Yerevan Sustainable Urban Transport Program Tranche 1 Environmental

Home , Abovyan Street, Charbakh (Yerevan Metro), Districts of Yerevan, Getar, Karen Demirchyan, Kentron District

Environmental Assessment Report

Initial Environmental Examination for Metro Opera House Entrance Upgrade (Yeritasardakan) (Project 4)

Document Stage: Draft Project Number: 42417 July 2010

Yerevan Sustainable Urban Transport Program Tranche 1

Prepared by Municipality of Yerevan of the Republic of Armenia for the Asian Development Bank (ADB).

The initial environmental examination document is that of the borrower. The views expressed herein do not necessarily represent those of A DB’s Board of Di rectors, Management, or staff, and may be preliminary in nature.

ABBREVIATIONS ADB Asian Development Bank EA Executing Agency EARF Environmental Assessment and Review Framework EBRD European Bank for Reconstruction and Development EIA Environmental Impact Assessment EMP Environmental Management and Monitoring Plan IA Implementin g Agency IEE Initial Environmental Examination IMF International Monetary Fund IFI International financial institution IUCN International Union for Conservation of Nature LARP Land Acquisition and Resettlement Plan Master Plan Yerevan City Master Plan, Vol.5, 2004 MNP Ministry of Nature Protection MOC Ministry of Culture MFF Multi-tranche Financing Facility NO Nitrog en Oxide

NO2 Nitrog en Dioxide NPE Nature Protection Expertise NGO Non -governmental organization PIU Project Implementation Unit PPMU Program Preparation and Management Unit PPTA Project Preparatory Technical Assistance RAMSAR Ramsar Convention on Wetlands RA Republic of Armenia REA Rapid Environmental Assessment SEI State Environmental Inspectorate SNCO State Non-commercial Organization

SO2 Sulfur Dioxide UNESCO United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization

WEIGHTS AND MEASURES dBA deci bel (A-weighted) km kilomet er(s) km2 squ are kilometer(s) m meter(s) mg/m3 milligram(s) per cubic meter

GLOSSARY Khachkar Cross-bearing carved memorial fragments Marshrutka Minibu s Metro Yerevan subway system after Karen Demirchyan CJSC

NOTE In this report, "$" refers to US dollars.

In preparing any cou ntry program or strategy, financing any proj ect, or by making any de signation of or reference to a particular territory or geographic area in this document, the Asian Development Bank does not intend to make any judgments as to the legal or other status of any territory or area.

CONTENTS Page ISSUE AND REVISION RECORD ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED. I. INTRODUCTION 1 A. Project Background and Purpose of Report 1 1. Project Background 1 2. The Project 2 B. IEE Report Outline and Methodology 2 C. Armenian and ADB Environmental Assessment Requirements 3 1. Armenian Laws Governing Environmental Management and Assessment 3 2. ADB Environmental Assessment Requirements 4 D. Extent of the IEE Study 5 II. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT 5 A. Type of Project 5 B. Project Location 5 C. Magnitude of Operation 6 D. Project Description 6 E. Alternatives to the Proposed Project 7 III. DESCRIPTION OF THE ENVIRONMENT – BASELINE 8 A. Physical Resources 8 1. Air Quality and Climate 8 2. Surface and Groundwater 9 3. Topography, Soils, Geology and Seismology 9 B. Ecological Resources 9 C. Economic Development 11 D. Social and Cultural Resources 11 IV. SCREENING OF POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION 13 A. Environmental Parameters that may be Impacted 13 B. Impacts Due to Location 13 C. Impacts Related to Design 14 D. Impacts During Construction 14 1. Site Preparation Activities 15 2. Excavation and Vehicle Movements 15 3. Traffic Movements on Public Roads and Altered Access 17 4. Solid and Liquid Waste Generation 17 5. Site Reinstatement 17 6. Summary of Construction Impact 18 E. Impacts Related to Operations 18 F. Cumulative Environmental Effects 18 V. ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT AND MONITORING PLAN 19 A. Environmental Management Plan 19 B. Environmental Monitoring Plan 37 C. Institutional Arrangements and Responsibilities 43 1. Institutional Arrangements 43 2. Responsibilities 43 3. Recommended Environmental and Social Safeguard Clauses for Civil Works Contracts Error! Bookmark not defined. D. Cost of Implementation 45 VI. CONSULTATION AND INFORMATION DISCLOSURE 45 A. Stakeholder Meetings 45 B. Public Consultation 45 C. Information Disclosed 46 D. Future Consultation 46

VII. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 46 VIII. CONCLUSIONS 47 IX. REFERENCES 48

APPENDIXES 1. Rapid Environmental Assessment (REA) – Urban Development 2. Ecological investigation 3. Archaeological investigation 4. Consultation meeting advertisement and attendance sheets

Figure 1: Armenia showing the location of Yerevan

Yerevan

Figure 2: Map of Yerevan showing program project locations

Project 1 - Davitashen Bridge to Ashtarak Highway Road Link

Project 4 - Metro Opera House Entrance Upgrade Project 2 - (Yeritasardakan) Argavand Highway to Shirak Street Road Link

Project 3 - Shirak Street to Artashat Highway Road Link

Source: Municipality of Yerevan Master Plan (2004)

Figure 3: Locality map

Project site

Source: Collage (2001)

Figure 4: Indicative project layout

I. INTRODUCTION

A. Project Background and Purpose of Report

1. The Republic of Armeni a is a landlocked count ry between the Black and the Cas pian Seas, bordered on the n orth by Georgia, to the east by Aze rbaijan, on the south by Iran, and to the west by Turkey as shown in Figure 1. Yerevan covers an area of 260km2 extending 18km north-south and 16km e ast-west with the centre and the so uth of the city at a lower geographic level.

1. Project Background

2. Like other New Independent States of the former Soviet Uni on, Armenia's economy still suffers from the lega cy of a centrally planned economy and the brea kdown of fo rmer Sovie t trading net works. Investment from these states in support of Armenian industry h as virtually disappeared, and consequently few major enterprises are st ill able to function. The structure of Armenia's economy has changed substantially since 1991 , with sector s such as construction and services replacing agriculture and industry as the main contributors to the economic growth. Other industrial se ctors driving industrial gr owth includ e energy, metallurgy, and food processing.

3 The Metro, Yerevan Metro after Karen Demirchyan CJSC, opened in 1981 and was constructed to high technical standards but has received little funding fo r the last 15 years and is now in a generally poor condition. Given high operating costs and need for capital investment, efforts are needed to significantly increase ridership on the system.

4. The single north-south line of 12.1km run s from Barekamutyun-Garegin Nz hdehi Hraparak, with a shuttle service from Sheng avit to Cha rbakh. There are 10 stations, eigh t underground and at deep level at the northern section of the system. Th e Metro was constructed at a time when people primarily lived to the north of the City an d worked in industries located to the south. The system was originally designed wit h a capacity at stations for five car trains.

3. From the beginning of the 1990’s public transport demand has generally been falling due to general economic decline in the region. Due to the changing demographics and the reduction of employment in the s outhern suburbs after the fall of th e USSR, th e demand f or travel b y Metro fell d ramatically in the early 1990’s. This fall has been exacerb ated by the increased competition from minibu ses (marshrutka). However, towards the end of the decade passenger demand by public transport started to increa se. The growth of econo mic activity and growing household disposable incomes, improve ments in the r oad network, greater access to international air travel a nd public transportation after 1990 are among t he main rea sons of the increasing use of public transport.

4. From the mid 1990’s private businesses have been encouraged by the Government of Armenia to support improvements of public tra nsport. Private businesses mostly operate with buses and minibuses which are more flexible and less costly from both a capital and operational perspective. They run new routes which complement but also comp ete with the Metro and trolleybus routes in order to increase thei r share of public demand. This has substantia lly improved accessibility to public transport but has increased congestion and air pollution and has resulted in a decline in the use of the Metro and trolleybuses.

5. Steady economic progr ess ha s ear ned Armenia increa sing support from international institutions. The International Monetary Fu nd (IMF), World Bank, European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD), as well as other internation al financia l institutions (IFIs) and foreign countries are extending con siderable gr ants and loans. These loans are targeted at reducing th e budget d eficit; stabilizing the local currency; and develo ping private businesses related to energy, a griculture, f ood processing, transp ortation, and health and education sectors. In D ecember 2005, the U.S. Millennium Challenge Corporation approved a 5-year $235 million Compact (a multi-year agreem ent) with the Government of Armenia, which was to focus on rehabilitation o f irrigation networks and upgrading of rural transport infrastructure.

2. The Project

6. During 2007, the Municipality of Yerevan worked with the World Bank on the public transport network, traffic management, parking, and ticketing systems, and has s et relevant objectives. The Asian Developme nt Bank (ADB) is now working with Govern ment of Arme nia and the Municipality to address some of the objectives by improving municipal infrastructure and reducing ro ad transport ation constr aints on e conomic activity. The program aims to promote efficient an d effective urban transport services, with incentives and capacity to improve the quality, reliability, accessibility, affordability, integration, and coverage of transport services. The Yerevan Sustainable Urban Transport Program has been d eveloped and is to be fu nded by the ADB under a Multi-tranche Financi ng Facility (MFF) Investment Program. The fo ur proposed engineering projects under Tranche 1 of the Program, as shown in Figure 2, are:

(i) Project 1 - Davitashen Bridge to Ashtarak Highway Road Link; (ii) Project 2 - Argavand Highway to Shirak Street Road Link; (iii) Project 3 - Shirak Street to Artashat Highway Road Link; and (iv) Project 4 - Metro Opera House Entrance Upgrade (Yeritasardakan).

7. The three road projects will complete the missing road links of the Yerevan west byp ass to divert through-traffic around the City centre.

11 This report presents the findings of an Initial Environmental Examination (IEE) of Project 4 to provide an additional Metro entrance at Yeritasard akan. Passenger journ ey growth i s expected to be approximately 8,00 0 passenge rs per day one year after opening, providing a reduction in journey time for passengers alighting close to the Opera House and commercial areas of the City.

B. IEE Report Outline and Methodology

8. This Initia l Environme ntal Exami nation (IEE) report co mprises the following key components:

(i) Description of the project; (ii) Description of the environment; (iii) Screening of the potential environmental impacts and mitigation; (iv) Environmental Management and Monitoring Plan (EMP); (v) Public consultation and information disclosure; and (vi) Findings, recommendation, and con clusion on whether there is a ne ed for a full EIA.

9. The study has been undertaken in accord ance with the ADB’s Safeguard Policy Statement (2009), Environmental Assessment Guidelines (2003) and Armenia: Yerevan Sustainable Urban Transport Program Environmental Assessment and Review Framework (March 2010). Internationally reco gnized st andards and guidelines have provid ed guidance where local standards are not ava ilable and/o r where ref erred to by the ADB o n particula r environmental aspects. This inclu des World Bank’s Pollution Prevention and Abatement Handbook (1998) and Environment, Health, and Safety General Guidelines (2007).

10. Baseline da ta and other information were obt ained from published a nd unpublished sources in cluding climat e, topography, geology and soils, natural reso urces, flora and fauna, and socio-e conomic data. The Yerevan Cit y Master Plan (Vol.5, (20 04) (Master Plan) is a primary source of baseline data, and has been s upplemented by other information sources and specialist studies.

11. Site inspections were conducted by the International Environment Specialist an d National Environment Specialist during January, February, and March 2010. .

12. Meetings were held with stakehold er authoritie s to discuss the relevant environme ntal aspects of t he project, obtain infor mation and gauge any specific environmental concerns. A consultation event was held to pr esent the p roject to th e public an d allow opportunity for comment. Refer to Section VI of this report for further detail on consultation activities.

C. Armenian and ADB Environmental Assessment Requirements

13. This environmental assessment has been undertaken to satisfy both the ADB and Republic of Armenia requirements with r egard to environmental protection and management. This IEE has been prepared in English as a safeguard requirement of ADB and a separate EIA report in has been prepared in Armenian language.

1. Armenian Laws Governing Environmental Management and Assessment

14. After Arme nia gained its indepe ndence in 1991, the deteriorating environme ntal condition of the country became mo re apparent and, as environmental concerns became hig h priority political issue s, the process of developm ent of en vironmental legislation w as initiated. The 10th Ar ticle of the Constitution of the Rep ublic of Armenia (passe d in 1995) outlines the State responsibility for environment al protectio n, reproduct ion, and use of natural resources. Some 33 rel evant national laws have been prom ulgated to protect the environment . There are two main laws administered by the Ministry of Nature Protection (MNP):

(i) Law on the Principles of Environmental Protection (1991); and (ii) Law on Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) (1995).

Law on the Principles of Environmental Protection (1991)

15. The Law on the Principles of Environmental Protection (1991) outlines the environmental protection p olicy of the Republic of Armenia. Its purpose is to ensure state regulation of environmental protection and use within the territory of the Republic. It provides a legal basis for the development of en vironmental legislation regulating the protection an d use of forest, water, flora and fa una, and th e atmosphere. This law also grant s every citizen the rig ht to obtain reliable information on environmental conditions.

Law on Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) (1995)

16. The Law on Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) (1995) contains the standard steps of the EIA p rocess for various proje cts and activities in Armenia. It establishes, in Articles 2-5 , the general legal, economic, and organizational principles for conducting mandatory state EIA of various types of proje cts and “con cepts” of se ctoral development, which include s construction and infrastructure. The law forbids any economic unit to operate or any concept, program, plan or master plan to be implemented without a positive conclusion of an EIA. This right was given to local authorities, ministries, local communities, and nongovernmental organizations in Article 4. The MNP can initiate a review of environmental impact when it deems it to be necessary. The EIA Law specifies notification, documentation, public consultations, and appeal procedures and requirements (Articles 6-11).

17. The key departments within the MNP that have administrative authority over EIA and the project approval process are two State Non-commercial Organizations (SNCOs):

(i) The SNCO Nature Prot ection Expertise (NPE) is responsible for reviewing and approving EIA reports and project s for implementation and adding conditions when necessary to protect the environment; and (ii) The SNCO State Environmental Inspectorate (S EI) is respo nsible for inspecting projects to ensure compliance with conditions imposed by the NPE and with the project EMP.

18. The EIA process and the SEI’s power to inspect are the principal tools used by the MNP to achieve compliance with environmental protection principles.

19. To satisfy r elevant regulations an d to gain p roject appro val of the MNP, an EI A, in accordance with the Law on Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) (1995), has been prepared. The MNP EIA will have similar, if not identical, requirements as the ADB IEE.

Other Relevant Environmental Legislation

20. Other pieces of pertinent environmental legislation have also been considered during the assessment, which includes spe cially protect ed natural areas, air protection, cultural and historical monuments, flora, fauna, water use, seismic defense, waste, hygiene, a nd workers’ protection.

21. The Republic of Armen ia has also signed and ratified International Conventions and Protocols on environmental protection.

2. ADB Environmental Assessment Requirements

22. ADB’s Safeguard Policy Statement (2009) se ts the requ irements of environme ntal assessment for all proje cts supported by the ADB. At an early stage of project prepa ration, the policy requires that the project’s p otential risks and their signif icance be identif ied and in consultation with stakeholders. If potentially adverse environmental impacts and risks are identified, a n environmental assessment must be undert aken as e arly as po ssible. The assessment should consider all phases of the project including construction and operation, and impacts should be prevented where possible or mitigation be recommended.

23. Under the ADB’s Environmental Assessment Guidelines (2003), preliminary assessment of Project 1 was undertaken through a Rapid Environmental Assessment (REA) c hecklist for ‘urban development’ (see Appendix 1). The assessment indicates an en vironment category ‘B’ which mean s that impa cts that ma y arise fro m the imple mentation of all the components will generally be minor and measures to mitigate them will be provided and instit uted without difficulty. The Safeguard Policy requires that risks and p otential impacts be identified and reported in an IEE report.

D. Extent of the IEE Study

24. The IEE st udy for the project wa s carried out by the Project Preparatory Tec hnical Assistance (PPTA) consultants in accordance with ADB guidance , and where relevan t environmental policies and guidelines of the Governme nt of Armenia were n ot available , international guidance. Environment Specialists of the PPTA consultants visited the sub-project site and also carried ou t public consultation prior to preparation of this report. The IEE involved the following activities:

(i) Gathering of baseline information on the physical, biological, and socio-economic environment of the project area and understanding the technical, so cial, and institutional aspects; (ii) Field visits; (iii) Discussions with officers of the relevant agencies; (iv) Public consultation; (v) Screening of potential issues, concerns, and impacts relative to location, design, construction, and operation to distinguish those that are likely to be significant and warrant further study; (vi) Preparing an EMP indicating impact areas, recommended mitigation measures, method of monitoring the impacts, responsible agencies/persons, and associated costs; and (vii) Proposing the institutional set-up for implementation of the EMP.

25. Findings of site recon naissance, technical d escriptions based on t he enginee ring designs, an d outcomes of discussions with officers of the relevant ag encies and the general public are integrated into this IEE report.

II. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT

A. Type of Project

26. This is a Multi-tranche Fi nancing Facility (MFF) Investment Program. This IEE assesses the fourth proposed project (Project 4) of the first tranche of the MFF.

B. Project Location

27. The project site is loca ted in Arme nia’s capital of Yerevan , in the Kentron district, as shown in Figure 3. The site is lo cated on the corner of Sayat-Nova Ave nue and Abovian Street in Yerevan’s City centr e. The oper ational site is lo cated b eneath a p arcel of lan d reportedly owned by the Catholic Church 1. Remnants of an existin g church, t he Saint Astvatsatsin Katoghike church, a small single storey structur e with a footprint of approximate ly 5x7 m, is

1 As advised by Ashot Mnatsakanyan, Advisor to the Mayor, during meeting dated 11/02/10.

6 located towards the centre of the p arcel of land and will be retained. At ground level the site is crossed by a local access road and part of a small public park located between two residentia l apartment blocks (refer to Figure 4). The project was identified and designed in the 1980’s and is included on the Master Plan.

C. Magnitude of Operation

28. This second Metro entrance is expected to gain an additional 8,000 rail passengers per day one ye ar after opening. The e ntrance will link up with the existing Yeritasardakan subway station; and an area to the south where an underground car parking facility has been propose d as a separate project.

D. Project Description

29. The project comprises stairway entrances at street le vel on the corners of the intersection of Abovian Street and Sayat-Nova Avenue. On entering the metro, pa ssengers will descend 2. 5m below g round level by stairs to a new cut and cover passageway which will connect into the existin g metro station. The n ew passage way will also permit access to the underground car parki ng facility, should it b e construct ed in the f uture. The passageway comprises the following four elements, which are illustrated in Figure 4:

(i) A retail and ticketing hall (approximately 42m x 12m) at the southern extent of the site, at a depth of approximately 2.5m below the existing ground level; (ii) A pedestrian tunnel (approximatel y 50m long x 7 m wide ) connectin g the retail hall to the escalator h all, at a depth of approximately 2.5m below t he existing ground level; (iii) An escalator hall (approximately 18m x 15m) at the norther n extent of the site, at a depth of approximately 2.5m below the existing ground level; and (iv) An escalator shaft (approximately 4 0m long), which will con nect the new cut and cover passageway to the existing running tu nnels and platforms which lie approximately 23m below ground level.

30. The works include insta llation of th e flooring, walls, ceilin g, and other infrastruct ure; providing cover to form the new ground surface; and internal area finishing.

31. Excavation activities will be at a sa fe distance from the edge of the existing chur ch to prevent da mage to the church duri ng construction, and other measures includin g sheet pilin g will be in e mployed to minimize the risk of se ttlement/movement of th e existing structure. The church will be monitored with external and internal structur al move ment monitors to provid e information of any settlement or movement of the structure.

32. Construction of the escalator shaft incl udes excavation to a depth of approximately 23m below ground surface. T he sides of the excavations will be shored to minimize the risk of land slippage. Construction includes installation of tunnel lining and support, escalators, ventilation, and internal finishings and lighting.

33. The Catholic Church is planning to construct a new church and asso ciated seminary buildings on this site at ground level above the proposed facilities which will be co nstructed as part of the Metro entrance project. Due to the proposed construction methodology for Project 4, involving excavation rather than tunneling, the re is urgency for Project 4 to be completed to

7 allow the developer to begin constru ction of the church. Design of the section passing beneath the new church includes suitable reinforcement to serve as part of the church foundation.

34. Site-preparation activities include:

(i) Installing a gated security fence around the site; (ii) Identification and protection or relocation of e xisting above and below groun d utilities, including a small electri cal substation t owards the north of the site that will be relocated; (iii) Establishing a construct ion compound containin g worker faciliti es which woul d likely be located in the churchyard; and (iv) Establishing wheel-wash facilities for vehicles leaving the site during th e excavation phase of the project.

35. During con struction, a ccess will be maintain ed to the Saint Astvatsatsin Kato ghike church for worshippers and other visitors. The Catholic C hurch and others will be consu lted prior to and during const ruction to identify the most appropriate solution for the timing of certain construction activities.

36. Elements of the constru ction phase will be pla nned to occur during ni ght-time periods when the existing Metro services are not running. It is likely that all construction work accessing the existing platform will be condu cted during night time periods to avoid disruption to rail operations.

37. It is expected that construction will begin in 2011 and will be undertaken over a period of up to two years, which includes excavation act ivities over an approximate three month period. Excavation should be scheduled to be undertaken during the dry seas on, which is over July t o September, to avoid run-off from the site.

E. Alternatives to the Proposed Project

38. The ADB’s Environmental Assessment Guidelines (2003) requires consideration of feasible alternatives to the project in terms of project locat ion and design allowing measures to be proposed to avoid or prevent potential environmental impacts.

39. Consideration had been given to a n alternative metro access point via Abovian St reet near the sid e street bordering the north of the church site. This option was ruled o ut as b eing less acceptable as additional land take would be required during the construction phase.

40. The alternative construction methodology would be to tunnel, rather than excavate, the three shallow sections of the passageway. Mobilizing the tunnel boring machine wi ll result in a considerably wider footprint at t he entry and exit points, greater technica l difficulty an d significantly higher cost. This option is not considered practicable.

41. There are no practicable alter natives in terms of location, de sign, const ruction methodology, and social and enviro nmental impacts. The no-go option is not considered viable as capacity will be constrained as patronage of the station entrance increases over time as initiatives are introduced to promote a shift to public transport use.

III. DESCRIPTION OF THE ENVIRONMENT – BASELINE

A. Physical Resources

1. Air Quality and Climate

42. Yerevan experiences a continental climate 2, wit h hot and d ry summers and moderate cold winters with unstable snow coverage. The average annual air temperature is 1 2.5oC, whilst the average low is -3.5 oC in Janua ry and the average high of 25.7 oC is in July. Humidity is generally low with 45%-49% in Summer and 75%-79% in Winter. Average annual precipitation is 291mm, with the highest level in Ma y at 45 mm, and th e lowest in August at only 8mm.Th e prevailing wind direction is north-east.

43. Yerevan is surrounded by mountai ns on thr ee sides which does not allow for natural dispersion of pollutants in the atmosphere, ther eby resulting in high concentrations in the a ir. The main source of air pollutants ar e emissions arising from automobil es which is exacerbated by a congested road net work. It is e stimated in t he Master Plan that app roximately 95% of the pollutants in the air are the result of transport emissions.

44. In addition t o pollution caused by vehicle em issions, a significant pro portion of d ust is present in the atmosphere. This is largely due to extensive deforestation which has occurred in the region in close prox imity to the City borders. These larg e areas of a rid landscape produce significant dust during the dry summer months.

45. Table III.1 shows the measured co ncentrations of dust, su lfur dioxide, nitrogen dio xide and nitrogen oxide from a monitoring station on Nalbandyan Street less than 500m north east of the site. Th e table compares the maximu m permissible concentration (MPC) of air pollutant s based on the Armenian standard Maximum Permissible Concentration (MPC) for Ambient Air in Human Settlements. Ba sed on the annual average measured, the table indicate s that annual average of each pollutant exceeds the respective MPC.

Table III.1: Maximum Permissible Concentration of Air Pollutants and Measured Concentrations

Annual average measured at monitoring station N7 Maximum permissible – Nalbandyan Street 2007-20091 concentration2

Pollutant TOTAL Maximum Daily 2007 2008 2009 AVERAGE single medium 2007 - 2009 event

Dust 0.23 0.26 0.16 0.22 0.5 0.15

Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) 0.07 0.06 0.05 0.06 0.5 0.05

Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) 0.112 0.092 0.106 0.103 0.085 0.04 Nitrogen Oxide (NO) 0.06 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.4 0.06 1 Data supplied by L Margaryan of the Environmental Impact Monitoring Centre, dated 24/03/10. 2 Maximum Permissible Concentration (MPC) for Ambient Air in Human Settlements, Rep ublic of Arme nia government decision N160-N, 02.02.2006.

2 Weather results from the Erebuni monitoring station, north of the site.

46. Yerevan also experiences a high concentra tion of ground o zone, especially in summer, which results in the developmen t of a pho tochemical smog as a result of Yerevan’s geographical location and emissions from transport.

47. According to the Master Plan, the City is designated a ‘moderate air pollution’ zone3 with respect to air quality.

2. Surface and Groundwater

48. The Hrazdan River is on the western side of th e City centre approximately 1.5km from the site. The Hrazdan River begins from the Lake Sevan and is fed by snow-melt, subterranean springs, and precipitation. The Geta r River, a tri butary to th e Hrazdan River, is ap proximately 400m east of the site flowing in a north-south direction. T hrough the City the Getar River is mostly covered. The river is ephemeral serving mainly as flood control. Roads surr ounding the site include street drainage which leads to centralized sewers.

49. The groundwater level of the existing Yeritasardakan station is reportedly a t approximately 23m4.

50. There is a low risk of flood in the vi cinity of the project site. The Hrazdan River is hi ghly regulated to control flood risk.

3. Topography, Soils, Geology and Seismology

51. Yerevan City and the adjacent regions are located in a seismic area and are consid ered to have a high degree of seismic risk along existing fault lines. Earthquakes in th e area can reach up to the magnitude of 9 and above on the Richter scale. There was a serious earthquake in 1988 in the north of the country, measuring 6.9 on the Richter scale, which led to a large loss of life.

52. The basic underlying geology of the project site co mprises of alluvial-proluvial sediments.

53. The soil ar ound the small electrical substa tion is a ssumed to be contaminated with transformer oils containing polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs).

B. Ecological Resources

54. In Armenia the Law on Flora and the Law on Fauna set out policies for the conservation, protection, use, regene ration, and managemen t of natural populations of plants an d animals, and for regulating the impact of human activities on biodiversity. The Armenian Red Book has been developed which lists all rar e and vani shing species that need to be pro tected. The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) has developed an IUCN Red Data Book and the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species, the latter of which highlights those plants and

3 Accor ding t o the Master Plan, th e City is s eparated to t wo a ir quality zones, ‘ moderate air pollution’ an d ‘permissible air pollution’. The zone classification is based on a pollution index calculation of parameters including nitrogen oxide, carbon oxide and dust, and takes into account of exceedance of MPCs, harmfulness, and other aspects. T he method ology i s base d o n ‘M ethodical gu idelines of s anitary sup ervision in t he re gional planning’ (USSR, 1990). 4 Based on discussion with Mr Yayloyan, Yerevan Metropolitan, 25 March 2010.

10 animals tha t are facin g a higher risk of g lobal extinct ion, therefo re listed a s crit ically endangered, endangered or vulnerable).

55. An investigation was undertaken by an ecologist in March a nd April 2010 to identify any protected species and the potential impact from the project on them (see Appendix 2).

56. Yerevan is located in a semi-desert landscape zone. In general, Yerevan contains the following flora and fauna types:

(i) Plants - 900 types of vascular plants, 15 are included in the Armenian Red Book, among them one endemic species is included on the IUCN Red List. (ii) Mammals - 25 species, three are in cluded in the Armenian Red Book, 5 are on the IUCN Red List. The City area is widely po pulated by undesirable species, such as grey rats and the house mouse. (iii) Birds – about 170 species, 29 are registered in the Armenian Red Book. At least 100 types, of which 15 are included in the Armenian Red Book, build nests. Birds are also regularly present during seasonal migration, wintering and feeding time. The most numerous are synanthropic types, such as the sparrow, grey crow, magpie, rock pigeon (including feral pigeon) and Eurasian Collared Dove. (iv) Reptiles - 25 species, five are included in the Armenian Red Book. (v) Amphibians - the Syri an spade-footed Toad (Pelobates syriacus), list ed in the Armenian Red Book, is likely to have disappeared due to l andscape alteration and alterations to water reservoir flows. (vi) Invertebrates – there a re many throughout Yerevan. The most investigated are beetles: about 700 kno wn species, most of which are end emic to Armenia an d some endemic to Yerevan. Kno wn insect species include 60 fly species (dipterans); 40 wasp, bee and ant specie s (hymenopt erans); 130 butterfly species; be tween 10 to 20 types of grassho pper, cricke t and locu st specie s (orthoptera); spiders; sn ails (molluscs); and about 30 type s of gnawing beetle and tick species. (vii) Fish – ten species are registered in the rivers Hrazdan and Getar.

57. The project site is lo cated in a highly modified built-up urban area. The site cont ains hard-surfaced areas (f ootpath and roads), bar e soil, and patchy grass cover. Pla nted mature trees line th e footpaths along Abovian Street and Sayat-Nova Avenue and there are a few mature trees within the churchyard. Few mature and semi-mature tree s are within the park just north of the project site. The invest igation iden tified approximately 10 protected tre es, all of which are the Eastern Platan ( Platanus orientalis) species, which are lo cated between the road and pedestrian path of Abovyan Street and Sayat Nova Avenue. The Eastern Platan species is listed in the Armenian Data Red Book which means that affecting th e growth, and certainly removal, of species is p rohibited un der Armenian legislatio n. This spe cies is a lso considere d culturally important in Armenia. The Eastern Pl atan is not listed in the IUCN’s Red List of Threatened Species.

58. The Master Plan identifies natural biodiversity sites in the vicinity of the project site which contain registered species that nee d special protection (i.e., registered in Armenian Red Book, Armenian endemic and/or original ecosystems). The clo sest such sit e is the Hrazdan River Canyon approximately 1.5km west of the project site where three bat species, 20 bird species, one snake species, an d six plant specie s w ere recorde d. The Master Plan also identifies locations of special significance for t he protection of rare ba ts. The Children Railway Tunnels, located app roximately 1 .5km north-west of the project site is recorded to contain the Greater

Horseshoe Bat (Rhinolophus ferrumequinum). Both sites are at a distance far enough from th e project site as to warrant no further consideration.

C. Economic Development

59. The site is located in the central business, commercial, and entertainment districts of Yerevan Cit y, within the Municipalit y district of Kentron. In the vicinity are the Nord business centre and other high and medium-rise building s; hotels; the Grand Opera house; a children’s museum an d a puppet theatre; North Avenu e shopping area and other popular shopping streets; and a universit y (music conservatory). Sayat-No va Avenue and Abovian Streets are busy with road and pedestrian traffic.

60. Immediately surrounding the site are multi-storey buildings, some of which are separated by roads. To the north-east and no rth-west are medium to high-rise residential blocks. To the south and west are buildings containing business and commercial premises on the lower floors and mostly residential apartments on the upper floors.

61. A small ele ctrical subst ation is lo cated within the site w hich provid es ele ctricity for trolleybuses. Other utiliti es that may be affected by construction act ivities, including electricity, communications, water, and sewage within or n ear the site will be conf irmed through a survey undertaken by the Contractor prior to construction.

D. Social and Cultural Resources

62. In 2001-20 06 34.3% o f the Armenian popula tion lived w ithin Yerevan’s 12 d istricts. Following in dependence in 1991 and the sub sequent economic decline, the po pulation had fallen mainly as a consequence of labor migrati on, a decreased birth rate, and a slight increase in the morta lity; which has since led to a static population in Yerevan. Statistically 28% of the population in Yerevan is categorized as below the UNDP poverty line. Poverty reduction targets aim to decrease the percentage of classified poor in Yerevan to a target figure of 2.6% by 2021.

63. Overall employment h as stagnate d although the economic recovery has led to an increase in employment sectors benefiting fro m foreign in vestment. T his rate has fallen from 10.1% in 2003 to 6.5% in 2008 in Yerevan, but the unemployment rate remains high and officia l figures may underestimate the true situation. According to ho usehold surveys carried out by the National Statistica l Ser vice of the Republic of Armenia (NSS, 2001), the unemployment ra te exceeds 30%.

64. The district of Kentron covers an a rea of 14.2 9km2. Based on 2009 census data, the district population was 1 30,800 residents; however, the business district attracts da ily workers from other district s wit hin Yerevan and beyond. Kentron is well serviced by healthcare and educational facilities.

65. Built in 198 1, the Metro line is op erational from Barekamutiun to the n orth through the City centre to the south- west industrial suburbs at Garegin Nazhdeh Square with a total of 10 stations. There is a one stop branch that runs f rom Shengavit to Charbakh where t he depot is located. Trains run every 3.5 minutes in the peak and every 5.5 minutes off peak. There are 1 4 2-car trains in operation on Monday to Satur day and 13 on Sundays. An estimated 18.9 million passengers traveled on the Metro during 2008.

66. The existing underground Metro entrance to Yeritasardakan statio n is on Ishakayan Street approximately 3 00m north-east of the project site. Other public tran sport modes tha t service the area include minibuses ( marshrutka), buses, an d trolleybuses. A shelter ed bus sto p is located on Sayat Nova Avenue just west of the site.

67. The parcel of land on which the sou thern portion of the project area is located is o wned by the Catholic Church. The existin g S. Astvatsa tsin (Mother of God) Katoghike church is the only building on this land and was constructed in the 13th century (refer to report in Appendix 3). The church is listed on the Ministry of Culture (MOC) list of protected sites of Yerevan (inventory number 73). Originally a monastic complex e xisted at the site; however, it was destroyed in th e 1679 earthq uake and a new basilica was constructed arou nd the stan ding church . In 1936 , destruction of the basilica began to make way for urban development, and the older church was discovered. It was decid ed to retain the church. Construction activities in the vicinit y in of the project site in the Soviet period are known to have uncovered chance finds of pottery, mud-brick constructions, and khachkar (cro ss-bearing carved me morial fragments). Cultu ral remains associated with the site are from at least three different periods:

(i) Developed medieval period (13 th to 17 th centuries), when t he monastic comple x was functioning; (ii) Late Medieval Period (17 th to 19 th centuries) , when the new basilica was functioning, (iii) First half of the 20th century, when the basilica was destroyed and removed.

68. Other than the existing church, proj ect construction activities will not affect any cultural heritage or archaeological sites de signated by UNESCO or the Ministry of Culture (MOC). The Master Plan indicates that there are several protected historical cultural monuments in the area, with the closest to the site being the Opera House (approximately 300m west) and building s on Abovian Street (approximately 300m south west). Other Soviet-era and pre-Soviet era building s are also in the vicinity of the project site but are not protected.

69. To the nort h of the site is a n open public space between t he apartment buildings. The park contai ns basic re creational f acilities incl uding a small picni c area and sma ll open sports court.

70. Currently, the dominant noise sou rce in Yere van is associated wit h transport ation (approximately 90%). The project site is exposed to noise from road traf fic; nearby construction activities; and urban street activitie s. The Master Plan records that baseline noise level along Abovian Street between Moskovian Street and Tumanian Street varies b etween 62-72dBA; and along Sayat-Nova Avenue between Teryan Street and Abovian Street levels are 69-72dBA. This is compared to Armenian standards that limit maximum permissible noise to 55dBA during the day (7a.m. to 10p.m.) a nd 45dBA during the night (from 10p.m. to 7a.m.) (see Table III.2). This indicates that baseline noise levels near the pr oject site ar e already near or above maxi mum permissible levels.

Table III.2 Maximum Permissible Noise Levels1

Level of noise LA and Time Maximum level of Receptor level of equivalent (hours) noise LAMax dBA noise LAeq dBA

Close territori es of a partment buildi ngs, 06.00 – 55 70 policlinics, dis pensaries, r est ho mes, 22.00 boarding ho uses, ho me for senior or disabled citizens, presch ools, sch ools 22.00 – 45 60 and oth er edu cational institutio ns, 06.00 libraries 1 Source: M inistry of Health, Republic of Ar menia, Order N138, 6 M arch, 2002, Order on adoption of N2-III-11.3 sanitary norms "Noise in workplaces, apartment and public buildings, territories of urban construction"

IV. SCREENING OF POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION

A. Environmental Parameters that may be Impacted

71. There are likely to be both beneficial and adverse impac ts associa ted with Proje ct 4, including:

(i) Physical environment – air quality, water and soil; (ii) Ecological resources – vegetation; (iii) Economic development – commerce, City roads and public transport; and (iv) Social and cultural – n oise; human health and safety; inco me and employment ; cultural, archaeological and historical sites; and built environment.

72. The potential issue s, concerns a nd/or impacts relative to locatio n, design, an d construction and operat ion phases of the project are outlined below. T he significa nce of any impact and need for mitigation o r opportunit y for enhan cement are also discu ssed be low. Detailed mitigation measures are included in Section V.

B. Impacts Due to Location

73. All the Metr o station s o n the netwo rk were pla nned to hav e two entra nces ea ch f rom street level to platform level when t he Metro was first con ceived. In practice, all st ations on the Metro were constructed with one access point only.

74. The purpose of the project is to provide an additional entrance to the metro station which will improve access and encourage additional p atronage on this transport mode. In conjunction with a number of public transport system improvements under the Yere van Sustainable Urban Transport Program, this will lead to improved air quality by reducing road traffic congestion.

75. The parcel of land on which the project area is based is reportedly owned by t he Catholic Church. The existing church is the only building on this land. The preliminary archaeological investigation undertaken for the site indicates that ther e is pote ntial for chan ce- finds to be uncovered during excavation, so MO C requirements mu st be strictly observed to ensure safe recovery of any find.

76. No part of the project passes thro ugh or near any designated ecolog ically sensitive areas, designated wildlife or other sanctuary, national park, botanical garden, nor area of international significance (e.g., IUCN, RAMSAR si te). Other than the small church on the site where protection measures will be implemented during construct ion to prevent material damage, the project is not located near any cultural heritage or archaeological sites designated by UNESCO or the MOC. Based on this, the project will not impact any sensitive areas.

77. The current project design includes removal of up to 10 non-protected mature tree s and a number of juvenile to semi-mature trees across the site. N one of these trees are listed in the Armenian Red Book, and are therefore not protected under Armenian law.

78. Six mature Eastern Platan trees are also locate d along Abovian Street and Sayat-Nova Avenue between the road and pedestrian path , however t hese are list ed in the Armenian Red Book and therefore affecting the g rowth of these trees is understood to be prohib ited. These protected trees will not be removed however excavation will likely be close to or within their root zone which ma y affect result in af fecting the growth. Further investigation by a specialist is required to review the design and identify any potential impact. If required, it is expected that the Municipality of Yerevan and the MNP will come to an agreement by way of a specific exemption from the law that protects them.

79. Removal of the trees w ould reduce habitat for birds and other animals; however, there are many mature trees throughout the City whi ch would provide alternative habitat. Air quality will be sligh tly reduced, albeit a lmost neglig ibly, as the po tential for th e trees to f ilter carbon dioxide from the air is reduced. Amenity of this urban area would be reduced, including visual aesthetics and loss of shade. The impacts of tree removal would be adverse during the short to medium-term and beneficial in th e medium to long-term as landsca ping will be undertaken following completion of the works to replace the tress removed with native species. Trees would be replaced by a ratio of 10:1; however, not all trees replaced will be in the vicinity of the site.

C. Impacts Related to Design

80. The design makes provision for reta il space whi ch will provi de economic benefits. The retail sp ace will en courage passive surveillan ce of t he t unnel durin g operation , thereby improving safety.

D. Impacts During Construction

81. Activities during the site-preparation and construction phases are outlined below and the potential environmental impacts assessed and mitigation measures recommended. Regulations on environmental protection; safety of the public; and safety and hygiene of workers will be full y complied with in all phases of constructing the project.

82. There is po tential for the project to generate e mployment opportunitie s for lo cals. It is recommended that recruitment be offered in th e local community as it is likely to p romote good community relations and encourage good work practices. Procurement of local workers will also minimize social prob lems otherwise caused by the provision of temporary worke r accommodation, with non-local workers attracting camp followers.

83. On-site workers will be made aware of, and trained in, standard environmental protection requirements and the IEE recommendations. The Contractor will be contractually required to include environmental training and monitoring as part of its management of the project.

84. Potentially sensitive receptors will be notified by the Contractor of upcoming construction activities in their area that may result in increased dust, noise, and temporary road closures and any traffic d iversions, in cluding th e laneway. This may inclu de media announcements to the general pub lic. Notif ications will pro vide contact details on who to cont act to ob tain further information or make a complaint.

1. Site Preparation Activities

85. Construction site safety for workers and the public is of primary concern to the ADB. A security fen ce will be i nstalled aro und the co nstruction site prior to beginning any works. Equipment and machinery will be secured to e nsure safety. First aid fa cilities will be provided and safety and environmental emergency response plans prepared.

86. There is potential for material damage to the chu rch during construction from both direct accidental impact and f rom vibration during excavation and the operation of machinery in close proximity. Prior to construction, measures will be implemented to protect the church from such damage, including fen cing off ‘no -go’ areas to construct ion workers and activit ies. During excavation the apartment building adjacent to the tunneling (i.e. north -west) will b e piled with steel sheeti ng to form temporary retaining wal ls. Walls of the church will be mo nitored with external an d internal structural movement mo nitors to provide information of s ettlement or movement of the stru cture. A car eful plan of mitigation will be dev eloped to minimize any potential impacts.

87. Prior to construction, a Tree Management Plan will be prep ared to manage the removal of any trees and/or protection of tho se trees to be retained, in particular to ensure t hat the root system of trees are not damaged. This plan will be prepar ed by a suitably experi enced an d qualified arborist.

88. There is potential for disruption to both a bove and below-ground utilities d uring relocation prior to constr uction. This includes re location of t he electrical substation; and below- ground gas mains; water mains; se wers; and electricity and communications lines. Surveys will be undertaken by the Contractor prior to con struction to identify operational an d redundant utilities. Plans will be prepared to set out temp orary or permanent relocation and/o r protection measures. Any disruption to services will be short-term and localized. Consideration will need to be given to the time of year and time of day f or any disruption, and t hose potentially affected should be notified prior to the works.

2. Excavation and Vehicle Movements

89. As ground cover is removed, exposed soils of the site will provide a potential dust source causing nuisance to nearby receptors and a reduction in local air quality. The generation of dust should be mitigated primarily thro ugh maintaining ground cover as long as practicable, in particular vegetation and surfacin g site acce ss roads with gravel. Other measures includ e spraying of surfaces wit h water and covering with tarpaulins. Where practical, a nd where soils are expected to be exposed for a length of time, exposed surfaces should be grass-seeded by a fast-growing specie s to provide te mporary co ver. Vehicle s carrying excavated spoil will b e covered.

90. In addition to dust, air pollutants (nitrogen dioxide, carbon dioxide, particulate matter) will also be generated by c onstruction vehicles and machinery; however, the level an d duration of

16 exposure will be l imited so will be at levels insignificant to receptors. Exhaust attenuation, such as scrubbers or diesel particulate filters, will still be applied to vehicles.

91. Noise will be generated from the operation of excava tors, vehicl es transpor ting materials, other machinery, verbal communications, and o ther constru ction-related activities. The most potentially se nsitive receptors are oc cupants of r esidential apartments, occupants o f business su rrounding th e site, ped estrians, and worshipper s and other visitors to the church. There are already high background noise levels in t he vicinity of the site and noise impacts will be temporary and localized. Except for users of the church (which is d iscussed further below), noise will b e mostly mi tigated. Mitigation incl udes promoting quieter work practices amongst workers, appropriate scheduling of noisier act ivities, insta llation of temporary ho arding (to reduce the noise for gr ound level receptors), and mechanical at tenuation on ve hicles and machinery. After applying mitigation, residual noise will not result in significant impact.

92. Construction activities associated with tunneling to the station platform will be planned to occur durin g night-time periods when the existing metro services are not operational. There would be some tempo rary and localized noise impacts associated with these activities. Mitigation measures would be implemented and the noise source would mo stly be below ground.

93. Due to the close proximity of the project to the church, nuisa nce effects including noise, dust, and access restrictions may inconvenience worshippers and other visitors whilst works are being carrie d out. Mitigation measures will minimize these effects, in cluding red ucing work s during times of services; however, there ma y be temporary socio-cultural impact. This will require further consultation with the Catholic Church and others to identify the most appropriate solution for the timing of certain construction activities.

94. Other than the church, the site is not located near any cultural heritage or archaeological sites designated by UNESCO or th e MOC. There is potential for excavation to uncover chance- find historical remnants. An archae ologist will be present during excavation and if any item of cultural heritage or archaeological interest is uncovered during excavation activities, works must stop and th e MOC notified. Construction activities cannot re-commence until the chance-find has been investigated and written permission gi ven by the MOC. Contractors will b e obliged to familiarize t hemselves with the ch ance-find pr ocedure of the MOC a nd will be contractually required to implement them strictly.

95. Excavation of the esca lator shaft will be to a depth of a pproximately 23m and will intercept the groundwater level which is also at 23m. Sheet piling will be installed to cut off the water inflow from enteri ng the construction are a. There is potential for initial in stallation of the sheeting to result in minor impact to the quality of groundwater. Any residual water inflow will be pumped from the construction area into a settlement basin, allowing sediment to be remove d prior to rele ase into the drainage system. Water run-off fr om the site will also be diverted into the settlement basin to remove sediments prior to release into the drainage system.

96. There is potential for spill or leak of fuels and oils from inappropriately stored material or when refueling. This could contaminate the soil and could infiltrate into the groundwater or enter surface water if carried off site through run-off. Mitigation in the EMP recommends that site plant and equipment undergoes maintenance and refueling at appropriate off-site faciliti es; that bunding is provided where maintenance activities cannot be avoided on site; the clean-up of any spill/leak and reporting to the MNP in such case.

97. Spoil around the electri cal substation that will be excavate d from the s ite is assumed to be contaminated with PCBs. All sp oil will b e classified and transported and reused /disposed in accordance with MNP requirements.

3. Traffic Movements on Public Roads and Altered Access

98. Construction of the proj ect will increase heavy vehicle move ments on public roads from transport of spoil, wast e, and co nstruction materials and machinery. There is p otential for disruption to public road access and increased r oad traffic conflict. A Tr affic Management Plan will be prepared by the Contractor to set out sa fe entry and exit points, enforce strict safety on public road s in conjunct ion with Yer evan police force, specify timing fo r vehicle movements, and, in conjunction with Yerevan Municipality, determine routes on loca l roads to manage traffic and minimize potential conflict.

99. There may be temporary restricted access to some local roads and pedestrian p aths during construction. Th e access ro ad between the churchyard and pa rk will be closed to th e public durin g construction requiring use of alternative access onto Aghayan Stree t and other surrounding streets. This road closure will temporarily remove vehicle parking.

100. Dirt and mud carried onto public roads from construction vehicles exiting the site has the potential to cause a saf ety hazard. Dirt from the site cou ld also enter t he drainage system and further pollute waterways. Graveled site exits an d wheel wash facilitie s for vehicles exiting the site will mitigate these potential impacts.

4. Solid and Liquid Waste Generation

101. Solid waste that may be generated during construction includes redundant road surface from exca vation across the laneway, substation in frastructure, oil filt ers, material packaging, solid waste discarded by construct ion workers, and other wastes. Liq uid wastes that will be generated by the projec t include co nstruction worker sewage and was te oils. Some of these wastes are classified as hazardous. The EMP specifies that waste must be colle cted, stored, transported, and disposed in accordance with MNP and Municipality requirements.

5. Site Reinstatement

102. Following construction, and prior t o handover of the site to the Cat holic Church, the Contractor will reinstat e the site including clea ring the site of all construction-relat ed material and waste. The surface of the site should be stabilized with a fast-grow ing grass-seed species to provide temporary ground cover before other species are cultivated. Trees removed along the footpath and within the park should be repla ced by a ratio of 10:1; ho wever, not necessarily in the same lo cation. .Further landscaping of the churchyard will be carr ied out by d evelopers of the new church.

103. The access road between the churchyard and park further north and asso ciated parking spaces will be reinstated following construction. Due to the poor curren t condition of this road, its reinstatement will be an improvement on exis ting conditions. The park facilities removed will be reinstated to a level of existing or improved quality.

6. Summary of Construction Impact

104. In summary, adverse i mpacts due to the con struction o f the new Metro entrance will mostly be temporary, short-term and can b e mitigated in accord ance with t he EMP to insignificant levels. Due to the close proximity of the works to the existing church and medium to high potential noise an d dust imp acts and access re strictions over t he constru ction phase, construction activities should be reduced at certain times to allow church services to proceed; and in con sultation with the Catholic Church. T here is a p otential for impact to th e structural integrity of the church, so the measures outli ned will ne ed to be carefully developed and implemented to ensure protection.

105. Removal of the trees would result in adverse short-term impacts; however, repl anting trees at a 10:1 ratio will more than compensate and result in a positive impact in the medium- t o long-term.

106. Low to mod erate positive impacts includes stim ulating the economy b y providing short- term employment of the local population in construction.

107. It is envisaged that there will be an adequate supply of local construction workers for the project. As such, construction camps and associated social impacts have not been considered.

E. Impacts Related to Operations

108. Provision of the new Metro entrance is one of man y proj ects being implemented to upgrade Yerevan’s public transport system to im prove quality, reliability, accessibility, affordability and coverage of transport services quality which is expected to increase patronage. The economic analysis (ADB, 2010) estimates that, one year after op ening, the second Metro entrance would attract 8,000 passengers per day in addition to the projected baselin e of 54,000 passengers per day. T he analysis envisages a sp lit of approximately 3 6,000 passengers per day using the new entrance and the remaining 26,000 passengers usin g the existing entrance on Ishakayan Street. Wi th a shift in increased pa tronage on public transport rather t han private vehicle use, regional air quality improvements are anticipated due to a reduction in carbon dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and particulate emissions.

109. The section of the project passing beneath the new church include s reinforcement to serve as part of the fo undation of the church designed considering t he high seismic risk o f Yerevan.

110. The small retail area near the tunnel entrance will stimulate economic benefits thr ough increasing revenue and providing employment opportunities.

111. The entrance from street level conta ins stairs with the existing pedestria n area lowere d to provide access to the Metro. This will restrict mobility impaired passengers from easy access to the railway.

F. Cumulative Environmental Effects

112. During con struction, r eceptors su rrounding t he site will be exposed to short -term construction-related nuisance effects, includ ing noise, dust, and altered access resulting in cumulative effects. Except for impacts at the church, these impacts will be largely mitigated to insignificant levels.

113. Approximately 20 mature trees are proposed t o be removed to acco mmodate the new entrance. Potential adverse impacts associated with the tr ee removal includes loss of hab itat, reduction of trees able to filter carbon dioxide and thereby a reduction in air qua lity, and loss of amenity. These impact s may be considered minor; however, the cumulative effect of the progressive loss of mature trees throughout the City associated with other projects and activities will be significant.

114. Project 4 is one of four projects within Tranch e 1. Due to the overall minor pote ntial impacts associated with the other three projects and their distance from each other, there will be no adverse combined impacts during construction.

115. Combined with other three projects within Tranche 1 and f uture tranches of the Yerevan Sustainable Urban Tran sport Program, Project 4 will contribute to impr ovements in Yerevan’ s transport system. This will contribu te to ec onomic benefits as well as reducing air quality impacts associated with the current congested road network and ine fficient public transport system.

116. There are numerous construction projects in the vicinity of the project area. This includes the new underground parking area at the Grand Opera and apartment buildings on Sayat-Nova Avenue. There is potential for cumulative nuisance impacts including dust and noise due to their proximity which could result in short-term, localized impacts associated with disruption to public roads and access.

117. Known future projects in the vicinity of the project site plann ed for construction following Project 4, include con struction of the underground car park on Sayat-No va Avenue, an d construction of the new church and associated seminary buildings. Nea rby receptors would be exposed to similar nuisance impacts over this period of construction.

V. ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT AND MONITORING PLAN

118. Environmental management invol ves the im plementation of environmental protection and mitigation measures and monitoring for en vironmental impacts. T he purpose of the EMP document is to se t th e framework for ensur ing complia nce with th e ADB’s environmenta l requirements and all a pplicable G overnment of Armenia environment al laws, reg ulations and standards for environmental protection.

119. Environmental protection measures are taken to:

(i) Mitigate environmental impacts, (ii) Provide in-kind compensation for lost environmental resources, or (iii) Enhance environmental resources.

120. The plan covers all phases of the project which includes pr e-construction, construction, and operati on. Provisions set out i n the Environmental Management Plan of the EMP will be implemented by the Contractor and monitored by the PIU Environment Specialist.

A. Environmental Management Plan

121. The EMP in Table V.1 summarizes the anticipated environmental impacts as identified in Section IV, mitigation measures, re quired environmental monitoring act ivities, and t he entities responsible for carrying out those activities together with estimated costs of implementation.

122. The purpose of the EMP is to gu ide enginee rs and Cont ractor in th e prevention and mitigation of environmental impacts related to construction activities, to guide monitoring by the relevant authorities including the SEI, and to g uide the Municipality in the subsequent operation of the second entrance. The EMP:

(i) Links construction activities, their potential impacts and their prevention or mitigation; (ii) Provides th e basis for updating by the Contra ctor prior to commence ment of specific identified activities; and (iii) Forms the basis for preparing a program of monitoring for checking on compliance with impact prevention and mitigation measures.

123. The Enviro nmental Ma nagement Plan and the Environmental Monitoring Plan will be updated dur ing detailed engineerin g design w hen more information is available, and will b e reviewed and approved by ADB before included in the bid a nd contract documents. They wil l then be furt her refined by the contr actor based on the construction contract and thereafter as required by changing conditions.

Table V.1: Summary of Impacts and Proposed Mitigation Measures (Environmental Management Plan) Potential Project Indicative cost of Environmental Proposed Mitigation Measures Responsible Entities Activities mitigation (US$) Impacts Detail Design Phase (To be updated as required by Detail Design Consultant and PPMU & PIU Environment Specialists) • Hiring of Social impacts • Maximize employment opportunities for local people by employing PPMU Cost savings envisaged Contractor’s from non-local them as part of the project labor force. Ensure provision is labor force workers included in bid and contract documents and review bids Land Social impacts • Implement LARP and social assessment. PIU Costed under LARP acquisition associated with Implement LARP and land acquisition ADB resettlement and resettlement Review Environment Protection and • Update EMP to reflect detail design and incorporate in bid and Detail Design Consultant Detail Design protection and preservation contract documents Update EMP and include Consultant preservation of requirements do • Include specific requirement in bid and contract documents: appropriate clauses in bid included in contract archaeology not reflect detail and contract documents PIU o withholding of payment or penalty clauses, to ensure contractor’s design PIU implementation of environmental and archeological mitigation included in environmental measures; Review updated EMP and due diligence budget bid and contract documents ADB o employment of a designated Environmental Specialist and a ADB designated Archeologist to oversee environmental and included in corporate archeological issues and mitigation; and Review updated EMP and environmental due bid and contract documents diligence budget o provision of environmental and archaeological awareness training and provide non-objections to all staff and periodic reinforcement training and effectiveness monitoring. Tree removal Removal of • Investigate the potential ecological and cultural impact of the design PPMU PPMU & PIU protected Eastern on the protected Eastern Platan trees, in particular the root zone. Obtain approval included in environmental Platan tree Include recommendations for mitigation and compensatory planting, if PIU due diligence budget required. Hire arborist to prepare ADB • Obtain relevant approvals for removal of non-protected trees and report. included in corporate affecting protected trees, as required, from the MNP. environmental due diligence budget Construction Phase (To be updated by the Contractor together with the PIU Environment Specialist prior to beginning construction and thereafter, as required)

Table V.1: Summary of Impacts and Proposed Mitigation Measures (Environmental Management Plan) Potential Project Indicative cost of Environmental Proposed Mitigation Measures Responsible Entities Activities mitigation (US$) Impacts • Update EMP to reflect contract documents Contractor Contractor • Update EMP to reflect changed conditions Update EMP • included in construction PIU contract Review updated EMP PIU ADB included in environmental Review updated EMP and due diligence budget provide non-objection ADB included in corporate environmental due diligence budget Construction Damage to utilities • Undertake prior to construction a utilities survey for protection and/or Contractor Contractor planning and interruption of relocation of water mains, gas mains, sewers, electricity, and • included in construction services communication lines contract Construction Damage to public • Obtain necessary approvals from the Armenian Roads Directorate Contractor Contractor transport roads and and Municipality for occupation of roads. • included in construction planning property • Undertake a Pre-Construction Road and Property Dilapidation contract Survey to document the condition of the road. Include in the Property Dilapidation Survey the existing church. Construction Impact to • Obtain necessary approvals from MOC for construction in areas Contractor Contractor planning for archaeological where archaeological finds have been identified. Hire an archaeologist • $5,000+ for chance-find archaeology find PIU investigation specialist Check for approval services

Contractor or Insufficient • Contract to include specific contractual requirement; e.g., Contractor Contractor workers not environmental withholding of payment or penalty clauses, to ensure contractor’s Monitor environmental • $5,000 per year Env. following controls implementation of environmental mitigation measures. parameters and report to Protection team environmental implemented • Contract to include the requirement that the contractor has on staff a PIU. IA/EA requirements designated Environmental Specialist to oversee environmental PIU monitoring and reporting issues and mitigation. Monitor the Contractor and included in environmental • Contract to include the requirement for the contractor to provide representative due diligence budget environmental parameters

5 Yerevan Municipality is the Executing Agency (EA) and MNP’s State Expertise Department will provide an Environment Specialist to participate in a Program Preparation and Management Unit (PPMU).

Table V.1: Summary of Impacts and Proposed Mitigation Measures (Environmental Management Plan) Potential Project Indicative cost of Environmental Proposed Mitigation Measures Responsible Entities Activities mitigation (US$) Impacts environmental induction training to all staff. and reports to MNP and ADB through EA. MNP MNP’s State Expertise State budget Department5 ADB Monitor the Contractor. included in corporate ADB environmental due Monitor EA/IA based on diligence budget reports and through periodic missions All site Degradation of • Prepare and submit, within 30 days of contract effectiveness, the Contractor Contractor activities environment following environmental management sub-plans: Update and implement • included in construction PIU contract Degradation of 1. Health, Safety, and Environment Emergency Response Plan Review and monitor PIU archaeological, 2. Public Relations and Communications Plan implementation included in environmental historical, and ADB due diligence budget cultural sites and 3. Physical Cultural Resources Plan Review and issue non- ADB monuments 4. Utility Protection and Relocation Plan objection prior to included in corporate construction 5. Drainage, Erosion and Sediment Control Plan environmental due Deleterious effects diligence budget on nearby 6. Traffic and Access Plan residents from air and noise 7. Spoil Disposal Planning and Management Plan pollution 8. Emergency Plan For Hazardous Materials

9. Tree Management Plan Health hazards to workers and 10. Dust and Emissions Control Plan nearby residents 11. Tunneling Management Plan

12. Noise and Vibration Management Plan 13. Waste Management and Disposal Plan 14. Site Reinstatement, Landscaping, and Revegetation Plan

• Base the sub-plans on the EIA report, bid and contract documents, best international environmental management practices, and as briefly outlined below.

Table V.1: Summary of Impacts and Proposed Mitigation Measures (Environmental Management Plan) Potential Project Indicative cost of Environmental Proposed Mitigation Measures Responsible Entities Activities mitigation (US$) Impacts All site Workers damage 1. Health, Safety, and Environment Emergency Response Plan Contractor Contractor activities environment and Hire training specialist to • Personal protective • The purpose of this sub-plan is to document the approach of the archaeological, 6 devise plan and implement equipment – $5,000 (at general contractor (GC), subcontractors (SCs), and their workers in Worksite historical, and training program $40/worker) cultural sites and the implementation of a training program for construction workers in safety Record and report • Security fencing $60,000 monuments. relation to environmental, archaeological, and occupational health environment and safety to purchase: and safety issues. incidents to relevant • Metallic hoarding with • Training rationale. The implementation of the EMP will require the Sickness, injury, authorities. concrete supports at 2m involvement of all construction personnel. The nature of the EMP is or death of PIU height - $220-250/m) such that personnel at all levels have a degree of responsibility in workers, road Review plan and monitor relation to environmental, archaeological, and occupational health • Other costs covered by users and other implementation people near the and safety issues and the implementation of measures contained in labor cost of the Review incident logs site caused by the EMP. As such, training for all personnel in relation to construction budget exposure to environmental issues and the implementation of the EMP will be ADB PPMU & PIU hazardous critical to ensuring the effectiveness of the EMP. Review and issue non- included in environmental substances; slips, • Training objective. The objective of the training program is to raise objection prior to due diligence budget trips and falls; and the awareness and enhance the skills of the construction workforce in construction ADB falling objects. relation to relevant legislation and the following issues: included in corporate o general environmental awareness, including rules and regulations environmental due to be followed on the construction site and in the construction diligence budget camps; o general health and safety awareness, including an AIDS/HIV and STD awareness program; o job-specific training for workers with responsibility for activities that could have adverse impacts on the environment or humans; o requirements for worker personal protective equipment including hard hats, safety boots, high-visibility vests, gloves, eye-glasses and ear defenders, as required; o safety of the public; and o recording and reporting environment and safety incidents to relevant authorities. • Health risks and prevention. Training should include information

6 The general contractor is the entity who enters into a contract for the works with the EA and who is responsible, by contract, for the work and conduct of its subcontractors.

Table V.1: Summary of Impacts and Proposed Mitigation Measures (Environmental Management Plan) Potential Project Indicative cost of Environmental Proposed Mitigation Measures Responsible Entities Activities mitigation (US$) Impacts and education on sexually transmitted diseases and HIV/AIDS for construction workers as part of the health and safety program at campsites during the construction period. • Illegal trafficking. Workers should be made aware that trafficking of humans, wildlife, endangered species, and illegal substances will not be tolerated and be advised of a progressive penalty scheme up to and including dismissal. • Blasting. Training should include a module on the safety aspects of blasting (if blasting is contemplated). Topics should include: o public meetings to introduce the concept of blasting, o signs posted that contain times of blasting, o alarms prior to blasting, o the use of blasting mattresses, and o proper handling and storage of explosives. Public Lack of 2. Public Relations and Communications Plan Contractor Contractor consultation and information and Hire public liaison and • $2,000 for advertising • The purpose of this sub-plan is to document the approach of the GC, awareness understanding by awareness specialist to and dedicated project SCs, and their workers in the implementation of a plan to relate to the building communities and devise plan and implement phone line affected parties general public and nearby residents prior to commencing site awareness and grievance • Other costs covered by about the planned preparation and construction activities and during construction. redress program labor cost of the works activities • This plan should be consistent with the LARP and social assessment, PIU construction budget and schedule of and should include the following: Review plan and monitor PIU implementation o Procedures for communicating with the Catholic Church, local the implementation can lead to included in environmental residents, and other nearby receptors developed in advance of frustration and ADB due diligence budget activities, particularly when noise, vibration, utility service complaints, which Review and issue non- ADB disturbance, or other nuisances may be generated. could result in objection prior to included in corporate delays. o Details on the dedicated project phone line. construction environmental due o Complaints process developed whereby the public and other Review consultation reports diligence budget stakeholders may make complaints and be assured of receiving responses within a reasonable period, consistent with the requirements of the Grievance Redress Mechanism in ADB’s Safeguard Policy Statement (2009). . • Maintain a register of complaints received (name, issue, date,

Table V.1: Summary of Impacts and Proposed Mitigation Measures (Environmental Management Plan) Potential Project Indicative cost of Environmental Proposed Mitigation Measures Responsible Entities Activities mitigation (US$) Impacts response, date of response, further follow-up action, date closed out). • Hold meetings with community representatives to discuss the project, its impacts, etc. • Provide community leaders and local newspapers with notices on project progress and anticipated issues. • Post clear signs and notices around construction sites to provide project information, including the Contractor’s environmental “hot line” number. All site Unabated damage 3. Physical Cultural Resources (PCR) Plan Contractor Contractor activities to archaeological, Hire archaeologist to report • $5,000+ for chance-find • The purpose of this sub-plan is to document the approach of the GC historical, and on extent of archaeological investigation specialist and SCs and their workers to protect identified archaeological, cultural sites and impacts, provide services monuments historical, and cultural sites and monuments and to manage any recommendations to • Cost for chance-find physical cultural resources that are encountered during the minimize impact on each, construction works. excavation to be and supervise excavations, determined by • The plan should comply with procedures set by MOC. if any. negotiated extra cost. • The plan should include measures to protect the church and church Hire sub-contractors to PIU excavate any chance finds. visitors: included in environmental PIU o Install sheet piling to form temporary retaining walls. due diligence budget Review plan and monitor o ADB Maintain clearance distance between construction activities and implementation. the church. included in corporate Provide liaison with MOC environmental due o Requirements for scheduling work to minimize nuisance impacts ADB diligence budget on church visitors. Review implementation o Provision of external and internal structural movement monitors to reports provide information of settlement or movement of the structure on the church, movement acceptability criteria and requirements if criteria are exceeded. • The plan should delineate clearance boundaries to avoid impact on areas of known archaeological and cultural interest. • Requirement that the archaeologist must be present during excavation. In the event of a chance-find: o stop work immediately;

Table V.1: Summary of Impacts and Proposed Mitigation Measures (Environmental Management Plan) Potential Project Indicative cost of Environmental Proposed Mitigation Measures Responsible Entities Activities mitigation (US$) Impacts o notify the PIU; o isolate the site; o inform the MOC’s Department for Protection of Historical and Cultural Monuments and hire an experienced and qualified archaeologist to determine whether and how the chance-find should be preserved; o document and photograph the find and area immediately around it; o when advised and as directed by the MOC, excavate and remove the find; and o resume construction only following clearance from the MOC. Utilities Disruption to 4. Utility Protection and Relocation Plan Contractor Contractor protection and services impacting Survey utilities and prepare • Cost will be determined • The purpose of this sub-plan is to document the approach of the GC relocation on end users plan following completion of to protect or relocate identified utilities and to manage the protection survey and development or relocation of any utilities that are encountered during the Liaise with local of plan construction works. representatives, especially for irrigation facilities, and • Majority of costs covered • Undertake a utilities survey and prepare a Utility Protection and service providers by labor cost of the Relocation Plan in consultation with relevant government agencies, PIU construction budget and user groups, and service providers. Review plan and monitor service provider • If there is potential for disturbance to services (i.e., cut off for implementation. PIU periods), schedule the disturbances to take account of the time of Assist with liaison with local included in environmental year, week, and day to minimize the disturbance. representatives and service due diligence budget • Notify the potentially affected receptors well in advance of the works. providers ADB ADB included in corporate Review implementation environmental due reports diligence budget

Earthworks Erosion of soil and 5. Drainage, Erosion, and Sediment Control Plan Contractor Contractor material piles, and Prepare plan • $4,000 sediment traps • The purpose of this sub-plan is to document the approach of the GC, discharge of PIU PIU sediment and SCs, and their workers in the implementation of measures to manage Review plan and monitor pollutants into erosion and sedimentation caused as a result of the construction included in environmental implementation. water courses activities. due diligence budget

Table V.1: Summary of Impacts and Proposed Mitigation Measures (Environmental Management Plan) Potential Project Indicative cost of Environmental Proposed Mitigation Measures Responsible Entities Activities mitigation (US$) Impacts and/or aquifers • One of the main risks to water quality during construction arises from ADB ADB the erosion of soils and the resulting effects of sediment-laden Review implementation included in corporate pollutants entering watercourses. The implementation of the following reports environmental due erosion and sediment control measures should reduce the risk of any impacts to an acceptable level: o Preserve existing ground cover where practicable. o Where ground cover is removed and if ground is to be exposed for long periods, provide temporary cover such as fast-growing grass species. o Ensure clean runoff is diverted around the construction site where possible. o Treat sediment-laden runoff generated by construction activities prior to it entering watercourses. o Regularly monitor operation and effectiveness of mitigation measures, record the results, and submit to PIU on a monthly basis. o Regularly maintain drains, runoff, erosion and sedimentation protective measures to ensure effectiveness. o Inspect and repair or modify drainage structures and erosion controls as soon as practicable after rain events. Vehicle Dust and 6. Traffic and Access Plan Contractor Contractor movements on emissions Prepare plan • Repair and/or restoration • The purpose of this sub-plan is to document the approach of the GC, and off-site Noise and PIU of roads to be agreed SCs, and their workers in the implementation of measures to manage vibration with the Armenian Roads traffic and access on the construction site during the construction Review plan and monitor Directorate and the Traffic hazards works. The sub-plan will cover vehicle management on and off-site implementation. Municipality and safety and will include: ADB • Traffic management Dirt and mud o Driver requirements (license, training) and safety requirements. Review implementation measures not in carried onto public o Carefully selected construction vehicle routes including safe entry reports environmental budget roads causing and exit points. traffic hazard and o Clear route directions. • Road and property sediment in o Plan for workers to travel to work by public transport. dilapidation survey, drainage system o Designated parking areas. provisionally $10,000, Damage to roads o Appro priate signage. however not in from heavy environmental budget

Table V.1: Summary of Impacts and Proposed Mitigation Measures (Environmental Management Plan) Potential Project Indicative cost of Environmental Proposed Mitigation Measures Responsible Entities Activities mitigation (US$) Impacts vehicles o Established speed limits. • The road and property o Scheduling of vehicle movements to avoid peak periods where dilapidation survey and practicable. other costs covered by o Traffic diversions on public roads including direction signs, labor cost in the markings, traffic signals, lighting, clearly visible solid barriers to construction budget channel traffic, flagmen employed as needed, and maintenance of PIU diversions. o Vehicles requirements including covering loads (when carrying included in environmental sand, soil, spoil and waste material), exhaust attenuators, due diligence budget silencers, regular maintenance of vehicles to prevent fuel and oil ADB leaks to meet national standards requirements and to ensure included in corporate compliance. environmental due o Provision for graveled surfaces and vehicle wash facilities at site diligence budget exits with suitable runoff protection. Inspecting dirt and mud on roads from the construction site and sweeping as needed and when safe. • Und ertake a Post-Construction Road Dilapidation Survey and agree the repair or restoration of any roads with Armenian Roads Directorate and the Municipality. Earthworks Spoil is disposed 7. Spoil Disposal Planning and Management Plan Contractor Contractor in inappropriate Prepare plan • included in construction • The purpose of this sub-plan is to document the approach of the GC, locations. contract SCs, and their workers in the implementation of measures to manage Coordinate disposal of PIU spoil generated by the construction of the project. surplus soil and excess Topsoil is wasted topsoil with heads of local included in environmental • Spoil should be disposed of in locations approved by MNP and local communities due diligence budget government. PIU ADB • Topsoil should be stored for site restoration. Review plan and monitor included in corporate implementation. environmental due Provide liaison with local diligence budget communities ADB Review implementation reports Handling Leakage or 8. Emergency Plan For Hazardous Materials Contractor Contractor hazardous spillage of diesel Prepare plan • $5,000 for designated • The purpose of this sub-plan is to document the approach of the GC,

Table V.1: Summary of Impacts and Proposed Mitigation Measures (Environmental Management Plan) Potential Project Indicative cost of Environmental Proposed Mitigation Measures Responsible Entities Activities mitigation (US$) Impacts substances o r oil may result in SCs, and their workers for the handling, storage, use, and disposal of Dispose of hazardous materials storage area the substance to chemicals and in the implementation of measures in the event of materials per MNP directive • Spill clean-up material – enter the soil, spills or accidental releases of hazardous materials during the PIU $415 (at $83/spill kit) surface water construction works. The implementation of the following measures Review plan and monitor • $1,000 for specialist and/or should reduce the risk of any impacts to an acceptable level: implementation. trainer groundwater. o Develop and implement procedures to ensure safe handling and Provide liaison with MNP • Other labor costs These substances storage of hazardous substances; e.g., diesel, waste oil. Material are toxic to living ADB covered by the safety data sheets, emergency response procedures, and clean- organisms. Review implementation construction budget up materials should be readily available on site and their proper PIU use should be part of the workers’ training. reports included in environmental o Spill clean-up materials should be appropriately located and due diligence budget stored to ensure availability. ADB o An Emergency Response Team (ERT) that is part of the included in corporate Environment Protection team should be identified, include an environmental due organizational diagram, work and out of hours phone numbers, diligence budget and reporting lines.

o Ensure that the ERT receives emergency response training. o Ensure that the ERT and all personnel handling chemicals and hazardous substances receive hazard and risk management training. o The area of spill should be cleaned in a timely manner to prevent potential contamination of surface and groundwater and soil and the spilled material, together with contaminated soil and absorbent materials should be disposed of in a site approved by the PIU. • Only necessary chemicals, hazardous substances, and fuel should be stored on site, within a covered, secure and naturally ventilated area that has an impervious floor and impervious bund around it. The bund should have a capacity of at least 150% of the capacity of the largest tank. • The storage area should be located away from drainage lines and danger areas. Site clearing Removal of 9. Tree Management Plan Contractor Contractor protected Eastern Prepare plan • $2,000 for Arborist Platan tree • The purpose of this sub-plan is to document the approach of the GC, Hire arborist to devise • Provision for replanting

Table V.1: Summary of Impacts and Proposed Mitigation Measures (Environmental Management Plan) Potential Project Indicative cost of Environmental Proposed Mitigation Measures Responsible Entities Activities mitigation (US$) Impacts SCs, and their workers to the removal of Eastern Platan during dendro design for tree and maintaining 10 construction. The plan should comply with MNP policy and the RA replanting or replacement Eastern Platan trees at Law on Flora and include the following provisions: Report results monthly $500 per tree. o Remove Eastern Platan only with permission of PIU and MOC. PIU PIU o Implement recommendations for mitigation and compensatory Review plan and monitor Supervision of replanting planting in Eastern Platan report . implementation. and maintenance included in environmental due o No clearance of vegetation other than that outlined within the plan. Provide liaison with MNP ADB diligence budget ADB Review implementation reports included in corporate environmental due diligence budget Materials Excessive dust 10. Dust and Emissions Control Plan Contractor Contractor hauling and air pollution Prepare plan • included in construction • The purpose of this sub-plan is to document the approach of the GC, due to vehicle contract SCs, and their workers in the implementation of measures to control Hire local water trucks for emissions PIU gaseous emissions and dust resulting from the construction activities, dust control including quarry sites, crushing plants, road construction, and Report results monthly included in environmental haulage of materials.. The management measures in this sub-plan PIU due diligence budget have been developed to minimize potential health and nuisance Review plan and monitor ADB impacts by incorporating the following principles: implementation. included in corporate o Preserve existing ground cover where practicable. ADB environmental due diligence budget o Provisions to use and using water spray of road surfaces to Review implementation control dust. reports o Minimize the amount of excavated material held on site and cover all materials wherever possible to prevent generation of dust. o Avoid double handling of material. o Ensure that vehicles used are at their maximum load capacity to minimize the number of vehicles and journeys to and from the site. o Do not leave construction equipment idling when not in use. o Use mains electricity or battery power where possible (or practical for hand tools) rather than diesel. o Avoid the use of diesel or petrol powered generators where

workers and nearby villages or settlements. The management reports • Vibration: $5,000 special measures in this sub-plan have been developed to minimize potential equipment (such as health and nuisance impacts by incorporating the following principles: strain gauges) o minimization of noise generation at source; PIU o reduction of the transmission of noise from the source to sensitive included in environmental receivers including nearby villages and settlements and due diligence budget construction workers on the construction site; ADB o schedule noisier activities towards the middle of the day where included in corporate practicable; environmental due

o locate noisier activities away from sensitive receptors where diligence budget practicable; o fit vehicles and equipment with silencers to meet national noise

Table V.1: Summary of Impacts and Proposed Mitigation Measures (Environmental Management Plan) Potential Project Indicative cost of Environmental Proposed Mitigation Measures Responsible Entities Activities mitigation (US$) Impacts standards and regularly check to ensure compliance; o install noise control barriers (e.g. solid walls, earth barriers, noise- reflective panels, double-glazed windows) when necessary and practicable to shield houses and other sensitive receptors; o construct permanent noise barriers along the site early in construction where indicated in final design and agreed by local village heads; o except for tunneling works to connect the escalator shaft to the station that must be undertaken at night out of rail operating hours unless agreed with the relevant authorities, noise levels at receptors shall not exceed:

8am to 8pm (day) – 55dBA LAeq, 70dBA LAmax

8pm to 8am (night) – 45dBA LAeq, 60dBA LAmax; and o provide response mechanism for noise-related complaints. Note: This time requirement is more stringent than the Armenian standard which sets out a day-time limit of 6am to 10pm and night-time limit of 10pm to 6am, respectively. The standard is Order N138, 6 March, 2002, Order on adoption of N2-III-11.3 sanitary norms "Noise in workplaces, apartment and public buildings, territories of urban construction". Generating Waste and 13. Waste Management and Disposal Plan Contractor Contractor and handling pollutants entering Prepare plan Environmental charge • The purpose of this sub-plan is to document the approach of the GC, hazardous and drainage system Hire sub-contractors to load $100,000 (according to non- and/or infiltrating SCs, and their workers in the implementation of measures for the waste categorization under management of wastes produced during construction. and haul wastes to sites hazardous into groundwater approved by MNP the Armenian Law on substances Litter in public • Several elements of the construction activities have the potential to PIU Rates of Environmental from all places generate waste that can have adverse effects on the surrounding Charges (2006), Article 3: Review plan and monitor activities environment in terms of water quality, soil quality, air quality (odor Worker and public implementation. • Category 1 – $133/t - solid waste safety hazard and pollutants) and human health: Provide liaison with MNP • Category 2 -$72/t streams • Non-hazardous solid waste includes construction waste and domestic ADB • Category 3 – $13/t - removed refuse. Improper storage, handling, and disposal may cause adverse • Category 4 – $4/t vegetation effects via spills or being carried away by wind or vectors, may affect • Review implementation - spoil health and be unsightly. Non-hazardous solid waste can be further reports • Non-hazardous – $2/t) - contaminated divided into putrescible and non-putrescible waste streams. • Non-hazardous

Table V.1: Summary of Impacts and Proposed Mitigation Measures (Environmental Management Plan) Potential Project Indicative cost of Environmental Proposed Mitigation Measures Responsible Entities Activities mitigation (US$) Impacts spoil • Ha zardous solid wastes can have the most severe impacts. A produced during land liquid wastes material is hazardous if it is ignitable; corrosive; reactive; or toxic excavation and (causing bodily damage, sickness, or death). The following categories construction - $0.2/t of hazardous wastes will potentially be generated by the project: PIU o Chemi cal wastes included in environmental due diligence budget o Medical wastes ADB o Batteries, paint, and solvents included in corporate o Used oil and grease environmental due o Contaminated spoil, particularly around the substation where diligence budget PCBs may have been spilled • Wastewater includes wastewater from construction activities (e.g. sediment pond outlets, crushing plant operation), domestic wastewater from activities such as from kitchens or showers (grey water) and may contain pollutants such as grease, soap and mild detergents, and liquid sanitary waste (black water) that contains nutrients, organic substances, and pathogens. • The key waste management philosophy that is applied in this sub- plan is based on the following hierarchy of waste management approaches (highest to lowest priority) 1. Avoid waste generation 2. Minimize waste generation 3. Reuse as much waste as practical 4. Recycle as much waste as practical 5. Dispose of any remaining waste in an environmentally suitable manner in locations approved by the PIU and MNP • Implementation of this hierarchy, together with the use of appropriate collection, segregation, storage, disposal and education/training methods will ensure that the level of risk associated with waste management is low. o Separate and store waste streams that can be recycled. o Collect and store waste oil in used fuel drums in a bunded area, whose effective volume is at least 150% of the largest container, for later safe disposal in a manner and/or at sites approved by the

Table V.1: Summary of Impacts and Proposed Mitigation Measures (Environmental Management Plan) Potential Project Indicative cost of Environmental Proposed Mitigation Measures Responsible Entities Activities mitigation (US$) Impacts MNP. o Maintain the site clear of litter. o Hold sewage in sealed tanks for proper disposal. o Categorize spoil and other construction wastes in terms of hazard level. o Manage hazardous wastes in accordance with the Health, Safety, and Environment Emergency Response Plan and the Emergency Plan For Hazardous Materials o Remove wastes from the site regularly to avoid dust and litter generation, attracting pests, and reducing visual amenity. o Transport waste in accordance with the Traffic and Access Plan. Site re- Construction 14. Site Reinstatement, Landscaping, and Revegetation Plan Contractor Contractor instatement of materials that are Prepare plan • Arborist - $2,000 all areas not cleared from • The purpose of this sub-plan is to document the approach of the GC, Hire arborist to prepare • Tree planting – $5,000 the site are SCs, and their workers in the implementation of site clearance and Re-vegetation, dendro design (see Tree Management potential safety restoration, landscaping, and revegetation measures as part of the landscaping Hire landscape contractor Plan) hazards construction works. The sub-plan should include the following: to implement plan • Landscaping with grass Localized flooding • Clear all construction-related materials and equipment from the site PIU – $250 (at $0.8/m2) from impermeable including waste, unused materials, fencing etc. Review plan and monitor • Other costs covered by surfaces if • Reinstate natural drainage lines. inadequate implementation. labor cost of the drainage • Landscape site following a plan approved by PIU. Monitor tree survival construction budget Sediment and • Implement check-list to be prepared for final sign-off by PIU. ADB PIU erosion of included in environmental • Procedures for planting, maintenance and monitoring to ensure Review implementation uncovered areas due diligence budget stable growth of trees and groundcover. reports ADB • Species MUST be included in corporate o endemic to entire site or specific area, environmental due o readily available (commercially or from seed collection), and diligence budget o relatively easy to propagate. • Species should ideally be o easily seeded (manual or mechanical methods), and

Table V.1: Summary of Impacts and Proposed Mitigation Measures (Environmental Management Plan) Potential Project Indicative cost of Environmental Proposed Mitigation Measures Responsible Entities Activities mitigation (US$) Impacts o relatively easy to maintain. • Replant trees according to dendro design and agreement with PIU • Maintain new trees until viable or 3 years, whichever comes first as certified by qualified arboris. • See also Waste Management and Disposal Plan Operation and Maintenance Phase (If required, to be updated by the PIU Environment Specialist prior to operation) Potential Project Indicative cost of Environmental Proposed Mitigation Measures Responsible Entities Activities mitigation (US$) Impacts Operation Settlement of the • Develop a program for monitoring any settlement of the soil and any Contractor Contractor soil affecting the impact in the existing church and buildings beneath the escalator During guarantee period • As required structural integrity shaft. This will include provision of tell tales external and internal tell Municipality Municipality of the church and tales to provide information of settlement or movement. Thereafter • buildings beneath • Develop mitigation as required and implement. Within Municipality the escalator shaft budget Vegetation Vegetation, and • Include project area in Municipality of Yerevan vegetation Contractor Contractor particularly trees, maintenance operations. Maintain trees for 3 years • As required – part of do not establish • Monitor the health of the trees and replace as required. after planting Tree Management Plan Municipality of Yerevan budget Maintain trees thereafter Municipality • Within Municipality budget

B. Environmental Monitoring Plan

124. The environ mental mon itoring plan within the EMP is primarily the f ramework within which environmental monitoring will be conducted. It will g uide the PI U in determining if th e recommended mitigation measures are being implemented effectively. The basic framework for EMP monitoring is provided in Table V.2. In addition to the responsible entities below, each item will be monitored by the PIU En vironment Specialist monthly, or at a frequency deemed appropriate. Quarterly reviews will also be un dertaken of Contractor records to satisfy tha t monitoring has been undertaken, as appropriate.

125. Environmental monitori ng results will be do cumented to record that signs of a dverse impacts are detected at the earliest time practicable. Where monitoring results do not meet th e environmental performance indicator, action tak en will also be recorded. Monitoring results wil l be reported monthly by the PIU Environment Specialist to t he Municipality of Yerevan (as the EA), who will compile the monthly reports into semi-annual reports to the ADB. Annual reporting and end of phase reporting will be undertaken for submissi on to the PPMU head, who will i n turn submit to MNP for endorsement and to the ADB.

126. The format for the monthly and annual en vironmental monitoring report will be developed during project implementation by the PIU Environment Specialist.

Table V.2: Monitoring Requirements – Site Preparation, Construction and Operation

Location / Frequency Activity / Parameters to Method of Environmental performance Responsible Monitoring location/s Phase (as be monitored monitoring indicator entities (formal relevant) monitoring) Construction Phase (To be updated by the Contractor together with the Environment Specialist prior to beginning construction and thereafter, as re quired)

All construction Noise To be agreed by the Noise meter Maximum at monitoring locations: Contractor to hire To be developed in complainant, Contractor and noise specialist to the Noise and PIU Environment Specialist as - 8am to 8pm (day) – 55dBA LAeq, monitor Vibration 70dBA LAmax Management Plan PIU Environment - 8pm to 8am (night) – 45dBA LAeq, Specialist to If complaint 60dBA LAmax review complaints received and monitoring Or as agreed with the relevant Monthly review authority records Waste Solid waste Designated waste receptacles Visual inspection No litter Contractor Ongoing management (general and disposal domestic, All site areas No waste outside designated areas Formally weekly construction, PIU Environment Weekly hazardous) Specialist Material Stockpiled Stockpile locations Visual Minimal m aterial stockpi led on s ite Contractor Weekly stockpiles material and no spoil stockpiled on site PIU Enviro nment Within designated area Specialist Stockpiled correctly Topsoil stockp iled c orrectly and not within drainage line All areas Slope protection Site boundary and downhill Visual and by Drainage control measures in place Contractor Weekly and drainage sample, if needed and all water from the site channeled into a sedimentation basin No Following a rain Run-off control evidence of erosion event and pumping from excavation

PIU Environment Monthly Specialist review of records

Table V.2: Monitoring Requirements – Site Preparation, Construction and Operation

Location / Frequency Activity / Parameters to Method of Environmental performance Responsible Monitoring location/s Phase (as be monitored monitoring indicator entities (formal relevant) monitoring)

All areas Quality of water Sedimentation basin Laboratory analysis Water released into drainage system Contractor to hire As required prior to prior to discharge does not exceed USSR water quality specialist to discharge standard Integrated list of MPCs and collect and nearly safe levels of influence of analyze samples Weekly review pollutants on water in fishing and undertake reservoirs for Total suspended solids laboratory (TSS) being <30mg/l analysis PIU Environment Specialist Excavation and Movement of Designated buildings including Structural movement Movement within acceptable criteria Contractor Daily tunneling buildings, the church monitors settlement of PIU Environment Weekly review of ground Specialist records Tunneling Groundwater Tunnel at groundwater depth Visual Protection measures in place Contractor Daily Dewatering is being undertaken PIU Environment Weekly Specialist

Secured work Security Boundary Visual Security fence maintains integrity Contractor Daily sites/camps fencing/hoarding PIU Environment Weekly Specialist Transportation Dust All site areas Visual No visible dust Contractor Ongoing Vehicles covered Vehicles covered Formal weekly if transporting inspection domestic wastes, Daily during soil, spoil, sand and other earthmoving materials activities PIU Environment Weekly Specialist 3 All site areas Air pollution – Representative boundary Dust deposition Dust deposited below 0.15 mg/m Contractor Samples analyzed between road and adjacent gauge or other daily average in accordance with

Table V.2: Monitoring Requirements – Site Preparation, Construction and Operation

Location / Frequency Activity / Parameters to Method of Environmental performance Responsible Monitoring location/s Phase (as be monitored monitoring indicator entities (formal relevant) monitoring)

dust residence/s method approved by standard Maximum Permissible PIU Environment monthly PPMU (e.g., sticky Concentration (MPC) for Ambient Air Specialist review Monthly pad, gravimetric) in Human Settlements, Republic of monitoring Armenia government decision N160- records N, 02/02/2006 Traffic and road Mud and dirt on Site exit Visual inspection No mud and dirt on public roads Contractor Daily safety public roads Vehicles leaving site: PIU Environment Weekly Specialist - loads covered - tires do not contain excessive mud/dirt Traffic and road Traffic diversion Public roads Visual and records Measures in place in accordance with Contractor Following safety measures and the Traffic and Transport installation of signage Management Plan PPMU and measures/signage relevant authority No accidents Weekly Retained trees Trees Protected Eastern Platan trees Visual or as required Boundary fencing maintained around Specialist hired To be advised by and other retained trees by the specialist the trees to prevent construction by the PPMU the specialist encroachment Health of trees Work site safety Personal All workers Visual Personal protective equipment worn Contractor Ongoing and daily protective equipment Question a sample of Demonstrated knowledge of workers PIU Environment Weekly workers as specified Specialist Knowledge of in Health, Safety and Safety signage appropriately procedures, Environment displayed points of contact Emergency Response Plan

Public relations Public notices At gates Visual Notices in place Contractor Monthly around the site Complaints documented per PIU Environment If complaint Complaints requirements of the Grievance Specialist received register Redress Mechanism in ADB’s

Table V.2: Monitoring Requirements – Site Preparation, Construction and Operation

Location / Frequency Activity / Parameters to Method of Environmental performance Responsible Monitoring location/s Phase (as be monitored monitoring indicator entities (formal relevant) monitoring) Safeguard Policy Statement (2009) Complaints resolved and resolutions recorded Handling Hazardous Designated hazardous material Visual Appropriately stored and in Contractor Weekly hazardous materials storage area designated areas materials PIU Environment All site areas Specialist Revegetation Vegetation cover All soil exposed surfaces Visual Exposed soils for extended periods Contractor Monthly PIU Environment Specialist Revegetation for Vegetation All soil exposed surfaces Visual Revegetation as per Landscaping and Contractor As required at the site Site Reinstatement Plan end of works until reinstatement PIU Environment signed off as Specialist acceptable Site Waste All sites as construction is Visual Waste, materials and equipment Contractor As required at the rehabilitation completed removed end of works until Drainage lines PIU Environment signed off as Drainage lines reinstated Specialist acceptable Records and Inspection Recorded information Visual review All av ailable, r ecorded c orrectly, a ny Contractor to Monthly reporting checklist follow-up has bee n c arried out as integrate into required monthly report as Complaints log appropriate Consultation PIU Environment Bi-annually record Specialist to EA Training records via PIU head and PPMU director. Licenses, EA reports to approvals, ADB permits

Table V.2: Monitoring Requirements – Site Preparation, Construction and Operation

Location / Frequency Activity / Parameters to Method of Environmental performance Responsible Monitoring location/s Phase (as be monitored monitoring indicator entities (formal relevant) monitoring) Operation and Maintenance Phase (To be updated by the PPMU Environment Specialist prior to operation of the road if required)

Landscaped Landscaping Landscaped areas Visual No dead vegetation Contractor for Quarterly over areas period specified in the first two years No exposed soils contract then bi-annually for the following Municipality of two years Yerevan thereafter

127. Although monitoring will be formally undertaken at a frequ ency specified in Table V.2, visual observation should be undertaken by all workers (especially supervisors and other trained personnel) on a daily basis and during key activities, and any potential or actual issues reported to PIU’s Environment Specialist.

C. Institutional Arrangements and Responsibilities

1. Institutional Arrangements

128. The Municipality of Yerevan is the Executing Agency (EA) of Project 4 and the other three projects within Tranche 1 of this MFF. The Mu nicipality will establ ish a Program Preparation and Management Unit (PPMU) to manage and monitor all implementation activities of the prog ram and the project s. The Yerevan Development Project Implementation Unit (Yerevan PIU) has been established as the Implementing Agency (IA). The role of Yerevan PIU is to manage day-to-day coordination, impleme ntation, monitoring, and administration activities of individual projects through a Program Imple mentation Team including expertise in social and environmental safeguards and whose Environ ment and Resettlement Specialists are to provide immediate oversight for environmental and social safeguards.

2. Responsibilities

129. The Executing Agency’s (EA’s) Program Preparation and Management Unit (PPMU):

(i) Establish a safeguard unit that includes an Environment Specialist for at least the duration of Tranche 1, preferably for the duration of the Program, and ideally as the core for future projects that involve environment safeguards; (ii) Manage and monitor the Yerevan PIU safeguard unit; and (iii) Report regularly to the ADB.

130. The Implementing Agency (IA): Yerevan Development Project Implementation Unit (Yerevan PIU):

131. The IA’s Environment Specialist (PIU Environment Specialist):

(i) Assist the Yerevan PIU in procuring the Contractor, in particular, ensure that bid and contract documents include specific environmental safeguard provisions that reflect the EMP; (ii) Work with the Contractor in further developing an EMP based on the IEE EMP; (iii) Assist the Contractor to provi de environmental awareness trainin g to sit e supervisors and workers; (iv) Support the PPMU Environment Specialist in implementin g mitigation measures as specified in the EMP; (v) Undertake monitoring activities as specified in the EMP; (vi) Report on compliance with ADB and Government of Armenia requirements; (vii) Be a point of public contact for any complaints or concerns;

(viii) Respond to emergencies and noti fy the relevant authoriti es within re asonable times; and (ix) Keep updated with ch anges in authority req uirements and legislat ion and respond as appropriate.

132. The Contractor:

(i) Hire the services of an Environment Specialist; (ii) Update the IEE EMP based on the actual contract and thereafter based on actual conditions prevailing on site; (iii) Implement the construction phase components of the EMP; (iv) Support the PPMU/PIU En vironment Spec ialist in implementin g various components of the EMP including the provision of training and monitoring; and (v) Respond to emergencies and notif y the PPMU/PIU En vironment Specialist and emergency authorities.

133. Independent Environment Specialist:

(i) Monitor compliance of the project with the EMP and any other authority requirements.

3. Recommended Environmental Safeguard Clauses for Civil Works Contracts

Clause 1 – Environmental Safeguards

134. The Contractor shall: (i) Provide facilities for the on-site Environment Specialist; (ii) Allow access to the sit e for environmental inspection at any time re quested, pending completion of appropriate safety training; (iii) Undertake the following investigations prior to construction: a. Utilities sur vey for protection and/ or relocatio n of water mains, gas mains, sewers, electricity and communication lines; b. Road dilapidation survey; and c. Church dilapidation survey. (iv) Prepare a d etailed EMP based on the measures outline d in the IEE re port and incorporating the following operating plans: 1. Health, Safety, and Environment Emergency Response Plan 2. Public Relations and Communications Plan 3. Physical Cultural Resources Plan 4. Utility Protection and Relocation Plan 5. Drainage, Slope Stability, Erosion and Sediment Control Plan 6. Traffic and Access Plan 7. Spoil Disposal Planning and Management Plan 8. Emergency Plan For Hazardous Materials 9. Tree Management Plan 10. Dust and Emissions Control Plan 11. Tunnelling Management Plan 12. Noise and Vibration Control Plan 13. Waste Management and Disposal Plan 14. Site Reinstatement, Landscaping, and Revegetation Plan

(v) Implement the EMP a nd operatin g plans, in cluding und ertaking monitoring, maintenance, reporting etc. Any departure from the EMP must fir st be agreed in writing with the PPMU Environme nt Specialist and be a pproved by relevant authorities and ADB; (vi) Execute, upon work completion, all work necessary to reinstate all unconstructed areas of the site as near to its original condition. This work will be complete when the PPMU Environment Specialist provides written certifica tion of reinstatement to a reasonable level.

D. Cost of Implementation

135. The cost of environmental monitoring will be that required for the remun eration of staff involved in EMP activities and their traveling expenses as well as any direct cost for monitoring activities.

136. The monitoring plan does not include p eriodic mo nitoring to obtain specific measurements, such a s noise level, air quality, or water q uality. However, if any unexpected impact or complaint arises it is recommended that the Environme nt Specialist take the necessary action in coordination with the PIU. It is recommended that th e PIU set up a working arrangement with the r elevant Government agency to use its fa cilities and/or equ ipment in taking samples for analyses and/or in the analyses, whichever is/are applicable.

VI. CONSULTATION AND INFORMATION DISCLOSURE

A. Stakeholder Meetings

137. Meetings were held wit h representatives of a number of stakeholder g roups and will be ongoing with the same and different stakeholder groups during the preparation of other projects planned to be funded under the MFF.

138. Stakeholder meetings as at the date of this report include:

(i) Municipality of Yerevan – the Executing Agency (ii) Yerevan Development Project Implementation Unit (Yerevan PIU) - the Implementing Agency (iii) Ministry of Nature Protection o Department of Economics o Environmental Protection Department (iv) Ministry of Culture o Agency for Protection of Historical and Cultural Monuments o Department of Cultural Heritage (v) Non-government organizations (NGOs) o Public Environmental Alliance (an alliance of NGOs) o Association for Sustainable Human Development.

B. Public Consultation

139. An advertisement (see Appendix 4) was placed in The Armenian Times newspaper and on the Muni cipality of Yerevan web site and sent directly to key autho rity stakeholders inviting interested persons to a formal public con sultation event on Friday 19 March 2010 at Yerevan Municipality. Amongst the attende es were fi fteen recor ded representatives o f relevant

46 government agencies and membe rs of the general public (see Appendix 2). The following summarizes issues raised and discussed:

(i) Trees to be removed; (ii) Impact on the existing church; (iii) Uncovering new historical monuments during excavation; (iv) Seismic activity and how it would affect the proposal; (v) Effect on groundwater quality; and (vi) Sustainability of the projects and the greater program.

140. ADB’s Social Safeguards Specialist generally addressed resettlement and compensation questions.

C. Information Disclosed

141. The IEE will be made publicly available on the ADB website (in English only) and an EIA in the Armenian language will be submitted to the MNP and made publicly available on the MNP and the Municipality of Yerevan websites. This will ensur e the disclo sure of env ironmental concerns a nd proposed mitigation measures to the relevant authorities and other interested parties.

D. Future Consultation

142. A workshop will be hel d in early May 2010 a nd will provide a platfor m to discuss the projects wit h key stakeholders. The four projects will be assesse d during this workshop b y participating stakeholde rs with con cerns and issues cap tured and where appropriate further actions taken to alleviate concerns raised at the event. The display material from the workshop will remain within the foyer of the Municipality building for public viewing.

143. Under Armenia’s EIA legislation, the EIA will be subject to public heari ngs conducted by the MNP ‘… for the publ ic opinion, the opinions of affected community leaders, the opinions of affected communities, and relevant state bodies.’

VII. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

144. Based on t he environmental scre ening carrie d out for th e IEE study, the proposed project is unlikely to cause significant, irreversible adverse impacts on the environment.

145. The benefits of the project will include:

(i) Improved accessibility of the metro line; (ii) Short-term economic benefits by generating employment opportunities during construction; (iii) Medium to long-term economic benefits from the new retail area; and (iv) Long-term regional improvements to air quality.

146. The potential adverse impacts that are asso ciated with location, design, constru ction, and operation of the pr oject will be of low mag nitude and localized, an d can be mitigated to acceptable levels without difficulty. T he impacts during constructions will be temporary and can be minimized by following the construction management and supervision outlined in the EMP. Removal of the trees is considered adverse, however the potential adv erse impacts associated

47 with potentially affectin g the root zone of the protected Eastern Platan tree are not known and will need to be further investigated.

147. It is recommended that:

(i) The clause s set out in the IEE EMP be included in the Bid Documents and Contract Documents; (ii) The Contractor prepare a detailed EMP based on the EMP contained in this IEE; (iii) The EA, the PPMU, and the PIU ensure that the impact prevention and mitigation measures specified in the IEE and EMP be implemented; and (iv) Environmental monitoring be carried out as specified in the monitoring plan within the IEE EMP.

148. All project activities prior to constru ction, during construction, and durin g operation will be monitored in accordance with relevant Government of Armenia regulations and ADB policy.

VIII. CONCLUSIONS

149. Based on the indication of the Rapid Environme ntal Assessment in App endix 1 and the findings of t he IEE, the classificat ion of t he subproject as Category “B” is confirmed, and no detailed EIA will be needed to comply with the environmental policies of the ADB. Any additional studies proposed or deemed necessary based o n site conditions not yet known are expected to result in mitigation measures that are routine and can be easily incorporated within the construction schedule. Accordingly, the IEE wit h the recommended institutional arr angements and monitoring program given in the IEE EM P will become the completed Environmenta l Assessment.

150. Nuisance impacts, including noise , dust, traffic and acce ss change s, are likely to be experienced by nearby receptors d uring constr uction. Pote ntial impact s to the church during construction will be miti gated to insignificant level. Key benefits of this project include improved access to the metro line; economic benefits; and improvements to air quality once operational.

IX. REFERENCES

Advanced Logistics Group (2007). Assistance to Yerevan Municipality for Passenger Transport Grant # TF 057789: Institution al Strengthening for Passenger Transport Planning a nd Organization.

Advanced Logistics Group (2007). Assistance to Yerevan Municipality for Passenger Transport Grant # TF 057789: Assessment of Passenger Transport Strategy Options.

Asian Development Bank (2003), Environmental Assessment Guidelines.

Asian Development Bank (2009), Safeguard Policy Statement.

Asian Devel opment Ban k (2010). Proposed Multitranche Fi nancing Facility Armeni a: Yerevan Sustainable Urban Transport Investment Program (economic data).

Asian Deve lopment Ba nk (March 2010) Armenia: Yerevan Sustainable Urban Transport Program Environmental Assessment and Review Framework.

The Association for Sustainable H uman Development/UNEP National Committee (2007). Geo Yerevan: Assessment of the Local Environmental Conditions 2004 – 2006 (Summary).

Collage (2001), Yerevan: Armenia.

Environmental Impact Monitoring Center, MNP. Internet www.armmonitoring.am.

Gasparyan, B. (2010). Preparing the Yerevan Sustainable Urban Transport Investmen t Program. Archaeological impact of Project 4 – New Yeri tasardakan Metro Stati on Entrance (Preliminary report)

Ministry of Health, RoA (6 March 2002). Order N138 on adoption of N2 -III-11.3 sanitary norms. Noise in workplaces, apartment and public buildings, territories of urban construction.

Ministry of Nature Protection, Environmental Impact Monitoring Centre. Data supplied by L Margaryan, dated 24/03/10.

Municipality of Yerevan (2004), Yerevan City Master Plan, Vol. 5 - The complex scheme of Environmental Protection. Municipality of Yerevan (2004), Yerevan City Master Plan, Vol. 9 - General concepts.

Municipality of Yerevan. Internet www.yerevan.am

Municipality of Yerevan (2009) Four year development project of Yerevan for 2010-2 013 years. Decision number N52-N, 23 December 2009.

Municipality of Yerevan (2009). Yerevan develo pment project for 2010 year, Decision Number N53-N, 23 December 2009.

National Statistical Service of the R epublic of A rmenia. Environment and Natural Resources in the Republic of Armenia for 2008. Internet www.armstat.am.

National Statistical Service of the Republic of Armenia. Stat istical Yearbook of Arme nia, 2009. Internet www.armstat.am.

Republic of Armenia (RA), Ministry of Nature Protectio n, Fourth National Report to the Convention on Biological Diversity, Yerevan, 2009

World Bank Group (1999), Pollution Prevention and Abatement Handbook 1998 . The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/The World Bank.

World Bank Group (2007). Enviro nment, Hea lth, and Saf ety General Guidelines . The World Bank.

World Health Organization (WHO). Air Quality Guidelines Global Update, 2005. In International Finance Corporation (IFC) General EHS Guidelines: Environmental. Intern et www.ifc.org/ifcext/enviro.nsf/Content/EnvironmentalGuidelines

Yavruyan, Davit (April 2010). Ye revan Sustainable Urb an Transpo rt Program: Ecologica l Investigation Report for Project 4: Metro Ope ra House Entrance Upgrade (Yeritasardakan).. Armenian Nature Protectors Union NGO, Yere van State University. Study prepared for Mott MacDonald.

Yayloyan (Mr), Yerevan Metropolitan, pers. comm.. 25 March 2010.

APPENDIX 1

Rapid Environmental Assessment (REA) Checklist Urban Development

Instructions: This checklist is to be prepared to support the environmental classification of a project. It is to be atta ched to the environme ntal categor ization form that is to b e prepared and submitted to the Chi ef Complia nce Officer of the Regional and Sustainable Development Department. This checklist is to be completed with the assist ance of an Environment Specialist in a Regional Department. This checklist focuses on environmental issu es and con cerns. To ensure that social dimensions are adequately considered, refer also to ADB ch ecklists and handbooks on (i) involuntary resettlement, (ii) indigenous peoples planni ng, (iii) poverty reduction, (iv)participation, and (v) gender and development. Answer the questions assuming the “without mitigation” case. The purpose is to identify potential impacts. Use the “remarks” se ction to discuss any anticipated mitig ation measures.

Country/Project Title: Armenia / Yerevan Sustainable Urban Transport Project Metro sub-way entrance (Yeritasardakan) Sector Division: Urban Development Conducted by / date: Arman Vermishyan and Klaus Schonfeld, 28 Jan 2010 Naomi Hull and Klaus Schonfeld, 10 Feb 2010 Naomi Hull, Davit Yavruyan, and Klaus Schonfeld, 17 Mar 2010 SCREENING QUESTIONS Yes No REMARKS A. PROJECT SITING

Is the project area… 1. Densely populated? X 2. Heavy with development activities? X 3. Adjacent to or within any environmentally sensitive areas?

- Cultural heritage site Access tunnel will be approximately 6 m from edge X of church. Archaeological investigation will determine if church is built on historical monuments. - Protected area X - Wetland X - Mangrove X

SCREENING QUESTIONS Yes No REMARKS - Estuarine X - Buffer zone of protected area X - Special area for protecting biodiversity X - Bay X B. POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

Will the Project cause… 4. impacts on the sustainability of associated sanitation and solid waste disposal systems X and their interactions with other urban services. 5. deterioration of surrounding environmental conditions due to rapid urban population growth, commercial and industrial activity, and increased waste generation to the point X that both manmade and natural systems are overloaded and the capacities to manage these systems are overwhelmed? 6. degradation of land and ecosystems (e.g. loss of wetlands and wild lands, coastal X zones, watersheds and forests)? 7. dislocation or involuntary resettlement of Land Acquisition and people? X Resettlement Plan (LARP) refers. 8. degradation of cultural property, and loss of Routine mitigation during cultural heritage and tourism revenues? X construction as set out in EMP. 9. occupation of low-lying lands, floodplains and steep hillsides by squatters and low-income groups, and their exposure to increased X health hazards and risks due to polluting industries? 10. water resource problems (e.g. depletion/degradation of available water supply, deterioration for surface and ground X water quality , and pollution of receiving waters? 11. air pollution due to urban emissions? Generation of dust and increased traffic due to construction material haulage, which are normal X occurrences during this kind of construction, will be minimized through routine mitigation measures as set out in the EMP.

SCREENING QUESTIONS Yes No REMARKS 12. social conflicts between construction workers X from other areas and local workers? 13. road blocking and temporary flooding due to X land excavation during rainy season? 14. noise and dust from construction activities? X 15. traffic disturbances due to construction X material transport and wastes? 16. temporary silt runoff due to construction? X 17. hazards to public health due to ambient, household and occupational pollution, X thermal inversion, and smog formation? 18. water depletion and/or degradation? X 19. overpaying of ground water, leading to land subsidence, lowered ground water table, and X salinization? 20. contamination of surface and ground waters X due to improper waste disposal? 21. pollution of receiving waters resulting in amenity losses, fisheries and marine X resource depletion, and health problems?

APPENDIX 2

ECOLOGICAL INVESTIGATION

Yerevan Sustainable Urban Transport Program Ecological Investigation Report For Project 4 Metro Opera House Entrance Upgrade (Yeritasardakan)

This ecological study has been undertaken as par t of environmental assessments for the ne w entrance to “Yeritasardakan” Metro Station (Abovyan Street - Sayat Nova Avenue intersection) . The key purpose of the study is to identify protected flora and fauna a nd to develop mitigatio n measures for their protection.

1. Study approach and limitations

The site has been visited with the p urpose of ecological survey. During the visits investigations of the current general environmental situation have been implemented and relevant professional study, as well as overview study of the zoological and biological variety has been fulfilled.

The preliminary environmental research was implemented in the period March 17-26, 2010, the field visit on 17 March 2 010. The st udy was undertaken wit hin tight time limitations and over a season which did not allow full investigation of th e variety and quantity composition of the flora and fauna. The season over which the study was undertaken was not a favorable season from the vegetation, migration, wintering, ovipositing (egg-laying) and other biological perspectives.

Thus, with t he purpose of professio nal investig ation aimed at the development of preliminary environmental research, results have been gath ered from the field visit, as well as a number of other informational so urces; the list of the la tter is in cluded in Annex 4. Meetings have been organized and discussions held with relevant professionals (zoologists and biologists) who have previously implemented research in the areas under discussion.

• In general, Yerevan co ntains the f ollowing flor a and fauna types: According to t he expert eval uation, the natural flora of Yerevan includes a bout 900 types of vascular (high class) plants ; 1 5 of th em a re includ ed i n Armenia n Red Book, among the m one endemic species included in the IUCN Red List. • Yerevan’s fa una dive rse. There are 2 5 ma mmal t ypes, a mong them 3 incl uded in Armenian Red Book and 5 – in IUCN Red List. • The City are a is w idely populated by undesirable mammal sp ecies, such as grey rats and house mouse. • From about 170 bird types 29 are registered in Armenian Red Book. At least 100 types, of which 15 t ypes incl uded in the Arme nian Red Bo ok, b uild nests. Th e oth er types are regularly present at seas onal migration, wintering and fee ding time. The most numerous are synanthropic types, such as sparrow, grey crow, magpie, rock pigeon (including feral pigeon), in recent years also Eurasian Collared Dove. • There are 25 types of reptiles, of which 5 are included in Armenian Red Book. • The A rmenian Red Book i ncludes a mphibians, i ncluding Syrian spade-footed Toad (Pelobates syriacus), which h as m ost l ikely d isappeared due to the de vastation of landscapes and unfavorable alterations of the water reservoir schedules.

• There are a number of i nvertebrates spread with in the city. T he most in vestigated ones are the beetles: there are known about 700 types of beetles; most of them are Armenian and some e ven Yerevan endemic. Of these ins ects, those known are 60 dipterans, 40 hymenopterans, 130 butterflies, from 10 to 20 types of orthopterous insects (Orthoptera), spiders, mo llusks (Mollusca), abou t 30 types of gnawing beetles (Ostomatidae) and ticks.

Construction works can adversely impact on the flora and fauna on or near the site. In this report, the focus is only on direct impacts on vegetation removal, habitat removal and harming protected species. Oth er impacts associated with noise; air quality; soil; an d surface and groundwater aspects ha ve been identified in th e complete Initial Environmental Examination report) and mitigation measures are provided. This eco logical investigation focu ses’ on the impact on flora and fauna and provides recommendations for mitigation including protection and compensation for trees removed.

2. Basic description of the project, location and construction methodology

a The project essentially comprises construction of four underground sections being: (i) Approximate 42m x 12 m hall at 5 m deep at the southern extent to accommodate shops with two stairways leading to street level at the corner of the intersection of Sayat-Nova Avenue and Abovian Street; (ii) An approximate 50m long x 7 m wide x 5m deep t unnel conn ecting the commercial hall to the escalator hall; (iii) Approximate 18m x 15m escalator hall at 5m deep at the northern extent of the site which leads to the subway (iv) Approximate 100m long escalator shaft at app roximately 40m deep to meet with the existing station platform. b The Catholic Church of Armenia is planni ng to construct a new church and associated administrative buildings on this site at ground level above the propose d facilities which will be con structed as part of the Metro en trance proj ect. Due to the proposed construction methodology for Project 4 involving excavation rather than tunneling, th ere is urgency f or Project 4 to be completed to a llow the developer to begin constru ction of the church. c The site co ntains a remnant of Ka toghike, which is a small single stor ey chapel with a footprint of approximately 5x7m, which will be r etained. Excavation activities will be at a safe distance from the edge of the church to prevent da mage to th e church during construction. Other measures will also be in place to prevent damage. d Design of th e section passing under the new church includ es suitable reinforcement to serve as part of the foundation of the church. e Site-preparation activities include: (i) Installing a security fence around the site; (ii) Clearing of trees along the footpath; (iii) Identification and protection or rel ocation of e xisting above and belo w ground utilities. This includes a small electr icity substation towards the north of the site that will be relocated; (iv) Establishing a construction camp containing worker facilities. f Construction of the fir st three se ctions includes excavation to a de pth of 5m below ground surf ace, insta llation of the vestibule inf rastructure (flooring, w alls, ceiling etc), providing cover to form the new ground surface and internal area finishing.

g Construction of the escalator shaft includes excavation to a depth of ap proximately 40m below ground surface, installation of supporting infrastructure, installing escalators and associated equipment, and internal area finishing. h It is expected that construction will be undertaken over a period of up to two years, which includes excavation activities over an approximate three month period.

3. Desktop investigation

Of protected species o nly Eastern Platan (Platanus orientalis), recorded in the Armenian Red Data Book, is found in this area.

4. Environmental situation

4.1 The environmental situa tion of the p roject site based on the Yerevan Ci ty Master Pl an includes: • No dangerous geological phenomena recorded in the project area. • No rivers and other waterways run through or near the project area. • No special protected areas, rare and/or endemic species recorded. • Soil pollution: high soil pollution. • Air pollution: the area is in the average pollution zone. • Noise: actual recorded noise fluctuates from 61 to 72 dB. • Biodiversity: Major parts of the project area are significantly changed. • Waste: no cases of irregular waste dumped in the area of the project.

4.2 The area is in the middle of the do wntown, under strong a nthropogenic influence. The presence of Eastern Platan trees is a risk factor for the project.

5. Conclusion and recommendations

The only issue of ecological concern in P4 will affect a number of trees in the project area that may be removed to allow construction. This includes a number of Eastern Platan trees, which is a protected Red Book species.

Removal of the trees is prohibited under the Law on Flora.

If retaining these trees is viable, it is necessary to develop an implementation plan which would prevent damage to their root systems during construction and after.

Image 1: View of project site (with Eastern Platan) from Abovyan street.

Image 2: View of project site (with Eastern Platan) from Abovyan street.

Image 3: Residential apartment buildings to the north of the project site

Annex 1

Laws and Legislations passed by the Government of RA

• RA Law on Flora. • RA Law on Fauna. • RA Law on Payments against the Damage to the Flora a nd Fauna a s a Result of Environmental Violations (03.05.2005). • RA Law on Environmental Impact Expertise • RA Law on Local Self-Governance, adopted on May 7, 2002 envisages the authority of the head of the local community in the areas of land usage, as well as th e liabilities of the head of the community in the a rea of the n ature and e nvironment protection. • RA Criminal Code, ado pted on Apr il 18, 2003 , sets ou t cr iminal liabilities for t he violation of environmental protection rules. Specifically Chapter 27, Articles 281. 295 and 296. • RA Code on Administrative Violations, late st modifications and add itions made o n 29.10.2009. Specifically Chapter 7, Articles 66, 91, 93 and 94. • RA Law on Environmental Monitoring (11.04.2005), that approved of th e liabilities of the environmental mon itoring depa rtment and defined the function of the give n department in different sectors, including the land protection/preservation.

Currently there have been developed and are in different stages of d iscussions the Draft Laws on Environmental Fund, on Natur al Areas un der Special Protection, on Major Provisions of National Water Policy a nd Environmental Exp ertise, as well as on Ru les of State Monitoring of the Land Utilization and Protection.

Annex 2

RA Government Decrees

• The Rule of Usage of the Fertile Layer of Lan d (19.09.2002, RA Government De cree 1622-N), which regulates the activiti es related t o preservation and rehabilitation of l and after mining of natural construct ion materials and minerals, like t he removal and appropriate use of the fertile layer of the soil d uring the mining (removal, preservation and registration of the removed soil); this decree also defines the liabilities of state and local self-governance bodies. • RA Go vernment Decree on the Marginal Rates on Activities Plan ned Subject to Environmental Impact expertise (25.04.1999, RA Government Decree N193) • On Approvi ng the Rules for Construction/Urba n Development Activities in the Special Protected Nature Areas and Forest Fund Lands (08.05.20 0, Decree 613-N) regulates the relevant procedures for the urban construction activities and the liabilities of diffe rent bodies. • On Defining the Rule of Totally or Partially, Permanently or Temporarily Exclusion of the Special Pro tected Wat er Systems out of Economic Activity Field” (10.07.2003. RA Government Decree 888-N). • On Approving the Procedures of Use and Protection of the Specially Protected Areas of International Value (15.09.2005. RA Government Decree 1628-N).

• On the Report/land B alance of t he RA Land Fund A vailability a nd Distribut ion (22.12.2005. RA Government Decree 2243-N), which note d the introduced balance and appointed to introduce the final balance of RA lands in 2006. • In accordan ce with the RA Go vernment Decree 125 On the Organization of L and Construction Procedures it is p lanned to implement land use and prot ection monitoring activities.

Annex 3

Participation of Armenia in the International Environmental Conventions

NAME PLACE AND DATE In force Signed Ratified Convention on Biological Diversity (Rio-de-Janeiro, 21.03.1994 1992 14.05.1993 1992) UN Frame work Convention on Climate Change 21.03.1994 1992 14.05.1993 (Rio-de-Janeiro, 1992) Convention on Environmental Impact Asse ssment 10.09 1997 21.02.1997 in a Transboundary Context (Espoo, 1991) Convention on Co mbat Desertification (Paris, 27.09.1996 1994 02.07.1997 1994)

Annex 4 List of references

1. Yerevan City Master Plan, Volume 5: Complex Outline of Yerevan City Environmental Protection, Yerevan, 2004 2. Yerevan City Master Plan, Volume 9: General Provisions, Yerevan, 2004 3. Major provisions of the new plan of Yerevan City 4. Yerevan Sustainable Urban Transport Program DRAFT Basic construction methodology 5. Yerevan Sustainable Urban Transport Program Public Consultancy on Environmental Protection 6. S. K. Dal, “Fauna of Armenian SSR”, 1954. 7. M.G. Dadikyan, “The Fish of Armenia”, 1986. 8. First National Action Plan of Armenia on Biodiversity, 1999. 9. Fourth National Report to the Con vention on Biological Diversity Republic of Armenia, 2009 10. National Project on Combating Desertification in Armenia, 2002. 11. Red Book of Armenia (plants) 12. Red Book of Armenia (animals). 13. “Water-log vegetation in Armenian SSR”, Barseghyan,1990. 14. Flora of Armenia, volumes. 15. “Vegetation of Armenian SSR”, K. Magakyan, 1941. 16. Atlas of Populated areas of the Republic of Armenia, Yerevan, 2001. 17. Atlas of Armenian SSR, 1961. 18. Nature of Armenia, Yerevan 2006. 19. Birds of Armenia, M.S.Adamyan, 1985. 20. RA Law on the Size of Compensation Caused to the Fauna and Flora as a Result of Environmental Offences, 03.05.2005. 21. RA Law on Environmental Impact Assessment, 20.11.1995

22. The Chiropteras of Armenia and Mediterranean (fauna, ecology and economic importance), doctoral thesis Yavruyan E.G. 1991 23. New and rare bats species for Armenia , Gusiyan R.R, Danielian F.D.,1963 24. The Fauna of Chiropteras of Karmir Blur caves, Yavruyan E.G., Barsegyan A.A., 1975 25. Catalogue of Palaearctic Coleoptera - Volume 2, 2004 Lobl & A. Smetana (Apollo Books) 26. http://www.answers.com/ 27. http://www.gbif.net/species/browse/taxon 28. http://zipcodezoo.com/utilities/search.asp 29. http://www.trueknowledge.com/ 30. http://species.wikimedia.org 31. http://en.wikipedia.org/ 32. http://www.iucnredlist.org/apps/redlist/details 33. http://www.globalnames.org/name_strings?search 34. http://www.biolib.cz/en/formsearch/ 35. http://www.faunaeur.org/index.php 36. http://www.cac-biodiversity.org/arm/arm_natreserves.htm 37. http://www.biodiversitylibrary.org 38. http://www.plantsystematics.org/taxpage/0/genus/ 39. http://www.nature-ic.am/ccarmenia/en/ 40. http://www.globalnames.org/name_strings 41. http://bvi.rusf.ru/taksa/

APPENDIX 3

ARCHAEOLOGICAL INVESTIGATION

Archaeological impact of P4 – New Yeritasardakan Metro Station Entrance (Preliminary report)

Project 4, is the constru ction of new access to t he Metro subway Yeritsardakan in t he center of Yerevan, near the interse ction of Sayat-Nova Avenue and Abovian Stre et (Map 1 o f the General report). Th e area of investigations is fully closed for archa eological study because it’s covered by modern buildings, constructions and streets (Map 5 of the Gen eral report), except of a small size ( 5x7 m in plan), acting church, date d back to the 13 th century (Map 5 of the following report). The Ministry of Culture has included the site a s No. 73 on its list of pr otected sites of Yerevan7. A new church planned to be built under separate, privately-funded contract (Image 7). The church is located n orth form th e intersectio n of Sayat-Nova Avenue and Abo vian Street, with the address - Abovyan st. 1 5. Study of the literatu re sources is giving the following information about the d estiny of this con struction. It was discovered during the de struction of a basilica chu rch S. Katoghike in 19 36, standin g at the sa me place a nd enveloping it from a ll sides. The basilica destruction process during the Stalinism period has an aim to “c lean” all the churches from the center of Yerevan for its urba n development (Images 1 and 2). After removal of the basilica and opening of the original chur ch, it was decided to pr otect and to renovate the newly discovered S. Astvatsatsin (Mother of God) church as a cultural value, b y the request of the Armenian scientific authorities. Te preserved inscriptions on the walls of the chu rch allowed to date it by 13 th century AD, as the building was mentioned in medieval written sources too. The study o f the 13 th century church architectural elements a nd inscriptions in para llel with the historical so urces deter mined that in Developed Medieval Period (13-17 centurie s) a whole monastic complex existed at the place. The study of the historical sources are showing that the nowadays area of the church practically is in one of the oldest districts of Yerevan, the so called Hin Tagh (Old District), then after Shahar, where high density of population was mentioned. This was proved by So viet period construction activities in the vicinity, which were usually

7 The law on preserv ation a nd utilization of Immovabl e Monum ents of Histor y and Culture an d of the Historic Environment (adopted on the 11 of Novem ber 1989) – LPUIMHCHE LAW. Chapter 1. Any building, construction or site, cultura l valu e that is fixe d b y t he state (state regi stration), is a monum ent an d is und er pro tection an d preservation of the Gov ernment of th e Republic of A rmenia. It also ensures preservation of mo numents and t he historic environment and supports the study of monuments and archeological digs. Chapter 13. The recorded list of the monuments has a power of law and is a basis for giving an official status to the monument.

61 accompanied by chance-finds of p ottery, mud-br ick constructions, an d khach kar fragments, especially when the building of the I nstitute of Literature and Philosophy of the Armenian SSR Academy of Sciences was undertaken (Images 3 and 4). Af ter strong earthquake in 1679, the buildings of the monastic complex were collap sed and it was decided to build a new basilica instead, including the only existing constructio n – the Astvatsatsin church. Nowadays, the building of the Institute of Literature and Philosophy is removed and the vicinity of the church is fully open (Images 5 and 6); the ground here is tota lly covered by asphalt, but any disturbances or constructional activities at the place can open cultural remains, from at least t hree different periods: 1. Developed Medieval Period (13-17 centuries), when the Monastic complex surrounded by the old district Shahar was functioning, 2. Late Medieval Period (17-19 centuries), when the new basilica was functioning, 3. First half of the 20th century, when the basilica was destroyed and removed. Summarizing the study of the P4 ar ea in terms of the archa eological impact, we ca n say that it is possible t o start construction of t he Metro a ccess here, so long as chance-fin d regulations issued by the Ministry of Culture are strictly observed, because openings or discoveries of construction remnants and foundation basis and other type of cultural activity are possible. The construction contract should include provision of suitably qualified stu ff, such a s an archaeo logist, to e nsure, that proper ch ance-find p rocedures are implemented durin g excavations8.

Boris Gasparyan Archaeologist consultant 01.05.2010

8 LPUIMHCHE law. Chapter 19. Any type of the construction activity in the areas containing historical monuments or archaeological sites must be realized in agreement with the authorized body (Ministry of Culture). Chapters 21-22. Destruction of historical monuments and its environment is forbidden. Before the realization of any kind of activ ity at the area of the site the authorized body must study it and give corresponding permits or solutions.

APPENDIX 4

PUBLIC CONSULTATION EVENT - 19 MARCH 2010

Advertisement in The Armenian Times

Attendance list - translated

The actual attendance lists contain repeat names. The tran slated list below compiles all name s into the one list.

No. Name Position Address/organization 1. Karen Avetisyan Coordinator Association for Sustainable Human Development, NGO forum on ADB 2. Karine Danielyan President of NGO, Association for Sustainable Representative of Human Development NGO environmental ADB Armenian Office Public Alliance 3. Abrahamyan Tamara President of NGO “Araza” NGO 4. Andranik Tevosyan Citizen 5. Ashot Mnatsakanyan Advisor to the Mayor Yerevan Municipality 6. Mushegh Burnusuzyan Yerevan Municipality Staff Yerevan Municipality Transport Department Main Specialist 7. Diana Yeritspokhyan Ecologist Yerevan Municipality 8. Basencyan Frunz Yerevan Municipality 9. Tadevosyan Rudik Yerevan Municipality 10. Ofelia Sivonyan Yerevan Municipality Information Department 11. Hayk Abelyan Deputy of the Head of District Ajapnyak Administrative District 12. Gevorgyan Gagik Land Usage Town Department Davitashen Administrative Head Region Deputy Director 13. Vardanyan Vardan Shengavit Administrative District 14. Felix Afyan Deputy Director PIU 15. Ruben Srapyan Leading specialist PIU 16. Levon Hakobyan Yerevan Building Investment PIU PIU Director 17. Gohar Aleksanyan Journalist 18. Hasmik Gregorgyan Journalist ArmenPress 19. Anahit Avagyan Journalist Public radio 20. Areg Barseghyan ADB Representative ADB Armenian office 21. Klaus Schonfeld Environment Specialist ADB 22. Lanfranco Blanchetti Resettlement Specialist ADB 23. Anna Avagyan Translator ADB Armenian office 24. Anjela Arakelyan “AdInfoSys” CJSC 25. Milena Babaeva Translator “AdInfoSys” CJSC 26. Liana Mkhitaryan Social and Resettlement “AdInfoSys” CJSC Specialist 27. Vahe Tunyan Transport Specialist “AdInfoSys” CJSC 28. Arman Vermishyan Environment Specialist “AdInfoSys” CJSC 29. Paul Holmes Project Manager Mott MacDonald 30. Naomi Hull Environment Specialist Mott MacDonald 31. Qristine Araqelyan “AdInfoSys” CJSC 32. Tom Streather Resettlement Specialist Mott MacDonald

Attendance list – actual (1 of 3)

Attendance list – actual (2 of 3)

Attendance list – actual (3 of 3)