Biomass Removal Plan (BRP) for
Nam Ngiep Power Company (NNP1)
FINAL
Prepared for
By
July 2015 Biomass Removal Plan (BRP)
RECORD DISTRIBUTION
Copy No. Company / Position Name
1 Director, ESD NNP1 Mr Prapard PAN-ARAM
2 Manager, EMO Mr Viengkeo Phetnavongxay 3 Deputy Manager of Watershed / Biodiversity Management Dr Hendra WINASTU
4 Senior Environmental Specialist, EMO NNP1 Dr Souane THIRAKUL
DOCUMENT REVISION LIST
Revision Status/Number Revision Date Description of Revision Approved By
Rev0 11th May 2015 Working Draft Nigel Murphy
Rev1 21st May 2015 Draft Nigel Murphy
Rev2 28th May 2015 Final Draft Nigel Murphy
Rev3 16 July 2015 Final Nigel Murphy
Rev4 24 July 2015 Final(revised) Nigel Murphy
This report is not to be used for purposes other than those for which it was intended. Environmental conditions change with time. The site conditions described in this report are based on observations made during the site visit and on subsequent monitoring results. Earth Systems does not imply that the site conditions described in this report are representative of past or future conditions. Where this report is to be made available, either in part or in its entirety, to a third party, Earth Systems reserves the right to review the information and documentation contained in the report and revisit and update findings, conclusions and recommendations.
FINAL 1-1
Biomass Removal Plan (BRP)
Contents
LIST OF ACRONYMS ...... 1-5
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...... 1-7 Introduction ...... 1-7 Context for Biomass Removal ...... 1-7
Project Reservoirs ...... 1-7 Biomass Profile ...... 1-7 Commercial Logging ...... 1-8
Environmental Modelling ...... 1-8 Analysis and Section of Biomass Removal Options ...... 1-9 Environmental and Social Considerations for Biomass Removal ...... 1-9
Selection of Priority Biomass Removal Areas ...... 1-9 Salvage Logging Management ...... 1-10 Residual Biomass Removal Management ...... 1-10
Code of Practice ...... 1-10 Targets, Actions, Monitoring Framework and Budget ...... 1-11 1 INTRODUCTION ...... 12
1.1 The Biomass Removal Plan (BRP) ...... 12 1.2 Project Background ...... 12 1.2.1 Project Overview ...... 12
1.2.2 Project Reservoirs ...... 13 1.2.3 Reservoir and Dam Operation Characteristics ...... 16 1.2.4 Project Schedule ...... 16
1.3 Environmental and Social Setting ...... 17 1.3.1 Physical Setting ...... 17 1.3.2 Biological Setting ...... 20
1.3.3 Social Setting ...... 22 1.3.4 Unexploded Ordnance (UXO) ...... 22 1.3.5 Estimate of Biomass in the Reservoir Areas ...... 24
1.3.6 Commercial Timber and Harvest Activities in the Reservoir ...... 25
FINAL 1-2
Biomass Removal Plan (BRP)
1.4 Legal and other Requirements ...... 26 1.4.1 Guidelines for Biomass Removal ...... 26 1.4.2 Project Concession Agreement ...... 26
1.4.3 Other Lao PDR Regulatory Requirements ...... 27 2 PRESENTATION OF DATA AND MODELLING RESULTS ...... 29 2.1 Impacts of the Inundation of Biomass ...... 29
2.2 Environmental Modelling ...... 29 2.2.1 Model Data Inputs ...... 29 2.2.2 Summary of Results...... 31
2.2.3 Conclusions and Recommendations ...... 33 3 ANALYSIS AND SELECTION OF BIOMASS REMOVAL OPTIONS ...... 34 3.1 Analysis of Removal Options ...... 34
3.1.1 Do Nothing ...... 34 3.1.2 Partial Biomass Removal (Salvage Logging) ...... 34 3.1.3 Complete Biomass Removal ...... 35
3.1.4 Salvage Logging and Biomass Clearance of the Drawdown ...... 35 3.1.5 Fill and Flush (or partial fill and flush) ...... 36 3.2 Selected Removal Option(s) ...... 36
3.3 Environmental and Social Considerations for Biomass Removal ...... 36 3.3.1 Potential Environmental Impacts ...... 36 3.3.2 Potential Social Impacts ...... 37
3.4 Analysis of Priority Areas for Biomass Removal ...... 38 3.4.1 Analysis of Potential Clearance Areas ...... 38 3.4.2 Priority Biomass Removal Areas ...... 39
4 SALVAGE LOGGING MANAGEMENT ...... 41 4.1 Roles and Responsibilities ...... 41 4.2 Status of Salvage Logging Activities ...... 41
4.2.1 Status of Commercial Timber Harvesting ...... 41 4.3 Priority Areas for Salvage Logging ...... 42 4.4 Approach for Remaining Salvage Logging Activities ...... 42 4.5 Salvage Logging Techniques ...... 43 5 RESIDUAL BIOMASS REMOVAL MANAGEMENT ...... 44
FINAL 1-3
Biomass Removal Plan (BRP)
5.1 Roles and Responsibilities for Residual Biomass Removal ...... 44 5.2 Residual Biomass Removal Approach ...... 44 5.2.1 Pre-Impoundment Biomass Removal ...... 44
5.2.2 Post Impoundment Biomass Removal ...... 44 5.3 Priority Areas for Biomass Removal ...... 44 5.4 Biomass Removal Techniques ...... 45
5.4.1 Lesser Value Biomass Extraction ...... 45 5.4.2 Residual Biomass Clearance ...... 45 5.4.3 Floating Log / Debris Removal ...... 47
6 CODE OF PRACTICE FOR BIOMASS REMOVAL ...... 49 6.1 Environmental and Social Management and Mitigation Measures ...... 49 6.2 Summary of ‘No Go’ Areas ...... 49
6.3 Contractors ...... 49 7 PUBLIC CONSULTATION ...... 57 7.1 Objectives of Public Consultation and Disclosure ...... 57
7.2 Summary of Consultation Activities ...... 57 7.3 Next Steps ...... 57 8 TARGETS, ACTIONS, MONITORING FRAMEWORK AND BUDGET ...... 59
8.1 Actions and Implementation Schedule ...... 59 8.2 Monitoring Framework ...... 64 8.3 Budget Estimate ...... 69
9 REFERENCES ...... 70 10 APPENDICES ...... 71 Appendix A: Project Features ...... 71
Appendix B: Impacts of Inundation of Biomass ...... 73 Appendix C: Technical Report – Environmental Modelling...... 76 Appendix D: Priority Biomass Removal Area Maps ...... 97
Appendix E: Record of Consultations ...... 104
FINAL 1-4
Biomass Removal Plan (BRP)
LIST OF ACRONYMS
ADB Asian Development Bank
AGB Above Ground Biomass
BGB Below Ground Biomass
BMPs Best Management Practices
BOD Biochemical Oxygen Demand. Also named Biological Oxygen Demand.
BRP Biomass Removal Plan CA Concession Agreement DEM Digital Elevation Model DO Dissolved Oxygen
EHS Environment, Health and Safety EIA Environmental Impact Assessment EMO Environmental Management Office EMU Environmental Management Unit EIA Environmental Impact Assessment ESD Environmental and Social Division ESIA Environmental and Social Impact Assessment ESMMP- CP Environmental and Social Monitoring and Management Plan for the Construction Phase. FAO Food and Agriculture Organization FSL Full Supply Level GHG Greenhouse gas GOL Government of Lao PDR GPS Global Positioning System IFC International Finance Corporation IFI International Financial Institution IHA International Hydropower Association IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change IUCN International Union for Conservation of Nature MAF Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry Masl Metres above sea level MOL Minimum Operation Level MONRE Ministry of Natural Resources and environment MRC Mekong River Commission NAFRI National Agriculture and Forestry Research Institute
FINAL 1-5
Biomass Removal Plan (BRP)
NLMA National Land Management Authority NNP1 Nam Ngiep 1 Power Company NN1 Nam Ngiep 1 Hydropower Project NOL Normal Operating Level NRA National Regulatory Authority – Lao PDR NS Lao PDR National UXO/MINE Action Standards NTFP Non-Timber Forest Products NWL Normal Water Level PAFO Provincial Agriculture and Forestry Office PAPs Project Affected Peoples PONRE Provincial office of Natural Resources and Environment PPE Personal Protective Equipment RAP Resettlement Action Plan REDP Resettlement and Ethic Minority Development Plans SIA Social Impact Assessments SLBR Salvage Logging Biomass Removal SLBRP Salvage Logging Biomass Removal Plan SMO Social Management Office SP Sub-Plan TOC Total Organic Carbon TOR Terms of Reference TSS Total Suspended Solids UMD Upper Mixed Deciduous UXO Unexploded Ordnance WQ Water Quality WREA Water Resources & Environment Administration
FINAL 1-6
Biomass Removal Plan (BRP)
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Introduction
The Nam Ngiep 1 Power Company Limited (NNP1) has received a concession agreement from the Government of the Lao PDR (GOL) to build, operate and transfer the “Nam Ngiep 1 Hydropower Project” (NN1) in Central Lao PDR. The Project involves the construction of a hydropower dam (272MW) and re- regulation dam (18MW) on the Nam Ngiep River. NNP1 has committed to the implementation of a biomass removal program through the Environmental Impact Assessment for Nam Ngiep 1 Hydropower Project, hereafter referred to as the NN1 EIA 2014 (ERM 2014a), and the Concession Agreement 2013 (Annex C 2015). This includes coordination with the GOL regarding government led salvage logging activities; and NNP1 led removal of residual biomass. This Biomass Removal Plan (BRP) is based on Government of Lao PDR’s (GOL) Environmental Guidelines for Biomass Removal from Hydropower Reservoir in Lao PDR (2012). Priority objectives of the BRP are to: Collect the maximum quantity of commercially valuable timber species from the newly created reservoir at full supply level (320masl) in particular forest areas (i.e. Dry Evergreen and Upper Mixed Deciduous Forests); and Remove as much above ground biomass (with a focus on soft biomass) from the Project reservoir as possible to reduce serious adverse impacts on water quality and the generation of greenhouse gasses. Other objectives include: Enhance the habitat for viable fisheries management in the reservoir and its tributaries including downstream; Aid access, navigation and other uses of the reservoir; and To reduce the long-term production of floating debris and facilitate its management. Context for Biomass Removal
Project Reservoirs NN1 has two reservoirs, the Main Reservoir and the Re-regulation Reservoir. The Main Reservoir will cover an area of 66.9 km2 at full supply level (FSL) extending from the main dam up the narrow Nam Ngiep River gorge for 72 km. The re-regulating reservoir will be located 6.2 km downstream from the main dam and 1.3 km up-stream from the village of Ban Hatsaykham. It will cover an area of 1.3 km2 at full supply (185.9 masl).
Biomass Profile Land affected in the Main Reservoir is primarily Dry Evergreen, Mixed Deciduous Forest. Land affected in the Re-Regulating Reservoir is primarily Mixed Deciduous, Bamboo and Fallow. An estimated biomass profile has been calculated for Project reservoirs based on previous research studies and assessments conducted for Projects in Lao PDR and across the region (see Table 0-1).
FINAL 1-7
Biomass Removal Plan (BRP)
Table 0-1 Estimated Biomass Profile Above Ground Below All Soils (Rapidly Ground Vegetation Decomposable – Rapidly Slowly Vegetation (Dried) top 10 cm) Decomposable Decomposable (Dried) Vegetation (Dried)
Estimated Biomass 40 125 35 200 100 Content (t/ha)
Source: Earth Systems 2015
Note: Vegetation biomass estimates (above and below ground) are based on experience from other projects in Lao PDR; Soil nutrients and biomass estimates based on soil types in the reservoir and values for other projects in Lao PDR.
Commercial Logging Commercial logging activities commenced in 2012. Estimates of commercial timber resources and the status of timber harvesting are provided in Table 0-2.
Table 0-2 Results of Commercial Timber Resource Studies and Status of Harvesting* Estimated Commercial Timber Harvested ( m3) Province Commercial Timber Resource ( m3) 2013/2014 2014/2015 Total
Xaysomboun 34,505 2,494 5,754 8,248
Bolikhamxay 2,264 2,264 - 2,264
Total 36,769 4,758 5,754 10,512
Source: Earth Systems 2015
* Likely to include areas both inside and outside the NN1 reservoir area. Environmental Modelling
Earth Systems conducted environmental modelling of the performance of the Main Reservoir using the BioREM modelling tool. Modelling examined three (3) scenarios: 1) Baseline no biomass removal low / high AGB/BGB; 2) Burn - no flush in Priority Biomass Removal Areas (31% soft biomass removal, 49% hard biomass removal high biomass); and 3) Burn - no flush (60% soft biomass removal, 80% hard biomass removal high biomass). Key conclusions of this modelling exercise include: Without biomass removal (Scenario 1), modelling predicts poor quality water in the proposed NNP1 reservoir for 10-12 years of operations after the reservoir is filled; By undertaking Scenario 2 (Priority Biomass Removal Areas) the surface water quality in the reservoir will return to acceptable conditions within five to six years; The lower layers of water in the reservoir are problematic in all scenarios and a downstream reaeration and temperature treatment system is recommended for the reservoir to improve release water quality and protect downstream aquatic ecosystems; and The theoretical burning of the entire inundated area (Scenario 3) does not offer substantial benefits compared to the Scenario 2.
FINAL 1-8
Biomass Removal Plan (BRP)
Analysis and Section of Biomass Removal Options
A number of options for biomass removal have been analysed and a combined approach for biomass removal in the Main Reservoir has been selected including: Salvage logging; and Residual biomass removal; o Lesser value biomass extraction (by local communities); o Biomass clearance.
Environmental and Social Considerations for Biomass Removal Key potential impacts associated with the biomass removal activities include: erosion and sediment transport; UXO survey and clearance; vegetation clearance / habitat protection; wildlife protection; fire; air quality; noise and vibration; hazardous materials; waste; work camps and workforce; in-migration and camp followers; traffic and access; local livelihoods; and archaeology and cultural heritage. These potential impacts are important considerations in the selection of priority biomass removal areas
Selection of Priority Biomass Removal Areas An analysis of potential clearance areas in the Main Reservoir Area was conducted. This analysis considered the following: land use and vegetation habitat; slope; riparian buffer zones; UXO risk; access; and location of village settlements. Eighteen priority biomass removal areas have been identified (see Table 0-3 and Appendix D). These areas total 1912 ha and according to the most recent imagery (January 2014) contain 696 ha of UMD Forest; 1019.5 ha of old fallow; and 196 ha of young fallow.
Table 0-3 Priority Areas for Biomass Removal Priority areas Upper Mixed Young Fallow TOTAL Area Zone Old Fallow (Ha) (#) Deciduous (Ha) (Ha) (Ha)
1 105.62 9.49 0.27 115.38
2 33.88 114.03 18.00 165.92
3 63.25 25.61 88.86
1 4 120.89 39.41 7.37 167.68
5 346.55 4.17 350.72
6 46.71 46.71
7 42.90 0.13 43.03
8 27.44 11.67 1.90 41.00
9 13.66 27.62 12.85 54.13
2 10 156.33 109.07 51.98 317.39
11 6.32 82.49 9.24 98.05
12 84.23 84.23
13 131.35 131.35
14 1.76 44.49 6.75 53.00
15 0.59 67.62 25.06 93.27
3 16 7.13 2.73 9.86
FINAL 1-9
Biomass Removal Plan (BRP)
Priority areas Upper Mixed Young Fallow TOTAL Area Zone Old Fallow (Ha) (#) Deciduous (Ha) (Ha) (Ha)
17 14.08 30.18 44.25
18 6.97 0.22 7.18
TOTAL 696.18 1019.59 196.24 1912.01
Source: Earth Systems 2015 Salvage Logging Management
Commercial timber within the Project area is owned by the GOL and government authorities such as the MAF and MONRE (and their provincial counterparts PAFO and PONRE) are responsible for harvesting activities According to officials in Bolikhamxay and Xaysomboun Provinces, commercial tree harvesting operations have now been completed in the Project reservoir areas. Both provinces have indicated that they will conduct surveying of remaining timber for possible harvesting and use by local furniture companies. A total of 696.18 ha within the proposed clearance area has been identified as Upper Mixed Deciduous forest and may be suitable for additional salvage logging activities. Additional areas outside the proposed clearance area, with limited or no road access, may become more accessible via boat after impoundment. A proposed approach for the harvesting of any remaining commercial timber resources within the Main Reservoir is provided including the establishment of a Salvage Logging and Biomass Removal Working Group under the Watershed Management Committee; the implementation of a protocol for identifying and harvesting (if necessary) any remaining commercial timber in the reservoir area; and the development of contingency plans for NNP1 led removal of remaining commercial timber before impoundment (if required). Residual Biomass Removal Management
NNP1 is responsible for managing all aspects of biomass removal (i.e. lesser value biomass and the removal of biomass for water quality purposes) in coordination with MAF / PAFO and MONRE / PONRE. Eighteen priority areas totalling 1912 ha have been identified for have been identified for residual biomass removal activities. All areas are located within the Main Reservoir. Removal of biomass in the Re- regulation Reservoir is not considered a priority due to the low volume of biomass and the level of recent clearance activities conducted for project construction. Residual biomass removal approaches include pre-impoundment lesser value biomass extraction and biomass clearance (manual cutting, clearing and burning); and post impoundment biomass removal (concentrated in the draw down area and including floating log and debris removal). Code of Practice
A Code of Practice has been developed for regulating and monitoring the biomass removal activities including: Key environmental and social management and mitigation measures; Identification of No Go areas; and Environmental and social safeguard requirements for contractors.
FINAL 1-10
Biomass Removal Plan (BRP)
Targets, Actions, Monitoring Framework and Budget
An action plan, implementation schedule and monitoring framework is presented for the biomass removal program. Key activities include: Updating the Watershed Management Committee’s TOR to include the formation of a Salvage Logging and Biomass Removal Working Group with functions for and biomass removal oversight; Engagement of contractors for UXO clearance and biomass clearance; Engagement with communities regarding biomass clearance activities in close proximity to their village settlements and the potential positive and negative impacts and proposed management measures; Update Project Livelihood Restoration Plan with activities for extraction and use of lesser value biomass Development and approval of environmental and social management measures for contractors; Preparation of operational plans for biomass clearing, monthly or annually Implementation of salvage logging, lesser value biomass removal and residual biomass removal activities; Removal of floating log/debris after filling plan; and Implementation of the field monitoring and assessment program.
FINAL 1-11
Biomass Removal Plan (BRP)
1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 The Biomass Removal Plan (BRP)
Nam Ngiep 1 Power Company (NNP1) has committed to the implementation of a biomass removal program through the Environmental Impact Assessment for Nam Ngiep 1 Hydropower Project, hereafter referred to as the NN1 EIA (ERM 2014a), and the Concession Agreement 2013 (Annex C 2015). This includes coordination with the GOL regarding government led salvage logging activities; and NNP1 led removal of residual biomass. This Biomass Removal Plan (BRP) is based on Government of Lao PDR’s (GOL) Environmental Guidelines for Biomass Removal from Hydropower Reservoir in Lao PDR (2012). It describes the rationale and approach for biomass removal for the Nam Ngiep 1 Hydropower Project (NN1). Environmental and social management, mitigation, and monitoring measures required to manage biomass removal activities are also included – to be used in conjunction with the Environmental and Social Monitoring and Management Plan Construction (ERM 2014b) and Operation. Priority objectives of the BRP are to: Remove the maximum quantity of commercially viable timber (including less commercially viable timber) from the newly created reservoir of NNP1 in particular natural forest areas (i.e. Dry Evergreen and Upper Mixed Deciduous Forests); and Remove as much above ground biomass (with a focus on soft biomass) from the main Project reservoir as possible to reduce serious adverse impacts on water quality and the generation of greenhouse gasses. Other objectives are to: Enhance the habitat for viable fisheries management in the reservoir and its tributaries including downstream; Aid access, navigation and other uses of the reservoir; and To reduce the long-term production of floating debris and facilitate its management The BRP is based on information collected during the EIA process (e.g. forest and timber resource studies, water quality studies and land use studies), as well as mapping undertaken using high resolution satellite imagery of the Project Area (captured January 2014). Initial consultations and site visits with officials from Xaysomboun and Bolikhamxay provinces were also conducted (see Appendix E – Consultation Record). The BRP is a dynamic document, and will be revised following consultation with the GOL regarding the proposed strategy for biomass removal activities, and / or whenever there is a major change in Project activities or design. 1.2 Project Background
1.2.1 Project Overview Nam Ngiep 1 Power Company Limited (NN1P) has received a concession agreement from the Government of the Lao PDR to build, operate and transfer the “Nam Ngiep 1 Hydropower Project” (NN1) in Central Lao PDR. The Project involves the construction of a hydropower dam (272MW) and re- regulation dam (18MW) on the Nam Ngiep River. Appendix A provides a summary of relevant Project features.
FINAL 12
Biomass Removal Plan (BRP)
1.2.2 Project Reservoirs NN1 has two reservoirs, the Main Reservoir and the Re-regulation Reservoir. The Main Reservoir will cover an area of 66.9 km2 at full supply level (FSL) extending from the main dam up the narrow Nam Ngiep River gorge for 72 km. The re-regulating reservoir will be located 6.2 km downstream from the main dam and 1.3 km up-stream from the village of Ban Hatsaykham. It will cover an area of 1.3 km2 at full supply (185.9 masl).
Table 1-1 NN1 Reservoir Features Re-regulation Main Reservoir Items Unit Reservoir Specification Specification Flood water level masl 320.0 185.9 Normal water level masl 320.0 179.0 Rated water level masl 312.0 179.0 Minimum operating level masl 296.0 174.0 Available depth m 24 5.0 Reservoir surface area Km2 66.9 (FSL) 1.27 (FSL) Effective storage capacity 106 m3 1.192 4.6 Catchment area Km2 3,700 3,725 Average annual inflow M3 / s 4,680 n/a
Source: NNP1 2015 The inundation area for the main reservoir varies significantly from full supply (69.9 km2) to minimum operating level (MOL) (37.4 km2), with most of the permanently inundated area occurring within the first 20 km upstream from the main dam. For the purposes of this Plan the reservoir has been divided into the following zones: Zone 1: Lower Reservoir – Located in the south of the reservoir, extending from the dam site to the Nam Youak; Zone 2: Middle Reservoir – Extending from the Nam Youak to the Houay Pamom; and Zone 3: Upper Reservoir – Situated in the northern area of the reservoir between the Houay Pamom and Ban Piengta The depth of the main reservoir at the deepest point, directly behind the main dam, will be equal to the dam height, which is approximately 140 m. The average depth of the reservoir will be approximately 70 m, ranging from a maximum of 140 m at the dam to a minimum of just a few meters at the furthest point from the dam (approximately 70 km upstream).
FINAL 13
Biomass Removal Plan (BRP)
Figure 1-1 Dam Longitudinal Profile Source: NNP1 2015
FINAL 14
Biomass Removal Plan (BRP)
Figure 1-2 NN1 Reservoir Areas Source: Earth Systems 2015
FINAL 15
Biomass Removal Plan (BRP)
1.2.3 Reservoir and Dam Operation Characteristics
Main Dam The structures of the main dam will consist of the main dam body, the main power station, and a tailrace. Intakes, penstocks, a spillway, and an environmental release conduit will be located in the main dam body. The intakes will be located on the upstream surface of the main dam at 276 masl, 19.9 m below the minimum operation level (MOL), but above the assumed 50-year sedimentation level of 233.0 masl. The design of the dam includes an environmental release (riparian release) conduit at 244.6 masl which will function to provide discharge from the NNP1 main reservoir during impoundment. The spillway for the main dam, which will provide controlled release of flows to the river, will comprise four (4) radial gates, each with 12.25 m breadth and 16.0 m radius (at 206.4 masl).
Re-regulation Dam The re-regulation dam will be built 6.2 km downstream from the main dam. The function of this dam is to store discharge water from the main dam during power peaks, re-use it for power generation, and release it downstream to mitigate environmental impacts from fluctuations in water level. The primary facilities of the re-regulation dam include a free overflow type concrete gravity dam, and a powerhouse on the left bank of the river.
Impoundment According to the tentative programme, the initial impounding will start on July 1, 2018. An environmental flow of 5.5 m3/s will be adopted for the NNP1 Project during the initial impounding. At the start of the initial impounding, water cannot be discharged through the environmental release conduit of the main dam until the reservoir water level reaches 244.6 masl, which is predicted to take approximately one - two weeks. Stored water in the re-regulation reservoir (10.4 x106 m3), augmented by natural inflow to the re-regulation reservoir (~1.8 m3/s), will secure an environmental flow of 5.5 m3/s below the re-regulation dam. Flow from three (3) tributaries (Nam Xao, Nam Tak and Nam Miane) will supplement the environmental flow, with respective confluences between 2 – 4 km from the re-regulation dam.
Operation The main power station will operate between the NWL (320 masl) and the MOL (296 masl), discharging a maximum of 230.0 m3/s from its turbine / generator. During weekdays the outflow from the re-regulation dam will be maintained at 160 m3/s. On weekends, the outflow from the re-regulation reservoir will be reduced over a 4-hour ramp down period to 27 m3/s for 17 hours (10pm on Saturday to 2pm on Sunday) and then increased to 48 m3/s for a period of 15 hours (2pm on Sunday to 6am on Monday). This normal operation procedure is predicted to occur for more than 97% of the time (ERM 2014a). The minimum environmental discharge from the re-regulation dam during operations will be 27 m3/s.
1.2.4 Project Schedule Construction of the (project) dam and ancillary infrastructure began in October 2013 and is scheduled for completion by the 1st quarter of 2019. Reservoir filling is planned to commence during the 2018 wet season. Commercial operation of the dam is scheduled to begin in January 2019.
FINAL 16
Biomass Removal Plan (BRP)
1.3 Environmental and Social Setting
1.3.1 Physical Setting The Project is located in the Nam Ngiep basin in central Lao PDR. The main Project facilities will be located in Bolikhamxay Province, although the reservoir will also cover parts of Xaysomboun Province.
Hydrology The Nam Ngiep basin has a catchment area of approximately 4,533 km2 and is comprised of 33 sub- basins (see Figure 1-3). The Nam Ngiep River flows in a south-southeast direction from its origin on the Tra Ninh plateau (1,200 masl) through to the Mekong flood plains (160 masl). High mountains occur on both sides of the river, notably Phu Xao at 2,590 meters and Phu Khe at 2,125 meters masl. Weather in the Project area is dominated by monsoons, which divides the year into clearly defined wet and dry periods. Average annual rainfall throughout the catchment is estimated to be approximately 1,900 mm. The catchment area upstream of the NNP1 main dam is approximately 3,700 km2, with average inflow of 148.4 m3/s or 4.68 billion m3/year.
Water Quality The surface water quality in the Nam Ngiep River near the Project area generally ranges from moderate to good, with the exception of moderately high concentrations of pathogens (total coliform, faecal coliform, and E. coli) and moderately high total suspended solids (TSS) / turbidity during the rainy season. Water quality studies conducted for the NN1 EIA identified natural water temperatures ranging between 24ºC to 31ºC during the dry season and 24ºC to 30ºC during the rainy season. Dissolved oxygen (DO) concentrations were moderately high, ranging from 6.4 to 9.7 mg/L. TSS ranged from 17mg/L during the dry season to 83 mg/L during the rainy season. BOD5 was found to be steadily increasing during monitoring – considered an outcome of increasing nutrient flush from expanding agricultural lands and residential areas. pH was slightly acidic to slightly alkaline (6.20 – 8.00); electrical conductivity low (47.7 – 92.4); and nutrient concentrations (total N, total P, phosphate, ammonium, nitrate) were low, with nitrate levels increased during the rainy season (though were still below ambient water quality guidelines (<5 mg/L).
Soils Four primary soil types occur within the reservoir footprint area. Luvisols, cambisols and acrisols have formed on lower slopes the Nam Ngiep catchment, while Fluvisols occur on the terrace areas adjacent the River. Lithosols (skeletal soils) are also scattered throughout the reservoir area (see Figure 1-4). Alisols (along with acrisols) dominate the greater catchment and may also occur at higher elevations in the reservoir area. The erodibility of the soil in the catchment has been observed during ongoing water quality monitoring for Project road construction, with sediment loading having increased considerably upstream of the Project area compared to ESIA phase water quality monitoring (likely a result of Nam Ngiep 2 hydropower development and potentially increased timber harvest or agricultural activity). Soil erosion will increase following vegetation removal in the reservoir area, particularly for steeper slopes.
FINAL 17
Biomass Removal Plan (BRP)
Figure 1-3: The Nam Ngiep River Basin and Sub-catchments Source: ERM 2014a
FINAL 18
Biomass Removal Plan (BRP)
Figure 1-4: Soils in the Nam Ngiep River Basin Source: NAFRI 2012
FINAL 19
Biomass Removal Plan (BRP)
1.3.2 Biological Setting
Habitat Distribution and Condition The majority of the Project area is located in the Nam Ngiep-Nam Mang National Protected Forest Area (see Figure 1.2). Despite this status, shifting cultivation and commercial logging has been active in the area and vegetation within is now dominated by a mosaic of forest (natural and modified habitats) and fallow land vegetation (modified habitat) (see Table 1-2). An assessment of vegetation density and condition in the Main Reservoir area indicated that over 80% of the habitat is moderate to high condition (ERM 2014a). More detailed analysis of habitat in the Main Reservoir Area was conducted during the development of this Plan (see Section 3.4).
Table 1-2 Land cover in the Project Reservoirs Habitat Land Cover Main Reservoir Re-regulation Reservoir Class Ha % Ha %
Deciduous Forest 2,721 40% 132 19% Natural and Evergreen Forest 508 7% 27 3% Modified Bamboo 241 4% 127 18%
Old Fallow 1,321 20% 194 28%
Young Fallow 1,036 15% 143 21%
Rice paddy 107 2% 5 1% Modified Cleared 328 5% 27 4%
Grassland 108 2% 0 0%
Urban 38 1% 3 0%
Water 368 5% 42 6%
Rock 1 0% 0 0% Other Cloud 4 0% 0 0%
Shadow 16 0% 0 0%
TOTAL 6,741 100% 696 100%
Source: ERM 2014a Note these figures differ from the surface area of the reservoirs at full supply outlined in the EIA
Significant Flora Species A total of ten species of plants listed as critically endangered, endangered or vulnerable under the IUCN Red List were recorded within the Main Reservoir and Re-regulation Reservoir areas (ERM 2014a). These include one species listed as critically endangered, seven as endangered and five as vulnerable (see Table 1-3).
FINAL 20
Biomass Removal Plan (BRP)
Table 1-3 Significant Flora Species in the Reservoir Areas Scientific Names Main Reservoir Re-Regulation IUCN Status Reservoir
Dipterocarpus turbinatus CR
Aquilaria crassna* CR
Afzelia xylocarpa EN
Dalbergia oliveri EN
Dipterocarpus alatus EN
Hopea ferrea EN
Shorea roxburghii EN
Dalbergia cochinchinensis VU
Hopea odorata VU
Ternstroemia wallichiana VU
Source: ERM 2014a
IUCN Status: CR – Critically Endangered; EN – Endangered; VU – Vulnerable; = Direct record; x = Indirect record; * Species included at request
IUCN Listed Fauna Species and Habitat The main dam inundation area was surveyed (2007 and 2013) for fauna during the conduct of the NN1 EIA (ERM 2014a). The diversity of fauna in the main dam inundation area (upper Nam Ngiep) was high in comparison to other sample areas. According to the NN1 EIA, this area is dominated by primary forest. Site surveys detected (through interviews with villagers or direct observation) at least 46 mammals species, 50 bird species, 28 reptiles species and 10 amphibian species. A total of 21 significant species of mammals, birds and reptiles were recorded within the Main Reservoir and Re-regulation Reservoir areas (see Table 1-4). A full list of flora species is provided in the NN1 EIA (ERM 2014a)
Table 1-4 Significant Fauna Species in the Reservoir Areas Scientific Names Main Reservoir Re-Regulation No.060/MAF Status IUCN Status Reservoir
Mammals
Aonyx cinera x R VU
Canis aureus x R LC
Capricornis milneedwardsii R NT
Cuon alpinus X R EN
Helarctos malayanus X R VU
Lutrogale perspicillata X R VU
Nomascus leucogenys R CR
Nycticebus bengalensis X R VU
Nycticebus pygmaeus X R VU
Panthera pardus X R NT
Panthera tigris X R EN
FINAL 21
Biomass Removal Plan (BRP)
Scientific Names Main Reservoir Re-Regulation No.060/MAF Status IUCN Status Reservoir
Pardofelis temminckii X R NT
Prionailurus bengalensis X R LC
Rusa unicolor R VU
Ursus thibetanus X R VU
Birds
Buceros bicornis R NT
Centropus sinensis R LC
Lophura nycthemera R LC
Reptiles
Broghammerus reticulatus R
Ophiophagus hannah X R VU
Platysternon megacephalum X R EN
Source: ERM 2014a
IUCN Status: CR – Critically Endangered; EN – Endangered; VU – Vulnerable; NT – Near Threatened; LC – Least Concern No. 060/MAF Status: R – Restricted; = Direct record; x = Indirect record
1.3.3 Social Setting Figure 1-2 shows the locations of the seven (7) villages located in the Main Reservoir Area and one (1) village located in the Regulation Reservoir Area.
Main Reservoir There are three (3) directly affected villages in the upper reservoir area including Ban Pou, Ban Hatsamkhone and Ban Piengta - all located in Thathom District, Xaysomboun Province. Impacts from the proposed reservoir include the relocation of ten (10) households in Ban Pou and five (5) in Hatsamkhone and the loss of productive land of 178 households. Affected households were initially scheduled for relocation to a new resettlement village. However, after an extended consultation process, it was agreed that affected persons could remain and utilise vacant land within those or adjacent villages to replace their lost housing and agricultural land. Four (4) villages in the lower reservoir area will be completely inundated. These villages, all located in Hom District, Xaysomboun Province include Ban Houay Pamom, Ban Sopphuane, Ban Sop Youak and Ban Nam Youak. The 384 households (as of the 2011 survey) in these villages will be resettled to the Houay Soup resettlement area. Resettlement is planned for the end of 2016.
Re-regulation Reservoir The village of Ban Hatsaykham is located in the re-regulation reservoir area and all 33 households with 217 people will be inundated. These households will be these villages will be resettled to the Houay Soup resettlement area. Resettlement is planned for the end of 2015.
1.3.4 Unexploded Ordnance (UXO) The NN1 EIA (ERM 2014a) and SIA (NNP1 2014) report that there is a relatively low level of UXO contamination at the dam site and reservoir areas. According to consultations conducted for the NN1 EIA, government officials have conducted regular visits to project affected villages to terminate UXOs in the past.
FINAL 22
Biomass Removal Plan (BRP)
Figure 1-5 provides a map of aerial bombing data from the US government. This indicates a higher UXO risk in the upper areas of the Main Reservoir. Further analysis of UXO risk is provided in Section 3.4.
Figure 1-5 US Aerial bombing Data Source: US Embassy 2006
FINAL 23
Biomass Removal Plan (BRP)
1.3.5 Estimate of Biomass in the Reservoir Areas The Main Reservoir and the Re-regulation Reservoir will have surface areas at full supply of approximately 66.9 km2 and 1.3 km2 respectively. Land-cover within the Project reservoir areas is outlined in Table 1-2. Biomass in the reservoir areas is distributed above and below the ground (see Table 1-5). Above ground biomass (AGB) occurs as soft biomass (e.g. leaves, twigs, shrub, and grass) and woody biomass (i.e. trunks, stems and large branches of trees). Soft biomass decomposes rapidly, while the decomposition of woody biomass is a slow process. The rate of below ground subaqueous biomass decomposition will vary according to a number of factors including biophysical properties of the soil; depth in the reservoir (e.g. dissolved oxygen concentration), water temperature, etc.
Table 1-5 Types and Definitions of Vegetation Biomass Category Definition
Above Ground All living biomass above the surface soil including stem, stump, branches, bark, seeds, foliage and duff / leaf litter.
Below Ground For the purposes of this Plan - all living biomass of live roots excluding those less than 2mm diameter (often excluded because these often cannot be distinguished empirically from soil organic matter). Note: Organic matter in soil substrate generally makes up a greater mass (dry weight) than the tree roots.
Source: FAO 2015
Above Ground Biomass The NN1 EIA does not provide estimates for above ground biomass (AGB) in the reservoir areas. ABG in tropical regions varies considerably according to forest type (refer to Table 1-6) and level of disturbance, with highly disturbed areas generally having a higher proportion of soft biomass to hard woody biomass than a forest with a closed canopy cover.
Table 1-6 Natural Forests and Estimated Above Ground Biomass Land Cover Above Ground Biomass t/ha
Study 1* Study 2* Study 3*
Evergreen Forest 126.0 140.6 66.4
Deciduous Forest 311.0 96.2 146.6
Source: Study 1) Ogwara et al 1965; Study 2) Terakupisut et al 2007; Study 3) Vicharnakorn et al 2011
Assessments conducted for other hydropower projects in the region provide broad estimates of AGB: In the planned reservoir areas of the Xepian Xenamnoy Hydropower Project, AGB was estimated at 200 t/ha (estimates in dry weight) and soft biomass at 10 t/ha, or 5% of total dry weight (LCG 2013). ABG for the Nam Ngum 3 Hydropower Project was estimated at 131 t/ha with soft biomass accounting for 40t/ha (31%) (RMR 2001). ABG for the Theun Hinboun Expansion Project in forest and woodland areas was estimated at 135 t/ha with 77 t/ha soft biomass (57%) (Norplan 2008). In the absence of a detailed inventory for biomass in the NN1 reservoir areas, it is assumed that biomass will be relatively high given that a significant proportion of the Main Reservoir area is covered in moderate to high condition natural forest. For the purposes of this Plan, AGB of 165 t/ha will be assumed with soft biomass of 40/ha (see Table 1-7).
FINAL 24
Biomass Removal Plan (BRP)
Below Ground Biomass The NN1 EIA does not provide an estimate of below ground biomass (BGB). Studies conducted for the THB Expansion Project identified that the majority of BGB was found in the top 25 cm of the soil profile and was comprised of below ground roots (63 t/ha) and additional organic material (211 t/ha) (Norplan 2008). The NN1 EIA also does not estimate the contribution of inputs from BGB on the future quality of water in the reservoir. BGM volumes will vary according to soil type across the impoundment area. Luvisols are characterised by a surface accumulation of humus (organic matter), while acrisols and cambisols are characteristically lower in organic matter. Each will contribute to geochemical processes that promote anoxia and release of greenhouse gases. It will not be practicable to remove any portion of BGB for NNP1. Root masses will instead contribute to soil stability following vegetation removal.
Table 1-7 Estimated Biomass Profile Above Ground Below All Soils (Rapidly Ground Vegetation Decomposable – Rapidly Slowly Vegetation (Dried) top 10 cm) Decomposable Decomposable (Dried) Vegetation (Dried)
Estimated Biomass 40 125 35 200 100 Content (t/ha)
Source: Earth Systems 2015
Note: Vegetation biomass estimates (above and below ground) are based on experience from other projects in Lao PDR; Soil nutrients and biomass estimates based on soil types in the reservoir and values for other projects in Lao PDR.
1.3.6 Commercial Timber and Harvest Activities in the Reservoir Provincial authorities conducted commercial timber surveys in the reservoir areas (and surrounding areas) in 2012 (Bolikhamxay and Vientiane) and 2013 (Xaysomboun). According to the survey reports, an estimated 36,769 m3 of commercial timber was identified (see Table 1-8). After the conduct of the resource surveys, a number of agreements between MAF / Provincial Governments and logging companies were reportedly signed. PAFOs in the respective provinces then issued logging permits to contractors. The volume of commercial timber harvested to date is outlined in (see Table 1-8).
Table 1-8 Results of Commercial Timber Resource Studies and Status of Harvesting* Province Estimated Commercial Timber Harvested ( m3) Commercial Timber Resource ( m3) 2013/2014 2014/2015 Total
Xaysomboun 34,505 2,494 5,754 8,248
Bolikhamxay 2,264 2,264 - 2,264
Total 36,769 4,758 5,754 10,512
Source: Vientiane Province Survey 2013, Xaysomboun Province Survey 2014
* Likely to include areas both inside and outside the NN1 reservoir area.
^ Vientiane Province Survey 2013 identified 16,639 m3. Xaysomboun Province Survey 2014 identified an additional 14,866 m3.
FINAL 25
Biomass Removal Plan (BRP)
1.4 Legal and other Requirements
1.4.1 Guidelines for Biomass Removal The key guidelines for biomass removal and salvage logging for this Project are: Environmental Guidelines for Biomass Removal from Hydropower Reservoirs in Lao PDR (WREA 2010); and Step-by-Step Guidelines for Biomass Removal from Hydropower Reservoirs in Lao PDR (MONRE 2012). These documents provide guidance on the preparation of a Biomass Removal Plan, which is required by the Decree on EIA (Article 13f, Decree No. 122/PM, 16 Feb. 2010). They also provide scientifically proven techniques for estimating greenhouse gas generation and impacts on water quality from decaying biomass in reservoirs, and guidance on acceptable measures for biomass clearance, removal and possible reuse.
1.4.2 Project Concession Agreement The Concession Agreement (CA) is the primary statutory agreement between NNP1 and the Government of Lao PDR (GOL). The CA details the conditions, requirements, roles and responsibilities for the implementation of the Project. Annex C of the Agreement details the social and environmental obligations for the Project during construction, reservoir impoundment and operations. According to the Concession Agreement (Annex C, Article 71): Subject to paragraph (b) below and except otherwise mentioned in this Annex including this Clause 71, the Company (NNP1) shall have sole responsibility for clearing biomass from the reservoir and dams in accordance with the GOL Biomass Guidelines. GOL has the right to survey, cut and extract, in accordance with applicable laws and regulations, any and all commercially viable timber in and from the site of the Project, including the reservoir, dams, powerhouse(s), spillway(s), switchyard(s) and camp areas before the commencement of impoundment by the Company If the Company reasonably concludes that GOL cannot complete the logging and removal of any commercially viable timber from the area of the Reservoir before commencement of impoundment, in accordance with the timelines of the biomass clearance plan, then the Company shall be responsible to step in, or from the Biomass Clearance Date in order to timely to complete the extraction of the remaining commercial timber at the GOL’s cost. Any and all commercial timber cut and extracted by the Company shall be stored safely by the Company until possession of such timber is delivered by the Company to a designated log yard of GOL. GOL shall ensure that it is available to receive such delivery within a reasonable period following such extraction. All commercial timber shall at all times whether before or after removal be and remain the property of the GOL. The Company shall not begin to impound water until after the Company: (i) completes the clearance of biomass from the Project’s Reservoir and impoundment areas in accordance with the Biomass Guidelines; and (ii) satisfies all Company obligations under this Annex which are required by such date to have been completed in accordance with the terms and conditions hereof, including without limitation the physical resettlement of all PAPs and payment by the Company of all compensation due or owing by the Company under this Annex as at such date. The Company shall bear sole responsibility for any delay to the Project commissioning or operation and any adverse effect on Company revenues, obligation to pay damages to any power off taker, liability to meet debt service obligations and other circumstances resulting from any delay or failure of the Company in satisfying the obligations sect forth in this Clause 71
FINAL 26
Biomass Removal Plan (BRP)
If the Company fails fully to complete the clearance of biomass in accordance with the Biomass Guidelines from the Project’s reservoir and impoundment areas prior to commencement of impounding, the Company shall be responsible to pay to GOL, in full and immediately upon demand, an amount equivalent to two (2) times the cost of complete clean up and removal of biomass from the Project’s reservoir and impoundment areas as required above, as quoted in writing by an independent contractor and confirmed by GOL, and in any event irrespective of whether or not GOL may have agreed to any circumstances or arrangement proposed or pursued by the Company pursuant to which the Company may seek to avoid, minimise or otherwise not fully carry out such complete biomass removal. Reservoir water quality standards are also outlined in the Concession Agreement Annex C (Appendix 2).
1.4.3 Other Lao PDR Regulatory Requirements Other key Lao PDR regulatory requirements potentially relevant to biomass removal are outline in Table 1-9. Further details of other relevant national legislation are provided in the NN1 EIA Report (ERM 2014a) and the Environmental and Social Management and Monitoring Plan – Construction Phase (ESMMP- CP) (ERM 2014b).
Table 1-9 Key Lao PDR laws and policies relevant to biomass removal.
Title Date Relevance to biomass removal plan
Law on Water 1996 This law covers a number of issues that relate to biomass removal operations and Water including construction of water reservoirs; development of water resources for Resources producing hydro-electric power; water preservation for the environment, fishing, raising fish and aquatic animals; erosion control; and management of polluted water.
Forestry Law 2007 This law determines basic principles, regulations and measures on sustainable management, utilization and preservation of forest resources and forestland, ensuring a sustainable condition and protection from soil erosion, maintenance of tree species, wildlife and aquatic animals. The key contents relevant to the biomass removal plan are forest survey, forest classification and harvesting. It also outlines conditions for preservation of water resources in forest areas and management of NTFPs.
Law on Fire 2007 Article 24 of this law identifies procedures for forest fire prevention which are Prevention associated with development activities. The law provides general fire hazard prevention and management.
Law on Aquatic 2007 This law determines the necessary strategies, and measures relative to the and Wildlife administration and protection of aquatic and wildlife for sustainable economic and social development of the country as well as contributing to poverty alleviation and improving livelihoods of the people. The law is applicable to biomass removal activities in regard to protection of aquatic and wildlife from illegal hunting and poaching conservation species.
Regulation 2008 This regulation determines general principles to ensure that logging, collection of regarding the NTFP’s and management of aquatic and wildlife in the reservoir area are Logging and Post undertaken in accordance with the prescribed technical requirements and under Logging Clearing vigilant management and monitoring of timber and non-timber harvest so that it will in the Reservoir not be encroach on areas beyond the reservoir. The regulation also provides Area of a technical guidelines and procedures on salvage logging operations and its ancillary Hydropower Dam works.
National 2009 The National Environmental Standards define the basis for environmental Environmental monitoring and pollution control on water, soil, air and noise. The standards apply to any relevant activity and project in order to protect the environment and control
FINAL 27
Biomass Removal Plan (BRP)
Title Date Relevance to biomass removal plan
Standards pollution. Salvage logging and biomass clearance activities will need to be implemented in line with this environmental guideline. Water quality in the dam reservoir is expected to meet the minimum requirements set in this standard before discharge to the environment.
Decree on 2010 This decree defines fundamental principles, procedures and measures on Protection Forest management, protection and conservation of protection forests. The objectives of this decree is to protect the watershed areas, natural environment, soil erosion, natural disasters and for national defence/public security, aiming for enhancement of living standards of the people and socio-economic development.
Lao PDR 2012 These standards detail minimum principles and requirements for all UXO/mine National UXO / action conducted in Lao PDR. The purpose of these standards are to ensure safety, Mine Action efficiency and effectiveness in UXO/mine operations. The NS are applicable to all Standards (NS) organizations that are using the NS as the basis for the development of their projects and standard operating procedures.
Environment 2013 This law can be applied to general management and operations of salvage logging Protection Law and biomass removal in the reservoir areas. Article 16 of this law specifies measures for forest protection and development in all types of forest categories including watershed forest, tree species and NTFP’s for promoting sustainable supplies of forest products and natural resources; protection of wildlife and aquatic animals, and the environment.
Law on National 2013 This law defines principles, procedures and measures on the management, the Heritage protection, the conservation and the development of cultural, historical and natural heritages, including aesthetic view and ecosystem values. The law also provides basic guidelines on management and protection of natural heritage.
Policy on 2014 This policy sets a framework that promotes sustainable hydropower sector Sustainable development. The key elements concerning biomass removal planning are Hydropower determined in water resources and watershed management and conservation Development in section of this policy. It recommends that ‘natural terrestrial habitat losses as a result Lao PDR of hydropower projects will be avoided and /or minimized as much as possible. Unavoidable, and/or offset by funding and/or implementing effective conservation management in nearby protected and critical areas and the development of sustainable biodiversity management plans that also consider compensation or mitigation of resulting livelihoods impacts’. Source: Earth Systems 2015 NNP1 has also committed to a number of international standards which are also relevant to biomass removal (see Table 1-10).
Table 1-10 International standards relevant to biomass removal. Title Date
ADB’s Safeguard Policy (including performance standards) 2009
IFC’s Sustainability Framework (including performance standards) 2012
IFC’s Environmental Health and Safety Guidelines 2007
IHA’s Hydropower Sustainability Assessment Protocol 2009 Source: Earth Systems 2015
FINAL 28
Biomass Removal Plan (BRP)
2 PRESENTATION OF DATA AND MODELLING RESULTS
This section provides a summary of the impacts of the inundation of biomass on reservoir and downstream water quality; and the results of environmental modelling of the performance of the proposed reservoirs to evaluate biomass removal options for minimising environmental impacts of inundation. 2.1 Impacts of the Inundation of Biomass
The primary potential impact from inundation of biomass is its detrimental effect on reservoir and downstream water quality due to the decomposition of vegetation and stratification of the reservoir (See Appendix B). Water quality conditions following the inundation of residual biomass may include: High nutrient levels – the decomposition of inundated vegetation results in an increase in the concentration of organic matter and associated high nutrient levels, potentially leading to eutrophication; Low dissolved oxygen (DO) – Inundated vegetation undergoes a process of aerobic decomposition, which consumes large amounts of oxygen. Further, concentrations of organic matter are broken down by micro-organisms, which increase the biological oxygen demand (BOD) in water; and Elevated levels of noxious gases (hydrogen sulfide, ammonia, methane) – Anaerobic decomposition of organic material can produce noxious gases. Methane is also a potent greenhouse gas (GHG). 2.2 Environmental Modelling
Earth Systems conducted environmental modelling of the performance of the Main Reservoir using the BioREM modelling tool. BioREM is a modelling tool developed for the Ministry of Natural Resources & Environment (MONRE). The BioREM model simulates physical, chemical and biological processes in reservoirs allowing developers to estimate how much biomass must be removed prior to inundation of a hydropower reservoir in order to obtain reasonable water quality and moderate greenhouse gas emissions during operation of the plant. A Technical Report: Environmental Modelling for the Nam Ngiep Power Company’s Biomass Removal Plan is provided in Appendix C. A summary of the model inputs, scenarios and findings / conclusions is presented below.
2.2.1 Model Data Inputs
Biomass Estimations Biomass estimations (see Section 1.3) were further refined through land use and habitat mapping (see Section 3.4) and sensitivity analysis of upper and lower values provide in key literature. Revised biomass estimates are provided in Table 2-1.
Table 2-1: Landuse and low – high soft and hard biomass estimates. Soft Biomass low -high Hard Biomass low - high Habitat Class Land Cover t/ha t/ha t/ha t/ha Natural and Deciduous 35.5 55.5 25.2 81.5 Modified Forest
FINAL 29
Biomass Removal Plan (BRP)
Evergreen Forest 2.1 2.7 1.2 2.5 Bamboo 2.2 3.0 1.5 2.6 Old Fallow 2.1 11.7 1.8 8.5 Young Fallow Modified 0.2 0.3 0.1 0.1
Cultivated Land 0.4 22.8 0.4 19.1
Total 142.4 195.9 30.3 114.4
Source: Earth Systems 2015
Hydraulic Parameters The reservoir hydraulic parameters, associated values adopted and sources of data are listed below (ERM 2014a):
3 3 Average flow Q0 = 147.8 m /s = 12.76 Mm /day Power generation C = 272 MW 3 Minimum flow Qmin = 0.48 Mm /day 3 Maximum reservoir volume Vmax = 2,300 Mm 3 Minimum reservoir volume Vmin = 1,102 Mm 2 Reservoir maximum surface area Amax = 66.9 km 2 Reservoir minimum surface area Amin = 37.4 km Reservoir thalweg length L = 72 km
Minimum hydraulic retention time (휏) of the proposed NNP1 reservoir is minimum volume divided by flow which equals approximately 86 days. Maximum (휏) was determined to be approximately 180 days.
Water Quality The NNP1 reservoir inundation area was assessed through field and remote sensing data to have pristine forest areas, impacted forest areas and settlement areas, with some human impacts on the rivers. The median values for relevant water quality parameters which were adopted for the purposes of modelling are shown in Table 2-2.
Table 2-2: Median water quality parameter results Parameter Median Result
Temperature (°C) 31.1
DO (mg/L) 8.1
BOD5 (mg/L) 3.4
Total P (mg/L) 0.36
Earth Systems BOD5 (mg/L) 3.78
BOD5 Standard (mg/L) 1.5
Source: Annex C 2015 Water quality standards have been developed by Lao PDR specifically for the NNP1 project and relevant standards are shown in the table below based on the Annex C: Environmental and Social Obligations Ambient Surface Water Quality standard and Reservoir Water Quality Standard.
FINAL 30
Biomass Removal Plan (BRP)
Table 2-3: Relevant water quality standards Parameter Median Result Dissolved oxygen >6 (mg/L) Methane emissions -monitoring req. 35 (g/m3) Source: Annex C 2015
Phytoplankton Growth Rate Maximum phytoplankton growth rate (G) was calculated using the following formula; 1 퐺 = 푘0 + ⁄휏 (1) (MONRE 2010b) The result for G was determined to be 0.0196 day-1 which is within the predicted range for G of 0.03 to 0.2 day-1 (MONRE 2010b).
Initial Values The initial values of all other parameters set in the model are based on suggested values from MONRE (2010b) and are listed for reference in the Technical Report (Appendix C).
2.2.2 Summary of Results Three (3) scenarios were developed for modelling using the high values for biomass (worst case) including: Scenario 1: Baseline no biomass removal low / high AGB/BGB; Scenario 2: Cut and Burn (no flush before filling the reservoir) in Priority Biomass Removal Areas (31% soft biomass removal, 49% hard biomass removal high biomass); and Scenario 3: Cut and Burn (no flush before filling the reservoir) (60% soft biomass removal, 80% hard biomass removal high biomass) The model results include:
soft and hard biomass consumption,
phytoplankton growth and benthic detritus, dissolved oxygen in the epilimnion (surface waters) and hypolimnion (bottom waters),
phosphorous in water and sediments, and
carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane (CH4) emissions of greenhouse gases. The modelling results are summarised in Table 2-4.
Table 2-4: Summary of BioREM reservoir modelling results. Hard 20 year Soft Min/Max Min/Max Ave biomass accumulated Scenario biomass oxygen in oxygen in phytoplankton removal GHG Removal (%) hypolimnion epilimnion after 10 years (%) (Gg CO2 eq) Baseline low 0 0 0 - 2 mg/L 1 – 8.5 mg/L 9 gO /m3 ~500 biomass 2 Baseline high 0 0 0 mg/L 0 – 10 mg/L 14 gO /m3 ~2800 biomass 2 Priority 3 Removal: 50 30 0 mg/L 0 - 8 mg/L 17 gO2/m ~1900 Burn and no
FINAL 31
Biomass Removal Plan (BRP)
flush 100% Burn 60 80 0 - 1 mg/L 0 – 8 mg/L 8 gO /m3 ~1000 and no flush 2 100% removal of 7.5 – 7.8 3 99 99 5 - 7 mg/L 0 gO /m ~3 soft and hard mg/L 2 biomass
Source: Earth Systems 2015
Scenario 1: Baseline The modelling results show that both high and low AGB/BGB levels appear to produce poor water quality outcomes in the reservoir. It is predicted that poor quality water will persist in the reservoir for up to 12 years after the reservoir is filled. It is recommended catchment biomass be removed to help prevent the development of poor quality water in both the epilimnion and hypolimnion of the proposed reservoir. The following modelling scenarios will explore the optimal biomass removal strategy. The worst case scenario for water quality occurs with the high levels of soft and hard biomass so the values for high AGB/BGB biomass will be used for further scenario development.
Scenario 2: Cut and Burn (no flush) of Priority Biomass Removal Areas The burn no flush scenario assumes prioritised removal of that assumes removal of 31% soft biomass and 49% hard biomass by burning of areas of forest and land subject to inundation prior to filling the reservoir. This scenario was developed considering a number of factors such as vegetative habitat, slope, road access, UXO risk, riparian buffer zones and proximity to villages. The model assumes that with no flush Phosphorous (hereafter referred to as P), will be elevated in the catchment runoff due to ash remains being washed into the reservoir and is set to 15 gP/m3 Modelling indicates that initial reduction in soft biomass and hard biomass produces beneficial water quality outcomes, with phytoplankton recovery and detritus equilibrium achieved in 5 years (see Appendix C, Figure 6), DO recovery starting in the epilimnion after 3 years, and P levels reducing to sustainable levels after 6 years. This is an acceptable result compared to the baseline impacts in Scenario 1 of 10-12 years of high impact on water quality. The fast recovery of DO in the epilimnion is especially important as this ensures that the reservoir is habitable for most fish species. The low DO status for the hypolimnion is expected for a reservoir of this size, and as a result the release of water from the hypolimnion will require the use of a downstream reaeration structure and temperature treatment.
Scenario 3: Cut and Burn (no flush) of Entire Reservoir Scenario 3 simulates a theoretical 100% catchment burn with no flush scenario that assumes removal of 60% soft biomass and 80% hard biomass by burning of areas of forest and land subject to inundation to remove biomass prior to filling the reservoir. The model assumes that with no flush P will be elevated in the catchment runoff due to ash remains being washed into the reservoir and is set to 15 gP/m3. Soft and hard biomass is reduced further compared to Scenario 2, but with little in the way of additional water quality benefits. Phytoplankton growth begins at around 5 years similar to Scenario 2, while the DO of the epilimnion recovers slightly more quickly, taking around 2 years (see Appendix C, Figure 7). The DO status of the hypolimnion is very slightly improved, but importantly not sufficiently to reduce downstream reaeration requirements, with a maximum recovery of approximately 0.5 mg/L O2 (approximately 10% O2 content) P also recovers in around 6-7 years similar to Scenario 2.
CO2 production is decreased by approximately 30% but this may be made up for by additional CO2 release with additional burning so the benefit may be of little net value to the project overall and in the long term.
FINAL 32
Biomass Removal Plan (BRP)
An additional sensitivity analysis was undertaken to determine the benefits of flushing the catchment. This was found to be of little net benefit to the reservoir while also representing potential risk t downstream water quality in the Nam Ngiep. In all scenarios removal of biomass reduces the GHG production for the project. It is difficult to assess if the reservoir water quality monitoring standard of 35 g CH4/m3 will be met, but if total emissions are divided by reservoir volume Scenario 2 is predicted to produce an initial level of approximately 40 g CH4 /m3 which will decline to zero in the first 6 years of reservoir operations.
2.2.3 Conclusions and Recommendations The following conclusions can be drawn from the modelling exercise: Without biomass removal, modelling predicts poor quality water in the proposed NNP1 reservoir for 10-12 years of operations after the reservoir is filled; By undertaking Scenario 2 (Priority Biomass Removal Areas) the surface water quality in the reservoir will return to acceptable conditions within five to six years; The lower layers of water in the reservoir are problematic in all scenarios and a downstream reaeration and temperature treatment system is recommended for the reservoir to improve release water quality and protect downstream aquatic ecosystems; and The theoretical burning of the entire inundated area (Scenario 3) does not offer substantial benefits compared to the Scenario 2. It is recommended that: Scenario 2 (Priority Biomass Removal Areas) be pursued as offering the best potential water quality outcomes based on the most suitable areas for biomass removal activities;
An appropriately designed reaeration structure is recommended for the life of the project, to mitigate any risk of low DO from reservoir releases;
The reaeration structure should incorporate correction to suitable background water temperatures also (generally increased temperature – to minimise temperature shock which is also known to affect fishes exposed to reservoir release water;
Consideration of mixing systems to mitigate the development of a strong thermoclines in the reservoir and to prevent poor water quality events during seasonal temperature changes;
BioREM phytoplankton productivity predictions be examined by comparing the water quality results with water quality monitoring results from similar reservoirs in Lao that are currently in the early phase of operations.
FINAL 33
Biomass Removal Plan (BRP)
3 ANALYSIS AND SELECTION OF BIOMASS REMOVAL OPTIONS
A number of biomass removal options are presented in this section. The benefits and potential draw backs of each option is discussed. The recommended ‘Priority Biomass Removal’ option has been developed based on: 1. Optimised reservoir performance modelling (see Section 2) including acceptable reservoir water quality; recovery times with respect to dissolved oxygen in the reservoir epilimnion; GHG gas production rates; and 2. An analysis of soft and hard biomass removal considerations (see Section 3.4.1) including land use and vegetation habitat; slope; riparian buffer zones; UXO risk; access; and location of village settlements. 3.1 Analysis of Removal Options
3.1.1 Do Nothing The ‘do nothing’ option would result in the loss of the remaining commercially viable timber and the potential use of lesser value biomass in natural / regenerating forests in the Project reservoirs. It is anticipated that the water quality impacts and greenhouse gas emissions described in Section 2.1 would be significant for the NN1 Main Reservoir in the absence of biomass removal. The extent of deterioration in water quality in reservoirs and the generation of greenhouse gases are related to a combination of factors, including: the retention time of the reservoir – its storage capacity in relation to the amount of water flowing into it; depth of the reservoir; air and water temperatures and seasonal variability in temperature, etc. Anoxia (and associate water quality impacts derived from decomposition of organic matter) and greenhouse gas production are more prevalent in tropical reservoirs than in more temperate climates (Farrer, 2007; Townsend, 1999). The depth of the reservoir and length of the reservoir will entail a long retention time for reservoir water, warm air temperatures will promote stratification, and seasonal variability in temperatures may promote seasonal mixing of the epilimnion and hypolimnion. Such conditions will likely create a reservoir that is not favourable for aquatic species for an indeterminate period of time and may contribute to downstream water quality impacts (and associated impacts for aquatic fauna) in receiving waters.
3.1.2 Partial Biomass Removal (Salvage Logging) The salvage logging option includes the removal of the maximum quantity of commercially valuable timber (ERM 2014a). This should include trees that are considered of ‘marginal value’. All remaining non- commercial trees and timber foliage would be left on site (though note: contractors would be required to stack timber foliage – lops and tops – for future use as lesser value biomass or burning). Salvage logging in the Re-regulation Reservoir would result in the collection of remaining commercially valuable timber (and marginally valuable timber). However given the small area and that most commercial timber has already been harvested, salvage logging in this area is not considered a viable option. Salvage logging in the Main Reservoir would result in the collection of remaining commercially valuable timber (and marginally valuable timber) in 693.18 ha of Upper Mixed Deciduous forest. While it has been reported that most timber of high commercial value has already been cleared, the extensive areas of natural forest identified in the Main Reservoir area indicate that additional salvage logging may be feasible, particularly in areas with improved access and potentially with more favourable contractual conditions for marginally valuable timber. Therefore, salvage logging of these areas will be required as part of the overall and biomass removal strategy.
FINAL 34
Biomass Removal Plan (BRP)
3.1.3 Complete Biomass Removal This option includes the complete removal of residual biomass including: Extraction of lesser value biomass (i.e. (non-commercial trees); and Clearance of other residual biomass (i.e. lower canopy shrubs and tree foliage).
Lesser Value Biomass Extraction Lesser value biomass is woody biomass that is not considered commercially valuable but could be used for compost, charcoal production, biochar production, building materials, firewood, and bioenergy. Lesser value biomass clearance will need to be undertaken largely by hand clearance methods – avoiding the removal of stumps to minimise soil disturbance. As outlined in the NN1 EIA, it is recommended that local residents are first given the opportunity to remove lesser value biomass. Recycling and reusing lesser value biomass may also provide a livelihood stream for local residents and should be considered as part of an overall removal strategy for both reservoirs (e.g. contractual agreements). Alternatively, all biomass remaining after salvage logging may be cut, piled and burned. Cutting and burning, however, comes with a number of environmental and social risks (e.g. health and safety, greenhouse gas emissions), which can be mitigated if qualified contractors undertake this work (refer to Environmental and Social Safeguards section). Cutting and burning can also be undertaken once removal of lesser value biomass is complete.
Other Residual Biomass Clearance The clearance of ‘other’ residual biomass can be conducted by hand clearance, mechanical removal, or burning (or a combination). For the Main Reservoir proposed biomass clearance areas (see Section 3.4) total 1912 ha representing approximately 30% of the total reservoir area. Removal of biomass in the Re-regulation Reservoir is not considered a priority due to the low volume of biomass and the level of recent clearance activities conducted for project construction. It was also determined that water impacts resulting from impoundment of the Re-regulating reservoir are unlikely due the future morphology of the reservoir (shallow) and low capacity of the reservoir (i.e. fills and discharge rate).
3.1.4 Salvage Logging and Biomass Clearance of the Drawdown The drawdown area of the Main Reservoir differs across the three zones identified in Section 1. In the Upper Reservoir (Zone 3), drawdown will be more pronounced, with a major portion of the section dry during when the reservoir nears MOL. Zones 1 and 2 will have permanently inundated area when the reservoir is at MOL. The slopes are much steeper in theses section of the reservoir, and significant drawdown areas on barren slopes will occur as the reservoir water level decreases. The steepness of the slopes, and the related risk of slope instability, erosion and sediment transport resulting from clearance, indicates that biomass removal in the drawdown zone pre-impoundment should be limited to salvage logging in key areas. The NN1 EIA recommends that removal activities maintain a reservoir riparian buffer zone of 100 metres or from the FSL to MOL minus 5 metres around the perimeter of the reservoir to maintain the structural integrity of the soil embankments and reduce shoreline and wave erosion and provide a shelter for fish. However, given the morphology of the river channel and the reservoir contours, it is anticipated that biomass removal would not be sufficient with a buffer of this size. In addition, most if not all of the vegetation will die following its first submersion, therefore the protective nature of this buffer zone would like only be of significance until impoundment. Conversely, leaving too much vegetation will promote water quality impacts that may be much more persistent. A reduced reservoir riparian buffer zone (e.g. 30 metres) should be considered to balance other objectives of biomass removal including:
FINAL 35
Biomass Removal Plan (BRP)
Removing barriers to reservoir access; Allowing the removal of remaining commercial timber in the drawdown zone; Potential to improve the overall appearance and aesthetic value of the reservoir; Facilitate and improve conditions for reservoir fishing; and Reducing methane production (and therefore greenhouse gas emissions).
3.1.5 Fill and Flush (or partial fill and flush) A ‘fill and flush’ strategy can reduce water quality impacts associated with rapidly decomposing biomass by filling the reservoir, and then flushing the initial organic load and water with low dissolved oxygen concentrations downstream. A ‘fill and flush’ strategy will also break down and release some of the biomass sequestered in the soil, and it will eliminate readily decomposable biomass in sensitive areas where manual cutting and biomass removal is not recommended. Impoundment of the Main Reservoir is scheduled to commence July 2018. The Main Reservoir does not have the required infrastructure for the implementation of a fill and flush program. Some benefits may result from the release through the environmental flow conduit at 244.6 masl however these are expected to be minimal. If the 2018 wet season is above average, surplus water may be released over the dam spillway comprising of four (4) radial gates, each with 12.25 m breadth and 16.0 m radius (at 206.4 masl). Careful planning will be required to manage water quality impacts downstream in the event of spillway release. The size and depth of the Re-regulating Reservoir (and the large areas of vegetation clearance that have already been conducted in the area) will likely not create anoxic conditions, a stratified water body, etc. A fill and flush strategy is not considered necessary for this reservoir. 3.2 Selected Removal Option(s)
Based on the analysis above, it is recommended that a combined approach be implemented for the Main Reservoir involving: Salvage logging; and Residual biomass removal; o Lesser value biomass extraction (by local communities); o Biomass clearance. These options are discussed in Sections 4 and 5 below. 3.3 Environmental and Social Considerations for Biomass Removal
Potential environmental and social impacts of biomass removal activities are summarised below. These potential impacts are important considerations in the selection of priority biomass removal areas (see Section 3.4). More detail on these impacts and proposed management measures is provided in Section 6 – Code of Practice for Biomass Removal.
3.3.1 Potential Environmental Impacts A summary of potential impacts associated with the biomass removal activities is provided in Table 3-1.
Table 3-1 Potential Environmental Impacts associated with Biomass Removal Activities Potential Impact Description
Erosion and Clear-cutting, and stem skidding will disturb soil surfaces and destabilize slopes, leading Sediment to erosion and increased sedimentation in the river prior to impoundment and in the
FINAL 36
Biomass Removal Plan (BRP)
Potential Impact Description
Transportation reservoir during impoundment. Removal of vegetation on the perimeter of the reservoir could result in shoreline erosion, instability of banks and increased reservoir sedimentation.
Clearing / impacts on There is the potential for clearing of areas outside the reservoir boundary and in non-reservoir designated riparian buffer zones. affected forests
Clear-cutting and subsequent stem skidding may also result in increased exposure of roots and soil biomass to reservoir waters, which can exacerbate water quality issues immediately following impoundment. Residual ash from burning activities and / or Water pollution remaining cuttings can also exacerbate water quality issues after initial impoundment; however the recovery time is likely to be relatively quick. Waterways have the potential to be polluted with hazardous materials (i.e. herbicides, oil and fuel) used during clearance activities.
Smoke from burning activities can decrease visibility and impact air quality. Noise will be Air and noise generated from clearance and removal activities. Both may result in nuisance and pollution potential health consequences for local residents.
Greenhouse gas Emissions will be generated from burning activities emissions
Soil has the potential to be contaminated with hazardous materials (i.e. oil, fuel, waste Soil contamination etc.) used during clearance activities.
Disturbance of wildlife and wildlife habitat caused by biomass removal. However, wildlife Wildlife disturbance will be pushed from the region during impoundment.
The creation of access tracks to facilitate clearing activities can result in the increased Forest resources exploitation of forest resources in areas adjacent to the reservoir (and associated increases in erosion and sedimentation that occur with creation of tracks).
The presence of the logging and clearance workforce may result in a) degradation of Workforce related water quality (due to lack of appropriate sanitary facilities); b) increased waste and litter; environmental c) improper management of waste and hazardous materials (primarily oils and impacts hydrocarbons); d) increased exploitation of terrestrial wildlife; and / or e) exploitation of aquatic resources.
Source: Earth Systems 2015
3.3.2 Potential Social Impacts Potential social impacts associated with salvage logging and biomass clearance activities are briefly discussed in the Project SIA (NNP1 2014). These impacts are further outlined in Table 3-2 below.
Table 3-2 Potential Social Impacts associated with Biomass Removal Activities Potential Impact Description
Community Loss of livelihoods derived from areas cleared during biomass removal activities (i.e. Livelihoods village production forests). Income opportunities from involvement in biomass removal activities (i.e. employment to cut and burn; extraction of lesser value biomass etc …)
Community Health Potential community health and safety issues include: safety of other road users and and Safety roadside communities; safety impacts associated with burning; safety impacts associated with community access / involvement in biomass removal activities.
Workforce related The presence of the logging and clearance workforce may result a) loss of livelihood through the reduction of available forest timber products; b) increased risk of disease
FINAL 37
Biomass Removal Plan (BRP)
Potential Impact Description social impacts transmission; c) decrease in terrestrial and aquatic resource availability; and d) conflict between local residents and contractor employees.
Impacts to cultural Logging and clearance activities have the potential to impact on / disturb cultural heritage and heritage and archaeological resources in the area. archaeological resources
Occupational health In this area, UXO present a potential risk to logging and clearance workforce. Manual and safety risks - cutting and stacking of biomass can create large areas of dried vegetation which UXO become highly flammable in the dry season, and may present a safety risk.
Source: Earth Systems 2015 3.4 Analysis of Priority Areas for Biomass Removal
3.4.1 Analysis of Potential Clearance Areas An analysis of potential clearance areas in the Main Reservoir Area was conducted. This analysis considered the following factors: Land use and vegetation habitat; Slope; Riparian buffer zones; UXO risk; Access; and Location of village settlements.
Land Use and Vegetation Habitat Land use and vegetation analysis was conducted in the Main Reservoir Area using recent high resolution satellite imagery (January 2014). A focus was placed on analysis of evergreen and mixed deciduous forests and fallow areas which contain higher biomass volumes than other land uses in the reservoir area. The results of this analysis are provided in Table 3-3
Table 3-3 Land Use / Habitat Profile of the Main Reservoir Land Use / Habitat Area (Ha)
Dry Evergreen 132.68
Upper Mixed Deciduous* 2230.42
Bamboo 27.9
Old Fallow 1852.61
Young Fallow 678.53
Cultivated land 1277.82
Settlement areas 104.19
Water 481.63
TOTAL 6785.81
Source: Earth Systems 2015 * includes UMD / Bamboo mosaic
FINAL 38
Biomass Removal Plan (BRP)
Slope Areas with steep slopes of greater than 30 degrees will not be logged or cleared for safety and environmental reasons (i.e. slope stability, prevention of erosion and sediment transport into the reservoir). A digital elevation model for the Main Reservoir was developed and all areas above 30 degrees were mapped and excluded from potential clearance areas (see Appendix D).
Riparian Buffer Zones Areas within 30 metres of the Nam Ngiep river will not be not be cleared – although selective logging will be permitted. These riparian buffer areas will mitigate the impacts of erosion and sediment transportation during pre-inundation biomass removal. These areas have been mapped and excluded from potential clearance areas (see Appendix D).
UXO Risk The prevalence / risk of UXO is a key factor in determining priority biomass removal areas due to the cost of UXO clearance. Data on aerial bombing sourced from the United States Embassy has been mapped (see Appendix D). A summary of the findings of this analysis is provided in Table 3-4.
Table 3-4 UXO Risk Analysis Land Use / Habitat UXO Prevalence / Risk
Zone 1: Lower Reservoir Low risk in areas below Ban Houay Pamom
Zone 2: Central Reservoir Moderate risk in areas above Ban Houay Pamom
Zone 3: Upper Reservoir High risk in areas around Ban Pou, Ban Hatsamkhone and Ban Piengta
Source: Earth Systems 2015
Access Existing access is an important factor in the selection of priority biomass removal areas. There are a number of existing village access roads and logging tracks throughout the Main Reservoir Area. These have been mapped (see Appendix D) and the extent of access considered (i.e. high - existing tracks throughout area; medium -existing tracks to area; and low -no tracks to area).
Location of village settlements Nine (9) villages will be affected by the Main Reservoir inundation. Village settlement areas for these villages has been mapped (see Appendix D).
3.4.2 Priority Biomass Removal Areas Drawing on the above analysis 18 priority biomass removal areas have been identified (see Table 3-5 and Appendix D). These areas total 1912 ha and according to the most recent imagery (January 2014) contain 696 ha of UMD Forest; 1019.5 ha of old fallow; and 196 ha of young fallow.
Table 3-5 Priority Areas for Biomass Removal Priority areas Upper Mixed Young Fallow Zone Old Fallow (Ha) Total Area (Ha) (#) Deciduous (Ha) (Ha)
1 105.62 9.49 0.27 115.38
2 33.88 114.03 18.00 165.92
3 - 63.25 25.61 88.86
4 120.89 39.41 7.37 167.68 1 5 - 346.55 4.17 350.72
FINAL 39
Biomass Removal Plan (BRP)
Priority areas Upper Mixed Young Fallow Zone Old Fallow (Ha) Total Area (Ha) (#) Deciduous (Ha) (Ha)
6 - 46.71 46.71
7 - 42.90 0.13 43.03
8 27.44 11.67 1.90 41.00
9 13.66 27.62 12.85 54.13
10 156.33 109.07 51.98 317.39 2 11 6.32 82.49 9.24 98.05
12 84.23 - - 84.23
13 131.35 - - 131.35
14 1.76 44.49 6.75 53.00
15 0.59 67.62 25.06 93.27
16 7.13 2.73 9.86
3 17 - 14.08 30.18 44.25
18 6.97 0.22 7.18
TOTAL 696.18 1019.59 196.24 1912.01 Source: Earth Systems 2015
The total biomass proposed for removal in the Priority Biomass removal areas is shown in Table 3-6 below. The priority areas include deciduous forest, and old and young fallow areas. The total AGB removed is approximately 255,050 tonnes and BGB removal (including biodegradable soils top 10 cm) is lower at approximately 90,050 tonnes.
Table 3-6 Priority Areas for Biomass Removal –Total Biomass removed
Biomass removed Habitat Class Land Cover Main Reservoir (ha) AGB (tonnes) BGB (tonnes)
Natural and Modified Deciduous Forest 696 216,500 59,250 Old Fallow 1,020 38,250 30,400 Modified Young Fallow 196 300 400
Total 1,912 255,050 90,050
Source: Earth Systems 2015
FINAL 40
Biomass Removal Plan (BRP)
4 SALVAGE LOGGING MANAGEMENT
As outlined in Section 3, salvage logging forms part of a combined approach to biomass removal in the Main Reservoir area. 4.1 Roles and Responsibilities
Commercial timber within the Project area is owned by the GOL and government authorities such as the MAF and MONRE (and their provincial counterparts PAFO and PONRE) are responsible for harvesting activities. Specific roles and responsibilities are as follows: The Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry (MAF) is responsible for the engaging and managing contractors for salvage logging of commercial timber. The Provincial Agriculture and Forestry Offices (PAFO) in Xaysomboun and Bolikhamxay is understood to be the implementing arm of MAF for the salvage logging operations; MONRE’s Environment Management Unit (EMU) is responsible for monitoring of the implementation of the environmental and social management measures for salvage logging activities; NNP1 has responsibilities to coordinate with the GOL regarding salvage logging activities within the newly created reservoir of NNP1. This includes to: o Coordination during the conduct of residual biomass removal activities to ensure commercial timber is identified and made available to the GOL; and o Assisting the GOL (if necessary) to complete extraction of remaining commercial timber before impoundment. 4.2 Status of Salvage Logging Activities
4.2.1 Status of Commercial Timber Harvesting
Commercially Viable Areas According to officials in Bolikhamxay and Xaysomboun Provinces, commercial tree harvesting operations have now been completed in the Project reservoir areas. In Xaysomboun, a total of 8,248 m3 of commercial timber have been extracted by commercial logging operators since 2013. This includes 2,494 harvested by two (2) contractors during the 2013/2014 fiscal year when the area was still administered by the Vientiane Provincial Government; and an additional 5,754 m3 harvested in the 2014/2015 financial year. In June, officials in Xaysomboun confirmed that commercial harvesting operations have been completed in the Main Reservoir area. Bolikhamxay Province reportedly completed salvage logging operations in the Main Reservoir in May 2014. A local contractor was engaged to harvest some 2,264 m3 from forested areas near Ban Nam Youak and Ban Sop Youak.
Marginally Viable Areas Field observations recorded during the development of this BRP indicate that significant areas of forest above the FSL (and within the Project Watershed) are currently being logged. Forests within the reservoir area are reportedly less attractive for logging contractors than those in nearby areas - due to the quality of the resource and costs associated with harvesting. These areas are considered ‘marginally viable’ and are not being readily harvested.
FINAL 41
Biomass Removal Plan (BRP)
The Project EIA (ERM 2014a) recommends that subsidies be considered to encourage the removal of commercial timber in marginal areas. During consultations with NNP1 (June 2015) both Xaysomboun and Bolikhamxay provincial governments indicated that they will conduct further assessment of remaining ‘marginally viable’ timber resources and potential for harvesting and use by local furniture companies. During consultations conducted during the development of this plan (July 2015), officials from both Xaysomboun and Bolikhamxay provinces indicated that they will conduct surveying of remaining timber for possible harvesting and use by local furniture companies. 4.3 Priority Areas for Salvage Logging
Imagery analysis and ground truthing conducted during the development of this BRP has identified a total of 696.18 ha of Upper Mixed Deciduous Forest areas within the proposed priority biomass removal areas which may be suitable for additional salvage logging activities (see Section 3). Additional areas outside the proposed priority biomass removal areas, with limited or no road access, may become more accessible via boat after impoundment. 4.4 Approach for Remaining Salvage Logging Activities
The following approach to salvage logging coordination is proposed: The Salvage Logging and Biomass Removal (SLBR) Working Group under the Watershed Management Committee will be established; Provisional approval for residual biomass clearance activities to commence in priority biomass removal areas; Nomination of a GOL representative (i.e. PAFO forestry officer) to be imbedded on the NNP1 biomass removal team; Agreement on a protocol for identifying and harvesting (if necessary) any remaining commercial timber in the reservoir area including: o Joint (NNP1 and imbedded GOL representative) rapid assessment of remaining commercial tree resources in the proposed biomass removal area; o Reporting of findings of the rapid assessment to the SLBR Working Group for consideration and action as per Table 4-1.
Table 4-1 Commercial Viability and Recommended Actions Commercial Viability* Action
Highly viable GOL to organise commercial harvesting operation.
GOL to organise commercial harvesting operating or subsidised Marginally viable harvesting operation (i.e. local furniture companies).
GOL request for commercial timber to be stockpiled for either a) transport Non-viable to GOL nominated wood yard (as per CA Article 71); or b) community collection.
Source: Earth Systems 2015
*Commercially viability determined by rapid assessment of commercial tree resources. o Once commercial harvesting activities are complete, or in the event that these operations are not required, Residual Biomass Removal Approval will be provided by the GOL with explicit conditions to stockpile commercial timber for either transportation to a GOL nominated wood yard or community collection. Development of contingency plans for NNP1 led removal of remaining commercial timber before impoundment (if required); and
FINAL 42
Biomass Removal Plan (BRP)
Conduct of annual coordination meetings between the GOL and NNP1. The meetings will be important for monitoring the progress of salvage logging and residual biomass removal activities. 4.5 Salvage Logging Techniques
Salvage Logging will be undertaken in a manner consistent with the FAO Forest Harvesting Code of Practice (where applicable), IFC EHS Guidelines for Forestry Operations (where applicable) and GOL legislation and guidelines.
FINAL 43
Biomass Removal Plan (BRP)
5 RESIDUAL BIOMASS REMOVAL MANAGEMENT
As outlined in Section 3, salvage logging and residual biomass removal form part of a combined approach to biomass removal in the Main Reservoir area. 5.1 Roles and Responsibilities for Residual Biomass Removal
Roles and responsibilities for the planning and implementation of residual biomass removal activities are as follows: NNP1 is responsible for managing all aspects of biomass removal (i.e. lesser value biomass and the removal of biomass for water quality purposes). This will include working with PAFO and other local authorities to organize residents to undertake removal of lesser value biomass; and engaging and managing UXO and biomass clearance contractor(s); MONRE’s Environment Management Unit (EMU) is responsible for reviewing and approving this Biomass Removal Plan. The EMU will also be responsible for monitoring of the implementation of the Environmental and Social management measures for biomass removal; Contractors will be engaged for residual biomass removal and will be required to prepare Clearance Operational Plans will be prepared prior to field project implementation 5.2 Residual Biomass Removal Approach
5.2.1 Pre-Impoundment Biomass Removal The following measures during the pre-impoundment phase are recommended: When salvage logging of a block is complete, local residents will be invited to remove lesser value biomass from the block for a limited period of time; Once the time period for local extraction has past, a contractor engaged by NNP1 will undertake clearance of residual biomass. As much as practical, lesser value biomass will be removed from the reservoir, and stacked for later use. Remaining biomass will be cut and burned. NNP1 will engage local residents, as much as possible, to undertake residual biomass clearance and the removal of lesser value biomass; and Logging of steep slopes and the drawdown (before impoundment) will be minimized to reduce slope instability and potential erosion and sediment transport.
5.2.2 Post Impoundment Biomass Removal Post impoundment, biomass clearance in the drawdown buffer area can be carried out as the buffer’s capacity to reduce erosion and sedimentation will have diminished (i.e. vegetation die off). The remaining woody biomass in the drawdown area can be cut and burned during the dry season, if necessary. 5.3 Priority Areas for Biomass Removal
Imagery analysis and ground truthing conducted during the development of this BRP has 18 priority biomass removal areas totalling 1912 ha (see Section 3.4 and Appendix D).
FINAL 44
Biomass Removal Plan (BRP)
5.4 Biomass Removal Techniques
5.4.1 Lesser Value Biomass Extraction After felling of commercial timber, local residents will be informed of the impending reservoir impoundment, and will be given a limited time period to extract non-timber forest products and lesser value biomass from the priority biomass removal areas. Lesser value biomass can be used for building materials, firewood, charcoal / biochar production and other recycle products. The revised GOL Biomass Removal Guidelines (MONRE 2012) strongly promote the production and use of biochar, primarily as a means of reducing greenhouse gas emissions and enhancing soil properties in agricultural landscapes. All these uses of lesser value biomass should be considered during the revision of the Project’s livelihood restoration plan.
5.4.2 Residual Biomass Clearance Once the time has expired for local residents to have access to the area, a clearance contractor will remove as much of the residual biomass in the priority biomass removal areas as possible. Residual biomass is considered the biomass remaining on the ground once commercially valuable timber, lesser value biomass and NTFPs have been collected.
Manual Cutting / Clearing The recommended clearance method for the Project is manual cutting (as opposed to mechanical clearing via bulldozer). Chemical defoliants will not be used. Manual clearing (i.e. chainsaw, pruning shears, etc.) will reduce soil disturbance and subsequent sediment transport, leave rooting structures in place as erosion control, minimise UXO risks and will create social benefit if local residents are engaged to undertake clearance activities. If clear felling is undertaken, harvesting must be undertaken manually, and the herbaceous / shrub layer should be left behind for moderately steep slopes to minimise erosion. Burning in clear felled areas will be restricted to pile-and-burn techniques, with no broadcast burns conducted to minimise erosion potential. There are a number of manual cutting methods that may be employed, including: Cutting and leaving biomass on-site; Cutting, stockpiling (conditional) and burning on-site; Cutting and stockpiling outside of the future reservoir area; Cutting, stockpiling and burning outside of the future reservoir area. Cutting and leaving biomass on site is suitable to mitigate social impacts, such as impacts on reservoir access, navigation and net fishing. However, this option will provide little benefit for water quality. The three (3) remaining options are more suitable to mitigate potential water quality impacts. While options that include physically removing the biomass from the future reservoir area are likely to produce the best results in terms of water quality, given the time constraints, cutting and burning on-site is recommended. The harvesting / biomass removal approach will take into consideration the physical and environmental factors of the site. Areas selected for biomass clearing will be delineated into three zones, with different clearance methodologies applied to each. Biomass clearing will be conducted as follows for the following three sections: Biomass Zone 1 is the buffer strip along each bank the Nam Ngiep River. A 30 metre buffer strip will be applied (from the average annual high water mark), whereby vegetation will be left largely intact to remain as a sediment filter and erosion resistant strip. Shrub and herbaceous plants will be left intact along the river for its entire length within the reservoir impoundment area. Commercially viable trees and moderately commercially viable trees may be selectively harvested from the buffer strip. Operators will practice directional falling to minimise damage to lower level
FINAL 45
Biomass Removal Plan (BRP)
plants within the buffer. Trees will be dragged out of the buffer into Section 2, branches removed for pile and burn of soft biomass. Biomass Zone 2 will extend from the top of Section 1 (30 m from the Nam Ngiep River) to the reservoir MOL (296 masl). The primary removal technique in Section 2 will be clear felling. Clear felling in Zone 2 will be undertaken manually (i.e. not with bulldozers knocking over trees). Stumps (from trees and shrubs) will be left in-situ to aid in erosion control. Trees, shrubs will be manually cut with chainsaws / hand pruners, dragged down-slope and piled for subsequent burning (refer to below). Where Zone 2 slopes are steeper than 30º, clear-felling will transition into selective logging, with the commercially viable trees and moderately commercially viable trees removed. The herbaceous layer will be left intact. Trees will be dragged down slope (or to the appropriate landing) for slash removal, piling and burning. Broadcast burning may be employed in Zone 2, if appropriate controls are in-place (refer to below). Vegetation removal for slopes greater than 30º will be restricted to selective logging of commercially viable trees (including moderately commercially viable). Biomass Zone 3 extends from EL 296 (MOL) to EL 320 (FSL). The upper 20 metres of Section 3 will not be harvested prior to the first impoundment to provide erosion control. Following the first impoundment, and after the reservoir level has dropped to below the 20 metre buffer strip, commercial and non-commercial tree harvest and shrub removal may be employed, with commercially viable trees pulled to barges or floated to specified collection areas (log booms) for retrieval. All non- commercial biomass removed from Section 3 will be collected for placement in a suitable location for pile and burn.
320 masl
Zone 3 296 masl
Zone 2
Zone 1 Width =30m DAM
Nam Ngiep River
Figure 5-1Biomass Clearance Zones Source: NNP1 2015
Burning In natural and modified forest areas it is recommended that biomass is stockpiled before burning. In fallow areas broadcast burning may be deemed appropriate to maximise biomass removal. Burning of biomass on site requires advanced planning to minimise risks to local society or the surrounding environments. Measures (see Section 6) should include: Appointment and training of burn coordinators responsible for ensuring safe and controlled burns; Planning and establishment of effective fire breaks prior to any burning activity – ensuring protection of riparian buffer zones;
FINAL 46
Biomass Removal Plan (BRP)
Conduct of small controlled burns at the hottest possible burn to reduce residual biomass to a minimum; For natural forests: stockpiling of cut vegetative materials in 5mx5mx5m piles, placed about 5-8 metres apart, with larger woody biomass placed at the bottom to ensure stability of the structure and promote rapid and intense burning. Stockpiles sited away from waterways and avoiding steep slopes. Alternative burning of stockpiles in close proximity of each other; For fallow areas: risk assessment of broadcast burn and if deemed appropriate, establishment of additional fire breaks and conduct of small consecutive controlled burns; Presence of appropriately trained fire control staff with appropriate PPE and fire control equipment; Fire surveillance at all times during burning activities – until the fire is confirmed to be completely extinct; Burning will not be permitted at times of the year when a high fire danger exists. In particular, burning will not be permitted when there is high grass fire hazard late in the dry season; and Update of the Project’s Emergency Plan and Procedures with reference to burning activities.
5.4.3 Floating Log / Debris Removal Due to the aforementioned commercial logging and biomass clearance activities, there is likely to be a significant amount of small to medium sized woody debris during inundation and during operation immediately most impoundment. Many logs are expected to appear on the reservoir surface. Heavy or green wood logs may not float at all, or may partially float being suspended in the water below surface, have to be evacuated prior inundation. To reduce the flow of floating vegetative material reaching the main intake area the following preventive measures will be taken:
Pre-impoundment Set –up the seasonal “forest log-boom” at different location in the upstream of Nam Ngiep River and its main tributaries before the log/debris reaching the main dam vicinity; Set – up the collecting location for floating log/debris at each “seasonal log-boom” site, burn out the rejected wood, and remove as much as possible from the lower level of the reservoir to the safer place or log-yard at higher level; Built up the barge and aluminium boat procurement for the collect & removal of the floating log/debris in the reservoir after filling plan.
Figure 5-2 Example of Seasonal ‘Log Boom’. Source: NNP1 2015
FINAL 47
Biomass Removal Plan (BRP)
Post Impoundment Carry out on-water removal of floating logs and woody debris. This can be done using a variety of techniques including pulling / dragging logs by boat / barge and cutting and loading onto barge; and Carry out on-land activities to evacuate log/debris from log-landing site out of the reservoir vicinity and dispose through stockpiled burning (see Section 5 above).
FINAL 48
Biomass Removal Plan (BRP)
6 CODE OF PRACTICE FOR BIOMASS REMOVAL
The objective of the Code of Practice is to ensure compliance with the GOL’s biomass removal guidelines and consistency with international best practice (i.e. ADB and World Bank / IFC standards). The Code of Practice is a policy guideline that will be used as an instrument for regulating and monitoring the biomass removal (including salvage logging) operations. 6.1 Environmental and Social Management and Mitigation Measures
Environmental and social management for biomass removal (including salvage logging) activities associated with the Project are consistent with the Environmental Guidelines for Biomass Removal from Hydropower Reservoir in Lao PDR (MONRE 2012). Key environmental and social management and mitigation measures to support implementation of the biomass removal plan are detailed in Table 6-1 below. 6.2 Summary of ‘No Go’ Areas
The following ‘No Go’ areas will be confirmed with PAFO and MONRE: Areas with steep slopes of greater than 30 degrees. These areas will not be logged or cleared for safety and environmental reasons (i.e. slope stability, prevention of erosion and sediment transport into the reservoir). Buffer zones adjacent to water courses (30 m from the Nam Ngiep River and 5 m from perennial streams) will be identified where shrub and herbaceous layer clearance will not be undertaken. Some salvage logging of commercially viable timber species can be extracted from buffer areas, but care will need to be taken to maintain the vegetative buffer. A buffer of approximately 50 m will be maintained at the top of the drawdown area (EL 320 – EL 280) until after the first impoundment. During the following dry seasons, drawdown areas will be progressively logged for commercial timber and potentially the moderate value commercial timber. Stumps will be left in place. Islands created by the reservoir will remain vegetated (if any). 6.3 Contractors
Environmental and social safeguard requirements should be incorporated into contracts with salvage logging and clearance contractors. Contractors will be required to develop and implement an environmental and social management plan for their operations consistent with measures outlined in Table 6-1). NNP1, in cooperation with the GOL, will provide training to biomass removal contractors on the environmental and social management measures.
FINAL 49
Biomass Removal Plan (BRP)
Table 6-1 Key management measures to support the implementation of the biomass removal plan. Links to sub- No. Management and mitigation measures Monitoring Location Frequency plans / BMPs
Erosion and sediment transport
The management of riparian vegetation, stream bank erosion and sediment control 1.1 - - - measures, should be based on international best management practices.
A riparian vegetation buffer zone should be maintained on each side of the Nam Ngiep River of sufficient width (minimum 30 m) and perennial streams (minimum 5 m) to Weekly during SP01:Erosion Priority biomass 1.2 minimise sediment transport to the Nam Ngiep River. Selective logging can be Owner to verify clearance and Sediment removal areas undertaken, but shrub and herbaceous vegetation will be left intact / undisturbed in activities Control these areas.
Priority biomass 1.3 Logging activities should only be undertaken during the dry season. MONRE to verify Seasonal removal areas
UXO
UXO surveying and clearance (if deemed necessary) will be undertaken prior to Priority biomass 1.4 biomass clearance in accordance with SP12 – Unexploded Ordinance Survey and Owner to verify Once SP12 removal areas Disposal.
Vegetation clearance / habitat protection
Biomass removal activities should be strictly limited to the direct inundation area, and Weekly during Priority biomass 1.5 this should be closely monitored. Additionally, any areas of human disturbance such as Owner to verify clearance removal areas logging camps should be restricted to well within the inundation area activities
Weekly during SP07: Strict adherence to clearing areas by clearly marking clearance areas and prohibited Priority biomass 1.6 Owner to verify clearance Vegetation areas (buffer zones or outside of reservoir footprint). removal areas activities Clearing
All staff involved in vegetation clearance shall be walked through the pegged area and Priority biomass 1.7 instructed on strict adherence to clearing within this boundary by the Contractor or its Owner to verify Once per site removal areas nominated sub-contractor prior to the commencement of clearance.
FINAL 50
Biomass Removal Plan (BRP)
Links to sub- No. Management and mitigation measures Monitoring Location Frequency plans / BMPs
Each site to be cleared shall be inspected by the Owner Site Environment Manager or nominated Owner Environment Officer prior to the commencement of vegetation Priority biomass 1.8 Owner to verify Once per site clearance. This officer shall approve vegetation clearance if the site to be cleared has removal areas been clearly marked in accordance with the permit to clear issued by PAFO.
Wildlife Protection
The provision of adequate habitat corridors to permit safe animal migration out of the biomass removal area will be considered prior to cutting and salvage work. These will Priority biomass 1.20 be identified in the harvesting plans. In particular, logging should be conducted from Owner to verify Once per site removal areas close to creek lines (outside riparian buffer) and proceed outwards to encourage the passage of wildlife out of the area.
Prohibit construction site staff and contractors from hunting, buying or trading of wildlife Weekly during Priority biomass SP09: 1.21 as well as the collection of timber and NTFPs to help conserve existing fauna and forest Owner to verify clearance removal areas Biodiversity resources. activities Management MONRE should be notified if any rare and / or endangered species are identified during Priority biomass 1.22 Owner to verify As required salvage logging / clearance activities. removal areas
Salvage logging and residual biomass removal activities should be conducted as 1.23 quickly as possible to minimise related negative impacts such as hunting by contract - - - workers.
Fire
FINAL 51
Biomass Removal Plan (BRP)
Links to sub- No. Management and mitigation measures Monitoring Location Frequency plans / BMPs
Burn off of biomass waste should be done in a controlled manner. The burning of biomass will only take place under the following conditions:
Biomass load has been minimized by removing and storing commercially valuable timber Fire risk assessment and planning has been carried out Adequate fire breaks (at least 50m) have been established. SP03 - Burning will only be undertaken in the presence of a trained fire protection Emission and officer. Before site Dust Control; Burning will not be undertaken during severe wind conditions Priority biomass burning 1.24 Owner to verify SP07; Fire control equipment will be available on site at the time of burning (e.g. removal areas activities Vegetation sand, water buckets, fire brooms). commence Clearing; Burning will not be undertaken within 5 km of any village (pending stakeholder SP17 - consultation). Emergency Burning will not be permitted at times of the year when a high fire danger Preparedness exists. In particular, burning will not be permitted when there is high grass fire hazard late in the dry season. Burning of debris must be supervised. Following completion of the burn, the trained fire protection officer will inspect and certify that the fire has been extinguished.
Update of the Project’s Emergency Plan and Procedures with reference to burning Priority biomass 1.25 Owner to verify Once activities. removal areas
Air quality
Air emissions caused by salvage logging and biomass clearance activities (i.e. dust, Weekly during Priority biomass 1.26 vehicle emissions, emissions from burning) should be conducted in accordance with Owner to verify clearance removal areas SP03: measures outlined in SP03 activities Emissions and Appropriate breathing masks will be provided to staff working in areas where they may Priority biomass Dust Control 1.27 Owner to verify Weekly during be exposed to poor air quality. removal areas clearance
FINAL 52
Biomass Removal Plan (BRP)
Links to sub- No. Management and mitigation measures Monitoring Location Frequency plans / BMPs
activities
Noise and vibration
Weekly during Noise and vibration caused by biomass removal activities should be managed in Priority biomass SP04: Noise 1.28 Owner to verify clearance accordance with relevant measures outlined in SP04 removal areas and Vibration activities
Hazardous Materials
Weekly during Priority biomass 1.29 No use of chemical defoliants or herbicides in clearance activities. Owner to verify clearance removal areas activities
Registration, labelling, safe handling and storage of hazardous materials to be Weekly during Visual inspection 1.30 conducted in accordance with measured outlined in SP06 (covered, on sealed, drained Hazmat storage sites clearance SP05: Waste by contractor. surface with appropriate sized bunding). activities Management; SP06: Weekly during Fuel depots and maintenance areas for logging trucks must be located outside of the Visual inspection Priority biomass Hazardous 1.31 clearance future reservoir area and at least 50 m from streams. by contractor. removal areas Materials activities
Weekly during Disposal of hazardous wastes and materials (i.e. fuel soaked rags, empty fuel barrels Visual inspection Priority biomass 1.32 clearance and waste oil) to be conducted in accordance with measures outlined in SP05 by contractor. removal areas activities
Waste
Weekly during All waste generated by salvage logging and biomass clearance activities should be Priority biomass 1.33 Owner to verify clearance managed in accordance with relevant measures outlined in SP05 removal areas activities SP05: Waste The management of biomass waste as a result of logging operations and vegetation Management Priority biomass 1.34 clearance should be clarified, agreed upon, and implemented with enforcement by the Owner to verify Once removal areas management team.
FINAL 53
Biomass Removal Plan (BRP)
Links to sub- No. Management and mitigation measures Monitoring Location Frequency plans / BMPs
Work camps and Workforce
Weekly during The construction and use of work camps should be managed in accordance with Priority biomass 1.35 Owner to verify clearance relevant measures outlined in SP13 removal areas activities
The management of the workforce for biomass removal activities should be Weekly during Priority biomass SP13:Workcam 1.36 management in accordance with relevant measures outlined in SP16 including health Owner to verify clearance removal areas ps; and safety training, first aid, disease control). activities SP16: Project Conduct environmental education and awareness programs for all Project staff prior to Workforce construction to improve understanding of biodiversity conservation, cultural sensitivities Weekly during Priority biomass 1.37 and the importance of forest resources for local communities, and also to ensure that Owner to verify clearance removal areas the prohibitions and penalties regarding hunting, wildlife trade and the collection of other activities forest resources are widely known.
In-migration and camp followers
Weekly during - Priority biomass 1.38 Only those employed by contractors will be permitted to stay in the camp. Owner to verify clearance removal areas activities
Weekly during Priority biomass 1.39 Settlement within harvesting areas will not be permitted. Owner to verify clearance removal areas activities
Traffic and access
Weekly during Safe driving practices will be enforced including speed limits of maximum 40 kph Priority biomass 1.40 Owner to verify clearance SP14; SP15 through residential areas; zero tolerance driving under the influence policy. removal areas activities
FINAL 54
Biomass Removal Plan (BRP)
Links to sub- No. Management and mitigation measures Monitoring Location Frequency plans / BMPs
A maintenance program for the construction vehicle fleet will be implemented which will include consideration of the following issues: General condition and safety of vehicles; Review of vehicle Check of vehicle brakes and tires; Vehicle exhaust emissions; Vehicle noise emissions 1.41 maintenance - Routine and noise control measures. Each vehicle in the fleet will be inspected regularly and a records written certificate provided by a qualified mechanic as to its fitness for service (see SP 14 – Traffic and Access).
Any vehicle accident will be thoroughly documented. Records will be kept of all Review of incident 1.42 - Routine incidents involving vehicles. records
Traffic movements on public roads will be managed in accordance with measures Priority biomass 1.43 Owner to verify Routine outlined in SP14. removal areas
Drivers will be required to stop at all roadside checkpoints. Vehicles authorized to Priority biomass 1.44 Owner to verify Routine undertake salvage logging should be clearly marked and traceable to the operator. removal areas
Safety issues and regulations regarding traffic and site access will be included in the Priority biomass 1.45 Owner to verify Routine training plan for construction personnel (refer to SP15). removal areas
Local livelihoods
After felling of commercial timber and where permitted by the relevant authorities (i.e. PAFO), local residents will be informed of the impending reservoir impoundment, and Priority biomass 1.46 Owner to verify Routine will be given a limited time period to extract non-timber forest products and lesser value removal areas biomass from the priority clearance areas.
Necessary resources should be provided to establish community forest organisations in REDP local communities which have rights to collect lesser value biomass, and that these Priority biomass 1.47 Owner to verify Routine resources are fairly divided between local community groups. This should be based on removal areas meetings between local communities and representatives from the Project owner.
Villagers will be provided with assistance to store some of this removed biomass for Priority biomass 1.48 Owner to verify Routine future construction material, firewood, charcoal and other beneficial uses. removal areas
FINAL 55
Biomass Removal Plan (BRP)
Links to sub- No. Management and mitigation measures Monitoring Location Frequency plans / BMPs
Opportunities for the use of lesser value biomass (i.e. biochar production and use) Priority biomass 1.49 should be incorporated into the Project’s Resettlement and Ethnic Development Plan Owner to verify Routine removal areas and associated livelihood restoration strategy.
Labour inputs by local villagers in the development and implementation of the biomass Priority biomass 1.50 Owner to verify Routine removal should be maximised. removal areas
Archaeology and cultural heritage
In consultation with local communities, biomass removal activities should take into Priority biomass 1.51 Owner to verify Once consideration sensitivities regarding cultural sites and community events. removal areas
ESOs will be trained to identify potential sites or items of cultural significance. Priority biomass SP18: Cultural 1.52 Construction workers will be trained in the appropriate reporting and communication Owner to verify Routine removal areas Resources procedures to be followed if they identify any potential sites or items
Priority biomass 1.53 A Chance Find Procedure should be implemented for all biomass removal work Owner to verify Routine removal areas
Source: Earth Systems 2015
FINAL 56
Biomass Removal Plan (BRP)
7 PUBLIC CONSULTATION
7.1 Objectives of Public Consultation and Disclosure
Consistent with the greater NN1HP, the goal of public consultation and disclosure for the biomass removal activities is to improve decision-making, build understanding to ensure the long-term viability of the NN1HP and to enhance potential NN1HP benefits. Specific objectives of the consultation and disclosure process are to: Ensure that Project affected communities and other stakeholders are well informed of the proposed biomass removal activities and the potential environmental and social impacts, and management measures; Ensure stakeholder feedback on the planned biomass removal activities is gained through simple and effective communication processes; and Promote inclusive and informed decision making on the development and implementation of the biomass removal plan.
7.2 Summary of Consultation Activities
Consultation activities included pre-draft consultations and draft BRP consultations. Target stakeholders included national, provincial and district government officials and village chiefs. The majority of village chiefs invited to these consultations were not able to attend. In village consultations with village chiefs and a wider group of stakeholders from each village will be conducted in August 2015 Table 7-1 provides a summary of these consultations exercises. Records of these consultations are provided in Appendix E.
Table 7-1 Summary of Consultations Date Consultation Stakeholders
PONRE Bolikhamxay; Chair of NN1 Watershed 4th May 2015 Pre-draft consultation meeting Committee
4th May 2015 Pre-draft consultation meeting PAFO Bolikhamxay
5th May 2015 Pre-draft consultation meeting PONRE Xaysomboun
5th May 2015 Pre-draft consultation meeting PAFO Xaysomboun
27th June 2015 Draft BRP Consultation Meeting MONRE
9th July 2015 Draft BRP Consultation Meeting Thathom District and VC (Ban Hatsamkhone)
10th July 2015 Draft BRP Consultation Meeting Hom District
Source: Earth Systems 2015
7.3 Next Steps
In village consultations with the seven (7) villages which will be affected by biomass removal activities will be conducted by NNP1 between August and September 2015. At these consultations, a short presentation overviewing the proposed biomass removal activities, their potential environmental and social impacts and the proposed management measures will be presented. Priority clearance maps will be presented to engage communities.
FINAL 57
Biomass Removal Plan (BRP)
Key discussion topics will include: Community involvement in biomass removal activities (i.e labour to clear); Potential use of land by the villagers for shifting cultivation to promote biomass clearance (need to discuss how NNP1 could support); Social impacts while communities are still living in the area such as loss of access to or loss of access to resources for local communities, air quality (during burning), health and safety etc...; and Potential collection and use of lesser value biomass by the local communities. The results of these consultations will inform the update of the Project’s Livelihood Restoration Plan and detailed operation plans for relevant biomass removal areas.
FINAL 58
Biomass Removal Plan (BRP)
8 TARGETS, ACTIONS, MONITORING FRAMEWORK AND BUDGET
8.1 Actions and Implementation Schedule
An Action Plan for the implementation of the BRP is outlined in Table 8-1. An Implementation schedule for these activities is provided in Table 8-2. Note the schedule assumes impoundment of the Main Reservoir in July 2018.
FINAL 59
Biomass Removal Plan (BRP)
Table 8-1 Action and Implementation Schedule for Biomass Removal
No. Target Action(s) Schedule /Frequency Responsibility
Implementation Checking / Monitoring
1 BRP Reviewed NNP1 to submit Draft BRP to MONRE-EMU Completed NNP1 MONRE-EMU and Project Financiers ADB
2 Agree on roles / responsibilities NNP1 to organise consultation meetings Completed NNP1 MONRE-EMU and contents of the Plan. with GOL stakeholders MAF ADB MONRE
3 Approved BRP MONRE-EMU to review / approve July 2015 / One time NNP1 MONRE-EMU Project Financiers to review / approve ADB
4 Establish Salvage Logging and PAFO to establish salvage logging and July 2015 / One time PAFO MAF / NNP1 Biomass Removal Working Group biomass removal working group under the Watershed Management Committee
Nomination of a GOL representative (i.e. PAFO forestry officer) to be imbedded on the NNP1 biomass removal team Agreement to a protocol for identifying and harvesting (if necessary) any remaining commercial timber in the reservoir area
5 Priority areas approved for residual GOL to provide approval to commence For each priority area / one time NNP1 / PAFO MAF / MONRE biomass removal lesser biomass extraction and biomass ADB clearance activities
6 Community Consultation In-village consultations with the seven (7) August 2015 NNP1 MAF / MONRE affected villages regarding specifics of
FINAL 60
Biomass Removal Plan (BRP)
No. Target Action(s) Schedule /Frequency Responsibility
Implementation Checking / Monitoring
biomass removal. ADB
7 Lesser biomass extraction and use Update Project Livelihood Restoration Plan August 2015 / One time NNP1 SMO MONRE / NNP1 by PAPs with activities for extraction and use of lesser value biomass.
8 Contractors engaged Tender for UXO clearance and biomass October 2015 / One time NNP1 PAFO / MAF clearance contractors
9 Contractor contracts with Prepare contracts for contractors which October 2015 / One time NNP1 / Contractor NNP1 environmental and social clearly state environmental and social measures measures to be implemented
10 Detailed plans for priority areas Prepare a detailed operational plan for each September – November 2015 / One time NNP1 EMU / PAFO / area to be cleared. NNP1
11 Priority areas physically Physical demarcation of priority areas September – November 2015; September NNP1 PAFO / EMU / demarcated – November 2016; September – NNP1 November 2017
12 UXO Cleared (Post-Clearance UXO metal detecting survey and clearance November 2015 – January 2016; NNP1 (UXO and MONRE-EMU Assessment) or land officially as required; Land officially “released” for September – November 2017; September Clearance released following metal detecting biomass clearance (as per National – November 2018 (dry season as Contractor) survey. Standards on UXO / Mine Action), required)
13 Commercial timber felled and Felling and stockpiling of commercial timber December 2015 – April 2016; October Contractor PAFO stockpiled (if required), 2016 – April 2017; October 2017 – (Logging) March 2018.
14 Removal of lesser value biomass Implement clearance of lesser value February 2016 – April 2016; September NNP1 NNP1 biomass and NTFPs by local residents (local 2016 – April 2017; September 2017 –
FINAL 61
Biomass Removal Plan (BRP)
No. Target Action(s) Schedule /Frequency Responsibility
Implementation Checking / Monitoring
residents given 2 month clearance time for April 2018. each block).
15 Residual biomass removed Implement clearance of residual biomass Mid-October 2015 – mid May 2016; NNP1 / Contractor MONRE-EMU (Clearance) Mid-October 2016 – mid-May 2017
Mid-October 2017 – mid May 2018
16 Contingency plan for salvage Agreement to contingency plans for NNP1 June 2016 NNP1 PAFO / EMU logging developed (if required) led removal of remaining commercial timber before impoundment (if required);
Reservoir Impoundment – July 2018*
17 Floating log/debris removal Water and land operation July 2018 – July 2020 NNP1 or PAFO / NNP1 Contractor
Drawdown cleared (if necessary) 18 Felling of remaining commercial timber in October 2018 – April 2021 (dry seasons) NNP1 / Contractor MONRE-EMU the drawdown (Clearance) Cut, stack and burn remaining biomass in the drawdown (if deemed necessary)
19 Monitoring of Activities October 2015 – July 2020 / Monthly pre- NNP1 NNP1 / MONRE - impoundment; quarterly (post- EMU impoundment)
Source: Earth Systems 2015 *Anticipated
FINAL 62
Biomass Removal Plan (BRP)
Table 8-2 Activity Schedule
2015 2016 2017 2018
Activity M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D Submit draft SLBRP to GOL and Financiers Conduct SLBRP Consultations & Workshop Finalise SLBRP Establish Salvage Logging Committee Redefine clearance blocks Tender for contractors Prepare contracts Prepare harvesting plans
Reservoir Impoundment Reservoir Demarcation of blocks UXO visual survey M ark commercial timber UXO metal detecting / clearance (if required) Salvage logging Lesser value biomass clearance Clearance of residual biomass Contingency plan for salvage logging developed (if required) M ark timber in drawdown Fell timber in drawdown Collect floating timber Clear biomass in drawdown (if required)
M onitoring
Source: Earth Systems 2015
FINAL 63
Biomass Removal Plan (BRP)
8.2 Monitoring Framework
A monitoring framework for SLBR activities, developed in accordance with the Project’s ESMMP-CP and Concession Agreement – Annex C is outlined in Table 8-3
FINAL 64
Biomass Removal Plan (BRP)
Table 8-3 Monitoring Framework for Biomass Removal Activates
Environmental Compliance Parameters / Indicators Monitoring Methods Monitoring Frequency Responsibility Theme / Issue (Standards, etc.)
Prior to Inundation
Estimates from imagery and site Biomass Soft and hard biomass Once visits
Hydrology Minimum and maximum volume Calculations Once
Hydrology Minimum and maximum surface area Calculations Once
Hydrology Monthly inflow from tributaries Modelling or gauging Monthly
Hydrology Concession Discharge from Dam operation Engineering calculations. Engineering Agreement, Annex C, EMO Monthly for at least 15 Meteorology Appendix 2 Precipitation and evaporation Standard methods years
Water Quality Carbon as BOD and TOC in tributaries Filtered samples
Water Quality Dissolved phosphorous in tributaries Filtered samples Once per season Water Quality Ammonia + nitrate in Tributaries Filtered samples
Hydrology Flow during sampling of C, P and N Current meter
Number of local residents engaged in clearance activities Review progress reports; GOL (Biomass Amount of lesser value biomass cleared Social / livelihoods Visual inspection Monthly EMO Guidelines, 2012) and stacked
Number of new settlements in logging areas
Camps GOL (Biomass Rules displayed Visual inspection Monthly EMO
FINAL 65
Biomass Removal Plan (BRP)
Environmental Compliance Parameters / Indicators Monitoring Methods Monitoring Frequency Responsibility Theme / Issue (Standards, etc.)
Guidelines, 2012) Presence of sanitary / hygiene facilities;
GOL (2010) Safe drinking water supply;
IFC (2007) Safe food handling practices;
Mosquito control / malaria prevention measures;
Presence of well-marked and fully stocked first aid kit
CA (2013); Vehicles travelling at speed limit; Road Law (2000); Vehicles clearly marked and traceable; Visual inspection Vehicles GOL (Biomass Monthly EMO / PAFO Vehicles road worthy; Incident reports Guidelines, 2012); Number of vehicle accidents FAO Code of Practice
Concession Area logged Review progress reports; Agreement Removal of vegetation waste Salvage Logging Site checks to verify reports Monthly EMO / PAFO FAO Code of Practice; Number of trees removed outside of the Visual inspection IFC 2007 demarcated area / reservoir boundary
Residual biomass GOL (Biomass Visual inspection Monthly during NNP1 / BIOMASS Area cleared and burned clearance Guidelines, 2012) Contractor reports clearance TEAM
During Inundation
Concession DO electrode and pressure Water Quality Agreement, Annex C, DO (and depth of DO) transducer from 5 depths for each of Twice a week EMO Appendix 2 the following
FINAL 66
Biomass Removal Plan (BRP)
Environmental Compliance Parameters / Indicators Monitoring Methods Monitoring Frequency Responsibility Theme / Issue (Standards, etc.)
Most upstream in Main Reservoir
Middle of Main Reservoir
Most Downstream in Main Reservoir
Immediately downstream of re0regulation pond
Water temperature (depth of thermocline) Same profiles as for DO Twice a week
Total and dissolved phosphorous Filtered ortho-phosphate and total P Quarterly
1 m depth at one or two stations in Total and dissolved nitrogen (ammonia Quarterly if N/P ration is main reservoir; (ammonia + nitrate in plus nitrate) < 7.7 filtered sample; Total N as TKN
1 m depth at one or two stations in Phytoplankton biomass main reservoir; Sample with plankton Quarterly net. Filter and oven dry
Secchi disk depth Same profiles as for DO Twice a week
Nam Ngiep Upstream of Reservoir
Nam Ngiep Downstream of Reservoir WQ Parameters (Table 1.10 of CA) – Quarterly various parameters Nam Ngiep Downstream of Re-reg. dam
GC from middle of Main Reservoir Methane Methane (g/ m3) from hypolimnion and epilimnion Quarterly
GC from immediately downstream of
FINAL 67
Biomass Removal Plan (BRP)
Environmental Compliance Parameters / Indicators Monitoring Methods Monitoring Frequency Responsibility Theme / Issue (Standards, etc.)
the re-regulation pond
Monitoring conducted twice. If concentrations are above 35 g/ m3, MONRE may monitor methane above surface water.
Minimum and Maximum water volume;
Reservoir Volumes Minimum and maximum surface water Calculated from water levels Annual area
Biomass Floating Debris collected Approximate volume in cubic meter continuous
Post-Inundation
Nam Ngiep Upstream of Reservoir
WQ Parameters (Table 1.10 of CA) – Nam Ngiep Downstream of Reservoir Water Quality Quarterly various parameters Nam Ngiep Downstream of Re-reg. dam
Concession DO (and depth of DO) As per during impoundment Quarterly Agreement, Annex C, EMO Temperature Profiles As per during impoundment Quarterly Appendix 2 Secchi disk depth As per during impoundment Quarterly
Methane As per during impoundment Quarterly
Hydrology Discharge As per during impoundment Quarterly
Floating Debris Floating Debris As per during impoundment Continuous
Source: Earth Systems 2015
FINAL 68
Biomass Removal Plan (BRP)
8.3 Budget Estimate
It is estimated that the total budget for the implementation of the Biomass Removal activities 765,600 over a 4 year period (excluding UXO clearance costs); however a majority of the spending will be in the first 3 years (see Table 8-4).
Table 8-4 Estimated Budget for Biomass Removal Activities No. of Unit Cost Activity Total No. Activity Unit Units (USD) (USD)
1 Draft BRP Consultation Lump 4 3,000.00 12,000.00
3 Residual biomass removal Ha 1912 300 573,600.00
4 Floating log/debris removal Year 3 60,000.00 180,000.00
TOTAL 765,600.00
Source: Earth Systems 2015
Budget assumptions include: Costs of manual cutting and burning on site is estimated at US$ 300 per ha. These area low estimates, taking into consideration the economies of scale of such a large clearance operation. For fallow areas it is recommended that other more cost effective opportunities for clearing these areas be considered (i.e. incentives for local villages to conduct swidden agriculture in these areas). Due to previous clearing and burning in these areas, UXO risk is considered lower, however an appropriate UXO risk mitigation strategy would need to be developed. Costs for floating log/debris removal based on estimates from NNP1 staff involved in similar operations for the NT2 Hydropower Project. Operational costs only. Budget does not include cost of equipment. This budget does not include tasks covered by the day-to-day operating costs of the NN1P EMO (such as monitoring and reporting and EMO staff participating in meetings), as this budget is included in the overall ESMMP budget. The budget does not include cost of UXO survey and clearance due the varying degrees of risk across the reservoir area. UXO survey and clearance costs reported by a plantation company operating in Lao PDR (i.e. US$ 600 – US$1000 per ha for clearance to depth of 65 cm in high risk areas along the Hoh Chi Minh Trail). A lower estimate of US$300 – US$500 per ha could be realistic based on the low risk of much of the area; the requirement for 25 cm clearance; and that initial surveying will determine the level of UXO risk in the area and that only low risk areas will be chosen for biomass clearance.
FINAL 69
Biomass Removal Plan (BRP)
9 REFERENCES
Annex C 2015, Concession Agreement: Nam Ngiep 1 Hydropower Project - Annex C: Environmental and Social Obligation Appendix 2 Standards for Nam Ngiep 1 Hydropower Project. Environment Resource Management 2014a, Environmental Impact Assessment for Nam Ngiep 1 Hydropower Project, Revision 4, July 2014 Environment Resource Management 2014b, Environmental and Social Monitoring and Management Plan for the Entire Construction Works (ESMMP-CP) for Nam Ngiep 1 Hydropower Project, Revision 2, April 2014 GOL 2012, Step by Step Environmental Guidelines for Biomass Removal from Hydropower Reservoirs in Lao PDR, December 2012. MAF (2007) Ministerial Agreement on Timber Measurement and Quality Classification MONRE / WREA, 2010, Environmental Guidelines for Biomass Removal from Hydropower Reservoirs in Lao PDR MONRE, 2012, Step-by-Step Guidelines for Biomass Removal from Hydropower Reservoirs in Lao PDR Nam Ngiep Power Company 2014, Social Impact Assessment for Nam Ngiep Hydropower Project, June 2014 NN3 Power Company 2011, Final EIA for the Nam Ngum 3 Hydropower Project, October 2011 NTPC 2005, Environmental Assessment and Management Plan, Version 10, March 2005. Terakunpisut., J., Gakaseni. N. and Ruankawe, N. 2007, Carbon Sequestration Potential in Aboveground Biomass of Thong Pha Phum National Forest Thailand. Theun Hinboun Power Company 2008, Final EIA/ESMMP for the Theun Hinboun Expansion Project. Townsend, S.A. 1999. The seasonal pattern of dissolved oxygen, and hypolimnetic deoxygenation, in two tropical Australian reservoirs. Lakes and Reservoirs: research and management, Volume 4, Issue 1-2, Pages 41-53, January 1999. US Embassy (2006), US Air Force Bombing Database for SEA, provided to the Swiss Foundation for Mine Action (FSD) in April 2006 Vicharnakorn, P., Shrestha, R.P., Nagai, M., Salam, A.P., and Kiratiprayoon, S. 2014, “Carbon Stock Assessment Using Remote Sensing and Forest Inventory Data in Savannakhet, Lao PDR, Remote Sensing, January 2014.
FINAL 70
Biomass Removal Plan (BRP)
10 APPENDICES
Appendix A: Project Features
Facility Items Unit Specification Main Facility Main Reservoir Flood water level masl 320.0 Normal water level masl 320.0 Rated water level masl 312.0 Minimum operating level masl 296.0 Available depth m 24.0 Reservoir surface area km2 66.9 (NWL) Effective storage capacity 106 m3 1,192 Catchment area km2 3,700 Average annual inflow m3 / s 4,680 Main Dam Type - Concrete gravity dam Dam height m 148.0 Crest length m 530.0 Dam volume 103 m3 2.034 Crest level masl 322.0 Spillway Gate Type - Radial gate Number of gates - 4 Design flood m3 / s 5,210 (1,000 year ARI storm event) Intake Type - Bell-mouth Number - 2 Discharge capacity m3 / s 230.0 Penstock Type - Embedded and concrete lined Number - 2 Length m 185.81 Diameter m 5.2 Turbine and Maximum plant discharge m3 / s 230.0 Generator Gross head m3 / s 132.7 Effective head m 130.9 Type of turbine - Francis Rated output MW 272 Annual power generation GWh 1,546 Peak operation hours hrs 16 (Monday to Saturday) Re-regulation facility Re-regulation Flood water level masl 185.9 reservoir Normal water level masl 179.0
FINAL 71
Biomass Removal Plan (BRP)
Facility Items Unit Specification Rated water level masl 179.0 Minimum operating level masl 174.0 Available depth m 5.0 Reservoir surface area km2 1.27 (NWL) Effective storage capacity 106 m3 4.6 Catchment area km2 3,725 Average annual inflow m3 / s n/a Re-regulation dam Type - Concrete gravity dam Dam height m 20.6 Crest length m 90.0 Dam volume 103 m3 23.9 Crest level masl 187.0 Re-regulation gate Type - Fixed wheel gate Number - 1 Discharge capacity m3 / s 5,210 (1000 year ARI storm event) Spillway Gate type - Ungated spillway Design flood m3 / s 5,210 (1000 year) Intake Type - Open Number - 1 Discharge capacity m3 / s 160.0 Turbine and Maximum plant discharge m3 / s 160.0 generator Gross head m3 / s 13.1 Effective head m 12.7 Type of water turbine - Bulb Rated output MW 18 Annual power generation GWh 105 Peak operation hours Hrs 24 (Monday to Sunday) Supporting facilities Diversion tunnel Length m 653 Inside diameter m 10 Number - 1 Flow m3 / s 11.5
Source: NNP1 2015
FINAL 72
Biomass Removal Plan (BRP)
Appendix B: Impacts of Inundation of Biomass
Decomposition of organic matter, anoxia, and associated impacts The decomposition of vegetation and soil organic matter during the first years of impoundment consumes oxygen. In stratified waterbodies, the deep water layer(s) of the reservoir are not re-oxygenated by atmospheric input or from photosynthesis of aquatic plants. The health of fish and additional aquatic organisms decline with decreasing levels of dissolved oxygen, with decreased reproductive success and mortality occurring when dissolved oxygen levels drop too low (e.g. < 5mg/L). The degradation of organic matter leads to enrichment of ammonia, hydrogen sulphide, phosphorous release from bottom sediments and additional matter released from the geologic substrate (e.g. iron, manganese, and silica). The consequence of the consumption of oxygen from these phenomena may be total anoxia in lower layers of the reservoir for the initial years following impoundment while there is an abundant supply of organic matter. Under such anaerobic conditions; the methane, hydrogen sulphide, ferrous iron and ammonia formed in the hypolimnion eventually diffuse upward. These reduced compounds create an oxycline where they meet oxygen diffusing downward from the reservoir surface. At the oxycline, the reduced compounds are oxidised, diminishing the problem over time. The duration of the initial period of anoxia depends on the quantity of submerged terrestrial vegetation, the thermal profile of the reservoir, nutrient concentrations of submerged soil, and the rate at which reservoir water is replaced by input and discharge. In terms of the NN1 Main Dam, anoxic conditions from dam stratification are intended to be ameliorated by increased dissolved oxygen (DO) created by the re-regulation dam, and by the placement of drawdown from the main dam above the anticipated hypolimnion layer. The predicted range of DO in the main reservoir outflow discharge (for the NN1 EIA) varies from 3.5 mg/L to 7.9 mg/L through the year. Due to oxygenation and dilution the DO concentration is expected to increase as the water flows downstream to the re-regulation dam and DO concentration of discharge water from the re-regulating dam is expected to be greater than 6 mg/L for most of the year. According to the NN1 EIA, water temperature in the main reservoir is expected to be approximately 4ºC higher than before construction (and up to 4ºC higher in discharge from the re-regulation dam), though this will vary seasonally. Stratification Large reservoirs in tropical Southeast Asia undergo thermal stratification, with biochemical stratification a by-product. Reservoir water temperature (influenced primarily by air temperature, residence time in the reservoir, volume and temperature of water input and water depth) will separate into pronounced layers, particularly during the dry season. The surface water layer (the epilimnion) will have higher temperatures and lower density than the bottom layer (the hypolimnion). The epilimnion and hypolimnion are separated by the thermocline, a gradient zone that is seasonally variable in size relative to a number of factors (e.g. precipitation, inflow, wind and waves). Stratification may break down seasonally, with the mixing of surface and bottom water creating temperatures (and chemical loads) that are more homogenous throughout the reservoir during periods of lower temperatures and increased water input. Stratification impacts water quality in a number of ways. A highly stratified reservoir will more likely be anoxic in the hypolimnion with uninhabitable water for aquatic organisms throughout the deeper portions of the reservoir. If reservoir discharge is sourced from deeper waters of a reservoir, downstream water quality may be impaired as a result of low dissolved oxygen concentration and elevated concentrations of parameters associated with vegetative decomposition (discussed above). When stratification breaks down seasonally (if applicable), anoxic water with additional water quality impairment will mix with surface waters, potentially creating uninhabitable water throughout the reservoir. Eutrophication
FINAL 73
Biomass Removal Plan (BRP)
The release of phosphorous from submerged sediments, introduction of increased nitrogen from vegetative decomposition, and increased suspended sediment input associated with construction activity (with adsorbed nutrients) commonly create or accelerate eutrophication. Eutrophication, associated with excess nitrogen and phosphorous in lakes and reservoirs, promotes extensive and rapid grow of planktonic algae (floating and suspended). Excessive algal growth reduces water clarity, inhibits growth of other plants, commonly leads to oxygen depletion (and associated mortality of aquatic organisms), unpleasant odours, and may lead to growth of species of blue-green algae that are toxic to terrestrial fauna. Greenhouse Gases Decomposition of vegetation and soil organic matter in the reservoir during impoundment drives carbon dioxide and methane production, both significant greenhouse gases. In addition to the potential impacts from atmospheric inputs, the release of methane into the atmosphere is extremely odorous and is a nuisance for downwind inhabitants.
FINAL 74
Biomass Removal Plan (BRP)
Appendix C: Technical Report – Environmental Modelling
FINAL 75
EARTH SYSTEMS Environment | Water | Sustainability
Australian Business Number 42 120 062 544
TECHNICAL REPORT: ENVIRONMENTAL MODELLING FOR THE NAM NGIEP 1 POWER COMPANY’S BIOMASS REMOVAL PLAN
Prepared for
NAM NGIEP 1 POWER COMPANY
July 2015
INTRODUCTION
Earth Systems has been asked by the Nam Ngiep 1 Power Company’s (NNP1) to undertake environmental modelling of the performance of proposed reservoirs of the Nam Ngiep 1 Hydropower Project, specifically targeted to help evaluate the options to minimise environmental impacts during the biomass removal phase construction and post construction reservoir fill phase.
The Government of Lao PDR (GOL) and the Asian Development Bank (ADB) have requested that NNP1 conduct environmental modelling, using the BioREM modelling tool. BioREM is a modelling tool developed for Ministry of Natural Resources & Environment (MONRE) as an addendum to the Step-by- Step Environmental Guidelines for Biomass Removal from Hydropower Reservoirs in Lao PDR from December 2012. The BioREM model simulates physical, chemical and biological processes in reservoirs. This allows developers to estimate how much biomass must be removed prior to inundation of a hydropower reservoir in order to obtain reasonable water quality and moderate greenhouse gas emissions during operation of the plant.
SCOPE The proposed scope of work for this modelling exercise, as per the GOL’s Step-by-Step Guidelines for Biomass Removal from Hydropower Reservoirs (2012) is as follows: Collection of model inputs: Inputs include biomass estimates, reservoir volume and characteristics, flows and hydrology and allochthonous inputs; Conduct of modelling including: Testing model assumptions , model set up, running of scenarios (i.e. baseline; cut, burn and no flush; and other alternatives that are relevant and technically feasible); Data analysis and reporting: Analysis of the scenario results to estimate optimal percentage of soft and hard biomass to be removed; estimate expected future water quality in the reservoir and downstream river; and estimate greenhouse gas emissions from the reservoir.
WQ_tech_report_rev6 FINAL Page 77
TECHNICAL REPORT: Environmental Modelling For The EARTH SYSTEMS Nam Ngiep 1 Power Company’s Biomass Removal Plan Environment | Water | Sustainability July 2015
MODEL OVERVIEW
The BioREM model simulates physical, chemical and biological processes in water storage reservoirs related to carbon content. It is designed to allow hydropower and water storage developers to estimate how much biomass must be removed during the construction phase of the reservoir, prior to inundation, in order to maintain reasonable water quality and moderate greenhouse gas emissions during operation of the plant.
BioREM simulates biomass decay (and thereby oxygen consumption), growth of primary producers (and thereby oxygen production), mixing of dissolved oxygen with air and of oxygen in bottom and surface water, and finally sedimentation and sediment release of nutrient, which is likely to be phosphorus. The BioREM conceptual model is shown in Figure 1.
L
Vmax,
Amax QO,
Qmin Vmin,
Amin
Figure 1: BioREM Conceptual Model Source: MONRE 2010c
From Figure 1, the key water column parameters are hard and soft biomass (B3 and B2) which decays
into detritus (B1). Biomass (B0) of the primary producers (mostly phytoplankton) generates dissolved
oxygen (De) in the upper water layer (epilimnion) which slowly mixes with hypolimnic oxygen (Dh).
Phytoplankton and other plants need phosphorus (Pw) to grow but these producers become eventually
dead organic matter (B1) that settles on the sediment where its phosphorus (Ps) can be stored for a long
time or released back to the water (as Pw). Decay of detritus contributes positively to emission of CO2
and CH4 while primary production reduces the CO2 emission and oxidization of CH4 reduces the CH4
emission. Assuming a certain fraction of the decay end products to be methane, CH4 and CO2 emissions can be calculated. This fraction depends amongst others on the dissolved oxygen
concentrations. Oxidation of methane to CO2 near the thermocline lowers the methane emissions when oxygen conditions in the water column are good (MONRE 2010c).
Key hydrology parameters include flows through and dimensions of the reservoir. Flows include the
average outflow (Q0), which includes turbines under normal operation and the spillway monthly stream flows. Stream flows can be obtained from a hydraulic model or by a regional or rational method. The
ecological minimum flow is Qmin.
Hydraulic dimensions include reservoir volume at FSL and MOL (Vmax and Vmin), the corresponding surface areas (Amax and Amin) and an approximate length of the reservoir from its main inflow point to its outflow point (L). L is used to calculate the Froude number, as an indicator of reservoir mixing.
WQ_tech_report_rev6 FINAL Page 78
TECHNICAL REPORT: Environmental Modelling For The EARTH SYSTEMS Nam Ngiep 1 Power Company’s Biomass Removal Plan Environment | Water | Sustainability July 2015
Model Assumptions
All models are approximations of reality using empirical assumptions. The key assumptions of the BioREM model are: 1. The modelled reservoir has a stable thermocline most of the year; and 2. Phosphorus (not nitrogen nor light) is limiting growth.
In addition, two other approximations are inherent to the model, namely that methane production due to re-growth in the drawdown zone can be neglected and that biomass of secondary and higher production is small compared to the biomass of primary producers.
The model initial conditions and key parameter assumed values are listed below in the Appendix. Literature values for hard and soft biomass volumes were obtained from reports on forest and agricultural land types in Lao and Thailand and were assumed to be similar to the vegetation patterns and land use types found in the NNP1 Hydropower Project area. Water quality parameters were derived as median values from surface water quality monitoring sampling in the Nam Ngiep River catchment from 2013-2015.
METHODOLOGY
The methodology for the modelling project is comprised of several phases described below: 1. Planning and data identification; 2. Data collection and pre-processing; 3. Model conceptualisation and capability assessment; 4. Scenario development; 5. Sensitivity Analysis; 6. Model runs, evaluation of outputs; 7. Results analysis and quality checking; and 8. Final reporting (Adapted from Barnett et al 2012).
Data sources for the modelling included the Environmental Impact Assessment for Nam Ngiep 1 Hydropower Project, landuse maps, GIS and spatial analysis tools, references from the forestry, water quality, limnology and geomorphology literature, and other reservoir water quality models.
RESULTS
Landuse and Biomass Estimations
Areas and associated volumes of soft and hard biomass within the catchment area were identified within BioREM as key variables that have the ability to change water quality outcomes in the proposed reservoir (MONRE 2010a,b,c). Spatial analysis of available imagery was undertaken to determine relative areas of land use and vegetation type for the purposes of calculating land use and vegetation type areas in the catchment. Several land use and forest types were analysed for their potential effects on water quality outcomes using the model based on identified existing forest areas and their above ground biomass tonnages. The identified land cover vegetation types included:
Evergreen forest Deciduous forest
WQ_tech_report_rev6 FINAL Page 79
TECHNICAL REPORT: Environmental Modelling For The EARTH SYSTEMS Nam Ngiep 1 Power Company’s Biomass Removal Plan Environment | Water | Sustainability July 2015
Fallowed areas (old and young) Bamboo Cultivated land such as rice paddy To develop sensitivity analysis scenarios for modelling of reservoir water quality, the upper and lower values for vegetation biomass were selected from the literature sources, including NN1 EIA (ERM 2014), and Roder (1996). Reviews of several relevant forest biomass studies (Ogwara et al 1965; Terakupisut et al 2007; Vicharnakorn et al 2011) also yielded results for low and high values for above ground biomass (AGB) for the various forest type biomass in the area and are included in Table 1 below: Table 1: Land use and above ground biomass in the reservoir inundation area
Main Re-regulation AGB low -high values Total AGB low - high Habitat Land Reservoir Reservoir Class Cover Ha Ha Total t/ha t/ha t/ha t/ha Deciduous 2,230 132 2362.00 96.2 311.0 33.3 107.6 Forest Natural and Evergreen 133 27 160.00 66.4 140.6 1.6 3.3 Modified Forest Bamboo 28 127 154.92 90.0 150.0 2.0 3.4
Old Fallow 1,853 194 2047.00 8.1 37.5 2.4 11.2
Young Modified 679 143 822.00 1.2 1.5 0.1 0.2 Fallow Cultivated 1278 5 1283.00 2.8 134.5 0.5 25.3 Land Totals 6,201 628 6828.92 n/a n/a 40.0 151.0
Source: Earth Systems 2015
Below ground biomass (BGB) results were also collected for inclusion in the soft biomass category for similar forest types. The results are shown in Table 2. Table 2: Land use and below ground biomass in the reservoir inundation area
Main Re-regulation BGB low -high values Total BGB low - high Habitat Land Reservoir Reservoir Class Cover Ha Ha Total t/ha t/ha t/ha t/ha Deciduous 2,230 132 2362.00 79.2 85.1 27.4 29.4 Forest Natural and Evergreen 133 27 160.00 72.0 81.2 1.7 1.9 Modified Forest Bamboo 28 127 154.92 74.1 95.2 1.7 2.2
Old Fallow 1,853 194 2047.00 5.1 29.8 1.5 8.9
Young Modified 679 143 822.00 1.1 2.0 0.1 0.2 Fallow Cultivated 1278 5 1283.00 1.3 88.6 0.2 16.6 Land Totals 6,201 628 6828.92 n/a n/a 32.7 59.3
Source: Earth Systems 2015
The values for BGB are generally less variable than AGB as expected from the literature review values. These values were then adjusted to provide the final estimates of soft and hard biomass for the model, and are shown below in Table 3.
WQ_tech_report_rev6 FINAL Page 80
TECHNICAL REPORT: Environmental Modelling For The EARTH SYSTEMS Nam Ngiep 1 Power Company’s Biomass Removal Plan Environment | Water | Sustainability July 2015
The values for soft and hard biomass in Table 3 are used for all of the model water quality estimates (as low, high and average values) for the NN1 reservoir BioREM water quality predictions during reservoir operations. Table 3: Landuse and low – high soft and hard biomass estimates
Habitat Soft Biomass low -high Hard Biomass low - high Land Cover Class t/ha t/ha t/ha t/ha Deciduous 35.5 55.5 25.2 81.5 Forest Natural and Evergreen 2.1 2.7 1.2 2.5 Modified Forest Bamboo 2.2 3.0 1.5 2.6
Old Fallow 2.1 11.7 1.8 8.5
Modified Young Fallow 0.2 0.3 0.1 0.1
Cultivated Land 0.4 22.8 0.4 19.1
Totals 142.4 195.9 30.3 114.4
Source: Earth Systems 2015
Hydraulic Parameters
The hydraulic parameters for the proposed reservoir were obtained from the Environmental Impact Assessment for Nam Ngiep 1 Hydropower Project (ERM 2014). Figure 2 shows the predicted reservoir average annual monthly outflows and reservoir volumes.
450.00 2500
400.00
350.00 2000
300.00 1500 250.00
200.00
1000 Flow Flow (m3/s)
150.00 Volume (Mm3)
100.00 500 50.00
0.00 0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Outflows (m3/s) Average outflows (m3/s) Inflow (m3/s) Reservoir Volume (Mm3) Minimum Reservoir Volume (Mm3)
Figure 2: Nam Ngiep Hydropower Reservoir predicted annual monthly outflows and reservoir volumes
Source: ERM 2014
WQ_tech_report_rev6 FINAL Page 81
TECHNICAL REPORT: Environmental Modelling For The EARTH SYSTEMS Nam Ngiep 1 Power Company’s Biomass Removal Plan Environment | Water | Sustainability July 2015
The reservoir hydraulic parameters, associated values adopted and sources of data are listed below (ERM 2014):
3 3 Average flow Q0 = 147.8 m /s = 12.76 Mm /day (Figure 2 above). Power generation C = 272 MW (Table 4.2) 3 Minimum flow Qmin = 0.48 Mm /day (Section 4.7.2). 3 Maximum reservoir volume Vmax = 2,300 Mm (Figure 2 above). 3 Minimum reservoir volume Vmin = 1,102 Mm (Vmax -Veff Table 0.2). 2 Reservoir maximum surface area Amax = 66.9 km (Table 0.2). 2 Reservoir minimum surface area Amin = 37.4 km (Pg. 0-17) Reservoir thalweg length L = 72 km (Section 0.4.3).
Minimum hydraulic retention time (휏) of the proposed NNP1 reservoir is minimum volume divided by flow which equals approximately 86 days. Maximum (휏) was determined to be approximately 180 days.
Water quality
The NNP1 reservoir inundation area was assessed through field and remote sensing data to have pristine forest areas, impacted forest areas and settlement areas, with some human impacts on the rivers.
Water quality results were collected within the Environmental Impact Assessment for Nam Ngiep 1 Hydropower Project (ERM 2014) and are summarised in Figure 3 below:
9.0 45.0
8.0 40.0
7.0 C)
35.0 ° 6.0 30.0 5.0 25.0 4.0 20.0 3.0 15.0
2.0 10.0 Temperature ( Concentration(mg/L) 1.0 5.0 0.0 0.0 0 5 10 15 20 25 Sample number
DO (mg/L) BOD5 (mg/L) Total P (mg/L) Earth Systems BOD5 (mg/L) BOD5 Standard (mg/L) Temperature (°C)
Figure 3: Relevant water quality data Nam Ngiep River in April and October Source: ERM 2014 & Earth Systems 2015
The median values for relevant water quality parameters which were adopted for the purposes of modelling are shown in Table 4 below:
WQ_tech_report_rev6 FINAL Page 82
TECHNICAL REPORT: Environmental Modelling For The EARTH SYSTEMS Nam Ngiep 1 Power Company’s Biomass Removal Plan Environment | Water | Sustainability July 2015
Table 4: Median water quality parameter results
Parameter Median value
Water temperature (°C) 27.5
DO (mg/L) 7.2
BOD5 (mg/L) 1.8
Total P (mg/L) 0.1
Earth Systems BOD5 2.7 (mg/L)
BOD5 Standard (mg/L) 1.5
Source: Earth Systems 2015
For the purposes of the modelled reservoir input loads from the catchment, the BOD5 (Bin ) was set to
1.8 mg/L and Total Phosphorus (Pin ) was set to 0.1 mg/L. Water quality standards have been developed by Lao PDR specifically for the NNP1 project and relevant standards are shown in the table below based on the Annex C: Environmental and Social Obligations Ambient Surface Water Quality standard and Reservoir Water Quality Standard. Table 5: Relevant water quality standards
Parameter Median Result Dissolved oxygen >6 (mg/L) Methane emissions -monitoring 35 requirement (g/m3) Source: Annex C 2015
Phytoplankton Growth Rate
Maximum phytoplankton growth rate (G) was calculated using the following formula; 1 퐺 = 푘0 + ⁄휏 (1) (MONRE 2010b) The result for G was determined to be 0.0196 day-1 which is within the predicted range for G of 0.03 to 0.2 day-1 (MONRE 2010b).
Initial Values
The initial values of all other parameters set in the model are based on suggested values from MONRE (2010b) and are listed for reference in Appendix 1 below.
SCENARIOS FOR MODELLING
After several workshops with Earth Systems spatial, forestry, biologist, and water specialists the following scenarios were identified for exploration with modelling:
Baseline –no biomass removal low AGB/BGB
WQ_tech_report_rev6 FINAL Page 83
TECHNICAL REPORT: Environmental Modelling For The EARTH SYSTEMS Nam Ngiep 1 Power Company’s Biomass Removal Plan Environment | Water | Sustainability July 2015
Baseline –no biomass removal high AGB/BGB Burn - no flush before filling the reservoir (60% soft biomass removal, 80% hard biomass removal median biomass) Accessible clearance blocks (Upper mixed deciduous, old, young fallow) burned and cleared median biomass
Modelling Results: Scenario 1: Baseline
BioREM modelling for Scenario 1 was undertaken as a baseline sensitivity analysis for the values of AGB and BGB and their relative impacts on the predicted water quality for the proposed hydropower reservoir. The scenario was designed to demonstrate the differences if any between the values for soft and hard biomass that are adopted for the model. For purposes of this scenario, no soft or hard biomass was removed to allow for the worst case scenarios to develop for the purposes of comparison. The model results are compared in Figure 4 below.
Scenario 1: Baseline -Low/High AGB/BGB with no biomass removal Low AGB, Low BGB High AGB, High BGB
Soft and hard biomass
Phytoplankton and Detritus
Dissolved Oxygen –Epilimnion, Hypolimnion
WQ_tech_report_rev6 FINAL Page 84
TECHNICAL REPORT: Environmental Modelling For The EARTH SYSTEMS Nam Ngiep 1 Power Company’s Biomass Removal Plan Environment | Water | Sustainability July 2015
Phosphorus in water and sediment
CO2 and CH4 emissions/yr, cumulative
Figure 4: Scenario 1 -Baseline model outputs low/high AGB/BGB –no biomass removal Source: Earth Systems 2015
The reservoir water quality is predicted to be very poor for the Baseline low/high AGB/BGB scenario. As can be seen in fig 4, model outputs have been predicted for the first ten years of reservoir operations for low AGB/BGB and the first 20 years of operations for the high AGB/BGB scenario. The model results include:
soft and hard biomass consumption, phytoplankton growth and benthic detritus, dissolved oxygen in the epilimnion (surface waters) and hypolimnion (bottom waters), phosphorous in water and sediments, and
carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane (CH4) emissions of greenhouse gases. In the low AGB/BGB model run the oxygen consuming capacity of the decomposing soft biomass is 3 predicted to be completely consumed within the first eight years reducing from 240 gO2/m , while the high AGB/BGB model run predicted that soft biomass is reduced by approximately 90% from 3 3 approximately 320 gO2/m to 40 gO2/m but is not fully consumed and therefore will influence dissolved oxygen levels until approximately the 18th year of operation.
WQ_tech_report_rev6 FINAL Page 85
TECHNICAL REPORT: Environmental Modelling For The EARTH SYSTEMS Nam Ngiep 1 Power Company’s Biomass Removal Plan Environment | Water | Sustainability July 2015
Phytoplankton levels are predicted to be zero for both low and high scenarios until approximately the fifth year of operations. This may indicate model instability at high levels of biomass and related P levels, see the Discussion Section below for more on this issue.
3 Detritus levels for low AGB/BGB peak at 5 gO2/m equivalent and reach equilibrium in year 8 at around 3 3 2 gO2/m equivalent. Detritus levels for high AGB/BGB peak at 6 gO2/m equivalent and reach 3 equilibrium in year 8 at around 5 gO2/m equivalent. DO levels for the low AGB/BGB scenario are predicted to be at low levels in the surface waters (epilimnion) until equilibrium is reached around the eighth year of operations, with predictions ranging from 2 – 6 mg/L over this period. 100% oxygen saturation DO is a function of ambient water temperature and is likely to be approximately 8 mg/L at the median water temperature of 27.5 degrees Celsius. See Figure 5 below for DO vs temperature relationship.
16
14
12
10
8
6
4 Oxygensaturation (mg/L 2
0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 Temperature (°C)
Figure 5: Oxygen saturation vs temperature Source: Earth Systems 2015
Predicted epilimnion values for DO eventually reach equilibrium of around 8 mg/L in year 8 for both the low and high AGB/BGB scenario. Bottom layers (hypolimnion) of the NNP1 reservoir are predicted to drop from 100% saturation to 0% DO within the first months of the reservoir operation and filling for both low and high AGB/BGB scenarios. Hypolimnion values for the high AGB/BGB scenario are then predicted to remain anaerobic/anoxic at 0% DO for the high AGB/BGB scenario, whilst for the lower loads of the low AGB/BGB scenario an annual increase to around 20% saturation is predicted for a short 2-3 month period each year.
The predicted low hypolimnion DO results are a concern for downstream water quality when discharge occurs from any reservoir release points that may be located in the lower to bottom layers of the reservoir. These low DO levels are capable of causing fish fatality until the DO levels are restored through reaeration. An appropriately designed reaeration structure is recommended for the life of the project, to mitigate any risk of low DO from reservoir releases. Temperature shock is also known to affect fishes exposed to reservoir release water, so the reaeration structure should incorporate correction to suitable background water temperatures also (generally increased temperature). Seasonal temperature change may cause “turn over” of the hypolimnion water which can bring low DO water and anaerobic by-products such as hydrogen sulfide (H2S) into the surface water of the reservoir, potentially causing odours and even fish kills as H2S is a strong toxicant to higher aquatic life. In this
WQ_tech_report_rev6 FINAL Page 86
TECHNICAL REPORT: Environmental Modelling For The EARTH SYSTEMS Nam Ngiep 1 Power Company’s Biomass Removal Plan Environment | Water | Sustainability July 2015
baseline scenario, reservoir mixing may need to be considered in the early phase of operations to prevent undesirable hypolimnion “turn over” effects.
Summary Scenario 1: Baseline
In summary, Bio REM modelling results show that both high and low AGB/BGB levels appear to produce poor water quality outcomes in the reservoir. It is predicted that poor quality water will persist in the reservoir for up to 12 years after the reservoir is filled. It is recommended catchment biomass be removed to help prevent the development of poor quality water in both the epilimnion and hypolimnion of the proposed reservoir. The following modelling scenarios will explore the optimal biomass removal strategy. The worst case scenario for water quality occurs with the high levels of soft and hard biomass so these will be used for further scenario development.
Modelling Results: Scenario 2 Access based biomass removal burn with no flush.
The burn no flush scenario assumes removal of identified accessible soft and hard biomass by burning of areas of forest and land subject to inundation to remove biomass prior to filling the reservoir. Spatial analysis of accessible areas was undertaken based on available road access and land slope. It was found that access limits the areas of forest available for biomass removal to areas of upper mixed deciduous forest and old and young fallow areas. The model assumes that with no flush P will be elevated in the catchment runoff due to ash remains being washed into the reservoir and is set to 15 gP/m3. The identified areas are listed in Table 6. Table 6: Accessible biomass removal, burn with no flush
Habitat Class Land Cover Main Reservoir
Ha Removal (%) Natural and Modified Deciduous Forest 696 31
Evergreen Forest 133 0
Bamboo 28 0 Modified Old Fallow 1,020 55
Young Fallow 196 29
Cultivated Land 1278 0
Source: Earth Systems 2015
The soft and hard biomass removal percentage for the low and high AGB/BGB estimates are shown below. These rates were used to run the low – high results for Scenario 2.
WQ_tech_report_rev6 FINAL Page 87
TECHNICAL REPORT: Environmental Modelling For The EARTH SYSTEMS Nam Ngiep 1 Power Company’s Biomass Removal Plan Environment | Water | Sustainability July 2015
Table 7: Soft and hard biomass removal rates for Scenario 2
Total Soft Biomass high* Total Hard Biomass high
Percentage removal 31% 49%
Source: Earth Systems 2015
The results for Scenario 2 are shown below in Figure 6. The initial reduction in soft biomass and hard biomass produces beneficial water quality outcomes with phytoplankton recovery and detritus equilibrium achieved in 5 years, DO recovery starting in the epilimnion after 3 years, and P levels reducing to sustainable levels after 6 years. This is an excellent result compare to the baseline impacts in Scenario 1 of 10-12 years of high impact on water quality.
The fast recovery of DO in the epilimnion is especially important as this ensures that the reservoir is habitable for most fish species. The low DO status for the hypolimnion is expected for a reservoir of this size, and as a result the release of water from the hypolimnion will require the use of a downstream reaeration structure and temperature treatment.
WQ_tech_report_rev6 FINAL Page 88
Scenario 2: Access based biomass removal burn with no flush
Soft and hard biomass
Phytoplankton and Detritus
Dissolved Oxygen –Epilimnion, Hypolimnion
Phosphorus in water and sediment
WQ_tech_report_rev6 FINAL Page 89
TECHNICAL REPORT: Environmental Modelling For The EARTH SYSTEMS Nam Ngiep 1 Power Company’s Biomass Removal Plan Environment | Water | Sustainability July 2015
CO2 and CH4 emissions/yr, cumulative
Figure 6: Scenario 2 -Access based biomass removal burn with no flush Source: Earth Systems 2015
Modelling Results: Scenario 3: Theoretical 100% catchment burn with no flush.
Scenario 3 simulates a theoretical 100% catchment burn with no flush scenario that assumes removal of 60% soft biomass and 80% hard biomass by burning of areas of forest and land subject to inundation to remove biomass prior to filling the reservoir. The model assumes that with no flush P will be elevated in the catchment runoff due to ash remains being washed into the reservoir and is set to 15 gP/m3. The results for Scenario 3 are shown below in Figure 7.Scenario 3 does not demonstrate a great deal of benefit in terms of water quality for the large amount of additional expenditure that would be required to burn the entire inundation area of the proposed NNP1 reservoir. As can be seen from Figure 7, soft and hard biomass is reduced further compared to Scenario 2, but with little in the way of additional water quality benefits. Phytoplankton recovery is around 5 years similar to Scenario 2, while the DO of the epilimnion recovers slightly more quickly, taking around 2 years.
The DO status of the hypolimnion is very slightly improved, but importantly not sufficiently to not require reaeration with a maximum recovery of approximately 0.5 mg/L O2. P also recovers in around 6-7 years similar to Scenario 2.
WQ_tech_report_rev6 FINAL Page 90
TECHNICAL REPORT: Environmental Modelling For The EARTH SYSTEMS Nam Ngiep 1 Power Company’s Biomass Removal Plan Environment | Water | Sustainability July 2015
CO2 production is decreased by approximately 30% but this may be made up for by additional CO2 release with additional burning so the benefit may be of little net value to the project overall and in the long term. Scenario 3: Theoretical 100% catchment burn with no flush
Soft and hard biomass
Phytoplankton and Detritus
Dissolved Oxygen –Epilimnion, Hypolimnion
WQ_tech_report_rev6 FINAL Page 91
TECHNICAL REPORT: Environmental Modelling For The EARTH SYSTEMS Nam Ngiep 1 Power Company’s Biomass Removal Plan Environment | Water | Sustainability July 2015
Phosphorus in water and sediment
CO2 and CH4 emissions/yr, cumulative
Figure 7: Scenario 3 -Theoretical 100% catchment burn with no flush Source: Earth Systems 2015
WQ_tech_report_rev6 FINAL Page 92
TECHNICAL REPORT: Environmental Modelling For The EARTH SYSTEMS Nam Ngiep 1 Power Company’s Biomass Removal Plan Environment | Water | Sustainability July 2015
DISCUSSION
Analysis of the model predictions and accuracy of the model outputs is difficult to evaluate given the complexity of the NN1 reservoir limnology and limited water quality data availability for similar reservoir systems. A comparative assessment of phytoplankton productivity predictions of the BioREM model has been undertaken for the purposes of discussion using a systems level reservoir water quality model (Reynolds 2002).
Phytoplankton predictions
Examination of the model traces for phytoplankton and phosphorus in the BioREM modelling results show that the model predictions for phytoplankton growth are possibly low in the initial phase of reservoir operations, as high Total P levels predicted during the first five to eight years of biomass decomposition are not reflected in increased phytoplankton production. Phytoplankton production in fact appears to be limited to zero until the P levels reduce to 120 g/m3, an effect that may be explained in terms of a limiting factor such as blue-green algae production. If this is the case, it is recommended that blue green algae production be included as a model output for comparison with phytoplankton production. Generally phytoplankton growth should increase based on the Redfield ratio (Redfield 1934) with algal production limited by ecosystem resources such as available phosphorus, nitrogen or sunlight.
Reynolds (2002) has produced a systems level model for analysing the limiting factors for algal production in reservoirs. The Reynolds model has been applied to the NNP1 proposed reservoir and the relative algal productivity predictions are shown as chlorophyll “a” results for each component shown in Figure 8 below.
1000
3 - 100
10
(Log scale)/ mg m scale)/ (Log mg
a 1 Chl
Figure 8: Reynolds model Chl ‘a’ production for each algal productivity parameter for proposed NNP1 reservoir Source: Earth Systems 2015
The Reynolds model predicts that the NN1 reservoir will be nitrogen limited. The predicted chlorophyll “a” is limited by the relatively low supply of nitrogen in the Nam Ngiep River catchment based on the available water quality results from the NN1 EIA (ERM 2014). Phytoplankton is expected to be a
WQ_tech_report_rev6 FINAL Page 93
TECHNICAL REPORT: Environmental Modelling For The EARTH SYSTEMS Nam Ngiep 1 Power Company’s Biomass Removal Plan Environment | Water | Sustainability July 2015
component of relevant chlorophyll “a” biomass so is likely to be present at levels of approximately 26 mg/m3. The BioREM phytoplankton growth model is based on available P so it is uncertain why the model does not predict higher levels of phytoplankton growth in the initial period of operation, given the elevated P levels predicted.
Reservoir Thermocline
2D modelling of the reservoir in the NN1 EIA (ERM 2014) predicts the development of a thermocline which will act as a temperature and water density based layer in the hypolimnion during most of the year. BioREM results for the NN1 reservoir predict an initial phase of very low DO conditions in the hypolimnion which may require management of the discharge water, and potentially management in the reservoir during seasonal fluctuations in temperature. Seasonal change in temperature often causes thermal mixing to occur which may cause the reservoir to “turn over” bringing low DO water and anaerobic conditions to the surface of the reservoir. Turn over events can result in increased hydrogen sulphide levels due to release from benthic sediments and low DO water zones (H2S which is toxic to higher forms of aquatic life at low levels ) being released from the hypolimnion to the surface, creating odour and potential fish kills. It is recommended that the requirement for mixing of reservoir water be examined as a seasonal water quality management strategy.
CONCLUSIONS
Without biomass removal, modelling predicts poor quality water in the proposed NNP1 reservoir for 10- 12 years of operations after the reservoir is filled. By undertaking the recommended access based biomass removal by burning with no flush, the surface water quality in the reservoir will return to acceptable conditions within five to six years. The lower layers of water in the reservoir are problematic in all scenarios and a downstream reaeration and temperature treatment system is recommended for the reservoir to improve release water quality and protect downstream aquatic ecosystems.
In all scenarios removal of biomass reduces the GHG production for the project. It is difficult to assess if the reservoir water quality monitoring standard of 35 g CH4/m3 will be met, but if total emissions are divided by reservoir volume Scenario 2 is predicted to produce an initial level of approximately 3 40 g CH4 /m which will decline to zero in the first 6 years of reservoir operations. The theoretical burning of the entire inundated area (Scenario 3) does not offer substantial benefits compared to the Scenario 2 biomass removal strategy.
It is recommended that the Access based biomass removal strategy (Scenario 2) be pursued as offering the best potential water quality outcomes based on the available areas with existing roads.
RECOMMENDATIONS
An appropriately designed reaeration structure is recommended for the life of the project, to mitigate any risk of low DO from reservoir releases. Temperature shock is also known to affect fishes exposed to reservoir release water, so the reaeration structure should incorporate correction to suitable background water temperatures also (generally increased temperature). BioREM phytoplankton productivity predictions should be examined by comparing the water quality results with water quality monitoring results from similar reservoirs in Lao that are currently in the early phase of operations.
WQ_tech_report_rev6 FINAL Page 94
TECHNICAL REPORT: Environmental Modelling For The EARTH SYSTEMS Nam Ngiep 1 Power Company’s Biomass Removal Plan Environment | Water | Sustainability July 2015
Results from 2D modelling (ERM 2014) appear to indicate that a strong thermocline will develop in the proposed reservoir. This may require the use of mixing systems to prevent poor water quality events during seasonal temperature changes.
REFERENCES
Barnett et al, 2012, Australian groundwater modelling guidelines, Waterlines report, National Water Commission, Canberra, Australia. Bear, J., 1979, The Hydraulics of Groundwater, McGraw Hill, New York.
Environment Resource Management 2014, Environmental Impact Assessment for Nam Ngiep 1 Hydropower Project, Revision 4, July 2014 Horne, A., Goldman, C. (1994), Limnology, McGraw-Hill, New York.
Kottelat, M., (2001), Fishes of Laos, WHT Publications, Colombo, Sri Lanka.
Kunlasak, K. et al, (2013) Relationships of Dissolved Oxygen with Chlorophyll-a and Phytoplankton Composition in Tilapia Ponds [in Thailand], International Journal of Geosciences, 2013, 4, 46-53. Leopold, L.B., Wolman, M.G., Miller, J.P., (1995), Fluvial Processes in Geomorphology, Dover, Mineola, New York. MONRE (2010a), A Biomass Removal Model User’s Guide, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Strengthening Environment Management-Phase II, Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency, Ministry of Natural Resources & Environment, Vientiane Capital, Lao PDR. MONRE (2010b), A Biomass Removal Model Technical Reference, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Strengthening Environment Management-Phase II, Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency, Ministry of Natural Resources & Environment, Vientiane Capital, Lao PDR.
MONRE (2010c), Environmental Guidelines for Biomass Removal from Hydropower Reservoirs in Lao PDR, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Strengthening Environment Management-Phase II, Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency, Water Resources and Environment Administration, Ministry of Natural Resources & Environment, Vientiane Capital, Lao PDR. Morel, A. and Smith, R. C. (1974), Relation between total quanta and total energy for aquatic photosynthesis. Limnol. Occanogr 19:591-600.
Redfield A.C., (1934), On the proportions of organic derivations in sea water and their relation to the composition of plankton. In James Johnstone Memorial Volume. (ed. R.J. Daniel). University Press of Liverpool, pp. 177–192. Reynolds C.S. & Maberly S.C. (2002), A simple method for approximating the supportive capacities and metabolic constraints in lakes and reservoirs. Freshwater Biology 47: 1183-1188.
Roder, W., et al (1996), Dynamics of soil and vegetation during crop and fallow period in slash and burn fields of northern Laos, Geoderma, 76, pp 131-144.
USEPA (2008) Chapra, S.C., Pelletier, G.J. and Tao, H., QUAL2K: A Modeling Framework for Simulating River and Stream Water Quality, Version 2.11: Documentation and User’s Manual. Civil and Environmental Engineering Dept., Tufts University, Medford, MA. Wetzel, R., (2001), Limnology, Third Edition: Lake and River Ecosystems, Academic Press - Reed Elsevier, London.
WQ_tech_report_rev6 FINAL Page 95
TECHNICAL REPORT: Environmental Modelling For The EARTH SYSTEMS Nam Ngiep 1 Power Company’s Biomass Removal Plan Environment | Water | Sustainability July 2015
APPENDIX 1: ADDITIONAL MODEL PARAMETERS -INITIAL CONDITIONS
Initial conditions B0(0) 0.01 [g O2/m3] Phytoplankton initially. Use a low value. B1(0) 1 [g O2/m3] Detritus initially Bi(0) i = 2, 3 Defines biomass removal strategy and initial vegetation coverage De(0) 8 [g O2/m3] Assume 100% saturation initially Dh(0) 8 [g O2/m3] Assume 100% saturation initially Pw(0) 0.01[g P/m3] Literature value Ps(0) 5 [g P/m3] Literature value
Driving variables: Ve [m3] Has to be estimated. Typically 1/3 of V. Vh [m3] Vh = V - Ve Bin [g O2/m3] Biochemical oxygen demand measured as flow-weighted allochthonous inputs from tributaries and runoff Din 8 [g O2/m3] Assume fully oxygen saturated water as inflow Pin [g P/m3] To be measured as flow-weighted average from tributaries and runoff
Model parameters: Ki [day-1] ~0.008 for i=0; ~0.05 for i=1; ~0.001 for i=2; ~0.0001 for i=3. Q0 [m3/day] Average outflow through turbines and spillways known from the developer VFSL [m3] Max. volume known from feasibility studies and similar documents ΔV [m3] Live volume known from feasibility studies and similar documents α [day-1] At least 0.6/average depth in meters. Typically two times that value. β 0.59 between 0 and 1 or 365×Q0/(_ _V), whichever is smallest. D* 8 [g O2/m3] Dissolved oxygen 100% at 28 °C S 0.005 [day-1] G ~0.14 [day-1] At least k0 + 1/_. See discussion above M 0.04 [g P/m3] r ~0.001 [day-1] f 0.2 ō Calculated as 0.1/ average water depth in meters ρ 0.00914 m 0.0005 [day-1] Close to molecular diffusivity for dissolved oxygen in water. Make m bigger if many storms are expected in the area. Y ~0.05 5% of produced CO2 becomes CH4 when epilimnion is anaerobic. ke ~4 [g O2/m3] W CH4 ,100 yr 25 According to IPCC 4th assessment report (4AR)
WQ_tech_report_rev6 FINAL Page 96
Biomass Removal Plan (BRP)
Appendix D: Priority Biomass Removal Area Maps
FINAL 97
*#
*#
*#
*#
*#
*#
*#
*# *#
*# *#
*#
*# *#
*# Block 1 Zone 1A - Lower Reservoir
Zone 3B
Zone 3A
*# Zone 2B
Main Dam Zone 2A
*# Zone 1B
Zone 1A
Nam Ngiep 1 Hydropower Project - Priority Areas for Biomass Clearance (! Land Use Types *# !!!!!! !!!!!! !!!!!! !!!!!! *# ± *# *# *# *#
*#
*# *#
*# *#
*#
*# *# *# *# *# *# *# *# *#
*# *# *#
*#
*#
*#
*#
*#
*#
*#
*#
*#
*#
*# Ban Namyouak
Block 6 *#
*# Ban Sopyouak Block 3 Block 4
Zone 3B
Block 5
Zone 3A
Zone 2B Block 2
Zone 2A
Zone 1B
Zone 1B - Lower Reservoir *# *# Zone 1A
Nam Ngiep 1 Hydropower Project - Priority Areas for Biomass Clearance 0 0.25 0.5 1 (! Settlements Reservoir at normal Land Use Types Upper Dry Evergreen Forest water level 320 masl Bamboo Kilometers *# UXO Bombing Data * ± Upper Mixed Deciduous Zones Cultivated Land / Cleared Land Roads and Tracks !!!!!! Areas with slopes ≥ 30 degrees !!!!!! !!!!!! Young Fallow Drainage and 30m buffer from main water bodies Old Fallow !!!!!! Source Data: Rivers Biomass Clearance Areas Settlement Area *# * US Bombing Data 1965 -1975
*#
*# *# *#
*# *# *# *# *#
*#
*#
*# *#
*#
*# *# *# *# *# *# *# *# *#
*# *# *#
*#
*# *# *# Block 10 Zone 2A - Middle Reservoir *#
Block 9 *#
Block 8 *#
Ban Sopphuane
Zone 3B *#
Zone 3A
Zone 2B
Zone 2A
Block 7 Zone 1B
Zone 1A
Nam Ngiep 1 Hydropower Project - Priority Areas for Biomass Clearance 0 0.5 1 2 (! Settlements Reservoir at normal Land Use Types *# Upper Dry Evergreen Forest water level 320 masl Bamboo Kilometers *# UXO Bombing Data * Upper Mixed Deciduous Zones Cultivated Land *#/ Cleared Land Roads and Tracks !!!!!! Areas with slopes ≥ 30 degrees !!!!!! !!!!!! Young Fallow Drainage and 30m buffer from main water bodies Old Fallow !!!!!! ± Source Data: Rivers Biomass Clearance Areas *#Settlement Area * US Bombing Data 1965 -1975 *#
*#
*# *#
*#
*#
*# *# *#
*# *#
*#
*#
*#
*#
*#
*# *#
*#
*# *# Block 11 *# *# *# *# Ban Houaypamom *# # Zone 3B * *# Block 10
Zone 3A *# *# *#
Zone 2B
Zone 2A *# Zone 1B Zone 2B - Middle Reservoir
Zone 1A *#
Nam*# Ngiep 1 Hydropower Project - Priority Areas for Biomass Removal 0 0.5 1 2 (! Settlements Reservoir at normal Land Use Types Upper Dry Evergreen Forest water level 320 masl *# Bamboo Kilometers *# UXO Bombing Data * Upper Mixed Deciduous Zones Cultivated Land / Cleared Land Roads and Tracks !!!!!! Areas with slopes ≥ 30 degrees !!!!!! *# !!!!!! Young Fallow Drainage and 30m buffer from main water bodies Old Fallow !!!!!! ± Source Data: Rivers Biomass Clearance Areas Settlement Area * US Bombing Data 1965 -1975
*#
*#
*# *#*# *# *# *#*# *# *# *# *# *# *# *# *# *# *# *# *# *# *# *# *# *# *# *# *# *# *# *#*# # *# *# # *# *# * *#* *# *# *# *# *# *# *# *# *# *# *#*# *# *# *# *# *# *# *# *# *# *# *# *# # *# *# # *# *# *# *# *#*# *#*#*# *# *# * *#*# *# *# *# *# * *# *# *# *# *# *# *# #*# *# *# *# *# *# *# *# *# *# *# *# *# * *# *# *# *# *# *# *# *# *# # *# *# *#*# *# *#*# *# *# *# *## *# *# * *# *# *# *# *# *# *# *# *# *# *# *# *# *# * *# *# *# *# *# *# *# *# *# *#*# *# *# *# *# *# *# *# *#*# *# *# *# *# *# *# *# *# *# *# *# *# *# *# *# *# *# *# *# *# *# *# *# *#*# *# # *# * *# *# *# *# *# *# *# *# *# *# *# *# *# # *# *# *# *# *# **# *# *# *# *# *# *# *# *# *# *# *# *# *# *# *# *#*#*# *# *#*# *# *# *# *# *# *#*# *# *# *# *# *# *# *#*# *# *# *# *# *# *# *# *# *# # * *# *# *# *# *# # *# *# *#*# *# *# *# *# *# *# *# *# *# *# *# *#*# *# *# *# *# *# *# *# *# *# *# *# *#
*# *# *# *# 22.S LS S CB S EB *# *# *# *# *# *#
*# *# *# *# *# *# *# *#
Zone 3B
Block 12
Zone 3A
Zone 2B
Zone 2A *# *#
Zone 1B *# Zone 3A - Upper Reservoir
Zone 1A *# Nam Ngiep 1 Hydropower Project - Priority Areas for Biomass Removal *# 0 0.5 1 2 (! Settlements Reservoir at normal Land Use Types *# Upper Dry Evergreen Forest *# water level 320 masl Bamboo Kilometers *# UXO Bombing Data * *# Upper Mixed Deciduous *# Zones Cultivated Land / Cleared Land Roads and Tracks !!!!!! Areas with slopes ≥ 30 degrees !!!!!! !!!!!! Young Fallow Drainage and 30m buffer from main water bodies Old Fallow *# !!!!!! ± Source Data: Rivers Biomass Clearance Areas Settlement Area * US Bombing Data 1965 -1975 *# *# *# *# # *# *# *# *# *# *# *#
*#
*# *# *# *#
*# *#
*# *# *# *# *# *# *# *# *# *# *# *# *# *# *# *# *# *#
*# *# *# *# *# *# *#*# *# *# *# *# *# *# *# *# *# *# *# *# *# *# *# *#
*#*# *# *# *# *# *# *# *# *#*# *# *# *#*# *# *# *# *# *# *# *# *# *# *# *# *# *# *# *# *# *# *# *# *# *# *# *#*# # *# *# *# *# *# * # *# *# *# *# *# *# *# *# * *# *# *#*# *# *# *# *# *# *# *# *# *# *# *# *# # *# *# # *# *# *# *# *#*# *#*#*# *# *# * *#*# *# *# *# *# * *# *# *# *# *# *# *# #*# *# *# *# *# *# *# *# *# *# *# *# *# * *# *# *# *# *# *# *# *# *# *# *# *# *#*# *# *#*# *# *# *# *## *# *# *# *# *# *# *# *# *# *# *# *# *# *# *# *# * *# *# *# *# *# *# *# *# *# *#*# *# *# *# *# *# # *# # # *# *#*# *# *# *# *# *# * *# *# * *# *# *# *# *# *# *# *# *# *# *# *# *# *# *#*# *# *# *# *# *# *# *# *# *# *# *# Ban Phonngeng (Thaviengxay) *# (! *# *# *# *# # *# *# *# *# *# **# *# *# *# *# *# *# *# *# *# Ban Hatsamkhone *# *# *# *# *# *# *#*#*# *# (! #*# *# *# * Ban Pou *# *# *# *# *# (! *# *# *# # *# *# *# *#*# *# * *# *# *# *# *# *# *# *# *# *# Block 18 *# Block 17 *# *# # *# *# *#*# *# *# *# *# Block 16 Block 15 *# *# *# *# *# *# *# *#*# Zone 3B *# Block 15 *# *# *#
*# Zone 3A *# *# *# *# *# *# Zone 2B *#
Zone 2A *# *# Zone 3B - Upper Reservoir Block 14 *# *# Zone 1B *# *# Block 13 *# Zone 1A *# *# *# Nam Ngiep 1 Hydropower Project - Priority Areas for Biomass Removal 0 0.5 1 2 (! Settlements Reservoir at normal Land Use Types *# Upper Dry Evergreen Forest water level 320 masl Bamboo Kilometers *# UXO Bombing Data * *# Upper Mixed Deciduous Zones Cultivated Land / Cleared Land Roads and Tracks !!!!!! Areas with slopes ≥ 30 degrees !!!!!! *# *# !!!!!! Young Fallow Drainage and 30m buffer from main water bodies Old Fallow !!!!!! ± Source Data: Rivers Biomass Clearance *#Areas Settlement Area * US Bombing Data 1965 -1975 *# *# *#
*# *# *# Biomass Removal Plan (BRP)
Appendix E: Consultation Record
Consultation Notes 4 May 2015 (13:30 - 15:00 pm) Meeting with the Provincial Department of Natural Resources and Environment, Bolikhamxay Province Place: Provincial Department of Natural Resources and Environment (PONRE) Participants: 1. Mr. Langsy Keoviseth, Director of PONRE 2. Mr. Kongly Manokoun, Deputy Director of PONRE 3. Mr. Mr. Pangkham Visaiphan, Head of NNP1 Watershed Management Committee, PONRE 4. Mr. Vilaphon Oudom, Deputy Director of Administration and Finance Division, PONRE
Key discussion issues: PONRE suggested that the SLBMP shall be divided into three phases – planning phase; implementation of salvage logging and biomass removal; and long term monitoring of water quality, land use and livelihoods of people living around the NNP1 reservoir. PONRE has completed watershed management and monitoring plan of NNP1. ES will make a copy of the plan on Thursday. There is a NNP1 watershed management committee which consists of a number of members representing various provincial departments. ES will make a copy of the agreement to establish the committee on Thursday as well. NNP1 and PONRE has never discussed about the development and implementation of SLBMP. So far only NNP1’s watershed management plan has been consulted. This plan has already completed and approved by the Provincial Governor but still awaiting for additional approval from MONRE. Then NNP1 will support funding to implement the activities.
4 May 2015 (10:15 - 11:30 am) Meeting with the Provincial Department of Agriculture and Forestry, Bolikhamxay Province Place: Provincial Department of Agriculture and Forestry (PAFO) Participants: 1. Mr. Phonesavanh Homnabounlath, Deputy Director of PAFO 2. Mr. Phongsavath Pathammavath – Director of Forestry Inspection Division, PAFO 3. Mr. Phokham Chanthasouk – Director of Forestry Division, PAFO Key discussion issues: Salvage logging activities has already completed about two years ago. Once the GoL has signed agreement with NNP1 to develop the Project, the PAFO granted rights to a private company to collect commercial timbers in the proposed reservoir areas of NNP1. PAFO will provide a copy of logging contract this afternoon (4th May) that outlines terms and conditions with the logging company including measures to control logging outside the boundaries. The contractor did not provide detailed salvage logging plan for the PAFO but the salvage logging activities were conducted in accordance with the permit logging quota given by the PAFO. The PAFO considers that the salvage logging of NNP1 is not significant, given that only small amount of timber extracted (about 2,xxx m3) and the size of the reservoir. So PAFO did not establish any committee to oversee the implementation of salvage logging. Roles of responsibility of PAFO for salvage logging activities: (i) conduct detailed survey of available commercial timber, including identification of timber types and amount; (ii) salvage
FINAL 104
Biomass Removal Plan (BRP)
logging management; (iii) log intervention after logging and stockpile at area 1; and (iv) movements and transport of logs. Two approaches of granting rights to private logging companies: (i) private logging firm proposes logging plan and activities to PAFO. Then PAFO discusses with other provincial authorities. Logging permit will be granted to the proposed company if agree by the majority of the GoL agencies; (ii) if there are many logging companies proposed the plans to PAFO, they will put in auction and must be approved by the provincial cabinet. There is a major challenge to manage the small trees after selected commercial trees have been logged. There is less incentive for private companies to invest in collecting and harvesting the small trees and branches in the proposed reservoir areas because they have to pay for natural resource tax / fees with minimal economic returns. But if it is allowed for free, they would be happy to collect it. On the other hand, if the GoL allows villagers / individuals to collect the small trees, it would be out of control. So experience from a number of hydropower reservoir projects – the GoL allowed the developers cut and burnt instead. There is no ‘no’ go zone in the reservoir area. There is only Houay Ngoua PPA nearby which is located along the Project access road.
5 May 2015 (9:45 - 10:45 pm) NN1BMP1629 - Meeting with Provincial Department Natural Resources and Environment, Xaysomboun Province Place: PONRE, Xaysomboun Province Participants: 1. Mr. Sengmoua Thophialouange, Director of PONRE, Xaysomboun 2. Mr. Xengthao, Deputy Director of Forest Resources Management Division, PONRE
Key discussion issues: Currently, NNP1 proposed biomass clearance to the province but yet to discuss in detailed action plan. It is proposed that the biomass removal will be integrated with the NNP1’s Watershed Management Committee for Xaysomboun province. Most of the commercial timbers in the main reservoir areas have already been harvested which was actually a small proportion. Some marginal viable and lesser value timbers remain in the reservoir area. The provincial authority is considering how to utilize and maximize the lesser value timbers before the biomass clearance takes place and burnt out. Currently, there is no regulation or measures to prevent logging outside inundation areas. The field survey report figures for salvage logging conducted earlier were actually made outside the cleared boundaries. The local governments want to take this opportunity to log by giving reasons that these timbers will be inundated but actually it’s not. NNP1 can start biomass removal activities in consideration that most of the commercial timbers have already been logged. PONRE as well as the provincial authorities have not prepared any plan, regulation or any arrangement for biomass removal activities. A formal consultation meeting is necessary after draft SLBMP completed so that the GoL knows how the NNP1 will manage the biomass.
5 May 2015 (8:30 - 9:30 pm) NN1BMP1629 - Meeting with Provincial Department of Agriculture and Forestry, Xaysomboun Province Place: Provincial Department of Agriculture and Forestry (PAFO) Participants:
FINAL 105
Biomass Removal Plan (BRP)
1. Mr. Ki – Director of Forestry Division, PAFO 2. Mr. Sivone – Deputy Director of Forestry Division, PAFO 3. Mr. Viengkham – Deputy Director of PAFO
Key discussion issues: Xaysomboun province has just been established in December 2012 by splitting from Vientiane and Xieng Khouang provinces. Handover of tasks and duties from Vientiane province was done in May 2013, including salvage logging operations in NNP1 reservoir areas. Vientiane province conducted field survey in 2012-2013, identified available timbers of 19,639 m3 in NNP1 reservoir. The province then granted permit to two companies to salvage (i) Tong Construction Company with 13,771 m3, and (ii) Sokxay Wood Processing Company with 5,886 m3. By the end of fiscal year 2013-2014, these two companies harvested 2,494 m3. Revenue generated from selling this timber went to Vientiane province. From May 2013, Xaysomboun took over the responsibility to oversee the operations of salvage logging activities. Furthermore, Xaysomboun province has conducted additional survey and requested the central government to approve logging quota which they claimed to be inside the NNP1 reservoir with the volume of 14,866 m3. Now only one company is authorized to log and they have already harvested 5,754 m3 excluding timbers stockpiled in stockyard 1 & 2. Salvage logging areas are in the counties of 7 villages (some of these villages will have to be resettled) of Hom district. This means that the logging quota that the GoL approved is (19,639 m3 + 14,866 m3 = 34,505 m3). So far, the No salvage logging plan was prepared prior to implementation of logging activities. Basically, the local governments and the contractor will refer to agreements from the central government or provincial governors as key legislation. Detailed action plans for logging were rarely prepared. PAFO has assigned a group of officials to follow and supervise the logging activities of the contractor. Annual report regarding the quantity of timber harvested is usually prepared once a year after closing date of timber harvest by wait season. Now the report is not available as they just close operation this month (May). Here are local government organizations involved in logging procedures: o MAF / PAFO – conduct survey to identify quantity and types of available timbers in forests. Then approve logging permits to contractors. o Contractors carry out logging and stockpile of logs in stockyard 1 and 2. o PAFO quantify volume of the timber in stockyard 2 and send report to the Department of Industry and Commerce. o Department of Industry and Commerce will estimate value of available timbers in stockyeard 2. o The contractor then pay money for timber at the Department of Finance (treasury). o After payment has been completed, PAFO will stamp the logs and the contractor will then be able to transport the logs to wood processing factories / sawmills.
9 July 2015 (13:30 - 16:30 pm) Meeting with Thathome District Authorities and village Place: District Planning and Investment Office Participants: 1. 7 (seven) district officials; 2. 1 (one) village chief; 3. 4 (four) NNP1 representatives; 4. 2 (two) Earth Systems staff.
FINAL 106
Biomass Removal Plan (BRP)
Key discussion issues: The village chief from Ban Hatsamkhone expressed concerns over village conservation forests in Ban Hatsamhone and Ban Pou which are located below 320 masl and will be inundated after impoundment of the main reservoir. These forests remains high value commercial timber. The District Governor responded that the district will assign DAFO staff to work with the relevant villages in surveying and managing timber in these areas; The village chief from Ban Hatsamkhone also raised an issue of village aquatic conservation area (in Nam Ngiep River) where the village established for conserving aquatic resources with support from the Poverty Reduction Fund The village aquatic conservation area will be impacted after full operation of the Dam. The District Governor said that the NNP1 Watershed Management Committee in collaboration with NNP1 will sort it out how to compensate for the loss of village aquatic resources in future; Regarding lesser value/marginal viable commercial timbers: the district will coordinate with PAFO/PONRE and confirm their completion of salvage logging in the main reservoir areas. Then the district authorities will conduct survey to estimate the remaining timber that can be used by the local furniture processing factories; The district would propose to NNP1 later to help in improving accessibility to collect the remaining timbers; It is possible that the villagers will be notified to utilize the lesser value biomass and other useful forest resources but this has to be managed properly in collaboration with PONRE and NNP1; 6 incidents of cluster bombs were reported last years in Ban Hatsamkhone but yet collected/disposed.
10/7/2015: (14:00 – 16:30 pm) Meeting with Hom District authorities Place: Hom District Participants: 1. 5 (five) district officials; 2. 4 (four) NNP1 representatives; 3. 2 Earth Systems staff. Key discussion issues: Lesser value/marginal viable commercial timber: the district will conduct a survey again to estimate the lesser/marginal viable timber remaining in the main reservoir areas after completion of salvage logging which is managed by provincial level. The district is considering to allow local furniture processing factories to collect the marginal viable and lesser value biomass to make furniture for local supplies; The district suggested that NNP1 should consult with affected villages in planning and managing the lesser value timber as well as clearing the residual biomass; The district requested NNP1 to support with any technology (i.e. biochar machines, charcoal technology, UXO clearance, etc); The district agrees to establish a working group under structure of NNP1 Watershed Management Committee to supervise the biomass removal activities; Due to the absence of the 4 affected villages in the meeting, the EMO representatives asked the district authorities to inform the relevant villages regarding the biomass removal activities.
FINAL 107
Biomass Removal Plan (BRP)
Letter of Approval to Conduct Biomass Removal Activities: Xaysomboun Province
FINAL 108
Biomass Removal Plan (BRP)
Lao People’s Democratic Republic
Peace Independence Democracy Unity Prosperity
……………*********………………
Xaysomboun Province No: 765/PONRE.XB
Department of Natural Resources and Environment Xaysomboun, Dated: 3rd December 2014
Response Letter
To: The Director of Nam Ngiep 1 Hydropower Company
Subject: Biomass Clearance in the main reservoir of Nam Ngiep 1 Hydropower Project, in Xaysomboun Province
Pursuant to the Project’s Concession Agreement between the Lao Government and Nam Ngiep 1 Power Company dated on 27th August 2013; Pursuant to the Agreement of Minister of Natural Resources and Environment No. 1467 /MONRE, dated on 09 March 2012 on the roles and responsibilities of Provincial Department of Natural Resources and Environment; Pursuant to the Agreement of the Provincial Governor on the establishment of Provincial Steering Committee for NNP1 Watershed Management No. 752/Governor.Xaysomboun, dated on 27th August 2014; Pursuant to a proposal of Nam Ngiep 1 Power Company to implement biomass removal activities in the main reservoir which will start from 2015.
The Department of Natural Resources and Environment of Xaysomboun Province, on behalf of the Deputy Chief of the Steering Committee for NNP1 Watershed Management is pleased to inform that: the removal of residual biomass, trees and other obstructive objects in reservoir areas based on the proposal of Nam Ngiep 1 Power Company (Environmental Management Unit). After considering this proposal, it is approved for NNP1 to carry out the biomass clearance but prior to the implementation of each activity, NNP1 shall present the plans and reports to the Committee in each period of time.
Therefore, the PONRE notifies this for information and corrective action.
Best regards,
Department Director of Provincial Natural Resources and Environment
(Deputy Director of NNP1 Watershed Management Committee)
FINAL 109
Biomass Removal Plan (BRP)
Official Minutes of Provincial Meetings
FINAL 110
Biomass Removal Plan (BRP)
FINAL 111
Biomass Removal Plan (BRP)
FINAL 112
Biomass Removal Plan (BRP)
FINAL 113
Biomass Removal Plan (BRP)
FINAL 114
Biomass Removal Plan (BRP)
FINAL 115