World Bank Document...2012/05/10 · GO-ELS Ltd. World Bank: Kyrgyzstan – Desk and Field Studies...

GO-ELS LTD.

ONSHORE AND OFFSHORE GEOTECHNICAL AND ENGINEERING GEOLOGY CONSULTANTS

DRAFT

Investigation and Analysis of Natural Hazard Impacts

on Linear Infrastructure in Southern Kyrgyzstan

Desk and Field Studies Report

Prepared for: World Bank

GO-ELS Ltd.

Rue Marc Brison 10G,Limal, 1300, Belgium Tel: +32 10 419525 ; Mob. :: +32 474 642577

e-mail:1 [email protected] e-mail 2: [email protected]

skype: chrisgolightly

68669

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

GO-ELS Ltd. World Bank: Kyrgyzstan – Desk and Field Studies Report

Investigation and Analysis of Geohazard Impacts

on Major Road Infrastructure in Southern Kyrgyzstan

Desk and Field Studies Report

Prepared for World Bank

DISCLAIMER

The opinions and interpretations presented in this report represent our best technical interpretation of the data made available to us. However, due to the uncertainty inherent in the estimation of all sub-surface parameters, we cannot, and do not guarantee the accuracy or correctness of any interpretation and we shall not, except in the case of gross or wilful negligence on our part, be liable or responsible for any loss, cost damages or expenses incurred or sustained by anyone resulting from any interpretation made by any of our officers, agents or employees.

Except for the provision of professional services on a fee basis, GO-ELS Ltd. does not have a commercial arrangement with any other person or company involved in the interests that are the subject of this report.

COPYRIGHT

© GO-ELS Ltd.

The material presented in this report is confidential. This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of World Bank and shall not be distributed or made available to any other company or person without the knowledge and written consent of World Bank or GO-ELS Ltd.

REPORT NUMBER: REPORT TITLE:

DATE 3rd December 2008 PROJECT REFERENCE: WB Kirgysztan_039

PREPARED: CHECKED: APPROVED:

NAME C.R. Golightly

SENT EDITION DESCRIPTION COMMENT

03.12.2008 REV. 02 Final Inc. Client Comments

29.10.2008 REV. 01 Draft For Client Comment

FILE LOCATION: WB Kirgysztan_039/report


Table of Contents

1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ....................................................................................... 5

2. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................... 6

3. OBJECTIVES AND SCOPE OF WORK ................................................................ 7

3.1 Report Structure .................................................................................................................. 7

3.2 Background .......................................................................................................................... 7

3.3 Study Objectives ................................................................................................................. 8

3.4 Scope of Work ..................................................................................................................... 8

3.5 Abbreviations ....................................................................................................................... 9

4. GEOHAZARDS ....................................................................................................10

4.1 Definition of Geohazard .................................................................................................... 10

4.2 Seismicity of Kyrgyzstan .................................................................................................. 10

4.3 Landslide and Mudflow Risk in Kyrgyzstan ................................................................... 10

4.4 Geohazards Relevant to Road Construction .................................................................. 11

4.5 Geohazards Affecting Kyrgyz Road Network ................................................................. 13

4.6 Kyrgyz Annual and Summary Atlases of Natural Hazards ............................................ 13

5. KYRGYZ REPUBLIC ROAD DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION ............................15

5.1 General ............................................................................................................................... 15

5.2 National Ministries and Institutes .................................................................................... 16

5.3 Codes and Standards ........................................................................................................ 16

5.4 Maintenance and Repair ................................................................................................... 17

5.5 Current Practice in Identification and Assessment of Geohazards ............................. 17

6. ECONOMIC IMPACT OF MAJOR GEOHAZARDS ..............................................18

7. GEOHAZARD DESIGN, MONITORING AND MITIGATION .................................20

7.1 GIS Based Geohazards Register ..................................................................................... 20

7.2 Design Techniques ............................................................................................................ 20

7.3 Monitoring and Inspection................................................................................................ 21

7.4 Construction Mitigation Techniques ............................................................................... 21

7.4.1 TRL UK Overseas Road Note 16 (Ref. 24) .................................................................................... 22

7.4.2 SEACAP SE Asia Programme 2007 (Refs. 19, 20 and 21) ........................................................... 23

7.4.3 UK DFID Himalayan Landslide Risk Assessment Studies 2003 (Ref. 25) ..................................... 24

8. CONCLUSIONS ...................................................................................................26

8.1 Geohazards in Kyrgyzstan ............................................................................................... 26

8.2 Economic Assessment ..................................................................................................... 27

9. RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................................................................29

10. REFERENCES .....................................................................................................31


Tables

1. Geohazards Relevant to Pre-Existing Routes

2. Geohazards Relevant to New Routes

3. Prioritised Transport Corridors

4. SEACAP Road Disruption Costs (Ref. 19)

5. Example Geohazard Risk Assessment

Figures

1. Kyrgyz Road Rehabilitation Projects (Ref. 3)

2. Kyrgyz Republic and CAREC Corridors (Ref. 8)

3. Kyrgyz Republic; Schematic Map of Seismic Hazard (Ref. 13)

4. Seismic Zonation Map of Kyrgyzstan (Ref. 13)

5. Schematic Map of Landslide Forecasting (Ref. 13)

6. Schematic Map of Mudflow Hazard Forecasting (Ref. 13)

7. Batken Oblast: Schematic Map of Emergencies Forecasting (Ref. 13)

8. Osh Oblast: Schematic Map of Emergencies Forecasting (Ref. 13)

9. Draft Example of Proposed Road Geohazard Register

Appendices

A Meeting Notes; Bishkek and Osh

B Field Reconnaissance Trips

C Site Reconnaissance Photographs

D Kyrgyz Road Network

E Road Investment and Maintenance Costs in Kyrgyzstan

F Road Sector Results Matrix (Ref. 15)

G Proposed ADB Maintenance Plan Framework (Ref. 3)


1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

In Kyrgyzstan [KG], the existence of natural geological hazards (known as “geohazards”), such as landslides, mudflows and large scale river erosion are common in the more mountainous areas and threaten a “core network” of major roads.

This report presents the findings of a study of geohazards along 850 km of roads in southern KG and their potential impact on road rehabilitation projects throughout the country.

The study is based upon an assessment of 850 km of road visited, interviews with relevant institution and ministry personnel in Bishkek and Osh and research and information gathering on road rehabilitation in general throughout KG.

The KG National Environmental Health Action Plan (NEHAP, 1997) includes a chapter on natural and industrial disasters and requires that effective measures are implemented to prevent and mitigate damage caused by natural hazards.

There is a perception and understanding of the importance of natural hazards in KG, although overall road and ancillary structure design is not considered adequate in dealing with the risks from geohazards, in particular from river erosion along substantial sections of road in some areas.

This study has shown that the locations and extent of geohazards (predominantly landslides, mudflows and river erosion) have been comprehensively mapped along the “core network” of major routes. There appears to be a good understanding of these issues and expertise within the relevant state organisations within KG. An annually upgraded atlas of natural hazards including maps and detailed descriptions of natural hazards is maintained. However, design, monitoring and mitigation measures necessary to ensure the future integrity of a rehabilitated “core network” is inadequate due to lack of resources and funding. The current response to geohazard and other natural hazard disasters is, due to force of circumstance, reactive.

The KG Ministry of Transport and Communications (MOTC) states in it’s Road Sector Development Strategy for 2007 – 2010:

“The road network is highly susceptible to damage by natural causes and the consequent cost of repair is higher than damage caused by traffic. Some of the gorges and passes traversed by the main road network are so precarious that technically there is no feasible solution to eliminate the danger of severe damage or loss of the road. The risk can only be mitigated by careful maintenance. Expenditure on repair of damage by natural causes is likely to be recurrent. Even though the need for such interventions is certain, the magnitude of their cost cannot be predicted. This makes forecasts and planning of improvement to the core network doubly uncertain.”

This report concludes by making recommendations which may improve this situation and reduce the risk to the rehabilitated road “core network” in the future, as follows:

A GIS based Geohazards register, by combining the “construction hotspots” list already formulated by MOTC together with an existing natural hazards GIS database based upon an annually updated register of natural hazards.

Adoption of design methods, mitigation measures and monitoring techniques appropriate to roads in KG, developed from previous projects reported in the public domain and guidelines for low cost road construction in mountainous terrain.

Setting up of a Geohazards Group to initially discuss and agree upon the above, with subsequent workshops at regular intervals during the years of expenditure on rehabilitation.

Consideration of appointment of external consultants to carry out an independent study of major geohazard locations along those major roads planned for rehabilitation over the period 2009 – 2012, together with cost estimates and appropriate design solutions.


2. INTRODUCTION

Many developing countries are located in mountainous regions, and suffer from poor road access and lack of data concerning topography, geology and environmental hazards. The Kyrgyz geography makes it high-risk country for natural disasters, such as earthquakes, floods, landslides, mudflows, large scale river erosion, avalanches, squalls, downpours, icing, frosts, droughts, destructive glacier fluctuation, breakthrough of mountainous lakes and rising groundwater. The country is the most seismically active in central Asia, with over 3000 earthquakes registered annually. Devastating earthquakes occur every 5 to 10 years. Decreasing forest coverage in many mountainous areas due to grazing and logging has made dangerous floods, landslides and mudslides more common

In Kyrgyzstan, natural geological hazards (known as “geohazards”), predominantly landslides, mudflows and large scale river erosion are amongst the most frequent and damaging environmental hazards, causing loss of life, loss of livelihood and disruption to road traffic and economic activity. The Kyrgyz Government is concerned about the impact of such disaster hazards on the economy and the population, but has limited funds and resources to deal with this threat to its infrastructure.

The Kyrgyz Republic’s [KG] mountainous topography and landlocked location in Central Asia emphasises the role of the transport sector in the achievement of sustainable economic development. This sector is dominated by road transport, which accounted for 92% of freight movements and 99% of passenger traffic (excluding intra-urban) in 2003 (Ref. 4).

The KG Ministry of Emergency Situations (MES) estimates that the impact of disaster hazard related events in the Kyrgyz Republic could be as high as US $35 million on average per annum. The Government has increased investment in rehabilitating major international and national roads over the past ten years, with such investment amounting to $114.5 million during 2000–2004. However, overall fiscal constraints have resulted in a lack of financing for maintenance and rehabilitation, while some authorities may lack the required information and know-how to overcome these problems. The purpose of this project was to investigate in-country capabilities in road design, monitoring and mitigation in relation to geohazards in order to facilitate the adoption of improved and affordable methods of design against potential geohazard impact on major roads.

The World Bank [WB] is partially supporting the rehabilitation and improvement of one of the major roads, the 356 km long Osh–Batken–Isfana road that links the productive Ferghana valley to the main population centres in Bishkek, Osh, and Jalalabad.

This report presents the findings of a short “fact finding” study on geological hazards (or geohazards) as they relate to ongoing and future planned road rehabilitation projects throughout KG and provides recommendations on activities that could be carried out in KG over the coming years in order to utilise the expertise and data available in country in order to facilitate and improve road design and monitoring/mitigation of geohazard impacts.

The study included a visit to Kyrgyzstan between 11th to 30th September 2008, which included 7 days travelling along approximately 850 km of major road. The work in KG including the following:

a) Discussions with government ministries and other institutions in Bishkek and Osh (see Appendix A), in order to establish the current methods adopted in designing for and mitigation against geohazards.

b) A field visit along the proposed route of the Osh – Batken – Isfana road, the rehabilitation and upgrade of which will be partly funded by WB over the period 2008 to 2010 or 2011.

c) Subsequent field trips, facilitated by the Kyrgyz Ministry of Transport (MOTC) along approximately 850 km of major international routes (see Appendices B and C).


3. OBJECTIVES AND SCOPE OF WORK

3.1 Report Structure

Section 2 provides an introduction to the report and Section 3 provides background information behind the study, the objectives and a brief description of the Scope of Work.

Section 4 describes geohazards in general and details those specifically threatening road developments in KG.

Section 5 describes current road design practices and codes and standards within KG while

Section 6 discussed briefly the potential economic consequences of geohazards on major roads in KG.

Section 7 discusses geohard design, mitigation and monitoring of geohazards and presents two examples of detailed geohazard assessment and design and construction techniques developed in other countries.

Sections 8 and 9 present the conclusions and recommendations arising from the study. References are listed in Section 10.

Meeting notes, field trip records and photographs are included as Appendices A to C. Appendices D to G provide information on the KG Road Network, Road Investment and Maintenance Costs snf the Proposed ADB Maintenance Plan Framework for KG.

3.2 Background

The original intention of this study was to assess only the Osh - Batken – Isfana route for potential geohazard impact, but this eventually widened to include routes where geohazard issues are more dramatic, with greater risk and cost implications. It soon became apparent after reviewing the KG annual register of hazards maps and following initial discussions with MES, MOTC and the KG Roads Design Institute (KDTP), that the geohazard problems along the relatively gentle Fergana Valley route were minor in comparison to other mountainous routes, other than some minor mudflows and river erosion problems towards the Batken/Isfana end of the route.

The study Scope of Work [SoW] and main objectives were defined in a WB Terms of Reference [TOR] Project Information Document [PID] document (Refs. 30 and 31).

The KG National Environmental Health Action Plan (NEHAP, 1997) includes a chapter on natural and industrial disasters and defines the plan objectives regarding disaster hazards as follows:

(i) Limit the consequences of natural disasters, and ensure that effective arrangements are in place for emergency preparedness and for response to natural and manmade disasters;

(ii) Ensure that the appropriate levels of government and the relevant public services, as well as members of the public, are fully informed of the probability and potential risks of disaster hazards, so that they can put those risks into perspective and understand the action required of them in an emergency.

In order to achieve these objectives, the KG 1997 NEHAP document defines the following requirements for any action plan:

(iii) restoring the monitoring network for natural and manmade hazards as an integral part of environmental monitoring;


(iv) developing and implementing effective measures to prevent and mitigate damage caused by natural hazards.

3.3 Study Objectives

The study focuses on improving the second requirement of the above strategy (iv). The TOR (Ref. 30) defined the study primary objectives as follows:

1. Review country capacity for disaster management recommend improvements;

2. Develop strategies to mainstream disaster related information, knowledge and skills into transport / infrastructure projects in construction, rehabilitation or maintenance context;

3. Point out more economically efficient approaches in dealing with geohazards affecting transport / infrastructure;

4. Contribute to country’s efforts in dealing with effects of climate change on the frequency and magnitude of natural disasters, especially from geo-hazards.

Proposed indicators which it was suggested would demonstrate progress towards the objectives were defined as follows:

5. Establishment of inter-Ministerial forum or working group (Ministries for Transport/Emergency Situations) to address geo-hazards;

6. Enhanced capabilities to deal with geohazards on strategic, administrative and implementation levels by strengthening communication lines and “chain of command” from Ministries to Oblast and Rayon road authorities and ensuring knowledge transfer by appropriate manuals and training for their application;

7. Tailored financial tools to analyse and evaluate the economic impact of geohazards and changes in national and regional budget planning and allocation and estimate required funds for meaningful intervention;

8. Improvement in road design and maintenance standards and practices, evidenced by fewer geohazard related damage to infrastructure and reduced lifecycle maintenance costs.

3.4 Scope of Work

The requirements of the assignment were to include the following specific activities:

1. Travel to the Kyrgyz Republic:

2. Meetings with representatives from the MES and MOTC in Bishkek and in SW Kyrgyzstan

3. Travel to SW Kyrgyzstan (Osh, Batken and Isfana Oblasts) to meet with regional / local authorities and agencies;

4. Field data collection (institutional, financial, socio-economical, geotechnical, engineering);

5. Data evaluation, interpretation and elaboration of reports.

The study schedule was as follows (2008 week numbers):

Desk Study and Literature Searches Week 37

Country Visit Weeks 38 to 40

Structural and Economic Assessment Week 42


Geotechnical and Engineering Assessment Weeks 42 and 43

Evaluation and Draft Reporting Weeks 43 and 44

WB review Week 47

Final Report Week 49

3.5 Abbreviations

AADT Annual Average Daily Traffic

ADB Asian Development Bank

CAIAG Central Asian Institute for Applied Geosciences

CAREC Central Asia Regional Economic Cooperation

GIS Geographical Information System

GSHAP Global Seismic Hazard Assessment Programme

KDTP Kyrgyz National Road Design Institute

KG Kyrgyzstan

LOS Loss of Service

MES Ministry of Emergency Situations

MOTC Ministry of Transport and Communictaions

PGA Peak Ground Acceleration

TA Technical Assistance

TOR Terms of Reference

WB World Bank


4. GEOHAZARDS

4.1 Definition of Geohazard

In general terms a “geohazard” was defined by Doornkamp (Ref. 10) as:

“A condition of the earth’s surface, a process-response system, or an event occurring in that system, of a geological, hydro-geological or geomorphological nature that poses a threat to human beings or their activities. The cause of the hazard may be natural or anthropogenic and an existing hazard may be reactivated or made worse by human activity”.

In the context of route selection for linear infrastructure (roads, railways, pipelines) construction and operations, a geohazard may be further defined as follows:

“Any geological or hydrogeological physical feature or process that poses a threat during construction or operation or which has the potential to develop further into a situation leading to damage or uncontrolled risk.”

Further details and descriptions of land originated geohazards are contained in Ref. 7.

4.2 Seismicity of Kyrgyzstan

Throughout the last century, Kyrgyzstan has been affected by a series of seismic disasters, the strongest being the Ms = 8.2 Kemin earthquake in 1911 (Bogdanovitch et al., 1914, Delvaux et al., 2001). This earthquake killed several hundreds of people through direct or indirect effects, as mudflows and landslides were triggered through severe ground shaking. Recently, the Ms = 7.3 Suusamyr earthquake affected the Northern and central Tien Shan mountain regions triggering rockslides and many debris slides or flows. About 50 people were killed, most of them by the giant Toluk rock avalanche triggered by the earthquake inside the Southern Suusamyr Range (Ghose et al., 1997). As recently as October 6th 2008, an Ms = 6.6 earthquake destroyed the village of Nura, 55 km east of Sary Tash killing over 100 people. The global seismic hazard program (GSHAP) seismic hazard maps of Central Asia illustrate that most parts of Kyrgyzstan are at a very high risk level, i.e. peak ground acceleration levels (PGA) of the order of 0.48 m/s2 for a return period of 475 years (see Figs. 3 and 4). These relatively recent probabilistic seismic hazard maps were calculated for large areas and show generally smooth PGA levels. Site effect studies however have shown that ground motion can be amplified by a factor of up to 10 over a distance of less than 3 km, even on assumed rock sites. These local scale effects are not included in the general PGA map and further research is ongoing (Refs. 1 and 26).

4.3 Landslide and Mudflow Risk in Kyrgyzstan

In Kyrgyzstan large landslides (up to 106 m3) represent one of the major natural hazards due to their frequent (seasonal) occurrence across large areas. They are particularly concentrated in the Southern Tienshan along the eastern rim of the Fergana Basin within the foothills of the surrounding mountain ranges. This region is quite densely populated and landslides lead almost every year to damage of settlements and infrastructure and loss of human life (Refs. 5, 13 and 14). In this area landslide activity is caused by complex interactions between tectonic, geological, geomorphological and hydrometeorological factors. Because of the high complexity of the phenomena and their occurrence over large areas, the MES, which is responsible for disaster mitigation and prevention, and the Central Asian


Institute for Applied Geosciences (CAIAG) is leading the development of effective methods for an improved evaluation of landslide hazard. In Kyrgyzstan landslides have been studied for the last 50 years and about 3000 landslides have been recorded which are mostly concentrated along the topographically rising rim of the Fergana Basin below its transition into higher mountainous terrain (Refs. 16, 17 and 18). Landslides mostly occur in form of rotational slides at elevations of between 700 and 2000 metres in weakly consolidated Quaternary and Tertiary sediments consisting of loess, sand- and siltstones, clays, loams and carbonates (Ref. 17). Previous investigations have concentrated on detailed studies of single events in the vicinity of settlements. Landslides occuring in massive Quaternary loess units of up to 50 meters thickness are characterised by very rapid avalanche-like mass movements which can reach several meters per second. These often represent a combination of rotational slide and dry flow resulting in long runout zones. These landslides are particularly dangerous because of their great destructive power and their sudden occurrence after longer periods of “creep” destabilisation which is indicated by cracks developing sub-parallel to hillslope crests. Another form of rotational landslide occurs in Mesozoic and Cenozoic sediments (Jura up to Paleogene) with intercalated clays. These environments lead to complex mass movements with long periods of activity and maximum movement rates of several meters per day. They are also preceded by the formation of cracks. Both types of landslide frequently result in the devastation of large areas. Localised studies only partially explain the occurrence of landslides at a regional scale, due to a limited understanding of factors controlling the regional distribution of landslides, such as recent tectonic activity. A further factor is the topographic relief which results from tectonic development and specific lithological conditions. There is generally insufficient information at present regarding the country wide spatial and temporal occurrence of landslides, although a large number of landslides have been recorded (Ref. 16) based on regular field investigations and selected analysis of aerial photographs. However, a comprehensive spatial and temporal inventory of landslides over the whole country has not yet been carried out, due mainly to the limited availability of spatial data (detailed maps and remote sensing data) as a result of restrictive data policy during Soviet times and insufficient financial and technological means at present (Ref. 17). Further details on remote sensing and GIS based mapping of landslide hazards in KG are given in Refs. 22 and 27.

4.4 Geohazards Relevant to Road Construction

For corridor and route selection for linear infrastructure projects, such as roads, railways power cable lines or oil and gas pipelines either newly constructed or already in place, three categories of geohazard threat are generally recognised:

A1 Process Conditions [Tectonic/Geological]

A2 Ground Conditions [Geotechnical]

A3 Surface Form Conditions [Geomorphological/Hydrotechnical]

Those geohazards marked in bold in Table 1 below are considered those posing the greatest threat to major roads planned for rehabilitation in Kyrgyzstan. It is important to appreciate that the rehabilitation of the “core network” of major roads planned will take place along routes pre-selected during the Soviet period, with little opportunity for anything other than very minor reroutes.


Table 1 – Geohazards Relevant to Pre-Existing Routes

A1: Tectonic/Geological [Process]

A2: Geotechnical [Ground]

A3: Geomorphological/ Hydrotechnical

[Surface]

Neo-Tectonic Fault Rupture

Debris Flows, Mudslides, Rockfalls River Bed Scour

Seismic Liquefaction Salt, Gypsum or pH damage/corrosion

Degradation/Avulsion

Seismic Ground Movement

Rock Strength or Degree of Jointing/Fracturing

Bank Erosion

Mud Volcanoes Loess and Other Metastable Soils Flooding

Tsunami Wave and Erosion

Rock Dissolution (e.g. Karstic or Gypsum Cavities)

Encroachment

Sand Dune Migration Permafrost Soil Erosion

Landslides

Through Route

In-Situ Soil Movement

Collapse/Subsidence River Channel Migration

Above Route

Clay Swelling/Shrinkage Gullying/Dissection

Below Route Compressiblity Fluvial Debris Impact

Magmatic Volcanic Eruption

Steep Gradients/ Sidelong Ground

For newly selected routes, during the construction and operation phases, two further main categories of geohazard should be considered:

B1 Construction Generated Problems

B2 Maintenance Risks

Table 2 – Geohazards Relevant to New Routes

Design, Construction and Operation Stages

B1: Construction Problems B2: Maintenance Risks

Excavatability Route Blockage/Cutting

Slope Cutting or Toe Removal River Erosion

Loading Head of Landslide Maintenance Access

Soil Erosion and Increased Runoff Ancillary Structure Damage (Bridges/Culverts)

Excavation Stability Rock and Soil Collapse Impacts

Difficulty of Temporary Works Flooding

Detailed Evaluation of Permanent Works

Accessibility and Trafficability

Cost, Schedule and Supervision Factors


4.5 Geohazards Affecting Kyrgyz Road Network

The ADB document “Kyrgyz Republic: Improving Road Maintenance and Strengthening the Transport Corridor Management Department” (Ref. 3) does not go into detail on geohazard (landslides, mudflows, erosion and flooding) design, mitigation and maintenance, but states specifically for the Osh – Irkeshtam road:

“Emergency interventions are carried out after landslips or when erosion threatens to wash out the road. As a consequence, the road provides a low level of service to its users. In winter, between November and April, slippery conditions prevail, and the road from the base of the Taldyk Pass to Irkeshtam is frequently blocked by drifting snow. Closures for snow removal sometimes last several days. Landslips and erosion rarely actually close the road, but create dangerous conditions, restrict the carriageway, and the proper functioning of drains.

Probably the asset value of the road is more threatened by erosion than by any other factor. The road is kept open at present by the interventions of the local maintenance departments, dumping or bulldozing mixed fill into the voids created by erosion.”

The MOTC’s Road Sector Development Strategy (Ref. 15; Section 3.5.3 “Emergency Interventions”) describes the approach to geohazards as follows:

“In the event of emergency interventions, the government will provide additional funds for remedial actions, without reducing funds for maintenance and preventative measures foreseen in this strategy. The KR road network traverses difficult terrain, and the climate is harsh. The network is highly susceptible to avalanches, landslides, flooding, and erosion. Damage by natural causes and the consequent cost of repair, on many Kyrgyz roads, is higher than damage caused by traffic. Some of the gorges and passes traversed by the main road network are so precarious that technically there is no feasible solution to eliminate the danger of severe damage or loss of the road. The risk can only be mitigated by careful maintenance. At the same time as the MOTC strives to preserve the overall integrity of the core network, expenditure on repair of damage by natural causes is likely to be recurrent. Even though the need for such interventions is certain, the magnitude of their cost cannot be predicted. This makes forecasts and planning of improvement to the core network doubly uncertain.”

The above extracts are the only direct references to geohazards within a number of relevant documents reviewed on road construction and rehabilitation in KG (see References listed in Section 10). This indicates that, although the problems of landslide and mudflow hazard are reasonably understood and their locations probably adequately mapped and described in the annually updated national hazards register (see 14 and following section 4.6), the authorities policy is, perhaps understandably, reactive, due to resource and funding constraints. Following field observations and discussions with MOTC, MES and KDTP (Appendices B and C) it is considered that potential large scale river erosion threats are probably more serious throughout Kyrgyzstan than those presented by landslides and mudflows or other geohazards. 4.6 Kyrgyz Annual and Summary Atlases of Natural Hazards

The Ministry of Emergency Situations maintains an annually updated register of natural hazards throughout the republic (Ref. 14). This extensive database is available only in Russian, but an English language summary of the register was produced in 2006 (Ref. 13) entitled:


“The Small Atlas of Kyrgyzstan : Emergencies Forecasting Schematic Maps of the Territory of the Kyrgyz Republic”,

This provides descriptions and nationwide maps as well as individual hazard maps for the Batken, Jalal-Abad, Issyk-Kul, Naryn, Osh, Talas and Chuff oblasts, for the following natural hazards:

seismicity

landslides

avalanche

flooding

mudflows

high-mountain lake flooding

radioactive and chemical tailings and mine wastes

overall risk map for all natural hazards

Figures 3 to 8 from Ref. 13 show examples of hazard maps for seismicity, landslides and mudflows as well as individual hazard maps for the Osh and Batken oblasts. Individual geohazard features are listed and described in detail in the main annual register along the majority of major roads in the country.

This annual register of hazards is an extremely detailed and valuable database, representing many years of painstaking work. It is strongly recommended that greater use is made of this information in the assessment of geohazard risk at specific locations identified and the subsequent rehabilitation road design to mitigate against problems/failures at those locations.

The annual hazards register has been incorporated into a GIS MAPINFO database at the Central Asian Institute for Applied Geosciences (CAIAG) in Bishkek (see Appendix A for details).


5. KYRGYZ REPUBLIC ROAD DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION

5.1 General

The road network under the authority of the MOTC has a total length of 18,849 km and consists of the following (Ref.3):

5,697 km of international roads; [SNiP Category I-a]

5,093 km of national roads; [SNiP Category I-b, II and III]

8,059 km of local roads. [SNiP Category III, IV and V]

The Core Network was defined following a 2005 World Bank study (Ref. 29) and consists of 4,067 km (70%) of international roads, and 2,109 km (40%) national roads. Of this network 2,798 km and 1,362 km of international and national roads, respectively have been identified as needing the most urgent repairs and maintenance. The remainder has either been recently maintained or is presently under rehabilitation (see Annex 2 of Ref. 3 and Ref. 15 for definitions of “International Roads” and “Core Network”).

The MOTC “Road Sector Development Strategy” (Ref. 15) envisages the following 8 prioritized transport corridors to be brought into conformity with international road maintenance standards by 2010.

Table 3 - MOTC Prioritised Transport Corridors

Transport Corridors Length, km Technical Compliance

2006 2010

Bishkek - Osh 672 71 % 100%

Bishkek - Georgievka 16 80 % 100%

Bishkek – Naryn - Torugart 539 0 % 35 %

Taraz – Talas - Suusamyr 199 12 % 100%

Osh – Sarytash - Irkeshtam 258 1 % 100%

Osh – Isfana 385 0 % 57%

Sarytash – Karamyk –

Jergetal

142 0 % 100%

Karabalta – Chaldovar 31 0% 100%

It has been estimated (Ref. 15) that foreign investment in the amount of 490 million USD is necessary for rehabilitation of the key regional corridors listed above.

In order to assess the capacity and activities carried out in the context of geohazard assessment, the MES, MOTC and KDTP as well as other institutes were visited in Bishkek and Osh (see Minutes of Meetings in Appendix A). In addition, discussions were held within MOTC and KDTP regarding the relevant design codes adopted for road and ancillary structure design.


A summary is provided of current design codes and standards adopted, together with a summary of the current approach adopted within the country with regard to road design for geohazards, mitigation, maintenance and repair.

5.2 National Ministries and Institutes

The government ministries most relevant to maintenance of the national road network are:

Ministry of Emergency Situations

Ministry of Transport

Technical organisations visited included:

Kyrgyz National Road Design Institute (KDTP)

Institute of Seismology

Central Asian Institute for Applied Geosciences (CAIAG)

Representatives of both ministries and institutes were visited in Bishkek and Osh and minutes of these meetings are included in Appendix A.

5.3 Codes and Standards

The present national geometric and geotechnical design standards for road construction and reconstruction (Category I to V etc.) are also somewhat outdated. This categorisation system applies rather rigid standards without economic justification. MOTC are in the process of attempting to replace these methods are with more modern design philosophies, and financial allocation procedures. The old methodologies tend to misallocate scarce funds.

The MoTC will consider modification to standards and intends to inform the CAREC Transport Sector Coordinating Committee of its decision, whilst inviting other Committee member countries to share their experience in adoption of new design standards (Ref. 15).

Road design has historically been carried out within the Kyrgyz Road design Institute, KDTP in accordance with the following relevant Russian “SNiP” (Construction Codes and Regulations) codes:

SNiP 2.05.02-85; “Roads and Highways”

SNiP 22-02-2003 "Engineering Protection of Territories Buildings and Facilities Against Hazardous Geological Processes”,

SNiP 2.01.15-90; "Engineering Protection of Territories Buildings and Structures from Dangerous Geological Processes, Key Principles of Design.

SNiP II-7-81 corrected “Construction in Seismic Regions”.

Following ADB funded technical assistance [TA] programme, SNiP KR 32-01:2004 was developed and introduced in 2004. ADB provided further TA for introducing international design standards in road design.

International AASHTO standards are reportedly gradually being used, but adoption appears patchy and somewhat irregular (Ref. 3).

It is recommended that the SNiP codes commonly used as listed above should be supplemented by specifically tailored engineering solutions on a case by case basis, in order to reduce geohazard risk and reduce the potential for costly failures and road shutdowns in the future.

http://www.universetranslation.com/index.cfm?page=request_doc.cfm&doc=SNiP_22-02-2003



http://www.universetranslation.com/index.cfm?page=request_doc.cfm&doc=SNiP_2.01.15-90



http://www.universetranslation.com/index.cfm?page=request_doc.cfm&doc=SNiP_II-7-81%20corrected

http://www.universetranslation.com/index.cfm?page=request_doc.cfm&doc=SNiP_II-7-81%20corrected


5.4 Maintenance and Repair

The ADB document “Kyrgyz Republic: Improving Road Maintenance and Strengthening the Transport Corridor Management Department” (Ref. 3) provides extensive and detailed analyses and information on the the Osh-Sarytash-Irkeshtam and Sarytash- Karamyk road corridors, describing KG road maintenance and repair in a technical, financial and institutional

context as follows:

Analyses of the Existing National Road Network

Road Corridor Maintenance Management Systems

Tendering Procedures

Training Workshops

National Road Maintenance

Current Sources of Financing Road Maintenance

Tables 2.1 to 2.5 from Ref. 3 are included as Appendix G. These tables define 4 road categories for maintenance classification based upon traffic volumes (AADT) terrain type (“low lying” or “mountainous”) and whether A or B category roads. A framework maintenance plan is presented which describes landslide and erosion control, technical parameters and the SNiP based road classification system.

5.5 Current Practice in Identification and Assessment of Geohazards

Design is currently carried out predominantly by KDTP. These designs, some of which have been prepared some years ago for major road rehabilitation projects currently underway or planned, are usually supplemented/reviewed by external consultants hired by MOTC. All changes suggested by such consultants are however required to be reviewed and approved by KDTP. There appears to be insufficient specific geotechnical engineering input at the design stage to deal with potential geohazard problems in the future.

For major capital investment road rehabilitation projects, MOTC requires that a register of construction “hot spots” is compiled and referred to throughout the construction period (Ref. 11). This register includes: KP limits, problem description, priority ranking (1, 2 or 3) and proposed mitigation work, which includes such measures as:

Reinforced concrete, masonry or gabion walls.

Rock/boulder dumping and backfilling for erosion protection.

Excavation/recompaction; slope regrading and backfilling.

Use of concrete pavements at potential mudflow locations.

Dewatering and regrading, replanting if budget permits.

Flexible gravel surfaced sections at potential landslide locations.

Slope monitoring using posts/monuments at landslide sections.

It is recommended that this register is expanded to include more detailed categorisation of geohazard types and is incorporated and linked to the electronic GIS MAPINFO version of the MES annual hazards register, currently under the custody of CAIAG in Bishkek.

A proposed example of such an expanded register for geohazard locations along routes is included as Figure 9. This need not be limited solely to geohazards, but may include other potential problem items such as road pavement or structural shortcomings, flooding and environmental impact issues.


6. ECONOMIC IMPACT OF MAJOR GEOHAZARDS

The Government has increased investment in rehabilitating major international and national roads over the past ten years. The total amount of government investment in road rehabilitation amounted to $114.5 million during 2000–2004 (Ref. 4). In addition to the increased allocation from the national budget, the Government has received substantial financial assistance from bilateral and multilateral sources for road improvement. The major external aid sources are the Asian Development Bank (ADB), Islamic Development Bank (IsDB), Japan Bank for International Cooperation (JBIC), World Bank, and the People’s Republic of China (PRC). The roads improved with external assistance include (i) Bishkek-Almaty road, (ii) Bishkek–Osh road, (iii) Jalalabat–Uzgen road, (iv) Osh–Irkeshtam road, (v) Talas–Taraz road, and (vi) urban roads in Bishkek, Osh, and Jalalabad.

However, overall fiscal constraints have resulted in a lack of financing for maintenance and rehabilitation of the road assets. While the total funding for road maintenance increased from $2.9 million in 2000 to $6.5 million in 2004, it accounted for less than 0.3% of GDP and remained inadequate. The current level of spending on periodic maintenance and rehabilitation is on average $23 million a year, of which 90% is spent on reconstruction. The spending for routine maintenance on paved roads during 2002-2005 was around $3 million a year. This has led to serious maintenance backlogs. Due to limited resources, maintenance activities are concentrated on major international roads and consequently and much of the road network is in a dilapidated condition.

The recently completed main Bishkek – Osh highway may be used to illustrate the potential costs due to delays and interruptions which may result from geohazard impacts causing shutting of the road and requiring repairs. Traffic volumes along the main Bishkek – Osh highway are estimated to be 2500 to 3000 vehicles per day [AADT] following completion of rehabilitation in 2003. Journey time has halved to 11 to 12 hours with estimated annual overall savings of $ 6.5 to 7.0 million. Tables 2.1 and 2.2 in Appendix G shows this to be a Category III Class A, Maintenance Category II “National” road in predominantly mountainous terrain, requiring opening within 24 hours of any incident and a target (Loss of Service) LOS “score” of 3.

For comparison, the Osh – Batken – Isfana road is likely to be assessed as a a Category III or IV Class B, Maintenance Category III “National” road in predominantly low lying terrain, requiring opening within 48 hours of any incident and a target LOS “score” of 2.

Whilst the relevance and importance of each component of the economic assessment can differ significantly between roads, there are some parameters which apply countrywide e.g. value of life, value of time and vehicle operating costs. A study [SEACAP] carried out by Consultants Scott Wilson in SE Asia (Section 7 of Ref. 19) estimated the following costs for landslide disruptions varying from 3 to 24 hours, caused by a single landslide on a road in Laos in mountainous terrain with an AADT of 100 to 300 (KG Road Category IV, Maintenance Category IV.


Table 4 – SEACAP Road Disruption Costs

Blockage Period [hrs]

AADT [vehicles per day]

Overall Cost [USD]

3 100 690

3 300 2,060

6 100 2,740

6 300 8,230

12 100 10,970

12 300 32,910

24 100 43,880

24 300 131,630

There appears to be a direct factor multiplier on costs between blockage period per 6 hour delay increment (factor of 4) and AADT (factor of 3). On this basis, for the Maintenance Category II major national Osh – Bishkek road (AADT 2750) for a target LOS of 3 per annum, with an allowable response time of 24 hours, the annual cost of landslide or mudflow disruption could be of the order of: 3 x 131,630 x 9 = $ 3.5 million. These figures are based upon Laotian costs which are relatively recent and therefore must be viewed as providing only an order of magnitude. They exclude the actual annual clean up and remediation costs of emergency repair and road clearance for 3 landslide/major mudlow events in a single year. Estimated expenditure on landslide/mudflow remediation in the whole of Laos varied from $ 2,000 per km to $ 12,500 per km (Ref. 19). It is interesting that this range of cost estimates appears to be very similar to a range of costs determined for “periodic maintenance” costs of $ 6,000 to 11,800 per km within KG (see Table 3.5 Appendix G) probably associated with natural hazard remediation.


7. GEOHAZARD DESIGN, MONITORING AND MITIGATION

Geohazard identification, design, monitoring and mitigation methods and construction techniques developed for other mountainous areas in developing countries could be adapted to the road rehabilitation projects underway and planned in the future within KG.

7.1 GIS Based Geohazards Register

The existing system of recording geotechnical/construction “hotspots” along major routes prior to and during the process of improvement and reconstruction (Ref. 11) should be developed and linked directly to the existing GIS MAPINFO based annual hazards register, currently owned by MES and operated and under the custodianship of CAIAG in Bishkek.

This would allow a roads GIS database to be constructed and maintained for the future. The construction of a specific roads GIS would build upon and integrates substantial efforts already carried out within MES and MOTC and by CAIAG.

This GIS register could include a layer of information for each geohazard location along all routes, as presently recorded by MES/CAIAG in the annual hazards register and currently present within the CAIAG maintained MAPINFO database. An initial suggested draft example of a tabulated register is included as Figure 9. This includes a “traffic light” risk assessment component, assessing overall risk combining the probability of failure with the consequence in a conventional fashion.

Three examples selected from locations visited during the field trip are assessed below in order to illustrate this. Note that the higher consequence event (major landslide) is not necessarily the highest ranked overall in risk terms (very deep\ mudlow gulley encroaching to road edge, due to probability of occurrence being lower.

Table 5: Example Geohazard Risk Assessment

ID [App. C]

Ranking

Risk Assessment Notes

Probability [0 – 5]

Consequence [0 – 5]

Risk [0 – 25]

C 11 3 1 2 2 Minor shallow (<2\m) erosion channel near road

C 21 1 4 4 16 Deep (~10 m)mudflow gulley very close to road

C 26-27 2 2 5 10 Extensive landslide complex at Chygyrchyk Pass

Risk Assessment Ranking

1 Low Risk 0 – 7 Minor or no interruption of traffic Low repair cost

2 Medium Risk 8 – 15 Traffic interruption > 1 day Medium repair cost

3 High Risk 16 – 25 Traffic interruption substantial Major repair cost

7.2 Design Techniques

Appropriate design techniques which may be adopted could include the following:

Examination and mapping of geohazards along national routes planned for rehabilitation and adoption of cost-effective methods for remedial action

Assessment of stability of existing embankment and cut slopes;


Likelihood of risk of mudflows crossing road pavement or damaging road carriageways;

Identification of points along routes where there is a strong likelihood of river erosion impacting road carriageway and structures during road design lifetime following remediation;

Preparation of “generic” preliminary design principles for remedial actions/structures. Study the feasibility of retaining walls, galleries, and tunnels to address difficult topographical and geological road conditions, if applicable;

Examination of existing bridges, culverts and other drainage structures, and retaining structures at points of risk from geohazard events along the project roads to determine their condition, adequacy, load-bearing capacity, anticipated future serviceability, and the general extent of repairs and strengthening needed;

Proposed new culvert and surface drainage, mudflow channels and deflection structures where required.

Identification of preliminary designs and typical drawings for improvement and newly proposed drainage structures to mitigate against geohazardsand production of typical drawings and pro-forma bills of quantities for all structures and layouts.

7.3 Monitoring and Inspection

Inspection of the most critical potentially unstable slopes, cut rock faces, mudflows, mudslides river erosion should be carried out regularly and at least annually.

Several options are available for monitoring unstable, and potentially unstable, slopes, ranging from inexpensive, short-term solutions to more costly, long-term monitoring programs. The critical data that are required from a slope monitoring program are the water level(s) in the slope and the depth and rate of movement.

Relatively low cost monitoring of landslides and mudflow locations close to routes may be performed, consisting of posts or other markers on a slope to indicate movement or creep and water level monitoring using shallow lined open boreholes

More sophisticated monitoring may include: probe inclinometers, tiltmeters and extensometers. In-place” inclinometers and tiltmeters can detect new movement, acceleration of movement, and the direction of movement. “In-place” inclinometers are installed in a borehole cased with inclinometer casing. Mechanical extensometers use a steel wireline firmly connected to a fixed location on the slope face on one end and to a track-mounted weight, located off the landslide, on the other end. Movement of the slope pulls the weight along the graduated track. The amount and rate of movement can then be measured manually.

Time Domain Reflectometry (TDR) is increasingly used on major landslides where the risk of failure could be catastrophic. The basic principle of TDR is similar to that of radar. The cable tester sends an electrical pulse down a coaxial cable grouted in a borehole. When the pulse encounters a break or deformation in the cable, it is reflected, which shows as a “spike” in the cable signature. The relative magnitude and rate of displacement, and the location of the zone of deformation can be determined immediately and accurately.

Automated data acquisition can be done with a datalogger and electronic sensors.

7.4 Construction Mitigation Techniques

The guideline document “TRL UK Overseas Road Note 16”, (Ref. 24), together with detailed reports from two projects (SEACAP and DFID Himalayas) carried out with substantial WB and other agency funding in mountainous areas are considered very relevant to geohazards related to road corridors in KG. Further guidelines and recommendations for “Low Cost Road


Construction in Unstable Mountain Areas” are contained within Ref. 12. The SEACAP and DFID project results have been extensively reported and documents are available electronically in the public domain (see Refs. 19, 20, 21 and 25). The transfer and adaptation of some of these recently developed techniques and methods of design, monitoring and mitigation in relation to road corridors in similar terrain to that prevalent in KG would be greatly beneficial in reducing the risks and costs associated with potential negative impacts of geohazards on the KG national road network in the future.

7.4.1 TRL UK Overseas Road Note 16 (Ref. 24)

The following guideline contains extensive information and design principles applicable to road design in developing or newly industrialising countries:

Transport Research Laboratory UK, (1997), “Principles of Low Cost Road Engineering in Mountainous Regions”, Overseas Road Note 16.

The guideline is a manual which can lead, in a straightforward manner, to planning, investigation, design and construction of road works that are in sympathy with the mountain environment to standards that are appropriate for that environment, and costs which make such roads affordable. Emphasis on aspects of design for mountain roads is different from that for conventional roads in lowlands. The guideline points out that the most successful low cost roads are those where maintenance is frequent and well done and the road has been designed and constructed in sympathy with the physical environment. The latter does not necessarily imply high design standards but appropriate engineering for the natural circumstances.

The following aspects are described:

Engineering Problems

Terrain Hazards

Road Construction Impacts

Planning and Design Overview

Route Corridor Assessment

Design Standard and Design Life

Design and Cost Estimation

Contract Conditions, Specifications and Administration

Environmental Impact Assessment

Geotechnical Assessment

Hydrology and Hydraulic Design

Earthworks and Drainage

Road Retaining Walls

Slope Protection and Stabilisation

Road Construction Along Valley Floors

It is considered that Overseas Road Note 16 contains a wealth of information, much of which could be directly relevant to road design and construction in KG. It is strongly recommended that this Guideline be utilised as fully as possible during design and construction of the major road upgrades described in Appendices F and G.


7.4.2 SEACAP SE Asia Programme 2007 (Refs. 19, 20 and 21)

Through the Transport Sector Project, the World Bank assisted the Ministry of Public Works and Transport (MPWT) of the Lao PDR to move to a sector-wide approach in the planning and management of transport infrastructure. This was very wide-ranging in scope and included both technical and institutional development. The MPWT priority investment programme for the next few years will be formulated as part of this process.

A national slope stabilisation programme was specifically identified as an important need for the road sector in Laos. The intention was to align donor resources to finance this as a component of an overall sector-wide project approach. Consequently, the World Bank requested the Department For International Development (DFID), UK to support a study to assess the feasibility of a slope management programme through its South East Asia Community Access Programme (SEACAP).

The final report and background paper published in September 2008 (Refs. 19 and 20)


7.4.3 UK DFID Himalayan Landslide Risk Assessment Studies 2003 (Ref. 25)

Over the period 200 to 2003, the UK Department for International Development (DFID) funded a project entitled “Landslide Risk Assessment in the Rural Access Sector”. The Project was instigated as part of DFID's Knowledge and Research Programme for the benefit of developing countries. The project was carried out by Scott Wilson Kirkpatrick & Co. Ltd, in association with the University of Durham, UK.

The principal aim of the project was to investigate, develop and test desk study and mapping techniques to enable rapid and reliable methods of landslide assessment to be carried out over large areas for the benefit of road corridor planning and management.

Many developing countries are located in mountainous regions, and suffer from poor road access and lack of data concerning topography, geology and environmental hazards. Landslides are among the most frequent and damaging environmental hazards in these areas, causing loss of life, loss of livelihood and disruption to road traffic and economic activity. Many authorities lack the required information and know-how to overcome these


problems, and the purpose of this project was to develop guidelines that enabled improved and affordable methods of landslide assessment and management.

The project commenced in September 2000 and concluded with production of a final report in October 2003. Project activities focused on the Himalayan kingdoms of Nepal and Bhutan and were carried out in association with the Department of Local Infrastructure Development and Agricultural Roads (DoLIDAR) in Nepal and by the Department of Roads (DoR) in Bhutan. The objectives of the project were realised through secondment of staff, training, fieldwork and the preparation of project outputs. The Department of Roads of Nepal provided assistance in training workshops through secondment of staff.

Project outputs included reports and training materials on the use of remote sensing in landslide assessment and route corridor planning, landslide mapping, landslide frequency analysis, landslide susceptibility, hazard and risk mapping, road condition survey with respect to landslides, and social parameters in risk assessment and risk management.


8. CONCLUSIONS

8.1 Geohazards in Kyrgyzstan

The original aim of this study was to define a “Case Study” for the partly WB funded 385 km Osh – Batken – Isfana road, which was intended to illustrate typical geohazard problems facing the planned rehabilitation road network in KG.

However, it was quickly concluded that, although there are potential problems related to very shallow mudflows and potential river erosion along relatively short parts of the route, these problems are not insurmountable and should be able to be identified and designed for/mitigated against in the planned MOTC run “upgraded” route feasibility studies due to take place over the period October 2008 to January 2009.

Far greater potential problems on a larger scale and therefore with greater potential risk and cost implications, relating to river erosion, landslides and mudflows exist along other major national routes in more challenging terrain.

There is a perception and understanding of the importance of natural hazards in KG, although overall road and ancillary structure design is not considered adequate in dealing with the risks from geohazards, in particular from river erosion along substantial sections of road in some areas.

The current response to geohazard and other natural hazard disasters is, due to force of circumstance, reactive and probably inadequate for the future at many locations, due to lack of resources. However, the nature and extent of past and potential future problems of landslide and mudflow hazard and severe river erosion along the “Core Network” of major roads in KG are well understood by MES, MOTC and KDTP. The majority of hazard locations along the major routes are probably adequately mapped and described in the MES annual hazard register (Ref. 14). ) There is considerable experience and expertise in-country which is somewhat under utilised.

Potential river erosion threats are probably more extensive and pose a more serious overall risk to road integrity throughout Kyrgyzstan than those presented by landslides and mudflows.

Three categories of geohazard have been defined and those most relevant to road alignments in KG identified as follows:

A1 Process Conditions [Tectonic/Geological]

Seismic Ground Movements

Landslides

A2 Ground Conditions [Geotechnical]

Debris Flows

Mudslides

Rockfalls

A3 Surface Form Conditions [Geomorphological/Hydrotechnical]

Bank Erosion

Encroachment

River Channel Migration

Gullying/Dissection


Fluvial Debris Impact

Landslides, mudflows, river erosion, flooding and avalanches are the most prevalent natural hazards affecting road corridors. Landslide and mudflow occurrence is increasing and occurs in Autumn as well as after Spring snow-melt period.

An Annual Register of Natural Hazards is maintained and updated jointly by MES and CAIAG (Ref. 14), although resources available for extension of this database are not currently available. An electronic version is now available in MAPINFO format within CAIAG.

The ADB December 2007 report “Kyrgyz Republic: Improving Road Maintenance and Strengthening the Transport Corridor Management Department” (Ref. 3) should form the starting point for any further work involving geohazard assessment of the “Core Network” of roads.

Design techniques and recommendations contained within a TRL guidelines document based upon Himalayan road construction (Ref. 24) and two major studies reported in the public domain (SEACAP and Nepal/Bhutan DFID, Refs. 19,20 and 25) may be adopted for KG road geohazard mitigation.

8.2 Economic Assessment

The KG Ministry of Emergency Situations (MES) estimates that the full impact of disaster hazard-related events in the Kyrgyz Republic is approximately US $35 million on average per annum.

Those organisations within KG most relevant to future assessment and maintenance of the national road network are:

Ministry of Emergency Situations

Ministry of Transport

Kyrgyz National Road Design Institute (KDTP)

Institute of Seismology

Central Asian Institute for Applied Geosciences (CAIAG)

The current level of spending on periodic maintenance and rehabilitation in KG is on average $23 million a year, of which 90% is spent entirely on reconstruction. A large proportion of this sum is likely to be related to reinstatement and repair related to natural hazards.

For the Osh – Bishkek road (AADT 2750) for a target Loss of Service (LOS) of 3 per annum, with an allowable response time of 24 hours, the annual cost of landslide disruption could be of the order of $ 3.5 million, based upon SEACAP SE Asian studies in mountainous terrain.

The aggregate capacity of local authorities have in reacting to natural hazards in terms of emergency response and repair measures is reactive and hampered by lack of personnel, equipment and funding. Prediction of the location and extent of future geohazard failures and road blockages is virtually impossible.

Financial and other means available and implemented for road infrastructure maintenance and repair of damages connected to natural hazards impacts is inadequate. Spending on periodic maintenance and rehabilitation averages $23 million a year, of which 90% is spent entirely on reconstruction, mostly as a result of natural hazard events and degradation.

Cost are estimated by the authorities directly (damages to infrastructure, repair costs), but not indirectly (higher transport costs, longer travel times, interruption of infrastructure). Costs for repair and reconstruction are documented by MOTC (Ref. 15). However costs for interruption and increased travel times estimated from the SEACAP project in SE Asia are likely to be of a similar order of magnitude for KG.


The TRL Guideline “Overseas Road Note 16; Principles of Low Cost Road Engineering in Mountainous Regions”, together with the 2007 SEACAP and 2003 Nepal/Bhutan landslide project reportss (Refs. . 19,20 and 25) provide more detailed information on the direct and indirect economic impact of geohazards which may be adopted/adapted in/to KG.


9. RECOMMENDATIONS

Due Diligence Reviews of Osh – Isfana Feasibility Studies

It is recommended that WB request to MOTC that they participate in periodic reviews and are informed about the planned “upgrade” of the 4 month Feasibility Study shortly due to commence (Finnroad and others) for the Osh – Batken – Isfana route. An opportunity to review the Final Feasibility Study Report due to be generated in Q1 2009 would be welcome.

Geohazards Workshops

A Geohazards Review Team” should be formed in Q1 2009, consisting of at least one participant from each of the relevant organisations in KG (see Section 3 above) plus representatives from sponsors and possibly external consultants. For example, Scott Wilson could provide valuable advice due to their previous experience in road design in mountainous areas and involvement in SEACAP and Himalayan geohazard projects (Refs. 19,20 and 25). This Group could meet every 3 to 6 months over the planned period of ongoing major rehabilitation of the national road network. Funding could be provided by all Sponsors active in KG with perhaps lead provided by WB and ADB. ADB have generated substantial amounts of work on road development in KG and are the major funders. There was a very positive reaction to the setting up of periodic Working Group meetings from all parties, especially MOTC, who should take a leading role, It is recommended that all funding Agencies (WB, ADB, EC etc.) should participate in some way, if only as observers.

Geohazards Register for Main Road Network in KG

The existing system of recording geotechnical/construction “hotspots” along major routes currently undergoing improvement and reconstruction should be developed and linked directly to the existing GIS MAPINFO based annual hazards register, owned by MES and operated under the custodianship of CAIAG in Bishkek.

This would allow a roads GIS database to be constructed and maintained for the future. The construction of this database would build upon and integrate the substantial efforts already carried out by MES and MOTC. Further layers of information could easily be added to this database (e.g. environmental concerns, flooding, bridges, culverts, other structures). It is understood that MES in Osh also operate a GIS database system and integration and crossover of these individual systems could be very beneficial in the future.

Consideration should be given to incorporating a geohazards component into existing GIS systems and the “SMAR” network planning tool described in Section E “Analysis of the Current Network”; Part 3 “Network Planning Support Tools” of Ref.

A common GIS database accessible to MES and MOTC personnel throughout the country would be of great benefit to roads inspection programmes and regular monitoring and recording of geohazard “hotspots”.

Technology Transfer

A number of design methods and low cost construction techniques described in the TRL guidelines document based upon Himalayan road construction (Ref. 24) and two major studies reported in the public domain (SEACAP and Nepal/Bhutan DFID, Refs. 19,20, 24 and 25) may be adopted for KG road geohazard mitigation,monitoring and rehabilitation and should assist MOTC and KDTP in adopting appropriate measures in the future. These guidelines should be tailored and adjusted to enable them to be “KG specific”.


It is recommended that external consultants assist in facilitating this activity through the workshop mechanism discussed above, at least in the initial stages. The ADB December 2007 report “Kyrgyz Republic: Improving Road Maintenance and Strengthening the Transport Corridor Management Department” (Ref. 3) should form the starting point for any further work involving geohazard assessment of the “Core Network” of roads.

Design Reviews (Geohazard Hot Spots) - Specialist Geotechnical Consultants

It is suggested that, following an initial geohazards road design and mitigation workshop, external consultants be appointed by MOTC to carry out an independent study of major geohazard locations along those major roads planned for rehabilitation over the period 2009 – 2012., together with cost estimates and appropriate design solutions.

The consultant’s specific activities should include, but not be limited to, the following:

(i) Review and upgrade of geohazard listing provided in the KG annual register of hazards (Ref. 14)

(ii) Review of the risk ranking of each location (Red, Orange, Green ranking) using a ranking system developed (during initial workshop) from the example shown in Figure 9..

(v) Recommendations on whether or not further monitoring and/or mitigation measures should or could be constructed at specific high risk locations.

(vi) Assistance to design engineers in the definition of appropriate design solutions and cost estimates for implementation of proposed mitigation measures and monitoring plans.

(vii) Provision of recommendations on geohazard/geotechnical engineering training requirements.

(viii) Preparation of terms of reference and a budget for independent geohazard monitoring and evaluation.


10. REFERENCES

1. Abdrakhmatov, K., Havenith, H.-B., Delvaux, D., Jongmans, D. and Trefois, P. (2003), “Probabilistic PGA and Arias Intensity maps of Kyrgyzstan (Central Asia)”, Journal of Seismology Vol. 7: pp. 203–220.

2. Asian Development Bank (2006), “Kyrgyz Republic; Joint Country Support Strategy”; FY 2007-2010; Transport Sector Working Group, Preliminary Sector Note, January 2006, p.14.

3. Asian Development Bank (2007), “Kyrgyz Republic: Improving Road Maintenance and Strengthening the Transport Corridor Management Department”, Project Number: TA 4444-KGZ, December 2007, p. 73.

4. Asian Development Bank (2006), “,KYRGYZ REPUBLIC , Joint Country Support Strategy, FY 2007-2010, Transport Sector Working Group, Preliminary Sector Note, Working Drfat Januray 27, 2006, p.14.

5. Asian Disaster Preparedness Council (2007), “Towards Mainstreaming Disaster Risk Reduction into the Planning Process of Road Construction”, p.6.

6. BCEOM (2007), “Pre-Feasibility and Feasibility Studies for Road Sections of the Termaz – Dushanbe – Sary Tash Road”, Project No. EuropeAid/121985/C/SV/Multi. p. 139.

7. BRGM (2007), “IGOS Geohazards Theme Report”, Ref.: BRGM/RP-55739-FR, 28th August,

2007.

8. CAREC (2008), “CAREC Transport and Trade Facilitation Strategy Action Plan”: Preliminary Draft, p. 23.

9. Cardno (2007), “Republic of Tajikistan: Dushanbe-Kyrgyz Border Road Rehabilitation Project (Phase III)”, Project Number: TA-4784-TAJ, July 2007.

10. Doornkamp, J.C. (1989), In: G.J.H. McCall and B.R. Marker (Eds), “Earth Science Mapping for Planning, Development and Conservation”, pp. 157 – 173.

11. Finn, R. (2008), Personal Communication, September 2008.

12. Hearn, G.J. (2001), “Low Cost Road Construction and Rehabilitation in Unstable Mountain Areas”, Geological Society, London, Engineering Geology Special Publications 2001; Vol. 18; pp. 135 – 141.

13. Ministry of Emergency Situations of the Kyrgyz Republic (2006), “The Small Atlas Kyrgyzstan : Emergencies Forecasting Schematic Maps of the Territory of the Kyrgyz Republic”, Bishkek : Teknik.

14. Ministry of Emergency Situations of the Kyrgyz Republic (2008), “Monitoring, Forecast and Preparation for Reaction to Possible Activation of Hazardous Processes in the Kyrgyz republic and Adjacent central Asian Countries”, Bishkek, 2008.

15. Ministry of Transport and Communications of the Kyrgyz Republic (2007), “Road Sector Development Strategy for 2007-2010”, p. 42.

16. Roessner, S. Wetzel, H.-U. Kaufmann, H. Sarnagoev, A. (2005), “Potential of Satellite Remote Sensing and GIS for Landslide Hazard Assessment in Southern Kyrgyzstan (Central Asia)”, Natural Hazards, Vol. 35, No. 3, pp. 395 -416.

17. Roessner, S. Wetzel, H.-U. Kaufmann, H. Sarnagoev, A. (2004), “Satellite Remote Sensing and GIS Based Analysis of Large Landslides in Southern Kyrgyzstan NATO Advanced Research Workshop: Security of Natural and Artificial Rockslide Dams”, Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan 2004.

18. Roessner, S., H.-U. Wetzel, H. Kaufmann, W. Kornus, M. Lehner, P. Reinartz and R. Mueller, (2000), “Landslide Investigations in Southern Kyrgyzstan Based on a Digital Elevation Model Derived from MOMS-2P Data,” IAPRS, Vol. 33, Part B7, Amsterdam, pp. 1259 -1266.

19. Scott Wilson (2008), “South-East Asia Community Access Programme SEACAP 21/002: Feasibility Study for a National Programme to Manage Slope Stability”, Main Report, 12

th

September 2008, p. 42.

http://waesearch.kobv.de/lse/do?gesucht=Roessner%2c+S.&action=autorensuche

http://waesearch.kobv.de/lse/do?gesucht=Wetzel%2c+H.-U.&action=autorensuche

http://waesearch.kobv.de/lse/do?gesucht=Kaufmann%2c+H.&action=autorensuche

http://waesearch.kobv.de/lse/do?gesucht=Sarnagoev%2c+A.&action=autorensuche

http://waesearch.kobv.de/lse/do?gesucht=Roessner%2c+S.&action=autorensuche

http://waesearch.kobv.de/lse/do?gesucht=Wetzel%2c+H.-U.&action=autorensuche

http://waesearch.kobv.de/lse/do?gesucht=Kaufmann%2c+H.&action=autorensuche

http://waesearch.kobv.de/lse/do?gesucht=Sarnagoev%2c+A.&action=autorensuche


20. Scott Wilson (2008), “South-East Asia Community Access Programme SEACAP 21/002: Feasibility Study for a National Programme to Manage Slope Stability”, Background Paper,

12th September 2008, p. 127.

21. Scott Wilson (2008), “South-East Asia Community Access Programme SEACAP 21/002: Feasibility Study for a National Programme to Manage Slope Stability”, Inception Report, 28

th

April 2008, p.7.

(see: www.seacap-info.org/?mod=home&act=pdesc&pid=35)

22. Roessner et al. (2001), “Satellite Remote Sensing for Regional Assessment of Landslide Hazard in Kyrgyzstan (Central Asia)”, Vol. 2. Forum Katastrophenvorsorge (Leipzig 2001)

23. Savigny, K.W., Porter, M. and Leir, M. (2005), “Geohazard Risk Management for the Onshore Pipeline Industry”, Business Briefing: Exploration & Production: The Oil & Gas Review 2005 – Issue 2.

24. Transport Research Laboratory UK, (1997), “Principles of Low Cost Road Engineering in Mountainous Regions”, Overseas Road Note 16, Transport Research Laboratory, Crowthorne, UK, p.149.

25. UK Dept. for International Development (2003), “Landslide Risk Assessment in the Rural Sector; Guidelines on Best Practice; Remote Sensing, Landslide Hazard and Risk Mapping, Land Use Planning and Management”, p. 181.

(see: www.research4development.info/SearchResearchDatabase.asp?OutPutId=5511)

26. Ulomov, V. I. et al (1999), Seismic Hazard of Northern Eurasia”, Annali di Geofisica, Vol. 42, No.6, pp. 1023 – 1038.

27. Wetzel, H.-U., S. Roessner and A. Sarnagoev, (2000), “Remote Sensing and GIS Based Geological Mapping for Assessment of Landslide Hazard in Southern Kyrgyzstan (Central Asia)”, In: Management Information Systems 2000 — GIS and Remote Sensing, Brebbia, C. A. and Pascolo, P. (eds.), WIT-Press, Southampton, Boston, 355-366.

28. World Bank (2007), “Kyrgyz Republic Proposed National Roads Rehabilitation (Osh-Isfana) Project World Bank Mission, October 22 - 27, 2007, Aide Memoire,”, p. 15.

29. World Bank (2005), “Core Road Network Survey and Strategic Economic Analysis”, World Bank, 2005 (unpublished).

30. World Bank (2008), “Terms of Reference (TOR) for Technical Consulting Services for Investigation and Analysis of Natural Hazards Impacts on Linear Infrastructure in Southern Kyrgyzstan (Central Asia Region)”, p. 6.

31. World Bank (2007), “National Road Rehabilitation (Osh-Isfana) Project; Project Information Document (PID) Concept Stage”, Report No.: AB3510, p. 5.

http://www.seacap-info.org/?mod=home&act=pdesc&pid=35


Km 3 to 80 Osh – Gulcho Road - Geohazard Register

ID Geohazard/Problem Description

Landform Relevant Design Ref. Mitigation

Report No. Drawing No. Designed As Built

OG1 LHS river erosion @12 m Flood plain Boulder protection for 100m Boulder protection extended to 120 m

OG 17 Active Landslide Complex Slopes 2.5 m 150 m long ret. wall As designed

OG 23 Potential Mudflow Adjacent slopes

Gravel road pavement Gravel pavement over 150 m

ID Ranking

Risk Assessment

Notes Probability Consequence Risk

OG1 2 3 2 6 Signs of displacement where erosion approaches within 12 m

OG 17 1 2 4 8 Large active landslides and mudflows v. close to road

OG 23 3 1 2 2 Mudflow scar 200 m from road RHS

Figure 9: Draft Example of Proposed Road Geohazard Register

ID Kp [From] Kp [To] L [m] Location Easting Northing

Pavement

Type Width [m]

OG1 16.57 16.65 80 Mady Village 356817.65 4456380.08 Concrete 8.5

OG 17 27.65 28.30 650 Chrchyk Pass 357688.08 4447890.25 Asphalt 9.6

OG23 45.78 45.95 170 2.5 km N. of Gulcho

358977.10 4457689.65 Asphalt 8.0


Appendix A: Meeting Notes; Bishkek and Osh

Geo-Hazards and Infrastructure: A Kyrgyz Case Study

Investigation and Analysis of Natural Hazards Impacts on Linear Infrastructure in Southern Kyrgyzstan (Central Asia Region)

Meeting Note No. 1

Meeting Location: Ministry of Transport. Bishkek

Date and Time: 15:30 12th September 2008

Present: Mr. Sanjar Ibrahimov [SI]

General Discussion

A brief explanation was provided of the objectives of CG’s visit to KG on behalf of The World Bank. The intended trip along the Osh – Batken – Isfana road was discussed. SI stated that a trip unaccompanied would take about 5 to 6 days, but that MOTC would provide staff to act as guides in pointing out various main points of interest. It would be valuable to meet with MOTC staff in Osh and if possible in Batken. SI also explained that it would be useful to meet with the Transport Secretary in order to facilitate meetings with the design institute KDTP. SI requested an e-mail explaining the nature and objectives of the work and a copy of the letter explaining the WB study. SI stated that the main problems along the Osh – Isfana route related to river erosion, shallow mudflows and washouts. Major landslides were not considered a major problem. MOTC endeavour to work as closely as possible with the design institute responsible for road design in KG (KDTP). KDTP is a state self-financing organization but essentially has a monopoly on road design in KG. MOTC has brought in external consultants in order to facilitate some changes in design approach. Design is to Russian SNiP standards but there is a desire to move more closely towards AASHTO practices. The Law on Automobile Roads No.72 (June 1998) defines the KR road classification system according to function. General purpose roads provide inter-urban and rural links, and are composed of three classes: (i) international; (ii) national; and (iii) local.

The technical parameters that MOTC uses, developed in 2004, are defined under SNiP 3201 KP КР32-01:2004. However, these standards play no role in allocating funds for road maintenance or specific mitigation against geohazards and are used only as design standards for new or reconstruction work.

MOTC engages several external consultants, including TERA Beijing Consulting, Finnroad, Scott Wilson and many others. Mr. Roger Finn is currently employed by MOTC as a consultant and will be the Team leader with Finnroad for the Osh – Batken – Isfana 4 month long feasibility study due to commence in mid-October 2008. For the purposes of road maintenance, Kyrgyzstan is divided into a series of administrative areas within each of which activities are controlled and organized by a so-called PLUAD. Little if any road maintenance activities are contracted out. Emergency interventions are carried out after landslips or when erosion threatens to wash out the road, but funding and resources are scarce so mitigation measures are difficult to carry out.

It was mentioned that the ADB TERA financed work “Kyrgyz Republic: Improving Road Maintenance and


Strengthening the Transport Corridor Management Department” would be a useful reference.

Sary Tash – Karamuk Road Project

Discussions were then held with TERA staff carrying out design checks/modification work on the Sary Tash – Karamauk 140 km rehabilitation project:

Davis B. Walter (Team Leader/Road Maintenance Specialist

Harold Moar (Structural/Bridge Engineer) The intention is to upgrade and rehabilitate the road to SNiP category IV standard, but designs carried out in the past to SNiP standards willnot be adequate in the long term against the effects of river erosion and mudflows. TERA are attempting to adjust bridge designs for example, in order to make them more “robust” generally. The route is from Sary Tash to Karamuk (~138 km) and was designed under the “TACIS” programme with European Commission funding, by BECOM (Feasibility Study Report December 2007). Further details may be found on www.sk-road.com.

http://www.sk-road.com/




Meeting Note No. 2

Meeting Location: Ministry of Emergency Situations. Bishkek Date and Time: 10:00 13th September 2008 Present: Mr. Anarkul Aitaliev [AA]

Ms. Gulbara Tagaeva, Project Manager, DHMPIU

Mr. Falk Wagner, Consultant (part-time)

General Discussion

A brief explanation was provided of the objectives of CG’s visit to KG on behalf of The World Bank. The intended trip along the Osh – Batken – Isfana road was discussed.

An explanation was provided of the responsibilities and activities of the MES in Bishkek and at the new main office in Osh. It was explained that a landslide hazard map of KG existed and the annual updated MES/CAIAG volume entitled “Monitoring, Forecast and Preparation for Reaction to possible dangerous Processes, Activation and Occurrences on the territory of the Kyrgyz Republic and near-Boundary regions with central Asian Countries” was referred to and discussed. This impressive volume provides detailed descriptions and maps showing the locations of geohazards and other hazards such as. Geohazards

landslides,

mudflows,

rock falls,

seismic hazards

Other Hazards

flooding,

rising water table,

settlements,

radioactive waste,

chemically aggressive waste,

avalanches

industrial contamination

forest fire susceptibility

A hard copy in English of the “Small Atlas: Emergencies Forecasting and Risk Reduction Schematic maps on the Territory of the Kyrgyz Republic” (2006) was provided by MES. This is a summary of the main atlas listed above for all 7 oblasts (regions) within KG. The landslide hazard along the Osh – Isfana route was observed to be generally low, due to the route’s location on the southern edge of the Fergana valley. The risk from mudflows is somewhat higher and affects longer stretches of road.


MES works closely with the Central Asian Institute for Applied Geosciences (CAIAG), in particular Prof. Usupaev and Mr. Vladimir Moukrousov, a former member of staff at MES.

AA offered the opinion that CAIAG should perhaps be more involved in the upkeep of the hazards atlas.

A brief presentation was provided on the work being carried out at the Mailuu Suu tailings area and various landslide zone.

Date and Time: 10:00 15th September 2008 Present: Mr. A. Sarnagoev, Mr. Vladimir Mokrousov. Work carried out by the MES on regional assessment of landslide hazard in KG was discussed. A copy of a paper “Science and new technologies No. 6 part 1 was provided. (Bishkek, 2000).

The MES/CAIAG annual hazards atlas provides information on hazards at locations which directly affect or have affected residential areas and along major roads. Many hazards are not mapped if they are away from urban areas.

Responsibility for the upkeep of the annual atlas was formerly the responsibility of the (former) Institute of Geology (now CAIAG) and MES reiterated that it would perhaps be better if CAIAG were to retake responsibility.

CAIAG participate in the updating of the annual hazards atlas, but it was stated that the exercise is simply a mapping and identification exercise and that there are too few staff to carry out anything beyond that.

MES started up in 1993. before that date all individual ministries worked somewhat independently.




Meeting Note No. 3

Meeting Location: KyrgyzDorTransProekt [KDTP]. Bishkek Date and Time: 11:00 16th September 2008 Present: Mr. L. Alibegashvili General Discussion

A brief explanation was provided of the objectives of CG’s visit to KG on behalf of The World Bank. The intended trip along the Osh – Batken – Isfana road was discussed.

Route maps are available of the proposed route Osh – Isfana at KDTP. The design was initially carried out following a feasibility study by Finnroad/Roughton in 2000 by KDTP. A 4 month further feasibility study will commence in mid-October 2008.

Design parameters are proposed to be based on technical category III for highways (SNIP norms) for most of the road, including platform widths of up to 12 meters, carriageway widths of up to 8 meters and shoulders of 2 meters. Three alternative pavement designs are being considered ranging from full asphalt-concrete pavement to double surface treatment on stabilized gravel road base.

The road design was initially carried out in 2000 by the Design Institute.

Construction is currently scheduled to commence in April/May 2009, although a short section is now under construction: Kok-Talaa – Pulgon, 14.7 km long; (km 109-123). Contractor is China Road Corp.

Although there is an understanding that sections of the route are susceptible to mudflows and erosion, no special measures outside the SNiP requirements are being taken to additionally mitigate against such hazards.

KDTP are aware of the existence of the MES annual hazards manual and confirmed that river washouts and flooding problems are the main issues, with major landslides not a problem along the route.

It was recommended that a visit be made to the MES landslide office in Osh.

KDTP informed that the Sokh River crossing has been completed as per the original KDTP design.




Meeting Note No. 4

Meeting Location: Ministry of Transport, Osh. Date and Time: 11:00 23rd September 2008 Present: Mr. Altynbek Zalov, Chief Engineer [AZ]

Mr. Ulukbek Kurmanbekov, Director [UK]

Mr. Zamirbek Atdarov, Main Roads Dept. Bishkek [ZA] (Contact)

General Discussion

A brief explanation was provided of the objectives of CG’s visit to KG on behalf of The World Bank. Meetings with MOTC and MES in Bishkek were discussed. A description of CG trips around various road projects in the previous week was given. The problems presented by geohazards to both MOTC and MES were put into context by these observations.

Osh oblast contains 606 Km of international roads, 387 Km state roads and 1000 Km local roads.

The MOTC “Road Development Strategy 2007 - 2010” document was discussed, but it was recognized that the plan does not contain specific provisions for geohazard mitigation.

AZ explained that traditionally in SW KG landslides and mudflows occurred in Spring during the snow melt period, howver lanslides and mudflows are increasingly occurring in the Autumn. The MOTC and MES combined experience is that although “hot spots” are known and mapped, prediction of occurrence is not possible. The problems are recognized and to an extent understood, but budget and resources are nowhere near sufficient to reduce risk to a low level. MOTC attempts to identify/guess and monitor the likely most dangerous “hot spots”. Bridge and culvert replacement is carried out as often as possible but this is never fully and properly realized due to budget restrictions.

As an example, between Km 25 and 57 river reinforcement has been washed away alongside the Osh – Gulcho road which was built 20 years ago.

Many points along roads are identified as “problem” areas in the KG hazards atlas but some are not.

Discussion centred around the severe landslide and mudflow problems in the Chygyrchyk Pass area, which were observed by CG. In this geologically young area there is often a high water table and gypsum soils. A large number of mudflows and landslides may be observed and the likelihood of failures occurring in the future is high, despite some mitigation measures such as retaining walls, slope regarding and drainage measures.

It was agreed that a copy of CG’s report would most likely be made available to MOTC and in the event of the setting up of any workshop or group on geohazards related to road rehabilitation, Mr. Atdarov should be the point of contact in Osh.

Relevant personnel within the MOTC Batken oblast can be provided by MOTC Osh.




Meeting Note No. 5

Meeting Location: Ministry of Emergency Situations, Osh. Date and Time: 14:00 23rd September 2008 Present: Mr. Adyljan Jumabaev [AJ], Head ES Monitoring Dept.

Mr. Turdubek Alybaev [TA], Cheif, Southern ES Monitoring dept.

Mr. Kanybek Temirbaev [KT], Osh – Batken - Isfana Road Management Dept.

General Discussion

A brief explanation was provided of the objectives of CG’s visit to KG on behalf of The World Bank. Previous meetings with MOTC and MES in Bishkek were discussed. A description of CG trips around various road projects in the previous week was given.

MES explained that their responsibility is to identify and assess problems, but other ministries “clean things up”.

AJ described the situation generally in KG, and that road problems are many and varied due to the nature of the terrain and seismic and avalanche problems. MES offered an opinion that design did not fully allow for geohazards and was somewhat outdated, although it was recognized that funding is generally not available.

An example was provided of a bridge at Km 131 on the Sary Tash – Karamuk road which was constructed in 2004 but was severely damaged by a major mudflow. The bridge was reputedly poorly built with only 40 m of bank reinforcement at a 45 degree angle. Reconstructed or new bridges in future should be better designed against such events and better constructed.

The Osh – Bishkek road, completed 5 years ago was discussed. There have been incidents and problems along the road in places, but these are simply dealt with when they occur. The route suffers from river erosion problems, but in the opinion of MES no special attention was given to “hot spots”, while Contractors had no real interest in dealing with potential future problems. The same mistakes, omissions and shortcomings are being repeated. In particular the sizing of under road culverts to deal with potential mudflows is not adequate and these have simply become blocked.

SW KG is a geologically young and active landscape which acts severely in some cases against the “usual rules”.

MES in Osh were very supportive of the idea of the setting up of a “Working group” on geohazards for the coming years. However it was pointed out that a similar cooperation was in place recently between MES and MOTC but it was felt that MES opinions and recommendations were not properly considered. MES felt this was due to funding restrictions rather than for “political” reasons.

A further contact was provided: Mr. Moldobekov at CALRI in Bishkek (Land Research Institute).




Meeting Note No. 6

Meeting Location: KyrgyzDorTransProekt [KDTP]. Bishkek Date and Time: 11:00 29th September 2008 Present: Mr. L. Alibegashvili [LA] plus Osh – isfana Design Team Members (4) General Discussion

A follow up meeting with KDTP was held in order to provide feedback and impressions following CG field visits. Cg explained that the trip had allowed him to see at first hand the problems facing the road network in KG, particularly with regard to klandslides and river erosion potential on the Osh – Sary Tash road.

The landslide and river erosion problems were then expanded upon by LA, who has worked in KG on road design and construction since 1957. He mentioned that in fact the worst road is the Karamja – Tashkumar route.

Osh – Gulcho route has been reinstated due to major landslides/mudflows 5 times since 1957.

There was discussion about the setting up of a “Working group” for the coming years, which would likely include MOTC, MES, CAIAG, KDTP and others. LA was in favour of this. Cg mentioned that work funded by WB abd DFDI amongst others in Nepal and Bhutan and in SE Asia was available freely in the public domain. LA expressed an interest in receiving details of available reports.

LA then expressed a general opinion that MOTC maintenance teams were too small and poorly funded and agreed that overall consideration of potential geohazard failures was not able to be properly addressed or designed against. In addition he was strongly of the opinion that Contrcators regularly “violate the technology” and do not construct fully in accordance with the design required.

LA pointed out that all changes in design must, by Ministerial Instruction, be co-ordinated through KDTP.

LA expressed some concerns over the Sary Tash – Karamuk design and was of the opinion that insufficient funding was available for “upgraded” design of bridges along the route.

The Osh – Batken – Isfana 4 month “update” of the original Finnroad/Roughton feasibility study was due to commence in mid-October. CG discussed various points along the route which were of concern with members of the design team.




Meeting Note No. 7

Meeting Location: Central Asian Inst. For Applied Geosciences (CAIAG), Bishkek Website: www.caiag.kg Date and Time: 12:30 29th September 2008 Present: Mr. Uzakbaev Karabek - Chief Administator

Dr. Usupaev Sheishenaly - Lead Researcher, Dept. No. 1 "Geodynamics and Geohazards"

Mr. Meleshko Alexander - Senior Researcher, Dept. No. 1 "Geodynamic and Geohazards"

Mrs. Joldubaeva Lira - Head of Dept. No. 5 "Education, Training and Scientific Cooperation"

A presentation was given of the general activities and specific research activities of CAIAG (Att. 1)

CAIAG was formed in October 2002 under a co-operative agreement between the Government of the Kyrgyz Republic and GFZ, Potsdam. There are 84 personnel of whom 49 are described as “technical”.

CAIAG’s mission is “Development of New Methods and the Carrying out of Scientific Research on Geosciences “

There are 5 main departments:

- Geodynamics and Geo-hazard

- Water, climate and Geo-ecology

- Sustainable using and resources conservation

- Technical Infrastructure and data management

- Education, training and scientific cooperation

The facilities and office are impressive and there has clearly been considerable funding made available through the GFZ connection

The 7 major research activities of CAIAG for 2008/2009 were presented and discussed (see Att. 1)

CAIAG staff were previously been involved in studies (in their previous role as KG Inst. of Geology) under the TACIS programme and have previously been involved in the previous Finnroad studies on Osh – Isfana and Osh – Sary Tash – Irkishtub, in 1999 and 2001.

They have formally approached the MOTC to ask if their input is required on Osh – Isfana. No response as yet.

The Batken oblast area is covered by the CAIAG research project on geodynamics and provision of seismic monitoring stations (Project Mo. 7 in Att. 1).


A short presentation was given on the GIS and remote sensing capabilities of the group, which was impressive. Full KG coverage is available in LNADSAT, STER and QB coverage.

A further presentation and discussion took place on the MAPINFO electronic version of the KG hazards annual report, which CAIAG has digitized and which is fully available in GIS. CAIAG work jointly with MES on this. Alexander Melseshko recently joined CAIAG from MES after 17 years at MES and is responsible for this.

Attachments:

1. Presentation Mission and Activity of CAIAG. [CAIAG.php]

2. A. Meleshko; Geohazards Presentation: ПРИРОДНЫЕ ОПАСНОСТИ КЫРГЫЗСТАНА и ПОДВЕРЖЕННОСТЬ АВТОДОРОГ ЧРЕЗВЫЧАЙНЫМ СИТУАЦИЯМ. [CAIG Geohazards]

Meeting Location: Institute of Seismology National Academy, Bishkek Date and Time: 14:15 29th September 2008 Present: Dr. Abdrakhmatov Kanatbek Ermekovich, Director.

A brief meeting with Dr. Abdrakhmatov where the CG visit and those organisations visited was explained.

Should a geohazards group be formed , then Dr. Abdrakhmatov would be invited to take part, as the foremost expert in seismicity in KG and stated that he would be happy to accept.

Dr. Abdrakhmatov had recently returned from Europe where he had been discussing possible NATO funding on the effects of seismically generated landslides on KG reservoirs.

Dr. Abdrakhmatov also mentioned ISTG Foundation (Moscow) involvement in a project entitled “Vulnerability of Trans-Border Transport Corridors” within Central Asia.


Appendix B: Field Reconnaissance Trips

B1 Schedule

The following routes were driven along and observed over the period 16th to 22nd September 2008:

Table 4: Field Reconnaissance Trips

Route km Contractor (s) Sponsor(s)

1 Bishkek – Osh; Kara-Balta - Too Asmuu Pass

71 Various ADB, IsDB & JBIC

2 Osh - Batken – Isfana 360 CRBC (part) EC., WB, EBRD, Japanese Govt.

3 Osh – Gulcho 3 – 80 CRBC & XBRCC (JV) ADB

4 Gulcho – Sopukorgon 80 – 123 Tekar J/V IDB

5 Sopukorgon – Sary Tash 123 – 190 CRBC China Exim Bank

6 Sary Tash – Irkushtun 190 – 240 CRBC China Dev. Bank; CRBC; Full Gold Mining Co.

7 Sary Tash – Karamuk 0 - 136 CRBC ADB

B2 Bishkek – Osh Road (Appendix C; Photos C1 and C2)

The Bishkek – Osh road was extensively rehabilitated over the period 1996 to 2004 at a cost of USD$ 60 M. Detailed design was carried out by Carl Bro group (Denmark). The road is the country’s major transport corridor and a part of the transnational road network linking Central Asian countries, People’s Republic of China (PRC), and the Russian Federation. The road connects the two major centres of economic activity and population which, together, account for more than half the country’s GDP and 80% of its industrial enterprises.

The road traverses very rugged terrain and it is understood that a large number of geohazards including landslides and mudflow locations have been identified at points along the route. These are listed in detail in the Kyrgyz Atlas of Natural Hazards (Ref. 14). Discussions with MES and KDTP suggest that there have been a number of road closures due to hazard impacts since the road was completed in 2003.

A short section of the route was driven from Kara- Balta to the Too Ashuu Pass (elevation 3586 m) on 16th September 2008, in order to view the completed road, which traversed steep climbs and difficult terrain.

The overall impression was of a road constructed to a high standard, with only occasional geohazard risks evident, such as unsupported sub-vertical rock cuts in places (Photos C1 and C2 in Appendix C) and occasional signs of slope instability (1 minor feature observed over 71 km) and some encroaching river erosion close to the road in 2 places.

B3 Osh – Batken – Isfana Road (Appendix C; Photos C3 to C19)

In order to achieve the goals defined in the Road Sector Development Strategy for 2007-

2010, the KG Government has propose the rehabilitation and partial rerouting of the existing road from Osh to Isfana via Batken. The road is 385 km long and is estimated to cost around


USD 135 million, with new construction of approximately 100 km required to reconnect Batken Oblast with the rest of the country, including:

(i) a 14.7 km detour from Kok-Talaa to Pulgon (km 109-123);

(ii) a 50 km section from Pulgon to Burgandy (km 125 to 175);

(iii) a 4.7 km section, including a bridge across the Sokh river (km 195-200); and

(iv) a 23 km detour around the Tajik territory of Surkh (km 248 to 271).

The World Bank contribution to the financing of the project is likely to be USD 20 million as an IDA grant. Discussions are ongoing to supplement this with a sovereign loan from EBRD of USD 25 - 30 million and a loan/grant from the IsDB of USD 15 million to bridge part of the financing gap. The EC is currently financing construction of a 23 km detour around the Tajik territory of Surkh (km 248 to 271).

The whole route was driven along over the period 18th and 19th September 2008. The majority of geohazard features observed were related to river erosion and shallow mudflows. No direct evidence of landslide related problems was observed. Hazard maps produced in the Kyrgyz Atlas of Natural Hazards (Refs. 13 and 14) covering the route within Batken and Osh oblasts suggest the area is at low risk from geohazards in general.

Photographs C3, C9, C11, C14, C17, C18, and C19 in Appendix C illustrate erosion hazards along the route. Photographs C4, C10, C15 and C16 illustrate mudflows.

The constructed road bridge and approach embankments at Sokh, were just being completed on arrival, and were inspected across their entirety. There must be considerable concern about the bridge, the approach embankments and the river rock fill gabion guide bunds long term ability to withstand substantial winter snow-melt floods. This is particularly the case for the open rockfill guide bunds which are quite narrow/low and appear to be not always as well wired together by local labour as would be required for the long term integrity of the works. The large former river channel areas area behind the bunds are left completely unfilled. Sedimentation pattern changes and long term environmental and hydrological impact downstream and upstream have not been addressed. This is not a geohazard problem as such, but is a hydrological risk and construction issue which was pointed out in the WB Mission report of October 2007 (Ref. 28). This problem should be addressed very thoroughly in the current updated feasibility study being carried out by MoT by KDTP/Finnroad and due for completion in Q1 2009. Following the field visit, brief discussions were held with the KDTP design team.

B4 Osh – Gulcho - Sary Tash – Irkeshtam Road (Appendix C; Photos C20 to C33)

Rehabilitation of the Osh – Sarytash - Irkeshtam Road (Figures 1 and 2), will provide a regional southern transport road corridor from the Ferghana Valley region of Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan to the south western part of the Xinjiang Uigur Autonomous Region (XUAR) in the People’s Republic of China [PRC]. The road is 258 km long and is the weakest link in this important transport corridor between the Ferghana Valley and Kashgar—one of the main population and economic centers of Central Asia. By improving access to markets and reducing transportation costs, the rehabilitated Osh – Sarytash - Irkeshtam Road will promote further development of regional markets, economic growth of the region and improved trade with PRC. The whole route was driven over the period 19th to 21st September 2008 and several very large scale and route threatening geohazards were observed, in particular severe river erosion encroachments and threats on the section from Osh to Gulcho and beyond to tha mountain pass short of Sary Tash.


From Km 24 to Km 30 the road is located on the Taldyk River flood plain and is subject to severe bank erosion during the river’s heavier flows. The alignment follows the river’s catchment to the Chygyrchyk Pass commencing at Km 56 at an altitude of 2,100 m and dropping to 1,500 m in the vicinity of Gulcha. The section between Osh (km 0) and Gulcha (km 80) is currently being rehabilitated by the Chinese contractor, China Road and Bridge Corporation under ADB loan No. 2106-KGZ (SF). From the town of Gulcha, the road follows the Gulcha River valley, sometimes on embankment within the flood plain, and sometimes on the lower slopes of the adjoining mountain slopes. The road is vulnerable to erosion and landslides at many points along this stretch and the bituminous pavement has been completely lost over several short sections. The road passes through several villages, the principal one being Sopu Korgon (Km 119). The main economic occupation of inhabitants is pastoral. At km 157 the road passes through a notch in the hills known as the “Pamir Doors”. This marks the beginning of the climb up the Taldyk Pass. The gradient increases progressively up to 9 percent or locally higher as the road climbs up the valley side by a sequence of hairpin bends. The summit and the high point of the whole corridor is at Km 169 at an altitude of 3,600 m. From there it descends, rather less steeply to Km 184 at about 3,200 m. From Sarytash to the vicinity of Km 210 the road is mostly aligned straight across an alpine plateau. This section mainly consists of silty gravel sub base, which is seriously deformed in many places, forcing the traffic to use the grassland adjacent to the road alignment. Beyond that point the terrain is more broken. Steep grades and serpentines are again encountered as the road crosses the Karalabulak Valley, and then descends to the border at Irkeshtam (km 258). The section between km 240 and the border at Irkeshtam has already been rehabilitated under a Chinese Government Grant. For much of its length, from the outskirts of the villages neighboring Osh (Km 21) to the base of the Taldyk Pass (Km 157), the road follows quite narrow and geologically young valleys. It is aligned parallel and adjacent to rivers or strongly flowing streams, which are annually deepening and widening their watercourses. As a consequence, along many stretches of the road, embankments and cut slopes are subject to erosion from the neighboring streams, which become torrents during the spring and summer thaw. Flooding is also a problem, but more localised and occasional than the constant soil erosion at roadbed edges. At several locations, the pavement itself has been partially or completely undermined and lost. The asset value of the road is probably more at threat from erosion than any other natural hazard. The road is kept open at present by the interventions of the local maintenance departments, dumping or bulldozing mixed fill into the voids created by erosion. The road cross section as originally constructed is not sufficiently wide. The pavement dimensions generally correspond to the road category required at the time, but the longitudinal drains are too narrow and several cut slopes were left too steep and abutting too closely to the road. Consequently many of these overlying slopes now collapse or generate mudflows, particularly during wet conditions. Where the cuts are in rock, loose fallen debris on the road pavement is common.

Photographs C19, C20, C21, C22 and C32 in Appendix C illustrate erosion hazards along the route. Photographs C23 to C27 and C29 to C31 illustrate landslides. Photograph C28 shows an example of rockfall hazard.

B5 Sary Tash – Karamyk Road (Appendix C; Photos C34 to C46)


The Sary Tash to Karamuk road rehabilitation work will commence in 2009. Rehabilitation will involve the construction and completion of the 136 km of the road between Sary Tash and the Tajikistan border close to Karamyk, including 56 km of asphalt concrete pavement, the new construction of 6 bridges and repair of 7 bridges and associated drainage and major river erosion protection works.

The severest challenge to the route is clearly the xistence of major river erosion potential. At many points the road passes through “bottlenecks” with steep rock cliffs on one side very close to the carriageway and major river meanders within a few metres on the other side.

An EU funded feasibility study was carried out by BCEOM in 2007 (Ref. 6) which identifies a number of rock slope and river erosion points of concern along the route, which should be allowed for in design. Design recently commenced and is being “upgraded” by TERA in Bishkek, under the control and management of MOTC. Of particular interest is the adoption of Performance Based Maintenance (PBM) for the project.

Further details on the project and on PBM adoption may be found on the following website:

http://sk-road.com/tenders__purchases

Photographs C34, C38 and C44, in Appendix C illustrate erosion hazards along the route. Photographs C41, C43 and C46 illustrate landslides with associated mudflows and rockfall potential. Photographs C40 and C45 show examples of locations where combined erosion hazard exists very close to nearby rockfall hazards.

http://sk-road.com/tenders__purchases


Appendix C: Site Reconnaissance Photographs

E = River Erosion Feature

S = Slope Stability/Landslide

M = Mudflow/Debris Flow

C = Structure

SB = Sokh River Bridge

Tuesday 16th September 2008 : Kara-Balta - Too Ashuu Pass

Fig. No. Photo No. Description

R C1 529 Cut slope

R C2 538 Rock cutting showing stratigraphy

Thursday 18th September 2008 : Osh - Batken


E C3 544 Stream near road in hilly area

M C4 555 Shallow mudflow

C C5 563 Sokh bridge detail

C C6 565 Sokh general view

C C7 569 River training embankment upstream

C C8 575 Sokh bridge East

Friday 19 September 2008 : Batken - Isfana


E C9 582 Erosion in river deposits near road

M C10 585 General view of shallow (<2m) mudflows

E C11 591 Erosion channel close to road

C C12 595 New road alignment very close to 40 year old concrete irrigation open culvert

C C13 597/598 Gabion wall (6m) construction at very tight “thread through” enclave

E C14 602 Very tight badly eroded bottleneck avoids enclave

M C15 603 Mudflow (shallow) close to road

M C16 614 Mudflow from mountains close to road

E C17 615 Deep erosion gully very close to road

E C18 618 View down wide river plain (Isfana)

E C19 622 Erosion (severe) from mountain mudflows


Saturday 20th September 2008 : Sary-Tash + Osh-Gulcho


E C20 629 River erosion close (3-4m) to road – banked boulders

E C21 632 Deep culverted gully to river

E C22 634 River bank erosion

S C23 643 Red clay failures behind retaining wall

S C24 644 Red clay failures

S C25 646 General view

S C26 652 Red clay slope

S C27 657 Slopes and features in “red clay”

R C28 659 Rock falls and collapses on LHS

S C29 667 Valley view from top

S C30 670 “Red clay” mudslide

S C31 671 Landslides at Gulcho town

E C32 673 River below mountain pass

Sunday 21st September 2008 : Sary-Tash - Irkishtun (50km)


E C33 681 “Red river” at hummocky terrain below mountains

Monday 22nd September 2008 : Sary-Tash - Karamuk (136km)


E C34 687 River plains to LHS

R C35 689 Rock instabilities close to RHS of road

R C36 690 Slope cuts and rock falls

E/R C37 693 View from very high “bottleneck” - river and cliffs

E C38 694 View across river

E/R C39 696 Cliff overhang and river

E/R C40 697 Extreme vertical cliff and river plain

M C41 701 Mudflow gullies near town

E/R C42 703 Road bottleneck with river and cliff

S/M C43 705 Landslide/mudflow complex RHS from Karamuk

E C44 714 River floodplain at road level near Karamuk

E/R C45 717 Very tight pinch point cliff/river

S/R C46 718 35° bedding planes bare limestone outcrop


Appendix D: Kyrgyz Road Network

D1: National Road Network Rehabilitation Plans

The Kyrgyz Republic inherited a relatively large stock of road infrastructure from the former Soviet Union upon independence in 1991. While the coverage of the road network is generally adequate for the development needs of the country, there is a challenge in achieving proper levels of maintenance with limited resources.

The road network provides roughly 95 % of passenger and freight traffic and has a total length of 34,000 km, including 18,810 km of public roads and 15,910 km of urban, rural, agricultural, industrial and other roads (Ref. 3). The total length of international roads is 4,163 km, national – 5,678 km and local – 8,969 km. The total length of paved public roads is 7,228 km, including 11 km of cement-concrete road, 4,969 km of asphalt road and 2,248 km of gravel road. Total length of macadam road is 9961 km and unpaved road – 1,621 km.

The road network is currently in a critical situation that seriously hampers the social and economic development of the country. Based on survey data from 2005, approximately 65% of the 4,300 km surveyed were in a critical condition, with 20% at such a stage of degradation that the rehabilitation of asphalt pavements was impossible. It is clearly recognised that urgent action is required in order to prevent further degradation (Ref. 3).

A comprehensive approach to resolution of the problems is proposed by an MOTC developed Strategy (Ref. 15), which was developed in accordance with the provisions of the “Comprehensive Development Basis, National Development Strategy” through to 2010, as well as a budgetary medium-term forecast for 2007-2010.

D2 International Road Corridor Rehabilitation

The existing network of international road corridors is very important for communication between main economic centres within the Kyrgyz Republic, and provides almost the sole access to regional markets. Adequate maintenance and improvement of international and national regional road corridors is a stated priority of the State (Ref. 15).

Regional passenger and freight transportation is developing within the framework of the Central Asia Regional Economic Cooperation (CAREC). CAREC countries have developed a program for the removal of barriers for trade and transport traffic. As an active member of the program, the Kyrgyz Republic is planning to implement the regulatory reforms initiated by the CAREC program along with improvement of the regional road infrastructure.

The main efforts in assessing the need for rehabilitation have focused upon the main regional transport corridors within the Kyrgyz Republic, some 2242 km in length, including the following 8 “core routes”:

Table D1 - Main KG Core Transport Corridors (Ref. 15)

No. Route Length Completion Total Cost [k USD]

1 Bishkek – Osh [completed] 672 km 100% by end 2007

2 Bishkek – Naryn - Torugart 539 km 200 km (37%) by end 2010

3 Osh – Batken – Isfana 385 km 220 km (57%) by end 2010

4 Osh – Sarytash – Irkeshtam 258 km 100% by end 2010

5 Taraz – Talaz – Suusamyr 199 km 52 km (26%) by end 2007 and 100% by end 2010

6 Sarytash – Karymyk 142 km 100% by end 2010

7 Bishkek - Chaldovar (Karabalta-Chaldovar section.)

31 km 100% by end 2010


8 Bishkek – Georgievka [completed] 16 km 100% by end 2007

The following four programs itemizing of Strategy implementation have been developed by the MOTC (Ref. 15, Annex 15); D3 Transport Corridor Rehabilitation Program Rehabilitation of 5 transport corridors with financial assistance of international banks:

Osh-Sarytash-Irkeshtam (total length 258 km);

Suusamyr-Talas-Taraz (total length 199 km);

Bishkek-Naryn-Torugart (total length 539 km);

Osh-Batken-Isfana (total length 385 km);

Sarytash-Karamyk (total length 142 km).

The total cost of this programme over the period 2006 to 2010 was estimated to be USG 490 million (Refs. 15).

D4 RST-1000 Program

Annual rough surface treatment of 1000 km. D5 Road Repair and Maintenance Program

Rehabilitation and current repair, construction of asphalt pavement, reconstruction and rehabilitation of bridges and road structures. D6 Road Sector Commercialization Program»

Privatisation/Commercialisation of RMUs.


Appendix E: Road Investment and Maintenance Costs in Kyrgyyszstan

E1:Road Investment in Kyrgyzstan

The Government increased investments in rehabilitating major international and national roads over the past ten years (see Appendix E). The total amount of government investments for road rehabilitation amounted to $114.5 million during 2000–2004 (Table 1, from Ref. 4). In addition to the increased allocation from the national budget, the Government has received substantial financial assistance from bilateral and multilateral sources for road improvement.

The major external aid sources are the Asian Development Bank (ADB), Islamic Development Bank (IsDB), Japan Bank for International Cooperation (JBIC), World Bank, and the People’s Republic of China (PRC). The roads improved to date with external assistance include (i) Bishkek-Almaty road, (ii) Bishkek–Osh road, (iii) Jalalabat–Uzgen road, (iv) Osh–Irkeshtam road, (v) Talas–Taraz road, and (vi) urban roads in Bishkek, Osh, and Jalalabad.

Table E1: Road Financing in the Kyrgyz Republic ($ million) (Ref. 4)

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 a

Maintenance

Government 2.9 4.3 3.9 5.5 6.5

External Finance 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Subtotal 2.9 4.3 3.9 5.5 6.5

Rehabilitation

Government 2.9 2.8 7.5 4.1 6.5


Subtotal 24.8 27.3 22.8 11.6 27.9

Total

Government 5.8 7.1 11.4 9.5 13.0


Totalb 27.7 31.6 26.7 17.1 34.4

a From approved budget and supplemental allocations and reallocations as of 11 October 2004.

b Includes minor amounts for other road expenses not shown separately.

Sources: KG Ministry of Transport and Communications and Ministry of Finance.

E2; Road Maintenance Costs in Kyrgyzstan

Overall Annual Costs

The overall fiscal constraints in KG have resulted in lack of financing for maintenance and rehabilitation of the road assets. While the total funding for road maintenance increased from $2.9 million in 2000 to $6.5 million in 2004 (Table 3), it accounted for less than 0.3% of GDP and remained inadequate. Current level of spending on periodic maintenance and rehabilitation is on average $23 million a year, of which 90% is spent entirely on reconstruction. The spending for routine maintenance on paved roads during 2002-2005 was around $3 million a year. This has led to serious maintenance backlogs and an overall poor network condition. Due to limited resources, maintenance activities are concentrated on


major international roads and, consequently a large part of the remaining road network is in poor condition.

Based on current road conditions, the minimum required routine maintenance costs are estimated at $9.5 million per annum (Table 2, Ref. 4). Due to fiscal constraints however, road maintenance funding has been inadequate between 1991 and 2003, with only 11% of the current network assessed to be in good condition, with 51% in poor to very poor condition (Ref. 4), requiring immediate strengthening or rehabilitation.

Under this level of maintenance funding, it has been assessed by MOTC and their consultants (Refs. 3 and 15) that the road network will continue to deteriorate, resulting in significant increases in vehicle operating costs and travel time.

More effective measures are planned to address this issue:

For the period 2003 to 2006 MOTC allocated $ 5.9 million [2003] increasing to $ 10.3 million [2006] for “Road Repair and Maintenance” and $ 4.8 million [2003) to $ 10.3 million [2006] for “Capital Repair”

For 2007 to 2010 the budget allocation has increased to $ 17.2 million [2007] increasing to $ 19.0 million [2010] for “Road Repair and Maintenance” and $ 24.9 million annually for “Capital Repair”.

Table E2 below provides an example of the breakdown in costs for 2005.

Table E2: Annual Funding Requirements for Road Maintenance in 2005 in the Kyrgyz Republic (Ref. 4)

Type Total Cost ($ ‘000) Unit Cost ($/km)

Routine maintenance on primary roads (5,697 km) 3,850 680

Routine maintenance on intermediary roads (5,093 km) 2,470 485

Routine maintenance on local roads (8,059 km) 403 50

Emergency repair 2,000 Not available

Design and administration (10%) 870 -

Total (Overall Average) 9,593 510

Source: ADB. 2005. Technical Assistance to Kyrgyz Republic for the Institutional Support in the Transport Sector. Manila.

It has been recognised that should the budget allocation for road maintenance continue at pre-2006 levels, sealed pavements will deteriorate progressively and would require expenditure for reconstruction estimated (Ref. 3) at $75 million per annum over the period 2009 – 2020, after which maintenance expenditures would most likely drop to current levels for a period until the cycle is repeated again. A maintenance program including periodic maintenance of double bituminous sealing and 50mm asphalt overlay in addition to the regular routine maintenance would require higher levels of expenditure of $47.8 million ($9.6 million for routine maintenance and $38.2 million for rehabilitation of the deteriorated roads) during 2009 – 2014, after which a recurrent expenditure of $21.3 million would be needed to maintain the network. These estimates do not include any amounts for complete road reconstruction or capital/emergency repair related to natural hazards (Ref. 3).

Maintenance Costs Per Km

Tables 3.4 and 3.5 from Ref. 3 presented below summarise road expenditures in KG for 2006 and illustrate that:

The relative importance of capital repairs and emergency repairs per km compared to routine and periodic maintenance.


Significant regional variations (between PLUADs)

An average cost for routine maintenance of about $ 200 per Km

An average cost for “periodic maintenance” of $ 8,000 per km.

It is likely that the majority of periodic maintenance costs relate to “clean-up” operations related to natural hazard impact and events.

The national road network has now been prioritised and reclassified to match the maintenance needs with the resources available and in order to attempt to maintain the road network adequately (Ref. 3).

For comparison with the Scott Wilson SE Asian data (Ref. 19, 20 and 21), the KG MOTC year 2000, existing expenditure and 2010 targets for routine and periodic maintenance on KG international and national roads are shown below in Table E3 (Refs. 3 and 15).

Table E3 - Maintenance Costs per Km

Road Category 2000 Cost $/km 2007 cost $/km (2007 target) 2010 target cost $/km

Category I 190 816 (617) 810

Category II 150 734 (556) 730

Category III 110 661 (502) 670

Category IV 85 509 (446) 600

Category V 50 300 (295) 400


Design Summary Monitoring indicators Baseline

2000

2007 achievement

(2007 target)

Target

2010

Ongoing portfolio contribution

2000-2007 2007-2010

Impact

Road infrastructure provides adequate access to regional and domestic markets, employment opportunities and social services

Traffic density increased from 1400 BTU/day in 2006 to 2800 BTU/day by 2010

900 BTU/day

1940 BTU/day

(1750 BTU/day)

Achieved

2800 BTU/day

Bishkek-Osh traffic volume improved from 1800BTU/day in 2000 to 2336 BTU/day in 2007

Bishkek Almaty traffic volume improved from 7200 BTU/day in 2000 to 8420 BTU/day in 2007

Osh-Irkeshtam traffic improved from 1080 BTU in 2006 to 1100 BTU/day in 2007.

Bishkek-Osh traffic volume improved by 2010 to 4200 BTU/day

Bishkek Almaty traffic volume improved to 14000 BTU/day

Osh-Irkeshtam traffic improved by 2010 to 2300 BTU/day. Cargo volume increased from 29.5

mln ton/km in 2006 to 44.3 mln ton/km by 2010

22.3 mln ton/km

35.5 mln ton/km

(33.2 mln ton/km)

Achieved

44.3 mln ton/km

Passenger transportation increased from 6,329 mln in 2006 to 10,100 mln in 2010

4,629 mln

7,485 mln

(7,272 mln)

Achieved

10,100 mln

Outcomes

Regional road corridors meet the operational standards

The key national road network meets the operational standards

By end 2007, 55% and, by end 2010, 75% of key regional transport corridors meet the operational standards: of axis load 10 ton, IRI ≤4.5, average speed 60 km/hrs

35% (750 km)

65% (1394 km)

(55%)

Achieved

75% (1600 of total 2142 km)

65% of regional transport corridors

75% of regional corridors

By end-2007 40% and by end-2010 100% of 5,400 km of key national network meet the operational standard of IRI ≤6.5

45% (2430 km)

47% (2521 km)

(40%)

Achieved

100% (5400km)

2% of core network By end-2007 Tash-Kumyr-Karajigach (53 km) and Bazarkorgon-Arslanbop (52 km) rehabilitated

None

Average car maintenance costs decreased from$900 per year to $500 per year

$900

$700

($620)

$500 Decrease from $900 to $700 per car $500 /car

APPENDIX F

ROAD SECTOR RESULTS MATRIX (from Ref. 15)

2006-2010 (2007 status)



2000

2007 achievement

(2007 target)

Target

2010


2000-2007 2007-2010

Not achieved

Outputs

1 Key regional corridors rehabilitated

by end 2006 Bishkek – Georgievka

0% (0km)

100% (16km)

(100%)

Achieved

100% (16km)

by mid-2007 0,7 % of key regional road corridors

(ADB) 16 km will be completed by mid-summer 2007 (delayed

completion

by end 2007 Bishek-Osh 672 km

12%(80km)

81%(541km)

(80%)

Achieved

100%(672km)

By end-2007 Bishkek Osh fully rehabilitated in three phases (ADB, IsDB and JBIC) 539 km or 31% of regional transport corridors

ADB funded procurement of 8 road maintenance equipment units for $1.6 mln in 2006

JBIC funded procurement of 184 road construction and maintenance equipment units for $7.7 mln in 2000, and 15 units of

various equipment (construction, satellite and radio communication) for $4.0 mln in 2006

by end 2007 Talas-Taraz – Suusamyr 52 km

by end 2010 – 199 km

0%

19% (37 km)

(26% or 52 km)

Not achieved

100%(199km)

Road rehabilitation is 70% complete – 1.7% or regional corridors

3.4% of regional corridors

Talas-Taraz – Suusamyr (IsDB) 73 km of total 199 km :

by end 2010:

Osh-Irkeshtam 258 km

0%

9.1% (23.6km)

(10%)

Not achieved

89%(230km)

18 km (PRC) -0.8%

5.6 km (ADB) – 0.3%


ADB will rehabilitate 81 km, and IsDB 40 km of Osh-Irkeshtam 258 km

Osh –Isfana 220 km of total 385 km 0%

18% (40 km)

(18%)

Achieved

57%(220km)

EU TACIS supported preparation of feasibility study


World Bank is planning to allocate USD20 mln to rehabilitate 40 km of Оsh –Isfana road (1,8%)

EU allocated 6.3 mln Euro for rehabilitatation of 23,5 km of Osh – Isfana road (1,1%)



2000

2007 achievement

(2007 target)

Target

2010


2000-2007 2007-2010

EBRD is planning to allocate USD 35 mln to rehabilitate 70 km of Osh-Isfana road (3,1%);

Government of Japan is considering a PHRD application to finance update of the feasibility study and preparation of detailed designs and bidding documents for the whole road for the amount of USD650 thousand

Bishkek-Naryn-Torugart 200 km of total 539 km

0%

1%(5km)

(0%)

Achieved

37%(200km)

Donors supported preparation of feasibility study


Bishkek-Naryn-Torugart 200 km rehabilitation (ADB, IDB, PRC)

JBIC and JICA support rehabilitation of 60 km section, and provision of 62units of maintenance equipment for $5 mln for this section

Sarytash – Kyzylart 150 km

0% 0%

(0%)

100% ADB approved grant for rehabilitation of this corridor was approved


150 km will be completed (ADB)

Issyk-Kul Ring Road 100 km of total 436 km

0%

(0%)

25% JICA provided TA for Issyk Kul area development including road infrastructure

4.7% of regional corridors

100 km will be rehabilitated (IDB)

2 National road network is prioritized and re-classified to match the maintenance needs with the resources available and maintained adequately

Maintenance program is prioritized from 18,840 km to 5,500 km including:

I category1 - 139 km - 139 km

II category2 – 456 km – 456 km

III category3 – 2,275 km 2,,275km

18840 km

I categ - 139 km

II categ - 456 km

III categ - 2,275km

18840 km

(5500 km)

5500 km

I category - 139 km

II category- 456 km

III categ - 2,275km

ADB assisted in sector strategy formulation, and (under TA 4444) road network re-classification

In 2005, State Design Institute KyrgyzDorTransProekt, assisted by the World Bank conducted road

1 ≥15 m wide

2 9 - 11.5 m wide1`

3 7.5 m wide



2000

2007 achievement

(2007 target)

Target

2010


2000-2007 2007-2010

IV category4 – 8,481 km -1,500km

V category5 - 7,466 km – 1,000 km

IV categ – 8,481km

V categ - 7,466 km

Not achieved IV categ -1,500km

V categ - 1,000 km

network analysis

Routine and periodic maintenance expenditure reach the following levels:

I category- $800 per 1 km

II category- $730 per 1 km

III category - 670 per 1 km

IV category - $600 per 1 km

V category - $400 per 1 km

I category- $190/km

II categ - $ 150/km

III categ -$110/km

IV categ - $85/km

V categ - $50/km

I categ - $816/km ($617/km)

II categ- $734/km ($556/km)

III categ -$661/km ($502/km)

IV categ -$509/km ($446/km)

V categ - $300/km($295/km)

Achieved

I categ - $810/km

II categ - $730/km

III categ - 670/km

IV categ - $600/km

V categ - $400/km

A series of ADB’s TAs provided advise on the road sector funding needs, mechanisms and sources.

In 2006-2010 the capital repairs of national network are implemented on exclusive basis limited to $1.0 mln a year

X $16 million

($1.0 million)

Not achieved

$1.0 million

3 Maintenance funding is increased, mostly through introducing road user charges

Budget allocation for road maintenance grows from $7.2 mln in 2006 by 7% each next year to reach minimum $9.36 million in 2010

60% ($5.8mln)

276% ($26.8mln)

(82% or $7.7 mln)

Achieved

100% ($9.36mln) ADB’s policy dialogue under Bishkek-Osh road project (fixed expenditure level for road maintenance in the annual state budget) and policy recommendation under 5 TAs

ADB’s policy dialogue under Osh-Irkeshtam Road project:

fixed expenditure level for road maintenance in the annual state budget

assistance in establishment user fees for the corridor

Toll and user fees collection increase from 0.7 million in 2006 to $3.0 million by 2010

8.3% ($0.25mln)

63.3% ($1.9mln)

(42.5% or $1.3 mln)

Achieved

100% ($3.0mln)

32% of maintenance cost financed out of tolls

4.3% ($0.25mln) 7% ($1.9 mln)

(23.7%)

Not achieved (due to

32% ($3.0mln)

4 6 m wide

5 4.5 m wide



2000

2007 achievement

(2007 target)

Target

2010


2000-2007 2007-2010

substantial maintenance budget increase)

4 The efficient and competitive maintenance practices are introduced through gradual transfer of maintenance function to the private sector

6% of prioritized network is maintained by private contractors by end 2007 and increases by 8% annually thereafter

Ratio of actual maintenance costs per

1 km to budget estimates ≤ 1.0

0%

4.6% (247 km)

(21% or 1134 km)

Not achieved

30% (1620km) ADB’s policy dialogue under Bishkek-Osh road project for pilot maintenance contracts with private sector, and policy recommendations under 5 TAs

By end 2010

30% of the key network is planned to be transferred to the private sector

5 Community-based maintenance practices for rural road outside of MOTC jurisdiction (15,000 km) are introduced and strengthened

5,000 km maintained by communities 0 0

(1250 km)

Not achieved

5,000 km Community participation in road maintenance – set of regulations (ADB TA)

Community-based maintenance practices are not envisaged in the draft Road Sector Strategy

6 Road safety standards are improved and enforced

Number of traffic accidents decreased from 22 incidents per 1000 cars a year in 2006 to 17 incident per 1,000 cars in 2010

24 incidents per 1000 cars a year

115 accidents per 1000 cars a year

(22 accidents per 1000 cars a year)

Not achieved

17 incident per 1,000 cars

ADB assisted in establishing the national secretariat on road safety to support national road safety committee

7 MOTC structure is adjusted to focus on sector policy, regulatory, procurement, supervision and quality ensuring functions

New MOTC structure approved in 2007

MOTC staff decreased from 1,200 to 900

1300

1200

(1100)

Not achieved

900

ADB supported to development of road sector strategy including recommendations on MOTC restructuring

the necessary social protection measures are implemented

MOTC staff salaries increased by 50%

8 DEUs eliminated by 2010 0

Not achieved

14% (8 DEU)

ICT systems for road condition monitoring introduced

None In 2006, MOTC introduced computerized “Automobile roads condition monitoring system” (ARMS);

ARMS, HDM-4



2000

2007 achievement

(2007 target)

Target

2010


2000-2007 2007-2010

In 2004, locally adjusted international HDM-4 system introduced.

Achieved

ICT systems for financial management introduced

None ICT system (accounting software 1C) for financial management is being introduced

Achieved

ICT systems for financial management introduced

ADB supported procurement of 66 computers and accounting software (1C) and training for MOTC accounting staff

International design standards introduces

SNIP 2.05.02-85 SNiP KR 32-01:2004 (developed and introduced in 2004)

International AASHTO is also used

Acheved

AASHTO ADB provided TA for introducing international design standards

Cross-border transport agreements reached to facilitate international traffic

Cross border agreement was signed with Kazakhstan under L1775.

Discussions are ongoing with PRC and Uzbekistan on cross border agreement for Osh-Irkeshtam corridor

In progress

CAREC action plan for transport movement facilitation is implemented

Cross border agreement was signed with Kazakhstan under L1775

ADB will provide a $0.5 million TA to prepare cross border agreement among the Tajikistan, PRC and Kyrgyz Republic for Irkeshtam- Sary-Tash – Kyzylart corridor

Trade and Transport Facilitation Performance Measurements in Central/South Asia are conducted. Methodology includes: 1.on-site border post monitoring; 2. interview of truck drivers; 3. trip diaries

None Starting from 2005, the World Bank, joinlty with transport associations, conducted 5 road performance measurements and 1 rail road measurement

By 2009, two more TTFPM rounds will be conducted.

From 2005 to 2007, the World Bank financed and implemented six rounds of regional TTFPM (5 road and 1 rail road) monitorings. The results of these monitorings are discussed at a regular CAREC and other related meetings to improve policy/procedures and physical ifrastructure.

The next two rounds of TTFPM initiative (2008) are jointly financed by the World Bank and USAID.


APPENDIX G – Proposed ADB Maintenance Plan Framework

[Ref 3. Asian Development Bank (2007), “Kyrgyz Republic: Improving Road Maintenance and Strengthening

the Transport Corridor Management Department”, Project Number: TA 4444-KGZ, December 2007, p. 73.]

Note: AADT = Average Annual Daily Traffic; LOS = Loss of Service

World Bank Document...2012/05/10 · GO-ELS Ltd. World Bank: Kyrgyzstan – Desk and Field Studies...

Documents

Transcript of World Bank Document...2012/05/10 · GO-ELS Ltd. World Bank: Kyrgyzstan – Desk and Field Studies...