Biomass Removal Plan (BRP) for Nam Ngiep Power Company ... · Biomass Removal Plan (BRP) 1 FINAL-9...

Biomass Removal Plan (BRP) for Nam Ngiep Power Company (NNP1)

FINAL

Prepared for

By

July 2015

Biomass Removal Plan (BRP)

FINAL 1-1

RECORD DISTRIBUTION

Copy No. Company / Position Name

1 Director, ESD NNP1 Mr Prapard PAN-ARAM

2 Manager, EMO Mr Viengkeo

Phetnavongxay

3 Deputy Manager of Watershed / Biodiversity Management Dr Hendra WINASTU

4 Senior Environmental Specialist, EMO NNP1 Dr Souane THIRAKUL

DOCUMENT REVISION LIST

Revision Status/Number Revision Date Description of Revision Approved By

Rev0 11th May 2015 Working Draft Nigel Murphy

Rev1 21st May 2015 Draft Nigel Murphy

Rev2 28th May 2015 Final Draft Nigel Murphy

Rev3 16 July 2015 Final Nigel Murphy

Rev4 24 July 2015 Final(revised) Nigel Murphy

This report is not to be used for purposes other than those for which it was intended. Environmental conditions

change with time. The site conditions described in this report are based on observations made during the site

visit and on subsequent monitoring results. Earth Systems does not imply that the site conditions described in

this report are representative of past or future conditions. Where this report is to be made available, either in part

or in its entirety, to a third party, Earth Systems reserves the right to review the information and documentation

contained in the report and revisit and update findings, conclusions and recommendations.


FINAL 1-2

Contents

LIST OF ACRONYMS ............................................................................................... 1-5

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................... 1-7

Introduction ................................................................................................................... 1-7

Context for Biomass Removal ....................................................................................... 1-7

Project Reservoirs ................................................................................................. 1-7

Biomass Profile ...................................................................................................... 1-7

Commercial Logging .............................................................................................. 1-8

Environmental Modelling ............................................................................................... 1-8

Analysis and Section of Biomass Removal Options ...................................................... 1-9

Environmental and Social Considerations for Biomass Removal ........................... 1-9

Selection of Priority Biomass Removal Areas ........................................................ 1-9

Salvage Logging Management .................................................................................... 1-10

Residual Biomass Removal Management ................................................................... 1-10

Code of Practice ......................................................................................................... 1-10

Targets, Actions, Monitoring Framework and Budget .................................................... 1-11

1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................. 12

1.1 The Biomass Removal Plan (BRP) ..........................................................................12

1.2 Project Background .................................................................................................12

1.2.1 Project Overview ............................................................................................12

1.2.2 Project Reservoirs .........................................................................................13

1.2.3 Reservoir and Dam Operation Characteristics ...............................................16

1.2.4 Project Schedule ............................................................................................16

1.3 Environmental and Social Setting ............................................................................17

1.3.1 Physical Setting .............................................................................................17

1.3.2 Biological Setting ...........................................................................................20

1.3.3 Social Setting .................................................................................................22

1.3.4 Unexploded Ordnance (UXO) ........................................................................22

1.3.5 Estimate of Biomass in the Reservoir Areas ..................................................24

1.3.6 Commercial Timber and Harvest Activities in the Reservoir ...........................25


FINAL 1-3

1.4 Legal and other Requirements .................................................................................26

1.4.1 Guidelines for Biomass Removal ...................................................................26

1.4.2 Project Concession Agreement ......................................................................26

1.4.3 Other Lao PDR Regulatory Requirements .....................................................27

2 PRESENTATION OF DATA AND MODELLING RESULTS ................................. 29

2.1 Impacts of the Inundation of Biomass ......................................................................29

2.2 Environmental Modelling ..........................................................................................29

2.2.1 Model Data Inputs ..........................................................................................29

2.2.2 Summary of Results.......................................................................................31

2.2.3 Conclusions and Recommendations ..............................................................33

3 ANALYSIS AND SELECTION OF BIOMASS REMOVAL OPTIONS .................. 34

3.1 Analysis of Removal Options ...................................................................................34

3.1.1 Do Nothing .....................................................................................................34

3.1.2 Partial Biomass Removal (Salvage Logging) .................................................34

3.1.3 Complete Biomass Removal ..........................................................................35

3.1.4 Salvage Logging and Biomass Clearance of the Drawdown ..........................35

3.1.5 Fill and Flush (or partial fill and flush) .............................................................36

3.2 Selected Removal Option(s) ....................................................................................36

3.3 Environmental and Social Considerations for Biomass Removal .............................36

3.3.1 Potential Environmental Impacts ....................................................................36

3.3.2 Potential Social Impacts .................................................................................37

3.4 Analysis of Priority Areas for Biomass Removal .......................................................38

3.4.1 Analysis of Potential Clearance Areas ...........................................................38

3.4.2 Priority Biomass Removal Areas ....................................................................39

4 SALVAGE LOGGING MANAGEMENT ............................................................... 41

4.1 Roles and Responsibilities .......................................................................................41

4.2 Status of Salvage Logging Activities ........................................................................41

4.2.1 Status of Commercial Timber Harvesting .......................................................41

4.3 Priority Areas for Salvage Logging ...........................................................................42

4.4 Approach for Remaining Salvage Logging Activities ................................................42

4.5 Salvage Logging Techniques ...................................................................................43

5 RESIDUAL BIOMASS REMOVAL MANAGEMENT ........................................... 44


FINAL 1-4

5.1 Roles and Responsibilities for Residual Biomass Removal ......................................44

5.2 Residual Biomass Removal Approach .....................................................................44

5.2.1 Pre-Impoundment Biomass Removal .............................................................44

5.2.2 Post Impoundment Biomass Removal ...........................................................44

5.3 Priority Areas for Biomass Removal .........................................................................44

5.4 Biomass Removal Techniques .................................................................................45

5.4.1 Lesser Value Biomass Extraction ...................................................................45

5.4.2 Residual Biomass Clearance .........................................................................45

5.4.3 Floating Log / Debris Removal .......................................................................47

6 CODE OF PRACTICE FOR BIOMASS REMOVAL ............................................ 49

6.1 Environmental and Social Management and Mitigation Measures ...........................49

6.2 Summary of ‘No Go’ Areas .......................................................................................49

6.3 Contractors ..............................................................................................................49

7 PUBLIC CONSULTATION ................................................................................... 57

7.1 Objectives of Public Consultation and Disclosure ....................................................57

7.2 Summary of Consultation Activities ..........................................................................57

7.3 Next Steps ...............................................................................................................57

8 TARGETS, ACTIONS, MONITORING FRAMEWORK AND BUDGET ............... 59

8.1 Actions and Implementation Schedule .....................................................................59

8.2 Monitoring Framework .............................................................................................64

8.3 Budget Estimate ......................................................................................................69

9 REFERENCES .................................................................................................... 70

10 APPENDICES ..................................................................................................... 71

Appendix A: Project Features ..........................................................................................71

Appendix B: Impacts of Inundation of Biomass ...............................................................73

Appendix C: Technical Report – Environmental Modelling...............................................76

Appendix D: Priority Biomass Removal Area Maps .........................................................97

Appendix E: Record of Consultations ............................................................................ 104


FINAL 1-5

LIST OF ACRONYMS

ADB Asian Development Bank

AGB Above Ground Biomass

BGB Below Ground Biomass

BMPs Best Management Practices

BOD Biochemical Oxygen Demand. Also named Biological Oxygen Demand.

BRP Biomass Removal Plan

CA Concession Agreement

DEM Digital Elevation Model

DO Dissolved Oxygen

EHS Environment, Health and Safety

EIA Environmental Impact Assessment

EMO Environmental Management Office

EMU Environmental Management Unit

EIA Environmental Impact Assessment

ESD Environmental and Social Division

ESIA Environmental and Social Impact Assessment

ESMMP- CP Environmental and Social Monitoring and Management Plan for the Construction

Phase.

FAO Food and Agriculture Organization

FSL Full Supply Level

GHG Greenhouse gas

GOL Government of Lao PDR

GPS Global Positioning System

IFC International Finance Corporation

IFI International Financial Institution

IHA International Hydropower Association

IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

IUCN International Union for Conservation of Nature

MAF Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry

Masl Metres above sea level

MOL Minimum Operation Level

MONRE Ministry of Natural Resources and environment

MRC Mekong River Commission

NAFRI National Agriculture and Forestry Research Institute


FINAL 1-6

NLMA National Land Management Authority

NNP1 Nam Ngiep 1 Power Company

NN1 Nam Ngiep 1 Hydropower Project

NOL Normal Operating Level

NRA National Regulatory Authority – Lao PDR

NS Lao PDR National UXO/MINE Action Standards

NTFP Non-Timber Forest Products

NWL Normal Water Level

PAFO Provincial Agriculture and Forestry Office

PAPs Project Affected Peoples

PONRE Provincial office of Natural Resources and Environment

PPE Personal Protective Equipment

RAP Resettlement Action Plan

REDP Resettlement and Ethic Minority Development Plans

SIA Social Impact Assessments

SLBR Salvage Logging Biomass Removal

SLBRP Salvage Logging Biomass Removal Plan

SMO Social Management Office

SP Sub-Plan

TOC Total Organic Carbon

TOR Terms of Reference

TSS Total Suspended Solids

UMD Upper Mixed Deciduous

UXO Unexploded Ordnance

WQ Water Quality

WREA Water Resources & Environment Administration


FINAL 1-7

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Introduction

The Nam Ngiep 1 Power Company Limited (NNP1) has received a concession agreement from the

Government of the Lao PDR (GOL) to build, operate and transfer the “Nam Ngiep 1 Hydropower Project”

(NN1) in Central Lao PDR. The Project involves the construction of a hydropower dam (272MW) and re-

regulation dam (18MW) on the Nam Ngiep River.

NNP1 has committed to the implementation of a biomass removal program through the Environmental

Impact Assessment for Nam Ngiep 1 Hydropower Project, hereafter referred to as the NN1 EIA 2014

(ERM 2014a), and the Concession Agreement 2013 (Annex C 2015). This includes coordination with the

GOL regarding government led salvage logging activities; and NNP1 led removal of residual biomass.

This Biomass Removal Plan (BRP) is based on Government of Lao PDR’s (GOL) Environmental

Guidelines for Biomass Removal from Hydropower Reservoir in Lao PDR (2012).

Priority objectives of the BRP are to:

Collect the maximum quantity of commercially valuable timber species from the newly created

reservoir at full supply level (320masl) in particular forest areas (i.e. Dry Evergreen and Upper

Mixed Deciduous Forests); and

Remove as much above ground biomass (with a focus on soft biomass) from the Project reservoir

as possible to reduce serious adverse impacts on water quality and the generation of greenhouse

gasses.

Other objectives include:

Enhance the habitat for viable fisheries management in the reservoir and its tributaries including

downstream;

Aid access, navigation and other uses of the reservoir; and

To reduce the long-term production of floating debris and facilitate its management.

Context for Biomass Removal

Project Reservoirs

NN1 has two reservoirs, the Main Reservoir and the Re-regulation Reservoir. The Main Reservoir will

cover an area of 66.9 km2 at full supply level (FSL) extending from the main dam up the narrow Nam

Ngiep River gorge for 72 km. The re-regulating reservoir will be located 6.2 km downstream from the

main dam and 1.3 km up-stream from the village of Ban Hatsaykham. It will cover an area of 1.3 km2 at

full supply (185.9 masl).

Biomass Profile

Land affected in the Main Reservoir is primarily Dry Evergreen, Mixed Deciduous Forest. Land affected in

the Re-Regulating Reservoir is primarily Mixed Deciduous, Bamboo and Fallow.

An estimated biomass profile has been calculated for Project reservoirs based on previous research

studies and assessments conducted for Projects in Lao PDR and across the region (see Table 0-1).


FINAL 1-8

Table 0-1 Estimated Biomass Profile

Above Ground Below

Ground

Vegetation

(Dried)

All

Vegetation

(Dried)

Soils (Rapidly

Decomposable –

top 10 cm) Rapidly

Decomposable

Vegetation (Dried)

Slowly

Decomposable

Estimated Biomass

Content (t/ha) 40 125 35 200 100

Source: Earth Systems 2015

Note: Vegetation biomass estimates (above and below ground) are based on experience from other projects in Lao PDR; Soil

nutrients and biomass estimates based on soil types in the reservoir and values for other projects in Lao PDR.

Commercial Logging

Commercial logging activities commenced in 2012. Estimates of commercial timber resources and the

status of timber harvesting are provided in Table 0-2.

Table 0-2 Results of Commercial Timber Resource Studies and Status of Harvesting*

Province

Estimated

Commercial Timber

Resource ( m3)

Commercial Timber Harvested ( m3)

2013/2014 2014/2015 Total

Xaysomboun 34,505 2,494 5,754 8,248

Bolikhamxay 2,264 2,264 - 2,264

Total 36,769 4,758 5,754 10,512


* Likely to include areas both inside and outside the NN1 reservoir area.

Environmental Modelling

Key conclusions of this modelling exercise include:

Without biomass removal (Scenario 1), modelling predicts poor quality water in the proposed

NNP1 reservoir for 10-12 years of operations after the reservoir is filled;

By undertaking Scenario 2 (Priority Biomass Removal Areas) the surface water quality in the

reservoir will return to acceptable conditions within five to six years;

The lower layers of water in the reservoir are problematic in all scenarios and a downstream

reaeration and temperature treatment system is recommended for the reservoir to improve

release water quality and protect downstream aquatic ecosystems; and

The theoretical burning of the entire inundated area (Scenario 3) does not offer substantial

benefits compared to the Scenario 2.

Earth Systems conducted environmental modelling of the performance of the Main Reservoir using the

BioREM modelling tool. Modelling examined three (3) scenarios: 1) Baseline no biomass removal low /

high AGB/BGB; 2) Burn - no flush in Priority Biomass Removal Areas (31% soft biomass removal, 49%

hard biomass removal high biomass); and 3) Burn - no flush (60% soft biomass removal, 80% hard

biomass removal high biomass).


FINAL 1-9

Analysis and Section of Biomass Removal Options

A number of options for biomass removal have been analysed and a combined approach for biomass

removal in the Main Reservoir has been selected including:

Salvage logging; and

Residual biomass removal;

o Lesser value biomass extraction (by local communities);

o Biomass clearance.

Environmental and Social Considerations for Biomass Removal

Key potential impacts associated with the biomass removal activities include: erosion and sediment

transport; UXO survey and clearance; vegetation clearance / habitat protection; wildlife protection; fire; air

quality; noise and vibration; hazardous materials; waste; work camps and workforce; in-migration and

camp followers; traffic and access; local livelihoods; and archaeology and cultural heritage.

These potential impacts are important considerations in the selection of priority biomass removal areas

Selection of Priority Biomass Removal Areas

An analysis of potential clearance areas in the Main Reservoir Area was conducted. This analysis

considered the following: land use and vegetation habitat; slope; riparian buffer zones; UXO risk; access;

and location of village settlements. Eighteen priority biomass removal areas have been identified (see

Table 0-3 and Appendix D). These areas total 1912 ha and according to the most recent imagery

(January 2014) contain 696 ha of UMD Forest; 1019.5 ha of old fallow; and 196 ha of young fallow.

Table 0-3 Priority Areas for Biomass Removal

Zone Priority areas

(#)

Upper Mixed

Deciduous (Ha) Old Fallow (Ha)

Young Fallow

(Ha)

TOTAL Area

(Ha)

1

1 105.62 9.49 0.27 115.38

2 33.88 114.03 18.00 165.92

3 63.25 25.61 88.86

4 120.89 39.41 7.37 167.68

5 346.55 4.17 350.72

6 46.71 46.71

2

7 42.90 0.13 43.03

8 27.44 11.67 1.90 41.00

9 13.66 27.62 12.85 54.13

10 156.33 109.07 51.98 317.39

11 6.32 82.49 9.24 98.05

3

12 84.23 84.23

13 131.35 131.35

14 1.76 44.49 6.75 53.00

15 0.59 67.62 25.06 93.27

16 7.13 2.73 9.86


FINAL 1-10

Zone Priority areas

(#)

Upper Mixed


Young Fallow

(Ha)

TOTAL Area

(Ha)

17 14.08 30.18 44.25

18 6.97 0.22 7.18

TOTAL 696.18 1019.59 196.24 1912.01


Salvage Logging Management

Commercial timber within the Project area is owned by the GOL and government authorities such as the

MAF and MONRE (and their provincial counterparts PAFO and PONRE) are responsible for harvesting

activities

According to officials in Bolikhamxay and Xaysomboun Provinces, commercial tree harvesting operations

have now been completed in the Project reservoir areas. Both provinces have indicated that they will

conduct surveying of remaining timber for possible harvesting and use by local furniture companies.

A total of 696.18 ha within the proposed clearance area has been identified as Upper Mixed Deciduous

forest and may be suitable for additional salvage logging activities. Additional areas outside the proposed

clearance area, with limited or no road access, may become more accessible via boat after

impoundment.

A proposed approach for the harvesting of any remaining commercial timber resources within the Main

Reservoir is provided including the establishment of a Salvage Logging and Biomass Removal Working

Group under the Watershed Management Committee; the implementation of a protocol for identifying and

harvesting (if necessary) any remaining commercial timber in the reservoir area; and the development of

contingency plans for NNP1 led removal of remaining commercial timber before impoundment (if

required).

Residual Biomass Removal Management

NNP1 is responsible for managing all aspects of biomass removal (i.e. lesser value biomass and the

removal of biomass for water quality purposes) in coordination with MAF / PAFO and MONRE / PONRE.

Eighteen priority areas totalling 1912 ha have been identified for have been identified for residual biomass

removal activities. All areas are located within the Main Reservoir. Removal of biomass in the Re-

regulation Reservoir is not considered a priority due to the low volume of biomass and the level of recent

clearance activities conducted for project construction.

Residual biomass removal approaches include pre-impoundment lesser value biomass extraction and

biomass clearance (manual cutting, clearing and burning); and post impoundment biomass removal

(concentrated in the draw down area and including floating log and debris removal).

Code of Practice

A Code of Practice has been developed for regulating and monitoring the biomass removal activities

including:

Key environmental and social management and mitigation measures;

Identification of No Go areas; and

Environmental and social safeguard requirements for contractors.


FINAL 1-11

Targets, Actions, Monitoring Framework and Budget

An action plan, implementation schedule and monitoring framework is presented for the biomass removal

program.

Key activities include:

Updating the Watershed Management Committee’s TOR to include the formation of a Salvage

Logging and Biomass Removal Working Group with functions for and biomass removal oversight;

Engagement of contractors for UXO clearance and biomass clearance;

Engagement with communities regarding biomass clearance activities in close proximity to their

village settlements and the potential positive and negative impacts and proposed management

measures;

Update Project Livelihood Restoration Plan with activities for extraction and use of lesser value

biomass

Development and approval of environmental and social management measures for contractors;

Preparation of operational plans for biomass clearing, monthly or annually

Implementation of salvage logging, lesser value biomass removal and residual biomass removal

activities;

Removal of floating log/debris after filling plan; and

Implementation of the field monitoring and assessment program.


FINAL 12

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 The Biomass Removal Plan (BRP)

Nam Ngiep 1 Power Company (NNP1) has committed to the implementation of a biomass removal

program through the Environmental Impact Assessment for Nam Ngiep 1 Hydropower Project, hereafter

referred to as the NN1 EIA (ERM 2014a), and the Concession Agreement 2013 (Annex C 2015). This

includes coordination with the GOL regarding government led salvage logging activities; and NNP1 led

removal of residual biomass.

This Biomass Removal Plan (BRP) is based on Government of Lao PDR’s (GOL) Environmental

Guidelines for Biomass Removal from Hydropower Reservoir in Lao PDR (2012). It describes the

rationale and approach for biomass removal for the Nam Ngiep 1 Hydropower Project (NN1).

Environmental and social management, mitigation, and monitoring measures required to manage

biomass removal activities are also included – to be used in conjunction with the Environmental and

Social Monitoring and Management Plan Construction (ERM 2014b) and Operation.

Priority objectives of the BRP are to:

Remove the maximum quantity of commercially viable timber (including less commercially viable

timber) from the newly created reservoir of NNP1 in particular natural forest areas (i.e. Dry

Evergreen and Upper Mixed Deciduous Forests); and

Remove as much above ground biomass (with a focus on soft biomass) from the main Project

reservoir as possible to reduce serious adverse impacts on water quality and the generation of

greenhouse gasses.

Other objectives are to:

Enhance the habitat for viable fisheries management in the reservoir and its tributaries including

downstream;

Aid access, navigation and other uses of the reservoir; and

To reduce the long-term production of floating debris and facilitate its management

The BRP is based on information collected during the EIA process (e.g. forest and timber resource

studies, water quality studies and land use studies), as well as mapping undertaken using high resolution

satellite imagery of the Project Area (captured January 2014). Initial consultations and site visits with

officials from Xaysomboun and Bolikhamxay provinces were also conducted (see Appendix E –

Consultation Record).

The BRP is a dynamic document, and will be revised following consultation with the GOL regarding the

proposed strategy for biomass removal activities, and / or whenever there is a major change in Project

activities or design.

1.2 Project Background

1.2.1 Project Overview

Nam Ngiep 1 Power Company Limited (NN1P) has received a concession agreement from the

Government of the Lao PDR to build, operate and transfer the “Nam Ngiep 1 Hydropower Project” (NN1)

in Central Lao PDR. The Project involves the construction of a hydropower dam (272MW) and re-

regulation dam (18MW) on the Nam Ngiep River.

Appendix A provides a summary of relevant Project features.


FINAL 13

1.2.2 Project Reservoirs

NN1 has two reservoirs, the Main Reservoir and the Re-regulation Reservoir. The Main Reservoir will

cover an area of 66.9 km2 at full supply level (FSL) extending from the main dam up the narrow Nam

Ngiep River gorge for 72 km. The re-regulating reservoir will be located 6.2 km downstream from the

main dam and 1.3 km up-stream from the village of Ban Hatsaykham. It will cover an area of 1.3 km2 at

full supply (185.9 masl).

Table 1-1 NN1 Reservoir Features

Items Unit Main Reservoir Specification

Re-regulation Reservoir

Specification

Flood water level masl 320.0 185.9

Normal water level masl 320.0 179.0

Rated water level masl 312.0 179.0

Minimum operating level masl 296.0 174.0

Available depth m 24 5.0

Reservoir surface area Km2 66.9 (FSL) 1.27 (FSL)

Effective storage capacity 106 m

3 1.192 4.6

Catchment area Km2 3,700 3,725

Average annual inflow M3 / s 4,680 n/a

Source: NNP1 2015

The inundation area for the main reservoir varies significantly from full supply (69.9 km2) to minimum

operating level (MOL) (37.4 km2), with most of the permanently inundated area occurring within the first

20 km upstream from the main dam.

For the purposes of this Plan the reservoir has been divided into the following zones:

Zone 1: Lower Reservoir – Located in the south of the reservoir, extending from the dam site to the

Nam Youak;

Zone 2: Middle Reservoir – Extending from the Nam Youak to the Houay Pamom; and

Zone 3: Upper Reservoir – Situated in the northern area of the reservoir between the Houay

Pamom and Ban Piengta

The depth of the main reservoir at the deepest point, directly behind the main dam, will be equal to the

dam height, which is approximately 140 m. The average depth of the reservoir will be approximately 70

m, ranging from a maximum of 140 m at the dam to a minimum of just a few meters at the furthest point

from the dam (approximately 70 km upstream).


FINAL 14

Figure 1-1 Dam Longitudinal Profile Source: NNP1 2015


FINAL 15

Figure 1-2 NN1 Reservoir Areas Source: Earth Systems 2015


FINAL 16

1.2.3 Reservoir and Dam Operation Characteristics

Main Dam

The structures of the main dam will consist of the main dam body, the main power station, and a tailrace.

Intakes, penstocks, a spillway, and an environmental release conduit will be located in the main dam

body. The intakes will be located on the upstream surface of the main dam at 276 masl, 19.9 m below the

minimum operation level (MOL), but above the assumed 50-year sedimentation level of 233.0 masl.

The design of the dam includes an environmental release (riparian release) conduit at 244.6 masl which

will function to provide discharge from the NNP1 main reservoir during impoundment. The spillway for the

main dam, which will provide controlled release of flows to the river, will comprise four (4) radial gates,

each with 12.25 m breadth and 16.0 m radius (at 206.4 masl).

Re-regulation Dam

The re-regulation dam will be built 6.2 km downstream from the main dam. The function of this dam is to

store discharge water from the main dam during power peaks, re-use it for power generation, and release

it downstream to mitigate environmental impacts from fluctuations in water level. The primary facilities of

the re-regulation dam include a free overflow type concrete gravity dam, and a powerhouse on the left

bank of the river.

Impoundment

According to the tentative programme, the initial impounding will start on July 1, 2018. An environmental

flow of 5.5 m3/s will be adopted for the NNP1 Project during the initial impounding.

At the start of the initial impounding, water cannot be discharged through the environmental release

conduit of the main dam until the reservoir water level reaches 244.6 masl, which is predicted to take

approximately one - two weeks. Stored water in the re-regulation reservoir (10.4 x106 m3), augmented by

natural inflow to the re-regulation reservoir (~1.8 m3/s), will secure an environmental flow of 5.5 m

3/s

below the re-regulation dam. Flow from three (3) tributaries (Nam Xao, Nam Tak and Nam Miane) will

supplement the environmental flow, with respective confluences between 2 – 4 km from the re-regulation

dam.

Operation

The main power station will operate between the NWL (320 masl) and the MOL (296 masl), discharging a

maximum of 230.0 m3/s from its turbine / generator.

During weekdays the outflow from the re-regulation dam will be maintained at 160 m3/s. On weekends,

the outflow from the re-regulation reservoir will be reduced over a 4-hour ramp down period to 27 m3/s for

17 hours (10pm on Saturday to 2pm on Sunday) and then increased to 48 m3/s for a period of 15 hours

(2pm on Sunday to 6am on Monday). This normal operation procedure is predicted to occur for more than

97% of the time (ERM 2014a). The minimum environmental discharge from the re-regulation dam during

operations will be 27 m3/s.

1.2.4 Project Schedule

Construction of the (project) dam and ancillary infrastructure began in October 2013 and is scheduled for

completion by the 1st quarter of 2019. Reservoir filling is planned to commence during the 2018 wet

season. Commercial operation of the dam is scheduled to begin in January 2019.


FINAL 17

1.3 Environmental and Social Setting

1.3.1 Physical Setting

The Project is located in the Nam Ngiep basin in central Lao PDR. The main Project facilities will be

located in Bolikhamxay Province, although the reservoir will also cover parts of Xaysomboun Province.

Hydrology

The Nam Ngiep basin has a catchment area of approximately 4,533 km2 and is comprised of 33 sub-

basins (see Figure 1-3). The Nam Ngiep River flows in a south-southeast direction from its origin on

the Tra Ninh plateau (1,200 masl) through to the Mekong flood plains (160 masl). High mountains occur

on both sides of the river, notably Phu Xao at 2,590 meters and Phu Khe at 2,125 meters masl.

Weather in the Project area is dominated by monsoons, which divides the year into clearly defined wet

and dry periods. Average annual rainfall throughout the catchment is estimated to be approximately 1,900

mm. The catchment area upstream of the NNP1 main dam is approximately 3,700 km2, with average

inflow of 148.4 m3/s or 4.68 billion m

3/year.

Water Quality

The surface water quality in the Nam Ngiep River near the Project area generally ranges from moderate

to good, with the exception of moderately high concentrations of pathogens (total coliform, faecal

coliform, and E. coli) and moderately high total suspended solids (TSS) / turbidity during the rainy season.

Water quality studies conducted for the NN1 EIA identified natural water temperatures ranging between

24ºC to 31ºC during the dry season and 24ºC to 30ºC during the rainy season. Dissolved oxygen (DO)

concentrations were moderately high, ranging from 6.4 to 9.7 mg/L. TSS ranged from 17mg/L during the

dry season to 83 mg/L during the rainy season. BOD5 was found to be steadily increasing during

monitoring – considered an outcome of increasing nutrient flush from expanding agricultural lands and

residential areas. pH was slightly acidic to slightly alkaline (6.20 – 8.00); electrical conductivity low (47.7 –

92.4); and nutrient concentrations (total N, total P, phosphate, ammonium, nitrate) were low, with nitrate

levels increased during the rainy season (though were still below ambient water quality guidelines (<5

mg/L).

Soils

Four primary soil types occur within the reservoir footprint area. Luvisols, cambisols and acrisols have

formed on lower slopes the Nam Ngiep catchment, while Fluvisols occur on the terrace areas adjacent

the River. Lithosols (skeletal soils) are also scattered throughout the reservoir area (see Figure 1-4).

Alisols (along with acrisols) dominate the greater catchment and may also occur at higher elevations in

the reservoir area. The erodibility of the soil in the catchment has been observed during ongoing water

quality monitoring for Project road construction, with sediment loading having increased considerably

upstream of the Project area compared to ESIA phase water quality monitoring (likely a result of Nam

Ngiep 2 hydropower development and potentially increased timber harvest or agricultural activity). Soil

erosion will increase following vegetation removal in the reservoir area, particularly for steeper slopes.


FINAL 18

Figure 1-3: The Nam Ngiep River Basin and Sub-catchments Source: ERM 2014a


FINAL 19

Figure 1-4: Soils in the Nam Ngiep River Basin Source: NAFRI 2012


FINAL 20

1.3.2 Biological Setting

Habitat Distribution and Condition

The majority of the Project area is located in the Nam Ngiep-Nam Mang National Protected Forest Area

(see Figure 1.2). Despite this status, shifting cultivation and commercial logging has been active in the

area and vegetation within is now dominated by a mosaic of forest (natural and modified habitats) and

fallow land vegetation (modified habitat) (see Table 1-2). An assessment of vegetation density and

condition in the Main Reservoir area indicated that over 80% of the habitat is moderate to high condition

(ERM 2014a).

More detailed analysis of habitat in the Main Reservoir Area was conducted during the development of

this Plan (see Section 3.4).

Table 1-2 Land cover in the Project Reservoirs

Habitat

Class

Land Cover Main Reservoir Re-regulation Reservoir

Ha % Ha %

Natural

and

Modified

Deciduous Forest 2,721 40% 132 19%

Evergreen Forest 508 7% 27 3%

Bamboo 241 4% 127 18%

Modified

Old Fallow 1,321 20% 194 28%

Young Fallow 1,036 15% 143 21%

Rice paddy 107 2% 5 1%

Cleared 328 5% 27 4%

Grassland 108 2% 0 0%

Urban 38 1% 3 0%

Other

Water 368 5% 42 6%

Rock 1 0% 0 0%

Cloud 4 0% 0 0%

Shadow 16 0% 0 0%

TOTAL 6,741 100% 696 100%

Source: ERM 2014a Note these figures differ from the surface area of the reservoirs at full supply outlined in the EIA

Significant Flora Species

A total of ten species of plants listed as critically endangered, endangered or vulnerable under the IUCN

Red List were recorded within the Main Reservoir and Re-regulation Reservoir areas (ERM 2014a).

These include one species listed as critically endangered, seven as endangered and five as vulnerable

(see Table 1-3).


FINAL 21

Table 1-3 Significant Flora Species in the Reservoir Areas

Scientific Names Main Reservoir Re-Regulation

Reservoir

IUCN Status

Dipterocarpus turbinatus CR

Aquilaria crassna* CR

Afzelia xylocarpa EN

Dalbergia oliveri EN

Dipterocarpus alatus EN

Hopea ferrea EN

Shorea roxburghii EN

Dalbergia cochinchinensis VU

Hopea odorata VU

Ternstroemia wallichiana VU

Source: ERM 2014a

IUCN Status: CR – Critically Endangered; EN – Endangered; VU – Vulnerable; = Direct record; x = Indirect record; * Species

included at request

IUCN Listed Fauna Species and Habitat

The main dam inundation area was surveyed (2007 and 2013) for fauna during the conduct of the NN1

EIA (ERM 2014a). The diversity of fauna in the main dam inundation area (upper Nam Ngiep) was high in

comparison to other sample areas. According to the NN1 EIA, this area is dominated by primary forest.

Site surveys detected (through interviews with villagers or direct observation) at least 46 mammals

species, 50 bird species, 28 reptiles species and 10 amphibian species.

A total of 21 significant species of mammals, birds and reptiles were recorded within the Main Reservoir

and Re-regulation Reservoir areas (see Table 1-4). A full list of flora species is provided in the NN1 EIA

(ERM 2014a)

Table 1-4 Significant Fauna Species in the Reservoir Areas


Reservoir

No.060/MAF Status IUCN Status

Mammals

Aonyx cinera x R VU

Canis aureus x R LC

Capricornis milneedwardsii R NT

Cuon alpinus X R EN

Helarctos malayanus X R VU

Lutrogale perspicillata X R VU

Nomascus leucogenys R CR

Nycticebus bengalensis X R VU

Nycticebus pygmaeus X R VU

Panthera pardus X R NT

Panthera tigris X R EN


FINAL 22


Reservoir

No.060/MAF Status IUCN Status

Pardofelis temminckii X R NT

Prionailurus bengalensis X R LC

Rusa unicolor R VU

Ursus thibetanus X R VU

Birds

Buceros bicornis R NT

Centropus sinensis R LC

Lophura nycthemera R LC

Reptiles

Broghammerus reticulatus R

Ophiophagus hannah X R VU

Platysternon megacephalum X R EN

Source: ERM 2014a

IUCN Status: CR – Critically Endangered; EN – Endangered; VU – Vulnerable; NT – Near Threatened; LC – Least Concern No.

060/MAF Status: R – Restricted; = Direct record; x = Indirect record

1.3.3 Social Setting

Figure 1-2 shows the locations of the seven (7) villages located in the Main Reservoir Area and one (1)

village located in the Regulation Reservoir Area.

Main Reservoir

There are three (3) directly affected villages in the upper reservoir area including Ban Pou, Ban

Hatsamkhone and Ban Piengta - all located in Thathom District, Xaysomboun Province. Impacts from the

proposed reservoir include the relocation of ten (10) households in Ban Pou and five (5) in Hatsamkhone

and the loss of productive land of 178 households. Affected households were initially scheduled for

relocation to a new resettlement village. However, after an extended consultation process, it was agreed

that affected persons could remain and utilise vacant land within those or adjacent villages to replace

their lost housing and agricultural land.

Four (4) villages in the lower reservoir area will be completely inundated. These villages, all located in

Hom District, Xaysomboun Province include Ban Houay Pamom, Ban Sopphuane, Ban Sop Youak and

Ban Nam Youak. The 384 households (as of the 2011 survey) in these villages will be resettled to the

Houay Soup resettlement area. Resettlement is planned for the end of 2016.


The village of Ban Hatsaykham is located in the re-regulation reservoir area and all 33 households with

217 people will be inundated. These households will be these villages will be resettled to the Houay Soup

resettlement area. Resettlement is planned for the end of 2015.

1.3.4 Unexploded Ordnance (UXO)

The NN1 EIA (ERM 2014a) and SIA (NNP1 2014) report that there is a relatively low level of UXO

contamination at the dam site and reservoir areas. According to consultations conducted for the NN1 EIA,

government officials have conducted regular visits to project affected villages to terminate UXOs in the

past.


FINAL 23

Figure 1-5 US Aerial bombing Data Source: US Embassy 2006

Figure 1-5 provides a map of aerial bombing data from the US government. This indicates a higher

UXO risk in the upper areas of the Main Reservoir. Further analysis of UXO risk is provided in Section

3.4.


FINAL 24

1.3.5 Estimate of Biomass in the Reservoir Areas

The Main Reservoir and the Re-regulation Reservoir will have surface areas at full supply of

approximately 66.9 km2 and 1.3 km

2 respectively. Land-cover within the Project reservoir areas is outlined

in Table 1-2.

Biomass in the reservoir areas is distributed above and below the ground (see Table 1-5). Above ground

biomass (AGB) occurs as soft biomass (e.g. leaves, twigs, shrub, and grass) and woody biomass (i.e.

trunks, stems and large branches of trees). Soft biomass decomposes rapidly, while the decomposition of

woody biomass is a slow process. The rate of below ground subaqueous biomass decomposition will vary

according to a number of factors including biophysical properties of the soil; depth in the reservoir (e.g.

dissolved oxygen concentration), water temperature, etc.

Table 1-5 Types and Definitions of Vegetation Biomass

Category Definition

Above Ground All living biomass above the surface soil including stem, stump, branches, bark,

seeds, foliage and duff / leaf litter.

Below Ground For the purposes of this Plan - all living biomass of live roots excluding those less

than 2mm diameter (often excluded because these often cannot be distinguished

empirically from soil organic matter). Note: Organic matter in soil substrate

generally makes up a greater mass (dry weight) than the tree roots.

Source: FAO 2015

Above Ground Biomass

The NN1 EIA does not provide estimates for above ground biomass (AGB) in the reservoir areas. ABG in

tropical regions varies considerably according to forest type (refer to Table 1-6) and level of disturbance,

with highly disturbed areas generally having a higher proportion of soft biomass to hard woody biomass

than a forest with a closed canopy cover.

Table 1-6 Natural Forests and Estimated Above Ground Biomass

Land Cover Above Ground Biomass t/ha

Study 1* Study 2* Study 3*

Evergreen Forest 126.0 140.6 66.4

Deciduous Forest 311.0 96.2 146.6

Source: Study 1) Ogwara et al 1965; Study 2) Terakupisut et al 2007; Study 3) Vicharnakorn et al 2011

Assessments conducted for other hydropower projects in the region provide broad estimates of AGB:

In the planned reservoir areas of the Xepian Xenamnoy Hydropower Project, AGB was estimated

at 200 t/ha (estimates in dry weight) and soft biomass at 10 t/ha, or 5% of total dry weight (LCG

2013).

ABG for the Nam Ngum 3 Hydropower Project was estimated at 131 t/ha with soft biomass

accounting for 40t/ha (31%) (RMR 2001).

ABG for the Theun Hinboun Expansion Project in forest and woodland areas was estimated at

135 t/ha with 77 t/ha soft biomass (57%) (Norplan 2008).

In the absence of a detailed inventory for biomass in the NN1 reservoir areas, it is assumed that biomass

will be relatively high given that a significant proportion of the Main Reservoir area is covered in moderate

to high condition natural forest. For the purposes of this Plan, AGB of 165 t/ha will be assumed with soft

biomass of 40/ha (see Table 1-7).


FINAL 25

Below Ground Biomass

The NN1 EIA does not provide an estimate of below ground biomass (BGB). Studies conducted for the

THB Expansion Project identified that the majority of BGB was found in the top 25 cm of the soil profile

and was comprised of below ground roots (63 t/ha) and additional organic material (211 t/ha) (Norplan

2008).

The NN1 EIA also does not estimate the contribution of inputs from BGB on the future quality of water in

the reservoir. BGM volumes will vary according to soil type across the impoundment area. Luvisols are

characterised by a surface accumulation of humus (organic matter), while acrisols and cambisols are

characteristically lower in organic matter. Each will contribute to geochemical processes that promote

anoxia and release of greenhouse gases. It will not be practicable to remove any portion of BGB for

NNP1. Root masses will instead contribute to soil stability following vegetation removal.

Table 1-7 Estimated Biomass Profile

Above Ground Below

Ground

Vegetation

(Dried)

All

Vegetation

(Dried)

Soils (Rapidly

Decomposable –

top 10 cm) Rapidly

Decomposable

Vegetation (Dried)

Slowly

Decomposable

Estimated

Biomass

Content (t/ha)

40 125 35 200 100


Note: Vegetation biomass estimates (above and below ground) are based on experience from other projects in Lao PDR; Soil

nutrients and biomass estimates based on soil types in the reservoir and values for other projects in Lao PDR.

1.3.6 Commercial Timber and Harvest Activities in the Reservoir

Provincial authorities conducted commercial timber surveys in the reservoir areas (and surrounding

areas) in 2012 (Bolikhamxay and Vientiane) and 2013 (Xaysomboun). According to the survey reports, an

estimated 36,769 m3 of commercial timber was identified (see Table 1-8). After the conduct of the

resource surveys, a number of agreements between MAF / Provincial Governments and logging

companies were reportedly signed. PAFOs in the respective provinces then issued logging permits to

contractors. The volume of commercial timber harvested to date is outlined in (see Table 1-8).

Table 1-8 Results of Commercial Timber Resource Studies and Status of Harvesting*

Province Estimated

Commercial Timber

Resource ( m3)

Commercial Timber Harvested ( m3)

2013/2014 2014/2015 Total

Xaysomboun 34,505 2,494 5,754 8,248

Bolikhamxay 2,264 2,264 - 2,264

Total 36,769 4,758 5,754 10,512

Source: Vientiane Province Survey 2013, Xaysomboun Province Survey 2014

* Likely to include areas both inside and outside the NN1 reservoir area.

^ Vientiane Province Survey 2013 identified 16,639 m3. Xaysomboun Province Survey 2014 identified an additional 14,866 m

3.


FINAL 26

1.4 Legal and other Requirements

1.4.1 Guidelines for Biomass Removal

The key guidelines for biomass removal and salvage logging for this Project are:

Environmental Guidelines for Biomass Removal from Hydropower Reservoirs in Lao PDR (WREA

2010); and

Step-by-Step Guidelines for Biomass Removal from Hydropower Reservoirs in Lao PDR

(MONRE 2012).

These documents provide guidance on the preparation of a Biomass Removal Plan, which is required by

the Decree on EIA (Article 13f, Decree No. 122/PM, 16 Feb. 2010). They also provide scientifically proven

techniques for estimating greenhouse gas generation and impacts on water quality from decaying

biomass in reservoirs, and guidance on acceptable measures for biomass clearance, removal and

possible reuse.

1.4.2 Project Concession Agreement

The Concession Agreement (CA) is the primary statutory agreement between NNP1 and the Government

of Lao PDR (GOL). The CA details the conditions, requirements, roles and responsibilities for the

implementation of the Project. Annex C of the Agreement details the social and environmental obligations

for the Project during construction, reservoir impoundment and operations.

According to the Concession Agreement (Annex C, Article 71):

Subject to paragraph (b) below and except otherwise mentioned in this Annex including this Clause

71, the Company (NNP1) shall have sole responsibility for clearing biomass from the reservoir and

dams in accordance with the GOL Biomass Guidelines.

GOL has the right to survey, cut and extract, in accordance with applicable laws and regulations,

any and all commercially viable timber in and from the site of the Project, including the reservoir,

dams, powerhouse(s), spillway(s), switchyard(s) and camp areas before the commencement of

impoundment by the Company

If the Company reasonably concludes that GOL cannot complete the logging and removal of any

commercially viable timber from the area of the Reservoir before commencement of impoundment,

in accordance with the timelines of the biomass clearance plan, then the Company shall be

responsible to step in, or from the Biomass Clearance Date in order to timely to complete the

extraction of the remaining commercial timber at the GOL’s cost. Any and all commercial timber cut

and extracted by the Company shall be stored safely by the Company until possession of such

timber is delivered by the Company to a designated log yard of GOL. GOL shall ensure that it is

available to receive such delivery within a reasonable period following such extraction.

All commercial timber shall at all times whether before or after removal be and remain the property

of the GOL.

The Company shall not begin to impound water until after the Company: (i) completes the

clearance of biomass from the Project’s Reservoir and impoundment areas in accordance with the

Biomass Guidelines; and (ii) satisfies all Company obligations under this Annex which are required

by such date to have been completed in accordance with the terms and conditions hereof,

including without limitation the physical resettlement of all PAPs and payment by the Company of

all compensation due or owing by the Company under this Annex as at such date.

The Company shall bear sole responsibility for any delay to the Project commissioning or operation

and any adverse effect on Company revenues, obligation to pay damages to any power off taker,

liability to meet debt service obligations and other circumstances resulting from any delay or failure

of the Company in satisfying the obligations sect forth in this Clause 71


FINAL 27

If the Company fails fully to complete the clearance of biomass in accordance with the Biomass

Guidelines from the Project’s reservoir and impoundment areas prior to commencement of

impounding, the Company shall be responsible to pay to GOL, in full and immediately upon

demand, an amount equivalent to two (2) times the cost of complete clean up and removal of

biomass from the Project’s reservoir and impoundment areas as required above, as quoted in

writing by an independent contractor and confirmed by GOL, and in any event irrespective of

whether or not GOL may have agreed to any circumstances or arrangement proposed or pursued

by the Company pursuant to which the Company may seek to avoid, minimise or otherwise not fully

carry out such complete biomass removal.

Reservoir water quality standards are also outlined in the Concession Agreement Annex C (Appendix 2).

1.4.3 Other Lao PDR Regulatory Requirements

Other key Lao PDR regulatory requirements potentially relevant to biomass removal are outline in Table

1-9. Further details of other relevant national legislation are provided in the NN1 EIA Report (ERM 2014a)

and the Environmental and Social Management and Monitoring Plan – Construction Phase (ESMMP- CP)

(ERM 2014b).

Table 1-9 Key Lao PDR laws and policies relevant to biomass removal.

Title Date Relevance to biomass removal plan

Law on Water

and Water

Resources

1996 This law covers a number of issues that relate to biomass removal operations

including construction of water reservoirs; development of water resources for

producing hydro-electric power; water preservation for the environment, fishing,

raising fish and aquatic animals; erosion control; and management of polluted water.

Forestry Law 2007 This law determines basic principles, regulations and measures on sustainable

management, utilization and preservation of forest resources and forestland,

ensuring a sustainable condition and protection from soil erosion, maintenance of

tree species, wildlife and aquatic animals. The key contents relevant to the biomass

removal plan are forest survey, forest classification and harvesting. It also outlines

conditions for preservation of water resources in forest areas and management of

NTFPs.

Law on Fire

Prevention

2007 Article 24 of this law identifies procedures for forest fire prevention which are

associated with development activities. The law provides general fire hazard

prevention and management.

Law on Aquatic

and Wildlife

2007 This law determines the necessary strategies, and measures relative to the

administration and protection of aquatic and wildlife for sustainable economic and

social development of the country as well as contributing to poverty alleviation and

improving livelihoods of the people. The law is applicable to biomass removal

activities in regard to protection of aquatic and wildlife from illegal hunting and

poaching conservation species.

Regulation

regarding the

Logging and Post

Logging Clearing

in the Reservoir

Area of a

Hydropower Dam

2008 This regulation determines general principles to ensure that logging, collection of

NTFP’s and management of aquatic and wildlife in the reservoir area are

undertaken in accordance with the prescribed technical requirements and under

vigilant management and monitoring of timber and non-timber harvest so that it will

not be encroach on areas beyond the reservoir. The regulation also provides

technical guidelines and procedures on salvage logging operations and its ancillary

works.

National

Environmental

2009 The National Environmental Standards define the basis for environmental

monitoring and pollution control on water, soil, air and noise. The standards apply to

any relevant activity and project in order to protect the environment and control


FINAL 28

Title Date Relevance to biomass removal plan

Standards pollution. Salvage logging and biomass clearance activities will need to be

implemented in line with this environmental guideline. Water quality in the dam

reservoir is expected to meet the minimum requirements set in this standard before

discharge to the environment.

Decree on

Protection Forest

2010 This decree defines fundamental principles, procedures and measures on

management, protection and conservation of protection forests. The objectives of

this decree is to protect the watershed areas, natural environment, soil erosion,

natural disasters and for national defence/public security, aiming for enhancement of

living standards of the people and socio-economic development.

Lao PDR

National UXO /

Mine Action

Standards (NS)

2012 These standards detail minimum principles and requirements for all UXO/mine

action conducted in Lao PDR. The purpose of these standards are to ensure safety,

efficiency and effectiveness in UXO/mine operations. The NS are applicable to all

organizations that are using the NS as the basis for the development of their

projects and standard operating procedures.

Environment

Protection Law

2013 This law can be applied to general management and operations of salvage logging

and biomass removal in the reservoir areas. Article 16 of this law specifies

measures for forest protection and development in all types of forest categories

including watershed forest, tree species and NTFP’s for promoting sustainable

supplies of forest products and natural resources; protection of wildlife and aquatic

animals, and the environment.

Law on National

Heritage

2013 This law defines principles, procedures and measures on the management, the

protection, the conservation and the development of cultural, historical and natural

heritages, including aesthetic view and ecosystem values. The law also provides

basic guidelines on management and protection of natural heritage.

Policy on

Sustainable

Hydropower

Development in

Lao PDR

2014 This policy sets a framework that promotes sustainable hydropower sector

development. The key elements concerning biomass removal planning are

determined in water resources and watershed management and conservation

section of this policy. It recommends that ‘natural terrestrial habitat losses as a result

of hydropower projects will be avoided and /or minimized as much as possible.

Unavoidable, and/or offset by funding and/or implementing effective conservation

management in nearby protected and critical areas and the development of

sustainable biodiversity management plans that also consider compensation or

mitigation of resulting livelihoods impacts’.


NNP1 has also committed to a number of international standards which are also relevant to biomass

removal (see Table 1-10).

Table 1-10 International standards relevant to biomass removal.

Title Date

ADB’s Safeguard Policy (including performance standards) 2009

IFC’s Sustainability Framework (including performance standards) 2012

IFC’s Environmental Health and Safety Guidelines 2007

IHA’s Hydropower Sustainability Assessment Protocol 2009



FINAL 29

2 PRESENTATION OF DATA AND MODELLING RESULTS

This section provides a summary of the impacts of the inundation of biomass on reservoir and

downstream water quality; and the results of environmental modelling of the performance of the proposed

reservoirs to evaluate biomass removal options for minimising environmental impacts of inundation.

2.1 Impacts of the Inundation of Biomass

The primary potential impact from inundation of biomass is its detrimental effect on reservoir and

downstream water quality due to the decomposition of vegetation and stratification of the reservoir (See

Appendix B).

Water quality conditions following the inundation of residual biomass may include:

High nutrient levels – the decomposition of inundated vegetation results in an increase in the

concentration of organic matter and associated high nutrient levels, potentially leading to

eutrophication;

Low dissolved oxygen (DO) – Inundated vegetation undergoes a process of aerobic

decomposition, which consumes large amounts of oxygen. Further, concentrations of organic

matter are broken down by micro-organisms, which increase the biological oxygen demand

(BOD) in water; and

Elevated levels of noxious gases (hydrogen sulfide, ammonia, methane) – Anaerobic

decomposition of organic material can produce noxious gases. Methane is also a potent

greenhouse gas (GHG).

2.2 Environmental Modelling

Earth Systems conducted environmental modelling of the performance of the Main Reservoir using the

BioREM modelling tool. BioREM is a modelling tool developed for the Ministry of Natural Resources &

Environment (MONRE). The BioREM model simulates physical, chemical and biological processes in

reservoirs allowing developers to estimate how much biomass must be removed prior to inundation of a

hydropower reservoir in order to obtain reasonable water quality and moderate greenhouse gas

emissions during operation of the plant.

A Technical Report: Environmental Modelling for the Nam Ngiep Power Company’s Biomass Removal

Plan is provided in Appendix C. A summary of the model inputs, scenarios and findings / conclusions is

presented below.

2.2.1 Model Data Inputs

Biomass Estimations

Biomass estimations (see Section 1.3) were further refined through land use and habitat mapping (see

Section 3.4) and sensitivity analysis of upper and lower values provide in key literature. Revised biomass

estimates are provided in Table 2-1.

Table 2-1: Landuse and low – high soft and hard biomass estimates.

Habitat Class Land Cover Soft Biomass low -high Hard Biomass low - high

t/ha t/ha t/ha t/ha

Natural and Modified

Deciduous Forest

35.5 55.5 25.2 81.5


FINAL 30

Evergreen Forest 2.1 2.7 1.2 2.5

Bamboo 2.2 3.0 1.5 2.6

Modified

Old Fallow 2.1 11.7 1.8 8.5

Young Fallow 0.2 0.3 0.1 0.1

Cultivated Land 0.4 22.8 0.4 19.1

Total 142.4 195.9 30.3 114.4


Hydraulic Parameters

The reservoir hydraulic parameters, associated values adopted and sources of data are listed below

(ERM 2014a):

Average flow Q0 = 147.8 m3/s = 12.76 Mm

3/day

Power generation C = 272 MW

Minimum flow Qmin = 0.48 Mm3/day

Maximum reservoir volume Vmax = 2,300 Mm3

Minimum reservoir volume Vmin = 1,102 Mm3

Reservoir maximum surface area Amax = 66.9 km2

Reservoir minimum surface area Amin = 37.4 km2

Reservoir thalweg length L = 72 km

Minimum hydraulic retention time (𝜏) of the proposed NNP1 reservoir is minimum volume divided by

flow which equals approximately 86 days. Maximum (𝜏) was determined to be approximately 180 days.

Water Quality

The NNP1 reservoir inundation area was assessed through field and remote sensing data to have pristine

forest areas, impacted forest areas and settlement areas, with some human impacts on the rivers.

The median values for relevant water quality parameters which were adopted for the purposes of

modelling are shown in Table 2-2.

Table 2-2: Median water quality parameter results

Parameter Median Result

Temperature (°C) 31.1

DO (mg/L) 8.1

BOD5 (mg/L) 3.4

Total P (mg/L) 0.36

Earth Systems BOD5 (mg/L) 3.78

BOD5 Standard (mg/L) 1.5

Source: Annex C 2015

Water quality standards have been developed by Lao PDR specifically for the NNP1 project and relevant

standards are shown in the table below based on the Annex C: Environmental and Social Obligations

Ambient Surface Water Quality standard and Reservoir Water Quality Standard.


FINAL 31

Table 2-3: Relevant water quality standards


Dissolved oxygen

(mg/L) >6

Methane emissions -monitoring req.

(g/m3) 35


Phytoplankton Growth Rate

Maximum phytoplankton growth rate (G) was calculated using the following formula;

𝐺 = 𝑘0 + 1𝜏⁄ (1) (MONRE 2010b)

The result for G was determined to be 0.0196 day-1

which is within the predicted range for G of 0.03 to

0.2 day-1

(MONRE 2010b).

Initial Values

The initial values of all other parameters set in the model are based on suggested values from MONRE

(2010b) and are listed for reference in the Technical Report (Appendix C).

2.2.2 Summary of Results

Three (3) scenarios were developed for modelling using the high values for biomass (worst case)

including:

Scenario 1: Baseline no biomass removal low / high AGB/BGB;

Scenario 3: Cut and Burn (no flush before filling the reservoir) (60% soft biomass removal, 80%

hard biomass removal high biomass)

The model results include:

soft and hard biomass consumption,

phytoplankton growth and benthic detritus,

dissolved oxygen in the epilimnion (surface waters) and hypolimnion (bottom waters),

phosphorous in water and sediments, and

carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane (CH4) emissions of greenhouse gases.

Table 2-4: Summary of BioREM reservoir modelling results.

Scenario

Hard biomass removal (%)

Soft biomass

Removal (%)

Min/Max oxygen in hypolimnion

Min/Max oxygen in epilimnion

Ave phytoplankton after 10 years

20 year accumulated GHG

(Gg CO2 eq)

Baseline low biomass

0 0 0 - 2 mg/L 1 – 8.5 mg/L 9 gO2/m3 ~500

Baseline high biomass

0 0 0 mg/L 0 – 10 mg/L 14 gO2/m3 ~2800

Priority Removal: Burn and no

50 30 0 mg/L 0 - 8 mg/L 17 gO2/m3 ~1900

The modelling results are summarised in Table 2-4.

Scenario 2: Cut and Burn (no flush before filling the reservoir) in Priority Biomass Removal Areas

(31% soft biomass removal, 49% hard biomass removal high biomass); and


FINAL 32

flush

100% Burn and no flush

60 80 0 - 1 mg/L 0 – 8 mg/L 8 gO2/m3 ~1000

100% removal of soft and hard biomass

99 99 5 - 7 mg/L 7.5 – 7.8

mg/L 0 gO2/m

3 ~3


Scenario 1: Baseline

The modelling results show that both high and low AGB/BGB levels appear to produce poor water quality

outcomes in the reservoir. It is predicted that poor quality water will persist in the reservoir for up to 12

years after the reservoir is filled. It is recommended catchment biomass be removed to help prevent the

development of poor quality water in both the epilimnion and hypolimnion of the proposed reservoir. The

following modelling scenarios will explore the optimal biomass removal strategy. The worst case scenario

for water quality occurs with the high levels of soft and hard biomass so the values for high AGB/BGB

biomass will be used for further scenario development.

Scenario 2: Cut and Burn (no flush) of Priority Biomass Removal Areas

remains being washed into the reservoir and is set to 15 gP/m3

Modelling indicates that initial reduction in soft biomass and hard biomass produces beneficial water

quality outcomes, with phytoplankton recovery and detritus equilibrium achieved in 5 years (see Appendix

C, Figure 6), DO recovery starting in the epilimnion after 3 years, and P levels reducing to sustainable

levels after 6 years. This is an acceptable result compared to the baseline impacts in Scenario 1 of 10-12

years of high impact on water quality.

The fast recovery of DO in the epilimnion is especially important as this ensures that the reservoir is

habitable for most fish species. The low DO status for the hypolimnion is expected for a reservoir of this

size, and as a result the release of water from the hypolimnion will require the use of a downstream

reaeration structure and temperature treatment.

Scenario 3: Cut and Burn (no flush) of Entire Reservoir

Scenario 3 simulates a theoretical 100% catchment burn with no flush scenario that assumes removal of

60% soft biomass and 80% hard biomass by burning of areas of forest and land subject to inundation to

remove biomass prior to filling the reservoir. The model assumes that with no flush P will be elevated in

the catchment runoff due to ash remains being washed into the reservoir and is set to 15 gP/m3.

Soft and hard biomass is reduced further compared to Scenario 2, but with little in the way of additional

water quality benefits. Phytoplankton growth begins at around 5 years similar to Scenario 2, while the DO

of the epilimnion recovers slightly more quickly, taking around 2 years (see Appendix C, Figure 7).

The DO status of the hypolimnion is very slightly improved, but importantly not sufficiently to reduce

downstream reaeration requirements, with a maximum recovery of approximately 0.5 mg/L O2

(approximately 10% O2 content) P also recovers in around 6-7 years similar to Scenario 2.

CO2 production is decreased by approximately 30% but this may be made up for by additional CO2

release with additional burning so the benefit may be of little net value to the project overall and in the

long term.

The burn no flush scenario assumes prioritised removal of that assumes removal of 31% soft biomass

and 49% hard biomass by burning of areas of forest and land subject to inundation prior to filling the

reservoir. This scenario was developed considering a number of factors such as vegetative habitat, slope,

road access, UXO risk, riparian buffer zones and proximity to villages. The model assumes that with no

flush Phosphorous (hereafter referred to as P), will be elevated in the catchment runoff due to ash


FINAL 33

An additional sensitivity analysis was undertaken to determine the benefits of flushing the catchment. This

was found to be of little net benefit to the reservoir while also representing potential risk t downstream

water quality in the Nam Ngiep.

In all scenarios removal of biomass reduces the GHG production for the project. It is difficult to assess if

the reservoir water quality monitoring standard of 35 g CH4/m3 will be met, but if total emissions are

divided by reservoir volume Scenario 2 is predicted to produce an initial level of approximately 40 g CH4

/m3 which will decline to zero in the first 6 years of reservoir operations.

2.2.3 Conclusions and Recommendations

The following conclusions can be drawn from the modelling exercise:

Without biomass removal, modelling predicts poor quality water in the proposed NNP1 reservoir

for 10-12 years of operations after the reservoir is filled;

By undertaking Scenario 2 (Priority Biomass Removal Areas) the surface water quality in the

reservoir will return to acceptable conditions within five to six years;

The lower layers of water in the reservoir are problematic in all scenarios and a downstream

reaeration and temperature treatment system is recommended for the reservoir to improve

release water quality and protect downstream aquatic ecosystems; and

The theoretical burning of the entire inundated area (Scenario 3) does not offer substantial

benefits compared to the Scenario 2.

It is recommended that:

Scenario 2 (Priority Biomass Removal Areas) be pursued as offering the best potential water

quality outcomes based on the most suitable areas for biomass removal activities;

An appropriately designed reaeration structure is recommended for the life of the project, to

mitigate any risk of low DO from reservoir releases;

The reaeration structure should incorporate correction to suitable background water temperatures

also (generally increased temperature – to minimise temperature shock which is also known to

affect fishes exposed to reservoir release water;

Consideration of mixing systems to mitigate the development of a strong thermoclines in the

reservoir and to prevent poor water quality events during seasonal temperature changes;

BioREM phytoplankton productivity predictions be examined by comparing the water quality

results with water quality monitoring results from similar reservoirs in Lao that are currently in the

early phase of operations.


FINAL 34

3 ANALYSIS AND SELECTION OF BIOMASS REMOVAL OPTIONS

A number of biomass removal options are presented in this section. The benefits and potential draw

backs of each option is discussed. The recommended ‘Priority Biomass Removal’ option has been

developed based on:

1. Optimised reservoir performance modelling (see Section 2) including acceptable reservoir water

quality; recovery times with respect to dissolved oxygen in the reservoir epilimnion; GHG gas

production rates; and

2. An analysis of soft and hard biomass removal considerations (see Section 3.4.1) including land

use and vegetation habitat; slope; riparian buffer zones; UXO risk; access; and location of village

settlements.

3.1 Analysis of Removal Options

3.1.1 Do Nothing

The ‘do nothing’ option would result in the loss of the remaining commercially viable timber and the

potential use of lesser value biomass in natural / regenerating forests in the Project reservoirs.

It is anticipated that the water quality impacts and greenhouse gas emissions described in Section 2.1

would be significant for the NN1 Main Reservoir in the absence of biomass removal. The extent of

deterioration in water quality in reservoirs and the generation of greenhouse gases are related to a

combination of factors, including: the retention time of the reservoir – its storage capacity in relation to the

amount of water flowing into it; depth of the reservoir; air and water temperatures and seasonal variability

in temperature, etc. Anoxia (and associate water quality impacts derived from decomposition of organic

matter) and greenhouse gas production are more prevalent in tropical reservoirs than in more temperate

climates (Farrer, 2007; Townsend, 1999).

The depth of the reservoir and length of the reservoir will entail a long retention time for reservoir water,

warm air temperatures will promote stratification, and seasonal variability in temperatures may promote

seasonal mixing of the epilimnion and hypolimnion. Such conditions will likely create a reservoir that is not

favourable for aquatic species for an indeterminate period of time and may contribute to downstream

water quality impacts (and associated impacts for aquatic fauna) in receiving waters.

3.1.2 Partial Biomass Removal (Salvage Logging)

The salvage logging option includes the removal of the maximum quantity of commercially valuable

timber (ERM 2014a). This should include trees that are considered of ‘marginal value’. All remaining non-

commercial trees and timber foliage would be left on site (though note: contractors would be required to

stack timber foliage – lops and tops – for future use as lesser value biomass or burning).

Salvage logging in the Re-regulation Reservoir would result in the collection of remaining commercially

valuable timber (and marginally valuable timber). However given the small area and that most commercial

timber has already been harvested, salvage logging in this area is not considered a viable option.

Salvage logging in the Main Reservoir would result in the collection of remaining commercially valuable

timber (and marginally valuable timber) in 693.18 ha of Upper Mixed Deciduous forest. While it has been

reported that most timber of high commercial value has already been cleared, the extensive areas of

natural forest identified in the Main Reservoir area indicate that additional salvage logging may be

feasible, particularly in areas with improved access and potentially with more favourable contractual

conditions for marginally valuable timber. Therefore, salvage logging of these areas will be required as

part of the overall and biomass removal strategy.


FINAL 35

3.1.3 Complete Biomass Removal

This option includes the complete removal of residual biomass including:

Extraction of lesser value biomass (i.e. (non-commercial trees); and

Clearance of other residual biomass (i.e. lower canopy shrubs and tree foliage).

Lesser Value Biomass Extraction

Lesser value biomass is woody biomass that is not considered commercially valuable but could be used

for compost, charcoal production, biochar production, building materials, firewood, and bioenergy. Lesser

value biomass clearance will need to be undertaken largely by hand clearance methods – avoiding the

removal of stumps to minimise soil disturbance. As outlined in the NN1 EIA, it is recommended that local

residents are first given the opportunity to remove lesser value biomass.

Recycling and reusing lesser value biomass may also provide a livelihood stream for local residents and

should be considered as part of an overall removal strategy for both reservoirs (e.g. contractual

agreements). Alternatively, all biomass remaining after salvage logging may be cut, piled and burned.

Cutting and burning, however, comes with a number of environmental and social risks (e.g. health and

safety, greenhouse gas emissions), which can be mitigated if qualified contractors undertake this work

(refer to Environmental and Social Safeguards section). Cutting and burning can also be undertaken once

removal of lesser value biomass is complete.

Other Residual Biomass Clearance

The clearance of ‘other’ residual biomass can be conducted by hand clearance, mechanical removal, or

burning (or a combination).

For the Main Reservoir proposed biomass clearance areas (see Section 3.4) total 1912 ha representing

approximately 30% of the total reservoir area.

Removal of biomass in the Re-regulation Reservoir is not considered a priority due to the low volume of

biomass and the level of recent clearance activities conducted for project construction. It was also

determined that water impacts resulting from impoundment of the Re-regulating reservoir are unlikely due

the future morphology of the reservoir (shallow) and low capacity of the reservoir (i.e. fills and discharge

rate).

3.1.4 Salvage Logging and Biomass Clearance of the Drawdown

The drawdown area of the Main Reservoir differs across the three zones identified in Section 1. In the

Upper Reservoir (Zone 3), drawdown will be more pronounced, with a major portion of the section dry

during when the reservoir nears MOL. Zones 1 and 2 will have permanently inundated area when the

reservoir is at MOL. The slopes are much steeper in theses section of the reservoir, and significant

drawdown areas on barren slopes will occur as the reservoir water level decreases.

The steepness of the slopes, and the related risk of slope instability, erosion and sediment transport

resulting from clearance, indicates that biomass removal in the drawdown zone pre-impoundment should

be limited to salvage logging in key areas.

The NN1 EIA recommends that removal activities maintain a reservoir riparian buffer zone of 100 metres

or from the FSL to MOL minus 5 metres around the perimeter of the reservoir to maintain the structural

integrity of the soil embankments and reduce shoreline and wave erosion and provide a shelter for fish.

However, given the morphology of the river channel and the reservoir contours, it is anticipated that

biomass removal would not be sufficient with a buffer of this size. In addition, most if not all of the

vegetation will die following its first submersion, therefore the protective nature of this buffer zone would

like only be of significance until impoundment. Conversely, leaving too much vegetation will promote

water quality impacts that may be much more persistent.

A reduced reservoir riparian buffer zone (e.g. 30 metres) should be considered to balance other

objectives of biomass removal including:


FINAL 36

Removing barriers to reservoir access;

Allowing the removal of remaining commercial timber in the drawdown zone;

Potential to improve the overall appearance and aesthetic value of the reservoir;

Facilitate and improve conditions for reservoir fishing; and

Reducing methane production (and therefore greenhouse gas emissions).

3.1.5 Fill and Flush (or partial fill and flush)

A ‘fill and flush’ strategy can reduce water quality impacts associated with rapidly decomposing biomass

by filling the reservoir, and then flushing the initial organic load and water with low dissolved oxygen

concentrations downstream. A ‘fill and flush’ strategy will also break down and release some of the

biomass sequestered in the soil, and it will eliminate readily decomposable biomass in sensitive areas

where manual cutting and biomass removal is not recommended.

Impoundment of the Main Reservoir is scheduled to commence July 2018. The Main Reservoir does not

have the required infrastructure for the implementation of a fill and flush program. Some benefits may

result from the release through the environmental flow conduit at 244.6 masl however these are expected

to be minimal. If the 2018 wet season is above average, surplus water may be released over the dam

spillway comprising of four (4) radial gates, each with 12.25 m breadth and 16.0 m radius (at 206.4 masl).

Careful planning will be required to manage water quality impacts downstream in the event of spillway

release.

The size and depth of the Re-regulating Reservoir (and the large areas of vegetation clearance that have

already been conducted in the area) will likely not create anoxic conditions, a stratified water body, etc. A

fill and flush strategy is not considered necessary for this reservoir.

3.2 Selected Removal Option(s)

Based on the analysis above, it is recommended that a combined approach be implemented for the Main

Reservoir involving:

Salvage logging; and

Residual biomass removal;

o Lesser value biomass extraction (by local communities);

o Biomass clearance.

These options are discussed in Sections 4 and 5 below.

3.3 Environmental and Social Considerations for Biomass Removal

Potential environmental and social impacts of biomass removal activities are summarised below. These

potential impacts are important considerations in the selection of priority biomass removal areas (see

Section 3.4). More detail on these impacts and proposed management measures is provided in Section 6

– Code of Practice for Biomass Removal.

3.3.1 Potential Environmental Impacts

A summary of potential impacts associated with the biomass removal activities is provided in Table 3-1.

Table 3-1 Potential Environmental Impacts associated with Biomass Removal Activities

Potential Impact Description

Erosion and

Sediment

Clear-cutting, and stem skidding will disturb soil surfaces and destabilize slopes, leading

to erosion and increased sedimentation in the river prior to impoundment and in the


FINAL 37


Transportation reservoir during impoundment. Removal of vegetation on the perimeter of the reservoir

could result in shoreline erosion, instability of banks and increased reservoir

sedimentation.

Clearing / impacts on

non-reservoir

affected forests

There is the potential for clearing of areas outside the reservoir boundary and in

designated riparian buffer zones.

Water pollution

Clear-cutting and subsequent stem skidding may also result in increased exposure of

roots and soil biomass to reservoir waters, which can exacerbate water quality issues

immediately following impoundment. Residual ash from burning activities and / or

remaining cuttings can also exacerbate water quality issues after initial impoundment;

however the recovery time is likely to be relatively quick.

Waterways have the potential to be polluted with hazardous materials (i.e. herbicides, oil

and fuel) used during clearance activities.

Air and noise

pollution

Smoke from burning activities can decrease visibility and impact air quality. Noise will be

generated from clearance and removal activities. Both may result in nuisance and

potential health consequences for local residents.

Greenhouse gas

emissions Emissions will be generated from burning activities

Soil contamination Soil has the potential to be contaminated with hazardous materials (i.e. oil, fuel, waste

etc.) used during clearance activities.

Wildlife disturbance Disturbance of wildlife and wildlife habitat caused by biomass removal. However, wildlife

will be pushed from the region during impoundment.

Forest resources

The creation of access tracks to facilitate clearing activities can result in the increased

exploitation of forest resources in areas adjacent to the reservoir (and associated

increases in erosion and sedimentation that occur with creation of tracks).

Workforce related

environmental

impacts

The presence of the logging and clearance workforce may result in a) degradation of

water quality (due to lack of appropriate sanitary facilities); b) increased waste and litter;

c) improper management of waste and hazardous materials (primarily oils and

hydrocarbons); d) increased exploitation of terrestrial wildlife; and / or e) exploitation of

aquatic resources.


3.3.2 Potential Social Impacts

Potential social impacts associated with salvage logging and biomass clearance activities are briefly

discussed in the Project SIA (NNP1 2014). These impacts are further outlined in Table 3-2 below.

Table 3-2 Potential Social Impacts associated with Biomass Removal Activities


Community

Livelihoods

Loss of livelihoods derived from areas cleared during biomass removal activities (i.e.

village production forests). Income opportunities from involvement in biomass removal

activities (i.e. employment to cut and burn; extraction of lesser value biomass etc …)

Community Health

and Safety

Potential community health and safety issues include: safety of other road users and

roadside communities; safety impacts associated with burning; safety impacts

associated with community access / involvement in biomass removal activities.

Workforce related The presence of the logging and clearance workforce may result a) loss of livelihood

through the reduction of available forest timber products; b) increased risk of disease


FINAL 38


social impacts transmission; c) decrease in terrestrial and aquatic resource availability; and d) conflict

between local residents and contractor employees.

Impacts to cultural

heritage and

archaeological

resources

Logging and clearance activities have the potential to impact on / disturb cultural

heritage and archaeological resources in the area.

Occupational health

and safety risks -

UXO

In this area, UXO present a potential risk to logging and clearance workforce. Manual

cutting and stacking of biomass can create large areas of dried vegetation which

become highly flammable in the dry season, and may present a safety risk.


3.4 Analysis of Priority Areas for Biomass Removal

3.4.1 Analysis of Potential Clearance Areas

An analysis of potential clearance areas in the Main Reservoir Area was conducted. This analysis

considered the following factors:

Land use and vegetation habitat;

Slope;

Riparian buffer zones;

UXO risk;

Access; and

Location of village settlements.

Land Use and Vegetation Habitat

Land use and vegetation analysis was conducted in the Main Reservoir Area using recent high resolution

satellite imagery (January 2014). A focus was placed on analysis of evergreen and mixed deciduous

forests and fallow areas which contain higher biomass volumes than other land uses in the reservoir area.

The results of this analysis are provided in Table 3-3

Table 3-3 Land Use / Habitat Profile of the Main Reservoir

Land Use / Habitat Area (Ha)

Dry Evergreen 132.68

Upper Mixed Deciduous* 2230.42

Bamboo 27.9

Old Fallow 1852.61

Young Fallow 678.53

Cultivated land 1277.82

Settlement areas 104.19

Water 481.63

TOTAL 6785.81

Source: Earth Systems 2015 * includes UMD / Bamboo mosaic


FINAL 39

Slope

Areas with steep slopes of greater than 30 degrees will not be logged or cleared for safety and

environmental reasons (i.e. slope stability, prevention of erosion and sediment transport into the

reservoir). A digital elevation model for the Main Reservoir was developed and all areas above 30

degrees were mapped and excluded from potential clearance areas (see Appendix D).

Riparian Buffer Zones

Areas within 30 metres of the Nam Ngiep river will not be not be cleared – although selective logging will

be permitted. These riparian buffer areas will mitigate the impacts of erosion and sediment transportation

during pre-inundation biomass removal. These areas have been mapped and excluded from potential

clearance areas (see Appendix D).

UXO Risk

The prevalence / risk of UXO is a key factor in determining priority biomass removal areas due to the cost

of UXO clearance. Data on aerial bombing sourced from the United States Embassy has been mapped

(see Appendix D). A summary of the findings of this analysis is provided in Table 3-4.

Table 3-4 UXO Risk Analysis

Land Use / Habitat UXO Prevalence / Risk

Zone 1: Lower Reservoir Low risk in areas below Ban Houay Pamom

Zone 2: Central Reservoir Moderate risk in areas above Ban Houay Pamom

Zone 3: Upper Reservoir High risk in areas around Ban Pou, Ban Hatsamkhone and Ban Piengta


Access

Existing access is an important factor in the selection of priority biomass removal areas. There are a

number of existing village access roads and logging tracks throughout the Main Reservoir Area. These

have been mapped (see Appendix D) and the extent of access considered (i.e. high - existing tracks

throughout area; medium -existing tracks to area; and low -no tracks to area).

Location of village settlements

Nine (9) villages will be affected by the Main Reservoir inundation. Village settlement areas for these

villages has been mapped (see Appendix D).

3.4.2 Priority Biomass Removal Areas

Drawing on the above analysis 18 priority biomass removal areas have been identified (see Table 3-5 and

Appendix D). These areas total 1912 ha and according to the most recent imagery (January 2014)

contain 696 ha of UMD Forest; 1019.5 ha of old fallow; and 196 ha of young fallow.

Table 3-5 Priority Areas for Biomass Removal

Zone Priority areas

(#)

Upper Mixed


Young Fallow

(Ha) Total Area (Ha)

1

1 105.62 9.49 0.27 115.38

2 33.88 114.03 18.00 165.92

3 - 63.25 25.61 88.86

4 120.89 39.41 7.37 167.68

5 - 346.55 4.17 350.72


FINAL 40

Zone Priority areas

(#)

Upper Mixed


Young Fallow

(Ha) Total Area (Ha)

6 - 46.71 46.71

2

7 - 42.90 0.13 43.03

8 27.44 11.67 1.90 41.00

9 13.66 27.62 12.85 54.13

10 156.33 109.07 51.98 317.39

11 6.32 82.49 9.24 98.05

3

12 84.23 - - 84.23

13 131.35 - - 131.35

14 1.76 44.49 6.75 53.00

15 0.59 67.62 25.06 93.27

16 7.13 2.73 9.86

17 - 14.08 30.18 44.25

18 6.97 0.22 7.18

TOTAL 696.18 1019.59 196.24 1912.01


The total biomass proposed for removal in the Priority Biomass removal areas is shown in Table 3-6 below. The priority areas include deciduous forest, and old and young fallow areas. The total AGB removed is approximately 255,050 tonnes and BGB removal (including biodegradable soils top 10 cm) is lower at approximately 90,050 tonnes.

Table 3-6 Priority Areas for Biomass Removal –Total Biomass removed

Habitat Class

Land Cover

Main Reservoir

(ha)

Biomass removed

AGB (tonnes) BGB (tonnes)

Natural and Modified Deciduous Forest 696 216,500 59,250

Modified

Old Fallow 1,020 38,250 30,400

Young Fallow 196 300 400

Total 1,912 255,050 90,050



FINAL 41

4 SALVAGE LOGGING MANAGEMENT

As outlined in Section 3, salvage logging forms part of a combined approach to biomass removal in the

Main Reservoir area.

4.1 Roles and Responsibilities

Commercial timber within the Project area is owned by the GOL and government authorities such as the

MAF and MONRE (and their provincial counterparts PAFO and PONRE) are responsible for harvesting

activities.

Specific roles and responsibilities are as follows:

The Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry (MAF) is responsible for the engaging and managing

contractors for salvage logging of commercial timber. The Provincial Agriculture and Forestry

Offices (PAFO) in Xaysomboun and Bolikhamxay is understood to be the implementing arm of

MAF for the salvage logging operations;

MONRE’s Environment Management Unit (EMU) is responsible for monitoring of the

implementation of the environmental and social management measures for salvage logging

activities;

NNP1 has responsibilities to coordinate with the GOL regarding salvage logging activities within

the newly created reservoir of NNP1. This includes to:

o Coordination during the conduct of residual biomass removal activities to ensure

commercial timber is identified and made available to the GOL; and

o Assisting the GOL (if necessary) to complete extraction of remaining commercial timber

before impoundment.

4.2 Status of Salvage Logging Activities

4.2.1 Status of Commercial Timber Harvesting

Commercially Viable Areas

According to officials in Bolikhamxay and Xaysomboun Provinces, commercial tree harvesting operations

have now been completed in the Project reservoir areas.

In Xaysomboun, a total of 8,248 m3 of commercial timber have been extracted by commercial logging

operators since 2013. This includes 2,494 harvested by two (2) contractors during the 2013/2014 fiscal

year when the area was still administered by the Vientiane Provincial Government; and an additional

5,754 m3 harvested in the 2014/2015 financial year. In June, officials in Xaysomboun confirmed that

commercial harvesting operations have been completed in the Main Reservoir area.

Bolikhamxay Province reportedly completed salvage logging operations in the Main Reservoir in May

2014. A local contractor was engaged to harvest some 2,264 m3 from forested areas near Ban Nam

Youak and Ban Sop Youak.

Marginally Viable Areas

Field observations recorded during the development of this BRP indicate that significant areas of forest

above the FSL (and within the Project Watershed) are currently being logged. Forests within the reservoir

area are reportedly less attractive for logging contractors than those in nearby areas - due to the quality of

the resource and costs associated with harvesting. These areas are considered ‘marginally viable’ and

are not being readily harvested.


FINAL 42

The Project EIA (ERM 2014a) recommends that subsidies be considered to encourage the removal of

commercial timber in marginal areas. During consultations with NNP1 (June 2015) both Xaysomboun

and Bolikhamxay provincial governments indicated that they will conduct further assessment of remaining

‘marginally viable’ timber resources and potential for harvesting and use by local furniture companies.

During consultations conducted during the development of this plan (July 2015), officials from both

Xaysomboun and Bolikhamxay provinces indicated that they will conduct surveying of remaining timber

for possible harvesting and use by local furniture companies.

4.3 Priority Areas for Salvage Logging

Imagery analysis and ground truthing conducted during the development of this BRP has identified a total

of 696.18 ha of Upper Mixed Deciduous Forest areas within the proposed priority biomass removal areas

which may be suitable for additional salvage logging activities (see Section 3). Additional areas outside

the proposed priority biomass removal areas, with limited or no road access, may become more

accessible via boat after impoundment.

4.4 Approach for Remaining Salvage Logging Activities

The following approach to salvage logging coordination is proposed:

The Salvage Logging and Biomass Removal (SLBR) Working Group under the Watershed

Management Committee will be established;

Provisional approval for residual biomass clearance activities to commence in priority biomass

removal areas;

Nomination of a GOL representative (i.e. PAFO forestry officer) to be imbedded on the NNP1

biomass removal team;

Agreement on a protocol for identifying and harvesting (if necessary) any remaining commercial

timber in the reservoir area including:

o Joint (NNP1 and imbedded GOL representative) rapid assessment of remaining

commercial tree resources in the proposed biomass removal area;

o Reporting of findings of the rapid assessment to the SLBR Working Group for

consideration and action as per Table 4-1.

Table 4-1 Commercial Viability and Recommended Actions

Commercial Viability* Action

Highly viable GOL to organise commercial harvesting operation.

Marginally viable GOL to organise commercial harvesting operating or subsidised

harvesting operation (i.e. local furniture companies).

Non-viable

GOL request for commercial timber to be stockpiled for either a) transport

to GOL nominated wood yard (as per CA Article 71); or b) community

collection.


*Commercially viability determined by rapid assessment of commercial tree resources.

o Once commercial harvesting activities are complete, or in the event that these operations

are not required, Residual Biomass Removal Approval will be provided by the GOL with

explicit conditions to stockpile commercial timber for either transportation to a GOL

nominated wood yard or community collection.

Development of contingency plans for NNP1 led removal of remaining commercial timber before

impoundment (if required); and


FINAL 43

Conduct of annual coordination meetings between the GOL and NNP1. The meetings will be

important for monitoring the progress of salvage logging and residual biomass removal activities.

4.5 Salvage Logging Techniques

Salvage Logging will be undertaken in a manner consistent with the FAO Forest Harvesting Code of

Practice (where applicable), IFC EHS Guidelines for Forestry Operations (where applicable) and GOL

legislation and guidelines.


FINAL 44

5 RESIDUAL BIOMASS REMOVAL MANAGEMENT

As outlined in Section 3, salvage logging and residual biomass removal form part of a combined

approach to biomass removal in the Main Reservoir area.

5.1 Roles and Responsibilities for Residual Biomass Removal

Roles and responsibilities for the planning and implementation of residual biomass removal activities are

as follows:

NNP1 is responsible for managing all aspects of biomass removal (i.e. lesser value biomass and

the removal of biomass for water quality purposes). This will include working with PAFO and other

local authorities to organize residents to undertake removal of lesser value biomass; and engaging

and managing UXO and biomass clearance contractor(s);

MONRE’s Environment Management Unit (EMU) is responsible for reviewing and approving this

Biomass Removal Plan. The EMU will also be responsible for monitoring of the implementation of

the Environmental and Social management measures for biomass removal;

Contractors will be engaged for residual biomass removal and will be required to prepare

Clearance Operational Plans will be prepared prior to field project implementation

5.2 Residual Biomass Removal Approach

5.2.1 Pre-Impoundment Biomass Removal

The following measures during the pre-impoundment phase are recommended:

When salvage logging of a block is complete, local residents will be invited to remove lesser value

biomass from the block for a limited period of time;

Once the time period for local extraction has past, a contractor engaged by NNP1 will undertake

clearance of residual biomass. As much as practical, lesser value biomass will be removed from

the reservoir, and stacked for later use. Remaining biomass will be cut and burned. NNP1 will

engage local residents, as much as possible, to undertake residual biomass clearance and the

removal of lesser value biomass; and

Logging of steep slopes and the drawdown (before impoundment) will be minimized to reduce

slope instability and potential erosion and sediment transport.

5.2.2 Post Impoundment Biomass Removal

Post impoundment, biomass clearance in the drawdown buffer area can be carried out as the buffer’s

capacity to reduce erosion and sedimentation will have diminished (i.e. vegetation die off). The remaining

woody biomass in the drawdown area can be cut and burned during the dry season, if necessary.

5.3 Priority Areas for Biomass Removal

Imagery analysis and ground truthing conducted during the development of this BRP has 18 priority

biomass removal areas totalling 1912 ha (see Section 3.4 and Appendix D).


FINAL 45

5.4 Biomass Removal Techniques

5.4.1 Lesser Value Biomass Extraction

After felling of commercial timber, local residents will be informed of the impending reservoir

impoundment, and will be given a limited time period to extract non-timber forest products and lesser

value biomass from the priority biomass removal areas.

Lesser value biomass can be used for building materials, firewood, charcoal / biochar production and

other recycle products. The revised GOL Biomass Removal Guidelines (MONRE 2012) strongly promote

the production and use of biochar, primarily as a means of reducing greenhouse gas emissions and

enhancing soil properties in agricultural landscapes. All these uses of lesser value biomass should be

considered during the revision of the Project’s livelihood restoration plan.

5.4.2 Residual Biomass Clearance

Once the time has expired for local residents to have access to the area, a clearance contractor will

remove as much of the residual biomass in the priority biomass removal areas as possible. Residual

biomass is considered the biomass remaining on the ground once commercially valuable timber, lesser

value biomass and NTFPs have been collected.

Manual Cutting / Clearing

The recommended clearance method for the Project is manual cutting (as opposed to mechanical

clearing via bulldozer). Chemical defoliants will not be used.

Manual clearing (i.e. chainsaw, pruning shears, etc.) will reduce soil disturbance and subsequent

sediment transport, leave rooting structures in place as erosion control, minimise UXO risks and will

create social benefit if local residents are engaged to undertake clearance activities. If clear felling is

undertaken, harvesting must be undertaken manually, and the herbaceous / shrub layer should be left

behind for moderately steep slopes to minimise erosion. Burning in clear felled areas will be restricted to

pile-and-burn techniques, with no broadcast burns conducted to minimise erosion potential.

There are a number of manual cutting methods that may be employed, including:

Cutting and leaving biomass on-site;

Cutting, stockpiling (conditional) and burning on-site;

Cutting and stockpiling outside of the future reservoir area;

Cutting, stockpiling and burning outside of the future reservoir area.

Cutting and leaving biomass on site is suitable to mitigate social impacts, such as impacts on reservoir

access, navigation and net fishing. However, this option will provide little benefit for water quality. The

three (3) remaining options are more suitable to mitigate potential water quality impacts. While options

that include physically removing the biomass from the future reservoir area are likely to produce the best

results in terms of water quality, given the time constraints, cutting and burning on-site is recommended.

The harvesting / biomass removal approach will take into consideration the physical and environmental

factors of the site. Areas selected for biomass clearing will be delineated into three zones, with different

clearance methodologies applied to each. Biomass clearing will be conducted as follows for the following

three sections:

Biomass Zone 1 is the buffer strip along each bank the Nam Ngiep River. A 30 metre buffer strip

will be applied (from the average annual high water mark), whereby vegetation will be left largely

intact to remain as a sediment filter and erosion resistant strip. Shrub and herbaceous plants will

be left intact along the river for its entire length within the reservoir impoundment area.

Commercially viable trees and moderately commercially viable trees may be selectively harvested

from the buffer strip. Operators will practice directional falling to minimise damage to lower level


FINAL 46

plants within the buffer. Trees will be dragged out of the buffer into Section 2, branches removed

for pile and burn of soft biomass.

Biomass Zone 2 will extend from the top of Section 1 (30 m from the Nam Ngiep River) to the

reservoir MOL (296 masl). The primary removal technique in Section 2 will be clear felling. Clear

felling in Zone 2 will be undertaken manually (i.e. not with bulldozers knocking over trees). Stumps

(from trees and shrubs) will be left in-situ to aid in erosion control. Trees, shrubs will be manually

cut with chainsaws / hand pruners, dragged down-slope and piled for subsequent burning (refer to

below). Where Zone 2 slopes are steeper than 30º, clear-felling will transition into selective

logging, with the commercially viable trees and moderately commercially viable trees removed.

The herbaceous layer will be left intact. Trees will be dragged down slope (or to the appropriate

landing) for slash removal, piling and burning. Broadcast burning may be employed in Zone 2, if

appropriate controls are in-place (refer to below). Vegetation removal for slopes greater than 30º

will be restricted to selective logging of commercially viable trees (including moderately

commercially viable).

Biomass Zone 3 extends from EL 296 (MOL) to EL 320 (FSL). The upper 20 metres of Section 3

will not be harvested prior to the first impoundment to provide erosion control. Following the first

impoundment, and after the reservoir level has dropped to below the 20 metre buffer strip,

commercial and non-commercial tree harvest and shrub removal may be employed, with

commercially viable trees pulled to barges or floated to specified collection areas (log booms) for

retrieval. All non- commercial biomass removed from Section 3 will be collected for placement in a

suitable location for pile and burn.

Figure 5-1Biomass Clearance Zones Source: NNP1 2015

Burning

In natural and modified forest areas it is recommended that biomass is stockpiled before burning. In

fallow areas broadcast burning may be deemed appropriate to maximise biomass removal.

Burning of biomass on site requires advanced planning to minimise risks to local society or the

surrounding environments. Measures (see Section 6) should include:

Appointment and training of burn coordinators responsible for ensuring safe and controlled burns;

Planning and establishment of effective fire breaks prior to any burning activity – ensuring

protection of riparian buffer zones;

Nam Ngiep River

DA

M

296 masl

320 masl

Width =30m

Zone 3

Zone 1

Zone 2


FINAL 47

Conduct of small controlled burns at the hottest possible burn to reduce residual biomass to a

minimum;

For natural forests: stockpiling of cut vegetative materials in 5mx5mx5m piles, placed about 5-8

metres apart, with larger woody biomass placed at the bottom to ensure stability of the structure

and promote rapid and intense burning. Stockpiles sited away from waterways and avoiding steep

slopes. Alternative burning of stockpiles in close proximity of each other;

For fallow areas: risk assessment of broadcast burn and if deemed appropriate, establishment of

additional fire breaks and conduct of small consecutive controlled burns;

Presence of appropriately trained fire control staff with appropriate PPE and fire control equipment;

Fire surveillance at all times during burning activities – until the fire is confirmed to be completely

extinct;

Burning will not be permitted at times of the year when a high fire danger exists. In particular,

burning will not be permitted when there is high grass fire hazard late in the dry season; and

Update of the Project’s Emergency Plan and Procedures with reference to burning activities.

5.4.3 Floating Log / Debris Removal

Due to the aforementioned commercial logging and biomass clearance activities, there is likely to be a

significant amount of small to medium sized woody debris during inundation and during operation

immediately most impoundment. Many logs are expected to appear on the reservoir surface. Heavy or

green wood logs may not float at all, or may partially float being suspended in the water below surface,

have to be evacuated prior inundation.

To reduce the flow of floating vegetative material reaching the main intake area the following preventive

measures will be taken:

Pre-impoundment

Set –up the seasonal “forest log-boom” at different location in the upstream of Nam Ngiep River

and its main tributaries before the log/debris reaching the main dam vicinity;

Set – up the collecting location for floating log/debris at each “seasonal log-boom” site, burn out

the rejected wood, and remove as much as possible from the lower level of the reservoir to the

safer place or log-yard at higher level;

Built up the barge and aluminium boat procurement for the collect & removal of the floating

log/debris in the reservoir after filling plan.

Figure 5-2 Example of Seasonal ‘Log Boom’. Source: NNP1 2015


FINAL 48

Post Impoundment

Carry out on-water removal of floating logs and woody debris. This can be done using a variety of

techniques including pulling / dragging logs by boat / barge and cutting and loading onto barge;

and

Carry out on-land activities to evacuate log/debris from log-landing site out of the reservoir vicinity

and dispose through stockpiled burning (see Section 5 above).


FINAL 49

6 CODE OF PRACTICE FOR BIOMASS REMOVAL

The objective of the Code of Practice is to ensure compliance with the GOL’s biomass removal guidelines

and consistency with international best practice (i.e. ADB and World Bank / IFC standards). The Code of

Practice is a policy guideline that will be used as an instrument for regulating and monitoring the biomass

removal (including salvage logging) operations.

6.1 Environmental and Social Management and Mitigation Measures

Environmental and social management for biomass removal (including salvage logging) activities

associated with the Project are consistent with the Environmental Guidelines for Biomass Removal from

Hydropower Reservoir in Lao PDR (MONRE 2012).

Key environmental and social management and mitigation measures to support implementation of the

biomass removal plan are detailed in Table 6-1 below.

6.2 Summary of ‘No Go’ Areas

The following ‘No Go’ areas will be confirmed with PAFO and MONRE:

Areas with steep slopes of greater than 30 degrees. These areas will not be logged or cleared for

safety and environmental reasons (i.e. slope stability, prevention of erosion and sediment transport

into the reservoir).

Buffer zones adjacent to water courses (30 m from the Nam Ngiep River and 5 m from perennial

streams) will be identified where shrub and herbaceous layer clearance will not be undertaken.

Some salvage logging of commercially viable timber species can be extracted from buffer areas,

but care will need to be taken to maintain the vegetative buffer.

A buffer of approximately 50 m will be maintained at the top of the drawdown area (EL 320 – EL

280) until after the first impoundment. During the following dry seasons, drawdown areas will be

progressively logged for commercial timber and potentially the moderate value commercial timber.

Stumps will be left in place.

Islands created by the reservoir will remain vegetated (if any).

6.3 Contractors

Environmental and social safeguard requirements should be incorporated into contracts with salvage

logging and clearance contractors. Contractors will be required to develop and implement an

environmental and social management plan for their operations consistent with measures outlined in

Table 6-1).

NNP1, in cooperation with the GOL, will provide training to biomass removal contractors on the

environmental and social management measures.


FINAL 50

Table 6-1 Key management measures to support the implementation of the biomass removal plan.

No. Management and mitigation measures Monitoring Location Frequency Links to sub-

plans / BMPs

Erosion and sediment transport

1.1 The management of riparian vegetation, stream bank erosion and sediment control

measures, should be based on international best management practices. - - -

SP01:Erosion

and Sediment

Control

1.2

A riparian vegetation buffer zone should be maintained on each side of the Nam Ngiep

River of sufficient width (minimum 30 m) and perennial streams (minimum 5 m) to

minimise sediment transport to the Nam Ngiep River. Selective logging can be

undertaken, but shrub and herbaceous vegetation will be left intact / undisturbed in

these areas.

Owner to verify Priority biomass

removal areas

Weekly during

clearance

activities

1.3 Logging activities should only be undertaken during the dry season. MONRE to verify Priority biomass

removal areas Seasonal

UXO

1.4

UXO surveying and clearance (if deemed necessary) will be undertaken prior to

biomass clearance in accordance with SP12 – Unexploded Ordinance Survey and

Disposal.


removal areas Once SP12

Vegetation clearance / habitat protection

1.5

Biomass removal activities should be strictly limited to the direct inundation area, and

this should be closely monitored. Additionally, any areas of human disturbance such as

logging camps should be restricted to well within the inundation area


removal areas

Weekly during

clearance

activities

SP07:

Vegetation

Clearing

1.6 Strict adherence to clearing areas by clearly marking clearance areas and prohibited

areas (buffer zones or outside of reservoir footprint). Owner to verify

Priority biomass

removal areas

Weekly during

clearance

activities

1.7

All staff involved in vegetation clearance shall be walked through the pegged area and

instructed on strict adherence to clearing within this boundary by the Contractor or its

nominated sub-contractor prior to the commencement of clearance.


removal areas Once per site


FINAL 51


plans / BMPs

1.8

Each site to be cleared shall be inspected by the Owner Site Environment Manager or

nominated Owner Environment Officer prior to the commencement of vegetation

clearance. This officer shall approve vegetation clearance if the site to be cleared has

been clearly marked in accordance with the permit to clear issued by PAFO.



Wildlife Protection

1.20

The provision of adequate habitat corridors to permit safe animal migration out of the

biomass removal area will be considered prior to cutting and salvage work. These will

be identified in the harvesting plans. In particular, logging should be conducted from

close to creek lines (outside riparian buffer) and proceed outwards to encourage the

passage of wildlife out of the area.



SP09:

Biodiversity

Management

1.21

Prohibit construction site staff and contractors from hunting, buying or trading of wildlife

as well as the collection of timber and NTFPs to help conserve existing fauna and forest

resources.


removal areas

Weekly during

clearance

activities

1.22 MONRE should be notified if any rare and / or endangered species are identified during

salvage logging / clearance activities. Owner to verify

Priority biomass

removal areas As required

1.23

Salvage logging and residual biomass removal activities should be conducted as

quickly as possible to minimise related negative impacts such as hunting by contract

workers.

- - -

Fire


FINAL 52


plans / BMPs

1.24

Burn off of biomass waste should be done in a controlled manner. The burning of

biomass will only take place under the following conditions:

Biomass load has been minimized by removing and storing commercially

valuable timber

Fire risk assessment and planning has been carried out

Adequate fire breaks (at least 50m) have been established.

Burning will only be undertaken in the presence of a trained fire protection

officer.

Burning will not be undertaken during severe wind conditions

Fire control equipment will be available on site at the time of burning (e.g.

sand, water buckets, fire brooms).

Burning will not be undertaken within 5 km of any village (pending stakeholder

consultation).

Burning will not be permitted at times of the year when a high fire danger

exists. In particular, burning will not be permitted when there is high grass fire

hazard late in the dry season.

Burning of debris must be supervised. Following completion of the burn, the

trained fire protection officer will inspect and certify that the fire has been

extinguished.


removal areas

Before site

burning

activities

commence

SP03 -

Emission and

Dust Control;

SP07;

Vegetation

Clearing;

SP17 -

Emergency

Preparedness

1.25 Update of the Project’s Emergency Plan and Procedures with reference to burning

activities. Owner to verify

Priority biomass

removal areas Once

Air quality

1.26

Air emissions caused by salvage logging and biomass clearance activities (i.e. dust,

vehicle emissions, emissions from burning) should be conducted in accordance with

measures outlined in SP03


removal areas

Weekly during

clearance

activities SP03:

Emissions and

Dust Control 1.27

Appropriate breathing masks will be provided to staff working in areas where they may

be exposed to poor air quality. Owner to verify

Priority biomass

removal areas Weekly during

clearance


FINAL 53


plans / BMPs

activities

Noise and vibration

1.28 Noise and vibration caused by biomass removal activities should be managed in

accordance with relevant measures outlined in SP04 Owner to verify

Priority biomass

removal areas

Weekly during

clearance

activities

SP04: Noise

and Vibration

Hazardous Materials

1.29 No use of chemical defoliants or herbicides in clearance activities. Owner to verify Priority biomass

removal areas

Weekly during

clearance

activities

SP05: Waste

Management;

SP06:

Hazardous

Materials

1.30

Registration, labelling, safe handling and storage of hazardous materials to be

conducted in accordance with measured outlined in SP06 (covered, on sealed, drained

surface with appropriate sized bunding).

Visual inspection

by contractor. Hazmat storage sites

Weekly during

clearance

activities

1.31 Fuel depots and maintenance areas for logging trucks must be located outside of the

future reservoir area and at least 50 m from streams.

Visual inspection

by contractor.

Priority biomass

removal areas

Weekly during

clearance

activities

1.32 Disposal of hazardous wastes and materials (i.e. fuel soaked rags, empty fuel barrels

and waste oil) to be conducted in accordance with measures outlined in SP05

Visual inspection

by contractor.

Priority biomass

removal areas

Weekly during

clearance

activities

Waste

1.33 All waste generated by salvage logging and biomass clearance activities should be

managed in accordance with relevant measures outlined in SP05 Owner to verify

Priority biomass

removal areas

Weekly during

clearance

activities SP05: Waste

Management

1.34

The management of biomass waste as a result of logging operations and vegetation

clearance should be clarified, agreed upon, and implemented with enforcement by the

management team.


removal areas Once


FINAL 54


plans / BMPs

Work camps and Workforce

1.35 The construction and use of work camps should be managed in accordance with

relevant measures outlined in SP13 Owner to verify

Priority biomass

removal areas

Weekly during

clearance

activities

SP13:Workcam

ps;

SP16: Project

Workforce

1.36

The management of the workforce for biomass removal activities should be

management in accordance with relevant measures outlined in SP16 including health

and safety training, first aid, disease control).


removal areas

Weekly during

clearance

activities

1.37

Conduct environmental education and awareness programs for all Project staff prior to

construction to improve understanding of biodiversity conservation, cultural sensitivities

and the importance of forest resources for local communities, and also to ensure that

the prohibitions and penalties regarding hunting, wildlife trade and the collection of other

forest resources are widely known.


removal areas

Weekly during

clearance

activities

In-migration and camp followers

1.38 Only those employed by contractors will be permitted to stay in the camp. Owner to verify Priority biomass

removal areas

Weekly during

clearance

activities

-

1.39 Settlement within harvesting areas will not be permitted. Owner to verify Priority biomass

removal areas

Weekly during

clearance

activities

Traffic and access

1.40 Safe driving practices will be enforced including speed limits of maximum 40 kph

through residential areas; zero tolerance driving under the influence policy. Owner to verify

Priority biomass

removal areas

Weekly during

clearance

activities

SP14; SP15


FINAL 55


plans / BMPs

1.41

A maintenance program for the construction vehicle fleet will be implemented which will

include consideration of the following issues: General condition and safety of vehicles;

Check of vehicle brakes and tires; Vehicle exhaust emissions; Vehicle noise emissions

and noise control measures. Each vehicle in the fleet will be inspected regularly and a

written certificate provided by a qualified mechanic as to its fitness for service (see SP

14 – Traffic and Access).

Review of vehicle

maintenance

records

- Routine

1.42 Any vehicle accident will be thoroughly documented. Records will be kept of all

incidents involving vehicles.

Review of incident

records - Routine

1.43 Traffic movements on public roads will be managed in accordance with measures

outlined in SP14. Owner to verify

Priority biomass

removal areas Routine

1.44 Drivers will be required to stop at all roadside checkpoints. Vehicles authorized to

undertake salvage logging should be clearly marked and traceable to the operator. Owner to verify

Priority biomass


1.45 Safety issues and regulations regarding traffic and site access will be included in the

training plan for construction personnel (refer to SP15). Owner to verify

Priority biomass


Local livelihoods

1.46

After felling of commercial timber and where permitted by the relevant authorities (i.e.

PAFO), local residents will be informed of the impending reservoir impoundment, and

will be given a limited time period to extract non-timber forest products and lesser value

biomass from the priority clearance areas.



REDP

1.47

Necessary resources should be provided to establish community forest organisations in

local communities which have rights to collect lesser value biomass, and that these

resources are fairly divided between local community groups. This should be based on

meetings between local communities and representatives from the Project owner.



1.48 Villagers will be provided with assistance to store some of this removed biomass for

future construction material, firewood, charcoal and other beneficial uses. Owner to verify

Priority biomass



FINAL 56


plans / BMPs

1.49

Opportunities for the use of lesser value biomass (i.e. biochar production and use)

should be incorporated into the Project’s Resettlement and Ethnic Development Plan

and associated livelihood restoration strategy.



1.50 Labour inputs by local villagers in the development and implementation of the biomass

removal should be maximised. Owner to verify

Priority biomass


Archaeology and cultural heritage

1.51 In consultation with local communities, biomass removal activities should take into

consideration sensitivities regarding cultural sites and community events. Owner to verify

Priority biomass

removal areas Once

SP18: Cultural

Resources 1.52

ESOs will be trained to identify potential sites or items of cultural significance.

Construction workers will be trained in the appropriate reporting and communication

procedures to be followed if they identify any potential sites or items



1.53 A Chance Find Procedure should be implemented for all biomass removal work Owner to verify Priority biomass




FINAL 57

7 PUBLIC CONSULTATION

7.1 Objectives of Public Consultation and Disclosure

Consistent with the greater NN1HP, the goal of public consultation and disclosure for the biomass

removal activities is to improve decision-making, build understanding to ensure the long-term viability of

the NN1HP and to enhance potential NN1HP benefits.

Specific objectives of the consultation and disclosure process are to:

Ensure that Project affected communities and other stakeholders are well informed of the proposed

biomass removal activities and the potential environmental and social impacts, and management

measures;

Ensure stakeholder feedback on the planned biomass removal activities is gained through simple

and effective communication processes; and

Promote inclusive and informed decision making on the development and implementation of the

biomass removal plan.

7.2 Summary of Consultation Activities

Consultation activities included pre-draft consultations and draft BRP consultations. Target stakeholders

included national, provincial and district government officials and village chiefs. The majority of village

chiefs invited to these consultations were not able to attend. In village consultations with village chiefs

and a wider group of stakeholders from each village will be conducted in August 2015

Table 7-1 provides a summary of these consultations exercises. Records of these consultations are

provided in Appendix E.

Table 7-1 Summary of Consultations

Date Consultation Stakeholders

4th

May 2015 Pre-draft consultation meeting PONRE Bolikhamxay; Chair of NN1 Watershed

Committee

4th

May 2015 Pre-draft consultation meeting PAFO Bolikhamxay

5th

May 2015 Pre-draft consultation meeting PONRE Xaysomboun

5th

May 2015 Pre-draft consultation meeting PAFO Xaysomboun

27th

June 2015 Draft BRP Consultation Meeting MONRE

9th

July 2015 Draft BRP Consultation Meeting Thathom District and VC (Ban Hatsamkhone)

10th

July 2015 Draft BRP Consultation Meeting Hom District


7.3 Next Steps

In village consultations with the seven (7) villages which will be affected by biomass removal activities will

be conducted by NNP1 between August and September 2015. At these consultations, a short

presentation overviewing the proposed biomass removal activities, their potential environmental and

social impacts and the proposed management measures will be presented. Priority clearance maps will

be presented to engage communities.


FINAL 58

Key discussion topics will include:

Community involvement in biomass removal activities (i.e labour to clear);

Potential use of land by the villagers for shifting cultivation to promote biomass clearance (need to

discuss how NNP1 could support);

Social impacts while communities are still living in the area such as loss of access to or loss of

access to resources for local communities, air quality (during burning), health and safety etc...; and

Potential collection and use of lesser value biomass by the local communities.

The results of these consultations will inform the update of the Project’s Livelihood Restoration Plan and

detailed operation plans for relevant biomass removal areas.


FINAL 59

8 TARGETS, ACTIONS, MONITORING FRAMEWORK AND BUDGET

8.1 Actions and Implementation Schedule

An Action Plan for the implementation of the BRP is outlined in Table 8-1. An Implementation schedule for

these activities is provided in Table 8-2. Note the schedule assumes impoundment of the Main Reservoir

in July 2018.


FINAL 60

Table 8-1 Action and Implementation Schedule for Biomass Removal

No. Target Action(s) Schedule /Frequency Responsibility

Implementation Checking /

Monitoring

1 BRP Reviewed NNP1 to submit Draft BRP to MONRE-EMU

and Project Financiers

Completed NNP1 MONRE-EMU

ADB

2 Agree on roles / responsibilities

and contents of the Plan.

NNP1 to organise consultation meetings

with GOL stakeholders

Completed NNP1

MAF

MONRE

MONRE-EMU

ADB

3 Approved BRP MONRE-EMU to review / approve

Project Financiers to review / approve

July 2015 / One time NNP1 MONRE-EMU

ADB

4 Establish Salvage Logging and

Biomass Removal Working Group

PAFO to establish salvage logging and

biomass removal working group under the

Watershed Management Committee

Nomination of a GOL representative (i.e.

PAFO forestry officer) to be imbedded on

the NNP1 biomass removal team

Agreement to a protocol for identifying and

harvesting (if necessary) any remaining

commercial timber in the reservoir area

July 2015 / One time PAFO MAF / NNP1

5 Priority areas approved for residual

biomass removal

GOL to provide approval to commence

lesser biomass extraction and biomass

clearance activities

For each priority area / one time NNP1 / PAFO

MAF / MONRE

ADB

6 Community Consultation In-village consultations with the seven (7)

affected villages regarding specifics of

August 2015 NNP1 MAF / MONRE


FINAL 61



Monitoring

biomass removal. ADB

7 Lesser biomass extraction and use

by PAPs

Update Project Livelihood Restoration Plan

with activities for extraction and use of

lesser value biomass.

August 2015 / One time NNP1 SMO MONRE / NNP1

8 Contractors engaged Tender for UXO clearance and biomass

clearance contractors

October 2015 / One time NNP1 PAFO / MAF

9 Contractor contracts with

environmental and social

measures

Prepare contracts for contractors which

clearly state environmental and social

measures to be implemented

October 2015 / One time NNP1 / Contractor NNP1

10 Detailed plans for priority areas Prepare a detailed operational plan for each

area to be cleared.

September – November 2015 / One time NNP1 EMU / PAFO /

NNP1

11 Priority areas physically

demarcated

Physical demarcation of priority areas September – November 2015; September

– November 2016; September –

November 2017

NNP1 PAFO / EMU /

NNP1

12 UXO Cleared (Post-Clearance

Assessment) or land officially

released following metal detecting

survey.

UXO metal detecting survey and clearance

as required; Land officially “released” for

biomass clearance (as per National

Standards on UXO / Mine Action),

November 2015 – January 2016;

September – November 2017; September

– November 2018 (dry season as

required)

NNP1 (UXO and

Clearance

Contractor)

MONRE-EMU

13 Commercial timber felled and

stockpiled (if required),

Felling and stockpiling of commercial timber December 2015 – April 2016; October

2016 – April 2017; October 2017 –

March 2018.

Contractor

(Logging)

PAFO

14 Removal of lesser value biomass Implement clearance of lesser value

biomass and NTFPs by local residents (local

February 2016 – April 2016; September

2016 – April 2017; September 2017 –

NNP1 NNP1


FINAL 62



Monitoring

residents given 2 month clearance time for

each block).

April 2018.

15 Residual biomass removed Implement clearance of residual biomass Mid-October 2015 – mid May 2016;

Mid-October 2016 – mid-May 2017

Mid-October 2017 – mid May 2018

NNP1 / Contractor

(Clearance)

MONRE-EMU

16 Contingency plan for salvage

logging developed (if required)

Agreement to contingency plans for NNP1

led removal of remaining commercial timber

before impoundment (if required);

June 2016 NNP1 PAFO / EMU

Reservoir Impoundment – July 2018*

17 Floating log/debris removal Water and land operation July 2018 – July 2020 NNP1 or

Contractor

PAFO / NNP1

18 Drawdown cleared (if necessary)

Felling of remaining commercial timber in

the drawdown

Cut, stack and burn remaining biomass in

the drawdown (if deemed necessary)

October 2018 – April 2021 (dry seasons) NNP1 / Contractor

(Clearance)

MONRE-EMU

19 Monitoring of Activities October 2015 – July 2020 / Monthly pre-

impoundment; quarterly (post-

impoundment)

NNP1 NNP1 / MONRE -

EMU

Source: Earth Systems 2015 *Anticipated


FINAL 63

Table 8-2 Activity Schedule

M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D

Submit draft SLBRP to GOL and Financiers

Conduct SLBRP Consultations & Workshop

Finalise SLBRP

Establish Salvage Logging Committee

Redefine clearance blocks

Tender for contractors

Prepare contracts

Prepare harvesting plans

Demarcation of blocks

UXO visual survey

M ark commercial timber

UXO metal detecting / clearance (if required)

Salvage logging

Lesser value biomass clearance

Clearance of residual biomass

Contingency plan for salvage logging developed

(if required)

M ark timber in drawdown

Fell timber in drawdown

Collect floating timber

Clear biomass in drawdown (if required)

M onitoring

Reservoir Im

poundment

Activity

2015 2016 2017 2018



FINAL 64

8.2 Monitoring Framework

A monitoring framework for SLBR activities, developed in accordance with the Project’s ESMMP-CP and

Concession Agreement – Annex C is outlined in Table 8-3


FINAL 65

Table 8-3 Monitoring Framework for Biomass Removal Activates

Environmental

Theme / Issue

Compliance

(Standards, etc.) Parameters / Indicators Monitoring Methods Monitoring Frequency Responsibility

Prior to Inundation

Biomass

Concession

Agreement, Annex C,

Appendix 2

Soft and hard biomass Estimates from imagery and site

visits Once

EMO

Hydrology Minimum and maximum volume Calculations Once

Hydrology Minimum and maximum surface area Calculations Once

Hydrology Monthly inflow from tributaries Modelling or gauging Monthly

Hydrology Discharge from Dam operation Engineering calculations. Engineering

Meteorology Precipitation and evaporation Standard methods Monthly for at least 15

years

Water Quality Carbon as BOD and TOC in tributaries Filtered samples

Once per season Water Quality Dissolved phosphorous in tributaries Filtered samples

Water Quality Ammonia + nitrate in Tributaries Filtered samples

Hydrology Flow during sampling of C, P and N Current meter

Social / livelihoods GOL (Biomass

Guidelines, 2012)

Number of local residents engaged in

clearance activities

Amount of lesser value biomass cleared

and stacked

Number of new settlements in logging

areas

Review progress reports;

Visual inspection

Monthly EMO

Camps GOL (Biomass Rules displayed Visual inspection Monthly EMO


FINAL 66

Environmental

Theme / Issue

Compliance


Guidelines, 2012)

GOL (2010)

IFC (2007)

Presence of sanitary / hygiene facilities;

Safe drinking water supply;

Safe food handling practices;

Mosquito control / malaria prevention

measures;

Presence of well-marked and fully stocked

first aid kit

Vehicles

CA (2013);

Road Law (2000);

GOL (Biomass

Guidelines, 2012);

FAO Code of Practice

Vehicles travelling at speed limit;

Vehicles clearly marked and traceable;

Vehicles road worthy;

Number of vehicle accidents

Visual inspection

Incident reports Monthly EMO / PAFO

Salvage Logging

Concession

Agreement

FAO Code of Practice;

IFC 2007

Area logged

Removal of vegetation waste

Number of trees removed outside of the

demarcated area / reservoir boundary

Review progress reports;

Site checks to verify reports

Visual inspection

Monthly EMO / PAFO

Residual biomass

clearance

GOL (Biomass

Guidelines, 2012) Area cleared and burned

Visual inspection

Contractor reports

Monthly during

clearance

NNP1 / BIOMASS

TEAM

During Inundation

Water Quality

Concession

Agreement, Annex C,

Appendix 2

DO (and depth of DO)

DO electrode and pressure

transducer from 5 depths for each of

the following

Twice a week EMO


FINAL 67

Environmental

Theme / Issue

Compliance


Most upstream in Main Reservoir

Middle of Main Reservoir

Most Downstream in Main Reservoir

Immediately downstream of

re0regulation pond

Water temperature (depth of thermocline) Same profiles as for DO Twice a week

Total and dissolved phosphorous Filtered ortho-phosphate and total P Quarterly

Total and dissolved nitrogen (ammonia

plus nitrate)

1 m depth at one or two stations in

main reservoir; (ammonia + nitrate in

filtered sample; Total N as TKN

Quarterly if N/P ration is

< 7.7

Phytoplankton biomass

1 m depth at one or two stations in

main reservoir; Sample with plankton

net. Filter and oven dry

Quarterly

Secchi disk depth Same profiles as for DO Twice a week

WQ Parameters (Table 1.10 of CA) –

various parameters

Nam Ngiep Upstream of Reservoir

Nam Ngiep Downstream of Reservoir

Nam Ngiep Downstream of Re-reg.

dam

Quarterly

Methane Methane (g/ m3)

GC from middle of Main Reservoir

from hypolimnion and epilimnion

GC from immediately downstream of

Quarterly


FINAL 68

Environmental

Theme / Issue

Compliance


the re-regulation pond

Monitoring conducted twice. If

concentrations are above 35 g/ m3,

MONRE may monitor methane

above surface water.

Reservoir Volumes

Minimum and Maximum water volume;

Minimum and maximum surface water

area

Calculated from water levels Annual

Biomass Floating Debris collected Approximate volume in cubic meter continuous

Post-Inundation

Water Quality

Concession

Agreement, Annex C,

Appendix 2

WQ Parameters (Table 1.10 of CA) –

various parameters

Nam Ngiep Upstream of Reservoir

Nam Ngiep Downstream of Reservoir

Nam Ngiep Downstream of Re-reg.

dam

Quarterly

EMO

DO (and depth of DO) As per during impoundment Quarterly

Temperature Profiles As per during impoundment Quarterly

Secchi disk depth As per during impoundment Quarterly

Methane As per during impoundment Quarterly

Hydrology Discharge As per during impoundment Quarterly

Floating Debris Floating Debris As per during impoundment Continuous



FINAL 69

8.3 Budget Estimate

It is estimated that the total budget for the implementation of the Biomass Removal activities 765,600

over a 4 year period (excluding UXO clearance costs); however a majority of the spending will be in the

first 3 years (see Table 8-4).

Table 8-4 Estimated Budget for Biomass Removal Activities

No. Activity Unit No. of

Units

Unit Cost

(USD)

Activity Total

(USD)

1 Draft BRP Consultation Lump 4 3,000.00 12,000.00

3 Residual biomass removal Ha 1912 300 573,600.00

4 Floating log/debris removal Year 3 60,000.00 180,000.00

TOTAL 765,600.00


Budget assumptions include:

Costs of manual cutting and burning on site is estimated at US$ 300 per ha. These area low

estimates, taking into consideration the economies of scale of such a large clearance operation.

For fallow areas it is recommended that other more cost effective opportunities for clearing these

areas be considered (i.e. incentives for local villages to conduct swidden agriculture in these

areas). Due to previous clearing and burning in these areas, UXO risk is considered lower,

however an appropriate UXO risk mitigation strategy would need to be developed.

Costs for floating log/debris removal based on estimates from NNP1 staff involved in similar

operations for the NT2 Hydropower Project. Operational costs only. Budget does not include cost

of equipment.

This budget does not include tasks covered by the day-to-day operating costs of the NN1P EMO

(such as monitoring and reporting and EMO staff participating in meetings), as this budget is

included in the overall ESMMP budget.

The budget does not include cost of UXO survey and clearance due the varying degrees of risk

across the reservoir area. UXO survey and clearance costs reported by a plantation company

operating in Lao PDR (i.e. US$ 600 – US$1000 per ha for clearance to depth of 65 cm in high risk

areas along the Hoh Chi Minh Trail). A lower estimate of US$300 – US$500 per ha could be

realistic based on the low risk of much of the area; the requirement for 25 cm clearance; and that

initial surveying will determine the level of UXO risk in the area and that only low risk areas will be

chosen for biomass clearance.


FINAL 70

9 REFERENCES

Annex C 2015, Concession Agreement: Nam Ngiep 1 Hydropower Project - Annex C: Environmental and

Social Obligation Appendix 2 Standards for Nam Ngiep 1 Hydropower Project.

Environment Resource Management 2014a, Environmental Impact Assessment for Nam Ngiep 1

Hydropower Project, Revision 4, July 2014

Environment Resource Management 2014b, Environmental and Social Monitoring and Management Plan

for the Entire Construction Works (ESMMP-CP) for Nam Ngiep 1 Hydropower Project, Revision 2, April

2014

GOL 2012, Step by Step Environmental Guidelines for Biomass Removal from Hydropower Reservoirs in

Lao PDR, December 2012.

MAF (2007) Ministerial Agreement on Timber Measurement and Quality Classification

MONRE / WREA, 2010, Environmental Guidelines for Biomass Removal from Hydropower Reservoirs in

Lao PDR

MONRE, 2012, Step-by-Step Guidelines for Biomass Removal from Hydropower Reservoirs in Lao PDR

Nam Ngiep Power Company 2014, Social Impact Assessment for Nam Ngiep Hydropower Project, June

2014

NN3 Power Company 2011, Final EIA for the Nam Ngum 3 Hydropower Project, October 2011

NTPC 2005, Environmental Assessment and Management Plan, Version 10, March 2005.

Terakunpisut., J., Gakaseni. N. and Ruankawe, N. 2007, Carbon Sequestration Potential in Aboveground

Biomass of Thong Pha Phum National Forest Thailand.

Theun Hinboun Power Company 2008, Final EIA/ESMMP for the Theun Hinboun Expansion Project.

Townsend, S.A. 1999. The seasonal pattern of dissolved oxygen, and hypolimnetic deoxygenation, in two

tropical Australian reservoirs. Lakes and Reservoirs: research and management, Volume 4, Issue 1-2,

Pages 41-53, January 1999.

US Embassy (2006), US Air Force Bombing Database for SEA, provided to the Swiss Foundation for

Mine Action (FSD) in April 2006

Vicharnakorn, P., Shrestha, R.P., Nagai, M., Salam, A.P., and Kiratiprayoon, S. 2014, “Carbon Stock

Assessment Using Remote Sensing and Forest Inventory Data in Savannakhet, Lao PDR, Remote

Sensing, January 2014.


FINAL 71

10 APPENDICES

Appendix A: Project Features

Facility Items Unit Specification

Main Facility

Main Reservoir Flood water level masl 320.0

Normal water level masl 320.0

Rated water level masl 312.0

Minimum operating level masl 296.0

Available depth m 24.0

Reservoir surface area km2 66.9 (NWL)


3 1,192

Catchment area km2 3,700

Average annual inflow m3 / s 4,680

Main Dam Type - Concrete gravity dam

Dam height m 148.0

Crest length m 530.0

Dam volume 103 m

3 2.034

Crest level masl 322.0

Spillway Gate Type - Radial gate

Number of gates - 4

Design flood m3 / s 5,210 (1,000 year ARI storm event)

Intake Type - Bell-mouth

Number - 2

Discharge capacity m3 / s 230.0

Penstock Type - Embedded and concrete lined

Number - 2

Length m 185.81

Diameter m 5.2

Turbine and Generator

Maximum plant discharge m3 / s 230.0

Gross head m3 / s 132.7

Effective head m 130.9

Type of turbine - Francis

Rated output MW 272

Annual power generation GWh 1,546

Peak operation hours hrs 16 (Monday to Saturday)

Re-regulation facility

Re-regulation reservoir

Flood water level masl 185.9

Normal water level masl 179.0


FINAL 72

Facility Items Unit Specification

Rated water level masl 179.0

Minimum operating level masl 174.0

Available depth m 5.0

Reservoir surface area km2 1.27 (NWL)


3 4.6

Catchment area km2 3,725

Average annual inflow m3 / s n/a

Re-regulation dam Type - Concrete gravity dam

Dam height m 20.6

Crest length m 90.0

Dam volume 103 m

3 23.9

Crest level masl 187.0

Re-regulation gate Type - Fixed wheel gate

Number - 1

Discharge capacity m3 / s 5,210 (1000 year ARI storm event)

Spillway Gate type - Ungated spillway

Design flood m3 / s 5,210 (1000 year)

Intake Type - Open

Number - 1

Discharge capacity m3 / s 160.0

Turbine and generator

Maximum plant discharge m3 / s 160.0

Gross head m3 / s 13.1

Effective head m 12.7

Type of water turbine - Bulb

Rated output MW 18

Annual power generation GWh 105

Peak operation hours Hrs 24 (Monday to Sunday)

Supporting facilities

Diversion tunnel Length m 653

Inside diameter m 10

Number - 1

Flow m3 / s 11.5

Source: NNP1 2015


FINAL 73

Appendix B: Impacts of Inundation of Biomass

Decomposition of organic matter, anoxia, and associated impacts

The decomposition of vegetation and soil organic matter during the first years of impoundment consumes

oxygen. In stratified waterbodies, the deep water layer(s) of the reservoir are not re-oxygenated by

atmospheric input or from photosynthesis of aquatic plants. The health of fish and additional aquatic

organisms decline with decreasing levels of dissolved oxygen, with decreased reproductive success and

mortality occurring when dissolved oxygen levels drop too low (e.g. < 5mg/L).

The degradation of organic matter leads to enrichment of ammonia, hydrogen sulphide, phosphorous

release from bottom sediments and additional matter released from the geologic substrate (e.g. iron,

manganese, and silica). The consequence of the consumption of oxygen from these phenomena may be

total anoxia in lower layers of the reservoir for the initial years following impoundment while there is an

abundant supply of organic matter.

Under such anaerobic conditions; the methane, hydrogen sulphide, ferrous iron and ammonia formed in

the hypolimnion eventually diffuse upward. These reduced compounds create an oxycline where they

meet oxygen diffusing downward from the reservoir surface. At the oxycline, the reduced compounds are

oxidised, diminishing the problem over time.

The duration of the initial period of anoxia depends on the quantity of submerged terrestrial vegetation,

the thermal profile of the reservoir, nutrient concentrations of submerged soil, and the rate at which

reservoir water is replaced by input and discharge.

In terms of the NN1 Main Dam, anoxic conditions from dam stratification are intended to be ameliorated

by increased dissolved oxygen (DO) created by the re-regulation dam, and by the placement of

drawdown from the main dam above the anticipated hypolimnion layer. The predicted range of DO in the

main reservoir outflow discharge (for the NN1 EIA) varies from 3.5 mg/L to 7.9 mg/L through the year.

Due to oxygenation and dilution the DO concentration is expected to increase as the water flows

downstream to the re-regulation dam and DO concentration of discharge water from the re-regulating

dam is expected to be greater than 6 mg/L for most of the year. According to the NN1 EIA, water

temperature in the main reservoir is expected to be approximately 4ºC higher than before construction

(and up to 4ºC higher in discharge from the re-regulation dam), though this will vary seasonally.

Stratification

Large reservoirs in tropical Southeast Asia undergo thermal stratification, with biochemical stratification a

by-product. Reservoir water temperature (influenced primarily by air temperature, residence time in the

reservoir, volume and temperature of water input and water depth) will separate into pronounced layers,

particularly during the dry season. The surface water layer (the epilimnion) will have higher temperatures

and lower density than the bottom layer (the hypolimnion). The epilimnion and hypolimnion are separated

by the thermocline, a gradient zone that is seasonally variable in size relative to a number of factors (e.g.

precipitation, inflow, wind and waves).

Stratification may break down seasonally, with the mixing of surface and bottom water creating

temperatures (and chemical loads) that are more homogenous throughout the reservoir during periods of

lower temperatures and increased water input.

Stratification impacts water quality in a number of ways. A highly stratified reservoir will more likely be

anoxic in the hypolimnion with uninhabitable water for aquatic organisms throughout the deeper portions

of the reservoir. If reservoir discharge is sourced from deeper waters of a reservoir, downstream water

quality may be impaired as a result of low dissolved oxygen concentration and elevated concentrations of

parameters associated with vegetative decomposition (discussed above). When stratification breaks

down seasonally (if applicable), anoxic water with additional water quality impairment will mix with surface

waters, potentially creating uninhabitable water throughout the reservoir.

Eutrophication


FINAL 74

The release of phosphorous from submerged sediments, introduction of increased nitrogen from

vegetative decomposition, and increased suspended sediment input associated with construction activity

(with adsorbed nutrients) commonly create or accelerate eutrophication.

Eutrophication, associated with excess nitrogen and phosphorous in lakes and reservoirs, promotes

extensive and rapid grow of planktonic algae (floating and suspended). Excessive algal growth reduces

water clarity, inhibits growth of other plants, commonly leads to oxygen depletion (and associated

mortality of aquatic organisms), unpleasant odours, and may lead to growth of species of blue-green

algae that are toxic to terrestrial fauna.

Greenhouse Gases

Decomposition of vegetation and soil organic matter in the reservoir during impoundment drives carbon

dioxide and methane production, both significant greenhouse gases. In addition to the potential impacts

from atmospheric inputs, the release of methane into the atmosphere is extremely odorous and is a

nuisance for downwind inhabitants.


FINAL 75

Appendix C: Technical Report – Environmental Modelling

WQ_tech_report_rev6 FINAL

EARTH SYSTEMS Environment | Water | Sustainability

Australian Business Number 42 120 062 544

TECHNICAL REPORT: ENVIRONMENTAL MODELLING FOR THE NAM NGIEP 1 POWER COMPANY’S BIOMASS

REMOVAL PLAN

Prepared for

NAM NGIEP 1 POWER COMPANY

July 2015

INTRODUCTION

Earth Systems has been asked by the Nam Ngiep 1 Power Company’s (NNP1) to undertake

environmental modelling of the performance of proposed reservoirs of the Nam Ngiep 1 Hydropower

Project, specifically targeted to help evaluate the options to minimise environmental impacts during the

biomass removal phase construction and post construction reservoir fill phase.

The Government of Lao PDR (GOL) and the Asian Development Bank (ADB) have requested that

NNP1 conduct environmental modelling, using the BioREM modelling tool. BioREM is a modelling tool

developed for Ministry of Natural Resources & Environment (MONRE) as an addendum to the Step-by-

Step Environmental Guidelines for Biomass Removal from Hydropower Reservoirs in Lao PDR from

December 2012. The BioREM model simulates physical, chemical and biological processes in

reservoirs. This allows developers to estimate how much biomass must be removed prior to inundation

of a hydropower reservoir in order to obtain reasonable water quality and moderate greenhouse gas

emissions during operation of the plant.

SCOPE

The proposed scope of work for this modelling exercise, as per the GOL’s Step-by-Step Guidelines for

Biomass Removal from Hydropower Reservoirs (2012) is as follows:

Collection of model inputs: Inputs include biomass estimates, reservoir volume and

characteristics, flows and hydrology and allochthonous inputs;

Conduct of modelling including: Testing model assumptions , model set up, running of

scenarios (i.e. baseline; cut, burn and no flush; and other alternatives that are relevant and

technically feasible);

Data analysis and reporting: Analysis of the scenario results to estimate optimal percentage of

soft and hard biomass to be removed; estimate expected future water quality in the reservoir

and downstream river; and estimate greenhouse gas emissions from the reservoir.


TECHNICAL REPORT: Environmental Modelling For The

Nam Ngiep 1 Power Company’s Biomass Removal Plan

July 2015


MODEL OVERVIEW

The BioREM model simulates physical, chemical and biological processes in water storage reservoirs

related to carbon content. It is designed to allow hydropower and water storage developers to estimate

how much biomass must be removed during the construction phase of the reservoir, prior to inundation,

in order to maintain reasonable water quality and moderate greenhouse gas emissions during operation

of the plant.

BioREM simulates biomass decay (and thereby oxygen consumption), growth of primary producers

(and thereby oxygen production), mixing of dissolved oxygen with air and of oxygen in bottom and

surface water, and finally sedimentation and sediment release of nutrient, which is likely to be

phosphorus. The BioREM conceptual model is shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1: BioREM Conceptual Model Source: MONRE 2010c

From Figure 1, the key water column parameters are hard and soft biomass (B3 and B2) which decays

into detritus (B1). Biomass (B0) of the primary producers (mostly phytoplankton) generates dissolved

oxygen (De) in the upper water layer (epilimnion) which slowly mixes with hypolimnic oxygen (Dh).

Phytoplankton and other plants need phosphorus (Pw) to grow but these producers become eventually

dead organic matter (B1) that settles on the sediment where its phosphorus (Ps) can be stored for a long

time or released back to the water (as Pw). Decay of detritus contributes positively to emission of CO2

and CH4 while primary production reduces the CO2 emission and oxidization of CH4 reduces the CH4

emission. Assuming a certain fraction of the decay end products to be methane, CH4 and CO2

emissions can be calculated. This fraction depends amongst others on the dissolved oxygen

concentrations. Oxidation of methane to CO2 near the thermocline lowers the methane emissions when

oxygen conditions in the water column are good (MONRE 2010c).

Key hydrology parameters include flows through and dimensions of the reservoir. Flows include the

average outflow (Q0), which includes turbines under normal operation and the spillway monthly stream

flows. Stream flows can be obtained from a hydraulic model or by a regional or rational method. The

ecological minimum flow is Qmin.

Hydraulic dimensions include reservoir volume at FSL and MOL (Vmax and Vmin), the corresponding

surface areas (Amax and Amin) and an approximate length of the reservoir from its main inflow point to

its outflow point (L). L is used to calculate the Froude number, as an indicator of reservoir mixing.

QO,

Qmin

Vmax,

Amax

Vmin,

Amin

L




July 2015


Model Assumptions

All models are approximations of reality using empirical assumptions. The key assumptions of the

BioREM model are:

1. The modelled reservoir has a stable thermocline most of the year; and

2. Phosphorus (not nitrogen nor light) is limiting growth.

In addition, two other approximations are inherent to the model, namely that methane production due to

re-growth in the drawdown zone can be neglected and that biomass of secondary and higher

production is small compared to the biomass of primary producers.

The model initial conditions and key parameter assumed values are listed below in the Appendix.

Literature values for hard and soft biomass volumes were obtained from reports on forest and

agricultural land types in Lao and Thailand and were assumed to be similar to the vegetation patterns

and land use types found in the NNP1 Hydropower Project area.

Water quality parameters were derived as median values from surface water quality monitoring

sampling in the Nam Ngiep River catchment from 2013-2015.

METHODOLOGY

The methodology for the modelling project is comprised of several phases described below:

1. Planning and data identification;

2. Data collection and pre-processing;

3. Model conceptualisation and capability assessment;

4. Scenario development;

5. Sensitivity Analysis;

6. Model runs, evaluation of outputs;

7. Results analysis and quality checking; and

8. Final reporting (Adapted from Barnett et al 2012).

Data sources for the modelling included the Environmental Impact Assessment for Nam Ngiep 1

Hydropower Project, landuse maps, GIS and spatial analysis tools, references from the forestry, water

quality, limnology and geomorphology literature, and other reservoir water quality models.

RESULTS

Landuse and Biomass Estimations

Areas and associated volumes of soft and hard biomass within the catchment area were identified

within BioREM as key variables that have the ability to change water quality outcomes in the proposed

reservoir (MONRE 2010a,b,c). Spatial analysis of available imagery was undertaken to determine

relative areas of land use and vegetation type for the purposes of calculating land use and vegetation

type areas in the catchment. Several land use and forest types were analysed for their potential effects

on water quality outcomes using the model based on identified existing forest areas and their above

ground biomass tonnages. The identified land cover vegetation types included:

Evergreen forest

Deciduous forest




July 2015


Fallowed areas (old and young)

Bamboo

Cultivated land such as rice paddy

To develop sensitivity analysis scenarios for modelling of reservoir water quality, the upper and lower

values for vegetation biomass were selected from the literature sources, including NN1 EIA (ERM 2014),

and Roder (1996). Reviews of several relevant forest biomass studies (Ogwara et al 1965; Terakupisut

et al 2007; Vicharnakorn et al 2011) also yielded results for low and high values for above ground

biomass (AGB) for the various forest type biomass in the area and are included in Table 1 below:

Table 1: Land use and above ground biomass in the reservoir inundation area

Habitat Class

Land Cover

Main Reservoir


AGB low -high values Total AGB low - high

Ha Ha Total t/ha t/ha t/ha t/ha


Deciduous Forest

2,230 132 2362.00 96.2 311.0 33.3 107.6

Evergreen Forest

133 27 160.00 66.4 140.6 1.6 3.3

Bamboo 28 127 154.92 90.0 150.0 2.0 3.4

Modified

Old Fallow 1,853 194 2047.00 8.1 37.5 2.4 11.2

Young Fallow

679 143 822.00 1.2 1.5 0.1 0.2

Cultivated Land

1278 5 1283.00 2.8 134.5 0.5 25.3

Totals 6,201 628 6828.92 n/a n/a 40.0 151.0


Below ground biomass (BGB) results were also collected for inclusion in the soft biomass category for

similar forest types. The results are shown in Table 2.

Table 2: Land use and below ground biomass in the reservoir inundation area

Habitat Class

Land Cover

Main Reservoir


BGB low -high values Total BGB low - high

Ha Ha Total t/ha t/ha t/ha t/ha


Deciduous Forest

2,230 132 2362.00 79.2 85.1 27.4 29.4

Evergreen Forest

133 27 160.00 72.0 81.2 1.7 1.9

Bamboo 28 127 154.92 74.1 95.2 1.7 2.2

Modified

Old Fallow 1,853 194 2047.00 5.1 29.8 1.5 8.9

Young Fallow

679 143 822.00 1.1 2.0 0.1 0.2

Cultivated Land

1278 5 1283.00 1.3 88.6 0.2 16.6

Totals 6,201 628 6828.92 n/a n/a 32.7 59.3


The values for BGB are generally less variable than AGB as expected from the literature review values.

These values were then adjusted to provide the final estimates of soft and hard biomass for the model,

and are shown below in Table 3.




July 2015


The values for soft and hard biomass in Table 3 are used for all of the model water quality estimates (as

low, high and average values) for the NN1 reservoir BioREM water quality predictions during reservoir

operations.

Table 3: Landuse and low – high soft and hard biomass estimates

Habitat Class

Land Cover Soft Biomass low -high Hard Biomass low - high

t/ha t/ha t/ha t/ha


Deciduous Forest

35.5 55.5 25.2 81.5

Evergreen Forest

2.1 2.7 1.2 2.5

Bamboo 2.2 3.0 1.5 2.6

Modified

Old Fallow 2.1 11.7 1.8 8.5

Young Fallow 0.2 0.3 0.1 0.1

Cultivated Land 0.4 22.8 0.4 19.1

Totals 142.4 195.9 30.3 114.4


Hydraulic Parameters

The hydraulic parameters for the proposed reservoir were obtained from the Environmental Impact

Assessment for Nam Ngiep 1 Hydropower Project (ERM 2014). Figure 2 shows the predicted reservoir

average annual monthly outflows and reservoir volumes.

Figure 2: Nam Ngiep Hydropower Reservoir predicted annual monthly outflows and reservoir volumes

Source: ERM 2014

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

0.00

50.00

100.00

150.00

200.00

250.00

300.00

350.00

400.00

450.00

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Vo

lum

e (M

m3

)

Flo

w (

m3

/s)

Outflows (m3/s) Average outflows (m3/s)

Inflow (m3/s) Reservoir Volume (Mm3)

Minimum Reservoir Volume (Mm3)




July 2015


The reservoir hydraulic parameters, associated values adopted and sources of data are listed below

(ERM 2014):

Average flow Q0 = 147.8 m3/s = 12.76 Mm

3/day (Figure 2 above).

Power generation C = 272 MW (Table 4.2)

Minimum flow Qmin = 0.48 Mm3/day (Section 4.7.2).

Maximum reservoir volume Vmax = 2,300 Mm3 (Figure 2 above).

Minimum reservoir volume Vmin = 1,102 Mm3 (Vmax -Veff Table 0.2).

Reservoir maximum surface area Amax = 66.9 km2 (Table 0.2).

Reservoir minimum surface area Amin = 37.4 km2 (Pg. 0-17)

Reservoir thalweg length L = 72 km (Section 0.4.3).

Minimum hydraulic retention time (𝜏) of the proposed NNP1 reservoir is minimum volume divided by

flow which equals approximately 86 days. Maximum (𝜏) was determined to be approximately 180

days.

Water quality

The NNP1 reservoir inundation area was assessed through field and remote sensing data to have

pristine forest areas, impacted forest areas and settlement areas, with some human impacts on the

rivers.

Water quality results were collected within the Environmental Impact Assessment for Nam Ngiep 1

Hydropower Project (ERM 2014) and are summarised in Figure 3 below:

Figure 3: Relevant water quality data Nam Ngiep River in April and October

Source: ERM 2014 & Earth Systems 2015

The median values for relevant water quality parameters which were adopted for the purposes of modelling are shown in Table 4 below:

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

35.0

40.0

45.0

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

9.0

0 5 10 15 20 25

Tem

per

atu

re (

°C)

Co

nce

ntr

atio

n (

mg/

L)

Sample number

DO (mg/L) BOD5 (mg/L) Total P (mg/L)

Earth Systems BOD5 (mg/L) BOD5 Standard (mg/L) Temperature (°C)




July 2015


Table 4: Median water quality parameter results

Parameter Median value

Water temperature (°C) 27.5

DO (mg/L) 7.2

BOD5 (mg/L) 1.8

Total P (mg/L) 0.1

Earth Systems BOD5

(mg/L)

2.7

BOD5 Standard (mg/L) 1.5


For the purposes of the modelled reservoir input loads from the catchment, the BOD5 (Bin ) was set to

1.8 mg/L and Total Phosphorus (Pin ) was set to 0.1 mg/L.

Water quality standards have been developed by Lao PDR specifically for the NNP1 project and

relevant standards are shown in the table below based on the Annex C: Environmental and Social

Obligations Ambient Surface Water Quality standard and Reservoir Water Quality Standard.

Table 5: Relevant water quality standards


Dissolved oxygen

(mg/L)

>6

Methane emissions -monitoring requirement

(g/m3)

35


Phytoplankton Growth Rate

Maximum phytoplankton growth rate (G) was calculated using the following formula;

𝐺 = 𝑘0 + 1𝜏⁄ (1) (MONRE 2010b)

The result for G was determined to be 0.0196 day-1

which is within the predicted range for G of 0.03 to

0.2 day-1

(MONRE 2010b).

Initial Values

The initial values of all other parameters set in the model are based on suggested values from MONRE

(2010b) and are listed for reference in Appendix 1 below.

SCENARIOS FOR MODELLING

After several workshops with Earth Systems spatial, forestry, biologist, and water specialists the

following scenarios were identified for exploration with modelling:

Baseline –no biomass removal low AGB/BGB




July 2015


Baseline –no biomass removal high AGB/BGB

Burn - no flush before filling the reservoir (60% soft biomass removal, 80% hard biomass

removal median biomass)

Accessible clearance blocks (Upper mixed deciduous, old, young fallow) burned and cleared

median biomass

Modelling Results: Scenario 1: Baseline

BioREM modelling for Scenario 1 was undertaken as a baseline sensitivity analysis for the values of

AGB and BGB and their relative impacts on the predicted water quality for the proposed hydropower

reservoir. The scenario was designed to demonstrate the differences if any between the values for soft

and hard biomass that are adopted for the model. For purposes of this scenario, no soft or hard

biomass was removed to allow for the worst case scenarios to develop for the purposes of comparison.

The model results are compared in Figure 4 below.

Scenario 1: Baseline -Low/High AGB/BGB with no biomass removal

Low AGB, Low BGB High AGB, High BGB

Soft and hard biomass

Phytoplankton and Detritus

Dissolved Oxygen –Epilimnion, Hypolimnion




July 2015


Phosphorus in water and sediment

CO2 and CH4 emissions/yr, cumulative

Figure 4: Scenario 1 -Baseline model outputs low/high AGB/BGB –no biomass removal


The reservoir water quality is predicted to be very poor for the Baseline low/high AGB/BGB scenario.

As can be seen in fig 4, model outputs have been predicted for the first ten years of reservoir operations

for low AGB/BGB and the first 20 years of operations for the high AGB/BGB scenario. The model

results include:

soft and hard biomass consumption,

phytoplankton growth and benthic detritus,

dissolved oxygen in the epilimnion (surface waters) and hypolimnion (bottom waters),

phosphorous in water and sediments, and

carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane (CH4) emissions of greenhouse gases.

In the low AGB/BGB model run the oxygen consuming capacity of the decomposing soft biomass is

predicted to be completely consumed within the first eight years reducing from 240 gO2/m3, while the

high AGB/BGB model run predicted that soft biomass is reduced by approximately 90% from

approximately 320 gO2/m3

to 40 gO2/m3

but is not fully consumed and therefore will influence dissolved

oxygen levels until approximately the 18th year of operation.




July 2015


Phytoplankton levels are predicted to be zero for both low and high scenarios until approximately the

fifth year of operations. This may indicate model instability at high levels of biomass and related P

levels, see the Discussion Section below for more on this issue.

Detritus levels for low AGB/BGB peak at 5 gO2/m3 equivalent and reach equilibrium in year 8 at around

2 gO2/m3

equivalent. Detritus levels for high AGB/BGB peak at 6 gO2/m3 equivalent and reach

equilibrium in year 8 at around 5 gO2/m3 equivalent.

DO levels for the low AGB/BGB scenario are predicted to be at low levels in the surface waters

(epilimnion) until equilibrium is reached around the eighth year of operations, with predictions ranging

from 2 – 6 mg/L over this period. 100% oxygen saturation DO is a function of ambient water

temperature and is likely to be approximately 8 mg/L at the median water temperature of 27.5 degrees

Celsius. See Figure 5 below for DO vs temperature relationship.

Figure 5: Oxygen saturation vs temperature Source: Earth Systems 2015

Predicted epilimnion values for DO eventually reach equilibrium of around 8 mg/L in year 8 for both the

low and high AGB/BGB scenario. Bottom layers (hypolimnion) of the NNP1 reservoir are predicted to

drop from 100% saturation to 0% DO within the first months of the reservoir operation and filling for both

low and high AGB/BGB scenarios. Hypolimnion values for the high AGB/BGB scenario are then

predicted to remain anaerobic/anoxic at 0% DO for the high AGB/BGB scenario, whilst for the lower

loads of the low AGB/BGB scenario an annual increase to around 20% saturation is predicted for a

short 2-3 month period each year.

The predicted low hypolimnion DO results are a concern for downstream water quality when discharge

occurs from any reservoir release points that may be located in the lower to bottom layers of the

reservoir. These low DO levels are capable of causing fish fatality until the DO levels are restored

through reaeration. An appropriately designed reaeration structure is recommended for the life of the

project, to mitigate any risk of low DO from reservoir releases. Temperature shock is also known to

affect fishes exposed to reservoir release water, so the reaeration structure should incorporate

correction to suitable background water temperatures also (generally increased temperature).

Seasonal temperature change may cause “turn over” of the hypolimnion water which can bring low DO

water and anaerobic by-products such as hydrogen sulfide (H2S) into the surface water of the reservoir,

potentially causing odours and even fish kills as H2S is a strong toxicant to higher aquatic life. In this

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

Oxy

gen

sat

ura

tio

n (

mg/

L

Temperature (°C)




July 2015


baseline scenario, reservoir mixing may need to be considered in the early phase of operations to

prevent undesirable hypolimnion “turn over” effects.

Summary Scenario 1: Baseline

In summary, Bio REM modelling results show that both high and low AGB/BGB levels appear to

produce poor water quality outcomes in the reservoir. It is predicted that poor quality water will persist in

the reservoir for up to 12 years after the reservoir is filled. It is recommended catchment biomass be

removed to help prevent the development of poor quality water in both the epilimnion and hypolimnion

of the proposed reservoir. The following modelling scenarios will explore the optimal biomass removal

strategy. The worst case scenario for water quality occurs with the high levels of soft and hard biomass

so these will be used for further scenario development.

Modelling Results: Scenario 2 Access based biomass removal burn with no flush.

The burn no flush scenario assumes removal of identified accessible soft and hard biomass by burning

of areas of forest and land subject to inundation to remove biomass prior to filling the reservoir. Spatial

analysis of accessible areas was undertaken based on available road access and land slope. It was

found that access limits the areas of forest available for biomass removal to areas of upper mixed

deciduous forest and old and young fallow areas. The model assumes that with no flush P will be

elevated in the catchment runoff due to ash remains being washed into the reservoir and is set to 15

gP/m3.

The identified areas are listed in Table 6.

Table 6: Accessible biomass removal, burn with no flush

Habitat Class Land Cover Main Reservoir

Ha Removal (%)

Natural and Modified Deciduous Forest 696 31

Evergreen Forest 133 0

Bamboo 28 0

Modified Old Fallow 1,020 55

Young Fallow 196 29

Cultivated Land 1278 0


The soft and hard biomass removal percentage for the low and high AGB/BGB estimates are shown

below. These rates were used to run the low – high results for Scenario 2.




July 2015


Table 7: Soft and hard biomass removal rates for Scenario 2

Total Soft Biomass high* Total Hard Biomass high

Percentage removal 31% 49%


The results for Scenario 2 are shown below in Figure 6. The initial reduction in soft biomass and hard

biomass produces beneficial water quality outcomes with phytoplankton recovery and detritus

equilibrium achieved in 5 years, DO recovery starting in the epilimnion after 3 years, and P levels

reducing to sustainable levels after 6 years. This is an excellent result compare to the baseline impacts

in Scenario 1 of 10-12 years of high impact on water quality.

The fast recovery of DO in the epilimnion is especially important as this ensures that the reservoir is

habitable for most fish species. The low DO status for the hypolimnion is expected for a reservoir of

this size, and as a result the release of water from the hypolimnion will require the use of a downstream

reaeration structure and temperature treatment.


Scenario 2: Access based biomass removal burn with no flush








July 2015



Figure 6: Scenario 2 -Access based biomass removal burn with no flush


Modelling Results: Scenario 3: Theoretical 100% catchment burn with no flush.

Scenario 3 simulates a theoretical 100% catchment burn with no flush scenario that assumes removal

of 60% soft biomass and 80% hard biomass by burning of areas of forest and land subject to inundation

to remove biomass prior to filling the reservoir. The model assumes that with no flush P will be

elevated in the catchment runoff due to ash remains being washed into the reservoir and is set to 15

gP/m3.

The results for Scenario 3 are shown below in Figure 7.Scenario 3 does not demonstrate a great deal of

benefit in terms of water quality for the large amount of additional expenditure that would be required to

burn the entire inundation area of the proposed NNP1 reservoir. As can be seen from Figure 7, soft and

hard biomass is reduced further compared to Scenario 2, but with little in the way of additional water

quality benefits. Phytoplankton recovery is around 5 years similar to Scenario 2, while the DO of the

epilimnion recovers slightly more quickly, taking around 2 years.

The DO status of the hypolimnion is very slightly improved, but importantly not sufficiently to not require

reaeration with a maximum recovery of approximately 0.5 mg/L O2. P also recovers in around 6-7

years similar to Scenario 2.




July 2015


CO2 production is decreased by approximately 30% but this may be made up for by additional CO2

release with additional burning so the benefit may be of little net value to the project overall and in the

long term.

Scenario 3: Theoretical 100% catchment burn with no flush







July 2015




Figure 7: Scenario 3 -Theoretical 100% catchment burn with no flush





July 2015


DISCUSSION

Analysis of the model predictions and accuracy of the model outputs is difficult to evaluate given the

complexity of the NN1 reservoir limnology and limited water quality data availability for similar reservoir

systems. A comparative assessment of phytoplankton productivity predictions of the BioREM model

has been undertaken for the purposes of discussion using a systems level reservoir water quality model

(Reynolds 2002).

Phytoplankton predictions

Examination of the model traces for phytoplankton and phosphorus in the BioREM modelling results

show that the model predictions for phytoplankton growth are possibly low in the initial phase of

reservoir operations, as high Total P levels predicted during the first five to eight years of biomass

decomposition are not reflected in increased phytoplankton production. Phytoplankton production in

fact appears to be limited to zero until the P levels reduce to 120 g/m3, an effect that may be explained

in terms of a limiting factor such as blue-green algae production. If this is the case, it is recommended

that blue green algae production be included as a model output for comparison with phytoplankton

production. Generally phytoplankton growth should increase based on the Redfield ratio (Redfield

1934) with algal production limited by ecosystem resources such as available phosphorus, nitrogen or

sunlight.

Reynolds (2002) has produced a systems level model for analysing the limiting factors for algal

production in reservoirs. The Reynolds model has been applied to the NNP1 proposed reservoir and

the relative algal productivity predictions are shown as chlorophyll “a” results for each component

shown in Figure 8 below.

Figure 8: Reynolds model Chl ‘a’ production for each algal productivity parameter for proposed NNP1 reservoir


The Reynolds model predicts that the NN1 reservoir will be nitrogen limited. The predicted chlorophyll

“a” is limited by the relatively low supply of nitrogen in the Nam Ngiep River catchment based on the

available water quality results from the NN1 EIA (ERM 2014). Phytoplankton is expected to be a

1

10

100

1000

Ch

la (

Lo

g s

ca

le)/

mg m

-3




July 2015


component of relevant chlorophyll “a” biomass so is likely to be present at levels of approximately 26

mg/m3. The BioREM phytoplankton growth model is based on available P so it is uncertain why the

model does not predict higher levels of phytoplankton growth in the initial period of operation, given the

elevated P levels predicted.

Reservoir Thermocline

2D modelling of the reservoir in the NN1 EIA (ERM 2014) predicts the development of a thermocline

which will act as a temperature and water density based layer in the hypolimnion during most of the

year. BioREM results for the NN1 reservoir predict an initial phase of very low DO conditions in the

hypolimnion which may require management of the discharge water, and potentially management in the

reservoir during seasonal fluctuations in temperature. Seasonal change in temperature often causes

thermal mixing to occur which may cause the reservoir to “turn over” bringing low DO water and

anaerobic conditions to the surface of the reservoir. Turn over events can result in increased hydrogen

sulphide levels due to release from benthic sediments and low DO water zones (H2S which is toxic to

higher forms of aquatic life at low levels ) being released from the hypolimnion to the surface, creating

odour and potential fish kills. It is recommended that the requirement for mixing of reservoir water be

examined as a seasonal water quality management strategy.

CONCLUSIONS

Without biomass removal, modelling predicts poor quality water in the proposed NNP1 reservoir for 10-

12 years of operations after the reservoir is filled. By undertaking the recommended access based

biomass removal by burning with no flush, the surface water quality in the reservoir will return to

acceptable conditions within five to six years. The lower layers of water in the reservoir are problematic

in all scenarios and a downstream reaeration and temperature treatment system is recommended for

the reservoir to improve release water quality and protect downstream aquatic ecosystems.

In all scenarios removal of biomass reduces the GHG production for the project. It is difficult to assess if

the reservoir water quality monitoring standard of 35 g CH4/m3 will be met, but if total emissions are

divided by reservoir volume Scenario 2 is predicted to produce an initial level of approximately

40 g CH4 /m3 which will decline to zero in the first 6 years of reservoir operations.

The theoretical burning of the entire inundated area (Scenario 3) does not offer substantial benefits

compared to the Scenario 2 biomass removal strategy.

It is recommended that the Access based biomass removal strategy (Scenario 2) be pursued as offering

the best potential water quality outcomes based on the available areas with existing roads.

RECOMMENDATIONS

An appropriately designed reaeration structure is recommended for the life of the project, to

mitigate any risk of low DO from reservoir releases.

Temperature shock is also known to affect fishes exposed to reservoir release water, so the

reaeration structure should incorporate correction to suitable background water temperatures

also (generally increased temperature).

BioREM phytoplankton productivity predictions should be examined by comparing the water

quality results with water quality monitoring results from similar reservoirs in Lao that are

currently in the early phase of operations.




July 2015


Results from 2D modelling (ERM 2014) appear to indicate that a strong thermocline will

develop in the proposed reservoir. This may require the use of mixing systems to prevent poor

water quality events during seasonal temperature changes.

REFERENCES

Barnett et al, 2012, Australian groundwater modelling guidelines, Waterlines report, National Water

Commission, Canberra, Australia.

Bear, J., 1979, The Hydraulics of Groundwater, McGraw Hill, New York.

Environment Resource Management 2014, Environmental Impact Assessment for Nam Ngiep 1

Hydropower Project, Revision 4, July 2014

Horne, A., Goldman, C. (1994), Limnology, McGraw-Hill, New York.

Kottelat, M., (2001), Fishes of Laos, WHT Publications, Colombo, Sri Lanka.

Kunlasak, K. et al, (2013) Relationships of Dissolved Oxygen with Chlorophyll-a and Phytoplankton

Composition in Tilapia Ponds [in Thailand], International Journal of Geosciences, 2013, 4, 46-53.

Leopold, L.B., Wolman, M.G., Miller, J.P., (1995), Fluvial Processes in Geomorphology, Dover, Mineola,

New York.

MONRE (2010a), A Biomass Removal Model User’s Guide, Lao People’s Democratic Republic,

Strengthening Environment Management-Phase II, Swedish International Development Cooperation

Agency, Ministry of Natural Resources & Environment, Vientiane Capital, Lao PDR.

MONRE (2010b), A Biomass Removal Model Technical Reference, Lao People’s Democratic Republic,

Strengthening Environment Management-Phase II, Swedish International Development Cooperation

Agency, Ministry of Natural Resources & Environment, Vientiane Capital, Lao PDR.

MONRE (2010c), Environmental Guidelines for Biomass Removal from Hydropower Reservoirs in Lao

PDR, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Strengthening Environment Management-Phase II, Swedish

International Development Cooperation Agency, Water Resources and Environment Administration,

Ministry of Natural Resources & Environment, Vientiane Capital, Lao PDR.

Morel, A. and Smith, R. C. (1974), Relation between total quanta and total energy for aquatic

photosynthesis. Limnol. Occanogr 19:591-600.

Redfield A.C., (1934), On the proportions of organic derivations in sea water and their relation to the

composition of plankton. In James Johnstone Memorial Volume. (ed. R.J. Daniel). University Press of

Liverpool, pp. 177–192.

Reynolds C.S. & Maberly S.C. (2002), A simple method for approximating the supportive capacities and

metabolic constraints in lakes and reservoirs. Freshwater Biology 47: 1183-1188.

Roder, W., et al (1996), Dynamics of soil and vegetation during crop and fallow period in slash and burn

fields of northern Laos, Geoderma, 76, pp 131-144.

USEPA (2008) Chapra, S.C., Pelletier, G.J. and Tao, H., QUAL2K: A Modeling Framework for

Simulating River and Stream Water Quality, Version 2.11: Documentation and User’s Manual. Civil and

Environmental Engineering Dept., Tufts University, Medford, MA.

Wetzel, R., (2001), Limnology, Third Edition: Lake and River Ecosystems, Academic Press - Reed

Elsevier, London.




July 2015


APPENDIX 1: ADDITIONAL MODEL PARAMETERS -INITIAL CONDITIONS

Initial conditions B0(0) 0.01 [g O2/m3] Phytoplankton initially. Use a low value. B1(0) 1 [g O2/m3] Detritus initially Bi(0) i = 2, 3 Defines biomass removal strategy and initial vegetation coverage De(0) 8 [g O2/m3] Assume 100% saturation initially Dh(0) 8 [g O2/m3] Assume 100% saturation initially Pw(0) 0.01[g P/m3] Literature value Ps(0) 5 [g P/m3] Literature value Driving variables: Ve [m3] Has to be estimated. Typically 1/3 of V. Vh [m3] Vh = V - Ve Bin [g O2/m3] Biochemical oxygen demand measured as flow-weighted allochthonous inputs from tributaries and runoff Din 8 [g O2/m3] Assume fully oxygen saturated water as inflow Pin [g P/m3] To be measured as flow-weighted average from tributaries and runoff Model parameters: Ki [day-1] ~0.008 for i=0; ~0.05 for i=1; ~0.001 for i=2; ~0.0001 for i=3. Q0 [m3/day] Average outflow through turbines and spillways known from the developer VFSL [m3] Max. volume known from feasibility studies and similar documents ΔV [m3] Live volume known from feasibility studies and similar documents α [day-1] At least 0.6/average depth in meters. Typically two times that value. β 0.59 between 0 and 1 or 365×Q0/(_ _V), whichever is smallest. D

* 8 [g O2/m3] Dissolved oxygen 100% at 28 °C

S 0.005 [day-1] G ~0.14 [day-1] At least k0 + 1/_. See discussion above M 0.04 [g P/m3] r ~0.001 [day-1] f 0.2 ō Calculated as 0.1/ average water depth in meters ρ 0.00914 m 0.0005 [day-1] Close to molecular diffusivity for dissolved oxygen in water. Make m bigger if many storms are expected in the area. Y ~0.05 5% of produced CO2 becomes CH4 when epilimnion is anaerobic. ke ~4 [g O2/m3] W CH4 ,100 yr 25 According to IPCC 4th assessment report (4AR)


Appendix D: Priority Biomass Removal Area Maps

FINAL 97

#*#*#*#*#*

#*#*

#*#*#*

#*#*#*#*

#*

#*#*#*#*

#*#*

#*

#*#*#*#*#*#*

#*

#*

#*

#*#*#*#*#*

#*#*

#*#*#*#*#*#*

#*

#*#*#*

#*#*#*#*

#*

#*#*#*

#*#*

#*

#*#*#*

#*#*#*

Block 1Zone 1A - Lower Reservoir

Zone 1A

Zone 1B

Zone 2A

Zone 2B

Zone 3A

Zone 3B

Nam Ngiep 1 Hydropower Project - Priority Areas for Biomass Clearance0 1 20.5

Kilo meters

±

Main Dam

So urce Da ta :* US Bo mbing Da ta 1965 -1975

#* UXO Bo mbing Da ta *

Area s with slo p es ≥ 30 degreesa nd 30m buffer fro m ma in wa ter bo dies

Ba mbo oCultiva ted La nd / Clea red La ndOld Fa llo wSettlement Area

Up p er Dry Evergreen Fo restUp p er Mixed Deciduo usYo ung Fa llo w

Land Use Types

RiversDra ina geRo a ds a nd Tra cks

Settlements Reservo ir a t no rma l wa ter level 320 ma slZo nes

!(

Bio ma ss Clea ra nce Area s! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! !

#*

#*#*#*#*#*

#*#*#*#*

#*#*

#*#*#*

#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*

#*#*#*#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*#*#*#*

#*#*

#*

#*

#*

#*#*

#*

#*#*

#*#*

#*#*

#*#*

#*#*#*#*

#*#*#*#*#*#*

#*#*

#*#*#*#*

#*#*#*

#*#*#*#*

#*#*#*

#*#*#*

#*#*#*#*

#*

#*#*#*

#*#*

#*

#*#*#*

#*#*#*

#*#*#*

#*#*#*#*#*#*

#*#*#*

Ban Sopyouak

Ban Namyouak

Block 5

Block 4

Block 2

Block 3

Block 6

Zone 1B - Lower ReservoirZone 1A

Zone 1B

Zone 2A

Zone 2B

Zone 3A

Zone 3B

Nam Ngiep 1 Hydropower Project - Priority Areas for Biomass Clearance0 0.5 10.25

Kilometers±Source Data:* US Bombing Data 1965 -1975

#* UXO Bombing Data *

Areas with slopes ≥ 30 degreesand 30m buffer from main water bodies

BambooCultivated Land / Cleared LandOld FallowSettlement Area

Upper Dry Evergreen ForestUpper Mixed DeciduousYoung Fallow

Land Use Types

RiversDrainageRoads and Tracks

Settlements Reservoir at normal water level 320 maslZones

!(

Biomass Clearance Areas! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! !

#*

#*#*#*#*#*

#*#*#*#*

#*

#*#*#*#*#*#*

#*#*#*#*

#*#*

#*#*#*

#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*

#*#*#*#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*#*#*#*

#*#*

#*

#*

#*

#*#*

#*

#*#*

#*#*

#*#*

#*#*

#*#*#*#*

#*

#*#*

#*

#*#*#*#*#*#*

#*#*

#*#*#*#*

#*#*#*

#*#*#*#*

#*#*#*

#*#*#*

#*#*#*#*

#*

#*#*#*

#*#*

#*

#*#*#*

#*#*#*

#*#*#*

#*#*#*#*#*#*

#*#*#*

#*#*#*#*#*#*

Ban Sopphuane

Block 10

Block 9

Block 8

Block 7

Zone 2A - Middle Reservoir

Zone 1A

Zone 1B

Zone 2A

Zone 2B

Zone 3A

Zone 3B

Nam Ngiep 1 Hydropower Project - Priority Areas for Biomass Clearance0 1 20.5

Kilometers

±Source Data:* US Bombing Data 1965 -1975





Land Use Types



!(


! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! !

#*#*#*#*#*

#*

#*#*#*#*#*#*

#*#*#*#*

#*#*

#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*

#*#*#*#*

#*

#*

#*#*#*#*

#*#*

#*

#*

#*

#*#*

#*

#*#*

#*#*

#*#*

#*#*

#*#*#*#*

#*

#*#*

#*

#*#*

#*#*#*#*

#*#*#*

#*#*#*#*

#*#*#*

#*

#*#*#*

#*#*#*

#*#*#*

#*#*#*#*#*#*

#*#*#*

#*#*#*#*#*#*

Ban Houaypamom

Block 10

Block 11

Zone 2B - Middle ReservoirZone 1A

Zone 1B

Zone 2A

Zone 2B

Zone 3A

Zone 3B

Nam Ngiep 1 Hydropower Project - Priority Areas for Biomass Removal0 1 20.5

Kilometers






Land Use Types



!(


! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! !

#*#*#*

#*#*

#*#*#*#*#*

#*

#*#*#*

#*#*#*#*#*

#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*

#*#*#*

#*

#*#*

#* #*

#*#*

#*#*#*#*

#*#*

#*#*#*#*

#*#*

#*

#*#*#*

#*#*#*#*#*

#*

#*#*#*

#*#*#*

#*#*

#*#*

#*#*

#*#*

#*#*#*#*

#*#*

#*

#*

#*#*

#*#*#*#*#*#*

#*#*#*

#*#*#*

#*#*

#*#*

#*#*#*

#*#*

#*

#*

#*#*#*

#*#*#*

#*#*#*

#*#*#*#*

#*#*#*#*#*#*#*

#*

#*

#*#*

#*#*

#*#*#*

#*#*#*#*#*#*#*

#*#*

#*#*

#*

#*

#*#*

#*

#*#*

#*#*#*

#*#*#*#*#*#*#*

#*#*

#*

#*

#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*

#*#*

#*

#*#*#*

#*

#*#*

#*#*#*#*

#*

#*#*#*

#*#*

#*

#*

#*#*#*#*

#*

#*#*#*#*#*

#*#*

#*

#*#*

#*#*#*

#*

#*#*#*

#*#*

#*

#*

#*

#*#*

#*

#*#*

#*#*

#*#*

#*#*

#*#*

#*#*

#*#*#*#*

#*#* #*#*

#*

#*#*

#*

#*#*

#*#*#*

#*#*

#*#*

#*

#*#*#*#*#*#*

#*

#*#*

#*#*

#*#*#*#*#*#*#*

#*#*#*#*#*#*#*

#*

#*#*#*

#*#*#*

#*#*#*

#*#*#*#*#*#*

#*#*#*

#*#*#*#*#*

#*

#*#*#*#*#*#* #*#*

#* #*#*#* #*#*

#*#*#* #*

#*#*#*

#*#* #*#*

#*#*#*#*

#*#*#*#* #*#* #*#*#* #*#*#* #*#*#*#*#* #*#*#*

#*#* #*#*#*#*#*#*#*#* #*#*#*#* #* #* #*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#* #* #*

#*#*#* #*#*

#*#*#*#*

#*#* #* #*#*#* #*#*#*

#* #*#*#*

#*#*#*

#*#*#*#*#*#*

#*#*#*#* #*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#* #*#*#*#*#*#*#*#* #*#*#*#*#* #*#*#*

#*#*#*#* #* #*#*#* #*#*#*#*#*#*#*#* #*#*#*#* #*#*#* #*#* #*#*#*#* #*#*#*#*#*

#* #*#*#*#*#* #* #*#*#*#* #*#*#* #*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*

#*#* #*#* #*#*#*#* #*#*#*#*#* #*#*#*#* #*#*#* #*#*#* #*#* #* #*#*#* #*#*#*#*#*#*#*#* #*

#*#*#*

#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#* #*#*

#*#*#*#*#*

#*#*#*#*#* #*

#*#*#*#*#* #*#* #*#*#* #*#* #*#*#* #* #*#*

#*#* #*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#* #*#*#*

#* #*#*#*#*#* #*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#* #*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#* #*#*

#*#*#*#*#*#* #*#*#*#*#*#*#*#* #*#*#* #*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#* #*#*#*#*

#*#*#*#*

#*#*#*#* #*#*#* #* #*#*#*

#*#*#* #*#*#*#*#*#* #*#*#*#* #*#*#*#* #*#*#*#*#*#* #*

#* #* #*#*#*#*#*#*#* #*#* #* #*#*#*#*#*#* #*

#*#*#*#*

#*#*#*#* #*#*#* #*#*

#* #*#*#*#* #* #*#* #*#*#*#* #*#* #* #* #*#* #*

#*#*#* #*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#* #*#*#* #*

#* #*#*

#*#*#*#*

22. SSCB SSEBSSLS

Block 12

Zone 3A - Upper ReservoirZone 1A

Zone 1B

Zone 2A

Zone 2B

Zone 3A

Zone 3B


Kilometers






Land Use Types



!(


! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! !

#*#*#*

#*#*

#*

#*#*

#*#*#*#*

#*#*#*#*#*#*

#*

#*#*#*

#*#*#*#*

#*#*#*

#*#*#*#*#*

#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*

#*#*#*

#*#*

#* #*

#*#*

#*#*#*#*

#*#*

#*#*#*#*

#*#*

#*

#*#*#*

#*#*#*#*#*

#*

#*#*#*

#*#*#*

#*#*

#*#*

#*#*

#*#*#*#*

#*

#*

#*#*

#*#*#*#*#*#*

#*#*#*

#*#*#*

#*#*

#*#*

#*#*#*

#*#*

#*

#*

#*#*#*

#*#*#*

#*#*#*

#*#*#*#*

#*#*#*#*#*#*#*

#*

#*

#*#*

#*#*

#*#*#*

#*#*#*#*#*#*#*

#*#*

#*#*

#*

#*

#*

#*#*

#*#*#*

#*#*#*#*#*

#*#*

#*#*

#*

#*

#*#*

#*

#*#*#*

#*

#*#*

#*#*#*

#*#*#*#*

#*

#*#*#*

#*

#*#*#*

#*#*

#*

#*#*#*#*#*

#*#*

#*

#*

#*#*

#*#*

#*#*#*

#*

#*

#*#*#*

#*#*

#*#*

#*#* #*#*

#*

#*#*

#*

#*#*

#*#*

#*#*#*

#*#*

#*#*

#*#*

#*#*#*#*#*#*

#*

#*#*#*#*

#*

#*#*#*#*#*#*

#*

#*#*#*#*#*

#*#*#*#*#*

#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*

#*#*#*#*#*

#*#*#*

#*#*

#*

#*

#*#*#*#*#*#* #*#*

#* #*#*#* #*#*

#*#*

#* #*

#*#*#*

#*#* #*#*

#*#*#*#*

#*#*#*#* #*#* #*#*#* #*#*#* #*#*#*#*#* #*#*#*

#*#* #*#*#*#*#*#*#*#* #*#*#*#* #* #* #*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#* #* #*

#*#*#* #*#*

#*#*#*#*

#*#* #* #*#*#* #*#*#*

#* #*#*#*

#*#*#* #*#*

#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#* #*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#* #*#*#*#*#*#*#*#* #*#*

#*#*#* #*#*#*#*#*#*

#*#* #*#*#* #*#*#*#*#*

#*#*#* #*#*#*#* #*#*#* #*#* #*#*#*#* #*#*#*#*#*#* #*#*#*#*#* #* #*#*#*#* #*#*#* #*#*#*

#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#* #*#* #*#*#*#* #*#*#*#*#* #*#*#*#* #*#*#* #*#*#* #*#* #* #*#*#* #*#*#*#*#*

#*#*#* #*#*#*

#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*

#*#*#*#*#* #*#*#*

#*#*#*#*#*#*#*

#*#* #*#*#*#*#*#* #*#* #*#*#* #*#* #*#*#* #* #*#*

#*#* #*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#* #*#*#*

#* #*#*#*#*#* #*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#* #*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#* #*#*

#*#*#*#*#*#* #*#*#*#*#*#*#*#* #*#*#* #*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*

#*#*#*#*#*

#*#*#*#*

#*#*#* #*#*#* #* #*#*#*#*

#*#* #*#*#*#*#*#* #*#*#*#* #*#*#*#* #*#*#*#*#*#* #*#* #* #*#*#*

#*#*#*#* #*#* #* #*#*#*#*#*#* #*#*

#*#*#*#*

#*#*#* #*#*#* #*#*#* #*#*#*#* #* #*#* #*

#*#*#* #*#* #* #* #*#* #*#*#*#* #*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#* #*

#*#* #*#* #*#*

#*#*#*#*#*#*#*

#*#*#* #*#*

#*#*

#*#*

#*#* #*#*#*#* #* #*#* #*

#*#*#*

#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#* #*

#*#*

#*#*#*

#* #*#*#*#*#*#* #*#*

#*#*#* #*#*#*#*#*

!(

!(

!(Ban Phonngeng (Thaviengxay)

Ban HatsamkhoneBan Pou

Block 13

Block 15

Block 14

Block 17

Block 15Block 16

Block 18

Zone 3B - Upper Reservoir

Zone 1A

Zone 1B

Zone 2A

Zone 2B

Zone 3A

Zone 3B


Kilometers






Land Use Types



!(


! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! !


Appendix E: Consultation Record

Consultation Notes

4 May 2015 (13:30 - 15:00 pm)

Meeting with the Provincial Department of Natural Resources and Environment, Bolikhamxay Province

Place: Provincial Department of Natural Resources and Environment (PONRE)

Participants:

1. Mr. Langsy Keoviseth, Director of PONRE 2. Mr. Kongly Manokoun, Deputy Director of PONRE 3. Mr. Mr. Pangkham Visaiphan, Head of NNP1 Watershed Management Committee, PONRE 4. Mr. Vilaphon Oudom, Deputy Director of Administration and Finance Division, PONRE

Key discussion issues:

PONRE suggested that the SLBMP shall be divided into three phases – planning phase; implementation of salvage logging and biomass removal; and long term monitoring of water quality, land use and livelihoods of people living around the NNP1 reservoir.

PONRE has completed watershed management and monitoring plan of NNP1. ES will make a copy of the plan on Thursday. There is a NNP1 watershed management committee which consists of a number of members representing various provincial departments. ES will make a copy of the agreement to establish the committee on Thursday as well.

NNP1 and PONRE has never discussed about the development and implementation of SLBMP. So far only NNP1’s watershed management plan has been consulted. This plan has already completed and approved by the Provincial Governor but still awaiting for additional approval from MONRE. Then NNP1 will support funding to implement the activities.

4 May 2015 (10:15 - 11:30 am)

Meeting with the Provincial Department of Agriculture and Forestry, Bolikhamxay Province

Place: Provincial Department of Agriculture and Forestry (PAFO)

Participants:

1. Mr. Phonesavanh Homnabounlath, Deputy Director of PAFO 2. Mr. Phongsavath Pathammavath – Director of Forestry Inspection Division, PAFO 3. Mr. Phokham Chanthasouk – Director of Forestry Division, PAFO


Salvage logging activities has already completed about two years ago. Once the GoL has signed agreement with NNP1 to develop the Project, the PAFO granted rights to a private company to collect commercial timbers in the proposed reservoir areas of NNP1.

PAFO will provide a copy of logging contract this afternoon (4th May) that outlines terms and conditions with the logging company including measures to control logging outside the boundaries.

The contractor did not provide detailed salvage logging plan for the PAFO but the salvage logging activities were conducted in accordance with the permit logging quota given by the PAFO. The PAFO considers that the salvage logging of NNP1 is not significant, given that only small amount of timber extracted (about 2,xxx m3) and the size of the reservoir. So PAFO did not establish any committee to oversee the implementation of salvage logging.

Roles of responsibility of PAFO for salvage logging activities: (i) conduct detailed survey of available commercial timber, including identification of timber types and amount; (ii) salvage

FINAL 104


logging management; (iii) log intervention after logging and stockpile at area 1; and (iv) movements and transport of logs.

Two approaches of granting rights to private logging companies: (i) private logging firm proposes logging plan and activities to PAFO. Then PAFO discusses with other provincial authorities. Logging permit will be granted to the proposed company if agree by the majority of the GoL agencies; (ii) if there are many logging companies proposed the plans to PAFO, they will put in auction and must be approved by the provincial cabinet.

There is a major challenge to manage the small trees after selected commercial trees have been logged. There is less incentive for private companies to invest in collecting and harvesting the small trees and branches in the proposed reservoir areas because they have to pay for natural resource tax / fees with minimal economic returns. But if it is allowed for free, they would be happy to collect it. On the other hand, if the GoL allows villagers / individuals to collect the small trees, it would be out of control. So experience from a number of hydropower reservoir projects – the GoL allowed the developers cut and burnt instead.

There is no ‘no’ go zone in the reservoir area. There is only Houay Ngoua PPA nearby which is located along the Project access road.

5 May 2015 (9:45 - 10:45 pm)

NN1BMP1629 - Meeting with Provincial Department Natural Resources and Environment, Xaysomboun Province

Place: PONRE, Xaysomboun Province

Participants:

1. Mr. Sengmoua Thophialouange, Director of PONRE, Xaysomboun 2. Mr. Xengthao, Deputy Director of Forest Resources Management Division, PONRE


Currently, NNP1 proposed biomass clearance to the province but yet to discuss in detailed action plan. It is proposed that the biomass removal will be integrated with the NNP1’s Watershed Management Committee for Xaysomboun province.

Most of the commercial timbers in the main reservoir areas have already been harvested which was actually a small proportion. Some marginal viable and lesser value timbers remain in the reservoir area. The provincial authority is considering how to utilize and maximize the lesser value timbers before the biomass clearance takes place and burnt out. Currently, there is no regulation or measures to prevent logging outside inundation areas.

The field survey report figures for salvage logging conducted earlier were actually made outside the cleared boundaries. The local governments want to take this opportunity to log by giving reasons that these timbers will be inundated but actually it’s not.

NNP1 can start biomass removal activities in consideration that most of the commercial timbers have already been logged.

PONRE as well as the provincial authorities have not prepared any plan, regulation or any arrangement for biomass removal activities.

A formal consultation meeting is necessary after draft SLBMP completed so that the GoL knows how the NNP1 will manage the biomass.

5 May 2015 (8:30 - 9:30 pm)

NN1BMP1629 - Meeting with Provincial Department of Agriculture and Forestry, Xaysomboun Province

Place: Provincial Department of Agriculture and Forestry (PAFO)

Participants: FINAL 105


1. Mr. Ki – Director of Forestry Division, PAFO 2. Mr. Sivone – Deputy Director of Forestry Division, PAFO 3. Mr. Viengkham – Deputy Director of PAFO


Xaysomboun province has just been established in December 2012 by splitting from Vientiane and Xieng Khouang provinces. Handover of tasks and duties from Vientiane province was done in May 2013, including salvage logging operations in NNP1 reservoir areas. Vientiane province conducted field survey in 2012-2013, identified available timbers of 19,639 m3 in NNP1 reservoir. The province then granted permit to two companies to salvage (i) Tong Construction Company with 13,771 m3, and (ii) Sokxay Wood Processing Company with 5,886 m3. By the end of fiscal year 2013-2014, these two companies harvested 2,494 m3. Revenue generated from selling this timber went to Vientiane province.

From May 2013, Xaysomboun took over the responsibility to oversee the operations of salvage logging activities. Furthermore, Xaysomboun province has conducted additional survey and requested the central government to approve logging quota which they claimed to be inside the NNP1 reservoir with the volume of 14,866 m3. Now only one company is authorized to log and they have already harvested 5,754 m3 excluding timbers stockpiled in stockyard 1 & 2.

Salvage logging areas are in the counties of 7 villages (some of these villages will have to be resettled) of Hom district.

This means that the logging quota that the GoL approved is (19,639 m3 + 14,866 m3 = 34,505 m3). So far, the

No salvage logging plan was prepared prior to implementation of logging activities. Basically, the local governments and the contractor will refer to agreements from the central government or provincial governors as key legislation. Detailed action plans for logging were rarely prepared.

PAFO has assigned a group of officials to follow and supervise the logging activities of the contractor. Annual report regarding the quantity of timber harvested is usually prepared once a year after closing date of timber harvest by wait season. Now the report is not available as they just close operation this month (May).

Here are local government organizations involved in logging procedures: o MAF / PAFO – conduct survey to identify quantity and types of available timbers in

forests. Then approve logging permits to contractors. o Contractors carry out logging and stockpile of logs in stockyard 1 and 2. o PAFO quantify volume of the timber in stockyard 2 and send report to the Department of

Industry and Commerce. o Department of Industry and Commerce will estimate value of available timbers in

stockyeard 2. o The contractor then pay money for timber at the Department of Finance (treasury). o After payment has been completed, PAFO will stamp the logs and the contractor will then

be able to transport the logs to wood processing factories / sawmills.

9 July 2015 (13:30 - 16:30 pm)

Meeting with Thathome District Authorities and village

Place: District Planning and Investment Office

Participants:

1. 7 (seven) district officials; 2. 1 (one) village chief; 3. 4 (four) NNP1 representatives; 4. 2 (two) Earth Systems staff.

FINAL 106



The village chief from Ban Hatsamkhone expressed concerns over village conservation forests in Ban Hatsamhone and Ban Pou which are located below 320 masl and will be inundated after impoundment of the main reservoir. These forests remains high value commercial timber. The District Governor responded that the district will assign DAFO staff to work with the relevant villages in surveying and managing timber in these areas;

The village chief from Ban Hatsamkhone also raised an issue of village aquatic conservation area (in Nam Ngiep River) where the village established for conserving aquatic resources with support from the Poverty Reduction Fund The village aquatic conservation area will be impacted after full operation of the Dam. The District Governor said that the NNP1 Watershed Management Committee in collaboration with NNP1 will sort it out how to compensate for the loss of village aquatic resources in future;

Regarding lesser value/marginal viable commercial timbers: the district will coordinate with PAFO/PONRE and confirm their completion of salvage logging in the main reservoir areas. Then the district authorities will conduct survey to estimate the remaining timber that can be used by the local furniture processing factories;

The district would propose to NNP1 later to help in improving accessibility to collect the remaining timbers;

It is possible that the villagers will be notified to utilize the lesser value biomass and other useful forest resources but this has to be managed properly in collaboration with PONRE and NNP1;

6 incidents of cluster bombs were reported last years in Ban Hatsamkhone but yet collected/disposed.

10/7/2015: (14:00 – 16:30 pm)

Meeting with Hom District authorities

Place: Hom District

Participants:

1. 5 (five) district officials; 2. 4 (four) NNP1 representatives; 3. 2 Earth Systems staff.


Lesser value/marginal viable commercial timber: the district will conduct a survey again to estimate the lesser/marginal viable timber remaining in the main reservoir areas after completion of salvage logging which is managed by provincial level. The district is considering to allow local furniture processing factories to collect the marginal viable and lesser value biomass to make furniture for local supplies;

The district suggested that NNP1 should consult with affected villages in planning and managing the lesser value timber as well as clearing the residual biomass;

The district requested NNP1 to support with any technology (i.e. biochar machines, charcoal technology, UXO clearance, etc);

The district agrees to establish a working group under structure of NNP1 Watershed Management Committee to supervise the biomass removal activities;

Due to the absence of the 4 affected villages in the meeting, the EMO representatives asked the district authorities to inform the relevant villages regarding the biomass removal activities.

FINAL 107


Letter of Approval to Conduct Biomass Removal Activities: Xaysomboun Province

FINAL 108


Lao People’s Democratic Republic

Peace Independence Democracy Unity Prosperity

……………*********………………

Xaysomboun Province No: 765/PONRE.XB

Department of Natural Resources and Environment Xaysomboun, Dated: 3rd December 2014

Response Letter

To: The Director of Nam Ngiep 1 Hydropower Company

Subject: Biomass Clearance in the main reservoir of Nam Ngiep 1 Hydropower Project, in Xaysomboun

Province

Pursuant to the Project’s Concession Agreement between the Lao Government and Nam Ngiep 1 Power Company dated on 27th August 2013;

Pursuant to the Agreement of Minister of Natural Resources and Environment No. 1467 /MONRE, dated on 09 March 2012 on the roles and responsibilities of Provincial Department of Natural Resources and Environment;

Pursuant to the Agreement of the Provincial Governor on the establishment of Provincial Steering Committee for NNP1 Watershed Management No. 752/Governor.Xaysomboun, dated on 27th August 2014;

Pursuant to a proposal of Nam Ngiep 1 Power Company to implement biomass removal activities in the main reservoir which will start from 2015.

The Department of Natural Resources and Environment of Xaysomboun Province, on behalf of the Deputy Chief of

the Steering Committee for NNP1 Watershed Management is pleased to inform that: the removal of residual biomass,

trees and other obstructive objects in reservoir areas based on the proposal of Nam Ngiep 1 Power Company

(Environmental Management Unit). After considering this proposal, it is approved for NNP1 to carry out the biomass

clearance but prior to the implementation of each activity, NNP1 shall present the plans and reports to the Committee

in each period of time.

Therefore, the PONRE notifies this for information and corrective action.

Best regards,

Department Director of Provincial Natural Resources and Environment

(Deputy Director of NNP1 Watershed Management Committee)

FINAL 109


Official Minutes of Provincial Meetings

FINAL 110


FINAL 111


FINAL 112


FINAL 113


FINAL 114


FINAL 115

Biomass Removal Plan (BRP) for Nam Ngiep Power Company ... · Biomass Removal Plan (BRP) 1 FINAL-9...

Documents

Transcript of Biomass Removal Plan (BRP) for Nam Ngiep Power Company ... · Biomass Removal Plan (BRP) 1 FINAL-9...