APPENDICES - open_jicareport.jica.go.jpopen_jicareport.jica.go.jp/pdf/12048211_04.pdf · ......

APPENDICES

Preparatory Survey on the Project for Construction of Mykolaiv Bridge in UkraineDraft Final Report

A1-1

Appendix 1Correspondence

date/month/year Subject Attention Sender22/12/2010 Navigation clearance Ukrainian

WaterwaysJICASurvey Team

28/12/2010 Ditto JICASurvey Team

UkrainianWaterways

23/12/2010 Record for Number of ships JICASurvey Team

UkrainianWaterways

24/12/2010 Restriction for construction of Mykolaiv bridge dueto aerial navigation.

JICASurvey Team

InternationalAirport Mykolaiv

18/12/2010 Inception Report Explanation State RoadAdministration

JICASurvey Team

05/05/2011 Explanation of Bridge Type Selection State RoadAdministration

JICASurvey Team

19/05/2011 Agreement on the Result of Bridge Type Selection JICASurvey Team

State RoadAdministration

A1-1

12-1, Honmachi 3-chome, Shibuya-ku, Tokyo, 151-0071 JapanTel: +81-3-6311-7570 Fax: +81-3-6311-8020 e-mail: [email protected]

ORICONSUL

The Preparatory Survey onthe Project of Construction of Mykolaiv Bridge in Ukraine

The Consortium of Oriental Consultants Co., Ltd. andChodai Co., Ltd.

December 22, 2010Our Ref.No.705R3349-04

To: STATE ENTERPRISEUKRAINIAN WATER WAYS

Attn: Mr. Grygoriy MEDVEDEVDeputy of the Chief12, P Sagaidachnogo Str.,Kiev, Ukraine

RE: NAVIGATION CLEARANCE FOR MYKOLAIV BRIDGE

Pursuant to “Navigation Clearance under Bridges on Inland waterways (GOST26775-97)”,the minimum navigation clearance at the crossing point of the Yuzhniy Bug River for twonavigable spans is 120 m width and 13.5 m high for each span.

As the JICA Survey Team for “THE PREPARATORY SURVEY ON THE PROJECT OFCONSTRUCTION OF MYKOLAIV BRIDGE IN UKRAINE”, we would like to propose toapply one navigable span for the Project instead of the two navigable spans because of thefollowing reasons.

- Proposed bridge location is on a curved point of the river where the velocity of riverstream varies depending on the position (inside or outside of the corner).

- Visibility at the bridge site is sometimes reduced by foggy weather

- The pier between two navigable spans is NOT preferable considering accidental collisionof vessels into the pier with above mentioned conditions.

Therefore please kindly approve the application of one navigable span for the captionedbridge.

Yours faithfully,

Hideki YoneyamaTeam Leader of JICA Survey TeamOriental Consultants Co., Ltd.

cc Deputy Chairman - UKRAVTODOR

A1-2

A1-3

[Emblem of Ukraine]MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT AND COMMUNICATIONS OF UKRAINE

UKRAINIAN MARINE AND RIVER FLEETSTATE ENTERPRISE ON WATER WAYS

UKRVODSHLYAH

04070, Kyiv-70, P.Sagajdachnogo Str., 12 tel. (044) 417-57-54Code acc. to Uniform State Registryof Enterprises and Organizations of Ukraine 03150102, c/a No 26005301301 tel./fax (044) 425-45-13in Private JS Company of Prominvestbank in Kyiv city, MFO 300012 E-mail: [email protected]

Ref.No 2-12/350 dated 28.12.2010

To Team LeaderJICA Survey Oriental Consultants Co., LtdHideki Yoneyama

to Ref.No 705R3349-04dated 22.12.2010

State Enterprise “Ukrvodshlyah” have considered the letter on the designing of one navigationspan of the bridge pass on the River Pivdenniy Bug in Mykolaiv city and agree this designsolution provided that the navigation span width is to be not less than 240 m.

First Deputy Head [signature] G.M.Medvedev

Executed Guseynov Y.G.Tel. 428-86-63

QUALITY CONTROL SYSTEMCERTIFICATED ON THECORRESPONDANCE with System of Standardization of Ukraine ISO 9001-2009Navigation Registry of Ukraine

A1-4

A1-5

A1-6

（レターの英訳）Dear Hideki san,

As I promised sending you the additional information to the questionnaire which we stillreceiving from the Ministries. Sending you attached pdf. letter from the UkrainianWaterway Administration regarding the number of ships passing under the MykolaivBridge and its translation.

Number of ships passing under the Mykolaiv Bridge separation required

# Year/Month 2008 2009 20101 January 1 12 February 1 13 March 2 44 April 4 3 15 May 1 2 46 June 2 3 27 July 5 98 August 1 1 29 September 5 110 October 2 111 November 7 3 112 December 1 4Total 31 33 11

Number of ships passing under the Mykolaiv Bridge NO separation required

# Year/Month 2008 2009 20101 January 82 February 3 103 March 24 April 15 May 16 June 17 July8 August9 September 1 210 October 1 111 November 212 December 4Total 11 21 5

A1-7

A1-8

A1-9

A1-10

[Logo: International Airport Mykolaiv]Tel. (+380512) 47-86-50, Fax (+380512) 47-74-17 AFTN: UKONAPDU54017, Ukraine, Mykolaiv, post box 310, Airport email: [email protected]

Ref.No 1058 dated 24.12.2010

To Head of Road Servicein Mykolaiv RegionMr. Getun V.M.

We would like to submit you the conclusion regarding the agreement on bridge pass constructionover the Pivdenniy Bug River in Mykolaiv city.

Director GeneralCommunal Enterprise “International Airpot Mykolaiv” [signature, stamp] A.E. Keyan

A1-11

From: International Airport Mykolaiv Tel. 439389 Dec 24. 2010 15:33 Pages 2

APPROVEDDirector GeneralCommunal Enterprise

“International Airport Mykolaiv”[signature] A.E.KEYAN24.12.2010

CONCLUSION

Regarding Agreement on the construction of the Bridge pass over the Pivdenniy Bug River inMykolaiv city.

Customer: State Road Service of Ukraine (Road Service in Mykolaiv Region)

Commission on the height restriction agreement on the near-by airfield zone of Mykolaiv airportconsisting of:

Head of commission: Chief Airport Engineer O.V. LugovyCommission members: Deputy Chief Airport Engineer Vaskov S.G.

Chief of Ground and Security ServiceChief Navigating Officer of the Airport Karastoyanov M.M.Engineer-Inspector on the flights safety Smirnov V.V.

considered the materials on the construction of the Bridge pass over the Pivdenniy Bug River inMykolaiv city and determined:

1. Bridge abutment is located beyond the air approach zone against the runway threshold 05п 47030272 c 031542291.

2. Height reference mark of bridge abutment makes 112 m, relating to the runway level itmakes 56 m.

3. According to the Regulations on Flight Operations and the Table of Estimation of themin passing safety while landing (OCA/OCH) on the runway level 05, the bridgeabutment height is not considered as an obstacle for flight safety.

CONCLUSION:

1. According to the regulatory documents structure of bridge pass over the Pivdenniy BugRiver on its key rates is not an obstacle for flight safety within the near-by airfield zone.

2. The Structure of bridge pass over the Pivdenniy Bug is to be marked during day andnight time according to the Air Code of Ukraine.

3. After construction completion it is necessary to submit the engineering documentation,where the absolute structure marks are specified, to the address of the CommunalEnterprise “International Airport Mykolaiv”.

Head of commission: Chief Airport Engineer [signature] O.V. LugovyCommission members: Deputy Chief Airport Engineer [signature] Vaskov S.G.

Chief of Ground and Security Service [signature] Tatochenko A.V.Chief Navigating Officer of the Airport [signature] Karastoyanov M.M.Engineer-Inspector on the flights safety [signature] Smirnov V.V

A1-12

A1-13

A1-14

A1-15

A1-16

A1-17

A1-18

A1-19

Preparatory Survey on the Project for Construction of Mykolaiv Bridge in Ukraine Final Report

A2-1

Appendix 2 Study for Waterway １． Summary

The width of the waterway at the river is stipulated in the norm of Ukraine “DSTU B V.2.3-1-

95(GOST26775-97)”. Dimension of target ships indicated in the norm is defined as 180m in length, 21m in

width and the waterway with 120m-width for each directions are stipulated.

In this study, the width of waterway is compared with the one of the other standard in order to confirm its

adequateness.

2. Norm of Ukraine for waterway

Target ships and dimension of waterway is shown in Table-1

Table-1 dimension of waterway in Ukraineian norm.

Item Contents Remarks Target ship Ship：180m（L） ×21m（W）×12.8m(H)

Raft：680m（L）×75m（W）×12.8m(H)

Width 120m（in case of bascule bridge: 50m） 2×120m for upstream and downstream

Waterway class 3 -Trunk

Height 13.5m

Draft Mean:2.3m～2.9m（min. 1.9～2.5m）

3. Target ships

Based on the above dimension of ship, i.e. L=180m, loaded draft=2.0m, it is considered that ships may be

barges as indicated below.

出典：SHIP COLLISION WITH BRIDGES, The International between Vessel Traffic and Bridge Structures,

IABSE, AIPC, IVBH

153m

22.8m

A2-2

4. Waterway width in the standards of Japan

Standard of waterway is stipulated in “Technical Standards and Commentaries for Port and Harbor

Facilities in Japan” (hereinafter referred to as Japanese Port Standards).

According to Japanese Port Standard, in case that target ships and navigation environment are unidentified,

following dimensions should be recommended.

There is possibility of passing each other of ships:

- Length of waterway is comparably long (long waterway) ；1.5Loa

- Ships are passing each other frequently. ：1.5Loa

- Both situations occur simultaneously. ：2.0Loa

Based on the above situation of “Long waterway”, required width of waterway should be…..

Width of waterway B= 1.5Loa =1.5 ×180 m= 270m

In addition, according to Japanese port standard, the waterway at curved point should be corner cutoff in

case of intersection with more than 30 degree.

For instance, if radius of waterway’s centerline is 4x180=720m and intersection angle is 30 degree,

dimension of cutoff is 20m.

Figure-1 corner cutoff of waterway

5. Evaluation for width of waterway

Comparison between Ukrainian standard and Japanese one is as follows.

Ukrainian: B=2×120m=240m ＜Japanese；B=270m＋20m(corner cutoff)

θ

Δ


A3-1

Appendix 3 Live Loads based on DBN Specifications

1. Live Loads

1.1 AK-loading (model-1)

・Application : Distributed load and Tandem load applied simultaneously.

・Distributed load : p=0.98K=0.98×15=14.7 kN/m

・Tandem load : P=9.81K=9.81×15=147.15kN

- Number of notional lane is not always equal to the number of carriageway

- Center of lane (vehicle) shall be apart more than 1.5m from face of curb (or guard rail), and interval

of lanes (vehicles) shall be 3.0m in terms of application of AK-loading.

- Number of notional lanes equal to the width of the carriageway in meters divided by 3.5m.

- The difference of the width between notional lanes and carriageway is called as additional lane.

- Multiple presence factor (S1) can be referred to below table;

Number of

Carriageway distributed load Tandem load

1 1.0 1.0 2 0.6 1.0 3 0.6 0.75 4 0.6 0.5

5 or more 0.6 0.0 Add lane 3 0.25 0.25 Add lane 4 0.25 0.25

Other add. lanes 0.25 0.0

- When some loads, such as Sidewalk live load and Railway tracks, are simultaneously applied,

additional factor “S2” should be applied.

→ For the combination of Rail tracks and AK-loading

S2= 1 - 0.01・λ ≧0.75

→ For the combination of Subway tracks / Street car and AK-loading

S2=1 - 0.002・λ ≧0.75

1.5m 1.9m

0.6 m

P/2 P/2

C=0.2m p

A3-2

Here, λ is the length of superstructure on which loads are applied.

1.2 NK cart (Model-2) loading : not necessary to be applied together with Earthquake load

NK-100: P=245 kN（axis load）

1.3 Sidewalk load

1) Distributed load

a) For pedestrian bridge and sidewalk for city br. :q= 3.92kN/m2

b) When traffic loads are applied simultaneously :q= 1.96kN/m2

2) When Distributed load is applied without other loads

This case is specified for the combination with Railway tracks

3) When Concentrated load is applied without other loads

a) City bridges : P= 9.8 kN (applied at the area of 0.15m x 0.10m)

b) Other bridges : P= 1.27 kN

1.2m 1.2m 1.2m 2.7 m

0.8 m

P/2 P/2

C=0.2m


A3-3

2. Comparison of DBN live load and B-load (specified in Japanese standards)

A comparison study of live loads specified in DBN and Japanese standards was carried out. The comparison is

focused in terms of magnitude of bending moment at span-center of simple beam.

M(DBN)=Ry・x・Wn・m

Where, x : a ratio of plastic section module to elastic section module

Ry : Yield strength of steel material

Wn : elastic section module

M : service coefficient（coefficient for reduction of resisting strength）

M(B-load)=Ry・Wn・ν

Ry : Yield strength of steel material

Wn : elastic section module

ν : safety ratio = 1.7

The comparison result is shown in below figure;

The magnitude of the bending moments generated by the DBN live load and B-live load are almost same for the

span length around 40m to 80m, according to the diagram.

0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

0 20 40 60 80 100

D+L(DBN)

D+L(B LOAD)

L(DBN)

L(B LOAD)

Span length （ｍ）

M（kN.m）

A3-4


A3-5

A3-6


A3-7

A3-8


A3-9

A3-10


A4-1

Appendix 4 Reference for Alignment Setting 1. Horizontal alignment

Horizontal alignment of M14 bypass is same to feasibility study in 2004 as a result of review (refer

chapter 5.1.1 and 5.7.1). And elements of alignment is shown in Report Vo.2 “approach road design”.

2. Longitudinal alignment of bridge section ( bridge selection stage)

(1) Design policy

Optimum longitudinal alignment was considered between location of A1 abutment and right bank of

Bug River for bridge selection. Main design policy is as follows.

- Follow the DBN V 2.3-4-2007(vertical gradient and vertical curve)

- Keep clearance against crossing roads and navigation clearance of southern Bug river.

- Cut depth of right bank should be kept less than 12m. (If it is more than 12m, land acquisition area

will be so much wider.)

(2) Control Point

C.P.1 Crossing Road (PK8+810)

3.0+5.5+2.5＝11.0m & considered cross fall affection -- PH should be higher than 11.5m

Elevation of existing road: 3.0m

Clearance of crossing road : 5.5m

Necessary thickness for short Bridge: 2.5m

P.H

A4-2

C.P.2 Navigation Clearance (PK11+00)

1.58+13.5+5.0＝20.08m --- PH should be higher than 20.08m

C.P.3 Crossing Road T-1506 (PK11+867)

58.0-2.5-5.5＝50.0m --- PH should be lower than 50.0m, but it should be tried to keep cut

depth less than 12m from ground level.

(3) Outline of alternatives

Alternative 1 : Vertical gradient of long bridge section is 2.0% (F/S 2004 is also 2.0%). But total

longitudinal design was modified because of longitudinal planning of F/S 2004 dose not

match DBNV2.3-4 2007.

Alternative 2 : Vertical gradient of long bridge section is 2.5%

Alternative 3 : Vertical gradient of long bridge section is 2.7%, this is limit to keep navigation

clearance.

H.W.L 1.58m (FS2004)

Navigation clearance: 13.5m

Necessary thickness for longt Bridge: 2.5m

Width for

navigation: 280m

Center of navigation PK11+00 →

Navigation area PK10+860-PK11+140

P.H

P.H

Elevation of existing T-1506 : 58.0m

Necessary thickness for short Bridge: 2.5m

Clearance of M-14 bypass road : 5.5m


A4-3

Figu

re. 1

: Thr

ee-a

ltern

ativ

es o

f lon

gitu

dina

l pla

nnin

g

A4-4

(4) Conclusion

Table. 1 Geometric parameters

From DBN Alternative-1 Alternative-2 Alternative-3

Maximum vertical gradient

3.5% 2.0% 2.5% 2.7%

Minimum vertical gradient

0.5%

0.5% 0.5% 0.5%

Minimum Vertical curve R

(convex)

25000m 35000m 33000m 21800m(OUT)

Vertical curve section length

(convex）

Recommendation :more than 300ｍ 500m 660m 300m

Minimum Vertical curve R

(concave)

7000m 26700m 20000m 18200m

Vertical curve section length (concave）

Recommendation :more than 100ｍ 400m 400m 400m

Alternative-3 is not available because of minimum vertical curve radius is less than 25000m.

Table. 2: Planning Height at control points

Target of PH Alternative-1 Alternative-2

(CP1)PK8+810Ccrossing road Higher than 11.50 11.90 11.90

(CP2)PK10+860 Edge of

navigation Higher than 20.08m 25.60 22.00

(CP3)PK11+867 T-1506

Lower than 50.0m 45.47 46.01

(Cut depth 12m)

PK11+800:53-12 > 41 44.33 44.83

PK12+00: 59-12 > 47 47.36 47.96

(CP3)PK11+800-12+200 cut

section

PK12+200: 58-12 > 46 49.24 49.86


A4-5

Above table shows the deference of planning height at CP2 is 3.6m. This is big difference for

construction cost.

And vertical gradient 2.0% and 2.5 % are no difference, focusing the road service (safety for

traffic vehicles, provision high speed motorway)

Therefore alternative 2 is best alignment for bridge selection stage. But this longitudinal

alignment has been considered with old topographic data ( F/S in 2004), thus the time of

preliminary design, information all control points will be updated ( topographic survey will

be completed in May 2011).

Figure. 2: Longitudinal alignment for bridge selection

3. Longitudinal alignment at junction (connection to P-06)

This junction was planned as underpass road at intersection of P-06 by F/S in 2004. JICA survey team

reviewed existing F/S and studied feasibility of overpass style at this point before preliminary design

with new topographic survey result. Because if it is possible to design overpass of M-14 bypass, it will

be not cared P-06 relocation and railway bridge construction. And it can make reduce to disturb

economic activity (not to stop traffic flow) in construction stage.

A4-6

Kherson Odessa

Figure. 3: Trial section (upper plan, bottom profile)

Figure. 4: Result of M-14 bypass profile trial at junction

Conclusion

As a result of trial, overpass alignment is not available to design, the reasons below.

- If it makes to be possible over bridge, beginning point of project must be changed toward eastern

direction. (= This trial was not able to keep clearance for thickness of bridge girder)

- High embankment section continued at least 2 km (until PK35).

Thus, M-14 bypass road will be designed as underpass at this junction in preliminary design.

1

1

Программа встречив УКРАВТОДОРЕ

5 мая 2011 г.

• Начало 10:00 AM • Окончание 11:30 AM

1. График изысканий

2. Запрос о разрешении

3. Метод оценки

4. Выбор типа моста

Agenda for the meeting at UKRAVTODORon May 5, 2011

• Start Time 10:00 AM • End Time 11:30 AM

1. Survey Schedule

2. Request of Approval

3. Evaluation Method (AHP)

4. Selection of Bridge Type

2

PREPARATORY SURVEYON

THE PROJECTOF

CONSTRUCTION OF MYKOLAIVBRIDGE

INUKRAINE

EVALUATION METHOD

ORIENTAL CONSULTANTSCHODAI CO., LTD

ORIENTAL CONSULTANTSCHODAI CO., LTD

ПРЕДВАРИТЕЛЬНОЕИССЛЕДОВАНИЕПО ПРОЕКТУ

СТРОИТЕЛЬСТВАМОСТА

В Г. НИКОЛАЕВ,УКРАИНА

МЕТОД ОЦЕНКИ

A5-1

oc0778

テキストボックス

Appendix 5 Priority Ordering Method for Bridge Type Selection (AHP)

oc0778


Preparatory Survey on the Project of Construction of Mykolaiv Bridge in Ukraine Final Report

oc0778

oc0778

oc0778

四角形

2

3

Аналитический ИерархическийПроцесс (AHP):

Приоритетный методранжирования вариантов дляпринятия решений

Analytic Hierarchy Process

(AHP):

A Priority Ordering Method for Decision Making

МЕТОД ОЦЕНКИ EVALUATION METHOD

4

1. Критерии для выбора типа конструкции

Стоимость строительства; Стоимость техобслуживания; Безопасность судоходства; Эстетический аспект; Сложность строительства; Экологический аспект иприобретение нового технического опыта.

(Меньше недостатков и больше преимуществ для Украины)

1. Attributes for Bridge Selection

Construction Cost, Maintenance Cost, Navigation Safety

Aesthetic Feature, Construction Difficulty

Environmental Effect and Technical Transfer

(Less Demerits and More Merits for Ukrainian side)

A5-2

oc0778

四角形

oc0778

oc0778

3

5

1. Attributes for Bridge Selection

Construction Cost Navigation Safety ＞ Merits for Ukrainian

＞ Aesthetic Feature＞Construction Difficulty ＞Maintenance Cost

What is essential to be feasible? → Cost, Traffic Safety (both for road and river), Durability (50 to 100 years)

1. Критерии для выбора типа конструкции

Стоимость строительства ＞ Безопасность судоходства ＞Преимущества для Украины ＞ Эстетический аспект＞Сложность строительства ＞ Стоимость техобслуживания.

Что наиболее важно для осуществления проекта? Стоимость, безопасность транспорта (дорожного и водного), долговечность (ресурс прочности 50-100 лет)

6

2. Сравнительная шкала значимости

1: А равнозначно В

3, 5, 7, 9: А имеет (несколько; существенно; бесспорно; абсолютно) большую значимость, чем В

2, 4, 6, 8: промежуточные значения

Ранжирование субъективно, но поддаётся обсуждению

2. Scale of Relative Importance1: A is equal to B.

3, 5, 7, 9: A is (slightly, considerably, strongly, extremely) more important or favorable than B.

2,4,6,8: Intermediate intensity of the above numbers.

Scoring is subjective but discussible

A5-3

oc0778

四角形

oc0778

四角形

oc0778



oc0778

oc0778

4

7

3. Удельный вес критериев 3. Weight for Attributes

Weight: Maltiple mean of each attribute/Total of Maltiple Means

.Удельный вес: Сред. Геометр. значение каждого критерия/Суммасредних геометр.значений

Weight0.04 0.06 0.10 0.16 0.25 0.38 Удельный вес

Total7.862 21.00 15.50 10.83 7.08 4.28 2.45

Всего

Maintenance Cost0.335 1.00 0.50 0.33 0.25 0.20 0.17

Стоимость техобслуж.

Construction Difficulty0.505 2.00 1.00 0.50 0.33 0.25 0.20

Сложность строительства

Aesthetic Feature0.792 3.00 2.00 1.00 0.50 0.33 0.25

Эстетические качества

Merit for Ukraine1.258 4.00 3.00 2.00 1.00 0.50 0.33

Преимущество для Украины

Navigation safety1.979 5.00 4.00 3.00 2.00 1.00 0.50

Безопасность судоходства

Construction Cost2.994 6.00 5.00 4.00 3.00 2.00 1.00

Стоимость строительства

Multiply Mean

Maintenance Cost

Construction Difficulty

Aesthetic Feature Merit for UkraineNavigation safetyConstruction

Cost

Среднеегеометр. значение

Стоимостьтехобслуж.

Сложностьстроительства

Эстетическийаспект

Преимуществодля Украины

Безопасностьсудоходства

Стоимостьстроительства

8

4. Матрица попарного ранжированияСоотношение: тип конструкции моста - критерий

(1) Стоимость строительстваПодвесной мост : Вантовый мост : Мост с фермами :

Мост со стальной балкой коробчатого сечения (пролёт 120 м) =

1.071 : 1.000 : 1.305 : 0.668

Баллы: 5 (существенно больше) : 4 : 7 (бесспорно больше) : 1

4. Pair Wise Matrix between Bridge Type and Attribute

(1) Construction Cost

Suspension : Cable Stay : Truss : Steel-box (120m span) =

1.071 : 1.000 : 1.305 : 0.668

Score 5 (considerably) : 4 : 7 (Strongly) : 1

A5-4

oc0778

四角形

oc0778

oc0778

5

9

(1) Стоимость строительства (1). Construction Cost

（Referential alternative）Steel-box (120m span)

（Референтный вариант）0.668

Стальная коробчатая балка(пролёт 120 м)

Truss 1.305

Мост с фермами

Cable stayed 1.000

Вантовый мост

Suspension 1.071

Подвесной мост

RemarksRatioCostПримечанияСоотношениеСтоимость

Unit：hundred million YEN

Ед. измерения: сто млн иен

Construction Cost Comparison Table

Таблица стравнения стоимостистроительства

10

(1) Стоимость строительства (1) Construction Cost

Priority: Multiple Mean of Each Bridge Type/Total of Multiple Means

Приоритет: Сред.геометр.знач. каждого типа моста/Сумма ср. геом знач.

Priority0.60 0.06 0.21 0.13

Приоритет

Total5.697 1.59 15.00 5.75 8.33

Всего

Steel-box (120m span)3.440 1.00 7.00 4.00 5.00


Truss 0.328 0.14 1.00 0.25 0.33


Cable stayed 1.189 0.25 4.00 1.00 2.00


Suspension 0.740 0.20 3.00 0.50 1.00


Multiply MeanSteel-boxTrussCable stayed Suspension


Стальнаякоробчатая

балка

Мост сфермами

Вантовыймост

Подвесноймост

(1) Pair Wise Comparison Matrix for the “Construction Cost”.

(1) Матрица попарного ранжирования для категории«Стоимость строительства»

A5-5

oc0778

四角形

oc0778



oc0778

oc0778

6

11

(2) Безопасность судоходства

(в зависимости от длины основного пролёта)

Подвесной мост : Вантовый мост : Мост с фермами : Мост со стальной балкой коробчатого сечения (пролёт 120 м) =

510 м : 480 м : 400 м : 120 м

Баллы 1 : 2 : 3 (несколько больше) : 7 (бесспорно больше)

(2) Navigation Safety (depending on main span length)

Suspension : Cable Stay : Truss : Steel-box (120m span)

510m : 480m : 400m : 120m

Score 1 : 2 : 3 (Slightly) : 7 (Strongly)

12

Какая ширина достаточна для данной реки (согласно украинскимнормам, должно проходить судно длиной 180 м)?

Из соображений безопасности:

Согласно рекомендации «Укрводшлях»:

по 120 м в обе стороны (без устоя) = 240 м

Согласно японскому стандарту 180 м x 1.5 = 270 м (Референтный вариант)

Меньший судоходный пролёт может уменьшить пропускную способность дляречного транспорта

How wide is enough for the river (180m long ship shall pass by Ukrainian Norm)?

For Safety Reason :

From Ukrainian Waterway Recommendation

120m for both way (without pier)= 240 m

From Japanese Standard 180m x 1.5 = 270m (Reference)

Smaller Span (120m) may depress the capacity of river transportation.

A5-6

oc0778

四角形

oc0778

oc0778

7

13

(2) Безопасность судоходства (2) Navigation Safety



Priority0.05 0.18 0.29 0.48

Приоритет

Total5.327 19.00 6.20 3.67 1.97

Всего

Steel-box (120m span)0.263 1.00 0.20 0.17 0.14


Truss 0.953 5.00 1.00 0.50 0.33


Cable stayed 1.565 6.00 2.00 1.00 0.50


Suspension 2.546 7.00 3.00 2.00 1.00





балка




（２） Pair Wise Comparison Matrix for the “Navigation safety”

（２） Матрица попарного ранжирования для категории«Безопасность судоходства»

14

(3) Преимущества для Украины(Экологический аспект и приобретение нового технического опыта)С точки зрения экологии, мост с длинными пролётами является предпочтительным (чем

меньше внедрение в русло реки, тем меньше поднимается токсичных газов и ила).

В аспекте приобретения нового технического опыта, вариант «Подвесной Мост» являетсяпредпочтительным, т.к. проекты мостов с большими пролётами могут бытьвостребованы в Украине (Киевская кольцевая дорога: Северный мост)

Подвесной мост : Вантовый мост : Мост с фермами : Мост со стальной балкой коробчатого сечения (пролёт 120 м)

Баллы 1 : 2 : 3 (несколько больше) : 5 (существенно больше)

(3) Merit for Ukrainian Side (Environmental Issue and Technical Transfer)

As for Environmental Issue, long span bridge is preferable because of less disturbance of river bed (prevent from rising toxic gas and silt)

As for Technical Transfer, “Suspension Bridge” is preferable because long span bridge may be required in Ukraine (Kiev Ring Road: Northern Bridge)


Score 1 : 2 : 3 (Slightly) : 5 (Considerably)

A5-7

oc0778

四角形

oc0778



oc0778

oc0778

8

15

(3) Преимущества для Украины (3) Merit for Ukrainian Side



Priority0.09 0.16 0.27 0.48

Приоритет

Total4.841 11.00 6.50 3.83 2.03

Всего

Steel-box (120m span)0.426 1.00 0.50 0.33 0.20


Truss 0.758 2.00 1.00 0.50 0.33


Cable stayed 1.316 3.00 2.00 1.00 0.50


Suspension 2.340 5.00 3.00 2.00 1.00





балка




（３） Pair Wise Comparison Matrix for the “Merit for Ukrainian Side-Environmental Issue and Technical Transfer”

（３） Матрица попарного ранжирования для категории «Преимущества для Украины: Экологический аспект и Приобретение технического опыта»

16

(4) Эстетический аспектПодвесной мост – монументальный, визуально хорошо сбалансирован

Вантовый мост – монументальный, но визуально слишком «тяжёлый» (из-занебольшой высоты нижнего строения)

Мост со стальными фермами – замысловатая форма (каркас в форме закрытойклетки)

Мост со стальной коробчатой балкой – форма простая, но широко используемая

Подвесной : Вантовый : Мост с фермами : Стальная балка (пролёт 120 м)

Баллы 1 : 3 (несколько больше) : 7 (бесспорно больше) : 5 (существеннобольше)

(4) Aesthetic Feature Suspension : Monumental and Good Balance,

Cable Stay : Monumental but Top Heavy (because of small substructure height)

Steel Truss : Intricate Form (Closed cage), Steel-box : Simple but Common use


Score 1 : 3 (Slightly) : 7 (Strongly) : 5 (Considerably)

A5-8

oc0778

四角形

oc0778

oc0778

9

17

(4) Эстетический аспект (4) Aesthetic Feature



Priority0.12 0.05 0.26 0.56

Приоритет

Total5.670 9.33 16.00 4.53 1.67

Всего

Steel-box (120m span)0.667 1.00 3.00 0.33 0.20


Truss 0.310 0.33 1.00 0.20 0.14


Cable stayed 1.492 3.00 5.00 1.00 0.33


Suspension 3.201 5.00 7.00 3.00 1.00





балка




（４） Pair Wise Comparison Matrix for the “Aesthetic Feature”

（４） Матрица попарного ранжирования для категории«Эстетический аспект»

18

(5) Сложность строительства(в зависимости от длины основного пролёта)Подвесной, вантовый – использование тросов и вант; сооружение опор между

устоями не потребуется. Сборные конструкции удобные в сборке.

Фермовый, стальная коробчатая балка – требуются временные опоры междуустоями. Небольшие элементы конструкции придётся собирать на площадке, если не будет большого плавучего крана.


Баллы 1 : 1 : 3 (несколько больше) : 2

(5) Construction Difficulty (depending on main span length)Suspension , Cable Stay : Utilizing cables and wires, no support will be required between

piers. Prefabricated segments are easily assemble.

Truss, Steel-box (120m span): temporary supports between piers are required. Small members must be assembled at the site if the large floating crane is not available.


Score 1 : 1 : 3 (Slightly) : 2

A5-9

oc0778

四角形

oc0778



oc0778

oc0778

10

19

(5) Сложность строительства (5) Construction Difficulty



Priority0.15 0.07 0.39 0.39

Приоритет

Total5.031 7.33 14.00 2.53 2.53

Всего

Steel-box (120m span)0.756 1.00 3.00 0.33 0.33


Truss 0.339 0.33 1.00 0.20 0.20


Cable stayed 1.968 3.00 5.00 1.00 1.00


Suspension 1.968 3.00 5.00 1.00 1.00





балка




（５） Pair Wise Comparison Matrix for the “Construction Difficulty”

（５） Матрица попарного ранжирования для категории«Сложность строительства»

20

(6) Стоимость техобслуживания

(в зависимости от площади окрашиваемых поверхностей)

Стальная коробч < балка Подвесной = Вантовый < Мост с фермами


Баллы 2 : 2 : 3 (несколько больше) : 1

(6) Maintenance Cost (mainly depending on the painted area)

Steel-box (120m span) < Suspension = Cable Stay < Steel Truss


Score 2 : 2 : 3 (Slightly) : 1

A5-10

oc0778

四角形

oc0778

oc0778

11

21

(6) Стоимость техобслуживания (6) Maintenance Cost



Priority0.420.12 0.230.23

Приоритет

Total4.397 2.33 8.00 4.50 4.50

Всего

Steel-box (120m span)1.861 1.00 3.00 2.00 2.00


Truss 0.536 0.33 1.00 0.50 0.50


Cable stayed 1.000 0.50 2.00 1.00 1.00


Suspension 1.000 0.502.00 1.00 1.00





балка




（６） Pair Wise Comparison Matrix for the “Maintenance Cost”.

（６） Матрица попарного ранжирования для категории«Стоимость техобслуживания»

22

5. Заключение анализа АНР 5. Conclusion of AHP

Steel-box －0.30 0.42 0.15 0.12 0.09 0.05 0.60

Стальнаякоробч. балка

Referential alternative (120m span)Референтный вариант (пролёт 120 м)

Truss ③0.11 0.12 0.07 0.05 0.16 0.18 0.06 Мост с фермами

Cable stayed ②0.26 0.23 0.39 0.26 0.27 0.29 0.21 Вантовый мост

Suspension ①0.34 0.23 0.39 0.56 0.48 0.48 0.13 Подвесной мост

WeightRankPriority

in total0.04 0.06 0.10 0.16 0.25 0.38 Удельный весt

РангСуммарныйприоритет

Maintenance Cost

Construction Difficulty

Aesthetic Feature

Merit for Ukraine

Navigation safety

Construction CostBridge Type

Стоимостьтехобслуживания

Сложностьстроительства

Эстетическийаспект

Преимуществадля Украины

Безопасностьсудоходства

СтоимостьстроительстваТип конструкции

Weighted PriorityPriority factors before weightingВзвешенный приоритетПриоритетные факторы до «взвешивания»

A5-11

oc0778

四角形

oc0778



oc0778

oc0778

A6-1

Preparatory Survey on the Project for Construction of Mykolaiv Bridge in UkraineFinal Report

App

endi

x 6

Env

iron

men

tal C

heck

list:

15. R

oads

and

Rai

lway

s C

ateg

ory

Env

iron

men

tal

Item

M

ain

Che

ck It

ems

Con

firm

atio

n of

Env

iron

men

tal C

onsid

erat

ions

(1) E

IA a

nd

Envi

ronm

enta

l Pe

rmits

① H

ave

EIA

repo

rts b

een

offic

ially

com

plet

ed?

②

Hav

e EI

A re

ports

bee

n ap

prov

ed b

y au

thor

ities

of t

he g

over

nmen

t?

③ H

ave

EIA

repo

rts b

een

unco

nditi

onal

ly a

ppro

ved?

If c

ondi

tions

are

im

pose

d on

the

appr

oval

of E

IA re

ports

, are

the

cond

ition

s sat

isfie

d?

④ I

n ad

ditio

n to

the

abo

ve a

ppro

vals

, ha

ve o

ther

req

uire

d en

viro

n-m

enta

l pe

rmits

be

en

obta

ined

fr

om

the

appr

opria

te

regu

lato

ry

auth

oriti

es o

f the

gov

ernm

ent?

①EI

A R

epor

t ha

d co

mpl

eted

onc

e tim

e -

in 2

004.

How

ever

, nei

ther

EI

A R

epor

t, no

r th

e Fe

asib

ility

Stu

dy in

gen

eral

had

not

bee

n se

nt

for

the

stat

e ex

perti

se a

nd, t

here

fore

, hav

e no

t obt

aine

d ap

prov

al o

f th

e su

perv

isor

y bo

dies

of U

krai

ne.

②N

ew E

IA R

epor

t its

elf

in U

krai

ne s

hall

not

be c

onsi

dere

d by

the

st

ate

ecol

ogic

al e

xper

tise.

The

refo

re, f

or E

IA R

epor

t app

rova

l it i

s re

quire

d to

pre

pare

the

who

le p

roje

ct (

the

prev

ious

pro

ject

(th

e Fe

asib

ility

Stu

dy)

is o

utda

ted

and

does

not

ref

lect

the

gis

t of

the

pl

anne

d ac

tivity

, bec

ause

it c

onsi

ders

onl

y on

e ve

rsio

n of

the

brid

ge

stru

ctur

e- th

e gi

rder

brid

ge).

③In

Ukr

aine

an

EIA

Rep

ort c

anno

t be

appr

oved

par

tially

. EIA

Rep

ort

gets

eith

er p

ositi

ve c

oncl

usio

n of

the

stat

e ec

olog

ical

exp

ertis

e or

it

shal

l be

reje

cted

. If

in th

e pr

oces

s of

the

expe

rtise

ther

e ar

ise

som

e re

mar

ks w

hich

can

be

corr

ecte

d th

en th

ey s

hall

be c

orre

cted

. If

the

rem

arks

are

of

the

prin

cipa

l cha

ract

er a

nd c

anno

t be

corr

ecte

d th

en

the

proj

ect r

ealiz

atio

n sh

all b

e pr

ohib

ited.

(U

p to

now

no

"roa

d" o

r "b

ridge

" pr

ojec

t wer

e re

ject

ed).

④ A

part

from

the

ecol

ogic

al e

xper

tise

it is

als

o re

quire

d to

per

form

the

sani

tary

exp

ertis

e. T

erm

s an

d co

nditi

ons

of it

s pe

rfor

man

ce a

re th

e sa

me-

ava

ilabi

lity

of th

e pr

ojec

t.

1 Pe

rmits

and

Ex

plan

atio

n

(2) E

xpla

natio

n to

th

e Pu

blic

① D

id i

mpl

emen

ting

agen

cy e

xpla

in c

onte

nts

of t

he p

roje

ct a

nd t

he

pote

ntia

l im

pact

s ad

equa

tely

to

the

publ

ic b

ased

on

appr

opria

te

proc

edur

es c

once

rnin

g in

form

atio

n di

sclo

sure

? D

id p

artic

ipan

ts

unde

rsta

nd w

hat t

o be

exp

lain

ed?

② A

re p

rope

r re

spon

ses

mad

e to

com

men

ts f

rom

the

pub

lic a

nd

regu

lato

ry a

utho

ritie

s?

① A

t thi

s st

age

all t

he p

roce

dure

s st

ipul

ated

by

Ukr

aini

an le

gisl

atio

n as

to in

form

ing

of th

e in

tere

sted

pub

lic: p

ublic

atio

n of

"D

ecla

ratio

n of

Int

ent"

and

"D

ecla

ratio

n of

Eco

logi

cal

Con

sequ

ence

s" i

n m

ass-

med

ia a

re p

erfo

rmed

. U

p to

now

the

re a

re n

eith

er a

pplic

atio

ns f

rom

the

int

eres

ted

pers

ons

with

the

requ

est t

o pr

ovid

e ad

ditio

nal i

nfor

mat

ion

nor r

emar

ks.

To e

nhan

ce p

ositi

ve im

age

of th

e C

usto

mer

and

to b

ette

r tra

nspa

renc

y of

the

plan

ned

activ

ity it

is r

easo

nabl

e to

hol

d th

e pu

blic

hea

ring

at

the

early

sta

ge o

f the

pro

ject

(the

re is

no

man

dato

ry re

quire

men

t on

that

in

the

legi

slat

ion

but

the

publ

ic c

onsu

ltatio

ns a

re d

esira

ble)

. Su

ch p

ublic

hea

rings

sha

ll be

hol

d by

the

loca

l aut

horit

ies

and

they

ar

e pl

anni

ng to

hol

d su

ch p

ublic

hea

ring.

②

In

case

the

publ

ic h

earin

gs a

re h

eld,

then

legi

slat

ion

oblig

ates

the

prop

onen

t of t

he p

ublic

hea

rings

to g

ive

grou

nded

pub

lic a

nsw

ers

to

all t

he m

entio

ned

ques

tions

and

rem

arks

.

A6-2

Cat

egor

y E

nvir

onm

enta

l It

em

Mai

n C

heck

Item

s C

onfir

mat

ion

of E

nvir

onm

enta

l Con

sider

atio

ns

2 M

itiga

tion

Mea

sure

s (1

) Air

Qua

lity

① I

s th

ere

any

poss

ibili

ty t

hat

air

pollu

tant

s em

itted

fro

m v

ario

us

sour

ces,

such

as

vehi

cle

traff

ic,

may

aff

ect

ambi

ent

air

qual

ity?

D

oes

ambi

ent

air

qual

ity c

ompl

y w

ith t

he c

ount

ry’

s am

bien

t ai

r qu

ality

stan

dard

s?

② W

here

ind

ustri

al a

reas

alre

ady

exis

t ne

ar t

he r

oute

, is

the

re a

po

ssib

ility

that

the

proj

ect m

ake

air p

ollu

tion

wor

se?

① D

urin

g op

erat

ion

of th

e br

idge

cro

ssin

g th

e ne

gativ

e im

pact

on

the

open

air

qual

ity w

ill b

e ca

used

by

mot

or v

ehic

le e

mis

sion

s (th

eir

estim

ated

am

ount

in 2

035

will

be

of 4

1 00

0 un

its).

The

per

form

ed

in E

IA R

epor

t ca

lcul

atio

ns u

nder

the

met

hod

adop

ted

in U

krai

ne

show

tha

t on

the

bor

der

of r

esid

entia

l ar

ea t

he c

once

ntra

tion

of

pollu

tant

s in

the

air

will

not

exc

eed

mar

gina

l da

ta a

llow

ed b

y sa

nita

ry st

anda

rds

of U

krai

ne (t

hese

sta

ndar

ds a

re m

ore

stric

t tha

n in

m

ajor

ity o

f ot

her

coun

tries

), ev

en c

onsi

derin

g th

e ex

istin

g ai

r po

llutio

n by

diff

eren

t sta

tiona

ry e

mis

sion

sour

ces.

It is

acc

ount

ed fo

r th

e ro

ad r

uns

away

fro

m t

hese

sou

rces

. In

the

fut

ure

the

terr

itory

ne

ar th

e ro

ad w

ill v

ery

likel

y be

larg

ely

build

up

with

new

bui

ldin

gs,

incl

udin

g, l

ikel

y, p

rodu

ctio

n fa

cilit

ies

and

the

air

qual

ity w

ill g

et

wor

se. H

owev

er, i

f th

is h

appe

ns, t

hen

not b

ecau

se o

f th

e tra

nspo

rt ve

hicl

es, b

ecau

se o

f san

itary

are

a w

ill b

e ke

pt, d

ista

nce

till t

he ro

ad

of 1

00 m

.

It is

im

porta

nt t

o co

nsid

er t

hat

curr

ently

the

air

qual

ity i

n th

e re

side

ntia

l are

as o

f Nik

olay

ev o

n m

any

inde

xes d

o no

t cor

resp

ond

to

Ukr

aini

an s

anita

ry s

tand

ards

. The

key

fac

tor

influ

enci

ng o

n th

at is

co

nges

tion

of c

ity s

treet

s by

tra

nsit

trans

port

vehi

cles

, whi

ch h

ave

no

alte

rnat

ive

plac

e to

cr

oss

Bug

est

uary

exc

ept

the

exis

ting

Var

varo

vski

y br

idge

. The

refo

re, a

fter c

onst

ruct

ion

of th

e ne

w b

ridge

cr

ossi

ng it

is e

xpec

ted

the

air q

ualit

y in

resi

dent

ial a

rea

of N

ikol

ayev

w

ill b

e si

gnifi

cant

ly b

ette

r.

② T

he b

ridge

cro

ssin

g al

ignm

ent

is l

ocat

ed a

way

fro

m i

ndus

trial

ar

eas.

At t

he s

ame

time

stat

iona

ry e

mis

sion

sou

rces

(ind

ustri

al o

nes)

w

ill c

ompr

ise

on th

e w

hole

less

than

30%

of

the

tota

l one

s on

the

city

. Th

eref

ore,

inf

luen

ce o

f tra

nspo

rt ve

hicl

es w

hich

will

use

the

br

idge

cro

ssin

g w

ill n

ot e

xcee

d th

e ai

r sa

nita

ry s

tand

ards

in

the

exis

ting

resi

dent

ial a

nd in

dust

rial a

reas

.

A6-3


Cat

egor

y E

nvir

onm

enta

l It

em

Mai

n C

heck

Item

s C

onfir

mat

ion

of E

nvir

onm

enta

l Con

sider

atio

ns

(2) W

ater

Qua

lity

① Is

ther

e an

y po

ssib

ility

that

soi

l run

off f

rom

the

bare

land

s re

sulti

ng

from

land

slid

e, s

uch

as c

uttin

g an

d fil

ling

wor

ks, m

ay c

ause

wat

er

qual

ity d

egra

datio

n in

dow

nstre

am w

ater

are

as?

②

Is

th

ere

a po

ssib

ility

th

at

surf

ace

runo

ff

from

ro

ads

may

co

ntam

inat

e w

ater

sour

ces s

uch

as g

roun

dwat

er?

③

Do

efflu

ents

fro

m v

ario

us f

acili

ties,

such

as

stat

ions

and

par

king

ar

eas/

serv

ice

area

s, co

mpl

y w

ith t

he c

ount

ry’

s ef

fluen

t st

anda

rds

and

ambi

ent w

ater

qua

lity

stan

dard

s?

Is th

ere

a po

ssib

ility

that

the

efflu

ents

may

cau

se a

reas

tha

t do

not

sat

isfy

with

the

cou

ntry

’s

ambi

ent w

ater

qua

lity

stan

dard

s?

① E

arth

wor

ks,

incl

udin

g cu

t-out

s, im

bank

men

ts,

flatte

ning

of

the

slop

e on

th

e rig

ht

bank

of

th

e riv

er

will

ce

rtain

ly

lead

to

de

terio

ratio

n of

the

est

uary

wat

er q

ualit

y (in

crea

se o

f tu

rbid

ity,

min

eral

izat

ion)

ups

tream

a an

d do

wns

tream

of t

he ri

ver (

dim

ensi

ons

of th

e pl

ume

will

be

of a

bout

1 k

m).

But

this

impa

ct is

lim

ited

by

perio

d of

the

wor

k pe

rfor

man

ce. A

fter t

he e

arth

wor

ks c

ompl

etio

n al

l th

e op

en a

rea

of th

e so

il w

ill b

e gr

ass-

cove

red

(sow

ing

of g

rass

) and

th

e in

fluen

ce o

f flo

win

g fr

om th

em w

ill b

e m

inim

um a

mou

nt.

② U

nder

grou

nd w

ater

firs

t ho

rizon

(be

ddin

g ro

ck)

are

clos

e to

the

su

rfac

e (2

-3 m

) an

d ca

n be

pol

lute

d in

cas

e of

vio

latio

n of

the

co

nstru

ctio

n ru

les

whe

n m

akin

g cu

t-out

s. A

fter

com

plet

ion

of t

he

cons

truct

ion

the

unde

rgro

und

wat

er p

ollu

tion

will

be

emili

nate

d,

beca

use

all

the

flow

ing

from

the

roa

d su

rfac

e w

ill b

e ar

rang

ed b

y w

ater

dis

char

ge o

utle

t. ③

The

re is

the

poss

ibili

ty o

f tem

pora

ry p

ollu

tion

in c

ase

of e

mer

genc

y si

tuat

ions

. Ukr

aini

an le

gisl

atio

n (W

ater

cod

e) p

rohi

bits

dis

char

ge o

f th

e in

suff

icie

ntly

unt

reat

ed w

ater

int

o na

tura

l ob

ject

s (c

hann

els,

gulc

hs, l

ower

are

as o

f gro

und

feat

ures

.

(3) N

oise

and

V

ibra

tion

① D

o no

ise

and

vibr

atio

ns f

rom

veh

icle

tra

ffic

sat

isfy

with

the

co

untry

’s s

tand

ards

?

① N

oise

and

vib

ratio

ns in

acc

orda

nce

with

the

fore

cast

of u

p to

203

5,

will

not

exc

eed

leve

ls a

llow

ed b

y sa

nita

ry st

anda

rds o

n th

e bo

rder

of

the

exis

ting

resi

dent

ial a

rea.

If

the

new

dev

elop

men

t will

get

clo

ser

to t

he r

oad

at t

he d

ista

nce

of l

ess

than

38

m a

nd p

rote

ctiv

e ac

com

mod

atio

ns (b

affle

s) a

re n

ot m

ount

ed, t

hen

ultim

ate

leve

ls w

ill

be e

xcee

ded.

3 N

atur

al

Envi

ronm

ent

(1) P

rote

cted

Are

as

① I

s th

e pr

ojec

t si

te l

ocat

ed i

n pr

otec

ted

area

s de

sign

ated

by

the

coun

try’

s la

ws o

r int

erna

tiona

l tre

atie

s and

con

vent

ions

? Is

ther

e a

poss

ibili

ty th

at th

e pr

ojec

t may

aff

ect t

he p

rote

cted

are

as?

①N

o. T

he P

roje

ct s

ite is

not

in p

rote

cted

are

a. In

the

area

of i

nflu

ence

by

the

obje

ct (3

km

) the

re a

re n

o te

rrito

ries a

nd o

bjec

ts, p

rote

cted

by

envi

ronm

enta

l leg

isla

tion.

A6-4

Cat

egor

y E

nvir

onm

enta

l It

em

Mai

n C

heck

Item

s C

onfir

mat

ion

of E

nvir

onm

enta

l Con

sider

atio

ns

(2) E

cosy

stem

① D

oes

the

proj

ect

site

enc

ompa

ss p

rimev

al f

ores

ts,

tropi

cal

rain

fo

rest

s, ec

olog

ical

ly v

alua

ble

habi

tats

(e.

g., c

oral

ree

fs, m

angr

oves

, or

tida

l fla

ts)?

②

D

oes

the

proj

ect

site

en

com

pass

th

e pr

otec

ted

habi

tats

of

en

dang

ered

sp

ecie

s de

sign

ated

by

th

e co

untry

’s

law

s or

in

tern

atio

nal t

reat

ies a

nd c

onve

ntio

ns?

③ I

f si

gnifi

cant

eco

logi

cal

impa

cts

are

antic

ipat

ed,

are

adeq

uate

pr

otec

tion

mea

sure

s tak

en to

redu

ce th

e im

pact

s on

the

ecos

yste

m?

④ A

re a

dequ

ate

prot

ectio

n m

easu

res

take

n to

pre

vent

impa

cts,

such

as

disr

uptio

n of

mig

ratio

n ro

utes

, ha

bita

t fr

agm

enta

tion,

and

tra

ffic

ac

cide

nt o

f wild

life

and

lives

tock

?

⑤ I

s th

ere

a po

ssib

ility

tha

t in

stal

latio

n of

roa

ds w

ill c

ause

im

pact

s su

ch a

s de

stru

ctio

n of

for

est,

poac

hing

, des

ertif

icat

ion,

red

uctio

n in

w

etla

nd a

reas

, and

dis

turb

ance

of e

cosy

stem

s du

e to

intro

duct

ion

of

exot

ic (

non-

nativ

e in

vasi

ve)

spec

ies

and

pest

s?

Are

ade

quat

e m

easu

res t

aken

in o

rder

to p

reve

nt su

ch im

pact

s con

side

red?

⑥

In

case

s w

here

the

proj

ect

site

is

loca

ted

at u

ndev

elop

ed a

reas

, is

ther

e a

poss

ibili

ty th

at th

e ne

w d

evel

opm

ent w

ill re

sult

in e

xten

sive

lo

ss o

f nat

ural

env

ironm

ents

?

①Th

ere

is n

o pr

imev

al, t

ropi

cal f

ores

t, no

r eco

logi

cal v

alua

ble

habi

tat

in th

e pr

ojec

t are

a or

nea

rby.

②

No

③N

o si

gnifi

cant

eco

logi

cal i

mpa

cts

are

antic

ipat

ed d

urin

g th

e br

idge

us

e.D

urin

g th

e co

nstru

ctio

n it

is e

xpec

ted

pote

ntia

lly s

igni

fican

t but

lim

ited

by th

e w

ork

perf

orm

ance

per

iod

impa

ct o

n aq

uatic

med

ium

(b

ecau

se

of

the

brea

king

of

th

e bo

ttom

se

dim

ents

), ge

olog

ic

envi

ronm

ent (

impa

ct o

n th

e sl

ope

on th

e rig

ht b

ank

of th

e riv

er) a

nd

the

vege

tabl

e w

orld

(d

efor

esta

tion)

. Th

e fir

st

two

obje

cts

of

influ

ence

sha

ll be

pro

tect

ed b

y te

chno

logi

cal s

olut

ions

and

the

latte

r - b

y w

ay o

f com

pens

ator

y pa

ymen

ts.

④D

isru

ptio

n of

mig

ratio

n ro

utes

, hab

itat f

ragm

enta

tion

and

so o

n ar

e no

t an

ticip

ated

. Th

e pr

ojec

t ar

ea

is

mos

tly

agric

ultu

ral

area

. Pr

even

tion

of r

oad

traff

ic a

ccid

ents

is s

uppo

sed

to b

e pe

rfor

med

by

inst

alla

tion

of th

e pr

otec

tion

fenc

e on

all

the

leng

th o

f the

road

way

. ⑤

It

is r

equi

red

to p

erfo

rm d

efor

esta

tion,

but

on

acco

unt

of t

he

com

pens

ator

y pa

ymen

ts (o

n th

e ba

sis o

f UA

H 2

50 0

00 p

er 1

ha)

it is

su

ppos

ed t

o ar

rang

e ne

w p

lant

ed l

ands

in

othe

r pl

ace.

A

reas

of

perio

dica

lly u

nder

-flo

oded

(wat

erlo

gged

) lan

d on

the

left

bank

of t

he

river

wha

t le

ads

to r

educ

tion

of a

rea

of a

cer

tain

hab

itat.

It is

im

poss

ible

to

com

pens

ate

this

im

pact

but

thi

s la

nd i

s ne

ither

pr

ecio

us n

or u

niqu

e on

e. A

fter

redu

ctio

n of

the

und

er-f

lood

ed a

nd

wat

erlo

gged

lan

d th

ere

the

bree

ding

are

a of

the

blo

od-s

ucki

ng

inse

cts w

ill b

e le

ss.

⑥

The

obje

ct w

ill b

e lo

cate

d in

the

terr

itorie

s w

hich

pre

viou

sly

have

be

en a

ctiv

ely

used

.

(3) H

ydro

logy

① I

s th

ere

a po

ssib

ility

tha

t ch

ange

of

topo

grap

hic

feat

ures

and

in

stal

latio

n of

stru

ctur

es s

uch

as t

unne

ls m

ay a

dver

sely

aff

ect

surf

ace

wat

er a

nd g

roun

dwat

er fl

ows?

①D

rain

age

and

prot

ectiv

e fa

cilit

ies

will

sig

nific

antly

inf

luen

ce o

n un

derg

roun

d w

ater

and

les

s in

fluen

ce o

n su

rfac

e w

ater

. H

owev

er,

this

influ

ence

can

not b

e tre

ated

as

nega

tive

one,

bec

ause

sta

blen

ess

of th

e fo

resh

ore

slop

e w

ill b

e in

crea

sed.

A6-5


Cat

egor

y E

nvir

onm

enta

l It

em

Mai

n C

heck

Item

s C

onfir

mat

ion

of E

nvir

onm

enta

l Con

sider

atio

ns

(4) T

opog

raph

y an

d G

eolo

gy

① Is

ther

e a

soft

grou

nd o

n th

e ro

ute

that

may

cau

se s

lope

failu

res

or

land

slid

es?

Are

ade

quat

e m

easu

res

cons

ider

ed t

o pr

even

t sl

ope

failu

res o

r lan

dslid

es if

nee

ded?

②

Is

ther

e an

y po

ssib

ility

that

civ

il w

orks

suc

h as

cut

ting

and

fillin

g w

ill c

ause

slo

pe f

ailu

res

or l

ands

lides

? A

re a

dequ

ate

mea

sure

s co

nsid

ered

to p

reve

nt sl

ope

failu

res o

r lan

dslid

es?

③

Is

ther

e an

y po

ssib

ility

that

soi

l run

off

will

resu

lt fr

om c

uttin

g an

d fil

ling

area

s, w

aste

soi

l di

spos

al s

ites,

and

borr

ow s

ites?

A

re

adeq

uate

mea

sure

s tak

en to

pre

vent

soil

runo

ff?

①C

ross

-sec

tion

of t

he b

ridge

on

the

right

ban

k of

the

riv

er r

uns

in

clos

e vi

cini

ty t

o so

me

land

slid

es,

one

of t

hem

is

in a

ctiv

e st

age.

U

nles

s so

me

prev

entiv

e m

easu

res

durin

g th

e co

nstru

ctio

n ar

e m

ade,

th

en th

ere

appe

ars

a gr

eat r

isk

of it

s m

ovem

ent.

Prot

ectiv

e fa

cilit

ies

can

be i

nsuf

ficie

nt t

o re

stra

in l

and-

slid

ing

proc

ess;

the

refo

re i

t is

re

quire

d to

co

nsid

er

poss

ibili

ty

to

flatte

n th

e sl

ope

with

si

mul

tane

ous a

rran

gem

ent o

f the

dra

inag

e fa

cilit

ies.

②

Ther

e is

suc

h th

e da

nger

on

the

right

ban

k of

the

river

. To

redu

ce

risk

it is

requ

ired

to p

repa

re th

e sl

ope

as d

escr

ibed

abo

ve. I

n th

e re

st

area

s th

ere

no s

uch

nece

ssity

to

arra

nge

deep

ear

th c

uts

and

high

em

bank

men

ts.

③R

ainf

all

run-

offs

and

sno

wm

elt

runo

ffs

will

hap

pen

durin

g th

e co

nstru

ctio

n pe

riod

only

. The

y w

ill b

e co

ntai

ned

(isol

ated

) in

low

er

parts

of

the

grou

nd f

eatu

res.

Mea

sure

s to

pre

vent

the

m a

gain

st

pollu

tion

are

take

n.

4 So

cial

En

viro

nmen

t (1

) Res

ettle

men

t

① I

s in

volu

ntar

y re

settl

emen

t ca

used

by

proj

ect

impl

emen

tatio

n?

If ye

s, ar

e ad

equa

te e

ffor

ts m

ade

to m

inim

ize

the

impa

cts?

②

Is

adeq

uate

exp

lana

tion

on r

eloc

atio

n an

d co

mpe

nsat

ion

give

n to

af

fect

ed p

erso

ns p

rior t

o re

settl

emen

t by

resp

onsi

ble

agen

cy?

③ Is

the

rese

ttlem

ent p

lan,

incl

udin

g pr

oper

com

pens

atio

n, re

stor

atio

n of

liv

elih

oods

an

d liv

ing

stan

dard

s de

velo

ped

base

d on

so

cioe

cono

mic

stud

ies?

④

Doe

s th

e re

settl

emen

t pl

an p

ay p

artic

ular

atte

ntio

n to

vul

nera

ble

grou

ps o

r pe

rson

s, in

clud

ing

wom

en,

child

ren,

the

eld

erly

, pe

ople

be

low

the

pove

rty li

ne, e

thni

c m

inor

ities

, and

indi

geno

us p

eopl

es?

⑤

Are

agr

eem

ents

with

the

aff

ecte

d pe

rson

s ob

tain

ed p

rior

to

rese

ttlem

ent?

⑥

Is

the

orga

niza

tiona

l fra

mew

ork

esta

blis

hed

to p

rope

rly im

plem

ent

rese

ttlem

ent?

Are

the

capa

city

and

bud

get s

ecur

ed to

impl

emen

t the

pl

an?

⑦ Is

a p

lan

deve

lope

d to

mon

itor t

he im

pact

s of r

eset

tlem

ent?

①

Any

in

volu

ntar

y re

settl

emen

t is

not

caus

ed

by

the

proj

ect

impl

emen

tatio

n ex

cept

for l

and

acqu

isiti

on. C

ompe

nsat

ory

paym

ents

ar

e st

ipul

ated

. ②

Loc

al a

utho

rity,

whi

ch w

ill m

ake

the

rese

ttlem

ent

toge

ther

with

U

krav

todo

r will

sta

rt pr

oced

ure

1 ye

ar b

efor

e th

e la

nd a

cqui

sitio

n as

st

ipul

ated

by

legi

slat

ion

of U

krai

ne.

③ R

eset

tlem

ent

actio

n pl

an w

ill b

e pe

rfor

med

by

loca

l au

thor

ities

w

hich

hav

e al

read

y pe

rfor

med

the

prel

imin

ary

rese

arch

of

the

cost

of

the

com

pens

ator

y pa

ymen

ts.

Afte

r th

e re

settl

emen

t pr

oced

ure

com

men

cem

ent t

he s

aid

issu

e w

ill b

e de

fined

with

con

side

ratio

n of

ba

lanc

e of

inte

rest

of a

ll th

e co

ncer

ned

pers

ons a

nd th

e st

ate.

④

No

spec

ific

vuln

erab

le p

erso

ns is

ther

e.

⑤ O

btai

nmen

t of

agr

eem

ent

/dis

agre

emen

t of

the

per

sons

to

be

rese

ttled

af

ter

com

men

cem

ent

of

the

rese

ttlem

ent

proc

edur

e,

nam

ely-

afte

r th

ey a

re o

ffic

ially

inf

orm

ed o

f th

e ne

cess

ity o

f th

e re

settl

emen

t, w

hich

sh

all

be

star

ted

1 ye

ar

befo

re

the

land

ac

quis

ition

and

del

iver

y of

it in

to u

se o

f the

pro

pone

nt (c

usto

mer

) of

the

cons

truct

ion

(Ukr

avto

dor)

. ⑥

It

is n

ot r

equi

red

to e

stab

lish

new

org

aniz

atio

nal

fram

ewor

k. T

he

budg

et s

hall

be a

ccep

ted

by g

over

nmen

t of

Ukr

aine

afte

r th

e re

settl

emen

t pr

oced

ure

com

men

cem

ent

and

final

ag

reem

ent

of

amou

nts o

f the

com

pens

ator

y pa

ymen

ts.

⑦ M

onito

ring

plan

pro

ject

is d

evel

oped

.

A6-6

Cat

egor

y E

nvir

onm

enta

l It

em

Mai

n C

heck

Item

s C

onfir

mat

ion

of E

nvir

onm

enta

l Con

sider

atio

ns

(2) L

ivin

g an

d Li

velih

ood

① I

n a

plac

e w

here

roa

ds a

re n

ewly

inst

alle

d, is

ther

e an

y po

ssib

ility

th

at th

e pr

ojec

t may

aff

ect t

he e

xist

ing

mea

ns o

f tra

nspo

rtatio

n an

d th

e as

soci

ated

wor

kers

? Is

ther

e an

y po

ssib

ility

that

the

proj

ect m

ay

caus

e si

gnifi

cant

im

pact

s, su

ch a

s ex

tens

ive

alte

ratio

n of

exi

stin

g la

nd u

ses,

chan

ges

in s

ourc

es o

f liv

elih

ood,

or u

nem

ploy

men

t? A

re

adeq

uate

mea

sure

s con

side

red

for p

reve

ntin

g th

ese

impa

cts?

②

Is

ther

e an

y po

ssib

ility

tha

t th

e pr

ojec

t m

ay a

dver

sely

aff

ect

the

livin

g co

nditi

ons

of in

habi

tant

s ot

her

than

the

affe

cted

inha

bita

nts?

A

re

adeq

uate

m

easu

res

cons

ider

ed

to

redu

ce

the

impa

cts

if ne

cess

ary?

③

Is

ther

e an

y po

ssib

ility

tha

t di

seas

es,

incl

udin

g co

mm

unic

able

di

seas

es,

such

as

HIV

may

be

intro

duce

d du

e to

im

mig

ratio

n of

w

orke

rs a

ssoc

iate

d w

ith t

he p

roje

ct?

Are

ade

quat

e co

nsid

erat

ions

gi

ven

to p

ublic

hea

lth if

nec

essa

ry?

④

Is

ther

e an

y po

ssib

ility

tha

t th

e pr

ojec

t m

ay a

dver

sely

aff

ect

road

tra

ffic

in th

e su

rrou

ndin

g ar

eas

(e.g

., by

cau

sing

incr

ease

s in

traf

fic

cong

estio

n an

d tra

ffic

acc

iden

ts)?

⑤

Is

ther

e an

y po

ssib

ility

tha

t ro

ads

and

may

cau

se i

mpe

de t

he

mov

emen

t of i

nhab

itant

s?

⑥ I

s th

ere

any

poss

ibili

ty th

at s

truct

ures

ass

ocia

ted

with

brid

ge m

ay

caus

e a

sun

shad

ing

and

radi

o in

terf

eren

ce?

①Th

e Pr

ojec

t im

pact

on

thes

e as

pect

s of

act

ivity

will

hav

e po

sitiv

e ef

fect

. ②

It is

not

exp

ecte

d th

e Pr

ojec

t will

cau

se n

egat

ive

impa

ct o

n th

e liv

ing

cond

ition

s of t

he re

side

nts.

③

Yes

. Th

ere

is a

pos

sibi

lity

to b

e br

ough

t co

mm

unic

able

dis

ease

s. M

atte

rs o

n sa

nita

tion

and

heal

th c

are

of w

orke

rs a

re c

ontro

lled

with

co

nsid

erat

ion

of r

equi

rem

ents

of

Ukr

aini

an s

anita

ry,

med

ical

and

la

bour

le

gisl

atio

n.

The

Con

tract

or

bear

s re

spon

sibi

lity

for

obse

rvan

ce o

f the

se m

atte

rs.

④N

o. T

he P

roje

ct w

ill b

ring

abou

t po

sitiv

e im

pact

s to

roa

d an

d tra

nspo

rt in

fras

truct

ure.

⑤

Sam

e as

abo

ve.

⑥N

ot si

gnifi

cant

impa

ct b

y th

e br

idge

con

stru

ctio

n.

(3) H

erita

ge

① I

s th

ere

a po

ssib

ility

tha

t th

e pr

ojec

t m

ay d

amag

e th

e lo

cal

arch

eolo

gica

l, hi

stor

ical

, cul

tura

l, an

d re

ligio

us h

erita

ge s

ites?

A

re

adeq

uate

mea

sure

s co

nsid

ered

to

prot

ect

thes

e si

tes

in a

ccor

danc

e w

ith t

he c

ount

ry’

s la

ws

and

JIC

A G

uide

lines

for

Env

ironm

enta

l an

d So

cial

Con

side

ratio

ns?

①To

pre

vent

neg

ativ

e im

pact

on

arch

eolo

gica

l her

itage

it is

stip

ulat

ed

the

perf

orm

ance

of

th

e re

leva

nt

rese

arch

w

orks

be

fore

co

mm

ence

men

t of

the

wor

k an

d th

e ea

rthw

ork

shal

l be

per

form

ed

unde

r arc

heol

ogic

al a

utho

rity

cont

rol.

(4) L

ands

cape

① Is

ther

e a

poss

ibili

ty th

at th

e pr

ojec

t may

adv

erse

ly a

ffec

t the

loca

l la

ndsc

ape?

Are

nec

essa

ry m

easu

res t

aken

?

① L

ands

cape

of

the

slop

e on

the

rig

ht b

ank

of t

he r

iver

can

be

sign

ifica

ntly

influ

ence

d, h

owev

er th

is in

fluen

ce w

ill b

e po

sitiv

e. I

f du

e to

som

e re

ason

the

cons

truct

ion

will

not

be

perf

orm

ed th

en th

is

land

scap

e w

hich

pr

evio

usly

ha

d be

en

dam

aged

by

in

corr

ect

cons

truct

ion

anyw

ay w

ill re

quire

to b

e ch

ange

d.

(5) E

thni

c M

inor

ities

and

In

dige

nous

Pe

ople

s

① W

here

eth

nic

min

oriti

es a

nd i

ndig

enou

s pe

ople

s ar

e liv

ing

in t

he

right

s-of

-way

, ar

e co

nsid

erat

ions

giv

en t

o re

duce

the

im

pact

s on

cu

lture

and

life

styl

e of

eth

nic

min

oriti

es a

nd in

dige

nous

peo

ples

? ②

Doe

s th

e pr

ojec

t co

mpl

y w

ith t

he c

ount

ry’

s la

ws

for

right

s of

et

hnic

min

oriti

es a

nd in

dige

nous

peo

ples

?

①Th

ere

is n

o m

inor

ities

and

indi

geno

us p

eopl

e in

the

area

.

A6-7


Cat

egor

y E

nvir

onm

enta

l It

em

Mai

n C

heck

Item

s C

onfir

mat

ion

of E

nvir

onm

enta

l Con

sider

atio

ns

(1) I

mpa

cts d

urin

g C

onst

ruct

ion

① A

re a

dequ

ate

mea

sure

s co

nsid

ered

to

redu

ce i

mpa

cts

durin

g co

nstru

ctio

n (e

.g.,

nois

e, v

ibra

tions

, tu

rbid

wat

er,

dust

, ex

haus

t ga

ses,

and

was

tes)

?

② I

f co

nstru

ctio

n ac

tiviti

es a

dver

sely

aff

ect

the

natu

ral

envi

ronm

ent

(eco

syst

em),

are

adeq

uate

mea

sure

s con

side

red

to re

duce

impa

cts?

③

If

cons

truct

ion

activ

ities

adv

erse

ly a

ffec

t th

e so

cial

env

ironm

ent,

are

adeq

uate

mea

sure

s con

side

red

to re

duce

impa

cts?

④

If

nece

ssar

y, i

s he

alth

and

saf

ety

educ

atio

n (e

.g.,

traff

ic s

afet

y,

publ

ic h

ealth

) pro

vide

d fo

r pro

ject

per

sonn

el, i

nclu

ding

wor

kers

?

①A

dequ

ate

mea

sure

s are

con

side

red.

②

No

sign

ifica

nt im

pact

mig

ht b

e an

ticip

ated

. ③

Ade

quat

e m

easu

res

have

bee

n co

nsid

ered

to re

duce

impa

ct o

n so

cial

en

viro

nmen

t. ④

The

cons

truct

ion

cont

ract

or w

ill e

stab

lish

sani

tary

sys

tem

in

the

cons

truct

ion

site

, con

stru

ctio

n of

fice

and

cons

truct

ion

cam

p.

5 O

ther

s

(2) M

onito

ring

① D

oes t

he p

ropo

nent

dev

elop

and

impl

emen

t mon

itorin

g pr

ogra

m fo

r th

e en

viro

nmen

tal

item

s th

at a

re

cons

ider

ed

to

have

po

tent

ial

impa

cts?

②

Are

the

item

s, m

etho

ds a

nd fr

eque

ncie

s in

clud

ed in

the

mon

itorin

g pr

ogra

m, j

udge

d to

be

appr

opria

te?

③ D

oes

the

prop

onen

t es

tabl

ish

an a

dequ

ate

mon

itorin

g fr

amew

ork

(org

aniz

atio

n, p

erso

nnel

, equ

ipm

ent,

and

adeq

uate

bud

get t

o su

stai

n th

e m

onito

ring

fram

ewor

k)?

④ A

re a

ny re

gula

tory

requ

irem

ents

per

tain

ing

to th

e m

onito

ring

repo

rt sy

stem

iden

tifie

d, s

uch

as th

e fo

rmat

and

fre

quen

cy o

f rep

orts

from

th

e pr

opon

ent t

o th

e re

gula

tory

aut

horit

ies?

①Y

es.

Envi

ronm

enta

l m

onito

ring

prog

ram

s co

nsis

t of

air

qual

ity,

nois

e le

vel

vibr

atio

n, w

ater

qua

lity,

tra

ffic

and

Soc

io-e

cono

mic

co

nditi

ons.

It w

ill b

e pe

rfor

med

with

par

ticip

atio

n of

the

rel

evan

t st

ate

auth

oriti

es.

②Y

es. A

ppro

pria

te p

rogr

am w

ill b

e m

ade.

③

Yes

. Ade

quat

e fr

amew

ork

will

be

esta

blis

hed.

④

Reg

ulat

ory

requ

irem

ents

req

uire

tha

t fo

rm a

nd f

requ

ency

of

the

repo

rts s

ubm

issi

on s

hall

be p

ropo

sed

and

agre

ed w

ith a

utho

rized

st

ate

auth

oriti

es.

Ref

eren

ce to

C

heck

list o

f Oth

er

Sect

ors

① W

here

nec

essa

ry, p

ertin

ent i

tem

s de

scrib

ed in

the

Fore

stry

Pro

ject

s ch

eckl

ist s

houl

d al

so b

e ch

ecke

d (e

.g.,

proj

ects

incl

udin

g la

rge

area

s of

def

ores

tatio

n).

②

Whe

re

nece

ssar

y,

perti

nent

ite

ms

desc

ribed

in

th

e Po

wer

Tr

ansm

issi

on

and

Dis

tribu

tion

Line

s ch

eckl

ist

shou

ld

also

be

ch

ecke

d (e

.g.,

proj

ects

incl

udin

g in

stal

latio

n of

pow

er tr

ansm

issi

on

lines

and

/or e

lect

ric d

istri

butio

n fa

cilit

ies)

.

No

rela

tion

with

fore

stry

, pow

er tr

ansm

issi

on p

roje

ct.

6 N

ote

Not

e on

Usi

ng

Envi

ronm

enta

l C

heck

list

① I

f ne

cess

ary,

the

impa

cts

to tr

ans-

boun

dary

or g

loba

l iss

ues

shou

ld

be c

onfir

med

(e.

g.,

the

proj

ect

incl

udes

fac

tors

tha

t m

ay c

ause

pr

oble

ms,

such

as

tra

ns-b

ound

ary

was

te

treat

men

t, ac

id

rain

, de

stru

ctio

n of

the

ozon

e la

yer,

or g

loba

l war

min

g).

No

conc

ern.

1) R

egar

ding

the

term

“C

ount

ry’s

Sta

ndar

ds”

men

tione

d in

the

abov

e ta

ble,

in th

e ev

ent t

hat e

nviro

nmen

tal s

tand

ards

in th

e co

untry

whe

re th

e pr

ojec

t is

loca

ted

dive

rge

sign

ifica

ntly

fro

m in

tern

atio

nal s

tand

ards

, ap

prop

riate

env

ironm

enta

l con

side

ratio

ns a

re m

ade,

if n

eces

sary

. In

cas

es w

here

loc

al e

nviro

nmen

tal

regu

latio

ns a

re y

et t

o be

est

ablis

hed

in s

ome

area

s, co

nsid

erat

ions

sho

uld

be m

ade

base

d on

com

paris

ons

with

app

ropr

iate

sta

ndar

ds o

f ot

her

coun

tries

(in

clud

ing

Japa

n'

expe

rienc

e).

2) E

nviro

nmen

tal c

heck

list p

rovi

des g

ener

al e

nviro

nmen

tal i

tem

s to

be c

heck

ed.

It m

ay b

e ne

cess

ary

to a

dd o

r del

ete

an it

em ta

king

into

acc

ount

the

char

acte

ristic

s of t

he p

roje

ct a

nd th

e pa

rticu

lar c

ircum

stan

ces o

f the

co

untry

and

loca

lity

in w

hich

it is

loca

ted.


A7-1

Appendix 7 Minutes of the Meeting on Construction of the Bridge over the State Land Resources Administration

MINUTES

of the meeting on construction of the bridge over the State Land Resources Administration, Nikolayev, Ukraine

City of Nikolayev Date: 01.12.2010 Opening time: 15:30 The following persons participated in the meeting: No Surname Position, Organization

1 Mr.Nikolenko G.B. First Deputy Head of Nikolayev Regional Administration, Nikolayev

regional administration

2 Mr.Chayka V.D. Head of Nikolayev municipal council

3 Mr.Rakova A.A. Head of Oktyabrskiy regional state administration

4 Mr.Tkachenko V.V. Deputy head of regional state administration of Nikolaevskaya regional state administration

5 Mr.Zla L.S. First deputy head of Novoodesskaya regional state administration

6 Mr.Yanchuk V.P. Head of administration of the State Administration on Land Resources in Nikolayev region

7 Mr.Moroz O.I. Head of Administration, Municipal administration on land resources 8 Mr.Atanasov O.P. Head of Administration, Regional administration of municipal

construction and architecture

9 Mr.Bondar`O.V. Head of Administration, Municipal administration of municipal construction and architecture

10 Mr.Kubrak I.V. Deputy Head of Administration of Environment Protection in Nikolayev region

11 Mr.Raevskiy V.A. Deputy chief physician, Regional sanitary-epidemiological station

12 Mr.Ganusovskiy V.T. Chief physician, Municipal sanitary-epidemiological station

13 Mr.Tonkantsov O.G. Deputy head of Administration, Regional Administration of Inner Affairs in Nikolayev region

14 Mr.Getyun V.N. Head of the state road administration in Nikolayev region

21 Mr.Gurko A.A. First Deputy Head, Nikolayev state forestry husbandry

26 Mr.Harada K. JICA Survey Team, Social and Environmental Issues

27 Mr.Hitoshi Nakamura JICA Survey Team, Bridge Design

A7-2

The meeting was held in the conference-room of Nikolayev State Regional Administration. The meeting was called to order at 15:30 Ukrainian time and chaired by Mr.Nikolenko G.B., the First Deputy Head of Nikolayev State Regional Administration. The meeting agenda was as follows:

1. Opening remarks and the meeting objects. 2. Speech of Nikolenko G.B., the First Deputy Head of Nikolayev State Regional

Administration on the Project. 3. Speech of Mr.Getun B.M., Head of the State Road Administration on the Bridge

Construction Project. 4. Discussions and questions. 5. Closing remarks.

1. Opening remarks and the meeting objects. In his opening remarks Mr.Nikolenko G.B. greeted all the stakeholder meeting participants and declared the meeting agenda and the meeting objects. 2. Speech of Nikolenko G.B., the First Deputy Head of Nikolayev State Regional Administration on the Project. Then Mr.Nikolenko G.B. addressed to the audience with the background to the Bridge Construction Project in question. He, as well, informed that after negotiations were held between Ukrainian and Japanese sides in summer 2010, there was taken a decision on of performance of pre-project preparation work. Hence, in mid-November 2010 the Survey Team of JICA Company arrived to Nikolayev with the view to Survey and collect all the relevant technical documentation, environmental and sociological issues, etc. to have a clear and precise understanding of the existing conditions and situation. In connection with that, Mr.Nikolenko G.B. mentioned, that Nikolayev regional state administration issued the letter to all interested relevant administrations and authorities to provide the said information and data to the Survey Team as well as the former research work results and emphasized the importance of the bridge for Nikolayev region and that it is under personal control of Mr.Kruglov N.P., Head of Nikolayev Regional Administration, and Mr.Nikolenko G.B. himself is the supervisor of the Project from the side of Nikolayev regional administration. Considering the importance of the Project the chairman applied to all the participants to render all appropriate assistance within framework of the current legislation of Ukraine. Mr.Nikolenko G.B. mentioned that at the present stage of the Project, it is very important to complete all the documentary work, approvals and the like, since no further work can be done unless this stage is successfully completed. Then Mr.Nikolenko G.B. gave the floor to Mr.Getun V.N., Head of the state road administration in Nikolayev region who supervises the Project. 3. Speech of Mr.Getun B.M., Head of the State Road Administration on the Bridge Construction Project. Mr.Getun B.M. informed that the stakeholder meeting participants represent organizations which in 2004 signed the protocol on preliminary land acquisition within framework of the feasibility study of 2004 for the bridge construction.


A7-3

Upon request of the Survey Team the said protocol shall be renewed and signed, thus confirming the terms of 2004 remain unchanged and if they changed it also shall be reflected in the updated protocol. Mr.Getun B.M. asked the participants to consider the Survey Team questionnaire and give the written answers to questions stated in it within the given dates. 4. Discussions and questions Question: Mr.Yanchuk V.P., Head of administration of the State Administration on Land Resources in Nikolayev region asked if there is a topological mapping of the area of the acquisition? He also added that there is no entire cadastral map of the site, the Land Resources Administration has breakdown of plow land, forest area are indicated on uncoordinated material, so it shall be more precise. Answer: Mr.Getun V.N. informed that the said data can be found in the feasibility Study of 2004. Question: Mr.Kubrak I.V., Deputy Head of Administration of Environment Protection in Nikolayev region mentioned asked the question on powers of the new protocol to be signed, since there are about 4 ha of forest influenced by land acquisition and the Ecological Department must agree that issue with the Ministry? Answer: Mr.Getyun V.N. answered the protocol to be re-signed has a status of preliminary acquisition of the land for the bridge construction. To the point, Mr.Kubrak I.V. also mentioned that after negotiations with the Ministry he was told the Ecological Administration in Nikolayev region may as the basis use the EIA report of 2004, so the Ecological Administration will approve the new EIA report. Question: Mr.Yanchuk V.P., Head of administration of the State Administration on Land Resources in Nikolayev region mentioned that it must be considered that there was the order of Nikolayev State Regional Administration to Local Region Administrations and to the Municipal Authorities to select the plots of land for the construction of the bridge and now the legislation on that changed and in case two or more regions are involved in a project, then the regional administration itself makes the selection of the plots of land, therefore in this order the relevant modifications shall be implemented. Answer: Answering the remark Mr.Nikolenko G.B. asked to present an offer to modify the order. Question: Mr.Harada K., JICA Survey Team, Social and Environmental Issues asked if the list of the land holders of 2004 influenced by the Project has changed. Answer: Mr.Yanchuk V.P., Head of administration of the State Administration on Land Resources in Nikolayev region answered that land ownership is a live process and that during the land acquisition the land ownership shall be fixed and the physical or legal bodies holding these plots of land shall then either sell the plots of land or the land shall be withdrawn in accordance with the legislation of Ukraine, because these plots of land are required for social needs. Mr.Nikolenko G.B. added that current Ukrainian legislation enables the state to buy back the plots of land. Mr.Nikolenko G.B. added that current legislation of Ukraine enables to re-purchase and acquire these plots of land without difficulties.

A7-4

Mr.Getun B.M. informed the participants on the timing of the Survey Team work and said the Survey Team work period will last for 6-8 months and the present visit will last till 23rd December 2010. Then they will process the obtained information and will come back in April 2011, then the Survey Team will prepare the Technical Report to the Government of Japan in August 2011and in case the positive answer it given, then a group of 4 persons will arrive in October-December 2011 and will prepare the Final Proposal to the Government of Japan and then in February-March 2012 will be taken the Final Decision to grant the credit or not and in case the answer is possible then JICA Company will receive the order to commence procedures on credit arrangement. Question: Mr.Yanchuk V.P., Head of administration of the State Administration on Land Resources in Nikolayev region asked if the land acquisition issue will be settled only after the credit are granted. And if so then probably it is too early to discuss the land acquisition matter? Answer: Mr.Getun B.M. answered that most likely this issue will be settled after the decision of granting the credit is given. And this question is mentioned in the questionnaire and the questions stated in it relates to the present moment. Mr. Chayka V.D., Head of Nikolayev municipal council and major of the City summarized that the City has not got problems on the land acquisition. Mr.Nikolenko G.B. mentioned that as far as he knows the budget of Japan is approved in April. And Mr.Getyun V.N. commented that it was told the Project is not connected with the budget of Japan and summarized that provided all procedures go well the Final Decision will be taken in the first half of 2012. Mr.Harada K., JICA Survey Team, Social and Environmental issues commented that in March 2012 the Japanese side will be ready to take the decision to grant the credit or not. 5. Closing remarks. When asked whether they had any questions and since no further questions were raised Mr.Nikolenko G.B. declared the meeting closed.


A7-5

«APPROVE» Head of regional state administration

______________ N.P.Kruglov «___»____________2011.

MINUTES

of meeting with representatives of «Japan International Cooperation Agency» on the subject of land plots allocation for implementation

of the Project of the bridge crossing construction over River of Yuzhniy Bug

City of Nikolayev Date: 09.09.2011 Conference-room of Nikolayev regional state administration Opening time: 10:00 The following persons have attended the meeting: Kruglov N.P., Nikolenko G.B., Katvalyuk I.A., Maksimchyuk M.M., Andrienko Yu.G., Savchenko G.V., Litvak S.M., Machko O.V., Konyukhov D.V., Satusheva S.V., Yanchyuk V.P., Keyan A.E., Palamaryuk P.M., Tarabrin V.E., Zabolotniy M.M., Nefedov O.A., Moroz O.I., Maximishin A.V., Hideki Yoneyama, Yasunori Kawaguchi, Hitoshi Nakamura, Kunihiko Harada, Tetsumi Masui, Marmazinskaya N.V., Nazina V.A., Tsegelniy D.A.

AGENDA:

1. The current state and formation of general plan of actions in relation to further implementation of the Project of the bridge crossing construction over River of Yuzhniy Bug in city of Nikolayev. Spokesman: Hideki Yoneyama, leader of «Japan International Cooperation Agency» Survey Team. 2. Observance of legislation on land allocation rules as well as norms and standards of environmental management at the stage of construction and operation of the bridge crossing as the main criteria of environmental impact. Spokesman: Kunihiko Harada, engineer on EIA, «Japan International Cooperation Agency» Survey Team. 3. Miscellaneous. Heard: N.P.Kruglov, head of Nikolayev regional state administration has called the meeting to order and mentioned that at present time there is the mutual interest of Ukrainian and Japanese sides on further implementation of the Project of the bridge crossing construction over River of Yuzhniy Bug in city of Nikolayev, which is under personal control of the Government and President of Ukraine. In order to ensure proper and timely implementation of the plan of joint actions on the matter, mentioned by both sides, there is urgent need to openly discuss problematic issues arising during the joint work. On the first subject: Hideki Yoneyama, leader of «Japan International Cooperation Agency» Survey Team expressed gratitude to the management of Nikolayev regional state administration for arrangement of cooperation and introduced members of «Japan International Cooperation Agency» Survey Team to the persons attending the meeting. At present Japanese side has prepared the report-summary on general description of the

A7-6

project, aiming at creating of effective conditions of European-Asian corridor development with principal trunk motor-road M-14 Odessa-Melitopol`-Novoazovsk (towards Taganrog) as part of it, confirmation of maintenance and strengthening of economic and ecological conditions of the bridge crossing operation at different stages of its operation, improvement of city of Nikolayev development.

The stated schedule of developments will be considered by «JICA», which representatives will arrive to Ukraine in November 2011 for confirmation of decision on commencement of the work financing.

Mr.Hideki Yoneyama has also drawn attention of the meeting participants to the subject of land resources allocation, engineering features of the selected bridge crossing design, by determining its principal technical features and also on direct participation of “Ukravtodor» as the main performer of the project from Ukrainian side at all stages of the preliminary work of «JICA» agency, which shall be completed in 2014. On the second subject: Mr. Kunihiko Harada has informed the meeting participants on the existing requirements of EIA report and the world bank on principal criteria of the project impact on environment development and necessity to take preventive environmental measures to maintain the existing landscape ecological system in the area of the construction. Following the results of his speech the meeting participants have been offered to thoroughly learn with the given criteria, because in order to take decision from «JICA» side, it is required to obtain estimation of all the sides.

N.P.Kruglov, head of Nikolayev regional state administration has drawn attention of the meeting participants that at present time in the state on legislative level there are the procedures on land resources allocation for road construction, including plots of land which are of private ownership. To prevent possible negative impact of the bridge crossing construction on the territories adjacent to river of Yuzhniy Bug, it is planned to establish fish factory, which capacity will be sufficient enough to compensate possible damage to fish resources and in order to do this, Nikolayev regional state administration will take relevant measures.

All the meeting participants have taken part in discussion of the agenda subjects.

Following the results of the agenda subjects discussion the have been taken decisions as follows: 1. To deliver into charge the main economic affairs department of the regional state administration (Mr.Tyulskiy) with the task to draw up the letter to «Ukravtodor» with the relevant proposals to enter changes to order of Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine dated 17.06.10 № 684-р «On establishment of working group on the matters of designing and construction of the bridge crossing with approaches over river of Yuzhniy Bug in city of Nikolayev» regarding replacement of the working group staff. Deadline: 28.09.11 2. To deliver into charge the chairmen of Nikolayev district state administration (Mr.Serebryakov), Novoodesskaya district state administration (Mr.Zabolotniy), Octyabr`skaya district state administration (Mrs.Rakova) together with Chief Administration of the State Committee on Land Resources in Nikolayev region (Mr.Yanchyuk) to work out measures and arrange work on land resources allocation which are covered by the bridge crossing construction project implementation area. Deadline: prior to 01.11.11 3. To recommend the Chief Administration on protection of ecological environment in Nikolayev region (Mr.Litvak) to provide performance of study and system analysis of occurrence of possible risks of negative impact on environment at the stage of construction and operation of the bridge crossing over river of Yuzhniy Bug of criteria specified in the


A7-7

report-summary of «Japan International Cooperation Agency» Survey Team and provide the relevant conclusions and proposals to the regional state administration. Deadline: 01.11.11 The minutes has been kept by M.M.Maksimchyuk head of industry and infrastructure development department of the regional state administration

A7-8

MINUTES OF STAKEHOLDERS MEETING

FOR “PREPARATORY SURVEY ON THE PROJECT OF CONSTRUCTION OF

MYKOLAIV BRIDGE IN UKRAINE”

Mykolaiv, September 09, 2011

The meeting was held in the conference-room of the State Regional Administration of Mykolaiv. The meeting was called to order at 10:00 Ukrainian time and chaired by Mr. Kruglov N.P., Governor of Mykolaiv region. The following persons participated in the meeting:

State Regional Administration of Mykolaiv region

1 Mr. Kruglov N.P. Head of the State Regional Administration of Mykolaiv region 2 Mr. Nikolenko G.B. First Deputy Head of the State Regional Administration of Mykolaiv

region State Road Administration in Mykolaiv region

3 Mr. Savchenko G.V. Head of the state road administration in Mykolaiv region

JICA Survey Team

4 Dr. Hideki

YONEYAMA Team Leader/ Transport Planning

5 Mr.Hitoshi NAKAMURA

Bridge design (Superstructure)

6 Mr.Yasunori KAWAGUCHI

Road design

7 Mr. Kunihiko Harada Social Environmental Assestment 8 Mr. Tetsumi Masui Construction Planning

Other stakeholders 9 Mr. Keyan A.E. Director of Mykolayiv Airport 10 Mr.Yanchuk V.P. Head of administration of the State Administration on Land Resources

in Mykolayiv region

11 Mr. Polyakov A.P. Mayor of Nova Odesa town 12 Mr. Litvak S.M. Head of administration of the State Administration on Environment

Protection 13 Representative Representative of private land owners of Nova Odesa district of

Mykolayiv region


A7-9

Mr. Kruglov N.P. greeted all the stakeholder meeting participants, expressed his opinion that both Ukrainian and Japanese sides are deeply interested in realization of the Project and informed that the Project is under control of Primer Minister and President of Ukraine. He asked to discuss all requirements and issues frankly. Dr. Yoneyama, Team Leader of the JICA Survey Team (hereinafter referred to as “the Team” thanked and greeted stakeholders and briefly introduced project outline and offered for consideration the list of affected items. Mr. Harada informed that the Team started preliminary EIA study by contracted Company from Kiev “Ukrpromindustriya” and by that information the Team judged about environmental impact. Mr. Harada explained that in the list of affected items the Team proposed impact and risk assessment during construction and after work completion. He emphasized that this assessment based on judgment of the Team and landowners should express their own opinion about these results. Mr. Kruglov N.P. said that 3 years ago Ukrainian Law on compulsory resettlement was accepted, so this issue can be settled in legislative way and private land will be buying out, in any case the governor mentioned that he doesn’t expect any difficulties. He also stated that there is a list of land users of approximately 51 Ha due to allocation and informed that preliminary expert evaluation of the total compensation cost for this land makes app. 331 thousand UAH, the governor specified that this cost may be doubled, but still it is not large amount. Mr. Kruglov informed that the work group which deals with allocation of land plots for construction was established in 2007. Dr. Yoneyama asked if this work group deals with compensation procedure. Mr. Kruglov replied that at the stage of basic design area of lands due to allocation and compensation cost will be considered and all legislated issues and disputes between land owners and Ukravtodor will be solved. Mr. Kruglov mentioned that if information about implementation will be published in mass media, the price of land plots will be increased and the task of State Regional Administration is to prevent speculation. The Representative of private land owners of Nova Odesa said that there are private land plots which will be divided half-and-half by the new road and asked if such land plots will be buying out in full or partly. Mr. Kruglov answered that in such case the land plots will be buying out partly, but it’s difficult to answer to this question for sure at the present moment. Mr. Harada asked if there are industrial facilities at the territory of lands due to allocation. Mr. Yanchuk replied that project route passes only through private agricultural land plots and mentioned that among total 50 Ha, 28 Ha are lands owned by the state (airport area, Mykolaншм forestry, recreation area Lazurnoe, etc.) and the rest 22 Ha are private land plots. Mr. Yanchuk mentioned that in the course of allocation of land plots owned by the state and rented by the private companies, some losses might be arisen. Mr. Kruglov said that there will be no problems on this matter. Mr. Kawaguchi explained connections between the project route and existing road. Mr. Litvak S.M. asked why the Team assessed water and air pollution as “B”.

A7-10

Mr. Harada replied that expected air pollution caused by traffic is not above industrial emissions. As for water pollution, Mr. Harada said that the Team considers protective measures and the EIA report will be published based on local regulations. Mr. Kruglov asked if there is a possibility to lay engineering facilities such as pipelines, electric cables under the bridge as the city is split and connection providing electricity from the one river bank to another is needed. Mr. Nakamura assured to consider this. Dr. Yoneyama asked about compensation cost to the fishery and stated that on construction stage there should not be such long staying due to spawning or winter navigation close. Dr. Yoneyama asked who will calculate compensation cost. Mr. Kruglov explained that construction of the fishery plant is planned together with bridge construction, for this project State Regional Administration has funds and fish product amount produced by the fishery plant will exceed the fish losses, so there will be no need in compensation cost. Mr. Kruglov also mentioned that designed fishery plant will be located 80 km upstream from the designed bridge alignment.

:by JICA Survey Team

A8-1

Preparatory Survey on the Project of Construction of Mykolaiv Bridge in UkraineFinal Report

App

endi

x 8

Env

iron

men

tal M

onito

ring

Pla

n

Mon

itori

ng F

orm

, Fra

mew

ork

and

Mon

itori

ng c

ost

1．R

espo

nses

/Rea

ctio

ns to

Com

men

ts a

nd G

uida

nce

from

Gov

ernm

ent A

utho

ritie

s and

the

Publ

ic

Mon

itori

ng It

em

Mon

itori

ng R

esul

ts d

urin

g R

epor

t Per

iod

(1) A

ir qu

ality

(2

) Noi

se le

vel

(3) W

ater

qua

lity

(4) L

and

acqu

isitio

n an

d R

eset

tlem

ent

Mon

itorin

g an

d re

ports

shal

l be

subm

itted

to JI

CA

an

nual

ly d

urin

g co

nstru

ctio

n an

d fo

r 2 y

ears

afte

r op

erat

ion.

2．N

atur

al E

nvir

onm

ent

- A

ir Q

ualit

y (A

mbi

ent A

ir Q

ualit

y)

Rem

arks

Item

U

nit

Mea

sure

d V

alue

(M

ean)

Mea

sure

d V

alue

(M

ax.)

Sam

plin

g tim

e

*Sta

ndar

ds fo

r m

onito

ring

(r

efer

ence

of

WH

O)

Det

ail o

f loc

atio

nN

o. o

f m

onito

ring

po

ints

Fr

eque

ncy

dura

tion

Dur

ing

cons

truct

ion

Dus

t (S

oot)

mg/

m3

1 hr

0.

15

(0.2

0)

CO

m

g/m

3

1

hr

5 (3

0)

NO

２

mg/

m3

1 hr

0.

2 (0

.2)

1. T

erni

vka

2. C

emet

ery

3. re

crea

tion

base

R

ondn

iki

3

Bas

elin

e on

ce p

rior t

o co

nstru

ctio

n.

Dur

ing

cons

truct

ion

ever

y th

ree

mon

ths e

xcep

t du

ring

froz

en se

ason

.

5 ye

ars

Ope

ratio

n pe

riod

Dus

t (S

oot)

mg/

m3

24 h

r 0.

05 (0

.05)

CO

m

g/m

3

8

hr

3 (1

0)

NO

２

mg/

m3

24 h

r 0.

04

1. T

erni

vka

2. C

emet

ery

3. re

crea

tion

base

R

ondn

iki

3

Onc

e a

year

Tw

o ye

ars a

fter

com

plet

ion

of

wor

ks

* “S

tate

sani

tary

rule

s of t

he a

tmos

pher

ic a

ir pr

otec

tion

(aga

inst

con

tam

inat

ion

by c

hem

ical

and

bio

logi

cal a

gent

s) in

resi

dent

ial a

reas

”, N

o.20

1 da

ted

09.0

7.19

97

A8-2

- W

ater

Qua

lity

(Eff

luen

t/Was

tew

ater

/Am

bien

t Wat

er Q

ualit

y)

Item

U

nit

Mea

sure

d V

alue

(M

ean)

Mea

sure

d V

alue

(M

ax.)

*Sta

ndar

ds fo

r m

onito

ring

Sa

mpl

ing

loca

tion

Freq

uenc

y du

ratio

n

Dur

ing

cons

truct

ion

Tem

pera

ture

pH

C

ondu

ctiv

ity

Susp

ende

d so

lids (

SS)

mg/

L

W

ith in

+0.

75 to

bac

kgro

und

Gre

ase

and

oil

mg/

L

0.

5 D

isso

lved

oxy

gen

(DO

) m

g/L

4.0

BO

D

mg/

L

6.

0

500m

ups

tream

of b

ridge

co

nstru

ctio

n si

te (t

wo

poin

ts)

500m

dow

nstre

am o

f brid

ge

cons

truct

ion

site

(thr

ee p

oint

s)

2000

m d

owns

tream

of b

ridge

co

nstru

ctio

n si

te (t

wo

poin

ts).

Bas

elin

e on

ce p

rior

to c

onst

ruct

ion.

D

urin

g co

nstru

ctio

n ev

ery

thre

e m

onth

s ex

cept

dur

ing

froz

en

seas

on.

5 ye

ars

Dur

ing

oper

atio

n Te

mpe

ratu

re

pH

Con

duct

ivity

Su

spen

ded

solid

s (SS

) m

g/L

With

in +

0.75

to b

ackg

roun

d G

reas

e an

d oi

l m

g/L

0.5

Dis

solv

ed o

xyge

n (D

O)

mg/

L

4.

0 B

OD

m

g/L

6.0

500m

ups

tream

of b

ridge

co

nstru

ctio

n si

te (t

wo

poin

ts)

500m

dow

nstre

am o

f brid

ge

cons

truct

ion

site

(thr

ee p

oint

s)

2000

m d

owns

tream

of b

ridge

co

nstru

ctio

n si

te (t

wo

poin

ts).

Ever

y th

ree

mon

ths

exce

pt d

urin

g fr

ozen

se

ason

.

Two

year

s af

ter

com

plet

ion

of w

orks

* “S

anita

ry ru

les a

nd re

gula

tions

of t

he su

rfac

e w

ater

pro

tect

ion

agai

nst p

ollu

tion”

, No.

4630

-88

date

d 04

.07.

1988

- N

oise

Item

U

nit

Mea

sure

d V

alue

(M

ean)

Mea

sure

d V

alue

(M

ax.)

Sam

plin

g tim

e *S

tand

ards

for

mon

itori

ng

(nat

iona

l sta

ndar

d)D

etai

l of l

ocat

ion

Freq

uenc

y du

ratio

n

Dur

ing

cons

truct

ion

Noi

se L

evel

s (L

eq, L

max

, L90

)dB

(A)

24 h

r 65

(day

time)

55

(nig

ht ti

me)

1.

Ter

nivk

a 2.

Cem

eter

y 3.

recr

eatio

n ba

se R

ondn

iki

Onc

e at

eac

h st

atio

n w

hen

the

cons

truct

ion

is c

arrie

d ou

t nea

r the

pa

rticu

lar s

tatio

n.

5 ye

ars

Dur

ing

oper

atio

n

Noi

se L

evel

s (L

eq, L

max

, L90

)dB

(A)

24 h

r 65

(day

time)

55

(nig

ht ti

me)

1.

Ter

nivk

a 2.

Cem

eter

y 3.

recr

eatio

n ba

se R

ondn

iki

Onc

e a

year

Tw

o ye

ars a

fter

com

plet

ion

of

wor

ks

* “S

anita

ry n

orm

s of a

ccep

tabl

e no

ise

rate

in p

rem

ises

of r

esid

entia

l and

pub

lic b

uild

ing

and

in re

side

nt a

rea”

, no.

3077

-84

03.0

8.19

84

A8-3

Preparatory Survey on the Project of Construction of Mykolaiv Bridge in UkraineFinal Report

Fi

gure

Loc

atio

ns M

ap o

f Env

iron

men

tal M

onito

ring

Lege

nd

Loca

tions

of s

ampl

ing

Surf

ace

Wat

er

Air

pollu

tion

and

Noi

se

NO

.1

NO

.2

Dow

n st

ream

stre

am

Up

stre

am st

ream

Con

stru

ctio

n si

te

NO

.3

A8-4

3．So

cial

Env

iron

men

t M

onito

ring

Form

for S

ocia

l Env

ironm

ent i

s sho

wn

follo

win

g ta

ble,

but

det

aile

d sc

hedu

le is

not

dec

ided

yet

.

Tabl

e S

ched

ule

of P

repa

ratio

n of

Res

ettle

men

t site

s (w

here

nec

essa

ry)

No.

Ex

plan

atio

n of

the

site

(e

.g. A

rea,

no.

of r

eset

tlem

ent H

H, e

tc.)

Stat

us

(Com

plet

ed (d

ate)

/ no

t com

plet

e)

Det

ails

(e

.g. S

ite se

lect

ion,

iden

tific

atio

n of

can

dida

te si

te,

disc

ussi

on w

ith P

APs

, Dev

elop

men

t of t

he si

te. E

tc.)

Expe

cted

dat

e of

com

plet

ion

Tabl

e M

onito

ring

Form

for S

ocia

l Env

ironm

ent

Prog

ress

in Q

uant

ity

Prog

ress

in %

R

eset

tlem

ent a

ctiv

ity

Plan

ned

Tota

l U

nit

Dur

ing

the

Qua

rter

Till

the

last

Q

uarte

r U

p to

the

Qua

rter

Till

the

last

Q

uarte

r U

p to

the

Qua

rter

Expe

cted

dat

e of

com

plet

ion

Res

pons

ible

or

gani

zatio

n

Prep

arat

ion

of R

AP

Im

plem

enta

tion

of C

ensu

s sur

vey

(incl

udin

g So

cio-

econ

omic

surv

ey)

M

an-m

onth

App

rova

l of R

AP

Dat

e of

app

rova

l Fi

naliz

atio

n of

PA

Ps L

ist

N

o. o

f PA

Ps

Prog

ress

of c

ompe

nsat

ion

paym

ent

N

o. o

f HH

s

Lot 1

No.

of H

Hs

Lo

t 2

N

o. o

f HH

s

Lot 3

No.

of H

Hs

Lo

t 4

N

o. o

f HH

s

Prog

ress

of L

and

Acq

uisi

tion

(all

lots

)

ha

Lo

t 1

ha

Lot 2

ha

Lo

t 3

ha

Lot 4

ha

Pr

ogre

ss o

f Ass

et R

epla

cem

ent (

all l

ots)

No.

of H

Hs

Lo

t 1

N

o.of

HH

s

Lot 2

No.

of H

Hs

Lo

t 3

N

o.of

HH

s

Lot 4

ha

Pr

ogre

ss o

f Rel

ocat

ion

of P

eopl

e (a

ll lo

ts)

N

o.of

HH

s

Lot 1

No.

of H

Hs

Lo

t 2

N

o.of

HH

s

Lot 3

No.

of H

Hs

Lo

t 4

ha


A8-5

4．Monitoring Framework and Reporting

Monitoring framework is shown in the following Figures.

Monitoring will be conducted by environmental surveyor hired by the consultant and result of monitoring will be reported to competent authority through SRA. Monitoring report shall be issued quarterly during construction phase, and one time per six months during operation phase from two years after start of the operation

Monitoring Framework during construction stage (In pre-construction and Construction)

Contractor (Sub contractor)

Left bank

Environmental standard (desired value)

Measurement Measurement Measurement

In the River Right bank

SRA Mykolaiv

Mykolaiv Oblast

Mykolaiv City Committees (Composed by Environmental experts)

Ministry of Environment

Instruction & Report

Comparison

Consultation & Advice

Legend


A8-6

Monitoring Framework during operation stage

SRA Administration office

Left bank

Environmental standard (desired value)

Measurement Measurement Measurement

In the River Right bank

SRA Mykolaiv

Mykolaiv Oblast

Mykolaiv City Committees (Composed by Environmental experts)

Ministry of Environment

Instruction & Report

Comparison

Consultation & Advice

Legend


A8-7

Table Environmental Monitoring Cost Estimation of Mykolaiv Bridge Construction Project

(Duration from year 2013 to 2019 for seven(7) years)

Natural Environment

1. air quallitybeforeconstructio

duringconstructio

during operation total times

itemunit ofmeasure

unit cost(samplinganalysisreportingUS$)

samplingtimes

number oflocation

one time

four(4)times peryear forfive(5) years

one time for two(2)yearsfor surface waterfour(4) times per yearfor two(2) years

Dust(soot) mg/m3 85 24 3 1 20 2 23 US$140,760.00

CO mg/m3 85 24 3 1 20 2 23 US$140,760.00

NO2 mg/m3 85 24 3 1 20 2 23 US$140,760.00

2. water qualitytemparature ℃ 12 1 7 1 20 8 29 US$2,436.00pH 12 1 7 1 20 8 29 US$2,436.00conductivity 12 1 7 1 20 8 29 US$2,436.00suspended solid (SS) mg/L 26 1 7 1 20 8 29 US$5,278.00Grease and oil mg/L 50 1 7 1 20 8 29 US$10,150.00Disolved Oxyzen (DO) mg/L 15 1 7 1 20 8 29 US$3,045.00BOD mg/L 60 1 7 1 20 8 29 US$12,180.00Fetcal Coliform Bacteria MNP/100ml 60 1 7 1 20 8 29 US$12,180.00Total Coliform Bacteria MNP/100ml 60 1 7 1 20 8 29 US$12,180.00

3. NoiseNoise Level (Leq, Lmax) dB(A) 160 24 3 1 20 2 23 US$264,960.00

722 US$749,561.00

methodologicalsupport, maintenance 0.1 US$74,956.10

Transport 0.2 US$149,912.20assignment(business trip 0.33 US$247,355.13Taxes 0.2 US$149,912.20Total US$1,371,696.63

Social Environmentdailyallowance(US$)

number ofdays

1.Preparation of RAP 100 10 US$1,000.002.Approval of RAP 100 5 US$500.003. Detailed Measurement Survey 100 20 US$2,000.004. Appraisal and Finalization of PAPs List 100 10 US$1,000.005. Progress of compensation payment 100 90 US$9,000.006. Progress of Land Acquisition 100 180 US$18,000.007. Progress of Asset Replacement 100 90 US$9,000.008. Progress of Relocaton of People 100 60 US$6,000.009. Reporting 100 30 US$3,000.00total 495 US$49,500.00

methodologicalsupport, maintenance 0.1 US$4,950.00

Transport 0.2 US$9,900.00assignment(business trip 0.33 US$16,335.00Taxes 0.2 US$9,900.00Total US$90,585.00

total

cost, USD


A9-1

Appendix 9 List of Parties Concerned in the Recipient Country

Name Position Note Date of Meeting

Kiev Embassy of Japan 12-Nov-10 IZAWA Tadashi Ambassador OKAMOTO Yoshiko First Secretary (Dr.) Kiev (Public) SRA Head Office (Ukravtodor) 18-Nov-10

05-May-11 Vitaliy PROKOPENKO Head of the Construction and

Investment policy department Vitaliy PROKOPENKO

Mikola Grigorovich Parubets Deputy director, head of the artifical constructions department

Mikola Grigorovich Parubets

Maxim Maxim

Yevgen Prusenko Deputy Chairman Yevgen Prusenko (Mrs.)Tereziya Babvch Head of the Foreign Economic

Activity Department (Mrs.)Tereziya Babvch

(Mrs.)Irina SHAPOUALOVA

Fiance Department

(Ms.)Mariia CHUMAK

Main Specialist of the Foreign Economic Activity Department

Contact person (Successor of Maxim)

State Enterprise Ukrainian Water ways 12-Nov-10 Grygoriy MEDVEDEV Deputy of the chief Ukrdiprodor (State Road Department of Ukraine) 6-May-11 Shcherbachenko Victor Chief Engineer Kiev (Private) Kievvsoyuzdorproekt 11-Nov-10

Limonov Evgeniy Grigoryevich Chairman, Director of the Institute 12-Nov-10

Kulik Vasiliy Ivanovich Deputy Chief Engineer (Chief engineer) 18-Nov-10

Gerasimenko Alexander Alexandrovich

Head of engineering and geodesy department

(Topo Survey) 19-Nov-10

Repeta Boris Alexandrovich (Geo Survey) 11-Nov-10

Alexander Shevchenko Head of the geo surveys and transport department

(Geological Engineer)

Ｋyivdiprotrans 19-Nov-10 Volodymyr MONASHCHENKO Director Victor Verko Deputy Chief Engineer Ukrspetstunelproyect 20-Nov-10 Vadim Volynsky General director

Anatoly ANAOLYEV First Vice President of the Board

Sergiy OSYZPOV Chief Engineer

Soyuztransproyect 19-Nov-10 Tulenev Igor Efgenebich Chief Engineer Mostobud (Bridges construction company) 19-May-11 Bobrovytskyi Anatoliy Vice Chairman of Supervisory

Board

Volodymyr Snisar Head of Foreign Economic Activity

A9-2


Mykolaiv (Public) SRA (Ukravtodor) Mykolayiv Branch 15-Nov-10

Vyacheslov Getun The Head of SRA Mykolaiv

Valeriy Bloshenko Deputy Head

Ivan Chausenko Chief of roads and bridges department

Mykolaiv Regional State Administration of Ukraine 15-Nov-10 Mykola KRUGLOV The Head Gennadiy B.NIKOLENKO The 1-st Deputy Head Igor A. KATVALYUK Deputy Head Ukrainian River Port Authority 16-Nov-10 Vladimir Petrovich Serbinov The Head of the river port

Mykolayiv

Mykolaiv Aviation Authority 17-Nov-10 Andrey E.KEYAN Director of the Mykolayiv airport Mykolaiv Regional State Administration of Ukraine on Protection of Environment 23-Nov-10 Litvak Sergey Mikhaylovych Head of the Administration Kubrak Ivan Vadimovych Deputy Head of the Administration Efimov Vladimir Igorevych First Deputy Head of the

Administration

City of Mykolaiv 25-Nov-10 Valeriy Bloshenko Deputy Head of the State Road

Administration “Ukravtodor”

Land Resources Administration 2-Dec-10 Yanchuk V.P. Head of administration of the

State Administration on Land

Resources in Mykolaiv Region

Sanitary- Epidemiological Administration of Mykolaiv Region, Ukraine 6-Dec-10 V. Kiochko Chief State Sanitary Physician of

Mykolaiv Region

V. A. Raevskiy Head of Sanitary-hygienic

Department of Region Sanitary

Administration

I. V. Saganevych Senior Specialist

Institute of Fishing Industry of National Academy of Agrarian Sciences of Ukraine, Kherson laboratory of aquaculture

29-Apr-11

Konstantin Nikolayevich HEYNE Candidate of Biological Sciences

Mykolaiv (Private) Daughter Company JC"Mostobud" Mostootryad 30-Nov-10 Allahverdiev Novruz Iskenderovich Head MZZHBI (freshly mixed concrete product manufacturer) Kislichenk Vikkor Director 10-April-11 Dyckerhoff Ukraine (Cement & freshly mixed Concrete product manufacturer) Paolo Zelano Country Manager 28-April-11 Tatjana Kazakevich Commercial director Anton isaev Director


A9-3


Pribuzhsky Granit Ltd (Manufacture and the dealer of aggregate and sand) 30-April-11 Sergey Zherihov Director Public JSC Nikitovskiy Granit Quarry (Manufacture and the dealer of aggregate and sand) 30-April-11 Vasiliy Moroz Owner Yuriy Kret Director of sand Rost Dorstroy (Asphalt concrete manufacture and a construction contractor ) 13-May-11 Konstantin Kiose General Director Vladimir Marenich Chief Engineer

A10-1


App

endi

x 10

L

ist o

f Ref

eren

ce M

ater

ials

(a

s of 9

th S

epte

mbe

r 20

11)

Supp

lier

No.

T

itle

Out

line

Lan

guag

eO

rgan

izat

ion,

Pe

rson

M

edia

D

ate

1 Fe

asib

ility

Stu

dy R

epor

t on

cons

truct

ion

Proj

ect o

f a n

ew

road

brid

ge in

Nik

olae

v C

ity, U

krai

ne fo

r Mar

ch 2

000,

13

6 pa

ges

F/S

1999

Japa

n C

onsu

lting

In

stitu

te

En

OC

B

ook

PDF

2 Pr

ojec

t des

crip

tion

for t

he c

onst

ruct

ion

of th

e br

idge

ove

r th

e Y

uzhn

y B

ug ri

ver i

n N

ikol

aev

for M

ay 2

003,

34

page

s F/

S 20

03

PCI

En

OC

B

ook

Dat

a

3 To

pogr

aphi

c m

ap o

f Nik

olae

v re

gion

1:2

00 0

00

Rus

O

C

Pa

per

4 Fe

asib

ility

Stu

dy a

s am

ende

d in

200

4, K

yiv

2004

, V

olum

e1 1

10 p

ages

Ex

ecut

ive

Sum

mar

y En

JI

CA

, Ms.T

aked

a B

ook

5 U

krai

ne -

Myk

olai

v B

ridge

Pro

ject

QA

200

912.

pdf

En

JIC

A, M

s.Tak

eda

PDF

05-N

ov-1

0 6

Ukr

aine

Myk

olai

v Po

licy

Doc

CP0

2-10

.pdf

En

JI

CA

, Ms.T

aked

a PD

F 09

-Nov

-10

7 Fe

asib

ility

Stu

dy a

s am

ende

d in

200

4, K

yiv

2004

, V

olum

e3 1

94 p

ages

En

viro

nmen

tal A

sses

smen

t R

epor

t En

JI

CA

, Ms.T

aked

a PD

F 10

-Nov

-10

8 O

utlin

e of

Eur

ope

and

CIS

Cou

ntrie

s (B

y JE

TRO

) G

ener

al In

fo. o

f Ukr

aine

Ja

p Ito

chu

Pape

r 11

-Nov

-10

9 A

mag

azin

e "T

rans

port

deve

lopm

ent o

f Ukr

aine

", 5

1 pa

ges #

1(15

)/200

9 B

roch

ure

of K

ievs

oyuz

U

kr

Kyi

vSoi

uzdo

rpro

ekt

Bro

chur

e12

-Nov

-10

10

A m

agaz

ine

of K

yivS

oiuz

dorp

roek

t fro

m id

ea to

em

bodi

men

t 200

8, 1

5 pa

ges

Bro

chur

e of

Kie

vsoy

uz

Ukr

K

yivS

oiuz

dorp

roek

t B

roch

ure

12-N

ov-1

0

11

A m

agaz

ine

"Tra

nspo

rt de

velo

pmen

t of U

krai

ne",

47

page

s #1(

16)/2

010

Bro

chur

e of

Kie

vsoy

uz

Ukr

K

yivS

oiuz

dorp

roek

t B

roch

ure

12-N

ov-1

0

12

Feas

ibili

ty S

tudy

as a

men

ded

in 2

004,

Kyi

v 20

04,

Vol

ume1

123

pag

es

Exec

utiv

e Su

mm

ary

Ukr

U

krav

todo

r, M

r. Iv

an

Boo

k 19

-Nov

-10

13

Feas

ibili

ty S

tudy

as a

men

ded

in 2

004,

Kyi

v 20

04,

Vol

ume2

50

page

s D

raw

ings

U

kr

Ukr

avto

dor,

Mr.

Ivan

B

ook

19-N

ov-1

0

14

Feas

ibili

ty S

tudy

as a

men

ded

in 2

004,

Kyi

v 20

04,

Vol

ume3

194

pag

es

EIA

U

kr

Ukr

avto

dor,

Mr.

Ivan

B

ook

19-N

ov-1

0

15

Feas

ibili

ty S

tudy

as a

men

ded

in 2

004,

Kyi

v 20

04,

Vol

ume4

9 p

ages

C

ost

Estim

atio

n U

kr

Ukr

avto

dor,

Mr.

Ivan

B

ook

19-N

ov-1

0

16

Feas

ibili

ty S

tudy

as a

men

ded

in 2

004,

Kyi

v 20

04,

Vol

ume5

80

page

s A

naly

sis o

f Inv

estm

ent

Effic

ienc

y U

kr

Ukr

avto

dor,

Mr.

Ivan

B

ook

19-N

ov-1

0

A10-2

(as o

f 9th

Sep

tem

ber

2011

)

Su

pplie

r

No.

T

itle

Out

line

Lan

guag

eO

rgan

izat

ion,

Pe

rson

M

edia

D

ate

17

(Sup

rem

e C

ounc

il of

Ukr

aine

(BD

), 20

02, N

24,

st.1

66)

Ukr

avto

dor,

Mr.

Ivan

U

kr

Ukr

avto

dor,

Mr.

Ivan

W

ord

15-N

ov-1

0

18

DB

NV

1.2-

15:2

009

Brid

ge a

nd P

ipes

/ Lo

ads a

nd

Effe

ct (w

ithou

t fig

ures

) U

kr

Ukr

avto

dor,

Mr.

Ivan

W

ord

15-N

ov-1

0

19

DB

NV

1.2-

15:2

009

Brid

ge a

nd P

ipes

/ Lo

ads a

nd

Effe

ct(F

rom

Inte

rnet

) U

kr

Inte

rnet

W

ord

15-D

ec-1

0

20

DB

NV

2.3-

4:2

007

RO

AD

S /

Part

I. D

esig

n/ P

art

II. C

onst

ruct

ion

(with

out

figur

es)

Ukr

U

krav

todo

r, M

r. Iv

an

Wor

d 15

-Nov

-10

21

DB

NV

2.3-

4:20

07

RO

AD

S /

Part

I. D

esig

n/ P

art

II. C

onst

ruct

ion （

From

Inte

rnet

）

Ukr

In

tern

et

22

DB

NV

2.3-

14:2

006

Brid

ge a

nd T

ubs /

Des

ign

Rul

es

(with

out f

igur

es)

Ukr

U

krav

todo

r, M

r. Iv

an

Wor

d 15

-Nov

-10

23

DB

NV

2.3-

14:2

006

Brid

ge a

nd T

ubs /

Des

ign

Rul

es

Ukr

U

krav

todo

r, M

r. Iv

an

Wor

d 14

-Dec

-10

24

DB

NV

2.3-

14:2

006

Brid

ge a

nd T

ubs /

Des

ign

Rul

es

App

endi

x (w

ithou

t fig

ures

) U

kr

Ukr

avto

dor,

Mr.

Ivan

W

ord

15-N

ov-1

0

25

DB

NV

2.3-

14:2

006

Brid

ge a

nd T

ubs /

Des

ign

Rul

es

App

endi

x U

kr

Ukr

avto

dor,

Mr.

Ivan

W

ord

15-D

ec-1

0

26

DB

NV

2.3-

22:2

009

Brid

ge a

nd T

ubs/

Des

ign

Rul

es

(few

pag

es a

re m

issi

ng)

Ukr

U

krav

todo

r, M

r. Iv

an

Wor

d 15

-Nov

-10

27

DB

NV

2.3-

22:2

009

Brid

ge a

nd T

ubs /

Des

ign

Rul

es

Ukr

U

krav

todo

r, M

r. Iv

an

PDF

13-D

ec-1

0

28

DB

NV

2.3-

22:2

009

Brid

ge a

nd T

ubs /

Des

ign

Rul

es

Ukr

U

krav

todo

r, M

r. Iv

an

Wor

d 13

-Dec

-10

29

DB

NV

1.1-

12:2

006

Prot

ectio

n ag

ains

t dan

gero

us

geol

ogic

al p

roce

sses

, the

ha

rmfu

l eff

ects

of m

aint

enan

ce

of fi

re/ C

onst

ruct

ion/

Earth

quak

e in

UK

RA

INE

(with

out

atta

chm

ent)

Ukr

U

krav

todo

r, M

r. Iv

an

Wor

d 15

-Nov

-10

A10-3


(as o

f 9th

Sep

tem

ber

2011

)

Su

pplie

r

No.

T

itle

Out

line

Lan

guag

eO

rgan

izat

ion,

Pe

rson

M

edia

D

ate

30

DB

NV

1.1-

12:2

006

Prot

ectio

n ag

ains

t dan

gero

us

geol

ogic

al p

roce

sses

that

are

ha

rmfu

l ope

ratio

nal e

ffec

ts,

from

fire

ISS

"arc

hite

ct"

(Kie

v,

st. M

G K

ryvo

nosa

, 2a,

tel /

fax.

24

9-34

-04)

CO

NST

RU

CTI

ON

In

seis

mic

are

as U

KR

AIN

E

Ukr

U

krav

todo

r, M

r. Iv

an

Wor

d 16

-Dec

-10

31

DB

NV

1.1-

12:2

006

App

endi

x in

Ukr

aine

U

kr

Ukr

avto

dor,

Mr.

Ivan

32

DB

NV

1.1-

12:2

006

App

endi

x in

Eng

lish

U

krav

todo

r, M

r. Iv

an

33

DB

NV

1.1-

4:2

009

The

syst

em o

f urb

an

plan

ning

/Com

posi

tion,

con

tent

, de

velo

pmen

t, C

oord

inat

ion

and

appr

oval

Pla

nnin

g ju

stifi

catio

n

Ukr

U

krav

todo

r, M

r. Iv

an

Wor

d 15

-Nov

-10

34

DV

NV

2.3-

20:2

008

Excu

tion

and

Acc

epta

nce

of

Wor

k C

oord

inat

ion

and

appr

oval

U

kr

Ukr

avto

dor,

Mr.

Ivan

W

ord

15-N

ov-1

0

35

DST

UB

.V2.

3-1-

95

Nav

igat

ion

Cle

aran

ce u

nder

B

ridge

s on

Inla

nd w

ater

way

s Pl

anni

ng ju

stifi

catio

n U

kr

Ukr

avto

dor,

Mr.

Ivan

W

ord

15-N

ov-1

0

36

Snip

2.0

2.01

-83(

2000

) C

onst

ruct

ion

Stan

dars

and

R

ules

/Fou

ndat

ion

of B

uild

ings

A

nd S

truct

ures

U

kr

Ukr

avto

dor,

Mr.

Ivan

W

ord

15-N

ov-1

0

37

DB

NV

.1.2

-2: 2

006

Sy

stem

relia

bilit

y an

d sa

fety

of

cons

truct

ion

proj

ects

/Loa

ds

and

effe

cts/

Stan

dard

s des

ign

Ukr

U

krav

todo

r, M

r. Iv

an

Wor

d 15

-Dec

-10

38

Win

d R

ose

in M

ykol

aiv

Win

d R

ose

in M

ykol

aiv

Rus

U

krav

todo

r, M

r. Iv

an

Pape

r PD

F 15

-Dec

-10

39

Met

eoro

logi

cal d

ata

from

Myk

olai

v R

egio

nal H

ydro

-m

eteo

rolo

gica

l St

atio

n M

eteo

rolo

gica

l dat

a,

tem

pera

ture

, win

d, ra

infa

ll R

us

Myk

olai

v R

egio

nal H

ydro

-m

eteo

rolo

gica

l St

atio

n Pa

per

10-D

ec-1

0

40

Wat

er le

vel f

rom

Myk

olai

v R

egio

nal H

ydro

-m

eteo

rolo

gica

l St

atio

n W

ater

leve

l of Y

ujni

y B

ug ri

ver

Rus

M

ykol

aiv

Reg

iona

l Hyd

ro-

met

eoro

logi

cal

Stat

ion

Pape

r PD

F 15

-Dec

-10

A10-4

(as o

f 9th

Sep

tem

ber

2011

)

Su

pplie

r

No.

T

itle

Out

line

Lan

guag

eO

rgan

izat

ion,

Pe

rson

M

edia

D

ate

41

Empl

oyer

’s in

form

atio

n of

“M

osto

otry

ad N

o.73

” O

ccup

atio

nal s

truct

ure

and

expe

rienc

e le

vel o

f tec

hnic

ians

an

d en

gine

ers

Rus

“M

osto

otry

ad N

o.73

” Pa

per

9-D

ec-1

0

42

Atta

chm

ent o

f DB

N, s

eism

ic in

form

atio

n Li

st o

f pop

ulat

ion

cent

ers o

f U

krai

ne, l

ocat

ed in

seis

mic

da

nger

are

as

Rus

U

krav

todo

r, M

r. Iv

an

Pape

r 16

-Dec

-10

43

Am

endm

ent o

f Dec

ree

of M

inis

try o

f Hea

lth o

f Ukr

aine

Am

endm

ent t

o D

ecre

e of

M

inis

try o

f Hea

lth o

n ap

prov

al

of te

mpo

rary

pro

cedu

re o

f Sta

te

Sani

tary

Exa

min

atio

n

Rus

M

inis

try o

f Hea

lth o

f U

krai

ne

Pape

r 14

-Dec

-10

44

Roa

d M

ap o

f Myk

olai

v R

oad

Map

of M

ykol

aiv

Ukr

Map

25

-Nov

-10

45

Doc

umen

t for

Cos

t Est

imat

e In

dust

rial p

rodu

cers

’ pric

e in

dex

Con

sum

er p

rice

inde

x En

g In

tern

et

Pape

r

46

Coo

rdin

atio

n of

Roa

d C

ente

r lin

e R

aod

Cen

ter l

ine

U

krav

todo

r Pa

per

25-N

ov-1

0 47

M

ykol

ayiv

Reg

ion

Myk

olai

v R

egio

n in

form

atio

n U

kr

Ukr

avto

dor

Boo

k

48

Nat

ural

Res

erve

s in

Myk

olai

v O

blas

t M

Yko

laiv

City

info

rmat

ion

Ukr

/ Eng

Ukr

avto

dor

Boo

k 10

-Dec

-10

49

Rek

omen

dats

ii po

opr

edel

eniy

u ne

sush

chei

spos

obno

sti

svai

-obo

loch

ek i

buro

v.pd

f

Rec

omm

enda

tions

on

dete

rmin

atio

n of

bea

ring

capa

city

of p

iles

Rus

U

krav

todo

r PD

F 15

-Dec

-10

50

Met

OiF

_Kor

nien

ko.p

df

Foun

datio

ns a

nd B

ases

R

us

Ukr

avto

dor

PDF

22-D

ec-1

0

51

Sani

tary

Rul

es a

nd T

erm

s of S

urfa

ce W

ater

Pro

tect

ion

Aga

inst

Pol

lutio

n Pr

otec

tion

Rul

e A

gain

st W

ater

Po

llutio

n R

us

Min

.of H

ealth

Pro

tect

ion

Pape

r 10

-Dec

-10

52

Stat

e Sa

nita

ry R

ules

on

Prot

ectio

n of

Atm

osph

ere

air o

f Po

pula

tion

Agg

rega

te

Prot

ectio

n R

ule

Aga

inst

Air

Pollu

tion

Rus

M

in.o

f Hea

lth P

rote

ctio

n Pa

per

10-D

ec-1

0

53

Sani

tary

Rol

es o

f Per

mitt

ed L

evel

of N

oise

in R

esid

entia

l B

uild

ings

and

Com

mer

cial

Bui

ldin

gs a

nd o

ther

Ter

ritor

y of

Res

iden

tial D

evel

opm

ent

Prot

ectio

n R

ule

Aga

inst

Noi

se

Rus

M

in.o

f Hea

lth P

rote

ctio

n Pa

per

10-D

ec-1

0

54

Clim

atol

ogic

al d

ata,

Ice

regi

me

and

thic

knes

s of i

ce c

over

Snow

Fal

l and

Riv

er F

roze

n D

ata

Rus

M

ykol

aiv

Reg

iona

l Hyd

ro-

met

eoro

logi

cal

Stat

ion

Pape

r 6-

May

-11

55

Soci

al a

nd e

cono

mic

dev

elop

men

t of U

krai

ne Ja

nuar

y-M

arch

201

1

Soci

al a

nd e

cono

mic

de

velo

pmen

t ind

ex o

f M

ykol

aiv

Eng

Inte

rnet

PD

F 10

-May

-11

A10-5


(as o

f 9th

Sep

tem

ber

2011

)

Su

pplie

r

No.

T

itle

Out

line

Lan

guag

eO

rgan

izat

ion,

Pe

rson

M

edia

D

ate

56 Додаток

5. С

хема

галуз

.doc

M

anag

emen

t sch

eme

of R

oad

auth

ority

of U

krai

ne

Ukr

U

krav

todo

r W

ord

20-D

ec-1

0

57 Про

затвердж

ення

Державної програми розвитку

автомобільних

доріг

загального

користування на

20

07-2

011 роки

Stat

e Pr

ogra

m fo

r the

D

evel

opm

ent o

f Pub

lic

Hig

hway

s for

200

7-20

11

Ukr

Pa

rliam

ent o

f Ukr

aine

W

ebsi

te

Htm

l 9-

Dec

-10

58

КороткІ

Підсумки

Соціально

-Економічного

Становища М

.Миколаєва

За

2010

Рік

Перелік

міських

програм

розвитку,

які

діють

в 2

011

-20

14 роках

Econ

omic

and

Soc

ial

Dev

elop

men

t of M

ykol

aiv

City

in

201

0 C

ity D

evel

opm

ent P

rogr

ams

Run

ning

in 2

011-

2014

Ukr

M

ykol

aiv

City

Cou

ncil

Web

site

H

tml

9-D

ec-1

0 21

-Apr

-11

59 Про

затвердж

ення

Державно

. програми

розвитку

м

.ського електротранспорту на

200

7-20

15

роки

App

rovi

ng th

e St

ate

of th

e C

ity

Elec

tric

in 2

007-

2015

U

kr

Parli

amen

t of U

krai

ne

Web

site

H

tml

9-D

ec-1

0

60

Out

line

of U

krai

ne （

Apr

il 20

11）

O

utlin

e of

Ukr

aini

an

Dip

lom

acy

Jap

Web

Site

of J

apan

Em

bass

y in

Ukr

aine

H

tml

10-J

un-1

1

61

Stat

istic

al p

ublic

atio

n R

egio

ns o

f Ukr

aine

200

9 St

atis

tics o

f Ukr

aine

U

kr/E

ngSt

ate

Stat

istic

s Com

mitt

ee

of U

krai

ne W

ebsi

te

PDF

9-A

pr-1

1

62

Cou

ntry

Brie

f 201

0-U

krai

ne

Wor

ld B

ank’

s Cou

ntry

Brie

f of

Ukr

aine

for 2

010

Eng

Wor

ld B

ank

Web

site

H

tml

16-F

eb-1

1

63

Cou

ntry

Par

tner

ship

Stra

tegy

for U

krai

ne fo

r the

Per

iod

FY08

-FY

11

Wor

ld B

ank’

s Ass

ista

nce

Polic

y fo

r Ukr

aine

En

g W

orld

Ban

k W

ebsi

te

PDF

16-F

eb-1

1

64

OD

A D

ata

Boo

k 20

10

Out

line

of U

krai

ne

Jap

MoF

A W

eb S

ite

PDF

16-F

eb-1

1

65

Out

line

of U

krai

nian

Agr

icul

ture

(Jul

y 20

10)

Out

line

of U

krai

nian

A

gric

ultu

re

Jap

MA

FF W

eb S

ite

PDF

16-F

eb-1

1

66

Trad

e St

atis

tic o

f Agr

icul

ture（

2009）

A

gric

ultu

ral T

rade

Sta

tistic

s in

Ukr

aine

Ja

p M

AFF

Web

Site

PD

F/Ex

cel

22-M

ar-1

1

67

Stud

y fo

r Und

ergr

ound

Res

ourc

es in

Ukr

aine

O

utlin

e of

Ukr

aini

an M

inin

g an

d In

dust

ry

Jap

JOG

MEC

Web

Site

PD

F 30

-Mar

-11

68

Stat

e St

atis

tic S

ervi

ce o

f Ukr

aine

St

atis

tics o

f Ukr

aine

U

kr/E

ngSt

ate

Stat

istic

Ser

vice

of

Ukr

aine

Web

site

H

tml

15-N

ov-1

0

69

Land

-use

pla

nnin

g m

ap fo

r Myk

olai

v ci

ty

Map

with

col

or il

lust

ratio

ns

Ukr

M

ykol

aiv

city

Pa

per

14-D

ec-1

0

70

DB

NV

2.3-

16:2

007

Land

Allo

tmen

t for

C

onst

ruct

ion

of M

otor

Roa

ds

Ukr

In

tern

et

Wor

d 09

-May

-11

A10-6

(as o

f 9th

Sep

tem

ber

2011

)

Su

pplie

r

No.

T

itle

Out

line

Lan

guag

eO

rgan

izat

ion,

Pe

rson

M

edia

D

ate

71

2007

Min

eral

s Yea

rboo

k U

krai

ne

2009

Min

eral

s Yea

rboo

k U

krai

ne (A

dvan

ce R

elea

se)

The

Min

eral

Indu

stry

of

Ukr

aine

in 2

007,

200

9 En

g U

nite

d St

ates

Geo

logi

cal

Surv

ey (I

nter

net)

Wor

d,

Exce

l, PD

F

09-M

ay-1

1 10

-Aug

-11

72

Trad

e St

atis

tics o

f Jap

an（

JETR

O）

Tr

ade

Stat

istic

bet

wee

n Ja

pan

and

Ukr

ane

Jap

JETR

O W

eb S

ite

Exce

l 10

-Aug

-11

73

Prod

uctio

n Pr

ojec

t on

Rec

onst

ruct

ion

of A

utom

obile

Pr

inci

pal R

oad

Kie

v-K

hark

ov-D

ovzh

ansk

iy k

m 2

04+9

65

Polta

va R

egio

n B

ridge

ove

r the

Sul

a R

iver

O

vera

ll B

ill o

f Qua

ntiti

es

Ref

eren

ce o

f Cos

t Est

imat

ion

U

kr

Join

t-Sto

ck

Com

pany

“K

ievs

ojuz

dorp

roje

ct”

Boo

k 10

-May

-11

74

Wor

king

Doc

umen

tatio

n on

Rec

onst

ruct

ion

of

Aut

omob

ile P

rinci

pal R

oad

Kie

v- K

hark

ov- D

ovzh

ansk

iy

km 2

02+0

00 –

km

207

+000

Pol

tava

Reg

ion

C

ost E

stim

atio

ns P

repa

rato

ry W

orks

and

Ear

thw

orks

C

over

ing

of R

oadw

ay.

Roa

d Fa

cilit

ies C

onst

ruct

ion

Ref

eren

ce o

f Cos

t Est

imat

ion

U

kr

Join

t-Sto

ck

Com

pany

“K

ievs

ojuz

dorp

roje

ct”

Boo

k 10

-May

-11

75

Pric

e Fo

rmat

ion

in C

onst

ruct

ion

Ref

eren

ce o

f Cos

t Est

imat

ion

U

kr

Scie

ntifi

c-

Prod

uctio

n C

ompa

ny ”

Inpr

oekt

” B

ook

10-M

ay-1

1

76

Feas

ibili

ty S

tudy

of t

he B

ridge

Cro

ssin

g C

onst

ruct

ion

over

the

Riv

er P

ivde

nniy

Bug

Riv

er

Vol

ume

3 C

onst

ruct

ion

Cos

t Cal

cula

tion

Ref

eren

ce o

f Cos

t Est

imat

ion

U

kr

CJS

C

“Kyi

vsoy

uzsh

lyak

hpro

ekt”

B

ook

10-M

ay-1

1

77

Cor

rect

ion

of th

e Pr

ojec

t of t

he P

odils

kiy

Brid

ge C

ross

ing

Con

stru

ctio

n ov

er th

e D

nipr

o R

iver

in K

yiv

The

Brid

ge o

ver t

he D

esen

ka R

iver

C

ost E

stim

atio

n D

ocum

enta

tion

Ref

eren

ce o

f Cos

t Est

imat

ion

U

kr

CJS

C

“Kyi

vsoy

uzsh

lyak

hpro

ekt”

B

ook

10-M

ay-1

1

78

Cor

rect

ion

of th

e Pr

ojec

t of t

he P

odils

kiy

Brid

ge C

ross

ing

over

the

Riv

er D

nipr

o in

the

City

Kyi

v Se

ctio

n 8

Cos

t Est

imat

ion

Doc

umen

tatio

n B

ook

8.1

Ref

eren

ce o

f Cos

t Est

imat

ion

U

kr

CJS

C

“Kyi

vsoy

uzsh

lyak

hpro

ekt”

B

ook

10-M

ay-1

1

Date post:	05-Jul-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	phungnhu
View:	215 times
Download:	0 times

APPENDICES - open_jicareport.jica.go.jpopen_jicareport.jica.go.jp/pdf/12048211_04.pdf · ......

Documents