42145-023: North-South Road Corridor Investment Program

Bi-annual Environmental Monitoring Report

Loan Nos. 2561 and 2729-ARM January–June 2013

ARM: North–South Road Corridor Investment Program, Tranches 1 and 2

Prepared by the “Organization for Implementation of North–South Road Corridor Investment Program” State Non-Commercial Organization (PMU) based on the Bi-annual Environmental Monitoring Report of the Project Management Consultant (PMC)

This bi-annual environmental monitoring report is a document of the borrower. The views expressed herein do not necessarily represent those of ADB's Board of Directors, Management, or staff, and may be preliminary in nature.

In preparing any country program or strategy, financing any project, or by making any designation of or reference to a particular territory or geographic area in this document, the Asian Development Bank does not intend to make any judgments as to the legal or other status of any territory or area.

Table of Contents:

Part I Introduction...... 5 1. Construction activities and Project Progress during reporting period ...... 5 1.2 Section 3 Yerevan - Ashtarak M1Road Km 18+370 to Km 29+773: ...... 5 2. Environmental Safeguards Staffing ...... 6 Part II Environmental Management ...... 8 3. Environmental Safeguards Program ...... 8 3.1 Compliance with National Safeguards ...... 8 3.2 Compliance with ADB Safeguards ...... 8 3.3 Contractor’s Compliance with the EMP ...... 9 3.4 Site Inspection Visits ...... 9 3.5 Presentation of Environmental Safeguards ...... 11 3.7 Consultations and Grievance redress mechanism ...... 13 Part III Environmental Monitoring ...... 19 4.1 Monitoring of the compliance with EMPs in Section 2 and Section 3...... 19 4.2 Environmental monitoring of noise and vibration, water quality, air quality and flora and fauna...... 200 4.3. PPMS indicators...... 20 4.4 Non-compliance notices...... 21

Prepeared by Armine Yedigaryan Social safeguard and Environment Officer e-mail: [email protected]

A N N E X E S

ANNEX A Jrahovit Borrow Pit Site Inspection Report N10

ANNEX B. Jrahovit Borrow Pit Site Inspection Report N11

ANNEX C. Jrahovit Borrow Pit Site Inspection Report N12

ANNEX D. Inspection visits during the reporting period.

ANNEX E. Inspection Report on Ayntap dumping site closure and rehabilitation

ANNEX F. Inspection Report on Dashtakar borrow pit closure and rehabilitation

ANNEX G Permits for provisional stockpiling in Parpi village.

ANNEX H. Permits for Sasunik asphalt plant operation.

ANNEX I. Archaeological summary report on investigation and excavation of

archaeological sites in Road Ashtarak- Talin Section 1(Tranche 2 km 29.600-

71.500) submitted to the MoTC and MoC.

ANNEX J. Non-compliance notice on Dashtakar borrow pit

ANNEX K Non- compliance notice on Jrahovit borrow pit

ANNEX L. Implementation report on the environmental impact assessment (EIA) mitigation requirements

List of Abbreviations

ADB Asian Development Bank

CEMP Contractor’s Environmental Management Plan

EMP Environmental Management Plan

EIA Environmental Impact Assessment

IEE Initial Environmental Examination

IES International Environmental Specialist

NES National Environmental Specialist

PMC Project Management Consultant organization

PMU Project Management Unit

MNP Ministry of Nature Protection

SMP Site Management Plan

TMP Traffic Management Plan

EMR Environmental Monitoring Report 5

Part I Introduction

The present Be-annual Environmental Monitoring Report covers the time period from January 2013 till June 2013.

The EMR was prepared by PMC with closely cooperation with PMU. PMU reviewed the report and is in consent with findings and recommendations.1.

1. Construction activities and Project Progress during reporting period

During the reporting period the following construction activities were implemented:

1.1 Section 2 Yerevan-Ararat M2 Road from Km9+312 to Km 47+400:

Earth works and demolition of structures: common excavation; subgrade preparation (capping layer h=27cm); aggregate base course; repairs to existing r/c culverts; repair to existing bridge; the works of common excavation has been restarted during June 2013 which refers to bypasses; sub-base preparation (18cm); removal of the existing asphalt pavement (average thickness 3 cm).

Also the following works were implemented: frameworks and reinforcement on r/c culverts; road maintenance works, cleaning of r/c culverts; concrete works on r/c culvert; flattening works at the concrete plant territory; dismantling and transporting curb stones; installation of safety concrete blocks; compacting works; mortar repairs on underpasses.

1.2 Section 3 Yerevan - Ashtarak M1Road Km 18+370 to Km 29+773: Earth works and demolition of structures: removal of existing pavement, removal of existing curb stones, dismantling and storage of the existing guardrails; common excavation; rock excavation; pre-cast concrete posts (delineators); demolition of existing drainage structures; clearing and grubbing; repairs to existing r/c culverts, new r/c culvert d=1.25m; repair to existing bridge.

Safety/ security measures: installation and relocation of the safety concrete blocks, road markings for temporary traffic regulation,

1 Project Management and Supervision Consultant for T1 and T2 is the joint venture of French “Safege” and Spanish “Eptisa” companies.

2. Environmental Safeguards Staffing

2.1 The PMU Social and Environmental Safeguards Unit now consist of: Social Safeguards and Environmental Officer; Social Safeguards Specialist and Environmental Specialist (hasn't been recruited yet):

Ms. Armine Yedigaryan- Social Safeguards and Environmental Officer

Mss. Sona Poghosyan- Social Safeguards Specialist

2.2 The PMC Environmental Safeguards Unit is established.

Presently the PMC Environmental Safeguard Unit consists of:

Ms. Edita Vardgesyan, the National Environmental Specialist (NES) undertook the responsibilities of the overall management of the unit after the departure of the International Environmental Specialist (IES) since the end of November 2012. Allocation of the NES is coming to an end by the 1 October 2013.

Mr. Boris Gasparyan, the National Archaeological Specialist, is responsible for the consultancy on archaeological issues in Tranche 2, compliance of the construction activities to the Armenian archaeological related legislation and inspection visits to the borrow pit, dumping and concrete plant sites with archaeological evaluation purposes.

Mr. Charles Adamson the International Environmental Specialist (IES), is being engaged during 15 April- 6 June 2013 period and was responsible for the provision of consultation on international best practices on environmental safeguards.

2.3 The major tasks of the PMC Environmental Safeguards Unit during the reporting period were:

- provide consultancy to the Contractor’s Environmental team on the Armenian Environmental legislation requirements and ADB Safeguard Policy Statement, particularly with regard to asphalt as a hazardous material, application of pesticides for vegetation clearing purposes, treatment of trees in ROW, etc.

- provide assistance to the Contractor in the development of Contractor’s Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) for Section 1; Water, Noise, Vibration and Dust Instrumented Monitoring Plan for Section 1; Site Management Plans for 7

Dashtakar, Jrahovit borrow pits, Parpi and Masis concrete plants; other working documents.

- provide consultancy to the Contractor in organization of the baseline environmental data collection in Section 1 road.

- monitor the Contractor’s construction activities to ensure the compliance with EMP requirements in Sections 2 and 3.

- collect and provide the relevant information on environmental indicators to PPMS.

- other environmental issues;

2.4 The Contractor’s Environmental Unit is staffed by four people:

Mr. Vicente Jorda Garcia, the Quality and Environmental Manager is responsible for the overall management of the Environmental Unit;

Mr. Viktor Bakhtamyan, the Environmental Specialist is responsible for the assistance to the Quality and Environmental Manager as a local counterpart;

Mr. Sos Amirkhanyan, the Social Relation Specialist is responsible for the compliance of the Contractor’s activities to social part of the ADB Safeguard Policy Statement;

Mrs. Ana Maria del Hoyo Figaredo, Health and Safety Manager is responsible for the compliance of the Contractor’s activities to health and safety part of the ADB Safeguard Policy Statement;

Part II Environmental Management

3. Environmental Safeguards Program

3.1 Compliance with National Safeguards 3.1.1 A request has been made to the Safeguards Officer in the PMU to provide the PMC with positive conclusion of MNP Environmental Expertise on the EIA for Road Section 1. The demanded document has been provided to PMC and the conditions attached to the approval are being verified.

3.1.2 A request has been made to the Safeguards Officer in the PMU asking to clarify the compliance of IEE for Roads Section 2 and 3 to national legislative requirements. The PMU response refers to the conclusion on the Special General Expertise comprising also the environmental approval which has been approved by the Interagency Temporary Expertise Commission created for the North-South Road Corridor Investment Program, Tranches 1 and 2, by the RA Government Decree N 931-Ա.

3.2 Compliance with ADB Safeguards 3.2.1 In order to ensure the environmental performance Construction Contractor is being guided by the IEE and EMP for Tranche 1 and EIA and EMP for Tranche 2 as a part of the Bid and Contract documents.

3.2.2 Prior to signing off on any section of work that is dependent on payment to the Contractor the NES needs to be advised that the section is being finally inspected and that the NES should also sign off on it as well. This is to avoid failure by the Contractor to rehabilitate areas and properly close sites. A request has been sent to the RE asking him to make sure that the NES signs off together with the engineering staff on completed work.

3.2.3 Any sources of materials need to be approved by the environmental safeguards section in order to be compliant with Section 101.16 of the Contract Conditions. Sections 101.16.2 and 101.16.3 require that any sources of materials have correct approvals and licenses from the relevant authorities. Thus before any material source is approved for use it MUST first be checked that the operator has the correct approvals to operate and sell materials from the site. This is a requirement of the CEMP and approvals will normally be provided by the Contractor which should be attached to the SMP. However, it is also cognizant for the Materials Engineers to be aware of this requirement and ensure that before approving the material a check needs to be made that the correct licenses have been provided.

3.3 Contractor’s Compliance with the EMP The project specific Contractors’ Environmental Management Plans (CEMP) for the Road Section 1 is being developed during the reporting period by the Contractor based on the EIA and EMP in fulfillment of contract obligations. The CEMP has been prepared with active assistance of PMC environmental staff including the PMC IES engagement. The final version was reviewed and officially approved by PMC on 5 June 2013.

3.4 Site Inspection Visits 3.4.1 Site visit to evaluate the Jrahovit borrow site on environmental and archaeological points of view was carried out on 24 of January 2013. This was a first visit to the site which resulted in declination of the site. The Report on Inspection visit is attached in the ANNEX A.

Contractor applied for the repeated observation of the site. The Jrahovit borrow pit site was once again visited on 5 February 2013. The Contractor was represented by: Mr. Viktor Bakhtamayan and Mr. Sos Amirkhanyan. The PMC was represented by: Edita Vardgesyan, the NES.The purpose of the visit was to meet the Contractor’s request to evaluate to what extent the mitigation measures are possible and how effective they could be. (Inspection Report in ANNEX B) After the double inspection visits and the meeting with the Head of Land Use Department of Ararat Marzpetaran, Mr. Artavazd Ordoyan, in February 2013 the NES advised to the Contractor to develop the Site Management Plan for the borrow pit operation which was submitted to the PMC review on 26 Feb 2013. The SMP was reviewed by Mr. Charles Adamson, PMC IES and Mrs. Edita Vardgesyan, PMC NES. The mitigation measures envisaged in the SMP were found not sufficient and the document provided with significant comments was returned to the Contractor for the revision on 5 March 2013.

The new version of the SMP revised according to the comments was re-submitted to the PMC on 25 Mar 2013. The revised SMP was reviewed by PMC NES and an approval issued on 27 Mar 2013.

3.4.2 On 27 March 2013 PMC NES initiated an official letter reminding the Contractor that the SMP submitted for Dashtakar borrow pit operation is not approved by the PMC environmental unit. Contractor was required to revise the SMP according to the PMC comments and resubmit otherwise the operation should be stopped and considered as non-compliance to CEMP.

Contractor revised the SMP for Dashtakar and submitted the updated version on 3 April 2013 which was reviewed by the PMC NES and approved on 4 April 2013. Contractor was allowed to proceed with the operation of the site according to the SMP.

3.4.3 On 11 April 2013 PMC NES visited the Jrahovit borrow pit site along with Contractor’s environmental team representatives. The purpose of the visit was to monitor

10 the Contractor’s preparation activities to use the site and to inspect the site from the possibility to enlarge it.

The second visit took place on 17 April 2013 together with PMC IES, Mr. Charles Adamson which resulted in the inspection report (ANNEX C).

3.4.4 On 24 May 2013 a site visit to Ayntap dump area was done by Mr. Charles Adamson, the PMC IES and Mrs Edita Vardgesyan, the PMC NES. The participants of the visit were also Mr. Viktor Bakhtamyan, the Contractor’s ES and Mr.Sos Amirkhanyan, the Contractor’s SS. The Contractor informed that they are finishing the further operation of the site and are about to complete the rehabilitation works in accordance to the Ayntap dump site SMP. So the purpose of the visit was to inspect the site and to check the compliance of the site closure works to the rehabilitation requirements of the SMP.

The visit showed that the territory is properly smoothed with bulldozer, the previous pit is filled with the excavated material up to the flat area which could be later used by the community for agricultural or other purposes, no garbage or other rubbish was present on the site.

The Contractor’s representatives informed that the joint visit with the community representatives to the site was done the same day and that the community is satisfied with the rehabilitation works. The PMC environmental specialists advised to obtain the writing satisfaction of the Head of Ayntap community. (ANNEX D).

3.4.5 On 12June 2013 the site visit to Dashtakar borrow pit site was done by Mrs. Edita Vardgesyan, the PMC NES. The participants of the site visit were also Mr. Viktor Bakhtamyan, the Contractor’s ES and Mr. Sos Amirkhanyan, the Contractor’s SS. The purpose of the visit was to check the compliance of site restoration works to the SMP site closure program. The visit showed that the site is properly smoothed and cleaned from any construction debris. All the machinery is removed from the site. (ANNEX E) The PMC environmental specialists advised to obtain the writing satisfaction of the Head of Dashtakar community and to provide the full report on site closure and rehabilitation comprising the report on haul roads. The site closure is not officially approved yet.

3.4.6 After the multiple revisions the SMP for Parpi concrete plant was reviewed by PMC and finally approved on 21 June 2013 conditioned that one hard copy of the SMP in Armenian shall be provided to PMC and one copy shall be given to the person on-site responsible for the Parpi concrete plant operation management. The previous submissions of the SMP were declined by PMC environmental specialists because of non-compliance to the outline format agreed for SMPs, as well as due to the lack of some necessary legal approvals like the Conclusion of the technical safety expertise. (SMP for Parpi concrete plant is available at PMC office) 11

3.4.7 Summary of the inspection visits implemented during the reporting period is presented in ANNEX F.

3.5 Presentation of Environmental Safeguards 3.5.1 A workshop on environmental safeguards was held on 30 May 2013 in the scope of the Training Workshop on Environmental and Performance-Based Maintenance Workshop targeted at PMU officers, PMC staff involved in site supervision, Contractor’s staff responsible for environmental mitigation measures, as well as representatives from MoNP and MoC. The workshop addressed important environmental issues being faced by NSRCP with the objective of raising awareness of the procedures, regulations, approvals and stakeholders involved in environmental assessment, environmental management plan and mitigation measures.

The following Program was presented through the PP presentation (available in PMC office):

- NSRCP Environmental safeguards for Sections 2 and 3 as of May 2013 (Edita Vardgesyan, the PMC NES)

- NSRCP Environmental safeguards for Section 1(Mrs. Edita Vardgesyan, the PMC NES)

- NSRCP Archaeological Program (Mr. Boris Gasparyan, the PMC Archaeological Expert)

3.6. Archaeological Works Program

Progress: During the reporting period the following activities were implemented:

3.6.1 Fieldwork activities for identification of the ROW boundaries in Section 1 (i.e identification of the sites which are directly appeared in the impact area of the future construction activities and measurement of the level of damage on those sites or the surface of destruction). The works included Parpi, Agarak, Ujan, Aruch, Kakavadzor, Agarak (Talin), Davtashen, Katnaghbyur, Yeghnik and Talin communities, as well as development of the 1:10 000 – 1: 5000 scale digital map database with coordination to the construction design. The coordinate system, site relief, community division are adjusted.

3.6.2 The survey methodology for the collection of the field information is worked out. The budget of field activities is calculated, discussed and agreed with PMC, PMU management and Contractor.

3.6.3 A Summary Report on Archaeological issues based on the processed data collected within the ROW boundaries is submitted to the MOTC and MOC requesting their approval to commence excavations of the archaeological sites along the ROW. (ANNEX I)

The Archaeological works guidance for Tranche 2 (Ashtarak-Talin) containing the proposed mitigation measures to protect the archaeological units during the excavations and construction works is additionally submitted to the MoC to meet their request.

3.6.4 During May the Archaeological Works Plan for the Nerkin Sasnashen tomb field, Verin Sasnashen archaeological complex, Davtashen tomb field and Katnaghbyur archeological complex (km 58 650 – km 66 800) containing detailed description of the archaeological units in the RoW boundaries, principles of their excavations, calculation of the volume and timetable of the excavations was finalized and submitted to PMU, the Contractor and to the Institute of Archaeology and Ethnography of NAS of RA,the organization which will be contracted to do the excavations.

The excavating organization has applied to the Archaeological Commission of the Republic of Armenia for a permit to start the archaeological excavations in the above mentioned sites, as well as in Talin tomb field and Agarak archaeological-historical preserve.

3.6.5 Joint field visit with MoC experts to the archeological sites along Tranche 2 to introduce the archaeological issues along km 29+ 600- 71+500 was done on 10 and 11 June 2013. The purpose was to facilitate the process of consideration of the Report on archaeological sites along Tranche 2 submitted to the MoC in mid April 2013 requesting their approval to commence excavations of the archaeological sites along the RoW.

3.6.6 Approval of the MoC on the Report and Archaeological works Guidance for Tranche 2 (Ashtarak-Talin) containing the proposed mitigation measures to protect the archaeological units during the excavations and construction works received on 19.06.2013. (Letter to Mr. G. Beglaryan, RA Minister of Transport and Communication, signed by Mrs. H. Poghosyan, RA Minister of Culture dated on 19 June 2013, registered N250 PMU). Although conditioned with requirements which are to be kept during the implementation of excavation and construction works approval letter contains advises to sign the contracts with excavating companies and to start excavations as soon as possible.

3.6.7 Joint field visit with directors of excavating organizations, Institute of Archaeology and Ethnography of the NAS of Armenia and Historical and Cultural Heritage Research Center, is done on 12 June 2013. The purpose of the visit was to identify the excavation area for each of the organizations, as well as to discuss the timetable and estimated resources. 13

Reasons of delays /Findings and recommendations:

3.6.8 In January a management paper was prepared by the IES to address the complexity of issues that were evolving with the archaeological work program and the need for coordination of the activities with other ministries. One of the recommendations was for the formation of a higher level coordination committee to resolve these issues.

3.6.9 On the presentation of the safeguards held on 30 May became apparent that the MoC had not dealt with the report claiming that they could not review it since they had not received a hard copy, only the electronic file. A further copy of the report as a hard copy has been sent to them via the PMU requesting urgent approval of the excavation program that is now delayed due to this lack of approval.

3.6.10 Application for consideration of RA Archaeological Commission, the entity authorized to issue permits for excavations, is lodged by excavating organizations. This was expected to be held around. The session of the Archaeological Commission primarily planned for the mid-June was postponed.

3.7 Consultations and Grievance redress mechanism 3.7.1 On March 5 2013 the PMC NES participated in the public hearings held by the MNP in Parpi community in the scope of the environmental expertise process conducted by the Environmental Expertise SNCO. The purpose was to present to the affected community and to the broad public the design of the concrete batching plant installation intended by the Contractor and the possible environmental impacts according to the RA Law on Environmental Expertise. The environmental impacts were found to be insignificant and temporary and the meeting resulted in the decision to approve the proposed design.

3.7.2 On April 19 2013 the PMC environmental team participated in the public hearings held by the PMU with heads of the communities affected by the Project in Section 1 Road Ashtarak- Talin.

The purpose of the hearing was to inform the heads of the affected communities on possible environmental and archaeological impacts and to communicate on their concerns before the consultation targeted to the community population. The PMC NES presented the ADB environmental safeguards and main relevant provisions of the Armenian legislation, as well as explained the role of the environmental team of PMU and PMC in the Project. Contractors’ environmental specialist highlighted possible environmental impacts, explained that they will be insignificant and temporary, as well as presented some mitigation measures which should be planned in the CEMP.

Also the PMC Archaeological Specialist presented all archaeological issues present in the Section 1 and the solutions proposed by him. He mentioned that excavations program is

14 likely to be implemented and mentioned that possibility of hiring of the local labor may arise.

The meeting showed that the heads of the affected communities have got lots of concerns related to the project design hence it was decided to make possible their consultation with PMU and PMC technical staff.

3.8 Grievance redress mechanism

3.8.1 The PMC NES took part in the series of discussion meetings initiated by the PMC social safeguards unit on the monitoring complains and grievances procedures. Inadequate environmental safeguards are considered to be one of the categories of complains and grievances from impacted communities population. Also the quarterly numbers of environmental complaints from communities along the road sections, from 2013 to 2016 is set as a PPMS indicator.

The discussion resulted in a finding that all types of grievances and complains received by various sources, including the environment related ones will be collected and centralized by the PMC national social specialist who will sort them and forward the relevant ones to the PMC NES.

3.8.2 Grievance redress mechanism to address the complaints/ suggestions of communities on excessive dust, noise, improper waste dumping and on other environmental issues is established by the Contractor to ensure the communication with communities. Contractor provided the Complaints Register book to every impacted community which is kept at the office of head of the community and is open accessed to community members. Also the posters are developed and posted in every community containing the contact information where to apply should any disturbances occur. No complains and/or suggestions on environmental issues are registered as of today.

3.8.3 Community visits were undertaken by the PMC NES in May 2013 to make sure that the communities are properly communicated by the Contractor on the environmental issues and the Grievance redress mechanism is in place in every community. The availability of the Complaints Register books and informational posters are checked.

3.9 Meetings

3.9.1 A meeting of the PMC Environmental Specialist with the Head of Land Use Department of Ararat Marzpetaran, Mr. Artavazd Ordoyan, took place on 11 March 2013 in the office of Ararat Marzpetaran. PMC Environmental Specialist informed Mr. Ordoyan about the intended use of soil material to be borrowed from Jrahovit community, introduced the environmental risks connected with the use of the site and discussed the possibility of 15 other options. Mr. Ordoyan explained that he sees no significant risks for the site use and confirmed that currently it is the only possible existing option. Also he informed that Ararat Marzpetaran applied to the MNP to obtain their consent which is received.

The decision of the PMC to approve the further operation of the site was done based on the results of the above meeting.

3.9.2 A further meeting with Mr. Artavazd Ordoyan, the Head of Land Use Department of Ararat Marzpetaran took place on 4 April 2013. Participants of the meeting were also PMC NES and Contractor’s environmental team. The purpose of the visit was to communicate with marzpetaran and to obtain the permits and “no objection” for Dashtakar borrow pit operation. The meeting resulted in the PMC approval of the Dashtakar borrow pit.

3.9.3 A series of meetings between the PMC environmental team and PMU Environmental Officer on one hand and the Head of the Environmental Department and staff member of the Chamber of Control on the other hand took place during the reporting period. The compliance of the construction activities of the Contractor to the requirements of Armenian legislation was discussed. PMU Environmental Officer and PMC NES provided all the reqested information on necessary permits and approvals for dump sites, borrow pits and concrete plant sites operation, as well as other relevant information on the environmental safeguards.

3.9.4 A joint meeting with representative of “ATMS Solutions” LTD Company took place on 4 June 2013. Participants of the meeting were also environmental team of “Isolux Corsan Corviam” S. A. and PMC NES. The purpose of the meeting was the possibility of contracting the “ATMS Solutions” LTD Company by Contractor for Dust, Noise and Vibration baseline data collection and routine monitoring process in Section 1. The baseline data collection and routine monitoring process were discussed in details and found satisfactory. PMC NES expressed “non-objection” on contracting the company.

3.95 A meeting with the Head of MoNP Environmental Inspectorate Mr. Marzpet Qamalyan on one hand, and PMU ESO, and PMC NES took place on 11 June 2013 in the MoNP. The purpose of the meeting was to clarify the compliance of IEE for Roads Section 2 and 3 to national legislative requirements and to consider the conclusion of the Complex General Expertise comprising also the environmental approval as satisfactory to meet the legislative requirements and to be compliant to national safeguards. The official reply of the MNP is still awaited.

3.9.6 PMU ESO, and PMC NES the same day also have had a meeting with the MNP Hazardous Substances and Waste Policy Division staff. The purpose was to receive some interpretations on relevant legislation and instructions on how to deal with asphalt waste generated during the construction works.

3.9.7 During the reporting period active communications on regular basis with PMU management and the PMU Environmental and Social Officer took place on the following:

- Discussion meetings on archaeological issues. The present state of archaeological issues were discussed, the Archaeological Work Guidance and Summary Matrix of the Archaeological Units on the Tranche 2 Ashtarak- Talin Road were presented to PMU management on the meeting on 23/01/2013.

- Clarification of Approval Responsibilities for Borrow Pits, Quarries and Excavation Waste Dumps.The main issue is the lack of understanding of the various approval roles for authorising the removal of materials from borrow pits and dumping excavation waste in borrow pits. This has been partially addressed by comments received from the Chamber of Control (CoC). It is fair to say that the legislation seems to be confused with possible responsibility for these resources being allocated between MoNP, MENR and Regional Government.

3.9.8 Regular weekly meetings with Contractor took place on regular basis. Various issues are discussed which are to be addressed by Contractor in close cooperation with PMU and PMC. Particularly the following issues are touched during the reporting period:

- Baseline data collection process and monitoring program for Section 1. 9 noise, 12 dust, 1 vibration and 4 water quality monitoring sites on two water courses was proposed by the Contractor. This was agreed as being workable and is subject to any changes that may be proposed by the laboratory that will do the monitoring.

- Preparation by the Contractor of the CEMP for the road Section 1

- Findings of the PMC environmental units’ regular monitoring visits.

- Contractor’s weekly monitoring reports. Contractor is demanded to improve reporting of the monitoring reporting system.

- Contractor is demanded to improve Site Management Plans, particularly for Parpi concrete plant and Jrahovit borrow pit, as well as theTraffic Management Plans for the haul roads.

- Non-compliance notices for Jrahovit and Dashtakar improper operation and correction plans.

-The permits for the quarries operated in Section 3. Contractor provided permits for Tandzut quarry and promised that the Khachar quarry permit will be provided shortly.

-Site closure and rehabilitation in Ayntap dump site and Dashtakar borrow pit site. The issue of the rehabilitation of the roads is also discussed. Contractor confirmed that the haul roads for the Dashtakar borrow pit operation are improved through the patching prior to 17 start the use and was in good state by the moment of the site use closure which is properly documented. Contractor promised to provide the report on the site closure including the haul roads.

- Asphalt waste issues. The Contractor confirmed that the process of obtaining the passports for the hazardous material is in process but some juridical difficulties may arise with asphalt waste since the Employer and not the Corsan Corviam is the owner.

- Health and safety issues.

3.9.9 PMC NES regularly participated on the PMC technical staff joint meeting with Contractors management

On the joint meeting of PMC and Contractor held in Feb 2013 the findings of the first inspection visit to Jrahovit site are discussed.

Contractor applied for the repeated observation of the site which is proposed to be used as a borrow pit giving arguments for the exploitation of the site. Contractor claims the site to be the only existing option assigned by local authorities after other previously observed and evaluated options (Ginevet, Nor Kyurin) failed and argued that through the implementation of the proper mitigation measures environmental adverse impact will be escaped.

The meeting resulted in the decision to do the second inspection visit to Jrahovit with the purpose of environmental evaluation to what extent the mitigation measures are possible and how effective they could be.

On the meeting held on 27 June 2013 in Ashtarak office. The purpose was to directly communicate with Contractors’ management on following issues:

- Satisfaction of the Head of Dashtakar community on borrow pit closure program is to be obtained.

- Intention on further operation of Jrahovit borrow pit and possibilities of extention of the site.

- Concent of the Contractor’s management on application of Section 1 CEMP requirements on vegetation clearance plan to the Section 3.

- Contractor’s commitment to start the implementation of the archaeological program in section 1.

- Contractor’s commitment to provide all requested permits and contracts with sub- contractors and service providers.

- Other issues particularly asphalt temporary disposal in Parpi and Masis concrete plants areas.

3.9.10 during the reporting period the PMC NES went on to held meetings with PMC site inspectors, supervisors and other staff. It was found that coordination of the environmental safeguards component still needs better integration with the rest of the project especially with the engineering section. Areas that need addressing is more explanation of the safeguard requirements in terms of the mitigation measures that are applied especially for workplace safety, waste management and dust and the need to monitor borrow pit and concrete plant sites.

These issues were raised once again at a meeting with the Site Supervisors at the Ashtarak office on 27 June 2013 since the improvement in Section 2 supervision is found apparent but Section 3 is still somewhat lacking in commitment to the safeguard principles. 19

Part III Environmental Monitoring

4. Monitoring activities were carried out during the reporting period according to the Monitoring program developed based on the ADB safeguards and EMP requirements. The PMC Monitoring program includes: (1) the monitoring of the compliance of construction activities in the road Sections 2 and 3 to the EMP requirements, (2) environmental monitoring of noise and vibration, water quality, air quality and flora and fauna monitoring, as well as monitoring of construction activities for road Section 1. (to be implemented upon the commencement of works on the Road Section 1) (3) Collection of monitoring data and providing to the PPMS.

4.1 Monitoring of the compliance with EMPs in Section 2 and Section 3. 4.1.1 Monitoring program for road Sections 2 and 3 includes:

(1) Monitoring site visits on monthly basis with the monitoring sheet filled in by the PMC environmental staff; (2) Completion of the monitoring checklist and summary of compliances and non- compliances; (3) Issue the non-compliances notices to the Contractor; (4) Review of the Contractor’s weekly monitoring reports.

4.1.2 Regular monitoring carried out by the PMC environmental team during the reporting period shows that the most frequent non-compliances are:

•emergency contacts list has not been posted at site;

•waste collection containers have not been provided;

•waste is not sorted;

•trucks are provided with covers but are not using it regularly;

•fire extinguisher and the first aid kit are not available at construction camp or are locked and thus not accessible to workers.

•garbage collection containers have not been provided;

•generated waste is not sorted; the disposal of the removed concrete curbs is not satisfactory;

• dust control measures are not satisfactory

In some cases the mitigation is evaluated as partly effective:

The Contractor is always being informed on the detected non- compliances and is demanded to improve within the deadlines set and report on improvement.

4.2 Environmental monitoring of noise and vibration, water quality, air quality and flora and fauna. This part is relevant for Ashtarak- Talin road Section 1. During the reporting period construction activities took place only in Section 3 and Section 2.

4.2.1 Contractor started preparations for collection of baseline data and presented to the PMC consideration the list of companies to be contracted for environmental measurements for baseline data and routine monitoring purposes for the Section 1 road. The listed companies were discussed on the weekly meeting with Contractor and the following shortlisted companies were selected: ARMMONITORING Center under the MNP for water quality and the ATMS Solutions LTD for dust and noise measurements.

4.3. PPMS indicators. 4.3.1 Discussion on selection of environmental indicators for PPMS started at the end of the January 2013 and continued during the February 2013 with engagement of International Expert Mr. Michel Cramer. The PMC IES and NES were actively involved into the discussion process. PMU ESO also imputed her final suggestion and corrections.

Two environmental performance indicators were selected based on the idea to include all the important information and at the same time to keep the monitoring system as simple as possible. These two indicators are: (i) Quarterly numbers of environmental non-compliance notices from PMC to Contractor, from 2013 to 2016, based on standards for storm water, noise, dust and vibration for the Ashtarak – Talin section (S1), and on any breaches of the EIA and EMP along the whole Project road (total/outstanding); (ii) Quarterly numbers of environmental complaints from communities along the Project road, from 2013 to 2016. 21

4.4 Non-compliance notices. 4.4.1 Non-compliance notices issued to the Contractor.During the reporting period 2 non- compliance notices are issued to the Contractor:

- Non-compliance to Dashtakar borrows pit operation SMP issued on 16 May 2013 (ANNEX J)

- Non-compliance to Jrahovit borrows pit operation SMP (ANNEX K)

4.4.2 Follow up of non-compliances.

4.4.2.1 Dashtakar borrow pit. In response to the non-compliance letter Contractor in the letter dated 24 May 2013 Ref No 339 provided the following information:

(a) Material extracted from the borrow pit is about 31 000 m3

(b) The solution proposed consists on extending with bulldoser the soil material from the untouched areas to the deepest excavated areas to ensure the medium depth no more than 1 m.

4.4.2.2 An inspection visit to Dashtakar borrow pit was done by the PMC environmental team on 16 May 2013. The participants of the meeting were Mr. Charles Adamson, the PMC IES, and Mrs. Edita Vardgesyan, the PMC NES. The purpose of the visit was to monitor the compliance of the operation of the site with the SMP. It was stated that the pit is operated more than 2 m deep which is a violation of the requirement stipulated in the SMP under the heading “Operation of Site”. The wrong operation of the site was estimated to be out of the privileges of obtained permits and should exacerbate the Contractors’ ability to re-stabilise the area at completion of extraction.

A non-compliance notice was issued to the Contractor based on the findings of the visit with the requirement to stop the operation of the site. Also the Contractor was demanded to provide information on the quantity of material that has been removed from the site, measures taken for the improvement of the situation including the revised procedure for re- stabilising the borrow pit.

4.4.2.3 Further inspection visit to Dashtakar borrow pit was done by the PMC environmental team on 31 May 2013. The purpose of the visit was to check the implementation of measures proposed by the Contractor for the improvement of the situation.

An acknowledgement of the response measures was issued to the Contractor along with the demand to follow one of the possible alternatives:

(a) Should they wish to continue to exploit the material from the borrow pit below 1 m depth a permit from Ministry of Energy and Natural resources should be obtained.

(b) Otherwise should the Contractor no longer extract material, the borrow pit should be rehabilitated in accordance to SMP and approval of the head of the community obtained that he is satisfied with the closure of the pit and with the rehabilitation of the houl roads.

4.4.2.4 Contractor has stopped the operation of the site and has done the site closure and rehabilitation according to SMP (ANNEX E)

4.4.2.5 Jrahovit borrow pit. On 16 May 2013 the PMC IES and NES visited Jrahovit borrow pit site. The purpose of the visit was to monitor the operation of the borrow pit, to check the compliance to the SMP, as well as to verify that Contractor didn’t start to extend and enlarge the already approved area without the update of SMP and PMC approval.

4.4.2.6 The visit to Jrahovit revealed a number of non-compliances to the SMP which were documented in the site visit report (ANNEX K). A non- compliance notice was issued to the Contractor advising the the existing approval is withheld until the situation is improved.

4.4.2.7 Contractor stopped the extention of the site. Other response measures are awaited.

4.4.2.8 The issue of correct permits of Jrahovit borrow pit operation was raised and repeatedly discussed between Chamber of Control representatives on one hand and the PMU, PMC and Contractor on the other hand. Finally it was concluded that there is no violation of the Armenian legislation and the Contractor may proceed with operation of the site based on the already existing permits provided the non-compliances with SMP will be eliminated. The written form of “no- objection” from the Chamber of Control is awaited.

The site is visited by PMC NES to check the improvement of non-conmpliances on 12 June 2013 and also during the monitoring visit on 27 June 2013. It was stated that the non- compliances were not improved 23

Distance of 2-3 m for top soil disposal is not kept. The area of approved borrow pit is extended without approvals and SMP is not

developed for the extended part.

Contractor is warned on the consequences of not improvement of detected violations and replied in monthly report for June 2013 that “All raised issues will be solved by 20 of July and information about progress will be provided in Monthly report for July 2013”.

ANNEX A. Jrahovit Borrow Pit Site Inspection Report

Site inspection No 10

1. Introduction

The Jrahovit borrow pit site was visited on Thursday 24 January 2013.

The Contractor was represented by: Vicente Jorda, Viktor Bakhtamayan. The PMC was represented by: Edita Vardgesyan, the NES, and Boris Gasparyan, the Archaeology Expert.

2. Purpose of Visit

To evaluate the borrow pit site for possible environmental and archaeological issues.

3. Weather conditions

- It was cloudy, foggy weather the day of the visit. The site surface here and there was covered with snow.

4. Site Description

- The site is located within the Ararat Marz and south of Artashat about 5 km from the highway.

- The site is never used as a borrow pit and is situated in almost smooth and undisturbed terrain with light slope landscape. The earth mass consists of a 15-18 cm thick topsoil (dark greyish humus with some debris) and firm sediment including limited amount big and medium sized pebbles and gravel. The stony firm soil is described as being exposed in places from 1.5 to 3 m depth.

The light slope landscape is undisturbed. The earth mass consists of a 15-18 cm thick topsoil and firm stony soil.

- The site surface is covered with smooth terrain vegetation that is typical for pastures of this area.

- Infrastructures. The site is situated between the seasonally dry irrigation line and the ice covered main irrigation canal. The interspace between the two lines, which comprises the proposed area of interest, is about 20m divided by an earth road. The major channel line is situated on the southern side of the proposed borrow pit and is separated from it by about 10m, very close to the proposed site. Both of these irrigation lines are situated in well-defined systems.

The site is situated between the seasonally dry irrigation line and the ice covered main irrigation canal. 25

- The site is about 2.5 km from Djrahovit village and about 5km from the highway and is accessed by an earth road that follows through the Djrahovit village. After this the road crosses the canal on a concrete bridge, approaches the proposed site along the irrigation canal on right side and private cultivated land and orchards on the left side. After this the access road stretches to the area which is probably used as pastures (the traces of the cattle on the road surface are evident).

The road crosses the irrigation canal on a concrete bridge

- The adjacent lands are cultivated tillages, orchards and gardens.

The adjacent lands are cultivated tillages, orchards and gardens.

- The land is described as being community agricultural category land.

- Area of land to be occupied and amount to be removed is indicated by the contractor to be about 60,000 m3 over an approved area of about 3.1ha.

5. Recommendations and Findings

- The proposed site cannot be considered as a rock mineral deposit but as an agricultural land in an undisturbed plain landscape. The exploitation as a borrow pit will require up to 3m digging which will create a ravine and the considerably disturb the landscape. The end result would apparently be a long thin scar in the ground and assuming that the overburden is replaced may result in a depression about 3km long x 10m wide and between 2-3 m deep.

-The site is developed in agricultural land and this appears to be an unacceptable use of a scarce land use resource.

- The stony firm soil is described as being exposed in places from 1.5 to 3 m depth which needs further investigation since according to Armenian legislation the depth of the soil layer of agricultural land which remains after the removed part should be not less than 1.5 m

- There is a fruit tree garden very closely adjacent to the proposed site (in some 2-3 m) which may be affected.

- The above described irrigation lines and canal serving the garden and the neighbouring plots may be affected. The location of the irrigation channels will require careful excavation and imply a hazard should these fracture and flood the excavation. The hazard is extensive and will exist over the 3km length. The risk of fracturing and draining to the depression will exist during excavation and after the borrow pit is closed. This will require careful design and excavation to ensure that it is not possible for the irrigation canal to be inadvertently diverted to the pit after closure.

- The access road is evidently used by cattle as a passage way to the pastures. The site is to be used by long, narrow 10 x 3000 m strip not to affect the road, as well as the irrigation lines which seems to be unrealistic. Otherwise the road will be intruded forcing the unused strips very close to the canal to be converted into the passage way for humans, the cattle and autos.

- The access to the proposed site is an earthy road in very poor state which will become muddy and impassable for trucks when wet weather conditions. More than 3km of the road needs to be considerably improved.

- Access is via a village which will require haul trucks to pass through the village and when used as a haul way the direct impact on a community will be unavoidable.

- The drainage line was not well-defined because of the weather conditions and need further investigation.

- There are no archaeological issues.

6. The findings are considered to be unfavourable for the use of the proposed area as a borrow pit and the Contractor may not proceed with the site.

Edita Vardgesyan, NES

Boris Gasparyan, Archaeology Expert

ANNEX B. Jrahovit Borrow Pit Site Inspection Report

Site inspection No 11

1. Introduction 27

The Jrahovit borrow pit site was once again visited on Tuesday 5th of February 2013. The Contractor was represented by: Mr. Viktor Bakhtamayan and Mr. Sos Amirkhanyan. The PMC was represented by: Edita Vardgesyan,the NES.

2. Purpose of Visit

The joint PMC and Contractor meeting took place to discuss the findings of the previous inspection visit to Jrahovit site. Contractor was represented by Mr. Daniel Domingo, the Project manager, Mr. Vicente Jorda, the Quality and Environmental Manager, and Mr. Viktor Bakhtamyan, the Environmental Specialist. PMC was represented by Mr. Michael Porter, the Resident Engineer and Mrs. Edita Vardgesyan, NES. Contractor applied for the repeated observation of the site which is proposed to be used as a borrow pit giving arguments for the exploitation of the site. Contractor claims the site to be the only existing option assigned by local authorities after other previously observed and evaluated options (Ginevet, Nor Kyurin) failed and argued that through the implementation of the proper mitigation measures environmental adverse impact will be escaped.

The second visit was done to the Jrahovit site to meet the Contractor’s request, to undertake the repeated observation of the site and to evaluate to what extent the mitigation measures are possible and how effective they could be.

3. Weather conditions

- sunny clear weather; the site surface was free of snow.

4. Site Description

-The site is located within the Ararat Marz and south of Artashat about 5 km from the highway.

-The site is never used as a borrow pit and is situated in almost smooth and undisturbed terrain with slight slope landscape. The earth mass consists of a 15-18 cm thick topsoil (dark greyish humus with some debris) and firm sediment including limited amount big and medium sized pebbles and gravel. The stony firm soil is described as being exposed in places from 1.5 to 3 m depth.

-The site surface is covered with smooth terrain vegetation that is typical for pastures of this area.

-Infrastructures. The seasonally dry irrigation lines (earth ditch and main channel) and a drainage channel are very close to the proposed site. The interspace between the lines, which comprises the proposed area of interest, is about 20m. All these irrigation lines are in well-defined systems.

-The site is about 2.5 km from Jrahovit village and about 5km from the highway and is accessed by an earth road that follows through the Djrahovit village. After this the road crosses the canal on a concrete bridge, approaches the proposed site along the irrigation canal on right side and private cultivated land and orchards on the left side serving as a field road.

-The adjacent lands are cultivated tillages, orchards and gardens.

-The land is described as being community agricultural category land.

-Area of land to be occupied and amount to be removed is indicated by the contractor to be about 60,000 m3 over an approved area of about 3.1ha.

5. Meeting with the head of Jrahovit community.

The participants of the site inspection visited also the Head of the Djrahovit village, Mr. Hamlet Ghazaryan who confirmed that the land is community property, currently is not used for any purposes, the farmers have an unrestricted access to their plots through the field road which will not be affected by the use of the borrow pit. He asserted that no pastures or other land holdings are available in the next vicinity. He admitted that the increased traffic through the village may create some inconveniences but agreed to admit them conditioned that the construction company will provide a reasonable TMP. He also expressed the satisfaction that the rural roads will be improved and the community will benefit from it.

The Head of the community has no objections against the exploitation of the borrow pit.

6. Findings

- The proposed site cannot be considered as a rock mineral deposit but as an agricultural land in an undisturbed plain landscape.

-There is a private ownership fruit tree garden very closely adjacent to the proposed site (in some 2-3 m) which may be affected.

- The above described irrigation line, serving the garden and the neighbouring plots, as well as the drainage canal may be affected. The risk of fracturing and draining to the depression will exist during excavation and after the borrow pit is closed.

- Access to the site is via the Djrahovit village which will require haul trucks to pass through the village and when used as a haul way the direct impact on a community will be unavoidable.

- The filed road is the only road ensuring the access to the adjacent tillages and gardens. 29

- The access road is customarily used by cattle as a passage way (the traces of the cattle on the road surface are evident).

- There are no archaeological issues on site.

7. Recommendations

- The findings show that there are some sizeable concerns with the site; Contractor may proceed with securing the use of the site only conditioned by development of the SMP according to CEMP requirements containing the reliable and rigorous mitigation measures with particular reference to

1. Site safety with particular attention to the protective measures which are needed to avoid any possible damage to water supply system. The close location of the irrigation channels will require careful excavation to prevent a hazard should these fracture and flood the excavation. The hazard is extensive and will exist over the 2km length. This will require careful design and method statement containing the protective measures to prevent any collapse and destruction of the irrigation lines and drainage system both during the use of the pit and after the closure. The measures are to guarantee the sustainability of irrigation lines operation in the future.

2. Site safety with particular attention to the protective measures which are needed to avoid any possible damage to land resources of adjacent lands: cultivated tillages, orchards and gardens. This will require careful design and method statement containing earthwork fortification measures are taken to avoid any land collapse or landslide in the future which is developed based on the geological survey of the soil structure.

3. The small private garden which is mostly endangered and may be adversely impacted needs special attention and is to be protected both during the use of the pit and after the closure:

(a) Any intrusion into the garden area is excluded.

(b) Earthwork fortification measures are taken to avoid any land collapse or landslide in the future (see 2)

4. The soil material is to be excavated keeping the allowed depth in compliance with the requirement of Armenian legislation according to which the depth of the soil layer of agricultural land which remains after the removed part should be not less than 1.5 m.

5. The exploitation as a borrow pit will require up to 3m digging which will create a ravine and the considerably disturb the landscape. The end result would apparently be a long thin scar in the ground and assuming that the overburden is replaced may result in a depression about 2km long x 20m wide and between 2-3 m deep.

This will require proper landscape rehabilitation measures to create smooth land surface. The SMP should contain the detailed land rehabilitation plan.

6. The valuable 15- 18 cm top soil is to be carefully removed, preserved during the pit exploitation and after the pit closure returned to the site and used as a cover layer for the landscape rehabilitation. The SMP should contain the full description where and how the top soil will be preserved, what measures are taken to escape any damage or loss.

7. A traffic management plan (TMP) will be needed for the haul road to be prepared according to CEMP requirements with particular attention to protective measures which are needed to avoid possible disturbance of village roads traffic and or any possible damage of the field road. Site safety with particular attention to the protective measures which are needed to avoid intrusion into road area or any other possible damage to the field road taking into account that it is the only access road to the fields and gardens and the excavation will take place very close to the road.

8. A community advice program will need to be arranged for the Djrahovit community as follows: (i) before and (ii) during operation with particular reference to i. Dust ii. Noise iii. Vibration iv Working time

On completion of the SMP the SMP is to be submitted to the RE for approval together with supporting documents which include:

а. Permit of local authorities to use the site as a borrow pit (copy of the contract). b. Permit of local authorities to use the Djrahovit village roads as a haul road. c. Certificate obtained from local authorities (marzpetaran) containing information about the proposed site: land category, ownership, soil type, present land use, no objection on the use of the site as a borrow pit. The latter is considered to be necessary as the site is going 31 to be developed in agricultural land and this appears to be an objectionable use of a scarce land use resource.

Prepared by

Edita Vardgesyan, NES

Boris Gasparyan, Archaeology Expert

ANNEX C. Jrahovit Borrow Pit Site Inspection Report

Inspection N 12

The site was inspected together with Ms Edita Vardgesyan on Wednesday 17 April 2013. The site was visited after rain, the site was wet and the access roads were slippery and muddy. The sub-contractor’s haul trucks had been stood down to avoid damage to the road.

The only machine at site was the excavator but this was idle.

Comments

1. The access road to the borrow pit serves both the community with light vehicles and the contractor’s heavy haul trucks. The road has been graded to a bare earth surface, which following rain is now slippery and with further continuing use from heavy vehicles the road surface will inevitably fail. The contractor needs to investigate options on maintaining the road surface for continuing access by the community while the road is being used as a haul road.

2. Excavation has resulted in an excessively steep batter against the hill side. This is almost vertical and at heights of 2-3 m now represents an introduced hazard to livestock and people which prior to this enjoyed safe access across the area. The batter needs to be reshaped to 1:3 (vertical : horizontal). Alternatively a fence needs to be erected above the excavation to divert livestock, vehicles and people away from the introduced hazard.

3. Any extension of the excavation area will only be approved with batters of 1:3 against the upper slopes. Due to the presence of an apricot orchard on the upper slopes and the requirement to excavate below the orchard no excavation will be allowed within 4m of the orchard so as to avoid creating adverse soil moisture conditions within the orchard.

4. Approval has been given to store topsoil within 2-3 m of the irrigation canal. Topsoil has instead been stored alongside the canal and material has entered the canal. Topsoil must be pulled back from the canal to meet the approved separation distance of 2-3m. Any material that has entered the canal must be removed to re-establish the canals designed cross sectional area.

5. The area is to be returned as agricultural land at the completion of extraction. A cross slope of at least 1% needs to be established within the base of the excavation to establish drainage to the canal. This needs to be checked using a level to establish the correct excavation depths. 33

6. At the completion of excavation the area is to be returned to agricultural use. This will require the area to be ripped to remove subsurface compaction before the topsoil is re- spread. Prior to topsoil being re-spread the Contractor is to advise the RE that the area has been ripped. The RE will arrange for the area is to be inspected by PMC staff to certify that ripping has been completed to satisfactorily remove compaction. Following approval by the PMC the Contractor is to complete all smoothing and topsoil re-spreading operations only with a tracked machine. To avoid re-compacting the area no heavy machinery fitted with wheels is to be allowed back onto the ripped area.

Prepared by Charles Adamson

ANNEX D Inspection Report on Ayntap dumping site closure and rehabilitation

Inspection Report No13

On 24 May 2013 a site visit was done by Mr. Charles Adamson, the PMC IES and Mrs Edita Vardgesyan, the PMC NES. The participants of the visit were also Mr. Viktor Bakhtamyan, the Contractor’s ES and Mr. Sos Amirkhanyan, the Contractor’s SS. The Contractor informed that they are finishing the further operation of the site and are about to complete the rehabilitation works in accordance to the Ayntap dump site SMP. So the purpose of the visit was to inspect the site and to check the compliance of the site closure works to the rehabilitation requirements of the SMP.

Ayntap dump site closure and rehabilitation. 24 May 2013

ANNEX E. Inspection Report on Dashtakar borrow site closure and rehabilitation

Inspection Report No14

On 12 June 2013 a site visit to dashtakar boorow pit was done by Mrs Edita Vardgesyan, the PMC NES. The participants of the visit were also Mr. Viktor Bakhtamyan, the Contractor’s ES and Mr. Sos Amirkhanyan, the Contractor’s SS. The Contractor informed that they are finishing the further operation of the site and are about to complete the rehabilitation works in accordance to the Dashtakar borrow pit SMP. The purpose of the visit was to inspect the site and to check the compliance of the site closure works to the rehabilitation requirements of the SMP.

The visit showed that the territory is properly cleaned from any construction debris or waste, no garbage or other rubbish was present on the site. All the machinery is removed from the site. The territory is smoothed with bulldozer up to the flat area which could be later used by the community for agricultural or other purposes. The haul roads were improved and on the moment of the visit were in the state much better than before the start of site operation.

The Contractor’s representatives informed that the joint visit with the Dashtakar community representatives to the site was done few days ago and that the community is satisfied with the rehabilitation works. The site was operated based on the written approval of the head of the Dashtakar community, Mr. N. Malkhasyan. Approval doesn’t contain any further special requirements and/or conditions. The PMC environmental specialists advised to obtain the writing satisfaction of the Head of Dashtakar community.

Dashtakar borrow site closure and rehabilitation. 12 June 2013

35 36

ANNEX F. Inspection visits during the reporting period.

Inspection Name of Purpose Inspection Participants SMP Status Report No site visit data approved/ closure notification

1 Ayntap Dumping Oct 2012 Contractor: 5 June Closed site Vicente Jorda, 2013 Viktor Bakhtamayan, Sos Amirkhanyan.

PMC: Charles Adamson, Boris Gasparyan.

4 Dashtakar Borrow pit 19/11/12 Contractor: 4 Apr 2013 closed Vicente Jorda, Viktor Bakhtamayan, Sos Amirkhanyan.

PMC: Charles Adamson, Edita Vardgesyan, Boris Gasparyan.

5 Parpi Concrete 20/11/12 Contractor: 21 June In plant Vicente Jorda, 2013 operation Viktor Bakhtamayan, Sos Amirkhanyan.

PMC: Charles Adamson, Edita 37

Vardgesyan, Boris Gasparyan.

10 Jrahovit Borrow pit 24/01/13 Contractor: - declined (Ararat) Vicente Jorda, Viktor Bakhtamayan

PMC: Edita Vardgesyan, Boris Gasparyan.

11 Jrahovit Borrow pit 5/02/13 Contractor: - declined (Ararat) Viktor Bakhtamyan, Sos Amirkhanyan;

PMC: Edita Vardgesyan

12 Jrahovit Borrow pit 17/04/13 PMC: Charles 14 Feb In Adamson, 2013 operation Edita Vardgesyan

13 Ayntap Dump site 24/05/13 PMC: Charles 5 June closed closure Adamson, 2013 Edita Vardgesyan

14 Dashtakar Borrow site 12/06/13 PMC: Edita 12 June closed closure Vardgesyan 2013

Contractor: Viktor Bakhtamyan, Sos Amirkhanyan;

ANNEX G Permits for provisional stockpiling in Parpi village. 39

41 42

ANNEX H Permits for Sasunik asphalt plant operation. 43

43 44

ANNEX I. Archaeological summary report introducing the Archaeological Issues along Ashtark-Talin Section (Tr. 2, km 29.600 – km 71.500) of the “North-South Road Corridor” Investment Program submitted to the MoTC and MoC. Report This report is based on the fieldwork investigations and record of the archaeological sites situated along the Ashtarak-Talin Highway, which was carried out by team of archaeological experts from the Institute of Archaeology and Ethnography of the National Academy of Sciences of the Republic of Armenia during March-April 2013. Above mentioned fieldwork activities were planned using the information available from the archaeological investigations report for the assessment and management of the cultural heritage within the initial design of the project area (Ashtarak-Gyumri) ordered by Asian Development Bank in 2010 (Boris Gasparyan), the 2011 archaeological investigations report within the final design of the project area (Ashtarak-Gyumri) reflected in the environmental impact assessment (EIA) report including an environmental management and monitoring plan (EMP), (Mkrtich Zardaryan), and the investigations of the archaeological sites carried out in 2012 along the new deviations (new alignments) of the future Ashtarak- Talin Highway (B. Gasparyan). 2013 fieldwork investigations targeted the following two objectives: 1. To identify the sites which are directly appeared in the impact area of the future construction activities and to measure the level of damage on those sites or the surface of destruction (so-called Identification of the Right of Way). To work out suggestions and to find solutions to minimize the impact on the cultural heritage and to save the scientific potential of the monuments, based on the data collected during the fieldwork study (in other words to create effective Archaeological Works Plan requiring suitable resources and timetable in order not to delay the construction activities).

2. To record and to map the sites located very close (5-100 m of distance) to the construction activity area, which are not under the direct impact, but require safeguard procedures and area control as well. Specification of the site boundaries in relation with the road construction design has an aim to exclude the potential or possible damage to the archaeological and historical-cultural monuments during the construction activities.

As a base of the fieldwork activities and the data collection the cartography method wad selected. In At the initial phase of investigations, for distribution and analyses of the scientific and engineering information collected in the field 1: 10 000 scale State Cadastral Maps have acquired. The map sheets were connected together and entered into the GIS system in comparison with the 3 dimensional relief features, hydrographic system, and the community land division system (reflected on the map by color division of the areas), Google images of the study area, military 1: 25 000 topographic maps, the alignment of the acting Ashtarak-Talin Highway and the final alignment of the Ashtarak-Talin section of the road based on the approved design. Compared with the above mentioned united base the protection zones and physical

48 boundaries of the archaeological sites (if such exist) included in the State List of the immovable monuments of the Aragatsotn Province of the Republic of Armenia and are related to the alignment of the road by the above mentioned spatial distribution were placed or installed (are reflected on the maps with white and red section lines). Second phase of the investigations was carried out together with the Contractor (Isolux Corsan Company, Armenian Branch), during which the topography unit specialists of the company, considering our order marked with wooden pegs the maximum outline of the construction area (i.e. passages, water canals and community cloverleaf) in agreement with the design of the road in the nearby areas of the previously known and newly discovered archaeological sites and complexes (reflected on the maps with black dots). In parallel, team of archaeologists started the record of the archaeological features through systematic survey in the limits of the marked areas and nearby. The archaeological features were numbered, recorded by the GPS coordinates, measured (the dimensional-structural parameters) by preliminary designed templates and photographed (the recorded tombs are reflected on the maps in color circles, wall structures by dark violet and dark blue lines). As well the physical boundaries of the sites, which are absent in the state list of monuments and do not have officially recorded protection zones, or have larger distribution of physical boundaries then reflected in the State passports were recorded (are reflected on the maps with blue section lines). In addition the archaeological team measured the coordinates of the wooden pegs regarding the same coordinate system. During the third – final phase of the investigation s the whole information collected during the fieldwork activities was processed and entered into GIS system, which through the magnification of the maps by a high resolution (1: 500 – 1: 2500) provided an opportunity to fix the sites staying under Right of Way (ROW) with very high accuracy and measure the level of impact on them. Based on the summary of the recorded information there are the following types or categories of sites, which might directly affected by the future road construction activities and they require different methods and scope of investigations and excavations. Those are: a. settlements, separate constructions and hunting camps; b) towers; c) separate wall structures and kite structures; d) single tombs and groups of tombs (tomb fields). In the case of the last category (tombs), the dimensional structural parameters (diameter, height, the construction type of the shield) were also documented. In addition the tombs were divided into special subcategories or got a special status – clear tomb (reflected on the maps by green circles), possible tomb (reflected on the maps by green circles), and suspicious tomb (reflected on the maps by red circles). The reason of such classification is that most of the tomb structures, which appeared in the areas of melioration and agricultural activities, carry have traces of impact and their external signs are heavily damaged or hidden under modern rock collections for the land cleaning. The wall structures are also documented with some principles – uncertain wall structures, wh ich are 49 reflected on the maps by dark violet lines and wall structures as parts of the kite structures, which are reflected on the maps by dark blue lines. As a legend for the towers red circle with a dot inside is used. Whole information collected in the field and processed will be included and represented in the archaeological works plan for Tr. 2 and passed to the Ministry of Culture of the Republic of Armenia. Summarizing the results obtained from the data presented in the investigation, we have the following picture. The future Ashtarak-Talin road which includes the area between km 29.600 – km 71.500 will pas s through 17 communities, which are the following: Parpi, Voskevaz, Agarak, Aghtsk, Ujan, Kosh, Shamiram, Agarak (Talin district), Kakavadzor, Aruch, Nerkin Bazmaberd, Nerkin Sasnashen, Verin Sasnashen, Davtashen, Katnaghbyur, Yeghnik, Talin (Map 00). In the limits of Parpi community the existing archaeological unit is Nerkin Naver Archaeological complex (km 30.000 – km 30.600), which will be affected by the road construction activities (Map 1). In the limits of the Voskevaz community no archaeological issues are recorded. Agarak community includes the Agarak Historical-Cultural Preserve as an archaeological barrier against the road construction activities (km 32.750 – km 33.300, Map 2). In the limits of the Aghtsk community the only archaeological site is the newly discovered Aghtsk-1 tomb field, consisting of three separate parts (zones 1-3), which will be partly affected by the road construction activities (km 33.900 – km 36.800, Maps 3-3c). The Ujan community boundaries contain only a single site – the Ujan Great tower, which is not directly affected by the road construction activities (km 40.300 – km 40.400, Map 4). From the three sites present in the limits of the Kosh community – “Karhanki berd” archaeological complex, Kosh Grea t Khachkar and Kosh archaeological complex, only the last site is appearing in the area of the future construction activities (km 44.450 – km 44.750, Maps 5-5b). Shamiram community limits contain a single site – Shamiram archaeological complex, which is in the list of the affected sites (km 48.100 – km 49.200, Maps 6-6a). In the limits of the Agarak (Talin district) community the community cloverleaf is affecting the Agarak Hellenistic settlement. Same problem caused by the same cloverleaf is present in the limits of the Kakavadzor community, where the Kakavadzor tomb field occupies large areas. In addition Aruch archaeological complex is affected as well, which lies closer south in the limits of the Aruch community (km 50.550 – km 51.000, Maps 7-8-9, 7-8a and 9a). Next is the Nerkin Bazmaberd community distributing the large archaeological complex and tomb field of the same name (km 55.100 – km 57.800), some minor sections of which w ill be directly affected by the future construction activities, especially in the area of the first community cloverleaf (km 55.200 – km 55.300). It is im portant to note, that though the other parts of the mentioned sites in Bazmaberd are not directly affected, but are still situated very close to the construction activities area (Maps 10-10d). The limits of the Nerkin Sasnashen community include “Sev berd” fortress and Nerkin Sasnashen tomb field, where only a small part of the cemetery is appearing in the focus of the construction area (km 59.050 – km 59.200, Maps 11-11a). Next archaeological barrier is the Verin Sasnashen archaeological complex consisting from a large tomb field and

50 series of kite structures (km 59.400 – km 61.250, Maps 12-12c) in the boundaries of the Verin Sasnashen community, where only in the area between km 60.000 – km 61.250 184 tombs of different categories are recorded, which lie under RoW. Same situation is present as well in the limits of the Davtashen community, where a large tomb field with the corresponding name occupies large area (km 61.250 – km 63.600, Maps 13-13c) and in the presented RoW limits around 176 tomb structures are recorded. The densest concentration of the archaeological sites along the design of the road is recorded in the limits of the Katnaghbyur community, where between km 63.600 – km 66.800 cove ring the area of the Katnaghbyur archaeological complex (distributed by hunting camps, kite structures, towers and tomb fields), 594 separate tomb structures and 4 kite structures are recorded under RoW (Maps 14-14g). The limits of the Yeghnik community (km 66.800 – km 67.800 have no archaeological restricti ons, even though the existing Yeghnik tomb field in the vicinity. The zones of the monument, which were lucky to escape from melioration activities, are situated far enough from the future construction activity area. The last archaeological barrier along the alignment of Tr. 2 is the famous Talin tomb field, the survived sections of which are distributed by separate islands in the limits of the Talin community. Three of them (zones 1-3), between km 67.800 – km 71.700 are related to the road construction alignment (Maps 15-15d). Based on the data recorded during the field investigation the following zones of the cemetery are directly affected: zone 1 (km 68.500 – km 68.800, Map 15a) and zone 2 situated around and inside of the second community cloverleaf (km 69.950 – km 70.100, Map 15b). The tombs of the zone 3 are not directly affected, but still are very close to the limits of the proposed alignment (km 70.100 – km 71.500, Maps 15c-15d). Summarizing the description of the archaeological units which are directly affected by the proposed final alignment of the future Ashtarak-Talin highway, we can count 14 separate sites and archeological complexes, which will be directly affected. Those are: 1. Nerkin Naver archaeological complex (km 30.000 – km 30.600);

2. Agarak Historical-cultural Preserve (km 32.750 – km 33.300);

3. Aghtsk-1 tomb field (km 33.900 – km 36.800);

4. Kosh archaeological complex (km 44.450 – km 44.750);

5. Shamiram archaeological complex (km 48.100 – km 49.200);

6. Agarak Settlement (km 50.850 – km 50.950);

7. Kakavadzor tomb field (km 51.100 – km 51.200);

8. Aruch archaeological complex (km 50.600 – km 50.850);

9. Nerkin Bazmaberd tomb field (km 55.200 – km 55.300);

10. Nerkin Sasnashen tomb field (km 59.050 – km 59.200);

11. Verin Sasnashen archaeological complex (km 59.400 – km 61.250);

12. Davtashen tomb field (km 61.250 – km 63.600); BI-ANNUAL ENVIRONMENTAL SAFEGUARDS MONITORING REPORT

13. Katnaghbyur tomb field (km 63.600 – km 66.800);

14. Talin tomb field (km 68.500 – km 68.800 and km 69.9 50 – km 70.100). Proposed suggestions and solutions regarding mitigation measures and safeguard procedures which are planned to minimize the impact of the construction activities and to save the save the scientific potential of the archaeological monuments will be described in details in the Archaeological Works Plan which is still in progress. By now, we can declare that the most serious archaeological barriers for the construction activities might be considered the Agarak Historical-cultural Preserve, the Verin Sasnashen archaeological complex, the Davtashen, the Katnaghbyur and the Talin tomb fields. Boris Gasparyan, National expert, responsible for the archaeological component of the Trench 2 of the “North South Road Corridor” Investment Program 16.04.2013

MAP 00

Final alignment of the Ashtarak-Talin section of the road based on the approved design (km 29.600 – km 71.500)

MAP 1

Area 1 – Parpy community, Nerkin naver Archeological complex (MMMM )

MAP 2

Area 2 – Agarak community, Agarak historical-cultural preserve ( M MMM)

MAP 3

Area 3 – Aghtsk community, Aghtsk-1 tomb field, zones 1-3 (MMMM )

MAP 3a

Area 3 – Aghtsk community, Aghtsk-1 tomb field, zone 1 (MMMM )

MAP 3b

Area 3 – Aghtsk community, Aghtsk-1 tomb field, zone 2 ( M MMM )

MAP 3c

Area 3 – Aghtsk community, Aghtsk-1 tomb field, zone 3 ( M MMM )

MAP 4

Area 4 – Ujan community, Ujan tower (MMMM)

MAP 5

Area 5 – Kosh community, Karhanki Berd Archaeological complex (MMMM ), KoshMMMM ! " # ! " # MMMM

MAP 5a

Area 5 – Kosh community, Karhanki Berd Archaeological complex (MMMM ), KoshMMMM

MAP 5b

Area 5 – Kosh community, Kosh ! " # ! " # MMMM

MAP 6

Area 6 – Shamiram community, Shamiram ! " #! " #MMMM

MAP 6a

Area 6 – Shamiram community, Shamiram ! " #! " #MMMM

MAPS 7-8-9

Areas 7-8-9 – Kakavadzor, Agarak and Aruch communities, Kakavadzor tomb field$ $ % &&'(% &&'( ! " # ! " # MMMM

MAPS 7a-8a

Areas 7-8 – Kakavadzor and Agarak communities, Kakavadzor tomb field M MMM $ % & % & MMMM

MAP 9

Area 9 – Aruch community, Aruch archaeological complex M MMM

MAP 10

Area 10 – Nerkin Bazmaberd community, Nerkin Bazmaberd archaeological complex and tomb field MMMM

MAP 10a

Area 10 – Nerkin Bazmaberd community, Nerkin Bazmaberd tomb field, zone MMMM

MAP 10b

Area 10 – Nerkin Bazmaberd community, Nerkin Bazmaberd tomb field, zone $)&' $)&' !(( !(( MMMM

MAP 10c

Area 10 – Nerkin Bazmaberd community, Nerkin Bazmaberd tomb field, zone&'!&'!&'!&'! (( (( MMMM

MAP 10d

Area 10 – Nerkin Bazmaberd community, Nerkin Bazmaberd tomb field, zone MMMM

MAP 11

Area 11 – Nerkin Sasnashen community, Nerkin Sasnashen tomb field and Sev Berd fortress (km 58.900 - km 59.200)

MAP 11a

Area 11 – Nerkin Sasnashen community, Nerkin Sasnashen tomb field (km 59.050 - km 59.200) 74

MAP 12

Area 12 – Verin Sasnashen community, Verin Sasnashen tomb field and kite structures 1-3 (km 59.400 - km 61.250) 75

MAP 12a

Area 12 – Verin Sasnashen community, Verin Sasnashen tomb field, zone 1 and kite structures 1 and 2 (km 59.400 - km 60.000) 76

MAP 12b

Area 12 – Verin Sasnashen community, Verin Sasnashen tomb field and kite structure 3 (km 60.100 - km 60.700)

MAP 12c

Area 12 – Verin Sasnashen community, Verin Sasnashen tomb field (km 60.700 - km 61.250)

MAP 13

Area 13 – Davtashen community, Davtashen tomb field (km 61.250 - km 63.000)

MAP 13a

Area 13 – Davtashen community, Davtashen tomb field (km 61.150 - km 62.000)

MAP 13b

Area 13 – Davtashen community, Davtashen tomb field (km 62.000 - km 62.700)

MAP 13c

Area 13 – Davtashen community, Davtashen tomb field (km 62.700 - km 63.600)

MAP 14

Area 14 – Katnaghbyur community, Katnaghbyur archaeological complex - tomb field, kite structures 1-4, towers (km 63.600 - km 66.800) 83

MAP 14a

Area 14 – Katnaghbyur community, Katnaghbyur tomb field (km 63.600 - km 64.000)

MAP 14b

Area 14 – Katnaghbyur community, Katnaghbyur tomb field (km 64.000 - km 64.500)

MAP 14c

Area 14 – Katnaghbyur community, Katnaghbyur tomb field and kite structures 1 and 2 (km 64.500 - km 65.150) 86

MAP 14d

Area 14 – Katnaghbyur community, Katnaghbyur tomb field and kite structure 3 (km 65.150 - km 66.600) 87

MAP 14e

Area 14 – Katnaghbyur community, Katnaghbyur tomb field and kite structure 4 (km 65.600 - km 66.100) 88

MAP 14f

Area 14 – Katnaghbyur community, Katnaghbyur tomb field (km 66.100 - km 66.500)

MAP 14g

Area 14 – Katnaghbyur community, Katnaghbyur tomb field (km 66.500 - km 66.750)

MAP 15

Area 15 – Talin community, Talin Great tomb field (km 67.800 - km 71.700)

MAP 15a

Area 15 – Talin community, Talin Great tomb field, zone 1 (km 68.500 - km 68.800)

MAP 15b

Area 15 – Talin community, Talin Great tomb field, zone 2 (km 69.950 - km 70.100)

MAP 15c

Area 15 – Talin community, Talin Great tomb field, zone 3 (km 70.300 - km 70.800)

MAP 15d

Area 15 – Talin community, Talin Great tomb field, zone 3 (km 70.800 - km 71.700)

ANNEX J. Non-compliance notice on Dashtakar borrow pit

BI-ANNUAL ENVIRONMENTAL SAFEGUARDS MONITORING REPORT

ANNEX K Non- compliance notice on Jrahovit borrow pit

BI-ANNUAL ENVIRONMENTAL SAFEGUARDS MONITORING REPORT

100

Annex L Implementation report on the environmental impact assessment (EIA) mitigation requirements

Reference Requirement Action to date Action required/comment Non-compliances issued to Contractor 1 Non-compliance to Dashtakar Stop the operation of Operation of the Approval of the Head of borrows pit operation SMP issued the site before the site is ceased and Dashtakar community on 16 May 2013 (ANNEX J) non-compliance site is closed and obtained on the site improved rehabilitated in rehabilitation accordance to SMP 2 Non-compliance to Jrahovit Stop the operation of Decision on the Site closure and borrows pit operation issued on the site before the further operation rehabilitation according 20 May 2013 (ANNEX K) non-compliance of the site is to SMP improved pending; the unpermitted extension of the site is stopped and rehabilitated up to initial state Other non-conformances detected 3 Workers don’t use safety Provide the workers Improved partly Ensure the site equipment with safety supervisors are more equipment and consistent and remove ensure they are using the workers not using it the safety equipment from the working site 4 First aid kit is not available on-site Provide all the sites Improved Constantly check the and is not accessible to all with first aid kit availability and workers accessibility of the first aid kit 5 Workers don’t receive safety Organize the safety Improved partly Regularly organize the training before starting work - site trainings safety trainings and ensure the participation of newly recruited staff 6 Fire extinguishers are not Provide all sites with Improved Constantly check the available fire extinguishers. availability and accessibility of the fire extinguishers. 7 Sub-contractor’s environmental Sub-contractor’s Not improved Contractor should be representative is not on-site representative more demanding from charged with the sub-contractors on environmental the presence of responsibilities environmentally trained should be always on- representative on-site site

8 Emergency response mechanism Emergency response Improved partly Ensure a person is not effective mechanism according appointed to be in to EMP implemented charge of emergency procedures and the emergency contact list are on-site 9 Waste Management Plan is not The WMP developed Improved The WMP for the next implemented and implemented month is being according to EMP presented in the Contractor’s monthly report 10 Garbage collection containers are Provide the garbage Not improved garbage collection not available on- site collection containers should be organized properly and construction site kept clean 11 Trucks are not using covers Ensure the trucks are Improved partly Contractor should be provided with covers more demanding from the sub-contractors on using of truck covers 12 Dust control Implement dust Improved partly Increase the amount of control mitigation water machines measures according provided with more to EMP effective sprinkling equipment 13 Management of the asphalt waste Hazardous Waste Not improved Obtain the asphalt as a hazardous waste is not should be registered waste passports and organized properly. and signed in and out organize the handling in of store; material accordance to Armenian Safety Data Sheets legislative regulations. should be available Develop and keep the for each type of Safety Data Sheets hazardous waste 14 Permit for opening/use of Nor Contractor provides Improved Permit for opening/use Gyughi quarry site is missing all the approvals/ of Nor Gyughi quarry permits for site is being provided opening/use of each quarry site