Armenia: Rural Road Sector Project

Environmental Assessment Report

Initial Environmental Examination Project Number: 40610 July 2007

The initial environmental examination is a document of the borrower. The views expressed herein do not necessarily represent those of ADB’s Board of Directors, Management, or staff, and may be preliminary in nature.

Prepared by the Armenian Roads Directorate Non-Commercial State Organization (ARD) and Ministry of Transport and Communications, for the Asian Development Bank (ADB).

CURRENCY EQUIVALENTS (as of 1 July 2007)

Currency Unit – Armenian dram (AMD) AMD1.00 = $0. 00292 $1.00 = AMD342.000

ABBREVIATIONS

ADB – Asian Development Bank ASIF – Armenia Social Investment Fund ASL – above sea level ARD – Armenian Roads Directorate Non–Commercial State Organization EARF – environmental assessment and review framework EIA – environmental impact assessment EIRR – economic internal rate of return EMA – Emergency Management Agency EMOP – environmental monitoring plan EMP – environmental management plan EO – environmental officer HDM – highway development and management model IDA – International Development Association IEE – initial environmental examination IMF – International Monetary Fund IRR – internal rate of return IUCN – International Union for the Conservation of Nature LRNP – Lifeline Road Network Program MCA – Millennium Challenge Account MCC – Millennium Challenge Corporation MoH – Ministry of Health MM – mitigation measure MNP – Ministry of Nature Protection MTA – Ministry of Territorial Administration MOTC – Ministry of Transport and Communications NCSO – non-commercial state organization PA – protected area PMU – Project Management Unit REC – Regional Environmental Centre for Central and Eastern Europe ROW – right-of-way SEEC – State Environmental Expertise Commission SEI – State Environmental Inspectorate SIEE – summary initial environmental examination SNP – Sevan National Park SR – State Reservation WUA – water users’ association

WEIGHTS AND MEASURES

km – kilometer km2 – square kilometer m – meter mm – millimeter

GLOSSARY marz(er) administrative region(s) (11 of them in Armenia) marzpet head of marz, governor

CONTENTS MAPS

Map 1: Administrative regions of Armenia Map 2: Location of roads to be rehabilitated under the Project Map 3: Location of Road Rehabilitation Activities in Martuni District, Gegharkunik Marz Map 4: Location of Proposed Road Rehabilitation Activities in Hrazdan District, Kotayk Marz Map 5: Road Link No. 2, Vardenis District, Gegharkunik Marz Map 6: Road Link No. 17, Bardzrashen to H8, Artashat District, Ararat Marz Map 7: Road Links No. 14 and 27, Kotayk Marz

I. INTRODUCTION

II. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT

III. DESCRIPTION OF THE ENVIRONMENT A. Physical and Ecological Resources B. Socioeconomics and Quality of Life C. Environmental Problems Associated with the Existing Situation

IV. SCRENING OF POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES A. Road link No. 2: Vardenis to Geghamasar (Gegharkunik marz) Environmental management plan for All road links in Gegharkunik marz for Road link No. 2 specifically B. Road link No. 17: Bardzrashen to H8 (Ararat marz) Environmental management plan for All road links in Ararat marz and for Road link No. 17 specifically C. Road link No. 14: Abovyan to Nurnus (Kotayk marz) D. Road link No. 27: Mayakovsky to H3 (Kotayk marz) Environmental management plan for All road links in Kotayk Marz for Road links No. 15 and 27 specifically E. Findings

V. INSTITUTIONAL REQUIREMENTS AND ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLANS A. Institutional Roles and Capacity B. Environmental Monitoring Environmental monitoring plan for Gegharkunik marz and Road link No. 2 Environmental monitoring plan for Ararat marz and Road link No. 17 Environmental monitoring plan for Kotayk marz and Road links No. 14 and 27 C. Mitigation and Monitoring Costs

VI. PUBLIC CONSULTATION AND DISCLOSURE

VII. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND REVIEW FRAMEWORK A. Subprojects to be Assessed and Environmental Criteria for Subproject Selection B. Executing Agency’s Procedures for Subprojects C. The Project Management Unit and the Review Process D. Public Consultation and Information Disclosure

E. Staffing and Equipment Requirement F. Summary

VIII. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

IX. CONCLUSIONS

ANNEX

1. Road Links to be Rehabilitated under the Project 2. Summary of Public Consultations on Environmental and Social Aspects of the Project 3. Environmental Management Plan (EMP) Template for the Project 4. Environmental Management Plan for All Road Links In Gegharkunik Marz 5. Environmental Management Plan for All Road Links In Ararat Marz and for Road Link No. 17 6. Environmental Management Plan for All Road Links in Kotayk Marz for Road Links No. 14 And 27 7. Principal Environment-related Institutional Linkages under the Project 8. Organizational Chart of the Ministry of Nature Protection, April 2007 9. Selected Environmental Non-governmental Organizations in Armenia 10. Government Environmental Clearance Procedures 11. Environmental Monitoring Plan (EMOP) Template for the Project 12. Environmental Monitoring Plan for Gegharkunik Marz And Road Link No. 2 13. Environmental Monitoring Plan for All Roads in Ararat Marz 14. Environmental Monitoring Plan for All Roads in Kotayk Marz

Map 1: Administrative Regions of Armenia

Map 2: Proposed Project Locations

L15 L10

L25 L16 L2 L26 L1 L14 L 9 L24 L13 L27 L 6 L21 L12 L20 L11 L3 L7 L17 L30 L19 L23 L18

Map 3: Location of Road Rehabilitation Activities in Martuni District, Gegharkunik Marz (Scale 1:100,000)

M-10

L-13

Lake Sevan Vardadzor

Lichk PA

L-12 Martuni

M-11

M-10 Astkhadzor

Map 4: Location of Proposed Road Rehabilitation Activities in Hrazdan District, Kotayk Marz (scale 1:100,000)

Hankavan

Artavaz

L-15 Plunik

H-28

Tsakhadzor

MCA L11 Link number

Map 5: Road Link No. 2, Vardenis District, Gegharkunik Marz, (scale 1:100,000)

M-14 Ghehamasar

Kutakan

Pokr Masrik

L 9 L 2 Tretuk

Mets Masrik

L1 M-11 M-11

Vardenis Shatvan L6

Khachaghbiur Geghamabak L7

L7 Jaghacadzor L3 Airk

Geghakar Nerkin Shorzha

ADB MCA L11 Link number

Map 6: Road Link No. 17, Bardzrashen to H8, Artashat District, Ararat Marz

Bardzrashen

Yerevan Landjazat

L17

Arevshat Nshavan Getazat L20

Buravan

H-9

L19 Vostan Kaghtsrashen M-2 H-8

Artashat Aygezard

L18 Shahumyan

L11 MCA Link number

Map 7: Road Links No. 14 and 27, Kotayk Marz

L14

L-27

ADB MCA L11 Link number

I. INTRODUCTION

1. The Rural Road Sector Project (the Project) proposed for financing from the Asian Development Bank (ADB) will address road rehabilitation needs in the rural areas of 4 out of Armenia’s 11 administrative regions (marzer). A total of 222.8 kilometers (km) of existing roads will be rehabilitated under the Project. An initial environmental examination (IEE) presented in this document was prepared by Armenia Roads Directorate (ARD) with technical assistance of ADB for the Government of the Republic of Armenia (the Government) in line with the requirements of the 1995 Law on Environmental Assessment of the Government and ADB’s Environmental Assessment Guidelines 2003, as revised from time to time. ADB’s initial review classified the Project as Category B project, requiring assessment at the level of an IEE.

2. Representative subprojects in three of the Project’s four regions (Gegharkunik, Ararat, and Kotayk; see Map 1) were selected and evaluated. For each subproject chosen, expected environmental impacts during the preparation, construction, and operation phases are described; suitable prevention or mitigation measures are identified; and their cost is estimated. An environmental management plan (EMP) is prepared for each subproject and an environmental assessment and review framework (EARF) developed to guide the selection and implementation of the remaining project road segments. Provisions for environmental monitoring have also been formulated.

3. The locations of the chosen subprojects are considered to represent fairly a cross- section of ecological, engineering, and socio-economic parameters. The geographical spread of the roads as well as the volume of work envisaged for each road section means that no significant cumulative impacts are foreseen.

II. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT

4. Prepared under ADB technical assistance (TA 4895-ARM), the Project is to rehabilitate a total of 222.8 km of lifeline projects consisting of 24 different road links in 4 out of Armenia’s 11 marzer, namely Gagharkunik, Ararat, Kotayk, and Armavir. Of the 222.8 km, 76.5 km are located in Gegharkunik marz, 64 km in Ararat, 62.1 km in Kotayk, and 20.2 km in Armavir (see Map 2). The Project fits into the Government’s Lifeline Road Network Program (LRNP) formulated in 2004 with the objective of rehabilitating a total of 2,700 km (out of a total of 4,320 km) of rural roads that are in poor condition at present, and mostly (84%) impassable during winter. The Project will be implemented over a period of 2 years following its formal approval by the Government and ADB.

5. Improved access is vital for a revival of rural livelihoods of Armenia. Indirectly, the Project aims also at improving road safety the record of which in Armenia is poor1 and at improved waste management to counter an alarming trend of uncontrolled waste disposal along the roads.

6. ADB’s approach to road infrastructure contains elements shared by organizations supporting road rehabilitation in Armenia, in particular the World Bank, the Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC), and Armenia Social Investment Fund (ASIF) in its emphasis on connectivity, poverty reduction, and other social linkages. There has been a good exchange of

1 Deaths and injuries have been estimated to cost the Armenian economy more than 1% of the country’s gross domestic product (between $25.7–37.0 million per annum in 2003 (see World Bank, 2006). The impact is likely to be especially high among the children of the poorer families (see Roberts and Power, 1996).

14 information and coordination among these organizations. Nonetheless, there is a broad agreement that rural road rehabilitation should ultimately be part of a unified strategy for rural infrastructure development yet to be formulated in Armenia.

7. The total of 222.8 km to be rehabilitated consists of 119.7 km of “local” roads, 78.2 km of “republican” roads, and 24.9 km of “interstate” roads.2 Table 1 summarizes the categorization of roads in Armenia.3

Table 1. Armenia’s Roads Specifications

Technical Category I II III IV Category by status Republican Interstate Local Right-of-way (ROW) 26.4 13.2–13.8 10.8–11.4 9.0–9.6 including Drainage Base design speed <120 <100 <90 <80 - In moderately mountainous <100 <90 <80 <70 terrain - In mount. terrain <80 <60 <50 <40 Width of 2 x 7.2 6.6 4.8 3.6 carriageway Carriageway asphalt-concrete (A/C) treatment gravel or earth Shoulder width 3.6 3.3 2.4 1.8 Width of stormwater 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 drainage ditches Note: The current road specification (The Republic of Armenia IV-11.05.02–99) replaced Soviet-times norms that distinguished five road categories All distances in meters.

8. A sector lending modality is envisaged for the Project under which a small number of representative subprojects are evaluated first to establish their viability. In addition, rules are agreed on the procedure to be used by the executing agency to select, appraise, and implement the remainder of the Project. In preparing the Project, four representative road segments in three marzer were chosen their combined total length of 49.6 km representing 22.2% of the total Project road length.

9. The road sections chosen as typical of the Project for the purposes of assessing its feasibility (see Table 2 below) have been based on:

(i) the scale of activity envisaged in each Project marz; (ii) the physical, agro-climatic, and population features of the marz in question (see Section III; (iii) the type of roads to be rehabilitated (local, republican, inter-state, with local ones by far the largest component); and

2 Include two road subprojects totaling 24.9 km along the main highways. These subprojects were included to reap the maximum benefits of rural road improvement in the Vardanis district in the Gegharkunik region. 3 World Bank. 2004 p.52 raises questions about the appropriateness of existing standards arguing in favor of introducing new and low-cost technologies of road rehabilitation.

(iv) the results of ARD’s traffic count and initial estimates of economic internal rate of return (EIRR).

10. Three project marzer are represented in the subprojects selected (Gegharkunik, Ararat, and Kotayk in descending order of the anticipated total road length to be rehabilitated), the Armavir marz with a single road section not justifying inclusion. The three marzer selected offer a cross-section of physical and socio-economic conditions found in the Project. Among them, they contain all types of the roads featured in the Project and a range of traffic volume and economic profitability estimates. Annex 1 provides a full list of 24 road links scheduled for rehabilitation under the Project.

Table 2. Subprojects Selected for Detailed Environmental and Socio-economic Evaluation

Road Link No. Adm. Communities Length Location of Dates of Public and Type of Region Connected (km) Public Consultations Road Consultation (see Annex 2) 1. (interstate Geghar Vardenis- 17.9 Vardenis 19 April 2007 road, Link No. 2) kunik Geghamasar 2. (local road, Ararat Bardzrashen to 12.4 Barzdra-shen 11 April 2007 Link No. 17) Republican road H8 Arevshat 23 April 2007 3. (republican road, Link No. Kotayk Abovyan to Nurnus 10.2 Nurnus 12 April 2007 14) 4. (local road, Link No. 27) Kotayk Mayakovsky to 9.1 Dzoraghbiur 12 April 2007 Republican road H3 Mayakovsky 23 April 2007 Total (km) 49.6 Adm. = administrative, km = kilometer, No. = number, Republican Road = Secondary Road.

11. The Project’s implementing agency will be the ARD, a non-commercial state organization (NCSO) under the MOTC. ARD has implemented World Bank-funded road programs in the country, and is the implementation contractor for the road rehabilitation program funded by the Millennium Challenge Account, Armenia (MCA) of MCC.

12. Given the scale of the road rehabilitation activity and in keeping with the usual practice, the boundaries of anticipated environmental impacts were set at 50 meters (m) centered on the middle of the roads. The boundaries for surface water impacts were set at 50 m downstream from the edge of the carriageway. Ecological boundaries were set at 1 km on either side of the road being rehabilitated with the exception of Subproject 1 where the ecological boundary was extended to the first 10 m offshore on Lake Sevan, 4.5 km distant from Subproject 1 road at the narrowest point.

III. DESCRIPTION OF THE ENVIRONMENT

13. The following sections summarize the physical and socioeconomic conditions of the three marzer.

A. Physical and Ecological Resources

1. Gegharkunik marz

14. The Gegharkunik marz is a mountainous region in the east of the country, and home to Lake Sevan, the largest single inland water body in the Trans-Caucasus region (see Map 1) and a vital source of irrigation water, electricity, fish, and recreation for Armenia. With only a small segment in the very north of the marz, the whole of Gegharkunik is a single watershed of about 3,650 square kilometer (km2) feeding the lake. Of this, approximately 1,250 km2 constitutes the lake surface itself. A large number of streams flows into the Lake, mainly from Geghama and Vardenis ranges (maximum 3,600 m) located to the South and West of the Lake. The region is one of generally high elevations (1,900–3,600 m above sea level [asl]), and harsh continental weather conditions. The watershed is located at the intersection of the Caucasian, Iranian, and Mediterranean floral regions, each of which has its own distinctive plant assemblies. The Lake is a Ramsar site offering important breeding, foraging, and wintering grounds for migratory waterfowl. In the watershed, the range of altitudes, sharp fluctuations in relief, and soil variability create numerous landscape types that promote diversity in flora and plant associations. The main habitats represented, arranged by altitude, are the newly-formed vegetation along the lake’s shore, grass-steppe, meadow-steppe, forests (with mainly Fagus orientalis and Carpinus sp) and alpine meadows (see Babayan et al., 2004 for details). The underlying biological richness is adversely affected by the deterioration of rural infrastructure since independence, poor agricultural practices, and poverty-induced pressure on natural resources (especially wood) that was particularly intense during the period of acute energy crisis (1993–1995) and one from which the area has not fully recovered.

15. The river Hrazdan flows out of the Lake and on its way south to Yerevan (and ultimately to the Araks River) is heavily used for hydroelectricity generation and irrigation. Excessive offtake of water for these two purposes starting in the 1930s lowered the level of the Lake by 19 m by mid-1960s (to a level of about 1,896 m asl) and resulted in a loss of valuable ecological functions of the Lake. Measures taken in 1980s (among others, construction of a diversion tunnel from Arpa River) helped stabilize the Lake and slightly increased the level to 1,898.5 m. There have been other pressures on the lake but none as serious as the overuse of the Lake’s water resulting from continued conflict between different management objectives for the waters of the Lake.

16. In recognition of the Lake’s hydrological and ecological importance it, and its foreshore area, acquired the status of a national park in 1978.4 The Lake Sevan Action Plan (LSAP) finalized in 1998 (see Ministry of Nature Protection, 1998b) formulated a number of actions that would reverse the trend and increase the level of the Lake. Lake Sevan Law was promulgated in 2001 and Lake Sevan Plan of Activities 2007–2011 was formally adopted in April 2007. This commits the Government to increasing the level of the Lake by 3 m by 2017. The document also

4 Armenia distinguishes three types of protected areas, i.e., strictly protected areas (3 of them, at present), state reserves (21 of them) and national parks (2 exist). The classification , broadly in descending order of the degree of protection accorded, does not match the widely accepted International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN) nomenclature and modifications of the Armenian system are under consideration.

17 brings more precision into Sevan National Park (SNP) management regime. Within the area of SNP, three zones are distinguished: (i) the protected zone (2 state reserves,5 i.e., Nuratus Peninsula and a relic oak forest on the eastern shore of the Lake, 4 state reservations, i.e., Kurashan islands, Lichk, Gilli Lake and Ardanish Peninsula); (ii) the recreation zone where tourism is permitted subject to certain rules; and (iii) the economic zone where normal development activities—agriculture for the most part—take place, merely informed by the Lake’s importance.

17. All of road sections scheduled for rehabilitation under the Project are located outside the area of SNP. Among them, road links 15 (Vardadzor to road M10) and link 12 (Tazagiugh to M10) are the closest to the SNP’s boundary (1 km at the nearest point; see Map 3). All other road segments in the same region (see also Map 5) are in all cases more than 15 km from the nearest strictly protected sub-area of the SNP. No historical and cultural monuments have been identified along the road segments proposed for rehabilitation. The Nerkin Getashen and Verin Getashen historical sites located near the town of Martuni in Gegharkunik, several kilometers from the alignment of road link 12 (Tazagiugh-M10), are considered adequately protected by Martuni municipal and local governments.

18. The conditions of the foreshore ecosystem, within the boundaries of SNP, are improving in those of the Park’s subsections given special protection but continue to be under pressure elsewhere mainly by poorly regulated tourist industry that continues to invade sections of the Lake’s foreshore, and by continued discharges of untreated sewage into the Lake. The economic zone hosts World Bank/Global Environment Facility (GEF)-financed Natural Resource Management and Poverty Alleviation Project and other government- and donor-supported development (as well as conservation) activities.

2. Ararat Marz

19. Ararat marz is situated to the south-east of the capital city of Yerevan, its southern portion located in a valley bearing the same name. This is an area of flat or gently sloping land with altitudes ranging from 350 to 900 m. The dominant habitat is desert with Salsola sp. and semi-desert with Artemisia sp. It is densely populated and intensively used for farming, supported by extensive irrigation network. In the east, the lowlands gradually give way to the mountains that eventually reach over 3,000 m along the marz’s eastern border. Semi-desert vegetation gives way to the phryganoid6 one, open forest (Quercus araxina) and ultimately meadow steppes in the easternmost section of the marz. In the intermediate elevations, herding, grain production, and some tree culture predominate, with pockets of irrigation. These together with the underlying topography and settlements shape the landscapes. Segments of the eastern part of the marz is an area of considerable ecological interest and hosts two of Armenia’s protected areas (Khosrov Forest State Reserve, the oldest in Armenia, with 292 km2, and Goravan Sands State Reservation).

20. All road segments proposed for ADB financing are located in the lowlands part of the marz and at considerable distance from existing protected area or sites of historical or cultural importance.

5 The term state reserve (argelavayr) replaced the zapovednik of the Soviet Union days and corresponds to a strictly protected area of the IUCN classification. It prohibits all economic activities and restricts human access only to research purposes. State reservation (argeloc) corresponds to the former zakaznik. It restricts access during certain types of the year and places limits on the type and scale of economic activities. 6 Refers to a type of grassy and shrubby vegetation found in the Caucasus region in which species such as Reaumurieta are dominant.

3. Kotayk Marz

21. Kotayk marz is located at the north of Yerevan with a varied topography and altitudes that range from 1,000 m in the very south of the marz to 3,500 m along the Geghama Range in the east. A semi-desert ecosystem with Artemisia sp dominates in the south-east whereas the north-west features important assemblies of dry oak forest at altitudes around 2,000 m. Alpine meadows are found in the mountainous borders in the North and South-East. The special ecological features of the North-West led to the establishment of three protected areas, namely the Arzakan/Meghradzor State Reservation (with protection of Caucasian fauna as the main management objective), the Pine of Banx State Reservation (SR), established as an arboretum reserve, and the Hankavan State Reservation established to protect mineral springs in the upper watershed of the Marmarik river. The economically vital Hrazdan river, flowing out of Sevan Lake, broadly bi-sects the marz and in the south, supports sub-areas of irrigated farming. In the intermediate elevations, landscapes are shaped by the interaction of farming (mainly grains and herding) and settlements.

22. Of the five road links to be rehabilitated under the Project, four are located in the south, far from existing protected areas or historical/cultural monuments. The fifth (Link No. 15 from Piunik to Hankavan) is somewhat close to the Hankavan and Arzakan/Megradzor SRs, respectively (see Map 4). Nonetheless, at the closest point, the existing road alignment is no less than 2 km from the boundary of the Hankavan SR, and 7 km from the boundary of the Arzakan/Meghradzor SR.7 No historical or cultural sites of special importance are located along any of the Project road segments.

4. Armavir Marz

23. Located in the south-west of the country in the Ararat depression along the banks of the Arax River, Armavir is a lowland region, with the exception of its western-most part, is moderately hilly. Desert vegetation with Salsola and Achillea spp. in the east, and semi-desert vegetation with Artemisia sp. at higher altitudes, are typical. The Vordan Karmir SR at the border of Ararat and Armavir marzer, established in 1987, protects some of a unique desert plant community. A single road link connecting Margara on the Turkish border with the marz capital of Armavir presents no particular environmental challenges, the alignment being at a considerable distance from the nearest protected area (Vordan Karmir) and passing through a generally undemanding topography.

B. Socioeconomics and Quality of Life

24. The selection of road links to be rehabilitated under the Project has both an economic and a poverty-related rationale. The economic conditions of the Armenian countryside have been widely documented. The summary prepared for the World Bank/GEF’s Natural Resource Management and Poverty Reduction Project provides a convenient example (World Bank 2002).

25. With a partial exception of some of the marzer closest to Yerevan (mainly in Ararat and Kotayk), the problem of rural road degradation is among the most important in a complex mix of factors that hold back the development of Armenia’s rural areas (World Bank. 2004). The

7 Preliminary information by the Ministry of Nature Protection (MNP). The boundaries of these state reserves are currently being finalized with the exact results expected before the end of 2008.

19 conditions of roads are closely linked in Armenia to the profitability of farming (in turn related to factors such as the state of the irrigation network). Continued viability of many rural settlements is a strategic and economic imperative for Armenia if the continued drift of the population to Yerevan (or emigration) are to be contained. Among others, worsened access has adversely affected fertility rates in the countryside, risking setting off a vicious circle of rural depopulation, loss of social services, and further stagnation.

26. A number of rural areas of Armenia have been affected by the collapse of industrial or agro-processing facilities established during the former Soviet Union era also for the purpose of providing employment to the countryside. Armenian countryside during the former Soviet Union times was a mixture of large mechanized farms and “company towns” (i.e., settlements created for the employees of a nearby industrial facility). The collapse of this structure meant that many former local industry (or kolkhoz/sovkhoz narrow specialists) had to turn to farming almost overnight without the necessary skills and support. Deteriorating roads made the newly precarious livelihoods even more precarious, among other things encouraging outmigration and contributing to bad environmental practices (such as use of land degrading farm practices, unorganized local waste disposal etc.). Functioning of local schools and health services faced— and continues to face—considerable odds, since here, too, access plays a major role (e.g., it is common for many rural teachers to commute to rural schools daily from the nearest town, a difficult task especially in winter).

27. Emerging pattern of new land ownership in which many individuals own several plots separated in space exacerbates the penalty paid by poor transport.

28. Below, the most important socio-economic features of each marz are briefly summarized.

1. Gegharkunik Marz

29. The marz has a population of about 240,000 and an area of 3,475 km2 located in the Lake Sevan catchment area. Approximately 20% of all sheeps and goats in Armenia, and about 16% of all beef and dairy cattle, are raised in the basin. Fishing in Lake Sevan, collection of plants, and hunting supplement farm- and herding households’ budgets. Industrial production in the basin practically ceased as a result of the economic contraction of the mid-1990 and is only slowly recovering. In 1998, LSAP estimated that only 5% of the pre-independence industry was active. About 35% of the basin’s population lives in four towns located around the lake—Sevan, Gavar, Martuni, and Vardenis. Tourism and recreation are important activities during the summer months.

30. A republican-level ring road surrounding the Lake is close to the boundary of the SNP and serves as an economic lifeline for the population of the marz. A railway line passes along the Lake’s north-eastern shore connecting the towns of Sevan (and ultimately Yerevan) with Vardenis, in the south-eastern tip. The Project road segments connect the surrounding countryside to the ring road in five cases and provide intercommunity linkage. Rehabilitation of one section of the ringroad is located at an average distance of 10 km from the Lake’s shores (see Maps 3 and 5).

2. Ararat Marz

31. The region, with the total population of about 275,000, is among the densely populated areas of Armenia (outside Yerevan), about 130 people per km2, which is roughly twice that of Gegharkunik. The district’s low-lying western part is intensively used for farming, tree crops, and

20 viticulture, as well as serving as location of numerous industrial enterprises—some active, many still inactive—located within 20 km of the marz’s capital of Artashat. Of 6 road links to be rehabilitated in Ararat marz, 4 connect communities to a main road, while 2 are intercommunity links (see Map 6).

3. Kotayk Marz

32. The marz offers a mixture of industrial and agricultural activities in locations close to Yerevan (e.g., Abovyan) and along the Yerevan-Sevan road that runs parallel to the heavily used Hrazdan River. It has a relatively high proportion of urban population (57% of the total of 276,000). It also features a number of recreation sites that take advantage of an attractive mountainous and forested landscape, being in the vicinity of Yerevan. Seven road links will be rehabilitated in Kotayk marz, of which two link communities with a town (and thence to the main road network), one connects the community to a main road, and 4 combine improved intercommunity links with further access to the main road network (see Map 7). Road link 15 is particularly important for continued recreation development in the Marmarik River valley (see Map 4).

4. Armavir Marz

33. With its 1,242 km2 area, Armavir is the smallest of Armenia’s 11 administrative regions but the most-densely populated (260 persons/km2), with a centuries-old tradition of irrigated agriculture, and during former Soviet Union times, some manufacturing. Its relative closeness to Yerevan has played in its favor although its share of the country’s gross domestic product has been declining in recent years (see www.minted.am). It has been identified by Kreditanstalt für Wiederaufbau (KfW) and the Government as one suffering disproportionately from inadequate water supply and sewerage development (see www.mfe.am). Poor conditions of rural road infrastructure exacerbate these problems. Rehabilitation of the 20.2 km link between Margara and Armavir promises to invigorate the social and economic development in the border region.

C. Environmental Problems Associated with the Existing Situation

1. Existing situation

34. Based on field visits of subproject and other locations and discussions with local experts and community representatives (see Annex 2) the following are considered to be the principal environmental situation under existing (“without project”) conditions:

(i) In irrigated areas, accumulation of silt in irrigation and drainage ditches, blocking culverts and otherwise interfering with the drainage of water from the road, as well as contributing to the erosion of roadbanks; (ii) Poor condition of the drainage infrastructure (such as culverts and drainage spurs) observed during the road survey undertaken; (iii) Disappearance, deterioration, or theft of road furniture (e.g., metal railings, safety barriers) that adversely affect public safety and add to the rehabilitation burden; (iv) Several types of public infrastructure such as gas distribution pipelines or telecommunication cables are buried at the edges of the existing right-of-way (ROW). These are sometimes buried (telecommunications) but more often (gas, water supply, typically) are placed close to the carriageway and prevent effective road rehabilitation and maintenance, besides posing a safety hazard. This type of

siting appears to be legal for now and a long-term solution to the problem will require closer inter-agency cooperation. (v) In some settlements, irrigation canals are placed too close to the road embankment. Where the canal lining is damaged, or the flow of water blocked, the water seeps into the ground contributing to road deterioration; and (vi) Insufficient provisions for road and public safety (signposting, lane marking, areas for parking and pedestrians, safety road barriers in critical sections, etc.) throughout most of the existing rural road network.

2. Assessment of alternatives

35. The principal alternatives to the Project as presented here (the “base case”) are (i) inaction (“without project”); (ii) a different selection of road segments to be rehabilitated; (iii) different technical approach to the rehabilitation (e.g., different types of road resurfacing); and (iv) a combination of (ii) and (iii).

36. All four alternatives will result in a combination of negative and positive environmental impacts. The inaction alternative, for instance, will offer the prospect of no negative impacts that might result from road rehabilitation but also a continuation of underlying environmental stress (e.g., erosion or water contamination due to faulty drainage, risks to the public of unsafe roads, etc). Similarly, each of the three “action alternatives” will result in some environmental improvements and some negative environmental impacts—the residual magnitude of the latter depending on the extent of the mitigation and prevention measures taken. Where either type of environmental impacts is relatively small, the choice of alternatives will be determined by non- environmental values such as (in the case of the Project), the value of extra traffic generated, reduction of fuel and vehicle maintenance cost, etc.

37. The Project’s economic profitability was made in the absence of quantified environmental impacts using the highway development and management model (HDM). This compared the economic profitability of different combinations of road alignments and road repair technologies and for a projected level of total expenditure, selected the combination of 24 road alignments, offering the highest EIRR. Furthermore, the resulting EIRRs were in all cases well- above the social opportunity cost of capital. If environmental impacts can be assumed to be relatively small, this means that the base case is superior to the three alternatives.

38. The chances that the ranking of options could be misleading because of an “environmental oversight” are not significant in the case of the Project. While it is possible, in principle, that selection of road links for rehabilitation based solely on conventional estimates of EIRR may have eliminated some road segments that offer particularly attractive environmental (or poverty-related) benefits (or, conversely, might result in significant environmental costs), such outcomes are unlikely.8 The sections that follow describe the likely impacts anticipating them to be only light, a situation typical of road rehabilitation activities that—like the Project— take place within the existing alignments on the existing carriageway widths, which are about half of ROW, and consist mainly of drainage rehabilitation and re-surfacing. The adverse

8 This is not difficult to see. A positive economic internal rate of return (EIRR) means that the quantified benefits are above the cost of rehabilitation. The latter is known to average about $150,000 per km or about 1.35 million dollars for a typical stretch of 9 km. For environmental costs or benefits to significantly alter the estimate of EIRR (and possibly change the composition of road segments selected for rehabilitation), the post-mitigation environmental cost (or foregone environmental benefit) would need to be greater than at least a quarter of the cost of the average stretch. This is unlikely, given the nature of environmental costs or benefits associated with proposed rehabilitation (or inaction).

22 impacts, furthermore, can be eliminated with good planning or otherwise can be adequately mitigated.

39. By reference to representative subprojects that largely confirm the initial ARD’s estimates of road rehabilitation profitability, good reasons therefore exist to consider the entire ARD’s selection of 24 road links for rehabilitation to be the best one, based on the purely economic and environmental considerations.

IV. SCREENING OF POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES

40. The environmental baseline, combined with the lessons of past road rehabilitation in Armenia and similar locations,9 help identify the project’s potential environmental impacts. The detailed examination of the four subprojects revealed a good deal of similarity among the impacts and mitigation measures (MMs) which is considered appropriate. There are also considerations specific to each road segment. In order to simplify the task of organizing this information in the form of EMPs and environmental monitoring plans (EMOPs), a common EMP and EMOP templates for the Project were formulated first. These present the impacts and MMs that apply to all four subprojects, and are likely to apply to all the remaining Project road links (see Annex 3). The EMP for each road link then (i) highlights those impacts and MMs that have a particular weight in the road link in question; and (ii) adds considerations truly specific to the road link and therefore not contained in the template. The same procedure is used, later on, with respect to EMOPs.

A. Road Link 2: Vardenis to Geghamasar (17.9 km, interstate road, Gegharkunik marz, see Map 5)

41. This road, with a heavily damaged asphalt concrete surface but a sound road base will be compacted and a new asphalt-concrete overlay of 50 millimeter (mm) will be applied maintaining the original width of the carriageway. Drainage, at present largely not functioning, will be restored and road signs installed. Sidewalks will be also rehabilitated inside and in the vicinity of the villages of Mets Masrik and Pokr Masrik. All the work will take place within the existing wide ROW that accommodates recently rehabilitated gas supply lines. In Mets Masrik, an old but functioning drinking water pipe (15 mm in diameter) is embedded in the road at 1 m of depth. No bridge repair is envisaged. The vertical alignment suggests a minimum of soil erosion risk and there are no trees that would need to be removed in the course of rehabilitation. The road runs roughly parallel with the boundary of SNP but is 2 km distant from it at the closest point (in Geghamasar) and more than 3 km distant in Mets Masrik. Outside the villages, both sides of the road are surrounded by farmed land with a long history of irrigated and (in recent years) non-irrigated farming.

42. The EMP for all road links in Gegharkunik marz and the Road link No. 2 are given in Annex 4. The areas highlighted in yellow indicate considerations of particular importance.

9 A wealth of experience from different physical and socio-economic conditions is contained in initially environmental examination (IEE) and summary initial environmental examination (SIEE) documents of ADB (www.adb.org). Road rehabilitation in Georgia (e.g., World Bank’s Secondary and Local Roads Project) is also relevant.

B. Road Link No. 17: Bardzrashen to H8 (12.4 km, local road, Ararat marz, Map 6)

43. This is a significantly damaged road passing through six settlements and featuring many irrigation and drainage canals either alongside the road or crossing it. Outside villages, the road is surrounded by farm land intensively used for grain production, orchards (mainly apricots) and viticulture. In settlements, irrigation canals often run very close to the road shoulder and with damage to road curbs, effectively function as drainage ditches. Drainage infrastructure, thus, requires extensive rehabilitation as does about a third of the total length of road curbs. No bridge repair in envisaged. The road is to be upgraded with an asphalt concrete overlay of 50 mm. The EMP for all road links in Ararat Marz and for Road Link No. 17are given in Annex 5.

C. Road Link 14: Abovyan-Nurnus (10.2, republican road, Kotayk marz, Map 7)

44. The Abovyan-Nurnus link begins on the outskirts of the former industrial town of Abovyan at about 1,500 m asl, ultimately reaching Nurnus at 1,650m asl, a settlement of about 660 people (110 families) with a secondary school. As the road approaches Nurnus, the topography and road alignment become more demanding. Most road safety furniture in this section is either heavily damaged or gone. Approximately half of the road length has gas or irrigation water pipes running along it, some in use, others not. The road is classified as republican and is scheduled for an asphalt concrete overlay of 50 mm. No changes in alignment or ROW are envisaged.

D. Road Link No. 27: Mayakovsky to H3 (9.1 km, local road, Kotayk marz, Map 7)

45. The segment linking the interstate road H3 to Mayakovsky, a settlement close to the town of Abovyan, starts in an area of fast-growing suburbs of Yerevan, passes through the village of Dzoraghbyur and finishes in Mayakovsky on industrial outskirts of Abovyan. Starting from the edge of Dzoraghbyur the road passes through open countryside with pastures and neglected tree orchards, and is in a relatively good condition. The whole of the road link is classified as a local road and scheduled for a 50 mm asphalt concrete overlay. No changes in alignment or ROW are envisaged. No trees or significant vegetation are found in, or close to, the ROW. The EMP for all road links in Kotayk Marz for road links No. 14 and 27 are in Annex 6.

E. Findings

46. The EMPs for the three marzer suggest that in addition to the anticipated impacts and MMs typical of rural road rehabilitation, there are several environmental problems that constrain road rehabilitation activities and its long term sustainability in Armenia. These relate to the broader issues of waste management, roadside utility infrastructure installation, and irrigation infrastructure maintenance. In all three cases, existing practices (uncontrolled roadside waste disposal, poorly regulated and executed installation of utility infrastructure, and careless irrigation canal maintenance, respectively) make the task of road rehabilitation and its subsequent maintenance more difficult, and ultimately more costly. In all three cases also, lasting improvements require a much better co-operation among the government agencies in charge of these three management spheres, and cannot be resolved by MOTC nor ARD alone. There are other broader environmental concerns related to rural roads (e.g., air pollution) but these are either less urgent or even insignificant in the context of the Project. One of them is the issue of land acquisition and resettlement. There is a minimal encroachment by individuals into the public ROW in Armenia (some drying of crops or dung on road shoulders, or the odd sapling planted in long-neglected stretches of roads on the edges of some settlements being the

24 exceptions to the generalization made). While compensation of individuals by the State in the context of road rehabilitation is therefore not an issue for the Project, that of statutory or contractual relationship among different government and corporate users of the ROW potentially is, for unless actions of such different entities are well-coordinated and regulated, road rehabilitation may result in financial costs to the parties concerned (e.g., damage by road construction crews to roadside utility infrastructure, additional cost to MOTC caused by unsuitable placement of utility infrastructure, etc.). The subject is an aspect of the earlier- mentioned need to bring about a better coordination of activities across different agencies and developing a supporting legal and regulatory framework.

47. The Project is likely to have a broadly neutral impact on vehicular emissions. Their increase under an anticipated increase in traffic volume is likely to be offset by lower fuel consumption made possible by improved road conditions that allow (i) higher average speeds in conditions—such as those of rural Armenia—where these are suboptimal, and (ii) a more even driving. The impact of road conditions on vehicular emissions has not been studied in detail in Armenia but existing evidence from elsewhere on the relationship between average vehicle speeds and fuel consumption (see ADB. 2006) points to a significant potential efficiency gain (approximate halving of average fuel consumption resulting in increasing average speeds from 20 to 60 km/h, for gasoline powered passenger cars, for instance).10 Higher average speeds, however, require adequate public safeguards. Under the Project, these take the form of integrating improved road safety into the design and execution of road rehabilitation activities.

48. In the case of vehicular emissions, too, the baseline conditions are important to bear in mind. The Project takes place at a time when—following a major reduction in overall vehicular emissions linked to a precipitous decline of economic activity in the early 1990s—the volume and balance of Green House Gas emissions in Armenia is changing, the proportion of emissions generated by the transport sector rising while that generated by the power sector relatively declining (see Ministry of Nature Protection (MNP), 1998 and UNDP/GEF, 2004). The underlying and projected increase in vehicular emissions by Armenia’s transport sector has multiple causes (size and composition of vehicle fleet, its emission characteristics, a variety of policies in place, etc.) and the Project can affect the baseline only marginally.

49. The climatic conditions, already complex in Armenia with special demands they place on adequate road drainage, are also part of the baseline and something that is best considered by the Project as a given. The technical basis for predicting medium-term changes of the climate remains insufficient for projections of the climate’s possible effect on the country’s roads or indeed for recommendations concerning things such as drainage design. In any case, the improvement of road drainage is already a key component of Project design and construction and an essential mitigation measure.

V. INSTITUTIONAL REQUIREMENTS AND ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLANS

A. Institutional Roles and Capacity

50. The 1991 Law on the Principles of Environmental Protection makes different agencies of the Government responsible for ensuring the environmental soundness of their activities. ARD

10 This should be contrasted with ongoing efforts in other countries and situations to reduce average traffic speeds as a way of reducing GHG emissions. 12 ARD has its origins in the former Project Implementation Unit of the World Bank’s transport sector projects. It has outgrown those origins and has broader functions now. PIU of World Bank’s new road safety project is now only a unit of ARD.

25 under MOTC, in charge of all new road building, road rehabilitation, and road maintenance of all inter-state, republican and “lifeline” local roads, is no exception.

51. The mechanism used by MOTC to ensure environmental compliance rests on the functions of ARD, a state non-commercial organization under MOTC, that is, the Ministry’s implementing and supervising arm.12 ARD is best thought of as a project implementation unit (PIU) of investment projects in the road sector, its responsibilities typical of road sector projects’ PIUs, i.e., supervision of detailed design, preparation of contract documents, organization of bidding and contractor selection, supervision of construction, monitoring and reporting (see Annex 7 for relevant institutional linkages). Environmental duties are an integral part of ARD’s activities and are discharged by an environmental officer (EO), in ARD’s practice appointed on a renewable basis in support of major foreign funded projects (such as those supported by World Bank and the MCA at present). At the most general, ARD’s EO is responsible for ensuring that road construction or rehabilitation activities under MOTC’s jurisdiction complies with the Government’s environmental and social legislation. Even where investment activities require no Government funding (e.g., in the case of the road rehabilitation component of the MCA Project), ARD performs that function.13

52. ARD’s environmental officer’s more detailed duties include, amongst others: (i) organization of public consultations that may be required under new projects; (ii) preparation of the documentation on environmental and social impacts of new projects (such as the present IEE) for submission to the Ministry of Nature Protection (MNP) and for “piloting” the documentation through the environmental clearance process; (iii) ensuring that the environmental and social mitigation measures identified at the stage of environmental and social assessment are adequately incorporated in the design and contract documentation; (iv) periodically visiting construction sites to check on compliance with design and contract provisions; and (v) for dealing with any complaints or questions relating to environmental and social impacts of the projects.

53. ARD has staff members responsible for suspension of work at the local level, this ARD performs the implementation and supervision roles during construction.

54. The current workload of the EO of ARD is rapidly growing. Both the MCA Project14 and the Project are sizeable and are being implemented at the same time. Despite the environmental experience gained by ARD during the implementation of World Bank-financed projects, the capacity of ARD, therefore, needs to be strengthened through an additional environmental staff dedicated entirely to the Project.

55. ARD contracts with road design institutions for all detailed design work. Like ARD itself, Armenia’s road design organizations, the privatized successors to former state design institutes, have had increasing exposure to environmental concerns of international donors and lenders (World Bank and Lincy Foundation) besides inheriting engineering-centered environmental expertise that existed before the independence. Some of them have full-time environmental staff. Nonetheless, the implementation of the Project will require some training-and-information sessions for the staff of the design contractor selected by ARD. Similarly, following the privatization of road building-and-maintenance state enterprises starting in mid-1990s there are more than 20 road rehabilitation contractors, some of whom implemented World Bank or Lincy Foundation projects (besides implementing road repairs financed by the Government).

13 A separate agreement between ARD and MCA has been signed to this effect. 14 Approximately three times larger than the Project in terms of the total length of rural roads to be rehabilitated.

Additional environmental training is recommended and will be provided for the contractors selected to implement the Project.

56. MNP occupies a central place in policy setting and protecting the country’s environment but several other Government agencies play important related roles.15 Environmental management in Armenia rests on a fairly complete legislative and regulatory basis (Table 3). The most relevant to the Project are the following:

Table 3: Environmental Legislation of Greatest Relevance to the Project

Legislative or Regulatory Contents Relevant to the Projects Notes Document Law on the Principles of The overarching piece of Environment Protection (1991). environmental legislation Law on Specially Protected Distinguishes –in increasing order The classification is not Natural Areas (2006) of the protection rigor- natural fully in line with the monuments, national parks, state IUCN protection area reservations and state reserves. classification but the Categorizes the SPNAs of intent is similar International, National and Local importance The Land Code (1991, updated Addresses various aspects of land in 2001) use including its environmental protection The Water Code (1992, updated Addresses, inter alia, the protection in 2002), of water resources The Forest Code (2005) Law on Environmental Impact Sets out broad approaches to The Law’s provisions Assessment (1995) and assessing impacts of development apply both to subsidiary decrees16 projects on the environment development (construction, reconstruction) activities and policy or strategic documents Law on Lake Sevan (2001)17 Regulates conservation, restoration Marginally relevant to and utilization of ecosystems of Project activities in Lake Sevan and activities in the Gegharkunik marz catchment and economic zone Law on Local Self-Government Delineates the responsibilities of

15 For example, the Ministry of Agriculture is responsible for several state reserves and some forests. The State Soils Inspectorate deals with issues related to land and soil degradation. Ministry of Territorial Administration and its Emergency Management Agency have various duties related to natural and man-made hazards such as landslides etc. 16 Government Decree No. 345 (1996) on State Bodies Authorized to Conduct Expertise of Environmental Impacts; Government Decree No. 386 (1996) on Issue of Certificates Authorizing Specialized Expertise of Environmental Impacts; Government Decree No. 193 (1999) on Limits of the Scale of Proposed Activities Subject to Expertise of Environmental Impacts; MNP Decree No. 151 (2002) Regulations for Conducting Expertise of Environmental Impacts; Government Decree No. 701-N (2003) on Conditions, Timetables and Procedures for Reviewing or Annulling Expert Conclusions of EIA; and Annex to Government Decree No. 608 (2003) concerning Development Expertise, Endorsement, Approval and Changes of Construction Projects. 17 Related Government Decree No. 927-N Grants the Sevan National Park the status of a state non-commercial organization (NCSO) and approves the Regulations of the Sevan National Park.

Legislative or Regulatory Contents Relevant to the Projects Notes Document (2002) local governments including those relating to the use of local natural resources and physical infrastructure Law on Waste (2004) Regulates responsibilities of state Importantly relevant to authorities, territorial administration project pre-construction and LSGs on disposal of solid and construction waste activities The Civil Code (1998) and the Amongst others, they regulate Criminal Code (1961) environment-related offenses

57. Within MNP, the State Environmental Expertise Commission (SEEC), a state non- commercial organization, is in charge of implementing the (1995) Law on environmental impact assessment (EIA), in particular evaluating the adequacy of environmental documentation prepared by other state bodies and the private sector in support of development projects or policies/strategies. The Ministry’s Bioresources Management Agency is responsible for all protected areas, management of several state reserves or reservations and for the Sevan National Park. The Armenian Forest Service manages 14 other state reservations. Other departments formulate policies and exercise control over all forms of pollution. The State Environmental Inspectorate (SEI) with 11 regional branches is a semi-independent body that oversees compliance with environmental laws and regulations. The organizational structure of MNP is provided in Annex 8.

58. The EIA process, together with SEI’s power to inspect, is the principal tool that MNP possesses to achieve compliance by other Government entities. At the local level, the influence of MNP is limited. Marz-level specialized staff reporting to marzpet rather than MNP while at the local level, any environment-related responsibilities are usually merged with other responsibilities such as public health with no contacts with MNP. At the local level, therefore, the capacity of technical agencies to implement their development activities in an environmentally sound manner is particularly important as is the local authorities’ capacity to perform duties delegated to them by various decentralizing provisions (most importantly, the 2002 Law on Local Government).

59. The Ministry of Territorial Administration (MTA), created in 2004, has various coordination and implementation responsibilities at the local level. Among other things, MTA oversees regional (marz) administrations. Its units include the State Committee on Water Economy and the Emergency Management Directorate both affected to varying degrees or at various times by the conditions of road infrastructure.

60. Under ongoing decentralization supported by an updated (2002) Law on Local Self- Government, local elected bodies are acquiring greater say in a number of domains including environmental management. Among other things, local administrations’ approval is now legally mandated for several environmentally important elements of road rehabilitation such as the siting of work camps and earth borrow pits. These powers of local government are expected to apply to the Project.

61. A large number of environmental and other non-governmental organizations exist in Armenia (e.g., Environmental Protection Advocacy Centre, Environmental Survival, Sustainable Water Environment, Armenia Tree Project, and a number of others, see Annex 9) and have

28 actively participated in the public debate18 even if none specializes in road-related issues. Internationally, Armenia has been active. So far, the Government has ratified 12 international environmental conventions; those that marginally affect the Project being the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity, the Ramsar Convention, United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, and Aarhus Convention. Ratification of several other conventions is under consideration but these are of little relevance to the Project.19

62. The Law on EIA contains an internationally accepted structure of tasks to be undertaken (identification and assessment of impacts, consideration of alternatives including a zero alternative, identification of mitigation measures, review requirements, public participation). All new transport infrastructure projects above prescribed limits, and related strategies and policies, fall under the purview of the Law. Projects falling below the assessment limits can still be subjected to the Law’s provision at the request of local bodies. While road rehabilitation projects are not specifically mentioned in the Law, previous road rehabilitation projects financed by World Bank and MCA did apply for (and obtained) environmental clearance by MNP at the level of IEE (or a similar level—that of a “concept”—in the case of MCA). The environmental clearance may require submission of detail design (once this is completed) to MNP for a check of compliance with IEE recommendations.20 It is expected that the same approach will apply to the Project. The present document, therefore, has a double function, being prepared to satisfy both the Government’s requirements and those of ADB. The details of the Government’s environmental clearance procedures are contained in Annex 10 and the application for such clearance is expected to be made by MOTC once the review of IEE by ADB is completed.

63. The EIA Law and emerging practice, furthermore, provide for a public hearing on the environmental assessment prior to the project’s consideration by MNP. This document, a property of MOTC, is therefore available to the public and can be referred to in any relevant public hearing.

64. The Law on EIA and its application, as well as the domestic environmental expertise, to which MNP has access, are considered adequate for the task of reviewing environmental assessment documentation in the infrastructure sector.21 No special provisions need to be made by the Project to enhance MNP’s capacity.

B. Environmental Monitoring

65. Monitoring of the Project should be proportional to the environmental mitigation plan of the EMPs of Section IV. Based on the EMPs, monitoring activities and responsibilities have been identified for the three subproject marzer and representative road links, and summarized in the form of environmental monitoring plans (EMOPs), divided (as before) by stages of the

18 Notably being instrumental in 2006 in bringing about a change in the alignment of a new road that was originally set to bisect the Shikahogh Protected Area in Syunik marz. 19 Government Decree No. 115 of 1998 contains a “Program of measures for implementing the commitments of the Republic of Armenia under a number of environmental conventions.” 20 Unlike construction of new roads, existing regulation do not require automatic submission of detailed design documentation to MNP in cases of road rehabilitation. 21 Several recent documents assess MNP’s capacity to provide environmental safeguards. Interested reader is referred to UNDP/REC. 2004 and OECD.2005. OECD. 2005 found “particularly impressive (to have been) Armenia’s success in improving the legal basis for (environmental) compliance assurance“ (p. 9). The main weaknesses are found in the inappropriate structure of environmental standards (unrealistically strict in some cases), insufficient tools and incentives to encourage compliance, low capacity at the regional level, and limited co- operation with other stakeholders, domestically and internationally. The detailed knowledge of the Law is sometimes poor among those who should know better.

Project implementation cycle. They amount to check lists to be followed by those in charge of monitoring and inspection. As in the case of EMPs, a template is created for EMOPs first. It contains monitoring responsibilities common to all representative subprojects and is likely to be also applicable to all remaining Project road links (see Annex 11). This template is then made more specific to each subproject by highlighting individual tasks of particular importance or adding those that apply only to the subproject in question. The EMOPs for each subproject are in Annex 12 to 14.

66. The emphasis in project monitoring is on compliance of design with IEE provisions, and on subsequent performance during construction. These will be reported by ARD monitoring staff based on the contractors’ certification but separately verified. All monitoring work will be supervised by ARD’s EO, supported by a supervision consultant. With most road rehabilitation taking place during a relatively short period (April to November), it will be necessary for ARD to subcontract some of the monitoring work to a qualified local subcontractor. All monitoring results will be maintained by ARD EO and be available to MNP upon request, and sent to ADB according to a schedule described further below.

67. It will be ARD’s EO’s responsibility to alert—based on the monitoring results—ARD and ADB to any emerging problems and departures from the provisions of this IEE for necessary corrective action. Such corrective action will be initiated and pursued by ARD, and verified by ADB.

68. ADB will monitor the Project’s environmental compliance in accordance with Environmental Assessment Guidelines (2003).

C. Mitigation and Monitoring Costs

69. Most environmental mitigation measures considered necessary under the Project have become standard elements of road rehabilitation design and contract specification in Armenia during the last decade (and some existed even earlier) and as such, are included in the relevant unit cost figures. This is so for things such as an environmentally safe design and execution of drainage infrastructure, soil conservation measures, provision of road safety infrastructure, or pollution control measures in work camps. Armenia’s design institutes use a factor of 1.5 to 10.0% of the total unit cost—depending on elements such as the topography of the alignment, density and type of public utility infrastructure along ROW, etc.—to be the share of environmental provisions in the total road rehabilitation unit cost.

70. Other Project mitigation and monitoring costs include: (i) environmental oversight by ARD in the form of an ARD additional EO; (ii) environmental training of design and contractor staff; and (iii) miscellaneous environmental compliance expenditure (e.g., the IEE public hearing expenses). Estimates of these costs are presented in Table 4.

Table 4. Estimate of the Project’s Environmental Mitigation and Monitoring Cost

Component of Cost Estimation of Cost (US$) and Total Which Category Subcategory Assumptions Made for Project of Project cost Subprojects Cost ($’000) A. Project 1. Cost of Salary $800 per month, half-time 12,000 management additional ARD inputs, miscellaneous expenses. environmental $100.month. Years 1–2: $12,000 officer

Component of Cost Estimation of Cost (US$) and Total Which Category Subcategory Assumptions Made for Project of Project cost Subprojects Cost ($’000) responsible for the Project 2. Miscellaneous Preparation and execution of a 1,500 environmental public hearing on the present IEE, compliance at $1,500 expenses Submission of examples of detailed 500 road design to MNP, at $500 Sub-total $13,000 (component of the total Project management cost of $1.0 million)

B. Project 1. Remuneration 3 months of international input @ 75,000 supervision of staff of $25,000 during Years 1 and 2, i.e., technical $75,000 supervision consultant team assisting ARD in ensuring environmental compliance 2. Training of One two-day training program in 2,500 design contractor Yerevan: $2,500 staff 3. Training of Two 1-day training programs at 3,000 environmental $1,500 in Yerevan: $3,000 monitoring contractors 4. Environmental $250 per road segment during first 6,000 monitoring after year after commissioning completion of construction Sub-total $86,500 (component of the total Project supervision cost of $1.4 million) Total A+B. (total $99,500, say incremental $100,000 environmental mitigation and monitoring cost) C. Cost of EMPs Component of the basic road $438,000 to connectivity improvement design $2,774,000 and construction cost (1.5 to 9.5% of anticipated total of $29.2 million) Total A+B+C $537,500 to (total environmental $2,874,000 mitigation and (i.e., 1.4 to monitoring cost) 7.7% of the total Project base cost) ARD = Armenian Roads Directorate Non-Commercial State Organization; EMP = Environmental Management Plan; IEE = initial environmental examination; MNP = Ministry of Nature Protection.

71. The total environmental mitigation and monitoring cost inclusive is, thus, estimated at between about $ 0.5 and $2.9 million, i.e., between 1.4 and 7.7% of the total projected base

31 cost of the Project. Of this amount, the incremental environmental mitigation and monitoring cost (categories A and B of Table 4 above) amounts to about $ 0.1 million, assuming a two year Project implementation period (and an additional year of monitoring the post-construction performance). These costs are included in ARD’s standard contracts which require contractors to allocate 1.5%–10.0% of the contract values for EMPs.

VI. PUBLIC CONSULTATION AND DISCLOSURE

72. For each of the sample locations, consultations with local stakeholders were organized at different dates during the period 12 and 23 April 2007. Formal public consultations were held in Nurnus, Vardenis, Arevshat, and Mayakovsky, involving a total of 67 local stakeholders. Five additional smaller meetings with local administrations also took place (see Annex 2 for details). In all of these consultations, there was a unanimous support for the proposed road rehabilitation. The main concern was that the proposed activities might be delayed or even abandoned. No special environmental concerns were voiced. In Gegharkunik and Kotayk, there was a unanimous support for the Project.

VII. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND REVIEW FRAMEWORK (EARF)

73. The previous sections described anticipated environmental impacts and mitigation measures for a representative number of road links to be rehabilitated under the Project. It also reviewed the local capacity that exists to implement the Project and several ways in which this capacity will be enhanced. The present section describes the measures that will be taken to ensure that environmental considerations are respected in all road links considered for the Project. These measures are collectively referred to as EARF, or “Environmental Framework.” Processing of all candidate road links will be subject to this procedure.

A. Subprojects to be Assessed and Environmental Criteria for Subproject Selection

74. The preliminary environmental examination of all potential rural roads sector project undertaken by ARD between November 2006 and March 2007 screened all road links for a number of potential environmental impacts. Four of them, namely (i) potential intrusion into, or permanent damage to, protected areas; (ii) potential intrusion into areas of primary forests or wetlands of major importance; (iii) damage to irreplaceable cultural relics and archaeological sites; and (iv) major changes in road alignment, were considered major impacts that—if present—would necessitate a full EIA of the road links concerned. No such major impacts were found and therefore the assessment of the candidate road links will remain at the level of IEE. No additional environmental criteria need apply to the selection of new road links and that choice (as well as any limits placed on subproject selection) can be safely guided by socio- economic considerations alone.

B. Executing Agency’s Procedures for Subprojects

75. Existing procedures of ARD, acting on behalf of MOTC, are considered adequate for the purpose of selecting and implementing the Project’s road rehabilitation activities. A preliminary environmental examination by ARD of all road links was referred to in Section A above. Screening for potential environmental impacts during that time suggested no major Project- linked environmental concerns. That finding is reinforced by the results of this IEE that examines four subprojects in detail.

76. In spite of this level of initial environmental reassurance, an IEE will be prepared by ARD for all candidate road links. This is considered necessary in view of possible small adjustments of the road sections chosen for rehabilitation (without any changes of road alignment, however), because the procedure is needed for sector projects. The IEE for each candidate road link will consist of (i) description of the physical features of the road link in question and their environmental relevance; (ii) a map showing the road alignment being assessed, prepared to the format and scale identical to that used in this document; (iii) a summary of the rehabilitation works anticipated for the road link in question; (iv) reiteration of the minimum technical and environmental criteria for dealing with environmentally essential elements of the Project (the management and rehabilitation of work camps and soil borrow areas, preparation of waste management plan) for inclusion into tender documents; (v) adoption of the EMP template of this document and its calibration to the specific conditions of the road link in question; and (vi) adoption of the EMOP template of this document and its calibration to the specific circumstances of the road link in question. EO will be entitled to use contractors for this purpose but will remain responsible for the content of each IEE report.

77. The finalized IEEs will be available to MNP upon request, and will be submitted to ADB for the latter’s concurrence. Following ADB’s approval, the finalized IEEs will be posted on MOTC’s website. This procedure is considered to satisfy the requirements of ADB’s Environmental Policy (2002) and Public Communications Policy (2005).

C. The Project Management Unit and the Review Process

78. A Project Management Unit (PMU) will be created inside ARD to implement the Project. An EO will be appointed to PMU to ensure that all road links are rehabilitated in accordance with EMP of the relevant IEE (prepared according to the guidance of Section B above), and in keeping with the environmental laws and regulations of the Government. The EO will review and certify (i) IEE for each new road segment; (ii) all detailed designs and contracts for compliance with relevant EMPs and existing environmental legislation; and (iii) all monitoring results generated under each road link’s EMOP. The results of the review will be kept by the PMU for any reporting to MNP, other authorized agencies of the Government, and ADB.

79. ARD will inform MNP about the completion of IEEs and detailed design. MNP is understood to may want to request a copy of each new road segment’s IEE and the detailed design documents within periods provided for in the environmental assessment regulations.

D. Public Consultation and Information Disclosure

80. Preparation of each IEE will be accompanied by an in situ consultation with representatives of local governments and local communities. The consultation will be open to interested parties and will (i) inform the local community about the nature of proposed rehabilitation activities, and (ii) assemble any comments or concerns relating to the Project’s potential environmental and other impacts on the local area and its inhabitants. Local administration will be advised at least 2 days in advance of the planned meeting. The record of this consultation will be posted on MOTC website as will (i) the IEE itself, upon the latter’s completion and approval by ADB; and (ii) the results of environmental monitoring, once approved by the relevant government agency and ADB. The administration of the communities lying along the roads’ alignment with no electronic access will receive hard copies of the records of public consultation, relevant approved IEEs, and approved results of environmental monitoring.

E. Staffing and Equipment Requirement

81. To implement the Project, an Armenian EO will be appointed by ARD with a budget sufficient to perform the functions, described in Section VII.C.

F. Summary

82. The EARF places ARD’s EO at the center of environmental safeguard process under the Project. The EO, reporting to PMU Head and through him to MOTC, is responsible for the completion of IEEs of all subprojects. Each of these contains an EMP and EMOP that clearly specify mitigation actions and monitoring responsibilities for each new road segment. The EARF provides for an internal review by ARD, and external reviews or inspections by MNP and other relevant government bodies, and concurrence of ADB with IEEs and monitoring results. It provides for public access to completed IEEs and the monitoring results.

VIII. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

83. This IEE found that the planned road rehabilitation activities themselves modestly improve the state of local environments. All potential negative environmental impacts of the Project are considered to be minor and not concentrated in space. All of the road rehabilitation will take place within existing ROWs.

84. During the design stage, the potential adverse impacts could result from (i) insufficient consultation with the local communities about locations suitable for waste disposal and those to be used as borrow pits (in relatively rare cases where material is required for the repair of the road base); (ii) incomplete knowledge about the location of roadside or road-embedded utility infrastructure; and (iii) lack of early identification—supported by the local community—of locations suitable for work camps.

85. During construction, the main potential impacts include (i) pollution of surface water by sediment, old roadside waste, and automotive discharges; (ii) incomplete or inappropriate rehabilitation of borrow pits; (iii) inappropriate siting of work camps and soil and surface water pollution by these camps; (iv) damage to roadside utility infrastructure; (v) erosion of road banks following adjustment of roads’ vertical alignment; and (vi) intrusion by contractors’ equipment outside the ROW areas and possible damage to these areas.

86. The main potential impacts during the rehabilitated roads’ operation include (i) lack of maintenance or damage to road safety furniture and (ii) traffic accidents caused by increased average speed.

87. All of the potential impacts identified are countered by mitigation measures spelt out in the EMPs. Monitoring activities and detailed assignment of responsibility for each of them is described in environmental monitoring plans.

88. Although structured around four representative subprojects, this IEE is supported by environmental scoping in all Project locations. This was undertaken to avoid the possibility that any of the road links to be rehabilitated might directly impact environmental assets of exceptional value such as protected areas, special ecosystems or irreplaceable cultural or archaeological sites. With respect to the former two, field visits to the Sevan National Park (Gegharkunik marz) and the areas bordering the Pine of Banx, Hankavan and Arzakan/Meghradzor state reservation (Kotayk marz) confirmed that no such impacts are likely

34 in the two marzer where several project road links are somewhat close to protected areas. No irreplaceable cultural or archaeological sites were found or reported to exist in the vicinity of any of the road alignments scheduled for rehabilitation in any of the project marzer. Unlike in many other countries, there are virtually no trees within the ROW along any of the 24 road links to be rehabilitated.

89. The cost of environmental mitigation measures is estimated at between $0.5 and $2.9 million, i.e., between 1.4% and 7.7% of the total projected base cost of the Project. This is well- covered by the ARD’s EMP provision included in the standard contracts. The relatively wide range of the estimates of the cost of environmental safeguards is considered appropriate in a sector project characterized by significant underlying variability of physical and socio-economic features. Most of this cost is a component of the basic road connectivity improvement design and construction cost, reflecting recent practice and experience with “environmentally- conscious” donor-funded projects in which environmental concerns are integrated in project design and execution. The balance is represented by the cost of (i) technical support to ARD in environmental matters, both international and local; (ii) environmental training to design and contractor staff; and (iii) miscellaneous environmental compliance expenses.

IX. CONCLUSIONS

90. This IEE based on a preliminary environmental examination of all 24 rural road links to be rehabilitated under the Project, and on a detailed environmental examination of 4 of these links, finds that activities under the Project are unlikely to cause any serious short- or long-term adverse environmental impacts. Given the physical and socio-economic conditions along the Project road links and the existing road repair practices in Armenia, potential environmental impacts are minor and they can be prevented or further mitigated in ways specified in this report and binding on all parties concerned. Additionally, a separate IEE will be prepared for each of the candidate road links according to an EARF described in this document. No further environmental assessment is considered necessary for approval of the Project.

REFERENCES

ADB. 2006. Energy Efficiency and Climate Change Considerations for On-Road Transport in Asia, Clean Air Initiative Working Paper, TA 6261 (REG), Manila

Babayan A., Hakobyan S., Jenderedjian K., Muradyan, S. and M. Voskanov. 2004. Lake Sevan: Experience and Lessons Learned Brief, consultant report to the World Bank, available at

Government of Armenia. 2005. National Report on Disaster Reduction in the Republic of Armenia, Emergency Management Administration, Yerevan

______.2006. Proposal for Armenian Rural Road Sector Project funded by the Asian Development Bank, Armenian Roads Directorate NCSO, Yerevan

IDA and IMF. 2006. Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper – Second Progress Report: Joint Staff Advisory Note, Washington, D.C.

Lokshin M. and R. Yemtsov. 2003. Evaluating the Impact of Infrastructure Rehabilitation Projects on Household Welfare in Rural Georgia, World Bank Policy Research Working Paper 3155, Washington, D.C.

MNP. 1998a. National Environmental Action Plan, Yerevan

____. 1998b. Lake Sevan Environmental Action Plan, Yerevan

____. 1998c. First National Communication of the Republic of Armenia under UNFCC, Yerevan

____. 1999a. National Environmental Action Program. Yerevan

____. 1999b. First National Report on the Biodiversity of Armenia and the Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan, Yerevan, available at www.nature-ic.am and [email protected] ____. 1999c. Lake Sevan Action Program, Yerevan

____. 2002b. National Action Programme to Combat Desertification in Armenia, Yerevan

OECD. 2005. Promoting compliance with environmental requirements in Armenia, Paris

Roberts I. and Power C. 1996. “Does the decline in child injury mortality vary by social classes? A comparison of class-specific mortality in 1981 and 1991”, British Medical Journal, No. 313, pp 784–786

UNDP/ REC. 2004. Capacity Building Needs Assessment for the Implementation of the UNECE Strategic Environmental Assessment Protocol: Armenia, UNECE Geneva, available at

UNDP/GEF. 2004. National Capacity Self-Assessment for Global Environmental Management, UNDP Yerevan

UNECE. 2004. Environmental Performance Review: Armenia, Geneva

World Bank. 2004. Rural Infrastructure in Armenia: Addressing Gaps in Service Delivery, Infrastructure and Energy Services Department, Europe and Central Asia region, Wasgington, D.C.

______2006. Republic of Armenia: Road Safety Management Capacity and Investment Needs, ECSSD, Washington D.C.

Annex 1 LIST OF SUBPROJECTS IDENTIFIED FOR THE PROJECT

Link Length Roughness No. No Link name Region District Communities connected (km) (IRI) Cost ($,000) Bid Vardenis-Shatvan 1 L1 Gegharkunik Vardenis Vardenis – Shatvan junction 7.0 9.4 920 junction Vardenis – Mets Masrik – Pokr 2 L2 Vardenis – Ghehamasar Gegharkunik Vardenis 17.9 9.2 2,689 Masrik – Geghamasar M11 – Khachaghbiur – 3 L3 M-11 – Geghakar Gegharkunik Vardenis 8.7 18.1 1,879 Geghakar 1 4 L6 M-11 – Geghamakar Gegharkunik Vardenis M-11 – Shatjrek – Geghamabak 4.8 15.5 900

M-11- Shatvan – Geghamabak – 5 L7 M-11 – Jaghacadzor Gegharkunik Vardenis 5.8 18.8 1,253 Jaghacadzor Mets Masrik – Tretuk – 6 L9 M-14 – Kutakan Gegharkunik Vardenis 9.3 17.8 2,009 Aghyukhush – Kutakan

7 L10 M-14 Semenovka Gegharkunik Vardenis M-14 –Tsovagiuh-Semenovka 12.1 10.7 1,591

8 L11 M-11 – Astkhadzor Gegharkunik Vardenis M-11 – Astkhadzor 3.0 12.3 446 2 9 L12 M-10 – Tazagiugh Gegharkunik Vardenis M-10 – Tsakkar-Tazagiugh 5.3 14.1 947

10 L13 M-10 – Vardadzor Gegharkunik Vardenis M-10 –Vardadzor 2.6 20.2 562

Abovyan – Arzni – Biurehavan – 11 L14 Abovyan – Nurnus Kotayk Kotayk 10.2 10.1 1,150 Nurnus

12 L15 Piunik – Hankavan Kotayk Hrazdan Piunik – Artavaz – Hankavan 13.0 14.2 2,322

13 L16 Zoravzn – Aragiugh Kotayk Nairi Zoravan – Aragiugh 5.3 11.6 947

14 L24 Yerevan-Yeghvard Kotayk Nairi Zovuni 8.0 11.1 1,232 3

15 L25 Bujakan-Saralandj Kotayk Nairi Bujakan-Aragyugh-Saralandj 8.0 10.7 901

16 L26 Zovuni-Mrgashen Kotayk Nairi Zovuni-Kanakeravan-Mrgashen 8.5 14.6 1,518

Mayakovski-republican 17 L27 Kotayk Kotayk Mayakovski-Dzoraghbyur 9.1 10.6 1,196 (secondary) road H-3 Bardzrashen-Landjazat-Abovyan- Bardzrashen- republican 18 L17 Ararat Artashat Arevshat-Nshavan-Byuravan- 12.4 11.4 1,397 (secondary) road H-8 Burastan Aygezard-interstate 19 L18 Ararat Artashat Aygezard-Aygepat-Shahumyan 4.2 14.8 750 (main) road M-2

20 L19 Kaghtsrashen-Artashat Ararat Artashat Kaghtsrashen-Vostan 8.5 10.9 958 4

Getazat-republican 21 L20 Ararat Artashat Getazat-Mrganush 2.9 10.4 326 (secondary) road H-9 Geghanist-Ghukasavan- 22 L21 Geghanist-Nizami Ararat Masis Darakert-Dashtavan-Zorak- 9.2 10.6 1,037 Nizami

Urtsadzor- interstate Urtsadzor-Shahap-Lusashogh- 23 L23 Ararat Ararat 26.8 17.4 5,789 5 (main) road M-2 Landjar-Urtsalandj

Margara-Arazap-Argavand- Tandzut-Aygeshat-Armavir 24 L30 Margara-Armavir Armavir Armavir 20.2 11.1 2,285 4 village- Haykavan-Norapat- Armavir Ararat 64.0 13.9 10,257 Armavir 20.2 11.1 2,285 Gegharkunik 76.5 13.5 13,196 Kotayk 62.1 12.0 9,266 Total 222.8 10.9 35,004 Annex 2

SUMMARY OF PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS ON ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL ASPECTS OF THE PROJECT

Consultation No. 1: Nurnus Village, 12 April 2007 (Road Link No. 14, Kotayk Marz)

List of Participants No. Name Position 1 Mkrtchyan, Grisha Head of Nurnus Community 2 Petrosyan, Hrant Deputy Head of Nurnus Community 3 Sahakyan, Slavik Community Council (Avagani) Member 4 Mkrtchyan, Harutyun Community Council (Avagani) Member 5 Karapetyan, Davit Director of School 6 Khachatryan, Andranik Deputy Director of School 7 Margaryan, Mayranush Teacher 8 Tarverdyan, Liana Teacher 9 Sargsyan, Jenya Teacher 10 Ghukasyan, Arevik Teacher 11 Borchyan, Vanik Teacher 12 Davtyan, Hasmik Teacher 13 Chobanyan, Anjela Teacher 14 Badalyan. Hasmik Teacher

Discussions with community representatives took place in the local school building. In terms of community interests, improved road access was considered a priority for the following reasons:

• reduced travel times and reduced vehicle damage; • improved access to markets for trading agricultural production, and reduced transportation costs; • improved access to educational opportunities for village students (the existing road is subject to delays, and is dangerous in terms of vehicle and passenger safety, particularly at night and in winter, and public transport and taxis will not travel to the village at evening/night because of safety concerns, thus, limiting the ability of students to commute to Yerevan to further their studies); • improved opportunities for the unemployed in the village to commute to Yerevan for work—again, given the delays and safety concerns on the existing roads, opportunities for commuting are limited as public transport/taxis are reluctant to return to the village in the evening; • reduced need for villagers to have to move from the community to seek employment, and therefore contribute to the depletion of the village population; and • aiding in arresting the threat to the continued functioning of the local school (the lack of local employment opportunities dissuades young people from marrying and having children and so school enrolment is declining in the village which causes a risk of closure, and the potential collapse of the village).

All those present at the public consultation meeting were in favor of the proposed road rehabilitation effort.

Annex 2

As indicated above, there were a variety of positive socio-economic benefits identified that could be realized as a consequence of the road rehabilitation (and these findings were essentially the same for each of the community consultations undertaken). From an environmental perspective, no specific concerns were mentioned. The potential problem of damage to the water and gas pipes along sections of the road were not considered serious, and were considered well within the capacity of the community to handle.

Consultation No. 2: Vardenis Town, 19 April 2007 (Road Link No.2, Gergharkunik marz)

List of Participants No. Name Position 1 Stepan Barsedhyn Deputy Minister of Territorial Administration 2 Samvel Melkonyan Engineer 3 Maksim Varvanyan Engineer 4 Artak Karapetyan Head of Unit of Taxation 5 Hrachik Hakobyan Engineer 6 Kamo Madoyan Deputy Mayor 7 Manvel Gevorgyan Teacher 8 Yerem Barseghyan Engineer 9 Ashot Khachatryan Engineer 10 Artsrun Davtyan Agronomist 11 Arthur Zaroyan Agronomist 12 Khachik Barseghyan Head of Unit of Agriculture, Municipal Administration 13 Vardan Safaryan Teacher, Member of Local Government Council 14 Vardan Badalyan Secretary of Municipal Administration 15 Hamlet Gasparyan Engineer 16 Lusine Hovsepyan Teacher 17 Noyem Antonyan Teacher 18 Naira Balyan Deputy head master 19 Anna Karapetyan Teacher 20 Homeros Safaryan Teacher, Chairman of Water Users’ Association 21 Ira Gasparyan Specialist of Unit on Culture, Youth and Sports, Municipal Administration

The public consultation meeting took place at the premises of the municipal government office of Vardenis. All of those represented at the public consultation meeting supported the proposed road rehabilitation activities in the area.

The town is at the intersection of several road links to be rehabilitated under the Project. Several participants mentioned the importance of rehabilitating the road inside the Vardenis town to ensure the much needed improved connectivity. The vicinity to the Lake Sevan National Park was not considered an important consideration for the proposed road rehabilitation while improved access for tourists was seen as important. The municipality and surrounding villages were said to be trying to find new income opportunities against the background of continuing de-industrialization. A ray of hope was seen in the twinning of Vardenis with the French town of Romans. No special environmental concerns were voiced and all of those present supported the proposed road rehabilitation activities in the area.

Annex 2

Consultation No. 3: Arevshat Village, 23 April 2007 (Road link No. 17, Ararat marz)

List of Participants No. Name Position 1 Gogol Nikolyan Head of Community, tel. (091) 203803 2 Gagik Militonyan Driver 3 Gagik Khudoyan Ditch master 4 Sargis Babayan Farmer 5 Armen Vardanyan Farmer 6 Grisha Hovhannisyan Accountant, Community Council 7 Hakob Yeremyan Farmer 8 Rafik Avagyan Farmer 9 Zhora Vardanyan Farmer 10 Silva Avagyan Farmer 11 Avetis Arakelyan Farmer

The meeting was held in the building of the community’s post office. Arevshat village is one of six along the Road link 17. From a socio-economic perspective, the benefits were seen as reduced travel costs and improved market access.

No particular environmental concerns from a menu of possible impacts presented to those present was considered to be relevant or important. To questions about disposal of irrigation and drainage spoil currently placed at or near the carriageway, the participants replied that suitable areas for a disposal of this (and any construction) waste exist. Several participants mentioned existence of buried drinking water pipes crossing the road or running alongside it, with connections of individual houses to these pipes in some places. The Community Head said that the location of these pipes and all connections were known. All of the participants were in favor of the proposed rehabilitation.

Consultation No. 4: Mayakovsky village, 23 April 2007 (Road link No. 27, Kotayk marz)

List of Participants

No. Name Position 1 Vahagn Barseghyan Head of Community, tel. (091) 422253 2 Babken Martirosyan Deputy Head of Community, tel. (093) 244232 3 Mayram Torosyan Secretary, Community administration 4 Arus Azatyan Deputy Head of Unit of Taxation, community administration 5 Gayane Makaryan Cultural Centre program officer 6 Zarine Badalyan Director of Cultural Centre 7 Margaris Avagyan Nurse 8 Hovsep Harutyunyan Member of Community Council 9 Arsen Avagyan Farmer 10 Lusaber Shahinyan Post Office Operator 11 Roza Avagyan Community Head’s Assistant

The meeting was held in the premises of the Community Council. Several participants wanted to know whether the proposed rehabilitation would included the first 50 or 100 meters (m) of slip roads connecting to Road link 27.1 There was a general support for the

1 The Soviet era norms included the rehabilitation of the first 50 m of such roads.

Annex 2 proposed rehabilitation even if most participants felt that Road link No. 27 was not as much of a priority for them as an alternative, shorter, route to Yerevan.

In general, while the road improvement was not seen as the highest priority, there were socio-economic benefits to the community, similar to those noted for other communities visited. To questions about possible conflict between certain road side activities (e.g. drying of manure for fuel), the participants replied that this was a simple matter easily resolved at the local level and coordinated with future rehabilitation work. No special environmental concerns were voiced.

Additional Consultations in Project Locations

In addition to the broader consultations noted above, meetings with individual community representatives were also held. These include:

• April 12, 2007, Road Link 22, Village of Bardrashen: Mr. Kamo Babayan, Community Head; • April 13, 2007, Road Link 19, Village of Dzoraghbyur: Mr. Araik Mukailyan (Community Head), Mr. Kakeh Khachatryan (Deputy Head); • April 17, 2007, Road Link 15, Village of Artavaz-Pyunik: Mr. Rem Hovanisyan (Deputy Mayor); • April 18, 2007, Mr. Arsen Hovhannisyan, Director, Ministry of Nature Protection, Sevan National Park (SNCO), and Mr. Nikolay Simonyan, Deputy Director, Ministry of Nature Protection, Sevan National Park (SNCO); and • April 18, 2007, Road Link 2, Mets Masrik Village: Mr. Misha Khloyan, Community Head.

In each instance, support for the road rehabilitation projects was voiced; the socio-economic benefits expected from the road rehabilitation efforts were similar to those noted above; and no significant environmental concerns were noted.

Consultations in Yerevan

Ministry of Transport and Communications Mr. Gagik Grigoryan, Head, Foreign Relations Department

Armenia Roads Directorate (ARD) Mr. Karen Badalyan, Deputy Director General Ms. Alice Savadyan, Environmental Specialist

Ministry of Nature Protection (MNP)

Ms. Siranush Muradyan, Head, Division of Dendroparks, Agency of Bioresource Management Mr. S. Santrosysan, Head, Environmental Assessment Department Mr. Arsen Hovanesyan, Director, Lake Sevan National Park SNCO Mr. Nikolay Simonyan, Deputy Director, Lake Sevan National Park

Armenian Social Investment Fund Mr. Ashot Kirakosyan, Executive Director

National Academy of Sciences Dr. Susanna Hakobyan, Senior Scientist, Institute of Hydro-ecology and Ichtyology

Annex 2

Dr. Evelina Ghukasyan, Head, Dept. of Hydrobiology, Institute of Hydro-Ecology and Ichtyology

Millennium Challenge Account (MCA) SNCO Dr. Armine Simonyan, Environmental and Social Impact Officer Mr. Hakob Petrosyan, Rural Roads Rehabilitation Project Officer

Lincy Foundation Mr. Eduard Bezoyan, Director, Road Construction PIU

Road Design Institute Ltd. Mr. Samual Badalyan, Director Dr. Davit Hovsepyan, Chief engineer

World Bank Ms. Ani Balabanyan, Operations Officer, Sustainable Development Unit

NGOs Dr. Dshkhuhi Sahakyan, NGO “Environmental Survival”

Annex 3

RRSP ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN TEMPLATE

Type of Mitigation Measure Executed By Time Frame Supervised Monitored By Environmental By Impact/Issues 1. Pre-construction Period

Utility infrastructure

Absence of Accurate identification of all Design Before design Armenia Ministry of consultations with existing utility infrastructure company, completion Roads Territorial the owners of (drinking water, irrigation water, working with Directorate Administration roadside utility gas, telecommunications, the local (ARD) (MTA) infrastructure and embedded or exposed, administration damage to such functioning or not) to within 2 infrastructure meters (m) of right-of-way (ROW). Performed in consultation with local authorities (the latter to formally approve the “utility location map”).

Solid waste management

Insufficient prior Consultation with the local Design Before design ARD Ministry of consultation with authorities and identification of company, completion Nature local communities sites considered suitable for working with Protection about local waste temporary or permanent the local (MNP) management disposal of solid waste administration generated during road reconstruction Inadequate Inventory of existing municipal Design Condition of ARD planning of the disposal sites in the relevant company for contract award disposal of waste road corridor, their capacity, compliance (i.e. not before generated during and the waste the sites are by the contract is road rehabilitation authorized to accept together contractor awarded) with an estimate of the volume and type of waste expected to be generated, and identification of any new disposal sites developed specifically to cater to the needs of the Project (see also under “water pollution” below).

Annex 3

Type of Mitigation Measure Executed By Time Frame Supervised Monitored By Environmental By Impact/Issues (see “soil and landscape degradation” further below) that could be used as waste landfills subject to borrow pit management and reclamation rules (see “soil and landscape protection” below)

Water pollution

Possible Design documents to require Design Before design ARD MNP contamination of the contractor to provide for a company, completion water table and contained area for (1) handling working with surface water and mixing bitumen; and (2) the local bodies by refilling and lubrication of motor administration inadequate plans vehicles, and for periodically for handling of removing spoil bitumen and soil bitumen spoil and contaminated by petroleum- petroleum-based based products. This waste products. shall be disposed of in an MNP- approved disposal site, created Possible water for this purpose as well as to contamination by store any non-construction insufficient waste suspected to be toxic, planning of the found in the right-of-way. disposal of old solid waste accumulated along sections of the road

Water pollution Identification of suitable sites for Design Before design ARD caused by the work camp that minimize company completion improperly located potential impacts on local water working with or operated work resources the local camp(s) administration

Specification of operating rules Design Condition of ARD for the work camp to be company for contract award followed by contractors. These compliance shall call, as a minimum, for (1) by the safe handling of bitumen and contractor petroleum-based products (see above); (2) safe disposal of camp’s wastewater and sullage (e.g., though installation of septic tanks); (3) control of access; (4) storm water drainage; and (5) rehabilitation of the site at the end of construction

Annex 3

Type of Mitigation Measure Executed By Time Frame Supervised Monitored By Environmental By Impact/Issues Soil and landscape protection

Unless planned in Identification of suitable earth Design Before design ARD advance, earth borrowing sites for potential use company completion borrowing areas and ultimate restoration. working with may be using local potentially valuable administration soil, obstruct Specification of borrow pit movement, and management and reclamation pose risk to safety rules to be followed by the Design Condition of ARD and health contractor. As a minimum, company for contract award these shall provide for (1) compliance temporary storage of top soil for by the ultimate re-use in site contractor restoration; (2) adequate marking of the site; (3) erosion control measures for the site; (4) disposal of only un- contaminated waste (e.g. construction spoil, most of drainage spoil); (5) compaction and site restoration to original or improved surface conditions.

Traffic safety

Anticipated Appropriate design of traffic Design By design ARD Ministry of increase in traffic safety infrastructure (see under company completion Transport and volume and speed “risk to health and property” Communications may adversely further below) (MOTC) affect safety Formulation of traffic- Underestimation of management- and-public-safety the risk to public measures to be observed by Design Condition of ARD safety caused by the contractor during company for contract award temporary construction (see under “risk to compliance modifications of health and property” further by the traffic flow linked to below) contractor work activities

2. Construction Period

Surface- and/or groundwater pollution

Inappropriate Close attention to the execution Contractor During ARD ARD construction of of these structures. Provision of construction contractor storm-water and adequate storm water. supervisor drainage runoff Drainage also for borrow pit structures areas and work camps.

Annex 3

Type of Mitigation Measure Executed By Time Frame Supervised Monitored By Environmental By Impact/Issues Insufficient Examination of the spoil, Contractor During ARD MNP separation of separation of any toxic construction possibly toxic component from it, and its waste from the separate disposal at a suitable spoil prior to its site previously identified for this disposal purpose (see above under pre- construction phase measures under “water pollution “).

Pollution streams Installation of sanitary sewage Contractor Before work ARD MNP generated by work and sullage disposal facility at camp’s camps the work camp in line with the operation operating rules for the work camps (see pre-construction period measures)

Insufficient Periodic checks of motorized Contractor During ARD MNP attention to leaks equipment, repairs of leaks, construction of automotive fuels refilling of vehicles in and lubricants designated contained areas, implementation of good practices by contractor staff, especially periodic removal and safe disposal of soil contaminated by petroleum based products (see operating rules for work camps under pre- construction measures)

Re-use of toxic old Examination of old asphalt for Contractor During ARD MNP asphalt or its toxic poly-aromatic construction inappropriate hydrocarbons before reuse or disposal disposal. If these substances are present, old asphalt to be treated as toxic waste, similar to any spoil bitumen (see under “water pollution” under pre- construction phase measures).

Soil and landscape degradation

Insufficient Soil stabilization measures such Contractor During ARD MNP measures to as gabions, re-vegetation etc construction control soil erosion control on road shoulders of re- shaped slopes

Incomplete or Refilling of earth borrow areas Contractor By the end of ARD Local inappropriate at the end of the construction the administration restoration of earth with original top soil or other construction borrow areas original material (see borrow pit period

Annex 3

Type of Mitigation Measure Executed By Time Frame Supervised Monitored By Environmental By Impact/Issues management and reclamation rules under pre-construction activities).

Incomplete or Clean-up of work camps at the Contractor By the end of ARD MNP inappropriate completion of the construction the restoration of the period, with complete removal construction site(s) of work of all items introduced into the period camps area, neutralization of any localized soil pollution and restoration of the original (or better) vegetative cover.

Incomplete Contractor staff appointed with Contractor By the end of ARD MOTC disposal of solid specific responsibility for the waste from ROW ensuring roadside cleanliness in construction areas at the end of line with the contractor’s waste period construction management plan.

Accidental Contractor to stop work and Contractor During ARD Ministry of discovery of report the find to the State construction Culture historical or rare Agency for the Protection of cultural objects Historical and Cultural Monuments

Risks to health and property

Insufficient or Familiarization of all contractor Contractor At the outset of ARD inappropriate staff with the “utility map” and the protection of utility working rules established by the construction infrastructure contractor for the purpose of period utility infrastructure protection

Installation of temporary Contractor During ARD Local protection infrastructure construction administration, (barriers, rails, warning lights owners of utility etc.). This to include also infrastructure adequate marking of temporary borrow pit sites.

Increased risk of Implementation of traffic Contractor During ARD MOTC accidents and management and safety plan construction injuries (as per the pre-construction phase measures). Safety watchers to be used to avoid collisions of the traffic with contractors’ equipment or workers. Creation of safe by- passes.

Annex 3

Type of Mitigation Measure Executed By Time Frame Supervised Monitored By Environmental By Impact/Issues Installation of all designed road Contractor During ARD MOTC safety furniture (safety barriers, construction pedestrian crossings etc.)

Air pollution High levels of dust Consult local authorities on the Contractor During ARD Local authorities along the demand for water sprinkling construction reconstruction and/or covering of trucks and sections, respond to high demand especially during periods of dry weather

Noise pollution

High levels of Limit construction activities to Contractor During ARD Local authorities noise or vibration usual working hours. Maintain construction vehicles to prevent unnecessary noise.

3. Operational Period

Insufficient Contracts to assign Rehabilitation During the first ARD MOTC maintenance of the responsibility for drainage Contractor 12 months drainage system maintenance after road (RC) and after commissioning Maintenance. commissioning Contractor (RC) and at (MC) agreed-upon intervals thereafter. Damage to or theft Periodic check on the Contractor During the first ARD MOTC of road safety conditions of the road safety 12 months furniture provisions after commissioning. Not limited in time Worsening of Institution of a consultation WUA Not limited in ARD MOTC drainage caused mechanism between ARD and Executive time by unsuitable local water users’ association Body irrigation canal (WUAs) maintenance practices

Worsened Institution of a consultative Heads of Not limited in MTA MTA functioning of the mechanism between relevant time road caused by MOTC/ARD and owners of government new utility utility infrastructure departments infrastructure or its deterioration.

Annex 4

ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR ALL ROAD LINKS IN GEGHARKUNIK MARZ

Type of Mitigation Measure Executed By Time Frame Supervised Monitored By Environmental By Impact/Issues 1. Pre-construction Period

Utility infrastructure Accurate identification of Design Before design Armenia Ministry of Absence of all existing utility company, completion Roads Territorial consultations infrastructure (drinking working with Directorate Administration with the owners water, irrigation water, the local (ARD) (MTA) of roadside gas, telecommunications, administration utility embedded or exposed, infrastructure functioning or not) to and damage to within 2 meters (m) of such right-of-way (ROW). infrastructure Performed in consultation with local authorities (the latter to formally approve the “utility location map”). Specific to Road link No. 2: Accurate prior marking of existing drinking water pipe in Mets Masrik

Solid waste management Design Before design ARD Ministry of Insufficient prior Consultation with the local company, completion Nature consultation authorities and working with Protection with local identification of sites the local (MNP) communities considered suitable for administration about local temporary or permanent waste disposal of solid waste management generated during road reconstruction Inadequate Inventory of existing Design Condition of ARD planning of the municipal disposal sites in company for contract award disposal of the relevant road corridor, compliance waste their capacity, and the by the generated waste the sites are contractor during road authorized to accept rehabilitation together with an estimate of the volume and type of waste expected to be generated, and identification of any new disposal sites developed specifically to cater to the needs of the Project(see also under “water Annex 4

Type of Mitigation Measure Executed By Time Frame Supervised Monitored By Environmental By Impact/Issues pollution” below).

The above information to guide the contractor in developing a waste management plan for the road segment that complies with local authorities’ classification of disposal site suitability. That plan shall also identify those earth borrow pits (see “soil and landscape degradation” further below) that could be used as waste landfills subject to borrow pit management and reclamation rules (see “soil and landscape protection” below)

Water pollution

Possible Design documents to Design Before design ARD MNP contamination require the contractor to company, completion of water table provide for a contained working with and surface area for (1) handling and the local water bodies by mixing bitumen; and (2) administration inadequate refilling and lubrication of plans for motor vehicles, and for handling of periodically removing spoil bitumen spoil bitumen and soil and petroleum- contaminated by based products. petroleum-based products. This waste shall Possible water be disposed of in an MNP- contamination approved disposal site, by insufficient created for this purpose as planning of the well as to store any non- disposal of old construction waste solid waste suspected to be toxic, accumulated found in the ROW. along sections of the road Water pollution Identification of suitable Design Before design ARD caused by sites for the work camp company completion improperly that minimize potential working with located or impacts on local water the local operated work resources administration camp(s) Specification of operating rules for the work camp to Design Condition of ARD Annex 4

Type of Mitigation Measure Executed By Time Frame Supervised Monitored By Environmental By Impact/Issues be followed by company for contract award contractors. These shall compliance call, as a minimum, for (1) by the safe handling of bitumen contractor and petroleum-based products (see above); (2) safe disposal of camp’s wastewater and sullage (e.g. though installation of septic tanks); (3) control of access; (4) storm water drainage; and (5) rehabilitation of the site at the end of construction

Specific to Road link No.2: The camp to be located on the outer side of the road in relation to Lake Sevan.

Soil and landscape protection Identification of suitable Design Before design ARD earth borrowing sites for company completion Unless planned potential use and ultimate working with in advance, restoration. local earth borrowing administration areas may be using potentially Specification of borrow pit valuable soil, management and Design Condition of ARD obstruct reclamation rules to be company for contract award movement, and followed by the contractor. compliance pose risk to As a minimum, these shall by the safety and provide for (1) temporary contractor health storage of top soil for ultimate re-use in site restoration; (2) adequate marking of the site; (3) erosion control measures for the site; (4) disposal of only un-contaminated waste (e.g. construction spoil, most of drainage spoil); (5) compaction and site restoration to original or improved surface conditions.

Annex 4

Type of Mitigation Measure Executed By Time Frame Supervised Monitored By Environmental By Impact/Issues Traffic safety

Anticipated Appropriate design of Design By design ARD Ministry of increase in traffic safety infrastructure company completion Transport and traffic volume (see under “risk to health Communications and speed may and property” further (MOTC) adversely affect below) safety Formulation of traffic- Underestimation management- and-public- Design Condition of ARD of the risk to safety measures to be company for contract award public safety observed by the contractor compliance caused by during construction (see by the temporary under “risk to health and contractor modifications of property” further below) traffic flow linked to work activities

2. Construction Period

Surface- and/or groundwater pollution Close attention to the Contractor During ARD ARD Inappropriate execution of these construction contractor construction of structures. Provision of supervisor storm-water and adequate storm water drainage runoff drainage also for borrow structures pit areas and work camps.

Insufficient Examination of the spoil, Contractor During ARD MNP separation of separation of any toxic construction possibly toxic component from it, and its waste from the separate disposal at a spoil prior to its suitable site previously disposal identified for this purpose (see above under pre- construction phase measures under “water pollution “).

Pollution Installation of sanitary Contractor Before work ARD MNP streams sewage and sullage camp’s generated by disposal facility at the operation work camps work camp in line with the operating rules for the work camps (see pre- construction period measures) Annex 4

Type of Mitigation Measure Executed By Time Frame Supervised Monitored By Environmental By Impact/Issues Insufficient Periodic checks of Contractor During ARD MNP attention to motorized equipment, construction leaks of repairs of leaks, refilling of automotive fuels vehicles in designated and lubricants contained areas, implementation of good practices by contractor staff, especially periodic removal and safe disposal of soil contaminated by petroleum based products (see operating rules for work camps under pre- construction measures)

Re-use of toxic Examination of old asphalt Contractor During ARD MNP old asphalt or its for toxic poly-aromatic construction inappropriate hydrocarbons before disposal reuse or disposal. If these substances are present, old asphalt to be treated as toxic waste, similar to any spoil bitumen (see under “water pollution” under pre-construction phase measures).

Soil and landscape degradation

Insufficient Soil stabilization measures Contractor During ARD MNP measures to such as gabions, reconstruction control soil vegetation etc erosion control on road shoulders of re- shaped slopes

Incomplete or Refilling of earth borrow Contractor By the end of ARD Local inappropriate areas at the end of the the administration restoration of construction with original construction earth borrow top soil or other original period areas material (see borrow pit management and reclamation rules under pre-construction activities).

Incomplete or Clean-up of work camps Contractor By the end of ARD MNP inappropriate at the completion of the the restoration of construction period, with construction the site(s) of complete removal of all period Annex 4

Type of Mitigation Measure Executed By Time Frame Supervised Monitored By Environmental By Impact/Issues work camps items introduced into the area, neutralization of any localized soil pollution and restoration of the original (or better) vegetative cover.

Incomplete Contractor staff appointed Contractor By the end of ARD MOTC disposal of solid with specific responsibility the waste from for ensuring roadside construction ROW areas at cleanliness in line with the period the end of contractor’s waste construction management plan.

Accidental Contractor to stop work Contractor During ARD Ministry of discovery of and report the find to the construction Culture historical or rare State Agency for the cultural objects Protection of Historical and Cultural Monuments

Risks to health and property

Insufficient or Familiarization of all Contractor At the outset of ARD inappropriate contractor staff with the the protection of “utility map” and working construction utility rules established by the period infrastructure contractor for the purpose of utility infrastructure protection

Installation of temporary Contractor During ARD Local protection infrastructure construction administration, (barriers, rails, warning owners of utility lights etc.). This to include infrastructure also adequate marking of temporary borrow pit sites.

Increased risk Implementation of traffic Contractor During ARD MOTC of accidents and management and safety construction injuries plan (as per the pre- construction phase measures). Safety watchers to be used to avoid collisions of the traffic with contractors’ equipment or workers. Creation of safe by- passes. Installation of all designed Contractor During ARD MOTC road safety furniture construction (safety barriers, Annex 4

Type of Mitigation Measure Executed By Time Frame Supervised Monitored By Environmental By Impact/Issues pedestrian crossings etc.)

Air pollution High levels of Consult local authorities Contractor During ARD Local authorities dust along the on the demand for water construction reconstruction sprinkling and/or covering sections, of trucks and respond to especially high demand during periods of dry weather

Noise pollution

High levels of Limit construction Contractor During ARD Local authorities noise or activities to usual working construction vibration hours. Maintain vehicles to prevent unnecessary noise.

3. Operational Period

Insufficient Contracts to assign Rehabilitation During the first ARD MOTC maintenance of responsibility for drainage Contractor 12 months the drainage maintenance after road (RC) and after system commissioning Maintenance. commissioning Contractor (RC) and at (MC) agreed-upon periods thereafter. Damage to or Periodic check on the Contractor During the first ARD MOTC theft of road conditions of the road 12 months safety furniture safety provisions after commissioning. Not limited in time Worsening of Institution of a consultation WUA Not limited in ARD MOTC drainage mechanism between ARD Executive time caused by and local water users’ Body unsuitable association (WUAs) irrigation canal maintenance practices

Worsened Institution of a consultative Heads of Not limited in MTA MTA functioning of mechanism between relevant time the road caused MOTC/ARD and owners government by new utility of utility infrastructure departments infrastructure or its deterioration.

Annex 5

ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR ALL ROAD LINKS IN ARARAT MARZ

Type of Mitigation Measure Executed By Time Frame Supervised By Monitored By Environmental Impact/Issues 1. Pre-construction Period

Utility infrastructure

Absence of Accurate identification of Design Before design Armenia Roads Ministry of consultations with the all existing utility company, completion Directorate Territorial owners of roadside infrastructure (drinking working with the (ARD) Administration utility infrastructure water, irrigation water, local (MTA) and damage to such gas, administration infrastructure telecommunications, embedded or exposed, functioning or not) to within 2 meters (m) of right-of-way (ROW). Performed in consultation with local authorities (the latter to formally approve the “utility location map”). Specific to Link 17: Identify and mark all drinking water pipe connections inside the ROW in settlements Solid waste management

Insufficient prior Consultation with the Design Before design ARD Ministry of consultation with local local authorities and contractor, completion Nature communities about identification of sites working with the Protection local waste considered suitable for local (MNP) management temporary or permanent administration disposal of solid waste generated during road reconstruction Specific to Link 17: Pay particular attention to the near- catastrophic uncontrolled roadside waste disposal near the village of Buravan

Inadequate planning Inventory of existing Design company ARD of the disposal of municipal disposal sites for compliance waste generated in the relevant road by the contractor during road corridor, their capacity, rehabilitation and the waste the sites are authorized to accept together with an Annex 5

Type of Mitigation Measure Executed By Time Frame Supervised By Monitored By Environmental Impact/Issues estimate of the volume and type of waste expected to be generated, and identification of any new disposal sites developed specifically to cater to the needs of the Project. (see also under “water pollution” below).

The above information to guide the contractor in developing a waste management plan for Condition of the road segment that contract complies with local award (i.e., authorities’ classification not before of disposal site contract is suitability. That plan awarded) shall also identify those earth borrow pits (see “soil and landscape degradation” further below) that could be used as waste landfills subject to borrow pit management and reclamation rules (see “soil and landscape protection” below) Water pollution

Possible Design documents to Design Before design ARD MNP contamination of require the contractor to company, completion water table and provide for a contained working with the surface water bodies area for (1) handling and local by inadequate plans mixing bitumen; and (2) administration for handling of refilling and lubrication bitumen spoil and of motor vehicles, and petroleum-based for periodically removing products. spoil bitumen and soil contaminated by Possible water petroleum-based contamination by products. This waste insufficient planning shall be disposed of in of the disposal of old an MNP-approved solid waste disposal site, created for accumulated along this purpose as well as sections of the road to store any non- construction waste suspected to be toxic, found in the ROW. Annex 5

Type of Mitigation Measure Executed By Time Frame Supervised By Monitored By Environmental Impact/Issues

Water pollution Identification of suitable Design company Condition of ARD caused by improperly sites for the work camp for compliance contract located or operated that minimize potential by the contractor award work camp(s) impacts on local water resources Specification of operating rules for the work camp to be followed by contractors. These shall call, as a minimum, for (1) safe handling of bitumen and petroleum-based products (see above); (2) safe disposal of camp’s wastewater and sullage (e.g., though installation of septic tanks); (3) control of access; (4) storm-water drainage; and (5) rehabilitation of the site at the end of construction

Specific to Link 17: Identify suitable temporary or permanent alternatives (to roadsides) for drying of manure for fuel.

Soil and landscape protection

Unless planned in Identification of suitable Design company Before design ARD advance, earth earth borrowing sites for working with completion borrowing areas may potential use and local be using potentially ultimate restoration. administration valuable soil, obstruct movement, and pose risk to safety and health Specification of borrow Design company pit management and for compliance Condition of ARD MNP reclamation rules to be by the contractor contract followed by the award contractor. As a minimum, these shall provide for (1) temporary storage of top soil for ultimate re-use in Annex 5

Type of Mitigation Measure Executed By Time Frame Supervised By Monitored By Environmental Impact/Issues site restoration; (2) adequate marking of the site; (3) erosion control measures for the site; (4) disposal of only un- contaminated waste (e.g. construction spoil, most of drainage spoil); (5) compaction and site restoration to original or improved surface conditions.

Traffic safety

Anticipated increase Appropriate design of Design company By design ARD in traffic volume and traffic safety completion speed may adversely infrastructure (see under affect safety “risk to health and property” further below) Underestimation of the risk to public Formulation of traffic- Design company safety caused by management- and- for compliance Condition of ARD temporary public-safety measures by the contractor contract modifications of traffic to be observed by the award flow linked to work contractor during activities construction (see under “risk to health and property” further below)

2. Construction Period

Surface- and/or groundwater pollution

Inappropriate Close attention to the Contractor During ARD contractor ARD construction of storm- execution of these construction supervisor water and drainage structures. Provision of runoff structures adequate storm water drainage also for borrow pit areas and work camps Insufficient separation Examination of the spoil, Contractor During ARD MNP of toxic waste from separation of any toxic construction the spoil prior to its component from it, and disposal its separate disposal at a suitable site previously identified for this purpose (see above under pre-construction phase measures under “water pollution”). Annex 5

Type of Mitigation Measure Executed By Time Frame Supervised By Monitored By Environmental Impact/Issues Pollution streams Installation of sanitary Contractor Before work ARD MNP generated by work sewage and sullage camp’s camps disposal facility at the operation work camp

Insufficient attention Periodic checks of Contractor During ARD MNP to leaks of automotive motorized equipment, construction fuels and lubricants repairs of leaks, refilling of vehicles in designated contained areas, implementation of good practices by contractor staff, especially periodic removal and safe disposal of soil contaminated by petroleum based products (see operating rules for work camps under pre-construction phase measures)

Soil and landscape degradation

Insufficient measures Soil stabilization Contractor During ARD MNP to control soil erosion measures such as construction control on road gabions, re-vegetation shoulders of re- etc shaped slopes Incomplete or Refilling of earth borrow Contractor By the end of ARD Local inappropriate areas, with non-toxic the administration restoration of earth spoil used and construction borrow areas restoration of surface period with original (or superior) material.

Incomplete or Clean-up of work camps Contractor By the end of ARD MNP inappropriate at the completion of the the restoration of the construction period, with construction site(s) of work camps complete removal of all period items introduced into the area, neutralization of any localized soil pollution and restoration of the original (or better) vegetative cover.

Incomplete disposal Contractor staff Contractor By the end of ARD Ministry of of solid waste from appointed with specific the Transport and ROW areas at the responsibility for construction Communicatio end of construction ensuring roadside period ns (MOTC) cleanliness Annex 5

Type of Mitigation Measure Executed By Time Frame Supervised By Monitored By Environmental Impact/Issues Re-use of toxic old Examination of old Contractor During ARD MNP asphalt or its asphalt for toxic poly- construction inappropriate aromatic hydrocarbons disposal before reuse or disposal. If these substances are present, old asphalt to be treated as toxic waste.

Accidental discovery Contractor to stop work Contractor During ARD Ministry of of historical or rare and report the find to the construction Culture cultural objects State Agency for the Protection of Historical and Cultural Monuments

Risks to health and property

Insufficient or Familiarization of all Contractor At the outset ARD inappropriate contractor staff with the of the protection of utility “utility map” and working construction infrastructure rules established by the period contractor for the purpose of utility infrastructure protection

Installation of temporary Contractor During ARD Local protection infrastructure construction administration, (barriers, rails, warning owners of lights etc.) utility infrastructure Increased risk of Implementing the plan of Contractor During ARD accidents and injuries traffic management and construction public safety. Safety watchers to be used to avoid collision of the Annex 5

Type of Mitigation Measure Executed By Time Frame Supervised By Monitored By Environmental Impact/Issues traffic with contractors’ equipment or workers. Creation of safe by- passes.

Workers to use safety Contractor During ARD MoH aids where appropriate construction

Installation of all Contractor During ARD MOTC designed road safety construction furniture (safety barriers, pedestrian crossings etc.)

Air pollution High levels of dust Consult local authorities Contractor During ARD Local along the on the demand for water construction authorities reconstruction sprinkling and/or sections, especially covering of trucks and during periods of dry respond to high demand weather

Noise pollution

High levels of noise Limit construction Contractor During ARD Local or vibration activities to usual construction authorities working hours. Maintain vehicles to prevent unnecessary noise.

3. Operational Period

Insufficient Contracts to assign Rehabilitation During the ARD MOTC maintenance of the responsibility for Contractor (RC) first 12 drainage system drainage maintenance and months after after road Maintenance commissionin commissioning Contractor (MC) g (RC) and at agreed-upon periods thereafter (MC)

Damage to or theft of Periodic check on the Contractor During the ARD MOTC road safety furniture conditions of the road first 12 safety provisions months after commissionin g. Not limited in time

Annex 5

Type of Mitigation Measure Executed By Time Frame Supervised By Monitored By Environmental Impact/Issues Worsening of Institution of a WUA Executive Not limited in ARD WUA drainage caused by consultation mechanism Body time unsuitable irrigation between ARD and local canal maintenance water users’ association practices (WUAs)

Worsened functioning Institution of a Heads of Not limited in MTA MTA of the road caused by consultative mechanism relevant time new utility between MOTC/ARD government infrastructure or its and owners of utility departments deterioration. infrastructure

Annex 6

ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR ALL ROAD LINKS IN KOTAYK MARZ

Type of Mitigation Measure Executed By Time Frame Supervised Monitored By Environmental By Impact/Issues 1. Pre-construction Period

Utility infrastructure

Absence of Accurate identification Design Before design Armenia Ministry of consultations of all existing utility company, completion Roads Territorial with the owners infrastructure (drinking working with Directorate Administration of roadside utility water, irrigation water, the local (ARD) (MTA) infrastructure gas, administration and damage to telecommunications, such embedded or exposed, infrastructure functioning or not) to within 2 m of right-of- way (ROW). Performed in consultation with local authorities (the latter to formally approve the “utility location map”). Specific to Link No. 14: - Obtain an agreement to remove non-functional not- for-rehabilitation water and gas infrastructure from ROW, if necessary.

Solid waste management

Insufficient prior Consultation with the Design Before design ARD MNP consultation with local authorities and company, completion local identification of sites working with communities considered suitable for the local about local temporary or administration waste permanent disposal of management solid waste generated during road reconstruction

Inadequate Inventory of existing Design ARD planning of the municipal disposal company for disposal of sites in the relevant compliance waste generated road corridor, their by the during road capacity, and the contractor rehabilitation waste the sites are authorized to accept Annex 6

Type of Mitigation Measure Executed By Time Frame Supervised Monitored By Environmental By Impact/Issues together with an estimate of the volume and type of waste expected to be generated, and identification of any new disposal sites developed specifically to cater to the needs of the Project (see also under “water pollution” below).

The above information Condition of to guide the contractor contract award in developing a waste (i.e., not before management plan for contract is the road segment that awarded) complies with local authorities’ classification of disposal site suitability. That plan shall also identify those earth borrow pits (see “soil and landscape degradation” further below) that could be used as waste landfills subject to borrow pit management and reclamation rules (see “soil and landscape protection” below) Water pollution

Possible Design documents to Design Before design ARD MNP contamination of require the contractor contractor, completion water table and to provide for a working with surface water contained area for (1) the local bodies by handling and mixing administration inadequate plans bitumen; and (2) for handling of refilling and lubrication bitumen spoil of motor vehicles, and and petroleum- for periodically based products. removing spoil bitumen and soil contaminated Possible water by petroleum-based contamination by products. This waste insufficient shall be disposed of in planning of the an MNP-approved disposal of old disposal site, created solid waste for this purpose as well Annex 6

Type of Mitigation Measure Executed By Time Frame Supervised Monitored By Environmental By Impact/Issues accumulated as to store any non- along sections of construction waste the road suspected to be toxic, found in the right-of- way.

Water pollution Identification of Design Before design ARD caused by suitable sites for the company completion improperly work camp that working with located or minimize potential the local operated work impacts on local water administration camp(s) resources

Specification of Design Condition of ARD operating rules for the company for contract award work camp to be compliance followed by by the contractors. These contractor shall call, as a minimum, for (1) safe handling of bitumen and petroleum-based products (see above); (2) safe disposal of camp’s wastewater and sullage (e.g. though installation of septic tanks); (3) control of access; (4) storm-water drainage; and (5) rehabilitation of the site at the end of construction

Soil and landscape protection

Unless planned Identification of Design Before design ARD in advance, suitable earth company completion earth borrowing borrowing sites for working with areas may be potential use and local using potentially ultimate restoration. administration valuable soil, obstruct Specification of borrow Design Condition of ARD movement, and pit management and company for contract award pose risk to reclamation rules to be compliance safety and health followed by the by the contractor. As a contractor minimum, these shall provide for (1) temporary storage of Annex 6

Type of Mitigation Measure Executed By Time Frame Supervised Monitored By Environmental By Impact/Issues top soil for ultimate reuse in site restoration; (2) adequate marking of the site; (3) erosion control measures for the site; (4) disposal of only un-contaminated waste (e.g. construction spoil, most of drainage spoil); (5) compaction and site restoration to original or improved surface conditions.

Traffic safety

Anticipated Appropriate design of Design By design ARD Ministry of increase in traffic traffic safety company completion Transport and volume and infrastructure (see Communications speed may under “risk to health (MOTC) adversely affect and property” further safety below) Specific to Link No. 14: Pay particular attention to the Design Condition of ARD dangerous last 2 km company for contract award before reaching the compliance Underestimation village of Nurnus by the of the risk to contractor public safety Formulation of traffic- caused by management- and- temporary public-safety measures modifications of to be observed by the traffic flow linked contractor during to work activities construction (see under “risk to health and property” further below)

2. Construction Period

Surface- and/or groundwater pollution

Inappropriate Close attention to the Contractor During ARD MOTC construction of execution of these construction storm-water and structures. Provision drainage runoff of adequate structures stormwater drainage also for borrow pit Annex 6

Type of Mitigation Measure Executed By Time Frame Supervised Monitored By Environmental By Impact/Issues areas and work camps.

Insufficient Periodic checks of Contractor During ARD MNP attention to leaks motorized equipment, construction of automotive repairs of leaks, fuels and refilling of vehicles in lubricants designated contained areas, implementation of good practices by contractor staff, especially periodic removal and safe disposal of soil contaminated by petroleum based products (see operating rules for work camps under pre- construction measures)

Re-use of toxic Examination of old Contractor During ARD Ministry of old asphalt or its asphalt for toxic poly- construction Nature inappropriate aromatic hydrocarbons Protection disposal before reuse or (MNP) disposal. If these substances are present, old asphalt to be treated as toxic waste, similar to any spoil bitumen (see under “water pollution” under pre-construction phase measures).

Soil and landscape degradation

Insufficient Soil stabilization Contractor During ARD MNP measures to measures such as construction control soil gabions, re-vegetation erosion control etc on road shoulders of re- shaped slopes

Incomplete or Refilling of earth Contractor By the end of ARD inappropriate borrow areas at the the restoration of end of the construction construction earth borrow with original top soil or period areas other original material Annex 6

Type of Mitigation Measure Executed By Time Frame Supervised Monitored By Environmental By Impact/Issues (see borrow pit management and reclamation rules under pre-construction activities)

Incomplete or Clean-up of work Contractor By the end of ARD MNP inappropriate camps at the the restoration of the completion of the construction site(s) of work construction period, period camps with complete removal of all items introduced into the area, neutralization of any localized soil pollution and restoration of the original (or better) vegetative cover.

Incomplete Contractor staff Contractor By the end of ARD MNP disposal of solid appointed with specific the waste from ROW responsibility for construction areas at the end ensuring roadside period of construction cleanliness in line with the contractor’s waste management plan.

Accidental Contractor to stop Contractor During ARD Ministry of discovery of work and report the construction Culture historical or rare find to the State cultural objects Agency for the Protection of Historical and Cultural Monuments

Risks to health and property

Insufficient or Familiarization of all Contractor At the outset of ARD inappropriate contractor staff with the protection of the “utility map” and construction utility working rules period infrastructure established by the contractor for the purpose of utility infrastructure protection Installation of Contractor During ARD Local temporary protection construction administration, infrastructure (barriers, owners of utility rails, warning lights infrastructure etc.). This to also include adequate Annex 6

Type of Mitigation Measure Executed By Time Frame Supervised Monitored By Environmental By Impact/Issues marking of temporary borrow pit sites.

Increased risk of Implementation of Contractor During ARD accidents and traffic management construction injuries and public safety plan for the construction period. Safety watchers to be used to avoid collisions of the traffic with contractors’ equipment or workers. Creation of safe by- passes.

Workers to use safety Contractor During ARD MoH aids where construction appropriate.

Installation of all Contractor During ARD MOTC designed road safety construction furniture (safety barriers, pedestrian crossings etc.) Air pollution High levels of Consult local Contractor During ARD Local authorities dust along the authorities on the construction reconstruction demand for water sections, sprinkling and/or especially during covering of trucks and periods of dry respond to high weather demand

Noise pollution

High levels of Limit construction Contractor During ARD Local authorities noise or vibration activities to usual construction working hours. Maintain vehicles to prevent unnecessary noise.

3. Operational Period

Insufficient Contracts to assign Rehabilitation During the first ARD MOTC maintenance of responsibility for Contractor 12 months the drainage drainage maintenance (RC) and after system after road Maintenance commissioning commissioning. Contractor (RC) and at (MC) agreed-upon Annex 6

Type of Mitigation Measure Executed By Time Frame Supervised Monitored By Environmental By Impact/Issues Specific to Link No. periods 27: Make special thereafter (MC) provisions for local waste disposal on the segment H3 to Dzoraghbiur to prevent chronic drainage obstruction

Damage to or Periodic check on the Contractor During the first ARD MOTC theft of road conditions of the road 12 months safety furniture safety provisions after commissioning. Specific to Link No. Not limited in 14: Pay particular time. attention to the last 2 km before Nurnus Worsening of Institution of a WUA Not limited in ARD MOTC drainage caused consultation members time by unsuitable mechanism between irrigation canal ARD and local water maintenance users’ association practices (WUAs)

Worsened Institution of a Heads of Not limited in MTA MTA functioning of the consultative relevant time road caused by mechanism between government new utility MOTC/ARD and departments infrastructure or owners of utility further infrastructure deterioration of old utility infrastructure.

Annex 7

PRINCIPAL ENVIRONMENT-RELATED INSTITUTIONAL LINKAGES UNDER THE PROJECT

MTC MOTC

ARD ARD

MNP

SEI SEECA ADB RRSP PMU Other MCA Rural road Road MoH EO projects Rehab. Component MoC

Road design ADB contractors liaison Local office administrations

Road construction contractors ADB MTA HQ

Notes: Please refer to the list of abbreviations at page 2 of the IEE document. Blue lines denote principal monitoring and inspection responsibilities.

Annex 8

ARMENIA’S MINISTRY OF NATURE PROTECTION

Annex 9

SELECTED ENVIRONMENTAL NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS IN ARMENIA

Name Address Objectives and Activities Altair Nalbandyan 29/8 To promote human development, improve living (Humanitarian Tel: 523210 standards, strengthen culture and education, and Centre) provide environmental guidance Armenian Botanic Avan 63 Growth of plant species characteristic to Armenia, Union Tel: 621781 protection of important plants and vegetation cover Armenian Abovyan 68 Public awareness of environmental issues; Ecological Tel:268004 environmental research; implement environmental Association of projects; deal with environmental health issues of Women female workers; protection of human rights Armenian Bagramian ave. Involved in tackling the ecological problems of Armenia, Ecologists Union 24d/11,12 assessment of environmental projects, participation in Tel: 273428 environmental education and scientific research Association Khandjan 33/18 Promote and develop the concept of sustainable human Towards Tel: 522327 development in Armenia Sustainable Human Development Avish (Benevolent Nalbandyan 49/4 Environmental education, tree planting activities, Community of Tel:521846, involvement of public and state organizations in tackling Nature's Friends) 528740 environmental issues Byurakn Nalbandyan 19/34 Ecological education of all sections of society, Tel: 524484 particularly children; ecological research; dissemination of environmental information Ecological and Tigran Mets ave. Development of environmentally friendly technologies; Biological Security 40/6 conduct environmental research at the request of state Academy / Tel:558635 and public organizations; environmental education; Armenian Branch provide specialist inputs Ecological Fund of Komitas 49/302- Assessment of environmental situation in Armenia, Armenia 304 based on up-to-date research Ecological Bagramian ave. Involved in drafting of environmental laws, public Survival 24d environmental education, and biodiversity conservation Tel: 279268 issues Ecoteam Abovyan 22a/53 Projects relating to alternative energy sources and Tel: 529277, energy efficiency 530331 Ecotourism Abovyan 44/2 Promotion of ecotourism in Armenia as a means of Association Tel: 397552, education and protection of the environment, and 562590 development of harmony between human and nature Environmental Koryun 8/8 Explain environmental rights of citizens and public Protection Tel: 561386 organizations to students, practicing lawyers, state Advocacy Centre officials and the general public; promotion of (EPAC) environmental legislation; drafting of laws; discussions Annex 9

Name Address Objectives and Activities of draft laws Fauna Club Tumanian 33 Animal rights issues; work on the relationships between Tel: 538538 humans and animals in cities Flora Gyumri, Krytyan Establishment of an environmental advocacy centre; 12 organization of tree planting; renewal of sewerage Tel: 39436, 33586 network; protection of historic monuments Greens Union of Mamikoniants Environmental protection activities; promotion of Armenia 47/13 environmental legislation; development of alternative Tel: 257634, and safe sources of energy 281411 Nature Protectors Charents 8, Campaign against illegal hunting and tree felling; work Union of Armenia Yerevan State for the protection of natural areas University Tel: 556778, 633189 Socio-Ecological Chaikovski 30/1 Work towards harmonization of nature protection and Association Tel: 422637 social development, by making economic development one of the incentives for nature protection Sustainable Rubiniants 1a/45 Increase of public awareness in safe environment and Development Tel: 247391 issue related to nature protection, drafting the environmental laws and projects as well as educational programs Tapan Ecoclub SW district B2 Protection of the natural environment; protection and 21/23 rehabilitation of cultural and historical monuments Tel: 733322 Union of Armenian Abovyan 63 Overseeing co-operation and co-ordination between Ecological Tel: 551361 ecological organizations in Armenia Organizations Union of Armenian Pushkin 38 Focus attention of public and government on Women- Tel: 557630, environmental issues Ecological Branch 281652 Union of Fauna Khachatryan 26/1 Protection of endangered animal species; establishment Protection Tel: 265370 of dog and cat homes 272233 Youth Ecological Abovyan 68 Increase awareness among young people regarding Group Tel: 562245 environmental problems, activities to clean up 562322 environmental pollution

Annex 10

GOVERNMENT ENVIRONMENTAL CLEARANCE PROCEDURES

(translated by the consultant from regulations in support of Armenia’s 1995 Law on EIA)

1. The initiator willing to implement any intended activities must notify the authorized body (hereinafter the Environmental Expertise Non-Commercial State Organization [NCSO]) with the required information.

2. Within 7 days after the receipt of the initiative, the Environmental Expertise NCSO informs the head of the affected community and the general public about the initiative to implement the intended activity.

3. After the receipt of initiative, within 15 days the heads of the affected community and the initiator organize the public hearings concerning the intended activity (its procedure is determined by the Government of the Republic of Armenia), announcing through mass media about the place and time of the hearings and the intended activities.

4. If no complaints are sent to the authorized body from the affected community or the general public, the opinion of the affected community is considered positive.

5. After submitting the notification, the Environmental Expertise NCSO, within 30 days, decides to conduct or not to conduct environmental impact assessment, and informs the initiator. In case the environmental impact assessment is considered necessary, the initiator submits to the authorized body the documents on the intended activities.

6. After the receipt of documents, the Environmental Expertise NCSO immediately sends them to the heads of the province or the community, to the relevant state body and the affected community. The heads of the affected community, within 5 days inform through mass media the venue and date of the disclosure of the documents and obtain data (oral or written).

7. The Environmental Expertise NCSO, the affected community leaders and the initiator within 30 calendar days organize the hearings and enable the public to familiarize itself with the documents. Within this period public opinion is submitted to the affected community leaders or directly to the authorized body.

8. Within 10 days after expiration of the deadline specified in paragraph 6, the leaders of affected communities submit the public opinion and their own opinions to the authorized body.

9. The Environmental Expertise NCSO will decide whether the community is a legitimate stake-holder or not.

10. After the receipt of the documents, the relevant state bodies, within 30 days, send their opinion to the Environmental Expertise NCSO.

11. If no opinion has been submitted within the established period to the Environmental Expertise NCSO, then it is considered that there is no negative opinion about the documents.

12. Within 70 days after the receipt of documents, the Environmental Expertise NCSO provides the preparation of the expert conclusion by authorized persons (Expert conclusions can be made only by authorized persons who received professional competence certificates from the authorized body. Professional competence certificates are issued to authorized persons as well as organizations. The procedure of issuance of professional competence certificates is established by the Government

Annex 10 of the Republic of Armenia). During the preparation of authorized opinions, the affected community and relevant state bodies are taken into account. To make justifications, the Environmental Expertise NCSO can extend this period but not more than for 180 days.

13. After the receipt of the expert conclusion, within 30 days, the Environmental Expertise NCSO provides the public hearings for the public opinion, the opinions of affected community leaders, and the opinions of affected communities and relevant state bodies.

14. At least 7 days prior to the event, the Environmental Expertise NCSO makes a written notification to the initiator, the provincial or community leadership, the affected communities, relevant state bodies, and authorized persons about the date and venue of the public hearings.

15. After the public hearings, within 20 days, the Environmental Expertise NCSO makes a decision on the issuance of assessment conclusion based on the expert conclusion, public discussions, and the minutes of the public hearings results.

16. The assessment conclusion is handed to the initiator at least within 120 days. If the Environmental Expertise NCSO does not hand the answer to the initiator within the established period, the assessment conclusion is considered positive.

17. The assessment conclusion is valid from the moment of issuance.

18. The assessment conclusion is null and void if the implementation of the intended activity does not begin with one year after the issuance of the assessment conclusion, after which a new assessment conclusion is necessary.

19. In case of breach of the assessment conclusion conditions during the implementation of the intended activity, the Environmental Expertise NCSO must suspend or ban the implementation of intended activity until appropriate conditions will be created for the assessment conclusion.

20. The assessment conclusion is published within 7 days with written notification of stake- holder parties. Without positive assessment conclusion, the implementation of intended activity liable to environmental impact assessment is prohibited.

All expenses related to the preparation of documents are paid by the initiator to the processor of the documents. The expenses envisaged for the issuance of the assessment conclusion are paid by the initiator, as established in the legislative procedures of the Republic of Armenia.

Annex 11

RRSP ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PLAN TEMPLATE

Identification of existing utility Completeness and Once Upon Armenia Roads infrastructure accuracy of the submission of Directorate “utilities map” detailed (ARD) design Identification of suitable sites Local utilities’ approval Once Upon ARD State for solid and hazardous waste of the sites identified submission of Environmental disposal, and earth borrow by the design detailed Inspectorate areas contractor design (SEI) 2. Construction Period

Storm-water and drainage Comparison with At least once To be started ARD runoff reconstruction design specifications every 2 months and completed before halfway point in planned reconstruction

Separation of toxic waste and Visual inspection of At least once During ARD SEI appropriate disposal of other the disposal /storage every 2 months construction, solid waste sites to be conducted in < 2 days Visual inspection of Once At the end of ARD the roadside length for the removal of all solid construction waste period, conducted in < 2 days

Measures to prevent water Visual inspection of At least once During ARD SEI pollution by work camps the work camps every 2 months construction in < 1 day

Measures to prevent soil and Visual inspection and At least once During ARD SEI landscape degradation comparison with every 2 months construction in design specifications <2 days

Inspection of work At the end of < 1 day ARD SEI camps site after its the decommissioning construction period

Measure to prevent Visual inspection At least once During ARD SEI contamination by automotive along the road every 2 months construction in fuels and lubricants alignment and in work < 1 day camps Annex 11

Mitigation Measure (see Monitoring Required Frequency Starting and Agency Agency relevant entries in EMPs) Completion Responsible Responsible Date for Monitoring for and Reporting Inspection Measures to protect roadside Inspection of any Upon request During ARD utility infrastructure damage to utility of utility owners construction, infrastructure and or local duration as records of, or reports administrations needed to, the local government

Measures to protect public Record of vehicle At least once During ARD Ministry of and contractors’ safety and accidents, injuries to every 2 months construction in Transport health drivers, passengers < 1 day and and contractors. Communicati ons (MOTC), Ministry of Health (MoH) Measure to control air Discussion with the At least once During ARD pollution and noise local administration every 2 months construction, about possible dry season, in complaints by citizens < 1 day

3. Operation Period

Measures to ensure Visual inspection of Once every 3 During the first ARD maintenance of drainage the reconstructed months year after road improvements drainage facilities commissioning in < 1 day

Measures to protect road Record of road Once a year At the end of ARD MOTC safety accidents and the first year associated injuries

Measure to improve co- Visual inspection of Twice a year Once during ARD Ministry of operation with utility and maintenance practices the irrigation Territorial irrigation infrastructure and utility season and Administration owners and operators infrastructure along once during the road winter, in < 1 day each

Annex 12

ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PLAN FOR GEGHARKUNIK MARZ

Identification of existing utility Completeness and Once in Upon Armenia Roads infrastructure accuracy of the design submission of Directorate “utilities map”, verified phase detailed design (ARD) by sample checks

Identification of suitable sites Local administration’s Once in Upon ARD State for solid and hazardous approval of the sites design submission of Environmental waste disposal, and earth identified by the design phase detailed design Inspectorate borrow areas contractor (SEI) 2. Construction Period

Storm-water and drainage Comparison with At least To be started ARD runoff reconstruction design specifications once every and completed 2 months before halfway point in planned reconstruction

Separation of toxic waste Visual inspection of the At least During ARD SEI and appropriate disposal of disposal /storage sites once every construction, to other solid waste 2 months be conducted in < 2 days Visual inspection of the Once At the end of ARD roadside length for the removal of all solid construction waste period, conducted in < 2 days

Measures to prevent water Visual inspection of the At least During ARD SEI pollution by work camps work camps once every construction in 2 months < 1 day

Measures to prevent soil and Visual inspection and At least During ARD SEI landscape degradation comparison with once every construction in design specifications 2 months <2 days Inspection of work At the end < 1 day ARD SEI camps site after its of the decommissioning construction period

Measure to prevent Visual inspection along At least During ARD SEI contamination by automotive the road alignment and once every construction in fuels and lubricants in work camps 2 months < 1 day Measures to protect roadside Inspection of any Upon During ARD utility infrastructure damage to utility request of construction, infrastructure and utility duration as Annex 12

Mitigation Measure (see Monitoring Required Frequency Starting and Agency Agency relevant entries in Completion Responsible Responsible environmental management Date for Monitoring for Inspection plans [EMPs]) and Reporting records of, or reports owners or needed to, the local local government administrati Specific to Link No. ons 2: Inspection of drinking water pipes in Mets Masrik

Measures to protect public Record of vehicle At least During ARD Ministry of and contractors’ safety and accidents, injuries to once every construction in Transport and health drivers, passengers 2 months < 1 day Communications and contractors. (MOTC), Ministry of Health (MoH) Measure to control air Discussion with the At least During ARD pollution and noise local administration once every construction, about possible 2 months dry season, in complaints by citizens < 1 day

3. Operation Period

Measures to ensure Visual inspection of the Once every During the first ARD maintenance of drainage reconstructed drainage 3 months year after road improvements facilities commissioning in < 1 day Measures to protect road Record of road Once a year At the end of ARD MOTC safety accidents and the first year associated injuries

Measure to improve co- Visual inspection of Twice a Once during ARD Ministry of operation with utility and maintenance practices year the irrigation Territorial irrigation infrastructure and utility season and Administration owners and operators infrastructure along the once during road winter, in < 1 day each

Annex 13

ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PLAN FOR ALL ROADS IN ARARAT MARZ

Mitigation Measure Monitoring Frequency Starting and Agency Agency (see relevant entries in Required Completion Responsible Responsible for environmental management Date for Monitoring Inspection plans [EMPs]) and Reporting 1. Pre-construction Period

Identification of existing Completeness and Once Upon Armenia Roads utility infrastructure accuracy of the submission of Directorate “utilities map” detailed design (ARD)

Identification of suitable Local utilities’ Once Upon ARD State sites for solid and approval of the sites submission of Environmental hazardous waste disposal, identified by the detailed design Inspectorate (SEI) and earth borrow areas design contractor

2. Construction Period

Storm-water and drainage Comparison with At least once To be started ARD runoff reconstruction design specifications every 2 and completed months before halfway point in planned reconstruction

Separation of toxic waste Visual inspection of At least once During ARD SEI and appropriate disposal of the disposal /storage every 2 construction, to other solid waste sites months be conducted in < 2 days Visual inspection of Once At the end of ARD the roadside length the for removal of all construction solid waste period, conducted in < 2 days Measures to prevent water Visual inspection of At least once During ARD SEI pollution by work camps the work camps every 2 construction in months < 1 day

Measures to prevent soil Visual inspection and At least once During ARD SEI and landscape degradation comparison with every 2 construction in design specifications months <2 days Inspection of work At the end of < 1 day ARD SEI camps site after its the decommissioning construction period

Measure to prevent Visual inspection At least once During ARD SEI contamination by along the road every 2 construction in automotive fuels and alignment and in months < 1 day lubricants work camps Measures to protect Inspection of any Upon request During ARD roadside utility infrastructure damage to utility of utility construction, infrastructure and owners or duration as Annex 13

Measures to protect public Record of vehicle At least once During ARD Ministry of and contractors’ safety and accidents, injuries to every 2 construction in Transport and health drivers, passengers months < 1 day Communications and contractors. (MOTC), Ministry of Health (MoH) Measure to control air Discussion with the At least once During ARD pollution and noise local administration every 2 construction, about possible months dry season, in complaints by < 1 day citizens

3. Operation Period

Measures to ensure Visual inspection of Once every 3 During the first ARD maintenance of drainage the reconstructed months year after road improvements drainage facilities commissioning in < 1 day

Measures to protect road Record of road Once a year At the end of ARD MOTC safety accidents and the first year associated injuries

Measure to improve co- Visual inspection of Twice a year Once during ARD Ministry of operation with utility and maintenance the irrigation Territorial irrigation infrastructure practices and utility season and Administration owners and operators infrastructure along once during the road winter, in < 1 day each

Annex 14

ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PLAN FOR ALL ROADS IN KOTAYK MARZ

Identification of existing Completeness and Once Upon submission Armenia Roads utility infrastructure accuracy of the “utilities of detailed design Directorate map” (ARD)

Identification of suitable Local utilities’ approval Once Upon submission ARD State sites for solid and of the sites identified by of detailed design Environmental hazardous waste disposal, the design contractor Inspectorate and earth borrow areas (SEI)

2. Construction Period

Storm-water and drainage Comparison with At least To be started and ARD runoff reconstruction design specifications once every completed before 2 months halfway point in planned reconstruction

Separation of toxic waste Visual inspection of the At least During ARD SEI and appropriate disposal of disposal /storage sites once every construction, to other solid waste 2 months be conducted in < 2 days Visual inspection of the Once At the end of the ARD roadside length for construction removal of all solid period, waste conducted in < 2 days

Measures to prevent water Visual inspection of the At least During ARD SEI pollution by work camps work camps once every construction in < 2 months 1 day

Measures to prevent soil Visual inspection and At least During ARD SEI and landscape degradation comparison with design once every construction in <2 specifications 2 months days

Inspection of work At the end < 1 day ARD SEI camps site after its of the decommissioning constructio n period Measure to prevent Visual inspection along At least During ARD SEI contamination by the road alignment and once every construction in < automotive fuels and in work camps 2 months 1 day lubricants

Measures to protect Inspection of any Upon During ARD roadside utility infrastructure damage to utility request of construction, infrastructure and utility duration as Annex 14

Mitigation Measure Monitoring Required Frequency Starting and Agency Agency (see relevant entries in Completion Responsible Responsible environmental management Date for Monitoring for Inspection plans [EMPs]) and Reporting records of, or reports owners or needed to, the local local government administrati ons Measures to protect public Record of vehicle At least During ARD Ministry of and contractors’ safety and accidents, injuries to once every construction in < Transport and health drivers, passengers 2 months 1 day Communications and contractors. (MOTC), Ministry of Health (MoH) Measure to control air Discussion with the At least During ARD pollution and noise local administration once every construction, dry about possible 2 months season, in < 1 complaints by citizens day

3. Operation Period

Measures to ensure Visual inspection of the Once every During the first ARD maintenance of drainage reconstructed drainage 3 months year after road improvements facilities commissioning in < 1 day

Measures to protect road Record of road Once a At the end of the ARD MOTC safety accidents and year first year associated injuries

Measure to improve co- Visual inspection of Twice a Once during the ARD Ministry of operation with utility and maintenance practices year irrigation season Territorial irrigation infrastructure and utility infrastructure and once during Administration owners and operators along the road winter, in < 1 day each