PROGRAMMATIC ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT -...

PROGRAMMATIC ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT - RURAL ENERGY PROGRAM IN GEORGIA

Programmatic Environmental Assessment - Rural Energy Program in Georgia

PROGRAMMATIC ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT - RURAL ENERGY PROGRAM IN GEORGIA

July 2006 Prepared By:

Dale Shileikis, URS Corp. Miguel Franco, PA Government Services Greg Michaels, PA Government Services Craig VanDevelde, PA Government Services Mariam Bakhtadze, PA Government Services George Ramishvili, PA Government Services George Tcheishvili, PA Government Services Natalia Nikuradze, PA Government Services Prepared For: United State Agency for International Development USAID/Caucasus/Georgia DISCLAMER

This information was made possible through support provided by U.S. Agency for International Development, under the terms of Cooperative Agreement No. 114-A-00-05-00106-00. The opinions expressed herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the U.S. Agency for International Development.

Programmatic Environmental Assessment - Rural Energy Program in Georgia i

TABLE OF CONTENT List of Acronyms .......................................................................................................................... iv Acknowledgements....................................................................................................................... v 1. Introduction and Summary................................................................................................... 1

1.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 1 2. Project Description............................................................................................................... 3

2.1 The USAID/Caucasus/Georgia Rural Energy Program ...................................................... 3 2.1.1 Objective 1: Increased Energy Supply ........................................................................ 4 2.1.2 Objective 2: Improved Management of Local Energy Production ............................... 6 2.1.3 Objective 3: Improved In-Country Capacity In Rural Energy and Alternative Energy

Applications................................................................................................................. 6 2.1.3 Objective 4: Improved Capacity to Utilize and Protect the Local Energy Resource

Base............................................................................................................................ 8 2.2 Relationship of the PEA to the Rural Energy Program ..................................................... 9

2.2.1 Representative Sites for Rehabilitation of Energy Facilities ....................................... 9 2.2.2 RE and EE Projects .................................................................................................... 9 2.2.3 Natural Resource Management Plans ........................................................................ 9

2.3 Typical Construction Activities .......................................................................................... 11 2.3.1 Small Hydropower Projects....................................................................................... 12 2.3.2 Natural Gas Distribution Projects.............................................................................. 19

3. Analysis and Alternatives........................................................................................................ 23 3.1 Types of Energy-Related Activities Considered................................................................ 23 3.2 Development of Alternatives ............................................................................................. 25 3.3 Description of Alternatives ................................................................................................26

3.3.1 Alternative 1- No Action ............................................................................................ 26 3.3.2 Alternative 2 - Comprehensive Support for Rural Energy Development................... 26 3.3.3 Alternative 3 - Mid-Scale Energy Infrastructure Support and Development; Preferred

Alternative ................................................................................................................. 26 3.3.4 Alternative 4 - RE / EE & IRMP Support and Activities Development....................... 27 3.3.5 Alternative 5 - Rural Energy Activities Development ................................................ 27

3.4 Comparison of Alternatives ............................................................................................... 28 4. Environmental Regulations, Legislation and Policies ............................................................ 29

4.1 Executive Summary ..........................................................................................................29 4.2 Institutional Framework for Proposed Activities ................................................................ 30 4.3 Construction / Rehabilitation Permitting and Environmental Policy .................................. 31 4.4 Conclusion ........................................................................................................................ 33

5. Baseline Data / Affected Environment .................................................................................... 34 5.1 Geology and Soils ............................................................................................................. 34

5.1.1 Abhesi ....................................................................................................................... 35 5.1.2 Dzama (Kekhijvari).................................................................................................... 36 5.1.3 Kabali ........................................................................................................................ 36 5.1.4 Kalauri....................................................................................................................... 36 5.1.5 Kakhareti................................................................................................................... 37 5.1.6 Khidistavi................................................................................................................... 37 5.1.7 Lopota (Napareuli) .................................................................................................... 37 5.1.8 Machakhela (Ked-kedi) ............................................................................................. 38 5.1.9 Pshaveli .................................................................................................................... 38 5.1.10 Sartichala ................................................................................................................ 39

5.2 Water Resources .............................................................................................................. 40 5.2.1 Meteorology and Climate .......................................................................................... 40 5.2.2 Hydrology.................................................................................................................. 42 5.2.3 Water Quality ............................................................................................................45

5.3 Biological Resources......................................................................................................... 49 5.3.1 Overview of Major Biomes ........................................................................................ 49 5.3.2 Abhesi ....................................................................................................................... 53

Programmatic Environmental Assessment - Rural Energy Program in Georgia ii

5.3.3 Dzama (Kekhijvari).................................................................................................... 54 5.3.4 Kabali ........................................................................................................................ 55 5.3.5 Kalauri....................................................................................................................... 57 5.3.6 Kakhareti................................................................................................................... 58 5.3.7 Khidistavi................................................................................................................... 61 5.3.8 Lopota (Napareuli) .................................................................................................... 61 5.3.9 Machakhela (Ked-kedi) ............................................................................................. 63 5.3.10 Pshaveli .................................................................................................................. 66 5.3.11 Sartichala ................................................................................................................ 67

5.4 Socioeconomics ................................................................................................................ 69 5.4.1 Country Overview ..................................................................................................... 69 5.4.2 Abhesi ....................................................................................................................... 70 5.4.3 Dzama (Kekhijvari).................................................................................................... 71 5.4.4 Kabali ........................................................................................................................ 72 5.4.5 Kalauri....................................................................................................................... 73 5.4.6 Kakhareti................................................................................................................... 73 5.4.7 Khidistavi................................................................................................................... 74 5.4.8 Lopota (Napareuli) .................................................................................................... 74 5.4.9 Machakhela (Ked-kedi) ............................................................................................. 75 5.4.10 Pshaveli .................................................................................................................. 75 5.4.11 Sartichala ................................................................................................................ 76

5.5 Cultural Resources............................................................................................................ 78 5.5.1 Country Overview ..................................................................................................... 78 5.5.2 Abhesi ....................................................................................................................... 78 5.5.3 Dzama (Kekhijvari).................................................................................................... 79 5.5.4 Kabali ........................................................................................................................ 79 5.5.5 Kalauri....................................................................................................................... 79 5.5.6 Kakhareti................................................................................................................... 79 5.5.7 Khidistavi................................................................................................................... 80 5.5.8 Lopota (Napareuli) .................................................................................................... 80 5.5.9 Machakhela (Ked-kedi) ............................................................................................. 80 5.5.10 Pshaveli .................................................................................................................. 80 5.5.11 Sartichala ................................................................................................................ 81

6. Environmental Impacts ........................................................................................................... 82 6.1 Methodology: Environmental Screening ........................................................................... 82

6.1.1 Small Hydropower Projects....................................................................................... 83 6.1.2 Natural Gas Distribution Systems............................................................................. 84 6.1.3 RE and EE Projects .................................................................................................. 84 6.1.4 Integrated Resource Management Plan Grants ....................................................... 84

6.2 Geology and Soils ............................................................................................................. 85 6.2.1 Significance Criteria .................................................................................................. 85 6.2.2 Small Hydropower Projects....................................................................................... 85 6.2.3 Natural Gas Distribution System Projects................................................................. 86

6.3 Water Resources .............................................................................................................. 87 6.3.1 Significance Criteria .................................................................................................. 87 6.3.2 Small Hydropower Projects....................................................................................... 88 6.3.3 Natural Gas Distribution Projects.............................................................................. 90

6.4 Biological Resources......................................................................................................... 92 6.4.1 Significance Criteria .................................................................................................. 92 6.4.2 Small Hydropower Projects....................................................................................... 92 6.4.3 Natural Gas Distribution Systems............................................................................. 95

6.5 Socioeconomics ................................................................................................................ 98 6.5.1 Significance Criteria .................................................................................................. 98 6.5.2 Small Hydropower Projects....................................................................................... 98

Programmatic Environmental Assessment - Rural Energy Program in Georgia iii

6.5.3 Natural Gas Distribution Systems........................................................................... 100 6.6 Cultural Resources.......................................................................................................... 102

6.6.1 Significance Criteria ................................................................................................ 102 6.6.2 Small Hydropower Projects..................................................................................... 102 6.6.3 Impacts from Natural Gas Distribution Systems ..................................................... 103

7. Environmental Mitigation and Monitoring Plan ..................................................................... 104 7.1 Geology and Soils ........................................................................................................... 107

7.1.1 Small Hydropower Projects..................................................................................... 107 7.2 Water Resources ............................................................................................................108

7.2.1 Small Hydropower Projects..................................................................................... 108 7.2.2 Natural Gas Distribution Systems........................................................................... 115

7.3 Biological Resources.......................................................................................................119 7.3.1 Small Hydropower Projects.......................................................................................... 119 7.4 Human Resources .......................................................................................................... 123

7.4.1 Small Hydropower Projects..................................................................................... 123 7.4.2 Impacts from Natrual Gas Distribution Systems ..................................................... 125

7.5 Cultural Resources.......................................................................................................... 128 7.5.1 Small Hydropower Projects..................................................................................... 128

8. Environmental Management and Training............................................................................ 129 8.1 Monitoring Program and Management of Contractors .................................................... 129

8.1.1 Management of Contractors ................................................................................... 129 8.2 Information and Communication Activities ...................................................................... 130 8.4 Training and Capacity Building ....................................................................................... 140

8.4.1 Types of Training .................................................................................................... 140 8.4.2 Training Methods .................................................................................................... 141

Appendix A – Project Attributes Matrix – SHP and NG ............................................................ 142 Appendix B – Summary Environmental Screening Matrix ........................................................ 145 Appendix C – Additional Maps.................................................................................................. 161 Appendix D – Public Consultation – Organizations Consulted and Interviews Conducted ...... 168 Appendix D – Continued........................................................................................................... 169 Appendix E – Scoping Statement ............................................................................................. 170 Appendix F - Monitoring Plan - Field Visit Report..................................................................... 203 Appendix G - Best Practices Standards for Construction and Other Project Activities............. 204

Programmatic Environmental Assessment - Rural Energy Program in Georgia iv

List of Acronyms BEO USAID Europe and Eurasia Bureau Environmental Officer CBO Community-based organization CFR U.S. Code of Federal Regulations EA Environmental Assessment EBRD European Bank of Reconstruction and Development EE Energy Efficiency GEII Georgia Environment Infrastructure Initiative GEL Georgian Lari GESI Georgia Energy Security Initiative GoG Government of Georgia GWP Georgian Water Project IPP Individual Power Providers IRMP Integrated Resource Management Plan kW Kilowatts kWh Kilowatt/hours LEDC Local Electricity Distribution Company M&E Monitoring and Evaluation M&M Mitigation and Monitoring MW Megawatts MWh Megawatt/hours MOED Ministry of Economic Development MOEPNRM Ministry of Environmental Protection and Natural Resources Management MOFE Ministry of Fuel and Energy NG Natural Gas NGO Non-Governmental Organization O&M Operation and Maintenance PA PA Government Services PEA Programmatic Environmental Assessment PPA Power Purchase Agreement PV Photovoltaic RE Renewable Energy RE/EE Renewable Energy/Energy Efficiency MEO USAID Caucasus Regional Mission Environmental Officer REPSO Rural Energy Project Support Office SEA Supplemental Environmental Assessment SC Standard Conditions SHP Small Hydropower SS Scoping Statement UNDP United Nations Development Program URS URS Corporation USAID United States Agency for International Development WI Winrock International WB World Bank

Programmatic Environmental Assessment - Rural Energy Program in Georgia v

Acknowledgements This report is the result of the Programmatic Environmental Assessment (PEA) of the USAID/Caucasus/Georgia – funded Rural Energy Program, a program with the potential to implement a wide variety of energy interventions over a fairly sizeable and diverse territory. Due to the complexity of the task, PEA - related activities (from initial scoping activities to final report preparation) lasted over seven months and involved significant interaction with numerous local and international experts.

The authors wish to thank the many individuals (listed in Appendix D) who provided their time and input in to this assessment exercise. Their contributions have provided valuable insights and perspectives, which will be used to guide future implementation of the Rural Energy Program.

While every effort has been made to accurately represent the contributors’ views, the authors assume sole responsibility for any factual errors or misinterpretations that may have inadvertently entered into this report.

Programmatic Environmental Assessment: Rural Energy Sector Development in Georgia 1

1. Introduction and Summary 1.1 Introduction USAID’s environmental regulations (22 CFR 216), commonly known as Reg. 216, establish the conditions and procedures for environmental review of the activities funded with Agency resources. The regulations also provide that a PEA can be used to 1) assess the environmental effects of a number of similar actions and their cumulative environmental impact in a given country or geographic area; 2) evaluate environmental impacts when they are generic or common to a class of Agency actions; or 3) review other activities that are not country-specific. In the case of the Georgia Rural Energy Program, the combination of a number of similar actions and generic environmental impacts common to a class of Agency actions under the Rural Energy Program was the motivation for preparing a PEA. Based on discussions between the USAID Europe and Eurasia Bureau Environmental Officer (BEO), the USAID Regional Mission Environmental Officer (MEO), and the Director of the USAID/Caucasus/Georgia Office of Energy and Environmental Development, a PEA was determined to be the most efficient approach for environmental clearance for rural energy projects under the Rural Energy Program.

A team of specialists working in Georgia carried out the Rural Energy Program PEA scoping process. The process consisted of in-depth reviews of pertinent reference materials, field visits to a sample of rural energy sites and communities, and consultations with officials from the government of Georgia (GoG), community members in villages adjacent to the energy projects and Mission staff. A Scoping Statement (SS) was submitted to the USAID BEO and the USAID/Caucasus Regional MEO for review and approval as per the requirements of Reg. 216.

The work completed by the scoping team set the stage for the PEA. Issues identified during preparation of the Rural Energy Program Scoping Statement (Appendix E) were examined by the multidisciplinary PEA Team through literature reviews, stakeholder interviews, multiple field evaluations and environmental screening analyses. Through a process of integrating issues identified through scoping with information collected through literature reviews, regulatory reviews, interviews, field and screening evaluations, the technical specialists on the PEA Team identified the technical disciplines that would be addressed in the PEA. The technical disciplines addressed in the PEA are:

• Geology and Soils • Water Resources • Biological Resources • Socioeconomics (including Public Health) • Cultural Resources.

Regulation 216 also allows for the elimination of issues from detailed study that are not significant, have been covered by earlier environmental review, or approved design considerations. Based on the environmental screening analyses conducted for a number of representative sites, the PEA Team determined that air quality and noise issues related to the construction and operation of the rural energy projects were not significant, did not require detailed study, and therefore, would not be addressed in the PEA.

The PEA Team identified and analyzed significant environmental and socioeconomic issues in the technical disciplines identified above, paying attention to direct and indirect impacts within the projects’ area of influence. Representative Rural Energy Program sites that were analyzed in the PEA included:

• Sites expected to have minor or no impacts; • Sites expected to have some significant impacts for which mitigation and monitoring

measures are readily identified; and • Sites that were expected to have significant impacts and that will require a Supplemental

Environmental Assessment (SEA).

Programmatic Environmental Assessment - Rural Energy Program in Georgia 2

The PEA addresses the four types of investments anticipated under the Rural Energy Program:

• Small-scale hydropower plants; • Community Natural Gas (NG) distribution systems; • Renewable energy (RE) / energy efficiency (EE) projects; and • Natural resource management grants.

The sites and projects addressed in the PEA under the Rural Energy Program are those that are similar in terms of their size, range and magnitude of impacts. Projects are not included in this program if they do not share these attributes (for example, medium and large hydropower projects), are located in national parks, or raise substantial issues regarding wetlands or sensitive habitats that would require a separate individual Environmental Assessment.

This PEA will serve as the environmental document for use by program staff and program partners implementing projects under the Rural Energy Program. It provides impact characteristics and outlines steps for mitigation and monitoring for different types of projects that will be implemented under the Program. It is anticipated that the PEA will simplify environmental due diligence for the larger set of activities expected under the Program. It will help reduce the amount of paperwork and time involved in these procedures, while still assuring that adequate protective steps and mitigation are undertaken.


2. Project Description In 2005, the USAID/Caucasus/Georgia Energy Strategic Objective Team, based on the potential and promise of ongoing activities in Georgia, proposed an expansion of their rural energy activities as part of a new Rural Energy Program Cooperative Agreement. Since the mid-1990s, USAID/Caucasus/Georgia has been financing activities related to rural RE and EE development as a way to help address the almost continuous energy crisis that has existed in Georgia since the dissolution of the former Soviet Union. Under the Rural Energy Program (the Program), up to 40 communities are anticipated to receive technical assistance and grant financing to support small hydropower rehabilitation and construction of natural gas extension projects. In addition, small-scale RE and EE projects and the development of integrated resource management plans (IRMPs) are envisioned. It was determined by the Mission that the expansion of the rural energy activities involved very similar activities that could be addressed in a PEA under USAID environmental regulations (22 CFR 216) commonly known as Reg. 216. A PEA was considered to be the most efficient approach for environmental clearance under the Rural Energy Program.

2.1 The USAID/Caucasus/Georgia Rural Energy Program Georgia has a large number of rural communities with poor energy supply. In 2004, most rural communities received less than three hours of grid-based electricity per day and many have no supply of natural gas. As a result, many rural businesses and households depend on expensive and environmentally unfriendly generators for electricity, illegally harvested fuel wood for heat, or simply go without.

The Rural Energy Program activities being assessed in this PEA are designed to address the rural energy crisis in Georgia. The four main objectives of the program are described in detail below. They primarily involve the rehabilitation of existing rural energy facilities, the establishment of small-scale RE and EE projects, and the development of integrated resource management plans. They include activities such as:

• Assisting villages with rehabilitating and managing energy generation facilities; • Working with local institutions and entrepreneurs to develop and utilize other

sustainable, alternative energy solutions; • Building local capacity in rural renewable and energy efficient; • Developing local capacity in sustainable energy systems development by establishing a

Georgia-based entity similar to RE Project Support Offices (REPSOs); and • Developing village-oriented natural resource management plans to better utilize and

protect the local energy resource base.


2.1.1 Objective 1: Increased Energy Supply The Rural Energy Program will undertake activities to increase the supply of energy in rural areas by providing technical, organizational, and financial assistance for the constructions or rehabilitation of power generating and distributing facilities.

The Program will provide technical assistance to help rural communities start, manage, operate and maintain energy generation companies – that is, Individual Power Providers (IPPs) capable of delivering power directly to the villages and surrounding regions. Villages interested in participating in the Program will receive organizational assistance to develop a local power generation or distribution facility, and the Program will assist counterparts in planning for and managing energy production and distribution facilities on a commercial basis. All energy facilities must be privately owned to receive project assistance. Program funds will assist in the rehabilitation or construction of up to 40 IPP energy facilities, with primary focus on small hydropower plants (SHPs) and community natural gas (NG) distribution systems.

Figures 2-1 and 2-2 display locations for proposed Year 1 projects and potential future projects.

Figure 2-1. Map for Proposed Rural Energy Program Year 1 Projects


Figure 2-2. Map for Potential Rural Energy Program Years 2, 3 and 4 Projects

Business and operational management plans will be developed for each IPP. The Rural Energy Program will provide assistance to perform necessary technical and financial feasibility studies, including resource assessments and options analyses on distributed generation, co-generation and other innovative energy solutions. The Program will evaluate the appropriateness of the proposed facility siting for both rehabilitation (SHP and NG) and new construction (NG) projects based on engineering technical designs prepared prior to project implementation. As a result, the Program will avoid implementing projects with critical engineering or environmental flaws that might affect the performance of the project (e.g., power generated), integrity of the infrastructure, extremely sensitive habitats, or critical biological resources.

The Rural Energy Program will work to assist the IPPs in the negotiation of power purchase agreements (PPAs) with local electricity distribution companies (LEDCs). Such agreements assure the new IPPs of market and guaranteed income stream from its power production. The Program will also help with securing financing of energy facilities and services through a phased process. First, the Program will help the village or individual entrepreneur develop a business plan, including a sensitivity analysis, cost / benefit analysis, a cash flow statement, and a proposed financing structure for each local power project. Second, it will help secure the maximum amount of local resources for the investment. Third, the Program will help to 1) identify possible credit opportunities; 2) provide a full range of financial planning services; and 3) prepare credit applications for financing institution identified (e.g. local commercial banks, other donors programs, the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, EBRD financing mechanism). Lastly, the Program will consider providing direct grant support to selected projects that demonstrate specific need.


The Rural Energy Program will assist with the planning for and utilization of various power generation plants, most of which are connected to the national grid. Several hydro facilities with potential to increase power supplies have already been identified. In some cases, assistance will be provided to “off-grid” businesses where biogas, solar energy and other RE options will be introduced, if technically and financially feasible. The Program will help entrepreneurs with the required pre-installation analyses to determine the viability of alternative energy solutions as well as the technical aspects associated with installation and operate.

2.1.2 Objective 2: Improved Management of Local Energy Production The Rural Energy Program will increase the social and economic benefit of rehabilitating hydropower plants, extending NG pipelines, and implementing other energy production projects. The Program will work to make these benefits economically, socially and environmentally sustainable over the long term by building the capacity of IPP owners to manage their assets and the revenues that may be realized. This objective may entail providing utility management training, providing business development services, and assisting communities with the development of operational and management plans.

2.1.3 Objective 3: Improved In-Country Capacity In Rural Energy and Alternative Energy Applications The Rural Energy Program will improve in-country capacity in rural energy and alternative energy applications by 1) introducing and promoting the use of more efficient technologies such as energy efficient stoves and solar devices, 2) developing more efficient fuel wood production and management programs, and 3) strengthening local capacity in rural energy, RE and EE. This component of the project will utilize a small grants fund (with cost sharing requirements) to promote the installation of energy efficient technologies and the adoption of RE technologies. Villages and local governments will be instrumental in planning for these activities, including the selection of facilities for the demonstrations. The program will provide assistance with selecting appropriate technologies and calculating costs and benefits. Anticipated RE/EE interventions are noted in Table 2-1 below:

Table 2-1: Anticipated RE / EE Interventions

Category Household Institutional (Business or Social)

Renewable Energy • Biogas • Solar thermal

Energy Efficiency • Improved biomass cook stoves • Weatherization

• Improved biomass heaters

The widespread rearing of cattle in most rural households combined with the urgent need to find an alternative fuel to firewood for cooking in these households makes biogas a very suitable RE intervention in the program communities. Rural Energy will promote and support the installation of quality biogas plants produced by licensed producers that have been tested and certified by a competent independent organization.

Firewood is widely used in rural households for cooking. The promotion of improved cook stoves is anticipated to be another suitable intervention in rural households, as they will reduce fuel wood used for cooking. If this technology can be promoted in a significant number of households in a community, the cumulative impact on deforestation due to reduction in fuel wood need can be significant. The Rural Energy Program will promote and support the installation of quality improved cook stoves produced by licensed producers that have been tested and certified by a competent independent organization.


There may be social institutions like schools, clinics and community centers and businesses, which still use fuel wood to provide heat. In such buildings or businesses, the possibility of installing improved biomass heaters or solar water heaters will be investigated. Both technical feasibility and financial pay back period of such interventions will be analyzed. Rural Energy will promote and support the installation of quality solar water heaters and improved biomass heaters produced by licensed producers that have been tested and certified by a competent independent organization.

Many buildings used by social institutions have been built several years ago and have excessive heating costs because they are inefficient in retaining heat. Weatherization of these buildings may enable them to reduce heating costs, which will be able to payback the investment made to weatherize them. Weatherization will commonly include making doors, windows, roof and floor better able to retain heat within the building. The Program will promote weatherization of buildings and support projects to enable them to have an acceptable pay back period. Rural Energy will promote and support the weatherization of buildings by licensed individuals or organizations that have been certified by a competent independent organization.

The potential projects in the sample communities are noted in Table 2-2 below:

Table 2-2: Potential RE / EE Projects in Selected Communities

Community Potential Interventions Rationale

Abhesi Biogas, weatherization Significant number of cattle, and existence of four schools, a clinic and a library

Kekhijvari Biogas, EE in businesses, weatherization

Significant number of cattle, and existence of a flour mill, two sawmills, a kindergarten, four schools, cultural center, a clinic and a library

Kabali Biogas, weatherization Significant number of cattle, and existence of a kindergarten, and five schools.

Kalauri Biogas, weatherization Significant number of cattle, and existence of two kindergartens, one school, one clinic, a post office and seven greenhouses.

Kakhareti Improved cook stoves, biogas, EE in businesses, weatherization

Significant number of cattle, use of fuel wood for cooking and existence of a kindergarten, five schools, a clinic and nine saw mills.

Khidistavi Improved cook stoves, biogas, weatherization

Significant number of cattle, use of fuel wood for cooking and existence of a kindergarten, two schools, two clinics and four other centers.

Napareuli Weatherization Existence of a school, two clinics and a cultural center.

Machakhela Biogas, weatherization Significant number of cattle, and existence of ten schools, a library, a museum, and a cultural center.

Pshaveli Improved cook stoves, biogas, EE in businesses, weatherization

Significant number of cattle, use of fuel wood for cooking and existence of three schools, a clinic, a cultural center and saw mills.

Sartichala Improved cook stoves, biogas, weatherization

Significant number of cattle, use of fuel wood for cooking and existence of three kindergartens, five schools and a clinic.


In addition, to strengthen in-country capacity to develop and manage in rural energy projects, the Rural Energy Program may establish a Georgia-based entity (e.g. RE Project Support Office – REPSO). The fundamental objective will be to establish an entity that can operate independently to promote RE and EE in Georgia, providing both technical and financing-related services and sustaining its operations through earnings from stakeholders, international organizations, rural enterprises, etc. The REPSO will increase the sustainability of the entire Rural Energy Program.

2.1.3 Objective 4: Improved Capacity to Utilize and Protect the Local Energy Resource Base Each village participating in the development of RE and EE services will receive technical assistance to develop an IRMP related to the production of energy supplies, as well as for conservation and protection of fuel wood resources. To help promote sustainability, villages need to develop plans to manage resources used for energy generation (rivers, canals, agricultural wastes, and wood). Village awareness and education programs focusing on options to mitigate negative environmental consequences conserve resources through reforestation, soil conversation, and watershed protection will be conducted to reinforce the principles in the environmental plans. With the exception of limited assistance in forest resource management associated with power production, the project is not envisioned to directly finance the implementation of any activities emanating from these integrated resource management plans.

The Rural Energy Program will actively contribute to the Mission’s goal of creating a sustainable energy system through increased diversified, RE supply and increased efficiency in the energy sector (Strategic Objective 1.51 “A foundation for a more sustainable energy system”). Since the availability of affordable energy is a critical element of economic growth, the Rural Energy Program will complement and help further other Mission objectives, such as the rebuilding of essential services and the restoration of jobs and income.


2.2 Relationship of the PEA to the Rural Energy Program 2.2.1 Representative Sites for Rehabilitation of Energy Facilities Representative samples of 10 SHP and NG sites from the 40 possible locations where Rural Energy Program activities may take place were selected as the PEA sample universe (Table 2-1). This sample of 10 sites has characteristics that, taken together, adequately represent the range of circumstances to be encountered among the full universe of 40 locations. To assure that this sample appropriately represents the range of potential environmental issues that might arise, a Project Attributes Matrix was developed (Appendix A). The attributes matrix presents site-specific characteristics of the proposed Rural Energy Program projects associated with potential environmental and socioeconomic impacts.

Some examples of the attributes included in the matrix are (1) the size of the population to be served, (2) the size of river flow, (3) existing land uses near the site, (4) proximity to sensitive environmental and cultural resources, (5) the generating capacity of the plant, (6) the amount of water and how it is to be diverted (in the case of a hydroelectric plant), and (7) the extent of construction required for the project. Project location maps are presented for each of the representative 10 SHP and NG sites in Appendix C.

2.2.2 RE and EE Projects Small-scale RE and EE projects implemented under the Rural Energy Program will be managed by compliance with a specific set of practices or measures identified for each anticipated activity. For example, a bio-digester system might require attention to the management of manure to avoid contaminating a nearby creek. Weatherization of a school or other public buildings would require a different site-specific set of practices. The small-scale renewable and EE projects implemented under the Program are anticipated to have little or no direct effect on the environment. Best management and well-accepted building and engineering practices will be implemented as specific requirements for each of the projects under the Program.

This procedure is equivalent to the one currently being applied by CHF as part of its construction activities under the Georgia Employment and Infrastructure Initiative (GEII).

2.2.3 Natural Resource Management Plans Activities arising from the development of natural resource management plans provided by the Rural Energy Program such as improved fuel wood management, reforestation and watershed restoration are expected to have beneficial environmental impacts. To ensure that no negative impacts arise from improper design or inappropriate implementation, best management practices will be identified and integrated into each natural resource management plan, as necessary. These are practices known to the PEA Team and also developed from USAID environmental guidance on mitigation measures for the types of activities expected under these grants.

The following include potential interventions covered under IRMP projects:

• Demonstration of technologies that can efficiently use agricultural wastes and woody debris for fuel (e.g. pelletization of compressed wood fiber and agricultural residues, efficient woodstoves and wood furnaces).

• Reforestation on private or community land including shelterbelts, small agroforesty plantings (fruit and nut trees), and short rotation intensive cropping (SRIC) fuel wood species.

• Collaborative watershed activities, including canal and stream bank stabilization, riparian zone restoration (planting trees and shrubs), establishing streamside management zones / buffers strips, protection and restoration of wetlands habitats, reforestation and afforestation, forest protection (from fire and pest infestation), road restoration, and restriction or reduction of livestock from streams and riparian zones.


• Erosion control interventions such as gully plugs and contour plantings, and installation of instrumentation to measure turbidity, sediment load, and stream flow.

• Clean up point source pollution causing corrosion of hydropower facilities or other problems (e.g. contaminated drinking water, destruction of aquatic habitats).


2.3 Typical Construction Activities Construction activities that are based on the representative sample of 10 SHP and NG sites to undergo rehabilitation under the Rural Energy Program are summarized in this section. They represent the range of activities to be encountered among the full universe of 40 locations.

A typical plan view for each of the 10 rehabilitated existing rural energy facilities is presented in Figures 2-3 through 2-12. The estimated construction period for each project is included in Table 2-3. The typical construction equipment anticipated to be utilized for the 10 representative SHP and NG projects is presented on Tables 2-4 and 2-5.

Table 2-3. Representative Small Hydropower and NG Sites

Table 2-4. Typical Construction Equipment Small Hydropower and NG Projects

Small Hydropower Projects

Project Type Size Increase Activities Construction Period (mo.)

Dzama SHP 240 kW Civil + Equipment 8 to 10 Pshaveli SHP 500 kW Civil + Equipment 8 to 10 Kabali SHP 1000 kW Civil + Equipment 10 to 12 Kakhareti SHP 2000 kW Civil + Equipment 10 to 12 Lopota SHP 2000 kW Civil + Equipment 10 to 12 Abhesi SHP 1750 kW Civil + Equipment 10 to 12 Machakhela SHP 600 kW Civil + Equipment 10 to 12 Kalauri NG 100 HH Rehab / Pipeline +

Equipment 10 to 12

Sartichala NG 500 HH Extension / Pipeline + Equipment

11 to 18

Khidistavi NG 800 HH New Const / Pipeline + Equipment

12 to 18

Mobile Equipment

Stationary Equipment

Trucks of various sizes (2-3) Welding machines

Backhoes (1 or 2 working in shifts) Jackhammers

Trenchers Generators

Graders and bulldozers Bar cutters (electric)

Crane Concrete mixers

Car mounted welding machines

Mobile concrete mixers

Bar Straightener (mechanical)


Table 2-5. NG Projects

It is assumed that small hydropower rehabilitation projects will involve activities that require the use of gasoline or diesel oil fueled vehicles and / or equipment.

2.3.1 Small Hydropower Projects The development of small hydroelectric generation industry in Georgia started in the late 1920s and lasted for almost 70 years. With the goal of providing the growing industrial base with electricity supply, over 300 small hydropower facilities were constructed from 1920 to 1970 ranging in capacity from as low as 20 kW to as high as 10 MW. In the mid-1960s, Georgia was integrated into central grid delivering power to all Soviet republics. As such, small, less efficient SHPs were displaced by large-scale hydropower plants and thermal power plants. Only those SHPs operating in remote locations with no grid access were kept operating. By early 1970s approximately 95% of all small hydros were taken out of operation and left to deteriorate for twenty years. At present, only 15% of all Soviet-era SHPs are capable of operating.

After the dissolution of the Soviet Union and establishment of Georgia’s independence in 1991, the privatization process of state-owned assets began. Many surviving small run-of-river SHPs were transferred from state ownership to the private sector. Almost all privatized SHPs were of similar design; using the potential of run of rivers to create high heads over the course of short distances through the construction of a low height diversion weir, intake facility, water conveyance canals / aqueducts / tunnels, penstock, and powerhouses. Water diverted through the system is ultimately discharged back to river through the tailrace.

The rehabilitation / construction activities description given below applies to majority of small hydro plants regardless of their size or complexity, which are under consideration of USAID/Caucasus/Georgia Rural Energy Program.

Civil Works: All SHPs included in the PEA sample universe require full-scale rehabilitation of the low height diversion weir so as to obtain the required water flow for maximum power output. When conducting works at the water diversion facility for run-of-river SHPs, work will be planned as follows:

• De-water the water intake side of the river using gabions or soil embankments. This action will allow drying of the section of the weir for the rehabilitation works;

• Remove debris from the de-watered section; • According to the technical design construct wooden forms into which the concrete will be

poured. Add steel bars as required by the design. All concrete used will be of the quality indicated in the technical design;

• Remove and repair the water intake and emergency spillway gates; • Remove wooden forms after concrete has dried and set; • Test the concrete using special test equipment; • Reinstall the water intake and emergency spillway gates; and • Dispose of all debris, scrap and left over construction materials in an approved manner.

Mobile Equipment

Stationary Equipment

Trucks of various sizes (2-3)

Welding machines

Backhoes, (1-2 - working in shifts) Generators

Trenchers Car mounted welding machines Crane

Air compressors (1-2)


Construction equipment to be used in these activities include: dozer, excavator, backhoe, crane, dump truck, mobile welding equipment and jackhammer.

While working on the diversion facility, the rehabilitation works shall be conducted at the water intake facility, which normally is a concrete pool with a number of water flow regulating gates. This work will include:

• Remove debris from the water intake pool; • Construct wooden forms for the concrete and add steel bars as required in the design.

All concrete used shall be of the quality indicated in the technical design; • Remove all gates from intake pool and send for repairs; • Remove wooden forms after concrete has dried and set; • Test the concrete using special test equipment; • Reinstall repaired water flow regulating gates; • Conduct the testing of the water intake pool for leaks by filling with water and closing all

gates; • In case of minor leaks, patch the gaps with concrete; and • Dispose of all debris, scrap and left over construction materials in an approved manner.

The above-listed works shall start and be completed at the same time as diversion weir works so that, in the event the river floods during repair of the diversion weir works, the rehabilitated system will be able to absorb some of the flood flow. Construction equipment to be used in this activity includes: backhoe, crane, dump truck, mobile welding equipment and jackhammer.

All SHPs identified in the PEA sample universe require modest to significant repair works for the canal and the aqueduct. SHPs requiring both water diversion repairs and canal aqueduct rehabilitation will have this work completed in parallel.

The work at the canal for all SHPs may include the following:

• Remove debris and sedimentation from the canal and aqueduct; • Construct wooden forms for the concrete and add steel bars as required in the design.

All concrete used shall be of the quality indicated in the technical design; • Remove all water flow, emergency spillway and flushing gates from intake pool and send

for repairs; • Remove wooden forms and wait until concrete is dry and set; • Test the concrete using special test equipment; • Reinforce the support slabs at the aqueduct according the instructions in technical

design; • Reinstall the repaired water flow, emergency spillway and flushing gates; • Conduct the testing of the canal and aqueduct, checking for leaks by filling it with water

and closing all gates; • In case of minor leaks, patch the gaps with concrete; and • Dispose of all debris, scrap and left over construction materials in an approved manner.

Construction equipment to be used in this activity includes: backhoe, crane, dump truck, mobile welding equipment and jackhammer.

All SHPs identified in the PEA for inclusion in the Rural Energy Program include a forebay, or pressure basin, which is an extension of the canal and serves as an intake for the penstock. The forebay tank structure is very similar to the water intake facility and requires similar rehabilitation to those that are designed for the intake pool. This may include the following:

• Remove debris and sedimentation from the canal and aqueduct; • Construct wooden forms for the concrete and add steel bars as required in the design.

All concrete used shall be of the quality indicated in the technical design; • Remove the trash rack and all gates from the forebay tank and send for repairs; • Remove wooden forms and wait until concrete is dry and set;


• Test the concrete using special test equipment; • Reinstall the repaired trash rack and water flow and flushing gates; • Conduct testing of the forebay tank for leaks by filling it with water and closing all gates; • In case of minor leaks, patch the gaps with concrete; and • Dispose of all debris, scrap and left over construction materials in an approved manner.

The work required for forebay rehabilitation will be completed in parallel with diversion and canal / aqueduct repairs for all run-of-river SHPs. When all rehabilitation works are completed, the entire system will be re-watered and monitored for a period of time to identify and repair leaks. Construction equipment to be used in this activity includes: crane, dump truck, mobile welding equipment and jackhammer.

All SHPs identified in the PEA sample universe use penstocks that may require rehabilitation ranging from very slight to considerable. Regardless of SHP size and generation capacity, the quality of the metal in the penstock pipes will be inspected and the weaker sections shall be replaced according to the instructions in the technical design. Also, penstock supports or saddles will be reinforced as described in the design. The works may include the following:

• Remove the damaged section of the penstock using gas-welding equipment; • Weld in new sections using the mobile electric welding machine; • Replace or repair the surge tank using the mobile welding equipment; • Reinforce the supports / saddles of the penstock according the instruction in the design; • After completion of the above-mentioned works, re-water penstock and monitor for a

specific period of time (two days + / -) to identify and repair leaks. Most critical will be the pipe joints and special attention shall be paid to them;

• After all welding works are completed; apply two coats of water-based anticorrosion paint; and

• Dispose of all debris, scrap and left over construction materials in an approved manner.

Construction equipment to be used in this activity includes: dozer, crane, dump truck, mobile electric and gas welding equipment.

All SHPs identified included in the PEA sample universe include powerhouse facilities that require repair ranging from minimal to significant. Cosmetic renovation of SHP powerhouses may include the following:

• Replace damaged sections of the roof; • Repair building walls (both inside and outside) and apply two coats of rain-resistant

water-based painting; • Remove and repair or replace doors and windows of the building. Reinstall after wall

painting work is completed; • Remove debris from powerhouse floor and repair floor as needed; • Repair the water drainage system both for the roof and the floor; and • Dispose of all debris, scrap and left over construction materials in an approved manner.

Construction equipment to be used in this activity includes: crane, dump truck, welding equipment, scaffolding, and a paint spray gun.

Equipment: All SHPs identified and included in the PEA sample universe include a standard package of equipment including turbines and generators, power distribution and control panels. Although equipment may be of different types and from different suppliers, equipment evaluation and installation processes will be standard for all run-of-river SHPs.

• As required by technical designs, turbines will be removed / disassembled and sent for repairs in parts: casing, runner, shaft, bearings, flywheel, and governor. The draft tube and base plate may require repair in the powerhouse. Generators may be removed and sent for rewinding. All the wiring may be replaced with new wiring;


• All old and non-functioning equipment should be removed and replaced with modern, more efficient equipment. The automation system should be rehabilitated which would result in improved, more efficient operation of SHP;

• Transformers, feeders, bus bars, transmission poles, and power lines shall be repaired or replaced as required; and

• The territory of the SHP must be well secured with proper fencing and safety signs indicating types of potential dangers will be posted as necessary. For example, at the water diversion facility, a sign prohibiting swimming will be posted in several different places. The canal and the forebay tank shall be equipped with safety beams or wire. High voltage signs will be posted indicating a threat of electrocution on the powerhouse and / or in the power yard.

Table 2-6 below indicates the complexity of the hydro plant and the volume of technical intervention with the involvement of heavy construction equipment while Figures 2-3 to 2-9 provide rough layouts of the sample projects.

Table 2-6. Equipment Needs for SHP Construction Projects

Small Hydropower Plant Name

Equipment Kabali SHP

Lopota SHP

Pshaveli SHP

Kakhareti SHP

Dzama SHP

Abhesi SHP

Machakhela SHP

Large dozer x Medium Dozer x x x x

Small Dozer x x x x x x Large Excavator x

Medium Excavator x x x Small Excavator x x x x x

Backhoe x x x x x x x Large Dump Truck x X x x Small Dump Truck x x x x x x

Large Crane x Med. Crane x x x x x x Small Crane x x x x x x

Mob. Welding Machine

x x x x x x x

Jack-hammer x x x x x x x Spray Gun x x x x x x x

Mobile concrete mixer

x x x x x x x

Bar stringer x x x x x x x Generator x x x x x x x


Figure 2-3. Map of Abhesi SHP

Figure 2-4. Map of Dzama SHP


Figure 2-5. Map of Kabali SHP

Figure 2-6. Map of Kakhareti SHP


Figure 2-7. Map of Lopota SHP

Figure 2-8. Map of Machakhela SHP


Figure 2-9. Map of Pshaveli SHP

2.3.2 Natural Gas Distribution Projects The Rural Energy Program envisions implementing two types of projects: (1) rehabilitation of pre-existing NG networks and (2) construction of new NG networks. Rehabilitation projects will be less costly and require less time to implement. These projects will then be separated into two types again; those that include below ground installation of pipes and those that are entirely above ground installations.

Table 2-7. Natural Gas Project Matrix

Rehabilitation New Construction

Above Ground

Simple above-ground

rehabilitation of existing system.

Simple above-ground new system

requiring new technical design and

significant RoW issues.

Above and Below Ground

More complex rehabilitation of existing system

requiring re-trenching.

More complex new system requiring

new technical design, with

significant RoW issues and requiring

trenching.


Experienced engineers will travel to pre-selected project sites to determine the percentage of existing network that is in satisfactory technical condition and what percentage needs to be rehabilitated / replaced. Most NG networks in existence today were built over 25 years ago during the Soviet era. NG rehabilitation projects included in the PEA sample universe include the following types of activities:

• Digging trenches to access damaged sections of the distribution piping; • Using gas welding equipment to cut damaged sections of the piping and weld in the new

pipes of the same size; • Applying two coats of water-based, anti-corrosion painting to all new sections of the

piping; • Filling trenches with soil; • Removal of non-function gas pressure regulating valves and replacement with new

ones; • Applying two coats of water-based, anti-corrosion paint to all new equipment; • Installation of metering devices at connection point with the trunk line; • Replacement or repair of all support post for above ground piping as needed; • Conduct pressure testing to identify leaks and weld pipe where needed. Repeat as

necessary. Special attention will be paid to the welding joints; • Invite the state representatives to be presented at the pressure testing; • After elimination of all leaks a final testing will be conducted using the odorant to identify

those leaks that were not found in the pressure testing and, should leaks be identified, fix them by welding; and

• Dispose of all debris, scrap and left over construction materials in an approved manner.

After the successful testing is completed, the network can be put in operation. All works shall be done according the technical design and under the thorough supervision of designer’s representatives with regular inspections (minimum of once every two weeks).

New Construction: Experienced engineers will travel to project sites to survey the territory where the pipelines are to be built. Technical designs will be developed providing detailed specifications of the proposed pipelines including proposed routes and materials’ specifications. Most new construction project will above ground where pipes and valves are all above ground; however, the Program does contemplate NG projects that may be partially underground. The NG installation projects works will generally include:

• Digging the postholes along the pipeline routes according technical designs; • Installation of pipeline posts with concrete foundations. Posthole diameters are typically

twice as large as the diameter of the pipes used. As such, if the pipe is 100 mm in diameter, the posthole shall be 200 mm wide and approximately 40 cm deep;

• Weld pipe cradles (used to support horizontal gas pipes) to support posts; • Begin installation of horizontal gas pipes after support posts with cradles are in place; • Provide work crews with specific sections of the pipeline route where pipe diameter is

uniform; • Apply two coats of anti-corrosion paint to all exposed metal; • Install gas pressure regulating valves as needed and at points identified in technical

designs; • Install wholesale metering devices at connection points with the trunk lines; • Conduct pressure tests and repairs repeatedly until all leaks are eliminated; • Invite the state representatives to be present at the pressure testing; • After elimination of all leaks, final testings will be conducted using the odorant to identify

those leaks not found in previous pressure testings. Seal leaks as identified by welding; • After the successful testing experiments, the networks can be put in operation; and • Dispose of all debris, scrap and left over construction materials in an approved manner.


All works shall be constructed according the technical designs and under the thorough supervision of designer’s representatives with regular inspections (minimum of once every two weeks). Figures 2-10 to 2-12 provide rough layouts of the sample natural gas projects.

Figure 2-10. Map of Kalauri Natural Gas Project

Figure 2-11. Map of Khidistavi Natural Gas Project


Figure 2-12. Map of Sartichala Natural Gas Project


3. Analysis and Alternatives Program alternatives were selected based on discussion with USAID/Caucasus/Georgia, consultations with prospective collaborators, and interviews with stakeholders and potential beneficiaries. The type of energy initiatives already funded in Georgia and the perceived potential for the donor to finance similar or supporting activities were primary considerations. Discussions focused on projects related to construction of new, or rehabilitation and upgrade of existing small and medium-scale IPP infrastructure, implementation of micro- and pico-scale RE and EE pilot projects, development of local level IRMPs, and implementation of general energy and natural resource management education initiatives. Alternatives presented below are based on the categorization of the different levels of energy initiatives and opportunities.

3.1 Types of Energy-Related Activities Considered The categorization process resulted in four fundamental levels of support and was used to develop the alternatives considered under the PEA:

• Technical assistance focusing on the construction and / or rehabilitation of medium-scale IPP facilities;

• Technical assistance focusing on the construction and / or rehabilitation of small-scale IPP facilities;

• Technical assistance focusing on the construction and / or rehabilitation of micro- or pico-scale RE / EE pilot projects and completion of IRMPs; and

• Technical assistance in development of energy activities only.

Three categories contemplate development of specific energy generation or conservation projects while the fourth focuses on the development and implementation of technical assistance training programs and public awareness activities, which increase access to information on, and understanding of, energy-related issues. Technical assistance provided might include business planning training, technical design training, vocational training applicable to the RE / EE sub-sectors, and establishment of associations and information centers capable of providing long-term advisory services on selected energy topics.


Table 3-1. Alternatives Considered for Development of Rural Energy Market

Category Name Description Representative Activities

Medium-Scale IPP Facilities

Facilities of medium scale include SHP facilities with generation capacities from 10 MW to 50 MW and NG distribution network projects that may include high-pressure pipelines. New SHP constructions are also envisioned under this category.

Pre-feasibility plans and technical design studies. Construction and rehabilitation of medium-scale IPPs. Business plan and grant application development assistance. Loan fund establishment assistance. Technical assistance in conducting full or supplemental environmental impact assessments and / or M&M Plans. Possible grant support to IPP projects. Construction mentoring services and Operation and Management (O&M) training.

Small-Scale IPP Facilities

Facilities of small-scale include SHP facilities with generation capacities of less than 10 MW and medium and low-pressure NG distribution networks. This category includes only rehabilitation of SHPs already in existence.

Construction and rehabilitation of small-scale IPPs. Pre-feasibility plans and technical design studies for IPP projects. Business plan and grant application development assistance. Loan fund establishment assistance. Technical assistance in conducting supplemental environmental impact assessments and / or M&M Plans. Possible grant support to IPP projects. Construction monitoring services and O&M training. Infrastructure may include IPP association offices and REPSO centers.

RE / EE and IRMP Activities

Facilities include micro-hydro (5kW to 100kW) and pico-hydro (less than 5 kW), farm-level biogas digesters, firm-level biomass kilns, small wind generators, building-specific solar thermal and solar Photovoltaic (PV) systems, building-specific weatherization, and fuel-switching projects.

Business plan and grant application development assistance. Loan fund establishment assistance. Technical assistance in conducting supplemental environmental impact assessments and / or M&M (M&M) Plans. Possible grant support to RE / EE and IRMP projects. Construction monitoring services and O&M training. Infrastructure may include RE / EE association offices and / or REPSO information centers.

General Energy Activities Development

Energy education activities include training programs only. No financial or technical support would be directed at individual IPP projects.

Includes general trainings on business plan development and IPP operation, vocational trainings on various technical specialties related to RE / EE sub-sectors. Infrastructure may include RE / EE association offices and / or REPSO information centers.


3.2 Development of Alternatives Based on the above categories, four alternatives were developed to represent the options for USAID/Caucasus/Georgia support of rural energy initiatives in Georgia. Table 3-2 describes each of the four alternatives as well as a “No Action” alternative, which would imply no support whatsoever (financial or technical) in Georgia through the Rural Energy Program. The alternatives are presented as a graded series with each successive alternative eliminating aspects of the higher level of support to infrastructure projects. By organizing the alternatives in this manner, a clear comparison of impacts can be made between a program designed to support varying levels of infrastructure development and a program that would rely on market forces to provide infrastructure in response to improvements in the type and quality of activities available in the regions.

Table 3-2. Summary of Alternatives

Alternative Summary Description Activities Needed

No Action No energy activities to be included in the Rural Energy Program.

None

Comprehensive support for rural energy development

All categories of energy activities are included for consideration under this program including construction of new or rehabilitation of SHP facilities up to 50MW generation capacity, construction or repair of NG distribution networks including high, medium, and low-pressure, implementation of RE / EE pilot projects and development of IRMPs, and development of a full range of energy development activities including association support, REPSO development, and vocation training programs.

Medium-scale IPP facilities support

Small-scale IPP facilities support

RE / EE & IRMP activities

General energy activities development

Preferred Alternative:

Small-scale IPP infrastructure support, and RE / EE & IRMP support and activities development

Most categories of energy activities are included for consideration under this program including rehabilitation of existing SHP facilities up to 10MW generation capacity, construction or repair of NG distribution networks including medium- and low-pressure, implementation of RE / EE pilot projects and development of IRMPs, and development of a full range of energy development activities including association support, REPSO establishment, and vocation training programs.

Small-scale IPP facilities



RE / EE & IRMP support and activities development

This category envisions implementation of RE / EE pilot projects and development of IRMPs, and development of a full range of energy development activities including association support, REPSO establishment, and vocation training programs.




This category includes development of a full range of energy development activities including association support, REPSO establishment, and vocation training programs. Under this category no technical assistance or financial support is provided for support of IPPs, pilot RE / EE projects, or local IRMPs.



3.3 Description of Alternatives 3.3.1 Alternative 1- No Action Under the “No Action” alternative, investment in and technical support for rural energy projects would be eliminated from consideration as a component of the Rural Energy Program. Rural-based individual power providers including small hydropower producers and NG distribution networks, RE/EE pilot projects, and community-based natural resource management would be left to survive and develop within the context of regional market forces. Furthermore, USAID/Caucasus/Georgia would not provide any assistance to IPP operators, Community Based Organizations (CBOs) or regional government offices for the development, financing, implementation and / or long-term management of IPP projects, small-scale RE / EE projects, or Integrated Resource Management Plans. The development of energy projects would be left to private enterprise or other donor agencies and no assistance would be provided for the development of local institutions capable of providing long-term support to the energy sector including associations or project support offices.

3.3.2 Alternative 2 - Comprehensive Support for Rural Energy Development

By supporting a comprehensive energy development model, USAID/Caucasus/Georgia could make funds available for all types of energy investment including the development of all levels of infrastructure projects including support for new hydropower plant (HPP) constructions as well as supporting the rehabilitation of HPPs with generation capacities greater than 10 MWs. In addition, under the Rural Energy Program, USAID/Caucasus/Georgia could also provide funding and technical assistance for the extension of high-pressure NG pipelines. Focus of this program would be almost entirely on the commercial viability of the IPP infrastructure projects and their capacity to increase power in the Georgian system. Support for the development of micro- and pico- RE / EE projects are included so as to ensure improved access to energy and / or improved energy conservation at the household or firm level. IRMP development assistance is also envisioned in villages hosting IPP infrastructure projects or villages with resources capable of impacting or being impacted by IPP operation.

3.3.3 Alternative 3 - Mid-Scale Energy Infrastructure Support and Development; Preferred Alternative

This alternative excludes possible funding and technical support for construction of new HPP facilities, rehabilitation of small hydropower (SHP) facilities with generation capacity greater than 10 MWs, or rehabilitation or extension of high-pressure NG pipelines. Activities under this alternative are designed to take advantage of the existing infrastructure as the platform for growing the SHP sub-sector and not add any generation capacity in the country that results from projects other than those that can be classified as SHP “rehabs”. The objective of Alternative 3 is to improve infrastructure with the construction or rehabilitation of supporting facilities such as (for SHPs) powerhouses, canals, dams, penstocks, spillways, etc. and (for medium and low-pressure NG projects) energy distribution networks. Support for the development of micro- and pico- RE / EE projects are included so as to ensure improved access to energy and / or improved energy conservation at the household or firm level. IRMP development assistance is also envisioned in villages hosting IPP infrastructure projects or villages with resources capable of impacting or being impacted by IPP operation.


3.3.4 Alternative 4 - RE / EE & IRMP Support and Activities Development

Alternative 4 excludes IPP infrastructure projects entirely and focuses greater attention to improving understanding and adoption of RE / EE technologies and management of natural resources, in rural villages. This alternative includes support for information dissemination programs including general public awareness programs, vocational training programs for RE / EE specialists and businessmen working with RE / EE applications as noted in Alternative 5.

3.3.5 Alternative 5 - Rural Energy Activities Development Under Alternative 5, no funding will be directly provided for the development of rural energy infrastructure of any scale. The program will support all types of rural energy activity development including establishment of IPP operator associations and creation of a RE projects support office (REPSO); both designed to increase access to information related to rural energy. In addition, the program would support the implementation of training programs, which provide participants with the necessary technical, financial, and / or managerial skills necessary to secure employment in the energy sector. Technical assistance may be provided to IPP owners in the form of project development, where support is provided for the preparation of technical designs business plans and, should financing be secured on the part of the project owner, assistance in project construction and post-construction training on billing and collections, operation and maintenance, and other key areas.

Under Alternative 5, development of energy generation and distribution infrastructure will be left to prevailing market forces. Capacity to generate and distribute energy will change as market conditions permit and investors will be driven by competitive forces to improve capacity and quality of energy generation and delivery.


3.4 Comparison of Alternatives The key elements of all five alternatives presented in Table 3-3 below relate to the support of village-level projects of varying size and complexity. With the exception of Alternative 1 and Alternative 5, all remaining alternatives seek to improve potential access to energy through the provision of technical and / or financial support to specific energy projects.

Table 3-3. Comparison of Alternatives, Key Elements Matrix

Activity Alternative 1, No Action

Alternative 2, Comprehensive

Support for Rural Energy

Development

Alternative 3, Preferred

Alternative – Small-scale

Energy Infrastructure

Support

Alternative 4, RE / EE & IRMP Support and

Activities Development

Alternative 5, Rural Energy

Activities Development

New Construction (SHPs)

X

High-Pressure NG Pipeline Extensions

X

SHP Rehabs > 10 MWs

X

SHP Rehabs < 10 MWs

X X

Medium and Low Pressure NG Pipeline Extensions

X X

RE / EE Pilot Projects

X X X

Local IRMPs X X X

Energy Activities X X X X


4. Environmental Regulations, Legislation and Policies

4.1 Executive Summary

The implementation of PEA fieldwork took place roughly two and one-half years after the Rose Revolution ushered in the Saakashvili government. Energy policy reforms clearly demonstrate the Government of Georgia’s (GoG) commitment to deregulation and its recognition that efficiency and security in the energy sector are most reliable when commercially driven. This is a sharp departure from centralized approach to management of the energy sector during the Soviet era.

The GoG’s efforts to diversify energy sources and improve availability of energy alternatives will help achieve demand-supply balance and support many other sustainability goals, such as supply security, efficiency gains, and emission reductions. However, despite the significant potential of renewable technologies to contribute to energy security, particularly less costly hydro and biomass technologies, the country still has a limited number of RE projects. The type of small-scale IPP and RE / EE projects considered under the Rural Energy program have been considered noncompetitive compared to facilities able to affect wholesale prices. Hence, the GoG has preferred to focus on rehabilitation of existing large assets and continued imports rather than to support small-scale construction and / or rehabilitation projects. The absence of an enabling regulatory framework capable of supporting RE projects has been a critical factor in the sector’s lack of development.

Georgia’s current energy policy considers energy sustainability and security as a precursor for further development. However, achieving energy independence and sustainability will require placing higher priority on the construction of new facilities, diversification of energy sources, and rehabilitation of existing generation facilities. With the rising costs of advanced technologies and the spiraling price of oil and gas, RE is becoming increasingly competitive.

The GoG’s goal of liberalizing the energy sector will increase the need for a stable and competent regulator. Current policy and institutional frameworks regulating the sector are unstable, and frequent turnover of GoG staff along with the government’s practice of modifying procedures in an ad hoc fashion add to the instability. Many IPP owners and financial institutions are unwilling to provide needed capital investment as a result of this volatility, and the lack of a coherent and consistent policy regarding permitting and licensing makes difficult to interpret and comply with applicable regulations.


4.2 Institutional Framework for Proposed Activities

The four-year USAID/Caucasus/Georgia-funded Rural Energy Program will pursue the following primary objectives:

• Increase supply of energy in rural areas (both grid connected and off-grid); • Improve management of local energy production; • Improve in-country capacity in rural energy and alternative energy applications; and • Improve capacity to more efficiently utilize and protect the local energy resource base.

These two objectives are regulated primarily through GoG resolutions and laws governing the permitting and licensing procedures of RE / EE project construction / rehabilitation and IPP operations. Relevant legislation includes the following:

• Law of Georgia on Licenses and Permits (#1775, adopted by the Parliament of Georgia on June 25, 2005);

• Resolution of the Government of Georgia on Additions and Amendment to Resolution #154 Adopted by the Government of Georgia on September 1, 2005 on Approving Rule of Issuing Environmental Permit and Terms (#26, adopted by the Government of Georgia on February 3, 2006);

• Resolution of the Government of Georgia on the Rule of Issuing Construction Permit and Permitting Terms (#140, adopted by the Government of Georgia on August 11, 2005); and

• Law of Georgia on the Protection of Cultural Heritage (#2209, adopted by the Parliament of Georgia on June 25, 1999), and its amendments (#1462 - June 18, 2002; #2133 - May 7, 2003; #309 - July 1, 2004; and #2406 - December 22, 2005).

The implications of these laws for Program implementation are described in sections 4.3 and 4.4 below.


4.3 Construction / Rehabilitation Permitting and Environmental Policy Current regulations require no permit from any state body for renovation and finishing activities that do not represent, as stated in Resolution #140: “considerable changes to existing dimensions and appearance, including façade and roofing activities, except for facilities located within cultural heritage zones, and zones otherwise regulated by the Government of Georgia or local self-governance entities.” Further, the Law of Georgia on the Protection of Cultural Heritage specifies that costs for archeological activities, supervision, preliminary investigation, historic-cultural heritage determination, scientific research, publication and protection should be included in design and construction costs. In cases of construction and reconstruction of considerable scale, the law requires implementers to apply to the Ministry and Academy of Science of Georgia three months prior to commencement of planned activities. The current regulatory framework is not clear as to what should be considered a “considerable change to dimensions and appearance.” It also does not specify whether turbine-generator substitution should be considered a “change in dimension.” Conversations with Ministry officials and leading specialists lead the PEA Team to believe that all SHP rehabilitation under 2 MW will fall under Resolution #140’s simplified permitting procedures pertaining to concordance of architectural-construction design.

Under the simplified permitting procedures, no documents will need be submitted to the central authorities, but rather a project design must be submitted to the relevant local (regional) authority. The local authority is required to issue an administrative act permitting or rejecting the planned activity within 30 days. However, even the simplified permitting process faces some obstacles. The relevant authorities have different names in different regions, and they are under the jurisdiction of various state structures so it can be difficult to ascertain which authority should review the project design.

As stated in Resolution #140, construction of facilities of “significant importance,” such as main oil and gas pipelines, SHPs of 2 MW or greater and thermal power plants of 10 MW or more require special consideration and permitting. Cases of “significant importance” include the majority of SHPs considered under the Program and all NG pipelines. The three-stage procedure required to obtain construction permits for such projects and their associated time frames are

• Stage 1 – Architectural and design planning (30 days)

• Stage II – Concordance of architectural-construction design (20 days)

• Stage III – Construction permit issuance (10 days)

The first two stages take place at the local / regional level; documentation tasks at the third stage are handled by the central service. At Stage II, construction and environmental permits

Box 4-1. Problems Pertaining to Construction Permitting and Environmental Policy

• Obscure terminology in some articles of the resolution does not allow for a clear understanding of measures to be taken.

• The GoG frequently modifies rules and regulations raising questions as to which rules currently apply.

• Frequent GoG staff rotations create delays in obtaining permits.

• The applicable regulations do not provide specific reference to local and central state bodies responsible for permitting, except for general indication of a need to apply to such bodies. These state bodies have different names in different regions and are under the jurisdiction of various state structures.

• Lack of a coherent vision of a permitting and licensing policy makes it difficult to interpret and comply with the applicable regulations.

• Local/regional authorities lack environmental knowledge and are unable to provide careful consideration of environmental projects.


are combined. The state body that issues the construction permit in Stage III forwards Environmental Impact Assessment documentation (submitted as part of the project design) to the Division of Permits at the Department of Environmental Permits and requests a “Conclusion of State Ecological Expertise.” The “Conclusion” becomes part of the construction permit, which is approved by the Minister of Environment and Protection of Natural Resources of Georgia.

Depending on the scale and location of the project, the construction permit may also require approval from the Ministry of Culture and Sports of Georgia stating that the planned facility is not within a zone of historic heritage or an archeological dig. If the Rural Energy Program targets large-scale construction / rehabilitation works including high-pressure pipelines and hydros with generation capacities of over 2 MW, the project design must be submitted to the State Complex Expertise Division for review and approval. Part of the GoG’s simplification goal is to eliminate this state body, in which case no “Conclusion” will be needed, and the Ministry of Economic Development of Georgia will issue the construction permit under the current procedure. IPP support activities mainly involve rehabilitation of existing private facilities. Thus, prior to the construction stage, the owner(s) presumably obtained all relevant permits and licenses. The majority of such permits and licenses have multiple-year validity (up to 10 years in the case of a SHP environmental permit). In the case of hydro facilities constructed years ago, the IPP owner may have to renew permits and licenses that have expired; the fact that owners keep old files and the relevant state bodies maintain archives is likely to facilitate the renewal process.

Right-of-Way (ROW) is a prerequisite for obtaining a construction permit. Issued by local authorities in cases where state lands are involved and by landowners in the case where private lands are involved, ROW is included in the application for a construction permit. The projects anticipate that ROW will be a greater issue for NG projects than for other projects considered under the Rural Energy Program.

Environmental Policy Recently adopted simplified environmental permitting procedures under Resolution #154 for environmental permitting of small-scale hydro facilities and low and medium pressure NG distribution networks state no need for environmental permitting. The same procedures, however, require an environmental permit for dam rehabilitation, even though the facility may be less than 2MW.

A water intake / discharge permit issued by the Department of Environmental Permits is not required for hydro facilities taking water from existing – and therefore previously licensed – facilities such as irrigation canals. Depending on the hydro water supply scheme and whether water intake / discharge takes place from or into a river or irrigation canal, an application, along with a copy of the project design, is submitted either to the Department of Amelioration Scheme Management, which issues a conclusion on the water use, or to the Department of Environmental Permits, which issues a permit.


4.4 Conclusion Progress is being made regarding the simplification of process and procedures related to the issuance of permits, licenses and certificates in Georgia. Nonetheless, reforms have only recently been implemented and are often times codified using frustratingly ambiguous language. (In some cases, the provisions do not allow for a clear understanding of measures to be taken, which in most cases causes delays in issuing permits.) Frequent rotation of GoG staff exacerbates this problem. As currently written and implemented, the existing applicable rules and regulations do not provide clear definitions or specific references to responsible state bodies.

In light of the rapidly changing policy environment and ongoing reforms in Georgia, the PEA Team recommends that the Program stay continuously in touch with the state bodies responsible for issuing relevant permits and licenses and apply for written clarification when the current regulatory framework does not provide a level of detail sufficient to Program needs.


5. Baseline Data / Affected Environment This section presents baseline data collected from the 10 sites included in the PEA sample universe. Information is provided on geology and soils, water resources, biological resources, and socioeconomic and cultural resources.

5.1 Geology and Soils Georgia is located in the Caucasus region with the Greater Caucasus Mountains to the north, the Minor Caucasus to the south, and the Black Sea to the west. The total surface area of the country is approximately 69,500 square kilometers with a total length of borders equaling 1,968 kilometers. Almost 16 % or 310 kilometers is coastline.

The geology of the country is basically of Mesozoic and Cainozoic origin. Geotectonically it is divided into several sections: from north to the south by the Caucasian Main Antiklinorium, Main Caucasian Range, Georgian Belt, Achara-Trialeti System, Artvin-Bolnisi Belt, and Loc-Karabag's Zone. Georgia differs by its contrasting relief, with high, middle and low mountain highland planes. (N. Beruchashvili, 1996) Topography: The topography of Georgia is fairly complex, with elevations ranging from sea level (near the Black Sea coast) to 5,068 meters (Mt. Shkhara). The main orographic elements include the Greater Caucasus Range, the Inter-Mountainous Depression, the Minor Caucasus Range and the South Georgian Volcanic Upland. The Greater Caucasus and the South Georgian Uplands join with the Likhi Range, a range that divides Georgia into two contrasting climatic zones of West and East Georgia (SOE-Georgia, 1999).

Biogeography: For a relatively small geographic area there are a fairly large number of ecosystems in Georgia that are the result of a complex topography, varying climatic conditions and different geographic location. Four Eurasian bio-geographical regions exist in Georgia including the Eastern Mediterranean, Northern Boreal, Iran-Turanian, and Kolkhetian (CEO, 2002).

Soils: Soil zones in Georgia include the western, eastern and southern soil districts. The western district is characterized by plain bog and podzolic (Plintusols) soils, with red earth and yellow (Feralsols) soils in the foothills, mountain forest and meadow soil zones. Primary soil types in the eastern district include chestnut, black earth (chernozem, steppe zone) and hydromorphic chestnut in the Eldari semi-desert and southern portion of the Lori Highland. Large areas in the steppe zone of East Georgia consist of humus-carbonate (Mollisol) soils. Salt soils (solonchaks and solonetzs) are widely spread in the Taribana-Natbeuri, Marneuli and Gardabani Valleys and in Eldari. The southern district primarily consists of mountain and plain black earth (chernozems) as well as mountain-meadow soils. In the western part of the southern district there exist alluvial carbonate, mountain gley-sod soils, and brown forest soils (NEAP-Georgia, 2000 Figure 5-1).

Below is a breakdown of geological resources identified in each of the 10 sample sites with specific information provided on geological resources, geo hazards, and soils. The Seismicity scale was used when measuring seism.


Figure 5-1. Soils Map of Georgia

5.1.1 Abhesi Geology: Abashis Tskali lies in the Zugdidi region of West Georgia near the Abashis Tskali River (which is the left tributary of the Tekhura River). The Odishi Plain surrounds the southern part of the district. The central hilly portion of the district is built upon Neogene and Paleocene layers consisting of sandstone and clay. Slopes of the Egrisi Ridge surround the northern part of the district. The Jurassic layers of the ridge consist of limestone, marls and sandstone (Atlas of Georgia, 1964).

Geo Hazards: In terms of seism, the territory is considered to be an active seismic zone. Seismicity of the region is rated an “eight” (8) using the MKS scale (Map of Seismic Hazard Assessment of Georgia, 2006).

Soils: Soils in this region are fairly diverse. Alluvial non-calcareous soils are most common on the riverbanks while subtropical-podzolized soils are more common in the valleys. On the hills row, hummus-cancerous soils are predominant. At higher elevations (from 1,800 meters to 2,000 meters) brown forest soils are more common. The upper parts of the region are covered with mountain soddy soils (Map of Soil Types of Georgia, 1999).


5.1.2 Dzama (Kekhijvari) Geology: The village of Kekhijvari lies on the Shida Kartli Plain and is part of the Kareli district in the region of Shida Kartli. The approximate elevation is 700 meters to 750 meters. The village lies on the Dzama River, which is a tributary of Mtkvari River (Atlas of Georgia, 1964).

The village is surrounded by a unique landscape with a complex geological structure dominated by a plain (Placonic relief) and with deeply cut valleys formed by the Mtkvari River and its tributaries (Dzama, Phrone, Liakhvi). The altitude of the area varies from 550 to 850 meters. Accumulation terraces are well expressed (Georgian Encyclopedia, 1984).

Geo Hazards: In terms of seism, the territory is considered to be an active seismic zone. Seismicity of the region is rated an “eight” (8) using the MKS scale (Map of Seismic Hazard Assessment of Georgia, 2006).

Soils: Soils are very diverse in the region. On the plains, alluvial soils are widespread and with steppe-like vegetation. On the old terraces and ranges, black earth (chernozem) is found (Map of soil types of Georgia, 2000).

5.1.3 Kabali Geology: The village of Kabali lies on the Kakheti region in East Georgia. The northern part of the district lies at the southern slopes of the Kakheti Caucasus Mountains and to the south is the Alazani River (Atlas of Georgia, 1964).

The Alazani Plain consists of alluvial sediments of different origin and nature that accumulated on the surface of a young continental geo-syncline. At the end of the middle Pliocene period the sub-mountainous relief of the Caucasus Ridge consisted primarily of low mountains and hills in the area where we find the Alazani Plain today. This relief experienced tectonic subsidence in the upper Pliocene; a process that continues today. Due to this subsidence, the mountainous-hilly relief has been eroded; its base subsided and was covered by a thick layer of sediments.

Geo Hazards: In terms of seismicity, the territory is considered to be an active seismic zone. Seismicity of the region is rated a “nine” (9) using the MKS scale (Map of Seismic Hazard Assessment of Georgia, 2006). During heavy rains or intense snowmelt, sudden floods (flash floods) may occur, especially in summer / autumn on the Kabali River (Department of Monitoring and Prognosis, 2005).

Soils: Various soil types are found in different parts of the Kakheti region due to differences in physical, geographical, and climate conditions. On the left bank of the Alazani River, sandy, alluvial and non-calcareous soils are most common. On the lowest strip of the first upper terrace near the Alazani River flood plain, primarily meadow, alluvial, and carbonate soils are found, which are swampy in some places. Forest-meadow, alluvial and non-calcareous soils predominate also in the vast areas of the left bank. Toward the mountain strip these soils gradually change into forest brown soils (Map of Soil Types of Georgia, 1999).

5.1.4 Kalauri Geology: The village of Kalauri is located in the Gurjaani district of the Kakheti region in East Georgia. The northeastern part of the district lies on the Alazani Plain and the central part of the area lies on the northeast slopes of the Gombori Ridge. The landscape is constructed mostly of sandstones and clays dating from the Neogen and Paleogen age. The Alazani Plain is formed by alluvial sediments of different origin and nature that accumulated on the surface of a young continental geo-syncline.

Near the end of the middle Pliocene period the sub-mountainous relief of the Caucasus Ridge consisted primarily of low mountains and hills in the area where we find the Alazani Plain today. This relief experienced tectonic subsidence starting in the late Pliocene period and continues today (Atlas of Georgia, 1964).


Geo Hazards: In terms of seismicity, the territory is considered to be an active seismic zone. Seismicity of the region is rated a “nine” (9) using the MKS scale (Map of Seismic Hazard Assessment of Georgia, 2006).

Soils: Alluvial calcareous soils are most common on the Alazani Plain while on the slopes of Gombori Ridge, mainly mountain forest brown soils are found (Map of Soil Types of Georgia, 1999).

5.1.5 Kakhareti Geology: The village of Kakhareti is located in the Adigeni district in the region of Samtskhe-Javakheti. The village lies on the Khvabliani River (a tributary of the Mtkvari River). The Javakheti Plateau is bordered by Trialety Ridge to the north, the Abdul-Samsar and Javakheti Ridges to the east, and the Hek-Dag Ridge to the south. The plateau abruptly ends to the west at a deep gorge formed by the Mtkvari River. (Atlas of Georgia, 1964)

Thick layers of lava are evident throughout the region indicating that the Javakheti plateau is a product of volcanic activities, which occurred over the course of various geological periods. The most important volcanic centers appear to be along the ruptures determining the orientation of Abul-Samsar, Javakheti and Hek-Dag Ridges. (Atlas of Georgia, 1964)

Volcanic activities began during the Upper Oligocene-Eocene and become most intense in Quaternary period. The oldest lavas from the neo-volcanic activities are quartz-trachytic followed by trachy-andesite, rhyolite and dacitic lavas. The most recent are liquid basaltic effusive. The orogenetical process started in the Pliocene and continues to the present time in the form of seismic activity (Atlas of Georgia, 1964).

Geo Hazards: In terms of seismicity the territory is considered to be in an active seismic zone. Seismicity of the region is rated an “eight” (8) under the MKS scale (Map of Seismic Hazard Assessment of Georgia, 2006).

Soils: Soils vary throughout the region according to elevation, degree of slope and specific location. Mountain-black and carbonic soils are predominant in the lower parts of the region while clay-black and mountain-meadow soils are found in the upper parts of the plateau. Steep slopes are characterized by thin-layered soils. In the river valleys and near lakes, semi-marsh soils are typical (Map of Soil Type of Georgia, 2000).

5.1.6 Khidistavi Geology: The village of Khidistavi is found in the Guria region in West Georgia. The main orographic segments of the district are the Meskheti Ridge and it’s branches: Vani, Zoty, Loborote and Guria (Nigoety). The mountainous area of the district is constructed by andesites from the mid-Eocene period while valleys and hilly parts are composed of clay shales from the Eocene–Miocene period (Atlas of Georgia, 1964).

Geo Hazards: In terms of seismicity, the territory is considered to be an active seismic zone. Seismicity of the region is rated an “eight” (8) on the MKS scale (Map of Seismic Hazard Assessment of Georgia, 2006).

Soils: Alluvial soils are common in the valleys of the Supsa River while yellow and red soils are predominantly found in the hilly areas. In the low and medium elevation zones, brown forest soils are more common while upper elevations are covered with brown forest podzol (Map of Soil Types of Georgia, 1999).

5.1.7 Lopota (Napareuli) Geology: The village of Napareuli lies near the Lopota River, which is a tributary of the Alazani River. The village is located in the district of Telavi, in the Kakheti region located in East Georgia. Geologically, the landscape is constructed mostly of Mesozoic and Tertiary formations. Jurassic layers are represented with sandstone and clay. Related to the central


Caucasus, the mountain elevations range from 2000 meters to 3000 meters and have no glaciers. Ancient glaciers shaped the local relief. Eroded landscapes dominate. A typical feature is poor development of the foothill belt. (Encyclopedia of Georgia, 1964)

The Caucasus Mountains are found in the northeast area of the Telavi district and range in elevation of 2,870 meters to 3,293 meters. To the southwest, the Gombori Mountain Range can be found with elevations ranging from 1,522 meters to 1,903 meters. The central portion of the area is the Alazani River Valley, with elevations ranging from 350 meters to 600 meters (Encyclopedia of Georgia, 1964).

Geo Hazards: In terms of seism the territory is considered to be an active seismic zone. Seismicity of the region is a “nine” (9) using the MKS scale (Map of Seismic Hazard Assessment of Georgia, 2006).

Soils: Various soil types are found in different parts of the Kakheti region resulting from differences in physical geographical and climatic conditions. On the left bank of the Alazani River, sandy, alluvial and non-calcareous soils are most common. In the lowest strip of the first upper terrace near the Alazani River flood plain, mainly meadow- bog, alluvial-, and carbonate soils can be found. Forest-meadow, alluvial and non-calcareous soils are predominant on the vast areas of the left bank. Toward the mountain strip these soils gradually change into forest brown soils (Map of Soil Types of Georgia, 2000).

5.1.8 Machakhela (Ked-kedi) Geology: The village of Ked-kedi lies at the Machakhelas Tskali River (Chorokhi River Basin) of Adjara region in West Georgia. The region is surrounded by the Black Sea (West), Guria region (North), Samtskhe-Javakheti region (East) and Turkey (South). The main orographic segments of the district are Meskheti, Sashay and Arsiani Ridges (average altitude is 2,000 to 2,500 meters). Kobuleti-Chakvi Ridge divides Adjara into two main parts: coastal and mountainous. Geologically the region is constructed with volcanoes layers of middle and upper Eocene (Atlas of Georgia, 1964).

Geo Hazards: In terms of seismicity the territory under study is considered to have a seismic zone rating of “seven“ (7) under the MKS scale (Map of Seismic Hazard Assessment of Georgia, 2006). Due to strong anthropogenic influence (forest logging) there is an increasing trend of landslides and mudflows in the region. The majority of landslides occur in the middle mountain zone of the region (Department of Monitoring and Prognosis, 2005).

Soils: Soils vary throughout the region according to elevation and degree of specific location. A narrow beach is covered by sandy and sandy-alluvial soil. In some parts of the region marsh and meadow alluvial bog soils exists. Red soils predominate in the upper part of the mountain (Map of Soil Types of Georgia, 1999).

5.1.9 Pshaveli Geology: The village of Pshaveli is located in the region of Kakheti near the Stori River (a tributary of the Alazani River). The village sits at an elevation of 500 meters. (Atlas of Georgia, 1964)

Geologically, the landscape is constructed mostly of Mesosoic and Tertiary formations. Jurassic layers are represented with sandstone and clay. Hills in the area are modest in size, averaging 500 meters in elevation and have no glaciers. Ancient glaciers shaped the local relief resulting in a heavily eroded landscape. A typical feature is poor development of the foothill belt (Atlas of Georgia, 1964).

Geo Hazards: In terms of seism, the territory is considered to be active. Seismicity of the region is a “nine” (9) on the MKS scale (Map of Seismic Hazard Assessment of Georgia, 2006).


Soils: Soil cover is diverse with forest-meadow, alluvial and non-calcareous soils dominating vast areas of the left bank of the Alazani River. Soils gradually change into forest brown soils as one moves into the foothill areas (Map of Soil Types of Georgia, 2000).

5.1.10 Sartichala Geology: The village of Sartichala is located in Gardabani district of Kvemo Kartli region in East Georgia. The Gardabani district is bordered by the Lalno Ridge to the north and the Trialeti Ridge to the west. The Samgori Plateau is situated at the southern part of the Ialno Ridge. The plateau was formed by clay shale build during the late Paleocene-early Miocene periods (Encyclopedia of Georgia, 1984).

Geo Hazards: In terms of seismicity, the territory is considered to be an active seismic zone. Seismicity of the region is rated an “eight” (8) on the MKS scale (Map of Seismic Hazard Assessment of Georgia, 2006).

Soils: Black earth (chernozem) is common in the district. At higher elevations, forest cinamonic dark and meadows cinamonic dark soils are found (Map of Soil Types of Georgia, 1999).


5.2 Water Resources This section focuses on the current situation of water resources in Georgia. It covers general issues of meteorology and climate, focusing on the contrasting climatic conditions between East Georgia and West Georgia; hydrology, focusing on the two main river basins in the country and surface and groundwater availability; and water quality, focusing on the main issues regarding current pollution and its effect on rivers and the Black Sea.

There is, however, a general lack of available existing information and data regarding water resources in Georgia in general and specifically for the areas around and at the sites assessed in the PEA. This is mainly due to financial constraints. Data on quantity and quality of the country’s surface waters are extremely limited, while data on groundwater resources are practically nonexistent. At best in recent years, data have been collected by the State Department of Hydrometeorology for up to ten conventional indicators of pollution from up to 42 monitoring locations. These data have not been frequently collected, nor are they necessarily accurate.

Faced with this situation, the PEA Team elected to focus the water resources analysis section on a national and regional perspective, incorporating local information and data into the analysis as available.

5.2.1 Meteorology and Climate Meteorology is a sub-discipline of the atmospheric sciences that focuses on weather processess and forecasting. Meteorological phenomena are observable weather events which illuminate and are explained by the science of meteorology.

One of such weather events is precipitation. Precipitation is any product of the condensation of atmosphereic water vapour that is deposited on the earth's surface. A major component of the hydrologic cycle, it is responsible for depositing most of the fresh water on the planet and the only natural input to any surface water system within its watershed.

Therefore, meteorological and climatic events have a significant influence on the water resources at a local, regional and national level.

Georgia’s climate is extremely diverse, encompassing several climatic zones from humid subtropical to eternal snow and glaciers. Georgia is located on a rather low latitude and has moderate cloud cover, with an average annual length of sunshine ranging from 1,350 to 2,500 hours, and a significant total rate of solar radiation amounting to approximately 115 to 150 kcal/cm² between sea level and 500 meters elevation.

The diversity of Georgia's climate is determined by two main factors (FAO, UNEP / GRID-Arendal):

1) By its location on the northern border of the subtropical zone between the Caspian and Black Seas: The Black Sea moderates the temperature in West Georgia, especially along the coastal zone, and generates heavy precipitation.

2) By the Caucasus Mountain Range: The Greater Caucasus Mountains protect the nation from colder air masses from the north, while the Lesser Caucasus Mountains partially protect the nation from dry and hot air masses from the south. In addition to the influence of the Black Sea and the Greater and Lesser Caucasus Mountains, the Likhi Ridge (Surami Ridge) joins the Greater Caucasus in the north and the Lesser Caucasus in the south separating the eastern and western parts of the country.

This unique set of characteristics roughly divides Georgia into two contrasting climatic zones – East and West Georgia (FAO).

West Georgia has a subtropical humid climate and is strongly influenced by the Black Sea coastal zone. Average precipitation is estimated to vary between 1,000 and 2,000 mm/year, often exceeding 2,000 mm in the coastal areas. Precipitation tends to be uniformly distributed


throughout the year, with particularly heavy rainfall during the autumn months. The climate of the region varies significantly with elevation and while much of the lowland areas of West Georgia are relatively warm throughout the year, the foothills and mountainous areas of both the Greater and Lesser Caucasus Mountains experience cool, wet summers and snowy winters. In this region, the midwinter average temperature is 5° C and the midsummer average is 22° C (UNEP / GRID-Arendal, FAO).

East Georgia, shielded from the influence of the Black Sea coastal zone by the Likhi and Meskheti Mountain Ranges, has a transitional climate from humid subtropical to continental. The region's weather patterns are influenced both by dry Central Asian / Caspian air masses from the east, and humid Black Sea air masses from the west. Average precipitation is considerably less than West Georgia, varying between 500 to 800 mm per year; the majority of the rainfall (and hail) occurs during spring and autumn. Much of East Georgia experiences hot summers (especially in the low-lying areas) and relatively cold winters; regions that lie above 2,000 meters above sea level frequently experience frost even during the summer months. In this region, the midwinter average temperature is 3° C and the midsummer average is 23° C (UNEP / GRID-Arendal, FAO).

Alpine and highland regions in the east and west, and the semi-arid region on the Lori Plateau to the southeast have their own distinct microclimates; alpine conditions begin at about 2,100 meters, and above 3,600 meters mountains are covered by snow and ice year-round.

Table 5-1 shows precipitation data gathered by the PEA Team and covering all regions and major climatic environments in Georgia where the Rural Energy Program would implement small hydropower projects and NG distribution systems projects. However, although widely used by local engineers and engineering firms, the data show rainfall levels from the Soviet-era, since current precipitation data are limited to a few, infrequently monitored stations scattered across the country.


Table 5-1. Average Monthly and Annual Precipitation Data (mm) for SHP Sites

Month SHPP Met. Station

I II III IV V VI VII VIII IX X XI XII

Year

Abhesi Dimi 26 24 23 23 24 29 29 33 32 31 31 27 332 Dzama Gori 9 9 11 14 19 17 15 15 16 15 15 11 166 Kabali Kvareli 13 15 22 27 36 39 27 30 41 31 22 14 317 Kakhareti Akhaltsikhe 8 8 10 13 16 20 17 16 13 14 12 11 158 Lopota Telavi 9 11 15 21 33 40 29 25 24 22 17 14 260 Machakhela Batumi 46 39 34 28 31 52 59 75 88 76 65 59 652 Pshaveli Telavi 9 11 15 21 33 40 29 25 24 22 17 14 260

Month NG Met. Station

I II III IV V VI VII VIII IX X XI XII

Year

Sartichala Gombori 10 11 18 30 37 40 22 26 37 21 14 12 298 Kalauri Gurjaani 12 14 20 28 34 36 28 31 39 28 19 11 300 Khidistavi Chokhatauri 40 31 28 21 23 46 48 54 69 56 43 47 486

Source: A study on Climate Conditions and Atmospheric Precipitation, 1975

5.2.2 Hydrology Hydrology is the study of the movement, distribution, and quality of water, and thus addresses both the hydrologic cycle and water resources. Domains of hydrology include hydrometeorology, surface hydrology, hydrogeology, drainage basin management and water quality, where water plays the central role. Meteorology and hydrology comprise the interdisciplinary field of hydrometeorology.

Georgia has a vast capacity of available water resources (~0.9 m3/km2), estimated to be 2.5 times the world average and about four times more water per capita (>12,000 m3/capita) than Armenia and Azerbaijan (UNEP / GRID).

However, even though the country has plenty of water available, there are significant differences in resource distribution in the country mainly due to the range in precipitation from the humid western part of the country to the semi-arid east. West Georgia has greater than 75% of the water resources in the country, while East Georgia has the majority of industrial facilities (~60%), irrigated land (~85%) and population (~60%), generating ineffective and inefficient water management practices.

River Basins: Georgia’s river network is a reflection of the climatic and topographic conditions of the country showing an uneven distribution between the eastern and western basins. Georgia has over 26,000 rivers, of which almost 70% are located in West Georgia and the rest in East Georgia. The majority of rivers (99%) are short (less than 25 km long), with less than 140 rivers ranging from 25 to 500 km. The largest rivers are Rioni, Mtkvari, Chorokhi, Enguri, Kodori, and Alazani (FAO, UNECE, UNEP / GRID-Arendal).

Georgia has two major drainage basins separated by the Likhi Mountain Range: the western basin draining into the Black Sea and the eastern basin draining into the Caspian Sea.

The Black Sea Basin, comprising a large number of rivers and lakes, is located in the western part of the country and is strongly influenced by the climatic environment of West Georgia. The main rivers of the Black Sea Basin are the Rioni, Inguri, Kodori, Supsa and Chorokhi. (UNECE, FAO)

The Rioni River Basin (Figure 5-1) constitutes almost 20% of Georgia's land area. The Rioni River is the largest tributary of the Black Sea in Georgia and is considered to be the largest


single source of pollution along the Georgian Black Sea coast, reaching the Black Sea at Poti (UNECE). In addition, Georgia's Kolkheti marshes and Lake Paliastomi comprise one of the most extensive wetland areas within the Black Sea region, acting as a natural filter for the Rioni River (UNEP / GRID-Arendal).

Figure 5-2. Rioni River Basin in West Georgia

Source: “State of the Environment – Georgia” – UNEP / GRID

The Caspian Sea Basin is located in the eastern part of the country, reflecting this region’s drier climate. The main rivers of the Caspian Sea Basin are the Kura River and its tributaries, Terek, Andiyskoye, Alazani, and Lori.

The Kura (also known as the Mtkvari) River Basin (Figure 5-3) is the most important river basin in East Georgia and the largest watercourse of the Caucasus, covering 23% of Georgia’s land area; almost all rivers of East Georgia create a shared system of the Kura River and flow into the Caspian Sea (UNECE). The Kura originates in Turkey and has many tributaries from Armenia; other important rivers such as the Lori and Alazani to the north join the Kura River downstream in Azerbaijan, making it the most important trans-boundary water resource to Georgia and its neighbors. The Kura’s total length is about 1,515 km, of which only about 390 km are in Georgia.


Figure 5-3. Kura-Aras River Basin in East Georgia

Source: USAID/Caucasus/Georgia – Regional Water Project in the South Caucasus. Prepared by GIS & RS Scientific Training Center

Table 5-2. Average River Flow and type of soil for SHP Sites (m3/s)

River SHP Average River

Flow (m3/s)

Average Monthly

Maximum Flow (m3/s)

Average Monthly

Minimum Flow (m3/s)

Riverbed Soil

Abasha Abhesi 8.2 8.8. 4.3. Rocks Dzama Dzama 3.2 9.4 1.4 Sand Kabali Kabali 2.5 6.0 0.9 Rocks Kakhareti Kakhareti 5.0 10.0 3.0 Rocks Lopota Lopota 4.0 8.2 1.9 Rocks Machakhelis Tskali Machakhela 15.0 35.0 9.0 Rocks Stori irrigation system Pshaveli 8.1 12.0 2.9 Sand

Source: SHP technical documentation verified and updated by Georgian Water Project (GWP).

Lakes and Reservoirs: Georgia has approximately 860 lakes and almost 700 glaciers with total area equal to 170 km2 (0.24% of total land area) and just over 500 km2 (0.7% of total land area), respectively. The majority of lakes are very small, with 74% of total storage concentrated in five major lakes: Paliastomi, Sagamo, Paravani, Ritsa and Tabatskuri; Lake Paravani has the largest surface area, Lake Tabatskuri has the largest volume, and Lake Ritsa is the deepest. The lakes come from very diverse origins: there are tectonic, glacial (the largest number), fluvial, shoreline, karst, suffosion, impounded, landslide, and anthropogenic lakes. The biggest lakes in the Kura / Mtkvari River Basin are Paravani, Sagamo, Tabatskuri, and Jandari (FAO, UNECE).


Table 5-3. Main Lakes of Georgia

Lake Water surface (km2)

Basin area (km2)

Maximum depth (m)

Mean depth (m)

Storage (106 m3)

Paravani 37.5 234.0 3.3 2.42 90.8 Sagamo 4.81 528.0 2.3 1.6 7.7 Tabatskuri 14.2 83.1 40.2 15.5 221.0

Jandari* 12.5 (6 km2 in Georgia) 330 7 4.8 50.0

Paliastomi 18.2 547 3.2 2.6 52 Ritsa 1.5 67 116 NA NA

* International lake (Azerbaijan-Georgia)

Source: “Ecology and Water Relationships in Georgia”, Metsniereba, 1992, “Background paper for the guidance on monitoring and assessment of Trans-boundary and International Lakes”, Finnish Environment Institute, 2001

There are 43 reservoirs in the country that are used primarily for irrigation and hydropower generation; the largest dam for hydropower is the Inguri dam, while the largest irrigation reservoirs are located in the Lori River: Sioni reservoir (325 million m³) and the Tbilisi reservoir (308 million m³). Although thirty five (~80%) of the reservoirs are located in East Georgia and the other eight (~20%) are located in West Georgia, only 60% of the total reservoir discharge volume is located in East Georgia (UNECE).

Groundwater: Georgia has vast groundwater resources that follow the same uneven distribution of river network and climate, increasing from east to west. Ground waters account for 33% of all water resources in Georgia and are mostly used for drinking water supply, although agricultural uses are also significant.

As with other water resources, data on groundwater is relatively recent and very limited, particularly because they were never developed as a resource during the Soviet era; Soviet-led development focused on the development of surface water infrastructure projects. Total fresh groundwater resources are estimated to be approximately 560 m3/s, of which only ~ 100 m3/s is used (GRID-Arendal); approximately 61% are located in West Georgia and 39% are located in East Georgia. The majority of these resources are found in porous rocks, cleft karst rocks, and cleft lava rocks.

5.2.3 Water Quality There is very limited data on Georgia’s surface and ground water quality. The State Department of Hydrometeorology of Georgia has data for up to 10 conventional indicators of pollution collected at up to 42 monitoring locations (UNECE). However, even though annual average data are typically cited in their reports, measurements are infrequent (a few measurements during scattered years) and not necessarily accurate due to quality control issues on sample collection and analysis.

No specific water quality data is available for any of the sites visited during the PEA. Moreover, it seems that there is no water quality data for any of the SHP and NG Systems potential sites under the Rural Energy program; the Rural Energy program team will have to determine the availability of water quality data on a case-by-case basis.

Nonetheless, several recent projects have conducted water resources and limited water quality work in Georgia focusing on the main stem of the Kuras-Araks River and its basin; there is practically no water quality information on western Georgia or anywhere else outside the Kuras-Araks basin. These projects are:


The USAID/Caucasus/Georgia Water Management in the South Caucasus Project. This project rehabilitated five gauging stations in Georgia that now maintain regular water level and flow records, as well as one station in Tbilisi monitoring water quality. DAI provided one set of handheld water quality equipment to the Hydromet in Tbilisi and the appropriate water sampling training on procedures and quality control.

OSCE / NATO Project. This project conducts water quality monitoring once a month at 10 to 12 monitoring stations on Kura, Alazani, Khrami, and Debed Rivers and on the trans-boundary area in East Georgia. The project looks at concentrations of heavy metals, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), pesticides, and poliaromatic compounds in the Kuras-Araks Basin.

United Nations Development Project (UNDP) / Sida Project. This project is conducting water quality analysis and monitoring efforts on 16-18 monitoring stations in the Kura-Araks River Basin. The project looked at discharge, specific conductivity, total dissolved solids, salinity, pH, temperature, dissolved oxygen and redox potential; chemical analysis of water quality parameters (HCO3, CL-, CO3-, SO4

-, Na+, K+, Mg+2, Ca+2, N, P, Ni, Co, Ag, Cu, Mo, Zn, Pb, and Mn.)

It is difficult to draw conclusions on true ecological health and threats to Georgian water resources. However, based on the limited amount of water quality information and data collected by the projects mentioned above and qualitative interpretations of available data, we can make the following observations regarding water quality issues in Georgia (UNECE, UNEP / GRID):

• Current water quality issues and problems are due to wastewater discharges from cities and industries located near the river, and from agriculture run-off. Heavy metals are concentrated in close proximity of industrial sites (10-15 km), affecting both the main stem of the river as well as its tributaries;

• Surface water quality of both the Rioni and Kura rivers probably exceeds Georgian norms (and comparable international norms);

• The cities of Borjomi, Gori, Tbilisi and Rustavi are the main contributors of pollution going into the Kura River;

• Tributaries of the Kura are of concern include the Vere River in the Tbilisi area, the Alazani River downstream from Telavi, the Mashavera River downstream from Madneuli, and the Suramula River downstream from Khashuri;

• The cities of Kutaisi and Poti are the main contributors of pollution going into the Rioni River; • Groundwater quality at the source is believed to be very good, but there are no data

available to support this claim. There are no data regarding potential contamination of groundwater from municipal, agricultural or industrial pollution through infiltration; and

• Untreated or poorly treated wastewater discharge and agricultural run-off are the main contributors to surface water pollution and eutrophication of water bodies.

Possible pollution “hot spots” include: 1) the Kvabliani River and its tributary, the Otskhe River downstream of the village of Abastumani; 2) the Mtkvari River and its tributaries, the Borjomula River and the Gujaretistskali River in the Borjomi Region; 3) the Mtkvari River and its tributary, the Ksani River in the Mtskheta region; and 4) the Vere River within Tbilisi city limits (UNECE), and are noted in Figure 5-4.


Figure 5-4. Pollution Levels in Georgian Rivers

Source: “State of the Environment – Georgia” – UNEP / GRID

Wastewater Management: Georgia has 29 municipal wastewater treatment plants in the country of which only five are currently operational, albeit at very reduced efficiencies (see Table 5-4). There is no biological treatment on any of the wastewater treatment facilities in Georgia. Municipal wastewater plants were often constructed poorly and, due to inadequate operation and maintenance, have degraded rapidly. In addition, sewage collection does not cover a large portion of the population and consequently wastewater is discharged directly into water bodies. For example, in Tbilisi only 43 out of 100 connections to the sewer collectors are installed, so the wastewater not collected (estimates range from 30% to 50% of the total) is discharged directly to the Kura River without being treated (UN, UNECE).

Industrial wastewater is rarely pre-treated. The Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources Protection estimates that 80% to 90% of industrial wastewater is not treated before being discharged to sewers or surface waters (UN).

Table 5-4. Status of Municipal Wastewater Treatment Plants

Town Technology Operational SinceDesign Capacity

(1000 m3/day) Current ConditionBlack Sea Basin Kutaisi MB 1980 110 Mechanical only Batumi MB 1983 85 Mechanical only Kobuleti / Ozurgeti MB 1985 50 Out of order Zugdidi MB 1975 23.3 Out of order Poti M 1981 23.1 Out of order Samtredia MB 1978 17 Out of order Tskhaltubo MB 1976 13 Out of order Zestaphoni MB 1976 11.5 Out of order Chiatura M 1978 8.2 Out of order Sairme MB 1978 0.8 Out of order Kura River Basin Tbilisi / Rustavi MB 1986 1,000 Mechanical only Tskhinvali MB 1983 25 Out of order Gori MB 1968 18 Mechanical only Sagarejo MB 1975 10.2 Out of order


Town Technology Operational SinceDesign Capacity

(1000 m3/day) Current ConditionKhashuri MB 1971 10 Mechanical only Kareli M 1968 5.3 Out of order Telavi MB 1975 4.5 Out of order Java MB 1982 3.5 Out of order Kaspi M 1978 2.5 Out of order Bakuriani MB 1978 2.1 Out of order Dmanisi MB 1983 1.4 Out of order Abastumani MB 1981 1.4 Out of order Tetri Tskaro MB 1981 1 Out of order

MB = mechanical and biological treatment M = mechanical treatment only Source: Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources Protection Background data for report: European Commission Project: SCRE/111232/C/SV/WW. Support to the Implementation of Environmental Policies and NEAPs in the NIS. Sub-Project Georgia: Increasing the Effectiveness of Economic Instruments.

The Black Sea: Georgia is bordered by the Black Sea to the west with a total coastline length of 330 km. The Black Sea is an important recreational and fishery resource for the country. The main rivers flowing into the Black Sea are Rioni, Bzipi, Kodori, Enguri and Chorokhi.

The Black Sea has been heavily contaminated with nutrients (i.e. nitrogen and phosphorus series) causing severe eutrophication. Georgia’s watersheds are relatively small; therefore, their contribution of organic pollutants to the Black Sea is also small compared to its neighbors. In 1996, for example, Georgia’s contribution of biochemical oxygen demand was about 4% of the regional total, phosphorus about 3% of the regional total, and nitrogen less than 1% of the regional total (UNECE). However, given the limited mixing of the Black Sea, these comparatively small contributions can have a significant large impact in Georgia’s coastal zone.

The main sources of organic pollution are municipal wastewater treatment plants and agriculture; additional contaminants from industrial facilities, oil refineries and leaking tankers affect overall conditions in the Black Sea. The main wastewater treatment plants in Georgia that discharge municipal sewerage to the Black Sea Basin are in poor condition. Those closest to the Black Sea coastline include: Batumi, where there is only mechanical treatment; Kobuleti and Poti, which are not operating at all; and Sukhumi (in Abkhazia), which is also believed to be not operating. In addition, the short distance from the wastewater plants (which discharge to tributaries of the Black Sea) to the Sea itself, not only allow for very little natural attenuation, but also significantly contribute to the tributaries degradation (UNECE).


5.3 Biological Resources

Georgia is rich in biological resources being home to a large variety of plant and animal species. This section provides an overview of major biomes followed by site-specific information from sites included in the PEA sample universe.

5.3.1 Overview of Major Biomes Climatic differences between East and West Georgia account for a major contrast in ecosystem diversity and vertical zonation between the two areas. West Georgia has five major biome zones (Figure 5-5) that can be identified, but is notably lacking in arid and semi-arid treeless areas. The biome zones are:

1. Forest (coastal plane – 1,900 m); 2. Subalpine zone (1,900 – 2,500 m); 3. Alpine zone (2,500 – 3,000 m); 4. Subnival zone (3,000 – 3,600 m.); and 5. Nival zone (> 3,600 m.)

The biome zones of East Georgia are more complex, however six major zones can be identified:

1. Semi-deserts, steppe and arid light woodlands (150– 600 meters); 2. Forest (600– 1,900 meters); 3. Subalpine zone (1,900– 2,500 meters); 4. Alpine zone (2,500– 3,000 meters); 5. Subnival zone (3,000 – 3,700 meters); and 6. Nival zone (> 3,700 meters).

(Status Review of Biodiversity Conservation in the Caucasus: Georgia)


Figure 5.5. Major Biomes of Georgia

Biodiversity: Georgia is rich in flora and fauna. More than 44,000 species have been recorded, of which 2,745 are algal species, more than 7,000 fungi and lichens, 4,100 vascular plants and about 14,100 known animal species. Of the animals, 576 are vertebrate species, including freshwater fish species (Table 5-5). Georgia's flora and fauna are characterized by a high degree of endemic, sub-endemic and relict species. There are 300 endemic and 600 sub-endemic vascular plant species. There are no complete data on invertebrate animals' endemism, but it is most likely high as among the vertebrate species, 59 are endemic (Table 5-5). Three bird species are also endemic: the Caucasian black grouse (Tetrao mlokosiewiczi), the Caucasian snowcock (Tetraogalus caucasiacus) and the Caucasian warbler (Phylloscopus lorenzii). Most of the other birds are migratory species, mostly characteristic of the Kolkheti area.

Not all of the invertebrate groups in Georgia are well studied, although some groups (especially among arthropods) are quite well known. According to some calculations and prognoses, 26,355 invertebrate species are to be found in Georgia (EPR Georgia, 2003). Vertebrates, on the other hand, are very well studied. A special characteristic of Georgia is its large mammal diversity. Until the beginning of the 20th century many species were found throughout Georgia in great number. These included the Asian leopard (Pantera pardus), lynx (Lynx lynx), and wolf (Canis lupus), whose ranges covered almost all of Georgia. Since the 1920s there has been a significant decline of all of these mammal populations. Only a few leopards remain in very remote and inaccessible areas. Similarly, the striped hyena (Hyaena hyaena) population has declined to several individuals and the goitered gazelle (Gazella subgutturosa) is now extinct. Two species of Caucasus mountain goat (Capra cylindricornis and Carpa caucasica) are endemic, but have severely declined due to poaching (NBSAP Georgia, 2005).


Table 5-5. Flora and Fauna Diversity

* Continental waters and soil taxa, ** 600 Caucasian and 300 Georgian species.

Forest: Forests cover 36.7% of the country’s total territory (NBSAP-Georgia, 2005) and is unevenly distributed throughout Georgia. There are areas with less than 10% forest cover. About 98% of forests are in the mountains and only 2% are plain forests in both East and West Georgia. About 26.8% of the forests are below 1,000 meters, 66.2% between 1,000 and 2,000 meters, and 7.0% above 2,000 meters (EPR Georgia, 2003).

There are almost 400 different tree and shrub species in Georgia’s forests. The most abundant is beech (Fagus orientalis), which covers 52.9% of all forestland. Other deciduous species make up 22.5%, conifers, 15.7%, and other species, 8.9% (EPR-Georgia, 2003) (see Figure 5-6). Forests are classified as follows: valuable forest massifs, green zone forests, resort forests, soil-protecting and water-regulating forests and protective-exploitative valley forests.

Types of Organisms Number of Species

Endemic for Caucasus Number (%)

Algae (taxa)* 2745 Unknown

Fungi > 7000 Unknown

Lichens (taxa) 987 Unknown

Vascular plants 4100 900**(21)

Ferns 74 Unknown

Gymnosperms 17 Unknown

Angiosperms 4009 Unknown

Invertebrates 13514 Unknown

Arthropods 11443 Unknown

Vertebrates 576 Unknown

Fishes 84 Unknown

Amphibians 13 3 (23)

Reptiles 52 15 (29)

Birds 322 3 (1)

Mammals 105 38 (36)


Figure 5-6. Major Vegetation of Georgia

Notable forest types include:

• Georgian oak forest (Quercus iberica): Occurs at 600 to 700 meters in East Georgia. • Xerophilic oak forests. • Beech forests (Fagus orientalis): Found in middle and upper zones of the forest belt. • Pine forests: These often develop on the edges of mountain steppes or steppe-

meadows (in southern Georgia), between 1,700-2,400 meters. • Pine and oak woodland: This can be found in East Georgia at 800 to 1,100 meters but

in Adjara (West Georgia) from 300 to 1,200 meters. • Yew (Taxus baccata) forests: Found in the East of Georgia. • Zelcova forest: These forests are found in East Georgia. • Maple (Acer velutinum) forests: These forests are found only in Alazani Valley. This

species does not occur above 1,000 meters. In East Georgia, Acer laetun is usually found in mixed forests.

• Colchic forests: These are forest in the Kolkheti (Colcheti) Lowlands (West Georgia), rich in creepers.

• Endemic pine (Pinus pitiunta): These forests are found on the Abkhazian coastline. • Chestnut forests: These are found both in East and West Georgia. In West Georgia

they occur at 100 to 1,000 meters. In East Georgia are found as high as 1,400 to 1,450 meters but typically occur from 400 meters up to 1,350 meters.

Protected Areas: In Georgia there are presently 21 natural reserves (total area of 171,787 hectares), four national parks (total area of 210,860 hectares), three natural monuments (total area about 138 hectares), 11 sanctuaries (total area 56,393 hectares) and one protected landscape (2,790 hectares) (see Figure 5-7). The total amount of protected areas in Georgia


amounts to 439 178 hectares, or 6% of the total area of Georgia (Department of Protected Areas of Georgia, 2006). It should be noted that more protected areas are being planned in the future. One of them is the Javakheti National Park with an area of 20,000 hectares and five wetland sanctuaries within. Other national parks to be established in Georgia include the Mtirala National Park (15,806 hectares) and the Tbilisi National Park (24 000 ha). The Machakhela SHP is situated about 10 kilometers from the territory of the planned protected area of Mtirala National Park. Another SHP site in the program (Kakhareti) is about 40 kilometers from the planned Javakheti National Park area.

Figure 5-7. Protected Areas of Georgia

This section presents baseline data collected from the 10 sites included in the PEA sample universe. Information is provided on vegetation, mammals, avifauna, reptiles and fish found in and around the selected sites.

5.3.2 Abhesi Vegetation: Natural vegetative cover of the area has been greatly changed by anthropogenic activities (Encyclopedia of Georgia, 1984). A significant area of the region is covered by cultural landscapes and agricultural landscape formed by gardens, orchards, patches of exotic vegetation (eucalyptus, tung and bamboo), plots of maize, terraced tea and citrus plantations. Native landscape is covered with Colchic-type forest. Dominant species of the forest are: hornbeam (Carpinus caucasica), maple (Acer campestre), beech (Fagus orientalis) and chestnut (Castanea sativa). Forests are rich with lianas (Hedera colchica and Smalax exscelsa) and fern (Mateucia struthiopteris).

The sub-forest largely consists of evergreen species including cherry laurel (Laurocerasus officinalis), broom (Ruscus ponticus), box tree (Buxus colchica, Red Book of Georgia, National Statute VU), and the following shrubs: wineberry (Vaccinium myrtillus), nut (Colrylus colchica), and white mulberry tree (Malus orientalis Morus alba) (Ketskhoveli N., 1959).


Populations of the following herb species have been recorded in the vicinity of the village: cyclamen (Cyclamen vernum, Cyclamen colchicum, Cyclamen ponticum), twayblade (Listera ovata), red helleborine (Cephalanthera rubra), ghost orchid (Epipogium aphyllum) (Epipogium epipogium), Autumn lady’s tresses (Spiranthes spiralis), and orchid (Orchis palustris). These species are listed under Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES).

Mammals: In the vicinity of the village of Abhesi, the following mammals have been recorded: jackal (Canis aureus), fox (Vulpes vulpes), badger (Meles meles), least weasel (Mustela nivalis), hare (Sciurus vulgaris), and wild boar (Sus scrofa). In the nutria (Myocastor coypus) are found (Atlas of Georgia, 1964).

Avifauna: Avifauna is not as rich as in the other parts of the country. The following bird species are found in the vicinity of the village: quail (Coturnix coturnix), corncrate (Crex crex), spotted crake (Porzana porzana), little ringed plover (Charadirus dubius), common sandpiper (Tringa hypoleucus), Alpine swift (Alpus melba), and others (Jordania R, Boeme B, Kuznetsov A, 1999).

Reptiles: In the available literature the following species have been reported within the Zugdidi region: Adjarian lizard (Lacerta mixta), lizard (Ophisaurus apodus), green toad (Bufo viridus), Caucasian toad (Bufo verrucosissimus), slow worm (Anguis fragilis) and two species of snakes (Natrix natrix and Natrix tessellate) (Tarkhnishvili, D, 1996).

Fish: Following fish species are found in the Abashis Tskali River: Colchic barbel (Barbus tauricus escherichi), bream (Abramis brama), goby (Gobius melanostomus), trout (Salmo fario), and Khramulya (Varicorhinus siedolbi, Red Book of Georgia, National Statute Vulnerable) are found in the Abashis Tskali River (Elanidze, R. 1988). Spawning periods for major fish species found in the river are noted in Table 5-5 below.

Table 5-5. Abashis Tskali River Fish Spawning Periods

Fish Spawning Period

Kolkhic Barbel May-August Bream April-June Goby March-September Trout September-October

Khramulya May-June

5.3.3 Dzama (Kekhijvari) Vegetation: The vegetation structure and origins are complex. In the past, the area was densely covered with oak (Quercus iberica), beech (Fagus orientalis), and hornbeam (Carpinus caucasica) forests, most of which have been eliminated by humans including the flood plain forests along the Mtkvari River and its tributaries (Nakhutsrishvili, G, 1999). Secondary vegetation is mostly Xerophylous and Hemixerophilous shrub and grassland or converted into agricultural lands.

Dominant species of shrub are Christ’s thorn (Paliurus spina-christi), willow (Salix hypemrifolia), and oriental hornbeam (Carpinus orientalis). Sporadically, junipers (Juniperus), dog rose (Rosa), Smoke tree (Cotinus cogyggria), and Black fruit thorn (Crataegus penthagina) are found.

Mammals: As a result of a strong anthropogenic influence, the distribution of local fauna is rather poor in the region. The following species are found in the region: badger (Meles meles), wolf (Canis lupus), fox (Vulpes vulpes), marten (Martes martes), wild boar (Sus scrofa), roe deer (Capreolus capreolus), and hare (Lepus europeus). Common vole (Microtus arvalis) is a dominant rodent species (Atlas of Georgia, 1984).


Avifauna: Avifauna is represented by species typically found in steppe area. The following species are most-commonly met in the region: wheatear (Oenanthe oenanthe), shrikes (Lanius collurio), rock bunting (Emberiza cia), and hoppoes (Upupa epops). There are nests of Imperial eagle (Aquila heliaca) in the area, a species included on the IUCN Red List. In the neighboring Trialeti Mountains, black grouse (Tetrao mlokosieviczi) is found, as is partridge (Perdix perdix) (Jordania R., Boeme B., 1999).

Reptiles: Limited information on reptiles is available for this area. In the vicinities of the Dzama River, the following species have been reported: snake (Natrix natrix and Natrix tessellate) and European glass lizard (Ophisaurus apodus). (Georgian Encyclopedia, 1984)

Fish: The following fish species were reported in the Dzama River: trout (Salmo fario, Red Book of Georgia, Statute-Vulnerable) and silver barbel (Barbus lacerta cyri) (Elanidze, 1988). Spawning periods for major fish species found in the river are noted in Table 5-6 below.

Table 5-6. Dzama River Fish Spawning Periods


Silver Barbel May-June Trout September-October

5.3.4 Kabali Vegetation: The village of Kabali is about 20 kilometers from the Lagodekhi Reserve (Map of Protected Areas, WWF, 2005). A large, almost pristine forest area is found in Lagodekhi district, along with small and isolated patches of degraded flood plain forests (see Figure 5-8). The following species are found in the flood plain forests: oak (Quercus pedunculiflora), elm (Ulmus foliacea), poplar (Populus canescens and Populus nigra), willow (Salix excelsa), and others.

In the upper part of the district near the village of Kabali, the following species are found: oak (Querpus pedunculifora), hornbeam (Carpinus caucasica), ash (Fraxinus excelsior), lime (Tilia caucasica), and maple (Acer campestre). The sub-forest is formed by the following species: privet (Ligustrum vulgare), medlar (Mespilus germanica), dogwood (Comus mas), and hazel (Corylus avellana) etc.

Ground flora is species-poor and consists of several grass species including tor grass (Brachypodium sylvaticum), fescue (Festuca gigantean), and orchard grass (Dactylis glomerata) with a mixture of some widespread taxa such as creeping cinquefoil (Potentilla reptans), goldenrod (Solidago virgaurea), and etc.

The following species found in the vinicintiy of the village are listed in Georgia’s Red Book: ivy (Hedera pastuchowii), oak (Quercus pedunculiflora) and wild vine grape (Vitis sylvestris). The endemic herb specie of Georgia woundwort (Gallantus lagodechianus) (CITES list) is found in the vicinities of the village of Kabali.


Figure 5-8. Lagodekhi Vegetation

Mammals: The following species were reported in the vicinity of the village: wild cat (Felis silvestris), pine marten (Martes Martes), fox (Vulpes vulpes), jackal (Canis aureus), bear (Ursus arctos, Red Book of Georgia National category-Endangered), badger (Meles meles), forest dormouse (Dryomys nitedula), mouse (Apodemus ponticus, Apodemus fulvipectus, Apodemus uralensis), and others.

The following species found in the area are included in the IUCN list for rare and endangered species: greater horseshoes (Rhinolophus ferrumequinum), little horseshoe (Rhinolophus hipposideros), lesser noctule (Nyctalus leisleri), Caucasian squirrel (Sciurus anomalus), otter (Lutra lutra), and lynx (Lynx lynx, Red Book of Georgia National category-Critically endangered).

Avifauna: From spring to autumn, the area surrounding the Lagodekhi district, and specifically the Alazani Flood Plain, acts as a corridor for migratory birds, providing resting grounds and feeding places for these migratory species. However, the presence of the migratory species was not confirmed near the village of Kabali (Map of Alazani Flood Plain Birds, 2005).

The Syrian Woodpecker (Dendrocopos syriacus) is found in the vicinity of the village and is listed in Red Book of Georgia, nesting in April (Jordania R, Boeme B, 1999).

Reptiles: According to the available literature, the following species have been reported within Lagodekhi district: snake (Elaphe quatuorlineata sauromates), European glass lizard (Ophisaurus apodus), slow worm (Anguis fragilis), lizard (Lacerta strigata), etc. The following amphibians inhabit the area: frog (Rana ridibunda and Hyla arborea) and toad (Bufo viridis) (Alazani Flood Plain Forest Management Plan, 2005).

Fish: The following fish species were reported in the Kabali River: trout (Salmo fario, Red Book of Georgia, Statute-Vulnerable) and silver bream (Blicca bjoerkna transcaucasica) (Elanidze, 1988). Spawning periods for major fish species found in the river are noted in Table 5-7 below.


Table 5-7. Kabali River Fish Spawning Periods


Silver Bream May-June Trout September-October

5.3.5 Kalauri

Vegetation: Natural vegetative cover of the district has been greatly changed by anthropogenic activities, as agricultural lands and residential housing dominate the entire area. Still some fragments of flood plain forests are found (Nakhutsrishvili, G. 1999).

Figure 5-9. Land Use Map Uncultivated land is covered by forest steppe-like vegetation dominated by following species: hornbeam (Carpinus orientalis), dog roses (Rosa cinnamomea), Jerusalem thorn (Paliurus spina-christ), Jerusalem thorn (Rhamnus pallasii), and thorn (Crataegus pentagyna). Secondary forest is represented by oak (Quercus pedunculiflora, Quercus pedunculiflora) and hornbeam (Carpinus caucasica) plants.

The following species found in the vicinity of the district are listed in the Red Book of Georgia: oak (Quercus pedunculiflora), wing nut (Pterocarya pterocarpa), persimmon (Diospyros lotus), wild vine grape (Vitis sylvestris) and ivy (Hedera pastuchowii, Hedera pastuchowii).

Mammals: The following species were reported in the vicinities of the village: wild cat (Felis silvestris), pine marten (Martes Martes), fox (Vulpes vulpes), jackal (Canis aureus), badger (Meles meles), hare (Sciurus vulgaris), forest dormouse (Dryomys nitedula) and mouse (Apodemus ponticus, Apodemus fulvipectus, Apodemus uralensis).

Avifauna: The Gurjaani district is inhabited by the following species: penduline tit (Remiz pendulinus), short-toed Lark (Calandrella cinerea), lesser-spotted woodpecker (Dendrocopos


minor), rose-coloured starling (Sturnus roses) and others. (Jordania R, Boeme B, Kuznetsov A, 1999).

Reptiles: In the available literature the following species have been reported within the Gurjaani region: European glass lizard (Ophisaurus apodus), slow worm (Anguis fragilis), lizard (Lacerta strigata) and others. The following amphibians inhabit the area: frog (Rana ridibunda and Hyla arborea) (Alazani Flood Plain Forest Management Plan, 2005).

Fish: There is no river in the area near the Kalauri site and, as such, there are no fish species to report.

5.3.6 Kakhareti Vegetation: The village of Kakhareti is about 20 kilometers from Borjomi-Kharagauli Natural Park (Map of Protected areas of Georgia, 2005). The Javakheti Plateau forms part of the Meskhet-Javakheti Biogeographical Area, represented by mountain steppe and high mountain grassland ecosystems.

The flora of the region is not sufficiently researched. Characteristic species of higher plants include: fescue (Festuca salcata), hair like feather grass (Stipa capillata), bristle leaved feather grass (Stipa tirsa), orchard grass (Dactylis glomerata), mountain zigzag clover (Trifolium alpestre), gagea (Gagea, Muscari), common reed (Phragmites australis), reed mace (Typha latifolia), reed (Typha anegustifolia and Typha laxmanii), common club rush (Schoenoplectus lacustris) and grey club rush (Schoenoplectus tabernaemontani).

The village of Kakhareti is surrounded by wooded hills. In the lower parts of the mountain, dominant species include the oak (Querpus) and hornbeam (Carpinus). The upper part of the mountain is covered with pine (Pinus silvestris), fir (Picea excelsa) and fir (Abies alba) (Ketskhoveli, N, 1959).

Timber cutting and processing is taking place throughout the region. Logging has become very intensive in recent years focusing on high quality wood species. Due to intensive logging, some zones of forest ecosystems have been destroyed (Management Plan of the Javakheti Lakes, 2000).

Mammals: Species that are declining in population in other parts of the Caucasus are relatively common throughout the Javakheti Plateau. Some of the largest mammals currently found on the Plateau are the European hare (Lepus europaeus), the marbled polecat (Vormela peregusna), badger (Meles meles), otter (Lutra lutra), fox (Vulpes vulpes) and wolf (Canis lupus). Hare, fox, and wolf are spread throughout the entire region, whereas the marbled polecat (Red Data Book of the Georgian Soviet Social Republic, 1982) is recorded only near the border with Armenia (surroundings of Madatapa Lake).

Some species listed that are endemic to the Caucasus Brant's hamster (Mesocricetus brandti), voles (Terricola daghestanicus and Terricola nasarovi), and the shrews (Sorex caucasicus and Neomys schelkownikowi). The habitat of these species concentrates on the southern border of the region and the Samsari / Javakheti mountains (Management Plan of the Javakheti Lakes, 2000).

Avifauna: The Javakheti Plateau is well known for its avifauna. Different species are found in the vicinities of the lakes, while the Adigeni district is relatively poor for its avifauna (Management Plan of the Javakheti Lakes, 2000). More than 140 different bird species have been recorded for the area of which 80 to 85 species are known to nest on the Plateau. Other species are either migrants, summer visitors or their status remains unclear. Most of the bird species are related to the lakes and wetlands of the Plateau (Table 5-6).

Amphibians and Reptiles: Thirteen species of amphibians and reptiles are reported for the Javakheti Plateau including the green toad (Bufo viridis), two species of frogs (Rana macrocnemis and Rana ridibunda), six species of lizards (Anguis fragilis, Lacerta agilis,


Darevskia valentini, Darevskia nairensis, Darevskia armeniaca, and Darevskia unisexualis) and four species of snakes (Natrix natrix, N. tessellata, Coronella austriaca, and Vipera sp). The Vipera darevskii is endemic to the Caucasus region (Management Plan of the Javakheti Lakes, 2000).

Fish: According to available literature following fish species are found in the Khvabliani River: trout (Salmo fario, Red Book of Georgia, Statute-Vulnerable), barbell (Barbus lacerta) and khramulya (Variocorhinus capoeta) (Elanidze, R. 1998, ESIA, 2000). Spawning periods for major fish species found in the river are noted in Table 5-8 below.

Table 5-8. Khvabliani River Fish Spawning Periods


Trout September-October Barbell May-August

Khramulya April-September


Table 5-9. Major Avifauna of Javakheti Plateau

Source: Management Plan of the Javakheti Lakes, 2000

# Species Abundance Migratory / Nesting IUCN Red List

1 Podiceps cristatus Common Nesting No 2 P. grisegena Common Nesting No 3 P. nigricollis Common Nesting No 4 Pelecanus crispus 40 individual Summer visitor Yes 5 P. onocrotalus 100-150 individual Summer visitor No 6 Ardea cinerea Common Migratory No 7 Egretta alba Rare Migratory No 8 E. garzetta Rare Migratory No 9 Ardeola ralloides Rare Migratory No 10 Plegadis falcinellus Rare Migratory No 11 Ciconia ciconia Common Nesting No 12 C. nigra Rare Migratory No 13 Phoenicopterus ruber Rare Autumn visitor No 14 Anser anser Common Migratory No 15 Tadorna tadorna Rare Migratory No 16 T. ferruginea >300 individual Nesting No 17 Anas platyrhynchos Common Nesting, migratory No 18 A. strepera Common Nesting, migratory No 19 A. crecca Common Nesting, migratory No 20 A. querquedula Common Nesting, migratory No 21 A. qlipeata Common Nesting, migratory No 22 Netta rufina Rare Nesting, migratory No 23 Aythya fuligula Common Nesting No 24 Aythya ferina Common Nesting No 25 Melanitta fusca 20 individual Nesting No 26 Circus aeruginosus Common Nesting No 27 C. pygargus Rare Nesting No 28 C. macrourus Common Migratory Yes 29 C. cianeus Common Migratory No 30 Grus grus 7 pairs Nesting No 31 Rallus aquaticus Common Nesting No 32 Porzana porzana Common Nesting No 33 Crex crex Common Nesting Yes 34 Fulica atra Common Nesting No 35 Himantopus

himantopus Common Migratory No

36 Charadrius hiaticula Rare Migratory No 37 C. dubius Rare Migratory No 38 Vanellus vanellus Common Nesting No 39 Calidris ferruginea Rare Migratory No 40 Tringa totanus Common Nesting No 41 T. ochropus Common Nesting No 42 Limosa limosa Rare Migratory No 43 Actitis hypoleucos Common Migratory No 44 Philomachus pugnax Rare Migratory No 45 Gallinago gallinago Common Migratory No 46 G. media Rare Migratory Yes 47 Larus cachinnans Common Migratory No 48 L. ridibundus Common Migratory No


5.3.7 Khidistavi Vegetation: More than 2,000 plant species are found in the district. In the past, the valley of the Supsa River was covered with flood plain Kolkhic-type forests. Today the entire area is under cultivation. The cultural and agricultural landscapes include gardens, orchards, patches of exotic vegetation (eucalyptus, tung and bamboo), plots of maize, and terraced tea and citrus plantations. Still evident are small fragments of flood plain forests (Ketskoveli, N. 1959).

Forests are comprised with the following species: beech (Fagus orientalis), oak (Quercus pedunculiflora), hornbeam (Carpinus caucasica) and chestnut (Castanea sativa). The sub-forest consists of evergreen species including cherry laurel (Laurocerasus officinalis), broom (Ruscus ponticus), box tree (Buxus colchica, Red Book of Georgia, National Statute Vulnerable) as well as wineberry (Vaccinium myrtillus) and nut (Colrylus avelana) shrubs.

Up to the elevation of 700 meters the forest is dominated by following species: Spruce (Picea orientalis), fir (Abies nordmanniana), beech (Fagus orientalis) and maple (Acer campestre).

Populations of the following herb species are found in the vicinities of the village: twayblade (Listera ovata and Listera cordata), orchid (Orchis amblyoloba), which is listed under Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora.

Mammals: Due to strong anthropogenic influence, the population and distribution of the fauna is rather poor (Encyclopedia of Georgia, 1984). In the vicinity of the village, the following mammals are recorded: bear (Ursus arctos, Red Book of Georgia National Category-Endangered), jackal (Canis aureus), fox (Vulpes vulpes), hare (Sciurus vulgaris), badger (Meles meles) and marten (Martes martes).

Avifauna: Avifauna is not as rich as in the other parts of the country. The following bird species are found in the vicinity of the village: harrier (Circus pygargys), buzzard (Buteo buteo), goshawk (Accipiter gentilis), kestrel (Falco tinnunculus), mistle-thrush (Turdus viscivorus) and others. (Jordania R, Boeme B, Kuznetsov A, 1999).

Reptiles: There is little information available for this area on reptiles. In the available literature the following species have been reported within the Chokhatauri district: European glass lizard (Ophisaurus apodus), spiny-tailed lizard (Lacerta rudis) and two species of snakes (Natrix natrix and Natrix tessellate) (Tarkhnishvili, D, 1996).

Fish: In the Gubazeuli River, the dominant fish species are: trout (Salmo fario, Red Book of Georgia, Statute-Vulnerable), bystranka (Alburnoides bipunctatus fasciatus), and gudgeon (Gobio gobio lepidolaomus n. Caucasicus) (Elanidze, R. 1988). Spawning periods for major fish species found in the river are noted in Table 5-10 below.

Table 5-10. Gubazeuli River Fish Spawning Periods


Trout September-October Bystranka April-August Gudgeon April-August

5.3.8 Lopota (Napareuli) Vegetation: The natural cover of lowland and mountainous parts of Alazani River is greatly affected by anthropogenic activities; the entire area is covered by various types of cultural and man-made landscapes (Fig 5.10).


Figure 5-10. Surrounding Lopota Landscape

Unused land is covered by steppe (represented by steppe-like vegetation comprised of Stipa), forest-steppe (represented by following species: hornbeam (Carpinus orientalis), wild rose (Rosa cinnamomea), Jerusalem thron (Paliurus spina-christi), long leaf buckthorn (Rhamnus pallasii), thorn (Crataegus pentagyna), and secondary forest represented by oak (Querpus) and hornbeam (Carpinus) (Ketskhoveli N., 1959).

Riparian oak-dominated forests are found in the vicinity of the village of Napareuli. Generally, oak woodlands are dominated by oak (Quercus pedunculiflora, Quercus pedunculiflora), elm (Ulmus foliacea), willow (Salix excelsa), ash (Fraxinus excelsior), hornbeam (Carpinus caucasica), maple (Acer campestre) and lime (Tilia caucasica). Sub-forests in oak-dominated woodlands are comprised of quite a few species of shrubs such as privet (Ligustrum vulgare), medlar (Mespilus germanica), dogwood (Cornus mas) and hazel (Corylus avellana). Oak woodlands are marked by the presence of abundant lianas such as smilax (Smilax excelsa) and ivy (Hedera helix).

The following species found in the vicinity of the district are listed in the Red Book of Georgia: oak (Quercus pedunculiflora), wing nut (Pterocarya pterocarpa), persimmon (Diospyros lotus), wild vine grape (Vitis sylvestris) and ivy (Hedera pastuchowii, Hedera pastuchowii).

Timber logging has become very intensive targeting especially high quality wood species such as oak, Caucasian wing nut, hornbeam and elm. Due to intensive logging, some zones of forest ecosystems have been destroyed entirely. In the area of forest cleared by logging, dense liana shrubbery has developed suppressing woody plant regeneration. Wood in this area is primarily used as fuel and for construction (Alazani Flood Plain Management Plan, 2005).


Mammals: On the left bank of the Alazani River the following species were registered: North American raccoon (Procyon lotor), wildcat (Felis silvestris), pine marten (Martes Martes), fox (Vulpes vulpes), jackal (Canis aureus), bear (Ursus arctos, Red Book of Georgia National category-EN), and badger (Meles meles).

Several species found in areas surrounding the district are included on the IUCN list for rare and endangered species including: horseshoe (Rhinolophus ipposideros, Rhinolophus ferrumequinum), lesser noctule (Nyctalus leisleri), Caucasian squirrel (Sciurus anomalus) and otter (Lutra lutra).

Avifauna: The Alazani Flood Plain acts as a corridor for migratory birds from spring to autumn, providing resting grounds and feeding places for these migratory species. The presence of migratory species was not confirmed nearby the village of Napareuli (Map of Alazani Flood Plain Birds, 2005). Most commonly cited bird species of the village are the golden oriole (Oriolus oriolus), dipper (Cinclus cinclus) and robin (Erithacus rubecula).

Reptiles: According to available literature the following reptile species have been reported within the Telavi district: European glass lizard (Ophisaurus apodus) slow worm (Anguis fragilis), ring snake (Natrix natrix), water snake (Natrix tessellate), and lizard (Lacerta strigata).

The following amphibians are found in the vicinity of the district: frog (Rana ridibundai), green toad (Bufo viridis) and the European tree frog (Hyla arborea). The Alazani River and its adjacent areas are presumably also inhabited by the banded newt (Tritorus vitatus), considered an endangered species and included in the Red Data Book of Georgia (Alazani Flood Plain Management Plan, 2005).

Fish: The following fish species have been listed in available literature: trout (Salmo fario, Red Book of Georgia, Statute-Vulnerable), riffle minnow (Alburnoides bipunctatus eichwaldi), and silver bream (Blicca bjoerkna transcaucasica). It should be noted that illegal fishing in the Lopota River has had a detrimental affect on fish population.

Fish ponds have been constructed in the vicinity of the Lopota hydropower plant, creating a potential additional source of income for the hydropower plant owner. The ponds are currently not in use; however, the owner plans to begin operations by August of 2006 using the water diverted from the SHP pen stock. Plans are to raise the silver carp (Hypophthalmichthys molitrix) and sazan (Cyprinus carpio). Spawning periods for major fish species found in the river are noted in Table 5-11 below.

Table 5-11. Alazani River Fish Spawning Periods


Trout September-October Riffle Minnow April-August Silver Bream May-June

5.3.9 Machakhela (Ked-kedi) Vegetation: The village of Ked-kedi is surrounded by several types of wetland areas, especially waterfowl habitat (Ramsar), categorized according to the Convention on Wetlands of International Importance as the following types: F,E,K,L,M,N,R,Y,1,4,9. (Chorokhy Delta Management Plan, 2006). Current plans are to establish the Mtirala Protected Area approximately 10 kilometers from the village (Map of Protected Areas of Georgia, 2005); however, the protected area is as of this writing not yet a reality.


The area is strongly affected by anthropological activities; however, there are still fragments of virgin Colchic forests in the area (Chorokhy Delta Management Plan, 2006). The main flora of the region is comprised of the following formations: Trapeta-Ti, LIunceta Parviunceta, Hydrophyta herbosa, Hydatophytes, Ceratophullata demers, and Hygrophyta fruticosa (Chorokhi Delta Management Plan, 2006)

The village of Ked-kedi is surrounded with foothills covered by Colchic-type forests. Dominant trees are: chestnut (Castanea sativa), beech (Fagus orientalis), elm (Ulmus foliacea), and maple (Acer campestre). The sub-forest is dominated by evergreen specie of rhododendron (Rhododendron ponticum). In the vicinity of the village are found lianas listed in the Red Book of Georgia including the higuera (Ficus carica) and Persian mulberry (Morus nigra).

Surrounding meadows are represented mainly by secondary cenosis, adventive species: crown grass (Paspalum thunbergii), woundwort (Prunella vulgaris), lesser Caucasian stonecrop (Sedum stoloniferum), stonecrop (Sedum hispidum), strawberry (Fragaria viridis), yellow avens (Geum urbanum), medick (Medicago falcate), trefoil (Trifolium subterranum), reversed clover (Trifolium resupinatum), white Dutch clover (Trifolium repens), garden bird’s foot trefoil (Lotus corniculatus), eastern buttercup (Ranunculus chius), crowfoot (Ranunculus trachycarpus), etc. (Nakhutsrishvili G., 1999)

Mammals: Large mammals found nearby the village are: badger (Meles meles), jackal (Canis aureus), fox (Vulpes vulpes) and different species of small mammals including the mole (Talpa caucasica), and shrew (Neomys shelkownikowi and Crocidura spp.) (Chorokhi Delta Management Plan, 2006).

Avifauna: This area is known for a diversity of birds as almost 40 nesting species (some of which are presented in Table 5-12 below), 30 wintering species, 50 migratory species and 30 species of non-regular migratory birds occur in the area. Among them are: the black-throated diver (Gavia arctica), red-throated diver (Gavia stellata), red-necked grebe (Podiceps grisegena), black-necked grebe (Podiceps nigricollis), mute swan (Cygnus olor), whooper swan (Cygnus cygnus), mallard (Anas platyrhynchos), shoveler (Anas clypeata), teal (Anas crecca), ducks (Anas querquedula, Anser anser, Anser albifrons), tufted duck (Aythya fuligula), pochard (Aythya ferina), herons (Ardea cinerea and Ardea purpurea), little egret (Egretta garzetta), little bitten and big bitten (Ixobrichus minutus; Botaurus stellaris), glossy ibis (Plegadis falcinellus), spoonbill (Platalea leucorodia), black-winged pratincole (Glareola nordmanni), black-winged stilt (Himantopus himantopus), great snipe (Gallinago media), curlew (Numenius arquata), marsh-harrier (Circus aeruginosus), and kingfisher (Alcedo atthis) (Jordania R, Boeme B, Kuznetsov A, 1999).


Table 5-12. List of Some Nesting Bird Species of the Adjara Region

Reptiles: In the area of Khelvachauri district the following species of amphibians are found: common tree frog (Hyla arborea), lake frog (Rana ridibunda), smooth newt (Triturus vulgaris) and slow warm (Anguis fragilis).

The following snakes are found in the region: ring snake (Natrix natrix), water snake (Natrix tesselata), and Aesculapian snake (Elaphe longissima). Only the sand lizard (Lacerta agilis) is regularly found in the region; however, the Asia Minor triton (Triturus vittatus) and the Turkish lizard (Darevskia clarcorum; IUCN Red List; Category Endangered) have also been noted in the area (Chorokhy Delta Management Plan, 2006).

# Species Abundance

1 Heron (Ardea cinerea)

First ten days of April, nesting on the trees

2 Black vulture (Aegypius monachus)

March, nesting on the trees

3 Grey Lag-Goose (Ancer ancer)

April, nesting on the ground

4 Eagle-owl (Bubo bubo)

March, nesting on the ground

5 Bittern (Botaurus stellaris)


6 Mallard (Anas platyrhynchos)


7 Gradwall (Anas stepera)


8 Wigeon (Anas Penelope)

May, nesting on the ground

9 Pochard (Aythya ferina)


10 White-eyed Pochard (Aythya nyroca)

May-June, nesting on the ground

11 Tufted Duck (Aythya fuligula)

June, nesting on the ground

12 Velvet Scoter (Melanitta fusca)

June, nesting on the ground

13 Coot (Fulica atra)

April-May, nesting on the ground

14 Black-headed Gull (Larus ridibunus)

April-May, nesting on the ground

15 Short-eared Owl (Asio flammeus)

April, nesting on the trees

16 Black Woodpecker (Drycopus martius)

April, nesting on the trees

17 Stock-dove (Columba oeans)

April-May, nesting on the trees

18 Wood-Pigeon (Columba palumbus)

May, nesting on the trees

19 Spotted Crake (Porzana porzana)

April-May and June-July, nesting on the ground

20 Rock-thrush (Monticola saxatilis)


21 Rose-colored starling (Sturnus roseus)


22 Lesser Spotted Woodpecker (Dendrocopos minor)

April-May, nesting on the trees

23 Shore-lark (Eremophila alpestris)


24 Nightingale (Luscinia megarhynchos)


25 Cetti’s Warbler (Cettia cetti)


26 Bullfinch (Pyrrhula pyrhulla)

May, nesting on the trees


Fish: In the past migratory fish such as the Black Sea trout (Salmo fario morpha labrax, Red Book of Georgia, Statute-Vulnerable) have been recorded in the Machakhelas Tskali River; however, surveys have not been carried since the mid-1990s. As a result, the current fish population is unknown.

The following species also occur in the Machakhelas Tskali River: barbell (Barbus tauricus escherichi, riffle minnow (Alburnoides jetteles), and trout (Salmo fario) (river form, Red Book of Georgia, Statute-Vulnerable) (Elanidze R., 1988). Spawning periods for major fish species found in the river are noted in Table 5-13 below.

Table 5-13. Machalhelas Tskali River Fish Spawning Periods


Barbell May-August Riffle Minnow April-August

Trout September-October

5.3.10 Pshaveli Vegetation: The geo-botanical region of mountain Kakheti is rich with diverse vegetation. Because of the relatively high humidity level, the vegetation is mostly mesophylic. Here one can find a mixture of Colchic and Hyrcanic Tertiary vegetation. Moreover, elements of Mediterranean, European, Holarctic, and Near Eastern vegetation can be found (Nakhutsrishvili, G., 1999). Forests cover the mountain belt (400 to 1,850 meters in elevation). Remnants of flood plain forests are found in the Alazani Valley. The flood plain forest is dominated by willows (Salix), poplars (Populus), flood plain oak (Quercus peduculiflora, Quercus longipes), Caucasian elm (Zelqva carpinifolia,) Caucasian wing nut (Pterocarpa pterocarpa), smooth-leaf elm (Ulmus carpinifolia) and yew (Taxus baccata). Dominating shrub species are medlar (M garmanica), dog roses (Rosa spp.), smoke tree (Cotinus coggygria) and thorn (Crataegus spp.). Both in flood plain forests and clearings widespread shrubs are blackberries (Rubus spp.) and eagle fern (Ptheridium aquilinum). A typical representative of Hyranic vegetation is Pastichov’s ivy (Hedera pastuchowii) (Ketskoveli, N, 1959).

Forested slopes are adjacent to the village area. Forests of the Stori Valley are represented mostly with eastern beech (Fagus orientalis), but the Caucasian hornbeam (Carpinus caucasica), Cappadocian maple (Acer laetum) and Georgian oak (Querqus iberica) dominate at steeper slopes.

Mammals: The following mammals are found in the vicinity of the village: brown bear (Ursus arctos, Red Book of Georgia National category-Endangered), badger (Meles meles), wolf (Canis lupus), fox (Vulpes vulpes), marten (Martes martes), chamois (Rupicapra rupicapra), roe deer (Capreolus capreolus) and hare (Lepus europeus). The common otter (Lutra lutra) can be found in the flood plain forest.

Avifauna: Despite anthropogenic pressures, endangered species such as the Imperial eagle (Aquila heliaca, Red Book of Georgia) and Caucasian black grouse (Tetrao mlokosiewitczi, Red Book of Georgia) are found nearby the village of Pshaveli. The following species are relatively common throughout the Pshaveli village area: quail (Coturnix coturnix), grouse (Tetrao mlokosieviczi), various ducks (Anas spp.) and wild pigeon (Columba palumbus) (Jordania R, Boeme B, Kuznetsov A. 1999).

Reptiles: The following species have been reported in available literature within Lagodekhi district: snake ring snake (Natrix natrix), water snake (Natrix tessellate), European glass lizard (Ophisaurus apodus), slow worm (Anguis fragilis), lizard (Lacerta strigata), etc. Following amphibians inhabit the area: tree frog (Rana ridibunda), European tree frog (Hyla arborea) and green toad (Bufo viridis) (Alazani Flood Plain Forest Management Plan, 2005).


Fish: In the Stori River the dominant fish species include trout (Salmo fario, Red Book of Georgia, Statute-Vulnerable), khramulya (Varicorhinus capoeta) and barbell (Barbus tauricus escherichi) (Elanidze, R. 1988). Spawning periods for major fish species found in the river are noted in Table 5-14 below.

Table 5-14. Stori River Fish Spawning Periods


Trout September-October Khramulya April-October

Barbell May-August

Based on the initial assessment the observation was made that the project activities will not negatively affect biological resources of the describes areas, etc. Monitoring and mitigation measures described in Section 7 will aply as necessary.

5.3.11 Sartichala Vegetation: There are 1,643 species of plants found in the surrounding area (Encyclopedia of Georgia, 1984). The forest is dominated by the following species: hornbeam (Carpinus orientalis), oak (Querpus iberica), beech (Fagus orientalis) and maple (Acer campestre and Acer velutinum). Sub-forest is represented by the following species: blackthorn (Prunus spinosa), juniper (Juniperus pigmaea), thorn (Crataegus pentagyna) and Jerusalem thorn (Paliurus spina-christi).

Endemic herb species of Georgia such as comfrey (Galantus caucasicus and Galantus woronowii) are found in the vicinity of village (Nakhutsrishvili, G. 1999).

The following herb species found in the vicinities of the village Sartichala are listed under the CITES (Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species) of wild flora and fauna: sowbread (Cyclamen vernum), orchis (Corallorhiza trifida), common twayblade (Listera ovata), bird’s nest orchid (Neottia nidus avis), white helleborine (Cephalanthera damasonium), helleborine (Cephalanthera grandiflora), ghost orchid (Epipogium aphyllum), and others.

Mammals: In the forests, common mammals are the roe deer (Capreolus capreolus), wolf (Canis lupus), fox (Vulpes vulpes), hare (Lepus europeus), marten (Martes martes), squirrel (Sciurus vulgaris) and hedgehog (Erinaceus concolor). In the meadows, vole (Common vole) and mouse (Apodemus ponticus) are common.

Avifauna: Avifauna is not as rich as in the other parts of the country. The following bird species are found in the vicinity of the village Sartichala: harrier (Aguilucho cenizo), owl (Asio otus), woodpecker (Dryocopus martius), starling (Sturnus roseus), nuthatch (Sitta neumayer) and others (Jordania R, Boeme B, Kuznetsov A, 1999).

Reptiles: There is not much information on reptiles available for this area. In the vicinities of the village of Sartichala, the following species have been reported: slow worm (Anguis fragilis), glass lizard (Ophysaurus apodus), Caucasian agama (Laudakia caucasica) and cat snake (Telescopus fallax) (Tarkhnishvili, D., 1996).

Fish: In the Iori River, the dominant fish species are the trout (Salmo fario, Red Book of Georgia, Statute-Vulnerable) and bystranka (Alburnoides bipunctatus eichwaldi) (Elanidze, R. 1988). Spawning periods for major fish species found in the river are noted in Table 5-15 below.


Table 5-15. Iori River Fish Spawning Periods


Trout September-October Bystranka April-August


5.4 Socioeconomics This section presents socioeconomic profiles of Georgia in general and of each of the seven locations chosen for small hydroelectric plant (SHP) rehabilitation / improvement and the three locations selected for community natural gas distribution installations / expansions. While not spefically addressed here, public safety issues related to the socionomic profiles presented below are addressed in the impacts section. Those locations are included in Table 5-16 below.

Table 5-16. Site Location of Small Hydropower and NG Projects

Small Hydroelectric Plants Community NG

Abhesi

Dzama

Kabali

Kakhareti

Lopota

Machakhela

Pshaveli

Kalauri

Khidistavi

Sartichala

The village profiles focus on socioeconomic conditions that may be subject to impacts from the proposed activities or determine who benefits from this program and how. Characteristics include population size, spatial distribution (settlements), ethnic composition, land use, income and employment and existing social infrastructure.

5.4.1 Country Overview Population and Settlements: Georgia is a country with a total population of over 4.37 million people. According to the 2002 census, the population has decreased by 20% since the fall of the Soviet Union in 1989. The primary reasons for population decrease are 1) emigration and 2) declining birth rates. Georgia is a multiethnic country, with more than 80 ethnicities living in Georgia. Eighty-four percent (84%) of the total population is Georgian with the remaining major ethnic groups represented as follows: 7% Azeris, 6% Armenians, 2% Russians, and 1% Ossetians. Other significant ethnic groups living in Georgia include Greeks, Ukrainians, Lezids, Kists, and Abkhaz.1

Georgia has 54 urban centers, 44 semi-urban settlements, and 3,668 villages. The distribution of the population between rural and urban areas is almost equal: 55.4% reside in urban areas and 44.6% in rural areas. About one quarter of the total population lives in the capital of Tbilisi (1,081,000). Twenty-eight (28) villages are considered as “large”, i.e. with population of more than 5,000 residents. (First National Census in Georgia, v.1, Tbilisi, 2003; Households in Georgia, Economic and Statistical Collection, Tbilisi, 2005).

Land Use: The country of Georgia covers a territory roughly 69,700 sq. km in size. The total area of land operated by landholders equals 886,766 hectares out of which 65.2% is privately owned land, 33.4% is rented from the state, and 1.4% is rented from private persons. Agricultural land totals some 839,709 hectares including arable lands (472,120), lands under permanent crops (100,215 hectares), land under protective cover (311 hectares), and permanent pastures and meadows (267,062 hectares). The structure of the lands under permanent crops is the following: vineyards (37,419 hectares), orchards (36,988 hectares),

1 Multiple data sources were consulted for these socioeconomic profiles. A full listing is provided in the corresponding section of this report’s References.


berries (735 hectares), citrus plantations (8,715), tea plantations (11,524), and other permanent crops (4,833). (Georgian Agriculture 2004).

There are an estimated 19 million cattle in Georgia and 9.5 million poultry. In addition, there are numerous sheep and goats (23,060) and pigs and other livestock. Beekeeping is also an essential activity as Georgians own roughly 840,000 beehives. (Georgian Agriculture 2004).

Income and Employment: Economic collapse and bloody conflicts have greatly contributed to the overall impoverishment of the Georgian population. According to various experts, more than half of the population is considered “poor” or living below the poverty line. Table 5-17 notes poverty levels for the nation as well as for the regions where communities making up the PEA sample universe are located. It should be noted that most communities that are the focus of this PEA and for which data are available have levels of poverty well above the national average.

Table 5-17. Poverty Comparisons

Source: Households in Georgia, Economic and Statistical Collection, Tbilisi, 2005

In almost 40 percent of the poor households no one is employed, and in almost 45 percent, one income earner has to feed two or more persons (including him / herself). The unemployment rate in the country is 15.3% but the rate is higher in urban areas than rural areas (28.0% and 5.7% respectively). By the type of employment, approximately 66% of the total employed population is “self-employed”. As for the field of employment, 54% of employed persons are involved in agriculture, forestry and fishing, 11% in trade and repair of domestic appliances, 7.5% in education, and only 5.1% in manufacturing. (Households in Georgia, Economic and Statistical Collection, Tbilisi, 2005).

In 2004, the average monthly income per household amounted to $151. (Households in Georgia, Economic and Statistical Collection, Tbilisi, 2005).

Social Infrastructure: 99.6% of the total population has access to electricity; and less than a quarter (21.5%) uses centrally supplied NG. In rural areas, the percentage of those with access to centrally supplied NG drops to 3.5%. (Households in Georgia, Economic and Statistical Collection, Tbilisi, 2005).

5.4.2 Abhesi Population and Settlements: The community (sakrebulo) of Inchkhuri, where the SHP is located, consists of three villages: Didi Inchkhuri, Patara Inchkhuri and Lebache. The community has 588 households and 1,761 persons; a 4% decrease from 1989. (Inuri Khelaia, Inchkhuri sakrebulo chairman).

The population is Georgian belonging to the Mengrelian linguistic group. There is one Ossetian family in the community. In addition, 75 internally displaced persons (IDPs) live in the Inchkhuri community. (Inuri Khelaia, Inchkhuri sakrebulo chairman).

Location Poverty Incidence

National 52.0% Abhesi (Samegrelo) 53.5% Dzama (Shida Kartli) 55.3% Kabali (Kakheti) 62.4% Kakhareti (Samtskhe-Javakheti) 55.9% Lopota (Kakheti) 62.4% Machakhela (Adjara) 63.2 Pshaveli (Kakheti) 62.4% Kalauri (Kakheti) 62.4% Khidistavi (Guria) 50.9% Sartichala (Kvemo Kartli) 76.0%


Land Use: Total area of land operated by holdings in the community equals 1,220 hectares of which 920 hectares are agricultural (arable lands cover 300 hectares, tea plantations 30 hectares, orchards 15 hectares, and vineyards seven hectares) while pastures occupy 568 hectares and the remainder is covered by woodland and brush. (Inuri Khelaia, Inchkhuri sakrebulo chairman).

The community has approximately 1,000 head of cattle and buffaloes, 4,500 poultry, 905 pigs, 212 sheep and goat, and 70 other livestock, including.

Income and Employment: The majority of the population is self-employed and oriented to selling agricultural products. There are 113 wage employees in the community of which nine work for the SHP. (Inuri Khelaia, Inchkhuri sakrebulo chairman).

Social Infrastructure: There are four schools, one ambulatory clinic and one library in the community.

The UEDC supplies grid electricity to the local community. There is no central gas distribution in the community. Firewood is the main source of heat fuel.

About 200 households have access to the central water supply system with the remainder using either springs or wells.

The total length of the in-roads is 28 kilometers. Of this total, three kilometers are paved (asphalt) but in poor condition. The remainder is unpaved. (Inuri Khelaia, Inchkhuri sakrebulo chairman).

5.4.3 Dzama (Kekhijvari) Population and Settlements: Located in the vicinity of the Dzama River, the Kekhijvari community includes three villages – Kekhijvari, Vedreba and Sanebeli. At present, up to 480 households are registered in the community. The total number of permanent residents is approximately 1,508. In 1989, the population of the entire sakrebulo (including eight villages) was 2,206. (Community Development Strategic Plan 2004-2009: Kekhijvari Community, 2004).

Approximately 90% of the population is Georgian. These include approximately 120 environmental IDP families resettled from landslide prone regions in the Adjara region. Most of these families are Muslim. Among the remaining population, there are Ossetians (150 persons), Armenians (5) and Azeris (10). (Community Development Strategic Plan 2004-2009: Kekhijvari Community, 2004).

There is a strong seasonal migration during the summer months, with the local population increasing by 300 to 400 persons as a result of visiting vacationers. (Community Development Strategic Plan 2004-2009: Kekhijvari Community, 2004).

Land Use: Gardening and stockbreeding are the primary economic activities of the community. The village owns 100 hectares of hay harvesting area and 150 hectares of pastures. Arable land covers 800 hectares while apple orchards cover about 510 hectares. The remaining lands are used for vineyards, orchards and grain cultures. Sixty percent of the arable lands are irrigated by canals. (Community Development Strategic Plan 2004-2009: Kekhijvari Community, 2004).

The most important domestic animals are dairy cattle (about 870 units). Sheep and goat are secondary (about 200 units). Pigs (450) and poultry are kept for household use and are not raised commercially. Beekeeping has been an important economic activity; however, there are only about 500 hives at present. (Community Development Strategic Plan 2004-2009: Kekhijvari Community, 2004).

Income and Employment: The majority of the local population is engaged in private homestead farming. Ninety percent of the local population’s income comes from apple and tomato growing. Approximately 150 persons are engaged in non-farm employment such as working at local


manufacturing firms, government service or trade. (Community Development Strategic Plan 2004-2009: Kekhijvari Community, 2004).

The local manufacturing and processing sector includes one flour mill, which does not fully satisfy the community needs, and two sawmills with their own carpentry and metal-ware shops. One lemonade (soft drink) production enterprise is also in operation. There are many greenhouses in the community, but these are currently not operating as NG supply was only recently introduced. (Community Development Strategic Plan 2004-2009: Kekhijvari Community, 2004).

As for retail trade, there are three shops that sell food and primary household products. In each neighborhood there are small kiosks selling similar items. There is one gas station. (Community Development Strategic Plan 2004-2009: Kekhijvari Community, 2004).

Social Infrastructure: The community has one kindergarten, three secondary schools, and a “House of Culture”, which is currently under rehabilitation. The village also has an ambulatory clinic and library in the community as well as a sport stadium. A private sports complex is under construction, which includes a swimming pool that has been completed.

The local road to the district center is in comparatively good shape and passable although the asphalt once covering the road has largely broken away and has been patched with gravel in many places.

Kekhijvari is poorly supplied with electricity via the UEDC Kareli distribution grid, and the electricity infrastructure is in need of major repairs. Alternative energy resources are local wood, kerosene, and liquid gas. A centralized NG pipeline goes through the community.

There is no centralized drinking-water system. Kekhijvari is supplied with reliable potable water from individual wells. A water conduit system exists; however, the system does not operate effectively because of undependable electricity supply. (Community Development Strategic Plan 2004-2009: Kekhijvari Community, 2004).

5.4.4 Kabali Population and Settlements: The community (sakrebulo) of Kabali consists of the following villages: Kabali, Karajala, Uzuntala, and Ganjala. At present, 3,289 households and 10,797 persons are registered in the community, which is 12% higher in comparison to 1989. Almost 100% of the community’s population is Azeri Muslims. In addition, the community has six Russians, two Georgians, two Lezgins, and one Armenian. (Jemal Almazov, Kabali sakrebulo chairman).

Land Use: The total area of land operated as landholdings in the community equals 2,373 hectares, of which 47% is privately-owned land, 1,633 hectares are arable lands, and 153 hectares are pastures. The community has 4,293 cattle, 14,972 sheep, goat and horses, and 17,110 poultry. (Jemal Almazov, Kabali sakrebulo chairman).

Income and Employment: Two percent (2%) of the population are wage employees, working for budgetary organizations, and 47% are self-employed involved in selling agricultural products. Average monthly per household cash-income is $25. (Jemal Almazov, Kabali sakrebulo chairman).


Social Infrastructure: In the community there is one kindergarten and five schools.

The Kakheti Distribution Company supplies grid electricity to the local community. Electricity is fairly reliable both in summer and in winter periods. The local population as alternative energy source uses kerosene, candle and power generators. There is no centralized gas supply in the community. (Jemal Almazov, Kabali sakrebulo chairman).

There is no central water supply system in the community and, as such, households must depend on local wells for water supply. (Jemal Almazov, Kabali sakrebulo chairman).

The length of roads is 80 kilometers, of which seven kilometers is paved (asphalt) but damaged. The remainder is unpaved. (Jemal Almazov, Kabali sakrebulo chairman).

5.4.5 Kalauri Population and Settlements: The Kalauri sakrebulo (community) consists of only the village of Kalauri. The community consists of 1,211 households or 2,976 persons, roughly a 6% increase from 1989. (Nikoloz Dokhnadze, Kalauri sakrebulo chairman).

The community is 100% Georgian Orthodox.

Land Use: The community holds 1,072 hectares of agricultural land including: vineyards (400 hectares), orchards (400 hectares), arable lands (200 hectares), and pastures (72 hectares). Almost 99% of agricultural land is privately owned. (Nikoloz Dokhnadze, Kalauri sakrebulo chairman).

The community has 380 head of cattle and buffalo, 1,200 units of sheep, goat, pigs and other livestock, and 2,000 units of poultry. (Nikoloz Dokhnadze, Kalauri sakrebulo chairman).

Income and Employment: About 7% of the population is wage employees. The vast majority is self-employed and sells agricultural products. Average monthly cash income is $75 per household. (Nikoloz Dokhnadze, Kalauri sakrebulo chairman).

Social Infrastructure: In the community there are two kindergartens, one school, one medical facility, one post office, and seven greenhouses.

Eight hundred (800) households have access to central gas; however at the current moment the gas pipe does not operate and needs rehabilitation.

The community has access to a central water supply system.

The main road is of 10 kilometers in length, of which 2.9 kilometers is paved (asphalt). Internal roads total 10 kilometers in length of which 2.5 kilometers are paved. (Nikoloz Dokhnadze, Kalauri sakrebulo chairman).

5.4.6 Kakhareti Population and Settlements: The community of Kakhareti is a part of the Lelovani sakrebulo, which consists of Kakhareti plus four additional villages. The sakrebulo has 344 households and 1,243 persons. (Giorgi Gigashvili, Lelovani sakrebulo chairman). The local population is 100% Georgian with various religious affiliations. Forty percent are Muslims from the Adjara region. (Giorgi Gigashvili, Lelovani sakrebulo chairman).

Land Use: The sakrebulo has 338 hectares arable lands, which are irrigated, 191.9 hectares meadows, and 29.1 hectares orchards. Sixteen hectares are rented from the state.

The sakrebulo has 924 cattle and 250 poultry.

Income and Employment: Six hundred forty-eight (648) persons are employed in the agricultural sector and 60 persons in non-agricultural business. In addition, nine local sawmills provide jobs to the local population. (Giorgi Gigashvili, Lelovani sakrebulo chairman).


Average annual cash-income per household is $300 to $400. (Giorgi Gigashvili, Lelovani sakrebulo chairman).

Social Infrastructure: In the community there are five schools, one kindergarten, and one ambulatory clinic.

The UEDC's Adigeni service center supplies grid electricity to the local community. Electricity is largely reliable both in summer and in winter periods. The local population uses firewood, kerosene, candle and power generators as an alternative energy source. There is no centralized NG supply in the community. (Giorgi Gigashvili, Lelovani sakrebulo chairman).

Water is supplied via springs.

The Sakrebulo is intersected by 12 kilometers of main road and 25 kilometers of inner roads. All are unpaved. (Giorgi Gigashvili, Lelovani sakrebulo chairman).

5.4.7 Khidistavi Population and Settlements: The Khidistavi sakrebulo (community) consists of six villages including 618 permanent households and 1,873 persons. This represents a 16% decline from 1989 levels.

More than 99% of the population is Georgian. Non-Georgian residents include four Armenians, two Russians and one Jewish person in the sakrebulo. (Tengo Gudavadze, Khidistavi sakrebulo chairman).

Land Use: The total area of land operated as landholdings in the Khidistavi sakrebulo equals 3,115 hectares, of which 45.5% is owned land. The remainder belongs to the state. Agricultural land totals 1,138.8 hectares. The latter covers arable lands (295 hectares), lands under permanent crops, like vineyards, orchards, tea and citruses plantations (275 hectares), and permanent pastures and meadows (567 hectares). (Tengo Gudavadze, Khidistavi sakrebulo chairman).

The community owns 618 cattle, 316 sheep, goat, pigs and horses, and 4,117 poultry. (Tengo Gudavadze, Khidistavi sakrebulo chairman).

Income and Employment: The vast majority of the population is involved in selling agricultural products. Only 86 persons are employed by budgetary organizations. Minimal monthly cash income per household is $30. (Tengo Gudavadze, Khidistavi sakrebulo chairman).

Social Infrastructure: In the community there is one kindergarten, two secondary schools, two health care facilities and four other centers.

The community has reliable power supply received from the UEDC. As alternative sources of energy, firewood is used. There is no central NG delivery system in the community. (Tengo Gudavadze, Khidistavi sakrebulo chairman).

The community has a central water system.

The main road that connects the sakrebulo to the district center is about six kilometers in length. The road is paved (asphalt) and in fair condition. Interior roads are 20 kilometers in length and are all unpaved.

5.4.8 Lopota (Napareuli) Population and Settlements: The community (sakrebulo) of Napareuli consists of 1,458 households and 3,490 persons, a 5% decrease from 1989. The vast majority (90%) of the population is Georgian. There are also Armenians (4%) and Azeris (6%) in the community. (Lado Skhirtladze, Lopota SHP owner).

Land Use: The community has 1,317 hectares of arable lands, 280 hectares of vineyards, 12 hectares of orchards, and 83 hectares pastures. Fifty-six (56) hectares are non-agricultural lands. Of all land, 47.6% of land is privately owned. (Lado Skhirtladze, Lopota SHP owner).


Income and Infrastructure: Ten percent (10%) of the population is registered as wage employees. Eighty percent (80%) is self-employed involved mainly in selling agricultural products. Average monthly per household cash income equals $25. (Lado Skhirtladze, Lopota SHP owner).

Social Infrastructure: The community has one school, two medical facilities and one cultural facility.

The Kakheti Distribution Company supplies grid electricity to the local community. Power supply is very poor and there is no NG network. Alternative energy sources are kerosene and generator.

The sakrebulo has access to a central water system.

The main road connecting the sakrebulo to the district center is six kilometers in length and is paved (asphalt) but seriously damaged. Roads within the sakrebulo total 50 kilometers in length and are all unpaved. (Lado Skhirtladze, Lopota SHP owner).

5.4.9 Machakhela (Ked-kedi) Population and Settlements: The Machakhela sakrebulo is a community of 10 villages with 669 households and 3,269 persons. The vast majority of the population is Muslim. (Aliosha Kakhidze, Machakhela sakrebulo chairman). Land Use: Total area of land operated by landholdings in Khelvachauri district equals 5,113 hectares, out of which 92.p% is privately owned land, 7.1% is state-owned. Agricultural land totals 4,540 hectares of which 1,518 hectares are arable lands, (), 2,978 hectares are under permanent crops (), one hectare is under protective cover, and 44 hectares are permanent pastures and meadows. The structure of the lands under permanent crops is the following: citrus plantations (2,629 hectares), vineyards (three hectares), orchards (37 hectares), and berries (two hectares). (Aliosha Kakhidze, Machakhela sakrebulo chairman). The Khelvachauri district has approximately 24,400 cattle, and 1,800 sheep and goats. Income and Employment: The absolute majority of the community is self-employed, oriented to subsistence farming. Two hundred persons are wage employees of which 15 work at the SHP.

Social Infrastructure: There are two snack bars, one kiosk and five grocery stores in the community. In the community there are 10 secondary schools, three village clubs, one library and one museum. One ambulatory clinic is under construction. (Aliosha Kakhidze, Machakhela sakrebulo chairman). The community has two sources of power supply: 1) the hydro plant itself (direct supply) and 2) Adjarian Energy Company. The community does not have NG supply. Alternative energy sources are kerosene, wood fuel, petrol and power generators. (Aliosha Kakhidze, Machakhela sakrebulo chairman). There is no central drinking water system in the community. The majority of the population uses spring waters. (Aliosha Kakhidze, Machakhela sakrebulo chairman). The community is intersected by a road that is an important local artery and is about 40 kilometers in length. Intra-village roads are 20 kilometers in length. All roads are unpaved. (Aliosha Kakhidze, Machakhela sakrebulo chairman).

5.4.10 Pshaveli Population and Settlements: The Pshaveli community includes three villages – Pshaveli, Lalisk’uri and Lechuri. The community has 1,052 households and 2,888 permanent residents, a 4% decline since 1989. (Community Development Strategic Plan 2004-2009: Pshaveli Community, 2004). All local residents are Georgian in ethnicity and Georgian Orthodox in religious affiliation.


Land Use: The main activities are raising livestock and cultivating grains. The total area of land operated as landholdings in the Pshaveli community equals 2,041 hectares. Agricultural land totals 2,029 hectares consisting of arable lands (1,570 hectares), vineyards (268 hectares), orchards (35 hectares), and permanent pastures (156 hectares). (Community Development Strategic Plan 2004-2009: Pshaveli Community, 2004). The number of cattle totals 1,500 head while the number of sheep and goats total 5,000 head. The population also raises pigs and poultry for individual use. The villagers have about 100 beehives. (Community Development Strategic Plan 2004-2009: Pshaveli Community, 2004).

Income and Employment: The population is primarily engaged in subsistence farming activities. Household revenues are primarily from the sale of agricultural production. According to Horizonti reports, average annual household income in the community equals $550 to $650. All cash income is spent on basic daily needs. Average annual expenditure in the community amounts to $450 to $600.

Fifty-five percent of all persons are occupied in local business, including sawmills, retail shops and kiosks. (Community Development Strategic Plan 2004-2009: Pshaveli Community, 2004).

Social Infrastructure: The village has three schools, two cultural houses and an outpatient clinic.

The only manufacturers operating in the region include two local sawmills and an Italian / Georgian joint venture sawmill.

Pshaveli is connected to the grid and supplied energy by the Kakheti Distribution Company. Power supply is irregular and unstable. NG is not available in Pshaveli. Alternative heat energy fuel sources are wood and liquefied gas. (Community Development Strategic Plan 2004-2009: Pshaveli Community, 2004).

The drinking water system is in good shape with all households supplied, although some repairs to the headwork and pipe are needed.

Primary roads throughout this area are paved (asphalt) and in relatively good condition. Internal roads in Pshaveli are covered with stone.

5.4.11 Sartichala Population and Settlements: Sartichala is a community with 2,942 households and 6,979 persons. Sixty-two percent (62%) of the local population is Georgian and 38% Azeris. In addition, there are 100 IDP households from Abkhazia. According to the 1989 census, there were 10,118 persons in the community, 35% more than at present. (Koba Mokhevishvili, Sartichala sakrebulo chairman).

Land Use: The total area of land operated as landholdings in the community equals 7,174 hectares, of which 32% is privately owned land. The remainder is owned by the state. Agricultural land totals 5,469 hectares of which 2,838 hectares are arable lands, 260 hectares are under permanent crops (i.e. vineyards and orchards), and 2,371 hectares are permanent pastures and meadows. (Koba Mokhevishvili, Sartichala sakrebulo chairman).

The sakrebulo has 2,095 head of cattle, 2,515 head of sheep, goat, horses and pigs, and 8,710 poultry. (Koba Mokhevishvili, Sartichala sakrebulo chairman).

Income and Employment: Sixty-six percent (66%) of the sakrebulo's population is regarded as employed. The majority is involved in agriculture and oriented to selling agricultural products or being self-employed. Poverty indicators in the Kvemo Kartli region are the highest nationwide. (Koba Mokhevishvili, Sartichala sakrebulo chairman).

Social Infrastructure: There are five secondary schools, three kindergartens and an ambulance (rehabilitated by an American organization) in the village.


The village is provided with electricity by the UEDC. Power supply is poor. The electrical system of the village is in a poor technical condition that also causes problems in electricity supply.

The village does not have NG; however, with support of local and district local governments, Sartichalagazi Ltd. is carrying out rehabilitation of the 15-kilometer NG pipeline and the village’s network will be connected to the central system in the near future. Alternative energy sources are wood and kerosene.

The drinking water system is in poor condition and provides limited service to the population.


5.5 Cultural Resources This section presents information on cultural resources in Georgia in general and for each of the seven locations chosen for small hydroelectric plant (SHP) rehabilitation or improvement and the three locations selected for community NG distribution installations or expansions. The profiles presented here focus on historic or prehistoric resources and on cultural and ethnic resources.

Figure 5-1. Cultural Sites in Georgia

5.5.1 Country Overview Historic or Prehistoric Resources: Georgia is a country with a rich cultural heritage. The remains of an early human found in South Georgia are two million years old. Within the territory of Georgia, ancient items, cemeteries and settlements belonging to various cultures dating back as far as the Palaeolithic period have been found. Cultural and Ethnic Resources: Georgia was converted to Christianity in the 4th century A.D. From that time active church building has taken place in the country with practically every village in the country having at least one Georgian Orthodox church. The churches are rich in forms, decoration and frescoes. Non-Georgian Orthodox churches such as synagogues, Armenian churches and mosques were constructed as well.

There are also many fortification buildings in Georgia. The earliest sites are so-called “cyclopic” buildings and date from the Late Bronze / Early Iron Age. The majority of the fortifications date from the Middle Ages. Most of these monuments are in ruins; nonetheless they are recognized as historical and architectural monuments and protected by the law.

5.5.2 Abhesi Historic or Prehistoric Resources: Within the general vicinity of the project are several historical settlements including: Oputskhole / Nadarbazevi, Namantskhvaru, and Nojikhevi. Fragments of pottery have been found on the first of these sites.


Cultural and Ethnic Resources: Ruins are found in Oputskhole / Nadarbazevi. To the northeast from the site of the SHP is a place called Namantskhvaru where ruins of a church can be seen. To the north of the SHP are man-made caves. Within the territory of the SHP is a place called Nojhikhevi, which means “the location for castle” in Mingrelian.

5.5.3 Dzama (Kekhijvari) Historic or Prehistoric Resources: There is an archaeological site 800 meters south of the village. The place is called Ukugma sakdari and dates back to the Middle Ages. The ruins of a church and other buildings can be observed at this location where ceramics have been found.

Cultural and Ethnic Resources: On the territory of the old cemetery, St. George’s Church was constructed, dating from the 15thcentury.

5.5.4 Kabali Historic or Prehistoric Resources: On the outskirts of the village are two hills, Zeda Dombatapa and Kveda Dombatapa, which were pre-historical settlements. Ceramics have been found on the hills. On the edge of Kabali and Uzuntala, in the tobacco plantations, ceramics and obsidians have been found. Remnants of ancient jugs and ceramics in the various sections of the village have been reported.

Cultural and Ethnic Resources: There is a karavan-sarai in the village that dates back to the Middle Ages. On the edge of Uzuntala and Kabali are ruins of a medieval church. Close to Uzuntala, in an old graveyard are ruins of a church. About 500 meters from the SHP, in the place called Khurmale, a medieval settlement has been identified. Ruins of a church are found in this place. Above the SHP in a forested area, medieval ruins have been identified. Castle ruins can be found eight to ten kilometers towards Ganjali on the very edge of the Lakiskhevi ravine.

5.5.5 Kalauri Historic or Prehistoric Resources: No pre-historic sites were identified in Kalauri. Historic sites are described below.

Cultural and Ethnic Resources: Three kilometers south of the village on the northern slope of the Gombori Range is the monastic complex of Kalauri. The monastery is surrounded by an enclosure. In the center stands the Natlismtsemeli / St. John’s Church, which dates back as far as the 6th century. Around the church the remains of various buildings are dispersed; some quite sizeable. West of the church is a 10th century palace, which was the see of the local lord. One and one-half kilometers south of the village, at the old graveyard, is St. George’s Church, built in the 9th century. Annexes and the belfry are from the 16th and 17th centuries. The church was walled but only the western wall has been preserved. The church was restored in1873, as is clear from the inscription. The interior was covered with frescos painted in the mid-16th century, though only fragments are preserved. Old Georgian asomtavruli script can also be observed. Two kilometers southwest of the village in a forest is the 8th century church called Kordomiani. The church has unique architectural forms. The Samkinauri Church is located southwest of the village in the woods. The church dates from 7th century. A tower was constructed in the 18th century southwest of the village on the left bank of the ravine. Around the tower, ruins of various buildings can be observed. One and one-half kilometers southwest of the village is the Mtavarangelozi Church from the late Middle Ages. The church is almost completely in ruins. Around the church are ruins of a wall. Southwest of the village, on the right bank of the ravine, is the St. Nino Church, dating from the late Middle Ages.

5.5.6 Kakhareti Historic or Prehistoric Resources: The discovery of a Roman antiquity has been reported in the vicinity of the mosque.


Cultural and Ethnic Resources: There is a mosque in the center of the village of Kakhareti. The mosque is partially built with stones from a medieval Georgian church.

5.5.7 Khidistavi Historic or Prehistoric Resources: No known resources of particular note.

Cultural and Ethnic Resources: Three kilometers southeast of the village, on the hill, which is called zenobani, the ruins of a church can be found. Preserved walls are four to five meters in height.

5.5.8 Lopota (Napareuli) Historic or Prehistoric Resources: No known resources of particular note.

Cultural and Ethnic Resources: In the village, on the left bank of the Alazani River lies a large fortress dating back to the18th century. By the 19th century this fortress was no longer in use and the site was used for residential purposes. The walls proper were used as a quarry. One kilometer north of the village is Sameba (Trinity) Church, which dates from the early Middle Ages. An ornamented cross and a figure of a man is cut on the western façade. South of the village, at the graveyard is the Gvtismshobeli (St. Virgin) Church, from the 18th century. The Queen Tamar Chapel of the late Middle Ages (15th to 18th centuries) is situated three kilometers north of the village, on the right bank of the river, at the end of the vineyard. The chapel is severely damaged. At the other end of the vineyard are ruins of the other chapel called Lasharoba. It had been constructed and used initially as a wine cellar but in the late Middle Ages was transformed into a chapel.

5.5.9 Machakhela (Ked-kedi) Historic or Prehistoric Resources: No known resources of particular note.

Cultural and Ethnic Resources: A castle that was restored during the Soviet period is located about three kilometers north of the SHP site in the village of Gvara. The castle dates from the Middle Ages.

5.5.10 Pshaveli Historic or Prehistoric Resources: The village of Pshaveli in Telavi district was first mentioned in 17th century written sources. The area of the village covers the former medieval settlements of Kvemo Iulta, Zemo Iulta, Devtubani and Zvareli. The community is rich in archaeological sites and there is a need for archeological investigation and research to study the historic heritage of the community and vicinity.

Cultural and Ethnic Resources: An architectural complex called Kokhta Gvtismshobeli is located Four kilometers from the village in a narrow valley of the Chichakva-tskali River. This walled monastery comprises several structures including a church with diaconicon and porch, dating from the 8th century. Other structures include the northern chapel and western ambulatory dating from the 10th century, and a small church and chamber dating from the 16th century. There are also traces of a rectangular dwelling that has been reduced to ruins. The monastery is walled.

Five kilometers from the village, on the top of a hill is a severely damaged church. The church dates from the late Middle Ages. Four to five kilometers northwest of the village, along the Pshaveli-Lechuri road, on a slope of the hill is St. George Church of Zvareli-1, which may date from the early Middle Ages. Four kilometers from the village, along the Pshaveli-Lechuri road, in the woods are fragments of a wine press from the Middle Ages. Four kilometers north of the village, on a slope of the hill is the St. George Church of Zvareli-2. The western façade is ornamented. A Bolnisi-type cross, a destroyed figure of a saint and the tree of life can be observed. One half kilometer north of the village in a valley is a church with a chapel that dates from the late Middle Ages. Three hundred meters north of the village, on the left side of the


road are ruins of a medieval tower. At the graveyard, south of the village, is the Gvtismshobeli Church, which is adjoined by a chapel on the south. On the eastern and western walls of the church, fragments of frescoes have been preserved. The church dates from the High Middle Ages and has an exterior ornament. On the hill between Pshaveli and Laliskuri is Tskarostavi’s St. George Church, which is well preserved. On the same hill are the fortress of Tali and Ivane Makhrobeli Church. There is a fortified enclosure with towers in the village. The fortress, which dates from the 18th century, is badly damaged. In the 19th century a church and a bell-tower were built within the enclosure. Finally, there is the Gvtimshobeli / St. Virgin Church in Suaubani and the Ormotsta Church located above Iulta, in a wooded area.

Also of note is the fact that the local population, which settled here from the mountainous regions of Georgia, worships in traditional temples as well, such as the Kopale and Djamniani temples.

5.5.11 Sartichala Historic or Prehistoric Resources: No known resources of particular note.

Cultural and Ethnic Resources: a cinema located in center of the Sartichala had originally been built as a German church, kirkha, in the 19th century. The building was changed to a cinema in the 1950s. Within the graveyard of the village is the Gvtismshobeli Church, dating from the late 18th century. On its north side the church has a ktitorial inscription.


6. Environmental Impacts This section focuses on the potential and significant impacts associated with the implementation of the Rural Energy Program. Significant impacts were categorized into two general groups:

• Those for which a set of mitigation and monitoring actions were identified: These impacts lend themselves to identifying a common set of mitigation and monitoring actions. As a result, the PEA assists the Rural Energy Program by mapping out the necessary protocols for mitigation and monitoring of these impacts. These protocols will be specified in Section 7 and lay out a clear path for how the Rural Energy Program can proceed expeditiously while assuring environmental compliance.

• Projects with potential impacts that require further study: The PEA does not identify a common set of mitigation and monitoring actions for these projects but rather requires additional investigation (possibly in the form of a Supplemental Environmental Assessment). It is important to note that the Supplemental Environmental Assessment is targeted only towards a set of potential significant impacts requiring further study at a given site; not all significant impacts. Other significant impacts will be addressed by the common set of mitigation and monitoring protocols identified in this PEA. In this respect, the PEA provides the Rural Energy Program guidance on a focused set of environmental issues that will require further attention in order to assure environmental compliance.

The environmental screening methodology applied by the PEA Team to the representative SHP and NG sites is summarized below. This is followed by analyses identifying impacts, which are representative and may be experienced during project implementation, as well as site-specific impacts identified at some of the ten sites investigated by the Team. The impact analyses are organized by environmental categories or disciplines and include: geology and soils, water resources, biological resources, and human welfare (socioeconomic issues, public health / occupational health and safety) and cultural resources.

6.1 Methodology: Environmental Screening Four classes of investments are contemplated under the Rural Energy Program (small hydropower plants, community NG distribution systems, small-scale RE / EE projects, and integrated resource management plan grants). The PEA Team determined that the four classes required different levels of evaluation in the PEA due to differences in project scale, resources that might be affected, size and scope of the potential impacts, and USAID/Caucasus/Georgia’s prior experience implementing similar projects in Georgia. Taken together, these factors led the PEA Team to focus the highest level of analytical attention on the proposed small hydropower projects followed closely by NG distribution projects. It should be noted that USAID/Caucasus/Georgia has already implemented both types of projects in Georgia, which sets a helpful precedent for identifying potential impacts and defining appropriate mitigation and monitoring actions. Though lower in potential negative impact, RE / EE projects and integrated resource management plan development were also evaluated for potential impacts. These projects are not anticipated to result in significant impacts. However, a series of best management practices and other appropriate protocols are included in Section 7 to be implemented as needed when theses projects and plans are implemented.

During the scoping phase, the PEA Team worked with Rural Energy Program technical staff to select a sample of ten sites (seven candidate SHPs and three communities under consideration for NG distribution investments) among the approximately forty potential locations where Rural Energy Program activities may take place. This sample of sites has characteristics that, taken together, represent the range of likely circumstances to be encountered among the full universe of forty locations. A sampling attributes matrix was developed in order to assure that the sample appropriately represents the range of potential environmental concerns that might arise (Appendix A). The attributes matrix takes into account site-specific characteristics of the proposed projects associated with potential environmental and socioeconomic impacts.


Examples of the attributes in the matrix include: 1) the size of the population to be served, 2), the extent of construction required for the project, 3) existing land uses near the site, 4) proximity to sensitive environmental and cultural resources, 5) the volume and flow of river flow and 6) the generating capacity of the plant, the amount of water extracted and how it is to be diverted.2

6.1.1 Small Hydropower Projects The PEA Team studied and analyzed a representative sample of sites where the Rural Energy Program expected to work. The following activities were conducted to identify the projects’ potential impacts and level of significance, and the different categories of potential projects:

Step One: The Team identified activities to be conducted as part of the projects. The activities identified were construction of civil works and operation and maintenance of the systems and facilities.

Step Two: The Team identified general and specific environmental issues associated with these activities. The environmental issues identified were: geology and soils, water resources, biological resources, socioeconomic issues, cultural resources, public health / occupational health and safety.

Step Three: The Team developed an environmental screening analysis, which considered all aspects of the proposed project activities with potential for having an environmental impact. The screening analysis was developed specifically for the kind of SHPs and NG projects anticipated under the Rural Energy Program. This screening analysis provided the basis for identifying and documenting site-specific baseline information and potential environmental impacts generated by each project. The analysis was tested and refined by the interdisciplinary team of specialists during the scoping phase of the project, and is included as part of Appendix B.

Step Four: Team members representing various disciplines visited each of the candidate sites to conduct an evaluation using the environmental site-screening analysis developed specifically for the proposed investments.

Step Five: Based on results gathered from field visits, from specialists in various disciplines, and from other available data and documentation compiled for the PEA, the Team identified environmental impacts (beneficial and negative) for each of the categories (water, biology, etc.) to be addressed in the PEA. The Team categorized the environmental impacts identified through the environmental screening analysis into three categories of impacts: 1) negative and significant, 2) negative but not significant, and 3) beneficial. Significant impacts were defined for each of the environmental categories studied in the PEA by significance criteria. Significant impacts require a mitigation action (specified in Section 7). By contrast, no mitigation was required for impacts that did not reach significant levels as defined by the significance criteria and; therefore, none was specified. Where they existed, beneficial impacts were noted.

In general, critical factors driving the findings of significant impacts by the PEA Team included:

• Presence of endangered special resources in the area (i.e., fauna and / or flora); • Water extraction / flow ratio; • Riverbed type; • Construction of new infrastructure; • Construction time; • Extent of civil works (weir, penstock and canal); • Operational status; and • Proximity to population.

2 The fifth and sixth points only apply to SHP projects.


Finally, based on the environmental screening analysis and the observations made during the field visits, the Team identified actions and circumstances that could lead to a negative impact of unknown but potentially significant proportions. The Team determined that such an impact required further study and recommends Supplemental Environmental Assessments (SEAs) in these cases. Sites that would potentially require a SEA would be: (1) new construction sites that would create new disturbance to habitats and other resources, (2) the presence of endangered resources that would be affected by the project, and (3) sites with potential extreme river flows that also have potential geological hazards, and others.

6.1.2 Natural Gas Distribution Systems The task of the PEA Team in evaluating the potential impacts from proposed NG distribution systems was made substantially easier because of USAID/Caucasus/Georgia’s prior experience in the sector including previous mitigation and monitoring. Prior experience includes a 15-kilometer NG distribution network completed for the community of Kekhijvari in East Georgia and a 25-kilometer network currently being finalized in Likhauri in West Georgia; both constructed under the USAID/Caucasus/Georgia-funded Georgia Energy Security Initiative (GESI) Project. Mitigation and Monitoring (M&M) Plans had been developed for both projects by GESI Project employees (some of whom also served on the PEA Team) and approved by the USAID Europe and Eurasia Bureau Environmental Officer and USAID MEO. Given this body of knowledge and experience, the PEA Team utilized these M&M Plans to provide input to the mitigation and monitoring actions proposed for the NG distribution sites under the Rural Energy Program. In addition, as part of the proposed protocol for assuring environmental compliance under the Rural Energy Program, the PEA Team developed the environmental screening analysis that would be implemented under the Rural Energy Program (Appendix B). This analysis is analogous to that developed for small-scale hydropower plants, but customized to the circumstances related to the construction and operation of NG distribution systems.

6.1.3 RE and EE Projects The small-scale RE and EE projects implemented under the Rural Energy Program are anticipated to have little or no direct negative affect on the environment. Therefore, actions under the program can be managed by compliance with a specific set of measures or best management practices identified for each anticipated activity. For example, a biogas digester system might require attention to the management of manure to avoid contaminating a nearby creek, while weatherization of a school would require a different set of measures. The best management practices to be adopted for any specific project will be determined through an environmental screening to be conducted for each proposed project by the Program. The best practices identified for all projects under the program are identified in Appendix G. This procedure is similar to the one currently being applied by CHF as part of its construction activities under the GEII.

6.1.4 Integrated Resource Management Plan Grants Activities arising from the IRMP grants provided by the Rural Energy Program - improved fuel wood management, reforestation and watershed restoration - will generally have beneficial environmental impacts. They are expected to have little or no direct negative affect on the environment, therefore, no detailed impact assessment of the implementation of these projects is included in the in this section of the PEA. To ensure that no negative impacts arise from improper design or inappropriate implementation, compliance protocols and / or best management practices will be established for these activities. These will be derived from a combination of the practices known to the PEA Team (Appendix G) and from USAID environmental guidance on mitigation measures for the types of activities expected under these grants.


6.2 Geology and Soils The chapter describes the potential environmental consequences of implementation of the Rural Energy Program on the geology and soils present in a large geographic area. The potential impacts described in this section represent the range of impacts that could occur by implementing representative SHP and NG projects.

6.2.1 Significance Criteria Significance criteria used for determining the level of impact were based on knowledge of resources of the study area and further defined by the intensity (negligible, minor, moderate, major) of impact. The significance criteria are defined as follows:

1. Seismic Ground Shaking, Exposing People and / or Structures to Potential Adverse Impacts.

Not Significant - Effects would range from the lowest level of detection-barely measurable to slightly detectable with no perceptible consequences or slightly detectible changes in a small area (less than 1 ha).

Significant - Effects would be readily apparent, change the character of physical environment and / or result in substantial adverse effects such as injury or death.

2. Soil Erosion or Loss of Topsoil from Construction or Operation of the Project Not Significant - Effects on soils would range from below detectable to detectable and impacts on soil productivity or fertility would be limited.

Significant - Effects on soil productivity or fertility would be readily apparent, and effects would result in a substantial change to soil character over a relatively large area or at multiple locations.

6.2.2 Small Hydropower Projects During the study, regional geologic conditions and geologic hazards were assessed using the available literature. All regions where SHP projects may be considered are in an active seismic zone. Seismicity in the regions studied varies from 6 to 9 under MKS scale.

6.2.2.1 Construction Geo Hazards: Available seismic studies and related literature were reviewed for all regions where SHP projects were being considered for rehabilitation. In addition, geologic studies were conducted to provide further input during the project design stage (including soil type and strength, ground water levels, flow and direction, soil layer strength and potential for landslides). These studies allowed for development of the appropriate design parameters as well as consideration of siting issues so that projects identified for rehabilitation would be those located in areas the least susceptible to potential significant geo hazard impacts. Exception is site-specific area of Pshaveli and Lopota and where SHP is planned to be built.

As a result of appropriate site planning and development of design parameters, no significant impacts from geo hazards are anticipated for most SHP projects. The exception is the Kabali and Machakhela SHPs. The Kabali SHP has the potential to experience significant impacts from river flooding, as the river is prone to sudden flooding in the summer and fall due to heavy rains and / or extensive snow melt. In the vicinity of the Machakhela SHP there has been an increasing trend of landslides and mudflows. As a result the Machakhela SHP could be potentially subject to significant impacts from landslides and / or mudflows.

Soils: During the study, all soil types were assessed in the region using the available literature and soil studies. Soils are considered a valuable natural resource that supports important vegetation and wildlife habitat. During construction of most SHP in the sample universe, small-scale excavation works are planned. The technical design for SHP projects identified a typical


earth excavation of approximately 150-400 m3 soil for forebay tank clean up works. Minor quantities of the locally available river gravel will be used during the construction activities as an addition to the cement, construction gravel and sand mixture. Because all the excavation work will be limited in terms of extent and quantity and done by hand, there is not anticipated to be a significant impact on soils at the SHP sites. As such, the PEA Team concluded that construction activities for SHPs would have negligible localized impacts on soils.

6.2.2.2 Operation Geo Hazards: There are not expected to be any significant impacts from geo hazards during operations due to the input and site knowledge from geologic studies and the resulting site planning that has been completed during the project design for the SHP projects.

Soils: No significant impacts on soils are expected during the operational phase with the exception of the negligible impacts resulting from the annual clean up works of the forebay tank.

6.2.3 Natural Gas Distribution System Projects Regional geologic conditions and geologic hazards were assessed using available literature. All regions where NG projects may be considered are in active seismic zones. Seismicity of the regions varies from 6 to 8 under MKS scale

6.2.3.1 Construction Geo Hazards: Due to the limited size and extent of the NG projects and because they are all anticipated to be located in or adjacent to developed areas or villages where the landscape has been disturbed and the terrain is relatively flat, no significant impacts from geo hazards are anticipated.

Soils: There would be limited ground disturbing activities during construction occurring over relatively small areas. In addition, these activities would occur generally are areas that have been previously disturbed by human activities. Therefore, impacts to soils from pipeline construction would not be significant. The pipelines will require anti-corrosion paint. Spillage of solvent-based paints may cause limited areas of soil contamination from accidental spills. These impacts would not be significant.

6.2.3.2 Operation Geo Hazards: Due to the limited size and extent of the NG projects and their location in or near developed areas or villages where the landscape and terrain is relatively flat, no significant impacts from geo hazards are anticipated. Soils: All of the NG projects would occur in areas of previously disturbed soils. This disturbance is within developed areas (mostly in villages), along roads, and near rivers. Impacts on soils during operations would be intermittent and localized and largely due to maintenance activities such as painting and repairs. These impacts are anticipated to be less than significant.


6.3 Water Resources This section addresses all significant direct, indirect and cumulative impacts to water resources.

6.3.1 Significance Criteria The significance criteria used for determining a significant impact to water resources from project activities were:

• Violate any federal or international water quality standards or guidelines. • Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater

recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level.

• Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner, which would result in substantial erosion, siltation or flooding.

• Create or contribute runoff water, which would exceed the capacity of existing drainage systems, provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff, or substantially degrade water quality.

• Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam.

During the PEA, the team identified and analyzed a series of significant impacts for both construction and operation activities. These impacts, described below for each component of the Rural Energy Program, were considered mostly short-term impacts. Short-term impacts are those impacts which can only be experienced for a brief period or segment of the project, i.e. during the pre-construction, construction, commissioning, or certain period of the operation stage. The PEA Team identified the significant impacts to water resources for both construction and operation of SHPs and NG systems noted in Table 6-1 below:

Table 6-1: Significant Impacts to Water Resources

Construction Operation

SHPs

Increase turbidity downstream of construction Reduce conservational value of rivers

Increase erosion of river stream Increase turbidity downstream of weir

Expose workers and / or inhabitants to risk of injury or death

Generate changes in the river stream through altered canalization

Damage to equipment and infrastructure

NG Systems

Increase erosion of river stream Expose workers and / or inhabitants to risk of injury or death

Contaminate surface and ground waters


6.3.2 Small Hydropower Projects SHP projects are expected to have mainly positive long-term effects on the environment and human health, since they will contribute to eventual reduction of greenhouse gases due to reduced use of fossil fuels for power generation. Potential direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental impacts will occur during construction and operation phases. These are mostly well known, limited in scope, and the mitigation measures can be found in Section 7 of this document.

The majority of SHPs under the Rural Energy Program will be run-of-the-river type, where no water storage is required and water is returned to the same stream at a lower elevation. The main concerns for this type of SHP are the stretch of river from which water is removed to support the hydropower plant, the method of returning the water back to the stream, and the effect on downstream users; impacts are generally on-site and relatively easy to assess. However, in the universe of projects visited and used as the baseline for the PEA, there is one case where an impoundment will be created, albeit small and with limited impact. Environmental impacts from this type of SHP may be greater than run-of-the-river systems. The main concerns for this type of SHP are the same as for run-of the-river as well as the impoundment location and potential affects on downstream users; environmental impacts are much less localized than for run-of-the-river systems.

The PEA Team analyzed the impacts to two main aspects of water resources: hydrology and water quality.

Hydrology: The most important factors related to hydrology and addressed by the PEA Team during the environmental screening analysis were erosion, flood frequency, flow regime, groundwater level, and sedimentation. Hydrology issues will be more significant during the operation phase and minimal during construction.

Water Quality: The most important factors related to water quality and addressed by the PEA Team during the environmental screening analysis were drainage from construction work, eutrophication, heavy metals, transport of elements and matter, turbidity or suspended solids, and water temperature. Water quality issues will be more significant during the construction phase and minimal during long-term operation; water quality changes will mostly have short-term duration during and soon after the construction phase.

It is important to note that not all factors were present at the sites visited, and even when present, factors identified did not necessarily generate a significant impact on the environmental aspect. For example, although heavy metals, oils and construction materials could pose a potential threat during construction activities, they do not represent a significant impact as: 1) construction activities are relatively small and localized, and 2) all construction and vehicle maintenance activities will follow best construction and management practices to reduce environmental contamination.

6.3.2.1 Construction During construction, project activities like vegetation clearing, dredging, quarrying and compaction of soil due to movement of heavy machinery will increase the rate of surface runoff, especially during torrential rains. Construction works will include rehabilitation of low height diversion weir, water intake facility, canal and aqueduct, forebay, penstock, powerhouse facilities, and installation of equipment. The PEA Team identified several issues that would potentially cause significant impacts to local and / or regional water resources during construction activities. These issues and their associated impacts are:

General Construction Activities: The potential impact of construction activities will vary greatly, depending on the construction timeline and on the area constructed. These activities mostly affect factors related to water quality, such as turbidity, due to high concentration of suspended solids. However, where impoundments will be rehabilitated or constructed, construction activities will also have an impact on factors related to hydrology, such as increased erosion of


river stream and changes to local flood plains. The PEA Team identified the following significant impacts associated with this issue.

• Increase Turbidity Downstream of Construction. Construction activities will require excavation, removal and / or movement of soil, gravel or rocks from the riverbed (e.g., to create embankments), and in some cases a large amount of concrete mixing (i.e., large constructed area). These activities can potentially generate high levels of suspended solids that will increase turbidity downstream to the weir.

• Increase Erosion of River Stream. Construction activities will require excavation, removal and / or movement of soil, gravel or rocks from the riverbed (e.g., to create embankments) and / or impoundment, and in some cases a large amount of concrete mixing (i.e., large constructed area). These activities may potentially increase erosion of the river stream (e.g., when excavated soil is piled inappropriately), which may increase sedimentation of the waterway and high levels of turbidity, and generate changes to the floodplains.

Extreme / Adverse Climatic Conditions: Extreme / adverse climatic conditions are an important consideration when planning the construction activities; especially in West Georgia, where potentially severe flooding might occur due to the high precipitation rates of the region. To some extent, construction activities could try to avoid the rainy season, although this might not be possible due to the nature of the yearly objectives of the Rural Energy Program. The PEA Team identified the following significant impacts associated with this issue.

• Damage to Equipment and Infrastructure. Flooding during construction activities might damage or destroy the wooden frame where concrete would be poured, gabions or soil embankments as well as any equipment in or near by the flooding plain.

• Expose Workers and / or Inhabitants to Risk of Injury or Death. Heavy rains in a short period of time might develop into flash floods that could potentially pose a threat to workers and / or inhabitants near the sites. A clear example of this significant impact is found at the SHP at Machakhela, where a high potential maximum flow of 300 m3 /s could result in canal failure above a school.

6.3.2.2 Operation During operation, project activities like turbine operation, equipment maintenance, weir maintenance, and water diversion construction will change the stream flow and flood regime between the point of diversion point and the water return point. The PEA Team identified several issues that would potentially cause significant impacts to local and / or regional water resources during operation of the SHPs. These issues and their associated impacts are:

General Operation Activities: The potential impact of operation activities will vary greatly depending on the climatic conditions of the region and the volume of water being diverted to the SHPs. These activities mostly affect factors specifically related to the river’s physical characteristics. However, where impoundments will be rehabilitated or constructed, as in the case of Lopota, operation activities will also have a small impact on factors related to water quality, such as turbidity due to high concentration of suspended solids during maintenance of the weir. The PEA Team identified the following significant impacts associated with this issue.

• Reduce Conservational Value of Rivers. Water will be diverted to the SHPs during operation, significantly reducing the flow between the water diversion gates and the tailrace. This reduction might cause changes in the flooding pattern as well as adverse impacts to the fish population in this section of the river, especially during dry season. After rehabilitation, more water could be diverted into the SHP to generate more electricity, which could potentially worsen the impact to the environment.

• Increase Turbidity Downstream of Weir. Operation of the SHP will increase turbidity downstream of the weir because of two main reasons: 1) Weirs will have to be cleaned of sediments around once a year, releasing soil and debris downstream; and 2) SHPs where


impoundments are created or inundation occurs through rehabilitation / construction of a weir (e.g., Lopota), will have some impacts on water quality as the inundation reduces the velocity of the water and will cause sedimentation in the reservoir or inundate area. Regular maintenance may have to be more frequent, increasing soil and debris release downstream.

• Generate Changes in the River Stream Through Altered Canalization. Projects that include major reconstruction of the weir may have a significant impact on current river geomorphology due to changes in flow regime downstream of the weir.

Beneficial Impacts: The following beneficial impacts are associated with the operation of the SHPs:

• Reduce Flooding Impacts Due to New / Rehabilitated Weirs and Diversion Gates. Extreme / adverse climatic conditions are an important issue to consider, especially in West Georgia, where potentially severe flooding might occur due to the high precipitation rates of the region. The rehabilitation of weirs and diversion gates will provide limited relief from flooding through a more regulated river flow.

• Increase Quantity of Water Supply for Other Uses. The water diversion from the river can also be used for other purposes aside from electricity generation, such as irrigation.

6.3.3 Natural Gas Distribution Projects NG projects are expected to have mainly positive long-term environmental effects, since they will contribute to eventual reduction of greenhouse gases due to the use of a cleaner fossil fuel for power generation. In addition, they will also have a beneficial impact to local and regional population health and biodiversity conservation; communities would connect to the local gas pipeline and use NG to operate their businesses, heat their homes and offices, and cook without the need of wood as a fuel source. Potential direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental impacts will occur during construction and operation phases. These are mostly well known, limited in scope, and the mitigation measures can be found in Section 7 of the PEA: Environmental Mitigation and Monitoring Plan.

The majority of NG projects under the Rural Energy Program will focus on rehabilitation of pre-existing NG networks, although it will also construct new NG networks. These projects will be of two types: those that include below ground installation of pipes and those that are entirely above ground installations. The main concerns of the NG projects relate to surface and ground water contamination and stream bank erosion due to construction activities; impacts are generally on-site and relatively easy to assess.

It is important to note that not all factors were present at the sites visited, and even when present, they did not necessarily generate a significant impact on the environmental aspect. For example, although it is expected that some of the projects will be conducted near river banks and could potentially impact water quality of the river, these type of small-scale projects will not require the use of heavy construction equipment and materials (e.g., cranes, bulldozers, backhoes), therefore minimizing any adverse impact to the environment. In addition, all NG projects will follow best construction and management practices to reduce environmental degradation.

6.3.3.1 Construction During construction, project activities like digging trenches, cutting and welding, painting, installing pipelines, installing metering and safety equipment, and replacing or repairing support posts will potentially contaminate surface and ground waters. The PEA Team identified several significant impacts to local and / or regional water resources during construction activities.

General Construction Activities: The potential impact of construction activities will vary greatly, depending on the location (e.g., along a river bank) and the level of disturbance (above ground


vs. below ground). The PEA Team identified the following significant impacts associated with this issue.

• Increase Erosion of River Stream. Construction activities will require excavation, removal and / or movement of soil, gravel or rocks. If these activities are conducted near a riverbank, they will potentially increase erosion of the river stream, which in turn may increase sedimentation of the waterway and high levels of turbidity, and generate changes to the floodplains.

• Contaminate Surface and Ground Water Resources. The pipeline will require anti-corrosion paint, which may contaminate surface and ground waters if not handled and managed correctly. In some cases, pipelines will cross a river through an existing bridge and accidental spills might occur while painting the pipeline.

6.3.3.2 Operation General operation activities (e.g., operation, maintenance) of the NG project will not have a significant impact to water resources NG systems. The PEA Team identified extreme / adverse climatic conditions as the main issue that would potentially cause significant impacts at a local level.

Extreme / Adverse Climatic Conditions: Extreme / adverse climatic conditions are an important issue to consider when planning the construction activities; especially in West Georgia, where potentially severe flooding might occur due to the high precipitation rates of the region. The PEA Team identified the following significant impacts associated with this issue.

• Expose Workers and / or Inhabitants to Risk of Injury or Death. Heavy rains in a short period of time might develop into flash floods that could potentially damage the NG pipelines, causing leakages and pose a threat to the community.


6.4 Biological Resources The chapter describes the potential environmental consequences of implementation of the Rural Energy Program on the biological resources present in a large and diverse geographic area. As such, the potential impacts described in this section represent the range of impacts that could occur by implementing representative SHP and NG projects.

6.4.1 Significance Criteria Significance criteria used for determining the level of impact on vegetation and wildlife were based on knowledge of resources of the study area and further defined by the intensity (negligible, minor, moderate, major) of impact. The significance criteria are defined as follows:

Vegetation Not Significant - Little or no native vegetation would be affected, or some individual native plants could be affected over a relatively small area or a minor portion of a species population. There would be no effect on native and sensitive species populations. Potential impacts should they occur would be on a small-scale, and no species of concern (listed or protected) would be affected. Impacts would be considered negligible to minor.

Significant - Native plants would be affected over a relatively large area or at multiple locations and would be noticeable. There would be a widespread effect on plant species populations or a considerable effect on native plant populations, including species of concern (listed or protected). The impact could be either direct (removal, trampling etc), indirect (habitat modifications) or on any species identified (listed) as native, rare or threatened. The size of the area affected could range from less than one hectare and larger (greater than one hectare). Impacts would be considered moderate to major.

Wildlife Not significant - Effects would be at or below the level of detection and the changes would be so slight that they would not be of any measurable or perceptible consequence to the wildlife (including aquatic) species population. If any potential effects were to occur they would be short-term, small and localized and of little consequence to populations of any species. Impacts would be considered negligible to minor.

Significant - Effects on wildlife (including aquatic) would range from readily detectable to obvious and widespread, with consequences at the population level locally increasing to substantial levels in the region in some cases. Substantial interference with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species, or the use of native wildlife nursery sites with substantial adverse affects either directly or through habitat modifications, or on any species identified (listed) as native, rare or threatened. Impacts would be considered moderate to major.

Beneficial – The project would result in reducing disturbance to native plants, including species of concern and wildlife (terrestrial and aquatic). The impacts would be either direct (reducing disturbance of riparian vegetation from the protection from flooding or reducing existing disturbance to wildlife from the proper project design) or indirect (reducing vegetation and wildlife disturbance from firewood harvesting).

6.4.2 Small Hydropower Projects Potential impacts from construction of the SHP projects in the Program are identified in this section.


6.4.2.1 Construction Below are summaries of potential environmental impacts related to the construction of SHPs on various biological resource sub-groups including 1) vegetation, and 2) wildlife.

Vegetation Because the construction activities are representative for all projects that could be implemented under the Program, the potential impacts to vegetation from construction identified here are broad, general in nature and extent, and therefore, also representative.

Impacts from construction of SHP projects would vary depending on the specific construction activity. No new linear facilities such as roads, access trails and transmission lines would be required for the SHP projects. Therefore, trampling and / or removal of vegetation from these activities is not anticipated and impacts would not be significant. A limited amount of riparian vegetation may be disturbed along the rivers during SHP construction. The size of the areas affected would be small and only a small number of individual native plants may be affected. There would be no affect on native riparian plant populations or on individual species of listed or protected (native, rare or threatened) sensitive plants. Therefore, impacts to riparian vegetation would not be significant.

Significant impacts on wetlands are not anticipated to occur. There are no wetlands at or adjacent to the representative SHP sites, and the Program will not consider any future SHP sites that potentially include impacts on wetlands.

For the Pshaveli SHP construction of a new 10 km power transmission line would adversely affect undeveloped forested land. Less than a total of 1 hectare of forest would be affected by construction activities such as cutting of trees, trampling vegetation. This impact would have a moderate long-term effect on vegetation, therefore, the impact would be considered significant.

Wildlife The potential impacts to wildlife (terrestrial and aquatic) from construction of SHP projects are presented in this section. As was the case for vegetation, construction activities are representative for all projects that could be implemented under the Program. Therefore, the potential construction impacts to wildlife identified here are general in nature and extent, and therefore, representative of SHP projects under the program.

Knowledge of the local conditions (size of population, distribution) at the site-specific level is largely incomplete or unavailable for many areas of the project. In light of these knowledge gaps, this analysis describes impacts on wildlife in terms of changes to habitat quantity and distribution, such as habitat loss or gain, amount of human disturbance.

The following general impacts to the wildlife occur during the construction stage:

• Increased short-term activity along the stream and transmission line may disrupt wildlife affecting resting, feeding or nesting activity;

• Decrease in downstream water flow may affect aquatic wildlife; and • Increased short-term activity along pipeline routes may disrupt wildlife affecting resting,

feeding or nesting activity.

The type of construction activities such as soil excavation, site rehabilitation and facility clean up, and in stream civil works and when they are scheduled during the year are the factors influencing the intensity and level of impact. In general construction is anticipated to occur as follows: spring (March-April-May) summer (June) fall (September- October-November). This general construction schedule was assumed for the analysis of construction impacts.

Mammals: Impacts from construction of SHP projects on mammals would be negligible. Only short-term, small-scale construction activities are planned in previously developed areas or at


currently existing facilities (along roads, rivers and villages). Generally, construction activities do not include removal of trees (with the exception of the Pshaveli SHP). Construction activities of SHP projects would result in negligible temporary adverse impacts on mammals due to disturbance and displacement from human activities, however, no measurable changes to existing habitats would occur and the impacts would not be significant. The impacts on wildlife from removing a total of approximately one hectare of trees along a new 10 km long transmission line at the Pshaveli SHP would be short-term and temporary. This disturbance and removal of habitat would not be considered significant.

Birds: Impacts from both SHP construction activities on nesting bird species are negligible. The representative SHP sites are not known for a wide diversity of nesting birds (exception is Machakhela SHP). In addition, construction activities are taking place in the areas adjacent to villages and therefore previously disturbed by human activities. The impacts on nesting birds from the construction activities would be short-term and negligible and not significant.

The village of Ked-kedi, were Machakhela SHP construction activities would take place, is known for a wide diversity of birds (several nesting, wintering and migratory species are found in the vicinities of the village Ked-kedi). Machakhela SHP construction activities occurring in the spring period could disturb numerous nesting bird species. Since most of the construction activities (reconstruction of weir, repair of canal etc) would take place in adjacent of the river it would also have negative impact on the migrating aquatic avian species that nest along the river. Other species could be displaced to the adjacent to the SHP area. In addition, increased activity (noise, human activities, dust, etc.) during the spring could also affect bird productivity, and increase mortality. Therefore, construction activities that take place during the spring (March through May) would result in result in moderate impacts and be considered significant. Proposed construction activities in the summer (June), fall (September through November) and winter season would result in minor short-term impact. Since most of the bird species in the vicinity of the river Machakhelas Tskali are nesting on land, impacts from construction during the spring would be moderate, short-term and significant.

Fish: Construction of the SHPs will require excavation of river gravel. Minor quantities of the locally available river gravel will be used during construction as an addition to the cement, construction gravel and sand mixture. The amount of excavation will be limited and all work shall be done by hand. If construction activities and fish spawning (generally September – October and May – June) would take place at the same time, increased turbidity in the river from ground disturbance activities would cause an adverse effect on downstream fish spawning. Since there are vulnerable Red Book species (Salmo fario), in all of the SHP rivers, the effect would be categorized as a moderate impact and considered somewhat significant.

Listed Species: Construction of new 10 km transmission line in Pshaveli SHP will cause removal of about 1 hectare of native trees. These activities would temporarily affect wildlife, including special status species known to occur within the Pshaveli area. However, the impacts on wildlife from the tree removal activity would be short-term and temporary and the disturbance would not be considered significant.

Construction activities of SHPs require temporary diversion of the water stream from the weir. It is important to maintain enough flow for survival of fish (trout) during construction. Blocking of the stream flow will dry the canal between weir and tailrace discharge (approximately 2 km), causing a significant impact on aquatic species population.

6.4.2.2 Operation Below are summaries of potential environmental impacts related to the operation of SHPs on various biological resource sub-groups including 1) vegetation, and 2) wildlife.


Vegetation The design for the SHPs will result in the protection from flooding (inundation of non-riparian vegetation) at some sites. Therefore, beneficial impacts are anticipated during operations from the reduction in flooding (inundation) of non-riparian vegetation.

All construction work would have negligible impacts on vegetation; therefore, there would not be any cumulative impacts on vegetation. There would be site-specific (Pshaveli SHP) adverse impacts on vegetation from temporary disturbance and vegetation trampling. However, because this is occurring at only one site, no cumulative impacts with other Program activities are anticipated

Wildlife The primary concerns during operation are the following impacts on aquatic wildlife:

• Decrease in stream flow between point of diversion and water return point may affect wildlife

• Water diversion into the turbine has negative effects on juvenile fish (impingement or entrainment)

The river flow from the weir to the powerhouse is greatly reduced due to the SHP projects. However, the minimum flow would be released to maintain sustainable fish populations in the streams. The stretch of stream affected varies in different SHP projects from 300 to 700 m, The principal concern will be during the non-rainy (dry) season if the flow downstream is not maintained at a level adequate to sustain healthy fish populations. This would cause major and significant impacts on fish populations.

Operation activities of SHP’s that would have long-term negative impacts include mortality of juvenile fish and disruption of wildlife movement / migration. This is specific to the Machakhela SHP.

During operational phase of an SHP, water from existing streams will be withdrawn and diverted into turbines. Juvenile fish present in water diverted to the turbines are not likely to survive. Juvenile fish passing through hydroelectric turbines (entrainment) are exposed to numerous injury-causing mechanisms including pressure, shear, and turbulence. Both juvenile and potentially some adult fish may not survive impingement against water intake structures and fish screens. According to available literature, there are Red Book species (e.g. Salmo fario) in all of the representative SHP rivers. Therefore, the operation phase of SHP projects is anticipated to result in moderate and potentially significant impacts on juvenile fish at some of SHP sites.

The Machakhela SHP could have a beneficial impact on migratory fish species found in the river Machakhelas Tskali. The Black sea trout (Salmo fario morpha labrax, Red Book of Georgia) migrate from the sea to the Chorokhy River and its tributaries (River Machakhelas Tskali) for spawning. The Machakhela SHP is already operating. However, the non-existence of fish ladders is hindering fish migration, causing a negative affect on fish populations. The project rehabilitation at this site could have beneficial impact, since new SHP project design includes installing fish ladders to allow fish passing upstream the river.

6.4.3 Natural Gas Distribution Systems Below are summaries of potential environmental impacts during the construction and operational phases on vegetation and wildlife.

6.4.3.1 Construction Below are summaries of potential environmental impacts related to the construction of NG distribution systems on various biological resource sub-groups including 1) vegetation, and 2) wildlife.


Vegetation Short-term and negligible impacts on vegetation from trampling and / or removal would result from NG project construction activities. Very few ground disturbing activities associated with constructing the pipelines would occur. Those impacts that would occur would be in relatively small areas. In most cases pipelines are planned to be constructed above ground that has been previously disturbed by human activities. Most ground disturbing activities would take place in areas adjacent to the villages. In addition, no new roads or access trails are anticipated for construction of the NG projects. As a result the impacts on vegetation would be negligible and therefore, would not be significant.

Wildlife The potential impacts to wildlife (terrestrial and aquatic) from construction of NG projects are presented in this section. As was the case for vegetation, construction activities are representative for all projects that could be implemented under the Program. Therefore, the potential construction impacts to wildlife identified here are general in nature and extent, and therefore, representative of NG projects under the program.

Knowledge of the local conditions (size of population, distribution) at the site-specific level is largely incomplete or unavailable for many areas of the project. In light of these knowledge gaps, this analysis describes impacts on wildlife in terms of changes to habitat quantity and distribution, such as habitat loss or gain, amount of human disturbance.

The following general impacts to the wildlife occur during the construction stage:

• Increased short-term activity along pipeline routes may disrupt wildlife affecting resting, feeding or nesting activity.

The type of construction activities such as soil excavation, site rehabilitation and facility clean up, and in stream civil works and when they are scheduled during the year are the factors influencing the intensity and level of impact. In general construction is anticipated to occur as follows: spring (March-April-May) summer (June) fall (September- October-November). This general construction schedule was assumed for the analysis of construction impacts.

Mammals: Impacts from construction of NG projects on mammals would be negligible. Only short-term, small-scale construction activities are planned in previously developed areas or at currently existing facilities (along roads, rivers and villages). Construction activities of NG projects would result in negligible temporary adverse impacts on mammals due to disturbance and displacement from human activities, however, no measurable changes to existing habitats would occur and the impacts would not be significant.

Birds: Impacts from NG construction activities on nesting bird species are negligible. The representative NG sites are not known for a wide diversity of nesting birds. In addition, construction activities are taking place in the areas adjacent to villages and therefore previously disturbed by human activities. The impacts on nesting birds from the construction activities would be short-term and negligible and not significant.

During construction activities of NG projects limited ground disturbing activities (constructing the pipelines) would occur in relatively small areas that have been previously disturbed by human activities. These areas do not provide important habitat for wildlife. Therefore, NG construction activities in general would result in negligible impacts on wildlife and the impacts from NG projects as a whole would not be significant.

6.4.3.2 Operation Below are summaries of potential environmental impacts related to the operation of NG distribution systems on various biological resource sub-groups including 1) vegetation, and 2) wildlife.


Vegetation There are no impacts on vegetation anticipated during the project operation phase for NG projects.

A beneficial impact is anticipated from implementing the NG projects. An expected decrease in tree cutting and wood harvesting for cooking and heating purposes is expected as a result of NG replacing wood as a fuel source for cooking and heating.

Wildlife In some areas (including Khidistavi NG) the NG pipeline is crossing a river on a traffic bridge above the river. This bridge connects two parts of the community lying on both sides of the river. Having the construction area in close proximity to the river could have a small impact on fish populations due to potential pollution of the river from maintenance activities such a painting. Accidental paint spills would have negligible impact on aquatic species and therefore would not be significant.

Construction of the NG projects is anticipated to result in a decrease of tree cutting and wood harvesting activities for heating purposes. This reduction would reduce disturbance to wildlife and their habitat. This is considered to be an indirect beneficial impact on wildlife.


6.5 Socioeconomics The criteria used to determine if significant impact could occurr to socioeconomic (human) resources as a result of construction activities associated with the rehabilitation or operation of SHPs are listed below:

• Risks or injury from flooding that could come from a failed or overwhelmed feeder canal. • Poorly trained and noncompliant construction laborers and / or power plant workers

resulting in occupational risks or injury. • Risks to the public from unauthorized entry onto SHP sites during construction or

operation phases. • Disturbance to local communities from construction worker intrusions.

6.5.1 Significance Criteria

An impact on human resources was considered significant if it met one or more of the following criteria:

• Exposes individuals to an increased risk of disease, bodily harm or death. • Exposes infrastructure, buildings and other property to an increased risk of damage or

loss. • Results in a substantial change in access to or use of land or other resources. • Results in a substantial change in employment or other economic conditions (such as,

prices of goods and materials or incomes). • Creates persistent social conflict or instability. • Creates medium- or long-term threat to social, cultural or religious values. • Induces permanent migration into or out of the region of the project.

6.5.2 Small Hydropower Projects Potential impacts to human resources from construction and operation activities at small hydropower plants are considered in the following sections. These potential impacts were identified as the result of field visits to the sample SHP sites and review of available data and literature related to socioeconomic conditions.

6.5.2.1 Construction Below are summaries of potential environmental impacts related to the construction of SHPs on various socioeconomic sub-groups including 1) population and settlements, 2) land use, 3) income and employment, 4) social infrastructure and impacts, and 5) public health.

Population and Settlements During the construction phase there will be limited impact on local populations and settlements from the presence of temporary workers on site. In most cases, fewer than three engineers will find temporary accommodations in the project community or they will commute to the site from outside of the community.

Land Use Only one potential significant impact related to land use was identified during the screening of hydroelectric plants. In the case of Machakhela, the diversion canal that feeds the penstock lies uphill from a school and possibly some homes. If the structural integrity of the canal is violated and it collapses or leaks, there is potential for flooding of this school or homes. Because of the high potential maximum flow on this river (as much as 300 m3/second) and because of the possibility that the diversion canal could receive a large portion of this flow if not closed or managed properly during such conditions, the potential for a major flooding event could pose a


significant risk to the community. Similarly, geological conditions above the canal (steep and potentially unstable terrain that could be susceptible to landslides) could also threaten the integrity of the diversion canal.

Lesser impacts on land use may be seen at other SHP sites. In the case of Pshaveli, for example, there may be a small impact between the powerhouse and river because of the construction of a tailrace across an area currently used for grazing animals. Additionally, a new penstock will be constructed between the irrigation canal and the powerhouse. The impacts from this construction are likely to be small since the line of the penstock follows an existing path and since it parallels where a feeder pipe for a water facility was laid before but not used. Finally, the construction of the powerhouse itself, along an existing road, will cause a small change in land use.

Income and Employment Construction activities associated with the rehabilitation of SHPs will provide temporary jobs to local individuals, ranging from a small number to as many as 100 people in one case. During SHP operation, permanent employment will not change in cases where currently operating facilities continue to operate but employment security would increase in these circumstances. In other cases, employment would increase by amounts ranging from a small number of new hires (2-4) to as many as 22 people being reemployed.

Social Infrastructure and Impacts No significant impacts on social infrastructure are expected. In selected cases (Dzama, Kakhareti, Lopota, Machakhela), the PEA Team received information on consultations with local communities about the acceptability of the proposed SHP projects. In all cases, indications were given that the community was supportive.

Public Health Safety is the largest public health concern that will need to be addressed in the construction phase of the rehabilitation of the hydroelectric plants. Because the sites are generally located in close proximity to communities, it is possible that individuals from the general public could enter the project site. During the construction phase, a number of conditions could pose threats to someone who comes onto the site but is unfamiliar with the working environment. These hazardous conditions could include the operation of large construction machinery, open holes and unstable piles from the movement of earth and temporary redirection of river flows, among other possibilities.

Just as there are safety concerns for the general public, they exist for individuals employed during construction and operation of the hydroelectric plants. It is anticipated that local residents will be hired to provide manual labor on a temporary basis during the construction phase. It is likely that these individuals will be untrained in matters of occupational safety related to construction. And, since they will be exposed to the same hazardous conditions cited above and on a more regular basis, their occupational safety risks are likely to be greater than the risks posed to the general public.

6.5.2.2 Operation Below are summaries of potential environmental impacts related to the operation of SHPs on various socioeconomic sub-groups including 1) population and settlements, 2) land use, 3) income and employment, 4) social infrastructure and impacts, and 5) public health.

Population and Settlements Operation of SHPs will not generate any significant impact on population and settlements.


Land Use Operation of SHPs will not generate any significant impact on land use.

Income and Employment Should the SHP facility breakdown; there is a limited risk to the community of lost employment. It is unlikely, however, that there would be much impact, if any, on the community from the lost electricity supply since the SHP output will typically be sold to the grid rather than serve as a source of energy for the community.

Social Infrastructure and Impacts In the case of one community, Kekhijvari, there could be benefits to the community in terms of improved social infrastructure since the ownership of the Dzama SHP will be held by a CBO. Once its debts are cleared, it is expected that the CBO will have proceeds from the operation of the SHP that it can share with the community in the form of community services or facilities.

There is a small chance of social conflict between communities because of jealousy over resources generated by the SHP for some communities but not others.

Public Health Safety is the largest public health concern that will need to be addressed in the operation phase of the rehabilitation of the hydroelectric plants. Because the sites are generally located in close proximity to communities, it is possible that individuals from the general public could enter the project site. During the operation phase, the operation of the plant, the power house (e.g., high voltage) and the open diversion canal and tailrace could also create hazardous conditions that members of the community are not familiar with and therefore do not take adequate precautions to avoid.

Just as there are safety concerns for the general public, they exist for individuals employed during operation of the hydroelectric plants. Any local individuals hired to work in the facility will be exposed to risks from high voltage, operation of heavy, moving equipment (generating turbines), open moving water in canals and tailrace face operating conditions and other operating conditions that require proper training to reduce occupational safety risks.

One other potential issue of public health is the possible presence of PCBs. At the time of the site visit to Machakhela, the PEA Team observed oil spilled around transformers to the grid at the powerhouse. This oil may contain PCBs (since these are still used in Georgia). Because these transformers are owned by the distribution company and not by the power plant owner, appropriate management is outside of the immediate responsibility of any party directly involved with the rehabilitation of SHPs under this Program. Nonetheless getting the distribution company to address this potential hazard is an important matter to address in the environmental review that will need to be prepared for this site if it is to be included in the Program.

Finally, standing water that accumulates behind weirs, in canals or tailraces during the summer season may lead to an increase in mosquito populations near certain SHPs. This adverse impact is considered minor.

6.5.3 Natural Gas Distribution Systems The principle concerns regarding potential adverse and significant impacts related to installing NG systems are the risks of fire and explosion and other threats to occupational and public safety.

Risks of fire and explosion are implicit in a system that delivers a volatile material like NG. These risks occur when there is some violation of the integrity of the distribution system, such as through leaks if the system is not completely sealed or through accidental damage to the pipeline itself, such as through motor vehicle accidents.


6.5.3.1 Construction Below are summaries of potential environmental impacts related to the construction of NG distribution systems on various socioeconomic sub-groups including 1) population and settlements, 2) land use, 3) income and employment, 4) social infrastructure and impacts, and 5) public health.



Income and Employment Operation of SHPs will not generate any significant impact on income and employment.

Social Infrastructure and Impacts Operation of SHPs will not generate any significant impact on social infrastructure and impacts.

Public Health Threats to occupational and public safety are present during the construction phase. The movement of heavy equipment and materials, the operation of welding equipment and the digging of any trenches present hazardous circumstances that require proper safety training of workers and restricted access to work sites for the general public.

6.5.3.2 Operation Below are summaries of potential environmental impacts related to the operation of NG distribution systems on various socioeconomic sub-groups including 1) population and settlements, 2) land use, 3) income and employment, 4) social infrastructure and impacts, and 5) public health.



Income and Employment Operation of SHPs will not generate any significant impact on income and employment.

Social Infrastructure and Impacts Operation of SHPs will not generate any significant impact on social infrastructure and impacts.

Public Health Threats to occupational and public safety are present during the operation phase. The movement of heavy equipment and materials, the operation of welding equipment and the digging of any trenches present hazardous circumstances that require proper safety training of workers and restricted access to work sites for the general public.


6.6 Cultural Resources 6.6.1 Significance Criteria An impact on human resources was considered significant if it met one or more of the following criteria:

• Exposes a historic, prehistoric, cultural and ethnic resource to an increased risk of damage or loss.

• Threatens the physical integrity of a historic, prehistoric, cultural and ethnic resource. • Creates permanent interference with the enjoyment or appreciation of an important

historic, prehistoric, cultural and ethnic resource.

6.6.2 Small Hydropower Projects No significant impacts to cultural resources are anticipated, as indicated in the following brief discussion of possible impacts to historic, prehistoric, cultural and ethnic resources, assuming no entirely new SHP construction takes place. Nonetheless, the possibility of encountering previously unknown historic or prehistoric material exists when there is an entirely new excavation, as would occur at a new SHP or one that is being expanded or relocated.

6.6.2.1 Construction Below are summaries of potential environmental impacts related to the construction of SHPs on various cultural resource sub-groups including 1) historic and prehistoric resources, and 2) cultural and ethnic resources.

Historic and Prehistoric Resources During the construction phase at SHPs being rehabilitated, major movement of earth will take place in locations that were already excavated during the original construction. In this respect, it is unlikely that there will be adverse impacts on possible archaeological resources or paleontological data. However, if construction work exceeds the boundaries of the original SHP construction it is possible that historical or prehistoric resources could be affected.

Cultural and Ethnic Resources Due to the distance of the resources from the project sites no substantial adverse change in the monuments is expected during the construction phase. No damage or destruction is foreseen for the existing monuments from either noise or vibration that might be generated from traffic, equipment, operation of heavy machinery, or movement of earth during the construction phase. There is little reason to expect that protection zones around cultural and ethnic resources will be violated or that surrounding landscape will be affected.

6.2.2.2 Operation Below are summaries of potential environmental impacts related to the operation of SHPs on various cultural resource sub-groups including 1) historic and prehistoric resources, and 2) cultural and ethnic resources.

Historic and Prehistoric Resources During SHP operation, no impacts on archaeological and paleontological resources are expected.

Cultural and Ethnic Resources During SHP operation, no impacts on cultural and ethnic resources are expected.


6.6.3 Impacts from Natural Gas Distribution Systems No significant impacts on historical, prehistoric, cultural or ethnic resources are anticipated. Existing rights of way will typically be used for the construction of transmission pipelines and pipelines delivering the NG. Objections to aesthetic impacts may arise but these must be examined on a case-by-case basis, such as if a pipeline were being constructed in the vicinity of cultural monument. It is anticipated that such circumstances will be the exception rather than the rule, in light of past experience of installing NG distribution systems under USAID/Caucasus/Georgia sponsorship in Georgia (e.g., Likhauri and Kekhijvari) where adverse aesthetic impacts did not present a problem.


7. Environmental Mitigation and Monitoring Plan The PEA includes environmental compliance requirements for all projects in the Rural Energy Program. The requirements specify the procedures for anticipating and mitigating significant environmental impacts when making decisions regarding potential investment projects to be implemented under the Program. These compliance requirements are outlined in this Section.

The mitigation and monitoring actions needed to address the significant environmental impacts identified in Section 6.0 are presented here. The organization follows the categories in Section 6.0: Geology and Soils, Water Resources, Biological Resources, Human Resources (Socioeconomic Impacts, Public Health) and Cultural Resources, presented in separate sections that follow the discussion of the environmental compliance requirements.

Environmental Compliance Framework The environmental review and compliance requirements for the Rural Energy Program provide a comprehensive process for assuring that: 1) all potential environmental issues are identified in the course of project development, 2) the appropriate levels of review and authorization take place within the Program and in USAID/Caucasus/Georgia prior to the launching of any investment project, and 3) project construction adequately provides for environmental protection measures.

The recommended approach has the significant advantage of building on an existing base of prior, relevant experience. In this regard, there are strong precedents for the requirements presented. The design draws on prior USAID/Caucasus/Georgia environmental compliance experience of 1) PA Government Services (PA) in its preparation of mitigation and monitoring plans under the GESI project, and 2) CHF International in its development of an environmental review and determination process under the GEII project. This experience conveys the benefit of extensive review and, ultimately, approval by USAID as representing the appropriate and necessary practices to assure compliance with Regulation 216. In addition, this experinece is combined with the collective professional expertise of the PEA team and the program and site specific work conducted for the PEA.

The environmental compliance requirements under the PEA involve at a minimum, two levels of implementation. The first level allows for effects common to all projects under the Program to be managed through best construction and operating practices (Appendix G). These best practices address a variety of issues, particularly those related to management of impacts from small-scale construction / rehabilitation projects. The Rural Energy Program will ensure that all contractors under the Program comply with the applicable best practices to ensure consistent and sound environmental management for all projects. This will provide for the prevention and / or management of minor (less than significant) impacts, and prevent some potential significant impacts from occurring. The incorporation of best construction and operating practices will provide for the prevention and / or management of all potential environmental impacts the RE and EE projects and natural resource management plans.

However, not all potentially significant impacts can be prevented by applying best practices. Therefore, an additional level of environmental compliance requirements have been developed to address significant impacts common to the universe of projects under the Program and / or specific to a given site. This Section focuses on those significant impacts that require mitigation and the approach for sound environmental monitoring.. The environental review and compliance requirements encompass the following four procedural stages:

1. Conduct environmental review; 2. Complete environmental determination with regard to significant impacts; 3. Determine the feasibility of mitigating significant impacts; and 4. Implement look for alternative location


1. Conduct Environmental Review. In this stage, a qualified reviewer from the Rural Energy Program, such as a project engineer, scientist or planner who has been trained in environmental impact assessment and compliance, will complete an environmental review of the proposed project, This will be a site-specific review using the Environmental Screening Analysis developed for the PEA and information on project design as developed in the program appraisal report and project techncial design. The purpose of the review is to determine if the best construction and operating practices and mitigation and monitoring plans integrated into the PEA address all possible environmental impacts associated with the construction and operation of the project. This review assumes all appropriate best practices and mitigation and monitoring plans for the specific project will be implemented by contractors constructing and operating the project. The incorpoartion of best practices and PEA mitigation and monitoring plans is required for the environmental review to be effective.

2. Complete Environmental Determination. Based on the environmental review, the reviewer will identify significant environmental impacts that would not be mitigated or prevented through best practices and provide a brief explanation of environmental consequences. If the project has no potential for substantial adverse environmental effects (no significant impacts identified) or if significant impacts are prevented from occurring by implementing best practices, then no further environmental actions are required. However, the Rural Energy program will still have to monitor the contractor to ensure compliance with best practices.

3. Determine the Feasibility of Mitigating Significant Impacts. In this stage, the reviewer will assess the feasibility of mitigating significant adverse impacts and / or define additional specific mitigation and monitoring requirements for project implementation if required.

Section 7 of the PEA presents a pre-defined set of mitigation measures and monitoring plans that address the commonly occuring significant impacts identified in Section 6.0 for geology and soils, water resources, biological resources, cultural resources and human resources. It is anticipated that these mitigation and monitoring plans will be sufficient for the majority of the projects implemented under the Program. For projects that may have additional significant impacts that are sufficiently understood but not entirely addressed by the pre-defined mitigation and monitoring plans, additonal or revised mitigation and monitoring requirements can be developed and integrated into the project. Ultimatley, the final Mitigation and Monitoring (M&M) Plans for each site or project will be attached to the contractors’ Scope of Work.

In the event an environmental review for a project identifies additional potentially significant impacts that require further information or analysis to develop effective mitigation and monitoring plans or make a decision regarding project feasibility, the Rural Energy Program will conduct a Supplemental Environmental Assessment (SEA). SEAs are environmental assessments that supplement the PEA and focus only on those issues that require further study to determine the feasibility of mitigation actions. Projects requiring a SEA have potential substantial environmental impacts but require more analysis to form a conclusion.

A decision could be made under the Rural Energy Program not to proceed with the project prior to conducting a SEA. In this case, more suitable locations for implementing the project would be explored. An environmental review of the alternative location (new site) would be conducted following the procedures described above and submitted to the USAID MEO for review and approval.

4. Implement Project or Look for Alternative Location. Based on the results from the SEA, the Rural Energy Program will decide to continue or discontinue the project. If the decision is made to proceed with the project (significant impacts can be mitigated and monitoring plans are deemed to be effective), then the pre-defined M&M Plans


under Section 7 of the PEA plus any other mitigation measures identified the SEA must be applied when implementing the project. However, if there are substantial environmental impacts and the pre-defined and any new mitigation measures are insufficient to eliminate significant negative impacts, then the Rural Energy Program will not implement the project and look for more suitable locations.

The following Sections present environmental mitigation measures for all significant impacts identified under Section 6. The mitigation measures are linked or mapped to their respective significant impacts. The Sections also provide a monitoring plan for implementing the recommended measures. The plan describes the mitigation measure(s) and how they will be implemented; the frequency of monitoring; assignment(s) of responsibility; and measures of progress, success or completion.

Because the PEA is addressing a large number of projects that are anticipated to be relatively similar in size and extent, the mitigation measures were designed to be broad enough in scope and approach to successfully reduce impacts for most projects under the Rural Energy Program. However, some mitigation measures will only apply to a limited number of projects as they were designed to mitigate significant impacts also unique to a small number of projects.

All mitigation measures outlined in this section will be undertaken as part of the project implementation process to mitigate potential impacts from construction and operation activities. Moreover, project implementation will always adhere to all appropriate and relevant national and / or local environmental laws, regulations and norms


7.1 Geology and Soils This section presents environmental mitigation and monitoring plan for all significant impacts identified under Section 6.2 – Geology and Soils.

7.1.1 Small Hydropower Projects Operations impacts from the operations activities of the SHPs will have the following mitigation:

Environmental Impact: Geological Hazards Might Occur During the Operation of Pshaveli SHP, Lopota SHP, Kabali SHP and Machakhela SHP. Environmental Mitigation

• Conduct a geologic study during the project design stage, including the following analysis:

o Soil type and strength to ensure safety of the support structures, powerhouses, water intake and penstock;

o Water table level on project implementation sites, ground water flow direction and quantity of the aquifer;

o Depth of powerhouse foundation; and o Rate of soil layer’s strength, potential for landslides on surrounding slope

sections etc.

• Construction work should be done in accordance with civil construction norms and standards, technical, environmental, safety and other legal requirements that may apply.

• Establish procedures for emergency water release in conditions of high rainfall.

Monitoring Plan: The Rural Energy Program will ensure that all mitigation measures are included in the contract with the construction firm. The Rural Energy Program will develop a simple and effective monitoring plan that will consider the following issues:

Frequency of Monitoring: The Rural Energy Program will review the mitigation measures together with the construction firm and will ensure that the study is conducted prior to project implementation. The monitoring will require one visit at start-up, regular visits (once every two months) during construction, and a final visit after construction is finished to review construction practices and records to ensure the requirements of the geologic study are adhered to and implemented.

Assignment of Responsibility: The construction firm will be responsible for implementing all the mitigation measures. A designated Rural Energy Program representative trained in environmental compliance and monitoring will be responsible for supervising the engineering firm and ensuring that all mitigation measures are being implemented.

Measures of Progress, Success or Completion: The Rural Energy Program will conduct site visits to each project during the construction phase, and develop brief reports based on those site visits to report and register the status of the mitigation measures. A sample report is included in Appendix F. Any issues or problems found regarding a mitigation measure (implementation or failure) or conditions at the site in general will be immediately corrected by the construction company under the supervision of the Rural Energy Program.

Based on the site visits and the report, the Rural Energy Program will determine if the monitoring plan is being effective and all mitigation measures are achieving the desired results.


7.2 Water Resources This section presents environmental mitigation and monitoring plan for all significant impacts identified under Section 6.3 – Water Resources.

7.2.1 Small Hydropower Projects The compliance measures or best management practices which apply to small-scale RE and EE projects also apply to construction and rehabilitation of SHPs. Small-scale construction best practices are mentioned in the introduction to this chapter and are included in Appendix G; they are the starting point for the implementation of mitigation and monitoring plans, and must be in place to ensure that mitigation measures are effective.

7.2.1.1 Construction During construction, the PEA Team identified four potentially significant environmental impacts to water resources. These impacts were related to general construction activities or extreme climatic conditions. The mitigation and monitoring plans for significant impacts generated by construction activities are described below.

Environmental Impact: Increase Turbidity Downstream of Construction. Construction activities will require excavation, removal and / or movement of soil, gravel or rocks from the riverbed (e.g., to create embankments), and in some cases a significant amount of concrete mixing (i.e., large constructed area). These activities will potentially generate high levels of suspended solids that will increase turbidity downstream of the weir.

Environmental Mitigation: To minimize generation of high levels of suspended solids and turbidity downstream of the weir during construction activities, the construction firm will:

• Avoid blocking stream flow during construction, therefore eliminating the potential for flooding upstream to the weir and increase the level of suspended solids coming from the floodplain;

• Use concrete forms rather than soil as temporary stream diversions, therefore significantly reducing the soil movement and stream sedimentation;

• Avoid stockpiling soils in river banks and / or floodplains, therefore minimizing soil coming through run-off;

• Return topsoil along the river bank and riparian ecosystem to its original location, and restore land contours to match the original topography; and

• Enforce engineering requirements regarding drainage / erosion prevention and construction techniques for all construction actions. These will include the provision and maintenance of suitable drainage networks, slope control, compaction or re-vegetation of exposed surfaces and protection of surfaces prone to submersion by water.


Frequency of Monitoring: The Rural Energy Program will review the mitigation measures together with the construction firm and will ensure that they are in place and implemented from start-up. The monitoring will require one visit at start-up, regular visits (once every two months) to ensure the measures are continued to be implemented, and a final visit after construction is finished to ensure that there are no wastes left at the site, no soil stockpiled nearby, and that land contours match the original topography.

Assignment of Responsibility: The construction firm will be responsible for implementing all the mitigation measures. A designated Rural Energy Program representative trained in


environmental compliance and monitoring will be responsible for supervising the engineering firm and ensuring that all mitigation measures are being implemented.


Based on the site visits and the report, the Rural Energy Program will determine if the monitoring plan is being effective and all mitigation measures are achieving the desired results. A positive determination can only be verified if the following criterion is true: The facility does not contribute to deterioration of water quality either upstream or downstream of the facility during and after construction. A negative response will trigger one or more of the following actions:

• The monitoring plan needs to be reviewed and revised; • The construction firm needs to be supervised more frequently; and / or • The mitigation measures need to be reviewed and revised.

Environmental Impact: Increase Erosion of River Stream. Construction activities will require excavation, removal and / or movement of soil, gravel or rocks from the riverbed (e.g., to create embankments) and / or impoundment, and in some cases a significant amount of concrete mixing (i.e., large constructed area). These activities will potentially increase erosion of the river stream (e.g., when excavated soil is piled inappropriately), which may increase sedimentation of the waterway and high levels of turbidity, and generate changes to the floodplains.

Environmental Mitigation: To minimize erosion of the river stream downstream of the weir during construction activities, the construction firm will:




• Return topsoil along the river bank and riparian ecosystem to its original location and restore land contours to match the original topography;

• Recover all reusable materials when demolishing existing structures (e.g., damaged weirs);

• Use erosion control methods such as hay bales to prevent runoff; • Engineering requirements regarding drainage / erosion prevention and construction

techniques for all construction actions must be strictly enforced. These will include the provision and maintenance of suitable drainage networks, slope control, compaction or re-vegetation of exposed surfaces and protection of surfaces prone to submersion by water; and

• Minimize use of heavy machinery.


Frequency of Monitoring: The Rural Energy Program will review the mitigation measures together with the construction firm and will ensure that they are in place and implemented from start-up. The monitoring will require one visit at start-up, regular visits (once every two months) to ensure the measures are continued to be implemented, and a final visit after


construction is finished to ensure that there are no wastes left at the site, no soil stockpiled nearby, and that land contour matches the original topography.



Based on the site visits and the report, the Rural Energy Program will determine if the monitoring plan is being effective and all mitigation measures are achieving the desired results. A positive determination can only be verified if the following criteria are true: The facility does not contribute to erosion, siltation, changes in natural water flows, and areas of bare soil upstream or downstream of the facility during and after construction. A negative response will trigger one or more of the following actions:


Environmental Impact: Damage to Equipment and Infrastructure. Flooding during construction activities might damage or destroy the formwork where concrete would be poured, gabions or soil embankments, as well as any equipment in or near by the flooding plain, causing changes to the flow regime and floodplains.

Environmental Mitigation: To minimize the impact to infrastructure and changes to flow regime and floodplains due to flooding during construction activities, the construction firm will:

• Avoid construction during wet season where possible. While this might be difficult due to construction timelines for the SHPs, activities should be scheduled to reduce the duration of construction during the wet season.

• Design infrastructure so it is raised above flood plain (if possible); • Design infrastructure to minimize risk (e.g., design with proper grading and

drainage); • Avoid constructing sanitation or other facilities at flood-prone sites and / or near the

floodplain; and • Use material appropriate to the climate.


Frequency of Monitoring: The Rural Energy Program will review the mitigation measures together with the construction firm and will ensure that they are in place and implemented from start-up. The monitoring will require one visit at start-up and other potential visits if flash floods and / or high-intensity floods occur to determine the condition of the infrastructure.




Based on the site visits and the report, the Rural Energy Program will determine if the monitoring plan is being effective and all mitigation measures are achieving the desired results. A positive determination can only be verified if the following criteria are true: The facility does not contribute to changes to the flow regime and / or changes to the floodplain upstream or downstream of the facility during and after construction. A negative response will probably trigger one or more of the following actions:


Environmental Impact: Expose Workers and / or Inhabitants to Risk of Injury or Death. Heavy rains in a short period of time might develop into flash floods that could potentially pose a threat to workers and / or inhabitants near the sites. A clear example of this significant impact is found at the SHP at Machakhela, where a high potential maximum flow of 300 m3 /s could result in canal failure above a school.

Environmental Mitigation: To minimize the impact to workers and / or inhabitants during construction activities, the construction firm will:

• Design infrastructure so it is raised above flood plain (if possible); • Conduct studies to ensure infrastructure is not damaged and complies with

engineering designs; • Design infrastructure to minimize risk (e.g., design with proper grading and

drainage); and • Use material appropriate to the climate.


Frequency of Monitoring: The Rural Energy Program will review the mitigation measures together with the construction firm and will ensure that they are in place and implemented from start-up. The monitoring will require one visit at start-up and other potential visits if flash floods and / or high-intensity floods occur to determine the condition of the infrastructure.



Based on the site visits and the report, the Rural Energy Program will determine if the monitoring plan is being effective and all mitigation measures are achieving the desired results. A positive determination can only be verified if the following criteria is true: The


facility does not expose workers or and / or inhabitants to risk of injury or death. A negative response will probably trigger one or more of the following actions:


7.2.1.2 Operation Mitigation of significant impacts during operation of the SHP depends on both careful design and proper O&M of the system; proper O&M is especially vital to maintaining critical downstream flows. The PEA Team identified four significant environmental impacts to water resources related to general operation activities. The mitigation and monitoring plans are described below.

Environmental Impact: Reduced Conservational Value of Rivers. Water will be diverted to the SHPs during operation, significantly reducing the flow between the water diversion gates and the tailrace. This reduction might cause changes in the flooding pattern as well as adverse impacts to fish populations in this section of the river, especially during dry season. After rehabilitation, more water could be diverted into the SHP to generate more electricity, which could potentially worsen the impact to the environment.

Environmental Mitigation: To reduce the potential for changes in the flooding pattern and maximize the conservational value of the river, the SHP operator will: • Maintain a minimum flow (minimum ecological flow) in the river sufficient for the river

hydrology, water quality, existing fish population and wildlife taking into account seasonal fluctuations in flow levels. This minimum flow requirement will be determined through consultation with biologists familiar with the river affected and/or the sensitivity of the resources affected.

• Maintain a minimum wet channel perimeter at all control structures with a constant flow in the river throughout the year.

Monitoring Plan: The Rural Energy Program will ensure that all mitigation measures are implemented and develop a simple and effective monitoring plan that will consider the following issues:

Frequency of Monitoring: The Rural Energy Program will review the mitigation measures together with the SHP operator and will ensure that they are in place and implemented from start-up. The monitoring will require one visit at start-up and other visits during dry and wet season.




Based on the site visits and the report, the Rural Energy Program will determine if the monitoring plan is being effective and all mitigation measures are achieving the desired results. A positive determination can only be verified if the following criteria is true: The facility maintains a minimum ecological flow at all times and does not promote changes in flooding patterns nor adverse impacts to fish population. A negative response will probably trigger one or more of the following actions:


Environmental Impact: Increase Turbidity Downstream of Weir. Operation of the SHP will increase turbidity downstream of the weir due to: 1) Weirs will require cleaning of sediments once a year, releasing soil and debris downstream; and 2) SHPs where impoundments are created or inundation occurs through rehabilitation / construction of a weir (e.g., Lopota) will have some impacts on water quality as the inundation reduces the velocity of the water and causes sedimentation in the reservoir or inundated area. Regular maintenance may have to be more frequent, increasing soil and debris release downstream.

Environmental Mitigation: To reduce the turbidity downstream of weir cause by annual maintenance, the SHP operator will: • Use best management practices to preserve water quality during maintenance activities,

including good housekeeping (e.g. provision of silt traps, stockpiling of soil and debris taken from the weir away from riverbanks, maintaining as much as possible of riparian vegetation, etc.);

• Schedule activities appropriately, planning maintenance activities during dry season to minimize erosion, scheduling the placement of sediment capturing devices and key runoff control measures before major land disturbing activities, (such as clearing and excavation, etc.) to minimize sediment release;

• Use of biodegradable compounds for pipe / tunnel cleaning, wastewater treatment, etc.; and

• Construct adequate bank protection in the catchment area to prevent erosion (replanting and maintenance of vegetation), use sediment trapping devices, and establish and maintain minimum levels of water flow.


Frequency of Monitoring: The Rural Energy Program will review the mitigation measures together with the operator to ensure that they are in place and implemented during weir maintenance. Monitoring will require one visit during weir maintenance throughout the life of the program.




Based on the site visits and the report, the Rural Energy Program will determine if the monitoring plan is being effective and all mitigation measures are achieving the desired results. A positive determination can only be verified if the following criteria are true: The facility does not increase turbidity nor adversely impact water quality during Operation and Maintenance. A negative response will probably trigger one or more of the following actions:


Environmental Impact: Generate Changes in the River Through Altered Channalization. Projects that include major construction of the weir (e.g., Lopota) will have a significant impact on current river geomorphology due to changes in flow regime downstream of the weir.

Environmental Mitigation: To reduce potential changes in flow regime and river geomorphology, the SHP operator will: • Use best management practices to preserve water quality during maintenance activities,

including good housekeeping (e.g. provision of silt traps, stockpiling of soil and debris taken from the weir away from riverbanks, maintaining as much as possible of riparian vegetation, etc.);

• Schedule activities appropriately: planning maintenance activities during dry season to minimize erosion and scheduling the placement of sediment capturing devices and key runoff control measures before major land disturbing activities to minimize sediment release;

• Construct adequate bank protection in the catchment area to prevent erosion (replanting and maintenance of vegetation), extract coarse material from the riverbed, and use sediment trapping devices; and

• Establish and maintain minimum levels of water flow (the amount of water needed to maintain ecological values downstream of diversion structures) and apply bank restoration techniques including planting and seeding.


Frequency of Monitoring: The Rural Energy Program will review the mitigation measures together with the construction firm and will ensure that they are in place and implemented from start-up. The monitoring will require one visit at start-up and other potential visits (once a year) throughout the life of the project to monitor river geomorphology downstream of the weir.



Based on the site visits and the report, the Rural Energy Program will determine if the monitoring plan is being effective and all mitigation measures are achieving the desired results. A positive determination can only be verified if the following criteria are true: The


facility does not generate changes to flow regime downstream of the weir. A negative response will probably trigger one or more of the following actions: • The monitoring plan needs to be reviewed and revised; • The construction firm needs to be supervised more frequently; and / or • The mitigation measures need to be reviewed and revised.

The following table summarizes the environmental impacts and associated mitigating actions for both SHP construction and operation phases.

7.2.2 Natural Gas Distribution Systems The compliance measures or best management practices which apply to small-scale RE and EE projects also apply to construction and rehabilitation of NG systems. Small-scale construction best practices are referred to in the introduction to this chapter and included in Appendix G; they are the starting point for the implementation of mitigation and monitoring plans, and must be in place to ensure that mitigation measures are effective.

7.2.1.1 Construction During construction, the PEA Team identified two significant environmental impacts to water resources. These impacts were related to general construction activities. The mitigation and monitoring plans for significant impacts generated by construction activities are described below.

Environmental Impact: Increased Erosion of River Stream. Construction activities will require excavation, removal and / or movement of soil, gravel or rocks. If these activities are conducted near a riverbank, they will potentially increase erosion of the river stream, which in turn may increase sedimentation of the waterway and high levels of turbidity, and generate changes to the floodplains.

Environmental Mitigation: To minimize erosion of the river stream during construction activities, the construction firm will:

• Avoid using gravel and other construction materials from river banks and / or riverbed;


• If gravel from river bank is used, return topsoil along the river bank and riparian zone to its original location and restore land contours to match the original topography;

• Be aware that in arid areas, occasional rains may create strong water flows in channels. A culvert may not supply adequate capacity for rare high volume events such as flash floods; and



Frequency of Monitoring: The Rural Energy Program will review the mitigation measures together with the construction firm and will ensure that they are in place and implemented from start-up. The monitoring will require one visit at start-up, regular visits (once every two months) to ensure the measures are continued to be implemented, and a final visit after construction is finished to ensure that there are no wastes left at the site and no soil is stockpiled nearby a river.




Based on the site visits and the report, the Rural Energy Program will determine if the monitoring plan is being effective and all mitigation measures are achieving the desired results. A positive determination can only be verified if the following criteria are true: The facility does not contribute to erosion, siltation, changes in natural water flows, and areas of bare soil near a river during and after construction. A negative response will trigger one or more of the following actions:

• The monitoring plan needs to be reviewed and revised; • The construction firm needs to be supervised more frequently; and /or • The mitigation measures need to be reviewed and revised.

Environmental Impact: Contaminate Surface and Ground Water Resources. The pipeline will require anti-corrosion paint, which may contaminate surface and ground waters if not handled and managed correctly. In some cases, pipelines will cross a river through an existing bridge and accidental spills might occur while painting the pipeline.

Environmental Mitigation: To minimize contamination of surface and ground water resources during construction activities, the construction firm will:

• Incorporate cleaner production and / or green technologies (e.g., non-toxic paints); • Have proper storage for paints and solvents capable of containing any potential

release of these liquids when not in use; design a proper treatment and discharge process for paints and solvents;

• Prevent dumping of hazardous materials. Burn waste materials that are not reusable / readily recyclable, do not contain heavy metals and are flammable

• Investigate and use less toxic alternative products; • Determine whether toxic materials are present. If possible, dispose of waste in lined

landfill. Otherwise, explore options for reuse in areas where potential for contamination of surface and groundwater are small;

• Identify the most environmentally sound source of materials within budget • Purchase paint and cleaning solvent during the final phase of the construction to

avoid a long stay in storage; • Place paper or plastic drop cloths underneath sections of the pipe that are being

painted so as to limit release to the environment; • Use secondary containment devices larger in size than the paint containers to store

the paint containers in use and eliminate the risk of soil contamination from spilled paint or solvent; and

• After painting work is completed, all waste material (paint cans, cleaning agents, etc.) shall be sealed in plastic bags and treated according to the relevant Georgian laws.


Frequency of Monitoring: The Rural Energy Program will review the mitigation measures together with the construction firm and will ensure that they are in place and implemented from start-up. The monitoring will require one visit at start-up, regular visits (once every two months) to ensure the measures are continued to be implemented, and a final visit after construction is finished to ensure that there are no painting wastes left at the site.




Based on the site visits and the report, the Rural Energy Program will determine if the monitoring plan is being effective and all mitigation measures are achieving the desired results. A positive determination can only be verified if the following criteria are true: The facility does not contribute to surface and / or ground water contamination during and after construction. A negative response will trigger one or more of the following actions: • The monitoring plan needs to be reviewed and revised; • The construction firm needs to be supervised more frequently; and / or • The mitigation measures need to be reviewed and revised.

7.2.1.2 Operation Mitigation of significant impacts during operation of the NG system depends on both careful design and proper O&M of the system. The PEA Team identified one significant environmental impact to water resources related to extreme / adverse climatic conditions. The mitigation and monitoring plans are described below.

Environmental Impact: Expose Workers and / or Inhabitants to Risk of Injury or Death. Heavy rains in a short period of time might develop into flash floods that could potentially damage the NG pipelines, causing leakages and pose a threat to the community.

Environmental Mitigation: To minimize the potential impact to workers and inhabitants, the NG distributor and will: • Ensure gas pressure regulating valves and safety (shut-off) valves are in place and

working properly; • Conduct training to ensure knowledge of safety issues and procedures in case of a

leakage: • Ensure safety information and procedures are in place and available for anyone in the

community to read; • Ensure all pipeline support structures (when pipe is above ground) are securely attached

to concrete foundations; and • Avoid placing the pipeline near a riverbank or crossing a river. If this can’t be avoided,

try to use existing structures (e.g., bridges) to protect the pipeline from flooding.

Monitoring Plan: The Rural Energy Program will ensure that all mitigation measures are present at start up of operations and develop a simple and effective monitoring plan that will consider the following issues:

Frequency of Monitoring: The Rural Energy Program will review the mitigation measures together with the NG distributor and will ensure that they are in place and implemented from start-up. The monitoring will require one visit at start-up, and other potential visits if flash floods and / or high-intensity floods occur to determine the condition of the infrastructure during the life of the project.

Assignment of Responsibility: The construction firm will be responsible for implementing all the mitigation measures. A designated Rural Energy Program representative trained in


environmental compliance and monitoring will be responsible for supervising the engineering firm and ensuring that all mitigation measures are being implemented.


Based on the site visits and the report, the Rural Energy Program will determine if the monitoring plan is being effective and all mitigation measures are achieving the desired results. A positive determination can only be verified if the following criteria are true: The facility does not expose workers and / or inhabitants to risk of injury or death. A negative response will trigger one or more of the following actions:



7.3 Biological Resources This section presents environmental mitigation and monitoring plan for all significant impacts identified under Section 6.4 – Biological Resources.

7.3.1 Small Hydropower Projects

7.3.1.1 Construction Environmental Impact: Impact to Fish Spawning and Birds Nesting. The scheduling of the construction works is the critical factor influencing the intensity of impacts. Potential impacts from construction by season are as follows: spring (March-April-May) summer (June) fall (September- October-November). If construction activities are scheduled such that they would coincide with fish spawning and bird nesting seasons the impacts would be significant.

Environmental Mitigation: It is preferable to avoid construction during wildlife breeding seasons. For most of fish species breeding season occurs in the fall (September- October-November). The breeding season for nesting birds occurs in the spring (March-April-May) and summer (June).

Monitoring Plan: The Rural Energy Program will ensure that all mitigation measures (seasonal construction limitations) are included in the contract with the construction firm. The Rural Energy Program will develop a simple and effective monitoring plan that will consider the following issues:

Frequency of Monitoring: The Rural Energy Program will review the mitigation measures together with the construction firm and will ensure that the study is conducted prior to project implementation. The monitoring will require regular visits (once every two months) during construction.




Environmental Impact: Reduction in Water Flow. Construction activities of SHPs require temporary diversion of the stream from the weir. Blocking of the stream flow will dry the canal between weir and tailrace discharge, causing significant negative affect on aquatic species population.

Environmental Mitigation:

• Do not block stream flow during construction. It is important to maintain enough flow during spawning and survival between weir and tailrace discharge.

• For temporary stream diversion use concrete forms rather than soil. Using concrete forms will result in less stream sedimentation.



Frequency of Monitoring: The Rural Energy Program will review the mitigation measures together with the construction firm and will ensure that the study is conducted prior to project implementation. The monitoring will require one visit at start-up, regular visits (once every two months) during construction, and a final visit after construction is finished.




Environmental Impact: Construction of New Linear Facilities. Construction of new access roads, walkways or transmission lines which would result in the removal or disturbance of vegetation are not anticipated. The exception is the Pshaveli SHP, where a 10 km transmission line is planned. Since about 1 hectare of the forest would be affected by the construction it would have moderate long-term effect on vegetation, therefore, this impact would be considered significant.


• Further assessment needs to be done in the Pshaveli area in order to determine existence of any rare, threatened or endangered plant species.

• Replant native tree species. , In order to ensure adequate replacement of forested habitat, trees will be replaced at a ratio to be determined by a qualified biologist experienced in reforestation techniques and planning. The biologist developing the reforestation plan will be approved by the Rural Energy Program.




Measures of Progress, Success or Completion: The Rural Energy Program will conduct site visits to each project during the construction phase, and develop brief reports based on those site visits to report and register the status of the mitigation measures. A sample report is included in Appendix F. Any issues or problems found regarding a mitigation measure


(implementation or failure) or conditions at the site in general will be immediately corrected by the construction company under the supervision of the Rural Energy Program.


7.3.1.2 Operation Environmental Impact: River Flow is Reduced. The river flow from the weir to the powerhouse is greatly reduced due to the SHP projects. However, a minimum flow would be released to maintain sustainable fish populations. Not maintaining this minimum flow during the non-rainy dry season would have a significant impact on fish populations.


• Minimum flow will be maintained all year (all seasons) to maintain sustainable fish populations. To achieve minimum flow during the dry season, the power plant may need to be shut down to maintain the minimum stream flow.

• A biologist familiar with the affected fish populations and qualified to determine minimum flow requirements for the affected fish populations will be consulted with to develop seasonal flow requirements to sustain healthy fish populations.


Frequency of Monitoring: The Rural Energy Program will review the mitigation measures together with the construction firm and will ensure that the study is conducted prior to project implementation. The monitoring will require regular visits during dry periods (once every two months).




Environmental Impact: Loss of Fish. The hydroelectric system diverts a portion of the river’s flow through a turbine. Juvenile fish present in the water passing through the turbine (entrainment) may not survive. Both juvenile and potentially some adult fish may not survive impingement against water intake structures and fish screens. According to available literature, there are Red Book species (e.g. Salmo fario) in all of the representative SHP rivers. Therefore, the operation phase of SHP projects is anticipated to result in moderate and potentially significant impacts on juvenile fish at some of SHP sites.



• In order to minimize the impact to sensitive fish populations, effective fish passages for local and migrating fish species, which would include fish ladders and fish bypasses should be added to the design of SHP’s.

• An alternative solution for keeping fish out of hydroelectric power plants (preventing entrainment) is to integrate fish screens at the intake to the canal where water is diverted from a river’s natural course. The mesh in such screens is about 3 mm x 3 mm. It prevents all larger fish and most small fish from being diverted through the turbine (entrainment). The screen will require periodic cleaning of dirt and debris by maintenance personnel to maintain adequate water flow to the turbine.

• A biologist familiar with the potentially affected fish populations and qualified to evaluate the need for one or both of the mitigation requirements above will be consulted with prior to finalizing the design of the SHP’s. The biologist will be approved buy the Rural Energy Program.







7.4 Human Resources This section presents environmental mitigation and monitoring plans for all significant impacts identified under Section 6.5 – Human Resources.

7.4.1 Small Hydropower Projects

7.4.1.1 Construction Environmental Impact: Impact on Local Populations and Settlements from the Presence of Temporary Workers on Site.

Environmental Mitigation: Establish and adhere to construction timetables that minimize disruption to the normal activities at or in the vicinity of the construction area. Coordinate truck and other construction activity to minimize noise, traffic disruption and dust.


Frequency of Monitoring: The Rural Energy Program will review the mitigation measures together with the construction firm. The monitoring will require regular visits (once every two months) during construction.




Environmental Impact: Structural Integrity of the Canal at Machakhela is at Risk. Environmental Mitigation: Prepare a Supplemental Environmental Assessment (SEA) to determine whether and how risks to human populations from flooding and a failed or overwhelmed feeder canal at Machakhela can be mitigated.


Frequency of Monitoring: N/A

Assignment of Responsibility: The Rural Energy Program, together with the construction firm, will be responsible for conducting the SEA and providing a sound assessment of the integrity of the canal.

Measures of Progress, Success or Completion: The Rural Energy Program will complete a SEA focusing on the canal structure at Machakhela.


Environmental Impact: Closure of SHP Might Cause Unemployment Problems. Environmental Mitigation: Develop in consultation with local counterparts and authorities a recruitment plan and explain terms of employment to local population.


Frequency of Monitoring: N/A.

Assignment of Responsibility: The Rural Energy Program will be responsible for developing the recruitment plan and explain the terms to local population.

Measures of Progress, Success or Completion: The Rural Energy Program will develop a recruitment plan together with local counterparts and authorities.

Environmental Impact: Community Can be Affected By Construction Activities. Environmental Mitigation:

• Develop and implement appropriate human health and worker safety measures during construction.

• Develop and implement appropriate public safety measures during construction. Explain safety measures to local population.







7.4.1.2 Operation Environmental Impact: Community Can be Affected by Operation Activities.


• Develop and implement appropriate human health and worker safety measures during operation.

• Develop and implement appropriate public safety measures during operation. Explain safety measures to local population.

• In Machakhela, notify the distribution company of need to undertake proper maintenance of transformers that may be leaking PCB-containing oil.



Assignment of Responsibility: The operator will be responsible for implementing all the mitigation measures. The Rural Energy Program will be responsible for supervising the engineering firm and ensuring that all mitigation measures are being implemented.



7.4.2 Impacts from Natrual Gas Distribution Systems

7.4.2.1 Construction Environmental Impact: Increased Risks of Fire and Explosion and Other Threats to Occupational and Public Safety.


• While constructing the pipeline, it is anticipated that car-mounted mobile welding equipment will be used. To avoid the risk of fire or explosion when welding, certified welder teams will ensure that the equipment is in proper working order and that no risk of fire or explosion is expected. Only certified welder teams will be hired to conduct welding. 3

• In order to mitigate the risk to the health and safety of workers during the implementation of the project appropriate safety training will be delivered to the implementing organization. In addition, safety equipment and security and emergency response plans

3 The mitigation measures here apply language explicitly drawn from prior M&M Plans approved by USAID for NG distribution systems in Likhauri and Kekhijvari, Georgia.


will be used during the implementation. Safety training shall be required for key personnel prior to commencing construction and system start-up.

• For any excavation work, the operating agency shall secure soil stabilization though wooden support structures, thus preventing cave-in. For the stability of the slabs and the pipeline as a whole, pits shall be filled with a gravel, sand and cement mixture.

• To protect the public during construction, areas posing significant public safety risks, such as where pipes are being put into place and welded or where major equipment (e.g., regulating units) are located, will be established as restricted access areas where only authorized personnel are permitted to enter. Proper signage and barricades will be installed.






7.4.2.2 Operation Environmental Impact: Increased Risks of Fire and Explosion and Other Threats to Occupational and Public Safety.


• After the construction is completed and the pipeline is in use delivering gas to the end users, the risk of gas leaks in the pipeline may occur. In order to mitigate the risk of gas leaks, qualified personnel will conduct regular inspections of the pipeline according to procedures to be established in the O&M manual for the facility. Inspections shall include a review of the main pipeline as well as a sampling of household connections.

• In case of accidental damage of the pipeline involving vehicular traffic, immediate repairs shall be undertaken by the operating agency to eliminate the damage, disconnecting the entire system by shutting down the check valve so that no gas enters the pipeline.

• In order to mitigate the risk to the health and safety of workers during the implementation of the project appropriate safety training will be delivered to the implementing organization. In addition, safety equipment and security and emergency response plans will be used during the implementation. Safety trainings shall be required for key personnel prior to commencing construction and system start-up.


• To protect the public during operation, areas posing significant public safety risks, such as where pipes are being put into place and welded or where major equipment (e.g., regulating units) are located, will be established as restricted access areas where only authorized personnel are permitted to enter. Proper signage and barricades will be installed.


Frequency of Monitoring: The Rural Energy Program will review the mitigation measures together with the operator and will ensure that the study is conducted prior to project implementation. The monitoring will require one visit at start-up, regular visits (once every two months) during construction, and a final visit after construction is finished.

Assignment of Responsibility: The NG distributor will be responsible for implementing all the mitigation measures. The Rural Energy Program will be responsible for supervising the engineering firm and ensuring that all mitigation measures are being implemented.




7.5 Cultural Resources This section presents environmental mitigation and monitoring plans for all significant impacts identified under Section 6.6 – Cultural Resources.

7.5.1 Small Hydropower Projects This section presents environmental mitigation and monitoring plans for all significant impacts identified under Section 6.6 – Cultural Resources as they relate to small hydropower projects.

7.5.1.1 Construction Environmental Impact: Historic or Prehistoric Resources Can be Affected by Construction Activities.

Environmental Mitigation: In areas where new ground will be broken, special attention must be given to the possibility of encountering archaeological or paleontological resources. Any such resources encountered will be recorded by a representative of the Ministry of Culture who will be assigned to provide oversight of the construction process. Site evaluation and potential mitigation of impacts to such sites would be addressed between the time of discovery and the start of the next construction activities. If necessary, construction activities will be organized to allow additional archaeological mitigation and / or data recovery.


Frequency of Monitoring: The Rural Energy Program will review the mitigation measures together with the construction firm and will ensure that the study is conducted prior to project implementation. The monitoring will depend on having construction outside the already disturbed area.





8. Environmental Management and Training The Rural Energy Program will develop an Environmental Management Plan (EMP) to manage all environmental aspects related to project implementation. This is key to improving the general knowledge and understanding of the impact mechanisms and the social and environmental changes caused by the project. This section describes the environmental management plan for the Rural Energy Program, focusing on four main aspects of the PEA: Monitoring program, management of contractors, information and communication activities, and training needs.

8.1 Monitoring Program and Management of Contractors To ensure that all pre-defined mitigation and monitoring requirements outlined in the PEA and those additional requirements developed during the course of implementing the mitigation and monitoring plan through environmental compliance are implemented, The Rural Energy Program will develop a simple and effective framework that will incorporate the following key elements: mitigation measures, frequency of monitoring, and assignment of responsibilities. Table 8-1 summarizes the mitigation and monitoring plan requirements for all environmental impacts addressed in the PEA in Sections 6 and 7. The information in Table 8-1 will be further developed for each site, as needed, by additional information collected while conducting the environmental compliance procedures, sepecifically Items 1, 2 and 3, outlined at the beginning of Section 7. The end product will be a living and evolving tracking system to ensure that all mitigation and monitoring and compliance requirements are successfully confirmed, implemented and recorded.

8.1.1 Management of Contractors All construction activities and project implementation will be conducted by local contractors. The Rural Energy Program will ensure that all contractors are aware of and apply the PEA specified best construction and management practices (Appendix G) during construction activities and will oversee the environmental performance of the contractor through regular site visits and a monitoring reports (Appendix F).

Contractor monitoring will be based on a system of indicators and criteria for good environmental and social practices. These indicators and criteria will be defined based on the specific significant impacts of a site. The indicators might differ from project to project: however, typical elements in such a monitoring program are:

• Monitoring of construction performance; • Controlling that best environmental practices and contractual conditions are followed; and • Monitoring the implementation and efficiency of any training plan prescribed for the project.


8.2 Information and Communication Activities The Rural Energy program will develop information and communication plans to present to affected communities so as to ensure participatory attitudes and practices. The Rural Energy Program will work with the communities through a public consultation approach, taking into account gender sensitivity and cultural diversity.

Examples of topics that will be covered by the communication plans include:

• Environmental risks associated with the projects; • Safety information and emergency plans; and • Benefits of the project; etc.

Information will be communicated to interested stakeholders through regular meetings as conducted under the GESI project. Under GESI, community meetings were held on a monthly basis where government officials, community leaders, regional experts and interested community members would meet with project implementers to discuss the program. During such meetings, attendees would be briefed on overall project goals, recent developments, and plans for the near future.

Figure 8-1. Community Meetings Held Under GESI Project


Table 8-1. Monitoring and Mitigation Plan Requirements Environmental

Impact Mitigation Measure Frequency of monitoring Assignment of responsibilities

Geology and Soils – SHPs Some geological hazards might occur during the operation of Pshaveli SHP, Lopota SHP, Kabali SHP and Machakhela SHP

Conduct a geologic study during the project design stage The study needs to be done before project implementation. Then one visit at start-up, regular visits (once every two months) during construction and a final visit after construction is finished.

The construction firm will be responsible for conducting the studies

Water Resources - SHPs Increase turbidity downstream of construction




• Return topsoil along the river bank and riparian ecosystem to its original location, and restore land contours to match the original topography; and

• Enforce engineering requirements regarding drainage / erosion prevention and construction techniques for all construction actions. These will include the provision and maintenance of suitable drainage networks, slope control, compaction or re-vegetation of exposed surfaces and protection of surfaces prone to submersion by water.

One visit at start-up, regular visits (once every two months), and a final visit after construction is finished.

The construction firm will be responsible for implementing all the mitigation measures.

Increase erosion of river stream




• Return topsoil along the river bank and riparian ecosystem to its original location and restore land contours to match the original topography;




Environmental Impact

Mitigation Measure Frequency of monitoring Assignment of responsibilities

• Recover all reusable materials when demolishing existing structures (e.g., damaged weirs);

• Use erosion control methods such as hay bales to prevent runoff;

• Engineering requirements regarding drainage / erosion prevention and construction techniques for all construction actions must be strictly enforced. These will include the provision and maintenance of suitable drainage networks, slope control, compaction or re-vegetation of exposed surfaces and protection of surfaces prone to submersion by water; and

• Minimize use of heavy machinery. Damage to equipment and infrastructure

• Avoid construction during wet season. This might be difficult due to the construction timelines for the SHPs, but construction activities might be scheduled to reduce construction time during this period.

• Design infrastructure so it is raised above flood plain (if possible);

• Design infrastructure to minimize risk (e.g., design with proper grading and drainage);

• Avoid constructing sanitation or other facilities at flood-prone sites and / or near the floodplain; and

• Use material appropriate to the climate.

One visit at start-up and other potential visits if flash floods and / or high-intensity floods occur.


Expose Workers and / or Inhabitants to Risk of Injury or Death

• Design infrastructure so it is raised above flood plain (if possible);

• Conduct studies to ensure infrastructure is not damage and complies with engineering designs;

• Design infrastructure to minimize risk (e.g., design with proper grading and drainage); and

• Use material appropriate to the climate.

One visit at start-up and other potential visits if flash floods and / or high-intensity floods occur.


Reduce conservational value of rivers

• Maintain a minimum flow (minimum ecological flow) in the river sufficient for the river hydrology, water quality, existing fish population and wildlife taking into account seasonal fluctuations in flow levels; and

• Maintain a minimum wetted channel perimeter at all control structures with a constant flow in the river throughout the year.

One visit at start-up and other visits during dry and wet season.

The operator will be responsible for implementing all the mitigation measures.


Environmental Impact

Mitigation Measure Frequency of monitoring Assignment of responsibilities

Increase turbidity downstream of weir

• Use best management practices to preserve water quality during maintenance activities, including good housekeeping (e.g. provision of silt traps, stockpiling of soil and debris taken from the weir away from riverbanks, maintaining as much as possible of riparian vegetation, etc.);

• Schedule activities appropriately, planning maintenance activities during dry season to minimize erosion, scheduling the placement of sediment capturing devices and key runoff control measures before major land disturbing activities, (such as clearing and excavation, etc.) to minimize sediment release;

• Use of biodegradable compounds for pipe / tunnel cleaning, wastewater treatment, etc.; and

• Construct adequate bank protection in the catchment area to prevent erosion (replanting and maintenance of vegetation), use sediment trapping devices, and establish and maintain minimum levels of water flow.

One visit during weir maintenance throughout the life of the program.


Generate changes in the river stream through altered canalization

• Use best management practices to preserve water quality during maintenance activities, including good housekeeping (e.g. provision of silt traps, stockpiling of soil and debris taken from the weir away from riverbanks, maintaining as much as possible of riparian vegetation, etc.);

• Schedule activities appropriately: planning maintenance activities during dry season to minimize erosion and scheduling the placement of sediment capturing devices and key runoff control measures before major land disturbing activities to minimize sediment release;

• Construct adequate bank protection in the catchment area to prevent erosion (replanting and maintenance of vegetation), extract coarse material from the riverbed, and use sediment trapping devices; and

• Establish and maintain minimum levels of water flow (the amount of water needed to maintain ecological values downstream of diversion structures) and apply bank restoration techniques including planting and seeding.

One visit at start-up and other potential visits (once a year) throughout the life of the project.



Water Resources – NG Systems Increased erosion of river stream

• Avoid using gravel and other construction materials from river banks and / or riverbed;


• If gravel from river bank is used, return topsoil along the river bank and riparian zone to its original location and restore land contours to match the original topography;

• Be aware that in arid areas, occasional rains may create strong water flows in channels. A culvert may not supply adequate capacity for rare high volume events such as flash floods; and




Contaminate surface and ground water resources

• Incorporate cleaner production and / or green technologies (e.g., non-toxic paints);

• Have proper storage for paints and solvents capable of containing any potential release of these liquids when not in use; design a proper treatment and discharge process for paints and solvents;

• Prevent dumping of hazardous materials. Burn waste materials that are not reusable / readily recyclable, do not contain heavy metals and are flammable

• Investigate and use less toxic alternative products; • Determine whether toxic materials are present. If possible,

dispose of waste in certified landfill. Otherwise, explore options for reuse in areas where potential for contamination of surface and groundwater are small;

• Identify the most environmentally sound source of materials within budget

• Purchase paint and cleaning solvent during the final phase of the construction to avoid a long stay in storage;

• Place paper or plastic drop cloths underneath sections of the pipe that are being painted so as to limit release to the environment;

• Use secondary containment devices larger in size than the paint containers to store the paint containers in use and eliminate the risk of soil contamination from spilled paint or solvent; and

• After painting work is completed, all waste material (paint cans, cleaning agents, etc.) shall be sealed in plastic bags

The monitoring will require one visit at start-up, regular visits (once every two months) to ensure the measures are continued to be implemented, and a final visit after construction is finished to ensure that there are no painting wastes left at the site.



and treated according to the relevant laws. Biological Resources - SHP Expose workers and / or Inhabitants to risk of injury or death.

• Ensure gas pressure regulating valves and safety (shut-off) valves are in place and working properly;

• Conduct training to ensure knowledge of safety issues and procedures in case of a leakage:

• Ensure safety information and procedures are in place and available for anyone in the community to read;

• Ensure all support posts (when pipe is above ground) are securely attached to concrete foundations; and

• Avoid placing the pipeline near a riverbank or crossing a river. If this can’t be avoided, try to use existing structures (e.g., bridges) to protect the pipeline from flooding.

One visit at start-up, and other potential visits if flash floods and / or high-intensity floods occur.

The natural gas distributor will be responsible for implementing all the mitigation measures.

Construction works might impact wildlife breeding patterns.

• Avoid construction during wildlife breeding seasons. Regular visits (once every two months) during construction.


Impact to aquatic species

• Avoid blocking stream flow during construction. • Maintain enough flow during spawning and survival between

weir and tailrace discharge. • For temporary stream diversion use concrete forms rather

than soil.



Loss of fish. • In order to ensure minimal loss of fish habitat and provide effective fish passage for local and migrating fish species, fish ladders and fish bypasses should be added in the design.

• Another solution for keeping fish out of hydroelectric power plants is to place a screen at the intake to the canal where water is diverted from a river’s natural course. The mesh in such screens is about 3 mm x 3 mm. It prevents all larger fish and most small fish from being diverted to the turbine. A certain amount of the smallest fish inevitably gets through. The screen gets cleaned of dirt and leaves periodically by maintenance personnel to maintain adequate water flow to the turbine.

One visit at start-up, regular visits and a final visit after construction is finished.


The river flow from the weir to the powerhouse is greatly reduced due to the projects.

• Some times (mainly in dry seasons), power plant should be shut down to maintain the minimum stream flow in dry period.

Regular visits during dry periods (once every two months)



Human Resources - SHPs Construction of new accessible roads and walkways

• Further assessment needs to be done in the Pshaveli area in order to determine existence of any rare, threatened or endangered plant species.

• Replant native species tree, in order to assure adequate regeneration of plant species it is important to plant multiple tree for each tree cut.


The Rural Energy Program will be responsible for implementing the measures.

Impact on local populations and settlements from the presence of temporary workers on site

• Establish and adhere to construction timetables that minimize disruption to the normal activities of the construction area. Coordinate truck and other construction activity to minimize noise, traffic disruption and dust.

Regular visits (once every two months) to construction sites


Structural integrity of the canal is at risk • Prepare a Supplemental Environmental Assessment to

determine whether and how risks to human populations from flooding and a failed or overwhelmed feeder canal at Machakhela can be mitigated.

N/A The Rural Energy Program and the construction firm will be responsible for implementing all the mitigation measures.

Closure of SHP might cause unemployment problems

• Develop in consultation with local counterparts and authorities a recruitment plan and explain terms of employment to local population

N/A The Rural Energy Program will be responsible for developing the recruitment plan and explain the terms to local population.

Community can be affected by construction activities.


• Develop and implement appropriate public safety measures during construction. Explain safety measures to local population.



Community can be affected by operation activities.

• Develop and implement appropriate human health and worker safety measures during operation.

• Develop and implement appropriate public safety measures during operation. Explain safety measures to local population.

• In Machakhela, notify the distribution company of need to undertake proper maintenance of transformers that may be leaking PCB-containing oil.




Human Resources – NG Systems

Increase risks of fire and explosion and other threats to occupational and public safety during construction activities.

• Ensure that the equipment is in proper working order and that no risk of fire or explosion is expected.


• In order to mitigate the risk to the health and safety of workers during the implementation of the project appropriate safety training will be delivered to the implementing organization. In addition, safety equipment and security and emergency response plans will be used during the implementation.

• For any excavation work, the operating agency shall secure soil stabilization though wooden support structures, thus preventing cave-in. For the stability of the slabs and the pipeline as a whole, pits shall be filled with a gravel, sand and cement mixture.

• To protect the public during construction, areas posing significant public safety risks, such as where pipes are being put into place and welded or where major equipment (e.g., regulating units) are located, will be established as restricted access areas where only authorized personnel are permitted to enter. Proper signage and barricades will be installed.

One visit at start-up, regular visits (once every two months), one visit after construction is finished, and regular visits during operation (twice a year).

The construction firm and operator will be responsible for implementing all the mitigation measures.


Human Resources – NG Systems

Increase risks of fire and explosion and other threats to occupational and public safety during operation activities.

• Ensure that the equipment is in proper working order and that no risk of fire or explosion is expected.

• Conduct regular inspections of the pipeline according to procedures to be established in the O&M manual for the facility. Inspections shall include a review of the main pipeline as well as a sampling of household connections.


• In order to mitigate the risk to the health and safety of workers during the implementation of the project appropriate safety training will be delivered to the implementing organization. In addition, safety equipment and security and emergency response plans will be used during the implementation.

• To protect the public during operation, areas posing significant public safety risks, such as where pipes are being put into place and welded or where major equipment (e.g., regulating units) are located, will be established as restricted access areas where only authorized personnel are permitted to enter. Proper signage and barricades will be installed.

One visit at start-up, regular visits (once every two months), one visit after construction is finished, and regular visits during operation (twice a year).

The construction firm and operator will be responsible for implementing all the mitigation measures.


Cultural Resources - SHPs

Historical or prehistoric resources could be affected

• Any finds will be recorded by a representative of the Ministry of Culture who will be assigned to provide oversight of the construction process.

• Site evaluation and potential mitigation of impacts to such sites would be addressed between the time of discovery and the start of the next construction activities.

• If necessary, construction activities will be organized to allow additional archaeological mitigation and / or data recovery.

Depends on any findings. The construction firm will be responsible for implementing all the mitigation measures.


8.4 Training and Capacity Building The Rural Energy Program will develop a plan for the management and training of locally based staff, including procedures used to ensure environmental compliance as outlined in the PEA. This will consist of: a) reviewing and applying the environmental screening analysis at future sites in the Program, b) reviewing the adequacy and effectiveness of the Mitigation and Monitoring Plan and make adjustments as necessary, and c) preparing monitoring reports. In addition to Rural Energy staff and specialists from IPPs and contractors, staff from the Ministry of Environment and from various environmental NGOs will be invited to attend trainings.

8.4.1 Types of Training Conduct Environmental Screening Analysis/Environmental Review. Rural Energy staff members were already trained during the preparation of the PEA in conducting the environmental screening analysis. However, further training is needed to ensure that each reviewer fully understands and is able to complete the environmental review requirements for the full range of projects that could be included in the Program.

Course topics: Development of significance criteria, identification and evaluation of environmental impacts, significant vs. not significant impacts, direct vs. indirect impacts, cumulative impacts, understanding and using the environmental screening matrix in a variety of circumstances, and completion of the environmental review prior to project construction.

Duration of training: 5 days, including field visit

Potential participants: Rural Energy Program staff

Assess Adequacy and Effectiveness of the Mitigation and Monitoring Plan. Local staff will be trained to assess the adequacy and effectiveness of the pre-defined Mitigation and Monitoring Plans in the PEA. This training is key to achieving an understanding of the effect of mitigation measures on potential impacts and evaluating potential changes if they are deemed not effective.

Course topics: Understanding an environmental baseline, evaluation of mitigation measures, viewing the environmental baseline in the context of a proposed project and effective mitigation measures, measurement parameters, etc.

Duration of training: 3 days, including field visit


Prepare Monitoring Reports. Local staff will be trained in effective observational techniques, recording the correct information and preparing monitoring reports (Appendix F).

Course topics: Evaluating the impact of mitigation measures, how to prepare the monitoring report.

Duration of training: 0.5 day


Best Practices for Small-Scale Construction and Other Activities. Local staff will be trained in understanding and implementing best practices for small-scale construction and other project activities. This will include training in the interaction and management of construction contractors including effective communications.

Course topics: Best practices for small-scale construction, “green” design, “green engineering”, time management in engineering projects, etc.

Duration of training: 2 days

Potential participants: Rural Energy Program staff, local contractors


Other potential training topics to be developed by the Rural Energy Program include developing emergency response plans, the identification of the need for and preparation of Supplemental Environmental Assessments.

8.4.2 Training Methods In general, training will be conducted through workshops and on-the-job-training. Workshops are best suited for well-defined and limited topics such as presentation of environmental guidelines and regulations and will be limited in duration (2-3 days) and in the number of participants. On-the-job training will be used in cases where experienced staff, national and international, can act as coaches and trainers in connection with more process-oriented tasks (e.g., appropriate environmental management methods and monitoring procedures).


Appendix A – Project Attributes Matrix – SHP and NG SHP - Significant Attributes Matrix

Name of River Abhesi Dzama Kabali Kakhareti Lopota Machakhela Pshaveli SHP is currently working Yes - - - - Yes - SHP is not working, but it can be rehabilitated - Yes Yes Yes Yes - Yes

Installation year 1928 1945 1953 1957 2000 1956 2006 Start-up year 1928 1945 1953 1957 2006 1956 2006 Installed capacity (kW) 1,750 240 1,500 2,400 2,000 1,600 500 Last functional year - 1968 2001 2001 2006 - - Generating capacity (kW), average 1700 - - - - 1500 -

Reason for rehabilitation/not working

Aged and deteriorated civil

works and equipment


works and equipment


works and equipment


works and equipment


works and equipment


works and equipment

Construction over existing

irrigation channel

Population served 11,900 1,480 10,500 16,800 14,000 10,500 3,500 Households served 3,400 480 3,000 4,800 4,000 3,000 1,000 Villages served 8.5 1 7.5 12 10 7.5 2 Distance to community from powerhouse 1 km 0.5 km 2 km 100 m 1.5 km 0.3 km 0.7 km

Distance to community from water diversion 1.5 km 0.5 km 3.5 km 4 km 2.2 km 2.5 km 1 km

Population growth in nearby/served villages (annual)

NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Is there a grid available for distribution? - Yes Yes Yes Yes - Yes

Nature of grid 10 kV and 35 kV 10 kV 10 kV 10 kV 10 kV 10 kV and 35 kV 10 kV Potential clients within the SHP area of influence that are not currently connected to the grid

Nearby communities

and small enterprises

Villages Nergeti, Sanebeli, Kekhijvari

Nearby villages

Nearby communities and

small businesses

Wineries and several small businesses

Nearby communities and small enterprises

Villages Pshaveli and Lechuri and wood processing

plant Average river flow (m3/s) 8.21 3.2 2.5 5 4 15 12


SHP - Significant Attributes Matrix Name of River Abhesi Dzama Kabali Kakhareti Lopota Machakhela Pshaveli - Maximum monthly

average 8.8. 9.36 6 10 8.15 35 8.1

- Minimum monthly average 4.3. 1.37 0.9 3 1.85 9 2.97

Is the river flow the same as before, when the SHP was operating?

- Yes Yes Yes Yes - Yes

Extraction/diversion of water, average (m3/s) 3.8 1.5 2.25 2.0 3.5 6.5 4.6

- Maximum monthly average 4.5 2.5 5.0 4.0 6.0 9.0 3.5

- Minimum monthly average 3.4 1.0 0.75 1.0 1.5 3.5 1.03

% of diversion, average 46% 47% 90% 40% 88% 43% 38% - Maximum monthly

average 40% 27% 83% 40% 74% 26% 43%

- Minimum monthly average 79% 73% 83% 33% 81% 39% 35%

Diversion of water for other practices (agricultural, industrial, etc.)

- Irrigation No Irrigation Irrigation - Irrigation

Proximity to environmental resources River and forest River and forest River and forest River and forest River and quarry River and forest River and forest

Proximity to cultural resources NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Cost of Rehabilitation ($) 600,000.00 250,000.00 350,000.00 300,000.00 300,000.00 600,000.00 450,000.00 Ownership Private Private Private Private Private

Surrounding Land Use Village Abhesi Village Vedreba State lands Village Kakhareti Ceramic

manufacturing and agriculture

Village Ked-kedi Village Pshaveli


NG Systems - Significant Attributes Matrix

Name of Village Kalauri Muganlo Khidistavi Rehab/expansion/new construction of NG pipe Rehabilitation Expansion New construction Installation year 1992 - 2006 Underground or above ground Above ground Above ground Underground Depth of trench NA NA 1 m Diameter of pipe (mm) 150 and 100 100 and 76 150 and 100 Length of pipe (km) 10 km 15 km 20 km Types of fixtures and equipment Steel pipes Gas valves Plastic pipes and gas valvesNG flow Right of way (construction) Yes Yes No Right of way (operation) Yes Yes No

Reason for rehabilitation Deterioration (corrosion, rust) of the pipeline NA NA

Villages served 3 2 large communities in one village 6

Households served 1900 1000 800 Population served 5200 3500 3500 Distance to community Within the community Within the community 7 km

Surrounding Land Use Agriculture, residential and state land Agriculture and residential Agriculture, residential and

state land Disturbance of environmentally sensitive area No No No Soil type ? ? ? Proximity to environmental resources No No River Proximity to cultural resources No No No Cost of Rehabilitation USD USD 28,000.00 USD 250,000.00 USD 300,000.00 Ownership Private Sartichalagazi CBO


Appendix B – Summary Environmental Screening Matrix

Project Name Abhesi Dzama Kabali Kakhareti Lopota Machakhela Pshaveli

1) General Information

Type of Project Rehabilitation

Rehabilitation

Rehabilitation

Rehabilitation

Rehabilitation

Rehabilitation

New

Location (region /district)

Region -Samegrelo District - Martvili

Region - Shida Kartly

District - Kareli Village -Kekhijvari

Region - Kakheti

Region - Samtskhe-Javakheti

District - Adigeni

Region - Kakheti District -Telavi

Region - Adjara District -Khelvachauri

Region - Kakheti District - Telavi

Ownership Private (Abhesi Electro)

State-owned but being privatized

Private (Giorgi Bibiluri) Private Private (L.T.D.

Energia) Private (Bakuri) N/A

Surrounding Present Land Use

• Agriculture • Residential • Forest • Institutional

• Agriculture • Residential

• Agriculture • Forest • State lands

• Agriculture • Residential • Industrial

• Agriculture • Forest • Commercial

• Agriculture • Residential • Tourism • Forest • Institutional

• Agriculture • Residential • Industrial

Installed Capacity (kW) 1750 240 1500 2400 2000 1600 500

Project Cost (USD) $600,000 $250,000 $350,000 $300,000 $300,000 $600,000 $450,000



2) General Construction Activities

Is there an impact because of or to: Co O&M Co O&M Co O&M Co O&M Co O&M Co O&M Co O&M

Construction/rehabilitation of structures and buildings? Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N

Construction/rehabilitation of access roads? N N N N N N N N N N N N N N

Construction/rehabilitation of transmission lines? N N Y N N N N N N N N N Y N

Temporary sites used for construction or housing of construction workers? Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N

Significant risk associated with waste transport? N N N N N N N N N N N N N N

Inadequate waste disposal facilities? Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N

Include grading, trenching, or excavation > 1.0 hectares N N N N N N N N N N N N N N

Conducted near geologic hazards (faults, landslides, liquefaction, un-engineered fill, etc)?

N N N N N N N N N N N Y N N



Require offsite overburden/waste disposal or borrow pits >1.0 ton? N N N N N N N N N N N N N N

Cause loss of high quality farmlands > 10 hectares N N N N N N N N N N N N N N

Require the use of dangerous/hazardous substances ( e.g. oil, lubricants, chemicals; pls. Specify)?

Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Require an oil/lubricants collection and disposal system? Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N

Increase vehicle trips > 20% or cause substantial congestion? Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N

Cause or contribute to safety hazards? Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Inadequate access or emergency access for anticipated volume of people or traffic? N N N N N N N N N N N N N N

Produce solid wastes during construction or operation or decommissioning? Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N

Involve actions that will cause physical changes in the locality (topography, land use, changes in water bodies, etc)?




3) Geology and Soils


Earthquakes, subsidence, landslides or erosion? N N N N N N N N N N N Y N N

Movement of soil? Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N

Rates of erosion or siltation by wind or water? N N N N N N N N N Y N N N N

Management of excess soil or spoil material (from mining)? N N N N N N N N N N N N N N

Physical degradation of the local environment? N N Y N N N N N N N N N Y Y

4) Water Resources


Risks of contamination of land or water from releases of pollutants onto the ground or into sewers, surface waters, groundwater, coastal waters or the sea?

Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y Y



Run-off as a result of the hardening of surfaces, or loss of the sponge effect of vegetation?

N N N N N N N N N N N N N N

Flooding or extreme or adverse climatic conditions? Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N N Y Y N N

Ability to absorb run-off? N N N N N N N N N Y N Y N N

Changes to floodplains? N N N N N N N N Y Y N N N N

Quantity of surface water, groundwater or public water supplies? N Y N Y N N N Y N Y N Y N N

Threats to hydrological functioning through existing or altered water extraction? N N N N N N N N N Y N N N N

Withdrawals from or discharges to surface or ground water? N Y N Y N N N Y N Y N Y N N

Threats through existing or altered impoundment construction? Y Y Y Y N N Y Y N N N N N Y

Conservational or recreational value of rivers, streams, lakes, wetlands, dams or islands?

N Y N Y N N N Y N N N Y N N



Threats through existing or altered pollution? Y Y Y Y N N Y Y N N N N N Y

Threats through existing or altered turbidity? Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y N N N Y

Threats through existing or altered agricultural run-off? N N N N N N N N N N N N N N

Threats through existing or altered chemical processes or nutrient balances? N N N N N N N N N N N N N N

Threats through existing or altered changes in sediment flows and siltation rates? Y Y Y Y N N Y Y N Y N N Y Y

Changes through existing or altered canalization? N N N N N Y N N N Y N N N N

River, stream or lake onsite or within 30 meters of construction? Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Excavation or place of fill, removing gravel from a river, stream or lake? Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Onsite storage of liquid fuels or hazardous materials in bulk quantities? N N N N N N N N N N N N N N



Decreased water flow that may change the flooding regime, resulting in the destruction of wetlands?


Decrease in downstream water flow that may affect downstream users (human, fisheries, and wildlife)?

N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y

5) Biological Resources


Important, high quality or scarce resources that could be affected by the project? Y Y N Y N Y N N N N N Y N N

Located in a Protected Area or Wildlife Corridor? N N N N N N N N N N N N N N

Inundate or remove wetland habitats? N N N N N N N N N N N N N N

Survival of rare or endangered plant species? N N N N N N N N N N N N N N

Diversity of plant communities? N N N N N N N N N N N N N N

Vegetation communities of conservation or scientific importance? N N N N N N N N N N N N N N



Natural replenishment of existing species? N Y N Y N Y N Y N N N Y N N

Firewood collection? N N N N N N N N N N N N N N

Overexploitation of biological resources? N N N N N N N N N N N N N N

Survival of rare or endangered animals? Y Y N Y N Y N N N N N Y N N

Diversity of animal communities? N N N N N N N N N N N N N N

Natural migration of species? N N N Y N Y N N N Y N Y N N

Introduction of alien species? N Y N N N N N N N N N N N N

Loss of native species or genetic diversity? N N N N N N N N N N N N N N

Vegetation removal or construction in wetlands or riparian areas > 1.0 hectare? N N N N N N N N N N N N N N

Use of pesticides/rodenticides, insecticides, or herbicides > 1.0 hectare? N N N N N N N N N N N N N N

Construction in or adjacent to a designated wildlife refuge? N N N N N N N N N N N N N N






N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N N

Re-entry pipe cause increased scouring of stream bank where water is returned to the stream?


Flora and/or fauna of ecological or commercial significance to be found? N N N N N N N N N N N Y N N

6) Socioeconomic Issues


Existing settlements in the vicinity of the proposed project? Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Existing land uses on or around the project that could be affected by the project? N N N N N N N N N N N N Y Y

Areas on or around the location of the project that are already subject to pollution or environmental damage?




Permanent or temporary change in land use, land cover or topography including increases in intensity of land use?

N N N N N N N N N N N N Y Y

Social infrastructure located in or near the project area (e.g., schools, health centers/clinics, places of worship, others)?

N N N Y N N N N N N N N N N

Be affected by natural disasters causing environmental damage (e.g. floods, earthquakes, landslide, etc)?

N N N N N Y N N N N N Y N N

Social acceptability of the project (community, government, non-governmental organizations)?

N N Y Y N N Y Y Y Y Y Y N N

Visual and odor effects of waste sites? N N N N N N N N N N N N N N

Risk to the community and the local environment should the facility break down?


Potential conflict with adjacent land uses? N N N N N N N N N N N N N N

Non-compliance with existing codes, plans, permits or design factors? N N N N N N N N N N N N N N

Construction in national park or designated recreational area? N N N N N N N N N N N N N N



Relocation of >10 individuals for +6 months? N N N N N N N N N N N N N N

Interrupt necessary utility or municipal service > 10 individuals for + 6 months? N N N N N N N N N N N N N N

Loss or inefficient use of mineral or non-renewable resources? N N N N N N N N N N N N N N

Noise levels > 5 decibels for + 3 months? N N N N N N N N N N N N N N

Adverse visual impact when compared to the surrounding natural landscape? N N Y N N N N N N N N N Y N

Affect future land uses on or around the location? N N N N N N N N N N N N N N

Are there any areas on or around the location that are densely populated or built-up, which could be affected by the project?


Highly visible to many people? N N N N N N N N N N N N N N

Lead to pressure for consequential project that could have significant impact on the environment (e.g. more housing, new roads, new supporting industries or utilities, etc)?




Cumulative effects due to proximity to other existing or planned projects with similar effects?

N N N Y N N N N N N N N N N

Social changes, for example, in demography, traditional lifestyles, and employment?


7) Cultural Issues


Prehistoric, historic, or paleontological resources within 30 meters of construction? N N N N N N N N N N N N N N

Unique cultural or ethnic values at the site? N N N N N N N N N N N N N N

8) Public Health issues

Will the project affect: Co O&M Co O&M Co O&M Co O&M Co O&M Co O&M Co O&M

human or community health or welfare? Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

The quality or toxicity of air, water, foodstuffs and other products consumed by humans?




Morbidity or mortality of individuals, communities or populations by exposure to pollution?


Occurrence or distribution of disease vectors including insects? N N N Y N N N N N Y N Y N Y

Vulnerability of individuals, communities or populations to disease? N N N Y N N N N N Y N Y N Y

Individuals’ sense of personal security? Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N

Community cohesion and identity? N N N Y N N N N N N N N N N

Cultural identity and associations? N N N N N N N N N N N N N N

Minority rights? N N N N N N N N N N N N N N

Housing conditions? N N N N N N N N N N N N N N

Employment and quality of employment? Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Economic conditions? Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Social institutions? Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y



Cause accidents that could affect human health or the environment? Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

- From explosions, spillages, fires etc? Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

- From storage, handling, use or production of hazardous or toxic substances? Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Be affected by natural disasters causing environmental damage (e.g. floods, earthquakes, landslides, etc)?

N N N N N N N N N N N Y N N

Vulnerable groups of people who could be affected by the project (e.g. hospital patients, the elderly)?


9) Air Quality


Onsite air pollutant emissions? Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N

Violation of applicable air pollutant emissions or ambient concentration standards?


Vehicle traffic during construction or operation? Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N



Demolition or blasting for construction? N N N N N N N N N N N N N N

Odor during construction or operation? N N N N N N N N N N N N N N

Alteration of microclimate? N N N N N N N N N N N N N N

Release pollutants or any hazardous, toxic or noxious substances to air? Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N

- Emissions from combustion of fossil fuels from stationary or mobile sources? Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N

- Emissions from materials handling including storage or transport? N N N N N N N N N N N N N N

- Emissions from construction activities including plant and equipment? Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N

- Dust or odors from handling of materials including construction materials, sewage and waste?

Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N

- Emissions from burning of waste in open air (e.g. slash material, construction debris)?


10) Noise and Vibration




Noise and vibration or release of light, heat energy or electromagnetic radiation? Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

- From operation of equipment (e.g. engines, ventilation plant, crushers)? Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

- From construction or demolition? Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N

- From blasting or piling? N N N N N N N N N N N N N N

- From construction or operational traffic? Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N

- From sources of electromagnetic radiation? N N N N N N N N N N N N N N


Appendix C – Additional Maps C-1 ABHESI SHP TOPOGRAHIC MAP

C-2 DZAMA SHP TOPOGRAHIC MAP


C-3 KABALI SHP TOPOGRAHIC MAP

C-4 KALAURI NG TOPOGRAHIC MAP


C-5 KAKHARETI SHP TOPOGRAHIC MAP

C-6 KHIDISTAVI NG TOPOGRAHIC MAP


C-7 LOPOTA SHP TOPOGRAHIC MAP

C-8 MACHAKHELA SHP TOPOGRAHIC MAP


C-9 OKAMI SHP TOPOGRAHIC MAP

C-10 PSHAVELI SHP TOPOGRAHIC MAP


C-11 SARTICHALA NG TOPOGRAHIC MAP

Programmatic Environmental Assessment: Rural Energy Sector Development in Georgia


Appendix D – Public Consultation – Organizations Consulted and Interviews Conducted


Appendix D – Continued


Appendix E – Scoping Statement

Rural Energy Program

Cooperative agreement No. 114-A-00-05-00106-00

Scoping Statement for a Programmatic Environmental Assessment of the Rural

Energy Program in Georgia

Submitted to the

U.S. Agency for International Development

USAID / Caucasus / Tbilisi


1. Introduction and Rationale for a PEA USAID’s environmental regulations (22 Code of Federal Regulations, CFR 216), commonly known as Reg. 216, establish the conditions and procedures for the environmental review of the activities funded with Agency resources. These regulations also define classes of actions that have been generally determined to have a significant effect on the environment [216.2 (d)] and for which an environmental assessment is required. The Rural Energy Program (Rural Energy) is a USAID/Caucasus/Georgia-funded program and, as such, falls under Reg. 216.

Since the mid-nineties, USAID/Caucasus/Georgia has been financing activities related to rural RE and EE projects (Task Order 15, Task Order 820 and the Georgia Energy Security Initiative) to help address the energy crisis in Georgia. Georgia has a large number of rural communities with poor energy supply. In 2004, most rural communities received less than three hours of grid-based electricity per day and many have no NG supply. Many rural businesses and households depend on expensive and environmentally unfriendly generators for electricity, illegally harvested fuel wood for heat, or simply go without.

The USAID/Caucasus/Georgia-funded Georgia Energy Security Initiative project, the Rural Energy Program’s predecessor, has been working in Georgia to develop a model for rural energy generation, distribution, and management. An environmental review document (checklist) and M&M Plans were developed for rural NG pipeline extension projects and small hydropower plant rehabilitation projects and approved by the BEO.

In 2005, USAID/Caucasus/Georgia Energy Strategic Objective Team, based on the potential and promise of the activities in Georgia, proposed an expansion of the rural energy activities as part of a new Rural Energy Program Cooperative Agreement. Under the Rural Energy Program, up to 40 communities are to receive technical assistance and grant finance for the support of small hydropower rehabilitation / construction and / or NG extension projects, small-scale RE and EE projects, and the development of IRMPs. The issue of the need for an environmental assessment for each project, especially in the light of the lengthy procedures and ultimate determination for previous projects, prompted the Mission to determine that this series of very similar activities might be dealt with under the modality foreseen in Reg. 216 known as Programmatic Environmental Assessment [216.6 (d)].

As defined in Reg. 216, the PEA methodology was seen as being possibly appropriate to: 1) assess the environmental effects of a number of similar actions and their cumulative environmental impact in a given country or geographic area; 2) when environmental impacts are generic or common to a class of agency actions; or 3) other activities that are not country specific.

On the basis of the preliminary planning for further rural energy activities under the Rural Energy Program and the results of the Initial Environmental Examination for the target projects, a PEA was considered to be the most efficient approach for environmental clearance under the Rural Energy Program.

Therefore, following the procedures specified in Reg. 216, this document constitutes a Scoping Statement (SS) [216.3 (a) (4)] as required for all environmental assessments. At the request of the USAID/Caucasus/Georgia Mission, a scoping process was carried out by a team of specialists working in Georgia and consisted of an in-depth review of pertinent reference materials, field visits to a sampling of rural energy sites, and consultations with government of Georgia officials, community members in villages adjacent to the energy projects and mission staff. This SS will be submitted to the Europe and Eurasia Bureau Environment Officer for review and approval as per the specifications of Reg. 216 [216.3 (a) (4) (ii)].

1.1 Purpose of the PEA This PEA will have multiple objectives:


- Facilitate and encourage the identification and understanding of environmental issues early in the planning cycle for rural energy projects in previously identified IPP sites and future target sites; design environmental improvements into these activities, therefore preventing significant environmental impacts before major decisions are made.

- Help minimize or eliminate environmentally unsound investment alternatives at an early stage, thus reducing overall adverse environmental impacts, while also eliminating the need for project-specific environmental assessments for all these alternatives.

- Help to consider cumulative impacts of multiple ongoing and planned investments within the small hydroelectric power or NG sectors.

- Advance an understanding of rural energy construction projects by developing a document that will be useful to USAID/Caucasus/Georgia, the Government of Georgia, contractor personnel and others interested in working with these types of development investments, for determining the conditions under which they can be practiced effectively and efficiently and with assurances related to their sustainability and lack of adverse environmental impacts.

- Facilitate the ability of the USAID/Caucasus/Georgia Mission and its government partners and implementing agents to comply with the requirements of Reg. 216 as they apply to rural energy projects and natural resource conservation grants.

- Provide an opportunity to consider alternative plans, strategies or project types, taking into account environmental and social costs that are often ignored in least-cost project planning.

- Allow for comprehensive planning of general sector-wide mitigation, management, and monitoring measures under an Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan, and the identification of broad institutional, resource, and technological needs at an early stage.

2. Brief Description of Program

2.1 PEA in the Context of the USAID/Caucasus/Georgia Mission Strategic Plan The objectives of the Rural Energy Program are (a) increased supply of reliable, efficiently produced energy in rural areas (both grid connected and off-grid); (b) improved management of local energy production; (c) improved in-country capacity in rural energy and alternative energy applications; and (d) improved capacity to utilize, manage and protect the local energy and natural resource base. To accomplish these objectives, the program will provide a comprehensive array of activities aimed at addressing the rural energy crisis in Georgia. It will (a) assist villages to rehabilitate and manage energy generation facilities; (b) work with local institutions and entrepreneurs to develop and utilize other sustainable, alternative energy solutions (such as biomass and solar power to support local economic growth); (c) build local capacity in rural renewable and energy efficient technologies through promoting the use of more efficient applications; d) develop local capacity in sustainable energy systems development by establishing a Georgia-based entity similar to RE Project Support Offices (REPSOs); and (e) develop village-oriented natural resource management plans to better utilize and protect the local energy resource base.

The activities being assessed by this PEA include primarily the rehabilitation of existing rural energy facilities, the establishment of small-scale RE and / or EE projects and the implementation of integrated resource management grants. RE and EE-related activities were started under Task Order 15 and continued under Task Order 820 and the Georgia Energy Security Initiative. This PEA is aimed at corroborating the sustainability of the activities foreseen under this component of the project and is a key step towards guaranteeing that the foreseen results, by definition intended to be “sustainable,” can be achieved.

The four objectives of the Rural Energy Program and their associated activities are outlined briefly below. A summary table showing the program objectives and expected outputs follows these descriptions.


2.1.1 Objective #1: Increased Energy Supply Where appropriate, the Rural Energy Program will provide technical assistance to help villages start, manage, operate and maintain energy generation companies – Individual Power Providers (IPPs) - that can provide power directly to the villages. Based on technical and financial feasibility analyses already completed (under USAID/Caucasus/Georgia’s GESI project), villages interested in participating in the project will receive organizational assistance to develop a local power generation facility. Project TA will assist counterparts in planning for and managing energy production facilities on a commercial basis. All energy production facilities must be privately owned to receive project assistance. As needed, USAID/Caucasus/Georgia-funded TA will help villages verify asset valuations and work with the villages and the Ministry of Economic Development to facilitate the privatization process. Project funds will assist in the rehabilitation or construction of up to 40 IPP energy facilities (small-scale hydroelectric plants and community NG distribution systems).

Detailed business and operational management plans will be developed for each village IPP. For all villages, as well as local entrepreneurs interested in developing alternative energy services, the program will provide assistance to perform necessary technical and financial feasibility studies, including resource assessments and options analyses on distributed generation, cogeneration and other innovative energy solutions. As part of the technical analyses (engineering design and feasibility study prior to project implementation), the program will evaluate the appropriateness of the proposed siting of the facility for both rehabilitation and new construction projects. As a result, the program will avoid implementing projects with critical engineering or environmental flaws that might affect the performance of the project (e.g., power generated), integrity of the infrastructure, extremely sensitive habitats, or critical biological resources.

In some cases the program will work to assist the IPPs in the negotiation of purchased power agreements with local electricity distribution companies (LEDCs). Such an agreement would assure the new IPP of a market and guaranteed income stream from its power production. Under such an arrangement, LEDC will purchase power from an IPP and then sell the power back to the end users in the village. Other institutional arrangement for power purchases may be possible depending on potential changes in Government of Georgia policy and law.

The Rural Energy Program will help with the financing of energy facilities and services through a phased process. The first step will be to help the village or individual entrepreneur develop a business plan, including a sensitivity analysis, cost / benefit analysis, a free cash flow statement, and a financing structure for each local power project. The second step will be to secure the maximum amount of local resources for the investment. Thirdly, the Rural Energy Program will help to (a) identify possible credit opportunities; (b) provide a full range of financial planning services; and (c) prepare credit applications for financing institution identified (e.g. local commercial banks, other donors programs, e.g. EBRD financing mechanism).

The program will assist with the planning for and utilization of various power generation plants, most of which are connected to the national grid. Several hydro facilities with potential to increase power supplies have already been identified. In some cases, assistance will be provided to “off-grid” businesses where biogas and solar energy will be introduced, if technically and financially feasible. Project TA will help entrepreneurs with the required pre-installation analyses to determine the viability of alternative energy solutions, as well as the technical aspects associated with installation and use.


2.1.2 Objective #2: Improved management of local energy production The Rural Energy Program will increase the social and economic benefit of rehabilitating hydropower plants, extending NG pipelines, and implementing other energy production projects. The program will work to make these benefits economically, socially and environmentally sustainable over the long term by building the capacity of IPP owners to manage their assets and the potential revenues that may be realized. This objective may entail providing utility management training, providing business development services and assisting communities with the development of operational and management plans.

2.1.3 Objective #3: Improved in-country capacity in rural energy and alternative energy applications Although the above interventions involve improvements in efficiency, they are primarily directed toward increasing supply. Rural Energy will also work to introduce and promote the use of more efficient technologies such as energy efficient stoves and solar devices, will develop more efficient fuel wood production and management programs, and will strengthen local capacity in rural energy, RE and EE. This component of the project will utilize a small grants fund (with cost sharing requirements) to promote the installation of energy efficient technologies in facilities such as schools, clinics, and cultural buildings and the adoption of RE technologies. Villages and local governments will be instrumental in planning for these activities, including the selection of facilities for the demonstrations. The program will provide assistance with selecting appropriate technologies and calculating costs and benefits.

In addition, in order to strengthen in-country capacity in rural energy, RE and EE, the Rural Energy Program may establish a Georgia-based entity (e.g. RE Project Support Office – REPSO). The fundamental objective of this entity will be to operate as an independent entity promoting RE and EE in Georgia (providing both technical and financing-related services) and sustaining its operations through earnings from stakeholders such as GOG, international organizations, rural enterprises, etc. The REPSO will increase the sustainability of the entire Rural Energy Program.

2.1.4 Objective #4: Improved capacity to utilize and protect the local energy resource base Each village participating in the development of RE and EE services will receive technical assistance to develop an IRMP related to the production of energy supplies, as well as for conservation and protection of fuel wood resources. To help promote sustainability, villages need to develop plans to manage resources used for energy generation (rivers, canals, agricultural wastes, and wood). Village awareness and education programs focusing on options to mitigate negative environmental consequences, conserve resources through reforestation, soil conversation, and watershed protection will be conducted to reinforce the principles in the environmental plans. With the exception of limited assistance in forest resource management associated with power production, the project is not envisioned to directly finance the implementation of any activities emanating from these integrated resource management plans.

The Rural Energy Program will actively contribute to the Mission’s goal of creating a sustainable energy system through increased diversified, RE supply and increased efficiency in the energy sector (Strategic Objective 1.51 “A foundation for a more sustainable energy system”). Since the availability of affordable energy is a critical element of economic growth, the Rural Energy Program will complement and help further other Mission objectives, such as the rebuilding of essential services and the restoration of jobs and income.

The realization of the results foreseen under this strategic objective involves achievements along the lines of two intermediate results:

- Reliable supplies energy increased (IR 1.51.2)


- Increased efficiency in energy sector (IR 1.51.3)

Although this PEA is being carried out primarily to comply with the requirements of Reg. 216, the Scoping Team would like to reiterate its conviction that the focus of the PEA will fit well with the performance based criterion adopted by USAID/Caucasus/Georgia as its primary measures for continuing support to the program and its energy activities. Accordingly, this PEA must be designed from a broader perspective and with a focus on results and not just on the completion of planned activities. The quantitative measures of achievement for the rehabilitation of rural energy facilities – up to 40 facilities throughout Georgia managed according to a sustainable management plan - is an SO level indicator, reaching the target will only be achieved if the full array of conditions for viable IPP management (embracing institutional capabilities, increased productivity, enterprise development and the policy environment—the four focal areas for the intermediate results) are also achieved. Thus, while this PEA is intended to demonstrate that sound design and effective implementation of management of IPPs will avoid negative environmental impacts, the premise that this will happen is related to all four of the intermediate results for the SO and will be self-reinforcing.

2.1.5 Program Objectives and Expected Outputs The activities briefly described above are expected to result in a number of important outputs, or results, from the Program. These outputs and their associated objectives are summarized in the following table.

Table 1: Summary of Program Objectives and Expected Outputs

Objective Outputs

1 Increased Energy Supply - Credit mechanism- Financing- Technical designs (40)- Operation/maintenance plans (40)- Energy projects constructed (40)

2 - IPPs trained in technical/financial management.- Operational/Management plans (40)

3 - Renewable energy projects implemented (70+)- Energy efficiency projects implemented (130+)- Community capacity strengthened (40+)- GEPSO established

4 - IRMPs developed (40 watersheds)- Grants for improved fuel wood management, reforestation and watershed restoration (40)- Improved baseline data: forests/watersheds- Enhanced capacity (Tbilisi State University and CBOs/NGOs)

Improved In-country Capacity in Rural Energy and Alternative Energy Applications

Improved Management of Local Energy Production

Improved Capacity to Utilize and Protect the Local Energy Resource Base


2.2 Relationship of the PEA with Government of Georgia Programs Various ministries, including the Ministry of Fuel and Energy (MOFE), Ministry of Environmental Protection and Natural Resource Management (MOEPNRM) and Ministry of Economic Development (MOED), are working in concert to improve the environment in which rural energy activities take place and improve environmental stewardship in Georgia. The MOFE is currently working to liberalize the regulatory environment under which rural energy facilities (specifically small hydropower facilities under 10 MW) are constructed and operated. In addition, both the MOEPNRM and the MOED are working to reform the business climate under which rural energy companies operate. Lastly, the MOFE and MOED have taken steps to privatize energy-related assets including small-scale hydropower facilities.

2.3 Synopsis of USAID/Caucasus/Georgia-funded Rural Energy Activities The PEA for which this SS is being prepared will address all foreseen activities in construction of rural energy facilities, establishment of small-scale RE and EE pilot projects, and completion of natural resource management plans to be undertaken under the aegis of the USAID/Caucasus/Georgia-funded Rural Energy Program in Georgia (described above). The intention is to replicate and improve upon activities implemented under previous USAID/Caucasus/Georgia projects including Task Order 15, Task Order 820, and the GESI project.

A majority of USAID/Caucasus/Georgia’s previous work has focused on establishing small-scale pilot projects with grant financing and providing training and capacity building to Georgian individuals and organizations operating in this field. Task Order 15, implemented from 1999 to 2001, provided EE training and technical assistance to technical specialists and financed the implementation of 44 small-scale EE projects (including weatherization, fuel switching, and efficient lighting). Task Order 820, implemented from 2002 to 2003, continued this work and expanded into the RE sub-sector. Six RE pilot projects (including micro-hydro, biogas digester, and solar water heating) and 22 EE projects were financed. The GESI program (2003-present) supports comparatively larger projects with potential for community-wide impact. Projects include 15-kilometer and 25-kilometer gas pipeline extension projects and a 120 kW small hydropower plant construction project. For each project, an environmental review document and M&M plan were prepared.


3. Determination of the Issues to Be Analyzed: Scope and Significance

3.1 Issue Identification Methodology As indicated under 22 CFR §216.6 (d), a PEA is appropriate under certain circumstances. These circumstances include cases where it is necessary to look at cumulative environmental impacts or where there are environmental impacts that are common to a class of USAID/Caucasus/Georgia actions or where activities go beyond national boundaries. In the case of the Rural Energy Program, it is the possibility of the first two circumstances that motivated the decision to conduct a PEA. In particular, it is anticipated that this PEA will be able to simplify environmental due diligence for the larger set of activities expected under the Program. This view is consistent with the rationale stated in 22 CFR §216.6 (d) which points out that “(s)ubsequent Environmental Assessments on major individual actions will only be necessary … where such impacts have not been adequately evaluated in the programmatic Environmental Assessment.” Further, the PEA for this Program will help “reduce the amount of paperwork or time involved in these procedures” while still assuring that adequate protective steps and mitigation are undertaken.

Accordingly, this PEA will serve as the environmental manual or reference guide for all projects under the Rural Energy Program, providing impact characteristics and Mitigation and Monitoring (M&M) measures for different types of projects. To this end, the PEA Team will use the following methodology to: 1) identify environmental baseline issues of concern for old and new sites requiring rehabilitation, 2) identify the issues associated with construction and operation that generate potential significant environmental impacts, 3) develop appropriate Mitigation and Monitoring plans for the potential significant impacts, 4) develop procedures for applying relevant PEA identified mitigation and monitoring requirements in the future to site-specific issues during implementation to refine Mitigation and Monitoring plans, as needed, and 5) develop a succinct protocol and examples of actual mitigation and monitoring reports.

To start, the PEA Team selected and examined a sample of 10 sites among the 40 locations where Rural Energy Program activities may take place. This sample of sites has characteristics that, taken together, adequately represent the range of circumstances to be encountered among the full universe of 40 locations. In order to assure that this sample appropriately represents the range of potential environmental concerns that might arise, a sampling attributes matrix was developed. This attributes matrix takes into account site-specific characteristics of the proposed rural energy projects that are associated with potential environmental and socioeconomic impacts. Some examples of the attributes included in the matrix are the size of the population to be served, the size of river flow, existing land uses near the site, proximity to sensitive environmental and cultural resources, the generating capacity of the plant, the amount of water and how it is to be diverted (in the case of a hydroelectric plant), and the extent of construction required for the project. The PEA will include one or more maps and / or satellite images of the Republic of Georgia depicting the locations of Program sites (both those included in the PEA sample as well as proposed sites that have already been identified).

The PEA Team will visit all 10 sites to conduct an evaluation based on the use of an environmental site-screening framework developed specifically for the proposed investments. This screening will consider all aspects of the proposed project activities that may cause an environmental impact. This analysis will identify and document site-specific baseline information and potential environmental impacts generated by each project. The environmental site screening analysis was tested and refined by the interdisciplinary team of specialists during the scoping process, and is presented as Appendix A. Based on the information gathered during the visits, the PEA Team will define categories of sites that are similar in magnitude of impacts, such as the following example of possible categories:

• sites expected to have minor or no impacts,


• sites expected to have some significant impacts for which mitigation and monitoring measures are readily identified,

• sites that are expected to have significant impacts and that will require a Supplemental Environmental Assessment (SEA), and

• sites that are not similar due to their size (medium and large hydropower projects, for example) and resulting magnitude of impacts, therefore requiring a new EA, are not covered in this PEA and Program.

These categories will be based on site-specific attributes and characteristics found during the field visits and mitigation and monitoring plans developed for prior projects. The criteria to determine these categories will differ for the four classes of investments (small-scale hydropower plants, community NG distribution systems, RE / EE projects and natural resource management grants) because of differences in impacts among these investments.

Finally, the PEA Team will prepare a matrix that will serve as the basic environmental reference for future projects under the Rural Energy Program. This matrix will provide: 1) an inventory of potential significant environmental and socioeconomic impacts that could occur at the remaining sites and 2) a set of appropriate environmental mitigation actions as part of a Mitigation and Monitoring Plan. When evaluating future projects under the Rural Energy Program, the matrix will assist the Program to determine if additional studies or Supplemental Environmental Assessments will be appropriate and necessary. The matrix will also be validated in the future during the course of visiting sites in order to determine if there are any potential variations among projects that require updating Mitigation and Monitoring Plans.

To ensure that the intent and requirements of the PEA identified mitigation and monitoring requirements are applied appropriately to all projects in the Rural Energy Program in the future, training for locally based staff will be incorporated into the Mitigation and Monitoring Plan. The training will provide guidance on the use of the environmental screening analysis (Appendix A), the use of the environmental and socioeconomic impacts reference matrix referenced above and to be included as an appendix to the PEA, and direction on the use and validation of the Mitigation and Monitoring Plan requirements. Included in the training will be the identification of and responsibilities for the field team leader and locally based environmental, socioeconomic and engineering staff responsible for reviewing future projects under the program.

3.2 Issues to Be Addressed in the PEA: Scope and Significance The scoping team set the stage for the PEA during the scoping process. The PEA Team is made up of members with expertise in disciplines relevant to key PEA issues. PEA activities will address issues identified during the scoping process, but examine them in greater depth through literature reviews, stakeholder interviews, and multiple field evaluations. Central to the assessment of environmental impacts is the identification of significance criteria. Through a process of integrating issues identified through scoping with information collected through literature reviews, regulatory reviews, interviews and field evaluations, technical specialists on the PEA Team will identify significance criteria for all technical disciplines (geology, socioeconomics, biology, etc.) addressed in the PEA. These significance criteria will be used in the assessment of potential impacts to determine which impacts will be considered significant, therefore requiring mitigation and ultimately inclusion in the Mitigation and Monitoring Plan.

Specifically, the PEA Team will identify and analyze significant environmental and socioeconomic issues during the assessment, paying attention to both direct and indirect impacts within the projects’ area of influence. It is important to note that all phases of the project’s life will be considered, from design and construction / rehabilitation to operation / maintenance of the facilities and distribution systems.

In the following sections, possible environmental and socioeconomic impacts from activities associated with the four types of investments anticipated under the Rural Energy Program are reviewed.


3.2.1 Small Hydropower Projects Design and Construction Issues: Construction and / or rehabilitation activities could have several temporary environmental impacts within the projects’ area of influence. Among those, the PEA Team will pay particular attention to any potential cumulative impacts caused by the siting of the projects, since the impact of inappropriate siting could generate significant environmental and safety hazards. Siting refers to the alternative project locations considered in the evaluation and selection of alternatives for the project.

For rehabilitation sites, the Rural Energy Program will review engineering, hydrologic, biodiversity and socioeconomic information to determine if there are any major flaws associated with the site. For these sites, it is expected that the necessary set of mitigation and monitoring measures to respond to the anticipated significant environmental or social impacts will be identified. These measures will need to be applied by the Program to the respective sites.

For new facilities, the Rural Energy Program will need to evaluate siting criteria based on engineering, hydrologic, biodiversity and socioeconomic factors such as perception of the residents, magnitude of the environmental impacts, cost, existing land-use, ancestral domain, and engineering feasibility. For these sites, it is likely that a Supplemental Environmental Assessment will be necessary.

Environmental Issues: It is also expected that a thorough environmental screening analysis for baseline conditions will be required for both rehabilitation and new construction works. One of the most important factors in determining the extent of environmental impacts from small hydropower projects is whether or not an impoundment or reservoir needs to be created or rehabilitated. Impoundments and reservoirs result in flooding of land in the impoundment zone upstream of a dam and changes to water flows and water levels downstream of a dam. Reservoirs are very unusual in small hydropower projects although there might be schemes that store sufficient water to operate the turbine only during the periods of maximum electrical demand. Any new hydropower project based on a new impoundment would likely require an Environmental Assessment.

A substantial proportion of small hydropower projects are of the run-of-the-river type, where water is diverted from a stream into a hydroelectric plant to take advantage of the gain in head. The PEA Team will determine through the preparation of the sampling attributes matrix which projects, if any, will have an impoundment and which will be run-of-the-river type of plants and will plan the field visits and research / data gathering accordingly.

Socioeconomic Issues: Community involvement is an essential part of project design, implementation, and monitoring. Communities can provide information that is critical to the design of a successful project, and can help minimize environmental impacts through proper use and maintenance of the system. Moreover, if the community is given the opportunity to be involved in all aspects of the project, it is more likely that a constituency will be built within the community for environmental protection. Community meetings will be held in all communities potentially affected by projects in the program. The meetings will be held to introduce the project(s), discuss criteria for power distribution and to identify community concerns so can issues can be resolved and incorporated into the projects in the Program.

Because the proposed individual projects will be small, in most cases there will be few significant impacts on nearby communities. Some influx of outside workers to remote small villages could occur but will ordinarily be of short duration. The small-scale hydroelectric projects will usually have the beneficial social effect of producing local temporary employment and the completed project will generally enhance the quality of life as any rural electrification scheme would. The projects will not displace anyone from their residences or destroy productive farmland, the types of major impacts associated with large hydroelectric developments. Significant water rights and Right-of-Way (RoW) issues will be identified, where applicable.


Scoping Results: The following table provides examples of direct and indirect impacts identified during field visits to sites subjected to the environmental screening analysis during the scoping phase.

Table 2: Examples of Potential Impacts Identified in Field Visits

Activities or Endpoints Impacts

Civil Works - Potential environmental and safety hazards (↓↓↓)

Waste Generation - Disposal of debris and construction wastes (↓↓)

- Sanitation facilities at construction sites during construction phase (↓)

Water Resources

- Siltation due to movement of soil during construction activities (↓)

- Reduced water availability downstream of fresh water intake (↓↓↓)

- Water quality might be adversely affected - turbidity (↓↓↓)

- Flooding due to impoundment construction / rehabilitation (↓↓)

- Potential increase in river bank and riverbed erosion in downstream rivers and estuaries (↓↓)

- Groundwater infiltration / contamination from disposal areas (↓)

- Waste disposal (↓)

- Pollution due to disposal of oil and lubricants (↓)

Biological Resources

- Disturbance to fauna and flora during construction activities (↓)

- Non-compliance with water quality standard (↓)

- Affect rare or protected species (↓↓↓)

- Include fish passages for valuable migratory species - appropriateness of available technology to minimize fish mortality and injury (↓↓)

- Affect the needs of aquatic or riverine habitats (↓↓)

Air Quality

- Generation of dust during construction equipment (minor ↓)

- Emissions from combustion of fossil fuels by construction equipment (minor ↓)

- Increase of vehicle traffic emissions during construction (minor ↓)

Geology and Soils - Affects on land use and the landscape from inundation caused by rehabilitated small impoundments (↓)

Socio-Economic

- Deterioration of roads due to possible heavy traffic (↓)

- Low regional economic development returns and inadequate redistribution of project benefits to affected communities (↓↓)

- Employment opportunities in the construction, operation and maintenance activities (↑)

- Loss of employment after construction for unskilled local workers (↓)

- Improvement of livelihoods, including improved standards of living for


Activities or Endpoints Impacts

affected people (↑↑)

- Develop community cohesion and consensus (↑)

- Change in local land use as result of new economic activities attracted by more reliable or less expensive electricity (↓) (INDIRECT)

Land Use

- Visual disturbance due to construction / rehabilitation activities (↓)

- Disposal of debris and generated wastes (↓)

- Difficult to conduct an equitable distribution of long-term development benefits and costs between affected populations and program beneficiaries (↓↓)

Cultural

- Peace and order problems due to high increase in number of outside workers (↓)

- Destruction of archaeological / anthropological relics and historical sites (only in new constructions) (↓↓↓)

Public Health

- Health and sanitation problems due to inadequate housing and sanitation structures for laborers (↓)

- Increase in STDs (↓) (INDIRECT)

- Waterborne diseases due to modifications to hydrological systems (↓)

- Excess demands placed on regional and local institutional capacity for effective public health care (↓) (INDIRECT)

Noise and Vibration

- Generation of noise during construction activities (minor ↓)

- Demolition of deteriorated retaining wall (↓)

Key:

↓↓↓ Significant impact

↓↓ Moderate impact

↓ Minor impact

(INDIRECT) Indirect impact

↑↑ Moderate beneficial impact

↑ Minor beneficial impact


3.2.2 NG Distribution Systems Design and Construction Issues: Expansion and / or rehabilitation activities of NG distribution systems could have several environmental impacts within the projects’ area of influence. Among those, the PEA Team will pay particular attention to right-of-way and safety issues, which could generate significant environmental and safety hazards.

Under Georgian law, Right-of-Way (RoW) is permitted through the issuance of the general construction permit as issued by the local government body. For most Rural Energy IPP projects, technical designs must be submitted for review prior to construction permit issuance. Technical designs must be developed by certified technical design firms and must provide detail indicating where civil works (dams, irrigation canals, NG pipelines, roads, drive-ways, etc.) are to be placed in relationship to the existing environment. Technical designs must be reviewed / approved by the State Technical Expertise Department or an authorized private firm prior to application for a general construction permit. Approved technical designs are submitted to the relevant state body along with a general construction permit application. The project is considered to have received RoW permitting across state-owned land upon receipt of the general construction permit. Agreements for RoW across private property must be negotiated with individual owners during the design phase.

Representatives from the municipality conduct a site inspection upon completion of all construction activities. Assuming construction is completed using both the materials and the proposed route in the approved design, and that certified labor has been employed when required by Georgian law, the municipality will issue a project acceptance document. The approved technical design, general construction permit, RoW agreements with private landowners, and project acceptance document must be provided if / when RoW is challenged.

Environmental Issues: One of the most important factors in determining the extent of environmental impacts from NG distribution systems is their location above or below ground. Underground distribution systems will require more equipment and a higher degree of disturbance around the system; if the systems need to go through wetlands or environmentally sensitive areas. Conversely, footings of above ground pipeline distribution systems have the potential of being undermined due to maintenance activity or digging by other utility workers. The resulting potential environmental impacts can be significant. The PEA Team will assess through the sampling attributes matrix if the projects will be above or below ground, and plan the field visits and research / data gathering accordingly.

It is also expected that a thorough environmental screening analysis for baseline conditions will be needed for rehabilitation and expansion works; separate Environmental Assessments are not expected to be required since the systems installed as a result of this activity will not be permitted to go through or near wetlands and / or environmentally sensitive areas.

Socioeconomic Issues: All NG distribution systems projects will benefit a specific community in Georgia. These projects will usually have the beneficial social effect of producing some local temporary employment, and the completed project will generally enhance the quality of life by providing a less expensive and more reliable source of heat during winter. The Rural Energy Program has sought community involvement since the early stages of the process to ensure understanding and social acceptability of the project, which will help minimize environmental impacts through proper use and maintenance of the systems. Community meetings will be held in the communities that will benefit from the NG distribution projects. The meetings will provide project information and will be used to identify any issues and concerns so they can be resolved prior to final design and incorporated into the project prior to construction.

Because the proposed individual projects will be small, in most cases there will be few major impacts on the affected communities; some influx of outside workers to remote small villages will often occur, but will ordinarily be of short duration. However, the PEA Team will pay particular attention to health and safety issues during the operation and maintenance of the


systems; safety protocols for new connections and accidents should be part of the management training for the operation of the systems.

3.2.3 RE and EE Projects It is anticipated that the small-scale RE and EE projects anticipated under the Rural Energy Program will have impacts that can be mitigated by compliance with a specific set of measures identified for each anticipated activity. For example, a bio-digester system might require attention to the management of manure to avoid contaminating a nearby creek. Weatherization of a school would require a different set of measures. The mitigation measures to be adopted for a specific project would be determined through an environmental screening to be conducted for each proposed project by the Program. In cases where the typical mitigation measures for such an activity are not sufficient to mitigate negative impacts, a more in-depth environmental review will be required in order to determine next steps, such as whether other mitigation and monitoring measures can be readily identified or a full environmental assessment is warranted. This procedure is equivalent to the one currently being applied by CHF as part of its construction activities under the GEII.

The PEA will examine these issues in further depth to formalize the environmental due diligence process for the Rural Energy Program.

3.2.4 Natural Resource Management Grants It is anticipated that the activities arising from the natural resource management grants provided by the Rural Energy Program - improved fuel wood management, reforestation and watershed restoration - will generally have beneficial environmental impacts. To assure that no negative impacts arise from improper design or inappropriate implementation, a mitigation and monitoring protocol will need to be established for these activities. These mitigation measures will be determined from best practices known to the PEA Team and from USAID environmental guidance on mitigation measures for the types of activities expected under these grants.

The PEA will examine these issues in further depth to formalize the environmental due diligence process for the Rural Energy Program.

3.3 Issues not covered in the PEA Section §216.2 (c) (2) permits a categorical exclusion from the applicability of USAID’s environmental compliance procedures when the following activities are involved:

• Education

• Technical assistance

• Training programs

except to the extent that such activities have a direct effect on the environment.

There are a number of elements of the Rural Energy Program which qualify for such an exclusion because they derive from these three types of activities. They include program efforts that lead to the following program outputs:

• Establishment of a credit mechanism.

• Completion of technical designs.

• Preparation of operation and maintenance plans.

• Training in technical and financial management of utility management.

• Creation of Operational and Management Plans.

• Capacity strengthening of communities in RE / EE sector promotion.

• Establishment of self-sustainable institutional mechanism (GEPSO).


• Development of IRMPs.

• Improvement of baseline data on forests and watersheds.

• Enhancement of resource inventory, planning and management capacity of Tbilisi State University and partner CBOs / Non-Governmental Organizations.

In addition, Section §216.3 (a)(4)(i)(b) allows the elimination of issues from detailed study that are not significant or have been covered by earlier environmental review, or approved design considerations. To that end, based on the environmental screening analyses conducted for a number of representative sites and on the information in the sampling attributes matrix, it was determined by the PEA Team that air quality and noise issues related to the construction and operation of the rural energy projects were not significant, did not require detailed study and therefore, would not be covered in the PEA. This determination was based on the finding that air quality and noise issues would be limited to short-term, temporary and intermittent events that occur during construction only. Since these issues would be limited in extent, duration and occurrence with a limited likelihood of potential affects on people or sensitive biological resources they do not represent issues that need to be addressed in the PEA.

To a certain extent, the exemption from further analysis also applies to the issues associated with the RE / EE projects and natural resource management grants of the Rural Energy Program, as discussed above. Nonetheless, mitigation and monitoring procedures or standard practices associated with these activities will be discussed in the PEA to assure there are no significant environmental or social impacts left unaddressed.

Finally it should be noted that the sites and projects addressed in the PEA under this program are those that are similar in terns of their size, range and magnitude of impacts. Projects that do not share these attributes such as medium and large sized hydropower projects, projects located in national parks and projects with substantial wetland and / or sensitive habitat issues would require a separate individual Environmental Assessment and are not included in this Program.

3.4 Program Outputs to be Addressed in PEA As discussed above, certain activities envisioned under this Program will require attention under the PEA while others can be excluded from consideration. The following table provides a summary.

Table 3: Relationship of Program Objectives and Expected Outputs to PEA

4. PEA Procedures

Objective OutputsIncluded in

PEA?

1 Increased Energy Supply - Credit mechanism --- Financing --- Technical designs (40) --- Operation/maintenance plans (40) --- Energy projects constructed (40) YES

2 - IPPs trained in technical/financial management. --- Operational/Management plans (40) --

3 - Renewable energy projects implemented (70+) YES- Energy efficiency projects implemented (130+) YES- Community capacity strengthened (40+) --- GEPSO established --

4 - IRMPs developed (40 watersheds) --- Grants for improved fuel wood management, reforestation and watershed restoration (40) YES- Improved baseline data: forests/watersheds --- Enhanced capacity (Tbilisi State University and CBOs/NGOs) --

Improved In-country Capacity in Rural Energy and Alternative Energy Applications

Improved Management of Local Energy Production

Improved Capacity to Utilize and Protect the Local Energy Resource Base


4.1 Outcome of the Scoping Process The scoping process has confirmed the utility of the PEA methodology, noting that the similarities in the activities foreseen under the program with USAID/Caucasus/Georgia funds are sufficient to warrant their assessment as a class of actions. The scoping process has also laid the foundation for the implementation of the PEA for rural energy activities in Georgia by achieving the following:

• Determining the key issues to be assessed during the PEA.

• Identifying the professional disciplines represented on the PEA Team.

• Developing the screening framework to review sites evaluated in the PEA

4.2 Methodology, Timing and Phasing of the PEA In order to carry out the PEA, the scoping team envisions the following additional arrangements, methods, timing and phasing:

Approval of the SS: This SS will be reviewed and approved by the Eurasia Bureau Environmental Officer with input from the USAID/Caucasus/Georgia Mission. Interim Period: While this SS is being reviewed and approved in Washington, the technical assistance contractor will initiate implementation of the PEA. This will be done to allow work to begin but be accomplished in a manner that is flexible to incorporate comments that may be received during the SS review process. Initial work will include (to be carried out by the PEA Team Leader with assistance from the technical manager and local team members) further development of work plans for PEA Team members; development of a series of analytical tools (e.g., semi-structured interview protocol and site description data sheet, where needed); development of a schedule for field visits and preparation of the logistical support needs (USAID/Caucasus/Georgia provision of transport, introductions to local authorities, limited office facilities for the PEA team); compilation and acquisition of additional reference materials pertinent to rural energy projects in this region of the Caucasus; recruitment and hiring of local PEA team members; team building activities and initiation of field visits.

PEA Implementation Period: The proposed period of implementation of the PEA will be for approximately twelve weeks from February through April 2006, broken down as follows: two week staging / briefing and team building in Tbilisi, three weeks of field visits and three weeks of report preparation. More specifically, it is envisaged that the implementation period will involve 1) identification, compilation and review of additional relevant literature related to rural energy activities in Georgia, and 2) a continuing series of interviews with central government authorities, local authorities, and with similar projects promoting rural energy projects in Georgia. These will be carried out using, where applicable, semi-structured interview procedures with key stakeholders. The PEA team will convene small discussion groups in key activity sites and with key staff as a vehicle for the all-important consultative process typically associated with environmental assessment.

These sessions serve the dual purpose of facilitating the identification of important issues that may be of concern to those not directly involved in rural energy activities and in raising general awareness of the importance of avoiding unforeseen environmental impacts as key to longer-term sustainability of the investments.

Field Visits: The PEA team will visit 10 potential IPP sites (or 25% of all Rural Energy IPP sites) where USAID/Caucasus/Georgia funds will be utilized. Project sites will be selected based on criteria determined through the sampling attributes matrix developed specifically for this project.

Inter-Disciplinary Team Approach: The multi-disciplinary team (see following section) will follow a rigorous inter-disciplinary approach in its work, including: joint preparation for each field visit (identification of key issues and their interplay); interviews with local personnel and community members (in each case, the semi-structured interview procedure will be used, where applicable, and a lead person and reporter designated for each site); screening guidelines (to be


prepared by the PEA Team Leader) for each site to ensure that all issues are covered and team responsibilities for that coverage clearly understood; post-visit wrap-up and review sessions, both with local staff and among the team itself so as to build on the lessons being learned, to discuss preliminary findings and highlight procedural as well as substantive issues; focused inter-team discussions to identify mitigation and monitoring actions; and, finally, assignments of responsibilities for preparation of report pieces emanating from each site as may be the case.

Report Preparation and Review: The following plan for the preparation of the PEA report is foreseen: draft PEA report prepared and compiled, with contributions from each team member, by the Team Leader; inter-team review of the draft; circulation of a debriefing memorandum with all principal actors associated with the Rural Energy Program (USAID/Caucasus/Georgia, contractor personnel) at a half-day workshop; written comments based on the debriefing memo to be submitted by the above participants within two weeks of the workshop; and preparation of a final draft report incorporating the comments and suggestions made, by the Team Leader, for submission to USAID and subsequent submission for review and approval to BEO, Europe and Eurasia Bureau, Washington.

4.3 PEA Team Make-Up Data collection, field studies, analyses and PEA preparation was conducted by a multi-disciplinary team of scientists, engineers, economists and planners. Backgrounds of principal members of the PEA Team are highlighted below:

Dale Shileikis, Team Leader and Environmental Assessment Specialist (expat),(7 person / weeks). Graduate Studies in Environmental Planning and Biology from San Francisco State University and University of California, Berkeley. B.S. in Biology from San Francisco State University. Mr. Shileikis has more than 25 years of experience providing project direction and management, environmental analysis, mitigation planning, siting and regulatory permitting assistance and strategy development under U.S. or comparable international law for energy development projects worldwide. His specialty includes the direction and management of environmental documentation for large, multidisciplinary, multi-jurisdictional projects, particularly involving complex engineering design and scientific components; site selection; alternatives analyses; mitigation development; public presentation; and expert testimony. He has managed more than 200 multidisciplinary impact assessments in the U.S. and internationally. The majority of his project profile features the siting, feasibility, and environmental assessment of energy development projects. Such projects require an intimate knowledge of international and federal environmental regulatory requirements promulgated by the U.S. and other countries, the World Bank, IFC, and other international lending institutions. A typical project entails the development of strategic and creative solutions for project development and mitigation design involving the cooperation of engineers, scientists, planners, and managers from project applicants, regulatory agencies, and consultants. Recent countries that Mr. Shileikis has worked in the U.S., Canada, Mexico, Chad, Cameroon, Philippines, France and England.

Greg Michaels, Team Economist. Socioeconomics and Environmental Assessment Specialist (expat), (6 person / weeks). PhD, Economics, Vanderbilt University, B.A., Economics, University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill. Dr. Michaels has 20 years of experience conducting and directing economic analyses of environmental, natural resource and development issues and supervising international multi-disciplinary consultant teams in a variety of international development consulting programs. Dr. Michaels’ international specialties include: economic assessment of environment and development problems (especially those pertaining to water resources and watersheds); economic, social and financial feasibility of environment and development projects; socioeconomic and environmental assessment of tourism; economic and financial valuation of urban land markets; soil conservation; financing environmental investments and occupational health and safety. He has conducted numerous studies using monetary and non-monetary approaches to valuation of environmental and natural resources, including indirect methods (such as hedonic valuation) and direct methods (such as surveys and analyses applying willingness to pay), in numerous contexts. Dr. Michaels has examined the economic costs of water production and the pricing of water in Uzbekistan,


Nicaragua, Costa Rica, El Salvador, and the Dominican Republic for residential, agricultural, industrial and other users. On water demand, Dr. Michaels has directed studies that estimated and / or applied estimates of willingness to pay in numerous settings. Dr. Michaels directed a strategic environmental assessment (SEA) of the Mundo Maya Sustainable Tourism Program tourism development project to be funded by the Inter-American Development Bank in the countries of the Mundo Maya (Mexico, Belize, Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador).

Miguel Franco, Team Environmental Engineer. Water Resources and Environmental Assessment Specialist (expat), (6 person / weeks). Mr. Franco is a chemical engineer, with a master’s degree in environmental engineering from Johns Hopkins University. Mr. Franco has over 13 years of experience providing technical assistance in process engineering, environmental management, pollution prevention, and water / wastewater treatment. Mr. Franco is an experienced environmental engineer with excellent planning and analytical skills; he is accustomed to going into a situation to quickly determine any issues and problems and evaluate potential solutions. His areas of expertise include: 1) Conducting process and environmental data gathering, and reviewing environmental baseline information - resources (e.g., water, energy) and outputs (e.g., wastewater, solid waste, air emissions); 2) Conducting environmental, economic and technological assessments of existing processes and operations; 3) Conducting environmental aspects and impact analysis and generating, prioritizing and evaluating pollution prevention, waste minimization, water reduction, and EE opportunities and mitigating measures; 4) Conducting institutional needs assessments and providing institutional strengthening and capacity building technical assistance. Mr. Franco has provided technical assistance in Bolivia, Brazil, Bulgaria, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Indonesia, Jamaica, Mexico, Paraguay, Peru and Spain. Mr. Franco is fluent in English and Spanish.

Craig VanDevelde, Business Economist, (expat), (5 person / weeks). B.A. Russian and East European Studies, University of Michigan-Ann Arbor; M.A., Development Economics, University of Kentucky, KY. Mr. VanDevelde has lived and worked in Georgia for the past three years and in the different countries of the former Soviet Union for the past 13 years implementing rural development project, implementing at various times energy, natural resources management, and agricultural projects. Mr. VanDevelde has completed USAID Environmental Compliance Training in 2005 and has participated in developing Simple Environmental Assessments for both small hydropower facility construction and NG pipeline extension projects.

George Ramishvili, Team Civil Engineer and IPP Construction Specialist (local) (6 person / weeks). B.S. Civil Engineering, Georgian Technical University. Mr. Ramishvili has constructed over 70 EE and RE projects over the past eight years in Georgia. Mr. Ramishvili directly oversaw the construction of 112 kW, 120kW, 50 kW small hydropower facilities as well as 17-kilometer and 25-kilometer NG pipeline extension projects. He completed USAID Environmental Compliance Training in 2002 and 2005 and has participated in developing Simple Environmental Assessments and M&M Plans for both small hydropower facility construction and NG pipeline extension projects.

George Tcheishvili, Rural Sociology Specialist (local) (4 person / weeks). Diploma in Conflict Resolution Program, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden; Certification in Working with Conflict Program, Selly Oak Colleges, Birmingham, UK; Candidate of Sciences, History, Georgian Academy of Sciences’ Institute of History and Ethnology, Tbilisi, Georgia; Honors Diploma, History, Tbilisi State University, Tbilisi, Georgia. Dr. Tcheishvili has in-depth experience as a manager and technical consultant implementing targeted social assistance programs. Since 1999 he has participated in the implementation of Georgia Winter Heating Assistance Programs (GWHAP) II, III, IV, V, VI and current VII. On behalf of PA, Dr. Tcheishvili has provided technical assistance to the Ministry of Labor, Health and Social Assistance and Tbilisi Municipality. In addition Dr. Tcheishvili has served as a researcher on potential conflict issues in rural Georgia specific to the energy sector. Dr. Tcheishvili has a significant experience identify and analyzing the social impacts of access to energy in rural areas and has a unique knowledge of social conditions throughout Georgia.


Mariam Bakhtadze, Team Biologist and Environmental Specialist (local) (4 person / weeks). B.S. Biology, Tbilisi State University. M.S, Ecology, Tbilisi State University. Ms. Bakhtadze is a specialist in flora found in Georgia. She has significant experience in environmental issues related to Georgia. Work experience has included data collection and management, interpretation and enforcement of international environmental conventions, and policy development. Ms. Bakhtadze has participated in studies and attended short courses in EE and RE, environmental law and policy, and integrated coastal management.


Appendix A

Environmental Screening Analyses

Environmental Screening Analysis - Small Hydropower Plants (SHP)

Environmental Screening Analysis - NG Distribution Systems (NG)


ENVIRONMENTAL SCREENING ANALYSIS - SMALL HYDROPOWER PLANTS


Project Name

Type of project New Construction vs. Rehabilitation

Location (district / region)

Ownership

Surrounding Present Land Use [ ] Agriculture [ ] Residential [ ] Tourism [ ] Industrial [ ] Forest Land [ ] Institutional [ ] Commercial [ ] Open Spaces [ ] Others, pls. Specify :

Installed Capacity (kW)

Project Cost (USD)


Is there and impact because / to Construction Operation and Maintenance

Construction / rehabilitation of structures and buildings?

Construction / rehabilitation of access roads?

Construction / rehabilitation of transmission lines?

Temporary sites used for construction works or housing of construction workers?

Significant risk associated with waste transport?

Adequate waste disposal facilities?

Include grading, trenching, or excavation > 1.0 hectares


Require offsite overburden / waste disposal or borrow pits >1.0 ton?

Cause loss of high quality farmlands > 10 hectares

Require the use of dangerous / hazardous substances ( e.g. oil, lubricants, chemicals; pls. Specify)?

Require an oil / lubricants collection and disposal system?


Increase vehicle trips > 20% or cause substantial congestion?

Cause or contribute to safety hazards?

Inadequate access or emergency access for anticipated volume of people or traffic?

Produce solid wastes during construction or operation or decommissioning?




Earthquakes, subsidence, landslides or erosion?

Movement of soil?

Rates of erosion or siltation by wind or water?

Management of excess soil or spoil material (from mining)?

Physical degradation of the local environment?

4) Water Resources


Risks of contamination of land or water from releases of pollutants onto the ground or into sewers, surface waters, groundwater, coastal waters or the sea?

Run-off as a result of the hardening of surfaces, or loss of the sponge effect of vegetation?

Flooding or extreme or adverse climatic conditions?

Ability to absorb run-off?

Changes to flood plains?

Quantity of surface water, groundwater or public water supplies?

Threats to hydrological functioning through existing or altered water extraction?

Withdrawals from or discharges to surface or ground water?


Threats through existing or altered impoundment construction?

Conservational or recreational value of rivers, streams, lakes, wetlands, dams or islands?

Threats through existing or altered pollution?

Threats through existing or altered turbidity?

Threats through existing or altered agricultural run-off?

Threats through existing or altered chemical processes or nutrient balances?

Threats through existing or altered changes in sediment flows and siltation rates?

Changes through existing or altered canalization?

River, stream or lake onsite or within 30 meters of construction?

Excavation or place of fill, removing gravel from a river, stream or lake?

Onsite storage of liquid fuels or hazardous materials in bulk quantities?





Important, high quality or scarce resources that could be affected by the project?

Located in a Protected Area or Wildlife Corridor?

Inundate or remove wetland habitats?

Survival of rare or endangered plant species?

Diversity of plant communities?

Vegetation communities of conservation or scientific importance?

Natural replenishment of existing species?


Firewood collection?

Overexploitation of biological resources?

Survival of rare or endangered animals?

Diversity of animal communities?

Natural migration of species?

Introduction of alien species?

Loss of native species or genetic diversity?

Vegetation removal or construction in wetlands or riparian areas > 1.0 hectare?

Use of pesticides / rodenticides, insecticides, or herbicides > 1.0 hectare?

Construction in or adjacent to a designated wildlife refuge?



Re-entry pipe cause increased scouring of streambank where water is returned to the stream?

Flora and / or fauna of ecological or commercial significance to be found?



Existing settlements in the vicinity of the proposed project?

Existing land uses on or around the project that could be affected by the project?



Social infrastructures located in or near the project area (e.g., schools, health centers / clinics, places of worship, others?

Social acceptability of the project (community, government,


non-governmental organizations)?

Visual and odor effects of waste sites?

Risk to the community and the local environment should the facility break down?

Potential conflict with adjacent land uses?

Non-compliance with existing codes, plans, permits or design factors?

Construction in national park or designated recreational area?

Relocation of >10 individuals for +6 months?

Interrupt necessary utility or municipal service > 10 individuals for + 6 months?

Loss or inefficient use of mineral or non-renewable resources?

Noise levels > 5 decibels for + 3 months?

Adverse visual impact when compared to the surrounding natural landscape?

Affect future land uses on or around the location?


Highly visible to many people?

Lead to pressure for consequential project that could have significant impact on the environment (eg more housing, new roads, new supporting industries or utilities, etc)?



7) Cultural Issues


Prehistoric, historic, or paleontological resources within 30 meters of construction?

Unique cultural or ethnic values at the site?



Will the project affect… Construction Operation and Maintenance

human or community health or welfare?


Morbidity or mortality of individuals, communities or populations by exposure to pollution?

Occurrence or distribution of disease vectors including insects?

Vulnerability of individuals, communities or populations to disease?

Individuals’ sense of personal security?

Community cohesion and identity?

Cultural identity and associations?

Minority rights?

Housing conditions?

Employment and quality of employment?

Economic conditions?

Social institutions?

Cause accidents that could affect human health or the environment?

- From explosions, spillages, fires etc?

- From storage, handling, use or production of hazardous or toxic substances?

Be affected by natural disasters causing environmental damage (e.g floods, earthquakes, landslip, etc)?


9) Air Quality


Onsite air pollutant emissions?



Vehicle traffic during construction or operation?

Demolition or blasting for construction?

Odor during construction or operation?

Alteration of microclimate?

Release pollutants or any hazardous, toxic or noxious substances to air?

- Emissions from combustion of fossil fuels from stationary or mobile sources?

- Emissions from materials handling including storage or transport?

- Emissions from construction activities including plant and equipment?

- Dust or odors from handling of materials including construction materials, sewage and waste?

- Emissions from burning of waste in open air (eg slash material, construction debris)?



Noise and vibration or release of light, heat energy or electromagnetic radiation?

- From operation of equipment (e.g. engines, ventilation plant, crushers)?

- From construction or demolition?

- From blasting or piling?

- From construction or operational traffic?

- From sources of electromagnetic radiation?


ENVIRONMENTAL SCREENING ANALYSIS - NG DISTRIBUTION SYSTEMS


Project Name

Location (district / region)

Ownership / Management

Surrounding Present Land Use [ ] Agriculture [ ] Residential [ ] Tourism [ ] Industrial [ ] Forest Land [ ] Institutional [ ] Commercial [ ] Open Spaces [ ] Others, pls. Specify :

Project type New expansion vs. rehabilitation

Pipe location Above ground vs. underground

Length of pipeline (above and / or below) (m)

Diameter of pipeline (mm)

Maximum Capacity (m3/month)

Project Cost (USD)


Aspect / Impact Construction Operation and Maintenance

Construction / rehabilitation of structures and buildings?

Construction / rehabilitation of access roads?

Right-of-way requirements and / or issues?

Temporary sites used for construction works or housing of construction workers?

Significant risk associated with waste transport?

Adequate waste disposal facilities?

Trenching or excavation?

Require offsite overburden / waste disposal or borrow pits >1.0 ton?

Require the use of dangerous / hazardous substances (e.g. paints, oil, lubricants, chemicals; pls. Specify)?


Require a collection and disposal system for hazardous waste?

Increase vehicle trips > 20% or cause substantial congestion?

Cause or contribute to safety hazards?

Inadequate access or emergency access for anticipated volume of people or traffic?





Cause subsidence, landslides or erosion?

Potential impact to soil – e.g., movement of soil, binding or bonding of soils, compressive strength of soils?

Management of excess soil or spoil material?

Physical degradation of the local environment (e.g., need for revegetation)?

14) Water Resources


Flooding or extreme or adverse climatic conditions that might cause a break or malfunction in the system?

River, stream or lake onsite or within 30 meters of construction?

Wetlands crossed or affected by the project?

Quality or quantity of groundwater (aquifers) or public water supplies (e.g., wells)?

Quality or quantity of surface water?

Run-off as a result of the hardening of surfaces, or loss of the sponge effect of vegetation, that might affect sensitive areas?

Stream crossings of the pipeline?




Important, high quality or scarce resources that could be affected by the project?

Flora and / or fauna of ecological or commercial significance to be found?

Affect wetland habitats?

Vegetation removal or construction in wetlands or riparian areas > 1.0 hectare?

Located in a Protected Area or Wildlife Corridor?

Construction in or adjacent to a designated wildlife refuge?

Located in an environmental sensitive area?

Diversity of animal communities?

Natural migration of species?

Survival of rare or endangered plant species?

Temporary of permanent loss of habitat?

Diversity of plant communities?

Vegetation communities of conservation or scientific importance?

Natural replenishment of existing species?

Firewood collection?

Loss of native species or genetic diversity?

Use of pesticides / rodenticides, insecticides, or herbicides > 1.0 hectare?



Existing settlements in the vicinity of the proposed project?

Existing land uses on or around the project that could be affected by the project?

Any special land use in the vicinity of the project (e.g.,


orchards, agricultural)?

Potential conflict with adjacent land uses?

Affect future land uses on or around the location?



Social infrastructures located in or near the project area (e.g., schools, health centers / clinics, places of worship, others?

Social acceptability of the project (community, government, non-governmental organizations)?

Risk to the community and the local environment should the pipeline system break down or malfunction?

Non-compliance with existing codes, plans, permits or design factors?

Construction in national park or designated recreational area?

Relocation of >10 individuals for +6 months?

Interrupt necessary utility or municipal service > 10 individuals for + 6 months?

Noise levels > 5 decibels for + 3 months?

Highly visible to many people?

Adverse visual impact when compared to the surrounding natural landscape?


Lead to pressure for consequential project that could have significant impact on the environment (eg more housing, new roads, new supporting industries or utilities, etc)?



17) Cultural Issues



Prehistoric, historic, or paleontological resources within 30 meters of construction?

Unique cultural or ethnic values at the site?



Human or community health or welfare?

Potential malfunction or break of above ground equipment / fixtures (e.g., shut-off safety valves)?


Vulnerability of individuals, communities or populations?

Individuals’ sense of personal security?

Community cohesion and identity?

Cultural identity and associations?

Minority rights?

Housing conditions?

Employment and quality of employment?

Economic conditions?

Social institutions?

Cause accidents that could affect human health or the environment?

- From explosions, spillages, fires etc?

- From storage, handling, use or production of hazardous or toxic substances?

Be affected by natural disasters causing environmental damage (e.g floods, earthquakes, landslip, etc)?


19) Air Quality



Onsite air pollutant emissions?


Vehicle traffic during construction or operation?

Demolition or blasting for construction?

Emissions from combustion of fossil fuels from stationary or mobile sources?

Emissions from materials handling including storage or transport?

Emissions from construction activities including plant and equipment?

Dust or odors from handling of materials including construction materials, sewage and waste?



From operation of equipment (e.g. engines, ventilation plant, crushers)?

From construction or demolition?

From blasting?

From construction or operational traffic?


Appendix F - Monitoring Plan - Field Visit Report

Date of Field Visit:

Name of Supervisor from the Rural Energy Program:

Project Name:

Type of Project (SHP, NG, Smale-Scale RE / EE, IRMP):

Environmental Impacts Identified (Name and Description):

Mitigation Measures for Each Environmental Impact Identified (Name, Description and Status):

Issues and / or Problems Observed: Recommended Course of Action/ Corrective Measures and Responsibility:


Appendix G - Best Practices Standards for Construction and Other Project Activities

A) Standard Conditions (SC) for Small-Scale Construction Projects

• Establish and adhere to construction timetables that minimize disruption to the normal activities of the construction area. Coordinate truck and other construction activity to minimize noise, traffic disruption and dust. Develop and implement appropriate human health and worker safety measures during construction.

• Post construction timetables and traffic diversion schedules at the project site. • Where significant environmental impacts may occur, document and photograph

preconstruction and post-construction conditions. • Avoid subsidence and building stabilization problems through proper foundation

excavation, fill placement and borrow pit management. • Fill should avoid pockets of segregated materials, it should use well-graded materials,

and it should be compacted to recognized standards. • Backfill and / or restore borrow areas and quarries before abandonment unless

alternative uses for those sites are planned. • Control runoff into borrow pits. • Provide temporary sanitation at the construction site. • Recover and replant topsoil and plants as practicable. • Set protocols for vehicle maintenance to control contamination by grease, oil and fuels. • Install temporary erosion control and sediment retention measures when permanent

ones either are not feasible or are delayed. • Avoid pollution of waterways with stockpiled construction materials. • Cover stockpiled construction materials, as practicable. • Place solvents, lubricants, oils, and other semi-hazardous and hazardous liquids over a

lined area with appropriate secondary containment in order to contain spillage. Test the integrity of bulk storage tanks and drums, and secure valves on oil and fuel supplies.

• Build appropriate containment structures around bulk storage tanks and materials stores to prevent spillage entering watercourses.

• Handle, store, use and process branded materials in accordance with manufacturers’ instructions and recommendations.

• Take waste materials to appropriate, designated local disposal areas. • Avoid the use of cement, paper, board, sealant and glazing formulations, piping, roofing

material, or other materials containing asbestos. • Do not use PCBs in electric transformers. • Avoid sealant and glazing formulations that use lead as a drying agent. • Use lead-free paint, primers, varnishes and stains.. • Minimize the use of solvent-based paints, or replace with water-based materials. • Minimize burning of waste materials. • Employ techniques to minimize dust and vapor emissions as practicable (e.g., road

speed limits, air extraction equipment, scaffolding covers, road spray). • Recycle wastewater to the extent practicable. • Build tanks or other separators for silt-laden material prior to allowing significant outflow

into watercourses. • Build collection channels leading to oil and / or silt traps, particularly around areas used

for vehicle washing or fuelling. • Seal or remove abandoned drains to minimize water contamination. • Segregate waste that can be salvaged, re-used or recycled. • Introduce measures to control and minimize the volume of waste on site. • Employ sensitive strategies with regard to trees, watercourses, plant or animal species

or habitats, and important historical and archaeological features.


• As practicable, landscape construction sites in a way that is appropriate to local conditions.

• Minimize the disturbance of, and reduce the spread of, ground contaminants. • Do not build structures in sensitive areas such as wetlands. • If waste will be buried on site, avoid siting burial pits up-gradient from drinking water

sources such as wells. Pits should be lined with impermeable material (e.g., clay or polyethylene).

• If waste will be buried on site, avoid siting waste pits where water tables are high or underlying geology makes contamination of groundwater likely. If no alternative site is available, ensure that pits are lined with impermeable material. Provide for the safe disposal of gray water from bathing and washing.

Additional Conditions to Minimize Impact of Parking Facility Construction

• Compact substrate materials appropriately. • Where applicable, apply sealant at earliest possible time to limit runoff from unsealed

asphalt. • Provide adequate drainage for the surface area to be paved. • Return unpaved areas to original or improved contours following construction. • Re-vegetate areas where vegetation was removed or destroyed during construction. • Provide vegetation strips within parking lot where possible, including shade trees. • Retain tree(s) along parking facility and adjacent roadsides.

B) Standard Conditions for Road Rehabilitation and Maintenance Projects Noise, Traffic Disruption and Dust

• Establish and adhere to construction timetables that minimize disruption to the normal activities of the construction area. Post construction timetables and traffic diversion schedules at the project site, as appropriate.

• Coordinate truck and other construction activity to minimize noise, traffic disruption and dust.

Human Health and Worker Safety


• Provide workers with appropriate safety equipment. • Take safety precautions to protect workers and others from injury by flying or falling rock,

slope failures and avalanche. • Explore off-site accommodation for crew. • Keep camp size to a minimum. • Provide temporary sanitation on construction sites.

Ecological and Historical Considerations

• Identify and avoid areas in the project impact zone that may contain important ecological, archeological, paleontological, historic, religious or cultural resources, including forests, wetlands and areas of high biological diversity or threatened species habitat.

• Have construction crews and supervisors be alert for buried historic, religious, and cultural objects, and provide them with procedures to follow if such objects are discovered. Provide incentives for recovery of objects and disincentives for their destruction.

• If impact to sensitive areas cannot be avoided during road reconstruction, involve ecologists, archeologists and engineers in evaluating alternatives and minimizing impacts.

• Where significant environmental impacts may occur, document and photograph preconstruction and post-construction conditions.


Project Design

• Use established design standards for each facet of construction and related activities (e.g., roadbed, road surface, drainage, erosion control, re-vegetation, stream crossing, sensitive areas, steep slopes, material extraction, transport and storage, construction camps, decommissioning, etc.).

• Minimize use of vertical road cuts even though they are easier to construct, and require less space than flatter slopes. The majority of road cuts should have no more than a ¾:1 to 1:1 slope to promote plant growth. Vertical cuts are acceptable in rocky material and in well-cemented soils, if such cuts are stable according to established slope stability criteria.

• Water the road prior to compaction to strengthen the road surface. • When possible, delay compaction activities until the beginning of the wet season or

when more water is available. • Use water from settling basins and retention ponds for road maintenance. • Drive roads after moderate rains to identify areas that collect or gully water. Mark and

redesign / rehabilitate as necessary. • Reshape eroded or culled surfaces so that water will no longer follow the course of the

roadway. • Conduct periodic independent inspection of work to see that it conforms to original plan

and design specifications. Provide incentives and disincentives to ensure conformance.

Excavation / Borrow Pits

• Use material from local road cuts first, since it produces a fairly durable aggregate for both surface stabilization and erosion control and is very cost effective.

• Place fence around borrow pit excavations as necessary. • Ensure excavation is accompanied by well-engineered drainage to control runoff into the

pit. • Develop specific procedures for storing topsoil and for phased closure and reshaping

and restoration of the pit when extraction has been completed. Include plans for segregating gravel and quarry materials by quality and grade for possible future uses. Where appropriate, include re-seeding or re-vegetation to reduce soil erosion, prevent gulleying and minimize visual impacts.

• Discuss with local communities the option of retaining quarry pits as water collection ponds to water cattle, irrigate crops or for similar uses. Issues of disease transmission, and prohibiting the use of pit water for human consumption, bathing, and clothes washing, should be highlighted.

• Decommission / restore area so it is suitable for sustainable use after extraction is completed.

• Backfill and / or restore borrow areas and quarries before abandonment if alternative uses for those sites are not planned.

Vegetation Clearing and Re-vegetation

• Carry out earth moving and removal of vegetation only during dry periods. • If vegetation must be removed during wet periods, wait until just before actual

construction. • Store topsoil and preserve removed plants for later use. • Re-vegetate with recovered plants and other appropriate local flora immediately after

equipment is removed from a section of the site.

Material Storage

• Identify sites for temporary / permanent storage of excavated material and construction materials.

• Avoid pollution of waterways with stockpiled construction materials. • Cover stockpiled construction materials, as practicable.


Fill and Grade

• Minimize the volume of fill required. • Raise road surfaces with stable and durable fill material. Grade with inslope, outslope or

cambered shape. Install sufficient cross-drains, ditches and settling ponds. • Use appropriate road surface materials (e.g., asphalt, concrete, gravel) following fill

placement, or excavation to design grade. • Do not fill the flow-line of natural creeks and drainages. Especially in arid areas, design

culverts to handle rare high rainfall events. • Minimize cuts and fills in wetlands.

Drainage and Erosion Control

• Install drainage structures during instead of after construction. Most erosion associated with roads occurs in the first year after construction. Delaying installation of the drainage features greatly increases the extent of erosion and damage during that time.

• Use outside ditches to control surface water when necessary, but avoid general use as they concentrate water flow and require the road to be at least a meter wider. Install frequent structures, berms or trenches, to divert water upslope of roads into stream channels.

• Install frequent diversion structures, such as water bars, to move water off the road and minimize concentration of water.

• Install drainage crossings to pass water from the uphill to the downhill side of the road. If using culvert pipes, follow accepted sizing and design standards. Where flows are difficult to determine, use structures such as fords, rolling dips, and overflow dips that can accommodate any flow volume and are not susceptible to plugging.

• Stabilize outlet ditches (inside and outside) with small-stone riprap, and / or vegetative barriers placed on contour to dissipate energy and to prevent the creation or enlargement of gullies.

• Install drainage turnouts at frequent intervals, and extend turnout drains far enough to allow water to dissipate evenly into the ground.

• Install drainage ditches or berms on up-hill slopes to divert water away from the road. • Visually spot check for drainage problems, including accumulation of water on road

surfaces, especially after the first heavy rains following rehabilitation and at the end of the rainy season.

• Monitor and maintain drainage structures and ditches including culverts. Clean out culverts and side channels / runouts when they begin to fill with sediment.

• Install temporary erosion control features when permanent ones will be delayed. Use erosion control measures such as hay bales, berms, straw or fabric barriers.

• Stabilize slopes by planting vegetation. Work with agronomists to identify native species with the best erosion control properties, root strength, site adaptability, and other socially useful properties. Set up nurseries in project areas to supply necessary plants. Do not use non-native plants.

Material Disposal

• Break up old road surface material. Remove and dispose of surface material (e.g. asphalt) if necessary, and loosen soil of previous track to accelerate regeneration of vegetation.

• Segregate waste that can be salvaged, re-used or recycled. • Take waste materials to appropriate, designated local disposal areas. • Minimize burning of waste materials. • If waste will be buried on site, avoid siting burial pits up-gradient of drinking water



• If waste will be buried on site, avoid siting waste pits where water tables are high or underlying geology makes contamination of groundwater likely. If no alternative site is available, ensure that pits are lined with impermeable material.

Hazardous Materials

• Do not use asbestos materials on USAID-funded projects. • Do not use herbicides on USAID-funded projects without prior written approval. • Place solvents, lubricants, oils, and other semi-hazardous and hazardous liquids over a

lined area with appropriate secondary containment in order to contain spillage. Test the integrity of bulk storage tanks and drums, and secure valves on oil and fuel supplies.

• Build appropriate containment structures around bulk storage tanks and materials stores to prevent spillage entering watercourses.

• Handle, store, use and process branded materials in accordance with manufacturer’s instructions and recommendations.

• Set protocols for vehicle maintenance such as requiring that repairs and fueling occur elsewhere or over impervious surface such as plastic sheeting. Prevent dumping of hazardous materials. Capture leaks or spills with drop cloths or wood shavings. Burn waste oil that is not reusable / readily recyclable, that does not contain heavy metals, and that is flammable.

• Take special precautions to prevent release / dumping of debris, oil, fuel, sand cement, and similar harmful materials.

• Install concrete pads, drains and oil / water separators in areas where vehicle and equipment maintenance and fueling will occur regularly.

• Prevent fuel tank leaks by monitoring and crosschecking fuel levels, deliveries and use; checking pipes and joints for leaks; tightening generator fuel lines; and preventing over-filling of main storage and vehicle tanks.

C) Standard Conditions for Water and Wastewater Activities Standard Siting Conditions

• Site water supply facilities in a way that minimizes the potential for contamination, taking into account existing and likely future land use patterns in the water supply— i.e., wellhead protection, or upper watershed—area.

• Site wastewater facilities in a way that minimizes their potential for contaminating water supply sources, or for exposing human populations to water-born contaminants.

• Avoid siting water supply and wastewater facilities in flood-prone areas. • Do not site water and wastewater facilities on active faults or other areas where ground

stability problems such as soil creep occur. • Locate wastewater facilities downwind of local population. • Build latrines and similar sanitation facilities down gradient of water supply wells. As

necessary, evaluate depth to water table including seasonal fluctuations. Pit latrines should not be installed where the water table is shallow or the composition of the overlying deposits make groundwater vulnerable to contamination.

• Employ sensitive siting strategies that take into appropriate consideration impact on trees, wetlands and watercourses, important plant and animal habitat, and significant historical and archaeological resources. Avoid or mitigate adverse impacts to these resources.

Standard Design Conditions

• Design water supply facilities to protect water quality, minimize the potential for contamination, and to the extent practicable minimize operation and maintenance costs.

• Design wastewater facilities to minimize contamination of water supplies and minimize human exposure, and to the extent practicable minimize facility operation and maintenance costs.

• Mitigate, to the extent practicable, significant increases in throughput of sewage that occur in conjunction with the construction of new wastewater pipelines or canals.


• Where latrines are installed, use improved ventilated pit designs that reduce insect vectors.

Standard Construction Conditions

• Establish and adhere to construction timetables that minimize disruption to the normal activities of the construction area.

• Post construction timetables and traffic diversion schedules at the project site. • Coordinate truck and other construction activity to minimize noise, traffic disruption and

dust. • Develop and implement appropriate human health and worker safety measures during

construction as well as during operation and maintenance phases. • Where significant environmental impacts may occur, document and photograph

preconstruction and post-construction conditions. • Avoid subsidence and building stabilization problems through proper foundation

excavation, fill placement and borrow pit management. • Fill should avoid pockets of segregated materials, it should use well graded materials,

and it should be compacted to recognized standards. • Backfill and / or restore borrow areas and quarries before abandonment unless

alternative uses for those sites are planned. • Control runoff into borrow pits. • Install temporary erosion control and sediment retention measures when permanent

ones either are not feasible or are delayed. • Provide temporary sanitation at the construction site. • Set protocols for vehicle maintenance to control contamination by grease, oil and fuels. • Build collection channels leading to oil and / or silt traps, particularly around areas used

for vehicle washing or fuelling. • Build appropriate containment structures around bulk storage tanks and materials stores

to prevent spillage entering watercourses. • Build tanks or other separators for silt-laden material prior to allowing significant outflow

into watercourses. • Avoid pollution of waterways with stockpiled construction materials. • Cover stockpiled construction materials, as practicable. • Minimize the disturbance of, and reduce the spread of, ground contaminants. • Handle, store, use and process branded materials in accordance with manufacturer’s

instructions and recommendations. • Use lead-free paint, primers, varnishes and stains. • Minimize the use of solvent-based paints. • Introduce measures to control and minimize the volume of waste on site. • Segregate waste that can be salvaged, re-used or recycled. • Take waste materials to appropriate, designated local disposal areas. • Minimize burning of waste materials. • If waste will be buried on site, avoid siting burial pits up-gradient from drinking water


• If waste will be buried on site, avoid siting waste pits where water tables are high or underlying geology makes contamination of groundwater likely. If no alternative site is available, ensure that pits are lined with impermeable material.

• Provide for the safe disposal of gray water from bathing and washing. • Recycle wastewater to the extent practicable. • Seal or remove abandoned drains to minimize water contamination. • Use proper bedding materials for pipes, and backfill appropriately for the pipeline. • Use riprap (cobbled stone), gravel, or concrete as needed to prevent erosion of drainage

structures at the outfall of sanitation projects according to established standards.


• Monitor and repair leaks from cracked containment structures, broken pipes, faulty valves and similar structures.

• Do not use piping containing asbestos. • Replace lead pipes and joints in drinking water delivery system. • Provide proper wellhead protection against contaminant sources. • Keep livestock from grazing immediately up-gradient of water supplies. • Do not allow animals to drink directly from water sources, unless those sources are

subsequently treated. • In coastal areas, maintain withdrawals within safe yield limits to avoid salt water intrusion

and well contamination. • Ensure that spilled water and rainwater drain to a soakway or equivalent structure. • Monitor drains and soakways and keep clear of debris. • Collect and dispose of sludge from wastewater treatment facilities at appropriate

frequencies. • Dispose of sludge in areas designated by local authorities. • Test sludge for metals, pathogens and other appropriate constituents prior to use as

fertilizer. • Recover and replant topsoil and plants as practicable. • Re-vegetate areas damaged during construction. Do not remove erosion control

measures until re-vegetation is completed. • As practicable, landscape construction sites in a way that is appropriate to local

conditions.

Standard Operations and Maintenance Conditions

• As a rule, financing for water and wastewater infrastructure improvements should not be provided unless O&M provisions are in place.

• On larger projects, an O&M Manual should be prepared before water or wastewater system operations begin.

• Address financial and system power issues in O&M plans.

Additional Standard Conditions for Slaughterhouses

• Separate solid and liquid (wastewater, blood and other liquids) wastes prior to disposal. • Recycle any wastes that can appropriately be recycled. • Collect solid waste in containers for disposal to an approved treatment storage and

disposal facility, if practicable. • Treat liquid effluent with either anaerobic or aerobic pond systems, or discharge to a

wastewater treatment facility that is able to handle these special materials.

Additional Standard Conditions for Health Clinics and Medical Facilities

• Do not dispose of hazardous and chemical wastes to sewer systems. • Collect and segregate waste from patients treated with cy to toxic drugs. • Separate and disinfect stools from cholera patients prior to discharge. • Disinfect blood before discharge to sewers unless there is an adequate wastewater

treatment facility. • Water-soluble, relatively mild pharmaceutical mixtures, such as vitamin solutions, cough

syrups, intravenous solutions, eye drops, etc.—but not antibiotics—may be diluted with large amounts of water and then discharged to sewer systems that can handle them.

• Avoid burial of chemical wastes where there is potential for groundwater contamination.

D) Standard Conditions for Small-Scale Irrigation Projects Irrigation System Improvements As a general rule, small-scale irrigation projects should be designed to achieve or promote some or all of the following objectives:

• Better water management, including better water use efficiency and lower water losses.


• Better water quality. • Lower sediment loading. • Less erosion. • Less waterlogging and soil salinization. • Improved irrigation system operations and maintenance. • Healthier conditions for irrigation workers.

Specific actions that can be used to avoid or reduce adverse environmental impacts on small-scale irrigation projects are as follows:

Water Use Efficiency

• Improve water control through good canal and weir design. • Keep canals, headworks, regulators, modules and water courses free of debris. • Add water storage capacity where water is seasonally scarce. • Improve water depth consistency through improved land leveling. • Ensure the suitability of crops to available water supply. • Monitor groundwater tables when irrigating from groundwater. • Train farmers and system operators in how to improve water use efficiency.

Water Loss

• Use drip irrigation where practicable. • Use piping where practicable, instead of canals. • When using canals, employ design standards that limit evaporative loss. • Design canals that are relatively narrow and deep. • Cover open canals. • Line canals to limit water loss through percolation. • Reduce evapotranspiration by keeping canals clear of vegetation. • Monitor and repair leaks from cracked canal and containment structures, broken pipes,

faulty valves and similar infrastructure. • Reduce evaporation on center pivot and sprinkler systems by irrigating at the coolest

time of day. • Train farmers and system operators in how to reduce water loss.

Water Quality

• Use design standards that lower sediment loads in irrigation water. • Identify and monitor water quality parameters with adverse crop and human health

impacts. • Train farmers and system operators in how to improve water quality.

Erosion

• Use terracing and similar techniques to reduce land surface erosion. • Plan for devices that can protect against scour where water scour potential is an issue

(e.g., culverts, drops, chutes, control structures). • Train farmers on how to reduce land and facility erosion.

Waterlogging and Salinization

• Monitor groundwater levels and salinity. • Use sprinkler or drip irrigation systems where possible. • Improve system drainage. • Train farmers to recognize waterlogging and salinization problems.

Operations and Maintenance

• As a rule, financing for irrigation infrastructure improvements should not be provided unless appropriate O&M provisions are in place.


• Establish an appropriate maintenance schedule for inspection and reporting performance conditions.

• Periodically review system components to verify that they meet the original design criteria for efficient operations and uniform distribution of water.

• Where appropriate, prepare an O&M Manual before the irrigation system starts operations.

• O&M plans should address, inter alia, financial and system power issues.

Human Health

• Understand what water-related disease vectors occur in association with the irrigation system, and design system improvements to reduce those vectors.

• Don’t use irrigation water as a potable water source. • Line canals and ditches. • Cover or pipe water where possible. • Prevent backwaters or slow-moving water where vegetation and disease vectors are

more easily established. • Use application rates that avoid generating areas of standing water. • Keep canals and ditches free of weeds, sediment and snails. • Actively control disease vectors. • Train farmers and system operators to recognize and deal with system characteristics

with the potential to adversely affect human health.

Other Irrigation System Conditions

• Design canals to maintain appropriate flow velocities. • Plan for access of canals to facilitate cleaning, sediment removal and vector control. • Design appropriate canal crossing structures at appropriate intervals. • Plan for gates at the lower end of canals to they can be flushed to the nearest drain. • Do not use materials containing asbestos on USAID funded projects. • Replace lead pipes and joints in delivery system.


E) Other STANDARD CONSTRUCTION CONDITIONS

• Establish and adhere to construction timetables that minimize disruption to the normal activities of the construction area.

• Post construction timetables and traffic diversion schedules at the project site • Coordinate truck and other construction activity to minimize noise, traffic disruption and

dust. • Where significant environmental impacts may occur, document and photograph

preconstruction and post-construction conditions. • Fill should avoid pockets of segregated materials, it should use well-graded materials,

and it should be compacted to recognized standards. • Install temporary erosion control and sediment retention measures when permanent

ones either are not feasible or are delayed. • Use proper bedding materials for pipes, and backfill appropriately for the pipeline • Use riprap (cobbled stone), gravel, or concrete as needed to prevent erosion of drainage

structures at the outfall according to established standards. • Do not allow animals to drink directly from water sources. • In coastal areas, maintain withdrawals within safe yield limits to avoid salt water intrusion

and well contamination. • Ensure that spilled water and rainwater drain to a soakway or equivalent structure. • Re-vegetate areas damaged during construction. Do not remove erosion control

measures until re-vegetation is completed. • As practicable, landscape construction sites in a way that is appropriate to local

conditions. Excavation and Borrow Pits

• Use material from the required excavations first, since it produces a fairly durable • aggregate for both surface stabilization and erosion control and is very cost effective. • Place fences around borrow pit excavations, as necessary. • Ensure excavation is accompanied by well-engineered drainage to control runoff into the

pit. • Develop specific procedures for storing topsoil, and for phased closure and reshaping

and restoration of the pit when extraction has been completed. Include plans for segregating gravel and quarry materials by quality and grade for possible future uses. Where appropriate, include reseeding or re-vegetation to reduce soil erosion, prevent gullying and minimize visual impacts.

• Discuss with local communities the option of retaining quarry pits as water collection ponds to water cattle, irrigate crops or for similar uses. Issues of disease transmission, and prohibiting the use of pit water for human consumption, bathing, and clothes washing, should be highlighted.

• Decommission / restore areas so that they are suitable for sustainable use after extraction is completed.

• Backfill and / or restore borrow areas and quarries before abandonment if alternative uses for those sites are not planned.

Material Storage and Handling • Identify sites for temporary / permanent storage of excavated material and construction

materials. • Avoid pollution of waterways with stockpiled construction materials. • Set protocols for vehicle maintenance to control contamination by grease, oil and fuels. • Build collection channels leading to oil and / or silt traps, particularly around areas used

for vehicle washing or fuelling. • Build appropriate containment structures around bulk storage tanks and materials stores

to prevent spillage entering watercourses.


• Build tanks or other separators for silt-laden material prior to allowing significant outflow into watercourses.

• Cover stockpiled construction materials, as practicable. • Minimize the disturbance of, and reduce the spread of, ground contaminants. • Handle, store, use and process branded materials in accordance with manufacturer’s

instructions and recommendations. • Segregate construction waste that can be salvaged, re-used or recycled. • Take construction waste materials to appropriate, designated local disposal areas. • Minimize burning of waste materials. • If construction waste will be buried on site, avoid siting burial pits up-gradient from

drinking water sources such as wells. Pits should be lined with impermeable material (e.g., clay or polyethylene).

• If construction waste will be buried on site, avoid siting waste pits where water tables are high or underlying geology makes contamination of groundwater likely.

• If no alternative site is available, ensure that pits are lined with impermeable material.

Human Health and Worker Safety During Cnstruction

• Provide workers with appropriate safety equipment. • Protect workers from injury by flying or falling rock, slope failures and avalanche. • Explore off-site accommodation for crew. • Keep camp sizes to a minimum. • Provide temporary sanitation on construction sites.

Maintain good first aid capabilities on site.

PROGRAMMATIC ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT -...

Documents

Transcript of PROGRAMMATIC ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT -...