Draft Final ESIA Report Is Subject to Public Disclosure and GR Will Organise Public Hearings for Interested Parties in the Relevant Municipalities
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
DRAFT NON-TECHNICAL SUMMARY FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT (ESIA) OF THE TBILISI RAILWAY BYPASS PROJECT Prepared for: Prepared by: OCTOBER, 2009 1. Project Rationale The Georgian state-owned company Georgian Railway LLC (GR) intends to improve the safety and efficiency of their railway operations by constructing a new section of railway track bypassing Tbilisi’s town centre. The current railway section running through the capital is the main route for freight on the east-west transport corridor through Georgia. The cargo mostly comprises of crude and refined oil derivates in transit from Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan to the Black Sea ports. Urban development surrounds a number of the rail terminals, sidings and yards, many of which are now either obsolete or derelict. The existing railway has few crossing points, and also acts as a barrier to city development on the northern bank of the Mtkvari River and depresses land value in its vicinity. The Tbilisi Railway Bypass Project will not only improve the efficiency and safety of rail operations through the relocation of the existing rail facilities outside the urban area, but also result in urban redevelopment in the freed-up territories, in line with the city’s new General Plan for Prospective Development. The implementation of these activities in freed up territories is not part of the Tbilisi Railway Bypass Project and it is presented here for the sake of completeness. The areas cleared by GR will be redeveloped for the following two purposes: • Planning for redevelopment of the section between Central and Didube Stations (some 73.2ha); • The section between Central Station and Navtlughi (circa 6km long) will be used for a new urban traffic corridor, where the following projects are envisioned: – Creation of a new double-track tram coming from Mtskheta, passing Tbilisi Central Station, the Airport, Rustavi and terminating in Gardabani to the southeast. Thus, in the city centre this new tram, having the same route, will replace the current GR passenger railway. – Construction of a new urban road in the corridor between Central and Navtlughi Stations. The Project requires a permit from the Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources (MoE) based on an Environmental Impact Assessment. GR is also seeking funding from International Financial Institutions (IFI), amongst which are the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) and the European Investment Bank (EIB). A full Environmental and Social Impact Assessment (ESIA) has therefore been prepared to meet the requirements of both Georgian legislation and IFI policies. A consortium consisting of GDC Solutions (Gutidze Damenia Chantladze Solutions), CENN (Caucasus Environmental NGO Network) and APLR (Association for Protection of Landowners Rights) has been contracted to carry out this ESIA. The document reports potential environmental and social impacts associated with the construction and operation phases, and includes an Environmental and Social Management Plan (ESMP) describing measures to avoid, mitigate, or compensate identified impacts and to monitor compliance. APLR has also prepared a Resettlement and Compensation Framework. This Non-Technical Summary (NTS) presents the key findings of the ESIA, ESMP and Resettlement and Compensation Framework. Consultations with stakeholders and the public are also being undertaken, and project information disclosed in line with the Stakeholder Engagement Plan (SEP). The Draft Final ESIA Report is subject to public disclosure and GR will organise public hearings for interested parties in the relevant municipalities. NON-TECHNICAL SUMMARY (NTS): DRAFT FINAL - TBILISI RAILWAY BYPASS PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT (ESIA) 2. The Project Project alternatives At the initial stage of project development, GR discussed different route alternatives for the bypass. The left bank of the Mtkvari River was designated early on for the site of the railway route, since the right bank would have incurred heavy expenses due to the topographic setting. The main factors considered in the selection of the early alternatives were the following: • Terrain and the design and construction constraints related to it, including geotechnical aspects: this was the main restricting factor when designing the alternative routes as it affects the length of the route, as well as the location, number and length of tunnels and bridges required. • Cost: the proposed alternatives underwent significant changes during the development process as engineering structures (bridges, tunnels) lead to increased cost. • Environmental restrictions: consideration of an alternative route initially developed in the immediate vicinity of the Tbilisi Sea was ruled out at an early stage. • Social impacts: routes were identified trying to avoid settlements to minimise physical displacement as much as possible. The alternative routes analysis included several successive iterations, in which some alternatives were eliminated early in the review and comparison process. Specifically, the option that would have run very close to the Northern bank of the Tbilisi Sea was eliminated as it entailed considerable environmental impacts and risks to the Tbilisi Sea. At the end of the comparison process, four main alternatives were compared: 3 NON-TECHNICAL SUMMARY (NTS): DRAFT FINAL - TBILISI RAILWAY BYPASS PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT (ESIA) Table 1. Alternatives for the Tbilisi Bypass Railway Tunnel in Design Sub- Destination the water No Alternative Departure Point gradient alternative Point reservoir (slope) section Alternative I 1 _ Station Didube Station Navtlugi NA (The City Tunnel) Alternative II Karsani Station 15 0/ , 2 (North with 18 0/ _ Lilo I Station 00 NA 00 (designed) 18 0/ gradient) 00 Karsani Station III-1 Lilo I Station 15 0/ NO (proposed) 00 Karsani Station 0 Alternative III III-2 Lilo I Station 15 /00 YES 0 (proposed) 3 (Central with 15-18 /00 gradient) Karsani Station 0 III-3 Lilo I Station 15 / NO (proposed) 00 Karsani Station III-4 Lilo I Station 15 0/ YES (proposed) 00 0 IV-1 Zahesi Lilo I Station 18 /00 NO 4 Alternative IV (Central) 0 IV- 2 Zahesi Lilo I Station 18 /00 YES Table 2. Comparison of Main Alternatives for the Tbilisi Bypass Railway Alternative I Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV 0 0 The City Tunnel North 18 /00 Central 18 /00 Central TECHNICAL FEATURES TOTAL LENGTH (km) 9.5 49.2 46.4 29 TUNNELS 1 (9,540 m) 3 (8,175 m) 4 (3,900 m) 3 (2,550 m) APPROX. COST Not assessed 686 312 264 (million EUR) ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES Poor mechanical characteristics of Moderate landslide GEOLOGY High landslide risk. High landslide risk. subsoil. Subsiding risk. subsoil. Proximity to “Tbilisi Proximity to “Tbilisi Possibility of Sea”; Sea”; affecting HYDROLOGY AND Low depth of 2-10m Low depth of 2-10m hydrological regime HYDROGEOLOGY to groundwater, to groundwater, of the ground leading to possible leading to possible water. negative impacts negative impacts on its quality. on its quality. Crosses the Crosses the Crosses the Traditional Use Traditional Use Traditional Use PROTECTED AREAS No impacts. Zone of the Tbilisi Zone of the Tbilisi Zone of the Tbilisi National Park. National Park. National Park. Moderate negative Moderate negative Moderate negative Very limited impacts – no impacts – no impacts – no LANDSCAPE (Visual) negative impacts. sensitive areas in sensitive areas in sensitive areas in the vicinity. the vicinity. the vicinity. 4 NON-TECHNICAL SUMMARY (NTS): DRAFT FINAL - TBILISI RAILWAY BYPASS PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT (ESIA) Alternative I Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV 0 0 The City Tunnel North 18 /00 Central 18 /00 Central Part of the city Moderate impacts – Moderate impacts – Moderate impacts – remains affected by some settlements some settlements some settlements NOISE the intensive in the area of noise in the area of noise in the area of noise railway traffic. impact. impact. impact. Destruction of Destruction of Destruction of green cover green cover green cover FLORA & FAUNA No impact. (shrubbery). (shrubbery). (shrubbery). Negative influence Endangered Endangered on fauna. species may exist. species may exist. SOCIAL ISSUES Approx. 312.6ha of Approx. 207.55ha Approx. 125ha of land must be of land must be land must be LAND ACQUISITION acquired for the acquired for the acquired for the project. project. project. 4 residential 5 residential 5 residential settlements are settlements are settlements are crossed in 7 areas; crossed in 6 areas; crossed in 8 areas; Resettlement Resettlement Resettlement encompasses encompasses encompasses No physical RESETTLEMENT residential private residential private residential private displacement building, land plots, building, land plots, building, land plots, gas stations; gas stations; gas stations; Around 300 private Around 170 private Around 50-75 houses will be houses will be private houses will affected. affected. be affected. Chosen alternative GR selected routing option IV-1 (central – 18 ‰ gradient) as being the most cost effective and technically adequate, and, as shown in the table above, its environmental and social impacts do not appear significantly worse than those of the other options. Main Features and Design Elements of the Project The Project comprises two main parts: 1) The Bypass: • Construction of a new 27.1 km double track “Zahesi” – “Lilo 1”; • Construction of 3 tunnels with a total length of 2.55 km; • Construction of 3 bridges