, on water. Currently garbage and waste removal is not fully carried out in the river basin.

Currently, a fishery is operating on the territory of the former warehouse of toxic chemicals in Jrarat community. However, there are hundreds of kilograms of toxic chemicals in two preserved buildings of the warehouse. A part of these chemicals is in sacks, some in barrels, and the rest is scattered all over the territory of the warehouse. Sacks are worn out, and toxic chemicals spread out easily from destroyed

42 buildings to the fisheries and the environment, by wind and rainwater. In 2011, a Czech company named “Arnika” took samples there and discovered that DDT content exceeded 50 percent in some sacks. In one of the examined sacks 1 kg of toxic chemicals contained 647g DDT. Sacks also contained DDT dissolving substances, such as metabolites, DDT and other substances, which all have major toxic properties. In the surroundings of the warehouse 1 kg of soil contained 280 mg DDT.

An area of 4‐5 thousand m2 adjacent to the Sasunik community has turned into a landfill, which has put the community into poor ecological conditions (Figure 13).

Figure 13: “Open burning” of waste in the Sasunik landfill (Photo by: EPIRB project, 2012)

3.1.8. Transport

The total length of roads in the Akhuryan RBD is 1,620 km (Table 30).

Table 30: Roads of the Akhuryan RBD by their Significance Area Total roads, Inter‐state roads, National roads, km Community roads, km km km Akhuryan River basin 830 114 433 283 Metsamor River basin 790 260 310 220 Total in Akhuryan RBD 1,620 374 743 503 Source: National Statistical Service of the Republic of Armenia, 2013

Cargo and passenger transportation in the Akhuryan River basin is carried out by roads, railways and air. “Shirak” airport in Gyumri is operating in the river basin, which provides flight connection with CIS countries and is capable of receiving any type of air transport.

However, the main passenger and cargo transportation is carried out by roads. The interstate M1 Yerevan‐Gyumri‐Bavra road passes through the territory of the river basin. During the last years the community roads in the river basin were renovated. However, many intercommunity roads are still in a poor condition.

Passenger and cargo transportation in the Metsamor River basin is mainly carried out by road transport. M3 road of state significance (border of Turkey‐Margara‐Armavir‐Vanadzor‐Tashir‐state border of Georgia) and M5 road of interstate significance (Yerevan‐Armavir) pass through the territory of the river basin (Table 31).

Roads of interstate significance in the river basin are currently in a relatively satisfactory condition. A considerable part of roads of local significance in the river basin has not been renovated for ages, due to lack of financial resources.

43 Table 31: Passenger and Cargo Transportations in the Akhuryan RBD in 2011 Area Cargo transported, Cargo circulation, Traffic Passenger circulation, thousand tons million t/km million passenger/km Akhuryan River basin 445 24 470 000 76 Metsamor River basin 390 35 510 000 89 Total in Akhuryan RBD 835 59 980 000 165 Source: National Statistical Service of the Republic of Armenia, 2013

3.1.9. Future Infrastructure Development

Two projects are planned in the Akhuryan RBD regarding the storage of water resources: construction of the Selav‐Mastara reservoir and rehabilitation of the partially constructed Kaps reservoir.

Selav‐Mastara reservoir will be located in the territory of Myasnikyan community of Armavir province, on Selav‐Mastara River. The reservoir will have 10.2 million m3 overall storage volume (planned height of the dam is 30 m). It will collect the free flow of Selav‐Mastara River in the section between Akhuryan Reservoir and the head‐structure of the Talin irrigation system. The construction of the reservoir will enable to irrigate 4384 ha of agricultural lands of the region. As potential funder, Kuwait Foundation of Arabic Economic Development is planning to have appraisal mission. The preliminary estimated cost for construction of the reservoir is 27 mln USD.

Another project is related to rehabilitation of the partially constructed Kaps reservoir (Figure 14). With the funding of the German KfW Bank, a feasibility study for rehabilitation of Kaps Reservoir and construction of Gravity Irrigation System. In the initial phase it is anticipated to rehabilitate the dam at a low level, providing about 6 million m3 capacity and the gravity supply of 2,200 ha of irrigation currently supplied by pumps or non‐irrigated. The projected volume of the reservoir after rehabilitation is 90 million m3. The estimated cost for activity is 75.4 mln USD.

Figure 14: Location of the Kaps Reservoir

3.2. Types of Pressures

3.2.1. Point Source Pollution

3.2.1.1. Municipal Wastewater Discharge

This section provides assessment of impact of municipal wastewaters in the basin on the status of water resources. As it was mentioned in the previous sections, all municipal wastewaters discharged in the Akhuryan RBD, and Armenia as a whole, are untreated due to absence or dilapidated condition of wastewater treatment facilities. In addition, there is a significant lack of quality and quantity data on wastewater discharge (i.e. organic matter COD) in Armenia.

To analyse pressures from municipal wastewater discharge, the Pressure Indicator 1 of the “Guidance Document on Pressure/Impact Analysis (Risk Assessment) in the EPIRB Project Pilot Basin” was adapted and a simplified model of point source pollution has been applied (Annex 3).

44 As a result of applying the mentioned approach, Gyumri, Artik and Maralik towns are viewed as potential sources of significant pressures in the Akhuryan River basin. Using the above‐mentioned method, the impact of these sources of pressure was assessed. The results of the assessment are summarized in Table 32 below:

Table 32: Pressure from Wastewater of the Towns of the Akhuryan River Basin

Settlement Population Flow, BOD5, Suspended Phosphorus Nitrogen, mg/l l/sec mg/l particles, mg/l mg/l Gyumri 121,976 4200 20.2 30.3 1.0 5.2 Artik and Maralik 24,932 400 43.3 64.9 2.2 11.2 Source: Census data of October 2011, National Statistical Survey, 2012; “Geoinfo” LLC, 2013

Taking into account the values of the model, the projected values of BOD5, suspended particles, total nitrogen and total phosphorus were calculated for Akhuryan River basin. These values were compared with the averaged values recorded at the EIMC’s water quality monitoring posts (#34 on the Akhuryan River and #38 on the Karkachun River). The results are provided in Table 33 below.

Table 33: Projected Values in Water Quality Indicators of the Akhuryan River Basin and Actual Monitoring Data BOD , Suspended Phosphorus, Nitrogen, 5 mg/l particles, mg/l mg/l mg/l Background concentrations of the Akhuryan River 3.0 25 0.086 0.8 Calculated increase in Gyumri 20.2 30.3 1.0 5.2 Calculated increase in Artik and Maralik 43.3 64.9 2.2 11.2 Model calculated value (observation post #34) 44.1 88.26 2.1 11.4 Actual monitoring data (observation post #34) 3 208.6 0.24 4.5 The difference of model and actual concentrations, % 93 ‐136 89 61 Model calculated value (observation post #38) 38.8 80.8 1.9 10 Actual monitoring data (observation post #38) 2.7 70 0.26 5 The difference of model and actual concentrations, % 93 13 86 50 Source: “Geoinfo” LLC, 2013

The results show that there is a significant difference between water quality monitoring data and model calculated data. It is also noteworthy to mention that assessment of the difference of model values and actual monitoring data is almost the same in both observation points. Among the reasons for such discrepancy one should mention that the point source nature of the pressure of municipal wastewaters and use of the model were most probably incomplete or limited. Firstly, wastewaters are not totally treated, and, secondly, there are great losses in sewage pipelines, which lead to dispersion of wastewaters and reduction of the impact on river water quality. The process of self‐treatment also needs to be taken into account, which is apparent from relatively low values of actual concentrations of nitrogen and phosphorus.

However the data show that point source pollution from municipal wastewater is a significant pressure on water resources of the Akhuryan River basin and is, hence, investigated if it puts water bodies at risk to fail the WFD environmental objectives (see also Chapter 4).

Armavir, Metsamor and Talin towns are viewed as potential sources of significant pressures from municipal wastewater in the Metsamor River basin. There are wastewater collectors in these towns, which discharge the collected wastewater into open water bodies without any treatment. The sewage pipelines of Armavir and Metsamor towns are connected to the municipal wastewaters but are discharged into the Metsamor River through the sewage pipeline, practically without any treatment. Wastewaters from the Talin sewage collector are discharged into the Selav‐Mastara internal stream bed, thus discharging again into the upper section of the Metsamor River. The assessment of the impact of municipal wastewaters of the river basin on quality of water resources of the Metsamor River has been implemented using the simplified model of point source pollution, described in Annex 3. The results of the assessment are summarized in Table 34.

45 Table 34: Pressure from Wastewater of the Towns of the Metsamor River Basin BOD , Phosphorus, Nitrogen , Ammonium, Settlement Population 5 COD SP, mg/sec total mg/sec Bichromat mg/sec mg/sec mg/sec Armavir 29,319 23.61 35.42 35.42 0.57 6.10 4.05 Metsamor 9,191 7.29 10.94 10.94 0.18 1.88 1.25 Talin 5,310 3.96 5.94 5.94 0.10 1.02 0.68 Total 211,402 174.31 261.46 261.46 4.22 45.03 29.92 Source: Census data of October 2011, National Statistical Survey, 2012; “Geoinfo” LLC, 2013

Taking into account the values of the model, the projected values of BOD5, suspended particles, total nitrogen, ammonium and total phosphorus were calculated for the Metsamor River basin. The values were obtained by dividing the pollutant inflow rate by the water flow. These values were compared with the averaged value (2009‐2012) of the EIMC 40th observation point (11 km above Echmiadzin) for monitoring of water quality of the Metsamor River. The results are provided in Table 35 below:

Table 35: Projected Values in Water Quality Indicators of the Metsamor River Basin and Actual Monitoring Data Values of indicator concentrations

BOD5, COD full SP Phospho‐ Nitrogen Ammonium mgD/l mgD/l mg/l rus, mg/l mNg/l mg/sec Background concentrations ‐ Metsamor 3.0 10 6.2 0.174 2.27 0.103 Calculated increase in Metsamor 5.56 8.33 8.33 0.13 1.44 0.95 Calculated increase in Armavir 1.72 2.57 2.57 0.04 0.44 0.29 Calculated increase in Talin 0.93 1.40 1.40 0.02 0.24 0.16 Total estimated increase by calculation of 8.20 12.30 12.30 0.20 2.12 1.41 the number of population of three towns Total estimated increase by calculation of the total number of population in river 41.50 62.25 62.25 1.00 10.72 7.12 basin Expected model value by calculation of the 11.2 22.30 18.5 0.374 4.39 1.513 number of population of three towns Expected model value by calculation of the 44.5 72.25 68.45 1.174 12.99 7.103 total number of population in river basin Actual monitoring data (observation post 3.0 29 22,5 0.281 4.2 0.89 #40) The difference of model and actual ‐41.5 ‐43.25 ‐45.95 ‐0.893 ‐9.09 ‐6.213 concentrations Source: “Geoinfo” LLC, 2013

The results show that there is a significant difference between water quality monitoring data and model calculated data, as in the case of the Akhuryan River basin. This difference also could be explained by the fact that recognition of the point nature of pressure of municipal wastewaters and use of the model are most probably incomplete or limited. Firstly, wastewaters are not totally treated, and, secondly, there are great losses in sewage pipelines, which lead to dispersion of wastewaters and reduction of the impact on river water quality. However, if we take only the cumulative municipal pressure of the three large settlements of the Metsamor River basin through the sewage pipeline, the model calculated data will be quite consistent with actual monitoring data, except the BOD5 indicator. The process of self‐treatment also needs to be taken into account, which is apparent from relatively low values of actual concentrations of nitrogen and phosphorus.

However, the mentioned discrepancy between the monitoring data and modelled calculated values shall be addressed in the monitoring activities implemented within the scope of the EPIRB Project, particularly the Gap filling exercise, which is planned to be conducted in spring 2015.

Data show that point source pollution from municipal wastewater is a significant pressure on water resources of the Metsamor River basin and is, hence, investigated if it puts water bodies at risk to fail the WFD environmental objectives (see also Chapter 4).

46 3.2.1.2. Wastewater Discharge from Food Industry

Food industry wastewaters are discharged into the sewage network in the Akhuryan RBD, therefore the impact of these water flows is added to the impact from municipal wastewater.

The 86% of industrial enterprises in the Akhuryan River basin is centralized in Gyumri town, and industrial flows discharge into the sewage network, thus adding the impact of these flows to the impact of sewage pipeline.

The pressure of food enterprises on quality of water resources of the Akhuryan River is also significant, taking into consideration monitoring data in the monitoring post #34 (River Akhuryan, 5 km downstream of Gyumri).

The volume of all industrial flows in the Metsamor River basin makes 0.015 m3/sec. in total. They are discharged into general urban sewage pipeline and then dumped into the Metsamor River. Industrial flows of Talin are also treated and finally discharged into the Metsamor River. The quantity of food industry wastewaters is actually small in Armavir and Talin. For example, the volume of all types of industrial wastewaters discharged into Armavir sewage pipeline is half of the volume of municipal wastewaters. The proportion of food industry discharge is not identified, therefore, it is impossible to differentiate the food enterprise pressure from municipal pressure. However, food enterprises also have significant pressure on quality of water resources of the Metsamor River.

3.2.1.3. Wastewater Discharge from Non‐Food Industry and Mining

In order to assess impacts of mining and other industrial discharge in the Akhuryan RBD, the dynamics of values of metal concentrations across the river stream (between the observation posts and in the observation posts) was studied, and relevant classification was made. The classification was based on annual average concentration values of indicators for the period of 2010‐2012. The classification was made according to the Resolution #75‐N of the Government of Armenia of 27 January 2011 “On Establishing the norms for assuring water quality of each River Basin District, depending upon local peculiarities”.

As the classification is based on natural background concentrations of metals, it allows assessing industrial pressure. In the Akhuryan River basin, due to the impact of wastewater of Gyumri town, pollution loads of chromium, nickel, zinc, molybdenum, cadmium, antimony and lead increased in the Akhuryan River (30% was taken as a maximum permissible concentration using expert judgment method). Pollution loads of sodium, calcium, vanadium, iron, manganese, cobalt and lead increased across the river stream up to Gyumri and further. Despite the increase, the indicators were still classified as “excellent” and “good” quality, according to the ecological norms of classification of water quality.

Pollution loads of sodium, magnesium, potassium, calcium, bromine, manganese, strontium, molybdenum, antimony, sulphate and chloride ions and mineralization values have increased in the Karkachun River, as a result of extraction of tuff and other minerals in Artik region. Classification of the above‐mentioned indicators was also carried out. Out of these indicators, only sodium and ammonium were classified as “poor”, manganese and mineralization – “moderate”, and the rest were classified as those having “good” or “excellent” status. ‘

In the lower sections of the Ashotzq tributary of the Akhuryan River there are iron and molybdenum ore deposits. Drainage waters from these sites contain high concentrations of arsenic, titanium, manganese, nickel, iron, chrome, boron. According to data from EIMC, the concentration of arsenic in Ashotzq River mouth exceeds the concentration at the river source by almost 50 times. As a result, the water quality in Ashotzq River mouth corresponds to “moderate” (III) class.

47 The iron and molybdenum ore deposits of Ashotzq region pose significant pressure on the Ashotzq tributary of the Akhuryan River. Extraction and processing of construction materials has significant impact on the Karkachun River.

Construction materials, particularly tuff, andesite‐basalt, perlite sands and scoriae are extracted in Metsamor River basin. Currently there are 50 mines in the river basin. There are 35 operational pits in Armavir region, on total land area of 420 hectares. Discharge from mines, the layer washed from surface, operation of extracting equipment, discharge of cooling liquids from crushing and processing activities have certain impacts on water quality of the Metsamor River. However, presently it is impossible to differentiate the portion of these impacts in the overall pollution, due to absence of relevant data.

Most industrial discharges come from the Armavir “Hoktemberyani Ferosplav” CJSC, at the volume of 485.1 t/year. Sulphur dioxide generally is the major part of these discharges, partially covering the river basin as sulphuric acid and causing acidic erosion in the surface land layer. As a result, a number of metals dissolve from the soil and pass into water environment, which may partially appear in groundwater, and primarily in the Metsamor River water, sediments and irrigation water.

As the classification is based on natural background concentrations of metals, it allows assessing industrial pressure. Despite the increase of concentration values of the most of the indicators in the upstream observation point and across the river compared to background concentrations, water quality is still classified as having “excellent” and “good” status. Thus, water quality is not subject to any significant change. Taking into account the achieved results and the small quantity of Armavir industrial water flows (0.015 m3/sec), it could be concluded that discharges of Armavir industrial wastewaters do not have a significant impact on water quality of the Metsamor River.

Relevant observations and laboratory analysis are conducted by the EIMC and Nuclear Power Plant. Concentration values of the key indicators (Pb, Cs, Sr, U, etc.) correspond to background values and they are typical of the other river basins, as well. Results of the studies show that the Nuclear Power Plant does not have impact on water quality of the basin.

3.2.1.4. Solid Wastes

There are 6 officially operating landfills in Gyumri, Artik, Maralik, Armavir, Talin and Metsamor towns of the Akhuryan and Metsamor river basins. All the mentioned landfills are in a poor condition. Landfills have turned into areas of irregular waste piles. They lack filtrated wastewater collection systems, and, as a result, wastewaters infiltrate into soils, causing pollution of ground and surface waters. Although the landfills are in a poor condition and present a source of environmental pollution, they cannot have strong pressures on water resources of the river basin as they are small in size, except the one in Gyumri. The landfill of Gyumri, with total area of 40 hectares, is situated near the Akhuryan River and it has a negative impact on the Akhuryan River, the river section located among the settlements from Arapi and Akhurik. The water flows generated from washing of landfills reduce water quality directly or indirectly, leaking into groundwater.

In the Metsamor River basin industrial and construction wastes are transported together with solid wastes to urban and rural landfills. Some wastes are stored in industrial sites and reused for industrial and other purposes, (i.e. the slag of ferromolybdenum). Another example includes the residues of brandy factory production, approximately 3000 t/year, which is accumulated right on the territory of the factory. Currently this residue is used for reclamation of saline, alkali soil and fertilization of agricultural crops. The residues of grapes after the last pressing is approximately 2000 tons annually and these are used as forage.

It can be concluded that solid wastes have certain local impact on quality of water resources of the Akhuryan RBD. Thus, it cannot be considered as significant pressure due to spatial distribution and small footage area. However, the local impact of solid wastes on water quality shall be checked within the scope of the EPIRB Project, as a part of the Gap filling activities that are planned to be conducted in spring 2015.

48 3.2.2. Diffuse Sources of Pollution

3.2.2.1. Cultivation of Agricultural Crops and Use of Fertilizers

About 35% of agricultural lands in the Akhuryan River basin – 80,500 ha, are arable lands. In 2013, 61,309 ha of arable lands of the river basin were cultivated. Grains crops accounted for 69% of the agricultural crops in the river basin. According to information obtained from the Shirak Marzpetaran, 4,250 tons of nitrogen fertilizers were used for agricultural crops in the river basin in 2013. About 70 kilograms of nitrogen fertilizers were applied for 1 ha, whereas on average 150‐200 kg is required for 1 ha with similar agricultural crops. Due to a lack of disaggregated data on application of the fertilizers in specific areas of the river basin, and based on the assumption that fertilizers are mainly applied evenly on agricultural lands, it is assumed that nitrogen fertilizers used in the in the river basin in 2013 cannot pose significant pressure on water quality (Figure 15).

Figure 15: Agricultural Crops in the Akhuryan River Basin, in hectares, as of 2013. (Data source: Annual Report of the Shirak Marzpetaran on Social‐Economic Situation in the Shirak Marz, National Statistical Service of the Republic of Armenia, 2012).

About 24% of the agricultural lands in the Metsamor River basin – 54, 456 ha, are arable lands. In 2013 43,150 ha were cultivated, which comprise 79% of the total arable lands of the basin. According to information obtained from the Aragatsotn and Armavir Marz Administrations, 5,100 tons of nitrogen fertilizers were used for agricultural crops in the river basin in 2013. About 118 kilograms of nitrogen fertilizers were applied for 1 ha, whereas on average 150‐200 kg is required for 1 ha with similar agricultural crops (Figure 16).

Figure 16: Agricultural Crops in the Metsamor River Basin, in hectares, as of 2013. (Data source: National Statistical Service of the Republic of Armenia, 2014; Analytical‐Information Centre of the Economic Reforms, “Achievements of Aragatsotn Marz of the Republic of Armenia in 2007‐2011”, 2012; and “Achievements of Armavir Marz of the Republic of Armenia in 2007‐2011”, 2012)

49 According to information received from local administrations and based on expert judgement, the share of area under intensive/industrial agriculture with application of fertilizers in Akhuryan and Metsamor River basins is negligible compared to total catchment area of the river basins.

Based on information that fertilizers are applied evenly on agricultural lands across the RBD2, and based on figures available on agricultural lands and total fertilizers applied, it is concluded that nitrogen fertilizers used in the in the Akhuryan RBD do not pose significant pressure on water quality.

3.2.2.2. Livestock Production

Manure from livestock production is one of the pressures posed on water resources of the Akhuryan RBD. Manure is washed into surface waters and infiltrates into groundwater resources, leading to increased concentrations of nitrogen, phosphorous and organic compounds in the waters.

Livestock production is a traditional branch of agriculture in the Akhuryan River basin. Pastures occupy 55% of the territory of the river basin. Natural climatic conditions and extensive pastures are favourable for development of cattle breeding, particularly in Ani and Artik regions of the Akhuryan River basin. After collapse of the Soviet Union and subsequent economic crisis, the total number of livestock significantly decreased in the Akhuryan River basin. However, during the recent 10 years an increase of the livestock capita has been recoded (Figure 17).

Figure 17: Livestock in the Akhuryan River Basin, as of 2013, thousand capita (Data source: Annual Report of the Shirak Marzpetaran on Social‐Economic Situation in the Shirak Marz in 2013, 2014; National Statistical Service of the Republic of Armenia, 2014)

Data on pollution loads of nitrogen and phosphorous from the livestock production in the Akhuryan River basin as of 2013 is presented in Table 36 below.

Table 36: Annual Pollution Loads from Livestock Production in the Akhuryan River Basin, ton/year Norm from 1 animal, ton/year Total, ton/year Livestock Capita Manure Nitrogen total Phosphorus Manure Nitrogen total Phosphorus Cattle 105,700 8.00 0.0055 0.0013 845,600 581.35 137.41 Pigs 15,700 2.00 0.0059 0.0020 31,400 92.63 31.4 Sheep and goats 86,400 0.40 0.0107 0.0022 34,560 924.48 190.08 Poultry 315,000 0.04 0.0130 0.0041 12,600 4095 1291.5 Total 924,160 5,693.46 1,650.39 Source: Environmental Impact Monitoring Centre of the Ministry of Nature Protection of the Republic of Armenia, 2013; Environmental Defence Fund Scorecard (www.scorecard.org), “Animal waste – a national overview”, 2000

2 According to information obtained from the Marzpetarans.

50 In the Metsamor River basin, where 47% of the basin area is pastures, livestock production is also among the traditional branches of agriculture (Figure 18).

Figure 18: Livestock in the Metsamor River Basin, as of 2013, thousand capita (Data source: National Statistical Service of the Republic of Armenia, 2014; Analytical‐Information Centre of the Economic Reforms, “Achievements of Aragatsotn Marz of Armenia in 2007‐2011”, and “Achievements of Armavir Marz of Armenia in 2007‐2011”, 2012)

Data on pollution loads of nitrogen and phosphorous from the livestock production in the Metsamor River basin as of 2013 is presented in Table 37. Data show that quantities of nitrogen and phosphorus discharges both in the Akhuryan River basin and Metsamor River basin are rather large. Basin analysis indicates that the highest concentrations of these pollutants are observed in the Karkachun river basin of the Akhuryan River basin ‐ Ani and Artik regions, as well as Talin and Baghramyan regions of the Metsamor River basin.

Table 37: Annual Pollution Loads from Livestock Production in the Metsamor River Basin, ton/year Norm from 1 animal, ton/year Total, ton/year Livestock Capita Manure Nitrogen total Phosphorus Manure Nitrogen total Phosphorus Cattle 82,400 8.00 0.0055 0.0013 659,200 453.2 107.12

Pigs 36,100 2.00 0.0059 0.0020 72,200 212.99 72.2 Sheep and goats 22,200 0.40 0.0107 0.0022 8,800 237.54 48.84 Poultry 320,000 0.04 0.0130 0.0041 12,800 4,160 1,312 Total 753,080 5,063.73 1,540.16 Source: Environmental Impact Monitoring Centre of the Ministry of Nature Protection of the Republic of Armenia, 2013; Environmental Defence Fund Scorecard (www.scorecard.org), “Animal waste – a national overview”, 2000

Livestock production is having a significant pressure on quality of water resources in the Akhuryan RBD.

Livestock production may also lead to overgrazing, resulting in loss of vegetation cover and land erosion, which pose pressure on quality of water resources.

Main data on the pastures, as well as large and small cattle in the Akhuryan and Metsamor River basins in 2013 is presented in Table 38 below.

Table 38: Data on pastures and cattle in the Akhuryan and Metsamor River basins, as of 2013 Area Pastures, Large cattle, Small cattle, Pasture per a Pasture per a ha animals animals large cattle, ha small cattle, ha

Akhuryan River basin 126,500 105,700 86,400 1.19 1.46 Metsamor River basin 106,643 82,400 104,100 1.29 1.02

51 According to standards currently applied in Armenia, 0.5 ha of pasture is required as sufficient grazing area for one large cattle, and 0.05 ha – for sheep and goats. Based on the calculations made above, overgrazing has no significant pressure on water bodies of the Akhuryan RBD.

3.2.2.3. Vehicle Transport

M1 – Yerevan‐Talin‐Gyumri‐Bavra RA state border (with Georgia) and M7 – RA border (with Turkey) Gyumri‐Vanadzor highways are highways with relative high traffic in the Akhuryan River basin. The key highways in Metsamor River basin include M1 (Yerevan‐Talin‐Gyumri‐Bavra RA state border) and M5 – Yerevan‐Armavir‐Bagaran (state border between the RA and Turkey). Here too the routes are far from surface and groundwater resources, therefore, they do not have significant pressure on water resources.

Based on the analysis and evaluation of the highway traffic density and freights conducted at the stage of the basin analysis, as well as taking into account the fact that roads mainly pass by locations far from surface and ground water resources, it can be concluded the that vehicle transport does not pose a significant pressure on water resources.

3.2.3. Hydromorphological Alterations

3.2.3.1. Water Abstraction

Irrigation: The irrigation infrastructure in the Akhuryan River basin consists of the system of reservoirs, pumping stations and canals.

Annually more than 600 million m3 of water is stored in the reservoirs of the Akhuryan river basin, which is primarily used for irrigation purposes. Main characteristics of the storage reservoirs that are built on the perennial rivers are presented in Table 39 below.

Table 39: Main Characteristics of the Reservoirs in the Akhuryan River Basin Name of the Surface area, Total volume, Usable volume, Source of feeding 2 3 3 reservoir km million m million m Arpilich Dzoraget, Karmrajur, Yeghnajur 22.1 100.0 5.0 Rivers and springs Akhuryan Akhuryan River 48.39 525.0 510 Mantash Mantash River 0.94 8.20 7.90 Kaps Akhuryan River 0.78 Tavshut Tavshut River 0.58 6.0 5.75 Vardaqar Karkachun River 0.57 5.0 4.7 Sarnaghbyur Mets Dzori Jur River 0.68 5.0 4.85 Source: State Committee on Water Systems of the Ministry of Agriculture of the Republic of Armenia, 2014.

There are 28 pumping stations in the Akhuryan River basin, including non‐operational. Main characteristics of the pump satiations that take water directly from the rivers are presented in Table 40 below.

Table 40: Main Characteristics of the Pumping Stations of the Akhuryan River Basin Capacity, Command area, Name of the pumping station Source of feeding m3/sec ha Voskehask Akhuryan River 0.55 590 Akhuryan Akhuryan River 0.36 67 Akhurik first and second levels Akhuryan River 0.66 185 Bayandur first level Akhuryan River 0.57 91 Gharibjanyan Akhuryan River 0.64 247 Kharkov Akhuryan River 0.16 Source: State Committee on Water Systems of the Ministry of Agriculture of the Republic of Armenia, 2014.

52 There are about 20 big and small canals in the Akhuryan River basin, providing irrigation to about 28,600 hectares. Characteristics of the canals that take water from the Rivers are presented in Table 41 below.

Table 41: Characteristics of the Canals of Akhuryan River Basin Length, Capacity, Irrigated Name of the canal Source of feeding km m3/sec area, ha Shirak canal Akhuryan River 21.3 6.6 9,817 Voskehask pump, canal Akhuryan River 6.1 0.6 590 Karangi River wing canal Karkachun River 0.8 0.3 123 Bayandur pumping station canal Akhuryan River 2.3 0.2 91 Akhuryan right bank canal Akhuryan River 30.18 5 4,230 Akhuryan right bank canal Akhuryan River 4.4 0.7 755 “Khothundzi” mechanical irrigation Akhuryan River 0.8 0.6 1,298 Left bank canal of the Karangu River Karkachun River 2.9 1.5 1,144 Right bank canal of the Karangu River Karkachun River 17.4 2 1,193 Source: State Committee on Water Systems of the Ministry of Agriculture of the Republic of Armenia, 2014

Reservoirs disrupt the rivers and habitat continuum and alter their hydrological regime, including natural flow, flow velocity and level regime, decrease sediment transportation.

According to the River basin Analysis report (January 2013), and experts’ observations, about 11 km long stretch of the Akhuryan River (from Berdashen community to Pokr Sepasar community) is diverted though the earthen canal (Figure 19). This was done in 1951, after construction of the Arpilich Reservoir with the purpose of regulating the river flow by straightening the riverbed. This diversion altered the natural regime of the Akhuryan River.

Figure 19: Stretch of the Akhuryan River with Modified River Bed (Data sources: EPIRB Project, 2013; Google Earth, 2014)

53 In the Akhuryan River basin the headwork/intake structures of the pumping stations and the canals that directly take water from rivers alter the morphology and hydrological regime of the rivers, including the river banks, riparian zone, flow regime and level, but pose no significant pressure.

The irrigation infrastructure in the Metsamor River basin also consists of the system of storage reservoirs, pumping stations and canals.

There are about 9 reservoirs in the Metsamor river basin, with total 5.15 million m3 of usable volume, which are built on the ephemeral rivers (tributaries of Metsamor River). Snowmelt water is accumulated and stored in these reservoirs, which is used for irrigation purposes.

There are 30 pumping stations in the Metsamor River basin, including non‐operational. Main characteristics of the pump satiations that take water directly from the rivers are presented in Table 42 below.

Table 42: Main Characteristics of the Pumping Stations of the Metsamor River Basin Capacity, Command area, Name of the pumping station Source of feeding m3/sec ha Zartonk Metsamor River 5.05 2,875 Hoktemberian Aras River 1.66 914 Vardanashen From the lakes 0.28 70 Yervandashat Aras River 0.08 20 Aknalich Lake Metsamor 4.55 2,210 Arevshat 1st Lake Metsamor 12.25 3,637 Araks‐1 Metsamor River 1.05 70 Araks‐2 Metsamor River 0.7 60 Metsamor Metsamor River 0.55 232 Source: State Committee on Water Systems of the Ministry of Agriculture of the Republic of Armenia, 2014.

23 canals provide irrigation for approximately 41,225 ha arable lands. Characteristics of the canals that take water from the Rivers are presented in Table 43 below.

Table 43: Characteristics of the Canals in the Metsamor River Basin Length, Capacity, Irrigated Name of the canal Source of feeding km m3/sec area, ha Armavir canal Aras River 43.65 35‐50 19,538 Zartonk pumping station canal Metsamor River 11.86 5 2,871 Metsamor pumping station canal Metsamor River 17.9 3 10.1 Jrarat canal Metsamor River 19.4 5 1,440 Metsamor left bank canal Metsamor River 16.8 11.2 226 Metsamor pumping station canal Metsamor River 0.6 0.35 390 Sis‐Araks pumping station canal Metsamor River 0.9 0.25 130 Metsamor pumping station canal Metsamor River 0.6 0.35 350 Talin canal Akhuryan River 23.4 27.5 8 Karmrashen canal Karmrashen River 2.5 2.5 64 Hatsashen canal Selav‐Mastara River 3.5 2.5 118 Source: State Committee on Water Systems of the Ministry of Agriculture of the Republic of Armenia, 2014

Reservoirs in the Metsamor River basin do not have significant effects on hydrological regime of the rivers, as all the reservoirs are built on the rivers/streams with seasonal flow, with the purpose of accumulating the snow melt waters.

In the Metsamor River basin the headwork/intake structures of the pumping stations and the canals that directly take water from rivers alter the morphology and hydrological regime of the rivers, including the river banks, riparian zone, flow regime and level, but pose no significant pressure.

54 Hydropower generation: There are currently 8 operating small HPPs in the Akhuryan River basin, and 3 are under the construction. Most of them are operated on the irrigation canals or drinking water supply pipelines. Main characteristics of the small HPPs, which are built on the rivers of the Akhuryan River basin are summarized in Table 44 below:

Table 44: Main Characteristics of the Small HPPs in the Akhuryan River Basin Ecological Name of Capacity Flow, m3/ Fish passes Status Water source flow the small HPP kW sec exist maintained Paros Operational 2,380 9.2 Akhuryan River No Yes Marmashen Operational 2,150 16.0 Akhuryan River Yes Yes Amasia Operational 1,600 Akhuryan River No Yes Yeghnajur Operational 1,230 Yeghnajur River Yes Yes Cascade In construction 4,270 9.54 Akhuryan River No Yes Source: Public Services Regulatory Commission, 2013; Akhuryan Basin Management Organization, WRMA, 2014

According to data and information received from the Akhuryan Water Basin Management Authority, ecological flow downstream the Marmashen and Paros small HPPs is not maintained (Figure 20). According to the same source, it is expected that after commissioning of the Cascade small HPP on the Akhuryan River, the ecological flow will also not be maintained

Figure 20: Sections of Akhuryan River where Ecological Flow is not maintained due to HPP Operation (Data source: Akhuryan Basin Management Organization, WRMA, 2014)

These small HPPs, despite their small‐scale, pose significant pressure on water resources in terms of failure to maintain ecological flow in some sections of the Akhuryan River, as a result of disrupted river and habitat continuum and altered hydrological regime (Figure 21).

Figure 21: “Cascade Small HPP” being Constructed on Akhuryan River (Photo by: Akhuryan Basin Management Organization of the Water Resources Management Agency of the Ministry of Nature Protection of Armenia, 2012)

Currently 3 operational and 2 planned small HPPs in the Metsamor River basin are installed on the irrigation canals. Their construction and operation do not pose hydromorphological pressures.

55 Fish Farming: Fish farming in the Akhuryan River basin does not have a pressure on quantity and quality of surface and groundwater resources of the river basin. Water use by these small‐scale fisheries comprises 0.01% of the total water abstraction.

Water abstraction for fishery purposes in the Metsamor River basin has a significant pressure on the Metsamor River, as well as the groundwater resources, particularly in the Armavir and Vagharshapat regions of the basin. Intensive use of groundwater resources in the Metsamor river basin over the last 7‐10 years (actual annual use of groundwater resources in 2013 exceeded the permitted volume by almost 3 times) led to dropping groundwater levels, reduction in pressure and capacities of the groundwater wells and springs.

This caused decrease in the discharge of the Metsamor‐Aknalich springs. According to data from the Armenian Hydrometeorological Monitoring Service of Armenia, the flow of the Metsamor River at Taronik observation post (upper reach of the river) decreased almost 6 time in 1983‐2013: from 17.8 to 3 m3/sec. At the same time water regime of Metsamor River has reduced significantly, due to the impacts from groundwater use by fish farming purposes (see the hydrograph of the Metsamor‐Ranchpar hydrological observation post in Figure 22 below).

y = -0,1666x + 353,32 35,0 R2 = 0,391

30,0

25,0 /í 3

ºÉù, Ù 20,0

15,0

10,0 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 î³ñÇÝ»ñ

Figure 22: Flow Alteration Trend Observed at Metsamor‐Ranchpar Hydrological Observation Post in the Period of 1947‐2004 (Data source: Armenian State Hydrometeorological and Monitoring Service, Ministry Emergency Situations of Armenia 2012)

Uncontrolled drilling of groundwater wells in the Metsamor River basin, inadequate technical design of wells drilled in the Metsamor River basin, as well as non‐compliance with the established 500 m distance between wells, natural hydraulic connections between layers were distorted. In particular, because of the drilling of wells in too dense of a network, the number of hydrogeological “windows” between various aquifers has increased, causing depletion of piezometric level, mixing of water from various aquifers, and changes in chemical content of groundwater (increasing mineralization up to 0.3 g/l). The outflow component of aquifers also was impacted; the discharge of natural springs has decreased sharply (Source: Assessment Study of Groundwater Resources, USAID‐Armenia, 2014).

Industry: Water use for industrial purposes in the Akhuryan and Metsamor River basins (36.8 million m3 annually) has no significant hydromorphological pressure in the Akhuryan RBD, as water is mostly abstracted from groundwater resources in small volumes.

3.2.3.2. Diversion of River Flow

Inter‐basin water transfers by diversion of the river flows can cause significant alterations of the water regime of the rivers (i.e. increase or reduction of water flow). There are the following diversions in the Akhuryan RBD:

56 Diversion of the Akhuryan River flow into Metsamor River basin via Talin main canal downstream Akhuryan reservoir, Diversion of the Araks River flow into Metsamor River basin via Armavir main canal, and Diversion of the Metsamor River flow into Hrazdan River basin via Mkhchyan pumping station

As a result, annually about 300 million m3 of water is transferred from the Akhuryan River (lower reaches) to Metsamor River basin via the Talin canal, nearby Aragatsavan community, downstream Akhuryan reservoir. This water is mainly used for irrigation of about 17,000 ha of agricultural lands in Talin and Baghramyan regions of the river basin.

In the lower reaches of the Metsamor River, at the river mouth, about 5 m3/sec of water is transferred to Hrazdan River by Mkhchyan pumping station for irrigating about 5,200 ha of agricultural lands in the Hrazdan and Azat River basins.

Diversions of the Akhuryan and Metsamor Rivers do not cause water deficit in the respective areas. The Akhuryan River is regulated by Akhuryan Reservoir, where snowmelt and rain waters are stored. This storage allows for flow diversions without causing shortages for other uses. Flows diverted via Mkhchyan pumping station is comprised of Metsamor River flow by itself and drainage waters drained into the river at the river mouth (about 30% of diverted 5 m3/sec of water). The analysis of inter‐annual distribution of the flow shows that such diversion does not have significant impact on the overall water availability.

Taking into consideration the above described, the inter‐basin transfers do not pose significant pressure on the water resources of the Akhuryan RBD in terms of creating water shortages, and failure to maintain ecological flows.

3.2.3.3. Flood Protection Measures

In the Akhuryan River basin floods cause damages to the riparian settlements and lands. Human impact also serves a reason for floods in many mudflow rivers in the river basin. Most river beds and flood plains are filled with municipal garbage, construction and miscellaneous industrial wastes.

Floods occur in the stretch of the Akhuryan River starting downstream of Gyumri town to the Akhuryan reservoir. Mostly agricultural lands and several houses in the Akhurik community are being affected.

In the Metsamor River basin the communities and lands surrounding the Araks River are under the flood risk. Talin and Baghramyan regions are inundated by Selav‐Mastara River and its tributaries. Over 3.0‐3.5 thousand hectares of land in Araks zone are flooded or have turned into wetlands (mostly in the parts where the sand had been removed). The anthropogenic factor also serves a reason for intensification and gravity of mudflows and floods. Municipal garbage and industrial waste, etc. are dumped into the river beds.

To prevent flooding of the agricultural lands and communal and private properties, activates are implemented annually in Akhuryan and Metsamor River basins aimed at restoration and reinforcement the Akhuryan River Bank, Araks River bank, cleaning of the Metsamor and Selav‐Mastara river beds which reduce the probability of flooding of the agricultural lands and settlements. These activities have an ongoing nature.

Flood protection measures, particularly placement of gabions at the river banks, and some cases, cleaning of the beds, pose pressures on hydromorphological conditions of rivers of the Akhuryan River basin (downstream Gyumri, Haikavan tributary) and Metsamor River basin (lower stretches). According to spot checks conducted during JFSs and based on expert judgment, the pressures posed are not significant since implementation of described flood protection measures does not obstruct river flow, alter river beds and river ecosystems.

57 3.2.4. Future Infrastructure Projects

Construction, rehabilitation and future operation and maintenance of Selav‐Mastara and Kaps Reservoirs in the Akhuryan RBD could pose pressures on water resources, such as increased water withdrawal and return flows from agriculture. Pre‐assessment of pressures and impacts of these interventions is currently being conducted as part of feasibility studies. The full assessment of impacts from implementation of the mentioned projects is planned to be conducted as part of the Environmental Impact Assessment process, to be completed in 2015 by the teams in charge of feasibility studies.

3.3. Impacts

3.3.1. Assessment of Biological Status

The EU Water Framework Directive (WFD) 2000/60/ЕС in Europe requires monitoring of the benthic macroinvertebrate communities (macrozoobenthos) and ecological status/potential assessment of rivers. Most of the Geographic Intercalibration Groups (GIG) under the WFD compares macroinvertebrate data sets using as a dimension the number of individuals per square meter based on so‐called multi‐habitat sampling.

Despite the WFD requires five biological quality elements (macrozoobenthos, macrophytes, phytoplankton, phytobenthos and fish) to be considered in assessing the biological status, the preliminary assessment here is based only on the RBA method, which analyzes benthic macroinvertebrate communities (macrozoo‐ benthos) (Annex 7). Table 45 and Figure 23 below show the results of the monitoring based on the applied method.

Table 45: Macrozoobenthos Status Classification based on the Results of the JFSs (June 2013 and July 2014) WB Measured Macrozoobenthos status Site ID Site name type flow, m3/s First round of JFS Second round of JFS SW‐01 Yeghnagur‐Garnarich 1 1.15 High status High status SW‐02 Karmirjur‐Shaghik 1 0.54 High status High status SW‐03 Dzoraget‐Dzorakert 1 0.16 High status High status SW‐04 Tavshut‐Tavshut 1 ‐ Moderate status High status SW‐05 Tsaghkashen‐Saragyugh 1 0.011 Good status ‐ SW‐06 Lernajur‐Zernagyugh 1 0.082 High status High status SW‐07 Hartashen‐Hartashen 1 0.063 High status High status SW‐08 Akhuryan‐Krasar 2 ‐ Moderate status High status SW‐09 Keti‐Keti 1 0.053 Poor status Good status SW‐10 Jajur‐ Jajur 1 0.032 Good status High status SW‐11 Haikavan‐Voghchi 1 0.074 Good status ‐ SW‐12 Akhuryan‐upstream Gyumri 2 3.38 High status Good status SW‐13 Akhuryan‐downstream Gyumri 2 3.62 Bad status Poor status SW‐14 Artikjur‐Artik 1 0.15 High status High status SW‐15 Karkachun‐Benyamin 2 0.011 Poor status Moderate status SW‐16 Sacnakhbiur‐Sacnakhbur 1 0.28 Poor status ‐ SW‐17 Mantash‐Metsmontash 1 0.051 High status ‐ SW‐18 Metsamor‐Gay 3 0.012 High status Good status SW‐19 Metsamor‐Metsamor 3 0.92 Bad status ‐ SW‐20 Metsamor‐Ranchpar 3 ‐ Bad status Moderate status SW‐21 Selav‐Mastara 1 ‐ ‐ Moderate status SW‐22 Akhuryan‐Berdashen 1 ‐ ‐ Moderate status SW‐23 Ashocq‐Krasar 1 ‐ ‐ Moderate status SW‐24 Akhuryan‐Amasia 1 ‐ ‐ Good status SW‐25 Jrarat‐Karnut 1 ‐ ‐ Moderate status Source: Environmental Protection of International River Basins Project, 2014

58

Figure 23: Classification of the Surface Water Resources by Biological Status based on the Results of the JFSs (“Resource Management” LLC, 2014; Data Source: Joint Field Surveys, EPIRB Project, 2013, 2014)

3.3.2. Assessment of Chemical Status

All potential pressures, from point and diffuse sources, analysed and assessed in previous sections, as well as water quality measurements were generalized, in order to assess impacts on water bodies of the Akhuryan RBD. The classification was made according to the provisions of Resolution #75‐N of the Government of Armenia of 27 January 2011 “On establishing the norms for assuring water quality of each River Basin District, depending upon local peculiarities”. The classification was based on average annual concentration values of indicators of the period of 2011‐2013 (Table 46).

59 Table 46: Summary of Chemical Status Assessment in the Akhuryan RBD Water quality Main ID and location of the monitoring post Cause of significant pressure

River class indicators #31: 0.5 km upstream Amasia village (II) good #32: 1 km downstream Amasia village (II) good #33: 0.8 km upstream Gyumri city (II) good Municipal wastewaters, return #34: 5 km downstream Gyumri city (IV) Poor Nutrients flows from agriculture Akhuryan Municipal wastewaters, return #35: near Yervandashat village (III) Moderate Nutrients flows from agriculture #36: 0.5 km upstream Artashen village (II) good Drainage waters from ore #37: river mouth (III) Moderate Arsenic

Ashotzq deposits Nutrients, Municipal wastewaters, return organic flows from agriculture, extraction #38: river mouth (V) Bad compounds, and processing of construction

Karkachun mineralization materials Nutrients, #40: 10 km south of Echmiadzin town (III) Moderate organic Marshes and ponds compounds Nutrients, Marshes and ponds, #41: 11 km south‐east of Echmiadzin town (IV) Poor organic Municipal wastewaters, return compounds flows from agriculture Metsamor Nutrients, Marshes and ponds, 42: 0.5 downstream of Ranchpar village (IV) Poor organic Municipal wastewaters, return compounds flows from agriculture Data Source: Environmental Impact Monitoring Centre of the Ministry of Nature Protection of Armenia, 2014

According to the results of the conducted analysis, waters of the rivers of the Akhuryan River basin are of hydrocarbonate‐sodium‐calciumnature with appropriate oxygen regime. The lack of oxygen content was recorded in July and August months at the following river stretches: (1) the Akhuryan river section downstream Gyumri city; (2) the Karkachun River mouth; and (3) the Metsamor River section downstream Echmiadzin town. In the mentioned river stretches the oxygen content corresponded to the “poor” (IV) quality class. The lack of oxygen content is due to municipal wastewater discharges, which lead to high concentrations of organic pollutants in the river waters during low‐water seasons.

The Akhuryan River and its tributaries are characterized by moderate hardness and low mineralization. In the upper reaches of Akhuryan river basin, the waters have high potential for self‐purification thus lowering the impacts of the anthropogenic pressures from municipal wastewaters and return flows from agriculture. Thus, the quality of water in these sections corresponds to the “good” (II) class. In the lower reaches of the river basin the quality of water

In the lower sections of the river basin, particularly at the lower streams of the Akhuryan River, the water quality is characterized by “moderate” (III) and “poor” (IV) status. At the Karkachun River mouth the water quality corresponds to “bad” (V) status class due to high concentrations of nutrients in the return flows from agriculture. In addition, high concentrations of organic compounds and high level of mineralization are also recorded in the Karkachun River mouth.

In the lower sections of the Ashotzq tributary of the Akhuryan River there are iron and molybdenum ore deposits. Drainage waters from these sites contain high concentrations of arsenic, titanium, manganese, nickel, iron, chrome, boron. According to data from EIMC, the concentration of arsenic in Ashotzq River mouth exceeds the concentration at the river source by almost 50 times. As a result, the water quality in Ashotzq River mouth corresponds to “moderate” (III) class.

60 Waters of the rivers of the Metsamor River basin are of hydrocarbonate‐calcium nature with appropriate oxygen regime. The waters are characterized by high hardness and high mineralization.

According to the results of the conducted analysis, the water quality of the Metsamor River in terms of chemical elements corresponds to “moderate” (III) and “poor” (IV) status classes. The water quality mainly depends on the types of feeding sources. Since almost 80% of feeding of the Metsamor River is from groundwater sources, the waters are characterized by high concentrations of minerals and rather high content of nutrients and organic compounds due to existence of a great number of ponds and marshes in the area. The mentioned factors reduce the self‐purification ability of the river and promote eutrophication processes. In addition, in the middle and lower sections of the Metsamor River the municipal wastewaters from the adjacent settlements and return flows from agriculture impact water quality and lead to gradual eutrophication of the river.

The analysis of the results of chemical monitoring from the second round of JFS revealed an overall similar picture, which supports the above‐presented analysis (Table 47).

Table 47: Chemical Status Classification based on the Results of the Second Round of JFSs (July 2014) Site ID Site name Chemical status SW‐01 Yeghnagur‐Garnarich Good SW‐02 Karmirjur‐Shaghik Good SW‐03 Dzoraget‐Dzorakert Good SW‐04 Tavshut‐Tavshut Moderate SW‐06 Lernajur‐Zernagyugh Moderate SW‐07 Hartashen‐Hartashen Good SW‐08 Akhuryan‐Krasar Moderate SW‐09 Keti‐Keti Good SW‐10 Jajur‐ Jajur Good SW‐12 Akhuryan‐upstream Gyumri Moderate SW‐13 Akhuryan‐downstream Gyumri Moderate SW‐14 Artikjur‐Artik Moderate SW‐15 Karkachun‐Benyamin Bad SW‐18 Metsamor‐Gay Moderate SW‐20 Metsamor‐Ranchpar Poor SW‐21 Selav‐Mastara Good SW‐22 Akhuryan‐Berdashen Moderate SW‐23 Ashocq‐Krasar Moderate SW‐24 Akhuryan‐Amasia Good SW‐25 Jrarat‐Karnut Moderate Source: Environmental Protection of International River Basins Project, 2014

Overall classification of the surface water resources by chemical status in the Akhuryan RBD is shown in Figure 24.

61

Figure 24: Classification of the Surface Water Resources by Chemical Status (“Resource Management” LLC, 2014; Data Source: Environmental Impact monitoring Centre of the Ministry of Nature Protection of Armenia, 2014 and JFSs of the EPIRB Project, 2013, 2014)

3.3.3. Assessment of Hydromorphological Status

In order to find thresholds or class boundary values for variables indicative of human induced stress (physical‐chemical parameters and hydromorphology should support biological elements (WFD Annex V)) they should be correlated with the estimated biological status. However, sufficient amount of data is necessary to make such correlations. In the case of the Joint Field Survey, it was agreed to use the classification scheme for hydromorphological assessment, which have been developed under the EU

62 “Trans‐Boundary River Management Phase II for the Kura River basin – Armenia, Georgia, Azerbaijan” project (Annexes 8 and 9).

Within the scope of the EPIRB Project, the assessment of hydromorphological status was conducted following the Guidance Document and using the Hydromorphological assessment protocol and Hydromorphological site protocol, developed under the EU Kura Phase II Project. The site protocol includes a number of parameters used to characterize the river and the surroundings. It is also used to identify the survey site and includes many relevant parameters that will enable a variety of analyses. Most parameters can be used to group streams with identical features thereby enabling comparison of hydromorphological and biological parameters among identical streams.

The site protocol consists of 5 separate parts: identification, channel parameters, riparian and floodplain features, catchment features and hydrological parameters. The first parameters are used to identify the site and the exact location within the catchment. Many of the parameters can be assessed from maps; the remaining should be assessed from other relevant sources. Individual map parameters should preferably be derived from maps having identical scales to ensure consistent parameter estimation. The surveyor, date of survey, and a photo or a sketch of the site is also included in the identification part of the protocol. The site protocol form and hydrological assessment form are presented in Annexes 8 and 9 of this plan.

Thus, the overall assessment of hydromorphological status is conducted by using an assessment score from 1 to 5, as developed for the water bodies in the Danube river basin (Slovak Republic) (Annex 9 of this plan).

Two JFSs were carried out with the support of the EPIRB Project in June 2013 and June 2014 respectively. The hydromorphological assessment was conducted in total 25 points of the Akhuryan RBD, including 20 points during the first round of JFS and 20 points during the second JFS, with 15 points overlapping. 5 new points were monitored during the second JFS. Table 48 and Figure 25 below show the results of the assessments, based on the above‐described threshold values.

Table 48: Hydromorphological Status Classification based on the Results of First and Second JFSs HM score/ status Site ID Site name WB type First round of JFS Second round of JFS SW‐01 Yeghnagur‐Garnarich 1 1.2 1.2 SW‐02 Karmirjur‐Shaghik 1 1.2 1.2 SW‐03 Dzoraget‐Dzorakert 1 1.3 1.4 SW‐04 Tavshut‐Tavshut 1 2.5 1.9 SW‐05 Tsaghkashen‐Saragyugh 1 1.2 ‐ SW‐06 Lernajur‐Zernagyugh 1 1.2 1.2 SW‐07 Hartashen‐Hartashen 1 1.2 1.2 SW‐08 Akhuryan‐Krasar 2 2.5 2.0 SW‐09 Keti‐Keti 1 1.7 1.8 SW‐10 Jajur‐ Jajur 1 1.2 1.2 SW‐11 Haikavan‐Voghchi 1 3.0 ‐ SW‐12 Akhuryan‐upstream Gyumri 2 2.5 2.6 SW‐13 Akhuryan‐downstream Gyumri 2 3.3 3.5 SW‐14 Artikjur‐Artik 1 1.0 1.3 SW‐15 Karkachun‐Benyamin 2 4.0 3.5 SW‐16 Sacnakhbiur‐Sacnakhbur 1 2.3 ‐ SW‐17 Mantash‐Metsmontash 1 2.5 ‐ SW‐18 Metsamor‐Gay 3 5.0 3.0 SW‐19 Metsamor‐Metsamor 3 2.5 ‐ SW‐20 Metsamor‐Ranchpar 3 2.5 2.4 SW‐21 Selav‐Mastara 1 ‐ 1.2 SW‐22 Akhuryan‐Berdashen 1 ‐ 3.5

63 HM score/ status Site ID Site name WB type First round of JFS Second round of JFS SW‐23 Ashocq‐Krasar 1 ‐ 1.2 SW‐24 Akhuryan‐Amasia 1 ‐ 3.2 SW‐25 Jrarat‐Karnut 1 ‐ 3.6 Source: Environmental Protection of International River Basins Project, 2014

Figure 25: Classification of the Surface Water Resources by Hydromorphological Status based on the Results of the JFSs (“Resource Management” LLC, 2014; Data Source: Joint Field Surveys, EPIRB Project, 2013, 2014)

64 3.4. Key Pressures and Significant Water Management Issues

3.4.1. Identified Significant Water Management Issues in the Akhuryan RBD

The significant anthropogenic pressures on surface and groundwater resources in the Akhuryan RBD are summarizes in Tables 49 and 50 below.

Table 49: Summary of Significant Anthropogenic Pressures on Water Resources of the Akhuryan River Basin Type of pressure Pressured/impacted Description surface waters Communal wastewater Akhuryan River Communal wastewater collection is not carried out properly, downstream Gyumri and, as a result, hazardous substances of organic and inorganic origin flow into the river, together with rainwater. Karkachun River This has significant impact on quality of the Akhuryan River downstream Gyumri and Karkachun River. As a result, the contents of BOD5, phosphorus, total nitrogen and suspended particles increase. Wastewaters from Akhuryan River Wastewaters from food industry pass into the river through food industry downstream Gyumri the sewage system and pose a significant pressure on water status. The contents of organic and inorganic compositions of Karkachun River nitrogen and phosphorus increase in Akhuryan River downstream Gyumri and in Karkachun River. Wastewaters from Ashotzq River from Due to iron and molybdenum ore deposits in the lower other industries and Ashotzq settlement to sections of the Ashotzq tributary of the Akhuryan River, the mining the river mouth drainage waters from these sites contain high concentrations of arsenic, titanium, manganese, nickel, iron, chrome, boron. Due to extraction and processing of construction materials, Karkachun River the contents of sodium, magnesium, potassium, calcium, bromine, manganese, strontium, molybdenum, antimony, sulphate and chloride ions increase in the Karkachun River, and due to extraction of minerals – mineralization values. As a result, water quality of the Karkachun River was classified as bad, in terms of sodium and molybdenum, and moderate, in terms of manganese, antimony and mineralization. Water abstraction for Akhuryan River upstream The ecological flow requirement is not maintained due to hydropower Amasia town operation of small HPPs. generation Akhuryan River downstream the Kaps Reservoir

Livestock production Akhuryan River Cattle breeding in the Akhuryan River basin leads to increase downstream Gyumri in concentrations of nitrogen, phosphorus and organic compounds particularly in the Akhuryan and Karkachun Akhuryan River Rivers. downstream the Akhuryan Reservoir

Karkachun River Hydromorphological Akhuryan River About 11 km long stretch of the Akhuryan River (from alteration downstream the Arpilich Berdashen community to Pokr Sepasar community) is diverted Reservoir though the earthen canal.

65 Table 50: Summary of Significant Anthropogenic Pressures on Water Resources of the Metsamor River Basin Type of pressure Water resource Note Communal Middle and lower Sanitation of towns is not carried out properly. This has wastewaters sections of the Metsamor significant impacts on quality of the water resources of the River Metsamor River downstream Metsamor and Armavir towns. As a result, contents of BOD5, phosphorus, total nitrogen and suspended particles increase. Wastewaters from Middle and lower Wastewaters from food industry pass into the Metsamor food industry sections of the Metsamor River through the sewage system and have significant River pressure on water quality. The contents of nitrogen, phosphorus and organic compositions increase in river water after Armavir, Talin and Metsamor towns. Fish farming Middle and lower Water abstraction for fish farming has significant pressure on sections of the Metsamor groundwater resources of the South‐eastern part of River Metsamor River basin as well as on Metsamor river flow. Fish‐farming is also a potential factor of water pollution and, North‐western part of judging from the volumes of consumed water: it has the Ararat Artesian Basin significant pressure on quality of water resources of Metsamor River basin. Livestock production Selav‐Mastara tributary A cattle breeding is mostly developed in Talin and of the Metsamor River Baghramyan regions of the Metsamor River basin. This leads to increase in contents of nitrogen, phosphorus and organic Lower section of the compounds. Metsamor River Hydromorphological Lower section of the According to the results of the first JFS, the lower section of alteration Metsamor River the Metsamor River (around Gai settlement) has been significantly altered in terms of hydromorphology, including interruption of river and habitat continuity.

3.4.2. Major Data Gaps in the Akhuryan RBD

In the course of development of the pressure‐impact analysis report some major data gaps were identified. If these data had been available they could significantly change the thinking, streamline the expert judgments made on the nature and impact of several pressures and largely help in identification of water bodies at risk. The main data gaps identified include the following categories: (1) Biology of the basin and its assessment (all 5 BQEs), (2) Compliance assurance, (3) Hydromorphological monitoring.

The information on the biology of the basin, particularly water ecology is very scarce. This is the case not only for the Akhuryan RBD, but throughout Armenia. No biological monitoring has been conducted in Armenia yet. This naturally makes it impossible setting minimum ecological flow requirements and thus assessment whether these requirements are violated due to human activities or not.

Land use data in the Akhuryan RBD is scarce, uncoordinated and not systemized. Some of the data resides in the communities (the parameters of data greatly vary from one community to another), whereas the others reside in the Marz Administrations. Even for very important spheres, such as application of fertilizers in agricultural crop production, disaggregated data was available neither in Marz Administrations nor in communities. The very rough expert judgment method was used to calculate the volume of applied fertilizers, and hence to make judgment on the significance of crop agriculture production on water bodies in the RBD.

Compliance assurance (inspection by authorities to check that the enterprises not violate their permit and enforcement by the authorities if the enterprise does not comply) is very weak in the Aghstev River basin. The responsible agency for compliance assurance is the State Environmental Inspectorate (SEI) of the Ministry of Nature Protection, which according to legislation supervises the implementation of norms and requirements of water resources use and protection by water users including the proper amount of water

66 abstraction from the surface and ground water resources and the water quality of wastewater discharges, except of radioactive materials. Additionally, the SEI is responsible for maintaining the data obtained from the water users on water withdrawals, water return flows and its quality. The compliance practices in the Akhuryan RBD are extremely weak and fall far short of many international standards. Sampling and inspection by SEI is performed only once a year, for the most part, for prioritized sources and even less often for the non‐prioritized sources. Shortage of vehicles, lack of mobile laboratories, lack of periodic quality assurance for the stationary laboratories of both government and industry, shortage of computer equipment, and lack of sufficient science‐trained personnel are among the reasons that the inspection and sampling function is so inadequate in the water resources management sector. Thus, in the report data from compliance assurance was not used and assumption was made that in general water use and discharge permit conditions are not violated, which is several cases might not be true.

In addition, as a part of compliance assurance, the return flows from fish farms should be monitored in terms of organic compounds.

As for the hydromorphological monitoring, the results of two Joint Field Surveys were used. The JFSs were conducted in June 2013 and June 2014 at total 25 sampling points throughout the River Basin District. However, the experts judgments on significant anthropogenic pressures are justified by the results of the JFSs and the classification of water bodies by biological and hydromorphological status were provided. In addition, the hydromorphological and chemical monitoring has to be closely coordinated, as information on flow at the water quality stations is crucial for the purpose of extracting relevant information, e.g. on the transport of pollutants.

67 4. VULNERABILITY OF WATER RESOURCES WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF CLIMATE CHANGE

Assessment of vunleranbility of water resoruces within the context of climate change is one of the reqruiements of the Government of Armenia Protocol Session Resolution No 4 of February 3, 2011 “On Approving the Outline of the Model Water Basin Management Plan”. This section of the RBMP for Akhuryan RBD is prepared in response to that requirement and to show the decision makers the long‐term implications of global climate change on waterr resources of Akhuryan RBD. To do that, first the hydrological and climatic characteristics of the Akhuryan RBD are analysed to show the trendts since 1950‐ 1960s, and the river flow projections are made, based on the projected changes of air temperature and atmospheric precipitation.

4.1. Hydrological Characteristics

Akhuryan River with a catchment area of 9700 km2 is the largest tributary of Araks River. The upper stream of the river with a catchment area of 2130 km2 up to Haykadzor hydrological observation post is located within the territory of the Republic of Armenia. The catchment area of Akhuryan River up to the mentioned hydrological observation post is about 6000 km2 within the Turkish side. The midstream section serves as a border between Armenia and Turkey. Kars, Karakhan and Chorlu rivers discharge into Akhuryan River from the Turkish side. Kars River with a catchment area of 5020 km2 is the largest tributary of Akhuryan River.

Armenia's largest reservoir of Akhuryan was built and put into operation in 1981 upstream of Haykadzor hydrological observation post. A number of reservoirs have been constructed at different times at Akhuryan basin to store spring runoff. Therefore, flow measured at hydrological stations is not considered to be natural, but so‐called regulated or disturbed flow.

The largest reservoirs of the river basin are Akhuryan Reservoir, with the volume of 525 million m3 and the Arpilich Reservoir, with a volume of 105 million m3. The total volume of the remaining reservoirs is even less than 8% of the cumulative volume of the two mentioned reservoirs. Reservoir construction has resulted in violation of not only the natural flow of rivers, but also the intra‐annual flow distribution. The greatest violation was caused to flow and intra‐annual flow distribution of Akhuryan‐Haykadzor observation post. Akhurik observation post is being operated a bit upwards of Akhuryan Reservoir. Its catchment area is about 13% (1060 km2) of the total catchment area of Akhuryan River.

The natural flow of Akhurik hydrological observation post is relatively less violated which allowed for establishing quite reliable correlations between monthly and annual flow values of Akhurik and Haykadzor observation posts for 1953‐1980 (that is before the operation of Akhuryan reservoir).

The generated equations helped restoring monthly and annual flow values of Akhurik and Haykadzor hydrological observation posts for 1981‐2013. The data on undisturbed flow of Akhurik‐Haykadzor hydrological observation posts for 1953‐1980, restored flow data for the period of 1981‐2013, flow data from Akhuryan‐Akhurik hydrological observation post, as well as monthly and annual flow values of Karkachun‐Gharibjanyan hydrological observation post were also used for surveys of River Basin water resources.

There are quite close correlative connections between river flows of the two mentioned hydrological observation posts for the months of January‐June with coefficient ranging between 0.62 and 0.90. During the rest of the year, that is the period including July‐December months, the connection between river flows of the mentioned hydrological observation posts is almost absent. This is due to the fact that river flow accumulation occurs in all of the reservoirs above Akhurik hydrological observation post up until the end of

68 June. That is, the flow from the catchments of the Arpilich, Karnut and Tavshut reservoirs to Akhuryan river stops resulting in almost undisturbed flow occurring downstream of the mentioned reservoirs and measured at Akhurik hydrological observation post. The reservoirs start to operate from July resulting in the disturbance of the natural flow. The correlative connection between annual flows of Akhurik‐Haykadzor hydrological observation post is quite close with a coefficient of 0.8. This fact allows for restoration of annual flow of Haykadzor hydrological observation post after the exploitation the reservoir, including annual river flow volumes for 1981‐ 2013. River flow distribution of Akhurik‐Haykadzor, Akhuryan‐Akhurik and Karkachun‐Gharibjanyan hydrological observation posts in comparison to annual flows are presented in the table below expressed in percent.

Table 51: Average multi‐annual monthly and annual flow values (million m3) and inter‐annual distribution (%) at selected hydrological observation posts River – Average multi‐annual monthly flow, mln. m3 and inter‐annual distribution, % Hydropost I II III IV V VI VII VIII IX X XI XII Annual Akhuryan‐ mln. m3 43.6 43.3 72.5 210.7 195.2 102.4 56 49.7 40.8 44.9 46.8 44.9 951.2 Haykadzor % 4.6 4.5 7.6 22.2 20.5 10.8 5.9 5.2 4.3 4.7 4.9 4.7 100 Akhuryan‐ mln. m3 15.6 14.4 20 41.7 31.2 16.6 15 18.3 15.2 14.8 15 15.4 233.2 Akhurik % 6.7 6.2 8.6 17.9 13.4 7.1 6.4 7.8 6.5 6.3 6.4 6.6 100 Karkachun‐ mln. m3 2.0 2.0 3.2 4.5 5.2 3.3 1.8 1.6 1.8 2.5 2.3 2.1 32.4 Gharibjanyan % 6.2 6.2 9.9 13.9 16.2 10.3 5.5 5.0 5.6 7.7 7.1 6.5 100 Data Source: Armenian State Hydrometeorological and Monitoring Service, 2015

According to the above presented table: Peak flows in all hydrological observation posts match in the months of April‐May and partly March‐ June. The average multi‐annual flow for April comprises 22%, for May 20.5%, for March 7.6%, for June 10.8% and for the rest of the low‐flow months about 5% of the annual flow. The uneven distribution of the annual flow of Akhuryan‐Akhurik and Karkachun‐Gharibjanyan hydrological observation posts in comparison to Akhurik‐Haykadzor hydrological observation post is relatively weakly expressed. Here the peak flows are also observed during April‐May, but smaller in percentage as compared to Haykadzor. The annual flow for April comprises 18%, for May 13.4% and for the rest of the months from 6.3 to 8% of the annual flow. At Karkachun‐Gharibjanyan hydrological observation post, the flow value for April comprises 13.3%, for May 14.9%, for June 10.1%, for March 9.8% and for the rest of the months 5.2‐ 8 %, as opposed to the annual flow.

Table 52 below presents the average annual flow characteristics of rivers of Akhuryan River Basin.

Table 52: Main average annual flow characteristics of rivers of Akhuryan River Basin River – Hydropost Catchment area, Flow module, Annual flow, mln Flow layer Precipita‐ Flow km2 litre/sec km2 m3 width, mm tion, mm Coefficient Akhuryan‐ 8140 3.70 951.2 116.9 600 0.19 Haykadzor Akhuryan‐ 1060 6.73 233.2 218.4 600 0.36 Akhurik Karkachun‐ 1020 1.05 32.4 30.6 600 0.05 Gharibjanyan Data Source: Armenian State Hydrometeorological and Monitoring Service, 2015

The surface flow is unevenly distributed at different sections of the river basin which is expressed both in the flow module and the flow ratio. A relatively large flow is formed at Akhuryan‐Akhurik basin with flow coefficient equalling to 0.36. In Akhuryan basin surface flow equals to 0.19. The surface flow at Karkachun tributary basin is very small with a coefficient of 0.05.

69 4.2. Climatic Characteristics

Estimation of air temperature and precipitation changes is based on data obtained from Gyumri (1528 m), Amasia (1849 m) and Ashotzq (2008 m) meteorological stations, which foster describing common patterns of temperature and moisture at Akhuryan RBD. A detailed data quality control has been undertaken in order to reduce data related uncertainties. Errors and flaws were corrected, while the gaps were filled by the help of HOMO software package. In addition, a study of temperature, precipitation and the annual river flow changes at Akhuryan‐Akhurik, Akhurik‐Haykadzor and Karkachun‐Gharibjanyan hydrological observation posts for the period of 1953‐2013 in relation to baseline values of 1961‐1990 was carried out. Moreover, averaged temperature and precipitation values of Gyumri, Amasia and Ashotzq meteorological stations were used for this purpose.

Figure 26. Flow changes at Akhuryan‐Akhurik, Akhurik‐Haykadzor and Karkachun‐Gharibjanyan hydrological observation posts for the period of 1953‐2013 (Data Source: Armenian State Hydrometeorological and Monitoring Service, 2015)

70

Figure 27. Average annual air temperature and annual rainfall deviations (mm) in relation to the baseline average of 1961‐1990 at Akhuryan RBD (Data Source: Armenian State Hydrometeorological and Monitoring Service, 2015)

The results of the above presented pictures are summarized in the following Tables 53‐55 below.

Table 53: Multi‐annual average river flow deviations at Akhuryan RBD River – Hydropost Time period Average flow, Annual flow deviations mln m3 mln m3 % Akhuryan‐Haykadzor 1953‐2013 951.2 142.34 15 Akhuryan‐Akhurik 1953‐2013 231.5 41.16 18 Karkachun‐Gharibjanyan 1953‐2013 32.4 3.23 10 Data Source: Armenian State Hydrometeorological and Monitoring Service, 2015

Table 54: Multi‐annual average air temperature deviations at Akhuryan RBD Time period Average temperature, oC Temperature deviation, oC 1953‐2013 4.6 0. 29 Data Source: Armenian State Hydrometeorological and Monitoring Service, 2015

Table 55: Multi‐annual average precipitation deviations at Akhuryan RBD Precipitation deviation Time period Average precipitation, mm mm % 1953‐2013 608 104.1 17 Data Source: Armenian State Hydrometeorological and Monitoring Service, 2015

71 As it is shown in the charts, the river flow increase is observed at Akhuryan river basin due to increased precipipataion in the period of 1953‐2013. This increase amounts to 15% at Akhurik‐Haykadzor, 18% at Akhuryan‐Akhurik and 10% at Karkachun‐Gharibjanyan hydrological observation posts. From multi‐annual point of view, an increase in river temperature and precipitation can also be observed at the river basin. Average cumulative annual temperature values have increased by 0.29°C during 1953‐2013 in relation to 1961‐1990, while average cumulative precipitation values increased by 17%.

During 1991‐2013 the actual flow of Metsamor River underwent significant changes, as opposed to Akhuryan river basin. The flow intensity of the Metsamor River reduced due intensive use of groundwater resources (actual groundwater use was nearly 3 times the allowable amount in 2013) of Metsamor River Basin in the recent years. This resulted in decline of groundwater levels, sharp decrease of the levels and discharge of flushing springs and wells. This situation has led to a sharp reduction of Metsamor‐Aknalich spring discharge points. Metsamor river flow reduced by 38.4% in relation to baseline of 1961‐1990 at Taronik hydrological observation post, while at Etchmiadzin hydrological observation post by 36.8%. Unregulated drilling of groundwater wells at Metsamor River Basin, including drilling without designs and proper technical structure, as well as violation of 500m distance rule among wells have resulted in violation of existing natural hydraulic connections between aquifers. Specifically, the number of hydrogeological windows existing between aquifers has significantly increased due to densely drilled well network resulting in decrease of piesometric levels. The component of water discharge from aquifers was also violated which led to a sharp decline of natural spring discharge areas.

The data series of Ranchpar hydrological observation post was filled with data obtained from Metsamor‐ Etchmiadzin hydrological observation post in order to accurately determine multi‐annual average river discharge, given that water discharge measurements at final Ranchpar hydrological observation post of Metsamor River have not been conducted for more than 20 years. The average annual discharge connection chart of these hydrological observation posts looks as follows:

Figure 28. The average annual discharge correlation chart of Metsamor‐Etchmiadzin and Metsamor‐ Ranchpar hydrological observation posts (1950‐1987) (Data Source: Armenian State Hydrometeorological and Monitoring Service, 2015)

The R coefficient of correlation in the chart is 0.88. The generated chart helped extending the observation data series at Metsamor‐Ranchpar hydrological observation posts where no discharge measurements have been conducted during the recent years.

72 Table 56. Multi‐annual average discharge values at Metsamor‐Etchmiadzin and Metsamor‐Ranchpar hydrological observation posts (m3/s) Metsamor ‐ Metsamor ‐ Metsamor ‐ Metsamor ‐ Year Year Etchmiadzin Ranchpar Etchmiadzin Ranchpar 1950 25.8 28.4 1965 23.1 23.9 1951 27.1 29.9 1966 23.3 25.0 1952 27.1 29.6 1967 23.7 26.4 1953 23.5 27.2 1968 24.7 28.1 1954 27.6 30.3 1969 26.1 28.7 1955 23.9 26.5 1970 20.6 23.0 1956 25.9 30.1 1971 20.5 20.5 1957 26.4 30.0 1972 23.0 24.8 1958 23.7 27.9 1973 21.4 22.4 1959 26.5 28.0 1974 20.4 21.9 1960 28.8 31.1 1975 18.2 20.5 1961 22.0 23.8 1976 22.8 26.2 1962 21.7 23.9 1977 22.3 24.0 1963 27.0 32.9 1978 25.2 29.3 1964 21.7 27.4 1979 22.8 25.6 1980 19.5 23.1 2000 15.8 22.1 1981 19.7 19.8 2001 13.7 19.2 1982 20.7 21.4 2002 15.3 17.5 1983 22.0 19.4 2003 16.6 11.3 1984 21.8 21.0 2004 13.6 21.2 1985 22.7 22.0 2005 16.7 17.3 1986 18.7 19.4 2006 12.2 11.9 1987 21.3 22.9 2007 10.8 10.2 1988 22.6 24.5 2008 8.48 7.33 1989 17.1 17.8 2009 12.5 12.2 1990 16.5 17.1 2010 8.34 7.15 1991 19.3 20.4 2011 9.91 9.06 1992 19.4 20.6 2012 8.90 7.84 1993 20.6 30.8 2013 7.90 6.62 1994 17.9 26.7 2014 2.55 0.14 Data Source: Armenian State Hydrometeorological and Monitoring Service, 2015

As it is shown in the table, according to the correlation chart, the discharge values of recovered data series of Metsamor‐Ranchpar hydrological observation post for the period of 2003‐2014 (in red) are lower than the discharge values generated at Metsamor‐Etchmiadzin hydrological observation post. Therefore, the average annual discharge data of Metsamor‐Ranchpar hydrological observation post for this period was recovered using flow module regional curve equations commonly used in hydrological calculations. The obtained results are presented in the table below.

Table 57. Recovered values of average annual discharge for the period of 2005‐2014 at Metsamor‐Ranchpar hydrological observation post (m3/s) Metsamor ‐ Metsamor ‐ Metsamor ‐ Metsamor ‐ Year Year Etchmiadzin Ranchpar Etchmiadzin Ranchpar 2003 16.6 17.1 2009 12.5 16.5 2004 13.6 21.2 2010 8.34 11.0 2005 16.7 22.1 2011 9.91 13.1 2006 12.2 16.2 2012 8.90 11.7 2007 10.8 14.3 2013 7.90 10.4 2008 8.48 11.2 2014 2.55 3.37 Data Source: Armenian State Hydrometeorological and Monitoring Service, 2015

Figure 29 below shows the trend in the change of the average annual discharge at Metsamor‐Ranchpar hydrological observation post for the period of 1950‐2014.

73

Figure 29. Dynamics of the change in average annual discharge at Metsamor‐Ranchpar hydrological observation post (Data Source: Armenian State Hydrometeorological and Monitoring Service, 2015)

As it can be seen on the chart, the average annual river discharge of Metsamor River has decreased by about 62 percent due to both the economic activity and climate change, during the last 65 years. While here the main factor is the human impact, it is impossible to differentiate the share of climate change in this decrease.

Average annual discharge data at the Akhuryan‐Bagaran hydrological observation post, which is the outflow of Akhuryan River basin, have short data series and was recovered based on regional curve of flow module (See the figure below), because here flow measurements have been conducted since 1983.

Average annual discharge values at Akhuryan‐Akhurik hydrological observation post having long data series have been chosen as analogue for Akhuryan‐Bagaran hydrological observation post.

Figure 30. Correlation of river flow module and average altitudes in Akhuryan river basin (Data Source: Armenian State Hydrometeorological and Monitoring Service, 2015)

The average annual discharge values measured and estimated at Akhuryan‐Bagaran hydrological observation post are shown in the table below.

Table 58. Average annual discharge values at Akhuryan‐Bagaran hydrological observation post (m3/s) for 1953‐ 2014 (Estimated discharges are shown in red) Akhuryan‐ Akhuryan‐ Akhuryan‐ Akhuryan‐ Year Year Year Year Bagaran Bagaran Bagaran Bagaran 1953 20,7 1969 40,2 1985 15,4 2001 23,3 1954 22,5 1970 24,1 1986 17,5 2002 20,7 1955 21,2 1971 23,0 1987 21,7 2003 29,4 1956 22,8 1972 24,6 1988 27,8 2004 39,3

74 Akhuryan‐ Akhuryan‐ Akhuryan‐ Akhuryan‐ Year Year Year Year Bagaran Bagaran Bagaran Bagaran 1957 17,8 1973 23,2 1989 18,7 2005 34,6 1958 17,2 1974 16,4 1990 26,5 2006 32,8 1959 23,6 1975 19,2 1991 22,9 2007 27,9 1960 35,0 1976 32,8 1992 23,7 2008 23,3 1961 24,5 1977 29,5 1993 23,6 2009 26,9 1962 16,8 1978 35,0 1994 26,7 2010 36,2 1963 31,8 1979 28,9 1995 29,2 2011 26,9 1964 31,4 1980 24,9 1996 30,3 2012 23,0 1965 26,6 1981 20,9 1997 30,0 2013 22,1 1966 22,6 1982 22,1 1998 33,3 2014 19,6 1967 17,5 1983 16,9 1999 22,1 1968 36,3 1984 19,9 2000 21,7 Data Source: Armenian State Hydrometeorological and Monitoring Service, 2015

Dynamics of the changes in average monthly discharge values at Akhuryan‐Bagaran hydrological observation post for 1953‐2014 are shown in the figure 31 below.

Figure 31. Annual Dynamics of Average annual flow at Akhuryan‐Bagaran hydrological observation post (Data Source: Armenian State Hydrometeorological and Monitoring Service, 2015)

Economic and climate change complex impacts are quite insignificant at Akhuryan river basin, according to the trend curve of the chart. An insignificant flow change was registered within the period of 1953‐2014. This fact was taken into account when assessing the flow vulnerability for 2030.

4.3. Formation and Projection of the River Flow

The flow formation is dependent on physical‐geographic conditions, exposition, slope, altitude a.s.l., climatic factors, soil composition, soil and vegetation types and other factors. As mentioned above, more than 2/3 of the annual flow of the river Akhuryan flows in the first half of the year, while about 55% during the freshet/flooding period, in April‐June. Low‐flow is predominating during the rest of the year. Main hydrological characteristics show that at various river sections flow losses are different. Most of the precipitation infiltrates into the deep ground layers and comes out of the earth's surface in the low‐lying areas of the basin in the form of powerful springs in some parts of the Akhuryan RBD (Aragats massif), in particular Karkachun river basin.

The main river flow is formed by snowmelt water with minimal losses as compared to rainfall losses. This is why the existence of snow resources before snowmelt is such an important factor during the formation of spring freshets. Rainfall has a significant effect on the flood flow size, especially in the snow‐covered areas. The formation of spring flow may also be significantly impacted by soil moisture existing before winter in

75 the river basin characterized by atmospheric precipitation, as well as temperatures during the winter and freshet period. Flow losses become lesser and a higher flow is formed under high soil moisture conditions but with the same precipitation quantity.

Physical‐geographic conditions affecting flow formation process within Akhuryan RBD are constant and are not subject to changes over time, thus, their influence on flow formation does not change over time. It can be stated, that exclusively climatic conditions impact flow formation changes, including air temperature and precipitation.

For projection of the flow in Akhuryan RBD, in addition to flow data, it is necessary to have air temperature and precipitation data. However, around 74% of the Akhuryan River Basin area is located in the territory of Turkey for which data on the meteorological characteristics is not available. Therefore, correlattions have been made between averaged annual values of river flow, temperature and precipitation of Akhuryan‐ Akhurik, Akhurik‐Haykadzor and Karkachun‐Gharibjanyan hydrological observation posts for the period of 1953‐2013. The equations of those correlations are as follows: At Akhurik‐Haykadzor: W = 33,7T + 1,37Q – 30,22 At Akhuryan‐Akhurik: W = 4,7T + 0,36Q ‐ 6,643 At Karkachun‐Gharibjanyan: W = ‐1,18T + 0,067Q – 3,167 These equations are checked for accuracy through dependent variables and their change dynamics is presented below. The maximum deviations between actual and estimated flow are amounted to 15%.

Figure 32. Multi‐annual changes of actual and estimated annual flow at Akhurik and Haykadzor hydrological observation posts of Akhuryan River (Data Source: Armenian State Hydrometeorological and Monitoring Service, 2015)

76 4.4. Temperature and precipitation changes according to climate models

Climate change in Armenia is assessed by using RCP8.5 and RCP6.0 scenarios of Community Climate System Model 4 (CCSM4)3. RCP8.5 scenario represents the increase of effective radiation in the atmosphere by 8.5 Wt/m2, which is equivalent to the SRES A2 scenario, while RCP6.0 is equivalent to the SRES B2 scenario.

The CCSM4 is a coupled climate model, which was developed at National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR). This fairly advanced model is composed of four separate components including Earth's atmosphere, ocean, land and glaciers/land‐ice. The horizontal grid of 0.94° x 1.25° (approximately 110 km) is coupled with 26 levels in the vertical (up to 40 km). However, there are still some inaccuracies in precipitation modeling in the model.

Simple linear regression equations were used between average annual temperature, annual cumulative precipitation and height a.s.l. values of meteorological stations throughout the territory of Armenia for rescaling the results. Spatial estimates of the climatic parameters including temperature and precipitation variables were obtained with the help of dependence equations, which were later mapped with the geographic information system. Future change projections for air temperature and precipitation quantity for Akhuryan RBD up until 2100 have been developed based on RCP8.5 and RCP6.0 emission scenarios of CCSM4 (Figures 33 and 34).

a) 1961‐1990 b) 2071‐2100 Figure 33. Distribution of average annual air temperature at Akhuryan RBD according to RCP8.5 scenario (Data Source: Armenian State Hydrometeorological and Monitoring Service, 2015)

3) The Community Climate System Model (CCSM) is a coupled climate model for simulating the earth's climate system. Composed of four separate models simultaneously simulating the earth's atmosphere, ocean, land surface and sea‐ice, and one central coupler component, the CCSM allows researchers to conduct fundamental research into the earth's past, present and future climate states (See http://www.cesm.ucar.edu/models/ccsm4.0/).

77

a) 1961‐1990 b) 2071‐2100 Figure 34. Distribution of average annual precipitation at Akhuryan RBD according to RCP8.5 scenario (Data Source: Armenian State Hydrometeorological and Monitoring Service, 2015)

The figures presented above demonstrate air temperature and cumulative precipitation distribution only according to RCP8.5 scenario and projection for 2071‐2100. The results of RCP6.0 scenario and projections for 2011‐2040, 2041‐2070 and 2071‐2100 are shown in the table below.

Table 59. Future change trends of annual average temperatures and cumulative atmospheric precipitation in relation to the baseline values of 1961‐1990 at Akhuryan RBD 1961‐1990 2011‐2040 2041‐2070 2071‐2100 Atmospheric precipitation mm 598.7 584.1 587.0 RCP6.0 scenario % 3.1 0.5 1.0 581 mm Atmospheric precipitation mm 605.9 608.5 610.0 RCP8.5 scenario % 4.3 4.7 5.0 Temperature °C 6.0 7.2 7.9 RCP6.0 scenario ΔT 1.4 2.6 3.3 4,6 °C Temperature °C 6.2 7.8 8.4 RCP8.5 scenario ΔT 1.6 3.2 3.8 Data Source: Armenian State Hydrometeorological and Monitoring Service, 2015

As shown in the table, according to the model simulation, a precipitation growth trend is observed at Akhuryan RBD. Moreover, according to RCP6.0 scenario the maximum precipitation increase of around 3% will gradually fall to 1%. In case of RCP8.5, the precipitation increase by 2100 will amount to 5%. Temperature change monotonously grows in case of both scenarios. In case of RCP6.0 scenario this increase by 2100 will make up 3.3 °C and 3.8 °C in case of RCP8.5.

78 4.5. Vulnerability of water resources

The vulnerability of water resources of Akhuryan RBD has been assessed using the values of alteration of temperature and precipitation for 2011‐2040, 2041‐2070 and 2071‐2100 in relation to the average baseline of 1961‐1990 by RCP6.0 and RCP8.5 scenarios presented in the table above, as well as annual flow projection equations of Akhurik‐Haykadzor, Akhuryan‐Akhurik and Karkachun‐Gharibjanyan hydrological observation posts and interpolated values of flow change at Metsamor‐Etchmiadzin and Metsamor‐ Ranchpar hydrological observation posts.

Table 60. Average annual river flow values for 1961‐1990 and their changes in relation to baseline values at Akhuryan RBD Baseline Flow alteration River‐Observation post Scenario 1961‐1990 2011‐2040 2041‐2070 2071‐2100 mln m3 mln m3 % mln m3 % mln m3 % RCP6.0 232 237.3 2.5 237.7 2.7 242.0 4.5 Akhuryan ‐ Akhurik RCP8.5 240.7 4.0 249.1 7.6 252.5 9.1 RCP6.0 951 993.1 4.4 1013.8 6.6 1041.5 9.5 Akhuryan ‐ Haykadzor RCP8.5 1008.8 6.1 1066.3 12.1 1088.6 14.5 RCP6.0 33 29.8 ‐8.7 27.4 ‐16.1 26.8 ‐18.0 Karkachun‐Gharibjanyan RCP8.5 30.1 ‐7.9 28.4 ‐13.1 27.8 ‐15.0 RCP6.0 338 330 ‐2 320 ‐5 300 ‐11 Metsamor ‐ Etchmiadzin RCP8.5 327 ‐3 315 ‐6 295 ‐13 RCP6.0 442 435 ‐1 425 ‐4 400 ‐9 Metsamor ‐ Ranchpar RCP8.5 426 ‐4 420 ‐5 390 ‐12 Data Source: Armenian State Hydrometeorological and Monitoring Service, 2015

According to the above‐shown results, the river flow will increase at Akhurik and Haykadzor hydrological observation posts in relation to baseline values of 1961‐1990 in both scenarios. Moreover, in the case of RCP8.5 a significant increase by 9.1% will take place at Akhuryan‐ Akhurik and by 14.5% at Akhuryan‐ Haykadzor hydrological observation posts. Flow reduction will be observed at Karkachun‐Gharibjanyan, Metsamor‐Etchmiadzin and Metsamor‐Ranchpar hydrological observation posts, by 15%, 13% and 12% respectively. These results can be used in development of climate change adaptation measures at different sectors of the economy.

79 5. WATER BODIES AT RISK

5.1 Risk Assessment Indicators and Criteria

The identification of Surface Water Bodies (rivers and lakes) is based on the risk indicators and criteria recommended in the “Guidance Document on Addressing Hydromorphology and Physico‐Chemistry for a Pressure‐Impact Analysis/Risk Assessment according to the EU WFD”(prepared by EPIRB Project, 2014), which have been adapted taking into consideration data availability in Armenia.

Main pollution sources were assessed using the following indicators: Two pressure indicators for pollution from municipal wastewater sources (including industrial wastewater sources as far as possible) and Two pressure indicators for diffuse agricultural pollution sources.

Details how these indicators have been addressed and calculated can be found in Annex 3 of this plan. As a result of application of those indicators, three risk categories were identified (1) at risk; (2) possible at risk; and (3) not at risk. Assessment of the chemical status of surface waters was conducted based on ecological norms of water quality in the Akhuryan and Metsamor River basins that was approved by Government Resolution #75‐N in 2011. The status of biological quality elements has been assessed using Rapid Biological Assessment method based on the data on benthic macroinvertebrate communities (Annex 1).

5.2. Delineation of Surface Water Bodies

5.2.1. Identification of Surface Water Bodies at Risk

According to the definition of the EU WFD, a water body at risk (WBR) is a water body that is identified as being at risk of failing the WFD environmental objectives (Article 2). This is based on the results of characterization (Article 5) and operational monitoring (Article 8).

Following the findings of anthropogenic pressure‐impact analysis for the Akhuryan RBD (“Pressure‐impact analysis report for Akhuryan Basin Management Area”, 2014), the pressure indicators and risk criteria proposed in the “Guidance Document on addressing hydromorphology and physico‐chemistry for a Pressure‐Impact Analysis/Risk Assessment according to the EU WFD”, were applied to assess the risk with further identification of water bodies at risk and water bodies possibly at risk (Section 4.2.1).

The results of risk assessment are presented below: 1) Akhuryan River section downstream Arpilich Reservoir between Berdashen and Pokr Sepasar communities: due to hydromorphological alterations caused by a water diversion of about 19 km long stretch of the Akhuryan River through the earthen canal. This water has been assessed to be at risk to fail the EU WFD environmental objectives due to “poor” hydromorphological status (limit values: 3.5 – 4.2, according to the results of the second round of JFS) (Section 3.3.3. of this plan). 2) Ashotzq River from Ashotzq town to river mouth: Due to the occurrence of iron and molybdenum ore deposits in the lower sections of the Ashotzq tributary of the Akhuryan River, the drainage waters from these sites contain high concentrations of arsenic, titanium, manganese, nickel, iron, chrome, boron. This water has been assessed to be at risk to fail the EU WFD environmental objectives due to “moderate” chemical status at the Sampling point #23: Ashotzq‐Krasar based on the results of the second round of JFS (Section 3.3.2. of this plan). The length of this WBR is 5.5 km.

80 3) Akhuryan River section from Cascade small HPP to Amasia town: in this stretch of Akhuryan River, the ecological flow is not maintained due to water abstraction for hydropower generation by small HPP. This water has been assessed to be at risk to fail the EU WFD environmental objectives due to Status of this water body as being at risk to fail the environmental objective due to recorded actual minimum flow at “Akhuryan‐Amasya” hydrological observation post, which is in the range of 1.41‐1.94 m3/sec (for January‐March and September‐December months within the year) and is lower than the value of ecological flow (2.18‐2.39 m3/sec for different months of the year) calculated using the methodology adopted by the Government of Armenia in 2011. The length of this WBR is 9.2 km. 4) Akhuryan River section downstream the Kaps Reservoir up to Marmashen settlement: This stretch of the Akhuryan River, the ecological flow requirement is not maintained due to water abstraction for hydropower generation by a small HPP. This water has been assessed to be at risk to fail the EU WFD environmental objectives due to recorded actual minimum flow at “Akhuryan‐Kaps” hydrological observation post, which is in the range of 1.57‐2.47 m3/sec (for September‐October months within the year) and is lower than the value of ecological flow (2.61‐2.94 m3/sec for different months of the year) calculated using the methodology adopted by Government of Armenia in 2011. The length of this WBR is more than 7 km. 5) Kumayri River within Gyumri city: Untreated municipal wastewaters which were also only partly collected by a sewerage system from the agglomeration of Gyumri are discharged directly into this reach of the Kumayri River. In this context hazardous substances pollute the river. Rain waters cause additional pollution exceeding BOD5, phosphorus, total nitrogen and suspended particles thresholds. This water has been assessed to be at risk to fail the EU WFD environmental objectives due to Pressure indicator 1: untreated wastewater in terms of BOD. According to calculations, the Dww=20.2, which is greater than 1.5 and corresponds to the “at risk” category (Annex 3 of this plan). The length of this WBR is more than 8.8 km. 6) Akhuryan River reach from the confluence of the Kumayri River to Akhuryan Reservoir: This stretch of the river faces significant pressures by urban and food industry wastewater discharges. As a result the contents of organic and inorganic compositions of nitrogen and phosphorus have been increasing. This water has been assessed to be at risk to fail the EU WFD environmental objectives due to Pressure indicator 1: untreated wastewater in terms of BOD (Dww=20.2) (Annex 3 of this plan), plus additional loads of organic and inorganic matters from food industry wastewaters. The length of this WBR is more than 5.7 km. 7) Karmrakar River4: The entire river and its water bodies face significant pressures from the discharge of municipal and food industry wastewater within the territory of Gyumri and downstream. This water has been assessed to be at risk to fail the EU WFD environmental objectives due to Pressure indicator 1: untreated wastewater in terms of BOD (Dww=20.2) (Annex 3 of this plan), plus additional loads of organic and inorganic matters from food industry wastewaters. The length of this WBR is about 12.5 km. 8) Karkachun River: The entire river, which flows between the Metsdzorijur and Jajur Rivers, faces the significant pressure on water status due to wastewater from cattle breeding and industrial wastewater discharge. Cattle breeding in the Akhuryan River basin leads to increased concentrations of nitrogen, phosphorus and organic compounds. In addition, due to extraction and processing of construction materials, the contents of sodium, magnesium, potassium, calcium, bromine, manganese, strontium, molybdenum, antimony, sulphate and chloride ions increase, and due to extraction of minerals – mineralization values. This water has been assessed to be at risk to fail the EU WFD environmental objectives due to ”bad” chemical status at the EIMC’s Sampling point #38 Karkachun (Annex 10 of this plan). The length of this WBR is 11.6 km. 9) Artikjuir River downstream Artik town up to the Vardakar Reservoir: This reach is significantly pressured by the extraction of gravel and sand to be used as construction material from the river bed. This water has been assessed to be at risk to fail the EU WFD environmental objectives due to “moderate” chemical status at the Sampling point #14: Artikjur‐Artik (according to the results of the second round of JFS) (Section 3.3.2. of this plan). The length of this WBR is 5.1 km.

4) Sometimes also referred as “unnamed river”.

81 10) Metsamor River downstream of confluence with the Qasakh River to river mouth: This river reach faces a significant impact on water quality. The main pressures are: municipal wastewaters, wastewaters of food industry, fish‐farming, cattle breeding and hydromorphological alterations. Sanitation of towns is not carried out properly. This has significant impacts on quality of the water resources of the Metsamor River downstream Metsamor and Armavir towns. As a result, contents of BOD5, phosphorus, total nitrogen and suspended particles increase. In addition, wastewaters from food industry pass into the Metsamor River through the sewage system and have significant pressure on water quality. The contents of nitrogen, phosphorus and organic compositions increase in river water after Armavir, Talin and Metsamor towns. Water abstraction for fish farming has significant pressure on groundwater resources of the South‐eastern part of the Metsamor River basin as well as on the Metsamor river flow. Intensive cattle breeding at Talin and Baghramyan regions leads to increase in contents of nitrogen, phosphorus and organic compounds. The length of this WBR is 27.2 km. This water has been assessed to be at risk to fail the EU WFD environmental objectives due to Pressure indicator 1: untreated wastewater in terms of BOD. According to calculations downstream Metsamor town, the value of Dww=5.56, which is greater than 1.5 and corresponds to the “at risk” category. In addition, the status was proved by the following: ‐ “Poor” chemical status based on assessment of chemical status at the EIMC’s Sampling points #41 and #42 (Annex 10 of this plan); ‐ “Moderate” chemical status based on the results of the second round of JFS at the Sampling point #18: Metsamor‐Gay (Section 3.3.2. of this plan); ‐ “Poor” chemical status based on the results of the second round of JFS at the Sampling point #20: Metsamor‐Ranchpar (Section 3.3.2. of this plan); ‐ “Moderate” hydromorphological status based on the results of the second round of JFS at the Sampling point #18: Metsamor‐Gay (Section 3.3.3. of this plan).

The total length of the identified water bodies at risk in the Akhuryan RBD is 111 km, which comprises about 12% of total river network. The list of WBRs is presented in Annex 11 of this plan.

5.2.2. Identification of Surface Water Bodies Possibly at Risk

Water bodies possibly at risk to fail the EU WFD environmental objective is a water body for which datasets are insufficient to apply risk criteria. This group is temporary, because decision whether these water bodies should belong to category “provisional HMWB” cannot be done yet and needs additional data and investigation.

For the Akhuryan RBD, the following water bodies possibly at risk were identified by expert observations and judgment mostly due to data gaps: 1) Akhuryan River section between Marmashen settlement and confluence of the Kumayri River: in this stretch of the river significant impacts on river hydrological and morphological conditions may be posed by water releases from Marmashen small HPP, and biological conditions could be altered due to improper functioning of the fish bypass/migration facilities. Therefore, this water body with a length of 10,1 km is categorised possibly at risk. 2) Gyumri Getak tributary of Kumayri River flowing through Gyumri city: chemical and biological conditions of the river could be significantly impacted by significant volumes of municipal waste being dumped into the river. The length of this water body possibly at risk is 12.6 km. 3) Jajur River section from the Karmrakar River to the river mouth: in this stretch of the river it is not possible to assess the chemical and biological status of the surface water due to lack of data. Therefore, this water body with a length of 5,8 km is categorised possibly at risk. 4) Mantash River section downstream the Vardakar Reservoir up to the river mouth: in this stretch of the river due to lack of data it is not possible to assess if the regime of water releases from the reservoir is sufficient for maintaining the ecological flow. Therefore, this water body with a length of 4,1 km is categorised possibly at risk .

The total length of the identified water bodies possibly at risk in Akhuryan RBD is 32.6 km, which comprises 3.5% of total river network (Figure 35).

82 The list of water bodies possibly at risk is presented in Annex 11 of this plan.

Figure 35: Surface Water Bodies at Risk and Surface Water Bodies Possibly at Risk in Akhuryan RBD (“Resource Management” LLC, 2014)

83 5.2.3. Identification of Artificial Surface Water Bodies

According to EU WFD, "Artificial water body" means a body of surface water created by human activity, where no water has existed before (Article 2). A water body can be designated as artificial water body only if it meets the following criteria:

Changes in the hydromorphological properties of the water body, which would be required to achieve a good ecological status, would have a significant negative impact on (a) the environment in general; (b) activities for which the water is abstracted, such as fisheries or irrigation; and (c) water regulation, protection against floods, or drainage.

Due to limited technical resources or excessive costs, the benefits resulting from the artificial nature of the water body would not be achievable through alternative methods, which would be more favourable for the environment.

According to the “Pressure‐impact analysis report for Akhuryan Basin Management Area”, a total of 42 artificial canals are currently located in the Akhuryan RBD to irrigate 69,825 ha of agricultural lands.

The largest canals in the Akhuryan River basin are Shirak Canal, with an irrigation area of 9,817 ha, Kaps Canal (or Akhuryan right bank canal) – 4,230 ha, Aygabats Canal – 2,668 ha, and Akhuryan Canal – 2,826 ha. These 4 canals were identified as artificial water bodies in the Akhuryan River basin. The Armavir Canal is the largest canal in the Metsamor River basin, which amounts to 50 m3/sec, and irrigation area accounts for almost half of the total irrigation area ‐ 19,538 ha. Other large canals include Talin Canal with its distribution branches ‐ 9,755 ha, Aknalich Canal ‐ 1,325 ha, Jrarat Canal ‐ 1440 ha, Bazmabed canal – 130 ha and Metsamor Canal – 350 ha. These 6 canals were identified as artificial water bodies in the Metsamor River basin.

In addition to the above‐mentioned 10 large canals, the section of Arzni‐Shamiram Canal (29.2 km in length) and the section of Lower Hrazdan Canal (31.8 km in length) pass through the Akhuryan RBD and are also considered as artificial water bodies.

Another artificial water body identified in the basin is the group of 4 fish farm ponds near the Metsamor, which are considered as a separate single AWB. Table 61 below lists the AWBs identified in the Akhuryan RBD, while Figure 36 presents their locations.

Table 61: The list of 13 Artificial Surface Water Bodies in the Akhuryan RBD Length Area ID Name (km) (km2) AWB‐01 Akhuryan main canal 27.87 AWB‐02 Kaps canal (or Akhuryan right bank canal) 12.46 AWB‐03 Shirak main canal 26.86 AWB‐04 Aygabats canal 16.51 AWB‐05 Talin main canal with its distribution branches 103.29 AWB‐06 Armavir main canal with its distribution branches 108.74 AWB‐07 Section of Arzni‐Shamiram canal 29.23 AWB‐08 Section of Lower Hrazdan canal 31.75 AWB‐09 Bazmaberd canal 11.57 AWB‐10 Aknalich canal 11.45 AWB‐11 Metsamor canal 16.08 AWB‐12 Jrarat canal 14.64 AWB‐13 Metsamor ponds 6.9 Source: “Identification, Delineation and Typology of Surface and Groundwater Bodies in the Akhuryan Basin Management Area of Armenia” Report prepared by “Environmental Policy Analysis” NGO, June 2013

84

Figure 36: Artificial Water Bodies in the Akhuryan RBD (“Resource Management” LLC, 2014)

85 5.2.4. Identification of Heavily Modified Surface Water Bodies

According to WFD, Heavily Modified Water Body (HMWB) is defined as ‘a body of surface water which as a result of physical alterations by human activity is substantially changed in character’ (Article 2).

Annually more than 600 million m3 of water is stored in 17 reservoirs of the Akhuryan RBD, which is primarily used for irrigation and hydropower generation purposes. Eight of these reservoirs are identified as HMWBs (Table 68). Nine small reservoirs were not identified as HMWB since they are built on the tributaries of Metsamor River that are having seasonal flow and do not meet the criteria of being larger than 0.5 km2 (EU WFD CIS Guidance Document #4: "Identification and Designation of Heavily Modified and Artificial Water Bodies").

Thus, total 8 HMWBs were identified and delineated in the Akhuryan RBD. The largest is Lake Arpilich, which has been transformed into a lake‐reservoir in 1951. The surface area of the reservoir increased from 5.0 to 22.1 km2, volume of water – from 5 to 90 million m3. Waters of the reservoir are used for irrigation purpose and for Gyumri hydropower plant.

The largest reservoir in the basin, as well as in Armenia is the Akhuryan Reservoir, which was constructed in 1975‐1982. The total volume of the reservoir is 525 mln. m3, the water surface area is 41.8 km2, the average depth is 46 m, and the width is 5.5 km. The length of the reservoir is about 20 km. The dam of the reservoir is concrete with a height of 59.1 m.

In addition, 6 small reservoirs with a surface area of more than 0.5 km2 were identified as HMWBs.

Table 62: List of 8 Heavily Modified Surface Water Bodies in the Akhuryan RBD ID Name Area (km2) HMWB01 Arpilich reservoir 20.59 HMWB02 Akhuryan reservoir 48.39 HMWB03 Mantash reservoir 0.94 HMWB04 Karnut reservoir 1.64 HMWB05 Kaps reservoir 0.78 HMWB06 Tavshut reservoir 0.58 HMWB07 Vardakar reservoir 0.57 HMWB08 Sarnaghbyur reservoir 0.68 Source: “Identification, Delineation and Typology of Surface and Groundwater Bodies in the Akhuryan Basin Management Area of Armenia” Report prepared by “Environmental Policy Analysis” NGO, June 2013.

Two new reservoirs are planned to be constructed in the Akhuryan RBD. The Selav‐Mastara Reservoir will be located in the territory of Myasnikyan community of the Armavir Marz, on the Selav‐Mastara River (tributary of Metsamor River with seasonal flow). The reservoir will have 10.2 million m3 overall storage volume (planned height of the dam is 30 m). It will collect the free flow of Selav‐Mastara River in the section between the Akhuryan Reservoir and the head‐structure of the Talin irrigation system. The construction of the reservoir will enable to irrigate 4,400 ha of agricultural lands of the region. Another project is related to rehabilitation of the partially constructed Kaps Reservoir. With the funding of the German KfW Bank, the selected consultant in 2013 started the feasibility study for rehabilitation of Kaps Reservoir and construction of Gravity Irrigation System. In the initial phase it is anticipated to rehabilitate the dam at a lower height, providing about 6 million m3 storage capacity and the gravity supply of 2,200 ha of irrigation currently supplied by pumps.

Figure 37 below presents their locations of the HMWBs delineated in the Akhuryan RBD.

86

Figure 37: Heavily Modified Water Bodies in the Akhuryan RBD (“Resource Management” LLC, 2014)

87 5.2.5. Identification of Water Bodies Not at Risk

All water bodies of the Akhuryan RBD that have not been identified at risk, possibly at risk and/or as artificial or heavily modified, are water bodies not at risk and, hence, natural. Those water bodies have been delineated according to criteria, mentioned in EU WFD CIS Guidance Document #2 on "Identification of Water Bodies". Thus, the following principles have been applied to define water bodies not at risk:

Small rivers can be included as part of a larger river water body of the same type, Small rivers: (a) belonging to the same type, (b) influenced by the same pressure category and level and (c) having an influence on another well delimited water body, may be grouped into one water body

In addition, in certain cases, also the following factors were taken into consideration:

Specific hydromorphological characteristics; Specific hydrological characteristics; The fact of being a confluence of rivers, being located adjacent to water bodies at risk or artificial water bodies, or being located between artificial water bodies or water bodies at risk, Having a status of protected area; Being located adjacent to state border.

In total, 26 water other bodies are categorised as not at risk in the Akhuryan RBD.

5.2.6. Summary and Overview regarding all Delineated Surface Water Bodies

In total, 61 surface water bodies have been delineated in the Akhuryan RBD out of which: 26 are natural water bodies that are not at risk to fail the EU WFD environmental objectives, 10 are at risk, 4 water bodies possibly at risk 13 are AWBs, including 12 canals and one group of ponds; 8 are HMWBs (reservoirs).

Figures 38 and 39 illustrate the number of water bodies and the total length of delineated surface water bodies in the Akhuryan RBD.

Figure 38: Number of the Delineated Surface Water Bodies in the Akhuryan RBD also including AWBs and HMWBs (“Resource Management” LLC, 2015)

88

Figure 39: Length of the Delineated Surface Water Bodies in the Akhuryan RBD (“Resource Management” LLC, 2015)

Out of 61 surface river water bodies delineated in the Akhuryan RBD, 52 are of “River” type and 9 are of “Lake” type. One artificial lake and seven reservoirs in the Akhuryan RBD have been identified as HMWBs and 1 group of ponds in the Metsamor River basin have been identified as an AWB. Tables 63 and 64 below provide statistics on “River” and “Lake” water bodies of the Akhuryan RBD.

Table 63: Statistics on “River” water bodies in the Akhuryan RBD Natural river bodies Artificial water bodies Total Length Length Total Length Length Total Average Total Average length of of the of the length of of the of the Number length, Number length, WBs, shortest longest WBs, shortest longest of WBs km of WBs km km WB, km WB, km km WB, km WB, km 40 938.15 23.45 1.19 98.18 12 410.45 34.2 11.45 108.74 Source: “Identification, Delineation and Typology of Surface and Groundwater Bodies in the Akhuryan Basin Management Area of Armenia” Report prepared by “Environmental Policy Analysis” NGO, June 2013.

Table 64: Number and total area of “Lake” water bodies of the Akhuryan RBD Artificial water bodies Heavily modified water bodies Number Area, km2 Number Area, km2 Average Area, km2 1 6.90 8 74.17 9.27 Source: “Identification, Delineation and Typology of Surface and Groundwater Bodies in the Akhuryan Basin Management Area of Armenia” Report prepared by “Environmental Policy Analysis” NGO, June 2013.

On the basis of the altitude and geology factors, the 52 “River” water bodies delineated in Akhuryan RBD belong to one single type, however they fall into three groups by the size of catchment area: Type I includes 16 water bodies with the small catchment area less than 100 km2; Type II includes 24 water bodies with the medium catchment area from 100 to 1000 km2; Type III includes 12 water bodies with the large catchment area 1000 to 10,000 km2.

Typology for 9 “lake” water bodies is also based on geographical and morphological properties. On the basis of the ecoregion, altitude and geology factors, all “lake” water bodies in the Akhuryan RBD belong to one single type, meanwhile by the surface area size and the depth lakes fall into the four groups: Type I includes 5 reservoirs and the Metsamor ponds with surface area from 0.5 to 1 km2 and depth from 3 to 15 m; Type II includes 1 reservoir with surface area from 1 to 10 km2 and depth from 3‐15 m Type III includes 1 reservoir with surface area from 10 to 100 km2 and depth from 3‐15 m; Type IV includes 1 reservoir with surface area from 10 to 100 km2 and depth >15m.

89 The general delineation of water bodies in Akhuryan RBD is presented in Figure 40 below.

Figure 40: Delineation of Surface Water Bodies in the Akhuryan RBD (“Resource Management” LLC, 2014)

90

5.3. Delineation of Groundwater Bodies in the Akhuryan River Basin District

5.3.1. Criteria and Procedure for Identification and Delineation of Groundwater Bodies

According to the WFD Article 2.12: “Body of groundwater means a distinct volume of groundwater within an aquifer or aquifers”. The first step in the procedure of identification of groundwater bodies is analysis of groundwater aquifers and their parts with a significant flow of groundwater and/or significant volume of abstraction.

According to the WFD “Significant flow of groundwater is one that, were it from reaching an associated surface water body or a directly dependent terrestrial ecosystem, would result in a significant diminution in the ecological or chemical quality of that surface water body or significant damage to the directly dependent terrestrial ecosystems”.

WFD Article 7 requires identifying all groundwater bodies used, or planned to be used in future, for the abstraction of more than 10 m3/day of drinking water as an average. In the water body identification exercise this volume is regarded as a significant quantity of groundwater. Geological strata capable to abstract this quantity of groundwater (even only locally) should be qualified as aquifers. Almost all aquifers that contain fresh groundwater can produce more than 10 m3/day and should be analyzed for groundwater body delineation.

The Directive does not provide a clear guidance on how groundwater bodies should be delineated. The delineation of groundwater bodies must ensure that the relevant objectives of the Directive can be achieved. Therefore groundwater bodies should be delineated in a way that enables an appropriate description of the quantitative and chemical status of groundwater. Groundwater monitoring is also focused on the groundwater body. The delineation of groundwater bodies should ensure that not only qualitative but also quantitative groundwater status can be reliably assessed. In most cases, quantitative status may be determined using long‐term monitoring data. In other cases, an estimation of the available groundwater resource will require a water balance calculation.

WFD CIS Guidance document # 2 “Identification of water bodies” offers the following sequence for identification of groundwater bodies:

The starting point for identifying the boundaries of a groundwater body should be geological boundaries. An aquifer or aquifers that cannot be sub‐divided based on geological boundaries should be sub‐ divided using groundwater hydraulic boundaries, e.g. groundwater flow lines. The bodies should be units of one chemical and one quantitative status that can be characterized and managed to allow the effective achievement of the Directive’s objectives. Major changes in the status of groundwater should therefore be taken into account when delineating groundwater body boundaries to ensure that water bodies provide for an accurate description of groundwater status. Identifying groundwater body’s vulnerability of aquifers shall be taken into account, i.e. general characterization of the overlying strata must be undertaken. Groundwater bodies could be identified either separately within different strata overlying each other in the vertical plane, or as a single body of groundwater spanning the different strata. Surface‐groundwater interaction shall be assessed when delineating groundwater bodies. Surface water ecosystems dependent on groundwater can be adversely affected when low river flow is reduced by groundwater abstraction. On the other hand, rise in groundwater level, e.g. in connection with artificial recharge or with the flooding of mines, can also pose a threat to a terrestrial ecosystem, especially at sites with a vegetation that is not adapted to high levels of groundwater.

91 Countries would not be expected to identify deep groundwater as water bodies where that groundwater: - Could not adversely affect surface ecosystems; - Are not used for groundwater abstraction; - Is unsuitable for drinking water supply because of its natural qualities or because its abstraction would be technically unfeasible or disproportionately expensive; - Could not place the achievement any other relevant objectives at risk.

The following recommendations of the WFD have been considered when delineating groundwater bodies in the Akhuryan RBD:

Different aquifer types (porous, sedimentary, volcanic) have been distinguished from the hydrogeological map; Geological boundaries of the aquifers defined; Hydrodynamic differences of the aquifers analysed; Hydrochemical varieties of the aquifers evaluated; Groundwater abstraction (>10 m3/day) has been checked and defined; Groundwater system which consisted of several layers of shallow aquifers with similar hydrodynamic and hydrochemical conditions have been considered as one water body; Hydrogeological units with the same chemical and one quantitative status have been assigned as groundwater bodies; The lower boundary of GWB was determined by the depth from which there is still realistic to pump water for production (not disproportionately expensive); Fragmentation of aquifers into unmanageable numbers of water bodies has been considered and small groundwater bodies with similar characteristics were grouped; Groundwater bodies were given temporary codes: G102, G201, etc., where G‐stands for “groundwater” and 101, 201, etc. are numbers of the bodies;

5.3.2. General Delineation of Groundwater Bodies in the Akhuryan RBD

Based on the hydrogeological map of the Akhuryan‐Metsamor basin area, compiled in 2012 at the Hydro‐ geological Monitoring Centre of the Ministry of Nature Protection of Armenia, four main hydrogeological units (aquifers) are distinguished in the Akhuryan river basin: 1. Aquifer of alluvial‐diluvial‐proluvial and lacustrine formations of Quaternary‐contemporary period(geological index: Q3‐4); 3 2. Local water‐bearing lava complex of Early Pliocene‐Quaternary period (N2 ‐Q); 3. Local water‐bearing complex of Cretaceous‐Palaeogene sedimentary rocks – mainly carbonate rock complex(K2‐ P2); 4. Local low water‐bearing and/or impermeable complex of Mesozoic‐Cenozoic sedimentary and volcanic‐sedimentary rocks (Mz‐Kz).

The mentioned aquifers have been analysed and based on this analysis, bodies of groundwater were identified (Annex 13 of this plan).

A total of 9 groundwater bodies have been identified and preliminarily characterized in the Akhuryan RBD (Table 71). As a first step, the geological boundaries of aquifers have been defined and their hydrodynamic differences and hydrochemical varieties evaluated. Subdivision of aquifers into unmanageable number of water bodies has been considered, and small groundwater bodies with similar characteristics have been grouped. Groundwater bodies have been assigned temporary codes.

92 All groundwater bodies, except for mineral water deposits, are used for drinking, agricultural and/or industrial water supply, with amount of abstraction exceeding 10 m3/d. The future use of mineral waters is intended for mineral water bottling and balneology purposes.

The quantitative and chemical statuses of delineated GWB are good. One groundwater body (Metsamor) was assigned at risk category due to over‐exploitation and development of depression cone. Measures for improvement of quantitative status will be proposed in the river basin management plan.

Table 65: Groundwater bodies identified in Akhuryan RBD Number of Name of the aquifer Water bearing sediments and rocks GWB codes GWBs Alluvial‐proluvial lake‐river formations Boulders, pebbles, gravel, sand with 4 G101, G102, аnd volcanic rocks (Q3‐4) interlayers of clay and loam G103, G104 Local water‐bearing lava complex of Dacites, andesite‐basalt lavas and their 1 G201 3 Early Pliocene‐Quaternary period (N2 ‐ pyroclastic varieties, tuffs Q) Local water‐bearing complex Meso‐ Sandstones, clay slates, tuff‐sandstones, 1 G301 Cenozoic sedimentary and volcanic‐ tuff breccias and porphyrites sedimentary deposits Mz‐Cz Local low water‐bearing and Limestone, marl, sandstone with interlayers 2 G401, G402 impermeable complexes of Cretaceous‐ of volcanic rocks Paleogene carbonate sedimentary aquifers (K2‐P2) Mineral water bodies (Q1‐2) Clays, sands, tuff‐breccias, tuff‐sandstones 1 G501 Total: 9 Source: “Identification, Characterization and Delineation of Groundwater Bodies in the Caucasus Countries” Report, EPIRB Project, 2014

Based on the above‐mentioned criteria and characterization, 9 GWBs of 5 aquifer types have been delineated in the Akhuryan RBD. Figure 41 presents the comparative areas by each type delineated GWBs (in square km), and Figure 42 shows the general map of the GWB delineation for the Akhuryan RBD.

Figure 41: Areas (in km2) of delineated groundwater bodies by types in Akhuryan RBD (“Resource Management” LLC, 2014)

93

Figure 42: Delineation of Groundwater Bodies in Akhuryan RBD (“Resource Management” LLC, 2014)

94 6. PROTECTED AREAS

Two key protected areas are located within the Akhuryan RBD, namely “Lake Arpi” National Park and “Vordan Karmir” State Sanctuary, as it is demonstrated on Figure 43.

Figure 43: Protected areas in the Akhuryan RBD (EPIRB Project, 2014)

95

The "Lake Arpi" National Park includes the lakes Arpilich and Ardenis, as well as the basins and floodplains of the left tributaries of upper Akhuryan River. The territory of the park also includes the aspen forests of Ashotzq, ecosystems of Kaputan and Akna mountainous lakes and wetlands of Armenia. The establishment of the park has an objective to provide for ecosystem protection of the above‐mentioned territories.

The total area of the national park is about 62,000 ha. About 670 types of flora grow in the territory of the park, of which 22 flora types are registered in the “Republic of Armenia Red Book”. Also 30 rare types of mammals and 200 types of birds are found here, of which 40 types are registered in the “Republic of Armenia Red Book”. The national park is a habitat to populations of Vipera darevsky, which is registered in the International Red Book, as well as various waterfowls.

The “Vordan Karmir” State Sanctuary was established in 1987. It is located in the Ararat Valley of the Metsamor River basin. The territory of the sanctuary includes a small portion of halophyte plants ecosystem5 with an area of 219.85 ha at the altitude of 835‐850 m above the sea level. The main objective of the state reservation is protection of the Ararat Valley exhibitory halophyte ecosystems. The special object of protection is the endemic valuable insect for Armenia – cochineal (Porphyrophora hamelii), which lives on the Figure 44: Cochineal Living in Ararat Valley (Photo by: halophyte reed plants (Figure 44). “Geoinfo” LLC, 2012)

The reservation represents the last habitat of salt marshes of the Ararat Valley, which is almost extinct, and thus its protection has a significant importance in terms of biodiversity conservation also from international perspective. Two artificial water bodies pass near the boundaries of the sanctuary.

Another category of protected areas relates to sanitary protection zones, which are regulated according to the Government of Armenia Resolution No 64‐N of 2005 “On Criteria for Defining Territories for Sanitary Protection of Water Ecosystems, Flow Formation, Protection of Groundwater Resources, Water Protection, Ecotone and Inalienable Zones”. According to that Resolution it is necessary to designate water protection zones. However, except for a few large drinking water supply source Figure 45: Sanitary Protection Zone at Drinking Water Source zones, including 22 captation structures, 6 Located Near Zuygaghbyur Village (Photo by: EPIRB project, 2012) chlorination stations and 2 daily regulatory reservoirs (Figure 45), most of the sanitary‐hygiene water protection zones for water resources and water abstraction structures in the Akhuryan RBD are not designated. Thus it can be concluded that no proper protection is undertaken for these zones district wide.

Sanitary protection zones of water resources are necessary for protection of ecological, biological, hydrological and recreational values of water resources. They should include all territories envisaged for

5 A halophyte is a plant that grows in waters of high salinity, coming into contact with saline water through its roots or by salt spray, such as in saline semi‐deserts, mangrove swamps, marshes and sloughs, and seashores.

96 the protection of water resources. This includes all vulnerable locations of water resources, which can cause ecological disturbances of water resources and cause damage to human health and well‐being (see Figure 46 below for the map of sanitary protection zones in the Akhuryan RBD).

Figure 46: Sanitary protection zones in Akhuryan RBD (Data source: “Geoinfo” LLC, 2012)

97 7. MONITORING IN THE AKHURYAN RIVER BASIN DISTRICT

7.1. Surface Water Quality Monitoring

The monitoring of surface waters in Armenia is conducted by the Environmental Impact Monitoring Centre (EIMC), which is a state non‐commercial organization of the Ministry of Nature Protection of Armenia.

The comprehensive list of water quality parameters was defined in accordance with the corresponding decision of the Government of Armenia (Decision #75, dated 27 January 2011, “On Approving the Norms of Water Quality Assurance in each River Basin District, Depending on Local Characteristics”). That list contains 103 hydrochemical and 2 hydrobiological parameters (these two parameters have not been monitored yet). The list of hydrochemical parameters includes the 33 primary pollutants described in the WFD (the organic micro contaminants), as well as 8 specific polluting substances and 62 other chemical indicators. Currently 45‐60 out of total 105 hydrochemical parameters are traceable for surface waters (for details see also Annex 4 of this plan). The capacity for laboratory tests of the remaining parameters is in the phase of installation and shall come into application in the near term future.

7.1.1. Present Infrastructure for Surface Water Quality Monitoring in the River Basin District

Surface water sampling, field measurements and laboratory tests are performed by the EIMC. Water sampling and field measurements in the Akhuryan River Basin are performed at 10 water quality sampling points , two of which are located on the reservoirs (Akhuryan and Arpilich ). There are only 3 water quality sampling points in the Metsamor River Basin. Each year 12 samples (once a month) are taken from both border water quality sampling points at the Akhuryan River (Akhuryan headwaters and the reservoir, both located on Armenian‐Turkish border). A list of monitoring sites in the Akhuryan RBD is given in Table 66 and their locations are shown on Figure 47.

Table 66: Water Quality Monitoring Sites in the Akhuryan RBD No River Observation point Location of sampling 25 Araks v. Surmalu In front of the Turkish village Surmalu 31 Akhuryan v. Ashotzq 0.5 km upstream the village 32 Akhuryan v. Ashotzq 1 km downstream the village 33 Akhuryan c. Gyumri 0.8 km downstream f the city 34 Akhuryan c. Gyumri 5 km downstream the city 35 Akhuryan v. Yervandashat 0.5 km downstream the village 36 Ghukasyan v. Hartashen 0.5 km upstream the village 37 Ghukasyan v. Hartashen River mouth 38 Karangu v. Gharibjanyan 1 km downstream the village 39 Selav‐Mastara c. Qarakert 0.5 km upstream the village 40 Metsamor South of c. Echmiadzin 10 km south of the city 41 Metsamor Southeast of c. Echmiadzin 11 km southeast of the city 42 Metsamor v. Ranchpar 0.5 km downstream the village 110 Akhuryan Reservoir v. Jrapi Near the reservoir dam 109 Arpilich Reservoir v. Paghakn Near the reservoir dam Source: Environmental Impact Monitoring Centre of the Ministry of Nature Protection of the Republic of Armenia, 2014

7.1.2. Surface Water Quality Assessment Methodology

The assessment of surface water quality in Armenia is performed with chemical quality parameters. There is no hydrobiological and hydromorphological assessment conducted, because of lack of such monitoring capacity and data. The hydrochemical quality of waters is classified into five categories (excellent, good, moderate, poor and bad). The assessment of the surface water quality is performed in accordance with the norms defined in the annexes to GoA Decision #75, dated 27.01.2011 (see also Annex 5 of this plan). Following the latter, 23 groups of water quality based on background concentration values, were defined for the 14 largest rivers of Armenia or certain river sections. The assessment of the surface water quality is performed through a straightforward procedure. After identification and verification of values of water quality in the collected sample, the analysed concentration values are compared to the ones in the Armenian norms for a specific river or a section thereof. This comparison is performed for all analysis results that allow the assignment of each value to one of the five quality categories. The “One out ‐ all out” principle is applied, i.e. the worst result determines the quality class.

7.1.3. Sampling and Analysis of Priority Substances

The functions of sampling, conservation, protection, laboratory preparation, chemical procedures and testing are performed in accordance with the ISO and EPA (US) standard methods, and the operating staff members follow the corresponding methodologies. The list of parameters, methods and devices is presented in Annex 2.

7.1.4. Systems of Quality Assurance/Quality Control

The laboratory of the EIMC has obtained national accreditation and has the corresponding certificate. All equipment of the laboratory is annually verified at the National Institute of Metrology (NIM) and receives the corresponding certificates. Every year, since 2008, the EIMC laboratory participates in international inter‐calibration (twice a year: one at a laboratory in Norway and the other in Slovakia). For the last 5 years the EIMC laboratory has undergone inspections by the Inspectorate of the National Accreditation Agency. According to the inspection report, the quality of laboratory testing data complies with the defined criteria. Specialists of the three analytical groups of the EIMC laboratory (chromatographic, spectrophotometric and physicochemical) attend courses in NIM once in three years and get qualification and a certificate.

There is a quality assurance group with two specialists within the EIMC. The group ensures annual calibration of equipment in NIM and regularly controls calibration of all the equipment and analytical methods in the laboratory. Special procedures for data quality assurance are applied in all stages of data acquisition in the EIMC system. However, they have a sectional nature, and there is a need to introduce a full quality assurance and assessment system.

7.2. Surface Water Quantity Monitoring

Hydrological observations of river regimes (= quantity) and related studies of the Armenia water resources are conducted by the Hydrometeorological and Monitoring Service of the Ministry of Emergency Situations of the Republic of Armenia. According to the hydrological monitoring structure, the monitoring posts of Armenia are served by seven hydrological stations, currently operating in Armenia. The Akhuryan River basin is served by the Gyumri hydrological station, and the Metsamor River basin ‐ by Qasakh‐Metsamor hydrological station.

7.2.1. Current Hydrological Monitoring Infrastructure of the Akhuryan RBD

The first hydrological observation post at the Akhuryan River basin has been opened on the Akhuryan River near Sepasar village, as well as Aghin and Akhuryan railway stations in 1912‐13. In general, 29 hydrological observation posts have operated in the river basin. However, today only 11 river and 2 lake hydrological posts are operating on the rivers of the Akhuryan River basin ‐ on the Arpilich and Akhuryan Reservoirs as presented in Table 67 and their locations are shown on Figure 47.

Table 67: Hydrological Posts in the Akhuryan River Basin Surface of the Absolute altitude of ID River‐observation point catchment basin, Opening date the observation km2 point, m 85476 Akhuryan ‐ Paghakn village 220 06.1953 1,998 85477 Akhuryan ‐ Amasia village 724 11.1984 1,966 85478 Akhuryan ‐ Kaps village 839 04.1929 1,675

99 Surface of the Absolute altitude of ID River‐observation point catchment basin, Opening date the observation km2 point, m 85479 Akhuryan ‐ Akhurik village 1060 01.1958 1,457 85483 Akhuryan ‐ Haykadzor village 8140 10.1945 1,397 85484 Akhuryan ‐ Bagaran 9650 08.1983 952 85491 Dzoraget ‐ Dzorakert village 25.5 04.1961 2,049 85493 Ashotzq ‐ Krasar village 197 01.1959 1,980 85494 Jradzor ‐ Jradzor village 66.0 01.1963 1,701 85498 Karkachun ‐ Gharibjanian village 1020 01.1941 1,461 85499 Jajur ‐ Jajur village 39.6 07.1965 1,669 85528 Arpilich Reservoir ‐ Paghakn village ‐ 06.1950 2,017 85540 Akhuryan Reservoir ‐ Jrapi village ‐ 10.1983 1,400 Source: Armenian State Hydrometeorological and Monitoring Service of the Ministry of Emergency Situations of the Republic of Armenia, 2014

Currently water quantity monitoring in the Metsamor River basin is surveyed and assessed at 4 hydrological posts, including 1 on the Araks River, as presented in Table 68 and shown on Figure 47.

Table 68: Hydrological Posts Currently Operating in the Metsamor River Basin River‐observation Surface of the catchment basin, Opening Absolute altitude of the ID point km2 date observation point, m 85472 Araks ‐ Surmalu 2210 08.1963 912 85301 Metsamor ‐Taronik 1560 01.1959 845 85302 Metsamor ‐ Ejmiatsin 3260 01.1926 832 85303 Metsamor ‐ Ranchpar 3540 01.1931 826 Source: Armenian State Hydrometeorological and Monitoring Service of the Ministry of Emergency Situations of the Republic of Armenia, 2014

7.2.2. Methodology and Frequency of Observations

The State Hydrometeorological Service of Armenia conducts the following measurements at the hydrological posts:

Rivers: Water flow (discharge) – 3‐4 times in a month during flooding, and 1‐2 times during the other months (the data are registered in HG‐3 logbook for calculation of water discharge). Daily water runoff calculations are carried out by using the water level‐water discharge rating curve method; River width and depth variations – simultaneously with the water flow measurements; Water level and temperature – each measured at 12‐hour interval; Freezing and vegetal phenomena ‐ each measured at 12‐hour interval (the data are registered in HG‐1 logbook for observations);

Akhuryan and Arpilich Reservoirs: Water level, volume and temperature – each measured at 12‐hour interval; Freezing and other phenomena, as available.

7.2.3. Identification of Hydrological Parameters and Quality Elements

Observations are made by old manual tools at most hydrological monitoring posts of the Akhuryan RBD. Structures of the observation posts are in poor condition and need rehabilitation. Most hydrological stations are equipped with ropeway and automatic recorder for measuring water level, which need full or partial repairing.

In general, there is a need for automation and review of the hydrological monitoring network, since the current network does not comply with the present requirements of water resources management. Gathered data are stored in the hydrological data bank that consists of MsExcel spreadsheets.

100 7.2.4. Historical Measurements

Table 69 below provides information on the historical hydrological posts, which operated in different years in the Akhuryan and Metsamor River basins, but are currently not operational.

Table 69: Closed Hydrological Posts in the Akhuryan and Metsamor River basins in the period of 1913–1985 Distance of the station Watershed area Dates of operation No River‐hydrological station from river mouth, km of the station, Opened (dd, mm, Closed (dd, km2 year) mm, year Akhuryan River basin 1 Akhuryan–v. Sepasar 175 427 03.08.1913 03.04.1914 15.01.1932 01.06.1935 2 Akhuryan‐v. Kaps 142 839 01.11.1928 24.04.1929 13.06.1929 01.01.1988 3 Akhuryan‐station 116 1,090 24.10.1912 14.04.1918 Akhuryan 4 Akhuryan‐station Aghin 95.0 7,770 05.08.1913 13.12.1917 01.12.1928 01.01.1946 01.01.1948 01.01.1964 5 Akhuryan‐station Ani 53.0 8,240 23.10.1940 01.10.1964 6 Karmrajur‐v. Shaghik 1.0 35.0 01.01.1960 01.10.1998 7 Yeghnajur‐v. Garnarich 0.8 83.0 01.01.1960 01.05.1920 8 Tsaghkut‐v. Tsaghkut 0.9 19.3 01.01.1960 01.01.1987 9 Tavshut‐v. Tavshut 3.6 116. 01.01.1963 01.01.1982 10 Keti‐v. Mayisyan 6.5 18.8 05.07.1965 01.10.1981 11 Mantash‐v. Mets 51 16.5 01.07.1973 01.10.1997 Mantash 12 Mantash‐v. Mets 35 38.5 01.04.1961 01.07.1973 Mantash 13 Karakhan‐v. Yerizak 66.0 80.5 10.10.1965 01.09.1973 14 Dzitanqov canal ‐ ‐ 12.10.1973 01.01.1987 15 Chichkhan‐v. Dzorashen 15 109 01.01.1946 01.01.1964 108 01.01.1970 01.01.1972 01.11.1978 01.10.1999 16 Dzorashen‐v. Dzorashen 1.8 18.8 01.01.1985 01.12.1988 17 Sarapat‐v. Sarapat 1.75 18.5 01.01.1985 01.12.1988 Metsamor River basin 1 Selav‐Mastara‐v. Mastara 81 54.0 01.01.1936 01.08.1938 2 Selav‐Mastara‐v. Arteni 44 322 01.04.1960 01.09.1993 3 Selav Mastara‐v. Dalarik 28 693 01.01.1968 31.12.1973 4 Selav‐Mastara‐c. Armavir 10 1,380 01.01.1960 31.12.1963 Source: Armenian State Hydrometeorological and Monitoring Service of the Ministry of Emergency Situations of the Republic of Armenia, 2014

7.3. Groundwater Monitoring

7.3.1. Current Groundwater Monitoring Network and Infrastructure in the Akhuryan RBD A wide network of hydrogeological monitoring points had been operating in all river basins of Armenia until 1993. Regular hydrogeological observations were suspended from 1993 to 2009. The observation network was then restored but with a lower number of observation points, and not represented in all river basins.

Currently there is no groundwater monitoring points in a number of river basins, including the Akhuryan River basin. There are series of groundwater springs (natural springs and wells) in upstream and midstream concaves and marginal parts of this river basin (Zuigaghbyur, Ashotzq, Ghazanchi, Gyumri), which are captured and are used for drinking water supply for towns and villages of Shirak region. However, there are

101 potential anthropogenic and natural pollution sources in the areas adjacent to catchment structures, which may have negative impact on quality and quantity of consumed high‐quality drinking water during water abstraction (agricultural facilities, mineral water aquifers rich in hydrogen sulphide and carbonic acid gases, water abstraction wells, municipal and industrial flows, irrigation systems, etc.). Therefore, the issue of making regular hydrogeological observations in the Akhuryan River basin is currently an imperative request, which is not met due to lack of financial resources.

Unlike the Akhuryan River basin, groundwater monitoring restarted in 7 wells in the Metsamor River basin in 2009, out of which 3 were located in the same area (Aknashen village) and they were designed for study of the status of artesian, and I and II confined aquifers (Table 70 and Figure 47).

In the remaining 4 wells observations are made for study of the status of waters of II confined aquifer. They are located in the administrative areas of Yeghegnut (1), Vardanashen (1) and Aratashen (2) villages.

Table 70: Groundwater Monitoring Points in the Metsamor River Basin ID Location Elevation of observation points above mean sea level. m 108 In the area of Aknashen community 851 198 In the area of Aknashen community 850 199 In the area of Aknashen community 852 105 In the area of Yeghegnut community 848 192 In the area of Vardanashen community 841 152 In the area of Aratashen community 837 1818 In the area of Aratashen community 842 Source: Hydrogeological Monitoring Centre of the Ministry of Nature Protection of the Republic of Armenia, 2012

Based on the recommendations of the EPIRB Project on establishing WFD‐compliant monitoring of groundwater resources in the Akhuryan RBD, the Hydrogeological Monitoring Centre of the MNP submitted a proposal to extend the groundwater monitoring network and received GoA’s approval (Protocol session resolution # 43 of October 16, 2014). Thus, since January 2015, additional 30 groundwater monitoring points have been added, including 13 springs and 17 wells.

7.3.2. Groundwater Measurements

Observations of water discharge, temperature and level (piezometric pressure) are conducted 6 times a month in observation points. Samplings for study of basic chemical parameters are conducted twice a year.

7.3.3. Data Processing and Assessment

During laboratory analysis the elements requiring complete chemical analysis are determined, such as the main anions and cations, nitrates, nitrites, hardness, dry residue, ferrum, and hydrogen index. No bacteriological analyses are made.

Currently the observed wells of confined aquifers are gravitational, with very little consumption (0.2‐0.7 l/sec). Judging from the present consumption of useable water resources, in the near future they will stop to flow out.

7.4. Hydrobiological Monitoring

No hydrobiological monitoring is implemented in the Akhuryan RBD.

102

Figure 47: Surface Water and Groundwater Monitoring Network in the Akhuryan RBD (Data source: State Water Cadastre Information System, 2015)

103 8. DETERMINATION OF ECOLOGICAL FLOW OF WATER BODIES

8.1. Principles and Peculiarities of Determination of Ecological Flow in Akhuryan RBD

The ecological flow, which is the minimum flow of water ensuring the ecological balance and self regeneration capacity of aquatic and terrestrial habitats in rivers, lakes and reservoirs, is one of key assessment elements of ecological status of water bodies of a given basin. The values of ecological flow of individual surface water bodies are determined on annual and monthly basis depending on hydrological, hydromorphological, hydrochemical and hydrobiological peculiarities of a given water body.

8.2. Methodology on Determination of the Ecological Flow in a River Basin

The Resolution № 927‐N (2011) of the Government of the Republic of Armenia, “On Defining Drinking‐ Household and Agricultural Water Demand, and Assessing Ecological Flow by River Basin Management Areas of the Republic of Armenia” defines the methodology of defining ecological flow of rivers in Armenia. According to that methodology, for the rivers with multi‐year flow observations the value of the ecological flow is determined as the average daily discharge of the 10 successive days with the lowest discharge in the winter period.

For rivers where no observation posts exist or operated it is required to use the flow module map for 10 sequential days of minimum flow in the low‐flow winter period published in the “Natural Conditions and Natural Resources of Armenia” Hydrological Atlas by A. B. Baghdasaryan (1990).

The mentioned methodology results to a single value of the ecological flow generated for the entire year.

8.3. Calculation of the Ecological Flow and its Comparison to Actual Flow

Different number of hydrological observation posts was functioning in the different periods of time in Akhuryan RBD. As of 2015, 11 posts were operational. The calculation of ecological flow for some delineated water bodies of the RBD was performed on the basis of data provided through hydrological observation posts, while for other water bodies comprised of river sections covering the intersections of two water bodies, the values of ecological flow were determined with the help of the above‐mentioned flow module map for 10 sequential days of minimum flow in the low‐flow winter period, as well as by method of analogies widely used for hydrological calculations (Tables 71 and 72).

Table 71: Values of annual ecological flow at hydrological observation posts of Akhuryan RBD, m3/s # Water Body # River‐Observation Post Ecological Flow, m3/sec 1 WBR‐01 Akhuryan ‐ Paghakn 0.49 2 WBR‐02 Ashotsq ‐ Krasar 1.56 3 WBR‐03 Akhuryan ‐ Amasia 2.46 4 WBR‐04 Akhuryan ‐ Kaps 2.60 5 WBR‐06 Akhuryan ‐ Akhurik 3.15 6 WBR‐08 Karkachun ‐ Gharibjanyan 0.27 7 WBR‐10 Metsamor ‐ Ranchpar 14.46 8 WB‐02 Karmrajur ‐ Shaghik 0.062

6) Value of ecological flow is calculated based on data of year 2004.

104 # Water Body # River‐Observation Post Ecological Flow, m3/sec 9 WB‐02 Yeghnajur ‐ Garnarich 0.072 10 WB‐02 Dzoraget ‐ Dzorakert 0.022 11 WB‐05 Tavshut ‐ Tavshut 0.023 12 WB‐12 Illiget ‐ Jradzor 0.098 13 WB‐17 Jajur ‐ Jajur 0.12 14 WB‐20 Mantash – Mets Mantash 0.10 15 WB‐25 Araks ‐ Surmalu 15.3 16 WB‐24 Akhuryan ‐ Haykadzor 9.20

Table 72: Values of ecological flow in water bodies of Akhuryan RBD with no hydrological observation posts Water Ecological # River/Water Body Body # Flow, m3/sec 1 WB‐01 Karakhan River 0.023 2 WB‐03 Akhuryan River section from Arpilich Reservoir to Berdashen 0.49 3 WB‐06 Akhuryan River section from Gijget River to Cascade SHPP 2.38 7 4 WB‐07 Ghazanchi River 0.39 8 5 WB‐08 Vardaghbyur River 0.23 6 WB‐09 Tsoghamarg River 0.011 7 WB‐10 Hortajur River 0.017 8 WB‐11 Akhuryan River section between Hortajur and Illiget Rivers 2.55 9 WB‐13 Akhuryan River section between Illiget River and Kaps Reservoir 2.85 10 WB‐14 Gtashen River 0.040 11 WB‐15 Kumayri River 0.070 12 WB‐16 Haykavan River 0.026 13 WB‐18 Jrarat River 0.049 14 WB‐19 Jajur River section between Jrarat and Karmrkar Rivers 0.15 15 WB‐21 Artikjur River 0.054 16 WB‐22 Metsjur River from source to Sarnakunk Reservoir 0.025 17 WB‐26 Metsamor River from source to confluence of Qasakh River 23.4 18 WBR‐04 Akhuryan River section from Kaps Reservoir to Marmashen 2.60 19 WBR‐05 Kumayri River within Gyumri town 0.075 20 WBR‐07 Karmrakar River 0.015 21 WBR‐09 Artikjur River from Artik town to Bardakar Reservoir 0.060 Akhuryan River section between Marmashen settlement and 22 WBPR‐01 3.00 confluence point of Kumayri River 23 WBPR‐02 Gyumriget tributary of Kumayri River 0.030 24 WBPR‐03 Jajuar River section from Karmrakar River to river mouth 0.18 25 WBPR‐04 Mantash River section from Bardakar Reservoir to river mouth 0.20

The comparisons of the multi‐year average and multi‐year minimum observed river flow values with the estimated annual ecological flow values were provided based on the available observation data from hydrological observation posts on the rivers of Akhuryan RBD (Tables 73 and 74).

7) Value of ecological flow is calculated using the method of analogies. 8) Value of ecological flow is calculated using the method of analogies.

105 Table 73: The comparison of actual multi‐annual average flow values and calculated ecological flow values in Akhuryan RBD by hydrological observation posts. Water Flow, Months 3 Body # m /sec. I II III IV V VI VII VIII IX X XI XII Multi‐annual average flow 1.18 1.19 1.29 4.52 6.05 3.26 2.28 2.07 1.42 1.19 1.17 1.21 WBR‐01 Ecological Flow 0.49 0.49 0.49 0.49 0.49 0.49 0.49 0.49 0.49 0.49 0.49 0.49 Difference 0.69 0.70 0.80 4.03 5.56 2.77 1.79 1.58 0.93 0.70 0.68 0.72 Multi‐annual average flow 3.24 3.57 6.85 12.9 11.1 7.82 6.92 7.4 6.56 4.92 3.7 3.22 WBR‐03 Ecological Flow 2.46 2.46 2.46 2.46 2.46 2.46 2.46 2.46 2.46 2.46 2.46 2.46 Difference 0.78 1.11 4.39 10.4 8.64 5.36 4.46 4.94 4.10 2.46 1.24 0.76 Multi‐annual average flow 4.24 4.34 5.66 17.8 14.4 8.33 7.66 8.58 6.62 4.94 4.75 4.34 WBR‐04 Ecological Flow 2.60 2.60 2.60 2.60 2.60 2.60 2.60 2.60 2.60 2.60 2.60 2.60 Difference 1.64 1.74 3.06 15.2 11.8 5.73 5.06 5.98 4.02 2.34 2.15 1.74 Multi‐annual average flow 5.83 5.90 7.25 15.8 11.4 6.30 5.54 6.92 5.84 5.51 5.78 5.74 WBR‐06 Ecological Flow 3.15 3.15 3.15 3.15 3.15 3.15 3.15 3.15 3.15 3.15 3.15 3.15 Difference 2.68 2.75 4.10 12.7 8.25 3.15 2.39 3.77 2.69 2.36 2.63 2.59 Multi‐annual average flow 16.3 17.7 27.1 72.2 72.9 39.7 20.9 18.5 15.7 16.8 18.0 16.7 WB‐24 Ecological Flow 9.20 9.20 9.20 9.20 9.20 9.20 9.20 9.20 9.20 9.20 9.20 9.20 Difference 7.07 8.53 17.9 63.0 63.7 30.5 11.7 9.35 6.53 7.56 8.84 7.55 Multi‐annual average flow 0.16 0.18 0.17 0.85 1.42 0.75 0.39 0.23 0.19 0.17 0.17 0.16 WB‐02 Ecological Flow 0.062 0.062 0.062 0.062 0.062 0.062 0.062 0.062 0.062 0.062 0.062 0.062 Difference 0.098 0.12 0.11 0.79 1.36 0.69 0.33 0.17 0.13 0.11 0.11 0.098 Multi‐annual average flow 0.19 0.22 0.38 1.91 3.06 1.26 0.53 0.31 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.19 WB‐02 Ecological Flow 0.072 0.072 0.072 0.072 0.072 0.072 0.072 0.072 0.072 0.072 0.072 0.072 Difference 0.12 0.15 0.31 1.84 2.99 1.19 0.46 0.24 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.12 Multi‐annual average flow 0.095 0.11 0.17 0.85 0.84 0.40 0.23 0.19 0.16 0.13 0.12 0.099 WB‐02 Ecological Flow 0.022 0.022 0.022 0.022 0.022 0.022 0.022 0.022 0.022 0.022 0.022 0.022 Difference 0.073 0.088 0.15 0.83 0.82 0.38 0.21 0.17 0.14 0.11 0.098 0.077 Multi‐annual average flow 0.059 0.059 0.094 2.23 3.02 0.81 0.16 0.084 0.071 0.062 0.066 0.062 WB‐05 Ecological Flow 0.023 0.023 0.023 0.023 0.023 0.023 0.023 0.023 0.023 0.023 0.023 0.023 Difference 0.036 0.036 0.071 2.21 3.00 0.79 0.14 0.061 0.048 0.039 0.043 0.039 Multi‐annual average flow 3.17 2.85 3.29 6.07 5.9 4.12 3.33 2.82 2.75 2.83 2.79 2.66 WB‐08 Ecological Flow 1.56 1.56 1.56 1.56 1.56 1.56 1.56 1.56 1.56 1.56 1.56 1.56 Difference 1.61 1.29 1.73 4.51 4.34 2.56 1.77 1.26 1.19 1.27 1.23 1.10 Multi‐annual average flow 0.27 0.28 0.50 1.36 0.83 0.57 0.41 0.39 0.35 0.32 0.31 0.30 WB‐12 Ecological Flow 0.098 0.098 0.098 0.098 0.098 0.098 0.098 0.098 0.098 0.098 0.098 0.098 Difference 0.17 0.18 0.40 1.26 0.73 0.47 0.31 0.29 0.25 0.22 0.21 0.20 Multi‐annual average flow 0.41 0.43 0.47 0.55 0.86 1.11 1.10 0.57 0.54 0.46 0.47 0.41 WB‐20 Ecological Flow 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 Difference 0.31 0.33 0.37 0.45 0.76 1.01 1.00 0.47 0.44 0.36 0.37 0.31 Multi‐annual average flow 0.75 0.81 1.18 1.73 1.94 1.28 0.65 0.59 0.69 0.92 0.89 0.79 WBR‐08 Ecological Flow 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.27 Difference 0.48 0.54 0.91 1.46 1.67 1.01 0.38 0.32 0.42 0.65 0.62 0.52 Multi‐annual average flow 0.21 0.22 0.35 0.58 0.51 0.35 0.25 0.18 0.16 0.23 0.23 0.21 WB‐17 Ecological Flow 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 Difference 0.090 0.10 0.23 0.46 0.39 0.23 0.13 0.060 0.04 0.11 0.11 0.090 Multi‐annual average flow 35.8 39.1 70.0 208 251 106 55.7 46.1 37.3 36.2 36.7 34.8 WB‐25 Ecological Flow 15.3 15.3 15.3 15.3 15.3 15.3 15.3 15.3 15.3 15.3 15.3 15.3 Difference 20.5 23.8 55.9 192 236 91.3 40.4 30.8 22.0 20.9 21.4 19.5

106 Water Flow, Months 3 Body # m /sec. I II III IV V VI VII VIII IX X XI XII Multi‐annual average flow 28.2 27.4 28.0 32.4 26.7 21.2 16.2 15.0 19.1 22.8 26.0 29.5 WBR‐10 Ecological Flow 14.4 14.4 14.4 14.4 14.4 14.4 14.4 14.4 14.4 14.4 14.4 14.4 Difference 13.8 13.0 13.6 18.0 12.3 6.80 1.80 0.60 4.70 8.40 11.6 15.1

Table 74: The comparison of observed minimum monthly flow values and calculated ecological flow values in Akhuryan RBD by hydrological observation posts. Water Flow, Months 3 Body # m /sec. I II III IV V VI VII VIII IX X XI XII Minimum monthly flow 0.53 0.35 0.37 0.17 0.13 0.22 0.86 0.86 0.81 0.33 0.16 0.45 WBR‐01 Ecological Flow 0.49 0.49 0.49 0.49 0.49 0.49 0.49 0.49 0.49 0.49 0.49 0.49 Difference 0.04 ‐0.14 ‐0.12 ‐0.32 ‐0.36 ‐0.27 0.37 0.37 0.32 ‐0.16 ‐0.33 ‐0.04 Minimum monthly flow 1.95 2.01 2.94 5.41 4.21 3.32 2.99 2.60 2.60 1.75 1.86 1.77 WBR‐03 Ecological Flow 2.46 2.46 2.46 2.46 2.46 2.46 2.46 2.46 2.46 2.46 2.46 2.46 Difference ‐0.51 ‐0.45 0.48 2.95 1.75 0.86 0.53 0.14 0.14 ‐0.71 ‐0.60 ‐0.69 Minimum monthly flow 2.69 2.95 3.02 6.85 5.84 4.38 4.01 3.27 1.57 2.42 2.89 2.47 WBR‐04 Ecological Flow 2.60 2.60 2.60 2.60 2.60 2.60 2.60 2.60 2.60 2.60 2.60 2.60 Difference 0.09 0.35 0.42 4.25 3.24 1.78 1.41 0.67 ‐1.03 ‐0.18 0.29 ‐0.13 Minimum monthly flow 3.65 3.81 3.23 4.25 3.51 1.57 1.26 1.68 1.32 2.39 2.27 3.55 WBR‐06 Ecological Flow 3.15 3.15 3.15 3.15 3.15 3.15 3.15 3.15 3.15 3.15 3.15 3.15 Difference 0.50 0.66 0.08 1.10 0.36 ‐1.58 ‐1.89 ‐1.47 ‐1.83 ‐0.76 ‐0.88 0.40 Minimum monthly flow 12.4 11.7 16.1 12.2 29.4 9.23 10.5 11.3 9.17 10.1 11.1 11.8 WB‐24 Ecological Flow 9.20 9.20 9.20 9.20 9.20 9.20 9.20 9.20 9.20 9.20 9.20 9.20 Difference 3.20 2.50 6.90 3.00 20.2 0.03 1.30 2.10 ‐0.03 0.90 1.90 2.60 Minimum monthly flow 0.062 0.068 0.077 0.22 0.59 0.24 0.094 0.089 0.090 0.084 0.062 0.062 WB‐02 Ecological Flow 0.062 0.062 0.062 0.062 0.062 0.062 0.062 0.062 0.062 0.062 0.062 0.062 Difference 0.000 0.006 0.015 0.16 0.53 0.18 0.032 0.027 0.028 0.022 0.000 0.000 Minimum monthly flow 0.12 0.12 0.08 0.42 1.11 0.32 0.21 0.16 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.08 WB‐02 Ecological Flow 0.072 0.072 0.072 0.072 0.072 0.072 0.072 0.072 0.072 0.072 0.072 0.072 Difference 0.048 0.048 0.010 0.35 1.04 0.25 0.14 0.088 0.078 0.078 0.078 0.007 Minimum monthly flow 0.031 0.050 0.053 0.13 0.14 0.075 0.083 0.073 0.035 0.041 0.023 0.024 WB‐02 Ecological Flow 0.022 0.022 0.022 0.022 0.022 0.022 0.022 0.022 0.022 0.022 0.022 0.022 Difference 0.009 0.028 0.031 0.11 0.12 0.053 0.061 0.051 0.013 0.019 0.001 0.002 Minimum monthly flow 0.026 0.026 0.039 0.29 0.86 0.081 0.065 0.034 0.032 0.030 0.026 0.026 WB‐05 Ecological Flow 0.023 0.023 0.023 0.023 0.023 0.023 0.023 0.023 0.023 0.023 0.023 0.023 Difference 0.003 0.003 0.016 0.27 0.84 0.058 0.042 0.011 0.009 0.007 0.003 0.003 Minimum monthly flow 2.03 2.14 2.28 3.00 3.26 2.24 1.93 1.78 1.61 1.56 1.56 1.56 WB‐08 Ecological Flow 1.56 1.56 1.56 1.56 1.56 1.56 1.56 1.56 1.56 1.56 1.56 1.56 Difference 0.47 0.58 0.72 1.44 1.70 0.68 0.37 0.22 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 Minimum monthly flow 0.11 0.11 0.14 0.25 0.26 0.15 0.13 0.11 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.11 WB‐12 Ecological Flow 0.098 0.098 0.098 0.098 0.098 0.098 0.098 0.098 0.098 0.098 0.098 0.098 Difference 0.012 0.012 0.042 0.152 0.162 0.052 0.032 0.012 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.012 Minimum monthly flow 0.24 0.35 0.38 0.43 0.64 0.61 0.82 0.37 0.34 0.37 0.38 0.29 WB‐20 Ecological Flow 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 Difference 0.14 0.25 0.28 0.33 0.54 0.51 0.72 0.27 0.24 0.27 0.28 0.19 WBR‐08 Minimum monthly flow 0.29 0.41 0.55 0.54 0.51 0.11 0.00 0.04 0.12 0.23 0.29 0.40 Ecological Flow 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.27

107 Difference 0.02 0.14 0.28 0.27 0.24 ‐0.16 ‐0.27 ‐0.23 ‐0.15 ‐0.04 0.02 0.13 Minimum monthly flow 0.12 0.12 0.21 0.32 0.27 0.20 0.14 0.10 0.11 0.16 0.16 0.18 WB‐17 Ecological Flow 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 Difference 0.00 0.00 0.09 0.20 0.15 0.08 0.02 ‐0.02 ‐0.01 0.04 0.04 0.06 Minimum monthly flow 22.0 21.4 10.5 27.7 68.9 33.5 19.3 14.7 15.7 18.5 15.4 15.3 WB‐25 Ecological Flow 15.3 15.3 15.3 15.3 15.3 15.3 15.3 15.3 15.3 15.3 15.3 15.3 Difference 6.70 6.10 13.3 12.4 53.6 18.2 4.00 ‐0.60 0.40 3.20 0.10 0.00 Minimum monthly flow 19.6 21.1 18.5 12.8 12.3 7.16 7.00 7.65 9.54 11.8 14.9 18.8 WB‐10 Ecological Flow 14.4 14.4 14.4 14.4 14.4 14.4 14.4 14.4 14.4 14.4 14.4 14.4 Difference 5.20 6.70 4.10 ‐1.60 ‐2.10 ‐7.24 ‐7.40 ‐6.75 ‐4.86 ‐2.60 0.50 4.40

As one can see, the tables 73 and 74 do not cover all the delineated water bodies of the Akhuryan RBD. The analysis has been performed only for those rivers where hydrological observation posts either used to function during different periods or still function. Similar analysis is not possible to carry out for other water bodies due to absence of hydrological monitoring posts.

The results of the analysis show that in a number of observation posts, including WBR‐01: Akhuryan‐ Paghakn, WBR‐03: Akhuryan‐Amasia, WBR‐06: Akhuryan‐Akhurik, WBR‐08: Karkachun‐Gharibjanyan and WBR‐10: Metsamor‐Ranchpar, the actual water flow is considerably low than the annual ecological flow value due to regulation of river flow or water abstraction for different purposes (Table 74). These observation posts are situated on those surface water bodies, which have been defined as water bodies at risk during delineation of river water bodies (Annex 11).

108 9. WATER SUPPLY AND DEMAND ASSESSMENT

9.1. Present Condition

According to the National Water Program of the Republic of Armenia, water supply is primarily significant to evaluate water resources in relation to demand in order to maintain the ecological balance of both the water ecosystem and the given ecosystem.

Economic development programs for 2014‐2030 are aimed at reducing development disparities, increasing the effectiveness of poverty reduction, improvement of business environment, solution of social‐economic issues of marzes located in Akhuryan RBD.

At Akhuryan RBD the usable surface water resources, which are supposed to be the surface reserves for water supply formation are estimated at 2,500 million m3, while exploitable underground water resources (guaranteed) are estimated at 106 million m3 for Akhuryan and 2058m3 for Metsamor river basins.

The multi‐annual average volume of Akhuryan River, after confluence with Kars tributary, is 1000 million m3, while during low‐flow years it amounts to only 300‐350 million m3.

The multi‐annual average annual volume of the river Kars, which is the main supply source of Akhuryan reservoir, before discharge to the reservoir, amounts to 550‐600 million m3, while during low‐flow years it amounts to only 200‐250 million m3. The average monthly flow discharge of Araks, Akhuryan and Metsamor rivers are presented in the table below.

Table 75: Inter‐annual distribution of flow characteristics of Araks River and rivers in Akhuryan RBD Average monthly water discharge, m3/sec Average Average River – observation annual water annual water post discharge, volume, I II III IV V VI VII VIII IX X XI XII m3/sec mln.m3 Araks River‐ Sutmalu: natural 48.6 42.4 59.9 227 277 136 56.8 37.2 32 37.2 43.4 35.1 86.0 2712 flow (medium‐ water year) Araks Rivet – Sutmalu: natural 22.0 21.4 10.5 27.7 68.9 33.5 19.3 14.7 15.7 21.6 21.2 22.9 25.0 787 flow (low‐water year) Flow of Kars River (before 9.65 8.65 11.0 30.0 53.5 35.7 15.4 14.8 15.4 11.3 10.6 10.4 18.87 595 confluence of Akhuryan) Akhuryan‐ 19.1 17.3 26.5 63.5 90.5 55.8 30.2 26.8 25.1 23.1 19.6 18.9 34.7 1094 Bagaran Metsamor‐ 30.4 28.8 29.3 49.9 46.6 34.5 31.0 30.8 30.4 29.3 29.5 28.3 33.2 1047 Ranchpar

The accumulation of free stream waters of the river basin is one of major objectives of water supply formation. Accumulated water can be equally distributed throughout all months of the year to meet the water demand. Construction of new reservoirs within the basin can offer solution to this issue.

The concept of the perspective program for reservoir construction creates a ground for water supply prospects formed within the territory of the Republic. It is based on the necessity of developing water regulation program for reservoirs, opportunities for water flow regulation for reservoirs and strategy for their further use.

109 The concept of the perspective program for reservoir construction includes: Solutions of prospective problems connected to satisfaction of the republic's water demand under condition of possible negative water balance, Prevention and mitigation measures of harmful effects on water resources, Ways to increase water use efficiency, Specification of strategy on use of water resources, based on the geographic location of the Republic of Armenia, Measures to reduce water losses at extent possible.

Based on the results of studies on river basin water demand, sustainable economic development and more efficient use of water resources, new reservoirs are expected to be constructed, taking into consideration projected reduction of water resources at Akhuryan RBD by 2030 due to climate change and the prospective water demand.

The construction of reservoirs and redistribution of river flow between river basins are specific economic activities. Radical change of the river’s hydrological regime occurs in the lower stream sections of the river. Inter‐annual flow distribution and the flow during low‐flow seasons are usually being altered.

After the construction of Akhuryan reservoir, the water regime of the Akhuryan River has been fundamentally changed and is artificially regulated downstream the reservoir.

The German KfW Bank is currently implementing “IWRM/ Akhuryan ‐ Construction of Kaps Reservoir and Kaps Gravity Irrigation System” loan project. The Project aims at completing the construction of Kaps Dam, ancillary structures and restoration of the tunnels which will ensure the safety of areas located at the lower reaches. It is planned to construct an Irrigation System which will allow switching from mechanical to gravity irrigation method ensuring also the irrigation of new land plots.

At the first stage the dam is envisaged to be constructed for a volume of 25 million m3. It will be constructed so as to allow for its future elevation increasing the reservoir capacity up to 60 million m3. The detailed design is scheduled for completion in the second half of 2016 allowing for the construction to commence.

The construction of the reservoir will have the potential for increasing the area for irrigation by 5000 hectares or increase the volume of irrigation. The project will make it possible to save the electricity used for eight pumping stations serviced by "Shirak" WUA, amounting to 1.3 million kWh per year.

It is envisioned to increase the reservoir capacity to 60 million m3 and gravity‐fed pipeline to reach Talin region during the second stage of the project. This will allow for safe irrigation of around 20,500 hectares of land. Where, around 3,500 hectares now irrigated mechanically will receive gravity‐fed water, guaranteeing water to 16, 000 hectares will improve, and irrigated lands will increase by 952 hectares.

Mastara reservoir construction issue is being discussed with the Eurasian Development Bank. The designed capacity of the reservoir is 10.2 million m3 and useful volume is 8.2 million m3 with dam height reaching 30m. Hatsik, Myasnikyan, Lukashin, Norapat and Noravank communities serviced by "Armavir" and "Shenik" WUAs located after the 27th km of Armavir main canal are within the influence zone of Mastara reservoir. The transition to gravity irrigation will allow for decommissioning of deep wells making it possible to save the electricity used for the operation and maintenance of pumping stations amounting to 2.1 million kWh. While water abstraction from Ararat groundwater basin will be reduced by around 5.3 million m3.

There are currently 3 operated reservoirs in Turkey: Kagizman with about 150 million m3 (on Araks River, with water use mainly for hydroelectric purposes), Bayburd with 52 million m3 (on Kars River tributary) and Shirinkyu with 1.9 million m3 (on right Digor tributary of Akhuryan River).

110 It is planned to construct a 285 million m3 reservoir only 1200 meters from Armenian border on Araks River near Upper Chyrklu village in the Tuzluja region (Koghb) of Igdir province. Dam height is envisaged to be 45m and accumulated water will be used for the irrigation of Igdir valley. Kars reservoir with capacity of 232 million m3 is currently being constructed on Kars River.

It is also envisaged to construct Karakurd reservoir with a capacity of around 1 billion m3 on Araks River near Karakut town, which will also be used for energy generation purposes.

Water balance and water demand of Armenia will be greatly impacted by reservoirs already constructed and to be constructed in the future on Araks River and its tributaries in the territory of Turkey. Araks River’s ecological flow will not be maintained until Armenian border resulting in deterioration of its ecological situation.

Thus, storage of about 1.3 billion m3 of water on Araks and Kars rivers planned in the territory of Turkey is fraught with serious challenges for Armenia, especially under conditions of water demand for irrigation purposes.

9.2. Water Supply and Demand under Conditions of Climate Change

Taking into consideration that water supply in the river basins changes due to human economic activities and global climate change, both of these factors have been considered during water supply analysis of Akhuryan RBD.

Two scenarios have been used for water use projections: 1) baseline scenario, which implies that field growth rate projections are based on target indicators set out in the sectoral development programs, 2) optimistic scenario, where reasonable growth rate has been added to baseline scenario, taking into account the peculiarities of the sector (water use demand increases in case of optimistic scenario of economic growth).

The table 107 below presents the water supply of Akhuryan RBD until 2030 under conditions of climate change by applying RCP 6.0 (equivalent to SRES B2) and RCP 8.5 (equivalent to SRES A2) scenarios.

Table 76: Assessment of the total water supply at Akhuryan RBD according to climate change A2 and B2 scenarios for 2030 Water supply for Water supply for Water supply for Water supply for Water supply in River basin 2030: A2 2030: A2 2030: B2 2030: B2 2014, mln.m3 scenario, % scenario, mln.m3 scenario, % scenario, mln.m3 Akhuryan 1974 ‐2.0 1935 ‐3.0 1915 Metsamor 3045 ‐8.0 2801 ‐10.0 2743 Akhuryan RBD 5019 ‐5.6 4736 ‐7.2 4658

Average multi‐annual discharge at Akhuryan‐Bagaran observation post (with consideration of 50% of river flow and ecological flow) amounted to 608 million m3 per year before 2014. Exploitable underground water volume of Akhuryan river basin amounted to 106 million m3, while that of Metsamor to 2058 million m3.

The table below presents the values of surface and underground water supply at Akhuryan and Metsamor river basins. In the table presented the projected values for 2030 include expected flow decrease in the result of global climate change (table above) and ecological flow (Aras Akhuryan‐and‐Surmalu Bagaran), as well as the fact that by 2030 there are plans to build reservoirs on the tributaries of Akhuryan (Kars and Digor) with the total volume of 286 million m3 and on Araks with a volume of around 1.2 billion m3 on the territory of Turkey. This will significantly influence on the water quantity of Akhuryan BMO, as well as the possibility of using 50% flow volume of Akhuryan and Araks rivers (based on a bilateral agreement with Turkey).

111 Table 77: Surface and groundwater supply in Akhuryan RBD* River basin 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 2024 2026 2028 2030 Akhuryan 1868 1771 1672 1573 1475 1377 1278 1180 1082 surface/ground. 106 104.7 103.4 102.0 100.7 99.4 98.1 96.7 95.4 Metsamor 987 975 962 950 938 925 913 900 888 surface/ground. 2058 2032 2006 1981 1955 1929 1904 1878 1852 Akhuryan RBD 2855 2746 2634 2523 2413 2302 2191 2080 1970 surface/ground. 2164 2137 2109 2083 2056 2028 2002 1975 1947 * values of usable surface water resources are presented in numerator and values of exploitable groundwater resources – in denominator

9.3. Assessment of Water Demand by Sectors of Economy

Water abstraction in Akhuryan RBD is carried out mainly for irrigation, drinking‐household and industrial, as well as fish farming and hydropower purposes. Water resources do not reduce after their use for the last mentioned purposes, but the waters used for fishing are irrevocably diverted from the country.

Water use demand assessment by sectors is based on data obtained from the National Statistical Service of Armenia, administrations of Shirak, Armavir and Aragatsotn Marzes of the Republic of Armenia, the Ministry of Nature Protection, State Water Committee of the Ministry of Agriculture, the Armenian State Hydrometeorological and Monitoring Service of the Ministry of Emergency Situations and Territorial Administration of Armenia and other relevant agencies.

The evaluation of the total water use demand (baseline status) and water use by sectors at Akhuryan RBD for 2014 was carried out on the basis of water use volume set in water use permits issued by the Ministry of Nature Protection of the Republic of Armenia. These data serve as basis for the formation of water supply (factual water use data are not available).

According to the bulletin of the National Statistical Service of the Republic of Armenia, the total water abstraction for 2014 amounted to 684.5 million m3 at Akhuryan RBD, of which 485.9 million m3 from surface waters and only 198.5 million m3 from underground water sources. Majority of the water abstracted has been used for irrigation purposes.

Currently there are 61 operating water abstraction points at Akhuryan River Basin, of which 35 are underground and 26 are surface water sources. Groundwater resources are mainly used for drinking‐ household and fish farming purposes.

Water abstraction at Metsamor River Basin is carried out through 118 points, of which 103 are underground and 15 are surface water sources. The number of groundwater abstraction permits is 5 times greater than that of surface water. The reason is that fish farming has been developed in Metsamor River Basin in the recent years, and the underground water drilled in deep layers of Ararat Valley are mainly used for fish farming purposes.

9.3.1. Irrigation

The cultivation of crops with greater water demand, particularly vegetable crops, has been increased to a large extent at Akhuryan RBD in 2015 in relation to 2014. Water shortage in the system is due to availability of excessive lands with higher water demand. For example, water demand of about 1100 hectares of farmland of Aknalich and Arshaluys communities of Armavir Marz, depending on the soil structure is approximately 48.8 million m3, instead of the planned 19.8 million m3. The "Akhuryan‐Araks Water Supply" CJSC supplies irrigation water to about 30 thousand hectares of land serviced by 6 WUAs.

As of January 2014, the annual water abstraction for irrigation purposes in Akhuryan RBD amounted to 507 million m3 (or made up about 69% of total water abstraction). If currently at Akhuryan RBD about 10% of

112 the water abstraction is carried out from underground water sources, than it is anticipated to use solely surface water sources for this purpose in the future. Currently, only about 17.8% of the total surface water resources are used for irrigation at the basin, while based on medium and long term development plans and projections this percentage will increase amounting to about 69% (Table 78).

Table 78: Assessment of water supply and demand for irrigation purpose at Akhuryan RBD for 2014 and 2030 Water supply Water Water use vs Water supply Water Water use vs River basin for 2014, river demand, for river flow in for 2030, river demand, for river flow in flow, mln.m3 2014, mln.m3 2014, % flow, mln.m3 2030, mln.m3 2030, % Akhuryan 1868 386.9 20.7 1082 553.9 51.2 Metsamor 987 120.1 12.2 888 172 19.4 Akhuryan RBD 2855 507 17.8 1970 726 36.8

From medium‐term perspective, the obtained results indicate that surface water sources used for irrigation at Akhuryan RBD will fully meet the demand for water for 2030. Although a necessity to construct new canals and pumping stations will arise in the near future to divert water from Metsamor river basin to Akhuryan river basin

9.3.2. Water supply for drinking‐household purposes

Water use for drinking‐household purposes is one of main economy branches at Akhuryan RBD, where some improvements have taken place in the recent years. Further improvements of the drinking water supply and sewerage systems will pursue to enhance the reliability and efficiency of operation of these systems, reduce water losses and improve the quality of water supply and sanitation services. The availability of centralized water supply especially in rural areas has significantly improved in the recent years. Thus, the availability of centralized water supply in rural areas increased and reached 94.7% in 2014 as compared to 2008. As of 2014, the issue related to households using non‐tap water brought from different sources was solved. Thus, if in 2008 there were about 1.1 percent of households using non‐tap water, than according to data there were almost no such households in 2014.

According to the survey results, the average duration of water supply improved in 2014 by about 3.8 hours compared to 2008 amounting to around 17 hours and reaching the targets set for 2014. The daily average water supply duration in rural areas is also characterized by considerable disproportions. Thus, in 2014 the average daily water supply duration at the rural areas serviced by Armenian Water and Sewerage Closed Joint Stock Company amounted to 15.6 hours. It is planned to continue reforms aimed at improving reliability and efficiency of system operations, and the quality of water supply and sanitation services focusing on alleviating the problem of regional disproportions.

As of January 1st 2014, according to 47 issued water use permits, at Akhuryan RBD the annual volume of water use for drinking‐household purposes amounted to 79.2 million m3. As of January 2014, at Akhuryan River Basin the annual volume of water use for drinking‐household purposes amounted to 50.6 million m3 (or 6.9% of the total water volume abstracted from the river) and at Metsamor River basin water use for this purpose amounted to 28.6 million m3 (or 3.9% of the total water volume abstracted from the river).

At the river basin water supply for household purposes is being implemented by "Shirak Water Supply and Sewerage", "Nor Akunq" and ''Armenian Water Supply and Sewerage'' Closed Joint‐Stock Companies.

Water use for drinking‐household purposes by the population is currently estimated at 40 litres per capita/day, while in the future (in 2030) it should be approximately 75 litres/day. However, the planned reduction of water losses will lead to the decrease of water demand. Even in case of increase of drinking‐ household water use rate (up to 200 litres / person/day) a very small portion of water supply will be used by the population at Akhuryan RBD. It is expected that before 2030 due to water system improvements water demand will decrease by about 15 percent. Insignificant water abstraction growth percentage for drinking‐household purposes at Akhuryan RBD is conditioned by low population growth trends and the improvement of water supply network (Table 79).

113 Table 79: Water supply and water use trends in drinking‐household sector and from medium‐term perspective at Akhuryan RBD

3 3

3 3

River basin groundwater groundwater resources , % resources , % 2014, mln m 2030, mln m Water Supply for Water Supply for Water demand for Water demand for resources), mln m resources), mln m 2014 (groundwater 2030 (groundwater Water use in 2014 vs Water use in 2030 vs Akhuryan 106 50.6 47.7 95.4 43.0 45.1 Metsamor 2058 28.6 1.4 1852 24,3 1.3 Akhuryan RBD 2164 79.2 3.7 1947 67.3 3.5

The obtained results indicate that underground water sources used for drinking‐household purposes will be sufficient for many years from both medium and long‐term perspectives.

9.3.3. Water supply for industrial purposes

Water abstraction for industrial purposes is mainly carried out for food and light industry branches in Akhuryan RBD. The annual water volume used in industry amounts to 33.1 million m3 representing just 4.5% of the total water abstraction volume.

Currently, there are about 110 industrial enterprises at Akhuryan RBD, of which 90% are small and medium sized companies. As of 2014, there were 76 economic entities issuing products representing manufacturing industry. The main branch of industry is the processing industry with food production having a share of 88%. This means that water abstraction is conducted mainly from underground sources (Table 80).

Table 80: Assessment of water supply and demand for industrial purposes at Akhuryan RBD from current and medium term perspective at Akhuryan RBD, million m3

3 3

3 3

River basin groundwater groundwater resources , % resources , % 2014, mln m 2030, mln m (groundwater (groundwater Water demand for Water demand for resources), mln m resources), mln m Water use in 2014 vs Water use in 2030 vs Water Supply for 2014 Water Supply for 2030 Akhuryan 106 0.27 0.2 95.4 0.44 0.5 Metsamor 2058 32.8 1.6 1852 53.8 2.9 Akhuryan RBD 2164 33.1 1.5 1947 54.2 2.8

The table indicates that the underground water resources of the RBD are sufficient to fully satisfy industrial needs both under current conditions and in the distant future. The increasing number of small enterprises in food production and light industries will result in projected further growth of water abstraction for industrial purposes at the RBD.

9.3.4. Fish farming

Fish farming both in Akhuryan RBD and the entire Republic is relatively new but developing perspective branch. Currently, the annual permitted water abstraction for fish farming at the RBD amounts to 65 million m3. A part of this water volume is being evaporated in fish ponds. It makes up 8.8% of the total water abstraction of the RBD. In the recent years, the intensive use of the Republic's groundwater resources at Metsamor river basin (in 2014 the actual groundwater use volume was about 4‐5 times in excess of the volume permitted) resulted in decline of groundwater levels, sharp decrease of the level and

114 discharge of flushing wells and springs. Large‐scale water abstraction has resulted in intensive level drop of pressure waters (amounting to 0.15‐0.35 and more per year).

Naturally, the decrease of groundwater levels at water abstraction points directly impacts on the environment. Economically unjustified and inefficient use of underground fresh water reserves leads to an intensive decline of pressure water levels resulting in reduction of groundwater resources.

There are over 100 fish farms operating in the lower streams of Metsamor river (Armavir region), of which 9 ( with a total area of 623 hectares) are based on water covered areas, while the rest (with a total area of 312 hectares) on land of different categories. This situation has led to a sharp reduction of Metsamor‐ Aknalich spring discharge points. At the same time, Metsamor river flow at its upper streams reduced by about 6 times for the period of 1983‐2014 decreasing from 17.8 to 3m3/s due to water use for fish farming.

There are 5 small fish farms at Akhuryan river basin, which play insignificant role in the economic stand of the river basin. This is due to the fact that these fish farms occupy rather small territories (about 6‐7ha). Fish farming is being practiced also in Arpilich and Akhuryan reservoirs.

Most of the water abstraction by over 100 fish farms of the river basin is being implemented from groundwater basin of Ararat valley. The majority of the used underground backwaters of Ararat valley is discharged into Metsamor and Araks rivers via surface runoff and leaves the Republic.

More than 600 deep wells drilled at Akhuryan RBD are used for unauthorized extraction of 450 million m³ of water per year. This water is suitable for drinking and household use, but is mainly used for the production of several thousand tones of fish instead (Table 81).

Table 81: Assessment of water supply and demand in fish farming sector in Akhuryan RBD for 2014 and 2030, million m3

3 3

3 3

River basin % % mln m mln m (groundwater (groundwater resources), mln m resources), mln m Water use in 2014 vs Water use in 2030 vs Water Supply for 2014 Water Supply for 2030 groundwater resources , groundwater resources , Water demand for 2014, Water demand for 2030, Akhuryan 106 15.3 14.4 95.4 30.6 32.1 Metsamor 2058 49.9 2.4 1852 99.8 5.3 Akhuryan RBD 2164 65.2 3.0 2047 160.4 7.8

Water supply will satisfy water demand, despite the fact that fish farming will develop quite rapidly at the river basin and a 100% increase is envisaged for 2030 in relation to the current situation.

9.3.5. Hydroenergy production

In hydropower production the water is mainly used for cooling of aggregates and filling in process water losses. The Southern Caucasus only nuclear power plant ‐ Metsamor NPP, with a capacity of 430 MW is located in Akhuryan RBD. Nuclear power plant uses Metsamor river waters with 2m3/sec rate for cooling its generators. Water consumption at the plant will be somewhat increased in 2020s, after launching the new nuclear power plant.

In the recent years, the small hydro power plant construction has been intensively boosted at Akhuryan RBD, because the construction of small hydro power plants is considered as leading direction for renewable energy development.

115 There are currently 5 SHPPs operating at Akhuryan river basin. Their total capacity is 14.033 kWt. The most powerful SHPP of the river basin is Gyumri SHPP with an installed capacity of 5.280 and estimated yield of 6.4m3/ sec.

Several more small hydro power plants are currently being constructed at Akhuryan River Basin: "Cascade" SHPP with a capacity of 4.270 kWt and an estimated yield of 9.54 m3/sec is being constructed on Akhuryan river by ''Fenhal" LLC; "Artik‐1" small hydropower plant with a capacity of 383 kWt and an estimated yield of 0.25m3/sec is being constructed on Mantash‐Artik drinking water pipeline by "Artik SHPP" LLC;

"Akhuryan" small hydropower plant with a capacity of 1,675 kW and an estimated yield of 12.0m3/sec is being constructed on the river Akhuryan by "Akhuryan HPP" LLC;

"Jradzor" small hydropower plant with a capacity of 2.030 kW and an estimated yield of 5.0m3/sec is being constructed on Akhuryan canal by "Ani" OJSC.

Four more SHPPs with a total capacity of 8.36 kWt are currently being constructed at Akhuryan river basin. Only two of these SHPPs will perform water abstraction from Akhuryan River, including "Cascade" and "Akhuryan" HPPs. Water abstraction for "Artik‐1" HPP will be carried out from Mantash‐Artik drinking water pipeline and for "Jradzor" HPP from Akhuryan canal.

Hydroenergy production is based on 3 SHPPs operating at Metsamor River Basin. The total installed capacity of SHPPs is 8.890 kWt, while the annual production amounts to 17.5 million kWt/h.

Water supply and demand assessment results in hydropower production sector at Akhuryan RBD for 2014 and 2030 are presented in Tablem 82 below.

Table 82: Assessment of water supply and demand for hydropower production purpose in Akhuryan RBD from current and medium term perspective at Akhuryan RBD, million m3

3 3

3 3

River basin groundwater groundwater resources , % resources , % 2014, mln m 2030, mln m (groundwater (groundwater Water demand for Water demand for resources), mln m resources), mln m Water use in 2030 vs Water use in 2014 vs Water Supply for 2014 Water Supply for 2030 Akhuryan 1868 433.3 23.2 1082 455 42.0 Metsamor 987 25.0 2.5 888 26.2 2.9 Akhuryan RBD 2855 458.3 16.1 1970 481 24.4

Data provided in the table indicate that in the near future water use for hydropower generation purposes will reach 42% of total water use in Akhuryan RBD. Meantime, the river flow decline due to climate change and construction of new reservoirs in Turkey will lead to water deficit, taking into consideration growth rates of water use for hydropower generation.

9.4. Assessment of the Prospective Water Supply and Demand

Assessment of the water supply and demand of Akhuryan RBD’s water resources for the period of 2014‐ 2030 considers economic development trends and the impact of climate change on water resources of the river basin. Water demand projections based on economic development have been made using various approaches for different sectors, which is conditioned by the peculiarities of economic development.

116 Table 83: Approaches used for prediction of economic development and water use in Akhuryan RBD

Water use sector Ground for projection Irrigation Projections have been made based on forecasted increase of irrigated lands and average water demand based on strategic development targets Drinking‐household Projections have been made based on forecasted population growth and reduction of losses in the water supply system by using water use standards Industry The predictions are based on the number of economic entities and average water demand Hydropower Projections made are based on permits for construction of new HPPs issued by the Public Services Regulatory Commission. Additional annual capacities have been projected on this basis Fish farming The predictions are based on the number of economic entities and average water demand

Water deficit or surplus for the period of 2014‐2030 was estimated in combination with projected water demand and supply at Akhuryan RBD. Water supply has been estimated with consideration of economic development trends and the impact of climate change on water resources. Summarizing the water supply assessment at Akhuryan RBD it should be noted that although currently, and until 2030, water supply exceeds water demand, nonetheless, in the future there may emerge some difficulties in the irrigation and hydropower industries.

Water supply and demand trends before 2030 in Akhuryan RBD by sectors are presented in Table 84 below.

Table 84: Assessment of water supply and demand by sectors for 2014‐2030 in Akhuryan RBD River Supply 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 2024 2026 2028 2030 basin Demand Irrigation water supply 1868 1770 1672 1573 1475 1377 1279 1180 1082 Akhuryan water demand 386.9 407.8 428.6 449.5 470.4 491.3 512.2 533.0 553.9 deficit/surplus ‐/1481 ‐/1362‐/1243‐/1124‐/1004‐/886 ‐/767 ‐/647‐/528 water supply 987 974.6 962.2 949.9 937.5 925.1 912.7 900.4 888 Metsamor water demand 120.1 126.6 133.1 139.6 146.1 152.6 159.1 165.6 172 deficit/surplus ‐/867 ‐/848 ‐/329 ‐/810 ‐/791 ‐/772 ‐/754 ‐/735 ‐/716 Drinking‐household water supply 106 104.7 103.4 102.0 100.7 99.4 98.0 98.7 95.4 Akhuryan water demand 50.6 49.6 48.7 47.8 46.8 45.8 44.9 43.9 43.0 deficit/surplus ‐/55.4 ‐/55.1 ‐/54.7 ‐/54.2 ‐/53.9 ‐/53.6 ‐/53.1 ‐/54.8 ‐/52.4 water supply 2058 2032 2006 1981 1955 1929 1904 1878 1852 Metsamor water demand 28.6 28.1 27.5 27.0 26.4 25.9 25.4 24.8 24.3 deficit/surplus ‐/2029 ‐/2004 ‐/1978 ‐/1954 /‐1929 ‐/1903 ‐/1879 ‐/1853 ‐/1828 Industry water supply 106 104.7 103.4 102.0 100.7 99.4 98.0 96.7 95.4 Akhuryan water demand 0.27 0.29 0.31 0.33 0.35 0.37 0.39 0.42 0.44 deficit/surplus ‐/106 ‐/104 ‐/103 ‐/102 ‐/100 ‐/99.0 ‐/97.6 ‐/96.3 ‐/95.0 water supply 2058 2032 2006 1981 1955 1929 1904 1878 1852 Metsamor water demand 32.8 35.4 38.0 40.7 43.3 45.9 48.6 51.2 53.8 deficit/surplus ‐/2025 ‐/1997 ‐/1968 ‐/1940 ‐/1912 ‐/1883 ‐/1855 ‐/1827 ‐/1798

117 River Supply 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 2024 2026 2028 2030 basin Demand Fish farming water supply 106 104.7 103.4 102.0 100.7 99.4 98.0 96.7 95.4 Akhuryan water demand 15.3 17.2 19.1 21.0 22.9 24.8 26.8 28.7 30.6 deficit/surplus ‐/90.7 ‐/87.5 ‐/84.3 ‐/81.0 ‐/77.8 ‐/74.6 ‐/71.2 ‐/68.0 ‐/64.8 water supply 2058 2032 2006 1981 1955 1929 1904 1878 1852 Metsamor water demand 49.9 56.1 62.4 68.6 74.9 81.1 87.3 93.6 99.8 deficit/surplus ‐/2008 ‐/1976 ‐/1944 ‐/1912 ‐/1880 ‐/1848 ‐/1817 ‐/1784 ‐/1752 Hydroenergy generation water supply 1868 1770 1672 1573 1475 1377 1279 1180 1082 Akhuryan water demand 433 435.8 438.5 441.2 444 446.8 449.5 452.2 455.0 deficit/surplus /1435 ‐/1334 ‐/1234 ‐/1132 ‐/1031 ‐/930 ‐/829 ‐/728 ‐/627 water supply 987 974.6 962.2 949.9 937.5 925.1 912.7 900.4 888 Metsamor water demand 25.0 25.2 25.3 25.4 25.6 25.8 25.9 26.1 26.2 deficit/surplus ‐/962 ‐/949 ‐/937 ‐/927 ‐/912 ‐/899 ‐/887 ‐/874 ‐/862

In the result of the implementation of the measures proposed to achieve the environmental objectives set by Akhuryan basin management plan it will be possible to satisfy the demand for water in the case of economic development and to mitigate possible impacts on water supply in the distant future. Estimated values of the total water demand and supply from surface and ground water sources of Akhuryan RBD are presented in Table 85 below.

Table 85: Overall water supply and water demand in Akhuryan RBD for 2014‐2030* Water Supply / Water Demand 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 2024 2026 2028 2030 965 996 1026 1056 1086 1116 1147 1177 1207 Water supply 177 187 196 205 216 224 233 243 252 2855 2745 2634 2523 2412 2302 2192 2080 1970 Water demand 2164 2137 2109 2083 2056 2028 2002 1975 1947 ‐/‐ ‐/‐ ‐/‐ ‐/‐ ‐/‐ ‐/‐ ‐/‐ ‐/‐ ‐/‐ Deficit/surplus 1890 1749 1608 1467 1326 1186 1045 903 763 1987 1950 1913 1878 1840 1804 1769 1732 1695 * numerator indicates water abstraction for surface water sources and denominator from underground water sources

The analysis of water supply and water demand shows that water demand for different economic purposes will grow until 2030 in Akhuryan RBD by 75 million m3 for underground sources (by 42.4%) and 242 million m3 for surface sources (by 25.1%). Water supply will fall at the same time period by 217 million m3 for underground sources (10.0%) and 215 million m3 for surface sources (by 7.5%).

118 10. ENVIRONMENTAL OBJECTIVES

10.1. Environmental Objectives for Water Bodies and Protected Areas

61 surface water and 9 groundwater bodies have been delineated in the Akhuryan RBD. These are: 40 surface water bodies including 10 water bodies at risk, 4 water bodies possibly at risk and 26 water bodies not at risk; 13 artificial water bodies including 12 canals and one group of ponds; 8 heavily modified water bodies (reservoirs); 9 groundwater bodies, including 1 groundwater body at risk.

Two protected areas are located in the Akhuryan RBD: The “Lake Arpi” National Park with total area of 62,000 ha and “Vordan Karmir” State Sanctuary with total area of 219.85 ha (Chapter 5).

The environmental objectives set for delineated surface and groundwater bodies are presented in the Tables 86‐91 below, including the specific requirements for the Protected Areas in the Akhuryan RBD. The environmental objectives are set based on the WFD Article 4 and by using the EPIRB Project Guidance Document on the Development of Program of Measures and the Achievement of Environmental Objectives According to the EU WFD.

Table 86: Environmental Objectives for Surface Water and Groundwater Bodies at ‘Risk’ Surface Water Body at Risk and its Length Water Status in 2015 Environmental Objective WBR‐1: Akhuryan River section Poor status due to To achieve “moderate status” downstream the Arpilich Reservoir between hydromorphological alterations by 2021 and achieve and Berdashen and Pokr Sepasar communities, maintain “good status” by 18.94 km 2027 WBR‐2: Ashotzq River from Ashotzq town Moderate status due to To have the EU WFD compliant to river mouth, 5.53 km existence of iron and assessment system in place by molybdenum ore deposits 2021 and achieve and maintain “good status” by 2027 WBR‐3: Akhuryan River section from the At risk due to non‐maintenance To achieve “good status” by Cascade small HPP to Amasia town, 9.16 km of ecological flow 2021 and maintain it by 2027

Surface Water Body at Risk and its Length Water Status in 2015 Environmental Objective WBR‐4: Akhuryan River section At risk due to non‐maintenance of To achieve “good status” by downstream the Kaps Reservoir up to ecological flow 2021 and maintain it by 2027 Marmashen settlement, 7.04 km WBR‐5: Kumayri River within Gyumri city, At risk due to pressures from To achieve “good status” by 8.80 km municipal wastewaters 2021 and maintain it by 2027

119 Surface Water Body at Risk and its Length Water Status in 2015 Environmental Objective WBR‐6: Akhuryan River reach from the Poor chemical status due to To achieve “moderate status” by confluence of Kumayri River to the pressures from municipal 2021 and achieve and maintain Akhuryan Reservoir, 5.69 km wastewaters and wastewaters “good status” by 2027 from food industry WBR‐7: Karmrakar River, 12.47 km At risk due to pressures from To achieve “good status” by municipal wastewaters 2021 and maintain it by 2027 WBR‐8: Karkachun River, the section Bad chemical status due to To achieve “moderate status” by between Metsdzorijur River and Akhuryan pressures from agriculture and 2021 and achieve and maintain Reservoir, 11.62 km industry “good status” by 2027 WBR‐9: Artikjuir River downstream Artik Moderate chemical status due to To achieve “good status” by town up to the Vardakar Reservoir, 5.12 km pressures from industry 2021 and maintain it by 2027

Surface Water Body at Risk and its Length Water Status in 2015 Environmental Objective WBR‐10: Metsamor River downstream of Poor chemical status due to To achieve “moderate status” by confluence with Qasakh River to the river pressures from municipal 2021 and achieve and maintain mouth, 27.19 km wastewaters, agriculture and “good status” by 2027 industry and hydromorphological alterations

Groundwater Body at Risk and its Area Water Status in 2015 Environmental Objective 3 GWB in Metsamor aquifer (Q1‐3, N2 ), At risk due to quantitative status To achieve “moderate 2 temporary code G104, 185.82 km quantitative status” by 2021 and achieve and maintain “good quantitative and chemical status” by 2027

120

Table 87: Environmental Objectives for Water Bodies ‘Possibly at Risk’ Water Body Possibly at Risk and its length Water Status in 2015 Environmental Objective WBPR‐1: Akhuryan River section between Possibly moderate status due to To have the EU WFD Marmashen settlement and confluence of hydrological and compliant monitoring and Kumayri River, 10.10 km hydromorphological alterations assessment system in place by 2021 and achieve and maintain “good ecological potential” by 2027 WBPR‐02: Gyumri Getak tributary of Possibly bad chemical and To have the EU WFD Kumayri River, 12.59 km biological status due to municipal compliant monitoring and waste assessment system in place by 2021 and achieve and maintain “good ecological potential” by 2027 WBPR‐03: Jajur River section from Possibly bad chemical and To have the EU WFD Karmrakar river to river mouth, 5.80 km biological status due to municipal compliant monitoring and waste assessment system in place by 2021 and achieve and maintain “good ecological potential” by 2027 WBPR‐04: Mantash River section from Possibly at risk due to non‐ To have the EU WFD Vardakar reservoir up to the river mouth, maintenance of ecological flow compliant monitoring and 4.08 km assessment system in place by 2021 and achieve and maintain “good ecological potential” by 2027

Table 88: Environmental Objectives for Artificial Water Bodies Artificial Water Body and its length Environmental Objective AWB‐01: Akhuryan main canal, 27.86 km To have the EU WFD compliant monitoring and assessment system AWB‐02: Kaps canal (or Akhuryan right in place by 2021 and achieve and maintain “good ecological bank canal), 12.46 km potential” by 2027 AWB‐03: Shirak main canal, 26.86 km AWB‐04: Aygabats canal, 16.51 km AWB‐05: Talin main canal with its distribution branches, 103.29 AWB‐06: Armavir main canal with its distribution branches, 108.74 km AWB‐07: Section of Arzni‐Shamiram canal, 29.23 km AWB‐08: Section of Lower Hrazdan canal, 31.75 km

121 Artificial Water Body and its length Environmental Objective AWB‐09: Bazmaberd canal, 11.57 km AWB‐10: Aknalich canal, 11.45 km AWB‐11: Metsamor canal, 16.08 km AWB‐12: Jrarat canal, 14.68 km AWB‐13: Metsamor ponds, 6.9 km2

Table 89: Environmental objectives for Heavily Modified Water Bodies Heavily modified water body and its area Environmental Objective 2 HMWB‐01: Lake Arpilich, 20.59 km To have the EU WFD compliant monitoring and assessment system 2 HMWB‐02: Akhuryan reservoir, 48.39 km in place by 2021 and achieve and maintain “good ecological 2 HMWB‐03: Mantash reservoir, 0.94 km potential” by 2027 2 HMWB‐04: Karnut reservoir, 1.64 km HMWB‐05: Kaps reservoir, 0.78 km2 HMWB‐06: Tavshut reservoir, 0.58 km2 HMWB‐07: Vardakar reservoir, 0.57 km2 HMWB‐08: Sarnaghbyur reservoir, 0.68 km2

Table 90: Environmental Objectives for Other Surface Water and Groundwater Bodies Not at Risk Surface water body not at risk and its Water Status in 2015 Environmental Objective length WB‐01: Karakhanget River with its High and/or good status Maintain high/good status by 2 tributaries, 48.97 km 2021 and 2027 WB‐02: Karmrajur, Yeghnajur, Ellarget and High and/or good status Dzknaget Rivers from river source to Arpilich Lake, 90.91 km2 WB‐03: Akhuryan River section from the High and/or good status Arpilich Lake to Berdashen community, 2.39 km2 WB‐04: Tributaries of Akhuryan River High and/or good status between Berdashen and Pokr Sepasar communities, 20.64 km2 WB‐05: Gijget and Tghaghkashen Rivers, High and/or good status 75.57 km2 WB‐06: Akhuryan River section between High and/or good status Gijget and Cascade SHHP, 12.79 km2 WB‐07: Khazanchi River with its tributaries, High and/or good status 31.48 km2 WB‐08: Ashotzq River from river source to High and/or good status the Ashotzq town, 74.76 km2 WB‐09: Tsoghamarg tributary of Akhuryan High and/or good status River, 9.74 km2 WB‐10: Hortajur tributary of Akhuryan High and/or good status River, 17.54 km2 WB‐11: Akhuryan River section between High and/or good status Hortajur and Chair rivers, 5.46 km2 WB‐12: Chair River with its tributaries, High and/or good status 25.08 km2 WB‐13: Akhuryan River section between High and/or good status Chair river and Kaps reservoir, 15.28 km2 WB‐14: Gtashen River to Kaps reservoir, High and/or good status 13.93 km2 WB‐15: Kumayri River from source to High and/or good status Gyumri City, 10.34 km2 WB‐16: Haykavan River with its tributaries, High and/or good status 41.21 km2

122 Surface water body not at risk and its Water Status in 2015 Environmental Objective length WB‐17: Jajur River from the river source to High and/or good status the confluence of Jrarat River, 24.63 km2 WB‐18: Jrarat River section from Karnut High and/or good status reservoir to the confluence with Jajur River, 4.56 km2 WB‐19: Jajur River section between Jrarat High and/or good status and Karmrakar Rivers, 10.00 km2 WB‐20: Mantash River from river source up High and/or good status to Mantash reservoir, 6.19 km2 WB‐21: Artikjur River from river source to High and/or good status Artik settlement, 15.70 km2 WB‐22: Metsdzorijur River from the river High and/or good status source to Sarnaghbyur reservoir, 39.85 km2 WB‐23: Metsdzorijur River from the High and/or good status confluence with Chlkan to the river mouth, 1.19 km2 WB‐24: Akhuryan River section from High and/or good status Akhuryan reservoir to confluence with Araks River, 89.00 km2 WB‐25: Araks River section between High and/or good status Akhuryan and Metsamor Rivers, 98.18 km2 WB‐26: Metsamor River from the river High and/or good status source up to confluence of Qasakh River, 8.63 km2 Groundwater body not at risk and its area Water Status in 2015 Environmental Objective 3 GWB in Ashotzq aquifer (Q4‐N2 ), temporary Good quantitative and chemical Maintain good quantitative 2 code G101, 276.5 km status and chemical status

GWB in Gyumri aquifer (Q3‐4, Q1), Good quantitative and chemical 2 temporary code G102, 404.2 km status 3 GWB in Armavir aquifer (Q3‐4 , N2 ), Good quantitative and chemical 2 temporary code G103, 337.5 km status Volcanic GWB, temporary code G201, Good quantitative and chemical 2 3473.82 km status GWB in Amasia aquifer (Mz‐Kz), temporary Good quantitative and chemical 2 code G301,315.4 km status Aquifer in Cretaceous‐Paleogene carbonate Good quantitative and chemical deposits (K2‐P2), temporary codes G401 and status G402, 21,44 km2 combined area Мineral groundwater body (Q1‐2) near Good quantitative and chemical 2 Gyumri, temporary code G501, 8.32 km status

Table 91: Environmental Objectives and specific Requirements for Protected Areas Protected Area, ha Requirement “Lake Arpi” National Park, 62,000 ha To have the EU WFD compliant register of the protected area, “Lake Arpi” National Park Management Plan in place by 2021, and maintain requirements set in the Management Plan by 2027 “Vordan Karmir” State Sanctuary, 219.85 ha To have the EU WFD compliant register of the protected area, “Vordan Karmir” State Sanctuary Management Plan in place by 2021, and maintain requirements set in the Management Plan by 2027.

123 10.2. Exemptions to Environmental Objectives

Exemptions – as outlined in Article 4(5) of the EU WFD ‐ are applied for 6 water bodies out of 61 surface water and 9 groundwater bodies delineated in the Akhuryan RBD, including 5 surface water bodies at risk and 1 groundwater body at risk. These are set in accordance with the requirements of Article 4 of the EU WFD, and use of the EPIRB Guidance Document on the Development of Program of Measures and the Achievement of Environmental Objectives According to the EU WFD.

The recommended exemptions are listed in Table 92 below.

Table 92: Exemptions to Environmental Objectives in the Akhuryan RBD Water Body Type of Exemption Reason to Apply Exemption WBR‐1: Akhuryan River section Less stringent environmental Practical constraints (i.e. resettlement downstream the Arpilich Lake objective for the first planning in terms of land taking, etc.) for between Berdashen and Pokr cycle restoration of the natural river bed Sepasar communities, 18.94 km Ecological recovery time WBR‐2: Ashotzq River from Less stringent environmental Technical unfeasibility, in terms of Ashotzq town to the river mouth, objective for the first planning unknown design of a technical solution 5.53 km cycle – establishment of a buffer zone around non‐operational iron and molybdenum ore deposits WBR‐6: Akhuryan River reach Less stringent environmental Technical unfeasibility of eliminating from the confluence of Kumayri objective for the first planning various sources of pollution causing River to Akhuryan Reservoir, 5.69 cycle “poor” water status km WBR‐8: Karkachun River, the Less stringent environmental Technical unfeasibility of eliminating section between Metsdzorijur objective for the first planning the diffuse pollution from agriculture River and Akhuryan Reservoir, cycle and processing of construction 11.62 km materials causing “bad” chemical status WBR‐10: Metsamor River Less stringent environmental Technical unfeasibility in terms of downstream of confluence with objective for the first planning complexity of the sources of impacts Qasakh River to the river mouth, cycle leading to “poor” chemical status 27.19 km Groundwater status recovery time

GWB in Metsamor aquifer (Q1‐3, Less stringent environmental Risk of unfavourable balance of costs 3 N2 ), temporary code G104, objective for the first planning and benefits in terms of high costs of 2 185.82 km cycle the closed and/or semi‐closed groundwater use systems to be installed in the fish farms, Groundwater status recovery time

124

11. PROGRAMME OF MEASURES

A Programme of Measures (PoM) is the core of this draft basin management plan for the Akhuryan RBD, as it is developed to describe how the environmental objectives and, hence, “good water status’ will be achieved in the Akhuryan RBD. It provides regulatory actions to be taken to reach maintain and/or improve water status in the Akhuryan RBD.

The PoM was set up based on analyses of the baseline conditions in the basin and anthropogenic impacts on surface and groundwater resources as required by WFD Article 5, and in accordance with requirements of Article 11 of the WFD. The EPIRB Project Guidance Document on the Development of Program of Measures and the Achievement of Environmental Objectives According to the EU WFD was also used.

The PoM ensures the achievement if the environmental objectives in the Akhuryan RBD through the basic and supplementary measures.

Basic Measures are aimed at preventing the degradation of water status in all water bodies, ensuring stepwise improvement of water status in water bodies and enhancing national water management in relation to water uses (permits; licences). These shall be implemented during the first two planning cycles, following the requirements of the Armenian legislation.

Supplementary Measures are based on gaps that have been identified during preparation of this RBMP for the Akhuryan RBD, and are aimed at improving monitoring, national legislation and technical/personnel capacities to ensure WFD compliant implementation in future.

11.1. Basic Measures

11.1.1. Construction of Wastewater Treatment Plants for Gyumri and Armavir Agglomerations

According to EC91/271Urban Wastewater Directive, the "Agglomeration" means an area, where the population and/or economic activities are sufficiently concentrated for urban wastewater to be collected and conducted to an urban wastewater treatment plant or to a final discharge point. Determination of settlements to be included in the agglomerations in the Akhuryan RBD was done in accordance with the “Guidance on How to Define Agglomerations under the Urban Wastewater Treatment Directive 91/271”.

The first step for identification of agglomerations is determination of the main large settlements in the Akhuryan RBD,having significant pressures on surface water bodies. . In addition, the agglomeration also includes settlements, which can be connected to the sewage collector with pipelines of up to 15 km length (taking into consideration the peculiarities of the topography and the preference that sewage collector has gravity flow, given the high costs associated with pumped sewage) and the population density meets the requirements of the above‐mentioned Guidance Document. Thus, the criteria for inclusion of a settlement into the given agglomeration are as follows: Population density ‐ minimum 30 people/ha (in locations with higher level of groundwater the density is less), Time to reach the wastewater treatment facility ‐ less than 6 hours (taking into consideration the changes of the daily flow), For 1 km of sewage collector the minimum number of customers ‐ 45 households (120 people equivalent).

According to the mentioned criteria, the following 2 agglomerations are identified in the Akhuryan RBD (Table 93 and Figures 48 and 49):

125 Table 93: Agglomerations in the Akhuryan RBD Population Population Settlements in Distance from the Area, Number of Area, ha density, density, agglomerations proposed WWTP km2 inhabitants inhab/km2 inhab/ha 1. Gyumri Agglomeration 3,231.2 Gyumri 6.2 km 32.31 7 150,917 4,670 46.7 Akhuryan 8.7 km 2.52 251.84 9696 3,850 38.5 Total 160,613 2. Armavir Agglomeration Armavir 11.5 km 5.06 506.18 32,034 6,330 63.3 Metsamor 5.6 km 0.9 90.25 9,870 10,966 109.7 Hoktember 14.6 km 2.87 287.02 5,727 1,995 19.95 Mrgashat 8.1 km 2.7 269.76 5,297 1,963 19.63 Mayisyan 8.9 km 0.23 23.32 2,910 12,477 124.77 Norapat 10.9 km 0.75 75.16 2,780 3,698 36.98 Zhdanov 7.3 km 0.52 51.85 1,653 3,187 31.87 Noravan 13.3 km 0.45 45.07 962 2,134 21.34 Total 61,233

The BOD5 increase in the wastewaters discharged out of agglomeration has been calculated, taking into consideration the number of inhabitants of the settlements: the BOD volume in discharged wastewaters equals to 60 g/day multiplied by the number of inhabitants. For the agglomerations the total BOD5 increase is: BOD5 increase = ((60g/day *N*1000)/ 24*60*60)/Q0 mg/l, where N is number of inhabitants in agglomeration and Q0 is river flow on that section.

The values of BOD5 increase in wastewaters of agglomerations are presented in Table 94:

Table 94: BOD5 Increase in the Wastewaters of Agglomerations in the Akhuryan RBD Agglomeration Total Population Flow, l/sec Increase in BOD5, mg/l Gyumri 160,613 4,200 26.5 Armavir 61,233 650 65.4

It should be mentioned that not all the settlements of Gyumri and Akhuryan agglomerations are currently connected to sewage system. However, the calculations are done for the total population of each agglomeration taking into account possible future perspective of their integration into the joint sewage system. According to data of the National Statistical Service of Armenia, no population increase is predicted in these agglomerations for the next decade. Even a slight decrease in population number is possible.

Both Gyumri city and Armavir town used to have wastewater treatment plants during Soviet Era. For the Gyumri city the capacity of the plant was 76,000 m3/day and for Armavir town ‐ 24,000 m3/day. However, both WTTPs are currently non‐operational, the facilities are damaged and ruined and more than 70% of technical equipment is out‐dated and broken. Thus, it is proposed to construct new wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs) at the locations of the old ones since those are the lowest points of the agglomerations and are topographically suitable for a treatment plant. It will also allow the gravity flow of wastewaters towards the treatment plant. Figures below present the locations of the settlements within each agglomeration, as well as locations of the proposed WWTPs.

126

Figure 48: Map of the Gyumri Agglomeration

Figure 49: Map of the Armavir Agglomeration

127 In order to estimate the capacities of the proposed WWTPs in Gyumri and Armavir agglomerations, the quantities of BOD5 in wastewaters discharged from all the industrial enterprises operating within the agglomerations are considered. A baseline for calculations is the maximum wastewater discharge from each industrial facility and the quantity of BOD5, mentioned in the water use permit issued to the given enterprise. In order to convert the calculated BOD5 into population equivalent, the daily BOD5 quantity is re‐computed into per capita, by dividing the total value of BOD5 on the its daily value (60 g/day). It provides the total value of “population equivalent” for each agglomeration, based on which the capacity of the proposed WWTP is determined.

Based on the results of calculations of the total “population equivalent” and the provisions of the EC Urban Wastewater Directive, the type of wastewater treatment, as well as recommended capacity of the proposed WWTP is identified for each agglomeration in the Akhuryan RBD. For both Gyumri and Armavir agglomerations, the total p.e. is more than 10,000. Thus, both primary (mechanical) and secondary (biological) treatment are proposed to be used in the WWTPs (Table 95).

Table 95: Capacities and Type of Treatment in Proposed WWTPs in the Akhuryan RBD Agglomeration Population Population equivalent (p.e.) of Total p.e. Proposed type of Proposed the BOD5 discharged from treatment capacity of food and non‐food industry the WWTP Primary and secondary 80,000 Gyumri 160,613 11,527 172,140 treatment m3/day Primary and secondary 30,000 Armavir 61,233 4,850 66,083 treatment m3/day

11.1.2. Construction of Wastewater Treatment Plants Outside of the Defined Agglomerations

According to EC 91/271 Urban Wastewater Directive, operation of a WWTP is not required for the communities with small population (less than 500 p.e.). In the Akhuryan RBD, there are over dozen of communities with p.e. exceeding this threshold value. For those communities it is recommended to conduct feasibility studies to determine the viable alternative options for municipal wastewater treatment (construction of septic wells, biological ponds, local wastewater treatment facilities, etc).

11.1.3. Application of Good Agricultural Practices

Cattle‐breeding has significant pressure in the following areas of the Akhuryan RBD: Ani and Artik regions of the Akhuryan River basin, and Talin and Baghramyan regions of the Metsamor River basin (Figure 50).

Figure 50: Regions with intensive agriculture in the Akhuryan and Metsamor River basins

128

In order to reduce the agricultural impact on the environment and water resources, it is necessary to use natural resources (feed and irrigation water) more efficiently and sustainably, to ensure Good Agricultural Practices (GAP) and create more efficient farms. The following measures are recommended for implementing GAP in the mentioned regions of the Akhuryan RBD: 1. Review of current agricultural practices, including the use of pesticides, feed management, irrigation and grazing; 2. Identification of agricultural practices that impact surface and ground waters (pressures from agricultural activity), 3. Identification of GAP, in order to improve the farms and minimize the impacts from agricultural activity on water bodies; 4. Identification of pilot farms, 5. Implementation of GAP in the pilot farms, 6. Training of farmers on GAP, by means of presenting the experience of pilot programs, 7. Raising awareness of farmers, the public, and other stakeholders on GAP.

One of the significant pressures from agriculture is the distribution of manure that can cause pollution of water resources. It is recommended to develop a system of manure collection from cattle farms, in order to minimize its impact. This system will include collection and accumulation of manure in septic pits and its further use in the fields, in proper quantities and in the right season. The system will also reduce significant pressures on bodies of water in the river basin and improve the fertility of agricultural lands. Such a system of manure management shall include the following components: (1) manure accumulation sites/structures; (2) manure sputtering equipment; and (3) areas for the use of manure (croplands).

11.1.4. Implementation of River Restoration

About 11 km long stretch of the Akhuryan River (from Berdashen community to Pokr Sepasar community) is diverted through the earthen canal (Section 3.2.3.1., Figure 43). This was done in 1951, after construction of the Arpilich Reservoir with the purpose of regulating the river flow by straightening the river bed. This diversion has altered the natural regime of the Akhuryan River, and the above‐mentioned modified section should be restored. Thus, this particular river restoration includes restoring more natural processes and channel forms to the watercourse. By restoring natural conditions, the resilience of the river system and sustainability will improve.

First step of river restoration will include planning of the project, which involves better understanding of the catchment, review and analysis of the historical stretch and taking necessary steps in planning to reduce uncertainties in the project.

In the second stage the design, objective and pre‐monitoring of the river restoration will be conducted. The design of the project will take into consideration the pre‐existing of meander of the given stretch in Akhuryan basin, which is evident from the historical maps and Google Earth photos.

Figure 51: Google Earth image of the Akhuryan River in the section between Pokr Sepasar and Berdashen

129

The overall objective of the river restoration is to increase natural storage capacity of the river and reduce flood risk through bringing back to former meander. Excess water will be stored in a timely and natural manner in areas where biodiversity is improved. In this way, river restoration will also directly contribute to climate change strategies aimed at mitigating the effects of increased and erratic peak flows and droughts.

Finally, the third stage of the project will include construction works, during which river will be re‐ meandered.

Re‐meandering straightened channel of the Akhuryan River will help to deliver objectives of the WFD by increasing morphological and flow diversity in a straightened river channel. These more natural conditions can provide better quality habitats for benthic invertebrates, and as a result also improve habitats for fish.

Re‐meandering increases the length of a straightened river channel. This decreases flow conveyance, which can effectively store water in the river channel. Re‐meandering can therefore decrease flood risks downstream of Berdashen and Pokr Sepasar communities, by reducing hydrological response times during periods of high flows.

11.1.5. Review of Water Use Permit Conditions and Improvement of Enforcement

The following activities are proposed to improve the water use permit conditions and strengthen the enforcement in terms of maintaining ecological flow, regulating water abstraction and return flows:

Revising water use permit conditions in the Akhuryan RBD and Armenia in general; Introducing an online water use control system for selected pilot sites.

It is recommended to review the current conditions of water use permits for construction and operation of the small HHPs in the Akhuryan and Metsamor River basins for the facilities located at the water bodies at risk. The revision should be aimed at enforcing the water use volumes that will provide for maintenance of ecological flow requirements in the rivers, in accordance with methodology defined by the Government Armenia Decision adopted in 2011.

The conditions of the water use permits issued for groundwater abstraction in the Metsamor River basin should be revised based on the findings of the recent and other ongoing assessment studies on groundwater resources in the Ararat Valley. Flow of the Metsamor River, which is fed mainly from groundwater, has reduced by 83% within the period of 1983‐2013, while the drop in groundwater levels (as well as artesian water) could endanger the cooling process of the Metsamor nuclear plant. In order to restore the pressure zone of the Ararat Artesian Basin, it is recommended to strictly prohibit drilling of new wells in the Metsamor River basin, including drilling of wells for which water use permits were issued, but were not drilled yet.

Another activity is devoted to improvement of water resources management and ensuring efficient water use through development of a system for an automated, centralized, on‐line control of actual water use in Metsamor River basin. It is recommended to take the following steps towards the introduction of the system:

1. Development of detailed Terms of Reference and scope for the system, including identification of technical specifications for water flow meters and data loggers/transmitters to be installed in selected sites (fish farms) in Metsamor River basin; 2. Development of computer program (software) for the water use on‐line control system and its integration into the GIS environment. The software should ensure importing the real‐time data transmitted from the water flow meters;

130 3. Procurement and installation of water flow meters and data loggers/transmitters at the groundwater abstraction sites selected as pilot sites in cooperation with WRMA of MNP; 4. Procurement and installation of computer servers at “control points” responsible for manage the on‐line system, including WRMA of MNP, Akhuryan Water Basin Management Authority of the WRMA and Armavir Marz Service of the State Environmental Inspectorate of MNP; 5. Implementation of full economic assessment for introduction of the centralized, on‐line control system for the whole Akhuryan RBD.

It is recommended to link the proposed system of centralized, on‐line control of actual water use into the State Water Cadastre Information System of WRMA. The developed software should be integrated in a GIS‐ based environment and have the functionality to cover all water abstraction points, specified in issued water use permits for the basin, as well as to generate reports on water use dynamics within the given period and/or permitted abstraction volume. It should also have alarm system and notify the decision‐ makers in case of violations of water use permit conditions.

11.1.6. Introduction of Best Available Technologies in industry

It is recommended to introduce Best Available Technologies (BAT) in the Akhuryan RBD to implement:

1. Pre‐treatment and recycling of water in construction materials processing industry in the Akhuryan River basin. 2. Installation of closed and semi‐closed water systems, as well as treatment systems of the return flows in the fish farms of the Metsamor River basin.

As it was revealed during the pressure‐impact analysis (Chapter 3 of this plan), the pollution loads of sodium, magnesium, potassium, calcium, bromine, manganese, strontium, molybdenum, antimony, sulphate and chloride ions and mineralization values have increased in the Karkachun River, as a result of extraction of tuff and other minerals in Artik region. As part of this PoM, it is recommended to conduct a feasibility study to determine the viable alternative options for pre‐treatment and recycling of water in the process of extraction of tuff ad other construction materials in Artik region of Akhuryan River basin. The possible solutions, such as construction of biological ponds for treatment, installation of closed water system within the industrial enterprises, should be considered during the feasibility study.

As for fish farms of the Metsamor River basin, it is recommended to carry out the following steps towards the introduction of BATs:

a) Implement the inventory of all operational fish farms in the Metsamor River basin, including determination of groups of enterprises which can share the same closed or semi‐closed system and conduct feasibility studies on introduction of water‐saving closed and semi‐closed systems in the fish farms identified during the inventory; b) In order to maintain the current level of fish production, introduce water‐saving closed and semi‐ closed systems in all fisheries of Metsamor River basin in 1‐2 years, which will reduce groundwater consumption by 70% based on expert conclusions. c) Monitor and assess the quality of return flows from the fish farms to identify oxygen regime, mineralization, concentration of nutrients, as well as availability of other organic compounds (including antibiotics, hormones, etc.). d) Prepare a package with recommendations on treatment of the return flows before discharge into water bodies or use for other purposes, such as irrigation. e) Introduce treatment ponds with use of algae for control of nitrites and ammonia from return flows from fish farms in the pilot farms f) Introduce self‐monitoring and reporting protocols for the fish farms.

131 11.1.7. Abolish Abandoned and Illegally Operated Groundwater Wells

To restore the groundwater levels in the Metsamor River basin, it is recommended to:

a) Abolish existing 348 emergency, unsanitary and abandoned ownerless wells (according to inventory data of 2006‐2007 and inventory in July‐October, 2014); b) Close down temporarily or liquidate the required number of wells to reduce abstraction by artesian wells taking into account the wells’ impact radius and technical state and converting other wells into valve operation regime.

11.2. Supplementary Measures

11.2.1. Development of WFD Compliant Monitoring Programme and network for Surface Water and Groundwater bodies

The proposed WFD compliant monitoring programme for surface water bodies of the Akhuryan RBD includes 40 points. Of this, 24 monitoring points are on rivers, 11 on artificial water bodies such as canals and artificial ponds, and 5 monitoring points are on reservoirs. The programme includes the following types of monitoring: (1) operational; (2) survailance; (3) reference and (4) pollution transport monitoring. Main principles, parameters, frequency and other detailed of the proposed surface water monitoring programme are presened in Annex 14. Figure 52 presents the locations of the proposed surface water monitoring points in the Akhuryan RBD.

For the 9 delineated groundwater bodies in Akhuryan RBD, in total 18 groundwater monitoring points are proposed, including 4 monitoring point in one groundwater body at risk (operational monitoring) and 14 monitoring points in 8 groundwater bodies not at risk (surveillance monitoring). Main principles, parameters, frequency and other detailed of the proposed groundwater monitoring programme are presened in Annex 14. Figure 53 below shows the locations of the proposed monitoring points.

It should be noted, however, that exact location of the monitoring points has to be specified by local experts, taking into consideration several factors, such as natural conditions and potential impact of anthropogenic activities.

132

Figure 52: Proposed Surface Water Monitoring Points as Supplementary Measure in the Akhuryan RBD

133

Figure 53: Proposed surveillance and operational groundwater monitoring network in the Akhuryan RBD

134 11.2.2. Investigative Monitoring of Elevated Arsenic Concentrations in Ashotzq and Armavir Regions

In addition to operational and surveillance monitoring, the WFD includes a third type of monitoring, called investigative monitoring. Such monitoring is required when the reason for any elevated concentration is unknown, or when there is a need to ascertain the magnitude and impacts of accidental pollution. The investigative monitoring shall inform the establishment of a program of measures for the achievement of the environmental objectives and specific measures, necessary to remedy the effects of accidental pollution.

During the 1st groundwater field survey in 2013, organized within the EPIRB Project, high arsenic concentrations, reaching 80‐250 µg/l and from 8 to 25 times exceeding EU norms for drinking water (10 µg/l) were detected in Ashotzq and Armavir groundwater bodies (G101 and G103) of Akhuryan RBD of Armenia. It was assumed that such high concentrations of carcinogenic arsenic are caused by the laboratory error. In order to prove it, conduct further investigations were conducted.

Thus, the second field survey was organized in June 2014 to find out if arsenic concentrations in the groundwater bodies of the Akhuryan RBD are really exceeding the allowable norms. Fifteen groundwater samples were collected for the analysis of trace elements, including arsenic (Figure 54). The measurements taken during field operations included water level in monitoring wells, geographic coordinates and temperature in all sampling points (observation and production wells, natural springs and surface streams).

Five control groundwater samples have been collected and shipped to the laboratory of the National Environmental Agency of Georgia Figure 54: Sampling Captured in Ashotzq Spring where Arsenic and additionally five control groundwater Concentrations are 6‐7 Times Exceeding the EU Norm samples preserved with the nitric acid were sent to the accredited laboratory in Vilnius, Lithuania.

Results of field measurements and laboratory analyses in Armenia, Georgia and Lithuania are presented in Table 96 below. Concentrations of chemical components that exceed EU norms are underlined.

Table 96: Comparative Table of Arsenic Concentrations (µg/l) in Groundwater Samples of Akhuryan RBD Laboratory Aknashen well Aknashen well Armavir well Ashotzq spring Ashotzq river No. 108 No. 18 mouth Armenian Not detected 60,0 Not detected 60,0 Not detected Georgia NEA 42,7 75,8 93,3 ‐ 8,6 lab Lithuania, 19,4 73,6 24,7 70,0 21,9 Vilnius water supply lab Armenian standard 50 µg/l EU standard 10 µg/l

Results of the field survey indicate that arsenic concentrations are exceeding EU norm (10 µg/l) in control samples from 2 to 9 times. It became obvious after the field survey that arsenic concentrations are not

135 caused by the laboratory error, but most probably by chemical composition of water bearing rocks. Arsenic is commonly concentrated in sulphide‐bearing mineral deposits, especially those associated with gold mineralization. It is also concentrated in hydrous iron oxides. Arsenic is soluble in groundwater depending on pH, redox conditions, temperature, and solution composition. Many geothermal waters contain high concentrations of arsenic. Natural arsenic in ground water at concentrations above the drinking water standard of 10 µg/litre is not uncommon. Man‐made sources of arsenic, such as mineral extraction and processing wastes, poultry and swine feed additives, pesticides, are also common and have caused the contamination of soils and groundwater.

Thus, it is proposed to conduct organize an investigative monitoring in the five locations, mentioned above, to detect the source and area of Arsenic spreading. Samples from these locations should be collected at least 4 times per year, every season.

Once the results of the investigative monitoring are obtained, including the area of spreading the Arsenic, it is proposed to establish a buffer zone in iron and molybdenum ore deposits in Ashotzq River basin and implementation corresponding protection measures.

Meanwhile, the responsible institutions in Armavir town have to be informed to check arsenic concentrations in other water supply wells near the city. As for Ashotzq region, the local population in Ashotzq village shall be warned to stop using water from the Ashotzq spring for drinking purposes, given that Arsenic was one of the first chemicals recognized as a cause of cancer (particularly lung, urinary tract, bladder and kidney cancers).

11.2.3. Improvement of Water Status Assessment

Despite in 2011 Armenia has developed a new physico‐chemical and chemical assessment system for surface water with five classes, similar to the system of the EU WFD, there is still a lot to be done e.g. to define the boundaries between status classes (good – moderate status), revision of monitored substances, and incorporation of the country specific pollutants and priority substances, as defined by the EU WFD. Moreover, Armenia has not yet introduced both biological and hydromorphological status assessment system in the surface water monitoring and assessment programmes. Thus it is porposed to revise the existing system to fill in the gaps taking into consideration the EU WFD approaches.

As for groundwater bodies, there is no system for the assessment of their status. Thus, it is proposed to use the approach outlines in the EU WFD for the assessment of groundwaters in Armenia, rather than developing a new system, which will be a time‐consuming, expensive and complicated task.

Annex 15 provides a detailed description of the proposed system for assessment of surface and groundwater bodies in Armenia.

11.3. Economic Analysis and Prioritization of Measures

11.3.1. Costing of Basic Measures

Costing of basic and supplementary measures for achieving environmental objectives set for the surface water and groundwater bodies in the Akhuryan RBD was conducted by using data and information on costs for implementing similar measures in Armenia (within public expenditures and/or donor supported initiatives), cost estimates conducted in Armenia and worldwide on introduction of BAT and good agricultural practices, etc. While conducting the preliminary cost estimate of the PoM, the results of consultations with respective authorities at the national and regional level were also taken into consideration.

136 11.3.1.1. Construction of Wastewater Treatment Plants for Gyumri and Armavir Agglomerations

In the PoM two WWTPs were proposed to be constructed in the Akhuryan RBD. In Gyumri agglomeration the capacity of the proposed WWTP is 80,000 m3/day to serve 172,140 “population equivalent” (p.e.). In Armavir agglomeration a WWTP with 30,000 m3/day capacity is proposed for 66,083 p.e. Both WWTPs will provide primary (mechanical) and secondary (biological) wastewater treatment.

To assess the construction/investment costs of the proposed urban WWTPs the appropriate data from the similar recent experience of Bosnia and Herzegovina was used (Table 97).

Table 97: WWTP and Sewerage Network Investments Costs in Bosnia‐Herzegovina Sewerage WWTP TOTAL network investment investment Sewerage WWTP Agglomeration p.e. investment cost cost costs EUR/PE mln EURO mln EURO mln EURO EUR/PE EUR/ PE Tuzla 115 000 11.01 6.8 17.82 155 96 59 Nevesinje 9 090 3.33 1.05 4.38 482 366 116 Tomislavgrad 6 000 4.17 0.77 4.94 823 695 128 Batkovići 6 301 3.29 0.8 4.09 649 522 127 Sokolac 16 738 2.93 1.64 4.58 274 175 98 Posušje 5 000 2.52 0.68 3.2 640 504 136 Ljubinje 3 400 0.27 0.51 0.78 229 79 150 Čitluk 3 000 1.03 0.46 1.5 500 343 153 Bosanski 3 000 1.07 0.46 1.53 510 357 153 Petrovac Kalinovik 2 500 0.8 0.41 1.21 484 320 164 Orahova 2 487 1.15 0.41 1.56 627 462 165 Gornji Podgradci 2 385 1.25 0.4 1.65 692 524 168 Vlasenica 8 000 1.54 0.95 2.5 313 193 119 Obudovac 2 675 1.14 0.43 1.56 583 426 161 Nova Topola 2 198 1.18 0.38 1.56 710 537 173 Pale 25 000 8.35 2.21 10.56 422 334 88 Sarajevo 358 389 25.62 20.39 46.02 128 71 57 Kneževo 3 847 1.47 0.56 2.02 525 382 146 Mrkonjić Grad 7 953 0.19 0.95 1.14 143 24 119 Tešanj 10 308 4.65 1.15 5.8 563 451 112 Banja Luka 204 798 41.4 11.65 53.05 259 202 57 Zenica 106 000 18.56 6.41 24.96 235 175 60 Mostar 85 582 12.06 5.47 17.53 205 141 64 Živinice 27 272 10.65 2.36 13 477 391 87 Bijeljina 53 469 22.32 3.87 26.19 490 417 72

Taking into account data presented in the above table, three regression curves were elaborated for obtaining cost estimations for: (1) WWTP; (2) sewerage and (3) WWTP plus sewerage per population equivalent (p.e.) as presented on Figure 55.

137

Figure 55: Regression Curves for Obtaining WWTP and Sewerage Cost Estimates

The resulted curves provided a forecast for each of proposed agglomerations in the Akhuryan RBD. Table 98 below summarizes the obtained estimated values for 2 agglomerations in the basin.

Table 98: Rough Cost Estimate of WWTP/Sewerage Investment c=Costs in Akhuryan RBD Agglomerations Agglomeration P.e. WWTP (EUR, Sewerage (EUR, WWTP+ Total (EUR) per person) per person) sewerage (EUR, per person) Gyumri 172,140 55 155 210 36,149,400 Armavir 66,083 80 210 290 19,164,070

The total running costs of the systems (operation and maintenance) have not been estimated, given that the tariffs for water supply and sanitation should cover these costs.

11.3.1.2. Construction of Wastewater Treatment Plants Outside of the Defined Agglomerations

For the wastewater treatment facilities, outside of the defined agglomerations (Gyumri and Armavir) it is proposed to conduct a feasibility study. Preliminary cost estimate for conducting the feasibility study for determining the viable alternative options for municipal wastewater treatment and disposal is based on localization of the costs of the feasibility studies that were conducted in Armenia with support of donor organizations, such as the World Bank, KfW, Japanese International Cooperation Agency (JICA), European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD), etc.

An 18‐month feasibility study is proposed to conduct for about 100 communities of the Akhuryan RBD, where population exceeds the threshold value of 500 p.e. It will be conducted with a team of national experts, with involvement of international experts. The study will include field investigations and deskwork, and propose options for wastewater collection, treatment and disposal for the above described communities or group of communities, including the preliminary design and cost estimates.

The preliminary cost for conducting the feasibility study is estimated at EUR 840,000 for about 100 communities of the Akhuryan RBD.

138 11.3.1.3. Application of Good Agricultural Practices

Very little is known about the present agricultural practices and the loss of nutrients and pesticides to surface waters as a result of agricultural activities. Particularly, disaggregated data on the use of pesticides and impact of nitrates is largely absent.

In the PoM it is proposed to launch a donor project on GAP in the Akhuryan RBD. The pilot area for the project will include two communities in Ani and Artik regions of the Akhuryan River basin and two communities in Talin and Baghramyan regions of the Metsamor River basin. To estimate the costs of the GAP introduction in the mentioned four communities, the assessment conducted for the similar activities in Debed and Aghstev River basins were used9. Thus, the total amount has comprised EUR 1,040,000, or EUR 260,000 for each community.

11.3.1.4. Implementation of River Restoration

Within the PoM it is proposed to restore the modified 11‐km section of the Akhuryan River from Berdashen community to Pokr Sepasar community, which is diverted through the earthen canal in 1951. The overall objective of the river restoration is to increase natural storage capacity of the river and reduce flood risk through bringing back to former meander.

The proposed measures include three main components:

a) planning of the project, including review and analysis of the historical stretch; b) design, setting objective and pre‐existing situation of the river restoration; c) actual construction works and post‐monitoring.

Previously no river restoration activities were conducted in Armenia, so the cost estimate is based on the international experience. Particularly, experience from similar works compiled by the European Centre for River Restoration, which is a network of best practices of river restoration in Greater Europe, is used.

Thus, taking account the experience in similar works and using our expert judgment, it is assessed that implementation of this measure will cost about EUR 150,000, of which EUR 15,000 for the planning of the project, EUR 25,000 for the design, and EUR 110,000 for the actual construction works and post‐ monitoring.

11.3.1.5. Review of Water Use Permit Conditions and Improvement of Enforcement

The estimation of the costs for the activities related to improving water use permit conditions and strengthening their enforcement has been implemented based on the “Social‐Economic Status of the Republic of Armenia in January‐December 2013” report of the National Statistical Service of Armenia.10

The preliminary estimation of the costs for one‐year activity (review of water use permit conditions) resulted to total EUR 35,000 with the breakdown of the costs presented in Table 99 below.

9”Debed Pilot River Basin Management Plan‐Armenia” (2011), prepared in the framework of the ”Trans‐Boundary River Management Phase II for the Kura River – Armenia, Georgia, Azerbaijan” EU Project (2007/134‐398). 10“Social‐Economic Status of the Republic of Armenia in January‐December 2013”, prepared by National Statistical Service (NSS) of the Republic of Armenia, 2014. URL: http://www.armstat.am/file/article/sv_12_13a_142.pdf

139 Table 99: Annual Costs for Improving Water Use Permit Conditions in the Akhuryan RBD Activity Unit Unit cost, Qty Total cost, EUR EUR Desk study on improving water use permit 5 persons x 12 months 450 60 27,000 conditions and strengthening their enforcement Field trips to Akhuryan RBD to monitor the 5 trips within one year, (4 1,600 5 8,000 enforcement of the permitting conditions persons for each trip) Total 35,000

Another activity is devoted to improvement of water resources management and ensuring efficient water use through development of a system for an automated, centralized, on‐line control of actual water use in the Metsamor River basin. The preliminary estimation of the costs for one‐year activity resulted to total EUR 32,000 with the breakdown of the costs presented in Table 100 below.

Table 100: Annual Costs for Improvement of Water Resource Management Efficiencies in the Akhuryan RBD Activity Unit Unit cost, Qty Total cost, EUR EUR Inventory of the fish farms in Metsamor River basin to identify the man x 1,000 3 3,000 pilot fish farms and development of a detailed scope for the month system Development of computer software for the water use on‐line man x 1,500 4 6,000 control system and its integration into the GIS environment month Procurement of 3 water flow meters pcs 1,000 3 3,000 Procurement of 3 data loggers/transmitters pcs 500 3 1,500 Installation of 3 water flow meters and 3 data loggers/transmitters pcs 2,000 6 12,000 at the groundwater abstraction sites and technical maintenance for one year Procurement of computer servers at three “control points” pcs 1,500 3 4,500 responsible for manage the on‐line system Implementation of full economic assessment for introduction of man x 1,000 2 2,000 the centralized, on‐line control system for the whole Metsamor month River basin Total 32,000

11.3.1.6. Introduction of Best Available Technologies in industry

Preliminary cost‐estimates for introduction of the BAT in industry in the Akhuryan and Metsamor River Basins, including conducting feasibility studies, are based on localization of the costs for the studies conducted in countries of Eastern Europe, including those that adopted EU WFD compliant river basin management plans, as well as take into consideration costs of appropriate activities implemented in Armenia.

1. Feasibility Study for introducing the BAT in construction materials extraction industry – pre‐treatment and recycling of water in construction materials processing industry in the Akhuryan RBD

A 5‐month feasibility study is proposed to be conducted for introducing the BAT for recycling of water in the process of extraction of tuff and other construction materials in Artik region of the Akhuryan RBD and pre‐treatment of return flows. It will be conducted by a team of national experts and involvement of an international expert. The study will include field investigations and desk work, and propose feasible options for installation of water recycling systems in the process of extraction of construction materials, as well as pre‐treatment facilities for return flows from this industry, including preliminary design and cost estimates.

The preliminary cost for conducting this feasibility study is estimated at EUR 300,000.

140 2. The preliminary cost estimates for implementing measures towards introduction of BATs in fish farms in the Metsamor River Basin ‐ installation of closed and semi‐closed water systems, as well as treatment systems of the return flows in the fish farms, are presented below: a) Inventory of all operational fish farms in the Metsamor River basin and feasibility study on installation of water saving close and/or semi‐closed systems: A 12‐month study, including inventory of about 92 operational fish farms in the Metsamor River Basin, as well as feasibility study for introducing water saving closed and/or semi‐closed in the farms is proposed. Inventory and feasibility study will be conducted by a team of national experts, with active involvement of a team of international experts at the stage of the feasibility study. The study will include field inventory and investigations, desk work and propose feasible options for installing closed and/or semi‐closed in the fish farms, including the preliminary typical designs and cost estimates.

The preliminary cost for conducting the inventory and the feasibility study is estimated at about EUR 720,000. b) Installation of water saving technologies in the fish farms: A few feasibility studies were conducted last year and typical designs were prepared for installation of semi‐closed and/or closed water systems in the selected fish farms in the Metsamor River basins. At the time of preparing this document, the firs installation has been underway in one fish farm. The studies, including the typical design, were prepared by a German E.M.F. Lebensmitteltechnik‐Anlagenbau GmbH, Euro Fish International and Biomar Group, and preliminary cost for installing a semi‐closed system, depending on the size of farm, may range from EUR 700,000 to EUR 1.5 million.

The total size of investment for implementing this measure will be determined after having the inventory and feasibility study completed. c) Monitoring and assessment of the quality of return flows from the fish farms: A 12‐month pilot monitoring program is proposed to be implemented in selected 30 fish farms for monitoring return flows from the fish farms to identify oxygen regime, mineralization, concentration of nutrients, as well as availability of other organic compounds (including antibiotics, hormones, etc.) and assess quality of the return flows and suitability for further use for irrigation and other purposes. The monitoring and assessment program will include field sampling, as well as laboratory analyses and assessment work

The preliminary cost for conducting this monitoring program is estimated at about EUR 50,000. d) Preparing a package with recommendations on treatment of the return flows from fish farms It is proposed to prepare a package with recommendations on treatment of the return flows from the fish farms in the Metsamor River basin and submit to the Government for further enforcement. It will be based on the outcomes of the measures on Monitoring and assessment of the quality of return flows from the fish farms and introduction of biological treatment ponds. The package must be prepared by a team of national experts, over a six‐month period.

The preliminary cost for preparation of the package with recommendations is estimated at about EUR 20,000. e) Introducing biological treatment ponds with use of algae for pre‐treatment of return flows from fish farms It is proposed to introduce biological treatment ponds in selected 1‐2 pilot fish farms with use of algae for controlling nitrites and ammonia in the return flows.

The preliminary cost for installing biological treatment ponds in 2 medium‐size fish farms is estimated at about EUR 70,000.

141 f) Preparing a legal package on introducing self‐monitoring and reporting protocols for the fish farms A recommended legal package on introducing the self‐monitoring and reporting protocols will be prepared by a team of experts over a 3‐month period and submitted to the Government for adoption and enforcement.

The preliminary cost for preparation of the legal package on self‐monitoring and reporting is estimated at EUR 12,000.

10.3.1.7. Abolishment of Abandoned and Illegally Operated Groundwater Wells

The main objective of abolishment of the abandoned and illegally operating groundwater wells in the Metsamor River basin of the Akhuryan RBD is restoration of the groundwater levels, which has been significantly impacted in the recent years. a) Abolishment of abandoned and illegally operated groundwater wells According to the inventory data of 2006‐2007 and July‐October 2014, there are 348 emergency, unsanitary and abandoned wells, which do not have owners and should be abolished. Recently the Ministry of Nature Protection has already established a working group, which is working in this direction. According to the estimates from the Ministry, liquidation of one well composes on average EUR 3,500, thus the total cost for implementing this activity will compose EUR 1,218,000. b) Temporary closure of selected wells or converting into valve operation regime To support the restoration of the groundwater level in the Ararat Valley, the PoM also proposes to temporarily close down or liquidate some artesian wells, taking account their impact radius and technical state. For some other wells, converting into valve operation regime is proposed.

As a first step to implement this activity, it is proposed to conduct a feasibility study in Metsamor sub‐basin of the Ararat Valley, to identify and select the wells, which have significant impact radius and are at such technical state that require urgent intervention. The feasibility study will also identify the wells, which need to be converted into valve operation regime.

According to our expert assessment, such feasibility study will last 10 months and will cost about EUR 60,000.

11.3.2. Costing of Supplementary Measures

11.3.2.1. Development of WFD Compliant Monitoring Program for Surface and Groundwater Bodies

Surface water bodies The proposed WFD compliant monitoring program for surface water bodies includes 40 points. Of this, 24 monitoring points are on rivers, 11 on artificial water bodies such as canals and artificial ponds, and 5 monitoring points are on reservoirs. Preliminary cost‐estimate is provided in Table 101 below.

Table 101: Preliminary Cost‐Estimate for WFD Compliant Monitoring Program for Surface Water Bodies Type of monitoring/ Rivers Canals Artificial ponds Reservoirs Total Type of water body Operational 10 10 0 0 20 Surveillance 9 0 1 5 15 Reference 4 0 0 0 4 Transport 1 0 0 0 1 Total 24 10 1 5 40

The proposed monitoring program should be an integrated programme including chemical, hydromorphological (flow) and biological monitoring as required by the EU WFD. In the initial 6‐year

142 planning period the biological monitoring will only include macroinvertebrates, macrohpytes and fish as the methodologies of the other indicator groups for biological monitoring in rivers are currently far less developed, and the experience needed to address the results of the biological monitoring to status (high, good, moderate, poor bad) of these biological indicator groups is not yet available.

The proposed frequency of the monitoring, according to different monitoring program is provided in Table 102 below.

Table 102: Proposed Frequency of the Monitoring of Surface Water Bodies of the Akhuryan RBD Monitoring program Parameters Frequency Biological Macroinvertebrates 1 time per year Macrophytes 1 time per year Fish 1 time per year Hydromorphological Flow Daily Morphological Conditions 1 time per year Physical‐chemical Key physical and chemical parameters 4 times per year Heavy metals and specific organic substances 4 times per year WFD priority substances and other pollutants 4 times per year

The cost estimate of the proposed WFD compliant monitoring of surface water bodies of the Akhuryan RBD is based on discussions with the Environmental Impact Monitoring Centre (EIMC) and the Armenian State Hydrometeorological Monitoring Centre. However, current physio‐chemical and chemical monitoring of the EIMC does not include all proposed parameters, such as WFD priority substances and other pollutant. Similarly, Armenian State Hydrometeorological Monitoring Centre figures do not include morphological conditions. Preliminary cost estimate is presented in Table 103.

Table 103: Rough Cost Estimate of the Proposed WFD‐Compliant Monitoring of Surface Waters in the Akhuryan RBD Monitoring Parameters Unit Frequency Number Total for the program Cost, of 1st planning EUR stations cycle, EUR Biological Sampling and processing of 40 1 time per year 40 9,600 macroinvertebrates Sampling and processing of 30 1 time per year 40 7,200 macrophytes Sampling and processing of fish 50 1 time per year 40 12,000 Hydro‐ Flow 2.5 Daily 40 219,000 morphological Morphological Conditions 50 1 time per year 40 12,000 Physical‐ Key physical and chemical 50 4 times per year 40 48,000 chemical parameters Heavy metals and specific 150 4 times per year 40 144,000 organic substances WFD priority substances and 165 4 times per year 40 158,400 other pollutants

Figures from the joint field surveys within the EPIRB project, as well as from the following reports were used, to obtain cost estimates for these missing parameters, including biological quality elements: “Water Framework Directive compliant monitoring programme for Aghstev pilot basin, Armenia” and “Water Framework Directive compliant monitoring programme for Debed pilot basin, Armenia”, prepared within the EU “Trans‐Boundary River Management – Phase II for the Kura River – Armenia, Georgia and Azerbaijan” project in 2011.

Thus, the total cost of WFD compliant surface water monitoring in the Akhuryan RBD of Armenia for the 1st planning cycle (2015‐2021) composes about EUR 610,200, of which EUR 28,800 for biological monitoring, EUR 231,000 for hydromorphological monitoring and EUR 350,040 for physical‐chemical monitoring.

143 Groundwater bodies

The PoM proposes WFD compliant groundwater monitoring program for the Akhuryan RBD, including surveillance and operational monitoring. The proposed network includes 18 monitoring stations in 6 identified groundwater bodies. Of these, 14 are surveillance monitoring stations and 4 (in the Alluvial‐ prolluvial‐lacustrine groundwater body G104) are operational monitoring stations. Also, in this groundwater body at risk drilling of new additional borehole is proposed, in the territory of Aknashen village. a) Costs of surveillance and operational groundwater monitoring

Both surveillance and operational monitoring include quantitative and chemical monitoring. In all quantitative groundwater monitoring boreholes installation of data loggers is recommended, since continuous and frequent data recording provides an opportunity to achieve a greater understanding of the aquifer response to changes of recharge regimes and behaviour to pollution/abstraction events. However, this can be done in the second planning stage, given significant budgetary implications. In the first planning stage, until electronic data loggers are installed, groundwater levels shall be measured by local observers 3 times/month and during the sampling events, 2‐4 times/year.

During the surveillance monitoring programme some parameters have to be measured in the field at the well/spring before collection of samples: pH, temperature, DO, conductivity, TDS, etc. Monitoring wells must be properly purged before collecting groundwater sample. Chemical analysis of collected samples for general indicators (main cations and anions, nutrients, permanganate index, etc.), which characterise the chemical status and quality of groundwater formed under natural conditions and anthropogenic loads, have to be analysed in groundwater samples at least two times a year. Specific chemical components, such as organic compounds and pesticides, with usually very low concentrations, shall be monitored once in six years, and trace elements shall be monitored once in a two‐year period in wells where these components are likely to be detected.

Costs for the implementation of the proposed WFD compliant groundwater monitoring program are calculated in close cooperation with the experts of the Hydrogeological Monitoring Centre of the Ministry of Nature Protection of Armenia. However, some adjustments are made, taking into consideration that the chemical analysis implemented by HMC includes only main anions and cations and basic physical properties, whereas the proposed program, though in a less frequency, includes analysis of trace elements, pesticides, and in urban areas and near industrial sites ‐ Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, Phenols, Trichlorethylene, Tetrachlorethylene. The preliminary cost‐estimate is presented below in Table 104.

Table 104: Preliminary Coest‐Estimate for the Proposed WFD Compliant Groundwater Monitoring in the Akhuryan RBD Cost per station per Number of stations Annual cost Total cost for the 1st year, EUR planning cycle, EUR Surveillance 1,100 14 15,400 92,400 Operational 1,500 4 6,000 36,000 Total 2,600 18 21,400 128,400 b) Costs for the additional observation well in the Aknashen village

For operational monitoring in GWB at risk it is planned to drill one additional observation well and equip it with electronic level and temperature meters. Telemetric data transfer to the databases of Hydrogeological monitoring Centre will be organised (see Table 105 for the estimated budget breakdown).

144 Table 105: Estimated Budget of Drilling and Equipping New Observation Well in Aknashen village Item Budget in Euro Design and tender documents 5,000 Construction of the hydrogeological observation well 28,000 Equipment, including telemetry 7,000 Total 40,000

11.3.2.2. Investigative Monitoring of Elevated Arsenic Concentrations in Armavir and Ashotzq Regions

The PoM proposes conducting investigative monitoring in five locations of the Akhuryan RBD, to detect the source and area of Arsenic spreading. These five locations include the following: Aknashen well No 108, Aknashen well No 18, Armavir well, Ashotzq spring and Ashotzq River mouth (Figure 45). The objective of the investigative monitoring is to find out the main source of increase Arsenic concentration, identification of the area of spreading the Arsenic, based on which, in the second planning cycle buffer zone can be established together with proposed protection measures.

Samples from the above‐mentioned locations should be collected for one year, in all seasons (4 times). Based on the results of the sampling and analysis, detailed report will be prepared, which will include identification of the causes and proposed measures to improve the situation.

The cost estimate for the proposed measures is prepared, based on the figures of groundwater joint fields surveys conducted within the EU EPIRB project in 2013 and 2014. Thus, the rough budget of implementation of groundwater monitoring is provided in Table 106 below:

Table 106: Preliminary Cost Estimate for Investigative Monitoring in the Ashotzq and Armavir Regions Unit cost, EUR Number of sites Number of monitoring Total, EUR cycles Sampling 50 5 4 1,000 Chemical analysis 200 5 4 4,000 Preparation of detailed report with recommendations 2,000 Total 10,000

11.3.2.3. Improvement of Water Status Assessment

A new system for assessment of status of surface and groundwater resources is proposed to be introduced based on the EU WFD approach, which will become a sound basis for integrated assessment of water quality status and setting realistic water quality objectives.

It is proposed to establish a working group on surface and groundwater quality assessment and other relevant areas, with involvement of national and international experts. The group will work over an 18‐ month period on designing the systems for assessment of ecological and chemical status of surface water resources, and quantitative and chemical status of groundwater resources in accordance with requirements of the WFD. Along with the new assessment systems, the Working group will make recommendations on additional staffing and capacity building for the state agencies involved in management and protection of surface and groundwater resources.

The preliminary cost for developing new systems for status assessment of surface water and groundwater bodies by the working group is estimated at EUR 65,000. Costs for staffing and capacity building of the state agencies must be implemented after completion of the design works.

145 11.4. Cost Effectiveness Analysis of the Proposed Measures and Prioritization

11.4.1. Summary of the Cost Estimates of the Proposed Measures

Table 107 below summarizes the costs of the proposed measures based on the findings in the previous chapter. As seen from the table, the total cost of the measures proposed for implementation in the first planning cycle is slightly over EUR 60 million. This, taking account the total number of population of the Akhuryan RBD, composes about EUR 110 per person.

Table 107: Summary of the Preliminary Costs of the Basic and Supplementary Measures to be implemented in the Akhuryan RBD Measures Estimated Budget, EUR Construction of wastewater treatment plants for Gyumri and Armavir agglomerations 55,313,470 Feasibility study for construction of wastewater treatment plants outside of the defined 840,000 agglomerations Application of Good Agricultural Practices 1,040,000 Implementation of river restoration at 11 km long stretch of Akhuryan River 150,000 Review of water use permit conditions and improvement of enforcement 67,000 Introduction of Best Available Technologies in industry 1,172,000 Liquidation of abandoned and illegally operated groundwater wells 1,278,000 Investigative monitoring for detecting high arsenic concentrations in groundwater bodies around 10,000 Armavir and Ashotzq Development of WFD compliant monitoring program for surface and groundwater bodies of 778,600 Akhuryan RBD Improvement of water status assessment 60,000 Total 60,709,070

11.4.2. Effectiveness Analysis and Prioritization

Effectiveness analysis for further determination and selection of the measures and/or their combination is conducted in terms of the ecological effectiveness of the measures proposed, based on the indicators of the WFD, Annex V on good ecological status for surface water and groundwater bodies, respectively. It is conducted by using simple “Cause/Effect Matrix with Classification of Priority” and “Classification Key” as presented in Tables 108 and 109 that were proposed in the EPRIB guidance document on Prioritizing Selected Program of Measures and Simplified Cost Effectiveness Analysis.

Table 108: Classification key for Determining Level of Ecological Effectiveness of the Proposed Measures Sum Total of Individual Evaluations Description of Effectiveness Classification 12‐9 High level of ecological effectiveness 3 8‐5 Medium ecological effectiveness 2 4‐1 Low level of ecological effectiveness 1 0 No ecological effectiveness 0

Table 109: Cause/Effect Matrix with Classification of Priority of Measures Proposed for the Akhuryan RBD Indicators of Ecological Deficits (WFD, Annex V) Sum Total of Classifica‐ Measure Macro‐ Benthic Fish Individual tion of Algae phytes invertebrate fauna fauna Evaluations Priority Construction of wastewater treatment plants for Gyumri xxx xxx xxx xxx 12 3 and Armavir agglomerations Feasibility study for construction of WWTPs x x x x 4 1 outside of the defined

146 Indicators of Ecological Deficits (WFD, Annex V) Sum Total of Classifica‐ Measure Macro‐ Benthic Fish Individual tion of Algae phytes invertebrate fauna fauna Evaluations Priority agglomerations Application of GAPs xx xx xx xx 8 2 Implementation of river restoration at 11 km long xxx xxx xxx xxx 12 3 stretch of Akhuryan River Review of water use permit conditions and improvement xx xx xx xx 8 2 of enforcement Introduction of BATs in xxx xx xx xxx 10 3 industry Liquidation of abandoned and illegally operated xx xx xx xxx 9 3 groundwater wells Investigative monitoring for detecting high arsenic concentrations in x x x xxx 6 2 groundwater bodies in Armavir and Ashotzq Development of WFD compliant monitoring program for surface and x x x x 4 1 groundwater bodies of Akhuryan RBD Improvement of water status xx xx xx xx 8 2 assessment

Table 110 summarizes the measures sorted based on the priority class (from high ‘3’ to low ‘1’):

Table 110: Prioritized measures proposed for the Akhuryan RBD Measures Priority Estimated class Budget, EUR Construction of wastewater treatment plants for Gyumri and Armavir 3 55,313,470 agglomerations Implementation of river restoration at 11 km long stretch of Akhuryan River 3 150,000 Introduction of Best Available Technologies in industry 3 1,172,000 Liquidation of abandoned and illegally operated groundwater wells 3 1,278,000 Application of Good Agricultural Practices 2 1,040,000 Review of water use permit conditions and improvement of enforcement 2 67,000 Investigative monitoring for detecting high arsenic concentrations in groundwater 2 10,000 bodies around Armavir and Ashotzq Improvement of water status assessment 2 60,000 Feasibility study for construction of wastewater treatment plants outside of the 1 840,000 defined agglomerations Development of WFD compliant monitoring program for surface and groundwater 1 778,600 bodies of Akhuryan RBD

147 11.5. Implementation of Pilot Projects Selected from the Program of Measures

The EU EPIRB project, in consultation with stakeholder institutitons, has selected from the Program of Measures and implemented the following 4 pilot project with the total cost of around EUR 100,000:

1. Improvement of water resources management and ensuring efficient water use through development of a system for an automated, centralized, on‐line control of actual water use in Metsamor River basin of the Akhuryan RBD of Armenia (completed), 2. Constructon of groundwater monitoring well in Aknashen community of Metsamor River basin of the Akhuryan RBD and its refurbishment with automated measuring equipment (completed), 3. Rehabilitation of selected 8 groundwater monitoring springs in Akhuryan River basin of the Akhuryan RBD (in the process of implementation), 4. Rehabilitation of Akhuryan‐Akhurik hydrological monitoring post and installation of the modern measuring equipment (in the process of implementation).

1. The overall goal of the “Improvement of water resources management and ensuring efficient water use through development of a system for an automated, centralized, on‐line control of actual water use in Metsamor River basin of the Akhuryan RBD of Armenia” pilot project was supporting the regulation of surface and groundwater use in the Akhuryan RBD, ensuring transparency on decision‐making process through introduction of automated centralized control system. WRMA of the MNP, Akhuryan BMO of the WRMA, and Environmental Inspectorate of the MNP were the three main beneficiaries of the project.

At the first stage of the project, detailed terms of reference for development of a system for an automated, centralized, on‐line control of actual water use in Metsamor River basin was prepared and components of the system were identified. In cooperation with the subcontracters of the project, Geoinfo LLC and Locator CJSC, an appropriate computer software for maintaining the automated, centralized, on‐line control system was created, which is based on the SCADA11 system. In addition a data import/export tool between the SCADA system and State Water Cadaste Information System was developed.

At the second stage, joint visits with the representatives of Akhuryan RBD to Metsamor River basin were conducted to select three pilot water users where the automated, centralized, on‐line control system would have been installed. As a result of the visits and consultations, one small, one medium and one large fish farm were selected in Jrarat, Araks and Metsamor communities respectively.

Three flow meters and data loggers were procured and installed in the selected fish farms during the next stage of the project. The equipment and the developed computer software were tested accordingly.

Then appropriate computer equipment has been provided to the three “control points” in WRMA, Akhuryan BMO and Environmental Inspectorate of the MNP. Traning on the use of the systems was conducted for the staff members of the mentioned organizations. A brief user manual was prepared and distributed to the participants of the training courses.

At the final stage of the project a full economic assessment for introduction of the system throughout the entire Metsamor River basin was conducted. The study covered all 213 surface and groundwater use points in the basin. The results of this study were submitted to the Ministry of Nature Protection of Armenia.

11) SCADA (supervisory control and data acquisition) is a system for remote monitoring and control that operates with coded signals over communication channels (using typically one communication channel per remote station).

148

Figure 56: Location of pilot projects (NHRS LLC, 2016)

Figure 57: Location of communities selected for the pilot project on installation of groundwater use online control system (NHRS LLC, 2016)

149

Figure 58: Installation of equipment at the fish farm in Araks community

Figure 59: Installation of equipment at the fish farm in Jrarat community

Figure 60: Installation of equipment at the fish farm in Metsamor community

Figure 61: Training at the Environmental Inspectorate of Figure 62: Training at the Akhuryan BMO the MNP

150

Figure 63: Training at the WRMA

2. The objectives of the “Constructon of groundwater monitoring well in Aknashen community of Metsamor River basin of the Akhuryan RBD and its refurbishment with automated measuring equipment” pilot project were (1) supporting the MNP in addressing the issues of artesian groundwater overuse in the Ararat Valley through collecting more accurate groundwater monitoing data; and (2) promoting more efficient decision‐making groundwater allocation in the Ararat Valley.

In the framework of the pilot project, by the support of EPIRB project, a new groundwater monitoring well was constructed in Aknashen community. It was refurbished with modern equipment for measuring the water level and temperature and for automated data transfer. The transfer of data to the Hydrogeological Monotoring Center of the MNP, the authorized institution for groundwater monitoring in Armenia, is being implemented through telemetric technologies. After installation of equipment, the appropriate training has been provided to the staff membes of the Hydrogeological Monotoring Center.

Figure 64: Official ceremony of the openning of the Figure 65: Training at the Hydrogeological Monotoring monitoring well Center of the MNP

151 12. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION

12.1. EU WFD Requirements

The EU WFD provides decision makers with a range of approaches for improved water management. One key approach is public participation and stakeholders (interested party) involvement.

The EU WFD requires involvement of the public through provision of information, and through consultations with the public and other interested parties (stakeholders). Active involvement of the public is strongly encouraged.

Article 14 of the EU WFD refers to public information and consultation, stating the need to encourage the active involvement of all interested parties in the implementation to the Directive, in particular in the production, review and updated of the river basin management plans. Thus, all stakeholders, for example NGO’s, local communities and water supply enterprises, should be involved in discussions leading to the formulation of the river basin management plan. There are three reasons for this:

To inform all interested parties about possible issues related to the river basin; To collect information about demands and issues at local level, e.g. from local or regional stakeholders; To explain the various alternatives to developing the environmental status of the neighbourhood, and reach a consensus between the authorities and stakeholders.

The discussion with local and regional authorities and other stakeholders involved in water management should lead to a clear view on the cost‐benefit relationship, and prepare the way for the planning of possible measures or the setting of priorities between alternative measures. This should either reconfirm the objectives or lead to a possible consideration of exemptions. Too often in the past implementation was left unexamined until too late, i.e. the countries were well behind schedule and not in compliance. By establishing a network for the exchange of information and experience between water professionals throughout the European Community very early on, these issues may be avoided.

The EU WFD provides clearly formulated objective of public participation and mechanisms of involving public in river basin planning. In addition, the EU WFD Guidance Document No 8 (Public Participation) creates a common understanding regarding the meaning of public participation in the context of the EU WFD and gives specific help on how to implement public participation in the different steps of the management process.

12.2. Requirements of the Armenian Legislation

Republic of Armenia Water Code includes provisions on information accessibility and public participation in decision‐making process, including development of river basin management plans. Thus, Article 5 (Basic Principles of Management, Use and Protection of Water Resources and Water Systems) of the Code recognizes the importance of public participation and awareness in the process of management and protection of water resources, Article 20 (Public Participation) lists the items which are subject to public notice (drafts river basin management plans, pending water use permits, draft water tariff strategy and draft water standards) and Article 106 (Participation of Non‐Governmental Organizations and Citizens in the Protection of Water Resources and Water Systems) defines the roles of NGOs and public participation in the maintenance of water resources and water systems and states that in the conduct of activities aimed at the protection of water resources and water systems the state authorized management bodies has a right to take into consideration the recommendations of public organizations and citizens.

152 As for the National Water Policy, it requires that while designing river basin management plans, public participation is ensured by means of arranging public hearings and discussions, and communicating respective information through mass media.

Therefore, the project beneficiaries in Armenia have supported the efforts of the EPIRB project team to carry out communication, information and public participation activities regarding the development of the draft River Basin Management Plan for the Akhuryan RBD.

12.3. Public Participation, Information, Communication and Public Outreach Activities in Development of the RBMP in the Akhuryan RBD

Within the above framework, a Communication Strategy and Plan was developed (see http://blacksea‐ riverbasins.net/en/downloads‐library‐search). Based on this, various information, consultation, public participation measures and awareness building activities have been undertaken.

These include public information, such as the development of technical public documents and general publications (“Key Water Issues” brochure, “In the Flow” project newsletter and etc.), and public consultation activities directly linked to the development of the RBMP.

During the development of the RBMP the following public information and consultation measures were taken: Information was circulated on the draft and final Communication Strategy and Plan on the website of the project; Three stakeholder consultation meetings were held on river basins analysis, on analysis of pressures and impacts and on draft RBMP for the Akhuryan RBD; The draft RBMP for the Akhuryan RBD enters the public consultation phase on March 13, 2016 (see the link to the Armenian version of the website of the Minstry at http://www.mnp.am/?aid=3902).

The opportunity to participate in the consultation was promoted by direct notification mass e‐mails, relevant NGO networks, news items on the EPIRB project website and the beneficiary website and the regularly published project newsletter “In the Flow”.

The first Public Consultation Meeting was held in Gyumri on December 4, 2012. The main objective of the meeting was to present the draft River Basin Analysis for Akhuryan RBD and get comments from all key sectors of the basin, including the civil society, community‐based organizations and non‐governmental organizations. Other objectives included increasing awareness on the WFD methodology and approaches among the basin stakeholders, and building capacities in development of the EU WFD compliant RBMPs.

The meeting was attended by 19 stakeholders from the Akhuryan RBD, including representatives of the Basin Management Organization, Irrigation Water Intake companies and WUAs, Shirak and Armavir Regional Administrations, Municipalities, Monitoring Organizations, Fish Farms and Non‐Governmental Organizations. During the meeting active discussions were held on all components of the Draft River Basin Analysis for the Akhuryan RBD, and the participants provided useful comments. Later on, the comments were incorporated in the finalized River Basins Analysis Report. The summary of the discussions can be accessed on the EPIRB project website (http://blacksea‐riverbasins.net).

The second Akhuryan RBD Public Consultation Meeting was conducted on June 20, 2014 in Gyumri. The objective of the meeting was to present the necessary background information and the preliminary overview of the important water management issues for the Akhuryan pilot basin; to collect stakeholders’ feedback concerning the identification of the most important water management issues; and to support the development of the RBMP by discussing on the preliminary identified significant water management issues for the pilot river basin area.

153 The meeting was attended by 23 stakeholders, including representatives of national agencies, and stakeholders from Akhuryan and Metsamor River Basins. During the meeting presentations were held, focusing on the significant water management issues in Akhuryan RBD in the light of the WFD. After the presentations and Q&A sessions, the participants worked in separate groups, and addressed questions related to key causes of the water management problems in the Akhuryan RBD, priority significant water management issues, and possible options to solve the identified issues.

The findings of the working groups were reported and discussed in the final plenary session, and later on some of them were incorporated in the draft Basin Management Plan for the Akhuryan RBD. The summary of the discussions can be accessed on the EPIRB project website (http://blacksea‐riverbasins.net).

The third Public Consultation Meeting was held in Gyumri on March 26, 2015. The objectives of the meeting included the following: to present the draft Basin Management Plan for Akhuryan RBD and the proposed Programme of Measures; to discuss and receive feedback, comments and proposals on the draft management plan, including the planned measures; and to promote public participation and support the finalization of the basin management plan for the Akhuryan RBD. The meeting gathered 37 participants, representing a broad range of stakeholders such as: Water Resources Management Agency, Akhuryan Water Basin Management Authority, Environmental Impact Monitoring Centre, Hydrogeological Monitoring Centre (all under the Ministry of Nature Protection), Ministry of Energy and Natural Resources, Ministry of Finance, Ministry of Emergency Situations and Territorial Administration, Shirak Regional Administration, Armavir Regional Administration, Shirak Regional Health Inspectorate, Shirak Regional Environmental Inspectorate, Shirak Water and Sewerage Company, Artik Small Hydropower Plant, Yerevan State University of Architecture and Construction, Gyumri State Pedagogical Institute, Institute of Geophysics and Engineering Seismology, Gyumri Aarhus Centre, Regional Environmental Centre and several local community based and non‐governmental organizations. The one‐day event gave short introduction to the draft RBMP, as well as provided opportunity for feedback and comments through interactive discussion organized within two working groups. The group discussions were facilitated by independent facilitators, and the outcomes of the discussions were shared in the plenary session by selected reporter. The summary of the discussions can be accessed on the EPIRB project website (http://blacksea‐riverbasins.net).

Besides the public consultation meeting, opportunity to submit written comments on the draft RBMP was open until May 31, 2015. A total of 40 comments were received. All the comments requesting changes to the draft RBMP received during the third public consultation meeting, as well as in written form have been collected and processed by the consultants developing the RBMP in close cooperation with the Akhuryan WBMA of the Water Resources Management Agency of the Ministry of Nature Protection of Armenia. In order to ensure transparency, a summary report has been prepared which gives an overview on the original comments received and the responses and actions taken, whether it resulted in changes in the draft RBMP. The report can be found in Annex 16.

154 13. ASSESSMENT OF FINANCIAL DEFICIT IN THE AKHURYAN RBD

13.1. Background

There is now an increasing recognition that many river basin management plans may not be financially sustainable because the implied costs exceed what countries’ public budgets, farmers, industries and households can afford. Thus, there is a need to work towards a more profound analysis of the costs of water resources management, the financing sources that are available to cover those costs and the benefits that adequate water resources management can generate.

The WFD gives specific emphasis on economic instruments applied in water management. Thus, Article 9 of the WFD – Cost‐recovery of water services, deals with water pricing tariffs (water abstraction and environmental/pollution fees), and Article 6 refers to economic and fiscal instruments as possible supplementary measures to be considered in the PoM. It approaches water pricing from two different angles: a cost‐recovery angle (do the revenues collected from the instrument cover costs of services?); and an efficiency and effectiveness angle (does the instrument provide an incentive for more efficient water use that will contribute to the achievement of the environmental objectives of the WFD?). It also refers to a wide range of costs to be considered, i.e. the financial costs of water services that are traditionally computed as part of wastewater or drinking water projects, and the environmental and resource costs that account for the remaining degradation of the aquatic environment. The key question with these costs is whether they are internalized in one way or another in somebody’s decisions.

Republic of Armenia water sector legislation also refers to economic and financial mechanisms in water management. Thus, Article 5 of the Water Code of Armenia, which outlines the main principles of management, use and protection of water resources and water systems, states that water has environmental and economic value when it is used and even when it is not used. According to that article, the economic value of the water is mainly formed from the sum of the drinking, environmental, energy and agricultural values of water. It also mentions that in the processes of water resources use, distribution and protection it is necessary to take into consideration the economic value of water. Article 76 of the Water Code of Armenia refers t the principles of economic regulation of use, restoration and protection of water resources, water supply and sanitation systems. This article stresses the requirement for efficient water allocation and proper water pricing. Article 9 of the Water Code of Armenia relates to water use tariffs, including the principles of forming regulatory tariffs. It highlights that tariffs can be different according to river basins, according to different water use groups and according to qualitative indicators, contingent upon the classification of water resources.

Currently the above‐mentioned principles are not fully applied due to lack of data on environmental and economic valuation of water in Armenia, as well as taking into consideration several socio‐economic circumstances. Among the main economic mechanism applied in the water management field of Armenia nowadays is the water abstraction fee and environmental (pollution) fee, which aim at ensuring rational use and fair distribution of water resources, as well as maintaining minimum environmental flow. Water abstraction fee is applied for drinking‐household, irrigation, fish‐farming sectors, and the environmental fee is applied for discharges of wastewater into open water basins.

13.2. Approach

The assessment of the financial deficit within the draft RBMP for the Akhuryan RBD was been conducted according to the requirements of the Government of Armenia Protocol Session Resolution No 4 of February 3, 2011 “On Approving the Outline of the Model Water Basin Management Plan”.

155 The main approach for the analysis is line with the approach applied in the study “Facilitating the Reform of Economic Instruments of Water Management in Armenia: Final Report” conducted by OECD EAP Task Force in 2014. The study analysed in detail the existing system of water abstraction and environmental fees in Armenia and suggested reforming the level and structure of the fees, at the same time carefully assessing the possible socio‐economic and environmental impacts of such reforms.

For information on revenues generated from the water abstraction and environmental fees in the Akhuryan RBD data from the National Statistical Service of Armenia (http://www.armstat.am) and the Ministry of Nature Protection of Armenia (http://www.mnp.am) was used. The approximate estimate of Government agency expenditures (in Akhuryan RBD) was obtained from the information available at http://www.e‐ gov.am, as well as consultation with experts of relevant fields. Data on water use permits was obtained from the Akhuryan Water Basin Management Authority of WRMA of the MNP of Armenia. Information on subsidies allocated to sectoral services was taken from the Republic of Armenia laws “On RA State Budget of 2015” and “On RA State Budget of 2014”. Also the estimates of the OECD study team were used in assessing the optimal water resources management, monitoring and compliance assurance costs.

The assessment of financial deficit in the Akhuryan RBD included the following: deficit in optimal management, monitoring and compliance assurance of water resources management; deficit in provision of sectoral services; and deficit in implementing the program of measures of the river basin management plan. The analysis of financial deficit included state budget allocations for water management, monitoring and compliance assurance (for Akhuryan RBD), state budget subsidies to organizations in charge of irrigation water supply and drinking water supply and sanitation, revenues collected from water abstraction and environmental fees, as well as fines and penalties. The discussion of deficit, in addition to its identification, includes also options to cover the deficit, taking into consideration the existing benchmarks and possibility to increase financing from different sources.

13.3. Assessment of Financial Deficit

13.3.1. Financial Flows in Water Management Sector

Current financial mechanisms for water management were established by Article 79 of the Armenian Water Code, adopted in 2002. The Code introduced several criteria for differentiating water sources and, as a result, abstraction rates differ depending on source (surface water, Lake Sevan, groundwater suitable for drinking, ground water not suitable for drinking). At present, water abstraction and environmental/ pollution fees are regulated by the same permit.

Direct state State Budget subsidies to water‐related projects Direct state State budget Revenues from Revenues subsidies to allocation to abstraction & from fines water supply & Direct state water pollution charges & penalties sewage/WWT subsidies to management irrigation

Local communities Water Water supply & Industry Irrigation administration sewage/WWT systems Fish Hydropower farms Water Environmental charges, fines etc

Households Farmers

Figure 66: Financial flows in water management sphere (Source: OECD, EAP Task Force, “Facilitating the Reform of Economic Instruments for Water Management in Armenia: Final Report”, 2014)

156 According to the 1997 Republic of Armenia law “On Budgetary Systems”, all water fees, including water abstraction fees and environmental fees are obligatory payments to the state budget with a purpose of generating revenues to be used for implementation of environmental measures.

In general, the analysis of financial flows in recent years revealed that 90% of the revenues from abstraction charges, pollution charges, and water‐related fines and penalties, are re‐directed to water resources management and monitoring agencies12. And these financial resources are used to cover the expenditures for water management activities

13.3.2. Water Abstraction Fee

The main management objective for application of water abstraction fees in Armenia is to ensure rational use and efficient allocation of water resources, and to maintain minimum environmental flow. The fee is applied to drinking‐household, industrial, irrigation, and fisheries sectors. It is one of the key economic instruments applied in water management of Armenia.

Rates for water abstraction fees currently applied are defined according to Government Decision No. 864 of December 30, 1998 and its further amendments (1999, 2001, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2009, 2010) ''On Rates for Natural Resources Use''.

Table 111: Water use fees (in AMD)

Sector drinking drinking suitable from Groundwater, Groundwater, not suitable for Surface water, excluding Lake Sevan Surface water, Lake Sevan Fish farming13 1 1.5 1 1 Industry 0.5 1.5 1 1 Drinking‐household (excl. local authorities and water supply companies) 0.5 1.5 1 1 Drinking‐household (local authorities and water supply companies) 0.025 1.5 0.05 1 Irrigation 0 0.2 1 0 Source: Government of Armenia Decision No 864 ''On Rates for Natural Resources Use'' (December 30, 1998)

The procedures for calculation of water abstraction fees are outlined in the Republic of Armenia law “On Environmental and Natural Resources Use Fees”, adopted by the National Assembly of Armenia on December 28, 1998 (further amended in 2000, 2001, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2008, 2010, 2011, 2013, 2014, 2015).

The current system of water abstraction fees has several drawbacks. Several water use sectors are completely of partially exemption from water abstraction fees. The existing system does not take into consideration the relative abundance or scarcity of water resources (supply and demand, seasonal variations), which is required by the Water Code of Armenia. Moreover, it only takes a partial consideration of the economic value of water (according to water use sector and according to the quality of water used). For example, hydropower sector does not pay any water abstraction fee. Despite the fact that hydropower sector is considered as non‐consumptive water user, the sector generates economic benefit using water,

12) Water Resources Management Agency, Environmental Impact Monitoring Centre, Hydro‐geological Monitoring Centre, State Environmental Inspectorate, Armenian State Hydrometeorological and Monitoring Service. 13) According to Article 9 of the Republic of Armenia law “On Nature Protection and Nature Utilization Payments”, fish farms pay water abstraction fees only on 5% of overall volumes extracted. On December 12, 2013 the law was revised, and according to the revised version of the law, the fish‐farms in Ararat and Armavir marzes of Armenia pay water abstraction fees on 50% of the overall volumes extracted.

157 whereas is received the main resource – water, free of charge. As for drinking‐household sector, special lower rate (0.025 AMD/m3 instead of 1 AMD/m3) was introduced for drinking water supply companies over 10 years ago, whereas they are considered significant water users.

In addition to the above‐mentioned, water abstraction fee is calculated based on the actual water use, instead of the permitted quantity. The comparison of the water use permits issued by the WRMA in the last years and the actual water use shows that over 970 mln AMD water abstraction fees are “lost”, since he “reserved” but not used quantity could have been used by other water users.

13.3.3. Environmental Fees

The payments associated with discharging wastewater into the open water basin (environmental fees/pollution fees) are regulated according to the Republic of Armenia Law “On Rates for Environmental Fees” adopted by National Assembly on December 20, 2006.

Table 112: Environmental fees: unitary rates (per ton of pollutant discharge) Substance Fee, AMD Suspended Particles 5 300 Ammonium Nitrogen 5 100 Biological Oxygen Demand 18 400 Oil Products 204 600 Copper 1 023 900 Zinc 1 023 900 Potassium 100 Chloride 30 Nitrites 511 500 Nitrates 1100 Total Phosphorous 40 000 Detergents 102 300 Heavy Metal Salts 511 500 Cyan and Cyanide Compound 511 500 Source: Republic of Armenia law “On Rates for Environmental Fees”, 2006

Apart from the pollutant mentioned in the table above, there are also payments associated to discharges of dangerous substances and compounds, for which the actual discharge exceeds the allowed marginal discharge volumes as indicated by water use permits conditions, or for which the water use permit condition does not indicate any allowed marginal discharges. Finally, for discharge of pollutants into Lake Sevan Basin, as well as Hrazdan and Getar River in the territory of Hrazdan canyon the rates mentioned in the table above are doubled (except for the water supply companies).

The current system of environmental fees, like the system of water abstraction fees, has several drawbacks. Thus, the levels of fees and penalties do not promote at all efficient water use, and do not encounter the full environmental and resource value. The low level of environmental fees and low capacities of compliance assurance organizations do not promote the polluters to reduce discharge of pollutants. Moreover, the environmental fees do not take into consideration the quality of recipient water body, which is a requirement of the Water Code of Armenia.

13.3.4. Financial Deficit in Akhuryan RBD

The analysis of 2014‐2015 data shows that about 54% of the revenues collected from water abstraction and environmental fees, as well as fines and penalties in the Akhuryan RBD, are allocated to water resources

158 management and monitoring organizations14. Thus, the total revenues collected from water abstraction fees, environmental fees and fines and penalties for damaging water bodies in 2015 in Akhuryan RBD composed about 238,500 Euro, whereas allocation to Akhuryan RBD for overall water resources management (Akhuryan WBMA of the WRMA), monitoring (Environmental Impact Monitoring Centre, Hydrogeological Monitoring Centre, Armenian State Hydrometeorological and Monitoring Service) and compliance assurance (State Environmental Inspectorate) in 2015 approximately composed 128,000 Euro. However, these allocations are not enough for proper implementation of the above‐mentioned functions. Thus, according to the estimates of the OECD study “Facilitating the Reform of Economic Instruments of Water Management in Armenia: Final Report” (2014) it is necessary to increase the financial allocations to the above‐mentioned agencies: 8 times to WBMAs; 3.3 times to environmental inspectorates; 2.5 times and 1.7 times respectively to surface water quantity monitoring and quality monitoring; and 2.3 times to groundwater quantity and quality monitoring. Thus, for proper water resources management, monitoring and compliance assurance in the Akhuryan RBD it is necessary to annually allocated around 397,000 Euro. Thus, taking into consideration the revenues collection from water abstraction and environmental fees, as well as fines and penalties, the annual deficit for water monitoring, monitoring and compliance assurance in Akhuryan RBD composes about 158,500 Euro.

The financial deficit in sectoral services is much larger. Thus, irrigation water supply agencies (“Akhuryan‐ Araks Intake” CJSC) and all Water Users Association of Akhuryan RBD received about 4,682,000 Euro subsidy in 2015, to cover the operation and maintenance costs. Subsidies to cover the operation and maintenance costs of drinking water supply services (“ArmWaterSewerage” CJSC, “Nor Akunq” CJSC, “Shirak Water and Sewarage” CJSC) in Akhuryan RBD in 2015 composed approximately 3,387,000 Euro.

Finally, for implementation of the program of measures envisaged in the RBMP of Akhuryan RBD, it is necessary to allocate around 60,709,000 Euro, which, taking into consideration the 6‐year planning cycle of the program of measures, will make an annual deficit of approximately 10,118,000.

The table below summarizes the financial deficit in Akhuryan RBD for proper water resources management, monitoring, compliance assurance, provision of sectoral services, as well as implementing the program of measures envisaged by the RBMP.

Table 113: Financial Deficit in Akhuryan RBD in the Period of 2016‐2021 Sector Annual deficit, EUR Management, monitoring and compliance assurance 158500 Drinking water supply and sanitation 3387000 Irrigation water supply 4682000 Implementation of program of measures of the RBMP 10,118,000 Total 18,345,500

13.4. Recommendations to Cover the Deficit

Very low level of water abstraction and environmental (pollution) fees, as well as the unfair distribution of the fees among the different water user groups show the improper application of the “polluter pays” and “beneficiary pays” principles, despite the fact, that these principles are among the pillars of the current water sector legislation in Armenia and are also compliant to the EU WFD approaches. According to the principle “Polluter pays” economic sectors, which pollute water resources must adequately contribute to the environmental costs of pollution. According to the principle “Beneficiary‐pays”, beneficiaries of water services (as well as other benefits linked to sound water management) must adequately contribute to the

14) Water Resources Management Agency, Environmental Impact Monitoring Centre, Hydrogeological Monitoring Centre, State Environmental Inspectorate, State Hydrometeorological and Monitoring Service.

159 provision of these services. This principle is closely linked to the concept of cost‐recovery: the costs of providing water services must in fact be covered by the beneficiaries of such services (i.e. water users).

As the analysis in the previous section showed, the financial deficit in Akhuryan RBD, including implementation of the program of measures of the RBMP, composes approximately 18,345,500 Euro annually. This amount apparently cannot be covered from the financial sources currently allocated to Akhuryan RBD, and particularly the state budget allocations.

In order to cover the deficit it is proposed to take into account the following observations and considerations:

Water abstraction and environmental fees are based on actual water use and discharge of pollutants, rather than on permitted quantities. Thus, management of the system requires high administrative capacities and implies significant expenses. This does not promote the water users to provide realistic needs when applying for water use permits, and such situation indirectly hinders to provision of additional water use permits, which could promote the socio‐economic development of the country, at the same time generating additional benefit through water abstraction15. In case of application of this principle, two options are possible: a) water users will ask for less water; b) the current permitted quantity will largely remain unchanged. In case of option a) the experts of the WRMA strongly believe that there will be other water users, who will apply for permit, since nowadays many water users are denied of the permit due to high competition and insufficient water resources in many water bodies of the country. Thus, both in case of option a) and option b) significant amount of revenue can be generated, in addition to reduction of administrative costs.

It is proposed to extend the water abstraction fee also to the non‐consumptive water users with the rate at 10% of the rate for other types of water uses to account for its non‐consumptive character. However, in order not to risk the sector, it is proposed to exempt from the fee the hydropower plants with nominal production of up to 100 kW, and apply the fee to larger HPPs. Taking into consideration the fact that the average water abstraction fee in Armenia is 1 AMD/m3, for HPPs the rate of 0.1 AMD/m3 can be applied16. Application of such approach will not have significant impact on the electricity tariffs the households pay. Thus, on average, 1 m3 of water produces 4 kWh, and taking into consideration the average price of 4 kWh electricity obtained from hydropower, the potential increase is calculated. By imposing an abstraction fee of 0.1 AMD/m3, the average price of electricity produced by HPPs is calculated. Currently, 40% of the electricity consumed in the country is produced by HPPs. Taking this into account, an increase of 1.6% of HPP electricity prices would roughly correspond to an increase of 0.64% of overall electricity prices, as well as an equal increase of household expenditure on electricity.

As for environmental fees, according to Article 2 of the Republic of Armenia law “On Rates for Environmental Fees” (2006), for discharge of pollutants into Lake Sevan Basin, as well as Hrazdan and Getar River in the territory of Hrazdan canyon the rates of environmental fees are doubled. OECD study proposed to revise this approach and multiple the rate of environmental fees y 5 for all water bodies of Armenia, which are under risk due to quality. Similar approach can be applied also for those water bodies of Akhuryan RBD, which are under risk in terms of quality17. According to estimates, in case of applying the proposed approach for Akhuryan RBD the drinking water bill for average household will increase up to 5.6%.

15) According to preliminary expert estimates, the ”lost” income of water abstraction fees in 2014 in Akhuryan RBD composed about 320,000 Euro. 16) In case of applying the proposed rate on HPPs with capacity of over 100 kWt about 90,000 Euro additional revenue will be generated annually in Akhuryan RBD. 17) According to rough estimates, application of such approach will make it possible to annually generate about 260,000 Euro of additional income in Akhuryan RBD.

160 Special water abstraction rates are applied for organizations in charge of drinking‐household water supply, taking into consideration the need to support financial strengthening and rehabilitation of the water supply companies. However, this was done 10 years ago, when Armenia was trying to attract international operations, whereas nowadays there is a need to revise those special, low rates. Even in case of increase of the rate of water abstraction fees for drinking‐household water supply companies by 10 times, there will be no affordability issues18. At present, abstraction fees account for 0.34% of the total water bill; after the reform, such fees would account for 1 of the total bill, which is still a negligible share.

Thus, in case of implementing the above‐mentioned measures the annual deficit in water sector of Akhuryan RBD will be reduced by about 730,000 Euro, without posing any significant social and economic impact on economic actors and households. As discussed in the OECD study “Facilitating the Reform of Economic Instruments of Water Management in Armenia: Final Report”, there are several other proposed reforms in economic instruments for water management, through which it is possible to increase the revenues in water sector, thus reducing the financial deficit.

In order to cover the financial deficit in water sector of Akhuryan RBD it is necessary to explore also additional financial or alternative sources. Thus, for construction of wastewater treatment facilities it might be worth to apply to international financing organizations (The World bank, Asian Development Bank, European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, German KfW Bank, French Development Agency) in order to obtain loans; for improving the management efficiency, implementation of exemplary methods and similar measures, which do not require significant capital costs, it might be worth to apply other donors, active in the sector (European union, United Nations Development Programme, United Nations Economic Commission for Europe, Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, United States Agency for International Development, Japanese International Cooperation Agency), in order to obtain grant money.

18) According to preliminary estimates, application of such approach will make it possible to general 60,000 Euro additional annual income in the Akhuryan RBD.

161 14. COMPETENT AUTHORITIES

The competent authority for the River Basin Management Plan for the pilot Akhuryan River Basin District is the Akhuryan Water Basin Management Authority of the Water Resources Management Agency of the Ministry of Nature Protection of Armenia.

The Water Resources Management Agency was established according to the resolution No 792‐N, May 16, 2002 of Government of Armenia.

The objectives and tasks of the Agency include: water resources management and protection within the framework of the National Water Program, participation in development and implementation of the National Water Program, harmonization of projects implemented in the sector, coordination of the process of introduction of fundamental and applied scientific research on sector, formation of needs of the quantitative and qualitative monitoring of water resources, operation of the state water cadastre on water resources.

The main functions of the Agency include the following: submission of proposals on the development of normative acts related to the sector, classification and assessment of water objects and resources according to water use category, estimation of water resources balance, participation in works on inventory of water resources, assessment of water demand and formation of water resources demand strategy, participation in works on defining environmental flows for water objects, provision of water use permits, approval of the individual quantities of water use and discharge volumes according to defined norms, approval of individual quantitative norms for maximal allowable concentrations of dangerous materials in wastewater discharges into open basins or sewage collectors, and provision of corresponding permits, conclusion of agreements on water abstraction from water objects and on wastewater discharge into water objects.

The Akhuryan Water Basin Management Authority of the Water Resources Management Agency has 3 employees. The main functions of the Akhuryan Water Basin Management Authority include the following: classification and assessment of water objects and resources according to water use category, participation in development of water resources balance, participation in inventory of water objects, participation in assessment of water demand and formation of water resources demand, participation in defining environmental flows for water objects, participation in provision of water use permits, calculation of water abstraction and water discharge volumes based on defined norms, participation in approval of individual quantitative norms for maximal allowable concentrations of dangerous materials in the wastewater discharges into open basin or sewage collector, and in providing corresponding permits, participation in formulation of agreement on water abstraction from water objects and on wastewater discharge into water objects.

Large parts of the development of water basin management plans shall be implemented with the support of the Akhuryan Water Basin Management Authority employees. In certain cases there will be a need to use consulting services, which can be also be provided by other stakeholder organizations.

The Akhuryan Water Basin Management Authority can participate in the development of the water basin management plan through the following components:

162

collection of data for characterization of the river basin, provision of data on water use permits in the water River Basin District, identification of illegal water use, public discussions on draft river basin management plan.

163 ANNEXES

Annex 1. Abbreviations

AWB Artificial Water Body BAT Best Available Technologies BOD Biological Oxygen Demand CIS Common Implementation Strategy CJSC Closed Joint‐Stock Company COD Chemical Oxygen Demand EQR Ecological Quality Ratio EIMC Environmental Impact Monitoring Centre EPIRB Environmental Protection of International River Basins ERICA European Rivers and Catchment Areas coding system EU European Union GAP Good Agricultural Practice GIS Geographic Information Systems GWB Groundwater Body ha Hectare HMWB Heavily Modified Water Body HPP Hydro‐Power Plant IWRM Integrated Water Resources Management JFS Joint Field Survey JSC Joint Stock Company MAC Maximum Allowable Concentration MNP Ministry of Nature Protection NIM National Institute of Metrology PoM Programme of Measures POP Persistent Organic Pollutant RA Republic of Armenia RBA Rapid Biological Assessment RBD River Basin District RBMP River Basin Management Plan SWC State Water Cadastre ToR Terms of Reference UWWTD Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive WB Water Body WBR Water Body at Risk WFD Water Framework Directive WRMA Water Resources Management Agency WWTP Wastewater Treatment Plant

164

Annex 2. Important Water Management Definitions

Term Explanation Additional measures "Additional measures" is needed where monitoring or other data indicate that the objectives (WFD) set under the WFD Article 4 for the body of water are unlikely to be achieved and the water body is not already addressed in the PoM. Agglomeration According the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive 'agglomeration' means an area where (UWWTD) the population and/or economic activities are sufficiently concentrated for urban waste water to be collected and conducted to an urban waste water treatment plant or to a final discharge point Anthropogenic Influence from human activities on biophysical environments, biodiversity and other resources impact Aquifer Permeable body of rock, which both stores and transports groundwater Artesian aquifer An aquifer in which water rises to the surface due to pressure from overlying layers (impermeable/low‐permeable confining layers) Bad status Large portions of biological communities normally associated with the surface water type under undisturbed conditions are absent. Baseflow The usual, reliable, background level of flow in a river, maintained generally by seepage from groundwater storage, but also by interflow, which means that the river can maintain the base flow during dry periods. With prolonged drought, baseflow itself will diminish Basic measures Basic measures include: a) technical interventions as a minimum needed to reach good status in a water body b) measures deemed appropriate for the purposes of achievement of other WFD articles c) measures required to implement other Community legislation for the protection of water Classification Addressing water bodies to high, good, moderate, poor or bad status based on monitoring data. Competent The authority or authorities identified by the Member States for the application of the rules of authority (WFD) the Water Framework Directive within each River Basin District lying within their territory. Confined aquifer Artesian aquifer Ecological Quality Ratio representing the relationship between the values of the biological parameters observed Ratio for a given body of surface water and values for these parameters in the reference conditions applicable to that body. The ratio shall be represented as a numerical value between zero and one, with high ecological status represented by values close to one and bad ecological status by values close to zero. Decision Support A Decision Support System (DSS) is normally defined as an interactive software‐based system System intended to help decision makers compile useful information from raw data, documents and personal knowledge to identify and solve problems and make decisions. A broader definition: DSS are procedures that combine criteria, models and expert judgement to optimise decisions in terms of cost‐benefit. Deep flow Deep flow is part of the groundwater flow, which through penetrating deep horizon flows outside of a given basin to other basin or flows in from other basin to a given basin. Driver (IMPRESS) An anthropogenic activity that may have an environmental effect (e.g. agriculture, industry) Ecosystem Community of living organisms (plants, animals, microbes) and non‐living components of their environment (e.g. air, water, soil), which interact as a system Flooding Significant watering of a territory due to significant increase of water level in the river. Good Status (WFD) Slight changes compared to the natural condition: The values of the biological quality elements for the surface water body type show low levels of distortion resulting from human activity, but deviate only slightly from those normally associated with the surface water body type under undisturbed conditions Groundwater level Level below which rocks and subsoil are saturated with water; corresponds to depth of water table for unconfined aquifers and to level of piezometric head for artesian aquifers (usually in metres from ground surface) High status Little or no sign of anthropogenic disturbance. Investigative – where the reason for any exceedances of water quality standards in a water body is unknown; monitoring (WFD) – to ascertain the magnitude and impacts of accidental pollution. Impact The environmental effect of the pressure (e.g. fish killed, ecosystem modified) (IMPRESS)

165 Term Explanation Interflow The lateral movement of water that occurs in the unsaturated zone. Interflow is the part of stream flow that has infiltrated the ground but has not entered the zone of saturation. International River In the case of an international River Basin District falling entirely within the European Union Basin Management (EU), Member States shall ensure coordination with the aim of producing a single International Plan (WFD) River Basin Management Plan. Landslide Landslides are essential movements of rock massives on mountain slopes, river valleys and artificial inclines due to gravitational force. Macroinverte‐brates Benthic macroinvertebrates are animals that inhabit bottom substrates of freshwater habitats. Benthic = bottom dwelling Macro = large enough to be seen without aid of a microscope Invertebrate = animals without a backbone Measures (WFD) Actions to ensure protection and sustainable use of water and achieve the objectives of the water bodies in the framework of the river basin. Micro HPP HPP with capacity of less than 1 MWt Moderate status Moderate changes compared to the natural condition. Mudflows Mudflows are quick flows of mixture of water, mud, stone and sediments. Multimetric index A multimetric index is based on several characteristics of the biological sample, e.g.: the proportion between sensitive and tolerant forms; abundance of different taxonomic groups; diversity and richness. Operational – assess status of water bodies at risk, monitoring (WFD) – assess any changes in the status of water bodies at risk resulting from the programmes of measures. Persistent Organic Chemical substances that persist in the environment, bioaccumulate through the food web, and Pollutants pose a risk of causing adverse effects to human health and the environment. Phytoplankton Microscopic floating plants, mainly algae, that live suspended in standing or very slow flowing bodies of surface water and that drift about because they cannot move by themselves Poor status Biological communities deviate substantially from those normally associated with the surface water type under undisturbed conditions. Population '1 p.e. (population equivalent)' means the organic biodegradable load having a five‐day Equivalent biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5) of 60 g of oxygen per day (UWWTD) Pressure The direct effect of the driver for example, an effect that causes a change in flow or a change (IMPRESS) in the water chemistry. Reference condition Type specific biological reference conditions shall be established, representing the values of (WFD) the biological quality elements at high ecological status for each surface water body type Response The measures taken to improve the state of the water body (e.g. (IMPRESS) restricting abstraction, limiting point source discharges, developing best practice Guidance for agriculture) River basin (WFD) The area of land from which all surface run‐off flows through a sequence of streams, rivers and, possibly, lakes into the sea at a single river mouth, estuary or delta River Basin District The area of land and sea, made up of one or more neighbouring river basins together with (WFD) their associated groundwaters and coastal waters. River Basin The River Basin Management Plan summarise and present the analysis, characterisation, Management Plan monitoring results and programme of measures in one document, which can be used for the dialogue with the stakeholders (including the public information and consultation) Significant Pressure Any pressure that on its own, or in combination with other pressures, may lead to a failure to (IMPRESS) achieve the specified objective Small HPP HPP with capacity of 1‐6 MWt State The condition of the water body resulting from both natural and (IMPRESS) anthropogenic factors (i.e. physical, chemical and biological characteristics) Status (WFD) The biological or ecological behaviour of a water body supported by hydromorphological and chemical data from the water body. Supplementary Supplementary measures includes: Institutional, awareness, legislation, research, economic measures instruments, education, demonstration projects etc Surface Water Body "Body of surface water" means a discrete and significant element of surface water such as a (WFD) lake, a reservoir, a stream, river or canal, part of a stream, river or canal, a transitional water or

166 Term Explanation a stretch of coastal water. Surveillance ‐ Check results of characterisation. monitoring (WFD) ‐ Input to the design of future monitoring programmes. ‐ To assess long term changes in natural conditions and long term changes resulting from widespread anthropogenic activity. Surface water Rivers, lakes, transitional waters or coastal waters categories (WFD) Topology (WFD) For each surface water category, the relevant surface water bodies within the river basin district shall be differentiated according to type Unconfined aquifer An aquifer which has no pressure where upper boundary and water table coincide; directly overlain by an unsaturated zone or a surface water body Water balance Water balance is a relation of water inflow, outflow and accumulation (change of storage) in any river basins or water bodies in a given period (year, month, decade and other). Water Body A coherent sub‐unit in the river basin (district) to which the environmental objectives of the directive must apply. Hence, the main purpose of identifying “water bodies” is to enable the status to be accurately described and compared to environmental objectives. Water body at risk A water body that is identified as being at risk of failing the environmental quality objectives based upon the characterisation as specified in article 5 of the WFD and results of operational monitoring as specified in article 8 of the WFD. Water table of unconfined aquifer – surface where piezometric level is equal to the atmospheric pressure, at or near the top of the saturated layer

167 Annex 3. Approaches and Methodologies

Pressure‐Impact Analysis The need for conducting analysis of pressures and impacts for the river basin planning is formulated in Article 5 of the EU WFD. Following Article 5 and the EC CIS Guidance Document #3 on the Analysis of Pressures and Impacts (Impress Document), the Driver‐Pressure‐State‐Impact‐Reponses (DPSIR) approach has been implemented within this RBMP to identify significant pressures and to analyse related impacts in. In addition, the EPIRB Guidance document on “Addressing hydromorphology and physico‐chemistry for a Pressure‐Impact Analysis/Risk Assessment according to the EU WFD” (2014) was used.

As the first step, the following drivers have been identified as relevant for the Akhuryan RBD: agriculture fish farming hydropower generation water abstraction for water supply and irrigation industry, services, tourism, transport, and future infrastructure development.

Pressures stemming from these drivers, such as change in the flow regime and discharge and/or chemistry of waters, are analysed according to the following types of pressures: point source pollution, diffuse source pollution and hydromorphological alterations in the Akhuryan RBD.

Chemical, biological and hydromorphological status of the surface water bodies of the Akhuryan RBD were assessed as the next step, and surface water bodies were classified based on the results of the assessment. Assessment of the chemical status was conducted based on ecological norms of water quality in the Akhuryan RBD that was approved by Government Resolution #75‐N in 2011. The biological status of biological quality elements were assessed using Rapid Biological Assessment (RBA) method based on the data on benthic macro‐invertebrate communities. While this approach is not fully WFD compliant, this was applied as a first step towards introduction of the Biological Quality Elements (BQEs), given absence of data on macrophytes, phytoplankton, phytobenthos and fish. The status of hydromorphological quality elements was assessed based on the results of Joint Field Surveys (JFSs) using the classification scheme that had been developed under the EU “Trans‐Boundary River Management Phase II for the Kura River basin – Armenia, Georgia, Azerbaijan” Project, and tested within EPIRB Project in the Akhuryan RBD during the first and second JFSs.

In addition, the “Guidance Document on Addressing Hydromorphology and Physico‐Chemistry for a Pressure‐Impact Analysis/Risk Assessment according to the EU WFD” prepared under the framework of the EPRIB Project was applied for the assessment, based on data availability.

Based on the assessment results, the surface water bodies of the Akhuryan and Metsamor River basins were classified according to chemical, biological and hydromorphological status. For conducting a risk assessment to assess what impacts can put a water body at risk to fail the WFD environmental objectives, data and information contained in the report on “River Basin Analysis of Akhuryan Water River Basin District” prepared for the EPRIB Project were updated and complemented. Additional data was obtained from the Ministries of the Nature Protection, including the Water Resources Management Agency (WRMA) and Akhuryan Water Basin Management Authority, Agriculture, Territorial Administration and Emergency Situations, Shirak, Aragatsotn and Armavir Marz Administrations (Marzpetarans) of Armenia, etc.

168 To analyse pressures from municipal wastewater discharge, the Pressure Indicator 1 of the “Guidance Document on Pressure/Impact Analysis (Risk Assessment) in the EPIRB Project Pilot Basin” was adapted and a simplified model of point source pollution has been applied. This approach was used for assessment of impact of municipal wastewaters on the quality of water resources of the Debed River (“Monitoring program proposal for pilot Debed River basin, in compliance with the principles of the Water Framework Directive, 2011”) and the Aghstev River (“Monitoring program proposal for pilot Aghstev River basin, in compliance with the principles of the Water Framework Directive, 2011”). The impact of wastewater was considered as a point source pressure in Akhuryan RBD, and the assessment of the impact was conducted based on the number of population, according to the methodology described in the work of Novotny V., “Water Quality, Diffuse Pollution and Watershed Management”, 2003. According to that study, a person daily produces the following effects on the water.

Impact of Urban Wastewater according to Population Number

BOD5 60 g/resident*day Suspended particles (SP) 90 g/ resident*day Phosphorus 3 g/ resident*day

Nitrogen total 15.5 gN/ resident*day Ammonium 10.3 g/ resident*day Source: Novotny V., “Water Quality, Diffuse Pollution and Watershed Management”, 2003

According to these values, the pressure from population of cities was calculated, based on the number of population. Subsequently, having the volume of wastewater, the concentrations (mg/l) of the above mentioned components in wastewater were calculated. Having the inflow rate of the aforementioned components in wastewater, as well as the value of minimum river flow, it is possible to calculate the expected concentration of each component in the river water, using the simplified model. Pollutant concentration (C) in the location of the point pressure in river water was calculated by using the following formula: C = (Q0C0+Q1C1)/(Q0+Q1), where Q0 is the river discharge before the source pressure point, C0 is the pollutant concentration in the same point of the river water, Q1 is the volume of wastewaters discharged in the location of pressure, C1 is the pollutant concentration in wastewaters.

Following the same logic, the concentration of pollutants penetrated into the river flow through water discharge was calculated, which were viewed as a quantity of point pressure:

C=Q1C1/(Q0+Q1). In order to assess the pressure of municipal wastewater discharge, an approach taking into account the number of population was used. Weather is a variable included to calculate the BOD5 value. According to the Water Quality Guidelines Memorandum #1 of 1978, 1mg/l of BOD5 is considered as a maximum permissible amount in summer low water conditions and any exceedances is viewed as a significant pressure. Based on the well‐known standard, according to which the BOD5 load discharged by wastewaters is calculated to be N*60g/day, where N is the number of population, the concentration (C) of this pollutant was calculated at the point of discharge in river water by the following formula:

C=((60*N*1000)/ (24*60*60)) / Q0 mg/l

Risk Assessment Impacts of the pressures and their possible risks on water status have been assessed by using the following data available: Hydromorphological monitoring data; Physico‐chemical and chemical monitoring data: Results of chemical‐physical monitoring from 11 observation posts of the Environmental Impact Monitoring Centre (EIMC) of the MNP (8 posts in the Akhuryan River basin and 3 posts in the Metsamor River basin); Results of the first round of the JFS (June 2013) from 20 sampling points;

169 Results of the second round of JFS (July 2014) from 20 sampling points; Statistical data on social and economic setting.

The overall approach has been based on the “Draft Guidance Document on Addressing Hydromorphology and Physico‐Chemistry for a Pressure‐Impact Analysis/Risk Assessment According to the EU WFD”, (2014) by the EPIRB project.

The identification of Surface Water Bodies (rivers and lakes) is based on the risk indicators and criteria recommended in the “Guidance Document on Addressing Hydromorphology and Physico‐Chemistry for a Pressure‐Impact Analysis/Risk Assessment according to the EU WFD”(prepared by EPIRB Project, 2014), which have been adapted taking into consideration data availability in Armenia.

Main pollution sources were assessed using the following indicators: Two pressure indicators for pollution from municipal wastewater sources (including industrial wastewater sources as far as possible) and Two pressure indicators for diffuse agricultural pollution sources.

Pressure Indicator 1: Untreated wastewater This pressure indicator describes the untreated wastewater load in relation to the annual minimum flow. Dww expresses the dilution of wastewater in a river water body. The pressure indicator helps to categorize the (raw) wastewater loads and rank them according to the magnitude of the expected impact on water status. Priority ranking and the classification of hot spots may be based on this indicator combined with information on the size of the impacted river stretch and magnitude of the pressure.

The indicator can be calculated to analyse pressures according to the following equation: Dww = L / Qmin,r Description of used variables:

Dww : Specific wastewater discharge into the respective river water body L : Total (dimensionless) load equivalent originating from wastewater discharge into the river in terms of (1) organic matter as BOD; and (2) number of inhabitants connected to the sewerage system

This load equivalent (L) is discharged at a distinct location (point source) to the river. The total load equivalent is expressed as calculated dimensionless number L, using either the number of connected inhabitants or – in case loads are given ‐ population equivalents, based on 1 PE BOD = 60g/d 19, 1PE = 1 person connected to the sewerage system.

Pressure Indicator 2: Likelihood for diffuse pollution (Driver: Agriculture) This indicator describes the likelihood of diffuse pollution including typical agricultural contaminants, such as nutrients from fertilisers, pesticides and other plant protection products. The indicator uses a general variable for the quantification of agricultural activities. Therefore not only general physic‐chemical influences are covered but also other impacts that may go along with agriculture, such as pollution with agriculture related priority substances.

The indicator is calculated to analyse pressures according to the following equation: Sagri = Aagri / AWB Description of equation: o Sagri : Share of agricultural area in Akhuryan River basin catchment and Metsamor River basin catchment20 2 o AWB : Catchment area [km ]

19 For reasons of data availability pressures from untreated municipal wastewater were analysed by BOD only. 20 Due to a lack of disagregated data on area with intensive/industrial agriculture, this indicator is applied at the level of entire catchment of the Akhuryan and Metsamor River basins

170 o Aagri : Area used for intensive/industrial agriculture in Akhuryan River basin catchment and Metsamor River basin catchment

Pressure Indicator 3: Likelihood for diffuse pollution (Driver: Animal livestock) This indicator describes the likelihood of diffuse pollution with typical pollutants stemming from animal live stocking, such as nutrients (with potentially toxic (e.g. NH4) or chronic effects (e.g. PO4) that can impact on biological quality elements and organic matter with potentially negative effects on river oxygen regime).

This indicator is calculated to analyse pressures according to the following equation: Ihus = Ue/ AWB Description of equation: o Ihus : Indicator for animal livestock [LU/ha] o Ue : Animal livestock unit o AWB : Catchment area [ha]

Pressure Indicator 4: Total share of wastewater in the river This indicator describes the total share of wastewater that has been discharged to river from its source. It does not specifically show the expected impact on general physico‐chemical parameters but before all it indicates the likelihood of contamination with conservative substances and substances that tend to accumulate in sediment and biota. This pressure indicator gives an overall estimate for the potential contamination with micro pollutants (such as priority substances and specific pollutants).

This indicator is calculated to analyse pressures according to the following equation: Sww = ∑Qww/MQr Description of equation: o Sww : Total share of wastewater in a river at a given cross section along the river 3 o Qww : Total of all (current/future) upstream wastewater discharges into the river [m /s] 3 o MQr : Mean annual flow of the river [m /s] The Risk criteria used for pressure indicators are as follows:

1. Untreated Wastewater

Risk Category Risk Criteria

At Risk Dww>1,5

Possibly at Risk 1< Dww<1,5

Not at Risk Dww<1

2. Likelihood for diffuse pollution (Driver: Agriculture) Risk Category Risk Criteria

At Risk Sagri > 0,3

Possibly at Risk 0,1 < Sagri< 0,3

Not at Risk Sagri <0,1

3. Likelihood for diffuse pollution (Driver: Animal livestock) Risk Category Risk Criteria

At Risk Ihus>1

Possibly at Risk 0,3 < Ihus< 1

Not at Risk 0 < Ihus< 0,3

171 4. Total share of wastewater in the river Risk Category Risk Criteria

At Risk Sww > 0,1

Possibly at Risk 0,05 < Sww < 0,1

Not at Risk Sww < 0,05

The status of chemical quality elements was assessed based on the analysis of the monitoring data that were collected between 2011‐2013, as well as results of the second round of JFS (July 2014).

The status of biological quality elements (BQEs) was been assessed using Rabid Biological Assessment (RBA) method based on the data on benthic macroinvertebrate communities. However, no inter‐calibration has been undertaken for neither of the South Caucasus countries including Armenia. In addition, only macroinvertebrates have been addressed out of five BQEs and, hence, the assessment contains significant gaps that need to be filled in future.

The status of hydromorphological quality elements was assessed based on the results of JFS using the classification scheme developed under the EU “Trans‐Boundary River Management Phase II for the Kura River basin – Armenia, Georgia, Azerbaijan” Project.

Delineation of Surface Water Bodies and Groundwater Bodies The delineation of water bodies has been based on the requirements of the WFD CIS (Common Implementation Strategy) Guidance Document #2 “Identification of Water Bodies”. In addition, the following Guidance Documents contributed to the delineation of water bodies: CIS Guidance Document #4: "Identification and Designation of Heavily Modified and Artificial Water Bodies". Risk criteria recommended in the “Guidance Document on Addressing Hydromorphology and Physico‐Chemistry for a Pressure‐Impact Analysis/Risk Assessment according to the EU WFD” prepared under the framework of EU EPIRB Project was also applied.

Based on the above, the following steps were taken to delineate surface water bodies and groundwater bodies in Akhuryan RBD: Determination of typology of surface water bodies; Identification and delineation of the surface water bodies at risk to achieve environmental objectives based on the results of the pressure‐impact analysis/risk assessment; Identification and delineation of surface water bodies possibly at risk to achieve environmental objectives; Identification and delineation of artificial water bodies and heavily modified water bodies; Identification and delineation of other water bodies not at risk; Identification of groundwater bodies in the Akhuryan RBD; Characterization of the groundwater bodies by their types; General delineation of groundwater bodies and their classification into two classes: “of good chemical/quantitative status” and “at risk”. The mapping of the delineated water bodies of the Akhuryan RBD was implemented following the provisions and recommendations of EU WFD CIS Guidance Document #9: “Implementing the Geographical Information Systems (GIS) of the Water Framework Directive”. A base map of scale 1:25,000 was used. All the shape files were assembled into a single Geodatabase. The maps were prepared using standard GCS_WGS_1984 projection (Geographic Coordination System of the World Geodetic System) of the UTM coordinate system (Universal Transverse Mercator), Zone 38N.

The delineation of groundwater bodies (GWB) in Akhuryan RBD was based on the conceptual presentation of the groundwater system and the analysis of human impacts conducted during the previous stages of the

172 EPIRB Project. According to the WFD, where there were insufficient data to prove that GWB is of poor status, it was assigned good status.

Setting Environmental Objectives Setting environmental objectives for surface water and groundwater bodies is the key step of the river basin management planning process. It is targeted at achieving good ecological status for all delineated water bodies in the Akhuryan RBD by means of developing and implementing measures to: Maintain high and/or good status for water bodies with high/good status; Achieve good status for those water bodies with water status lower than good and maintain it; Achieve good status by 2021 or 2027 for water bodies at risk, based on the current water status and maintain it; Achieve good status by 2021 for water bodies possibly at risk and maintain it; Meet specific requirements for protected areas.

The environmental objectives for surface water and groundwater bodies of the Akhuryan RBD were set for two 6‐year planning cycles: 2021 and 2027. 2015 was set as the starting point to implement the measures for achieving the set objectives.

The environmental objectives were set based on the findings of the Pressure‐Impact Analysis, the risk assessment and related to the delineated water bodies. In addition, monitoring results have supported the task as far as available (results of national monitoring, as well as of field surveys conducted within the framework of the EPIRB Project in the Akhuryan RBD).

Environmental objectives were set for each delineated water body in terms of good status to be achieved and maintained by 2021 and 2027. For heavily modified and artificial water bodies the environmental objectives were set in terms of having the EU WFD compliant assessment system in place by 2021 and reaching good ecological potential in the subsequent planning cycle (by 2027). Environmental objectives in terms of maintaining high and good water status by 2021 and 2027 were also set for water bodies with high and good status.

Following the requirements of Article 4 of the WFD and in close consultation with the representatives of the basin management authority, Shirak and Armavir Marz Administrations, as well as based on expert judgment, exemptions were applied. Less stringent environmental objectives were set for each of the water bodies for the first planning cycle, based on technical non‐feasibility and/or disproportionally expensive cost of the measures to achieve the environmental objectives (EU WFD Article 4).

Specific requirements were set for two protected areas in the Akhuryan RBD – “Lake Arpi” National Park and “Vordan Karmir” State Sanctuary, in terms of having the EU WFD compliant register and Armenian legislation compliant management plan for each of the protected areas in place by 2021 and maintaining requirements set in the management plans in the subsequent planning cycle by 2027. Management plans shall provide measures for meeting the requirements of Armenia’s Law on Specially Protected Natural Areas adopted in 2006.

Programme of Measures After setting environmental objectives for delineated water bodies for the short term (up to 2021) and medium term (up to 2027) planning cycles, the PoM was developed as the “management and implementation tool” to describe how the environmental objectives and, hence, good water status will be achieved in the Akhuryan RBD. Basic and supplementary measures were identified accordingly including actions, regulative mechanisms, legal and financial instruments that ensure implementation of the measures.

The specific measures under the PoM address those Significant Water Management Issues, which have been identified during the river basin characterisation phase, and confirmed and further modified based on

173 the outcomes of the Pressure‐Impact Analysis and risk assessment. In terms of spatial coverage, separate measures were proposed for each water body (surface or groundwater) that were categorized as water body at risk or water body possible at risk.

The PoM includes: (1) Basic Measures, which are aimed at preventing the degradation of water status in water bodies, ensuring stepwise improvement as well as maintenance of water status in water bodies and enhancing national water management in relation to water uses (permits; licences); and (2) Supplementary Measures, which are based on gaps that have been identified during the development of the RBMP and are aimed at improving monitoring, national legislation and technical/personnel capacities to ensure WFD compliant implementation in future.

Economic Analysis and Prioritization of Measures Costing of basic and supplementary measures targeted at achieving environmental objectives for surface and groundwater bodies in the Akhuryan RBD during the first and the following six‐year‐planning cycles, as well as prioritizing the measures based on the effectiveness is a key step of the river basin management planning process. This step provides the national government and other decision makers with preliminary information on costs and outcomes of adoption and implementation of the PoM as a part of the river basin management plans, as well as allows for more realistic planning of the respective budgets and prioritization of measures.

Preliminary costs for implementing the proposed basic and supplementary measures in the Akhuryan and Metsamor River basins were estimated based on the comparative analysis of costs for implementing similar measures as a part of public expenditures or donor supported initiatives, localization of respective financial and cost estimates conducted by various institutions, as well as consultations and discussions conducted with respective authorities.

After conducting the preliminary cost estimates of the PoM, the effectiveness analysis was conducted as the next step and implementation of measures was prioritised based on budget availability and win‐win situation identified by expert judgement in terms of ecological effectiveness of the measures.

Preliminary costing of measures and effectiveness analysis were conducted following the approaches outlined in Articles 9 and 11, as well as Annex III of the of the EU WFD, as well as steps and methodologies recommended in the draft guidance document on “Prioritizing Selected Programme of Measures and Simplified Cost Effectiveness Analysis” prepared within the framework of the EPIRB Project. Preliminary assessments and analyses were adapted to meet the minimum planning requirements with application of principles and approaches outlined to the extent possible within data and information, as well as time available.

Costs estimates and effectiveness analysis for basic and supplementary measures targeted at achieving environmental objectives for surface and groundwater bodies in the Akhuryan RBD are very preliminary, and aimed at providing with very general overview of the costs associated with implementation of the basin management plan. Final costing and cost‐effectiveness analysis for the measures must be further detailed and finalized at the stage of implementing respective measure after adoption of the management plan.

174 Annex 4. List of Hydrochemical Parameters of Surface Water Quality, Testing Standards, Norms and Equipment Employed by EIMC

Standards and # Quality parameter Method Equipment norms 1‐2 Air/Water temperature YSI WQMM 6600, or 3 Turbidity pH/ion/mV/T, sens ION 4 Total dissolved salts Electro‐chemical 378i, or WTW 340 5 Electrical conductivity Electro‐chemical ISO 7888 6 pH Potentiometric ISO 10523 7 Dissolved oxygen Amperometric ISO 5814:1990;

8 BOD5 Electro‐chemical ISO 5815 9 Suspended solids Gravimetric ISO 11923 Weights “OHAUS Voyager”

10 COD Transpiration Cr2O7 ISO 6060 11 Hardness Titrimetric Manual for 12 Carbonate Titrimetric Chemical Analysis 13 Hydrocarbonate Titrimetric of Wastewaters ‐ 77 14 Nitrate Ion chromatograph ISO 10304 “DIONEX1000” ion 15 Nitrite Ion chromatograph chromatograph 16 Phosphate Ion chromatograph ISO 10304 17 Chloride Ion chromatograph ISO 10304 18 Sulfate Ion chromatograph ISO 10304 19 Ammonium Spectro‐photometric ISO 7150‐1 Perkin Elmer, Lambda 35 20 Petrolium products Gas chormatograph ISO 9377‐4 Perkin Elmer Clarus 400FID 21‐24 Benzene, toluene, aromatizers Gas chormatograph ISO11423‐2 Perkin Elmer Clarus 400 FID 25‐30 DDT, DDE, DDD, heptachlorine, Gas chormatograph ISO 6468 VARIAN CP 3800 ECD lindane, heptachlorcyclohexane 31‐54 Al, Ca, P, Fe, Mn, Pb, Zn, B, Ni, Cd, Spectrometric method ISO 17294 Spectrometer “ELAN Co, Cu, Cr, Mg, Mo, Sn, Se, Ti, Ba, 9000 ICP Mass‐ K, Na, V, Bi spectrometer” Potentially introduced analysis 55 Total organic carbon Elementary test ISO 8245:2000 Elementary 1000 56 Total nitrogen Elementary test ISO 8245:2000 57 Hg ICP MS ISO 17294 Spectrometer “ELAN 9000 ICP Mass‐ spectrometer” 58‐91 WFD primary substances Gas chormatograph ISO 10695 Gas chromotograph/ Aggilent 6890A/5975 C spectrometer 92‐99 Specific pollutants Gas chormatograph

175 Annex 5. Surface Water Quality Norms in Rivers of Akhuryan RBD21

Akhuryan River basin Unit of Category Quality category/indicator measure excellent good moderate poor bad Dissolved oxygen mg/l >7 >6 >5 >4 <4

BOD5 mg/l 3 5 9 18 >18 COD‐ Cr mg/l 10 25 40 80 >80 Ammonium ion mg N /l 0.057 0.4 1.2 2.4 > 2.4 Nitrite ion mg N /l 0.007 0.06 0.12 0.3 >0.3 Nitrate ion mg N /l 0.463 2.5 5.6 11.3 >11.3 Orthophosphate ion mg/l 0.085 0.1 0.2 0.4 > 0.4 Total phosphorus mg/l 0.086 0.2 0.4 1 >1 Total mineral nitrogen mg/l 0.8 4 8 16 >16 Suspended particles mg/l 25 30 50 100 >100 Copper, total µg/l 3 23 50 100 >100 Chromium, total µg/l 2.1 12.1 100 250 >250 Arsenium, total µg/l 0.42 20 50 100 >100 Cadmium, total µg/l 0.6 1.6 2.6 4.6 >4.6 Lead, total µg/l 0.9 10.9 25 50 >50 Nickel, total µg/l 2.9 12.9 50 100 >100 Molybdenum, total µg/l 0.97 1.94 3.88 7.76 >7.76 Manganese, total µg/l 26 52 104 208 >208 Vanadium, total µg/l 10.6 21.2 42.4 84.8 >84.8 Cobalt, total µg/l 0.67 1.34 2.68 5.36 >5.36 Iron, total mg/l 0.78 1.56 0.5 1 >1 Calcium mg/l 26.7 100 200 300 >300 Magnesium mg/l 8.4 50 100 200 >200 Barium µg/l 35.6 71.2 142.4 1,000 >1,000 Beryllium µg/l 0.04 0.08 0.16 100 >100 Potassium µg/l 2.88 5.76 11.52 23.04 >23.04 Sodium µg/l 13.2 26.4 52.8 105.6 >105.6 Lithium µg/l 8.6 8.6 <2,500 >2,500 Boron µg/l 180.2 450 700 1,000 >1,000 Aluminum µg/l 800 1,600 3,200 5,000 >5,000 Selenium, total µg/l 0.31 20 40 80 >80 Antimony, total µg/l 0.22 0.44 0.88 1.76 >1.76 Tin, total µg/l 0.05 0.1 0.2 0.4 >0.4 Chloride ion mg/l 6.56 13.12 150 200 >200 Sulphate ion mg/l 7.3 14.6 150 250 >250 Silicate ion mg Si/l 13.6 27.2 54.4 108.8 >108.8 Total mineralization mg/l 160 320 1,000 1,500* >1,500 Conductivity µS/cm 245 490 1,000 1,500* >1,500

21) According to Resolution #75‐N of the Government of Armenia “On Defining Water Quality Norms for Each Water River Basin District taking into Consideration the Peculiarities of the Locality”, dated January 27, 2011.

176 Metsamor River basin Unit of Category Quality category/indicator measure excellent good moderate poor bad Dissolved oxygen mg/l >7 >6 >5 >4 <4

BOD5 mg/l 3 5 9 18 >18 COD‐ Cr mg/l 10 25 40 80 >80 Ammonium ion mg N /l 0.080 0.4 1.2 2.4 > 2.4 Nitrite ion mg N /l 0.042 0.06 0.12 0.3 >0.3 Nitrate ion mg N /l 1.720 2.5 5.6 11.3 >11.3 Orthophosphate ion mg/l 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.4 > 0.4 Total phosphorus mg/l 0.174 0.2 0.4 1 >1 Total mineral nitrogen mg/l 2.271 4 8 16 >16 Suspended particles mg/l 6.2 7.5 12.5 25 >25 Zinc, total µg/l 4.0 100 200 500 >500 Copper, total µg/l 3.0 23 50 100 >100 Chromium, total µg/l 2.0 12.0 100 250 >250 Arsenium, total µg/l 4.2 20 50 100 >100 Cadmium, total µg/l 0.01 1.01 2.01 4.01 >4.01 Lead, total µg/l 0.13 10.13 25 50 >50 Nickel, total µg/l 3.0 13.0 50 100 >100 Molybdenum, total µg/l 7 14 28 56 >56 Manganese, total µg/l 29 58 116 232 >232 Vanadium, total µg/l 27 54 108 216 >216 Cobalt, total µg/l 0.4 0.8 1.6 3.2 >3.2 Iron, total mg/l 0.11 0.22 0.5 1 >1 Calcium mg/l 119.8 100 200 300 >300 Magnesium mg/l 76.7 50 100 200 >200 Barium µg/l 71 142 284 1,000 >1,000 Beryllium µg/l 0.024 0.048 0.096 100 >100 Potassium µg/l 8.31 16.62 33.24 66.48 >66.48 Sodium µg/l 112.89 225.78 451.56 903.12 >903.12 Lithium µg/l 50 50 <2,500 >2,500 Boron µg/l 623 450 700 1,000 >2,000 Aluminum µg/l 50 100 200 5,000 >5,000 Selenium, total µg/l 3.6 20 40 80 >80 Antimony, total µg/l 1.2 2.4 4.8 9.6 >9.6 Tin, total µg/l 0.08 0.16 0.32 0.64 >0.64 Chloride ion mg/l 146.0 292,0 150 200 > 200 Sulphate ion mg/l 193.2 386,4 150 250 > 250 Silicate ion mg Si/l 15.0 30 60 120 >120 Total mineralization mg/l 1,037 2,074 1,000 1,500 >1,500 Conductivity µS/cm 1,595.2 3,190.4 1,000 1,500* >1,500

177 Annex 6. Water Use Permits in the Akhuryan RBD as of 2014

Akhuryan River Basin Abstraction Return WUP # Name Purpose Type Start End volume, 000 volume, 000 m3 m3 7 Basen village administration drinking‐household groundwater 07.02.14 07.02.17 147.0 10 Gyumri brewery industrial groundwater 07.02.12 07.02.15 1.6 33.9 21 Berdashen village administration drinking‐household groundwater 13.03.14 13.03.17 16.5 29 Avan village administration drinking‐household groundwater 29.02.12 29.02.15 154.6 30 Jrarat village administration irrigation groundwater 29.02.12 29.02.15 0.0 33 Bagravan village administration drinking‐household groundwater 01.04.14 01.04.17 47.3 37 Ashotzq cheese factory industrial groundwater 11.03.11 11.03.14 8.9 7.2 42 Gyumri HPP hydropower surface water 15.03.11 15.03.14 44,211.0 44,211.0 42 Shirak village administration drinking‐household groundwater 12.03.13 12.03.16 68.0 44 Jradzor SHHP hydropower surface water 21.03.11 21.03.14 130,521.0 130,521.0 45 Hnaberd village administration irrigation surface water 29.03.12 29.03.15 0.2 53 Grigor Ghazarjan fisheries groundwater 12.04.12 12.04.15 662.3 599.2 55 Pokrashen village administration drinking‐household groundwater 08.04.13 08.04.16 33.5 56 Aparan‐Aragats WUA irrigation surface water 13.04.12 13.04.15 287.1 71 Basen village administration irrigation groundwater 11.05.12 11.05.15 13.7 74 Shirak WUA irrigation surface water 12.04.11 12.04.14 16,880.5 75 Shirak WUA irrigation surface water 12.04.11 12.04.14 1,778.6 76 Shirak WUA irrigation surface water 12.04.11 12.04.14 232.9 78 Shirak WUA irrigation surface water 12.04.11 12.04.14 486.0 79 Shirak WUA irrigation surface water 12.04.11 12.04.14 758.0 80 Shirak WUA irrigation surface water 12.04.11 12.04.14 13,262.7 81 Shirak WUA irrigation surface water 12.04.11 12.04.14 1,618.3 84 Akhuryan‐Araks water abstraction company irrigation surface water 24.08.10 24.08.16 721.7 85 Akhuryan‐Araks water abstraction company irrigation surface water 24.08.10 24.08.16 321.0 86 Akhuryan‐Araks water abstraction company irrigation surface water 24.08.10 24.08.16 8,240.0 87 Akhuryan‐Araks water abstraction company irrigation surface water 24.08.10 24.08.16 369.2 88 Kamo village administration drinking‐household groundwater 04.06.12 04.06.15 138.6 88 Akhuryan‐Araks water abstraction company irrigation surface water 24.08.10 24.08.16 148.0 89 Yerevan water supply division drinking‐household groundwater 14.04.11 14.04.14 348.9 146.4 89 Shirak WUA irrigation surface water 04.06.12 04.06.15 42,612.5

178

Abstraction Return WUP # Name Purpose Type Start End volume, 000 volume, 000 m3 m3 98 Khayts Ishkhan LLC fisheries groundwater 24.06.13 24.06.16 4,949.4 4,620.7 105 Sarnaghbyur village administration drinking‐household groundwater 14.07.12 14.07.15 130.5 107 Mets Sariar village administration drinking‐household groundwater 18.07.12 18.07.15 36.0 122 Agroholding Armenia LLC industrial groundwater 21.08.12 21.08.15 27.2 22.8 124 Agro Eco LLC industrial groundwater 31.07.13 31.07.16 2.6 129 Arevik village administration drinking‐household groundwater 21.08.12 21.08.15 136.8 130 Merdzmoskovyan LLC industrial surface water 22.08.12 22.08.15 35.7 29.3 131 Akhuryan‐Araks water abstraction company irrigation surface water 07.08.13 24.08.16 5,500.0 132 Akhuryan‐Araks water abstraction company irrigation surface water 07.08.13 24.08.16 12,551.0 139 Heghnajur SHPP hydropower surface water 11.09.13 11.09.16 37,843.2 37,275.6 146 Football federation of Armenia irrigation groundwater 20.09.12 20.09.15 56.0 152 Armenian CARITAS industrial groundwater 25.09.13 25.09.16 105.6 155 Akhuryan road construction company industrial surface water 16.05.11 16.05.14 32.7 24.6 167 Vahram Sargsyan fisheries surface water 18.05.11 18.05.14 268.4 255.0 172 Alvar village administration drinking‐household groundwater 22.10.12 22.10.15 12.5 179 Tsaghkut village administration drinking‐household groundwater 14.11.12 14.11.15 15.0 180 Dzorakert village administration drinking‐household groundwater 14.11.12 14.11.15 14.5 196 Jrarat village administration drinking‐household groundwater 08.11.13 08.11.16 107.5 206 H.A.T.M LLC industrial groundwater 19.12.12 19.12.15 4.3 2.0 237 Marmashen SHPP hydropower surface water 01.07.11 01.07.14 220,700.0 220,700.0 251 Lernakert village administration drinking‐household groundwater 18.07.11 18.07.14 206.6 309 Sarnaghbyur village administration irrigation surface water 14.09.11 14.09.14 300.0 354 Berdashen village administration drinking‐household groundwater 26.09.11 26.09.14 91.4 460 L.Hambardzumyan and friends LLC drinking‐household groundwater 13.12.11 13.12.14 5.1 2.6 461 Jajur village administration drinking‐household groundwater 19.12.11 19.12.14 57.7 1665 Konstantin and sisters LLC fisheries groundwater 15.01.08 15.01.14 9,393.3 8,923.6 1699 Akhuryan bread factory industrial surface water 04.03.08 04.03.14 55.7 48.2 1711 Igit LLC industrial groundwater 17.03.08 17.03.14 2019 Shirak water supply company drinking‐household groundwater 01.04.09 01.04.15 2,086.0 155.9 2020 Shirak water supply company industrial groundwater 01.04.09 01.04.15 208.6 2021 Shirak water supply company drinking‐household groundwater 01.04.09 01.04.15 46,730.8 6,414.0

179 Metsamor River Basin Abstraction Return WUP # Name Purpose Type Start End volume, 000 volume, 000 m3 m3 3 Abraham Karapetyan drinking‐household groundwater 12.01.11 12.01.14 1.7 0.18 4 Nairi Saghatelyan fisheries groundwater 16.01.12 16.01.15 2,207.5 2,197.12 5 Aknalich WUA irrigation surface water 13.01.11 13.01.14 432.6 6 Aknalich WUA irrigation surface water 13.01.11 13.01.14 8,046.9 7 Aknalich WUA irrigation groundwater 13.01.11 13.01.14 1,476.9 8 Aknalich WUA irrigation groundwater 13.01.11 13.01.14 3,072.3 9 Aknalich WUA irrigation groundwater 13.01.11 13.01.14 660.5 10 Aknalich WUA irrigation groundwater 13.01.11 13.01.14 1,876.2 11 Aknalich WUA irrigation groundwater 13.01.11 13.01.14 3,967.5 12 Aknalich WUA irrigation surface water 13.01.11 13.01.14 2,807.1 13 Aknalich WUA irrigation surface water 13.01.11 13.01.14 2,354.5 14 Tieras de Armenia LLC industrial groundwater 05.02.13 05.02.16 11.2 2 22 Aknalich WUA irrigation surface water 03.02.11 13.01.14 8,555.9 23 Aknalich WUA irrigation surface water 03.02.11 13.01.14 10,435.6 25 Vachagan Mkrtchyan fisheries groundwater 23.02.12 23.02.15 630.7 567.6 38 Euroterm LLC industrial groundwater 23.03.12 23.03.15 982.1 535.52 41 Feliks Poghosyan fisheries groundwater 26.03.12 26.03.15 2,683.8 2,549.7 42 Gohar Karapetyan fisheries groundwater 27.03.12 27.03.15 567.6 567.6 43 Antaram Mkrtchyan fisheries groundwater 27.03.12 27.03.15 441.5 397.4 44 Vahan Aghamalyan fisheries groundwater 28,03,12 28,03,15 8,758.1 8,320 45 Armavr plant equipment factory industrial groundwater 25.03.13 25.03.16 3.7 1.31 46 Ruben Poghosyan fisheries groundwater 30.03.12 30.03.15 1,339.5 1,202.5 48 Armavir HPP hydropower surface water 15.04.14 15.04.17 48 Agarakavan village administration drinking‐household groundwater 26.03.13 26.03.16 47.4 48 Tigran Baghdasaryan irrigation groundwater 24.03.11 24.03.14 3.6 53 Armenian Nuclear Power Plant industrial surface water 16.06.10 16.06.16 31,472.9 58 Mnatsakan Matevosyan fisheries groundwater 10.04.13 10.04.16 1,339.5 1,205.546 58 Lernarot village administration irrigation groundwater 31.03.11 31.03.14 462.0 59 Rafik Safaryan fisheries groundwater 16.04.12 16.04.15 2,012.9 1,912.24 63 Qnarik Harutyunyan fisheries groundwater 19.04.12 19.04.15 1,576.8 1,419.12 67 Artur Azhdaharyan fisheries groundwater 05.04.11 05.04.14 4,730.4 4,294.3 69 Lilit Andreasyan fisheries groundwater 07.05.12 07.05.15 646.5 599.18 70 Nor Akunq water supply company drinking‐household groundwater 11.04.11 11.04.14 423.2 162.44 71 Nor Akunq water supply company drinking‐household groundwater 11.04.11 11.04.14 4,871.8 1,812.7

180 Abstraction Return WUP # Name Purpose Type Start End volume, 000 volume, 000 m3 m3 76 Seld LLC fisheries groundwater 06.05.13 06.05.16 914.5 914.5 78 Levadan LLC industrial groundwater 07.05.13 07.05.16 56.2 23.8 79 Arkond LLC irrigation groundwater 16.05.12 16.05.15 280.8 82 Bazmaberd village administration drinking‐household groundwater 12.04.11 12.04.14 93.5 85 Zoya Poghosyan fisheries groundwater 22.05.13 22.05.16 473.0 473 90 Ashnak village administration drinking‐household groundwater 06.06.12 06.06.15 233.9 95 Akunq village administration drinking‐household groundwater 19.06.13 19.06.16 88.0 96 Armenian Nuclear Power Plant drinking‐household groundwater 18.04.11 16.06.16 13,395.0 99 Hakob Barseghyan fisheries groundwater 19.04.11 19.04.14 1,607.4 1,272.5 101 Armavir water supply division irrigation groundwater 02.07.12 02.07.15 3,800.0 108 Katnaghbyur village administration drinking‐household groundwater 04.07.13 04.07.16 151.2 119 Kaqavadzor village administration drinking‐household groundwater 26.07.13 26.07.16 47.3 121 Yerevan Brandy Factory industrial groundwater 26.07.13 26.07.16 188.9 154.111 125 Aknalich WUA irrigation groundwater 31.07.13 31.07.16 1,219.8 126 Aknalich WUA irrigation groundwater 31.07.13 31.07.16 611.3 127 Aknalich WUA irrigation groundwater 31.07.13 31.07.16 1,602.3 129 Nor Akunq water supply company drinking‐household groundwater 02.08.13 02.08.16 400.5 135 Sevjur‐Akhtamar WUA irrigation groundwater 20.08.13 20.08.16 2,034.0 136 Sevjur‐Akhtamar WUA irrigation groundwater 20.08.13 20.08.16 429.3 140 Metsamor village administration drinking‐household groundwater 11.09.12 11.09.15 131.4 141 Akvatekhavtomatika LLC fisheries groundwater 11.09.13 11.09.16 6,727.6 6,391.14 143 Kosh SHHP hydropower surface water 11.09.13 11.01.14 149 Dalarik village administration drinking‐household groundwater 11.05.11 11.05. 14 340.5 152 Sevan‐Hrazdan water supply company irrigation surface water 29.11.10 29.11.13 31,840.0 171 Talin WUA irrigation surface water 28.10.13 28.10.16 2,217.6 186 Kosh village administration drinking‐household groundwater 04.11.16 04.11.16 270.0 204 Hovsep Zetilyan fisheries groundwater 14.11.13 14.11.16 946.0 946 209 Avag Ghazaryan fisheries groundwater 18.11.13 18.11.16 4,035.6 3,194.8 221 Norapat village administration irrigation groundwater 21.06.11 21.06.14 120.0 226 Talin WUA irrigation surface water 24.06.11 24.06.14 274.0 227 Talin WUA irrigation groundwater 24.06.11 24.06.14 22.4 228 Talin WUA irrigation groundwater 24.06.11 24.06.14 271.1 229 Talin WUA irrigation groundwater 24.06.11 24.06.14 514.6 230 Talin WUA irrigation surface water 24.06.11 24.06.14 1,558.0 249 Karmrshen village administration irrigation groundwater 15.07.11 15.07.14 941.4

181 Abstraction Return WUP # Name Purpose Type Start End volume, 000 volume, 000 m3 m3 312 Araks village administration irrigationgroundwater 14.09.1114.09.14 5,749.9 315 Merdzapnya WUA irrigation groundwater 15.09.11 15.09.14 720.0 316 Merdzapnya WUA irrigation groundwater 15.09.11 15.09.14 362.2 317 Merdzapnya WUA irrigation groundwater 15.09.11 15.09.14 3,445.8 318 Merdzapnya WUA irrigation groundwater 15.09.11 15.09.14 883.3 319 Merdzapnya WUA irrigation groundwater 15.09.11 15.09.14 278.2 320 Merdzapnya WUA irrigation groundwater 15.09.11 15.09.14 540.0 321 Merdzapnya WUA irrigation groundwater 15.09.11 15.09.14 227.0 322 Merdzapnya WUA irrigation groundwater 15.09.11 15.09.14 749.0 323 Merdzapnya WUA irrigation groundwater 15.09.11 15.09.14 726.6 324 Merdzapnya WUA irrigation groundwater 15.09.11 15.09.14 708.0 325 Merdzapnya WUA irrigation groundwater 15.09.11 15.09.14 247.0 326 Merdzapnya WUA irrigation groundwater 15.09.11 15.09.14 205.6 327 Merdzapnya WUA irrigation groundwater 15.09.11 15.09.14 587.0 328 Merdzapnya WUA irrigation groundwater 15.09.11 15.09.14 1,001.0 329 Merdzapnya WUA irrigation surface water 15.09.11 15.09.14 474.4 351 Aknalich WUA irrigation groundwater 22.09.11 22.09.14 2,110.3 352 Artashar village administration drinking‐household groundwater 22.09.11 22.09.14 145.5 364 Nairi Sahakyan drinking‐household groundwater 29.09.11 29.09.14 42.7 30.11 384 Talin SHPP hydropower surface water 17.10.11 17.10.14 24,970.0 407 Araks WUA irrigation groundwater 10.11.11 10.11.14 329.8 408 Araks WUA irrigation groundwater 10.11.11 10.11.14 219.9 409 Araks WUA irrigation groundwater 10.11.11 10.11.14 329.8 410 Araks WUA irrigation groundwater 10.11.11 10.11.14 418.5 411 Araks WUA irrigation groundwater 10.11.11 10.11.14 494.0 412 Araks WUA irrigation groundwater 10.11.11 10.11.14 1,770.4 413 Araks WUA irrigation groundwater 10.11.11 10.11.14 439.7 414 Araks WUA irrigation groundwater 10.11.11 10.11.14 494.0 415 Araks WUA irrigation groundwater 10.11.11 10.11.14 329.8 416 Araks WUA irrigation groundwater 10.11.11 10.11.14 324.0 417 Araks WUA irrigation groundwater 10.11.11 10.11.14 110.0 418 Araks WUA irrigation groundwater 10.11.11 10.11.14 1,429.0 419 Araks WUA irrigation groundwater 10.11.11 10.11.14 494.0 420 Araks WUA irrigation groundwater 10.11.11 10.11.14 110.0 421 Nor Akunq water supply company drinking‐household groundwater 10.11.11 11.04.14 1,869.5

182 Abstraction Return WUP # Name Purpose Type Start End volume, 000 volume, 000 m3 m3 422 Nor Akunq water supply company drinking‐household groundwater 10.11.1111.04.14556.3 423 Nor Akunq water supply company drinking‐household groundwater 10.11.11 11.04.14 693.4 424 Nor Akunq water supply company drinking‐household groundwater 10.11.11 11.04.14 272.5 425 Nor Akunq water supply company drinking‐household groundwater 10.11.11 11.04.14 308.0 426 Nor Akunq water supply company drinking‐household groundwater 10.11.11 11.04.14 400.5 427 Nor Akunq water supply company drinking‐household groundwater 10.11.11 11.04.14 276.6 428 Nor Akunq water supply company drinking‐household groundwater 10.11.11 11.04.14 811.0 464 Yerevan water supply division industrial groundwater 20.12.11 20.12.14 53.8 32 1718 Vosketas village administration drinking‐household groundwater 03.04.08 03.04.14 70.8 1738 Alexan Darbninyan fisheries groundwater 29.04.08 29.04.14 6,263.7 5,950.5 1744 Qarakert WUA irrigation groundwater 07.05.08 07.05.14 1,903.2 2218 Atar Amiryan fisheries groundwater 24.12.09 24.12.15 2,012.9 1,912.24 2222 Armenian Nuclear Power Plant drinking‐household groundwater 16.06.10 16.06.16 2,698.1 1,992.5

183 Annex 7. Rapid Biological Assessment

Methodology Despite the WFD requires five biological quality elements (macrozoobenthos, macrophytes, phytoplankton, phytobenthos and fish) to be considered in assessing the biological status, the preliminary assessment here is based only on the RBA method, which analyzes benthic macroinvertebrate communities (macrozoobenthos). These were divided into five arbitrary ‘Indicator Groups’ as follows: Group A (the sensitive forms), Group B (the less sensitive forms), Group C (the tolerant forms), Group D (the very tolerant forms), and Group E (the most tolerant forms).

Biological material for examination is obtained by sampling in the shallower, faster‐flowing areas (e.g. riffles) and the assessment of ecological status is made on site. Having determined the relative proportions of the various organisms in the sample, ecological status is inferred by a comparison of this data with that which might be expected from reference conditions of the river type under investigation. Other relevant factors such as the intensity of algal and/or weed development, water turbidity, bottom siltation, substratum type, current speed (velocity), water depth, DO saturation, electrical conductivity and pH, are also considered in the assessment procedure. These groups and their relationships with RBA are set out in the table below.

Minimum Average Monthly Flow Changes, due to Anthropogenic Activity (million m3) Indic. No of taxa Total number of taxa Group in the indicator group 0 ‐ 1 2 ‐ 5 6 ‐ 10 11 ‐ 15 16+ Value of RBA Index (%) 3+ n.a. 75 80 90 100 А 2 n.a. 60 75 80 95 1 5 40 60 75 85 В 3+ n.a. 40 60 75 80 1 ‐ 3 5 25 50 65 70 С All above indicator groups absent 5 25 35 45 55 D All above indicator groups absent* 5 20 25 30 n.a. Е All above indicator groups absent* 0 10 15 n.a. n.a. (*) – Few specimen of above indicator groups could present in the sample Source: “Rapid Biological Assessment (RBA) based on analysis of benthic macroinvertebrate communities”, 2013

RBA Determination Scheme

High Status (90‐100%) with reference conditions assigned if: [1] Group A at least common: typically with either 3‐4 or more taxa such as Heptageniidae species, Ephemera sp., Plecoptera, etc.; [2] Group B ranging from few/absent to plentiful; [3] Group C is usually common or less, but some taxa may be occasionally dominant. e.g. Baetis, Gammaridae, Hydropsyche, etc.; [4] Groups D and E scarce (few) or absent; [5] Macrophytes, if present, diverse and not excessive in development; [6] Filamentous algae (Cladophora, etc.) if present not excessive; [7] Sphaerotilus complexes (filamentous bacteria) and other slime growths/complexes absent; [8] Substrata clean and unsilted; [9] DO close to 100% at all times.

High Status (80‐85%) close to reference conditions assigned if: [1] At least one Group A taxon present in, at least 6 individuals in the sample. Usually 1‐3 taxa of Group A; [2] Group B taxa may be plentiful, common, few or absent. Rarely Group B taxa may be dominant (slow velocity, ‘macrophyte’ river types, etc.); [3] Baetis, Gammaridae, Hydropsyche often dominant but never over 300+ individuals. Other Group C taxa never excessive; [4] Group D and E may be present in small numbers (few) or absents; [5] Macrophyte & algal growths not excessive; [6] Cladophora, if present, not excessive; 184

[7] Sphaerotilus complexes (filamentous bacteria) and other slime growths/complexes absent; [8] Substrata may be lightly silted [9] DO ranging typically from 80 to 120%.

Good Status (70‐80%GE or 60‐75%Prut/Dnieper) assigned if: [1] At least one Group A taxon present in, at least few individuals in the sample (more than 2 individuals); [2] Group B taxa may be plentiful, common, few or absent. Often Group B taxa may be dominant (slow velocity, ‘macrophyte’ river types, etc.); [3] Group Cplentiful, dominant or even excessive/super‐dominant (over 300+ individuals); [4] Group D common, present, few or absents. Some Chironomidae Gen sp. or specific Mollusca species may be plentiful or dominant; [5] Group E always few or absent; [6] Macrophyte & algal growths usually luxuriant, often excessive; [7] Cladophora, usually well developed; [8] Sphaerotilus complexes (filamentous bacteria) and other slime growths/complexes sometimes present in small amounts; [9] Substrata may be considerably silted (especially in slow velocity); [10] DO ranging typically from <80 to >120%.

Moderate Status (50‐65%GE or 40‐55%Prut or 45‐55%Dnieper) assigned if: [1] Group A taxon absent; [2] Group B present, few or absent (rarely plentiful); [3] Group Cusually excessive/super‐dominant (over 300+ individuals). (Some Gammaridae, Hydropsyche, etc. may be fungus infested); [4] Group D (excl. Asellus aquaticus <21 ind.) common, present, few or absents. Some Chironomidae Gen sp. or specific Mollusca species may be plentiful or dominant; [5] Group E few or absent; [6] Macrophytes, if present often silted and/or infested with epiphytic algae; [7] Cladophora, usually excessive; [8] Sphaerotilus complexes (filamentous bacteria) and other slime growths/complexes sometimes may be considerable; [9] Substrata may be heavily silted; [10] DO ranging typically from <80 to >120%.

Poor Status (30‐45%GE or 25‐35%Prut or 25‐40%Dnieper) assigned if: [1] Groups A and B absent; [2] Group Cpresent, few or absent; [3] Asellus aquaticus common to excessive. Other Group D taxa may be common, plentiful, dominant or excessive.; [4] Group E may be common; [5] Macrophytes, if present often silted and/or infested with epiphytic algae, phycomycetes or filamentous bacteria (Sphaerotilus natans); [6] Cladophora, not usually apparent; [7] Sphaerotilus complexes (filamentous bacteria) and other slime growths/complexes sometimes usually considerable; [8] Substrata usually heavily silted. Often high turbidity and smells of sewage/detergent; [9] DO usually quite low (20 – 50%).

Bad Status (<30%GE or <25%Prut / Dnieper) assigned if: [1] Groups A, B and C absent; [2] Group D present, few or absent (rarely plentiful – Chironomidae Gen. sp.; Oligochaeta Fem. sp. except Tubificidae); [3] Group E plentiful or dominant; [4] Macrophytes absent; [5] Cladophora absent; [6] Sphaerotilus complexes (filamentous bacteria) and other slime growths/complexes present (organic load) or absent (toxic waters); [7] Substrata usually heavily silted with anaerobic deposits. Often smells of H2S; [8] DO usually very low, sometimes zero.

185 Annex 8. Hydromorphological Site Protocol

Site identification 1.1. Stream / River name 1.2. Site name 1.3. River log 1.4. Site / River number

1.5. River system 1.6. Map reference 1.7. Stream order

1.8 Latitude 1.9. Longitude 1.10. Site altitude (m.a.s.l)

1.11. River width type (small, medium, large) 1.12. River type (WFD type)

1.13. Sketch / Photo

1.14. Surveyor 1.15. Surveyor number 1.16. Date of survey

1.17. River use affecting conditions at the site (mark with “X”) Transport Recreational use Waste water Power production Water abstraction No use

186 Channel and site parameters 2.1. Catchment area (km2) 2.2. Distance to source (km) 2.3. Mean river slope at site (‰)

2.4. Channel cross section

Natural [ ] Embanked [ ]

Semi‐natural [ ] Set back embankment [ ]

Channelised [ ] Artificial double profile [ ]

2.5. Bank stabilisation (indicate type of stabilisation used with “X”) Resectioned banks Wood piling Boulders / gabions (broken surface) Brickwork / boulders (unbroken) Steel piling Concrete

2.6. Cross sectional dimensions Actual wetted width [ ]m Estimated bankfull width [ ]m 2.7. Depth / variation in depth

Low Medium High

2.8. Macrophyte coverage None[ ] Low [ ] Medium [ ] High[ ] 2.9. Channel plan form

Single channel [ ] Multiple channels [ ]

Straight [ ] Sinuous [ ]

Meandering [ ] Braided/Anastomosing [ ]

2.10. River valley form

Gorge [ ] V‐shaped valley [ ]

Small U‐shape (<500 m wide) [ ] Wide U‐shape (>500 m wide) [ ]

No perceptible river valley [ ] Asymmetrical [ ]

2.11. Presence of migration barriers Is the migration barrier: Natural [ ] Artificial [ ] Presence of migration barriers that potentially affect biological conditions on the site Yes, downstream [ ] Yes, upstream [ ] No [ ] Height of obstruction < 0.3 m [ ] 0.3 – 1 m [ ]> 1 m [ ] Distance to obstruction: Downstream [ ]kmUpstream [ ]km Presence of artificial structures for migration enhancement (Indicate presence with “X”) No structure for migration Fish ladder or elevator By‐pass migration – partial ramp By‐pass migration – Full ramp

187 Riparian zone and floodplain 3.1. Non natural vegetation structure in riparian zone (coverage to nearest 5%) Closed line of native trees Isolated native trees Tall herbs / shrubs Isolated alien trees Closed line of alien trees Plantation Grass Crop field Destruction by erosion Artificial structure

3.2. Land use on floodplain (coverage to nearest 5%) Buildings (houses, cities, roads) Natural or semi‐natural open land Agriculture Freshwater (lakes etc.) Natural forest Wetlands Plantation

Catchment 4.1. Hard rock geology (indicate all types present with “X”. 4.2. Soil types (indicate all types present with “X”. Use P for Use P for predominant geology) predominant soil type) Crystalline Sand Carbonate Fine sand Flysch Clayey sand Neovolcanics Sandy clay Non‐coherent lutaceous Clay Non‐coherent psammtious Heavy clay Organic Special

4.3. Land use (indicate all types present with “X”. Use P for 4.4. Topography predominant land use) Buildings cities etc. Highest point in catchment m.a.s.l. Agriculture Station altitude m.a.s.l. Forest Difference m Plantation Natural or semi‐natural open land Wetlands Freshwater

Hydrological conditions 5.1. Mean annual long‐term discharge (m3 s‐1)

5.2. Changes to the hydrological regime Influence by groundwater abstraction Influence by surface water abstraction

Unaffected/slightly[ ] Moderate[ ] Major[ ] Unaffected/slightly[ ] Moderate[ ] Major[ ]

188 Annex 9. Hydromorphological Assessment Form

Morphological Features Stream / River name: Site name: Date: Surveyor: Category Parameter SSU1 SSU2 SSU3 SSU4 SSU5 SU L R L R L R L R L R Score

1 Channel 1.1 Channel sinuosity 1.2 Channel type

1.3 Channel shortening

Channel planform score, CPS: (1.1+1.2+1.3)/3

2 In‐stream BA/IS/RI/RA/RO/SP BA/IS/RI/RA/RO/SP BA/IS/RI/RA/RO/SP BA/IS/RI/RA/RO/SP BA/IS/RI/RA/RO/SP 2.1 Bed elements1)

BE/BO/CO/GR/SA/CD BE/BO/CO/GR/SA/CD BE/BO/CO/GR/SA/CD BE/BO/CO/GR/SA/CD BE/BO/CO/GR/SA/CD 2.2 Substrate2) MD/CL/PE MD/CL/PE MD/CL/PE MD/CL/PE MD/CL/PE

2.3 Variation in width3) W: S: W: S: W: S: W: S: W: S:

FF/CH/CA/BS/US/RP/UP FF/CH/CA/BS/US/RP/UP FF/CH/CA/BS/US/RP/UP FF/CH/CA/BS/US/RP/UP FF/CH/CA/BS/US/RP/UP 2.4 Flow types4) SM/NO SM/NO SM/NO SM/NO SM/NO

2.5 Large woody debris5) Number: Number: Number: Number: Number: 2.6 Artificial bed features

Instream feature score, IFS: (2.1+2.2+2.3+2.4+2.5+2.6)/6

3 Bank and riparian 3.1 Riparian vegetation 3.2 Bank stabilisation

3.3 Bank profile

Bank and riparian score, BRS: (3.1+3.2+3.3)/3

4 Floodplain 4.1 Flooded area 4.2 Natural vegetation

Floodplain score, FPS: (4.1+4.2)/2

Hydromorphological Quality Score (CPS+IFS+BRS+FPS)/4 1) BA: Bars, IS: Islands, RI: Riffles, RA: Rapids, RO: Rocks, SP: Step/pools; 2) BE: Bedrock, BO: Boulders, CO: Cobble, GR: Gravel, SA: Sand, CD: Coarse debris, MD: Mud/silt, CL: Clay, PE: Peat; 3) Measure widest and smallest width in each SSU. Calculate variation in width overall smallest and widest width; 4) FF: Freefall, CH: Chute, CA: Chaotic, BS: Broken standing waves, US: Unbroken standing waves, RP: Rippled, UP: Upwelling, SM: Smooth, NO: No perceptible flow; 5) Count number of woody debris in all SSU and scale total number for the whole SU to numbers per km

189

Hydrological features

Stream / River name: Site name: Date: Surveyor: Category Parameter SU Score

5. hydrological regime 5.1 Mean flow 5.2 Low flow 5.3 Water level range

5.4 Frequent flow fluctuations Hydrological regime score, HRS: (5.1 + 5.2 + 5.3 + 5.4)/4

Hydromorphological quality class Quality class according to Final score Colour hydromorphology 1 High 1.0‐1.7 Blue 2 Good 1.8‐2.5 Green 3 Moderate 2.6‐3.4 Yellow 4 Poor 3.5‐4.2 Orange 5 Bad 4.3‐5.0 Red

190

Annex 10. Assessment of the Chemical Status of Water Resources in the Akhuryan RBD

According to Monitoring results of EIMC

Monitoring post #31: Akhuryan River, 0.5 km upstream Amasia settlement Quality class Quality parameters Unit 2011 2012 2013

Dissolved oxygen mgO2/L 8.91 6.83 10.48 Sulphate ion mg/L 4.62 4.73 5.24 Chloride ion mg/L 5.40 4.71 4.35 Nitrate ion mg N/L 0.88 0.50 0.63 Nitrite ion mg N/L 0.02 0.01 0.02 Ammonium ion mg N/L 0.17 0.12 0.23 Total inorganic nitrogen mg N/L 0.83 0.62 0.88 Total mineralization mg /L 118.71 135.20 147.94

BOD5 mgO2/L 2.92 3.27 1.85 COD‐Cr mgO2/L 24.40 19.67 20.67 Conductivity µSim/cm 141.33 208.00 228.00 Boron mg/L 0.15 0.17 0.20 Sodium mg/L 9.01 8.27 11.15 Magnesium mg/L 7.24 6.23 9.39 Total phosphorus mg/L 0.06 0.08 0.04 Potassium mg/L 1.93 2.90 2.43 Calcium mg/L 17.54 13.88 22.27 Vanadium, total mg/L 0.0064 0.0077 0.0066 Chromium, total mg/L 0.0016 0.0026 0.0015 Iron, total mg/L 0.4254 0.7147 0.5155 Manganese, total mg/L 0.0157 0.0348 0.0317 Cobalt, total mg/L 0.0004 0.0007 0.0005 Nickel, total mg/L 0.0025 0.0044 0.0029 Copper, total mg/L 0.0019 0.0024 0.0020 Zinc, total mg/L 0.0035 0.0049 0.0041 Arsenic, total mg/L 0.0103 0.0123 0.0121 Selenium, total mg/L 0.0002 0.0004 0.0003 Molybdenum, total mg/L 0.0008 0.0006 0.0010 Cadmium, total mg/L 0.00001 0.00002 0.00001 Tin, total mg/L 0.00002 0.00002 0.00002 Antimony, total mg/L 0.0002 0.0001 0.0001 Barium mg/L 0.0223 0.0258 0.0255 Lead, total mg/L 0.0005 0.0006 0.0005

Monitoring post #32: Akhuryan River, 1 km downstream Amasia settlement Quality class Quality parameters Unit 2011 2012 2013

Dissolved oxygen mgO2/L 8.68 7.21 9.66 Sulphate ion mg/L 4.65 4.97 6.31 Chloride ion mg/L 4.36 5.04 5.02 Nitrate ion mg N/L 0.69 0.48 0.85 Nitrite ion mg N/L 0.01 0.01 0.02 Ammonium ion mg N/L 0.20 0.19 0.36 Total inorganic nitrogen mg N/L 0.60 0.68 1.24 Total mineralization mg /L 120.26 139.32 164.14

BOD5 mgO2/L 3.20 2.93 3.01

191 Quality class Quality parameters Unit 2011 2012 2013

COD‐Cr mgO2/L 14.00 18.00 20.29 Conductivity µSim/cm 142.0 214.3 252.6 Boron mg/L 0.13 0.17 0.22 Sodium mg/L 8.95 8.82 10.94 Magnesium mg/L 6.72 6.60 10.57 Total phosphorus mg/L 0.10 0.09 0.13 Potassium mg/L 2.30 1.74 2.82 Calcium mg/L 17.42 15.21 25.33 Vanadium, total mg/L 0.006 0.007 0.007 Chromium, total mg/L 0.002 0.002 0.001 Iron, total mg/L 0.489 0.678 0.479 Manganese, total mg/L 0.019 0.036 0.032 Cobalt, total mg/L 0.0004 0.0008 0.0005 Nickel, total mg/L 0.003 0.004 0.003 Copper, total mg/L 0.003 0.003 0.002 Zinc, total mg/L 0.006 0.006 0.002 Arsenic, total mg/L 0.009 0.013 0.013 Selenium, total mg/L 0.001 0.001 0.001 Molybdenum, total mg/L 0.001 0.001 0.001 Cadmium, total mg/L 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Tin, total mg/L 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Antimony, total mg/L 0.0002 0.0001 0.0001 Barium mg/L 0.026 0.025 0.025 Lead, total mg/L 0.001 0.001 0.000

Monitoring post #33: Akhuryan River, 0.8 km upstream Gyumri city Quality class Quality parameters Unit 2011 2012 2013

Dissolved oxygen mgO2/L 8.42 7.36 10.14 Sulphate ion mg/L 15.19 14.81 15.42 Chloride ion mg/L 6.54 5.84 6.08 Nitrate ion mg N/L 1.64 1.32 1.46 Nitrite ion mg N/L 0.01 0.01 0.02 Ammonium ion mg N/L 0.16 0.11 0.27 Total inorganic nitrogen mg N/L 1.49 1.44 1.75 Total mineralization mg /L 175.28 199.12 204.77

BOD5 mgO2/L 3.09 3.18 3.24

COD‐Cr mgO2/L 14.00 17.67 21.71 Conductivity µSim/cm 219.00 306.3 315.00 Boron mg/L 0.12 0.14 0.18 Sodium mg/L 15.61 12.29 16.26 Magnesium mg/L 7.98 7.67 11.33 Total phosphorus mg/L 0.06 0.08 0.07 Potassium mg/L 1.93 4.39 2.44 Calcium mg/L 24.77 20.94 31.50 Vanadium, total mg/L 0.007 0.010 0.009 Chromium, total mg/L 0.001 0.003 0.002 Iron, total mg/L 0.439 1.351 0.740 Manganese, total mg/L 0.023 0.034 0.032 Cobalt, total mg/L 0.0004 0.0007 0.0007 Nickel, total mg/L 0.003 0.005 0.003 Copper, total mg/L 0.002 0.004 0.003 Zinc, total mg/L 0.004 0.005 0.002

192 Quality class Quality parameters Unit 2011 2012 2013 Arsenic, total mg/L 0.007 0.010 0.009 Selenium, total mg/L 0.001 0.001 0.001 Molybdenum, total mg/L 0.002 0.002 0.002 Cadmium, total mg/L 0.00001 0.00001 0.00002 Tin, total mg/L 0.00002 0.00002 0.00004 Antimony, total mg/L 0.0002 0.0001 0.0002 Barium mg/L 0.020 0.027 0.021 Lead, total mg/L 0.0004 0.0008 0.0004

Monitoring post #34: Akhuryan River, 5 km downstream Gyumri city Quality class Quality parameters Unit 2011 2012 2013

Dissolved oxygen mgO2/L 7.80 6.75 9.44 Sulphate ion mg/L 31.30 34.79 29.20 Chloride ion mg/L 11.13 12.07 9.40 Nitrate ion mg N/L 2.60 1.63 2.34 Nitrite ion mg N/L 0.14 0.14 0.40 Ammonium ion mg N/L 2.28 1.43 2.08 Total inorganic nitrogen mg N/L 4.34 3.21 4.81 Total mineralization mg /L 238.98 262.82 259.52

BOD5 mgO2/L 2.83 3.55 3.20

COD‐Cr mgO2/L 18.33 10.67 21.43 Conductivity µSim/cm 299.25 404.33 399.14 Boron mg/L 0.15 0.16 0.20 Sodium mg/L 26.10 15.03 22.67 Magnesium mg/L 9.29 9.14 12.12 Total phosphorus mg/L 0.17 0.17 0.19 Potassium mg/L 2.55 5.57 3.27 Calcium mg/L 27.56 25.07 34.78 Vanadium, total mg/L 0.009 0.010 0.009 Chromium, total mg/L 0.001 0.003 0.001 Iron, total mg/L 0.613 1.118 0.358 Manganese, total mg/L 0.035 0.046 0.036 Cobalt, total mg/L 0.0007 0.0011 0.0005 Nickel, total mg/L 0.004 0.005 0.003 Copper, total mg/L 0.004 0.005 0.002 Zinc, total mg/L 0.006 0.011 0.003 Arsenic, total mg/L 0.007 0.009 0.008 Selenium, total mg/L 0.001 0.001 0.001 Molybdenum, total mg/L 0.002 0.002 0.002 Cadmium, total mg/L 0.00002 0.00003 0.00002 Tin, total mg/L 0.00004 0.00005 0.00002 Antimony, total mg/L 0.00038 0.00019 0.00028 Barium mg/L 0.023 0.033 0.019 Lead, total mg/L 0.0007 0.0010 0.0004

Monitoring post #35: Akhuryan River, near Yervandashat settlement Quality class Quality parameters Unit 2011 2012 2013

193 Dissolved oxygen mgO2/L 8.13 6.30 7.43 Sulphate ion mg/L 25.12 25.30 24.05 Chloride ion mg/L 16.06 15.33 13.60 Nitrate ion mg N/L 1.08 1.33 1.33 Nitrite ion mg N/L 0.03 0.02 0.02 Ammonium ion mg N/L 0.24 0.16 0.33 Total inorganic nitrogen mg N/L 0.85 1.51 1.68 Total mineralization mg /L 219.06 186.67 282.33

BOD5 mgO2/L 1.96 1.91 1.78

COD‐Cr mgO2/L 24.25 18.00 17.00 Conductivity µSim/cm 389.50 427.40 392.38 Boron mg/L 0.19 0.22 0.20 Sodium mg/L 24.09 20.11 20.91 Magnesium mg/L 11.56 10.97 12.30 Total phosphorus mg/L 0.11 0.13 0.14 Potassium mg/L 3.31 3.91 4.31 Calcium mg/L 31.19 29.23 34.99 Vanadium, total mg/L 0.0086 0.0101 0.0105 Chromium, total mg/L 0.0030 0.0086 0.0062 Iron, total mg/L 0.2365 0.4502 0.2639 Manganese, total mg/L 0.0280 0.0248 0.0274 Cobalt, total mg/L 0.0004 0.0008 0.0004 Nickel, total mg/L 0.0040 0.0081 0.0028 Copper, total mg/L 0.0023 0.0029 0.0018 Zinc, total mg/L 0.0021 0.0020 0.0014 Arsenic, total mg/L 0.0091 0.0124 0.0124 Selenium, total mg/L 0.0009 0.0026 0.0012 Molybdenum, total mg/L 0.0018 0.0020 0.0020 Cadmium, total mg/L 0.00001 0.00002 0.00002 Tin, total mg/L 0.00004 0.00001 0.00002 Antimony, total mg/L 0.00034 0.00016 0.00036 Barium mg/L 0.0280 0.0394 0.0341 Lead, total mg/L 0.0004 0.0004 0.0004

Monitoring post #36: Ashotsq River, 0.5 km upstream Artashen settlement Quality class Quality parameters Unit 2011 2012 2013

Dissolved oxygen mgO2/L 9.72 7.95 11.93 Sulphate ion mg/L 3.80 4.34 4.52 Chloride ion mg/L 0.79 1.50 1.20 Nitrate ion mg N/L 0.35 0.29 0.38 Nitrite ion mg N/L 0.00 0.00 0.00 Ammonium ion mg N/L 0.08 0.13 0.13 Total inorganic nitrogen mg N/L 0.35 0.42 0.51 Total mineralization mg /L 110.30 135.39 226.01

BOD5 mgO2/L 2.76 2.23 2.50

COD‐Cr mgO2/L 9.67 16.86 12.00 Conductivity µSim/cm 123.00 208.29 348.60 Boron mg/L 0.01 0.01 0.01 Sodium mg/L 2.14 1.89 2.92 Magnesium mg/L 2.88 2.69 4.75 Total phosphorus mg/L 0.03 0.04 0.02

194 Quality class Quality parameters Unit 2011 2012 2013 Potassium mg/L 0.58 3.67 0.84 Calcium mg/L 27.74 25.12 35.46 Vanadium, total mg/L 0.0005 0.0005 0.0004 Chromium, total mg/L 0.0005 0.0027 0.0005 Iron, total mg/L 0.0854 0.0936 0.0703 Manganese, total mg/L 0.0054 0.0064 0.0038 Cobalt, total mg/L 0.0001 0.0003 0.0001 Nickel, total mg/L 0.0008 0.0026 0.0006 Copper, total mg/L 0.0016 0.0025 0.0011 Zinc, total mg/L 0.0024 0.0032 0.0010 Arsenic, total mg/L 0.0004 0.0006 0.0005 Selenium, total mg/L 0.0006 0.0007 0.0011 Molybdenum, total mg/L 0.0002 0.0003 0.0003 Cadmium, total mg/L 0.00001 0.00001 0.00000 Tin, total mg/L 0.00003 0.00001 0.00001 Antimony, total mg/L 0.00009 0.00005 0.00006 Barium mg/L 0.0210 0.0224 0.0208 Lead, total mg/L 0.0003 0.0001 0.0001

Monitoring post #37: Ashotsq River mouth Quality class Quality parameters Unit 2011 2012 2013

Dissolved oxygen mgO2/L 11.01 10.20 10.81 Sulphate ion mg/L 4.17 4.93 5.42 Chloride ion mg/L 8.29 10.91 7.02 Nitrate ion mg N/L 0.97 0.89 0.86 Nitrite ion mg N/L 0.02 0.01 0.02 Ammonium ion mg N/L 0.13 0.23 0.22 Total inorganic nitrogen mg N/L 0.86 1.14 1.09 Total mineralization mg /L 132.42 172.25 160.67

BOD5 mgO2/L 3.38 3.28 2.45

COD‐Cr mgO2/L 13.00 15.00 19.33 Conductivity µSim/cm 124.67 265.00 247.00 Boron mg/L 0.30 0.37 0.35 Sodium mg/L 10.89 11.80 12.86 Magnesium mg/L 7.11 8.36 10.13 Total phosphorus mg/L 0.07 0.10 0.08 Potassium mg/L 2.34 5.66 2.83 Calcium mg/L 16.83 14.84 24.18 Vanadium, total mg/L 0.0054 0.0062 0.0055 Chromium, total mg/L 0.0007 0.0031 0.0006 Iron, total mg/L 0.1797 0.2115 0.1772 Manganese, total mg/L 0.0144 0.0255 0.0230 Cobalt, total mg/L 0.0002 0.0003 0.0002 Nickel, total mg/L 0.0013 0.0036 0.0012 Copper, total mg/L 0.0022 0.0017 0.0009 Zinc, total mg/L 0.0051 0.0022 0.0020

195 Quality class Quality parameters Unit 2011 2012 2013 Arsenic, total mg/L 0.0200 0.028 0.0262 Selenium, total mg/L 0.0007 0.0009 0.0003 Molybdenum, total mg/L 0.0004 0.0006 0.0010 Cadmium, total mg/L 0.00001 0.00001 0.00001 Tin, total mg/L 0.00002 0.00002 0.00002 Antimony, total mg/L 0.00013 0.00004 0.00009 Barium mg/L 0.0168 0.0152 0.0164 Lead, total mg/L 0.0006 0.0003 0.0001

Monitoring post #38: Karkachun River mouth Quality class Quality parameters Unit 2011 2012 2013

Dissolved oxygen mgO2/L 8.24 4.44 7.99 Sulphate ion mg/L 126.75 171.42 185.66 Chloride ion mg/L 15.99 19.94 20.14 Nitrate ion mg N/L 3.98 2.73 3.92 Nitrite ion mg N/L 0.26 0.44 0.49 Ammonium ion mg N/L 0.81 1.15 1.62 Total inorganic nitrogen mg N/L 3.75 4.33 6.03 Total mineralization mg /L 459.18 582.29 543.96

BOD5 mgO2/L 2.57 8.35 4.79

COD‐Cr mgO2/L 13.33 35.00 36.00 Conductivity µSim/cm 681.75 895.83 836.86 Boron mg/L 0.28 0.39 0.51 Sodium mg/L 57.77 74.52 84.34 Magnesium mg/L 12.02 15.44 22.11 Total phosphorus mg/L 0.17 0.36 0.33 Potassium mg/L 4.18 5.58 5.96 Calcium mg/L 48.88 47.96 78.96 Vanadium, total mg/L 0.013 0.015 0.017 Chromium, total mg/L 0.001 0.006 0.001 Iron, total mg/L 0.196 0.222 0.288 Manganese, total mg/L 0.032 0.090 0.068 Cobalt, total mg/L 0.0004 0.0009 0.0006 Nickel, total mg/L 0.003 0.007 0.003 Copper, total mg/L 0.003 0.002 0.002 Zinc, total mg/L 0.004 0.005 0.003 Arsenic, total mg/L 0.004 0.005 0.005 Selenium, total mg/L 0.001 0.002 0.002 Molybdenum, total mg/L 0.004 0.004 ‐ Cadmium, total mg/L 0.00002 0.00002 0.00002 Tin, total mg/L 0.00002 0.00002 0.00002 Antimony, total mg/L 0.00040 0.00020 0.00039 Barium mg/L 0.035 0.038 0.036 Lead, total mg/L 0.0005 0.0003 0.0003

Monitoring post #40: Metsamor River, 10 km south of Echmiadzin town Quality class Quality parameters Unit 2011 2012 2013

Dissolved oxygen mgO2/L 7.93 6.10 8.51 Sulphate ion mg/L 225.09 293.23 237.47 Chloride ion mg/L 106.56 135.37 112.26 Nitrate ion mg N/L 3.34 2.92 2.09

196 Quality class Quality parameters Unit 2011 2012 2013 Nitrite ion mg N/L 0.06 0.07 0.07 Ammonium ion mg N/L 0.74 0.36 0.50 Total inorganic nitrogen mg N/L 3.83 3.35 3.79 Total mineralization mg /L 732.35 942.03 748.23

BOD5 mgO2/L 2.98 2.58 2.93

COD‐Cr mgO2/L 22.22 40.00 37.33 Conductivity µSim/cm 874.86 1349.13 1247.00 Boron mg/L 0.35 0.39 0.43 Sodium mg/L 63.22 60.41 59.46 Magnesium mg/L 33.87 36.44 47.84 Total phosphorus mg/L 0.15 0.09 0.19 Potassium mg/L 5.35 6.75 7.43 Calcium mg/L 66.14 80.46 96.81 Vanadium, total mg/L 0.014 0.014 0.015 Chromium, total mg/L 0.005 0.006 0.004 Iron, total mg/L 0.182 0.073 0.095 Manganese, total mg/L 0.040 0.060 0.056 Cobalt, total mg/L 0.0005 0.0006 0.0004 Nickel, total mg/L 0.003 0.004 0.003 Copper, total mg/L 0.003 0.002 0.010 Zinc, total mg/L 0.008 0.011 0.012 Arsenic, total mg/L 0.009 0.012 0.014 Selenium, total mg/L 0.003 0.005 0.004 Molybdenum, total mg/L 0.003 0.009 0.006 Cadmium, total mg/L 0.00002 0.00003 0.00001 Tin, total mg/L 0.00002 0.00001 0.00007 Antimony, total mg/L 0.00024 0.00010 0.00021 Barium mg/L 0.049 0.079 0.078 Lead, total mg/L 0.0003 0.0001 0.0004

Monitoring post #41: Metsamor River, 11 km south‐east of Echmiadzin town Quality class Quality parameters Unit 2011 2012 2013

Dissolved oxygen mgO2/L 7.31 5.74 7.02 Sulphate ion mg/L 201.41 207.43 191.84 Chloride ion mg/L 96.41 98.96 92.84 Nitrate ion mg N/L 2.94 2.07 2.04 Nitrite ion mg N/L 0.11 0.16 0.15 Ammonium ion mg N/L 0.42 0.69 1.64 Total inorganic nitrogen mg N/L 3.19 2.92 3.82 Total mineralization mg /L 692.41 770.87 727.83

BOD5 mgO2/L 3.01 2.91 3.18

COD‐Cr mgO2/L 27.78 36.50 33.27 Conductivity µSim/cm 798.71 1111.37 1120.09 Boron mg/L 0.32 0.32 0.48 Sodium mg/L 55.51 36.02 50.96 Magnesium mg/L 31.43 33.02 44.85 Total phosphorus mg/L 0.12 0.11 0.25 Potassium mg/L 4.70 6.02 6.96 Calcium mg/L 60.51 58.55 83.03 Vanadium, total mg/L 0.013 0.011 0.014 Chromium, total mg/L 0.005 0.010 0.003 Iron, total mg/L 0.244 0.106 0.087 Manganese, total mg/L 0.047 0.060 0.059

197 Quality class Quality parameters Unit 2011 2012 2013 Cobalt, total mg/L 0.0005 0.0005 0.0003 Nickel, total mg/L 0.003 0.005 0.002 Copper, total mg/L 0.002 0.002 0.002 Zinc, total mg/L 0.005 0.006 0.006 Arsenic, total mg/L 0.009 0.011 0.015 Selenium, total mg/L 0.002 0.006 0.004 Molybdenum, total mg/L 0.003 0.008 0.006 Cadmium, total mg/L 0.00002 0.00003 0.00002 Tin, total mg/L 0.00001 0.00003 0.00002 Antimony, total mg/L 0.00026 0.00009 0.00021 Barium mg/L 0.048 0.067 0.074 Lead, total mg/L 0.0003 0.0001 0.0001

Monitoring post #42: Metsamor River, 0.5 downstream of Ranchpar settlement Quality class Quality parameters Unit 2011 2012 2013

Dissolved oxygen mgO2/L 7.81 6.81 8.52 Sulphate ion mg/L 173.29 179.10 175.53 Chloride ion mg/L 112.84 137.13 143.43 Nitrate ion mg N/L 2.34 1.77 1.72 Nitrite ion mg N/L 0.07 0.07 0.07 Ammonium ion mg N/L 0.26 0.38 0.40 Total inorganic nitrogen mg N/L 2.45 2.23 3.04 Total mineralization mg /L 703.19 866.89 841.25 Phosphate ion mg/L 0.24 0.21 0.27

BOD5 mgO2/L 2.97 2.89 2.90

COD‐Cr mgO2/L 27.33 44.75 44.36 5Conductivity µSim/cm 877.43 1248.00 1294.09 Boron mg/L 0.36 0.39 0.60 Sodium mg/L 63.20 58.98 81.70 Magnesium mg/L 32.32 36.69 55.32 Total phosphorus mg/L 0.11 0.08 0.22 Potassium mg/L 4.67 6.17 6.97 Calcium mg/L 56.04 56.03 83.47 Vanadium, total mg/L 0.012 0.012 0.013 Chromium, total mg/L 0.005 0.006 0.004 Iron, total mg/L 0.122 0.205 0.096 Manganese, total mg/L 0.035 0.045 0.045 Cobalt, total mg/L 0.0003 0.0007 0.0003 Nickel, total mg/L 0.003 0.003 0.003 Copper, total mg/L 0.002 0.003 0.002 Zinc, total mg/L 0.004 0.010 0.006 Arsenic, total mg/L 0.013 0.016 0.019 Selenium, total mg/L 0.002 0.005 0.004 Molybdenum, total mg/L 0.003 0.011 0.006 Cadmium, total mg/L 0.00002 0.00006 0.00002 Tin, total mg/L 0.00001 0.00008 0.00003 Antimony, total mg/L 0.00009 0.00010 0.00016 Barium mg/L 0.050 0.074 0.082 Lead, total mg/L 0.0002 0.0002 0.0001

high good moderate poor bad

198 Annex 11. List of Delineated Surface Water Bodies in the Akhuryan RBD

Length Area ID WB Code22 Description (km) (sq.km) 1. WB‐01 Karakhanget River with its tributaries 48.97 Karmrajur, Yeghnajur, Ellarget and Dzknaget Rivers from river source to 2. WB‐02 90.91 Lake Arpilich 3. WB‐03 Akhuryan River section from Lake Arpilich to Berdashen community 2.39 Tributaries of Akhuryan River between Berdashen and Pokr Sepasar 4. WB‐04 20.64 comminities 5. WB‐05 Gijget and Tghaghkashen Rivers 75.57 6. WB‐06 Akhuryan River section between Gijget and Cascade SHHP 12.79 7. WB‐07 Khazanchi River with its tributaries 31.48 8. WB‐08 Ashotsk River from river source to the Ashotsk town 74.76 9. WB‐09 Tsoghamarg tributary of Akhuryan River 9.74 10. WB‐10 Hortajur tributary of Akhuryan River 17.54 11. WB‐11 Akhuryan River section between Hortajur and Chair rivers 5.46 12. WB‐12 Chair River with its tributaries 25.08 13. WB‐13 Akhuryan River section between Chair river and Kaps reservoir 15.28 14. WB‐14 Gtashen River to Kaps reservoir 13.93 15. WB‐15 Kumayri River from source to Gyumri City 10.34 16. WB‐16 Haykavan River with its tributaries 41.21 17. WB‐17 Jajur River from the river source to the confluence of Jrarat River 24.63 Jrarat River section from Karnut reservoir to the confluence with Jajur 18. WB‐18 4.56 River 19. WB‐19 Jajur River section between Jrarat and Karmrakar Rivers 10.00 20. WB‐20 Mantash River from river source up to Mantash reservoir 6.19 21. WB‐21 Artikjur River from river source to Artik setllement 15.70 22. WB‐22 Metsdzorijur River from the river source to Sarnaghbyur reservoir 39.85 23. WB‐23 Metsdzorijur River from the confluence with Chlkan to the river mouth 1.19 Akhuryan River section from Akhuryan reservoir to confluence with 24. WB‐24 89.00 Araks River 25. WB‐25 Araks River section between Akhuryan and Metsamor Rivers 98.18 Metsamor River from the river source up to confluence of Qasakh 26. WB‐26 8.63 River Akhuryan River section between Marmashen settlement and 27. WBPR‐01 10.10 confluence of Kumayri River 28. WBPR‐02 Gyumri getak tributary of Kumayri River 12.59 29. WBPR‐03 Jajur River section from Karmrakar river to river mouth 5.80 30. WBPR‐04 Mantash River section from Vardakar reservoir up to the river mouth 4.08 Akhuryan River section between Berdashen and Pokr Sepasar 31. WBR‐01 18.94 comminities 32. WBR‐02 Ashotsk River from Ashotsk town to river mouth 5.53 33. WBR‐03 Akhuryan River section from Cascade SHPP to Amasia town 9.16 Akhuryan River section between Kaps reservoir and Marmashen 34. WBR‐04 7.04 settlement 35. WBR‐05 Kumayri River in Gyumri city 8.80 Akhuryan River section from the confluence of Kumayri River to 36. WBR‐06 5.69 Akhuryan reservoir 37. WBR‐07 Karmrakar river 12.47

22) WB – water body; WBR – water body at risk; WBPR – water body possible at risk; AWB – artificial water body; HMWB – heavily modified water body.

199

Length Area ID WB Code22 Description (km) (sq.km) Karkachun River: the section between Metsdzorijur River and 38. WBR‐08 11.62 Akhuryan reservoir 39. WBR‐09 Artikjur River after Artik setllement up to the Vardakar reservoir 5.12 Metsamor River after confluence of Qasakh River up to the confluence 40. WBR‐10 27.19 to Araks River 41. AWB‐01 Akhuryan main canal 27.86 42. AWB‐02 Kaps canal 12.46 43. AWB‐03 Shirak main canal 26.86 44. AWB‐04 Aygabats canal 16.51 45. AWB‐05 Talin main canal with its distributary branches 103.29 46. AWB‐06 Armavir main canal with its distributary branches 108.74 47. AWB‐07 Section of Arzni‐Shamiram canal 29.23 48. AWB‐08 Section of Lower Hrazdan canal 31.75 49. AWB‐09 Bazmaberd canal 11.57 50. AWB‐10 Aknalich canal 11.45 51. AWB‐11 Metsamor canal 16.08 52. AWB‐12 Jrarat canal 14.64 53. AWB‐13 Metsamor ponds 6.9 54. HMWB‐01 Lake Arpilich 20.59 55. HMWB‐02 Akhuryan reservoir 48.33 56. HMWB‐03 Mantash reservoir 0.94 57. HMWB‐04 Karnut reservoir 1.64 58. HMWB‐05 Kaps reservoir 0.78 59. HMWB‐06 Tavshut reservoir 0.58 60. HMWB‐07 Vardakar reservoir 0.57 61. HMWB‐08 Sarnaghbyur reservoir 0.68

200 Annex 12. Characterization of the Hydrogeological Units in the Akhuryan RBD

Aquifer of alluvial‐proluvial lake‐river formations of Quaternary‐contemporary period is widely distributed in the upper Akhuryan and Gyumri concave and in Metsamor River basin. The Gyumri concave is located at the hypsometric altitudes of 1400‐1500 m and represents a synclinal depression, which has a basis of the folded structures of early Cretaceous and Palaeogene period. Mountain ranges (Shirak, Pambak, Aragats massifs) surrounding the concave are composed of sedimentary, volcanic‐sedimentary (limestone, sandy stones, clays, tuffogenes, porphyrites and others) and volcanic (andesites, andesite‐basalts, tuffs and others) formations. The concave is mainly composed of alluvial‐ proluvial and lake‐river formations with an overall thickness of up to 450 m. Their thickness decreases towards East and composes 265 m in the settlements Akhuryan. Here they are located on destructed tuff‐ breccias. Tuff‐breccias contain basalt lenses 3‐5 m thick. In the Eastern part of the concave lake‐river sediments are deposited on dolerite basalts, which are identified by the boreholes.

In the Southern and South‐Eastern parts of the concave lake‐river formations are covered with lavas of andesite‐basalt composition of the Sharan Mountain.

The Gyumri typical tuffs are widely distributed in the basin. They divide the sandy‐clay and alluvial‐proluvial gravel formations into underlying and overlying tuff aquifers with corresponding thicknesses of 13 m and 30 m. In the Eastern part of the concave tuff cover is absent.

Groundwater resources in the concave are recharged in the North‐Eastern and Eastern parts of the concave, from Pambak mountain range and Sharan Mountain slopes. About 33% of the precipitation to the surface of the concave is infiltrated up to the depth of 1.5 m (according to research on water balance conducted before 1988). Direction of the movement of underground waters is from North‐East to South West.

Freshwater resources of Gyumri concave are identified with numerous wells. Aquifers are represented with sand‐gravel formations and fissured lavas of alluvial‐proluvial origin.

Unconfined waters have large distribution. In the central part of the concave the unconfined aquifer is represented by gravel‐rubble formations with a thickness of 13‐15 m (in the Southern and South‐Eastern parts the water‐bearing rocks of shallow (unconfined) aquifer are represented by andesites and andesite‐ basalts). The level of unconfined waters is located at depth of 0.8‐5 m in the central part, and at depth of 17‐30 m at rear parts. Permeability of water bearing sediments is 12‐24 m/day.

Also, artesian (confined) freshwaters are distributed. The first confined aquifer is identified at the depth interval of 55‐70 m. Static water level of this aquifer is 2 m below and 1 m above (fountain) the land surface. Water‐bearing deposits are represented by 12‐18 m thick sands, which contain gravel. The specific capacity of wells ‐ q=4‐23 litre/sec. m, permeability ‐ Kf=13‐120 m/day, and the coefficient of piezoconductivity a=2.6 x 105m2/day.

The second confined aquifer is identified at the depth interval of 110‐130 m and is represented by fine‐ grained sands. This aquifer is low water‐bearing. The above‐mentioned artesian aquifers are mineralized in the Western part of the concave and contain hydrogen sulphide gas.

Confined and unconfined aquifers are separated by lake‐type impermeable clays with the thickness of 25 m. Freshwaters located in the Southern part of the concave (called ''Arevik water flows''), as well as freshwaters adjacent to Northern settlements of Jajur, Kamo, and Karnut are suitable for drinking water supply. The upper Akhuryan concave is located in the Upper Akhuryan River basin, at the hypsometric altitude of 2,000‐2,200 m. It is surrounded with Khonav, Ashotzq and Shirak mountain ranges. Within the boundaries of the concave the following depressions, which occupy small area, are found: Vardaghbyur‐Zuygaghbyur,

201 Ashotqz, Ghazanchi and Arpilich Reservoir. Vardaghbyur‐Zuygaghbyur depression is located in the Eastern part of the concave and is composed of lake‐river and volcanic formations with the thickness of 175‐287 m. In this section unconfined and two artesian aquifers are identified, which have direct hydraulic connection. Unconfined aquifer is located at the depth interval of 0.4‐16 m, and is represented by gravel formations. First and second confined aquifers are located at the depth intervals of correspondingly 92.5‐110.9 m and 154.5‐172.4 m. Groundwater table is replenished at the depth of 0.3 m. Water‐bearing sediments are composed of sandy gravel formations and fissured lavas. The specific capacity of the wells is 4.6‐16 litre/sec m. Tuff sandstones and tuff‐breccias are the regional aquicludes for the aquifers.

The Ashotzq, Ghazanchi and Arpilich Reservoir concaves are located West of Vardaghbyur‐Zuygahbyur depression. Confined aquifers of these concaves are identified at the depths of 103‐125 m and 239‐255 m.

First artesian aquifer is represented by lake‐river formations. Groundwater table is replenished 11 m below and 2.3 m above the land surface.

In Ashotzq concave several self‐flowing wells are used for drinking water supply to Gyumri city. Due to Cenozoic era impermeable deposits new Kaps village groundwater resources in the Upper Akhuryan concave discharge at the rate of 3.25 m3/sec.

The Metsamor River basin occupies the North‐Western part of the Ararat concave. Here in the water‐ bearing complex of Quaternary‐contemporary alluvial‐proluvial and lake‐river formations two aquifers are identified: unconfined and first artesian. Unconfined waters are located at the depth of 0.0 up to 25 m (foothill zones). Water bearing rocks are clay‐sands, sands, gravel, and pebble. Their permeability coefficient varies within 2.5‐120 m/day, transmissivity varies from 1820 to 1∙104 m2/day, specific capacity of wells vary between 0.15‐4.3 litre/sec m, and thickness of the aquifer is within the range of 15‐25 m.

The first confined aquifer is located at the depth of 35‐47 m, and is separated from unconfined waters by 15‐20 m thick clay layer. Permeability coefficient of water‐bearing rocks is 2‐123 m/day, piezoconductivity (a) is 64‐5,460 m. Discharge of wells (Q) in case of water level decrease (s) by 0.92‐5.63 m composes 19.8 litre/sec, or the specific capacity (q) is 1‐3/5 litre/sec m. Until 1990s in the low‐lying parts of the terrain the wells of these aquifers were over‐flowing with discharge rate of 0.5‐100 litre/s (1‐17 m above the land surface). Currently fountains are observed only in the territories adjacent to the Metsamor River with discharge rate of 20 litre/sec.

Local water‐bearing lava complex of Early Pliocene‐Quaternary period. Such complexes are widely distributed in the Akhuryan River basin. They are represented by dolerite and andesite basalts, basalts, volcanic tuffs and other types of lava rocks.

Waters of these complexes are used for the drinking water supply to main part of the Akhuryan River basin settlements and Gyumri city. Andesite‐basalt lavas and their pyroclastical varieties form inter‐lava and sub‐ lava large, high‐discharge flows. Most of these waters discharge into land surface in the form of springs with overall capacity of 10‐1,000 litre/sec. Currently, captage structures for the springs with significant discharge are being constructed and such springs are used for drinking water supply.

The Zuygaghbyur, Ashotzq, Ghazanchi artesian springs are distinguished in the Akhuryan river basin. The Arevik water flow is used through boreholes.

The Zuygaghbyur water flow is located in the north‐western part of the Zuygaghbyur‐Vardaghbyur concave. Groundwaters are connected with fissured andesite‐basalts. Here, at the 2,020 m a.s.l. 24 groundwater springs are identified, for which capture structures are constructed and which are currently being used for supplying drinking water to Gyumri city and neighbouring settlements. The overall discharge of the springs is 527 litre/second. In order to create a sanitary protection zone of the springs, Zuygaghbyur village has been relocated to other area.

202 The Ashotzq water flow is also connected to fractured andesite‐basalts of the Early Pliocene age. Here in total 26 springs are identified with an overall discharge of 256 litre/second. The springs are located at the hypsometric altitude of 2,000 m. Their discharges occur from lava fissures.

Currently the springs with the discharge of 100 litre/second or higher, and with satisfactory sanitary protection zones are captaged and used for supplying drinking water to the communities.

The Ghazanchi water flow is also connected to lavas and is discharged at the hypsometric altitude of 2,020 m. The overall discharge of the springs is 1,000 litre/second. Springs are captaged and used for drinking water supply.

The Arevik water flow is located in the South‐Eastern and Southern parts of Gyumri concave. Topography of the watershed is plain and does not have surface flow. Water‐bearing rocks are represented with highly fractured and porous andesite‐basalts. The quantity of annual precipitation in the recharge zone is 500‐700 mm. According to the nature of pressure the aquifer is distinguished with very low pressure, and the water table is replenished at the depth of 17‐25 m. The thickness of the aquifer is 15‐20 m, permeability coefficient of the rocks is 250‐260 m/day, and the discharge of wells in for 1 m water level drop is 20‐21 litre/second. In the described complex groundwater resources are identified in the lower reaches of Akhuryan River basin and are known as Arteni‐Aragats watercourse. Here the main aquifer is identified within the interval of 218‐245 m depth. Groundwater resources are replenished at the level 55‐70 m below the land surface. The specific capacity of the wells (q) varies within the range 2.5‐7 litre/second. In deeper areas this section (428 m) groundwater resources of higher temperature (260C) and mineralization are identified.

Complex of lavas in the Metsamor River basin is widely distributed. In the complex the second confined aquifer of the Ararat Artesian basin is identified, the waters of which are replenished 1‐4 m above the waters of the first artesian aquifer. Until 1990s waters of this aquifer were self‐flowing with up to 300 litre/second discharge. Currently due to significant water abstraction in several locations fountains have stopped or discharge of self‐flowing wells has decreased.

Discharge of the Metsamor River is formed at the expense of discharge of waters of first and the second confined aquifers.

Local water‐bearing complex of Mezo‐Cenozoic era sedimentary deposits, predominantly composed of carbonatic sediments The complex has limited distribution in Akhuryan River basin and is absent in Metsamor River basin. Formation of groundwater resources occurs in the carbonate aquifers and particularly in the deep limestone aquifers and the discharge of groundwater resources occurs through centralized outflows of eroded topographic fissures in the form of springs with 5‐10 litre/second and higher discharge rate. In high altitude zones the groundwater outflows are observed through the contacts of limestone and porphyrite. Depending on hypsometric altitude the springs are characterized with variability of the regime. Due to limited area occupied in the above‐mentioned complex only a minor quantity of groundwater resources is formed. Relatively high discharge springs are related to synclinal structures. Fieldwork has shown that the total discharge of the Akhuryan river basin springs described above (75 springs) is 158.3 litre/second, and according to nature of pressure these waters are unconfined. Due to limited resources the waters of this complex can not provide for the large portion of drinking water supply demand of the settlements.

Local low water‐bearing‐impermeable complexes of Mezo‐Cenozoic Era sedimentary, volcanic‐ sedimentary and sedimentary deposits The deposits are distributed in the upper and middle reaches of Akhuryan River basin, Shirak mountain range and Western slopes of Pambak mountain range. In Metsamor River basin such complexes are absent. The complexes are represented with sandstones, clay slates, tuff‐stones, tuff breccias and porphyrites. Formation of groundwater resources occurs at the crust of weathering of shallow depths of the mentioned rocks (up to 50 m). The main recharge source of groundwater resources is atmospheric precipitations. Here

203 the topography is highly segregated, which on its turn determines discharge of groundwater resources, which penetrate into shallow depths, to land surface through local directions. Groundwater is discharging through numerous small springs (discharge rate up to 0.5 litre/second). The specific capacity of wells varies within the range of 0.05‐0.1 litre/second. Sometimes they have a minor pressure of local nature (interstitial waters), thanks to which they temporarily overflow at discharge rate of 0.1‐0.2 litre/second. In low‐flow period of the year vast majority of the springs and waters in the above‐mentioned wells dry.

The above‐mentioned complex is practically considered impermeable below the low water‐bearing crust of weathering, as a result of which it is called local low water‐bearing water‐resistant. In the territory of extension of the complex mostly surface flow is formed, whereas the groundwater resources are highly limited. They mainly discharge in the form of drainage flow and do not have any practical meaning for drinking water supply.

From the above‐described hydrogeological units it is clear that the main aquifers and complexes in the Akhuryan RBD are represented by alluvial‐proluvial and lake‐river formations of inter‐mountainous concaves, as well as by volcanic or lava rocks.

204 Annex 13. Identification and Delineation of Groundwater Bodies in Akhuryan RBD

GWB in alluvial‐proluvial‐lacustrine sediments and volcanic rocks

Four groundwater bodies (G101. G102, G103, G104) named Ashotzq, Gyumri, Armavir and Metsamor GWBs have been identified in the alluvial‐proluvial‐lacustrine sediments and volcanic rocks.

3 GWB in Ashotzq aquifer (Q4‐N2 ), temporary code G101.Ashotzq groundwater aquifer is located in the Upper Akhuryan depression in the Upper Akhuryan River basin, at 2,000–2,200 m a.s.l., and on an area of 276,5 km2. Water‐bearing rocks are composed of alluvial‐proluvial sediments and volcanic lava deposits with the thickness of 175‐287 m. Water bearing complex is composed of hydraulically connected unconfined and two confined aquifers. Unconfined aquifer is composed of gravel sediments and is located at the depth of 0.5‐16 m from the land surface. The first and second confined aquifers are met at the depths of 92.5‐125 m and 155‐255 m correspondingly. The thickness of the body is 12–25 m. Hydraulic conductivity varies from 12 m/d to 24 m/d and transmissivity reaches 244–360 m2/d.

The specific yield of wells is 4,6–16 l/s and the capacity (discharge) of springs varies from 35 l/s to 1000 l/s. Groundwater within the body has unconfined‐confined character, with prevailing pressure at 1,5 m above ground surface. Tuff sandstones and tuff‐breccias serve as regional aquicludes for aquifers. Ashotzq groundwater is used for drinking water supply. A total of six captured springs and four abstraction wells abstract groundwater from the body. The prevalent chemical composition of the body is bicarbonate‐ calcium. Ground waters are fresh and of good chemical status.

The body is recharged by atmospheric precipitation, which reaches 600–700 mm/y. Groundwaters are hydraulically connected with surface waters: they drain into river valleys. Groundwater level has natural seasonal fluctuations; no trend of level decrease is observed. Groundwater abstraction and agriculture are the main human activities on the territory of the groundwater body.

In the first draft report on GWB delineation Ashotzq aquifer was preliminary assigned to the category at risk of not achieving WFD environmental objectives due to agricultural pollution and intensive exploitation. After the field survey in Spring‐Autumn 2013 some more data on groundwater quality has been collected. There was no information obtained on groundwater pollution with agricultural products. WFD recommends to assigned good status to groundwater body where there are insufficient data to prove the contrary information, i.e. that GWB is of poor status. Additional monitoring and/or investigation should be put in place so that at the next round of classification GWB status is updated.

During the field survey in April 2013 high arsenic (As) concentrations reaching 78.4 µg/l and almost 8 times exceeding EU norms for drinking water (10 µg/l) was detected in groundwater sample from Ashotzq aquifer.

It was assumed that such high As concentration is caused by the laboratory error but in order to prove this there is a need to further investigate arsenic concentrations in the Ashotzq groundwater body. If this is not a laboratory mistake, groundwater abstraction from the aquifer should be ceased.

205 Characterization of Ashotzq aquifer Water bodies in alluvial‐ Parameter prolluvial sediments and Lithological‐hydrogeological column volcanic rocks GWB code G101 GWB name Аshotsk GWB Unit Area, km2 276.5 3 Stratigraphy, geological index N2 ‐Q Lithological Description Alluvial‐prolluvial sediments and lava deposits Aquifertype: unconfined‐artesian Unconfined‐confined OverlyingStrata Boulders, pebbles, gravel with clay interlayers GWB Thickness, Min, Max, Mean 12‐15 Hydraulic Conductivity К, m/day 12‐24 Transmissivity Кm, m2/day. Min, 244‐360 GW Level Min, Max, Mean +0.6‐+1,5 m above land surface Annual GWL amplitude Used for abstraction >10 m3/day: yes/no Yes Number of abstraction springs 6 Number of abstraction wells 4 Purpose of abstraction For drinking water supply Yield of wells and springs 35‐1000 l/s Chemical composition (main cations and Bicarbonate‐calcium anions). Main Recharge Source Atmospheric precipitation Assoc. Aquatic Ecosystems Surface and groundwaters are inter‐related GWL trend Natural fluctuation Prevailing human activity Water abstraction and agriculture GWB chemical status Good GWB quantitative status Good Confidence level of information High Annual Precipitation, mm 600‐700 Source: “Identification, Characterization and Delineation of Groundwater Bodies in the Caucasus Countries” Report, EPIRB Project, 2014. Data source: Hydrogeological Monitoring Centre, Ministry of Nature Protection of Armenia, 2013

2 GWB in Gyumri aquifer (Q3‐4, Q1), temporary code G102, occupies 404,2 km around the town of Gyumri. Water‐bearing sediments are composed of typical alluvial‐lacustrine and eluvial‐diluvial materials: debris, boulders, pebbles, gravel and sand, with clay and loam interlayers with overall thickness of up to 450 m. The water bearing complex consists of unconfined and two artesian aquifers. Depth to the unconfined aquifer varies from 13‐15 to 17‐30 m with static water levels of 0.8‐5 m below land surface. First artesian aquifer occurs at the depth of 55‐70 m and is contained in 12‐18 m thick water bearing sands. Groundwater level fluctuates from 2 m below to 1 m above ground surface. Hydraulic conductivity of water‐bearing deposits varies within the range of 13–120 m/d. Transmissivity is rather high: 150–2150 m2/d. The capacity of springs varies from 5 l/s to 50 l/s, and well yields vary from 1 l/s to 20 l/s, specific yield being 4‐23 l/s.

The second artesian aquifer occurs at the depth of 110‐130 m and is contained in the fine‐grained sands. The body is used for drinking water and industrial purposes. Three captured springs have been installed and over 15 abstraction wells drilled into the body.

In the chemical composition of the interconnected aquifer system prevailing are (cations, anions) Ca2+ and ‐ + 2‐ HCO3 , sometimes Na and SO4 . Main recharge source of the body are atmospheric precipitations and

206 irrigation waters. The main human activities on the surface of the groundwater body are groundwater abstraction and industry. The quantitative status of groundwater body is good, as there is no overexploitation. Its chemical status declines at times, due to local industrial pollution.

Characterization of Gyumri aquifer Water bodies in alluvial‐ Parameter prolluvial and lake‐river Lithological‐hydrogeological column sediments GWBcode G102 GWBname Gyumri GWB Unit Area, km2 404.2

Stratigraphy, geological index Q3‐4, Q1 Lithological Description Debris material, boulders, pebbles, gravel, sand, with clay and loam interlayers Aquifer type: unconfined‐artesian Confined Overlying Strata Alluvial‐prolluvial sediments (loam and sandy loam) GWB Thickness, Min, Max, Mean 12‐18 m Hydraulic Conductivity К, m/day 13‐120 m/d Min, Max, Mean Transmissivity Кm, m2/day. Min, 156‐2160 m2/d Max, Mean GW Level Min, Max, Mean 2 m below and +1 m above land surface Annual GWL Amplitude 0.4m Used for abstraction >10 m3/day: Yes yes/no Number of abstraction springs 3 Number of abstraction wells 15 and more Purpose of abstraction For drinking and industrial water supply Yield of wells and springs Spring capacity 5‐50 l/s; yield of wells 1‐20 l/s 2+ ‐ + Chemical composition (main Ca , HCO3 , sometimes Na , 2‐ cations and anions) SO4 Main Recharge Source Atmospheric precipitation and irrigation waters Assoc Aquatic Ecosystems Interconnected GWL trend Mainlydecreasing Prevailing human activity Abstraction and industry GWB chemical status Locallypollutedbyindustrialprod ucts GWB quantitative status Good Confidence level of information High Annual Precipitation, mm 450 Source: “Identification, Characterization and Delineation of Groundwater Bodies in the Caucasus Countries” Report, EPIRB Project, 2014. Data source: Hydrogeological Monitoring Centre, Ministry of Nature Protection of Armenia, 2013.

3 2 GWB in Armavir aquifer (Q3‐4 , N2 ), temporary code G103. Armavir aquifer occupies 337,5 km in southern part of Akhuryan river basin. The water‐bearing complex is comprised of Quaternary‐contemporary alluvial‐ proluvial formations and volcanic lavas. Two aquifers are identified: unconfined and first artesian. Unconfined waters are located at depth from 0,0 m to 25 m (in foothill zones). Water‐bearing rocks are represented by clay‐sands, sands, gravel, pebbles and volcanic lavas. The hydraulic conductivity of the aquifer varies in the range of 2–120 m/d, transmissivity – 20–1104 m2/d, specific yields of wells – 30–100 l/s, and aquifer thickness – 10–30 m.

207 First artesian aquifer is located at depth of 30–47 m. It is separated from unconfined waters by a 5–10 m thick clay layer. The hydraulic conductivity of water‐bearing rocks is 2–123 m/d, and piezoconductivity (a) is 64–5,460 m. Yield of wells (Q), at water level decrease (s) by 0,92–5,63 m, is 19.8 l/s – i.e. the specific yield of wells (q) is 1–3/5 l/s. By the 1990s wells drilled into the aquifers in low‐laying parts of the terrain were flowing, with discharge rates of 0,5–100 l/s (1–17 m above ground surface). At present, fountains are observed only in areas adjacent to Metsamor River, with discharge rate of 20 l/s.

During the field survey in April 2013 high arsenic concentrations reaching 22‐82 µg/l and from 2,2 to 8,2 times exceeding EU norms for drinking water (10 µg/l) was detected in groundwater samples from Armavir aquifer. It is assumed that such high As concentration is caused by the laboratory error but this information has to be further investigated

Characterization of Armavir aquifer Lithological‐ Parameter Waterbodies in volcanic rocks hydrogeologicalcolumn GWBcode G103 GWBname Armavir GWB Unit Area, km2 337,46 3 Stratigraphy, geological index N2 ‐Q Debris material, boulders, Lithological Description pebbles, gravel, sand, clay and volcanic lavas Aquifer type: unconfined‐artesian Unconfined and confined Overlying Strata Boulders, pebbles, gravel with sand, clay GWB Thickness, Min, Max, Mean 10‐23 Hydraulic Conductivity К, m/day 7‐25 Transmissivity Кm, m2/day. 70‐575 GW Level Min, Max, Mean 8 Annual GWL Amplitude 0.5‐1 Used for abstraction >10 m3/day: yes/no Yes Number of abstraction springs ‐ Number of abstraction wells More than 20 Purpose of abstraction For drinking and agricultural water supply Yield of wells and springs 15‐25 l/s + ‐ Chemical composition (main cations and Na , HCO3 anions) Main Recharge Source Atmospheric precipitation Assoc Aquatic Ecosystems Interrelated GWL trend Decreasing Prevailing human activity Agriculture GWB chemical status Good GWB quantitative status Good Confidence level of information Low Annual Precipitation, mm On the territory of water body 300‐350 mm Source: “Identification, Characterization and Delineation of Groundwater Bodies in the Caucasus Countries” Report, EPIRB Project, 2014. Data source: Hydrogeological Monitoring Centre, Ministry of Nature Protection of Armenia, 2013

3 2 GWB in Metsamor aquifer (Q1‐3, N2 ), temporary code G104. Metsamor aquifer occupies 185,82 km in the south‐eastern part of Akhuryan river basin management area. The water‐bearing complex is comprised of Quaternary‐contemporary alluvial‐proluvial and volcanic formations.

208 Two groundwater complexes are identified in the Metsamor aquifer: unconfined aquifer and confined (artesian) water bearing complex which conditionally is divided into two aquifers. The unconfined aquifer appears almost everywhere in Metsamor GWB. It is located at the depth of 0.5‐50.0 m. The flow direction coincides with the terrain inclination and is directed towards Metsamor and Araks rivers. Groundwater is contained by sandy loam, loam sand and gravel‐pebble deposits. The confined aquifers are divided into porous groundwater associated with lacustrine deposits (1st confined aquifer) and fissure‐porous and fissure groundwater associated with lava rocks (2nd confined aquifer).

Hydraulic characteristics of the aquifers are variable. Depth to the top of the 1st confined aquifer change from 2 to 60 m and depth to the 2nd confined aquifer is from 30 to 80 m from the land surface. Well yields vary from 7 to 80 l/s in the first confined aquifer and are much higher (13 to 234 l/s) in the second artesian aquifer. Hydraulic conductivity (K) of the first artesian aquifer vary from 2,5 to 115 m/d and in the second artesian aquifer conductivity values are much lower – 4‐22 m/d, while transmissivity of confined aquifers has an opposite distribution. It is lower in the upper aquifer (110‐1100 m2/d) and higher in the lower one (480‐3200 m2/d).

Groundwaters of Metsamor aquifer are used for drinking, agricultural water supply and for the fishery industry. Abstraction wells in the area are 150–200 m deep, with well capacity of 30–100 l/s. The main + 2‐ chemical components are Na and SO4 . Groundwater quality is good, however local pollution with products from agriculture is observed. Groundwater is recharged by atmospheric precipitation and discharged into river valleys.

Due to intensive development of fish farms in the last 7‐8 years, abstraction of groundwater in Metsamor GWB increased significantly. Over‐abstraction has caused development of groundwater level drawdowns and depletion of capacities of artesian wells, including reduction of discharge of Metsamor‐Aknalich springs from 17.8 m3/s in 1983 to 3.0 m3/s in 2013. Due to the current groundwater abstraction in Masis and Echmiadzin districts, the depression cone with the area of 530 km2 has developed in the artesian aquifers expanding until the discharge area of Metsamor‐Aknalich springs.

Depression cone caused by groundwater over‐abstraction in the Ararat artesian basin (“Resource Management” LLC, 2014)

According to the WFD, good groundwater quantitative status is achieved when “the level of groundwater in the groundwater body is such that the available groundwater resource is not exceeded by the long‐term annual average rate of abstraction”.

209

In the Metsamor GWB groundwater abstraction is clearly exceeding its recharge and cause development of groundwater drawdown. For this reason the Metsamor groundwater body is assigned the category at risk of not achieving WFD environmental objectives. Measures for improvement of groundwater quantitative status have to be proposed and included into the river basin management plan

Characterization of Metsamor aquifer Water bodies in alluvial‐ Parameter prolluvial sediments and Lithological‐hydrogeological column volcanic rocks GWBcode G104 GWBname Metsamor GWB Unit Area, km2 185,82 3 Stratigraphy, geological index Q1‐3, N2 Lithological Description Debris material, boulders, pebbles, gravel, sand, clay and volcanic lavas Aquifer type: unconfined‐artesian Unconfined and confined Overlying Strata Boulders, pebbles, gravel with sand, clay GWB Thickness, Min, Max, Mean 5–25 Hydraulic Conductivity К, m/day 2,5 to 115 4 to 22 Transmissivity Кm, m2/day. 110‐1100 480‐3200 GW Level Min, Max, Mean 8 Annual GWL Amplitude 0,5–1 Used for abstraction >10 m3/day: Yes yes/no

Number of abstraction springs – Number of abstraction wells >20 Purpose of abstraction For drinking and agricultural water supply and fishery industry Yield of wells and springs 7 to 80 13 to 234 + ‐ Chemical composition (main cations Na , HCO3 and anions) Main Recharge Source Atmospheric precipitation Assoc. Aquatic Ecosystems Aquifer is interrelated with surface waters GWL trend Decreasing Prevailing human activity Agriculture, fisheries GWB chemical status Good GWB quantitative status At risk Confidence level of information Low Annual Precipitation, mm 400 across the GWB area Source: “Identification, Characterization and Delineation of Groundwater Bodies in the Caucasus Countries” Report, EPIRB Project, 2014. Data source: Hydrogeological Monitoring Centre, Ministry of Nature Protection of Armenia, 2013

210 GWB in local water‐bearing volcanic complex of Early Pliocene‐Quaternary

Volcanic groundwater body is the largest one in the Akhuryan RBD, occupying the area of more than 3470 km2. Water bearing deposits are represented by dolerite and andesite basalts, basalts, volcanic tuffs and other types of lava rocks. Code of GWB is G201, geological index is N23‐Q.

Waters of Early Pliocene‐Quaternary complexes are used for the drinking water supply to the main part of Akhuryan RB settlements and Gyumri city. Andesite‐basalt lavas and their pyroclastic varieties form inter‐ lava and sub‐lava large, high‐discharge flows. Most of these waters discharge onto land surface in the form of springs with overall capacity of 10‐1000 l/s. Currently, springs with significant discharge are captured and used for supplying drinking water.

Several water supply areas are installed within the groundwater body: Zuygaghbyur, Ashotzq, Ghazanchi, Arevik, etc. Zuygaghbyur water supply area, located in the north‐western part of the Zuygaghbyur‐ Vardaghbyur concave at the 2020 m a.s.l. is producing groundwater from the springs. Here, 24 groundwater springs are captured and are currently being used for supplying drinking water to Gyumri city and neighbouring settlements. The overall discharge of the springs is 527 l/s. In order to create a sanitary protection zone of the springs, Zuygaghbyur village has been relocated to other area. Ashotzq water supply field is also connected to fractured andesite‐basalts of the Early Pliocene age. Here in total 26 springs are identified with an overall discharge of 256 l/s. The springs are located at the hypsometric altitude of 2000 m. Their discharges occur from lava fissures.

Ghazanchi water supply field is also connected to lavas and is discharged at the hypsometric altitude of 2,020 m. The overall discharge of the springs is 1000 l/s, all they are completely within capture structures and used for drinking water supply.

Arevik water supply installation is located in the South‐Eastern and Southern parts of Gyumri concave. Water‐bearing rocks are represented by highly fractured and porous andesite‐basalts. The quantity of annual precipitation in the recharge zone is 500‐700 mm. Static water level in the aquifer stabilises at the depth of 17‐25 m. The thickness of the aquifer is 15‐20 m, hydraulic conductivity of the rocks is 250‐260 m/day, and the specific capacity is 20 l/s.

Complex of lava aquifers is also widely distributed in Metsamor river basin. In the complex the second confined aquifer of the Ararat Artesian basin is identified. Water level of this aquifers stabilises at 1‐4 m above the waters of the first artesian aquifer. Until 1990s waters of this aquifer were self‐flowing with up to 300 l/s discharge. Currently due to significant water abstraction in several locations fountains have stopped or discharge of self‐flowing wells has decreased.

The Metsamor River is also recharged by the groundwater from first and the second confined aquifers.

Characterization of Pliocene‐Quaternary aquifer Parameter Water bodies in volcanic rocks Lithological‐hydrogeological column GWBcode G201 GWBname Volcanic WB GWB Unit Area, km2 3473.82 3 Stratigraphy, geological index N2 ‐Q Lithological Description Volcanic rocks: dacites, andesites, tuffs and their pyroclasts Aquifer type: unconfined‐ Unconfined/confined artesian Overlying Strata Debris material, sandy loam, loam GWB Thickness, Min, Max, 15‐20 Mean Hydraulic Conductivity К, 24‐70 and more

211 m/day Transmissivity Кm, m2/day. 360 ‐ 1750 and more GW Level Min, Max, Mean 17‐25 Annual GWL Amplitude 4‐5 Used for abstraction >10 Yes m3/day: yes/no Number of abstraction springs 15 Number of abstraction wells – Purpose of abstraction Drinking water/agricultural water supply Yield of wells and springs 10‐1000 2+ ‐ Chemical composition (main Ca , HCO3 cations and anions) Main Recharge Source Atmospheric precipitation Assoc Aquatic Ecosystems Aquifer is interconnected with surface waters GWL trend Natural fluctuation Prevailing human activity Abstraction and agriculture (animal husbandry) GWB chemical status Good GWB quantitative status Good Confidence level of High information Annual Precipitation, mm 500–900 Source: “Identification, Characterization and Delineation of Groundwater Bodies in the Caucasus Countries” Report, EPIRB Project, 2014. Data source: Hydrogeological Monitoring Centre, Ministry of Nature Protection of Armenia, 2013

GWB in local low‐water‐bearing/impermeable complexes of Meso‐Cenozoic sedimentary and volcanic‐ sedimentary aquifers

Amasia aquifer (Mz‐Kz), temporary code 301,comprises aquifers distributed over 315,4 km2 in the upper and middle reaches of the Akhuryan River basin, the Shirak mountain range, and the western slopes of the Pambak mountain range. One GWB has been identified in Amasia aquifer (temporary code G301).

Amasia groundwater complexes are represented with sandstones, clay slates, tuff‐sandstones, tuff breccias and porphyrites. Groundwater formation occurs at the crust of weathering at shallow depths of these rocks (up to 50 m).

Atmospheric precipitations are the main recharge source of groundwater resources. Groundwater discharge is determined by the highly segregated topography: ground waters penetrate to shallow depths and to ground surface through numerous small springs (discharge rate of up to 0,5 l/s). The specific capacity of wells varies within the range of 0,05–0,1 l/s. At times wells have minor pressure of local nature (interstitial waters), thanks to which they temporarily overflow at discharge rate of 0,1–0,2 l/s. During low‐ flow period, the vast majority of springs and wells dry.

The volcanic‐sedimentary complex is practically impermeable below the low water‐bearing crust of weathering. Nevertheless, the body is used locally for drinking water and agricultural water supply. The 2+ ‐ chemical status of ground waters is good. The main chemical components are Ca and HCO3 .

212 Characterization of Amasia aquifer Parameter Water bodies in volcanogenic‐ Lithological‐hydrogeological column sedimentary rocks GWBcode G301 GWBname Amasia GWB Unit Area, km2 315.39 Stratigraphy, geological index Mz‐Kz Lithological Description Volcanogenic‐sedimentary rocks: sandstones, clay slates, tuff‐ sandstones, tuff breccias and porphyrites Aquifer type: unconfined‐artesian Unconfined Overlying Strata Debris material, sandy loam and loam GWB Thickness, Min, Max, Mean 5‐6 Hydraulic Conductivity К, m/day 0.1‐1.2m/day Transmissivity Кm, m2/day 0.5‐7 m2/day GW Level Min, Max, Mean 15‐20

Annual GWL Amplitude 8‐10

Used for abstraction >10 m3/day: Yes yes/no

Number of abstraction springs 50 and more Number of abstraction wells Purpose of abstraction For drinking and agricultural water supply Yield of wells and springs 0.1‐0.4 l/s 2+ ‐ Chemical composition (main cations Ca , HCO3 and anions) Main Recharge Source Atmospheric precipitation Assoc Aquatic Ecosystems Interrelated GWL trend Natural fluctuation Prevailing human activity Agriculture GWB chemical status Good GWB quantitative status Good Confidence level of information Low Annual Precipitation, mm 500‐600 Source: “Identification, Characterization and Delineation of Groundwater Bodies in the Caucasus Countries” Report, EPIRB Project, 2014. Data source: Hydrogeological Monitoring Centre, Ministry of Nature Protection of Armenia, 2013

GWB in local water‐bearing complex of Cretaceous‐Paleogene carbonate deposits

Aquifer in Cretaceous‐Paleogenecarbonate deposits (K2‐P2) has limited distribution in the basin of Akhuryan River, and no distribution in the basin of Metsamor River. Two small groundwater bodies have been identified (temporary codes G401 and G402), with combined area of 21,44 km2.

Formation of ground waters occurs in carbonate aquifers, particularly in deep limestone aquifers. Discharge of ground waters occurs through concentrated outflows from eroded topographic fissures, in the form of springs with discharge rate of 5–10 l/s and higher. In high altitude zones, groundwater outflows are observed at contact areas of limestone and porphyrite. The regime of springs varies depending on altitude (a.s.l.). The area of aquifers is limited and only a minor quantity of groundwater resources is formed. Relatively high discharge springs are related to synclinal structures. The number of springs from the carbonatic deposits in the Akhuryan River basin is 75, with combined discharge rate of 158,3 l/s. By nature of pressure, these waters are unconfined. The hydraulic conductivity of aquifers varies between 25 m/d and 110 m/d. Transmissivity is 100–1100 m2/d.

213 Water resources in this complex are limited and they cannot provide for a significant part of the drinking water demand of settlements. Ground waters from this complex are used locally for drinking water and agricultural water supply. Both groundwater quantitative and chemical status are good. In chemical 2+ ‐ composition prevailing are Ca cations and HCO3 anions.

Characterization of carbonate aquifers Water bodies in carbonatic Lithological‐hydrogeological Parameter sediments column GWBcode G401, G402 GWBname Carbonatic GWB Unit Area, km2 4,74; 16,71 = 21,45

Stratigraphy, geological index K2 Lithological Description Sedimentary rocks: limestone, marls, sandstones Aquifer type: unconfined‐artesian Unconfined OverlyingStrata Debris material, sandy loam and loam GWB Thickness, Min, Max, Mean 4‐10 Hydraulic Conductivity К, m/day 25‐110 Transmissivity Кm, m2/day. 100‐1100 GW Level Min, Max, Mean 40‐72 Annual GWL Amplitude 0.5‐1.0 Used for abstraction >10 m3/day Yes Number of abstraction springs 2 Number of abstraction wells ‐ Purpose of abstraction For drinking and agricultural water supply Yield of wells and springs Springs 2.5‐6 l/s 2+ ‐ Chemical composition (main cations and Ca , HCO3 anions) Main Recharge Source Atmospheric precipitation Assoc Aquatic Ecosystems Interrelated GWL trend Natural sinusoidal fluctuation Prevailing human activity Agriculture GWB chemical status Good GWB quantitative status Good Confidence level of information Low Annual Precipitation, mm 600 Source: “Identification, Characterization and Delineation of Groundwater Bodies in the Caucasus Countries” Report, EPIRB Project, 2014. Data source: Hydrogeological Monitoring Centre, Ministry of Nature Protection of Armenia, 2013

Mineral groundwater bodies

Мineral groundwater body (Q1‐2), temporary code G501, has been identified due to the specific chemical characteristics. At the moment mineral waters are not used but there are plans to abstract them in future for bottling and curative purposes. Mineral water deposits near Gyumri town cover an area of 8,32 km2.

Hydraulic conductivity of water bearing sands and tuff‐breccias vary from 5–40 m/d and transmissivity change from 50–1560 m2/d. The thickness of water‐bearing strata is 7–40 m. The capacity of wells varies + 2+ ‐ from 4 l/s to 15 l/s. The prevailing ions of mineral waters are Na , Mg and HCO3 .

214 Characterization of Gyumri mineral water aquifer Lithological‐hydrogeological Parameter Water bodies of mineral water column GWBcode G501 GWBname Mineral waters of Gyumri GWBUnitArea, km2 8,32

Stratigraphy, geological index Q‐N2 Lithological Description Limnic sands, tuff‐breccias Aquifer type: unconfined‐artesian Confined Overlying Strata Linmic clays, sand, gravel, pebbles GWB Thickness, Min, Max, Mean 10‐39 Hydraulic Conductivity К, m/day Min, 5‐40 Max, Mean Transmissivity Кm, m2/day. Min, Max, 50‐1560 Mean GW Level Min, Max, Mean 1‐6 m and more above land surface Annual GWL Amplitude 0.2‐0.8 Used for abstraction >10 m3/day: Will be used in future yes/no Number of abstraction springs ‐ Number of abstraction wells 6 Purpose of abstraction Will be used in balneology Yield of wells and springs 4‐15 l/s + ‐ Chemical composition (main cations Na , HCO3 and anions) Main Recharge Source Atmospheric precipitation Assoc Aquatic Ecosystems Interrelated GWL trend No trend. Level is stable Prevailing human activity Agriculture GWB chemical status Good GWB quantitative status Good Confidence level of information Low Annual Precipitation, mm 400‐450 Source: “Identification, Characterization and Delineation of Groundwater Bodies in the Caucasus Countries” Report, EPIRB Project, 2014. Data source: Hydrogeological Monitoring Centre, Ministry of Nature Protection of Armenia, 2013

215 Annex 14. Proposed Monitoring Programme for the Surface and Groundwater Bodies in Akhuryan RBD

Surface water bodies The following approach is used for setting up monitoring programmes and network for the Akhuryan RBD basin in line with WFD Article 8 and Annex V: The monitoring programme is largely based on the information gathered during pressure‐impact analysis (Chapter 3) and two joint field surveys, conducted in 2013 and 2014 within the EPIRB Project; The monitoring programme includes the two main WFD types of monitoring: operational and surveillance, plus two additional types (reference monitoring and pollution transport); The monitoring programme is an integrated programme including chemical, hydromorphological and biological monitoring as required by the WFD; The selection of stations is based on accessibility and how representative the locality is in terms of pressures on and hydromorphology of the water body in question; The number of stations, parameters and frequency of sampling is kept on a minimum to minimise the costs of running the monitoring programme – as a general rule only one station in each water body; The same stations and set of parameters as in the present monitoring programme is as far as possible used to achieve continuity with the present monitoring programme. As required by WFD, new monitoring points are proposed for artificial and heavily modified water bodies; The monitoring programme should be revised regularly, to address improved knowledge about the impact of human activities and the ecology of surface waters plus to assess measures aiming at improving the status of water bodies.

The proposed WFD compliant monitoring programme for surface water bodies includes 40 points. Of this, 24 monitoring points are on rivers, 11 on artificial water bodies such as canals and artificial ponds, and 5 monitoring points are on reservoirs.

The number of monitoring points allocated for operational monitoring is 20, of which 10 on rivers and 10 on canals. The objective of the operational monitoring is to assess the status of water bodies at risk, and assess any changes in the status of water bodies at risk, resulting from the program of measures.

The number of monitoring points allocated for surveillance monitoring is 15, of which 9 are on rivers, 5 on reservoirs and 1 on artificial pond. The objective of the surveillance monitoring is to check the results of the pressure‐impact analysis, serve as input to the design of the future monitoring program cycles, and to assess the long‐term changes in natural conditions and long‐term changes, resulting from widespread anthropogenic activities.

For reference monitoring 4 monitoring points are proposed on 3 different river types. Monitoring in the type specific biological reference conditions will provide information on the values of the biological quality elements at high ecological status for each surface water body type. Such values are normally associated with that given type under undisturbed conditions and show nor or only very minor evidence of distortion. Finally, 1 station is proposed on the border with Turkey, specifically for transboundary monitoring regarding transport of pollutants

The proposed monitoring programme should be an integrated programme including chemical, hydromorphological (flow) and hydrobiological monitoring as required by the EU WFD. In the initial 6‐year planning period the biological monitoring will only include macroinvertebrates, macrohpytes and fish as the methodologies of the other indicator groups for biological monitoring in rivers are currently far less developed, and the experience needed to address the results of the biological monitoring to status (high, good, moderate, poor bad) of these biological indicator groups is not yet available.

216 Physical‐chemical monitoring is proposed for all monitoring points. For all points the key chemical parameters proposed are common substances, which are discharged with wastewaters and are experienced to impact aquatic life. These are the parameters, which usually and for almost all water bodies are the most important chemical parameters to characterize the pollution impacts and to support the biological status assessments.

Key Physical and Shemical Parameters proposed in all Monitoring Points Parameter Unit Temperature oC

Dissolved Oxygen mgO2/l pH pH units Conductivity μS/cm

Hardness mg/l CaCO3 Colour visual o‐Phosphate mg P/l Total Phosphorus mg P/l Total Nitrogen mg N/l Nitrate mg N/l Ammonium mg N/l Chloride mg/l Total suspended solids mg/l

Biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5) mgO2/l Chemical oxygen demand (COD) or TOC mgO2/l Petroleum Hydrocarbons visual

In addition to key physical and chemical parameters, monitoring of toxic substances is proposed at the transport station at the border with Turkey, at the reference stations (to estimate background concentrations) and at the 10 water bodies at risk, where operational monitoring is proposed. The toxic substances include heavy metals, pesticides and a long list of synthetic organic compounds widely used in industrial production and in daily life (e.g. in detergents, as softeners in plastic products and as solvents for different purposes). Some of these substances are highly toxic even in very low concentrations and could bio‐accumulate in the aquatic food chain. Others are less toxic, but can be problematic as they may occur in higher concentrations. As for heavy metals, they are natural constituents of surface waters, but the concentrations can be dramatically increased by discharges of wastewater, especially from mining and metal industry, which may lead to toxic impacts on the flora and fauna.

Additional parameters, proposed at the transport station, reference stations and at water bodies at risk Metals Al Aluminium As Arsenic Pb Lead Cd Cadmium Cr Chromium Cu Copper Fe Iron Hg Mercury Ni Nickel Zn Zinc V Vanadium B Boron Specific DDT Dichlordiphenyltrichlorethan organic DDD Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethane, a breakdown product of DDT substances DDE Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene, a breakdown product of DDT

217 DDT total23 As defined in the EU DIRECTIVE 2008/105/EC ‐HCCH alpha‐hexachlorocyclohexane Lindane Gamma‐hexachlorocyclohexane Heptachlor 1,4,5,6,7,8,8‐Heptachloro‐3a,4,7,7a‐tetrahydro‐4,7‐methano‐1H‐indene Phenols A class of chemical compounds consisting of a hydroxyl group (‐OH) bonded directly to an aromatic hydrocarbon group. The simplest of the class is phenol (C6H5OH) BTEX Benzene, Toluene, Ethylbenzene, m‐/p‐Xylene, o‐Xelene PAHs Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons PCBs Polychlorinated biphenyls Anionic surfactant Total oil products

Finally, as required by the EU WFD, monitoring of priority substances and other pollutants is proposed for the 14 surface water bodies, where surveillance monitoring is proposed.

Additional Parameters, Proposed at Surveillance Monitoring Points Priority substances Alachlor Anthracene Atrazine Benzene Brominated diphenyletheriv Pentabromodiphenylether Cadmium and its compounds Chloroalkanes, C10‐13 iv Chlorfenvinphos Chlorpyrifos (Chlorpyrifos‑ethyl) 1,2‐Dichloroethane Dichloromethane Di(2‐ethylhexyl)phthalate (DEHP) Diuron Endosulfan Fluoranthenevi Hexachlorobenzene Hexachlorobutadiene Hexachlorocyclohexane Isoproturon Lead and its compounds Mercury and its compounds Naphthalene Nickel and its compounds Nonylphenols (4‐nonylphenol) Octylphenols (4‐(1,1',3,3'‐tetramethylbutyl)‐phenol) Pentachlorobenzene Pentachlorophenol Polyaromatic hydrocarbons (Benzo(a)pyrene) (Benzo(b)fluoranthene) (Benzo(g,h,i)perylene) (Benzo(k)fluoranthene)

23 DDT total comprises the sum of the isomers 1,1,1‐trichloro‐2,2 bis (p‐chlorophenyl) ethane (CAS number 50‐29‐3; EU number 200‐024‐3); 1,1,1‐trichloro‐2 (o‐chlorophenyl)‐2‐(p‐chlorophenyl) ethane (CAS number 789‐02‐6; EU number 212‐332‐5); 1,1‐dichloro‐2,2 bis (p‐chlorophenyl) ethylene (CAS number 72‐55‐9; EU number 200‐784‐6); and 1,1‐dichloro‐2,2 bis (p‐chlorophenyl) ethane (CAS number 72‐54‐8; EU number 200‐783‐0).

218 (Indeno(1,2,3‐cd)pyrene) Simazine Tributyltin compounds (Tributyltin‐cation) Trichlorobenzenes Trichloromethane (chloroform) Trifluralin Other pollutants Carbon‐tetrachloride DDT total para‐para‐DDT Cyclodiene pesticides Aldrin Dieldrin Endrin Isodrin Tetrachloro‐ethylene Trichloro‐ethylene

Knowledge of the flow at the time of biological and chemical sampling is crucial for the interpretation of the results at of the physical‐chemical and biological monitoring. The best option is to make a flow measurement by direct measurements of river depth, width, and water velocity. The current speed of the water (m/s) at the site is relevant for the biological assessment and the estimated flow (m3/s) is relevant for assessing the results of biological monitoring, to calculate the dilution of wastewater from outlets upstream the monitoring site and to calculate the daily and yearly transport of polluting substances. In addition to measuring the flow, morphological conditions in all sites will be assessed.

As for the frequency of sampling, the following approach is proposed: Biological quality elements (macroinvertebrates, macrophytes and fish) should be sampled 1 time per year in all sampling sites; From hydromorphological quality elements, the river flow should be measures on a continuous basis (daily), whereas morphological conditions should be assessed 1 time per year in all sampling sites; For all samplings sites, the key physical and chemical parameters, heavy metals and specific organic substances, as well as WFD priority substances and other pollutants should be sampled at least 4 times per year.

However, if measures to achieve good status for water bodies at risk are implemented, then the frequency of monitoring should be 12 times per year.

Groundwater Bodies Proposed WFD compliant monitoring of groundwater bodies in the Akhuryan RBD is outlined in the “Guidelines for the Groundwater Monitoring in the Pilot River Basins of the Caucasus Countries”, prepared within EPIRB Project in June 2014. According to it, the groundwater monitoring program basin shall consist of quantitative and chemical monitoring, further sub‐divided into surveillance, operational and investigative parts. As per WFD requirements also drinking water protection areas and monitoring of polluted sites (prevent and limit monitoring) need to be carried out.

Proposed groundwater monitoring network is based on the present conceptual understanding of the hydrogeology and anthropogenic pressures within each groundwater body and will be reviewed as this understanding improves or at least once in each planning cycle (every 6 years).

Quantity monitoring is proposed for all groundwater bodies and in all proposed monitoring stations. The overall objectives of the quantitative monitoring include observation of long‐term water level trends and assessment of saline or other intrusions caused by groundwater abstraction. This information will also be used for validating risk assessments.

219 Groundwater level monitoring stations shall be located across a groundwater body to achieve a good spatial spread of information within groundwater body recharge and discharge areas.

Groundwater level and flow measurements shall be carried out in: Monitoring boreholes or production wells; Natural springs (e.g. Ashotzq, Aknalich, etc.); Surface water courses during drought periods (e.g. Akhuryan, Metsamor rivers);

The installation of data loggers is recommended in all quantitative groundwater monitoring boreholes because continuous and frequent data recording provides an opportunity to achieve a greater understanding of the aquifer response to changes of recharge regimes and behaviour to pollution/abstraction events.

This is particularly important for the volcanic and alluvial‐proluvial groundwater bodies (G201 and G103) which are transboundary with Turkey and Georgia (G201).

Until electronic data loggers are installed groundwater levels shall be measured by local observers 3 times/month and during the sampling events, 2‐4 times/year.

For the assessment of chemical status groundwater quality monitoring network shall be installed in each delineated groundwater body. As pressure‐impact analysis indicated (Chapter 3), the quantitative and chemical status in eight of the nine delineated GWB in the Akhuryan RBD is good.

Surveillance monitoring programme, which has an objective to assess the significant long‐term water quality trends, resulted by changes in natural conditions and anthropogenic activities, is be proposed for 6 groundwater bodies, as two groundwater bodies (G401 and G402) are rather small and can be merged with the neighbouring bodies. Recommended surveillance groundwater monitoring network in the Akhuryan RBD is presented below.

Recommended Surveillance Groundwater Monitoring Network (Quantitative and Chemical) No Name and code of No of What is Purpose of monitoring GWB monitoring well monitored 1 Alluvial‐proluvial‐ G101‐1s Flow and GWB recharge zone, (As problem) lacustrine, G101 chemistry 2 G101‐2 Level and GWB discharge zone chemistry 3 G102‐1 Level and GWB Recharge zone chemistry 4 Alluvial‐proluvial‐ G102‐2 Level and Urban area lacustrine, G102 chemistry 5 G102‐3 Level and GWB Discharge zone chemistry 6 G103‐1 Level and Urban area (As problem) Alluvial‐proluvial‐ chemistry 7 lacustrine, G103 G103‐2 Level and Transboundary GWB with Turkey chemistry 8 G104‐1 Level and GWB Discharge area, transboundary GWB with chemistry Turkey (GWB at risk due to over‐abstraction) 9 G104‐2 existing Level and Impact of abstraction (GWB at risk due to over‐ Alluvial‐proluvial‐ monitoring well chemistry abstraction) 10 lacustrine, G104 G104‐3 existing Level and Impact of abstraction (GWB at risk due to over‐ monitoring well chemistry abstraction) 11 G104‐4s Flow and Metsamor‐Aknalich springs, impact of abstraction chemistry (GWB at risk due to over‐abstraction) 12 G201‐1 Level and Transboundary GWB with Turkey Volcanic, G201 chemistry

220 No Name and code of No of What is Purpose of monitoring GWB monitoring well monitored 13 G201‐2 Level and GWB Discharge area, transboundary GWB with chemistry Turkey 14 G201‐3 Level and GWB Recharge area chemistry 15 G201‐4 Level and GWB Discharge area chemistry 16 G201‐5 Level and Discharge area, transboundary GWB with Turkey chemistry 17 Volcanogenic‐ G301‐1 Level and GWB Recharge area sedimentary, chemistry 18 G301 G301‐2 Level and GWB Discharge area chemistry Total: 18 monitoring wells

During the surveillance monitoring programme some parameters have to be measured in the field at the well/spring before collection of samples: pH, temperature, DO, conductivity, TDS, etc. Monitoring wells must be properly purged before collecting groundwater sample. Chemical analysis of collected samples for general indicators (main cations and anions, nutrients, permanganate index, etc.), which characterise the chemical status and quality of groundwater formed under natural conditions and anthropogenic loads, have to be analysed in groundwater samples at least two times a year. Specific chemical components, such as organic compounds and pesticides, with usually very low concentrations, shall be monitored once in six years, and trace elements shall be monitored once in a two‐year period in wells where these components are likely to be detected.

The groundwater monitoring frequency for the surveillance monitoring is presented in the table below.

Groundwater Monitoring Parameters and Frequency Parameters and indices Minimum Frequency tot Main anions and cations (Na, K, Ca, Mg, Fe , NH4, HCO3, Cl, 2‐4 times a year SO4, NO3, NO2) and physical properties (pH, specific conductivity, permanganate index, or TOC) Trace elements (Fe, As, Hg, Cd, Pb, Zn, Cu, Cr, etc.) Once in 2 years Pesticides24 Once in 6 years Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, Phenols, Trichlorethylene, Once in 2 years Tetrachlorethylene25 Groundwater levels in monitoring wells, boreholes and flow Electronic data loggers – every 6‐12 hrs. Other of natural springs monitoring wells 3 times/month. Springs‐ during the sampling events (2‐4 times/year)

One groundwater body (G104‐Metsamor) was assigned “at risk” category due to over‐exploitation and development of depression cone. Operational monitoring programme and measures for improvement of quantitative status will be proposed for this body. Thus, operational monitoring shall be performed in the south‐eastern part of Metsamor basin in the G104 groundwater body which is assigned “at risk” category due to: a) Exceedence of available groundwater resource by long‐term annual average rate of abstraction in fish farms; b) failure to achieve environmental objectives for associated surface waters – Metsamor‐

24) Pesticides have to be analysed only in monitoring points located in the agricultural areas. 25) PAH, phenols, TCE&PCE have to be analysed in the wells located in urban territories (Gyumri, Armavir) and near the industrial sites.

221 Aknalich River and springs. Metsamor‐Aknalich springs should be also included into the monitoring programme. For operational monitoring in GWB at risk it is planned to drill one additional observation well and equip it with electronic level and temperature meters. Telemetric data transfer to the databases of Hydrogeological monitoring Centre will be organised. Two existing monitoring wells will be continuously observed and discharge and quality of Metsamor‐Aknalich springs monitored.

Chemical operational monitoring of groundwater shall be also performed by economic entities: groundwater users, extracting > 100 m3/d and enterprises engaged in potentially polluting economic activities. Monitoring shall be conducted in order to establish development of groundwater drawdown, the amount of pollutants discharged, assess the impacts of the economic activity on the natural environment, and ensure preventing and limiting such pollution. Water supply companies and other water users (e.g. fish farms) shall be obliged by legislation to perform groundwater monitoring in their abstraction points (well fields). Abandoned abstraction wells can be used for monitoring. Changes in legislation shall be foreseen in order to oblige water users and potential polluters to monitor impact of abstraction and pollution on groundwater bodies.

222 Annex 15. Proposed System for Assessment of the Status of Surface and Groundwater Bodies in Armenia

Surface Waters Despite in 2011 Armenia has developed a new physico‐chemical and chemical assessment system with five classes, similar to the system of the EU WFD, there is still a lot to be done e.g. to define the boundaries between status classes (good – moderate status), revision of monitored substances, and incorporation of the country specific pollutants and priority substances, as defined by the EU WFD. Moreover, Armenia has not yet introduced both biological and hydromorphological status assessment system in the surface water monitoring and assessment programmes.

Thus, it is evident that there is a need to establish a new system for surface water status assessment in Armenia, based on the EU WFD approach, as the better means of water status assessment as well as management. The EU WFD compliant water status assessment system (based on biological, chemical and supplementing hydromorphological and physico‐chemical quality elements) will provide a sound basis for the integrated assessment of water status. It will also help to establish realistic water status objectives, which, in turn, will provide an adequate basis for design of the program of measures to be implemented to protect waters and achieve good water quality status.

The flowchart for the assessment of the status of surface water is presented below.

Indication of Relative Roles of Biological, Hydromorphological and Physical‐chemical parameters in the Ecological Status Classification

As illustrated in the figure above, the assessment of the status of surface water bodies under the WFD comprises biological, chemical, physico‐chemical, and hydromorphological quality elements (the last two elements support the biological quality elements).

Establishing the status of surface water bodies comprises actually two assessments: (i) ecological status and (ii) chemical status. In order for a surface water body to be classified as being of good status, the criteria for both good ecological status as well as good chemical status have to be met. The ecological status is assessed based on three groups of surface water quality parameters: biological; physico‐chemical parameters: “general conditions” and physico‐chemical parameters: WFD Annex VIII pollutants (see figure below).

223

Classification of the status of surface water bodies under the WFD

The EU WFD principles for classification of ecological status based on EQRs are shown below.

Classification of Ecological Status Based on Ecological Quality Ratios

The classification and setting of EQRs are considered as one of the most complicated monitoring and assessment features introduced by the EU WFD. The crucial point for classification of ecological status is to define “reference conditions”26 for each type of surface water bodies and each biological quality element. The status of each of the biological element for natural water bodies is determined by measuring the extent of the deviation, if any, of the observed condition from the reference condition established for that water body. The results of the biological monitoring systems are expressed numerically as ecological quality ratios (EQR) in the range between 1 (high status) and 0 (bad status). The EQR scale for the monitoring system for each surface water category is divided into the five classes by assigning a numerical value to each of the boundaries between the classes. The values for the boundary between the classes of high and good status, and between good and moderate status have been established through the inter‐calibration exercise organized on the EU level.

There is different approach when assessing the chemical status of the surface water body in comparison with assessment of the ecological status. In case of the chemical status it is sufficient to assess whether or not water bodies are of “good chemical status”. The EU WFD has selected a group of ‘Priority Substances and certain other pollutants’. These substances must be reduced or, in the case of priority hazardous substances, phased out.

26) The conditions established for the biological elements in the absence of pollution or disturbance.

224 Introduction of the proposed new approach to surface water status assessment does not suggest abandonment of the existing approach in Armenia, defined in the Water Code, National Water Policy and National Water Program, and particularly Government decision on surface water quality norms, adopted in 2011 (Government of the Republic of Armenia Resolution No 75‐N “On Defining Water Quality Norms for Each Water River Basin District taking into Consideration the Peculiarities of the Locality” adopted on January 27, 2011). Quite the opposite, the existing approach should be modified accordingly and integrated into the new approach. Since in the Government Resolution No 75‐N it is envisaged that the new water quality norms are set for six year cycle, and shall be complemented and updated afterwards (by 2017), it is the right time to start the process, having the goal to move towards WFD compliant surface water quality assessment system, as much as possible.

Classification scheme for heavy metals of surface water bodies

Groundwater Bodies While Armenia has relatively recently (in 2011) adopted new surface water quality norms (section 8.2.3.1), which partly provides for surface water status assessment, no such system is in place for groundwater bodies. Moreover, groundwater monitoring has been re‐vitalized only from 2008 after being non‐ operational for over 20 years. Thus, for assessment of groundwater status it is proposed to use the approach outlined in the EU WFD, rather than invent a new assessment system, which will be difficult to implement, very costly and time consuming.

According to the WFD recommendations, all groundwater bodies are classified as having good and/or poor quantitative and chemical status.

225 Good chemical status means that concentration of pollutants is not exceeding national drinking water standards and/or the EU norms for groundwater. Main parameters used in the determination of groundwater chemical status are conductivity and concentrations of pollutants.

Recommendations on good chemical status are further elaborated in the Article 3 of the Groundwater Directive, using: (a) groundwater quality standards, provided in the table below; and (b) threshold values to be established.

Groundwater Quality Standards Pollutant Quality standards Nitrates 50 mg/l Active substances in pesticides, including their relevant metabolites, 0.1µg/l degradation and reaction products 0.5 µg/l (total)

If good chemical and/or ecological status of the associated surface waters and/or the associated terrestrial ecosystem is not achieved, more stringent values than those presented in table above have to be applied. E.g. if nitrate (NO3) values in groundwater are lower than 50 mg/l but they cause eutrophication in an associated surface water body, it is obvious that a lower threshold value for nitrates should be established.

In assessing status, the results of individual monitoring points within a groundwater body shall be aggregated for the whole body. Also, if elevated background levels of chemical substances in groundwater occur due to natural hydrogeological reasons, these background levels shall be taken into account when establishing threshold values.

Groundwater Directive requires deriving “threshold values” for other relevant parameters, causing the groundwater body to be at risk. Thus, besides the nitrates and pesticides listed in the table above, the following parameters should be considered for each groundwater body: Substances or ions or indicators which may occur both naturally and/or as a result of human activities: + ‐ 2‐ As, Cd, Pb, Hg, NH4 , Cl , SO4 ; Man‐made synthetic substances: trichloroethylene, tetrachloroethylene; ‐ 2‐ Parameters indicative of saline or other intrusion”: conductivity or Cl and SO4 depending on geological situation.

Threshold values have to be established for all pollutants, which contribute to the characterization of groundwater bodies as being at risk of not meeting the WFD Article 4 objectives. This means that if selected parameter does not cause the GWB to be at risk it is not necessary do derive threshold values for this parameter. On the other hand, countries must derive threshold values for other substances which are not on the above list but which cause the groundwater body to be at risk. This includes parameters, which are present in significant amounts and/or cover the large areas of the aquifer and therefore local pollution does not mean poor GWB status.

Good groundwater quantitative state is defined in the EU WFD as such level of groundwater in the groundwater body that the available groundwater resource is not exceeded by the long‐term annual average rate of abstraction. Quantitative state reflects impact of abstraction onto groundwater body. WFD recommends using only that portion of renewable groundwater resources that remains after all environmental needs are satisfied, or, in other words, good quantitative status means that abstraction does not exceed groundwater recharge. For the assessment of quantitative status groundwater levels in the boreholes are usually measured. Additionally spring flows, water levels in bogs and wetlands and river flows during the drought periods can be also used for the assessment of groundwater quantitative status.

In order to assess whether the conditions of achieving good status, outlined in the WFD and Groundwater Directive, have been met, a series of classification tests for both quantitative and chemical status have been developed. The worst‐case classification from the five chemical tests is reported as the overall chemical status of the groundwater body, and the worst‐case classification from the four quantitative tests

226 is reported as the overall quantitative status. This is the “One‐out all‐out” system, as required by the WFD. If any one of the tests results in poor status, then the overall classification of the body will be poor.

All relevant tests must be completed for each groundwater body and the process should not stop after the first poor result is achieved. The results of the tests for both the quantitative and chemical status are then combined to give an overall classification of good/poor for each groundwater body, as illustrated below27.

GWB Status Classification Tests

There are five chemical and four quantitative status tests, some elements of which are common to both. Classification tests are briefly explained below.

27) Where there are insufficient data to conduct a particular test, then in the absence of contrary information, groundwater body should be assigned good status for that test, but with low confidence of information. Additional monitoring and/or investigation should be put in place so that the test can be properly conducted at the next round of classification.

227 Summary Description of Groundwater Classification Tests Test Status Description No saline or other Quantitative The conditions for good chemical and/or quantitative status are not met intrusion and when there is an entry into the groundwater body of either: saline water of chemical higher conductivity/salinity from connate or sea water; or water of different chemical composition, from other groundwater bodies or surface waters, and which is liable to cause pollution. No significant Quantitative The conditions for good chemical status are not met when: An associated diminution of surface and surface water body does not meet its objectives, threshold values are water chemistry and chemical exceeded and groundwater contributes at least 50% of the relevant surface ecology water standard. The main determinants likely to be of relevance to groundwater are phosphorous (primarily for diffuse pollution); ammonium (primarily for point source pollution); acidity and metals (primarily for mine water discharges); and Environmental Quality Standards for specific pollutants. No negative impact Quantitative GWDTEs are wetlands, which critically depend on groundwater flows to the Groundwater and and/or chemical inputs to maintain them in favourable ecological Dependent chemical condition. The conditions for good chemical status are not met when the Terrestrial ecology of an associated GWDTE is damaged due to the chemical Ecosystems (GWDTE) contribution from the groundwater body, threshold values are exceeded and groundwater is the significant reason for the GWDTE’s failure to meet its environmental supporting conditions. If groundwater abstractions are considered significant in any related surface water body that is failing to meet its flow standards, then the groundwater body is at poor status for this test. Drinking Water Chemical Good chemical status requires an assessment at the point of abstraction for Protected Areas water intended for human consumption, of whether there is deterioration in groundwater quality due to anthropogenic influences that could lead to an increase in purification treatment. The conditions for good chemical status are not met when there is a significant and sustained rising trend in one or more key determinants at the point of abstraction and threshold values are exceeded. General assessment Chemical The conditions for good chemical status are not met when threshold values of quality are exceeded at individual monitoring points, and a representative aggregation of groundwater monitoring data indicates that there is a significant environmental risk resulting in a significant widespread impact within a groundwater body or a significant impairment of human uses of the groundwater body. The overall aim of the test is to assess if the impact of groundwater pollution is sufficiently widespread to compromise the use of the groundwater resource either currently or in the future. It is not intended to assess local pollution impacts. Water balance Quantitative For this test, countries have to assess annual average abstraction against and the available groundwater resource in the groundwater body. The available chemical groundwater resource is calculated from the difference between recharge and the flow required to support the ecology in surface water bodies that are dependent on the groundwater body. All those bodies where the available groundwater resource exceeds annual average abstraction will be classified as good status.

The above‐mentioned principles and recommendations, which are proposed at national level, were tested by EPIRB Project Key Expert on Hydrogeology for classification of groundwater bodies in the Akhuryan RBD of Armenia.

228

Classification of Groundwater Bodies (GWB) in the Akhuryan River Basin District of Armenia Groundwater body classification tests GWB name and overall status Test 1. Saline Test 2. Interaction with Test 3. Impact Test 4. DWPA Test 5. General chemistry Test 6. Water balance intrusions surface waters on GWDTE Ashotzq GWB, code G101, Gyumri No saline or Groundwaters drain into No negative Groundwater The prevalent ions are Groundwater level has natural 2+ ‐ GWB, code G102, Armavir GWB, code other river valleys. influence to abstraction does Ca and HCO3 . Ground seasonal fluctuations; no level 3 G03 (Q3‐4, Q1, N2 ‐Q) intrusions Groundwater discharge GWDTEs not cause waters are fresh and no decrease trend is observed Good status does not have negative additional sustained upward trends Low confidence of information influence on surface treatment of of any pollutant observed water quality drinking water 3 Metsamor GWB, code G104 (Q3‐4, N2 ) No saline or GWB is interconnected No negative Groundwater Prevailing cations and Groundwater level has a 2+ ‐ At risk of not achieving good status other with surface waters. influence to abstraction does anions are Ca and HCO3 decreasing trend due to over‐ + 2‐ intrusions Groundwater discharge GWDTEs not cause , sometimes Na and SO4 exploitation does not have negative additional . No sustained upward Low confidence of information influence on surface treatment of trends of any pollutant water quality drinking water observed 3 2+ ‐ Pliocene‐Quaternary GWB (N2 ‐Q) , No saline or GWB is interconnected No negative Groundwater Prevailing ions Ca , HCO3 Groundwater levels have + 2‐ code G201 other with surface waters. influence to abstraction does , sometimes Na , SO4 natural (seasonal) fluctuations Good status intrusions Groundwater discharge GWDTEs not cause No sustained upward does not have negative additional trends of any pollutant Low confidence of information influence on surface treatment of observed water quality drinking water Amasia GWB (Mz‐Kz), code G301 No saline or Groundwater discharge No negative Abstraction does Prevailing ions are Ca2+, Natural (seasonal) ‐ Good status other into surface waters does influence to not cause HCO3 fluctuations of groundwater intrusions not have negative GWDTEs additional No sustained upward levels Low confidence of information influence on surface treatment of trends of any pollutant water quality drinking water observed Carbonatic GWB (K2), code G401 No saline or Groundwater discharge No negative Abstraction does Prevailing ions are Ca2+, Natural (seasonal) ‐ Good status other into surface waters does influence to not cause HCO3 fluctuations of groundwater intrusions not have negative GWDTEs additional No sustained upward levels influence on surface treatment of trends of any pollutant Low confidence of information water quality drinking water observed + Mineral water GWB (Q‐N2) , code 501 No saline or Groundwater discharge No negative Groundwater Prevailing ions are Na , The GWB is not exploited at ‐ Good status other into surface waters does influence to level is stable HCO3 No sustained the moment, but will be in Low confidence of information intrusions not have negative GWDTEs upward trends of any future influence on surface pollutant observed water quality 229

Annex 16. Summary of Comments Received on Draft RBMP for the Akhuryan RBD

16.1. List of comments received in written and responses Reference Integration of the Institution/ Chapter in the old Chapter in the new Comment Response/Action comment in the Organization version of the draft version of the RBMP RBMP draft RBMP Civil society, General comment ‐ The hydrological and groundwater Terminology corrected, taking into consideration the YES agriculture, terminology in Armenian language needs comments provided by the relevant experts nature improvement throughout the report protection, energy Nature General comment ‐ The plan does not include all components, The following new chapters are added in the draft YES protection mentioned in the outline of the model river plan, to make it compliant to the requirements of basin management plan, adopted by the Outline of the model water basin management Government of Armenia Protocol Session plan adopted by the Government of Armenia Resolution in 2011 Protocol Session Resolution of 2011: (i) vulnerability of water resources within the climate change context; (ii) definition of environmental flow for water bodies; (iii) assessment of water supply and demand according to sectors; (iv) assessment of financial deficit Hydromet General comment ‐ The is a need to add assessment of New chapter added on current and forecasted YES vulnerability of water resources due to vulnerability of climate change in the Akhuryan RBD climate change Civil society Executive summary, Executive List of endemic biodiversity species and The list of corrected, taking into consideration the YES chapter 2.1 summary, chapter species included in the Red Data Book comments provided by the experts of the field 2.1 contain few errors Civil society Chapter 2.1.2 Chapter 2.1.2 Description of climatic zones of Akhuryan Table of climatic zones of Akhuryan RBD revised YES RBD needs some clarification and fine‐ correspondingly tuning Civil society Chapter 2.1.2 Chapter 2.1.2 Description of flora in Akhuryan RBD The section of flora description of the Akhuryan RBD YES includes few mistakes revised and corresponding corrections made Civil society Chapter 2.1.3 Chapter 2.1.3 Description of the geology of Akhuryan RDB The section is revised and corresponding revisions YES needs some clarification and fine‐tuning are made Civil society Chapter 2.1.4 Chapter 2.1.4 Description of the landslides is incomplete Information on large and active landslides near the YES

230

Reference Integration of the Institution/ Chapter in the old Chapter in the new Comment Response/Action comment in the Organization version of the draft version of the RBMP RBMP draft RBMP settlements Arapi and Marmashen added Civil society Chapter 2.2 Chapter 2.2 Distribution of population in percentage Corrected, taking into consideration data from the YES according to nationalities is incorrect National Statistics Service of Armenia Hydromet Chapter 2.3.1 Chapter 2.3.1 Table on hydrological flow characteristics of Completed, based on Hydromet data YES Metsamor River and its tributaries is incomplete Hydromet Chapter 2.3.1 Chapter 2.3.1 Table of Akhuryan RBD water balance is Revised, based on Hydromet data YES erroneous Civil society Chapter 2.3.2 Chapter 2.3.2 Description of the pumped irrigation from Corrected, taking into consideration the comments YES Akhuryan Reservoir contains factual errors Agriculture Chapter 3.1.1 Chapter 3.1.1 Description of the main crop production Corrected, taking into consideration the comments YES agriculture patters in Akhuryan RBD is incomplete Civil society Chapter 3.1.2 Chapter 3.1.2 Description of the fish species in the fish‐ The section is revised and corresponding revisions YES farms of the RBD contains errors are made Hydromet Executive summary, Executive Total and disaggregated water use figures Corrected, taking into consideration the comments YES Chapter 3.1.4 summary, Chapter are incorrect and updated information from the National 3.1.4 Statistical Service of Armenia Water Basin Chapter 3.2.3 Chapter 3.2.3 Storage capacity of the reservoirs in The section is revised and corresponding revisions YES Management Akhuryan RBD is underestimated are made Authority Civil society Chapter 5 Chapter 6 Description of flora and fauna species in The section is revised and corresponding revisions YES “Arpilich” national par is incorrect are made Water Basin Chapter 8.1.1 Chapter 10.1.1 Estimates of population equivalents in Corrected, taking into consideration the comments YES Management Gyumri and Armavir agglomerations are Authority incorrect

231 16.2. List of comments received during the public consultation meeting and responses

Comment has Reference Comment Response/Action been integrated in the RBMP General comments There is a need for harmonizing and reviewing the language Draft RBMP plan was reviewed and the language throughout the YES throughout the draft document. document was harmonized. The environmental flow and water use permits state the Checking the compliance with water use permit conditions is the environmental baseline, however, in reality the actual water responsibility of the State Environmental Inspectorate of the Ministry NO withdrawal is bigger than permitted. The RBMP shall include of Nature Protection of Armenia. JFSs conducted within EPIRB project actual water use data. included 20 selected sampling points, to fill in data gaps, assess the hydrobiological, hydromorphological and hydrochemical quality elements for the selected sampling points, including the assessment of the environmental flow compliance. However, the JFSs cannot assess the compliance with water use permit conditions, given that there are 179 water abstraction points in Akhuryan RBD, so the official information provided by the Ministry of Nature Protection has been used in the RBMP. Radioactive elements shall also be included in the list of Uranium is commonly known for its radioactivity and use of enriched NO monitoring parameters, and analysed. uranium in nuclear power plants. Metsamor Nuclear Power Plant The issue of radioactive pollution was raised and that the draft does not contribute to the anthropogenic emission of uranium to the RBMP does not consider for example the radon pollution. The environment. Furthermore, the chemical toxicity of natural uranium is EU WFD approach on which the draft plan is based, does not much more harmful than the potential environmental impact through consider radioactivity, which is a major concern, mainly based its radioactivity. on the geography and the tectonic rift. Also, EU WFD takes into consideration the anthropogenic pressures, and does not address pollution coming from the natural environmental facts. Finally, there are other EU directives, which cover the topic of radioactivity. The terminology used in the document related to run‐off and Annex is prepared in the RBMP, clarifying all the terminologies used. YES wastewater treatment should be clarified. The city of Gyumri has already developed and approved Master All existing plans, including Perspective Development Plan of Shirak YES Plans, which should be taken in consideration (Perspective and Armavir marzes, are taken into consideration. Development Plan of Shirak marz). References should be included for each data source as well as Each table already includes references on data source. Also, since NO appropriate reference to the bibliography. RBMP is not a scientific publication, it is not feasible to include reference for each data source throughout the entire plan. Instead, the plan includes annex, which provide a comprehensive bibliography used.

232

Comment has Reference Comment Response/Action been integrated in the RBMP 2. GENERAL The characterization of the basin concerning biodiversity is not Sections of the RBMP, containing basin biodiversity description, are YES DESCRIPTION OF appropriate. To this topic a publication from 2005 on the revised, taking into consideration the comments submitted and THE RIVER BASIN Akhuryan basin was recommended and shared with the project consultations with the relevant experts of the field. DISTRICT team Chapter 8 The efficiency of the envisaged measure targeting reduction of While in many parts of the Akhuryan RBD manure is used either as NO Measures targeting agricultural impact to the minimum by collection of manure and energy resource or for burning, data on pollution loads of nitrogen pollution and the application of best practices was questions, given that manure is and phosphorous from the livestock production shows that quantities prioritization of the used as a resource, either as energy source or as fertilizer. of nitrogen and phosphorus discharges both in the Akhuryan River measures focusing The basis on which the Artik agriculture pressures were basin and Metsamor River basin are rather large. The highest on pollution prioritized was questioned, as the Ashotzq region is more concentrations of these pollutants are observed in the Karkachun significant from this point of view due to the increase of the river basin of the Akhuryan River basin ‐ Ani and Artik regions, as well population doing cattle breeding. as Talin and Baghramyan regions of the Metsamor River basin. Thus corresponding measures are developed to reduce that significant pressure. With regards to the pollution of Strontium from the Artik region, Sampling point in Artik was included in the third round of JFS, YES further investigation was suggested. conducted in Akhuryan RBD in June 2015. Concerns were expressed that no measure is addressing the Several measures are included in the RBMP regarding groundwater NO subterranean aquifers. aquifers. Moreover, two of the pilot projects implemented from the list of program of measures (Refurbishment of Aknashen groundwater monitoring well, and Metsamor on‐line water use control system) directly target groundwater resources of the RBD. The reason for restoring the old riverbed of Akhuryan was River restoration is an integral part of sustainable water NO questioned. It was noted that there was a report on the old management and is in direct support of the aims of the EU WFD. riverbed of Akhuryan, according to which there is no need for Restoration of Akhuryan old riverbed aims to restore the natural state any intervention, and the old meanders are there and during and functioning of the river system in support of biodiversity, flood high water level are fed. The ecosystem has been already re‐ management and landscape development. By restoring natural established during the years, spending additional funds for conditions resilience of the river system will be improved. restoring the initial status is not justified. Question was asked regarding the high Arsenic concentration Issue of high Arsenic concentration was included in the groundwater YES and the source of the pollution, as well as the Fluorine and field survey, conducted in Akhuryan RBD in April 2015. Boron pollution in Akhuryan reservoir and their origin. Pollution with Fluorine and Boron was studied upstream of Akhuryan Reservoir (Akhuryan‐Akhurik site) during the third round of surface water JFS, conducted in Akhuryan RBD in June 2015. Pollution is coming from untreated wastewater due to the lack Pollution from untreated wastewater is significant issue in many YES of sewage system, by this posing a huge pressure on the parts of the RBD, so corresponding measures to address this issue are groundwater resources and drinking water supply. included in the program of measures.

233

Comment has Reference Comment Response/Action been integrated in the RBMP Chapter 7 Cleaning natural and artificial water bodies from construction While cleaning of canals is important part of the maintenance and NO Environmental waste, especially in the Shirak Canal and on the run‐off system proper operation of canals, it does not directly relate to the objective Objectives of the program of measures of the RBMP for Akhuryan RBD. Chapter 8: Akhuryan RBMP aims to design specific measures to help to achieve Programme of good ecological status of water bodies, which fail to achieve such measures status or are under risk of not achieving. There is 2000 ha of agricultural land using the sewage water The area mentioned is included in Armavir agglomeration, for which YES Working Group 1 from Armavir, Metsamor and neighbouring communities as construction of wastewater treatment facility is proposed in the (on pollution) irrigation water. The self‐purification section is not enough, program of measures. consequently in many cases the sewage is used for irrigation. Therefore treatment of the waste water or addition of freshwater from alternative water resources is suggested. Assessment and review of the geo‐ecological situation for Construction of landfills, corresponding to international norms, is NO construction of a new landfill in the adjacent area to the proposed in the program of measures for the locations, where there Benyamin community are already existing landfills, which, due to lack of sanitary protection zones and inappropriate operation pose significant pressure for adjacent water bodies. Gyumri city has existing landfill, located in the North‐western part of the city, Akhuryan River valley, which has approximately 40 hectares of territory and lacks a sanitary protection zone of 1,000 m. Registration of accumulation of industrial and municipal wastes is not carried out. Particularly hazardous wastes are not separated and they are dumped into the general landfill. This poses significant pressure for the adjacent water body, and is the reason why it is proposed to have the landfill there, instead of constructing new landfill adjacent to Benyamin community, where according to the assessment solid waste does not pose significant pressure on water bodies. Building of fish paths in HPPs in order to ensure fish migration. For all the existing HPPs in the Akhuryan RBD a comprehensive YES assessment was conducted whether they have proper fish migration pathways. The ones that do not have, or for which the existing pathway is not appropriate, are marked under risk and corresponding measure to construct proper fish migration pathway is proposed. Development of measures aimed at prevention and mitigation While there are numerous measures, which could contribute to the NO of land sliding phenomena in the area of the river basin overall situation in water improvements in Akhuryan RBD, the Akhuryan RBMP tries to follow logic of the EU WFD compliant river basin management plans. Such plans try to minimize the costs of the

234

Comment has Reference Comment Response/Action been integrated in the RBMP plan implementation, and specifically design measures for the areas that are under significant pressures. Thus, Akhuryan RBMP aims to design specific measures to help to achieve good ecological status of water bodies, which fail to achieve such status or are under risk of not achieving. Measures addressing ensure stability of the reservoir’s dams Dam safety issues have been carefully studies in Armenia within the NO World Bank funded Dam Safety (2000‐2005) and Dam Safety II (2005‐ 2009) projects. The projects included comprehensive assessment of safety of dams, including measures to improve the safety. Akhuryan RBMP aims to design specific measures to help to achieve good ecological status of water bodies, which fail to achieve such status or are under risk of not achieving. Chapter 7 Restoration of the riverbed on the length 11‐kilometer section The first step of river restoration will include planning of the project, YES Environmental of the Akhuryan River (From Berdashen to the Poqr Sepasar which involves better understanding of the catchment, review and Objectives community) may cause increase in the river water level, which analysis of the historical stretch and taking necessary steps in Chapter 8: could potentially damage the Marmashen church complex built planning to reduce uncertainties in the project. In this step detailed Programme of in the X century. assessment, including EIA, will be conducted to make sure that no measures damage is cause to Marmashen church complex. Review and improvement of application of water use permit Proper compliance assurance with water use permit conditions is one YES Working Group 2 conditions of small HPPs. The main issue is the environmental of the key issues not only for HPPs, but all water use sectors in (on flow as it is not maintained in many places. The permits should Akhuryan RBD. Within program of measures corresponding measures hydromorphological include the environmental flow per month, accordingly the are proposed, one of which was implemented as part of pilot project alterations, such as update of the environmental flow calculation method of the (Metsamor on‐line water use control system). The pilot project abstraction, HPPs, river is suggested, with monthly distribution and differentiated showed the efficiency of on‐line control of compliance with water use etc.) for every section of the river (upstream and downstream). conditions, installed digital water flow meters in 3 selected locations, Furthermore, installation of water meters at the small HPPs is and assessed the cost of introducing the system in the entire basin of suggested, the monitoring should be improved. Metsamor River, including all HPPs. As for the environmental flow, the existing official environmental flow requirements (one flat value of the minimum flow for the entire year) are taken as basis of assessment. However, recently working group was established with the support of the USAID Clean Energy and Water Program, which proposed a new methodology and approach in setting environmental flow (disaggregation into seasons and months). Such assessment was done only for small pilot area (Argichi River), and it will take at least few years to assess the environmental flow according to the new methodology, if the Government officially

235

Comment has Reference Comment Response/Action been integrated in the RBMP adopts it. Thus, from practical standpoint, Akhuryan RBMP used the existing methodology of the environmental flow. Assess and study the situation of the abandoned and illegally In the Ararat basin quite significant interventions were done on YES used groundwater wells, which should be closed or conserved groundwater protection; many fountain/pressure wells were closed for targeted purposes. and as a consequence since there is positive change in the groundwater table in the last year, and self‐restoration process started. In addition, to restore the groundwater levels in Metsamor River basin, 2 interventions are included in the program of measures of Akhuryan RBMP: (i) abolishment of existing 348 emergency, unsanitary and abandoned ownerless wells; and (ii) closing down temporarily or liquidating the required number of wells to reduce abstraction by artesian wells, taking into account the well’s impact radius and technical state and converting other wells into valve operation regime.

236 Annex 17. References

Academy of Sciences of Armenian SSR, "Physical geography of Armenian SSR", Yerevan, 1971; Academy of Sciences of Armenian SSR, “Geology of the Armenian SSR ‐ Volume VIII: Hydrogeology”, 1974; Academy of Sciences of Armenian SSR, “Hydrology of the Armenian SSR”, 1981; Aghinyan H., “Working Paper on Hydrogeology in Akhuryan and Metsamor River basin”, prepared within EC‐funded “Environmental Protection of International River Basins” project, 2012; Analytical‐Information Centre of the Economic Reforms, “Achievements of Shirak Marz of the Republic of Armenia in 2007‐2011”, 2012; Analytical‐Information Centre of the Economic Reforms, “Achievements of Aragatsotn Marz of the Republic of Armenia in 2007‐2011”, 2012; Analytical‐Information Centre of the Economic Reforms, “Achievements of Armavir Marz of the Republic of Armenia in 2007‐2011”, 2012; Annual Report on Socio‐Economic Situation in the Republic of Armenia Shirak Marz and on the Performance of the Regional Governor for 2011, 2012; Armenian SSR Academy of Sciences, "Geomorphology of the Armenian SSR", Yerevan, 1986; Armenian State Hydrometeorological Service of the Ministry of Emergency Situations of the Republic of Armenia, http://www.meteo.am; Atlas of the Natural Conditions and Natural Resources of Armenia (Editor Baghdasaryan A. B.), "Hydrology", Yerevan. Armenian SSR Academy of Sciences Publication, 1990; Chilingaryan L. A., Mnatsakanyan B.P., Aghababyan K.A., Toqmajyan H.V., "Hydrography of Armenian Rivers and Lakes", AgroPress, Yerevan, 2002; Climate Research Center of the Armenian State Hydrometeorological Monitoring Service, “Climatic Reference Book for Shirak Marz”, 2001; Directive 2006/118/EC on the Protection of Groundwater Against Pollution and Deterioration, 2006; Directive 2008/105/EC on Environmental Quality Standards in the Field of Water Policy, Amending and Subsequently Repealing Council Directives 82/176/EEC, 83/513/EEC, 84/156/EEC, 84/491/EEC, 86/280/EEC and Amending Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, 2008; Directive 91/271/EEC on Urban Wastewater Treatment, 1991; “Environment and Natural Resources in Armenia”, 2009; Environmental Impact Monitoring Centre of the Ministry of Nature Protection of the Republic of Armenia, http://www.armmonitoring.am; EU "Trans‐Boundary River Management Phase II for the Kura River basin ‐ Armenia Georgia Azerbaijan"Project, "Working Paper ‐ Water Quality Classification of the Surface Water Bodies in Pilot Basin", 2009; EU "Trans‐Boundary River Management Phase II for the Kura River basin ‐ Armenia Georgia Azerbaijan"Project, "Debed Pilot River Basin Management Plan ‐ Armenia", 2009; EU "Trans‐Boundary River Management Phase II for the Kura River basin ‐ Armenia Georgia Azerbaijan"Project, "Aghstev Pilot River Basin Management Plan ‐ Armenia", 2009;

237

EU "Trans‐Boundary River Management Phase II for the Kura River basin ‐ Armenia Georgia Azerbaijan" Project, "Road Map to Build River Basin Management Plans for Pilot Basins" Project, 2009; EU “Environmental Protection of International River Basins” Project, “Review of the national surface water quality monitoring and assessment systems”, 2012; EU “Environmental Protection of International River Basins” Project,“River Basin Management Plan for Akhuryan Water Basin Management Area (Akhuryan and Metsamor River Basins). Component A‐ River Basin Analysis”. Prepared by “Geoinfo” LLC, 2013; EU “Environmental Protection of International River Basins” Project, “Classification of groundwater bodies”, 2014; EU “Environmental Protection of International River Basins” Project, “Identification, characterization and delineation of groundwater bodies in the Caucasus countries”,2013; EU “Environmental Protection of International River Basins” Project, “Draft Guidance Document on Addressing Hydromorphology and Physico‐Chemistry for a Pressure‐Impact Analysis/Risk Assessment According to the EU WFD”, 2014 EU “Environmental Protection of International River Basins” Project “Draft Guidance Document on the Development of Program of Measures and the Achievement of Environmental Objectives According to the EU WFD”, 2014; EU “Environmental Protection of International River Basins” Project, “Report on Groundwater Field Surveys in Belarus, Armenia and Moldova”, 2014; EU “Environmental Protection of International River Basins” Project, “River Basin Management for Akhuryan Basin Management Area: Pressure‐Impact Analysis Report”, 2014; EU “Environmental Protection of International River Basins” Project, “River Basin Management for Akhuryan Basin Management Area: Water Body at Risk Report”, 2014; EU “Environmental Protection of International River Basins” Project, “Identification, Characterization and Delineation of Groundwater Bodies in the Caucasus Countries in the River basins of Akhuryan‐ Metsamor (Armenia), Central Kura – Agstafachay, Tovuzchay, Shamkirchay and Ganjachay (Azerbaijan), Chorokhi‐Adjaristskali (Georgia)”, Report by Bernardas Paukstys, 2014; EU “Environmental Protection of International River Basins” Project, “Identification, Delineation and Typology of Surface and Groundwater Bodies in the Akhuryan Basin Management Area of Armenia”, Report prepared by “Environmental Policy Analysis” NGO, 2013; EU “Transboundary River Management for the Kura River Basin Phase II – Armenia, Georgia Azerbaijan” Project, “Draft Aghstev River Basin Management Plan”, 2011; EU “Transboundary River Management for the Kura River Basin Phase II – Armenia, Georgia Azerbaijan” Project, “Draft Debed River Basin Management Plan”, 2011; EU “Transboundary River Management for the Kura River Basin Phase III – Armenia, Georgia Azerbaijan” Project, “Analysis of the Current Systems for Water Quality Assessment in the Project Countries Against WFD Requirements”, 2012; EU “Transboundary River Management for the Kura River Basin Phase III – Armenia, Georgia Azerbaijan” Project, “Guidance Document – Water Quality Assessment using EU WFD Methodology”, 2012; EU Flooding Directive, (2007/60/EC), Translated into Armenian, Yerevan, 2009; EU Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC) Common Implementation Strategy, Guidance Document no 2, "Identification of Water Bodies", European Communities, 2003; EU Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC) Common Implementation Strategy, Guidance Document no 3, "Analysis of Pressures and Impacts", Translated into Armenian, Yerevan, 2009;

238

EU Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC) Common Implementation Strategy, Guidance Document no 4, "Identification and Designation of Heavily Modified and Artificial Water Bodies", European Communities, 2003; EU Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC) Common Implementation Strategy, Guidance Document no 7, “Monitoring under the Water Framework Directive”, 2003; EU Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC) Common Implementation Strategy, Guidance Document no 9, “Implementing the Geographical Information Systems (GIS) of the Water Framework Directive”, 2003; EU Water Framework Directive Common Implementation Strategy Guidance Document no 7, “Monitoring under the Water Framework Directive”, 2004; EU Water Framework Directive Common Implementation Strategy Guidance Document no 10, “Rivers and lakes – typology, reference conditions and classification systems”, 2004; EU Water Framework Directive Common Implementation Strategy Guidance Document no 15, “Groundwater Monitoring”, 2007; EU Water Framework Directive Common Implementation Strategy Guidance Document no 17, “Preventing or Limiting Direct and Indirect Inputs”, 2007; EU Water Framework Directive Common Implementation Strategy Guidance Document no 18, “Groundwater Status and Trend Assessment”, 2009; EU Water Framework Directive Common Implementation Strategy Guidance Document no 20, “Exemptions to the Environmental Objectives”, 2009; EU Water Framework Directive Common Implementation Strategy Guidance Document no 27, “Technical Guidance for Deriving Environmental Quality Standards”, 2011; EU Water Framework Directive, (2000/60/EC), European Communities, 2000; Government of Armenia, “Strategic Program on Perspective Development of the Republic of Armenia for 2014‐2025”, 2014; Hydro‐geological Monitoring Centre of the Ministry of Nature Protection of the Republic of Armenia, http://www.hidroerkraban.am; Hydrometeorological Services of USSR, “State Water Cadastre. Perennial Data on Regime and Resources of Surface Waters – Volume XIII: Armenian SSR”, 1987; Manasyan M., Grigoryan A., Poghosyan A, “Nature, Population and Economy of Shirak Marz”, 2002; Martirosyan L., Poghosyan D., Nahapetyan A., Valesyan L., “Geography of Agriculture of Shirak Marz”, 2000; Ministry of Nature Protection of Armenia, “The Third National Communication to UN FCCC”, 2015; Mnatzakanyan B., Ajamoghlyan A, “Climate and Waters of Shirak Marz”, 2005; Mnatzakanyan B., Chilingaryan L., “Natural Resources of Shirak Marz and Characteristics of Their Distribution”, 2002; National Statistical Service of the Republic of Armenia, “Marzes of the Republic of Armenia and Yerevan City in Figures”, 2009; National Statistical Service of the Republic of Armenia, “Marzes of the Republic of Armenia and Yerevan City in Figures”, 2010; National Statistical Service of the Republic of Armenia, “Marzes of the Republic of Armenia and Yerevan City in Figures”, 2011;

239

National Statistical Service of the Republic of Armenia, “Marzes of the Republic of Armenia and Yerevan City in Figures”, 2012; National Statistical Service of the Republic of Armenia, “Marzes of the Republic of Armenia and Yerevan City in Figures”, 2013; National Statistical Service of the Republic of Armenia, “Statistical Yearbook of Armenia”, 2010; National Statistical Service of the Republic of Armenia, “Statistical Yearbook of Armenia”, 2011; National Statistical Service of the Republic of Armenia, “Statistical Yearbook of Armenia”, 2012; National Statistical Service of the Republic of Armenia, “Statistical Yearbook of Armenia”, 2013; Nazaryan Kh, Bakhshetzyan E., “Mudflow Occurrences in Shirak Marz and Measures to Combat Mudflows”, 1999; Novotny V., “Water Quality, Diffuse Pollution and Watershed Management”, 2003; OECD, EAP Task Force, “Facilitating the Reform of Economic Instruments for Water Management in Armenia: Final Report”, 2014; Public Services Regulatory Commission of the Republic of Armenia, http://www.psrc.am; Real Estate Cadastre of the Ministry of Territorial Administration of the Republic of Armenia, "National Atlas of Armenia", Volume A, Yerevan 2007; Reports on hydrogeological investigations in Akhuryan RBD. Geological Archive of Armenia; Repubilic of Armenia Aragatsotn Marzpetaran, “Socio‐Economic Development Plan of the Republic of Armenia Aragatsotn Marz for 2011‐2014”, 2011; Repubilic of Armenia Armavir Marzpetaran, “Socio‐Economic Development Plan of the Republic of Armenia Armavir Marz for 2011‐2014”, 2011; Repubilic of Armenia Shirak Marzpetaran, “Socio‐Economic Development Plan of the Republic of Armenia Shirak Marz for 2011‐2014”, 2011; Repubilic of Armenia Shirak Marzpetaran, “Socio‐Economic Development Plan of the Republic of Armenia Shirak Marz for 2014‐2017”, 2014; Republic of Armenia Aragatsotn Marzpetaran, “Report on the Socio‐Economic Condition, Regional Issues and Priorities of Aragatsotn Marz in 2011”, 2012; “Surface Water Resources of the USSR. Volume 9. Part 1: Southern Caucasus”, 1969 “Surface Water Resources of the USSR. Volume 9. Part 2: Araks River Basin”, 1973 USAID Clean Energy and Water Program, “Assessment Study of Groundwater Resources of the Ararat Valley: Final Report” http://cew.am/uploads/library/AGWS_Final_Report__March_ENG1.pdf USAID Clean Energy and Water Program, “Extension of water resources characteristics in the Republic of Armenia: Fiunal Report”, 2009; USAID Program for Institutional and Regulatory Strengthening of Water Management in Armenia, “Water Resources Atlas of Armenia”, 2008; Water Resources Management Agency of the Ministry of Nature Protection of the Republic of Armenia, http://www.mnp.am; Water Resources Management Agency of the Ministry of Nature Protection of Armenia, “State Water Cadastre Information System”, 2014.

240