E462 REPUBLIC OF ARMENIA MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE

Public Disclosure Authorized Irrigation Rehabilitation Project Project Implementation Unit

ENVIRONMENTALASSESSMENT OF IRRIGATIONDEVELOPMENT PROJECT (SW-GR/014Env) Public Disclosure Authorized

.JsN s~~~~~77~ Public Disclosure Authorized ~~ -. _ - - _ r

ECODIT. Draft Final EA Report A I January 2000 AVA Public Disclosure Authorized

FILECOPY

EA of IrrigationDevelopment Project Ministryof Agriculture,IRP/PIU

EXECUTIVESUMMARY

The proposed Irrigation Development Project (IDP) aims primarily to rehabilitate and improve existing irrigation schemes and infrastructures. Because it will not create new irrigation schemes or build important new infrastructure such as dams, the IDP will not have significant impacts typically associated with such large projects. The positive socio-economic and environmental impacts of the IDP outweigh its potential negative impacts, which remain acceptable subject to full implementation of the Environmental Management Plan (EMP) recommended by this EA.

Positive impacts. The proposed IDP will have significant positive impacts for the farmers and people of Armenia. It will improve agricultural output and productivity, increase income for tens of thousands of farmers, increase the supply of water for irrigation and reduce water losses, save millions of dollars annually in energy costs, reduce the dependence on pumping to supply irrigation water, reduce water-logging and flooding of tens of villages and the spread of malaria in the Ararat Valley, and safeguard human life and property for 350,000 people living below the 20 dams targeted for safety improvement.

Potential negative impacts. For each significant negative impact associated with each component of the proposed IDP, Table ES-1 indicates the proposed mitigation measure, its executing agency. and its estimated capital and annual recurrent costs. The EA has also identified other conventional or less significant impacts, such as soil and water pollution, accidents and nuisances due to increased traffic, loss of soil fertility and soil erosion due to contractor negligence and poor construction practices. The EA recommends that all construction contracts contain standard provisions requiring contractors to mitigate those conventional impacts; the estimated EMP budget does not include the costs of such measures.

Capacity building and traininq. The EA Team recommends that the PIU designate an Environmental Officer among its staff and form an inter-agency Environmental Committee to oversee and monitor the EMP implementation. The Committee would comprise the Environmental Officer (PIU) plus representatives of the Ministry of Nature Protection (EIA, water & other departments), the Ministry of Health, the Department of Historic and Cultural Monuments Preservation, Operation and Maintenance Enterprises, the Soil Science, Agrochemistry and Melioration Institute, and the Water Problems and Hydraulics Research Institute.

The basic equipment and supplies needed to implement the EMP include computers, "sewer televising" equipment to locate and clean logged drains, specially-equipped tractor to cut plants along canals and collectors. far-reaching mechanical shovel/versatlie dredger, piezometers, water and soil test kits, hydraulic monitoring stations and flow meters. and bathymetric survey equipment. The EA team has also identified the potential need for technical assistance in designing and implementing a hazardous waste sampling and analysis campaign, best management practices for dredging and maintaining canals and collectors, and designing fish ladders on water intake weirs.

Capital and recurrent costs. The proposed EMP will cost about US$889,000 in capital costs and between $137,400/year and $187,400/year in annual recurrent costs. This budget includes the costs of certain measures that are already included in the IDP Project (P) or are already carried out (or should be carried out) under other funds (0) (e.g., State Budget). When the costs of such measures are subtracted, the remaining additional costs of the EMP are $810,000 for capital costs and $49,900/year for annual recurrent costs. The mechanical shovel/versatile dredger and the specially-equipped tractor for cutting plants cost an estimated $490,000, or over half of the total capital costs of the EMP. The total EMP includes a budget of $50,000 to $100,000 each year for the disposal of excavated materials (hazardous waste and non-hazardous waste inside populated areas), or between one third and half of the total annual recurrent costs of the EMP.

EA Report ECODIJT,January 2000, Page ES-I EA of Irrigation Development Pr-oject Ministry of Agriculiture, IRP/PIU

TABLE ES-1 SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN: IMPACTS, MITIGATION MEASURES, EXECUTING AGENCIES, AND CAPITAL AND RECURRENT COSTS

Key Potential Negative IDP Project Mitigation Measure Executing Capital Recurrent Environmental Impact Component _ Agency Cost Cost l _ -1 Ill (US$) (US$/yr)

Significantimpacts ______Insufficientavailability of water and/or X X Preparewater permit applications,obtain specialand PIU 10,000(P) 0 sanitary flow considerations secondary water use permits Design Inst. _ Disturbanceto river flows and aquatic X X Installflowmeter on sand trap canal and hydraulic Contractor 21,000 (P) 2,500 (P) fauna/floraand ecosystems monitoringstations below selectwater intakes. Armhydro- Monitorflows met Monitorwater quality and aquaticecosystem MoNP 0 11,000(0) downstream of select new water intakes Barriersto fish migrationupstream X Designand build fish ladderson weirs (small dams) of DesignInst. 15,000(P) 0 select new water intakes Contractor Impactsfrom improperdredging and X X Acquire & use adaptedmechanical shovel/dredger & PIU 490,000 12,000 maintenanceof canals and collectors tractor-typevehicle to cut plantsalongside collectors DrainageE. Uncontrolleddisposal of excavated X X X Conducthazardous waste sampling & analysis Laboratory/ 40,000 2,500 materials & demolition debris campaign for collectors' sediments and soils Consultant ___ ._... _ Preparewaste managementplans and obtainwaste PIU 10,000 (P) 0 disposal permits Design Inst. Disposeof excavatedmaterials in accordancewith Contractors 0 50,000- ______wastemanagement plansand permits ____ 100,000 (P) Enhancedsoil erosion and reservoir X X Acquire bathymetricsurvey equipment(echo-sounder DOME 40,000 4,500 sedimentation _ ._ with GPS/GIS link) & monitor reservoir sedimentation __ Degradationof historic-cultural X X Monitor impactson historic-culturalmonuments & DHCMP 0 4,000 (P) monuments ______work with PIU to selectoptimal route for new canals Impactson sensitive habitatsand X X Monitor impactson sensitivehabitats (e.g., Vordan. MoNP 0 3,000 (0) nature monuments _____ Karmir) and nature monuments Impacts(positive and negative)on X X Monitorthe incidenceof malaria in the Ararat Valley MoH 0 4,000 (0) healthand incidenceof malaria and healthconditions below new water intakes Impactson ground water table (depth X Drill 200 monitoringwells (in additionto 400 existing DrainageE. 60,000 2,400 and salinity)in the Ararat Valley wells)and use them to monitorgw level and salinity _____ X _ Acquire (and use) drainage modelingsoftware PIU _ 7,000 0 Impactson artificial lakes in Ararat X Drill 100 monitoringwells to monitorwater levels and Drainage E. 15,000 1,000 Valley ______salinity in artificiallakes

EA Report ECODIT, January 2000, Page ES-2 EA of lmrgationiDevelopment Project Ministty of Agriculture, IRP/PIU

Key Potential Negative IDP Project MitigationMeasure Executing Capital Recurrent EnvironmentalImpact Component8'/ Agency Cost Cost I 11 1 (US$) (US$/yr)

Soil salinization and loss of fertility X X Install 36 hydroposts on drainage collectors and Drainage E. 23,000 4,000 (0) due to irrigation methods and water- conductimeters at pumping stations and monitor Pumping S. soil inadequacy drainage and irrigation water flow and quality ______Acquire water and soil test kits and supplies and use PIU 8.000 500 them to conduct field tests of water and soil quality __ _ .. _

Conduct baseline soil salinity survey in Ararat Valley Drainage E. 30,000 __ 0 Monitor the evolution of soil salinity and sodicity and Soil 23,000 3,000 (0)

______agricultural yield in six reference land parcels Institute (0) ___- Loss of fertile top soil due to X Acquire and use "sewer televising" equipment to PIU/ 72,000 6,000 excavation to clean clogged drains __ locate and clean clogged drains __ _ Drainage E. ___ Loss of fertile topsoil due to X X Use soil scratching vehicle to de-compact soil PIU 0 2,000 (P) temporary access roads & work areas ______Uprooting of fruit trees X ___ Compensate owners for loss of fruit trees __ PIU 0_ _ 4000 (P) Other general measures X X X Acquire five laptops and five desktop computers and PIU and 25,000 1,000 use them to store and analyze datap _ _ artners __ X X X Receive technical assistance and training, and PIU and 0 20.000 ______participate in orientation visits abroad _ partners ___ _ Total Costs of the EMP 889,000 137-187,400 AdditionalCosts of the EMP $810,000 $/yr 49,900 a/ IDP ProjectComponents: I Rehabilitationand Improvementof Irrigationand DrainageSystems 11 Conversionof IrrigationSchemes from Pumpingto Gravity IlIl Dam SafetyImprovement MoNP Ministry of NatureProtection MoH Ministryof Health DHCMP Departmentof Historic and CulturalMonuments Preservation DOME Dam O&M Enterprise Design I DesignInstitute DrainageE. DrainageEnterprise Soil Institute Soil Science,Agrochemistry and MeliorationInstitute Note: The EA has also identifiedother, conventional or less significantimpacts such as soil and water pollution,accidents and nuisancesdue to increasedtraffic, loss of soil fertility and soil erosion due to contractornegligence and poor constructionpractices. The EA recommendsthat all constructioncontracts contain standard provisionsrequiring contractors to mitigatethose conventional impacts; the estimatedEMP budget does not includethe costs of such measures. (P) = Already includedin IDP Projectcosts (0) = (To be) carried out underother funds (e.g., State Budget) AdditionalCosts = Total Costs - (P) - (0) Source: ECODIT

EA Report ECODIT,January 2000, Page ES-3

EAof IrrigationDevelopment Project Ministryof Agnculture,IRP/PIU

TABLEOF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVESUMMARY ...... ES-1

1. INTRODUCTION ...... 1 1.1 Background...... 1 1.2 Terms of Referenceand Methodology...... 2 1.3 Report Organization...... 3

2. ENVIRONMENTALMANAGEMENT IN ARMENIA...... 5 2.1 InstitutionalSetting ...... 5 2.1.1 Ministryof Agriculture...... 5...... 5 2.1.2 Ministryof NatureProtection ...... 7 2.2 Legal and RegulatoryFramework ...... 8 2.2.1 Law on the Principlesof EnvironmentalProtection (GoA, 1991). 8 2.2.2 Law on Specially-ProtectedNature Areas (GoA,1991).9 2.2.3 Water Code (1992)... 9 2.2.4 Law on EnvironmentalImpact Assessment (GoA, 1995).10 2.2.5 Law on Flora (1998) and Draft Law on Fauna 10 2.2.6 Environmentaldecree on fisheries (DecreeNo. 687) (1991).10 2.2.7 Water quality standards ...... 10 2.3 EnvironmentalMonitoring ...... 13 2.3.1 Waterquantity ...... 13 2.3.2 Water quality...... 14 2.3.3 Water and soil in the Ararat Valley...... 14 2.4 InternationalAgreements ...... 14 2.4.1 Internationalwaterways ...... 15 2.4.2 Internationalconventions ...... 15

3. BASELINEENVIRONMENTAL SITUATION ...... 17 3.1 Socio-EconomicEnvironment ...... 17 3.1.1 Population...... 17 3.1.2 Water uses...... 18 3.1.3 Agriculture...... 19 3.1.4 Fisheries (numbers and figure may need to be revised and corrected) ...... 21 3.1.5 Environmental health ...... 22 3.1.6 Historicand culturalheritage ...... 23 3.2 Physicaland BiologicalEnvironment ..... 24 3.2.1 Climate...... 24 3.2.2 Water resourcesquantity ...... 24 3.2.3 Water resourcesquality ...... 26 3.2.4 Soil resources...... 28 3.2.5 Specially-ProtectedNature Areas ...... 28 Wetlands...... 29 3.2.6 Fauna/Floraand landscapediversity ...... 30

4. REHABILITATIONOF IRRIGATIONAND DRAINAGESYSTEMS ...... 32 4.1 Reconstructionof HoktemberienMain Canal and Increaseof Intake from Araks River.. 32 4.1.1 Descriptionof the currentsituation ...... 32

EA Report ECODIT,January 2000, Page i EA of IrrigationDevelopment Project Ministryof Agriculture,IRP/PIU

4.1.2 Descriptionof the proposedproject component ...... 32 4.1.3 Main positiveimpacts of the proposedproject component . . 33 4.1.4 Potentialnegative impactsduring constructionand proposedmitigation measures.33 4.1.5 Potential negative impacts during operation and maintenance and proposed mitigationmeasures ...... 34 4.2 Rehabilitationof Eight IrrigationSchemes ...... 36 4.2.1 Descriptionof the irrigationschemes ...... 37 4.2.2 Descriptionof the rehabilitationcomponent ...... 37 4.2.3 Main positiveimpacts of the rehabilitationproject ...... 39 4.2.4 Potentialnegative impacts of the rehabilitationcomponent . . 40 4.3 Rehabilitationand Improvementof Ararat Valley DrainageInfrastructure ...... 41 4.3.1 Baselineenvironmental conditions ...... 41 4.3.2 Currentsituation of the drainagesystem ...... 45 4.3.3 Descriptionof the projectcomponents ...... 46 4.3.4 Main positive impactsof the reconstructionproject ...... :48 4.3.5 Potentialnegative impacts during constructionand proposedmitigation measures. 50 4.3.6 Potential negative impacts during operation and maintenance and proposed mitigation measures ...... 56

5. CONVERSIONOF IRRIGATIONSCHEMES FROM PUMPING TO GRAVITY 62 5 1 Objectivesof the ConversionComponent .62 5.2 Conversionof the YeghegnadzorIrrigation Scheme 63 5.2.1 Descriptionof the Yeghegnadzorconversion project ... 63 5.2.2 Main potentialimpacts during constructionand proposed mitigationmeasures . 64 5.2.3 Main potential impacts during operation and maintenanceand proposed mitigation measures 66 5.2.4 Analysis of alternatives . . .71 5.3 Conversionof 17 SmallerIrrigation Schemes . . . .73 5.3.1 Description of the project component . .73 5.3.2 Main potentialimpacts during constructionand proposed mitigationmeasures . 76 5.3.3 Main potentialimpacts during operationand proposedmitigation measures . 76

6. DAM SAFETYIMPROVEMENT ...... 87 6.1 Objectivesof the Dam Safety Component...... 87 6.2 Descriptionof the Dam SafetyComponent ...... 87 6.2.1 Constructionof new spillways ...... 89 6.2.2 Rehabilitation/Reconstructionof existingspillways ...... 89 6.2.3 Slopestabilization/strengthening ...... 89 6.3 Main Potential ImpactsDuring Constructionand ProposedMitigation Measures ...... 89 6.4 Main Potential ImpactsDuring Operationand ProposedMitigation Measures ...... 91

7. ENVIRONMENTALMANAGEMENT PLAN ...... 93 7.1 MitigationMeasures and InstitutionalResponsibilities for Implementation...... 93 7.2 Environmental Monitoring ...... 94 7.3 CapacityBuilding and Training...... 94 7.3.1 Organizationalset-up ...... 94 7.3.2 Procurementof equipmentand supplies...... 95 7.3.3 Technicalassistance and training ...... 95 7.4 Capital and Recurrent Costs ...... 95

EA Report ECODIT,January 2000. Page ii EA of IrrigationDevelopment Project Ministryof Agriculture,IRP/PIU

8. CONCLUSIONS...... 106 8.1 Summaryof Findings...... 106 8.2 Limitationsof the EA ...... 110 APPENDICES

AppendixA. Membersof the EA Team. A-1 Appendix B. Scheduleof Key Consultations.B-i AppendixC. SpecialWater Use PermitApplication Form...... C-i Appendix D. Maps . .D...... D-1 AppendixE. Photos...... E-1 AppendixF. Public Participation...... F-1 AppendixG. AdditionalData and Comments...... G-1 AppendixH. References...... H-1

FIGURES

1. Populationof Armenia,from 1989 to 1999 (Thousandsof People) ...... 18 2. Water Usesin Armenia From 1966 To 1995., 18 3. Surface Area Cultivated,Total Production,and Yield for Vegetables.20 4. Evolutionof Fish Productionin Armenia(from 1970to 1998)...... 21 5. Average MonthlyTemperature and Precipitation(1990-1998) .25 6. MonthlyAverage TDS Valuesfor the HrazdanRiver (1986-1990).27 7. CurrentWater Losses and ExpectedSavings ...... 39 8. Typical Salt Accumulationin IrrigatedFields ...... 58 9. RecommendedSeeding Method to Limit Impactsfrom Salt Accumulation...... 58

BOXES

1. The Nine Tasks of the EA ...... 3 2. InstitutionalIssues ConcerningWater Users ConsumerCooperatives. 7 3. MeasuringIrrigation Water Quantities...... ,13 4. Land Privatizationin Armenia...... 19 5. Use of Pesticidesand Fertilizersin Armenia.23 6. Link BetweenIDP ProjectAreas and RamsarConvention Sites .30 7. Main PositiveImpacts of the IrrigationRehabilitation Project...... ---- 39 8. Main EnvironmentalChallenges for the Ararat Valley.42 9. Experiencewith Chemical Meliorationin the Ararat Valley.42 10. Lake Sevanand Vorotan/Arpa-LakeSevan Tunnel . .67

EA Report ECODIT,January 2000. Pageiii

EA of IrrigationDevelopment Project Ministryof Agriculture,IRP/PIU

TABLES

ES-1. Summaryof EnvironmentalManagement Plan ...... ES-2

1. InfrastructureComponents and Subcomponentsof the ProposedIDP .2...... 2 2 Fees for Land Disposalof SolidWaste ...... 8 3. Selection of Decrees Pertaining to Water Use a ...... 9 4 Normsfor SurfaceWater Sources...... 11 5. FAO Guidelinesfor the Interpretationof Water Qualityfor Irrigation...... 12 6. RegionalDistribution of the ReportedCases of Malaria(1996) ...... 22 7. Proximityof IDP ProjectAreas to Specially-ProtectedNature Areas ...... 29 8. Numberof Vascular Plants and Vertebrate SpeciesListed in the Red Book of Armenia and Regionaland InternationalLists ...... 31 9. Balanceof Water Flows on the Araks River...... 36 10. Descriptionof the IrrigationSchemes ...... 37 11. Inspectionand Rehabilitationof Main and SecondaryCanals . . 38 12. Evolutionof LandConditions overthe 1986-1998Period ...... 44 13. Soil Categoriesin the Ararat Valley...... 44 14. GeneralCondition of ExistingDrainage System ...... 45 15. ProposedRehabilitation Activities ...... 47 16. Yield and Gross Income,With and WithoutProject ...... 49 17. Crop Yield and Gross Incomefor SeveralGround Water Levels...... 49 18. PredictedWater Salinityafter the DrainageRehabilitation Works ...... 51 19. Managementand DisposalMethods for ExtractedMaterials ...... 52 20. Main PositiveImpacts of the ConversionComponent ...... 63 21. MedianMonthly Discharge Flows at DifferentPoints in the YeghegnadzorArea ...... 68 22. MonthlyIrrigation Water Requirementsof the ProposedConversion Scheme (Mm3 ) ...... 68 23. Comparisonof ConversionAlternatives for the YeghegnadzorScheme ...... 72 24. Summaryof ProposedConversion Schemes ...... 74 25. Water Flows and Water Intake Requirementsof the ProposedConversion Schemes ...... 77 26. EstimatedSanitary and Residual Flowsfor Each ConversionScheme (Mm 3/mo) ...... 79 27. Summaryof Key Requirementsby ConversionScheme (To Be Revised/Completedfor Final EA Report).. :80 28. Basic Characteristicsand ProposedImprovements for the 20 TargetedDams ...... 88 29. Summaryof PotentialNegative Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and ImplementingInstitutions ...... 97 30. Summaryof EnvironmentalMonitoring Measures and Requirements...... 102 31. Key Equipmentand Supply Neededto Implementthe EMP...... 104 32. Summaryof EstimatedCapital and RecurrentCosts of ProposedEMP ...... 105 33. Key PotentialNegative Environmental Impacts, by IDP Project Component...... 107 34. Key Types of MitigationMeasures by ExecutingAgency and IDP ProjectComponent ...... 108

EA Report ECODIT,January 2000,Page iv

EA of IrrigationDevelopment Project Ministryof Agriculture,IRP/PIU

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

Armhydromet ArmenianHydrology and Meteorology AUA American Universityof Armenia DHCMP Departmentof Historicand Cultural MonumentsPreservation DIE DrainageIndustrial Enterprise DOME Dam Operationand MaintenanceEnterprise DSP Dam Safety Project EA EnvironmentalAssessment EC ElectricalConductivity EIA EnvironmentalImpact Assessment EMP EnvironmentalManagement Plan EU EuropeanUnion FAO Food and AgricultureOrganization GDP Gross DomesticProduct GEF Global EnvironmentalFacility GIS GeographicInformation System GoA Governmentof Armenia GPS GeographicPositioning System IDP IrrigationDevelopment Project IPM IntegratedPest Management IRP Irrigation RehabilitationProject IWRMP IntegratedWater ResourcesManagement Project LRA Local and RegionalAuthorities LSAP Lake SevanAction Program MoA Ministry of Agriculture MoE Ministry of Energy MoH Ministry of Health MoNP Ministry of Nature Protection NEAP NationalEnvironmental Action Program NGO Non GovernmentalOrganization O&M Operationand Maintenance OME Operationand MaintenanceEnterprise PID ProjectIdentification Document PIU ProjectImplementation Unit RoA Republicof Armenia SAR SodiumAdsorption Ratio SCJSC State Closed Joint Stock Company SS SuspendedSolids

EA Report ECODIT, January 2000, Page v EA of IrrigationDevelopment Project Ministryof Agriculture, IRPIPIU

TDS Total DissolvedSolids USAID United StatesAgency for InternationalDevelopment WB World Bank WG WorkingGroup WUCC Water Users ConsumerCooperative

Units g/1 gram per liter ha hectare km kilometer kWh kilowatt-hour m meter m3 cubic meters m3/s cubic meter per second masl meter above seal level mbsl meter belowsea level Mm3 Millioncubic meters Mo month s second yr year

Conversionfactors

1 Mm3/mo = 0.38 m3/s 1 m3/s = 2.6 Mm3/mo

1 Mm3/yr = 0.03 m3/s 1 m3/s = 31 Mm3/yr

EA Report ECODIT,January 2000, Page vi EAof IrrigationDevelopment Project Ministryof Agriculture,IRP/PIU

1. INTRODUCTION

This report presents an Environmental Assessment of the proposed Irrigation Development Project in Armenia. This introductory chapter is organized in three sections as follows:

1. Background; 2. Terms of reference and methodology; and 3. Report organization.

1.1 Background

Since 1995, the Government of Armenia (GoA), supported by the World Bank, has implemented the 'Irrigation Rehabilitation Project' (IRP). The IRP has included a combination of the following interventions:

* rehabilitation works on irrigation networks, primary and secondary canals, to reduce water losses, and on drainage canals to help evacuate excess water; * strengthening of the institutional capability of O&M organizations aimed to clarify their role, responsibility and accountability through reforming the enterprises responsible for O&M and establishing and empowering Water Users Consumer Cooperatives (WUCCs); - conversion of selected pumping irrigation schemes into gravity schemes; and - rehabilitation works on dams to improve their safety.

As a follow-up to the IRP, the new Irrigation Development Project (IDP) will build on the experience, achievements and lessons learned in the process of implementing the IRP (World Bank, PiD, 1998). Its main goal is to ensure the necessary conditions for the long-term sustainability of water resources and good operation of irrigation and drainage infrastructure and management systems. The proposed IDP includes five components:

1 'Rehabilitation and Improvement of Irrigation and Drainage Systems,' whose aim is to secure and maintain the operability of existing systems and to improve their physical and operational efficiency through judiciously selected infrastructure works; 2. 'Conversion of Pumped Irrigation Systems to Gravity Irrigation Systems. whose objective is to achieve important reductions in the cost of irrigation by shifting viable schemes from pumping-based irrigation to gravity-based irrigation and consequently retiring pumping system installations; 3. 'Dam Safety Improvements,' which aims to improve critical aspects of the most dangerous dams -as determined by their technical deficiency level and size of potential risk-- and re-establish an efficient operation and maintenance capability for dams. An inventory of all small dams will be carried out and institutional measures, including establishment of emergency action plans, will also be taken; 4. 'Institutional strengthening for O&M,' which aims to increase the sustainability of the irrigation system by improving funding mechanisms and enhancing institutional capabilities to perform the O&M function; and

Cthapter1. Introduction ECODIT,January 2000, Page 1 EA of IrrigationDevelopment Project Ministry of Agriculture.IRP/PIU

5. 'Project Management,' whose objective is to strengthen the capacity of the Project Implementation Unit (PIU) established under the previous Irrigation Rehabilitation Project.

The EA will identify the potential impacts of the infrastructure components of the proposed IDP (see Table 1) and will recommend mitigation measures.

Table I Infrastructure Components and Subcomponents of the Proposed IDP

I Project Component Subcomponent 1. Rehabilitation and 1.1 Reconstruction of the'Hoktemberien improvement of irrigation and main canal and increase of intake drainage systems from Araks River 1.2 Rehabilitation of irrigation schemes (Arzni-Shamiram, Armavir. Lower Hrazdan, Artashat, Shirak, Talin) 1.3 Rehabilitation and improvement of 1 the Ararat valley drainage infrastructure 2. Conversion of irrigation 2.1 Conversion of the Yeghegnadzor schemes from pumping to irrigation scheme gravity 2.2 Conversion of 17 smaller irrigation ! X______s schemes 3. Dam safety improvement T 20 select dams (no subcomponent) 1

Source: IRPIPIU

1.2 Terms of Reference and Methodology

The proposed IDP is subject to the World Bank and Government of Armenia's requirements for environmental assessment. The World Bank has tentatively rated the proposed IDP as a category "B" project subject to an Environmental Assessment (EA). Following an international competitive tender, the Ministry of Agriculture has contracted ECODIT, a U.S. environment and development consulting firm, to conduct the EA of the proposed IDP. The EA will follow World Bank operational policies on environmental assessment (OP 4.01) and other pertinent guidelines, as well as Armenia's 1995 law on environmental impact assessment (EIA). Specifically, the Terms of Reference for the EA call for implementing the nine tasks listed in Box 1.

Chapter 1. Introduction ECODIT, January 2000. Page 2 EA of Irrigation DevelopmentProject Ministryof Agriculture,IRP/PIU

Box I The Nine Tasks of the EA

1 Describethe proposedproject 2. Describethe environment(baseline conditions) i 3 Characterizethe legislativeand regulatorybackground 4 Determinepotential impacts 5. Analyzealternatives to the proposedproject 6. Developa mitigationand managementplan 7 Identifyinstitutional needs to implementthe EA recommendations I 8. Developa monitoringplan 9 Assist in the coordinationand participationprocess

The ECODIT Team was comprised of eight national experts and four international experts (see AppendixA for a list of the EA Team). The internationalmembers of the EA team conducted several missions to Armenia between the months of July and September 1999. Working with their local counterparts,they held several meetings and discussionswith the PIU staff, met with key Armenian governmentand non-governmentofficials, reviewedthe existing literature, and conductedseveral field trips to key project areas (Armavir,Ararat valley, Vayots Dzor, Aparan dam, etc.). AppendixB providesthe list of peopleand organizationsthat we have met.

PublicParticipation

As called for in Task 9 of the EA Terms of Reference, the EA must follow public consultationprocedures to seek input and feedbackfrom the public on the proposedIDP and its potentialimpacts. The two milestonesof this public consultationprocess were:

* Scoping Sessionheld at the Armenia Hotel II on July 23 rd; and * Workshopto present and discuss the findings of the draft EA report, held at the TekeyanCenter on December2, 1999.

Appendix F summarizesthe exchangesat the scopingsession and the workshop.

1.3 Report Organization

This report is organizedin eight chaptersas follows:

Chapter 1 Introduction is this chapter; Chapter 2 Environmental management in Armenia presents the general institutional and legal/regulatoryframework for environmentaland water management in the Republicof Armenia; Chapter 3 Baseline environmental situation describes the general environmental conditions (current situation and past trends) in Armenia (specific environmentalconditions in the IDP project areas will be describedin later chapters);

Chapter 1. Introduction ECODIT,January 2000,Page 3 EAof IrrigationDevelopment Project Ministryof Agriculture,IRP/PIU

Chapter 4 Rehabilitation and improvement of irrigation and drainage systems describes each subcomponent of this project component, identifies potentialimpacts of the subcomponent,and proposesmitigation measures: Chapter5 Conversionof irrigation schemes from pumping to gravity describes this second componentof the proposed IDP. identifiesits potential impacts, and proposesmitigation measures; Chapter6 Dam safety improvementdescribes this third componentof the IDP project, identifiesthe potentialimpacts of this component,and proposes mitigation measures; Chapter7 Environmental Management Plan recommends an overall management plan (EMP) for the proposed IDP, including mitigation measures, a monitoring plan, and institutionalarrangements for implementationof the EMP; and Chapter 8 Conclusionssummarizes the findings and limitationsof this EA.

In additionto the eight chapters,this EA report has the following six appendices:

AppendixA Membersof the EA Team Appendix B Scheduleof Key Consultations Appendix C SpecialWater Use Permit ApplicationForm Appendix D Maps Appendix E Photos Appendix F Public Participation AppendixG AdditionalData and Comments AppendixH References

Chapter1. Introduction ECODITJanuary 2000, Page 4 EA of IrrigationDevelopment Project Ministryof Agriculture.IRP/PIU

2. ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT IN ARMENIA

After Armenia gained its independence in 1991, the deteriorating environmental condition of the country became more apparent and environmental concerns became high priority political issues. Environmental advocates focused on establishing a Ministry of Environment and on passing new environmental legislation during the early years of transition (NEAP, Main Report, 1999). However, the severe economic decline that followed independence hampered efforts to improve the environmental situation.

During the past few years. the Government of Armenia has again begun to focus attention on environmental problems. With financial assistance from the World Bank's Institutional Development Fund, the GoA has prepared two complementary environmental action programs: the National Environmental Action Program (NEAP) and the Lake Sevan Action Program (LSAP). Efforts are also underway to prepare an Integrated Water Resources Management Plan (IWRMP). Appendix G provides more detail on those three plans.

This chapter presents the institutional and legal/regulatory framework for environmental management in Armenia, with a particular focus on pertinent aspects for this EA. The chapter is organized in four sections as follows:

1. Institutional setting; 2. Legal and regulatory framework; 3. Environmental monitoring; and 4. International agreements.

2.1 InstitutionalSetting

The Ministry of Agriculture (MoA) and the Ministry of Nature Protection (MoNP) play key roles in water and environmental management in Armenia. Recent changes delegated responsibility to the MoNP for the allocation and use permitting of water resources in Armenia. In addition, the Ministry of Health plays the lead role in controlling the spread of malaria and other water-borne diseases. MoNP and MoH share responsibility over decisions concerning hazardous waste management. In addition, local and regional authorities (LRA) assume responsibility for natural resource use and protection within their jursidiction (Map 1 shows the administrative divisions --into marzes or provinces-- and main cities of Armenia).

2.1.1 Ministry of Agriculture

The MoA has been reorganized in the past few years.' MoA's Department of Development of Infrastructure and Irrigation, previously the Water Management Department, consults with an independent research organization, the Hydrology Problems and Hydrotechnics Institute, on water quality issues. The Soil Management Department of the MoA assesses soil quality, erosion, and salinity. This department is also responsible for soil classification and land use. The MoA is also responsible for controlling and monitoring pesticide use. MoA has prepared a list of agrochemicals that are permitted for import and use in Armenia. The Agrochemistry SCJSC, a division of the MoA (66 percent privately owned, 34 percent government owned), is responsible for importing agrochemicals into Armenia.

' Communication with Mr Razmig Grigorian, Department Head, Development of infrastructure and Irrigation. August 1999.

Chapter2. EnvironmentalManagement in Armenia ECODIT,January 2000, Page 5 EA of IrrigationDevelopment Project Ministryof Agriculture,IRP/PIU

Institutional Framework for Irrigation and Drainage Management

The following organizations are currently responsible for the operation and maintenance (O&M) of irrigation and drainage systems in Armenia:

* Operation and Maintenance Enterprise (OME), for primary and secondary irrigation canals; * Dam Operation and Maintenance Enterprise (DOME), for dams; * Drainage Industrial Enterprise (DIE), for drainage systems; and . Water Users Consumer Cooperative (WUCC) for O&M of tertiary and quaternary canals, water distribution. and collection of fees.

Responsibility for tertiary irrigation has evolved significantly in th'e past 10 years. Before Armenia's independence, village councils used to administer tertiary irrigation. From 1992 to 1997, the OME was responsible for O&M of all irrigation systems, including tertiary irrigation. Separation of responsibility for tertiary irrigation started effectively in 1997. This significant change followed a decision by the GoA, based on the Law of Local Self-Governance, which recognized ownership by rural communities of tertiary irrigation canals.

WUCCs are registered non-profit organizations charged with operating and maintaining the on-farm irrigation network (tertiary and quaternary canals), distributing irrigation water, and collecting water charges. WUCCs are independent legal entities with their own rules and procedures: elected board of directors, management, general assembly, bank account, seal, etc. The PIU worked closely with farmers and village councils in different locations, to help them to establish 105 WUCCs, mainly in the four main conveyance schemes of Artashat, Arznishamiram, Armavir, and Talin. Later, the PIU also helped to establish 45 additional WUCCs in northwestern Armenia (Shirak, Lori, and Aragatston). The PIU has prepared guidance materials and provided training and technical assistance to those 150 WUCCs in such areas as operating and maintaining of tertiary irrigation networks and accounting.

At the same time, about 350 additional WUCCs were established throughout Armenia, mostly by government decree and without the active participation and involvement of the key concerned stakeholders: the farmers themselves. The PIU has concerns about the ability of those 350 WUCCs to serve the farmers effectively and efficiently.2 Box 2 summarizes the key institutional issues concerning WUCCs in Armenia.

The OMEs continue to be responsible for operating and maintaining the primary and secondary irrigation networks. They obtain irrigation water either directly from natural sources (lakes, rivers) or by purchasing it from the DOME and then sell it to the WUCC (or directly to farmers where there is no WUCC). In 1999, the operation and maintenance of the drainage system was transferred from the OME to the Drainage Industrial Enterprise (DIE). The DIE will eventually be responsible for drainage operation and maintenance, distribution, and collection of drainage water fees.

2Communicationwith Mr. SamvelGhazaryan, Deputy Project Manager. Irrigation Rehabilitation Project pIU

Chapter2. EnvironmentalManagement in Armenia ECODIT,January 2000, Page 6 EA of Irrigation DevelopmentProject Ministryof Agriculture.IRP/PIU

Box 2 Institutional Issues Concerning Water Users Consumer Cooperatives The social assessment of the proposed IDP, as well as the PlUs experience with the IRP since 1995, have led to several conclusions, including:

1. The legal and institutional framework for tertiary irrigation is ill defined. The RoA may E need -- A separate law governing WUCCs or changes to the Water Code, and - An umbrella institution to represent the interests of all WUCCs (e.g., unions of WUCCs by region);- 2. The WUCCs weak management and financial capabilities. There is a need for technical (and financial) assistance to WUCCs in such areas as accounting, O&M of tertiary irrigation networks, and conflict resolution; and 3. Farmers are unaware of irrigation management and agriculture techniqves. Farmers need training in such areas as irrigation management (scheduling, norms, and methods), agro-techniques, soil management, water conservation, and agrochemical use. Source:Communication with Mr. SamvelGhazarian, PIU DeputyProject Manager

2.1.2 Ministry of Nature Protection

The Ministry of Nature Protection (MoNP) is responsible for the protection, sustainable use, and regeneration of natural resources as well as the improvement of the environment in the Republic of Armenia. In those areas, the MoNP's authority includes overseeing national policy development, developing environmental standards and guidelines, and enforcement. The MoNP discharges those functions through the following departments:

- Department of water resources protection; - Department of biological resources protection; - Department of land protection; - Department of entrails protection; and - Department of mineral resources protection.

The MoNP also undertakes several functions through its structural subdivisions:

. "Armforest" SCJSC: forest management (23 forest enterprises) and Specially- Protected Nature Areas (14 state reservations); * State Environmental Inspectorate (SEI) and 11 Regional Environmental Inspectorates: oversee the implementation of legislative and regulatory standards in natural resources protection, use and regeneration; . State Environmental Assessment Expertise (i.e., EIA department): conduct environmental asessments.

The Hazardous Substances and Waste Management Division regulates the transportation and disposal of hazardous wastes. Because there are no hazardous waste landfills in Armenia, domestic waste, hazardous waste, and construction debris are all currently dumped primarily at the Yerevan municipal landfill, the Nubarishen (Sovietashen) Landfill. Table 2 indicates the fees to be paid to the State Budget for land disposal of solid waste of

Chapter2. EnvironmentalManagement in Armenia ECODIT,January 2000. Page 7 EAof IrrigationDevelopment Project Ministryof Agriculture,IRP/PLIU different categories (I to V). In addition to those fees, waste generators must pay transportation costs as well as direct "tipping fees" to the landfill operator.

Table 2 Fees for Land Disposal of Solid Waste

Class 1 Type Cost (dramsiton) a/ 1 i I Extremely hazardous 36,000 II Highly hazardous 18,000 l 2 .it Moderately hazardous 3,600 IV 1Least hazardous 1,200 !____V_ Non hazardous 600

al Fees to be paid to the State Budget; in addition, waste generators must pay "tippingfees' directly to the landfill operator(plus transportationcosts)

Source:Ms. AnahitAlexandrian, Hazardous Substances and Waste ManagementDepartment, MoNP

Presently, Armenia does not have a national environmental fund. Generators of hazardous waste need to notify the MoNP of any intended hazardous waste disposal operations. Disposal requires a decree by the Government of Armenia classifying the waste and specifying the disposal method.

2.2 Legal and Regulatory Framework

Although effective environmental policy is not yet in place in Armenia, a number of laws and decrees were promulgated to regulate water use and protect the environment. The following laws and statutes govern natural resource use and biodiversity conservation in Armenia and are of particular relevance for this EA:

• Law on the Principles of Environmental Protection (1991); * Law on Specially-Protected Nature Areas (1991); * Water Code (1992); * Law on Environmental Impact Assessment (1995); * Law on Payments for Nature Protection and Use of Natural Resources (1998); and * Law on Flora (1998) and draft Law on Fauna.

2.2.1 Law on the Principles of Environmental Protection (GoA, 1991)

The Law on the Principles of Environmental Protection (1991) outlines the environmental protection policy of the Republic of Armenia. Its purpose is to ensure state regulation of environmental protection and use within the territory of the Republic of Armenia. It provides a legal basis for the developminentof environmental legislation regulating the protection and use of entrails, forest, water, flora and fauna, and the atmosphere.

Chapter2. EnvironmentalManagement in Armenia ECODIT,January 2000, Page 8 EA of IrrigationDevelopment Project Ministryof Agriculture.IRP/PIU

According to Order 80/1999 by the Minister of Nature Protection, special water use permits from the MoNP are required for certain specific water uses. including: water intakes from surface or ground water, disposal of drainage water in rivers. and disposal of dredged sediments (and runoff waters) from drainage collectors. Appendix C contains a copy of the special water use permit application form.

2.2.4 Law on Environmental Impact Assessment (GoA, 1995)

The Armenian Environmental Impact Assessment Act (EIA Act), passed in 1995, contains the standard steps of the EIA process for various projects and activities in Armenia. The Armenian EIA Act is generally consistent with the EIA approaches followed by international conventions and development assistance agencies (e.g., World Bank, USAID, and EU). With this Act, Armenia has taken steps toward integrating environmental concerns into the decision- making and development process.

2.2.5 Law on Flora (1998) and Draft Law on Fauna

The Law on Flora (1998) and the draft Law on Fauna outline the Republics policies for the conservation, protection, use, regeneration, and management of natural populations of plants and animals, and for regulating the impact of human activities on biodiversity. These laws aim for the sustainable protection and use of flora and fauna and the conservation of biodiversity. There are provisions for assessing and monitoring species, especially rare and threatened species.

2.2.6 Environmental decree on fisheries (Decree No. 687) (1991)

Decree No. 687 (passed December 19, 1991) aims to preserve select surface water bodies of fishing economic value and to improve their ecological situation in the future. The Decree lists six lakes (including Lake Sevan), 13 reservoirs, 18 rivers, plus all rivers flowing into Lake Sevan as covered by the Decree.

2.2.7 Water quality standards

Armenia has adopted various water quality standards from the former Soviet Union, including the following:

e Drinking Water Quality Standards (GOST No. 2472-82 and 29183-93). This norm pertains to microbiological, chemical, and physical contaminants in drinking water, measured at the consumer's tap. • Water Supply Sources (L.I. Zhukova, "Ecologia", Saint Petersburg, 1999). This norm pertains to water quality measured at the source (ground water or surface water) (see Table 4). The use of water for different purposes and the treatment requirements depend on the source quality. Water sources are divided into six categories, with Category I being the cleanest. The Ministry of Health has the final decision in the selection of water sources. Historically, the best quality water has been selected regardless of operational considerations (NEAP, WG4, 1998).

Chapter2. EnvironmentalManagement in Armenia ECODIT,January 2000, Page 10 EA of Irrigation DevelopmentProject Ministryof Agriculture,IRPIPIU

Table 4 Norms for Surface Water Sources

Parameter Unit I. Very II. Clean III. Moderately IV. V. Dirty VI Very I I clean I | contaminated Contaminated Dirty Physical Suspendedsolids (SS) [mg/I] 1-3 4-10 11-19 20-50 51-100 >100 pH 6.5-8.0 6.5-8.5 6.0-9.0 5.0-6.0. 5.0-6.0, 2.0-4.0. 9.0-10.0 9.0-10.0 11.0-13 Smell points 1 2 3 4 1 5 >5 Chemical

02 _ 95 80 70 60 - 30 0 BoDs [mg/I] 0.5-1 0 1 1-1.9 2.0-2.9 3 0-3.9 4.0-10.0 >10 0 NH, [mgIA] 0.05 0.10 0.20-0.30 0 40-1.0 11-3.0 >3.0 Microbiological E-Coi_ per 100 ml <10 | 10-100 101-500 501-5000 5001-10' >10' Saprophytebacteria per 100ml 10a 10|a 10ra 10' c 10' c0 o6

The value of h rangesfrom 1 to 9 Source: L.l. Zhukova, "Ecologia",Saint Petersburg,1999

Guidelines for irrigation water quality

Strict guidelines for irrigation water quality do not exist in Armenia. As a reference, this EA uses FAO's guidelines for the interpretation of water quality destined for irrigation (see Table 5 for a summary of those guidelines). The guidelines use the following two key parameters, which define possible restrictions regarding crop water availability and infiltration:

* Salinity, either measured directly by the Total Dissolved Solids (TDS, mg/)) or indirectly by the Electric Conductivity (EC); and i Sodium Adsorption Ratio (SAR, unit-less).

Sanitary flow

The Armenian regulations call for maintaining a minimum flow ("sanitary flow") in rivers to protect human health and the environment. While no specific methods to estimate sanitary flows are prescribed by law, Armenian agencies generally use the "Guidelines for Regulating Minimal Water Flow in Rivers for Nature Protection" (Minsk. 1997). The guidelines refer to the histogram of "natural" monthly flows based on flows recorded by the nearest monitoring stations. Roughly speaking. they suggest setting the sanitary flow level equal to 75 percent of the g5 th percentile of previously recorded monthly water flow levels. That is, the monthly sanitary flow is set equal to 0.75 times the monthly flow that has been exceeded during 95 percent of all past months for which the flows were recorded. The guidelines also suggest taking into consideration other factors. such as climate and localized geomorphology. For illustration, Appendix G (Section G.2) describes how the sanitary flow was set at 100 million gallons per day (MGD) for the Potomac River (near Washington, D.C.), downstream of Little Falls dam. taking into consideration competing demands for water and the potential impacts on the most sensitive fish species.

Chapter2. EnvironmentalManagement in Armenia ECODIT,January 2000, Page tI1 EA of IrrigationDevelopment Project Ministry of Agriculture,IRP/PIU

Table 5 FAO Guidelinesfor the Interpretationof Water Qualityfor Irrigation

PotentialIrrigation Problem Degree of Restrictionon Use Units None Slight to moderate Severe

Salinity(affects crop water availability ECW1 DS/m <0.7 0.7-3.0 >3.0 TDS Mg/I <450 450-2,000 >2,000 Infiltration(affects infiltrationrate of water into the soil, evaluate using ECwand SAR2together) SAR 0-3 and EC, >0.7 0.7-0.2 <0.2 3 - 6 >1.2 1.2-0.3 <0.3 6-12 >1.9 1.9-0.5 <0.5 12-24 >2.9 2.9-1.3 <1.3 20-40 >5.0 5.0-2.9 <2.9

SpecificIon Toxicity (affects sensitivecrops) Sodium (N) Surfaceirrigation SAR <3 3-9 >9 Sprinklerirrigation me/I <4 4-10 >10 | Chloride(CI) Surfaceirrigation me/l <4 4-10 >10 Sprinklerirrigation me/l <3 >3 Boron (B) mg/l <0.7 0.7-3.0 >3.0 MiscellaneousEffects Nitrogen(NO 3-N) mg/I <5 5-30 >30 Bicarbonate(HCO 3) mell <1.5 1.5-8.5 >8.5 (overheadsprinkling only) n pH normalrange: 6.5-84

Notes. 1 EC, means electrical conductivity. a measure of the water salinity. TDS means Total Dissolved Solids. SAR means Sodium Adsorption Ratio At a given SAR, infiltration rate iocreases as water salinity increases Source. Food and Agricultural Organization of the UN, 1985. Water quality for Agnculture

Chapter2. EnvironmentalManagement in Armenia ECODIT,January 2000, Page 12 EA of IrrigationDevelopment Project Ministryof Agriculture,IRP/PIU

2.3 EnvironmentalMonitoring

Different institutions are in charge of monitoring water quantity and quality and soil quality in the Republic of Armenia, as explained below. Box 3 describes current issues associatedwith the monitoringof irrigationwater quantity.

Box 3 MeasuringIrrigation Water Quantities

Measurement of irrigation water poses various challenges Traditionally. the Operation and MaintenanceEnterprises (OMEs) have installed flow meters to measure the flow (m /s) and hence calculate the volume of water sold to the Water Users Consumer Cooperatives (WUCCs). However, farmers don't trust or understand the calculationof amounts purchasedbased on measuredflows and preferthe use of volume meters (m3). The PIU will install volumemeters to avoid this difficulty.

However, it would not be feasible to install flow or volume meters at the farm level. Typically, the water master controlsthe length of time the gate remains open to a farmer's plot. The amount of water delivered to the farmer then is calculated by multiplyingthe water flow (throughthe gate) by the lengthof time that the gate was open. The water master allocateswater on an equity basis as a function of several factors: I surfacearea of cultivatedland, crop requirements,and irrigation norms. Estimatingwater amountsdelivered to each plot is more difficultnow because privatizationhas resulted in small land plots (between0.75 and 1.5 ha per plot). The ongoing consolidationof plots into larger parcelsshould simplifywater allocationat the farm level.

Source:Communication with Mr.Samvel Ghazarian, PIU DeputyProject Manager. August 1999

2.3.1 Water quantity

The Hydrology and Water Resources Center, a division of Armhydromet, measures water flows and levels at 101 monitoringstations throughoutArmenia. Currently, 98 of those 101 stations are in operation (91 for rivers, three for reservoirs,and four for Lake Sevan) and measure water level and temperaturetwice a day (morningand evening). The measurements at 19 key stations are reported daily to the MoA, MoNP, and Ministry of Energy (MoE). In contrast to the water level, water flow is measured25 to 30 times during the year. Water flow measurementsare more frequent in the spring due to the wide variations brought about by the melting snow. The water level is measured automatically at 24 stations. Turbidity measurementsare made every 5 days for rivers (91 stations) and Lake Sevan (four stations). Armhydromet has developed frequency distributions of river flows (average, 50th percentile, 75th percentile,etc.) based on measuredvalues at most of these river locations over the past 10 or more years. Several of these monitoringstations providecrucial data to assess the availability of water to support the proposed irrigationconversion schemes (see Chapter 5).

Lake Sevan

In addition, Armhydrometmeasures air temperature and water temperature at varying depths at 17 fixed points on Lake Sevan. Turbidity,wind, relative humidity,air temperature,and other parameters are recorded, and the evaporation of the lake is calculated. Armhydromet

Chapter2. EnvironmentalManagement in Armenia ECODIT,January 2000, Page 13 EA of IrrigationDevelopment Project Ministry of Agriculture.IRP/PIU measures river flow for 15 of the 28 rivers flowing into Lake Sevan and rainfall precipitation at 10 of those 15 stations. Armhydromet also measures flow from the Arpa-Sevan tunnel into Lake Sevan and water outflow from Lake Sevan into the Hrazdan River. Using the measurements for Lake Sevan, Armhydromet calculates the monthly water balance of the Lake and reports those monthly balances to the Government. MoE, MoA. and MoNP.

2.3.2 Water quality

The MoNP Monitoring Center is the main agency responsible for monitoring the quality of surface water as well as the quantity and quality of ground water. Previously, surface water quality was monitored on a regular basis at the 101 monitoring stations mentioned in the previous section (water quantity). However, due to the dire economic situation after Armenia's independence in 1991, surface water has been monitored much less frequently and at fewer stations.

In addition to the MoNP, the Institute of Hydroecology and Ichthyology (Academy of Sciences) also monitors the water quality of Lake Sevan and its tributaries at 108 monitoring points: 36 monitoring points in Lake Sevan and three monitoring points on each of the 24 rivers that flow into the lake. However, only 11 of those monitoring points have been used since 1991.

Finally, MoA's Drainage Industrial Enterprise monitors the quantity and quality of irrigation water and its suitability for irrigation, and presents its findings annually as part of the Cadaster on "Soil Meliorative Status". Due to the lack of financial resources. irrigation-water quality has not been monitored adequately since 1992.

2.3.3 Water and soil in the Ararat Valley

The "Monitoring and Control of the Rehabilitated State of Irrigated Lands in the Republic of Armenia," a State Closed Joint Stock Company (SCJSC), monitors water and soil conditions at 36 hydro-observation posts. The Company monitors drainage conditions, water flow, and water quality at these observation posts. Every quarter (three months), the Company analyzes ground water, drainage water, and irrigation water and computes SAR and the C1/S04 ratio to determine if the water is suitable for irrigation.

In 1998, the IRP/PIU and the Company developed a computer database and mapping system to assist with water and soil management as part of Armenia's Irrigation Rehabilitation project. In particular, with the technical assistance of the Company, the PIU has prepared a digitized map of the Ararat Valley, including information on wells (depth, construction details, discharge rates) and the location of collectors, drains, and canals. Information on aquifer depth, ground water salinity, and water chemical quality levels is available but has not been entered into the computer system. The ECODIT Team has entered some of that information for this EA (see Section 4.3).

2.4 International Agreements

The Republic of Armenia is a party to several agreements with bordering countries on sharing water resources. The RoA has also signed and/or ratified several international environmental conventions.

Chapter2. EnvironmentalManagement in Armenia ECODIT,January 2000, Page 14 EAof ImgationDevelopment Project Ministryof Agriculture,IRP/PIU

2.4.1 International waterways

Araks River

In 1928, the USSR and Turkey signed an agreement for monitoring water flow and limiting the volume of water withdrawn from the Akhurian and Araks rivers. The agreement provides a legal basis for Armenia and Turkey to construct water intakes capable of withdrawing 53 m3/s from the Araks River. Turkey carried out the reconstruction of headwork structures in the 1980s. However, Armenia has not carried out the reconstruction and therefore has not been able to withdraw its maximum allowable volume. A component of the IDP would increase the capacity of the water intake on the Armenian side to 53 m3/s (see Section 4.1). The agreement also called for maintaining a minimum "sanitary" flow of 5 m3 /s in the Akhurian and Araks Rivers.

Further downstream, Armenia and Iran have discussed monitoring and usage of water from the Araks River where it borders the two countries. A draft agreement has been prepared jointly but has not yet been signed yet.3

Vorotan River

The Vorotan River, which the Government of Armenia plans to divert partially to Lake Sevan, flows from Armenia to Azerbaijan. Before the breakup of the Soviet Union, a decision entitled "On the Project of Bazarchai Reservoir in Azerbaian SSR," allowed Armenia to divert a portion of the water from the Vorotan (Bazarchai) River, prior to flowing into Azerbaijan. The decision provided that, in years of average flow, water from the Vorotan river would be divided equally between Armenia and Azerbaijan. In years of deficit flow, Armenia would provide a minimum "sanitary' discharge of 1.0 m3 /s. However, since 1991, the decision has not been honored. Armenia currently monitors the flow at several points along the Vorotan river, but no new agreements with Azerbaijan are under negotiation.

Debet River

There have been discussions between Armenia and Georgia (Tblisi, November 1998) on the monitoring and use of water from the Debet River, a tributary of the Kur River. The Kur River flows north from Armenia to Georgia, and ultimately east to Azerbaijan. Any decisions by Armenia or Georgia that have an impact upon the Kur River flow should therefore include Azerbaijan. Azerbaijan did not attend the meeting, and no agreement has yet been reached. 4

2.4.2 International conventions

Armenia became a signatory to the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands of International Importance on July 6, 1993. Two sites in Armenia are included on the Ramsar list: Lake Sevan and its basin (489,100 hectares) and Lake Arpi and its surrounding bogs (3,139 ha.). However, despite the importance of these sites, little has been done to protect them under the Ramsar Convention (State of the Environment Report, 1998). There are no sites on the Ramsar list in the Ararat Valley.

Communication with Mr. Vilik Sargysan, Head of Water Resource and Hydrology Center. MoNP, September 1999. 'Communication with Mr. Volodya Narimanyan, Head of Water Resources Protection and Management Department, MoNP. August 1999

Chapter 2. Environmental Management in Armenia ECODIT, January 2000, Page 15 EA of IrrigationDevelopment Project Ministryof Agriculture,IRP/PIU

In addition, Armenia has ratified several other international environmentalconventions. including:

* Conventionon BiologicalDiversity (ratified on May 14. 1993); * FrameworkConvention on ClimateChange (May 14, 1993); * Conventionon the Protectionof World Culturaland Natural Heritage(1993); * Conventionon CombatingDesertification (February 7, 1997);and * Conventionon EnvironmentalImpact Assessment (signed on February 21, 1997 but not ratifiedyet).

Chapter2. EnvironmentalManagement in Armenia ECODIT,January 2000, Page 16 EA of IrrigationDevelopment Project Ministry of Agriculture,IRP/PIU

3. BASELINEENVIRONMENTAL SITUATION

This chapter presents an overview of environmental conditions prevailing in Armenia, with a focus on environmental aspects of concern for this EA. Chapters 4 to 6 will describe those environmental conditions that are specific to individual components of the IDP project. This chapter is organized in two sections:

1. Socio-economic environment: and 2. Physical and biological environment.

3.1 Socio-Economic Environment

Armenia suffered a catastrophic earthquake in 1988, and shortly after, shut down its nuclear power plant due to safety concerns. The closing of the power plant, which supplied about 35 percent of the nation's electricity, had a sever impact on Armenia's infrastructure and industrial capacity. With the subsequent breakup of the Soviet Union in 1991, the Armenian economy collapsed (Kurkjian, 1999). Between 1991 and 1993, Gross Domestic Product (GDP) decreased by about 60 percent (World Bank Group, 1998). Since the eruption of the Nagorno- Karabagh war in 1988, Azerbaijan and Turkey have blockaded Armenia, compounding the shortages of energy, fuel, and raw materials (World Bank Group, 1998). Industry has been operating at vastly reduced levels due to those shortages and reduced markets, which resulted from the fragmentation of the centralized economy of the Soviet Union.

This section describes the following socio-economic conditions:

. Population; * Water uses; . Agriculture; * Fisheries: * Environmental health; and * Historic and cultural heritage.

3.1.1 Population

While the 1989 Census indicated a total population of 3.28 million, population estimates for subsequent years vary from one data source to another (see Figure 1). While the NEAP indicates a steady decline in population after independence due to migration, official statistics show a steady increase. For example, population estimates range from 3 million (NEAP, WG4, 1998) to 3.78 million (Statistical Bureau) for 1996 and between 2.8 and 3.8 million for 1999 (Ministry of Statistics). According to official statistics, the percentage of people living in urban areas has decreased from 68 percent in 1989 to 67 percent in 1999 (Ministry of Statistics, Book on the New Administrative Regions of Armenia, September 1999); Yerevan is the largest city (1.25 million as of 1/1/99), followed by Gyumri (211,700) and Vanadzor (172,700).

The proposed IDP project will improve economic, health, and quality of life conditions for a large percentage of the population. For example, the 631,000 inhabitants of the Ararat Valley (17 percent of the population) will benefit, either directly or indirectly, from the reconstruction of the Hoktemberian canal and increase of intake from the Araks river as well as the rehabilitation and improvement of the Ararat Valley drainage infrastructure. Another 350,000 people will live under improved safety conditions due to safety improvement at the 20 targeted dams.

Chapter3. Baseline EnvironmentalSituation ECODIT,January 2000, Page 17 EA of IrrigationDevelopment Project Ministryof Agriculture,IRP/PIU

Figure 1 Population of Armenia, from 1989 to 1999 (Thousands of People)

4,800 _ 4.600 4.400 = 4.200 0 ° 4,000 * 3.800 o 3,600 7 3.400 Source a o 3.200 3.000 2.800 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999

Source: a Ministry of Statistics, State Registry and Analysis, Yerevan, 1999 NEAP, Working Group 4

3.1.2 Water uses

Total water use in Armenia has increased steadily from 1966 to 1990. but has dropped to 16 billion m3 during the five-year period 1991-1995 (see Figure 2). Irrigation is by far the largest water use sector, consuming 76 percent of all water used in Armenia in the period 1990- 1995. Industrial water use peaked in the 1980s, but dropped sharply after 1990 due to the decline of industrial operations.

Figure 2 Water Uses in Armenia From 1966 To 1995 (billion m3 per five-year period)

20 18 _ ; 16-

-14

12 . m~~~~~~~~~~~~Other 3; 12I- 1* _ _ . _ . o lndustnal

E 8 - ,. - J oHousehold o lmhgation

0

1966- 1971- 1976- 1981- 1986- 1991- 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995

Source: Armhydromet, MoNP

Chapter 3. Baseline Environmental Situation ECODIT, January 2000, Page 18 EA of Irrigation DevelopmentProject Ministry of Agriculture,IRP/PIU

3.1.3 Agriculture

Agriculture uses about 47 percent (or 1,391.000 ha) of Armenia's total land area. with grazing accounting for about half of the agricultural land use. The remaining agricultural land is distributed among the following categories as listed below (Ministry of Agriculture. "RoA Agrofood System Reform Project for 1998-2002, Yerevan. 1998, p.9):

* Arable land (494.300 ha)- * Fruit orchards and vineyards (63,800 ha); * Hay fields (138,900 ha); * Pasture (694,000 ha); and * Fallow land (800 ha).

Cultivated land is typically located at elevations ranging from 600 m to 2,500 m.

The relative importance of the agricultural sector in the economy has grown since independence due to the decline of industrial production. Furthermore, there has been a shift from marketable cash crops to subsistence crops and the efficiency of agricultural land has been reduced (NEAP, WG6, 1997). Figure 3 shows the evolution from the 1986-1988 period to the 1996-1998 period of the surface area cultivated (ha/yr), the total annual production (tonnes/yr), and the annual yield (tonne/ha/yr.) for vegetables. Figure 3 distinguishes between vegetable growing in the Ararat Valley, the rest of Armenia, and Armenia overall. Between the period 1986-988 and the period 1996-1998, the overall surface area cultivated with vegetables increased by 13 percent (from 17,950 ha to 20,281 ha) but total vegetable production decreased by 30 percent (from 559,000 tonnes to 393,000 tonnes) and yield decreased by 37 percent (from 30.9 tonnes/ha to 19.4 tonnes/ha).

The lack of technology and training, the deterioration of the irrigation systems, the salinization of agricultural soils, and the high cost of operation have contributed to the reduction in crop yields. Land privatization has not yet had the anticipated positive impacts (see Box 4).

Box4 Land Privatization in Armenia

Started in 1991, the speed of land privatization in Armenia was unprecedented in the former Soviet Union (NEAP, Main Report, 1999). In 1991-1992, 80 percent of the I land and 713 collective farms (out of 861) were privatized (NEAP, WG4, 1998). Ninety- nine percent of the arabie land and 79 percent of perennial orchards were either privatized or targeted for privatization by 1994 (NEAP, WG6, 1997). The privatization has had no immediate positive impact on agricultural production; rather it appears that he efficiency and sustainability of agricultural land use have been reduced.

As of January 1, 1999, the privatization of agricultural land had created 333,810 small land farmers. The average plot sizes are 0.91 ha for arable land and 0.15 ha for an orchard plot. To enable equitable distribution of land of variable quality among villagers, some plots owned by the same farmer are as far apart as 15 km (NEAP, WG6, 1997). Yields of all crops have declined due to the lack of experience and training of small land farmers, combined with the deteriorating irrigation systems, high prices of pesticides and fertilizers, high costs of automated practices, and difficulties associated with the use of 1 agricultural machinery on small, scaKteredfarms.

Chapter 3. Baseline Environmental Situation ECODIT, January 2000, Page 19 EA of IrrigationDevelopment Project Ministryof Agriculture,IRP/PIU

Figure 3 SurfaceArea Cultivated,Total Production,and Yield for Vegetables (Annual Averagesfor the Periods1986-1988 and 1996-1998)

Fig. 3-a

Average 86-88 Average 96-98 Total = 17,950 ha Other regions 35% Other Ararat regions valley Ararat 51% 49% valley 65%

Total 17,950 Total 20.632 ha|

Fig. 3-c Fig. 3-b

40 600,000 35 ,~500.000 30 _ i 25 . DArarat valley c 400.000 c._ 20 _ < : Other regions o 0 Other regions 20 - terein0300,000 .I

;S 10 .s . E Total for Armenia DArarat valley ._ 200,000

Average Average Average Average 86-88 96-98 86-88 96-98

Source:Statistical Index, National Economy of Armenian SSR, 1998, Yerevan, 1989,p. 168 Agricultureand Food Industryof RoA, RoA, Ministryof Agriculture,World Bank, Yerevan,Hay Edit 1995,Charts 43, 34, 32, 23

Chapter3. BaselineEnvironmental Situation ECODIT,January 2000,Page 20 EA of IrrigationDevelopment Project Ministry of Agriculture,IRP/PIU

3.1.4 Fisheries (numbers and figure may need to be revised and corrected)

Fish are produced primarily from Lake Sevan and commercial fisheries in the Ararat Valley. Total fish production peaked in 1995 at an output of 7.555 tonnes and $10.75 million and has declined steadily ever since (see Figure 4). In 1998. total fish production was only 1,284 tonnes (83 percent reduction compared to 1990), valued at $1.2 million. The decline of fisheries is more marked in the Ararat valley, where it went from 6.274 tonnes in 1990 to 70 tonnes in 1998. The main reason for this decline is the reduction in the supply of fish food. To remedy this situation, the Government has converted the Department of Fisheries into a State Closed Joirit Stock Company, 'Haydzuk". with a more streamlined staff of 12 employees (one- fourth of the Department's staff). Another explanation of the decline in fish production is the loss of the Russian export markets (NEAP, WG4, 1998). About 66. percent (200 ha) of the fisheries in the Ararat valley have been privatized.

Figure 4 Evolution of Fish Production in Armenia (from 1970 to 1998)

_Lake Sevan

8.000 -=- Ararat Valley e7,000- ¢ 7 000 v5s~~~~~~~ Total 6.000

.~5.000-

o4.000 3.000 ° 2.000

._.~1.000

Li. 0 + 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000

Note: Fish production outside Lake Sevan and the Ararat Valley represents about 1 percent of total fish production

Source: Statistical Index, National Economy of Armenian SSR, 1998. Yerevan. 1988, p. 168 Agriculture and Food Industry of RoA, RoA, Ministry of Agriculture, World Bank, Yerevan, Hay Edit 1995, Charts 43, 34, 32, 23 RoA Socio-Economic Conditions 1998, January-Dec., Yerevan, 1999, p.17 RoA Socio-Economic Conditions 1999, January-June, Yerevan, 1999, p.12

Chapter 3. Baseline Environmental Situation ECODIT, January 2000, Page 21 EAof IrrigationDevelopment Project Ministryof Agriculture,IRP/PIU

3.1.5 Environmental health

Malaria has re-emerged in the Ararat Valley starting from 1996. In thel950s. wetlands in the Ararat Valley were drained and mosquitoes and malaria disappeared. From 1963 until 1996, there were no reported cases of malaria (NEAP. WG2, 1998). However, environmental degradation of the Ararat Valley and the lack of O&M of irrigation and drainage systems have provided ideal breeding grounds for mosquitoes. In 1996, 143 cases of malaria were reported in the Ararat and Armavir regions (Table 6), most of them (105 cases) in the low-lying Masis region. There have been no reports of malaria-related deaths.

Table 6 Regional Distribution of the Reported Cases of Malaria (1996)

Ararat Region 126 Armavir Region T7 Region of Masis 105 Yerevan city 6 Region of Ararat 5 Region of Shengavit 4 Region of Artashat 15 Region of Miasnikian 1 Ararat city 1 Region of Mashtots 1

Source: NEAP,WG2, EnvironmentalHealth, 1998

The number of reported malaria cases has increased to 1.023 in 1997. There were 542 reported cases in 1998 and 208 cases in the first half of 1999. However, the number of cases varies from one source to another (Epidemiological Newsletter, June, 1999; Marietta Makarian, Azg Newspaper, July 14, 1999). The Government of Armenia is committed to preventing and treating malaria (Decree 208). Recently (March 19, 1999), the Ministry of Health organized a meeting, The Struggle against Malaria in Armenia, to coordinate national efforts against malaria. Participants urged the GoA to commit funds to restore and rehabilitate the Ararat Valley drainage system.

In addition to malaria, the NEAP identified several environmental health concerns associated with the following activities:

. Discharge of fertilizers and agrochemicals, leading to pollution of water resources; . Inadequate maintenance of the water supply system, leading to contamination from sewage; . Emissions of lead from mobile sources that impact human health (e.g., accumulate in crops and pass on to humans); * Deforestation that exacerbates soil erosion and decreases soil fertility; * Ineffective management of industrial and household wastes that leads to pollution of soil and water; and * Extensive use of pesticides that pass through mother's breast milk to infants (see Box 5 on the use of pesticides and fertiiizers in Armenia).

Chapter3. BaselineEnvironmental Situation ECODIT,January 2000, Page 22 EA of Irrigation DevelopmentProject Ministry of Agriculture,IRP/PIU

Box 5 Use of Pesticides and Fertilizers in Armenia

Pesticidesare available in Armenia, but have become quite expensive. There are stockpiles of outdated pesticides leftover from the Soviet period (importedprimarily from Russia and Georgia). The Ministryof Agriculture is responsiblefor monitoringand controllingpesticide use; however, there is little icontrol in practice. Armenia is using mainly three types of pesticides:Arrivo, Gezagard (herbicide),and Ridomil (fungicide).5 Quantitiesof pesticidesimported have remainedrelatively constant in the past three years (15-30 tonnes/yr)and significantlyless than prior to 1991 (800-1,000tonnes/yr). The limitingfactor for imports is the low demand. Farmers can not afford to purchase chemicals and thus apply only minimal amounts of agrochemicals,especially in the Ararat Valley. During the Soviet period, pesticides were extensivelyapplied (equivalent of 9 kg/ha).

Many pesticides,such as DDT. have been restricted in Armenia and the former Soviet Union since the mid-1970s. Accordingto the MoA, DDT has not been used for agricuitural purposessince its restriction Pesticideshave been used in the Ararat Valley in the past two years as a cheap and effective way to combat malaria.6No informationwas providedto the EA team on the quantities and locationsof such pesticideapplications.

Mineral fertilizers are mostly imported from Georgia. Armenia is also using fertilizers that have been stockpiled since the early 1990s. About 25,000 tonnes of fertilizers have been imported from Januarythrough August 1999 (or about 40,000 tonnes for the year). Prior to 1991, over 100,000tonnes of fertilizerswere appliedannually in Armenia(KBN Engineering,1995).

3.1.6 Historic and cultural heritage

Armenia is one of the oldest centers of civilization and has a unique historic, religious, and cultural heritage. Records of such heritage include scripts from the ninth to the sixth century B.C. (State of Urartu, Araratian). The Constitution, the Law on the Conservation and Use of Fixed Historic-Cultural Monuments, the Codes on Land, Water and Entrails, and other legal acts provide for the protection of the historic and cultural monuments of the RoA. The Department of Historic and Cultural Monuments Preservation (DHCMP) is responsible for the protection and use of the historic and cultural monuments of the RoA. According to the Law on the Conservation and Use of Fixed Historic-Cultural Monuments (Article 15), special emergency measures would be required to protect historic and cultural monuments, especially the following six irrigation schemes under the second component of the IDP (conversion of irrigation schemes from pumping to gravity):

* Scheme #7: Amrakits scheme * Scheme #9: Shirak 8 water intake stations * Scheme #10: Ohanavan-Karbi scheme * Scheme #13: Vayots Dzor scheme * Scheme #17: Tsav-Shikahogh scheme (in particular water intake) * Scheme #18: Meghri scheme (water intake).

Article 22 requires that the Contractor must agree on such measures in advance with the DHCMP and pay for their implementation.

'Communication with Mr. Vladimir Manukian,Director, Agrochemistry SCJSC 6 communicationwith Ms Anahit Alexandrian,Head. Hazardous Substance and Waste ManagementDepartment MoNP

Chapter3. BaselineEnvironmental Situation ECODIT,January 2000, Page 23 EA of IrrigationDevelopment Project Ministryof Agnculture,IRP/PIU

3.2 Physical and Biological Environment

With a surface area of 29,740 kM2, Armenia is the smallest of the former Soviet republics. The country is mountainous,with 72 percent of the land at altitudes greater than 1,500 meters above sea level (masl) and a maximumaltitude of 4.095 masl (Mount Aragatz). Only 24 percent of the land has slopes of 3 degrees or less (NEAP,WG6, 1997). In spite of its relativelysmall size, Armenia's diverselandform and climatehave given rise to a large variety of ecosystems.

3.2.1 Climate

Annual precipitationin Armenia rangesfrom 1,000mm in the mountainsto less than 300 mm in the Ararat Valley (see Map 4). Most of the precipitationoccurs during April and May, whilethe least amountof rainfalloccurs from July to September,during the peak of the growing season. Figure 5 shows average (1990-1998) monthly temperature and precipitation levels recorded at three select stations of particular importance for this EA: Armavir, Ararat, and Yeghegnadzor. In those areas, summer months (July-August) are generally hot (with temperatures as high as 400C in certain areas) while winters are cold and snowy (with sub- freezing averagetemperatures in Januaryand February).

3.2.2 Water resourcesquantity

Armenia has sufficient water resources overall to meet demand, now and in the foreseeablefuture. However.water resourcesare unevenlydistributed across the countryand during the year. Some regions suffer from lack of water, while others have ample resources. Over 200,000 people (about 5 percent of the population)live in areas where water shortage (see Map 5) restrains regional development(NEAP, Main Report, 1999). The following areas experiencewater shortages(NEAP, WG4, 1998):

* Basinsof the Meghririver; * North-westernand westernslopes of Mount of Aragats; and * Upper reachesof the Araks basin in Vayot Dzor region.

In other parts of the country,the water resourcesare availablebut there are inadequate water storage facilities. Other shortcomings in the water supply system are inadequate infrastructurefor transportingwater to users, poor operation and maintenance,leakage, and water use inefficiencies.

Surfacewater

Melting snow, rainfall, and ground water replenish surfacewater resources. River flows fluctuate widely during the year. In the summer (June-August)and autumn (September- November),when the water demand is at its peak, only about one fourth of the yearly flow is available. In the winter (December-March),the flow is around 10-12 percent of the yearly total, while in spring (April-June) it ranges between 55 and 70 percent of yearly flow. Water reservoirs have been constructedwith a total capacity of about 900 million m3 (NEAP, WG4. 1998). Six reservoirsare importantsources of hydropowergeneration. Only one reservoir,the MantashReservoir, provides drinking water in additionto irrigationwater.

Chapter3. BaselineEnvironmental Situation ECODIT,January 2000, Page 24 EA of IrrigationDevelopment Project Ministryof Agriculture,IRP/PIU

Figure 5 Average MonthlyTemperature and Precipitation(1990-1998)

30. + Armnavir C 25 - .Ararat Valley 20 - Yeghegnadzor 5 1

-10

.~ 5 e00

-10 Month

70 ElArrmaur (Total 238 mm/year) OArarat Valley (Total 222 mm/year) E si Yeghegnadzor(Total 376 mm/year)

40 .2 30 ~20

10

0 * J F M A M J J A S O N D

Source: Armhydromet,MoNP

Chapter3. BaselineEnvironmental Situation ECODIT,January 2000, Page 25 EA of Irrigation DevelopmentProject Ministryof Agriculture,IRP/P(U

There are seven big rivers in Armenia, each longer than 100 km. About 11,800 rivers and streams are less than 10 km long. There are two main watersheds in Armenia, which drain into the Kur River (watershed 700 kM2) and the Araks River (watershed 22,790 kM2).

The lakes in Armenia are relatively small with the exception of Lake Sevan, which had a surface area of 1,416 km2 before the lowering of its level (1,210 km2 at present) and a watershed area of about 4,900 km2 (16 percent of total surface area). This highland source of freshwater provides a significant amount of hydropower and irrigation water to croplands in the Ararat Valley.

Ground water

Available ground water resources are unevenly distributed throughout Armenia. About 70 percent of all water resources drain to the Ararat Valley (State of the Environment Report, 1998). There are three hydraulically interconnected aquifers in the Ararat Valley, located at a depth of 40 to 300 meters below the surface (see Section 4.3 for more details). The lower aquifer (artesian in parts of the valley) is mainly used for drinking water supply: the upper aquifer (down to 40 mbsl) is used for irrigation.

Irrigation networks built in the 40s-50s (Artashat canal, Lower Hrazdan canal. Hoktemberien canal) have led to the rise of the ground water table in the Ararat Valley. To lower the ground water table, open and closed drainage systems were built starting from the 50s-60s. However, ground water levels have risen again in the nineties due to the lack of maintenance and cleaning of the drainage systems and insufficient pumping of drainage water (see Section 4.3). This has led to waterlogging and swamping over a large area and the re- emergence of malaria (see Section 3.1.5). The high level of the water table has also led to secondary salinization and alkalization of the soils.

Availability and efficiency of irrigation water

Prior to 1990, nearly 80 percent of the agricultural land was irrigated. In 1995, 172,600 ha were irrigated, compared to 311,000 ha in 1985 (45 percent reduction). The use of irrigation water has dropped from 2.14 billion m3 in 1990 to 0.64 billion m3 in 1995. This reduction is due primarily to economic factors, in particular the decline in purchasing power and the collapse of the Soviet Union (NEAP, WG4, 1998). Further, the irrigation infrastructure is deteriorating and pumping is intermittent. In 1990, approximately 42 percent of the irrigated land depended on pumping for its water supply.

The irrigation efficiency is less than 45 percent on average and as low as 30 percent in some areas. Due to the blockade of Armenia, farmers have shifted to growing crops that are required to ensure food self-sufficiency and do not depend on export markets. The structural problems of the sector have lead to loss of income to farmers and increased poverty among the farmers' community (NEAP, WG4, 1998).

3.2.3 Water resources quality

As indicated previously (see Section 3.1.2), industrial and agricultural uses of water resources peaked in the mid-eighties (State of the Environment Report, 1998). Since then, water uses and associated pollution loads from agricultural and industrial activities have fallen. However. surface waters continue to receive relatively large pollution loads due to inadequate sewage and industrial waste treatment and agricultural and urban runoff. In 1996, less than 60

Chapter3. Baseline EnvironmentalSituation ECODIT,January 2000, Page 26 EA of IrrigationDevelopment Project Ministryof Agriculture,IRP/PIU

percent of the sewage generatedin Yerevanwas treated at the Yerevan WastewaterTreatment Facility (Melkonian, 1996). Adequatetreatment was not availablefor the remaining40 percent of sewage due to missing equipment,insufficient energy supply, and poor economicconditions. Consequently. approximately 600,000 m3/day of raw and partially treated sewage are discharged into the nearby Hrazdan river. In 1990, BOD5 levels in the Hrazdan River in Yerevan were as high as 19.8 mg/l (NEAP,WG4, 1998). Map 6 showsthe water quality (high. medium,and low) of main rivers (by segment)in Armenia.

More than 100 tonnes/yr.of heavymetals are estimatedto enter Lake Sevan throughits 28 tributaries, agricultural runoff, industrial and municipal discharges. and atmospheric deposition(Hovhannisyan, 1996). From 1977-1990,five to 10 tons of toxic compoundsfrom 34 pesticidesentered Lake Sevan (Hovhannisyan,1996). In addition, 24 million m3 of sewage are discharged into the lake annually, of which only about 7 percent are treated (Gharabegian, 1994) and introducing 84 tonnes of oil products,490 tonnes of magnesium, and 4 tonnes of copper each year (Narimanyan,1996).

The Hrazdan River flows southeastfrom Lake Sevan through Yerevan to Masis in the Ararat Valley. Near Masis, a portion of the water is divertedto the Mkhchianpumping station and transferredseveral kilometersnortheast for use in irrigation. In the early 1990s,270 Mm3 of water from Lake Sevan was used for irrigation. Figure 6 indicates monthly averages (1986- 1990) of Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) levels measured by three monitoring stations on the Hrazdan River: Lusakertnear Charentsevan(downstream of HrazdanCity), Yerevan just below Lake Yerevan,and Masis upstreamof MasisVillage.

Figure6 MonthlyAverage TDS Valuesfor the HrazdanRiver (1986-1990)

2,500 E Lusakert o Yerewan , 2,000 - Masis E v 1,500

= 1,000 -

0-

U s < E n , E 0 E E *-u 0 > LL CL~~~~ 00 U) Z

Source:Monitoring Center, MoNP

Chapter3. BaselineEnvironmental Situation ECODIT,January 2000, Page 27 EA of Irrigation DevelopmentProject Ministryof Agriculture,IRP/PIU

Deep groundwater resources are of high quality and are well protected from pollution due to:

• Depth (down to 300 m): * Thick clay layers that overlay the lower aquifer; and * Artesian upward pressure that prevents pollution from entering the lower aquifers.

In parts of the central Ararat Valley, TDS values exceed drinking water norms (over 1,000 mg/I; see, for example, Table G-1). Unlike the deep aquifers, shallow groundwater resources may become contaminated from industrial discharges, agricultural activities, waste dumps, improper landfilling, and mining activities.

3.2.4 Soil resources

Despite its relatively small size, Armenia has a wide variety of soil types and a diverse geomorphology. However, most of the land is not suitable for agriculture. The Ararat Valley produces 40 to 45 percent of the agricultural output of Armenia. The soils of the Ararat Valley, predominantly clay and clay-sand, have been cultivated and irrigated for centuries.

Poor land management and weak regulations have led to environmental deterioration in the form of soil erosion, compaction, salinization and contamination. Natural processes, such as landslides, flash floods, and strong winds have further deteriorated soil conditions. Soils are polluted by the uncontrolled use of pesticides, industrial discharges, atmospheric deposition, and improper waste disposal. Although the extent of soil pollution has not been adequately delineated, certain industrial areas are suspected of containing high concentrations of metals.

Soil erosion, mainly caused by poor agricultural practices and over-grazing, is progressing at an alarming rate and is a major problem for about 60 percent of agricultural land (NEAP, Main Report, 1999). Total soil loss in Armenia is estimated to be approximately 8 million tonnes/yr, corresponding to 0.3 tonnes/ha/yr.

3.2.5 Specially-Protected Nature Areas

Special protection of nature areas in Armenia started in 1958. Currently, there are five State Reserves, 22 State Reservations, one National Park and many, non-inventoried nature monuments (see Section 2.2.2). The network of specially-protected nature areas (excluding nature monuments) currently covers a total area of approximately 311,000 hectares (about 10 percent of the national territory) and includes sites of importance to regional ecological conservation (NEAP, Main Report, 1999). Table 7 indicates which IDP project areas are within or adjacent to a specially-protected nature area.

State Reserves are established to provide the highest levels of protection for important habitats and species and correspori to IUCN category la. In these areas, human activity is limited to scientific research. The five State Reserves (Khosrov, Dilijan, Shikahogh, Erebuni, and Sev Lich) cover an area of about 68,000 hectares (2.3 percent of the country) (see Map 2).

State Reservations were established in the period 1950-1970 (See Map 3). Economic activities are allowed in State Reservations as long as they do not conflict with the objectives of the reservation. Of the 22 State Reservations, 15 are managed by the MoNP, six by by the MoA and one by the Institue of Physics.

Chapter3. BaselineEnvironmental Situation ECODIT,January 2000, Page 28 EA of IrrigationDevelopment Project Ministry of Agriculture,IRP/PIU

The only National Park in Armenia was established in 1978 to protect Lake Sevan and its surrounding area (see Map 2). The Park covers a total area of 150,100 ha, including 24,800 ha of land. The Sevan National Park is managed by the MoNP.

The RoA is rich in nature monuments, some of which have international recognition. Although there is no official listing of nature monuments, preliminary lists have been developed. In addition to the Law on Specially-Protected Nature Areas, other laws and conventions regulate the protection of nature monuments, including the RoA Code on Entrails (Article 18), the RoA Water Code (Article 60), the RoA Land Code (Article 50), and the Convention on the Protection of World Cultural and Natural Heritage (1993).

Table 7 Proximity of IDP Project Areas to Specially-Protected Nature Areas

IDP Project Proximity I Specially-Protected Rationale for Protection Status i Nature Area _ _i 1.3 Rehabilitation & improvement Adjacent to Vordan Karmir I Halophyte desert. Iof the Ararat Valley drainage State Reservation Habitat for Vordan infrastructure Karmir (Porphyrophora hamelii), which feeds on l ______Aeluropus littoralis grain 2. Conversion of Irrigation Schemes Getahovit Scheme (#5) Near Ijevan State Forest fauna and flora l jevan Scheme (#6) Near Reservation IIjevan Scheme (#6) Near Ijevan State Reservation Vardenis Scheme (#12) Within Sevan National Lake ecosystem; resting Park place for migratory birds and rich in endemic fish. l______l______|__plants and animals Azatech Scheme (#14) Within Her-her State | Xerophyte mountainous- I______Reservation steppe flora and fauna Tsav-Shikahogh Scheme Adjacent to Shikahogh State Quercus-carpinuc (#17) Reserve forests with typical flora ______| ______I and fauna 3. Dam Safety Improvement Azat Dam Adjacent to Khosrov State Arid, sparse forest, l______IReserve frigane and semi-desert Gegardalich Dam Adjacent to Khosrov State landscapes, with unique Reserve coexistence of plant and animal species

Wetlands

Natural processes (e.g., seasonal fluctuations of water levels) and human activities (water drainage and peat mining) negatively affect wetlands and may result in the reduction of biological diversity. Around 20,000 ha of wetland sites have been drained in Armenia

Chapter 3. Baseline Environmental Situation ECODIT, January 2000, Page 29 EA of IrrigationDevelopment Project Ministryof Agriculture,IRP/PIU

(Biodiversity of Armenia, First National Report, 1999). About 140 species of vertebrates are ecologically dependent on wetlands in Armenia. There are 22 families and about 100 species of wetland birds (State of the Environment Report, 1988). Map 7 depicts the location of main wetlands and fisheries. Box 6 summarizes the link between the IDP project areas and the two Ramsar sites in Armenia.

Box 6 Link Between IDP Project Areas and Ramsar Convention Sites

As explained in Section 2.4.2, there are only two sites in Armenia on the Ramsar list: Lake Sevan and its watershed basin (489,100 ha total) and Lake Arpi and its surrounding bogs (3,139 ha total). There are no sites on the Ramsar list in the Ararat Valley. The Vardenis irrigation scheme (#12), which would be converted from pumping to gravity, is the only project area within the Lake Sevan basin. The Vardenis scheme lies in the area of the old Lake Gilli, which was drained by the government in 1960. Appendix G (Section G.5) describes the draining of Lake Gilli, its impacts, and ongoing plans to restore the lake. None of I the IDP project areas are within or adjacent to Lake Arpi, the second Ramsar site in Armenia.

Armavir and Ararat Valley

Previously, there were more than 1,500 km2 (150,790 ha) of wetlands and swamps in the Ararat Valley, resulting from the upward pressure of the groundwater and the flooding of the Araks River. These wetlands were breeding grounds for mosquitoes carrying malaria. From 1953 to 1955, wetlands were drained and transformed into agricultural lands. With the disappearance of wetlands, malaria mosquitoes perished. However, several wildlife species and large-scale wetland vegetation also disappeared and there were significant changes in the habitat and distribution of migrating birds (NEAP, WG2, 1998).

3.2.6 Fauna/Flora and landscape diversity

Due to the diversity of altitudes, climates and landscapes, Armenia supports a surprisingly high diversity of plants and animals, including many endemic, relict and rare species. Armenia is botanically diverse with some 3,500 species of vascular plants and tens of thousands of lower plants and bacteria species recorded. More than 17,500 species of animals have been recorded from Armenia, including 500 vertebrate species.

Agricultural species are of particular importance in Armenia. Armenia is considered one of the most important centres for agrobiodiversity in the world and represents a relatively large area supporting wild relatives of crops and agricultural varieties. The people of Armenia have used these natural resources for over 5,000 years and have built important relationships between human society and agrobiodiversity, both through breeding and through use of agricultural lands.

The mountainous nature of Armenia results in a series of highly diverse landscapes, with variations in geological substrate, terrain, climate, soils, and water resources. These landscapes support a great variety of habitats, which support distinctive flora and fauna and different human uses. Seven distinct altitude landscape zones have been described in Armenia: deserts, semi-

Chapter3. BaselineEnvironmental Situation ECODIT,January 2000, Page 30 EA of IrrigationDevelopment Project Ministryof Agriculture,IRPIPIU deserts, dry steppes, steppes, woodlands, sub-alpine and alpine lands (Biodiversity of Armenia, First National Report. 1999).

Endemic species

Endemic species and sub-species represent 3% of vascular plants in Armenia (as compared to 1.5% of the flora in the Caucasus). Furthermore, of the animal species represented in Armenia, 30% of fish, 12% of reptiles and 5% of mammals are endemic.

Threatened species

Because of natural and human impacts, almost half the plant species present in Armenia may face some threat of extinction. To date, 35 plant species of economic importance are known to have become extinct in Armenia. A further 386 species (12% of the flora) are listed in the Armenian Red Data Book (produced in 1988).

Of around 17,500 species of invertebrate and vertebrates recorded in Armenia. approximately 300 are considered to be rare or declining. A total of 99 vertebrates are currently listed in the Armenian Red Data Book, of which 39 are also listed in the Red Data Book of the Former Soviet Union, and a number are considered internationally threatened (according to the IUCN Red List of Threatened Animals; see Table 8). However, updating the Armenian Red Data Book would be likely to lead to the inclusion of many more species (perhaps doubling the existing list). The Armenian Red Data Book for Invertebrates is not yet available, but initial assessments indicate that over a hundred species will be listed. The Red Data Book of the Former Soviet Union already lists 48 invertebrate species found in Armenia.

Among the vertebrate species listed in the Armenian Red Data Book are 12 amphibians and reptiles, and 18 mammal species - many of these species are critically endangered. The threats facing these species have increased recently as a result of the effects of natural disasters and economic crisis, coupled with the lack of effective environmental legislation.

Table 8 Number of Vascular Plants and Vertebrate Species Listed in the Red Book of Armenia and Regional and International Lists

Group Armenian Red Book USSR International

i______|__ Ex ______DelDdE Red Book Red List ______~Total Ex Th Ra De Dd Fish 2 2h 1 - Amphibians I1 1 I1 Reptiles 11 6 4 13 7 2 Birds 67 _ 20 34 13 I 19 3 Mammals 18 - 3 6 6 3 11 I Vascular Plants 386 35 .129 | 155 59 8 61 C Total 485 35 160 199 | 80 11 100 6 Ex = Extinct; Th Threatened;Ra = Rare;De = declining;Dd = Datadeficient Source: BiodiversityStrategy andAction Plan of the Republicof Armenia,1999

Chapter3. Baseline EnvironmentalSituation ECODIT January 2000. Page 31 EA of IrrigationDevelopment Project Ministryof Agriculture,IRP/PIU

4. REHABILITATIONOF IRRIGATIONAND DRAINAGESYSTEMS

This chapter presents the first component of the proposed IDP project, discusses its potential impacts, and proposes mitigation measures. The chapter is organized in three sections consistent with the three following subcomponents:

1. Reconstruction of Hoktemberien main canal and increase of intake from the Araks River; 2. Rehabilitation of irrigation schemes; and 3 Rehabilitation and improvement of the Ararat Valley drainage infrastructure.

4.1 Reconstruction of Hoktemberien Main Canal and Increase of Intake from Araks River

This section focuses on the rehabilitation of the Hoktemberien Main canal and the increase of the intake from the Araks River, the first subcomponent of the proposed iDP. It is divided in five sections:

1. Description of the current situation; 2. Description of the proposed project component; 3. Main positive impacts of the project component; 4. Potential negative impacts during construction and proposed mitigation measures; and 5. Potential negative impacts during operation and maintenance and proposed mitigation measures.

4.1.1 Description of the current situation

Bilateral agreements entitle the Republic of Armenia and the Turkish Republic to a 53m3/s intake on each side of the Araks River. While the Turkish side has already carried out the reconstruction of headwork structures and is able to withdraw 53 m3/s of water, Armenia did not carry out the reconstruction and cannot use its right for the full allocation of 53 m3/s (see Section 2.4. 1).

The Hoktemberien canal and water intake infrastructures are getting old and do not allow satisfactory operation. The Hoktemberien canal (also known as Armavir canal) is an earth channel built in 1930. Since the intake structure has not been upgraded, the intake capacity is around 25 m3/s, well below the 53 m3/s to which the Republic of Armenia is entitled. Moreover, the water intake upgrades on the Turkish side have modified the water flow and sedimentation regime to the detriment of the Armenian side (i.e., water does not flow readily to the Armenian water intake).

4.1.2 Description of the proposed project component

The reconstruction of the Hoktemberien Main Canal and increase of intake from the Araks River will include the following components, from the headwork downstream: . Reconstruct headwork intake structures to increase the water intake capacity to 53 m3/s;

Chapter4. Rehabilitationof Irrigationand DrainageSystems ECODIT,January 2000, Page32 EA of IrrigationDevelopment Project Ministryof Agriculture,IRP/PIU

* Reconstruct the first 4.8 km of the main canal to the Berrkashat hydropower station (HPS). The selected design is a concrete canal with a throughput capacity of 53 m3/s; * Build a sand trap: and * Reconstruct or rehabilitate 4 km of the main (Maisian) canal below the sand trap.

4.1.3 Main positive impacts of the proposed project component

The increase of intake capacity from the Araks River and the reconstruction of the Hoktemberien canal will have the following positive impacts:

1. Increase the productivity of irrigated land; 2. Leach salts out of secondary salinized soils by applying water to them in the spring time and increase the agricultural productivity of those lands; 3. Save 6.36 MWh of electricity annually by shifting from pumped irrigation (Sevdjur, Zartonk, and Maisyan pumping stations and select pumping wells) to gravity irrigation for select lands during the spring; 4. Add capacity in the existing Berkashat hydropower station to produce an additional 673.000 kWh of electricity annually (see Photo 6): and 5. Save about $34,000 annually in the costs of dredging and disposal of sediments from the canal (see Photo 5).

4.1.4 Potential negative impacts during construction and proposed mitigation measures

Reconstruction of the Hoktemberien main canal and additional water intake from the Araks River would have the following potential negative impacts:

e Disturbance to the Araks River water quality; and * Impacts from improper disposal of excavated materials.

Disturbance to the Araks River water quality

The proposed extension of the water intake at the Karaghalla dam would not require building of a new weir (small dam) or make changes to the existing weir. Rather, the proposed works call for:

* Rehabilitating the three existing gates (see Photo 2); • Building three additional gates; and * Repairing the leaking sluice gates that are used to flush accumulated sands and sediments back into the river (see Photo 4).

Therefore, none of the standard environmental impacts associated with the construction of new weirs/dams and reservoirs would be observed in this case. Furthermore, the headworks will be temporarily separated from the river using special screens and construction will take

Chapter4. Rehabilitationof Irrigationand Drainage Systems ECODIT,January 2000, Page 33 EA of IrrigationDevelopment Project Ministryof Agriculture,IRP/PIU

place on dry land. Therefore, construction can proceed without the need to reduce or otherwise change the flow in the Araks River. However, potential spills and leaks of concrete, oils, and other dangerous materials during or right after construction could pollute the Araks river.

Mitigation measures. The Contractor must take all necessary precautions to avoid unduly polluting the Araks river and its banks during the extension of the water intake infrastructure. Once the construction is complete, the Contractor shall remove all construction equipment and materials from the site and, to the extent feasible, return the site to its pre- existing conditions.

Impacts from improper disposal of excavated materials

To increase the throughput capacity of the main Hoktemberien canal, the project will double the cross section of the main canal by excavating large amounts of soils along a 4-km section of the canal. Those excavated materials are likely to be non-hazardous (Class V) because the Hoktemberien canal carries relatively clean irrigation water from the Araks river. Nevertheless, improper disposal of those excavated materials could lead to loss of fertile land, rainwater runoff, soil erosion, and landscape degradation.

Mitigation measure. The PIU must prepare a landscaping and management plan for excavated materials and submit it to the local authorities for approval. Contractors shall comply with this landscaping and management plan. The plan must meet the criteria outlined in Section 4.3.5 under "Impacts from improper disposal of extracted materials."

4.1.5 Potential negative impacts during operation and maintenance and proposed mitigation measures

The EA team has identified the following potential negative impacts during the operation and maintenance of the reconstructed Hoktemberien main canal and increased intake capacity from the Araks river:

• Increased salinity of drainage water; * Changes in river flow and sedimentation regime; and * Sanitary flow in the Araks River downstream of the Karaghalla dam.

Increased salinity of drainage water

The primary goal of the increased intake from the Araks river is to provide surplus water in the spring, which will be used to flush and reclaim salinized soils in the Armavir part of the Ararat valley. As explained in Section 4.3.1, there are about 20,400 hectares of salinized soils in the Ararat Valley that require flushing with water before they can be cultivated (Soil Category 11). Clearly, the washing of those soils to remove the salts from them will lead to a temporary increase in the salinity of drainage waters in the Ararat Valley. The magnitude and impacts of this increase in salinity is analyzed in Section 4.3.5.

Changes in river flow and sedimentation regimes locally

The increase of water intake on the Armenian side would affect the river flow and sedimentation regime just upstream of the Karaghalla dam. While new stagnant water pockets

Chapter4. Rehabilitationof Irrigation and DrainageSystems ECODIT,January 2000, Page 34 EA of IrrigationDevelopment Project Ministryof Agriculture,IRP/PIU and sedimentation patterns are expected to result in improved water flow towards the Armenian intake, such changes should not reduce the ability of the Turkish side to get its share of the Araks river water.

The PIU has informed the EA Team that the increased intake capacity will be used only in the spring time, when the natural river flow is high, to provide surplus water to flush and rehabilitate salinized soils. As long as the quantities of water intake on the Armenian side remain the same as previously between June and October, there will be no need to release additional quantities of water from the Akhurian reservoir. In this case, the proposed increase of the intake capacity would not have any impact on the Akhurian reservoir. Conversely, if the Armenian and Turkish sides decide to divert the maximum of 53 m3/s of water each during the summer, then they will need to release additional quantities of water from the Akhurian reservoir, which may not be sustainable in the long term.

MitiQation measures. Under the above assumption. no significant impacts and no new mitigation measures required. The Ministry of Agriculture will need to continue to work closely with its Turkish counterpart to monitor the Akhurian reservoir level and make joint decisions on water releases and allocation.

Sanitary flow in the Araks river downstream of the water intakes

It is the understanding of the EA Team, based on consultations with PIU and Armhydromet staff, that sanitary flows have been set at 5 m3/s for the Akhurian River and the Araks river. In particular, the Agreement between Turkey and Armenia calls for each side to return 2.5 m3/s of water to the river right after the water intake (downstream of the weir). It appears that this requirement may not be met all the time. Although river flow is not measured downstream of the weir, visual observation and other monitoring data suggest that downstream flow in the Araks River is currently below that threshold-from July to November. The proposed project would make that threshold even harder to meet if adequate measures are not put in place, as explained next.

Monitored flows. The Armenian and Turkish governments monitor water river flow just upstream of the weir as well as the quantity of water intake by.each side (one intake on the Armenian side, two on the Turkish side), The EA Team has used those measured flows in 1998 to estimate the monthly residual flow in the Araks river downstream of the water intakes. As indicated in Table 9, the estimated residual flow was equal to or less than 5 m3/s on average between July and November 1998.

Visual observation. Between late July and late October, water leaking from the sand flushing gates (see Photo 4) on the Armenian side provides the bulk of the residual flow in the river downstream. (The EA Team observed a residual flow of about 1 m3/s during a field visit at the end of July 1999). This is because there is no water overflowing the weir during those months and water releases appear rather insignificant on the Turkish side. After the IDP project repairs the sand flushing gates, water leaks would be reduced to a trickle. However, the sand trap in the new project design will be flushed continuously back into the Araks river, which will return 5 m3/s of water to the Araks river during the spring (about half as much in the summer).

Chapter4. Rehabilitationof Irrigation and DrainageSystems ECODIT,January 2000, Page 35 EA of IrrigationDevelopment Project Ministryof Agriculture.IRP/PIU

Table 9 Balance of Water Flows on the Araks River

Month of the Before Water Intake by Intake b After Water Intakes' Year 1998 Intakesa' Armenia Turkey (Mm3) (Mm3) (Mm3) (Mm-/mo.) (m'a/s) January 83.8 0 5.5 78.3 29.2 February 65.3 0 5.3 60.0 24.8 March 110 2.5 5.5 102.0 38.1 April 656 25.5 101.0 529.5 204.3 May 509 70.5 120.5 318.0 118.7 June 285 65.5 93.0 126.5 48.8 July 182 57.2 114.0 10.8 4.0 August 196 60.0 132.0 4 1.5 September 103.5 24.8 75.0 3.7 1.4 October 88.1 29.0 56.0 3.1 1.2 November 84.9 26.0 53.0 5.9 2.3 December 69.1 0 45.9 23.2 8.7 Total 1998 2,495 361 806.4 1,331.3 39.8

a/ Arax-Surmaluhydraulic monitoring station bl Combinesthe two water intakes on the Turkishside c/ Estimatedby difference(no monitoringdownstream of the dam is done currently)

Source: Armhydromet

After the reconstruction of the Hoktemberien canal and headworks, Armenia would be able to meet its part of the sanitary flow requirements downstream of the water intake, except in the short (170 m) interval between the water intake and the sand trap discharge point, which is in the backwater zone. In comparison, the Turkish side may not be currently meeting its part of the sanitary flow requirement (2.5 m3/s) over the 1.5-km interval between its water intake and sand trap discharge point.

Mitigation measure. The canal operations will need to provide for returning at least 2.5 M 3 /s of water to the Araks river through the sand trap discharge canal. In addition, the Ministry of Agriculture may want to work with its Turkish counterpart to examine jointly the question of whether and how to meet the sanitary flow requirement immediately after the water intake.

4.2 Rehabilitation of Irrigation Schemes

The rehabilitation project encompasses the repair and cleaning of six main irrigation schemes: Armavir, Artashat, Arzni-Shamiran. Low Hrazdan, Shirak, and Talin. This chapter describes this component of the rehabilitation project and its potential environmental impacts in four sections: 1. Description of the irrigation schemes; 2. Description of the rehabilitation component; 3. Main positive impacts of the rehabilitation project; and 4. Potential negative impacts of the rehabilitation component.

Chapter4. Rehabilitationof Irrigation and DrainageSystems ECODIT,January 2000, Page 36 EA of /rrigatlonDevelopment Project Ministry of Agnculture,IRP/PIU

4.2.1 Description of the irrigation schemes

The six schemes selected for the rehabilitation program currently irrigate a total of 146.631 ha in six regions: Kotayk, Aragatsotn, Ararat, Armavir, Shirak, and Lori. They cumulate 1.688 km of main and secondary canals and 11,517 km of tertiary canals. Table 10 presents the breakdown of tertiary canals vs. main and secondary canals for each scheme.

The six irrigation schemes suffer from significant leakage and loss of water. A 1998 inspection campaign (mainly visual inspection and some hydro-mechanic measurements) evaluated the condition of the main infrastructures and secondary canals for each scheme. The inspection report ranked the infrastructure conditions of each scheme from the highest priority (i.e., emergency state with major deterioration or leakage) to a no-priority status (i.e., no immediate measure was required but further monitoring was recommended in the near future).

Table 10 Description of the Irrigation Schemes

Nameof scheme Irrigatedarea Networklength (km) (ha) Main and Tertiarycanals | Total secondary

______can a ls ______1. Armavir 21,074 184 1.433 1,617 2. Artashat 30,911 334 2,791 3,125 3. Arzni-Shamiram L 34,461 358 2,670 2,932 4. Low Hrazdan 14,835 160 1,388 E 1,548 5. Shirak L 26,195 378 2,036 2.414 6. Talin 19,155 274 1,199 11,473 Total 146,631 1,688 11,517 13,109 Source: IDPiPIU,1999b

4.2.2 Description of the rehabilitation component

According to the available description of the program, the rehabilitation focuses on rehabilitating main and secondary canals and would not concern tertiary canals. Only those infrastructure portions rated "no-priority" during the inspection have been left out; others will be rehabilitated according to their needs and urgency. Table 11 summarizes the scope of rehabilitation for each scheme and indicates the cost associated with the planned activities. The rehabilitation project will clean and/or repair a 330-km section of the total length (1,688 km) of main and secondary canals.

Rehabilitation activities will include usual earthwork, construction, and some repair works (e.g., on metal structures), including but not limited to:

* Excavation of soil (soft soils, rocks); * Loading and transport of extracted materials; * Back-filling; * Arrangement of embankment; * Gabion installation; * Concrete mixing;

Chapter4. Rehabilitationof Irrigation and DrainageSystems ECODIT, January2000, Page 37 EA of IrrigationDevelopment Project Ministry of Agriculture,IRPIPIU

* Concreteand reinforcedconcrete pouring; * Concreteslabs for canals; * Demolitionof existing concretestructures; * Layingprefabricated reinforced concrete pipes (diameters:325 mm, 530 mm. 630 mm. 800 mm, and 820 mm); * Dismantlingof pipes (diametersfrom 125 mm to 1.200 mm)"and * Dismantling.preparing, and paintingmetal structures.

Table 11 Inspection and Rehabilitation of Main and Secondary Canals

Name of scheme Total length Length Length targeted Estimated cost of main and inspected for I of rehabilitation secondary (ki) rehabilitation al (US$1,000) canals (kn) |

1 Armavir 184 | _153 j _55 i_6_295 2. Artashat 334 j ill 22 1,701 3. Arzni-Shamiram 358 164 43 5,166 4. Low Hrazdan f 160 | 96 , 21 2,007 5. Shirak 378 199 108 3,234 6. Talin 274 169 81 5,338 Total 1,688 km 892 km 330 km 7 US$23,741

8'The inspectionset a priority order for rehabilitationactivities. The IDP will rehabiltateall sectionsof main and secondarycanals that did not receivea 'no-prionty" rating.

Source:IDP/PIU, 1999a

Chapter4. Rehabilitationof Irrigation and DrainageSystems ECODIT.January 2000, Page38 EA of IrrigationDevelopment Project Ministryof Agriculture.IRP/PIU

4.2.3 Main positiveimpacts of the rehabilitationproject

The IDP will aim to reduce water losses in the targeted irrigationschemes (see Box 7). Figure7 showsthe currentand expectedwater losses beforeand afterthe rehabilitationof each scheme.

Box 7 Main PositiveImpacts of the IrrigationRehabilitation Project

* 330 km of main and secondarycanals rehabilitated; . 49.7 percent reductionin overallwater losses: . 186 Mm3 of water saved annually:and . End of flooding for dozensof villages and hundredsof houses.

Figure7 Current Water Lossesand ExpectedSavings

I 120,000.0 oCurrent water losses E O 100.000.0 o 80 000 ° O Projectedwater losses 80,000.0 after projectcompletion 60.000.0

Q 40,000.0

0 20.000.0

Source: IDP/PIU1999b

Chapter4. Rehabilitationof Irrigationand DrainageSystems ECODIT,January 2000, Page 39 EA of IrrigationDevelopment Project Ministry of Agriculture,IRP/PIU

4.2.4 Potentialnegative impacts of the rehabilitationcomponent

The rehabilitationof the six irrigationschemes (see activitiesin Section 4.2.2) would not pose significantrisks to the environment. All of these activitiesare repair or cleaningwork; they do not affect new areas and do not include expansions or new designs for existing infrastructures. In addition,the rehabilitationproject only aims at improvingthe efficiencyof the eight systemsand reducingwater losses;and would not modifydramatically the operation of the irrigationsystems. As a consequence,the EA team expectsthe range of impacts to be limited- impacts directly related to the rehabilitationactivities- and their magnitudeto remain small - localizedimpacts and no significanteffect on future operation. The rest of this section presents a list of potentialnegative impacts from this rehabilitationproject.

During construction,the disposal of excavatedand dredgedmaterials will representthe major environmental concern. Other potential impacts also can arise from improper constructiontechniques or constructionsite management. We have identified the following potentialimpacts during construction: • Impacts from improper disposal of extracted materials: inadequate cleaning and repair of canals could cause inadvertent removal of the vegetativecover, destroyecosystems, enhance soil erosion,and damagethe landscape. In addition, excavatedsoils inside populatedareas may require specialdisposal permitfrom local and regionalauthorities; * Water and soil pollution: poorly maintained construction and excavation vehicles (trucks, bulldozers, excavator), improper fuel storage, and illegal dumpingof used oils and other polluting substances(including out-of-service pipes and metal infrastructures)would pollutethe soil and water. * Loss of fertile topsoil:mixing of top soils (suitablefor agriculture)with lower grade soils (deeper layers) during the excavationand back filling of trenches would have a negative impact on the soil quality and diminish agricultural productionand yield. * Impacts from temporaryaccess roads and work areas: establishmentof temporary dirt roads to accesswork areas and temporary dumping sites for excavatedmaterials can destroy natural habitats,disrupt wildlife and some ecosystems,enhance soil erosion,and degradethe landscape. * Accidents and increasedtraffic: all constructionactivities present intrinsic safety risks. The use of heavy trucks and earthwork vehicles can lead to accidents, with potential safety hazardsand injuries to workers and people. The increase in local traffic could also have potential negative impacts on local population and the environment(e.g., road accidents, air pollution with dust, and noise).

Likewise,operation and maintenanceof the rehabilitatedirrigation and drainage schemes, if conducted improperly, may have negative impacts on the environment, including:

. Improper canal maintenance:poor canal maintenance can degrade the environment. If the equipmentused for canal maintenanceis not appropriate, plants and sediments will be extracted indiscriminatelywhen canals are dredged. Extractedmaterials left on the sides of a canal can return to the

Chapter4. Rehabilitationof Irrigationand DrainageSystems ECODIT,January 2000,Page 40 EA of Irrigation DevelopmentProject Ministryof Agriculture, IRP/PIU

canal under the effect of rain and/or wind, and can spread pollution if they are contaminated. . Inefficient operation of the irrigation system: uncoordinated local rehabilitation works could cause changes that would affect the efficiency of the irrigation schemes; e.g., deepening some canals might disrupt the hydraulic flow in other canals down gradient.

The impacts highlighted above are similar in nature (but smaller in scope) to the corresponding impacts of the Ararat drainage rehabilitation component (see Section 4.3). Accordingly, the EA team recommends the same types of mitigation measures. Section 4.3.5 (construction phase) and 4.3.6 (operation and maintenance phase) provide full description of these potential impacts and the EA team's recommended mitigation measures.

4.3 Rehabilitation and Improvement of Ararat Valley Drainage Infrastructure

This chapter focuses on the rehabilitation and improvement of the Ararat valley drainage infrastructure. The chapter is organized in six sections:

1. Baseline environmental conditions; 2. Current situation of the drainage system; 3. Description of the project components; 4. Main positive impacts of the drainage rehabilitation component; 5. Potential negative impacts during construction and proposed mitigation measures; and 6 Potential negative impacts during operation and maintenance and proposed mitigation measures.

4.3.1 Baseline environmental conditions

Climate conditions in the Ararat valley are semi-arid with:

e Low precipitation (about 300 mm/year) with occasional rain storms; . Sharp contrast in temperatures between summer (350C on average) and winter (-50C on average); * Low relative humidity; and * Strong winds due to sharp differences of temperature.

The main rivers are the Araks River and its tributaries: Akhurian, Hrazdan, Metsamor, Kasakh, Azat, and Vedy rivers (see Map 1). Despite the semi-arid conditions, ground water is generally abundant. The artesian basin features three hydraulically-interdependent aquifers: the upper aquifer (down to 20 m), a sub-pressure intermediate aquifer (between 30 m and 70 m), and the deep pressure aquifer (below 70 m).

Chapter4. Rehabilitationof Irrigationand Drainage Systems ECODIT,January 2000, Page 41 EA of IrrigationDevelopment Project Ministryof Agriculture,IRP/PIU

Ground water tends to naturally come back up to the surface. As a result, top ground layers are often swelled with water, which has adverse consequences for population and agriculture and causes serious environmental challenges (see Box 8). The construction of an open drainage system (in the 50's) and of covered drains (in the 60's) have significantly reduced soil salinization and improved sanitary conditions. However, because drainage is not always sufficient to rehabilitate all lands, other techniques such as chemical reclamation were applied to wash the salts away from certain salinized soils (see Box 9).

Box 8 Main Environmental Challenges for the Ararat Valley

1. Rise of ground water level;, 2. Salinization of irrigated lands; and 3. Water-logging and return of malaria.

In the past few years, the deterioration of the drainage system has led to a new rise of the ground water level. Rising ground water levels have resulted in water logging, flooding of villages, and the degradation of the sanitary and ecological situation (e.g., return of malaria). In addition, when water comes back up to within two meters from the surface, it evapo-transpires leaving behind the salts it contained: the gradual build-up of salts has led to the secondary salinization and sodicity (build-up of sodium) of the soils.

Box 9 Experience with Chemical Melioration in the Ararat Valley

The Soil Science, Agrochemistry and Melioration Institute has found that the most efficient chemical rehabilitation of Armenian soils involved the use of sulfuric acid and iron sulfate. The Institute developed a melioration method using wastes from chemical and mining industries, and has implemented this method from 1963 until independence. This chemical rehabilitation has ceased since independence because cheap raw materials (sulfuric acid, iron sulfate) are no longer readily available from the former Soviet Union republics. A total of 5,400 ha of land have been treated this way in the Ararat valley and have recovered their fertility and qualities for agriculture (Dr. V. Nurijanian, Head of Melioration 1 Department, Soil Science. Agrochemistry and Melioration Institute).

Experts disagree on the relative merits of this chemical rehabilitation process. While some praise its ability to rehabilitate salinized soils and render them suitable for agriculture, others argue that the process contributes to polluting the soil and water and should be abandoned. The proposed IDP will not fund any chemical rehabilitation of salinized soils in Armenia.

Chapter4. Rehabilitationof Irrigation and Drainage Systems ECODIT,January 2000,Page 42 EA of Irrigation DevelopmentProject Ministry of Agriculture,IRP/PJU

Table 12 summarizesthe evolutionsince 1986 of irrigated land surfaces,conditions, and the numberof flooded villages. The negativetrend reached a peak in 1995 when 39.1 percent of irrigated lands were declaredin unsatisfactoryreclamation condition. Since 1992, due to the lack of financial resources, the drainage system of the Ararat Valley has not been cleaned (1992-1994)or has been partially cleaned (15-20%from 1995-1997). As a result, the surface area of waterloggedlands has increased,first graduallyand then sharply until it peaked at about 31,000 hectares in 1995 (or 37 percent of the irrigated land area). In parallel, the number of waterlogged villages increased from 28 villages to 73 villages in 1995. At the same time, secondary salinizationphenomena were observed in about 15,000 hectares of irrigated lands. In 1998, about 502 km of the drainagenetwork were cleaned/repairedunder the IRP using state budget resources. This had led to the reductionof waterloggedlands by 7.400 hectares and of waterloggedvillages by 35 villages. in 1999. the IRP has treated and maintained about 300 additionalkm of the drainage network.

Current soil quality

Monitoring of soil quality has become much less comprehensivesince independence due to the lack of funds. As a result, data are sketchy at best on the current state of the salinizationor alkalinizationof soils in the Ararat valley. Soil types can be roughly divided into three categories(see Table 13 and Map 10):

I. Soils readilysuitable for cultivation; II. Soils that requireflushing with water to wash out the salts before they can be cultivated;and l1l. Sodiumsolonets-solonchak soils requiringchemical melioration.

Althoughthe majority of soils are readily suitable for agriculture(category 1,71 percent), about 23 percent of soils (categoryli) would requirewashing with excess water in addition to irrigation water and about 6 percent(category l1l)would requirechemical rehabilitation.

Current water qualitv

Appendix G (Tables G-1, G-2, and G-3) presents the results of recent water quality analyses (pH, Sodium Adsorption Ratio, Total Dissolved Solids) for ground water, irrigation water, and drainage water, respectively. These waters are neutral to slightly alkaline, with pH rangingfrom 6.8 to 8.1. Severalwater sources have salinity levels around 1 mg/l and relatively high SAR value (over 5), which meansthat specialrestrictions are requiredbefore these waters can be used for irrigation (see Table 5). Due to differencesin sampling and analysis conditions (e.g.,date of sampling),it would not be appropriateto comparethese tables strictly. However,it appears that salinity levels (measured in terms of TDS) are generally higher for ground water than for irrigationand drainage water. The high ground water salinity, combinedwith the rise of the ground water level, is the major reasonfor the secondarysalinization of soils.

Chapter4. Rehabilitationof Irrigationand Drainage Systems ECODIT,January 2000, Page43 EA of IrrigationDevelopment Project Ministryof Agnculture,IRP/PIU

Table 12 Evolutionof LandConditions over the 1986-1998Period

Year Irrigated Waterloggedlands Lands in unsatisfactory Numberof lands reclamation state waterlogged (ha) (ha) (% of irrigated (ha) (% of irrigated villages area) area) 1986 79,874 18,813 23.5 22,042 27.6 28 1987 80.903 18,810 23.3 25,615 31.7 31 1988 81,836 19.521 23.8 24,323 29.7 30 1989 83.352 18,425 22.1 24,360 29.2 30 1990 84.069 18,883 22.4 22,952 27.3 30 1991 82.011 19,606 23.9 19,656 24.0 32 1992 82,011 20,064 24.5 21,526 26.2 43 1993 82,244 24,222 29.5 25,727 31.2 49 1994 81,854 30,044 36.7 31,149 38.0 70 1995 83,181 30,996 37.2 32,501 39.1 73 1996 81.797 28,890 35.3 30,440 37.2 68 1997 81,797 27,700 33.8 29,140 35.6 65 1998 80,919 20,276 25.1 21,969 27.2 30 Note: Water loggedlands: water table is at a depth of 2m or less. Unsatisfactoryreclamation state: water table is at a depth of less than 2 m, soils are mediumto highly salinizedor mediumto highly alkaline. Source:IDP/PIU, July 1999

Table 13 Soil Categoriesin the Ararat Valley

Soil type Total area Soil Soil Soil Category (ha) CategoryI CategoryII IlIl (ha) (ha) (ha) Brown soil 19,579 16,749 2,830 Irrigated brownsoil 23,937 20,017 3,920 Irrigated meadowbrown soil 14,872 12,972 1,900 Irrigatedwet meadowbrown soil 7,419 -6,469 950 Amelioratedsolonets-solonchak soils 5,400 3,440 1,960 Salinizedmeadow brown soil 4,969 2,929 2,040 Solonets-solonchaksoil 12,169 6,839 5.330 Total 88,345 62,576 20,439 5,330 100% 70.8% 23.1% 6.1% Source: Dr. V. Nurijanian, Head bf Melioration Department, Soil Science, Agrochemistry and MeliorationInstitute

Chapter4. Rehabilitationof Irrigationand Drainage Systems ECODIT,January 2000, Page 44 EA of IrrigationDevelopment Project Ministryof Agriculture, IRPIPIU

4.3.2 Current situation of the drainage system7

The Collector-Drainage System

There are 13 main drainage collectors in the Ararat valley (see Map 9). The whole drainage scheme of the valley is symbolically divided into two autonomous regions: the right bank and the left bank of the Hrazdan river. The Araks river receives drainage water from the main collectors located on the left bank of the Hrazdan river: Araks, Leftside Hrazdan, and Arazdayan the Main. Drainage water collected on the right bank of the Hrazdan river (Kuru- Arax, Kobu-Artashar, and Kobu-Apaga) flows to the Metsamor river.

The drainage network is currently 1,393 km long and consists of open canals (723 km) and covered ducts (670 km) on both sides of the Hrazdan river. Operating conditions are not satisfactory. An evaluation dated January 1998 showed that 56.4 percent of the whole network was in unsatisfactory condition, with more than 75 percent of the open canal in a poor state of operation or maintenance (see Table 14). Unsatisfactory conditions have several causes: collectors are overgrown with reeds and other plants, parts of the irrigation-drainage system are silted due to sedimentation, and some farmers have built earth walls and dikes on certain canals to divert the water for their own use.

Table 14 General Condition of Existing Drainage System

Condition Open network Covered network Total network km % km % km % Satisfactory 174.3 24.1 432.6 64.6 606.9 43.6 Unsatisfactory 548.8 75.9 237.4 35.4 786.2 56.4 Total 723.1 _00 670 100 1393.1 100 Source: IDP/PIU,July 1999c

Underground drainage network

The buried drainage network covers 7,967 ha of land and is organized in 17 independently operated sections. About 65 percent of this coverage operates by gravity flow, the rest requires pumping operations. Drains are laid at depths of 3 to 3.5 meters on average and the whole network features 2,743 inspection manholes (see Photo 14). The overall condition of the underground drainage network is not satisfactory: pipes are commonly plugged or silted and many manholes are dismantled, destroyed, or filled with garbage,

Pumping stations

Twenty pumping stations are still operating: six of them serve irrigation purposes, 10 are used for drainage, and four carry out both tasks. Hydromechanic and electrical equipment is completely dismantled in all pumping stations. The buildings housing the pumping stations are partially destroyed. Construction of the Masis, Sayat-Nova, and Sipanik pumping stations is not complete. The buildings housing the drainage-irrigating stations of Shahumian, lsakov, and

IDPIPIU.1999c

Chapter4. Rehabilitationof Irrigationand Drainage Systems ECODIT,January 2000, Page 45 EAof IrrigationDevelopment Project Ministryof Agriculture,IRP/PIU

Arevik are partially flooded due to the rise of the ground water level. Most of the equipment operates with low efficiency. Left branch, Ranchpar, and Avshar-Ajgevan pumping stations are in a relatively satisfactory state of operation.

Artesian wells

In the Ararat valley, 942 wells are in operation in 57 villages. Water from artesian wells is used for irrigation, drinking and technical supply. Only 850 wells are currently functioning and an overwhelming majority requires significant repair work. For example, 510 wells are not equipped with gate valves, which makes it impossible to control the outlet flow (see photo 10).

4.3.3 Description of the project components8

The PIU considered two options: (1) cleaning of existing infrastructures and (2) cleaning and deepening of collectors and reconstruction of some parts of the drainage scheme. Both options consist of rehabilitation activities (no new canals or collectors) and would not introduce significant changes in the design or operation of the drainage system. The PIU selected the second rehabilitation option (i.e.. cleaning and deepening of drainage collectors), as summarized in Table 15 and the next paragraphs.

Open drainage network

Rehabilitation of the open drainage network will include the following activities:

- Deepen the first and second parts of the right bank Hrazdan-Arax collector and redirect the water from the Hrazdan river toward the left bank Hrazdan collector; i Deepen the Kobu-Apaga collector: * Deepen the main Arazdayan collector and left bank Hrazdan collector; * Reinforce embankments (dikes) along the Hrazdan river; and * Reconstruct intakes to allow the discharge of drainage water from the covered network but prevent the water from flowing back in the drainage system.

Underground drainage network

The rehabilitation will include mechanical cleaning of the whole system with the help of drain cleaners, reconstruction of destroyed parts of drains along 70.9 km of network, and reconstruction and rehabilitation of 1,190 manholes (inspection pits).

'IDPIPIU, 1999c

Chapter4. Rehabilitationof Irrigationand Drainage Systems ECODIT,January 2000, Page 46 EA of Irrigation DevelopmentProject Ministry of Agnculture,IRP/PIU

Table 15 ProposedRehabilitation Activities

Activities Work Description Unit Approximate Amounts I Earth work Soft soil excavation 1,000 m3 3.069 Formation of embankment and back filling 1,000 ml 1,386 Excavation of V category soil 1 000 m3 323 Cleaning of open network 1,000 ml 2,891 Sand-gravel preparation 1,000 m3 5.2 Gabion laying m2 2,990 Mechanical cleaning of covered horizontal drainage m 599,175 II. Drilling work Drilling of tube-wells m 1,120 Cementing of annular space column 140 Washing of tube-wells shafts day 1.175 Ill. Concrete work Concrete laying m 8,522 Reinforced concrete laying m' 4,937 Concrete and reinforced concrete demolition m3 5,903 IV. Metal work Metal works tonne 111 Insulation works m2 27,528 V. Pipes and Pipeline Steel pipes (DH ranging from 100x7 to 1220x10) m 9,854 Reinforcement (Valves) Asbestos-cement pipes (D ranging from 200 to 400) m 7,437 Asbestos pipes D=200 drainage with filter. Discharge m 66,763 0.27m 3 considering perforation Various gate valves unit 104 Various check valves unit 10 Power lines km 27 VI. Equipment Transformer substation unit 61 Cascade unit 61 Immersion pump unit 61 Centrifugal pump unit 14 Source. IDP/PIU, 1999c

Chapter4. Rehabilitationof Irrigation and Drainage Systems ECODIT,January 2000, Page47 EA of IrrigationDevelopment Project Ministryof Agriculture,IRP/PIU

Pumping stations

Repair work. reconstruction of pumping station buildings, and lowering the pumps will ensure normal operation of pumps. According to calculations, pumps will need to be lowered by up to 4,03 m. For Ararat, Noyakert, Avshar-Aygevan, Baghramian and Araksavan pumping stations, lowering the pumps by one meter will be carried out inside the existing buildings. For Khor-Virab and Burastan pumping stations. deepening of the pumps will exceed one meter and will require constructing a new building.

The proposed IDP also would convert three pumping stations (Shahumian, Isakov and Arevik) for use in irrigation, and would decommission six other pumping stations (Marmarashen, Masis, Sayat-Nova, Sipan, Kalinin, Araks). Ranchpar irrigation pumping station will be redesigned and constructed for irrigation-drainage in order to lower the ground water level on the irrigated lands of Hovtashat, Guy, Haykashen and Hayanist villages. The Lusaghbiur pumping station on the collector Kobu-Apaga also will be rehabilitated.

Vertical drainage

The projectincludes the rehabilitationof 61 tubewells.mainly in the Hoktemberienregion (north- westernpart) and Arazdajan steppe(south-eastern part).

Flowing wells

The IDP plans to eliminate 76 small-discharge wells and to clean, repair, and/or upgrade (e.g., add storage capacity and outlet for irrigation) 120 other wells.

4.3.4 Main positive impacts of the reconstruction project

The proposed rehabilitation of the Ararat Valley drainage system will reduce the extent of water logging by lowering the ground water table, which will have the following positive impacts:

- Improve the meliorative status of 24,100 hectares of water-logged lands; - Decrease the surface area of water-logged lands down to 10,00 hectares; * Reduce the risk of secondary salinization in irrigated lands; * Provide additional water (52.5 million m3) as a result of rehabilitating vertical drainage wells and improving the technical conditions of artesian wells; * Save 8.8 MWh annually by taking pumping stations out of service; * Increase agricultural productivity; and * Improve the sanitary and health conditions in populated areas and create favorable conditions for the elimination of malaria.

Increase the agricultural Droduction and yield

Thanks to favorable climatic conditions, the Ararat valley provides 40 to 45 percent of the agricultural production of Armenia. Agricultural production is very diverse: wheat, vegetables, fruits, grapes, fodder, and cattle. The rehabilitation project will have significant positive socio-economic impacts for the 631,100 inhabitants (official statistics as of 111/99) of the Ararat valley, as illustrated in Table 16.

Chapter4. Rehabilitationof Irrigation and DrainageSystems ECODIT,January 2000, Page48 EA of Irrigation DevelopmentProject Ministry of Agriculture,IRP/PIU

Table 16 Yield and Gross Income,With and Without Project

Crops Land area Yield Gross Income (%) (kg/ha/year) (USS/ha/year) Without With project Without With project project project Wheat 23.4 2,250 2.720 232 313 Vegetables 11.4 15,000 22,000 1,287 2,022 Melons 13.6 12,000 17,000 1,228 1,839 Alfafa 34.4 5,500 11,000 73 324 Apricot 8.2 3,500 4,500 315 446 Grapes 9.0 3,000 5,600 422 1.035 Source:IDP/PIU, 1999f

Crop yields and gross income are closely dependent on water and soil quality and will greatlybenefit from the reconstructionof the Ararat valley irrigation-drainagesystem (Table 17).

Table 17 Crop Yield and Gross Incomefor SeveralGround Water Levels

Crops Yield (kg/ha/year) Gross income (US$1ha/year) Ground water depth Ground water depth < lm 1-2 m > 2 m < 1m 1-2 m > 2 m Wheat 1,550 2.550_ 2.840 139 301 327 Tomato - 16,500 22.000 - 1,465 2.012 Melons - 13,000 14,000 - 2,164 2,164 Alfalfa 6.000 9.000 1,100 138 249 314 Apricot -: 5,800 - - 651 Grapes 7.5007,- - 1,492 Source: IDPJPIU,1999 f

Reduce the number of water-loggedvillages

Because ground water level has risen closer to the surface, many villages are currently located in flooded areas (see Table 12). This situation has led to the degradationof conditions of life. the proliferation of vectors, and the development of water-borne diseases such as malaria. The rehabilitationproject will reducethe numberof waterloggedvillages.

Improvehealth conditions

As explained in Section 3.1.5, 143 cases of malaria were reported in the Ararat and Armavir regions in 1996, with most cases (105 cases) occurring in flooded, low-lying areas of the Masis region. By lowering the water table, the drainage rehabilitationproject in the Ararat valley will reduce the availabilityof breedinggrounds for mosquitoesand other vectors and will improve health and sanitary conditions. In particular,the proposedproject will help reduce the incidenceof malaria in the Ararat Valley.

Chapter4. Rehabilitationof Irrigationand DrainageSystems ECODIT,January 2000, Page 49 EA of IrrigationDevelopment Project Ministryof Agriculture,IRP/PIU

4.3.5 Potential negative impacts during construction and proposed mitigation measures

The ECODIT team has identified the following potential negative impacts during the construction phase of the Ararat Valley drainage rehabilitation project:

* Temporary increase in pollution and turbidity of drainage water; * Temporary increase in the salinity of drainage water; * Impacts from improper disposal of extracted materials; * Water and soil pollution; * Loss of fertile topsoil; * Impacts from temporary access roads and work areas; * Impacts on sensitive habitats; and • Accidents and increased traffic.

The PIU has already taken several noteworthysteps to mitigate these impacts. This section identifiesthose measuresas well as othersrecommended by the EA team.

Temporary increase in the pollution and turbidity of drainage water

During construction, earthmovers and excavators will dredge sediments and excavate soils from drainage collectors. Such dredging and excavation activities will release plant materials (branches, roots, etc.) and suspend fine materials and sediments, leading to a temporary increase in floating and suspended matter, and salinity of the drainage water (see next paragraph for salinity). The increase in suspended matter (turbidity) in drainage water may have adverse impacts on aquatic species, fisheries' productivity, the quality of irrigation water, and the water quality of recipient river and lakes. In particular, large suspended matter may clog the gills of small fish and suffocate them.

Mitigation measures. Cleaning and deepening of the collectors should be carried out during the winter when (1) river flows are high and can dilute easily the increase in suspended solids, (2) aquatic life is less sensitive, and (3) lands are not irrigated. When possible, work should be planned so that the water of a collector under reconstruction can be mixed and diluted with other sources of water. Contractors should use adapted dredging equipment (see more details in Section 4.3.6 on canal maintenance). In some instances, the contractor may want to install floating dams and nets downstream to catch plants and other debris before discharging or reusing the drainage water.

Temporary increase in the salinity of drainage water

For a few months after the rehabilitation of the drainage system, the salinity of the drainage water will increase by several folds as result of improved drainage and the associated washing of salts from the salinized soils. For each drainage sector in the Ararat valley, Table 18 shows the projected salinity levels after 25 and 75 days in the secondary and main drainage collectors as well as in the receiving water body. In the two or three months after the cleaning and deepening of collectors, the salinity of drainage water in the main collectors will increase to

Chapter4. Rehabilitationof Irrigationand Drainage Systems ECODIT,January 2000, Page 50 EA of IrrigationDevelopment Project Ministryof Agriculture,IRPIPIU a range of 1.65 mg/l to 4.3 mg/I,from a baseline range of 0.6 to 1.2 mg/i (see Tables 18 and G- 3). Salinity levels will drop to their baseline value after that. Note that while salinity levels will increase, the level of water in the collectors will drop after cleaning because water will flow much faster (whereasthe flow remainsthe same) (see Photos 11,12, and 13).

Table 18 PredictedWater Salinity after the DrainageRehabilitation Works

Sector Section PredictedTDS levels (g/i) number description Drainagewater in Drainagewater in Receivingwaters Receiving secondarycollector maincollector after water after after body 25 days 75 days 25 days 75 days 25 days 75 days 1 South-western 3.07 5.27 2.06 2.5 1.05 *1.07 Sevdiour

_ I______I______I__ rive r 2 BetweenSevdjur 2.55 4.46 1.65 1.96 1.09 1.15 Hrazdan I andHrazdan river I river 3 BetweenHrazdan 2.55 4.25 1.85 2.17 1.25 1.31 Hrazdan- riverand Chatma Araks river collector 4 Northeast part 4.95 8.56 3.47 4.3 0.86 I 0.87 Araksriver Average 2.92 4.9 - =-

Source:IDP/PIU, 1999c (calculationsbased on Soviet models)

Mitigation measures. The PIU and the "Monitoring and Control of the Rehabilitated State of Irrigated Lands in the Republic of Armenia" SCJSC will need to study carefully the sequencingof drainage rehabilitationactivities in the Ararat valley in order to control the salinity of the drainage waters and their ultimate use. Also, the "Monitoring and Control of the RehabilitatedState of Irrigated Lands in the Republic of Armenia" SCJSC will need to continue monitoringwater quality on a frequent basis; such monitoringshould provide timely feedback to inform decisionsabout usingthe drainagewater to irrigatesoils of differentquality.

More generally, due to the spatial and temporal variationsin the availability and quality of different types of water (irrigation/drainagewater, groundwater), the PIU, the "Monitoringand Control of the RehabilitatedState of Irrigated Lands in the Republic of Armenia" SCJSC, and the MoNP will need to promote sound integrated water resource management in the Ararat Valley. This may requiredeveloping an integratedwater resourcemanagement model of water supply (rivers, canals, ground water, drainagewater) and water demand (farmers, drinking,fish farms, receivingwater bodies).

Impactsfrom improperdisposal of extractedmaterials

The rehabilitationproject will require the extraction and dredging of huge quantities of sediments and soils (4,910,000m 3). For illustration,this volume of extracted materials would cover 245 ha on a layer two meters high or 49 ha with a 10-meter layer. Therefore, it is imperativeto plan the disposal of those materials in advance. Potential negative impacts from impropermanagement of the extractedmaterials may include the following:

Chapter4. Rehabilitationof Irrigationand Drainage Systems ECODIT,January 2000, Page 51 EA of IrrigationDevelopment Project Ministryof Agriculture, IRP/PIU

* destruction of vegetative cover and damage to the landscape, if extracted materials are dumped in the countryside; . increased frequency and costs of canal maintenance: if extracted materials are dumped haphazardly along the collector sides, they eventually would return to the collector under the effect of rain and wind; . nuisance to local population, if extracted materials are left near the collector in residential areas; and * pollution of water and soil, with risks to human health and the environment, if the extracted materials are hazardous (e.g., contain high levels of pesticides) and are dumped without special precautions.

Polluted materials. In the Ararat Valley, pesticides have been used for the past two years to eliminate mosquitoes (vector for malaria). These pesticides as well as agrochemicals used throughout Armenia generally accumulate in the soils. As a result, in some areas of the Ararat Valley, sediments and soils are suspected of containing high levels of heavy metals and other persistent pollutants. Once dredged or excavated, these contaminated materials may become hazardous waste according to the Armenian regulations. If not disposed of properly, these hazardous wastes could seriously affect people's health (workers and population) and degrade the environment.

Mitigation measures. The PIU will need to develop tailored management and disposal plans for three categories of extracted materials, depending on the type (hazardous or not) and location (near residential areas or not) of the extracted materials. Table 19 indicates the recommended management and disposal plan for each category of extracted materials. To determine whether the extracted materials are hazardous or not, the PIU will need to conduct a sampling and analysis campaign in coordination with the MoNP, as explained below.

Table 19 Management and Disposal Methods for Extracted Materials

Category of Extracted Materials Management and According to its Type and Location Disposal Method 1. Non-hazardous away from populated Disposal alongside the areas collector 2. Non-hazardous within populated Disposal on land as a areas non-hazardous waste 3. Hazardous Disposal on land as a I hazardous waste

Sampling and analysis. Since some sediments/soils are likely to be contaminated with pesticides and other chemicals, there is a need for checking the soil and sediment composition prior to deciding on the proper handling and disposal methods. Sampling and analyzing every location would not be feasible, nor would a random sampling be satisfactory. Work sites in areas where pesticides have been sprayed, or where agrochemicals have been used should be tested systematically. Elsewhere, random sampling would be sufficient to avoid major improper waste management. It is important to keep a record of the sampling and analysis results in order to facilitate future maintenance and monitoring activities. The PIU will need to coordinate the sampling and analysis campaign with the MoNP.

Chapter4. Rehabilitationof Irrigationand Drainage Systems ECODIT,January 2000, Page 52 EA of IrrigationDevelopment Project Ministryof Agriculture,IRP/PIU

Disposal of non-hazardousmaterials excavated away from populated areas. If the materials are non-hazardousand are away from residentialareas, the Contractormay dispose of them on either side of the drainage collector. The PIU then will need to submit a managementplan demonstratingthat the excavatedmaterials (1) are not hazardous, (2) would not be washed back into the collector or blown away by the winds, and (3) would not raise the sides of the collector excessively,complicate the long-term maintenance of the collector, or hinder farmingoperations in the area. The PIU will seek approvalof the proposed management plansfrom riparianfarmers and affectedpopulation.

Disposal of non-hazardousmaterials excavated in populated areas. Non-hazardous materials extractedin populated areas may not be disposedalongside the collector. Instead, the PIU will need to identify and obtain approval from the local authorities for dumping sites where land is:

. Available; * Closeto the work area; • With low agronomicvalue: and * Easily accessibleby road.

For each dumpingsite, the contractorshall prepare and submitto the PIU a landscaping and managementplan incorporatingthe followingrecommendations:

* Plan and manage the site according to its surrounding landscape and intendedfinal use: the site could be a future wooded hill, an old quarry that would be filled up and rehabilitatedinto agriculturalland or a small wood, an area for wildlife,a park. etc.; • Assess site capacityand optimize it; MManage and use materials according to their physical characteristics: humidity,particle size distribution,risk of polluting superficial and/or ground waterswith leachates; * Use rocks and rubble from demolished buildings to form the core part of heaps and hills; Place excavatedtop soils and agriculture-gradesoils on top of the heap on a layer not exceeding 1 meter. When such materialsare not available,spread organic matters and mix them into the top layer of soil, and seed this layer with a mix of gramineousand leguminousplants to increase the agronomic value of the soil over time; and * Waterthe plantationson a case by case basis, consideringthe dry climate.

Disposal of hazardous materials. As indicated in section 2.1.2, whenever hazardous wastes are identified,the PIU will need to work with the MoNP to select the best transport and disposal method/siteand agree on a waste managementplan. There is no hazardouswaste landfill in Armenia. The government may need to issue a decree specifying the disposal methodsfor excavatedmaterials found to be hazardous.

Chapter4. Rehabilitationof Irrigationand Drainage Systems ECODIT,January 2000, Page 53 EA of IrrigationDevelopment Project Ministryof Agriculture,IRP/PIU

Water and soil pollutionfrom fuel and oils

Ill-maintained construction and excavation vehicles (trucks, bulldozers, excavators), improper storage of fuel, and illegal dumpingof used oil and other polluting substanceswould pollutewater and soil.

Decommissioningof pumping stations. Six pumping stations (Marmarashen,Masis, Sayat-Nova,Sipan, Kalinin, and Arax) will be decommissionedunder the rehabilitationproject. Improperdemolition methods and improperwaste managementwould have negative impacts on the environment. For example, improper disposal or handling of equipment and machines, as well as fuel, oil and other pollutantsstored in these facilities or equipmentwould pose a risk of environmentalpollution.

Mitigationmeasures. The PIU needsto conduct an inventoryof equipmentand products to be disposed of from the pumping stations, document and suggest proper handling and treatment methods. Most of the risks can be avoided by routine maintenance of trucks, bulldozers,and other equipment. Contractorsshall take measuresto prevent spills or leaks of fuel and oils (e.g.,storage in tanks placed in catchmentbasins coveredwith a liner). Also, used oils and other pollutingproducts need to be collected in appropriatecontainers and shippedto a treatmentfacility for adequatetreatment or reuse.

Loss of fertile topsoil duringexcavation and backfilling

Excavationof trenches to lay down pipes and drainage ducts and improper back filling could affect the quality of soil and the productivityof agriculture. If this operation is not done properly, top soils (suitable for agriculture)will be mixed with other grades (deeper layers). leadingto degradedsoil quality and reduced agriculturalproduction on this portionof land.

Mitigation measures. Contractors shall implement the following recommendations during excavationand back filling on agriculturallands:

* Scrape and put aside the top layer of soil suitablefor agriculture; * Excavatelower layers and pile them up separately;and * Whenfilling backtrenches, replace the fertile soil on top of other layers.

Impactsfrom temporaryaccess roads and work areas

Temporary access roads and temporary dumping sites for excavated materials can destroynatural habitats,disrupt wildlife and ecosystems,enhance soil erosion,and degradethe landscape.

Mitigationmeasures. Properplanning and managementof temporaryaccess roads and work areas is required to limit impacts and enable future rehabilitation. Road and work zone planningmust respectthe following recommendations:

Choose and delineate carefully all access roads and work areas. Manage and monitor them closely so that they do not expand unduly during construction;

Chapter4. Rehabilitationof Irrigationand Drainage Systems ECODIT,January 2000, Page 54 EA of IrrigationDevelopment Project Ministryof Agriculture,IRP/PIU

* Scrape and store preciously the top agricultural grade soil layer (about 20 cm). Store these soils in piles not exceeding one meter (soils lose their agronomicqualities in thicker layers); * If ground works will last more than one year, seed the piles of agricultural- grade soils with a mix of gramineousand leguminousplants. These plants will help to improvethe structure of the soil and increaseits organic content; and * Compactthe top surface of access roads and work areas to facilitate water runoff and avoid flooding the area. This will require to dig drainage ditches and connectthem to naturaldrainage axes.

When rehabilitatingthe access roads and work areas, the contractor will need to take special precautions,such as:

1. Scratchthe soil with a specializedengine to de-compactit; 2. Put the fertile topsoil carefully back in place;and 3. Levelthe areas.

Impactson sensitivehabitats

Parts of the drainage networkare adjacentto the State Reservationof "Vordan Karmir", which provides habitatto the endemic, red-colorworm of the same name that was previously used to extract dye (e.g., to dye carpets). Nature monumentsin this area include the Oniks mines and the Artashat and KhorVirap marble mines. Wetlandsinclude:

* Ararat marshes,with a vast diversity of vegetation(about 100 ha are salinized bogs located between the Yerevan-Eraskhhighway and "Ararat" mineral thermal water springs); * natural wetlands (near the villages of Khartunakhand Jrarat and the Masis Railroad station)in the canyonsof Kasakh,Hrazdan, and Sevjur rivers; and - lake and bog ecosystemsformed in the canyon of the Hrazdan river and in some of the old sand extractionmines, which providehabitat for water fauna and birds.

There are no sites listed underthe Ramsarconvention in the Ararat Valley.

The lack of maintenanceof the drainage network has led to secondarysoil salinization and the conversionof several wetlandsinto marshes(bogs), with gradual changes in vegetation and the ecological conditions of the wetlands. By lowering the water table and reversingthe secondarysoil salinization,the proposed IDP will help to restore the ecological balance to the wetlands.

Mitigationmeasures. The PIU shall take all necessarymeasures to avoid disruptingthe Vordan Karmir State Reservation and to protect the endemic vordan karmir insect and its habitat. In particular,the PIU will need to coordinatewith the MoNP to monitor the impacts, if any, of the proposeddrainage rehabilitationon the vordan karmir habitat,the wetlands, and the nature monuments of the Ararat Valley, and to take appropriate corrective measures as appropriate.

Chapter4. Rehabilitationof Irrigationand DrainageSystems ECODIT,January 2000,Page 55 EA of IrrigationDevelopment Project Ministryof Agnculture,IRP/PIU

Accidents and increased traffic

All construction, excavation, and demolition activities present intrinsic safety risks. The use of heavy trucks and earthwork vehicles can lead to accidents, with potential safety hazards and injuries to workers and people. In addition, a relatively large amount of excavated materials may need to be shipped off-site for disposal, which would induce an increase in local traffic. Assuming that 15 percent (i.e., about 74,000 m3) of all excavated materials are carried away by trucks with a capacity of 10m3, 74,000 truckloads would be required during the construction phase. If the drainage rehabilitation works took seven years to complete, this would mean an average of 40 truckloads per working day. Although this increased traffic would be temporary and not very significant. it could have potential negative localized impacts on population and the environment (e.g., road safety and accidents, air pollution and dust, and noise).

Mitigation measures. Common safety measures should be applied to all activities during the construction phase. A plan including prevention measures and safety procedures should be submitted, to be implemented and enforced by a safety supervisor at each work site. Such a plan would be part of the management and disposal plans mentioned previously and would include an awareness campaign among the local inhabitants, proper signs (e.g., stop signs) to limit the risk of accident, and careful selection of transport routes to reduce inconvenience and the accident risks. For example, trucks may be prevented from running during rush hours (safety issue) or at night (noise problem). If dust is a major concern (e.g., near inhabited areas), water would need to be sprayed on the roads to prevent dust suspension. Trucks and other heavy vehicles should be well-maintained to avoid excessive air emissions, oil leaks and other sources of pollution.

4.3.6 Potential negative impacts during operation and maintenance and proposed mitigation measures

Several potential negative impacts may arise during the operation and maintenance:

Canal sedimentation; Salinization due to irrigation methods; * Improper canal maintenance; * Impacts on fisheries; * Loss of soil fertility; * Increased pollution due to the use of agrochemicals, and * Health and sanitary hazards.

Canal sedimentation

The semi-arid climate of the Ararat valley, with its intense rainstorms and strong winds, can produce extreme erosion conditions. The eroded topsoil eventually finds its way to canals and collectors, filling them up gradually.

Mitigation measures. To reduce soil erosion by winds and water, the PIU would need to encourage farmers to adopt the following practices:

Chapter4. Rehabilitationof Irrigationand DrainageSystems ECODIT,January 2000, Page56 EA of IrrigationDevelopment Project Ministryof Agriculture,IRP/PIU

* Plant wind breaks and hedge rows between agricultural lots (e.g., rows of poplars at the Soil Science, Agrochemistry and Melioration Institute); and * Close irrigation furrows to force all the irrigation water to percolate through the ground.

Salinization due to irrigation methods

Irrigation methods can have a direct impact on soil salinization depending on the quality of irrigation water. In the Ararat valley, farmers irrigate by gravity either by flooding a whole area (submersion of a field) or by distributing water in furrows. Both irrigation approaches can lead to soil salinization depending on the water salinity and SAR values (see Table 5), as explained next. The fraction of water that is not used by the plants is called the leaching fraction; high leaching fractions mean low irrigation efficiencies

Irrigation by submersion. Water percolates uniformly through ground layers and salinization might occur in deeper layers, below the agriculture-grade soil layer. Salinization would depend directly on the salinity of irrigation water and the leaching fraction. This type of salinization does not affect immediately the plant growth; however, repeated irrigation by submersion would lead to salt build-up in the top soils, rendering those soils non-suitable for agriculture in the long-term.

Irrigation with furrows. In this case, salts would accumulate both in depth and on the surface, typically in the middle of the upper space between two furrows (see Figure 8), i.e. in the agriculture-grade layer. If the seeds are planted in one row between furrows, they would be located exactly where the salts accumulate. and plant growth would be affected.

Mitigation measures. The PIU will need to undertake a baseline soil salinity campaign to provide a basis for measuring the future performance of the proposed project and for using irrigation/drainage waters of different qualities in the most optimal way. To control in-depth salinization, the PIU and its partners will need to monitor on a routine basis the irrigation water quality (TDS or conductivity), the irrigation efficiency, and the efficiency of the drainage system. Also, soil washing (using water from the Araks river, see Section 4.1) will help reduce the salinity of soils, if done properly.

To prevent salt accumulation on the surface, the PIU will need to educate farmers about sound irrigation practices, such as:

1. Prepare a larger space between two furrows and plant seeds in two rows located at each edge of that space (see Figure 9). Salts would continue to accumulate in the middle of the space between furrows, but because the seeds are further aside, plant growth would be less affected; or 2. Alternate the allocation of water to the furrows (e.g., irrigate only on every two furrows at a time). The accumulation of salts will be slightly displaced and would not coincide with the seed row.

Chapter4. Rehabilitationof Irrigation and DrainageSystems ECODIT,January 2000, Page 57 EA of Irrigation DevelopmentProject Ministryof Agriculture,IRPIPIU

Figure 8 Typical Salt Accumulation in Irrigated Fields

a taccumlto|

/ / | ~~~~~Irrigationwater |

Figure 9

Recommended Seeding Method to Limit Impacts from Salt Accumulation

|Slacumulation |

( <_ 7 Ls~~~~~~~~~~~~~~rrigationwater|

Improper canal maintenance

Poor canal maintenance contributes to environmental degradation. Typically, if the equipment used for canal dredging is not appropriate, plants and sediments will be extracted indiscriminately. Extracted materials disposed of on the collector sides would return to the collectors under the effect of rain or wind, or spread pollution if they are contaminated. 111- maintained dikes, slopes, and canals could lead to the following negative consequences:

* Plant growth on canal slopes would be limited or non existent, which would lead to decreased slope stability and increased turbidity of the water (plants catch floating or suspended materials); * Slopes could collapse leading to further soil erosion; * Sediments would run off to the canals and eventually toward recipient rivers or lakes; * Plant and animal biodiversity would be reduced; and . The overall health of the ecosystem would be disrupted and perhaps endangered.

Chapter4. Rehabilitationof Irrigationand Drainage Systems ECODIT,January 2000, Page 58 EA of IrrigationDevelopment Project Ministry of Agriculture.IRP/PIU

Mitigation measures. Sustainable management of drainage collectors requires adequate planning to:

1. Minimize the frequency of maintenance interventions; 2. Improve access to enable adequate dredging of sediments and cutting/retrieving of undesirable plants; and 3. Organize sound management and disposal of dredged materials.

To mitigate negative impacts, contractors will need to apply the following measures:

* Modify canal banks and adjust slopes to no more than 45' when possible; * Build a dirt road on each side of canals to operate and maintain irrigation and drainage schemes. This measure is feasible because the Government owns the right-of-way along canals and collectors: during the land privatization, the Government retained the ownership of strips of land on each side of canals (nine meter wide on one side and four meter wide on the other); and . Select and manage dumping sites for dredged materials and sediments, consistent with disposal practices adopted during the construction phase (see Section 4.3.5).

Contractors will need specialized equipment and vehicles to implement the above recommendations, including:

* Adapted plant cutting machine mounted on a mobile arm of a tractor: used to regularly cut plants growing on the canal slopes (and to prevent uprooting them): and * Specialized mechanical shovel with a far-reaching arm to extract sediments. Conventional dredges are not recommended due to their lack of accuracy, especially when the bottom of the canal is not wider than 1 meter.

Impacts on fisheries

Two types of commercial fish farming are prevalent in the Ararat valley: trout farming and fish farming in large artificial lakes. Some fish can also be found in the old sand mine pockets that have been filled with water by the rising ground water table. Small fish are hatched and grown in several "pisciculture" farms throughout Armenia (see Map 7).

Trout fish farms. Dozens of farms in and near the Masis area depend on freshwater from the artesian wells to grow trout fish (see Photo 16). Those commercial farms pay a modest fee for using the artesian wells and discharge water into the drainage collectors. Because these trout farms depend on deep underground water from artesian wells, the proposed drainage rehabilitation project will have no effect on them.

Artificial lakes. In the southern part of the Ararat valley, fish are grown and harvested for commercial purposes in a few large artificial lakes (see Photo 17). One kilo of fish sells at a price of 700 Drams). The lakes were built in the sixties on salinized soils that would have been too difficult/expensive to rehabilitate. At the end of their course, the drainage collectors feed the lakes with drainage water at a rate 2 m3/s. An agreement between the Ministry of Agriculture

Chapter4. Rehabilitationof Irrigation and Drainage Systems ECODIT,January 2000, Page 59 EA of IrrigationDevelopment Project Ministryof Agriculture,IRP/PIU and the lake owners governs the provision and sale of drainage water to the lakes. Water from the lakes is discharged into the Araks river. The fraction of water lost from the lakes by seepage into the ground is unknown, but is suspected to be relatively small.

The drainage rehabilitation project is not expected to have any significant or lasting impact on the fishing activities in the artificial lakes. Drainage waters may be more saline and turbid during and immediately after project implementation (see Section 4.3.5). However, this temporary increase in the salinity and turbidity of the water inflow to the lakes is expected to remain small, and would be diluted by the large volume of those lakes. After the cleaning and deepening of the collectors (i.e., operation phase), it is expected that the artificial lakes would continue to operate as usual (e.g., same water level in the lakes), as they have done previously even when the drainage system was functioning properly (before the 90's).

Old sand mines. The old sand mines have become small ponds with their own localized ecosystem: cattails, grasses, small fish, etc. These ponds also provide ideal breeding grounds for mosquitoes and other vectors for water-borne diseases such as malaria. Once the water table is lowered, the ponds would dry up and this recent pond ecosystem would disappear. Also. the incidence of malaria and other water-borne diseases would be reduced.

Mitigation measures. As explained previously, dredging and excavation activities will need to be timed and phased to minimize the increase in salinity and turbidity of drainage waters discharged to the artificial lakes. ECODIT recommends that the water level and salinity in the lakes be monitored during and after the implementation of the drainage rehabilitation project. Also, as suggested previously, ECODIT recommends disposing of a portion of the sediments and soils dredged/excavated from the collectors into the old sand mines, but only after the water table has been lowered.

Loss of soil fertility

Irrigation, washing and drainage alone would not be sufficient to maintain the soil quality for agricultural purposes. Soil fertility may decrease overtime if no other actions are taken to protect the soils.

MitiQation measures. The PIU needs to encourage farmers to complement the use of agrochemicals with the use of organic fertilizers such as manure. Crop rotation also is a good source of organic nutrients; for example, the Soil Science, Agrochemistry and Melioration Institute has tested and recommends alternating the planting of gramineous and leguminous plants from one season to another.

Fertilization needs to be adapted to irrigation conditions and to the growth stage of crops. The PIU and its partners need to train farmers on how and when to use fertilizers and to conduct public awareness campaigns to inform the population and farmers about the risks of pollution posed by agrochemicals.

Increased pollution due to the use of agrochemicals

The improvement in irrigation and drainage probably would be followed by an increase in the use of agrochemicals to boost agricultural output. Improper or excessive use of agrochemicals would have potential impacts on the soil and water quality.

Chapter4. Rehabilitationof Irrigationand DrainageSystems ECODIT,January 2000,Page 60 EA of Irrigation DevelopmentProject Ministry of Agriculture,IRP/PIU

Mitigation measures. Chemicals and fertilizers should not be the first solution (let alone the only one) applied to these lands. Other techniques such as crop rotation and integrated pest management (IPM) could improve soil fertility and productivity without increasing the risk of pollution. Local population and farmers should receive information on how to properly use fertilizers and pesticides through public awareness campaigns and training programs.

Chapter4. Rehabilitationof Irrigationand DrainageSystems ECODIT,January 2000, Page 61 EA of IrrigationDevelopment Project Ministryof Agriculture,IRPIPIU

5. CONVERSIONOF IRRIGATIONSCHEMES FROM PUMPINGTO GRAVITY

This component of the Irrigation Development Project (IDP) will convert 18 selected irrigation schemes in different parts of the Republic of Armenia from pumped irrigation to gravity irrigation. Due its magnitude and importance, the PIU has separated the irrigation scheme in the region of Yeghegnadzor from the rest of the irrigation schemes. Likewise, this chapter will analyze the Yeghegnadzor scheme separately from the other schemes. Therefore, this chapter is organized as follows:

1. Objectives of the conversion component; 2. Conversion of the Yeghegnadzor irrigation scheme; and 3. Conversion of 17 smaller irrigation schemes.

5.1 Objectives of the Conversion Component

During the Soviet times, energy was cheap and abundant. Planners built pumping stations on rivers, canals, and lakes/reservoirs to provide irrigation water in different parts of Armenia. Since the beginning of the nineties, however, electricity has become much more expensive and not readily available. Also, faced with a severe shortage of financial resources, the Operations and Maintenance (O&M) enterprises can no longer afford to maintain the pumping stations at the same level as previously. Today, most pumping stations are working at only a small fraction of their design capacity, with a high proportion of pumps in a state of disrepair. As a result, several areas that were irrigated during the Soviet times are not currently irrigated due to the lack of irrigation water. The Govemment continues to fund the low-level operation of the pumping stations but can ill afford to continue this subsidy because pumped irrigation has become economically non-viable.

The conversion component of the IDP will convert 18 selected irrigation schemes from pumped irrigation to gravity irrigation. As suggested above, the main objectives of this conversion are to (IDP/PIU, 1999 d):

* reduce considerably the O&M costs of the irrigation system; * solve the problem of financial shortage of O&M enterprises; nprovide reliable irrigation to all the areas that used to receive irrigation water in the past (i.e., when the pumping stations were working); * increase crop yields and allow the cultivation of cash crops; and * decrease pressure for migration away from rural areas.

The PIU has targeted a selection of 18 irrigation schemes for conversion from pumping to irrigation. After disregarding a number of irrigation schemes for various technical reasons (e.g., irrigation water deficit, lack of on-farm irrigation network), the PIU conducted a detailed economic assessment of converting 26 irrigation schemes from pumped irrigation to gravity irrigation. This assessment confirmed the economic feasibility of the conversion for 18 schemes, including the Yeghegnadzor scheme. Table 20 outlines the main positive impacts of the conversion component.

Chapter5. Conversionof Irrigation Schemes ECODIT,January 2000, Page 62 EA of IrrigationDevelopment Project Ministry of Agriculture,IRPPIIU

Table 20 Main Positive Impacts of the Conversion Component

Indicator Value Total investment USS22,592,000 Annual energy saving 32,700,000 kWh Surface area of land converted to 13,695 ha gravity irrigation Economic Internal Rate of Return 23%

Net Present Value US$20,561,000 | Source:lDP/PIU,1999e

5.2 Conversion of the Yeghegnadzor Irrigation Scheme

This section describes the conversion of the Yeghegnadzor irrigation scheme (based on IDP/PIU, 1999d and IDP/PIU, 1999e), identifies the key potential environmental impacts of this conversion, and proposes possible mitigation measures for each key negative impact.

5.2.1 Description of the Yeghegnadzor conversion project 9

In the dry mountainous marz of Vayots-Dzor, the Yeghegnadzor irrigation scheme relies heavily on pumped irrigation. Its five pumping stations are currently operating at slightly over one-third of their capacity, consuming annually 15.7 million kWh of electricity (or 37 percent of their design capacity) and supplying 12.19 million m3 of irrigation water (or 40 percent of the design capacity). As a result, only 40 percent (1,896 hectares, out of a total of 4,770 ha) of the land covered by the irrigation scheme is currently supplied with irrigation water.

The IDP would eliminate most but not all of the pumping stations. It would take water from the Yeghegis river at an elevation of 1,550 m (village of Alayazi) and carry this water by gravity to irrigate the 4.770 ha of land through a combination of open concrete canals (15.8 km), steel pipelines (1.2 km), and steel-pipe siphons (7.2 km) totaling 24.2 km. The new water system would use some of the old pipelines used by the pumping stations but, given the head supplied by the elevation of the new water intake, the project design institute expects that there would be no need for pumping for the most part. Map 14 shows the Yeghegnadzor irrigation conversion scheme, including the proposed project, the two alternatives considered, and the location of different river flow monitoring stations.

The conversion from pumping to gravity of the Yeghegnadzor irrigation scheme will require building:

3 * a new water intake (design capacity of 4.5 m /s) from the Yeghegis river, a couple of kilometers from the village of Alayazi; and * 24.2 km of water conveyance consisting of 15.8 km of open canals and 9.1 km of siphons/pipelines.

IDP/PIU, 1999d and ISP/PIU, 1999e

Chapter5. Conversionof irrigation Schemes ECODIT,January 2000, Page 63 EA of IrrigationDevelopment Project Ministryof Agriculture,IRP/PIU

5.2.2 Main potential impacts during construction and proposed mitigation measures

We have identified the following potential negative impacts during the construction of the infrastructure above:

* Disturbance to the Yeghegis river flow, water quality, and aquatic ecosystem; * Possible landslides; * Landscape degradation; * Impacts on historic-cultural and nature monuments; * Impacts on planted fruit trees and terrestrial ecosystems; and * Accidents.

In the remainder of this section, we describe each potential impact and propose possible mitigation measures to reduce or eliminate that impact. In most instances, the PIU has already taken severalnoteworthy measures to mitigatethe potential impacts listed above.

Disturbance to the Yeghegis river flow, water quality, and aquatic ecosystem

The proposed water intake will be built in a relatively pristine area of the Yeghegis river basin. At that location, apart from a small drinking water pipeline that runs along the road, the Yeghegis river basin offers a remarkable vista with towering mountains and a lush green river bed. The water intake would be built in the tiny space between the road and the river Yeghegis. If the Contractor does not take adequate protective measures, the construction of the water intake, and presumably of the river diversion, could pollute the river and affect the ecosystem. For example, if the concrete is mixed on site using water from the river, such water withdrawals could alter the river flow regime and also possibly the quality of the water, if special handling precautions are not taken. Construction works also could disfigure the rock formations in and near the river bed and disrupt the aquatic ecosysytem.

Mitigation measures. The Contractor must take all precautionary measures to avoid unduly polluting the river and its banks or disrupting the ecosystem during the construction of the water intake. In particular, once the construction is completed, the Contractor shall remove all construction equipment and materials from the site and, to the extent feasible, return the site to its pre-existing conditions.

Landslides and risk to human health and property

A significant portion of the 24.2-km conveyance line (open canals and pipelines/siphons) may have to be built in a steep terrain that is prone to landslides. As a result, the Contractor will have to excavate large quantities of soil and rock to provide a stable foundation for the open canal and the maintenance road adjacent to it. Soil and rock excavation could trigger landslides of varying scales; large-scale landslides could cause serious injury or death to site workers and perhaps damage to orchards and crops (depending on the location). Such landslides also would disfigure the natural landscape of the mountains.

Mitigation measures. In the final design, the consultant engineer should undertake a detailed a soil survey and geotechnical assessment to select the optimal canal route; i.e., terrain presenting the lowest slope (less than 45 degrees) and least prone to landslides. Contractor should take precautionary measures to protect workers and the public during excavation works.

Chapter5. Conversionof Irrigation Schemes ECODIT,January 2000, Page 64 EA of IrrigationDevelopment Project Ministryof Agriculture,IRP/PIU

Landscape degradation

Construction of the conveyance line will require excavation of several thousand cubic meters of rock and soil. Haphazard dumping of those excavated materials on the ravine side of the canal could exacerbate soil erosion due to removal of the vegetative cover, reduce rainwater infiltration and increase rainwater runoff, and scar the mountain landscape. Damaging the magnificent landscape of the Yeghegis river valley could deal a serious blow to the potential for tourism and related income to the local population.

Mitigation measures. The Contractor shall develop a construction site management plan indicating clearly the site access roads and management methods for excavated and refill materials. To the extent possible, the Contractor shall avoid dumping Df excavated materials in the ravine below the canal. Instead, the Contractor shall maximize the reuse of excavated materials as refill materials in building and stabilizing the canal and access road foundations. Also, where necessary to prevent soil erosion and protect the landscape, the Contractor shall seed the excavated materials with local varieties of plants and flowers. Use of a hydro-seeder would be highly indicated.

Impacts on historic-cultural and nature monuments

The Yeghegnadzor region is uniquely rich in cultural heritage and nature monuments. The proposed conveyance line would cross an area rich in historic-cultural monuments and sites, including:

* Remnants of the ancient town of Eghegis (IX-X century A.D.), located 1-2 km southwest from Alayazi village; • Agarakadzor bridge, 4 km southeast from Yeghegnadzor; and * Tanahat cathedral, 5 km east from Vernashen village.

Without adequate planning, the construction of this conveyance line could destroy or degrade some of those monuments and sites. The scheme is not within or adjacent to a specially-protected nature area (i.e., state reserve, state reservation, national park, or nature monument).

Mitigation measures. As part of the detailed design of this conversion scheme, the design engineer shall work very closely with the Department of Historic and Cultural Monuments Preservation to select the optimal route for the conveyance line.'° The routing will need to respect certain requirements and conditions that depend on the type of historic or cultural monument encountered, especially in the Yeghegis valley. This could include minimum setback distances from the closest historic-cultural monuments or sites (e.g., 10 m, 100 m, 300 m depending on the site's size and historic-cultural importance). Also, the Contractor shall take all necessary steps to stop construction work immediately if excavation works uncover potentially historic-cultural sites or monuments that were not previously known or identified on the map. The Contractor then shall work with the PIU and the Department of Historic and Cultural Monuments Preservation to determine adequate steps to protect those monuments or sites before proceeding with the construction works. The Department has expressed its interest in

10 Personalcommunication with Mr. A. Grigoran,Architect, Department of Histoncand Cuftural Monument Preservation

Chapter5. Conversionof IrrigationSchemes ECODIT,January 2000, Page 65 EA of IrrigationDevelopment Project Ministryof Agriculture,IRP/PIU participating in this important monitoring and review; the Department's active participation is required to ensure that potential impacts are adequately mitigated and construction activities are not delayed unnecessarily.

Impacts on the biodiversity of the project region

During the first km or two, the conveyance line would go through apple and walnut orchards, which would require uprooting several hundred trees. The natural ecosystem of the Rind-Aghavnadzor section of the irrigation network is characterized by a rich diversity of wild grains and is considered as one of the relatively better preserved wild grain habitats in Armenia. The construction works could have a negative impact on that special ecosystem.

Mitiqation measures. Other things being equal, the design engineer should work with the PIU to select the route that destroys the least number of fruit trees and other trees. When uprooting of some fruit trees is inevitable, the PIU shall compensate their owners for the potential loss of income generated by those trees. Also, the PIU shall take measures (e.g., careful routing of conveyance line) to ensure that the water conveyance line and the irrigation activities shall not disrupt the natural habitat of wild grains in the Rind-Aghavnadzor section.

5.2.3 Main potential impacts during operation and maintenance and proposed mitigation measures

We have identified the following potential impacts during the operation and maintenance of the converted Yeghegnadzor irrigation scheme:

* Insufficient availability of water resources certain years; Sanitary flow considerations; Barriers to fish migration up the Yeghegis river; and * Canal sedimentation and water losses.

In addition. unsustainable agricultural practices, while not resulting directly from this project component, could dilute its positive impacts in the long term. Appendix G (Section G.6) describes those impacts associated with unsustainable agricultural practices and the EA Team's general recommendations to mitigate them.

Insufficient availability of water resources

The area of Yeghegnadzor is one of the driest regions in Armenia (see Figure 5 and Map 5) and water resources are scarce. Moreover, diversion schemes upstream of the project area (i.e. Arpa-Lake Seven tunnel) currently reduces further the natural water availability in the Yeghegis river (see Box 10). The availability of water for the proposed irrigation scheme will depend on the proper allocation of water from different sources, nameiy the Yeghegis river and the Ketchut reservoir (on the Arpa river).

Chapter5. Conversionof Irrigation Schemes ECODIT,January 2000, Page 66 EA of Irrigation DevelopmentProject Ministryof Agnculture,IRP/PIU

Box 10 Lake Sevan and VorotanlArpa-Lake Sevan Tunnel

The water level in Lake Sevan has been loweredby about 19 m over a period of 40 years. The i water has been utilizedfor agricultureand hydropowergeneration. In order to increasethe inflow,water is transferredfrom river Arpa to Lake Sevan through the Arpa-Sevan tunnel. In addition, in 1996, the Governmentof Armeniaset a limit of 370 million m3 for the annualdischarge from the lake. Besidesthe Lake Sevan EnvironmentalAction Plan (see Section 2.5.2), various measures have been formulated aimed at raising the Lake's level by three meters (from the end of 1996 level) by the year 2015.

The Governmenthas set a minimum limit of 250 Mm3to be diverted per year through the Arpa- Lake Sevan tunnel starting from 1998. The Arpa River Diversion transports water from the Arpa and Yeghegis Rivers to Lake Sevan via a two-segment48.3 km-long tunnel built from 1963 to 1982. The system consistsof five major components:

* KetchutReservoir, which storeswater divertedfrom the Arpa River; * The Arpa-Yeghegissegment of the tunnel, which is 18.6 km long, with a diameter of 3.7 m and a design flow capacityof 18 m3Is; * The Yeghegis River Conduit,which controlsthe flow of the Yeghegis River,allowing it to be diverted into the Arpa Diversion; I * The Yeghegis-Sevansegment of the tunnel, which is 29.7 km long and has a diameter of 4.1 m and a design flow capacityof 25 m3 /s; and * An open channelconnecting the downstreammouth of the Arpa tunnel to Lake Sevan.

In Septemberof 1978,the Governmentdecided that a second diversionwas required to provide additionalwater to Lake Sevan,and in 1982the Governmentapproved a plan to divert an average of 165, millionm 3 of water per year from the upper Vorotan River. The projectis under constructionand consists l of three primarycomponents:

3 A water intake structureat SpandarianReservoir on the upperVorotan River: . An 21.6 km long tunnel with a diameter of 3.0-3.3m and a design flow capacity of 15 m3/s, extending from the SpandarianRiver intake structureto Ketchut Reservoir;and * An outlet canal through which the VorotanTunnel will dischargewater into Ketchut Reservoir Source:LSAP. Main Report, 1999 LSAP,WG2,.1998 GoA, 1998

Table 21 shows the median (50th percentile) monthly flows at different points in the system over the period 1981-1998. For example, during the month of July, Lake Sevan received 24.2 Mm3 of water on average (1981-1998) from the Arpa-Lake Sevan diversion. broken down as follows:

* 11.4 Mm3 (or 47 percent) diverted from Ketchut reservoir; * 10.6 Mm3 (or 44 percent) diverted from Yeghegis river; and * 2.2 Mm3 (or 9 percent) of water inflow from the mountains inside the Yeghegis-Sevan segment of the tunnel.

Chapter5. Conversionof IrrigationSchemes ECODIT,January 2000, Page 67 EA of IrrigationDevelopment Project Ministryof Agriculture,IRP/PIU

Lake Sevan received only 225 Mm3 water in an average year (1981-1998) through the Arpa-Lake Sevan diversion. In 1998, Lake Sevan received 297 Mm3 through the Arpa-Lake Sevan diversion and about 270 Mm3 had been diverted in 1999 by the end of September.

Table 21 Median Monthly Discharge Flows at Different Points in the Yeghegnadzor Area (1981-1998) (Mm3)

Locationofhydrological I 11|I I IV V VI Vii Vil I IX X Xi XI Tota monitoringstation T Ketchut reservoirto 4.42 2.42 4.01 13.6 24.6 22.2 11.4 5.52 3.38 5.14 I 4.16 1 3.28 104 Arpa-Sevan tunnel ______n rYeghegisnvertoArpa-4.88 3.36 5.3 147 21. 17.2 10.6 5.16 3.44 4.03 4.68 3.49 98 tunnel -Sevan:. Ketchut res. & Yeghegis 9.30 5.78 9.31 28.3 46.0 39.4 22.0 10.7 6.82 9.17 8.84 6.77 202 river to Arpa-Sevan l tunnel l l 242 Totalflow into Lake 11i1 7.42 11.0 301 47.8 41 3 24.2 12.8 8.92 11.2 10.9 8.6 7 225 Sevanllll Yeghegis-Hermon 3.75 370 482 i15.3 32'1 2599 8.04 4.82 4.15 4.02 3.98 4.02 115 ArpaYegegndzo 95 ,__ l I __l I 512 l______Arpa-Yeghegnadzor 9.56 945 15.0 44.3 80.4 37.3 12.1 9.51 9.33 10.5 12.5 12.01 262 Arpa-Areni |183 |167 27.0 78.5 135 76.7 | 19.6 11.7 J12.1 18.1 21l4 |_213 456j Source: Armhydromet

Table 21 also indicates that the median monthly flows (period 1981-1998) in the Yeghegis river at the Hermon monitoring station (a few kilometers upstream of the future water intake) are 8.04 Mm3 and 4.82 Mm3 for the months of July and August, respectively. In comparison, during a site visit to the Yeghegis river on July 26, 1999, the ECODIT Team observed a flow of bnly about 1.5 m3 /s (or 3.9 Mm3 per month) at the location of the future water intake. This observation is consistent with the average flows reported at Hermon and with the fact that 1999 has been a remarkably dry year in Armenia.

The proposed scheme would require a total of 30.7 Mm3 of irrigation water per year, distributed as per Table 22. Clearly, under current water allocation patterns, water flows in the Yeghegis river downstream of the Hermon monitoring station would not be sufficient to meet the water requirements of the proposed water conversion scheme during the months of July and August in a "median" year. For example, 8.67 Mm3 of irrigation water would be needed during the month of August (see Table 22), compared to only 4.82 Mm3.that are expected to be available in August in a median year (Table 21).

Table 22 Monthly Irrigation Water Requirements of the Proposed Conversion Scheme (Mm3)

| I | I | III | IV i V | VI Vll Vlill | IX | X | Xi XI[ Total Irrigationwater 0 0 0 1.22 3.35 3.52 8.45 8.67 4.02 0.81 0.66 0 30.7 requirements

Chapter5. Conversionof IrrigationSchemes ECODIT,January 2000, Page 68 EA of IrrigationDevelopment Project Ministry of Agriculture,IRP/PIU

The PIU is fully aware of this situation and has envisioned that additional water would be diverted from the Ketchut reservoir, through the Arpa-Yeghegis tunnel, into the Yeghegis river to meet anticipated water shortages for the months of July and August. For example, in a median year, about 3.85 Mm3 (8.67 minus 4.82) of additional water would need to be diverted from the Ketchut reservoir into the Yeghegis river during the month of August. This would increase the average monthly amount of water diverted through the Ketchut-Yeghegis tunnel from 5.52 Mm3 to 9.37 Mm3, well within the throughput capacity of the tunnel (18 m3 /s).

But can the Ketchut reservoir sustain this additional diversion of water without affecting current water users and causing ecological and health impacts in the Arpa river downstream? Clearly, a fraction of the water currently flowing into the Arpa river is pumped at different locations to provide irrigation water for some of the 1,896 hectares of irrigated land in the Yeghegnadzor area. Most of this pumping would cease under the proposed project and those lands would continue to get their irrigation water, but by gravity from the new water intake near Alayazi village.

Still, the proposed conversion scheme would require more irrigation water than the amounts currently needed to irrigate 1,896 hectares. But, other things being equal (same farming practices, same climate), the same quantities of water would be required to irrigate the 4,700 hectares of land under the proposed conversion scheme as was previously required when the pumping stations were operating and electricity was available and cheap (during Soviet times). Therefore, subject to careful water transfer from Arpa to Yeghegis, irrigation water availability would be the same under the proposed conversion project than it was in the eighties when the same 4.700 hectares were irrigated by pumping.

While water would be available in a median rainfall year, however, flow data suggest that there would be shortages in less-than-median rainfall years. As long as the diversion of water into Lake Sevan continues to get top national priority, water probably would not be available to irrigate the 4,700 hectares of land under the proposed conversion scheme in less rainy years. This water stress situation would continue, even after the future Vorotan river diversion becomes operational, because the Vorotan diversion is designed to increase water flow into Lake Sevan and not to provide irrigation water for the Yeghegnadzor scheme.

Mitigation measures. Clearly, the PIU will need to secure the proper water permits and water allocation agreements before starting any construction and/or rehabilitation works. In particular, the PIU will need to apply for a water permit from the Ministry of Nature Protection's Water Resources Department (see Section 2.1.2). The water permit shall guarantee that the proposed conveyance line will receive the required monthly amounts of irrigation water to render the Yeghegnadzor conversion project viable. The water permit would authorize the PIU to divert certain monthly amounts of water from the Yeghegis river at the new water intake for irrigation purposes.

At the same time, the PIU will need to secure a regional water reallocation agreement, whereby certain monthly amounts of water would be diverted from the Ketchut reservoir to the Yeghegis river (in addition to the amounts currently diverted to Lake Sevan). The new water allocation scheme would need to respect the following conditions:

* Meet applicable sanitary flow requirements, both in the Arpa river and in the Yeghegis river;

Chapter5. Conversionof IrrigationSchemes ECODIT,January 2000, Page 69 EA of IrrigationDevelopment Project Ministryof Agriculture,IRP/PIU

* Meet the minimum annual inflow of 250 Mm3 into Lake Sevan from the Arpa- Lake Sevan diversion; * Meet the current and future demand requirements of downstream users; * Provide for routine monitoring of water flows and uses at different points in the system; and * Allow for revisions and fine-tuning depending on the monitoring results.

Of course, given the limited availability of water in the region and the competing demands for water (Lake Sevan, irrigation, drinking, sanitary), use priorities will have to be set and water quotas may not be guaranteed for all years.

Sanitary flow considerations

As explained above, the detailed design of the conversion of irrigation schemes in the Yeghegnadzor region must provide for sufficient residual flow in both the Yeghegis and Arpa rivers to protect both human health and environment. According to preliminary calculations using methods that were applied during the Soviet times, the sanitary flows for the Yeghegis 3 3 and Arpa rivers are equal to 0.54 m /s and 0.37 m /s, respectively. Because the system design is based on the 50 th percentile of monthly river flows as measured by the nearest gauging station (Hermon), the water requirements of the irrigation system will be met on average once every two years. During low precipitation years (i.e., on average once every two years), the water resources will not be sufficient to meet the competing demands of irrigation, drinking, Lake Sevan replenishment, and sanitary flow. Also, the sanitary flow estimated using the Soviet methods may not be sufficient to protect human health and the environment of the Yeghegis and Arpa rivers.

Mitigation Measures. The PIU and Armhydromet shall monitor the residual flow in the Arpa and Yeghegis rivers after project implementation to ensure that the sanitary flow requirements are met. This would require installing a monitoring station downstream of the new water intake on the Yeghegis river. Now new monitoring station would be needed on the Arpi river because there are already two monitoring stations at the Yeghegnadzor and Areni locations.

In addition, the PIU and the Ministry of Health shall monitor human health conditions in the Yeghegnadzor region to ensure that the initial sanitary flow estimates are sufficient to protect human health. Also, the PIU and the MoNP shall monitor the ecological conditions in both rivers (fauna and flora) to ensure that those sanitary flow estimates do in fact protect the aquatic ecosystems of both rivers. If not, it may be necessary to revise the sanitary flow estimates for each river as well as the regional agreement on water allocation.

Barriers to fish migration up the Yeghegis river

The Yeghegis and Arpa rivers, as well as the Ketchut reservoir are considered to be surface water bodies of higher fishing value in the Republic and are subject to the special requirements of Decree 687. On the Yeghegis river, local red-spotted fish ("karmrakhait") would find it difficult to swim upstream if a weir (small dam) is built to divert the water to the intake. This would disturb the lifecycle of the fish and restrict their ability to spawn and reproduce.

Chapter 5. Conversionof Irrigation Schemes ECODIT, January2000, Page 70 EA of Irrigation DevelopmentProject Ministryof Agriculture,IRP/PIU

Mitigation Measures. The PIU and design engineer must meet the special requirements of Decree 687 in order to preserve the fish resources of the Yeghegis and Arpa rivers. In particular, as part of the water intake detailed design, the design engineer must include a special ramp on the weir (a fish ladder) to enable the free passage of fish migrating upstream. The design of this fish way shall provide the ideal conditions to facilitate the upstream migration of the red-spotted fish.

Canal sedimentation and water losses

Soil erosion is a natural process in the semi-arid and steep mountains of the Yeghegnadzor region. Eroded soil and fallen rocks could settle in the open canal. Over time, sediment build-up in the canal would lead to the growth of weeds, the slowdown of canal water, and eventually water spillover from the canal. Water losses also could occur if the concrete canal breaks or is fractured. In the winter, temperature drops to below zero and the snow cover varies from 0.50 m to 1 m in the Yeghegnadzor mountains. This cold temperature and snow cover could cause the concrete canal to freeze and crack/break in different locations.

Mitigation measures. The design engineer shall take all necessary measures to keep fallen soil and rocks from reaching the open canal. For example. the detailed design could include a concrete ditch on the mountain side of the open canal --and parallel to it-- to trap fallen stones and soil before they reach the canal. The canal design also shall take into account the steep temperature variations (between day and night and between summer and winter) to ensure that cracks will not develop in the canal structure. Also, the canal operator may want to keep water running through the canal in the winter to prevent the canal from freezing. In addition, the canal operator shall maintain and clean (i.e., remove sediments and weeds) the open canal on a periodic basis. The canal operator also shall inspect the canal, side ditch, and access road on a routine basis to identify potential problems (e.g., water leaks, fallen rocks) and take appropriate measures (e.g., removing rocks) to correct them in a timely fashion.

5.2.4 Analysis of alternatives

Several alternatives to the proposed conversion scheme for Yeghegnadzor have been studied in the past. The PIU reviewed those alternatives and compared the three most "feasible" ones (see Table 23). Map 12 indicates the conveyance line routes for the proposed conversion scheme and the other two alternatives. All options would transfer water from the Arpa river to the Yeghegis river. The proposed scheme appears more advantageous than Alternative #2 at all levels. Compared to Alternative #2, the proposed scheme would:

• Irrigate a larger surface area (4,770 ha compared to 4,529 ha); * Require building a much shorter conveyance line (24.2 km instead of 40.25 km); * Use much less irrigation water (30.67 Mm3/yr. compared to 38.07 Mm3/yr.); and * Cost less than half as much to construct ($9.36 million compared to $20.66 million).

Chapter5. Conversionof IrTigationSchemes ECODIT, January2000, Page 71 EA of IrrigationDevelopment Project Ministryof Agriculture,IRP/PIU

Table 23 Comparison of Conversion Alternatives for the Yeghegnadzor Scheme

Parameter Proposed Scheme Alternative #1 Alternative #2 (PIU) (Hayjrnakhagits)a (Cascade Ltd.) Irrigated area under altemative 4,770 ha 6,684 ha 4,529 ha Length of conveyance line: 24.2 km 55.88 km 40.25 km - Tunnels 0 7.4 1.6 - Pipeline 1.2 0 2.2 -Concrete channel 15.8 36.95 22.55 - Siphons 7.2 11.53 13.9 Water intake 30.67 Mm3/yr. 38.8 Mm3/yr. 38.07 Mm3/yr. Sanitary residual flows 6.34 Mm3/yr. 6.34 Mm3/yr. 6.34 Mm3/yr. Capacity of intake canal 4.5 m3/sec. 5.0 m3/sec. 5.4 m3/sec. Productivity indicator 0.67 0.75 0.65 Annual savings of electricity 37.78 MkWh 62.53 MkWh 42.3 MkWh 1 Constructioncosts US$9.36 million US$21.86 miliion US$20.66 million a/ Water DesignInstitute of Armenia Source:PIU, August 1999

The proposed scheme also appears generally more advantageous than Alternative #1. but not from all perspectives. The proposed scheme would cost less than Alternative #1, both in absolute terms ($9.36 million versus $21.86 million) and on a per-hectare basis ($1,960/ha vs. $3,270/ha.). Also, it would require building a much shorter conveyance line (24.2 km instead of 55.88 km) and would not require building a tunnel. However, while the proposed scheme would require less irrigation water in absolute terms (30.67 Mm3/yr. compared to 38.8 Mm3/yr.), it would require more water than Alternative #1 on a per-hectare basis (6,420 m3/ha/yr. compared to 5,805 m3/ha/yr.). Also, the proposed scheme would not save as much electricity as Alternative #1 and has a lower productivity indicator.

From an environmental perspective, the tunnel under Alternative #1 would not eliminate the need for building concrete channels. In fact, Alternative #1 would require building about 37 miles of concrete channels, more than twice the length of channels under the proposed scheme. However, the concrete channel under Alternative #1 would not go through the Yeghegis river Valley with its rich cultural heritage. Furthermore, the tunnel (Alternative #1) would create large quantities of excavated materials (rocks and gravel) that would require adequate disposal, would require a long time to build, and may cause death and personal injury from accidents. For example, the 49.3-km long Arpa-Sevan tunnel took 18 years to build.

Chapter5. Conversionof Irrigation Schemes ECODIT,January 2000, Page 72 EA of IrrigationDevelopment Project Ministryof Agriculture,IRP/PIU

5.3 Conversion of 17 Smaller Irrigation Schemes

This section describesthe smaller 17 conversionschemes proposed in different marzes, identifies potential impacts during construction and operation, and recommends specific measuresto mitigatethose impacts. Generally,the impacts identified and mitigationmeasures recommended.when applicable, are similar to those identifiedfor the Yeghegnadzorscheme, but are smaller in scale. The PIU has already taken most of those potential impacts into considerationas part of the projectplanning and design.

Of the 18 irrigation schemestargeted for conversion.four schemesare either within or adjacentto a specially-protectednature area:

* VardenisScheme (#12) is withinthe Lake SevanNational Park; * Azatech Scheme(#14) is within the Her-herState Reservation; * Tsav-ShikahoghScheme (#17) is adjacent to the Shikahogh State Reserve (see Map 13); * GetahovitScheme (#5) is adjacentto the Ijevan State Reservation;and * Ijevan Scheme(#6) is adjacentto the Ijevan State Reservation.

5.3.1 Descriptionof the projectcomponent

Table 24 summarizesthe current situation and the proposed conversionfor each of the 18 irrigation schemes, including the Yeghegnadzorscheme (Scheme 13). For example, in 1999, Irrigation Scheme #1 (Aygedzor)had a surface area of 20 hectares and three pumping stations along the Akhinjariver. Under the proposedconversion, the schemewould irrigate950 hectaresof land by gravity through a 13-km pipelinefrom the Aygedzor reservoir. Water intake would increase from 0.10 Mm3 to 4.76 Mm3 per year. Overall, the conversionproject would increase the irrigated surface area from 5.718 ha (currently)to 15,257 ha and would require building 179 km of conveyancelines (concrete channels,pipelines and siphons). All the lands that will be irrigated after the conversionused to be irrigatedwhen the pumpingstations were working (see Section 5.1). According to the IDP, no irrigationof new lands is planned. The amount of irrigationwater would more than double, reaching85 Mm3 per year compared to 36 Mm3/year currently. Section 5.1 outlined the main positive impacts of the project to convert irrigationfrom pumpingto gravity.

Each of the 18 schemesfalls into one of three categories,depending on the source of water replacement:

I) Movingthe water intake upstreamalong the same river or canal; II) Moving the water intake from a river/canal to the reservoir that is feeding that river/canal;and l1l) Tapping anotherriver or canalas a sourceof water.

Chapter5. Conversionof IrrigationSchemes ECODIT,January 2000, Page 73 EA of lmgation Developrneiit Project_ Ministry of Agriculture, IRP/PIU

Table 24 Summary of Proposed Conversion Schemes

______CurrentSituation (1997L Proposed Scheme Sclheme Water Nineof Waterinitake Irrigated Ainnial Lenigthof new Irrigated Numnberl source(river, plNumber (Aiul area Watersource water Waterintake canialor- area Name ~~canial, pumping Anual)3 tiae loait Name_ reservoir stations M 1r.) __ (lha) ia loca3to pipeline(kin) (hia) Aygedzor Akhinjariver 3 0( 01) 20 (1999y) Aygedzor 4.76 Downnext to 13.0(pipeline) 950 1yedo 0.026-0.025 0(9%) reservoir ___ Eridzor 2 Tavushriver 1 0 0 Tavush 0.55 Tavush 4.8 (pipeline) 110 Tavush ______reservoir ___ reservoir 48(ieie 1 Closeto 384 (inc. Debe3avan Debedriver 1 0 0 Debedriver 1.9 Bagratavan 7.0 ir6ri6atoed

______- vilage--_ __by gravity) - Canal on the

Airoum Debed river 2.69-274 1495 Debed river 8.56 Ayrumo86 ( 8.0 1500 Alroum 2.69-2.74 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~hydropowerpipeline) 10 ______~~~station_ _ _ Getahovit Paghjur river 2 0 0 Paghiur river 1.33 Getahovit 4.8 (pipemine) 222 6.Village .i_ _ _ _ . G r 4 ( 2 Ijevan Aghstev river 1 0 0 Naltiget river 1.3 Azdan 9V3(pipeline) 200 7 Dzoraget (0.82) Chornaya ~~~~~~~~4km down Amrakits Dzoraget 1 (0.82) 192 Chornaya 6.58 from 10.2 (pipeline) 1548 __rakits river0.20-021_river Stepanavan _ 1.5 kmup ~~~180(incl. 8 Shirak 1.5 km7up100 now Maisian reservoir 1 (0.47) 100 Kaps canal 0.77 from Ka 1.2 (pipeline) irrigated

village_.-_ __ .______by_gravity) 9 right bank (2.02) Akhurian right Next to Shirak irrigation 8 0.44-0.40 537 bank irrigation 4.7 Haykavan 14.3 (pipeline) 1248 irrigation _ _ ___system village 10 Arzni Qskff ett Ohanavan- Shamiram 2 (12) 9 Qasakhieft 1 21 ANtashan 7t7(pipel ne) 189 Karbu Canal 0.28-0529 189 bank canal villagE J y P

Chapter5. Conversion of Irrgationi Schemes ECODIT,January 2000, Page 74 EA of Irrigation DevelopmtetntProject _ _ Ministry of Agrictuiture, IRP/PIU

Current Sltuation41 971a ___ _ = Scheme Scheme Wafer Nultber of Waterinitake Irrigated wae ae nae Lengthof niew Irrigated Number! source(river, pumping Juy,Anugust area Watersource waeintrttake locatio or ar-ea 3 Name cana-e stations M(Minyr.) (ha) Wa e (Mm3 r.) pipeline (kin) (ha) ii Inner Arzni Arzni _ _ _6_3 _ Baghramian Hrazdan 6 (4.7) Shairamrydropowe 6.6 540 -Norakert canal 1.13-1.11 canal _station pipeline) Collector 'arei From Lake 00discharging 1.5 3 km up from Vardenis Sevan 0 0 into Masrik 1.75 Vardenis 3.6 (pipeline) 1000 Herher______. .__river ______. _ __ Herher reservoir, Ketchut 13 Arpa river, (12.2) 1896 reservoir, Alayaz village VayotDzor Yeghegis 4.85-4.85 Yeghegisriver 30.7 pipeline)24.2 (9.4 4770 river, Ketchut res.

Azatek Arpa river 2 0.32-030 180 Herher 4.94 reservoir 6.15 (pipeline) 935 15 Khndzorut 1 (0.30) Khndzorut Next to 2 0 (1 6 km Khndzorut river 0.11-0.10 70 river 0.62 Khndzorut peln)150 Vorotan Qarahunj 2.68(incl. viagppen) 16 canal, 5(0.68) 18rsvor 1.10Ofrom Qrhn KarahunjKarhun QarahunjQaahU; 50 2-0 5 0.20-0.15 118 Gorisgetreservoirriver Gorisget10frmQarahun; reservoir 25(ieie2.5 (pipeline) 4969

______reservoir ______river) ______- _ _ 17 Tsav- Tsav river 1 (0.40) 40 Tsav river 1.42 3 km up from 7.0 (pipeline) 238 Shikahogh ~~~~~~~~~0.10-0.1140Tasrvea.4vk uplfrom Meghriget 18 ~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~river,2k pfo 18ghri Araks river 15 0.48-049 346 deviation from 4.84 Vardanidzor 34.2 (pipeline) 597 into Meghrigetvilg

______.____ river 3 3 Total . 68 36 Mm /yr. 5,718 ha Mm . _ 179 km 15,257 ha

Source: ECODITcompilation of preliminarydesign reports prepared for thePIU

Chapter 5. Conversion of Irrigation Schemes ECODIT, Janulary 2000, Page 75 EA of IrrigationDevelopment Project Ministryof Agriculture,IRP/PIU

5.3.2 Main potential impacts during construction and proposed mitigation measures

The construction of the 17 smaller conversion schemes will entail the same types of works (e.g., building water intakes and concrete channels, installing steel pipelines and siphons, etc.) as for the Yeghegnadzor scheme, but at a smaller scale. Therefore, the construction of the 17 conversion schemes may have the same types of potential negative impacts as those identified for the Yeghegnadzor scheme (Section 5.2.2), albeit with varying levels. Therefore, the potential negative impacts during construction are:

* Disturbance to existing river flow, water quality, and aquatic ecosystem; * Possible landslides; * Landscape degradation; Impacts on historic-cultural and nature monuments; Impacts on planted fruit trees and terrestrial ecosystems; and . Accidents.

For each type of impact, the EA Team recommends the same types of mitigation measures as in Section 5.2.2.

5.3.3 Main potential impacts during operation and proposed mitigation measures

Likewise, the same types of potential negative impacts can be expected during the operation of these 17 conversion schemes. As explained in Section 5.2.3, the key potential impacts during operation are:

* Insufficient availability of water resources; * Sanitary flow considerations; * Barriers to fish migration; and * Canal sedimentation and water losses.

The rest of this section will describe those impacts specific to the 17 conversion schemes.

Insufficient availability of water resources

Table 25 summarizes the annual water flow (5 0th, 7 5 th, and 97 th percentiles), monthly water flows for July and August (50th percentile), and minimum monthly flow during the summer, as measured by the closest monitoring station along the new water source for each scheme. The table also indicates the annual and July-August monthly water intake requirements for irrigation for each scheme. A quick comparison of supply (annual and monthly flows) and demand (water intake) generated by the conversion schemes suggests that water should be available to meet the water requirements of each scheme. This is not surprising considering that the PIU has already used water availability to eliminate a number of schemes in areas with limited water resources (e.g., Lusakhbjur, Lernavan, and Saroukhan).

Chapter5. Conversionof IrrigationSchemes ECODIT,January 2000, Page 76 EA of Irrigationi Developm77entPr-oject Ministry of Agriculture, IRP/PIU

Table 25 Water Flows and Water Intake Requirementsof the ProposedConversion Schemes

Water source Hydrological Distance AnnualWater flow (Mm3/yr) Annual MonthlyWater Minimum MonthlyWater Monitoring Station (km) a/ Intake Flow m3 s (50-th) Monthly Intake (m3/s) ______.50-th 75-th 97-th (Mm3/yr) July August Flow (m3/s) July August 1 Aygedzorreservoir Akhinja-Aygedzor 4 95.5 64.8 31.3 4.76 2.0 1.6 0.48 0.44 0.47 2Tavush reservoir Tavush-Berd 5 23.3 14.3 5.9 0.55 0.5 0.2 0.16 -- -- 3 Debed river Debet-Ayrum 1147.0 812.2 430.9 1.9 24.0 16.0 11.1 0.18 0.2 4 Debed river Debed-Ayrum 0 1147.0 812.2 430.9 8.56 24.0 16.0 11.1 0.82 0.87 5 Paghjur river Paghjur-Getahovit 2 57.7 32 6 8.4 1.33 1.5 0.8 0.2 -- --

6 Naltiget river Naltiget-Gandzaqar 1 21 7 -- -- 1.3 0.2 0.2 0.1 -- -- 7 Chornayariver Chornaya- 4 80.7 71.5 48.8 6.58 1.4 1.4 1.36 0.66 0.66 Stepanavan

8 Kaps reservoir Akhurian-Kaps 2 251.1 224.4 178.3 0.77 9.6 12.9 5.54-- -- 9 Akhurian right bank Akhurian-Akhurik 7 303.8 268.5 213.6 4.7 4.3 3.8 5.5 -- -- irrigation system 10 Left bank canal of Hrazdan-Lusakert 130.2 -- -- 1.21 3.2 3.0 2.44 0.5 0.49 Kasakh river I I _I 11 Arzni Shamiram canal Hrazdan-Lusakert 40 130.2 -- -- 6.5 3.2 3.0 2.44 0.5 0.49 12 Collectorflowing into Masrik-Torf 127.7 108.2 74.7 1.75 3,10 3,01 2.97 -- -- Masrik river 14 Herher reservoir Erer-Herher 5 52.4 44.3 31.9 4.94 0.8 0.6 1.02 0.56 0.53 15 Khndzorut river 0.62 0.075 0.071 16 Qarahunjreservoir, Goris-getriver-Goris 7 28.8 26.4 21.7 2.68 0.85 0.84 0.81 -- -- Goris-get river 17 Tsav river 1.42 - 18 Meghriget river Meghriget-Lichq 7 22.3 18.9 12.7 0.32 0.30 0.22 Meghriget-Meghri 12 101 76.2 36.6 4.84 1.25 1.02 1.02 0.44 0.45 a/ Distancefrom the water intake point to the hydrologicalmonitoring station Source: ECODITcompilation of preliminarydesign reportsprepared for the PIU and flow data providedby Armhydromet

Chapter 5. Conversion of Irrigation Schemes ECODIT, Januiary 2000, Page 77 EA of IrrigationDevelopment Project Ministryof Agriculture,IRP/PIU

For example, Scheme #4 would require 8.56 Mm3/yr, which is far less than the 97-th percentile of the annual water flow in the Debed river at that location (431 Mm3/yr). Also, Scheme #4 would require 0.82 and 0.87 m3/month of irrigation water during the months of July and August. much less than the median monthly river flows of 24.3 m3/mo. and 16.3 m3/mo_ at that location. The monthly water requirements for July and August are also less than the minimum monthly flow during the summer of 11.1 m3/mo.

In some instances, although the water requirements for July and August would be satisfied during a median year (i.e., 50-th percentile), they may not be satisfied during a year with less rainfall (one year in two on average). For example, for Scheme #1, the monthly water intakes of 0.44 m3/mo. and 0.47 m3/mo. for the months of July and August, respectively, would not be met in a minimum year (monthly flow of 0.48 m3/mo.) considering other potential uses and sanitary flow requirements.

Sanitary flow considerations

Table 26 presents the estimates of monthly sanitary flow and monthly residual flows for July and August after project implementation (in a median year) for each conversion scheme, as provided by the PIU and their design engineers. The table shows that the sanitary flow requirements would be met by all conversion schemes during a median-rainfall year. However, because the residual flow is too close to the sanitary flow for some schemes (e.g., Schemes 3 and 4), the sanitary flow would not be met in less rainy years if no reduction is made to the amount of water withdrawn for irrigation purposes. Note that when the residual flow is exactly the same as the sanitary flow (Schemes 1 and 14), river flows are controlled by the actual discharges from the reservoir upstream. As illustrated in the table, sanitary flow considerations are not applicable to irrigation canals or drainage collectors (Schemes 8 to 12 and 16) because those canals are artificial structures designed to convey water.

Mitiqation measures. As for the Yeghegnadzor conversion scheme, the analysis above highlights the need to:

- Secure water needs through separate water permits and institutional arrangements for some schemes; - Put in place adequate monitoring and allocation procedures, with provisions for reduced intake amounts in less rainy years; , Provide for revising the water intake amounts if monitoring and field observations suggest that sanitary flows have been underestimated (or overestimated).

In particular, sanitary flow requirements need to be met on a daily flow basis and not on a monthly flow basis (see Appendix G, Section G.2 on the minimum daily flow for the Potomac river near Washington, D.C.).

Chapter5. Conversionof IrrigationSchemes ECODIT,January 2000, Page 78 EA of IrrigationDevelopment Project Ministryof Agriculture,IRP/PIU

Table 26 EstimatedSanitary and Residual Flowsfor Each ConversionScheme (Mm 3/mo)

Scheme I Water Source Monthly Monthlyresidual flows

______Aygedzorreservoir j Sanitaryflow July August - 1. _ Aygedzor reservoir 0.01 0.01 0.01 2. Tavush reservoir 0.03 0.40 0.21 3. Debet river (r. Kilisajur) 0.08 0.16 0.08

1 _4. Debet river (r. Kistum) 0.08 0.97 0.08

5. Paghjur river -- - - 6. Naltingetriver 1 0.03 1.07 0.16

7. Chornaya river 0.32 4.73 . . 1.92 8. Kaps canal NA NA NA I 9. Akhurianriver iv NA NA NA j 10. Kasakhriver NA NA NA I 11. Nerkin Hrazdanchannel NA NA NA 12. Masrikriver (collector) NA NA NA 1 13. Yeghegisriver 0.54 7.43 1.99 14. Her-herreservoir 0.37 0.37 0.37 15. Khndzorutriver 0.08 0.41 0.23 16. Gorisget,Karahunj reservoir NA NA NA l 17. Tsav river 0.013 1.32 0.32 18. I Meghririver 0.16 10.31 3.34 flow value refersto river downstreamof reservoir NA = Not Applicable(canal or collector) Source: Ms. Knarik Hovhanessian'scalculations using Armenian/Sovietmethods and data supplied the PIU and Design Engineers as well as recorded river flow histograms

Table 27 summarizes the specific requirements applicable to individual conversion schemes. Where applicable, measures should be put in place to:

1. Protect the flora and fauna registered in the Red Book; 2. Protect fish resources in accordance with Decree 687; and 3. Safeguardhistoric-cultural and nature monuments.

The remainder of this section identifies specific concerns for individual conversion schemes, includinghistoric-cultural monuments, nature monuments, and other sensitive habitatsthat need special attention.

Chapter5. Conversionof IrrigationSchemes ECODIT,January 2000, Page 79 EA of Irrigation DevelopmenitProject Ministry of Agrctilture, IRP/PIU

Table 27 Summary of Key Requirements by Conversion Scheme

Scheme Conversion New Need for Need for Need for Need to install Other pointsthat may require number/name categorya/ water fish ladder, special secondary new monitoring specialprotection or attention intake justification water use water use stationbelow from __ permit permit water intake 1. Aygedzor Reservoir No No Yes NA Nature monument 2. Tavush II Reservoir No No Yes NA Naturemonument 3. Debetavan I Canal No No Yes No 4. Airoum I Canal No No Yes No _ . 5. Getahovit I River No Yes No No Historic monuments. Adjacent to Ijevan State Reservation 6. Ijevan IlIl River Yes, Yes No No Historic monuments. Adjacent to Decree 687 Ijevan State Reservation 7. Amrakits ll River Yes, Yes No No Historic-cultural monuments. Decree687 Dozraget river subject to Decree ______687requirements 8. Maisian I Canal No No Yes No Historic-cultural monuments and Akhurian mineral water springs. Akhurian river subject to Decree 687 9. Shirak I Canal No No Yes No Historic-cultural monuments and Akhurian mineral water springs. ______.______Akhurian river subject to Decree 687 10. Ohanavan- I Canal No No Yes No Historic-cultural and nature Karbu monuments. Kasakhriver subject to Decree 687 11. Baghramian- I Canal No No Yes No

Norakert ______12. Vardenis Ill Collector No No Yes No Within Lake Sevan National Park. Ramsar convetion area. Potential conflict of proposed IDP project w/ Ramsar convention and plans to restore Lake Gilli (GEF Funding) 13. Vayots Dzor I'll, III River Yes, Yes No Yes Historic-cultural and nature ______Decree 687 _ _ monuments. Natural wild grain

Chapter5. Conversionof IrrigationSchem7es ECODIT,January 2000, Page 80 EA of Irrigation Developnient Project Ministry of Agriculture, IRP/PIU

Scheme Conversion New Need for Need for Need for Need to install Otherpoints that may require number/name category water fish ladder, special secondary new monitoring specialprotection or attention intake justification water use water use station below __ . from_ _from permit permit water intake ecosystem of Rind-Aghavnadzor Arpa and Yeghegis rivers (Decree -__ . ___ . ______.______._ _ ___ 687) 14. Azatek 11 Reservoir No No Yes NA Within Her-her State Reservation. Ecosystemof wild grains. Arpa river subject to Decree 687 15. Khndzorut I River No Yes No No Endangeredand plant species and geneticagricultural resources 16. Karahunj I Reservoir No Yes Yes No and River 17, Tsav- I River No Yes No No Adjacent Shikahogh State Reserve. Shikahogh Endangered fauna and flora. Sanitary flow requirements through Sosu Purak (Pine Forest). Historic- ______._ cultural monument 18. Meghri IlIl River No Yes No No Historic-cultural and nature monuments. Endangeredflora and _ _.______.______~~~~~~~~~~~fauna______fa n sspeciesp ecie s _ _

a/ I: Movingthe water intake upstreamalong the same river or canal Il: Movingthe water intake from a river/canalto the reservoirthat is feedingthat river/canal IlIl: Movingthe water intake to another sourceof water

OME = Operationand MaintenanceEnterprise

Chapter 5 Conversion of Irrigation Schemes ECODIT, Janulary 2000, Page 81 EAof IrrigationDevelopment Project Ministryof Agriculture,IRP/PIU

ConversionScheme #5 and 6: Getahovitand lievan(Tavush Marz)

Vulnerablehabitats

1. The schemesare in forest landscapeconsisting mainly of oak trees. In the lowerzones, the forest is very scatteredwith various types of bush as well as wild pomegranate,almond and peartrees; and 2. The schemes are not within any of the protected areas of RoA, but are adjacentto the ljevan State Reservation.

Specificmitigation measures

1. Pay special attention to preserving historic-cultural monuments and the ecologicalregime of the Ijevan State Reservation.

ConversionScheme #7: Amrakits(Lori Marz)

Vulnerablehabitats

1. The schemeis not withina protectedarea of RoA: and 2. Historicalmonuments include the castle, ruins, and cemeteryof Lori.

Specific mitigation measures

* Meetfishing standardsin Dzoragetfishery site; * Considerrerouting the irrigationcanal betweenStepanavan and Lori castle to avoid crossing areas containing historic-cultural monuments (Lori castle, ruins of the city and cemeterydating to the first and second centuryBC)

ConversionSchemes #8 and 9: Maisianand Shirak(Shirak marz)

Vulnerablehabitats

* The schemesare not withinany protected areas of RoA; * Historic monuments,including the villagechurch in Maisian; * Akhurian mineralwater springs (near eight water intakes) south from Gyumri at an altitude of 1,450 m, in the villages of Akhurik, Getik, Erazgavoris, Bayandur,Gookasangoogh, Noraberd, and Shirakavan.

Specificmitigation measures

* Meetthe fishing standardsat the Akhurianfishery site; and * Protectthe mineralsprings during the constructionof the irrigationcanal.

Chapter5. Conversionof IrrigationSchemes ECODIT,January 2000, Page 82 EA of IrrigationDevelopment Project Ministryof Agriculture,IRP/PIU

ConversionScheme #10: Ohanavan-Karbi(Araaatsotn marzl

Vulnerablehabitats

1 The scheme is not within any of the protectedareas of the RoA 2. Historical monuments include Hovhanavankand Serevil churches (not far from Ohanavanvillage), Tsiranavor,Bokhmanook, and Surb Kiraki churches in the village of Karpi, and ruins of an ancient church betweenthe villages of Karpi and Nazravan;and 3 Natural monumentsinclude the Kasakh river canyon and the spring of Karpi (Shor-shor),located at 1,185-meter altitude.

Specificmitigation measures

* Ensure the protection of natural and historic-culturalmonuments during the constructionof the irrigationcanal; and * Meet the fishing standardsand sanitaryflow requirementsof Kasakhriver. ConversionScheme #12: Vardenis (Gegharkunik marz)

Vulnerablehabitats

I The scheme is in the steppe landscapeand includes the area of Lake Gilli, which was dried up and convertedinto arable land (see Appendix G, Section G.5). In the past, variousspecies of water and bog flora and fauna inhabited the area; the species disappearedfrom the area almost immediatelyafter the lake was dried. Some of the birds found new habitats in different parts of the Lake Sevan basin as well as other wetlands of Armenia. The area's vegetation of the area has changed and has become more typical of arid areas; 2. The scheme is within the Sevan National Park, where the use of the water, flora and fauna resourcesis subject to special permit requirements(Law on Specially-ProtectedAreas, Article 11); 3. River Masrik flows into Lake Sevan and providesfish-laying grounds for three endemic species living in Lake Sevan. It is subject to the special protection requirementsof Decree 687 (1991), including guidelines and regulations on fish resourcesby the MoNP; and 4. A project is under preparationfor the rehabilitationof Lake Gilli under the UNDP project "The rehabilitationof the ecological balance of Lake Sevan" and as part of the "BiodiversityStrategy and Action Plan." The project has received preliminary approval and would be financed by the Global EnvironmentalFacility (GEF).

Specificmitigation measures

. The proposed conversion project may be in conflict with the proposed restorationof Lake Gilli. The Governmentof Armenia may want to engage in wide public consultationswith concerned and knowledgeablestakeholders

Chapter5. Conversionof IrrigationSchemes ECODIT,January 2000, Page 83 EA of IrrigationDevelopment Project Ministryof Agriculture,IRP/PIU

and decide on the best course of action before implementing this conversion scheme; * Water use from reservoirs, dams, etc. will require permitting from the MoNP and must be in strict compliance with Decree 687 (1991) on fisheries; and * The south-western part of the scheme is adjacent to the peat-bogs, which are currently used for peat-mining. A special attention should be paid to the wetlands and to protecting the ecological balance (Convention on Biodiversity, Articles 8 & 14).

Conversion Scheme #14: Azatek (Vayots-Dzor marz)

Vulnerable habitats

1. The scheme passes through the Her-her State Reservation (1.5 to 2 km section); 2. Fossils of Nummilites tesgizehen sist are found in Azatec village: and 3. The degraded Azatec mountainous kserofit ecosystems are rich in wild pear, almond, plum and other wild grain varieties of genetic importance.

Specific mitigation measures

- Obtain water permit from the MoNP, including applicable requirements for passing through the Her-her state reservation; - Ensure the protection of the nature monuments; - Meet fishing standards and the requirements of Decree 687 at the Arpa river; and * Protect the unique ecosystem of wild plants of genetic significance.

Conversion Scheme #15: Khndzorut (Vavots-Dzor Marz)

Vulnerablehabitats

1. Although the scheme is not within any protected area, there are unique tree and bush ecosystems and several endemic and rare plant species such as wild pear, rose-hip, almond, and wild grains. The area has an important stock of genetic agricultural resources.

Specific mitigationmeasures

• Need to protect the unique and endangered plant species in the area during the construction of the open channel and pipelines, in particular the section between Khndzorut river intake and the catchment area; and * Need to protect the genetic agricultural resources.

Chapter5. Conversionof IrrigationSchemes ECODIT,January 2000, Page 84 EA of IrrigationDevelopment Project Ministry of Agriculture,IRP/PIU

Conversion Scheme #17: Tsav-Shikahog (Siunik marz)

Vulnerable habitats

1. "Shikahogh" (Red Soil) State Reserve, which is cut across by the project area (water intake, etc.); 2. "Sosu Purak" (Pine Forest) State Reservation downstream of the Tsav River, between the altitudes of 700 m to 800 m; and 3. Historic monuments. such as the Srashen village church and its cemetery.

Specific mitigation measures

* Need to protect endangered fauna and flora: there are 46 endangered plant species and 24 endangered vertebrate species in the area. These species may be seriously affected due to the construction of new water conveyance schemes. Because the area is characterized by kserofit ecosystems and is located in a transitional geo-ecological zone, any changes to the water balance will upset the ecological balance. Without adequate precautions to protect nature and water, vegetation and reptiles will be affected first, leading to the disruption of the whole ecological balance; i Need to maintain the natural regime conditions of the State Reserve and safeguard its natural development process (e.g., keep noise levels down) during construction works (water intake, conveyance line, etc.) in the "Shikahogh" State Reserve; and * Need to protect terrestrial and aquatic biodiversity of the "Shikahogh" State Reserve and the Tsav River, in particular sanitary flow requirements through "Sosu Purak" (Pine Forest).

Conversion Scheme #18: Mephri (Siunik Marz)

Vulnerablehabitats

1. The scheme is not within a protected area; 2. The area is rich in historic-cultural monuments, including: -- "Old Agarak" church and cemetery in the southeast of Agarak village -- "Old Arevik" church and cemetery in the eastern part of Arevik village, on the bank of Meghri river -- Spkesi Savel Amenaprkich desert -- Davit cathedral in Meghri -- Speqs Savel All-Saver's Desert -- Meghri castle -- Meghri church -- Cemetery and pantheon in the vicinity of Meghri (town) -- Cemetery in the outskirts of Meghri -- Ruins of old buildings in the eastern side of the village, in Sinaky gorge -- Cemetery around the Schvanidzor village church -- Ruins of old buildings south of Pir village, in the Lehvaz orchards -- Cemeteries and pantheons in the vicinity of Lehvaz village

Chapter5. Conversionof Irrigation Schemes ECODIT,January 2000, Page 85 EAof IrrigationDevelopment Project Ministryof Agriculture,IRP/PIU

-- Cemeteriesand pantheonsin the vicinity of Karchevanvillage -- Cemeteriesaround the SaintAstvatsatsin church (XVII-XIX A.D.) -- Cemetery5 km west of village Karchevan -- Karmir or HukhudaSt. Hovhannescathedral 5 km west of village Karchevan 3. Naturemonuments include: -- Granite ridges of extraordinaryshapes on the right river bank valley of Meghri, not far from town Meghri -- Scatteredjuniper forest in the Meghri river valley at the altitudeof 1100-1200m. 4. The area is rich in rare and disappearingflora and fauna species

Specific mitigation measures

Develop measures to protect the biodiversityof the area, in particular the species that are registered in the Red Book, paying a particular attentionat the connecting irrigation network of Spitakjur and Meghri rivers, routing of gravityirrigation network, etc. * Studythe location of the natural and historic-culturalmonuments, in. order to ensure a high level of protection.

Chapter5. Conversionof IrrigationSchemes ECODIT,January 2000, Page 86 EA of IrrigationDevelopment Project Ministryof Agriculture,IRP/PIU

6. DAM SAFETYIMPROVEMENT

This component of the proposed IDP calls for improvingthe safety of 20 priority dams (embankmenttype) in different parts of Armenia (see Map 14). In addition to improving dam safety, the Dam Safety Project (DSP) will establish an effective monitoring system and an emergencywarning system for all dams. This EA focuses on the potential impacts associated with the rehabilitationof the 20 priority dams. This chapter is organized in four sections as follows:

1. Objectivesof the dam safety component; 2. Descriptionof the dam safety component; 3. Main potential impacts during construction and proposed mitigation measures;and 4. Main potential impacts during operation and proposed mitigation measures.

6.1 Objectivesof the Dam SafetyComponent

Three completedam failures occurred in Armenia in 1974, 1979, and 1994. All reported accidents could have been avoided if proper surveillance and O&M were in place. Such observationssuggest that other dam failures cannotbe ruled out if the situation of dam safety in Armenia is allowedto remain out of control.

The dam safety componentof the IDP calls for improvingthe safety of 20 priority dams. The primary objective of this component is to protect the population and the socio-economic infrastructuredownstream of the dams facing the highest risk of failure. In particular, this componentis expectedto have the following positiveimpacts:

* Better protection for about 350,000 people downstream,thanks to improved dam safety and strengthenedwarning and emergencysystems; . Better protection of the water resource as well as the dam-based and downstreamsocio-economic activities and infrastructure; * Bettermonitoring and control of existing erosionand reservoir sedimentation: and * Better O&M and longer sustainabilityof existing dams. reducingthe need for new dams and associatedenvironmental impacts. 6.2 Descriptionof the Dam Safety Component1"

The project will improve, through rehabilitationand reconstruction,the safety of the 20 priority dams listed in Table 28. The table also presents the main characteristics and the proposed improvementworks for each targeted dam. The project will carry out rehabilitation works primarily; no new constructionwill take place except for the constructionof new spillways to protect existingdams. The major works with potentialenvironmental impacts are:

World Bank, 1997 andWB/MoA, 1999

Chapter6. Dam SafetyImprovement ECODIT,January 2000. Page 87 EA of IrrigationDevelopment Project Ministryof Agriculture,IRP/PIU

1. Construction of new spillways; 2. Rehabilitation and reconstruction of existing spillways; and 3. Slope stabilization and strengthening.

The 20 targeted dams have a total reservoir capacity of 380 Mm3 and a total catchment area of 2,684 km2 . About 350,000 people currently live at risk of dam failure downstream of those 20 dams. Table 28 Basic Characteristics and Proposed Improvements for the 20 Targeted Dams

Reservoir I Catchment I Dam Volume Population RehabilitationActivity Areal (kin2) |Height (m) (Mm3) at Risk

______! ______I__ (X1ooo) _ _ _ _ _ . ______1. Arpilich 220 16 | 105 6.2 Increase spiilway capacityI l______Reinstate M&Eequipment 2. Aygedzor 152 36 3.55 0.4 Repair Irrigation outlet and I ~ Reinstate M&E equipment 3. Khalavar 40 31 5.5 1.9 Increase spillway capacity 31 F 1.9 ReinstateM&E equipment 4. Azat 526 77 70 88.2 Reduceleakage I______Reinstate I______M&Eequipment 5. Vardakar 363 16.2 5 11.6 Increase spillway capacity 1.6 ReinstateM&E equipment 6. Tavshud 17 37 Repairs to dam and spillway and M&Eequipment 7 Sovietashen 31 42 1.4 0.6 Increase spiliway capacity, rectify leakage, repair outlet I l and M&E equipment 8. David-Beck ! 56 41.2 3.2 0.7 Increase spillway capacity i

l______I______Reinstate M&E equipment 9. Sevaberd 64 42 6 8.4 Reinstate M&E equipment I

; ______i ______and repair irrigation outlet 10. Aparan 656 50.6 90 185.6 Increase spillway capacity I i ______I ______Reinstate M&E equipm ent 11. Karnout 93 34.5 22.62 11.5 Increase spillway capacity Reinstate M&Eequipment 12. Mantash 21 30.4 8.2 14.6 Increasespiliway capacity 13. Sarnakhpiur 68 29.2 5 7.7 Improve dam stability and 14 Hlkhouin 211 46 12 0.3 increasespillway capacity 14 Hakhoum 211 46 12 0.3 Rectify leakage, repair outlet !______I and reinstate M&Eplant 15. Tavoush 2 42.4 5 0.2 Repair irrigation outlet and ______|______IM&E plant 16. Gegardalich 0.7 13.8 3.4 2.7 Repair dam and improve 117Gegarkouni 3 16.5 0 33 2.9 stability 17 Gegarkouni 3 16.5 0.33 2.9 Repair dam and rectify k2 j leakage 18. Kakavadzor 0.5 33.4 1 0.7 Increase spillway capacity1 2 and rectifyleakage 19. W.Bazmaer 8 0.22 0.7 Improvedam stability d I______20. Her-Her 160 71.5 26 1.1 increase spillway capacity

______2,684 - 380 348 I and reinstate M&E equipment |Total | 2,684 | - 380 | 348 | l Source: WorldBank, Armenia Dam Safety Project, Project Appraisal Document, July 30, 1997

Chapter6. Dam SafetyImprovement ECODIT,January 2000,Page 88 EA of Irrigation DevelopmentProject Ministryof Agriculture,IRP/PIU

6.2.1 Construction of new spillways

According to current plans, new spillways will be required and constructed at five dams: Aparan, Karnout. khalavar, Her-Her, and Sovietashen. The new construction will bring their total spillway discharge capacity (existing plus new capacities) to international norms. This is urgently needed for safety purposes because overtopping is considered the most critical failure mechanism for embankment dams. In general, the new spillways will be constructed in the vicinity and in parallel to the existing spillways, reducing the economic cost and the environmental impacts (Hadj-Mabrouk, 1999).

6.2.2 Rehabilitation/Reconstruction of existing spillways

Rehabilitation/reconstruction work is currently planned on all 20 dams except the Karnout dam. Current plans envision closing the old spillway of Karnout dam after construction of the new one. The work will vary from site to site, from complete reconstruction to minor repair (Hadj-Mabrouk 1999).

6.2.3 Slope stabilization/strengthening

The project is currently expected to improve the stability of seven dams under earthquake loading: Aparan, Gegardalich, Karnout, Sarnakhpiour, Sovietashen, Tavshud, and W. Bazmaberd. Depending on the case, this would require the strengthening of one (generally, on the reservoir side) or both of the dam slopes. 6.3 Main Potential Impacts During Construction and Proposed Mitigation Measures

Considering the rehabilitation nature of the project and the type of works to be carried out, the negative impacts on the environment are expected to be insignificant or minor. Nevertheless, the construction of new spillways, the rehabilitation and reconstruction of existing spillways, and slope stabilization/strengthening may involve excavation, tunneling, concrete construction, fabrication of temporary buildings, creation of access roads, and opening of new quarries, which may have the following potential negative impacts:

* Landscape degradation and soil erosion; * Impacts from improper transport and disposal of excavated materials and demolition debris; and * Impacts on water quality and aquatic life.

The strengthening of dam slopes will require large but not excessive quantities of stone, gravel, and soil materials. For the Karnout dam, for example, it is estimated that slope flattening would require about 55,000 m3 of soil materials (Hadj-Mabrouk, 1999). It may be necessary to use existing quarries or open new ones to supply those materials.

Landscape degradation and soil erosion

All dam safety improvement works will take place in areas where the land has previously been disturbed, so no new pristine areas will be affected. Nevertheless, building of access roads and water spillways, and opening of new quarries, could uproot plants and trees, degrade the landscape irreversibly, and exacerbate soil erosion. Conversely, the project will improve the

Chapter6. Dam Safety Improvement ECODIT,January 2000,Page 89 EA of IrrigationDevelopment Project Ministryof Agriculture,IRP/PIU landscape and reduce soil erosion impacts in some cases. For example, the project will replace open trenches by tunnel waterways for some dams. Open trenches not only are an eyesore in the landscape but also are more exposed to hill stone, landslides, and garbage dumping.

Map 15 overlays the targeted dam locations with the five States Reserves and the Sevan NationalPark. All of the 20 dams targetedfor safety improvementare not within or near a State Reserve or the Sevan National Park, except for the Azat and Gegardalichdams, which border on the State Reserve of Khosrov.

Mitigation measures. The Contractor shall take all precautions to minimize land disturbance, uprooting of trees, soil erosion, and unnecessary scarring of the natural surroundings (including opening of new quarries). For example, as appropriate, the Contractor shall use existing quarries instead of opening new quarries, or route access roads judiciously to prevent cufting through wooded areas. The Contractor shall make its best efforts to restore all sites to their pre-existing conditions. For example, the Contractor shall put in-place soil of equal quality and plant new ground cover and trees to reduce erosion. Also, the Contractor shall prepare operation and closure plans and obtain all necessary permits from the MoNP and local/regional authorities for existing and new quarries. The Contractor shall minimize landscape impacts from the disposal of excavated materials and demolition debris (see next impact). Contractors shall use special care for ali safety improvement works on the Azat and Gegardalich dams.

Improper transportidisposal of excavated materials and demolition debris

The projected works will generate significant, but manageable amounts of excavated materials (e.g., from digging new tunnels) and demolition debris (e.g., from replacing concrete slabs). At the Aparan dam, for example, about 19,000 m3 of materials will be excavated to build a new emergency spillway tunnel. Also, the concrete slabs on the reservoir side of the dam will be removed and replaced with new ones. Improper transport and disposal of those inert, non- hazardous materials could degrade the landscape and pollute the air temporarily (dust). Clearly, however, local contractors currently reuse those materials that can be recycled. For example, during a visit to the Aparan dam (August 20), the Contractor in charge of rehabilitating the water outlet and tunnel informed the ECODIT Team that they are reusing the concrete slabs removed from the dam's water outlet at one of their construction sites.

Mitigation measures. To the extent possible, the Contractor shall reuse/recycle excavated materials and demolition debris. For example, to the extent desirable and applicable, the Contractor shall reuse excavated or dredged materials (e.g., from digging new tunnels, sediment dredging) as raw materials to stabilize dam slopes. Also, the Contractor shall make every effort to reuse removed concrete slabs, either on site or at another construction site. The contractor shall obtain permits from the necessary government agencies (MoNP, marz and local authorities) that will specify transport methods/routes and disposal methods for all excavated materials, in conformity with MoNP's environmental guidelines. The Contractor shall implement measures to minimize dust emissions (e.g., by spraying with water) and other air and noise pollution from operating motor-powered equipment.

Impact on water quality and quantity and aquatic life

The rehabilitation and construction works will not alter the original capacity of the dams or affect the quantity or quality of water stored in the reservoir. This is provided that slope stabilization works take place during the summer when reservoir water levels are low and the

Chapter6. DamSafety Improvement ECODIT,January 2000, Page 90 EAof IrrigationDevelopment Project Ministryof Agriculture,IRP/PIU

dam slopes are exposed to the air and sun. Nevertheless, if proper precautions are not taken, dangerous liquids could seep into the reservoir and water from concrete mixing/pouring (concrete, chemical additives), equipment engines (petroleum, oil), and various washing operations (sewage, wastewater).

Decree 687 (1991) has identified six of the 20 targeted reservoirs (Arpi Lake, Aparan, Azat, Mantash, Sarnaghbyur, and Aygedzor) as surface water bodies that require special procedures to preserve their value for fishing (see Section 2.2.6). It is not anticipated that the proposed rehabilitation works would have any impact on those fisheries, or harm the aquatic fauna and flora of the 20 reservoirs, if standard precaution measures were taken.

Mitigation measures. Contractors shall undertake the proposed works in a timely fashion and, depending on the works to be performed (e.g., slope stabilization), while reservoir water levels are low. The Contractor shall take all precautions to prevent the spillage or discharge of dangerous liquids such as concrete, petroleum products, chemicals, or other construction materials into the reservoir. Such measures may include on-site storage, in protected sheds, of the minimum required amounts of chemicals and careful drainage of used oils/fluids from engines for off-site disposal. Special attention is required at the Mantash Dam because it is used as a source of drinking water. The Contractor also shall put in place adequate measures to protect the flora and fauna, especially in the six fishery reservoirs identified by Decree 687.

6.4 Main PotentialImpacts During Operationand ProposedMitigation Measures

The dam safety component will not result in any significant negative impacts during routine operation because it will not alter the capacity or routine operations of the dams. Nevertheless, the ECODIT has identified the following two potential impacts:

* Reservoir sedimentation: and * Emergency water discharges.

The Dam Safety Project will reduce significantly the risks of dam failure but cannot eliminate them totally. Appendix G outlines recommended measures to improve emergency response preparedness for any residual catastrophic dam failure events. Because such risks existed before the project and cannot be attributed to it (in fact, the project will reduce them), the EA team recommends that the GoA undertake such measures in parallel with the proposed dam safety improvement project (but not as a required mitigation measure under this EA).

Reservoir sedimentation

If access roads and quarries are built upgradient from the dam reservoirs, such works may erode the soils locally; those eroded soils could be washed (by rainwater) or blown (by the wind) into the dam reservoir. However, this soil loading would remain insignificant compared to the current sediment loading of those reservoirs. According to Mr. Gabayan of the Dam Operation and Maintenance Enterprise (DOME), reservoir sedimentation is a serious concern for several dams in Armenia, including Aygedzor, Vardakar, Khalavar, Sevaberd, Tavoush, and Tavshud. Reservoir sedimentation could reduce reservoir capacity, block the water entrance to the reservoir, clog the water outlet, and affect water quality. Moreover, reservoir sedimentation could affect dam performance and safety.

Chapter6. DamSafety Improvement ECODIT,January 2000, Page 91 EA of IrrigationDevelopment Project Ministryof Agriculture,IRP/PIU

Mitigation measures. Although the proposed works will not increase reservoir sedimentation significantly, the EA team recommends monitoring reservoir sedimentation and sediment loading into the identified reservoirs, and soil erosion in the reservoir catchment areas. Monitoring of sedimentation can be in the form of visual inspections and topographic surveys (when water levels are very low) and bathymetric surveys (for the lowest parts of the reservoir). This monitoring would allow the DOME to examine possible options to manage and control sedimentation, including sediment removal. and to take the necessary measures.

Emergency water discharges

The increased capacity for emergency discharges, while it will improve dam safety, could lead to further soil erosion downstream when the emergency discharge spillways are functioning. Increased soil erosion could result from the intense energy released by the rapid discharge of large volumes of water.

Mitigation measures. The design of the emergency spillways shall incorporate the standard features for amortizing the energy carried by the released waters and reducing soil erosion impacts downgradient.

Chapter6. Dam SafetyImprovement ECODIT,January 2000, Page 92 EA of IrrigationDevelopment Project Ministryof Agriculture,IRP/PIU

7. ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN

This chapter presents the EA Team's proposed Environmental Management Plan (EMP) for the IDP project, consisting of four components:

1. Mitigation measures and institutional responsibilities for implementation; 2. Environmental monitoring; 3. Capacity building and training; and 4. Capital and recurrent costs.

7.1 MitigationMeasures and InstitutionalResponsibilities for Implementation

Chapters 4 to 6 identified the potential negative environmental impacts, during and after construction, of each component of the proposed IDP. For each potential impact, Chapters 4 to 6 also described specific measures to eliminate, offset, or reduce those adverse impacts to acceptable levels. For each potential impact described in the previous chapters, Table 29 identifies:

* the proposed mitigation measure(s); and * the parties or agencies charged with implementing those measures, separated into: -- executing agencies, responsible for executing the measure; - supervising agencies, responsible for supervising the executing agencies to ensure that they are executing the mitigation measures as planned; and monitoring agencies, in charge of monitoring the extent of implementation and the effectiveness of the mitigation measures and of adjusting the program if needed.

For each component, the table distinguishes between the construction phase and the operation and maintenance phase.

We can group the proposed mitigation measures and institutional responsibilities as follows, depending on the identity of the monitoring agency:

(1) World Bank (WB): includes all measures calling on the PIU and associated design institutes to obtain permits for water use and discharge and for the disposal of dredged sediments, excavated soils, and demolition debris. The World Bank will need to ensure that such permits are obtained from relevant agencies (MoNP, local and regional authorities) before the construction works are tendered out; (2) PIU: includes all measures implemented by contractors, farmers, and other institutes, supervised by institutes affiliated with the MoA (e.g., Drainage Enterprise), and monitored by the PIU; and (3) Partner agencies to the PIU and MoA: includes all measures requiring some sort of monitoring by key partners of the PIUIMoA for this project, in particular the MoNP and its affiliated agencies (Armhydromet, Monitoring Center), the Ministry of Health, and the Department of Historic and Cultural Monuments Preservation; e.g., monitoring of:

Chapter7. Environmental Management Plan ECODIT,January 2000, Page 93 EA of IrrigationDevelopment Project Ministryof Agriculture,IRP/PIU

-- river flows (Armhydromet) and ecological conditions downstream of new water intakes to check if flows remain within permitted sanitary flow levels and make adjustments to those levels if warranted; -- sedimentation of dam reservoirs; -- the design and implementation of waste sampling and analysis campaigns to determine the appropriate disposal method for dredged sediments and excavated soils; -- the transport and disposal of excavated materials to ensure that permit requirements are being met (monitored jointly by MoNP, MoH, and local and regional authorities); and - route selection and construction activities that may have an impact on historic-cultural monuments.

7.2 Environmental Monitoring

The three categories above show the wide range of monitoring functions, from document review and visual field observations to field measurements, sampling and analysis. For example, as a monitoring agency, the World Bank simply would verify that the PIU has secured the appropriate water and waste disposal permits (e.g., review written documentation, talk to senior staff at the permitting agency such as MoNP). In contrast, actual field measurements of environmental indicators (e.g., analysis of drainage water quality by the Drainage Enterprise) are more elaborate and require advance planning and budgeting.

For each key environmental parameter requiring monitoring, Table 30 outlines the monitoring requirement, the monitoring agency, and the estimated capital and recurrent costs of the monitoring requirement.

7.3 Capacity Building and Training

Clearly, the proposed EMP will require building the capacity of the executing, supervising, and monitoring agencies charged with implementing the plan. This section proposes the following key capacity building and training tasks:

1. Organizational set-up; 2. Procurement of equipment and supplies; and 3. Technical assistance and training.

7.3.1 Organizational set-up

As the key agency in charge of executing the IDP and of supervising and monitoring the implementation of the EMP, the PIU will have to designate a dedicated staff member to coordinate and oversee the implementation of the EMP.

Also, the EA team recommends forming an Environmental Committee charged with monitoring the implementation of the EMP. This Committee would include the Environmental Officer (PIU) and representatives of the following monitoring agencies:

MoNP (EIA Department, Monitoring Center, Armhydromet, Water Resources Protection Department, Hazardous Substances and Waste Management Division, Department of Bioresources Protection);

Chapter7. EnvironmentalManagement Plan ECODIT,January 2000, Page 94 EA of Irrigation DevelopmentProject Ministryof Agnculture,IRP/PIU

* Ministry of Health; * Department of Historic and Cultural Monuments Preservation; * Operation and Maintenance Enterprises: * Soil Science, Agrochemistry and Melioration Institute: and * Water Problems and Hydraulics Research Institute.

The EA team further suggests breaking this committee into working groups, one for each component of the IDP, for practical and efficiency reasons. The Environmental Committee could be chaired by the PIU Environmental Officer or the representative of the EIA Department.

7.3.2 Procurement of equipment and supplies

Table 31 summarizes the basic equipment and supplies needed to implement the proposed EMP and the estimated capital costs of those equipment/supplies.

7.3.3 Technical assistance and training

To support the implementation of the EMP, the EA team has identified the need for technical assistance (TA) in the following environmental management areas:

* Designing and implementing a hazardous waste sampling and analysis campaign and a hazardous waste management plan (TA targeting MoNP, MoH, and laboratories); e Best management practices for the maintenance of irrigation canals and drainage collectors (TA targeting the Drainage Enterprise and PIU); and * Designing fish ladders on water intake weirs (TA targeting Design Institutes and MoNP).

Technical assistance could be in the form of formal or hands-on training programs, orientation visits abroad, and short or long-term consulting support.

7.4 Capital and Recurrent Costs

As explained previously, Tables 30 and 31 provide the estimated capital and recurrent costs of the proposed environmental monitoring requirements as well as the capital costs of the equipment and supplies required to implement the EMP. Building on those cost estimates and adding the costs of other EMP requirements not included in those two tables, Table 32 estimates total capital costs of $889,000 and annual recurrent costs between $137,400/year to $187,400/year for the entire EMP. The mechanical shovel/versatile dredger and the specially- equipped tractor for cutting plants cost an estimated $490,000, or over half of the total capital costs of the EMP. The disposal of excavated materials (hazardous waste and non-hazardous waste inside populated areas) could cost between $50,000 and $100,000 per year, or between one third and half of the total annual recurrent costs of the EMP. After taking out the costs of measures that are already included in the IDP project (P) or are alread carried out (or should be carried out) under other funds (0) (e.g., State Budget), the remaining additional costs of the EMP would be $810,000 for capital costs and $49,900/year for annual recurrent costs.

Chapter 7. EnvironmentalManagement Plan ECODIT,January 2000, Page 95 EA of Irrigation Development Project Ministty of Agriculture, IRP/PIU

Table 29 Summary of Potential Negative Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and Implementing Institutions

PotentialNegative MitigationMeasures Executing Supervising Monitoring Impacts I Agency encyAnc I Agency 1.REHABILITATION AND IMPROVEMENTOF IRRIGATIONAND DRAINAGESYSTEMS 1.1Reconstruction of HoktemberienMain Canaland Increaseof Intake from Araks River(see 1.3for irrigation& drainageaspects) Construction Phase Disturbanceto Araks * Handle,store, and dispose of fuels, used oils, concrete,etc. properly to prevent Contractor PIU MoNP Riverwater quality their release into the Araks riveror on its banks * Remove all equipment/materialsfrom the site and return it to pre-existing conditions after completion of works Impactsfrom improper * Preparemanagement and landscapingplan for excavatedmaterials Design PIU WB disposalof excavated * Obtain disposalpermit from MoNP and local authoritiesin accordancewith plan Institute materials * Comply with requirementsof managementand landscapingplan Contractor PIU/ MoNPI ______DrainageE. LRA Operationand Maintenance Phase Changesin river flow and * No significant impact. MoA needs to continue to work closely with its Turkish sedimentationregimes counterpartto monitorthe Akhurian reservoirand make joint decisions on water locally releases and allocation Sanitaryflow in Araks * Operate sand trap evacuationcanal to return at least 2.5 m3/s of water to the Design PIU river downstreamof the Araks river Institute, water intakes Drainage Impactof sand trap * Operatesand trap to evacuatethe trapped sedimentson a continuous-flowbasis Enterprise releases into Araks I I 1.2Rehabilitation of Eight IrrigationSchemes Impactssimilar to, but smallerin magnitudethan, thoseof the Ararat Valleydrainage rehabilitationand improvement(see below) 1.3Rehabilitation and Improvementof the Ararat Valley DrainageInfrastructure Construction Phase Temporaryincrease in * Obtain permit from MoNP for the temporary dischargeof increasedquantities of Drainage PIU WB drainagewater quantity drainage water and pollutionloads (turbidity,salinity) into receivingwater bodies Enterprise and pollutionload (Araks, etc.) Temporaryincrease in * Performgroundwork preferably during winter and early spring Contractor Drainage PIU the turbidityand salinity AMix waters of differentqualities to reduce pollutionloads Enterprise of drainagewater * Acquire and use adapteddredging equipment (see canal maintenancebelow) _

Chapter7. EnvironmentalManagement Plan ECODIT,January 2000, Page 97 FA of Irrigatiot) Development Project Ministty of Agriculture. IRP/PIU

Potenitial Negative Mitigation Measures Executing Supervising Monitoring Impacts Agency Agency Agency * Optimizethe sequencingof rehabilitationworks & drainage water use in irrigation DrainageE. PIU MoA * Monitor drainage water quality to inform farmers about water use for irrigation /Soil . (see below "Salinization due to irrigation methods") Institute Improperdisposal of * Conducta samplingand analysiscampaign for extractedsediments and soils to Consultant, PIU MoNP/ dredgedsediments and identifyhazardous materials Qualified MoH excavatedsoils Laboratory _ . * Preparemanagement plan for extractedmaterials recognizing three categoriesof Drainage PIU WB extractedmaterials: non-hazardous away from populatedareas, non-hazardous Enterprise within populatedareas, and hazardous * Obtainpermit from MoNP and local/regionalauthorities for the transport/disposal of extracted materials in accordance with plan (during construction and O&M) * Disposeof extractedmaterials in accordancewith permitsand managementplan Contractor DrainageE. MoNP/ PIU MoH/ LRA Pollutionof water and soil * Prepare inventory of equipment/materials at pumping stations to be Drainage PIU from fuel, oils, etc. decommissioned Enterprise * Maintainand inspecttrucks and other engineson a routinebasis Contractor Drainage PIU * Handle,store, & disposeof fuels, usedoils, and other liquids in a safe manner Enterprise Lossof fertile topsoil due * Acquire "sewer televising"equipment to locate and clean clogged drains, thus PIU WB to excavation& backfilling reducingthe need fo excavation * Removeand store fertile top soil (top 20 cm layer) in piles not exceeding1 m Contractor Drainage PIU * When filling back trenches,place the fertile soil back on top of other layers Enterprise Loss of fertiletop soil due * Delineateaccess roads/work areas carefully and preventtheir expansion Contractor Drainage PIU to temporaryaccess * Scrapeand store fertiletop soil in piles not higher than one meter Enterprise roadsand work areas * Seedpiles with mix of gramineous& leguminousplants if works to exceed 1 year * Compacttop surfaceof accessroads/work areas to improvedrainage * Rehabilitateaccess roads and work areas after work completion (scratch soil with specialengine, put fertile topsoil in place, etc.) _ Impactson sensitive * Monitorimpacts, if any, on Vordankarmir habitatand wetlandsof AraratValley MoNP habitats * Takeappropriate corrective measures depending on the monitoringresults PIU Accidentsand nuisances * Develop and implementtraffic managementplan (as part of the management Local Police PIU associatedwith increased plan for extractedmaterials menlioned above): traffic -- select transportroutes that minimizeaccident risks and avoid populatedareas -- install stop and other signs on key cross roadsas appropriate -- ban trucks from runningat rush hour (safetyconcern) or night (noiseconcern) * Applystandard safety measuresat constructionsite and during transport Contractor Local Police PIU _pter 7 Complywithtrafficam anagemen pitlananhECODIT_ Janaffic 2000n Pagean8

Chapter 7. En1virotnmentalManagemenet Plan ECODIT,Janu1ary 2000. Page 98 EA of Irrigation Development Project Ministy of Agriculture, IRP/PIU

Potential Negative Mitigation Measures Executing Supervising Monitoring Impacts Agency Agenc enc Operation and Maintenance Phase Canal sedimentation * Plant windbreaks and hedgerows between agricultural lots Farmers WUCC PIU * Close irrigation furrows to force irrigation water to percolate through the ground Salinization due to * Prepare baseline map of soil salinity in the Ararat Valley Drainage E. PIU irrigation methods * Monitor irrigation water and soil quality, and irrigation and drainage efficiency Soil Inst. * Use sound irrigation practices to control the accumulation of salts Farmers WUCC Soil Inst. Improper canal * Acquire, under the IDP project, adapted machines to (1) dredge sediments and PIU WB maintenance excavate soils and (2) cut/retrieve plants on canal slopes * Adjust collector slopes to no more than 45° when possible Contractor Drainage PIU * Build dirt road on each side of canals to operate and maintain irrigation and Drainage E. Enterprise drainage schemes * Use adapted machines (as acquired under the project) to extract sediments/soils and cut/retrieve plants on canal slopes * Transport and dispose of dredged materials according to permit (see Contractor Drainage MoNP/ construction phase) E.J PIU LRA Impact on fisheries * Monitor the water level and salinity in the artificial lakes Drainage PIU MoNP Enterprise Loss of soil fertility * Educate farmers about sustainable agricultural practices WUCC PIU * Complement the use of agrochemicals with organic fertilizers Farmers WUCC PIU * Rotate crops as a source of organic nutrients (e.g., alternate gramineous & leguminous plants) Increased pollution due to * Use agrochemicals wisely and Integrated Pest Management (IPM) techniques Farmers WUCC PIU the use of agrochemicals II. CONVERSION OF IRRIGATION SCHEMES FROM PUMPING TO IRRIGATION (see Table 27 for list of schemes concerned by each measure) Construction Phase Disturbance to river flow, * Secure water permits from MoNP before starting construction Design PIU WB water quality, and aquatic Institute ecosystem * Control flow upstream to enable construction works to proceed while at the same MoA PIU MoNP time meeting sanitary flow requirements * Handle, store, and dispose of fuels, used oils, concrete, etc. properly to prevent Contractor PIU their release into water bodies and on land * Remove all equipment/materials from the site and return it to pre-existing - -___ _conditions Landslides and risk to * Conduct detailed geotechnical survey to select optimal route for all canals Design PIU WB human health & property _ Institute

Chapter 7. Environmental Management Planl ECODIT, Janiary 2000, Page 99 EA of Irrigation Development Project Ministry of Agriciltuire, IRP/PIU

Potential Negative MitigatiotnMeasures Executing Supervising Monitoring Impacts _ Agency Agency Agency * Develop and implement safety measures (traffic management,fences, etc.) to Contractor PIU protect workers and the public during excavation works Landscapedegradation * Develop construction site management plan delineating access roads and DesignI/ PIU management methods for excavated and refill materials Contractor * Avoid dumpingexcavated materials in the ravine belowthe canals Contractor PIU * Reuseexcavated materials as refill materialsfor canals,access roads, etc. * Seed not-reusedexcavated materials with local varietiesof plants and flowers Impactson historic- * Select optimal route to preserve historic-culturaland nature monuments by DesignI/ PIU DHCM culturaland nature meetingminimum setback and other regulatoryconditions Contractor monuments * Stop work immediatelyif excavationuncovers historic-culturalsites/monuments, Contractor PIU DHCM & work with PIU & DHCMPto decide next steps Impactson plantedtrees * Select optimal route that requiresuprooting the least numberof trees and causes Design PIU MoNP & terrestrialecosystems the least disruption to ecosystemsand habitats of wild crops and endangered Institute species * Compensateowners of fruit treesfor loss of incomecaused by uprootingtrees PIU WB _ Operation and maintenance phase Insufficientavailability of * Obtain secondarywater use permits(see above) WUCC MoA WB water in certain years and Farmers sanitaryflow issues * Installnew monitoringstations below newwater intakeson rivers,where needed Armhydrom PIU MoNP * Monitorwater flows/uses,quality, ecosystemsdownstream of new water intakes Armhydrom PIU/ MoNP * Fine tune water allocationscheme as neededto correct any observed negative MoNP impacts or water deficiencies Barriersto fish migration * Designand buildfish ways (fish ladders)on new water intake weirs Design1. PIU MoNP upstream Contractor . Canal sedimentationand * Include engineering features (ditch, mesh) to prevent fallen rocks/soil from DesignI., PIU water losses reachingand cloggingopen canals "Vorogum" * Keep water running in canals in winter to prevent freezing & formation of cracks SCJSC in concretestructures (in cold climates) * Maintain, inspect, and clean open canals on a frequent basis 111.DAM SAFETYIMPROVEMENT ConstructionPhase Landscapedegradation * Obtainpermits from MoNP and concernedlocal/regional authorities for the use of Design PIUF WB and soil erosion old or new quarriesand the transportof quarried materials Institute I

Chapter 7 EnvironinentalManagement Plan ECODIT,January 2000, Page 100 EA of Irrigation DevelopmentProject Ministryof Agriculture, IRP/PIU

PotentialNegative MitigationMeasures Executing Supervising Monitoring Impacts Agency Agency Agency * Constructtunnel waterways, wherepossible, in lieu of open trenches Design PIU MoNP * Widen existing spillways,where possible,instead of new ones Institute/ * In priority, use old quarriesfor additional materialsto stabilizeslopes and, if not Contractor possible,open new quarrieslocated, where possible, in reservoirflood areas * Restoreall sites to pre-existingcondition (e.g., put in place soils of equal quality & landscape) & provide substitute areas for lost habitat Improper * Obtain permit from MoNP and local/regionalauthorities for any off-site transport Design PIU WB transport/disposalof and disposal of excavatedmaterials Institute excavatedmaterials and * Where possible, reuse excavated materials& demolition debris (e.g., concrete Contractor PIU MoNP demolitiondebris slabs) in slope stabilization * Transport and dispose of excavated materials and demolition debris in accordancewith permit * Reducedust emissions(e.g., spray water on dirt roads) and minimizenoise and air pollution during transport and disposal of excavated materials Impactson water quality * Conduct works on time (e.g., while reservoir water levels are low for slope Contractor PIU MoNP and aquatic life stabilization) * Handle,store, and disposeof fuels, used oils, concreteand other liquidssafely to preventtheir releaseon land or into the reservoir * Take extra precautions to protect the fish resources of the six reservoirs identified by Decree_No._687 .______* Avoid emptying the reservoirs below such levels that threaten biodiversity DOME PIU MoNP Operation and maintenance phase Reservoirsedimentation * Acquirebathymetric survey equipmentfor reservoirsprone to sedimentation PIU WB * Monitorreservoir sedimentationusing bathymetricsurvey DOME PIU * Develop plan to manage & control reservoir sedimentation . _ Emergencywater * Incorporateinto the emergencyspillway design standard featuresto absorb the Design DOME PIU discharges energy of the water released and reduce soil erosion downstream Institute DHCMP = Departmentof Historic& CulturalMonuments Preservation DOME = DamOperation and MaintenanceEnterprise DrainageE. = Drainage(industrial) Enterprise Armhydromel = ArmenianHydrology, and Meteorology LRA = Localand RegionalAuthorities MoNP = Ministryof NatureProtection PIU = ProjectImplementation Unit MoH = Ministryof Health WUCC = WaterUser Consumer Cooperative WB = WorldBank SoilInst. = SoilScience, Agrochemistry and MeliorationInstitute

Chapter7. EnvironmentalManagement Plan ECODIT,January 2000, Page 101 EA of irrigatiotnDevelopmnent Pioect Ministtyof Agrictilture,IRP/PIU

Table 30 Summary of Environmental Monitoring Measures and Requirements

EnvironmenitalParameter MonitoringRequiremnent Monitoring |Capital Recurrent to Be Monitored Aqenc Cost $ Cost $/yr I. REHABILITATION AND IMPROVEMENTOF IRRIGATION AND DRAINAGE SYSTEMS __._._. 1.1Reconstruction of HoktemberienMain Canaland Increaseof Intakefrom Araks River(see 1.3for irrigationand drainage) Construction Plhase none Operationi and Maintenance Phase Akhurianreservoir level * Armhydrometand MoA to continue to work with Turkish counterpartsto monitor Armhydrom NA NA the Akhurianreservoir and makejoint decisions on water releasesand allocation , MoA Return flow from sand * Installa flow-meteron the sand trap evacuationcanal Armhydrom $1000 (P) $500/yr trap evacuationcanal * Measureand recordflow in sand trap evacuationcanal (daily, July-October) et (P) 1.2Rehabilitation of Eight IrrigationSchemes lmpacts similar to, but smallerin magnitudethani, those of the Ararat Valleydrainage relhabilitation and improvement(see below) 1.3Rehabilitation and Improvementof the AraratValley DrainageInfrastructure Construction and O&M Phases * Testing of soil and * Acquire 20 water and soil test kits (pH, conductivityor salinity,etc.) and supplies PIU $8,000 500 water (ground, * Conductbaseline survey of soil salinity in the AraratValley DrainageE. 30,000 0 drainage,irrigation) * Depth to water table * Drill and maintain200 new monitoringWells (in additionto the 400 existing wells) DrainageE. 60,000 2,400 * Groundwater quality w/ piezometersto monitorground water levels in the AraratValley (pH, TDS, minerals) * Read and recorddepth to water table, pH and conductivityof groundwater in-situ Drainage Already Already at all 600 monitoringwells (400 existing plus 200 new) (3 times per month) Enterprise/ done done * Analyze 40 water samples at the lab for minerals (cations & anions), at least 3 Soil times/year: sprinq, irrigation period, after end of irrigation period Institute * Irrigation water * Purchaseand install adaptedequipment to measureand recordconductivity on a P. Station 5.000 0 quality (pH, TDS, continuousbasis at each pumpingstation (10 pumpingstations total) Operators/ minerals) * Measureand recordconductivity on an ongoingbasis at each pumpingstation Drainage 0 500 (0) * Sample & analyzefor pH, TDS, and mineralsat each pumpingstation and at 20 Enterprise 0 3,500(B) other sources,weekly during the irrigation_ season I I * Drainage water flow * !nstall36 hydroposts(flow meters) at 36 select points in the drainagenetwork Drainage 18,000 3 0 (m /s) & quality (pH, * Measure,sample, and analyze at 36 points in the drainagesystem (monthly) Enterprise Already TSS, TDS, minerals) done

Chaotet 7. EnvironmnentalManacernprli Plan ECODiT.Janrrarv 2000 Paae 102 EA of Irriqation)Development Project Ministry of Aqricillture, IRP/PIU

Environn7entalParameter MonitoningRequirement Mornitoring Capital Recurrent to Be Monitored Agency Cost ($) Cost ($/yr) Characteristics of * Sample and analyze between 100 and 250 points in main and secondary Consultant/ 40,000 2,500 dredged sediments and collectors (first year) and then between 10 and 25 points each year to support Laboratory excavated soils maintenance dredging Evolution of soil salinity * Drill 24 monitoring wells (max 20-m deep) with piezometers, and acquire soil Soil 23.000 3,000 (0) and sodicity and sensors and porous cups Institute (0) agricultural yield in six * Use piezometers & soil sensors to measure depth to water table and conductivity reference land parcels of soil solutions in-situ * Use porous cups to sample soil solutions & analyze them for minerals at the lab (quarterly) * Evaluate crop yields and study correlation with soil salinity and depth to water Impacts on sensitive * Monitor impacts, if any, on Vordan karmir and wetlands of Ararat Valley (four MoNP 0 3,000 (0) habitats and nature expeditions each year) monuments Impacts on health * Monitor the incidence of malaria in the Ararat Valley (and of health conditions Ministry of 0 4,000 (0) conditions below new water intakes under component II) Health Water level and saliniy of * Drill 100 monitoring wells w/ piezometers to monitor water levels in fishing lakes Drainage 15,000 1.000 artificial lakes * Sample and analyze pH and conductivity of water from those wells (monthly) Enterprise I II. CONVERSION OF IRRIGATION SCHEMES FROM PUMPING TO IRRIGATION Construction Phase Impacts on historic- * Monitor impacts on historic-cultural monuments and work with the PIU to select DHCMP 1 0 4.000 (P) cultural monuments I the optimal route for the new water conveyance lines l l l Operation and maintenance phase Residual flows down- * Install monitoring station downstream of select new water intakes Armhydrom 20,000 2.000 stream of select water * Monitor residual river flow from July to October (daily or weekly, depending on et intakes the scheme) Water quality and aquatic * Sample and analyze river water quality (pH, BOD, TDS, TSS, Total Coliform, MoNP 0 1.000 (0) ecosystem down-stream Total Nitrogen. Total Phosphorus) downstream of select new water intakes of select water intakes (monthly, July-October) * Monitor aquatic ecosystem downstream of select new water intakes (four 10,000 expeditions per year) (0) III. DAM SAFETY IMPROVEMENT Opetation and maintenance phase Bathymetric survey of * Acquire bathymetric survey equipment (echo-sounder, GPS/GIS link) DOME 40,000 4,500 dam reservoirs * Survey the seven dam reservoirs most prone to sedimentation Total $260 000 S42,400iyr (P) = Already includedin IDP Projectcosts (design or constrLction) (0) = (To be) carried out under other funds (e.g., State Budget)

Chanter 7. Environmiental Manaaement Plani ECODIT. Jainiarv 2000. Paae 103 EA of IrrigationDevelopment Project Ministry of Agriculture, IRP/PIU

Table 31 Key Equipment and Supply Needed to Implement the EMP

Equipment and supplies Number Unit Cost Total Cost of units (US$) (USS) GENERAL FOR ALL PROJECT COMPONENTS Laptops 5 3,000 15,000 Personal computers (Drainage Enterprise, Soil Institute, etc.) 5 2,000 10,000 I. REHABILITATION AND IMPROVEMENT OF IRRIGATION AND DRAINAGE SYSTEMS Flow-meter on the sand trap evacuation canal of the 1 1 | 1,000 reconstructed Hoktemberian canal I Water and soil test kits 20 400 1 8,000 | Conductivity meters (measure and record on a continuous 10 500 5,000 basis) | d _ _ _ I Flow-meters (along network of main drainage collectors) 36 500 18,000 Drainage modeling software 1 7,000 7,000 Monitoring wells with piezometers (for reference parcels) 24 150 _ 3,600 Soil sensors (10) and reading box (1) 6 1,000 6,000 Porous cups 60 100 6,000 Pump to extract soil solution 6 1,000 6,000 Weighing machine (10 kg) 4 350 1,400 Monitoring wells (to monitor water level and salinity in fish lakes) 100 150 15,000 Monitoring wells to monitor gw level and salinity in Ararat Valley 200 300 60,000 "Sewer televising" equipment to locate clogged drains _ 4 | 3,000 12,000 Equipment for remote cleaning of clogged drains 2 30,000 60,000 i Tractor-type vehicle equipped with plant-cutting machine 1 45,000 45,000

mountedon mobilearm to cut plantsalongside canals/collectors ______Far-reaching mechanical shovel/versatile dredger ! 1 445,000 445,000 II. CONVERSION OF IRRIGATION SCHEMES FROM PUMPING TO IRRIGATION j Hydraulic monitoring stations downstream of five new water 5 4,000 20,000 intakes.l Ill. DAM SAFETY IMPROVEMENT Bathymetric survey equipment 2 sets 20,000 40,000 TOTAL $784,000

Note: Compared to the previous table on environmental monitoring requirements, this table has the following additional items: laptops, computers, the drainage modeling software, the "sewer televising" equipment to locate and clean clogged drains, and the two vehicles (total value of $594,000). However, the table excludes the following items: hazardous waste sampling/analysis and baseline soil salinity survey (total value of $70,000): 784 = 260 + 594 - 70

Chapter7. EnvironmentalManagement Plan ECODIT, January2000, Page 104 EA of Irrigation Development Project Ministry of Agnculture, IRP/PIU

Table 32 Summaryof EstimatedCapital and RecurrentCosts of ProposedEMP Cost Item I Capital Recurrent

II Costs (US$) Costs (US$/yr) Environmental Monitoring (see Table 30) 260,000 42,400 a Installflow meter on sand trap canal (P) and hydraulic 21,000 (P) 2,500 (P) monitorina station on select rivers. Monitor flows l * Monitor water quality and aquatic ecosystems downstream of 0 11,000 (0) select new water intakes | * Conduct hazardous waste sampling and analysis campaign 40,000 2,500 * Acquire and use bathymetric survey equipment 40,000 4,500 | Monitor impacts on historic-cultural monuments, sensitive 0 11,000 (P & O) habitats, nature monuments, and health (e.g., malaria) * Drill monitoring wells (monitor level/salinity of aquifer & lakes) 75,000 3,400 * Install 36 hydroposts on collectors and conductimeters at 23,000 4,000 (0) pumping stations & monitor water flow and quality l Acquire 20 water and soil test kits and supplies 8,000 500 * Conduct baseline survey of soil salinity in the Ararat Valley 30,000 0 i Monitor the evolution of soil salinity and sodicity and 23,000 (0) 3,000 (0)

'agricultural yield in six reference land parcels I _i Other Equipment and Supplies (see Table 31) 594,000 19,000 I * Acquire/use far-reaching mechanical shovel, versatile dredger 445,000 10.000 a I * Acquire (and use) drainage modeling software 7,000 0 i Acquire/use "sewer televising" equipment to locate/cleandrains 72,000 6,000 i * Tractor-type vehicle equipped with plant-cutting machine 45,000 2,000 I mounted on a mobile arm l Acquire five laptops and five personal computers 25,000 1,000 Other EMP Requirements with Cost Implications (see Table 29) 35,000 76,000-126,000 j Prepare water permit applications and obtain water permits 10,000 (P) 0 i Prepare waste management plans and obtain waste permits 10,000 (P) 0 * Dispose of excavated materials in accordance with planS bl 0 50-100,000 (P) * Use soil scratching vehicles to de-compact soils 0 2,000 (P) * Compensate owners for loss of fruit trees 4,000 (P) * Design and build fish ladders on weirs of new water intakes 15,000 (P) 0 * Receive technical assistance, training, and orientation visits 0 20,000 Total Costs of the EMP $889,000 137-187,400 Additional Costs of the EMP $810,000 $/yr 49,900 a/ Recurrentcosts above and beyond the costs that would be incurredif standard dredgerswere used b/ The cost of disposing of excavated materials will depend on the results of the hazardous waste samplingand analysiscampaign. The range of $50,000to $100,000per year assumesthe following:(1) hazardouswaste will represent between 1/1,000and 2/1,000 of the total volume of excavatedmaterials 3 (total is 4,910,000 in ), (2) disposal operationswill stretch over a seven-yearperiod, and (3) hazardous waste disposalcosts are about $70 per cubic meter (see Table2). (P) = Already includedin IDP Projectcosts (design or construction) (0) = (To be) carned out under other funds (e.g., State Budget) AdditionalCosts of the EMP = Total Costsof the EMP- (P) - (0)

Chapter7. EnvironmentalManagement Plan ECODIT,January 2000, Page 105 EA of Irrigation DevelopmentProject Ministry of Agriculture.IRP/PIU

8. CONCLUSIONS

This chapter concludes this report with the following sections.

1. Summary of findings; and 2. Limitations of EA.

8.1 Summary of Findings

The proposed Irrigation Development Project (IDP) aims primarily to 1 rehabilitate and improve existing irrigation schemes and infrastructures. Because it will not create new irrigation schemes or build important new infrastructure such as dams, the IDP will have none of those significant impacts typically associated with such large projects. The positive socio-economic and environmental impacts of the IDP outweigh its potential negative impacts. which remain acceptable subject to full implementation of the Environmental Management Plan (EMP) recommended by this EA.

To preparate the IDP, the Project Implementation Unit (PIU) has already identified in advance several potential negative environmental impacts of the proposed project and incorporated into the project design adequate measures to eliminate, offset, or reduce those adverse impacts to acceptable levels. In particular, for each project component, the PIU has identified different alternatives to achieve the objectives sought and has compared those I alternatives on the basis of technical, economic, financial, and environmental concerns.

Positive impacts. The proposed IDP will have significant positive impacts for the farmers and people of Armenia. In particular. it will:

* Improve agricultural output and productivity; * Increase income for tens of thousands of farmers and their families throughout Armenia; * Increase the supply of water for irrigation (by increasing intake and/or reducing losses and associated demand pressures on precious water resources such as Lake Sevan); * Save millions of US dollars annually in energy costs; * Reduce the dependence on pumping, which is expensive and unreliable, to supply irrigation water; * Reduce water-logging and flooding of tens of villages and the spread of malaria in the Ararat Valley; and * Safeguard human life and property for 350,000 people living below the 20 dams targeted for safety improvement.

Chapter 8. Conclusions ECODIT, January2000, Page 106 EA of Irrigation Development Project Ministry of Agriculture, IRP/PIU

Potential neaative impacts. The EA has identified several potential negative environmental impacts associated with each component of the proposed IDP, both during construction and operation and maintenance. Table 33 provides in matrix form the key potential negative environmental impacts associated with each component of the proposed IDP.

Table 33 Key Potential Negative Environmental Impacts, by IDP Project Component

Key Potential Negative Environmental Impact IDP Project Component I~~~~~~~ I /, Ill11 Significant impacts 1 'Insufficient availabilityof water and/or sanitary flowconsiderations 1 X X i

Disturbance to river flows and aquatic fauna/flora and ecosystems _ X _

Barriers to fish migration upstream X _| __ Impacts from improper maintenance of canals and collectors X X Uncontrolled disposal of excavated materials & demolition debris X X X Enhanced soil erosion and reservoir sedimentation X X Degradation of historic-cultural monuments X X

Impacts on sensitive habitats and nature monuments XX X _

Soil salinization and loss of fertility due to irrigation methods | xX _l __ Loss of fertile topsoil due to temporary access roads & work areas X X X Uprooting of fruit trees l X ,__ Other conventional or less significant impacts Pollution of water and soils from improper handling of fuel, oils, etc. X X X * Loss of fertile top soil due to excavation and back filling x x X iAccidents and nuisances associated with increased traffic IX X X Increased pollution due to excessive use of agrochemicals X ix

Source: ECODIT

Mitigation measures. Clearly, not all of these impacts will occur necessarily or with the same magnitude for all components of the proposed IDP. The EA Team has proposed several mitigation measures to eliminate, offset, or reduce those adverse potential impacts to acceptable levels. Table 34 lists the key types of mitigation measures proposed for each component of the IDP according to the executing agency:

. PIU; * Design institute (Water Design Institute, Drainage Industrial Enterprise, Dam Operation and Maintenance Enterprise); * Contractors (collector dredging, water intake construction. etc.) and consultants (e.g., sampling and analysis campaign); . Farmers; * Water User Consumer Cooperatives (WUCCs); and

Chapter 8. Conclusions ECODIT, January 2000, Page 107 EA of IrrigationDevelopment Project Ministry of Agriculture,IRP/PIU

. Environmental monitoring agencies (MoNP and its affiliated agencies, Soil Science, Agrochemistry and Melioration Institute, Drainage Industrial Enterprise).

Table 34 Key Types of Mitigation Measures by Executing Agency and IDP Project Component

Executing Agency I IDP Project Component Type of Mitigation Measure /I Il1 PIU Acquire basic equipment and supplies X Xl

Compensate owners for loss of fruit trees,etc. __I_X_ l Design agencies (Design Institute, Drainage Enterprise, DOME, etc.) Obtain water permits from the MoNP X | X | Obtain waste disposal permits from MoNP and LRA X x X Coordinate with DHCMP for selection of canal routing X l_ I Incorporate environmental features in project design (fish ladders ...) x x x

Conduct special studies (soil erosion control, etc.) x x X Contractor/Consultant Handle and dispose of fuels, used oils, concrete, etc. properly X | X xX Remove all equipment and return site to pre-existing conditions X X X

Take special measures to protect topsoil, water quality, etc. _X _X _X Comply with water and waste disposal permit requirements X X I

Comply with quarry and waste disposal permit requirements i _ X

Conduct hazardous waste sampling and analysis campaign X j__ _ i Farmers Use sustainable agricultural and irrigation practices X X WUCC Educate farmers on sustainable agricultural & irrigation practices X X Environmental monitoring agencies I I Monitor river flows and sanitary flow requirements X X l Monitor impacts on habitats, biodiversity, and nature monuments JX X

Monitor impacts on historic and cultural monuments _ X _ Monitor impacts (positive and negative) on human health X X I Monitor reservoir sedimentation . X

Monitor the quality of soil and water (irrigation, drainage) _ Monitor impacts on soil quality and agricultural yield X Source:ECODIT

Chapter8. Conclusions ECODIT,January 2000, Page 108 EA of IrrigationDevelopment Project Ministryof Agriculture,IRP/PIU

Implementing agencies. For each potential negative impact, the EA has identified the parties or agencies charged with implementing the associated mitigation measures, which may be grouped into three categories: executing, supervising, and monitoring agencies. The EA has also grouped the proposed mitigation measures and institutional responsiblities into three categories depending on the identity of the monitoring agency: World Bank, PIU, and partner agencies to the PIU.

Environmental monitoring. EMP monitoring functions range from document review and visual field observations to field measurements, sampling and analysis. The EA has outlined the key environmental monitoring requirements for each component of the IDP. For each key environmental parameter requiring monitoring, the EA has outlined the monitoring requirement, the monitoring agency, and the capital and recurrent costs of the monitoring requirement.

Capacity building and trainina. The proposed EMP will require building the capacity of the executing, supervising and monitoring agencies charged with implementing the plan. The EA has outlined key capacity building and training tasks in the area of organizational set-up, procurement of equipment and supplies, and technical assistance and training. Specifically, the EIA Team recommends that the PIU designate an Environmental Officer among its staff and to form an inter-agency Environmental Committee to oversee and monitor the implementation of the EMP. The Committee would comprise the Environmental Officer (PIU) plus representatives of the MoNP (EIA Department plus various other concerned departments), the Ministry of Health, the Department of Historic and Cultural Monuments Preservation, Operation and Maintenance Enterprises, the Soil Science, Agrochemistry and Melioration Institute, and the Water Problems and Hydraulics Research Institute

The EA has identified the basic equipment and supplies that need to be purchased to implement the proposed EMP and the estimated capital costs of those equipment/supplies. Basic equipment and supplies include laptops, computers, specially-equipped tractor to cut plants along canals and collectors, far-reaching mechanical shovel/versatile dregder, piezometers. water and soil test kits, hydraulic monitoring stations and flow meters, and bathymetric survey equipment.

In addition, the EA team has identified the need for technical assistance in the following environmental management areas:

e Designing and implementing a hazardous waste sampling and analysis campaign and a hazardous waste management plan (targeting MoNP, MoH, and laboratories); * Best management practices for the maintenance of irrigation canals and drainage collectors (targeting the Drainage Enterprise and PIU); and * Designing fish ladders on water intake weirs (targeting Design Institutes and MoNP).

Technical assistance could be in the form of formal or hands-on training programs, orientation visits abroad, and short or long-term consulting support.

Chapter8. Conclusions ECODIT,January 2000. Page 109 EA of Irrigation DevelopmentProject Ministry of Agriculture,IRP/PIU

Capital and recurrent costs. The proposed Environmental Management Plan will cost about US$889,000 in capital costs and between $137,400/year and $187,400/year in annual recurrent costs. This total budget includes the costs of certain measures that are already included in the IDP Project (P) or are already carried out (or should be carried out) under other funds (0) (e.g., State Budget). When the costs of such measures are subtracted, the remaining additional costs of the EMP are $810,000 for capital costs and $49,900/year for annual recurrent costs. The mechanical shovel/versatile dredger and the specially-equipped tractor for cutting plants cost an estimated $490,000, or over half of the total capital costs of the EMP. The total EMP includes a budget of $50,000 to $100,000 each year for the disposal of excavated materials (hazardous waste and non-hazardous waste inside populated areas), or between one third and half of the total annual recurrent costs of the EMP. Actual disposal costs will depend on the results of the hazardous waste sampling and analysis campaign.

8.2 Limitations of the EA

The EA Team has conducted this EA under very strict time constraints. The Team did not visit all project sites or identify all possible individual impacts of each single project under the IDP. For a multi-component project of this type, it would not be feasible or realistic to visit and assess each project and project area individually. Such an undertaking would be out of the scope of this EA and would have required visiting and assessing six irrigation schemes to be rehabilitated, 18 irrigation schemes to be converted from pumping to irrigation, and 20 dams targeted for safety improvement. Instead, the EA team has targeted a few "representative" project areas for field visits and complemented those visits with a thorough review and analysis of written documentation on the various project components and project areas.

This approach allows us to identify the most likely range of potential impacts and formulate the most appropriate and reasonable set of mitigation measures. However, unforeseen impacts may arise from certain individual projects; some of the impacts identified may also require other, more adapted mitigation measures than the ones described in this EA. Therefore, it will be important to adapt/adjust the findings and recommendations of this EA as needed during project implementation. The Environmental Committee and the Environmental Officer in charge of implementing the EMP will need to be alert to this possibility and acquire the know-how and flexibility to adjust the EMP to specific situations as they arise.

Another serious limitation of this EA has been the difficulty to find reliable source materials and documents in English. While the PIU has done an excellent job of translating most progress and design reports from Armenian or Russian into English, several of the translated materials were not in final draft and had not been adequately translated. More generally, most of the materials on the environmental situation in Armenia are not in English, except for the recent reports on the State of the Environment, the National Environmental Action Program, and the Lake Sevan Action Program. The EA Team was able to address this language difficulty thanks to the cooperation and support of the PIU team members and also to the experience and commitment of our local consultants on the team.

Chapter8. Conclusions ECODIT,January 2000, Page 110 APPENDIX A

MEMBERS OF THE EA TEAM

EA of IrrigationDevelopment Project Ministry of Agriculture,IRP/PIU

APPENDIXA MEMBERSOF THE EA TEAM

Irrigation Development Project, PIU

Ms. Inessa Gabayan, Engineer Mr. Hamlet Harutiyunian, Engineer, IDP preparation group Mr. Gagik Petrossian, Engineer. IDP preparation group Mr. Armen Balaian, Engineer Mr. Tigran Kalantarian, Engineer, IDP preparation group

ECODIT

Local Consultants

Dr. Mihran Aslanyan, Deputy EA Coordinator Dr. Vilik Sargsyan, Water resources management specialist Dr. Vilen Nurijanyan, Soil science specialist Ms. Arevik Hovsepian, Watershed specialist Dr. Levchenko Hakopian, Agriculturist Dr. Knarik Hovhanessian, Hydro-technician Ms. Siranush Mouradyan, Specially-Protected Nature Areas specialist Mr. Vladimir Tatevosyan, Drainage specialist

International Consultants

Mr. Joseph Karam, EA Coordinator Mr. Marcel Cadillon, Soil science specialist Mr. Robert Kurkjian, Watershed pollution specialist Mr. Frank Radstake, Water resources management specialist Mr. Xavier Guillas, Environmental specialist

AppendixA. Membersof the EA Team ECODIT,2000, PageA-I

APPENDIX B

SCHEDULE OF KEY CONSULTATIONS

EA of IrrigationDevelopment Project Ministry of Agriculture,IRP/PIU

APPENDIXB SCHEDULEOF KEY CONSULTATIONS

July 12, 1999 World Bank.Washinqton DC Mr. SalemGafsi, Task Manager Mr. EzedineHadj-Mabrouk, EA Coordinator Mr. GiuseppeFantozzi Ms. Rita Cessti,Project Manager, Armenia IWMRP

July 19, 1999 IRP/PIU.Yerevan Ms. InessaGabayan, EA Task Manager Mr. Karen Gregorian,Coordinator Dam Safety Project

July 20, 1999 IRP/PIU.Yerevan Mr. Hamlet Harutiunyan,Engineer, IDP preparationgroup

Ministryof NatureProtection (MoNP) Mr. Arthur Arakelyan,Executive Director, Environmental Impact Assessment Department

July 21, 1999 IRPIPIU,Yerevan Mr. Adibek Kazarian,Executive Director, IRP/PIU Project

July 23, 1999 Hotel Armenia Scoping session

July 24,1999 Field trip to Ararat Valley

July 26, 1999 Field trip to Yegegnadzor Mr. MandukhtManukian, Marzpet (governor) Mr. BabkenMkrtchian, Head of Departmentof Agricultureand EnvironmentalProtection Mr. Samvel Tarverdian,Deputy Marzpet

July 28, 1999 Field trip to Armavir/AraksRiver Mr. ArshavirHairapetian, Director of Armavir Canal IrrigationNetwork Maintenance Sub-unit

July 29, 1999 IRP/PIU,Yerevan Mr. Adibek Kazarian,Executive Director, IRP/PIUProject

Appendix B. Scheduleof Key Consultations ECODIT,2000, Page B-1 EA of IrrigationDevelopment Project Ministry of Agriculture,IRP/PIU

August 18, 1999 Ministry of Nature Protection Ms. Anahit Alexandrian. Head, Hazardous Substance and Waste Management Department Mr. Volodya Narimanyan. Head, Water Resources Protection and Management Department

August 19, 1999 Department of the Preservation of Historical and Cultural Monuments Mr. Adibek Gregorian, Architect Ms. Inessa Gabayan, EA Task Manager

August 20, 1999 Field Trip to Aparan Ms. Inessa Gabayan. IDP, PIU Coordinator Mr. Samvel Karapetian, PIU Engineer

August 23, 1999 Ministry of Agriculture Mr. Gabayan, Executive Director, "Djrambar" SCJSC (DME)

August 24, 1999 IDP/PIU Yerevan Mr. Samvel Ghazaryan, Deputy Director, IRP/PIU Project

Ministry of Agriculture Mr. Razmik Grigorian, Head, Department of Development of Infrastructure and Irrigation

"Vorogum" SCJSC Mr. Andriasian, Deputy Director (OME)

August 25, 1999 Field Trip to Ararat Valley Mr. Robert Gevorkian, Head of Community, Ayntap Village Mr. Ashot Isajanian. Head of Community, Mkhchian Village Mr. Vartan Movsessian, Chairman, Water User Consumer Cooperative, Mkhchian Village

August 26, 1999 Ministry of Nature Protection Mr. Mikhail Chalabian. Director, Environmental Impact Assessment Department

IRP/PIU, Yerevan Mr. Karen Grigorian, Planning and Design Engineer

August 31, 1999 Ministry of Agriculture Mr. Vladimir Manukian, Director, Agrochemistry SCJSC

August 31, 1999 Ministry of Nature Protection Mr. Volodya Narimanyan, Head, Water Resources Protection Department

Appendix B. Scheduleof Key Consultations ECODIT,2000, Page B-2 EA of IrngationDevelopment Project Ministryof Agnculture,IRP/PIU

September 1, 1999 Ministry of Nature Protection Mr. Vilik Sargsyan. Head. Water Resource and Hydrology Center

September 2,1999 IRP/PIU. Yerevan Mr. Samvel Ghazaryan, Deputy Director, IRP/PIU Project

December 2,1999 Tekevan Center Participatory workshop to present and discuss preliminary findings

IRP/PIU, Yerevan Mr. Adibek Kazarian, Executive Director, IRP/PIU Project Mr. Hamlet Hautiyunia, Engineer, IDP preparation group Mr. Michael Sandoz, Expert, UN FAO

AppendixB Scheduleof Key Consultations ECODIT, 2000,Page B-3

APPENDIX C

WATER PERMIT APPLICATION FORM

EA of IrrigationDevelopment Project Ministryof Agriculture,IRP/PIU

APPENDIXC SPECIALWATER USE PERMIT(SWUP) APPLICATION FORM

This appendix presents an unofficial translation of the special water use permit application form under the Water Code (see Section 2.2.3 of this EA report).

Beginning of Form

The form is ratified by Decree No. 80 of the Minister of Nature Protection (July 14, 1999) Ministry of Nature Protection

Republic of Armenia

A Special Permit for Water Use (SPWU)

SPWU permitting authority

(Stamp here) _ Signature First Name, Last name

199 Is in force until _ 200

The period of the activity is extended until _ _ 200

(Stamp here) Signature First name, Last Name

AppendixC. Special Water Use PermitApplication Form ECODIT,2000. Page C-1 EA of Irrigation Development Project Ministry of Agnculture, IRP/PIU

Special Permit for Water Use

Name of the company using the water

1. Given to 199 Number Is in force until " 200

2. the following documents are presented

3. Information about the water user

* Name of company, farm * Subordination * Postal address,telephone

4. Name of irrigation site

5. Description of water use a/ Purpose of water use, any formation of effluent, treatment or cleaning of effluent

b/ Description of the activity

cl Description of water circulation system, wastewater

dl Description of wastewater treatment methods, treatment plant capacity (cubic meters per day, year)

6. The Special Water Use Permit is given to the water user subject to the following conditions: a/ The reservoir of the potable water /th. cub. m. per year, cub. m. per day/ sec./ does not exceed the surface water site more than does not exceed the ground water site more than

b! Seasonal water supply and water intake / th. cub. m. per year/

c/ Status of the irrigation site and volume of water received from other companies

Appendix C. Special Water Use Permit Application Form ECODIT, 2000, Page C-2 EA of IrrigationDevelopment Project Ministryof Agriculture,IRP/PIU

d/ Volume of circulatingor consecutiveirrigation system /th. cub. m. per year/

e/ Volumeof wastewaterin each outflow should not exceed/th. cub. m. per year, cub m. per dayl

f/ Data on the quantityof allowed degree(concentration) of dangeroussubstances in wastewater

g/ Water user to install special (sealed with cuprum) water measurementdevice on the site of the reservoirand effluent outflow. Water user to carry out qualitativeanalysis of the wastewater.

hi Water user to meet the requirementsof the RA law on 'Nature protection and nature usage fees," paying the fees according to the volume of water used and the quantity of dangerous substancesin the wastewateras it is mentionedin the SPWU form (th. cub. m. per year, cub. m. per day).

I/ Other requirements

7 Constructionof the groundwaterobtainer, implementationand operation of the project must be in agreementwith the currentlegislation according to professionalorganizations.

8. The period of validity of the SPWU will be terminated if the above-mentionedconditions and requirementsare violated.

The SPWU form should be filled out in three (3) copies, two (2) of which must be kept at the Ministry of Nature Protection.

AppendixC. Special Water Use Permit ApplicationForm ECODIT, 2000,Page C-3 EA of IrrigationDevelopment Project Ministryof Agriculture, IRP/PIU

APPROVEDBY

1.

name of the company,authority

signaturestamp date first name, last name

2.

nameof the company,authority

signaturestamp date first name, last name

3.

name of the company,authority

signaturestamp date first name. last name

4

nameof the company,authority

signaturestamp date first name, last name

End of Form

AppendixC. Special Water Use PermitApplication Form ECODIT,2000, Page C-4 APPENDIX D

MAPS

EA of lmgation DevelopmentProject Ministryof Agriculture,IRP/PIU

APPENDIXD MAPS

This appendix presents 15 maps showing pertinent environmental conditions in Armenia as well as the three components of the proposed IDP project. Some of those maps are copyrighted by the American University of Armenia's Environmental Research and Management Center (AUAIERMC), while others were provided to the ECODIT Team by the PIU.

General Maps

Map 1. Administrative Divisions of Armenia Map 2. State Reserves and National Park of Armenia Map 3. State Reservations of Armenia Map 4. Average Annual Precipitation Map 5. Water Shortage Areas of Armenia Map 6. Water Quality of Major Rivers of Armenia Map 7. Wetlands and Main Fisheries in Armenia

I. Rehabilitation and Improvement of Irrigation and Drainage Schemes

Map 8. Location of Irrigation System Rehabilitation Schemes Map 9. Ararat Valley Drainage System Map 10. Soil Categories in the Ararat Valley

11. Conversion of Irrigation Schemes from Pumping to Gravity

Map 11. Location of Irrigation Conversion Schemes Map 12. The Yeghegnadzor Conversion Scheme: Proposed Project and Alternatives Map 13. Overlay of Conversion Schemes with State Reserves and the National Park

lfl. Dam Safety Improvement

Map 14. Location of Dam Safety Improvement Projects Map 15. Overlay of Dam Safety Projects with State Reserves and the National Park

AppendixD. Maps ECODIT, 2000,Page D-1

N Map 1. Administrative Divisions of Armenia

/~~_ /~>~

She3k5 MarzeCsMarzes_

| P Mae r,entres "-!'

Vllse4 v Ci-es j

-- MaeMborders

Lakes& Reservoirs

Ararat valley EA of Irrgation Development Project ______:-:>.:f______Ministryof Agriculture,IRP / PIU by ECODIT,1999 N Map 2. State Reserves and National Park of Armenia

,. ,Sh"ekr I

,...... Tav'oush.

~J' ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~-

\s~ WY Iu / ,_ 2_<

g *I5 104

f {) Jo_n -''; e t) ,^ACtt '>X,'%r \,

b- >' , Karabakh

0~~ Mer 1 3enrea ______. w L U?

--Marz wntres , 1990 !ErebuniMaerentrestt oa w rAitesC .j Sev-lirWh 1 : t

__ Ml' border !tp. -Fn

F Lakes. & Reservoirs i , Sevan NationalPark Republic of Anrnenia .j I . ____ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Ministryof Agriculture, IRP / PIU MegEl,_ ~~~~byECODIT, 1999 z . >_ ~ ~ ~~~~Source: 'Zapovedjniki Kavkaza', 1990 ,.so t Map 3. State Reservations of Armenia Legend

-\ \\ 1?-'---^_2 _averd;pi Al '* [E] Water State Reservations Vaad r Il Akhnabat Yew Growe () I~~~~~~~~~~~ AragatsKare Lich 7 ~ ,' _AreguniJuniper forests Arzakan and Meghradzor Boghakar SoDjermuk DjermukWatershed Gandzakar (Verin Aghdan) liGetik ELGoris Verevan - I~~~~~~~yj~Hankavan ~3]Hazel-nut didevan ] Juniperforest of Her-Her E1Margahovit Pine of Banx Pineof Gyulagarak 8Ye %9 , -S)~~~~~~~~~~~\ Platan YeghegvdzrRose Bay 25 50km - - -p-- j17] ~~~~~~~Sandsof Goravan 0 2 5k _Vordan8, Karmir 0 25___, 50 km -' 1 Yeghegnadzor

V

* Kbappepreaynn EA of IrrigationDervelopment Project Republicof Amienla 4 ~~~~~~~Ministryof Agricuiure,IRPIPIU by ECODIT,1999 Mapprepared by and a AmedcanUniversty of ArmeniakERMC, 1998 Source:Ministry of NatureProtecion of RA Map 4. Average Annual Precipitation

! : :~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~f-y

Karabakh V,,D- ra-- ,. :.j

0 1Ad

. ~<~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ RT.~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~~b ECSd 1 '

-Marzcenter

-Cities

- -Roads

- -Rivers

-Radlway

- yAarzborder ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~EAof Irrigation DevelopmentProject -Lakes and reservoirs ~ _Republic of Armenia '.Ministry of Agncuture. IRP I PIU AveraqeAnnual P,ecirdatwn [mmjb.CDI.]9

- -.-. ~~~~~~Source:AgriculturalAtlas of ArmnenianSSR. - , '- Moscow-Yerevan. 1984 Map 5. Water Shortage Areas of Armenia

N

heghes

0 25 .50 km | ' < a~~~~~~~~n

EA of Ingation Development Projed Republic of Armenia Miristry of Agnculture, IRP/PIU by ECODIT, 1999

Source: Vilik Sargsyan. 1999 Map 6. Water Quality of Major Rivers of Armenia

------,____S: m ~~~oeV .

Arsxnvr <

Yegheg aadzo

\sN,- t: 4 (, , -

0 25 50 km ' t ~~~~ ~ I ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

\ s-Kpan

''. 1

WATERQUALITY CLASS

I (high)

%'\ 11(medium)

\t\ 111and IV (polluted) EA Iigation DeveopmentProjed Republicof Armenia Ministryof AgnclJtum,IRPJPIU by ECODIT,1999 Souroe KnankHohanisian, 1999 Map 7. Wetlands and Main Fisheries in Armenia

. 9} ~~~~~~~~~~~~~N

Yeghe zor "

0 26 50 km

Legend Lakes and Reservoirs 1S Wetlands 0) Pisciculture EA of IrnigationDevelopment Proed O Hydro-electricpower stations MiInityofAcukure /RPIU ECODIT,1999

t Fishery. Mapprepared by and O AmericanUniveriy of Arnenia/ERMC,1998 Source:Karen Jentetjian, 1998 .... > -~ t, - t N Map 8. Location of Irrigation System

. .~r u ' + , ' ;, ~tSRehabilitationSchemes

X~~~~~~~~ ,-'-. I' : %: -' 5--<^:<- ',-f r

-.~~~ ~~~ t ta-.r. XJ < a

-Rsversk5.Ktq vay.vazov - Marz |Irrigatbon Schemes t a); 0,

r - Marzc entre ?N 1. Arzni-Shamiram '----->%,_ i w - Cities 2. Artatshat 1 3. Anriavir t s - -Roads 4. Talin \ t< 6. LoAiw-Hrazdanm

--oMae or ord48. Nalband EA of Inigation Development Project ;arz .ordr .I 9 Lon * of Armenia -Lakes5b- and reservoirs .otan-Voghchi Republic Ministryof Agriculture,IRP/ PIU i 11. Vorotan-Vogchi 1. Vaiots-Dzor \ R1 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~byECODIT, 1999 _Major main canals 12: Sevan a', , . / 13. Aghstev-Tavush Source: InigationRehabilitation Project, 1999 N~~~~ A N - - , Map\ 9.fT Ararat£4 Valley Drainage

Rivens~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~7 System3

N 3-o.^

C:~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~S

-P Rnhabbdsaet* ; .-

Adirlisraland nalunallakes , £ -.R

_ CDamis |r. _ n ntakes

| El3evlo umigation \ < \ Iregationrp pmping stahio-s EA of InigationDevelopment Project Republicof Armenia j Open dr-anagesr hnre area Ministryof Agiculture, IRPI PIU by ECODIT,1999 lCoveredf draigage Systemarea . R_ .t 19 ______Source:Imrgation Rehabilitation Project, 1999. --- < Map 10. Soil Categories in the N AraratValley

Hokemrt= n maicna

AraksIrtake

0 3 6te,,

At Inhabbed areasEl *me schemren Opee drainag I 7v lR_oad,,g CoocBreddni,nage systeem anea !e, R Ar Slra-dy o agt ral ake!e dyio to the

Arlilcialatnd nt.hoal k.0 ireptemerOae tdAidi,ddd eeare - CanakS Sokwh. hwiN b ceder agrcolc-sI eepWt- .t.o Cr ttee esal fiO$htot r,______j - btCdeds d,ttawa3thter th .irldsdng EAoflmgationDevelopmentProject ; - ~~~~~ So~~~d.irt,cboee~ obetaW Republicof Armenia / PIU ee- areehtroe hk oisre 1 Ministryof Agriculture,IRP

|______by ECODIT,1999 Source:V.Nurijanyan 1999. Map 11. Location of Irrigation Conversion Schemes

0 15 30k

C-onversionBchene

|h a -~~Marzcentres centres-Marz 21 TavoushrAigedzor VurnTowns - ~~~3Debetavan Townss ww - | 4. Airourn 5 Getahovit -Roads 6 loyeva AJ 7. Amrakits - -Rivers 8. Maisian - -Railway 9 Stnrak 10 Ohanavan-Karbi ____ - - - Mam borders Ill Baghramian-Norakert 12 Vardenis Lakes& reservoirs 13 Vaios-zordents D e n Pr 14. Azatek <, ' < ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~EA of Irriation Development Project -Canals 15 Khndzout Republic of Arenia l Karahunj16 \ _ 7 1 Ministry of Agrculture, IRP / PIU -- -Canals under construction 17. Tsav-ShikahoghI by ECODIT, 1999

Irrigatedlands 1 M Source: Irrigation Rehabilitation Project, 1999 ~N . _. . .'; ' - : t~~ - u; ' _ _- ' Ji ~ Map 12. The Yeghegnadzor Conversion Scheme:Proposed Project and Alternatives

) l~~~~~ -- _i ~ E dtuu_, -- ,

Egh'egis Cities & Villages -: '

_ R:adoads -

; ...-. -- --Rivers '/. x . . - Riversg~~~~~~--= *S / -p5q - 5,.r, . - ~~: -Border |- r

- Canals under inspection

o - Pumping stations - ;.>

o -- * - Tubes t . _ . , :

,__ _ . - Designed tubes | 1 I l-- . Ii] - Pressure basins tengatedlands - 4770 h.t7 7728ha 4529ha a - ~~~~Pressurebasins Lngiti of _Ini 25.05kn 43 78 k.~ 4025 kin | _____ -Option PIU Intscudig 2s.05kn 437skm 4o2s : _ EA of Imgation Development Project annnglnsfte -in-nne- 7A4k. 116k,. Republic of Arfmenia 2 -Option Water Ptanning nute pip- 12.3 k. 11.53k. 62k. _ - Ministry of Agricufture, IRP / PIU i 3 - - Opion Kaka Id ..... cnali -conce 12 25 ki 22.s5kn 22.55kmn . by ECODIT 1999

-0TWater measunog stations One,13 s.vingn 36 MOssi 97.87 NIb, 7702 NIkon - Source: Irrigation Rehabilitation Project, 1999 Map 13. Overlay of Conversion Schemes with National Park Ar' _,-- - State Resrves and

- s¶ ,< -,

Arnar -; -* _

7 Shmk -Mzes hlk) _

os s 30Ijvak a e e '

Marz~RScenre 1. -iedo ' ; ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~K'*<0\1' -}Krabakh

Sh-kMames ~~Conversionsrchemes k ,/ ,. .,,

- \ ' '' ' ~ n . ^, r -Marzr,entres I 2 avgdousr

v 37-Towmns 4 4 Airoum 1{5aelrws92I3

-Roads 6| i3IevanfGDljn

- -Rivers 7 Amskits Ddlijan S,urk =___ - Rariway 9 Shirak Khosrov --- Marzborders ~~10.Ohranavan-Karbi Iv --Marz -bo7rders | I 11 Baghramian-Norakert Shikahog Lakesrservoirs & 12. Vardenis EF 13 Vaiots-Ozor ESevl EA of Imigation Developrnent Project iC9-anals es| 134.Azatek * *i . - Canals t15 Khndzonrt R unistryof Agriculure, IRP / PIU 16. Karahunj K.by.ECODIT,1999 __- - Canalsunder constructon 17 Tsav-Shikahogh i _ l8 Meghri , J-/ Source: Imigation Rehabilitation Project, 1999 -Irrgated lands 18 Meghn | j ' Sevan Nabonal Park , -ZapovednikiKavkaza", 1990 . .1 -;<'-._: - ':So7' 4 a N Map 14. Location of Dam Safety Improvement Projects

~~~' ' > J J tT >ushh

A- 0,~~~~ "" 0 o i, ',~ ~ ~_ ~. .4. -' .rk . -

- -__ . .. . - . . ' s . J h

* 2-~~~~~~~~-

,~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~' -! ",-, --

0 15 3Okei prv~ marzroent'e'~ ~ ~ . cr c-w

-5-- -Marzcenter , --

VaYs-0Dze,- Marz

I Cities.s

- -Roads

Rivers F'- ______

Marzborder ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~EAof IrrigationDevelopmnent Project - Marzborder K ' ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Republicof Armnenia , Lakes and resevoirs Minist of Agrculture IRP / PIU j 7/' by ECODIT, 1999

Source: Irrigation Rehabilitation Project, 1999 with F __ t ~- N Map 15. Overlay of Dam Safety Projects State Reserves and National Park

(,Sh~k -- s'- avuh

=a,dek -- ____ --

A,_- 9 .gwsdntA ,IYJy5I1'.

\ -.. -- j erevas ) 0

-P -- -- Karabakh

A,o, -h ,_

0 15 30 km.

v;> Xs \\oV=<=_ H t , '-< ~~-<.-

VaYov-Vzor -Marz State re sev,

. Marzoenter Dilijan -

, v.0 -Cities Khosrov S,uo,k

- Roads - _Shikahogh

- - Rivers Erebuni EA of Imgation Development Project - Railway Sev-lich Republic of Armenia -Marz border , MinSitry of Agriculture, IRP / PIU =-Lakes ~ and - reservoirs ,, f ._ Sevan NabonalfParklf A 2 Sevan National Park by E.ODIT, 11999 Source: Irrigation Rehabilitation Project, 1999

APPENDIX E

PHOTOS

EA of IrrigationDevelopment Project Ministryof Agriculture,IRP/PIU

APPENDIX E

PHOTOS

This appendix presents photos taken during field visits to the Hoktemberien canal, Ararat Valley, Yegheganadzor area, and Aparan dam. All photos were taken by © Joseph Karam of ECODIT.

1.1 Reconstruction of Hoktemberian Canal and Increase of Intake from Araks River

Photo 1. The Araks River, looking upstream from the Karaghalla dam. The picture shows the dike that helps to divert water to the Hoktemberien canal.

Photo 2. The three gates of the water intake to the Hoktemberien canal. The IDP would repair the three gates and add three more gates.

Photo 3. Looking downstream from the water intake structure: Hoktemberien canal (left) and Araks river (right). Most of the residual water flow downstream comes from the Armenian side of the river, due to leaks in the sand release gates (see next picture).

Photo 4. Leaking sand-flushing gates at the water intake. During July and August, water leaking from these gates provides the bulk of the residual flow downstream (2.5 m3 /s from the Armenian side). The IDP project would repair the leaks in these gates, which would reduce residual flow to a trickle. The water intake operator opens the gates twice or three times (during the spring) per month for a whole day to release sand back into the river. Such releases of water may not be relied upon to secure the sanitary flow in the river downstream (2.5 m3/s on each side) because they occur only two or three days per month.

Photo 5. Beginning of the Hoktemberien canal. The canal operator dredges the settled sands on a regular basis. Dredging and off-site shipment/disposal of sands from the entire length of the Hoktemberien canal cost about $34,000 annually.

Photo 6. Impressive waterfall next to the Hoktemberien hydropower station (1.5 MW) (left to the waterfall, not seen on photo). Because the station was not operating that day, the water was channeled through a bypass waterfall before continuing its course to irrigate the Ararat Valley lands adjacent to the Araks Valley. Increase of water flow into this and other hydropower stations along the Hoktemberien would produce an additional 1 million kWh annually.

Photo 7. Typical vegetation on salinized soils in the Armavir region. Ararat mountain in the background.

AppendixE. Photos ECODIT,2000, Page E-1 EA of IrrigationDevelopment Project Ministry of Agriculture,IRP/PIU

1.3 Rehabilitationand Improvementof Ararat ValleyDrainage

Photo 8. The IDP will rehabilitate this 17-km canal (10 m3/s) leading to the Arevshat pumping station. Concrete slabs will need to be replaced and disposed of properly.

Photo 9. Water flowing from these two artesian wells (about 200 I/s each) mixes at the Arevshat pumpingstation with the canal water of Photo 8 plus drainage water (collector not shown). The pumpingstation is often not working and the water flows by gravity through another channelto low-lying inhabited areas, flooding them. The IDP will build a pipeline to transport these waters to the Hrazdan River.

Photo 10. Water from this poorly-constructedartesian well (500 Us) cannot be tapped properly and instead has flooded 100 ha of land nearby, leading to loss of agricultural land and development of malaria. The villagers needed about $12,000to raise the water sourceat the well, tap 100 I/s of water and carry it by gravityto irrigate about 100 ha of their land. However,they could not raise the funds necessaryfor such a project. The IDP will rehabilitatethis artesianwell (and64 other artesianwells) and tap its water more efficiently.

Photo 11. Work in progress:The cleaningof a main collector. The equipmentused is not well adaptedto cleaningoperations: it lacks precision,destabilizes the slopes of the collector,and widensthe bottomof the collectorunnecessarily.

Photo 12. This main collectorhas been cleanedrecently, as evidencedby the loweredlevel of water and the still floating cleanupdebris.

Photo13. Cleanup is always done on the same side of the collector, except for one wide collector (20 m) that requires cleaning from both sides. Likewise, extracted materialsare disposedof on the same side of the collector. Strong winds and rainfallcarry some of those depositedmaterials back into the collector.

Photo 14. Closeddrainage system (720 ha) in Artashat. The ECODIT team could not get close to the manholes(shown in photo) due to water logging of the soil. This water logging is leading to secondarysoil salinization. The IDP will replacethe drains and secondarycollectors of this closed drainage system, thus improving drainageand haltingthe secondarysalinization of the soil.

Photo 15. This pumpis not workingand will be taken out of service by the IDP. The pump used to serve two purposes: pump drainage water (1) from the closed system drain into the collector and (2) from the collector into the agricultural lands for irrigation. Once the main collector is deepened,the drainagewater will be able to flow by gravity from the closed system drain into the collector. The IDP will rehabilitateonly selectpumping stations to be usedfor irrigation.

Photo 16. Trout farms like this one dependon fresh artesianwell water. The IDP will have no impacton the deep undergroundaquifer and thus will not affect trout farms.

AppendixE. Photos ECODIT,2000, Page E-2 EA of IrrigationDevelopment Project Ministryof Agriculture,IRPIPIU

Photo 17. This large fish farm, in the southern part of the Ararat Valley, uses the artificial lakes built in the fifties on salinized soils that were deemed too salinized to rehabilitate. The IDP is not expected to have any significant or lasting impact on those commercial farms. Ararat Mountain chain in the background.

II. Conversion of Irrigation Schemes from Pumping to Irrigation

Photo 18. Yeghegnadzor mountains. Pointing to the hypothetical arrival point of the tunnel that would be built under Alternative #1. View from the hilltop near Vernashen village

Photo 19. Fields to be irrigated by gravity in the Yeghegnadzor area. View from the hilltop near Vernashen village

Photo 20. Hay stacks (back), and dried manure cakes (front) used as fuel

IIl. Dam Safety Improvement

Photo 21. The Aparan reservoir, seen from the dam. Outlet tower under rehabilitation under a separate project. Notice the low level in the reservoir: rainfall has been very limited this year and this picture is dated August 20, toward the end of the irrigation season.

Photo 22. Aparan dam upstream slope. The Dam Safety Project would replace partially the old reinforced concrete slabs with new ones.

Photo 23. Concrete slabs removed as part of the ongoing rehabilitation of the water outlet at the Aparan dam. The Contractor is reusing those slabs at another of its construction sites in the region.

Photo 24. Inlet of emergency spillway at the Aparan dam. The IDP project would rehabilitate this spillway (add layer of concrete, etc.) and build another parallel emergency spillway.

Photo 25. Outlet of emergency spillway at the Aparan dam. Special design precautions are necessary to reduce the energy of water discharged through this type of spillway and minimize erosion impacts downstream.

AppendixE. Photos ECODIT,2000, Page E-3 EA of irrigationDevelopment Project Ministry of Agriculture,IRP/PIU

Table E-1 List of Photos

1.1 Rehabilitation of Hoktemberien Canal and Increase of Intake from Araks River

Photo 1. The Araks River, looking upstream from the Karaghalla dam Photo 2. The three gates of the water intake to the Hoktemberien canal Photo 3. Looking downstream: Hoktemberien canal (left) and Araks river (right) Photo 4. Leaking sand flushing gates at the water intake Photo 5. Beginning of the Hoktemberien canal Photo 6. Impressive waterfall next to the Hoktemberien hydropower station (not shown) Photo 7. Typical vegetation on salinized soils in the Armavir region

1.3 Rehabilitation and Improvement of Ararat Valley Drainage

Photo 8. To-be-rehabilitated 17-km canal (10 m3/s) leading to Arevshat pumping station Photo 9. Two artesian wells at the Arevshat pumping station Photo 10. Water gushing from a poorly-constructed artesian well Photo 11. Work in progress: The cleaning of a main collector Photo 12. Recently-cleaned main collector Photo 13. Recently-cleaned collector, with side roads and extracted materials on the side Photo 14. Manholes of a closed drainage system (720 ha) in Artashat Photo 15. Non-operating pump in Artashat, to be taken out of service Photo 16. Trout farms use fresh artesian well water Photo 17. Artificial lake (fish farm) in the southern Ararat Valley

11. Conversion of Irrigation Schemes from Pumping to Irrigation

Photo 18. Pointing to hypothetical arrival point of the tunnel (Alternative #1) in Yeghegnadzor Photo 19. Fields to be irrigated by gravity in the Yeghegnadzor area Photo 20. Hay stacks (back), and dried manure cakes (front) used as fuel

IlIl. Dam Safety Improvement

Photo 21. The Aparan reservoir, seen from the dam (outlet tower under rehabilitation) Photo 22. Aparan dam upstream slope Photo 23. Concrete slabs removed by ongoing rehabilitation of water outlet at Aparan dam Photo 24. Inlet of emergency spillway at the Aparan dam Photo 25. Outlet of emergency spillway at the Aparan dam

AppendixE. Photos ECODIT,2000, Page E-4 EAof IrrigationDevelopment Project Ministryof Agriculture,IRPiK;u

_ /

Photo 1. The Araks Riverslooking upstream from the Karaghalladam

s.~~ /

1E_- P E-5_ >_ .4. A, 7 .. ~~~~~~~~~5.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

-- , f

2..

Photo2.The threegates of thewater intake to the Hoktemberiencanal

© ECODIT,Joseph Karam,1 999

ECODIJ,2000, Page E-5 EA of Irrigation DevelopmentProject Ministryof Agriculture. IRP/PIU

Photo 3. Looking downstream:Hoktemberien canal (left) and Araks river (right)

Photo 4. Leakingsand flushing gates at the wateTrin-tak-

©ECCDIT.Joseph Karam,1999

Appendix E. Photos ECODIT. 2000, Page E-6 EA of Irrigation DevelopmentProject Ministryof Agriculture, IRPIPIU

~ .

L -~~7

. - ..

7_ 17

Photo 5. Beginningof the Hoktemberiencanal

Photo 6. Impressivewaterfall next to the Hoktemberienhydropower station (not shown)

©DECODIT, Joseph Karam, 1999

Appendix E. Photos ECODIT,2000, Page E-7 EA of IrrigationDevelopment Project Ministry of Agriculture,IRPIPIU

Photo 7. Typicalvegetation on salinizedsoils in the Armavir region

Photo 8 To-be-rehabilitated17-km canal (10 m /s) leadingto Arevshatpumping ston

© ECODIT,Joseph Karam

AppendixE. Photos ECODIT,2000, Page E-8 IRPIPIU EA of Irrigation Development Project Ministry of Agriculture,

w~~~~~~~~~~~q

|S S~~~~~~~_~

Photo9. Two artesianwells at the Arevshatpumping station

X . .. ,, 4..I

A pp- dx. - - . P

Q- _ ^ a Photo; 10. Watergushing from a poorly-constructedartesian well

©)ECODIT, Joseph Karam, 1999

AppendixE. Photos ~~~~~~~~ECODIT,2000,Page E-9 EA of IrrigationDevelopment Project Ministryof Agriculture,IRP/PIU

~~~~~~~~ \

w.H , . _.= ...... _.U-.-:_

Photo 11. Work in progress: The cleaning of a main collector

Photo 12. Recently-cleaned main collector

© ECODIT.Joseph Karam, 1999

AppendixE. Photos ECODIT,2000, Page E-10 EA of Irrigation Development Project Ministry of Agriculture, IRP/PIU

-~~~~~~ 4

A._. Photo13. Recently-cleanedcollector, with side roadsand extractedmaterials on the side

*~~~~~~~~~~~~~~t -=*{ -- w --

Photo 14. Manholesof a closeddrainage system (720 ha) in Artashat

©ECODIT, Joseph Karam, 1999

Appendix E. Photos ECODIT, 2000, Page E-1 1 EA of IrrigationDevelopment Project Ministryof Agriculture,IRP/PIU

Photo 15. Non-operating pump in Artashat, to be taken out of service

r7_-- -____

K7y~~~~~~~~~~~ '0'.' ,-.. ' Photo 16. Troutfarms use fresh artesian well water

© ECODIT,Joseph Karam, 1999

AppendixE. Photos ECODIT,2000, Page E-12 EA of Irrigation Development Project Ministry of Agriculture, IRP/PIU

Photo 17. Artificiallake (fish farm) in the southernArarat Valley - f

Photo 18. Pointingto hypotheticalarrival point of the tunnel (Alterative #1) in Yeghegnadzor

ECODIT,. Joseph Karam, 1999

AppendixE. Photos ECODIT,2000, Page E-1g3 EA of IrrigationDevelopment Project Ministryof Agriculture,IRP/PIU

Photo 19. Fields to be irrigated by gravity in the Yeghegnadzor area

i~~~~~V i

i~~~~ I ,.)'?,..

Phot20.Ha-ysta`cks(back), a-nd dred m-anure cakes (front) used as fuel

©ECODIT, JosephKaram, 1999

AppendixE. Photos ECODI'T,2000, Page E-14 EA of irrigationDevelopment Project Ministryof Agriculture. IRP/PIU

.- '" AA

=::=.. R ~~~- {. _ Photo 2 The ADaranreservoir, seen from the dam (outlettower under rehabilitation)

e- .

Photo 22. Aparan dam upstreamslope

© ECODIT. Joseph Karam. 1999

Appendix E. Photos ECODIT. 2000. Page E-15 EA of Irrigation DevelopmentProject Ministry of Agriculture,IRP/PIU

.-. = , '- - _

Photo 23. Concrete slabs removed by ongoing rehabilitationof water outlet at Aparan dam

Photo 24. Inlet of emergencyspillway at the Aparan dam

A ECODIT,n Joseph Karam, 1999

Appendix E Photos ECODIT, 2000, Page E-16 EA of IrrigationDevelopment Project Ministryof Agriculture,IRP/PIU

l s@, - -o -

.. -- c- W - -

Photo 25. Outlet of emergency spillway at the Aparan dam

O ECODIT,Joseph Karam, 1999

AppendixE. Photos ECODIT,2000, PageE-17

APPENDIX F

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION

EA of IrrigationDevelopment Project Ministryof Agriculture,IRP/PIU

APPENDIXF PUBLICPARTICIPATION

F.1 SCOPING SESSION

At the beginningof the EA, a scoping session was held at the Armenia II Hotel on November22, 1999. Over 50 representativesof the public sector,government, regional (marz) and village administrations, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), the media, and internationalorganizations participated in the scoping session. In addition, three TV stations (Haylur program,Armenia TV Station, and A1+ TV Station) and two newspapers(Republica Armenia and Mshakuht)and the "Agropress"information agency followedthe scoping session and reported on it extensively. A separate report has documentedthe proceedingsof the ScopingSession (PIU/ECODIT, 1999). The key findingsare summarizedbelow.

* All participantsstressed the importanceof the proposedIDP and welcomed the EA and the opportunityto participatein the scopingsession; * Several participants from villages and regions (marz) attested to the significant positive benefits of the Irrigation Rehabilitation Project, the precursorto the proposedIDP, and urged the PIU to continue in the same direction; - Accordingto the Head of the Departmentof EnvironmentalExpertise of the Ministry of Nature Protection,the Terms of Referencefor the EA meet the requirementsof the EnvironmentalImpact Assessment (EIA) law of the Republic of Armenia. The EA, if conductedas presented,should pass the environmentalexpertise examination with high marks; i Severalparticipants mentioned the followingpositive impacts of the proposed IDP: preventingthe secondarysalinization of soils, improving land fertility, saving energy by eliminatingthe needfor pumping,reducing the incidenceof malaria,etc.; * Drawing on the preliminaryresults of the social assessmentof the project. some participantshighlighted the importanceof the human factor in shaping the environmentalimpacts of the project. They called for raising the environmentalawareness of farmers as an integral part of the project. One participant suggested holding public hearings in the field to explain the objectivesand contentsof the proposedIDP; * One participant stressed the need to consider economic feasibility and ensure cost recovery in designing the proposed IDP and mitigation measures. He called for an integrated approach to water resources management, keeping in mind the various sources and uses (drinking, irrigation,hydropower, fishing) of water in Armenia; * Participants expressed the need for more coordination among different projects,such as agriculturaland biodiversityprojects; * One participantsuggested that the dam safetyimprovement project would not be complete without strengtheningArmenian capabilities to respond quickly to dam safetyemergencies (e.g., dam rupture);

AppendixF. Public Participation ECODIT,2000, Page F-1 EA of IrrigationDevelopment Project Ministryof Agriculture.IRPIPIU

. All participants applauded the high level and quality of the professionals engaged to conduct the EA. The effective participation of the local experts on the ECODIT Team will help to ensure effective implementation of the mitigation and monitoring measures to be recommended by the EA. After the EA, local members of the EA Team should continue to be involved in project implementation and evaluation; and * Several participants stressed the need to build on the lessons learned from years of experience with soil and water monitoring in the Ararat Valley; they also called for putting in place adequate monitoring of the plant-soil-water system during and after project implementation.

F.2 PARTICIPATORY WORKSHOP

A workshop to present and discuss the findings of the draft EA report was held at the Tekeyan Center on December 2, 1999. Mr. H. Kloyan, Deputy Minister of Agriculture, opened the workshop with a welcome speech, followed by Mr. A. Kazarian, PIU Executive Director, who presented the scope and objectives of the upcoming IDP.

Mr. J. Karam, EA coordinator, then presented the preliminary findings and recommendations of the EA. Using photos taken by the EA Team, he described the main positive and negative potential impacts of the proposed IDP and the EA Team's recommended mitigation measures. After the lunch break, Mr. Karam described the proposed Environmental Management Plan.

Mr. luri Javadyan concluded the workshop by thanking all the participants for the presentations and discussions. He invited the participants to become more familiar with the EA preliminary findings and submit written comments to the PIU. He also urged the EA Team to respond to the oral and written comments and to focus the EA report on the significant impacts of the proposed project.

F.2.1 Questions and answers before the break

Question by R.Andreasyan, "Irrigation" SCJSC: The water from the Hoktemberien canal does not have a high salinity level. Also, water from gushing artesian wells cannot lead to water logging.

Answer: You are correct on both accounts. The Araks river water has a low level of salinity. In contrast, certain other sources of irrigation water have relatively high salinity levels, such as the Hrazdan channels. Also, water from leaking artesian wells can lead to localized flooding of low-lying areas; water logging occurs when the water table is close to the surface. Sorry if the translation was perhaps misleading.

Question by R.Andreasyan, "Irrigation" SCJSC: The reconstruction of the Hoktemberien main canal, including the headworks, could have potentially significant environmental impacts, which did not come out of the presentation.

Answer: The reconstruction of the Hoktemberien canal, including the headworks, is not the same as building a new water intake and weir (small dam). Therefore, the EA Team expects the environmental impacts of the reconstruction to remain relatively small compared to the impacts of building a new weir, water intake, and canal.

AppendixF Public Participation ECODIT,2000, Page F-2 EA of IrrigationDevelopment Project Ministryof Agnculture,IRP/PIU

Question by Mr. Karen Grigoryan, PIU: Has ECODIT considered other than mechanical methods to extract sediments from canals?

Answer: The key idea is that current sediment extraction methods use standard dredging equipment and may not be the most suitable for canal dredging and maintenance. Current extraction methods are leading to the widening of the canal base and to the collapse of the canal slopes. The EA Team has proposed the use of a specialized mechanical shovel to ensure a more precise extraction of sediments and soils along a well-defined axis. This would help to keep the canal bottom narrow and the canal sides at a 45-degree slope. When the canal sides are stabilized at a 45-degree slope, then a specialized tractor-mounted machine can be used to cut the grass along those slopes and maintain their stability (i.e., prevent them from collapsing).

Question: In which countries are the proposed canal maintenance measures used?

Answer: The canal maintenance measures that we have proposed are best management practices in countries such as France and the United States of America.

Question by Mr. Volodya Narimanian: How and when will water use permit applications be submitted as part of implementing the EA recommendations?

Answer by Ms. 1. Gabayan: Permit applications will be submitted in due course in accordance with the law.

Question by Mr. Boris Ghazaryan: Have you considered the "zero" option for the drainage network rehabilitation?

Answer by V. Tadevosyan, Director of the Drainage Enterprise: The "zero" option has existed since the early 90's and has led to the current sad and difficult situation in the Ararat Valley: water-logging of tens of villages, secondary soil salinization, and decreased agricultural productivity.

Question: How would the rehabilitation of the drainage system comply with the Ramsar Convention?

Answer by Ms. S. Mouradyan: There are no sites listed on the Ramsar Convention in the Ararat valley.

Question: How could the Hoktemberian canal discharge increase from 25 m3/s to 53 m3/s?

Answer: The capacity of the water intake will increase thanks to the construction of three additional gates.

F.2.2 Questions and answers after the break

Question: The functions of the design institutes and the PIU are separated in the report but are presented jointly in the transparency. Please explain this variation.

Answer by Ms. 1. Gabayan and Mr. J. Karam: The design institutes will be responsible for incorporating specific environmental features into project design (e.g., fish ladders on weirs), at the PlU's request. ECODIT presented those functions together to simplify the presentation

AppendixF. Public Participation ECODIT,2000, Page F-3 EA of IrrigationDevelopment Project Ministryof Agriculture,IRPIPIU

and in recognitionof the link betweenthe functionsof the PIU and of the design institutes. The report spells out clearlythe specificfunctions of each institution.

Questionby Ms. Nune Bakunts, Ministry of Health:Who should execute the land and water monitoring,and using what standardsand indicators?

Answer: Various monitoringorganizations have responsibilityfor monitoringand should continueto assumethat responsibilityunder the project. For example,the DrainageEnterprise and the Soil ScienceInstitute for soil and water qualitymonitoring in the Ararat Valley.

Question by Ms. Nune Bakunts, the Ministry of Health: What about monitoring and controllingthe microbiologicalcontamination of water?

Answer: Notwithstandingthe importanceof this issue, it is importantto rememberthat any microbiologicalcontamination of the water existed before the proposed IDP project and would not be affectedby it. Sincethe IDPwould not affect the microbiologicalcontamination of water, analyzingthis impactis beyondthe scopeof this EA.

Question:Only 350 out of the former 1,000 boreholesare in good condition. Monitoring would not be possible without rehabilitatingthe network of monitoring boreholes. Will the projectfund such rehabilitation?

Answer: The projectwill set aside a special budgetto implementthe final Environmental ManagementPlan, including monitoring requirements.

Question by Ms. Nune Bakunts: As a representativeof the Ministry of Health, I am surprised that the proposed monitoring program does not include provisions for health monitoring. Also, given the health dimensionof the project, in particular in the Ararat Valley, shouldn'tthe Ministryof Healthbe representedon the project'sEnvironmental Committee?

Answer: You are right: monitoringof health conditions in the Ararat Valley is a key measure of performanceof the proposed IDP. Fortunately,the Ministry of Health already monitorsthe health situation in the Ararat Valley (e.g., number of cases of malaria). The EA team has assumedthat the Ministry of Health would continueto do this monitoringand would share its findings with the PIU to help it evaluatethe extent to which the rehabilitationof the Ararat drainage system is contributingto reducingthe incidence of malaria, This exchange could be done within or outsidethe proposedEnvironmental Committee.

Question: Is the current legal frameworkin Armenia sufficientto ensure proper project implementation?

Answer: Yes, andthe legal and institutionalframework is describedin the EA report.

Question by Mr. Artem Sargsyan:What is the status of water monitoring stations in Armenia? Do you envisiona role for NGOsin monitoring?

Answer by Mr. Vilik Sargsyan:Currently 98 water monitoringstations are operatingin Armenia.

AppendixF. Public Participation ECODIT,2000, PageF-4 EA of IrrigationDevelopment Project Ministryof Agriculture,IRP/PIU

Question by Mr. Artem Sargsyan: Do you envision a role for NGOs in monitoring?

Answer: NGOs have an important role to play in all aspects of environmental management, especially at the local level. In the United States, volunteers from NGOs and community groups participate in monitoring rivers and streams. Experience shows that NGOs can make a big difference if they are motivated and professional.

Question by Mr. V. Narimanyan (not Volodya Narimanyan from MoNP? please double check): What are the damages caused by irrigation in steep mountain areas? Why not mitigate those impacts by using drip irrigation as in done in other countries, for example in Saudi Arabia?

Answer: Again, it is important to separate existing impacts from the potential impacts of the proposed IDP. Also, drip irrigation may or may not work in mountain areas that are subject to sub-freezing temperatures.

Question by Mr. Chagharyan: What are the amounts and terms of the upcoming World Bank loan for this project?

Answer by Mr. A. Kazarian, PIU executive director: The term of the loan is for 35 years, with a grace period of 10 years (i.e., without paying interest or principal). The amount of the loan will be about US$ 80 million. The EA is funded by grant money.

AppendixF. Public Participation ECODIT,2000, Page F-5

APPENDIX G

ADDITIONAL DATA AND COMMENTS

EA of IrrigationDevelopment Project Ministryof Agriculture,IRP/PIU

APPENDIX G

ADDITIONAL DATA AND COMMENTS

This appendix provides the following additional data and comments:

1. Irrigation water charges in Armenia; 2. Sanitary flow calculations for the Potomac river; 3. Environmental action planning in Armenia; 4. Rehabilitation of the drainage system in the Ararat Valley; 5. The draining of Lake Gilli and current restoration plans; 6. Promoting sustainable agricultural practices; and 7. Emergency preparedness for catastrophic dam failure.

G.1 IRRIGATION WATER CHARGES IN ARMENIA'

At the beginning of each irrigation season, the WUCC signs an agreement with the OME for the purchase of irrigation water. The price of water is calculated by the OME and must be approved by the Government of Armenia by decree. Irrigation water charges paid by the WUCCs to the OMEs were set at 2.1, 2.2 or 2.4 D/m3 for 1999, depending on the region. Charges were previously set uniformly at 1.9 D/m3 for 1998. The 1999 water charges allow the OME to recover about one-third of the full costs of irrigation water supplied to the tertiary irrigation network (capital plus O&M), estimated at an average of 6.3 D/m3. The goal of the Government of Armenia is to reach full cost recovery by the year 2005.

In turn, WUCCs sell irrigation water to the farmers. The price paid by the farmer is equal to the sum of two shares:

1. The water charge paid by the WUCC to the OME: in 1999. 2.1, 2.2 or 2.4 D/m3, depending on the region (as explained above); and 2. The WUCC water charge, or the amount that the WUCC needs to charge to recover its own costs of operating and maintaining the tertiary irrigation system (salaries of WUCC staff such as accountants and water master, O&M charges, repairs costs, etc.). A Government decree set the WUCC water charge at 1.5 D/ m3 .

As of 1999, each farmer must pay his dues in cash at the local Post Office. The local Post Office is then responsible for transferring the payments received to the bank accounts of the OME and the WUCC, according to their respective shares. The OME then pays the DME 0.24 D/m3 for the water purchased from reservoirs.

In addition to the charges mentioned above, a water resource charge of 0.2 D/m3 is paid to the state budget for water withdrawn from Lake Sevan. In the Ararat Valley, many drainage collectors have been transformed into irrigation canals. Farmers currently do not pay water charges for irrigating with drainage water.

Communicationwith Mr. SamvelGhazarian, PIU DeputyProject Manager, August 1999

Appendix G. Additional Data and Comments ECODIT, 2000, Page G-1 EA of IrrigationDevelopment Project Ministryof Agriculture,IRP/PIU

G.2 SANITARYFLOW CALCULATIONSFOR THE POTOMACRIVER 2

Cognizantof the need to preserveand balancethe various resourcesand uses of the Potomacriver, the State of Maryland'sDepartment of Natural Resourcesspearheaded in 1981 an assessmentof the sanitaryflow requirementsfor the Potomac river. The "Potomac River EnvironmentalFlow-by Study" assessed the effects of low flow on the environment (e.g., wildlife, water quality, fisheries), recommended a minimum daily environmentalflow, and suggested actions to maintain the recommended minimum flow. Various stakeholders participatedin the study, includingconcerned U.S. (federal) and state environmentalagencies. local authorities,and water andsanitation utilities.

The study examined the various Potomac river resources and uses (fisheries, macroinvertebrates,wildlife, recreation,and drinkingwater) and assessedthe potentialimpacts on them of low river flows. The study consideredthe followingfactors:

* Practicalwater managementrealities (historical flow frequency,water supply demand,water use restrictions); * Downstreamareas of potentialimpact and areasof significantconcern; * Species of most concern, especially during their juvenile life stage (e.g., small-mouthbass); and * Low flows and duration necessaryfor a significantdecline in some species population (includingjuvenile population),and recoverytime before normal conditionsresume.

The study found that historicallow river flows had negligible or short-term impacts on non-fishery resources and uses (e.g., boating and wildlife). In contrast, fishery resources, especially the juvenile smallmouthbass population,would be the most affected by low river flow. Taking into accountpractical water managementconsiderations (water supply needs and natural flow frequencies),the study recommendeda minimumdaily environmentalflow of 100 million gallons per day (mgd) (equivalentto 4.38 m3/s) below Little Falls dam to protect the integrityof the fishery, and a minimumflow of 300 mgd from Little Falls dam upstreamto Great Falls. The study found that the minimumflow should be set as a "daily average"rather than a "weeklyaverage" to protect the integrityof the fishery.

The study developedtailored mechanismsfor allocating water between the Potomac river and the local water utilities,including special precautions in drought years. Specifically,the WashingtonAqueduct normally withdraws200 mgd from Potomac river, usually at the Great Falls intake. When the river flow is only 500 mgd just above the Great Falls intake, the study recommendedreducing the amountsof water withdrawnby the water utility to ensure that the sanitaryflows of 300 mgd (upstream)and 100 mgd (downstream)are met.

The sanitaryflows of 100 mgd and 300 mgd have been in place since 1981. Duringthe summer of 1999,the region went through a serious drought and the Potomac river was at its lowest levels in many years. If the drought had continued,the WashingtonAqueduct would have had to reduceits water intakefrom Great Falls in orderto meet the 100 mgd sanitaryflow

2 Maryland,1981 (except for last paragraph)

AppendixG. AdditionalData and Comments ECODIT,2000, Page G-2 EA of irrigationDevelopment Project Ministryof Agriculture,IRP/PIU limit. Also, several environmentalNGOs (e.g., NatureConservancy) argued that the limit was set too low to protectthe ecosystemof the river and calledfor raisingit.

G.3 ENVIRONMENTALACTION PLANNING IN ARMENIA

The Government of Armenia, with financial assistance from the World Bank's Institutional Development Fund, has prepared two complementaryenvironmental action programs:the National EnvironmentalAction Program (NEAP) and the Lake Sevan Action Program (LSAP). Efforts are also underway to prepare an IntegratedWater Resources ManagementPlan (IWRMP).

G.3.1 NationalEnvironmental Action Plan (NEAP)

The NEAP identifies environmental priorities and outlines various measures for strengthening environmentalpolicy, institutional development,and legal reforms across all sectors. In order to preparethe NEAP,the MoNPestablished eight working groups (WGs) and coordinatedtheir efforts:

WG 1 EnvironmentalPolicy, Regulatory and InstitutionalIssues WG 2 EnvironmentalHealth WG 3 Air Qualityand Atmospheric Protection WG 4 Water Qualityand Water ResourcesManagement WG 5 Municipaland IndustrialWaste Management WG 6 Land Resources,Land Use and ProtectionManagement WG 7 Forestry WG 8 Biodiversity.

The eight working groups producedeight separate reports detailingtheir findings. The World Bank summarizedthe findings and recommendationsof the eight working groups and outlined the key actions in "Main Report of the National Environmental Action Program" (NEAP, Main Report,1999)

G.3.2 LakeSevan Action Program

Initiated in 1996 and completedin 1999, the EnvironmentalAction Program for Lake Sevan outlinesthe major issuesand prioritizesthe necessaryactions to restorethe ecological conditions of Lake Sevan accordingto economic, social, and environmentalcriteria. The Programidentified the followingthree main priorityconcerns (LSAP, Main Report,1999):

* Loss of strategic reserve of water for irrigation and hydropowerproduction caused by the loweredwater level; * Threatenedecosystem stability caused by the reduced water level and the deteriorationof waterquality; and * Reducedamenity and culturalvalue.

A World Bank mission in 1998 had concludedthat too much reliancehas been placed on the diversion of other water resources as the means for rehabilitatingLake Sevan's ecological condition. The missionfound that raisingof Lake Sevan'swater level by six meterswould take at least 90 years if it relied on the Vorotan River Diversion project. Instead, the mission recommendeddeveloping a sustainablewater managementplan and strengtheninginstitutional and legislativemeasures.

Appendix G. Additional Data and Comments ECODIT. 2000, Page G-3 EA of IrrigationDevelopment Project Ministryof Agriculture,IRP/PIU

G.3.3 Integrated Water Resources Management Plan

The Government of Armenia has started preparing an Integrated Water Resources Management Plan (IWRMP) to address the key challenges in the water sector and support the economic restructuring strategy. The IWRMP should develop an integrated policy framework with specific guidelines to ensure the optimal and sustainable allocation of water resources across all relevant sectors, taking into account physical, economic, financial, environmental, and social considerations (NEAP, Main Report, 1999).

The MoNP estimates that it will take two years to complete the IWRMP, which is expected to include the following activities (see NEAP, WG4, 1998 and NEAP, Main report, 1999):

* Develop a legislative and policy framework that supports sustainable water resources management; * Enhance institutional capacity for implementation and enforcement of environmental regulations in the water sector; * Establish priorities for short-, medium-, and long-term rehabilitation and investment of major water-related infrastructure; * Protect Lake Sevan and its freshwater reserves; * Develop a comprehensive water balance modeling tool; * Improve and strengthen international agreements-on sharing transboundary water; and - Improve the efficiency and reliability of water services and cost recovery.

G.4 REHABILITATION OF THE DRAINAGE SYSTEM IN THE ARARAT VALLEY

G.4.1 Quality of ground, irrigation, and drainage water

Tables G-1, G-2, G-3 present the results of recent water quality analyses (pH, TDS, SAR) for ground water, irrigation water, and drainage water, respectively.

AppendixG. AdditionalData and Comments ECODIT,2000, Page G-4 EA of Irrigation Development Project Ministry of Agriculture, IRP/PIU

Table G-1 Qualityof GroundWater in the AraratValley

Monitoring Location of monitoring well Sampling pH TDS SAR well # depth (m) (g/l) (no unit) 756 Territory of Surenavan village 0 7.7 1.12 13 708 600 m from KhorVirap Church 2.8 7.9 1.11 13 730 1 km south west of Ararat village 2.5 7.7 1.54 30.3 558 Hovtashat village 0.8 7.8 1.03 10.5 605 1 km south of Burastan village 1.2 7.6 0.97 11.5 637 1 km from Artashat 1.2 7.7 0.80 7.5 432 N. 6 collector syst. of Hovtashat vil. 1.3 8 1.37 8.6 436 Territory of Hatanist village 1.7 7.9 1.09 10.3 514 Noramag village 0.9 7.9 1.08 4.6 527 Territory of c. Masis 1.3 7.9 1.52 17.8 220 Aratashen village 1.6 7.8 0.96 6.3 251 Territory of Lusagyuh 1.4 7.9 0.86 6.6 254 Territory of Apaga village 1.3 8.1 1.55 21.7 10 Territory of Mrgashat village 2.1 7.7 0.99 20.7 68 Territory of Tandzut village 2.8 7.7 1.23 15.8 1246 Territory of Vardashen village 2.1 7.8 1.41 3.9 Source: DrainageIndustrial Enterprise, March-August 1999

Appendix G. Additional Data and Comments ECODIT, 2000, Page G-5 EA of IrrigationDevelopment Project Ministryof Agriculture,IRP/PIU

Table G-2 Quality of IrrigationWater in the AraratValley

Irrigation system name (water station #) Irrigated area pH TDS SAR (in ha) (g/l) Mkhchyan pump station 11,410 7.6 1.02 5.49 Sevjur pump station (49) 1,024 7.8 0.65 6.4 Nerkin Hrazdan channel 1,782 7_7 1.10 6.4 Sovetakan pump station (4) 1,923 7.7 0.65 2.35 Hrazdan Araxi collector's start (26) 1,050 7A10.79 3.84 Hrazdan-Araxi collectorlend (31A) 6,700 7.6 0.78 2 Artashat channel 8,240 7.7-7.9 1.0-1.2 9.3-9.7 V. Vedi, upper part of main channel 81,200 7.5-7.7 0.5-0.6 5.1-5.3 Azati reservoir 1,270 7.6-7.9 0.4-0.5 8.0-8.3 Aratshati channel 2,920 7.4-7.7 1.0-1.2 9.0-10.0 Channel in Saiat Nova v. 1,540 7.3-7.7 1.0-1.2 13-14 Arbati channel 1,030 6.8-7.2 0.3-0 4 1.5-2 0 Hoktemberien main channel 18,765 6.8-7.2 0 6-0 7 7 7-7 8 Talin main channel 1,418 7.1-7.6 0.4-0.5 4.0-5.0 Shah-aru channel 2,121 7.5-7.8 0.7-0.8 2.3-2.6 Aighr iithch pump station 2,870 7.1-7.6 0.6-0.7 4.5-4.9 Etchmiadzin channel 1,000 7.5-7.8 0.7-0.8 3.3-3.7 Shadlui channel 1,647 7.4-7.8 0.7-0.8 4.2-4.6 Farshi channel 1,100 7.5-7.8 0.7-0.8 3.5-3.9 Jrarati channel 1,677 7.3-7.6 0.6-0.7 4.0-4.5 Nerkin Hrazdani channel 4,577 7.7 1.10 6.4 Source: DrainageIndustrial Enterprise, May-June 1999

AppendixG. AdditionalData and Comments ECODIT,2000, Page G-6 EA of IrrigationDevelopment Project Ministryof Agriculture,IRP/PIU

Table G-3 Quality of DrainageWater in the AraratValley

Sampling Sampling place Flow pH TDS SAR site # (m3/s) (g/l) 1 Argavand 0.28 7.7 1.22 6.18 2 Reservoir #4a at the'end of site 0.12 7.9 1.08 8.55 3a Mrgashat at the end of cascade 0.65 7.6 0.62 4.8 3 Kobu-Artashar collector opposite electric 1.57 7.7 0.60 3.24 substation ._. 4 Sovetakan pump station north-west of Artashar 4.27 7.7 0.65 4.3 village 5 5Kuru Araks collector, Yeraskhahun 4.22 7.9 1.21 9.7 village/cemetery/east-west 2a Kuru Arax collector collective farm Meliorator, at 0.75 7.9 0.72 5.08 the metal and concrete factory 4a Channel at the Sovetakan pump station 2.8 7.8 0.65 6.98 7 Reservoir #4 Village Yeraskhahun, east-west, 0.33 7.8 0.75 4.61 Etchmiatsin, Margara cross sectionleft side 9 End of collector #1 0.78 7.7 0.81 3.19 10 500 m from the end reservoir #1 at v.Griboyedov 0.41 7.6 0.61 3.27 11 Kobu Apaga collector, end 0.41 7.8 0.74 4.44 12 Kobu Apaga collector, east of Arax village 0.438 7.6 0.96 7.51 12a 400 m from the end of #5 collector Vil. Ranchpar 0.43 7.7 1.00 8.98 12b Vil. Ranchpar#10 reservoir, end 0.16 7.9 0.60 5.54 9a Reservoir #1/Lusagiugh vil, north 0.18 7.7 0.38 2.62 13 Hrazdan Achapnia collector #1, end 1.52 7.8 0.46 2.2 14a Collector #3, end 2 7.7 0.58 4.3 14 Collector #4, Ranchpar/near pump station 5.1 7.85 0.66 4.25 15 collector #6, near Ranchpar pump station 0.93 7.7 0.82 5.66 16a #2.3.4.6 collectors. reservoir #1 0, Hrazdan 0.18 8 0.90 6.86 Achapnia collector, end Source: DrainageIndustrial Enterprise, May-June 1999

Appendix G. Additional Data and Comments ECODIT, 2000, Page G-7 EA of IrrigationDevelopment Project Ministryof Agriculture,IRP/PIU

G.4.2 Improving health and sanitary conditions

Rehabilitating the Ararat Valley drainage system will reduce the breeding grounds for vectors, but will not eliminate them completely. Without careful attention and control, water- borne diseases and poor sanitary conditions could come back quickly after the end of the rehabilitation project.

In the past two years, pesticides have been sprayed to get rid of mosquitoes and limit the spread of malaria in the Ararat Valley. Using chemical insecticides might be effective to reduce the vectors' population, but it could lead to other negative impacts on the environment (e.g., pollute drinking and irrigation water, contaminate fish and aquatic life, and bioaccumulate and threaten predators and raptors).

Recommendation. Controlling the growth of disease carriers requires constant effort and effective surveillance of irrigation conditions, especially:

* Control and monitoring of water distribution; * Proper building and annual maintenance of canals; * Efficient drainage of excess water; and * Good irrigation efficiency.

Insecticides, if needed, should be used only locally, in small quantities, and with proper control and handling.

G.5 THE DRAINING OF LAKE GILLI AND CURRENT RESTORATION PLANS

The Lake Gilli area is located in the southeastern corner of the Sevan basin, at the mouth of the Masrik River. With a water surface area of about 860 hectares, the lake was a complex wetland ecosystem and a habitat for migratory waterfowl and aquatic species. Gilli acted as a cleaning reservoir for the waters of the Masrik River and other streams (settling of sediments. biological treatment) before they entered Lake Sevan. Reeds provided an important nesting place for several different bird species. Because Gilli is located on the international flyway of many migratory waterfowl species, many species stopped there for weeks at a time to feed during their migration.

In 1960, the government decided to drain Lake Gilli by diverting the direction of the Masrik River away from Lake Gilli. According to the Ministry of Nature Protection, the entire Sevan basin currently has fewer bird species than were present in the Gilli area alone in 1939. Previously, 159 bird species existed in the Lake Sevan basin. Since the draining of Lake Gilli, 33 bird species have been registered in the Armenian Red Book of endangered species. The draining of Gilli has also had a negative effect on Sevan's fish population because Lake Gilli was used for spawning. Today, the Gilli area consists of open peat mines and croplands.

The idea of restoring Lake Gilli has been on the table since 1978 but without any implementation. However, the UNDP-funded "Lake Sevan Ecological Balance Restoration" Project will finance a project to restore the former Lake Gilli in order to preserve the biodiversity of the Sevan basin. Also, the MoNP has submitted a biodiversity strategy activity to the Secretariat of the "Convention on Biodiversity" and has reached an initial agreement concerning the Lake Gilli Restoration project.

AppendixG. AdditionalData and Comments ECODIT,2000, Page G-8 EA of IrrigationDevelopment Project Ministryof Agriculture,IRPJPIU

G.6 PROMOTING SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURAL PRACTICES

Although unsustainable agricultural practices are not a direct impact of the proposed IDP, their continuation may dilute the positive impacts of the project in the long term. This section describes the long-term impacts of unsustainable agricultural practices and suggests appropriate mitigation measures. It would be desirable for the country to undertake such measures in the overall context of agricultural development.

G.6.1 Water conservation and reuse

Consistent with standard practice in agricultural development projects, the proposed conversion schemes are designed based on the 75th percentile flows. This means that, on average once very four years, sufficient water may not be available to meet the competing demands of population, irrigation, and sanitary flow. As explained in Chapter 5, this water stress situation is especially true for Conversion Schemes 1, 3, 4, 13, and 14. Because farmers do not appear familiar with or practice techniques of water conservation and reuse, drought years would result in sharp decline in agricultural output and economic loss to farmers in water- stressed regions.

Recommendation. The Ministry of Agriculture will need to incorporate the proposed IDP as it updates its contingency plans for drought years. During drought years, water may not be available to meet the irrigation requirements of several conversion schemes. As it moves from rehabilitation to development of the irrigation sector in Armenia, the Ministry of Agriculture may want to start promoting irrigation water conservation and reuse techniques. The MoA could begin by implementing pilot water conservation (drip irrigation, aspersion) and reuse (treated wastewater) activities in areas exhibiting a sharp deficit in irrigation water relative to arable lands, such as the Yeghegnadzor region (and the southern part of the Ararat valley). Successful pilot activities will convince farmers to adopt such techniques to increase crop yields and reduce dependence on irrigation. Farmers adopting water conservation and reuse techniques would be able to weather the impacts of drought by being less dependent on scarce irrigation water,

G.6.2 Agricultural soil management

Several of the proposed conversion schemes would bring back irrigation water to agricultural land that have not been irrigated for the past 10 years. For example, the Yeghegnadzor conversion scheme would return to irrigated agriculture about 2.874 ha of lands after a 10-year interruption in irrigation. While abandonment of those lands has slowly degraded the quality of their topsoil, their return to irrigated agriculture offers opportunities to reverse the soil degradation and gradually improve soil quality through sound soil management practices.

Recommendation. To maintain and improve soil conditions, the PIU could encourage farmers to use environmentally-friendly and sustainable agricultural practices, including soil tilling, cropping and crop rotations, rational use of agrochemicals, and organic soil amendments, water conservation, etc.

AppendixG. AdditionalData and Comments ECODIT,2000. PageG-9 EA of IrrigationDevelopment Project Ministryof Agriculture,IRP/PIU

G.6.3 Rational use of agrochemicals

Use of pesticides and fertilizers remains quite limited in Armenia because such agrochemicals are imported (primarily from Georgia) and expensive, and most farmers cannot afford them. Some farmers are gradually reverting to again use manure as organic fertilizer, after a period during which manure was used instead as a source of energy.

The conversion schemes will provide irrigation water to lands that used to be irrigated during the Soviet times but are no longer irrigated/cultivated due to various reasons (energy more expensive and not readily available, pumps not maintained properly, etc.). Although agrochemicals are not widely used currently, farmers probably would use pesticides and fertilizers to increase crop yield in the "newly" irrigated lands in the future (i.e., when farmers' income and population increase). Excessive use of agrochemicals wouldc.pollute soils, rivers, streams, and lakes and could limit the opportunities for Armenian agriculture to sell increasingly demanded free-of-pesticides and organically-grown produce in the international market.

Recommendation. As the PIU moves from rehabilitation to development of irrigation in Armenia, the Ministry of Agriculture may want to start increasing the scope of its extension services to educate farmers about the proper use of pesticides and fertilizers and gradually introduce Integrated Pest Management (IPM) techniques. Also, the MoA needs to tighten its control over the import and use of agrochemicals.

G.7 EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS FOR CATASTROPHIC DAM FAILURE

The Dam Safety Project is designed to significantly reduce the risks of dam failure but cannot eliminate them totally. Despite those safety improvement works, accidental releases of large volumes of water could occur, albeit with much reduced probability of occurrence. The resulting flood surge could lead to significant loss of human lives and property if downstream populations are not warned and evacuated in a timely fashion, Box G-1 summarizes the emergency preparedness situation in Armenia.

Box G-1 Emergency Preparedness in Armenia a,

The Emergency Situation Department of the Government of Armenia is responsible for emergency planning, including radio communication, sirens, and 1 evacuation. During the Soviet period, the military was responsible for emergency i I planning and there were emergency plans for the 10 largest reservoirs in Armenia. Presently, new emergency plans are being reviewed and developed. but they have not been implemented yet.

In 1998, irrigation outlets experienced structural problems that created potentially serious emergency situations at the Aygedzor dam reservoir (problem with tunnel) and the Sovietashen dam reservoir (problem with canal). While the population near Aygedzor was evacuated, cement reinforcement works were conducted that prevented accidents at both reservoirs. This type of serious technical problem exists also at the Tavshud and Hakhoum dam reservoirs.

a/ Conversationwith Mr. Gabayan,Executive Director, "Djrambar" SCJSC (DME), August 1999

AppendixG. AdditionalData and Comments ECODIT,2000, Page G-10 EA of IrrigationDevelopment Project Ministryof Agriculture,IRP/PIU

Recommendation. The EA Team recommends that the GoA strengthen emergency warning systems and preparedness/response plans. These systems and plans must build on the experiences and lessons-learned from previous dam failures and response (or lack thereof) in Armenia. The plans must be in writing and result from a consultative process involving all stakeholders; they must be updated and tested on a regular basis and satisfy the following other criteria:

* Conduct probabilistic risk analysis and hazard analysis: what can go wrong? how likely are releases of different magnitudes? which populations would be affected? etc.: * Install early warning systems (e.g., systems to detect/monitor the structural integrity of the dams) and maintain them; * Increase public awareness and participation and conduct--regular emergency response exercises; and * Mobilize key responders and identify evacuation routes/procedures.

Because the risks of catastrophic dam failure existed before the project and cannot be attributed to it (in fact, the project will reduce them), the above recommendation is not as a required mitigation measure under this EA.

AppendixG. AdditionalData and Comments ECODIT,2000, Page G-11

APPENDIX H

REFERENCES

EA of IrrigationDevelopment Project Ministryof Agriculture,IRP/PIU

APPENDIX H

REFERENCES

General References on Armenia

Barseghyan, Vegetation of Armenian Wetlands, 1989. Biodiversity of Armenia, First National Report, 1999. Government of Armenia, Ministry of Nature Protection. Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan of the Republic of Armenia, 1999. Government of Armenia. Ministry of Nature Protection. Gharabegian, A. 1994. Lake Sevan: Blue Gem or Dying Lake? Lakeline: 26-31. GoA, 1991. The Principles of Environmental Protection Legislation of the Republic of Armenia (informal English translation). GoA, 1992. The Water Code of the Republic of Armenia (informal English translation). GoA, 1995. Act of the Republic of Armenia on Environmental Impact Assessment (informal English translation). GoA, 1998. Ministry of Agriculture. Design of Technical-Economical Justification of Vorotan River's Water Usage for Irrigation of Ararat Plain through Completion of the Vorotan- Arpa Tunnel. Hovhannisyan, R. 1996. Non-Point Source Pollution, Lake Sevan: Problems and Strategies of Action. ANI Publishing House, Sevan, Armenia, pp. 31-35. KBN Applied Engineering Sciences, Inc. 1995. Environmental Assessment: Winter Wheat Project. Kurkjian, R., 1999. Trace Metal Contamination in the Republic of Armenia, Environmental Management (in print). LSAP, Main Report, 1999. Government of ArmeniaNVorld Bank. Lake Sevan Action Program, Main Report. LSAP, WG2, 1998. Government of ArmeniaNVorld Bank. Lake Sevan Environmental Action Programme. Water Resources Management. Minsk, 1997. Guidelines for Regulating Minimal Waste of Water in Rivers for Nature Protection. Narimanyan, V., 1996. The Sewage Treatment and Industrial Pollution Mitigation in Sevan Lake Water Reservoir, Lake Sevan: Problems and Strategies of Action. ANI Publishing House, Sevan, Armenia, pp. 27-30. NEAP, Main Report, 1999. Govemment of Armenia/World Bank. National Environmental Action Program, Main Report. NEAP, WG1, 1998. National Environmental Action Plan. Environmental Policy, Regulatory and Institutional Issues. NEAP, WG2, 1998. National Environmental Action Plan. Environmental Health.

AppendixH. References ECODIT,2000, Page H-1 EA of IrrigationDevelopment Project Ministryof Agriculture,IRP/PIU

NEAP, WG4, 1998. National Environmental Action Plan. Water Quality and Water Resources Management. Volume A: Main Report and Volume B: Appendices. Prepared by IWACO/JINJ/Norconsult. August 1998. NEAP, WG6, 1997. National Environmental Action Plan. Land Resources, Use and Protection Management, Draft. State of the Environment Report, 1998. Ministry of Nature Protection. State of the Environment of Armenia: Country Overview. World Bank Group, 1998. The World Bank Group Countries: Armenia. hKtp://www. worldbank.org/html/extdr/offrep/eca/am2.htm (Web page accessed January 24. 1999). World Bank, 1993. Irrigation Rehabilitation Project, Armenia. Volume l: Main Report, and Volume Il: Annexes. World Bank, 1994. World Bank Environmental Mission to Armenia, July 8-21, 1994. World Bank. Armenia Water Sector Review. Issues and approach paper.

References Related to the Irrigation Development Project (IDP)

Hadj-Mabrouk, 1999. Preliminary Environmental Management Plan (EMP). Dam Safety Project (DSP). Prepared by Ezedine Hadj-Mabrouk, World Bank. March 1999. IDP/PIU, 1999a. Reconstruction of Hoktemberian Main Canal and Increase of Intake from Araks River. Draft English translation. IDP/PIU, 1999b. Irrigation Development Project. Appendix 6: Rehabilitation of Irrigation Systems. Draft English translation. September 1999. IDP/PIU, 1999c. Rehabilitation and Reconstruction of Collector-Drainage Scheme of Ararat Valley. Draft English translation. IDP/PIU, 1999d. Conversion of Pumping into Gravity. Draft English translation. IDP/PIU, 1999e. Development of Schemes for Replacement of Pumping by Gravity. Preliminary Design Transfer to Gravity Irrigation of Lands in the Vajots-Dzor Region (SW-GR/002 GIR). Draft English translation. IDP/PIU. 1999f. Irrigation Development Project. Appendix 7: Financial and Economic Analyses. Draft English translation. August 1999. PIU/ECODIT, 1999. Environmental Assessment of Irrigation Development Project (SW-GR/014 Env). Scoping Session Report. World Bank, 1997. Armenia Dam Safety Project. Project Appraisal Document. WB/MoA, 1999. Dam Safety Project Preparation Report (January 1999). World Bank, PID, 1998. Irrigation Development Project. Project Information Document.

AppendixH. References ECODIT,2000, Page H-2 EA of IrrigationDevelopment Project Ministryof Agriculture,IRP/PIU

Other References

Maryland, 1981. Potomac River Environmental Flow-by Study. Maryland Department of Natural Resources. ODA/FAO, 1995. Environmental Impact Assessment of Irrigation and Drainage Projects. Irrigation and Drainage Paper No. 53. World Bank, 1991. Environmental Assessment Sourcebook; Volume I: Policies, Procedures, and Cross-Sectoral Issues (WB Technical Paper 139) and Volume Il: Sectoral Guidelines (WB Technical Paper 140). World Bank, 1999. Operational Manual: Operational Policies 4.01: Environmental Assessment; Bank Procedures 4.01: Environmental Assessment (January 1999), and Good Practices 4.01: Environmental Assessment (January 1999).

AppendixH. References ECODIT,2000, Page H-3