Updated Environmental Impact Assessment

Updated Environmental Impact Assessment

August 2020

India: South Asia Subregional Economic Cooperation Road Connectivity Investment Program – Tranche 3Imphal - Moreh Road (Khongkhang-Moreh section)

Prepared by National Highways & Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited for the Asian Development Bank. This is an updated version of the draft originally posted in June 2019 available on https://www.adb.org/projects/documents/ind-47341-004-eia.

(Vol. 2 of 2)

https://www.adb.org/projects/documents/ind-47341-004-eia

CURRENCY EQUIVALENTS (As of 20 May 2020)

Currency Unit

₹1.00 $1.00

= = =

Indian rupee/s (₹) $0.014 ₹75.6565

ABBREVIATIONS

AADT – Annual Average Daily Traffic AAQM – Ambient air quality monitoring ADB – Asian Development Bank BDL – Below detectable limit BOD – Biochemical oxygen demand BOQ – Bill of quantity CO – Carbon monoxide COD – Chemical oxygen demand CPCB – Central Pollution Control Board AE – Authority Engineer DFO – Divisional Forest Officer DG – Diesel generating set DO – Dissolved oxygen DPR – Detailed project report EFP – Environmental Focal Person EHS – Environment Health and Safety EIA – Environmental impact assessment EMOP – Environmental monitoring plan EMP – Environmental management plan GHG – Greenhouse gas GOI – Government of India GRC – Grievance redress committee GRM – Grievance redress mechanism IEE – Initial Environmental Examination IRC – Indian Road Congress IUCN – International Union for Conservation of Nature LHS – Left hand side LPG – Liquefied petroleum gas MOEFCC – Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change MORTH – Ministry of Road Transport and Highways NHIDCL – National Highways & Infrastructure Development

Corporation Limited N, S, E, W, NE, SW, NW

– Wind Directions (North, South, East, West or combination of two directions like South West, North West)

NGO – Non-governmental organization NH – National Highway NOx – Oxides of nitrogen PAH – Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons PCU – Passenger Car Units PM – Particulate Matter PIU – Project Implementation Unit

PPE – Personal protective equipment R&R – Rehabilitation and Resettlement RHS – Right hand side ROW – Right-of-way SAARC – South Asian Association for Regional Corporation SH – State highway SO2 – Sulphur Dioxide SPCB – State Pollution Control Board SPL – Sound Pressure Level SPM – Suspended Particulate Matter SPS TA

– –

ADB Safeguard Policy Statement, 2009 Technical Assistance

TDS – Total dissolved solids TSS UNESCAP

– –

Total Suspended Solids United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and Pacific

WEIGHTS AND MEASURES dB(A) – A-weighted decibel ha – Hectare km – Kilometer

µg – Microgram m – Meter MW (megawatt) – Megawatt PM 2.5 or 10 – Particulate Matter of 2.5 micron or 10 micron size

NOTE

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

This environmental assessment is a document of the borrower. The views expressed herein do not necessarily represent those of ADB's Board of Directors, Management, or staff, and may be preliminary in nature. Your attention is directed to the “terms of use” section of this website. In preparing any country program or strategy, financing any project, or by making any designation of or reference to a particular territory or geographic area in this document, the Asian Development Bank does not intend to make any judgments as to the legal or other status of any territory or area.

https://www.adb.org/terms-use

220 Annex 1

Annex 1: RAPID ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (REA) CHECKLIST

Country/Project Title: INDIA/ SASEC Road Connectivity Sector Project Sector / Division: South Asia Transport and Communication Division (SATC) Road Section: Khongkhang-Moreh Road Section in the State of Manipur

(Tranche 3 Subproject)

Screening questions Yes No Remarks A. Project siting ▪ Is the project area adjacent to or within

any of the following environmentally sensitive areas?

▪ Cultural heritage site X

▪ Protected area

X The total 29.516 km length of the project road section passes through Yangoupokpi Lokchao Wildlife Sanctuary (YLWLS) including Eco-sensitive zone and buffer zone. Mitigation measures are included in the EMP to avoid impacts on flora and fauna in the forest and sanctuary areas. Executing agency will obtain wildlife and forest clearance from statutory authority at State and Central Level.

▪ Wetland X ▪ Mangrove X ▪ Estuarine X

▪ Buffer zone of protected area

X Total 21.066 kms of alignment transverse near the core zone and through buffer zone of YLWLS. Out of this length about 9.1 km length of alignment is passing along the boundary of Core Zone-1 and Buffer zone.

▪ Special area for protecting biodiversity X B. Potential environmental impacts ▪ Will the project cause…

▪ Encroachment on historical/cultural areas; disfiguration of landscape by road embankments, cuts, fills, and quarries?

X The topography of project road section from Khongkhang to Moreh is hilly and this section is mostly following existing road alignment. Hilly sections are vulnerable to landslide. Impacts of landscape by road embankments, cuts and fills are anticipated. Proper management plan for will be required during construction to sustain the quarries.

▪ Encroachment on precious ecology (e.g. Sensitive or protected areas)?

X Total 21.066 kms of alignment transverse near the core zone and through buffer zone of YLWLS. Out of this length about 9.1 km length of alignment is passing along the boundary of Core Zone-1 and Buffer zone.

▪ Alteration of surface water hydrology of waterways crossed by roads, resulting in increased sediment in streams affected by increased soil erosion at construction site?

X Khongkhang – Moreh section of the project road hilly areas and is high rainfall zone prone to flood. Rivers also cross this section of the project road. Controlled construction activities will ensure sediment discharge into streams.

Annex 1 221

Screening questions Yes No Remarks ▪ Deterioration of surface water quality due

to silt runoff and sanitary wastes from worker-based camps and chemicals used in construction?

X During construction period suitable mitigation measures will be required to control the silt runoff. Adequate Sanitary facilities and drainage in the workers camps will help to avoid this possibility. As the construction activity in this project will not contain any harmful ingredients, no impact on surface water quality is anticipated.

▪ Increased local air pollution due to rock crushing, cutting and filling works, and chemicals from asphalt processing?

X With appropriate mitigation measures and use of most modern environment friendly equipment/machineries air pollution shall be reduced to permissible levels.

▪ risks and vulnerabilities related to occupational health and safety due to physical, chemical, biological, and radiological hazards during project construction and operation during project construction and operation?

X Possible. With appropriate mitigation measures such risks would be minimized.

▪ Noise and vibration due to blasting and other civil works?

X Short term minor impact may occur during construction period, Suitable mitigation measures will be required to minimize the adverse effects

▪ Dislocation or involuntary resettlement of people

X Likely. A Resettlement Plan will be prepared and compensation shall be paid as per approved entitlement matrix.

▪ dislocation and compulsory resettlement of people living in right-of-way?

X Likely. A Resettlement Plan will be prepared and compensation shall be paid as per approved entitlement matrix.

▪ disproportionate impacts on the poor, women and children, Indigenous Peoples or other vulnerable groups?

X Possible. Gender Equity and Social Inclusion (GESI) Plan and Indigenous People Development Plan shall be prepared as part of the Project.

▪ Other social concerns relating to inconveniences in living conditions in the project areas that may trigger cases of upper respiratory problems and stress?

X Imposing of appropriate mitigation measures in contract agreement to keep the air pollution within permissible levels will keep a check on this problem.

▪ Hazardous driving conditions where construction interferes with pre-existing roads?

X To minimize the impact suitable traffic management plan will be required

▪ Poor sanitation and solid waste disposal in construction camps and work sites, and possible transmission of communicable diseases from workers to local populations?

X Proper provisions for sanitation, health care and solid waste disposal facilities will be available in the contract documents to avoid such possibility. Workers will be made aware about communicable diseases

▪ Creation of temporary breeding habitats for mosquito vectors of disease?

X

▪ Accident risks associated with increased vehicular traffic, leading to accidental spills of toxic materials and loss of life?

X Adoption of suitable traffic signage system at sensitive places will reduce such possibility.

▪ Increased noise and air pollution resulting from traffic volume?

X Due to improvement in Riding Quality & Comfort in driving due to unidirectional traffic such pollution will be reduced. Mitigation measures along with monitoring plan will be required

222 Annex 1

Screening questions Yes No Remarks ▪ Increased risk of water pollution from oil,

grease and fuel spills, and other materials from vehicles using the road?

X Controlled construction activities and proper drainage system will reduce this possibility.

▪ social conflicts if workers from other regions or countries are hired?

X Not anticipated. Local labors would be hired to the extent possible.

▪ large population influx during project construction and operation that causes increased burden on social infrastructure and services (such as water supply and sanitation systems)?

X Possible.

▪ risks to community health and safety due to the transport, storage, and use and/or disposal of materials such as explosives, fuel and other chemicals during construction and operation?

X Possible. EMP shall be followed to minimize this risk.

▪ community safety risks due to both accidental and natural causes, especially where the structural elements or components of the project are accessible to members of the affected community or where their failure could result in injury to the community throughout project construction, operation and decommissioning.

X Not anticipated.

Climate Change and Disaster Risk Questions The following questions are not for environmental categorization. They are included in this checklist to help identify potential climate and disaster risks.

Yes No REMARKS

• Is the Project area subject to hazards such as earthquakes, floods, landslides, tropical cyclone winds, storm surges, tsunami or volcanic eruptions and climate changes (see Appendix I)

X Project is vulnerable to rainfall and landslides.

▪ Could changes in temperature, precipitation, or extreme events patterns over the Project lifespan affect technical or financial sustainability (e.g., increased erosion or landslides could increase maintenance costs, permafrost melting or increased soil moisture content could affect sub0-grade).

X Likely. Increase in rainfall will reduce lifespan of the project as this is a landslide prone area.

▪ Are there any demographic or socio-economic aspects of the Project area that are already vulnerable (e.g., high incidence of marginalized populations, rural-urban migrants, illegal settlements, ethnic minorities, women or children)?

X

▪ Could the Project potentially increase the climate or disaster vulnerability of the surrounding area (e.g., by encouraging settlement in areas that will be more affected by floods in the future, or encouraging settlement in earthquake zones)?

X

Annex 2 223

Annex 2. INDIAN STANDARD DRINKING WATER SPECIFICATION: IS 10500:1991 Sl. No.

Substance/ Characteristic Desirable Limit Permissible

limit Remarks

1 Colour, Hazen units, Max 5 25

Extended to 25 if toxic substances are not suspected in absence of alternate sources

2 Odour Unobjectionable a) Test cold and when heated

b) Test at several dilution

3 Taste Agreeable Test to be conducted only after safety has been established

4 Turbidity NTU, Max 5 10

5 pH value 6.5 to 8.5 No relaxation

6 Total Hardness (as CaCO3 mg/lit)

600 600

7 Iron (as Fe mg/lit, Max 0.3 1.0

8 Chlorides (as Cl mg/lit Max 250 1000

9 Residual Free Chlorine, mg/lit Max

0.2

To be applicable only when water is chlorinated. Treated at consumer end. When protection against viral infection is required, it should be Min 0.5 mg/lit

10 Dissolved Solids mg/l, Max 500 2000

11 Calcium (as Ca) mg/l, Max 75 200

12 Copper (as Cu) mg/l, Max 0.05 1.5

13 Manganese (Mn) mg/l Max 0.1 0.3

14 Sulphate (As SO4), Max 200 400 May be extended up to 400 provided (as Mg) does not exceed 30

15 Nitrate (as NO3) mg/l, Max 45 100

16 Fluoride (as F) mg/l, Max 1.0 1.5

17 Phenolic Compounds (as C6H6OH) mg/l Max

0.001 0.002

18 Arsenic (as As mg/l 0.05 No relaxation To be tested when pollution is suspected

19 Lead (as Pb) mg/l 0.05 No relaxation

20 Anionic Detergents (as MBAS) mg/l

0.2 1.0

21 Chromium (as Cr) mg/l 0.05 1.0 To be tested when pollution is suspected

22 Mineral Oil mg/l 0.01 0.03

23 Alkalinity mg/l 200 600

24 Total Coliform 95% of the sample should not contain coliform in 100 ml. 10

coliform /100 ml

224 Annex 3

Annex 3: NATIONAL AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS (MOEFCC, 2009)

Pollutant Time Weighted

Average

Concentration in Ambient air (g/m3)

Industrial, Residential, Rural and Other Areas

Ecologically Sensitive Areas

Sulphur Dioxide (SO2) Annual Average* 50 20

24 hr** 80 80

Oxides of Nitrogen (as NO2) Annual Average * 40 30

24 hr** 80 80

Particulate Matter: PM10 (<10 μm )

Annual Average * 60 60

24 hr** 100 100

Particulate Matter: PM2.5 (<2.5 μm)

Annual Average * 40 40

24 hr** 60 60

Lead Annual Average * 0.5 0.5

24 hr** 1.0 1.0

Carbon monoxide mg/m3 8 hr 2.0 2.0

1 hr 4.0 4.0 * Annual Arithmetic mean of minimum 104 measurement in a year taken for a week 24 hourly at uniform interval.

** 24 hourly or 8 hourly or 1 hourly monitored values should meet 98 percent of the time in a year Source: MoEF notification Central Pollution Control Board (1997) National Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Series, NAQMS/a/1996-97.

Annex 4 225

Annex 4. NATIONAL AMBIENT NOISE LEVEL STANDARDS

Area Code Category Limits in Decibels (dB A)

Day Time Night Time

A Industrial 75 70

B Commercial 65 55

C Residential 55 45

D Silence Zones 50 40

Note: (1) Daytime: 6 AM to 9 P.M., Night-time 9 PM to 6 AM; (2) Silence zone is an area up to 100 m around premises as hospitals, educational institutions and courts. Source: Central Pollution Control Board, New Delhi

226 Annex 5

Annex 5: AIR QUALITY IMPACT PREDICTION

A. Introduction

The major impact on the air quality during the operation stage will be due to plying of vehicles on the proposed corridor. The impact on air quality depends upon traffic volume, traffic fleet including fuel type and prevailing atmospheric conditions. An unstable atmospheric condition disperses pollutants more and results in to low pollutant concentrations while stable atmospheric conditions buildup the pollution level. To assess the likely impacts on the ambient air quality due to the proposed highway project, the prediction of the carbon monoxide (CO) and particulate matter (PM), Nitrogen Dioxide (NOx) and Sulphur Dioxide (SO2) concentrations have been carried out using line source dispersion modelling approach, based on Gaussian equation. CO is an indicator pollutant for vehicular pollution. So, prediction of CO concentration is representative of the impacts of air pollution due to traffic movement. The modeling for this project has been carried out using AERMOD-9, a steady-state plume model that incorporates air dispersion based on planetary boundary layer turbulence structure and scaling concepts, including treatment of both surface and elevated sources, and both simple and complex terrain, developed by the “The American Meteorological Society/Environmental Protection Agency Regulatory Model Improvement Committee (AERMIC)”.

It has been setup and run by using emission factors prevalent for Indian vehicles (ARAI, 2007) and hourly traffic volumes as predicted for the project. The study is conducted to predict 1-houly increment in CO concentrations for the years 2020, 2025, 2030, 2035 and 2040.

B. Model descriptions

The AERMOD atmospheric dispersion modeling system is an integrated system that includes three modules: (a) A steady-state dispersion model designed for short-range (up to 50 kilometers) dispersion of air pollutant emissions from stationary industrial sources. (b) A meteorological data preprocessor (AERMET) that accepts surface meteorological data, upper air soundings, and optionally, data from on-site instrument towers. It then calculates atmospheric parameters needed by the dispersion model, such as atmospheric turbulence characteristics, mixing heights, friction velocity, Monin-Obukov length and surface heat flux. (c) A terrain preprocessor (AERMAP) whose main purpose is to provide a physical relationship between terrain features and the behavior of air pollution plumes. It generates location and height data for each receptor location. It also provides information that allows the dispersion model to simulate the effects of air flowing over hills or splitting to flow around hills. AERMOD also includes PRIME (Plume Rise Model Enhancements) [4] which is an algorithm for modeling the effects of downwash created by the pollution plume flowing over nearby buildings.

C. Source information

Traffic data. The fleet wise traffic volumes for the present study have been taken from the detailed feasibility report of the project. The annual average daily traffic (AADT) data is available for the proposed road through traffic survey. AERMOD model needs hourly average traffic volume. The total traffic hour volume is further categorized in to two wheeler, four wheeler, Light commercial vehicles (LCVs), Bus and high commercial vehicles (HCVs), based on the traffic survey at different road stretched along the highway (Figure 1).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_dispersion_modeling

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_pollution

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_pollutants

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Major_stationary_source

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meteorology

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preprocessor

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rawinsonde

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_atmosphere

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turbulence

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monin-Obukhov_Length

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrain

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AERMOD#cite_note-4

Annex 5 227

Figure 1: Traffic Fleet on the highway

The annual average daily motorized traffic data are given in Table 1 at five locations along with future traffic growth.

Table 1: Annual average daily motorized traffic data

Ye

ar

2w

4w

LC

V

HC

V

Bu

ses

2020 42 2962 304 127 8

2025 65 4627 474 199 12

2030 84 5974 613 257 15

2035 99 7096 728 305 18

2040 116 8250 846 354 21

Emission factors. Emission factor is one of the important input parameter in AERMOD model. In the present study, the emission factors specified by the Automotive Research Association of India (ARAI, 2007) have been used for calculation of weighted emission factors. These emission factors have been expressed in terms of type of vehicles and type of fuel used (for petrol and diesel driven passenger cars).

The emission factor used in the present study for different vehicles type are given in Table 2.

Table 2: Emission factors for different types of Vehicle (ARAI, 2007)

Emission factors, g/km (ARAI, 2007)

2w 3w 4w lcv bus truck

CO 1.04 1.25 1.28 1.56 8.03 6.00

Nox 0.31 0.60 0.32 1.46 9.01 9.30

PM 0.02 0.22 0.04 0.28 0.55 1.24

SO2 0.01 0.01 0.03 0.06 0.13 0.13

228 Annex 5

Meteorological data. The meteorological parameters such as wind speed, wind direction, temperature, rainfall, cloud cover, pressure, and humidity were used in model. Due to limited availability of good data, the data has been taken from nearest World Meteorological Observation Station, Imphal airport for this study.

Receptor. A set of link receptors were taken at various receptor locations within each section at a distance of 5 m, 10 m, 20 m, 50 m, 100 m and 200 m both sides from centre line of the carriageway to know the dispersion of pollutant from the road.

Background Concentration. The background pollutant concentrations were taken from environmental monitoring data. Air quality monitoring was carried out in the month of March 2019 at four locations throughout the alignment on two alternate days. The following background pollutant concentrations were taken for model predictions:

Table 3: Average background concentration of pollutants along the alignment

Average Background concentration, microgram/m3

CO 0.0

NOx 13.0

PM2.5 31.3

PM10 63.8

SO2 6.6

Results. The model has been setup and run to predict hourly average CO, PM2.5, PM10, NOx and SO2 concentrations for year 2020, 2025, 2030, 2035 and 2040 using forecasted traffic data on proposed highway. The predicted hourly average concentration of CO, PM2.5, PM10 , Sox and NOx during peak traffic are shown in Tables 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 for proposed highway project. The graphical representation of hourly average pollutant concentrations on both side of the road sections shown in Figures 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 at different locations.

Annex 5 229

Table 4: CO predicted concentrations (ppm) along the proposed road

Year

CO Concentration (µg/m3)

Distance from the centre line of the road, m. (Left side) Distance from the centre line of the road, m.

(Right side)

-200 -150 -100 -50 -20 -10 -5 5 10 20 50 100 150 200

2020 2.8 3.5 4.4 5.6 12.4 19.9 28.2 9.6 7.8 5.4 1.3 0.6 0.4 0.4

2025 4.4 5.5 6.9 8.8 19.3 31.2 44.2 15.1 12.1 8.4 2.0 0.9 0.6 0.6

2030 5.5 7.0 8.8 11.2 24.6 39.7 56.2 20.5 15.5 10.8 2.5 1.1 0.8 0.8

2035 6.7 8.5 10.7 13.5 29.6 47.9 67.8 23.9 18.6 13.0 3.0 1.3 0.9 1.0

2040 7.9 10.0 12.5 15.8 34.7 56.1 79.4 27.4 27.7 15.1 3.5 1.5 1.1 1.1

Table 5: PM2.5 predicted concentrations (µg/m3) along the proposed road

Year

PM2.5 Concentration (µg/m3)

Distance from the centre line of the road, m. (Left side) Distance from the centre line of the road, m. (Right

side)

-200 -150 -100 -50 -20 -10 -5 5 10 20 50 100 150 200

2020 31.3 31.3 31.3 31.4 31.4 31.5 31.6 31.6 31.5 31.4 31.3 31.3 31.3 31.3

2025 31.3 31.3 31.4 31.4 31.5 31.7 31.8 31.8 31.6 31.5 31.3 31.3 31.3 31.3

2030 31.3 31.4 31.4 31.4 31.6 31.8 32.0 32.0 31.7 31.5 31.3 31.3 31.3 31.3

2035 31.4 31.4 31.4 31.5 31.7 31.9 32.1 32.0 31.8 31.6 31.4 31.3 31.3 31.3

2040 31.4 31.4 31.4 31.5 31.7 32.0 32.2 32.2 31.9 31.6 31.4 31.3 31.3 31.3

230 Annex 5

Table 6: PM10 predicted concentrations (µg/m3) along the proposed road

Year

PM10 Concentration (µg/m3)

Distance from the centre line of the road, m. (Left side)

Distance from the centre line of the road,

m. (Right side)

-200 -150 -100 -50 -20 -10 -5 5 10 20 50 100 150 200

2020 63.8 63.8 63.8 63.9 63.9 64.0 64.1 64.1 64.0 63.9 63.8 63.8 63.8 63.8

2025 63.8 63.8 63.9 63.9 64.0 64.2 64.3 64.3 64.1 64.0 63.8 63.8 63.8 63.8

2030 63.8 63.9 63.9 63.9 64.1 64.3 64.5 64.4 64.2 64.0 63.8 63.8 63.8 63.8

2035 63.9 63.9 63.9 64 64.2 64.4 64.6 64.5 64.3 64.1 63.9 63.8 63.8 63.8

2040 63.9 63.9 63.9 64 64.2 64.5 64.7 64.7 64.4 64.1 63.9 63.8 63.8 63.8

Table 7: NOx predicted concentrations (µg/m3) along the proposed road

Year

NOx Concentration (µg/m3)

Distance from the centre line of the road, m. (Left side) Distance from the centre line of the road, m. (Right side)

-200 -150 -100 -50 -20 -10 -5 5 10 20 50 100 150 200

2020 13.3 13.3 13.4 13.6 14.2 14.8 15.5 15.3 14.5 13.9 13.4 13.2 13.1 13.1

2025 13.3 13.4 13.6 13.8 14.8 15.8 16.8 16.6 15.4 14.4 13.3 13.2 13.2 13.2

2030 13.4 13.5 13.7 14.0 15.2 16.5 17.8 17.5 16.0 14.7 13.4 13.2 13.2 13.2

2035 13.5 13.6 13.8 14.2 15.6 17.2 18.7 18.3 16.5 15.0 13.5 13.3 13.2 13.2

2040 13.5 13.7 13.9 14.4 16.1 17.9 19.7 19.1 17.0 15.3 13.5 13.3 13.2 13.2

Table 8: SOx predicted concentrations (µg/m3) along the proposed road

Year

SOx Concentration (µg/m3)

Distance from the centre line of the road, m. (Left side) Distance from the centre line of the

road, m. (Right side)

-200 -150 -100 -50 -20 -10 -5 5 10 20 50 100 150 200

2020 6.6 6.6 6.6 6.6 6.7 6.7 6.7 6.7 6.7 6.6 6.6 6.6 6.6 6.6

2040 6.6 6.6 6.6 6.7 6.7 6.8 6.9 6.9 6.8 6.7 6.6 6.6 6.6 6.6

Annex 5 231

Figure 2: CO distribution from Centre line of the road

232 Annex 5

Figure 3: PM2.5 distribution from Centre line of the road

Figure 4: PM10 distribution from Centre line of the road

Figure 5: NOx distribution from Centre line of the road

Figure 6: SOx distribution from Centre line of the road

Annex 5 233

In addition, the spatial distribution of hourly average predicted CO, PM2.5 and PM10 concentrations have been plotted in Figures 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11 respectively which shows that pollutant concentrations is decreasing when goes away from the kerb side.

Spatial Distribution of CO for year 2020


234 Annex 5



Annex 5 235


Figure 7: Spatial Distribution of CO (2020-2040)

Spatial Distribution of PM2.5 for year 2020

236 Annex 5



Annex 5 237



Figure 8: Spatial Distribution of PM2.5 (2020-2040)

238 Annex 5

Spatial Distribution of PM10 for year 2020


Annex 5 239



240 Annex 5


Figure 9: Spatial Distribution of PM10 (2020-2040)

Spatial Distribution of NOx for year 2020

Annex 5 241




242 Annex 5


Figure 10: Spatial Distribution of NOx (2020-2040)

Spatial Distribution of SO2 for year 2020

Spatial Distribution of SO2 for year 2040

Figure 11: Spatial Distribution of SO2 (2020-2040)

Annex 6 243

Annex 6: PREDICTED NOISE LEVELS

Federal Highway Administration's Traffic Noise Model (FHWA TNM) helps for highway traffic noise prediction and analysis. TNM computes highway traffic noise at nearby receivers. As sources of noise, it includes noise emission levels for the following vehicle types:

• Automobiles: all vehicles with two axles and four tires -- primarily designed to carry nine or fewer people (passenger cars, vans) or cargo (vans, light trucks) -- generally with gross vehicle weight less than 4,500 kg (9,900 lb);

• Medium trucks: all cargo vehicles with two axles and six tires -- generally with gross vehicle weight between 4,500 kg (9,900 lb) and 12,000 kg (26,400 lb);

• Heavy trucks: all cargo vehicles with three or more axles -- generally with gross vehicle weight more than 12,000 kg (26,400 lb);

• Buses: all vehicles designed to carry more than nine passengers; and • Motorcycles: all vehicles with two or three tires and an open-air driver / passenger

compartment.

The procedure for prediction of noise levels involves the following steps:

• Identification of various receivers • Determination of landuses and activities which may be affected by the noise generated • Assemble input parameters • Application of the model

The description of the components to predict noise level are as follows:

• Receivers: TNM calculates the sound levels at the input receivers. In this study two type of receivers selected to assess the impacts of moving traffic on surrounding noise level. One, discrete receptor and second, grid receptor.

• Land uses: Land use along the road is obtained from the topographic drawings. This information provides the range of shielding and absorption factors to be applied at the various receivers.

• Input Parameters: Traffic volume for the projected period is obtained from the traffic projections. The total number of vehicles passing per hour by type - light, medium and heavy along with their average speed is used for predictions.

• Average Noise Level: All vehicles produce noise, which is taken as the base, and the cumulative noise at the receiver distance due to the whole traffic is estimated. The average noise level varies depending on the type of vehicle.

• Application of Model: Equivalent noise levels due to traffic at the receivers are estimated using Federal Highway Noise model. Equivalent Sound Level (TEQ, denoted by the symbol, LAeqT): Ten times the base-10 logarithm of the square of the ratio of time-average, mean-square, instantaneous A-weighted sound pressure, during a stated time interval, T (where T=t2-t1), and the reference mean-square sound pressure of 20 : Pa, the threshold of human hearing, e.g., 1HEQ, denoted by the symbol, LAeq1H, represents the hourly equivalent sound level. LAeqT is related to LAE by the following equation :

LAeqT = LAE - 10*log10(t2-t1)

where LAE = Sound exposure level in dB

Sound Exposure Level (SEL, denoted by the symbol, LAE): Over a stated time interval, T (where T=t2-t1), ten times the base-10 logarithm of the ratio of a given

244 Annex 6

time integral of squared instantaneous A-weighted sound pressure, and the product of the reference sound pressure of 20:Pa, the threshold of human hearing, and the reference duration of 1 sec. The time interval, T, must be long enough to include a majority of the sound source’s acoustic energy. As a minimum, this interval should encompass the 10 dB down points. Traffic data used in noise modelling are given below in Table 1:

Table 1: Annual average daily motorized traffic data

Ye

ar

2w

4w

LC

V

HC

V

Bu

ses

2020 42 2962 304 127 8

2025 65 4627 474 199 12

2030 84 5974 613 257 15

2035 99 7096 728 305 18

Table 2: Equivalent Background Noise levels

Location Khongkhang Khudenthabi Lokchao Khudenthabi

Army Checkpost

Moreh College

Night Leq(dB) 45 43 46 46 42

Day Leq(dB) 63 67 67 70 64

Table 3: Noise prediction in dB (A) along the road corridor (without Barrier)

Year

Distance from the edge of the road, m. (Left side)

Distance from the edge of the

road, m. (Left side)

200 100 50 20 10 10 20 50 100 200

2020 38.4 45.7 53.1 57.8 59.8 59.8 57.7 52.9 44.6 38.5

2025 39.6 46.9 54.4 59.1 61.1 61.1 59.0 54.2 45.8 39.7

2030 40.6 47.9 55.4 60.1 62.1 62.1 60.0 55.2 46.8 40.6

2035 41.5 48.8 56.3 61.0 63.0 63.0 60.9 56.1 47.7 41.5

Annex 6 245

Table 4: Predicted Noise levels at sensitive receptors along the project corridor for year 2020

Receptor LHS/RHS Road Chainage,

KM

Offset from Road

edge, m

Existing Noise

level, dB

Noise due to traffic,

dB

Equivalent Noise

Levels, dB

Increase in noise levels,

dB

Type of Impact

Community Hall, Khudengthabi LHS 412+400 412+500 5 67 62.6 68.3 1.3 No Impact

Angawadi Centre LHS 412+500 412+600 5 67 62.6 68.3 1.3 No Impact

Church LHS 412+600 412+700 5 67 62.6 68.3 1.3 No Impact Market Area LHS 414+400 414+700 5 70 62.6 70.7 0.7 No Impact Army Camp RHS 414+400 414+800 10 70 59.8 70.4 0.4 No Impact T.M. Zomunnuam Village Primary SCHL

LHS 415+300 415+400 24 64 57.1 64.8 0.8 No Impact

Community Hall LHS 415+400 415+500 10 64 59.8 65.4 1.4 No Impact Church RHS 419+300 419+400 8 64 62.8 66.5 2.5 No Impact Moreh college LHS 421+500 421+700 50 64 53.1 64.3 0.3 No Impact



KM

Offset from Road edge,

m

Existing Noise

level, dB


dB

Equivalent Noise

Levels, dB


dB

Type of Impact

Community Hall, Khudengthabi

LHS 412+400 412+500 5 67 63.4 68.6 1.6 No Impact


Church LHS 412+600 412+700 5 67 63.4 68.6 1.6 No Impact Market Area LHS 414+400 414+700 5 70 63.4 70.9 0.9 No Impact Army Camp RHS 414+400 414+800 10 70 61.1 70.5 0.5 No Impact T.M. Zomunnuam Village Primary SCHL

LHS 415+300 415+400 24 64 57.9 65.0 1.0 No Impact

Community Hall LHS 415+400 415+500 10 64 61.1 65.8 1.8 No Impact

246 Annex 6


KM


m

Existing Noise

level, dB


dB

Equivalent Noise

Levels, dB


dB

Type of Impact

Church RHS 419+300 419+400 8 64 63.1 66.6 2.6 No Impact Moreh college LHS 421+500 421+700 50 64 54.4 64.5 0.5 No Impact



KM

Offset from Road

edge, m

Existing Noise

level, dB


dB

Equivalent Noise

Levels, dB


dB

Type of Impact


LHS 412+400 412+500 5 67 64.5 68.9 1.9 No Impact


Church LHS 412+600 412+700 5 67 64.5 68.9 1.9 No Impact

Market Area LHS 414+400 414+700 5 70 64.5 71.1 1.1 No Impact

Army Camp RHS 414+400 414+800 10 70 62.1 70.7 0.7 No Impact

T.M. Zomunnuam Village Primary SCHL

LHS 415+300 415+400 24 64 59 65.2 1.2 No Impact

Community Hall LHS 415+400 415+500 10 64 62.1 66.2 2.2 No Impact

Church RHS 419+300 419+400 8 64 61.1 65.8 1.8 No Impact

Moreh college LHS 421+500 421+700 50 64 55.2 64.5 0.5 No Impact

Annex 6 247



KM

Offset from Road

edge, m

Existing Noise

level, dB


dB

Equivalent Noise

Levels, dB


dB

Type of Impact


LHS 412+400 412+500 5 67 65.6 69.4 2.4 No Impact


Church LHS 412+600 412+700 5 67 65.6 69.4 2.4 No Impact

Market Area LHS 414+400 414+700 5 70 65.6 71.3 1.3 No Impact

Army Camp RHS 414+400 414+800 10 70 63 70.8 0.8 No Impact


LHS 415+300 415+400 24 64 59.9 65.4 1.4 No Impact

Community Hall LHS 415+400 415+500 10 64 63 66.5 2.5 No Impact

Church RHS 419+300 419+400 8 64 61.7 66.0 2.0 No Impact

Moreh college LHS 421+500 421+700 50 64 56.1 64.7 0.7 No Impact

248 Annex 6

Observations. Noise levels (Leq) near the receivers are found to be marginally higher than desired levels for the respective categories. However, the increase in noise level due to project are within permissible limits at all the sensitive receptors. The predicted levels show increase in noise levels for future years at all receivers considering increase in traffic volume.

Noise dispersion. A small road corridor has been selected to develop noise contour for base year as well as future years also. The contour lines are generated by plotting a contour zone within 30 m distance from edge of the road on both side of the road. Due to model limitation, it is not possible to select the whole road corridor in the modelling domain. Therefore, spatial dispersion of noise has been shown with a small stretch of road. Figure 1 to 4 shows noise level contour around a small road corridor for year 2020, 2025, 2030, and 2035 respectively. The selected road stretch is small part of section -I, i.e., Khongkhang-Moreh road stretch. These predicted results are for peak traffic hours. During non-peak traffic hours, the noise levels are very less compared to noise level for peak traffic hours.

Figure 1: Noise contour for year 2020


Annex 6 249



250 Annex 7

Annex 7: GUIDELINES FOR PLANT MANAGEMENT

A. Purpose

• To ensure that statutory / regulatory requirements are complied with • To ensure that safeguard measures are taken to avoid / mitigate / minimize environmental

impacts

B. Site selection criteria

Following criteria are recommended for crusher and HMP. Further specific guidance maybe taken from the relevant national/state regulations or the consent to establish issued for the crusher, HMP or other plants and facilities:

• 500 m away from settlement, school, hospital on downwind directions and/or in accordance with the requirements of the Manipur Pollution Control Board (MPCB) requirements and compliance conditions issue with the consent to establish

• 1 km from any archaeological site • Away from ecologically sensitive areas i.e. forest, national park, sanctuary etc. as per

recommendations from forestry/wildlife department and compliance conditions issued with the clearances.

• 500 m from rivers, streams and lakes • 500 m from ponds • 200 m from State and National Highway boundary • away from agricultural land • preference to barren land

Concrete batching plant maybe be located at least 500 m from the settlement, preferably on leeward side, whenever possible and/or in accordance with relevant national/local regulations or respective permission document.

The format for submission of details to the Engineer during finalisation of plant site is given as follows (Site identification for Plants).

C. Statutory Requirements

• Obtaining Consent-for-Establishment (CFE) under Air and Water Acts from the State Pollution Control Board (SPCB) before start of installation

• Obtaining Consent-for-Operation (CFO) under Air and Water Acts from the State Pollution Control Board (SPCB) before start of commissioning and trial run

• Complying with the terms and conditions laid down in the CFE and CFO, which generally include providing metallic road inside plant campus for movement of vehicles, plantation, periodic (monthly) pollution monitoring i.e. ambient air, noise and stack emission

• The suspended particulate matter contribution value at a distance of 40 m from a controlled isolated as well as from a unit located in a cluster should be less than 600 g/m3 or as shall be prescribed by SPCB.

• Obtain certificates from manufacturer for Type Approval and Conformity of Production for Diesel Generator (DG) set/s.

• For DG sets of capacity up to 1000 kVA, the noise level at 1 m from the enclosure surface shall not exceed 75 dB (A).

Annex 7 251

D. Pollution control measures

• Dust control measures in stone crusher plant i.e. water sprinkling at primary crusher and secondary crusher, conveyor & return belts, covered conveyor system, chute at outfall of aggregates, cyclone separator, wind braking wall etc.

• For HMP, ensure adequate stack height as stipulated in CFE, install emission control devices such as bag house filters, cyclone separators, water scrubbers etc., as attached with the plant by the manufacturer or stipulated in CFE.

• Prefer bulk bitumen storage with mechanized handling facilities that storage in drums with manual operation at HMP to prevent / minimize bitumen spillage and thereby contaminating soil and ground water.

• Impervious platform for storage of bituminous and other liquid hazardous chemical • Bag house filter / multi-cone cyclone for emission control. For bag house, cartridge

filters reported to be more efficient than fabric filters • Pollution control measures for Diesel Generator (DG) set i.e. stack height, acoustic

enclosure etc. • Greenbelt along the periphery of plant site.

SITE IDENTIFICATION FOR PLANTS

Construction Stage Report: One Time Date: Installed Capacity (tph): Location of Plant (Ch. & offset):

Sl. No.

Item / Requirement Details as per Actual

1 Predominant wind direction

2 Size and area of the proposed plant site (m xm&Sq.m)

3 Present land use (barren or fallow land having no prominent vegetation should be preferred)

4 No dwelling units within 500 m from the plant boundary in downwind direction

5 Distance of nearest boundary of State Highways and National Highways (should be at least 200 m from the plant boundary)

6 Sensitive areas such as religious places, schools/educational institutions, reserved / protected forest, sanctuary etc. within 1 km (should be nil)

7 River/Stream/Lake within 500 m and ponds within 500 m

8 No other trees of girth>0.3m present and will be affected (no tree should be affected)

9 Width of Haul road (m) 10 Total Length of Haul Road (km)

11 Length of non-metal Haul Road (km) (should be as minimum as possible)

Documents to be attached: Site plan showing wind direction, haul road and other environmental features. Certified that the furnished information is correct and all relevant information as required is attached. Contractor:

252 Annex 8

Annex 8: GUIDELINES FOR CAMP SITE MANAGEMENT

A. Purpose

Campsite of a contractor represents the single potentially most polluting location during implementation of any road project. Air pollution may be caused by emissions from Crushers, Hot-Mix, and Concrete Batching Plants. Water pollution may be caused by discharge of sediment, oil & grease, and organics laden run-off from these plants and their ancillary facilities as well as workshops, residential quarters for the labor. Land may be polluted due to indiscriminate disposal of domestic waste or (accidental) release of hazardous solids from storage areas.

While the installation and operation of Crushers and Hot-Mix Plants are regulated by the respective Pollution Control Boards, the other sources described above usually do not appear to be causes of significant concern. Items to be considered for labor camps are mentioned briefly in Clause 105.2 (as part of 105: Scope of Work) of the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways (MORTH) publication: Specifications for Road and Bridge Works. Some specific requirements for labor accommodation and facilities are to be met by the Contractor in line with Building and Other Construction Workers (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) Act, 1996. Currently, there is no one-point guidance regarding the environmental management aspects of the Contractor’s campsite. This guideline on Campsites is designed to fill this gap.

B. Scope

This guideline covers the Contractors’ camp sites – whether used by in-house crew or by any sub-contractors’ crew. It covers siting, operation, maintenance, repair and dismantling procedures for facilities for labor employed on project (and ancillary) activities as well as equipment and vehicles. It does not include siting, operation, maintenance, repair and dismantling of major plants – Hot-mix Plant, Concrete Batching Plant, Crusher or Wet Mix Macadam Plant.

Siting, Establishing, Operation and Closure of Construction Camp.

a. Potential Environmental Impacts. Construction camps require large areas for siting facilities like major plants, storage areas for material, residential accommodation for construction labor and supervisors, and offices. Removal of topsoil and vegetation from the land to be utilized for camps is the first direct impact of any such establishment. In addition, local drainage may be impaired if proper drainage is not effected by grading. Other impacts may include damage to ecologically important flora and fauna, if campsites are located close to such areas. Water pollution because of discharge of sediment, fuel and chemicals is also a possibility. Pollution of land due to indiscriminate disposal of construction wastes including scarified pavement, concrete and even substantial quantities of domestic wastes from residential areas can also be potentially disastrous, especially if the site is reverted to its original use after the project (mostly agriculture).

b. Mitigation Measures.

Siting of Construction Camps. The following guidelines are recommended to avoid any environmental issues while siting construction camps. Further specific guidance maybe taken from the relevant national/state regulations or conditions issued with the consent to establish:

Annex 8 253

• Maintain a distance of about 1 km (or as per clearance conditions from forest department) from boundaries of designated Reserved Forests, Sanctuary or National Park area for locating any temporary or permanent camps.

• Maintain 500mfrom river, stream and lake and from ponds • Maintain 200 m from the boundary of state and national highways • Locate facilities in areas not affected by flooding and clear of any natural or storm water

courses. • Locate campsites in the (most prevalent) downwind direction of nearest village(s). The

boundary of the campsite should be at a suitable distance from the nearest habitation and in compliance with relevant national or state regulations such as the state pollution control board requirements so that the incoming labor does not stress the existing local civic facilities.

• The ground should have gentle slope to allow free drainage of the site. • Recorded consultations should be held with residents of the nearest settlement and/or

their representatives to understand and incorporate where possible, what they would like to see within their locality.

Establishment, Operation, and Closure of Camps

• The facilities within the camp site should be laid out so that the separation distances suggested in other guidelines are maintained. A notional lay-out of the facilities except the major plants is included in this guideline.

• Topsoil from the area of the plant shall be stored separately for the duration of the operation of the camp and protected from being washed away, unless agreed otherwise in writing with the owner. If stored, it will be returned on to its original location at the time of closure of the site.

• The Contractor shall prepare, make widely available (especially to staff responsible for water and material management), and implement a Storm water Management Plan (SWMP) for (all) the site(s) following approval of the same by the Engineer. .

• The Contractor shall prepare an Emergency and Spill Response Plan as per the requirements of Appendix 1 to Clause 501 of Specifications for Road and Bridge Works to cover the spillage of bitumen and/or chemicals like retarders, curing compounds, etc.

• The Contractor shall prepare a Waste Management Plan describing the types and quantities that are likely to be generated from within the camp site, with the period and duration during the construction schedule; methods to be adopted to minimize these; methods of removal, treatment and (on-site or off-site) disposal for each type; as well as location of final disposal site, if any.

• The Contractor shall provide safe ingress and egress for vehicles from the site and public roads and shall not impact existing through traffic.

• Water tankers with sprayers must be available at the camp site at all times to prevent dust generation.

• In case of stockpiles of stored material rising higher than wind-breaking perimeter fencing provided, sprinklers shall be available on site to prevent dusting from the piles during windy days.

• On completion of works, the Contractor shall restore the site to the condition it was in before the establishment of the campsite, unless agreed otherwise in writing with the owner(s) of the site(s). If such a written agreement has been made, the Contractor shall hand over the site to the owner(s) in accordance with such an agreement.

254 Annex 8

• Construction waste disposal should be disposed only at landfill facilities which are selected, designed, constructed and operated to ensure environmentally safe disposal, and these facilities have to be approved by the regulators.

Equipment and Vehicle-related issues.

a. Potential Environmental Impacts. The maintenance and repair of equipment and vehicles in Contractor’s camp are activities that can have significant adverse impacts if not carried out properly. The concern mainly arises from discharge of wash water contaminated with oil and grease, whether from washing of vehicles or degreasing of equipment and vehicle parts. Vehicle washing, especially dirt from tires, also gives rise to sediment-laden run-off. No such discharges should be directly allowed into surface water bodies since they can be harmful to aquatic species.

b. Mitigation Measures

Vehicles

• All vehicles used by the Contractor must have copies of currently valid Pollution Under Control Certificates displayed as per the requirement of the Motor Vehicles Department for the duration of the Contract.

• All vehicles and equipment will be fitted with silencers and/or mufflers which will be serviced regularly to maintain them in good working condition and conforming to the standard of 75dB (A) at 1m from surface of enclosure.

Workshop and Maintenance areas

• These areas must have impervious flooring to prevent seepage of any leaked oil & grease into the ground. The area should be covered with a roof to prevent the entry of rainwater.

• The flooring shall be sloped to from both directions to one corner where an oil-and-grease trap with sufficient capacity should be installed. All discharges from the workshop area must pass through the trap to remove the floating oil and grease before entering the drainage system of the site. The trap should be designed to provide a hydraulic residence time of about 20 minutes for the peak hourly discharge anticipated from the area (as per following figure).

• Alternatively, degreasing can also be carried out using mechanical spray type degreaser, with complete recycle using an enclosure with nozzles and two sieves, coarse above and fine below, may be used as shown in the adjacent photograph. This arrangement will require some initial investment and running cost for the pump, but the payback period, in terms of the use of diesel, under Indian conditions, has been reported to be less than 1 year.

Annex 8 255

1. 2. 3. 4.

Figure 1: Workshop Area Pollution Control • All the waste oil collected, from skimming of the oil trap as well as from the drip pans, or

the mechanical degreaser shall be stored in accordance with the Environment Protection (Storage and Disposal of Hazardous Wastes) Rules, 1989. For this purpose, metallic drums should be used. These should be stored separately in sheds, preferably bunded. The advantage of this arrangement is that it allows for accurate accounting in case the

Slope of the Workshop area floor

To drainage system for the site

256 Annex 8

waste material is sold to oil waste recyclers or other users like brick-kiln owners who can burn such inferior fuel.

• A separate vehicle washing ramp shall be constructed adjacent to the workshop for washing vehicles, including truck mounted concrete mixers, if any, after each day’s construction is over, or as required. This ramp should have an impervious bottom and it should be sloped so that it drains into a separate chamber to remove the sediment from the wash water before discharge. The chamber should allow for a hydraulic residence time of about 10 minutes for discharge associated with the washing of each truck. Following Figure 2 shows an outline sketch for a sedimentation chamber.

Figure 2: Sedimentation Chamber for vehicle washing ramp discharge

Annex 8 257

Facilities for Labour

a. Potential Environmental Impacts

The sudden arrival and relatively longer duration of stay of construction crew can cause substantial strain on the existing infrastructure facilities like water supply, sanitation and medical care, especially in rural areas. Pollution from domestic wastes can affect local sources of water supply and may harm the crew themselves as well as local residents. Improper sanitation and inadequate health care also potential bottlenecks that the Contractor can eliminate with relatively little effort.

b. Mitigation Measures

It should be emphasized that the Indian Law requires that the Contractor provide several facilities to for the workers as per Building and Other Construction Workers (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) Act, 1996. Some of the provisions described herein are more stringent to act as benchmark for improved environmental performance of road projects:

• The contractor shall provide free-of-charge temporary accommodation to all the labour employed for the project. The accommodation includes separate cooking place, bathing, washing and lavatory facilities. At least, one toilet will be provided for every 35 people and one urinal will be provided for every 20 persons. More toilets and/or urinals may have to be provided if the Engineer decides that these numbers are insufficient. In case female labourers are employed, separate toilet and urinals will be provided in locations clearly marked “Ladies Toilets” in a language understood by most labourers.

• The contractor shall ensure the supply of wholesome water for all the labour, including those employed by any other agency working for the contractor. These locations will be marked “Drinking Water” in the language most commonly understood among the labour. In hot season, the contractor shall make efforts to ensure supply of cool water. No water point shall be located within 15 m of any washing place, urinal, or latrine.

• The contractor shall ensure that adequate cooking fuel, preferably kerosene or LPG, is available on-site. The contractor will ensure that wood/ coal are not used as fuel on the site. Workers need to be made aware of this restriction. In cases where more than 250 labours are employed, canteen facility should be provided by the Contractor.

• A crèche must be provided in each campsite where more than 50 female labourers are employed, whether directly or indirectly, for the project or its ancillary activities.

• Contractor must provide adequate facilities for first-aid treatment at the campsite. A doctor / ambulance should be available on call for the duration of project implementation.

• The contractor shall obtain the approval of the Engineer for these facilities within 30 days of mobilization.

258 Annex 8

Figure 3. Typical Drawing of Workers’ Dwelling Units

Annex 8 259

Figure 4. Typical Drawing of Workers’ Camp Sanitary Facility

260 Annex 8

Figure 5. Layout of a Construction Camp

Vehicle Washing Area / Ramp

Workshop

Cement and Spares Store

Security & Weigh

Office Block

Family Quarters

Rooms for Men

Rooms for Women

Ladi

Was

Gents Toilet

PLANTS

(Concr

ete

Batchin

g, etc.)

and

MATE

RIAL

Canteen / Mess

LEGEND: Septic Tank + Soak Pit Water Source Oil & Grease Separator

Gate

Ex

isti

ng

Slo

pe

Annex 9 261

Annex 9: GUIDELINES FOR DEBRIS DISPOSAL MANAGEMENT

A. Purpose

The following procedures should be followed for upkeep of storage and disposal sites:

• To maximize re-use of material generated during construction and • To avoid environmental hazards due to improper disposal of construction waste material.

B. Procedure

• Contractor shall maintain register for keeping records on kilometer-wise quantities of material generated during grubbing, stripping, excavation and scarifying;

• Contractor shall re-use construction material to the extent possible based on engineering properties. Possible re-use areas are fill sections, embankment slope, village approach roads etc. Debris without bitumen could be used for backfilling of quarry / borrow areas as recommended by the Engineer. At locations identified for dumping of residual bituminous wastes, the dumping shall be carried out over a 60mm thick layer of rammed clay so as to eliminate the possibility of the leaching of the wastes into the ground water. The contractor shall ensure that the filled area is covered with a layer of preserved topsoil layer of preserved topsoil.

• Contractor shall estimate the chainage-wise quantities of various waste material to be disposed of;

• Contractor shall restrict waste disposal strictly at approved site/s only; • Contractor shall prepare a plan including detailed lay out plan and cross-section for

disposal of debris and bitumen waste and get approval of the same by the Engineer; • Bentonite slurry or similar debris generated from pile driving or other construction activities

shall be disposed such that it does not flow into the surface water bodies or form mud puddles in the area;

• Contractor and Engineer shall ensure that disposal areas are properly treated as per agreed plan;

• Contractor and Engineer’s representatives shall undertake joint weekly inspection to ensure compliance of various environmental requirements.

• Engineer’s representatives shall issue non-compliance if disposal site is not managed as per agreed plan;

• All arrangement for transportation during construction including provision, maintenance, dismantling and clearing debris, where necessary will be considered incidental to the work and should be planned and implemented by the contractor as approved and directed by the SC.

• Construction waste disposal should be disposed only at landfill facilities which are selected, designed, constructed and operated to ensure environmentally safe disposal, and these facilities have to be approved by the regulators.

C. Site Inspection

Weekly joint site inspection shall be undertaken for all the storage areas. The details of attributes, which are to be inspected, are given as follows. The Contractor shall ensure compliance of the requirements.

262 Annex 9

Table 1: Details to be inspected for Monitoring Construction Material Reuse & Disposal Attributes Requirements

Construction material generation and re-use

• Segregating debris and bitumen during generation;

• Segregating re-usable portion of debris and bitumen and storing preferably near areas of re-use; and

• Temporary storage of waste material at sites as directed by the Engineer.

Waste disposal • Disposal of waste material at approved disposal site within a week of generation;

• Disposal site should be properly demarcated;

• Proper leveling / grading at disposal site/s;

• Recommended / agreed safeguard measures to avoid ground water contamination by leachate from disposal of scarified material are to be implemented;

• Recommended / agreed safeguard measures to avoid soil erosion are to be implemented;

• Recommended / agreed plan for surface treatment of waste disposal site/s are to be implement.

Annex 10 263

Annex 10: GUIDELINES FOR BORROW AREA MANAGEMENT

A. Purpose

Borrow areas are generally required to provide material for road construction sites, can have significant adverse environmental effects, especially on ecologically sensitive areas. Borrow areas can become environmental hotspots and can significantly affect the visual appearance of an area. Special mitigation and management measures are often required to avoid or minimise the environmental and social impacts of borrow areas.

B. Scope

These guidelines for borrow areas cover:

• statutory approvals • environmental and social impacts of borrow areas • selection of borrow areas • operation of borrow areas • rehabilitation of borrow areas

The guidelines seek to ensure that Contractors:

• comply with the regulatory requirements in force at the time • reasonably manage any impacts • reinstate and rehabilitate the land appropriately • consult with affected communities

C. Impacts

Some of the potential impacts of borrow areas are:

• trucks transporting materials to the site causing air pollution, and noise and vibrations • ponds of stagnant water forming in excavated areas giving rise to the breeding of

mosquitoes and the spreading of malaria and other mosquito-borne diseases • natural beauty of the landscape being affected by excavations and the removal of

vegetation • natural drainage systems in the area being affected by excavations • agriculture land and productive soils being lost, especially in paddy field areas

Borrow areas are not generally specified in Contract documents but rather it is generally the responsibility of Contractors to identify borrow areas and obtain the necessary consent from land owner and approval from SC.

In IRC: 10 and Clause 305.2.2.2 of MORTH Specification, exclusive guideline has been given for borrow areas located alongside the road and only some of the requirements have been indicated for borrow areas located outside the road land. Following guideline is proposed to supplement the existing stipulation in IRC:10 and Clause 305.2.2.2 of MORTH Specification for Roads and Bridge Works:

D. Location

264 Annex 10

• Identify areas having present land use as barren land, riverside land. Otherwise, un-irrigated agriculture land or land without vegetation and tree cover;

• Prefer borrow areas on bed of irrigation water storage tank; • Prefer areas of highland with respect to surroundings; • Avoid locating borrow area close to any road (maintain at least 30 m distance from ROW

and 10 m from toe of embankment, whichever is higher); • Should be at least 1.5 km away from inhabited areas; • Maintain a distance of about 1.5km from ecologically sensitive area i.e. Reserve Forest,

Protected Forest, Sanctuary, wetland etc.; • Maintain a distance of about 1.5 km from school, hospital and any archaeological sites; • Having adequate approach road with minimum length of earthen road; • Ensure that unsuitable soft rock is not prominent within the proposed depth of excavation

which will render rehabilitation difficult; • Depth of excavation should be decided based on natural ground level of the land and the

surroundings, and rehabilitation plan. In case higher depth of excavation is agreed with backfilling by unsuitable excavated soil (from roadway), then filling should be adequately compacted except topsoil which is to be spread on topmost layer (for at least 20cm thick).

E. Operation

• Controlled operation as per agreed / approved plan; • Preservation of topsoil at designated areas e.g. corners of the area etc.; • Maintain necessary buffer zone in all directions and go for vertical cut within this area.

Final cut slope should be maintained within the buffer zone; • Step-wise excavation if borrow area is located on inclined area having more than 2%

slope; • Restricting excavation up to 2m for each stages of operation if allowed depth is more; • Avoid cutting of any tree of girth size > 30cm27. if any tree cutting is inevitable, prior

permission (written) from the competent authority should be taken and compensatory plantation has to be raised.

F. Rehabilitation

• Prior approval of Rehabilitation Plan considering terrain, land use and local need; • Restricting operation as agreed by landowner and approved by the Engineer; • Rehabilitation within agreed timeframe and before taking over; • Integrate debris disposal and borrow area redevelopment.

G. Management Procedure

The important aspects of this procedure are:

• The first and foremost thing is to have tentative estimate of borrow material requirement chainage-wise. For this, BoQ quantity for earth work, which is given as total quantity for the entire package/milestone, has to be distributed chainage-wise. The requirement of borrow material chainage-wise then has to be estimated based on the suitability of roadway excavation material for reuse and BoQ.

27 Plant having girth size more than 30cm is considered as tree.

Annex 10 265

• Contractor to site borrow areas fulfilling environmental requirements and obtaining one time approval of the Engineer both on quality as well as environmental consideration thereby integrating environmental safeguard measures into day-to-day activities;

• Contractor to submit environmental information in prescribed format for obtaining Engineer’s approval, as given in the following format (Borrow Area Identification). The format has been so designed that it stipulates the requirements as well as what is actual for each borrow areas and could be easily understood by any person, whoever in-charge of identifying borrow areas;

• Contractor to submit Borrow Area Layout Plan as attachment to the format showing the land use of the proposed and surrounding area along with the presence of other environmental features such as water bodies, forests, settlement, temple and any sensitive receptor i.e. health and educational institution, roads etc. within a radius of 1.5km area from the boundary of the borrow area;

• Contractor to prepare and submit Block Contour Map of each borrow area (especially which are located close to road and on undulating terrain) for deciding on operation and redevelopment plan;

• Contractor to prepare Operation Plan and submit as attachment to the format including cross sections on both directions (x,y) mentioning natural ground level, depth of topsoil (if any), total depth of excavation, cut side slope and bed slope;

• Contractor to prepare Redevelopment Plan and submit as attachment to the format include cross sections on both directions (x,y) mentioning natural ground level, excavated profile, finished profile after redevelopment etc.;

• Contractor to maintain Borrow Material Register; • Periodic joint inspections of each borrow area until rehabilitation is complete as agreed

and approved. • The checklist for periodic inspection is given in this appendix.

266 Annex 10

Borrow Areas Identification

Construction Stage Report: One Time Date:

Location of Borrow Area (Ch. & Offset): Revenue Survey No.:

Sl. No.

Item / Requirement Details as per Actual (to be filled by Contractor & checked by Engineer)

1 Date of Borrow Area planned to be operational

2 Current Land use (preference to barren land, riverside land, otherwise, un-irrigated agriculture land or land without tree cover)

3 Size (Sq.m) and area (m x m) of Borrow Area

4 Proposed maximum depth of pit in m (IRC 10 & Clause 305.2.2 of MORTH Spec.)

5 Details of riverside borrow area (inner edge should not be less than 10m from the toe of the bank and bottom of pit should not cut the imaginary line of 1:4 from embankment top)

6 Borrow area in cultivable land (should be avoided or restricted to total depth of 45cm including preservation of 15cm topsoil)

7 Quantity Available (Cum)

8 Quantity of top soil to be removed (Sq.m& depth in cm)

9 Details of preservation (storage) and management (re-use / re-laid) of top soil

10 Width of Haul road (m) 11 Total Length of Haul Road (km)

12 Length of Non-metal Haul Road (should be as minimum as possible)

13 No of settlements within 200 m of Non-metal Haul Road (should be as minimum as possible)

14 Distance from settlement (should be minimum 1500 m)

15 Should be away from water bodies. Give details of water bodies within 250 m.

16 Details of water sources for dust suppression

17 Quantity of water required for dust suppression i.e. sprinkling at borrow area and on haul road (Cum)

18 Availability of water required for dust suppression (Cum)

19 Details of ecologically sensitive area i.e. RF, PF, Sanctuary etc. within 1500m (should be nil)

20 Details of school, hospital and any archaeological sites within 1500m (should be nil)

21 Distance from nearby road embankment, fence line / boundary (should be minimum 30m from ROW and 10m from toe of embankment, whichever is higher)

22 No of Trees with girth more than 0.3 m (No tree should be affected)

Documents to be attached:

1) Site plan and layout plan of borrow area; 2) Proposed borrow area operation and redevelopment plan; 3) Written consent from competent authority for use of water for dust suppression

Annex 10 267

4) Written consent of landowner on agreed operation and redevelopment plan Certified that the furnished information is correct and all relevant information as required is attached Contractor’s Representative:

268 Annex 10

Checklist for Monitoring Borrow Area Operation & Management Attributes Requirements

Access road • Only approved access road shall be used Top soil preservation • Top soil, if any, shall be stripped and stored at corners of the area before

start of excavation for material collection;

• Top soil should be re-used / re-laid as per agreed plan Depth of excavation • For cultivable (agriculture) land, total depth of excavation should be limited

to 45 cm including top 15 cm for top soil preservation;

• For riverside borrow area, the depth of excavation shall be so regulated that the inner edge of any borrow pit should not be less than 10m from the toe of the bank and bottom of pit should not cut the imaginary line of 1:4 from embankment top;

• If borrow area is located within 1500 m of towns or villages, they should not exceed 30 cm in depth and should be properly drained;

• Borrow areas close to ROW should be rectangular in shape with one side parallel to center line of the road and depth should be so regulated that it should not cut an imaginary line having slope of 1 in 4 projected from the edge of the final section of the embankment.

Damage to surrounding land

• Movement of man & machinery should be regulated to avoid damage to surrounding land.

Drainage control • The surface drainage in and around the area should be merged with surrounding drainage;

• No water stagnation shall occur. Dust suppression • Water should be sprayed on kutcha (earthen) haul road twice in a day or as

may be required to avoid dust generation during transportation of material;

• Depending on moisture content, 0.5 to 1.5% water may be added to excavated soil before loading during dry weather to avoid fugitive dust emission.

Covering material transport vehicle

• Material transport vehicle shall be provided with tarpaulin cover

Personal Protective Equipment

• Workers should be provided with helmet, gumboot and air mask and their use should be strictly enforced.

Redevelopment • The area should be redeveloped within agreed timeframe on completion of material collection as per agreed rehabilitation plan.

Annex 11 269

Annex 11: GUIDELINES FOR QUARRY AREA MANAGEMENT

A. Purpose

Quarries generally required to provide material for road construction sites, can have significant adverse environmental effects, especially on ecologically sensitive areas. Quarries can become environmental hotspots and can significantly affect the visual appearance of an area. Special mitigation and management measures are often required to avoid or minimise the environmental and social impacts of quarries.

B. Scope

These guidelines for quarries cover:

• statutory approvals • environmental and social impacts of quarries • selection of quarries • operation of quarries • rehabilitation of quarries

The guidelines seek to ensure that Contractors28:

• comply with the regulatory requirements in force at the time • reasonably manage any impacts • reinstate and rehabilitate the land appropriately • consult with affected communities

C. Impacts

Some of the potential impacts of quarries are:

• rock blasting causing air pollution, and noise and vibrations • trucks transporting materials to the site causing air pollution, and noise and vibrations • ponds of stagnant water forming in excavated areas giving rise to the breeding of

mosquitoes and the spreading of malaria and other mosquito-borne diseases • natural beauty of the landscape being affected by excavations and the removal of

vegetation • natural drainage systems in the area being affected by excavations

The procedure for identification and finalization of quarry site/s shall be as given below:

• Estimating the quantity of quarry material to be collected from each quarry area • Only licensed quarry will be used • New quarry will be at least 1.5 km away from the settlement, forest and other ecologically

sensitive areas • Away from water body

28 The EMP stipulations will be applicable even if contract use existing licensed quarry. In case contractor use the

existing licensed quarry a copy of the quarry license and lease / sub-lease agreement should be submitted to the Project Proponent. Contractor shall submit a plan delineating how he shall comply with requirements stipulated in this plan and elsewhere in the EMP on quarrying activity.

270 Annex 11

• Contractor shall identify alternative quarry sites along the whole corridor based on required quantity and environmental consideration as given in the following prescribed format of Quarry source identification.

• Contractor shall submit to the Engineer the detailed information / documents as prescribed in the format;

• Engineer shall undertake site inspection of alternate quarry sites and convey to Contractor on accepting a particular quarry site on environmental consideration;

• Contractor shall then take apply and obtain Quarry Lease Deed / License from the Department of Mines and Geology and provide copy of the same to the Engineer prior to operation;

• Contractor shall estimate water requirement for dust suppression at quarry sites during operation and for water spraying on kutcha (non-metal) haul road and ensure availability water by identifying sources and obtaining necessary permission;

• Contractor shall prepare quarry sites operation and redevelopment plan considering surrounding land uses, local needs and agreement with the landowner;

• Only licensed blaster i.e. short-firer certificate holder will be responsible for quarry blasting • Permits for transportation, storage and use of explosive, as will be required, shall be

obtained from the Controller of Explosive; • Whenever so advised by the Engineer, controlled blasting e.g. using less charge,

restricting depth and dia or drill holes, cut-off blasting etc., shall be undertaken. • Quarry operation will be undertaken in stages with adequate benching

The procedure for environmentally sound operation and management of quarry sites is given below:

• Estimating the quantity of quarry material to be collected from each quarry area; • Demarcating the entire quarry area by fencing and putting red-flag poles; • Providing adequate metallic access road; • Preserving topsoil from the quarry compound, if any, by stripping and stacking aside

separately at corners; • Carrying out blasting as per agreed operational plan complying with the requirements of

MORTH Specification (Clause 302 & 303) and Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MOEFCC) as given below;

• Maintaining a Quarry Material Collection Register on daily material collection for each of the quarry area, which shall be produced to Engineer’s representative as and when requested;

• Redeveloping the area within 2 months (or as will be agreed upon) of completion of quarry material collection;

D. Use of Explosive for Blasting

General. Blasting shall be carried out in a manner that completes the excavation to the lines indicated in drawings, with the least disturbance to adjacent material. It shall be done only with the written permission of the Engineer. All the statutory laws, regulations, rules, etc., pertaining to the acquisition, transport, storage, handling and use of explosives shall be strictly followed.

The Contractor may adopt any method or methods of blasting consistent with the safety and job requirements. Prior to starting any phase of the operation, the Contractor shall provide information describing pertinent blasting procedures, dimension and notes.

Annex 11 271

The magazine for the storage of explosives shall be built as per national / international standards and located at the approved site. No unauthorized person shall be admitted into the magazine which when not in use shall be kept securely locked. No matches or inflammable material shall be allowed in the magazine. The magazine shall have an effective lightning conductor. The following shall be displayed in the lobby of the magazine:

• A copy of the relevant rules regarding safe storage in English, Portuguese and in the language with which the workers concerned are familiar.

• A statement of up-to-date stock in the magazine. • A certificate showing the last date of testing of the lightning conductor. • A notice that smoking is strictly prohibited.

All explosives shall be stored in a secure manner in compliance with all laws and ordinances, and all such storage places shall be clearly marked. Where no local laws or ordinances apply, storage shall be provided to the satisfaction of the Engineer and in general not closer than 300 m from the road or from any building or camping area or place of human occupancy. In addition to these, the Contractor shall also observe the following instructions and any further additional instructions which may be given by the Engineer and shall be responsible for damage to property and any accident which may occur to workmen or the public on account of any operations connected with the storage, handling or use of explosives and blasting. The Engineer shall frequently check the Contractor’s compliance with these precautions.

Materials, Tools and Equipment. All the materials, tools and equipment used for blasting operations shall be of approved type. The Engineer may specify the type of explosives to be allowed in special cases. The fuse to be used in wet locations shall be sufficiently water-resistant as to be unaffected when immersed in water for 30 minutes. The rate of burning of the fuse shall be uniform and definitely known to permit such a length being cut as will permit sufficient time to the firer to reach safety before explosion takes place. Detonators shall be capable of giving effective blasting of the explosives. The blasting powder, explosives, detonators, fuses, etc., shall be fresh and not damaged due to dampness, moisture or any other cause. They shall be inspected before use and damaged articles shall be discarded totally and removed from the site immediately.

Personnel. The blasting operation shall remain in the charge of competent and experienced supervisor and workmen who are thoroughly acquainted with the details of handling explosives and blasting operations.

Blasting Operations. The blasting shall be carried out during fixed hours of the day preferably during the mid-day luncheon hour or at the close of the work as ordered in writing by the Engineer. The hours shall be made known to the people in the vicinity. All the charges shall be prepared by the man in charge only.

The Contractor shall notify each public utility company having structures in proximity to the site of the work of his intention to use explosives. Such notice shall be given sufficiently in advance to enable the companies to take such steps as they may deem necessary to protect their property from injury. In advance of any blasting work within 50 m of any railway track or structures, the Contractor shall notify the concerned Railway Authority of the location, date, time and approximate duration of such blasting operations.

Red danger flags shall be displayed prominently in all directions during the blasting operations. The flags shall be planted 200m and 500m from the blasting site in all directions for

272 Annex 11

blasting at work site and quarry, respectively. People, except those who actually light the fuse, shall be prohibited from entering this area, and all persons including workmen shall be excluded from the flagged area at least 10 minutes before the firing, a warning siren being sounded for the purpose.

The charge holes shall be drilled to required depths and at suitable places. Blasting should be as light as possible consistent with thorough breakage of the material necessary for economic loading and hauling. Any method of blasting which leads to overshooting shall be discontinued.

When blasting is done with powder, the fuse cut to the required length shall be inserted into the hole and the powder dropped in. The powder shall be gently tamped with copper rods with rounded ends. The explosive powder shall then be covered with tamping material which shall be tamped lightly but firmly.

When blasting is done with dynamite and other high explosives, dynamite cartridges shall be prepared by inserting the square cut end of a fuse into the detonator and finishing it with nippers at the open end, the detonator gently pushed into the primer leaving 1/3rd of the copper tube exposed outside. The paper of the cartridge shall then be closed up and securely bound with wire or twine. The primer shall be housed into the explosive. Boreholes shall be such size that the cartridge can easily go down. The holes shall be cleared of all debris and explosive inserted. The space of about 200 mm above the charge shall then be gently filled with dry clay, pressed home and the rest of the tamping formed of any convenient material gently packed with a wooden rammer.

At a time, not more than 10 such charges will be prepared and fired. The man in charge shall blow a siren in a recognized manner for cautioning the people. All the people shall then be required to move to safe distances. The charges shall be lighted by the man-in-charge only. The man-in-charge shall count the number of explosions. He shall satisfy himself that all the charges have been exploded before allowing the workmen to go back to the blasting site.

Misfire. In case of misfire, the following procedure shall be observed:

• Sufficient time shall be allowed to account for the delayed blast. The man-in-charge shall inspect all the charges and determine the missed charge.

• If it is the blasting powder charge, it shall be completely flooded with water. A new hole shall be drilled at about 450 mm from the old hole and fired. This should blast the old charge. Should it not blast the old charge, the procedure shall be repeated till the old charge is blasted.

• In case of charges of gelignite, dynamite, etc., the man-in-charge shall gently remove the tamping and the primer with the detonator. A fresh detonator and primer shall then be used to blast the charge. Alternatively, the hole may be cleared of 300 mm of tamping and the direction then ascertained by placing a stick in the hole. Another hole may then be drilled 150 mm away and parallel to it. This hole shall then be charged and fired when the misfired hole should explode at the same time. The man-in-charge shall at once report to the Contractor’s office and the Engineer all cases of misfire, the cause of the same and what steps were taken in connection therewith.

• If a misfire has been found to be due to defective detonator or dynamite, the whole quantity in the box from which defective article was taken must be sent to the authority directed by the Engineer for inspection to ascertain whether all the remaining materials in the box are also defective.

Annex 11 273

Account. A careful and day to day account of the explosive shall be maintained by the Contractor in an approved register and manner which shall be open to inspection by the Engineer at all times.

During quarry operation, periodic joint inspection should be carried out by the Contractor and Engineer’s representatives.

A typical checklist for the same is given here.

274 Annex 11

Quarry Source Identification Construction Stage Report: One Time Date: Authority Engineer: SMEC Contractor: Contract Package: Location of Quarry (Ch. & Offset):

Sl. No. Item / Requirement Details as per Actual

1 Present land use (bare land with no prominent vegetation is preferred)

2 Predominant wind direction

3 Size and area of Quarry (m x m & Sq. m)

4 Quantity Available (Cum)

5 Quantity proposed to be collected (Cum)

6 No of Trees with girth more than 0.3 m

7 No Settlement within 1500 m of Quarry

8 No water body within 1500 m of Quarry

9 Width of Haul road (m)

10 Total Length of Haul Road (km)

11 Length of Non-metal Haul Road (km) (should be as minimum as possible)

12 No of Settlements within 200m of Non-metal Haul Road (should be as minimum as possible)

13 Quantity of water required for dust suppression i.e. sprinkling at borrow area and on non-metal haul road (Cum)

14 Details of Water sources for dust suppression

15 Availability of water required for dust suppression (Cum)

Documents to be attached:

1) Site plan and layout plan of quarry site 2) Proposed quarry site operation and redevelopment plan 3) Written consent / lease agreement with the Department of Mines & Geology 4) Written consent from competent authority for use of water for dust suppression

Certified that the furnished information is correct and all relevant information as required is attached

Annex 11 275

Contractor’s Representative:

Details to be inspected for Monitoring Quarry Area Operation & Management

Attributes Requirements

Access road • Only approved access road shall be used

Top soil preservation

• Top soil, if any, should be stripped and stored at designated area before start of quarry material collection;

• Top soil should be re-used / re-laid as per agreed plan

Controlled blasting & safety

• Storage of explosive magazine as per threshold quantity with all the safety measures;

• Handling of explosive by licensed blaster only;

• Use low intensity explosive;

• Check unfired explosive, if any, before drilling;

• Carryout blasting at lean time only;

• Cordoned the area within 500m radius with flagmen having whistle for signaling preparedness;

• Using properly designed audio visual signal system i.e. siren and flagmen for blasting;

• Keep ready an emergency vehicle near blasting area with first aid facility and with active emergency response system.

Damage to surrounding land

• Movement of man & machinery should be regulated to avoid damage to surrounding land.

Drainage control • The surface drainage in and around the area should be merged with surrounding drainage;

Dust control • Haul road should be made metallic;

• Suitable dust arrester for drilling;

• Water spraying at quarry complex, if required.

Covering material transport vehicle

• Material transport vehicle should be provided with tail board, and cover

Personal Protective Equipment

• Workers shall be provided with helmet, safety shoes, ear muffler and air musk and their use should be strictly enforced.

Redevelopment • The area should be redeveloped within two months (or as agreed) on completion of material collection as per agreed plan.

276 Annex 12

Annex 12: DETAILS OF ISSUES DISCUSSED AT THE PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS

A. Details of Public Consultations

Sl. No. Date and Location Issues Discussed Measures Taken Participants 1. Date: 23 February 2019

Village: Khongkhang District: Tengnoupal

• Presence of protected areas around project areas,

• Environmental issues in the areas, • Impacts of the project in environmental

quality, • School, Post office, Primary Health Centre,

Electricity and drinking water supply facilities are available in the village.

• Importance of road to the development of village

• Peoples are aware about the project. • People perceived that subproject road will

provide better transport facility and save time, money, and generate employment

• No negative impacts perceived by the people.

• Speed limit/restriction has been asked by villagers in the settlement area

• Compensation should be in mode of cash for land and structure both.

• Problem in restoration of their source of income of shopkeepers. Local people will fully cooperate to the govt. if local needs will be considered.

• People will provide social and moral support to the project authority.

• Local people will protest if govt will acquire more than 24m

• The subproject road will provide better road connectivity to the nearby facilities.

• Proper safety measures for new road should be proposed in the design and it should be strictly followed during construction.

• Employment to local skilled and unskilled laborers should be preferred during road construction and operation.

• Compensation should be given for structure loss at earliest.

• Effected CPR should be built by Govt. before starting of construction.

• Govt. should construct a shopping complex near to this market and shop should be allotted to the effected persons.

• Compensation should be distributed at least 6 months before from demolish of structure.

• Compensation should be paid by Cheque to genuine person.

• Govt. should not acquire more than 24m.

12 Participants (9 man and 3 women) from village community including village heads, teachers, housewife, business owners, labours, farmers and students.

Annex 12 277


Village: Lokchao District: Tengnoupal



quality, • Bank, Secondary school, Post office, Primary

Health Centre, Irrigation, Electricity and drinking water supply facilities are available in the village.





• Speed limit/restriction has been asked by villagers in the settlement area.














17 Participants (12 man and 5 women) from village community including village housewife, business owners, labours, and farmers.

278 Annex 12


Village: Khudhengthabi District: Tengnoupal













• Local people will protest if govt will acquire more than 24m.










28 Participants (19 man and 9 women) from village community including villages heads, councilors, housewife, business owners, labours, farmers and students

Annex 12 279


Village: Zomunnum (Chahnou) District: Tengnoupal













• Local people will protest if govt will acquire more than 24m.










17 Participants (14 man and 3 women) from village community including villages heads, ward members, housewife, business owners, labours, farmers and students

280 Annex 12


Village: Moreh District: Tengnoupal









• An underpass/foot over bridge has been demanded by peoples due to major transition of the peoples, Pets, including children and women to both side of the Market.














31 Participants (22 man and 9 women) from village community including villages heads, housewife, business owners, labours, farmers and students

Annex 13

Annex 13: DETAILS OF TRAINING PROGRAM Module Title Objectives Duration

(Day) Participants

1 Environmental Legislations and Bank’s Safeguard Policies

• Brush up latest on environmental legislations

• Brush up safeguard policies

1 PIU and AE staff

2 Environmental Supervision and Monitoring

• EMP requirements

• Implementation, Supervision and Monitoring Mechanism

• Provision made in Contract Documents for Works

• Provision made in contract Agreement for Supervision Services

1 PIU and AE staff

3 Orientation Workshop on EMP Implementation

• EMP requirements

• Implementation, Supervision and Monitoring Mechanism

• Roles and Responsibilities of Contractors and SCs

1 PIU, Contractor and AE

4 Focused Training on Specific Issue/s (three during course of implementation)

• Analyzing problems, referring stipulations in Contract and EMP and agreed to feasible solution within specified timeframe

0.5 PIU, Contractor and AE

282

Annex 14: VIBRATION LEVEL ASSESSMENT STUDY

Vibration Produced by Construction Equipments. When the ground is subject to vibratory excitation from a vibratory source, a disturbance propagates away from the vibration source. The ground vibration waves created are similar to those that propagate in water when a stone is dropped into the water.

The duration and amplitude of vibration generated by construction equipments varies widely depending on the type of equipment and the purpose for which it is being used. The vibration from blasting has a high amplitude and short duration, whereas vibration from grading is lower in amplitude but longer in duration. In assessing vibration from construction equipments, it is useful to categorize the equipment by the nature of the vibration generated.

Review of available literature indicates that there is limited information available on vibration source levels from general construction equipment. The most comprehensive list of vibration source amplitudes is provided in the document entitled Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment (Federal Transit Administration 2006)i.

Table 1:Vibration generated from different construction equipments

Equipment Reference PPV at 25 ft. (in/sec)

Vibratory Roller 0.21

Large Bulldozer 0.089

Caisson Drilling 0.089

Loaded Trucks 0.076

Jackhammer 0.035

Small Bulldozer 0.003 Sources: Federal Transit Administration 2006 (except Hanson 2001ii for vibratory rollers)

Using these source levels, vibration from these equipment can be estimated by the following formula:

PPVEquipment =PPVRef(25/D)n(in/sec) …………..(1) Where:

PPVRef= reference PPV at 25 ft. D = distance from equipment to the receiver in ft. n = 1.1, attenuation rate(iii)

Vibration Impact Criteria. International Guidelines and Standards present criteria for vibration related building damage in the form of threshold levels of vibration (peak particle velocity), as either a value or range of values. Key factors in determine these levels are as follows:

• the nature of the building including its construction, its condition, and whether is of historic importance;

• the likely extent of damage i.e. cosmetic, minor structural or major structural; and • whether the source of vibration is continuous or a single event and the dominant

frequency (Hz).

British Standard. BS 7385iv : Part 1 : 1990, Mechanical vibration and shock - vibration of buildings - guidelines for the measurement of vibrations and evaluation of their effects on buildings, discusses the principles for carrying out vibration measurements and processing the data. Part 2 of the Standard, Evaluation and measurement for vibration in buildings. Guide

Annex 14 283

to damage levels from ground borne vibration (BSI, 1993), suggests levels at which the following three categories of damage might occur.

• Cosmetic: The formation of hairline cracks on drywall surfaces or the growth of existing cracks in plaster or drywall surfaces; in addition, the formation of hairline cracks in mortar joints of brick/concrete block construction

• Minor Structural: The formation of large cracks or loosening and falling of plaster or drywall surfaces, or cracks through bricks/concrete blocks

• Major Structural: Damage to structural elements of the building, cracks in support columns, loosening of joints, splaying of masonry cracks, etc.

Figure 1:Thresholds provided by British Standards for human perception and damage

to domestic structures by transient vibrations

Other National Standard. The criteria which will be used in this study are a combination of the recommendations of the Standards and Guidelines thought most relevant and are set out in Table 2 below. The British Standard BS 5228v sets out guideline values in terms of peak particle velocity for human response to construction works and these are shown out in Table 3 below.

284

Figure 2: Summary of damage thresholds for transient vibration on domestic

structures Source: Hiller, D. M., & Crabb, G. I. (2000). Ground borne vibration caused by mechanised construction worksvi.

Annex 14 285

Table 2: Building Vibration Damage Assessment Criteria

Building Vibration Damage Risk Level

Building Description

Cosmetic Damage

Threshold ppv (mm/s)

Source Reference for Criteria

Assumed Building Coupling

Loss

Extremely fragile historic buildings, ruins, ancient monuments 2 Caltrans/BART n/a

High Risk A Fragile buildings of clay construction with shallow (<1m) rubble footings

3 Caltrans 1

High Risk B Fragile buildings of clay construction with concrete foundations/footings

3 Caltrans 0.5

Medium Risk Residential brick built on concrete foundations/footings and light commercial

10 BS 7385/DIN 4150 0.5

Low Risk Heavy commercial, industrial and framed buildings 25 BS 7385/DIN 4150 0.5

Table 3: BS 5228 Vibration Assessment Criteria for Human Perception

Vibration Level ppv (mms-1)

Description of Effect Description of

Impact

<0.3 Vibration unlikely to be perceptible Negligible

0.3 to 1.0 Increasing likelihood of perceptible vibration in residential Minor

1.0 to 10 Increasing likelihood of perceptible vibration in residential environments but can be tolerated at the lower end of the scale if prior warning and explanation has been given to residents

Moderate

>10 Vibration is likely to be intolerable for any more than a brief exposure to a level of 10mms-1

Major

286

Criteria for Human Perception to Vibration. The British Standard BS 5228 sets out guideline values in terms of peak particle velocity for human response to construction works and these are shown out in Table 3 below. Column three includes semantic descriptors of the scale of vibration impact which are equivalent to those commonly used in the assessment of construction vibration.

Assessment of Vibration levels. The vibration levels in this study have been calculated using the empirical formula given by FTA (equation 1), and the results are presented in Table 4 below:

Figure 3: Vibration levels due to vibratory roller from edge of the road

From the above graph it is clear that buildings/structures within 4.5m from edge of the road will have major impact of vibrations due to vibratory roller, as per BS 7385/DIN 4150 standards.

Vibration assessment at sensitive receptors. Vibration monitoring was carried out at the sensitive receptors along the alignment and monitoring results are presented in below table:

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

35.0

5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 60 70 80 90 100 150 200 325

PeakParticlevelocity,mm/s

Distancefromedgeoftheroad,feet

Annex 14 287

Table 4: Vibration impact assessment at sensitive receptors

Receptor LHS/RHS Road Chainage, KM


m

Existing Vibration velocity,

mm/s

Vibration due to

vibratory roller, mm/s

Resultant Vibration velocity,

mm/s

Increase in

vibration level, mm/s

Type of Impact

Building Vibration Damage

Risk Level


LHS 412+400 412+500 5 0.2 8.9 8.9 8.7 Moderate Medium

Risk

Angawadi Centre LHS 412+500 412+600 5 0.2 8.9 8.9 8.7 Moderate Medium

Risk

Church LHS 412+600 412+700 5 0.2 8.9 8.9 8.7 Moderate Medium

Risk

Market Area LHS 414+400 414+700 5 0.1 8.9 8.9 8.8 Moderate Medium

Risk

Army Camp RHS 414+400 414+800 10 0.1 7.8 7.8 7.7 Moderate Medium

Risk


LHS 415+300 415+400 24 0.4 3.4 3.4 3.0 Moderate Medium

Risk

Community Hall LHS 415+400 415+500 10 0.2 7.8 7.8 7.6 Moderate Medium

Risk

Church RHS 419+300 419+400 8 0.4 8.4 8.4 8.0 Moderate Medium

Risk

Moreh college LHS 421+500 421+700 50 0.3 0.6 0.7 0.4 Minor Low Risk

288

Vibration Produced during Operation. Because vehicles traveling on highway are supported on flexible suspension systems and pneumatic tires, these vehicles are not an efficient source of ground vibration. They can, however, impart vibration into the ground when they roll over pavement that is not smooth. Continuous traffic traveling on a smooth highway creates a fairly continuous but relatively low level of vibration. Where discontinuities exist in the pavement, heavy truck passages can be the primary source of localized, intermittent vibration peaks. These peaks typically last no more than a few seconds and often for only a fraction of a second. Because vibration drops off rapidly with distance, there is rarely a cumulative increase in ground vibration from the presence of multiple trucks. In general, more trucks result in more vibration peaks, though not necessarily higher peaks. Automobile traffic normally generates vibration amplitudes that are one-fifth to one-tenth the amplitude of truck vibration amplitudes. Accordingly, ground vibration generated by automobile traffic is usually overshadowed by vibration from heavy trucks.

Because vibration from vehicle operations is almost always the result of pavement discontinuities, the solution is to smooth the pavement to eliminate the discontinuities. This step will eliminate perceptible vibration from vehicle operations in virtually all cases.

Mitigation Measures

• A wave barrier is typically a trench or a thin wall made of sheet piles or similar structural members. The purpose of a barrier is to reflect or absorb wave energy, thereby reducing the propagation of energy between a source and a receiver. The depth and width of a wave barrier must be proportioned to the wavelength of the wave intended for screening.

• Adverse human response to construction vibration can be mitigated by good communication between the contractor and local residents. If occupiers of dwellings are informed of their nature, duration and potential vibration effects prior to the works, then adverse response will be less. Generally, the main concern relating to construction vibration is of damage to property and if this is not likely to occur, then this point should be made clear to residents.

Summary. The principal source of vibration is the operation of vibratory rollers during ground preparation. Buildings of the types found alongside the road have been classified, according to their sensitivity to vibration damage, with the categories including low, medium and high risk buildings.

From the study it is found that buildings/structures within 4.5m from edge of the road will have major impact of vibrations due to vibratory roller, as per BS 7385/DIN 4150 standards. The sensitive receptors will encounter moderate impact of vibrations due to construction equipment. The impact of vibrations due to road traffic will be negligible given the highway pavement is maintained at good condition. For the structures within 4.5 m from road edge, suitable mitigation measures should be adopted to minimize the vibration levels.

Annex 15 289

ANNEX 15: IMPHAL - MOREH ROAD (KHONGKHANG-MOREH SECTION): BIODIVERSITY ACTION PLAN

Drafted for the Asian Development Bank by John Pilgrim Limited – 26th June 2020

Author: John D. Pilgrim

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.............................................................................................. 290

II. INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................... 292 2.1 Purpose and objectives ............................................................................................. 292 2.2 Approach ................................................................................................................... 292 2.3 Key information gaps ................................................................................................. 293

III. BIODIVERSITY ......................................................................................................... 293 3.1 Context ...................................................................................................................... 293 3.2 Priority biodiversity ..................................................................................................... 293

IV. POTENTIAL IMPACTS ON CRITICAL AND NATURAL HABITAT ......................... 300 4.1 Potential Impacts on Terrestrial Critical Habitat ......................................................... 300 4.2 Potential Impacts on Aquatic Critical Habitat ............................................................. 301 4.3 Potential Impacts on Natural Habitat ......................................................................... 302

V. MITIGATION AND CONSERVATION MEASURES FOR IMPACTS ON CRITICAL AND NATURAL HABITAT ................................................................................................. 306

5.1 Mitigation and management measures ...................................................................... 306 5.2 Residual impacts ....................................................................................................... 318 5.3 No net loss/net gain approach ................................................................................... 326

VI. BIODIVERSITY MONITORING ................................................................................ 328

VII. REFERENCES .......................................................................................................... 352

APPENDIX A. CRITICAL AND NATURAL HABITAT ASSESSMENT .............................. 356 A.1 Areas of analysis ....................................................................................................... 356 A.2 Assessment of biodiversity which may qualify the area as Critical Habitat ............... 357 A.3 Assessment of Natural Habitat .................................................................................. 369

https://asiandevbank.sharepoint.com/teams/org_satc/ProjectDocs/P47341-004-IND%20SASEC%20RCIP%20T3/00%20Processing%20-%20PFRR/00%20Safeguards/EIA/Revised%20EIA/Working%20files/Annex%2015%20BAP_LAD.doc#_Toc44632644























290 Annex 15

I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1. This document is a Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) for the upgrading of the c.30 km-long Khongkhang- Moreh section of the Imphal - Moreh Road, in Manipur State, India (hereafter “the Project”). This BAP is a supplement to the draft Project Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) (NHIDCL 2020).

2. The Project is proposed for financing by the Asian Development Bank (ADB) and has been identified as a Category A project owing to the potential for significant adverse environmental impacts that are irreversible, diverse, or unprecedented, potentially affecting an area larger than the Project footprint. This potential for impacts particularly arises because the Project falls entirely within the Yangoupokpi-Lockchao Wildlife Sanctuary, which has also been identified as a global Important Bird Area, or its adjoining eco-sensitive zone. This draft Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) has been developed to implement good-practice mitigation and demonstrate Project compliance with ADB biodiversity safeguards (ADB 2009). There is very little information on the status, distribution and ecology of biodiversity in the Project landscape, so this BAP has taken a precautionary approach. It is a living document and can be adapted during the Project life in response to new information on the scale or significance of Project impacts or mitigation and management measures.

3. The Project is located largely within Natural Habitat, comprising forest in a variety of conditions, though the eastern end of the Project enters Moreh township (Modified Habitat). A full Critical Habitat Assessment (Appendix A) identified this landscape to be possible or actual Critical Habitat for: 12 freshwater fishes; one bird (Green Peafowl Pavo muticus), one mammal (Hume’s Rat Hadromys humei), and the Yangoupokpi-Lokchao Wildlife Sanctuary Important Bird Area (Table 1; Section 3).

4. Most of these biodiversity values are restricted to streams, rivers and forest beyond the likely reach of the majority of significant Project impacts. Concerns for Critical Habitat should keep these limited potential impacts in perspective. Nonetheless, without mitigation, the Project might possibly have significant impacts on some Critical Habitat-qualifying biodiversity (Section 4), including degradation of aquatic habitat during bridge improvements or aggregate extraction, spread of invasive alien species, unsustainable natural resource exploitation by construction workers, and mortality from vehicle collisions.

5. A number of general or standard mitigation/enhancement measures have already been outlined in the Project EIA. This BAP includes a small number of additional/specific mitigation and management measures (Section 5) necessary to reduce residual impacts on Critical Habitat-qualifying biodiversity and Natural Habitat to levels in line with the ADB Safeguard Policy Statement (ADB 2009). For the most part, these are not anticipated to result in any significant Project time delays. However, a wash station to help avoid introduction/spread of invasive alien species is estimated to cost $10,000 USD (Section 5.1.3), fitting culverts with internal ledges to allow small- and medium-sized animals to pass under the road, is estimated to cost c.$45,000 USD (Section 5.1.5), installing canopy bridges for primates to cross over the road is estimated to cost c.$10,000 USD plus c.$20,000 USD for pre-construction surveys to identify priority locations bridges (Section 5.1.5), and warning signs against stopping in the wildlife sanctuary are estimated to cost c.$5,200 USD (Section 5.1.6). Total additional mitigation costs are thus anticipated to be c.$90,200 USD.

6. The full list of additional/specific mitigation measures is:

• Use only existing licensed quarries outside of rivers and streams for sourcing aggregates (Section 5.1.1);

• Avoid borrow pits in areas of Natural Habitat and within 200 m of waterways (Section 5.1.2);

Annex 15 291

• Avoid introduction of new invasive species to, and spread of existing invasive species within, the Project area (Section 5.1.3);

• Prohibit hunting, trapping, fishing and trading of wildlife by staff and contractors, with heavy penalties applied (Section 5.1.4);

• Design, install and maintain wildlife crossings under and over the road (Section 5.1.5); and

• Regulate against stopping alongside the road in the Yangoupokpi-Lokchao Wildlife Sanctuary, except in emergencies, advised by warning signs (Section 5.1.6).

7. After these general and specific mitigation measures, the Project is expected to have only small residual impacts from clearance of habitat (Section 5.2). These will be fully offset through a compulsory program of tree planting (already budgeted), enrichment of degraded habitat in conjunction with sanctuary authorities, and support to sustainable land use planning by communities within the sanctuary (Section 5.3). This latter offset activity is estimated to cost $200,000-$400,000 USD.

8. To ensure Project mitigation and offsets are successfully implemented, and impacts avoided or minimized, the Project will undertake a program of monitoring and evaluation (Section 6).

9. In summary, this Project will be compliant with ADB biodiversity safeguards (ADB 2009) because it will implement programs to promote and enhance the conservation aims of the protected area it crosses (Section 5.3), and will put in place mitigation (Section 5.1) and offsets (Section 5.3) to address impacts on Critical Habitat that result in a net gain, including:

(i) no measurable adverse impacts on critical habitat that could impair its ability to function; and

(ii) no reduction in the population of any recognized endangered or critically endangered species.

292 Annex 15

II. INTRODUCTION

2.1 Purpose and objectives

10. This document is a draft Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) for the upgrading of the Khongkhang- Moreh section of the Imphal - Moreh Road, in Manipur State, India hereafter referred to as “the Project”. This Project comprises 29.51 km of road, upgrades to two bridges, and a viaduct (NHIDCL 2020). It starts near Khongkhang village, about 65 km from Imphal, and ends c.5 km from the border with Myanmar, just before Moreh Town. The bridges are over the Thathi River at chainage 409+000 and over the Ongkrong Lok River at chainage 412+230 (NHIDCL 2020; S.Choukiker in litt. 2020). The Project does not include some activities already taking place with government funds, such as upgrade of the road bridge over the River Lokchao. Other tranches of the Imphal - Moreh Road upgrade are likewise not part of this Project and so not considered here.

11. An Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) has been drafted (NHIDCL 2020), and this Project is proposed for financing under Tranche 3 of ADB’s SASEC Road Connectivity Investment Program (SCRIP). Under the ADB Safeguard Policy Statement (SPS: ADB 2009), this has been identified as a Category A project owing to the potential for significant adverse environmental impacts that are irreversible, diverse, or unprecedented, potentially affecting an area larger than the Project footprint. This potential for impacts particularly arises because the Project falls entirely within the Yangoupokpi-Lockchao Wildlife Sanctuary, which has also been identified as a global Important Bird Area, or its adjoining eco-sensitive zone.

12. The ADB SPS requires projects in Natural Habitat to design mitigation measures to achieve at least no net loss of biodiversity. It requires projects in Critical Habitat to demonstrate ‘no measurable adverse impacts, or likelihood of such, on the critical habitat which could impair its high biodiversity value or the ability to function’, no ‘reduction in the population of any recognized endangered or critically endangered species or a loss in area of the habitat concerned such that the persistence of a viable and representative host ecosystem be compromised’, and mitigation of any lesser impacts. This BAP assesses these risks and presents the Project’s strategy for alignment with the ADB SPS.

13. Following the draft ADB Environmental Safeguards Good Practice Sourcebook (ADB 2012), this BAP assesses the presence of Critical and Natural Habitat in the Project area (Section 3; Appendix A), evaluates potential impacts on priority biodiversity (Section 4), outlines Project commitments to mitigation and management measures to achieve at least no net loss for Critical and Natural Habitat (Section 5), and summarizes an approach to monitoring and evaluation to give assurance of Project performance (Section 6). It is a living document and can be adapted during the Project life in response to new information on the scale or significance of Project impacts or mitigation and management measures.

2.2 Approach

14. This BAP was developed through a review of existing Project documentation, other existing grey and published literature, and questions to Project consultants. It aligns with the ADB SPS (ADB 2009) and International Finance Corporation Performance Standard 6 and its accompanying Guidance Note (IFC 2012, 2019).

15. Except where necessary, this document does not repeat extensive information available in other key project documents, such as the EIA, developed as part of the process of compliance with the ADB SPS.

Annex 15 293

2.3 Key information gaps

16. There is very limited recent information available on the presence, status or distribution of biodiversity in the Project area; surveys have been limited by logistical and security constraints. Most available information used in this assessment is necessarily from the proposed Yangoupokpi-Lockchao Wildlife Sanctuary management plan (Anon undated) or broad-scale species distribution maps (IUCN 2020).

17. Some aspects of Project implementation currently remain unclear or unknown. In particular, the area of officially-designated Forest Land to be impacted has been estimated, but it is not clear how much of this land is actually forested or the quality of any forest that does exist (Section 4.1.1). From a mitigation perspective, the number of culverts to be modified as wildlife crossings is known, but the number in different size classes is not yet known (Section 5.1.5).

18. Offset activities are currently at a very early stage of development. For example, the Project has committed to enriching degraded habitat by planting native species, but the type, intensity or scale of enrichment, and the location and quality of the habitat to be enriched, currently remain undefined (Section 5.3.2). Likewise, a key offset activity – support to land use planning by communities in the Yangoupokpi-Lokchao Wildlife Sanctuary (Section 5.3.3) – is currently at the design stage, prior to engagement with the multiple stakeholders necessary to assess feasibility.

19. In the absence of such information, this assessment has taken a precautionary approach.

III. BIODIVERSITY

3.1 Context

20. The Project area falls within the Mizoram-Manipur-Kachin rain forests ecoregion (Wikramanayake et al. 2002). This area is a biogeographic crossroads between the Indian, Indo-Malayan, and Indo-Chinese biotas. As such, it is associated with very high species richness. It also harbors some endemism, notably in birds (Wikramanayake et al. 2002; BirdLife International 2020a). In an Asian context, the region retains very good habitat quality, with Wikramanayake et al. (2002) estimating almost half of the region’s natural habitat to remain intact. Historically, logging significantly impacted the area, but shifting agriculture and infrastructure development are now the main drivers of deforestation. More insidiously, the proximity of the Project area to People’s Republic of China and Myanmar leads to high levels of natural resource exploitation to supply the wildlife trade.

21. From an aquatic perspective, the Project area falls within the Sitang-Irawaddy freshwater ecoregion (Abell et al. 2008). As with terrestrial species, it is an area of very high aquatic species richness, and was believed to be an area of only moderate aquatic species endemism. More recent information suggests that aquatic endemism may be high in the area (e.g., Dahanukar 2010; Singh 2010b,c; Vishwanath 2010a,b,c,d,e,f,g) though the distribution of species in the region remains too poorly understood to have high confidence in this.

3.2 Priority biodiversity

22. A full Critical Habitat Assessment (Appendix A) used a single simple Area of Analysis (AoA) to assess Project risks. This assessment identified the AoA to be possible or actual Critical Habitat for 12 freshwater fishes, one bird, one mammal, and one internationally-recognized site (Table 1). Significant uncertainty remains in the conclusions of this assessment, given very limited information on many of these species in the Project area.

294 Annex 15

Nonetheless, this uncertainty is unlikely to substantially change the overall conclusions of this assessment. Although in some cases conclusions could be refined by further studies, on a precautionary basis the features listed in Table 1 should all be considered priority biodiversity for the Project to avoid, mitigate and – if necessary – offset impacts upon. In general, this will not pose challenges to the Project as most priority biodiversity is confined to forests, rivers and streams outside of the direct Project footprint. More extensive details of why each feature meets Critical Habitat criteria are given in Appendix A.

Table 1: Summary of Critical Habitat-Qualifying Biodiversity in the Project area

Biodiversity type

Species Critical Habitat criterion qualified29

Justification

1 2 3 4 5 6

1. Mammal Hume’s Rat Hadromys humei

? Might possibly support >10% of the global population of this restricted-range species, given high uncertainty over its distribution/population.

2. Bird Green Peafowl Pavo muticus

? Likely to support >0.5% of the global population of this globally Endangered species, though there is very limited information on current populations in the Project area.

3. Fish Akysis manipurensis

? Might possibly support >10% of the global population of this restricted-range species.

4. Fish Barilius lairokensis

This restricted-range species is only known from the Project area.

5. Fish Devario yuensis

? ? It is possible that >10% of the population of this globally Vulnerable restricted-range species occurs in the Project area, and thus possible that the loss of that area’s population could result in a rise in the species’ global threat status.

6. Fish Laubuka khujairokensis

This globally Vulnerable restricted-range species is only known from the Project area, and loss of that population would risk extinction.

7. Fish Macrognathus morehensis


8. Fish Neonoemacheilus morehensis


9. Fish Ngakha-Hangampal Pethia yuensis

It is possible that the loss of populations of this globally Vulnerable restricted-range species in the Project area could result in a rise in its global threat status.

29 = likely to qualify area as Critical Habitat; ? = possibly qualifies area as Critical Habitat. Both based on available

information.

Annex 15 295

10. Fish Psilorhynchus ngathanu

On current knowledge, supports >10% of the global population of this restricted-range species.

11. Fish Rasbora ornata

? ? It is likely that this globally Vulnerable restricted-range species occurs in the Project area, possible that >10% of its global population occurs there, and possible that the loss of the population in the area could result in a rise in its global threat status.

12. Fish Schistura phamhringi

On current knowledge, supports >10% of the global population of this restricted-range species.

13. Fish Schistura prashadi

? It is likely that this globally Vulnerable restricted-range species occurs in the Project area, and possible that the loss of populations in the area could result in a rise in its global threat status.

14. Fish Schistura reticulata

Likely supports >10% of the global population of this globally Endangered restricted-range species.

15. Site Yangoupokpi-Lokchao Wildlife Sanctuary Important Bird Area

? Likely to qualify as an IBA/KBA because it probably supports >0.5% of the global population of the globally Endangered Green Peafowl , though there is very limited information on this species’ populations in the area.

23. Based on Appendix A, Figure 1 summarizes the location of Natural and Modified Habitat in the Project area. On a precautionary basis, in the absence of detailed up-to-date information on the condition of habitats along the Project route, it is assumed that the Project is mostly situated within Natural Habitat, even where forest is now thin or degraded – Modified Habitat is so heavily impacted that it has had its primary ecological function substantially altered (ADB 2009). Some areas of agriculture and the built-up area of Moreh are so altered as to constitute Modified Habitat. All rivers and streams are considered Natural Habitat.

24. On a precautionary basis, in the near absence of distribution data for biodiversity in this area, all terrestrial Natural Habitat is considered to be Critical Habitat and all rivers and streams are considered to be Critical Habitat.

296 Annex 15

Figure 1: Map of Project area, showing locations of Area of Analysis and areas of

terrestrial Natural and Modified Habitat. All rivers and streams are considered to be Natural Habitat. On a precautionary basis, all terrestrial Natural Habitat

and all rivers and streams are also considered to be Critical Habitat.

Hume’s Rat (Hadromys humei) More information is available here. This species is globally Endangered and has a restricted range, with a known global distribution of <5,000 km2. It was formerly more widespread but recently recorded only from one location in Assam and Bishnupur and Senapati in Manipur, in forest at elevations of 900-1,300 m (Molur & Laginha Pinto Correia 2016). It is a nocturnal, burrowing forest species so rarely recorded and poorly known. It is not known to occur in the Project area, but is precautionarily included given very limited data on this species, suitable habitat in the Project area, and few biological surveys in the Project area. Habitat loss and fragmentation are considered to be its main threats. It is tolerant of some degree of forest degradation and so has the potential to occur adjacent to – and cross – the existing Project road. While it may be considered over-precautionary to include this as a priority species, it is also a useful proxy for the many small terrestrial animals (mammals, herpetofauna and invertebrates) that occur in the area.

https://www.iucnredlist.org/species/9618/22410442

Annex 15 297

Green Peafowl (Pavo muticus) Photos and more information are available here. This species is considered globally Endangered (BirdLife International 2020g), owing to habitat loss and severe levels of hunting. The Yangoupokpi-Lokchao Wildlife Sanctuary IBA was originally identified in 2004 for this species (BirdLife International 2020c), though Choudhury (2009) only reported it as ‘still occasionally seen’. More encouragingly, Devi (2013) suggested that ‘some viable population of Green Peafowl still occurs at the sanctuary’, though it is not clear on what basis. The species is tolerant of some habitat degradation, but often much depleted in areas of high human disturbance. It may well thus occur near to – and potentially cross – the Project road, but not commonly.

Akysis manipurensis More information is available here. This catfish species is so poorly known that it is considered Data Deficient (Ng 2010). It is known only from the Chindwin River drainage in India (Manipur) and Myanmar, and so is considered restricted-range. It occurs in hill streams with sand and gravel bottoms. It appears to have only been recorded from the Lairok Maru stream, close to the Project. The species' habitat is under severe threat from development activities, and may also suffer from siltation owing to deforestation (Vishwanath 2010b). Given limited aquatic surveys in the Project area, this species may occur at other sites in the same catchment.

Barilius lairokensis More information is available here. This small fish species is considered Near Threatened, and has a globally restricted range, with an Extent of Occurrence estimated at 40 km by 100 km (Vishwanath 2010b). It has only been recorded from Lairok Maru, in Moreh township, within several kilometers of the Project. The species' habitat is under severe threat from development activities, and may also suffer from siltation owing to deforestation. Given limited aquatic surveys in the Project area, this species may occur at other sites in the same catchment.

Devario yuensis More information is available here. This small fish species is considered globally Vulnerable and is only known from three locations in the Lokchao River, Manipur, and neighboring Myanmar (Vishwanath 2010c), so is also considered a restricted-range species. It is unclear whether the species actually occurs in the Project area (though it is stated as present, without further comment, by NHIDCL 2020), but it is considered likely. It is threatened by pollution, habitat destruction and degradation due to damming, logging and deforestation.





298 Annex 15

Laubuka khujairokensis More information is available here. This small fish species is considered globally Vulnerable (Singh 2010b). It is known only from one location, at Moreh, within a few kilometers of the Project, so is also considered a restricted-range species. It is threatened by pollution, habitat degradation and deforestation.

Macrognathus morehensis More information is available here. This small eel-like fish species is only considered Near Threatened, but does have a restricted global range in the Maklang River, Chindwin drainage (Moreh) in Manipur and the Chindwin basin (Kalaimyo and Tamu) in Myanmar (Vishwanath 2010d). It is considered potentially threatened by overexploitation, and pollution from the expanding Moreh township. It is poorly-known, and may occur more widely. As far as this species’ distribution is understood, it is not likely to occur in the vicinity of the Project itself, though part of its range is downstream from the Project and thus may potentially be at risk from downstream impacts on streams and rivers.

Neonoemacheilus morehensis More information is available here. This small fish species is considered Data Deficient, but does have a restricted known global range in the Lokchao River, though it is also expected to occur in the Chindwin Basin in Myanmar (Vishwanath 2010e). It occurs in fast-running hill streams and rivers, and may be affected by habitat destruction caused by deforestation, siltation, and other human disturbance. It is unclear whether the species actually occurs in the Project area, but it is considered possible since the Lokchao runs through the area.

Ngakha-Hangampal (Pethia yuensis) More information is available here. This small fish species is considered globally Vulnerable and known only from the Yu River system, at the lower zones of the Maklang River and Lokchao River near Moreh (Singh 2015), so is also considered a restricted-range species. At least parts of the distribution of the species thus appear to be within only a few kilometers of the Project. The species is threatened by development of Moreh town, decline in habitat quality in due to sedimentation from deforestation, and agricultural practices around hill streams.

Psilorhynchus ngathanu This small minnow species has not yet had its threat status evaluated by IUCN, but has a globally restricted-range – currently known only from one location on the Dutah River/Stream just south-west of Moreh Town, inside the Project AoA (Shangningam & Vishwanath 2014).

Rasbora ornate More information is available here.






Annex 15 299

This small fish species is globally Vulnerable and known only from the Chatrickong River and Lokchao River, both tributaries of the Yu River, in Manipur (Vishwanath 2010f). It is thus also considered a restricted-range species. It is unclear whether the species actually occurs in the Project area, but it is considered likely. The species is threatened by development of Moreh town and associated pollution.

Schistura phamhringi This small fish species has not yet had its threat status evaluated by IUCN, but has a globally restricted-range – currently known only from one location on the Dutah River/Stream just south-west of Moreh Town, inside the Project AoA (Shangningam et al. 2014). The habitat was among pebbles in a section of river with a slow current.

Schistura prashadi More information is available here. This small fish species is globally Vulnerable and only known from three localities (Thonagpal Tank, Thoubal Stream and Sikmai Stream) in the Chindwin drainage in Manipur (Singh 2010c). It is thus also considered a restricted-range species. It is a species of upper hill streams, and is threatened by deforestation, town development, detergent pollution and pesticide pollution from nearby paddy fields. It is unclear whether the species actually occurs in the Project area, but it is considered possible.

Schistura reticulata More information is available here. This small fish species is considered globally Endangered, and only known from the Maklang, Lokchao and Wanze streams in the Chindwin basin of eastern Manipur (Vishwanath 2010g). It is thus also considered a restricted-range species. Vishwanath (2010g) reports one population at Moreh town, within a couple of kilometers of the Project. It appears to have a fragmented range in hill streams, and is currently threatened by development of Moreh town and destructive fishing (by poisoning or dynamiting).



300 Annex 15

IV. POTENTIAL IMPACTS ON CRITICAL AND NATURAL HABITAT

25. This assessment followed recent good practice impact assessment methodology used for a project involving aquatic and terrestrial impacts (MRDI 2019). Following this methodology, pre-mitigation impacts on Critical Habitat (Table 1) are assessed in Table 2 and discussed in Sections 4.1 and 4.2. Impacts on Natural Habitat are discussed in Section 4.3.

4.1 Potential Impacts on Terrestrial Critical Habitat

26. The Project AoA represents likely or actual terrestrial Critical Habitat for one bird, one mammal, and one internationally-recognized site (Table 1). The magnitude of risks to this Critical Habitat-qualifying biodiversity ranges from minor-major, given their rarity, threatened status, conservation importance, and level of public concern about these species and the site (Table 2).

4.1.1 Habitats

27. The overall significance of potential impacts on terrestrial Critical Habitat is assessed as Low-High (Table 2). An estimated 2,013 trees on 48.29 ha of Forest Department land (not all forested) will be cleared (NHIDCL 2020), along with an unspecified number of trees on c.5 ha of vegetated land within the existing road right of way (S. Choukiker in litt. 2020). Of the 48.29 ha, 14.19 ha will be cleared within the Yangoupokpi-Lockchao Wildlife Sanctuary eco-sensitive zone, and 34.1 ha within its “buffer zone”.

28. The habitat quality of this land to be cleared has not been systematically assessed owing to the difficulty of surveys in this area. However, available information suggests some areas are degraded but areas to be cleared are overall broadly Natural Habitat (i.e., ‘human activity has not essentially modified the area’s primary ecological functions’: ADB 2009). Meetei et al. (2017) found high quality dense forest in Manipur to hold approximately 700-900 trees of ≥30 cm girth per hectare. These densities are at the high end of those found in other parts of India, and current densities in areas bordering the Project road are likely to be considerably lower owing to degradation and (in the east) some areas of naturally more open forest. For the purposes of this assessment, on a precautionary basis, it is assumed that areas of natural vegetation to be cleared may hold c.100 trees/hectare and be of around 50% of natural quality. As such, clearance of 2,013 trees equates to clearance of just over 20 ha of such degraded forest. Overall, including areas within the existing right of way, the Project is thus anticipated to clear c. 26 ha of natural vegetation.

29. Most disturbance from construction and operations will take place in areas of already Modified Habitat, away from most Critical Habitat-qualifying biodiversity. Impacts of vegetation loss and habitat fragmentation are thus assessed to be of Medium significance. Potential direct habitat degradation impacts are assessed to be of Low Significance.

30. The potential for indirect impacts has also been considered. Degradation of forest through collection of timber or firewood by construction workers is considered a Low risk. There is potential that increased traffic could increase illegal logging, but this risk is considered Low (Section 4.1.2). Conversely, a potentially significant indirect project impact on Critical Habitat is the introduction of invasive alien species (IAS). The Global Invasive Species Database (http://www.iucngisd.org/gisd) has records for 226 terrestrial or freshwater IAS in India, of which 134 are plants. IAS can spread rapidly once introduced, significantly modifying habitat for forest-dependent species, and present a very high risk to biodiversity globally. There is potential for construction machinery, equipment or materials to introduce IAS to the Project site, particularly plants – e.g., as seeds within soil on machinery. Some of these species may not be introduced by the Project, but simply spread further. For example, the invasive American plant Lantana camara impacts forests by reducing recruitment of native

http://www.iucngisd.org/gisd

Annex 15 301

tree species (Sharma & Raghubanshi 2007), and is already widespread in Manipur. Therefore, risks of terrestrial habitat degradation by invasive alien species are considered to be of High Significance.

4.1.2 Species

31. The Project AoA might possibly represent terrestrial Critical Habitat for Green Peafowl and Hume’s Rat (Table 1). While vehicle collisions with Green Peafowl are considered unlikely, as this species likely already largely avoids the existing road, they are possible for Hume’s Rat (if it occurs in the area). The road will be wider and the increased speed it permits is expected to induce a 10% increase in traffic volumes (Sheladia 2015). As such, mortality from vehicle collisions potentially poses a Medium Significance threat to Hume’s Rat (and to other globally-threatened species such as pangolins). Conversely, displacement of Green Peafowl or Hume’s Rat owing to disturbance is assessed to be of Low Significance in both cases.

32. The potential for indirect impacts has also been considered. Unsustainable exploitation of Hume’s Rat by construction workers is considered to be a Low significance risk. However, given likely low populations in the area, potential impacts of unsustainable exploitation of Green Peafowl by construction workers are assessed to be of Medium significance.

33. Increased traffic volumes also have the potential to increase illegal hunting and logging. However, this is considered a Low risk because it is unlikely to occur to any significant extent in this area, for several reasons. First, the road will increase traffic, but not actual access to the area (i.e., a functional road already exists along roughly the same alignment). Second, poaching is an illegal activity which thus usually takes place out of sight - increased traffic will thus hinder roadside poaching during the day. Third, the area is already heavily hunted and so further poaching is more likely to be conducted by specialist hunters (those already in the area, or those who would not be influenced by traffic volumes) rather than the opportunistic poachers that would usually result from increased traffic.

4.2 Potential Impacts on Aquatic Critical Habitat

34. The Project AoA represents likely or actual aquatic Critical Habitat for 12 freshwater fishes (Table 1). The magnitude of risks to this Critical Habitat-qualifying biodiversity, before mitigation, ranges from minor-major, given their rarity, threatened status, conservation importance, and level of public concern about these species and the site (Table 2).

4.2.1 Habitats

35. The overall significance of potential impacts (before mitigation) on aquatic Critical Habitat is assessed as Low-High (Table 2). Most disturbance from construction and operations will take place away from waterways, but two bridges will be upgraded and many culverts installed under the road. No loss of aquatic habitat is anticipated. However, direct impacts of aquatic habitat degradation are assessed to be of Medium significance, owing to potential riverine aggregate extraction, hydrological changes, sewage/dust/construction waste, and the risk of fuel spills or runoff.

36. As for terrestrial habitats (Section 4.1.1), a potentially significant indirect project impact on aquatic Critical Habitat is the introduction of invasive alien species. Risks of aquatic habitat degradation by invasive alien species are considered to be of High Significance.

302 Annex 15

4.2.2 Species

37. The Project AoA might possibly represent aquatic Critical Habitat for 12 restricted-range fish species (Table 1). All of these fishes are small and not considered likely targets for extensive fishing by construction workers, meaning that potential impact (before mitigation) is considered of Low Significance. However, bridge construction and improvement works have potential for significant disturbance impacts on aquatic species, and loud underwater noise can cause injury or mortality in some species through damage to internal organs after vibration or bursting of the swim bladder (e.g., Halvorsen et al. 2012). Potential construction noise-induced fish mortality is considered of Medium Significance.

4.3 Potential Impacts on Natural Habitat

38. All terrestrial Natural Habitat and all rivers and streams are precautionarily treated as Critical Habitat, in the absence of much information on the distribution of priority species (Section A.3). As a result, impacts on terrestrial Natural Habitat and rivers and streams are currently considered to be the same as those on Critical Habitat (Section 4.1).

Annex 15 303

Table 2: Impact assessment for Critical Habitat-qualifying biodiversity and other biodiversity priorities in the Project area (refer to MRDI 2019 for Impact Significance Rating Methodology)

En

vir

on

me

nta

l C

om

po

ne

nt

Fa

cto

r

Pro

jec

t P

ha

se

D

- D

es

ign

, C

-C

on

str

uc

tio

n,

O-O

pe

rati

on

Imp

ac

t

Se

ns

itiv

ity

of

Re

ce

pto

rs

Le

ve

l o

f P

ub

lic

C

on

ce

rn

Se

ve

rity

or

de

gre

e o

f c

ha

ng

e

to t

he

re

ce

pto

r

Ma

gn

itu

de

Tim

efr

am

e

Sp

ati

al S

ca

le

Co

ns

eq

uen

ce

Pro

ba

bilit

y

Sig

nif

ica

nc

e

Yangoupokpi-Lokchao Wildlife Sanctuary and Important Bird Area

Vegetation cover

C Fragmentation of habitat due to loss of vegetation cover.

H L L MIN LT INTER M POSS M

D, C Intentional loss of vegetation cover in specific areas of the project.

H H L MOD LT SMALL M DEFINITE M

C, O Unintentional loss of vegetation cover due to landslides or dumping of cuttings.

H H M MAJ MT SMALL M POSS M

C Degradation of vegetation due to dust.

H H L MOD ST SMALL L DEFINITE L

C Degradation of vegetation due to timber/firewood collection.

H H M MOD ST SMALL L POSS L

C Degradation of vegetation by introduction of invasive alien species.

H H H MAJ LT INTER H POSS H

Hume’s Rat (Hadromys humei)

Habitat C Fragmentation of habitat due to loss of vegetation cover.


D, C Loss of habitat due to intentional loss of vegetation cover.

H L M MOD LT SMALL M DEFINITE M

C, O Loss of habitat due to unintentional loss of vegetation cover, owing to landslides or dumping of cuttings.

H L L MIN MT SMALL L POSS L


H L L MIN ST SMALL L DEFINITE L

C Degradation of habitat due to timber/firewood collection.

H L L MIN ST SMALL L POSS L

C Degradation of habitat by introduction of invasive alien species.

H L M MOD LT INTER H POSS H

Distribution C Displacement of species due to noise, presence of machinery and


304 Annex 15

En

vir

on

me

nta

l C

om

po

ne

nt

Fa

cto

r

Pro

jec

t P

ha

se

D

- D

es

ign

, C

-C

on

str

uc

tio

n,

O-O

pe

rati

on

Imp

ac

t

Se

ns

itiv

ity

of

Re

ce

pto

rs

Le

ve

l o

f P

ub

lic

C

on

ce

rn

Se

ve

rity

or

de

gre

e o

f c

ha

ng

e

to t

he

re

ce

pto

r

Ma

gn

itu

de

Tim

efr

am

e

Sp

ati

al S

ca

le

Co

ns

eq

uen

ce

Pro

ba

bilit

y

Sig

nif

ica

nc

e

equipment and presence of construction workers.

O Displacement of species due to noise from normal traffic or maintenance activities.

H L L MIN LT SMALL M UNLIKE L

Mortality C Mortality of individuals due to poaching by construction workers.

H L L MIN ST SMALL L UNLIKE L

O Increased poaching from increased traffic through the area.

H L L MIN LT SMALL L UNLIKE L

C, O Mortality of individuals due to vehicle collision.

H L L MIN LT SMALL M POSS M

Green Peafowl (Pavo mutica)


H H L MOD LT SMALL M UNLIKE L


H H L MOD LT SMALL M UNLIKE L


H H L MOD MT SMALL M POSS M


H H L MOD ST SMALL L POSS L


H H L MOD ST SMALL L POSS L


H H H MAJ LT INTER H POSS H

Distribution C Displacement of species due to noise, presence of machinery and equipment and presence of construction workers.

H M M MOD ST SMALL L POSS L


H H L MOD LT SMALL M POSS M

Annex 15 305

En

vir

on

me

nta

l C

om

po

ne

nt

Fa

cto

r

Pro

jec

t P

ha

se

D

- D

es

ign

, C

-C

on

str

uc

tio

n,

O-O

pe

rati

on

Imp

ac

t

Se

ns

itiv

ity

of

Re

ce

pto

rs

Le

ve

l o

f P

ub

lic

C

on

ce

rn

Se

ve

rity

or

de

gre

e o

f c

ha

ng

e

to t

he

re

ce

pto

r

Ma

gn

itu

de

Tim

efr

am

e

Sp

ati

al S

ca

le

Co

ns

eq

uen

ce

Pro

ba

bilit

y

Sig

nif

ica

nc

e

Mortality C Mortality of individuals due to poaching by construction workers.

H H H MAJ ST SMALL M POSS M


H H H MAJ MT SMALL M UNLIKE L


M M L MOD LT SMALL M UNLIKE L

Twelve restricted-range fishes (Akysis manipurensis, Barilius lairokensis, Devario yuensis, Laubuka khujairokensis, Macrognathus morehensis, Neonoemacheilus morehensis, Ngakha-Hangampal Pethia yuensis, Psilorhynchus ngathanu, Rasbora ornata, Schistura phamhringi, S. prashadi, and S. reticulata)

Habitat C Degradation of habitat from aggregate extraction for construction.

H L H MAJ ST SMALL M POSS M


H L M MOD LT EXTENSIVE H POSS H

D, C Degradation of habitat from hydrological changes.


C Degradation of habitat during construction from sedimentation, dust, sewage, or other construction waste.

H L H MAJ ST INTER M POSS M

C, O Degradation of habitat from accidentally spilled fuel/oil or surface runoff,

H L H MAJ MT INTER M POSS M

Distribution C Displacement of species due to noise and presence of machinery.


Mortality C Injury and mortality due to underwater construction noise.

H L H MAJ ST SMALL M POSS M

C Mortality due to poaching by construction workers.

H L L MIN ST SMALL L UNLIKE L

Notes: Project Phase = D-Design, C-Construction, O-Operation; Magnitude = MAJ-Major, MOD-Moderate, MIN-Minor; Timeframe = LT-Long-term, MT-Medium-term, ST-Short-term; Spatial Scale = INTER-Intermediate, SMALL-Small; Probability = DEF-Definite, POSS-Possible, UNLIKE-Unlikely.

306 Annex 15

V. MITIGATION AND CONSERVATION MEASURES FOR IMPACTS ON CRITICAL AND NATURAL HABITAT

5.1 Mitigation and management measures

39. A number of general or standard mitigation/enhancement measures have already been outlined in the Project EIA (NHIDCL 2020). Table 3 summarizes these general/standard mitigation measures relevant to potential Project impacts on Critical Habitat-qualifying biodiversity (Section 4), with some rewording from NHIDCL (2020) for clarity. Given the number of restricted-range fish in the Project area (Section 3.2), a particularly important aspect of Project mitigation is restricting bridge construction works to the dry season. Both of the rivers over which bridges will be upgraded are non-perennial, so work in the dry season will limit fish mortality and disturbance, hydrological changes, erosion and runoff from construction areas.

40. Table 3 also includes a small number of additional or tailored mitigation measures necessary to reduce this Project’s specific residual impacts on Critical Habitat-qualifying biodiversity and Natural Habitat to levels in line with the ADB Safeguard Policy Statement (ADB 2009), based on a precautionary approach. Most of these are specifically for Critical Habitat-qualifying biodiversity, but have broader benefits for Natural Habitat features – e.g., modified culverts will benefit many species (Section 5.1.5). Only one of these measures is designed to benefit Natural Habitatfeatures specifically – rope bridges to maintain and enhance arboreal connectivity (Section 5.1.5). All of the additional/specific mitigation measures are elaborated in Sections 5.1.1-5.1.6.

41. The Project has also committed to plant native trees to compensate for those felled, prioritizing rare/endangered species, and to enrich degraded habitat by planting of native species. However, these equate to compensation or “offset” measures rather than mitigation, so are discussed in Section 5.3 rather than here.

42. Few specific mitigation measures are anticipated to result in any significant Project time delays or costs. A wash station to help avoid introduction/spread of invasive alien species is estimated to cost $10,000 USD (Section 5.1.3). Fitting all 125 box culverts with permanent (ideally concrete) ledges above planned water levels, to allow small- and medium-sized animals to pass under the road, is estimated to cost c.$45,000 USD (Section 5.1.5). Installing approximately 20 canopy bridges for primates to cross over the road is estimated to cost c.$10,000 USD (Section 5.1.5) – plus c.$20,000 for pre-construction surveys to identify priority locations for primate bridges. Last, warning signs against stopping in the wildlife sanctuary are estimated to cost c.$5,200 (Section 5.1.6). These costs are summarized in Section 5.1.7.

43. Residual impacts after general and specific mitigation are discussed in Section 5.2.

Annex 15 307

Table 3: Mitigation and management measures for Critical Habitat-qualifying biodiversity

Environmental Component

Aspect Project Phase

Impact Mitigation action

Responsibility

Development/ Implementation

Control


Vegetation cover

D, C Fragmentation of habitat due to loss of vegetation cover.

Minimise removal of vegetation and width of road expansion in Yangoupokpi-Lokchao Wildlife Sanctuary to the extent possible.

Contractor & AE PIU-EMSU

Design, install and maintain wildlife crossings under and over the road.





Use only existing licensed quarries outside of rivers and streams for sourcing aggregates.

Contractor AE & PIU-EMSU

Avoid borrow pits in areas of Natural Habitat and within 200 m of waterways.



Use cuttings in construction; dispose of unsuitable cuttings away from Natural Habitat.


Only undertake earthworks during the dry season.


Immediately plant native grass and tree species on cut slopes to reduce erosion.



Spray water on construction areas to reduce dust.



Prohibit collection, sale or purchase of timber/firewood by staff and contractors, with heavy penalties applied.


Train staff and contractors in good environmental practice, and prohibited activities.


Ensure contractors supply all necessary food, cooking fuel and appropriate housing.


308 Annex 15




Responsibility


Control


Avoid introduction of new invasive species to, and spread of existing invasive species within, the Project area through: - washing of vehicles, equipment and supplies before entry to the Project area; - monitoring for invasive species; and - control/eradication of invasive species where found.



Habitat D, C Fragmentation of habitat due to loss of vegetation cover.






















C Degradation of habitat due to



Annex 15 309




Responsibility


Control

timber/firewood collection.









Use acoustic enclosures for noisy equipment (e.g., diesel generators, compressors).


Only undertake construction during the day, between 0800-1800 hrs, in forest and protected areas.



Considered a negligible impact for this species. n/a n/a

Mortality C Mortality of individuals due to unsustainable exploitation by construction workers.

Prohibit hunting, trapping, fishing and trading of wildlife by staff and contractors, with heavy penalties applied.




310 Annex 15




Responsibility


Control




Regulate against stopping alongside the road in the Yangoupokpi-Lokchao Wildlife Sanctuary, except in emergencies, advised by warning signs.



Apply 20-30 km/hr speed limits for construction vehicles in Yangoupokpi-Lokchao Wildlife Sanctuary.




Install speed breakers and animal crossing warning signs in Yangoupokpi-Lokchao Wildlife Sanctuary.




















Annex 15 311




Responsibility


Control


spray water on construction areas to reduce dust.


















Considered a negligible impact for this species. n/a n/a

312 Annex 15




Responsibility


Control
















Twelve restricted-range fishes (Akysis manipurensis, Barilius lairokensis, Devario yuensis, Laubuka khujairokensis, Macrognathus morehensis, Neonoemacheilus morehensis, Ngakha-Hangampal Pethia yuensis, Psilorhynchus

Habitat D, C Degradation of habitat from aggregate extraction for construction.








Prohibit cleaning of construction vehicles/equipment within 300 m of waterways/drains.


Annex 15 313




Responsibility


Control

ngathanu, Rasbora ornata, Schistura phamhringi, S. prashadi, and S. reticulata)


Maintain natural courses of rivers and streams. Contractor AE & PIU-EMSU

Restrict bridge construction works to the dry season in order to limit hydrological changes, erosion and runoff from construction areas.


Restore temporary diversions to their natural courses as soon as possible.





Store chemicals and oils in secure, impermeable containers.


Equip construction camps with sanitary latrines that do not pollute surface waters.


Prohibit siting of construction camps and disposal of construction waste within 500 m of waterways.










Avoid piling and blasting during construction. Contractor AE & PIU-EMSU


Restrict bridge construction works to the dry season.


Avoid piling and blasting during construction. Contractor AE & PIU-EMSU

314 Annex 15




Responsibility


Control

C Mortality of individuals due to unsustainable exploitation by construction workers.







Notes: Project Phase = D-Design, C-Construction, O-Operation. AE=Authority Engineer (Wildlife Expert/Environmental Safeguards Specialist, as appropriate); PIU-EMSU = Project Implementation Unit-Environmental and Social Management Unit; YLWS = staff of Yangoupokpi-Lokchao Wildlife Sanctuary.

Annex 15 315

5.1.1 Use only existing licensed quarries outside of rivers and streams for sourcing aggregates

44. NHIDCL (2020) already commits to only sourcing aggregates from licensed quarries, all of which are outside the Yangoupokpi-Lokchao Wildlife Sanctuary. However, some existing licensed quarries may be situated within rivers or streams – particularly for sourcing sand and gravel. These may be having impacts, particularly downstream impacts, on these waterways, which are all considered Critical Habitat in the region of Manipur near the Project (Section 3.2). Further, any newly-established quarries – whether inside or outside of rivers and streams – have potential to clear Natural Habitat. These risks can be simply and effectively avoided by sourcing of all aggregates only from existing licensed quarries outside of rivers and streams. This mitigation measure is not anticipated to cause any significant additional cost or time delay for the Project, as it simply involves putting this requirement in contractor contracts.

5.1.2 Avoid borrow pits in areas of Natural Habitat and within 200 m of waterways

45. NHIDCL (2020) outlines a set of guidelines for borrow area management. These include locating borrow pits ‘about 1.5km from ecologically sensitive area[s]’ including wetlands. It would certainly be optimal if this distance can be maintained from all rivers and streams, but at least the 200 m next to these waterways will be avoided at all times. This will help avoid risks of run-off and sedimentation impacting aquatic Critical Habitat. Further, to avoid additional Project impacts on Natural Habitat, no borrow pits will be established in areas of Natural Habitat – this follows the intent of NHIDCL (2020) to prioritize barren land for borrow pits or, if not possible, un-irrigated agriculture land or land without vegetation and tree cover. Practically, borrow pits will therefore need to be established within the road right of way or in heavily degraded areas outside of the Project area. This mitigation measure is not anticipated to cause any significant additional cost or time delay for the Project, as it simply involves putting this requirement in contractor contracts.

5.1.3 Avoid introduction of new invasive species to, and spread of existing invasive species within, the Project area

46. Invasive species are one of the most significant global threats to biodiversity, and their management is thus a key consideration for Projects under ADB safeguards (ADB 2009). Invasive species may be spread in many ways, in particular through transport into a project area of materials or equipment from outside that area.

47. In order to manage the risk of introducing or spreading invasive species into the forested area within which this Project is proposed, an Invasive Species Management Plan will be developed. This will include at minimum: pressure washing of vehicles, equipment and supplies before entry to Project roads (ideally at one access point before the Project); monitoring for invasive species across the Project area; and control/eradication of invasive species where found in the Project area. Washing need not use substantial amounts of water, and can be replaced by brushing during any periods of low water supply. It is anticipated that costs of a wash station are unlikely to exceed US$5,000 USD. Such preventative measures are generally considerably less costly than measures to control or eradicate invasive species.

5.1.4 Prohibit hunting, trapping, fishing and trading of wildlife by staff and contractors, with heavy penalties applied

48. NHIDCL (2020) already commits to prohibiting hunting, trapping and trading of wildlife, with employment agreements specifying heavy penalties for illegal activities. Given the number of potentially Critical Habitat-qualifying fish species in the Project area, this prohibition should also be extended to fishing. Further, penalties will be necessary to enforce all

316 Annex 15

prohibited activities, not just those already considered illegal. This mitigation measure is not anticipated to cause any significant additional cost or time delay for the Project, as it simply involves putting this requirement in contractor contracts.

5.1.5 Design, install and maintain wildlife crossings under and over the road

49. NHIDCL (2020) commits to 125 box culverts along the Project road ‘designed especially for facilitating the movement of animals’.

50. It is likely that the existing road already represents a significant barrier to wildlife crossings, particularly for arboreal species or larger species such as Green Peafowl and Western Hoolock Gibbon. This is particularly true for built-up areas in – and westwards of – Moreh town, now encompassing much of the length of the road in the reserve buffer zone along the road to the border. There is a limited amount that can be done to promote ecological connectivity in these built-up areas. Satellite imagery does suggest, however, potential for enhancing connectivity across the road in the 8.4 km of the road within the sanctuary’s eco-sensitive zone and the westernmost 9.1 km of the road within the sanctuary (bordered to the south for most of its length by the core zone) (Appendix A.2.6), as well as in some locations west of the reserve where good forest remains on both sides of the road.

51. Connectivity for small- and medium-sized species, such as Hume’s Rat and pangolins, can be facilitated by appropriate design of culverts under the road. Most studies on use of culverts for crossing roads by mammals have been carried out in Europe and North America. However, pangolins have been seen regularly using culverts to cross roads in Singapore (Lee et al. 2018). If appropriately designed, culverts of only 0.5-1 m diameter are generally considered sufficient to serve as crossings for small mammals, and 1-1.5 m diameter for medium-sized mammals such as coyotes in the United States (e.g., Clevenger et al. 2002). Pipe culverts will be replaced during the Project with 125 box culverts measuring 1×1 m or 1.5×1.5 m (S.Choukiker in litt. 2020), sufficiently large for most terrestrial species of conservation concern known from the Project area. However, the design of culverts is key to ensuring animals can use them cross under roads. They should not be lined with metal, which can corrode (with resultant toxicity for amphibians: Fitzgibbon 2001), should have walkways or ledges above potential water levels in order to allow animals to cross while avoiding water (e.g., IENE 2003; Figure 2), and should not exit directly into drains from which animals cannot escape.

Figure 2: Schematic diagram of culverts with (a) walkways or (b) & (c) ledges above

potential water levels in order to allow animals to cross while avoiding water (following IENE 2003)

52. To ensure connectivity and gene flow it is necessary to have at least one such passageway within each individual’s home range (Gerlach & Musolf 2000). As such, for smaller species such as rats and pangolins, best practice recommendations are to have culverts placed at frequent intervals such as 150-300 m (e.g., Clevenger et al. 2002; Arizona Game and Fish Department 2006). This would equate to c. 100-600 culverts along the length of the Project road, compared to 125 currently planned (NHIDCL 2020). The current number

Annex 15 317

of planned culverts might thus be insufficient to provide full connectivity, but would – if well designed and fitted with internal walkways or ledges – facilitate a considerable improvement in connectivity compared to the current situation (900 mm diameter pipes with no walkways or ledges). Permanent ledges (ideally of concrete) to place inside culverts in the United States cost $55-65 USD per meter (Meaney et al. 2007). It is anticipated, however, that costs would be considerably reduced in an Indian context. If costs were even 50% of those in the US, fitting ledges would overall cost 125 (number of culverts) × 12 (length of culverts) × 30 (tentative cost per meter) = c.$45,000.

53. No Critical Habitat-qualifying species in the Project area require arboreal connectivity, but this is important to several globally threatened species and to maintenance of functional Natural Habitat. Connectivity for arboreal species such as Western Hoolock Gibbon and Capped Langur could be enhanced by provision of arboreal bridges across the road. Bridges of up to 21 m in length (though not across roads) have, when appropriately-designed, been used by Western Hoolock Gibbon in Assam and up to 12 m by Capped Langur (Das et al. 2009). While these species do not qualify the Project area as Critical Habitat, they are important and globally-threatened components of the area’s Natural Habitat. To ensure at least one passage within each individual’s home range, crossings might be required approximately every 400 m along the road. However, neither species is widespread in the sanctuary, and so bridges would better be sited in fewer but more targeted locations based on knowledge of primate distribution from sanctuary staff and local people. Provisionally, it is estimated that 20 bridges may be suitable. Appropriate design should allow brachiation by gibbons (Figure 3), and be constructed of natural materials such as bamboo (Das et al. 2009). Costs of constructing such simple bridges should not exceed $500 per bridge, so $10,000 in total. However, budget will be needed to maintain or replace these bridges at regular intervals, alongside other road maintenance.

Figure 3: Schematic diagram of appropriately-designed gibbon bridge, allowing

brachiation along its length, with trees in green and bamboo in red (following Das et al. 2009)

54. Culverts facilitating crossing under the road will be sufficiently frequent that it is not considered a priority to site them in areas of frequent animal crossings. Further, there are particular challenges in conducting surveys in the Project area to determine crossing locations – travel along the road at night and surveys outside the road right of way are not allowed, and camera traps on the right of way are liable to high levels of loss or damage. It would, however, be practical and beneficial to conduct surveys to aid best siting of gibbon bridges. Such surveys would best be conducted by listening along the road in the morning for gibbon songs and interviews with local people and frequent road travellers in the afternoon, to determine areas where gibbons regularly occur near the road. They would ideally be conducted before construction begins, when disturbance to wildlife is at a lower level. A two-week survey should be sufficient, and is estimated to cost c.$20,000 USD.

318 Annex 15

5.1.6 Regulate against stopping alongside the road in the Yangoupokpi-Lokchao Wildlife Sanctuary, except in emergencies, advised by warning signs

55. Increased traffic along the improved Project road is expected to result in greater traffic volumes. These may, in turn, result in increased disturbance and potentially increased illegal hunting, logging, or gathering of forest products (Sections 4.2.2-4.2.3). This risk could be substantially reduced by forbidding vehicles from stopping, other than for emergencies, within the protected area. Appropriate regulations should be put in place, and advised by erection of ‘No Stopping’ warning signs. These should be erected at least every kilometer within the protected area, in both traffic directions. The road passes through the area for just over 21 km, necessitating at least 40 signs. Road signs are inexpensive, the most expensive planned for this Project costing approximately $130 USD (Sheladia 2015), so this mitigation action may be estimated to cost approximately $130/sign for 40 signs = $5,200 USD.

5.1.7 Cost estimates for Mitigation and Management Measures

56. Table 4 provides an overview of the costs for mitigation and management measures described above.

Table 4: Cost estimates for specific biodiversity mitigation measures additional to those mentioned in the EIA

Mitigation measure Unit Cost ($ USD)

No. Total cost Remarks

5.1.1: Use only existing licensed quarries outside of rivers and

streams for sourcing aggregates 0 n/a 0 No cost

5.1.2: Avoid borrow pits in areas of Natural Habitat and within 200 m of

waterways 0 n/a 0 No cost

5.1.3: Avoid introduction of new invasive species to, and spread of

existing invasive species within, the Project area

5,000 2 10,000

$5000 per wash station per

construction camp site

5.1.4: Prohibit hunting, trapping, fishing and trading of wildlife by staff and contractors, with heavy

penalties applied

0 n/a 0 No cost

5.1.5: Design, install and maintain wildlife crossings under and over

the road Fitting of shelves/ledges to the

culverts Overhead rope bridges

360 500

125 20

45,000 10,000

125 (number of culverts) × 12

(length of culverts) × $30

(tentative cost per meter) = $45,000.

5.1.6: Regulate against stopping

alongside the road in the Yangoupokpi-Lokchao Wildlife

Sanctuary, except in emergencies, advised by warning signs

130 40 5,200

No stopping signs every km in each direction within the sanctuary

Total $70,200

USD

5.2 Residual impacts

57. Following the impact assessment methodology used in MRDI (2019), residual impacts for Critical Habitat-qualifying (“priority”) biodiversity (Table 1) and Natural Habitat, after the application of Project mitigation (Section 5.1) are assessed in Table 5. No significant residual

Annex 15 319

impacts are anticipated on priority aquatic species or habitats by the operations phase of the Project. However, some small residual terrestrial impacts are anticipated to remain after mitigation. Specifically, these comprise c.26 ha of degraded vegetated land (Section 4.1.1).

58. The ADB SPS requires equivalence in biodiversity compensation. Among other things, this means that the combination of area and quality (“extent × condition”) of each habitat delivered by compensation is equivalent to the combined area and quality of the impacted habitat. It is best practice to combine these in a “habitat hectares” or “quality hectares” approach (e.g., Parkes et al. 2003; BBOP 2012). Use of such metrics helps ensure that the combination of area and quality of habitat delivered by compensation is equivalent to the combined area and quality of impacted habitat.

59. The condition of the vegetation to be cleared by the Project has not been measured. It is heavily degraded in some areas, and appears to be of good quality in others. Given very limited available data, for the purposes of this assessment and on a precautionary basis it is considered overall approximately 50% of natural quality. These estimates are based on expert judgement, are preliminary and would benefit from further consideration and refinement using directly-sampled field data. However, based on these estimates, residual impacts from Project clearance can thus be envisaged as (26 ha (area of vegetation clearance) × 0.5 (quality of vegetation) = 13 Quality Hectares (QH) of forest.

60. Residual impacts on terrestrial Natural Habitat are currently considered to be the same as for terrestrial Critical Habitat, since the information does not currently exist to distinguish these habitat classes.

61. Project residual impacts of c.13 QH will be addressed by the Project’s no net loss/net gain approach (Section 5.3).

320 Annex 15

Table 5: Residual impacts after mitigation for Critical Habitat-qualifying biodiversity.


Aspect Project phase

Impact Significance of impact without

mitigation

Residual impact after implementation of mitigation measures

Key Residual Impacts

Preparation, Construction, and Worksite Closure

Phases

Operation Phase

Day 1 Year 20


Vegetation cover

D, C Fragmentation of habitat due to loss of vegetation cover.

M Low Positive Positive Residual benefits, rather than impacts, from planned mitigation


M Low Low Low c.26 ha of vegetated land


M Low Low Negligible n/a


L Low Low Negligible n/a


L Negligible Negligible Negligible n/a


H Negligible Negligible Negligible n/a



M Low Positive Positive Residual benefits, rather than impacts, from planned mitigation

Annex 15 321




mitigation




Phases

Operation Phase

Day 1 Year 20


M Low Low Low c.26 ha of vegetated land










L Low Negligible Negligible n/a

O Displacement of species due to noise from normal traffic

L n/a Negligible Negligible n/a

322 Annex 15




mitigation




Phases

Operation Phase

Day 1 Year 20

or maintenance activities.






M Negligible Negligible Negligible n/a





L Low Low Low <26 ha of vegetated land


M Low Low Negligible n/a



C Degradation of habitat due to


Annex 15 323




mitigation




Phases

Operation Phase

Day 1 Year 20

timber/firewood collection.




M Low Negligible Negligible n/a


M n/a Negligible Negligible n/a





324 Annex 15




mitigation




Phases

Operation Phase

Day 1 Year 20




Habitat C Degradation of habitat from aggregate extraction for construction.





M Low Negligible Negligible n/a







Annex 15 325




mitigation




Phases

Operation Phase

Day 1 Year 20



C Mortality due to unsustainable exploitation by construction workers.


Notes: Project Phase = D-Design, C-Construction, O-Operation.

326 Annex 15

5.3 No net loss/net gain approach

62. The ADB Safeguard Policy Statement requires ‘measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate potentially adverse impacts and risks’, as outlined in Section 5.1. Nonetheless, some residual impacts cannot be fully mitigated, and – on a precautionary basis – it is recognized that this Project may have significant, though small, residual impacts of vegetation loss (Section 5.2). In such cases, ADB requires ‘compensatory measures, such as biodiversity offsets, to achieve no net loss or a net gain of the affected biodiversity’. These compensatory measures should ensure that, overall, the high biodiversity value of the Critical Habitat is maintained, along with populations of Endangered and Critically Endangered species.

63. Drawing on international good practice, the choice of an appropriate compensation measure to reach no net loss or net gain should – in particular – be comparable, additional and lasting (e.g., Gardner et al. 2013). “Comparable” means that the compensation measure should produce similar biodiversity gains to residual impacts (in scale, type of biodiversity, etc.), equating – for this Project – to gains in habitat for six terrestrial and five fish species, ideally in or near the Apia Catchments Key Biodiversity Area. “Additional” means that gains produced by the compensation measure would not have happened anyway, in the absence of the Project. “Lasting” means that gains should last as long as residual impacts, in the case of this Project into the long-term. The compensation measure should ideally also be practical, i.e. cost-effective and relatively easy to implement – such as through a contract to one entity, rather than through complex multi-institutional partnerships.

64. This Project’s predicted residual impact is: c.13 Quality Hectares (QH) of direct loss of terrestrial Critical Natural Habitat (Section 5.2). The Project EIA already outlines two approaches to compensate for these residual impacts (Sections 5.3.1 & 5.3.2) and another is listed here (Section 5.3.3). All three approaches also address the requirement within the ADB Safeguard Policy Statement (ADB 2009) to ‘implement additional programs to promote and enhance the conservation aims of the protected area.’

65. Under national regulations, the Project is required to fund the Forest Department to plant native trees to compensate for those felled (Section 5.3.1). Although a regulatory requirement, this may broadly be considered an offset action. As only larger trees will be compensated, and planted trees will not all grow to the size of those felled by the Project, gains from this offset activity are conservatively estimated to only be about 1.2 Quality Hectares. Conservation of habitat within Yangoupokpi-Lokchao Wildlife Sanctuary by supporting local community sustainable land use planning (Section 5.3.3) is estimated to potentially be able to improve habitat by 27 Quality Hectares. This offset activity is estimated to provide more than double the gains necessary to ensure the Project provides a net gain for biodiversity. It is, however, commensurately expensive – estimated at $200,000-$400,000 USD.

66. Overall, if these actions are all implemented, the Project will be compliant for biodiversity with the ADB Safeguard Policy Statement (2009) because, after mitigation (including the above compensation/offset measures), (i) there are no measurable adverse impacts, or likelihood of such, on the critical habitat which could impair its high biodiversity value or the ability to function, and (ii) the project is not anticipated to lead to a reduction in the population of any recognized endangered or critically endangered species or a loss in area of the habitat concerned such that the persistence of a viable and representative host ecosystem be compromised.

Annex 15 327

5.3.1 Plant native trees to compensate for those felled, prioritizing rare/endangered species

67. The Project expects to fell approximately 2,013 trees (of girth >30 cm) within Forest Department land, and has committed to plant three times as many (per State compensation rules), to maintain newly planted saplings for the following three years, to ensure minimum survivability of 70%, and to audit this survivability at least once a year (NHIDCL 2020).

68. In some areas of the world, and even in many parts of India (e.g., Aggarwal 2019), afforestation is considered an inefficient or ineffective tool. In Manipur, however, remote sensing data appear to show significant success from afforestation, starting with the implementation of a state plantation program (2001–2002) and with intense afforestation and social forestry efforts under the National Plantation Programme (NAP) (e.g., Sharma & Saikia 2018; Bungnamei & Saikai 2020).

69. As part of national regulatory requirements, NHIDCL has paid the Forest Department to improve 48.29 ha of degraded forest near to the Project road (S.Choukiker & K. Yangzom in litt. 2020). Within that area, 6,039 native trees will be planted to compensate for those felled (Section 5.3.1), usually without additional restoration activities (although that is at the discretion of the Forest Department (S.Choukiker in litt. 2020). Costs for this activity have already been determined and so are not included here.

70. On a precautionary basis, in the absence of additional information, it is assumed that only these trees will be planted and that at minimum 70% will survive for at least three years (per NHIDCL 2020). This density of surviving trees (c. 87/ha) represents about 10% of that recorded in high quality dense forest in Manipur by Meetei et al. (2017). It also represents, when considering a 70% survival rate, about 10% of India’s Forest Advisory Committee recommended compensatory afforestation rate of around 1,000 trees/ha (Kukreti 2019). Further, in a reasonable offset timeframe (20-30 years), these trees will not grow to maturity – perhaps reaching only 25% of their full size. These are coarse expert-based assessments, and could be refined by empirical data from similar efforts in India and/or monitoring of implementation during this Project.

71. Overall, this compensation action can thus be considered to have a positive benefit of 48.29 ha (area of tree planting) × 0.1 (quality gain to degraded habitat) × 0.25 (quality of planted trees at end of project life) = 1.20725 Quality Hectares (QH).

5.3.2 Enrich degraded habitat by planting native species

72. The Project has committed to enriching degraded habitat by planting native species such as bamboos and fruiting and fodder trees, in collaboration with the Wildlife Conservator (NHIDCL 2020). This offset action has not yet been elaborated, and quality gains are challenging to estimate without definition of the type, intensity or scale of enrichment that is planned, or the location or quality of the habitat to be enriched. When information on these factors becomes clear, it would be possible to quantify and account for gains achieved through this action. In the interim, on a precautionary basis, this action is not assumed to provide any quantifiable biodiversity benefit.

5.3.3 Support sustainable land use planning by communities inside the Yangoupokpi-Lokchao Wildlife Sanctuary

73. The Yangoupokpi-Lokchao Wildlife Sanctuary is currently little more than a paper park (Bungnamei 2018). It is facing many threats (including seven long-settled villages inside the sanctuary), has few staff and the Government is not allowing new recruitment, and enforcement is extremely challenging owing to security issues and a ban on forest guards

328 Annex 15

having firearms (Bungnamei 2018; Anon undated). Given the challenging security situation in this sanctuary, the greatest potential for staff to implement conservation is through working with local communities that live within the sanctuary (Bungnamei & Saikai 2020).

74. Seven villages (Nungkam, Saikul, Satang, Kwatha, H. Monjang, Bonjang and Govajang) were already inside the sanctuary when it was declared. The current zoning of the sanctuary places Nungkam, Saikul and Satang in core zone II, Bonjang and Govajang in a tourism zone, Kwatha on the boundary between a tourism zone and the “buffer zone”, and H. Monjang in the “buffer zone”. The status and rights of these villages has long been in limbo, but a state Level Committee Chaired by the Chief Secretary, Government of Manipur has been looking into settling this with appropriate steps under section 24 of Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 (Bungnamei 2018). As part of this process, it will be advantageous to work with these communities to develop land use plans, including physical demarcation on the ground. At present, the communities have few formal rights, and are not familiar with the legal restrictions of the sanctuary (Bungnamei 2018). Establishment of jointly-developed land use plans could help to ensure more sustainable levels of resource exploitation within the sanctuary, reduce hunting of higher priority species. Formalization of community resource use rights provides an incentive for more sustainable use. Given current low capacity in the sanctuary staffing and State Forest Department, such a process can best be initiated by contracting an outside agency (such as a non-governmental organization or research institute) with experience in co-development of land use plans for communities in protected areas. This agency could provide training to sanctuary staff and then facilitate the staff and seven communities to develop sustainable land use plans.

75. Prior to development of sustainable land use plans, it is difficult to predict the scale of biodiversity gains which could be achieved by such plans. On a precautionary basis, for the purposes of this plan, it is considered that a modest 5% gain might be achievable. Bungnamei (2018) suggests that construction items, firewood and other forest products are mainly collected within a 0.5 km radius of each village, and this area is also the focus of shifting (jhum) cultivation. Such a limited radius of land use would be unusual for forest-dwelling villages; it is more usual to expect a radius of regular land use of up to 5 km (e.g., Taedoumg et al. 2018). On a precautionary basis, however, a 0.5 km radius for all villages would equate to a total land area of almost 550 ha. A 5% habitat quality gain across this area would equate to a biodiversity gain of approximately 27 Quality Hectares – more than double the estimated residual Project impacts of 13 QH (Section 5.2).

76. The costs of such a program are challenging to estimate prior to discussions with sanctuary authorities and potential outside agencies with relevant expertise. Experience elsewhere, however, suggests a budget of $200,000-$400,000 USD would be sufficient.

VI. BIODIVERSITY MONITORING

77. The Project will undertake a general program of monitoring during site preparation, construction and worksite closure (NHIDCL 2020). Within that program, and continuing in some cases through the Project operations phase, specific monitoring will be undertaken for Critical Habitat-qualifying biodiversity to:

• Confirm presence of effective mitigation (Table 3); and • Confirm presence of effective offsets, on track to reach assumed quality gains

(Sections 5.3.1-5.3.3).

78. This monitoring for Critical Habitat-qualifying biodiversity is outlined in Table 6.

Annex 15 329

Table 6: Key areas of monitoring necessary to assess changes in the state of priority biodiversity, changes in threats, and progress of project mitigation actions.



Issue/impact Mitigation action

What parameter is

to be monitored?

Where is the

parameter to be

monitored?

How is the parameter

to be monitored?

When is the parameter to

be monitored

(frequency)?

Institutional responsibility


Vegetation cover

C Fragmentation of habitat due to loss of vegetation cover.


Vegetation clearance is as minimal as legally and technically necessary

Project Area of Influence

Review of Project incident logbook; visual inspection

Unannounced inspections at least quarterly, during design and construction phases

Biodiversity Specialist, AE


Appropriate canopy crossings (20) and ledges within all culverts (125) installed

Project Area Inspections Before worksite closure


Dead animals on or next to road

Entire Project road

Visual inspection

Weekly for the first three years of the operation phase

PIU-EMSU

Number of animals of each species using crossings

A rotating subset of ≥20 Project culverts and ≥5 gibbon bridges

Camera traps operated by specialist contractor

For at least a month every quarter for the first three years of the operation phase

PIU-EMSU

D, C Intentional loss of vegetation cover in

Minimise removal of vegetation and width of road expansion in

Vegetation clearance is as minimal as legally and


Review of Project incident logbook;

Unannounced inspections at least quarterly,


330 Annex 15




What parameter is

to be monitored?

Where is the

parameter to be

monitored?


to be monitored?


be monitored

(frequency)?


specific areas of the project.

Yangoupokpi-Lokchao Wildlife Sanctuary to the extent possible.

technically necessary

visual inspection

during design and construction phases


Aggregate sourced only from existing licensed quarries outside of rivers and streams


Inspections Unannounced inspections at least quarterly during design and construction phases



Borrow pits outside Natural Habitat and >200 m from waterways






Cuttings disposal outside Natural Habitat





No earthworks occurring during wet season

Worksite Inspections Unannounced inspections at least quarterly outside dry


Annex 15 331




What parameter is

to be monitored?

Where is the

parameter to be

monitored?


to be monitored?


be monitored

(frequency)?


season during design and construction phases


Successful progress of re-vegetation, and need for any additional re-vegetation

At all Project re-vegetation sites

Surveys by specialist sub-contractor

Annually, in summer, from worksite closure until the end of the fifth year of the operations phase

AE/external monitor



Water spraying is happening regularly

Worksite Inspections Unannounced inspections at least quarterly during design and construction phases




Staff adherence to best practice


Inspections Unannounced inspections at least twice quarterly during design and construction phases


Train staff and contractors in good environmental

Worksite Review of training records;

Unannounced inspections quarterly


332 Annex 15




What parameter is

to be monitored?

Where is the

parameter to be

monitored?


to be monitored?


be monitored

(frequency)?


practice, and prohibited activities.

review of Project incident logbook



Sufficient food, fuel and housing available





Washing of vehicles, equipment and supplies before entry to Project area

Transit site outside Project Area of Influence



Abundance/spread of invasive alien species in Project area



Annually, in summer during design and construction phases


Control of new/spreading areas of invasive alien species in Project area


Records of invasive species control; inspections

Quarterly, during design and construction phases


Annex 15 333




What parameter is

to be monitored?

Where is the

parameter to be

monitored?


to be monitored?


be monitored

(frequency)?















Entire Project road

Visual inspection


PIU-EMSU


A rotating subset of ≥20 Project culverts



PIU-EMSU



Aggregate sourced only from existing licensed quarries outside of


Inspections Unannounced inspections at least quarterly during design and


334 Annex 15




What parameter is

to be monitored?

Where is the

parameter to be

monitored?


to be monitored?


be monitored

(frequency)?


rivers and streams

construction phases




















Worksite Inspections Unannounced inspections at least quarterly outside dry season


Annex 15 335




What parameter is

to be monitored?

Where is the

parameter to be

monitored?


to be monitored?


be monitored

(frequency)?







Annually, in summer, from worksite closure phase until the end of the fifth year of the operations phase

PIU-EMSU












Train staff and contractors in good environmental practice, and

Worksite Review of training records; review of

Unannounced inspections quarterly during design


336 Annex 15




What parameter is

to be monitored?

Where is the

parameter to be

monitored?


to be monitored?


be monitored

(frequency)?


prohibited activities.

Project incident logbook

and construction phases





















Annex 15 337




What parameter is

to be monitored?

Where is the

parameter to be

monitored?


to be monitored?


be monitored

(frequency)?


Distribution

C Displacement of species due to noise, presence of machinery and equipment and presence of construction workers.


Use of enclosures; noise levels of Project vehicles, equipment and machinery against prescribed standards

Worksite Review of certificates; inspections

Unannounced inspections quarterly during design and construction phases



No construction outside 0800-1800 hrs




Considered a negligible impact for this species.

Not anticipated to be a significant impact; no monitoring required

n/a

Mortality







338 Annex 15




What parameter is

to be monitored?

Where is the

parameter to be

monitored?


to be monitored?


be monitored

(frequency)?



Worksite Review of training records; review of Project incident logbook









Presence of 'no stopping' warning signs

Entire Project road

Visual inspection

Before worksite closure


Absence of vehicles stopped along road

Entire Project road

Visual inspection

Weekly for first three years of operation phase

PIU-EMSU

Records of Sanctuary rangers

Monthly during the operation phase

PIU-EMSU


Apply 20-30 km/hr speed limits for construction vehicles in Yangoupokpi-

Construction vehicle speeds

Worksite Speed testing 'gun'

Unannounced checks at least twice quarterly during design and


Annex 15 339




What parameter is

to be monitored?

Where is the

parameter to be

monitored?


to be monitored?


be monitored

(frequency)?


Lokchao Wildlife Sanctuary.

construction phases


Worksite Review of Project incident logbook; visual inspection

At least twice per quarter during design and construction phases







Entire Project road

Visual inspection


PIU-EMSU


A rotating subset of ≥20 Project culverts



PIU-EMSU

Install speed breakers and animal crossing warning signs in Yangoupokpi-

Presence of speed breakers and animal crossing warning signs

Entire Project road

Visual inspection



340 Annex 15




What parameter is

to be monitored?

Where is the

parameter to be

monitored?


to be monitored?


be monitored

(frequency)?


Lokchao Wildlife Sanctuary.


Entire Project road

Visual inspection


PIU-EMSU




















Minimise removal of vegetation and width of road expansion in

Vegetation clearance is as minimal as legally and


Review of Project incident logbook;

Unannounced inspections at least quarterly,


Annex 15 341




What parameter is

to be monitored?

Where is the

parameter to be

monitored?


to be monitored?


be monitored

(frequency)?


Yangoupokpi-Lokchao Wildlife Sanctuary to the extent possible.

technically necessary

visual inspection










Worksite Inspections Unannounced inspections at least quarterly outside dry season during design and construction phases






Annually, in summer, from worksite closure until the fifth year of the operations phase

PIU-EMSU




Worksite Inspections Unannounced inspections at least


342 Annex 15




What parameter is

to be monitored?

Where is the

parameter to be

monitored?


to be monitored?


be monitored

(frequency)?


quarterly during design and construction phases
















Avoid introduction of new invasive species to, and spread of existing invasive species

Washing of vehicles, equipment and supplies before


Inspections Unannounced inspections at least quarterly during design


Annex 15 343




What parameter is

to be monitored?

Where is the

parameter to be

monitored?


to be monitored?


be monitored

(frequency)?


within, the Project area through: - washing of vehicles, equipment and supplies before entry to the Project area; - monitoring for invasive species; and - control/eradication of invasive species where found.

entry to Project area

and construction phases











Distribution

C Displacement of species due to noise, presence of machinery and equipment and presence of construction workers.


Use of enclosures; noise levels of Project vehicles, equipment and machinery against prescribed standards

Worksite Review of certificates; inspections




No construction outside 0800-1800 hrs



344 Annex 15




What parameter is

to be monitored?

Where is the

parameter to be

monitored?


to be monitored?


be monitored

(frequency)?



Considered a negligible impact for this species.

Not anticipated to be a significant impact; no monitoring required

n/a

Mortality















O Increased poaching from increased

Regulate against stopping alongside the road in the

Presence of 'no stopping' warning signs

Entire Project road

Visual inspection



Annex 15 345




What parameter is

to be monitored?

Where is the

parameter to be

monitored?


to be monitored?


be monitored

(frequency)?


traffic through the area.

Yangoupokpi-Lokchao Wildlife Sanctuary, except in emergencies, advised by warning signs.

Absence of vehicles stopped along road

Entire Project road

Visual inspection

Weekly for first three years of operation phase

PIU-EMSU

Records of Sanctuary rangers

Monthly during the operation phase

PIU-EMSU



Construction vehicle speeds

Worksite Speed testing 'gun'

Unannounced checks at least twice quarterly during design and construction phases



Worksite Review of Project incident logbook; visual inspection

At least twice per quarter during design and construction phases



Presence of speed breakers and animal crossing warning signs

Entire Project road

Visual inspection




Entire Project road

Visual inspection


PIU-EMSU

346 Annex 15




What parameter is

to be monitored?

Where is the

parameter to be

monitored?


to be monitored?


be monitored

(frequency)?



Habitat D, C Degradation of habitat from aggregate extraction for construction.












Avoid introduction of new invasive species to, and spread of existing invasive species within, the Project area through: - washing of vehicles, equipment and supplies before entry to the Project area; - monitoring for invasive species; and - control/eradication










Control of new/spreading areas of


Records of invasive species

Quarterly, during design and


Annex 15 347




What parameter is

to be monitored?

Where is the

parameter to be

monitored?


to be monitored?


be monitored

(frequency)?


of invasive species where found.

invasive alien species in Project area

control; inspections

construction phases


Adherence to approved Project plans for storage of fuels and chemicals, sewage management, and fuelling and maintenance





Maintain natural courses of rivers and streams.

No deviations from natural courses of waterways

Worksite Inspections Unannounced inspections at least quarterly in dry season during design and construction phases



No bridge construction occurring during wet season

Worksite Inspections Unannounced inspections at least twice quarterly outside dry season during design and construction phases


348 Annex 15




What parameter is

to be monitored?

Where is the

parameter to be

monitored?


to be monitored?


be monitored

(frequency)?


Restore temporary diversions to their natural courses as soon as possible.

Any diversions are as brief as necessary

Worksite Inspections Unannounced inspections at least quarterly in dry season during design and construction phases








Adherence to approved Project plans for storage of fuels and chemicals, sewage management, and fuelling and maintenance




Equip construction camps with sanitary latrines that do not pollute surface waters. Prohibit siting of construction camps and disposal of construction waste

Annex 15 349




What parameter is

to be monitored?

Where is the

parameter to be

monitored?


to be monitored?


be monitored

(frequency)?


within 500 m of waterways.


Store chemicals and oils in secure, impermeable containers. Prohibit cleaning of construction vehicles/equipment within 300 m of waterways/drains.

Distribution

C Displacement of species due to noise and presence of machinery.





Avoid piling and blasting during construction.

No piling or blasting within 100 m of bridges

Worksite Inspections Unannounced inspections at least twice quarterly in dry season during design and construction phases


Mortality

C Injury and mortality due to underwater

Restrict bridge construction works to the dry season.

No bridge construction occurring

Worksite Inspections Unannounced inspections at least twice


350 Annex 15




What parameter is

to be monitored?

Where is the

parameter to be

monitored?


to be monitored?


be monitored

(frequency)?


construction noise.

during wet season

quarterly in dry season during design and construction phases

Avoid piling and blasting during construction.

No piling or blasting within 100 m of bridges

Worksite Inspections Unannounced inspections at least twice quarterly in dry season during design and construction phases












Ensure contractors supply all necessary food,

Sufficient food, fuel and

Worksite Inspections Unannounced inspections at least


Annex 15 351




What parameter is

to be monitored?

Where is the

parameter to be

monitored?


to be monitored?


be monitored

(frequency)?


cooking fuel and appropriate housing.

housing available

quarterly during design and construction phases

Offset Habitat C, O Residual loss of <26 ha of vegetated land

Plant native trees to compensate for those felled, prioritizing rare/endangered species

≥70% of planted trees survive for three years

Forest Department restoration areas

Village panchayat/Forest Department records; visual inspections

Annually for first three years after planting

PIU-EMSU

Enrich degraded habitat by planting native species

Area enriched; % cover of vegetation at canopy, mid, and lower levels

Forest Department restoration areas

Forest Department records; visual inspections

Annually for first three years of operations phase

PIU-EMSU

Support sustainable land use planning by communities inside the Yangoupokpi-Lokchao Wildlife Sanctuary

Establishment of jointly-developed sustainable land use plans for seven villages inside the sanctuary, covering c. 550 ha

Yangoupokpi-Lokchao Wildlife Sanctuary

Forest Department records; visual inspections

Annually during the operations phase

PIU-EMSU

352 Annex 15

VII. REFERENCES Abell, R., Thieme, M.L., Revenga, C., Bryer, M., Kottelat, M., Bogutskaya, N., Coad, B., Mandrak, N.,

Balderas, S.C., Bussing, W., Stiassny, M.L.J., Skelton, P., Allen, G.R., Unmack, P., Naseka, A., Ng, R., Sindorf, N., Robertson, J., Armijo, E., Higgins, J.V., Heibel, T.J. & Wikramanayake, E. (2008) Freshwater Ecoregions of the World: A New Map of Biogeographic Units for Freshwater Biodiversity Conservation. BioScience 58: 403-414.

ADB (2009) Safeguard Policy Statement. Asian Development Bank, Manila, Philippines. ADB (2012) Environmental Safeguards: A Good Practice Sourcebook. Draft Working Document. Asian

Development Bank, Manila, Philippines. Aggarwal, M. (2019) Govt modifies compensatory afforestation rules for ease of business. Mongabay.

Available at: https://india.mongabay.com/2019/05/govt-modifies-compensatory-afforestation-rules-for-ease-of-business.

Anon (undated) Proposed management plan of Yangoupokpi Lokchao Wildlife Sanctuary for 10 year’s period 2012-13 to 2021-22). Unpublished report.

Arizona Game and Fish Department (2006) Guidelines for Culvert Construction to Accommodate Fish & Wildlife Movement and Passage. Available at: http://www.roadsandwildlife.org/data/files/Documents/Guidelines%20for%20Culvert%20Construction%20to%20Accomodate%20Fish%20%26%20Wildlife%20Movement%20and%20Passage%20Arizona%20Game%20and%252.pdf.

Asian Turtle Trade Working Group (2000) Nilssonia hurum (errata version published in 2016). The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2000: e.T39619A97400313. Available at: https://www.iucnredlist.org/species/39619/97400313.

BirdLife International (2020a) Endemic Bird Areas factsheet: Eastern Himalayas. Available at: http://datazone.birdlife.org/eba/factsheet/129.

BirdLife International (2020b) Important Bird Areas factsheet: Loktak Lake and Keibul Lamjao National Park. Available at: http://datazone.birdlife.org/site/factsheet/loktak-lake-and-keibul-lamjao-national-park-iba-india/text.

BirdLife International (2020c) Important Bird Areas factsheet: Yangoupokpi - Lokchao Wildlife Sanctuary. Available at: http://datazone.birdlife.org/site/factsheet/yangoupokpi--lokchao-wildlife-sanctuary-iba-india.

BirdLife International (2020d) Species factsheet: Aquila rapax. Available at: http://datazone.birdlife.org/species/factsheet/tawny-eagle-aquila-rapax.

BirdLife International (2020e) Species factsheet: Chatarrhaea longirostris. Available at: http://datazone.birdlife.org/species/factsheet/22716358.

BirdLife International (2020f) Species factsheet: Columba punicea. Available at: http://datazone.birdlife.org/species/factsheet/pale-capped-pigeon-columba-punicea.

BirdLife International (2020g) Species factsheet: Pavo muticus. Available at: http://datazone.birdlife.org/species/factsheet/green-peafowl-pavo-muticus.

BirdLife International (2020h) Species factsheet: Perdicula manipurensis. Available at: http://datazone.birdlife.org/species/factsheet/22679012.

Brockelman, W, Molur, S. & Geissmann, T. (2019) Hoolock hoolock. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2019: e.T39876A17968083. Available at: https://www.iucnredlist.org/species/39876/17968083.

Budha, P.B. & Dutta, J. (2010) Lymnaea ovalior. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2010: e.T166746A6274224. Available at: https://www.iucnredlist.org/species/166746/6274224.

Bungnamei, K. (2018) Land use and land cover change in the Yangoupokpi Lokchao Wildlife Sanctuary, Manipur. A thesis submitted to Gauhati University for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Geography in the Faculty of Science.

Bungnamei, K. & Saikai, A. (2020) Park in the periphery: land use and land cover change and forest fragmentation in and around Yangoupokpi-Lokchao Wildlife Sanctuary, Manipur, India. Geographia Polonica 93: 107-120.

Challender, D., Wu, S., Kaspal, P., Khatiwada, A., Ghose, A., Ching-Min Sun, N., Mohapatra, R.K. & Laxmi Suwal, T. 2019. Manis pentadactyla (errata version published in 2020). The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2019: e.T12764A168392151. Available at: https://www.iucnredlist.org/species/12764/168392151.

Choudhury, A. (2009) Significant recent ornithological records from Manipur, north-east India, with an annotated checklist. Forktail 25: 71-89.

Choudhury, A., Lahiri Choudhury, D.K., Desai, A., Duckworth, J.W., Easa, P.S., Johnsingh, A.J.T., Fernando, P., Hedges, S., Gunawardena, M., Kurt, F., Karanth, U., Lister, A., Menon, V.,

https://india.mongabay.com/2019/05/govt-modifies-compensatory-afforestation-rules-for-ease-of-business/

https://india.mongabay.com/2019/05/govt-modifies-compensatory-afforestation-rules-for-ease-of-business/

http://www.roadsandwildlife.org/data/files/Documents/Guidelines%20for%20Culvert%20Construction%20to%20Accomodate%20Fish%20%26%20Wildlife%20Movement%20and%20Passage%20Arizona%20Game%20and%252.pdf




http://datazone.birdlife.org/eba/factsheet/129

http://datazone.birdlife.org/site/factsheet/loktak-lake-and-keibul-lamjao-national-park-iba-india/text

http://datazone.birdlife.org/site/factsheet/loktak-lake-and-keibul-lamjao-national-park-iba-india/text

http://datazone.birdlife.org/site/factsheet/yangoupokpi--lokchao-wildlife-sanctuary-iba-india

http://datazone.birdlife.org/site/factsheet/yangoupokpi--lokchao-wildlife-sanctuary-iba-india

http://datazone.birdlife.org/species/factsheet/tawny-eagle-aquila-rapax

http://datazone.birdlife.org/species/factsheet/22716358

http://datazone.birdlife.org/species/factsheet/pale-capped-pigeon-columba-punicea

http://datazone.birdlife.org/species/factsheet/green-peafowl-pavo-muticus

http://datazone.birdlife.org/species/factsheet/22679012




Annex 15 353

Riddle, H., Rübel, A. & Wikramanayake, E. (2008) Elephas maximus. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2008: e.T7140A12828813. Available at: https://www.iucnredlist.org/species/7140/12828813.

Choukiker, S. (2020) Critical Habitat Assessment. Unpublished report. Clevenger, A.P., Chruszcz, B. & Gunson, K. (2002) Drainage culverts as habitat linkages and factors

affecting passage by mammals. Journal of Animal Ecology 38: 1340-1349 Dahanukar, N. (2010) Badis ferrarisi. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2010:

e.T168339A6479215. Available at: https://www.iucnredlist.org/species/168339/6479215. Das, J., Biswas, J., Bhattacherjee, P.C. & Rao, S.S. (2009) Canopy Bridges: An Effective Conservation

Tactic for Supporting Gibbon Populations in Forest Fragments. Pp. 467-475 in: Lappan, S. & Whittaker, D.J. (Eds.) The Gibbons. New Perspectives on Small Ape Socioecology and Population Biology. Springer, New York.

Devi, O.S. (2013) Assessment of biome restricted and globally threatened avian species and their conservation awareness programs at Yangoupokpi-Lokchao WLS, a data deficient IBA. Final Report. Unpublished report to Rufford Small Grants Foundation.

Dutta, S., Ohler, A., Bordoloi, S. & Sengupta, S. (2004) Odorrana mawphlangensis. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2004: e.T58356A11771537. Available at: https://www.iucnredlist.org/species/58356/11771537.

Fitzgibbon K. (2001) An evaluation of corrugated steel culverts as transit corridors for amphibians and small mammals at two Vancouver Island wetlands and comparative culvert trials. MA thesis. Royal Roads University, Vancouver, Canada.

Gardner, T.A., von Hase, A., Brownlie, S., Ekstrom, J.M.M., Pilgrim, J.D., Savy, C.E., Stephens, R.T.T., Treweek, J., Ussher, G T., Ward, G. and ten Kate, K. (2013) Biodiversity offsets and the challenge of achieving no net loss. Conservation Biology 27: 1254-1264.

Gerlach, G. & Musolf, K. (2000) Fragmentation of landscape as a cause for genetic subdivision in bank voles. Conservation Biology 14: 1066-1074.

Grassman, L., Lynam, A., Mohamad, S., Duckworth, J.W., Bora, J., Wilcox, D., Ghimirey, Y., Reza, A. & Rahman, H. (2016) Neofelis nebulosa. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2016: e.T14519A97215090. Available at: https://www.iucnredlist.org/species/14519/97215090.

Halvorsen, M.B., Casper, B.M., Matthews, F., Carlson, T.J. & Popper, A.N. (2012) Effects of exposure to pile-driving sounds on the lake sturgeon, Nile tilapia and hogchoker. Proceedings of the Royal Society B 279: 4705-4714.

IENE (2003) Wildlife & Traffic. A European Handbook for Identifying Conflicts and Designing Solutions. Infrastructure and Ecology Network Europe. Available at: https://handbookwildlifetraffic.info/handbook-wildlife-traffic.

IFC (2012a) Performance Standard 6: Biodiversity Conservation and Sustainable Management of Living Natural Resources. International Finance Corporation, Washington DC.

IFC (2012b) Guidance Note 6: Biodiversity Conservation and Sustainable Management of Living Natural Resources. International Finance Corporation, Washington DC.

IFC (2019) Guidance Note 6: Biodiversity Conservation and Sustainable Management of Living Natural Resources. International Finance Corporation, Washington DC.

IUCN (2016) A Global Standard for the Identification of Key Biodiversity Areas, Version 1.0. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland.

IUCN (2020) The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2020-1. Available at: https://www.iucnredlist.org.

Jha, B.R., Rayamajhi, A., Dahanukar, N., Harrison, A. & Pinder, A. (2018) Tor putitora. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2018: e.T126319882A126322226. Avaialble at: https://www.iucnredlist.org/species/126319882/126322226.

Kukreti, I. (2019) Compensatory afforestation: FAC considers forest with tree cover up to 40% degraded. DownToEarth. Available at: https://www.downtoearth.org.in/news/forests/compensatory-afforestation-fac-considers-forest-with-tree-cover-up-to-40-degraded-63555.

Lee, P.B., Chung, Y.F., Nash, H.C., Lim, N.T.-L., Chan, S.K.L., Luz, S. & Lees, C. (2018) Sunda Pangolin (Manis javanica) National Conservation Strategy and Action Plan: Scaling up pangolin conservation in Singapore. Singapore Pangolin Working Group, Singapore.

Mahmood, T., Challender, D., Khatiwada, A., Andleeb, S., Perera, P., Trageser, S., Ghose, A. & Mohapatra, R. 2019. Manis crassicaudata. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2019: e.T12761A123583998. Available at: https://www.iucnredlist.org/species/12761/123583998.

Meaney, C., Bakeman, M., Reed-Eckert, M. & Wostl, E. (2007) Effectiveness of Ledges in Culverts for Small Mammal Passage. Unpublished report to the Colorado Department of Transportation.





https://handbookwildlifetraffic.info/handbook-wildlife-traffic

https://www.iucnredlist.org/


https://www.downtoearth.org.in/news/forests/compensatory-afforestation-fac-considers-forest-with-tree-cover-up-to-40-degraded-63555

https://www.downtoearth.org.in/news/forests/compensatory-afforestation-fac-considers-forest-with-tree-cover-up-to-40-degraded-63555


354 Annex 15

Meetei, S.B., Das, A.K. & Singh, E.J. (2017) Tree species composition and diversity in subtropical forests of Manipur, North-East India. Indian Forester 143: 1169-1176.

Molur, S. & Laginha Pinto Correia, D. (2016) Hadromys humei. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2016: e.T9618A22410442. Available at: https://www.iucnredlist.org/species/9618/22410442#geographic-range.

MRDI (2019) Environmental Impact Assessment. GEO: Batumi Bypass Road Project. Poti-Grigoleti-Kobuleti Bypass: Poti-Grigoleti Road Section (Lot 2, Stage 1). Roads Department of the Ministry of Regional Development and Infrastructure of Georgia, Tblisi. Available at: https://www.adb.org/sites/default/files/project-documents/50064/50064-001-eia-en_3.pdf.

Ng, H.H. (2010) Akysis manipurensis. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2010: e.T168267A6471726. Available at: https://www.iucnredlist.org/species/168267/6471726.

NHIDCL (2020) Environmental Impact Assessment (Draft). IND: South Asia Subregional Economic Cooperation Road Connectivity Investment Program – Tranche 3. Imphal - Moreh Road (Khongkhang-Moreh section). Unpublished report of the National Highways & Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited, New Delhi, India.

NRSC (2019) Natural Resource Census. Land Use / Land Cover Database for Dissemination through Bhuvan. National Remote Sensing Centre, Land Use & Cover Monitoring Division, Department of Space, Government of India, Hyderabad.

Serckx, A., Pollard, E., Wilson, D., Katariya, V. and Pilgrim J. (2018) Lekela North Ras Gharib 250 MW Project: Critical Habitat Assessment. The Biodiversity Consultancy Ltd, Cambridge, UK.

Shangningham, B. & Vishwanath, W. (2014) Psilorhynchus ngathanu, a new torrent minnow species (Teleostei: Psilorhynchidae) from the Chindwin Basin, Manipur, India. Ichthyological Research 61: 27-31.

Shangningham, B., Lokeshor, Y. & Vishwanath, W. (2014) Schistura phamhringi, a new stone loach from Chindwin Basin in Manipur, India (Cypriniformes: Nemacheilidae). Zootaxa 3786: 181-191.

Sharma, G.P. & Raghubanshi (2007) Effect of Lantana camara L. cover on local depletion tree population in a tropical dry deciduous forest. Applied Ecology and Environmental Research 5: 109-121.

Sharma, K. & Saikia, A. (2018) How green was my valley: forest canopy density in relation to topography and anthropogenic effects in Manipur valley, India. Geografisk Tidsskrift-Danish Journal of Geography 118: 137-150.

Sheladia (2015) ADB TA No. 8116-IND. Indo Myanmar road section from Imphal to Moreh on NH-39. Detailed Project Report. Unpublished report of Sheladia Associates Inc., USA.

Singh, K.H. (2014) The forgotten bird; Manipur Bush-quail (Perdicula manipurensis). The Sanghai Express. Available at: http://www.e-pao.net/epSubPageExtractor.asp?src=education.Science_and_Technology.The_forgotten_bird_Manipur_Bush-quail_Perdicula_manipurensis_By_Kh_Hitler.

Singh, L.K. (2010a) Garra compressa. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2010: e.T168216A6467452. Available at: https://www.iucnredlist.org/species/168216/6467452.

Singh, L.K. (2010b) Laubuca khujairokensis. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2010: e.T168357A6482149. Available at: https://www.iucnredlist.org/species/168357/6482149.

Singh, L.K. (2010c) Schistura prashadi. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2010: e.T166472A6216545. Available at: https://www.iucnredlist.org/species/166472/6216545.

Singh, L. (2015) Pethia yuensis. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2015: e.T168523A70461992. Available at: https://www.iucnredlist.org/species/168523/70461992.

Taedoumg, H., Maukonen, P., Yobo, C.M., Iponga, D.M., Noutcheu, R., Tieguhong, J.C. & Snook, L. (2018) Safeguarding villagers’ access to foods from timber trees: Insights for policy from an inhabited logging concession in Gabon. Global Ecology and Conservation 15: e00436.

Vishwanath, W. (2010a) Barilius dogarsinghi. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2010: e.T166631A6251159. Available at: https://www.iucnredlist.org/species/166631/6251159.

Vishwanath, W. (2010b) Barilius lairokensis. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2010: e.T168302A6477827. Available at: https://www.iucnredlist.org/species/168302/6477827.

Vishwanath, W. (2010c) Devario yuensis. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2010: e.T168550A6512825. Available at: https://www.iucnredlist.org/species/168550/6512825.

Vishwanath, W. (2010d) Macrognathus morehensis. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2010: e.T168452A6494624. Available at: https://www.iucnredlist.org/species/168452/6494624.

Vishwanath, W. (2010e) Neonoemacheilus morehensis. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2010: e.T168592A6521302. Available at: https://www.iucnredlist.org/species/168592/6521302.

https://www.iucnredlist.org/species/9618/22410442#geographic-range

https://www.adb.org/sites/default/files/project-documents/50064/50064-001-eia-en_3.pdf


http://www.e-pao.net/epSubPageExtractor.asp?src=education.Science_and_Technology.The_forgotten_bird_Manipur_Bush-quail_Perdicula_manipurensis_By_Kh_Hitler












Annex 15 355

Vishwanath, W. (2010f) Rasbora ornata. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2010: e.T168563A6515491. Available at: https://www.iucnredlist.org/species/168563/6515491.

Vishwanath, W. (2010g) Schistura reticulata. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2010: e.T168421A6489228. Available at: https://www.iucnredlist.org/species/168421/6489228.

Vishwanath, W., Manojkumar, W., Kosygin, L. & Selim, K.S. (1998) Biodiversity of freshwater fishes of Manipur, India. Italian Journal of Zoology 65 S1: 321-324.

Wikramanayake, E., Dinerstein, E., Loucks, C.J., Olson, D.M., Morrison, J., Lamoreux, J., McKnight, M. & Hedao, P. (2002) Terrestrial ecoregions of the Indo-Pacific: a conservation assessment. Island Press, Washington DC, USA.



356 Annex 15

APPENDIX A. CRITICAL AND NATURAL HABITAT ASSESSMENT

1. The ADB Safeguard Policy Statement (ADB 2009) requires assessment of whether the project is planned in an area that may qualify as Critical Habitat or Natural Habitat. This assessment followed more detailed guidance in International Finance Corporation Performance Standard 6 and its accompanying guidance note (IFC 2012, 2019).

2. This CHA was rapidly developed through a desktop review of existing Project documentation and other existing grey and published literature. Except where necessary, this document does not repeat information available in the Project EIA (NHIDCL 2020). There is very limited recent information available on the presence, status or distribution of biodiversity in the Project area; while some field surveys were conducted while preparing the draft EIA, they have been limited by logistical and security constraints. Most available information used in this assessment is necessarily from the proposed Yangoupokpi-Lockchao Wildlife Sanctuary management plan (Anon undated) or broad-scale species distribution maps (IUCN 2020).

A.1 Areas of analysis

3. Critical Habitat and Natural Habitat assessment ideally takes place across sensible ecological or political units that are sufficiently large to encompass all direct and indirect impacts from the project. These areas of analysis (AoAs) are thus often much broader than the direct project footprint. AoAs may be separate or combined, depending on the ecology of the biodiversity concerned.

4. Given the rapid desktop nature of this assessment, and limited information available on biodiversity, a single AoA for this Project was defined to encompass the Project itself, a precautionary 5 km buffer to encompass any likely significant impacts, and the whole of the Yangoupokpi-Lockchao Wildlife Sanctuary which the road bisects (Figure A1). The buffer is an arbitrary distance, but chosen to be sufficiently precautionary to ensure capture of impacts such as edge effects, hunting or disturbance by construction workers, and noise/dust/pollution impacts during construction. A single AoA was chosen in the absence of sufficient information on species’ presence in the area to usefully identify multiple ecologically-suitable AoAs, even to the level of distinguishing terrestrial and aquatic AoAs. The AoA as defined is 350 km2.

5. Identification of this AoA does not mean that the project has any obligations across it. The aim of this Critical and Natural Habitat Assessment is to identify whether the broad unit qualifies as Critical Habitat and, if so, for which biodiversity features. This information helps to prioritize impact assessment and to focus mitigation efforts.

Annex 15 357

Figure A1. Map of Project context, showing locations of the Area of Analysis, Yangoupokpi-Lockchao Wildlife Sanctuary/Important Bird Area, and land

use/land cover in relation to the existing road

Imagery Sources: NRSC (2019); Open Street Map 2020; Protected Area and Key Biodiversity Area data downloaded from the Integrated Biodiversity Assessment Tool (IBAT). Provided by BirdLife International, Conservation International, IUCN and UNEP-WCMC.

A.2 Assessment of biodiversity which may qualify the area as Critical Habitat

6. Each of the following sections considers candidate Critical Habitat-qualifying biodiversity identified within the EIA (NHIDCL 2020), the Integrated Biodiversity Assessment Tool (IBAT: www.ibat-alliance.org), or other literature as actually or potentially present. In each case, reasons are identified for each biodiversity feature likely meeting or not meeting Critical Habitat. Two categories of biodiversity that might qualify the area as Critical Habitat were only considered briefly here, and should be assessed further by social experts – specifically areas that provide key ecosystem services and areas with biodiversity that has significant social, cultural or economic importance to local communities.

A.2.1 Critically Endangered and Endangered species

7. Critically Endangered, Endangered, and (per IFC 2019) Vulnerable species and relevant subspecies were included in an initial screening if they were found during surveys, or there is indication of their presence near the Project site from literature. Threat status is taken from the global IUCN Red List (IUCN 2020). Comparison with IUCN Red List Extent of Occurrence maps identified the potential for five Critically Endangered, eight Endangered, and 43 Vulnerable species to occur in the Project AoA. Review of other available project documents and grey literature (including Anon undated, Devi 2013 and NHIDCL 2020)

http://www.ibat-alliance.org/

358 Annex 15

identified an additional five Endangered and eight Vulnerable species as potentially present in the AoA. This total of 68 candidate species was reduced to 18 after a quick screen of IUCN distribution maps against quantitative thresholds for Critical Habitat (IFC 2019) – based on the extremely limited extent of their global distribution known or likely to be within the AoA, it was implausible that they would meet these thresholds. The 50 discounted species are listed in Table A1. The remaining 18 are considered in more detail below.

8. Some species listed as globally threatened by NHIDCL (2020) – such as Marbled Cat (Pardofelis marmorata), Himalayan Serow (Capricornis thar [listed as C. sumatraensis]) and Small Indian Civet (Viverricula indica) – are not threatened, and so are not considered further here.

Table A1. Species with very marginal occurrence, if present at all, in the Project AoA

Biodiversity type

Scientific name Common name IUCN

Category

1. Bird Aquila nipalensis Steppe Eagle EN 2. Bird Asarcornis scutulata White-winged Duck EN 3. Bird Aythya baeri Baer's Pochard CR 4. Bird Aythya ferina Common Pochard VU 5. Bird Buceros bicornis Great Hornbill VU 6. Bird Clanga clanga Greater Spotted

Eagle VU

7. Bird Clanga hastata Indian Spotted Eagle VU 8. Bird Columba punicea Pale-capped Pigeon VU 9. Bird Emberiza aureola Yellow-breasted

Bunting CR

10. Bird Gallinago nemoricola Wood Snipe VU 11. Bird Gyps bengalensis White-rumped

Vulture CR

12. Bird Mulleripicus pulverulentus Great Slaty Woodpecker

VU

13. Bird Rhyticeros undulatus Wreathed Hornbill VU 14. Bird Tragopan blythii Blyth's Tragopan VU 15. Bird Turdus feae Grey-sided Thrush VU 16. Fish Barilius ngawa VU 17. Fish Cyprinion semiplotum Assamese Kingfish VU 18. Fish Devario acuticephala VU 19. Fish Devario naganensis VU 20. Fish Garra paralissorhynchus VU 21. Fish Pseudecheneis

ukhrulensis VU

22. Fish Psilorhynchus microphthalmus

EN

23. Fish Schistura khugae VU 24. Fish Wallago attu VU 25. Mammal Aonyx cinereus Asian Small-clawed

Otter VU

26. Mammal Arctictis binturong Binturong VU 27. Mammal Arctonyx collaris Greater Hog Badger VU 28. Mammal Bos gaurus Gaur VU 29. Mammal Cuon alpinus Dhole EN 30. Mammal Helarctos malayanus Sun Bear VU 31. Mammal Lutrogale perspicillata Smooth-coated Otter VU 32. Mammal Macaca arctoides Stump-tailed

Macaque VU

33. Mammal Macaca leonina Northern Pig-tailed Macaque

VU

Annex 15 359

Biodiversity type

Scientific name Common name IUCN

Category

34. Mammal Naemorhedus griseus Chinese Goral VU 35. Mammal Neofelis nebulosi Clouded Leopard VU 36. Mammal Nycticebus bengalensis Bengal Slow Loris VU 37. Mammal Panthera pardus Leopard VU 38. Mammal Panthera tigris Tiger EN 39. Mammal Rusa unicolor Sambar VU 40. Mammal Trachypithecus pileatus Capped Langur VU 41. Mammal Ursus thibetanus Asiatic Black Bear VU 42. Plant Anacyclus pyrethrum Atlas Daisy VU 43. Plant Dipterocarpus turbinatus VU 44. Plant Oryza malampuzhaensis VU 45. Reptile Crocodylus palustris Mugger VU 46. Reptile Cuora mouhotii Keeled Box Turtle EN 47. Reptile Indotestudo elongata Elongated Tortoise CR 48. Reptile Nilssonia hurum Indian Peacock

Softshell Turtle VU

49. Reptile Ophiophagus hannah King Cobra VU 50. Reptile Python bivittatus Burmese Python VU

1. Asian Elephant (Elephas maximus)

This species is considered globally Endangered, and its range is now much fragmented (Choudhury et al. 2008). It is known to occur in the northern part of the Yangoupokpi-Lokchao Wildlife Sanctuary (Anon undated; K. Yangzom pers. comm. 2020). However, the global population is estimated to exceed 41,000 individuals, and its distribution in the Project area is limited by habitat loss, degradation and poaching. It is therefore not likely that the Project AoA holds >200 individuals, as would be necessary to meet Critical Habitat thresholds (IFC 2019). As such, this species does not qualify the Project area as Critical Habitat.

2. Western Hoolock Gibbon (Hoolock hoolock)

This globally Endangered species is restricted to North-East India, Bangladesh and Myanmar (Brockelman et al. 2019). It is known from the Yangoupokpi-Lokchao Wildlife Sanctuary (Anon undated; Choukiker 2020). On a precautionary basis, it was considered to qualify the Project area as Critical Habitat by Choukiker (2020). However, they occur at low density in the area, with only 50-100 estimated to be present by Choudhury (2006). More broadly, >12,000 are estimated to occur in North-East India (Brockelman et al. 2019) and 82,000-110,000 in Myanmar (Geissmann et al. 2013). Using those figures, the total population of this species globally would exceed 94,000. It is likely that additional populations of the species occur in the Project area outside of the wildlife sanctuary. While there is uncertainty over the large proportion of the population in Myanmar, it seems unlikely that the population of this species in the Project AoA would meet thresholds to qualify the area as Critical Habitat (0.5% of the global population would be at least 470 individuals. Despite significant uncertainty, it is thus unlikely that this species qualifies the Project area as Critical Habitat.

3. Indian and Chinese Pangolin (Manis crassicaudata and M. pentadactyla)

Indian Pangolin is considered globally Endangered, and Chinese Pangolin globally Critically Endangered (Challender et al. 2019; Mahmood et al. 2019). The Project area falls in a zone of potential overlap of these species, and NHIDCL (2020) suggests that both may be present. Choukiker (2020) considered it quite possible that Chinese Pangolin qualifies the Project area as Critical Habitat. However, this was based on previous Critical Habitat Criteria (IFC 2012b).

360 Annex 15

In practice, these two species have very wide ranges and are extremely rare where hunted. Hunting pressure appears to be high in the Yangoupokpi-Lokchao Wildlife Sanctuary, as it is in many areas of India on the border of Myanmar (Bungnamei 2018). As such, it is very unlikely that either species qualifies the Project area as Critical Habitat.

4. Manipur Bush-quail (Perdicula manipurensis)

This globally Endangered species is extremely poorly-known. It is known from now much-fragmented grasslands in West Bengal, Assam and Manipur (BirdLife International 2020h). The only recent records are from Dibru-Saikhowa and Manas in Assam, but Devi (2013) reports an unconfirmed record during surveys in the Yangoupokpi-Lokchao Wildlife Sanctuary. If confirmed, given the lack of recent records, this species would qualify the Project area as Critical Habitat. The record may well be accurate, and there have been other possible sightings nearby at Nongmaiching Reserve Forest (Singh 2014). However, given no further information on this unconfirmed sighting, it would not be appropriate at present to consider the Project area Critical Habitat for this species.

5. Green Peafowl (Pavo muticus)

This species is considered globally Endangered (BirdLife International 2020g), owing to habitat loss and severe levels of hunting. The Yangoupokpi-Lokchao Wildlife Sanctuary IBA was originally identified in 2004 for this species (BirdLife International 2020c). It remains a nationally-important site for the species, which only just enters India in the north-east. It does not, however, appear that the site still holds globally significant populations of this species. For example, Choudhury (2009) only reported it as ‘still occasionally seen’. More encouragingly, Devi (2013) suggested that ‘some viable population of Green Peafowl still occurs at the sanctuary’, though it is not clear on what basis. The global population is estimated to be at least 15,000, so the site would have to hold at least 75 individuals to be considered Critical Habitat (IFC 2019). Although this may be unlikely in a site which is under severe threat, including heavy hunting pressure (BirdLife International 2020c; Bungnamei & Saikai 2020), there is a need to make an assessment on a precautionary basis in the absence of recent data on the species’ status in the area. As such, Green Peafowl might possibly qualify the Project area as Critical Habitat.

6. Tawny Eagle (Aquila rapax)

This species is considered globally Endangered (BirdLife International 2020d), and was reported from the Project area by NHIDCL (2020) without further details. This would be some way outside of the species’ known range, which is currently known to extend to Sikkim and Bangladesh. It is likely the record is a misidentification of another Aquila species, most likely Steppe Eagle A. nipalensis. While several of the Aquila species are globally threatened, they are widespread and rarely have clumped distributions. There is no reason to expect a significant proportion of the global population of any of these species in the Project AoA. As such, this record does not qualify the Project area as Critical Habitat under Criterion 1.

7. Slender-billed Babbler (Chatarrhaea longirostris)

This species is considered globally Vulnerable, with a patchy range in lowland grasslands of Nepal and North-East India (BirdLife International 2020e). It was reported from the Yangoupokpi-Lokchao Wildlife Sanctuary by Devi (2013), though it does not appear to have previously been reported from the area. Given this, even the complete loss of any population

Annex 15 361

in the Project area would not result in a change in this species’ status to Endangered (per IFC 2019). As such, the species does not qualify the Project area as Critical Habitat.

8. Manipur Baril (Barilius dogarsinghi)

This globally Vulnerable fish species is only known from the Chindwin drainage of Manipur and Nagaland, though it may also occur in neighboring Myanmar (Vishwanath 2010a). It is thus considered a restricted-range species and so also evaluated in Section A2.2. It is unclear whether it actually occurs in the Project area, but it is a species of rocky hill streams and so potentially occurs in some habitat overlapping the upper altitudes of the Project (up to 1,100 m: NHIDCL 2020). Nonetheless, it is unlikely that even the complete loss of such areas would result in the uplisting of this species to Endangered (per IFC 2019). As such, it is not likely that Manipur Baril qualifies the Project area as Critical Habitat under Criterion 1.

9. Devario yuensis

This globally Vulnerable fish species is reported to be found only found in the Lokchao River, Manipur, and neighboring Myanmar (Vishwanath 2010c). Vishwanath (2010c) reports this river to flow through Moreh town, within the Yangoupokpi-Lokchao Wildlife Sanctuary, and thus within only a couple of kilometers of the Project – though this river also seems to be referred to as the Khujairok by Singh (2010b). It is considered a restricted-range species and so also evaluated in Section A2.2. The species is threatened by pollution, habitat destruction and degradation due to damming, logging and deforestation. It is unclear whether the species actually occurs in the Project area (though it is stated as present, without further comment, by NHIDCL 2020), but it is considered likely. As such, and given the very limited global range of this species, it is precautionarily considered possible that the loss of all populations which may occur in the Project area could potentially result in the uplisting of this species to Endangered (per IFC 2019). On this precautionary basis, Devario yuensis might possibly qualify the Project area as Critical Habitat under Criterion 1.

10. Garra compressa

This fish species is only known from the Wanze Stream (Chindwin basin) near Khamsom, in the Ukhrul District of Manipur, but may also occur in neighboring Myanmar (Singh 2010a). It is considered globally Vulnerable, and a restricted-range species and so also evaluated in Section A2.2. While only known from one location, it is considered to probably also occur further south, and Singh (2010a) maps a range overlapping the Project area. It is unclear whether it actually occurs in the Project area, but it is a species of shallow, fast-flowing hill streams with rocky beds and so potentially occurs in some habitat overlapping the upper altitudes of the Project (up to 1,100 m: NHIDCL 2020). Nonetheless, given habitat preferences, it seems likely that most (if not all) of the range of this species falls outside of the Project area. It is thus unlikely that even the complete loss of the Project area would result in the uplisting of this species to Vulnerable (per IFC 2019). As such, it is not likely that Garra compressa qualifies the Project area as Critical Habitat under Criterion 1.

11. Laubuka khujairokensis

This globally Vulnerable species is known only from one location in the Khujairok Stream (a tributary of the Yu River) at Moreh (Singh 2010b). Given its restricted range, it is also assessed in Section A2.2. This stream is reported by Singh (2010b) to flow through Moreh, within the Yangoupokpi-Lokchao Wildlife Sanctuary, and within only a few kilometers of the Project – though this river also seems to be referred to as the Lokchao by Vishwanath (2010c). The species is threatened by pollution, habitat degradation and deforestation. Given the extremely

362 Annex 15

limited known global range of this species, it is precautionarily considered likely that the loss of the only known population in the Project area would cause this species to become Extinct. On this precautionary basis, Laubuka khujairokensis qualifies the Project area as Critical Habitat under Criterion 1.

12. Ngakha-Hangampal (Pethia yuensis)

This species is known only from the Yu River system, at the lower zones of the Maklang River and Lokchao River near Moreh, and is considered globally Vulnerable (Singh 2015). At least parts of the distribution of the species thus appear to be within only a few kilometers of the Project. Given its restricted range, it is also assessed in Section A2.2. The species is threatened by development of Moreh town, decline in habitat quality in due to sedimentation from deforestation, and agricultural practices around hill streams. Given the extremely limited known global range of this species, it is precautionarily considered likely that the loss of the only known population in the Project area would cause this species to be uplisted to Endangered or Critically Endangered (per IFC 2019). On this precautionary basis, Ngakha-Hangampal qualifies the Project area as Critical Habitat under Criterion 1.

13. Rasbora ornata

This globally Vulnerable fish species is known only from the Chatrickong River and Lokchao River, both tributaries of the Yu River, in Manipur (Vishwanath 2010f). It is considered a restricted-range species and so also evaluated in Section A2.2. Vishwanath (2010f) reports the Lokchao River to flow near Moreh town, within the Yangoupokpi-Lokchao Wildlife Sanctuary, and thus within only a couple of kilometers of the Project – though this river also seems to be referred to as the Khujairok by Singh (2010b). The species is threatened by development of Moreh town and associated pollution. It is unclear whether the species actually occurs in the Project area, but it is considered likely. As such, and given the very limited known global range of this species, it is precautionarily considered possible that the loss of all populations which may occur in the Project area could potentially result in the uplisting of this species to Endangered (per IFC 2019). On this precautionary basis, Rasborna ornata might possibly qualify the Project area as Critical Habitat under Criterion 1.

14. Schistura prashadi

This globally Vulnerable fish species is only known from three localities (Thonagpal Tank, Thoubal Stream and Sikmai Stream) in the Chindwin drainage in Manipur (Singh 2010c). It is considered a restricted-range species and so also evaluated in Section A2.2. It is a species of upper hill streams, and is threatened by deforestation, town development, detergent pollution and pesticide pollution from nearby paddy fields. It is unclear whether the species actually occurs in the Project area, but it is considered possible. As such, and given the very limited known global range of this species, it is precautionarily considered possible that the loss of all populations which may occur in the Project area could possibly result in the uplisting of this species to Endangered (per IFC 2019). On this precautionary basis, Schistura prashadi might possibly qualify the Project area as Critical Habitat under Criterion 1.

15. Schistura reticulata

This fish species is considered globally Endangered, and only known from the Maklang, Lokchao and Wanze streams in the Chindwin basin of eastern Manipur (Vishwanath 2010g). It is also a restricted-range species, and so is further assessed in Section A.2.2. Vishwanath (2010g) reports one population at Moreh town, within the Yangoupokpi-Lokchao Wildlife Sanctuary, and thus within only a couple of kilometers of the Project – though this river also

Annex 15 363

seems to be referred to as the Khujairok by Singh (2010b). It appears to have a fragmented range in hill streams, and is currently threatened by development of Moreh town and destructive fishing (by poisoning or dynamiting). Given the very limited known global range of this species, and presence in the Project AoA, it is assumed that a large percentage of the species’ global distribution – and thus population – occurs in the Project area. Therefore, Schistura reticulata qualifies the Project area as Critical Habitat under Criterion 1.

16. Tor putitora

This fish species is considered globally Endangered (Jha et al. 2018). It occurs in montane and submontane streams and rivers throughout the Himalayan region, but is under severe threat from overfishing, loss and degradation of habitat, and dam development. It is not mapped for the Project area by Jha et al. (2018), but is listed as present by NHIDCL (2020). Given the wide range of the species, and high rates of fishing in the area, it is highly unlikely that a sufficiently large population of the species uses the Project area to qualify it as Critical Habitat (per IFC 2019). As such, this species does not qualify the Project area as Critical Habitat.

17. Lymnaea ovalior

This freshwater snail species is considered globally Vulnerable (Budha & Dutta 2010). It is also a restricted-range species, and so is further assessed in Section A.2.2. It is mapped as probably present in the Project area by Budha & Dutta (2010), but seems likely to only occur in Loktak Lake. As such, this species does not qualify the Project area as Critical Habitat.

A.2.2 Endemic or restricted-range species

9. Following the IFC PS6 Guidance Note (IFC 2019), species were considered restricted-range if their global extent of occurrence was 50,000 km2 or less (for terrestrial vertebrates) or, for riverine species, if their global range had less than 500 km linear geographic span. Species were included in an initial screening if they were found during surveys, or there is indication of their presence from literature. An initial list of 42 such species, including many species also considered threatened (Section A2.1), was reduced to 12 after a quick screen against quantitative thresholds for Critical Habitat (IFC 2019). Most of these are fish, reflecting an apparent center of endemism for fish in this region. Vishwanath et al. (1998) considered the diversity of species in this region likely to have evolved very recently (in the Miocene) when India collided with Eurasia, land was uplifted multiple times, and river courses regularly changed course as a result.

10. Some species listed by Choukiker (2020) as restricted-range, such as Blyth’s Tragopan (Tragopan blythii) and Assam Mole Shrew (Anourosorex assamensis), in fact have Extents of Occurrence that exceed thresholds outlined by IUCN (2016) and IFC (2019), and are thus not considered here. Others do qualify as restricted-range species, but are confined to higher elevations to the south of the road (e.g., Mount Victoria Babax Garrulax woodi and Chin Hills Wren-babbler Spelaeornis oatesi) and so again not considered further here.

1. Hume’s Rat (Hadromys humei)

This species is considered globally Endangered, and so assessed in Section A.2.1. It is also a restricted-range species, with a known global distribution of <5,000 km2. It was formerly more widespread but recently recorded only from one location in Assam and Bishnupur and Senapati in Manipur, in forest at elevations of 900-1,300 m (Molur & Laginha Pinto Correia 2016). The known range of the species is thus >60 km west of the Project at the nearest point. However, given very limited data on this species, suitable habitat in the Project area, and few

364 Annex 15

biological surveys in the Project area, it is precautionary to assume that this species may occur in the Project area. Any additional occurrence in the Project area would de facto comprise 25% of the known distribution of the species, and thus qualify the area as Critical Habitat. On this precautionary basis, Hume’s Rat might possibly qualify the Project area as Critical Habitat.

2. Mawphlang Wart Frog (Odorrana mawphlangensis)

This species is considered Data Deficient. It has a small and patchy distribution in North-East India which appears to be just under 50,000 km2 and thus qualify it as a restricted-range species (Dutta et al. 2004). It is a semi-aquatic species, found near streams in forest below 1,100 m in the states of West Bengal, Meghalaya, Manipur and Nagaland. This species is not yet known from the Project area. However, given very limited data on this species, suitable habitat in the Project area, and few biological surveys in the Project area, it is precautionary to assume that this species may be present in the Project area. Nonetheless, it is highly unlikely that the Project AoA (covering just 350 km2) could hold ≥10% of the species’ population, given a global Extent of Occurrence approaching 50,000 km2. As such, Mawphlang Wart Frog does not qualify the Project area as Critical Habitat.

3. Akysis manipurensis

This species is so poorly known that it is considered Data Deficient (Ng 2010). It is known only from the Chindwin River drainage in India (Manipur) and Myanmar, and so is considered restricted-range. It occurs in hill streams with sand and gravel bottoms. It appears to have only been recorded from the Lairok Maru stream, close to the Project. Given an extremely limited known range and overlap with the Project AoA, on a precautionary basis Akysis manipurensis might possibly qualify the Project area as Critical Habitat under Criterion 2.

4. Badis ferrarisi

This species is not considered threatened, but does have a small range (Dahanukar 2010), with an Extent of Occurrence approximately 50 km by 210 km. It is known from several Chindwin and Irrawadyy drainages, on the eastern slopes of the Chin Hills in Myanmar, and adjacent Manipur. Although restricted, this distribution suggests it is unlikely that more than 10% of the population could occur in the Project AoA. As such, this species does not qualify the Project area as Critical Habitat.

5. Manipur Baril (Barilius dogarsinghi)

This fish species is considered globally Vulnerable (Vishwanath 2010a) and thus also assessed in Section A2.1. It is a restricted-range species, with an Extent of Occurrence approximately 90 km by 230 km. It is unclear whether it actually occurs in the Project area, but – even if it does – it is not likely to have more than 10% of its population in the Project AoA (a 2.6% range overlap is mapped by Vishwanath 2010a). As such, it is not likely that this species qualifies the Project area as Critical Habitat under Criterion 2.

6. Barilius lairokensis

This species is only considered Near Threatened, but does have a small range (Vishwanath 2010b), with an Extent of Occurrence estimated at 40 km by 100 km. It has only been recorded from Lairok Maru stream, in Moreh township, within several kilometers of the Project. The

Annex 15 365

species' habitat is under severe threat from development activities, and may also suffer from siltation owing to deforestation. As such, the Project AoA holds 100% of the known population of the species, and Barilius lairokensis qualifies the Project area as Critical Habitat under Criterion 2.

7. Devario yuensis

This fish species is considered globally Vulnerable (Vishwanath 2010c) and thus also assessed in Section A2.1. It is a restricted-range species, with an Extent of Occurrence approximately 40 km by 180 km. It is unclear whether the species actually occurs in the Project area (though it is stated as present, without further comment, by NHIDCL 2020), but it is considered likely. As such, and given the very limited global range of this species, at only three known locations, it is precautionarily considered possible that more than 10% of the species’ population may occur in the Project AoA. On this precautionary basis, Devario yuensis might possibly qualify the Project area as Critical Habitat under Criterion 2.

8. Laubuka khujairokensis

This fish species is considered globally Vulnerable (Singh 2010b) and thus also assessed in Section A2.1. It is a restricted-range species, with an Extent of Occurrence estimated at 60 km by 130 km. It is known only from one location, at Moreh (Singh 2010b), within only a few kilometers of the Project. As such, the Project AoA holds 100% of the known population of the species, and Laubuka khujairokensis qualifies the Project area as Critical Habitat under Criterion 2.

9. Macrognathus morehensis

This species is only considered Near Threatened, but does have a small known range (Vishwanath 2010d), with an Extent of Occurrence approximately 40 km by 180 km. It is known from the Maklang River, Chindwin drainage (Moreh Bazar, Chandel District) in Manipur and the Chindwin basin (Kalaimyo and Tamu) in Myanmar. It is considered potentially threatened by overexploitation, and pollution from the expanding Moreh township. It is poorly-known, and may occur more widely. However, given presence in the Project AoA, and only two current known locations, it is precautionarily considered possible that more than 10% of the species’ population may occur in the Project AoA. On this precautionary basis, Macrognathus morehensis might qualify the Project area as Critical Habitat under Criterion 2.

10. Neonoemacheilus morehensis

This species is considered Data Deficient, and has a small range (Vishwanath 2010e), with an Extent of Occurrence approximately 40 km by 100 km. It is only known from the Lokchao River, though also expected to occur in the Chindwin Basin in Myanmar. It occurs in fast-running hill streams and rivers, and may be affected by habitat destruction caused by deforestation, siltation, and other human disturbance. It is unclear whether the species actually occurs in the Project area, but it is considered possible since the Lokchao runs through the area. Given the habitat of this species, and its very limited global range, it is precautionarily considered possible that more than 10% of the species’ population may occur in the Project AoA. On this precautionary basis, Neonoemacheilus morehensis might possibly qualify the Project area as Critical Habitat under Criterion 2.

366 Annex 15

11. Psilorhynchus ngathanu

This minnow species has not yet had its threat status evaluated by IUCN, but has a globally restricted-range – currently known only from one location on the Dutah River/Stream just south-west of Moreh Town (Shangningam & Vishwanath 2014). Given current very limited information on this species, it is considered that more than 10% of the species’ population occurs in the Project AoA. On this basis, Psilorhynchus ngathanu qualifies the Project area as Critical Habitat under Criterion 2.

12. Rasbora ornata

This fish species is considered globally Vulnerable (Vishwanath 2010f) and thus also assessed in Section A2.1. It is a restricted-range species, with an Extent of Occurrence approximately 40 km by 100 km. It is unclear whether the species actually occurs in the Project area, but it is considered likely. Given the very limited known global range of this species, and extremely limited information on the distribution of the species, it is precautionarily considered possible that >10% of the species’ population might occur in the Project area (Vishwanath [2010f] maps 8.3% of the species’ range as within the Project AoA). On this precautionary basis, Rasborna ornata might possibly qualify the Project area as Critical Habitat under Criterion 2.

13. Schistura phamhringi

This fish species has not yet had its threat status evaluated by IUCN, but has a globally restricted-range – currently known only from one location on the Dutah River/Stream just south-west of Moreh Town (Shangningam et al. 2014). The habitat was among pebbles in a section of river with a slow current. Given current very limited information on this species, it is considered that more than 10% of the species’ population occurs in the Project AoA. On this basis, Schistura phamhringi qualifies the Project area as Critical Habitat under Criterion 2.

14. Schistura prashadi

This fish species is considered globally Vulnerable (Singh 2010c) and thus also assessed in Section A2.1. It is a restricted-range species, with an Extent of Occurrence approximately 90 km by 320 km. It is unclear whether the species actually occurs in the Project area, but it is considered possible. However, even if it does, given known locations and habitat preferences it is not likely to have more than 10% of its population in the Project AoA (a 2.4% range overlap is mapped by Singh 2010c). As such, it is not likely that this species qualifies the Project area as Critical Habitat under Criterion 2.

15. Schistura reticulata

This fish species is considered globally Vulnerable (Vishwanath 2010g) and thus also assessed in Section A2.1. It is a restricted-range species, with an Extent of Occurrence approximately 40 km by 100 km. It is known only from only a few locations, including Moreh town. As such, based on current knowledge, the Project AoA holds >10% of the known population of the species, and Schistura reticulata qualifies the Project area as Critical Habitat under Criterion 2.

A.2.3 Migratory or congregatory species

Annex 15 367

11. North-east India is within a broad migratory flyway for birds moving between breeding grounds to the north and wintering grounds to the south. Some sites within the region are seasonally important for these migratory birds, and may represent Critical Habitat owing to globally-significant concentrations of migratory/congregatory species – such as Loktak Lake (BirdLife International 2020b). No such sites have yet been identified in the Project Area of Assessment, but there is a need to consider whether such sites may be present but remain unidentified.

12. Species of bird or mammal which regularly migrate or congregate in large numbers were identified from survey results, project documents, other literature, and IBAT. More than 150 migratory bird species were identified, and five six bat species.

13. From the Tibetan Plateau, there is a range of hills heading south-west along the India-Myanmar border. More extensive ranges head south/south-east, into southern People’s Republic of China, eastern Myanmar, and northern Lao PDR. Although there is little information available, the south-western range, overlapping the eastern side of the Project, is potentially a migratory corridor for soaring birds (e.g., raptors) headed to/from non-breeding grounds in India or beyond. While thus potentially on a flyway, there is no current indication that the Project AoA holds any particular concentrations of migratory or congregatory species – for example, there are no topographic features or water bodies that are likely to stimulate such concentrations. There is thus no reason to believe, following global good practice, that the Project area would represent “critical habitat” for any migrant birds, by representing a particular bottleneck along the migration flyway, being used as a resting area during migration, or being an area of low flight that would lead to regular interaction with project infrastructure (Sercx et al. 2018). This is also the case for the sole migratory species of bat identified as likely to occur in the Project area, Schreiber’s Bent-winged Bat (Miniopterus schreibersii).

14. Five congregatory bat species were identified as likely to occur in the Project area: Dawn Bat (Eonycteris spelaea); Hipposideros lankadiva; Schreiber’s Bent-winged Bat (Miniopterus schreibersii); Indian Flying Fox (Pteropus giganteus); and Leschenault’s Rousette (Rousettus leschenaultia). Indian Flying Fox colonies, of hundreds or thousands of individuals, are found in trees. The other four species have colonies, also numbering into the thousands at times, in caves or similar habitats such as tunnels or disused buildings. Nonetheless, all five species are widespread and not uncommon through their ranges. As such, unless caves or other large bat roosting sites are identified in the area, it is unlikely that congregatory species qualify the Project area as Critical Habitat.

A.2.4 Unique assemblages of species that are associated with key evolutionary processes

15. The Project area falls within the Mizoram-Manipur-Kachin rain forests ecoregion (Wikramanayake et al. 2002). This harbors some endemism, notably in birds (Wikramanayake et al. 2002; BirdLife International 2020a), but not at sufficiently high a level to be considered at all unique in the context of tropical mountains.

16. From an aquatic perspective, the Project area falls within the Sitang-Irawaddy freshwater ecoregion (Abell et al. 2008). This was believed to be an area of only moderate aquatic species endemism. More recent information suggests that aquatic endemism may be high in the area (e.g., Dahanukar 2010; Singh 2010b,c; Vishwanath 2010a,b,c,d,e,f,g). This suggests the potential presence of key evolutionary processes, but the distribution of species in the region remains too poorly understood to have high confidence in current estimates of endemism.

17. Unique assemblages of species associated with key evolutionary processes thus do not qualify the Project area as Critical Habitat.

368 Annex 15

A.2.5 Areas having biodiversity of significant social, economic, or cultural importance to local communities (including ecosystem services)

18. Other than reference to the importance of freshwater fisheries, the EIA presents no information on ecosystem services (NHIDCL 2020). It is beyond the scope of this rapid assessment to collect additional information on ecosystem services, and then to assess which may qualify the project area as Critical Habitat.

A.2.6 Legally protected areas and international recognized areas

19. The Project runs through the Yangoupokpi-Lokchao Wildlife Sanctuary, an IUCN Category IV protected area (www.protectedplanet.net). According to the EIA, 8.45 km of the road run through the reserve’s eco-sensitive zone (representing what is known as a “buffer zone” internationally, and is not directly part of the protected area, though does have some legal restrictions) and 21.066 km of the road run through the reserve. Of this c.21 km, 11.966 km is entirely within the reserve’s “buffer zone” (an area zoned inside the protected area, to include Moreh Town). To avoid confusion, the term “buffer zone” will only be used in this document to refer to the internal buffer zone, not the eco-sensitive zone. The remaining 9.1 km of the road within the reserve is bordered to the south for most of its length by the core zone, and partly by the “buffer zone”; and to the north for most of its length on one side by the eco-sensitive zone, and for part of its length by a tourism zone (Figure 31, NHIDCL 2020).

20. The “buffer zone” of the sanctuary has been heavily degraded, with much of the area along the road in this zone (and in some parts of neighboring core zones) now being entirely deforested and developed – particularly close to the border with Myanmar (Bungnamei & Saikai 2020). Remaining areas along the road within the “buffer zone” are considered to be degraded forest (Bungnamei & Saikai 2020). IFC (2019) states that ‘…certain internationally recognized areas of high biodiversity value may be recognized as Critical Habitat and should be given special attention during assessments…’ including ‘Areas that meet the criteria of the IUCN’s Protected Areas Categories Ia, Ib and II…’. As this is a Category IV protected area, it is not intrinsically considered to represent Critical Habitat, unless it is of global conservation significance for biodiversity (Sections A2.1-A2.5).

21. The internationally recognized Yangoupokpi-Lokchao Wildlife Sanctuary Important Bird Area (de facto also a Key Biodiversity Area) aligns with the protected area boundary, and thus also overlaps the Project (BirdLife International 2020c). This IBA was designated for the globally Vulnerable Green Peafowl Pavo muticus, with consideration also given to the possibility that a number of restricted-range and/or biome-restricted bird species may occur in the sanctuary. Given a global population of at least 10,000 (BirdLife International 2020g), the site would have to hold at least ten pairs of Green Peafowl to meet current thresholds for consideration as a global-level IBA/KBA (IUCN 2016). There is little recent information on the status of this species in the area, but Devi (2013) considered the reserve to hold a viable population, from which it can be inferred more than ten pairs remain. The site is thus still likely to qualify as an IBA/KBA and, as such, the Yangoupokpi-Lokchao Wildlife Sanctuary Important Bird Area qualifies the Project area as Critical Habitat.

A.2.7 Summary

22. Extremely limited information on biodiversity from the Project area makes definitive Critical Habitat assessment challenging. However, based on available information, and acting on a precautionary basis, the Project Area of Analysis qualifies as Critical Habitat, owing to the presence of a number of globally-threatened and restricted-range species known or suspected to occur at globally significant levels, and the Yangoupokpi-Lokchao Wildlife Sanctuary Important Bird Area.

http://www.protectedplanet.net/

Annex 15 369

A.3 Assessment of Natural Habitat

23. Information is presented by NHIDCL (2020) on land use neighboring the Project route, based on 2011 remote sensing imagery. However, deforestation and degradation – particularly in the east of the Project area – has proceeded at a rapid rate in recent years. Based on 2015-16 remote sensing imagery, NRSC (2019) and Bungnamei & Saikai (2020) show considerably more forest degradation near the Project within the wildlife sanctuary than NHIDCL (2020), and conversion of much forest into a broad built-up area along the border with Myanmar (though much of this latter area is excluded from the Project. Given the rapid pace of change, it is likely that significantly more deforestation and degradation has occurred in the following four years.

24. In the absence of detailed up-to-date information on the condition of habitats along the Project route, it is challenging to assess whether they retain their core ecological functions or are now substantially modified. As such, on a precautionary basis, it should be assumed that the Project is mostly situated within Natural Habitat, even where forest is now thin or degraded. However, some areas of agriculture and the built-up area of Moreh can be considered Modified Habitat (Figure A1). Insufficient information exists to map Natural versus Modified Habitat in rivers and streams. On a precautionary basis, therefore, all aquatic areas should be considered Natural Habitat.

25. Without extensive surveys across Natural Habitat within this area, it is not possible to identify all sites which may hold globally-significant populations of Critical Habitat-qualifying species. Given the challenges of conducting surveys in this location, it is thus not realistic to confidently map terrestrial Critical Habitat at any scale. On a precautionary basis, in the near absence of distribution data for biodiversity, all terrestrial Natural Habitat may also qualify as Critical Habitat. Even if identified, some aquatic Modified Habitat should be considered Critical Habitat (e.g., for restricted-range species found in/near Moreh town). As such, on a precautionary basis, all aquatic areas should be considered Critical Habitat.

370 Annex 15

ANNEX 16: TERMS OF REFERENCE (BIODIVERSITY SPECIALIST)

Biodiversity Specialist (to be recruited under ADB TA 9761) Objectives and Purpose of the Assignment The Asian Development Bank (ADB) approved the multitranche financing facility (MFF) of $500 million for the SASEC Road Connectivity Investment Program (SRCIP) on 28 March 2014. ADB and the Government of India entered into a framework financing agreement (FFA) for the program on 26 February 2014. Originally two tranches were planned for the MFF. During the preparation of tranche 2, an additional tranche (tranche 3) was proposed and approved in order to accommodate the additional processing time required for securing national Forestry and Wildlife clearance for the last 30 kilometer (km) stretch of Imphal-Moreh section (Khongkhang-Moreh) in Manipur North-East India. The 29.5km Khongkhang- Moreh road proposed for improvement under Tranche 3 of the program is the last section of the Imphal - Moreh (IM) Road which has a total of 95.4km and forms part of Asian Highway 1 (AH 1). The first 65.68 km section of the IM road from Imphal to Khongkhang is currently being upgraded under Tranche 2 of the investment program under two contract packages. The proposed Khongkhang – Moreh road will be upgraded from the existing single/intermediate lane to a two lane configuration with shoulders and side drains. The 29.5 km road passes through ecologically sensitive areas of the Yangoupokpi Lokchao Wildlife Sanctuary (YLWLS) area. The western 8.45 km goes through the eco-sensitive zone of YLWLS. From Lokchao River Bridge to Khudhengthabi (chainage 404.130 to Chainage 413.230 (length 9.1 km), the alignment follows the boundary of Core Zone I and a Tourism Zone up to Khudhengthabi village. From Khudenthabi village to Moreh (Chainage 413.230 to 425.196, length 11.966 km), the proposed road alignment is in an internal Buffer Zone. This project has been categorized as “A” for environment safeguards under the ADB Safeguards Policy Statement (SPS) due to the potential for significant ecological impacts during construction and induced ecological impacts during the project operation stage. In addition, substantial landuse change and earthworks may cause landslides and soil erosion due to the hilly terrain throughout the road section. A Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP), including a Critical Habitat Assessment (CHA), has been developed for the project following the requirements of the ADB Safeguard Policy Statement (SPS 2009), IFC Performance Standard 6 (PS6) and IFC Guidance Note 6 (GN6). This ToR is for a specialist to implement biodiversity studies outlined in the BAP, specifically pre-construction surveys and construction and operations phase monitoring. Scope of Work The BAP outlines the need for specific pre-construction stage biodiversity surveys that are necessary, as well as biodiversity monitoring required during project construction and operation. The selected specialist will design and implement those pre-construction surveys, refine the BAP, and then design and implement biodiversity monitoring throughout the construction stage of the project and into the fifth year of project operations. Detailed Tasks and/or Expected Output 1. Pre-construction stage surveys

• Design and plan surveys to identify optimum locations for 20 aerial bridges across the project road. These locations should primarily benefit Western Hoolock Gibbon (Hoolock hoolock), although benefits to other species would be advantageous. Consideration of locations should include gibbon presence near the existing road,

Annex 16 371

information on gibbons crossing the road, and likelihood of bridges being used (e.g., width of road, vegetation and slope either side of road).

• Conduct surveys, including direct listening for gibbon vocalisations along the road and interviews with local people and frequent road travellers.

• Identify, map, and justify optimum locations for 20 bridges in a report, with 5 reserve options in case optimum locations become infeasible.

• Adjust the report after comments from NHIDCL Manipur, relevant Forest/Wildlife agency, Environment External Monitor and ADB.

2. Refinement of the BAP

• Based on the findings of pre-construction stage surveys, and consultations with the local Forest Department, refine the BAP to clearly specify the type, location and cost of gibbon bridges to be installed.

3. Construction and operation stage monitoring • Design, implement and report every six months upon a programme of biodiversity

monitoring that at least fulfills requirements outlined in the current project BAP. Owing to access constraints, all monitoring will take place within the road right of way. The monitoring programme will, at minimum, include:

• For at least a month every quarter for the first year of the operation phase, use camera traps to assess wildlife usage of a rotating subset of ≥20 project culverts and ≥5 gibbon bridges.

• Annually, in summer during design and construction phases, measurement of progress of re-vegetation on all project cut slopes, and determine need for any additional re-vegetation.

• During the design phase, identification of current and potential terrestrial and aquatic invasive alien species in the project area.

• Annually, in summer during design and construction phases, measurement of the abundance, spread and project control of invasive alien terrestrial and aquatic species in the project area.

• Unannounced inspections at least quarterly during design and construction phases to:

a. Check staff and contractors are not collecting, selling or purchasing timber/firewood, and that heavy penalties are being applied if this does happen;

b. Check construction vehicle speeds are under 20-30 km/h speed limits; c. Check adherence to approved Project plans for storage of fuels and

chemicals, sewage management, and fueling and maintenance; and d. Count the number of dead animals (by species) on or next to the length

of the project road. • Unannounced inspections at least quarterly, during the design and construction

phases, to check: a. Staff and contractors are being trained in good environmental practice,

and prohibited activities; b. Vegetation clearance is as minimal as legally and technically

necessary; c. Aggregate has been sourced only from existing licensed quarries

outside of rivers and streams; d. Borrow pits are outside Natural Habitat and >200 m from waterways; e. All cuttings disposal is outside Natural Habitat; f. Vehicles, equipment and supplies are being washed to remove invasive

species before entry to the Project area; g. No construction is taking place outside 0800-1800 hrs;

372 Annex 15

h. Acoustic enclosures are being used for noisy equipment (e.g., diesel generators, compressors), and that noise levels of Project vehicles, equipment and machinery are within prescribed standards;

i. Water spraying is happening regularly on construction areas; j. Sufficient food, fuel and housing are available to contractors; k. No permanent deviations are made from natural courses of waterways;

and l. Any temporary diversions to waterways are as brief as necessary.

• Unannounced inspections at least quarterly in the wet season during design and construction phases to check:

a. No earthworks are occurring during the wet season; and b. No bridge construction occurring during wet season.

• Unannounced inspections at least quarterly in the dry season during design and construction phases to check:

a. No piling or blasting is occurring within 100 m of bridges. • A check before worksite closure that:

a. Appropriate canopy crossings (20) and ledges within all culverts (125) have been installed;

b. 'No stopping' warning signs have been installed at least every kilometer along the road in each direction within the sanctuary; and

c. Speed breakers and animal crossing warning signs have been installed within the sanctuary.

• An inspection report quarterly and a comprehensive biodiversity monitoring report every six months on the collated results of monitoring to NHIDCL Manipur, focusing on reporting changes, whether those are in line with project achievement of No Net Loss, and – if not – recommendations on any changes in project implementation that may be necessary to achieve No Net Loss. Clear and concise up-front summaries of this key information are essential.

Minimum Qualification Requirements The specialist should bring the appropriate project expertise, skills, and experience to perform all the tasks. This is anticipated through a team of at least one Biodiversity Expert and two assistants. The Expert will hold a minimum of a Master’s Degree in Ecology, Wildlife Biology, Ecosystem Management or a related subject. The Expert will have a minimum of 10 years of work experience in biodiversity monitoring, ideally including monitoring impacts of infrastructure projects. Specific team expertise in gibbons, invasive species (particularly plants), and camera trapping is required. Team experience in interpreting and aligning with ADB, World Bank or other MDB biodiversity safeguard requirements would be preferred. Team experience working in the challenging security conditions in Manipur would be a significant advantage. Timeline Pre-construction stage surveys will need to be completed before construction works begin. It is anticipated that surveys will require up to 15 days on the ground for an expert and two field assistants, plus up to 15 days design, preparation and writing-up for the expert. Modification of the BAP must be completed within six months after the civil works contract is awarded. Design and construction stage monitoring is anticipated to take up to a month per quarter for each team member, during the construction period and defect liability period.

Annex 17 373

ANNEX 17: TERMS OF REFERENCE OF EXTERNAL MONITOR FOR ENVIRONMENT SAFEGUARDS

National Environment Specialist I. OBJECTIVES To conduct third party monitoring of implementation of environment safeguard requirements under the Project and check compliance with the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA), Environmental Management Plan (EMP), Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP), ADB Safeguard Policy Statement (SPS) and relevant environmental regulations of the Government of India Key Qualifications: Minimum of a Bachelor’s Degree in Environmental Engineering, Environmental Science and related subjects Working Experience: Minimum of 8 years of working experience in implementing and monitoring EMP for infrastructure projects. Specific experience transport infrastructure projects will be preferred. The candidate must have experience in managing forestry and wildlife issues in infrastructure projects. Person month inputs: 3 months per year during project construction and 1 month during defect liability period II. SPECIFIC TASKS

(i) Review the EIA, EMP and BAP prepared for the project (ii) Review the latest version and adequacy of the EMP and BAP. Provide

recommendations for improvement if necessary (iii) Review the environmental components of monitoring and progress reports prepared

by the contractor and supervision consultants to check consistency and accuracy with site conditions. Environmental components may include: i) air quality; ii) water quality; iii) soil quality; iv) noise; v) occupational health and safety and others

(iv) Conduct site visits once every 3 months during project construction period to conduct third party monitoring of the implementation of the EMP and BAP by the contractor and supervision by the construction Authority Engineer (AE).

(v) During the site visit also monitor progress of implementation of habitat improvement activities by the Biodiversity Organization (NGO or wildlife/forestry institute etc.) that will be recruited under the project. Currently the proposed habitat improvement activity is development of sustainable landuse plan inside the Yangoupokpi Lokchao Wildlife Sanctuary

(vi) Provide technical guidance on ways to improve implementation of the EMP and BAP to the contractor and monitoring by the AE as necessary to ensure compliance with the EIA, EMP, BAP and ADB SPS and relevant GOI requirements

(vii) Similar provide technical guidance to the Biodiversity Organization developing and implementing habitat improvement activities

(viii) Based on observations during site visits, review of monitoring reports prepared by the contractor and AE and discussions with NHIDCL Manipur, contractor, AE, Biodiversity Organization and local people in the project area prepare semi-annual monitoring reports for submission to NHIDCL and further submission to ADB.

(ix) Incorporate comments and feedback on the reports from MORTH, NHIDCL, ADB and other relevant organizations such as the local Forestry Department if required.

374 Annex 17

III. KEY DELIVERABLES 1. Quarterly site inspections 2. Semi-annual monitoring reports during project construction 3. One post construction monitoring report at the end of the defect liability period

Annex 17 375

ANNEX 18: TERMS OF REFERENCE (BIODIVERSITY ORGANIZATION)

Biodiversity Organization: Implementation of Net Gain for Biodiversity India SASEC Road Connectivity Investment Program – Tranche 3 (To be financed under ADB TA 9852) Objectives and Purpose of the Assignment The Asian Development Bank (ADB) approved the multitranche financing facility (MFF) of $500 million for the SASEC Road Connectivity Investment Program (SRCIP) on 28 March 2014. ADB and the Government of India entered into a framework financing agreement (FFA) for the program on 26 February 2014. Originally two tranches were planned for the MFF. During the preparation of tranche 2, an additional tranche (tranche 3) was proposed and approved in order to accommodate the additional processing time required for securing national Forestry and Wildlife clearance for the last 30 kilometer (km) stretch of Imphal-Moreh section (Khongkhang-Moreh) in Manipur North-East India. The 29.5km Khongkhang- Moreh road proposed for improvement under Tranche 3 of the program is the last section of the Imphal - Moreh (IM) Road which has a total of 95.4km and forms part of Asian Highway 1 (AH 1). The first 65.68 km section of the IM road from Imphal to Khongkhang is currently being upgraded under Tranche 2 of the investment program under two contract packages. The proposed Khongkhang – Moreh road will be upgraded from the existing single/intermediate lane to a two lane configuration with shoulders and side drains.

The 29.5 km road passes through ecologically sensitive areas of the Yangoupokpi Lokchao Wildlife Sanctuary (YLWLS) area. The western 8.45 km goes through the eco-sensitive zone of YLWLS. From Lokchao River Bridge to Khudhengthabi (chainage 404.130 to Chainage 413.230 (length 9.1 km), the alignment follows the boundary of Core Zone I and a Tourism Zone up to Khudhengthabi village. From Khudenthabi village to Moreh (Chainage 413.230 to 425.196, length 11.966 km), the proposed road alignment is in an internal Buffer Zone.

This project has been categorized as “A” for environment safeguards under the ADB Safeguards Policy Statement (SPS) due to the potential for significant ecological impacts during construction and induced ecological impacts during the project operation stage. In addition, substantial landuse change and earthworks may cause landslides and soil erosion due to the hilly terrain throughout the road section.

A Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP), including a Critical Habitat Assessment (CHA), has been developed for the project following the requirements of the ADB Safeguard Policy Statement (SPS 2009), IFC Performance Standard 6 (PS6) and IFC Guidance Note 6 (GN6). This ToR is for a biodiversity organization (NGO, research institution, forestry/wildlife institution, etc.) to implement activities under the project to enable achievement of a net gain for biodiversity through development of land use plans for 7 communities living inside the YLWLS, as outlined in section 5.3.3 of the BAP. Seven villages (Nungkam, Saikul, Satang, Kwatha, H. Monjang, Bonjang and Govajang) are settlements that were located inside the sanctuary when it was declared. The current zoning of the sanctuary places Nungkam, Saikul and Satang in core zone II, Bonjang and Govajang in a tourism zone, Kwatha on the boundary between a tourism zone and the “buffer zone”, and H. Monjang in the “buffer zone”. The status and rights of these villages has long been in limbo, but a state Level Committee Chaired by the Chief Secretary, Government of Manipur has been looking into settling this with appropriate steps under section 24 of Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 (Bungnamei 2018). As part of this process, it will be advantageous to work with these communities to develop land use plans, including physical demarcation on the ground. At present, the communities have few formal rights, and are not familiar with the

376 Annex 18

legal restrictions of the sanctuary (Bungnamei 2018). Establishment of jointly-developed land use plans could help to ensure more sustainable levels of resource exploitation within the sanctuary and reduce hunting of higher priority species. Formalization of community resource use rights provides an incentive for more sustainable use. Scope of Work The BAP outlines the need for the project to comply with ADB SPS requirement of no net loss of biodiversity and a preference for achieving net gain. Based on the existing conservation challenges in YLWLS and habitat/tree compensatory activities that will be implemented under the project, the recommended approach to achieving a net gain in biodiversity is developing land use plans for 7 communities living inside the sanctuary. The selected Biodiversity Organization will first verify the feasibility of this approach in consultation with local communities and relevant government authorities. Assuming feasibility is verified, the Organization will then plan detailed activities for developing land use plans, and work with the local Forest Department/YLWS to implement these activities. The land use plans must be prepared in close consultation with, and under the approval of, the local Forest Department. It is recognized that not all communities may wish to engage; this poses no problem as long as sufficient communities do engage, over a large enough area, to still achieve net gain for biodiversity. If sufficient land use plans are not feasible, the Organization will work with ADB and the local Forest/Wildlife Department to identify and support an alternate plan to achieve net gain in biodiversity. Tasks and/or Expected Output

1. Prepare methodology and workplan for developing land use plans for up to 7 communities inside YLWLS

• Review the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) report for the project road and the BAP (appendix 12 of the EIA report) to understand the background of the project and BAP

• Consult with the local Forest/Wildlife Department and management of YLWLS on the proposed activity to develop land use plans.

• Support NHIDCL Manipur to seek permission/approval from the Forest/Wildlife Department to undertake activities to develop land use plans inside the sanctuary.

• Conduct literature reviews on the land use patterns, communities, conservation challenges and other relevant information to understand the current situation inside the sanctuary.

• Carry out consultations with Forest/Wildlife officials, Warden and Rangers of YLWLS, local communities and other relevant stakeholders.

• Based on the above information, assess feasibility of sufficient land use planning to achieve net gain.

• If net gain is feasible, prepare the methodology and workplan for developing land use plans for up to 7 communities located inside the sanctuary. The methodology should ensure close involvement and co-development of plans by communities and relevant government authorities at every stage.

• If net gain is not feasible with this approach, develop an alternate approach, methodology and workplan in close consultation with ADB and the local Forest/Wildlife Department.

• Within 3 months of commencement of contract, submit and present the methodology and workplan to NHIDCL Manipur and the Forest/Wildlife Department for their approval.

Annex 17 377

2. Support capacity building of the Forest Department/YLWLS

• Consult with the warden and rangers of YLWLS to understand capacity gaps for monitoring, patrolling and community engagement inside the sanctuary.

• Review the monitoring and patrolling systems and protocols within the sanctuary and provide recommendations to improve them.

• Conduct training for the YLWLS rangers to improve monitoring and patrolling protocols inside the sanctuary, including monitoring implementation and results of land use plans for communities inside the sanctuary. Where feasible, training should focus on international best practices such as SMART monitoring/patrolling: https://smartconservationtools.org.

• Conduct training for the Forest Department/YLWLS rangers on community engagement skills, to support work with local communities on land use plans.

3. Work with the Forest Department/YLWLS to achieve net gain for biodiversity in YLWLS

• Following the approved methodology and workplan, implement activities that will result in net gain (if feasible, the preparation of land use plans with the 7 communities inside YLWLS).

• Use appropriate participatory tools such as rapid rural appraial (RRA) and participatory rural appraisal (PRA) to collect information from the local communities in a systematic manner.

• As a part of the process, conduct regular stakeholder meetings with all involved communities to seek their views and knowledge, and to closely involve them in co-development of the activities. Without strong community support, the activities will ultimately fail.

• Involve local Forest/YLWLS rangers in all activities with local communities. • Based on the findings of the information-gathering and consultations, work closely with

the Forest Department/YLWLS to achieve net gain. Ideally, this will comprise preparation of land use plans for the 7 communities inside the sanctuary, including at least: detailed maps of different land use zones around the communities; rights of communities within these areas; rules on what is permitted and not permitted within each zone; ecologically sustainable practices to be followed; and institutional set up and monitoring mechanisms for implementing land use plans.

• Prepare and submit a draft report on implementation to NHIDCL Manipur and the local Forest/Wildlife Department for their review within 22 months of commencement.

• Submit a final report including comments and feedback from NHIDCL Manipur and local Forest/Wildlife Department, within 1 month of receiving their comments/feedback.

Reporting

The following reports will be submitted by the Biodiversity Organization:

1. Inception report, including proposed methodology and workplan within 3 months of commencement of contract;

2. Progress report every six months after submission of the inception report, including a report on implemented activities;

3. Draft final report on all activities implemented by 22nd month since commencement 4. Final report after incorporating all comments feedback from MORTH, NHIDCL, ADB,

YLWLS/Forestry Department on the draft final report by 23rd month. Positions, Minimum Qualification Requirements

https://smartconservationtools.org/

378 Annex 18

The Biodiversity Organization maybe a non-governmental organization (NGO) or wildlife/forestry institute or consultancy firm specialized in biodiversity issues or similar organizations. The organization must include specialists that have appropriate expertise, skills, and experience to perform all the tasks. This is anticipated through a team of: one Biodiversity Expert; one Sustainable Land Use Expert; one Social Expert; and about 6 field assistants. The Biodiversity Expert will hold a minimum of a Master’s Degree in Ecology, Wildlife Biology, Ecosystem Management or a related subject. The Sustainable Land Use Expert will have a minimum of a Master’s Degree in Land Use Planning, Sustainable Natural Resource Management or related fields. The Social Expert will have a minimum of a Master’s Degree in Social Science, Community Organization or related fields. All the experts will have a minimum of 8 years of work experience in implementing projects related to rural development or community organization or landuse planning or integrated community development and biodiversity conservation. Specific team experience working in North – East India will be required. Team experience in interpreting and aligning with ADB, World Bank or other MDB biodiversity safeguard requirements would be preferred. Team experience working in the challenging security conditions in Manipur would be a significant advantage. Cost estimate: The activities under the assignment are anticipated to cost $250,000. Timeline The activities under the assignment will be implemented over a period of 24 months.

379

References

i Hanson, C. E., Towers, D. A., & Meister, L. D. (2006). Transit noise and vibration impact assessment (No. FTA-VA-90-1003-06).

ii Peck R B, Hanson W E and Thornburn T H (1974). Foundation Engineering. John Wiley and Sons, New York.

iii WOODS, R.D. and JEDELE, L.P., 1985. Energy-attenuation relationships from construction vibrations. American Society of Civil Engineers, Proceedings of ASCE Symposium on Vibration Problems in Geotechnical Engineering, Detroit, Michigan, G. Gazetas and E.T. Selig, Editors, pp. 229-246.

iv British Standard BS 7385, Evaluation and measurement for vibration in buildings. Pt 2. Guide to damage levels from ground borne vibration.

v British Standard BS 5228- 2. Code of Practice for noise and vibration control on construction and open sites. Part 2. Vibration. 2009.

vi Hiller, D. M., & Crabb, G. I. (2000). Groundborne vibration caused by mechanised construction works.

vii DIN 4150-3. Deutsche Norm. Structural Vibration. Part 3. Effects of Vibration on Structures. February 1999

viii Transportation- and Construction-Induced Vibration Guidance Manual, Jones & Stokes, J&S 02-039, Prepared for California Department of Transportation, Noise, Vibration, and Hazardous Waste Management Office, Sacramento, CA, June 2004.